Part 2 - 3/3

This page is under construction and what you see and read is the first step or the beginning of a process to get the best responsive websites for mobile phones and devices, which until now (2024) has not been created yet with Lutheran writings and books.

The main reason to publication of step one (or version 0.1.0) is the search functionality that can be used to searching for words or phrases (to find where Luther was writing it and reference to it).

Part 2 - 3/3

Dr. Martin Luther's

Complete Writings,

published by

Dr. Joh. Georg Walch

Twentieth volume.

Reformation writings.

Disputes with the Sacramentarians and other Enthusiasts.

New revised stereotype edition.

St. Louls, Mo.

Concordia Lutheran Publishing House (M. C. Barthel, Agent).

1890.

Dr. Martin Luther's

Reformation Writings.

Second part.

Dogmatic-polemical writings.

B. Against the Sacramentarians and other fanatics, as well as against the Jews and the Turks.

Newly published on behalf of the Ministry of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod

of Missouri, Ohio and other States.

St. Louis, Mo.

Concordia Lutheran Publishing House (M. C. Barthel, Agent).

1890.

Foreword.

This twentieth volume, now completed with God's help, forms the conclusion of Luther's dogmatic-polemical writings and offers the controversial writings against the deniers of the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Communion (Sacramentirer), against other enthusiasts, as well as against the Jews and Turks; all carefully improved to the best of their ability. The main writings of Luther in this volume: "Against the Heavenly Prophets", his "Sermon of the Sacrament against the Spirits of the Swarm", his writing, "That these words, that is my body, still stand firm against the spirits of the swarm", his great and small "Confession of the Lord's Supper", "Daß JEsus Christus ein geborner Jude sei," "Wider die Sabbather," "Von den Juden und ihren Lügen," "Vom Schern Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi," have all been compared exactly with the two oldest editions, the Wittenberg and the Jena; in five of them, no. 19. 20. 48a. 50 and 51, the Latin translation could also be used to correct the readings. When the first

four sermons, which Luther delivered in Wittenberg after his return from the Wartburg (No. 1a), were printed, the seventh volume of the Latin Wittenberg edition, which contains the translation of the same, was not yet in our hands; however, the comparison, which we have subsequently made, has shown that the readings, which have been recommended by us as the better ones (e.g. Col. 10: "rich"; Col. 15: "peak"; Col. 34: "heathen" and "hard") are confirmed by the Latin as the correct ones. Col. 10: "rich"; Col. 15: "top"; Col. 34: "heathen" and "hard") are confirmed by the Latin as the correct ones. Only Col. 25 is "commandment" (mandatum) to be put in the text instead of: "word". Newly translated from the Latin are the scriptures: No. 8. 14. (the Syngramma Suevicum, which is reproduced in the old edition in an exceedingly poor translation) 29. 31. (the theses of Agricola and other antinomians and Luther's six disputations against them) 48c and, in the appendix, No. 5. From the original in Förstemann's New Book of Documents, "Luther's Report of Eisleben's False Doctrine" etc. has been improved. Inserted

VI Foreword.

is the postscript to No. 45 from Burkhardt's correspondence, and Luther's judgment on Schwenkfeld, which belongs closely together with the letter to Schwenkfeld's messenger. Omitted are: "Luther's admonition against the Jews" (No. 61 of the old edition), because it is already included in the 12th volume of our edition (Col. 1264 ff.); furthermore, "Etliche Propositiones Melanchthons wider die Lehre der Wiedertäufer" (No. 44 of the old edition). 44 of the old edition), because this writing is only another redaction of No. 40 in this volume, and finally the last six sermons of the second redaction of Luther's sermons after his return from the Wartburg, about which an account is given in the note to the superscription of No. 1a. We have added to this volume a small register of rare and obsolete words in Luther's writings, which, although it makes no claim to completeness, will be a welcome addition for many readers (because the list appended to the first edition of the Erlangen edition, vol. 26, gives an explanation of very few words that really need explanation; then also because Dietz's dictionary of Luther's writings has unfortunately only been published in a small part).

Also some historical events, which were still in the dark, could be put into brighter light. Every sincere Luther lover will certainly be heartily pleased with us that by establishing the fact that Luther had defeated his worst enemy, Carlstadt,

The fact that Luther kept him hidden in his house for months and thus saved him from the danger of death (compare the introduction, p. 24) is again a delicious testimony to his detractors that Luther not only brought the Gospel to light and taught it again, but also lived it before others as a shining example and collected burning coals on his head. For "Luther's Report" (No. 32), we think we have provided evidence that it should not be placed in April 1540, as has been assumed so far, but in the first half of June. Often, and in this case undoubtedly, the correct understanding of a writing depends on the correct determination of the time. In addition, quite a number of incorrect time determinations have been corrected in this volume as well.

Since the procedure we use for the reduction of the data is, as far as we know, not known elsewhere, but it serves us excellently in our work (because it is easy and safe), we want to communicate it here for the common good: The chronological cycles (sun and moon circles, Sunday letters, etc., thus also the occurrence of Easter) repeat themselves 340 years after the Reformation time, therefore one can easily read the data of the Reformation time from the corresponding calendars of the nineteenth century. For the years 1517 to 1546 the calendars from 1857 to 1886 give

Foreword. VII

Information. *) One obtains these calendars, which is still easy to do now; with the help of them, everyone is able to resolve the data. (Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. IV: "that is truly not everybody's business.) This shall now be demonstrated with some dates of the antinomian disputes by 1) citing a wrong date, 2) improving it with the help of the calendar, 3) proving from correctly resolved dates in De Wette that the change is really a correction.

Wrong: Kawerau, Agricola, p. 153: "Sonntag nach Galli den 18. October" 1533. - Correct: Calendar of 1873: Sunday after Galli is the 19th of October. - Proof: De Wette, Vol. IV, p.488: October 22, 1533 is Wednesday after 11000 virgins (October 19), thus October 19 is a Sunday.

Wrong: Köstlin, Martin Luther (3rd edition), Vol. II, p.466: "18. p. Trin. 1537, den 2. October." - Correct: Calendar of 1877: 18. p. is September 30. - Proof: De Wette, vol. V, p. 77: Thursday after Moritz (September 22) 1537 is September 27, so September 30 is a Sunday.

Wrong: Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 332: Sabbath. dominica cantate et fo. n (should read: et fe. II Monday) sequente 1540 is April 20, 1540. - Correct: Kalender

*) An exception to this is the year 1539, in which Easter fell one week earlier than in 1879. -

of 1880: Cantate is April 25; thus the writing is to be set on April 24 and 26. - Proof: De Wette, vol. V, p. 278 f.: Wednesday after Misericordias Domini is April 14, 1540; thus Sunday 9 April 25 is Cantate. Kawerau has improved this error.

In Förstemann l. c. p. 291, Count Albrecht von Mansfeld says: "Thursday, December 20, 1536" and p. 294: "Saturday, December 10, 1536". Both are wrong. - Correct: Calendar of 1876: Thursday the 21st of December and Saturday the 9th of December. - Proof: De Wette, Vol. V, p. 37 f.: Wednesday in Christmas is December 27, 1536, which proves the two dates given to be correct. - The letter in De Wette, vol. V, p. 34 ff" which should have served as proof for the latter date has the wrong resolution: Sunday after Nicolai, December 9, 1536. - According to the calendar of 1876, Sunday after Nicolai (December 6) is December 10. The wrong date of De Wetter has already been corrected by Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 271.

Wrong: Köstlin l. c. Vol. II, p.470: "for a disputation to be held on February 9, 1539". - According to the calendar of 1879, February 9 is a Sunday on which no disputation was held. - Correctur: Tischreden, cap. 37, § 55, Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 1044: "The other day after the last of January, i.e., Saturday, February 1, 1539 was the disputation." - Proof: De Wette, vol. V, p. 158 f.: on the day

VIII Foreword.

On the occasion of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, February 2, 1539, Luther sent Eisleben's Disputation to Melanchthon. Kawerau I. c. p. 200 has the correct date.

Wrongly resolved in Förstemann I. c. Correct: Calendar of 1880: Friday after the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14) is September 17. - Proof: De Wette, vol. V, p. 307: "Montag nach Mariä Geburt, den 13. September 1540." If Monday was the 13th, Friday must be September 17. Kawerau l. c. p. 212 has corrected this error.

The correction of other errors in the determination of time in the antinomian controversy and elsewhere has arisen in another way. In passing here only

still notes that in Förstemann I. c. p. 348 the letter of the Electoral Councils to Agricola is dated "Sonnabends Galli", that is, October 16, 1540; however, the same letter is thought there p. 352a, in No. 35 as written on "Saturday after Galli". If the latter is correct, then the letter would have to be set to October 23, 1540.

Now may the merciful God grant that this volume, in which His salvific teaching for salvation in Christ our Lord is again abundantly presented to us, may also be diligently used by us, so that His gracious promise may also be fulfilled to us: "My word shall not return to me void, but do that which pleases me, and it shall prosper when I send it."

St. Louis, on the birthday of Martin Luther. 1890.

A. F. Hoppe.

Introduction

into the

Luther's writings against the Sacramentarians and other Enthusiasts, as well as against the Jews and Turks.

First section.

Luther's writings against the Sacramentarians, or those who denied the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion.

I. Controversial Writings Against the Error of the Sacrament First Introduced by Carlstadt 1).

In the two previous volumes, the most important of Luther's writings against the papists have been included. But unfortunately, the papists were not the only opponents of Luther and the Protestant doctrine and practice, but also from the former friends of Luther and alleged lovers of the truth, adversaries arose, against whom he had to fight in order to maintain the right doctrine and holy life. The first one against whom Luther had to turn of necessity was his college Carlstadt.

Andreas Rudolphi 2) (or Rudolphus) Bodenstein (usually called after his birthplace Carlstadt) was a native of

1. In this presentation we have used Jäger's monograph: "Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt", Stuttgart, 1856.
2. In the letter of Veit Kornmesser from Stuttgart to Carlstadt of July 10, 1507, which precedes Carlstadt's writing ve inttzntionilms, Idpsiue 1507, he is addressed as N^Zister Andreas UudolpUus, vulM Lodenstkin Oarlstudius, and in Eck's letter to the Elector of Nov. 8, 1519, Wittenberg edition, vol. IX, p. 76, he is called "D. Andre Rodolphi von Carlstad."

Carlstadt in Lower Franconia, in the former diocese of Würzburg. Very little is known of his youth; all that is known is that he was a few years older than Luther and had spent time at several non-German universities for the sake of his education. When he was appointed to the philosophical faculty of the new University of Wittenberg in 1504, he was already Baccalaureus of the Holy Scriptures. He attained the dignity of a Sententiarius 3) in 1508 and two years later he was awarded a doctorate in theology. As the current dean of the theological faculty, he conferred the doctorate on Luther in 1512. As long as he was sententiarius, he drew his income from the lower canonry of the All Saints' Collegiate; but as soon as he became doctor and was assigned the theological professorship, which had been taken care of by the departure of Jodocus Trutvetter, he received the dignity of archidiaconus at the collegiate church associated with this professorship and drew his income from the parish in Orlamünde, 4) which he was assigned by a vicar (at his request).

3. For "Sententiarius," see Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 3, Note I.
4. This later provided him with the opportunity to enlist as a pastor in Orlamünde.

2 Introduction.

costs) had to administer. His earliest writings belong to the scholastic philosophy, are without special significance and show only a scholastic of ordinary stroke. The most important thing about him was, also according to his friends, the Thomist. In the time of his transition from scholastic philosophy to theological scholasticism falls the first original idea that suited him, namely to combine theology and jurisprudence with each other, a fixed idea that still shows itself in his later disputations of the year 1518^ and caused him to make an ignominious journey to Rome. Because this trip gives us a deep insight into his character, we describe it here in more detail.

In a lawsuit, where the castle owner Anton Niemeck of Wittenberg had sued him for an overdue house rent of twelve florins at the collegiate court, Carlstadt refused to comply with the court's decision against him and "appealed to papal holiness". This appeal, however, was declared inadmissible by the chapter, and the Elector gave him a sharp reprimand for the same?) reminded him of the rights and privileges of the collegiate court and gave him to understand that he would assist the court. So he had to let the appeal stand, but through it he was brought to the idea of going to Rome to study law at the university there. Therefore he addressed a petition to the chapter, in which he asked for leave, so that he could undertake a pilgrimage to Rome, which he had vowed to do five years ago, when he was attacked by robbers. The Chapter brought this matter to the University, which, through its Rector Wolfgang, Count Palatine on the Rhine, declared that Carlstadt's request could not be denied "if what he wrote were otherwise true. It was added, however, that it had been learned that he wanted to study law in Rome; this was not possible according to the spirit.

1. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 595, Thess 37.
2. Here, in Jäger I. e. p. 4, there is probably an error in the time determination: "Beginning of April (8. Vinaentii) 1515", because Vincentius is January 22.

The law forbids the clerics to do so. Therefore, he was to be expressly forbidden to do so and to be promised that after four months he would return home and in his absence would provide for a deputy "who would administer his prebend and dignity onera". The Elector confirmed this declaration on Wednesday after Corpus Christi (June 13) 1515. As his official administrator Carlstadt proposed a quite inept "white monk", who had to be rejected, especially since he himself did not want to accept because of the obligations he had towards his order. Carlstadt rode to Torgau to the Elector, who rejected him and wanted the matter to be settled by the Chapter and the University. Nevertheless, Carlstadt claimed that he had received a longer leave from the Elector, and the Chapter remained silent out of respect for the will of the Elector. Carlstadt now rode around the country for several weeks, probably to collect mild contributions for his pilgrimage). For a long time it was not known where Carlstadt was, until it was finally learned from Rome that he was there "in a Copistery Substitute". He had not taken care of the administration of his office, and, as the chapter indicated, it was also difficult for him to get someone: "because no one wants to have to send him gladly, for his sake". At the same time, however, he was constantly striving "to obtain the income of his prebends and dignity to follow him to Rome and to study law". Instead of four months, he stayed away for almost a full year. When his income was withheld after the expiration of his leave, he wrote an impudent letter from Rome to the Elector on November 13, 1515, in which he frankly admits that he is in Rome "in order to study," asks that "the fruits of my archidiaconate, which are rightfully due to me," be given and followed, and promises to order "the burdens of the church" which are incumbent upon him after he has received an answer from the Elector. On January 16, 1516, after receiving a report from the chapter, the Elector issued the following order to Carlstadt

3. It was a common custom to beg for the money needed for a pilgrimage.

Introduction. 3

to return immediately, but he did not obey. Only when the Elector threatened him in a second letter of February 23, 1516, that his offices would be regarded as done and that he would be reassigned if he did not dispose of his "residence" "between here and Sanct Johannis Baptistä Tag," did Carlstadt set out on his journey. At the beginning of June he appeared at the court in Torgau and began his defense with a lying accusation against the chapter. The Elector sent (on June 4, 1516) Carlstadt's slanderous writing to the Chapter, but the Chapter decided to ignore the matter. On June 16, Carlstadt again served as dean of the theological faculty at Wittenberg.

While Carlstadt was hanging around in Rome, a great change had taken place in Wittenberg. 1) Luther had come to the fore among the docents there. As Staupitzen's deputy in the vicariate of the order, he had become one of the most influential personalities. In the pulpit and on the chair he had often sharply attacked the prevailing scholasticism 2) and was therefore also exposed to many attacks on his part. Shortly after Carlstadt's return to Wittenberg, the controversy erupted with the Luther-inspired "Theses on Man's Fortune and Will without Grace," 3) defended by M. Bartholomäus Bernhardi from Feldkirch. Amsdorf, who was initially alienated by the wording of these theses, was converted, but Carlstadt and Peter Lupinus 4) were "fiercely hostile" to Luther. In the course of the disputation, Luther declared the writing De Vera et falsa poenitentia, attributed to Augustin, to be spurious; 5) but this very writing was the main authority

1. Misled by the wrong dating of the letter to Joh. Lang (it is from Feb. 8, 1517; Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 16 ff.), Jäger I. e. p. 6 also transfers Luther's attack on the Aristotelian system to the year 1516.
2. Cf. Weimar edition, vol. I, 142; Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, introduction p. 3, col. 1.
3. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, col. 3 ff.
4. Cf. Tischreden, Cap. 37, Z 7. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1014.
5. Cf. Luther's letter to Joh. Lang of September or October 1516. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 554, K 3. - Because of Amsdorf's idid-, Col. 555, Z 5 to end.

for the penitential theory of the Middle Ages; Carlstadt took serious offense at this. But already in the spring of 1517 he came out in favor of the Augustimsmns and the nice direction. On the Sunday of Misericordias Domini (April 26) 1517, he proposed 152 theses on the opposition of nature and grace. Luther was delighted with them and wrote to Scheurl on May 6: "Praise be to God, who again commands that His light shine forth from darkness." Still in the late year of 1517, Carlstadt edited Augustine's writing De spiritu et litera, which Luther mentions with praise in a letter to Spalatin 6) of January 18, 1518.

Carlstadt was also slow to catch up with Luther in matters of indulgences. Still on February 15, 1518, Luther wrote to Spalatin, 7) that Carlstadt did not share his opinion that indulgences were of no use at all, except for those who were sleepy and lazy in the way of Christ, even though Luther knew that Carlstadt did not consider them indulgences to be anything. About the same time, Carlstadt comments against Spalatin in a letter dated February 5, 1518 8): "But how our university at Wittenberg could be established and ordered, so that it could be a model for others, I want to talk to you about this orally." But it almost seems as if he had mainly sought his own benefit with the intended reform of the university. For already on February 6, 1518, he speculates, allegedly in the interest of the university, in a letter to Spalatin 9) on the position of a terminally ill canonicus. Another letter of April 11, 1518 10) reveals even stronger things in the same direction. Carlstadt had secretly encouraged the students that they, together with some magisters, should bring a petition to the Elector, in which it should be demanded that the Elector give Carlstadt an ecclesiastical prebend and dispense him from the church services connected with it, so that he could now,

6. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 1978 f., 8 4.
7. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, appendix, no.4, tz.4.
8. Erlanger Ausgabe, Briefwechsel, Vol. I, p. 147, toward the end of the letter.
9. Oerdksii Misoell. Oron. VII, x. 307.
10. Ibid, x. 303 "M-

4 Introduction.

where the university, which is threatened at the moment by terrible enemies, needs expedite defenders, is not inhibited. He himself knows and says that the pretext of imminent danger is untrue, but excuses it with the fact that it is only a matter of asserting an occasion (occasio) "of which a secret suspicion (ssersta msus), which usually foresees the future, either fears or hopes that it will occur. Spalatin was supposed to write this petition for him under the name of his audience (in rsm M6LM sub auäitorum psrsona). The students, however, did not want to hand over this writing themselves, so Carlstadt was forced to send it to Pfeffinger. But on May 21, the matter was not yet settled, for in a letter of that day, Carlstadt still urgently asks Spalatin for his endorsement.

A desirable opportunity to enter the literary arena and to win honor there, 1) Carlstadt found, or rather, he brought it about, by turning the private dispute 2) between Eck and Luther, which had only been conducted in writing, but not through published books, into a public one by publishing at least a part of his 405 theses (402 by Carlstadt; with the addition of three theses by Luther 405. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 590 ff, and the introduction ibid., pp. 23 ff.), which he had printed during Luther's absence 3) without his knowledge and will, made a public one. Both, Eck as well as Luther, wanted the dispute between them to end with Luther's only handwritten reply (his "Asterisks", which Luther had not had printed for Luther's sake) to Eck's "Obelisks"; this, however, was prevented by Carlstadt's unauthorized premature intervention; and the dispute continued, as such in the 18th volume of our edition.

1. In the Tischreden, Cap. 37, 8 4, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1012, Luther says: "Everything that Carlstadt also began, he began for the sake of vain honor."
2. This is how Luther describes it in a letter to Scheurl of June 15, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 596.
3. Luther was in Heidelberg at that time for the meeting of the General Chapter. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 3 f.

is set out in detail, so we must pass over it here.

At the Leipzig disputation, Carlstadt's inferiority against Luther had become apparent, and this was pointed out to him in some writings of friend and foe. 4) From this arose a jealousy against Luther, and he became inaccessible to his counsel. Therefore, Luther had to turn to Spalatin with the request that he give Carlstadt the advice that he should either not revile in the same way again or not answer at all to Eck's unprecedentedly impudent and impure book 5) published against him. In the first heat, Carlstadt had started to answer Eck's writing and had given his reply the title: "Wider den ganz unvernünftigen Esel und angeblichen Doctor" (Wider the completely unreasonable ass and alleged doctor). 6) Spalatin's council was accepted by Carlstadt; he worked the writing ^lm and published the same (but still sufficiently coarse) at the end of February 1520 under the title: Oovkutatio Xvärsas Earolostaäu säita aävorsns äsksnsivam spistolam 3ok. Rekii 6to.

Also Luther's judgment on the Epistle of Jacob, which he had expressed for the first time in his "Erläuterungen über seine zu Leipzig disputirten Thesen" in August 1519, 7) must have aroused Carlstadt's anger already at that time, because in the writing Do soripturis oavoviois, whose elaboration he began in the late year 1519, 8) he made coarse, malicious attacks on Luther because of this view. "If on any point," says Jäger ("Carlstadt," p. 68),

4. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 68.
5. The title of the same is: kontra Martini I^u<icier odtusum propuAnatorerri ^närearn Unäolpki Loäenstein. Oarlstaäiuin etc... Dpistolackekensivu. Wiedemann, "Eck", p. 512. In the way we have indicated, Luther characterizes Eck's book against Carlstadt in a distant letter to Spalatin of February 8, 1520. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 55.
6. Luther's letter to Spalatin of February 5 (8 ^xatdae; not February 9) 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 670. - Wiedemann, "Eck," p. 149, seeks to create the impression as if Carlstadt's writing had really appeared under its first intended title, and completely ignores the reworking that occurred.
7. In the explanation of the 7th thesis. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 858.
8. The dedication of this writing is dated August 18, 1520, so it must have gone out in August.

Introduction. 5

"Eck has had a brilliant success with his suspicions, so it is just this, that he caused the beginning of the discord between Carlstadt and Luther." How far Carlstadt's suspicion against Luther went, we can see from several statements of Carlstadt in the above-mentioned writing, in which he states that Luther, out of grudge and resentment against him, suspected the Letter of Jacob, which he (Carlstadt) was explaining, 1) among the students and caused them not to attend his lectures. Still in the same year (the dedication is dated November 4, 1520) Carlstadt published a German reworking of the same writing under the title: "Welche Bucher biblisch seint", which is quite different from the Latin one. The polemic in it was mainly directed against the papacy and the theology of the monks, but was considerably more moderate against Luther. Carlstadt's attacks were completely ignored by Luther, his polemics were not answered anywhere, although Luther repeated his judgment on the Epistle of Jacob in the writing "Von der babylonischen Gefangenschaft der Kirche" ("On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church") at the beginning of October 1520, 2) in the "Vorrede zum Neuen Testament" ("Preface to the New Testament") 3) from 1522 and elsewhere quite decisively. Luther's silence may have moved Carlstadt to this moderation.

In the meantime Eck had returned from Rome with the bull directed against Luther, in which Eck had also inserted Carlstadt's name. This forced Carlstadt, who had initially refrained from any direct public attack on the deeply rooted ecclesiastical abuses, 4) to take a firm stand against the papacy. He had no choice: either he had to recant his teachings or expect the papal ban. This was not without a severe inner struggle, for his mother and his numerous relatives urged him to submit to the pope. Just here is probably the most appealing trait in the entire

1. In the spring of 1520, Carlstadt explained the Epistle of Jacob in his lectures. The poor attendance at these very lectures must have annoyed him, who liked to boast of the large number of his listeners. Cf. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 11.
2. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XIX, 119 f.
3. Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 105.
4. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 70.

Life of Carlstadt. He had to fight down great fear and despondency, but through the view of the suffering and resurrection of Christ, a great martyr's enthusiasm was ignited in him, of which his "Missive von der allerhöchsten Tugend der Gelassenheit" (Missive of the Highest Virtue of Serenity), addressed to his mother and relatives on October 11, 1520, 5) bears beautiful witness and at the same time reveals to us the inner motives of his open break with the papal hierarchy. Already on October 3, Luther wrote to Spalatin 6): "The book of the captivity of the church will go out Saturday. Carlstadt, too, has made his decision and is attacking the Roman pope." In an unbelievably rapid succession, various writings by Carlstadt against the pope and his followers went out: on October 15, 1520, his "Answer, consecrated water, against a brother, Johann Fritzhaus called, Holzschuher Order"; before October 16, 7) his "Condition"; on October 17, the relatively large pamphlet "Von päbstlicher Heiligkeit"; on October 19, his "Appeal to a Papal Holiness". On November 4, the Blich vom Canon (vo soripturis eanoniois), which was reworked into a pamphlet directed against Rom; then still in 1520, but not before the end of November, a lost pamphlet against the theologians of Louvain, who had burned Luther's and Carlstadt's writings; in addition, a series of disputations in which Carlstadt attacked the pope. This polemical activity continued into 1521. He also directed his attacks against the colibate and monastic vows, against the mass and images.

By the end of 1520, Carlstadt's connection with Luther and Melanchthon had loosened considerably, and this relationship remained unchanged at the beginning of the following year. Therefore, in the spring of 1521, Carlstadt accepted with great willingness an appointment offered by King Christian II of Denmark to

5. An extensive excerpt from this paper is given by Jäger l.c., p. 131 ff.
6. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 40.
7. i.e. before the papal bull became known in Wittenberg (Jäger l.c., p. 142); on October 16, the text of the bull became known there. (Jäger l. c., p. 145 and p. 162.)

6 ' Introduction.

in which he was given the task of initiating and carrying out the Reformation in Copenhagen under the immediate protection of the king. Carlstadt arrived in Copenhagen in May. But already on June 21 we find him back in Wittenberg, where he opened the attack on the celibacy of priests and monks with a disputation (of 7 theses, which he had had posted on June 20 1). The reason that Carlstadt had to return home so soon was that the Danish king, as a result of the serious crimes he had committed, was no longer free enough to enforce his reform plans, and therefore had to enter into negotiations with Rome. During the time that Carlstadt was in Denmark, namely on May 26, 1521, a general new code had been completed there, which, as one must conclude from several strange reform ideas contained therein, must have been passed with Carlstadt's assistance. In it, intercourse with the Curia and its jurisdiction are inhibited, and a royal court is established for ecclesiastical matters as well. The 17th article states: "No prelate, priest or clergyman is allowed to buy land if he does not want to follow St. Paul's teaching, 1 Tim. 3, take a wife and live in holy matrimony like his old forefathers. Thus, celibacy was punished with loss of the right to acquire landed property, though not outright forbidden. Furthermore, it is determined that "in the future, no nun may be clothed before the age of 25; that begging is forbidden to all monks who "lightly belong to the actual mendicant orders", and so on. He had not been able to bring these ideas to life in Denmark, but in Wittenberg (Luther was absent at Wartburg Castle) he was now able to take the first step, to move from theory to practice, and to take a reformatory stand. Scholl, in the first week after his return to Wittenberg, began the most violent attack against celibacy and monastic vows, so that it can be assumed that the events in Denmark

1. Jäger I. c. p. 176 has erroneously June 19. Odrvasins is June 19, thusAewlrsrr the

June 20.

had a determining influence on him. 2) The second thesis of the above-mentioned disputation: "Those who have not become married should not be called to the so-called holy orders," almost coincides with the 17th article of the Danish Code, except that this thesis goes even further and amounts to a prohibition of celibacy. The 5th thesis reads: "Religious, if they are in violent heat, may marry; but they sin because they have broken the first faith; however, he who does not abstain and sins in heat admits a greater evil than he who marries." The 6th thesis allows priests to marry "without sin" because they have promised chastity only "as far as human frailty allows." Within a very short time, two important writings on the same subject followed; on June 24, 1521, his larger writing: "Von Gelübden Unterrichtung. Interpretation of the 30th chapter of Numbers, which speaks of vows. This booklet concludes by holy scripture that priests, monks and nuns with good conscience and divine will may marry and enter into matrimony, unsought Roman dispensation, which is also quite unnecessary - and gives counsel that the above-mentioned persons throw off their gleißnerisch life together caps and balls 3 and enter into right Christian life." 4) Five days later, June 29, 1521, he wrote the explanations of his seven theses under the title: Do eoslibatu, nionaebatu et vickuitate, which were shortly followed by a larger edition enriched with additions under the title: 8upor ooolib., monaeb. ot viäuit. ^xiomata psrponsa WittsmberZae ote. As we see from Luther's letters to Melanchthon, the latter writing arrived on August 3, 5) 1521 in Luther's

2. Thus Jäger I. c. S. 175.
3. More often: "Gugel" - hood.
4. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 177.
5. This letter is in Latin in Aurifaber (Vol. I, 346) and in German in Walch (old edition, Vol. XV, appendix, No. 100) from the year 1521, without a more exact time determination. De Wette (Vol. II, p. 37) gives as a guess "about August 6, 1521". In Kolde's ^nalecta Imtderarm, p. 33 ff., where the wrong readings are corrected from the original and the missing pieces are included, the time determinationpw- is found at the end of the letter.

1521, which Kolde has erroneously resolved with "26. Dec. 1521". Necessarily fit the day rwve-rtr Ktexdani, that is the 3rd August, to understand. That

Introduction. 7

Hands, and he is particularly critical of Carlstadt's use of scriptural passages that do not belong to the matter. The opponents would make fun of his distortion of Scripture. On August 6, 1521, he expresses the wish against Spalatin 1) "that Carlstadt's writings be more luminous" (plus lueis linderem), and is surprised that one goes so far in Wittenberg "that even the monks should be given wives". From this latter remark we see that Carlstadt, who had always lagged behind Luther in his doctrinal development and often followed him only with some reluctance, now that he had a free hand due to Luther's absence in Wittenberg, preceded him in his action against the Roman Church. In the same time with the two aforementioned writings falls his writing dated June 24: Von den Empfahern, Zeichen und Zusage des heiligen Sacraments des Fleisches und Blutes Christi (No.1 in the appendix of this volume). Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 203, says of it that it forms the transition to his cult reforms.

Already at that time Luther expressed his concern that Carlstadt would put his attacks into action and would not let himself be admonished by any warning. In a letter to Spalatin 2) of August 15, 1521, Luther says: "It is an excellent thing that he has undertaken, and a very good endeavor, but I also wish,

this letter is not to be placed in December, but in August, the following circumstances prove: The loei tlieoloLiei (Netkoaeus) Melanchthon were still under the press: Netüoäus triaxrelus (Kolde I. e.

p. 34); but already on September 9, 1521, in his letter to Melanchthon (Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XIX, appendix, no. 18), Luther retracts his favorable judgment of this writing. Luther expresses (Kolde 1. 6. p. 34) his astonishment that his "Magnificat", which he had sent to Spalatin on June 10, 1521, was not yet finished. On August 6, 1521, he also writes to Spalatin (De Wette, vol. II, p. 41), "I ask you, is my Magnificat not yet finished?" On July 31, 1521, Luther gives Spalatin a negative answer (De Wette, vol. II, p. 33) to the request that he give an expert opinion on the proper establishment of a Christian Gymnasium, and reports the same matter to Melanchthon in our letter (Kolde I. c. p. 35). More could be mentioned, but we refrain from it, because Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 803 aä p. 497, has anticipated us in the correct determination of time.

1. Walch, old edition,- Vol. XXI, 759.
2. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 73.

Luther's Works. Vol. XX.

that it is done in an excellent, right and skillful way. For you see how great clarity and evidential power (evsrZiue) the adversaries demand of us, so that they slander even that which is completely obvious and entirely suitable. So much the greater care must we take, who are a spectacle to the world, that our word may be blameless, as Paul teaches. I may care for strange things, but they are not strange things if his presumption has continuance. For what is more dangerous than to invite such a large group of unmarried people (euelibum) to marriage with such unreliable and uncertain passages of Scripture, so that afterwards they are tormented by constant anguish of conscience, and worse than now? I, too, desire that the celibate state be abolished (eaelibutum libsrum Leri), as the Gospel requires; but how I am to prove this firmly I do not yet know sufficiently. But I remind this in vain; perhaps he does not want his course to be hindered, therefore it must be let." From these words of Luther we see that he did not take offense both at Carlstadt's results and at the way in which he substantiated his doctrine, and at the impetuous haste with which Carlstadt urged the people to act without first having fortified their consciences by clear irrefutable Scriptural proofs. Carlstadt let himself think that it was enough if one had the truth; then one could immediately put it into action. Luther, on the other hand, demanded that consciences also be secured against all doubts and challenges by a firm conviction of the truth from God's Word before they were prompted to act. As long as the conscience could not be bound by a compelling proof from God's word, practice had to be delayed. In order to advise consciences in such a way, Luther sent his "Theses on the Vows and Spiritual Life of the Monasteries" 3) to Wittenberg in September 1521, the first of which reads: "Everything that does not come from faith, that is sin." In the letter that Luther wrote on September 9, 1521, at the same time as the just-

3. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XIX, No. 172. b

8 Introduction.

When he sent the theses mentioned above to Amsdorf 1), he remarked: "I am saddened about Carlstadt; although he could easily be resisted, our opponents would be given an opportunity to boast about our internal discord, to the great annoyance of the weak.

Melanchthon was significantly influenced by Carlstadt. On Michaelmas 1521, he took communion with his students in the parish church of Wittenberg under both forms. 2) In October, the mass service in the Augustinian monastery was completely stopped as a result of the sermons which Carlstadt's zealous follower, the Augustinian monk Gabriel Didymus (Zwilling), had given. He outdid his master and taught not only that malt should not adore the Sacrament, 3) that one alone could not celebrate Mass without sin, but rather that all who were present at Mass should partake of the Sacrament, 2c., but also that (in order to make the celebration of the Lord's Supper similar to the first celebration of the Lord's Supper) always twelve should partake of the Sacrament under both forms with the one who celebrates Mass. On October 17, Carlstadt held a disputation on the celebration of the masses, 4) from which it emerges that Carlstadt was initially almost completely averse to the reform plans of the Augustinians at Wittenberg, that he only denied the elevation, the sacrificial idea and the communion under one form, but that he considered the worship of the elements, even the celebration of the mass by an individual, permissible, if he only enjoyed both forms in faith. Still in November, Carlstadt published two writings concerning this matter, one on November 1, 1521: "On Worship and Reverence of the Signs of the New Testament"; the other, whose epistle is dated November 11: "On Both Forms of the Holy Mass" 2c.

1. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 97, § 3.
2. Cf. the introduction to the 19th volume of the St. Louis edition, sub Xo. IX, a. of the second section, p. 50.
3. Zwilling, however, did not want this to be understood in absolute terms, but explained that he had only "rejected the worship of the sacrament outside of the use and action of the Communion. Seckendorf, Nist, butb., 11b. I, x>. 216, e.
4. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 220 ff.

The agitation in Wittenberg increased. The prior of the Augustinians, Conrad Helt, repeatedly complained about the innovators to the Elector. On October 30, he complained that the worst agitators among his monks were foreigners from the Netherlands and, with the exception of two, guests who had no authority in the monastery. He asked the Elector not to make the monastery pay for the excesses that had occurred; he expected the vicar of the order to take appropriate measures to restore the old order. The Elector replied that the settlement of the matter had already been entrusted to the Academy and the Chapter. A few days later, on November 12, Helt wrote to him: things were worse than before. No one is doing anything to stop it, and exciting sermons of the innovators are repeated again and again, especially in the monastery church. In these sermons, the people are incited to hatred, even to acts of violence against the monks and destruction of the monasteries. Thirteen monks had left, were prowling around the city and inciting citizens and students against him, the prior and his faithful monks who had stayed behind, so that they were not safe for an hour in their monastery. He therefore asks the Elector for his protection, and that the council admit the runaway monks back into the monastery, or, if he does not want this, that they be expelled from the city, especially one of them who is about to marry and has applied to the council for citizenship.

Soon after, Spalatin had to report to the Elector that the Rector of the University had declared that they could not agree on the matter and that therefore a settlement of the matter could no longer be hoped for by the University and the Committee. Until then, the movement had been limited to the Augustinian monastery, but now, at the beginning of December, it also took hold of the municipality and the university. On December 3, the Senate wrote to the Elector that "some of our high school and also some laymen of our fellow citizens took it upon themselves this Tuesday morning not to permit the priests in the parish church to celebrate mass in the manner that had previously been the custom.

Introduction. 9

According to credible reports, the students involved had bare knives under their skirts, the priest, when he stepped in front of the altar, carried away the missals and drove all the priests from the altars; the priests, who had gone very early to sing the tides of our dear women, were thrown stones 2c. The answer of the Elector was, as before, that the University and the Chapter should unite in common steps. On December 4, the riots were repeated. Threatening letters were posted at the Barefoot Monastery, the monks were taunted by a mob of students (about forty) and prevented from holding mass. The monastery had to be guarded during the night against an attack threatened by the students. On December 6, Baier reported to the Elector that the committee appointed to settle the matter had made the definite statement that it could not decide on a unanimous answer because the views of the members were too different, but that the troublemakers, some Erfurt students, should be punished. Violent preaching against the mass continued, and only in the castle in the All Saints' Church did the old cult remain in progress, because one shied away from the wrath of the Elector; only some canons and priests had their windows broken. These events prompted Luther, immediately after his return from his secret visit to Wittenberg (early December 1521), to write: "A faithful admonition to all Christians to guard against sedition and outrage" (St. Louis edition, vol. X, 360, and introduction, col. 50). He sent it to Spalatin with the meaning that it should be printed as soon as possible. It appeared on January 19, 1522, in which he teaches that the Pabst's kingdom cannot be destroyed by fist, but only by God's word. Impetuous interventions and acts of violence on the part of those who boast of the Gospel would give the enemies of the right doctrine desirable cause for blasphemy, and also anger and repel the weak. But also among some members of the chapter the mass had come into such contempt that the two deans of the chapter had already on

October 9, 1521 to the Elector, 1) there was a lack of priests who were willing to hold the masses newly founded by the Elector.

In the meantime, the part of the university members favorable to the abolition of the mass, among them Carlstadt and Melanchthon, had drafted a declaration to the Elector, in which they stated that the abolition of the annoying abuse of the mass was quite harmless, and if some Pharisees were annoyed by it, one should let it go and keep to Christ's commandment Apost. 5, 29.: "One must obey God more than men. Since several members of the Senate and the Chapter refused to accept this declaration, it went out on December 12, 1521, signed by the Rector of the University, Carlstadt, the two Schurf, D. Wild, Melanchthon, Amsdorf and Bockenhein, to which D. Baier submitted an additional report. Jonas and Feldkirch also joined them. The adherents of the old rite, mostly members of the chapter, also turned to the Elector and demanded protection for the old rite in churches and monasteries. The Elector, however, ordered on December 19 through D. Baier to the university members that they should refrain from any reorganization of a new rite of mass and not allow anything of the kind to their own. However, they were to "take the matter into further and greater consideration, and also to discuss, write, read, and preach about it," and in doing so to keep to the reasonable measure, "so that nothing other than the honor of Christ is sought therein.

Carlstadt had not said mass for a long time. When it came his turn, the other canons celebrated for him. But when he preached vehemently against the mass, they refused to stand up for him any longer. In response, Carlstadt declared in a sermon on December 22 that if they forced him to say Mass in this way, he would say a "Protestant Mass" on the next New Year's Day, as Christ had said and instituted it. This reported

1. Compare the introduction to the second section of the 19th volume of the St. Louis edition sub No. IX, b, p. 51.

10 Introduction.

the canons to the Elector, 1) whereupon he sent a ban against such innovation. But Carlstadt, who had stopped preaching for some time, now appeared again three times in a row with polemical sermons and took the decisive step on Christmas Day, which he had previously intended to do only on New Year's Day. On this day he first preached a sermon from the pulpit "on the reception of the holy sacrament". Then he went immediately to the altar, read the Mass canon up to the Gospel, but omitted all ceremonies of "shielding and fencing with the crosses", the whole sacrificial service and the elevation. Then, without previous confession, he distributed bread and wine to the people with the words of distribution used by Christ at the institution. Carlstadt also seems to have touched other innocent customs already at that time, because the councilors wrote to Baier (Corp. Ref., I, 512) that they heard that Carlstadt should not be willing to put on chasuble, alb 2) or surplice to the Protestant mass. From now on, the people stayed away from all other masses.

Already the next day, on St. Stephen's Day, Carlstadt took a second decisive step. In the presence of Jonas, Melanchthon and many other university teachers, he got engaged to Anna von Mochau, the daughter of a poor nobleman, and on this occasion he married a priest with his cook. In order to make the affair quite conspicuous, Carlstadt intended a particularly grand wedding celebration, to which he also wanted to invite the entire university and the council, yes, he even sent an invitation to the Elector on January 6, 1522. On January 5, 3) he had a "Sendbrief Des Würdigen Andren Boden meldende seiner Wirthschaft. Neue Geschicht 4) von Pfaffen und München zu Wittenberg" in which he harshly criticizes the priests "who keep cooks in such a form and do not want to take women",

1. This is probably meant by "the duke" in Jäger I. e. p. 254.
2. This is probably meant by the word "Almen" in Jäger I. c. p. 257.
3. This time is given by Jäger 1. e. p. 257.
4. "Geschicht" is after Burkhardt, p. 44, set instead of "Gezeit" in Jäger.

praises the marriage state highly and calls on the priests to marry. He now announces that he is engaged and that the wedding has been set for St. Sebastian's Eve 5), and he now invites to his wedding.

The next day, on St. John's Day (27 Dec.) 1521, the Zwickau prophets appeared in Wittenberg, namely the cloth weaver Nicolaus Storch, another cloth weaver and Marcus Thomä Stübner, who had previously studied in Wittenberg and had therefore become friends with Melanchthon; Melanchthon accommodated the latter in his house. These people pretended to be called to teach by a clear direct voice of God, to have confidential conversations with God, to see the future, yes, to be new prophets and apostles. 6) In particular, they challenged infant baptism on the grounds that only those who believed could be baptized. They made a great impression on Melanchthon, especially their argument about infant baptism he could not resist. Amsdorf, later the strictest guardian of the pure faith against all false teachers and enthusiasts, thought it best at that time not to see or hear the new prophets at all, because he was still too much of a novice in the Holy Scriptures. In the whole of Wittenberg they caused a great stir; people talked almost exclusively about them. On the very day of their arrival, Melanchthon wrote to the Elector 7): he had strong reasons not to despise them: the matter moved him more than he could express; one had to let Luther judge the effects of the Spirit in them. He urgently wanted Luther to return to Wittenberg, because the enthusiasts had appealed to him; but this was not a sufficient reason for Luther to come out of hiding. In a letter to Melanchthon dated January 13, 1522, Luther gives the latter detailed instruction on how to test such spirits according to the Scriptures.

5. Since St. Sebastian is the 20th of January, not this day but the 19th of January will have to be assumed. Hunter I. c. S. 258 has the 20th of January. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 516 has the correct date; likewise Kolde, Martin Luther, Vol. II, p. 34.
6. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 520.
7. Oorp. Not. I, p. 513 8Y. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2366.
8. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 103.

Introduction. 11

have. He asks him to investigate whether they can prove their divine calling. If they claim that they were called by direct (nuda) revelation, they should not be accepted, for God never sent anyone whom He did not either call through men or confirm by miraculous signs, not even His Son. With regard to infant baptism, he states that infants, brought in by foreign faith, receive their own faith in baptism. Luther disapproves of Melanchthon's shyness toward the prophets and already at the end of this letter holds out the prospect of his return soon, "because the translation of the Bible will require him to return." For a longer time these enthusiasts had their being in and around Wittenberg and recruited followers. Among others, a studied theologian, Martin Cellarius (Vorrhaus, a native of Stuttgart), fell in with them and became particularly persistent. Only some time after Luther's return from the Wartburg, after Luther had had a personal meeting with some of them in the beginning of April 1522 1), did they turn away to Kemberg.

We are not told that these prophets participated in the cult reforms in Wittenberg, but they gained a significant influence on their kindred spirit Carlstadt and his followers. Meanwhile, the innovations continued. Before New Year's Day 1522, the congregation of Wittenberg sent six articles to the city council, which they insisted on accepting and carrying out, declaring that they were determined "to stay with it, to leave their possessions, life and limb above it. The content of these articles has recently been as follows: 1.

1. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 776, § 4. - According to this, the information of the Cordatus "1521" is to be corrected. Tischreden, cap. 37, § 1. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 1010. - Cf. also § 2 therein. - In September 1522, "the prophet prince Claus Stork" was with Luther. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 106. St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, appendix II, no. 125. - On April 12, 1522, Luther wrote to Joh. Lang: "The prophet Marcus together with the Zwickau prophets were punished and reminded by me; unwillingly they went away. One of them got into such a rage that I have never seen a more furious person." Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 105.

Allow everyone to preach the Word of God freely. 2. all forced masses are to be stopped. 3. all masses in which Christ's body and blood are not eaten and drunk, such as requiems, funerals, vigils, fraternity masses, wedding masses, votive masses, shall be stopped. 4 No one shall be forbidden or deprived of either form. 5. and 6. the drinking and whorehouses shall be abolished. The council immediately sent these articles to the Elector, who, however, said that they should wait "until he proposed an order. The congregation was not content with this, but already on New Year's Day more than a thousand people received the sacrament under both forms, just as many on the Sunday after (January 5), and likewise on Three Kings' Day. Carlstadt preached twice every Friday, and almost "all the people in town" attended; many who had not come to a sermon in the past now missed none. Even before January 20, they proceeded to establish daily German morning and evening services instead of early Mass and vespers; the early service with reading of a section of the Old Testament was to be provided by Jonas, the vesper service with reading of the New Testament by Carlstadt. Immediately after his marriage, Carlstadt set out to fortify the reforms and ensure their further development through a congregational ordinance. On January 24, the city council and the university agreed to the same. In this document, in addition to provisions for an orderly care of the poor, were these two laws:. 1. that to avoid idolatry, images and altars should be removed from the churches, and only three altars, without images, should be left as sufficient; 2. that the mass should be held strictly according to the institution of Christ. The entire Canon major and minor were to be omitted as not in accordance with Scripture, and immediately after the Consecration, which was to be recited publicly and in German to the people, the Communion was to follow, whereby the communicant was to take the host and the chalice into his own hands. - Only the abolition of images was postponed; according to Baier's report of January 25, there were disputations on this question, with Carlstadt and his followers mainly relying on the

12 Introduction.

Decalogue and at the same time vividly attacked the service of the saints.

In the aforementioned community order, the iconoclasm had already been prepared, but Carlstadt found it necessary to justify this enterprise together with his newly ordered care of the poor in a special writing "On the abolition of images and that no beggar should be among Christians". The letter to Count Wolf Schlick of Passau is dated January 27, 1522, in which the fight against images is confused and mixed with the fight against the service of images, which in turn is confused with the fight against the service of saints. He also complains about the timidity with which the execution of these resolutions is delayed in Wittenberg; he has done his part and must leave it to God, who guides the hearts to good.

Around this time, namely in the last days of January, the morning and evening services had really come to life; Carlstadt preached daily in the evenings. In this activity he was supported by the Augustinian monk Gabriel Zwilling, who on New Year's Day 1522 in Eilenburg had already given the sacrament to about 200 people without prior secret confession, only on a general confession 1) under both forms, whereby he gave them the hosts in his hand and had the chalice passed from hand to hand and officiated in a long black student's skirt. These two stormed and agitated incessantly in the pulpits against the Mass, confession, priests, images and the like, and called upon the congregations to act and change on their own authority. That it really came to tumults as a result of this, we can see from the report of the Electoral Plenipotentiary, Haugold von Einsiedel, to the Elector of February 14, 1522: "that the riot that has taken place comes from no other than D. Carlstadt's and M. Gabriel's sermon"; and from other passages it appears that this riot consisted mainly in violent destruction of the images. The Augustinian monks not only removed the altars from their church except for one, but also burned the

1. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 43: He has "vne alone die offene schuldt vorgesprochen".

holy images in the church. 2) Already on February 3, Einsiedel had admonished Carlstadt in a letter to be more careful, not to do anything that would annoy the common man and not improve him, and also to refrain from preaching the word where he was not especially called to do so, so that it would not seem as if he had "more desire to promote his own fame than to seek the salvation and fruit of men through the word of God. To this Carlstadt gave an impudent reply the following day, February 4. Among other things, he says: "Therefore I remain firmly grounded in the divine Word and do not allow myself to err in what others teach; I also know that I can annoy no one but unbelievers." It behooves him to preach in the castle, even though, without a formal profession, "he also acknowledges himself guilty of preaching God's word in other ways. If I am an unworthy doctor, why should I not preach? At the same time, Einsiedel had asked Melanchthon (also on February 3) to admonish Magister Gabriel, about whom it was said that he sometimes "spoke inflammatory words, with instructions on how this and that should be changed by the congregation, ... from which sedition can cause discord and outrage," from his pernicious actions. In Gabriel's case, Melanchthon's ideas seem to have been successful, for he left Wittenberg shortly thereafter 3) and was proposed by Luther to the city of Altenburg as a preacher on April 17, 1522. But still

2. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 516. - Should not perhaps be read "images of saints"? although Duke Georg in his letter to the Elector of March 21, 1522 (Seckendorf, nist. Imtksr., Ub. I, p. 218, y.) mentions that "the images of God and the saints are miserably broken or disgraced"; because also the last expression seems to indicate that not all images were destroyed. Compare the conclusion of note No. 1 on page 13 of this introduction. Although it cannot be denied that according to Carlstadt's doctrine all images, including the crucifixes, were to be destroyed (cf. Köstlin, I. 6. p. 805 aä p. 540), it is not proven that this was actually done.
3. On February 14, Einsiedel wrote to the Elector that "Mag. Gabriel has turned away from Wittenberg, perhaps in response to the letter that I sent next to Philippo.
4. Cf. Luther's letter to the council of the city of Altenburg. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 2411.

Introduction. 13

On February 5, Melanchthon wrote in his answer to the above-mentioned letter from Einsiedel: "He has often spoken such opinions with Gabriel, and has also asked D. Carlstadt to moderate himself; but I cannot hold my breath. In any case, through his inciting sermons, he also helped cause the iconoclasm in the parish church. The reason by which Carlstadt and Zwilling persuaded "the common man" to intervene with a stormy hand was: "that the common people might well have power to do something in negligence of the authorities, out of a compassion and love". Now (about February 6) it was publicly announced on which day the pictures should be taken out of the parish church. This day will probably be February 7.

1) We are moved to this very probable time determination by the following circumstances. In the aforementioned letter to Einsiedel of February 5, Melanchthon does not mention anything about these events; likewise in the letter to Spalatin of February 6 (Jäger, I. o. p. 280). On the other hand, we find the electoral commissioners gathered in Eilenburg on February 8 to discuss how to prevent further innovations and put an end to the rebellious activity. They agreed to issue a "reproach" to the chapter and the university, in which they were to be told what a stir the innovations had caused throughout the empire and how these innovations were not so essential that such danger should be dared on their account. In particular, however, it is to be noted with regard to the images: "if they had not been taken away so suddenly, cut up and burned, and if those to whom it was due had been willing to remove the image out of a good concern: nevertheless, it should not have been publicly proclaimed on what day the work should have been done, and has served nothing else than to incite the common man to a riot or a heated mind. "Nor would it have been unskilful if one had not so nearly hurried with things that were not so important. . not so nearly hurried." It seems to us from these words undoubtedly that at this time, on February 8, the iconoclasm in the parish church was already accomplished. Jäger <1. a. p. 281) understands it of something then still future, "what Carlstadt and his followers intended and openly demanded". Köstlin seems to have overlooked this passage, for he says (Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 518): "We know nothing more about the form of that storm against the images." But it seems as if neither in the church of the Augustinians nor in the parish church all the pictures had been removed, since the commissars agreed (on February 8) "to work toward the removal of the pictures in the churches (i.e., not only in the collegiate church, in which they had remained untouched, cf. Seckendorf, Hist. I,utd., 111"). I, p. 218, H.) remain until further notice." (Jäger I. 6. p. 282.)

have been. The images were "suddenly taken away, cut up and burned". Already on February 8, Carlstadt had been named by the chapter before the electoral commissioners assembled at Eilenburg as the author of the innovation, and at the negotiations of the commissioners, which took place on February 13, he himself had to admit that he had caused the tumult in Wittenberg. Carlstadt had to promise "to refrain from such preaching in the future, and if it did not happen, he would willingly suffer punishment for it. Amsdorf took over the office of preacher and offered to instruct the people in order from the pulpit. The university declared to the commissioners that it agreed with the provisions of the new municipal regulations concerning the images, but that only the authorities and those appointed by them had the right to lay their hands on the images, and that they wanted the matter to proceed decently, "but the fact that some have handled it clumsily is through no fault of our own, and the violators have been punished in part by the council, and some have escaped. 2)

But still other evils had arisen from the activities of Carlstadt, as we hear from the report of Fröschel, an eyewitness: when Luther had come again to Wittenberg, the second Diaconus had to stand with the sexton next to the altar in the chair and sing the Introit, the Kyrie eleison 2c. during the service, "because there were no pupils in the boys' school who helped to sing". "The situation of this boys' school was such that no more students went there, for it had fallen apart and had been turned into a bread house or bread bank, and the boys' school had been torn apart and caused to be torn apart by three men who would also have liked to tear down the laudable university here, where Philippus Melanchthon and D. Hieronymus Schurff had not gnawed so fiercely and stood and rebelled against them with all their might." These men, namely D. Carlstadt in his lectures, Frater Gabriel in his

2. Jäger, 1. o. p. 283. In Köstlin, Vol. I, p. 517 towards the end, is a somewhat inaccurate account, in that this is attributed to the "Rathe" what was stated by the university.

14 Introduction.

Sermons in the pulpit and M. Georg Mohr, 1) the boys' schoolmaster, with his sermons in the school and out of the school in the churchyard - "all of these have pretended that one should not study, nor keep a school, neither a special school for the youth, nor a university for the others, nor should anyone receive a doctorate, neither baccalaureate nor master's degree nor doctorate in all faculties, for Christ himself would have forbidden such Matth. 23,10. 2) The schoolmaster also preached from the school in the churchyard and admonished the citizens and burgesses and asked them to take their children out of school, which was also done most vehemently in the pulpit by Frater Gabriel and D. Carlstadt in his lectures. So that at the same time many of his ingenues left, when I saw and spoke to some of them who passed through Leipzig and said that they wanted to go home and learn a trade, that they were no longer allowed to study. It was not until 1523 that Bugenhagen reestablished the boys' school. Carlstadt also went to the citizens in the Hällser and asked them "how they understood this or that saying in this or that prophet?" When the citizens wondered: "You should tell us!", Carlstadt answered that God had hidden such things from the scholars (Matth. 11. and Luc. 10.), that the disciples of the Lord had been much more learned and had understood and interpreted the prophets and the Scriptures much better than the scholars of that time. Also "they Carlstadt, Zwilling and Mohr pretended that no learned man should be accepted as preachers, as priests in the church, nor suffer, but only laymen and craftsmen, who alone could read".

As a result, the university was in danger of becoming deserted. Many students moved away from the university, others were called away by their sovereigns. 3) The preachers of the old

1. The latter also soon resigned, as did Zwilling, and continued to be a faithful pastor for many years. He is still mentioned in Luther's letters in 1545.
2. Cf. Tischreden, cap. 9, § 2 and cap. 67, § 9. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 358 and 1529.
3. We learn this from the instruction of the Elector to the bailiff Johann Oswald at Eisenach of

and the new cult reviled each other in the pulpits "with the expression of their names. Although the council of Wittenberg had originally wanted to preserve the old rite of mass, Carlstadt changed it on his own initiative, first in the monastery, then in the parish church, "whereupon in the parish one was held in a sust, the other in such a way, without order and chasuble. Then, on the advice of the university, the council adopted the new congregational order in order to ward off the boundless arbitrariness and to establish a uniform "manner and form". The movement and confusion also spread to the neighboring areas. The young theologians were almost all infected by Carlstadt's doctrine and his addiction to changing the outward customs, and continued to spread it in all directions. As early as March 1522, Luther and Melanchthon were prompted to oppose such aberrations in Silesia by letter. Unrest and confusion of a similar nature also occurred in Erfurt, 4) so that Luther found himself moved to travel there in October 1522 and preach there.

The Imperial Regiment in Nuremberg, which was responsible for the government during the absence of the Emperor, had repeatedly received complaints about the events in Wittenberg, especially from Duke George of Saxony, who had been a member of the Imperial Regiment since the end of 1521. What he had to complain about, we can see from his letter to his cousin, the Elector, 5) of March 21, 1522. March 1522: in Wittenberg and other cities of the Elector, communion was taking place in both forms, the laity were touching the sacrament with their hands, it was being confirmed consecrated with German words, the blood of Christ was also being consecrated in common cups, the monks were throwing off their holy garments and using worldly clothing, the priests were taking women, the altars were being destroyed, the images of God and of the saints were being miserably broken or disgraced, the widows were being given the sacraments, and the saints were being given the sacraments.

March 3, 1522. Oorp. Recorm. I, p. 559, Xo. 201. Excerpted in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2376 f.

4. Cf. Luther's letters to Joh. Lang of April 12, 1522 and to the Erfurters of July 10, 1522. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 105 and Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XIX, 962 ff.
5. Seckendorf, Hist. I]utli., Ud. I, x. 218, y.

Introduction. 15

In Eilenburg, they stormed the pastor's house, and one of them rode into the church on a donkey. And the Elector let all this happen with impunity, while he could easily prevent it. For, although the images had been taken away from the parish church, they had remained in the cathedral the collegiate church, because he, the Elector, had ordered it that way, although the most distinguished canons 2) had been the authors of the fact that the images had been taken away from the parish church. Whoever does not prevent such an outrage, where he can and must do it, is equally guilty with the one who commits it. On January 20, 1522, the imperial regiment issued an order to all bishops to take all violators of the old ecclesiastical order into sharp interrogation and to punish the guilty, and called upon the Elector to report on the innovations and to prohibit them with severe punishment. The Bishop of Meissen indicated to the Elector that he would send virtuous preachers 3) for the upcoming festive season to proclaim anew the old orders of the church and to make known the order of the imperial regiment. Shortly thereafter, the Bishop of Merseburg also reported that he would comply with this decree. Both therefore asked the Elector for his protection and assistance in his territories. About this matter, the Elector now sought Luther's advice and had an instruction drawn up for Johann Oswald, 4) bailiff in Eisenach (on March 3, 1522), 5) in order to negotiate with him about it, and also to urge Luther that he should

1. oräinÄtiontzrQ, This probably refers to the new "Municipal Code".
2. Ounonioi priniurii. With this, Duke George will aim at D. Carlstadt and the provost Jonas; but the latter had nothing to do with the iconoclasm.
3. One of these preachers, who accompanied the bishop on his visitation journey in April 1522, was Luther's bitter enemy, D. Dungersheim (cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 462 and Introduction, p. 21), who preached twice at Herzberg on April 2. Förstemann, neues Urkundenbuch, p. 19.
4. Erlanger Ausg. Briefwechsel, vol. 3, 292. In excerpt, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2376,
5. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 44. Cf. De Wette, vol. VI, p. 579, note 7.

Luther did not want to return to Wittenberg, because otherwise the pope and the emperor would demand that Luther be handed over to them. Luther announced his intention to come to Wittenberg in a letter to the Elector 6) in the last days of February. In this letter he consoles the Elector about the events in Wittenberg. He should not hesitate; "it is not yet there that Satanas wants. "It must also be fulfilled in us 2 Cor. 6, 4. 5.: "Charge us prove as the servants of GOD in riots," 2c. "E. F. G. has now had long years of applying for sanctuary in all lands; 7) but now God has made E. F. G.'s desire and sent home, without all cost and effort, a whole cross with nails, spears and scourges. I say again grace and happiness from God to the new sanctuary." The Elector should not be frightened, but let the nails go in deep, thank God and be happy: "so it must and shall go whoever wants to have God's word." In response, the Elector, in order to keep Luther from returning, hurriedly sent a "gracious concern," 8) which still came into Luther's hands on the evening of February 28, but the Instruction of March 3 did not reach him, 9) for on March 1 Luther set out on his journey.

On the way, on March 5, 1522, Luther wrote his famous heroic letter to the Elector 10) at the escort in Borna, so that he would not be "distressed by the hearing of his future" and the Elector would "think that I have much higher protection than the Elector.

Luther arrived in Wittenberg on Thursday, March 6, 1522. With his friends, namely Melanchthon, Jonas and Amsdorf, he made more detailed inquiries about the events and conditions in Wittenberg.

6. This letter is in Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 32 and an excerpt from the same vol. XV, 2375 f. - The university and the congregation in Wittenberg had also asked Luthern to come. Ibidem, vol. X V, 2389, § 4,
7. Cf. the introduction to the 2nd section of the 19th volume of the S't. Louis edition, No. XI, d, p. 50.
8. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2378, § 1. We share Köstlin's opinion, vol. II, 805, that this "concern" is not identical with the instruction to Oswald.
9. Seckendorf, Hist. I,utk., Ub. I, 217,1.
10. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2378.

16 Introduction.

On Friday, March 7, Luther wrote a statement to the Elector explaining why he had returned to Wittenberg against the will of the Elector. 1) The following Sunday, Invocavit, Luther again ascended the pulpit in his parish church and then, in eight successive days from March 9-16, delivered Eight Sermons against D. Carlstadt's Innovations in Wittenberg (No. 1a in this volume), in which he does not attack Carlstadt's teaching, indeed, he does not even mention his name, but reminds the Wittenbergers of their lack of love, which they have displayed in their wild goings-on. The mass is not to be done away with by violent intervention, but by the word, lest the good-willed weak be vexed and lost by the guilt of those who give the offence; "for faith wants to be willing and undemanding, and to be accepted without compulsion." Similarly, he speaks of other things, such as: the taking of the Sacrament with the hands; the receiving of the Sacrament in both forms, that no one should be forced to do so; the images and the confession that the Wittenbergers had made. However, after introducing the reader to the circumstances under which Luther preached these sermons, we refrain from further communication and refer to the sermons themselves. The success that these sermons had is surprising. Peace was completely restored, and no one dared to speak publicly against Luther. The form in which these sermons have been preserved does not come from Luther himself. The first two sermons are in the Latin Wittenberg Ansgabe, Tom. VII, col. 273 and 274b with the wrong year 1521. The first sermon has the strange superscription: Luth. sermo,

1. The declaration to the Elector is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2388; moderated and changed, same Col. 2396. The letter to Spalatin of March 7, 1522, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 14, and De Wette, vol. II, p. 145, is, as De Wette has already suspected, une ch t. This letter is a translation of the largest part of a letter to Hausmann, which is found in De Wette, Vol. II, p. 151, and in Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 2404, from § 2 on. Erlanger Ausgabe, Vol. 53, p. 112 ff.

mira brevitate, quid Christiano praestandum sit, expediens. 1521. Walch and the Erlangen edition bring "Vorstehende Sermone in einem anderen Abdruck" (in this volume no. 1b) next to the previous redaction. Because they are incomplete, full of errors, and several times meaningless, we have not printed all of them, but only the first two, so that the reader can judge for himself that the omission of the remaining six is justified. A short Summarium (we consider it a third redaction) of the first five sermons (2) is in all editions, but under different titles and with different time determinations. This writing has passed from the Jena edition to the others. We would like to assume that (because the Jena edition went out under Amsdorf's auspices) it originated from Amsdorf's pen, not from Luther's. For on March 1, Luther writes a letter to Luther. For on March 7, Luther writes to the Elector: 3) "The other cause is that in Wittenberg, through my absence, Satan has fallen into my hurdles and, as all the world is now crying out and is also true, has brought about several things that I cannot satisfy with any writing, 4) but must act there with my own person and living mouth and ears." After these words, it seems quite unbelievable to us that Luther, a few days before his departure from the Wartburg, had set out to dampen the unrest by this written address to the Wittenbergers. Whoever will take the trouble to compare this writing with the Sermons will hardly be able to doubt the identity of both. What is still noteworthy in this matter has already been stated in the first note to No. 1a; as a supplement, we only want to add that the title in the Leipzig edition reads: "D. Mart. Luthers Schrift wider die bei seiner Abwesenheit durch D. Carlstadt zu Wittenberg angeichtete Neuerung" (Luther's writing against the innovation caused by D. Carlstadt at Wittenberg during his absence), without any time determination; however

2. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2370.
3. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2390, § 6.
4. In the first redaction of this letter, the words are instead: "But if I had been able to help the cause with letters, as before, it would not have been necessary to call me. This is changed, however, so that it is not revealed that the Wittenbergers knew about Luther's whereabouts.

Introduction. 17

this writing is attached to those of 1522.

Luther was anxious to make known in wider circles what he had preached in these sermons. Therefore, around the middle of April 1522, he sent out a booklet with the title: "Von beider Gestalt des Sacraments zu nehmen und anderer Neuerung, D. M. Luthers Meinung" (No. 2. in this volume), which, as he wrote to Spalatin 1), he had in progress on March 30. On April 12, he reported to Johann Lang, 2) that it was under press. In the first days of May, it had already been submitted to the Imperial Regiment in Nuremberg. 3) According to the words in his letter to Duke Johann Friedrich 4) of March 18, 1522: "I have directed my letter of both forms and with hands to attack" 2c., one would almost think that he was already talking about this writing at that time, especially since the contents of this letter can be seen as a summarium of it. From this writing we also see how little Luther allowed to remain of the innovations made in his absence, 5) at least for a time, until the common man would be better informed by the gospel. With respect to this, Luther advised the following: Mass Communion should again be held in Latin according to the old custom, with consecrated garments, with singing and all the usual ceremonies, because such is an external thing, without danger to the conscience. The priests, however, should avoid all words in the Canon and in the Collect that refer to the sacrifice. This could also be done, because it is in Latin, without the annoyance of the common man. In the pre

1. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 83.
2. Ibidem No. 105.
3. On May 14, Hans von der Planitz wrote from Nuremberg to the Elector that Duke Georg had sued Luthern because of this booklet at the Imperial Regiment and had also sent the booklet. The Duke's messenger had to wait about 10 days for an answer, but received no other reply than that because Archduke Ferdinand had arrived, he was "burdened with great impecuniosity". "However, one wanted to look at it and then decide what was fair in it. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 63.
4. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 2226.
5. See in this paper § 46 ff.

The words of institution of Holy Communion should be well practiced, because the words (that they are well taken to heart) are more important than the forms. In taking one or both forms, one should follow the custom of a place and not do anything special; if one is asked, one should confess that taking one form is not evangelical, but not erect both forms again with the act or ordinance. This is justified even more strongly by Luther. Furthermore, no mass should be held where communicants are not present. The corner masses are to be rightly abolished, but one should not tear the priests from the altar who want to hold them. They must be preached against and the people must be told that there is nothing to it; then they will fall of their own accord. Confession is not to be commanded, but much less to be resisted; Luther advises that before going to the sacrament, one should confess with pleasure, for the sake of absolution. Having images is not wrong, but worshipping images is forbidden by God. Images can be used rightly and well. We cannot prove that it is right to burn, desecrate and destroy them for the sake of possible abuse. The devil has forbidden the marriage of priests and established the monastic state. They should confess that marriage is free for them, and they may leave the order, even if it annoys whoever wants to. Fasting and the choice of food are not commanded by God, but one should not use one's freedom in these things to the annoyance of the weak, nor should one want to prove oneself as your Christian by eating meat on Friday and the like.

After Luther's return, Carlstadt remained quiet for a few weeks, but in offended pride he resented the fact that he had been so shamefully disgraced with his innovations. Secretly, therefore, he sought to take revenge on Luther. He secretly wrote against Emser, in which he also casually attacked Luther. The latter may well have heard about Carlstadt's intentions, so he privately exhorted him in a friendly manner not to publish anything against him; but Carlstadt almost sacredly prayed (paene

18 Introduction.

sanots) that he would not write anything against Luther. However, already on the same day, April 21, 1522, 1) the book, which had been printed in a seventh edition, had fallen into the hands of the rector and other members of the university and had been condemned by them to be destroyed, completely without Luther's consent. Luther compensated the poor printer for the damage caused by the confiscation by giving him his own new book to print and sell. 2)

Now Carlstadt abstained from all literary activity for almost a whole year; that he had not changed his mind, however, we can see from several statements by Luther that fall into this period, although they are very gentle. In a letter of September 21, 1522, to Baron Johann von Schwarzenberg, 3) episcopal court master at Bamberg, he says: "Of sacramental worship and having images, E. G. has met my opinion. But whether Doct. Andreas or anyone else holds, I let them have their way." Towards the end of the year 1522, a certain Christoph Hofmann 4) (later pastor in Jena) had turned to Carlstadt with questions about the (personal) certainty (scientia) of election, about the fall and resurrection of the righteous, about foreign faith, about infant baptism, about the persistence of the Spirit in the saints 2c. At the request of several of Hofmann's friends, Luther also answered him and warned him against these new teachings, which came from the prophets of Zwickau, who spoke from their own without any basis in Scripture. "These even Mr. Carlstadt does not yet bravely resist, either out of guilelessness or good-naturedness" (sive pro suo candore sive bono animo. As a turning point in Carlstadt's life, Luther states that at a doctoral graduation 5) he had said in a public speech: "I knowingly act ungodly, that I doctor for the sake of two guilders." To this Luther says: 6) "Since the

1. Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. Ill, § 2.
2. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 298. 6orp. Rot. I, r>. 570.
3. Walch, old edition, vol. XXl, 27, § 3.
4. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 114.
5. Not in 1522 (Jäger I. o. p. 299), but on February 3, 1523. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XIX, appendix, no. 7.
6. Tischreden, Cap. 9, § 2. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 358. '

Carlstadt also fell and fell into various errors and remained in them. Henceforth, he no longer wanted to be called a doctor, but also called himself "a new Lay" on the titles of the writings (mostly ascetic and mystical content), which he sent out in March 1523 and later in large numbers. 7) In order to live as a true simple Christian, he bought a farm in the village of Segren, not far from Wittenberg, "and was a peasant and held fellowship with the peasants; and what the least of them had to do, he also did and had to do, as when they drank the common beer, he had to stand in front of the table, because he was the youngest farmer, and serve and pour beer, and the other farmers only called him neighbor Endres, and also called him that way when he should fetch and pour beer". 8) He maintained his office and income at the university and the collegiate church, but did not quite fulfill his duties, about which the Elector complained bitterly in a letter to Schurf 9) dated 7 August 1523. His stay in the country also served him to maintain a secret correspondence with Thomas Münzer, without this becoming apparent to the Wittenbergers. Yes, Carlstadt had even invited him to a secret meeting in December 1522, 10) in order to discuss with him such things that could not be entrusted to letters.

During his life as a farmer, Carlstadt had still returned to Wittenberg from time to time and had still carried out his official work somewhat, albeit intermittently and carelessly. But in September 1523, he left Wittenberg completely, went to Orlamünde 11) and had the congregation there make him their regular pastor. This succeeded all the more easily because the congregation

7. Jäger 1. o. p. 300 f. lists nine such writings from the year 1523.
8. Fröschel's report in the "Innocent News" of 1731, p. 694.
9. Oorp. Üsk. I, p. 599.
10. Seidemann, Thomas Münzer, p. 128, supplement 20.
11. About the relationship of the parish in Orlamünde to the Archidiaconus at the collegiate church, compare p. 1 of this introduction.

Introduction. 19

with its previous clergyman, the vicar Conrad Glück, had fallen apart. Neither Carlstadt nor the congregation objected to the express provision that the parish in Orlamünde was to be served by permanent vicars, who were to be appointed by the academic senate and presented to the Elector. They invoked a higher divine right. Carlstadt continued to receive the income from his Wittenberg office, although he now set it aside completely, 1) indeed, it became apparent later that he had already unsuited himself to income that was not yet due. In Orlamünde, he began to reform in the same way as he had done in Wittenberg, with altar abbeys, iconoclasm and other innovations in the cult. In this reform activity, Münzer supported him from Allstädt and Martin Reinhard, his old comrade in the Danish attempt at reformation, from Jena, where the latter was a preacher and had helped Carlstadt to set up an angular printing press 2) so that his books would not have to suffer the censorship of the Wittenberg University. In the spring of 1524, he came forward with the writing "Ob man gemach fahren und des Aergernisses der Schwachen verschonen soll in Sachen, so GOttes Willen angehen" ("Whether one should drive safely and spare the aggravation of the weak in matters concerning God's will"), in which he attacks in a wild, fanatical manner those who had set him up in Wittenberg. One must look to God's word, he says, and not wait for the other to follow. God had commanded to remove the images, therefore one should not wait for the unintelligent and weak; otherwise one would just as well continue with blasphemy, murder, stealing, adultery, until all boys become pious. "Let every community, whether small or great, see to itself that it does right and well, and wait for no one." 3) We are "all here (in Orlamünde) neither with the doctrine nor with the deed to hold still.

1. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I p. 704.
2. On January 7, 1524, Luther reported this to Chancellor Brück. On January 14, he reported to Spalatin that Carlstadt in Jena had already published books in his newly established printing press and that he would publish 18 more books.
3. This sentence is undoubtedly correct and divine truth; but Carlstadt misuses it most disgracefully for his wild, stormy activities.

gewest to accomplish God's commandments, until our neighbors and the slavers at Wittenberg followed suit." "God wants so little that we wait for others until they come after and become pious, that he has commanded that one should punish the ungodly as one punishes other vices (Deut. 13. and 17, 2. ff.), and in addition kill and devastate whole cities that wait for their idolatry and do not want to wander in the right path." "It almost amazes me at our scribes and regents that they . . . want to cast down spiritual adultery with their breath and wind 4)." These last words show that Carlstadt preaches quite Münzerian; it is only to be wondered at that he, together with the Orlamünders, gave Münzer (in June 1524) quite inconsistently the answer to his request to join him in battle against the ungodly, that Christians should arm themselves not with knives but with the armor of faith. 5) In a letter of July 19, he completely renounced Muenzer; likewise his congregation. 6)

Before mid-March, the news of Carlstadt's tumultuous trial in Orlamünde had come to Wittenberg through Spalatin. 7) Already around this time, Luther complained to Hausmann that Carlstadt was persecuting him more horribly than the papists were doing. Still in March, the university went about asking Carlstadt to return to Wittenberg from the place where he had not been called and to deliver the office of the word which was incumbent upon him there; if he would not obey, he would be sued before the Elector. Carlstadt actually presented himself in Wittenberg on April 2, 8) 1524, and on April 4, negotiations were held with him. He wanted

4. With this Carlstadt aims at Luther's teaching that heresy and idolatry must be eradicated only with the preaching of the Word of God, not with the secular sword.
5. Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. I, p. 708. - Jäger l. c. S. 445.
6. Seidemann, Thomas Münzer, p. 128, supplement 21.
7. Compare Luther's briefs of March 14, 1524 to Spalatin and Hausmann. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 116 and vol. XXI, 889.
8. This time determination results from Luther's letter to Spalatin, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 923, which there has no closer time determination, in De Wette, vol. II, p. 507 erroneously placed in May, but in truth was written April 4 or 5. Cf. Jäger, I. 6. p. 426. De Wette, Vol. VI, 612.

20 Introduction.

But he did not do wrong, but returned to Orlamünde. Now the Elector intervened. Although Carlstadt and the Orlamünde congregation repeatedly asserted to the Elector their divine right to elect a pastor and called the right of the academy a "papist" right, the Elector nevertheless commanded Carlstadt and the Orlamünde congregation on May 16 that they should obey the academy and the chapter. He did not obey a request of the university (beginning of June) to dispose of his post in Wittenberg. He nevertheless remained in Orlamünde, and the congregation hung on him. But a few days later he had to "hand over the parish". 1) But still on August 16, 1524, the council of Orlamünde called him: "our pastor and pastoral caretaker". Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2433, § 1. It was thought in Wittenberg to appoint a new vicar in Orlamünde, but hesitated with it, in order not to cause new conflicts with the community, which would certainly have taken place if a vicar had been sent, as long as Carlstadt was in their midst. On the other hand, attention was also drawn away from this matter by the fierce attacks that Muenzer made on Luther around this time, and the progress of the Muenzer movement in Saxony. Because of this, Luther had a missive printed in the last half of July 2) 1524 under the title: "A Letter to the Princes of Saxony on the Rebellious Spirit", in which he admonishes them to prevent your rebellion according to the authority given to them by God, otherwise they would be excusable neither before God nor before the world.

In order to control the agitation, the Elector and Luther now tried to initiate amicable negotiations. By order of his princes, Luther traveled to Thuringia around the middle of August to the agitated districts. In Jena, where Martin Reinhard had been appointed in the spirit of Carl-

1. Cf. Luther's letter to the Elector of June 18, 1524, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 72, § 2 with the wrong date: May 16. On the date, cf. De Wette, vol. VI, p. 579 f. June 14 in Köstlin, vol. I, p. 712 is probably just a misprint. Cf. p. 814.
2. Not only on August 21, as it is dated in Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 8. Cf. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 248 and De Wette, VI, 580. In the text, Bb. II, p. 538, De Wette also mentions August 21.

On August 22, Luther preached a lukewarm sermon against fanaticism and the spirit of rebellion, which began with iconoclasm and contempt for the sacraments and ended with murder and violence. Carlstadt, who had also come to Jena and had heard this sermon, felt affected and asked Luther for an interview, which was granted to him the same evening. 3) He insisted that he had nothing in common with the Allstadt spirit (Münzer's) and that the accusation of sedition did not apply to him. Then he raised the accusation against Luther that he was preaching falsely about the Sacrament. Luther demanded proof. Carlstadt offered to hold a disputation in Wittenberg or Erfurt. Luther invited him to Wittenberg and promised him safe conduct. In an exchange that ensued, Carlstadt said that he had been bound hand and foot and beaten, because Luther alone had preached and written against him; on the other hand, his books had been taken from the printing press 4) and he had been forbidden to write and preach, otherwise it would have been known what his spirit had done. Luther put an end to the quarrel by giving him full freedom to write against him and presented him with a gold florin as insurance. 5)

Immediately Carlstadt began to come out publicly with his false doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which, by the way, he had harbored since 1522, 6) and to write against Luther. Around September 1524, the two writings "Von dem widerchristlichen Mißbrauch des HErrn Brod und Kelch" (No. 3 in this volume) and "Wider die alten und neuen papistischen Messen" (No. 2 in the appendix of this volume) appeared. In these, Carlstadt denies the true, essential presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the

3. This conversation is described by Martin Reinhard in the so-called lenengia "zu Luthers Verunglimpfung und zu Carlstadts.Ehren" (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 17). It is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2422. In print, it appeared at the beginning of October 1524. (Cf. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 455.)
4. Cf. p. 18 of this introduction.
5. Cf. Luther's letter to an unnamed person Wolfgang Stein. De Wette, Vol. II, p. 550.
6. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 701.

Introduction. 21

Holy Communion. He teaches that Christ gave his disciples only bread and wine to eat and drink in the words "Take and eat, take and drink," and that in the words "This is my body" he was referring to himself, so that the words "Do this in remembrance of me" should be understood to mean that Christians should eat bread and drink wine in the Lord's Supper and thereby commemorate the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. Carlstadt had already come out with this view earlier (but not until 1524), but in such a way that he left himself open to retreat, in the writing "Ob man mit heiliger Schrift erweisen möge, dass Christus mit Leib, Blut und Seele im Sacrament sei." (Whether one may prove with sacred Scripture that Christ is in body, blood and soul in the Sacrament). He gives the explanation that in it he only wanted to indicate "what our enemies would like to answer if we wanted to prove by subsequent speeches that Christ is in the Sacrament with body, blood and soul". But the whole writing shows that Carlstadt lets these so-called enemies defend his own view; in it he also recants all views of the Sacrament and of the worship of the Sacrament asserted in the writings of 1521. 1) At the end, Carlstadt asks all those to whom his answer seems to be "unchristian" to instruct him. But he did not wait for a reply, but sought, perhaps already in August 1524, 2) to bring the doctrine contained therein to the people in his "Dialogus oder Gesprächbüchlein von dem greulichen abgöttischen Mißbrauch des hochwürdigsten Sacraments JEsu Christi" (No. 3 in the appendix of this volume). In this discussion is a series of the most biting outbursts on Luther's view of the images, the service of the saints and the sacraments. We are not able to give an exact date for this writing. We only know that it was written by Carlstadt in Orlamünde in 1524 and that it was published without any indication of the place (it must have been printed in the Jena Winkeldruckerei). In the aforementioned writing "Von dem widerchristlichen Mißbrauch des HErrn Brod und Kelch" (On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord's Bread and Cup)

1. Jäger l. c. S. 441 f.
2. Compare the note to the caption of No. 3 in the appendix of this volume.

the "conversation booklet" is already mentioned

(in § 6). Towards the end of the year 3) 1524, Urban Rhegius sent out his "Warnung wider den neuen Irrsal Doctor Andreas von Carlstadt des Sacraments halben" (No. 4 in this volume), which is mainly directed against Carlstadt's two writings just mentioned (No. 3, and No. 3 in the appendix), and completely puts them down. It is probably this writing that Luther asked Spalatin 4) to send him on December 29, 1524, and which he sent back to him on January 13, 1525. In the meantime, Luther had also begun to write against Carlstadt, who had been banished from Saxony by order of the Elector of September 17, 1524, and Duke John of October 2. On December 15, 1524, Luther wrote a letter to the people of Strasbourg, warning them against Carlstadt's heresy. 5) It was necessary to oppose Carlstadt's direction, for which he constantly recruited followers during his unethical travels, in wider circles as well. We hear of his presence in Rothenburg an der Tauber, in Strasbourg, in Heidelberg, in Basel, in Zurich, in Nördlingen. During this time he published one book after another, especially on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper; on November 7 in Strasbourg his "Interpretation of these words of Christ: This is my body"; in Basel (according to Erasmus) six writings on the Holy Supper. In Basel, the printers who had published his books were punished with imprisonment; 6) but Oecolampad and Pellicanus in Basel, Zwingli and Leo Jude in Zurich had fallen in with Carlstadt's opinion on the Holy Communion, even though they took the emptying of the words of institution, the reinterpretation of "is" into "means" in a different way than he did; indeed, Zwingli disapproved of the procedure of the council in Basel, and publicly demanded that Carlstadt be punished for his "is" and "means.

3. Kolde, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 158, says: "Already in November 1524."
4. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 119 and vol. XXI, 945. The former letter with the wrong year 1525.
5. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2444.
6. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 13, 1525. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 945.

22 Introduction.

Luther was not interested in reading Carlstadt's writings. Therefore, Luther refuted the whole direction of Carlstadt in his great writing "Wider die himmlischen Propheten, von den Bildern und Sacrament" (No. 5 in this volume), the first part of which appeared towards the end of the year 1524, the second part at the end of January 1525. 1) Jäger (Carlstadt, p. 455) aptly characterizes this writing with short words: "Luther fights the whole direction of the new revolutionary mystics with biting mockery and strikingly proves the inner connection of the same with the Münzerian spirit of revolt. For the rest, we refer the reader to the scripture itself. 2)

1. About the second one, Luther wrote to Hausmann on February 2, 1525, and to Link on February 7, that it had already gone out. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 953 and 956.
2. Col. 155 in this volume we have stated in the third note that we find in this writing the proof for the assumption that the old edition of Walch also exercised an influence on the text formation of the Erlanger. Now, after this volume is completed, we are in a position to give information about how this may have happened, even in the case of the writings which the Erlanger reproduces according to an original print. Every expert knows that it would not be possible for a typesetter to work from an original edition. Therefore, either a copy of the original, or also a copy of an already existing edition, improved after the original, must be delivered to the printer; the latter was done with the Erlanger edition. The Tischreden were reprinted from a copy of the Förstemann-Bindseil edition (with some changes), which has been proven in our edition, Vol. XXII, Introduction, p. 36 ff. In the case of Luther's writings, a copy of Walch's edition was sent to the printer, after some changes had been made with it, partly improvements according to the original, but partly also restoration of such errors, which Walch had improved, e.g. Col. 1838. The indication of Walch's variants is inaccurate and incomplete, the correction of the text according to the original negligent. Therefore, a large number of Walch's errors remain in the Erlangen edition (e.g., Col. 192, cf. note 2 there, and Col. 235, note 5), hundreds of Walch's erroneous bibelleitaten are printed, and in many cases the erroneous interpnnction has been retained (cf. Col. 2lO, Note 1 and Col. 268, Note I), also many of Walch's misprints (e.g., in § 132 of Scripture No. 5 in this volume, the Erlanger has: "im Tod" instead of: "im Brod"; § 148 ibid.: "Kolkryb" instead of: "Kielkrob"; Col. 1650: Mäiskopf" instead of: "Meisenkopf 11) are reproduced. Even a cursory examination of this volume will lead the reader to the conclusion that it really is so, because quite often one will find the note: Thus Walch and the Erlangen edition" or: "Thus the Jena, Walch and the Erlangen edition", because Walch has often

On February 26, 1525, the second part had come into Carlstadt's hands and he immediately set about answering Luther's writing. Already on February 27, he extracted 25 articles from it, with the intention "to make a booklet on each article, one soon after the other". Already a few days later his first writing against Luther's book went out, namely about 1 Cor. 10, 16, which Luther had called in his book "a thunderbolt on Carlstadt's head and his Rotten". In the preface to this "Explanation of the 10th Chapter Corinth. 1" he gives a register of fifteen "articles" about each of which he promises to make a booklet. The tenth of these articles gives the subject for Carlstadt's "Schrift von dem neuen und alten Testament" (No. 6 in this volume), which is dated March 16.

Even during the time when Luther was busy with the publication of the first part of his writing against the heavenly prophets, and in spite of the fact that from Orlamünde, through D. Conrad Glatz, who had been sent there, terrible new information about Carlstadt's deceitful activities in Orlamünde had reached him, he made an attempt to reconcile with Carlstadt. On December 23, 1524, Luther invited him by letter to a meeting in Wittenberg or elsewhere to discuss the matter alone, without any personalities. The letter came into Carlstadt's hands late, probably due to Carlstadt's inactive life, on February 18, 1525. In his reply to Luther 3) under this date, he says: "I earnestly and faithfully desire our friendship to be reestablished according to the instruction of truth," and requests that Luther give him a free escort to the Elector and his brother. It was not until March 2 that Luther received this letter and requested on

reproduced according to the Jena edition. It is due to the unreliable nature of the Erlangen edition that even where it supposedly offers an imprint of the original (on how the reproduction of the originals in the Erlangen edition stands, compare Weimar edition, vol. II, p. 79), we have not been able to follow it unconditionally, but only with caution and selection, comparing the Wittenberg and Jena editions'.

3. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 79.

Introduction. 23

March 4, 1) either a free escort for Carlstadt, or permission for himself to travel to another place of meeting. But this request was rejected by the Elector through Spalatin on March 20, and Luther, to whom Glatz, who in the meantime had become pastor in Orlamünde, still reported trouble, agreed. 2) In the meantime, Carlstadt had returned from the Southwest and caused similar turmoil in Rothenburg an der Tauber 3) with iconoclasm, violent prevention of mass, and the like, as earlier in Wittenberg and Orlamünde. On Easter Monday (April 17) and Wednesday after Easter, Carlstadt preached there 4) "against the Sacrament". "Tablets and images" 5) were partly thrown into the Tauber, partly broken, partly "carried home by some millers and caused great commotion". It was proclaimed "that the young priests should and may take wives if they did so, then one should let them follow their benefices 6) for eleven years". "On Thursday after Easter the women with halberds, forks and sticks went around in the harbor alley and made a lot of noise and said that they wanted to storm and plunder all the priests' houses. "On Friday, all the priests had to become citizens for the sake of safety, otherwise they would have been taken everything." Already since March 21, rebellious peasants had come in ever larger heaps to and around the town of Rothenburg; on April 24 7) they coveted guns; on May 15, the Rothenburgers made common cause with the peasants, "on that day Rothenburg passed from the empire to the peasants" übergegangen. But already on the day of Pentecost (June 4) the Rothenburgers were forced (because the peasants had been slain by the thousands, the escaped

1. Cf. Seidemann, Lutherbriefe, p. 24. In Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 84 without date.
2. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 729.
3. Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of April 10, 1525. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 968.
4. Report of an eyewitness in Walch, old edition, Vol. XVI, 180 ff.
5. "Panels" are painted pictures; "pictures" picture columns.
6. With Walch: "friends".
7. On "Montag Georgii" is incorrect, because in 1525 Georg (April 23) was a Sunday; we assume: Monday after Georgii.

many beheaded, some cruelly martyred, "at Kitzing 58 the eyes gouged out") to send an envoy to Margrave Casimir and ask for mercy; but the city had to surrender to mercy and disgrace. On June 29, Casimir made his entry into Rothenburg. In the time between the surrender of the city and the entry of the Margrave, the Counter-Reformation had already begun, and the search was on for those who were the main instigators of the unrest. "On the evening of St. John the Baptist (June 23), D. Johann Drechsel Drechsler, Teutschel was captured and imprisoned together with the blind monk Hans Rothfuchs. Caspar Christian, Comthur 8) and pastor, escaped secretly with D. Andreas Carlstadt, brother Melchior, who had the blind monk's sister." The two preachers just mentioned (Drechsler and the blind monk of the Order of the Barefoot) were beheaded on July 1 in the marketplace of Rothenburg along with 23 others (same 25) 9); Carlstadt would have had the same fate if he had not escaped, especially since he had also been at the peasants' convention in Schweinfurt (June 6, 1525) and there had spoken in favor of the peasants? 10) Carlstadt was now outlawed, not safe for a moment of his life. Then, in his great distress, in order to regain a home in Saxony, he turned to the one whom he had most grievously insulted, blasphemed and reviled, to Luther. On June 12, he wrote to Luther from Frankfurt am Main, asking him to intercede for him, his wife and child with the Elector and to "bring them in again". 11) "Fear and distress surrounded us." It seems that Carlstadt's wife delivered this letter. See the postscript of the same. Already on June 24, 1525, he wrote his "Apology of the false name of sedition, so him has been imposed with injustice" and sent it to Luther with the request,

8. In Walch: "Commenthör", i.e. Comthur of the Teutonic Order.
9. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 179 and 190. In the latter place Drechsler is called "D. Johann Preding", i.e. the preacher. Cf. Col. 180 ibid. there.
10. Köstlin, I, 753 has June 6; Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 490, June 1.
11. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 85 f.

24 Introduction.

to have this writing printed for him. Luther complied with him and provided the writing with a preface, 1) in which he explains that he wanted to let D. Carlstadt find the service and loyalty that he had provided for him, but did not want to have Carlstadt's teaching and opinion, especially of the Sacrament, affirmed. Finally, Luther asks everyone to accept Carlstadt's apology and not to condemn him unheard, because he offered himself so highly. To remove another obstacle that stood in the way of his return to Saxony, Carlstadt wrote on July 25 a "Declaration, how Carlstadt respects and wants to have respected his doctrine of the reverend Sacrament and others" (No. 7 in this volume). In this writing, he does not revoke his teaching, but gives the explanation that he had said "that he wanted to accept Christian instruction", from which everyone could recognize that he did not want to pass off his books for "a proven divine teaching", 2) and did not want anyone to think that it was certain. Before complete, undoubted certainty had not been attained by frugal investigation of the Scriptures, "his doctrine should be regarded as nothing better than a delusion and conceit. He also sent this writing to Luther, 3) or rather, he wrote it in Luther's house 4).

1. This preface is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2468.
2. Against this explanation one holds the outbursts of Carlstadt against Luther, "the new pope", whose "is the poisonous water that tries to wash away the ground of the cross of Christ". Compare in the paper No. 6 in this volume § 6 and § 69 ff.
3. Thus Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 491.
4. That Carlstadt had found an asylum in Luther's house, we have not only the testimony of "Mathesius" (Luthers Leben, St. Louis edition, p. 82 f.): "Doctor Luther, as a merciful man, believes his good words, modifies him to himself, does not keep him secretly without concern, excuses him with public writings" and so on, but also the testimony of Cordatus (Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1824, No. 129): "I have seen a frightening example of this fear in Carlstadt. At the time of his expulsion (i.e., when he was expelled from the country), he lived in my house for more than eight weeks, and no one knew anything about it," and so on. A third testimony, which so far has not been recognized as such, is Carlstadt's letter to Luther (Krafft, Briefe und Documente, p. 57), which is to be set before Sept. 12, 1525: A. B. Carlstadt an D. M. Luther. I have not forgotten you, venerable sir, from

and handed it over to him personally with the request that it, just like the previous scripture

I want to disturb your sweet sleep for your sake, so I ask you not to be unwilling. I recognize your good deed and will try as hard as I can to repay it. Moreover, as I asked thee, venerable Lord, on yesterday, so I again implore thee, and beseech thee, that thou alone for the sake of GOD, who has made thee rich in innumerable and excellent gifts, and bestowed upon thee honor before other men, mayest relieve this my banishment." Then he asks Luther to let him lament the misery and poverty of his poor wife and her unhappy child, promises to be Luther's obedient slave from now on, who will go out to him, and expresses the wish that he may be allowed to He expresses the wish that he be allowed to settle in Kemberg, because it will be easiest for him to earn his living there, since there are "fat and sandy (ureuosi) fields, then also wood and a market, hops *) and many such advantages". The signature of this letter reads: "Your honorable slave Andr. Carolostadius." From this briefs we see that Carlstadt's banishment was still in force. From this it follows that this letter is to be placed not later, but earlier than the "Instruction of the Elector for Magister Spalatin to Luther" of September 17, 1525 (Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 88 ff. Against Krafft, Briefe und Documente, p. 58). It is highly probable that Luther, prompted by this letter, addressed a request to the Elector on September 12 that he let him "stay at Kemberg or at a village nearby" (De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 28); likewise, that Luther did so soon after Carlstadt's letter, because Carlstadt pleads so urgently: "Look at my misery, help, and help without delay!" Therefore, Carlstadt's letter must have been written shortly before September 12, and not from a distance, but in Luther's home; for how else could one understand the words that he had not wanted to "disturb Luther in his sleep," that he had "asked him (verbally) yesterday [he does not say: written"? Carlstadt, without taking leave of him, left Luther's house and left this letter for him. The "Wohlthat" will have to refer to the fact that Luther hid and harbored him so long in his house. Köstlin (Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 816 p. 754) completely denies "that Carlstadt should have come to Wittenberg at that time". He rejects the testimony of Mathesius and opposes it with an untenable, purely subjective reason, which is taken from Luther's letters to Brismann, Hess and the Elector (DeWette, Vol. Ill, pp. 21, 18 and 28): "Carlstadt's behavior at that time does not fit at all to the unbowed stubborn spirit of the 'homo miser'" Br. 3, 21. In Köstlin's opinion, the douio is our Martin Cellarius; Vol. I, p. 754 he says: "Luther himself kept him pitifully hidden for a time." Better is Seidemann's reasoning, who (Seidemann - De Wette, vol. VI, p. 481, note 1) says: "Also, the dorno unser does not seem to be Carlstadt, but Cellarius." He refers for this in his "Thomas Münzer", p. 98, note 1. to Melanchthon's letter to Brismann in August 1525 <6orx". Rst. I, 755): "Martin Cellarius from Star-.

*) lupulus, what Krafft complains about, is correct, because at Kemberg there was and still is strong hop growing.

Introduction. 25

Carlstadt to go out with his preface 1), which also happened. Inspired by Carlstadt's urgent request, Luther sent a request to the Elector on September 12, 1525, 2) that Carlstadt be allowed to settle in Kemberg or a village in the vicinity. On September 17, the "Instruction of the Elector for Spalatin to Luther" was issued, 3) in which Carlstadt gard pardon has come to us, from you to us, in our Saxony. He argues with us about his dreamed kingdom and about the New Jerusalem", etc. But also Seidemann has overlooked that Luther writes of Cellarius only in the first sentence of the immediately following passage of the letter (De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 21). In the following, Luther speaks exclusively of Carlstadt. Here we have again one of the not exactly rare cases that one, misguided by false premises, charges Luther with an untidy confusion, as he should speak here in the first sentence of Cellarius, in the second of Carlstadt, in the third, without naming Cellarius, again of Cellarius. The entire passage in the letter in question, which will probably be dated July 3, 1525 (Seidemann-De Wette, vol. VI, p. 481. Instead of n866N8ioni8 De Wette, vol. II, 22 will read vimtationi8 Marias), reads as follows: "I have previously written about Martin Cellarius and set more detailed to Prince Adelbert at the same time about the establishment of the ceremonies, so I will be quite brief to you, because I am overloaded with so many writings. If Carlstadt's or Zwingli's poison of the Sacrament should come to you, see that you are vigilant. The wretched man (homo miser) has been secretly preserved with me. Now the whole world is too narrow for him; he is so inferior everywhere that he has been forced to seek protection from his enemy. I have treated the man as kindly as I could and stood by him, but he does not leave his senses, even since he has been convicted, as these kinds of spirits are wont to do. So beware of him and his teachings. I have found that in him everything is void, especially in this matter." We do not consider it necessary to understand M. Cellarius by the "wretched man". Luther warns against "Carlstadt's poison of the Sacrament" and comes back to it in the words "especially in this matter." As far as we know, Cellarius played no part in the controversy over the Sacrament; Luther refers to him everywhere only in general terms as a "raging, rebellious zealot" who has the spirit of Münzer, who wants "that all the ungodly should be exterminated and the godly should rule on earth." Therefore, we agree with Burkhardt (p. 87) and De Wette (Vol. Ill, p. 21) that the letter just mentioned is to be regarded as a fourth testimony to the presence of Carlstadt in Luther's house. It may have cost Luther enough effort to persuade Carlstadt himself only to issue the "Declaration". (No. 7), through which his unbowed obstinacy comes to light precisely because he does not recant his teaching in it.

1. This preface by Luther is found in Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 2472.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 129.
3. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 88 ff.

and that he be allowed to settle in any spot or village, with the exception of the Thuringian lands and Wittenberg, but "around Wittenberg for half a mile, a whole mile, two miles, up to the third mile," "excluding only Kemberg which is 1-1/2 miles away," because a busy country road leads through this town, "which is built and wandered by some and partly strange people. Thereupon Carlstadt first settled in the village of Segren near Wittenberg and "handed over" from there on October 9 "his booklet, which he had made on the orders of the Wittenberg theologians and in which he recanted. 5) Carlstadt had his son baptized at Segren in February 1526 and invited Jonas, Melanchthon and Luther's wife as godparents. Luther was present at the baptism as a guest. This happened even though Carlstadt had "called the baptism a dog bath" the year before. 6) On Luther's intercession to the Elector of November 22, 1526 7) he was allowed to move to Kemberg, because he "could not stay in the villages because of the malice of the peasants". In Kemberg he supported himself meagerly through a small trade, especially with food. In Segren he had been "silent publicly" (De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 137) and also behaved quietly in Kemberg for almost a year and lived according to the condition which he had set for himself and which Luther had announced to the Elector 8) "never to preach nor to write for the rest of his life, but to be eternally silent and to feed on his work. 9) But Carlstadt made himself suspect several times. In October 1527 he had left his place of residence for several weeks and it was believed that he "had traveled to his people and had a

4. Shouldn't it perhaps be "built," i.e., made into its orbit?
5. Burkhardt l. c. p. 88, note 3.
6. Cf. Luther's letter to Amsdorf in February 1526. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 999.
7. Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 156. - Before Carlstadt went to Kemberg, he was for a while in Berkwitz near Kemberg (Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 754).
8. Sept. 12, 1525. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 130.
9. Almost the same words are already in Carlstadt's letter to Luther of June 12, 1525 (Burkhardt 1. c. p. 86). Compare also Luther's letter to Brück of September 24, 1528. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2494, § 2.

26 Introduction.

nest for himself". 1) On November 28, Luther wrote to Brenz: 2) "So far we have nurtured Carlstadt with great love, in the good hope that he would return to the right path, but the wretched man 3) hardens himself more and more every day, and yet he is forced by his pusillanimity to remain silent. Even his 'Tuto' he still holds on to, although it is also rejected by his own." Luther came to this exact knowledge of the state of Carlstadt's teaching at that time in this way: Luther had offered him out of mercy, 4) "whether I could resolve his arguments and bring them to justice, which he accepted with thanks and the joy and hope of all of us; but after that he came back and did not want to do it until he had M. G. H.'s will to do it; he wants to keep the escort so clean as a cat. He asked for permission to act with Luther and obtained it. So he set up his reasons and handed them over - not to Luther, - but into the hands of Chancellor Brück at Torgau. In this way of acting of Carlstadt Luther saw, as it seems to us, rightly, an attempt of Carlstadt to pull the court to himself and to bring it to his opinion. This happened around August 1527, because on August 12, 1528, Carlstadt wrote to Brück: "After having obtained the gracious permission, I have divided my reasons into three parts; two parts E. A. gave into your own hands a year ago at Torgau, kept quiet and secret. That it is now carried out at Wittenberg has happened without my will, as well as that Doctor Martini's answer has been written out before, because it is in my possession." Brück, however, sent Carlstadt's writing to Luther, who replied to the erroneous reasons put forward by Carlstadt quite kindly and solely factually in a letter, which we have published under the title: Luthers Antwort und Widerlegung etlicher

1. Luther's letter to Melanchthon of October 27, 1527. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 121.
2. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 122.
3. Here we again encounter the expression üonro, which Luther uses of Carlstadt (De Wette, III, 230), as well as in the above-mentioned letter to Brismann (De Wette, III, 21).
4. Luther's letter to Brück of September 24, 1528. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2493.

of erroneous arguments (mainly from the Dedit), which Carlstadt against him ge

etc., in No. 8 of this volume. This letter will not have been published in print, 5) but, as Carlstadt complains, "written out". "November 1527" is assumed by De Wette as the presumed time "because of Luther's statement that he had to travel several times to Torgau, which seems to have happened in November of this year". Luther's instruction, however, was of no avail to Carlstadt. On May 12, 1528, Luther wrote to Wenc. Link: 6) "With us, by God's grace, there is peace. But Carlstadt remains as he has been, not to say he becomes more obstinate, but he is forced to be silent." Soon it also became apparent that things were getting worse with Carlstadt. Carlstadt had already tried several times to get in touch with the enthusiasts in Silesia, Schwenkfeld and Krautwald, but had torn up again the letters already written to them because he could not get a messenger. However, on May 17, 1528, he found the opportunity to send a letter 7) to them, which Luther found out about and had the Wittenberg captain Hans Metsch tell him that he did not want to have anything more to do with him. On June 8, 1528, Luther reported to Amsdorf, 8) that Carlstadt was planning to leave, and on July 28, 1528, he expressed the wish to Gerbellius, 9) that the Strasbourg enthusiasts would like to have the viper Carlstadt, who alone is rebelling but does not dare to come forward, with them "and we would be free of him. In a letter 10) of August 12, 1528, Carlstadt complains against Brück that Luther had not given him an answer to his arguments, which Luther refutes on September 24, 11) by sending a "copy of the answer", and warns, because Carlstadt already before a

5. On September 24, 1525, Luther sends a "copy of the answer" to Brück. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2494 § 4.
6. 'Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 2716.
7. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2476.
8. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XIX, Appendix, No. 14.
9. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1115, § 3.
10. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2478.
11. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2493.

Introduction. 27

Carlstadt said that he had let "a booklet without a name" go out for years, and that the Elector "should not trust him anymore". In the aforementioned letter to Schwenkfeld and Krautwald, Carlstadt himself says that he has written "a book about the disunity of the Lutherans" and that he intends to write "a booklet about the unity of all of us. In the latter writing, it was probably intended to provide proof against Luther's reproach that they give the most diverse interpretations to the words of institution, that they are all united in denying the true presence of the body and blood of Christ. Carlstadt's letter to Brück of August 12 was accompanied by a supplement to the Elector, in which, as we can see from the letter to Brück, he expresses the request: "if I ever have to leave His C. F. G. lands again [I have no doubt at all, S. C. F. G. will show me mercy, grant me time and space, and also provide me with gracious leave by letter,... so that I may look around for services with the knowledge and grace of H. C. F. G., provide for my poor children, of whom I have three, make money out of mine and bring in what I have outstanding debts. "If, however, your C. F. G. could tolerate and suffer me in this faith and confession 1) in her principality, and would favor me with a service or with quite a bit of food, I would gladly serve your C. F. G. before all princes and lords especially and faithfully and thank your C. F. G. eternally." As Brück wrote to Lutheri in the middle of September 1528 on behalf of the Elector, the Elector had sensed so much from Carlstadt's Supplication, "that Carlstadt has forgotten the fear he received from the next peasant outrage and has become somewhat bold that he might be accepted elsewhere, and will perhaps know wyrdet, 3) for which reason he is also asking for a farewell, as you can see. Now the Elector requested Luther's counsel, which was to be done with

1. Namely, in the confession he had made in this letter to Brück, by which he retracted his earlier retraction.
2. This letter is found in Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 143 f.
3. I.e. Carlstadt may perhaps have conditions that he will be accepted elsewhere.

Carlstadt should be made. Luther replied, 4) some thought that he should be held as D. Jakob Strauß was held in Weimar, that is, that he should be imprisoned, but he said: "the man is so despondent against the seriousness that I worry that he might despair if he were to be imprisoned in this way. Therefore, he advises "to take him again into the previous silence and vow and not to let him leave the country. This advice, which Luther gave on September 24, 1528, was not carried out, but Carlstadt escaped from Saxony. We do not know the exact time of his escape; Walch says in the old edition, introduction to the 19th volume, p. 22, § 19, that Carlstadt secretly left Saxony towards the end of the year 1528. First we hear of him again from Holstein, where through Melchior Hofmann, the furrier, a strong fanatical party had been formed, which Carlstadt hurried to help. But the glory did not last long. Already on April 8, 1529, Carlstadt was gone, 5) because the party had been overthrown. As Luther wrote to Jonas 6) on April 14, 1529, the Duke of Holstein had summoned D. Bugenhagen to argue with Carlstadt. Either on May 6 or on June 15 7) we find him in Friesland, where fierce disputes were going on between the Lutherans and Zwinglians. With the latter, there were also many Anabaptist fanatical elements, which found a free place there. Although Carlstadt had called his wife to him in glorious and congratulatory letters, another letter had already arrived from Carlstadt before July 10, 1529 8) in which he (but not too humbly semihumilis) asked for the

4. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 2496, § 8. - About Strauß compare the introduction to No. 132 of the 19th volume of the St. Louis edition, p. 47 f.
5. Krohn, Geschichte der fanatischen Wiedertäufer, p. 147.
6. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1158, § 2.
7. In two different letters to Jonas, what concerns Carlstadt is told in the same words. It is certainly inserted in one of these letters. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1162 and 1169. The latter letter asked Walch for the wrong date: "June 25". Cf. De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 470.
8. Cf. Luther's letter to Amsdorf of this date. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1173, § 2.

28 Introduction.

mercy to be allowed to return. This request was, of course, refused. 1) On August 19, 1529, he wrote to the Landgrave Philip of Hesse and requested admission to the Marburg discussion. The latter made it dependent on the consent of the Wittenberg theologians, which was not forthcoming. Carlstadt became bitter about this and wrote an outrageously insolent and slanderous letter against Luther to Oecolampad, 2) in which he complains about his exclusion from the Marburg discussion and recounts his escape from Saxony, claiming, among other things, that the Wittenbergers had wanted to force him to write against Oecolampad and Zwingli. Oecolampad, who believed him completely, communicated the main content of this letter to Zwingli on January 15, 1530. Luther had also learned of Carlstadt's slanderous letters and wrote to Cordatus on February 10, 1530: 3) "Carlstadt pays us a worthy debt of gratitude for keeping him alive, 4) by accusing me and the rest of us everywhere in diabolical (infernalibus) letters." In the beginning of 1530 Carlstadt had to leave Friesland, because he was threatened with imprisonment, because Count Enno II of Friesland began to intervene against the sects. 5) After a short stay in Strasbourg, he turned to Switzerland, where, on Bucer's recommendation, Zwingli in particular took care of him, and arrived in Basel with his wife and children around May 22. Around the middle of July he received a position in Zurich as a deacon at the hospital. Already in the summer of 1531 they tried to get rid of him there, because his Saxon dialect disturbed the Zurich people. After many vain attempts to re-home him, because of the prejudices against him everywhere, he finally succeeded in obtaining the pastorate at Altstätten in the Rhine valley, but he had to leave there already in 1532, after the end of the

1. Cf. Luther's letter of July 17 (not 18), 1529, to Chancellor Baier. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 289.
2. Jäger, 1. S. 501.
3. De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 549.
4. These words also testify to the fact that Carlstadt found an asylum in Luther's house. Cf. p. 24 of this introduction.
5. Jäger, 1. 6. p. 502 f.

He fled to Zurich during the Second War with the Catholic Cantons. Only in 1534 he came to rest; in this year he was employed as a preacher at St. Peter's and professor of theology at Basel. 6) There he remained quiet and died there in 1541 as an ordinary Zwinglian.

Two Strasbourg theologians publicly spoke out about the sacramental controversy aroused by Carlstadt in such a way that they agreed with Carlstadt in the matter of the Lord's Supper, regarded the controversy as something minor, and rebuked Carlstadt only because he had started a verbal dispute about such minor external matters. However, they decisively rejected his stormy approach to the innovations, especially Bucer. In the late year of 1524 7) Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (probably at Strasbourg) sent out the writing: "What one should think and answer about the split between Martin Luther and Andreas Carlstadt." (No. 9 in this volume.) He was prompted to do so (according to § 15 of this writing) by the fact that the people of Strasbourg were "moved and restless" because of Carlstadt's coming. In the same year, dated December 26, 1524, Martin Bucer wrote: "Reason and Cause from Divine Scripture of the Innovations to the Lord's Supper, so called the Mass 2c., made at Strasbourg, written in his and his colleagues' name, together with a letter to Count Palatine Frederick" (No. 10 in this volume). Place and time is not indicated in the single edition.

II. Controversial writings of Luther and his followers against Zwingli and others who denied the true presence of Christ in Holy Communion.

a. Zwingli's dispute with Bugenhagen.

Carlstadt soon found many comrades in the fight against the doctrine of the true presence of Christ in Holy Communion.

6. Compare also Luther's conversation with Wolfhardt and Bucer at Gotha on March 1, 1537. Tischreden, Cap. 19, § 42. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 586 ff.
7. For this timing, see the note to the caption of No. 9.

Introduction. 29

Independently of Carlstadt, and earlier than him, the Swiss Ulrich Zwingli had come to the conviction that in the Lord's Supper only bread and wine were distributed and received, and that the Lord's Supper was only a meal which the Lord had instituted in order to commemorate his death. "Hulderich Zwingel", that is how he used to write his name, was born on January 1, 1484 in Wildhaus, a village in the Canton of St. Gallen, studied in Bern, Vienna and Basel and became a preacher in Glarus in 1506. 1) In 1516 he worked at the place of pilgrimage Maria Einsiedel and in 1519, when he began to administer his office as lieutenant priest (that is, vicar of the collegiate clergy) at the great cathedral in Zurich, he stood up in serious polemical sermons on the content of the entire Holy Scripture against the prevailing abuses in the church, especially moved to do so by the insolence of the indulgence monger Bernhardin Samson. As a result, the Zurich City Council ordered the preachers as early as 1520 to teach the Word of God purely according to the Holy Scriptures and to keep silent about all the statutes of men; indeed, after a solemn disputation held before many witnesses on January 29, 1523, 2) the Council forbade the preachers to present anything that they could not explain with Holy Scripture, under heavy penalty. But Zwingli himself did not remain within the bounds of sacred Scripture as a humble student of it, but rationalizing as he was designed to do, 3) he adjusted the teachings according to his own school of thought and then sought to force Scripture to his opinion, as in other teachings, so especially in the doctrine of Holy Communion. As he did with the holy Scriptures, so he did with the writings of his opponents, reshaping them to his own liking and then fighting their teachings as gross error. 4) Stubborn and unapproachable for instruction from the Word of God, he insisted on his preconceived opinions and defended them most stubbornly. His reformation was also not a purely ecclesiastical one,

1. Guericke, Kirchengeschichte (7th edition), Vol. Ill, p. 119 ff.
2. For more information, see note Col. 441 f.
3. Compare Luther's Table Talks, Cap. 22, § 3. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 631 f.
4. Cf. Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 102.

but also extended to the political sphere. In particular, he incited the war against the Catholic cantons, went to war himself, and was slain in the battle of Kappel on October 11, 1531. His body fell into the hands of the enemy, was quartered and burned. 5)

Luther will probably be right in his statement (Table Talks, Cap. 22, § 3) that Zwingli believed throughout his life that Christ in the Lord's Supper was only spiritual, for Zwingli himself says: 6) "I saw that the words 'This is my body' were spoken in a veiled way, but I did not see which word actually contained the veiling: 'This is my body,' were spoken in a foggy way, but in which word the fogging actually was, I did not see." So he was not able to find even an apparent reason for his opinion from the Scriptures. "The beautiful pearl, that this is to be explained by means of this," he found in a letter, which Cornelius van Hon, a Dutch jurist, had sent to Luther in the summer of 1522, 7) which Zwingli got to see the following winter. Therefore, he hesitated for a long time to go public with his teaching, and Carlstadt beat him to it. He fully agreed with Carlstadt's doctrine that only bread and wine were in the Holy Communion, but he did not consider its justification from the Holy Scriptures to be sufficient. Zwingli first presented his doctrine in a letter to Matthäus Alber, pastor in Reutlingen, dated November 16, 1524. 8) This letter was not intended for printing, but came with Zwingli's knowledge and will into many hands, over 500. 9) But in detail

5. Zwingli's writings, edited by OualLer, published in Zurich in 4, folio volumes, 1544 and 1545; further in 1581 and more recently (1tz28 and following years) in 11 volumes by M. Schüler and I. Schultheß.
6. Col. 509, § 4 in No. 13 of this volume. See also Col. 1182, § 86.
7. See the note to § 4 in No. 13 of this volume, Col. 509.
8. This letter is found in Walch, old edition, Vol. X V, 1880 ff.
9. Cf. Col. 496 in this volume, § 53; also Col. 507, 8 3. From the latter passage it is evident that this letter had already been printed before October 1525. Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 75 says that the letter was already printed by Zwingli in March 1525, at the same time as his Commentary "von der wahren und falschen Religion".

30 Introduction.

he set forth his view in his Commentarius de vera et falsa religione, which went out in mid-March 1525, and in it he called the Lutheran doctrine "not only a coarse (rusticam), but also godless and silly (frivolam) opinion". The passages in this writing that refer to the Holy Supper, along with those from Zwingli's book Antibulon written against Emser, were "hurriedly brought into German" by three unnamed persons, and the resulting book was already sold in April 1525 at the fair in Frankfurt am Main under the title: 1) "Ulrich Zwingli's Meinung von dem Nachtmahl Christi, Wiedergedächtnisniß oder Danksagung" 2c. (No. 11 in this volume.) In reference to this writing, D. Johann Heß, pastor in Breslau, through D. Ambrosius Moiban, pastor there, to D. Johann Bugenhagen, that he should briefly indicate what one should say in response to the new errors that are now being raised against the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. His request was granted by Johann Bugenhagen's epistle against the new errors in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ (No. 12 in this volume), which went out about September 1525 in both Latin and German. 2) Bugenhagen says that there is no better and more certain way to answer this than with the simple text and words in Scripture, which the masters and perpetrators of such error tear apart and tear apart pitifully. This he did quite briefly and in an excellent, striking manner. On October 23, 1525, Ulrich Zwingli replied to Johann Bugenhagen's letter (No. 13 in this volume) in Latin, which was translated into German in the same year. In this letter, he complained that his teaching had been called an error, and a new one at that, because this doctrine of the Lord's Supper was not new, but Christ, the apostles, and the earliest Christians had not taught it.

1. The complete and exact indication of this title can be found in the note to the title of No. 11.
2. The Latin title is given in the note to the caption of No. 12.

held in this way. His answer against Bugenhagen is extremely powerless, because his counter-arguments are not only based on a false interpretation of clear testimonies of the holy scripture, especially the words of Paul 1 Cor. 10, 16, but also on an obvious distortion of Bugenhagen's words. 3) In von der Hardt, Autograph. Luther, tom. Ill, p. 141, another writing is mentioned, which is directed against Bugenhagen and has the title: "Answer to the highly respected D. Joh. Bugenhagen from Pomerania, shepherd at Wittenberg, to the missive, so he sent to the highly respected D. Hessium, teacher at Breslau, concerning the Sacrament, made by Conrad Reichen at Ofen."

b. Luther's dispute with Oekolampad and Zwingli.

At the same time that Bugenhagen testified against Zwingli, Johann Oecolampad publicly joined the ranks of the Sacramentarians. 4) His name was actually Hausschein and he was born in 1482 at Weinsberg in Swabia; he studied in Heilbronn, Heidelberg and Bologna and was then a preacher in his hometown for six months. He then went to Tübingen, where he became friends with Melanchthon, then to Stuttgart for Reuchlin's sake, and finally back to Heidelberg, where he made contact with Brenz and Capito. Now he followed an episcopal call to Basel, where he met Erasmus, became a licentiate there on October 31, 1516, and a doctor of theology in 1518. In the same year we meet him as a preacher in Augsburg; in 1520 he entered the Brigitten Monastery Altmünster there, but left it in 1522, went to Franz von Sickingen and finally (still in 1522) settled permanently in Basel, where he was employed as a pastor in 1525 5) and died there on November 24, 1531. About the cause of his death, Luther says in his " "brief confession of the holy

3. Compare the note to § 15 of No. 13 in this volume, Col. 515.
4. "Sacramentarians" was the name given to those who denied and fought against the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion.
5. Thus Guericke, Kirchengeschichte (7th edition), Vol. Ill. There is a document from the year 1526: "Bestallung Herrn D. J. Oecolampadnii zu Verkündigung des h. Evangelii in der Kirche zu St. Martin."

Introduction. 31

sacrament against the enthusiasts" (No. 47 in this volume, § 5): "Meanwhile the Zwingel was killed in the field by that part of the papists October 11, 1531 , and Oecolampad, far too weak to bear such an accident, also died of grief over it."

Initially, Oecolampad proclaimed the correct doctrine of Holy Communion, as evidenced by his Sermon on the Sacrament of the Altar (No. 4 in the appendix of this volume), which he delivered during his stay in Augsburg in 1521; later, however, this highly gifted and very learned man turned to Zwingli's error, about which Luther was heartily grieved. 1) In the opinion that in the Lord's Supper there is only bread and wine, he was in agreement with Zwingli, but in the justification of the same he deviated from him, in that the interpretation of the "is" in "means" did not seem tenable to him; instead he explained "body" by "sign of the body. At the beginning of 1525 he began to preach his false doctrine, and in the course of the year he wrote his book De genuina verborum Domini, Hoc est corpus meum, expositione, 2) to which he added a letter to the Swabian preachers (No. 5 in the appendix of this volume). He sent both to the Swabian preachers before October 1525. In the book he tries to prove from the church fathers that his doctrine is the doctrine of the old church, and to provide proof that the words of institution must be taken figuratively. In his letter, he calls the doctrine of the true presence of the body and blood a "highly dangerous superstition"; out of love for the truth, for the honor of God, he had to "hoe the field, lest the field become full of weeds. In the most urgent way he exhorts them to love and warns them not to cause discord (for the sake of the doctrine he presents). But the Swabian preachers would not and could not remain silent about Oecolampad's erroneous doctrine, even though Bucer also wrote to Brenz and other Swabian preachers.

1. Cf. Luther's letter to Hausmann of Sept. 13, 1526. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1919.
2. This writing is found in ^.cta 6t seripta puddcs, soelssias IVirtsmdsrAieas, rso. 0. M. DIaKus.

dinZas 1719. dsZ. 41-150.

Brenz wrote to Bucer asking him to keep peace with Oecolampad and not to write against him. Brenz wrote to Bucer on October 3, 1525: 3) "You declare war on us and forbid us the rights of war, ... the fire which you have set is burning; now you forbid that we should not run to extinguish the fire, or for that matter that we should not let ourselves think that it is a conflagration." "We, some brethren, have been assembled these (iis) days in Swabian Hall, and have discussed what we thought of the Sacrament, or the bread of the Lord's Supper. 4) We will answer Oecolampad with writings, giving an account of our faith." As we can see from this letter 5), about the end of September 1525, a number of preachers (fourteen are named) met in Schwäbisch-Hall to examine Oecolampad's book and to discuss the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Brenz was instructed by the preachers to put the result of their discussion in writing; 6) they would

3. This letter is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1952.
4. Here Brenz already speaks of the meeting of the preachers in Schwäbisch-Hall as something past. If the date of the letter just mentioned (October 3) is correct, as it is also found in Pfaff: ^ota st "eripta secäskias ^VirtsmdsrKieas, p. 203, then Seckendorf's statement, Rist. Dutd., lid. II, p. 35s, (1): "d. 12. east." must be erroneous. This seems to us to be a misprint, arising from the date which the title of the Syngramma bears: "die 21. Oel." Cf. Pfaff, I. c., Appendix, eap. I, p. 3. Also in Kawerau, "Agricola," p. 87, we find, probably after Seckendorf, the indication "on October 12, 1525."
5. This letter was printed without Brenz knowing about it and appeared under the title: Lpistola äo. Drsntii äs Verdis Domini: Dos 68t 60rpu8 IN6UIN, ornnionein onorunäain äe 6uodari8tia reiellens, without specifying place and time. In contrast, Bucer let go out in his defense: ^poloZia, Huaüdsi [nae atYN6 äoetrinas eiroa Odristi eosnarn, ouarn tnin ix>86, tnrn slii eoelesiastas ^rA6ntoraten868 proütentnr, rationein sim^I Leiter rsääit at^us contra äentern dspsldt, ynae inipsnin spLstoia Huaeäarn lo. Lrentii, 666l68ia8ta6 Halsn sis, LnssLo, nt ersditur, anotors sdita, erirnina Lntsndit. 1526 In this writing Bucer joins the deniers of the real presence of Christ and wants to know of no other than spiritual food.
6. Brenz himself reports this in his DssoZnitio dostrinss äs vsra majs8tat6 Odrisii, which he had issued against Bullinger. In his works, lom. VIII, p. 1003. It is therefore not doubtful, as has been stated many times, but certain that Brenz is the author of the Syngramma.

32 Introduction.

send this to Oecolampad by a special messenger. Because Brenz had been Oecolampad's disciple, he would have liked to avoid this task, but he finally had to give in to their urging and composed the so-called Syngramma Suevicum or of the preachers assembled at Schwäbisch-Hall, Schrift wider Oecolampadius (No. 14 in this volume), which is dated October 21, 1525. It was originally written in Latin and, although it was not originally intended for publication, was first submitted to print in 1525 without the knowledge and will of the Swabian preachers. Then several editions soon followed. 1) In 1526, two different translations of the Syngramma were made. One is by an unknown author, 2) the other by M. Johann Agricola. It is probably the former that was included in Walch's old edition, because Walch says in reference to it (Introduction to the 19th volume, p. 36): "I have a German translation" 2c., but of the other: "but I also know of another, which Johann Agricola made anew". The translation of the Syngramma in Walch's old edition is the worst that we have come across. According to the external volume, it offers little more than half of the Latin original. From B. § 27 (Col. 693 of the old edition of Walch) is written in; on the other hand, in other places much is omitted, e.g. in § 32, § 35, § 47 2c., so that it is hardly recognizable that this should be a translation of the Latin. Only here and there is a single sentence torn out of the Latin and rendered quite inadequately. In the Latin, § 35 takes up three whole quarto pages; in the translation, only one column. The unfavorable remarks about the Syngramma, which one encounters here and there, are undoubtedly largely due to this wretched translation, whereas in the

1. About the different editions compare the note to the caption of No. 14.
2. Seckendorf, nist. I^utii, lid. II, p. 35a, names Bugenhagen as the translator, others (Pfaff, Leta et sorixta xudlioa eoolesiasAnhang ,

eap. I, x. 4) the Justus Jonas. Neither of these two statements seems credible to us because of the incredibly poor quality of this translation.

Luther's verdict, 3) that it is "excellent, detailed and written in a learned manner" against Oecolampad and Zwingli, was passed on the Latin Syngramma. We do not believe that Luther read through and examined the translation; if he had done so, he would hardly have adorned it with his preface. Luther liked the Syngramma so much that he was willing to translate it himself; however, this was not done because Agricola, driven by the Mausfeld Chancellor Johann Thür, 4) had completed his translation. Luther's preface to the first German edition of the Syngramma, about the second quarter of 1526, 5) (No. 15 in this volume) precedes Agricola's translation, as Luther himself states in this preface. The words that Agricola put on the title of his edition: "von neuem durch Johannem Agricolam verdeutscht", 6) could raise doubts as to whether this edition is really the first; but this is alleviated by the fact that Luther says in the other preface, which is found before our translation in No. 14 of this volume: "I have now helped to translate the fine little book Syngramma into German for the second time. In the Syngramma itself, it is asserted how little consistent reason the opponents would be able to muster for the denial of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Communion, because none of them would agree with the others in their reasoning; Carlstadt sought to support his opinion with the "Tuto", Zwingli by reversing the "is" into "means", Öecolam-

3. In Luther's letters to Agricola of February 18, 1526. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 998 and (duplicate) Col. 1198.
4. Kawerau, Agricola, p. 87.
5. For this approximate timing, we rely on the following: On February 18, 1526, Luther brought the Syngramma to the attention of Agricola (De Wette III, 93). Around August, Oecolampad's answer to Luther's preface already appeared. Shortly before the middle of July, Agricola left with the Elector for the Imperial Diet in Speyer and remained there until the end of August (Kawerau, Agricola, pp. 80 and 88). Therefore, we must assume that Agricola completed his translation before July, and that Luther had already written the preface to it, even that it had already gone out in print.
6. How these words are actually to be understood, we do not know.

Introduction. 33

pad by explaining the word "body" as "sign of the body". In order to be able to oppose the Lutheran doctrine with some semblance, they mixed it with the papal one. The reasons they put forward are treated in detail and emphatically refuted in the Syngramma. We refrain from a further description of the contents of this writing, because we offer it in a new translation, which faithfully reproduces the original. The reproach that has been raised against the Syngramma by the Reformed side, that in it the teaching of the Reformed Church after Calvin's time is presented, deserves no refutation.

Luther was drawn into the sacramental controversy by his preface to the Syngramma. Oekolampad was very unhappy with the writing of the Swabian preachers and before the end of 1525 1) had a Latin book published against it under the title Antisyngramma, which Luther already mentions in his first preface to the German Syngramma. In 1526, however, Johann Oecolampad's answer to Luther's preface, together with a short answer to the Syngramma of the preachers in Swabia (No. 16 in this volume), appeared in German (around August). Stubbornly and bitterly he defends his opinion in both writings and is not afraid to say (in both writings): "The devil turns truth into a lie and makes the body out of the sign. About Luther he says (No. 16, § 56): "the right true spirit of God has left Luther at this time".

The Swabian preachers gave Oecolampad no answer to his writings, for in the meantime other men, namely Theobald Billicanus (actually Gerlacher), preacher at Nördlingen, Wilibald Pirkheimer 2) at Nuremberg, and even Luther himself, had entered the battlefield to defend the right doctrine. The former gave in the

1. Thus Seckendorf, nist. I^utU., lib. II, x. 35, (2). - Pfaff, betast serixta ete., appendix, x. 10, and after him Walch, Einleitung zum 20. Bande, p. 42, give the year 1526.
2. His writing has the title: Liliir. LirlrUeirnsri üe vera EUristi earne et vero sjus sun^uine a<I .1. Deeolanaxaäiuna respousio. XonmU. 1526. 8.

In 1525, he wrote a letter to Urban Rhegius under the title Epistola de verbis coenae Domini et opinionum varietate, in which he rejected and refuted the opinions of the Sacramentarians, Carlstadt, Zwingli and Oecolampad, and insisted that one must remain with the words of the institution of Christ in their simple sense. Urban Rhegius, who was then a preacher in Augsburg, replied in the same vein on December 18, 1525. Both letters 3) together were published in 1526 under the title: De verbis coenae dominicae et opinionum varietate, Theobaldi Billicani ad Urbanum Rhegium epistola. Responsio Urbani Rhegii ad eundem. Pirkheimer, however, published at Nuremberg in 1526: Responsio de vera Christi carne et vero ejus sanguine ad Joannem Oecolampadium, in which he reviews and refutes the same writing of Oecolampad, which had also given the Swabian preachers the occasion for their Syngramma. On the other hand, Oecolampad's responsibility against Theobald Billicanus appeared on February 1, 1526 (No. 17 in this volume), in which he endeavors to prove from the evangelists that the words of Christ's institution are to be understood in a vague way, also appeals to the analogy of the paschal lamb, and asserts that the bread in the Lord's Supper is in the same way a sign or memorial meal. Zwingli also sent out a reply against Billican and Rhegius in Zurich in 1526 under the title: Responsio ad Theobaldi Billicani et Urbani Rhegii epistolas.

Although Oecolampad often used the harshest expressions against his opponents in his writings, 4) "calling Luther's God the roasted and baked God and calling him together with his followers God-eaters and God-blood-drinkers", he was nevertheless of the opinion that the unity of the church should not be divided because of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. In this sense, Oecolampad's two sermons on the worthiness of the Lord's Supper (No. 18 in

3. They can be found in Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1922 and 1945.

4. Pfaff, Vota et seriptn pnUI. eeel. VirtenalierAnnex, x>. 12.

34 Introduction.

The first of these sermons seeks to prove that the celebration of Holy Communion is not so much about the real presence of the body and blood of Christ as it is about the remembrance of Christ's suffering. In the other sermon, he endeavors to defend the Swiss against the accusation that they have a Jewish nature about them and that there is less right worship in their congregations than among the Jews.

The aforementioned writing of Pirkheimer was answered by Oecolampad in his Responsio de re eucharistiae, Zurich 1526, in which he attacked the right doctrine of Holy Communion with harsh words. Pirkheimer countered this reply in 1527 with his ecunda responsio ad Oecolampadium, whereupon Oecolampad had a rebuttal printed in the same year under the title: Ad Bilibaldum Pirkhaimerum de eucha

Joannis Husschin Hauschein, cui ab aequalibus a prima adolescentia Oecolampadio nomen obvenit, responsio posterior.

It is noteworthy that Erasmus was also somewhat drawn into this sacramental controversy. Conrad Pellicanus, professor of the Hebrew language in Zurich, had become acquainted with Erasmus in Basel and, when asked by his friends, said that he did not allow any other use of the body and blood than the spiritual. As soon as Erasmus learned this, he complained in several letters to Pellican that he was being blasted as if he were like Carlstadt and believed that only bread and wine were present in the Lord's Supper. Pellican based his statement on the writings of Erasmus, in which at least the spiritual use of the Lord's Supper was insisted upon. These events occurred in 1526, and shortly thereafter, still in 1526, Leo Judä, preacher at Zurich, published the following paper in German under the assumed name of Ludwig Leopold 1): "Erasmi und Mart. Lutheri Meinung vom Nachtmahl unsers HErrn JEsu Christi," in which he asserted that both, before they had been

1. Luther mentions this Leopold in his letter to the printers Secerius and Herwagen of September 13, 1526. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1963, § 3.

Luther did not care about this unfounded attack, but Erasmus responded vehemently in Latin: Erasmi Roterodami detectio praestigiarum cujusdam libelli Germanicum. Luther did not care about this unfounded attack, but Erasmus answered fiercely in a Latin writing: Erasmi Roterodami detectio praestigiarum cujusdam libelli Germanice scripti, ficto auctoris titulo, cum hac inscriptione: Erasmi et Lutheri opiniones de coena Dominii, Basel 1526. Leo Judä defended himself against this in a rebuttal. 2)

Zwingli's efforts to gain acceptance for his doctrine in Nuremberg also form an episode in this dispute. He had written to the council to come himself, and also sent letters to Andreas Osiander and his colleagues to win them over; but in vain, for the Nuremberg preachers publicly testified against him in sermons. Upset about this, Zwingli sent a fierce letter to Osiander in May 1527, in which he says: 3) it is incomprehensible how a true Christian and theologian can still value "carnal eating"; this is a relapse into unevangelical nature, which will again lead to the "greatest godlessness". Boastfully he says: "Not three years will pass until Italy, France, Spain, Germany will take our side." Osiander had this letter printed at Nuremberg in 1527, together with his answer to it, under the title: Epistolae duae, una Huldrichi Zuinglii ad Andream Osiandrum, qua cum eo expostulat, quod novum illud de eucharistia dogma hactenus rejecerit ac temere impugnarit. Altera Andr. Osiandri ad eundem Huldrichum Zuinglium apologetica, qua docet, quid, quam ob causam rejecerit, quodque posthac ab eo in illa causa expectandum sitn Brenz and almost at the same time, namely in October 1525, the Strasbourg preachers Bucer, Capito and others also addressed the request to Luther that he should not disturb the peace for the sake of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper; each part should give the other its conviction.

2. Hottingers helvetische Kirchengeschichte, Theil III, p. 294 f.
3. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, p. 102.

Introduction. 35

and refrain from scolding and condemning. Their principle was to inculcate in their people not what the sacraments were, but what they were for, and to keep away from them the musings and torments about the "breading" of Christ. 1) They brought this request orally to him through Georg Casel (also Casse!, Chaselius), Lector of the Hebrew language. Luther answered in writing on November 5 and also orally through Casel: 2) he desires peace, he had not initiated the matter at first, but Zwingli and Oecolampad had worried the minds through the books published by them. Should Luther remain silent, he would also have to give up the ministry of the word and pastoral care. One should not revile, however; but if one rejects their cause or speaks against it, this is called reviling. They boast of their moderation, and yet in their books they call the Lutherans carnivores, worshippers of a gluttonous (esculsntum) and roasted God, and deniers of the redemption that took place on the cross, while they cannot bear it to be said of them that they err. Their advice (consilium) that the faithful should be diverted from the question of the presence of the body and blood and driven to the word and faith alone is not valid, because word and faith without the thing on which they are based do not exist. The words themselves also hold the doctrine that the body and the blood are there. The people could not be kept from this question (about the true presence) after so many books had been spread. They themselves should have kept silent; now it is missed, 3) and too late now one demands silence.

Soon thereafter, namely on January 4, 1526, Luther addressed a letter of exhortation to the Christians of Reutlingen, 4) in which he warns them against the error of the Sacramentarians and

1. Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 85.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1906.
3. In the German Redaction, De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 47: "verbeitet" i.e. waited too long, missed. De Wette puts as a conjecture in the margin: "spread", but erroneously, because "betten" means "wait".
4. The same is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1913.

urges to remain firm in the right doctrine of Holy Communion.

In the same year 1526 Justus Jonas translated Luther's writing "Vom Anbeten des Sacraments des heiligen Leichnams JEsu Christi an die Brüder in Böhmen und Mähren, Waldenses genannt" 5) into Latin. It was published in Wittenberg under the title: Libellus D. Martini Lutheri de sacramento eucharistiae ad Waldenses fratres e Germanico translatus per Justum Jonam. This was done, as we see from the letter to Johann Rühel, Mansseldischen Rath, in order to reject the reproach of the Zwinglians, as if Luther had been of their opinion before the outbreak of the Sacrament controversy.

According to Luther's preface to the Syngramma der schwäbischen Prediger (Syngramma of the Swabian Preachers), his first counter-writing against the sacramentists was "Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the Swarm Spirits", 1526 (No. 19 in this volume). In this writing, he refutes in the first part the two main reasons of the sacrament enthusiasts, namely, first: the true presence of the body and blood of Christ does not rhyme with reason, and second: the same is also not necessary. To the first he replies that many things, both in the realm of nature and in the realm of grace, are incomprehensible to reason and, according to its judgment, inconsistent; reason, however, must yield to faith and give itself up to the word of God. He rejects the other reason by accusing his opponents of wanting to master God and dictate to him how he should arrange his affairs. If this were true, one could also overthrow baptism and all means of grace. Luther summarizes this in the short words: "Only see that you pay attention to God's word and remain in it like a child in the cradle. If you let this go for a moment, then you have fallen away. And with this alone the devil deals, that he may pluck out men and bring them to measure God's will and work with reason." The second part of the scripture is about how to use the sacrament properly,

5. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XIX, 1308 ff.

36 Introduction.

in order to be assured of the forgiveness of sins; in the third part he teaches about confession. For the rest, we refer the reader to the scripture itself. This sermon was translated into Latin by Vincentius Obsopöus and published in Hagenau in 1527 under the title: Martini Lutheri sermo elegantissi- mus super sacramento corporis et sanguinis Christi, in quo respondetur obiter et ejusdem sacramenti calumniatoribus. This translation is included in the Latin Wittenberg edition, ^om. VII, coi. 334d.

On the other hand, Ulrich Zwingli's writing, opposed to Luther's sermon against the enthusiasts 1) (No. 22 in this volume), which he had completed on March 30, 1527, was published.

In the meantime, the Strasbourgs, who until then had tried to take a more mediating position, had openly taken the side of the Sacramentarians. Bugenhagen had published his explanation of the Psalter, Interpretatio in librum psalmorum, Witebergae publice lecta, in 1524, and Bucer translated it into German in 1526 2), but in the interpretation of the 111th Psalm, instead of Bugenhagen's Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, he inserted his Zwinglian opinion. Bugenhagen gave evidence against this forgery in the same year by his writing: Oratio Johannis Bugenhagii Pom- meranj, quod ipsius non sit opinio illa de eucharistia, quae in psalterio, sub nomine ejus Germanice translato, legitur. Wittembergae 1526, which he dedicated to his two friends Spalatin and Agricola and asked them to defend him against the suspicion that he had become a sacramentarian during their stay in Speyer (where they were at that time because of the Imperial Diet). Bucer answered to this in a writing: 3) Satisfactio de ver- sione psalterii ad Pomeranum. Just as with Bngenhagen's Psalter, Bucer proceeded with Luther's church postilion, which he, as far as

1. The exact title of this paper is given in the note to the superscription of No. 22.
2. This translation appeared, as Seckendorf, Hist. D-utk., iid. II, p. 82, (3), at Basel.
3. The same is German in the old edition of Walch, Vol. XVI I, 1994 ff. In Col. 2007 only the date "der 25. Martii" is given, but the year 1527 is omitted.

The translation, which was published in Strasbourg in five parts, was entitled Lnarration68 in 6pi8tola8 6t 6vanZ6lia. This translation, which was published in Strasbourg in five parts, had the title: Lnarration68 in 6pi8tola8 6t 6vanZ6lia. He wrote a preface to the fourth part and also made comments on the text in which he expressed his Zwinglian error. Luther became very indignant about this and wrote on September 13, 1526 (not 1527, as De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 201) 4) an angry letter to the printers Johann Secerius in Basel and (unchanged from the same letter) Herwagen in Strasbourg, in which he complains that the poison of the Sacramentarians has been mixed into his writings, testifies that the heretical Sacramentarians mock Christ, and demands that, if the fourth volume should be printed again, this letter of his be included in it, as a testimony that he does not hold with the Sacramentarians, and as an antidote to Bncer's preface. Bucer also answered for this letter in a special writing: 5) Epistola M. Lutheri ad Joann. Hervagium, superiora, namely Bucer's preface printed together with it, etc. criminans: Responsio ad hanc M. Buceri, which is dated "March 29, 1527".

In quick succession, Zwingli issued a number of writings in which he sought to preserve his opinion of the Lord's Supper and to refute the teachings of Luther, whom he referred to by name. In 1526, the following was published in Zurich: "A Clear Instruction on the Supper of Christ, by Huldrich Zwingli, in German, as never before, for the sake of the simple, so that they may not be deceived by anyone's sophistry. b) Likewise: Responsio brevis ad epistolam satis longam amici cujusdam haud vulgaris, in qua de eucharistia quaestio tractatur; 7) furthermore a German "letter to the city of Esslingen", by which he tried to win the city for himself. In this letter he describes his opponents

4. Walch, vol. XVII, 1962, has the correct date. Herwagen received the original. Cf. Walch, ibid, Col. 1984 f., § 34.

5. German by Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1967, 6) HuinKlii Opera, > Dorn. II, 272. > > 7) IdM., Dom. II, 319.

Introduction. 37

as furious people who wanted to be all alone and were worse than the pope. Zwingli's main writing, however, appeared in Zurich in March of 1527, 1) namely: Amica exegesis, id est, expositio eucharistiae negotii ad Mar- tinum Lutherum, 1) in which he endeavored to destroy in one fell swoop everything that Luther and his followers had published in the sacramental matter. This writing is directed against Luther's letters to Secerius and Herwagen, to the Strassburgers and to the Reutlingers; against Luther's writings against the heavenly prophets, and of the worship of the Sacrament to the Waldenses; against Luther's sermon on the Sacrament against the enthusiasts and the syngramma of the Swabian preachers; after that, however, he seeks to prove that the words of institution must be explained figuratively.

Almost at the same time as Zwingli's book mentioned above, around April 1527, 3) Luther's writing appeared: Daß diese Worte Christi, "das ist mein Leib" u. s. w., noch fest stehen gegen die Schwärmgeister (No. 20 in this volume), on which he had worked from January to the end of March. In the face of his opponents' rationalities, he asserts that the Holy Scripture must be and remain empress, and that one should hold fast to the dry, bright words that stand there: "Eat, this is my body," and scourges his adversaries with righteous derision because of their wanton denial and wicked blasphemy, which they commit because they punish the Holy Spirit in his words. "One part," says Luther, "must be the devil's enemy and God's enemy. There is no remedy." "He who punishes and blasphemes God in one word, or says that it is a small thing that he is blasphemed and blasphemed, blasphemes the whole of God, and despises all blasphemy against God." If it should be valid in such a way to take away the simple mind of Christ's saying, and to

1. The letter to Luther is dated February 28; on April 1, Zwingli sent a copy to Luther.
2. 2uin^Iii Opera, Dom. II, 324.
3. About the time determination compare the note to the superscription of No. 20. Zwingli says in his rebuttal (No. 21 in this volume, Col. 1126) that Luther's writing went out simultaneously with his lines oxoZosis.

By changing the word "is" into "dentet", as Zwingli writes, and by interpreting the word "my body" into "meius Leibes Zeichen", as Oecolampad writes, the one who denied that God created heaven and earth, and claimed that the world was eternal, would make use of the same knotting against the text: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" and "make the text thus: 'GOD,' which should mean as much as 'cuckoo'; 'created,' however, as much as 'ate'; 'heaven and earth' as much as 'the warbler with feathers and with everything.'" "Who ever read in Scripture that 'body' should mean as much as 'body's sign,' and 'is< should mean as much as 'interprets'? Yes, what language in all the world has ever spoken so? It is only the arrogance and idle malice of the wretched devil, who mocks us by such enthusiasts in this great matter, that he pretends to be instructed by Scripture, so far as to put Scripture out of the way beforehand, or to make his conceit of it." For the rest, we refer the reader to this scripture itself.

Attached to this writing is an appendix: Writing Georg Norarii to the Christian reader, in which he indicates that some of Wittenberg with untruth ascribe to him, that he omitted a necessary piece and so on. This protest first appeared in the first printing of the third volume of the Jena edition of 1556, of which Rörer was then the editor. The omitted piece (Col. 888-891) is marked by us and in the second note Col. 888 the necessary is noted. The same piece is also missing in the Latin translation of this writing in the 7th volume of the Latin Wittenberg edition (1558), toi. 417.

4. In reference to this execution of Luther, Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, p. 89, says: "This is one of the strongest examples of how his (Luther's) polemics between really sharp logical remarks or between deep, even bold theological thoughts, often break loose into outbursts, in which one can only see clumsy discharges of his bitterness. Shouldn't a Lutheran rather agree with our judgment: that even the way Luther polemicizes here and the expression he gives to his indignation about the shameful distortion of Scripture by his opponents is completely appropriate?

38 Introduction.

Against Luther's writing Zwingli's answer appeared that these words: This is my corpse, eternally the old unified sense will have (No. 23 in this volume), which is provided with a letter to Prince John of June 20, 1527, in which he bitterly complains about Luther that the same "not only hurts over the string of Christian spirit and love, but also the Scripture seems to penetrate with his name shine in an improper sense". Also Oecolampad published against the same in 1527 at Basel a writing in German language under the title: "Daß der Mißverstand D. Martin Luther's misunderstanding of the eternal, constant words: This is my body, cannot stand. The Other Cheap Answer of Johannis Oecolampadii." 2)

In March 1528, Luther published his Confession of the Lord's Supper (No. 21 in this volume), which is usually called "Luther's Great Confession of the Lord's Supper" in distinction from the "Small Confession" of 1544 3). When Luther sent it to his friend Wenceslaus Link, he wrote to him 4) on March 28, 1528: "I have given Johann Hofmann copies (of the writing) against the Sacramentarians, which are to be distributed among you; may the Lord grant that they bear fruit among many. For I have decided to let these useless babblers go, and I want to have put an end to the writing against them, because I see that there is such a great ignorance in logic among them that it is impossible that they, even if they were wrong in natural things (naturaliter), could be instructed or made to stick to the piece that should be refuted (ad metam confutationis adigi). For neither teaching nor disputing can be done without the dialectic, at least the naturaliter.

1. The complete title is found in the note to the superscription of No. 23. -This writing came into Bucer's hands only on July 8, 1527, to Wittenberg not before August 21. (Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, p. 643 sä p. 103.)
2. Von der Hardt, I^utUsr., lour. II,

p. 141.

3. No. 47 in this volume.
4. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1098.

Zwingli is so doltish (ruäis) that he could be compared to a donkey. This extensive and detailed writing has three parts. In the first, Luther treats the objections of the opponents and refutes them; in the second, he provides proof from the Holy Scriptures and "conquers" it that there is no trope in the words of institution of the Holy Communion, nor can there be, that therefore Luther's "understanding is right and that of the enthusiasts is erroneous and wrong"; in the third part, he makes his confession both in regard to the Lord's Supper and about other doctrines of faith. Among other things he says: "I confess the sacrament of the altar, that there the body and blood in bread and wine are eaten and drunk orally, whether the priests who administer it or those who receive it do not believe or otherwise abuse it. For it is not on man's faith or unbelief, but on God's word and order."

On the other hand, Zwingli's answer to Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper (No. 24 in this volume) appeared at the beginning of September 1528 5) (for this writing was begun on July 1, completed at the end of August), provided with a dedication to the Elector John of Saxony and the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, 6) in which he endeavors to disparage Luther and make him look contemptible. In this letter there is the strange, hopeful statement by Zwingli that he does not give the princes their titles because "transparency is proper to the stained glass windows", which Luther remembers in his Table Talks 7). To this reply Zwingli added Oecolampad's answer to Martin Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper (Col. 1378 ff. in this volume), which (Col. 1375) is preceded by a Bnef to Zwingli. Both Zwingli and Oecolampad insist on their opinion in these extensive writings; however, Luther did not consider it necessary to answer them.

Luther's. great confession made Bucer the

5. For this timing, see the note to the caption of No. 24.
6. Seckendorf, nist. LutU., Ud. II, p. 118, § 41, (1) erroneously: "an den Churfürsten und dessen Sohn".
7. Tischreden, Cap. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 676.

Introduction. 39

He was so impressed by the Lord's Supper that, after reading it, he thought about how unity could be established and promoted. We can see this from two letters, 1) which he later wrote to Johann Comander and to Johann Lasko (the latter in 1541).

Around the same time that Luther's "Great Confession" went out, Bugenhagen also published a paper on Holy Communion: Publica de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Christi, ex Christi institutidne, confessio, qua suae fidei de coena Domini reddit rationem et dicit vale iis, qui audire nolunt. Wittenberg 1528. 8; in which, among other things, he also treats the doctrine of consecration. Brenz, too, refuted anew the truth of Zwingli and Oecolampad in his explanation of John the Evangelist in the interpretation of the sixth chapter.

Soon after the beginning of the Sacrament controversy, books were banned in the margraviate of Baden in which the error of the Sacramentists was taught. Nevertheless, at the market in Baden "a newly published booklet" by Zwingli 2) was offered for sale, which came into the hands of a preacher there, D. Jakob Strauß 3). This prompted him to send out in June 1526 his writing "Wider den unmilden Irrthum Meister Ulrich Zwingli's, so er verneint die wahrhaftige Gegenwärtigkeit des allerheiligsten Leibes und Blutes Christi im Sacrament (No. 25 in diesem Bande). On the other hand, in the same year Ulrich

1. These letters are found in Lsultstus, svanAel. renovut., p. 132 sq.
2. This book, as we see from Zwingli's rebuttal § 9, is written against the papists Eck and Faber, and Zwingli complains that it is unreasonable that Strauss directs his attack precisely against this book, which was written in great haste,
3. On Strauss, compare the introduction to the 19th volume of the St. Louis edition, p. 47 f.; likewise Vol. X, Introduction, Col. 47 f.; also Kolde, Martin Luther, Vol. II,
4. About this time determination compare the note to the superscription of no. 26. Also Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 84 says that Zwingli's answer took place immediately, while Walch puts it in his introduction p. 58 into the year 1527, but in a note also mentions an edition of 1526.

Zwingli's answer about D. Strauß' book, written against him, concerning Christ's supper (No. 26 in this volume), in which he imposes his earlier transgressions on him right at the beginning of the writing (§ 5): "he Jakob Strauß has been unknown to me in all ways up to now, unless he is the one who some years ago let the very stirring final speeches full of temporal good and sign go out at Isennach Eisenach". It was, however, the same D. Jakob Strauß, 5) whom we met earlier in great aberrations, but who, after he had been called to Baden "to teach God's word in a Christian and peaceful way", faithfully carried out such a calling and here, as a witness of truth, countered the error of the Sacramentans in a suitable and effective way.

c. Zwingli's Augsburg Confession.

When the Lutherans presented their confession of faith "the Augsburg Confession" to the emperor at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg in 1530, Zwingli also set about making a confession of his faith and had it sent to Augsburg without being asked to do so. It is found in No. 27 of this volume under the title: Ulrich Zwingli's Confession of Faith, which he had presented to the Roman Emperor at the Imperial Diet held in Augsburg in 1530. The Swiss had waited in vain for the confession of their faith to be demanded of them as well. When this did not happen, Zwingli sent an "unknown person" (as Eck calls him in his rebuttal) with this confession to Augsburg; the latter, however, could not find anyone who would have dared to hand it over publicly to the emperor. This confession was completed on July 3, 1530, and a printed copy, as we can see from Melanchthon's letter to Luther 6), was already available before the

5. Strauß must have been quite well known to Zwingli, because he writes in § 71 of this writing that the same had formerly been "a preacher-monk".
6. A regest of this letter in Burkbardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 180.

40 Introduction.

July 14, 1530 in Augsburg. Melanchthon says about it: "Zwingli sent a printed Confession here. One would almost like to say that he is crazy. On original sin, on the use of the sacraments, he publicly brings up the old errors. He speaks of the ceremonies in a very Swiss way, that is, in a completely barbaric way (barbarissime): he wants all ceremonies to be abolished. He pushes his cause of the Lord's Supper very hard. He wants all bishops to be exterminated. 1) I will send a copy as soon as I get it, because the one I had is going around among the princes." What Melanchthon writes here is completely justified, for Zwingli's Confession is full of the grossest errors: Of original sin he teaches that it is only an infirmity, not actually sin; baptism is only an "outward accession" to the church; the sacraments do not confer grace, indeed, they do not even administer it or withhold it, but are given to the person only for the sake that they are a public testimony of grace, which was already present in that person before; Christ is not omnipresent after humanity, and the like. Against this confession of Zwingli's, Eck published a refutation still during the Imperial Diet (perhaps by order of the Emperor): Repulsio articulorum Zuinglii, Caesareae Majestati oblatorum, Jo. Eckio auctore, 1530 in Julio, sub reverendissimi patris et amplissimi principis, Domini Erhardi cardinalis ac Leodiensis episcopi patrocinio, against which Zwingli sought to defend himself in his Epistola ad illustrissimos Germaniae principes etc. 2). Zwingli's confession did not appeal to the reformers either, for it is neither included in the collection of reformed confessions of faith published in Geneva in 1581, which bears the title: Harmonia confessionum fidei orthodoxarum et reformatarum ecclesiarum, nor in the later edition published there in 1612 and 1654: Corpus et syntagma confessionum fidei, quae in diversis regnis et rationibus ecclesiarum fuerunt authentice editae.

1. Cf. no. 27 of this volume, § 49 at the end.
2. Cf. the note to the heading of No. 27.

d. About the confession of the four cities.

Among the cities represented at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 were four that otherwise agreed in all respects with the "Augsburg Confession" of the Lutherans, but did not want to accept the tenth article of the same Confession on the Lord's Supper outright, because they were inclined to the opinion of the Swiss, namely the cities of Strasbourg, Constance, Memmingen and Lindau. Strasbourg, as the most important of these cities, therefore had its own confession drawn up (probably by Bucer and Capito), which the other three cities joined, and presented it on July 11, 1530 in Latin and German by Caspar Hedio 3) to the emperor in the name of all of them. This "Confession of the four cities, Strasbourg, Constance, Memmingen and Lindau, in which they declared their faith to the Emperor's Majesty at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg", 4) is reported in No. 28 of this volume. The eighteenth chapter of the same, which deals with Holy Communion, is, in order not to spoil it with anyone, so ambiguously worded that it can be interpreted both to the Lutheran doctrine and to the opinion of the Swiss, hence there has been much dispute back and forth as to whether the confession is to be considered a Lutheran or a Reformed one; however, it has been included in the previously mentioned SaCorpus et Syntagma5 ) etc., while the cities themselves dropped their confession and later joined the Augsburg Confession. The emperor accepted this confession, because it was written at his command, but the cities could not obtain it from him to be read out publicly. On the other hand, he commissioned Fabep and Eck to refute this confession of the four cities (it is also called the "Swabian" and the "Strasbourg Confession"), which they carried out in such a way that

3. Seckendorf, Ulkt. ImtU., lid. II, x. 199, (6).
4. The titles under which this confession appeared can be found in the note to the superscription of No. 28.
5. The confession of the four cities, Oonkessio tetra-. xolitauu, is found there in the second part, p. 215.

Introduction. 41

The emperor had this rebuttal read out to them, reproaching them for harboring damned errors about the Holy Communion, for storming the images in the churches, and for abolishing the mass. The emperor had this rebuttal read to the cities, reproaching them for harboring damned error about Holy Communion, for having stormed the images in the churches, for having abolished the mass, for having disturbed the monasteries, for having harbored sects, and for having refused due obedience. The deputies of the cities complained about the sharpness and injustice of the rebuttal and asked for a copy of it, but they were refused. Nevertheless, they wrote an apologia against the papal refutation and had it printed in Latin and German.

e. Luther's writings concerning the leftover bread and wine in Holy Communion.

In Luther's hometown of Eisleben, a dispute had broken out between two preachers, M. Simon Wolferinus and Friedrich Rauber, about the duration of the act of Holy Communion and about the question of what to do with the bread and wine left over from the celebration, which was conducted in a very angry and bitter manner. Therefore, on July 4 and 20, 1543, Luther sent two letters to M. Simon Wolferinus (No. 29 in this volume), in which he rebuked Wolferinus for his unchristian behavior in this dispute and gave him the necessary instruction.

Second Section.

Luther's Writings Against Other Fanatics.

I. Controversial writings against the antinomians. 1)

The beginner of the antinomian disputes was M. Johann Agricola from Eisleben. After his birthplace he is often called M. Eisleben, also we often meet the abbreviation of Agricola: Grickel. 2) His patronymic is Schneider; 3) however, he later changed this name to Schnitter 4) and translated it into Latin Agricola. He was born on April 20, 1494. 5) He probably received his school education in Brunswick and then in the winter semester of 1509, in his sixteenth year, he moved to the University of Leipzig, where he was enrolled as Johannes Schneyder de Eyssleuben. He earned there (when? we do not know) the degree of baccalaureus artium,

1. In this section we have used Kawerau's monograph "Johann Agricola", Berlin 1881, also Köstlin's account, II, 464 sf.
2. He called himself by this name in his family. Kawerau, Agricola, p. 4.
3. His father was also a tailor of his trade. Bindseil, Oollo^nia, vol. II, p. 254.
4. In a marriage certificate of Luther from 1524, he is called "Magister Johannes Schnitter von Eisleben". De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 50l.
5. Thus Kawerau 1. o. p. 5. Others assume the year 1492.

However, he left this university without earning a master's degree. In 1514 we meet him again in Braunschweig, as it seems, effective as a teacher. In the winter semester of 1515/16, Agricola went to Wittenberg to continue his studies there. His name is entered in the register of the philosophical faculty as Joannes Schneider de Yszloben, baccal. Leypsens. He was admitted to the number of chorales 6) (choristers) by the licentiate Christoph Blank, who was dean of the so-called small choir in the Allerheiligenstifte at Wittenberg. The salary he received for his service enabled him to continue his studies. After a short stay in Wittenberg, he became an enthusiastic follower of Luther and demonstrated this in his first literary work; namely, during Lent 1517, he copied the sermons that Luther had preached on the Lord's Prayer, added his own explanations in part, and had them published without Luther's knowledge.

6. Different from these oNorates are the pueri symphoniaci (De Wette, vol. V, p. 796 f.) Compare about the Allerheiligenstift at Wittenberg and its institution the introduction to the 19th volume of the St. Louis edition, p. 50 d ff.

42Introduction .

at Leipzig. 1) He dedicated this work to his patron Christoph Blank in a preface dated Jan. 13, 1518, and signed himself as "Joannes sneider"; on the title, however, he does not use his name, but refers to himself as "his Luther's student one. Luther was dissatisfied with this publication, although this work of Agricola's, as the rapidly successive editions testify, found great recognition, and felt "caused to omit this paternoster (in 1519) 2) again and to explain himself further". In the preface he pronounces: I "do not know how by God's fate I come into play, that some to friendship, some also to enmity saw and drive my word". On February 11, 1518, Agricola was awarded a master's degree in the philosophical faculty. A few months later Melanchthon came to Wittenberg, with whom he soon became close friends. In June 1519, Agricola (together with Melanchthon) accompanied Luther to the disputation in Leipzig and made the necessary notes for Luther, 3) as well as M. Johann Graumann (Poliander) for Eck. Soon after their return from Leipzig, namely on September 19, 1519, Melanchthon and Agricola were awarded the theological baccalaureate (ad biblia), whereby both entered the theological faculty. Like Melanchthon, Agricola came more and more into friendly relations with Luther, indeed, he was drawn into his closest circle of friends. In the Table Talks (Cap. 37, § 33), Luther calls him not only "a good friend," but one of "his best friends." As early as July 22, 1520, there was a rumor that Agricola was planning to enter into matrimony.

1. Kawerau, Agricola, p. 14 f.
2. Agricola's adaptation of the Lord's Prayer can be found in Walch, old edition, vol. VII, 1024 ff, Luther's revision in Col. 1086 ff.
3. Perhaps already as a notary? For in this capacity he acted on November 17, 1520 at Luther's appeal from Pope Leo X to a Concilium. In the Latin Jena edition (1566), Dom. II, col. 258 d he calls himself lokannes Larotor (sartor - tailor) äo Lislsdsn, pudlicus saora axostoliea autoritato Notarius. On the other hand, in the Latin Wittenberg edition (1550), Dom. I, col. 232 d lacks this notarial certification, which is found in the original prints. Cf. Lrl, oxx. v. a., vol. V, p. 230 f.
4. On September 10, he married Elisabeth or Else Moshauer. The woman was well known to Luther (presumably she was a Wittenberger. Cf. Kawerau, l. c. p. 27) and she was highly esteemed by him. There is a letter of Luther to her from June 10, 1527 5) and the Wittenberg theologians testify in their report to the Elector from April 5, 1540, that 6) "the Doctor always loved and supported him, his wife and child". Agricola's marriage was richly blessed with children; at the time of his move to Wittenberg (December 1536) he had "nine living children". 7) He earned his living through his activity as a private lecturer at the University of Wittenberg, lecturing partly on philosophical disciplines, e.g. on Melanchthon's "Dialectic", and partly, and predominantly, on New Testament exegesis. 8) In the spring of 1521 he was also entrusted with the office of a catechist at the parish church, 9) and received from the Wittenberg treasury 7, later 10-1/2, shocks of groschen for giving religious instruction to the youth in the parish church ("lection in the parish church"). In addition, he occasionally helped the deacons with
5. Luther's letters to Spalatin of July 22 and August 31, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 707, § 3 and 715, § 2.
6. This letter is found in the St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1808 (with the correct year. Instead of "willens", "will" should be read) and duplicate (with the wrong year 1537) ibid. col. 1790. Duplicate also in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 182 and vol. V, p. 64; Walch, old edition, vol. X, 2100 and 2121; Erlanger, vol. 53, p. 403 and vol. 55, p. 179. Seidemann in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 450, note 5, already recognized the identity of the two letters, but did not comment on which of them had the correct date; in Burkhardt nothing is said about this duplicate. The year 1537 cannot be correct, because Agricola already left Eisleben for Wittenberg on December 19, 1536, and had his permanent residence in the latter place until he escaped from Wittenberg on August 15, 1540, and followed the call to Berlin.
7. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 327a.
8. Ibid. p. 291b and p. 315 d.
9. In the Zwickauer Rathsschulbibliothek are still Collegienhefte, which were copied in Agricola's lectures in the twenties, namely on Marcus, Lucas, John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Galatians, the twentieth chapter of the 5th book of Moses, of which most of them are preserved only in fragments. Kawerau l. c. S. 30.
10. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 72, § 3.

Introduction. 43

Agricola was also called upon to help out with sermons. In 1524 we find Agricola among the "servants (ministris) of the church in Wittenberg" during the decision-making process on a difficult marriage case. Although his activity in the service of the church was quite significant, and he also administered the most diverse ecclesiastical offices for 45 years, he was never ordained, but remained, as he himself says, an "unordained, unanointed layman". 1) Carlstadt and his comrades were involved in the tumultuous activity. Agricola did not participate in the tumultuous activity of Carlstadt and his comrades during Luther's absence at the Wartburg, but "neither Melanchthon nor Agricola were able to exert a prudent and powerful counteraction to Carlstadt's stormy innovations. "Clarity came into the confused Wittenberg circumstances only through Luther's return full of the Wartburg. His powerful sermons 2) also made an indelible impression on Agricola's mind. He testifies: 'It is inconceivable that anyone could have treated this matter with greater eloquence, greater earnestness, or greater zeal; always equal to himself, he has here surpassed himself!'" Agricola's first major independent work as a writer, by which he acquired a respected name as an interpreter of Scripture, is his "Commentary on the Gospel of Lucas" of 1524, which grew out of the lectures given on this Gospel in 1523. Although this work is not pure in doctrine and suffers from many other deficiencies, it was well received and widely distributed. It was first printed in 1525 by Sympertus Ruff in Augsburg; in the same year a second printing appeared in Nuremberg by Petrejus. In the following year (1526), Johann Secerius published

1. Kawerau, l. c. P. 31 f. Agricola also never attained the doctorate. Several times he has been called Doctor by wrong resolution of the "D" before his name with Doctor (instead of vorninus). Kawerau I. o. p. 21, note 1.
2. These are the "eight sermons" reported in No. 1 of this volume. The addition that Kawerau makes here (Agricola, p. 34): "against the Zwickau prophets" is not quite correct. For these sermons are primarily directed against Carlstadt and Zwilling, while the Zwickau prophets did not participate in the cult reforms in Wittenberg. Cf. this introduction p. 11.

In 1529, Secerius printed the Commentary again. This book had the honor of being placed on the Index librorum prohibitorum by the papists in 1546. 3)

Agricola had friendly relations with Münzer in the first years of the Reformation and perhaps even earlier (in Leipzig and Brunswick). When Münzer served at the Church of St. Mary in Zwickau in 1520, the two were still in correspondence. 4) However, as soon as Agricola reproached him for his boastful nature, his hopeful spirit, his spiteful behavior against individual persons, his abuse of the office of preacher, as a result of which it was reported about him that he was intent on nothing but murder and bloodshed, but Münzer rejected such warnings and rebukes from above, the bonds of friendship between them loosened (in the spring of 1521) and soon ceased completely. However, Agricola observed Münzer's activities with lively interest, and his writings are rich in memories and notes about the Peasants' War and Münzer's behavior, especially in Allstädt. On April 16, 1525, he and Melanchthon accompanied Luther on his journey through the Thuringian lands at the beginning of the Peasants' Revolt. Luther was prompted to return to Wittenberg quickly by the news of the death of the Elector Frederick on May 5. On the other hand, Agricola stayed for some time in his hometown Eisleben, mainly because of the establishment of the school, which Count Albrecht of Mansfeld wanted to found there; for Luther, in whose hands the count had placed the school matter, had chosen him to be the director of this school. Before Agricola moved to Eisleben, however, he was sent by Luther to Frankfurt, 5) whose council had requested a man to establish the church there. This matter was settled in a short

3. Kawerau, l. c. S. 37.
4. Kawerau l. c. S. 45.
5. Compare Luther's letter to the council of the city of Frankfurt of May 30, 1525. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 976.

44 Introduction.

The school was happily arranged, for the council had in the meantime found two suitable church servants, Melander and Algesheimer, who were already employed on June 13, 1525, the former in the St. Bartholomew and Liebfrauen Church, the latter in St. Leonhard. In the first days of August 1525, Agricola and his family went to Eisleben and the school, the opening of which had been prevented by the turbulent times of the peasant revolt, began. According to his profession, he not only had to take over the direction of the new Latin school, but also to preach sermons in St. Nicolai's Church (without being given an actual parish office), for which he was assured an annual salary of 120 gulden. Initially, Hermann Tulich 1) was his college, but only for a short time; the procurement of suitable assistants caused continual great concern. Among the number of Agricola's assistants, Franz Bnrkhard, the later vice-chancellor of Saxony, and Magister Veit Amerbach, who was later professor artium in Wittenberg, are mentioned; the former was only active in Eisleben for a short time, the latter for several years. 2)

Agricola must have been very capable as a preacher, because the Elector John took him (along with Spalatin) to the Diet of Speyer in 1526, where the Protestants for the first time exercised the right to preach the Word of God freely in public during a Diet assembly. Although they were unable to obtain the use of one of the churches there for their services, the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse allowed daily public preaching in the courtyard of their inns. The attendance of the people to these sermons was tremendous, 3) "yes, on holidays (so writes Spala-

1. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XIX, 4. Tulich had already left Eisleben again before October 21, 1525. See Luther's letter to Agricola, De Wette, vol. III, p. 35, where DMiokii is read instead of luliolüi.
2. On June 27, 1526, Luther gives him a letter of recommendation to Agricola on his departure for Eisleben (De Wette, Vol. III, p. 118). On October 25, 1528, Amerbach is still there sidiü. S. 394). Later he reverted to the Pabstthum. De Wette, Vol. V, p. 629. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1569, Tischreden, Cap. 73, § 18 ,
3. This is attested by Cochlaeus in his Oynanaentario, j". 147 sy.

tin) many thousands of people". On this occasion, Agricola gave continuous sermons on the Epistle to the Colossians and published them the following year with a dedication to Landgrave Philip under the title: "Die Epistel an die Colosser, S. Pauls, zu Speier gepredigt auff dem reychstage, von Joann Agricola Eysleben. By D. Martinnm Luther vbersehen. Wittenberg 1527. (Wittenberg by Simph'orian Reinhart.)" While he was in Speyer, Bugenhagen sent to him and Spalatin the writing in which he protests against the falsification which Bucer had made with his Psalm interpretation in the explanation of the 111th Psalm. 4) In the first half of the same year, Agricola also translated the Syngramma Suevicum.

Luther decorated this translation with his preface. In 1529 (in March), he again accompanied the Elector to the Diet of Speyer and this time also preached before thousands of listeners. 5) About two months before the beginning of the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, Elector John of Saxony wrote to Count Albrecht of Mansfeld (March 13): "You want to take with you Mag. Joh. Eisleben, who is to be used on such our journey as a preacher." 6) Agricola also preached at Augsburg, but only for a short time (from the beginning of May to June 15), before the emperor arrived; then, however, all preaching (including Roman preaching) was forbidden by the emperor during the Imperial Diet, and the Elector also had to comply with this prohibition, but nevertheless kept the theologians with him until he himself departed from Augsburg on September 23. Agricola enjoyed the same favor as with Elector John with his son and successor, Elector John Frederick, who took him to Vienna in 1535 when he traveled there to be feoffed with the electorship. This enfeoffment took place on November 20, 1535. Agricola later referred to the Elector for the sermons he preached during this trip.

4. Cf. this introduction, p. 36 f.
5. "On the following Sunday March 21, 1529, about eight thousand people had been gathered at the morning and afternoon sermons." Kawerau, Agricola, p. 91.
6. Kawerau, I. o. p. 94.

Introduction. 45

as witnesses that he had preached the pure evangelical doctrine there, and the Elector gave him in a letter of 30 October 1537 1) the testimony: "we have no other recollection than that you preached the same your teachers on the journey to Vienna in the manner in which you recorded them. In a letter of October 30, 1537, 1) the Elector gave him the testimony: "We have no other recollection than that you preached the same your teachers on the journey to Vienna in the manner in which you recorded them," but also made known to him his will: "We also do not consider it inconvenient, but good and right that such unity with Luther should extend not only to the substance of the doctrine, but also to the words.

The first germs of Agricola's antinomian doctrine, although still quite undeveloped, can already be found in his above-mentioned Commentary on the Gospel of Lucas, published in 1525. 2) Almost everywhere he speaks only of the harm of sin, but almost nowhere of the guilt of sin and of the task of the law to reveal sin as guilt to the holy God and to bring it to consciousness. The only real use of the law is that it is good as a restraint for the raw masses, for the pagan-minded world. In this way, the message of grace of the Gospel comes to the individual, without the preparatory work of the law on the heart of the sinner being expressly and clearly emphasized. He describes the effect by which faith is evoked as a stirring of the heart, as being seized by the sweetness and kindness of God. From this emotion the new life of the Christian is dated, and it is a life of repentance. For repentance is the fruit of faith, the daily renewal of spiritual life; it does not begin with the recognition of sin, but with the grateful sensation of God's benefits. Here, therefore, we already find in the first beginnings the teaching that he later expressed in the first thesis of his "Theses Disseminated among the Brethren" 3). In addition, already in this writing we encounter several misunderstandable, even dangerous statements, 4) e.g. "Sins do not harm,

1. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 312.
2. Kawerau, l. c. p. 133 ff.
3. Cf. Col. 1624 of this volume.
4. See Kawerau, I. o. p. 136.

They are as great as they want", to which a practical antinomianism could easily lean, although Agricola did not intend to preach a moral libertinism; for he assumed that the Holy Spirit had planted in the born-again the drive to fulfill the law of God willingly and with pleasure. Also in the "Christian Children's Education" of 1527, a Christian teaching for the Latin school, he begins with a partly well-done interpretation of the ten commandments, and also talks about the fact that the law should serve to expose our sins and to drive us to despair of ourselves, but in the end the main meaning of it remains for him that it is the "dog's shillelagh", i.e. the reins of the wild carnal nature, "so that it does not become too horny, but a little tame". The final section of his entire doctrinal exposition is the section on repentance. In this section he does not mention the law at all, but describes repentance as an effect of justifying faith, not as a feeling and repentance of the guilt of sin, but as "a new heart and other thoughts", as "not doing evil anymore".

Until then, Agricola had not been aware of any deviation from Luther's teaching; however, when Melanchthon's Articuli, de quibus egerunt per visitatores went out in print in the summer of 1527, a kind of prelude to the antinomian controversy that flared up ten years later was tied to this little work, which is the preliminary work for the "Instruction of the Visitators. In these Articuli, Melanchthon teaches that a preacher has to preach two things: the sermon of repentance and the sermon of forgiveness of sins. No one can understand what faith is if repentance is not preached first. Preaching the law drives to repentance, therefore the Decalogue is to be interpreted diligently. Repentance is a prerequisite for faith. Diligent preaching of the law will also be a great blessing for the believers in order to kill the old man and to grow in sanctification. This is undoubtedly the right pure doctrine that must be presented at all times; however, it was necessary to place special emphasis on it at that time, when many a Protestant

46 Introduction.

The "preacher of grace" preached grace in such a way that it inevitably had to become a cover for wickedness. But Agricola felt hit and joined in the cries of many that Melanchthon had fallen away and was "crowning backwards again. In contrast to these articles, he gave his doctrine a sharper form in his second catechetical work, "130 Common Questions for Young Children," the preface of which is dated Monday after Martinmas (November 18) 1527. This "catechism" was not caused by the need of the elementary school children, for whom the "Christian child education" had not proven to be useful, but by the articles of Melanchthon, which Agricola considered to be contrary to the teachings of Luther; on the other hand, he believed to be in complete agreement with Luther. The Decalogue is assigned almost the last place in this writing and it is settled with a few explanatory words. He describes the economy of the law here again, as he had already done in the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 1) as a failed attempt of God to influence man. He now knows only one function of the law, namely to force and compel, to punish and torment. He sees the law only as a penal code, it is, "the Jews' Sachsenspiegel", 2) and Christ has completely eliminated this single function of the law for the Christian. The whole process of the appropriation of salvation proceeds without the law being involved at any point. Therefore, it must be called a juconsequence or an accommodation to school usage, 3) that Agricola still teaches from the law at all. To the question: How does a person become a believer? the Catechism answers: "God has Christ's death and resurrection preached to the unbelieving world, namely, that it is to their benefit and that they are reconciled to God through Christ's blood. Whosoever then is moved by the blood of Christ, and whoever is well pleased with this preaching, the Father draws him to Christ, and

1. Cf. Kawerau, l. c. pp. 142 and 134.
2. Agricola also borrows the expression here from Luther, who uses it in his writing "Wider die himmlischen ProHheten" (Col. 153 in this volume). (Kawerau.)
3. Kawerau, l. c. S. 142.

sprinkles him with the blood of Christ. He believes the words of the sermon, he sees and recognizes the goodness of God that is proclaimed to him. He also sees his error and infirmity, he cries out over his unbelief, that is, he repents, repents and laments and takes care with diligence not to anger the one who has forgiven him so much." The pope teaches, "First consider and confess your sins, then you will become worthy of grace. But the Gospel preaches, first, the satisfaction of Christ; secondly, it preaches how we are to repent." Here, then, the service of the law for the preparatory recognition of sin is completely eliminated, and the justified, according to Paul's word: to the just there is no law, the law is of no concern at all. Of course, even the justified sins "every moment". But these sins are only a "need", only impulses of the "inherited damage", caused by the devil and the world. Of course, the Christian should fight against them, and this very fight against them is called repentance, but there is also the consolation: "no sins hinder blessedness, for grace is called, not good works, not evil works". The norm of the new life of the justified is not "you shall be holy, for I am holy," but merely, and therefore in a superficial way, charity. Because he has put aside the law, he lacks the seriousness of the concept of guilt when considering sins and the concept of holiness when presenting the Christian life.

Here we already find a developed autinomism in Agricola and it would certainly have come to an open rupture between him and the Wittenbergers if they had harbored the slightest suspicion against Agricola and had examined his writings with a critical eye; but it seems that Luther had not yet read the Catechism at that time, although he knew of its existence. When Agricola approached Luther with misgivings about Melanchthon's "Articles" even before they appeared in print, Luther appeased him 4) and admonished him.

4. In a letter of August 31, 1527. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, appendix, no. 3.

Introduction. 47

to abstain from disputing about this matter, so that the visitation would not be hindered by it. Luther said against Melanchthon, 1) that it was only a dispute about words, which he did not respect very much. After the articles had been printed, Agricola turned again to Luther with certain accusations, and also made sure that his opposition to Melanchthon became generally known by distributing copies of his "Censur". With great zeal, he advocated Luther's interpretation of the passage Gal. 3:19, as opposed to Jerome's, which Melanchthon had accepted, and brought Melanchthon under suspicion of a doctrinal difference among those who judged superficially, even though he completely agreed with Luther in the doctrine of the law. In the course of the negotiations, Agricola realized that Luther was not in agreement with him, that he, the plaintiff, could easily become the defendant, and he pulled himself out of the matter by concealing the actual point of difference and, one may well say, not only made "tame and subtle turns" 2) but also used dishonest evasions. On November 26-28, 1527, the Elector summoned the disputing parties to Torgau together with Luther and Bugenhagen as arbitrators. Agricola's charge asserted that the doctrine of repentance in the Articuli was in conflict with Scripture and with Luther's teaching. In the prophet Jonah, Cap. 3, it says of the Ninivites first "they believed" and only then "they repented. 3) To prove that Melanchthon was in conflict with Luther, he referred to Luther's statement that repentance begins with love. In contrast, Melanchthon bravely defended the repentance that precedes justification. First the heart must have experienced the horrors of a fearful conscience, but in this process fear of punishment and love of justice are difficult to distinguish. Here Agricola, if he had been more forthright, would have had to object and freely come forward with his confession, but cowardly he evaded it, by instead of using the just-

1. On October 27, 1527. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 121.
2. Kawerau I. o. p. 147.
3. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XIX, 83.

The first thing he did was to prove that Agricola subordinated the belief that there is a God who threatens, commands and terrifies, the fides minarum, to the faith that completes faith and thereby formally helped his sentence: "First faith, then repentance" to triumph. Luther then easily settled the dispute by proving that Agricola had understood the word faith in a much broader sense than Melanchthon.

These events had not clouded Luther's intimate intercourse with Agricola. Luther thought that in Agricola he had a faithful follower.

We have to assume, however, that from now on Agricola stood in conscious opposition to Luther and tried to bring his false doctrine to the people at every given opportunity. On September 11, 1528, Luther wrote to Agricola, 4) that someone had recently assured him in the most definite manner that Agricola (in a sermon preached at Altenburg in the summer) had put forward a new doctrine and asserted that faith could be without works. "I earnestly warn you," says Luther, "to beware of the devil and of your flesh." Agricola answered with the excuse that he had not railed against the doing of good works, but against the opinion that blessedness could be acquired by faith and works. The doctrine of faith has "a must" (oportet)), 5) whereas the doctrine of good works has no must, as can be seen in the case of the thief. Luther, as it seems, allowed himself to be reassured by this; and Agricola, too, did not give any particular reason for several years that would have brought him into suspicion of false teaching. But when in 1533 Count Hoyer of Mansfeld, who remained Catholic, appointed the apostate Georg Witzel as pastor of St. Andrew's in Eisleben, Agricola was prompted by this opponent to further strengthen his antinomianism and to make it more and more strident. Witzel led a poisonous and immoderately zealous fight against Luther and his followers, not only for the sake of the extremely small Catholic community, but also for the sake of the church.

4. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1121.
5. Cf. the Tischreden, Cap. 37,8 35. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1031. In Melanchthon's verses, Orator - ^Arioola is another translation of the name "reaper".

48 Introduction.

1. in Eisleben from falling away, but also to bring as many as possible back to the Roman church. In the same St. Audreas Church where Witzel preached in the morning, D. Caspar Güttel had to provide the service in the afternoon. Already a few days later, when Witzel had arrived in Eisleben, a clash with the Protestant preachers took place. On the Sunday after Galli, October 19, 2) 1533, Witzel stated in his sermon that through baptism a child's past sins were forgiven, but the sins it subsequently committed in its life could only be erased through its own work of repentance, namely through true repentance, conversion, prayer, almsgiving, and many other good works that followed faith 3). In the afternoon, Güttel gave him a proper answer, and the same happened in the following time, that Witzel's morning sermons, as he complained, were "drawn out by Güttel in the most hostile and murderous manner, and that with unswung, outrageous malicious words and poisonous greediness". Witzel also did not lack the most vicious outbursts against "the sect". He himself relates: "Allhie I have confidently punished the falsifiers of scripture, so fraudulent interpretation make, have they hot in their throat lie" 2c. Immediately Agricola also reported to Wittenberg how Witzel stood by them. Already on October 22, 4) Luther wrote his answer to Agricola: "All that he Witzel holds and teaches is nothing at all (nimis nihil), and he is everywhere not worthy that someone who is knowledgeable of our doctrine should trouble himself for his sake. He will perish of his own accord if only our doctrine is taught clearly and abundantly. For his thing is of such a nature that it can neither be taught nor easily understood, since neither he himself nor his kind understand it." The herein contained
2. Witzel himself describes them as a "very small crowd" and reports, "I preach here to only ten citizens, and they don't even come to worship regularly."
3. Not the "18th of October", which Kawerau I. o. p. 153 offers, because this was a Saturday in 1533.
4. For him, "faith" is only the believing acceptance of the teachings of Scripture, the keeping oneself free from heresies. Kawerau, I. e. p. 158.
5. De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 488.

Luther's advice not to worry about such a vain opponent was not heeded by the Eisleben preachers. Güttel continued to preach entire sermons against Witzel, and Agricola also describes the sermons he preached at that time as controversial sermons against Witzel. 5) The more the latter attributed sin-redeeming power to the Christian's fulfillment of the law, the more the latter pushed the counter-doctrine and zealously opposed the benefits of the law. Through this continued polemic, he got deeper and deeper into antinomianism, so that he finally did not hesitate to accuse Luther of false doctrine, as was done in the third sentence of his third series of theses (Col. 1627 in this volume). We have a brief epitome of what Agricola taught in the last years of his stay in Eisleben in the series of theses, 6) which are attached to the paper: D. Martin Luthers Widerlegung der falschen und verführischen Lehre der Antinomer wider das Gesetz, in sechs Disputationen verfaßt 7) (No. 31 in this volume). For this doctrine he had formed a party whose adherents called themselves Minores, Minorisch or Minorists. 8) Luther, however, knew nothing about it, nor did he want to believe it, when Count Albrecht von Mansfeld reported it to him and other theologians (Jonas, Bugenhagen, Melanchthon), yes, even to the Elector soon after Agricola's departure from Eisleben and warned him against it.

Agricola's departure from Eisleben was initiated by all kinds of annoyances he had with Count Albrecht. Politically, the two stood on different points of view regarding the question of emergency defense; in one case, the count had granted permission, where the theologian had refused it. Agricola's income, 120 florins per year, was sufficient at the beginning of his tenure, but in the course of time it became less,

5. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 3496.
6. On April 5, 1540, the Wittenberg theologians say in their report of these theses: "Magister Eisleben's Propositiones, which were made and transcribed many years ago." Förstemann l. c. p. 326 u.
7. These disputations were held from 1537 to 1540. For more information on the timing, see No. 31.
8. Compare the note to Col. 1624.

Introduction.. . 49

As his family grew and finally consisted of his wife and nine children, it became increasingly inadequate. His requests and pleas for an improvement of his situation only brought him promises; the stingy count did not decide to keep these promises. After Agricola had waited in vain for eight years for an increase in his salary, and had also rejected several professions with favorable offers, he thought of obtaining employment in Wittenberg, and therefore turned to Luther, who helped him to fulfill his wish. In a letter, which Agricola addressed to Luther 1) on October 18, 1536, he deals with great pleasure with the conditions, which Luther had put to him concerning the appointment. Luther had interceded for him with the Elector, and the latter had declared that he was willing to appoint him to the university. Although it was not possible to procure a professorship for him immediately, a favorable reason was soon found to appoint him to Wittenberg. The Elector approved the necessary salary and ordered Luther and the other theologians in a letter 2) of December 11, 1536, to cite, among others, "Magister Eisleben" to Wittenberg for a preliminary consultation on the Schmalkaldic Articles. Luther discharged this order on December 15.

1. This letter is found in Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 268, as we believe, with the correct date: "October 18". The time determination "18 December" given by Kawerau (p. 170) does not seem to us to be permissible according to the contents of the letter. Agricola says: rs zürn Ai866iits - since the matter now takes its beginning, Luther may occasionally (aliquancko) write to Count Albrecht; meanwhile he will find out what he may answer the man, and reports from his Fräu, she had said that she would like to die, if GOtt wanted her to experience that". Such speeches had not been made if the departure had been imminent. It is rather probable that Agricola did not give any written answer after December 15, because he left Eisleben with such great haste that the count did not find him there on December 21. The "18th of December" also proves to be impossible because Agricola wrote his farewell letter to the count on the 18th of December. Cf. Förstemann's Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 292a. There, p. 294d "Saturday, December 10" is an oversight by the Count. It should read "the 9th of December".
2. Burkhardt I. o. p. 271 f.

by a letter to Agricola, in which he requested him to come to Wittenberg during the Christmas holidays at the expense of the Elector. Immediately after receiving this letter, Agricola left for Wittenberg with his family in a hurry, without waiting for the return of Count Albrecht, who was currently absent from Eisenach, or to say goodbye to him personally, but left behind a very rough letter to the Count, written on December 18, 1536, which is included in its entirety in the answer that the Count gave Agricola on December 27, 1536. 3) About this hasty departure, the count expresses himself in his letter as follows: that he "departed unblessedly between two days without any cause and without having taken leave ... (despite the fact that we required you to appear before us on the following Thursday Dec. 21 by writing)". The whole answer of the count is quite ungracious and full of bitter reproaches against Agricola. Albrecht sent a copy of this letter to the Elector John Frederick 4) on January 27, 1537, with a letter in which he warns against Agricola, so that by this man "almost a worse seduction than by Münzer might be caused", because he incites the subjects against the authorities, is frivolous in words, devoted to drink, and the like. Before his departure, he had not experienced as much of his affairs as is now coming to light. Also to Luther, Jonas, Pommer and Melanchthon, he had

3. Förstemann l. c. p. 291 f. At the beginning of this letter is another error that the count made in giving the date "dornstag den 20. tagk diß Monts", it should read "den 21.", if not, what is possible, "Dienstag den 19.". If Förstemann's interpretation (p. 294, note 5) of the words "zwuschen zweien Tagen" "So it happened at night" is correct, Agricola's departure might have taken place in the night from December 18 to 19. This gets some probability from the fact that the Count says he required Agricola "to come before him on the following Thursday 21 December". Then the Count's return would have to be set for Tuesday, December 19. But it is more likely that there was an error in the date than in the day of the week.
4. Förstemann l. c. Soon in the beginning of this letter the expression returns that the "abscheidt czwissen czweyhen tagen gescheen" had happened.

50 Introduction.

had already sent this warning. The first reason "to be disgusted with the count" was "that he Agricola had not appointed a pastor in Eisleben who was related to him and of his own kind"; with this the count justified his warning that he should not make Agricola superintendent over the pastors, for such a thing would be detrimental, that is, Agricola would seek to bring people of his ilk into office. The theologians had been informed that Agricola had founded a sect in Eisleben against Luther and his teachings, which called itself "minoric" and condemned the teachings and school of the Wittenbergers as impure. None of those to whom the count had addressed his denunciations and warnings gave them the slightest credence, but all of them, because not the slightest complaint had been made beforehand, considered them to be slanders by which the count wanted to take revenge on Agricola.

Agricola found friendly exception with his whole large family in Luther's house and remained there even after Luther's departure (end of January) to the convent in Schmalkalden for a longer time, until he found the opportunity to rent a suitable apartment. Luther later said: 1) "I have trusted this man so much that I have given him the doctrine, the church, my house, my secrets", which is to be understood from the fact that Luther made him his deputy at the university as well as in the pulpit during his absence. Agricola was indeed active in the preliminary deliberations on the Schmalkaldic Articles, but he did not go with Luther to Schmalkalden, nor did he co-sign the Schmalkaldic Articles; this erroneous statement, which has often resurfaced, is based on a confusion of Johann Agricola with Stephan Agricola of Augsburg. Immediately following the Schmalkaldic Convention, due to the agreement of the houses of Saxony, Brandenburg and Hesse, a meeting of the princes took place in Zeitz (March 11-17, 1537), for which Agricola was appointed by the Elector as court preacher, because he was (in spite of the

1. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 52. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1042.

Count Albrecht's accusations) "in great esteem at court and almost the ver

most trusted counselor". In the sermons he preached at Zeitz, "he displeased everyone. He used "new words" by insisting "that the revelation of wrath should be preached, not the law. 2) By this way of preaching he made himself suspicious.

Not long after, still in June 3) 1537, "drey Sermon und Predigen" (Three Sermons and Sermons) appeared in Wittenberg with Hans Luft, with a dedication of June 1, 1537 to Chancellor Brück. The manuscript had previously been presented to Luther for review, and the latter, probably without having examined it more closely, had said on the first holy day of Pentecost (May 20) against Agricola: "it is a good writing, that would not be wrong." 4) Simultaneously with the appearance of these sermons, however, the rumor also arose in Wittenberg that "theses written by Agricola were to be spread among brothers," 5) in which he had completely rejected the use of the law in the Christian church and had given a collection of "pure" and "impure" passages in the writings of Luther and Melanchthon. Against the latter he had said that he had been moderate up to now, but if he now saw that they wanted to suppress him, he would break loose. Now one began to read with critical eyes his published sermons, and found in them, however, the confirmation that he was lecturing antinomian doctrine. It is essentially the same that we find in his theses. This prompted Luther to testify against this doctrine as early as July 1, 1537, in a sermon on the 5th Sunday after Trinity. 6) Bugenhagen

2. Tischreden, Cap. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1042.
3. We are led to this time determination (Kawerau, p. 174, "in July") by the fact that Luther preaches against Agricola's Sermons already on July 1 (5th Sunday after Trinity). Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, 466 also assumes "June".
4. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 1880, p. 303. (Kawerau, p. 174.)
5. These are the series of theses already mentioned in No. 31 of this volume. These are the series of theses already mentioned at the beginning of this volume.
6. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 1328, § 42 ff. This sermon is probably what Melanchthon sent to Johann Brenz on July 16, 1537. Oorx. Ref, Ill, 391.

Introduction. 51

started his journey to Denmark in July, and Agricola should have been his deputy in preaching and on the chair, but Bugenhagen forbade to let him on his pulpit, and Luther himself therefore stepped in as a "stopgap" for Bugenhagen. Luther's familiar intercourse with Agricola had so completely fallen away and such a complete estrangement had taken its place that the latter no longer went to Luther in person, but on September 2 sought to justify himself against him by letter because of his "three sermons. He pleaded that Luther had approved of these sermons and claimed that they contained only the doctrine that Luther himself preached. He was not aware of any false doctrine. In order to justify himself even further, he wrote a short confession of what he had always taught about the law. This "confession," however, is of such a nature that it (as Köstlin aptly remarks) "concealed his previous position more than it revealed it," for he passes over with silence the meaning of the law, to work recognition of sin and repentance. Cowardly he evaded here, as earlier in the dispute with Melanchthon, 1) because he did not have the courage to fight his assertions in a sharp open battle. 2) This written declaration was sufficient for Luther in that he refrained from personal statements against Agricola. Only in a sermon on the 18th Sunday after Trinity (September 30, 1537), in contrast to what he knew of the theses that had been circulated, he fully and clearly explained his own doctrine of the meaning of the law and the relationship between law and gospel to the congregation, 3) without mentioning Agricola by name. During a visit to Wittenberg in the course of October, the Elector also learned of the antinomian disputes and had Agricola warned by Chancellor Brück, and

1. P. 47 of this introduction.
2. Cf. Luther's statement, Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 55. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1044: "If only you would publicly argue against me and not so viciously foe behind the Pöckler shield!"
3. Thus Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 466. Only the date "on October 2" is wrong. The sermon is found in Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 1700 sf. On October 12, Melanchthon already sent a printed copy of it to Veit Dietrich.

admonish him to compare himself with Luther. This prompted Agricola to seek reconciliation with Luther, and he must have gone so far in his explanations that the matter was for the first time "settled with given hands and promised fidelity. 4) Towards the end of October, Agricola reported on this to the Elector. The Elector repeats this report in a letter to Agricola of October 30, 1537: 5) that after our departure Luther had "kindly and amicably informed you: you had not been understood before, but now he sees that you agree with him in doctrine, and would be well pleased with you; he also wanted to call the others together, so that you would definitely compare yourselves". 2c. 6) In his answer, the Elector demands from Agricola "that such unity extend not only to the substance of the doctrine, but also to the words. The Elector is doubtful "whether it would be as Eisleben wrote to us"; therefore, in a letter of the same date, he instructed the Chancellor Brück, 7) "to speak with Doctori Martino about it at the appropriate time", but especially to inquire "because Eisleben refers to his Summaries, which he wrote about the Evangelia, whether Doctori Martino has left it to him to print them and to have them publicly published or not, and to report this to us in the future". Probably only after Brück got rid of this order, Luther received the first information that Agricola had printed his "Summaries on the Gospels", 8) however, without Luther's prior knowledge and without the permission of the university, with Hans Luft. This writing, as we see from the dedication to some of Agricola's friends and relatives in Eisleben, was completed on September 24, and by the time Luther was notified of this, the first

4. Cf. Agricola's complaint to the Elector of March 31, 1540. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 319f.
5. Förstemann l. c. S. 312.
6. This statement of Agricola is cited by Kawerau l.c. p. 179. S. 179 in such a way, as if this was Luther's saying: "Luther 'showed him quite friendly and favorable'" 2c.
7. Förstemann I. o. p. 313.
8. For the full title, see Col. 1648 of this volume, note 2.

52 Introduction.

six sheets printed. Luther immediately 1) had the existing copies confiscated. Only one copy, which Luther himself used and added marginal glosses to, has survived. 2) Luther judged this writing (Col. 1652 in this volume): "With such a postilla, Eisleben wanted to lay the first stone against our doctrine and us, that our doctrine must be unjust and impure, so that he alone might be praised as a master of pure doctrine. And at last it has been the fool's desire for his own honor that the Wittenbergers should be nothing, and Eisleben everything. Now Luther decided to fight openly against Agricola and had the "Theses spread among brothers" printed on December 1, 1537. Agricola was frightened when he heard about it and did not want to accept the theses as his own at all. With respect to the last antinomian series of theses (Col. 1627 f.), we see from Luther's own marginal note that he "does not interpret them to Eisleben, as the title indicates," 3) namely the second and third theses, but to his students, but regards them as a consequence of his principles. The doctrines expressed in these two theses: "You may well murder" 2c. are the ones that Agricola, in his complaint against the Elector, 4) makes a second main point of complaint and accuses Luther of "calumnies" and "lies"; in his complaint, however, he wisely remains silent about this! Theses. Against Agricola's sentences, Luther wrote counter-theses, and still in December 1537, the first disputation against the antinomians (Col. 1628) took place, at which Agricola remained completely silent. 5) But since he continued to speak "in the corner" against Luther, the latter withdrew from him on January 6, 1538 6) the theological lectures, which had been assigned to him at Luther's request, "so that he would not be without work and only annoying other people" (otiosus et odiosus),

1. This will have happened around mid-November. Kawerau >. o. p. 18t.
2. Printed in Förstemann's "Neuem Urkunden buche", p. 296 ff.
3. i.e., the superscription Luther had placed over it: "Likewise others."
4. Förstemann I. c. S. 317.
5. 6orp. Uek. Ill, 482.
6. Luther's letter to Agricola. De Wette, Vol. V, p. 96.

He also told the Rector that he wanted Agricola "to abstain completely from theological work (a theologia). Now Agricola sent his wife to Luther and she pleaded for reconciliation; he was ready to do everything that Luther would demand. The latter demanded a public explanation, which Agricola gave in a satisfactory manner at the second disputation 7) (Col. 1632), in which he himself was an opponent, but only "to be instructed", and a public, solemn reconciliation took place. Luther also excused Agricola to the Elector, and obtained for him on (February 3) the Elector's order (against Bugenhagen's ban) that he be readmitted to the pulpit to inquire whether he held himself in doctrine uniform with Luther. On April 23, Agricola preached a second time by order of the Elector to recant his former doctrine and remove all suspicion from himself. Agricola refers to these two sermons in February and April in his complaint: 8) "I have ... with sermons twice ... kept myself in such a way that one must see what I change and improve in my speaking of the law." What Lauterbach reports on April 27, 1538, 9) that "Luther was sad and somewhat angry these days because of Agricola's impenitence and dissimulation" and said: "I don't want his made-up doctrine", almost leads to the assumption that Luther was not well satisfied with the last sermon, but also considered it to be a cover-up. But perhaps he did not want to reveal this out of compassion for Agricola's family? 10)

Of the third and fourth disputations against the antinomians (Col. 1636 and 1639) it is not known that they were actually held; but the words of Luther on February 3, 1538: 11) "but he is well

7. How much this whole matter had gone to Luther's heart, we can see from Luther's remarks in the Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 34. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1030.
8. Förstemann I. c. S. 319a.
9. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1721, No. 160.
10. Cf. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 37. Walch, St. Louis ed. Vol. XXII, 1033.
11. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 34. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1030.

Introduction. 53

The words "hewn" give room for the assumption that these disputations may still have taken place in January 1538 after the second reconciliation.

Externally, peace remained for a while until August 1538: 1) Agricola had renewed the assertion in a letter that Luther himself had made contradictory statements in his writings: 2) This prompted Luther to publish the theses of the fifth disputation (Col. 1642), which was held on September 13, 1538, and lasted almost five hours. 3) In this disputation, Luther "most violently opposed the new teachers. The payment of his salary and also his employment with the newly established Consistory was in question if he did not clear himself of the suspicion of false teaching. So he decided, because Luther pressed him, 4) that he would have to have a public recantation printed, and he himself was concerned that "he would not want to do it in such a way that it would be sufficiently respected," to place the writing of the recantation in Luther's hands, 5) to also ask him "that Luther do it as he could, he would be well satisfied with it"; and in humble submission he swore that he would not deviate from the pure doctrine in the future. Thus a third reconciliation took place on the outside, but the hearts remained estranged from each other. This is shown by Luther's confidential speeches from that time,

1. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 35. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1031.
2. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, p. 470.
3. Tischreden, Cap. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1062. Compare also Luther's statement about the antinomians at the end of his 33rd sermon on the first four chapters of John, which was preached the following day, Sept. 14, 1538. Erl. Vol. 47, p. 42.
4. Cf. Col. 1612, § 3, also Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 45. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 1038: "The same day he ordered (Sept. 3, 1538) to deal with Eisleben that he either recant publicly or be put to shame."
5. According to this the words in our edition of the table speeches (Col. 1032) are to be interpreted: "He has handed over his revocation to me" (ooillrnsQäuvit). The translation of ooiichn6n<lÄvit by "praised" in the old editions of the Table Talks is wrong. Luther himself in his writing "Wider die Antinomer" expresses it thus: "er hat mir's to make the recantation for him mächtiglich heimgestellt." This happened, according to the quoted passage in Hen Tischreden (Cap. 37, § 36), either on September 30, 1538, or shortly before....

But especially what Luther said on September 30, 1538, when Agricola asked Luther to write the recantation for him: 6) "I will seek the glory of Christ, not his, and describe in his own words the cowardly, proud, and godless man who would have done great harm to the church, and I will dedicate this recantation in his name to Caspar Güttel and the other preachers at Eisleben." Although this is already spoken in September, this recantation promised by Luther (completely in the manner pronounced by Luther) appeared only in January 1539 under the title "Wider die Antinomer" (No. 30 in this volume) in the form of a letter to D. Caspar Güttel, preacher at Eisleben. In it, Luther relentlessly reveals Agricola's previous insidious proceedings against him, that he had acted underhandedly and secretly in bringing up and spreading his false doctrine, and that he had also referred to Luther's books and boasted that Luther and Eisleben were on good terms with each other. Now, however, Agricola had humbly promised to renounce his false teachings, recant everything he had taught or written against the law, and promised to teach in conformity with the Wittenbergers, including the Augsburg Confession and the Apology. Agricola felt extremely hurt by this writing and became fiercely bitter, so that he sought to take revenge on Luther and obtain satisfaction for it. At first, he did this again "fencing meekly behind the Pöckler shield". 7) In the 17 theses, which he had written for a disputation to be held in the philosophical faculty on February 1, 8) 1539, he jibes at Luther in several dark theses, e.g. Jonathan, when he ate honey, had not sinned, but Saul, when he forbade him to do so, had confused Israel. Jonathan in this thesis is Agricola, who has the

6. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 36. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1032.
7. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 55. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1044.
8. Not "February 9", which Köstlin l. c. offers. p. 470 offers. Compare the passage of the table speeches cited in the previous note. But this is a printing error, which is corrected in Köstlin p. 676 aä p. 475.

54 Introduction.

Luther, on the other hand, who holds on to the law and does not allow him the honey, is Saul. Luther saw through this and therefore rightly reproached him in this disputation for persisting in his old error. In addition, news of the further spread of antinomianism came from Pomerania, Lüneburg, Thuringia, the Mark of Brandenburg and Frankfurt. This caused Luther to speak and write vehemently against the antinomians in his lectures 1) as well as in the writing "von den Conciliis und Kirchen" 2) which he completed in these days, but in the latter writing without mentioning Agricola in particular; he also testified from the pulpit. Agricola referred all this to himself and later used it for his "complaint" and its justification.

Towards the end of December 1538, Agricola (in order to be employed by the Consistory) had offered everything to affirm the purity of his teaching in various letters to the Wittenberg theologians Jonas, Cruciger and Melanchthon, to the Elector 3) and to Luther. On December 26, he wrote to the latter that he, as his spiritual father, wanted to accept his son, who had let himself be hurried by a mistake, again with a gentle spirit. When Chancellor Brück demanded of him a retraction, to Wendeln: Faber, pastor at Seeburg, to go out publicly, he prepared "a form of revocation" himself and brought it to Melanchthon, but added the request that he also "provide a form" 4). Melanchthon accommodated him by writing De duplici legis discrimine (1539) for him in Latin in the mildest possible form. This writing, which was only published after Luther's epistle "Against the Antinomians

1. In the "Interpretation on the First Book of Moses," Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. 1, 1188, § 196 ff; Col. 1208, § 4 ff; Col. 1212, § 17.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2741 ff, § 187-190; Col. 2782 f., § 248 f.; Col. 2778, § 243; Col. 2787, § 256. These passages, in the order given here, form the largest part of Agricola's more detailed justification for his complaint, to which Luther refers in his "Report". Compare the note to Col. 1657.
3. On December 22, 1538. This letter is found in Förstemann l. c. p. 314 f.
4. Förstemann I. c. S. 326.

(perhaps only towards the end of the year) 5) Agricola refers to it in his "Complaint" and calls it "a writing to the preachers and pastors in the land of Mansfeld". After he had thus appeased the theologians and satisfied the demands of the Elector by his recantation, he was appointed by the Elector to the Consistory on February 7, 1539, of which he remained a member until his departure from Wittenberg. In Wittenberg, he had also been able to obtain a following, so that his election as dean of the philosophical faculty on April 19 (or 21) was in prospect. 6) Luther prevented this, so that "his hopefulness, presumption and disobedience would not be strengthened by it". For a long time (since the disputation in February) they had not spoken a word to each other, when Luther wanted to go to Agricola in the last days of June 7) 1539 to talk to him personally, but he did not meet him at home. So there was no further reconciliation.

After Agricola had taken his oath, he no longer came out publicly with his false doctrine, but he also did not teach the pure doctrine clearly and distinctly, therefore Luther had good reason to complain about his dissimulation and hypocrisy over and over again: 8) "The little man has not yet set or made a few propositions in which he affirms or denies; says neither yes nor no, as is the way of the people; does not go alike, always keeps porridge in his mouth." But with his attacks on Luther, he gradually came out in public in an increasingly uncouth and bold manner. He boasted (at the beginning of July 1539), "he 9) is Abel, must suffer much

5. Kawerau 1. 6. p. 198, note 1 - In Förstemann I. c. p. 326 a states: "Which he had printed according to the doctor's writing."
6. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 39. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1034.
7. In Bindseil, Ooltoguia, Dom. Ill, p. 321, Luther says on July 3, 1539: "he had recently been in Willen and was already on his way to reconcile with Agricola". Cf. Tischreden, Cap.37, Z92. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1066. Mathesius, St. Louis Edition, p. 230, reports that Luther did not meet him at home.
8. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 39. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1035.
9. "Jener," Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 92, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1066, is Agricola, because the following only fits him.

Introduction. 55

and let himself be strangled." "What?" says Luther, "he will become a martyr under my hands, and I must be his executioner to make him a martyr? since he has grieved and martyred me much more than all my adversaries. No pope nor fanatic has grieved me more than he, and now I want to lay the blame at my door." How completely justified these words of Luther about Agricola are, will be seen by anyone who considers that the whole time during which Agricola was in Wittenberg was an uninterrupted chain of annoyances and cause of distress for Luther because of his false teachings and hypocritical behavior. The same can be seen in Agricola's further behavior. Already his letter to the Elector of December 22, 1538 1) contained, in addition to great praise, hidden accusations against Luther. He writes: "But because I notice and see that this whole business flows and stands from loud suspicion, how I should have something different in my heart and yet outwardly speak and act differently, so that nothing helps me anywhere, neither my humble submission and willing obedience, so that I testify that I want to die in his Luther's obedience, nor my manifold pleading by myself and others, nor my oath taken to confirm my faithfulness with it, in which the heathen are satisfied and content. . . Finally, not even that I offered to make known by a public writing wherein the lack of me had been." In September 1539, he sued his "spiritual father" and manifold benefactors with the Rector of the University, with Bugenhagen and with Melanchthon. 2) His points of complaint here will probably have been the same as later in the letters of complaint to the Mansfelds and to the Elector. The Rector D. Curio 3) offered to go with Agricola to Luther's home in order to bring about a settlement there, but refused Agricola's request that he cite Luther before him. Bugenhagen and Melanchthon also rejected his complaint. Zero

1. Not 1539, which Förstemann l. c. offers. p. 314 offers. (Kawerau I. c. p. 197, note 1.)
2. Förstemann 1. 6. p. 336a: "Er hat scheußlich klaget bei dem Herrn Pastor und Philippo."
3. Förstemann 1. c. S. 336b.

Agricola threatened to file a complaint with the Mansfelders, likewise with the Elector, and finally, he wanted to appeal to all scholars in Germany and Europe, because he did not want to put up with the slander, lies, and the imposition of heresies that Luther had inflicted on him. He let Luther know of his intentions, hoping that he would relent and admit that he had done him wrong; but Luther repeatedly told him that he should only sue him if he felt like it. After some time of waiting, Agricola actually sent on January 7, 1540 a letter 4) "to the pastors and preachers and the city bailiffs, citizens and all inhabitants of the city of Eisleben", in which he asks them to help him by their testimony to be exonerated from the trumped-up accusations that he was accused of. At the end of the same is an extremely venomous attack on those who take a stand against Agricola: "For it is ever true that whoever blames me for something else than I confessed in the booklet to the pastors of the Mansfeld dominion and in my disputation at Wittenberg, accuses me of being a dishonorable, disloyal, desperate villain, and will not think otherwise of him for the rest of my life; I also ask you to think of him as such, so that he can prove it to me, as is right. When Güttel sent a copy of this writing to Luther on April 7, 1540, he added in the accompanying letter: Luther would well hear from the copy "that the ungrateful man Agricola complains about E. A. W., with attached words of shame, as if he wanted to disgrace his fatherland, E. A. W., and all of us, and put us all to shame and punish us with lies, purging himself alone and cleaning up nicely, as he never stumbled and transgressed in such highly important matters, nor found himself lying." He also states that such rage of Agricola, at least in part, stems from Luther's writing "against the antinomians": "from it the wounds have been partly hewn, and the little steed has been running, and the bear has been humming".

Two months later, March 31, 1540,

4. The same is printed in Förstemann l. c. S. 315.
5. Fprstemann 1. c. S. 327 f.

56 Introduction.

Agricola sent the same writing 1) to the Elector John Frederick of Saxony (only the invective at the end was omitted). In it, mainly three "conditions" are asserted as points of complaint against Luther: Agricola is "imposed by Calumnia", 1. "he does not want to suffer any law", 2. "he teaches: You may murder, commit adultery 2c., only believe, so it does you no harm." 3. 3. "Eisleben does not want to suffer a catechism." From the third point Agricola spins 32 "lies" which Luther brings against him, and he closes "the third edition" with the words, "Leng, devil, leug!" Then he assures his innocence and says that Luther "let himself be persuaded by poisonous slanderers and envious abusers of God and people to write untruths about other people." "There is no end to the blasphemy and vituperation in the pulpit. Therefore, he asks the Elector to "have an understanding, so that he may be overridden by such Zunodtigung rape".

The Elector, who was in Schmalkalden at that time, answered Agricola in a letter 2) from April 7, 1540: he did not like to hear that Agricola complained about Luther in such a way. If Agricola had tried to communicate with Luther himself, such a letter to the Elector would not have been necessary. Luther had never thought of Agricola, as he himself knew, in any other way than in a good way. But the Elector wanted to find out about things and order him to act. Before the Elector sent this answer, he had the theologians present in Schmalkalden, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Amsdorf and Melanchthon, report on the matter on April 5, 1540 3). Regarding Agricola's first point of complaint, they indicate that in his "Propositiones, 4) which were made and transcribed many years ago, also in his Postille, 5) which was in print at Wittenberg, it is clear,

1. Identical except for a few variants; of course with a changed address. Förstemann l. c. p. 317 with the erroneous date "March 1".
2. Förstemann I. c. p. 320 f.
3. Förstemann I. ". S. 325 ff.
4. i.e. in the series of theses at the beginning of No. 31 in this volume.
5. Cf. p. 51 f. of this introduction.

mall should not preach any law in the New Testament", therefore the first complaint is null and void. Melanchthon reports about the second complaint: "One of the city of Lüneburg wrote to me, Philippum, in many names, that he and they held that if one believed and nevertheless broke the marriage, ... it would not be sin, and punished ours for teaching that one loses grace and faith through such works." As a result, Luther "was moved to address Eisleben again and to demand a public revocation to put an end to such inequality in doctrine, which he offered to do. When Agricola "finally decided that the doctor should give him a form himself," he let the book go out against the antinomians. Luther's writings were indeed vehement, "but because the doctor in this book speaks primarily of doctrine, and not of Eisleben alone, ... it would be good that Magister Eisleben did not interpret the same book so burdensomely for himself alone and did not introduce such unnecessary, swift consequentialias 7) and consequences, as if the Doctor had accused him of having rejected the faith 2c., which the Doctor does not interpret for him; item, Eisleben has not been mentioned in the book about the church. .. Magister Eisleben has also never been mentioned in sermons." Therefore, the theologians advised the Elector to "inform Agricola that he should put the matter with Doctore Martino to rest, considering with which man he wants to deal". As we have seen, the Elector acted according to this advice.

On April 12, Count Albrecht von Mansfeld 8) sent a copy of the letter to the Elector, which Agricola had sent to the Mansfelds. The content of the letter was of course not new to the Elector, because it corresponded almost word for word with the complaint addressed to him, but "because the same Eisleben can be heard at the end of the letter ... almost heavy and difficult words", 9) so he did not understand it.

6. Förstemann l. c. p. 326 suggests "actual", which does not correspond to the circumstances. Luther says (Col. 1612, § 3): a public contradiction".
7. As a result, the third and final head of claim is dismissed as unfounded.
8. The letter of Count Albrecht can be found in Förstemann l. 6. p. 329 f.
9. Cf. p. 55 of this introduction.

Introduction. 57

he suspected that Agricola might want to avoid leaving Wittenberg, and on April 18, 1540, he instructed the chancellor Brück to 1) "take Agricola into his hand," that is, to have him take a vow that he would not leave without the will of the Elector. The Elector left it to Brück's discretion whether he wanted to do this through the bailiff Bernhard von Mila or through the rector and the university. Brück chose the latter way and Agricola "recently after the Leipzig Easter market Angelübd gethan", that is, in the first days of May 1540. 2)

Now the Elector, who at first wanted to let the matter rest until he himself would come to Wittenberg, instructed 3) a commission, consisting of Chancellor Brück, the bailiff Bernhard von Mila and D. Benedict Pauli at Wittenberg. Benedict Pauli at Wittenberg, 4) that they would like to settle the matter between Luther and Agricola. They also consulted the Wittenberg theologians. Both united, 5) the secular councils and the theologians, demanded information from Agricola as to what his complaint consisted of and what evidence he could provide for it; therefore, his more detailed "explanation" (declaratio) and justification of the complaint is also addressed to both. The inscription of this document in the Weimar archives reads: "Principal article of trade, Eisleben's doctrine". This document is dated with certainty before June 8.

1. Förstemann I, c. p. 330.
2. Förstemann 1. 6. p. 348 k. The Leipzig Easter Fair ended in 1540 on May 1. According to this, it can be assumed that the order of the Elector to Bernhard von Mila, to knit Agricola (Förstemann I. o. p. 331), was not used. - It is in the Tischreden, Cap, 37, § 37 to end, Walch, St. Louiser Ausgabe, Vol. XXII, 1033 instead of "beschicken"/.bestricken" to read what Bindseil, Ooüocmia, Dom. II, p. 77 offers. From this it follows that this speech is to be set in the beginning of May 1540, whereby again some light is thrown on these events, which have not yet been set forth in full clarity. Because of the conventional wrong time determinations (especially of "Luther's Report"), no clear picture is presented to us in this part of the antinomian controversies even by Kawerau and Köstlin.
3. Förstemann l. c. S. 330 a, No. 17.
4. Ikick. S. 348 a.
5. This is proven by the title: "Ewer Gestreng und Ernwirden" (cf. the beginning of letter No. 24, Förstemann I. o. p. 340), which Agricola uses in his letters to the Commissarien.

The theologians' verdict on the complaint of the same date already refers to the same 6) and they say about it: "His present declaratio: one should preach the law with or after the gospel, he did not say that before, but rather: one should take the decalogue away from the sermon on repentance. On the whole, the final verdict of the theologians (Jonas, Cruciger and Bugenhagen), their "true and consistent. Answer to Magister Eisleben's Complaint", is identical in content to that which had already been given by the theologians in Schmalkalden. Here, the three points of complaint are formulated very briefly and clearly: 7) "Eisleben primarily points out three things in which he is said to have been wronged. The first: he has not so grossly erred as he is charged with; the second, he has not therefore abrogated the law, grace, faith 2c.; the third, as often as antinomies are mentioned, he wants him to be touched with it." With respect to the first point, they judge that by Agricola's theses, in which he calls the doctrine of the Wittenbergers impure, and them perverters of the words of Christ, and by his postilion, in which he has set forth in clear words: One should not preach law in the New Testament and among Christians, it is proven "that the Lord Doctor Martinus Magister Eisleben did not do wrong". The second piece, which had been imposed on him, Eisleben had often called a big fat lie. But Luther did not put this on Agricola, but made a conclusion: "If sin is not, one does not need grace. And in this piece, the doctor does not speak of Magister Eisleben alone, but of many others.

6. Förstemann, I. c. p. 336b at the end: "seine itzige declaratio". Förstemann has given this writing the incorrect title: "Des M. Johann Agricola Vertheidigung seiner Lehre vom Gesetz gegen D. Luther" and dates it: "ungefähr am 8, Juni 1540". The wrong title comes from the assumption that "Luther's report" is to be set already in "April 1540", and it seems that Förstemann has assumed that Agricola defends himself against Luther in this writing. In contrast, this "Declaratio" is in fact the earlier one, and Luther refutes it in his report. Until now, it has been generally assumed that Luther's report, immediately after Agricola's complaint, is to be placed in April.
7. Förstemann l. c. S. 334 a, No. 21.

58 Introduction.

those who now fall into this phantasy". 1) Therefore, it is not wrong "that Luther teaches the doctrine that not only concerns Eisleben, but many others. "On the third article, that Magister Eisleben points to himself, where the Doctor Martinus calls the Autinomos, 2) the Doctor says that such an interpretation is not contrary to him. But it is true that not only Magister Eisleben had his phantasy, but many others have started to pretend such madness, as said, that grace and sin can be with each other against conscience. ... Because this doctrine is a common and necessary doctrine against all who unduly reject the law, the office of the preachers demands that they preach against such antinomies. And Magister Eisleben cannot use this for a private prosecution. From this it is clear that Doctor Martinus did him no injustice on account of this article. ... Therefore, we ask that he be held to it, so that he does not prove to the doctor that he has done him wrong. The secular commissioners agreed with this judgment of the theologians, and they presented it to the Elector as their own. 3)

. 1) That this judgment of the Wittenberg theologians is correct is shown by Luther's own marginal note to the theses Col. 1627 f. (compare the note there): "They the 2nd and 3rd Theses are also not interpreted to Eisleben, but to others, as, his students, as the title indicates," namely the superscription set by Luther: "Likewise others Antinomians teach. We have returned here to the subject already discussed in order to defend the Wittenberg theologians against the accusation raised by Kawerau (I. e. p. 205, note): "This prevarication, frequently put forward as Luther's excuse, was, according to his own testimony, a falsehood." If Kawerau, in order to prove this accusation, refers to Luther's writing against the antinomians, which "should hit Agricola in full force," he is mistaken. For the title of this writing: "Against the Antinomians" proves that it should not only hit "such game beginners and masters", but also his followers and disciples, who drew conclusions from Agricola's teaching, which he himself either did not draw, or even disapproved of and detested.

2. This passage indicates that the Commission also heard Luther about what he had to say about Eisleben's complaints. On the other hand, Luther seems to have spoken about this matter in writing only "after this interrogation" (Col. 1654), that is, after the verdict passed on June 8; therefore, and because he already had Agricola's "Declaratio" in his hands, we place his "report" after June 8.
3. The assumption of Bretschneider, Corp. Ill, 1035, that the secular councilors had written this concern is, as Förstemann I. o. p. 334 states, erroneous.

Brück also requested a written report from Luther on what he had to say about Eisleben's complaint and handed him the "Principalartikel" 4) for this purpose, which Agricola had handed over to the Commission before June 8. Luther sent his report full of M. Joh. Eisleben's false teachings and shameful deeds; in addition, an answer to his unfounded complaint against Luther (No. 32 in this volume) in the first half of June 5) to Chancellor Brück, who either on June 15 (or shortly before) reported to the Elector on the state of the matter. The Commission had not been able to bring about the desired settlement between Lnther and Agricola, because the latter insisted on his request (at the end of his "Declaratio"): "one should not burden him with what he does not owe". 6) Therefore, on June 15, 1540, the Elector informed the Commissars that he was of the opinion "that the matters must be brought to legal execution", 7) i.e. that the matter was to be settled by legal means, and ordered them to "appoint a legal date for Agricola to sue". Until this date, Agricola should either "send himself for settlement and reconciliation with Luther" or "bring his suit in a legal as well as articulate manner ... clearly and differently in writings". This order was communicated to Agricola by the Commissars on June 20, 8); in his written answer of June 21, Agricola insisted "that violence and injustice be done to him," and "insisted

4. Förstemann I. 6. p. 337 ff.
5. Perhaps this "Bencht" was already before the Commission on June 8. However, it is mentioned for the first time in the rescript of the Elector to his commissioners of June 15, 1540. Förstemann I. o. p. 339a, No. 23.
6. Förstemann I. c. S. 339 d, No. 22 at the end.
7. Ibiä. S. 339a, No. 23.
8. On June 27th, they report to the Elector that "today eight days have passed" they reported to M. Eisleben the Elector's order and that he had "soon the next day" delivered this writing, etc. What is meant is "Agricola's explanation of the Elector's order held out to him", Förstemann I. o. p. 340, No. 24. Förstemann places this "after June 21 and before June 27, 1540". From the words quoted above, however, it is certain that Agricola's "answer" must be dated June 21. That this answer is meant, proves the words repeated from the same: "he wants to bite into a sour apple".

Introduction. 59

then about the fourth day". Now the Elector decided "to take matters in hand against him and to carry them out in such a way that he and others would henceforth be afraid of such peculiar and repugnant ungodly teachings, ... to continue to follow the matters duly and to have him, that he had spoken and taught repugnantly of the articles touched upon, and thus to have him convicted of the deed, if it is possible". Therefore, in a letter 1) of July 10, 1540, he requested Count Albrecht of Mansfeld "to have his preachers and other servants and subjects inquire" what Agricola had taught in Mausfeld, "so that one could come to correct articles and further actions against him all the more effectively. The plaintiff had now become a defendant, for whose conviction testimonies were collected. Agricola himself realized that a detailed investigation would not be very favorable for him, and in the meantime he had looked around for other accommodations. Since during this time he had been asked by the councilors of the Electorate of Brandenburg, on behalf of Joachim II, whether he would not like to come to Berlin, on July 15, 1540, he first indicated this to the bailiff Bernhard von Mila with the request that he might inquire of the Elector "what he should do". When he did not receive an answer within a month, he decided to break his promise and escaped to Brandenburg on August 15, 1540.

On September 10, 1540, there was another dispute against the antinomians. The theses of this sixth disputation of Luther (Col. 1647) were defended by M. Joachim Mörlin from Wittenberg, under the chairmanship of Luther, in order to be admitted to the doctorate.

Even in Agricola's new place of residence, his existence depended on his being reconciled with the Wittenbergers and unanimous in his teaching. The Elector Joachim II himself was most eager to get the matter on track. Luther made three conditions: First, that Agricola retract his complaint; second, that he issue a public retraction of his false doctrine and address it to those at Eisleben; third, that

1. The same is found in Förstemann I. c, p. 343.

he would retract his scolding of Luther's writing against the antinomians. Agricola satisfied these conditions. He wrote a retraction, 2) which he sent to the Wittenbergers on December 9, 1540. After they had approved it, he had it printed and sent a copy of this "Confession and Confession of Johannis Agricola Eisleben, from the Law of God" 3) to the Elector on January 20, 1541, with a letter in which he asked for forgiveness. In the answer of the Elector 4) of February 28, 1541, he was once again reproached for his infidelity, which he had been guilty of by breaking his vow, but he received the promise that he should have security and a passport in the Electoral and Ducal Saxon lands.

Furthermore, Agricola did not present any more antinomian teachings and "Luther's Report" (No. 32) would probably never have been published in print if Agricola had not played an extremely sad role in the negotiations about the union with the Roman Church (Augsburg Interim). This is probably the reason why this work was first printed in 1549. The words of the title "and shameful deed" should express: that Agricola, the ungrateful man, sued his benefactor and preceptor Luther before the Elector. He died in 1566 as court preacher in Berlin.

II. Controversial Writings Against Schwenkfeld, Anabaptists and Other Enthusiasts.

In the sacrament controversy, besides Carlstadt, Zwingli and Oecolampad, we also encounter the names of the Silesians Valentin Krautwald and Caspar Schwenkfeld (von Ossig), who twisted the words of institution in this way: "My body, which is given for you, is this, namely spiritual food." 5) Luther complained in

2. Initially, Agricola also tried to adorn himself here by pretending that he had only presented his doctrine "disputation-wise". But he had to change this and acknowledge and revoke his earlier errors without further ado.
3. Printed in Förstemann l. c. p. 349 f.
4. Ibid. S. 352.
5. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 128, with the wrong timing: "Wednesday after Palmarum" instead of "Tuesday" (March 27).

60 Introduction.

In a letter to Spalatin of March 27, 1526, he wrote that they tormented him excessively with their books and were also very burdensome to him because of their chattiness. Namely, Schwenkfeld, after Carlstadt had come out with his error, also wrote a book on the Sacrament, which he personally presented to Luther during a visit to Wittenberg at the end of 1525. 1) The latter sent his book back to him after a few months, on April 14, 1526, together with an admonition to Caspar Schwenkfeld to desist from his error (No. 33 in this volume). Schwenkfeld, however, did not only persist in this error, but also brought many other delusions on the way, concerning the person of Christ, with which he turned to Luther in a letter dated October 12, 1543 2) and asked him to examine his teachings and to condemn him no longer without reason. On November 8, the books of Schwenkfeld were delivered to Luther. The verdict about Schwenkfeld, which Luther filled that day in the circle of friends, and Luther's answer to Schwenkfeld's messenger (No. 34 in this volume) show us with what indignation 3) Luther confronted such enthusiasts. The false doctrine presented by Schwenkfeld gave him cause for the "Disputation that in Christ the divine and human natures are united in such a way that Christ is only one person" (1543), which is printed in the 10th volume of the St. Louis edition, Col. 1140 ff. At the beginning of Luther's short confession of Holy Communion (No. 47 in this volume), Luther speaks about the use Schwenkfeld made of his "Letter to the Messenger".

At the beginning of 1532, prompted by the prowling and unauthorized intrusion of the Anabaptists, Luther wrote his letter to Eberhard von der Tann on the prowlers and angle preachers (No. 35 in this volume), in which he advises that the Anabaptists should not be allowed to take advantage of their influence,

1. Compare the last note to No. 33.
2. Kolde, Xnalketa, p. 392: "in Schwenkfelds Dpistolar. (1870) II, 701 ff."
3. This expression seems to be more appropriate than the one used by Köstlin, Martin Luther. Bd. II, p. 590: "passionately coarse".

that one should insist to such people that they must prove their profession, because no one can have a preaching ministry without command and profession.

In the same year 1532, perhaps in April, Luther sent a letter to Margrave Albrecht of Brandenburg, Duke of Prussia, (No. 36 in this volume) in response to an inquiry by the prince about the sacrament and the proper understanding of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Saint John. He admonishes the duke not to tolerate in his country such people who cause all kinds of disagreement and red tape over the text.

Similarly, on October 9, 1532, Luther exhorted in a letter to the Counts of Schlick to keep Jáchymov clean of swarmers (No. 37 in this volume), whereupon the Counts shortly issued a mandate against the swarmers.

When the preacher of Münster, Bernhard Rothmann, let a book "Restitutio", which was full of blasphemy and seditious teachings, go out, Melanchthon, on the other hand, in the first half of the year 1535, made several propositions against the teachings of the Anabaptists (No. 38 in this volume). There are four pieces against which he directs his attack, namely, 1. that they teach that before the last day there will be an outward bodily kingdom of Christ on earth, in which the pious will rule and destroy all godless princes by force; 2. that they teach that the subjects of the church are to be the rulers of the world; and 3. that they teach that the rulers of the church are to be the rulers of the world. That they teach that the subjects shall resist their authorities and overthrow them; 3. That they teach that their preachers shall take up the sword and overthrow ungodly authorities; 4. That they teach that in their new church there shall be none ungodly, but all holy and pure. Another redaction of this writing, provided with Melanchthon's preface and somewhat more detailed, 4) is No. 40 in this volume: Wider das gotteslästerliche und schändliche Buch, so zu Münster im Druck lulich ausgegangen ist, etliche Propositiones gestellt durch Philipp Melanchthon.

4. Compare the note to the caption of No.40,

Introduction. 61

Now, because one of these two redactions is completely dispensable, we have omitted the former and retained only the number and title so as not to confuse the count.

A paper entitled "Neue Zeitung von den Wiedertäufern zu Münster" (No. 39 in this volume), which reports on the life and activities of the Anabaptists in Münster in the late year of 1534, was prefaced by Luther (probably at the beginning of 1535) and printed.

Even before the fall of the city of Münster, i.e. in the first half of 1535, Nicolaus Amsdorf's final speeches against the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians appeared (No. 43 in this volume); on the other hand, after the conquest of Münster (June 25, 1535), Melanchthon's publication of several unchristian articles, which the Anabaptists claimed (No. 41 in this volume). This writing is assigned by some to the year 1535, by others to the year 1536; likewise Melanchthon's teaching against the doctrine of the Anabaptists (No. 42 in this volume). In 1536, Melanchthon's concern appeared that secular authorities were obliged to defend the Anabaptists with corporal punishment (No. 44).

In Freiberg, a preacher had crept in who persuaded the people that it was not necessary for them to go to Leisnig to hear the sermon and receive the Sacrament there (because in Freiberg, which was under the control of Duke George, neither the Gospel was allowed to be preached nor the Sacrament to be administered in both forms), but that every landlord could administer the Sacrament in his house. Therefore, on February 11, 1536, Luther sent a warning to Lorenz Castner and his comrades at Freiberg to beware of angle preachers (No. 45 in this volume).

In 1544, Luther wrote a preface to Justus Menius' book on the spirit of the Anabaptists, which is included in No. 46 of this volume.

Luther learned that Schwenkfeld spread the letter, which he had addressed to his messenger (No. 34 in this volume), "to his honor and glory" and to Luther's "disgrace and shame". This caused him in 1544, at the end of September ("as I now go to the pit"), before his end, to once again issue a short confession of the Holy Sacrament against the enthusiasts (no. 47 in this volume). 47 in this volume), in order to "bring this testimony and this glory," he says, "with me before the judgment seat of my dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that I have condemned and shunned with all earnestness the swarmers and enemies of the Sacrament, Carlstadt, Zwingel, Oecolampad, Steukefeld Schwenkfeld and their disciples at Zurich and where they are, according to his command, Tit. 3, 10. For Schwenkfeld's sake alone Luther would not have written, but word came to Luther many times "as if the enthusiasts should boast that he was one with them." In addition, in the summer of 1544, the draft of the Reformation, which Bucer and Melanchthon had written for the Archbishop of Cologne, had come into his hands. 1) Luther judged this book as follows: 2) "It the book has long been full of talk about the benefit, fruit, and honor of the sacrament, but it mumbles about the substance, so that one should not hear what it thinks of it, in all measure as the enthusiasts do; - nowhere does it want to come out, whether there is real body and blood, received orally". Therefore, he testifies again in this writing that he has never had anything in common with the false doctrine of the heretics, nor does he want to have anything in common with it now.

1. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, p. 591.
2. In the letter to Brück (July or August 1544), Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 486 f.

62 Introduction.

Third Section.

Luther's writings against the errors etc. of the Jews and Turks.

I. Against the Jews.

In the first years of the Reformation, Luther believed that many Jews would be converted to the Gospel if it were brought to them with true Christian love and gentleness. Just as the Word of God had been obscured in the papacy by all kinds of human statutes, so it was still obscured among the Jews by the false interpretations and lies of the Talmudists. Moreover, they were not treated as human beings but as dogs, they were not allowed to do any trade, so that they were forced to proliferate. The example given to them by the false Christians could also not serve to improve the Jews. Therefore, in order to make the Jews aware of the Gospel, which was shining brightly again in all countries, and to convert some of their number, Luther wrote in 1523 the scripture that Jesus Christ was born a Jew (No. 48a in this volume). In it, he most sweetly explains that Jesus is the promised Seed of the woman, the Seed of Abraham, in whom the Gentiles were to be blessed, the King who is to sit on the throne of David forever, the Virgin Son, of whom God had proclaimed through Isaiah. Now he also proves that the Jews wait in vain for another Messiah, if they do not receive the Lord Jesus, Abraham's and David's son from the tribe of Judah, as their Savior. The time when he came was the right time, because he is the Shiloh who was to come when the scepter of Judea was stolen, to reign eternally, not as a worldly but as a spiritual king. The same is proved by the account of Daniel's seventy weeks. Attached to this writing is a very readable letter of Jonas to Andreas Rem (No. 48b), in which he speaks about the excellence of this writing, which he translated into Latin, so that it could be spread among all peoples.

The same is true of a letter from Luther to Bernhard, a converted Jew (No. 48c), together with which he sends the preceding scripture so that Bernhard may fortify himself in the Gospel and spread it among his people.

Luther's writing seems to have had a favorable influence on the external conditions of the Jews, in that he advised "that one should keep the Jews friendly," but with regard to their conversion he was completely mistaken. He expresses this on December 10, 1537, in a letter to the Jew Jesel at Roßheim (No. 49 in this volume): "My writing has served all Jewry Judenschaft very much," and complains that the Jews disgracefully misuse such of his ministry "and do such things that we Christians do not have to suffer from them," even using Luther's favor "for their obduracy. For this reason, he also rejects his request that Luther intercede on his behalf with the Elector. The Jews, he said, had brought about by their obstruction that he would not be able to promote their affairs with princes and lords. Nevertheless, Luther also added a glorious testimony about the promised Messiah to this letter. He reminds him that the Jews have now waited in vain for the Messiah for over fifteen hundred years in misery, while the time determined by Daniel is long over, and exhorts him to accept the crucified Jesus, "their cousin and Lord", with us Gentiles.

About the same time 1) Luther received an inquiry from a good friend, namely Count Wolf Schlick of Falkenau, 2) as to how one could protect oneself against the pretence of the Jews from the Holy Scriptures that the law of the Jews must remain eternally, the Chri-

1. As we can see from the beginning of Scripture No. 50, Luther hesitated for some time with the answer.
2. Thus Mathesius, Luther's Life, St. Louis Edition, p. 62.

Introduction. 63

The sabbaths had to let themselves be circumcised, and the like. Luther responded to this in his letter against the Sabbathers to a good friend (No. 50 in this volume), which went out in March 1538. Luther gave this answer no longer for the sake of the Jews, because they do not believe the Scriptures but their rabbis, but to strengthen the Christians. To the Jews one should bring out the old argument, which they cannot answer for: They are now 1500 years in misery. About this one should ask them: what is the sin for which God has punished them so horribly? They cannot indicate any such sin. According to God's promise, Messiah must have come 1500 years ago, when the throne of David, the principality of Judah, the priesthood of Israel, the Temple and Jerusalem were still standing. Their sin could not endure God's promise. All their kingdom, worship, etc. is destroyed, and they are scattered among all nations, because they have not accepted the Lord Jesus, the true Messiah. Their law is over, because Moses alone was to last until the Messiah, but Messiah was to establish a new and better thing for the people of Israel and the throne of David. But if the Jews refer to the ten commandments, one should answer them: "If the ten commandments should be called Moses' law, then Moses came much too slowly, has also taken much too few people before him, because the ten commandments did not only go before Moses, but also before Abraham and all patriarchs over the whole world. For even if Moses had never come, nor Abraham been born, the ten commandments should have ruled in all men from the beginning, as they did and still do." Seckendorf (Hist. Luth., lib. Ill, p. 200, § 68) judges this writing to be worthy of being regarded as one of the most splendid testimonies to Luther's high talent because of the power of the reasons and the excellence of the writing.

Now Luther had resolved to write nothing more either about the Jews or against the Jews; but because they did not cease to lure the Christians to themselves, Luther, "in order to resist such poisonous activity on the part of the Jews and to keep the Christians safe," had the Jews write a letter to him.

At the beginning of the year 1543, he published his work on the Jews and their lies (No. 51 in this volume) and soon after, in March 1543, his work on the Shem Hamphoras and the lineage of Christ, Matth. 1 (No. 52 in this volume). The former, an extensive work, has four parts. In the first, Luther shows that circumcision and the glory of the noble blood (because of their bodily belonging to the people of Israel) are of no use to them without faith in the true Messiah Jesus Christ. In the second part he proves, especially against the horrible lies of the rabbis, that the Messiah has already come, and that Jesus is this true Messiah. In the third part he deals with the horrible blasphemies of the Jews against Jesus, his mother and all Christians, and gives the advice that by protecting and shielding the Jews, one should not make oneself a party to the public lying, cursing and blasphemy of the Son of God, but 1) burn their synagogues, destroy their houses, take away their prayer books and Talmudists, forbid their rabbis to teach, prevent them from usury and urge them to work. In the fourth part, Luther contrasts the Messiah, as the Jews desire him in earthly riches, power and glory, and that of the Christians, who is outwardly poor, lowly and despised, but nevertheless, according to God's promise, the peaceful, salvific King, who reigns without a sword with peace in all the world, who forgives sins, who is the resurrection and the life, who saves from death and gives eternal life and bliss to all those who believe in him. - Luther had already promised the other scripture of the Shem Hamphoras in § 270 of the previous scripture. He wanted to counter the lie of the Jews, as if the Lord Jesus had been a sorcerer, who through the interpretation

1. Here Luther, although, as we see from § 315 of this writing, it is only the authorities to whom this advice is given, goes too far in his zeal for God's honor by advising to intervene in matters of religion with the fist. But we assume that this was only a shot in the dark to ward off the great insolence of the Jews; for we do not hear that such a thing was carried out, at least in Luther's time, which would certainly have happened if Luther had insisted on it with all seriousness.

64 Introduction.

of the name of God (Tetragrammaton) has done all kinds of miraculous works. In the 11th chapter of the Book of Purcheti, which he translates into German, he shows how the Jews believe and must believe even the most insincere lies of their rabbis, and take in all the filth of the devil, because they do not want to accept the right one God in Jesus Christ, His Messiah, with right faith. Especially interesting is the closer explanation of what the Shem Hamphoras actually is, through which supposedly all kinds of miracles can be performed. In the second part of this writing, Luther proves that Christ is descended from the family of David, and brings the genealogical registers of Matthew and Lucas into agreement with each other.

The last writing of this section by Walch: D. Luthers Vermahnung wider die Juden, we have omitted here, because it forms the conclusion of the last four sermons of Luther, which he held at Eisleben, and has already been communicated in the 12th volume of the St. Louis edition, Col. 1264 ff.

II. Against the Turks.

In the late year of 1528, there was a rumor that the Turk was preparing for a new campaign against Germany (in 1529, the Turks were outside Vienna); Luther was asked by his friends to write against the Turk. He complied with this request in his writing on the war against the Turks (No. 53 in this volume), which he sent to Landgrave Philip of Hesse on October 9, 1528. The text would have been published in February 1529 or earlier, if the first sheets had not been lost through the negligence of the servants. Luther had to write it again. 1) Therefore, it did not go out until April 1529. 2) The cause for

1. Cf. Luther's letter to Hausmann of February 13, 1529. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1369. There sexterniones is wrongly translated by "six sheets". - "Sextern" is a sheet of six leaves.
2. On March 13, 1529, Luther wrote to Hausmann (Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1148): "The book Wider den Türken will be ready about Palmarum (March 21)." However, the first printing of the book took place on

Luther himself states: "Especially because there are some clumsy preachers among us Germans, who imagine to the people that one should not and must not wage war against the Turks, but some are also so foolish that they teach that it is not fitting for a Christian to wield the secular sword or to rule. In the Scripture itself, Luther states that the Turks have no just cause to start and wage war against the Christians. They only sought to plunder the Christians and to rob and damage other countries as the sea robbers and highwaymen. Against this, by God's command, two men shall now wage war against the Turk, Christianus and Emperor Carolus. The Christian should first of all strike the devil, the god of the Turks, and pray diligently against the Turk, the rod of God and the devil's servant, who not only destroys land and people with the sword, but also seeks to devastate Christ's kingdom. The emperor, however, as the highest authority, is obliged to protect his own and must therefore resist the Turk, in which all princes should also give him strong support, and Luther exhorts them to do the same.

After the Turks had to leave Vienna again, Luther, in order to exhort the army against the Turks (Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 2377, § 5, hence the title "Army Sermon"), let his Army Sermon against the Turks go out at the end of October 1529 (No. 54 in this volume). Because probably (says Luther) "my dear Germans, the full swine, will again sit down according to their ways and with good courage in all security celebrate and live well and forget such great grace, shown, and think: Ha! the Turk is now gone and fled, what do we have to worry about?" etc., Luther wants to do what he can, so that God will not be provoked to let the well-deserved punishment pass over us. Therefore comforts

the title the date: "den 16. April". Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, p. 122 places the writing in the month of March, probably due to the letter just mentioned. But as the completion of the writing, which was already in print on March 3 (De Wette, III, 426), had to be postponed already once from Judica (March 14) to circa Palmarum (March 21), so it seems that Luther had to put up with a rather long postponement until April 16.

Introduction. 65

And Luther exhorts the devout Christians through this sermon to the army. In the first part, he instructs the consciences by interpreting the seventh chapter of the prophet Daniel that they not only can and should fight against the Turks with a good conscience, but also die as martyrs if they perish in the war. In the second part, he exhorts them to put body and soul into it, to gladly give an estimate if the authorities demand it for this fight, and also to run toward their commandment with body or person, because God has commanded obedience.

On the occasion of Luther's exhortation to prayer against the Turk (No. 55 in this volume), which was published about the end of

August 1541, the necessary has already been said in the note to the superscription of No. 55. Similarly, in Brother Richard's publication of the Alkoran, written in 1300, translated by Luther, with his preface and attached warning (No. 56), which went out about the end of April 1542.

The last writing of this section, Luther's admonition to the pastors in the superintendency of Wittenberg to exhort the people to repentance and prayer against the Turk (No. 57 in this volume), was written by Luther on the orders of the Elector John Frederick. It appeared in February 1543.

Contents of the twentieth part

of

Luther's complete writings, which include Luther's controversial writings against the Sacramentarians and other zealots, as well as against the Jews and the Turks.

First Section.

Luther's Writings Against the Sacramentarians.

I. Controversial Writings against the Error First Brought on the Path by Carlstadt

from the Sacrament.

Column

1a. Luther's Eight Sermons Against Carlstadt's Innovations, Preached at Wittenberg in Lent, 9 - 16 March 1522 4

1b. Above sermons in another impression (the first two) 50

2. Luther's opinion of both forms of the sacrament and other innovations. Middle April 1522 62
3. D. Andreas Carlstadt's writing about the anti-Christian abuse of the Lord's bread and Chalice. About September 1524 92
4. D. Urban Rhegius' warning against the new insanity of D. Andreas von Carlstadt, halben des Sacraments. Towards the end of 1524 110

5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets. End January 1525 132

6. Carlstadt's writing of the Old and New Testaments. March 16, 1525 286
7. Carlstadt's declaration of how he respects and wishes to have respected his doctrine of the reverend Sacrament and others. July 25, 1525 312

8 Luther's answer and refutation of several erroneous arguments that Carlstadt had against him 2c. November (?) 1527 324

9 Wolfgang Fabricius Capito's verdict on what to think and how to respond to the split between Luther and Carlstadt. Late 1524 340

10. Martin Bucer's Reason and Cause, from Divine Scripture, of the Innovations to the Lord's Supper 2c. made at Strasbourg. December 26, 1524 352

II. Controversial Writings Against Zwingli and Others Who Denied the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion.

a. Zwingli's dispute with Bugenhagen.

Column

11 Zwingli's opinion of the night meal of Christ. April 1525 440

12 John Bugenhagen's epistle Against the New Error in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. About September 1525 500

13 Zwingli's response to Bugenhagen's letter. October 23 1525 506

b. Luther's dispute with Oecolampad and Zwingli.

14 The so-called Syngramrna Suevicum, or the preachers' writing against Oekolampad assembled at Schwäbisch-Hall, with Luther's preface. October 21 1525 520

15 Luther's preface to the first German edition of the Syngramma. About the second quarter of 1526 876

16. Oecolampad's response to Luther's preface, together with a short answer to the Syngramma of the preachers in Swabia . About August 1526 582

17 Oecolampad's responsibility against Theobald Billican. 1 February 1526 634

18 Oecolampad's two sermons on the worthiness of the Lord's Supper. December 21 and 24, 1525 768

19 Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ Against the Spirits of the Swarm. 1526 734

68 Contents of the twentieth part.

Column

20 Luther's scripture that these words of Christ, "This is my body," etc., still stand firm against the spirits. About April 1527 762

Appendix: Georg Rörer's writing to the Christian reader. 1556 892

21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. March 1528 894

22 Zwingli's writing against Luther's sermon Wider die Schwärmer. Completed March 30, 1527 1104

23 Zwingli's answer that these words, that is my body, will have the old unified meaning forever. Letter of June 20, 1527 1122

24 Zwingli's response to Luther's confession of the Lord's Supper. Begun July 1, completed end of August 1528 1228

Incorporated into this writing is: Joh. Oecolampad's Response to > Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. 1378

25: D. Jakob Strauß's writing against Zwingli's error. June 1526 1472

Column

26 Zwingli's answer about D. Straussen's book 2c. Second half 1526 1494

c. of Zwingli's Augsburg Confession.

Zwingli's Confession of Faith, which he had presented to the Emperor at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg in 1530. July 3, 1530 1546

d. of the confession of the four cities.

28. confession of the four cities of Strasbourg, Costnitz 2c. handed over at 'the Imperial Diet at Augsburg. July 11 1530 1570

e. Luther's writings concerning the leftover bread and wine in Holy Communion.

Luther's two letters to M. Simon Wolferinus. First letter dated July 4, 1543 1604

Second letter of July 20, 1543.... 1607.

Second Section.

Luther's Writings Against Other Enthusiasts.

I. Against the antinomers.

30 Luther's writing "against the antinomians" to D. Caspar Güttel. January 1539 1610

31 Luther's refutation of the false teaching of the antinomians against the law, in six disputations.

The first in 1537, the following four in 1538; the sixth in 1540 1622

32 Luther's report to D. Brück of M. Joh. Eisleben's false teaching 2c. First half June 1540 1648

II. Wider Caspar Schwenkfeld, Wiedertäufer und andere Schwärmer.

Luther's admonition to Caspar Schwenkfeld. April 14 1526 1660

Luther's verdict on Schwenkfeld and Luther's letter to Schwenkfeld's messenger. Nov. 8, 1543... 1662

35 Luther's Letter from the Lurkers and Angle Preachers. Beginning 1532 1664

36 Luther's letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia against a number of red-blooded spirits. Perhaps April 1532 1678

37 Luther's letter to the Counts of Schlick to keep Jáchymov clean of ravishers. 9 October 1532 1686

38 Melanchthon's etliche Propositiones Wider die Lehre der Wiedertäufer. First half 1535 1686

39 Neue Zeitung von den Wiedertäufern zu Münster. Beginning 1535 1688

40 Melanchthon's "Against the blasphemous and shameful book Restitutio that went out in print at Münster," several Propositiones 2c. . First half 1535 1698

41 Melanchthon's displacement of several unchristian articles that the Anabaptists claim. 1535 (?). 1536 (?) 1706

42 Melanchthon's Lessons Against the Doctrine of the Anabaptists. Second Half of the Year 1535 or Later 1724

43 Nicolaus Amsdorf's Final Speeches Against the Anabaptists, etc. First half 1535 1742

44 Melanchthon's concern that the secular authorities were obliged to defend the Anabaptists with corporal punishment. 1536 1752

45 Luther's warning to Loren; Castner and his journeymen at Freiberg to beware of angle preachers. February 11, 1536 1758

46 Luther's preface to Justus Menius' book "Vom Geist der Wiedertäufer. 1544 1760

47 Luther's short Confession of the Holy Sacrament. End of September 1544 1764

List of some writings belonging to it... 1792

Third Section.

Luther's writings against the errors etc. of the Jews and Turks.

I. Against the Jews.

48a. Luther's Scripture that JEsus Christ was a Jew by birth. 1523 1792

48b. Letter from Justus Jonas to Andreas Rem, citizen of Augsburg. 1523 1822

48c. Luther's letter to Bernhard, a converted Jew. 1523 1822

49 Luther's letter to the Jew Jesel at Roßheim. December 10, 1537 1826

50 Luther's Letter against the Sabbathers to a Good Friend. March 1538 1828

Contents of the twentieth part arranged in chronological order. 69

Column

51. Lutber's writing about the Jews and their lies. Issued in 1542, issued in early 1543 1860
52. Luther's writing on the appearance of Hamphoras and the lineage of Christ. March 1543 2028

II. Against the Turk".

53 Luther's writing about the war against the Turks. April 1529 2108

54 Luther's Army Sermon Against the Turks. Oct. 28, 1529 2154

55 Luther's Exhortation to Pray Against the Turks. About the end of August 1541 2194

56. brother Richard's transfer of the Alcoran, with Luther's. Preface and attached warning. About the end of April 1542 2218

57 Luther's exhortation to the pastors of the Superintendent of Wittenberg to exhort the people to prayer against the Turk. February 1543 2284

Appendix of some writings still belonging to the 20th volume.

Column

1. Carlstadt's Scripture of the Receivers, Signs and Promises of the Holy Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Christ. June 24, 1521 2288
2. Carlstadt's writing against the old and new papist masses. Circa September 1524... 2306
3. Carlstadt's Dialogus or Booklet of Conversations on the Abominable Idolatrous Abuse of the Most Reverend Sacrament of Jesus Christ. Perhaps in August 1524 2312
4. John Oecolampad's Sermon on the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. 1521 2360

5 Joh. Oecolampad's letter to the Swabian preachers. Before October 1525 2380

List of some rare or obsolete words in Luther's writings 2386

Supplements and corrections 2404

The writings contained in this twentieth volume

ordered according to the time sequence.

1521. Column

June 24. Carlstadt's Scripture of the Receivers, Signs, and Promises of the Holy Sacrament 2c. 2288

No date. Oecolampad's Sermon on the Holy Sacrament of the Altar 2360

1522.

March 9-16 Luther's Eight Sermons Against Carlstadt's Innovations 4

Middle of April. Luther's opinion to take from both shape 62

1523.

No date. Luther's Scripture, that JEsus Christ was born a Jew 1792

Without date. Letter from Justus Jonas to Andreas Rein at Augsburg 1822

No date. Letter from Luther to Bernhard, a converted Jew 1822

1524.

About August. Carlstadt's Conversation Booklet on the Abuse of the Sacrament 2312

About September. Carlstadt's paper Wider die alten und neuen papistischen Messen 2306

About September. Carlstadt's writing on the anti-Christian abuse of the Lord's bread and cup 92

Late year. Capito's Urtheil von der Schaltung zwischen Luther und Carlstadt 340

December 26 Bucer's Reason and Cause for the Innovations etc. 352

Towards the end of the year. Rhegius' Warning Against the Madness of Carlstadt 110

1525. Column

End of January. Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 132

March 16 Carlstadt's writing of the Old and New Testaments 286

April. Zwingli's Opinion of the Supper of Christ 440

July 25 Carlstadt's statement of how he respects and wants his doctrine of the Sacrament and others respected 312

About September. Bugenhagen's epistle Against the New Error, etc. 500

Before October. Oecolampad's letter to the Swabian preachers 2380

October 21 The so-called Syngramrna Suevicum 520

October 23 Zwingli's reply to Bugenhagen's letter 506

December 21 and 24 Oecolampad's two sermons on the worthiness of the Lord's Supper... 708

1526.

February 1 Oecolampad's responsibility against Billican 634

April 14 Luther's admonition to Casp. Schwenkfeld 1660

June. D. Jakob Strauß' writing Wider Zwingli's Irrthum 1472

About second quarter of the year. Luther's Preface to the First German Edition of the Syngramma 576

About August. Oecolampad's Response to Luther's Preface to the Syngramma and to the Syngramma Itself 582

79 Contents of the twentieth part arranged in chronological order.

Column

Second half of the year. Zwingli's answer about Straussen's book 1494

No date. Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament Against the Spirits of Enthusiasm 734

1527.

March 30 Zwingli's writing against Luther's Sermon against the enthusiasts 1104

About April. Luther's writing that these words of Christ, this is my body, still stand firm Against the swarming spirits 762

June 20 Zwingli's answer that these words, that is my body, will eternally have the old unified meaning 1122

November (?). Luther's Answer and Refutation of Some of Carlstadt's Erroneous Arguments 324

1528.

March. Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper 894

End of August. Zwingli's Response to Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper 1228

End of August. Oeeolampad's Response to Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper 1378

1529.

April. Luther's Sermon on the War Against the Turks 2108 October 28 Luther's Sermon on the War Against the Turks 2154

1530.

July 3 Zwingli's Confession of Faith,of Augsburg delivered 1546

July 11 Confession of the four cities, delivered at Augsburg in 1570.

1532.

Beginning of the year. Luther's Letter from the Lurkers and Angle Preachers 1664

Perhaps April. Luther's appeal against some Rottengeister to Duke Albrecht of Prussia... 1678

October 9 Luther's letter to the Counts of Schlick to keep Jáchymov clean from swarmers 1686

1535.

Beginning of the year. Neue Zeitung von den Wiedertäufern zu Münster 1688

First half of the year. Melanchthon's Propositiones Wider das Buch Restitutio, so issued at Münster in print. 1698

First half of the year. Amsdorf's Final Speeches Against the Anabaptists 1742

Second half or later. Melanchthon's laying of some unchristian articles of the Anabaptists.... 1706

Second half or later. Melanchthon's Lessons Against the Doctrine of the Anabaptists 1724

1536.

February 11 Luther's warning to Lorenz Castner and his comrades at Freiberg to beware of angle preachers 1758

Column

No date. Melanchthon's Concern that Secular Authorities are Guilty of Resisting the Anabaptists with Corporal Punishment 1782

1537.

December. Luther's First Disputation Against the Antinomians 1628

Dec. 10 Luther's letter to the Jew Jesel 1826

1538.

January 12 Luther's Second Disputation against the Antinomians 1632

January (?). Luther's Third and Fourth Disputations Against the antinomers . 1636

March. Luther's Letter Against the Sabbathers to a Good Friend 1828

September 13 Luther's Fifth Disputation Against the Antinomians 1642

1539.

January. Luther's writing "Against the Antinomians" to V. Caspar Güttel 1610

1540.

First half of June. Luther's Report of Eisleben's False Doctrine, etc. 1648

September 10: Luther's Sixth Disputation against the Antinomians 1647

1541.

About the end of August. Luther's Exhortation to Pray Against the Turks 2194

1542.

About the end of April. Brother Richard's laying of the Elder Koran, with Luther's preface. 2218

1543.

Beginning of the year. Luther's writing about the Jews and their lies 1860

February. Luther's admonition to the pastors of the superintendency of Wittenberg to lead the people to the Prayer To admonish against the Turk 2284

March. Luther's Scripture on the Shem Haniphoras and the lineage of Christ 2028

July 4 Schrerben to M. Simon Wolferinus. 1604

July 20 Second letter to the same 1607

November 8 Luther's verdict on Schwenkfeld 1662

November 8. Luther's letter to Schwenkfeld's messenger 1664

1544.

End of September. Luther's Short Confession of the Holy Sacrament 1764

Undated. Luther's Preface to Justus Menius' Book of the spirit of the Anabaptists 1760

1556.

Without date. M. Georg Rörer's writing to the Christian reader, because of some omissions in the Wittenberg edition of Luther's writing: "That these words of Christ, that is my body, still stand firm against the raving spirits " 892

** Reformation Writings.**

Second part:

Dogmatic-polemical writings

B. Against the Sacramentarians and Other Weakeners,

as well as

against the Jews and Turks.

**

**First Section.

Luther's writings against the Sacramentarians, or those who denied the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion.

I. Luther's controversial writings against the error of the sacrament, which was first brought onto the scene around Carlstadt.

1a. D. Martin Luther's Eight Sermons,

which he preached against D. Carlstadt's innovations at Wittenberg during Lent. *)

March 9-16 Anno 1522.

When the Satan of Luther's teachings, neither by the scholars, as Tetzel, Wimpina, Silvester Prierias, D. Eck, Emser, Murnar, Ochsenfart, Latomus and others, nor by the pope and the Roman emperor and the high schools in the German lands and in France, he thought to watch Luther in another way and to do him harm by false spirits and sects, and tried to do this (according to his old ways) inwardly in the church at Wittenberg, in the place where the gospel had first come to light again, and for this he especially used D. Andreas Carlstadt, who had previously been Luther's assistant and counselor in the Leipzig disputation. The latter, because Luther was absent in his Patmo, caused havoc in Wittenberg out of a misunderstanding of Christian freedom. For after

they had learned from the gospel that a Christian life was not in outward show, images, clothing, fasting, eating or drinking 2c., 1 Tim. 4, 3. but in spirit and faith, and that eating meat, eggs 2c. He and others went to the altar, overthrew the corner mass, stormed and burned the images, destroyed the altars, abolished the auricular confession, dropped the chants and ceremonies of the church, no longer wanted to use chalices and paten, ran unheard and unacknowledged to the sacrament, wanted to prove their Christian freedom in these pieces. They did not let a sermon precede, since the Word of God had previously instructed the heart about true godliness, and the

*The Erlangen edition lists five individual editions of this work published in Wittenberg in 1523 under the title: "Acht Sermones D. M. Luthers von ihm gepredigt zu Wittenberg in der Fasten, darin kürzlich begriffen von den Messen, Bildnissen, beiderlei Gestalt des Sacraments, von den Speisen und heimlicher Beichte. The first four of these sermons are also found in the Latin Wittenberg edition, Dorn. VII, toi. 273 under the title: Ksrino ds rsdns rnsäiis st sirnulasris. German in the Eisleben Collection, vol. I, p. 83; and.

6 Erl. 28,204 f. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. xx. 6 f. 7

They did not do it with the consent and foreknowledge of the authorities, nor did they ask that the weak be annoyed and offended by it, but did it all out of their own iniquity, presumption, and vain honor. They pretended that they were driven to it by the first commandment and Christian freedom and were full of the Holy Spirit; they condemned as heretics all those who did not agree with them. D. Carlstadt also had a book printed "on the abolition of images" in 1522, on the Monday after the conversion of St. Paul January 27, which he attributed to Wolf Schlick, Count of Passau, 1).

When this innovation and great annoyance was brought before Luther, and he saw with a saddened mind that the devil sought to suppress doctrine, disruption, and sedition with it, he immediately rose to Wittenberg to control this evil, and preached against the undertaken

1. This name is also found in Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 263. In the Wittenberg Album, 99: "Basssun"; in Luther's letter to Seb. Schlick, De Wette, Vol. II, 231: "Passun".

The newness taught that they did not lead the right process of resisting abuses or using Christian freedom, if one therefore wanted to act by force and not first sufficiently instruct the hearts of the doctrine of faith (because this must precede), so that they would be strengthened and assured in their conscience, and not get stuck in the challenge and reproaches, why they ran to the sacrament, even attacked images from the churches, ate eggs and meat.

(3) First of all, the abominations of the Pabst concerning the sacrificial measure, images, confession, fasting, and forbidden food should be punished and condemned by the word. If, therefore, the hearts were first freed from the cords, the outward abolition would be the easier; indeed, all this would fall from him. Then, too, for the sake of the weak, patience could be exercised in the outward ordinances, and only the strong could be used for freedom; so that Christian love would nevertheless be taken into account in it, lest a poor Christian, who does not yet know about it, be annoyed.

This redaction is, as Aurifaber notes in the margin of the Eisleben edition, taken from a print that was published by Lei Antonius Otho of Nordhausen. Aurifaber has placed it in the year 1522. We only reproduce the complete redaction contained in the Eisleben edition, but only the first two sermons of the other edition, which was first published by Walch and after him also by the Erlangen edition. For we consider it sufficient that in a writing that did not flow from Luther's pen, but only from his mouth, only one and that is the best version is reproduced. We have reprinted the two sermons mentioned, however, so that the reader can convince himself by his own observation that the omission of the other six sermons is justified. For we do not consider the inclusion of such an incomplete version, teeming with errors and often meaningless, to be a desirable enrichment of Luther's works, but rather an unnecessary burden on them. There is a third, very short, redaction, which has made the rounds through all previous editions. It is first published in the Jena edition of 1555, vol. II, p. 53 b under the title: "Schrift D. M. L. wider die Neuerung zu Wittemberg, durch D. Carlstad angericht, weil D. Martinus, held after the Diet of Worms, Anno 1521 was in his pathmo. Anno MDXXII." As a marginal gloss is added: "This writing has not been entirely available, but as much of it as is available has been put in so that it does not get lost, because it was written by D. M. himself," and so on. From the Jena edition, it is transferred to the Wittenberg edition of 1557, vol. IX, p. 144b and also added to the writings of 1522, but the words "Schrift D. M. L." are missing in the title. From it printed in the Altenburger, vol. II, p. 89; and with a somewhat changed title in the Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 247. Walch, vol. XV, 2370 has as its heading: "Antwortschreiben an die Wittenberger, wider die bei seiner Abwesenheit zu Wittenberg angerichtete Carlstädtische Neuerung, woinnen er sie theils bestraft, theils auch unterrichtet"; without indication of the time. De Wette, Vol. II, p. 118, is the first to date this letter "An die Wittenberger. Fragment" to the year "1521 perhaps in December". The Erlanger, vol. 53, 99, reprinted from De Wette, but leaves out the "perhaps" in determining the time. This so-called letter or scripture is obviously a short summary of the first five sermons given here. Almost sentence for sentence can be traced in the sermons; even the expression "purdi Purdi" (Walch, Vol. XV, 2372, § 8) is repeated in the penultimate § of the fifth sermon; not a single thought is contained therein that is not found in the sermons, only that Carlstadt's name is mentioned twice, likewise Duke George and Meissen and Leipzig. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 291 sf, places this "sharp rebuke of the Wittenbergers" at the end of February 1522 (on what grounds, we do not know) and then gives a rather extensive excerpt. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 527, sees in it "a written address to his Wittenbergers, which, however, did not come to the conclusion and to the dispatch, because he himself appeared with them instead of them", and transfers the same also into February. It is correctly noted that in it "the main thing he had to say to them is briefly and sharply summarized". Nevertheless, we are not able to see anything else in it than a summa of Luther's sermons, which is hardly written by Luther himself. The "gestellet" only indicates the intellectual authorship, just as Luther's "Preface" to the second volume of the Wittenberg edition, "vor seinem Abschied gestellet," was not written by him, but was compiled from several of Luther's writings. - The introduction to the eight sermons was written by Johann Aurifaber.

8 Erl. 28, 205-207. 1 L, Luther's eight sermons Wider Carlstadt 2c. W.xx,k-S. . 9

The first sermon.

On Sunday Invocavit.

(1) We are all called to death, and shall not die for one another: but every man in his own person must be armed and prepared to fight for himself with the devil and with death. Hebr. 9, 27. We may cry in one another's ears, comforting and exhorting them to patience, to fight and to battle, but we cannot fight or battle for him; each one must look to his own fortress and engage himself in battle with the enemy, with the devil and death, and lie alone with them. Then I will not be with you, nor you with me. Therefore, every man himself must know the main things that concern a Christian man, so that he may be prepared for this serious battle, which are those that your love has often heard from me.

2. first, we must know that we are all children of wrath, and that all our works, thoughts and senses are sinful and nothing in the sight of God, so that we may not come before God with them, however beautiful they may be. And in this we must have a bright clear saying from the Scriptures, on which we must be founded, which clearly shows us that this is so. Although there are many of these sayings in the Scriptures, I do not want to overwhelm you with many sayings, but rather hold up to you this single and short saying of St. Paul, which he writes to the Ephesians and says: "We are all by nature children of wrath" 2c., Eph. 2, 3. Let this saying be well commanded to you.
3. secondly, we must also know that God sent His only begotten Son into the world out of pure grace and goodness, that we should believe and trust in Him; thus, whoever believes in Him shall be free from sin and be a child of God, as John says in the beginning of his Gospel: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become children of God, who believe in His name", Jn. 1:12. 1) In this piece

1. Erlanger: Joh. 1, 11. This wrong citation, and in this writing still three others, is from the old Walch.

we should all be well acquainted with the Bible and equipped with bright, clear sayings to hold against the devil. For if you do not have a certain, bright, clear word of God in this battle, you cannot stand. And especially remember this saying of Christ in John: "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Whoever believes in him will not be judged. But he who does not believe is already judged, for he does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God," John 3:16, 17, 18. Likewise, note this saying of John the Baptist: "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life. He who does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him," John 3:35 ff.

(4) In these two things I do not yet perceive any defect or error in you, but they are preached to you purely and correctly. And I would be heartily sorry if it had happened otherwise than rightly. Yes, I see it well, and may well say that you are more learned in this than I am: not only one, two, three, four, 2) but probably ten, twenty and more, who are all well and truly enlightened in these two main pieces, and would not have thought that in such a short time, perhaps in a year, it should have risen so high.

5. Thirdly, we must also have love and through love do to one another as God has done to us through faith; without which love faith is nothing, as St. Paul says to the Corinthians: "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I could prophesy, and knew all mysteries, I should be a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.

The first edition is reprinted in the second edition. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 885, note 2.

2. In the Eisleben edition: "one, two, three, four. That the reading we have given is correct is evident from comparison with the other print of these sermons from 1523.

10 Erl. 28,207-210. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 9-12. 11

If I had all faith, so that I could move mountains, and yet had not love, I would be nothing. And if I give all my possessions to the poor, and let my body burn, and have not love, it is of no use to me. Here, dear friends, this piece is almost lacking, and I do not feel any love in any of them, and I almost realize that you have been ungrateful to God for such rightful treasures and gifts, which He has sent to you in a short time, and has given to you for nothing. Therefore let us see to it that Wittenberg does not become Capernaum, Matth. 11, 23. I see and notice that you are well able and know how to speak of the doctrine that is preached to you, as of faith and also of love; which is no wonder, although you can speak much of it. It is almost possible to teach an ass to sing; should you not learn so much that you should repeat the doctrine and the words? But, dear friends, God's kingdom does not stand in speech or in words, but in power and in deed, 1 Cor. 4, 20. For God does not want only hearers and persecutors, but followers and doers, Jac. 1, 22, who keep the word, Luc. 8, 15, who practice the faith that is strengthened by love, Gal. 5, 5. 6. For faith without love is worthless; indeed, it is not faith, but only an appearance of faith. Just as a face seen in a mirror is not a true face, but only an appearance of the face.

6 Fourth, we also need patience. For he who has faith, trusts in God and shows love toward his neighbor, and practices the same daily, cannot be without persecution, 2 Tim. 3:11, for the devil neither sleeps nor rests, but gives men enough to do. But persecution brings patience. For if I am not persecuted nor challenged, I know little to speak of patience. After that patience brings hope, Rom. 5, 4. which then freely surrenders and swings in God, and does not let itself be put to shame. And so, through many trials and persecutions, faith increases more and more, and

1. In the other imprint of 1523 probably better: "rich".

grows stronger day by day. Such a heart, in which faith thus increases and is endowed with such virtues, cannot rest nor abstain, but must in turn pour itself out and do good to its neighbor, as has been done and befallen it by God.

(7) Here, dear friends, not every man must do what he has a right to do, but must also forgive himself his right and see what is useful and beneficial for his brother, as St. Paul did, who wrote to the Corinthians: "I have all power, but not all profit to me," 1 Corinthians 6:12. 6:12, and then in chapter 9, vv. 19-23, he says: "Though I am free from all men, yet have I made myself the servant of all men, that I might gain much. To those who are under the law I became as under the law, that I might gain those who are under the law. To those who are without law I have become as without law (though I am not without God's law, but am in the law of Christ), that I may win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save some of all things. But these things do I for the gospel's sake, that I may be made partakers of its fellowship.

(8) In these words of Paul we are instructed how we, who have now received faith from God, are to conduct ourselves toward everyone, namely, to direct ourselves according to our neighbor's weakness. For we are not all equally strong in faith. I have a stronger faith than some of you. Some of you have stronger faith than I, and so it is a mixed thing among us. Yea, he that hath strong faith today may have it weak tomorrow; and again, he that hath weak faith today may have it strong tomorrow. Therefore we must not look to ourselves and our faith or fortune alone, but look to our neighbor, that we may conform ourselves to him, and not offend him with our liberty. So that I may tell you a gross similitude: If a man bear a sword, and be alone, he may bear the sword bare, or not bare; he may not bear it bare, but bear it alone.

12 Erl. 28,2W-SI2. l a. Luther's eight sermons against Carlstadt 2c. W. xx, 12-15. 13

1. or not, there is little that matters; but when he is in the crowd or with children, he must be much more careful with the knife, so that he does not harm anyone. In the same way, we must keep our freedom so that we do not give anyone cause to take offense at us and our freedom. Let us not forget how God has borne and tolerated our weakness, even our unbelief, for a long time, and thus also bear patience with our neighbor, even if he cannot follow us so soon, even if he still struggles and lacks at times. Listen to how God cries out in the prophets that he carries his people like a mother carries her child, Isa. 46, 3. He feeds them like a nurse feeds the child. How does the mother feed or nourish her child? First she gives him milk, then porridge, then eggs, and so soft food, until the child is used to harder food and can eat cheese and bread from then on. For if the mother were first to give the child cheese and bread, roasted and boiled meat to eat and wine to drink, what would become of it?

(9) In the same way we should deal with our weak brothers, be patient with them for a while and suffer their weak faith, even give them milk and soft food at first, 1 Pet 2:2.As it has happened to us, until they also become strong; not snapping at them cruelly, but acting kindly and instructing and teaching them in all gentleness, so that we may not think of going to heaven alone; but seek to bring your brother with you. Even though they are now our enemies and do not have perfect faith, they will yet become our friends and let go of unbelief. If all mothers should reject their impure, shameless, unclean children, where do you think we would be? Dear brother, when you have suckled enough, do not cut off the teats immediately, but let your brother suckle as long as you have suckled.

(10) I say all this because I see that you have been lacking in this piece, and have been grossly-

1. Otherwise, the form "störzen" also occurs, i.e. to fall, to swing.

I would not have gone as far as I did if I had been here. I would not have taken it as far as it has gone if I had been here. The thing is good in itself, but the hurry is too fast. For on that side there are also brothers and sisters who belong to us; they still have to be brought here. Faith should stand firm and steadfast, but love must and may be guided, as one can see that it wants to be according to the neighbor's need.

11. Take a similitude: The sun has two things, the shine or brilliance, and the heat. There is no king so strong and mighty as to bend or direct the brightness and rays of the sun, for it cannot be directed, but remains fixed in its places; 2) but the heat directs itself, and yet is all about the sun. So faith must always remain fixed and immovable in our hearts, and must not depart from it nor waver; but love moves and is directed, according as our neighbor may understand and follow it. There are some who can run, some who can walk, but some who can hardly crawl. Therefore we must consider not our own ability but our brother's weakness and imperfection, so that he who is weak in faith, if he would follow the strong, may not be torn asunder by the devil.

Therefore, dear friends, follow me! I have never spoiled it; I was the first one whom God put on this plan; I cannot escape God, but must remain until it pleases God, my Lord; I was also the one whom God first revealed to preach and proclaim such His word to you. I am also certain that you have the pure, unadulterated word of God. Therefore, let us do well in this, and let us be careful to act on the same divine word with fear and humility, to lie under one another's feet, to join hands, to help one another, to counsel one another, and to do good to one another in all their needs, and to take care of one another's misfortunes, fears, hardships, and distresses as if they were our own.

2. Here "örtern" means to assign to a place, to put in a place.

14 Erl. 28, 212-214. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 15-17. 15

(13) I will do mine own part in this, and speak my mind as I ought, and mine heartily to you, as I do to my soul; but if there be any that have better, and be revealed unto him more than unto me, I will submit my mind and understanding unto him, and will not set my mind above his head, but will follow him. But if it should be found that my opinion and understanding were right, I will not suffer anyone to set his head above my mind. Let us all work together in harmony, it will nevertheless cost us enough effort, if we are to remain with the pure, loud, righteous words of God. For we are not arguing here against the pope, bishops and worldly rulers, for these are coarse heads, which one can well recognize that they are mistaken and only pretend coarse things, which one can almost understand with reason, but we are arguing against the devil, against the spirits of wickedness under heaven, not against flesh and blood, as Paul says to the Ephesians in the 6th chapter, v. 12.

14 Therefore, dear friends, do not think that Satan is asleep and quiet; indeed, he attacks us in all places and with all cunning. He has many arts; if one does not go away, he soon has another; we are far too bad and simple for him; he is an artist of a thousand. He sees the true light of the gospel shining so clearly that he is not allowed to look him straight in the eye; therefore he would like to come to his side and try his salvation there, if he could tear in beside him; he will also do it, if we do not look diligent. For I know him well, and he also knows me well; but I hope that I am his master. But if we leave him only a foot's breadth, we may see to it that we are rid of him.

(15) For this reason all those who helped and permitted the mass to be done have erred, not that it was not good, but that it was not done properly. You say: It is right from the Scriptures. I also say it, but where is the order with it? For it was done in a sacrilege without all order, with offense to the neighbor. You should have earnestly asked God for it beforehand.

If you had prayed and taken the authorities, you would have known that it was because of God. I would have started it, too, if it had been good; but it will not suffer soon to throw away all evil things so suddenly and without order. Therefore, if it were not such an evil thing about the mass, I would again establish it, in spite of those who have handled it disorderly; for I do not know how to defend or maintain that you have done well in this; I have just told you.

(16) Before the papists and before the rude heads I could well do it, for I would speak: What do you know whether it was done in a good spirit or in an evil spirit, since the work is good in itself? But before the devil I do not know how to dispute it; for if the devil will reproach those who have started this game with these sayings or the like when they die: "All plants that my heavenly Father has not planted will be cut down," Matth. 15:13, or the one from the prophet Jeremiah: "I did not send the prophets, yet they walked; I spoke nothing to them, yet they preached and prophesied," Jer. 23:21, how will they survive? They will certainly have to go to hell. But I will hold a cannon 1) in front of the devil's nose, so that even the wide world will become too narrow for him, for I know and am certain that I did not accept my preaching ministry of my own accord, nor did I intrude, but was called upon to do so, and was also chosen to preach here against my will. 2)

17 Therefore you have done wrong, that you have begun such a game without my command and consent, and have not also asked me beforehand.

(18) I have not been so far from you that you could ever have reached me with writings, for it is not the least bit;

1. In the other edition of 1523, instead of "Sprütze" it says "Spitze", which seems to us to be a better reading.
2. For several years, Luther had been entrusted with the preaching office at the parish church of the city of Wittenberg, to help the sickly Simon Heinz from Brück, brother of Chancellor Brück. He died in 1522, and only in 1523 Bugenhagen became his successor, next to whom Luther also preached frequently.

16 - Erl. 28,214-sis. l a. Luther's eight sermons Wider Carlstadt 2c. W. xx, 17-20. 17

It would have been worthwhile if you had sent to me for this. If you want to sow something thoughtlessly and out of a sacrilege, and I should answer for it afterwards, that would be too difficult for me, I will not do it. All this shows that you do not have the Spirit, even though you have a high knowledge of the Scriptures. There is a great difference between these two things: "must be" and "be free. For "must be" is that which necessity demands, and must exist unsteadily, as there is faith; which I will not let be taken from me nor overthrown, but must always have in my heart and freely confess before everyone. But "to be free" is that which I have freely, and may use it or let it stand, so that my neighbor, and not I, has the benefit of it. Therefore do not make "being free" into "having to be," as you have now done, lest you should have to give account for those who are tempted by your uncharitable freedom. For if you tempt someone to eat meat on Friday, and he is challenged because of this in mortal distress, and thus thinks, "O woe is me, that I have eaten meat and cannot stand!

(19) I would have started many things, since not a few would have followed me; but what is the use? For I know that those who have started such things, when it comes to the meeting, as you now see, that they cannot stand, indeed would be the first to resign. Dear, how would it stand if I brought the bunch on the plan, and I ,who had been the first, had stopped the others, and wanted to flee from it myself and not wait for death happily: ei, how should the poor bunch be deceived! Therefore let us also give milk to the others, as has happened to us, until they also become strong in the faith. For there are still many of them who fall to us in other things, and would gladly praise and accept these things also, but they cannot yet well understand; all of them we drive back with such impudent impetuosity. We must not forget our love for our neighbor, but always keep it in mind and judge all things by it. If we will

If we do not do this, our being will not stand. We must be patient for a while with those who are still weak in faith and not reject them. How much more should we do and leave it, if love requires it and does not harm our faith! Therefore I say and warn you faithfully: if we do not earnestly ask God and send ourselves right into the matter, then the game looks to me that all the misery, which the papists started from us, will come upon us. Therefore, I could not stay outside any longer, but I had to come and tell you this. That's enough about the mass; tomorrow we will talk a little more about it and also about the pictures.

The second sermon.

On the Monday after the Sunday Invocavit.

Dear friends! Yesterday you heard what pieces a Christian man should have in him, namely how the whole Christian life and being is "to believe" and "to love". Faith is directed toward God, but love is directed toward man and neighbor, so that we show ourselves in love toward man by doing good, by counseling, by helping, as we have received good and help from God without our merit and work, in vain, out of pure grace and mercy.

(2) Now there are two things which a Christian man should and must respect. The one that is necessary, namely that it must be done in this way and not otherwise; the other that is free and unnecessary, which may or may not be kept without danger to the faith and the souls' salvation. In these two things, love must act with one's neighbor as God has done for us, and thus walk the right road and not fall either to the left or to the right.

(3) In the things that must be or are necessary, such as believing in Christ, love nevertheless acts in such a way that it does not force, nor is it too severe. As, the mass is an evil thing and God is its enemy, in that it is done as if it were a sacrifice and meritorious work; therefore, it is not a sacrifice and meritorious work.

18 Eri. L8,216-L19. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W.xx. 20-22. 19

they must be done. Here is no questioning or doubting, as little as you should ask whether God is to be worshipped. Although we are now in complete agreement in this matter, since the special masses must and should be stopped, as I also wrote about them and wanted them to be stopped throughout the world, and only the common evangelical mass to be kept; nevertheless, love should not be strict in this matter and tear down these masses by force. Let it be preached, written, and proclaimed that the mass held in this way is sinful. But no one is to be torn away from it by the hair, but one is to give it home to God and let his word work alone, without our doing or works. Why? Because I do not have the hearts of men in my hand, as the potter has the clay, to work with them according to my pleasure, as God has the hearts of all men in his hand, to convert them or to harden them, Jer. 18:6, Rom. 9:21. I cannot go further with the word than into the ears; I cannot go into the heart. Since faith cannot be poured into the heart, no one can or should be forced or compelled to do so, for God alone does this and makes the word alive in the hearts of men when and where He wills, according to His divine knowledge and good pleasure. Therefore, let the word go freely and do not add our works to it. We have jus verbi, and not executionem, that is, we are to preach the word, but the consequence is to be placed in the service of God.

(4) If then I fall, and will forcibly put away such abuse of the masses, there are many of them that must enter into it, and yet know not how they are, whether it be right or wrong; saying then: I do not know what my position is; I have had to follow the congregation, the crowd and the congregation; they have an erroneous, restless conscience, which they can hardly get rid of. And out of the compulsory commandment alone a mirror fencing, an outward being, a monkey play and a human statute; from it then shining saints, hypocrites and gleamers come. For there is no heart, no faith, nor love. Where these three pieces

If you don't come up with a work that is as right and good as you want it to be, then nothing will come of it; I didn't want to give a pear stem to it.

5 The people's hearts must be seen for the first time, which is what happens when I preach God's word, preach the gospel, proclaim to the people their error, and say: "Dear lords, dear priests, dear papists, leave the mass; it is not right for you to keep the mass, you sin in it and anger God with it; that is what I want to have said to you. But I did not want to make a statute for them, nor did I want to insist on a common order. Whoever wanted to follow, followed; whoever did not want to, remained outside.

If one did this, the word would fall into the heart of one person today, and into the heart of another tomorrow, and would have such an effect that one would have to give himself up as a prisoner and consider himself guilty that he had erred in this, and would go and fall from the mass by himself. Thus God worked more with His word than if you and I and the whole world melted all power into one heap. For with the word God takes the heart; when the heart is taken, you have already won the man. Then the thing must at last fall from itself and cease.

(7) But when all the mind and spirit are united, and all things become one at the same time, so that there is no more weakness, then do away with that which is not right. But if all mind and heart are not yet there, then let God rule; then I beg you, for you do no good.

(8) I do not say this to restore the mass, but leave it in God's name; because it has fallen, let it fall. Only this must be respected and preached at all times, so that faith will not be trapped or bound, nor will it be constrained to any work by any order. Then follow this and no other. With such storms and violence you will not lead it out, you will see. And if ye therefore tarry, and will not be led, know that I will not stand with you; I will also beseech you. What harm can it do you, if you stay for a while with

20 Erl. 28, 219-221. l a. Luther's eight sermons against Carlstadt 2c. W.xx, 22-25. 21

Do you have patience with such outward things? Do you have pure and strong faith in God, so that this thing cannot harm you? Love requires that you have compassion on the weak until they also increase in faith and become stronger. This is what all the apostles did. Paul, when he came to Athens, a mighty city, found altars built in the temple, and went from one to another, beholding them all, and all the idolatry thereof; but he touched none of them with his foot, but stood in the midst of the place, and told the people that it was a vain idolatrous thing. And when the word had taken hold of their hearts, the idols themselves fell away, and all idolatry was consumed from themselves, without all violence and without all tempest. Apost. 17, 22-34.

(9) So it should have been done here also. If I had seen that the priests had held mass, I would have preached and admonished that it was blasphemy and that God would be greatly angered by it. If they had complied, I would have won them over; but if not, I would not have torn them away by the hair and by force, but would have let the Word act and prayed for them. For the Word created heaven and earth and all things, Genesis 1:1, Psalm 33:6; the same Word must do it here, and not we poor sinners.

Summa Summarum: I will preach it, I will say it, I will write it, but I will not force anyone, because faith wants to be accepted willingly and without coercion.

11 Take me as an example. I have opposed the pope, the indulgence and all papists, but with no violence, with no sacrilege, with no storming, but with the word of God alone I have driven, preached and written; otherwise I have done nothing at all. That same word, when I have been asleep or in good spirits, has accomplished so much that the papacy has become so weak and powerless that no prince or emperor has ever been able to break off so much. I have not done it; the few words preached and shouted by me

I have done all this and acted accordingly. Even if I had driven into this with violence and mischief, I should probably have started such a game that Germany would have come into great bloodshed. But what would it have been? It would have been a fool's game and a ruin of body and soul. I sat quietly and let the word act.

(12) What do you think that the devil thinks when such a thing is done with rumor? He sits behind hell and thinks, "Oh, how the fools will make such a fine game for me! That is how I would have it; I will get my share from this booty; so let them continue; this is just a game for me in which I take pleasure. The devil is not greatly harmed by such storms, but he is frightened when we do the word and let it work alone; it is all-powerful and takes hearts captive. When the heart is captured, the work must fall away from itself and go to ruins.

013 There were also sects in time past among the Jews and Gentiles concerning the law of Moses, and especially concerning circumcision: some would keep the law, and some would not. Then Paul came and preached that people should keep the Law of Moses or not, for there was no power in it, and they should not be forced to keep it, but should be free to do so, and there was no danger in keeping it or not.

14 This lasted until the time of Jerome, who came and wanted to make it an obligation, wanted to put it into an order and statute and force it to be done away with. Then Augustine came, and was also of the same opinion as Saint Paul, and said: one should keep it, or not keep it. St. Jerome was probably a hundred miles from St. Paul's opinion. There, the two Doctors ran very hard with their heads together, and no one wanted to give way to the other. But now that Augustine had died, Jerome brought it to the point that it had to be stopped. After that came the popes, who also wanted to do something about it, and made laws; then many thousands of laws grew out of the one law, so that they have now overwhelmed us with laws.

22 Erl. 28,221-223. I. Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. ' W. XX, 2S-27. 23

(15) So it will be here also, if one wants to grasp the thing with laws. For one law soon makes two, two make three, and so on, so that in the end there would be no end to the laws. That is enough for this time. Let us only take care, dear friends, that we do not confuse or deceive the weak consciences with our iniquities, for which Christ also died, as well as for our sake, as St. Paul clearly teaches to the Romans, Cap. 14, 1.

The third sermon.

On the Tuesday after the Sunday Invocavit.

(1) We have now heard, dear friends, the things that must be, and that are necessary, which must be done, that and no other; but that one must do away with the angular or special masses, which are against God. For I mean that all works must be done which are commanded or forbidden by God, and which the high majesty of God has thus decreed to be done. But besides this, you have also heard that no one is to be dragged to or from it by the hair, but to let the word preach and work freely, without our interference, where it should and will. For I cannot drive any man to heaven, or beat him with knuckles there. That, I think, is said roughly enough; I also think you have understood it well enough, and I hope you will do the same.

Now follow the things that are unnecessary and left free by God, which one may or may not keep; such as becoming married, removing images, becoming monks and nuns, monks and nuns leaving the monasteries, eating meat and not eating on Fridays, and what such things are more. These things are all free and need not be forbidden by anyone; but if they are forbidden, it is wrong, for it is against God's order. Yes, St. Paul calls it the doctrine of the devil and of the end of Christ, 1st Epistle to Timothy 4, v. 1, 2, 3, where he says: "But the Spirit clearly says that in the last times some will depart from the faith and follow false spirits and doctrines.

of the devil, through those who are liars in glibness, and have brands in their consciences, and forbid to marry, and to shun the food which God has created, to take with thanksgiving the faithful, and those who know the truth."

(3) Now in those things which are free, which may or may not be done, keep thyself thus: If thou canst keep such things without burdening thy conscience, keep them always; but if thou canst not, let it stand, lest thou fall into greater burden. Here no common commandment need be made, but each one should be free to accept or not to accept. As if a priest, monk or nun cannot abstain, but has a desire for the conjugal life, he or they may freely become conjugal, so that the consciences may be advised, 'and no commandment or prohibition shall be made to them in this.

4 But you must see to it that you are prepared and armed, so that you can stand before God and before the world when you are challenged on this account, especially at death and in the deathbed before the devil. It is not enough that you would say: This one and that one did it; my neighbor eats meat on Friday, therefore I also ate it; everyone does so now, therefore I also do it; I followed the common crowd, and what are the more unstable, unfounded words. That you wanted to say: This or that preacher 1) has preached it; it does not apply, does not hold the sting; the devil does not turn to it either. Yes, if you are not more certain and better equipped than with such weak armor, then you have already lost. In this case, everyone must stand up for himself and be prepared in the strongest possible way to fight against the devil. You must base yourself on a bright, clear, strong saying of the Scriptures, by which you can stand. For if you do not have such a saying, it is not possible for you to stand; the devil will snatch you away as the wind snatches away a dry leaf.

1. In the other edition: "I followed the common crowd, when the provost, Doctor Carlstadt, Gabriel Zwilling or Michael preached to us."

24 Erl. 28, 223-225. 1a. Luther's eight sermons Wider Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 27-30. 25

(5) Therefore, whichever priests have taken wives, and whichever nuns have married, they must have for themselves a certain saying from the Scriptures, upon which they may plead against the devil and against the world, which will not leave such divine work unchallenged. And especially may they remember this saying of St. Paul, which we have told above, that the devil's doctrine is to forbid marriage and to forbid food. The devil will not overthrow or eat this saying; indeed, he will be eaten and overthrown by this saying.

-Now, if any priest, monk or nun finds himself too weak to keep chastity and wants to become married, let him look at his conscience. If his heart and conscience are so strengthened that it can stand, and be sure that it is not against God, he can become married with a good conscience and a happy heart. If God wanted all monks and nuns to have this understanding, and if they all ran away from the monasteries, and if all monasteries in the whole world ceased to exist, that would be my wish and my heartfelt desire. But now they do not have the understanding (because no one preaches it to them) and from hearing that others run away from the monasteries, they also go out, and because of that, that others become married, they also take wives and husbands, without reason and with an unsteady conscience, that is evil. For they follow them that are strong, and well armed with the sayings of the scriptures; but they are unarmed, and know not that it is free. Therefore it is trouble with such people. But it is better to have an evil conscience outside than in the monasteries, for one can help the same poor people before the others.

7 So this is the summa of it in short words: What God has made free, that shall remain free. But if someone bequeaths it to you, as the pope did, the end-Christ, you shall not follow him. But whoever can do or not do something without harming himself, why would he not do it? I may well wear a cap or plate for the love and service of my neighbor, if only it does me no harm to my faith. So, dear friends, it has been said clearly enough, and I think you should now understand that you should not make a commandment out of freedom, and not

so soon conclude and judge: This priest has taken a wife, therefore all priests must take wives. Not yet! The monk, this nun has left the monastery, therefore they all must leave. Not yet! He has burned the images, that one has broken the crucifixes, therefore we must all burn and break. Not yet! Again, if I were to say: The priest has no wife, therefore no priest must have no wife, nor become married. Not yet! For they that cannot keep chastity take wives; but they that can keep chastity, it is good for them to abstain, and to be without wives: for such men live in the spirit, and not in the flesh.

(8) Nor shall monks and nuns dispute the vows they have made, vowing chastity, obedience and poverty. For we cannot vow anything against God's word. 1) God has made it free to become married or not, and you fool dare to make a vow out of this freedom against God's order. Therefore, let it remain a freedom and do not make it a compulsion. Vows or not, vows or not, they are not valid here, because they are against God's commandment and order. Such vows are as much as if I vowed to hit my father in the mouth or to take someone's property. Do you think God would be pleased with that? As little as I should keep a vow to strike my father in the mouth or to take another's, so little should I keep chastity by vow, for God has decreed otherwise on both sides.

(9) Likewise, God has decreed that it is free to eat fish or meat, and there shall be no commandment or prohibition here. Therefore, all Carthusians, all monks, nuns and all those who are under the pope's laws, step away from God's order and from the freedom that God has given them. But they know nothing to say about this freedom, but stand on their human statutes and rules; they think that if they ate meat, they would be lost.

1. So in the old edition of Walch. In the Eisleben edition: "Gebot", which does not fit here.

26 Erl. 28, 225-227. I. Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. W. XX, 30-33. 27

restrains. Thus it is to be understood of all things that God has left free, where there is no public commandment or prohibition; therein every man must keep himself, that he offend not his neighbor, neither act contrary to his faith and conscience.

We must also say a little of the images.

(10) As for the images, they are unnecessary; but it is left free to have them or not to have them. Although it would be better if we had none of these images at all, for the sake of the tiresome misuse and unbelief. A great dispute arose about the images between an emperor and the pope. 1) The emperor wanted that there should be no image, but the pope said that they must be; and finally this deal was broken with great bloodshed. But they both failed, in that they made a must out of that which God had left free. Dear, do not let yourself think more than the high divine majesty. If God had wanted to make a commandment or a prohibition out of it, he could have done it. Because he has left it free, why do you want to be so bold and make a commandment or prohibition against God's freedom?

11 Yes, said the same iconoclasts, in the 2nd book of Moses it is written: "You shall not make for yourself an image or any likeness, either of what is in heaven above or of what is on the earth beneath, or of what is in the water under the earth," Ex 20:4. Behold, they say, these are clear, bright words, by which the images are forbidden. I know it well, dear friends, that this is their reason, but they will not harm us with this text. For if we look at the first commandment and the whole opinion of the same text, this is the mind and opinion of Moses, that we should worship only One God, and no image, as is also clearly stated in the text that soon follows, v. 5: "Do not worship or serve them." Therefore one should say to the same iconoclasts: Worship is forbidden here,

1. Leo III, the Isaurian (717-741), and Pope Gregory II. (715-731).

and not the making. I may well have or make pictures, but I should not worship them.

012 And if they say, It is clearly written, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image; say thou, It is clearly written, Thou shalt not worship them. Summa, they only deal with the fact that they make us uncertain and wavering over this text. But who will be so bold in such wavering as this, and go and break down the images? Not I. Noah, Abraham, Jacob and other patriarchs have built altars to the Lord. Moses set up a bronze serpent in the desert, Numbers 21:9, who himself forbade not to make an image. Is a snake not also an image? What do the iconoclasts have to say about this? Item, were there also two cherubim with wings made over the mercy seat in the temple, at the very place where God alone wanted to be sought and worshipped, Ex. 25, 8-20. Are these not also images? How can you be so bold as to freely conclude from this text that the images should be stormed and torn down?

(13) Therefore we must confess and conclude that we may make and have images, but not worship them. But if there be any images which we would worship, let those images be broken, and taken down; yet not with a tempest and an outrage, but let the authorities command it to be done. This is what King Ezekiel did when he broke the bronze serpent that Moses had set up. 2 Kings 18:4.

14 If the iconoclasts were so bold as to say: Yes, they also worshipped the images, therefore we are also caused, like the king Ezechias, to tear down and break the images. So they would have to answer: "Are you the man who can blame us for having worshipped the images? How can you see into our heart? How can you know whether we have worshipped them or not? Above this answer they must fall silent. That is why we have made a big mistake here and have gone too far with iconoclasm. There is another way to outline images. It should be preached that images are nothing, and that one does not serve God by them.

28 Erl. 28, 227-230. 1 a. Luther's eight sermons against Carlstadt 2c. W.XX,3S-3S. 29

would do, if one aligned images. If one had done so to him, the images would have passed away and perished by themselves.

(15) So Paul did in Athens, as ye have heard. He went into the temple and looked at all their idols and images, but he did not go and break them or strike them on the mouth, but stood in the middle of the square and punished the Athenians for their superstition and idolatry. He preached against idolatry, but he did not tear down any image by force. But you want to go and tear down the altars without any preaching, demolish the images and cause much turmoil. Not yet, for you will not destroy the images; indeed, you will raise them up stronger and stronger in this way. If you storm the images right here in Wittenberg, do you think they will be overthrown all over the world? Not yet! St. Paul, as it says in the Histories of the Apostles Cap. 28, 11, once sailed in a ship with the twins Castor and Pollux, two idols, painted on a banner. He did not allow himself to be challenged, did not ask for them to be torn down, did not ask anything about them, but always continued, leaving them standing as they were.

16 From all this you should know that no outward thing can harm the faith, nor can it cause any harm; but care must be taken that the heart is not attached to outward things, nor does it dare to be attached to them. We must preach and say this and let the word (as heard) take effect. For this must first capture and enlighten the heart. We are not the ones who should or can do it; it takes another power and authority. That is why the apostles boast in their writings only of the ministry (ministrrii), 1) and not of the execution (executionis). Let us leave it at that and call upon God for mercy.

The fourth sermon.

On the Wednesday after the Sunday Invocavit.

These days, dear friends, we have heard of the things that are necessary and must be done, such as that the mass be celebrated for

1. The two bracketed Latin words are inserted from the other edition.

not to hold any sacrifice, and what is contrary to God's word, and is done and performed with vexation of conscience contrary to faith, that one should consider all these things to be necessary to do away with and to forbear. After this we have also spoken of some things which are unnecessary, which do not urge any necessity, but should be free, such as abstaining from married life, from monasticism and nunnery, and from images. So far we have dealt with these four things and said that love should be the captain and master in them.

(2) And especially of the images I have spoken next, that they should be removed when they are worshipped; otherwise they may well be suffered. Although I would like the images to be removed throughout the world for the sake of the grievous abuse, which no one can deny. For if someone has an image placed in the church, he soon thinks that he is doing God a service and good in it, and that he has done a good work, so that he may earn something from God, which is really idolatry. This is the greatest and most noble reason why the images should be removed. But you have not used this cause, but a much lesser one, namely, that if a man had an image, he would hold it like the image; as if a man had a crucifix, he would hold it no differently than if it were Christ, God, and man himself, and the like. These are very small causes. For I believe that there is no one here who has the gross, senseless mind to think that this crucifix is my Christ and my God, but he thinks it is only a sign that he remembers the Lord Christ and his suffering. But the world is full of the other abuse. For who would place a wooden, let alone a silver or gold image in the church, if he did not intend to do God a service by it? Do you also think that princes, bishops and other great merchants would have allowed so many more precious, silver and gold images to be placed in churches and monasteries, if they did not think that it should count for something before God? Yes, they would have let it be.

3 This cause would not be sufficient yet,

30 Erl. 28, 330-232. I. Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. W. XX, 35-38. 31

to overthrow, destroy and burn all images. For there are still many people who do not have this opinion, but can and know how to use the images well; although these people are still few. Therefore we cannot condemn it, nor should we condemn it so soon as any man may yet use it. But this would have been the right way, as it was also said next, that one would have preached that the images were nothing, God did not ask anything about them, one would also do God no service nor pleasure with them, if all corners were made full of images, of silver or of gold, and that it would be better to help poor people with such money, than to put many images according to this opinion, since God has commanded that, but not this. If princes, bishops and other people had heard such things, the images would have fallen away from themselves without any fuss or commotion and would have perished, as it had already happened in Schwang.

(4) Therefore we must be careful, for the devil seeks us through his apostles most earnestly and acutely, and must not so soon, when there is an abuse of a thing, that we want to overthrow or destroy that same thing. For if we were to reject everything that is misused, what kind of a game would we be playing? There are many people who worship the sun, the moon, and the stars; shall we therefore go and cast the stars out of heaven, and cast down the sun and the moon? Yes, we will probably leave it.

(5) Wine and women are a source of misery and heartache to many, and they make fools and mad men of many; shall we therefore pour out the wine and kill the women? Not so. Gold and silver, money and goods cause much evil among men; shall we therefore throw them all away?

No, truly. Yes, if we wanted to drive out our nearest enemy, who is most harmful to us, we would have to drive out and kill ourselves. For we have no enemy more harmful than our own heart; as the prophet Jeremiah says Cap. 17:9: "The human heart is crooked," or, as I put it, "The human heart is not good.

German, wicked and odd, which is always receding to the side. Dear, what would we do if we did that to him? We would not do anything good, but turn everything around to the bottom and the top, The devil is certainly there, but we do not see it. Someone must have good money if one wants to make the devil black, because he also wants to be beautiful when he is invited to church mass.

7. So one must roast him 1) and saw. So speak, and ask one who has many images made: Tell me, my dear, is this why you put the images in the churches, so that you think you are doing God a service and good in them? If he says yes, as he must certainly say yes, you can soon conclude from this and say that he has made idolatry out of it, has thus misused the image and done that which God has not commanded; but he has neglected God's commandment, namely, that he should have helped the poor with it, which he has not done. Yes, he says, I can still give to the poor, Marc. 14, 7. and also have pictures made; what have I lost? To this you answer: that it is impossible, if he believes it with all his heart, that he is not doing God any service or favor by his image-making, that he would let any such great expense go to it; he would rather give a poor man a florin or two than spend fifty, sixty, a hundred florins and even more on a useless thing. But with this I cannot yet sufficiently argue that therefore the images should not be, or that they should be broken and torn down. Therefore we must conclude and leave it at that, that the images are neither otherwise nor so, neither good nor evil, but let it be free to have them or not to have them, only that the belief or delusion is that we do no service nor pleasure to God with our image-making.

The devil has taken something from you here that he should not have taken from me, namely,

1. The word "beröhsten" occurs only here. Dietz in his dictionary says: "The sense is: to present captious questions." Should it not rather be: to warm someone up, to corner him?

32 Erl. 28,232-234. 1a. Luther's eight sermons Wider Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 38-40. 33

that we must let the images be free, since we must confess that there are ever people, or can be invented, who make good use of the images. Yes, if there were only one on the whole earth who did not misuse them, the devil could say against me: "Why do you condemn that which can still be well used? He has attained defiance, and I must admit it; he would not have attained it by a long shot if I had been here. In his arrogance and defiance, he has won a great deal from us. Although it brings no harm to the word of God.

(9) You wanted to make the devil black, but you forgot the coals and took chalk for the coals. Therefore, if we want to fight with the devil, we must be careful to use the Scriptures well; that is enough.

From dishes.

(10) Now let us go on and say a little about the eating of meat, how one should keep oneself inside. It is true, dear friends, that we are free and masters of all food, be it meat, fish or butter, and may eat and use it as we please without distinction; no one can ever deny this, for God has given us this freedom, and it is certainly true. But we must know how to use our freedom properly, and how to behave differently toward the weak and differently toward the stubborn. Therefore, be careful how you use this freedom.

(11) First, if you cannot spare it without harming yourself, or if you are sick, you may eat what you desire, whoever is angry with it; and even if the whole world is angry with it, you do not sin against it. For God may well credit thee, considering his liberty with which he hath endowed thee, and thy need, in that thou canst not spare it without danger to thy health.

12. secondly: If anyone would urge you, as the pope has done with his foolish laws, not to eat meat on Friday, but to eat meat on Sunday.

Fish; likewise, in fasting, eat fish, and not meat, or eggs, or butter, or not eat them, and so on: thou shalt not in any way be forced from thy liberty which God has given thee, but shalt defy them and speak freely: Yes, for this very reason that you forbid me to eat meat, and you dare to make a commandment out of my freedom, I will eat it in defiance of you. And so shalt thou do in all other things that are free. Take another example: If the pope or someone else wanted to force me to wear the cap, that and no other; then I would take off the cap in defiance of him, God grant that he would laugh or look angry about it, even if he became furious and nonsensical, mad and foolish about it. For what God does not command me to do, and what I am free to do or not to do, no man, no devil, nor any angel shall make any commandment of it for me, even if it costs life and limb.

(13) Thirdly, there are some who are still weak in faith, who would be wise, and would gladly believe as we do; but their uncertainty alone hinders them. And if this had been preached to them, as it has been to us, praise God, so abundantly and clearly, they would be at one with us in these matters, and would not take offense at anything.

(14) We must behave much differently toward such kind-hearted people than toward the stiff-necked. We should be patient with them and abstain from our freedom, since it brings us no harm or danger, neither to body nor soul; indeed, it is beneficial to us and does our neighbor great good and good. But if we want to use our freedom for our neighbor's annoyance, we drive back the one who would like to come to our faith in time.

015 So did St. Paul when he circumcised Timothy. For when the Jews were angry and simple-minded, Paul said, "What harm can it do if they are angry because they are foolish? 16:3, and he also had him circumcised. But since the Antiochians

34 Erl, 28, 234-236. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W.xx, 40-43. 35

When they insisted that he should circumcise Titum, he stood up to them all, and in spite of them he did not circumcise Titum.

(16) In the same way St. Paul did again at Antioch with St. Peter, because Peter by his liberty drove an evil mind and delusion into the simple hearts, so that when he came to the Gentiles, he ate with them what they had, pork, and what was put before him, sparing nothing, using his liberty openly. But when some of the Jews came to Antioch, he withdrew and separated himself, not wanting to eat all kinds of food with the Gentiles as before. Then the Gentiles who had recently come to faith thought: We don't have to eat pork, we don't have to eat all kinds of food like the Jews, we have to keep the law with them; so they had a big conscience about a small thing. When Paul became aware that Peter had brought such distress and anger into the simple, weak hearts of the Gentiles, 1) and feared that such a deal would bring great harm to evangelical liberty, he spoke harshly to Peter, read him an old 2) lection and said to him publicly in front of everyone: "If you, who are a Jew, live a Gentile life and not a Jewish life, why do you force the Gentiles to live a Jewish life?

(17) From this history you should learn that we should use our freedom in due and convenient time, so that nothing may be taken away from Christian freedom and no trouble may be caused to our brothers and sisters who are still weak and ignorant of this freedom. That is enough of it.

The fifth sermon.

On the Thursday after the Sunday Invocavit.

Of Sacrament.

(1) We have now heard of the things that are necessary, such as that the mass should not be taken as a sacrifice, because it is contrary to faith. Likewise you have heard of

1. So put by us instead of "Jews", which seems to us to be wrong.
2. Maybe "hard" ?

the things that are unnecessary and free; as when the monks and nuns run away from the monasteries; of the marriage of the priests, and of the images, how one should keep oneself in the things, so that one does not make any compulsion out of it, nor pull anyone away with the hair, but we should let God's word alone act in this. Now let us see from the reverend sacrament how one should conduct oneself in it.

(2) You have often heard me preach against the foolish laws of the pope concerning this sacrament. Among other things, he commanded that no woman should wash the cloth on which Christ's body had been placed, even if it were a pure consecrated nun, unless a priest or monk had washed it first. Even if a layman touched the body of Christ or the chalice with his bare hands, his fingers would have to be circumcised, or his skin rubbed off with a brick, and what more foolish laws there are under the papacy. The papists have made them more conscience-stricken about this than about their fornication and blasphemy, which have been so public against God and so bright in the day that even the children in the street have sung about it. I have preached enough of this, and thus revealed and made known that there were no sins in these foolish, foolish laws of the pope, and that a layman did not sin if he touched the body of Christ and the chalice even with his bare hands.

(3) Above such preaching and on account of this understanding, you should have thanked God, because you have ever come to the knowledge that many excellent, great people have not been given. So now you go on and do something as foolish as the pope, in that you think it is necessary to attack the sacrament with your hands, and you want to be good Christians in this and with this. You have grossly transgressed in this matter and have acted too freely with this precious treasure, so that it is no wonder that God would have punished you immediately. God could have tolerated everything else, but to act so freely with this piece, He cannot and will not tolerate, in that you have made a compulsion and a mean order,

36 Erl. SS, 23S-S38. 1a. Luther's eight sermons Wider Carlstadt 2c. W.xx, 43-4S. 37

that each one of you should bring and attack the Sacrament, the Body and Blood of Christ, even with his hands, so thirstily and so freely, without all shyness and fear. And if you will not desist from this piece, no emperor, nor king, nor anyone else may drive me from here; I will run myself, undriven by you. I may well and freely say that none of my enemies, although they have done me much evil, has done me so much harm as you, my friends, with this one piece. You have hit me right in this.

4 If you want to be good Christians and boast that you touch the sacrament, the body of Christ, with your hands, the Jews, Herod and Pilate would have been the best Christians; I mean, they touched the body of Christ. No, dear friends, no! This is not the way. The kingdom of God does not stand in external things that can be grasped and felt, but in faith and power.

005 Yea, sayest thou that we live, and that we should live according to the scriptures: so hath Christ appointed that we should receive it with our hands. For he hath spoken: Take ye and eat, this is my body: and the disciples took it with their hands: why should not we also take it with our hands? Answer: Although I consider it undoubted and certain that the disciples attacked the body of the Lord with their hands, admit that you also may do it without sin: but to steer and insist greatly on it, that I do not know. For if the devil, as he seeks us, shall speak: Where did you read in the Scriptures that "to take" means to attack with the hands? how will I prove and maintain it? Yes, how will I meet him when he holds up to me the contradiction from Scripture, and proves that "to take" does not only mean to receive with the hands, but to bring something to oneself in another way? as when John writes, how those who crucified the Lord gave him vinegar to drink, he says, "When Jesus had taken the vinegar," John 19:30. Here you must confess that Christ did not attack the sponge with his hands, for he was

nailed to the cross. What do I want to say against that? I have to give myself captive there and am decided, so that I have to allow, I want or do not want, that "to take" does not only mean to receive something with the hands, but also to bring it to me by other means, as it may happen.

(6) Therefore, dear friends, if we are going to do such things, or things like them, we must stand on a certain ground, that we may be able to keep ourselves from the devil's offense. I do not say that you have sinned by attacking the body of Christ with your hands, but still you have not done a good work, because the whole world is angry about this piece. For this custom is in all Christendom, that the reverend Sacrament should be received by the hands of the priest. Why then will you not serve the weak believers in this and abstain, even if you had the power and were free to take it with your hands and attack it yourself? since it brings you no piety if you do it, nor any harm if you neglect it.

(7) Therefore, we must be careful not to teach any new thing contrary to old and praiseworthy customs, unless the gospel has been thoroughly preached and taught beforehand, and unless it has been grasped and believed. Therefore, dear friends, let us act carefully and wisely in these matters, because they concern God. For God does not like to be scolded in His matters. 1) Deal with other outward things as you will: let our Lord God be content with what is His, and believe His words with simplicity. Therefore refrain from this abuse and order; this is my faithful counsel and diligent plea.

(8) Let us also say a little about both forms of the reverend Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. Although I certainly believe that it is necessary to take this sacrament in both forms, according to the institution of Christ our dear Lord, as clearly described by the three evangelists and St. Paul, nevertheless, one should as soon as possible

1. i.e. joke.

38Erl. LS, 238-240. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 45-48. 39

And suddenly make no compulsion of it, and put it into a common order, until every man be well instructed every where beforehand, lest the weak of faith be offended in this; but the word be practiced, exercised, and preached, and after that the consequence of the word be put in secret, and GOtte command it until his time. For if this is not done, then it becomes an outward work and a gilding. And that is what the devil wants. But if he lets the word go freely and does not bind it to any work, it touches one person today and another tomorrow; it falls into the heart and captures the hearts; then it goes on so that one does not notice how it was begun.

(9) It was written to me that some here had begun to take the sacrament under both forms. I was glad to hear that, and so you should have let it remain and continued gradually and not have brought it into any common order or compulsion. But now you are going, burdi, burdi! and want to go through with your head, want to force everyone to do it and push. There you are missing, dear friends. For if you want to be seen as good Christians, that you touch the sacrament with your hands and take it under both forms, then you are real Christians to me. By the same token, an unreasonable animal could be a Christian.

(10) Therefore, dear friends, do neatly in these high things; there is no reproach here. Let us look to the weak and to others who shall also come to us, whom we all chase back with such iniquities and storms. Dear friends, do not hurry, lest the devil lead us astray, as he has in mind. I may well say that I have never received such heartache from all my enemies as from you, my friends, with whom I should have had support and comfort (so many people in authority). Well, God will still send everything for the best, if you only want to do so and desist from this abuse and storms; as I am completely sure that you will do. That is enough for this time. Tomorrow we will deal with it further.

The sixth sermon.

On the Friday after the Sunday Invocavit.

So far we have dealt with the main things, and now we have come to the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, of which we said a little yesterday; but today we want to say a little more about how one should conduct oneself in this, and which are and belong to the reception of the sacrament.

First of all, it is necessary that your heart and conscience understand that there is a great difference between the outward reception of the sacrament and the inward or spiritual reception. The bodily and outward reception is when I receive the body of Christ and his blood outwardly with my mouth. And such a reception can happen without faith and love by all men; but this reception does not make a Christian. For this can be done by bad or good men, and it would be a bad thing to be a Christian if it were done by this.

(3) But the inward, spiritual, and right reception of the sacrament is much different. For it consists not only in the bodily reception of the body and blood of Christ, but in the exercise and fruits of this reception by faith. We Christians have no outward sign to set us apart from other peoples except this sacrament and baptism. But without faith the outward reception of these sacraments is nothing; faith must be present and make the outward reception skillful, and show us 1) before God; otherwise it is a mere mirror fencing and an outward being, in which Christianity does not stand, but in faith stands Christianity, which is not bound to any outward work, nor does it want to be bound. But faith is directed to this and stands in it, if we want to receive this sacrament worthily in any other way, that we must firmly believe that Christ is the Son of God and the only atonement for our sin, who is our sin.

1. Instead of "indicate," the other redaction is "pleasant," which seems to us to be the better reading.

40 Erl. 28, 240-242. 1a. Luthers acht Sernwne Wider Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 48-51. 41

and iniquity upon his own neck, and on the cross made atonement for them by his death and suffering, and paid them off to the Father, and now stand before God without ceasing, and reconcile us before the Father, be our mediator and advocate, and make us a gracious, merciful, kind Father, who will forgive us our sins, and remember them no more, through this his only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; and that this Son has instituted this sacrament, his body and blood, to confirm and confirm our faith, and has commanded us to receive and enjoy it.

(4) He who has faith belongs to this place and is qualified to receive this sacrament, the body and blood of Christ. Neither sin nor death, neither hell nor hell itself, can harm such a person who firmly believes this and is sure of it. For God is my protection and restraint, Ps. 73, 23. ff. If I have that, in spite of all sin, in spite of death, in spite of hell, in spite of all devils, that they harm me, yes, bend any hair; for God fights for me, protects and shields me, that they cannot harm me, yes, their attempts must, against their will, serve them to great harm. This is the high, delicious, exuberant treasure that is given and bestowed upon us in Christ, which no man can reach with words, nor can any human heart comprehend; faith alone must grasp it.

(5) But not all men have such faith, therefore no common order should be made out of this sacrament, as the pope has done with his mad, foolish laws, when he decrees that all Christian men should go to the sacrament once a year on Easter feasts; and this should be their punishment, if one does not go, so that he is not buried in the churchyard. Isn't this a great foolish law, set up by the pope? Why? Because we are not all alike, neither have we all one faith; for one has a stronger faith than another; some leap away, others can scarcely crawl after. For this reason it is impossible that there should be

can be brought and pushed into a common order.

(6) From this you can easily conclude that throughout the whole year no greater sins are committed, nor more terrible blasphemies, than at Easter times, just because of this unchristian commandment that one wants to force and urge people to the sacrament, God grant that they are skillful or unskillful, funny or unfunny. If all robbery, murder, adultery and fornication were counted in one heap, this sin would surpass all other sins, and just when it seems most beautiful and holy.

7 But that the pope has acted foolishly and unchristianly in this is evident, for he has not known the hearts whether they have believed or not. One man cannot know another man's heart whether it believes or not. How can I know if you believe that Christ stands for you and puts all that he has for you, even his blood, and says to you: "Come up fresh, there is no need, all these enemies shall not harm you. Let the devil, death, sin, hell and all creatures stand against you; if you have me, they shall not harm you; only trust me and cling to me, and I will help you through freely? For he who stands in such faith belongs here and takes this sacrament worthily, as a safeguard and sign that he is certain of divine promise. Yes, but we do not all have such faith. Oh, God would that the tenth person had it!

(8) For this reason, it is necessary to be careful here and not to make a common order about when and how often, and also that everyone goes to this sacrament without distinction. For such unspeakably rich treasures, with which God has graced us, cannot be common to everyone, but only to those who are in temptation, persecution and adversity, whether bodily or spiritual, external or internal, whether from men or from the devil. So when the devil makes your heart weak, stupid and despondent, so that you do not know how to deal with God, he holds your sin against you and makes you fidgety and hesitant.

42 EU. ss, S4S-S45. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W.xx, 51-53. 43

that you will become a partaker of this noble treasure of yours, yes, be sure that you already have it. For in such a frightened, trembling heart God wants to dwell and rest, as Isaiah Cap. 66, 2. and also David says in the Psalter, Psalm 51, 19. For who desires a shield, protection and restraint, but he who is in pain and feels resistance?

(9) Therefore, whoever does not yet feel that his sins bite him and the devil attacks him, does not yet belong to this food; for this food wants a hungry, desiring person, and gladly enters such a hungry soul, which contends daily with sins and would gladly be rid of them. But if any man does not yet feel this way, let him abstain from this sacrament for a time, for this food does not want to enter a full and satisfied heart; but if it enters, it is there with harm. If we felt such pressure of conscience and stupidity of our despondent heart, we would probably approach with all humility and reverence, would not be so insolent and run like swine to the trough, without all fear and humility. But we do not always find ourselves able; today I have the grace to do so, tomorrow not; yes, at times, hardly in half a year, a devotion comes to me that I go there.

10. From this we should finally realize that those who are best suited for this sacrament are those who are attacked by their sin, death and the devil, who are in constant battle with these enemies; it is most conveniently given to them and is also most useful to them, so that the same person may stand there and believe that these enemies cannot harm him, since he has the one standing on his side who is powerful against all these enemies and can save us from all distress, fear, adversity and tribulation.

11 Thus did Christ, when he instituted this sacrament. First of all, he greatly terrified his disciples and almost shattered their hearts by saying that he was going to leave them and that there was one among the multitude who would betray him.

1. to = be.

This was a bitter salve to them, a terrible thing, that he should depart from them on whom they had cast all comfort; and that one of them should betray him. There their hearts will have trembled, and they will have been in great exuberant fear that they should now be the betrayer of him from whom they had received so much benefit, who had dealt with them as kindly and fatherly as any father with his children. Then each one will have thought: Oh God, will you let me fall into such a great sin? The dear disciples sat there as if they were all traitors and evil-doers against their Lord and Master. Only then, when he had made them tremble and shake, did he use this sacrament to comfort and refresh them, and so he comforted them again.

(12) From this you may well know to whom this sacrament is most convenient and useful, namely, to the afflicted, the despondent, the sorrowful, and the stupid of conscience. For this bread is a comfort to the afflicted, a medicine to the sick, a life to the dying, a food to the hungry, and a rich treasure to all who are poor and needy. That is enough said for this time about the use of the sacrament, how you should use it, and who goes there usefully. Let us leave it at that and call upon God for mercy.

The seventh sermon.

On the Saturday after the Sunday Invocavit.

Dear friends, yesterday you heard about the custom of the reverend Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, and who are rightly qualified for it, namely, those who are afraid of death, who are chased by the devil, who have a despondingly stupid conscience, and who are afraid of sin and of hell. All of these go to this food in a just and worthy manner, to strengthen their weak faith and to comfort their sorrowful conscience. This is the proper custom and practice of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; let him who does not feel himself thus skilled, let it remain until God also stirs and stirs him with His Word.

44 Erl. 28,245-247. 1a. Luther's eight sermons against Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 53-56. 45

Now let us also speak of the fruit of this sacrament, which is love; namely, that we let ourselves be found like this toward our neighbor, as has happened and happened to us from God. Now we have received from God all love and good deeds. For is this not a great unspeakable love, that he sent down his only begotten Son from heaven and cast him into the flesh, that he might save and redeem us from sin, death, the devil, and hell? Is not this a great immeasurable love, that the same Son, for the Father's pleasure, gave his body and blood for our sake? Is it not a great abundant love that God should proclaim and distribute to us such treasure in His Word through the sermon, and give us all the victory and triumph of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, against sin, death, the devil and hell, so that I can boast of the victory and triumph as if I had done it myself? For this purpose Christ is our righteousness, our satisfaction, our wisdom and our sanctification, 1 Cor. 1:30, who without fail represents us before God His Father and is our advocate 1).

This inexpressible love, which no human heart can grasp, should move us to love our neighbor in turn, to do him good, to help and advise him in whatever way we can, and he needs us. But I do not feel such love here yet, although much has been preached to you; but no one wants to go there; one often runs to other unnecessary things; here no one is at home. Christians are known by a few things when they show love for one another, as Christ said to his disciples in John: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, as I have loved you. In this way everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another," John 13:34, 35. And St. Paul says: "If I spoke with the tongues of men and with the tongues of angels, and if the angels had loved me, I would have loved you.

1. In the Eisleben edition: "Fursprach". Otherwise, Luther uses the form "Fürsprech", e.g. in the first editions of the New Testament, 1 John 2:1: "So we have a fursprechen bey dem vater."

If I did not have love, I would be a sounding brass or a tinkling bell. And if I could prophesy, and knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and had all faith, so as to move mountains, and had not love, I would be nothing. And if I give all my goods to the poor, and let my body burn, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." 1 Cor. 13, 1. 2. 3. These are excellent, hard words; but you have not yet come that far.

4 Because you have great gifts of God here in Wittenberg and much of them, including the knowledge of Scripture, which is a great gift and grace, you have the gospel bright and clear, but you do not want to continue with love. You would like God to be good to you and to give you his gifts, but you do not want to give anything to others; no one wants to reach out to another, no one takes another seriously, but everyone looks to himself for what is best for him, and all seek what is ours; let go what goes; let him who is helped be helped; no one looks to the poor for help. It is to be pitied that I have preached to you so long, and in almost all my little books I have done nothing else but faith and love, and so no love at all shall be felt in you.

(5) I will tell you for certain that if you do not show love to one another, God will send a great plague upon you. For he will not have his word preached and revealed in vain; neither will he have his word dishonored or despised. You are trying GOD too hard. My friends, if this word had been preached to our forefathers some time ago, they might have behaved differently than you do. You don't even want to do it, and you don't take it seriously. You can talk about it, but you do not yet want to follow it with action. With other jugglery you go about, which is unnecessary; but what is necessary, that you leave pending. God grant that it may not only stand in words, but also break forth powerfully. Let us leave it at that.

46 Erl. 88, S47-SIS. I. Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. W. XX, SS-S8. 47

The eighth sermon

or

A short concept of the sermon preached on the Sunday Reminiscere of the secret

Confession.

We have now heard the things that have happened here, except for the confession, which we will also deal with recently.

(2) First, confession is grounded in Scripture. If someone had sinned publicly, so that people knew about it, he was accused publicly before the crowd. If he repented of the sin, they prayed for him before God and helped him to be reconciled. But if he would not renounce it and would not listen to the mob or the congregation, he was banished and rejected from the congregation and set apart, so that no one had to send or deal with him.

3 Christ says this about confession in Matthew: "If your brother sins against you, go and punish him between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have won your brother. If he does not hear you, take one or two more to you, so that the whole matter may rest on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he does not hear them, tell the community. If he does not hear the congregation, consider him a Gentile and a publican," Matt. 18:15, 16, 17. And if the congregation rejected him or received him back, he was also rejected or received back before God. Therefore the Lord says there soon after v. 18: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This confession we have no more sign in the church. In this place, the gospel is lying low. Whoever could re-establish this confession would be doing a deliciously good work.

(5) All of you, dear friends, should have made an effort and set up this confession again, and should have left other things in order, because no one would have been annoyed by this piece. And it should be so with this confession: If you saw a usurer.

or a robber, an adulterer, an adulterer, a drunkard, and other such vices, you should go to him in secret and urge him to desist from that or those vices. If he does so, well and good. If he does not, but continues in his vice, you should take two or three to you and again, in the presence of these three, admonish him fraternally. If he does not accept this admonition, but despises it, you shall announce it to the priest in front of the whole congregation and have your two witnesses with you and say it publicly: Dear priest, this man has done this and that vice, and has not accepted our brotherly admonition, so that he might desist from this vice of his, but has despised it and has remained in his vice forever: therefore I accuse him here publicly before the whole congregation, with these my witnesses, who have heard my brotherly admonition. And if then he would not desist and willingly accept the accusation, the priest should separate him from the whole congregation and put him under ban, until he would recognize himself and be accepted again. This would be a Christian work, who could accomplish it; but I do not dare to do it alone.

6. Secondly, confession is when we confess our sins to God alone and confess to God Himself, before whom we pour out all our infirmities. And this confession is of great need to us, yes, so much so that we should do it every hour and every moment, and we are also commanded to do it.

(7) Of this confession David says in the Psalm: "Therefore I make known my sin, and hide not my iniquity. I said: I will confess my transgression unto the LORD against me, and thou forgavest me the iniquity of my sin. For this shall all the saints pray before thee in due time," Ps. 32:5, 6.

The third is confession, where one confesses to another and takes him alone to a place and tells him what his need and concern is, so that he may hear from him a comforting word to ease his conscience. This confession was strictly commanded by the pope, who made it a stable of distress, so that it could be used to

48 Erl. SS, SLS-L51. 1 a. Luther's eight sermons Wider Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 58-61. 49

is mercy. I have rejected and severely attacked this coercion and compulsion when I preached and wrote about confession. And for this very reason I do not want to confess, because the pope has commanded it and wants to have it. For he shall leave confession free to me and shall not make any compulsion or commandment out of it, which he has no power or authority to do.

(9) Nevertheless, I will not let anyone take away my secret confession, and I would not give it for the sake of the whole world, for I know what strength and comfort it has given me. No one knows what secret confession can do, because he often has to fence and fight with the devil. I would have been overcome and strangled by the devil long ago if this confession had not preserved me. For there are many doubtful and erroneous things in which man alone is not well able, nor can he understand them. When he is in such doubt and does not know where to go, he takes his brother to a place and holds up his distress before him, laments his infirmities, his unbelief and his sin, and asks him for comfort and counsel. For what harm does it do him to humble himself a little before his neighbor and make himself a disgrace?

10 If you receive comfort from your brother, accept it and believe it, as if God Himself had told you, as Christ says in Matthew: "If two of you become one on earth, and they ask for anything, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," Matt. 18:19, 20. We must also have much absolution, that we may strengthen and comfort our troubled conscience and despondent heart against the devil and before God: therefore secret confession should not be forbidden, nor should anyone be kept from it.

(11) Now if any man is troubled with sins, and would gladly be rid of them, if he would hear a certain comfort and saying, that he may quiet his heart, let him go and bewail his sin secretly to his brother, and ask him for absolution, and for a comforting word. If he now gives you absolution and tells you that your sins are forgiven, you have a

gracious God and merciful Father, who will not impute your sin to you, believe this promise and absolution freshly and cheerfully, and be sure that God Himself will give you such a promise through your brother's mouth. But he who has a firm and strong faith in God, and is certain that his sins are forgiven, may well leave this confession and confess to God alone. But how many are there who have such strong faith and confidence in God? Let each one look to himself, so that he does not deceive himself.

12 Therefore I have said and still say that I do not want to be deprived of this secret confession. I also do not want to force or have forced anyone to do so, but rather to allow everyone to go home freely. Our God is not so meager that he would have left us only one absolution and only one consolation for the strength and comfort of our conscience, but we have much absolution in the Gospel and are abundantly showered with much comfort. Which consolations and promises we should not despise to demand and hear from our brethren.

In addition to the fact that we should ever be sure that our sins are forgiven, Christ has also left us the sacraments: baptism, his body and blood in the sacrament of the altar. I should not despise to take these sacraments. For in baptism I am assured of the grace and mercy of God, that I am his and he is mine, that I have united myself with him and am now accepted by him. After this I receive the body and blood of Christ, thereby also becoming certain that my sins are forgiven. And therefore, as a sign and assurance, I eat the body that was given for me and drink the blood that was poured out for my sin, so that I may never despair that I have a gracious, merciful God and Father.

14 So you see that secret confession is not to be despised, but is an excellent thing, which I would not want to do for the whole world.

(15) Because we must have much comfort if we are to fight against the devil, death, sin, and hell, and if we are to stand firm, we are to have a great comfort.

50 Erl. 28, 251-283. i. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 61-63. 51

we must not let any weapons be taken from us, but keep our armor whole and let the comfort given to us by God remain unwavering. For you do not yet know what effort and work it takes to contend with the devil and overcome him. I know

If you had known him as well as I do, you would not have thrown the secret confession to the wind. That is enough of that, we want to call upon God for His grace, so that we may remain on the right path and not be led astray.

1b. D. Mart. Luther's eight sermons against D. Carlstadt's innovations,

after the first and from the preceding in many pieces different impression, Wittenberg 1523. *)

Dominica Invocavit Sermon of D. Martin Luther.

(1) We are all called to death, and no one will die for another, but each in his own person will struggle with death for himself. We may well cry out in our ears, but each must be sent for himself at the time of death. I will not be with you then, nor you with me. In this way, each one must know well and be prepared for the main things that concern a Christian, and these are the ones that your beloved heard from me many days ago 1).

(2) First, how we are children of wrath, and all our works and mind and thoughts are nothing. Here we must have a clear, strong saying, testifying to this; as is the saying of St. Paul to the Ephesians 2:3, which notice well; and though there are many of them in the Bible, yet I will not overwhelm you with many sayings, "We are all children of wrath"; and do not presume to say, "I have built an altar, I have offered a mass," 2c.

3. secondly, that God sent us His only begotten Son, that we might believe in Him; and he who trusts in Him shall be free from sin and be a child of God.

1. Instead of "many days ago" it should probably read "too many times ago". In the previous redaction: "now often".

As John says at his first cap. v. 12. "He hath given them power to become children of GOD, to all them that believe on his name." Allhie we should all be well skilled in the Bible, and armed with many sayings, to hold them before the devil 2). In the two pieces I do not yet sense any error or deficiency, but they are preached to you purely 3) and I would be sorry if it had happened otherwise; yes, I see it well, and may say it, that you are more learned than I am, not only 1. 2. 3. 4. but probably ten or more who are so enlightened in knowledge.

4. Thirdly, we must also have love, and through love do to one another as God has done to us through faith; without which love faith is nothing, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2 (Cap. 13, 1. 2.): "If I have tongues as angels, and could speak of faith in the highest terms, and have not love, I am nothing. All this, dear friends, is almost lacking, and I do not feel love in anyone, and I almost realize that you have not been grateful to God for such a rich treasure and gift.

5. here let us see that from Witten-

2. These insertions are from the previous redaction of these sermons, No. In this volume.
3. In the previous redaction of these sermons: "loud and pure".

*Compare the first note to the heading of the previous version of these sermons. Only the first two sermons are reproduced here.

52 Erl. L8.253-2SS. 1b. Luther's eight sermons against Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 63-65. 53

berg not 1) Capernaum. I see that you know a lot of doctrine to speak, preached to you by faith and love, and is not miraculous; can yet almost a donkey sing lection, 2) should you not speak and teach the doctrine or words? So, dear friends, the kingdom of God, which we are, is not seen in speech or words, but in action, that is, in deeds, in works and practices. God does not want hearers or persecutors, but followers and overcomers, 3) in faith through love; for faith without love is not sufficient, indeed, is not faith, but a semblance of faith. As a face seen in a mirror is not a true face, but only a semblance of the face.

6. Fourth, we also need patience, for he who has faith, trusts in God, and shows love to his neighbor, in which he practices daily, yes, he cannot be without persecutions, for the devil does not sleep, but gives him enough to do, and patience works and brings hope, which freely surrenders and disappears in God. 4) And so, through much trial and temptation, faith always increases and is strengthened from day to day. Such a heart, gifted with virtues, can never rest nor abstain, 5) but again exerts itself for the benefit and good of its brother, as has been done for it by God.

7 Allhie, dear friends, not every man must do what he has right, but see what is useful and beneficial to his brother, as Paul says 1 Cor. 6, 12. 10, 23.: OM-rra Mr/rr-rs-r onr-rr'a

ahnn/. All things we may well do, but all things are not beneficial, for we are not all equally strong in faith; for

1. This "not" is inserted by us from the previous redaction.
2. Ibid: "you can almost teach a donkey to sing."
3. The Erlanger offers here: "about that" 2c. That the reading of the old Walch edition reproduced by us is correct is evident from the fact that this sentence in the previous redaction reads: "who practice faith, which is strong through love."
4. In the previous redaction: "swings".
5. Thus placed by us after the preceding, instead of "received".

Some of you have stronger faith than I. 6) Therefore we must not look to ourselves or our wealth, but to our neighbor, 7) for God said through Moses, "I have borne you and brought you up as a mother does her child."

What does a mother do to her child? First she gives it milk, then porridge, then eggs and soft food. If she were to give it hard food at first, it would not be good for the child. 8.

(9) So shall we also do unto our brother, bearing with him for a season, enduring his infirmities, and helping to bear them, giving him also milk, as it hath been done unto us, until he also be strong, and go not alone to heaven, but bring with us our brethren, which are not now our friends. Should all mothers throw away their children, where would we be left? Dear brother, if you have sucked enough, don't cut off the hat 9) immediately, but let your brother also suck as you have sucked; I wouldn't have gone as far as I did if I had been here. The matter is well, but the haste is too fast; for on that side there are also brothers and sisters who belong to us, 10) they must also come.

10. Notice a similitude: The sun has two things, as the brightness and the heat. There is no king so strong that he can bend or direct the brightness of the sun, but it remains in its 11) places. But the heat can be directed and bent and is always around the sun. So the faith must always
11. Taken by us from the old edition. Erlanger: "have a strong faith, if I."
12. In the previous edition, this sentence reads: "Therefore, we must not look at ourselves and our faith alone, but should look at our neighbor" 2c. The Erlangen edition offers: "see, and regard."
13. In the old print, "wafted," i.e., "weaned. The expression is still found in English: to vsun, and in Low German: to "turn" or "turn away" the child (from the breast). Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1784, No. 398, and on this the Leipziger Literaturblatt of June 29, 1888, p. 248, Col. 2.
14. Dutte - teat.
15. Thus set by us according to the previous redaction; "born", which also the Erlanger offers, is obviously a printing error.
16. Thus placed by us instead of "his"; also a printing error which the Erlangen edition has brought back.

54 Erl. 2s, 255 f. I. Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. W. xx.ss-"? 55

remain pure and immovable in our hearts, and must not depart from it, but love bends and directs itself, after it our neighbor 1) may understand and follow. There are some who can run, some who can walk, and some who can hardly crawl. Therefore we must consider not our own ability, but our brother's, lest the weak in faith, if he would follow the strong, be torn asunder by the devil: The devil will tear him apart. Therefore, dear brethren, follow me; for I have never perverted it; I was also the first whom God set on this plan; I cannot escape, but must remain as long as God gives it, 2) I was also the one to whom God first revealed it, also to preach such His words; I am also sure that you have the true word of God. 3)

(11) Therefore let us do this with fear and humility, and let one lie under another's feet, joining hands together, helping one another. I will do mine as I owe, and mean you as I mean my soul. For we do not contend against the pope or bishop 2c. but against the devil. Do you think he sleeps? He is not asleep, but he sees the true light rising; so that it does not get under his eyes, he would like to tear it off to the side, and he will do it, we will not look up. I know him well. I also hope, if God wills, I am his master. If we give him a foot of space, we will see how to get rid of him. Therefore, all those who have helped and consented to do away with the mass have erred; not that it was not good, but that it was not done properly. You say, "It is right from Scripture; I also confess it, but where is the order? For it was done in a sacrilege, without all order, with the annoyance of the neighbor; for 4) one should have asked for it with all seriousness beforehand, and should have taken the superiors to do it, so

1. So set by us instead: that it may comprehend and follow our neighbor." This is also found in the Erlanger.
2. Erlanger: "denied" i.e. denied.
3. Erlanger: Hand.
4. Erlanger: when.

one would know that it had happened because of God. I would have started it well, if it had been good, and if it had not been such an evil thing about the mass, I would have started it again. For I do not know how to defend it that you have done well in this, 5) I have just told you. For I could well do it in front of the papists and coarse heads, because I wanted to speak: What do you know, whether it was done in a good spirit or in an evil one? since the work itself is good. But before the devil I do not know how to look for it 6). For if the devil will reproach those who started the game with these sayings or the like when they die: Omnis plantatio, quam non plantavit Pater meus, eradicabitur, ode? den: Currebant, et non mittebam eos, how would they stand? He pushes them to hell. But I want to hold a point in front of his nose, so that the world will also become too narrow for him, because I know that I am called by the council to preach, even though I have resisted. So I would also like to have you like me, you could also have asked me in this. 7)

I was not so far away, you could have reached me with writings, since it is not the smallest piece; it would have been worthwhile that you had sent to me for this. 8) Did you want to start something and I should be responsible for it? That would be too hard for me. I will not do it. All this shows that you do not have the spirit, even though you have a high knowledge of the Scriptures. Notice the two pieces: "must be" and "be free. For "must be" is what necessity demands, and must exist immovably, as there is faith, which I will not let be taken from me, but must always have in my heart and be free before everyone.

5. Thus we put after the previous redaction instead of: "For I do not know it to refute; I also want to have just said it: then" 2c. Likewise in the Erlanger.
6. Thus put by us instead of "I". In the previous redaction: "I do not know how to dispute it.
7. Instead of this last, obviously incomplete sentence in the previous redaction: "Therefore you have done wrong that you have started such a game without my command and consent, and have not asked me about it beforehand.
8. Thus set by us according to the previous redaction, instead of the meaningless sentence that the Erlanger also offers: "sintemal ich nicht das geringste Stück hergeschickt."

56 Erl. 28, S56-LS8. 1b. Luther's eight sermons Wider Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 67-69. 57

confess. But "to be free" is that which I have freely, and may use it or leave it, so that my brother, and not I, may have the benefit of it, and do not make "a must" "a being free" for me, as you have done, lest you should have to give account for those whom you have deceived by your uncharitable freedom. For if you tempt one to eat meat on Friday, and he is challenged when he dies, and thus thinks, O woe is me that I have eaten meat! and cannot stand, God will require an account of him from you. I also wanted to raise many things, since not 1) few would follow me; but what is the use? For I know that those who have begun such things, when it comes to the meeting, will not be able to stand, and will be the first to withdraw. What would it be like if I brought the bunch to the plan, and I, who was the first, stopped the others, and wanted to flee, not waiting for death happily? how should the poor bunch be seduced!

(13) Therefore let us also give milk to others as long as we do, until they also become strong in faith; for there are still many of them who otherwise fall to us in other things 2) and would gladly have and accept this thing also, but 3) they cannot well understand it yet; we drive them back. Therefore let us show love to our neighbors; if we do not do this, our deeds will not stand. We must also be patient with them for a while and not reject those who are still weak in faith; how much more can we do and not do, if love requires it and does not harm our faith! If we do not earnestly ask God and send ourselves right into the matter, then the game looks to me 4) that all the misery, so started on the papists before 5) us, will come upon us. For this reason I have longer not

1. "not" inserted by us after the previous redaction. It is also missing in the Erlanger.
2. Thus in the previous redaction.
3. We have put "but" instead of "special".
4. So put by us after the previous redaction instead of: "sechent nicht", which also offers the Erlanger.
5. Thus set by us instead of "and". This "and" is also found in the Erlanger.

can be omitted, but have to come to tell you such things. Now enough of the mass; tomorrow we will tell you about the pictures.

Another sermon of D. M. Luther on the Monday after Invocavit.

Dear friends! Yesterday you heard the main parts of a Christian man, how the whole life and being is believing and loving. Faith is directed toward God, 6) love toward man and neighbor, so that we show ourselves toward man in 7) love with benevolence, as we have received from God without our merit and work. So there are two things: the one that is necessary, 8) which must therefore be done, and not otherwise; the other, which is free and unnecessary, which may be kept or not, without danger to faith and soul. 9) In the two things, love must act with the neighbor as we have received from God, and must therefore go the right way, falling neither to the left nor to the right. In the things that must be and are necessary, such as believing in Christ, love nevertheless acts in such a way that it does not force or drive too hard. Thus, measurement is an evil thing, and God is its enemy, in which therefore it would be done as if it were a sacrifice and meritorious work; therefore it must be done away with. Here is no question or doubt, as little you should ask, 10) whether God is to be worshipped? In this we are in complete agreement, that the special masses must be stopped, as I have also written about them, and would that they were stopped in the whole world, and only the common evangelical mass kept. 11) Nevertheless, love should not be strict in this and forcibly break off, but it should be preached, written and proclaimed, that the mass, in the manner of

6. Thus set according to the previous redaction instead of: just.
7. So added by us after the previous redaction, and "in love" put instead of: "at love".
8. So put by us instead of: "the most necessary".
9. "Soul" put by us instead of "hell". In the previous redaction, "the bliss of the soul.
10. So put by us instead of: "as little which should ask".
11. So put by us instead of: "all the common evangelical mass held".

58 Erl. L8,258-260. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 6)-72. 59

is sinful 1). But no one is to be pulled or torn from it by the hair of his head; for God is to be given home, 2) and his word alone is to work, not our doing or our work. Why? Because I do not have in my power or hand the 3) hearts of men, as the hewer has the glue, to create with him according to my pleasure. I cannot reach further than the ears; I cannot reach the heart. Because I cannot pour faith into the heart, no one can force me to do so, for God does it alone and makes it live in the heart. Therefore one should leave the word free, and not add our work to it. We have jus verbi, but not executionem: we are to preach the word, but the consequence is to be God's alone in his pleasure. If therefore I fall into it, and would forcibly put it away: there are many of them that must enter into it, and know not how they are in it, 4) whether it be right or wrong, speaking: I do not know whether it is right or wrong; I do not know how I am in it; I have had to follow the church and authority. So then the constraint or commandment alone becomes a mirror fencing, an outward being, a monkey game, and thus becomes a human statute, seeming saints or gleissers, for there is no good heart. I don't give a damn about that. One must see the heart of the people first. But this is what happens when I preach God's word alone, preach the gospel and say: "Dear lords or priests, leave the mass, it is not right, you sin in it, that is what I want to tell you! But I did not want to make any rules for them, nor did I want to insist on a common order; whoever wanted to follow, would follow, whoever did not want to, would stay outside. With him the word fell down into the heart and worked. So now he who is caught, and gives guilty, goes and falls from the fair; tomorrow another comes 5): thus God worked with

1. So put by us instead of: "peculiar".
2. So put by us instead of: "give in this".
3. So put by us instead of: "their".
4. So put by us instead of: "to be in it".
5. Here, this redaction is again meaningless, because it is extremely incomplete. In the previous one it says: "If one did so, today the word would fall into the heart of one, tomorrow it would fall into the heart of another.

beuem word more, deuu if you and I melt all power into one heap; so if you have the heart, you have now won him: so then the thing must finally disintegrate and cease from itself. And if after that all mind and heart would be united and united, then do it; where all mind and heart are not yet present, there 6) let God rule. I ask you for that, you do no good. Not that I want to set up the mass again, but let it lie in God's name. Faith does not want to be bound or constrained, nor to be constrained by order to a work. There straighten you after. I know that you will not carry these things out, but if you carry them out with such vile commandments, I will revoke all that I have written and preached. Neither will I stand with you, and have told you arid 7). What harm can it do you if you bear with such outward things for a while? 8) You have your faith pure and strong in God, so that this thing cannot harm you.

2 Therefore love requires that you have compassion on the weak. This is what all the apostles did. Paul, when he once came to Athens, Apost. 17:22, 23, into a mighty city, he found old altars built in the temple. 9) He went from one to another and looked at them all, but he did not touch any of them with his foot, but stood in the middle of the place and said that they were idolatrous things and asked that they be removed; he also did not tear any of them down by force. When the word took hold of their hearts, they themselves fell away; then the thing itself fell away. So if I had seen that they had kept the mass, I would have preached and admonished them. If they had followed it, I would have won them over; but if not, I would not have torn them away by hair and force, but would have let the Word act and prayed for them. For the Word created heaven and earth.

6. So put by us instead of: "that".
7. So put by us instead of: "will you therefore".
8. This insertion is made from the previous redaction.
9. "old" is missing in the previous redaction.

60 Erl. 28,2vo f. 1 b. Luther's eight sermons against Carlstadt 2c. W. xx, 72 f. 61

and all things; that must do it, and not we poor sinners.

Summa Summarum: I want to preach it, I want to say it, I want to write it, but I do not want to force anyone by force, because faith wants to be attracted willingly, unnecessarily. Take an example from me. I have opposed indulgences and all papists, but not by force. I have only practiced, preached and written the Word of God; otherwise I have done nothing. When I have slept, when I have drunk Wittenberg beer with my Philippo and Amsdorf, this has done so much that the Pabstthunx has become so weak that no prince nor emperor has ever broken off so much. I have done nothing; the word has done it all. If I had wanted to go on with mischief, I would have brought Germany into a great bloodshed; yes, I would have caused a game at Worms, so that the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? It would have been a fool's game. I have done nothing; I have let the word act. What do you think, what the devil thinks, if one wants to arrange the thing with rumor? He sits behind hell and thinks, "Oh, how can fools play such a fine game?" But then he suffers, because we alone do the word and let it work. That is all-powerful, that takes captive the

The heart, and when it is caught, the work must fall apart by itself.

4 A gross example. In time past there were sects among the Jews and Gentiles because of the law of Moses concerning circumcision; some would keep it, and some would not. Then Paul came and preached that one should keep it or not, for there was no power in it, and that one should not make it an obligation, but leave it free; one should keep it or not, and there would be no danger, until the time of Jerome, who came and wanted to make it an obligation, and to make an order and statute out of it: one should do it. Then St. Augustine came, and was of St. Paul's opinion: one should keep it or not. St. Jerome was a hundred miles away from St. Paul's opinion, and the two Doctors were very much at odds with each other. When St. Augustine died, St. Jerome was the one who brought it to the point that it had to be abolished. Then came the popes, who also wanted to do something about it and also made laws. Out of the abrogation of the one law grew thousands of laws, so that they have completely overwhelmed us with law. So it will also happen here, because 1) one law soon makes two, two make their three 2c.

That is enough of the things that are necessary. Let us take care that we do not deceive the weak conscientious.

1. "For" put by us after the previous redaction instead of "that".

62 . Erl. SS, 2SS-2S8. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 101-103. 63

*2. to take Martin Luther's opinion of both forms of the sacrament and other innovations. )

**Mid-April ) 1522.

Grace and peace to all my dear lords and brothers in Christ from God > our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Saint Paul calls the holy gospel a word of the cross and a sermon of foolishness to the Gentiles, and a sermon of offense to the Jews 1 Cor. 1:18, 23. But now, out of the unfathomable riches of the mercy of God our Father, we have again been graced with the wholesome, pure word of the Gospel, we must consider that it is and remains for us no other than, according to its nature, a word of the cross, of trouble, of foolishness. It is a great sign of a right faith and teaching among us that Satan attacks us with his scales so bitterly and grievously. If our doctrine were of the world, it would praise the world John 15:19, as the teaching of the Pope has done until now; but now it is not of the world, but God has given it to us, therefore the world hates us.

Now this is the least challenge, that the world hates and persecutes us. Satan is not satisfied with this, but intends to exercise his will of courage among us, and whether we are too strong for his larva, the papists, from the outside, he wants to cut us apart and destroy us from the inside through ourselves. God our Father forbid him, amen.

(3) Therefore, we are to look more to ourselves than to our external enemies.

"We know well what he has in mind," says St. Paul 2 Cor. 2, 11. Now seeing that he cannot deceive us on the left, he throws himself on the right. Earlier he made us all too papal; now he wants to make us all too evangelical. But God has commanded us many times in the Scriptures: "We shall keep to the right road, and not turn aside to the right hand or to the left" Is. 30:21. Truly, it is time that we arm ourselves and protect ourselves with prayers and teachings, Satan wants to get at it. He has hitherto wrestled with me alone through vain rude heads, which can do nothing but blaspheme and lie; but now they stand in great hope, we shall disturb ourselves with our own dissension and discord.

4 But therefore be not dismayed. St. Paul had it worse, namely, false brothers and false apostles among his group 2 Cor. 11:26, and all who were in Asia fell away from him; also his special dear friend and disciple Demas left him 2 Tim. 4:10. So here we must also wait for some of our own to fall away when the conflict begins; about that, when the real main conflict begins with the devil among ourselves, we must wait for those to fall who are now leading the way, be it Luther or whoever. It is not a sophistical disputation who should fight with Satan.

5 But I know where my teaching comes from and who has raised me up. The work also proves it sufficiently. For whether I may

*This writing appeared around the middle of April 1522 (on April 12 it was under the press. De Wette, Vol. II, p. 180) in Wittenberg under the title: "Von beider Gestalt des Sacraments zu nehmen und ander Neuerung, D. M. Luthers Meinung", and was reprinted in the same year there and elsewhere several times. Only one of the seven individual editions gives a printer, namely "Egydius Fellenfürst zu Coburg"; several of them do not give the time; two are also without indication of the place. In the collections: Wittenberger (1554), vol. VII, p. 355; Jenaer (1585), vol. II, p. 82; Altenburger, vol. II, p. 120; Leipzitzer, vol. XVIII, p. 185 and Erlanger, vol. 28, p. 286. We give the text according to the Jenaer edition.

**) The Erlangen edition has at the superscription, vol. 28, p. 286: "M. Mart." i.e. LIsE Nartio, which seems to be reprinted from the old edition of Walch, because in the Wittenberg collection, from which the Erlangen edition has allegedly reproduced the text, this closer time determination is not found. Walch's statement had its justification in the fact that at the end of this writing in the Jena edition this date is written: "XXIII LIartii Anno MDXXII."

64 Erl. SS, L88-sso. 2. L.'s opinion of both forms of the sacrament 2c. - W. XX, 103-105. 65

of the small signs that we might have done (if it were necessary), it is to be considered a great miracle that Satan's highest head and greatest power, the papacy 1) with its body, has received such a blow from me that no temporal or spiritual power has ever been able to prove to him. Satan himself also feels well who is master of my teaching; therefore he rages and thus seeks weak grips.

(6) The temporal power, the servant of the pope, has now also interfered in the matter, which I do not like to see. But if it will not be otherwise, we must take comfort in Christ that he will help us, since we have beaten and despised the angry Lord, so that we will not be afraid of his ungracious servant. We believe that Christ is our Lord and theirs, and that he will help those who rely on his help. Let us pray for them, that God will enlighten them in this annual time, and that they will pull their hands out of the pope's sod, so that they will not be wrapped up with him and destroyed, because I am afraid they will make the main scratch. Christ has ever had it in mind that he does not want to be afraid that some angry pope's servants want to put body and goods on it, but he thinks it would be necessary for them to think about how they would bring body and goods away from it; it is already too far set on it. If they dampen my teaching, then God has certainly not spoken through me. But it must of course remain as it has been from the beginning, that no class has so many fools as the great classes, as the Greek proverb says: One shall be born a prince or a fool.

(7) I am saying all this so that we may be undaunted by Satan's manifold attacks and troubles, for St. John says: "He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world" 1 John 4:4. For this reason I humbly ask all my dear lords and friends in Christ,

1. Erlanger "Bißthum", allegedly from the Wittenberg edition, which however offers "Bapstthum". That this cannot be a printing error is evident from the fact that "Pabstthum" is listed as Walch's variant.

These would kindly accept my instruction and opinion in such a rumor, and with earnest prayer help to preserve and promote before God this evangelical cause, which has now become common to us all, so that through it the poor souls who are still to come here may also be enlightened, and we together with them be strengthened in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ; to whom be praise, thanksgiving and glory forever and ever, amen.

First of all, it should be known that I do not want to dispute here whether the holy sacrament should be given and received in both forms, and whether the laity have the power to take and receive it with their hands, and whether one has the power to do so in vessels other than chalices, in garments other than chasubles, in houses other than the church. In such and such external practices, even if they are contrary to the pope or not, God does not give us much discretion; but we Christians should and will have the power and right to keep the institution of Christ in whatever way we please, regardless of the false, lying titles of the church, ecclesiastical order, and of all tyrants, spiritual and secular, who are angry.

(9) And place our foundation in Him who cannot lie, saying Matt. 15:7, 8, 9: "The prophet Esaias hath said of you hypocrites, This people honoureth me with their lips, and their heart is far from me: but they serve me in vain, because they teach the commandments of men" (Isa. 29:13). On this a Christian should comfort his conscience and firmly believe that Christ does not lie. If he does not lie, then it must be true that all that is added and kept in this sacrament by the teaching of men, about the first institution of Christ, is a vain service. In spite of all the devils, that they protest against this.

(10) Now it is certain that it is vain man's addition and doctrine, that one should not use both forms, should not touch with hands, should not act with unconsecrated garments, in common houses and vessels. For through Christ, the apostle, and for a long time thereafter, this was neither established nor kept, but rather contradicted, as the evangelists clearly prove; therefore it is certainly a vain service of God to teach and keep this as a necessary commandment.

66 Erl. 28, LS0-L9S.. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt.... W. XX, 10S-108, 67

11. The other reason we place again on Christ, Marci 3, 1. ff. and Matth. 12, 8: "The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath. The word says Christ that his disciples had power to break the Sabbath. Now every Christian man is Christ's brother, as St. Paul Rom. 8, 14-17, Gal. 4, 6. 7. and he himself Ps. 22, 23. testifies. For "He has given power to all who believe in His name to become children of God," Joh. 1, 12. Therefore every Christian is also a lord over the Sabbath, much more over all human commandments, doctrine and statutes. As also Paul 1 Cor. 3, 21-23. says: "All things are yours, whether Peter or Paul, life or death, all things are yours. But ye are Christ's; but Christ is GOD's."

(12) For this reason we have, and will have unhindered, that we are masters over all papal and human doctrine and commandments, and it shall be at our will and pleasure whether we will keep them or not. Let us see what all devils may say or do against this. I mean that I am speaking German now, and that my words are not mine, but Christ's. They will not push Christ out of heaven, the ungracious nobles. For he who has set him at his right hand has in mind to keep him there. We defy and take comfort in this, and we will surely refrain from their wrath.

(13) But this Christian rule, freedom and power of ours must be understood only spiritually. For Christ did not want to have anything to do with worldly rule, to which he himself also gave subjects and interest, Matth. 17, 27. But this is called spiritual freedom, when the conscience remains free. This means that I do not make a conscience of myself before God if I transgress the teachings of men, as if I had committed a sin in doing so. Again, that I do not make a conscience of it, as if I had done a good work with it and deserved something before God, if I kept it. For that is what Christ himself says, that it is vain service; but I should respect such doctrines of men as eating and drinking, sleeping and walking, all of which I can do and refrain from doing, freely, without any injury to my conscience.

or correction, so that faith in Christ alone is my good work, life and merit, for the comfort of my conscience, and after that love toward my neighbor.

14 The third reason is St. Paul, Gal. 5:13: "Brethren, ye were called to liberty: but see ye give it not for a cause to the flesh, but serve one another in love. This is also said to Christians, that they owe nothing but to serve one another in love. For by faith they have all that they have before God and according to conscience: they are lords over sin, death, the devil, and all things; therefore no commandment can be laid down for them, by which their conscience should exercise itself to become pious, or by which they may sin, just as little can a healthy man be commanded to eat and drink, by which he may become healthy or unhealthy; for he is already healthy, and may become unhealthy without such a commandment, and may freely use or leave such a commandment.

(15) For there is a great difference between these three, to keep the commandment of men, and to serve in the commandment of men, and to be lord over the commandment of men. Christ did not reject the Sabbath, but wanted to be a master over it, that he might keep it and not keep it. Item, he also did not reject the teachings of men. For what harm would it have done him to wash his hands as the Jews commanded? But he would not serve in it, saying that it was a vain service of God, that is, they wanted to trap consciences with it, as if he who kept it was doing a necessary service, which he would have to do in mortal sin and would be guilty of doing; this is false and seductive.

16 So also here, that we keep papal laws, where they are not against God, would not be evil in itself, like eating, drinking 2c. But that he wants it to be done in obedience to the church and in mortal sin, and that no one can be saved who does not keep it, and is not a Christian, is a heretic 2c., thus wants to entrap the consciences, that is the devil himself. Here goes our freedom, and we speak: This is a lie; we are masters of such commandments according to conscience, and will be without sin if we transgress them.

68 Erl. 28, 2g2-294. 2. L.'s opinion of both forms of the sacrament 2c. W. XX, 108-110. 69

and without piety, if we keep them; that and no other.

(17) We now return to the first, and say by command and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, amen, that those who attack the holy sacrament with their hands, or have acted without consecrated garments, vessels, or houses, or would still do so, whether in Wittenberg or Eilenburg, in Bohemia or Hungary, in Prussia or Prussia, should not, on losing their salvation, have any conscience about it, as if it were evil, as far as the work on him is concerned. Instead, he should insist on it and allow himself to be killed ten times before he wants to revoke it, condemn it, or confess it to be wrong, regardless of whether papal, imperial, princely, or even diabolical statutes, judgments, and orders have been issued against it. But I am talking about the work in itself, because we will talk about the abuse and the persons later.

The reason for all this is that those who have condemned or will condemn such things cannot prove that they were done contrary to Christ's first institution, but must confess that Christ himself and common Christianity have long done so, leaving us free to do so. Thus it is for the loss of every man's salvation that he should not recant, nor reprove for unrighteousness, nor blame what Christ himself and all Christendom have done in time past; for that would be as much as to deny and condemn Christ, together with all the apostles and all Christendom, when it was at its best. But that the papists should reproach such things for heresy, and that some angry princes should proclaim their Christian honor by blaspheming and persecuting such things, is not evil to them. What could Caiphas and Herod do more cheaply than crucify and mock the Son of God?

19 The other cause, they must also confess that all that they insist on, and therefore rage about, is man's law, or, as they lie and deceive, church commandment. For they will not prove for a long time yet that Christ has performed the sacrament in consecrated vessels, garments, houses, or has commanded it to be performed, or has put it into the mouth, not into the mouth.

the hands. Because we are Christians, we are masters over such human commandments, as far as consciences are concerned; therefore we owe it to ourselves to venture our necks over them, and not to forsake such liberty. For to do so would be to deny and condemn Christ, who has commanded such liberty so harshly and severely, and is not at all in our power to change or forgive it.

(20) Let them be content that we do not reject their statutes and ways, and may keep them; but let them make a nuisance of it, as if it ought not to be otherwise, and bind consciences in it, and let it be heresy who do otherwise, we will not suffer it, and put life and limb upon it. The conscience should be free to do otherwise or so in this matter, and the freedom should remain intact, that and no other; Christ should help us, who gave it to us and commanded it.

They write, the ungracious papists, and dress it up with a big trunk, that one has received the holy sacrament with the listening hands. What do you think? Delicious thing it is, listening hands, who does not know them, should well think, they trunk themselves thus very much in honor of the holy sacrament and out of Christian movement. If I now ask them with what kind of mouth they themselves receive the sacrament on Easter, whether they receive it with a listening mouth or with a priestly mouth, they will perhaps say: their mouth is then an angelic or episcopal mouth. I would humbly ask such gentlemen, if they would listen to me in front of thick ears, that, if they wanted to deceive and fool, they would do so in their goods, and leave God's work and the souls' business in peace. I am not saying this to be too close to the worldly authorities, but that it is our right, if they want to deceive and fool in God's business, that we should not suffer it nor remain silent. Those have attacked the Sacrament with eavesdropping hands, but these, when they want to joke like this, they fall in with their lay butts, and still boast of great Christian love.

22. is it wrong, therefore, to listen with your hands?

70 Erl. 28, 294-296. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. xx, 110-413. 71

If a person touches the sacrament, that the hand commits sin, or that it is unconsecrated, then it would be more appropriate not to receive the sacrament with the mouth, much less in the stomach, nor to let a person see it; for neither the mouth nor the stomach nor the eye is consecrated; so much more sin is committed with the mouth and eyes than with the hand. Such wise brains should also finally persuade us that we do not have to speak or hear the holy word of God, lest the holy word be received with the lay mouth and ears. But with such nonsensical blindness, Christ uses to afflict his enemies, so that one may see how mightily he reigns over those who think they have eaten him, and must disgrace and punish themselves with their own foolishness.

23. 1. A Christian should know that there is no greater sanctuary on earth than God's Word; for even the Sacrament itself is made and sanctified by God's Word, and through it we are all born spiritually and consecrated as Christians. If a Christian understands the Word, which sanctifies all things, and is higher than the Sacrament (as much as one can grasp it with one's hands), nevertheless both with mouth, ears, heart, yes, with one's whole life, how should he not also be allowed to attack such a thing, which is sanctified with it? Or should he also not attack himself? For he is sanctified with it as well as the sacrament.
24. with the wise the Pharisees would come, of which Christ says, Matth. 23, 2) 17-19,

1. This paragraph, together with the following two, forms the conclusion of the unauthentic scripture, which was published under the title: "Das Hauptstück des ewigen und neuen Testaments, von dem hochwürdigen Sacrament beider Gestalt, Fleisch und Blut Christi, Zeichen und Zusage, die er uns in denselben gethan hat. Gepredigt von D. Martin Luther zu Wittenberg am Gründonnerstag 1522" was published in several individual editions, without indication of place and printer. This writing is not found in the old editions. First it is included in the Leipzig Supplement p. from it passed over into the old edition of Walch, vol. X, 2659. The Erlangen edition also brings it, vol. 22, p. 38. By mistake it has also found inclusion in the St. Louis edition, vol. X, 2164 ff.
2. Here the Erlangen edition has reprinted from the old edition of Walch: "Matth. 22". In addition, three other false bible quotations of Walch are reprinted in this publication.

That they made the gold more holy than the temple, and the sacrifice more holy than the altar. And it is just as if one were to begin to teach that it is a sin to touch the chalice's food, but one might well attack the chalice itself. I would like to hear a piece from the papists that they could present without being particularly foolish. But what else should they do, who judge and blaspheme God himself!

(25) A Christian man is holy in body and soul, whether he be layman or priest, man or woman; whoever says otherwise blasphemes holy baptism, Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's grace. It is a great and strange thing about a Christian, and God is more interested in him than in the Sacrament. For the Christian was not made for the sake of the sacrament, but the sacrament was instituted for the sake of the Christian; and these blind heads want to dispute whether he may attack the sacrament, and even want to make a heresy out of it. Out with the stubborn and blinded heathen, who know nothing at all about what a Christian is called or is!

26 Therefore we also beseech those who have received both forms, and if it will help, we command in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that they should not make a conscience of it, as if it were unjust or evil done, but should let life go before they recant or deny it, regardless of what the pope, emperor, prince, and devil may oppose, do, or want. For the text of the Gospel is so clear that even the papists cannot deny that Christ instituted both forms and gives them to all disciples. Therefore you are guilty, for the salvation of your soul, not to deny this or let it be blasphemed, since it would be just as much as if you said that Christ himself had done wrong in it and was a heretic, because he acts differently from the pope and the angry papists (who make themselves the church). The papists should put such blasphemy on the works of Christ; you must praise, honor and justify them with life and limb if you want to be a Christian and be saved.

27 And here again see how strongly the Lord Christ rules over his blasphemers, and by their own cleverness brings them to the sun.

72 Erl. 28,2SK-298. 2. L.'s opinion of both forms of the sacrament 2c. W. XX, I13-IIS. 73

bring. At Nuremberg, it came out of the regiment 1) that the matter of receiving both forms of the sacrament should be postponed until a future council, because the wise gentlemen do not want to condemn it, but do not want to allow it, but to condemn it unrecognized. What do you think now? I mean, these are Christians, they confess that Christ instituted it and that it stands in the Gospel, that is true; but they want to take a concern whether it is right or wrong, to keep or not to keep, what Christ sets and does. I would like Christians to consider whether the gospel is right or wrong, to suffer or not to suffer. He also commanded that one should not commit adultery; but now I see first of all whence the great lords commonly regard adultery so lightly: they have perhaps taken it into a consideration whether it is rightly commanded or not.

28. Since our Lord Christ publicly makes fools of his enemies, the great Hansa, both spiritual and secular, in this matter, so that they proceed in such a childish and shameful manner that Claus Fool would be man enough to answer them, we should be confident and despise their raving and foolishness, and not worry how we answer them; for they can do nothing by the grace of God, as the pope with his bulls and papist protectionists, 2) and now also the angry lords, have sufficiently proven, but we must put flesh and blood out of our eyes and remember that we base our conscience on God's word pure and alone, so that we can meet the devil in death and stand our ground. Dear brother, believe me, I who have experienced it, the devil is not afraid of man's word and commandment. Therefore, if he finds you dying, that you are casting your conscience on man's commandment, 3) and you want to say: thus the pope, church, princes 2c. have commanded me, he will overthrow you, so that your 4) conscience will not be afraid of man.

1. Cf. Luther's letter to the Elector Frederick of March 7, 1522, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2391, § 12.
2. Thus the Jena; Wittenberg: Schutzfchreiben.
3. stönen - to support.
4. "dein" is missing in the Jenaer. Instead of "Fußstapff" in the Jenaer, the Wittenberg has "fußstab"; the Erlangen: "Fußstaf."

The footprint will remain. Again, if he finds you defying God's word and saying, "Thus Christ has commanded me, there is his word, so you will make the world close to him.

29 This is what St. Paul means - Eph. 6:12: "We have no quarrel with flesh and blood, but with the spiritual wickedness in the air, with the rulers of this darkness. But these only contend that they either seduce the conscience with wiles and doctrines, or overthrow it with false terror. But no weapon can help against this, except the word of God alone, the sword of the Spirit Eph. 6:17. Therefore we should always remain steadfast that both forms are right and Christian and evangelical; and whoever says otherwise is lying and blaspheming God, be it pope, emperor, princes, or the devil.

(30) So also we are to confess and maintain the liberty to receive the sacrament with our hands or with our mouths, to act with and in consecrated and unconsecrated garments, vessels, and houses, as we please. Whoever denies this freedom, or calls any of these things heresy, is lying again and blaspheming Christ and his word, be it pope, emperor, prince, or devil. We have the bright and clear gospel, as they themselves confess, but they have their own doubts whether they want to keep the gospel and their own mind against the gospel. Let the foolish go, let them go!

Summa Summarum, as St. Paul says Gal. 1, 8: "If we ourselves, or an angel from heaven, preached to you differently than we preached to you, let it be forbidden. So I also say here: You must therefore rely firmly and surely on God's word in this matter and all others, that even if I myself became a fool, since God was for me, and revoked or denied my teaching, that you therefore do not step away from it, but say: Even if Luther himself, or an angel from heaven taught differently, so be it. For you must not be a disciple of Luther, but of Christ, and it is not enough for you to say, Luther, Peter, or Paul said this, but you must feel Christ himself in your conscience,

74 Erl. 28,298-300.I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 118-117. 75

and feel insensibly 1) that it is God's word, even if the whole world disputes it. As long as you do not feel, you have certainly not tasted God's word, and still hang with your ears on man's mouth or pen and not with your heart on the word, and do not yet know what it is, Matth. 23, 10: "You shall not call yourselves masters on earth, for One is your Master, Christ. The Master teaches in the heart, but by the outward word of his preachers, who drive it into the ears; but Christ drives it into the heart.

Therefore think for yourself, you have death or persecution ahead of you, I cannot be with you, nor you with me, but each one must stress there for himself, overcome the devil, death, the world. If then you would look around at the time, where I would stay, or I, where you would stay, and let yourself be moved, whether I, or someone on earth said otherwise, then you are already lost and have left the word out of your heart; because you do not stick to the word, but to me or to others. There is then no help. You can see what terrible murderers of souls these are, who do not preach the doctrine of men to the souls, or even God's word loudly and surely; in addition, how few cling to it with their hearts, even though it is preached loudly and preached by many. Let this be said of the first part.

The other part.

(33) If then this is certain, and there is no doubt about it, why is it not done? Yes, why do you yourself not let it go in Wittenberg, since it has begun, and elsewhere more? I answer, "I do not like that it should not be done, but my complaint is that it cannot be done. A prisoner should be able to travel, he would have the power and the right to do so; but he cannot, it is not up to him, but to others who hinder him. Take a like

1. imponderable i.e. without wavering. The Jenaer, which has this reading, gives as a conjecture in the margin: "inwendig". The Wittenberg and after it the Erlangen: impassable.
2. Thus the Erlangen; in the Wittenberg and Jena editions: "reissen".

niss. 3) The gospel should be preached rightly in all the world; where is the fault? Not in the gospel, for it is right and true, useful and blessed. But there is a lack of people who are fit for it. Where there are none, it is better to be silent than to preach, for the preaching is falsified and harmful.

(34) So here too, the sacrament and the above custom is right and good; but where are the people who are fit for it, so that they start it and do it? If it were so arranged and a Christian were to use the sacrament in this way, it would be no easier thing than to be a Christian; a sow would also like to be a Christian. 5) I have striven for this and would like that the pope's law would also be abolished, from the annual reception of the sacrament at Easter, and that each one would be left free to go to it without restraint out of his own conscience and out of the hunger of his soul, so that the horrible un-Christian abuse and blasphemy would be worsened, and henceforth hardly anyone would go to it, since now many hundreds go.

(35) Thus I see that Satan deals with it, that he wants to make both forms so common and even more common than the pope has made his one form (6) before Christians are made who are to do this; and he intends to make it worse on the right side than on the left. Therefore it is necessary for us to stay on the right middle road and ask God to help us and keep us on it, because Satan seeks us with earnestness.

I will leave the reason for not having this custom in Wittenberg. For this is a special

3. What is now in this paragraph and in the two following paragraphs is likewise used for the above-mentioned inauthentic writing. Cf. the note to § 23 of this paper.
4. In the old editions here and immediately following instead of "a Christian" "Christians".
5. The preceding sentence is omitted from the print just mentioned.
6. In the Wittenberg and the Jena: "sein eigen Gestalt". We have made this change according to the above-mentioned print, which offers "sein ein Gestalt". Erlanger Ausgabe, Vol. 22, p. 42. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 2167. The reading we have given is confirmed by what is said in the following § 39.

76 Erl, 28, soo-302. Z. L.'s opinion of both forms of the sacrament 2c. W. XX, 117-120. 77

I do not want to confirm or help to strengthen such beginnings. Even if it were even more delicious and even more heavenly, I still do not want to confirm or help strengthen such beginnings. It is not the duty of every man to approach or do all that is right, but it is enough that he should do that which is rightly appointed and commanded him. For where this order is reversed, it is not right, however good the right may be. Therefore I will only tell the causes which hinder and promote that this custom of the sacrament cannot or may not proceed or continue.

The first is that this sacrament with its custom is not in our power, but is imprisoned by papal laws; just as the golden vessels of the temple were imprisoned in Babylon. But the prison is made so that the common man's conscience is so severely entangled and weakened in the faith by papal tyranny and laws that he cannot so suddenly let it go and strengthen his conscience that the pope's thing is wrong and this custom is right and evangelical.

(38) After all, I myself labored three years before I was delivered from the laws of the priest, with daily practice of the gospel, in preaching, reading, contemplating, discussing, writing, and listening; how then should the common man be brought out so quickly? Where such weak men go and take both forms, their conscience bites them afterwards and they confess that they have taken both forms, as if they had done evil. As some have already done. This is an abominable thing, and has become worse. With such confession and conscience they deny and condemn Christ and his institution. Only stay away from these people of both kinds, because they are following the saying of Christ, Matth. 9, 17: "No one puts must into old wineskins, otherwise the must breaks the wineskins, and the must is spilled and the wineskins spoil. The must is the doctrine of the Gospel; the old wineskins are these outdated weak consciences; therefore they cannot get along with each other. The conscience becomes angry and then denies the doctrine it had grasped.

(39) Yes, I say further, keep away from such people, even from one form and from the whole sacrament; for those who need only one form, the devil will be afraid to die with the gospel, which uses both forms. 1) Where they then do not know counsel, they must perish, and it will not help them to apply papal laws and old customs. The gospel asks neither for pope nor custom. That is why I said that there is no lack of law, but of people. The Pabst's law cannot be kept in all the world without atrocious murder of souls, to enjoy one form against the gospel. Again, it is not less harmful to raise both figures so suddenly among the whole community of such imprisoned weak consciences according to the Gospel.

40 Thus you speak: What will happen here? Is it so dangerous on both sides with this sacrament, that the devil at death with the gospel drives against 2) one form, and the pope at life with his law against both forms; where then shall we go? Answer: For this reason St. Paul proclaimed that the reign of the last Christ should make perilous times 2 Thess. 2:9, 10, that one cannot walk securely on either side, neither in the gospel nor out of the gospel, yet through no fault of the gospel, for the must is good, but through the fault of the pope, who has caused the consciences, the tubes, to grow old and corrupt, so that they cannot grasp nor keep the gospel, and yet cannot be kept without the gospel. What then shall we do? Answer: Nothing else, but what Christ teaches and says, Matth. 9, 17: "Put the must into new bottles, and they will both be kept.

We must first become coopers and make new barrels before the grape harvest begins and the must is gathered: the old ones must be put aside, that is, one must preach strongly and much against the pope's law of one form, and well drive the evangelical institution of Christ of both forms. But in

1. So the Jenaer. Wittenberger: inserts.
2. Erlanger: "again", probably after Walch's old edition.

78 Erl. 28,302-304.I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 120-122. 79

that the people reject the whole sacrament, be it in one or both forms, and do not add to it, neither on Easter nor on Pentecost, and thus let the order of the pope fall, so long, until the people, sufficiently understood, without enticements and charms, but driven by their own conscience, come of their own accord, and each one wrestle and press for the sacrament to be given to him. Thereby one could feel that the barrels and tubes were new, and their consciences sufficiently strengthened; so the others, the weak, remained behind in their being until they also became strong.

(42) But if a man beget, or call, or entice, or provoke to the sacrament, the whole multitude shall fall down, and take the must in his old tube, and perish. Therefore it is not possible, and the sacrament cannot suffer it, that one should put a common ordinance on it, who should enjoy it, as the pope does, but one must first well preach to the people, and draw the weak consciences away from it, until they, fully informed of the gospel, come humbly of themselves, announce to the priest and ask for the sacrament out of spiritual hunger. With the others, all only far from the Sacrament, regardless of the pope, laws, church customs and all things. For Christ says Matt. 11:12: "The kingdom of God is preached, and suffereth violence: and they that do violence take it to themselves." That is, one should not compose men with commandments or laws, nor provoke them to the gospel with custom or words, but preach freely, and then let them come and press on to it from themselves.

But where do we find such preachers? And if we had them, how could they drive the common man away from going to the sacrament on Easter? The law of the pope is too deeply ingrained that we cannot put away all the old vessels and casks; we must let them continue in the old abuse for a while, until the casks become new, and the gospel comes to the people. If now these old barrels and hoses alone were the people who are repugnant to us, and condemn both forms, and put them to the test, we should not be able to do anything.

If Pabst's law and custom force the consciences, we would easily advise the matter in this way: We would again condemn their law, as it not only teaches against the gospel and both forms, but also, even if it teaches the gospel, still forces the consciences to it, and compels them to believe. This is not only foolish and unevangelical, but also impossible. One should not and cannot force anyone to believe, but let the gospel freely fetch whom it will. Therefore, we would only use such fools to defy and oppose both forms through and through, and trample their law underfoot.

44 But among their multitude are many good-hearted, simple-minded people who would gladly lead rightly and well if they knew or could grasp it. Here, then, we must confront the tyrants so that we do not shatter or mislead the poor group. Let faith contend against the tyrants, and hold fast to the gospel against their law, and thrust such old, useless barrels into a heap; but let love embrace and receive these weak, simple consciences, and work on them to make new barrels of them.

(45) Now here is the doctrine and example of St. Paul, who, when he came to stubborn 1) Jews who insisted on circumcision and the law, did and taught the contradiction with joy, and would be unconquered. But where he came to the weak simple-minded, he also circumcised, and let the law go, until he strengthened them, and brought them out of the law. So he boasts 1 Cor. 9, 20: "With the Jews I was a Jew, with the Gentiles I was a Gentile", and yet Gal. 6, 15. says, 2) in Christ there is neither Gentile nor Jew. All this because he did not want to suffer the law and the pressure on the conscience, but to have free power to do or not to do such things.

(46) So must we do here also; because we cannot draw the common man from the sacrament, as it ought to be, until the gospel be known, we must spare the simple who are under it, and not let them

1. Wittenberger: starrigen.
2. "speaks" is missing in the Erlanger.

80 Erl. 28.304-sos. 2. L.'s opinion of both forms of the sacrament re. W. xx. 122-125. 81

The following table shows the different types of use of the two forms:

In the first place, let the old custom remain that one says mass in Latin with consecrated garments, with singing and all the usual ceremonies, considering that such a thing is a vain outward thing, in which the conscience does not care. In addition, the consciences must be kept free with the sermon, so that the common man learns that this does not happen because it must be done this way, or because it is heresy who does otherwise, as the mad laws of the pope urge; for such tyrants, who want and force this with laws, must be attacked sharply and harshly, so that Christian freedom remains whole.

48 On the other hand, priests who say mass must avoid all words in the canon and collects that refer to the sacrificium. For this is not a thing that is free to do or not to do, as was said next, but it must and should be avoided, and whoever wishes to do so may do so. But the priest can avoid such things, so that the common man will never find out, and he can do it without any trouble. But he who is stubborn and does not want to avoid such words, let him answer for himself, and let him always do it.

49. thirdly, that the words of the sacrament be well practiced in the sermon: "This is my body, given for you; this is my blood, shed for you," 2c., and that every Christian take them to heart, and especially model and act them when he takes the sacrament or hears mass, for there is a thousand times more in the same words than in the forms of the sacrament; and without such words the sacrament is not a sacrament, but a mockery before God. Therefore, in the Papist Church the Sacrament is indeed given, but it is not given to anyone, because they hide the words and give only the form, which is abominable.

(50) In the fourth place, when thou comest to the place where there is but one form, take but one form, as they do. If both are given, take both, and do no special thing, nor sit down against the multitude; without confessing that it is not evangelical (if you are asked). To take a form. For with the gospel, and not

With the deed or ordinance, the two forms are to be restored. The common man is not taught by deed or ordinance, but by the gospel, that both forms are right.

(51) If Christ's institution of both forms challenges you here, as it does not befit you to take one form, you shall report yourself thus: First of all, you have the words of the sacrament, which are the main part of it; you can grasp and practice them, so well, 2) if you take one or both, or no form at all, that you are completely without driving, and still receive the power of the sacrament.

On the other hand, the fault is not yours, because you take only one and do not keep Christ's appointment. You would have liked to have both, but now the one is imprisoned by Pabst's law, in which the weak consciences are entangled, which you must not shatter, but tolerate and reject until they also become strong. Just as St. Peter in prison could not practice the preaching of the gospel, as he was guilty of doing Acts 12:4, because necessity has no commandment. Therefore in such a case the commandment of love is to be placed far ahead of the institution of both forms. For Christ is more interested in love than in the sacramental form.

53. because Satan has so confused the matter by the pope's law that one cannot use both forms without damaging love against the weak consciences, again, one cannot practice love without damaging the institution of both forms: so love shall be incumbent and the institution shall depart for a time, but shall not be denied or condemned thereby. For love is a thing that must and should be. It is not necessary to receive the form of the sacrament, but one can leave it and keep the words alone. For Christ did not command to partake of the sacrament, but he set it free to be partaken of by whomsoever he will, so that he may take both forms if he can. But in this case it is not possible to keep for the sake of consciences, which love owes to serve.

1. "the" is missing in the Wittenberger.
2. Thus the Wittenbergers. Jenaer: "as well, as."

82 Erl. 28, 308-308. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX. 125-127. 83

(54) With this I do not want to deny 1) those who want to and can take both forms, whether secretly or openly, without doing it especially, not on a common altar, or at the same time, when the weak need their way, that they do not also go along and confess again afterwards. But if someone is so weak on this side that he would rather do without the whole sacrament than take only one form, let him also be tolerated and let him live according to his conscience.

(55) This way, which has been rejected, is now going to Wittenberg; not that I want to condemn the previous one with it, or that it is sufficiently evangelical, or that I want to strengthen the tyranny of the pope with it, but that the weak consciences may be ministered to out of love for a time, until we better drive the gospel into the world. I do not see anything particularly wrong done, without Satan having insisted too much on haste, wanting to overleap love, and not letting the weak be aware of it. Thus, in the end, new ordinances would arise, which the gospel could perhaps suffer less than Pabst's law. It is a clever devil, he wants to go either to the left or to the right side, but the gospel wants to go freely on the right road, written with no ordinances, but to be a lord over all ordinances and to have power to hold now this, now that. Such freedom, however, cannot be brought to the people in a hurry, God would have it understood even by the most intelligent.

Fifth, I would have it so that there would be no mass at all, but only at the time when there were people who wanted the sacrament and asked for a mass, and that this would happen only once a week or in a month. For the Sacrament is to be administered only by the suggestion and request of hungry souls, not by duty, pen, custom, law or habit. But it is too early to begin this; the consciences will not follow me until it is truly preached and understood. Nevertheless, I cannot give the chaplains and priests who have to say mass

1. Wittenberger and Erlanger: confused.

They should advise otherwise than to do this for the poor, erroneous consciences, out of love; but besides this, they should drop some masses and make a clean break-in with time, as much as they can and want to suffer, and confidently preach that this mostly falls away through the word.

57 Some would say: Yes, how would one care for the sick? Answer: I leave it at that, that one keeps the Sacrament for the sick in the monstrances; but if this custom of the masses would arise through a clearer knowledge of the Gospel, one would see that the Sacrament's form would not be necessary in death, since the words of the Sacrament are there, since the power lies in it, and it would be enough that one would take the form in good health, or would not despise it in death. The papists have made the sacraments so necessary for the dying, and yet they have concealed the words, which alone are necessary.

58. In the sixth place, the corner masses, done as sacrifices or good works, are well done and to be done, of which I have written enough in Latin. 3) But since no one is to be driven to faith, the priests who want to keep them should not be torn from the altar. Let them answer for it before God; if it is enough that one preaches against it and tells the people that they give nothing to it and neither let nor establish any, then they will probably fall themselves by such preaching in time.

In the seventh place, I have taught that secret confession is not to be commanded, but much less to be forbidden, as my booklet on confession 4) teaches; here I still stand up. For everything that is evangelical, Christian, or faith should be free, so that people, without law and activity, may press toward it with desire and love. Therefore, whoever does not like to confess, let him stay far away from it and trample the pope, princes, devils, laws underfoot, and let him be satisfied with the secret confession before God. But even though I do not urge you, I advise you to confess with pleasure before you go to the sacrament,

2. "den" is missing in the Wittenberger.
3. Os ni-roAÄQäa missa privutu. On the abuse of the mass. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XIX, 1068 ff.
4. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XIX, 814.

84 Erl. 28, sos-3io. 2. L.'s opinion of both forms of the sacrament 2c. W. xx, 127-130. 85

or ever not despise them. For although in the words of the Mass, as in the main part, there is absolution, nevertheless you should not despise the other absolutions. God has given us His absolution abundantly and much, none of which is to be despised for the sake of 1) the others.

60. as, in the Lord's Prayer he has set an absolution, that our sins shall be forgiven us, if we forgive our neighbor; which you shall not despise, nor leave the Lord's Prayer because of it, although in the Mass there is also an absolution. Thus he has Ps. 32, 5. made an absolution in secret confession before God, saying, "I have said, I will confess against me my iniquity; and thou hast forgiven me the iniquity of my sin." This absolution you shall also not despise for the sake of that which is in the Mass words, 2). Item, Matth. 18, 18. He gives absolution to all Christians, and says: "What you dissolve on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." And afterwards v. 19: "If two become one with one another on earth over anything, it shall be done for them." Therefore, do not despise any absolution, whether public or secret, that God gives. The more God's word 3) you have, the better it is.

61 Some of the images have acted shamefully, without the knowledge and will of their authorities and teachers, who would be worthy of good punishment. But let Satanam be Satanas, and let us speak to the matter. To have a picture is not wrong. In the Old Testament, God Himself set up the serpent of brass Deut. 21:8, and the cherubim on the golden ark Deut. 25:18; but God forbade the worship of images Deut. 20:4. It is true that they are dangerous, and I would that there were none on the altars; but because they burn and desecrate and do not suffer, we shall not prove that it is right. Therefore I say my cause. The devil and his papists also want to be beautiful and have done nothing wrong. If you now pretend that the images are

1. Wittenberger and Erlanger: others.
2. In the old editions: the Messen Wort.
3. ^Word" is missing in the Jena.
4. This reading is a conjecture of the Jena edition. In 4en editions: "bei ihrer".

in great abuse, therefore have none, but profane them, and burn them; so shall they say, We abuse you not; how wilt thou persuade them? Woman and wine is also dangerous thing and in abuse; and what is not in abuse? But thou hast not reviled the abuse, but the images themselves, which I may well use. What wilt thou say to this? Behold, thus they have seized thee. Now if they break off a leaf from thee, they will have gained the whole forest; for they are hungry, and seek it indeed.

(62) Therefore we must wisely fight against the handsome devil and allow the images; but we do not preach strongly against this abuse or this driving alone, that one worships them, which is the least, and they should probably say that you are nonsensical, that you blame them, they worship stone and wood, but against the main abuse, which the papists are full of, namely, that they therefore put images in the churches, so that they think they are doing a good work and serving God with it. Although no one will confess such unbelief to them, even though it must be in the heart, where true Christian faith is not. Behold, with such a word you have quickly done more harm to the images than all the world can do with guns and swords. If the common man knows that it is not a service of God to set images, he will probably let it go himself, without your activity, and let them be painted on the walls only for pleasure, or for ornament, or otherwise need that it be without sin. How would we get into the prison, that men should forbid us, what God has not forbidden? and just those, who we 5) fence against the 6) human doctrine and statute.

The ninth, that priests should move and monks and nuns should be free to leave the order, also greatly annoys and enrages the papists beyond measure. But there is nothing to it. I have said above that where one can give way to weak consciences, one should do so, so that one does not shatter them, but so far that it may and can be done without damaging the things that must be.

5. "we" is missing in the Jena.
6. "the" is missing in the Wittenberger.
7. Wittenberger and Erlanger: man.

86 Erl. 28,310-313. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 130-132. 87

The fact that the mass is not a sacrifice or a good work is also almost annoying, so far unheard, but therefore one must not let it bother the strong or weak conscience. Since Christ was preached, it was also annoying to all the world; should he therefore be silent? Thus, that the priests have forbidden the devil's marriage and established monks' status is indisputably proven by St. Paul 1 Tim, 4, 3. Therefore, one must and shall confess that marriage is freely given to them by God, and may also not be written with any vow against God's word, or be committed to the devil's teachings.

(64) He therefore that can abstain, do well to remain without a wife. But he who cannot is not guilty of remaining without a wife, for he should not serve his neighbor with such love as would condemn him and corrupt his own soul, but others are guilty of not taking offense at him. Necessity has no commandment, necessity has no shame, necessity has no disgrace, necessity has no vexation. If there were such a need to avoid both forms, we would not want to look at anger or a weak conscience.

It is true that I worry that some will move or run away, not because of Christian opinion, but because they are glad that they have gotten a cover and a reason for their evilness in the evangelical freedom; what can we do about it? After all, the pope's prohibition of chastity has hardly one priest among a thousand who keeps such chastity publicly; I will keep silent about the secret impurity. What wonder is it that even some of our gospel do not need it? They have gallows, wheels, swords and water; those who do not want to do right can be resisted.

Here, see which priest wants to move, or which monk or nun wants to run away, that they start it with a strong conscience, so that they can stand before the devil at death. It is nothing that the unlearned and foolish Papists strive against, but the devil will drive you with your vows quite masterfully and force you to confession, and make your marriage and freedom a sin, if you are not well armed with God's word, on which you rely and despise him. Therefore understand the saying of Paul, 1 Tim.

4, 1. 2. 3. when he interprets the devil's teachings and lies, take it to heart, it will be necessary for you; and take comfort in the fact that it is God's words, who cannot lie; read Libellum de votis 1) well, and strengthen yourself as best you can. It is a miserable murder of souls that the devil has wrought by the pope's prohibition, in which the souls are deeply weakened and hard to strengthen against such devil's vows.

The tenth, that one is free to eat eggs, fish and meat every day of the year, and that the pope or the church has no power to forbid some days or food, is certainly true, as St. Paul's word 1 Tim. 4:3 clearly states: Prohibentium nubere et abstinere a cibis. But since one can spare the weak consciences in this, and there is no need to practice this among the simple who do not yet know, I do not resent that a good beating should befall them, because they have such freedom, out of sheer wanton wickedness, contrary to the simple, without correction of body and soul, and yet otherwise do not lift a finger to right Christian conduct, and thus make a shameful defamation of the gospel and the noble name of Christians, so that one speaks: These are Christians, of what? Well, they can eat meat on Friday. Well then, they have not learned it from us in this way, and yet we have to bear their bad habits.

Christ will one day come behind them and save his name from their disgrace. We have thus taught and thought to free the consciences from the laws of the devil, who by the pope, in mortal sins 2) and in hell, gives away the food and the days. When we have thus freed the consciences, we shall use them wisely and subject them to the service of our neighbor, so that we may bring him there as well; then you, mad head, approach and push the simple before the head, so that they recoil, and say, Behold, I can eat flesh. Yes, you dear sow, you should eat something else.

69. summa, it is grievous in the sight of God and in the sight of men, that we should not keep our Christian

1. Luther's Urtheil von den geistlichen und Kloster vows. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XIX, 1500 ff.
2. Erlanger: "at death sins, and" 2c.

88 Erl. 28,31Z-315, 2. L.'s opinion of both forms of the sacrament 2c. W. XX, 132-185. . 89

We begin with the outward things and leave the right inward things. We want to prove ourselves evangelical by taking both forms of the sacrament and attacking it with our hands. We do not want to outline the image, eat flesh, fast, pray, and the like. But no one wants to fast from faith and love, which alone are necessary, and since all power lies with, and that is not necessary. But it is the devil's ghost who leads people in such a way that they fall from the pope and yet do not come to Christ, and thus become neither papal nor Christian, but remain attached to an external thing just as the papists do.

I have taught, then, that my teaching is based first and foremost on the knowledge of Christ, that is, on right, honest faith, true love, and thereby on freedom and 1) all outward things, be it eating, drinking, clothing, praying, fasting, monasteries, sacraments, and whatever else they may be called, that such freedom is actually possessed and blessed only by those who believe and love, that is, by those who are true Christians; to them no human law can or should be laid down, kept, or suffered to catch their conscience. One must first have the people who are to have such freedom, so that the must is put into new barrels and kept.

Thus the rabble plods in, and wants to establish such freedom with the fist, and with the head through; does not even think that it should believe and love; remains nevertheless full of avarice, affliction, unchastity, anger, swearing and cursing, as before. Truly I say that I do not recognize such for Christ disciples. Christian people only fight with the word against the devil's doctrine and work, and first tear the hearts and consciences away from him; after that it all falls away from him. The apostles never overthrew an altar among the Gentiles. St. Paul sailed in a ship that had a sign of the idols called Castores 2) and did not tear down the images or the ship Acts 28:11. I have also written hard enough against the Pabst's idolatry, when perhaps no one, but still no one.

1. It is here to take "and" - "also".
2. In the Vulgate: insiMk Oastorurn - the panier of the twins.

We have never done it with our hands, nor have we been called to do it without God's authority and power. We have done enough, if we preach against it and loosen the consciences; let God carry out the deed. For it is written that the last Christian shall be destroyed without hand, by the spirit of the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ, Dan. 8:25 2 Thess. 2:8.

For this reason I ask all Christians to listen to my advice in the Sacrament and in all other matters: First of all, since Satan, by papal law, has thrown the Sacrament under the swine, so that he forces all the world to go to the Sacrament at Easter, whether they believe or not, whether they love or not, and has hidden from them the words of the Sacrament, in which faith should hang and be nourished, let us work to remove the Sacrament from the swine first. But we do this by drawing people away from it and turning them away with teachings and petitions, so that no one ever goes to it out of papal law compulsion or obedience. For the Sacrament cannot suffer people to be drawn or compelled, but, being taught by the Gospel, they should ask and press for it of their own accord, out of hungry faith.

73. On the other hand, whoever thinks he has such a hunger, let him see to it that he does not deceive himself, and that there is no fleshly, human desire, but let him examine such faith to see if it is right, as St. Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 11:28: "Let man examine himself. But the test is in your whole life, namely, that you feel within yourself an aching conscience, which is oppressed by sin, desires mercy, or is afraid of death or hell, and would like to be strong, and so, with good confidence in Christ's word, seeks and takes the sacrament to get such grace, strength, and help. For, as I have said, a hungry, meager, oppressed and distressed soul demands this sacrament, which is to be added to itself, irrespective of Pabst's law or lawlessness, but only of its own need and thirst, in good faith.
74. Erlanger: "the", which is not found in any edition. We are not dealing here with a mere printing error, because "or" is given as Walch's variant.

90 Erl. ss, 315-317. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. xx, 135-137. 91

advocates. This is the test of faith and inwardly.

The third test is that you look at your outer being, whether you also show love toward your neighbor and serve him. If you do not find such a test in yourself, but live as before, still full of unfaithfulness, hatred, avarice, anger, unbelief, O dear one, then stay away from this sacrament until you become a different person; do not let yourself be driven to the pile, nor to Pabst's law, nor to habit. Oh, Lord God, if this doctrine were well practiced, you should see that where now a thousand go to the Sacrament, hardly a hundred would go to it. In this way, there would be fewer of the abominable sins that the pope has washed into the world with his infernal law; in the end, we would again come to a Christian assembly, who are now almost vain pagans under the Christian name; then we would be able to recognize from ourselves, who recognized by their works, that they neither believed nor loved, which is now still impossible for us.

Oh God, we are still far from Jerusalem; we have hardly begun to leave Babylon, and we want to go as if we were already at home. Everything wants to be called Christian, and we must allow it; but faith and love will not follow. Making sects is no good and does not help. Therefore there is no advice left but to preach the gospel and turn people away from the sacrament and all outward things, until they feel and prove themselves Christians, and press from themselves first to faith and love, and then to outward sacrament and the like. However, we must let go of what is possible. We are in Babylon in prison, and our enemies are sitting in the middle of the temple and need our sacrament and all our goods. We must do this with lamentation and prayer, as Jeremiah and the 137th Psalm do, so that God will help us back to what is ours, amen.

76. at the end. I see that a good admonition is needed to those whom Satan is now beginning to persecute. Among them are some who think they want to follow the ferry.

1. Thus the Wittenbergers. Jenaer: "den".

If they are attacked by saying, "I do not hold with Luther, nor with anyone else, but with the holy gospel, and with the holy church, or with the Roman church, they are left in peace, and yet in their hearts they keep my doctrine for evangelical, and stick to it. Truly, such confession does not help them, and is as much as denying Christ. Therefore I ask them to be careful.

It is true that you should not say in body and soul, "I am Lutheran or Papist," for no one of these died for you, nor did your Master, but Christ alone, and you should confess yourself a Christian. But if you think that Luther's teaching is evangelical and the Pope's is unevangelical, you must not throw Luther out altogether; otherwise you would also throw out his teaching, which you nevertheless recognize as Christ's teaching. Rather, you must say: Luther is a knave or a saint, I am not interested in that; his teaching, however, is not his, but Christ himself. For you see that the tyrants do not deal with killing Luther only, but they want to destroy the doctrine; and because of the doctrine they touch you and ask you whether you are Lutheran. Here you must truly not speak in tongues, but freely confess that Luther, Claus or George preached him. Let the person go; but you must confess the doctrine.

78 St. Paul also wrote to Timothy, 2 Tim. 1, 8: "Do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me, who am bound for His sake. If Timothy here had been enough to confess the gospel, Paul would not have commanded him not to be ashamed of him either; not as of Paul's person, but as of him who was bound for the gospel's sake. If Timothy had said, "I do not hold with Paul nor with Petro, but with Christ," knowing that Peter and Paul taught Christ, he would have denied Christ Himself. For Christ says Matth. 10, 40. of those who preach Him: "He who receives you receives Me; he who despises you despises Me." Luc. 10, 16. Why is that? Because they keep his messengers (who bring his word) thus, therefore it is.

92 Erl. 28,317 f. 2. L.'s opinion of both forms of the sacrament 2c. W. XX, I37-I3S. 93

as if he himself and his word were thus kept.

79. Also see to it that everyone does not forget to love his enemies, and pray for those who persecute and blaspheme him, and do not seek vengeance, as Christ teaches Matt. 5:44. For the wicked people have already been punished too much, and we, unfortunately, have sensed too much that it is time to stand up for them against God, whether we might avert the punishment and judgment that presses upon them, as Christ did for us, when we also sinned in blindness. You see their horrible stubborn blindness; they do not want to hear, nor let us come to questioning; so they also do not want to answer, nor let themselves be heard, but like the Jews about St. Stephen, they cover their ears and eyes, and impudently pass their judgment without answer.

perform them with knowledge. If you are a Christian, you will know what kind of wrath, plague and punishment this is for them, and how you should hold yourself against God for them. They do not do otherwise than the frenzied and foolish who speak: We want to act so near to God and so wickedly that he must strike us on the head quickly. And be sure, they shall not long continue their raving. Wait a little while, and be satisfied that your God promises you, "He who touches you touches the apple of my eye." Help us to pray for this, and if we ever do not receive it, that God will not take His word from the whole German nation for the sake of their tyranny and blasphemy, and deprive the rest of the poor people who sigh for it. God's grace and strength be with you all, Amen.

*3. D. Andr. Carlstadt's writing on the anti-Christian abuse of the Lord's bread and cup. )

About September 1524.

I, Andreas Bodenstein of Carolstadt, publicly confess and make known to everyone that because of the abominable error and the poor deceived Christianity, I can no longer conceal the fact that many Christians are taking the Lord's bread and cup to great harm, and by their blind and unworthy practice are forfeiting the glorious Lord's Supper and making themselves guilty of the death of Christ, and are losing the great righteousness of Christ, 1) which Christ had and communicated to all believers. Therefore I must break out and punish myself in my previous letter about the Sacrament, and tell the truth. Although others should have done it justly before me, who are considered to be the princes of the

1. So set by us instead: Dungeons.

Scribes 2) and have attached us to them in such a way that we should neither write nor do anything physically before them; But because they keep behind the bush, and lay or stick themselves into pits and stakes for the simple, I must confess the truth of God and the high righteousness of Christ, at the cost of life or death, asking that none of you look to me or to any other, but let each one look to his inward testimony of the Spirit, but if he needs outward and written testimony for himself or others, let him look diligently to the Scriptures, which I will guide, for I ever guide them from me to God's true judgment, as John did when he said: It is he,

2. This is aimed at Luther.

*The full title of this writing in the original edition is: "Von dein widerchristlichen Mißbrauch des HErrn Brod und Kelch, ob der Glaub in das Sacrament Sünde vergebe, und ob das Sacrament ein Arrabo oder Pfand sei der Sündenvergebung: Auslegung des XI. Cap. in der Epistel Pauli zu den Corinth, von des HErrn Abendmahl". It is found only in Walch's edition. The timing is according to Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 447. On August 24, Luther arrived in Orlamünde. Immediately after Luther's departure, Carlstadt began to write this paper against him. At the end of September or beginning of October, Carlstadt had to leave Orlamünde by order of the Elector of Sept. 17, 1524 (Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 715.); however, this writing (§ 64) presupposes his expulsion as future.

94 I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W.xx, <139-142. 95

I am not; he is in your means, whom you do not know. If he finds that this instruction is right and that he is helped out of his peril, then he praises God and grasps the truth. But if there is anyone to whom this admonition is contrary, let him be at liberty to instruct me and to ascribe something better to the world. I also want to ask anyone who thinks that I am going astray to teach me amicably, or even with sharp words, whether God will give me grace to recognize the error I think I have committed and to correct myself.

(2) Where I shall call the Lord's bread and cup in the sacrament, let no man count it that I have read it so called in the scriptures, but that I will speak with children, that they may hear me.

Whether the Sacrament forgives sin.

(3) It is a common and grievous pity that our Christians seek forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament. Namely, when their conscience, as they speak, is troubled or grieved because of their sin, they send to receive the reverend Sacrament, and when they receive it, they are satisfied by a false delusion and faith, which I will call false, until they indicate a word of their faith in the Scripture which they trust. Since 1) faith is from hearing the sermon, but preaching is from the word of God, Rom. 10, 17. Therefore no one should give them faith until they preach a word of faith, indicating that the Lord's bread is a sacrament, or forgives sin. And when they have preached and signified a word of true faith, then ye shall cleave unto the plain truth, and not unto their persons. You must also understand them from their speeches, whether they pretend true and divine things.

(4) The faith that pretends or prefigures a thing to itself, as it wants it to be, is a magical faith, and basically a false light and unreasonable knowledge. Faith in Christ must be after the manner of Christ, recognizing Christ as and what he is; not making Christ into what or how he wants; otherwise faith would present him with a fictitious image. And if he had long known and believed, he would not know that he believed a false and invented thing. So, I say, whoever makes his conscience a peace and forgiveness of sins in that which God does not make a peace and forgiveness of sins?

1. i. sintemal.

If a man has put himself under the bondage of sins, he does not have peace and forgiveness of sins because he is satisfied with a false comfort, but he will and must be put to shame all the way, even though he stands peacefully for a while.

5 Accordingly, all men must be put to shame and ridicule who, without the word of faith, attribute to the sacrament peace of conscience and forgiveness of sins, or make the sacrament a pledge to assure our conscience 2 Cor. 1:22, Eph. 1:14, because they do not find a letter of it in the words of faith.

But that this is not right, I will shortly take Paul's teaching into account, which he wrote about the worthy use of the Lord's bread and cup in 1 Cor. 11. For I have written about this matter in its breadth and width in a booklet on conversation 2) and in other books.

7 Paul says why, how and when we enjoy the Lord's bread and cup worthily and usefully, and immediately writes that the prophets and apostles wrote about the knowledge of the body and blood of Christ.

(8) Whoever teaches otherwise or produces a different gospel is an exile and an accursed one Gal. 1:8, 9, and his teaching is also an exiled, abominable and accursed teaching.

Text: 1 Cor. 11.

As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

(9) This form and manner should be observed by men, and after it they should eat the Lord's bread and drink the cup, for Paul has given it as a rule by which all people who want to partake of the Lord's Supper must be guided.

(10) Now it is to be noted that this proclamation is the fruit of one tree, namely, the remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, of which Paul soon spoke above, introducing the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. For everything must spring from the foundation of the heart and be created rightly in the inwardness, which is done by outward works or things. God judges the heart, and the inner man is a precious good and noble thing in God's eyes, if he is skillful, as God wants to have him skillful.

2. This refers to paper No. 3 in the appendix of this volume.

96 3. Carlstadt's writing on anti-Christian abuse 2c. W. xx, 142-itt. 97

Therefore God says through Isaiah 29:13 and Christ himself Matth. 15:8: The people praise me in their mouths, but their hearts are far from me. Therefore the proclamation must flow out of a good hidden well, if it is just. Paul indicated the same well and reason to the Romans on the 10th when he said: "He who believes from the heart is justified, but with the mouth one confesses to salvation.

(12) It is quite impossible for any outward thing to be righteous or justified unless the heart is first justified, as it is written: He that believeth not hath in himself a justified soul, Hab. 2:4. To the unbeliever all things are unclean and defiled, Titus 1:15. Again, to the believer all things are clean, good and justified. The eyes of God look upon faith, Jer. 5, 3. If a man has a right heart and a right spirit, he pleases God, and his outward confession also pleases God.

13 Therefore I say that the proclamation of the death of Christ, which is an outward work or thing, must spring from a secret and hidden heart, where it is good and pleasing to God.

14 Therefore, we must seek the same ground on which 1) the outward eloquence of Christ's death stands. But the reason is easy to find 2) if you are desirous of it, Paul did not want to leave it undisclosed.

What is the same reason, you ask? Answer: memory.

(1 Cor. 11.) For the Lord Jesus, on the night that he was betrayed, took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, saying, Take, eat. This is the body of me, which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup, the new testament in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of me.

(16) There Paul lays the foundation of the proclamation of the death of Christ, out of which this fruit of our lips flows, that is, the proclamation which edifies and improves other people, and for this reason is called a confession of salvation.

(17) Whoever then will outwardly justify the death of Christ by proclaiming or confessing it, must before all have gone into its foundation, and come forth from the foundation or inwardness, and his heart must bear this fruit of his lips, namely, the proclamation, as a tree 3) bears its fruit from the root.

1. In the old edition: from.
2. So from us-put instead of: "liederlich", which by the way at Carlstadt and otherwise often stands for "easily".
3. So put by us instead: Farmer.

What memory is.

18. Memory is a fervent and loving art of knowing the body and blood of Christ. No one can ever remember that which he has not known.
19. But the knowledge must be formed and put into practice according to the opposite 4), that is, to recognize the body and blood of Christ in such a way and with the causes, as Christ gave his body and shed his blood for our sin Gal. 1:4.

020 Wherefore Christ said plainly, Eat the bread. For this body is the body which is given for you; and this is my blood, which is to be shed for you. 5) Whether he wanted to say (Luc. 22.) (although the disciples did not learn this until Pentecost): Moses and the prophets wrote to you and all men about a body that would be given for you, which would be the seed of a woman, and would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3, 15.), which would also stretch out its hand for the wood of life:

My body, or, this my body, is the same of which they all prophesied, which shall be given for the world: therefore shall ye eat my bread in remembrance of me. Likewise of his blood Christ says, or would have said: Moses and the prophets have written of a blood which shall make a new testament, and shall be shed for sin. Behold! My blood is the same blood that shall be shed for you in remission of sins. In this way the given body of Christ and his shed blood would have to be recognized, if anyone wanted to have a justified remembrance and an unpunishable proclamation of the death of Christ. If the memory is not justified in this way, then Mosiah and all the prophets are lacking, from which Christ firmly points out and says: Christ had to suffer, shed his blood, die and rise again, and thus enter into his glory (Luc. 24, 26.); as it is written in the prophets.

(21) Those who have the right knowledge of Christ have righteousness at the bottom of their hearts, as

4. Counter-image - model, type. The remark in Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 336, fits here: "For the mystics, the historical Christ is predominantly a mere model and type of our spiritual life.
5. From these words one recognizes that, according to the interpretation of Carlstadt, Christ with the words "This is my body" did not point to the bread, but to himself, to the body, of which Moses and the prophets prophesied. This is also shown by the immediately following execution.

98 I . Luther's Writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, i44-146. 99

Paul says: Faith is the righteousness of the heart (Rom. 10, 10.). Yes, this is true, if it is not a frozen or dead knowledge, but a fervent, heated, busy and powerful art of Christ, which transforms the knower into the known life and death of Christ, and for Christ's sake wants to do or not do everything that Christ wants. But that the righteous faith in Christ is a knowledge of the death of Christ and its causes is shown by Isaiah (Cap. 53), who first depicts the delivered body of the Messiah in his own form, and then he speaks: In his art or knowledge the righteous man will make many of his servants righteous.

Twenty-two you ask: When and in what form will Christ be known, so as to justify his art and knowledge? Answer: Look at Isaiah, and you will find that Christ was sacrificed as a lamb to death, because he wanted it: because he was wounded for our sin and was held as a despised and cursed one, whom God had rejected 2c. And when Isaias has presented Christ thus crucified, he says: In His art He will make righteous; that the Christ, thus mocked, wounded, and raised, makes righteous. This is what Christ says: "The Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who looks at Him lifted up or believes in Him may be saved and not perish. Joh. 3, 14. f. This is what Paul says: Through one man's obedience many men have been justified (Rom. 5, 18.1 ). Understand the obedience of which it is written: He became obedient unto death (Phil. 2, 8.). That is why he first brought the name of Jesus into the highest essence in his obedience to the death he suffered, so that Christ was called a Beatificator. This is the reason why Paul (Phil. 3, 8. ff.) so highly esteems and values the exuberant knowledge of Christ, and says that righteousness comes only through the knowledge of Jesus Christ; and neatly declares that the righteousness that comes from God is in the knowledge of Christ, and in the power of His resurrection, and in the fellowship of His sufferings, so that one becomes similar and like His death. Therefore Paul also writes: I know not but Jesus crucified. From this it follows that the art of the resurrected Jesus makes one righteous.

23 Recently, the knowledge or art of the given body of Christ and his shed blood is the first reason to take the Lord's Supper. But you must see to it that you do not make of the Lord's body and blood vain flesh, which is good for nothing.

1. Wrong in the old edition: Rom. 4.

is. You must have before your eyes and understand in the depth of your heart the great invisible love, the abundant obedience, the excellent innocence of Christ, and the like, and you will be justified, redeemed from sins; and so you must hold the words of Christ, "This is the body of mine (of which it is prophesied), which is to be given for you! for the true and joyful gospel, which all the apostles proclaim, which was a promise before, and is now no longer a promise, but has ended in Christ, has become a clear gospel, as Paul says. Moses wrote long ago about the body and blood of Christ. Prophets promise the body that will be given for us; but the apostles and we proclaim the joyful message of the delivered body and shed blood of Jesus Christ, of which Christ speaks before his death.

(24) From the knowledge of Christ grows the memory of Christ, which is not a crude, cold, and lazy memory, but a fresh, fiery, and vigorous memory, which makes or gives gladness, which esteems the delivered body and shed blood of Christ, which cherishes, which gives thanks, which makes Christian, and which makes ashamed of all that is contrary to Christ. Take an example of this. Behold, if thou shouldest have died on the gallows, or on the wheel, or in the fire, and the sentence had already been pronounced against thee, and thou shouldest have gone to death, and there shouldest come one to die for thee, and set thee free by his death; wouldest thou not be eternally ashamed, if thou didst any thing that thou shouldest leave for the love of such a good friend? and again, wouldest thou not be glad, if his name were called Good? Wouldn't you say it 2) well to him forever? and if he left you something for last 3) that you should use in his memory, use it with fresh heated memory? with horror of yourself that you had done such a deed, because of which right would have strangled you, if the innocent had not taken your guilt upon himself and paid with his death. So we should also have the remembrance of the Lord, understanding and remembering from our hearts that Christ gave his body in death, and shed his blood for our sake, innocently, out of great love, out of incomparable obedience.

(25) The memorial of Christ has two parts: one is for the body given, the other for the blood shed.

2. So put by us instead of: eternal. - "To speak well" - to commemorate praisingly.
3. So put by us instead of: to last. To the last, i.e. to the farewell.

100 3. Carlstadt's writing of the anti-Christian abuse re. W. XX, 146-149^ 101

(26) He then that would partake of the Lord's Supper must look into the causes, and know why our Lord Christ shed His blood, and gave His body for us, together with the fruits, when the apostles and disciples of Christ received the Holy Ghost after the day of Pentecost, and knew the causes of the body and shed blood of Christ, 1) which the apostles' books, the histories, and the epistle to the Hebrews indicate. Behold, as Christ was a sacrifice and a priest, why he offered himself (Heb. 6. and 10.), so thou shalt surely know that by One sacrifice, One death, One body, One obedience, One innocence, One holiness, One redemption, One washing away, we have all obtained forgiveness of our sin and righteousness.

(27) Therefore it is not true that the sacrament forgives sin. It is against Moses, the prophets, the apostles, and Christ, plus a promise of Christ's suffering and high obedience. Those who seek forgiveness of their sins in the sacrament are as foolish and bad, 2) as the priests who sacrifice Christ daily for new sins; it does not take much for them to be so bad. Christ's obedience, or the will of Christ, which was the Father's will, understood (Ps. 39. Vulg. or 40.), is our justification, and cleanses the heart and forgives guilt; we want to see this more comfortably, if we continue to act on the text.

28. Now it is declared that the proclamation of the death of Christ flows from the memory of Christ, and the memory of Christ from the knowledge of the given body and shed blood of Christ; that we must know the causes, powers, and fruits of the crucified body, together with the shed blood of Christ, where the proclamation is to be right, lest our own wisdom and thoughts be found in us. Beware of the punishment of Christ, who said: O fools! do you not believe what the prophets and Moses have written about me? Of the body and blood of Christ they wrote, that Christ in his body and with his blood would wash away our sin; of the sacrament, that it forgives sin, none wrote. Christ also wrote to us about the body that was crucified.

1. In the old edition: "wüßten" and immediately thereafter "Episteln".
2. This refers to Luther and his followers. "Carlstadt blames his opponents for the nonsense of substituting for the once-for-all completed death of Christ on the cross, of which the words of institution speak, an alleged offering of Christ's body for the world, repeated in every celebration of the sacraments, and making Christ suffer and die not in his body but in the form of bread." Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 449 s.

No prophet, nor Christ, nor any Christian brother has written that Christ forgives sin in the sacrament. For if it could be that Christ forgave us sin in the sacrament, it would follow that we would have to recognize Christ not on the cross but in the sacrament, and that Christ would not have forgiven us sin through his body, nor would his death have been sufficient.

But that would be trampling Christ underfoot, promising His suffering, and making a lie of God the Father. Show me a small letter that the sacramental essence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament is useful to us for the forgiveness of sins! Christ says: My blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins. Then I ask: Is the blood shed in the Sacrament or on the Cross? If it is poured out in the sacrament, then the glory of the cross of Christ has been taken up and is false, and Paul has become an unman who boasts of nothing but the cross of Christ. If it is shed on the gallows, we must direct our knowledge to the cross and not to the sacrament.

(30) We are truly anti-Christians, false witnesses or despisers of the passion of Christ, inasmuch as we attribute to the sacrament that which belonged to Christ on the cross. Christ says: this do in my memory; so they say: Ye shall remember the sacrament. Christ: You should remember my body, which is given, not which is now in the sacrament (as they think), but which is given on the cross. But they say: You should remember the body in the sacrament, and yet they are not able to show a hint of Scripture by which we could understand how the body and blood of Christ are in the sacrament, or why they should be in it.

31 Paul says, "As often as you eat the Lord's bread and drink his cup, you should proclaim the Lord's death. But against this they teach thus: You shall believe that Christ is in the Sacrament; you shall believe that the Sacrament forgives your sins; you shall believe that the Sacrament is a sure pledge, the forgiveness of sins and your holiness. And go with all fours into the dreadful contradiction of Christ's righteousness, love, innocence, and wisdom, which he proved by his death. Paul saith, Ye shall speak of the death of the Lord. But they say: You shall speak of the sacrament.

32. what this is "until he comes", I wrote in my Dialogo 3).

3. Paper No. 3 in the appendix of this volume.

102 I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 149-151. 103

The text follows (1 Cor. 11.):

Whosoever therefore shall eat of this bread unworthily, and drink of the cup of the Lord, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

(33) Christ declared the guilt when he said, "The Son of Man departs when it is written of him; but woe to him by whom the Son of Man is betrayed (1) (Matt. 26), (and) Peter said, "You have murdered the Lord of life (Acts 3:15), 2) and have denied and thrown away your Savior. He that partaketh of the Lord's supper unworthily is guilty, as the murderers of Christ, who not only promised Christ, but strangled him.

(34) What unworthiness is and what it consists in, I will unfold through the following text, which reads thus (1 Cor. 11):

(35) He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his own judgment. Why? Because he distinguisheth not the body of the Lord. There you have the cause of unworthiness, namely, that he eats and drinks unworthily who does not distinguish the body of the Lord. Show me a little word from Paul, that he may say, He eateth the Lord's bread unworthily, who discerneth not the sacrament. I know that we must distinguish the body of the Lord. It is also true that I should sit at the Lord's table with proper manners, and take his bread and drink in the manner in which he presents it to me. But that I should keep his bread and wine as myself is not commanded me. The Lord can give me life, salvation, redemption, righteousness, and such like goods and treasures, none of which bread or drink can give me. Therefore I must not look to his bread or drink, but to him.

If I set my heart, courage, mind, and thoughts on the Lord, and am enraptured with delights in him, it will not harm me at all if I lose something of the sacrament 3) or spill it. In his knowledge, and not in his supper, lies the worthiness, unworthiness and guilt of death 2c., standing on the ignorance of the body and blood of Christ, or on the carelessness that does not distinguish that it should distinguish.

37 These words "do not discriminate" may also be pronounced thus: do not judge well,

1. The bracketed words are added by us.
2. In the old edition wrong: Apost. 2.
3. So put by us instead of the incomprehensible to us: verreret.

or: not to recognize exactly. For Paul bases his whole teaching on the speech of Christ, who thus says: This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which 2c. And he wants to show, as he does in all the epistles, that Christ said: My body is the body that is given for you; and: This is my blood, which is to be poured out for you. One had to come, who had to present his body and blood for our sake; we have to understand the same body and blood, if we want to escape from destruction and be saved. We must eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:53) and know that we cannot be saved without His knowledge, judgment, judgment or discernment.

038 Whosoever shall not in this manner separate the body of Christ from all other bodies, and set it apart above all bodies, and eat the Lord's supper thereat, shall be guilty of his death and of judgment. For Christ has given us his bread and his cup to eat and to drink in remembrance of him.

39 But he that remembereth must understand the word of the Lord, saying, This is my body, 2c. this is my blood, 2c. He that understandeth not, remembereth not; or remembereth not the Lord, when he ought to remember him. If he does not remember, he does not distinguish the body of the Lord, and he does not respect the body of Christ, or does not esteem the body as great and high as he should esteem it. Therefore he is guilty first of all when he eats the Lord's bread and drinks the Lord's cup, and does not recognize the Lord's body and blood.

40 Now I ask, Where shall we discern the Lord's body, judge evenly, and judge well? Do you answer: In the Sacrament; I ask, Did Christ die in the Sacrament? Did Christ give his soul for us in the Sacrament? Where was the great and wide bread in which Christ stood with his cross and the great multitude of scoffers? 4) If the Jews and Gentiles mocked the Lord in the Sacrament, they must ever have been inside with Him. The two thieves would also have been inside with their gallows, bodies and words. If Christ was obedient to his Father in the Sacrament even unto death, why did not his disciples flee from him when he gave them his bread and cup, when they became fugitives, singing of Christ? Did Christ sacrifice outside the gates of Jerusalem, or in Jerusalem in the city where they ate the Sacrament? Did the betrayer sacrifice Christ in the Jews?

4. Note how flat a rationalism Carlstadt preaches here.
5. So put by us instead of: flew.

104 3. carlstadt's writing of anti-Christian abuse 2c. W. xx, rsi-isi. 105

Hands answered as Christ sat at table with the disciples, or did he hand him over afterward?

(41) I hold that no one may say that Christ gave his body in the sacrament for our sin. For one thing must fall and be destroyed: either that Christ gave his body in the sacrament for us; or that Christ gave his body in death on the cross for us. The other, however, is true and has often been prophesied by Moses (Deut. 21, John 3), the prophets, especially by Jesus, and then 1) most clearly by Christ. Therefore the first must be false and become null and void as it is. If the first also existed, all the apostles' writings would have to fall and would become an eternal mockery.

42. Because we must judge the body of the Lord, and distinguish, not when it is in the sacrament, but when he freely offered his body as a sin offering, a grain offering, a heave offering and a woven offering to his Father, and demonstrated the greatest innocence, the highest obedience, the most tender love, It follows that they have taken the Lord's bread and cup all unworthily, and have made themselves guilty of the death of Jesus Christ and judgment, who do not look back, and do not look at the figurine of the risen serpent, but only have regard for the sacrament, that they received Christ with the sacrament. It would also be better for them if they ate figs for it. The body of the Lord is the promised body, which was to bear the sins of the world through his suffering and death. Therefore, what was written about him, how he was to be wounded for the sake of our redemption, 2c., all this Christ wanted to remind us of, and to understand, if we want to eat his bread. That Paul here v. 29 calls the body alone, he does not do this because we are to recognize the blood of the Lord prepared and unjudged, and not differently, and to value it above all blood, but with the body we must also hear that we are to distinguish the blood of the Lord, if we do not want to become guilty of his blood. Therefore Paul v. 27 called all things body and blood.

(43) If we had such a serious mind about the body and blood of Christ, none of us would eat our fill or drink our fill, as the Corinthians did, who had no understanding; but each one would abstain from all the vices that are contrary to Christ or bring him to disgrace. Therefore let each one examine himself sufficiently beforehand,

1. Thus set by us. In the old edition: "by Jesaiam following, am" 2c.

And so, as it is said, eat of the Lord's bread, and drink of the cup.

44 To test is to know for certain, that is, to experience. Paul uses the word in the Greek tongue in many places, Rom. 2, 18. and 12, 2. 1 Thess. 5, 21. and means at all times: to actually experience, to certainly understand; in the sense in which John uses it 1 Ep. 4, 1, when he says: "Know before the spirits whether they are of God. Paul puts it in every man's home, and puts it in every man's own bosom, and wants every man to test himself, that is, to understand by certain experience whether he recognizes the body and blood of Christ, which the prophets promised, with loving and esteeming art, or not.

45. For when he has the worthy and fervent knowledge of the body of Christ, which bore our sin with great bitterness and mockery, and of the blood that washed him from his evil works and sins, he will be Christlike, and thankful to the suffering, sober, moral, wise, sensible, chaste; He will temper himself against the evil ways of the Corinthians, who are drunk to the brim, and will sit at the Lord's table chastely, taking care not to take the Lord's bread for his own pleasure or bodily satisfaction, nor as other bread, nor without knowledge of Him who gave it to him to eat in remembrance of Him.

This test is inward-looking, and looks straight into the ground of souls, in which God has to work and create His gift. Therefore Paul leads each one to himself, and not to other people, as the Popes did, who directed the table companions of Christ's supper to poor, blind leaders, who call themselves confessors. For Paul was wiser in these matters, and led every man to himself and to his own inwardness. For the cause that no man knoweth what is in the spirit of man, but every man's spirit.

47 If you want to take the Lord's Supper, you should go into your inner being (1 Cor. 11:28). Do not judge above whether you have a true and worthy memory of Christ to take it, but have an experience, that is, a certain knowledge, as Christ wants you to have.

The Sacrament is not an arrhabo, arrha, pledge, or God's penny.

48. From this speech of Paul, namely, that each one should examine himself, 2c. follows a subversion of another speech, as it is commonly said: the bread and the cup of Christ are assurance and

106 I . Luther's Writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, is4-isö. 107

certain document by which a man can be sure and certain that Christ's death has brought him his redemption. For if a man could or should be assured of his redemption, that is, forgiveness of sins, through the Lord's Supper, it would not be necessary 1) for each one to examine himself before taking the Lord's bread and cup. It would be enough for him to feel and understand whether he is fit, as God wants him to be. But this is against Christ, who says, Do this in remembrance of me; that is, take my bread and my cup in remembrance of me; the bread in remembrance of my giving my body for you; the cup in remembrance of my shed blood. Therefore let each one, before he takes it, examine himself to see whether he has the remembrance of Christ or not. If he has it, then he is also sure of his salvation, and has peace with God through Christ (Rom. 5, 1.), not through the sacrament, and may take it cheerfully. If he does not have it, and does not find in himself that he has a sure knowledge of his salvation, then he is not fit, as Christ would have him eat his supper; as little was he fit to sit at the king's table, who had no wedding garment on (Matth. 22, 11.). Therefore he should abstain from the Lord's supper, lest he should be guilty and cast into utter darkness, when he was cast. But that this assurance before the reception should be in those who would take the Lord's supper, and not happen to us or come to us through the bread and cup, which are called some signs, Paul has clearly and abundantly indicated when he says: "Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread 2c.

What does the little verse mean: "And so"? Does it not mean that he should examine himself and really understand whether he has the Lord's memory and could proclaim the Lord's death in the intention, will and manner that Christ wants? If he has this in his heart, then he also has the Spirit of Christ, which shows him his Savior Christ hanging on the cross, and the same Christ dying in full obedience, in high righteousness and tender love and innocence, and assures his heart that he has redemption through Christ.

If he has this assurance of the Spirit of Christ, which he must have, then he may eat of the Lord's bread and drink of the cup.

49 But so he eats and drinks, when he has already been assured and made sure that Christ is of all things.

1. It seems to us that, according to Carlstadt's argumentation, "not" should be inserted before "vonnöthen". Perhaps it should be read: von unnöthen.

He has paid for the sins of the world and carried them away before receiving the sacrament.

50. Christ points us all to him on the cross, when he obediently dies and accomplishes all that is written about him; then we must look at him with blessed eyes, that is, believe in him, and know for certain that he redeems us 2c.

51 If we know this and thus look back to the death of Christ we have suffered, then we are justified in ourselves and worthy to eat and drink the Lord's bread and wine worthily. If we also know that we are such discerners and thinkers, then we may eat and drink joyfully. Therefore he says: "Test yourself before a man, and so. The word "so" means skill and time. Skill of memory, time, that the skill must precede, as one must have a wedding dress before he goes to a king's table.

52. even if I admit and admit that through some signs one can experience God's promise or work and become certain, if they are so above reason that the soul secretly experiences a high power of God from the amazement of the signs that have occurred; as Ezekiel experienced God's power and will through the setting of the sun, it is still not certain nor good that we give and appropriate to the bread and wine of Christ that which is actually due to Christ and the Spirit of Christ. Christ is the way, truth, life and peace; and we have all these things through Christ.

(53) Who then ascribes these things to the Lord's Supper, the bread and wine of the Lord, what else does he do but take Christ into his treasures, and confess to inferior creatures than he is, that which is Christ's alone, and which Christ alone bestows?

(54) He is a thief and a murderer who does not enter by Christ. But that would be to enter by bread or wine and not by Christ, or at least, it would be to enter not only by Christ, but all by Christ and his supper. But Christ hates this, because he wants to have a whole heart, which in the former way would be almost divided and incomplete.

(55) But if Christ is our peace and assurance, what peace and assurance can we have from creatures that have no soul? His blood washes us and our consciences from dead works, that is, the fervent knowledge of the shed blood of Christ.

(56) But if the blood can do this, it must also assure us of it, as it does when it is known. But if the cup does, then the cup that we take today has been poured out for our sin before it grew in the vine. 2)

2. Compare the note to § 27 of this paper.

108 3. carlstadt's writing of anti-Christian abuse 2c. W. xx, nw-uw. 109

The lack is in the knowledge, and therefore Christ did not want to give us a sign that would move our strength and soul, when he did works that no one else had done, so that we should attribute them to him alone, and not to the signs that many foolish people now give to the unworldly signs. Christ promised to send us his Holy Spirit, saying, "When he comes, he will tell you all things; and he will bear witness to you, and you will bear witness to me. Behold, the Spirit of Christ gives us the testimony that he gave his body for us, and shed his blood for us.

(58) But if this is due to the Holy Spirit, it is sacrilege and impiety for us to attribute it to bread or wine. It is theft to steal from the Spirit his proper work and attribute and to give it to a poor creature, thereby making a new idolatry.

59. the childlike spirit (Paul speaks to Romans on 8. v. 15.), which makes us cry: Abba, Father! that assures our spirit 2c. The Sacrament does not make us cry out to God: Father, Father! For it is much too crude to touch the ground of souls, let alone teach them. Now the bread or the cup does not teach us to cry out to God, "Father, Father!" which we must do in the suffering of Christ, if we understand rightly, so the sacrament cannot assure our spirit and help the weakness of our spirit; for such crying and assurance belong to a master craftsman. The assurance belongs to God's spirit and not to any creature; the spirit of Christ anoints us, it seals us; it is the pledge of our salvation (2 Cor. 1, 22. Eph. 1, 14.). Since it is the right of God's Spirit to assure our spirit and make us certain of our salvation, we should hasten after the Spirit, long to learn from Him, and receive through the Spirit that which belongs to the Spirit, which no one but the Spirit can give, namely the assurance of forgiven sins.
60. if it had been safe 1) for us to have

1. i.e. not necessary.

We would like to seek such high things in creaturely things as in the sacrament, that is, the bread and wine of Christ; undoubtedly Christ would have been so wise that he could have told us this, and so kind that he would have refrained from doing the same;

61 Since Christ ever commanded His disciples to go into the world and preach everything He commanded (Matth. 28, 20.), and Paul says that the Scriptures are rich and sufficient.

(62) Since it is not found in any Scripture that we are to be assured or satisfied by bread or wine of the Lord, or to receive our salvation from it, it is an addition against Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6), and to flee as a blasphemy against the Spirit of God and Christ.

63. He who has understood me rightly cannot conclude that I bring such new things to light, for the sake of folly or glory; but if I do, God will be my judge; but this I must confess, that for fear I would rather have kept silent.

(64) For I know that I shall suffer calumny and persecution for it, especially from those who would be thought good evangelicals. But because it concerns the surpassing obedience of Christ, the death and suffering of Christ, and because by the delusion which we now hear preached in all the churches, the gospel of Christ is reviled, and the death of Christ is belittled, and Christ's righteousness is made nugatory, or ever so slightly pronounced insufficient, which I and all Christians ought to resist, each according to his measure: So I had to break out and direct the Christians to the true gospel, which all the apostles preached, and only broke the bread of the Lord in remembrance and knowledge of the death of Christ, and therefore enjoyed it according to the sermons preached. May God grant that we may hear the true gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, for it is still almost hidden and held in dishonor, promised very near in all sacraments, none of which has been preached properly in several hundred years.

110 I. Luther's Writings-Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 158-161. 111

4. D. Urban Rhegius' warning against the new erring Doctor

*Andrew of Carlstadt, because of the sacrament. )

Towards the end of 1524.

D. Urbanus Rhegius [wishes D. Andreas Carlstadten true knowledge of > Jesus Christ!

(1) You testify highly and earnestly that you will no longer be silent, but that necessity and Christian faithfulness compel you to report the right custom of Christ's supper, and that you are very grieved that until now the bread and the cup of Christ have not been used properly according to the will of Christ our Lord. You punish the Wittenbergers and all of us who preach the gospel, as if we had gone astray and did not understand Paul. We have taught that our Sacrament should be received with the highest inward and outward reverence, for there is the Body and Blood of the Lord: but you come with a new fiddle and teach that it is nothing but bread and wine, of course, and you swear on your insanity some Scriptures, suppose that the whole of Christendom should mop up and eat bread with D. Andreas Carlstadt and his seducing prophets for the reverend Sacrament. You use a lot of heated mocking words, call our Sacrament idolatrous bread, and us dog-slaughterers 1): God forgive you your unchristian anger and monstrous words, of which in such excellent matters a libertine should be ashamed, let alone a doctor of the Scriptures, who takes upon himself to reform the whole world and to diminish Christianity's comforting sacrament, where it finds peace of conscience. I do not know what kind of spirit drives you to pour out such things so freely; but this spirit shall soon be tested, whether God wills it. You desire that you should soon be taught another, where it is a fact that you have erred; this will undoubtedly be done by those whom you call princes of the Scriptures. If thou hadst heartily desired to receive instruction, and hadst written for the love of truth, thou shouldest have abstained from bitter words of shame. But you write with such

1. In Carlstadt's Gesprächbüchlein, No. 3 in the appendix of this volume. This word is rendered in Luther's writing "Wider die himmlischen Propheten": "Hundschlaher", i.e. dog beater.

Joyfulness, that perhaps you can notice how you already prove yourself right and despise all people's judgment, who would like to tell you better from the word of God.

(2) I will do my duty, and hasten to show the church, as I now preach the gospel, how weak and unsound your reason is: lest the simple be confounded and led astray by the colored appearance of your pretended reason and some mirror causes, but stand firm on the foundation of sound doctrine, which, for the sake of this sacrament, according to the right understanding of divine Scripture, they have now heard from me for some years.

Your two booklets 2) hold three points in sum.

The first: The Sacrament does not forgive sin.

The other: In the Sacrament there is neither body nor blood of Christ, but one bread like another bread, and one natural wine like another wine.

The third: The Sacrament is not an arrha or pledge or assurance that sins are forgiven.

Now see only manly, with what reason you tractirst these three points.

I worry, my Carlstadt, that your mind is prevented here with envy or vain honor, otherwise there would have been no need for the first point.

For no one has taught that the sacrament forgives sin, actually speaking of it. Who does not know that the forgiveness of sin belongs to God alone? Isa. 43, 25: "I am, I myself am, the one who takes away sin for my sake." Some have attributed such power to the sacraments as if from the same [external use the same

2. One of these "two little books", against which this writing is directed, is "Carlstadts Gesprächbüchlein" (No. 3 in the appendix of this volume). The other one is the previous writing (No. 3 in this volume), in which mainly the first and third point made by Rhegius is asserted.

*) Compare the note to § 2 of this writing. The determination of the time is according to Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 448. - It is probably this writing that Luther asked Spalatin to send on December 29, 1524. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 119, is this letter with the wrong year 1525.

112 4 Rhegius' Warning Against the Madness of Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 161-163. 113

Forgiveness of sin] 1) worked in man and would justify him, which, however, has long since been dismissed and rejected in the schools as an unfounded thing. Nor have people been deceived, as you suppose, into attaching their hearts and trusts to any 2) visible thing or sign.

(6) But when they were exhorted to the sacrament, they spoke of it in a different way than you claim here. It has been said: "If someone's conscience is troubled by sin, he should go to the Sacrament, having God's word to be gracious and merciful to him. From such a joyful message, when he hears the eternal unchanging truth that the precious sacrifice, the innocent body of Christ, was completed for us on the cross, the pure blood shed for the washing away of sin (Rom. 3, 25. 1 Petr. 1, 19. Eph. 1, 7.), the 3) conscience becomes joyful and receives confidence; through which faith sins are forgiven and man is justified, and for a stronger continuance of this faith he receives the reverend sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ; which sign certainly reminds us of the grace that is given to us through Christ 4) and assures us as a seal of His spirit 5) (Eph. 1, 14. f. 2 Cor. 1, 22.).

(7) Here you hear that we do not teach how the sacrament itself makes pious and quiets the conscience. Who, then, would hideously desecrate the precious treasure of Christ's suffering and give it to a creature 6) that is the Creator's alone? One gives to God what is God's, and to the Sacrament also what may be given to it without dishonoring Christ our Lord. Therefore, is anyone who exemplifies to himself anything else than the word of faith may suffer, he has not learned it from us; therefore you would have saved many words. We have never given any teaching in this matter, unless it is well founded in divine Scripture, of which you truly boast too highly, but often use against Christian love.

(8) Because you also pretend to be a great Pauline, we would have had no way to come to you for such a war of words, each one of us.

1. This insertion is made by us to give meaning.
2. So put by us instead of: iendert.
3. So put by us instead of: the.
4. Christ alone is our peace and righteousness. (We have taken this note from the old edition, because we do not know whether it comes from Walch or from Rhegius).
5. So put by us instead of: his figure.
6. So put by us instead of: one created.

This is a little word that may be well and truly understood, as if one were to say: one finds grace and forgiveness of sin in the sacrament; this sounds quite bad to your ears, for you must always think of something special. But it does not sound bad to a believer, for he knows well the value and esteem in which he should hold the reverend suffering of Christ, through which alone salvation came, Rom. 3, Eph. 1. He also knows that God alone forgives his sin through the merit of Christ, without any preceding merit of his own, and that no creature in heaven or earth forgives his sin and gives him grace. But because in the sacrament the believer has a word and a sign, namely a word of faith, in which, if he truly believes, his sins are forgiven, and because a sign has been instituted and ordained by God, the believer may well speak such words, and every right-minded person may easily understand them. For what we attribute to this sacrament, as forgiveness of sins, consolation, peace of conscience and the like, is not attributed to visible things, but to the invisible power of God, which is hidden here.

It is not almost Christian, dear Carlstadt, to consider that a speech, which may be spoken and understood in a Christian way, should cause such a hue and cry 7) throughout the world. You should not consider us or our listeners so childish that we should put such a high thing on a creature as forgiving sin, bringing peace to the conscience, and the like. Therefore, if you had loved peace and unity, this first article of yours would have remained at home.

(10) Secondly, you pretend that the sacrament is nothing but wine and bread, of course, and you use a lot of swear words that are terrible to hear, but you bring scripture very clumsily.

First, you suppose that Christ gave only bread to his disciples, and not his body, and almost torture yourself over the text, speaking Greek for a while, then Latin, and changing into all shapes, like the slippery Proteus, if you want to get the text on your side. You say that these little words "this is my body" are a separate speech, closed with dots differently, and say only about his natural body, as it was promised by Moses and the prophets as a sufficient sacrifice for our sin, so that Christ pointed to his body and spoke: This is

7. i.e., blubbering.

114 Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, iW-ies. 115

I gave them bread and drink, commanding them to enjoy it in remembrance of him when they ate and drank.

But I say, dear Carlstadt, that this opinion of yours is such an inconsistent thing, that every peasant sees how you force the bright words and opinions, and by the hair of your head you point to your insanity. Then, looking at the words as they are attached to each other, it does not rhyme at all that Christ begins to give his disciples bread to eat, and immediately in the middle of the speech falls on something else and says, "This is my body," as if they had never known before that this was his body, which they saw before their eyes. If the text is taken with all circumstances, he connects these words "this is my body" 2c. with the previous words, namely: when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to the disciples and said: "Take, eat, this is my body! (Matth. 26, 26.) Here no one can see or understand anything else, except that the speeches about the bread and his holy body are so intertwined that you have to confess that he did not point to his sitting body, but to the bread, which is his body.

Here Carlstadt has forgotten his philosophy, and what he admitted some years ago in his Scoto 1) he does not want to understand here, how the body of Christ may be, especially at many ends. But that you make a great feast out of the Greek word ôáàô, and show yourself on the verse ôïàôü Ýóôéí τό σώμά μου, it is good to see that you are struck on the hands with the Greek tablet alone. 2) Then you speak of it so childishly that there is no need to answer you about such things; although you still have to suffer enough ridicule for your graces, because it is very bad for you. But that you say: Luc. on the 22nd this verse, that is my body 2c., begins with a capital letter, does not help you: for nevertheless the clause is attached to the preceding verse.

1. "Although a Thomist," says Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 3, "yet in the Minorite Convention -during the year 1514 he explained Scotus in the sense of his adherents for an hour every day, and worked out concordances for the Scotists to their master." From Carlstadt's Novas 6onoor<tantiu6 ssu eonvkuientias mi torum eontsntlosurn p6rtin6nt68, juris tana oanonwi guarn olvllis 6t äootorurn 8oüo1u8tioorum 8. Hioinao 6t suktilissirrü 8ooti, in guiftu8 N66688itnsiin6in 6t H6xurn äuorum 8tuäioruin 80. ti^oloZiei 6t juriciioi c>8t6näit says Jäger 1. o,: "they were not yet printed in 1514 and never appeared."
2. He did not quite appreciate the point of H^podia8tol6 nature, which often distinguishes attached sentences of One ?6rioäi. (This note is taken from the old edition).

He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body. 2c.

14. now say, how do you like that he says: when he took the drinking vessel, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: drink from all this, for this is my blood 2c.? What did Christ point to here? Is not clear enough what Christ says? He commanded them the drink, saying: Drink, this is my blood! Now what kind of strange sophist speech would this have been if Christ had offered them the drink and pointed to his body, saying, "This is my blood"? You have been writing with great earnestness for many years about the intrigues of the Sophists, and only now do you want to make a Sophist out of Christ? You yourself make such great use of the sophists' wiles and ways in your two little books that one can well see how you have lost clear writing. Therefore, dear Carlstadt, you and your prophets have now been otherwise angry that everything does not go according to your will. Look at the text carefully, it will turn out much differently.

15. Do you say, "Who gave you authority to bring the body and blood of the Lord 3) into the sacrament? Answer: The very one who first did it himself; for thus says Paul 1 Cor. 11:23 ff: "I received it from the Lord, which I also taught you; that the Lord Jesus, in the night when he was betrayed, took bread, and after he had given thanks, he broke it, saying, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you.

16 Then we see how the holy apostle of his Lord holds up the word and work of Christ to the church at Corinth and teaches them by the power of the words: "This do in remembrance of me! If then all these things take place in the church in order, that there be ministers who in faith do the worthy supper of Christ, the same have command enough of Christ to do his body and blood, and to present it to the church, for he saith, "This do!" What "this"? Here, see what comes before, and you will find that this little word "this" even shows the above-mentioned action. Therefore do not be surprised to death, when the figure of our Lamb Christ has been eaten, that Christ also gives himself to his church to eat out of incomparable love.

17 Further, if our sacrament should be bread alone, as other bread, why then did Paul say, "As often" and "ye eat THE bread" and "drink of THE drink," proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. Why

3. "Blood" put by us instead: Brod.

116 4 Rhegius' warning against the insanity of Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 165-168. 117

Did he just say: "the bread", "of the drink"? If it had no difference from other bread, he would have said badly, "As often as you eat bread and drink wine. But he makes a fine distinction and says: "the bread", "of the drink", since it is insurmountably decided that it is a much different bread and drink than the common bread and wine.

(18) For this purpose he attaches the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ, saying, "Whosoever eateth the bread, or drinketh of the crockery of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Now if it were bad bread and wine, as another, Paul would not have said that it is so dangerously tampered with, with disorderly feeling, that it costs loss of salvation. Also he wants "that one should try beforehand", which diligence and seriousness it would not need, if it were only bread, like another bread.

19 Is it not serious enough that he says, "He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord"? What does Paul mean here by the body of the Lord? Why does he so precisely link the bread and the body of the Lord? How blind would we have to be if we did not understand this? How would we have to be so ungrateful and unbelieving, if we let ourselves destroy the super-delicious joyful testament, the super-delicious meal of Ahasueri, 1) in this way? One knows well how you deal with the Scriptures, and how you hold your particular face and opinion. It is now two years, your companion Thomas Münzer wanted to swallow my bibles, and thought he wanted to teach a peasant the faith from natural things. I noticed at that time that he was carrying rotten fish; God grant him a spirit of love and gentleness, so that he may be able to preach the peaceful gospel with ease! Paul then goes on to say how the unworthy recipients of this holy bread were punished with death, which would have no sense or meaning if it were only natural bread and wine.

20 You also make much of the image of the Crucified, which is imprinted on the host; you think that Christ shuns it and therefore does not come into the Sacrament, because all images are an abomination to the Lord. One knows well how you are an enemy of images; therefore, one must take this anger to me. It is ridiculous to hear and needs no condemnation. You mean, I hear, that if one wants to drive Christ out, then

1. In the old edition: Assveri.

If one should take a crucifix, he will flee because of it. O Andrea! such a great article must have much other probation.

(21) It also seems improper to you that every priest should bring Christ into bread with his silent talk from heaven, saying that there are only two futures of Christ from heaven into this world: the first when he came in a sorrowful and humble form; the other when he will come gloriously and immortally on the last day; the two ways of coming are public, and the Scriptures know nothing of the silent future of Christ into the sacrament; therefore it is nothing but deceit.

(22) My Andrea, if it is a deception to you, what you do not grasp and what you do not bump your head against, then the whole faith should be a deception to you, because it is the foundation of things that we do not see. You do not see Christ in the sacrament; so I hear that you do not want to believe that he is there. Nor do you believe that there is a soul and that God exists, for you do not see either the soul or God. Behold, how carnally thou speakest of things! But that thou wonderest how Christ, who is long and tall, may be under the small stature, methinks it is thy jest. For thirteen or fourteen years ago you brought your understanding out of your cat-bellied theology to such an extent that it allowed itself to be talked into such a thing, and it is shameful to report such a thing and to set a goal for God's power.

(23) But you have undertaken to write something strange, for which it was necessary to seek strange reasons and causes. Thou imaginest, as Christ sitteth up in heaven, and holdeth heaven in abeyance, take not so much care of us on earth, as to come unto us, until the voice of the archangel shall declare the last day. Is not Christ our head, not only of those who reign in heavenly glory with him without remnant, 3) but also of us who still fight on earth with blood and flesh? Eph. 1, 7. Did he not promise to be with us always, even to the end of the world? Matth. 28, 20. Did he have the ability in his mortal body to be with his disciples so quickly on land and water, where he wanted, without hindrance, and now, according to Carlstadt's opinion, he should not be able to do this, if he is glorified? We are his temples (1 Cor. 3, 16.); we have his spirit (1 Cor. 6, 17. 2 Cor. 6, 16.); and where his spirit is, he is also. And does it seem strange to you that he is with us in his bread? This his constant attendance with the sons

2. If not perhaps "more bodily" should be read, "more suffering" is in the meaning of "suffering".
3. Bresten - infirmity.

118 I . Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. W. xx, ivs-iro. 119

of man does not hinder his other glorious future. Therefore it is pitiful to hear you speak of the power of Christ as dishonestly as if a peasant were doing it.

24. Further, you think that Christ commanded his disciples all things that were necessary, but to put his body into bread is nowhere 1) not a command. This is so childish that I must ask you where your Paul is? Does not the apostle say with bright words, "I received it from the Lord, and taught you"? 1 Cor. 11, 23. Is not this command enough? There he writes the institution, word and work of Christ, also worthy preparation to God's table, in which no one has ever had any fault or doubt; for you are now beginning a doubt at these last times, since purer; have taken enough little to heart, how many simple-minded people you would fall into doubt and grief with your strange writing.

(25) What you have drawn from the knowledge of Christ in the 53rd chapter of Isaiah is a good, noble, true thing; also what you have from memory and proclamation.

26. but you want the examination before receiving the sacrament to be too narrow; you reject that one goes to the scribes for instruction; which is your opinion against God, because he also wanted that one learns his will from the priest's mouth, Mal. 2, 7, Haggai 2, 12. and Paul Tit. 1, 9. and in other places wants a bishop or pastor to be composed with sound doctrine, so that he may exhort, teach and silence the opponents.

27 Thou sayest, Let Paul lead every man unto himself, and not unto other men. It is true that each one must be led into his own heart before receiving, but this leading cannot always be done without means. For I suppose that there is a simple man who does not know much about the knowledge, effect and fruit of Christ's death, because of which he would have a bad memory of death, since he has no knowledge of these things: Truly there it will be necessary for him to be well informed from the prophets and evangelists about the surrendered body of our Messiah, and after that he may be fruitfully led into himself and there heartily realize the greatest innocence and love of the surrendered Lord for the sake of our sin, from which then comes a right effect of repentance, if he sees his sin in the bloody wounds of Christ; after that he may rightly measure the highest obedience and love, from which living thoughts then comes the manly prayer.

1. In the old edition: niendert.

know the death of Christ by heart, Rom. 10, 9.

28. But if everyone must have such a certain knowledge of himself before worthily receiving this sacrament, and that everything must be as plain as glass beforehand and perfect, as you suppose: how then did Christ's disciples receive the sacrament? was Peter also, as Christ would have him, completely perfect in faith and knowledge of himself? I think not. For he did not know his own ability at all, and thought he would defiantly join the heap and go to his death with his Lord, but soon after he fled and denied his own. Item, when he struck Malchum, he wanted to have prevented the surrender of the Lord's body, as much was in him. Therefore you should have written more with difference.

29 Thirdly, you teach how the Sacrament is not an arrhabo, pledge or assurance that sins are forgiven. Here I say: Dear Andrea, if you say this about your Sacrament, it is true. Your Sacrament is not a pledge or assurance, or certainly a sign, because your Sacrament is only a bread 2) or a piece of bread, like other bread. But our Sacrament may well be called an arrha, pledge, or certainly sign in the faithful that they have a gracious God and their sins are forgiven.

Your reason for the third article is that in sum: one must be sure beforehand; ergo, one does not need to get it at the Sacrament, according to the words of Paul: "Let man examine himself and then eat" 2c.

Answer: It is true that there should and must be a test in man before he goes to the Sacrament; this is so that he may know why he wants to go to the Sacrament. Namely, God gave me His only begotten Son without my merit (Joh. 3, 16.), that He might become a sacrifice for me on the cross, and His holy blood shed for the washing away of sin (Tit. 3, 4. Eph. 1, 7. Rom. 8, 3.). What was necessary for the redemption of the human race, our dear Lord Jesus Christ accomplished in true innocence, highest obedience and greatest love, was obedient to the best will of His heavenly Father even unto death and the most despicable death of the cross (Phil. 2, 8.).

32 I shall and must remember this with the highest gratitude, such kindness never again.

2. "Weck" put by us instead of "Werk" according to § 1 in this writing: "Wecke essen".
3. "Before" put by us instead of "before and". The same "ehe und" is repeated in § 63 of this scripture.

120 4 Rhegius' warning against the insanity of Carlstadt 2c. W. xx, 170-173. 121

forgotten. The murderous damage of my sin should always be before my eyes, for which I would have been eternally condemned; but Christ, my Savior, has done divine justice enough for me, and has atoned for me again through his great death to God, my Creator and Lord (Rom. 5:6, 8). And that I may never forget the supreme death and unspeakable love, he has given me a comforting sign of it, namely, under wine and bread, his own body, which has killed my death; his own blood, in which I am washed from dead works.

See, this is the test, so that one recognizes himself as a wretched sinner, worthy of all punishment, and also recognizes God's love and grace, and thus a test and a faith in the heart of such great things precedes. But not the less, with the sign we also have an assurance that in some way helps and strengthens our faith in the words: all out of the causeless mercy of God, who has provided and helped our weakness not only with the inward testimony of the spirit, but also with outward, visible signs.

34 Further, you say: Let the Spirit of Christ bear us witness and assure our inward spirit that we are assured of the forgiveness of sin through the death of Christ. This opinion of yours is based on Romans 8:15, Ephesians 1:14, so if your mind is to assure the human heart that we are certain of God's gracious will, this belongs to the Holy Spirit alone and not to any creature.

Answer: We all confess that the Spirit of God alone anoints us inwardly, 1 John 2:27. From Him alone is the right knowledge of Christ our Savior; from Him alone is the right constant assurance. He bears witness to our spirit that we are God's children (Rom. 8, 16.), God's medicine and help for our infirmities. His fatherly will towards us, all truth and all good teaches us the anointing. The Spirit of God alone makes us know what things are given to us by Christ, 1 Cor. 2, 10. He alone is the one who seals us. He alone is the certain pledge of our heavenly inheritance, Eph. 1,14. 2 Cor. 1, 22. For we must be taught by God, not by a creature alone (Joh. 6, 45.). Therefore we confess that assurance of forgiven sin is actually a work of the one Spirit of Christ. It has also never been our opinion to attribute to any creature that which belongs to divine power alone.

36. nevertheless, without all disgrace to the spirit, the reverend Sa.

crament of its form may be called an assurance of forgiven sin. For man may be assured in two ways that his sin is forgiven and that God is now gracious. First, inwardly, as has been said above, through the Spirit of Christ Himself; and this is the right assurance, by which the conscience comes to right peace and rest; this is the inward assurance, which is necessary above all things. For if the heart is not satisfied by the Holy Spirit in true faith, and assured that God is gracious to it, a thousand sacraments by heart would not help.

(37) Therefore all your arguments do not enforce more than that the right, constant, and most necessary assurance of consciences comes without any means from within from the Holy Spirit, without which there is nothing to assure our consciences rightly and constantly of the forgiveness of sin. We say all this, and confess it no less than thou. Therefore we want you to exalt us in your words of reproach. We are neither thieves nor murderers; we enter by Christ, as by the right way, truth, life, and peace. And though we seek in the sacrament which Christ hath ordained for us, yet we get no other entrance but by Christ.

(38) Another is also an external assurance or pledge, to which is attached in its measure, that it may admonish, assure, or testify, as there are the signs which God has commonly set for His promise.

(39) Here, dear Carlstadt, you will not make angels out of us for a long time yet, as you think you will do away with all visible things and signs and make them null and void, and live only as angels in all things of the spirit. 1) Because body and soul are with one another in this visible world, and we use the service of the five senses, we can accomplish nothing without outward things and signs. We must have outward signs beside words, by which we may keep ourselves and come together; understand, then, that such signs are outward, and yet have and signify spiritual things, that we may be drawn by the outward into the spiritual, and comprehend the outward with bodily eyes, the spiritual 2) with inward eyes of the heart.

(40) Now the Scriptures abundantly show you how God the Lord, in addition to the word of promise, has also given you signs by which Our Lord has made a sign.

1. In the old edition: geleben.
2. In the old edition: "and external comprehension with bodily, the spiritual with" and so on.

122 I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, us-17s. 123,

faith will be strengthened in some way, and we are thereby assured. In the first book of Moses on the 9th, God promised His servant Noah that He would no longer destroy the world with a river of sin, and gave him a visible sign, saying v. 13 ff.: "I will set my bow in the clouds, and I will remember my vow with you. He promised the archfather Abraham the inheritance in his seed, and gave him the bodily circumcision for a seal of the righteousness of faith, Gen. 17, 10. Rom. 4, 11. To Gideon God gave the dry and wet lamb skin as confirmation of the promise that he should overcome the Midianites. Judg. 6, 37. ff.

(41) So Christ also dealt with us here. In the New Testament we have a great word of promise, namely, that the comforting body of Christ, promised by the prophets, has been given for us; the blood, not of an unreasonable animal, but of the Son of God, shed for the forgiveness of sins. So that this divine promise might be absolutely certain, and our faith might not waver in any way, Christ attached to it the most noble pledge, the most certain and most precious seal, namely the ransom itself of the promise, his own body and blood under the bread and wine; by which offering he merited that the abundant riches of the promise might be given to us.

Now as the circumcision admonished Abraham in Genesis 17 of the promise, and was for him also a certain testimony of the divine will towards him (for the text speaks v. 11: "That it may be a sign to you of the vow between me and you". Note the little word "vow," by which it is understood that the thing is certain), so also, when I receive the reverend Sacrament, which God has ordained for me as a sigil and sign, I am reminded of the death of the Lord, and what has been acquired for us through it. And although inwardly faith brings assurance and peace, nevertheless, since here we have only the beginning of the Spirit (Rom. 8:23), we also have great need of what is due to us from the outside for admonition and strength, so that one may help the other; for this also faith in the promise and word of God is strengthened through the sacrament.

43. Do not let it seem strange to you, 1) whether some strength and certainty is due to the internal through the external; for thus Peter speaks (2 Petr. 1, 10.): "Dear brothers, be diligent to make your calling and election firm.
44. In the old edition: gedünken.

to make." Here you see, although the election and eternal providence of God is firm enough in itself, and through true faith you are a child of God, who now cries out in the spirit: "Father, Father! Gal. 4:6, so that there is already an inward testimony of the Spirit: nevertheless, from the outside there should still be some 2) assurance and fortification. There is still a deficiency here, that you must first establish such calling and election with good works.

(44) Therefore, if we seek such assurance in the Sacrament that God has given it, and your Holy Spirit does not interrupt its work, we will not turn to your error at all, but will speak of our Sacrament with the highest reverence, as is fitting. And because we firmly believe that Christ gives us his body and blood under bread and wine, which body and blood is our salvation, we must not fear that it is unjust, although we say: it is all sweet grace, comfort and life in our sacrament. We also say: whoever considers such our Christian speech as an addition, falls into the judgment of which Paul writes 1 Cor. 11, 29: "For he does not distinguish the body of Christ."

One thing I cannot forget is that you write of the body and blood of Christ, even of the Lord's supper, and yet you do not remember the New Testament with a single word. But it has not served you in your opinion, therefore you are bravely silent, as if the Scriptures had no word of it. For if thou hadst remembered the testament, thou shouldest indeed have spoken much differently of the pledge and assurance than thou hast done.

That much is answered to you now, dear Carlstadt, to which I would much rather have nothing answered. But I was driven by my official duty; for I saw that this opinion of yours was beginning to eat away at the Christian assembly where I was evangelizing; so I had to counter the insanity with haste.

Now I must speak to you, to whom I have written this short report in great haste. You know, dear devout Christians, as I have often faithfully admonished you, that you see before you in these last perilous times, and try the spirits whether they are of God. This has truly never been so necessary as now, when the evil spirit is taking it upon himself not only to awaken persecution, which is to be respected as small, but he would also like to make the word of our faith uncertain to us, abusing it with great speed to confirm his

2. In the old edition: "naiß was".

124 4 Rhegius' warning against the insanity of Carlstadt 2c. W: xx, 175-178. 125

Irrsale, that it is truly frightening to hear. But it cannot be otherwise, we must send ourselves into this dangerous time with weapons of Christian knighthood, faith, love and hope, and never let the double-edged sword of the Holy Spirit out of our hands, so that we may defend ourselves against the prince of the world.

48. cling to the word of the Lord with a humble heart, that he may give us understanding according to his word, and he will not let you go astray. St. Paul writes just now in the chapter to Corinthians, where he speaks of the Lord's supper 1 Cor. 11:19: How there must be divisions among us, so that those who have been proven may be revealed among us.

We must suffer temptation, but we want to pray to God that He will not let us be led into it too deeply. God allows us to be tempted, as Moses writes in the 5th book, Cap. 13, 1. ff: "If a prophet appears in the midst of you, and says to you, 'Come, let us serve foreign gods,' then you should not follow the words of that dreamer; for God, your Lord, is tempting you, so that it may be revealed whether you love him or not, with all your heart. So the Scripture has also warned us against the false teachers of the future, that we should beware of their hell. We will be challenged; but "blessed is he who perseveres" (Matth. 24, 13.) and says with the prophet David: "Lord, your word is a light unto my feet" (Ps. 118. Vulg. or 119, 105.).

50 Now, so that you may be all the more wary of the above-mentioned insanity, I will briefly run over for you in one sum the teaching I gave you a year ago and recently some weeks ago concerning the reverend Sacrament, and ask you, for the sake of God's mercy, to form it in your heart and never forget it.

51. first. Damnable sin has separated us from God and made enemies of God out of us, therefore we would have been justly condemned (Rom. 5, 18.).

52. Secondly. But God does not show His mercy 1) in the midst of wrath, but through which He created us, through which He wanted to bring us back from Adam's heavy fall (Eph. 1, 4. Col. 1, 14. Hebr. 1, 3.); but as the fall was great, the sickness unspeakably heavy and deadly, so the remedy had to be great, expensive and powerful.

53 Thirdly. So now the Father of all mercies has given a help immediately after the fall.

1. In the old edition: Erbärmde.

The same seed was to become a sacrifice of temptation, through which innocence would be brought back to God, which before had turned away from God through guilt.

54. fourth. This seed is promised even more clearly to the archfather Abraham, as: in him shall be given all nations that were corrupted and destroyed by original sin in the first birth, Gen. 22, 18. After that (2 Sam. 7, 12. f.) it was promised to King David with the indication of his glorious kingdom that will last forever.) he was promised to King David, indicating his glorious kingdom that shall last forever; whom Isaiah Cap. 9, 6. calls a prince of peace, as the one through whom a true eternal peace is established between God and the elect.
55. fifth. The seed is now the pledge of God's mercy and our salvation. All those who are mortally wounded by the poisonous bite of sin must look upon it with the eyes of true faith, and they will be cut off from death, just as the Israelites were cut off by the serpent of brass, Deut. 21:8, 9. The seed given is our only way to God, our only peace and salvation (Eph. 2:14); through it alone sin is ended, wickedness is eradicated, and an eternal righteousness is established. (Dan. 9, 18.)
56. sixth. This is the great prophet, of whom Moses says (in the 5th book, Cap. 18, 18.), to whom God has put his words in his mouth; whoever does not follow him, God will avenge. Moses and the prophets point to the One as the goal and fulfillment of the Law; all promises go to Him (Heb. 7). So many sacrifices of the Old Testament prefigured this Righteousness Maker (Heb. 9 and 10). The law does not make us perfect, their sacrifices did not purify properly, it was all a previous shadow. But John pointed to the rightly cleansing sacrifice, saying: "Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world", Joh. 1, 29.
57. seventh. Therefore, in the time provided by God, when the confidence of Israel was to be sent, God sent His angel from heaven to a virgin of the lineage of David, named Mary (Luc. 1, 30. f.), fulfilled the prophecy of Jesse on 7, 14. and 9, 6., proclaimed the birth of the true Messiah, gave Him a name above all names, said through the angel v. 32.: He will be a son of the Most High, His

2. In the old edition: to the cunning snakes his u. s. w.

126 I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, irs-rrw. 127

Kingdom for ever and ever, by the name of Jesus, that is, the Beatificator; for His ministry is to save the people from sin, Matth. 1, 21. Then the angel announced to the shepherds the true joy of the world, that the Beatificator had already been born and was lying in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ, Luc. 2, 8. ff.

58. to the eighth. What Isaiah saw in the prophetic spirit as future, we sing and say with joy, as already happened, namely: "A young child is born to us, a son is given to us", Is. 9, 6. The promised seed has already come, the sweet message of the reconciliation of man with God has rung out into the whole world: "Blessed is he who hears it and keeps it", Luc. 11,28.
59. ninth. Yes, he is not only our Messiah, but he has already completed all the tasks and commands which his heavenly Father has laid upon him for the redemption of the human race, in true innocence, unpretentious obedience and the greatest love. He was ordained in death to overcome our death with his death. He was to become a sacrifice on the cross for us, so that we might be redeemed through him. As Isaiah described him in the 53rd chapter, so he became: "He became the most despised, he truly bore our pain, he was smitten by God and humbled, wounded for our wickedness, contrite for our vices. We have all strayed like sheep, but God has laid on him all our sin. He was sacrificed because he willed it; he gave his soul to death and was numbered among the wicked." And all that was prophesied of him by the prophets was fulfilled in him. And as Micah Cap. 7, 19. 20. says: "He hath put away from us our wickedness, and cast into the depth of the sea all our sin; he hath given the truth to Jacob, the mercy to Abraham, which he sware unto our fathers from the days of old."
60. to the tenth. Therefore we do not wait for another, we do not accept another Christ, but we now cheerfully speak with the Samaritans, Joh. 4, 42: "We know that he is truly the container of the world, Christ." And with Petro and the disciples, Jn. 6, 9. "We believe and know that you are Christ, a Son of the living God." Also with Martha, Jn. 11, 27. who said, "I believe that you are the Christ, a Son of GOD, who was to come into the world." The light has come, the shadow is gone, one no longer sacrifices unreasonable

Animals; the long awaited host, 1) the right paschal lamb has come. In the Old Testament, a sacrifice was offered for sin, blood was shed for purification; the priest offered for his own sin, then for the sin of the people (Hebr. 7, 27.): such is all dead and gone; the imperfect gives way to the perfect, the figure of truth.

61. to the eleventh. For now is already come, who alone is innocent among the sons of men, JEsus Christ, a sacrifice and a priest, "hath offered himself for our sin once upon the cross for a sacrifice that endureth for ever," for "with One sacrifice hath he perfected for ever them that are sanctified" Heb. 9:12, 10, 14.. He is our dear Melchizedeck, our King of righteousness and peace; he is our chief priest and bishop according to the order of Melchizedeck, set in 2) eternity and consecrated by God the Father, Ps. 110, 4.: "Who once entered into the 3) holy things by one offering, which endureth for ever; not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood," namely, into the heavens, that he might now appear before the face of God for us (Heb. 9, 12.). That if we sin, we have with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous; who is a "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:1, 2), yea, for sins past, present, and to come. Notice, believer, your abundant riches! 4) But be afraid, you wretched, miserable, desperate enemy of God, because of your more than devilish blindness! Recognize Christ, your only Savior, because eternal death is dragging on your back, like a shadow on a fine body.
62. to the twelfth. See how the Gospel proclaims such great things! We were in ourselves poor forsaken sinners; now by the sacrifice we become pious, for enemies of God and children of wrath now children of God and the dear sons of grace; for damned now blessed. By what? Truly, "not by our works, but by the mercy of God" (,Tit. 3, 5.), as Paul writes Rom. 3, 23. ff.: "They are all sinners, and are justified without merit by His grace, through the redemption that came by Christ, whom God presented to a mercy seat."
63. to the thirteenth. Here now lies our

1. üostia - sacrificial animal, atonement.
2. In the old edition: in dre.
3. Old edition: the.
4. In the old edition: your überfchtvenkliche Reichtung!

128 4 Rhegius' warning against the insanity of Carlstadt 2c. W. xx, 180-183. 129

Treasure and all, therefore all thoughts must be drawn to this, so that with a grateful heart one may earnestly and fervently contemplate this wonderful gracious transaction of our redemption through this most worthy and precious sacrifice; how God ordained for us His beloved only begotten Son, before 1) the foundations of the world were laid (Eph. l, 4.), out of grace and love, for the "restoration" of the lost man, and after that, regardless of the manifold horrible sin of the world, according to His promise, He sent the promised one and delivered him into the hands of sinners for the sake of our salvation. This good deed of our redemption through his body and blood, ordained from eternity, and graciously accomplished and conquered in time through Christ, we should and must not forget, even if we lose our eternal blessedness, but rather 2) believe, remember and proclaim.

64. fourteenth. For from right knowledge and proclamation of such love of God in this delivered body and shed blood comes to us all our righteousness, life, peace and salvation, according to the words of the prophet Isaiah, 53:11: "The righteous in his knowledge shall justify many of my servants."
65. fifteenth. Whoever believes in Christ (who is promised in the prophets, John 3, and given in the New Testament), that he was born to us, suffered for us, was raised from the dead, and glorified by the sanctifying Spirit, 2c., will be saved (John 3:16, Romans 4:24), and through right faith Christ's death with all its fruits becomes ours, his sacrifice ours, and his priesthood also ours. For "he that spared not his only begotten Son, but delivered him up for us, how shall he not give us all things with him?" Rom. 8, 32. Behold! who would harm us, if by faith we are surrounded with such great unspeakable goods of Christ? What need is there of much words? Christ's body once offered and blood once shed has brought us redemption and forgiveness of all sin, holiness to us all who know and desire such things.

66 To the sixteenth. Therefore it is necessary above all things that we have a right knowledge of our salvation, a constant and fervent remembrance in true living faith, a cheerful and undaunted confession. "For if one believes with the heart, he becomes godly; and if one confesses with the mouth, he becomes blessed", Rom. 10, 10. So truly and not otherwise God will

1. Old edition: marriage and.
2. Old edition: special.

We are known to ourselves who we are, and here comes faith in God and > love for our neighbor, without which we are nothing. Now proclaim > this. No one is right, if he believes before; but he does not believe, > if he knows before from the word of God. But how can he know them, if > he does not hear them preached and proclaimed? Therefore it is > necessary that the death of the Lord with its fruits be diligently > preached and publicly proclaimed. He who conceals this deed wants to > make us forget God's fatherly mercy, to blaspheme God and to bring > about our eternal ruin. > > 67 To the seventeenth. Therefore, since Christ now wanted to > completely fulfill the will of His Father with the work of redemption, > He earnestly commanded that such a remembrance of His sacrifice and > death should never be forgotten, gave a consoling pardon, promised > remission of sins (Matth. 26. Marci 14. Luc. 22. 1 Cor. 11.). And > because the human heart was well known to him, as it is foolish in > faith, he gave, to strengthen faith in the promise and word of God, > outward signs as a seal, by which he would help the weakness of our > faith, prepared a table, where faith was nourished, love was kindled, > hope was supported; to which his words and deeds we take heed and obey > this command, as he has ordained. > > 68 To the eighteenth. This institution of the reverend supper of > Christ was described by Paul, as he had learned it from the Lord > himself, with all the pertinence, in the first Corinthians at 11. > Accordingly, when we want to celebrate the supper of the Lord, we take > before us the words of Christ, as he uses them, and speak them over > the bread and wine; and if they are spoken rightly in faith, there is > no doubt in our minds that there is the body and blood of JEsu Christ. > And so after his business 3) we eat the bread, that is, his 4) body, > and drink the wine, that is, his blood, proclaiming the death of the > Lord signified by the signs, which was done for the payment and > atonement of sin, by which we have obtained victory over sin, death, > and hell, that we might put away the works of death, serve our Savior > in the joy of our consciences; Even though sin still rages in us, and > we are exercised under the cross and bear the death of the Lord Jesus > in the body, so that His life may also be opened in our body. Whoever > then would change and despise the custom of this supper, would have us

3. d. i. according to its order or foundation.
4. In the old edition: be.

130I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, iW-iss. 131

certainly deprive our hope and some comfort of the soul.

69. to the nineteenth. For here is the new testament, the new irrevocable gracious covenant, the promise of all promises, a summa of the whole gospel, namely remission of sins, and bestowal of the Holy Spirit. Here no calf's blood is sprinkled, 1) as in confirmation of the old covenant, but the innocent most precious blood of the righteous Christ, a seal of the new testament. Paul, Gal. 3, 16. 17., says: "To Abraham the promise was made, and to his seed"; and soon after: "the testament is confirmed by God." Here it is clear that he calls the promise a testament. Therefore we may call the Lord's supper, since the head of all promise is inside, a testament, and Christ also called it so Luc. 22. the 2) drink, the new testament 2c. For Christ, as a testator, has procured for us remission of sins, the Father's favor, and eternal life, which inheritance no one obtains except through the death of the testator. But now he has already died for our sins, and has risen again for the sake of our piety (Rom. 4, 25.); the testament is therefore confirmed, and we are heirs who come with right faith to receive the inheritance.

(70) Here, for the comfort of your fearful conscience, notice a great assurance, which is shown to us in the outward signs, and sums up all things. Just as a covenant was made between God and Abraham and his seed (The Lord promised Abraham and his seed that he would be their God and give them the land of Canaan, but asked them to circumcise every child, Genesis 17:12), so too we have a promise from Christ that our sins will be purged and washed away through his body and blood. But this we are to know and believe, for by faith the heart is cleansed (Acts 15:9), which faith, of course, is the science of God, according to Jeremiah 31. And this is not without the Spirit of God, which Spirit is the law that God wants to write in our hearts, as promised in the same place Jer. 31:33. Again, we are required to do this in remembrance of Him as often as we do it. Now here you see sufficiently what belongs to a testament. The new and everlasting covenant is made; now therefore see that thou come into it, and therein

1. In the old edition: ausgesprenzst.
2. Old edition: that.

remain. Redemption and remission of sins are due to the merit of the blood of Christ and the grace of God, but only through faith, as Paul testifies Rom. 3, 28.

71 The twentieth. For the purpose of decreeing that the Lord's Supper be properly celebrated, there are five things in particular:

The first is the supper, the food and drink, the body and blood of Christ; after the words have been expelled. Now the flesh alone is not useful (Joh. 6, 63.); "but the spirit makes alive" (2 Cor. 3, 6.). Therefore, the body and blood only become the proper food and drink for the hungry, thirsty soul when they are consumed in faith. For the right food of the soul is that the soul is certain that Jesus Christ, the innocent, is its Savior before God; His flesh was given into death for the life of the world. Whoever then firmly believes that the body of Christ, as an eternally paying sacrifice, is given into death for our sin, His blood shed for our cleansing, to him the death of Christ is bread and drink, makes him alive, and keeps him in spiritual life, as the body is kept in natural life by material bread and wine. Although everything depends on faith in the Word that became flesh, even though no sign would be received, God, for the sake of our weak faith, also wanted to give His body and blood under visible signs, so that such good deeds would be pressed into the mind from within and imagined in the senses from within.

73. the other: Guests who eat and drink. These are those who hunger and thirst after godliness; they, invited to this supper, become heirs of this testament. Luc. 1, 53: "He has filled the hungry with good things."

The third is preparation. For this meal, of course, requires a wedding garment. So Paul commands: "Let the man try himself, and then eat" 2c. The rehearsal and preparation is in the right discernment of the body and blood, so that you may recognize in faith the body, that it is the very body and blood which Moses and the prophets promised would pay for our sins and wash them away, and now, according to the evangelists and apostles, has already done so. His body is the sufficient sacrifice, his blood your cleansing: whoever rightly recognizes and remembers this in faith, has what belongs to the preparation. He recognizes himself as a wretched sinner, for whom such a great atonement by God's Son is necessary. He recognizes himself as a wretched sinner for whom such a great atonement had to be made by God's Son. He alone recognizes the one and only Son of God, his physician, his righteousness maker.

132 Erl. 29,136f. 4 Rhegius' warning against the insanity of Carlstadt 2c. W. XX, 185-187. 133

and salvation through his bitter death. He desires to become pious; there is now repentance and sorrow for his sin, and a heartfelt confession to God, so that he says: "Lord, I am a sinner and you alone are righteous; have mercy on me through Jesus Christ, who shed his blood for me. Immediately, realizing how things stand, he willingly surrenders to the cross of Christ to put his flesh to death and be conformed to Christ his Savior; this is now the Christian life.

The fourth is time. There is no hour appointed. It is food and drink; therefore, if you thirst and hunger for godliness and want to comfort your conscience, come to God's table. Here no one shall be forced, but through the

Word to be driven into his own knowledge, that the fear of his conscience may drive him, and believe in the Word.

The fifth: Those who prepare the table of the Lord, these are servants of Christ, ordained by the church, who act and execute the word and command of Christ in right faith, as and for what He has chosen, so that according to the business of 1) Paul all things in the church may be done duly and properly, 1 Cor. 14, 40.

That is enough in a hurry now. Soon, if God wills, I will write more about it. May God's grace be with you. Amen. 1524.

1. i.e. according to the order.

5. D. Martin Luther's writing "against the heavenly prophets, of the images and sacrament "*).

The first part towards the end of 1524; the second at the end of > January 1525.

First part.

Their foolishness will be revealed to everyone,

2 Tim. 3:9.2 )

1. walt's god and our dear lord jesus christ. There is a new continuation. I had almost laid myself down to rest, and thought it was all over: so it lifts up first of all, and goes to me as the wise man says Sir. 18:6: "When a man ceases, he must lift up."

2. Doctor Andreas Carlstadt has fallen away from us and has become our worst enemy. Christ does not want to frighten us, and give us his mind and courage, so that we do not 3) err or despair before Satan, who pretends that he wants to justify the sacrament, but has a very different thing in mind, i.e., the sacrament.
3. This motto is on the title of all single editions of both the first and the other part of this writing.
4. So the Wittenberg and the Jena, "yes" is missing in the Erlanger.

The first step is to corrupt the whole teaching of the Gospel, which he has not yet been able to deaf by force, with a cunning action of the Scriptures.

Now I have proclaimed it, and my prophecy will come true (I am worried) that God will visit our ingratitude and strike down the truth, as Daniel says Dan. 8, 12, because we persecute them and do not accept that we must have vain error and false spirits and prophets again, some of which have now been present for three years; by His grace they have been prevented 4) until now, otherwise they would have broken down long ago. Whether he will continue to endure, I do not know, because no one cares, no one prays for it, and all are safe, as if the devil were asleep, who nevertheless walks around like a fierce lion 1 Petr. 5:8. Although I hope that there will be no need for it in my life. Therefore, as long as I live, I will resist,

4. "they" is missing in the Erlanger.

*) This writing appeared in many single editions at Wittenberg, at Strasbourg, at Basel in the time indicated by us, also without indication of time and place. In no single edition is the name of the printer given. I" the collections: Wittenberg (1551), vol. II, p. 11b; Jena (1556), vol. Ill, p. 41b; in the Altenburg, vol. Ill, p. 40; in the Leipzig, vol. XIX, p. 156 and in the Erlangen, vol. 29, p. 136. We give the text according to the Jena, comparing the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions.

134 ' Erl. 2S, 137-139. I. Luther's Writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 187-189. 135

as God gives me, let it help whom it can help. And this is my sincere and faithful warning and admonition:

First, that everyone with all earnestness pray to God for right understanding and for His holy pure word, considering that under such a powerful prince and god of this world, the devil, it is not at all in our power to preserve neither faith nor God's word, but there must be divine power alone to protect it, as the 12th Psalm vv. 7-9 prays very finely and says: "The words of God are pure, purified sevenfold. Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve 1) them, and keep us from this generation for ever. For the wicked are around and around, where the loose people arise." If we presume to have it, and care not how we keep it, it is soon lost.

(5) Secondly, that we also do our diligence and do not let our eyes slumber, but be steadfast, for God's grace nevertheless always keeps us stiff above the world, so that he does not allow any false prophet to do anything other than outward things, such as works and subtle pointed feet of outward things. No one takes on faith and a good conscience before God, but only what glitters and shines before reason and the world. Just as the Arians had a subtle appearance before reason, since they claimed that God was only One Person, the Father, but the Son and the Holy Spirit were not true God.

Item 6: The Jews and Pelagians found it gentle and easy to believe that works without grace made one pious; and under the papacy it was sweet to say that free will also had something to do with grace. Therefore, because it is in accordance with reason, it is well to say that in the sacrament there is bad bread and wine; who cannot believe this? 3) If it were admitted to the Jews today that Christ was a pure man, I think they would be easily converted.

(7) Now then, let us be diligent to separate far from each other the two doctrines: one that teaches of the principal things, the spiritual, and the spiritual of the other.

1. In the German Bible: "wollest".
2. Walch and the Erlanger: wiire.
3. Walch and the Erlanger: one still.

know how to rule in the spirit before God; the other, which teaches about outward things or works; for it depends more on the teaching of faith and a good conscience than on the teaching of good works. Since, although works are lacking, there is help and counsel 4) that one can do them where the doctrine of faith remains firm and pure. But where the doctrine of faith is set aside and works are brought forth, there can be no good, neither counsel nor help, unless the works bring vain honor with them and want to be something great in the sight of men; so God's honor perishes.

8. Just as these ambitious prophets do, who do nothing but storm images, break churches. They do not master the sacrament and seek a new way of mortificationis, that is, self-chosen killing of the flesh. They have also never yet taught the doctrine of faith, never taught how to raise consciences, which is the most noble and necessary thing in Christian doctrine, as has been said.

(9) And if they had 5) made all things equal, that there was no image, that there was no church, that there was no one left in all the world that the flesh and blood of Christ was in the sacrament, and they were all dressed in gray peasant's skirts, 6) what would have been the result? What would they have gained by this, since they are so nearly pressing, 7) driving and hunting? If they had become Christians, where would faith and love be? Shall they come after? Why should they not go first? Glory, vain honor and a new monk's certificate would be acquired, as happens in all works, but the conscience is not helped. Such false spirits do not inquire, just as the pope does not inquire where faith or love will remain, if only the works of his obedience and law will go, there he penetrates; and if they happen, nothing has happened.

10 Because now D. Carlstadt goes the same way and among so many books does not even teach what faith and love are (yes, they speak mockingly and derisively of the same).

4. Walch and the Erlangeners: Rath da.
5. Walch and the Erlanger: it now.
6. Carlstadt walked along in such peasant clothes.
7. Erlanger: nordringen.

136 Eri. 29, 139-141. 5 Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. xx, iss-192. 137

Let every man be warned against him, and know that he has a perverse spirit, which intends nothing 1) but to murder consciences with laws, sins, and works, and yet nothing is accomplished thereby, even if everything were done which 2) he pretends to do in all his books, mouths, and hearts, but even wicked men may do and teach all such things as he practices. Therefore there must be something higher to solve and comfort the consciences: this is the Holy Spirit, which cannot be obtained by breaking images or by any work, but only by the gospel and faith.

(11) Now, lest we open our mouths too wide, and be astonished at the art of these false spirits, and so let the right principal things pass away, and be led craftily out of the way (so that the devil may go about by these prophets), I will tell here lately the principal things of Christian doctrine, which every man ought above all things to remember and keep in mind.

The first is the law of God, which is to be preached in such a way that sin is revealed and recognized, Rom. 3:20 and 7:7, as we have often shown in our writings. But these prophets do not understand anything right about it, because this is called the law preached spiritually (as St. Paul Rom. 7, 14.3) ) and used rightly. 1 Tim. 1, 8.

13. the other, when sin has been recognized and the law has been preached so that consciences may be frightened and humbled before God's wrath, then the comforting word of the gospel and forgiveness of sins should be preached to comfort consciences again and raise them to the grace of God 2c.
14. these two pieces in this 4) order teaches Christ himself Luc. 24, 47.: "One must preach repentance and forgiveness of sin in his name." "And the Spirit (He says Joh. 16, 8.) will punish the world for sin, righteousness and judgment."

1. In the issues: not.
2. Erlanger as well as Walch's old edition: that.
3. These brackets are set by us. In the old edition Walch's: "1 Timoth. on 1, 8. says", which the Erlangen edition has reprinted.
4. Walch and the Erlangeners: such.

(15) These two things are not found in these or any other false prophets, nor can they be, yet they are the most important and necessary things.

The third is now the judgment, the work to kill the old man, of which Rom. 5. 6. 7. There the works begin, the sufferings and tortures also, since we kill our flesh by our own compulsion and fasting, watch, work 2c., or by other persecution and shame. These false prophets also do not do this killing rightly; for they do not accept what God inflicts on them, but what they choose themselves, wear gray skirts, want to be like farmers, and much of the fool's work.

(17) Fourth, let works of love toward one's neighbor be done with gentleness, patience, charity, teaching, help, and counsel, both spiritual and corporal, freely and in vain, as Christ has done for us. Joh. 13, 15. 34.

(18) Now the last thing is to do the law and its works, not for the Christians, but for the rude and unbelieving; for for the Christians it must be done spiritually, as it was said above, to recognize sin. But for the rough people, for Him omnes, it must also be done physically and grossly, so that they do and leave His works, and thus must be outwardly pious with compulsion under the sword and laws, as one keeps the wild animals with chains and imprisonment, so that outward peace remains among the people, for which secular authority is decreed, which God wants to have honored and feared in it. Rom. 13, 1. 1 Petr. 2, 13. 17.

19 But besides this, care must be taken that Christian liberty be preserved, and that such laws and works be not practiced upon the consciences of Christians, as if they must thereby be pious or sinful. And to this belongs the question of how to break or tolerate images, food, clothing, place, person, and all manner of outward things. 2c. He who does not teach according to this order certainly does not do it right. From this you see that D. Carlstadt and his spirits put the lowest for the highest, the least for the best, the last for the first, and yet wants to be seen of all-

5. Walch and the Erlangeners: den.

138 Erl. 29,141-143. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 192-194. I139

supreme spirit who ate the Holy Spirit with feathers and with everything.

(20) Therefore I beseech every Christian who is entitled to us in this matter, as we dispute, to remember that we are not dealing with high things, but with the very least, and to know that the devil would gladly magnify such low things and draw the eyes of the people to himself, so that they may disregard the right, noblest things and gape at them; so that every one may know how D. Carlstadt's spirit is a false and evil spirit, so that he leaves the high, right things alone and gapes at them. Carlstadt's spirit is a false, evil spirit, which is not sufficient for him, that he so silences and leaves the high, right things, and so inflates the least things, as if the world's salvation were more important than Christ himself; but also forces us from such high, necessary things down to the little things, that we lose time with him and give way to forgetting the high things. And this is the first fruit by which this tree is known.

21 But lest there be too many books, I will answer him with this one book to all his; and because I have not yet written anything special about images, this shall be the first. Because he has started the work from his own head, he wants to mend himself afterwards and cover the shame with fig leaves.

From the iconoclasm.

22 I attacked iconoclasm by first tearing it out of the heart by the word of God and making it worthless and despised, as was done before Carlstadt dreamed of iconoclasm. For where they are from the heart, they do no harm to the eyes. But D. Carlstadt, who cares nothing for the hearts, has reversed this and torn them out of the eyes and left them in the heart. For he does not preach faith, nor can he preach it, as I only 1) unfortunately see. Which of these two storms is the best, I will let everyone judge.

23. for where hearts are taught that by faith alone one pleases God, and by images he is not pleased.

1. Walch and the Erlangeners: now first.

If the teaching of the law is not done, but is a lost service and food, the people themselves willingly fall before it, despise it, and do not let it be done. But where such teaching is omitted, and only the fist is used, nothing follows, except that those blaspheme who do not understand it, and who do it only out of compulsion of the law, as a good necessary work, and do not do it with a free conscience, but think to please God with the work. Which opinion is a true idolatry and false confidence in the heart. This is what happens through such legalism, that they outwardly remove images and set their hearts full of idols against them.

I say this so that it may be seen what kind of spirit is in Carlstadt, who blames me for wanting to protect images against God's word, and yet knows that I want to have them torn out of all hearts, despised and destroyed, without putting up with his free fist and impetuosity. If the Holy Spirit were here, he would not lie so knowingly and impudently, but would say: "Yes, dear Luther, it pleases me that you are destroying images in the heart so much; so that I will destroy them all the more easily before my eyes, and I accept your service as conducive to this. Now I shall act against God's word and protect images, who destroy them of all things by heart and inwardly, and I shall not say that he acts against God's word, who only destroys them by heart and leaves them in the heart, and sets up others beside them, namely, false trust and glory of the work.

(25) Further, I have admitted and not denied that they should also be removed externally, so far as it is done without swarming and storming by proper force. In the eyes of the world, it is called a knavery when one hides the right reason for a good thing and in the meantime broods over making a hole in it. But the fact that Carlstadt puts my spiritual and proper image abdication behind 2) and pretends that I am nothing but an image guardian, that must be a holy prophetic piece, if I resist nothing but his red, tempestuous and rapturous spirit. Because the evil spirit is so stubborn in his mind, I want to

2. In the old editions: enhinder.

140 EU. LS, 143-145. 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 194-197. 141

I will now give way to defiance and suffering less than I did before. And I will first speak of the images according to the way of the Law of Moses, then in the evangelical way. And first say that according to the Law of Moses no other image is forbidden than God's image, which one worships. But a crucifix or any other image of a saint is not forbidden to have. Now, you iconoclasts, defy and prove it otherwise.

26] After this, the first commandment, Exodus 20:3, says, "Thou shalt not have other gods before me." After this text follows immediately, and shows and expresses what he calls other gods, and says: "Thou shalt not make any image or likeness," Ex. 20, 4. This is spoken of the same gods 2c. And although our spirits dwell on the little word "make," and are always throbbing: To make, to make is another thing than to worship, yet they must let it be known that this commandment speaks in essence of nothing but God's glory. It must be made, of course, if it is to be worshipped, and unmade it is not to be worshipped. But it is not valid to pick out a word and insist on it; one must look at the opinion of the whole text as it is connected, then one sees that it speaks of God's images, which are not to be worshipped, and no one will prove otherwise from it. Therefore, in the same chapter, v. 23, it follows: "Thou shalt not make thee any gods of gold or silver," that such a making is certainly meant for the gods.

(27) For this saying, "Thou shalt have no gods," is the main saying, the measure and the goal, according to which all the words that follow are to be drawn, directed and measured; for it indicates and expresses the meaning of this commandment, namely, that there shall be no other gods. Therefore the word "make," "images," "serve," 2c. and what follows must be understood no further than that no gods and idolatry come of it. Just as the word: "I am your God" Ex. 20, 2. is the measure and goal of everything that may be said about worship. And it would be foolish of me to include under it something that does not concern godliness or worship, as building a house, plowing 2c. So also under the word "thou shalt not

The words "to have gods" can be drawn in no other way than as far as idolatry is concerned. But where images or pillars are made without idolatry, such making is not forbidden, because the main saying "you shall have no gods" remains intact.

If they do not want to let the "making" go to the images of God, as the text compels, then I also want to say that worship is not forbidden (because one clings so stiffly to the letter). For in the first commandment there is nothing about worship; so I would like to say: If you do none, let others do it; but worship is not forbidden to you. But if from other places they gloss making with worshipping, which is not in the text here, then I gloss from the same text making to the gods, as the text clearly says. Therefore we do not read any example that they were punished for images or altars without worshiping them; that also the bronze serpent of Moses remained 4 Mos. 21, 8 until Ezekia took it off only for the sake of worship 2 Kings 18, 4.

29. about this I have 3 Mos. 26, 1. a mighty saying: "I am your God, you shall not make for yourselves an idol nor an image, nor set up a mark nor a stone in your land that you worship." How now? Here, I think, he indicates enough to himself that it is a matter of worship, if he therefore bequeaths idols and painting stones, that they should not worship, without doubt, that where they do not worship, they may well set up and make, otherwise what would be the need of such an addition from worship? Therefore, in the first commandment, making must go to worship and no further. Thus also Deut. 4, 15. ff. the saying about worship is clear, since it refers to making images.

30 We also have examples of this in the Old Testament. For Joshua, Cap. 24, 26, 1) set up a painting stone under an oak tree as a witness 2) 2c., but it is forbidden to set up such stones, 3 Mos. 26, 1.

1. The Erlangen edition has reprinted "25" from Walch's old edition, plus, as usual, all of Walch's erroneous biblical citations in this writing, twenty-six in number. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 885, note 2; vol. XIX, 240, note 2; Col. 617, note; Col. 676, note 2; Col. 768; Col. 820, note 1 2c.; vol. XXII, Introduction, p. 38 f.
2. Walch and the Erlangers: Signs.

142 Erl. SS, 145-147. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 1S7-1SS. 143

were higher than the images. But because it was a stone of testimony and not for worship, it did not violate the commandment. Accordingly, Samuel, 1 Sam. 7, 12, set up a stone and called it a helper stone. This was also forbidden, as has been said, but because no worship but only remembrance was sought there, he did no sin.

031 But concerning all these things, Joshua 22:10, the children of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, made a great altar by Jordan; and all Israel were afraid, and sent messengers thither in earnest, as though an altar had been set up contrary to the commandment of God: for it was forbidden. But behold, how they apologized. The altar remained standing, because they heard that it was not for worship or sacrifice, but for a memorial. But if it had been wrong to make an altar, and if God's commandment was to be understood so rigidly as "to make," they should have burned the altar to powder; otherwise they would not have escaped the sin, as they pretended. Now making altars is forbidden as hard as making images. If one can make and erect altars and special stones, so that God's commandment nevertheless remains, because the worship remains, then also my iconoclasts will have to leave me a crucifix or Mary's image, yes, also an image of Abgot, even according to the strictest law of Moses, that I wear it or look at it, as far as I do not worship it, but have a memory.

32 But I wonder at these Jewish saints, who cling so stiffly to the law of Moses and rage against the images, how they do with florins and jewels, since images stand up? For I hear that they have many florins and jewels; so they coin St. Joachim into pennies in Jáchymov. It would be my advice to help the great saints from their sins and take away their gold and silver pennies and cups. For even if they are hostile to the images, it is to be feared that they are not yet so far removed from them, nor have they come into study and wonder and sprinkling, 1) that they could throw them away from themselves. Also, 2) perhaps

1. Here Luther mocks the mystical, often senseless jargon that Carlstadt and his followers used. Cf. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 310, the notes.
2. "is" is missing in the Erlanger.

mankind is still so weak that even the living voice from heaven is not enough, but good strong fellows who otherwise would not have much to consume.

33. There is also another fault with these iconoclasts, 3) that they themselves fall without order and do not drive with proper force, as their prophets stand, shout and incite the mob and say: Hit, 4) hit, tear, bite, throw, break, stab, kick, throw, strike the idols in the mouth; if you see a crucifix, spit it in the face 2c. This means that Carlstadt has removed the images, yes, to make the rabble mad and foolish and secretly accustom them to rebellion, who then plump into the work, think that they are now great saints, become so proud and insolent that it is beyond measure; and if one looks at it in the light, it is a law work, done without spirit and faith, and yet makes a hope in the heart, as if they were something special before God through such work. This is then actually called work and free will taught.

34 We read in Moses, 2 Mos. 18, 21. ff., that he first appointed princes, officials and secular authorities before he gave the law, and teaches in many places: All things should be heard, judged and punished with justice, witnesses and in an orderly manner.

35. What else should the judges and overlords in the country do to us? My Carlstadt always skips this piece very finely, and what Moses teaches, he points to the disorderly mob, and teaches them to fall into it without any order, like swine. This is and is called a red, rebellious spirit, which despises the authorities, and freely goes about itself as if they were masters of the land and of the law. If one allows the mob to storm the churches without authority, one must also allow each one to lead and kill the adulterers, murderers, and the disobedient 2c. For God has given the same authority to the people of Israel to kill, as to destroy the images. I,
36. In the old editions: "with these iconoclasts"; Erlanger: "with this iconoclasts". Perhaps it should be read: "with these iconoclasts".
37. Erlanger: "ha". In the old editions: "Haw", i.e. "hau".
38. "us" is missing in the Erlanger.

144 Erl. ss, i47-i4s. 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. xx, 199-202. 145

What a fine being and regiment that would become! That is why I said that D. Carlstadt is not a murderous prophet; but he has a rebellious, murderous, red spirit with him, which would probably lead out if he had room.

36 Therefore we read in the Old Testament, where images or idols were destroyed, that not the mob but the authorities did the work. In the same way Jacob buried the idols of his servants Gen. 35:4. Thus Gideon broke the altar of Baal, when he was demanded by God to be the prince Gen. 6:27. So Jehu the king (not the mob) broke the Baal of Ahab 2 Kings 10:26 ff. So did Ezechia with the brazen serpent 2 Kings 18:4. Item, Josiah with the altars at Bethel 2 Kings 23:15. It is clear that where God calls the community to do something and calls the people, he does not want it to be done by the mob without authority, but by the authority with the people, so that the dog does not learn to eat the leather on the straps, that is, to get used to the images to rot, even against the authority. One must not paint the devil over the door.

Now that we are among our rulers, lords and emperors, and must live by their laws outwardly instead of Mosiah's law, we shall be silent and humbly ask them to put away such images. Where they will not, we have nevertheless the word of God, that we may cast them out of the heart, until they also be put away outwardly with the fist by those who are due. But when these prophets hear such things, they must be called papist and hypocritical to the princes. But that they awaken the disorderly rabble and make them red, that is not called hypocritical. For it should not be called hypocritical before we teach the rabble to kill princes and lords. But whether I am papist and the princes hypocrites, let the pope and princes themselves be more honest witnesses to me than this lying spirit that speaks, that he knows well that it is known otherwise before all the world.

(38) Let this be said of images according to the strictness of the Law of Moses; not that I mean to defend images, as has been sufficiently said, but that murderous spirits are not to be allowed to commit sin.

and make consciences where there is none, and murder souls without need. For though imagery is an outwardly small thing, yet if by it, as by the law of God, the consciences are burdened with sins, it becomes the very highest. For it corrupts the faith, profanes Christ's blood, condemns the gospel, and nullifies all that Christ has purchased for us. That this abomination of Carlstadt is nothing less to disturb Christ's kingdom and good conscience than the papacy has been with its prohibition of food and marriage, and what else was without sin and free. For eating and drinking is also a small outward thing, but it murders the soul if one entangles the conscience with it.

39 From this now notice which of us teaches the most Christian 1). I want to have the consciences and souls free and clear of sins, which is a right spiritual evangelical preaching ministry; so I want to catch Carlstadt with laws and burden him with sins without any cause. And yet he does the same not with God's law, but with his own conceit and iniquity, that he is not only far from the gospel, but also not yet a Mosaic teacher, and yet always praises God's word, God's word; just as if it were God's word so soon that one can say God's word. As there is generally nothing behind those who make much boasting of God's word, as unfortunately our papal tyrants have also gone along with us so far.

(40) But to speak of the images evangelically, I say and state that no one is guilty of breaking God's images with his fist, but is all free and does not sin, whether he does not break them with his fist. But he is guilty of breaking with the word of God, that is, not with the law of Carlstadt, but with the gospel, so that he instructs and enlightens the consciences how it is idolatry to worship them or to rely on them, because one should rely on Christ alone. Then he let them go outwardly, God granting that they are broken, fall apart or remain standing,

1. Walch and the Erlanger: allerchristlichsten.

146 Eri. 29, it9-i5i. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 202-204. 147

This is of equal importance to him and is none of his business, just as if the poison had been taken from the snake.

41 I say this once again to keep the consciences free from sacrilegious laws and invented sins, and not because I want to defend the 1) images or judge those who break them, especially those who break God's and worshipful images. For the memorial images or witness images, as the crucifixes and images of saints are, is proven above from 2) Moses, that they are to be tolerated, also in the law, and not only to be tolerated, but, because the memory and witness lasts, also praiseworthy and honest, like the painting stone of Joshua, 24, 27, and Samuel, 1 Sam. 7, 12.

42. As if the images to the oak, in the Grimmenthal, to the pear tree, and where such runnings are more to the images (which are then right idolatrous images, and the devil's hostel), were broken, destroyed, is praiseworthy and good. But that those who do not break them should sin, is taught too much and the Christians are driven too far, who do enough with it, that they fight and argue against it with the word of God.

043 And sayest thou, Yea, because they stand still, yet some are offended at them, and run? Answer, what can I do? I, who am a Christian, have no authority on earth. Set up a preacher to turn the people away, or make it be done in an orderly way, not with swarms and storms.

44 Let us go to the right reason and say that these teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets should not make us swear to Moses; we do not want to see or hear Moses. How do you like that, dear red spirits? And say further that all such Mosaic teachers deny the gospel, cast out Christ, and abrogate the whole New Testament. I speak now as a Christian and for the Christians. For Moses was given to the Jewish people alone, and is of no concern to us Gentiles and Christians. We have our Gospel and the New Testament;

1. "the" is missing in the Jena.
2. Walch and the Erlangeners: also from.
3. In the Wittenberg and the Jena: "so far"; in Walch and in the Erlanger: "too far".

If they prove from the 4) that images are to be destroyed, we will gladly follow them. But if they want to make Jews out of us through Moses, we will not suffer it.

How do you think? What do you want to become here? That it may be seen how these fools understand nothing in the Scriptures, neither Moses nor Christ, and neither seek nor find anything in them but their own dreams. And we lay the foundation here from St. Paul, 1 Tim. 1, 9: "To the righteous (as a Christian is) no law is given." And Peter, Apost. 15, 10.: "Why do you tempt God to lay upon the disciples burdens which neither we nor our fathers might bear? But believe me, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, to be saved in like manner as they also." With this saying (like Paul with his) St. Peter lifts the whole of Moses with all its laws from the Christians.

46 Yes, you say, that would be true of the ceremonies and judicial practices, that is, what Moses teaches about outward worship and outward government, but the Decalogue, that is, the Ten Commandments are not abrogated, in which there is nothing about ceremonies and judicial practices. I answer: I know very well that this is a common old distinction, but without understanding, because from the ten commandments flow and hang all the other commandments and the whole of Moses.

47 For this reason, that he would be God alone and have no other gods, 2c. he has instituted many ceremonies or services, and thus interpreted the first commandment by them and taught how to keep it. Item, because he wants parents to be obedient, not to suffer adultery, murder, thievery, false witness, he has given the Judicalia or outward rule, so that such commandments are understood and carried out.

48 Therefore it is not true that there are no ceremonies in the Ten Commandments, or no judicialia; they are and are all in them and belong in them. And in order to indicate this, God Himself has inserted two ceremonies with expressed words, namely,

4. Walch and the Erlangeners: the same.

148 Erl. 29,151-ISS. 5. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 204-207. ,149

the images and the Sabbath, and wants to prove that these two pieces are ceremonies, also in their own way abolished in the New Testament, so that one can see how D. Carlstadt in his book deals with the Sabbath 1) just as wisely as with the images. For St. Paul, Col. 2, 16. 17. speaks freely and brightly: "Let no one make you conscience about food and drink, or about one part of the days, namely the holidays, new moons or Sabbaths, which is the shadow of that which was in the future." Here, St. Paul does indeed cancel the Sabbath by name, and calls it the past shadow, because the body, which is Christ Himself, has come.

49 Gal. 4:10, 11: "Ye keep days, and moons, and feasts, and seasons: I fear yours, lest peradventure I have wrought upon you in vain." Here he calls lost work keeping days and feasts, among which is also the Sabbath. Isaiah also proclaimed this before, Isa. 66:23: "There shall be one Sabbath on another, and a new moon on another," that is, daily Sabbath in the New Testament, no difference of time.

50 And thanks must the pious Paul have with Isaiah, that they have delivered us so long before from the spirits of the wicked, we must otherwise sit on the Sabbath day, and grasp the head in the hand, and wait for the heavenly voice, as they jingle. Yes, if Carlstadt were to continue writing about the Sabbath, Sunday would still have to give way, and the Sabbath, that is, Saturday, would be celebrated; he would truly make us Jews of all things, that we would also have to circumcise ourselves 2c.

(51) For this is true, and no man can gainsay it, that whosoever keepeth or maketh it necessary to keep one law of Moses, must keep them all as necessary, as St. Paul, Gal. 5:3, concludes, saying, "Whosoever is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law." So also, whoever breaks images or celebrates the Sabbath (that is, whoever teaches them to be kept as necessary) must also be circumcised and keep the whole of Moses; which is also true-

1. The title of this book is "Von dem Sabbat und gebotenen Feiertagen," which probably belongs to the beginning of the year 1524, because it was printed for the second time in Strasbourg in May 1524. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 381. 393 ff.

In the course of time, they were urged to do, teach and keep the law, even if there was room for these spirits. But now, by the grace of God, they do just as St. Paul says in Gal. 6:13: "Those who want to circumcise you do not keep the law themselves, but seek only glory in your bodies. So the iconoclasts themselves do not keep the law. For without leaving the others all in line, they also do the storming without spirit, as if hastening work, so that they might lose Christ, the fulfillment of the law, and seek only to gain glory in us, 2) as if they had taught something fine and masterly.

52. But that the imagery in the first commandment is also a temporal ceremony, St. Paul concludes and says under other words 1 Cor. 8, 4: "We know that an idol is nothing in the world. Just as he says of circumcision 1 Cor. 7, 19: "Circumcision is nothing," that is, it is free and does not bind consciences, just as he himself speaks of freedom in the same place. In spite of both St. Paul and all the angels, however, that they call nothing or free what God gives so strictly, as the enthusiasts pretend. For God's commandment is not to be regarded as useless or as nothing, as Moses says in the 5th book, but life is valid.

53 He especially says: "In the world the idol is nothing" 1 Cor. 8, 4, that is, external. For the idols before God are no joke, as there are the idols in the heart, false righteousness, glory of works, unbelief and what more sits in the heart, in Christ and his unbelief 3) instead. As if he should say: the Jews shun the outward idols in the world and are full of idols in the heart before God, as he also says of them Rom. 2, 22: "Thou dost abhor idols, lind take God his glory." With which words he finely interprets the first commandment, which says, "Before me thou shalt have no other gods" Ex. 20:2. As if to say, Idols before thee, or before the world, are nothing; but before me, that is, in the heart, that thou shouldest worship them, or trust in them, that shall not be.

54 Because St. Paul to the Corinthians now speaks all these three pieces freely and for nothing.

2. "to us" is missing in the Jena.
3. Shouldn't it perhaps read "faith"?

150 Erl. 29, ib3-ib5. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 207-209. 151

The fact that I want to have idols, the idolatrous house and idolatrous food, which are all three highly forbidden in the first commandment and which follow from it, is clear and powerful enough proof that imagery in the first commandment is a temporal ceremony, abolished in the New Testament. For if I may eat and drink things sacrificed to idols with a good conscience, and sit and live in the house of idols, as St. Paul teaches, I Cor. 8:7, 8, I may also tolerate the idol and let it be, as it counts for nothing and hinders my conscience and faith.

55 This was not taught by St. Paul alone, but also in the Old Testament the prophet Elisäns, 2 Kings 5, 18. 19., proved this with an excellent example, who also under Moses and against Moses (as our red spirits want to understand Moses) allowed Naaman, the prince of Syria, to worship the right God in the temple of Rimmon, the idol of Syria. If the first commandment of Carlstadt was to be kept strictly, then 1) neither Naaman should have done this, nor the prophet should have allowed it, because it is forbidden to go into an idol's house and to worship before an idol, even if he worships the right God. Since God so severely forbids the Jews, they are not to build an altar, an image or a place for His own service and worship without His command; He forbids much more severely that one serves and worships Him before other idols. From this it can be seen that even in the Old Testament the right idols do not harm, if one worships before them outwardly, if only the right God is worshipped with the heart; and our enthusiasts want to bind and catch us free Christians so hard that we should not tolerate any idol without sin.

56 If the iconoclasts do not want to show us mercy, we pray that they will be merciful to our Lord Jesus Christ and not spit at him and say to him, as they do to us, "Fie on you, you servant of idols. For the three evangelists Matthew, Marcus, and Lucas write that he took the coin from the Pharisees when the image of Caesar was in his hand.

1. "so" is missing in the Jena.
2. Erlanger: for.

and asked what the image was and told to give it to Caesar Matth. 22, 19. 20. 21. Marc. 12, 15. 16. 17. Luc. 20, 22. 23. 24. 25.. If all kinds of images were forbidden, the Jews should not have given him any, nor should they have brought any 3), much less should Christ have attacked it and left it unpunished, especially because it was the image of a Gentile. He must have sinned when he told Peter to take such an interest penny out of the fish's mouth and give it to him for his own use. There he must have created and made the same image himself on the penny and with the penny in the mouth of the fish. I also consider that the gold of the three kings, offered to Christ Matth. 2, 11, was coined with images, according to all the customs of the country. Likewise also the two hundred pennies, Joh. 6, 7. when the disciples wanted to buy bread for themselves, even the money of all fathers and saints when they traded with it.

Now we do not desire anything more than to have a crucifix or an image of a saint to look at, to bear witness to, to remember, to sign, as the image of the same emperor was; should it not be as much without sin for us to have a crucifix or an image of Mary as it was for the Jews and Christ Himself to have the image of the pagan and dead emperor, the devil's member. Devil's member, image to have? Yes, the emperor had his image painted in his honor. But we seek neither to have nor to do honor in it, and yet we shall be so highly damned, since Christ remains undamned above such an abomination and shameful image.

(58) Do you want to speak here: You will not say that the first commandment is abolished, one must have a God? Item, one must not commit adultery, murder, steal? 2c. Answer: I have spoken of Mosiah's law as Mosiah's laws. For having a God is not Mosaic law alone, but also a natural law, as St. Paul says in Romans 1:20: that the Gentiles know of the Godhead that there is one God. This is also proven by the fact that they have raised up gods, and have

3. So the old editions. Erlanger: "gebraucht"^ which is perhaps the right reading.

152 Erl. ss, iss-158. 5. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. xx, 20S-212. 153

This would have been impossible if they had not known or remembered anything about God, but God revealed it to them through works, Romans 1:19. Now that the Gentiles lacked the right God and worshipped idols in God's place, what wonder is there? The Jews also lacked and worshipped idols in the place of God, even though they had the Law of Moses; and still lack the Lord Christ, who have the Gospel of Christ.

59 Therefore this is not only the law of Moses: Thou shalt not murder, commit adultery, steal 2c., but also the natural law written in everyone's heart, as St. Paul teaches Rom. 2, 1. Also Christ Matth. 7, 12. himself includes all prophets and laws in this natural law: "What you want people to do to you, you also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets." So does St. Paul Rom. 13:9, when he includes all the commandments of Moses in love, which also naturally teaches the natural law: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Otherwise, if it were not naturally written in the heart, one would have to teach and preach the law for a long time before the conscience would accept it; it must also find and feel it in itself, otherwise no one would make a conscience. Although the devil so blinds and possesses the hearts that they do not always feel such laws. Therefore, they must be written and preached, until God cooperates and enlightens them, so that they feel it in their hearts, as it is written in the Word.

(60) Now where the law of Moses and the natural law are one thing, the law remains and is not abolished externally, but spiritually through faith, which is nothing else than fulfilling the law, Rom. 3:28, which is not to be spoken of now, and has been spoken of enough elsewhere. Therefore, imagery and the Sabbath, and everything that Moses set above and beyond the natural law, because it does not have natural law, are free, separate and apart, and are given to the Jewish people alone. It is no different than when an emperor or king makes special laws and ordinances in his country.

1. Thus the Erlanger. Wittenberger,: services to the gods; Jenaer: services to idols.

The Jews have made a law, like the Saxon mirror in Saxony, and yet the common natural laws go through all countries and remain, such as honor parents, do not murder, do not commit adultery, serve God 2c. Therefore, let Moses be the Saxon seal of the Jews, and let us Gentiles not swear by it. Just as France does not respect the Sachsenspiegel, and yet in the natural law agrees well with him 2c.

(61) Why then is the Ten Commandments taught and kept? Answer: Because the natural laws are nowhere so finely and properly written as in Moses. 2) And I would that some more in worldly matters were taken from Moses, as the law of divorcement, of the year of jubilee, and of the year of manumission, of tithes, and the like, by which laws the world would be governed much better than now with the interest of selling and freeing. 3) As when one country takes examples from another country's laws, as the Romans took the twelve tables from the Greeks.

It is not necessary to celebrate the Sabbath or Sunday, nor is it necessary for the sake of Moses' commandment, but that nature also gives and teaches that it is sometimes necessary to rest for a day, so that man and cattle may rest; which natural cause Moses also sets in his Sabbath, so that he sets the Sabbath among men, as also Christ does Matth. 12, 1. ff. and Marc. 3:2 ff. among men. For if it is to be kept for the sake of rest alone, it is clear that whoever does not need rest may break the Sabbath and rest on another day for it, as nature allows; it is also to be kept for the sake of preaching and hearing God's word.

In addition to this, there are many better things in Moses, namely the prophecies and promises of Christ's future, as St. Paul says in Romans 3:21. There are also the creation of the world, where marriage came from, and many great examples of faith, love and all virtue. Again, examples

2. This sentence is missing in the Jenaer.
3. We have taken away the comma, which in the old editions is after "interest", because we are of the opinion that Luther is speaking here of the purchase of interest and of the freedom (of spiritual goods) from interest. "Free" in the meaning of "to make free" also occurs elsewhere in Luther.

154 Erl. 2S, I5S-1K0. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 212-214. 155.

of unbelief and iniquity, from which one learns to know God's grace and wrath; all of which are written, not for the sake of the Jews alone, but for the sake of all Gentiles. For there are also many things written about unbelievers and Gentiles, so that all these things serve as an example and a lesson for all the world. But the law of Moses concerns only the Jews, without whom the Gentiles have willingly given themselves up and accepted, who are called fellow Jews. St. Paul says in Romans 9:4 that the law is given to the Jews, the testament, the promise; and Psalm 147:19 ff: "He declares his judgments to Jacob and his laws to Israel. He does not do this to any nation, nor does he declare his judgments to them" 2c.

I have also seen and heard the iconoclasts read from my Germanized Bible. So I also know that they have the same, read from it, as one can well sense from the words that they lead. Now there are many pictures in the same books, both of God, angels, men and animals, especially in the Revelation of John and in Moses and Joshua. So we kindly ask them to allow us to do what they themselves do, that we may also paint such pictures on the walls for the sake of memory and better understanding. Since they do as little harm on the walls as in the books. It is better to paint on the wall how God created the world, how Noah built the ark, and what more good histories are, than to paint any other worldly impudent thing: yes, if God would, I could persuade the lords and the rich to have the whole Bible painted inside and out on the houses before everyone's eyes, that would be a Christian work.

I know for certain that God wants us to hear and read His works, especially the passion of Christ. But if I should hear or remember it, it is impossible for me not to make images of it in my heart. For I will or will not, when I hear Christ, an image of a man hanging on the cross is formed in my heart, just as my face is naturally formed in the water when I look into it. Now it is not sin but good that I have Christ's image in my heart; why should it be sin to have Christ's image in my heart?

when I have it in my eyes? Since the heart is more 1) valid than the eyes, and should be less stained with sins than the eyes, as this is the right seat and dwelling place of God.

But I must stop, I should otherwise give cause to the iconoclasts, that they never read the Bible or burn it, and then also tear their own hearts out of their bodies, because they are so hostile to the images. I have only indicated this so that one can see what reason does when it wants to be wise and become a master in God's words and 2) works, and what the fame has behind it that D. Carlstadt boasts so highly that he has God's word, and for the sake of God's word he must suffer much. Yes, the devil must also suffer much for the sake of God's word: not that he keeps it right, but that he perverts it and strengthens his wickedness and lies with it, as D. 3) Carlstadt also does out of the same challenge.

And if I had time, I would atone for my lust for Satan and, before all the world, thrust the sayings that he takes from the Scriptures into Carlstadt's booklet and uses to help himself, back down his throat, so that he would be ashamed. For I have seized him finely, that I see God's miracle, how he can lead the devil in the fool's rope. But I have other things to do, and whoever does not want to be instructed by this reason, let him go and storm for the rest of his life; I am excused.

In the end, I must give an example of this matter, whether D. Carlstadt wanted to recognize himself a little and be ashamed that he teaches his disciples so finely. Since I was at Orlamünde and dealt with the images with the good people, and I all the sayings from Moses, so were brought forward, showed from the text that he

1. Thus the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen. Wittenberg and Jena: not" instead of "more".
2. Thus the old edition of Walch and the Erlanger. In the Wittenberg and Jena editions, "words and" is missing.
3. Here we have a proof (we have already expressed this as a conjecture several times) that the old edition of Walch also had an influence on the text design of the Erlangen edition. In the old editions, "D." is used throughout for "Doctor". Walch has sometimes "D.", sometimes "Dort.", sometimes (as here) "Doctor". The Erlangen edition has reprinted this exactly each time.

156 Erl. LS, 160 f. 5. Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 214-216. 157

When I was talking about idols that are worshipped, one came forward who wanted to be the smartest in front of everyone and said to me: "Do you hear? I may call you You, if you are a Christian. I said, "Call me whatever you want; he would have preferred to beat me, too; he was so full of Carlstadt's spirit that the others could not keep him quiet. And he went on, and said, If then thou wilt not follow Moses, yet thou must suffer the gospel; thou hast thrust the gospel under the bench; no, no, it must come forth, not remain under the bench.

69 I said, "What does the gospel say? He said: Jesus since the Gospel, who 1) does not know where it is written, my brothers know it well, that the brood must nakedly remove the skin, it must be closed by the brood. So the images must all be broken off, so that we can be rid of the creatures and become pure. Haec ille.

What should I do? I had come among Carlstadt's disciples; I learned then that breaking pictures meant taking off the bride's shirt naked, and should stand in the gospel. Such words, and of the Gospel under the bench, he had heard from his master, that perhaps Carlstadt blamed me, I put the Gospel under the bench, and he was the man who pulled it out. Such vain honor brings the man into all misfortune, and has pushed him out of the light into such darkness that he lays such ground for storming images that the bride takes off her shirt; just as if they were thus rid of the creatures in the heart, that they break the images with raving. But how would it be if the bride and groom were so modest and kept their shirts and skirts on? Of course, it should not almost hinder them, if they would otherwise have pleasure together.

But that's how it goes when you bring the disorderly rabble into the game, so that they forget civic discipline and manners before the great abundance of the spirit, and no longer fear or honor anyone but themselves alone; D. Carlstadt is in the mood for that. These are all fine precursors to mobs and rebellion, that one fears neither violence nor authority. That is enough said about the pictures, and I mean,

1. d. i. white.

It is proven strongly enough how D. Carlstadt does not understand Moses at all and sells his dreams under God's word, and respects orderly authorities less than the disorderly rabble. Whether this is conducive to obedience or rebellion, I will let everyone see for himself.

On the complaint of D. Carlstadt that he has been expelled from the land of Saxony. 2)

So far we have seen what D. Carlstadt has for a word of God, for which he exalts himself and makes himself a holy martyr. Now let us see the work of God for which he suffers and praises such great persecution. Although I would rather he had kept silent and not imposed such distress on me to stir his unwillingness. But because he attacks the princes of Saxony in such a way that he cannot leave even the rhyme they wear on their sleeves with all honors unsmirched, so precisely does the bitter resentment in his heart seek cause to disgrace people, I must, as much as I know of it, answer for M. G. Herren's honor. G. Herren's honor. For the princes of Saxony certainly deserve better for D. Carlstadt than that he should leave such thanks behind, as he well knows. Well then, let's go, it will be found.

First of all, I may well say that I have done nothing of Carlstadt with the Elector of Saxony, indeed, I have never spoken a word with the same prince all my life, nor have I ever heard him speak, nor have I ever seen his face, except once at Worms before the Emperor, when I was interrogated for the second time. It is true that I have often written through M. Spalatinum and urged, especially that the Alstavian spirit should be resisted. But I did nothing, so that I was also highly annoyed with the Elector, until the same spirit fled from him, undispelled. For this reason, Carlstadt should have been

2. In the two farewell letters, which Carlstadt addressed to the men and to the women at his departure from Orlamünde, he signed himself: "Andreas Bodenstein, Unverhört und unüberwunden, vertrieben durch Martinum Lutherum. (Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 447.) These letters are probably meant by the "Schmachbüchlein" in the following § 73; in § 86 it is spoken of as a "Schmachbrief".

158 Erl. 29, 161-183. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 216-219. 159

1. Prince, and to know the matter very well before he thus shouted him out into the world with a book of shame. Nor is it right, much less Christian, if it were true that he was chased out by the C.F. 2), to take revenge in such a way with blasphemy writing. One should first have humbly asked the cause and presented the right, and then kept silent and suffered. It would be too much for me, who should be and unfortunately am vain flesh. But the high spirit of Carlstadt cannot do wrong nor err, he is the right itself.

I have talked about it with my gracious young lord Duke Johann Friedrich (I confess that) and denounced Carlstadt's sacrilege and thurst. But because the spirit burns so bright and white, I will tell here the reasons, which even some of today's princes of Saxony do not realize, why it is dear to me that D. Carlstadt is out of the country, and as much as I am able to ask, he should not come back in, nor should he have to come out, where he would be in (he would then become another, God helping him). I will, if God wills, not hypocritical to any prince, but I will suffer much less that mobs and disobedience, to the contempt of worldly authorities, should be brought to justice.

75 And this is first my humble admonition and request to all princes, lords and authorities, as I have also written before against the Alstavian spirit, that they seriously threaten to forbid the country to preachers who do not teach in silence, but draw the mob to themselves, and behind the back of the authorities with their own fists and iniquities storm images or break churches, or to deal with them in such a way that they have to leave it. I do not want to have resisted the word of God with this, but rather to set a measure and goal for the sacrilegious zealots and Gothic spirits of their will to courage, which the secular authorities are entitled to do. Most of all, however, D. Carlstadt with his gang, as the obdurate one, does not want to

1. Thus the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen. Wittenberg and Jena: solchem.
2. The bracketed words are missing in the Wittenberg and Jena editions, but are found in Walch's old edition and in the Erlanger. Did they come from the original print or from Walch into the Erlanger?

and still justifies and defends his redness in addition.

76. And the 3) is my reason and cause: We have heard above how D. Carlstadt and similar iconoclasts do not interpret Mosiah's commandment to the proper authorities, as it is due, but to the disorderly rabble. That is certainly not a right good spirit. For, as I have said, where the mob is to have power and right to execute a commandment of God in this way, they must be given room for it and allowed to execute all the commandments; so they must then kill murderers, punish adulterers, thieves, husks, each one who comes to it first, so that court, judgment, power and all authority may go down with it. And if, as they say, you leave a hand's breadth to a rogue, he will take a cubit's length. For why do the overlords sit there? why do they carry the sword, if the mob is to plump up and execute itself?

After this it shall be broken down, and they shall slay all the wicked. For so Moses commanded in Deut. 7, when he commanded the images to be broken, that they also should slay the people without all mercy, which had such images in the land of Canaan. For this killing is commanded as hard as the breaking of images, which commandment these evil spirits are so stubborn as to insist upon. But Moses commanded this to the people, who had Joshua as their ruler and much authority, and were an orderly people; not over all the wicked, but only over the heathen of Canaan, who had been handed over to death by God's judgment for the wicked, as the text clearly shows. For he took out the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, who were also ungodly. So this work of God was done by a proper authority of the people, and over those whom not men but God Himself publicly condemned and commanded to be put to death. 4)

78. But our murderous spirits, because they apply Mosiah's commandment to the mob, do not have God's judgment on the ungodly, but judge for themselves that the ungodly are ungodly, and
79. Walch and the Erlanger: this is.
80. Erlanger: had.
81. In the Wittenberg and Jena editions: "die". In the old edition of Walch and the Erlanger: "they". Did this come from the original print or from Walch into the Erlanger?

160 Erl. so, 163-165. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. xx, 219-221. 161

worthy of death, so images have, they are urged by such commandments to riot, to murder and kill, as to the work, which God has commanded them. Take an example of the Alstavian spirit, which had already gotten to the people from the images, and publicly pretended sedition and murder against all authority. How could he do otherwise? He had to teach. For since he had asked the devil so far to be his godfather that the mob should storm the images without proper force, as commanded by God, he had to go on and do the secondary commandment that was attached to it, too, and murder the people by name. And if I were in the mind to storm images like them, I would also have to go and murder the people, because the commandment is there and it pushes. Dear sirs, the devil does not mean iconoclasm; he only wants to break a hole by causing bloodshed and murder in the world.

Yes, you say, D. Carlstadt does not want to murder, that is evident from 1) your letter, which the Orlamündians wrote to the Alstätians. Answer: I believed it too! the belief is over. I no longer ask what Carlstadt says or does; he is not missing the truth for the first time. I say of the spirit that they have, that drives them, that it is not good and has murder and rebellion in its spirit, even though it stoops 2) and bends down, because it sees that it has no room, as I will prove hereafter. For (since God is for), if D. Carlstadt would gain a large mob, as he intended to arm himself at the Saale, and now the Biblia is read almost in German 3), and Mr. Omnes would begin 4) to hold this commandment (to murder the wicked) in front of his nose, where would he go? How was he going to resist? Even if he had never been willing to do so, he would have to leave; they would revolt and cry out so harshly: God's word, God's word, God's word stands there, we must take it, so hard he now cries out against the images: God's word, God's word. Dear, it is not to joke with Mr. Omnes:

1. Walch and the Erlangeners: from.
2. deceives - ducks.
3. Erlanger: German almost.
4. In the old editions: "he Omnes begonte."

That is why God wanted to have authority, so that things would be 5) orderly in the world.

80 If it were true and I had to believe that D. Carlstadt did not have murder or rebellion in mind, I would have to say that he has a rebellious and murderous spirit like the one in Alstät. Carlstadt does not have murder or sedition in mind, I must say that he has a seditious and murderous spirit, like the one at Alstät, as long as he remains on the sacrilegious iconostasis 6) and draws the disorderly mob to himself. I can see that he neither cuts nor stabs, but because he carries the murder knife and does not take it off, I do not trust him, he would lurk in time and place, and then do what I fear. But I mean the murder-knife, the false sense and understanding of the law of Moses, which comes from the devil, by which the mob is aroused, becomes insolent and proud.

81 But sayest thou, He will not be so stiffnecked; he will tell him, and cease from such doings? Who? D. Carlstadt? Yes, he can say the words finely, and blow them out with writings, he will let himself be instructed, and will obey a better. If he is serious, then I am golden. When has he ever yielded or obeyed anyone? How often did Dominus Philipps 7) admonish him at Wittenberg that he should not rave so with Moses, with the images, with the mass and confession! And when I came again and preached against his iconoclasm and mass, why did he not desist and obey? Item, since D. Justus Jonas and Mr. 8) Ditterich of Bila were acting between us, how finely did he back away and let him be told? That he also invited me to the last judgment over the raving mass, which he had caused at that time (help God!) as if with a great Holy Spirit, which he himself now condemns and changes.

82. Item, at Jena in the inn, when we were talking about the matter, and he promised to defend his case in the strongest possible way, 9)
83. "it" is missing in the Erlanger.
84. In the old editions: "frevel Bildstürmen". In Walch and in the Erlanger: ,,Frevel Bildstürmen."
85. In the Wittenberg edition: "D. Philippus Melanchthons."
86. In the old editions: He.
87. In the old editions: wand. We are of the opinion that here it is said of Carlstadt's unsteady speech: "he wandt das Maul," but not of the throwing up or pulling of the mouth, which is expressed in the next paragraph: "he rüsselte das Maul." Therefore, "wand" is to be derived from "to turn," not from "to wriggle."

162Eri . ss, iss-1"8. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 221-224^163

He opened his mouth and smote me with a clipphine, saying, "I care nothing for you. If he respects me not, whom will he respect among us? Or what shall I then much reprove? I think he considers me to be one of the most learned men in Wittenberg, and yet he himself says under my nose, "There is nothing the matter with me," and pretends to want to be instructed.

Item, he writes freely in the countries now and then, and judges poor Wittenberg as nothing against him. And now, once again, we must be called papists and cousins of the end Christ. Item at Orlamünde, when Magister Wolfgangus Stein, princely preacher, asked D. Carlstadt in the most gentle and cleanest way that he should leave, he shut his mouth and gave him such an answer as if he were a prince in the country, and Magister Wolfgang was there as a princely envoy, whom he should have obeyed if he had commanded at once. But this is how one should honor the authorities; yes, if it were the rabble. There are many more of the pieces of his articulated mind.

I am telling you this 1) so that I can prove how vain false words are, that D. Carlstadt has taken it upon himself to learn, so that he only makes glimpses and good appearances to his obdurate mind, and disgraces both princes and me. Nor is it fine to preach and teach in divine matters and then first want to ask whether it is right. Either the teaching is wrong or the questioning is hypocrisy. But let him be in earnest, and let him desist from his raving. I have ever so cut out the imagery above that he may take hold of it as he pleases; let him still say, and let the heavenly prophets do it, that everything should be bad and forgotten, and I will do and leave with him everything I can; I want to have him as a friend, he wants; if he does not want it, then I must let God rule.

It is also of this nature that he offered to speak and they did not want to admit him. Dear God, how can a man speak so publicly against his conscience? If he should be denied disputes by me or by someone else, then both princes and

1. Thus the Jena. Wittenberg and Erlangen: these.

University have not been able to do so much with so much writing and demanding that he would come to Wittenberg and wait for his sermon, lection and disputation, as he was obliged and obligated to do? And add to this: where he would certainly be escorted. Just as if he were uncertain at Wittenberg, since his status and nature were such, and since they liked to have him; who would want to do something to him? It is all vain words to adorn oneself; unless his conscience had feared, as the wicked are wont to fear, since there is no fear that he had fallen for and encroached upon the sovereign's property and right at Orlamünde; although that would also have had no need.

If I were a prince, and a doctor? If I were a prince and a doctor were obliged to read and preach for my pay in my city or country, and he turned elsewhere without my knowledge and will, and encroached on my right and property with sacrilege, but I demanded that he do his duty through me and my university, but he would do what he pleased on my pay and property, But he would do what he pleased on my pay and on my property, and then write a letter to me and ask to be escorted to my city to dispute, since I had demanded it beforehand, and he was guilty, what should I answer, because he thought I was a fool? And if I did not answer, and he then sent out a letter of disgrace against me, as if I had not wanted to let him speak or interrogate him, what would I think? I would secretly think: There is a knave in the skin. Not that I am scolding D. Carlstadt as a knave, but that I am indicating what might occur to a sovereign in such a case as a human being.

But the man lacked nothing 2) except that he had princes who were too soft; princes should have been found, if he would have brought such pieces into their country with such sacrilege and thurst, which would have made his head jump over a cold blade together with his pack, and would perhaps hardly be right. That is why I wanted to advise D. Carlstadten to leave the princes unscathed and thank them that they have so graciously let him come from them, so that they will not finally be punished.

2. So the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen. Wittenberg and Jena: "hats nothing."

164 Erl. Ls, 168-170. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. xx, 224-226. 165

would be forced to act more sharply with him, according to his merit.

This is also the reason, not a small one, that he drags himself along with the heavenly prophets, to whom the Alstavian spirit has come, 1) as is known; from them he learns, to them he adheres, who creep secretly in the country and crawl together at the river, where they thought to nest. The impotent devil wants to go nowhere but to our places, where we have previously made room and safety through the gospel, and only wants to defile and spoil our nest, like the cuckoo, playing with the warbler. The same prophets pretend that they talk with God, and God with them, and that they are called to preach, and yet none of them is allowed to stand out and appear, but rather throw around secretly, and pour their poison in D. Carlstadt; he then did it with tongue and pen; but since he could not do it in Wittenberg, he went to the Saale. 2)

(89) These prophets teach and hold that they should reform Christendom and establish a new one in this way: They must slay all princes and ungodly men, that they may become lords on earth, and live among the holy ones on earth. I myself and many others have heard this from them. This knows D. Carlstadt also knows that they are swarmers and murderous spirits, and that such misfortune has been unleashed by them. Which should be warning enough for him, and yet he does not avoid them, and I am to believe that he does not want to cause sedition or murder? Also, when I confessed it to him in Jena and defended it, I said: Why should he not keep it with them, as they said right? Why does he not also stand with us or with the papists, in which we are right? Or is there nothing right with us or with the papists? No, against these prophets he cannot preach nor write; against us he must preach, write and rave.

90 If D. Carlstadt had such a spirit, yes, he would be an honest man.

1. Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1822, No. 125: "After these [Marcus von Zwickau and Nicolaus Storchs came the pupil of both, Münzer."
2. Orlamünde is located not far from where the Orla flows into the Saale.

If a prince were to go out into the world and find such people in his country, he should be the first to shun them and put them to death, and he should sternly forbid them to desist from such prophecies, or he would have to write against them, as I have done against the Alstavian spirit. For since they are prepared and directed to strangle and murder, they can come from nowhere else but from the devil himself, even if they knew all art and writing. For the devil knows the Bible and the Scriptures as well as other arts.

(91) Is it not a plague that now and then the rabble has become so proud and restless through such spirits, before the princes have become aware of it, that as soon as they hear a preacher who teaches them to be quiet and obedient to the authorities, they call him a fox-tailer and a hypocrite and point fingers at him. But those who say, "Beat to death, give nothing to no one, and be free Christians, you are the right people," are called the right evangelical preachers, who take off the shirt of the bride in Orlamünde and the pants of the bridegroom in Naschhusen, who do not put the gospel under the bench, and 3) for the time being never learn what Christ is, or what they should know of him.

Because a prince would find D. Carlstadt in such a way that he would stick to the mobs and murderous spirits, thereby making his subjects proud and restless, and he would also want to justify and defend himself, should it not be time that he would say to him: If you are the Hare, 4) then roll yourself out of my country, before I have to speak to you differently? For what good can be hoped, if such prophets stay in the country, if the seed already proves to be so powerful? He must not claim here that he was not warned before, that he did not know, that love was spared him. Who should be able to warn him, since they acted so secretly until they spread the poison that no one could know what they were doing? But are they not sufficiently and publicly admonished by

3. Thus Walch and the Erlangeners. Wittenberg and Jena: "leren".
4. i.e., you are like this: a figure of speech that is found more frequently in Luther.

166 Erl. ss, i7o-i7s. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 226-228. 167

did Scripture 1) stand against the Alstäter spirit? How finely did they allow themselves to be led astray? Item, have they not known that I have judged these prophets with their spirit as the 2) devil's spirit? What good has it done, if they are only more hardened, and with cunning secretly set themselves against me?

Yes, why have they themselves spared love and acted so diligently against us in their hole behind our backs, written against us in several countries, and in the pulpit have no one but the Wittenbergs beaten to the meat rack, and have never yet shown us our error? The Wittenberg has done it, the spirit wants to eat it, otherwise all things in the world are bad. And we do this under our prince's protection, yes, under our name and space. But watch out, you evil and angry spirits, it is written that Wittenberg has grown too big for you, and God may send you to swallow it and strangle you. We know Satan, and even if we overslept something as men, you will not lead it out; for he who neither sleeps nor slumbers, who guards and watches over us Ps. 121, 4, we rely on.

94 Carlstadt has brought this trouble and misfortune, I think, because he did his thing without being called, and deliberately let his calling 3) go. For he entered Orlamünde as a wolf, therefore it was not possible that he should start something good. He was, by princely endowment and pension, appointed an archidiacon at Wittenberg, who was to preach God's word, read and debate, so God called him there, and he also committed himself; as he did for a time with benefit and honor, and was held dear and worthy, he cannot say otherwise, and had more support from the Elector than many others, until the prophets of murder came and made the man wild and restless, so that he had to find something better.

1. This probably refers to the "Letter to the Princes of Saxony on the Rebellious Spirit" (Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 8), which was written at the end of July 1524 (not on August 21).
2. So the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen, Wittenberg and Jena: "den".
3. d. i. "his profession," which both the Jena and Wittenberg editions offer in the marginal gloss.

and special wanted to teach, because in the Bible God teaches.

95 Then he set out of his own wrongdoing and went to Orlamünde behind the knowledge and will of both the prince and the university, and drove out the priest there, who had been placed there by princely order and the university's right, and took the parish by his own power. How do you feel about this little piece? Does it serve for quiet obedience to the authorities, or for insolent sedition among the mob? The spirit is kicking out as I speak of, for the very same spirit that swallows such a little strap might well eat a whole leather, if it gained room. Whoever dares to let a sovereign look on, and to encroach upon his property, law and order in a thuggish and unlawful manner, what should he do behind a sovereign, where he would find room? That is to say, the authorities are feared and honored; so the mob should also be taught both by word and deed that the priest is like the people, as Isaiah says Cap. 24:2.

If the devil bursts, he will not deny that the princes of Saxony sit in secular authority decreed by God; land and people are subject to them. What kind of spirit is this, then, that despises such divine order, proceeds with sacrilege and violence, does it with the prince's property and right as if it were his own, and does not even look at the prince for it, or greet him for it, as if he were a block, and he himself were prince in the land? Shouldn't a good spirit fear God's order a little bit more, and because the estate, the parish and the land of the prince is, first humbly take a leave of absence, recite the duty and ask for favor to sit there?

Now, however, D. Carlstadt leaves his duty at Wittenberg behind the prince's back, deprives the university of the sermon and lecture, and what he owes to do from the princely endowment, and nevertheless keeps the pay or pension for himself, and appoints no one else in his place, and there at Orlamünde also takes the university's parish, expels those whom he had not appointed, nor had the right to appoint, much less dismiss. Dear, why that? That is why some think that he is all the more

168 Erl. 2s, 172-174. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. xx, 228-231. 169

and relied on the fact that the Elector is too soft and does not punish easily. But I think, besides the cause is also this, that the prophets sought space and hole all there at the Saale to spread their spirit and poison, so that they could not creep the length so in Wittenberg and mousing in the darkness.

He cannot claim here that he could not have kept his heresy in Wittenberg, because, praise God, the gospel there is pure and fine. And if it were not so, he would not be forced to be godless. If we have to be under the devil in the world and among his members, we must not become devils nor devil's members. So Carlstadt was especially free from all things, that he should only act the word of God, and let the other priests do what they wanted. And even if there were vain devils in Wittenberg, he should still not leave behind the prince without leave and favor, and nevertheless keep his pension, and in another place brazenly take hold of his property.

He may also not say that he went to Orlamünde out of mercy to teach the misguided sheep. For the same parish was provided with a Christian pastor, namely M. Conradus, 2) through the university, who knew and taught the gospel well. And even if it had been so, he should still have asked the authorities for it. For one should do no wrong for the sake of God, Rom. 3, 8. It was only to be done so that the evil spirit would find room and place to let out its poison, as I said, so that we would become special masters and no one would be equal to us.

If he did not seek money or poison, but only God's glory, why did he not seek other cities, 3) since he would not have found such a pension, and since it would have been more necessary to preach God's word, and would have been closer? Yes, but it was not convenient for the spirit and the belly. But if such an outrage happened because of God's inner call, then it is

1. Wittenberg and Erlanger: or.
2. Magister Conrad Glück. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 349.
3. d. i. selected.

No need that he proves it with miraculous signs, because God does not break his old order with a new one, he does great signs. Therefore, no one can be believed who appeals to his spirit and inner feelings, and rages against God's usual order by heart, because he performs miraculous signs, as Deut. 18:22 Moses indicates.

101 But since he pretends, together with the Orlamündians, that he was chosen by them to be a pastor, and thus outwardly called, I answer: I do not care that they will have chosen him afterwards 4). I am talking about the created entrance. He had letters that those at Orlamünde had demanded him from Wittenberg, and had not run there himself. Rather, if that meant that I ran out of my duty and obedience into a city, and then stood so finely and persuaded the people that they chose me and expelled others, then I say that no principality is so great that I wanted to become prince in it and drive the present ones out. How easily has a people been called? That does not mean to call; it means to drive out mobs and sedition and to despise authority.

Nor did the people of Orlando have the right to choose a priest on someone else's salary, because it was the prince's duty and his order. Thus, the prince is not unchristian, as well as the university, who overlords them with ungodly priests. And because he would have ordered an ungodly person there, when he has not done so, they should nevertheless not encroach on their sovereign's right, property and authority, and choose pastors behind his back, and give away pensions (which are not theirs) to whom they wanted; much more should he accept it, and leave the prince unsought, but, as is due to subjects, have humbly complained and petitioned the prince and university and asked for a Christian pastor. If he had not wanted to, they would have done their best 5).

But now they gather behind the prince, elect priests, and let themselves be made priests, as they themselves desire, and stand as if they gave a damn.

4. "werden" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.
5. Erlanger: dacht.

170 Erl. ss, 174-i7s. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx. 231-233. 171

their natural hereditary lord and sovereign, whose property and right they freely seize and take for themselves, that both Carlstadt and Orlamünde deserved a good strong distemper, 1) as an example to the other troops, that they knew how they had lords and were not themselves lords in the country. But I will have forbidden and excused the good people of Orlamünde, as they were too weak for the mad spirit of D. Carlstadt, and overpolled with his humble gestures and big words (as he is wont to do), so that they might not have seen how they were doing against their own lord. But D. Carlstadt, as he is possessed with the spirit of the mob, I will have answered with this, as it is well to be felt from this little piece that he does not rest, because he clings to the poor rabble and destroys worldly authority.

104 Above that, all this would have been given to him in honor of the Gospel, if only he had not stubbornly refused to defend it. For when the university wrote out of princely order and demanded that he go to Wittenberg for his duty and office: "Yes, my Carlstadt should come! Then he incited the poor people to write so proudly and impudently against the university that it was too much. The university had to be called papist, and I don't know how, and nothing was evangelical, without what D. Carlstadt talked and did with the Orlamunders. Now tell me a pious reader: Have the princes of Saxony not borne patience enough with the great mischievous spirit? Yes, unfortunately too much. If they had been more diligent in practicing their sword, the rabble on the Saale would probably be quieter and more restrained today, and the spirit would not have taken root.

Since there was still no end to the game, but only with the head purde purde through, both princes and university considered nothing, I came to the Saale by princely order, and preached against such enthusiasm as best I could. There the devil received me, as I had long since deserved. 2) How

1. Erlanger: Stauche.
2. So the Jena. Wittenberg and Erlangen: have.

He snorted, hurried and wriggled there, as if Christ were there who wanted to cast him out, so that D. Carlstadt also took me by surprise over the table with such a gentle heart and clean words that I immediately felt the spirit speaking out of him, until I finally indicated to my gracious young lord, Duke John Frederick, that such a thing was not to be suffered at his mercy; for the work was there, one wanted to leave nothing to the mobs and the authorities. So far I am aware of this matter and no further.

And what shall I say? What the spirit does is neither serious nor true, and they themselves do not believe what they say, nor do they keep what they say; only that the devil seeks only to cause misfortune in the world. For D. Carlstadt, when he was last in Wittenberg, he willingly agreed to resign from the parish, because he saw that it could not be otherwise, and vowed there that he wanted to be employed in Wittenberg. If he had been sure that he was called to be a pastor, he should not have handed it over and let it go before he died, as he had fought and resisted until then. For one should not let go of a divine calling, as they boast here that they have the same fellowship as God.

107. But that was the opinion: he let himself think that his poison was now spread enough, and the misery was now deeply and strongly enough rooted, and the rabble was now attached to him, as it is unfortunately all too true; so he probably thought to remain pastor, even if princes and university were sorry; and such a seeming surrender of the parish should not hurt, because the rabble was so spoiled that no one should have it good who would come after him, and finally the princes would be able to leave him there, as one has also let oneself be heard publicly. The spirit does not think that God could see or defend against such cruel and clever plots, and thus wants to have made his redoubt before one should realize it. Now we men easily provide the redoubt; but the spirit has truly provided it also, and God is invented wiser than he is.

I had to do this expansive speech, although reluctantly, because the ugly spirit wanted so much to make itself beautiful with

172 Erl. ss, 178-178. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. xx, 233-23." 173

of the princes of Saxony, from whom he has honor and property. I also think that if he had not fled so despondently and hurriedly, 1) but had had a good conscience to demand the things from the princes at that time, these and others, which I perhaps do not know, would have been reported to him. Above all, I think that the land is the property of the princes of Saxony, and not of Carlstadt, in which he is a guest and has nothing. If they now take from no one what is his, and yet do not want to know one in their country for a secret reason, I think they would not be obligated to tell anyone what moves them, nor to come to terms with him. For princes must conceal many things and keep them secret. If a householder does not have the right and the power to undress a guest or a servant, he would have to tell causes beforehand and to stand the law with him, then he would be a poor captive householder in his own estate, and the guest would be a householder himself.

This spirit does not consider this, and goes on, and attacks the princes with public disgrace, as if he 2) were sitting with them in joint fiefdoms, and would also be lord in the land of Saxony, and defies them with the right in their own property. What else could one answer such an impudent and thirsty head, but, as the father of the house says in the Gospel: "Friend, I do you no wrong; take what is yours and lift yourself up. Shall I not do in my goods what I would?" Matth. 20, 13-15. This mischievous rogue also wanted to know the cause and the right why the master of the house did with his goods according to his will. O fine spirit, how can you not know what you have in mind? You want to be master, and what you pretend and do should be called right. That is the sum of it.

What do you think now? Isn't it a fine new spiritual humility? Wear a gray skirt and felt hat, don't want to be called doctor, but rather brother Andres and dear neighbor, like another peasant, be subject to the judge at Orlamünde and obey like a bad citizen, and thus, with your own hea-

1. Thus the Wittenberg and the Jena. Erlanger: "flown"; from the original print or Walch's old edition?
2. Erlanger: sitting. - assembled - gesammt.

Do the special Christians want to be seen and praised for their chosen humility and submission, which God does not command, as if a Christian being were standing in such an outward jiggery-pokery, and yet striving and driving against the duty, honor, obedience, power and right of the sovereigns and secular authorities, which God has commanded? This is the high new art of God from the heavenly voice, which we in Wittenberg, who teach faith and love, cannot understand and know. This is the beautiful disenchantment, study, wonderment, boredom, and the same devil's alfenzerei.

From the fair.

With this, D. Carlstadt's books are responsible for one or three. Now let us take this from the mass before us, so that we come properly to the sacrament. For I do not know what he means by making so many books, even of the same thing, and might well bring them to one sheet, since he spoils ten; perhaps he likes to hear himself speak as much as the stork hears his rattle. For otherwise there is neither light nor form in his writing, and one would as soon break a path through hedges and bushes as read through his books. But it is a sign of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit can speak brightly, neatly and clearly; Satan mumbles and chews the words in his mouth, and throws the hundred into the thousand, so that it takes effort before one hears what he means.

112. D. Carlstadt had seen that we in Wittenberg had acted against the mass as a sacrifice and good work, both with writings and deeds in great earnest, admittedly the very first, and perhaps worried that we would gain honor from it, and thus sin in 3) the vain doctrine, and thought to advise us thus: How do I do that I make the Wittenbergers cry out that all their writings and deeds about the mass are not valid and are slandered, that they consider the mass a sacrifice and a good work, and that I alone am the hero who has brought this into the world, that the mass is not a sacrifice? I will do this: I will not respect what they say.

3. Thus the Jena. The remaining issues: an.

174 Erl. SS, 178-180. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 236-238. 175

I will rebuke them for calling it a mass, which is called a sacrifice, and for taking away the sacrament, 1) as if they were offering it, so I can say afterwards that the Wittenbergers are all far wrong, and the poor bishop of Zwickau 2) with them.

Well, then, we must again be grateful to the blessing and ensure that the vain doctrine does not deceive even the rich country runner and the unappointed preacher Carlstadt, and give an answer from the name of the mass and the lifting up of the sacrament, that more shame than honor comes from it: not that it is necessary to answer for such bad childish and foolish work, but that one sees how no good spark of right understanding remains in D. Carlstadt. Carlstadt, so that everyone knows to beware of the mad spirit and not to trust his splendid words, since there is nothing behind them but vain false murderous tricks to confuse the conscience with all unnecessary jugglery.

First, that he reproaches us for the name, that 3) we call the sacrament a mass, and puts it upon us that we are Christ's executioners, murderers, and of more abominable words, and even worse than the Papists, because mass is called a sacrifice in Hebrew, and it shall not help us that we have argued and fought with such earnestness and driving that the mass is not a sacrifice. Now it is also a shameful, childish, womanish thing in the eyes of the world, if one is otherwise one in the matter, and yet quarrels over the words; which Paul reproves, and calls it xxxxxxxxxx, word warfare.

and quarrelsome 2c. 1 Tim. 6, 4. 2 Tim. 2, 14. But it is the devil, as I have said, who through Carlstadt's head would gladly load sin and abominable driving on the consciences in the things that are 4) free and without sin. Therefore he has no rest, because he corrupts good consciences and deadly souls, which nevertheless live, as Ezekiel says Ezek. 13, 19.

115 To the other, if it were equally true,

1. namely in the elevation.
2. Nicolaus Hausmann.
3. Erlanger: da.
4. Erlanger: yes.

that mass would be called a sacrifice, and would be a good vein to D. Carlstadt, he should have warned and admonished us before publicly exposing us to such great vices before all the world. For it was ever to be hoped, because we deny and fight with the fact that the mass is not a sacrifice, we would also like to leave the name where we would be reported that we should make it a sacrifice. Where is the 5) brotherly love left in the high spirit? Is it not a sin among these saints to blaspheme their neighbor so highly and shamefully without any cause? But there you see how D. Carlstadt is afflicted with blindness, who neither respects nor recognizes such quite great sin, and wants to burden all the world with false, fictitious, great sins. That means, I think, to have the beam in one's eyes and to want to pull out the splinter from another Matth. 7, 5. Luc. 6, 42.

I have never known, nor do I know yet, that Missa is called a sacrifice, and D. Carlstadt should forgive me that, although I do not know much Hebrew, I know more about it to saw and to judge than he does, have now also almost translated the entire Bible, and have not yet found that Missa is called a sacrifice, so that I think he must have found it written somewhere in the smoke hole, or have recently invented his own Hebrew language, as he can invent sin and laws and evil consciences, or perhaps the heavenly voice speaks so. It would be good, if one did not understand a language, to let himself be unacclaimed for it, and to give honor to those who can, so that one might not say, "Behold, what a presumptuous ass this is! And especially if one wants to establish articles of faith, as Carlstadt does here, and therefore rages: "I dreamed that Missa in Hebrew means a sacrifice, therefore the Wittenbergers hash, execute, murder, scourge, crucify Christ, and are worse than Caiphas, Judas, Herod, because they call it Mass. Drive along nicely, drive along nicely, 6) dear Rottengeist; if it were a carnival play, the farce would probably go.

In my Hebrew language, I find that Ma's hot interest or lap, which is given annually to the authorities, as Gen. 49, 15:

5. Wittenberg and Erlangen: hie.
6. In the old editions: already.

176 Erl. 29, 180-182, 5 Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. . W. XX, 238-241. 177

"Issachar became interest-bearing." And in the Kings books it is often written, how land and people became interest-bearing to the children of Israel; therefore Moses once, 5 Mos. 16,10. calls Missa not the sacrifice, as D. Carlstadt dreams, but the first fruits, which sitz should bring to the priests on the day of Pentecost willingly, as a yearly interest, and there before the Lord by offering confess and thank that they had such fruits and land from the Lord, as he teaches them very fine 5 Mos. 26, 10. 13., just as also every interest man confesses by his interest that he has such money or property from the feudal lord. But sacrifice is not interest, nor was it commanded like interest. So one also had to slaughter and burn the sacrifice, so that missa and sacrifice rhyme together like fist and eye; although I had to translate it from necessity 5 Mos. 16, 10: voluntary sacrifice. But these spirits, who have the heavenly voice alone, pay no attention to my interpretation.

118. Thus the apostles and first Christians, when the Hebrew language was still common among them, called the bread and wine that they brought together for the sacrament, Missa Hebrew, in the Jewish way, after which one part was blessed for the sacrament and the other was distributed among the servants of the common and poor, which afterwards for a long time they also called Collecten from the same gathering, as the Historia Tripartita testifies, of which the word Collecta still remains in the Papist Mass, that Collecta and Missa are one thing, until the abomination came and made the sacrifice out of it. Therefore, the word Missa does not refer to the blessed Sacrament, which is performed between God and men, but only to the bread and wine, which is performed and brewed between people, not to give and sacrifice anything to God, but to divide among men.

119. Where are you now, dear spirit of the rotten and sin-mongers, with your Hebrew language? Tell me, why should I not call the Christian ministry a Collecta or Missa, as the apostles and first Christians did? Yes, say, where do you get the lies, that you blame us, we call the blessed bread and wine a mass, when mass equals

is called a sacrifice? The whole office is called a mass, and it is said: Under the mass, or in the mass, one blesses the bread and wine; item, in the mass one takes the sacrament. Who has ever heard say: I want to receive the mass, or have received the mass, when he receives the sacrament? I do not know if I have ever written or spoken it. But be it as it may, I know for certain that we in Wittenberg do not teach or say this way, although it would be without a doubt that the sacrament is or is called a mass, that this lying spirit certainly invents this on us, just as he calls Missa a sacrifice from his own dream, to prove his will to be brave.

120. But what if the apostles had called the sacrament itself Missa? I think they would have defended it before the 1) spirit of the mob, saying: "Just as the Jews had to bring their missa, that is, their firstfruits, to the priests, so that they would not give anything to God, but rather confess it and thank God that they and the whole country had this from His grace: This is what we do with the Sacrament or our Missa, and we keep it only for this reason, not to give or sacrifice anything to God, but to confess and give thanks to God, who has given us these things together with all the goods of the Kingdom of Heaven, just as Christ's words say: We should do it in remembrance of Him 1 Cor. 11:24, 25. Hereby, I think, they would have finely shut the mouth of the spirit and led it to school, so that it would learn the Hebrew language and Moses in English, before it blasphemed and condemned that which it neither knows nor understands.

(121) I say this as if it were a matter of dispute that missa is a Hebrew word, on which I do not rely at all, for whether it is Hebrew or not, there is nothing to it; although it is almost similar to Hebrew. But what one wants to make an article of faith and rule the consciences with it, one must know much more certainly, because one knows that Missa is Hebrew, of which there is nothing in the Scriptures, without that everything must be a certain article of faith to this reckless red spirit, which only occurs to him or seems to him, and then quickly to 2) on

1. Erlanger: to apply for.
2. "to" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.

178 Erl. 2S, 182-185. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W "LX, 241-243. 179

the poor consciences, stormed and raged, made sin, since there is none, as all his teaching and spirit kind is. If he were a good spirit, he should first be sure of the matter and prove that Missa is Hebrew before he interprets it Hebrew; then also prove that it is called sacrifice; finally also prove that one should not call it Missa. He does none of these, only drools his own slobber; and we are to take all this for articles of faith.

But that 1) I paint the devil very well and prove how he does not lie like this from any cause, but all his actions are a 2) thing, if I equate that Missa is called a sacrifice, and we call not the office, but the sacrament a sacrifice (which does not happen, but the spirit of the mob denies both), then what would he be? Should we therefore be Christ's executioners and murderers, as the spirit of the mob spouts? Or should it follow that we consider the Sacrament a sacrifice? For if he himself confesses that we do not consider it to be a sacrifice, how can he lie so blatantly and say: we consider it to be a sacrifice at the same time? We cannot at the same time believe and confess two different repulsive things in one heart.

(123) Yes, I want to say further, because we publicly confess with heart, tongues, feathers and work that it is not a sacrifice, and besides, out of ignorance call it a mass, as if they did not know that mass means a sacrifice: should God no longer judge us according to the heart and all other signs, because He Himself says that He sees and judges according to the heart, not according to the appearance, Is. 11:3. 11, 3, because that he should condemn us for the sake of the appearance and name, as this devil does through D. Carlstadt, who blasphemes us so shamefully according to the outward appearance of an unconscious name, and will neither judge nor see according to the heart and all the fruits of it, which we prove by deed?

How many times does a mother call her daughter a little hurdle, both from anger and from love? How often does a father call a son: Jack,

1. Erlanger and Walch: on that.
2. d. i. sought.

you rogue, or if she were called the daughter Putana, and did not know that Putana was called a whore, but meant a virgin by it! If here D. Carlstadt's spirit listened, he should rebuke the mouth and drive out: O the mother and the father are of the. They murder, execute, strangle, break the noble virtue of virginity in their own child, they are as evil as no whore-keeper or murderer. For although they profess with the heart and other signs that the daughter is a pious virgin, but because they call her a little whore or putana by name, they do just as much as a whoremonger who keeps her to fornication. Dear, what would the mother say to such a judge? She would ask for God's sake that he be bound with chains, like a foolish, raging man. It is just such a thing that Carlstadt knows well that we are not serious if we call the sacrament a sacrifice, even though we do not, and yet he judges that we think it is a sacrifice, and blasphemes so unjustly. There you can see how he only seeks cause to blaspheme us, out of sheer spite.

(125) Envy and vain doctrine have made man so senseless and even obsessed him that he no longer sees how the heart gives the name to the work, and not the work to the heart. If the heart is right and good, the name be what it will, it does no harm. What good and right mind should there be in the head to do the Scriptures or divine things, who is so wrong-minded that he has also lost the common sense of human reason and does not know that everything should be judged according to the opinion and fruits of the heart, not according to the name or appearance, as all natural laws also teach? Believe such a teacher only if he wants to write about the sacrament in a right and Christian way, who looks at all things through a stained glass and judges according to his bitter and false heart. But if he knows it, and yet writes like this willfully, it is so much the worse than if one grasps at it clearly that he must be possessed, for a man who is in his right mind does not do so willfully.

How, if we still today feed, and did not call the sacrament Mass,

180 Erl. ss, 185-187. 5. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. xx, 243-246. 181

but in bright German a sacrifice, only to defy the Rottengeist? Do you also think whether we could preserve it before him? For we have it in mind that everything that we have done and will do in Wittenberg should be arranged by God's grace in such a way that the devil may challenge it with all infernal gates and evil spirits, but should not gain anything, as has happened so far. Well then, I now call the sacrament a sacrifice again; not because I consider it a sacrifice, but because the god of the 1) spirit of hell, the devil, wants to prevent me from calling it that: so I will do what he does not want and leave what he wants, and I will also say my cause and reason for it.

I will call St. Peter a sinful fisherman, as he calls himself in the Gospel, and say: St. Peter, the poor sinner, has converted the world with his Gospel Apost. 2, 41, 42; St. Paul, the persecutor of Christianity Apost. 9, 4, is the teacher of the Gentiles 1 Cor. 15, 9; the sinner Mary Magdalene, Luc. 7, 48, 2) has been saved, and the like. I write this because Carlstadt's spirit has cause to write more books, although he is not commanded to do so, and thunders at me and says: The Wittenberg preacher "of the high senses" desecrates God's grace and Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit, because he calls the saints sinners; for although he considers them holy with the heart, and otherwise cherishes them with the pen (according to his German speech), but because he calls them sinners, he also considers them so and makes them sinners, murders and executes Christ, and sheds his blood 2c. As the common preacher of deep senses is wont to rave.

(128) Yes, I will make it worse, I will call Jesus Christ, the Son of God, crucified and dead; so that the spirit of the wicked shall prove his art, and say, Christ is now in heaven, and is no longer crucified; because thou callest him so, thou crucifixest him, and art worse than the Jews, from whom he is crucified, whether thou with heart and pen, and with mind, and with heart and pen, and with mind, and with mind, and with mind, and with heart, and with pen, and with mind, and with mind.

1. Erlanger: this.
2. Thus the Jena; Wittenberg: "the sinner, of which S. Luc. Cap. 7. writes."

say differently. What do you think? This spirit should still well ward us off the length that we may no longer call a name of the previous stories. For if I cannot say of the mass how it was a sacrifice, and such an abominable thing it is, when I say, Here is a sacrifice of the papists, or, We received the sacrifice (hear, that was once a sacrifice), neither must we in the Gospel call Simon the leper, Peter a sinner, nor Paul the persecutor, nor Christ crucified; because all these things were, and were of the devil, and now are no more.

How often does it happen that an evil name remains for a thing when the evil is gone? Should the one who calls it by the evil name make it so evil? It could not be worse than that someone crucified and killed God's Son now; still, because it happened once, the evil name remains eternally and does no harm, because heart, courage and all works go differently than the name says. Should it not now also be held to one's credit whether he calls the sacrament a sacrifice out of habit, or out of the evil work of the papists, which they have practiced on it? Although we do not do it. Would I not call it a martyred, a crucified, a killed sacrament, as D. Carlstadt himself calls it? For all these things are included in the word "sacrifice"; should I therefore also martyred, crucified and killed and be like them, who do it with the deed, that I call it by the name?

130 Therefore, I ask the spirit of the mob and shove his own word down his throat. Say: Why do you call bread and wine a sacrament martyred, crucified, killed? Are ye not also the executioners and murderers of Christ, whether ye chirre with the pen otherwise? But do you say, "They do not mean it for that reason, but show what others do with it? He, dear squire, why could I not also call it a sacrifice of the opinion that others have made, prepared and called it so? Do you see that all the world and also the children see how one should not judge according to the name or appearance, but according to the heart and the deed? All this I want to have said for the sake of abundance, when

182 Erl. L9, 187-189. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. "X, 246-248. 183

some who called it a sacrifice would be with us, so that I may show how nothing the spirit is able to do, that it, if its dreams were true, nevertheless created nothing. But such a spirit, which has lost reason and truth, and deals only with external things, shall have such a theology of appearance and shadow.

It is a sin and a shame, as has been said, that we should waste so many words, time and paper on this child's play. But this fruit we have from it, that this spirit is stripped of its shell and brought into the light, so that everyone may see where D. Carlstadt is and what he has in mind, so that everyone may know to beware of him as of the devil. For this would be given to him as to a man, whether he taught something from name and appearance, and whether he let the reason in the heart and the deed of truth stand in the way and not be true. But that he so casts out the useless appearance, so drives it with high words, as if it were only because of that, in addition to blaspheming the inward, the right reason, which he himself confesses about us, and so horribly condemns, and gladly wants to bring to nothing, no one does that but the devil himself; for no honest pious man would do so. It would be all too easy for him, if he could bring it about, that he would disgrace the fine light of truth and grace of God, given to us in Wittenberg, only to the highest degree, and that he would persuade the people, that the right sun would have gone out through him in Orlamünde.

What do you think now? Who would have relied on D. Carlstadt's reason, how well should he stand with his Missa? who proves nothing that Missa is Hebrew, that it means a sacrifice, that one should not call it so; and even if he proves all this, nevertheless accomplishes nothing with it, except that he makes a mockery of himself and us. If the papists would only refrain from offering the mass, Lord God, how gladly I would allow them to call it whatever they wanted; I would not care about the name, because Carlstadt is completely and utterly interested in it, and the main part, the reason, is held in too low esteem.

The other part of the abolition of the sacrament is also of this kind; it must also be end-Christian and papist. Oh, who could advise man that he should do both predi

and writing, and do another work! Unfortunately, he is not good for it, he wants to make a new law and sin, and establish new articles of faith, whether God likes it or not, he cannot do anything else.

134. In the first place, we have taught from St. Paul the Christian freedom, that everything should be free, which God does not forbid with clear words in the New Testament, as there is, eating all kinds of things, drinking all kinds of things, clothing all kinds of things, place all kinds of things, person all kinds of things, giving all kinds of things, that we owe nothing at all to God, but to believe and to love Rom. 14, 2. ff. 1 Cor. 8, 8-10. Now tell me, where did Christ forbid to abolish the sacrament, or command to abolish it? Show me one little word, and I will yield. D. Carlstadt is still allowed to come out freely and say that Christ's prohibition, which he cannot prove, is also not true; and values sin as great as denying God. Is this not a miserable, pitiful blindness, to load souls with sins and murder, and to make law where there is none?
135. Tell me, my brother, what thinkest thou of the spirit that may impute to Christ, and say that he doeth that which he doeth not; yea, that he doeth that he doeth the contrary? For Christ does not deny it, and let it go free; this spirit denies it, and catches the conscience out of its own thirst and iniquity. Is this not blaspheming Christ? Is it not denying Christ? Is it not putting oneself in Christ's place and murdering souls under Christ's name, binding consciences, charging sins, making laws, and in short, dealing with souls as if he were their God? Such, all, and how it is to be counted more, he does, who makes laws and sin, since Christ wants to have freedom and no sin. Just as we have proved the pope to be the end of Christ because he breaks such freedom with laws, since Christ wants to have freedom; lind my spirit of the mob plunges just the same way, also wants to catch what Christ wants to have free.

But it has a different nose in this with the Rottengeist than with the pope; they both break the Christian freedom and are.

1. "den" is missing in the Jena.

184 Erl. 29,189-isi. 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets re. W. xx, 248-251. 185

both are anti-Christian, but the pope does it by command, D. Carlstadt by prohibition; the pope means to do, D. Carlstadt means to let. As Christian freedom is broken by the two things, if one commands, forces 1) and urges to do, which is neither commanded nor forced by God; or if one forbids, resists and hinders to let, which is neither forbidden nor resisted by God. For my conscience is just as much trapped and seduced when it must refrain from doing something that is not necessary to refrain from as when it must do something that is not necessary to do; and Christian freedom perishes just as much when it must refrain from doing something that it is not necessary to refrain from as when it must do something that it is not necessary to do.

The pope breaks the liberty, so that he gives up the sacrament, and wants to have it for a right and a law, and whoever lets it sin. The spirit of the mob breaks it by beating a hasty retreat to abolish the sacrament, and wants to have it for a prohibition, right and law, and whoever does it shall sin. There Christ is driven out of both parts; one pushes him out in front, the other drives him out behind; one falls to the left side, the other to the right side, and none remains on the right free road. I am almost very surprised, however, and if I did not read it myself in D. Carlstadt's books, then all the world would not have persuaded me that he should not know such things; for in this I have considered him to be learned and understanding. O Lord God, what are we when you let fall? What do we do when you cut off your hand? What can we do when you never shine? Is this free will and its capacity, that so soon the learned becomes a child, the wise a fool, the wise a madman? How terrible you are in all your works and judgments!

Let us walk in the light, for we have it that the darkness may not seize us also, and let him know who is able to know. I will speak roughly of this. There are two things: to teach and to do; but I say again, let teaching and doing be separated from one another, as far as heaven and earth.

1. This and the next following "man" in the Wittenberg and in the Jena editions; both are missing in the Erlanger.

and earth. Teachings belong to God alone, who has the right and power to command, to forbid, to be master over the consciences. But doing and not doing belong to us, that we keep God's commandments and teachings. Wherever there is a doing or not doing that God has not taught, commanded or forbidden, one should let it be free 2) as God Himself has let it be free. But whoever goes beyond this, and teaches or forbids, falls into God's own office, burdens the conscience, makes sin and sorrow, and disturbs everything that God has freely and safely given, and in addition drives out the Holy Spirit with all His kingdom, work and word, so that all devils remain there.

Now, lifting the sacrament, wearing plates, putting on chasubles and albums 2c. is a doing, since God has neither commanded nor forbidden anything; therefore, it should be free, whoever desires to do and to leave it: God wants to have such freedom 2c. But because the Pope does not leave the doing free, but forces it with doctrine and commandment, he encroaches upon God's office and arrogantly sets himself up in God's place, as St. Paul proclaimed of him 2 Thess. 2:4, and makes sin, since God does not want sin, and thereby kills souls and binds consciences. But because D. Carlstadt does not give the letting freely, but forces with prohibition and doctrine, one should not cancel it 2c., he also interferes with God's office, puts himself in his place, and makes sin, since no sin can be nor should be, and thus kills the soul on this side, like the pope on the other side, both break, like the soul murderers, Christian freedom.

But we walk on the middle course, and say: There is neither commanding nor forbidding, neither to the right nor to the left, we are neither papal nor Carlstadtian, but free and Christian, that we abolish the sacrament, and do not abolish it as, where, when, how long we desire, as God has given us the freedom. Just as we are free to remain outside of marriage or to enter into marriage, to eat meat or not, to wear chasubles, and to be a Christian.

2. The old edition of Walch and the Erlanger: remain.
3. Thus in the old editions. Erlanger: "das Aufheben." In the marginal gloss of the Erlanger edition it is stated that "das" is an addition by Walch, as it is; nevertheless, ßdas" is placed after Walch in the text.

186 sri. ss, isi-iss. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx.ssi-M. 187

or not, .to have frocks and plates or not. Here we are masters and suffer no law, commandment, teaching or prohibition. As we have also done both here in Wittenberg. For in the monastery we had mass without chasuble, without fuss, badly in the most simple way, as Carlstadt Christ exemplifies. Again, in the parish we still have chasuble, albums, and altar, and we lift them up as we please.

For this reason, my spirit should not fight against us Wittenbergers in this way: They abolish the sacrament, therefore they sin against God; but thus: They teach and command that one must abolish the sacrament in case of mortal sin, therefore they sin against God; for this is what the papists do and teach. We, however, do not teach this way, and yet we do it freely as long as we feel like it. The doing does no harm, but the teaching is the devil. Again, in the monastery we leave it; but I do not teach it, as D. Carlstadt does; the leaving does not harm 1), but the teaching is the devil. Now notice from this which of the end Christians are cousins, we or D. Carlstadt. We do like the papists, but we do not suffer the teaching, commandment and compulsion; we also let like the Carlstadtians, but we do not suffer the prohibition. So the Pope and D. Carlstadt are right cousins in teaching, because they both teach, one the doing, the other the burdening. But we teach neither, and do both.

Now, gentlemen, we are talking about small things, if you look at the doing. For what is the abolition of the sacrament? But if you look at the doctrine, we are talking about the very highest things. The spirit of the wicked is too frivolous, and falls too boldly into the breach; he regards the doctrine as small and the deeds as great, but once does not see the beam in his eye, and has so much to do with the mote in our eye Matth. 7, 5. For with doctrine he attacks the consciences that Christ purchased with his blood, and kills the souls with commandments and sins that God so dearly purchased, so that Christ's kingdom is destroyed and all good 2) is extinguished.

1. The words: "wie - nicht" are missing in the Wittenberg and Jena editions, but are in Walch's old edition and in the Erlangen edition.
2. "Good" is missing from Erlanger.

eradicates what the gospel brings us. For Christ cannot abide in the conscience that whores with strange doctrine and the commandment of men; faith must perish. Therefore, everyone must make sure that D. Carlstadt has a spirit that is hostile to Christ and the gospel, to faith and to the whole kingdom of God, which he in turn wants to disturb with humanity and his own conceit, as you may well grasp from this piece and will hear much later.

But that he teaches us that Christ did not abolish it in the Lord's Supper, we thank him kindly, though we knew it otherwise also, and almost as well as he. We say here of teaching, not of doing, and ask us to point out where Christ is teaching or doing. We already know where he leaves it or does not do it, because we believe that it is not necessary to do and leave everything that Christ has done and left undone; otherwise we would also have to go on the sea and do all the miracles that he has done; again, leave marriage in order, leave the secular government, leave the fields and plowing, and everything that he has left undone. For that which he would have us do and leave, he not only did and left, but also signified it with words, commanded and forbade what we should do and leave. For even when he says, John 13:15, "I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done," he himself does not point to Lazarum, whom he raised from the dead, but to the washing of feet.

Therefore we do not allow any example, not even of Christ Himself, let alone of other saints, unless God's word is with them, which tells us which one we should follow or not follow. We do not want to be satisfied with works and examples; indeed, we do not want to follow any example: we want to have the word, for the sake of which all works, examples and miracles are done. For he is so wise and so eloquent, and so careful, that he has made known to us in words all that he has commanded or forbidden. Now then, all you riffraff, be confident, and show us where Christ has revealed with a bag.

3. Walch and the Erlanger: Plow.

188 Erl. SS, 1SS-1SS. 5.. Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 253-256. 189

to abolish the Sacrament? Because you boast and rave that it is a prohibition of Christ: where is the prohibition? I respect the bride in Orlamünde in a shirt, or the groom 1) in pants in Naschhusen.

If this is to be true, that one should follow the example of Christ so rigidly and not the word alone, then it follows that we must keep this supper nowhere but in Jerusalem in the paved hall Luc. 2:12, Marc. 14:15. For if the outward ordinances 2) are to be so strict, the outward places and persons must also be kept strict, and it will come to pass that this supper was to be kept only by the disciples, to whom alone he commanded and administered it at that time, and St. Paul 1 Corinthians 11:17 ff. will become vain foolishness. Item, because we do not know, and the text does not give, whether it was red or plain wine, whether it was bread rolls or barley bread, we will have to leave the Lord's Supper in doubt until we are sure that we do not do any outward thing a hair's breadth differently than Christ exemplifies. 3. Yes, we will also eat the paschal lamb in Jewish beforehand. Since the text does not say whether Christ took it into his hands and presented it to each of us himself, we must wait until it is known, so that we do not lift it up or weave it differently from Christ. For wherever we do so, the spirit of the mob is there, crying out: We execute, murder, and crucify Christ. This is how good a lesson is here, and how much more blessedness is buried here than in Christ's wounds, blood, word and spirit.

Oh, the blindness and mad folly of such great celestial prophets, who boast of talking to God daily! Children should be ashamed to fool so grossly. I am thinking here of a prophecy that was said by D. Carlstadt when he first came into our teachings, which read thus: Yes, D. Carlstadt

1. Thus the Wittenbergers. Jenaer: "Brüt" and "Brütgam".
2. In the old editions: "die eusserliche Geberde", which Walch had correctly resolved with "die äußlichen Geberden". The Erlanger gives the latter as a variant of Walch.
3. Erlanger: one.

will not stay on it for long, he is a fickle man, and never stayed on anything. I did not want to believe such a thing then; now I must grasp it. For he has completely fallen again from faith to work, and unfortunately to the work of man or reason, invented by himself. So then we say that in the sacrament we do everything that Christ commanded in words, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," 1 Cor. 11:24. But what he did not forbid we do freely, as far as it pleases us, saying, "It is not to be commanded nor forbidden," just as he neither commanded nor forbade it.

(147) And though I had intended to do away with the abolition, yet I will not do it now, in defiance and opposition for a while longer of the spirit of enthusiasm, because it will have forbidden it, and held it as a sin, and driven us from freedom. For before I would give way to the soul-murdering spirit a hair's breadth or a moment to let our freedom (as Paul teaches Gal. 5:1), I would before tomorrow become such a strict monk, and keep all monasticism as firmly as I have ever done. It is no joke here with Christian freedom, which we want to have as pure and intact as our faith, even if an angel from heaven said otherwise. It has confessed too much to our dear, faithful Savior and Lord Jesus Christ; so it is also all too necessary for us, we may not give in to it if we lose our blessedness.

From this piece you should now notice and certainly test the spirit of D. Carlstadt, so that he deals with it, how he pulls us from the word and leads us to the works. For in order that he may do this more effectively, he holds up to you the works of Christ himself as a perfect pretense, as if you should be frightened by them and think, "Truly, who would not follow Christ? And meanwhile he conceals the word, because he has none to show for it. For after he has seen how we do not want to trust in the word and work of men, whether they are holy or old, and want to have Christ alone as our master, the prankster divides Christ into two parts, namely, how Christ once does and leaves some works without a word; and secondly, how Christ does and leaves some works without a word.

190 Erl. SS, 195-197. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. . W. XX, 256-2S8. 191

times how he does and leaves works with the word, and is so mischievous that he presents Christ alone, how he does and leaves without a word, in which he is not to be followed, and is silent where Christ does and leaves with the word, in which we are to follow him.

Do you see the devil here? the one who deceived us before through the saints wants to deceive us here through Christ himself. Beware, where you do not hear God's word that calls you or bewitches you, do not go astray and turn back, even if Christ Himself does. Is it not said enough? It is said: "Your word is my lamp", Ps. 119, 105. The word, the word shall do it, do you not hear? Now if it be held against thee, how Christ hath done, say thou freshly thereupon, Well, hath he done it, hath he also taught it, and called it to be done? Item, if one reproaches you: If they reproach thee that Christ hath not done this thing, then say freshly, Hath he also forbidden it? And if they show thee not his word thereon, say, Do, let it be, it is no concern of mine; neither are they examples, they are works done for his own person. If they say, Omnis Christi actio est nostra instructio, let them say, but see what he means by instructio. A man has said it, which is as much as thyself.

This is how it is in the world, as they say: He who cannot sing always wants to sing; he who cannot preach nor write wants to preach and write. But he who can, shuns and does not like to do it. Carlstadt, who herewith proves that he does not understand anything about Christ, just as he does not understand Moses above, must preach and write, since no one calls him or demands him, and since he is demanded, he does not do it. So he teaches Moses to understand that the disorderly rabble should rise up and punish public vices. But that he teaches Moses spiritually, how he reveals sin, and physically drives the rough rough people to works, he does and cannot, and makes him his own Moses. So here also he makes his own Christ, that we should follow his works without word. But how Christ is first our salvation, and then his works with the word our example, he cannot do, and knows as much of the New Testament as he does of the Old, and wants to know of the Sacrament and the

The same write, as if there was great need for his great, blind art, yes, ignorance.

151 For how is it possible that there should be a right understanding of Moses or of the law, as it teaches to recognize sin, Rom. 3:20, and as it drives the rude to works, Deut. 18:4, 5, where it is interpreted that the disorderly mob should rise up and take hold of the authority's office and overthrow all order and opinion of the law with it? So how is it possible that Christ should be rightly understood as given to us for life in faith, and his words and works for an example in love, who wants to go out with him, and who alone drives this, as we are to consider and follow Christ's work, unbidden and unbidden, as necessary examples? Then faith and love must perish with the whole gospel. And that is why they speak so scornfully of the doctrine of faith and love, as D. Carlstadt himself reproached me in Jena, just as if they knew much that is higher and better, and yet they do not say it, do not want to go into the day with it. By which piece alone one can prove that the devil speaks from them, because they ridicule the doctrine of faith and love, that is, Christ himself with his gospel.

After this, the man returns to his Hebrew language and argues against us in this way: "The Wittenbergers abolish the sacrament, therefore they consider it a sacrifice, because they are doing the work of the Law of Moses, in which there were two kinds of sacrifices, the heave offering and the sacrifice of peace offerings. Now he who annuls does a heave offering 2c. This comes first of all out of the art. Is this not blindness, what is blindness? Everything that is lifted up is called a sacrifice by this spirit, and argues a particulari ad universalem,1 ) sic etc. Una est elevatio in lege, quae est oblatio; ergo omnis elevatio est oblatio. This sounds as if I were to say: One finds an elevation that is a sacrifice; therefore all elevations are a sacrifice. Or thus, a cow at Orlamünde is black; therefore all cows in the world are black. I have to listen to the new layman and farmer and talk peasantly. There

1. Walch and the Erlanger: universale.

192 Erl. 89,197-I9S. 5. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 2S8-261. 193

Let us see what the plow of Naschhusen is capable of, of which he boasted at Jena that he should put to shame all the doctors in the world. When the maid picks up the mirror to look at it, she sacrifices it. If the farmer picks up the axe or flail to hew or thresh, he sacrifices the same. If the mother picks up the child and dances with it, she sacrifices it; therefore she does against Christ's commandment, henches, murders, slaughters, crucifies Christ, and does all the evil that those who sacrifice Christ do; as the spirit of the swarm rages; for the plow of Nashhusen has said, He who picks up sacrifices.

Tell me, has this farmer not earned enough to have his plow wedged quite 1) well? But so shall God overthrow them that sit down and rise up against the knowledge of God and undertake their own. 2) Egypt must not be smitten with common darkness, but which may be seized Ex. 10:21. I think this means losing reason, senses and wit. The papists themselves were never so mad or of the opinion that they sacrificed the sacrament by lifting it up, although they otherwise consider it a sacrifice, but lift it up so that they show it to the people, to remind them of Christ's suffering 2c. Therefore also the priest does not speak a word, neither of the sacrifice nor of anything else, when he lifts it up; how should we then sacrifice it by lifting it up, who fight so hard that it is no sacrifice?

But it is the same fiddle on which he always fiddles, that the outward appearance is the main piece, according to which everything that heart, mouth, pen and hand confess should be judged and respected. Therefore it is of no use that we believe from the heart, confess with the mouth, testify with the pen, prove with the deed, as we do not consider the sacrament a sacrifice, because we still cancel it. So strong is the abrogation, and so much does it count, that it outweighs and condemns all such things. Is this not a peevish spirit, which thus gambles with outward appearances, contrary to the truth in the spirit? If you only consider the

1. recht" is missing in the Jena.
2. In Walch's old edition and in the Erlangen one: "one's own taking;" in the latter not from the original print, but from Walch.

If they let themselves be lifted up outwardly, they would be right, undressed, naked brides, God grant that they would keep it in their hearts as they wished.

But enough has been said above about such insistence on outward appearances; now it is only indicated that I also take the spirit out and let him see how he deals with vain folly, and can do nothing honest about the main points of Christian doctrine, and yet drives such folly so hard on the consciences with such pompous words, as if they were the main points, where all power lay. 3) So that everyone may beware of the spirit that always wants to go out and establish new articles of faith, where God knows nothing about them, and to introduce a new doctrine, which he is not commanded to do.

But I have said these things as if it were true and established that there is an abolition that is 4) a sacrifice, as this spirit is suggesting; for no man on earth calls abolition a sacrifice except this spirit, who invents such things and tries to interpret them for us, because he knew nothing else to write; nor will he ever indicate that 5) abolition means a sacrifice. He also forgets his own words when he says that "to sacrifice" 6) is as much as to slaughter, to kill, to execute, to murder, to burn 2c. But who would be so mad as to say that to lift up is as much as to slaughter, to kill, to murder, to burn? without this spirit, which perhaps also learns new German from his heavenly voice; nor does he rage against himself, and fights that he who lifts up sacrifices.

157. But that he draws from the Hebrew 7) the two words, Thnupha and Thrüma Ex. 25, 3. 4 Mos. 18, 8. 11., which are Webeopfer and Hebeopfer, or Hebe and Webe translated by me, that he does again to prove his excellent art in the Hebrew language, about which the world should be surprised that the plow at Nashhusen also knows Hebrew language, but not the common language,
158. In the outputs: anlege.
159. Walch and the Erlangeners: that.
160. Wittenberg and Erlangen: da.
161. Erlanger: the sacrifice.
162. In the old editions: testifies. Hereby Luther points to § 11 and § 12 of Carlstadt's writing: "Wider die alten und neuen papistischen Messen" (No. 2 in the appendix of this volume).

194 Erl. 29, 199-202.I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 261-263. 195

which everyone talks about, but which the Spirit teaches recently and still teaches daily from the heavenly voice.

For my Hebrew language teaches me that before offering anything according to the law, it must first be lifted up and woven, and therefore it must be lifted up and woven, so that one confesses and gives thanks to God, as for a gift that was not offered or given to God, but received from Him. Just as I said above about the name Missa. After that, it was first sacrificed and set on fire, if it was previously lifted up and woven, so that lifting up and weaving cannot be a sacrifice in the law, nor at any end.

Behold, this spirit understands the Law of Moses and the Hebrew so well, and yet is so thuggish and wicked that he builds his dreams on such articles of faith, and wants to entangle the consciences so highly that they shall be Christ's murderers, executioners, and killers if they lift them up. So the devil must always have a mouth full of blasphemy and disturb Christ.

160 Carlstadt fell out of the kingdom of Christ and was shipwrecked in the faith; therefore he also wants us out, straight into the works, and wants to make Galatians out of us. For behold, dear man, what gross blindness this is, that he thus contends, If any man circumcise himself, shall he not 1) be called a Jew? So, he who lifts up is called cheaply a sacrificer 2c. You poor wretched spirit, where did you read that he who circumcises himself is called a Jew? Did not Paul circumcise Timothy, since he was already baptized and a Christian? Apost. 16, 3. Does not St. Paul absolve circumcision? 1 Cor. 7, 19: "Circumcision is nothing, foreskin is also nothing", that is, one may be circumcised or not, have foreskin or not. And this spirit judges freshly and boldly against St. Paul's judgment: it is not free, but makes Jews. So he should say: whoever circumcises himself, as if he had to do it for the sake of the law and conscience, is a Jew; for circumcision does not make Jews, since one may well be a Jew.

1. "not" is missing in the Jena.

Finds those who must have their skin cut off because of sickness or rotten flesh; should they therefore be called Jews?

161 But this makes a Jew, who has a conscience, as enforced by the law, he must circumcise himself. This Jewish sense and conscience makes a Jew, whether he could never circumcise himself outwardly or not. Thus the foreskin does not make a Gentile, but if he thinks in his conscience that he must have foreskin, he is a Gentile if he lets himself be circumcised a thousand times externally. Just as D. Carlstadt is actually a heathen and has lost Christ because he considers the foreskin necessary and circumcision condemned and does not leave it free as Christ wants it. There you can see clearly how this man is completely immersed in works and drowned in outward appearances, that he cannot give a unified judgment in spiritual matters of conscience. For it is impossible that there should be a spark of Christian understanding left in him, because he thinks that an outward work makes a Jew or a Christian, a Gentile or a Turk, and does not judge according to conscience, but according to appearance, which even sensible people do not do.

162 Thus he should also have said here: Whoever annuls the sacrament out of necessity of conscience, as if he had to annul it, would also be a Jew. But we do not do this, as he well knew. Therefore he was afraid that he would have to stand in disgrace, as if he had publicly lied against us, but he did not see that he would thereby gain much greater disgrace, that he would lie against God, and he forbids the work, as if he were condemned by God's prohibition, which God has not forbidden. Again, he who forces the sacrament not to be abrogated, as is necessary, is a heathen, as D. Carlstadt does, and here makes a necessary law about the consciences, which, however, only God has the right to do; but he who abrogates it or does not abrogate it, out of free conscience, as it is loved by him, is a Christian; which is done by faith, which alone makes Christians without all works.

Item 163: He should further say: Whoever takes away the sacrament with such a conscience and the opinion that he is sacrificing it, is a sacrificer and a pope. For where such a conscience

196 Erl. 29,202-204. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 263-266. 197

If there is no conscience, one sacrifices, even if one never stops the sacrament or immediately sinks it into a deep well. But where there is no such conscience, no sacrifice is made, even if it were raised above all the heavens and all the world cried out: sacrifice, sacrifice; for everything is connected with the conscience; this swarming spirit knows nothing about it, or does not want to know.

I fear that this letter will be annoying for many to read, because it deals with such trickery. But how shall I do to him? This mad spirit forces me to do so. But still, as I said above, we have the fruit of this, that we may defend our Christian freedom and understand more clearly, and also recognize this false spirit and see how it is blind to all things and lacks understanding, according to which each one should know how to keep himself. For because he does not understand such small things, and thinks so highly of them, God interferes with his office, makes laws, sins and consciences where there are none, breaks Christian freedom, and draws consciences away from the understanding of grace to outward works and appearances, so that Christ is denied, his kingdom disturbed, the gospel profaned: who can hope that he will ever write or teach anything good? For surely it can be proved from these things that Christ's spirit is not there; then the devil must be there, and he is also; and every man must judge himself according to this.

I like the fact that the mass is held in German among the Germans, but that he also wants to make a nuisance of it, as if it had to be that way, that is once again too much. The spirit cannot do otherwise than always, always make laws, distress, conscience and sin. I have read in 1 Corinthians 14:27, 28 that he who speaks with tongues should be silent in the church, since no one understands anything 1). But one wants to skip that it says: nisi interpretetur quis, that is, speaking with tongues, St. Paul allows, if it is interpreted next to it, that one understands it; therefore he also gives there that they should not resist those who speak with tongues 2c. Now we do not give the sacrament to anyone, unless he understands the words in the sacrament, as is well known; that we therefore

1. Walch and the Erlangeners: "nothing from".

In this we do not do anything against St. Paul, because we do enough for his opinion. Whether we do not do enough for this spirit, which only looks at outward works and pays no attention to conscience or opinion, is not the issue; we give nothing to his new articles of faith.

166 I would like to have a German mass today, I also deal with it; but I would like it to have a proper German style. For that one interprets the Latin text and keeps the Latin tone or notes, I let happen; but it is not correct nor righteous. Both text and notes, accent, manner and gesture must come from the right mother tongue and voice, otherwise it is all an imitation, as the monkeys do. But now that the spirit of enthusiasm insists that it must be, and 2) wants to burden the conscience with law, work and sin, I will take my time and hurry less than before, only to defy the sin masters and soul murderers who compel us to works as commanded by God, which he does not give.

For he who goes to the sacrament with such understanding that he has the words in German or clearly in his heart: "Take and eat, this is my body," 2c. which he learns and remembers from the preceding sermons, and receives the sacrament thereupon and thereby, receives it rightly, and hears not vain tongues, but right understanding. Again, whoever does not grasp them in his heart and understand them, nor receive the sacrament, it does not help him if a thousand preachers stand around his ears and shout madly and foolishly with such words. But the mad spirit is all too concerned with the outward work and appearance that he always wants to make necessary from his own head and make it the article of faith, without God's command.

168. The fool does not understand the words of St. Paul when he writes about speaking in tongues 1 Cor. 14, 2-29. For St. Paul writes about the ministry of preaching among the congregation, where they are to listen and learn, and says: "Whoever starts there and wants to read, teach or preach, and yet speaks with tongues, that is, he speaks Latin in front of the Germans or any other unknown language, let him be silent.
169. but - again.

198 Erl. 29,204-206. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 266-268. 199

and preach to him alone. For no one hears it nor understands it, and no one can improve from it; or if he wants to speak with tongues, he should also translate it or otherwise interpret it so that the congregation understands it. Therefore, St. Paul does not use tongues in such a disturbing way, as this spirit of sin does, but does not forbid them, if the interpretation is done in addition.

Therefore, it is the custom in all countries to read the Gospel in Latin before the sermon, which is called St. Paul speaking with tongues in the congregation. But because the sermon goes on soon, and the tongue translates 1) and interprets, St. Paul does not reject nor condemn it; why should I condemn it or anyone? Yes, God would have it that such an order of St. Paul would happen everywhere enough, that nothing else would be preached after the Latin Gospel but the same interpretation. Now this zealot spirit wants to condemn everything that St. Paul allows and insists that it should not be condemned; to this end, he does not want to suffer any singing or Latin word, and he does not apply St. Paul's teaching on tongues to the preaching ministry alone, but to all outward appearances, since there is no power in it, as is his way.

170 Not that I want to refuse to use vain German in the mass, but I do not want to suffer that one forbids to read the Latin gospel without God's word out of one's own thirst and sacrilege, and makes sin where there is none, so that we do not get the spirit of the sect with its fanaticism to be master in God's stead. For we do not need to establish our cause or strengthen it against the papists with such illusions, otherwise we would stand before them with all our shame. It should all be certain and pure word of God, on which we build and fight against them, so that they may not raise anything honestly against it. For even if we now have the German mass, it will not be enough that the words in the sacrament are spoken in German; for they must be spoken before and before the sacrament is received, so that those who go must have it in their hearts and not in their ears. What lies

1. In Walch and in the Erlanger: verdeutsch.

For if they do not hear them in the sacrament, if they have only heard and grasped them hard beforehand in the sermon, and confess them afterward, then one would want to shout the same words especially in the ears of everyone who goes to it, and bless the sacrament as many times as there are who take it.

I had intended to cover everything in one book, but I am in a hurry and it wants to become too big. Therefore, I must break off here in haste, and begin another 2) about the Sacrament; for I do not yet have all of its venomous books, as they boast. Do not let the time be long, I have written this in a short time; the other shall follow on its heels, God wills it. To Him be praise and glory forever, amen.

The second part

against the heavenly prophets, from the Sacrament.

I have no doubt that this discord of ours is a source of great joy and hope among the papists, as if it would put an end to our doings. Well, let us praise them and have good courage over us. I have said it many times and long ago: If what I have begun is from God, then no one shall stop it; if it is not from God, then someone else shall stop it; I certainly do not want to keep it. I cannot lose anything in it, because I have not put anything into it. But I know well that no one shall take it from me without God alone. And although I am also sorry for these annoyances, 3) I am nevertheless pleased that the devil comes to day and is disgraced by these his heavenly prophets, who have now long murmured and have never wanted to come forth until I have lured them out with a florin; it is well invested by God's grace and does not repent me.

2. there is no need, in God's name; I know and am sure who the master is here, who has not been lacking to me in many a strong fight; he will also be available to me in this fight.

2. This refers to the second part of this writing, which was written somewhat later.
3. Taken by us from Walch's old edition. In the editions: ist.

200 Erl. 2S, 206-208. 5 Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 268-271. 201

not be lacking. Therefore only be fresh and undaunted to whom the gospel is given. We have a cheerful consolation and good courage, and fight against melancholy, stupid, despondent, afflicted spirits, who are afraid even of a rustling leaf, without fearing God, as is the way of the wicked (Ps. 36:2), and mastering His word and work. This means that he is hidden and cannot be seen or felt. But if he were a present, visible man, he should chase them out to the land with a straw.

For this is what this spirit did. First he crept to and fro in the country, and 1) secretly threw himself about, seeking where he could find those who fell to him. Now, if he lets himself think that he has a following, he suddenly 2) bursts out and thinks that he has won, so that his defiance does not stand on God, who speaks with them, as they boast, but on the chance of the mob, and builds on flesh and blood. For whom God drives to speak, he lifts up freely in public, though he alone, and no one falls to him, as Jeremiah did Jer. 2:2 ff; as also I can boast that I have done. Therefore this is certainly the devil, who sneaks in secretly and maliciously, and excuses himself afterwards, that he was not strong enough in spirit at first. Yes, God's spirit does not excuse itself in this way; my devil, I know you well.

4. The right devil is not out yet either. For he still has something else in mind, which 3) I have long since smelled. That will also come out, if God wills. It is, praise God, so far away, that one may not be particularly allowed of me; there are enough people, who can answer such a spirit, without me, because I am alive, also having to be in the game. I also know well that D. Carlstadt has long since cooked this porridge in his heart and will never be able to prepare it. I also knew that he would not do much better than he has done, and that all his clever thoughts would be in vain. For no art, no wit, 4) no poetry against God Proverbs 21:30 will help, he can do it with one word.
5. Erlanger: rambled.
6. Erlanger: cheerful.
7. Walch and Erlanger: that.
8. In the old issues: no jokes.

disgrace everything. He knows that human thoughts are vain.

(5) Therefore, if there is anyone who is so weak that he cannot bear the blow, and doubts the sacrament, let him be advised, and in the meantime remain without the sacrament, and otherwise practice the word of God, faith and love, letting those who are secure in conscience handle it. You are not condemned if you remain without the Sacrament. But let it be said to the papists, who rejoice in this astonishment, that they beware and not harden their hearts. For God has often acted foolishly and weakly, as if His word and deeds were to perish, in order to harden and blind the ungodly; and yet, by this very means, He has gone out in the strongest possible way, and those who harden and blind themselves to all His foolishness and weakness 5) have perished most horribly; as happened to the Jews through the cross of Christ 1 Cor. 1:18 ff. and to the Gentiles through the suffering of the martyrs.

Because the devil throws one thing into another in such a disorderly and wild way, and his writing is like D. Carlstadt's head, in the most disorderly and clumsy way, that it is extremely annoying to read and difficult to remember, I will try to put his displeasure and poison in order, and deal with it piece by piece. And first I want to strike out the reason and opinion, to which all his raving turns, 6) so that the reader may have a light to look at and recognize this spirit through and through. But the opinion is this.

God, out of great kindness, has given us again the pure gospel, the precious treasure of our salvation. This gift must now be followed by faith and spirit in a good conscience, as He promises in Isa. 55:11 that His word shall not go forth in vain; and Rom. 10:17: "Faith comes by preaching."

8 The devil is hostile to this gospel and does not want to suffer it; and because he has not been able to resist it with force or sword, he now attacks it with cunning (as he has always done) and with false prophets. And I beg you, Christian reader, will you respond to this

5. Erlanger: obdurate and blinded.
6. lenden - to steer, to turn.

202 Erl. ss, S08-S10. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. xx. 271-273. 203

See, I will reveal to you, if God wills, the devil in these prophets, that you may seize him; it is for your benefit and not mine that I write. And the thing goes thus.

9 Therefore, when God has sent forth His holy gospel, He deals with us in two ways. Once outwardly, the other time inwardly. Outwardly he deals with us through the oral word of the Gospel and through the bodily signs, such as baptism and the sacrament. Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy Spirit and faith along with other gifts. But all this in such a way and in such an order that the outward parts should and must go first, and the inward parts afterwards and through the outward parts, so that he has decided not to give any man the inward parts without the outward parts; for he does not want to give anyone the Spirit or faith without the outward word and sign, which he has appointed for this purpose, as he says in Luc. 16, 29: "Let them hear Moses and the prophets. Therefore St. Paul may also call baptism a bath of new birth, in which God pours out the Holy Spirit abundantly, Titus 3:5, 6, 7, and the oral gospel a divine power that saves all who believe in it, Romans 1:16.

(10) Pay attention to this order, my brother, it will be entirely up to you. For even though this spirit of the order presents itself as if it thinks highly of God's word and spirit, and boasts of the excellent fervor of love and zeal for the truth and justice of God, it is nevertheless its opinion that it is turning this order around and setting up a perverse one out of its own iniquity, and is conducting the matter in such a way:

(11) First, what God ordains outwardly to the spirit inwardly, as has been said, oh how he scornfully and mockingly throws this to the wind and wants to enter the spirit first. Yea, saith he, should a handful of water make me clean from sins? The Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit must do it within. Should bread and wine help me? Should breathing on the bread bring Christ into the Sacrament? No, no, you have to let Christ

1. "the" is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlanger.

The Wittenbergers know nothing about it, they steal the faith from the 2) letter; and the magnificent words much, that, who does not know the devil, would like to think they have five Holy Spirits with them.

But if you ask them, how do you get into the same high spirit? they do not point you to the outward gospel, but to the land of the sleeping monkeys, and say: Stand in boredom, as I have stood, and you too will experience it; there the heavenly voice will come, and God himself will speak to you. If you ask further about boredom, they know as much about it as D. Carlstadt does about Greek and Hebrew. Do you see there the devil, the enemy of divine order? How he opens your mouth with the words spirit, spirit, spirit, and yet at the same time outlines both bridges, footbridge and path, ladder and everything, through which the spirit is to come to you, namely, the outward orders of God in the bodily baptism, sign and oral word of God, and will teach thee, not how the Spirit shall come to thee, but how thou shalt come to the Spirit, that thou shalt learn to ride upon the clouds, and to ride upon the wind, saying not how, or when, or where, or what; but shalt know it thyself as they do.

Again, what God does not order outwardly, they 3) plumb out, as if they were nonsensical. And as they invent their own inward spirit, so they also establish their own outward order, since God has neither commanded nor forbidden. So that one should have no images, churches, altars, not call mass, not call sacraments or abolish them, not have chasubles, but wear gray skirts, rather call oneself neighbor, kill godless princes, suffer no injustice and do much of the outward humility and gestures, which they themselves invent and which God does not respect. Whoever does otherwise than they do is a two-faced pope, who executes and murders Christ, and must be a Christian scholar. But he who does so has already jumped into the spirit with boots and all, and is a spiritual scholar. O excellent

2. Erlanger: den.
3. In the old editions: loddern. The same stem is found in Lotterbube.

204 Erl. zg, 210-212. 5 Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. xx. 273-276. 205

Saints! If you ask them who calls them such, they throw up their hands: Oh! my God tells me, the Spirit calls me; yes, all their dreams are the word of God. How thinkest thou of the fellows? Do you almost grasp who this spirit is?

14. further, what God ordains inwardly, as faith, is not valid, go to, and all outward words and scripture, which press on the inward faith, in an outward new way, make the old man dead, and invent all this disenchantment, study, wonder, boredom and more of the jiggery-pokery, since not one letter of it is written in the scripture. Therefore, my Carlstadt plods in like a sow that has now devoured the pearls, and like a dog that has devoured the sanctuary Matth. 7, 6., and tears up everything that Christ speaks and puts from inward faith to such outward, fictitious works, so even that he makes nothing else out of the supper of Christ and his remembrance, and out of the knowledge of Christ, but a human work, that with ardent heat and (as their foolish words read) with outstretched lust we should also thus kill ourselves. So that he makes a mist and clouds, that these bright words should not be seen, since Christ says: "My blood is shed for you for the remission of sins" Matth. 26, 28. Marc. 14, 24. Luc. 22, 20., which without doubt are grasped, obtained and kept by faith alone, and by no work, as we shall see when we now come to it.

(15) Now let this much be said to indicate that you know how these spirits are wont to do a perverse thing contrary to God's order; that which God orders from the inward faith and spirit, they make out to be a human work. Again, what God orders from the outward word and signs and works, they make out to be an inward spirit, and put the killing of the flesh first before faith, yes, before the word, thus (as is the devil's way) going out where God wants to go in, and in where God wants to go out. That I now call him a devil, no one should be surprised;

1. Erlanger: is also called.

because I do not care about D. Carlstadt, I do not look at him, but at the one who has possessed him and speaks through him, as St. Paul speaks: "We do not fence with flesh and blood, but with spiritual wickedness in the air" 2c. Eph. 6:12.

(16) You then, my brother, hold fast to the order of God, namely, that the killing of the old man, in which one follows Christ's example, as Peter says 1 Pet. 2:21, should not be the first thing, as this devil does, but the last; so that no one should kill his flesh, bear the cross, and follow Christ's example, unless he is first a Christian and has Christ in his heart through faith, as an eternal treasure. But this is not obtained by works (as these prophets rave), but by hearing the gospel, so that the order is as follows: first, before all works and things, one hears the word of God, in which the Spirit punishes the sinner for sin, John 16:9. When sin is recognized, one hears about the grace of Christ. In the same word, the Spirit comes and gives faith where and to whom He wills. After that you go to the death and the cross and the works of love. Whoever proposes another order to you, do not doubt that it is the devil, as this Carlstadt spirit is, as you shall yet see.

Come on, let's get down to business.

First of all, dear children, how the spirit makes itself so useless over the word and name "sacrament"; there the sow has a shell on! It is a shame that one should speak of it. But nevertheless, because the spirit drives here so gloriously, Christ and the apostles did not call it so, he wanted to have a word from the Biblia. God gives names to his creatures; we humans are not to give names to divine things. Finally he becomes a Jew and calls it Sekerment, as the Jews mock us Christians, and call it Seker Theminith, that is, a false simile. Although the Hebrew language speaks of Naschhusen as Sekerment, as you see here, and makes Ment into a picture. 2) What is the purpose of this word splendor? For this,

2. In the "Gesprächbüchlein," No. 3 in the appendix to this volume.

206 Erl. 29,212-214. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 276-278. 207

that the mad rabble should shut their mouths and noses, and say: Traun, I mean yes, that is something, that is a man, he can do it, there is the spirit.

18 But in essence, this is the opinion, as I said above, that such outward names and appearances, of which God has neither commanded nor forbidden, should be the right head, since all power lies with it, as He also did with the name Mass and Lifting above. Whoever does not call it Sacrament has the Spirit and is holy. But he who calls it Sacrament is called black and white, and deceives people from God, and more of the abominable vices; in sum, he denies Christ. Is this not a grievous thing from the spirit of sacrilege, which makes such a great thing out of that which is nothing?

19 Now then, you murderer of souls and spirit of sin, we confess: God has not called it a sacrament, nor commanded it to be called a sacrament. But tell me again: Where did he forbid it? Whoa! but only a bag; if so? Who has given you the power to forbid what God does not forbid? How are you so wicked as to commit such a great sin, when God does not want any? Are you not the real murderer of souls, who sets himself over us in God's stead, and takes away our Christian freedom, and casts the consciences under him?

20 Yes, you do not call it, like Christ and the apostles. Why do you deny so grossly? We also call it the Lord's Supper, or the bread and cup of the Lord, since we read the apostle 1 Cor. 11:26, 27. So you should sue us, you mad spirit: you command it to be called a sacrament, and forbid it to be called the Lord's Supper. If thou couldst bring such things upon us, thy bitter venomous resentment would have been somewhat visited upon us. But since we neither command nor forbid it, but call it a sacrament with a free conscience, you are a denier and blasphemer of Christ, who, without command from God, forbid, condemn and disgrace such freedom, acquired and given to us by God, and make such a necessary, spiritual, great thing out of your outward name and appearance.

Should I not call my Lord Jesus Christ by one name?

which is not written in the Scriptures? What if I called him my heart's crown, my heart's delight, my ruby, as long as I did not feel guilty about it, as if I had to call him that and not something else? But where are these names in the Scriptures? Item, if we should speak of baptism and the Lord's Supper altogether, how would we do it? There is no name in Scripture that covers all the sacraments or signs. Here we would have to be silent, or not speak of them all, or these prophets would judge us as Christ deniers. Item, there are many articles of faith, many pieces of Christian doctrine, many chapters in the Bible. How shall we do to him? These names, "articles, pieces, chapters" are not in the Bible, so now we must not speak of articles of faith, pieces of doctrine, chapters of the Bible. Yes, how do they themselves want to do, the heavenly prophets, they lead the chapters from the Scriptures with names? Are they not also murderers of Christ according to their own judgment, that they give names to divine things, which are not written in the Scriptures?

(22) If fools were to juggle like this at carnival, it would be all right, but that such high spirits, such heavenly prophets, should fool so childishly in such serious matters, and want to make it as great as all Christian mainstays, that is never a good spirit. What light should be in the minds, since such palpable darkness is within? This is what I am saying, to expose the devil to you and to show you tangibly what I have said above. Therefore, only look at the devil, how he sets up external order, which God has not commanded, and makes spirit out of it, which he himself has invented, in turn, destroying and disgracing the Christian freedom, which we have 1) in spirit and conscience. Dear, let it not be a thing of herrings, forbidding where God does not forbid, breaking Christian freedom that Christ has tasted blood, loading the conscience with sins where there is none. He who does and may do this may also do all evil, yes, he already denies everything that God is, teaches and does, together with his Christ, so that it is no wonder whether he also has bad bread and wine in the sacrament.

1. "so we have" in the old edition Walch's and m the Erlanger.

208 Erl. ss, 214-216. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. xx, p78-28I. 209

and cause even more misfortune. What good should the devil do?

23 Therefore listen, my brother, you know that by Christian liberty, as by any article of faith, we are to leave life and limb, and do all that is contrary to it, and leave all that is contrary to it, as St. Paul teaches in Galatians 5. Since then this same Christian liberty suffers distress over this little word and name "sacrament," you are henceforth guilty of defying and opposing these prophets of the devil by calling the Lord's Supper a sacrament; and wherever you are with them or come to them, you must call it a sacrament; not that it is necessary for your conscience, but that it is necessary to confess and maintain Christian liberty, 1) and not to allow the devil to make a commandment, prohibition, sin or conscience, since God does not want any. But where thou sufferest such sin to be made, there is no more Christ to take it away. For with such a conscience one denies the true Christ, who takes away all sin. Therefore you see how in these little things there is no little driving, if one wants to get on the conscience with it.

024 As if it were forbidden thee to eat flesh on a fish day, thou must eat it: but if it were commanded thee on a flesh day, thou must not eat it. If you are forbidden to marry, you must marry or pretend to marry. And so on, where one wants to make commandment, prohibition, sin, good works, conscience, and driving, since God wants freedom and nothing, hunted or committed, you must hold fast over such freedom, and always do the contradiction, until you receive freedom. So Paul did not want to circumcise Titum, Gal. 2, 3, because they insisted on it and wanted to make it necessary; and yet he circumcised Timothy, Acts 16, 3. 16, 3, because he was not urged. So you may call this a sacrament or not. But where these prophets urge and forbid it, you must and shall call it a sacrament.

25. on the other hand, since he now wants to prove that Christ is not flesh and blood in the Sa-.

1. In Walch and in the Erlangen edition: "not preserved".

crament, he himself confesses that he is moved by the preaching that has been said so far: Christ's natural body is as great, wide, thick and long in the sacrament as when he hung on the cross; and says he cannot believe it 2c. God forced him (like Caiphas Joh. 11, 50.) to speak of himself, so that everyone would see that he did not get his opinion from the Scriptures, but carried it in, and was willing to run to the Scriptures with such delusion, and to bend, tear and torture them on such his conceit, and not to break or judge his foolish mind according to God's word and Scriptures.

(26) Now it is true that such talk and conceit are gladly heard by the rabble and by reason, and indeed it would be no need for them to boast of the heavenly voice and of so excellent a high spirit. There is no reason so small that is not inclined to believe that there is bad bread and wine, rather than that Christ's flesh and blood are hidden there. One does not need a mind for this; it is easy for anyone to believe it. And the mad mob needs nothing more here than that only one, who has a small reputation, should be so bold and preach it, then he already has enough disciples. It would also have been easy for me to believe and preach that D. Carlstadt may not boast of great intellect or art here.

(27) But if our faith is to be treated in this way, that we first put our conceit into the Scriptures, and then direct them according to our own mind, and look only at what is plain to the common people and common conceit, then no article of faith will remain. For there is no one in Scripture who is not placed above reason by God. And this is precisely the cause that betrays Carlstadt's error, that he speaks of faith and God's word in such a way that reason gladly and willingly accepts it, which otherwise rebels against all God's words and articles of faith, and is allowed to write such a 3) thing about himself as his most noble reason. So I would also like to say: I cannot believe that God's Son has become a man, and that the majesty, so heavenly, has become a man.

2. Walch and the Erlanger: gemeinen.
3. i.e. as one of his most distinguished WÄLdL---.

210 Erl. 29,216-218, I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 281-283. 211

I did not understand the world and the earth, and I put them into the narrow body of a woman, and then I let myself be crucified. And then he wanted to tear down all the Scriptures and God's Word and interpret them according to my mind, as Manichaeus did. Now it is confessed first enough that he carried his conceit into the Scriptures and did not get it out, as he also cannot get it out. He might well have kept silent about the reason. But God wanted it that way, that the cuckoo would have to call out his own name.

After that he takes the scripture before him, before which his skin was afraid, and wants to charm it, so that it should not strike him, and says: "The verse" 2c. 1) But, because he mumbles so in the dark with fear, I will set his mind a little clearer. So he wants to say: Under the words, where the evangelists describe the Lord's Supper, namely:

Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, and brought and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this is My body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of Me," (D Cor. 11:24. Matth. 26:26).

29. Among these words, he says, the part "this is my body, given for you" is entirely its own part, and is not connected with the preceding "take, eat," but is a special speech and opinion added, since without it the speech would be complete.

30 Summa, D. Carlstadt wants to say so much with it, Christ could have left these words "this is my body, which is given for you" outside in the Lord's Supper, and the Lord's Supper would have been sufficiently instituted with these words:

Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it, eat. This do in remembrance of me.

(31) For that his body should be given for us is written in many other places. But he has added it to the abundance, to remind them of what they have been given.

1. Thus the old editions have interpungirt. Walch and the Erlanger: "and speaks the verse" 2c. That the punctuation we have used is correct is clear from the "Gesprächbüchlein", "this verse: 'this is my body' 2c. is a fully adequate verse" 2c.

should remember. As you 2) may well think that the drunkard Christ got so drunk in the evening that he drowned the disciples with the rest of his words.

(32) What do you think? Is this not a foolhardy spirit, who so boldly reaches into God's words and forces out what pleases him? Now because these spirits boast that they want to say wedded words, they want to force it with bright sayings, it must be so; as he then in the same book 3) always drives his poor Gemser, and says: Show reason, show scripture, you must force it, urge, fear and drive, so that one may not escape you 2c., so we also need such his rule and say: Dear Spirit, you say two things here; the first: that this thing, "this is my body, given for you," is a special thing, and do not hang on the 4) other. We pray thee, make us blind with eyes to see, and show reason, show scripture, enforce it, compel us to confess this. Oh yes! If so? For God's sake, show a word that clearly says or forces that this piece is a special one, then we will believe it. Won't you? Where is your spirit? Where is your God? Is he asleep? Or is he over the field? 5) Dear children, how silent and mute is the spirit here, which writes so many books, and yet does not show a word to the reason that this piece is a special piece!

33 Therefore, if the high spirit is silent and gives no indication, we ask for mercy. We must trust our eyes and ears, for we see and hear that this piece is not a special addition, as this spirit is doing, but it stands in the midst of other words, and hangs on it so hard that it could not hang on it any closer. For it follows without means the piece "Take and eat, this is my body," so that whoever hears them speak one after the other cannot think that it is another new piece. Therefore there must be a strong reason here

2. In the old edition of Walch and the Erlanger: "Wie magst du."
3. In the "Gesprächbüchlein," No. 3 in the appendix to this volume.
4. Erlanger: den.
5. d. i. Egg! look.

212 Erl. 2s, 218-221. 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. xx, 283-285. 213

and mighty cause are given from the Scriptures, one shall prove that a new special piece is, and does not hang on the proceeding. These same causes and reasons we comfortingly assume and are certain that this spirit will arise when the devil becomes God.

34 For where it should be an addition, it should not stand in the middle of other words, nor be interspersed when he speaks of eating, but should be added afterwards, when the other speeches were all finished, so that the text would stand thus according to Carlstadt's opinion:

Receive and eat, this do in remembrance of me: for I say unto you, that here sitteth the Lender which is given for you.

This is how Christ would have spoken if he had wanted to have understood an addition and D. Carlstadt's opinion. For he is not as unspoken or as confused in head as D. Carlstadt, although D. Carlstadt thinks, as he plops one thing into another and brews without all order, that Christ also does so; but he should prove it first. For it is sufficiently proven that he himself has such a head and manner.

The other thing that the Spirit is to prove is that he says that this particular thing, "this is my body," was added for the purpose of reminding and teaching them what their memory should be based on. 2c. Well, that is out, the Spirit has said it; now where is the reason and cause that Christ therefore added this? Whoa! Peter von Naschhusen, show poor Gemser a little word, urge, force, compel him that he must confess it so. For Gemser hears well that you say it. But it is a great shame that your heart should fall away like this when you have to prove it. Where is it written? What scripture says it? that it is added to teach the memory? I know that Christ's death is to be commemorated, but that this piece is added for this reason I do not know, since the Lord's Supper is perfect without such a piece, and other oters show well enough why Christ is to be commemorated. If I had been with you, my Peter, I would have introduced you to another gem, which should have wedged the plow of such a spleen.

So now this matter stands: If D. Carlstadt is the man who has power to set articles of faith, and we must believe him, if he speaks without Scripture what he dreams, then his writing is right, so this piece is to be taken out, and has added and patched up a peculiar opinion to the whole complete text, like a shell on a Jacob's coat, and does not approach the Lord's Supper. But if he is not the man, then you see how the devil rides him, that he tears, sets, changes, interprets, tortures God's word according to his will, so that I myself believe that he is not serious, but has surrendered into the entrenchment, that he asks neither for God nor man. For how can a man do this without a special devil? That he wants to tear clear words out of both eyes and ears, without 1) speaking and setting all Scripture as he thinks fit, and to arrogate such conceit so high, as if nothing more constant had been heard on earth, that he also therefore blasphemes and reviles the repulsive, as if he were full of devils; as his little books show.

38 It reminds me of his tearing and torturing in God's words just as those, of which I read a book when I was a young master, who tore and tortured the Lord's Prayer thus: Our Father who art in heaven be sanctified, thy name come, thy kingdom come 2c. And was strangely and strangely divided, had also their cause thereupon. Item, as some Jews have done, Gen. 1, 27: God created man in His image male and female; He created them; and thought that God had made Adam in such a way that his one person would be both male and female. If it were to be torn and divided in this way, what a fine Bible we would make, especially if it were done in places where power lies, and articles of faith are established; in other places there would not be so much power in it.

39 Therefore this is our reason: Wherever the Scriptures give a foundation for believing, one should not depart from the words as they read, nor from the order as it is written,

1. Wittenberg and Erlangen: and without.

214 Erl. SS, "21-223. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 285-288. 215

unless an expressed article of faith compels to interpret the words differently, or to order them. What else did the Bible want to become? When the Psalter says: God is my rock, Ps. 18, 3, here the word "rock" is written, which otherwise means a natural stone. But because faith teaches that God is not a natural stone, it forces me to interpret the word "rock" differently from its natural meaning. So also Matth. 16, 18.: "On this rock I will build my church."

(40) But since there is no article here that requires this piece to be separated and taken out, or that the 1) bread is not Christ's body, one should badly take the words as they sound, and not change them, and let the bread be Christ's body.

41 Yes, says my Peter Rülz, that it is a special piece proves that, because it begins with a large letter, namely: "This is my body" 2c. Item, there is a large dot in front of it 2c., where one is in the habit of starting new pieces. What do I hear? I had demanded reason and cause from the Scriptures; so you give me a dot and a capital letter. Is a dot and a capital letter holy scripture at Nashhusen by the plow? So I hear that once again you give me your conceit instead of divine scripture, and pay dirt for gold. Because you think that a dot and a large letter make something special and new, you want to persuade me to think so without writing. No, it is not a matter of opinion; Scripture, Scripture, Scripture, compel, urge, compel me with God's word that a dot and a capital letter always make a new thing. Where does a clear saying in the Scripture say: A dot and a capital letter make a special thing? Do you not hear, Peter? Peter, don't you hear?

Is not this a sin and shame of the spirit, that he would base such a great thing on such idle talk, who rages so horribly when he is not shown writing? How if my book had no point nor large letter, and your book had it both? So I hear well, our faith

1. "that" is missing in the Jena.

would stand on the ink and pens, yes, on the good will of the scribes and printers; ei there it would stand fine! We say and want to have it in short, there should be dry, bright sayings and text, which force us with a clear mind, God gives, whether it is written with large or small letters, with dots or without dots. For if it were true among men that a dot and a capital letter make a new thing (as they do not), should my faith in the Holy Scriptures, without all sayings and words, stand only on an impotent dot and letter, which neither says nor sings anything? Then it would stand on a fur sleeve.

43. How, if in some books (for they are not all the same) a large letter and dot is put to remind that there is said a great thing, that the reader should remember and remember it the better? and not that something new is there. Something new starts there? How fine then would my faith stand on the doubt, which would have held that the point and letter would be there, that a new thing would begin! How often does one write the name of Christ with large letters through and through? How often does one draw a line underneath, or paint a hand, or otherwise make a special sign in a text, when nothing new begins? After all, dots and letters are a human thing and work, and it is even within man's power to make and set them as he pleases; and my D. Carlstadt wants to base divine faith and word on such a humanly impermanent thing?

44 Oh, what can I say? The spirit is truly not serious. One can see that it is a vain desire and does not care much about faith and God's word. Woe to faith, which one must support and seek help for and beg for, that it cannot find a word from the vast great Scriptures, when all articles are otherwise so abundantly and powerfully founded. And even if D. Carlstadt's opinion were right and true, I would not and could not believe it, because he uses dots and letters and does not come up with a word, and then does no more than say no to our bright, fine, orderly text. For I would have to think: Awe, it is a jugglery, and no reason there.

216 Erl. 29, 223-225. 5 Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 28S-29I. 217

Here I want to address all who accept D. Carlstadt's opinion, and say: D. Carlstadt's highest and some reason is that this piece "that is my body" 2c. is special and new beginning and addition as heard. Carlstadt's highest and most important reason is this, that this piece "this is my body" 2c. is a special and new beginning and addition, as has been heard. If he does not prove and maintain this, all his thing falls. He has no more; for everything that he subsequently says about his xxxxx and other things, all stands on the fact that this piece is a special new beginning; if this falls, and our reason remains that this piece hangs on the other, then Carlstadt helps neither nor Tatta, we have won. So such attachment forces and compels by force that the bread be Christ's body. For so the words read: "Take, eat, this is my body"; that forces by force, because it clings to each other, that that which he calls them to eat is his body. Carlstadt himself saw this well, so he took pains to divide and tear it apart, and yet found nothing but a dot and letters, which (as is known) are not in all books; and whether they are in all, nothing is certain whether they are there so that a new one begins, or for the sake of the reader's devotion. 1) And this is more plausible than that.

(46) But faith must be certain, and have for its foundation not dots or letters, but bright, dry sayings and whole, clear words from the Scriptures. Well, there you Carlstadters lie in a heap, as much as is yours. Your faith and art stands on an ohumächtigeu, uncertain point and letter. On it the Belial dares his conscience and bliss, I do not. Therefore, dear sirs, my Carlstadters, you make many books; but look here, for God's sake, since you suffer need, and think that you prove this little piece "this is my body" to be a new beginning; there it all lies, there it burns, dear brothers, there it divides, there it tears, there it divides. Whether you write as many books as there is sand on the sea, if you do not help the cause here, you have lost. For (as I have said, and say again) the text is one upon another, "Receive, eat; this is my body". Let

1. i.e. to attract the reader's attention.

you hang the food on the body of Christ, it is contended that the bread is the body, and the body is that which they shall eat. You may not pass by. In spite of you all, and yet in spite.

Now tell me, what is to be thought of the spirit that can dare to do such an excellent thing without all scripture and word, only on a single point and letter? Is he not mad and foolish enough? Do you also think that he has a conscience? What should he not dare more, if he had room? What pious heart wants to provide something good or righteous to him? Well, I have done my part; he who wants to err about it always errs. And even though this is enough to answer all of Carlstadt's books, for since it remains that the host is Christ's body, it will probably learn for itself that he must confiscate the pipe, that he blasphemes us so shamefully and calls us dog-beaters, and pours over us with barrels full of disgraceful words. He has fought against us with his point and letter (which is his some wretched armor), as if one were running on a rock with a broken straw. And if he is right, why did he not remain full of his prophets.

48 But let us answer further, to establish the matter the stronger. And to the first, if he would say that I should also prove my belief that this piece "this is my body" is closest to it, because he denies it, and cannot prove his, that they are to be separated from each other, I answer: I let them stand together for this reason, that I find it so in the text, when one speaks, reads and hears it, that they all hang together, according to natural speech, and know no reason why I should or should separate such natural order and appendix of speech. I find it hanging together; but if it is to be divided, someone must prove it to me. That is probation enough for me. As soon as I let the Lord's Prayer stand thus: "Our Father, who art in heaven," 2c., I can no longer take it as a test, because the natural speech follows one another in this way, and I know of no other 2) reason why I should divide it thus: Our Father, who art in heaven

2. "other" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.

218 Erl. SS, 225-227. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 291-293. ^21A

sanctified 2c. But if it is to be divided, I will hear the cause and offer defiance.

49 So this is the natural speech: "Take, eat, this is my body," 2c. that it hangs on each other and follows, and knows no cause why it should be divided. For Carlstadt's point and letter create nothing; so he himself, and no one else, has no other. But afterwards we want to prove it also from clear writing, not with a dot or letter, for the sake of abundance, that it should and must hang on each other. Now let this probation be enough for a defiance against the Tenfel.

50. the third time he comes forth with his Greek language, and chokes on your word ôïýôï. For in Greek the words are thus: ôïýôï Éóôé τό σωμά μου. Which from the beginning of the Greek language should have been and still must be interpreted thus: "This is my body"; and Latin: Hoc est corpus meum. This is the Greek completely given, that not a hair is missing, as this must testify 1) all, who know Greek there; without Peter Rülz to Orlamünda, he has found something new there and pretends, one may not interpret it enough, but would be fair, one leaves the ôïýôï and says: ôïýôï is the body mine. 2) What

shall I say? I would like to laugh at the monkey game, if it did not concern such serious matters. The donkey's head wants to master the Greek language, and does not yet know German or Latin properly, is silent about Greek and Hebrew, and appears so impudently before all the world, as if there were vain Peter Nützen from Naschhnsen here, who did not understand Greek.

Now, the only thing that matters to the spirit of the mob is that he excites and attracts the mad rabble, who otherwise have a desire for strange new things, and he should speak up here and say: "How is D. Carlstadt such an excellent man, who finds such things that are hidden from all the world, and yet wears a gray skirt and felt hat with great humility, and does not want to be called Doctor, but neighbor Endres; God and the Holy Spirit dwell here with

1. Walch and the Erlangers: show.
2. In the "conversation booklet".

all feathers and eggs. For what falls to the lot of Carlstadt is not because they understand his reason, which is impossible. For he mumbles, breaks and strangles himself over the words, and can't speak out what he wants; God perhaps refuses him, or is otherwise not skilled. To speak German. I also know that no one can say what D. Carlstadt's reason is, if he were to eat all his books. But that is why they fall to him, that he pretends to great art and splendid words and confidently blasphemes, and shows how it is so foolish to reason that Christ's body should be in the sacrament. But in this way one must excite and ape the rabble. It does not matter much if he does not know the reason, but it does not hold.

52 Therefore, I must do two things: the first is to explain Carlstadt's reason and opinion more clearly; the second is to answer it. Now D. Carlstadt's dream of his ôïýôï thus holds. The German, Latin and Greek languages all three speak of all kinds of things in three different ways. Of some as of man-forms, and call it the, this, that. By some as of female formations, and call it the, this, that. By some as neither male nor female, and call it this, this, that. Thus one speaks: the sky, the moon, the star, the man, the boy, the dog. Item, the sun, the earth, the air, the city, the woman, the maid, the cow. Item, the water, the wood, the fire, the light, the horse, the pig. But the Hebrew language has no that, but vain the and the.

Now Carlstadt contends thus: Brod in Greek and Latin is a der, and not a das. For they say, the xxxxx, the panis, but we Germans say, the Brod. But body is a that in Greek and Latin; for they say, the xxxxx, the corpus; but we Germans say, the body. Because Christ speaks here: ôïýôï Éóôé τό.

óùìÜ ìïõ, "this is my body", and does not say, "this is my body", he does not point to the "bread", which is a der in Greek, but to his "body", which is a das in Greek. Do you understand now what D. Carlstadt wants? This is his Greek

220 Erl. 29,2S7-L2S. 5. Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 2S3-296. 221

ôïýôï, which in German means that. With this, as a new Greek, he wants to have won from the Greek language that Christ's body is not in the sacrament, because he does not say: this is my body, but, this is my body; because it is said in un-Greek about bread: this is my body.

No Greek has ever seen such art, which was born in the language from the time of Christ. But now it is invented at Orlamünde, perhaps in an old picture, since they stormed images, or have it from the heavenly voice. And the man, who has hardly seen the abece in Greek, does not give so much honor to those who were born and educated in it, nor to those who now know Greek deliciously in German and all countries, that they would also have felt and noticed it in so long a time; yet nothing easier would have been to feel and notice; for no child is in German, if someone speaks of a woman before him thus: the woman is beautiful, the man is pious, it would laugh and say, you are a dodderer or gypsy. And all Greece and all the world should not have felt the same in the Gospel, when Christ says, ôïýôï is my body; yet all the world knows that with the ôïýôï they pointed to bread, and still point today. If a Greek child hears that someone says: the Üñôïò, it should also laugh soon; and yet no one has laughed, since all the world has said of Üñôïò or bread: this is my body.

And this foolish spirit still wants to lead all Greeks to school. But, as I have said, man has lost his forehead, eyes, brain and heart, so that he is neither ashamed nor afraid, and may dare everything as it occurs to him. He knows indeed that he does not know Greek, and proves it also honestly, since he uses the Greek ôïýôï Éóôé τό σωμά μου thus ver

interprets in Latin: istud panis est hoc corpus meum, and in German, ist der Leib mein, makes the article ôü a pronoun, and puts panis drein 2c. But which German thus speaks, "This is the body mine"? Nor may he knowingly build his faith on such his ignorance, and all the world with him. If one may rely on his conscious and recognized ignorance, article of the

How much more could he do it on an uncertain delusion or doubt? Yes, what should not such an impudent spirit dare? My heart is frightened in my body at the thurst and iniquity of man in divine matters, who is so stupid, fugitive and despondent against men on earth.

56. now we want to say cause, why Christ ôïýôï, that, and not the, from the

Brod says. In the German tongue there is a kind of language that when we point to a thing that is in front of us, we call it a das, otherwise it is a der or die. As if I were to say: This is the man I am talking about, this is the virgin I mean, this is the woman who can, this is the maid who sang, this is the journeyman who told me, this is the city that did, this is the tower that lies on, this is the fish I brought. Here I refer to all Germans, whether I also speak German. It is ever the right mother tongue, and so speaks the common man in German lands.

(57) In the same way, the Greek language with its ôïýôï says of bread, when it points to it and says: this is my body, which is given for you; therefore I refer to all those who know Greek. But the Latin language cannot speak in this way, for it has no articles like the Greek and German. And especially it is said among my Saxons, who did and did, like the Greeks, that they almost agree with the Greek, ôïýôï Éóôé τό σωμά μου,Tut es te Lif, Tut es te

Fruwe, Tut es min Lif this is the body, this is the woman, this is my body Otherwise, where D. Carlstadt's dream should apply, one would also have to say that it would not be said in German, if I said: this is my body, which is given to me, because body is one in German tongue. For so we say: the body is great, and yet say: this is the body that pleases me 2c. So also: this is the body that is given for you. But D. Carlstadt shows herewith that he knows almost as much German as Greek.

58 So, if I wanted to speak in German in the sacrament, and had a roll or a bread roll.

222 Sri. SS, S29-232. I. Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. W. XL, 2S6-2SS. 223-

host before me in my hand, which are both the same, I would say: this is the food, and not: this is the food; so also, of the same bread roll or host Christ says: this is my body 2c. Ask now why I cannot say: this is the man, and yet say: this is the man. I cannot say: the woman, the maid, the city, the journeyman; and yet I must say, this is the woman, this is the maid, this is the city, this is the journeyman. I know of no other cause than that there is and wants to have the kind of languages as God created them. So no Greek can say: this xxxx, and yet must say, this is the xxxx; so he also says: this is my body which is given for you.

One more thing, dear Peter Rülz, let Gemser try whether he could pierce your ears. You say that your ôïýôï should point to the body of Christ, and not to the bread, since he says: ôïýôï, or this is my body.

Tell me, dear Peter, what does the other ôïýôï, which soon follows, point to? Since Lucas Cap. 22, 20. and Paul 1 Cor. 11, 25. say of the other part of the sacrament, thus: "Likewise (he) took the cup after they had supped, and said, ôïýôï or this cup is the new testament in my blood" 2c. Here the word ôïýôï is expressed, and in the text points to the cup which he presents, and not to the blood of Christ which sat there. For this is how it reads in Greek:

ôïýôï ôï ðïôÞñéïí ç ÷áéíÞ äéá&Þ÷ç Ýóôßí Ý" ôþ αίματί μου,, "this cup is the new testament in my blood." Say on, so the Tuto yes should and must point to Christum, and yet points here in the text expressed to the cup, whether your faith considers or calls Christ's blood or Christum Himself a cup? Would it not be an opinion, so that all your things are vain new things, that you call his blood not a cup, but a bowl basket or spoon food?

60 Do you hear it, Mr. Peter? How do you sweat so much? Isn't it winter and hard and frozen? Would you like to have a sweat towel? Won't a big letter or a dot help here? Or doesn't the ôïýôï here want to be a das, and the cup a der? so that grammar would come to the rescue, because the spirit does not

can? For chalice in Greek is also a that, and not a the, ôïýôï ποτήριον.... Be

are you not the man who loves the straight truth? and, as you boast, you are stiff-necked against lies, but soft against the truth. Well then, be soft here and let it be said to you, give honor to the truth and confess that you did not look at the ôïýôï rightly, and that the man who came to you and tells you was not your heavenly Father, as you lie and blaspheme, but the wretched devil or his mother, that he showed you the one ôïýôï with the bread and let the other go with the cup.

61 What do you want to say against this, hui! all Carlstadters in one heap? Then you must be silent and punish your blasphemy and lying mouths, and as the publicly and irrefutably conquered confess that, just as the cup does not point to the sitting Christ, but to the cup and blood, which Christ gives to his disciples and calls them to drink, and says that it is a new testament in his blood, so you must also confess that the bread does not point to Christ's body, but to the bread, which he gives to them and calls them to eat. Do you have anything against this? Let me hear. Behold, thus God can catch the prudent in their own prudence. For these prophets thought that with the ôïýôï on the bread they would turn the whole world around, but did not see that the ôïýôï on the cup would instantly trample them into dirt, that they would no longer be allowed to kick.

Is this not a misfortune for the man? The evangelists put it there precisely so that they would certainly point to the bread and speak in the most simple way, and to ward off the error that Carlstadt is driving at it: and he takes it and pulls it to himself to strengthen such error with it. Tell me now, dear Peter Rülz, who has the sword by the edge, or who has it by the hilt? I mean, you are hit, and Gemser has thrust you with your own ôïýôï, so that you pretend to fence excellently. You should know which one of us has the spirit and knows the right art. If I should now also pay thee with blasphemous words, as thou didst not know the reverend Sacrament, the holy Body and

224 Erl. SS, 232-234. 5 Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX. 298-304. 225

Blood of Christ, so gruesome and horrifyingly beautiful, where would I take words enough? For your sin and blasphemy is beyond measure.

But even if D. Carlstadt were to stand by all things with his ôïýôï, and it were as he dreams, I have proven above that it would not help him, because he has not fought for it nor can he fight for it, that this piece "this is my body" is a special new thing, separated from the others, that my poor Rottengeist, where he wants to go out, is too far away from all bushes 1). For where the piece is not a special one, but clings to the other, then it tears away everything that D. Carlstadt does or does not do, cackles or cackles, and remains firm with all defiance that in the sacrament is Christ's body. But where this remains, the Holy Spirit has power to speak thus: the servant, the man, and it does not matter at all, does not hinder and does not help, whether he says: the bread or the bread; not that he does so here, but if he did so, that Carlstadt would gain nothing by it. Everything must be something higher than roZuIao Zramwatioao are, which is to establish the faith. For also John in his Evangelio, Cap. 1, 4. ff., where he speaks of the light, and calls it a that, soon after he calls it a that, and speaks: The world did not know him, does not speak thus: The world did not know it; that D. Carlstadt is ridiculous in this, not only with his Greek art, but also that he wants to put articles of faith from grammar. If then my faith is to stand on the donat 2) or primer, then it stands truly badly.

How many new articles will we have to put if we want to master the Bible in all places according to the grammatical rules? How often does it speak contra convenientiam numeri, generis, personae, etc.? Yes, what language does not? We Germans have night for a die, and say, die Nacht. Nevertheless, we also sometimes make a das out of it and say: des Nachts; it is quiet at night and sleeps well. That my D. Carlstadt might have stayed at home with his grammar, and instead would have given us sayings and

1. In the old editions: "püsschen", which is probably to be resolved with "bushes" i.e. hiding places, evasions.
2. "Donat" at that time the first textbook in Latin.

He brought forth the text from the Scriptures, as was fitting, so that he would have overcome the fact that his ôïýôï had to rhyme with Christ's person and not with bread. For he wants scripture from us, so we want it from him again. Well, hui! still fresh on, dear Peter, show but one little word from Scripture that ôïýôï points to Christ's person, not to bread? If so? We don't believe anything in your grammar, the reason is too sandy and uncertain.

So now you see, my dear reader, how the matter stands over this Tuto. D. Carlstadt defies it only by saying no to it, that it does not point to bread, and that it is not bright and certain enough; he stands on it. This is an outright insolence against the natural way and sequence of language, and he wants to have it proven that it points to bread. Thus, although the nature of the speech assists us, we have, to top it all off, proved violently from the text that it must point to bread, because it points to the cup in the altered part; this shuts him up. So we now also step again on our No, and demand that he prove how the Tuto points to the body of Christ, as he says and puts. For he who says yes must prove his yes against him who says no. Come on, Defiance, Defiance, let him also bring a text for his yes, as we have brought for our yes. For that he says no to our yes, which does not suffer the manner of speech, and says yes to our no, is nothing; he shall punish our no with a bright saying from the text, and confirm his yes, just as we punished his no with a bright saying in the text, and confirmed our yes. If he puts us in defiance, he shall have won. But we pray that he may be merciful to us here, and not scorch our turnips.

But it goes as I said; the spirit is not serious in the great matter, the devil only drives his game and mockery out of it. Well, then, I will order D. Carlstadt with his Greek language to the Greek speakers, that they drive away the tickle from him, and I will punish him quite well, so that he does not pretend to speak Greek another time, because he could do it before. I will act against him with the Scriptures 3),

3. Walch and the Erlangeners: him.

226 Erl. SS, ss<-S36. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. D. XX, 301-303. 227

and scripture set forth by him. If he does that, he shall be knighted. I hope, however, that we at least want to remain safe from him this Shrove Tuesday, but God will help us further. Let this be said of dear Tuto, on which the great heavenly prophets have so vehemently insisted.

67 Let us take the text before us and see how it would rhyme if this piece "this is my body" were a special one, and pointed to Christ's person, not to the bread. For since Christ takes the bread in his hand, gives thanks and breaks it, gives it to his disciples and says, "Take it and eat," and immediately says without any means, "This is my body," the nature and natural consequence of the words compels him to say of the bread that he took in his hand, and gave it, and commanded it to be eaten. The disciples could not have understood it any other way, nor could anyone else understand it who heard it from him. For their eyes had to look on his hands, how he takes the bread, breaks it, gives it and offers it; and their ears had to hear the words, which he speaks over the giving and in the giving. Now he speaks no other word in the giving, but these: "This is my body" 2c.

68 If it is not his body, which he presents and calls to be eaten, when he says, "Eat, this is my body," then he has deceived them and teased them with words. What would it be like if I gave a gray skirt to someone and said, "Take it, eat it, this is my skirt," and pointed the words to my garment that I had on? Wouldn't that be foolish and deceived, if I, after I had said: Take it, show it, followed it without any means and said: This is my mardern hood? Other words would have to fall in between, which would lead him from the gray skirt, which I handed him and told him to put on, to my hood; from these words it would be impossible for him to understand. So, what would it be like if I gave a man a piece of bread and said, "Take it and eat it," and in this offering and hot

1. marten - covered with marten fur. - Schaube - a wide outer garment.

eat quickly followed it and said: This is a pound of gold in my pocket?

(69) Truly there must not be a tuto or a tatta nor a dot nor a letter in between, which would start a different and new understanding, it is too powerful on each other. There must be expressed straight words in between, which distinguish it, namely: Take and eat, because I have, or there is still a pound of gold in my pocket. So also: Take away, eat, here I still have, or there is still a mardern Schaube. So Christ should also have said here 2) Take, eat, for I say to you that here sits my body, which is given for you; otherwise it would have been a mockery and sophistical. As if one handed another a drink and said, "Take this, drink; here I sit, Hans, with the red pants. Or thus: Take it, drink, the Turk has beaten the soldier Sultan, or otherwise led in a strange joke, which did not rhyme at all with drinking. In the same way, when Christ says: "Take, eat, this is my body, given for you, if it is to be a new beginning.

(70) If he had not spoken this word immediately and just at the time of giving, but a little before or after, it would have seemed so. But now, as soon as he gives and offers and is called to eat, he says, "This is my body," no man of any language can understand otherwise than that it is his body which he gives and is called to eat; or else we must allow that no one can be sure what one is saying to another. For if this bright and dry speech is to be torn asunder, no one is to speak to anyone else, I will interpret it differently, or must see to it that he interprets it differently. What would have been Christ's need, that he should say such words just now over the offering, and when he is called to eat, if he had other time for it, and well knew that they would not understand it otherwise, but from the bread, which he presented to them and told them to eat?

Therefore, it is not true that Carlstadt says that he added it to teach them what the memory should stand on.

2. "hie" is missing in the Jena.

228 Erl. 28, L3S-L3S. 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 303-306. 229

He says this by force from his own head, and can prove it neither with writing nor otherwise. This does not mean to teach, to break off the speech at the wrong time, treacherously and briefly, and to fall unawares and without warning on another thing, precisely in the presentation of another thing, since he does not speak of it; it means rather to obscure, to deceive and to deceive. Teaching must be simple, clear, and must show that which is taught, and not give or show another thing, and at the same time teach or name another thing. It is not his teaching if I show you white and teach you about black, or show you the devil and teach you about God. Jacks and villains, or mockers and jokers do so, who either want to seduce or cause a laughingstock 1). A pious man who is serious does not do so.

(72) Also, what need would it have been for Christ to point to Himself twice, once to the body, and the other time to the blood? It would have been enough for him to say: It is I, or: This is my body, of which the prophets said that it should be given for you, as D. Carlstadt wills. Now, however, it is all fit to eat and drink; put it both ways. He takes something hard that is similar to food, namely his body, and something soft that is similar to drink, namely his blood. What would he have needed? He would have taken just as much something else that was not so similar to food and drink. For, as I have said, he might well have said badly, "I am the man who was given for you; in it there would have been no form of edible or drinkable thing.

Now that he gives both in bread, which is like an edible thing, and in wine, which is like a drinkable thing, and does this at no time except at table under the food, and also at the very moment when he presents it and calls it to be eaten and drunk, no conscience can ever be sure that denies this. And I know for a fact that even D. Carlstadt's conscience itself is fidgety and uncertain here, as it cannot digest such punches, even if it were so obdurate and

1. Erlanger: Blaspheme.

blinded. For Christ might have taught it at another time, and not spared it until they ate and drank, and until he presented it, and commanded it to be eaten and drunk.

74. item, what does this mean? When he had given the bread and said, "This is my body," 2c. he begins again with the cup, and again gives the wine and says, "This is my blood. If this were a new beginning, when he says "this is my body," and wanted to teach what this 2) remembrance should stand on, he should not have thus divided it and separated it from one another, but should have attached body and blood to one another and thus said, "This is my body and my blood: This is my body and my blood, which is given and shed for you. Thus the teaching would have been his and just accomplished. But since he separates them, keeping one for the food and the other for the drink, and puts so many words between the two, namely, "He also took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it,'" it may well be understood that it is for the food and drink that the Lord is concerned, that he says, "This is my body, this is my blood.

(75) Yes, behold, how this spirit in his cleverness is deceived. He pretends that this piece, "This is my body, which is given for you," does not belong to the one that goes hard before it, namely, "Take, eat," but should be a new thing of its own for itself, and yet he confesses, must also confess, that this last piece, "This doeth for my remembrance," belongs to the first, as "Take, eat. Now is this not a wanton outrage, when in a speech three pieces follow one another and hang on one another, that someone may say: The first and last belong together, but the other and middle belongs to none, but is a special thing, and does this without reason of Scripture from his own head? How can reason suffer that the third or last should be attached to the first, and the other, which stands between the two, should belong to neither?

76. that would be just as if I had said in this speech Matth. 7, 15.: "JEsus said to his disciples: Beware of the false pro-.

2. Erlanger: the.

230 Erl. SS, S3S-S40. I. Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. W. XX. sos-sos. 231

phets who come to you in sheep's clothing," is to say that the middle part, "Beware of false prophets," does not belong to the first nor to the last part, but is a new thing of its own; so that this text should read: Jesus said to his disciples, who come to you in sheep's clothing, for you must beware of false prophets. An insolent man might say this, but no one is so foolish as to believe it. It is just this that this insolent spirit rages in this place, seeing that this piece "this is my body" 2c. follows the first without any means, so that there is also not an and in between, and in addition it is spoken between two pieces, which nevertheless belong together.

(77) But that D. Carlstadt here mends himself with a gloss, and says that so much is said, as if Christ would have said: Dear disciples, you have heard that the prophets proclaim of a body that is to be given for sin; so I tell you that this is the same body, 2c. I answer first, Who said it? Who told him to put such a gloss here? How can we be sure that this gloss and addition is right? Where is Scripture and reason here? Where does the text enforce this? Yes, where does it show it with a single syllable? Carlstadt says so; if this is enough, it is much more enough that I say otherwise, who have the clear text and nature of the language for myself. Was Christ not so wise as D. Carlstadt that he would have added this himself, because it was so highly necessary that such an opinion be understood here? Where are the high prophets here, who also do not call the Lord's Supper a sacrament, but want to have a name from the Bible? Item, they do not want to suffer the little word enim. Now you tell me, to add a little word or name (since there is no driving), they cry out for the very highest vice. But that they add such a big talk and gloss, which spoils it all, that is called indulgence. Do you see the devil there, who makes all trouble out of that which is nothing and free, and makes nothing out of the word of God, where all power lies? This is his way through and through.

78. dear god, when we are equally bright and

Although we have certain sayings of Scripture for us, there is still effort and work to keep us from the devil; and this lying spirit wants to lead us to his own words, so that we have no other remedy than to say: D. Carlstadt said it. Oh, how finely we should insist, that is, I mean, lead the people to Christ; yes, to the devil in the bottom of hell. But I will report his advice. He probably thought, the Schalksgeist, they will attack me with these bright sayings, what will I do? I will come before them and dull them with glosses. But he did not see, the mad fool, that making them dull and blunt with his own gloss without writing would do nothing, except that it would only become the sharper; for because one sees that he brings no writing for himself, and goes out alone with his own invented gloss, that he himself had to feel that the text was too powerful and too bright for him; that therefore his denial is probably as good as a twofold confession, and his patching is probably as bad as two cracks. It does not mend itself so, dear lying spirit, you must lead writing and text.

79. On the other hand, I would also like to hear a text from the prophets that proclaim a body and blood to be given for sin, as this lying spirit alfenzt. They say of the whole person that he should suffer, but not of the body and blood. Since here Christ clearly mentions body and blood and thus points to the prophets, as the spirit says, the word body and blood in the prophets should agree with Christ and be found in one place, so that he would remind the disciples rightly and they would understand him. Hui! you lying spirit, who does not suffer a word to be put to God's words, show us where the prophets say about a body or blood? Where did the disciples hear it in a few prophets? Seest thou, but once, that it is vain honor and fancied thing and addition with the Spirit? The whole Christ should suffer; but over the table he divideth it so, that he giveth the body to eat, and the blood to drink. Which division was not necessary nor could be in suffering. That is why the prophets also spoke of suffering, and

232 Erl. SS, 240-242. 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX. 309-311. 233

not said of this division or communion.

80. In the third place, if such a great addition is to be made, how is it to rhyme with what follows soon after, "This do in remembrance of me?" which is to rhyme with the meal, when he says, "Take, eat. Shall this leap back over so many words and long sermon, that it comes to that to which it belongs? What language has such a way or manner of speaking that between two words that belong to each other, it throws in such a heap of words and such a sermon? Surely one must conclude that it is a wanton sacrilege. But, as it is said, he shall prove it; we will wait for that.

This is to answer the reasons and causes that D. Carlstadt gives for his dream from the Scriptures, which were three. The first, that a large letter stood there in some books, not in all. The other, that there was a dot. The third was the dear ôïýôï. O holy excellent reasons, which no one should lead 1) without such heavenly prophets who hear God's voice! The fourth is that he cannot bring for himself a single saying from Scripture. And this reason is the strongest of all, which will remain forever; I will not overthrow it, but help to strengthen it.

82. Furthermore, he teaches us what Mrs. Hulde, the natural reason, says about these things, just as if we did not know that reason is the devil's whore, and nothing can but blaspheme and defile everything that God speaks and does. But before we answer this arch-whore and bride of the devil, let us first prove our faith, and set forth not great letters, nor dots, nor Tuto Tato, but dry, bright sayings, which the devil shall not overthrow.

In the first place, no one can deny that the three evangelists, Matthew Cap. 26, 26, Marcus Cap. 14, 22, Lucas Cap. 22, 19, and also Paul (1 Cor. 11, 24), since they write about the first part of the sacrament in unison, also say almost in the same words that Christ took the bread, gave it, and gave it.

1. lead - guide.

and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Receive and give; this is my body, which is given for you." They were speaking of the same thing, that whatever the words of Matthew the Evangelist are understood to mean in this place, they must also be understood to mean the words of Marci, Luke and Paul the Evangelist. Is it not certain then? Despite who says otherwise. So it is certain that all four are of the opinion that Christ did not call the disciples here dancing or whistling, but eating, according to the words: "Take, effet, this is my body" 2c.

(84) Well, then, it must be irrefutably confessed that these four, writing of the other part of the sacrament, are of the same mind, and all four want to speak of the same thing in the same place. Defiance, which here could also say otherwise. So then, when Matthew says Cap. 26, 28, "This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," it must be just the same, and as much as when Marcus says Cap. 14, 24, "This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many." Item, therefore also since Lucas Cap. 22, 20. and Paul 1 Cor. 11, 25. say, "This is the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you," must be and want just the same, which Matthew and Marcus want by these words: "This is my blood shed for many." Who can always say or think otherwise here? Since Lucas and Paul, by the words, "This is the cup," do not point to the visible body, or to the visible blood of Christ, but to the visible cup, as the words forcefully and brightly stand, saying, "This is the cup," but Christ's body, or blood, is neither cup, nor pitcher, nor bowl, nor plate: we must also say that Matthew and Marcus speak of the same visible cup, and not of the visible blood of Christ, since they say, "This is my blood." So that the little word "that" in all the evangelists is nowhere intended to indicate or refer to anything other than that which Christ presents, namely the cup or drink, and which is called drink. Or we will have to say that the evangelists did not

234 Erl. 2S, 242-244. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX. 341-314. 235

The same thing was meant, nor was it written in the other part of the sacrament.

With this we have enough for this time that, as was said above, Carlstadt's acts and deeds are lost, and it remains firmly established that the evangelists and Paul do not speak of the visible blood of Christ, but of the cup or wine, since they say: "This is my blood of the new testament," item, "This is the cup, the new testament in my blood. But where we have received that in the sacrament the blood of Christ is true, as these words enforce, this must at the same time remain firm, that in the other part of the sacrament also the body of Christ is true. And so everything that D. Carlstadt says against this is laid low, and it is found that nothing is but his own dream, which he has quite carelessly wanted to drive into Scripture, and must be called sta foris stay out.

(86) Now that he blasphemes with many mocking and scornful words, such as that Christ should be brought in bread and wine, whether he Christ should whistle us up if we will, and such like words of shameful blasphemy, it is evident that they are words of a reckless spirit or devil, which serve to excite the loose rabble and to provoke those who do not care much for faith and conscience. But where there are good hearts that ask about conscience and faith, they are truly not satisfied with such jokes and invectives and blasphemies. They want to have God's word, and so they say: What do I care about Carlstadt's dreams, mockeries or blasphemies? I see here dry, bright, powerful words of God that force me to confess that Christ is body and blood in the sacrament. So I should stop answering and mocking. How Christ is brought into the Sacrament or how we must be whistled up, I do not know, but I do know that God's word cannot lie, which says that Christ's body and blood are in the Sacrament.

I do not yet want to answer the sophistical and poor little bells that D. Carlstadt mends and laps about the chalice here. 1)

1. "läppen - to put on a rag.

O! it must bite badly, 2) what this text is supposed to break off. Carlstadt's words do not; they are Carlstadtian and nothing more. But after this I will show his sophistry. Now let it be enough that it is strongly proven how the evangelists and Paul, with the words "This is my body, this is my blood, this is the cup," do not point to the visible body and blood of Christ, as Carlstadt dreams, but to that which he presents to the disciples and calls them to eat and drink. We have conquered and won this little piece in such a way that neither Carlstadt nor all the devils with all their sophistry can overthrow it, that I know for sure. But it is the way of the spirit, as I have said. He has no interest in the outward word of God and signs; he attacks them freshly and does with them as he pleases, and then tells us his own trumpery, invented from his own head without any foundation in Scripture; this must be called the right spirit.

88. On top of these four great sayings, we have another, 1 Cor. 10:16, which reads: "The cup of libation which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" This is, I think, a saying, yes, a thunderbolt on D. Carlstadt's head and of all his rotten. The saying has also been the living medicine of my heart in my contestation over this Sacrament. And if we had no more sayings than this one, we could strengthen all consciences sufficiently with it, and strike all opponents mightily enough.... Oh how D. Carlstadt feared the spell, and began to build a great strong vault over himself against this thunderbolt. But when he reached for stone and lime, he seized cobweb and amen, 5) as we will hear when we come to the tender gloss of his witty and scriptless head.

89 But notice here, first of all, that Paul here neither did nor did not do great or great things.

2. So the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Walch and the Erlangeners: "hot".
3. Erlanger: still.
4. Erlanger: one.
5. So the Wittenbergers and Jenaers: "amen". Walch and the Erlangeners: "one". "Ainen" - little glasses, tips of the ears.

236 Erl. 2S, 244-246. 5 Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX. 314-316. 237

but brightly says: "The bread that we break". And especially he says: "That we break", not only that Christ broke in the Lord's Supper, so that herewith Carlstadt's lie lies in mud, since he pretends: if Christ had given his body and blood for food in the Lord's Supper, would it not follow that also the Christians afterwards or we may do it. To this we answer with this saying: "The bread we break"; we, we, we. Who are these we? I hope that D. Carlstadt will find another ôïýôï in the Greek language that teaches us that "we" means as much as Christ himself alone, and will then boast to his Peter Rülz that the Greek language does not suffer otherwise.

90. note secondly that Paul speaks of the bread in the sacrament, which Christ broke, and afterwards the apostles also broke; which breaking is nothing else than making pieces or dividing, in the Hebrew way, Is. 58, 7: "Break the hungry your bread"; Klagl. 4:4: "The young children were eating bread, and no one was breaking it for them. "2c. Lest we be reproached here once more by the spirits of the wicked as Christ's betrayers, that we 1) do not bake or break with fingers, but take many particles and hosts. For this they call breaking, and are not satisfied with it, that it is otherwise made into pieces, let it be with hand, knife, or however it may be, as it is called broken in the Hebrew way. Also, do not forget that he does not call it the shape of bread, as the papists do, but fresh and bad bread; so that we know how not to sin on this side, if we call it bread and keep it according to St. Paul's way, which the papists make a heresy.

Notice for the third time that he says brightly and clearly, "The same bread which we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ. Do you hear, my dear brother? The bread that is broken or divided into pieces is the fellowship of the body of Christ; it is, it is, it is (he says) the fellowship of the body of Christ.

1. Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. In the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen: "wir's".

of the body of Christ. But what is the fellowship of the body of Christ? It cannot be otherwise than that those who take the broken bread, each his part, take in the same the body of Christ. That this fellowship is so much as to be partakers, that each one receives the common body of Christ with the other, as he says there 1 Cor. 1:17: "We are all one body, partakers of one bread." Therefore, from time immemorial, it has been called communion, that is, fellowship.

(92) Here, D. Carl-, stadt, masterfully commits a crime, and would like to make this saying dull and dull beforehand, so that no one would notice how he is affected by it, and needs his spirit to be wrong, which makes everything that God sets outwardly and physically spiritual and inwardly, and again, what God wants to have inwardly and spiritually, that he makes outwardly and physically, as I have said above. So here he takes the word "fellowship" before him, and with it wants to enter into the spirit and make a spiritual fellowship out of it, and pretends that those of the body of Christ have fellowship who with outstretched desire consider the suffering of Christ and also suffer with it 2c. How then they have invented their new speech to such new understanding.

But if one asks: Where is the reason and the Scripture that prove such gloss; or where is the text that enforces it? then he points us to the smoke hole, or to the man who came to him and tells him. How could he do otherwise? The sentence was not to his liking, and yet he could not resist it. Therefore, before he left him like this, he thought, "It is better that I give him a nose as I can; if the Scripture will not help, then let my mad, mischievous head help, it is full of spirit, that is just enough for it, it tells me even more, namely, that the fellowship of the passion of Christ and the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ are one thing. Is it not his? Awe 4) Yes, quite. It is only a matter of one letter, that one changes the d into the b and the b into the d, then the word "suffering" becomes the word "body", and again. So you have

2. Walch and the Erlangeners: "sich nun".
3. Walch and the Erlangeners: "from the."
4. Cf. Mos. 10:10.

238 Erl. 2S, 24S-24S. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, S1K-SIS. 23^

it like the eel by the tail, must not lead any writing to it.

Oh, let the mad spirit depart. We answer his gloss thus: First, that the fellowship of Christ's suffering cannot be the fellowship of Christ's body and blood. For he that shall suffer with Christ, or be partaker of his suffering, must be fresh, spiritual, and believing. A sinful, carnal man cannot. But the unworthy also become partakers of the body of Christ, as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 11:29: "He that eateth bread unworthily eateth judgment." Just as it happened to the traitor Judah in the Lord's Supper, who had fellowship with other disciples of the body and blood of Christ and was partaker Matth. 26, 23. Luc. 22, 21. For he received it, ate and drank with it, as well as the other disciples.

But that Carlstadt makes the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ a spiritual fellowship, and does not want it to be the reception of the body and blood in the bread and cup, I leave it to St. Paul, who says: "The bread that we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ" 1 Cor. 10:16. Now the breaking of bread is a bodily external thing, no one can deny that. So they themselves say that an outward breaking or eating is nothing, one must eat Christ's body spiritually 2c. How then can the outward breaking and eating of bread be a spiritual communion, as D. Carlstadt says? Item, the unworthy and ungodly also break and eat bread, as Judas Iscariot and some Corinthians did, 1 Cor. 11. These have fellowship of the body of Christ and are partakers of it, as this saying forces that the breaking of bread is fellowship of the body of Christ. For this saying must be strictly obeyed, that where this bread is broken, there is the fellowship of the body of Christ.

96 Thus it is evident here that Paul is not speaking of the spiritual fellowship that only the saints have, as Carlstadt dreams of, but of a bodily fellowship that both saints and unholy have, just as the breaking of bread. That

one sees how D. Carlstadt's dream is a lie, who thus 'has perhaps' thought: I want to attack and torture the little word "community" alone, and do not want to see that it says before: "The bread that we break" 2c.; otherwise my gloss would not suffer. If I do not look at it, then there is no one who will look at it or hold it against the word "fellowship"; so I have won, it costs me no more than that I think: the people are all blind.

97 Why then does St. Paul not say badly, "The bread we break is the body of the Lord," but adds, "the fellowship of the body of the Lord? I answer: Why does he not also say badly: The bread is the body of the Lord, like the evangelists and himself, 1 Cor. 11, 24, but adds: "which we break" [1 Cor. 10,16.)? He undoubtedly added both because he wanted to speak as brightly and clearly as he always could and forcefully ward off Carlstadt's error. For he wanted to speak of the bread of the sacrament; he could not do that better than to speak of the broken bread. Item, he wanted to teach that each one received Christ's body in his piece; therefore he did not want to call it the body of Christ alone, as in a whole loaf, but the body that was divided into the community and given to all in common through the breaking of bread: that therefore this breaking of bread was not only the body of Christ, but the community of the body of Christ, that is, a body that was divided and received by all in the community. For with these words he sees in the midst of the breaking of bread, the dividing and receiving, how it is done when bread is broken and presented and received, and says: This broken bread is the fellowship of the body of Christ, that they all take in common and mine the one body of Christ and become partakers of it bodily.

So you see and notice how this evasive devil has no other remedy than the one that he does spiritually (as is his way) what God does bodily, and yet he shows nor gives any reason or cause for his doing so, but says it as one who would have power to change articles of the

240 Erl. 29, L4S-250. Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 319-321. 241,

faith according to his good pleasure. So" here the bodily fellowship of the body of Christ must be spiritual, as he will do afterwards also with the unworthy eating and drinking; item, with the discerning of the body of Christ, as we shall see. Only that thou mayest notice and know the devil, I will show him to thee.

(99) It is a good little thing of his, which I could almost do; if a saying were too powerful for me, which speaks of bodily doings, and struck me on the head, so that my brain wavered, I would lead and say, He hath not struck me, he speaks of: spiritual doings, and were then free, that I might not prove any reason for such an interpretation, it would be easy to be a celestial prophet. And if I were forced to show reason, I would have to stand there like butter on the sun, and leave a little sweat for it, and say: He would have me be like this and be right.

100 Therefore this saying of Paul stands like a rock, forcibly enforcing that all who break, eat and receive this bread receive the body of Christ and become partakers of it. And this cannot be spiritual, as it is said, it must be bodily. For one cannot become partakers of Christ's body in any other way than in the two ways, spiritually or bodily. Again, this bodily communion cannot be visible nor sensible; otherwise no bread would remain. Again, it cannot be vain bad bread; otherwise it would not be a bodily communion of the body of Christ, but of the bread. Therefore, since the bread is broken, the body of Christ must also be real and bodily, even though invisible. There it is said, "Let him who is an iron-eater bite a gash at him; I will watch.

In the third place we have the saying 1 Cor. 11, 27: "Whoever eats this bread unworthily or drinks the cup of the Lord is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Here, however, the spirit of the mob comes along and makes spirit, as St. Paul puts body, and calls unworthy to eat, who does not have Christ's remembrance and knowledge of his body right 2c. Do you ever ask: Where is Scripture? Where is reason? Where does the text give that? it shows you its slobber, and proves nothing.

more than that such sayings have caused him the burnt sorrow and wanted to make them incapable beforehand. It is as if I wanted to persuade someone who is waving a sword at me to believe that it is a straw, so that he will not strike me. But trembling before death does not help. Thou fainting spirit, how long wilt thou suffer thyself to be defied, that thou bringest writing or text? Are you not ashamed that you allow yourself to be defied as long as you put your slobber, your lies, your dreams into writing?

(102) Now when Paul says here, "He who eats and drinks unworthily," 2c., this is not rightly spoken, but should have been said: He that remembereth or knoweth not the Lord unworthily 2c. That unworthy eating and drinking is unworthy knowledge and remembrance of the Lord. Unless D. Carlstadt's spirit was missing here. But who wants to believe that? You must think that St. Paul was drunk in the evening, and when he spoke of unworthy food and drink, he forgot it and got lost. For he should have spoken of unworthy memory. But D. Carlstadt got it right on the sober morning and has now brought St. Paul's words into his order; Peter Rülz and the bride at Orlamünde thank him for this.

103. Now that we also say 1) St. Paul puts the bread and the body of Christ together here, just as he did above when he said, "The bread that we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ" 1 Cor. 10:16. Did not mean to say: The bread we break is the fellowship of the bread of the Lord, as it would have sounded to D. Carlstadt. Neither did he want to say, "Whoever eats this bread unworthily sins or is guilty of the bread of the Lord," as Carlstadt would have liked, but "sins against the body of the Lord"; so that he would receive in both places that the bread of the Lord is the body of the Lord. For if he had not wanted this, he would have had to say as above: Whoever eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the bread of the Lord. How does the sin in the body of the Lord come to the eating, if he is not in the eating or
104. "also" is missing in the Erlanger.

242 Eri. "s, L50-S5S. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. M. XX. W-3L4. 24)

Bread? Or should have said: Whoever eats this bread unworthily sins against the Lord's Supper, or against God, or against the commandment, or against the order of the Lord.

Now the nature and manner of speech dictates that he who eats unworthily is guilty of that which he eats. Therefore, it is not enough that D. Carlstadt says no and therefore carries a gloss, but because there is a clear text, and nature and manner of speech give: "Whoever eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the Lord's body," that the body of the Lord is eaten in the bread, and sin is committed in eating and drinking, he must use very powerful sayings and text so that we believe him. For the text forcibly enforces that sin is committed in eating and drinking, because it says, "He who eats and drinks unworthily"; and yet it says that the same sin is committed in the body and blood of the Lord. This is a great thing, that in eating and drinking he hath offended the body and blood of Christ, and hath dealt foully with him.

For not remembering the Lord properly is a special sin of unworthy eating, of which St. Paul does not say here. All the words in the whole chapter there, where he punishes them for their unworthy eating, indicate that the sin occurred entirely in eating and drinking. For this reason St. Paul rebukes them and wants them not to think that it is bad bread or wine that they eat and drink, and thus think themselves unworthy, but that it is the body and blood of Christ, against which they sin with such unworthy food. Such, I say, is the nature and manner of speech, so that one may think it is a vainly desired, compelled, and wantonly devised thing, which Carlstadt suggests against it, on which neither conscience nor faith can rest.

(106) It is not true that the sin which St. Paul gives to eating is to be appropriated to the memory by one's own thirst, since St. Paul does not speak of it. For he does not say how they unworthily keep the Lord's memory, but how they unworthily eat and drink. For there is neither appearance nor reason that one should be guilty of the body of the Lord by eating unworthily, and of the blood of the Lord by drinking unworthily, if not the body in the food,

and the blood in the drinking. "What was the need that he should divide it into two parts, that in unworthy eating the body of the Lord should be offended, and in unworthy drinking the blood of the Lord should be offended?

107 Why does he not say: Whoever eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the blood of the Lord; whoever drinks this cup unworthily is guilty of the body of the Lord? since one of the two would have been enough for D. Carlstadt's opinion to stand. Carlstadt's opinion. Yes, it would have been enough, because he would have said: Whoever eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of Christ, or of the death of Christ, because D. Carlstadt understands by the unworthy eating the sin that one does not honor and practice Christ's suffering and death properly 2c. Now, because Paul attributes the guilt of the blood to the unworthy drinking of the cup, and the guilt of the body to the unworthy eating of the bread, the natural light of speech forces that the body is in the eating, and the blood in the drinking, and that no one who has some appearance can raise a reason against this.

But summa summarum, it is the Spirit, as I have said above, that makes inward all that which God makes outward. Therefore he must do the same here, and draw the blame that St. Paul gives to bodily eating and drinking into spiritual eating and drinking. For when he slandered them for eating and drinking unworthily, because they did not recognize Christ's body inwardly, nor remember it rightly, it is understood that he draws the eating and drinking into the spirit, which Paul puts outside. For to eat spiritually is to know Christ's body rightly and to remember it. But do you see the devil with his great spirituality, without any reason, scripture, cause, or some evidence spun out of his own head?

In the fourth place St. Paul says again in the same place 1 Cor. 11, 28. 29.: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup: for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment, because he discerneth not the body of Christ. Here comes Peter Rülz buteins 1) with his Taratantara da-.

1. Erlanger: about.

244 Erl. LS, 253-255. 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 324-326. 245

and becomes a Greek man again, and says: the word äéá÷ñßíùí, which is

The word "who discerns" also belongs to the memory, that one must spiritually discern the body of Christ sharply, and follow the suffering of Christ with unshaken desire and eagerness 2c. Everything that this spirit teaches here must go to the spiritual memory of Christ. The bulge can no longer sing any other song. And would God that he could do the same, and did not use it so for the pretense of spreading his poison!

Dear Peter, I beg you, put your glasses on your nose or blow a little, so that your head will be lighter and your brain will be cleaner. Look at the text with us. You say that discernment is a matter of memory, but Paul says that it is a matter of eating and drinking. For he saith not thus, He that keepeth the memory of the Lord unworthily deserveth judgment, because he distinguisheth not the body of the Lord: but thus, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment, because he distinguisheth not the body of the Lord." Do you hear it, Mr. Peter? In unworthy eating and drinking this discernment does not happen; therefore judgment is earned. Is this not clear enough? Doesn't the text make it clear?

I could still give D. Carlstadt two guilders, if he would only once in all this trade, not for my benefit but for his own, do one thing to the two, either that he led sayings out of the Scriptures, or enforced from the text that his thing was right. But now he does no more, for he catches a little word and smears his slobber on it, as it seems good 1) to him, and in the meantime does not see that next to the same little word there are other texts, which both smearers and slobbers 2) push, so that he turns all four upside down. As here, when he long scribbles and drools that the distinction belongs to the memory of the Lord, he does not see that the light text stands there, and says that it happens in unworthy eating and drinking. Just as above, when he wanted to make the fellowship of the body of the Lord spiritual, he saw that the body of the Lord was spiritual.

1. "good" is missing in the Erlanger.
2. Jenaer: Drool.

he did not that the bodily breaking of bread broke his neck.

It is like the ostrich, which is such a foolish bird, because it comes with its neck under a branch, it thinks it is covered; and the young children, when they hold their hands before their eyes and see no one, they think they are not seen either: so this spirit also does, seizes a little word so that it adorns itself, and leaves the whole text, which exposes it and disgraces it.

I do not know whether he lets himself think that there is no Biblia or that there are no more people on earth. And indeed he should not do it against me, who warned him faithfully at Jena, he should just see to it that he does, I would not miss his. But he understood my words as he understands the Biblia, and calls me a mad sophist, a sow in the blood, a two-faced papist, and much the like. But I meant that he should perceive the matter well and hit it right. I almost wanted to say: "Around again, mass of souls, the penny is worth the pound. But it is God's work that Pharaoh's heart is hardened and blinded to his truth and word, to the comfort of all believers and to the terror of all hopefuls.

114 So then, this distinction is to be made in eating and drinking, as above this trespass and sin, in the body of the Lord, that "he who eats and drinks unworthily eats judgment. Why is this? Therefore, saith Paul, "that he distinguish not the body of the Lord." Now tell me, how is one to distinguish in eating and drinking the body of the HER? The Greek word äéá÷ñßíùí*,* in Latin discernere,

means that one has a difference and does not consider one like the other, but one more noble, better and more delicious than the other. That St. Paul thus means: He who eats and drinks unworthily deserves judgment or good punishment; for with his unworthy eating and drinking he does not, non discernit, distinguish the body of Christ, but keeps and goes on with the bread and wine of the Lord, as if it were otherwise bad bread and wine, if it were not.

3. Walch and the Erlangers: the.

246 Erl. SS, Lös-LS7. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 326-329. 247

is the body and blood of the Lord. For if he took it seriously for the Lord's body, he would not approach and eat a loaf of bread with such indignity as usual, but with fear and humility and honor, for he would have to shrink from the Lord's body.

If this opinion is not right, then give another and say what Christ's body is. For there is no more in the word than this, that Christ's body should be something better and more delicious and special than other things. This is enforced strongly enough by the nature of the language. Since St. Paul testified and wants to have such a distinction in eating and drinking the Lord's bread and cup, it is strong enough from the text that one should hold the body of Christ better and higher than the bread and cup. So it must follow that the body and blood of Christ is in the bread and cup, because those who eat the dish with unworthy food do not distinguish the body of Christ: Eat not distinguish the body of Christ, and [those^ who eat it worthily, rightly distinguish.

But D. Carlstadt is not to be blamed. For since his spirit has in mind, as I have said, that he wants to make spiritual what God wants to have bodily, he must also proceed with the distinction here, and set a spiritual distinction inwardly in the spirit before: the knowledge and memory, since God wants to have a bodily distinction between the bread and body of Christ. But that he should also show reason and cause, or enforce it from the text. Rather, let him not be sworn to; you see that he has other things to do. It is enough that such a man says it. If you do not believe him, then believe his gray skirt and felt hat, in which the Holy Spirit must be, as you may well grasp.

It reminds me of this high art of D. Carlstadt as well as of those who deal with allegories, which St. Jerome compares to the jugglers in Prologo, as if I wanted to make Christ out of Dietrich of Bern, and the devil out of the giant with whom he fights, and humility out of the dwarf, and death out of his prison: Death

1. Walch and the Erlangers: shows.

Christ, or any other knightly play or history before me, as I practiced my thoughts all and played with it, as he did, who drew Ovidii Metamorphosin completely on Christ. Or, lest my spirits be angry that I compare their thing so to worldly fables, if I took St. George's legend and said that St. George was Christ, the virgin he redeemed was Christianity, the dragon in the sea was the devil, the horse was the humanity of Christ, the spear was the gospel 2c. Item, since St. Peter sank into the sea, and Christ helped him, I would like to say: The sea is the persecution and tribulation in the world, Peter is every Christian when he doubts, and Christ is the grace of God 2c.

118 All the art of these prophets is in such deeds, which they do diligently; and because they have found many other such interpretations in the Old Testament, they also find more of them every day, and teach much about the seven sprinklings, and fill their books with such art, just as if it were a delicious thing, and no one but they alone could interpret it, and yet they generally interpret such foolishly foolish things, that one might cringe at them, especially the sevenfold sprinkling. Nor do they think that such interpretations must be proven from Scripture, and that they are not valid unless they are expressed clearly elsewhere, as I have written in the sermon on the ten lepers 2). But they, if they have only invented it, it is enough, so it is, already proved.

119. Carlstadt also does. After he has learned this from his prophets and has a whimsical head by nature, which always looks for something strange, which no one knew before, he goes to and wants to play dice with St. Paul's words and make allegories, as he is used to in the Old Testament. That is why St. Paul has to tell him here about spiritual and not about bodily fellowship, about spiritual and not about 3) bodily difference, about spiritual and not about bodily difference.

2. Walch, St. Louis Edition,.vol. XII, 1444.
3. The words: "and not of bodily fellowship, of spiritual" are missing in the Wittenberg and Jena editions, and we have taken them from Walch's old edition.

248 Erl. 29, 257-2SS, 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 329-331. 249

talk of bodily unworthiness in eating, of spiritual and not of bodily guilt in the body of the Lord. And the silly fainting devil thinks that he should not be seen. No, journeyman, you are seen, you have not painted yourself enough, you must use more and different paint.

120. Would you like to say: Well, if it is true that the sea means persecution, and Christ means the grace of God, and the sinking means weakness or despair, it is also true that God's grace helps in persecution. So it is neither wrong nor false to have spiritual fellowship, to spiritually distinguish the body of Christ, to spiritually eat unworthily, and to spiritually be indebted to the body of Christ; and such allegories or interpretations are all true and quite beautiful.

121 I answer, "I do not now dispute whether they are all false or not. But I do know that they are often missing and are just a dream, because they are presented without any reason of the Scriptures, just as the sprinkling of these prophets is nothing at all, as they make believe. I dispute that D. Carlstadt not only puts all this in this place without any foundation in Scripture and text, but also wants to forcibly dampen, deny, and disgrace the right written understanding by such high spiritual pretense, which the text naturally enforces and does not suffer from its jugglery. If he would let us keep it intact, I would let him allegorize and spiritually interpret, juggle and play until he got tired of it. As if someone would let me keep that Peter had gone and sunk on the sea according to the written meaning, I would not ask anything about how he interpreted it, so far that it would happen without harm to the faith.

So, if Carlstadt would leave the bodily fellowship of the body of Christ, the bodily separation, the bodily unworthiness in eating, the bodily guilt in the unworthy eating, I would let him do what he wanted. For St. Paul also says Rom. 12, 7: "The prophecies should be similar to faith", so that each one does not interpret what and how he desires, and then lead his conscience to it. For

This is actually quite an illusion, since a thing seems to happen and to be true, and yet there is nothing behind it. Just as this D. Carlstadt's spiritual interpretation of St. Paul by him and his followers seems to be a deliciously excellent thing. But if you look at it in the light and according to the text, it is quite a jugglery. For it is neither reason nor truth, but invented by himself and imposed on the text by force.

If such a spiritual jugglery is to apply, then I would like to teach D. Carlstadt and all his prophets for another three years. Carlstadt and all his prophets for three more years; I am almost trained in this, since I first began to learn the Bible ten years ago, before I hit the right ground. I also wanted to say easily, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth", Gen. 1, 1.: "Heaven", that is, the angels and spiritual creatures; "earth", that is, the bodily creatures; don't you think it would be rightly said? Yes, but where is the text in the meantime? How shall I prove that in this place heaven and earth are not called the natural heaven and earth, as the languages are? Dear, the natural language is Madam Empress, it transcends all subtle, pointed, sophistical poetry; one must not depart from it, unless a manifest article of faith compels; otherwise no letter would remain in Scripture before the spiritual jugglers.

In this way also the great teacher Origen was deceived, and he deceived St. Jerome and many others with him, so that before times his books were cheaply forbidden and condemned because of such spiritual jiggery-pokery. For it is dangerous to play with God's words in such a way as to govern conscience and faith. Therefore, it should be bright and certain, and everything should have a firm, secure, good reason, on which one may comfortably rely.

These are the main sayings in this article, so that by God's grace we may do enough for all good consciences to strengthen their faith. But if we do not convert the stubborn Carlstadters with this, we have won two things against them. The first is that they do not prove their case with Scripture,

250 Sri. 8", SSS-LM. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, Wl-W4. 251

nor force from the text, but lead vain own conceits and thoughts, so that they subjected themselves to darken the bright sayings, but nevertheless have failed. For that he says no to our opinion, we do not demand reason, but shall show reason, as we then do. But that he should say something else and show no reason, oh that is shameful of such a high spirit.

The other, that everything they bring up against us does not smear us, nor does it hold the sting; and in the end we also offer them defiance, that they still do their best; we do not want to be man enough for them with any other than these sayings, both on all their past, present and future art and wisdom, they should not take them from us like this. For Carlstadt's certain defiance lies in the fact that everything that the evangelists and apostles draw on food and drink with clear sayings, he draws on the memory of the Lord with his own conceit without any reason. Another one who can do it better.

If Carlstadt's rage of all things existed and falsely overcame our faith of all things (as it is impossible), what would he have accomplished? His faith would therefore not be right nor certain. For he proves nothing, but says it only therefore, as one says a fairy tale, leading neither reason nor scripture nor cause, so that no conscience can stoop to it 1) or rely on it, unless it wanted to rely on D. Carlstadt's louder words. So that whoever follows D. Carlstadt's opinion must sit down between two chairs and hover between heaven and earth, and keep nothing at all of the sacrament. For he leaves our faith and cannot take hold of it, unless he has some reason or saying for himself. And this is also what I have always said, that the devil's final opinion is to abolish the whole sacrament and all outward order of God, so that one only gapes at the spirit inwardly with the heart, as the 2) prophets teach.

128 So now (I think) everyone sees

1. d. i. support.
2. All other editions have "die", yet the Erlangen one has adopted "diese" from Walch's old edition.

well, that D. Carlstadt's spirit is the one that wants to ape people with the word "spiritual" and intends to make everything spiritual that God wants to have bodily, so that he makes a great appearance and prestige of his poison. But if he also set a reason for it, and did not just say, "This is how it is," but proved that it should and must be this way from and in the text, then it would be one of his spirits. But now he alone says his own, we may say, Thou deniest, dear spirit. "For all men are liars" [Ps. 116,11.The pope also lied like this, but his spirit acted more, that he made the spiritual bodily, as he made the spiritual Christianity a bodily external community, this red spirit again deals most with it, that he makes spiritual, what God makes bodily and external. Therefore, we go between the two and do nothing either spiritually or physically, but keep spiritually what God makes spiritually, and physically what He makes physically.

Whether some remain and persist in such error and the Sacrament of Carlstadt, or still fall into it, what would it be then? yes, if all the world were to fall away from our opinion. What must we do with the gospel, since there is more power in it? Does not the whole world fall away from it and fight against it? How few are they who are rightly attached to it? So do not be mistaken whether few act or believe the sacrament rightly. Let go what goes, see where you stay. It is no wonder that many err. It is a wonder that there are some who do not err, however few there are. Christ himself says: "Do you think that the Son of Man will find faith when he comes? [But whoever is mistaken here is mistaken through no fault of mine, for I have faithfully enough taught and taught.

By Mrs. Hulda, -the wise reason of D. Carlstadt in this Sacrament.

Now that we have laid the foundation from Scripture and proven our faith, and have laid Carlstadt's foundation, let us now see how he speaks of this matter, since he begins to consult reason, which first of all tells him the right reason. For D. Carlstadt has now become much more foolish than the papists have ever been. The Papists

252 Erl. 29,2SI-SSS. 5. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, sst-ssa. 253

have always made a point of using sayings from the Scriptures, even though they have dealt with them incorrectly. But D. Carlstadt has only Tuto and Tatto, point and letters, and own gloss from his head, not a single saying of the Scripture. Thus the papists profess that in the Sacrament not reason but God's word is to be followed. But D. Carlstadt picks up and brings together everything that reason can show, teach, judge in this; are these not joyful prophets and heavenly spirits to me?

The first part of this highly praised reason is that it concludes: Where in the Sacrament Christ's body and blood would be, it must follow that the bread would be crucified and given for us, and not Christ Himself, because the text speaks, "This is my body given for you." What words, then, does Frau Hulda interpret to be said as much as: The bread is given for you. Item, be also as much as: My body will not be given for you before it has become bread 2c. What do you think about prudence? Defy! and say now that these are not heavenly prophets. Ask now where they have learned such grammar, or for what reason they interpret Christ's word in this way, and you may hear the heavenly voice.

132 Let us continue. It is pure evil, since the devil is involved. Tell me, Mrs. Hulda, you who are otherwise so pure that you do not suffer a word of addition or interruption from us in God's word, how then are you so impolite here, and add so many words, and say: My body is not given for you before, it has become bread? Item, why do you break off in the other part and say: The bread is given for you? Show me, which language has the kind, that it understands this piece "this is my body, which is given for you" thus or expresses: The bread is given for you; or thus: My body is not given for you before it became bread? How, if all languages understand this piece not differently than thus: "This is my body, which is given for you" 2c. ? There is no other body, which is given for you, but this, which I give you here in the bread 1).

1. Walch and the Erlangers: "in death".

to eat. It does not follow that he will be eaten and crucified at the same time, but the one who is eaten at this time will be given to you afterward, when he is not eaten.

I will take John the Baptist as an example, when he points to Christ and says: "Behold, this is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" John 1:29. Listen here, red spirit, John says that Christ carries or takes away the sin of the world, and yet he is not yet on the cross. Dearly beloved, go and say, From this it follows that Christ is not crucified for us. For the words are, that Christ did not bear the sin of the world before John pointed to him and called him the Lamb of God, and that no other Christ was crucified for us, nor at any other time or place than when John pointed to him at the Jordan. For there he bears sin before he is crucified, just as here he is given for us in the bread.

Item, Joh. 10, 12, Christ says: "I am a good shepherd, and I lay down my life for my sheep. Let us learn from you that because Christ here points to Himself as laying down His life for us, it must follow that it was at the same hour in the Jewish school that He spoke the words to Himself and about Himself, and not on the cross, that He was not crucified for us afterwards. For the words *do not indicate otherwise, when he speaks v. 15, "I lay down my life." Say not, I will lay down my life; as he saith here, He that is given for you, and saith not, He that is given for you. Item, so also this must be understood, when he says there, "I give them eternal life;" says not, I will give them. Item, when he says Joh. 17, 19.: I sanctify myself for them; does not say: I will sanctify myself for them. Oh, be ashamed in your heart, you great rude asses, who pretend such great art and prophecy, and let such things go out into the world, that they are taken hold of, that ye will not for great wickedness, or for great ignorance cannot rightly speak, nor understand to speak.

2. "not" is missing in the Erlanger.

254 Erl. SS, S63-SS5. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 336-339. 255

135. But if the devil stands so firmly on the word, "which is given," as at present, and does not say, "which shall be given for you in the future," we thrust his own words into his mouth, saying, If these words, "this is my body," 2c. point to Christ's sitting body, it follows that Christ was not crucified for us. For the words refer to the seated Christ, who is not crucified for us; for he could not hang on the cross and at the same time sit in the Lord's Supper. So he would not have to be given for us before, because if he sat there and pointed to himself. Does not this mean that he was shamed in wisdom?

136. Now if Christ can sit with you heavenly prophets and say of him, "He will be given for you," and you must interpret the word "will be given" to mean, "He who is to be given for you," or, "He who is decreed and ordained to be given for you," and must tune another time to his sitting and showing, and another time to his crucifixion and surrender: We beseech you also that ye forbid his body to be in the bread now, and not to be in the bread afterward at the cross; that we may also say over the bread, This is my body which is given for you; that is, which is to be given for you, or is already decreed and determined to be given, as if it were already given.

Where are you now, Mrs. Hulda, with your wisdom? Yes, where is the testimony in your inwardness, that you are not allowed the outward testimony for yourselves? This is what I say, my dear reader, so that you may not be able to ignore the wretched devil who is exploiting himself in D. Carlstadt for a spirit. For in this first piece of reason Peter Rülz praises his spirit almost highly, and speaks excellently of the matter in the way of the heavenly prophets, which is, as I said, that they do not first come to the spirit through the outward word, but first from the spirit to the outward word, and then they quote Christ's saying John 15:26, 27: "The Spirit of truth shall bear witness, and ye also shall bear witness," just as if the apostles had received the spirit without the outward word of Christ. Therefore Peter Rülz boasts that he has had his fill of the

The inward testimony; the outward he accepts for the others, to teach them and to punish them.

You hear their theology, that others should learn it outwardly by their word, which they call an outward testimony; but they themselves are better and higher than the apostles, and want to learn it without outward words and without means inwardly in the spirit, which was not given to the apostles, but to the only Son of Jesus Christ alone. There you see the devil, as I told you above, that he does not respect the outward word and does not want to have it as a prelude to the spirit. Beware of this, and be sure that these prophets are full of devils, as you see here in the first part of their reason, and will see much more. Such a high spirit, which is above the apostles' measure, shall indeed show greater signs. But as they prove their doctrine and outward testimony by writing, so they prove their spirit and inward testimony by signs; one devil is like another.

139 But if D. Carlstadt and his mob could abandon their sophistry and reasoning, because they so harshly dispute that Christ says about the bread, "this is my body," and do not want to or cannot understand how bread can be the body, and do one thing to the two, either give God the honor and let his words be right and true, although they do not understand how it happens that they are right and true, let them suffice and believe it, because they hear that God speaks and wants so; Or, if they wished to be wise, they would do so according to the custom of the Scriptures and the simple manner of speech, and leave their subtle and pointed thoughts in place.

For if one looks at the simple kind of language, one can say of a fiery iron: This is fire, or thus: The iron that lies there is fire. Now if a quarrelsome sophist, to prove his pointed cleverness, woke up and wanted to fight against all the world that iron and fire are two different things, and that it could never be true that iron is fire, tell me whether he would not be a nonsensical fool who wanted to lead people away from the simple way of speaking to his pointed, sharp, sophistical way? since the simple language no longer wants anything.

256 Erl. 29, S65-2S7. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX. 339-342. 257

with the saying "iron is fire", because it wants to interpret how iron and fire are in each other, that where iron is, there is also fire. And no one is so great that he needs the great sophistical wisdom, as wood is not stone, fire is not iron, water is not earth.

Just as iron is fire, and fire is iron, according to simple language, and these two things are one in the same and the same thing, but each keeps its own essence, so they could easily have humbled themselves and abandoned their pointed cleverness, and with Christ and all the world, in a simple and bad way of language, said of the bread, "This is my body. Since this is so much to say that bread and body are one thing or with each other, like fire and iron, and yet no one is so foolish as to say that body and bread are not two different beings.

Just as we also say of the man Christ: He is God, and again: God is man, and yet no one is so great who does not know that Godhead and humanity are two different natures, neither of which is changed into the other, but the simple speech wants to say and interpret so much, that in Christ there is Godhead and humanity in each other as one thing, that where man is, there also God is bodily, as Paul says Col. 2, 9: "Behold, they could easily have done away with the simple manner of languages, 1) which, by their pointed and solicited sharpness of reason, give them and others so much useless trouble and labor.

And you shall see, because they go on the way that they will not honor God's word with faith, or accept it according to simple language, but measure and master it with sophistical reason and subtle subtleties, they will even come to deny that Christ is not God. For by reason it is as foolish to say that man is God as that bread is body. And because they deny one, they will also deny the other very soon and freshly. This is also what the devil, who has led them out of the Scriptures into their reason, seeks, that he may bring old 2) heresy

1. i.e., to bring in the right direction.
2. Thus the Wittenberg and Jena. Walch and the Erlangen: all old.

bring them in again. For you shall see how wise reason will be, especially in the mad mob, and shake your head and say: Yes, Godhead and mankind are two different things, immeasurably separated from each other, as an eternal from a temporal; how then can one be the other, or someone say: Man is God? So you would also have to say: temporal is eternal, mortal is immortal, and the like, as they say here in D. Carlstadt's head against the sacrament, then she will have met it.

Or, if they do not like this kind of language, they should follow the way of the Scriptures, which in common usage has the figure called synecdoche, that is, when it calls a whole and yet only means a part, as it does when it calls the Israelite people a possession and a special people of God Ex 19:5, yet the greater part underneath was always the devil's, and the wavier part God's. As Paul also calls the Galatians, Corinthians and other cities God's community 1 Cor. 1, 2. Gal. 1, 2., yet the lesser part are rightly God's children. Yes, 1 Cor. 10,17. He calls all those one bread and one body, who partake of one cup, yet many of them took the cup unworthily, as he himself says.

145 So these sophistical and pointed men of wisdom might in this place also have pointed the whole piece, as bread and body, which Christ speaks of, to the body alone, when he says, "This is my body," not considering the bread. Not that bread should not be there, but that the body is so important in the speech that he speaks of it as if the body were there, and everything that is there, whether bread or paint, is nothing but the body. Just as if a mother pointed to the cradle where her child was lying inside and said, "This is my child," and a sophist scoffed at her and said, "How? Don't you think she would take him for a fool or a joker? as he would not want to understand the language, since she points both to the cradle and the child, and yet the child primarily means, as if there were no cradle.

146. item, St. Paul Rom. 1, 16. calls the oral gospel "a power GOt-.

258 Erl. SS, 2"7-2SS. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 342-344. 259

tes". Let a clever sophist come here, who knows how to distinguish God's power (as it is eternal) from the oral sound of the voice, which passes away in a moment. He will prove his art, and also produce a Tuto or Tatto, and conclude thus: A bodily voice cannot be God's power, so St. Paul must lie that he calls such an oral, bodily word God's power. Item, St. Peter would also have to suffer the same, because he speaks 1 Pet. 1, 23. 25.: "The word of God remains forever", as also Isaiah says Is. 40, 8., and yet interprets the same word that is preached among us. How is it 1) true here that an eternal thing is a perishable thing?

A sophist cannot believe it; but he who knows the common usage of the Scriptures is not at all mistaken, and it is quite easy for him to understand. For it is the figure of the synecdoche that governs all things, which rules powerfully not only in the Scriptures but in all languages. Therefore, you see that this evil spirit cannot yet speak or understand the mother tongue, and D. Carlstadt, who pretends to great art in Greek and Hebrew, would be well worthy of being led back to his mother with his prophets, or to a German school, so that he could first learn to speak and understand German.

The other part of the high reason is that Carlstadt goes along as if he had contended that there is nothing but bread and wine in the sacrament, and says: Where Christ commanded to receive his body, who said: Take bread and eat? That is why the Hutzelprediger (O beautiful German) should have preached how to eat the bread of the Lord worthily, as Paul preaches. If I now ask these high spirits again: Where is it then that Christ says: Take the bread and eat? Then they will perhaps show me the testimony in their inwardness; the Kielkrob believes this, 2) I do not. I do not know anywhere that Christ calls us the bread.

1. Jenaer: is.
2. About "Kielkropf" compare Luther's Table Talks, Cap. 24, §§ 95 and 96, Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 756 ff. - This reading "Kilkrob" is found in the Wittenberg. In the Jena one, probably by a misprint, "Kolkrib." In Walch and in the Erlangen edition: "Kolkryb". * I

but says, "Take, eat; this is my body" 1 Cor. 11:24. Here he tells me to take his body and eat it, not bread. But this spirit has all power to set, change, add and subtract as he pleases, how can he err?

To strengthen this little piece of reason, he blames the pope for many great and terrible things. The first one, that he steals God's honor, because he says to us in the form of bread: "My God, have mercy on me. The second, that he contradicts the truth by teaching that we should remember the bread, and makes us forget the body of Christ. The third, that he should destroy Paul's doctrine by exalting the bread so high that we forget the remembrance of the Lord. The fourth, that he makes foolish men by teaching us to eat bread honestly, though we never remember Christ. The fifth, that he makes Christ's suffering useless, because he teaches that Christ forgave sin in the form of bread and redeemed us; for then he would have died on the cross in vain. There you have it, Pabst, run after me more, I mean, you are troffen. These five pieces he has so chaotically spit into one another that it has become sour to me to bring them into such order.

What should I do? If I answer here, then I am papist. But D. Carlstadt has thought: "Pabst's abomination has been brought to light by others before me; now I would also like to become a knight in the dead Hector. But if I am to write what others have written and produce nothing new, it is a shame for me, as such a great heavenly prophet. Well, I will write to him, and shall I write vain lies about him. It is true that the pope has caused me much more suffering with his own than D. Carlstadt, and still does daily. Yes, they have so far held D. Carlstadt in the highest contempt. Nevertheless, I do not want to be so foolish that I should attack the pope with it, knowing myself that it would be falsehood in public. The pope and his followers do not care that I have attacked them with public truth and clear scripture; what should they care that D. Carlstadt attacks them with tangible lies that he himself knows?

260 Erl. LS, 269-272. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 344-347. 261

151 For the life of the pope and his own, be it as it may, we are now talking about his teaching, non de moribus, sed dogmatibus papae. Here, I say, D. Carlstadt is not mistaken, but his conscience knows that he is obviously lying about the pope. For he has also been a sophist, and has learned and taught both the theology of the high schools and that of the pope. Now nowhere does the Pope teach that one should say to the figure of bread: My God, be merciful to me, as all the world knows. Nowhere does he teach that one should remember the bread and forget the body of Christ. Nowhere does he teach that the form of bread should be so highly esteemed that the remembrance of the Lord should be forgotten. Nowhere does he teach that the bread should be eaten honestly, so that Christ is never remembered. He does not make Christ's suffering useless by teaching that Christ in the form of the bread forgives sin and saves us; indeed, he does not teach this. D. Carlstadt directs such five pieces against his own conscience to the pope, which he knows himself and all the world.

152 Therefore, since he wanted to blame the pope for stealing God's glory, contradicting the truth. He should show other pieces and causes, since he wanted to blame the pope for destroying the teachings of St. Paul, for making nonsensical people, and for making the suffering of Christ useless. For such pieces rather prove that D. Carlstadt has a lying evil spirit, which robs people of their honor publicly, contradicts his own conscience, and as a nonsensical fool makes himself sinful and a disgrace before all the world. What a spirit of his should this be to me, who wants to cast out the devil with the devil, yes, desecrate the public truth with public lies!

What might D. Carlstadt have sought in these impudent lies? I consider two: the first, that the rabble should think: O! it is nothing that Luther or others have done to the pope? They are all pretending to him; here is the man, D. Carlstadt will do it, he knows how to put the pope in the right mood. What do you think, dear Endres, and dear Gevatter Peter? The other thing, that he will wrap Luther up with the pope and his

1. Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Erlanger: nehber.

I am not going to tell you that Luther teaches exactly what the pope teaches; yes, he is a two-faced pope, as he also calls me. The devil of D. Carlstadt does not do this, that he is the enemy of the devil of the pope, from whom he is sent to D. Carlstadt to teach the pope the same things that the pope teaches. Carlstadt to cunningly help up the papacy again, but that he nullifies everything that God has worked through us in the Gospel up to now and saved so many souls, that gets sour in the devil's nose.

Now then, my reader, know again, because D. Carlstadt's spirit is so insolent and impudent that he lies to the people in public against his own conscience in such a great and worthy cause, since all error and doubt (let us be silent, public lies) are to be avoided like poison, that such a spirit is no other than an evil angry devil, who is not at all serious about doing this thing, but through D. Carlstadt's envious grudge would like to take revenge on us and destroy our gospel. Carlstadt's envious resentment, he would like to take revenge on us and destroy our gospel. For we do not teach to worship, fear or honestly hold the form of bread, nor to forget the death of the Lord, but we honor the body and blood of Christ in the bread, as he himself well knows, and also fights against us in this whole book, so that we do not think it is vain bread or the form of bread, and yet we are guilty of honoring vain bread, as one who is senseless and speaks against himself.

Therefore, we may more reasonably say that D. Carlstadt robs God of His honor, contradicts the truth. He devastates St. Paul's doctrine and makes Christ's suffering useless, because he denies against the clear, powerful text that the body and blood of Christ are in the sacrament, and therefore carries glosses out of his head, since there is neither reason, cause, nor scripture, and in the end he cannot prove anything, except that he lets out good, fat, strong lies, and speaks as a nonsensical man against himself. See, there you have the other piece of his dear reason, how it knows how to adorn itself in divine things. But how this is true, that Christ forgives us our sins in the sacrament, we want to save from that, because he makes himself quite useless about it.

156. the third piece of Mrs. Hulden, öamit she proves that Christ's body is not in the

262 Erl. 29, S7S-274. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 347-349 263

Sacrament is this, because Christ says, "His flesh is of no use", Joh. 6, 63. Item: "It is of use to you that I go away; if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come" Joh. 16, 7.. Where did Christ command his body to be received? Which question he often indicates with his ôïýôï, as certain that he had won. So again we answer, as to him that lost with all shame, that Christ commanded us to receive his body, saying, "Receive, eat; this is my body." Let this be said once, as much as a thousand times, in answer to such a question. For the ôïýôï and great letter and dot have lost the banner, as we have proved above.

But is it not his art and a mighty conclusion: The flesh is of no use, therefore one does not receive the body of Christ in the sacrament? Rhyme Bundschuch. Why not just as well? Carlstadt is no longer at Orlamünde, therefore Christ's body is not in the sacrament; since one thing follows another. What should this do to or hinder the sacrament, that Christ's flesh is of no use? What use is it that he sits there in the Lord's Supper, and that Tuto points to him according to her dream? Dear, let me use your art, you spirits: Christ's flesh is no good; therefore he does not sit at the table, and the Tuto does not point to him. Is it not so strong as your consequence? Tell me, where is Christ's flesh useful? On the cross? In heaven? In the womb? Where then? So I hear that he must be nowhere, because he is nowhere useful. For if this follows: Christ's flesh is of no use, therefore it is not in the sacrament; so it also follows that he is 1) nowhere. For that it is of use is as much of the Spirit when it is on the cross or in heaven as when it is in the sacrament. What do you think? These are heavenly prophets; so one should attack the sacrament if one wants to overthrow it.

(158) Further, tell me: Your sacrament, bread and wine, what is it good for? If it is not useful, it is not in the Lord's Supper, nor does anyone receive it. For what is of no use is not there, as you yourselves say,

1. Erlanger: es.

that Christ's body may not be there, because his flesh is of no use. Where then is the Lord's Supper? For of course none will ever be nor become so holy as to be of use, because Christ's flesh is not of use, which is the most holy. Is this not raving and raving. Dear, what then is raving and raving? I will be silent, that the blind impudent spirit masters and perverts Christ's word. For Christ does not say, "My flesh is of no use," but rather, "Flesh is of no use" John 6:63. But of His flesh He says: "My flesh is meat" Joh. 6, 55.

159 There is much another thing: flesh, and Christ flesh. Item, another thing: Christ flesh is of no use, and Christ flesh is of no use to you or me. This I must further strike out, to prove that these spirits, who despise God's outward word, understand nothing rightly in Scripture. "God is good" Luc. 18, 19, and everything that he has created is also good, Gen. 1, 4. 10. 12. 18. 21. 25. 31. But what is good is also useful. But to an ungodly man nothing is good or useful, nothing is pure or wholesome, but everything is harmful, evil, unclean and damning, even to God Himself, not because of God or the creatures, but because of his unbelief, which misuses it all.

160 Therefore it should not be said that Christ's flesh is of no use; but flesh is of no use, as Paul says, "Flesh and blood possess not the kingdom of heaven," 1 Cor. 15:50 that "flesh" here is carnal mind, will, understanding, and conceit, as Paul says, Rom. 8:6, "To be carnally minded is death." So when Christ, John 6:55, speaks of His flesh as being the right food, He punishes the mind of the Jews who understood it carnally, saying that such words are spirit and life, but that flesh is not useful, that is, to understand such spiritual words carnally is nothing but death.

161 Yes, they say, the bread of the Lord and the cup are good, if one eats and drinks worthily; which is done in the knowledge of Christ, that one may know and taste him heartily and fervently. Dear, what shall we say? Your bread and wine is good if you eat it with a fervent knowledge of Christ.

264 Erl. SS, S74-S76. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 34S-352. 265

and tastes? Why is not also our sacrament useful, if one eats and receives it with right faith? Or is Christ's body and blood not as powerful, if it is partaken of with right faith in the sacrament, as your impotent bread and wine? Or is right faith not so much as fervent knowledge of Christ? But tell me, you lying spirit, when or where have we taught that the Sacrament (although it is always beneficial, healing and good in itself) is beneficial to someone who takes it in faith, through the words of God that are in it?

162 There are real devils' little tricks that D. Carlstadt uses. First, he uses splendid, splendid words (heartfelt, ardent, savour, knowledge of Christ), so that one should think that he is serious, for he saw that bread and wine are too bad things, therefore he must blow them out with such additions, and yet he does not show how or how one should get there. Secondly, he does not need the word "faith," so that he may be seen as teaching much higher and different things than we do, and as if right faith were nothing compared to fervent knowledge, and yet he knows just as much what the knowledge of Christ is as what faith or a good conscience is. Third, he stabs us viciously and wants to make us out as if we were receiving the sacrament badly without word and faith, when he knows otherwise, and again he lies poisonously and wantonly. Now I have said above: Acting with public lies in these great matters is not the work of a good spirit, but of a vengeful devil, since D. Carlstadt is also possessed.

After that he comes to the word sacramentaliter and says that Christ flesh sacramental is of no use, as little as he is of natural use, because in it one can see neither death nor resurrection 2c. And boasts here that he has struck the ear of the pope with the piece, so that his whole face is blackened, both with new and old papists. Boast, Rüplin, your father was a cabbage worm. I do not yet know 1) whether the spirit is acting wantonly, as if it were nonsensical and mad, or whether God is plaguing it so horribly.

1. "yet" is missing in the Erlanger.

He says a bare, naked, impotent word therefore in his head without any reason, that Christ's body sacramentally is of no use 2c. And with such a word he wants to strike the pope and all of us. Yes, if it were the pagans Priapus, he would perhaps leave a forz before such an excellent terror.

I said above that it is not right, but blasphemous to God, to say that Christ's body is not useful, as this mad spirit rages. He is always useful where he is, even if he is not useful to me because of my unbelief. The sun always shines, even if the blind do not see it; and the word of God is always healing, even if it is a poison to the wicked and a "stench of death unto death" [2 Cor. 2:16.And Christ's body is always in the sacrament, whether it is not in these mad, blind spirits, who have not yet learned so much from their high heavenly spirit that they would know how flesh and Christ's flesh are not one flesh, but one is a flesh of life, the other a flesh of death, and what do such prophets care about life and death? If only they had the honor of being holy spirits, that would be enough.

But that he says that in the sacrament one may not see the death and resurrection of Christ, therefore Christ is of no use there: Dear, is it true? Or high prophets! But tell me again, how does one see the death and resurrection in Christ's body, who sits there in the Lord's Supper, to whom the ôïýôï points? Is it painted on his forehead? Not? Well, then he is of no use to you. How the spirit is so proud in all his words! He cannot say anything that will not hit him on the head again, so that he not only turns black, but also has to stagger like a drunken man. If the words of Christ show us and teach us to recognize his death and resurrection in the seated Christ, why should they not also do so in the body and blood in the sacrament? For it is not the body of Christ, whether sitting at the table or in the bread, but the words when he says, "This is given for you," that teach us the death and resurrection of Christ.

2. Wittenberger and Jenaer: baumeln; Erlanger: dümmeln.

266 Erl. 2S, 276-278. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 352-355. 267

But if their knowledge and remembrance of Christ were vain heat, vain heart, vain heat, vain fire, so that even the spirits of the wicked would melt away, and their spirits would be puffed up with a thousand times more splendid words, what would happen then? What would be gained from it? Nothing, but new monks and hypocrites, who with great devotion and earnestness would oppose bread and wine (if they could), as the stupid consciences have so far opposed the sacrament. Such fear and distress would arise over this knowledge and remembrance as has arisen up to now over the desire to receive Christ's body worthily. For the knowledge they give does not do it; the devil also knows almost well and recognizes that Christ's body is given for us, and yet helps him nothing.

The knowledge helps, if I do not doubt, but hold with right faith that Christ is the body and blood given for me, for me, for me (I say) to blot out my sins, as the words in the sacrament read: "This is the body that is given for you" Luc. 22, 19.. Through this knowledge a happy, free and sure conscience is formed. This is what Isa. 53, 11. means: "By his own knowledge he will justify many." Carlstadt's spirit is as hostile to this teaching as to death, and would like to destroy it, and therefore pretends to have a fervent, heartfelt, earnest knowledge of the body of Christ, as if it were his earnestness, and yet leaves it there, does not think that one sees how he makes a pure commandment and law out of the words of Christ, which does no more than command us to remember and know him. And in addition the knowledge makes nothing else than a work, which we do, and because nothing but bread and wine is to be received there. But more of this later.

But I will tell you the spirit. With such splendid words he wants to avoid the clamor, so that one should not say that he destroys the sacrament because he makes bad bread and wine; therefore, he boasts and makes up such great words, so that one should think that he wants to lift up the sacrament. But in fact this is the devil's opinion, that he even pushes it to the ground, and

The first thing is to make a good collation, where people sit down and eat and drink, and throw jars and pitchers against the walls, and scuffle and beat each other over them. For if one has not been able to maintain fear until now, believing that Christ's true body is there, what fear will remain if one believes to be bad bread and wine? Let us become like good companions, feasting and tempering, so that the dear heath waits. 1)

So you see the devil clearly, who makes that which Christ promises a commandment, and instead of faith performs a work, as I said about him above. For all the spittle that D. Carlstadt throws out about the knowledge of the body of Christ in this matter is fouled by the fact that he has directed his ôïýôï to the seated body of Christ, from his own head, as we have heard. For with the Tuto, he thinks, we are commanded nothing else than to practice the knowledge of Christ in this sacrament, although Christ does not speak a word of such knowledge, commandment, or work there; nor can he put 2) any reason, Scripture, or cause, apart from his lost Tuto and his conceit, whom he believes who wants to believe the devil. And for this purpose he makes such a knowledge a pure work, so that he disturbs both the faith and the promise of Christ.

From which you may conclude that D. Carlstadt's theology is no higher than that it teaches how we should follow Christ. Carlstadt's theology is no higher than that it teaches how we should follow Christ, and makes of Christ only an example and master, from which nothing but works are learned. But he does not know and does not teach how Christ is our treasure and God's gift, from which follows faith, which is the highest thing, and he thinks to obscure and darken everything with these words: "ardent knowledge, ardent memory" and the like. And so, again, faith falls finely on the works, so that his teaching and art, as I have long since well noticed, finally wants to return to the point that

1. Thus the Jena edition. Wittenberger: wacht. Walch and the Erlanger: wagt. In Low Germany the saying is still now: "saufen, dass die Haide wackelt." We find the same root again in English: to vuA, to move back and forth.
2. "cans" - may deß.

268 Erl. SS, 278-S80. Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 355-357. 269

free will is something in God's things and good works.

To this the foolish spirit is so ignorant of the Scriptures that he understands the word "remembrance," when Christ says, "This is for my remembrance," in no other way than, like the Sophists, from the inner thoughts in the heart, as one remembers someone; for this spirit must inwardly and spiritually do what God wants outwardly, so that nothing else comes of it. But this is even worse and greater, that he gives such a memory the power to justify, like faith, and leads to such a reason. For it is written (says he), that they have done this in remembrance of me. What do you think? It is written, they have done it in remembrance of me; therefore such remembrance makes them righteous. There you grasp how finely D. Carlstadt understands the Lord's Supper, his memorial, 1) and justification, namely, that the devil has only his game and mockery in this matter.

172. but know and keep that the memory of Christ is an outward memory, when one speaks of someone and says, according to the Scriptures, Ps. 16:4, "I will not remember their name in my mouth"; item Ps. 9:7, "Their memory is gone with them"; item Ps. 83:5, "That the name of Israel may be remembered no more"; item Ps. 112:6, "The righteous has an everlasting memory". 83:5: "That the name of Israel be remembered no more"; item, Ps. 112:6: "The righteous have an everlasting remembrance"; that Christ, therefore, by the word "do this in remembrance of me," means as much as Paul does by "ye shall proclaim the death of the Lord" 2c. 1 Cor. 11, 26.; that Christ wants us to preach about Him when we partake of the Sacrament, and to tell the Gospel to strengthen the faith, not to sit and play with thoughts in our hearts, and to make a good work out of such remembrance, as D. Carlstadt dreams. O that the prophets studied before, before they left out books.

173 From this you well realize that such memory does not justify, but they must be

1. The comma after Abendmahl is in the old editions, but is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger. Almost throughout (not alone in this writing) the interwanttion of the Erlanger edition is taken from Walch's old edition.

first be justified, who shall preach, proclaim, and do the outward remembrance of the Lord, as it is written, Rom. 10:10, "With the heart one believeth, and is justified; but with the mouth confession, and salvation." But justification, which Carlstadt also brings from knowledge, is also nothing, and beware of it, for he will lie to you and deceive you. For he does not make such knowledge spiritual, as it should be. For Isaiah speaks (Cap. 53, 11.] of the spirit and spiritual knowledge, which the Holy Spirit works in us, and not we ourselves. Which is, if I know, am certain, and do not doubt, Christ is given for me. But Carlstadt makes of it a human, carnal devotion, and a fervent work in the heart; but not above knowing and knowing how Christ was given for us; which the devil and the hypocrites also can do. Scientiam docet, usum scientiae non potest docere. He may speak much of knowledge, but he does not practice it or conduct it properly, but lets it be a bad work; that is to make knowledge carnally and not spiritually. For his spirit suffers no other way; what is spiritual, he must make carnal.

The fourth piece of Mrs. Hulden is when she takes before her the saying of St. Paul 1 Cor. 11, 24: "Receive, eat, this is the body that is broken for you", and wants to master it. Help God, how the spirit pales and trembles before this thunder! But he takes courage from him and says, "Oh, you poor unwise man, do you think that Christ's body will be broken as bread is broken? 2c. But, beloved, let him hear how he chokes and tortures himself here. Tell me, did Christ break himself in the bread? He was not in the bread when he broke it; so you cannot show any apostle who broke Christ's body in the bread. At last he comes to the conclusion that Christ's leg was not broken; therefore this breaking must be understood of his suffering, that is, "this is the body which is broken for you," that is, which is crucified for you. Behold, beloved, how the spirit here walks on eggs, how it writhes and wriggles, how it has mush in its mouth and mumbles, as a half-dead despondent man.

270 , Erl. SS, S80-S8S. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 3S7-360. 271

No, dear little spirit, you do not escape me like this. And although I should have placed this saying above among the others, I was prevented from doing so by the unorganized suction 2) and confused writing of this book. First of all, it does not help that he wants to understand suffering and crucifixion by breaking. For the Scriptures do not say so, and he cannot prove it; so his own dreams and glosses count for nothing. It is true that the Scriptures call the afflicted broken-hearted and broken-spirit; but bodily suffering 3) is not. And even if it did, it is therefore not certain that it should be so here; it must be proved very well. So it does not matter that Christ did not break a leg. For there is none of us so foolish as to say that Christ is visibly broken in the sacrament, as thieves are broken. So we prove that Christ and the apostles have broken Christ's body, according to this saying, "this is the body that is broken for you", and must have been inside the breaking, Paul is lying.

But let's go for the joke's throat. Above we have thoroughly and powerfully proved that D. Carlstadt's ôïýôï must point to bread, since he says: Take, eat, Tuto, or this is my body, which is given for you. Because here St. Paul also puts the ôïýôï, and says, "This is the body that is broken for you," it must also point to bread. Thus the text enforces that this bread is the body that is broken, that in short, by force, this breaking must remain in the Lord's Supper, and over the table in the meal, and be nothing else (as I said above), but that the body is distributed into the community, as one otherwise breaks bread or distributes it into the community, that it is not necessary here to dream how Christ's body is just broken in the bread; but it is enough that it is broken, that is, distributed in all the pieces and particles of the bread completely and perfectly.

177 So the saying stands firm that Christ's body and bread are one, and where the body and bread are one, the bread is one.

1. Wittenberg and Jena: should.
2. Ströde -Spülicht; hence Saugeströde - Schweinetrank. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1944, the last line.
3. Walch and the Erlangers: suffering in the flesh.

Bread is broken, that it is as much as the body of Christ is broken or distributed, that it may be divided and received among many. For if St. Paul had not wanted the body of Christ to be in the bread, he should not have assigned the breaking (which actually belongs to the bread, according to Scripture custom and manner) to the body of Christ. But since he includes both in one another, so that he points to the bread, and calls it the broken body of Christ, that in the breaking both bread and the body are broken, no one can pass by, one must confess that the body of Christ is there in the bread; and just as through the breaking the bread does not lose its essence or name, and nevertheless remains bread and is called, even if it is broken up, so also the body of Christ remains there, even if it is divided into many pieces among many.

178 There is one more thing back there. St. Paul speaks of bread, "which is the body broken for you." Dear, how might it be broken for us? Broken among us would have been better. O how light legs has this spirit here, how his leaps over the word "for us"! Dear, why? Because he has undertaken to deny that in the sacrament there is forgiveness of sins; but such an assumption is dirt, where the word "broken for us" remains, which cannot be otherwise than that such breaking of bread and body should take place, and be instituted that it may benefit us, deliver us from sins. For Christ has put the power and authority of his suffering into the sacrament, that it should be taken and found there, according to the words, "This is my body, which is given for you for the remission of sins," as we shall hear now soon after; therefore this word was not to be touched by the Spirit.

The fifth piece of Mrs. Hulden is now especially about Luther, who taught that whoever's conscience is heavy with sins should go to the sacrament and get comfort and forgiveness of sins there. Here Peter Rülze is first of all a fine fellow and speaks joyfully: "O you false prophets, you promise the people God's kingdom for a piece of bread; I know that you do not make the bread better by your secret breathing and hissing; why then do you say that it is better for you?

272 Erl. SS, L8S-S84. Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 360-362. 273

sins when you have blown over it? Why do you not take a handful of barley 2c. and eat it in God's name, that you may be free from sin? Here I must speak with D. Carlstadt himself.

My dear D. Carlstadt, since you would not or could not contest this article otherwise than thus, why do you not stay at home? You have your hands full, if there were a thousand more of you, where you are supposed to overcome me with writings and causes, and you go to and attack me only with scornful words and openly insolent lies. Do you think that I am afraid of lies, since you yourselves know that you are lying? If, in worldly matters, someone were to attack another's honor with lies in such a way that both parties knew that it was a lie, my dear, should one not say to the other: "You are lying as an arch-robber and dishonorable villain? But what should one say here, since one lies brazenly against conscience in divine matters? Well, who still does not believe that these 1) prophets are full of devils, listen here, I will convince them with their impudent lies.

First tell me, He 2) Lying Spirit, when have we ever taught that a piece of bread forgives sins? Wow! Peter Rülz and Victus Knebel, show us a single letter or point, you use it to prove your point. Since you know that we do not do this, what kind of spirit is it that makes you lie so shamefully? If you were lying out of forgetfulness or ignorance, I could take you for a human being. But now you lie so willfully, knowingly and poisonously in such serious matters, no one can see anything else in you but the evil spirit. But it is the manner of these prophets to speak thus mockingly and scornfully of divine things, to excite the mad mob, who by such words shall think that there is vain victory and triumph, though they hear no Gvund.

The other tells me, when do we hiss or blow over the bread? Yes, show it! Item, where did we ever hiss or blow over the bread?

1. Jenaer: the. >
2. d. i. Mr.

teaches that our hissing and blowing makes the bread better? Oh yes! If so? Well, I will also make an oath: If D. Carlstadt believes that there is a God in heaven and earth, then Christ, my Lord, shall never be kind nor gracious to me; this is indeed a solemn oath. The reason is this: D. Carlstadt knows that we do not blow nor hiss over the bread and wine, but speak the divine, almighty, heavenly, holy words, which Christ Himself spoke and commanded to be spoken in the Lord's Supper with His holy mouth; I will be silent of the wicked and sinful priests. This I say, if these words were spoken by a donkey, as Balaam's donkey was, yes, if they were spoken by a devil, nevertheless they are God's words and are to be held in all honor, as is fitting.

183. Now tell me, whoever knows for certain that it is God's word, and yet may knowingly shout it out for a human hissing and blowing, mocking and laughing at it, and corrupt the poor rabble with such lies and poison, and take no fear nor awe nor remorse over it, but rejoice and take pleasure in such wickedness, as if God would crown him for such blasphemy and seduction of people and call him a grace-junior: How can he believe or think that there is a God? He must not be possessed with a devil. Now let him go, D. Carlstadt will find it, if he has not already found it; if God gives him that, then I will also say that there is no God. But I kindly warn D. Carlstadt that he should repent; God has tried hard enough, He has granted long enough, it will and must soon change. God grant that I must be a liar and false prophet here. Oh, dear God, what will we do if you let us?

You wretched spirit, why do you not attack the right cause? Why don't you punish our doctrine? You challenge a foreign doctrine in us, which you impose on us and deny, and which is not ours. What is easier to do than to conceive a lie and to attribute it to one, and to argue about it and to become a knight? 3) But this is our doctrine, that bros are not ours. But this is our doctrine, that bread

3. "to" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.

274 Erl. 29,284-288. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX. 362-365. 27fi

I will go on: Christ on the cross with all his suffering and death does not help, even if it is recognized and considered in the most fervent, heated, heartfelt way, as you teach; there must be something else. What is it? The word, the word, the word, do you hear, you 1) lying spirit, also? the word does it. For even if Christ were given and crucified a thousand times for us, it would all be in vain, if the word of God did not come and distribute it and give it to me, saying, "This shall be yours; take it and have it.

So also, if I were to practice the memory and knowledge of Christ with such fervor and earnestness according to Carlstadt's teaching that I sweat blood and burned over it, it would all be nothing and completely lost. For there would be vain work and commandment, but no gift or word of God, which would offer and give me Christ's body and blood, and it would happen to me just as if a chest full of florins and great treasure were buried or kept for me in one place, then I might remember to death and recognize with all pleasure, have great ardor and heat in such knowledge and remembrance of the treasure, until I would be sick over it; But what good would all this do me if the same treasure were never opened to me, given to me, delivered to me and handed over to me? That would truly be "to love and not to enjoy," that would be to be satiated by the smell and drunk by the sight of the glass, just as Isaiah says, "that a man dreams that he eats and drinks, but when he wakes up, his soul is empty" 2c. Isa. 29:8.

The whole teaching of D. Carlstadt is just such a reverie. For with the splendid words "ardent memory, ardent knowledge, sensitive taste of the suffering of Christ," he mimics us, and brings us no further than that he shows us the sanctuary through a glass, or in a vessel, where we may see and smell until we are full, yes, in a dream; But he does not give it, does not open it, and does not let it be our own, yes, with such splendid words he wants to darken for us the word that gives us such treasure,

1. The second "du" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.

saying, "Receive, this is the body given for you." The "for you" is a poison and bitter death to him. But it is our comfort and life, for it opens up the treasure and gives it to us for our own. 2)

But that our doctrine may be heard the more earnestly, I will speak of it plainly and roughly. We speak of the forgiveness of sins in two ways. First, how it is obtained and acquired; second, how it is distributed and given to us. Christ acquired it on the cross, that is true, but he did not distribute it or give it on the cross. He did not acquire it in the Lord's Supper or Sacrament, but there he distributed and gave it through the Word, just as in the Gospel, where it is preached. The acquisition happened once at the cross, but the distribution happened many times, before and after, from the beginning of the world to the end. Because he had decided to acquire them once, it was equally important for him to distribute them before or after by his word, as this can easily be proven with scriptures, but now there is no need nor time.

If I want to have my sins forgiven, I do not have to go to the cross, for there I will not yet find them paid out; nor do I have to go to the remembrance and knowledge of Christ's suffering, as Carlstadt says, for there I will not find them either, but to the sacrament or gospel, where I will find the word that pays out, gives, bears and gives me such forgiveness acquired on the cross. Therefore Luther taught rightly that whoever has an evil conscience because of sins should go to the sacrament and take comfort, not in the bread and wine, not in the body and blood of Christ, but in the word, which in the sacrament gives, bestows and gives me the body and blood of Christ as given and poured out for me. Is this not clear enough?

189 Therefore, this great spirit should have fought against us, saying, "O false prophets, you have no word in the sacrament that gives or gives you forgiveness of sin; but I say again, the word in the sacrament he should have contested, that is, the word in the sacrament that gives forgiveness of sin.

2. In the Wittenberg and the Jena: "to show".

276 Erl. SS, 28S-S8S. 5 Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 365-367. 277

If he had proved that we did not have it in us, he would have become a great knight. For though there were vain bread and wine, as they say, yet if there were the word, "Receive, this is my body, given for you," 2c., yet for the same word there would be forgiveness of sins in the sacrament. Just as in baptism we confess water, but because the Word of God is in it, which forgives sin, we freely say with St. Paul that baptism is a bath of rebirth and regeneration Titus 3:5; it is all in the Word.

190. There you now have D. Carlstadt's devil, my reader, and see how he intended to nullify God's outward word, which he neither respects nor considers, and calls a hissing, breathing and blowing. Item, how he wanted to abolish the sacrament completely, both bodily and spiritual, so that bodily. Christ's body and blood should not be there, and that the forgiveness of sins should not take place spiritually, that neither the sacrament nor its fruit should remain, and that instead of such divine order and word he should set up his own dreams of memory and knowledge. But he lacked the art. Now know what to think of him.

Here I must bring that at the very end of the book he speaks out of great reason and wisdom, saying that Christ's body was mortal in the Lord's Supper, but now it is immortal, and may not be given for us, as the words are, "this is the body that is given for you. But if it is not now, nor can it be given for us, and the words are now out and false, if they speak of the immortal body, it must also be false that the mortal body was in the bread and wine, because we have just such a supper after the death of Christ, now it is immortal, and is not given as Christ held when he was mortal. What do you think? How does Mrs. Hulde look for gaps and holes!

192 To this we first reply that Christ's blood did not become Gabriel's or Michael's blood, since it became immortal, but remained Christ's blood. For

We believe, and it is true, that Christ's blood, which now sits at the right hand of God in heaven, was shed for us once, and no other. Now if we look at the history 1) so that he acquired the forgiveness of sins, it was not done at the Lord's Supper; but now it is done and has passed away. But if one looks at the bestowal of forgiveness, there is no time, but has happened from the beginning of the world, as John also says in Revelation 13:8 that the Lamb of God was slain from the beginning of the world.

193 Because the body and blood of Christ is necessary for all who still have sins to be forgiven, it is still true that it is given for them. For although this 2) history has happened, as long as it is not given to me, it is the same as if it had not yet happened for me, that such sophistical sophistry creates nothing for Mrs. Hulden, who does not see how it is all about the giving out, and Christ has done the acquiring for the sake of the giving out and has put it into the giving out. Therefore St. Paul also says, as mentioned above, "the body of Christ is broken for us" 1 Cor. 11:24. Nothing prevents the forgiveness from being mortal or immortal, whether it is done or should be done; it is enough that it is the same blood. For it is poured out for me, when it is poured out and given to me, which is poured out for me; which still goes and must go daily.

These are almost the best and most beautiful pieces of Mrs. Hulden in these matters, in which one can see how she is the bride of the devil and speaks what he tells her. That now the promoter D. Carlstadt is joking and says that Christ does not come down from heaven, because Paul says, "we should proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes" 1 Cor. 11:26, and again scoffs at the word of God, whether Christ has to jump up because of the stinking breath of a drunken priest, and whether we could snatch him from heaven and banish him? Item, that Christ would have had to leave his place where he sat, if he had crawled into the bread,

1. i.e. what has happened, the factum.
2. Thus in the Wittenberg and the Jena. Walch and the Erlanger: the.

278 Erl. SS, 28S-SS0. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, 367-36S. 279

and would still have to leave heaven if he were to enter bread, 2c., and the like many shameful blasphemous words, these are all such childish, foolish, shameful thoughts and lies among themselves that they are not worthy of responsibility.

For we do not say that he comes from heaven or leaves his place alone, otherwise this spirit would also have to say that God's Son, when he became man in his mother's body, also left heaven, and everything that Carlstadt scoffs at the body in the sacrament, he must also scoff at the divinity of Christ in the flesh, as he will also do in time. Item, when St. Stephen saw Jesus, Apost. 7:55, he did not say that he came from heaven, but stood at the right hand of God. And Paul, Apost. 9, 4, also hears him speak, yet he did not come from heaven. Summa, the great spirit deals with children's thoughts as if Christ were ascending and descending. Neither does he understand Christ's kingdom as it is in all places, and, as Paul says, "fulfill all things," Eph. 1:23. We are not commanded to inquire how it comes about that our bread becomes and is Christ's body. God's word is there, that is what it says; then we abide by it and believe it; then take a bite of it, you poor devil, and inquire into it until you know how it is.

Item 196: That he also mocks us, as if we were to say and teach that the cup is in the blood, and therefore he alienates, as one sees no blood there, and always turns his ears away from God's word, and looks with his naked eyes at the bread and wine. For this spirit does not want to believe what God's word says, but what he sees and feels. O a beautiful faith! Now we answer the evil devil thus: that these words Luc. 22, 20."This is the cup, the new testament in my blood," are not to be understood in this way, that this word "in my blood" should belong to the word "this is the cup," as this spirit pretends to be, because of its loud and wanton wickedness, but to the word "a new testament," as they also naturally stand and follow one after the other, so that it is said: "This cup is a new testament, not by itself, because it is perhaps a glass or silver, but because my blood is in it.

By the same blood he is a testament. 1) For whosoever receiveth the cup. For whoever receives the cup in this way, receiving Christ's blood poured out for us, receives the new testament, which is the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

But I will tell you why D. Carlstadt had to blaspheme, juggle and mock in this place. The saying was too bright and too powerful, and he knew nothing to say about it. For he forces with all his might, and more powerfully than anyone above, that Christ's blood is in the sacrament; therefore he thought to fill the ears of the rabble with other antics 2) and to avert their attention to these words of Luke. And methinks it can also be felt in this place that D. Carlstadt denies against his own conscience that Christ is blood and body in the sacrament, and is hostile to God in his heart, and wants to blaspheme and desecrate his holy word and sacrament to his sorrow and annoyance; it seems to me, I say again, that D. Carlstadt has surrendered and has chosen to be a public enemy of God, and wants to run rather than trot into hell. God let me miss and lie.

For this saying of Luke and Paul is brighter than the sun, and mightier than thunder. First, that no one can deny that he speaks of the cup, because he says, "This is the cup." Secondly, that he calls the cup "the new testament," this offends mightily. For it cannot be that it should be a new testament by and for the sake of bad wine. Dear, 3) what is "new testament" but forgiveness of sins and eternal life, acquired by Christ and granted to us in the sacrament? If the cup is to be a new testament, there must be something in it and on it that is as valid as the new testament. If it is not Christ's blood, as he says, "in my blood," let it be said what it is. Now therefore we would say unto these spirits, O ye false prophets, which give the new testament, and promise unto the people for and in a

1. Walch and the Erlanger: new testament.
2. Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Erlanger: Bösen. "Possen" is given in the Erlanger as a variant of Walch, although the editor should have known that "Bossen" is another spelling of this word. Cf. Erlanger, vol. 28, p. 372, line 4 from the top.
3. Erlanger: Because.

280 Erl. 29, 29O-2S2. Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten 2c. W. XX, 369-372. 281

Drink of wine. The text should also be written like this: This is the cup, the new testament in the wine. But since the words are: "This is the cup, the new testament in my blood", D. Carlstadt's art, writing, books, both which he has made and can still make, are thereby all pushed to the ground and overcome in such a way that he cannot rebel against it; but if he rebels, he shall make it even worse.

There now stands our text; now bite, bite, scoff, scoff, blaspheme confidently, be angry, dear heavenly prophets: you must let the cup remain that it is the new testament, although there would be none that points to it, and all would be on your side. You must also let it remain that it is the new testament, not through or in its essence, but through and in the blood of Christ. The blood, the blood of Christ, makes this cup a new testament, which may not be understood from the sitting blood of Christ; for the cup cannot be the new testament from the blood, which is not in it, which neither touches it nor concerns it; but cup and blood must here be one thing, as it is said above, that he who has or takes the cup, has and takes also the blood of Christ. Where do you want to go out now, dear spirits of the mob? So I will let them write and cry out for a thousand years, and I will not hold more than one word against them: "This is the cup, the new testament. O the word "new testament," how it crushes the prophets and spirits into a lump like dung!

200 I also hear them say (for I have not seen or read all of these poisonous books), how they make use of the fact that Christ, Matt. 16:18, says to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. Here, they say, Christ begins to speak of Peter, who is called a rock, and then immediately turns to another rock and says, "And on this rock I will build my church. In the same way, when he says, "Take, eat, this is my body," he turns the speech from the bread to his seated body. Behold, how he seeketh; help that which can help; a lie.

must always have seven other lies, if it is to resemble the truth and gain a semblance.

To this we reply: If it were so that Christ spoke in the way of Matth. 16, 18, it is still not enough to set an article of faith and to build conscience on it, that it must also be so here, but one would have to prove with a clear text that it should and must also be so in this place. Therefore it does not help if these spirits say: Christ, Matth. 16, 18., turns the speech quickly from one rock to another, therefore it is also so here to turn from the bread to the body. Who can assure us of this and make us certain that this must also be so? You say it, but how can anyone believe you, since you do not prove it? You must force the likeness 2) of speech to Scripture, and not carry it from yourself. For faith (as I have often said) does not want to have a bad saying or a bad singing; it wants to have God's word, which says, "This is how it is and not otherwise. For it does not want to be a reed that the wind weaves Matth. 11, 7.

Secondly, it is not true that Matthew 16 speaks in this way. For there the word "and" stands between both pieces, and repeats the word "rock" again, and thus says: "You are Peter, and on this rock" 2c., so that here, when he says: "You are Peter", one part is over and then begins a new one, namely: "And on this rock" 2c. Such an "and" and repetition of the word "body" is not there in the Lord's Supper, but says straight: "Take, eat; this is my body." If Matth. 16, 18. were to say: "You are Peter or rock, on whom or on which I will build my church," it would be the same speech; or if it were to say in the Lord's Supper: Take, eat the body, and this is my body; it would be the same as Matth. 16, 18.

Now Matth. 16. has an "and" and there is no "and" in between, and Christ repeats the word "rock" Matth. 16. again, and says: "on this rock",

1. Jenaer: so too.
2. i.e. equality.

282 Erl. 29, 292-294. i. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 372-374. 283

But if in the Lord's Supper the word "body" is not mentioned again, it is said that with the word "rock" he points to himself or to the word that Peter spoke, and with the word "body" he points to the bread, so that these two sayings are as similar as water and fire. Also the evangelist Matth. 16, to indicate such a difference and new beginning, distinguished the rock with diligence. For he calls Peter "the one," but the other rock "the one," so that it should be understood that Peter, as "the one," is not the other rock, which he makes "the one" on which Christ wants to build his church, and he puts such "the one" and "the one" into two separate sayings, which does not happen in the Lord's Supper, where he applies the word "the one" to both bread and body in one saying, "This is my body.

204 Finally, so that he does not speak without the Scripture of all things, he (praise God!) once says a sentence, perhaps to the last, and it is Matth. 24, 23: "If they say to you, here or there is Christ, you shall not believe it. If we then say that Christ is in the host, let it be said that Christ is here and there, therefore it is not true. There, there, it is true. Well, I will give the prophet herewith also Eli singing 1) and holy evening. So blind does hatred make these spirits that they cannot see what goes before or after these words, but fall on it as it seems to them at first sight; therefore we must show it to them clearly once again.

(205) It is very different when I speak of Christ and of Christ's body and blood. For when the evangelist says, "Here or there is Christ," and the like, he is speaking of the whole of Christ, that is, of the kingdom of Christ, as is forcibly enforced by the text Luc. 17, 20. f., where he says, "The

1. "Eli singen" - to sing a last little song for the farewell. In the Tischreden Cap. 54, H 25 should be read "Heli singen". An explanation of this expression results from what Carlstadt noted against it (Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 457): "There Luther sings scornfully: Eli! etc.; but the sacrament will sing to Luther: ut czuid äereliqurkti! and Luther will sing to the truth: how hast thou forsaken me!" According to these words of Carlstadt, in the expression "Eli singen" is a relation to Matth. 27, 46.

The kingdom of God does not come with outward appearances, nor will one say, "Behold here, behold there it is," which the other evangelists thus explain, "here or there is Christ. All this is said: Christ's kingdom is not in outward things, places, times, persons, works, but, as he says there, "the kingdom of God is within you." Now it does not follow that Christ is nowhere, but that he is everywhere and fills everything, Eph. 1:23. But he is not bound to any place in particular, so that he must be there and nowhere else, as those do who do not leave our conscience free, but bind it to particular places, works and persons.

Just as he himself, Christ and his kingdom, is not bound to any place or external thing, so also everything that belongs to his kingdom is free and not bound anywhere, as there is the gospel, baptism, the sacrament and the Christians. For the gospel should and must be free at all ends and bound to no place but Rome. For it is not in Rome alone, or here or there, and nowhere else. So is baptism and sacrament. For it is not necessary to preach, baptize, and administer the sacrament in the church or anywhere else, but in all places where necessity demands it. From this it does not follow that Christ is in the sacrament as bound to a place here or there, but that he and his sacrament are or may be free in all places. Therefore these prophets do not properly apply the saying about the kingdom of Christ to the sacrament.

For if this were true, one would also have to deny and say that the gospel and baptism and sacrament are nowhere. For in the gospel Christ is also present, and yet must be verbally and bodily in places and places of worship. Item, Christ would not have to be in heaven at the right hand of the Father, because here one would also like to say: Behold, there is Christ. Item, St. Stephen might have said, when he saw Jesus standing, Apost. 7, 55, you deny, because Christ is neither here nor there, if the carnal thoughts of these prophets were suitable. Yes, their own teaching of Christ's knowledge and memory would also have to be nothing, because they would have to be in one place with it.

284 Erl. 29, 294-297. 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets 2c. W. XX, 374-377. 285

Therefore this saying "Here and there" must be understood first of all of bodily outward places and dwellings. Secondly, of such bodily places as are especially set apart before others and made necessary for salvation by false prophets, so that not all places remain free, as has hitherto been done with us under the papacy. But we do not teach that Christ's body and blood are visible in outward places, but hidden in the sacrament. Neither do we say that he must and should be free in special places and not in all, but that he, 1) together with the bread and wine, may and should be free in all places, times, persons.

209. But that he speaks: "This is my body," and not, "This is Christ," was done so that in the sacrament one might not understand the whole of Christ, that is, his kingdom, but clearly and actually his body, bodily and truly, as a piece of his kingdom and of the whole of Christ, just as the gospel is also not called Christ or a kingdom of Christ, but an oral bodily sermon, as a piece of the whole of Christ or his kingdom, and yet also has the nature of the whole of Christ, that it is free in all and not necessarily bound to a special place; therefore it is spoken of Christ as of the whole, but of his body as of the piece of the whole.

I will leave it at that for now. For the fact that D. Carlstadt denies that we have the authority to bring Christ's body and blood into the sacrament, has been proven enough above, and he must also let us, if we receive this, that the bread we break is the body of Christ. These "we" will of course have the power, in the very words, as Christ himself had them in the Lord's Supper. Item, that he pretends of the righteousness of dying, that it is inward before the righteousness of the Spirit, is his poem and has no reason. For above you have heard the right order, that the beginning and the first is faith in the heart, the righteousness of the spirit, followed by the death and dying of the old man, Rom. 8,13:

1. "er" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.

"If by the Spirit ye put to death the works of the flesh, ye shall live." "By the Spirit," he says, as the one who must be there first.

211. Herewith I answer to all of D. Carlstadt's books of the Sacrament, since he has now done and written for three years. I have answered him these three weeks, and will give him another three years and three more, so that they will become six, that they will answer me constantly, and warn them one more thing, that they watch and meet it, because they may well. I thank them with all my heart for my right of hope 2) and do not want to take much for it, so finely they have strengthened my heart in this article. For I now see how nothing at all can be raised against this article. But I have spoken of it so widely and in so many words that I have made it light and clear that D. Carlstadt writes so darkly and disorderly; and I hold it that from this book D. Carlstadt will first of all understand himself very well. For I have no doubt that he has not yet seen for himself what he is doing or where his teachings reach. For he cannot grasp or comprehend anything properly, much less talk or write.

In the end, I will faithfully and brotherly warn everyone to beware of D. Carlstadt and his prophets for two special reasons. The first, that they run and teach without being called, which God punishes through Jeremiah, saying: "They ran, and I did not send them; they speak, and I commanded them nothing" Jer. 23, 21. Therefore Christ also judges them, Joh. 10, 1, for thieves and murderers, who do not enter the door, but enter elsewhere. They boast almost highly of the Spirit, higher than the apostles, and yet they have been sneaking and sneaking longer than three years. If it had been the right spirit, he would have appeared quickly and would have proved his calling with signs and words, but it is an insidious devil who sneaks into the corners of the world.

2. Thus in the Wittenberg. Jena and Erlangen: Court Law. In the great "Confession of the Lord's Supper," No. 2t in this volume, § 427: "Court right. According to the latter passage, the expression "for my court right" seems to mean: according to my opinion, as my discretion.

286 Erl. 29, 297. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 377-379. 287

creeps around until he does harm and spreads his poison.

The other is that these prophets avoid the main part of Christian teaching, flee and remain silent. For they do not teach in any place how one should get rid of sins, have a good conscience and gain a peaceful and joyful heart toward God, in whom all power lies. This is the true sign that their spirit is the devil, who with strange new words excites the consciences, frightens

and misleads them, but does not put them to rest nor to peace, nor can he, but goes to and teaches some special works, that they may practice and be blued. But how a good conscience should be done and skillful, they know nothing at all, for they have not felt it nor ever known it; also how can they know or feel it, if they come and teach without being called by themselves? since no good can come from it. God's grace be with us all, amen.

6. D. Andr. Carlstadt's writing "On the Old and New Testament 2c. How Carolstadt recants", containing in itself an "answer to the saying: the cup is the new testament in my blood 2c. Luc. 22. 1 Cor. 11." *)

March 16, 1525.

Andreas Carolstadter, Unverhört vertrieben: zu einem Gezeugniß des > Evangelii, welches ich predige von JEsu von Nazareth, dem gekreuzigten > Son GOttes, den ernsten Christen, meinen geliebten Brüdern, zu > Rothenburg an der Tauber, divine Weisheit, Erkenntnisniß, Glauben, > Liebe, Stärke und Friede von GOtt durch Christum!

1. favorable brothers! I have now almost completed a full reply to D. Luther's scriptless and unchristian letter a full answer now almost completed, besides other letters, that I really have to write not a little to brothers who ask me for it. But after the same answer was too large, I have taken out several articles 1) which I, each one in particular, think should go out, among which this one is from the cup, which the Scriptures call a new testament, and D. Juther calls a thunderbolt on Carolstadt's head, and considers it the best reason to prove that the Lord's blood must be bodily in the cup of dedication.
2. the same article I send to you out of good Christian love, willingness and service, considering that there are many among you to whom God's truth and judgments are earnestly dear, who will

1. Compare the introduction to this volume.

I ask you to thoroughly and diligently assess the reason for this teaching and, if you find that I am in error, to inform me of the error, and I will willingly grant divine truth and gladly deserve it.

3. But in my conscience I am sure what I have finally written in the matter of the Sacrament, that it is so and does not dare 2) to be otherwise. I also hope that you will feel and notice in this article that my teaching is divine, well-founded and demonstrable, that I greatly praise God's grace and the surpassing love of Christ, and that I confess the right faith in Christ; and that I am not to be regarded as an errorist or heretic. I am also willing to be heard by you, and ask you for God's sake to admit me to a public interrogation, to hear the merits of my faith.

(4) I am ever ready and willing to answer enemies and friends; I will also come to you shortly and ask for interrogation, which I hope to obtain. But if it should be refused to me, I would have to defend myself not only against God, but also against the imperial majesty,

2. In the old edition: nothing.

We reproduce this writing according to Walch's old edition. -The time is determined according to the date of the letter. For the reason for this, see the introduction.

2886 . Carlstadt: Of the Old and New Testaments 2c. W. xx, 379-331. 289

as the highest member of the Christian community, and especially that I, against the order of Your Imperial Majesty, am being persecuted and expelled without being heard. But I have no doubt that you will fear God, our almighty Lord, so much and give Him the honor that you will hear me for the sake of the instruction and leave a better one with you. God commanded. Date 16 Martii, Anno 1525.

From these words: The Cup, the New Testament.

Now of Christ's speech concerning the blood, it is to be noted that Matthew and Marcus do not say of the cup that the cup is the New Testament; therefore, according to the opinion of the preacher at Nördlingen, it should follow that it is not necessary that we call the cup a New Testament. But the above two evangelists tell how Christ took the cup and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. And how the Lord then spoke these words: "This is my blood of the new testament, which was shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. Matth. 26. Marci 14.

2 But from this we learn that the disciples drank a purely natural wine; for the priests say that their bread and their wine remain in their nature until such words, which they call verba consecrationis, have been spoken or read over them. Now Christ made his disciples all drink hot from the cup (in which was natural wine) before he spoke verba consecrationis. Therefore they drank the wine before, because the wine was changed into blood. Therefore, from these two evangelists, it cannot be concluded that the disciples drank the blood of the Lord bodily in the first supper, but the contradiction that they did not drink the blood of Christ bodily, as now reported.

(3) But that Christ called them all to drink out of it is explained that Christ speaks of the drinking vessel which the Lord gave to his disciples. It must not be proved that the disciples drank out of a drinking vessel; it is necessary that one have eyes or ears to understand words, and see or hear what Christ says. But that some priests say that Christ says, "Drink from this blood, all of you," and want to dispute this from Matthew and Mark, we must let happen. For they will say the length, that fire is not warm or hot, calix blood is called, and sanguis

1. Theobald Billicanus, pastor at Nördlingen.

"ulh"" Works. Vd. XX.

a drinking vessel, so that they keep their Lord God and their benefice.

4. But it belongs to you laymen to investigate, to read books or listen to books, and even to look for what you need to know. 2) Do this yourself and you will soon find out the truth. Do this yourself, and you will soon discover the truth, and learn that the disciples did not drink from the blood, but from a drinking vessel. I am amazed that the priests are so great that they dare to prove from Matthew and Mark. Just look at what Matthew and Marcus write. The pronoun ôïýôï points to the blood, and not to the cup or drinking vessel; this I refer to unsuspicious judges of the Greek tongue, who have experienced the manner of our New Testament in the Greek tongue.

Luther does not rely on Matthaeum and Marcum, but on Lucam and Paulum, Luc. 22. 1 Cor. 10. b) But some Lutherans (whom I have taken from Luther's arrow through a bad scripture, 4) and Luther himself) resort to this speech: "they all drank from it" Marc. 14); and say: they all drank from the blood of Christ. To this one should now ask: whether they could prove this? for you are to believe them nothing without scripture. But if we had no evangelist but Marcum, it would be done for the priests. For Marcus tells us that they all drank from the cup, and that Christ then spoke the words of the blood, which they call verba consecrationis. From this it follows that they drank pure wine. What is your wine, you priests, before your words of blood? Is it not pure natural wine? You should all say yes. Let the wine remain natural wine, of which Marcus writes, and reports that the Lord said the words of blood afterwards.

Luther devastates these words: "The cup, the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you", Luc. 22, and thinks that this text is the right scripture to prove that the blood is in the cup, and must be, yes, it is the right thunderbolt on Carolstadt's head.

If this is the right reason to prove that the blood of Christ must be in the chalice of the priests, then I have good days, because the priests do not read this scripture when they eonserrir; therefore I demand their missals to testify.

2. i.e. see.
3. Should probably read "1 Cor. 11. But also 1 Cor. 10,16. could be meant. , .
4. "by a bad writing" i.e. by a simple scripture.

290 I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, zsr-384. 291

I do not know any other way, because the new pope 1) and his bishops at Zwickau and Nördlingen, 2) keep the words of the old pope; I have to let their books judge and pronounce that.

8. Since neither the old nor the new pope hold the right reason, it is believable that they have not had the blood of Christ in their cup thoroughly and truly until now, because 3) they omit the right words. So the Carolstadt will not be of the devil for the reason that he writes thus: The priests have no blood in their chalice. Then I think that Luther's thunderbolt will be a buttered bread, and his strongest servant will also be dead.

009 But I will give him better, and say, that the cup was not a new testament in the time of the first supper of Christ. How do you like that? I say, Christ taught in his first supper what his blood would become in the future, and what the memorial cup would become by blood.

Will.

(10) You all know that a will is not a testament before the death of the testator, for a will is a last will and testament made or confirmed at death. Now where there is no death, there is no will. Hebr. 9, 16. 17.: "Death makes the will strong and perfect"; the life of the testatoris makes the will ineffective and invalid. "A will becomes firm by death, otherwise it has not yet power, if he who made it is still alive." This is the nature of the will, that he who made it dies and is dead, since a will is the last will and testament. But where he remains alive who makes his will, it is not a last will. What shall I say, because there is writing? "Where there is a will, there must be the death of him who makes the will," Heb. 9:16.

(11) That Christ was still alive (at the time) when He instituted His supper is so evident that no one may prove it; therefore His blood was not the blood of the Testament at that time, and even less the blood of the New Testament, in the time after which Christ said, "Father, take away the cup from Me," Matt. 26:39, after which the angel comforted Christ, and the Lord sweat blood, Luc. 22:44. But if the blood of Christ at that time was not the blood of the

1. This refers to Luther.
2. Hausmann and Billican.
3. Zn the old edition, Carlstadt's writings consistently say "seitmal" instead of "sintemal".

new testament, the cup was much less a testament, which does not belong to the testament, but only through the blood, or in the blood of the testament. Therefore I say: Christ touched the secret and hidden article of the law in the Lord's Supper, and told the disciples about his spiritual priesthood, sacrifice and blood, through which Christ wanted to enter, although the disciples did not understand it, because only on the day of Pentecost.

(12) Christ taught his disciples that his blood should become the blood of the new testament only in the future, and that the cup should be poured out through his blood when his blood is poured out for us for the remission of sins. Therefore Christ says, "This is my blood of the new testament which is poured out."

(13) When the blood of the goats and calves became the blood of the Old Testament, when the goats and calves died, and the blood was sprinkled upon the people for a purification of the flesh, Heb. 9. The New Testament must answer the old, and yet surpass the old.

(14) Of this article of faith Christ said, and taught, that his own blood would become the blood of the new testament, and that the old testament (which was full of sins) would soon have its end. For he who speaks of the new says that the old must pass away. Heb. 9.

The Old Testament.

(15) The old one was an outward revelation of God's will, and all that was of the old law was outward and bodily. Moses read and told God's commandment to the people, he stabbed calves and goats, he gathered blood; he had bodily things to take the blood and sprinkle it on the people. Namely, he took hyssop water and purple wool (as a sprinkler) and sprinkled the blood on the people bodily; he sprinkled the book, the tabernacle and all the vessels of God's service; and all that Moses did was external and bodily. His preaching was external and his sprinkling was external and bodily. For Moses sprinkled the people outwardly and bodily with blood; and the same blood was a blood of the testament, for which innocent animals must die. (And in the same it is not like a testament of a man, who fixes his last will with his own death). The same blood did not purify more, because as far as it touched. It touched the outer body and not the conscience. The conscience of the sins remained dammed; but the external and bodily impurity of the blood did not touch the conscience.

292 6. Carlstadt: Of the Old and New Testaments 2c. W. xx. 384-387. 293

purity to serve God outwardly: as to approach the tabernacle, to go in before God, to stand in service bodily.

New Testament.

16 But the new testament is a true testament, because he himself died who made it, that is, the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth. It also has death and blood, as the old, and the death of him who was a mediator or preparer of the new testament, and in him the new is above the old. But in this it is especially above the old, that the priest of the New Testament does not sprinkle us bodily with his blood, but spiritually, that is, Christ does not cast his blood bodily or with drops into the people, but spiritually. Neither does Christ take an outward sprinkling, as Moses took Hysophe 2c., but Christ sprinkles His people with His blood by the Holy Spirit, Heb. 9.' And by His divine power Christ pierces all things bodily, and enters into the conscience and heart of His people, and washes the consciences from evil lusts and works, to serve GOtte in truth and in the Spirit. Heb. 9. Jn. 6. 1 Pet. 1. 1 Jn. 1 and 4. Eph. 1. Col. 1. Rom. 3. 2 Cor. 6.

The shed Blnt on the cross of the will.

(17) Therefore the blood of Christ shed on the cross is the blood of the new testament, and it had to be poured out to become the blood of the testament, as the blood of goats and calves was poured out for the old testament. And the blood of Christ had to become a blood of spiritual sprinkling and forgiveness of sin, if it was to become a blood of the new testament. For this reason Christ says: "This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for you and for many, for the remission of sins", Matth. 26. Marc. 14. And everything that belongs to the new testament must become a new testament through the blood or through the death of Christ, as the cup 2c. "The cup, the new testament," which is a new testament "through the blood," is because we drink from it in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ. 1 Cor. 11.

Sprinkling.

18. In this way the poet 1) writes to the Hebrews that the blood of the Lord is the blood of the New Testament. Namely, for the reason that
19. "Poet" here stands in the meaning of author.

The blood of the Lord, shed on the cross, is a blood of spiritual sprinkling, which touches and cleanses our consciences, Revelation 5, Acts 20, Hebrews 9, 10, 12 and 13, and washes away sin. 20. Heb. 9. 10. 12. and 13. and washes away sin; figured in the third book of Moses 4.14. and 16. For God promised that He would give His new testament in the heart and be merciful to sinners and remember their sin no more, Jer. 31. Heb. 8.

(19) There are two characteristics of the New Testament: one, that God would write His laws on the heart; the other, that the forgiveness of sins should follow this writing on the heart so surely that God would remember no more sins. Jer. 31. Isa. 43. That God writes into the heart is the revelation of His Son, an art or understanding of His sacrifice and shed blood, which understanding the Father alone gives, Joh. 6. Matth. 11. That is faith, or the heartfelt and living knowledge of the death and shed blood of Christ. So Christ as a spiritual priest (through the Holy Spirit) casts His blood into hearts, souls and consciences, and cleanses our hearts and consciences through faith. Apost. 15. Rom. 3.

20. This revelation, or the new law, is immediately followed by the forgiveness of sin so sufficiently and with such foreknowledge, 2) certainty, that man actually feels that God no longer remembers any sins. Thus God cleanses through faith, from the shed blood of Christ. Apost. 15, Rom. 3. Therefore, we must walk with full faith, Heb. 10, and not with our feet. We must draw the blood of the cross of Christ with our hearts, and not draw the blood in the body of Christ or in the cup with our mouths, if we want to think it is a blood of the new testament, when it is a blood of the true divine new testament.

21. This faith and this way of the New Testament the new pope devastates; and makes us out of the blood of spiritual drink and spiritual sprinkling a blood of bodily drink and bodily sprinkling, and lately, a blood of the Old Testament, against all the writings of God that write of the blood of the New Testament, especially against these: "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many, in remission of sins"; because Christ by this saying "which is shed in remission of sins" publicly indicates that his blood is a blood of spirits, of souls, of hearts, and of consciences, and is not

2. Precocity will probably mean as much as clear manifestation.

294 I. Luthers SchrWn wider Carlstadt. W. xx, 387-389. 295

a blood of the body. Revelation 5 and 7, Hebrews 9. > > and 10. > > 22 For the new pope writes against it, and

says that we should drink the blood of the Lord bodily for a new testament; which is contrary to the manner, contrary to the nature, and contrary to the attribute of the blood of the new testament. The pope also uses external things, as an external cup, and gives the blood of Christ bodily into the mouth and belly of his apes, and is like the must in two ways, namely in that he takes external and bodily things to the blood of Christ, as Moses.

(23) Moses took hyssop water and purple wool, and dipped or dipped them in the poured out blood and sprinkled his people. But the new pope takes a cup of water and wine and gives the blood of Christ bodily into the mouth of his people, and says it is the blood of the New Testament. But is this not a great mockery and derision of the blood of the New Testament? Does not Luther, in such words, say that Christ's blood is a blood of the New Testament, but with his sense and heathen otherwise, and thus that it is a blood of the Old Testament? It is One kind and One power of the blood of Christ in the cup (if it is drunk bodily, as Luther writes of the bodily partaking of the blood of Christ) and of the blood of Moses. For this will not help the sacramentalists, 'that they give the blood hidden under a strange form, since Moses had the book and tabernacle, the altars and other vessels with his

blood, to whom the blood of Moses was as unknown as the blood of Christ in the cup is unknown to men; this you shall keep.

(24) If ye know that the blood of Christ is the blood of the new testament, ye know also that only the blood of Christ poured out on the cross is the blood of the testament; for therefore it is the blood of the testament, and the answer of the character of the old testament. And so you also know that you are not to taste the blood of the Lord bodily, but only spiritually; that you are to receive it in your heart, in your conscience, and in the depths of your souls; for this belongs to the new testament, which cancels the old, which was received bodily.

(25) Now you will notice that Luther is a Mosaic preacher and teacher, and not a Christian one; and you can understand all this from the words of Christ, who said in his supper, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for the remission of sins. Only notice these words of the new testament. Item, "forgiveness of sins" 2c.

(26) Whoever receives the blood of Christ other than for the remission of his sins receives the blood of Christ in unbelief and does violence to the blood of Christ, for he takes away from the blood the glory of the New Testament and the power of forgiveness.

27 But he that receiveth the shed blood of Christ, as the blood of the new testament, receiveth it spiritually with his heart at the cross, and not out of the cup bodily with his mouth.

028 But whosoever receiveth the blood of Christ bodily receiveth it not for the remission of sins, neither as a new testament, but as a bodily drink.

(29) Therefore, if he drinks from the cup of the Lord, thinking that he will drink the blood of Christ in the flesh, he is guilty of the blood of Christ. For he contradicts this word, that the blood of the Lord is the blood of the New Testament, shed on the cross for the remission of sins.

30 The new popes lead us into such unbelief, and the thief Billikan is especially mischievous and willing to make such a foolishness and idleness of the Body and Blood of Christ. But whoever wants to be saved, let him pray to God; for you all truly need great prayers and help from God, since we see that the devil is standing in new choir robes, and dares to blind those who see.

(31) Our new popes are not sufficient for the evil of making the blood of the Lord common blood, the blood of the New Testament the blood of the Old Testament, and the blood of spiritual sprinkling and spiritual purity the blood of bodily sprinkling and bodily purity. No, because they want to continue with their error, and not only give us the blood of Christ to drink bodily, but also put poor, miserable, lousy, sinful and unbelieving priests over it as mediators of the New Testament and the blood of the New Testament, so that they may sin against the blood of Christ.

For they write, preach, and sing that a poor, afflicted, and unbelieving minister, in virtue of the words of Christ (which they may not show), may give the blood of Christ in their cup or sacrament to the people of God, as a blood of the New Testament. Therefore, I must show them their unbelief and say thus:

(33) If the blood of Christ, which a priest gives to him or to another to drink bodily, is not a drink of righteousness, then the precious blood is not a drink of righteousness.

1. In the old edition: solchem. - "Diebold" is Theobald.

296 6. carlstadt: Of the old and new testaments 2c. W. xx, 389-392. ZA7

The blood of Christ in the chalice of the priests is not the blood of the new testament, because it does not quench the thirst for righteousness, that is, it is not the blood that forgives sin, Rom. 3. And again, it cannot make the chalice of the new popes a new testament, because such blood itself is not the blood of the new testament, nor can it be the blood of the new testament. Therefore I would not have anything to do with them, and they, in turn, could not claim by their blood that the cup is a new testament through their invented blood, which is to be in their cup.

34. But if the blood of Christ in their cup is blood of the New Testament (as Luther once puts, but denies the other time, times thus, at times differently, as his book writes in front thus, behind differently) - but if the blood of Christ is blood of the New Testament in the cup of the priests, and the true, that our beautiful, new, wordy, adorned priests could give the blood of Christ to drink: so it will follow that the blood of the Lord shed on the cross would not be blood of the new testament, and that the poor ass-drivers, and the pleasure-grabbers, and the godless parsons would be the colored graves, mediators and preparers of the new testament. This would ever be a beautiful figure, and so Isaiah must lie, who writes of Christ that he is very high and excellent, Is. 52, 13, Cap. 11 and 9, and Paul would also have to lie, who gives Christ the process in all things, Col. 1, 15. ff.

35 But that the people, that the sinful priests would be priests and mediators of the new testament, if they could give the blood of Christ to be the blood of the new testament, is found in the epistle to the Hebrews in the 9th and 10th, and also in other books. And I reserve this beforehand, that one thing is in the bottom, if I say: Christ sprinkles the believers with his blood, or so: Christ waters the believers with his blood' you have Hebr. 9. and 10. Joh. 6. Open your eyes, you will find this. Or put thus: The blood of Christ is a blood of the new testament, or a blood of our redemption, Eph. 1. That is one. The other: He that can give the blood, or sprinkle us with it, is a mediator of the new testament.

36. the last I must prove, and gladly do; "for these are bright words, that Christ Jesus by his blood is entered once into his tabernacle, which was made by God, and not of men's hands, which is heaven, Heb. 9:11, 12. and now sitteth on the right hand of God, and waiteth till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet, Heb. 2 and 10. item,

By his own blood the high priest Christ Jesus entered into the holy place, Heb. 9. Take this in hand, for you hear that Christ entered into his holy and divine tabernacle by his own blood, that Christ became a mediator and preparer of the new testament by his poured out blood. This is written in Heb. 9.

37. that Christ, as the most high priest, is due to sprinkle his people with his own blood, you have Heb. 9. it was necessary that the heavenly things were sprinkled and cleansed by the sacrifice and shed blood. Item, the blood of Christ has cleansed our conscience, Heb 9. It sprinkles our hearts, Heb 10. Item, Heb 12. You have both, the mediator JEsum and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. Hebr. 13: Christ sanctifies his people through his blood.

(38) From these scriptures it follows that it is proper for one thing and one office to give the blood of Christ, and to cleanse by the blood of Christ the one to whom the blood is given. For the blood of Christ is by its nature and power of God a blood of spiritual sprinkling and holiness. But this is impossible for all apostles, to sanctify the least of these by the blood of Christ; for if apostles could do this, they would be like Christ and be our beatifics.

(39) Nevertheless, the new pope is a mediator of the new testament and testator when he says that the priests give the blood of the Lord in their cup to the laity. But is this not a great dishonor and contempt of the blood of Christ, since Luther holds the blood of Christ in such low esteem that a priest can give it as a drink? Is it not a wretched thing that we have to hear that Luther compares such vile and lowly priests to the most high priest and puts them at his side and may deny the entrance (which once, to an eternal and full redemption, was made through the blood of Christ) so often in one day? This actually means: to promise the blood of the New Testament and to trample it underfoot, Hebr. 10.

Luther writes great books against the sacrifice of the priests, that they get lost in the mass and speak thus: We sacrifice Christ! and writes how they lest God destroy the suffering and sacrifice of Christ. But he does not want to see that he retains the root of the error of the apostles, writes on it and from it, and that he writes the blood of the New Testament from it, and that he promises, despises and blasphemes the blood of the New Testament just as horribly as the old papists promise the sacrifice of Christ.

41. Is not this that Luther sets poor sinners as priests a contempt of the blood of Christ?

298 I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, sss-Zsi. 289

So that at one end he writes thus: The blood of Christ, drunk from the cup, cleanses the sinner, and says that the priests pass and give the same blood? Is this not blaspheming the priesthood of Christ? Is this not promising the blood of the cross as if it were not powerful and rich enough for eternal salvation? What will follow? That Christ is not a single mediator, a mediator of the New Testament; that we have many mediators, namely crooked godless priests; that the blood of the Lord on the cross is not the blood of our sprinkling, our righteousness and our life.

42. for if the blood in the cup of the priests be the blood of our sprinkling, or of our righteousness, or the blood of our remission of sins: then Christ poured out and offered his blood on the cross (through the Holy Spirit) freely. Gal. 3.

(43) These and such despises of the blood (shed on the cross) are as bad, harmful and shameful as the old papists' foolishness in sacrificing the body and blood of Christ for a memorial, against which Billican cries fiercely.

About our priesthood.

44. but this will not help the old nor the new popes, that we have all become priests through Christ, as it is written: "You have made us priests before God", Revelation 5:10. 1 Peter 2:9. For this is not meant that we might offer the flesh and blood of Christ anew, or that we might make ourselves powerful of the body and blood of Christ, as those do who present and give the body and blood of the Lord to their people through their sacrament; for this power belongs to the most high JEsu Christ alone, and to no one else. If we assumed such power, we fell from our priesthood, that is, from Christ, through unbelief, because we sinned against the priest, against his sacrifice and against his blood. Against the priest, that he should die more; therefore also his ministry would not be better than that of 1) Aaron, Heb. 9. Against the sacrifice of Christ, which would not have been fully adequate to give eternal redemption at once; Against the blood, that its shedding could not work eternally for redemption.

45 But so we became priests through Christ. We had no access to God, we were in God's wrath, we were criminal before God.

1. In the old editions: des.

GOD, we were ugly, we stank of sins 2c., were not allowed to come before God at all: and then Christ the priest came and offered his body, and shed his 2) blood by the Holy Spirit on the cross; and sprinkled our consciences, and cleansed us from evil works, to serve before God, Heb. 9. And gave us access to God, took us from the wrath of God and placed us in the love of God; made us undefiled and blameless, that we might offer to God through Him a sacrifice of praise, the fruits of our lips confessing to God, Heb. 10, that we might offer to God our bodies, sufferings, lives and spirits, Rom. 12, of which we were not able before any. So we find priests through Christ.

(46) We have the priesthood by faith and by the glorious knowledge of the priesthood, the sacrifice and the blood of Christ. Without faith and apart from the knowledge of Christ we would have none of these. But through our faith we are neither able 4) to offer again the sacrifice of Christ, nor to give His body as food, nor 4) to shed again the blood of Christ, nor to give it as a drink. Therefore our priests must not subject themselves to the great things of the priesthood of Christ; they may well let the sacrifice, the body and the blood of Christ remain as it is sacrificed.

47. So we have that Luther by his teaching (when he writes that he can give the blood of Christ bodily to drink in his cup) put himself and his followers at the side of Christ, and want to make themselves mediators of the New Testament, to be like the highest priest, to have a like office; to have power to distribute the body and blood of Christ; To make of the blood of the new testament the blood of the old testament, and of the blood of our spiritual sprinkling the blood of bodily sprinkling, which is a great abominable sin, that is, an antichristian doctrine, contrary to the blood of the cross, and a punishment or contempt of the new testament.

48 It will also not excuse Luther, whether he writes differently with the appearance (because the evil root of his teaching remains), that he boasts much of the word and says: The word does it, and we do it in the word (of which the devil could also boast), if it is evident that Luther boasts of the word of God, which he does not have. Luther boasts of the word of God, which he does not have.

2. "shed his" put by us instead of: "shed".
3. In the old edition: den.
4. So put by us instead of: "against", which often stands for "neither".
5. Here We have erased the words: "and blood".

ZW6 . Carlstadt: Of the Old and New Testaments 2c. W. xx, 394-297. 301

and cannot hang it up. Luther has not one syllable in Scripture that indicates that the blood of Christ in the cup is New Testament blood. Then he has much less in Scripture that the cup is a New Testament through the blood of Christ that is in the cup than he says. And has still less indication in the Scriptures that a minister can bring the blood of Christ down from heaven into the cup and give it as a blood of the testament.

(49) By these reasons (of faith) it is well established that the cup is not a new testament by the blood that is to be in it, but by the blood of the cross, by the blood that Christ the priest poured out. And it is immediately said that the cup is a new testament in the blood, but that in death the cup is a new testament. For the death of Christ belongs to the new testament, just as the poured out blood of Christ. - The 9th chapter of Hebrews and the other apostles who write about death and the shedding of blood will tell you this.

50 Now as little as it will follow that the death of Christ must be in the cup, if it were written publicly, than secretly, yet powerfully, is written: The cup the new testament in my death. 1)

(51) Therefore Luther's will that the blood in the cup must be bodily, if the cup is a new testament in the blood or through the blood, does not exclude it. Behold, we find a people of God and a people of the New Testament by the blood or in the blood of Christ. But does it follow that the blood of Christ must be bodily in us? No. We have faith, and the cup is used by us, in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, as a drinking vessel. Therefore the cup is a new testament through the blood shed on the cross.

Now let us see if this text: "the cup the new testament in my blood" may serve Luther somewhat! Let us lay this text back and forth, unfold it, turn the back to the front, the innermost out, and try whether Luther has a foundation for his teaching, which he built on this foundation.

1. The meaning of this confusing sentence should be well: From the words "the new testament in my blood" it does not follow that the blood of Christ is in the cup, any more than from the words "the new testament in my death" it would follow that the death of Christ must be in the cup, although the latter version of the words (according to what has been said in the preceding paragraph) is the correct one, for the death of Christ is that by which the new testament comes into being. '"I

(53) Let us leave the text as it is, and thus insist: "The cup the new testament in my blood"; what follows? that the blood of the Lord is bodily in the cup? Where do you have Scripture? you answer: Allhie. How does it read? not thus: in the blood, in the blood? Not? Well, then you would read nothing 2) from it, except that the cup is in the blood. Does this seem foolish to you, and contrary to our senses, reason, and faith? you should know that your braided mind is much more foolish, scripture-less, bare, and wretched.

54 For he hath all the infirmities which this mind hath: The cup is in the blood bodily; and concerning these infirmities he lacks writing or written conjecture. You should read: The cup is in the blood; so thou readest the same contrary to sense, and contrary to the scripture thus, The blood is bodily in the cup: if I am foolish in thy mind, to say, The cup is bodily in the blood of Christ, therefore it is a new testament: thou art foolish still in our mind, when thou sayest, The cup is a new testament in the blood, which is bodily in the cup. For this scripture leaveth thee, and setteth up, according to the letter, another understanding, which no man receiveth.

55. lay the text thus: The new testament in the blood is the cup. Does not the sense and understanding follow again, which no man and no church has ever accepted, namely this: The cup is in the blood? But this you would well notice, if you thus collect the words: The new testament in the blood of Christ; the cup is the new testament; therefore the cup is in the blood of Christ.
56. turn the same speech thus: In the blood the new testament the cup. But what would you draw from it? This? The new testament is in the blood, the cup is in the blood, because the cup is a new testament in the blood? Doesn't that follow? It doesn't? It follows, b) Ei! so thou seest that this bright writing overthrows thy ground, and takes the blood out of the cup. Now where is the bright sun? Has it faded? Has it become dark? Where is the thunderbolt? I mean, it has fallen into Luther's doctrine and dreams, and has struck the ground and the building into a heap, and he is waiting for it not to fall on his head. Such weather God imposes, if one wants to be ungrateful. There the Billikün will concoct new blood, 4) and invent a blood and bring it into his cup from

2. So put by us instead of: not.
3. "lM) follows." put by us instead of: "folget?" in the old edition.
4. So put by us instead of: hack out.

302 I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 397-399. 303

a new Bible, which is neither 1) a blood of the New Testament, nor a blood that is useful for anything; for he does not want to suffer that one thus smuggles: The blood is, by these and other scriptures, not in the cup, therefore it is not in it; although he does not present any scripture that the blood of the Lord is in the cup.

I preached the grace of the cross at the beginning; some laymen have taken it so well that they conclude that Christ is of no use to them in the sacrament; after this protection, 2) "that the sun may shine on all ends, and that Christ may be useful to all ends," they asked nothing, for they knew how to speak of the usefulness of Christ's suffering. Then our papists should say: What do the body and blood of Christ accomplish in the sacrament? to what end are they useful to the recipients? They do this 3) so inconsistently that everyone almost begins to doubt whether Christ is in the sacrament? Our papists should also prove that Christ is in their sacrament. But what they do seems to be good from our Scripture, which we are now dealing with. If it were directed with scolding, blaspheming, cursing, banishing, and giving to the devil, they would have already gained their cause; for I would not like to answer them to their mockery.

(58) But this I desire, that they teach me with clear, bright, and certain Scripture, that how and why Christ is in the Sacrament? If they would do this, I would gladly let myself be taught; so gladly that it should be noticed that I would follow without scolding.

But what shall I do? I, who am attacked with the above-mentioned scripture as with a thunderbolt, am assigned to the devil? I, who declare that this writing, "the cup the new testament" 2c. brings the blood from the cup and gives a mind, which no pope has accepted? What shall I do? I know this need to no one but God alone to complain.

But that this text: The cup is the new testament 2c. does not keep the blood in the cup, is indicated in two ways. I will turn and reverse the text a third time, thus: The cup is your blood, the new testament. What follows? That the blood is your cup? No! Because that would have to be

1. "Neither - neither" in the meaning: neither - nor. So put by us instead of: "again - again", because the opinion of Carlstadt will be: Billican will invent a new blood kmd in his cup, which is neither a blood of the new testament, nor something useful.
2. So put by us instead of: "nor diß Schützerey. (That the sun shines all end" etc.) - Schützerei - pretending of an ABC pupil.
3. In the old edition: des.

also follow: The blood of Christ is in the cup a new testament; or: The blood is through the cup a new testament. This would be to blaspheme the new testament of Christ! Although Luther's opinion struggles for it, if he succeeds. So again the mind remains: The cup is in the blood, understand: bodily; because the popes want to have the blood of Christ bodily in the cup. But the popes do not accept this; so we accept even less from dreams.

61 I am afraid that the popes will lose their status, how much they are angry, throbbing and shouting, cursing, maledicting.

62. On this article, I must make it known to Christians that the blood of Christ is a true drink, John 6; the same drink no Christian should drink bodily, that is, with mouth and belly, for then the blood of Christ would not be a true drink, but with the heart in faith, who well recognizes the blood of Christ shed on the cross; he drinks well and his thirst is quenched, as Christ says, "He who believes in me will not thirst forever," John 6.

63. I would gladly know what the godly thirst for? Do they not thirst for righteousness? What is the righteousness of the godly? Is it not faith and knowledge that washes away the many sins? Isaiah 53. 1 John 1. Is not the forgiveness of sins the blessedness of the faithful? Let Paul answer you in Romans 3, and Romans 8.

This must be the reason of those who thirst for righteousness, that some feel their sin and thirst for certain forgiveness; for God has revealed it to them, that through the shedding of His blood One would give sure forgiveness of sins abundantly, fully and sufficiently, with full assurance, and eternal peace, Rom. 5. 5; the same is the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth, for God has sealed and sent him, John 6:9. Whoever therefore recognizes Jesus Christ finds in him that his blood is the true blood of the new testament, which was shed for all sin. Therefore his thirst is satisfied forever, for he knows by faith that Christ Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, who through the Holy Spirit shed his blood for the remission of sins. In the same he is satisfied; he thinks of no other salvation, and it grieves him that some seek their salvation in other things, or by other means, than those do who would rather be saved by the blood of the sacrament than by the shedding of the blood of Christ on the cross.

304 6. Carlstadt: Of the Old and New Testaments 2c. W. xx,-399-401. ZOH

that which Christ says: "Whoever believes in me will thirst no more for ever not," John 6.

Therefore we must recognize or rightly believe the shed blood of Christ, shed on the cross, if the blood is to be our drink; for Christ poured out his blood on the cross for a spiritual drink, when he gave his flesh, raised on the cross for the life of the world, for a true food, John 3:6, 12.

But if we are to know the blood of Christ shed on the cross, if it is our true drink, we must come with faith and in the heart, Heb. 10, Rom. 3, our inward man must come, and not the outward. Is this true? Yes, it is true. It is false, made up and lied about, that the blood of Christ is our bodily drink, which Luther teaches.

67. Yes, 1) the pope punishes Christ; Christ says: We are to drink in the heart and faith; so the pope says: You are to drink with the mouth, Christ says: You are to hear and learn from the Father and thus come to me. Luther says: You shall hear me and come to the blood in the cup. Christ says that his blood is a true drink, that is, a drink of eternal salvation, of eternal life before God; for it is a spiritual drink. But Luther says: The blood in the cup is not a true drink, and is not a drink of salvation and life before God, but the blood of Christ you shall drink from our cup bodily.
68. The blood in the cup is a blood of a new testament, although it does not forgive sin, nor does it give birth to spiritual life. 2) It is a common blood that Judas the betrayer, Pilate, Herod and the murderous priests drink. But what comes of it? What? Not that Christ said wrongly that his blood was a true drink of life? and that the truth was a lie, saying, "He who drinks the blood remains in me? Item, he who drinks, has eternal life? And that Jesus also knew not what he spake, saying, There cometh no man unto me, but he whom my Father hath begotten? But so Luther writes against Christ, and not against me. And especially he writes against the blood of Christ, when he writes: that the blood of Christ can be a bodily, or false, and ischariothic drink; for the little river flows out of this well: This blood of Christ (in
69. Za" set by us instead: Da.
70. So put by us instead of: gebühret.

the cup of the priests) is a bodily drink in which Judas, the betrayer of Christ, has fellowship.

Luther found and dug out this well, therefore the poisonous water is also his, which tries to wash away the ground of the cross of Christ. But it will split on the hard rock, believe me. We have neither sand, nor gravel, nor pebbles, but pure, hard and true rock; know this, and you will know it.

(70) If Luther did no other harm in Christendom, it would be truly great and terrible that he makes a false drink out of a true drink, a bodily drink out of a spiritual drink, a drink of life out of a drink of death, a drink of the elect out of a drink of the damned, and punishes Christ, who publicly says that his blood is a true drink, John 6 and 1 John 1. 6, and 1 John 1, which says that those who have fellowship in the blood of Christ have no fellowship with sins. And again: that they enjoy nothing of the blood of Christ, who have fellowship with sins. For this I would like to praise something from the 12th chapter of John, if it were necessary. But there is enough in the teaching of Christ at one end and St. John at the other to shut Luther's mouth as it is now shut in front of him and will soon be shut more powerfully or more violently.

Luther has already been revealed that he writes differently about the blood of Christ than the truth, and wants to make the blood of Christ a bodily, unspiritual, powerless and spiritless drink, to dishonor the Lord Christ and to disgrace his blood; therefore beware of his teaching. Take care that his rhetoric does not deceive you; do not let it be said to you, 3) that Christ (John 6) did not write enough about the drinking of his blood.

Wait, and do not make the blood in the chalice of the priests the blood of the Old Testament, as Luther does, who gives it bodily to drink, who leaves the name of the blood of the New Testament in appearance, but in root and reason he robs the precious, noble, delicious blood shed for us of all worthiness. He takes from the blood the spirit, the strength, the power, the perfection, the benefit, and the name of the New Testament, to his own detriment and to the condemnation of all those who sit on the beast he rides.

I write, as I understand it, without desire,

3. So put by us instead of: to put away. Probably "einrunen" will be written by Carlstadt.

306I . Luther's Writings against Carlstadt. - W. xx. 401-404. 307

that one might fall into God's wrath, and know it no other way. And I ask God daily for His mercy, so that He will not let me write otherwise than His truth, and reveal it to me if I am wrong. But the more I think, strive and think, and the more firmly and steadfastly I have pleaded and begged, the more I have come to understand the devil's trick, who has given Christians the idea that they can get help from the sacramental nature of Christ when they bodily receive the Body and Blood of Christ through the Sacrament.

May the Father of all mercies enlighten us, teach us right reason, and keep us in constant peace! Amen.

Luther has faith in Christ against him, so all scripture abandons him. What should I do? What do you want to do, dear Christian? We must ask for wisdom and strength.

75 From the above speech it is easy to notice 1) that these words: The cup is the new testament in my blood, which is poured out, Luc. 22, or these: This is my blood, which is of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matt. 26, are necessary words, which Christ spoke out of necessity, for many causes.

76. To the first. That Christ had to proclaim publicly before his end that he was the Messiah 2); that all the writings of Moses, the prophets, who had prophesied of a new testament and of the blood of the new testament, should be fulfilled in the Lord and in his blood and attain an end.

This was a joyful and necessary sermon and promise; it was also a ministry above the ministry of all the prophets, and above the ministry of John the Baptist. For the Baptist pointed to a stranger, but Christ pointed to himself, and to his own blood, and said, This is my blood of the new testament; and that ye know it even now, that the blood of the new testament is blood, I say, which is shed for many for remission of sins. If you hear the new testament, that is, the forgiveness of sins, just realize that my blood is the blood that is to be shed for the forgiveness of sins.

78. in that true and full pardon shall be through my blood, my blood is the blood of the new testament, in which sins are made whole with one another.

1. In the old edition: dissolute.
2. This form "Messiach" is probably set by Carlstadt on purpose to let see that he understands Hebrew.

forgive, so that the conscience takes precedence over sin, and God no longer wants to think anything about sins.

79. But in that 3) it is poured out, it is a blood of the testament, for every blood must be poured out and sprinkled into the people of the testament, which is to become a blood of the testament, since a testament without death is no testament. Therefore, the blood of the testament must be the blood of death, as the blood of Christ was on the cross. For this reason the apostles write at times of the death of Christ, and at times of the shedding of blood. This is a valiant and sufficient cause, that Christ before his end said of his shedding of blood that it would be a blood of the Mediator of the new testament, which would be shed for the full and everlasting remission of sins, and thus become a blood of the new testament.

80 From this cause another follows, that Christ spoke of his blood in such a way, that we might know how the cup of the supper would become a new testament. Namely, when Christ had shed his blood for the remission of sins, and his congregation came together and drank from the cup in right remembrance of the shed blood; as Paul writes to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11, with bright words thus: You shall do this (as often as you drink) in my remembrance. Paul says soon before that, that the cup is a testament in the blood of Christ; this was also true of Paul: a new testament in my blood; as if the other clause had been added to it, which reads: which is poured out for the remission of sins (which the other evangelists have expressed to us in a greater and more certain sense). For we all see what Paul calls a new testament, Heb. 9. 10. 12. 13. why the blood of Christ is a blood of the new testament, namely on account of forgiveness; which with him enough is written: The blood of Christ is a blood of the New Testament, and thus much is said as that the blood of Christ must be shed for the full remission of the sins of Christ's people and of God. This is what everyone sees in Hebrews 8. 9. 10. So the name of Christ coincides with the death of Christ, Matth. 3. 2. lucae at the last.

(81) Therefore the cup is a new testament through the blood, or in the blood of the new testament, that we drink of the cup in remembrance of Christ who died and shed His blood for us.

3. In the old edition: that.

Z086 . Carlstadt: Of the Old and New Testaments 2c. W. xx, 404-^06. ZAtz

Luther may lay it on me as if I had written that such glorious and necessary words of blood should be left outside; but let it be far from me! But it would serve Luther if we put such words under a bench. It would serve me and the believers in Christ, that we try such words of the Lord and understand their content.

83. for we grasp that the cup of the Lord is a cup of the new testament through the blood of the cross, which flowed from the body of Christ hanging on the cross. For the same blood is the blood of the new testament. But if the cup is a new testament through the blood of the cross, then the cup is not a new testament through the blood that is supposed to be in it. For even if the blood of Christ had been in the cup at the time of the supper, when it was in the body of Christ, yet the cup would not have been a new testament through the same unshed blood, since the nature and quality of the blood of the new testament is that it is shed; when Christ would shed his blood 1) for the remission of sins.

If the blood (which is said to be bodily in the cup) made the cup a new testament by the same bodily essence, then the weapons of Christ's suffering would certainly have become a new testament, the scourges, the crown, the spear, the cross, the earth, the nails, on which the blood of Christ bodily and visibly hung or stuck. But who says that all these things are new testaments? And if someone said so, he would have to dispute it with scriptures, if we were to believe him. But if these things are not called the new testament, who can stand to call the cup of the Lord a testament, that the blood of the Lord should be bodily in it?

85 Let us call the Scriptures the New Testament because they testify of the New Testament, that is, of death and the shedding of blood, and keep the remembrance of death, and not because death and the shed blood, or Christ himself, is bodily in it; why not also drink of the cup of the Lord, which the Lord hath set before him for his remembrance?

The blood shed on the cross is the blood of the New Testament because Christ shed and offered his blood through the Holy Spirit for us and our sin on the cross, Heb. 9. To this we must direct our remembrance. He that thinketh long, and thinketh not the power of the cross, thinketh not that which he ought to think, or that which he ought not to think.

1. We have erased "the" before shedding.

how he should think, because Christ clearly says: that is poured out for you. Therefore, if a man drinks from the cup of the Lord without a remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, he is guilty of the blood of Christ, and all the thinking you have is lost if you do not have such a remembrance.

From this speech of Christ it also follows that they are fools who call the Lord's supper a new testament, especially those who call it a new testament because Christ forgives sins in the invented sacrament, or that the power of forgiveness is in the sacrament. 2c. For this reason is fictitious and false, even if an angel set it up.

Forgiveness of sins is on the cross. Christ bore our sins on the cross, washed them away and paid for them. 1 Pet. 2. Is. 53. Col. 1. For this reason they lie to Christ crucified, who call the Lord's supper a new testament for the forgiveness of sins; and they break the power of the cross of Christ, in which alone and sufficiently is forgiveness of all sins. But Luther is a master of this error, who also damages many people, and makes the suffering or death of Christ fruitless for half or half of what it was.

(89) But that Luther might paint his doctrine with a color, and not be seen to do what he does, he says, The cup is a new testament, for the remission of sins; for remission is contained in it.

This is a color and a lid without writing. But isn't it a beautiful color? Doesn't it shine well? If Luther had put writing on it, who would not believe him? But must Luther ever lead the fools by the monkey rope? Or is this blasphemy of the blood, of the cross, only 4) of men, and not also of God? If we did not have the speech of the Lord about the blood of the New Testament, what would we put against it? How good would Luther have it? What would I have to hear?

But praise God! we have the Word of God, which is bright and clear and powerful, to uncover this mantle, and to reveal the promise of the cross of Christ. For Christ speaks thus: The cup the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for many 2c. Come here! Do not both your ears ring? Ei, how do they buzz? I mean, this saying breaks Luther's foundation? Not? if then? Why has

2. Thus placed by us instead of: "in the new. That the correction we have made is correct is evident from the following paragraph.
3. So put by us instead of: and.
4. So put by us instead of: all.

310I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 4ve-4vs. 311

Christ did not say: The cup the new testament in my blood, in which the forgiveness of sins is granted? Answer more! Is it enough that the cup is a new testament, that forgiveness is granted in it (which is still unproven)? why then does Christ say: the blood that is poured out? and not in vain, but is poured out for us in forgiveness of sins?

(92) But if this is true, that the cup is a new testament in the blood shed for us in forgiveness, the other is a lie, that the cup is a new testament for the sake of the confession of sins. For the confession is powerless, and not a testament; but the shedding is powerful, testamentary, and fixed. Now if Luther wants to insist on his Scripture and hold that Christ acquired forgiveness of sins through his shed blood, he must also confess that the cup is a new testament in the acquired forgiveness of sins, because Christ says that his blood is a blood of the new testament, which should be shed in forgiveness of sins. But the other thing Luther says is punished: the cup is a new testament, because Christ has decreed forgiveness of sin in it. Do you see now, Luther, how I do not distinguish these words? how they smash your building into heaps? how they shatter and crush your vault? how they take the blood from your cup?

This is one of Luther's strongest warriors, who is not only struck down with his own sword, but robbed of all his possessions.

(94) I counsel you, brethren, to open your eyes, to ask God for wisdom, to meditate well on the Scriptures; for you see how the Scriptures at first have a semblance of establishing the error of the popes, only because they are used by one whom you take for a prophet. But if you look rightly into the Scripture, you will find not only a rock, but also a sharp sword and a powerful hammer, 1) which strikes the new pope's sophistry to the ground and crushes it.

95 Whosoever therefore shall call the Lord's supper a new testament, for the remission of sins, which shall be strong therein, doeth violence to the new testament of Christ, and is an enemy of the cross of Christ: know ye this. The cause is shown above.

Now notice what springs from this finding:

1. So put by us instead of: not the pure rock; but a sharp sword and a troublesome hammer 2c.

The cup is a new testament in the blood that is to be in it. First, that the blood in the cup is poured out for us and is poured out as often as the blood of Christ makes the cup a new testament. For this is what the Scripture gives: Where the blood of the new testament is bodily, there is shedding of the blood, Heb. 9. From this it follows that the ministers give the blood of Christ for us, as they give us the blood of Christ to drink. For it is a giving 2) and blood for us, and for our sin, and for the life of the world; therefore he that giveth must give that which cleaveth to him.

97 Secondly, that the blood of Christ may forgive the new sin. To this they will say no with their mouth and yes with the root of their error.

From this it follows for the third, that the priests sacrifice the blood of Christ as often as they give it to the people for a drink. Therefore the new popes are as bad and evil as the old papists; therefore I refer to the reason of the 9th and 10th chapter of Hebrews. Chapter to the Hebrews.

The fourth is that they want to be mediators of the New Testament.

100. fifth, that Christ must die often; for where the negation of the testament is, there is the negation of death, Heb. 9.
101. sixth, that the death and shed blood of Christ was not the death and blood of the new testament. Heb. 9.

Seventh, that Christ's death, sacrifice and blood are imperfect.

All this flows from the error of the popes, who are also pious 3); and all this an understanding man can nullify from the words of Christ, especially by these words: This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many, in remission of sins; the cup the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Dear brethren, let us not tarry with the scriptures against the new testament: for they that despise, or have no respect unto the sacrifice, and blood, and testament of Christ, have no redemption.

105. before this letter I> have reported that any will and promise of God may be called a testament; as the promise of Abraha, Gal. 3, and the Jews of the testament children, Apost. 3, and this promise, that the body will be given for you, can be a testament; therefore, I have not wanted to further unfold it.

2. In the old edition: enter.
3. This probably means: one is as pious as the other, Luther as pious as the pope.

312 7.. How Carlstadt Respects His Doctrine of the Sacrament 2c. W. xx, 409-412. 313

7. Carlstadt's explanation of how he respects and wants to have respected his doctrine of the reverend Sacrament, and others.*)

July 25, 1525.

Explanation of how Carlstadt respects and wants to have respected his doctrine of the reverend Sacrament, and others.

Because I have heard from Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt that some fall upon my books, which I have written about the reverend Sacrament, as upon a proven divine teaching, and now consider it certain that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament cannot be bodily, I must explain myself better and report what everyone is to think of my writing.

2. although I meant that no one would want to draw such a serious meaning from my books, which he would consider a certain divine reason, because I write in clear words that I want to accept Christian instruction; so that I ever secretly admit my guilt and confess that I myself am still uncertain. Item, because I also write that I have no Scripture that drives me to the old or other understanding, and have placed my letter in such a way (as it seems to me) that it should ever be understood from it that no Scripture would faze me, nor throw me under this obedience, that I would have to say: The body of Christ must be bodily in the bread of the Lord 2c.

(3) For I speak and write this from my head and from my ability and bestowed grace, and not from all men's understanding and grace, for 1) in such writing or speaking, all this is also impossible, that there are many thousands to be found, who have received much more skillful eyes and ears from God than I, who could hear God's word more thoroughly than I, who find an understanding of God in the place where I can find nothing. For I know it well that by natural powers I am not able to fathom nor dig out the meaning of holy Scriptures. The readers of my books should have considered all this, and not consider anything to be proven and divine, before they assured themselves of God from the holy Scriptures. But since it has not happened, and not much happens yet, such disciples, who alone understand who is writing, should know this:

1. In the old edition: when.

4. that I have been willing to give a divine and proven doctrine; but not before, nor any further, than when we have sufficiently searched and ransacked the Scriptures, so that we actually know and do not mean 2), become certain, and do not doubt anything. Before that happens, which is still undone, my teaching should be considered nothing better than a delusion and conceit.

(5) And let the people search and discern the time, and draw no full or final judgment from my Scriptures, but stand still. As Paul teaches: One or two should speak; the others should judge or recognize. But if a revelation happens to one, the speaker should be silent. This is what my readers should do, namely, recognize, and not conclude or make certain, before the revelation has come, or before they have been overcome and caught by God's word and driven into an obedience of divine truth.

(6) But most of them forsake the holy Scriptures, and little regard what is founded in the Scriptures; but many boast of persons, and have no other consolation or reason than this: he or that one wrote it; he learns 3) this, I hold it with him. So they do not seek the fountain of living and unconfessed waters, but cisterns, from which of course nothing good and no truth can flow, but foolishness, deceit 2c. Namely, they forsake God, and look at men, of whom it is written: What goes out of their hearts stains them, Matth. 15, 18. Item: All men are liars, Ps. 116, 11. No one respects God, Ps. 14, 2. Do you not know what the Scriptures speak? Does not God say thus, "Cursed is he who trusts in man?" Item: Everything that reveals flesh and blood is satanic and not divine, seductive and not true, contemptible and not praiseworthy? Is this not frightening, that human wisdom is an enmity against God? And that our wisdom cannot please God?

2. "not meant" - not merely holding an opinion. 3) learn - teach.

Luther wrote a preface to this explanation, which is found in Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 2472. The time is given at the end of the text. We give the text according to Walch's old edition.

314I . Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. W. XX. 412-415. 315

From this you should all be wise and certain that what the flesh and blood of Carlstadt invents, understands and presents or learns is not good, nor can it be divine. But now it is not good nor dangerous. So you should be afraid in Carlstadt's books that you might catch something for God that is Carlstadt's, something for good that is evil. Now open your eyes and brains and ask God to keep you from such teaching as often as you read the books of men. Truly, it has ever been repugnant to me that some fall for the person and attach themselves to it. But if you want to boast about persons, Zwinglium or Carlstadt, you would gain nothing, as is now said, and put yourself in danger, as I have now warned you. About this you know almost well that many saints have been, and still are, who hold this doctrine: The body of Christ is bodily in the sacrament and is bodily partaken of, to be divine. How many martyrs have died in this faith? how many of the other saints? Do you want to talk about scholars? Which one is more learned than Augustine? Do Cyprian and Jerome not count for anything? What is Ambrose? what Bernard? If you also want to praise the bunch, the other part has it far better. Although this is forbidden, nevertheless some babble into the new mind, and know of no other reason to speak but of poor persons.

I confess this before God without reproach, but from the heart. Everything that I have ever written, spoken, or even taught from my own property, or have found from myself, is human, false, unsolvable, seductive, satanic, to be feared and to be fled; I must confess this to the honor of truth and to the praise of God in divine things or teachings. Now boast of Carlstadt's writing or books without understanding of divine truth! May you still blow out the doctrine of a poor man and exalt yourself with it?

(8) Not only in this article about the reverend sacrament do I want to have said this and to have kept it from my doctrine, but in all martyrdom, which I have written out, about the mass, about idols, and about other articles. Namely, this is what I want to have: No one shall think that my doctrine is good, just, true, divine, or wholesome, unless he has been assured of it from the wholesome word of God; for I will have judged my writing according to God and from God's word. From the holy scripture the reader shall praise or rebuke my teaching. But many fall upon their consciences and feet into my books, as hungry

Swine in dung, and when the swine is, they drag in the dung, and the noble pearl, God's. Word, they tread among themselves in the dung, and direct God's word according to my doctrine, all absurd and perverse, and contrary to my will.

What is the cause? This is the reason that most of them seek not reason and truth, but folly and novelty. For 1) methinks that not a few fall into my delusion and conceit, for the sake of novelty and oddity, and intend nothing else than to talk something new in front of others in tabernacles and in the tassel 2). But aren't such right pleasure diggers, poor and foolish people? Would not all desire to write be extinguished in the face of such ambitious gleamers? Are these not the loose, robbing and unbelieving people, who seek nothing but honor and glory? Who then dishonor and revile God's word the most, when they carry around and spread His divine word for their own glory.

10. Truly, there is nothing in such people but a colorful exterior, and inwardly vain and evil. 3) They build and comfort themselves on nothing but a reed or a gentle wind of the person. These are the swine to whom no pearl should be presented.

(11) But this is not to punish all men, nor to deter or dissuade devout Christians from the reading of Christian scribes. For Paul writes: Ye shall try all things, and keep those things which are good, 1 Thess. 5. Neither do I wish to turn away any man from the practice of prophesying, nor to hinder the least from hearing and judging, for I know well that Paul writes: I want you all to prophesy, and to know or to judge, 1 Cor. 14.

(12) Neither will I speak into the divine revelation of anyone, knowing what is written in Matt. 2 and John 5, nor dampen or quench the Spirit of God, for the Scripture says, "Do not quench the Spirit," 1 Thess. 5:19, but test whether it is of God.

(13) What is good and divine is wholesome and true, and to be accepted in whom it is found, whether old or young, man or child, high or low. Whatever is divine in my books, I do not contradict, nor does anyone force me to contradict divine truth, hear me.

14. but I can not stand that sows in

1. In the old edition: If.
2. tassel - quarrel: so set by us instead of: in quasi.
3. "Oeß" is unknown to us, perhaps: Aas? The plural of "Aas" is similar in Low German.

316 7 . how Carlstadt respects his teaching on the sacrament 2c. W. xx. 415-418. 317

my doctrine porcelain,' who want to be Christians, and eat nothing, but only what they consider to be human. But the doctrine of God they sniff at, as dogs in the run-up, and ask nothing after God and after their blessedness. Remember me: What is not godly, that I reject and want it to be thrown down freely by everyone.

(15) But what you are still uncertain of, you shall not make yourself certain of by my Scriptures. Truth, the truth of God, known by the grace of God, that alone can and shall make you free from all error and lack, secure and certain, John 8, which you must seek in the place where it lies, or standing in the street and crying out: Come to me 2c.

(16) I have had to let it happen that my books came to print, that I did not mean otherwise, nor do I understand otherwise even today, except that my conceit is well proven, good, right, divine and wholesome. But I am not sure of this, therefore no one may make me greater than I am, nor make me higher than I pretend to be. My books could also do no harm, nor seduce anyone, if they were read and respected as I want them to be read and respected, as described above. For they do so little harm that some have become firmer and more certain in the faith than before. Therefore I have not deserved great ingratitude.

(17) Though I would that none were written in the world, for the sake of the fellows who ask nothing of divine truth, or think that it is certain and approved, that 1) they have no other evidence than the name of a poor person. And truly, if I had worried about these dangerous times, no one would have brought my books from me with a wooden axe. For I have had to wander about in misery, and have had to be at the ends of all my enemies, where they wished me or lied to me. This is also one of the causes that cast me into suspicion of rebellion among the noble Christians, who are more careful 2) than they realize.

18 And indeed, I had not spread my doctrine of the Sacrament 2c. to more persons than those who heard me orally; and if one had not done so, such books would still be in ink and pen. A good friend asked me to write and lend him such a mind for his person; he brought such a teaching of the Sacrament from me with many kind words and a noble request. After that, my little books came into print, and

1. In the old edition: that.
2. condemn.

out of the pressure into the wide world, and I, the poor, have thus come into poverty, and have become a disgust and an abomination to many, who have sought me out and brought me back, not as an enemy, but as a madman, with sighs out of Christian love; for I have always desired the light, offered myself for justice and interrogation, and have wanted to be wise to something better, where I have ever been.

(19) From this only a man understands how he should judge and hold my writing, and that I myself must not swear that it must be so. But I have used, introduced and presented writings, on which I have founded and established my doctrine. If I have now misused and perverted these writings (which would truly be done out of ignorance and I would be sorry for it), then my teaching is certainly not good, nor divine, nor acceptable.

20 I also hear that Doctor Zwinglius is to write in a booklet that my teaching is right, but does not follow from the holy scriptures which I have introduced. If this were so, the good man would have given him and me a hard push. For I have this scripture: The flesh is of no use, even for a reason. Zwingli, however, considers it the best and strongest reason than I do, even higher; therefore I do not know what he himself means and how he wants to have understood it, or how certain he is in his heart, or whether he spoke such a judgment for the sake of a person. But this is what I want from my readers, that all those who know that my reasons are unhelpful or unsuitable, or that they are badly laid, should also consider my building, which I have placed on it, to be wrong. For we are concerned more than fields and meadows, life or death; we are concerned with eternal life or eternal fire. Therefore, let each one look at the right ground of God, knowing and not supposing, nor concluding anything until he becomes certain. For we are not to go along in a fictitious faith that does not know a word of God. But no one should find me or persecute me because we care so much. If he is a Christian, I deserve thanks. For it is undoubted that many thousands in this and other articles have known nothing more than to say of mere old custom, who truly do not know one letter of the word of faith, from which faith comes, and are now moved to look at the Scriptures and the word of God themselves and with diligence 3); which will bring them great salvation. For we have never heard of any other wisdom, nor

3. So put by us instead of: "in the flesh."

318I Luther's Writings against Carlstadt. W. xx. 4is-t2i. 319

of 1) divine mystery, as Deut. 4. and 29. and in many epistles of Paul it is written.

21 For why? they must not think that they have a right faith or blessed eyes (as the apostles of the Lord had, and we all must have, if we want to be righteous and blameless before God), if they have not been taught by God, and know nothing to testify of the word of faith, but only of this fiddle: I have heard it thus, my parents also have believed it thus. For Christ says thus, He that is of God heareth the word of God, Joh. 5. My sheep hear my voice, and they hear not the voice of strangers, Joh. 10. Beware of false prophets, they speak the visions of their heart, Jer. 23, 16. Item: Thy mother is a Hittite, 2) thy father an Amorean; as the mother is, so is the daughter, and the son as the father, Ezek. 16, 44. Therefore the glory and comfort is false and to be feared, in which the world has lain before, and has known nothing but the faith of parents, and the cry of wolves wearing sheepskins.

I rejoice before God that in all my writings I have sought, meant and laid this foundation, that Christ, through His obedience in His death on the cross, has become our righteousness before God, and our full and eternal Savior. So that we have full forgiveness of all sins through his suffering, as Paul writes a hundred times, and Isaiah and Christ have taught before. Item, that we have this forgiveness of our sins not out of vain grace, but out of righteousness, that is, we have a right honest payment for our sins, that is, Christ suffered as much and more than we all have sinned, and he redeemed the handwriting of our guilt with his suffering, and paid all that was written in the handwriting, and nailed our handwriting to the cross. The handwriting of our guilt is the law of Moses, which Moses wrote as a testimony of our sins, guilt, wickedness and foolishness, as Moses himself says, or God through Moses 5 Mos. 31. The same law of God reveals our sins, Rom. 7, 7, and as often as we look at it, so often we find our guilt; and the deeper we get into it, the more sin we find, and to that our cursing and God's wrath against us. But Christ has taken away the same law or handwriting, as it is said, and put it on the cross.

1. Thus set by us instead of: before.
2. Thus set by us instead of: "Cetea" according to Ezek. 16, 3. 45.

Eph. 2, and so completely abolished that there is no longer a conscience, but the conscience and the law of sins are abolished, Heb. 9. So that we may no longer fear either the plague or the guilt, nor the wrath of God, nor the devil (to whom we were given because of our guilt), and may cheerfully ask and answer, "Who will accuse us because of our vices? God is the one who justifies us. Who will put us to shame? 3) Christ is there, who died for us. What? God is on our side. So if God is for us, who can be against us? God did not spare His own Son, but gave Him for us; how could it be that He 4) did not forgive us all sin? Rom. 8. therefore we have righteousness, and with righteousness we have been set free, and our debt has been paid, and nothing has been given in it; for God gave His Son for our debt, and the Son gave Himself as a ransom for us, 1 Tim. 2.He has paid our debts more precious than silver and gold, for He has redeemed us with His flesh and blood, body and life, and has paid all the debts of the world abundantly and completely, and paid them all at once, and He has not owed a single mite. Therefore we have rightly come from the devil through Christ, and not by pure grace. It is true that if we hold God and the righteousness of Christ against us and compare them, we have nothing but pure grace. But if we compare the redemption of Christ with our guilt, we have more than grace. For Christ gave us his suffering, that is, Christ gave us money and made it our own, that we might pay all our debt. If someone gave me ten guilders, with which I paid my debtor, the gift would be vain favor or grace; but the redemption would be in justice. Even if he gave the money himself and made me free, there would still be grace and justice, and I would be sure and certain of redemption.

(23) So I have taught the forgiveness of our sins, and this foundation I have laid, and have called the faithful to learn how Christ is even our Righteous One, as He was promised by the prophet, Jer. 23, Isa. 53, Luc. 2.And how Christ justifies us through his suffering, and how we have obtained forgiveness of sins in the shed blood of Christ, so that they do not seek forgiveness of their sins or understand it as when a priest forgives sins, or when Christ said on earth, "Stand up and be forgiven.

3. condemn.
4. So put by us instead of: "he."

3207 . how Carlstadt respects his doctrine of the sacrament 2c. W. xx, 421-424. 321

but to speak of the righteousness of our redemption, and to understand the righteousness of our faith, and how God justifies our hearts through faith in Christ. But this is the right reason, namely, Jesus Christ crucified; and no one can lay any other reason, I rejoice.

(24) If I have built hay or stubble on this foundation out of ignorance, then I have done it out of ignorance; I am even unconscious of it. But if, as I have now said, I had a zeal of God and no art, and built something on it that is to be consumed by fire, I hope for myself that I have suffered enough fire and overcome the damage.

If anyone is deceived by such hay, wood or stubble, he should accuse himself and not me. First, that I have not commanded or compelled anyone to accept my teaching. Second, that I have pointed people away from me to the truth and to Christ 1). Thirdly, that every Christian should know from the teaching of Christ that he should be as simple as a dove, and as witty as a serpent, and test the spirits whether they are of God or not, as I have said above. Therefore, the fault of the foolish readers (is anyone deceived that I am not aware of), of whom I spoke and lamented above, is that they bring in humanity and do not fathom God's word.

26. Therefore, I humbly hope to all Christian princes and lords, and will kindly take care of all other Christians, that they will not accuse me too highly after this purification, nor even blame me, that some hold such, some such a different meaning of the reverend sacrament, or understand it differently, as 2) it is commonly preached. What God plants remains before wind and water; what God does not plant is wiped out and perishes; no defense helps. Tort 3) does no violence.

27. humbly ask all Christian princes and lords, and all who love God, to measure this purification in grace and friendship, not to wrong me, so that I do not write such flowery words as I would like to write, if I could; not to further harass or persecute me unheard,

1. In the old edition: gereiset.
2. In the old edition: deme.
3. Should perhaps read "There"? because the meaning seems to be: Where GOD plants something, violence can do nothing against it.

nor allow myself to be harassed or persecuted before I am convinced.

28 And if ever they would not spare me, that they might spare their own salvation. For God will measure all men by the yardstick and by the measure with which they measure. But whosoever shall offend the least of these, which is due unto God, hath offended the apple of God's eye, Zech. 2:8. God shall also punish not only felonious persecution, but also that which is done out of the mouth, as it is written: Whoever says to his brother, Fool, is worthy of fire. Whoever is angry with his brother is guilty of judgment, Matt. 5. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, 1 John 3. These are terrifying words to consider in the heart of all those who fear God's punishment, or who know that God would compare His punishment, which He consumes out of His divine longsuffering, with the greatness and severity 4) of His punishment, Romans 2. (2) Whosoever therefore will not spare me, let him spare himself; for nothing remains unrewarded; this is what God has said, who does not deny. I am a member of all Christians, for I know and confess that Christ has redeemed me through his death, brought me into the kingdom of his Father, and made me a partaker of the heavenly inheritance. Therefore, if the faith which I have in the perfect righteousness of Christ and our redemption has caused me to believe this doctrine, I beg you not to think me a stranger, and not to corrupt me, because Christ has redeemed me and died for me.

But if some would not consider me a Christian, they must consider me a stranger, and judge me by the right of God, as God's commandment is. If princes and lords, citizens and peasants do not want to spare me again, they should spare the judgment of God and themselves. Judgment is ever of God, Deut. 1, and not of men, which commandeth that no man be ashamed of a man's seed; saith also unearthly, 5) that it shall befall him that begetteth falsely, or that judgeth falsely wilfully, as him whom they abridge, or afflict, or injure unjustly. Now I am neither overcome by two witnesses, nor by one, and yet I am almost weighed down by everyone, as if I were the very worst. One does not want to see me, the other asks to catch me and murder me, the third begs to sell me food and drink, the fourth pushes otherwise, and is of the urge to kill me.

4. compare - balance.
5. uncanny - obviously.

322I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 424-426. 323

niß 1) so much that methinks that things are more orderly in Turkey.

(30) Christ commanded the rulers that they should seek out and bring back the erring in mercy, and that they should let ninety and nine sheep go until they bring an erring one to his right. But the way this is now done in Christendom is pitiful to hear, and not in great honor, but it will gain its reward when the righteous judge sets his judgment, and then he will judge and punish the unmerciful with unmercifulness.

Dear Christians, believe with moderation the evil, but think one thing, that this malice, envy and hatred neither invent nor speak anything good. That I have acquired envy and hatred through my teaching of the Sacrament, I have come to realize with insurmountable damage. But if such envy and hatred had been divine in some, there are still many more of them who know no more of God than the miller's ass, 2) without further understanding or loving my suffering and that of Christ than Caiphas, who have persecuted me out of poisonous envy and hatred, and would have strangled me if I had not been protected and provided for by God, 3) who have hated me without order and without reason, who have invented all kinds of lies about me and thrown them out, and have drawn others into their hatred against me. But shall it all be true what such malicious tongues lie against me? But how can I defend myself against them?

I am said to have been the peasants' captain or instigator, who suffered little peace, much danger, great mockery and violence from the peasants. Such suffered violence I can prove. But they may not prove their lies. But I cannot do anything about the fact that they so hate me for such teachings. God has led me into such teaching, which I could not resist, nor could I foresee his ways beforehand, through which he has now led me.

33 Recently, I ask those who are able to do me violence to spare themselves and keep God's order.

1. i.e., of affliction, of distress. - Instead of "that" we have put "of".
2. In the old edition: an dem; "an" often stands for "without".
3. Through Luther, who kept Carlstadt hidden in his house for more than eight weeks; in Luther's house this writing is also written. Compare the introduction to this volume.

34. those who like to carry around new newspapers, let it be said to them that they should not be comforted by my books or my teaching.

(35) But to others who desire a true understanding of sacred Scripture, I counsel that they place themselves on God's word and ask God for understanding and wisdom, who graciously endows all who seek in truth.

36 But those who want to have people, as we really should have people, for the sake of the work (as Paul teaches 1 Thess. 5, 13.), and praise them, will find more convenient ones than I am, who are of a higher spirit than I am, who are more skilled than I am. I write this out of truth and duty, because Paul teaches to think more highly of others than of oneself, Phil. 2, 3.

(37) My soul praises God and justifies His ways, and applies to it as God does. He cast me down, or cast me up, so far as to give me his good peace, divine will and strength, and to implant in me obedience to him, and he shall remain my Lord and my God forever, amen. Dat. Jacobi Anno 25.

**

After that, one 4) is not unknown to me, who tends to click his own into my books, because of which I have to fear that it might happen to me now more than before, and that such a one, or other idlers, might not only price me some words and sentences, but whole books behind my back, 5) in which such offenders might attack and revile me, or other people under my name, with painting of my diction, which they are able to do: Accordingly, everyone is hereby informed, faithfully warned and kindly prayed not to buy a new book under my title, or to consider it mine, if it does not contain these letters in the first leaf: H. G. V. B. M., that is, Helfe GOtt Und Bewahre Mich, and is printed in Wittenberg.

4. This may refer to the schoolmaster in Rothenburg, Valentin Jckelschammer (Jckelsamer).
5. In the old edition "to praise", which we have contracted into "zuprelsen", which is to be taken for "to ascribe". This results from the following warning of Carlstadt, in which he indicates that books are issued under his name, which he has not written.

324 De Wette III, 231 f. 8. L.'s answer u. refutation of etl. erroneous arguments 2c. W. XX, 426-428. 325

8. D. Martin Luther's answer and refutation of several erroneous arguments (mainly from the Dedit),

which D. Carlstadt led against him to defend and maintain his false opinion of the Holy Sacrament. *)

November (?) 1527.

Translated from Latin.

To Doctor Andreas Carlstadt.

Grace and peace in Christ! I had hoped, dear Carlstadt, that you would present reasons that could or would have moved you to your opinion; but just from your explanation of the word dedit (he gave) I recognize that you rather search for reasons (exquirere) from syllables and letters. This can be nothing else than that you want to flee the light intentionally. For where will be the end of the disputing, if you want to continue in this way to forcefully press and stab the syllables? 1) Why don't you rather come to the point? Accept what I say in short words, because I want to speak most clearly.

There are two things involved in this matter, namely the words and the thing. With regard to the words, the question is whether it can be proved that they must be taken differently than they read? with regard to the matter, the question is whether the body of Christ is given and eaten bodily in the Lord's Supper? We therefore endeavor to wrest the matter from you by the words, as you endeavor to wrest the words from us by the matter. For if the words must be taken as they are, we have undoubtedly prevailed and wrested the matter from you; but if you

1. muAirs st xunZers. Instead of muZirs - to roar, to shout, we assume urZsrs, after which we have translated. In the old translation it is "stöcken und blöcken", which is also what ours comes to.

you have proved the matter, you have undoubtedly wrung from us the words, namely, that they must be understood differently than they read.

Now, this cannot be denied, the question of the words must be treated first, that is, one must first see what the words say (quid nominis), then what the thing is (quid rei). Here we stand and say (since neither you, nor anyone among you has so far proved that these words: "This is my body" must be taken differently than they read) that one must simply hang on the words as they read. For you too have not brought forward one letter from Scripture, by which you proved that ôïýôï refers to the body of the seated Christ, but you invent this from your head, just as neither Zwingli nor Oekolampad prove with any syllable from Scripture that "is" is taken for "means," or "body" for "sign of the body," 2) but they too invent such from their head. Since we seize you here publicly as arbitrary inventors of words, against the use and nature of all languages: how then can we be moved to your opinion? Yes, how should not your conscience beat you (movet), which feels this sting and calls out to you, saying: The words are so, and you do not prove that they must be taken differently? For if

2. Instead of oorporsa, read oorxoris, as the old translation has.

*This writing is originally written in Latin and is found in Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 196, but with the wrong year 1524. From another manuscript in Löscher, Historia motuurr", suvpl. p. 4, and in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 231, according to Aurifaber. German under the year 1528 in the Wittenberger, vol. IX, p. 277; in the Jenaer (1566), vol. IV, p. 376; in the Altenburger, vol. IV, p. 447 and in the Leipziger, vol. XIX, p. 701. We provide a new translation According to Aurifaber. Comparison with the old translation has enabled us to make several significant improvements to the Latin text.

326 De Wette III, 232 f. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XL, 428-431. 327

Even if we admit, which is impossible (per impossibile), that you prove the matter, namely, that the body of Christ is not given in the Lord's Supper, what will you do, since conscience holds these words against you: "This is my body"? Will you say they must be taken differently? How? Here you will all be forced to fall silent, since neither you can prove your ôïýôï, nor those their "means" or "signs" (figuram). And so you leave us no text at all, because you impose nothing else (concluditis) than that the words must be taken otherwise than they are. But how they should be taken, you cannot say at all, and so you pass over the cry of conscience, which is tormented (mordetur) by the words as they are, since it has never heard that they are taken otherwise than they are. But what kind of spirit this is, which alone brings about that no text remains in the Lord's Supper, then also asserts that the words must be taken differently than they read, contrary to the use of all languages, and neither wants to nor can prove this, can easily be judged. Since, then, in the wrong order, you ignore the right understanding of the words (quid nominis), then also seek to attain "what the thing is" (quid rei), without 1) giving the words their right, we stand against you invincibly and say: This is how the words sound, and you also do not prove with one syllable that they are to be understood in the opposite sense or in a different way, yes, you ignore them contemptuously: therefore it is certain that you are mistaken. Especially in the holy Scriptures it is necessary that one first and certainly has the right understanding of the word (quid nominis), because it is about unknown things that can only be grasped with faith.

Now I come to your perverse order, by which you struggle to attain what the thing is (in quid rei), while you despise what the words say. And first of all, I would very much like you to have omitted a great many things, of which you no doubt have

1. 8IH6 Httiä nominis must be read; 8IV6 is wrong. The old translation has "without".
2. so that it would not be necessary to waste time and words. But because you may not be able to do this, since I see that you have become a new orator from books without a teacher, one must give you credit for this and bear it.

First, that you teach me that passages of Scripture are to be interpreted by comparing them with other passages, and that, trusting in this rule, you also begin to draw the sixth chapter of John, as it were, as a light on the words of the Lord's Supper - here, I beg you, hear me patiently. If every passage of Scripture must be interpreted by another passage, where will there be an end to comparing the passages of Scripture? For in this way it will happen that no passage of Scripture will be certain and clear, and such a comparison of one passage with another will take place ad infinitum. In this way, another will presume to interpret the sixth chapter of John through the Lord's Supper, just as you presume to interpret the Lord's Supper through the sixth chapter of John, and he will make use of your rule, namely, that one passage must be explained by another. Do you not feel that you have here laid a quite unreliable foundation, and are proceeding from the particular to the general? For this rule: one passage must be interpreted by another, is without doubt only something particular, namely, a doubtful and dark passage must be interpreted by a clear and certain one. For to want to interpret clear and certain passages by comparing them with others is to mock the truth in an unworthy manner and to bring clouds into the light. Likewise, to interpret all passages by comparison with others would be to throw the whole of Scripture into an infinite and uncertain desolate heap. Is this not clear enough? No doubt you realize very well that this is the case. When you

2. In Latin: me tidi non sonssäsrs, which does not fit into the context. The old translation offers: "that I know and admit", which we have assumed. We assume that it must be read: ins NO88S st sonssäsrs, which is repeated at the beginning of the penultimate paragraph in this writing.

328 De Wette III, W3f. 8. L.'s answer u. refutation en, erriger Argumente re. W. XX, 431-433. 329

Therefore, if you wanted to use this rule of comparison as a basis, you had to 1) first make certain and read the proof that the passage about the Lord's Supper is doubtful and obscure, that is, that it requires the application of this rule of comparison with respect to the sixth chapter of John. But you do neither of these; neither do you show that the passage on the Lord's Supper is doubtful, nor do you prove that it must be compared with the sixth chapter of John, but both, though unproven and uncertain, you boldly seize upon and presuppose as something certain and proven. What wonder if you dispute and conclude nothing but monstrosities? But the doubtfulness of the words in the Lord's Supper you could have presented (docuisses) in such or similar a way, if you had said: Because these words "my body" 2c., or this speech "this is my body" are taken in Scripture in various ways and doubtfully, therefore a certain understanding must be taken from elsewhere. If you had proceeded in this way, truth would have met you and said: 2) Stop, brother, the passage about the Lord's Supper is not doubtful; or prove the doubtfulness, because these words: "This is my body" are clear according to the use of all languages and are nowhere taken or understood differently in Scripture, unless you prove the opposite. Therefore, it cannot be admitted to you that you compare them with the sixth chapter of John according to the rule mentioned before. For this rule does not apply here unless you can prove the doubtfulness either in the words or in the syntax.

Secondly, that you assert in many words that Christ quite actually taught John on the sixth, where, how, for whom, when, how often, for what purpose, for what instruments mouth or heart, his body was given for food, - there I commend your effort to show your oratory. But, dear man, you know that I do not know this.

1. Instead of erit, erat will be read.
2. äixissst, not äixissss.

nor was it necessary for this to be brought forward. 3) The sixth chapter of John is sufficiently known to me, and I know that it is taught there that the body of Christ or rather the flesh of Christ is the food of souls. Again, you do what should not be done 4) but omit what you should do. From one particular you conclude the exclusiveness, 5) namely: in the sixth chapter of John it is taught that Christ's flesh is eaten spiritually, therefore it is taught that Christ's flesh is eaten only spiritually. Where did you learn this inference: Eating spiritually is the same as eating only spiritually, or because Christ's flesh is eaten spiritually, it cannot also be eaten bodily? Show the passage of John 6, which proves this conclusion, which you are inventing here. How can I believe that you are moved by this conclusion? At least I think you see clearly that we cannot be moved by it. For with the same conclusion you could say according to Gal. 4, 19: Christ is born spiritually in the Galatians, therefore he cannot be born bodily of Mary; Christ dwells spiritually in the believers, Eph. 2, 22, therefore he cannot dwell bodily in Capernaum or in heaven; Christ is crucified spiritually, Gal. 3, 1, therefore he cannot be crucified bodily by the Jews on the cross. And many such things could be attracted by the spiritual touching, seeing and hearing, in order to deny that this could not have happened in a bodily way. So you see in how many ways this reason of yours is not valid, namely, that you make something exclusive out of a certain thing (ex definito), then also that you violate the passage John 6.

3. According to the old translation, instead of eo read: sa, and after prockuei put a period.
4. The text: Iterum yuoä uZsnäuW 6kt obviously needs a change. According to the old translation we have added: Itsrum uZis, r^uoä von uZenäum 68t, 6t omittis, c^uoä LAsnäuiri 6st. This omission will be caused by the occurrence of the same words twice.
5. Dx partieulari inksrs exelusivurn. This is rendered in the old translation: "From a single piece you conclude into the common, and absolutely everything." This one sample alone irrefutably proves that Luther did not make the translation.

330 De Wette III. 234-236. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX. 43S-43S. 331

You are twisting the meaning of the Lord's Supper and proving nothing.

Thirdly, that you urge with a very long and very dark verbiage that there is a contradiction in our opinion, namely, that because the word "he gave" is placed before this text "this is my body," this proves that the giving had already happened before Christ spoke: "This is my body," so it is necessary that the disciples had already received the bread given by Christ, and so Christ only said, "This is my body," after the giving and receiving had taken place, so that this necessarily refers to the body of Christ sitting there, since the bread had already been given and received beforehand. This, if I am not mistaken, is the meaning (vis) and the bright light (lux) of the word "gave," which you have treated so splendidly. But I beseech thee for Christ's sake, that thou mayest consider and observe with thyself, if thou canst, how tremendous blindness thou sufferest here. I fear that you are so struck with blindness as a punishment for such blasphemous teaching. Let us speak roughly. Some of the words are the words of the evangelist who tells the story, namely these: "He took the bread,' gave thanks, and gave it to his disciples, saying" (dicens); some are the words of the Lord who speaks, namely these: "Take, eat; this is my body." Now between these words of the evangelist, who tells the story, and the words of Christ, who speaks, put a certain length of time (aliquod intervallum temporis), during which Christ gave the bread, and the disciples received and swallowed the same; but after the bread is swallowed, then Christ shall continue, saying: "This is my body," where "this" necessarily points to the body of Christ, 1) because the bread is already gone, namely given and received, perhaps also completely consumed, so that it cannot be shown by "this." Who should not see here your ridiculous thoughts or rather the effort of a man who wants to err and seeks to err? Why don't you stick to this

1. Instead of äsnaonstrunt may well be read äsnaonstrst.

Word of the evangelist "and spoke" 2) Respect given, by which he clearly indicates that the bread was given while speaking, and he adds what he said, "Take, eat, this is my body." From this it is clear that the giving of the bread took place at the same time as the speaking or with the speaking, while these words of Christ "this is my body" sounded and were pronounced, so that your thought is absolutely nothing, according to which you imagine that the bread was given before the words were pronounced, just as in the book and on the paper "gave" is written before this speech "this is my body". Therefore, according to your understanding, the text should be multiplied in this way: Christ broke and gave to the disciples, and they took and ate; whereupon Christ said, This is my body 2c. For so you think that it happened immediately, since the evangelist wrote down the word "gave" to read, and you do not see that by these words: "Take and eat, this is my body" an event (factum) is represented by the evangelist. For imagine that you were present at that first supper of Christ, that you saw and paid attention to Christ, what he did and said. Here behold his hands with which he takes the bread, saying nothing of giving, but keeping the bread in his hands; he gives thanks; after giving thanks he is again silent, saying nothing of giving, but saying these words, "Take, eat; this is my body." Under these words, or soon after them, or with them, and not necessarily before, the giving itself takes place, as the nature of the event and of the story compels us to understand, so that no one can deny that the bread given is his body, since in giving it he calls it his body. Therefore, since you put a space between the giving and the naming, 3) you are inventing something against the nature of the event. At least you commit yourself to an impossible thing, that is, to prove this interspace.

2. VO06U1 äiosutis must be translated like this. This refers to the above-mentioned words of the evangelist, in which "he spoke" was expressed by diosirs.
3. ÄppsNutionkiL refers to appsllat in the next preceding sentence.

332 De Wette III, 286 f. 8. L.'s answer u. refutation of etl. erroneous arguments 2c. W. XX, 435-438. 333

since the evangelist, through that participium dicens Luc. 22, 19. xxxxx = speaking, has a

The idea of the mixing space of the time and the giving, which happened in the same, as you invent, remains unproven (nuda) and useless. Thus, your thought of the mixing space of time and the giving, which, as you invent, took place in it, remains unproven (nuda) and useless. 1) For that you demand to be answered whether Christ gave his body before he uttered the first letter of this speech, "this is my body," what is this but a mere rank and captious mockery of the words of Christ? For suppose the bread was given either after the speech was finished, or before it was begun: what, I pray thee, is the use of that? or what is the use of it to thee? since the participle "speaking" shows that Christ, in giving, had said, "This is my body." Certainly, if I gave you a hundred florins, it would not matter whether after or before giving I said thus: Here are a hundred florins. Nevertheless, the nature of the event and the narration of the story would lead to the conviction that the giving and the saying took place at the same time, that he gave the bread and at the same time said, "This is my body. For this is what happens in every action, that the giver gives and speaks at the same time, or calls what he gives. Unless you want to bring back to us that old Vettelian question of the instant of confirmation (de instante2 ) consecrationis, since the papists teach that after the last syllable the body of Christ is there and not before. We despise these thoughts and do not impute specific moments or times to GOtte, but let it suffice that we simply believe that what GOtte has said will certainly happen or be, may it be what it may. For we do not argue about the moment in which the leper was cleansed, since Christ said Matth. 8, 3: "I will do it, be cleansed", but rather about the moment in which the leper was cleansed.

1. Instead of mutiUs (what does not exist) read inutilis.
2. So the old editions; in De Wette and Aurifaber irrstunti. - By "Dirmung" the papists understood the transformation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ.

It is enough for us to believe that he has become clean, as Christ said. So we believe that the son of the king, Joh. 4, 50, was healed, as Christ had said: "Go, your son is alive", and do not worry about the syllable or the moment in which this happened. And that Lazarus came to life again, as the word of Christ cautions John 11:43, "Lazare, come forth!" and leave it to idle men and useless babblers whether he came to life again at the word "come forth" or "Lazare," and the like. So also here we say that the bread is the body of Christ, because Christ says, "This is my body," and leave it to others, namely to the word-wranglers (xxxxxxxxxx), to argue about the nu and about syllables. For we are commanded to believe that the words of God are true; but not to inquire in what nu or how they are true and fulfilled.

From this, I think, it is sufficiently clear that you draw the word "gave" quite badly to the action of the Lord's Supper, since it is a word of the evangelist who narrates the past (praeteritam) Supper, therefore he was forced to use a time word in the past time (praeteriti temporis). But the action itself is presented to us with words belonging to the present, in the form of command and in the mode of reality (imperativi et indicativi modi), namely, "Take, eat, this is my body," which do not allow one to imagine a commingling space or a giving in past time (praeteritam dationem), but show (objiciunt) that from Christ there is a giving in the present time, precisely by saying, "This is my body." But that thou exaltest that it is called bread, 1 Cor. 10:16, "The bread which we break," 2c., who denieth this? but that thou makest it nothing but bread, how wilt thou prove this? But you can read about this in my last booklet. For this very passage bears powerful witness against your ôïýôï: "The bread which we break" is not bread alone, but the sharing (communicatio) or "the fellowship of the body of Christ." And these are the passages of Scripture which you demand, by which

334 De Wette III, W7f. I. Luther's writings tvider Carlstadt. W. XX, 438-440. 335

We prove that the disciples have been given the body, and they cannot be overthrown by you, we know that. Of course, I wonder why you say that these words, "This is my body," are held against you in vain, on no other grounds than that you say that the dispute is over the word "give," and that the word "gave" means something different from the word "is," but just as they mean different things, so they also prove different things. What you want here I do not understand; only that I think these words: "This is my body" are despised by you, and yet you bring up nothing but that "gave" means something different than "is". As if we could not also despise your "gave" and say that "body" means something different than "mine". Yes, every word has its own meaning; does it follow from this, with correct inference, that a speech consisting of such words is false or to be despised?

From the ordinary (translatitia) meaning, according to which you dispute that the body was given and broken for us, we allow you to say as much as you want. For we also maintain that Christ was given for us on the cross, although we deny that he was broken on the cross. You, too, will not prove this, nor have you proved it so far. But that in the Lord's Supper there is an ordinary (translatitiam) giving 1) is not true, although it is true that there the bodily giving represents the spiritual giving, by which the Holy Spirit gives into the heart to believe that it is Christ's flesh, as the same Holy Spirit gives us this flesh bodily to eat in the Lord's Supper. And this twofold giving does not conflict with each other, nor does one exclude the other, but agrees very well, just as that he gave himself bodily to the disciples as a servant John 13:4 ff, by washing their feet and serving at table, does not prevent his not giving himself spiritually to believe in him. You make very bad fol-

1. In his writings, Carlstadt mocks Luther's teaching by mockingly asserting: whether the body of Christ is given in the Lord's Supper as long and large as it hung from the cross? Cf. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 2487, § 21.

It is a spiritual giving, therefore there is not a bodily giving in the Lord's Supper. Such conclusions, I say, you should prove, while you always pass over them and prove to us the antecedent, which we admit and which does not need proof. In short, you ask me to produce a clear scriptural passage which says that Christ took his body and gave it, just as you have proved that Christ took the bread and gave it. Very well! If you insist on this and will not believe, if I will not show these syllables and letters: Christ took his body and broke it and gave it to his disciples, then be victorious and follow your head; I cannot show such syllables. But at the same time, behold, if I could teach such a text: Christ took his body, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples: what need is there then that he should call it, and say, This is my body? Do you wish him to become only an idle talker, that he might speak in the words which you prescribe for him? 2) We know that in these words: "Take and effet" the present giving is indicated by the giving, which no one can deny, so that if someone wanted to put an explanation (glossam) over these words, he could write over the word "Take" like this: Behold, here is a present giving. But after one has this present giving under the word "Take," the naming that follows immediately without intervening space and without change of person, namely, "this is my body," by which he names the bread, compels that the body of Christ be truly given. For it is against all reason that one should understand that something else is given than what the giver names in the act (eo facto) and at the time when it is given and named by him, as I have also declared against you in the first German book 3). Therefore your time word in the past time "he gave" falls away completely.

2. Here follow in the old translation the words which we do not find in the Latin: "Rather than believe the words which he has presented to you...".
3. "Against the Heavenly Prophets. No. 5 in this volume.

336 De Wette III, 238 f. 8. L.'s answer u. refutation of etl. erroneous arguments 2c. W. XX, -40-442. 337

and is cancelled out by the word of the present time "Take", in which not "he gave" but necessarily "he gives" is understood; and "he gave" remains in the mouth of the evangelist, who narrates the past, and "he gives" in the mouth of him who narrates the present and hears and sees Christ presently giving and speaking and calling the received bread his body. And as much as you insist on the word "he gave," which is the word of the evangelist who tells the past, so much do we insist on the word "take," which is the word of Christ who acts presently.

But since the understanding of the Lord's Supper depends on what Christ does (ex Christo agente), it is clear that your disputation is wrong, in that you presupposed to speak of what Christ does, but leave that open and take the narration of the evangelist. Yes, not once the narrative, but the time of the narrator, namely, because the evangelist narrates long after the supper, he is forced to use a word of the past because of the time that has passed, which you paralogist 1) insert into the action of Christ, after the past time has previously been made a present one. 2) You also do not consider that if the evangelist could have described the present action as a present one, he would not have said "he gave", but thus: "Jesus takes and gives, saying, Take" 2c. Now look at your conclusion (syllogismum), which you conclude from the time to the work, as if you wanted to say: The evangelist wrote like this long afterward, so Christ did not do so then, because that one wrote in past time, "he gave," 3) so Christ gives.

1. xxxxxxxxxxxxx = one who is affected by wrong conclusions.

deceives. - EvangsIista, paraloZista a play on words.

2. This particularly difficult passage is called in Latin: ante tsrupus prastsriturn praesenter taotuni. The old translation reads: "which word alone happened before the present time, you, Squire Paralogist, the rst, you deceiver, into the doing of Christ hinem brauet, so it yet alone before and before present action geschehen heißt und interpret."
3. After äeclit a comma will have to be placed and after "VUristus the comma will have to be deleted.

not in the present time. It is to be marveled how you can come up with such trivial thoughts, but even more to be marveled that you base yourself so much on them. I have spoken this more broadly because I see that you are confident and praise many things here that I would have refuted immediately with the one word "Take," but I wanted to speak at length so that you would not think that you had been despised in your many speeches.

Then you dispute this about the person of the giver, and in many words say that Christ is the only one (unicum) and the glorious one who gives his body. As if anyone did not know or doubt this, although you know well enough that we completely hold and teach that Christ alone is the giver of his body in the Lord's Supper. For no one among us says in his own person, "Take, this is my body"; indeed, no one says, "Take, this is the body of Christ," but Christ speaks and says, "my body," and commands us to speak thus. It is therefore that you give such superfluous (copious) reasons that the body of Christ is not given by us, 4) when you should rather have proved that Christ does not give his body through us, as through his instruments. Does he not also give his baptism, himself as the only one and only one, but through us? Does he not remit sins only through us? Does he not teach the gospel alone and preach and exhort (as Paul says) through us? Does he not alone give food, drink, and clothing, wife, house, and all things, yet through others than his instruments? Therefore it was not necessary to teach that. Christ alone is the one who gives his body, for no one denies this. But this conclusion you should have proved, which you presuppose and do not prove, namely, that he cannot give his body through men, although he gives everything else through men, even gave the Son through the Virgin Mary, and even gave the Godhead through mankind. But your reasons are rather sought, because you strive to contradict...

4. "not" is inserted by us from the old translation.

338 D" Wette m, 239 f. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 412-444. 339

than that they should be brought forward or flow from the inclination 1) to learn. In the same way, you would deny that the Holy Spirit was given through the apostles; indeed, it would be said that not even Christ gave the Holy Spirit through his bodily blowing, since he alone could give the Spirit as God. If I had known beforehand that you would be moved by such reasons, I would not have agreed (pactus) with you to dispute this matter. For what is to prevent you from bringing forward many wagons full of such reasons at every hour until the end of the world, of which you know that they serve nothing for the matter and only prevent time spoil and better work? But I had hoped to hear reasons that could move you. Now I, who am busy enough elsewhere, am given to hear how various and improper things you could invent or think, as if no one else but you alone could do this.

Therefore, I ask you again that you henceforth, when you want to present your reasons (argumentari), spare me, and that you do not overburden me of this difficulty, nor teach me 2) about what you know that I know and admit, that is, that you do not merely state the propositions 3) but also discuss and prove the sub-propositions (subsumta) and the conclusions. I concede almost all of your propositions, but I deny your subsumptions and conclusions. I

1. In Latin: yuana odlata aut movsvtia uKsetuin üisoenüi, which probably needs an alteration. According to the old translation, we have assumed: ant üueutia aüeotu, etc.
2. Instead of us, we have assumed nee according to the old translation.
3. askuiutum is the first part of a final speech, usually called the major spar8 propoMoni], which tends to contain a generally valid sentence.

You wanted to make an effort to prove these latter, but you constantly neglect them and make yourself sour to prove the supersets, which nobody denies. E.g. here: Christ alone gives his body, therefore we do not give it, the conclusion must be proved. For the proposition is admitted that Christ alone is the giver of his body, but the conclusion that we do not give it, that must be proved. For although we do not give, yet because Christ gives through us, it is also rightly said of us that we give as servants, as of an alms which the Lord gives, it is also rightly said that the servant gives it at the command and by the order of his master, since Paul also Rom. 2:16 calls it his gospel, although it is God's, and Christ says that his teaching is not his John 7:16, and promises that he who believes will do greater works than he himself has done John 14:12, although he himself does everything in us. This, I say, you should have invalidated and made your conclusions firm against such things. I am forced to let my pen stand still here, for I have hardly been able to write this with many interruptions; then I am also prevented by much business. Furthermore, because I have been called to Torgau three times and have traveled to the court and am now required to go there for the fourth time, I want you to read this in the meantime and see the answer I have begun. 4) I will, after I will have returned and as soon as I can, answer some more. 5)

4. According to the old translation, videri must be read instead of viäers.
5. The further answer to Carlstadt's arguments was omitted because Luther had learned in the meantime that Carlstadt had secretly published several books and had contacted the enthusiasts in Silesia, Schwenkfeld and Krautwald. Compare the introduction.

340 9 Des Wolfgang Fabricius Capito Urtheil 2c. W. xx,445f. 341

*9. of Wolfgang Fabricius Capito Urtheil, " What to think and answer about the split between Martin Luther and Andreas Carlstadt." )

In late 1524.

Grace, peace and knowledge of His truth from God the Father through > our Lord Jesus Christ.

Great joy and rejoicing is now among the wicked, dear pious citizens and Christians! They hope for the victory against the truth, because Martin Luther and Andreas Carlstadt are divided. They say with them thus: Every kingdom, if it is divided in itself, is laid waste, and one house falls upon another, Luke 11, v. 17; Christ is now divided into pieces, 1 Cor. 1, 13, he may no longer exist; our honor and enjoyment of the outward service of God must now be raised up again, for where the spirit is extinguished, the flesh has all room. Which cry ye shall not be deceived.

2. "Ye know whom ye have believed, that he is able to keep your salvation unto that day," 2 Tim. 1:12. Only keep yourselves, as ye hear from us daily in the Scriptures, according to the example of the saving words, of faith and love in Christ Jesus, in whom is given to us forgiveness of sins and grace, according to the holy call and purpose of God, and not according to our works; insist on it with gladness. For our Lord "Christ JEsus is set by God the Father over all that may be called", Eph. 1, 21.
3. at evening they shall turn again, and yet not be satisfied, as David saith, when all help shall be withdrawn from them, when they shall be found to have done to their destruction that which they thought good, Deut. 12:8, and that the end of their way shall be the ways of death, Prov. 14:12. yea, then in the joy of the righteous their heart shall be bodily, their joy shall be concluded and ended with fearful gloom. And, actually speaking, I say that they shall.

already nowand are full of mourning. When Zophar Naamites 1) heard the stiff hope of righteous Job, and the punishment of the wicked, his thoughts surrounded him, and a tumult grew up within him.

4. these our enemies, when they see our constant hope and peace, "that we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God," 1 Cor. 2:12, which is a spirit of strength, and of all joy in the Lord for building up; so they shall tread upon us, as the counsel of the Jews, Acts 5:24, treadeth upon the apostles. 5, 24, over the apostles; and hold us in contempt, that we regard not. We may be the shabbat of the world, 2) and the spectacle of the world and the angels 4 Cor. 4:9, that we may obtain the prize which is of God alone.

(5) They command that we should not teach this way to our neighbors, because Christ died and we should show kindness to our enemies. But what do they refrain from? how many strange lies have they invented upon us? To one they admit that he was a whoremonger among the servants; to another that he was with the maid and committed adultery; to the third that he stole. Now they bring up a speech that we desire to overthrow all authority; now that we lead selfish doctrine, which we alone neatly touch their devilish dealings. Now and otherwise, and yet otherwise, as their father, the liar and the blasphemer, instigates them.

6. if all this does not help, the brave people say that we have to help the evangelical people.

1. i.e. from Naema, Job 2:11.
2. Shabab - the waste, the sweepings.
3. Instead of "Schauspiel," the old edition reads: "Schaufalt."

*This writing appeared under the title we put above it without indication of place, time and printer. However, as Walch notes in his introduction, it is assumed that it appeared in Strasbourg in 1524. Capito was at that time prepositus at St. Thomas in Strasbourg. In § 6 of this writing Capito speaks of the "past summer", therefore this writing is to be put in the late year 1524, in any case only after Carlstadt had begun to write publicly against Luther, which happened soon after August 22 (the day of Luther's meeting with Carlstadt in Jena). Cf. the first note to No. 3 in this volume and to No. 3 in the appendix of this volume. Compare also § 15 of this paper, from which we see that Carlstadt had already arrived in Strasbourg at that time. Carlstadt arrived there in October; therefore, it is possible that our text was written in October 1524. We reproduce the text according to Walch's old edition.

342I- Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. xx, 446-449. 343

del are acting unjustly, and Luther himself is already writing against us. This rumor they have often renewed last summer and recently again pretended that a message from a Elector had heard from Luther himself over the table, how unreasonably we are going, and how defiantly he wants to push us to the ground; which Luther has contradicted by a letter 1) to me. So stiff-necked is malice that it, so often caught in a lie, does not know how to be ashamed. A thief, caught in the act of stealing, is frightened from the heart and ashamed, Jer. 2, 26. and these our enemies, the great thieves of honor, are so often caught in the falsehood, and still have no abhorrence. But our spirit is not dampened by this, we are not dismayed, we do not turn away from the truth, neither do we fear their lies nor their insistence, but we persevere in the word with all joy.

For this reason the devil stirs up offence from the false brethren, and moves some vain, conceited and ambitious ones to fight over words, 3) which alone are sufficient to overthrow the minds of the hearers. They raise foolish questions that teach nothing, but only give birth to quarrels, 1 Tim. 4, 7. and 2 Tim. 2, 16. 23. Such a nest of caterpillars sprouts 4) in Swabia, as they say. They are enemies of the cross of Christ, and leave no bright scripture unpunished. Such work brings the flesh everywhere, Gal. 5, 19 ff, which is uncouth, rough, hateful, biting, unkind and full of glory. If all vices are quiet, they fall into the judgment of the blasphemer through honor, avarice and proud words; through fights, which they undertake as out of a zeal for the truth, and yet seek themselves alone, and not the benefit of the community, with a bitter spirit against his adversary, when the zeal for God should be tempered according to love. We should not pay attention to rash teachings, which are thereby recognized, because they raise more questions than improvement in God in faith, 1 Tim. 1, 4. We should pay full attention to the commandment of the Lord, "that 5) the main sum is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and from undyed faith". What does not reach there, leads to useless gossip.

8 But where, under the appearance of love, we omitted to proclaim salvation, it would be un-.

1. This will refer to Luther's letter of May 25, 1524, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 900.
2. In the old edition: "we do not possess". The reading "ersitzen" is probably not possible, because this word means: to gain possession through many years. Cf. Dietz, Wörterbuch, s. v. ersitzen.
3. Maybe: sweep.
4. "weimeln" will probably be as much as: wimmeln.
5. So put by us instead of: "that", according to 1 Tim. 1, 5.

We are like a foolish father who would let his child take a sharp knife in his hands so that it would not cry, which has so far occurred in the necessary teaching of us. The faithful ministers in the Word have attacked error violently, insisted on faith, magnified the grace of God, diminished our merit, denounced what is sin and what is righteousness; driven back false worship with bright writing, by manifold and diligent preaching; torn the public outrage out of the heart by the Word before, then with fugues 6) and in all silence outwardly done with deed. For with the spirit of his mouth the Lord will destroy the son of perdition, and not with his hand, 2 Thess. 2, 3. God has also bestowed grace and continuance 7) with all quietness and rest. The difference of days and food is gone, as papal celebrations, fasting, confession, going to the sacrament; yes, all self-willed worship dies out with us. The burning of wax, consecrated salt, taking water, vigils, masses, and the seven times of hearing, seasons, souls, pilgrimage, Roman grace and indulgences all go to the ground, without noticeable movement, that with rumbling no force would have been able.

(9) An honorable council has bravely cleared the temples of idols, extinguished many lights and eternal lights, and will continue with the same lime tree as soon as God bestows mercy and remove all idols. But why should one rush in and lay hands before, neither the. Word would be driven? Idols do the most harm in the heart. For those who have heard the word know "that the idol is nothing in the world," 1 Cor. 8:4, and it causes them no offense. Let the images be a good creature of God. Those who have not yet heard the word will only be embittered by accepting idols before the sermon and will be struck on the head, so that they will give all the less ear to the truth afterwards. God gives faith through the heard word and not through the sudden acceptance of idols. Also, there would be great harm, without hope of some fruit. For what is it that some idols are rudely torn down from the walls, since they do not harm the believer and harm all things to the unbeliever, but are still left in the heart, since they exclude all faith 8)?

10 Paul did not take away any idol in Athens, did not lay a hand everywhere, but preached of the true glory of God against idols.

6. d. i. by right.
7. In the old edition: Vorgang.
8. In the old edition: abandoned.

344 9 Des Wolfgang Fabricius Capito Urtheil 2c. W. xx, 44s-4si. 345

And when they did not accept such teaching, he departed and did not touch an idol with his finger. For all our actions are to begin and flow primarily from within the heart, not to be driven in from without. And therefore, as some attribute to us, we do not want to defend the idols, but to serve the stupid and to do useful things in time, which would otherwise be enough to harm in a hurry. Thus our action is regulated according to love and has progress, if otherwise we would have embittered the sweetness of love with clumsy purring, and would have accomplished nothing.

We will go the way God wants us to go, even if an angel from heaven wants to drive us against it, and we will diligently strive for the glory of God, not forgetting our Christian love and our duty to the temporal authorities. Anti-Christ and the haters of God shall have no rest before us, and the good-hearted we want to act beautifully and cleanly, even if all devils would be sorry, who by the help of our enemies with all speed may do no hindrance, whether they nevertheless lead us into worries, and make us sing 1) and cry out to God all the more earnestly: God help us! Amen. And it may be that we may turn away the weakness of the church, if it is our weakness, because we have not yet perfected the earnestness and the lively activity of the Spirit. Therefore we pray always for the increase of grace, and yet we wait for the working of Him who works all things in all things.

Do not be dismayed, dear friends; trust in God through Christ: "No one can snatch you away from his hand," John 10:28. "Be no longer children; do not be carried about and be carried away by all kinds of wind of doctrines through the craftiness of men and deceitfulness, so that they would gladly deceive us," Ephesians 4:10. The word of God is more powerful. Our reason does not deviate where we insist on it; and outside the word of God we do not want to show you anything with knowledge.

13. But because dangerousness is not the least of the false brethren, 2 Cor. 11:13 ff, and the same is true, also because that they might rise up, who are perhaps covetous of vain honor, and indignant and hostile among themselves, as in the days of Paul among the Galatians, Gal. 5:25, some of whom will jest with the Scripture, and serve their addictive lust with it, 2) who, alas! little regard what offence they bring, what sorrow,
14. "to blow dry" i.e. sonare, to make one's voice heard, to pray.
15. So put by us instead of: "of their addictive lusts, there with those; who" 2c.

Fears and tribulations introduce them to the well-intentioned conscience:

14 Also because between Martin Luther, through whom God has hitherto, and still, wonderfully promoted His glory and revealed His word, and Andreas Carolstadt, whom we also like to think of as a learned assistant in the word, some quarrel has arisen through the blasphemer: 3)

(15) I have this comfort and report in haste to ascribe to you; for even as you all shall be moved and troubled for his sake 4) as for me, and say:

(16) First, our faith should not hang on human days, but only on the word of God and His promise. Therefore, the Scripture reproaches the one who trusts in a man who values flesh for his arm, Jer. 17:5. All men are to be taken for men, and we are to hope in no one else, so that our hope may be in God alone. Experience teaches us daily how vain, uncertain, false and deceitful human nature is, which is enough for us to exercise our senses. Where temporal hope ends, divine hope begins. The tribulations further this, for we see how the Lord led the people of Israel forty years in the wilderness, so that he might humble them and try them, that it might be known what was in their hearts, whether they had kept his commandment, Deut. 8:2.

(17) Thus, through such impulses, our mind is trained to distinguish between good and evil, and to be accustomed to derive from God alone all creatures, (5) who alone is to be our God. Otherwise, divine honor would be accorded to man, whom we considered so true and certain that he would not err, even though all men are false. Many are deceiving themselves, 6) that they hope in God; but from bad temptation or human error of their rulers they fall; for their foundation was set on a man's faith and reputation. When they fall, everything falls according to how great a pretense and false security they had. God wants to clean us up here and bring us to the true foundation of his certain word; the loose sand must be cleared away by repugnance. Therefore

3. So put by us instead of: have.
4. "For the sake of his future", i.e. because of Carlstadt's coming to Strasbourg. From this it also follows that this writing is to be placed in the late year 1524. It was written "in haste" not long after Carlstadt's arrival. - The words "as it arrives to me" - as it arrives to me, as it is reported to me.
5. lenden - to steer.
6. "To spoil oneself" - to stand in the delusion in relation to oneself. So put by us instead of: "to spoil oneself."

346I Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 4si-4ss. 347

God makes it difficult for us to fall, so that we may stand up with more awareness and realize that the prize is His alone.

18 Now we are by nature inclined (which is a great mistake) to praise divine gifts to man, when in such gifts we should praise God alone; which brings much harm. Therefore the apostles Barnabas and Paul, when they were raised up for gods in Lystra, bravely resisted, 1) and turned the glory on GOD, Apost. 14, 14. f. Yes, Paul also abstains from boasting the truth of his gifts, "lest anyone should esteem him more highly than he saw in him, or heard of him," 2 Cor. 12, 6.

In this way, Luther only warns men not to throw his name on the gospel, and displeases him that some want to make sects out of his name and call themselves Lutheran, because he teaches nothing by himself, but shows the content of Scripture; which he does better and more skillfully, according to my respect, neither in several hundred years by anyone nor never happened; so naturally, so full 2) and bravely from the reason and the truth he does it commonly. So that I do not want to have punished anyone's judgment or diminished his respect. From this it follows that some would put too much stock in him, and wonder more at Luther than at God Himself, from whom such gifts are customary and given to the Christian community. What delusion God takes from us, and shows us that we do not yet have enough faith, who deviate or become fainthearted in ourselves for the sake of invasive arguments and disputes. Let him who is not finally called fall in the name of God; nevertheless, it behooves us to look into the commandment and word of God and to adhere to it as the most certain without change.

(20) There is much impropriety involved in this business; by it God the Lord wants to tell you laymen and make you understand how dangerous it is to think higher of men, for the Scriptures command and give you to grasp that something wrong is found in all men, so that the glory of God alone may remain. But, dear friends, you should not judge from heat. Remember that Paul and Barnabas also divided, and yet they are both two honest men.

1. So put by us instead of: to be.
2. satis - enough. - Note how Luther is praised here by Capito as an outstanding, incomparable teacher of the divine word, while Carlstadt's praise (above in § 14) is quite faint. Yes, in § 25 he is called her "counter-dealer" and "opponent".
3. "full" of kntis enough.

Apostle. Although the disgraceful name-calling bears evil upon him. And is not commanded to judge the persons, but to examine the doctrine according to the full 4) Scripture. The foundation still exists: God knows His own.

(21) But because the ungodly crowd now certainly hopes for the downfall of the gospel, you should not allow yourselves to be weighed down, as their unrighteous lives have caused the pious to suffer 5) and be weighed down, Habak. 1, 13. f. For ye have often known among yourselves that the prophet saith truly, The hope of the wicked is spoiled." And further: "The joy of the hypocrite is instantaneous," Job 20:5, "ends with sorrow," Proverbs 14:13. Hitherto, by the grace of God, all their plots against them, for the advancement of the word, have gone forth without harm to us; let us hope for the same in the future. For no one can harm us: "We die or live, we are the Lord's."

22 Secondly, it should not be unnecessary for your love of commerce to have a common account. For the fear that precedes is usually more serious than the present danger. It is also proper that you shut the mouths of the stubborn and meet them with a true answer.

23 And say that in the following points there may be no misunderstanding, in which is the sum of our salvation. "God has put all things under sin, that He might have mercy on everyone," Gal. 3:22. "By grace we have been saved, through faith in Christ; and that not of ourselves. It is God's gift, not of works, lest anyone should boast," Eph. 2:8, 9. Since we are saved by grace and not by works, and since the papal church sought salvation through much bodily exercise, it follows that they, with all their idiosyncratic services and ordinances, such as mass, vigils, singing, reading, whistling, priests, churches, salt, and other things, consecrated the Holy Spirit, churches, consecrating salt and other things, praying for souls, calling on the dead saints, honoring images, confessing, doing enough for sin, discerning time, food and place, and with other acts is against Christ and dishonors God the Lord, Matth. 15, 2. ff.

(24) But here is a little difference: we desire by the word to bring all abuses and unrighteous service out of men's hearts first, and then to put an end to them outwardly. Against this some of our neglect and slothful hand

4. "satis" from satis - enough.
5. "befühlen" does not occur in Luther; "befühlet hat" is here in the meaning: this feeling (of invocation) aroused [in the pious^.

3489 . des Wolfgang Fabricius Capito Urtheil 2c. W. xx, 4S3-4ö6. 349

and want that all these aversions be accepted with hand beforehand, and that one does not give room to the lazy bunch so long, according to their outrage, to seduce the souls so blatantly and to blaspheme God.

(25) Now rejoice, dear idolaters, for we, the evangelicals and believers in God, have been divided; (1) we ourselves have serious adversaries who dispute with us out of the Scriptures, and help and counsel us, so that there is no peace among us. It is a necessity; otherwise 2) our undertaking will not be driven away. For if we, who act against you by the free word alone, stand, then your high-bearing necks must in time escape from the yoke of Christ and give way; if we are driven away and our adversary Carlstadt asserts, 3) then you must once 4) be stormed and rushed; there is no remedy. To both parts our zeal for God will not abate, therefore you have no gain. For we will finally, both parts, press so that you are no longer ungodly; which God will soon provide! Amen.

For the sake of the mass, we are also at one with the bright truth against you idolaters, that the mass is not a sacrifice, that it should not be held in a foreign language, that it should not have the useless harmful additions, that all endowments of masses and all priestly masses are against God. Both of them go against you: we are justified in saying that they wanted you journeymen to lay down your trade once, as it would be good and useful for it to be laid down soon.

(27) Therefore we avoid the name of the feast, and call it the Lord's supper. For the Hebrew tongue calls it sacrifice, so that the name may not support your trade. However, if someone calls it a mass for the sake of its use and out of habit, without any elaboration, we cannot punish him. For nothing depends on the name; the heart and mind are to be considered.

(28) The bread and the wine we have taken out so far (5), and yet we know that the sacrifice called in the Law Thruma and Tnupha was taken out. But so that this would not be regarded as a sacrifice by someone, we have

1. So put by us instead of: "to work gescheidten". The expression: "Zweiung" is found above, at the end of § 19.
2. "otherwise" probably - by the way.
3. This shows that Carlstadt also tried to intervene with his fist in Strasbourg, while the preachers there tried to introduce the innovations only by word.
4. "once" in Luther - once, dereinst; here we in the following paragraph it seems to stand in the B^meaning: at once.
5. So put by us instead of: unzher.

We exhort you daily from the epistle to the Romans what we should > offer, namely "our bodies for a sacrifice that is living, holy and > pleasing to God, which is the reasonable service of God," Rom. 12:1. > > We still have chasubles, albums, the chalice, standing against the > altar, and likewise common antics, which, if God wills, shall not last > long. But in such matters we would not gladly trouble the stupid, nor > act contrary to a temporal authority, which is given to us by God, and > which also seeks God's honor through peace, without confusion of the > common good. Why would we give offense to our brother for the sake of > outward dress, for which Christ died? Though we would suffer it to be > already changed, yet with justness and order, as all things ought to > be done by us. Then our abolition i.e. elevation will also fall, > which is thus assigned to the sacrifice of God, so that not every > thing is a sacrifice, if it is abolished in a different opinion than > sacrifice. Acting against a protestation brings harm in the right; but > we testify to ourselves that we do not want to sacrifice, nor do we > sacrifice, but only make the usual show of sparing the weak. > > (30) From which we will not soon depart, but will continue demurely > after the example of Paul, which we may also maintain with written > causes, where it will be necessary. With friendly action and diligent > activity of the word, something has happened in one year to promote > the honor of God here in Strasbourg, which would never have been > achieved with an outrage and with the hand of an evil authority. We > should ask God that we may serve Him in peace and quiet and in all > fullness, and should be rebellious even in a common use? God forbids > us to do so, and no one shall be able to do so. We do not want to > argue with anyone who has a different opinion. Only that each one may > be sure of his own mind, and preserve among ourselves the bond of > brotherly love. > > 31 The words of the Lord's supper in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul > admit both parts to be true; but where the little word "that" is to > be applied, to the body or to the bread, there is a misunderstanding.

32 But, dear friends, consider the main thing, which is faith and love, and consider that the Christian is inward and invisible, and that he is not bound by any outward thing, whether it be a sign or a sign.

6. So put by us instead of: "of the common use", according to 1 Cor. 12, 7.

350I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 456-4S8. 351

other, and consider the use of the Lord's Supper, namely, the contemplation and remembrance of Christ for the refreshment of our hope, through which we are united in God together with all believers in Christ. This is the reason why the Lord has given such a supper. It is superfluous to investigate further. We should refrain from asking foolish questions 2c. We are to nourish our faith with the Lord's bread and wine, through the remembrance of His body and blood alone, and leave the rest. "If anything else is needed, let God reveal it to you", Phil. 3, 15.

(33) There are some unnecessary questions about baptism, which may not be important to us, since our actions are based on the Scriptures, and no believer in God can doubt them. We have taught that those who have been baptized into the Lord Jesus have been incorporated into his death, and through baptism have died and been buried with him, and in his resurrection have risen to new life. Therefore, the use of baptism is that we steadily die to the old Adam, which death is to last as long as this life lasts.

34. and baptism includes only water and these words: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son 2c. The rest are all additions, brought by the ancients to decorate the baptism. We omit the chrism and the oil, where people come who may suffer it. Because such things have too much great prestige and obscure the grace of baptism in us. The chrism and the oil, which the suffragan bishop has charmed with his woad claims, are held in higher esteem, neither of the bad water, which God has blessed by His word. From this it has also followed that the unintelligent crowd baptizes the weak children once again in the church, who are baptized without chrism and oil in the house by the women before. When opportunity and time will require it, as we hope to do in a short time, we will press closer to the Word, and improve the whole incident in a Christian way. For the time being, we are only concerned with 1) the use and practice of baptism, which is the main issue. We do not ask ourselves at what time and at what age children should be baptized, since God gives His grace and gifts supernaturally, and the Lord gives the gout-breakers faith,

1. "alone" set by us instead of: all.

who carried him. Where we have no bright word, we refrain from inquiring; if something further is needed, God would reveal it.

(35) But the fact that some make outward things high and proclaim them earnestly is to be regarded as a faithful precaution, for they may think what error may follow and be followed, which they would gladly prevent. They know that the wicked synagogue, the papal church, is built on external things, which they pretend are necessary for salvation, thereby extinguishing all faith.

(36) Sometimes, however, one gets into a dispute over external things, which arises from human movement, because the zealous desire for peace is very urgent for many. Therefore, we should be warned not to be moved by external things, even if they have made highly famous men important, because they do not harm the faith and may not cause offense where one is built on Christ.

(37) It is a sign that this man does not have Christ, who is distressed and anxious when he hears the scholars inquiring about sacraments, images, and other external things. For the kingdom of God is within, and sufficiently bright and clear in Scripture that it cannot be hidden from the common mind. Where much art and practice belong, there is nothing that actually belongs to blessedness.

Summa Summarum, dear pious citizens, insist on Christ, whom God the Lord alone has shown to us through bright scripture; and what else drives the scholars to avarice and fame, let them leave and be like great artists. Our salvation is not in words, but in the power of God. Trouble must come, because those who are proven must be revealed among us. But woe to the man through whom trouble comes!

Neither be weighed down by the pride and arrogance of the wicked; they rejoice in evil things. We should only be long-suffering, so we will see that the enemies of truth will become ashamed, so that our hope will never 3) be put to shame. God grant you to continue in His knowledge without offense! Amen.

2. So put by us instead of: that.
3. So put by us instead of: always.

352 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause for the Innovations 2c. W. xx. "s-tso. 353

10 Martin Bucer's Reason and Cause, from Divine Scripture, of the Innovations to the Lord's Supper Called the Mass 2c,

at Strasbourg, written in his and his colleagues' name, together with a letter to Count Palatine Friedrich. *)

December 26, 1524.

To the Most Serene Prince and Lord, Lord Frederick, Count Palatine of > the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria, my most gracious Lord.

1. noble highborn prince, gracious lord. I wish grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ to E. F. G. with the offering of my submissive, completely willing service, always ready, beforehand. I say praise and glory to God, our merciful, most gracious Father, who has so graciously preserved E. F. G. until now, that she has by no means allowed herself to be moved to persecute the Gospel of our Savior JEsu Christ, as fiercely as 1) some of the so-called clergy have violently worked against it, but has also given her an inclined, good-willing heart to His holy Word, which shows itself daily more and more in true Christian deeds. 2) For it is a special great grace and blessing of God, when he sets godly princes before us, as it is his great wrath and heavy plague, when he lets the godless, children 3) and fools rule, as this is read in Isaiah 3 and 32, along with many other places in the Scriptures. And the wise prince Solomon says Prov. 29, 2.: When the righteous 4) flourish, the people prosper, but when the wicked rule, the people mourn." Therefore, like all godly people, it is a special joy for me in the Lord that I can hear the praise of how Father G., together with several other princes, has an inclined will to promote the holy gospel, which is a noticeable salutary splendor of his mercy and great grace, which I also have to rejoice in particular for the sake of Father G.. For when I was redeemed from the monastic state, in which there are truly few who know God, they so graciously appointed me as a servant.

1. d. i. yes also.
2. So from transposed instead of: "eiget". It is possible that originally "euget" was written rst, that is, lets itself be seen, shows itself.
3. So put by us instead of: "godless children".
4. Thus set by us according to Prov. 29:2. instead of: "rights".

After God had given me another calling, I took leave of absence again and was dispatched, so that I should rightly desire E.F.G.'s welfare and salvation before others and ask the Almighty for it with the utmost diligence, and also hear with great thanksgiving and delight of heart that He creates and works such things so abundantly with her. He, our God and Lord, who has the heart of all kings and princes in his hand, Prov. 21:1, and who alone works in all, both the will and the deed, Phil. 2:13.May He begin and accomplish His work in you, namely the knowledge of His most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, "whom He raised from the dead and seated at His right hand in the heavenly realm, above all principality, power, authority, dominion and all that is to be called, not only in this world but also in the world to come; And hath put all things under his feet, and hath set him before all things to be the head of the church, which is his body, and the fulness of him that filleth all in all". Eph. 1, 20-23.

(2) It may not be lacking, as the Lord himself also foretold, that there must be many unbelievers who come under his name, and manfully, but before princes and lords, as many others are attached to them, spare no possible pains to turn away from this our Savior the things and things that are common to them. "But it would be in vain if the bird's yarn were set before its eyes," as Solomon says Proverbs 1:17. The certain testimony of the Lord, which also makes the unwise wise, the imperishable bright word of God, will thus guide and direct, that such deceivers of their deceitfulness and false glittering shall not obtain a continuance with her. For who would there be whom God would not otherwise have cast down and blinded, who would not immediately see from the bright law of God that we are all sinners and condemned by our actions, when no human being anywhere can be condemned by the law of God?

*) The original edition appeared in quarto, without indication of place and time. . (Walch.) The text is after Walch.

354I- Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. xx, iso-E 355

who loves God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself; on which two pieces the whole Law and the Prophets hang, so that whoever lacks them has transgressed all of God's commandments. Since we are all transgressors of God's commandments and therefore condemned and maledicted, we will never be able to help ourselves or other people from such condemnation and malediction; as we are in disgrace, so all our deeds will be displeasing to God. The tree is of no use, 1) how could the fruit be of any use? If all God's Scripture directs us to the only begotten seed of Abraham, in whom all nations shall be given, our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone redeems his people from sin, and leads them to obtain from him forgiveness of sin and eternal blessing through true faith: Who then would be so foolish as to dare to obtain such things by himself or other creatures, by his own work or that of others, be it confession, imposed pardon, indulgences, the merit of monks, or whatever else has been devised for the comfort of some idle bellies, and for the great harm and damage of poor ignorant souls?

Christ says: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest," Matth. 11, 28, and Joh. 14, 6: "No one comes to the Father except through me," and Joh. 15, 5: "Without me you can do nothing. Who would not want to leave everything and surrender to him completely with good faith? Truly, whoever trusts in our Lord Jesus Christ and thus surrenders to Him with true faith, as such a heart would mean and love in our Savior alone, would also have to be hostile to his sins and his entire previous life, and would have to be thoroughly repentant and displeased about them, and would also confess his sin before God and all men, where it would bring correction and give cause to turn to God's goodness, and would confess it from the bottom of his heart. Repentance would no longer consist in praying one Our Father or five times a day, giving one alms or two times a week, fasting one day or six times a year, but in spirit and in truth such a person would pray without ceasing at all times and call upon God for mercy for himself and all people in his heart, and also live his life soberly and with the breaking off of all bodily excess, to curb his flesh and make it obedient to the spirit.

1. "shall nothing" - is of no use.
2. and to devote his whole life, what he is and what he is able to do, to the service of his neighbor, to everyone who needs him, and to be ready to do to anyone, as Christ Jesus did to him, who also laid down his body and life for his enemies; and this is truly and Christianly praying, fasting, and almsgiving, yes, it is the one right penance that every Christian should practice throughout his life, ready to suffer and endure everything that God inflicts on him to suffer. Thus he dies to sins, and the baptism of Christ is completed in him, thus he considers and proves in himself the death of Christ, which memory he also keeps the Lord's Supper to promote and strengthen, 3) and knows that by merely attending Mass, or if he does so, nothing against sin can be accomplished or earned. This is what a true Christian is like, and such fruit is produced by faith where it exists, this is taught by all divine Scripture, this is what those who preach the Word of God and the Gospel preach; yes, G. H., this is the most unheard of, most harmful, most poisonous heresy, which cuts off all good statutes and order, breaks up and destroys obedience, peace and unity, against which our so-called ecclesiastical prelates are subjecting all princes and lords to move. Then one shall act against them with iron, water and fire, as against the Turks and the worst enemies of God that ever came on earth. But such nonsense is nothing new; Christ, our Lord, who preached just such things and led the most holy life, moreover, confirmed his deeds and teachings with such great and many miraculous signs, their forefathers, the Pharisees and scribes, also did so, as was also done before to all the prophets and afterward to all the apostles, and so ever from the beginning of the world taught the truth, by their equals. The world cannot do otherwise; it hates and persecutes Christ and anyone who wants to have anything to do with him.
3. E. F. G. has lived with so many so-called clergymen, prelates, cardinals, bishops, abbots and others and has had knowledge of them, 4) but I know that she asks God that he protect her from the clergy, so she has seen with the greater part of the same clerical fathers. For more splendor and opulence is not found in the most worldly princes than in those who are held closest to the highest holiness, to whom one must also kiss the feet. Now Christ has once spoken, and cannot be otherwise: "He that is not with me," saith he, "is
4. So put by us instead of: to bring.
5. So put by us instead of: hold.
6. So put by us instead of: had known.

35610 . Bucer's reason and cause of the innovations 2c. W. xx, 4sz-4ks. 357

Against me; he that gathereth not with me scattereth." So our so-called spiritual squires are with Christ as wolves are with sheep, and gather with him as the wind gathers the chaff, yea, they are like him 1) in all things, as water and fire, night and day, hell and heaven. In Christ there is nothing but humility and temporal contempt, in them there is splendor and pride; in Christ there is poverty, but a mind that is always ready to help anyone, in them riches and avarice, for whom the earth is too narrow; in Christ there is meekness and gentleness, in them war, murder, condemnation of unheard causes, driving out, burning and erasing; in Christ constant teaching and preaching, in them flowing 2) and hunting. In sum, Christ carries the cross everywhere, that he may help others, so they let themselves be led in litters and lay the cross on all whom they do not worship with will. Christ takes nothing and gives to everyone in vain, 3) so they take from everyone and give to no one in vain, unless it be pretty damsels and minstrels.

5 Therefore, G. H., Christ so earnestly says: "Either plant a good tree, and the fruit will be good, or plant a rotten tree, and the fruit will be rotten; for the tree is known by the fruit. You vipers, how can you speak good, because you are evil? When the heart is full, the mouth overflows. A good man brings forth good from his good treasure, and an evil man brings forth evil from his evil treasure," Matth. 12, 33-35.And if men see such fruits in our clergy and also in all their advocates, which befit Christian spiritual fathers, like pine cones 4) on a fig tree, they must be seen and confessed to be rotten trees, therefore their counsels, doctrines and statutes may not be Christian either; "When the heart is full, the mouth overflows. Therefore, where they are to advise how Christians are to be taught and governed in a Christian way, it is just as if one wanted to set faithful shepherds for the sheep and take counsel with the wolves. It is obvious and cannot be denied that they do not seek God, for otherwise they would live differently; they seek their splendor and pleasure, but what good do they want to advise or do?

6. such is also good to assume that they work so anxiously that the things

1. So put by us instead of: him.
2. This will probably mean the unclean rivers (xollutioues).
3. i. e. free of charge.
4. In the old edition: Dannzapfen.

Our faith and Christian doctrine are not to be publicly interrogated, but all who do not preach to their liking are to be condemned unheard. But Christ may not lie, who says, "He that doeth evil hateth not the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his works be punished. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest; for they are done in God," John 3:20. f. They have so many learned doctors, clothed in fine garments and scarlet, all the high schools are with them; is their thing so righteous, and that which we preach so unrighteous, why come they not to the light? The Scripture of God is written to all believers, so all believers have the Spirit of Christ, by which the Scripture is understood: so take the Scripture before your hand, show each part its doctrine and deeds, and all Christians will well see how according or according to the Scripture each part acts. From such interrogation and judgment, they may by no means reject F. F. G. and other princes and rulers, whom they call worldly, as impossible, and who do not understand trade; 5) for truly no one has less understanding of things than they, which is obvious and no one can deny; and all believers can and should recognize, discuss and judge all things concerning faith and worship. For God alone has given His Scriptures to His believers, and so also the spiritual judges all things, 1 Cor. 2, 15; for whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ is not His, Rom. 8, 9. Moreover, if a male is to be a believer in God, he must also know what the Word of God is, which alone is to be believed. Therefore (as contrary to nature as it is to condemn something unheard, and Christ Himself says that all His sheep know His voice, even the old very best councils, described by emperors and held in their and their rulers' presence), 6) the E. F. G. should never let himself be persuaded to stand by those who, unheard, want to condemn and exterminate all who do not preach according to the liking of the aforementioned clergymen, and allow them no judge but themselves. For it is against all natural equity not to let Christ preach otherwise, and to condemn unheard all who preach him otherwise, because they want to prove themselves with all their doings as renounced enemies of Christ. It may also not help them that they always reproach that our preaching and teaching was rejected by all at Costnitz in the common concilio.

5. Thus set by us instead of: understood.
6. These brackets are set by us.

358I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W.LX,4W-4vs. 359

If the people of the kingdom were condemned, one could not hold a concilium of one's own for each of them, then it would be a frivolous act to again enter into disputation, which was once so seriously decided by the concilium. For, concilium aside, the word of God is to be preached; if someone does not preach it and will not desist from it, he is to be put to death, but he is to be examined and questioned as to whether he has preached it or not. No concilium is allowed for this; every Christian authority will be able to recognize, if it has the Scriptures of God, whether an opinion is in accordance with it or not. The dispute is not about what is right, what one should preach or not. God has decreed that one should teach His word, and the law is His law; the dispute is whether the preachers or their opponents preach the word of God or that which is contrary to it, and which act according to or contrary to God's law. So that one should put to death a man who has killed is the right that remains, and is therefore not a question; nor, if one has killed, should he be brought before the law, hear his answer, and inquire whether he has acted contrary to the law or not; and should one who preaches the bright word of God, and has the courage to prove it, not come to any interrogation? and that the most holy and the most clerical should refuse? who, if they wanted to be Christians, are obliged to point out and report to every erring person with all meekness; is this not a perverse, impudent ferocity, which would be repugnant to the Turks?

7 To all this is well known how it happened at Costnitz in the Concilio. All the princes and estates of the empire, whom the papal household calls secular, were persuaded that they had no right to judge in matters of faith, so they ordered the prelates, who had been appointed, to do so. If the same should have recognized something abortive in their splendid, machiavellian, cowardly, wanton life, as is the entire divine Scripture, it would have been contrary to the order of nature, which always loves itself more than others and always puts the temporal before the eternal. The pious Emperor Siegmund would have liked to carry out a reformation of the clerical state and has worked himself up in the same, but he was thus superior through the so-called clergy, as still happens today, when one comes together that the clergy have three votes, so pious secular princes, who put their body, honor and goods to the empire, do not have one; that all things would have to proceed sooner than such a salutary reformation. For one sees and grasps that from the heel to the

There is nothing wholesome or whole in the entire aforementioned spiritual state. Therefore, it will not be easy to let the Word of God be the guideline for all teaching and preaching, regardless of what was decided in the Concilio at Costnitz; to interrogate anyone who dares to prove that his preaching and teaching is the Word of God; if one does not consider it frivolous that in many lesser matters it is examined what is or is not in accordance with the law, and what was decided by the ancients is not respected.

8. The divine Scripture lies so brightly in the light of day, that 1) what the aforementioned spiritual crowd teaches and does is contrary to Scripture; This is also recognized by a large part of the respectability, where there is only freedom to preach the word of God, that no one with understanding and no one who has not renounced the truth beforehand, may consider it useless or unnecessary to grant interrogation, speech and deliverance from matters of our faith and Christian life, which are now in obscurity. Yes, no one who loves Christ can refuse such things, much less condemn someone who is unheard. But of course, whoever thinks about the matter a little, will soon see that the clergymen mentioned have no reported pleas where they would be justified in their cause. They know that where they come before the common respectability and their trade is held against divine scripture, yes, only against natural equity, that they would not stand. Therefore, all their work and effort since the last Imperial Diet, held at Augsburg, has been directed solely to ensuring that no one is granted an interrogation, but that only men who do not want to give them victory are condemned unaccountable and unheard. E. F. G. may well recognize how not only unchristian, but also how unnatural such a thing is; as she has also recognized this and has long since noted that they, the supposed clergymen, desire to bring their cause out by force; therefore your soul will never consent to their counsel;

(9) Neither shall they be moved to lie without ceasing, that they would abolish all authority, and if reformation be obtained with them, they shall then be moved to all authority, and dissolve all obedience. For if one preaches the word of God, one teaches that every soul should be subject to and obey the authority and all authorities, as Rom. 13, 1. ff. Tit. 3, 1. and 1 Pet. 2, 13. is expressed. For of course, if one teaches God rightly, it may not be that His order, to whom all authority and rulership belongs, is not obeyed.

1. In the old edition: the.

360 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx, 468-47". 361

anyone resists. But they, the so-called clergy, if they wanted to be spiritual and apostolic, should serve like Christ, our Lord, and not rule; as he did not let him serve, but served us and gave his soul for salvation for many, and said to his disciples: "The worldly princes rule, and the rulers rule by force: so it shall not be among you: but if any man be mighty among you, let him be your servant; and whosoever will be chief, let him be your servant."-Matt. 20, 25-27. But now they leave the divine service of the divine word, and go with violence over all authorities and rulers appointed by God, yes, as Peter 2 Ep. 2, 10. prophesied of them, "walking after the flesh, in the lust of uncleanness, despising the rulers, being thirsty, thinking highly of themselves, and not trembling to blaspheme the majesties". Therefore they are the same ones who dissolve divine order and obedience, and destroy all authorities according to all their will, when the word of God teaches masculine, corrupt and uncorrupt, to be subject to principalities and powers and to obey the authorities.

10. Now and all here in Strasbourg, if for the sake of peaceful attendance and Christian unity an honorable council, my gracious lords, has intended to the so-called clergy to enter into civil unity and duty, like other inhabitants, noble and ignoble, one finds among them those who may spend, Such would be a breach of their oath and honor, just as if their oath bound them and their honor were to be neither faithful nor loyal to those with whom they live, indeed, from whom they get their nourishment here 1) and are in part their relatives by blood, nor to obey Christian commandments and prohibitions that serve and are necessary for respectability. For civic duty and alliance, which is expected of them. Nothing else demands it. If many insist on their liberties given to them by kings and emperors, it is obvious that such liberties are only given to spiritual holy fathers, so that they may follow the service of the divine word all the more freely, and by no means be more needy of such loose servants, who would be subject to an authority, and only to a strict one, than not soon a people on earth, as one can obviously see. If one examines their letters of freedom, indeed, all their old donationes, one will find that many other people have been given such, to which our so-called spiritual crowd is like, as Abraham had the pharaohs.

1. After the word "here" we have deleted "are".

were like the sowers who crucified Jesus. But as it is shown above, that they make many pretexts, by which they think to show that it is not proper, in such matters of faith, to grant anyone a public interrogation and questioning, and yet is the fundamental cause, why they so much shrink from public interrogation, that they know their causes to be essentially rotten and of no use; so also in this case they accuse this and that, so that they pour out godly and cheap obedience from themselves, and is but the some right cause, that their life is thus formed, that they may suffer no Christian authority, which then is "instituted of GOD for the vengeance of evildoers and praise of benefactors," 1 Petr. 2,14., therefore also Paul speaks Rom. 13, 3.: "The mighty are not to be feared for good works, but for evil ones." Thus it is that they, the aforementioned clergy, find those who despise and reject all divine authority, as they may not suffer any because of their unrighteous life, and falsely attribute this to the preachers of 2) divine word, who teach and preach not only that all other proper authorities, but also that they, 3) (who should not rule worldly), are to be feared, 3) (who should not rule worldly, if they want to be descendants of the apostles, because God has sent them to be worldly rulers) should be obeyed by all who are under their authority, as long as they do not command anything that is against God and affects the soul, yes, out of the word of God they exhort what concerns only the temporal, as body, honor and property, even to suffer violence from them. But if all their business is to deceive and seduce the poor simple-minded layman, and if by their works, which they do so brazenly that they have long been an abomination to all respectability, and no one who loves discipline and shame likes to have anything to do with them, they prove that they are born not of God but of the devil (for John says: Whoever commits sin is of the devil): then it is no wonder, indeed, it cannot be otherwise than that all their feuding and saying is vain lies. The devil is a liar and the father of lies, John 8:44, so what else would he teach his sons?

They also show such a kind of superfluous here and everywhere. They alone have invented, testified and written out so many clumsy, unrhymed lies about me, the poor and inept servant of the word, that it is highly astonishing. There

2. So put by us instead of: the preacher.
3. The brackets are placed by us for easier understanding.

362 I. Luther's Writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 470-472. 363

I must have led a disorderly life before 1) when I was at the same time at the court of E. F. G.; I must have run away from the court of E. F. G. with great shame, if she did not graciously give me special gifts and presents; my housewife ran away from me; I circumcised children; I did this and that. Some of my co-workers in the Word have preached that our dear wife, the mother of Christ, is a dog; another has said that he preached that if a man is away from his wife for a while, she should take the next one whom she likes: If we preach about marriage in this way, out of the law of God, if one were to comply with it, some of the clergy mentioned would have had to be evicted long ago; for one finds highly learned clergymen who have denied one's wife in their spiritual court and taken her immediately.

12 And therefore, G. H., since also by my co-workers and preachers of the Gospel here in Strasbourg, upon and through the certain word of God, some things have been changed and improved in the divine service, of which our said adversaries far and wide 3) lie abominably before princes and lords, as they have also done to us before, I have described such things to E. F. G. with reference to divine Scripture, on which everything has been done. with reference to divine Scripture, on which everything is based, in the shortest possible way, so that it, reported to the truth, would know the less to let itself be taken in by some hot tales, even though great bishops and prelates would bring them forward, because they believe too much in such things, even still, and truly to say, they are often invented too quickly. I also want to inform E. F. G. herewith, if there is something in my fortune that I could do for her service and favor, that I would be quite willing and ready for it, because I have her gracious good deeds, abundantly shown to me, her unfit servant, still in fresh memory and will always have them.

13. my humble and very diligent request to you is that you graciously accept my letter, which is based on Christian opinion, and not let anyone turn away from the eternal, certain, salvific Word of God; the anointed one, whom you, high and low stan-

1. "formerly" put by us instead of: "before Masver". Should it perhaps be "before M. G. H." i. r. before my gracious lord?
2. "him", namely the law. Thus put by us instead of "him"; likewise equally from it "their" put by us instead of: "their".
3. "wide" set by us instead of: "ready".
4. Prince of the kingdom, sayings and complaints are not to be challenged so highly and that nothing of unheard cause is condemned, nor the persons are regarded. Christ says: What is high among men is an abomination in the sight of God. He has chosen the despised and the lowly to proclaim His word to the world. Read 1 Cor. 1 and 2. But we are sure of our things, that we commit ourselves to death, where no one 6) can prove that our preaching and what we 7) do on it are not equal to and in accordance with the certain word of God, written in his holy Scriptures; it is also our greatest complaint that our adversary has so far everywhere prevented us from giving public reason and cause for our teaching and doing before all the world, as we know how to do. We seek the light and do not shun the light as our adversaries do. May the Almighty, through Christ our Lord, grant E. F. G. to grasp his word rightly, and thereby to remain and persevere steadfastly for the certain welfare and blessedness of you and your subjects. Amen. Given at Strasbourg, the 26th dee. 1524.

E. F. G.

servant Martin Butzer. > > Christian reader! So that I do not offend anyone, I will take care not > only to set down the opinion of divine Scripture, but also to use its > words. Therefore, let no one be afraid whether he will read other > words here than those in common use. If he examines the Scriptures, he > will find that such words are written by the Holy Spirit and not only > by me.

Of innovation at the Lord's Supper.

1 The Lord's Supper, as the Holy Spirit calls it through the mouth of Paul, has been called Mass for a long time, namely among the subjects of the Roman Church, and it has been said that when the priest says Mass, he offers the body and blood of Christ for the living and the dead; that no more useful and wholesome good work has been considered. And to signify this offering, the bread and the chalice of the Lord have not been taken care of, not even because-

4. some - any.

5. "ever world" - from the beginning, from time immemorial. 6) > perhaps: someone?

7. In the old edition: me.

364 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx. 472-475. 365

No one has ever partaken of the Lord's supper; more, such garments are used as the sacrificers, called sacerdotes in Latin, used to some extent among the Jews and pagans, 1) so that the mass of all things would be equal to a sacrifice and would be considered as such.

(2) But we, informed by the graces of God of His Holy Word (to Him be eternal praise!), know that the most abominable, poisonous, and all-damaging dishonor and blasphemy of Christ our Lord and Savior is to think and say that the priest offers Him up in the mass. Therefore, since light has no fellowship with darkness, Christ does not agree with Belial, and the believer has no part with the unbeliever, 2 Cor. 6:15.We have completely put away and put to rest in our congregation everything that has been added to the Lord's Supper without Scriptural grounds, for the purpose of fortifying and defiling Christ and divine grace, so that we no longer use the name Mass, but the Lord's Supper, which we hold in remembrance of the death of our Lord, and by no means as an offering of his body and blood, without the raising of the bread and cup; nor, unless some have received with them the bread and the cup of the Lord. For this purpose, the priest and minister of the congregation do not use any special garment, except that which is called the surplice, and none of the sacrificial garments, such as alb, stol, casel, 2c., nor any other vestments invented by men without the word of God.

3 Because it is not enough to do what is right and just in oneself, but a Christian must, as far as possible, see to it that what he does is also better for the elect (to those who are rejected, it must be a stench of death to do what is good), for true Christian love requires that we be ready to die for the salvation of our neighbor, as the Lord has done for us, I will not say, that we should strive to be better for others. To this end Paul exhorts the Romans Cap. 14, 19. Let each one of us, he says, set himself up to please his neighbor, for good, for correction. For even Christ had no pleasure in himself, but, as it is written, "The reproach of them that revile me is fallen upon me." And to the Corinthians he thus writes 1 Ep. Cap. 10, 31.-11, 1.: "You eat or drink, or what you do: be indecent, both to the Greeks and to the

1. So put by us instead of: been.
2. So put by us instead of: to add.
3. The brackets are set by us.

Jews, and the congregation of God, even as I also please everyone in all things, seeking not what is profitable for me, but what is profitable for many, that they may be saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I of Christ."

(4) Therefore, as far as possible, we would like to make everything that we have changed and improved in this and other things on and through the word of God pleasing and better for everyone, so that, as everything is right and godly in itself, it would also be considered and accepted by men for the glory of God, whose words we have followed in this, and also for the good of all who have promised themselves to Christ. Piety and edification of all who have promised themselves to Christ, that they too have undertaken to follow the voice of their shepherd and the teaching of the one Master and Teacher whom the Father has given us, alone, putting aside what has been fabricated by men in such matters concerning faith and worship. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon us to be as diligent as possible to see to it that our treasure, the holy gospel and eternal word, and even our ministry, is not blasphemed, Romans 14 and 2 Corinthians 6, so that what we do is not only pleasing and better to those who are willing, but also, as far as we are able, unpunishable and irreproachable to those who are wicked.

(5) We do not know how to obtain both of these better or sooner, if we only show the Scriptures and God's word, which we have followed and complied with in our actions: if the chosen ones of God hear how they recognize and love God the Lord as supreme, then they will also be completely pleased with him, since they find his command and order. With David the whole faithful crowd sings Ps. 19, 10. 11.: "The judgments of the Lord are righteous, all righteous. They are more precious than gold and much fine gold; they are sweeter than honey and honey germ." And in the 119th Psalm v. 103. f.: "How sweet are thy words to my throat, more than honey to my mouth. I am made understanding of that which thou hast commanded; therefore 4) I hate all false ways." Therefore, when the sheep hear their shepherd's desired and beloved voice, they will know it immediately and follow it with all eagerness; they will have pleasure and joy that we are given to follow such. No human authority, doctrine or custom will be respected anymore, we are bought at a high price, because we should be servants of men, 1 Cor. 7, 23. With body, honor and goods we want to be submissive and obey all human order and authority,

4. So from unS.put instead of "let", according to Ps. 119, 104.

366I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 475-477. 367

But the spirit must be devoted to God; and as no man can know the counsel and will of God, so no one can teach us how and wherewith to please Him, but He Himself alone. Therefore David says in the 119th Psalm, v. 130: "When thy word, O Lord, goeth forth, it enlighteneth, and giveth understanding unto the simple." And soon after, v. 133: "Direct my ways by thy speech." Therefore God in the 5th book of Moses 12, 8. has quite seriously forbidden "to do that which is pleasing to any one" fund v. 32.:] "All that I command you, that you shall observe to do. Ye shall not do any thing thereto, neither shall ye do any thing thereof."

Thus we are certain and without any doubt: whoever is godly will read the clear, bright words of God, on which and according to which we have acted, but will not only have no complaint about 1) our innovations, or rather our return to what is rightly old and eternal. He will not only have no complaint, but will praise and bless God, who has led us back to His way and to His command from the canker of so many disorderly, harmful human commandments and customs, and will also subject himself and others, 2) to the same or even more perfect reformation, to the clear and pure word of God, which belongs to the worship of God.

7. We do not know any other way to frustrate the malicious ones more strongly, 3) to blaspheme the word of the Lord and our ministry. For if they do not want to take pleasure in our telling them that God, who is supreme, has commanded and ordered us to innovate or rather to reform, how can we do otherwise to them, since Christ says, Matth. 15, to let them go, the blind leaders of the blind? We could not show them any higher commandment and right than God's; whoever will not let us stay with it, we must not esteem highly. One must be more obedient to God than to men. Since God's command cannot be pleasing to such, it would be bad for us if our deeds were pleasing and blameless to them. We can do no more than to answer to everyone who demands the reason for the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear, as Peter teaches. Whoever does not want to receive such things, and turns the word of God to the wind, respects more the customs of men, and
8. but - again. - Instead of "our" we have put "ours".
9. So put by us instead of: "submit". The constructive" is: he will submit to bring himself and others to the word of God.
10. i.e. to remove the cause.

Statutes, for the command and order of God, we must submit to the judgment of God, and if such cry out to us as heretics and evildoers, we will not be challenged, for the servants have also called Christ, the father of the house, Beelzebub.

I therefore conclude that anyone who has not renounced natural respectability and fairness will not condemn us unheard and before he has heard our responsibility. If he then hears that it is based on the clear word and expressed command of God, he will not be able to push us any further. But whoever would not be satisfied by such a thing, or, as many foolish people do, would not hear our answer and condemn unrecognized actions, we do not respect or fear them, for they also do not respect or fear God, and even act contrary to all natural justice. To those whom God has not rejected and even blinded, we want to show and demonstrate the reason for our actions from divine Scripture, so that they may recognize us as their Christian brothers and common members, love us and also defend us against all men. This letter is also written to serve and please them.

From the name of the night meal of Christ.

First of all, our brethren have an abhorrence of the name Mass, and use to call it the Lord's Supper, which in the Roman way we have now long called Mass. Although we do not know how to quarrel with anyone over the words, with whom we can compare ourselves to the matter in hand, for such quarrels over words bring hatred, strife and other things, which destroy Christian faith and love, 1 Tim. 6, we must still confess that it is more Christian and more certain that we call that which Christ our Lord has instituted for us, by the name that the Scriptures give it, for with such a name, 5) of which we can know no quality anywhere. Some think that Missa, which we say in German, is a Hebrew word, derived from the word Mas, which means an obligatory gift, as tribute, and means a sacrifice, as such is read for it in the 5th Book of Moses, Cap. 16. And therefore, because the most abominable abomination is to consider the Lord's supper a sacrifice, they cannot sufficiently reject and condemn such a name. But since such a name does not exist among the Greeks, who then call the Lord's Supper a sacrifice, they cannot condemn it enough.

4. In the old edition: such.
5. In the old edition: such.

368 10 Bucer's reason and cause of the innovations re. W. xx, 477-480. 369

Liturgian, that is, to call office or service, and is also not healthy in the old Latin, as Cypriano, Hieronymo and others, it wants to be doubtful that such name comes from the Hebrew, because the Greeks, the first disciples of the Hebrews, as well as the old Latin otherwise would have had it in use.

(10) But let him come from whence he will, or be called what he will, which no one has yet been able to decide, so the divine Scripture does not have him; and this is enough that he should be rejected and reeled in by Christians 1). It also seems to have happened by God's special providence, because the world has been so blinded by the false and most seductive opinion that in the Lord's supper His body and blood are offered up by the priest, that it no longer even knew what the Lord's supper was, or what it was good for, that it was also given a name that no one knew, nor where it came from or what it meant. Since "there is no fellowship of light and darkness," 2 Corinthians 6:14, we who are children of the light should completely renounce darkness and its works, as well as its names. David, Psalm 16:4, says: "I will not offer their blood 2) drink offerings, nor take their name in my mouth." So also we, as we have an abomination to offer up the body and blood of Christ again, so also such sacrificers, sacrifices, works, names, and what they deal with, should be an abomination to us.

(11) We know that only the Spirit of God can understand what is divine, 1 Cor. 2:10; therefore no one else can call such things. Therefore, if he calls it the Lord's supper, we should not need any other name, nor should we first bring the Holy Spirit to school and give his things strange names, which we may not know where they come from, but only from the spirit of error and lies. Then where else, and where this name Mass in such an interpretation, as the mass goers have brought it into use, would be good for something, it would not have remained unreported in any way in divine Scripture; for it teaches everything that may be useful and good abundantly. So we teach the Lord's Supper as the Spirit of God calls it, and we do not call it Mass, 3)

1. This expression "verspulgt", which is repeated at the end of the following paragraph, is synonymous with: abgethan, verworfen.
2. We have omitted the word "are" after "blood". Cf. the Hirschberg Bible "ä Ps. 16, 4., note 6.
3. So put by us instead of: "and not called Mass."

so that, as our actions, so also our words are in accordance with divine Scripture; but we admonish that no one start a quarrel about the name, or condemn the others, if only with the name the error is not also accepted, as if one gave and sacrificed something to God. This is our doctrine and its reason, the name "Mass", which we wanted to be already done and reeled off, and that only this name "the Lord's Supper" was used, as it is called in 1 Cor. 11.

That the Lord's Supper be kept in remembrance of the death of our Lord, and by no means for a sacrifice.

12. That 4) it is the most pernicious and abominable error to suppose that in the Lord's supper the body and blood of Christ are sacrificed, has now been proved by so many in writing, and is preached everywhere, since God's word is known, without ceasing, that it is not necessary to refer to many writings about it. The words of Christ are clear. When he had taken the bread, given thanks and broken it, he said: "Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is a new testament in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink, in remembrance of me." These are the words of the Lord, as Paul received them from the Lord, 1 Cor. 11, in which everyone sees that the Lord alone commands two things, namely, to eat the bread, to drink the cup, for the one; the other, to do this in remembrance of Him; which remembrance, if done righteously and in faith, immediately brings from it itself the proclamation of the death of Christ. For who could consider and believe this as his eternal salvation and not immediately be eager to sing and tell everyone about it? Therefore Paul says immediately upon the Lord's prefixed words, "For as often as ye eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall proclaim the Lord's death until he come." Since we are not to add to or subtract from the words of the Lord, just as in such matters we may know nothing more of ourselves than he has revealed to us, it behooves us to keep strictly to the command of the Lord, namely, when we partake of the Lord's supper, to receive the bread and the cup of the Lord, remembering his death and proclaiming it, and to do nothing else.
13. In the old edition: the.

370I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 480-482. 371

sacrifice ourselves presumptuously, which the Lord has not thought of in a word.

(13) Also Lucas, in the histories of the apostles, when he reports how the believers kept themselves, and also remembers this supper, as being wholly respected, and giving it the words, writes: "But they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer." See, he calls it badly the breaking of bread, does not speak: offering in bread, or something like that. He who does not want to be quarrelsome, because this breaking of bread is counted as part of the apostles' doctrine, fellowship and prayer, will 1) let it be spoken of as the Lord's supper; for to speak of taking common food, among such high spiritual things, would be inconsistent and not in keeping with the apostolic spirit. Nor is the communion of the cup, because it commemorates the breaking of bread alone, excluded, but rather understood. For it is entirely to be assumed that in such breaking of bread they kept themselves fully in accordance with Christ's institution, and thus the communion of the cup by no means abated.

14 But be it so, it is undeniable that Paul spoke of the Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 10, saying, "The cup of dedication which we dedicate, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" He does not say, "The cup which we offer, but which we bless, that is, over which we praise and glorify God." He does not say, "The bread which we offer, but which we break, that is, to share in eating, as it is the custom of the country to break bread when one wants to enjoy it.

15. Now, if we could know nothing of such use 2) of Christ, for what his Spirit reveals to us in the Scriptures, it should be left us enough to reject the opinion of sacrifice as an undoubted finding of the devil, and most abominably to shrink from the fact that Christ our Lord did not think a word of sacrifice, but commanded to take alone, and to remember his doing so, and thus to follow the example of David, when he says: "I love thy commandment above gold and fine gold; therefore I keep straitly all that thou hast ever commanded. I hate every false way," Psalm 119:127. f. To add to this, if anyone does not want to be satisfied with what has been reported, let him read the whole of Scripture, and he will find that all the Scriptures point to the one sacrifice of Christ, when he offered up his body on the cross,

1. Before "it" we have deleted "he".
2. Deployment - Deployment.

by which enough is done for all the elect, and not a word that such a body should be offered by the priests so many thousands of times daily. But that we should offer our own bodies, a broken spirit and a bruised heart, and the sacrifice of praise to God daily, of this the Scriptures teach us everywhere.

16. In Hebrews 9:24-28 we read: "Christ did not enter into the holy place made with hands, which is the antitype of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God. Nor did he often sacrifice himself, just as the high priest enters the holy place every year with someone else's blood, otherwise he would have had to suffer often from the beginning of the world, but now, at the end of the world, he has appeared once to abolish sin through his own sacrifice. And as it is appointed unto man once to die, and after that to be judged, so Christ was once offered to take away many sins, but the second time he shall appear without sin unto them that wait for him unto salvation."

What could be said more clearly against the nonsensical sacrifice of the Mass? Where are the mass-goers, the poor belly people, who still want to sacrifice Christ daily? Listen, Christ does not sacrifice himself often, otherwise he would have to suffer often; from this it follows that if you want to sacrifice him daily, he must suffer daily and you must crucify him daily, as you also do daily, you poor murderers of Christ. After that you hear that he appeared once at the end of the world to cancel sin by his own sacrifice, why then do you say that he appears daily again as a sacrifice in your bloody, murderous hands so many thousands of times? Much more the. Apostle, he appeared by his own sacrifice; how then may ye say he is your sacrifice? Your own cowardly, wanton, harmful body, that, that shall be your sacrifice, you Baalite sacrificers.

(18) Last of all, you hear that he appeared to take away sin; did he then, with his one sacrifice, take away the sins of many, that is, the elect, and accept them; what then are you doing, deceiving so many poor souls with so many desperate blasphemous masses? Do you not hear, you sinners, not sinlifters: "As it is appointed unto man once to die, and after that to be judged, so Christ is offered once to take away many sins"? What do you think you are doing with your sacrifices? Christ has taken away sin with his one and only sacrifice, which is himself, what do you want with your sacrifices but sin?

37210 . Bucer's Reason and Cause for the Innovations 2c. W. xx, 482-485. 373

Sowing and planting, and overflowing the world with disbelief and all vices, as you have done?

(19) You have turned people away from the faith in the one sacrifice of Christ on your sacrifices, you have pretended to be sacrificers consecrated for this purpose, so that you have almost taken all the world's goods to yourselves; and so that this would not come back to those who have to win it with their sweat, you have renounced marriage; besides this, you live in all dishonesty, so that the world does not have your equal. For this purpose you condemn and persecute the word of God, so that through it your most abominable seduction, deceit and shameful life will not come to light. This is what your sacrifice of the Mass must preserve and defend. Therefore it is undeniable that with your sacrifice of the Mass you have showered the world with sin. If it were not for this mass alone, when you live in such insolent excess, common respectability would not have tolerated you for a long time, let alone let you come to such good and power, by which you oppose everything that is divine and respectable.

Therefore, let him who has heart and mind, and does not despair of his salvation and all good, flee from this most blasphemous and pernicious error, as from hell and the most pernicious poison, by which all faith and godliness perish, keep to the holy apostolic words Heb. 10, 12: "Once Christ sacrificed Himself for sin, this is forever"; and "with this," as it is also written in Hebr. 10, 14, "He has perfected for eternity those who are sanctified," that is, the elect whom God has chosen for Him from the world.

21. And if someone wanted to say that the epistle to the Hebrews was not considered by the ancients to be equal to the more certain writings than the four Gospels and other epistles of Paul, as Eusebius and Origen report, I say that, as they both, together with elements of Alexandrino, who did not live long from the times of the apostles, well testify, that among the Latins, who never reported divine things highly, this epistle was not counted among the other epistles of Paul. And another scribe 1) is remembered by Eusebius, whose name was Gaius, who also reports only thirteen epistles of Paul; but the ancients, from the times of the apostles, have always undoubtedly considered them to be an epistle of Paul. But they confess unanimously that it was first written by Paul in Hebrew, and then, as some think, by Lucam Evangelistam, as others think, by Clementem m Greek tongue.

1. "Schreibers" put by us instead: Schreibens.

Interpreted. Of it read in the 3rd book Eusebii Cap. 3. and in the 6th book Cap. 11. and 18:

(22) But let all this be as it may; which the epistle to the Hebrews sets forth is nothing else than the content of the whole divine Scripture, which shows that through the one death of Christ, when he once offered himself for us, all the elect are cleansed and made blessed. Is. 53, 6. f.: "We have all strayed like sheep, each one has gone astray in his own way, and the Lord has laid on him all our unrighteousness. He went, even willingly, and opened not his mouth; as a sheep he shall be led to the sacrifice of death 2)." And afterwards in the same chapter v. 10. f.: "If he shall set his soul for sin, he shall see a longsuffering seed, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Because his soul hath had trouble, he shall see his pleasure, and have enough; by his knowledge he shall justify many of my servants, and their iniquity shall he bear."

23. In these words we see clearly that Christ accepted the sins of the elect by his death, being offered up like a sheep; but this happened only once, and no scripture says that he should often afterwards be offered up again, but the prophet says that the favor of the Lord in his hand, that is, by his power and spirit, because of his having once offered up his soul for sins, should succeed and go happily afterward; and in his knowledge, which he gives to the chosen servants of God, by which they recognize and believe that he thus once died for them, thereby he makes them righteous. Which is nothing else than if he gives us to remember his death and believe that he suffered death 3) for us, by which we are adopted as children of God, then we become righteous and blessed before God, and not by a re-sacrifice. This is not thought of in all Scripture with a single word, that ever, as reported above, where otherwise there would be no indication, should be exceedingly enough to flee the abomination of re-sacrifice as the worst find of the devil. For the Scripture has all good things, from which it follows that must certainly come from the devil and be vain poison of faith, which is brought in beside it. Which is also the case with the fruits of this abomination, which are described above a little.

2. In our German Bible correctly: "to the slaughter". We have put "to the death sacrifice" instead of "to the dead sacrifice".
3. In the old edition: "and faith suffered for us."

374I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 4W-487. 375

The reason for this is that the corrupt servants have become large, numerous and powerful, to the detriment of the faith and all respectability, and this is a good thing.

(24) It is therefore established and preserved by the bright divine word that in the Lord's supper his death and the sacrifice that he once offered himself to the Father on the cross for the sins of all the elect are to be remembered with faith and thanksgiving; this is to be preached and praised to God, and no one may dare to offer anything there, except only the children of condemnation. On the other hand, all the masses have nothing that would be valid. For even if they produce a lot of people, even their own poetry, what can that do against the word of God, on which our teaching and commerce is based? Man is vain and a liar, God alone is truthful and just,

(25) All Scripture has prophesied of these last times, which have come after the apostles departed, that abominable errors should break in, that even the elect, where possible, would be led into error. It can also be seen that nothing is too much for the aforementioned group, even though all their doings conflict with the doings of Christ, as water does with fire, nor do they want to sit in the place of Christ, to appropriate all his power and honor to themselves; therefore, whatever they do or protect should be suspect to everyone. They are evil, rotten, poisonous trees; how can anything good come from them?

26 Whether some pious holy fathers have also been in such error, it is no wonder, namely in the perilous time when one grasps how all deceit and unrighteousness has taken over, when the Lord Himself has terrifyingly prophesied Matth. 24. The saints are always surrounded with sins and error, so that the prize may remain God's mercy alone. Jacob, the high apostle, and the Christians at Jerusalem, after receiving the Spirit of God and preaching for many years, so grossly erred that they thought that those of the Jews who believed in Christ also knew how to keep the Law of Moses, as it is read in Acts 15, and Acts 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, and 15, respectively. 15; and Apost. 11. the believers of the circumcision quarreled with Petro, because he had preached Christ to the Gentiles, when Christ had commanded them to go into all the world to preach the gospel.

27 But the disciples will not find many saints who would have thought that in the night they would have been saints.

1. In the old edition: "in Christ's stead".

The first is to sacrifice something for the Lord's Supper, and the second is not to condemn their ungodly masses, which they sing and read only to maintain their bellies and their cowardly lives. Also, although both are often found in the ancients, 2) the little word sacrificium, sacrifice, and sacrificare vel offerre, that is, to offer, it still commonly refers to the fact that Christ's one sacrifice is kept in remembrance, which, if it is done in faith, brings the fruit of Christ's sacrifice, namely, forgiveness of sins and all grace. For truly then 3) the body of Christ is given for us, that is, then 3) we become partakers of it and receive the fruit of it, if we recognize and consider with true faith that Christ offered his body and blood for our sin once on the cross. On Christmas Day we sing: Today Christ is born, if one only remembers his birth; therefore it is not so strange to the readers of the Fathers. Therefore it should not be so strange to the readers of the Fathers, if they already read that their fathers write that Christ is offered up in the night meal, since the night meal is nothing but a remembrance of such a sacrifice, through which also, if it is done 4) out of right faith, the fruit of the sacrifice is obtained. -

(28) But it is also found that the ancient Latin scribes gave to Christian things, which had no name in their language, names which meant something among the pagans, which resembled such Christian things in part. Thus they gave names to the practice of faith and the acceptance of baptism that were in use among the Romans in the acceptance of knighthood; yes, they also drew some ways and signs to the Christian signs. Likewise, since there was something similar between the pagan sacrifices and the Lord's supper, they called it sacrificium, a sacrifice. For just as the pagans honored their gods in their sacrifices, ate with one another, and refreshed their friendship with joy, so, when Christ's supper is properly kept, it is remembered with praise and thanksgiving, and Christians renew their spiritual and eternal covenant and testament in the Lord with the sacred food and drink; that they might have said: The heathen have their sacrificia and sacrifices, where they come together in honor of their gods; our sacrificia shall be the supper of Christ, in which we offer nothing to God but ourselves. but ourselves, but we consider the sacrifice that was once offered for

2. In the old edition: both, from old".
3. In the old edition: "because".
4. In the old edition: "a memorial", but "which" and "they".

376 10 Bucer's reason and cause of the innovations 2c. W. xx, 487-iW. 377

is sacrificed to us and is eternal. In this we are to proclaim the death of the Lord, to give him praise and glory, and to exhort one another to all love and goodness, that we may celebrate one bread and one body in Christ.

(29) He who does not want to be quarrelsome, and also reads the Old Testament, Tertullianum, Cyprianum, and others with an unadulterated heart, will confess that he has this opinion; but to him who wants to quarrel, we say that he brings forth are men whose speech shall ever be of no value, where God's word has another.

30. But that 1) some bring forth from the prophet Malachi 1:11.That when the name of the Lord becomes great among the Gentiles, a pure sacrifice should be offered in all places, is prophesied of the sacrifice of the body, which faith and the knowledge of the divine name offer in all places and among all people; This is not only proved by the words of the prophet himself, which prophesy of the rejection of the Jewish people and the acceptance of the Gentiles, but it is also proved by many other writings, of which Tertullianus libro primo adversus Judaeos lists many.

31. So it is now clearly and publicly proven and preserved by the bright Scriptures of God that no man nor angel can be able to oppose 2) the opinion and doctrine of offering his body and blood again in the night meal of Christ, is an abominable and most harmful discovery of Satan and of the true Antichrist, to kill and destroy the faith and all that is good in the most abominable way, and thereby also to preserve and strengthen the most harmful servants for the destruction of all respectability and persecution of the children of God. Since we have been graciously gifted by God with this knowledge, we must by no means tolerate such an abomination, preach against it, and tear it out of the hearts of our listeners with the powerful words of God, among whom no one is considered, for only in such an abomination should God be heard and feared. Therefore, we have no doubt that all those who have not been rejected by God will secretly be pleased with us, and that this will henceforth, when they have heard our reason, not be called an innovation, but a necessary salutary reformation and restoration to the old and eternal, and that they will praise and thank God the Father with us for such graces and knowledge, and that they will also instruct and admonish us manfully to do so. May the Lord grant this! Amen.

1. In the old edition: that.
2. "dawider" put by us instead of: "da weder".

Reason and cause why the lift is turned off.

(32) Since we are so certain and pleased by the bright word of God, to which all things must yield, and must finally be told that it is an abomination to think that the body and blood of Christ are offered up in the supper, we must of necessity also gain an abhorrence of everything that has served and strengthened such abomination and error. Among these, the setting aside of the bread and cup of Christ is not the least. For with the lifting up, it is as much as testified and indicated that the priest offers the body and blood of Christ to God the Father, as is also proven by the words that the mass servers have used in their canons before and after the lifting up.

Some think that such lifting came from the Law of Moses, in which it was commanded to lift some of the grain offering and the fat in the sin offering, which was then called Trumah, as is read in the 3rd book of Moses, in the 2nd and 4th chapters. I find, however, that the Romans in all their ceremonies, of which they have invented so innumerable, have imitated and followed more the pagan customs than those set for the Jews by God, as the divine Scriptures have never been held in high esteem by them. From which idolatrous customs they have also taken the burning of candles, light mass, so many processions and various festivals, the priests' plates, strange clothing, death pomp, and the things without number, which are not only not drawn from the law of Moses, but even contrary to it. It has been reserved for this people to obscure and reverse divine statutes before all the world, therefore it is rare that they have taken their actions from the Scriptures, but against the clear prohibition of God in the 5th book of Moses, in the 12th chapter, what they did before to their idols and idolaters, they have subsequently turned to the service of God, but that it has been profitable for them in every way. So, although I do not want to quarrel with anyone about this, there is no doubt in my mind that it also happened with this annulment.

(34) And because nothing like this can be done by salvation and correction, except by faith, so that it may be known and understood that it is right and pleasing to God, we have diligently preached the Word and the Scriptures before and before we put away such abrogation, along with other things that are done without the Word of God, but are external things, through which alone such knowledge and understanding must come.

378I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 490-492. -379

In the meantime we have also taken up the bread and the cup, and have used garments and some other papal things, but we have always said and testified that we let these things remain for the benefit of the weak alone, and that we needed them until they were well reported by the Word, that it would be much better to refrain from such things and to put them away, And we exhorted them with all diligence, when we took up the bread and the cup of Christ, that they might then remember how Christ was taken up for us on the cross and offered up once to the Father, and by no means thought that by such taking up we should first offer up again the body and blood of the Lord.

(35) Such our waiting some have highly perverted us, and therefore have written us out as double papists, (1) who, however, never before, which would have occurred to us, have admonished better things. We know that we have been made free and free from the meager elements of the world, that is, statutes of outward things, through the death of Christ, as Paul proves superfluously to the Galatians and also Colossians, therefore all things are pure to the pure, as he writes to Titum, 2) may thus and ought freely to serve the neighbor with all things; some let the others practice, as we may realize, that it may shoot them to the better. Paul did not like to circumcise Timothy for himself out of any faith, because he knew that one was free from all such outward statutes, and that they were of no use for salvation; he also preached such freedom and knew that one had to attack it also with works, and set good examples to the weaker ones; While this freedom was still unknown among the Jews of Lystra and Iconium, he had Timothy circumcised for the sake of those Jews, no doubt to keep them well until he instructed them in all things by the word, and so won them, as he writes of himself, 1 Cor. 9:22: "I became all things to all men, that I might save some of all things." For the same reason he also took a vow of discipline, and therefore 3) circumcised himself in Kenchrea, Apost. 18, 18, and accepted the Jewish purification. Apost. 21, 24.

36 And whether our counterpart wanted to say that Paul would have given in to the weak in the reported pieces, but they would have been pieces.

1. From this we see that Bucer also takes the name "two-faced papists", which Carlstadt gives to those who retained the elevation.
2. In the old edition: may.
3. "accordingly" put by us instead of "nevertheless" according to § 41 of this writing.

which God commanded beforehand, so that the Jews had a reason to be attached to them; but the things which we pretend to tolerate for the sake of the weak were thought up and instigated by the Antichrist, in which no one had any reason to be attached. Answer: This speech would be well if the weak also knew that such things had arisen from the Antichrist. But if they can tell as little as those Jews that their bodily ordinances should be abolished, and think it no less contrary to God if such ceremonies should be discontinued than those where they had not kept their bodily ordinances, I do not see why we should not yield to our weak ones who cling to human ordinances, which they think have flowed from the Spirit of God, just as Paul did to his own.

It is also evident that after the beginning of the kingdom of Christ, that is, after the public preaching of the gospel, it was just as superstitious 4) to consider the bodily ordinances of Moses as necessary, as if they had been established by a man. Therefore Paul Col. 2, what was commanded in the law of Moses concerning circumcision, food, and such outward things, reproaches the commandment and doctrine of men, because now that we have died to Christ, they no longer wanted to keep God, but only men. For in both, the freedom delivered to us by the blood of Christ is denied and obscured, so that only one thing is necessary, namely to hear and accept the gospel of Christ. Our afflictions and theirs are one, namely, that they do not yet fully understand Christ, for if they knew that he alone does all things, they would keep all other things alike, even if they had been commanded by the pope or Moses; even in Paul's time, the commandments of Moses were to them as few of God's commandments as those given by the pope.

Therefore, it was no less a denial of Christ, who would have considered them necessary for salvation, than now one of the 'Pabst's statutes for it, although those had come from God, so these have sprung from the Antichrist, therefore Paul also Gal. 4. calls them weak meager statutes. In the origin is probably greater difference of the ceremonies of Moses and the pope, still so the weakness of faith is the same, because the weak in the times of Paul considered them necessary for salvation, which is not

4. So put by us instead of: "just as superstitious, which" 2c.

380 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. XX, 492-495. 381

The same is true of many a kind-hearted person who is now opposed to the papal statutes.

39. As Paul well knew that circumcision and other ceremonies of the law were of no use in himself, but rather harmful, so that people soon trusted in them too much and Christian freedom was accepted all the more slowly, and yet he had Timothy circumcised, a disciple highly praised in the faith, and he himself, who had of course now come far in the faith, held several ceremonies at times, so that he would not repel the weak from him until he had made Christ fully known to them: We believe completely that we have had cause for our waiting, with the holding of several ceremonies, which we have done for the benefit of the weak, and that we have not particularly sinned against it, even though we do not want to excuse ourselves. For though we are not conscious of anything ourselves, we are not justified in this. The measure is also hard to take in this, therefore we ask with David, Ps. 19, 13: "Who notices the faults? Make me clean from the secret ones." But we hope that we have not yet given cause for being called double papists. We would like to promote the honor of Christ alone. We cannot accomplish this in any other way than through the Word. In order that we might preach the same pleasantly, we have tolerated some ceremonies for the weak, which, although they have already arisen from papists of the worst opinion and have caused great harm and damage to the faith, are still external things, and therefore free in themselves, where they are not used out of unbelief or with annoyance.
40. In the house of idols and eating of things sacrificed to idols had arisen from the devil and was used for the destruction of all that is good, nor does Paul confess, regardless of the fact that this was forbidden in the law of Moses, that it is free for Christians and that they have its power, because the idol is nothing, so the sacrifice to idols is also nothing, only that this is done without having an evil fellowship with the idols, and that everyone should take care that he does not fall by it; But first of all the apostle teaches that it happens without offense to the weak, that is, to those who do not yet recognize such freedom, and yet eat with it, against their conscience, thereby sinning, so that they eat with it, with a corrupt conscience and no faith. From this it undoubtedly follows that if he had hoped that he would have eaten of the sacrifice to idols in an idol's house, that he would have had all the better place to worship the Gentile Christ.

He would have gone, of course, as he allows the others to go, as long as it is not a cause for the weak to eat against their conscience, and thus to sin, and that he also had Timothy circumcised, so that he would have all the more place to preach to the Jews. Thus, although the Antichrist has invented the abolition and used it to corrupt godliness, that he has thereby confirmed his blasphemous error of the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, still because we know that such sacrifice is nothing, as the idols and their sacrifices were nothing, and we Christians have all power, as this is beautifully demonstrated in 1 Cor. 8. and 10. by Paul: no one may condemn us for having tolerated such sacrifices for some time, along with other ceremonies, for the sake of the weak, to make a way for them to preach the word of God.

(41) Here I hear you say, "How? Are you afraid that the word of God will be a hindrance to him? The word enables all things to be done according to the word of God among Christians; if you do this and stop what is done without the word, are you afraid that you will make a hindrance to the word? the sheep will know their shepherd's voice well. Answer: This objection might also have been made to Paul when he had Timothy circumcised for the sake of the Jews, or when he made a vow of discipline, and accordingly circumcised himself in Cenchrea. Would it not have been possible to say, "How, Paul, you have no word that you should first have a Christian and such a famous brother circumcised, but the word only instructs you to depart from the weak, meager statutes; follow it, pay no attention to what the Jews say, the Lord knows His own well; there can be no hindrance to the word, act according to the word.

But Paul would have answered: Dear brethren, it is true that to act according to the word may bring no hindrance to the word, but we also observe what is acted according to the word; knowledge puffs up and love corrects. It is true that no one should do anything that he has not been taught by the word. Therefore, if the matter concerned only me and my dear son Timothy, who understands Christian liberty, I would not for a long time have him circumcised, nor would I also circumcise myself; but the word also teaches me that I should love my neighbor as Christ loved me, and be ready to love and serve him, to do and to leave all things; more I have a word that the earth is the Lord's, and what is in it; therefore all outward things are for us Christians also.

382I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 195-497. 383

The pure have all things pure, therefore circumcision, making vows and shaving off hair are also free to me.

43. far be it from me that I should undertake such things, that I should count them expedient unto salvation in themselves; but because they were made free unto me by the death of Christ, I know myself guilty that I may use them where I hope it will be profitable. I know that the Lord knows his sheep, and they know him and his voice, and that he himself must preach his word to them, and that he will do as I do; and if I am to be his servant in this, and a faithful and wise servant, whom he has set over his servants, to give them meat in due season, I must also keep myself as a fellow worker, servant, faithful and wise servant, and keeper of the divine secrets; And like my Master Christ, not crushing the broken reed, nor quenching the burning wick, but kindly receiving and bearing the weak in faith, loving and serving him, and leaving that which is not contrary to God's law in himself, that which is not contrary to faith or love; such as pruning and shearing, and what is like them.

44 My Master and Lord Christ would convert whom he would even without my preaching, nor will he use my ministry for this purpose, but rather with works than with words. Therefore I do not act without a word; the word makes outward things free to me and makes me use them for the betterment of my neighbor, and therefore, though I am free from everyone, I have made myself a servant to everyone, so that I may gain many: to the Jews I have become a Jew, to the weak a weakling, and to everyone all things, so that I may gain and save some, 1 Corinthians 9.

45 Who would condemn Paul after such an answer? Therefore, it is our hope, that we also do not have mischief, although we have already become papal with the papists in some respects, and have for a time tolerated the abolition, together with some other things, which are well used evil by the wicked, but are free in themselves, for the service and favor of such, as has been said, rather than used it, until we made Christ better known to them and thus won them over. One must always act with the word before those whom one wants to win; it does not say: faith comes from the deed, but "from the preaching of the word", Rom. 10, 17. Josiah was a king and had full power, nor did he do anything else.

He did not stop the abominations and idolatries until he had read the book of the covenant in the ears of all the people, and had restored the covenant with the Lord, and all the people had entered into the covenant. Read in the other book of Kings, 23. If one is to begin with the words, one must indeed keep oneself as much as possible with God, so that one may have listeners. Although God must draw them all, yet we must serve Him in this; He must also teach them all, yet we must preach and be wise, that we may rightly divide the word of truth 1) and distribute it, giving milk to the milksop and strong meat to the strong.

46 And that which is read in Moses is to be understood and directed according to what Christ says: "I give you a new commandment, as I have loved you, that you also love one another"; in the little word: love your neighbor as yourself, all the law is fulfilled, Galatians 5. In the law of Moses it was commanded that they should tear down the altars of the Gentiles, overthrow their pillars, burn their idols with fire. Read in the 5th book of Moses Cap. 7. Even Paul, when he came to Athens and saw that the city was so idolatrous, his spirit was enraged within him, but he never pulled down an altar or burned an idol, but he preached to them and pointed out that they were far too superstitious in all things. For one must also take heed to all the commandments circumstances, distinguishing the temporal from the eternal. Those people were given into the hands of the Israelites to exterminate them, but the apostles were commanded to convert the Gentiles to Christ; therefore, as they did with their hands, so they should do by word. So also we; where there is superstition, let the name be what it will, one is called Jew, Gentile or Christian (it is not that we are called Christians, but that we are), 2) one must begin with the word and do this until one learns Christ in such a way that the putting away of human sin promotes trust in Christ and does not deter from the word, for only the stumbling blocks and harnesses of divine wrath never come near.

47 In this, although the right measure is poorly taken, yet he who trusts in God, practices and drives the word with all seriousness, and takes care of Christ's army, the Lord will show him not to deviate too far from the right measure. For those who are the children of God are led by the Spirit, Romans 8, and He will teach them to do all things with the Lord.

1. In the old edition: cut.
2. These brackets are set by us.

384 10 Bucer's reason and cause of the innovations 2c. W. xx, 497-499. 385

Works, which they teach by words. First, they will teach that one should trust in the one Christ; they will immediately repay this with works and place their trust in no other thing. Secondly, they will teach that one should not do anything to serve God that he has not taught himself, which they will do; they will not practice any ceremonies to prove something pleasing to God. But because they also teach that the Christian is the Lord of the Sabbath and of all outward things, they will also prove this with their works and never allow themselves to be bound, but will show that all things are pure to the pure. And more, if they also teach that one should do all things for the love and service of one's neighbor, that one may please him for good, this must then also be repaid with the works, that one may do what is external and in himself neither unbelief nor displeasure of his neighbor, for a time to please and build up his neighbor, having no complaint.

If God would have all those who reproach us by default, as by such works and ceremonies, and who want to attack all things immediately with deeds, to first of all bravely take hold of their old Adam's hood, to show the crucifying of their flesh and the exercise of brotherly love with deeds and a little more diligent good works, then, if God wills, there should be more peace and unity and the word should be blasphemed less. 1) O Lord! How hardly do we come to the point where we do not please ourselves, but, like Christ, desire only to please others for the good. So answer them that think we have tarried too long in abjuring the abrogation and other papal ceremonies. I have shown the reason for our faith in this, hoping that the godly will be satisfied with us. I have also made it more extensive because there are not a few who do not want to understand that love is the fulfillment of the law, Romans 13, and that all things are pure to the pure, who insist firmly on the words of the law where it concerns other people and outward ceremonies, to which a Jew and Turk can just as well be hostile; but where it concerns their old Adam, there they are somewhat milder interpreters of the law. May the Lord teach them and us to keep the right measure in all things.

(49) Now I will explain the reason and cause of our faith, that we have put away the suspension of the bread and cup of Christ. First, because we, having known Christ, have hitherto had such a

1. An excellent rebuke of Carlstadt!

If we have tolerated the abolition of the law for the sake of the weak alone, so that they would not be deterred by the word about innovations that they could not yet approve of, it must follow that now, after the word has been preached to them sufficiently, we must also prove by deed that one should serve God in spirit, with true faith alone, and with no outward ceremonies, but practice what is ours, for the service and piety of the neighbor, also testify outwardly by deed what we believe in our hearts. More, to beware not only of evil, but also of all evil appearances. If lifting up has been considered necessary as a ceremony for the service of God and as a sign that one is offering up Christ, the most pernicious error, it must be an abominable thing to all the godly, even though it is in itself an outward thing and in itself neither evil nor good, which they would much rather avoid than tolerate. Just as they tolerate it for a time, until the people are told of the word and also gain an abhorrence of such things, so, as soon as the same are told of the word, so that they somewhat confirm the faith of the words with the example and increase the abhorrence of all ungodly things in them, they immediately discontinue what such a thing is.

(50) And how can a Christian not be disgusted and abhorred by that which has certainly arisen from the devil and has caused so much harm to poor souls, whatever it may be in himself? An ox that kills a man God commanded to be stoned and not to eat its carcass, in the other book of Moses Cap. 21, although an ox, as without reason, is considered blameless in such. So, even though the sacrifice itself is an external thing and not evil, nor is great murder of the soul caused by the fact that it was thought that the priest was sacrificing Christ, and therefore there was no better work that could take away sin and make us blessed, just as if Christ had not done enough with his one sacrifice on the cross: it is ever right and just that such an abolition, which has been so shameful, though it did no more harm, should be discarded and rejected, where it may be tolerated without deterrence from the word. We are to avoid the blasphemers, if they have been warned once and again, and have nothing in common with them, for why would we use the same ceremonies with them, which, as we have found out, have been annoying in so many ways? So even though Paul confesses that the sacrifice to idols, like the idol, was nothing, and that he, as a Christian, had power over all things, yet, lest we should give the devils

386I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 499-502. 387

1. If the Gentiles would like to be respected, or even become, he kindly draws them away from the sacrifice to idols. "I do not want you to be in the company of devils," he says. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the devil at the same time. You cannot partake of the Lord's table and the devils' table at the same time. Or shall we defy the Lord? Are we stronger than he? I have it all power, but it is not all useful. I have it all power, but it does not improve everything. Let no man seek that which is his, but let every man seek that which is another's," 1 Cor. 10:20-24. Behold, he saith, I have all power, even as he permitted them afterward to go unto the sacrifice made to idols: but if it were hurtful, he would much rather that they should abstain from it: how then should not we also abstain from the sacrifice made to idols, and make ourselves strange?

51. who hath not said, when they have taken up the bread and the cup of the LORD, they lift up our LORD GOD, I have seen our LORD GOD; to the immeasurable offence of the Jews and the Turks? The Scripture is clear, and John testifies: "No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared it to us. One must hear about God, one may and should believe in God, but seeing is reserved for this world. That is why God said to Moses: "No man shall live who sees Me", in the 2nd Book of Moses in the 33rd Cap. V. 20. Why else does Paul call him the invisible God? Had it been said, "The bread, the cup of the LORD," as the Spirit of God calls it in Paul, saying, "As often as ye eat of this bread, and drink of this cup," 2c., 1 Cor. 11. nor does he call it otherwise in this or Cap. 10. where he also reports it, as in the histories of the apostles and John 13.And if one had received and eaten such, as the Lord is called, in remembrance of Him, and had refrained from lifting up and worshipping, much error and superstition would have been avoided, so that many a poor soul is now perishingly imprisoned. How could Christians tolerate such abolition, when it could otherwise be stopped without great harm?
52. of Thoma Apostolo, when he put his hand in the Lord's side and said "my Lord and God", the ancients write: the men-

1. In the old edition: "meaner". "Meaner" - what community have.

He saw them and he believed in God; and here the disciples and teachers of the pope themselves write that one sees only the form and the color, and they have tolerated that men have said against all Scripture, against all old teachers, yes, against their own teachers: One lifts up our Lord God, I want to see our Lord God, and the like. Hence also such luxuriant theidings and words have been practiced by themselves, the masses, together with other loose people of their kind, that there have been priests who have taken the bread and said, "Come on, boy, you must become the Lord," and such blasphemies not a little. But the error has been profitable to them, they have then pretended to be God-makers, and have placed themselves far above the holy Virgin Mary, that she gave birth to God only once, but they make him daily, yes, blaspheme and revile him, more than anyone on earth.

53. Further, when this bread and the cup were taken up, the people worshipped it as their God and Christ, present in the flesh, with some strange prayers, which must have been much stronger than at other times, since the true healing presence of God and Christ, through true faith, is invisible. Otherwise God is around and around and fills heaven and earth. Thus the Pharisees, who crucified Jesus, also saw and touched him in the flesh, but it did little for them. Therefore Paul writes: "Even if we have known Christ after the flesh, we know Him no more", 2 Cor. 5, 16. For truly, as Christ Himself says Joh. 6, 63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no use. The words that I speak are spirit and life: So in the Lord's supper we should have taken the words into account and believed that the body and blood of Christ was offered for our sins on the cross once, which is eternal and completes all who are sanctified, and for the confession of this faith we should have eaten the bread and drunk the cup in remembrance and thanksgiving of this redemption, as Christ said, and should have refrained from lifting it up and showing it, which he did not say.

54 If the people, the masses, had been as concerned about the poor souls and the integrity of faith as they were about their bellies, as they read in their fathers about St. Thomas, that he had seen another and believed and worshipped another, seen man and worshipped God, they could well have said here: Another one sees, another one believes, another one

38810 . Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx, 502-505. 389

Other things are worshipped; the bread and the cup are seen, so it is called by the Holy Spirit, who knows best how to call it. That the body and blood of Christ were sacrificed once on the cross for our salvation is believed, but God alone is to be worshipped. For this reason Christ also pointed all the way to the Father, even though he is one with the Father, so that no one would remain attached to humanity. Therefore he also called himself a way and said: "No one comes to the Father, but through me"; therefore Paul also calls him a mediator between God and man, but according to mankind, because he says: "There is One God, and One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus", 1 Tim. 2, 5. So, if they had been true servants of Christ, they would also have pointed from the carnal outward things to the spirit and to God.

55. The Lord has called this bread to be eaten and the cup to be drunk, and immediately led from the bodily to the spiritual and commanded to remember it, so they, the popes, by their lifting up of the concern of the death of Christ, therefore this supper alone is appointed and should be kept, 1) they have also been drawn from enjoyment to bodily seeing and worshiping, thereby spoiling 2) the people, if they had once seen and worshipped the bread and cup of the Lord during the day, they would have happiness and salvation during the day, as they also lived; But I am silent about many superstitions, which have been torn down with some little prayers, which, spoken at the time of the lifting up, are said to have miraculous power, as is reported; also those who thought, if they offered a penny between the lifting up of the bread and the cup, that this would be good in one place for the fever, in another for the toothache, and much more unbelief and idolatry has grown up here; as then found by all men: Where the root is useless 3) and idolatrous, what good would come from it?

Therefore, to conclude this article, since in the Christian community all things are to be done for the better, and we know that the abrogation of it cannot itself be better, since it does not teach the Scriptures of God, but has hitherto, when used by the papists, also brought untold harm and ruin to souls, and from us, from the time that the Lord enlightened and sent us to preach His holy gospel, only the original gospel is to be preached.

1. In the old edition: je.
2. spoiled - brought to the delusion. Should not perhaps "spoiled" be read? Cf. § 119 of this writing.
3. So put by us instead of: shall.

The reason for this is that the weak crowd, before they are informed by the word, may not be deterred from the word by rejecting it as an innovation that they could not yet recognize as useful and divine; But now every one that may have a good hope otherwise has so much report by the daily preaching of good, that in Christian fellowship one may and ought to put away all man's deeds, especially when such are found to have been used by the antichrists to so great and marked an annoyance, as has been done with this abrogation: We, with God and by faith, did not know how to tolerate this abolition any longer, so that we would not be considered as if we wanted to have fellowship with the Antichrist, and at the same time drink the cup of the Lord, and at the same time be partakers of the Lord's table and of the Antichrist, which cannot be possible, 1 Cor. 10, 21.

(57) It behooves us also, who are ministers of the Spirit, always to teach that the Spirit quickeneth, and the flesh is of no profit, to lead men from all things corporeal unto the right faith and love of the Spirit. Therefore, if the Lord has not instituted in his supper anything corporeal, but only eating and drinking, and that for the sake of the spiritual, namely his remembrance, and we have yet seen that many have not wanted to pay attention to either the bodily sensation or the spiritual remembrance, but, as before, have allowed themselves to be satisfied by sight and bodily worship, which two things have also hitherto been much more esteemed than the word of God: It is to the advantage of such weak and indolent Christians, who always need examples of works and deeds in addition to words, that we want to remove from their eyes the physical things that have not arisen from God and have therefore been used in such a harmful way, in order to lead them to the spiritual. As we have seen with idols and images, many people's minds have fallen away from them after they have been removed.

(58) Therefore let the reason and cause of our faith be given, for which we have laid down and set aside the setting aside of the bread and the cup in the supper of the Lord. Whoever lets God be the Lord and His word the best, will heartily please Him; but whoever wants to please Him more than the words and statutes of God through a human finding and superstitious abuse, we must let him go as a blind man. One must obey God more than man; indeed, for the sake of God, one must hand over, deny and hate father, mother, wife, child and everything.

390I Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, sos-sor. 391

Cause, why the papal clothes are abgethan.

In the past, during a mortal sin, the saint had to wear a strange garment. First of all, a linen cloth on the head, which must have a placket like a delicious robe, and two long ribbons to gird it around him, a humeral they called it. Then a wide linen dress, which must be much too long for the person to be measured, so that he then would like to skirt it up, also with a linen belt, and has the same dress at the end, below, behind and in front, but of delicious garment, silk or other good cloth must have two square shields, also similarly on the sleeves on the hands of the same cloth a covering, and this dress was called the alb. Over all of this, a long, narrow strap of delicious garment must be placed around the neck by the masseur, and the ends must be crossed at the front over the chest, and attached on each side under the belt, so that the alb 1) is girded, so that it stands at the chest like a Burgundian cross, and this is called the stole. A similar strap, but shorter, the ends of which should be stitched together, he had to hang on the left arm, and was called the maniple, or the hand fan. 2) On top of all this, he must hang an outer garment of exquisite cloth on his neck, without sleeves, with a main hole at the top, and open at the sides, wide at the back and front, cut partly pointed at the bottom, partly round, and must be somewhat shorter than the alb, and have a cross in the middle at the bottom, and a placket at the front, both usually of exquisite embroidered work and pictures.

(60) This is the glorious armor of the rulers, which I have thus described, that I have no doubt it shall be brought to pass in a short time by the word of God, that an understanding Christian shall not soon be persuaded that there ever was such foolishness among Christians, if he shall hear it. However, I did not want to report the bishops' armor, which is more foolish, also the Levites, as they call them, and other such things, so that the reader would not be stopped from doing better by such foolishness.

(61) Now this armor we have used for the supper of Christ also hitherto, for the cause reported, that we kept the people good-willed until they took the word, and then such with

1. In the old edition: "to gird".
2. d. i. Hand flag or Handfähnlein.

other papal ceremonies with benefit and improvement. For before the word of God is heard and believed, such things cannot be of any use. All things are unclean to unbelievers, as all things are clean to believers. So we hope, since we never considered such clothing necessary from the time the Lord made his word known to us, nor did we think we were showing God any favor by it, but only for the sake of the inexperienced, so that we would not frighten them away from the word with an unmeaning innovation, and thus in such outward appearances and for ourselves we served the means, we shall be excused from it by the godly.

(62) But if, for the sake of the inexperienced alone, until they had learned and known the divine will through the word, we tolerated such clothing, and now, after so much preaching, all the sheep of Christ have heard and recognized the voice of their shepherd, we had to set an example for them to follow and obey it alone. For this reason we have laid aside all the above-mentioned clothing and do not need any special clothing for the Lord's Supper, but only a choir robe, as well as for the preaching of the Word, with which, since no special care has ever been taken, nor have we been consecrated, we want to serve the foreigners and also those who ever think that there is something proper with us, in the hope that no one will be harmed by such bright and diligent preaching of the divine Word.

But that mummery, which they considered highly necessary for the mass, we do not have to tolerate any longer after such diligent and now long practiced proclamation of the holy gospel, as we have not known anyone to prove more useful services with it. Since we may not doubt that such clothing has come from pagan, idolatrous use and human imagination, for divine Scripture does not teach it. Since we are not to use anything in worship to serve the idols or to be invented by ourselves, in the 5th book of Moses, chapter 12, it follows that we are not to have anything to do with such clothing. Further, as it has not had a good origin, so it has been used to manifold harm by the sacrificers. By such consecrated clothing, they considered themselves holier and better than others; for if one forgot a little piece at mass, it was considered a sin; 4) therefore, it was something gross.

3. Means - adiaphoron, which in itself is neither good nor evil.
4. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 1490.

392 10. Bucer's Mouth and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx. 507-510. 393

It must have been a great sign of respect for God, who with washed hands, his proper prayers, with the removal of his rifle, combing of the hair, along with other spiritual attentiveness and reverence, adorned himself with such clothes. Therefore also, if a Christian might be baptized and ordained by a common priest, only a bishop might bless the chasubles, so they were held high. And, the most abortive to the faith, such clothes indicated that the maker of the mass offered up Christ, that God acted and walked; whom all Scripture praises unchangeably. That is why it must have been so delicious and such a good work, who made it or gave something to make it; therefore it also made the mass-goer, 1) even if he had already been a public fornicator, miser, blasphemer and a basic soup of all vices, so holy that whoever would not have bowed down before him and fallen on his knees, would not have had to be a Christian.

64 All these are detestable and abominable superstitions; no holiness may ever be in things that wear out under hands through custom, about which no one should make a conscience. Col. 2: The Lord rejects outward cleanliness and adornment; the faith of the heart alone is valid before Him, Matt. 23. But that it has been pretended that the mass servers sacrifice Christ in their mass is a pernicious error, just as it is indicated that a Christian should certainly have an abomination in everything that has served for it or is used for it in some way. For he that loveth Christ aright, and hath pleasure in his law, may not suffer nor tolerate those things which are the enemies of antichrist, used for the destruction of the faith, further than the love and concern of the weak constrain him. Therefore, where things can be stopped without the detrimental displeasure of others, it is the highest desire of every Christian to stop them; just as no one who is faithful and loyal to his Lord can tolerate or suffer what is done and used by his enemy to his Lord's displeasure, no matter what it may be in himself. Therefore every true Christian is like David, who says: "I hate lies and abhor them, but I love your law. But lies and vain imaginations are everything that does not flow from the word of God, for if all men are liars and vain, as the Scriptures show in all places, what else can be devised by them but lies and vanity?

65 Now Weiler but the measuring clothes are not

1. In the old edition: dem Meßlinge.

For after people had been persuaded that a high church service was to maintain such mass ornaments, everyone wanted something of such service, as we are by nature of the law of the Lord on falsehood and error, and thus highly harmful and detrimental to the purity of faith, but also prevented brotherly love and handouts to the poor, and at the same time promoted splendor and hope. For after people have been persuaded that it is a high service of God to maintain and increase such mass ornaments, everyone has also wanted something of such service, as we are by nature inclined to deviate from the law of the Lord on lies, that is, people, from the beginning of the world. Hereby it has happened that many little think that the Lord will say to the goats on the left side in that day: "Depart from me, ye that are bruised, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. I have been hungry and you have not fed me, I have been thirsty and you have not watered me, I have been a guest and you have not sheltered me, I have been naked and you have not clothed me, I have been sick and imprisoned and you have not visited me." And if they say they have not seen the Lord suffer things, he will answer them, "Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have not done it unto one of the least of these, ye have not done it unto me." Yes, this terrible judgment of Christ is little considered: what is to be given to the least is regarded as if it were lost, which alone is given and pleasing to the Lord; and in the meantime golden pieces, velvet, damask, and other silk, with all kinds of precious cloth, are given, that the worshippers may disguise themselves with them, so that boys may be taken for saints, and the superstition, avarice, and wantonness of the Antichrist may be entertained and strengthened.

(66) Yes, it has come to this, when great courtliness, splendor and debauchery are practiced by lords and children of the world, when they make chasubles out of such tools of the devil, that is, when they serve for spiritual wickedness and blasphemy, then it is already thought that all things are paid for and worn out by God. Then a shield is hung on it, so that one can see from whom it was given; these are then decoys, as Adam's children are greedy for glory, so that every fool follows after, also gives something; if he can no longer, then he gives something to a chasuble for the tax, that one only lets him put his shield on it; so that the generations have their anniversaries, one must hold the office in their chasubles. And who could explain all the follies, superstitions and aversions?

394I- Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 5I0-M. 395

that sprang from such mummery and were thus preserved? The planting is not from the Father, how could it have brought forth good fruit?

67. If then all things are to be better among us, that is, to faith in the one Christ, that we should expect all good things from him alone, and to love, that we should love and care for our neighbor as ourselves, and it cannot be denied that the chasuble clothing is harmful to both faith and love and is annoying in many ways, we have stopped it, since now the divine word is only known to those of us who are not otherwise so blinded by God that they do not even want to hear it, so that whoever is now deterred by such a stopping of the word must of course be of the goats and not of the sheep of Christ; therefore on his account nothing of this kind is to be tolerated or abated.
68. no one may here oppose the clothing of the high priest in the law, of which one reads in Exodus 28. "For we are no longer to handle shadows, if we have the right body of Christ," Col. 2. so we are no longer to adhere to the bodily statutes, Gal. 4. col. 2. who are to serve God in spirit and truth, Jn. 4. Christ is our high priest, signified by Aaron, and as he did not enter into the holy things made with hands, which are an antitype of the true things, but into heaven itself, to appear before the face of GOD, Heb. 9:24.So his priestly garments, and all of us who are one with him through a right faith, and therefore also priests, will also not be made with hands, but spiritual garments, as truth, judgment, and righteousness, and all things that are in Christ; for all who have been baptized have put on Christ, Gal. 3:27.

But there is also a great difference; the Jews had priestly garments as well as priests, or more sacrificers, and that by the command of God, and in addition only Aaron with his sons and then their descendants among all the people: so with us so many unrighteous people have pretended to be sacerdotes, that is, sacrificers, and have devised strange garments for themselves, of which God knows nothing. About this the Scriptures teach us everywhere that with us shall be spiritual and eternal what the Jews have had bodily and temporal. Therefore, as they had Aaron, a bodily temporal sacrificer, who sacrificed with bodily adornment and also bodily, entered into the bodily holy 2c., so now we have a spiritual eternal high sacrificer, adorned with the garments of salvation, righteousness, and glory, who is

sacrificed himself once, and this is for ever, to complete all that are sanctified; with whom therefore, if we be in the faith, we are also sacrificers, because we are one with him, and through one another. "In Christ JEsu there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but all at once One," Gal. 3:28. But that, as He once offered Himself, we also offer our bodies for sacrifice with the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. For this one must not have any bodily adornment.

70, Of such sacrificers, that is, of all true Christians who are a beloved sponsor of Christ, David sings Ps. 45:14. thus: "The king's daughter is all glorious within, her garment is wrought gold; they shall be brought to the king in embroidered garments," for if the inward man is rightly adorned by true faith and love, the gold of divine wisdom shines forth from without, together with all manner of graces and virtues; and this is the wedding garment which all who come to Christ's wedding must have, or be cast into utter darkness. We should all aspire to this adornment in the same way, as we are all one in Christ and God's sacerdotes, that is, sacrificers, and leave the outward appearance to the children of the world. What was used in the Old Testament was only an image and shadow of the true things, of which read Heb. 7 and 8.

Finally, what one does in the Christian community should be done in such a way that one is taught to despise physical splendor and adornment. Now, everything must be adorned with gold, silver, precious stones and silk, so that such vanity was the more respected. The pagans have recognized that such adornment is more of a disgrace to God than we indicate, as if God, like us, had an addiction to gold and the like folly, which is a spiritual eternal good, and also endows His own with heavenly eternal treasures and adorns them with spiritual ornaments.

In sum, to conclude this article, the Lord's Supper is nothing less than a sacrifice, as sufficiently indicated above, and a ceremony of the New Testament, where all things are to be directed to the Spirit. Therefore the ornamentation and adornment of Aaroni does not rhyme with it at all. They have all been only images and shadows of spiritual things, which we are now to deal with. Christ held his supper in common garments, and so did his dear apostles; why then should we need much adornment and ornamental clothing! So, let us hope, it will please all the elect of God that we have put an end to the papal mummery, which has brought no benefit and much harm.

396 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx, si3-üis. 397

Why the prayer and offerings, so the mass makers need to find turned off and changed, even the table they call altar, crazy.

73. The missals have many prayers and words, especially that they are called the minor and major canon, which often speak of sacrifice, as if Christ were being offered up by the maker of the mass, which is such a terrible, pernicious error; In addition, such seductive and poisonous words have been kept far above the holy Gospels and what was read from divine Scripture in the Mass, that it was a great sin if one had omitted something or had not told the words properly one after the other; for the sake of the Gospel and what should have been read from Scripture, there was no need, as it was not read, but was superimposed. Therefore, since such prayers and words are in themselves false and seductive, and have only led to superstition and contempt of divine words and truths, as is evident and no one can deny it, and since we are not to speak anything in the Christian community that is not better, we have not used the same canon before, and what prayers are not according to divine Scripture. How ungodly, seductive, that is, words that are not in accordance with the holy scripture, the canon of mass along with other mass prayers contain, may well be recognized by anyone who knows Christ, if he only reads them himself. However, the highly graced Ulrich Zwingli, the Zurich apostle, has also done this superfluously in a booklet, which has recently gone out in print from this canon. 1) Therefore, I will not say more about it.

Many strange gestures, including bending down, making the cross, kissing, beating the breast, raising and lowering hands, turning away from and toward the people, and the like, have had to be used at mass until now, so that it has not been considered a small sin if someone had omitted or not formally practiced such gestures, which they themselves call umbrella gestures. Therefore, the young altar boys had to learn them with not little work; the one who knew them well 2) was considered a devout spiritual priest before others, to whom the old mothers gladly sacrificed and assigned to say mass. In whom, however, both the faith and the

1. Luther, too, had a writing Against the Canon go out: "Vom Greuel der Stillmesse, so man den Canon nennt." (On the Abomination of the Still Mass, So Called the Canon). Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XIX,
2. In the old edition: gekennt.

of love, that is, of the whole Christian life: of faith, that one has meant, against all Scripture, to prove service to God with such jugglery, for where it should not have been service to Him to hold such, it should not have been sin to omit such, or not to hold it so properly.

This is contrary to what Christ says in John 4: "The Father is a spirit, and wants those who serve him in spirit and truth. For if Christ says that one should worship and serve God in spirit, these say that one must serve and worship him with bodily gestures, and if he wants those who worship in truth, they teach them to mock God with mockery and assumed manner. For who does not consider it a mockery if someone assumes great love toward him with sweet words, laughter, embracing and the like, and yet knows that such a one is hostile to him in his heart? Who does not ridicule it as a mockery when women take upon themselves great lamentations, weeping, wailing, wringing their hands together over their heads, acting as if they wanted to faint with sorrow, and yet they are not sorry for their hearts? So, what is it but a loud mockery and jiggery-pokery that the mass-makers make over the altar: there they fall on their knees, look up to heaven, clasp their hands together, beat their breasts, let out a roar as if they were all full of remorse and pain over their sin; and in the same lamenting, weeping and bending, they may look after frivolous women, give them signs, since the others have all their mind and thoughts on the sacrifice; and what need is there of words? By all their life and conduct, words and deeds, which they do before and after mass, men can see how serious they are. A miserable lump of money alone can bring such devotion and repentance to them. Now what man would tolerate one who made such a jiggery-pokery before him, from whom his heart would be so far; how should not such ghosts rather be a disgrace and high annoyance to God, who is the eternal truth, who cries out against glittering everywhere!

This is true, where the heart is full of devotion, love of God or repentance, it will also show itself with outward gestures, 3) but as that of each devotion, love or repentance itself will give. As little as I may prescribe to another how he should laugh and leap for joy, who has no joy in his heart, so I may not teach anyone how he should rejoice for joy.

3. So put by us instead of: eignen. Probably "eugen" will be found in the original.

3984- Luthers Schriften wider Carlstadt. W. xx, si5-öi8. 399

The most part of them have no godly love or repentance. Therefore, the statutes and teachings of such practices, which all should practice in the same way, but not in the same way; indeed, the majority have neither godly love nor repentance, may do nothing but nothing but mockery, jiggery-pokery, and mockery of God; therefore, where Christians want to be, they should completely abstain, and leave the spirit of each one free to confess and stand, after his heart is kindled in devotion and repentance, and it may be better for God's community. Otherwise, what else should God say to such mocking showmanship of the wicked, but that he said to the same mockery of the Jews: "If you lift up your hands, I will turn away my eyes, and if you increase your prayers, I will not hear"? Is. 1. So he also says through Joel that they should rend their hearts, not their garments, which was also a vow of the penitent, but practiced with false hearts by many. God is truth, therefore He wills that nothing but truth be done, and that we be in earnest in all things. So David says: "I will go into your house, to your great goodness, and worship in your holy temple, in your fear", Ps. 5, 8. Where God's fear is, who kills liars and hates all glorifiers, no one will dare to make such a mockery of God, but will speak with David, and that in truth: "I will thank you with all my heart in the council of the upright and in the congregation", Ps. 111, 1.

So it is found that the celebration of Mass, the bending down and squatting, looking over and under one another, striking hands from one another and together, and other gestures, is detrimental to the faith in three ways: [First, that so many poor mass-makers are persuaded that they are doing a special favor with such a gesture, when it requires only the spirit. Secondly, their consciences are bound with such meager elements, that is, outward statutes, that they confess them and fear sin. Thirdly, if they do such things without all heart and with vain pretense, and thus hardly revile and mock God, they do not fear sin, but think they are doing God a service.

It is also more detrimental to love that the simple are deceived by such apologetics, and are led to believe that, to the detriment of the poor, some loose bellies not only live in a cowardly life, to the annoyance of a whole community of God, but also reign and splendor. So such gestures are harmful and of no use,

Indeed, they are not possible to keep without a mockery of God by males, as males may not have the same devotion, love and repentance, they cannot and may not be kept by Christians as before. Since we have been redeemed from such outward statutes by the blood of Christ, that no one should be conscience-stricken about them, even those whom God Himself commanded, how can we tolerate such poisonous, false, unchaste little fetters, not only without the Word, but also completely contrary to the Word of God? And therefore we have to stop them, and also set an example to serve God in the only thing He has commanded, and that in spirit and in truth.

79 And if anyone thinks that the making of the cross is such an old custom that Tertullianus wrote 1300 years ago, that Christians used to mark their foreheads with the cross, which they did or began to do, read about it in the book of the same teacher, de corona militis; and therefore one should not stop doing this. Answer: The death of Christ, suffered on the cross, is our redemption, therefore such a remembrance and sign to remind us of it, so that we may stand firm in faith toward God. Therefore, such remembrance and signs, which remind us of it, so that we may stand firm in faith toward God and become all the more hearty in carrying our cross, are by no means to be rejected. But what signs are, let them be signs, and do not attribute to the signs that which alone belongs to that which is signified. So if anyone, as in the times of Tertulliani, made a cross on his forehead or otherwise to all things he began or attacked, remembering the death of Christ, that he did or left all things in free faith to God, thinking all the way how dearly he was bought of sins; that he might be able to put sin to death in all things, even so to put himself under the cross, that he said with Paul: Far be it from me to boast, but only of the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world is crucified to me, and I to the world, Galatians 6:14. 6:14: for indeed he would not be punished at all, as the ancients, no doubt, in order to remember the cross of Christ and to make it pleasant for themselves, marked themselves with the cross, so that they would not be ashamed of it, but would freely take up their cross and bravely follow the Lord, for which they were required daily.

80 Now the sign has been given special power: [It is supposed to drive away devils, to bless all things, to give a happy beginning to all things, all of which the death of Christ alone accomplishes for believers. Therefore

400 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx, 518-520. 401

It has come about that one worships the wood, which is spent for the cross of Christ, puts it in silver and gold, lets the people kiss it, to earn great indulgences. After that, many other crosses have appeared, that one bled, that one came from heaven, that one from purgatory, in which all kinds of superstition and trouble are caused and maintained; I am silent about so many superstitious blessings and sorceries that are performed with the holy sign. All this is due to the fact that too much importance has been attached to the sign, and because of this, the sign we have used, that is, the death of Christ, has been left out of our hearts, so that we would have increased in faith and would have desired to become like him.

But since we did not know what Christ's cross or ours was or was capable of, God, for our great ingratitude, decreed that we should fall on the sign, and let go of the right one, which signifies the sign to us, and accepted the shadow for the body, and used both Christ's cross and ours to expel it. For if we are redeemed, sanctified, consecrated and blessed by the cross of Christ, that is, by his death alone, the sign of the cross, made with hands, has had to do all this; especially where it has been made by priests or great legates; so that the knowledge and power of the cross of Christ has been completely destroyed. Likewise, if God has laid a cross upon us, sickness or otherwise, or if one has otherwise stood in blessing, but one has made the sign of the cross to drive away such a cross of the Lord, one should have admonished oneself at such a sign to courageously bear the cross that the Lord has laid upon us or wanted to lay upon us. Now to such abuse and superstition 1) of this sign, of which there are so many that it is not possible for anyone to tell half of them, it has helped considerably that one has made a ceremony out of it, and thus actually prescribed where and how many signs of the cross are to be made; hence it immediately arose that one was afraid of sin where one did not make the signs of the cross most diligently. This then gave rise to the further error, as if the sign had a strange power, namely because it should have been used so seriously for the mass and all blessings, and thus one superstition grew out of the other, until no one knew any more what the cross of Christ or ours, or for what such a sign was first used and should still be used, who wanted to use it differently.

1. In the old edition, probably a printing error: Aberben.

Because such ceremonies are performed without words, and have given rise to so much superstition, we have also dropped them, but if someone wanted to use such a sign, as an external thing, it must be left free; but that one needs such freedom only for the betterment of God's community, we have taught how he should use it Christianly; of which a little is now also reported above. We hope, therefore, that since Christian freedom as well as other good things must be exemplified - for many often think that they have no attachment to such things, and yet cannot leave them without scrupling their consciences when it comes to the meeting - all the godly will have us to their credit that we have also made a change in the way we say masses and make crosses, which the mass-makers themselves, as they are nothing but mockers, call pranks. For if we were all so full of faith that we had no need of such an example, if we knew how to use all things freely; nor, if such showiness is ever a mocking devilish thing, coming from no good origin, having strengthened so much unspeakable error: how could it not be an abominable thing to Christians who seek in all things the sincerity of faith and what may promote it?

83 In addition, in some of our churches, when the occasion required it, we had tables set up so that when the Lord's supper was being served, the minister would turn his face toward the people. This was done for this reason, that in a Christian congregation all things should be done in an orderly and proper manner, and that what is prayed for and given thanks for in the congregation is best done in such a way that everyone may say Amen to it, 1 Cor. 14.For this reason we have ordained that all things be sung and read in the church in the German language, of which the following is said; Therefore, since the occasion required it, that all words of prayer and thanksgiving might be heard only by men, we have used Christian liberty in such things, and the more gladly, that the superstition of consecrated altars, which the bishops alone have had to consecrate at great cost, might be the more powerfully dispelled, when we have but one altar, and but one sacrifice, and one offerer, all of which is Christ, and Paul reports one table of the Lord, and no altar, 1 Cor. 10. 10 Because the altars have also served to the detriment of both faith and love, because the more useless costs have been applied to them, which should have been given to the poor, then they have been consecrated with

402I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 520-523. 403

Of course, every Christian will gladly help and advise to do so. It has also been said among the papists that it is necessary to pray toward the sun's exit: if, however, one prays in spirit and truth, since no place or time is considered, then one should respect it and know that it is the same wherever one's face is turned, if only one's heart is turned toward God; therefore, we believe, it could not be useless to prove such freedom by deed.

Why the night meal is held only on Sunday and together with some of the congregation.

84. Lastly, it was customary to measure many times a day, 1) especially when money was involved, if no one wanted to share with the measurer of the Lord's table; But since we know that the Lord's supper is like a covenant of Christian fellowship, through which, like Christ, we have all things in common, in and for His sake, we have it only on Sundays, on which the whole congregation of God is accustomed to come together, and also so that some of the congregation receive it with the minister. Christ ever kept such things in his church, and commanded them all the bread and the cup, to which he also said, "Drink ye all of it." So Paul also taught his Corinthians to keep the Lord's supper when the church came together. In 1 Cor. 11 and Cap. 10 he says: "The cup of dedication which we celebrate, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ? For we many are One Bread and One Body, inasmuch as we are all partakers of One Bread."

In which words it is clearly seen that the Lord's supper is not to be kept for one, but is to be kept by all the disciples of Christ in the church. In which they consider that they are all equal sinners and condemned for their own sins, but are redeemed by the giving of Christ's body and the shedding of his blood on the cross; that they therefore confess nothing of their own, but all have Christ in common; by which they also have true fellowship of the body and blood of Christ, are one body and one bread; from which it is ever evident that, as all Christians believe in common, they are redeemed by the giving of the body and the shedding of the blood of Christ.

1. i.e. to hold mass.

and therefore spiritual and secular eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ, of which John 6 says that they should also be partakers of the table of Christ, which is a memorial and thanksgiving of such redemption, so that faith in God is strengthened and love toward all people, and especially toward the household of faith, is kindled and refreshed.

Since by the word of God we do away with all feasts except Sunday, 2) the reason for which I will give hereafter, and thus the whole congregation comes together only on Sunday, we then also keep the Lord's supper alone, so that some of the congregation together with the priest may receive the bread and the cup of the Lord. For it is not a good work nor a sacrifice for the congregation that one should perform, as the papists have lied, but, as Paul calls it, a fellowship. Which name has remained with the Greek and Latin, the last collections also commonly all sounded on it, nor has the deception of the Antichrist been able to do so much that it has nowhere been considered less. Yes, if one has already had brothers and sisters who wanted to be partakers of Christ's table, they have made their mass completely over, as if the laity should have no part in it, and have then given them only the bread of the Lord, and not the cup; so that they, as much as in them, have also deprived them of the communion of the blood. For, as Paul says, "the cup which we bless is a communion of the blood of Christ."

Now there are some men who are well versed in the Scriptures and truly godly, who would much rather that the Lord's supper were kept all the more seldom, and that then the whole congregation of Christ would keep it with one another. These have good reason for their opinion from the places indicated in Scripture. For the Lord himself kept it this way; he made them all drink from the cup, and so, no doubt, he also made them all eat the bread. And if in such a supper the death of the Lord is to be considered and thanks are to be given to him, why would not all Christians keep it in common, since they commonly confess to be redeemed by it?

(88) For the reason that people are afraid to be partakers of the Lord's Table, it is because they are afraid, out of old insanity, that they think they are not skillful and worthy enough, but they are not skillful and worthy enough.

2. In the old edition with wrong punctuation: "Sintemal wir denn durch das Wort GOttes, alle Feiertage ausgenommen, den Sonntag abtreiben" 2c.

3)' "nowhere for less" put by us instead of: "nienen for less".

404 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx, 523-525. 405

The only purpose of this supper is that a person believes that he has been redeemed by the death of Christ and desires to be strengthened by God in such faith and love toward his neighbor. Every Christian has this mind and opinion, which is why he is sent to the Lord's supper as often as it is held. If one does not have this mind and opinion, he is not a true Christian, and if he nevertheless joins the congregation of Christ and wants to be considered a Christian, he nevertheless despises the body of the Lord, of which he wrongly presents himself as a member, or at the least, as he has far more Christian spirit than he has, so that he nevertheless becomes guilty of the body and blood of Christ, since he is with other Christians in such remembrance, and wants to be considered as such, who also believes that the body and blood of Christ was given for him. Furthermore, they think that it would be good for the whole community to have the Lord's supper in common, so that the Christian ban might be lifted up again, so that those who prove themselves unchristian in their deeds would be kept from the supper, and thus from all Christian fellowship, until the Lord would give them repentance and grace to live unrighteously.

So we confess that it would be much more in keeping with the Christian institution and the use of the first church, and would also be useful in other ways, how all of us who want to be considered Christians should be One Bread and One Body, so that we would not be afraid to share One Bread with one another; and as we all consider ourselves to be those for whom the Lord has given His Body and Blood, so that we also commonly make an effort to do this through the fellowship of the Last Supper. But still, 1) since keeping the supper is an external thing that is not necessary in itself, we have not known how to urge people to do it in a more serious way, lest the former superstitions be strengthened or new ones be planted, as if such a supper made one pious or blessed. Again, if there have ever been some who have desired to keep such a supper with us, we have never been able to turn them away from it (whether the fault is ours or their weakness in faith, God knows); but we have taught them the proper use of it most diligently.

90 Since the time of the apostles, when the congregation of Christ was gathered together, the night meal was also held, we also have it every Sunday, but with some instead of the

1. "nevertheless" put by us instead of: "dennest", which may be a provincial secondary form for the "dennocht" also found in Luther.

We have undertaken to keep the church for this time, until the Lord brings us further by his word and reforms us completely. For if it is an outward thing, without which one may be saved, we have not known how to refuse those who desire it, nor to drive others away, but as the ancients tolerated and taught for and for those who had not yet come into the fellowship of baptism. 2) So we praise God that He has given our multitude a heart to hear His word, which is the best and most necessary, and which will undoubtedly tell them all things right and well.

91 But that in the beginning of the church the supper was kept by the whole congregation, had three occasions for it more than we have had. The first, no one was baptized and received into their church, except those who had completely surrendered to the word of Christ, as many in our church hear us preach, but have not yet completely and truly surrendered to the word, but are only just born to Christ. Secondly, they had the ban, so that they excluded from them those who lived or taught in an obnoxious way, so that we would still have to let them go in confusion. Thirdly, the Christians at that time were not deceived by any error against the supper of Christ, so that now many of them have been poured out by the papal servants, so that the most salutary thing would be to start preaching the gospel and to turn people away from it for a while, if it would be justified, until they learned the right use of it through the Word.

(92) So I have now also shown the reason why we never keep the Lord's supper alone, and therefore on Sundays. Whoever desires further of us, namely that we should not keep it but with the whole congregation, and at the same time practice the Christian ban against those who live angrily, let him pray to God that he help us in this and in that and make us perfect, and let us take credit for the fact that we nevertheless, until the whole congregation, of which the brethren want to be respected, come to such a common attitude of the Christian supper, serve those who desire it now and keep it with them instead of the whole congregation. It is not strange that not everyone receives a clear report of the external things and can be brought to the correct use of them, since the apostolic church sometimes stumbles very badly in such matters.

2. The meaning of this sentence is: We have acted with the Lord's Supper as the ancients did with baptism. They also tolerated those who had not yet come to the fellowship of baptism, and so they taught for and for.

406I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 525-528. 407

93. But the reason for our doing this is that we do not want to violate Christian freedom in the Lord's Supper, as in all outward things, nor give anyone cause for false gleaming, for doing what is not for his heart, and so we wait and do not force anyone until God will give all a heart and soul to be constant and loud in the apostles' teaching, and in fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer; in the meantime we practice this with those who desire it; For to force them to wait for others would ever be contrary to Christian freedom. But to keep it for ourselves would be contrary to its institution, manner, use, and name. As such abuse has arisen from the Antichrist out of devilish error, as if the same supper were a good work and sacrifice in itself.

Which evening meal is now held.

So far I have indicated and explained the causes of what we have changed and stopped at the Lord's Supper, such as: the name of the Mass, the suspension, the vestments, the strange offerings, and the making of many crosses, the use of the consecrated altars and those turned by the people, and that we do not keep it alone, but always with some, and that in the gathered congregation of God, and therefore on Sundays alone. Now I will also briefly indicate what we still use, and also explain our reason for it; for not a few people lie about it.

When the congregation comes together on Sundays, the minister exhorts them to confess their sins and ask for mercy, and confesses to God instead of the whole congregation, asks for mercy, and proclaims the remission of sins to the faithful; upon this, the whole congregation sings a few short psalms or a hymn. After that the servant does a short prayer, and reads to the congregation something from the apostles' writings, and explains the same in the shortest possible way. Then the congregation sings the Ten Commandments again, or something else; then the priest preaches the Gospel and does the right sermon; after that the congregation sings the articles of our faith; after that the priest does a prayer for the authorities and all people, and especially for the present congregation, in which he asks for increase of faith and grace to keep the memory of Christ's death with fruit. He then exhorts those who want to keep Christ's supper with him to keep it in remembrance of Christ, to die to their sins, to bear their cross willingly, to help their neighbor, and to be faithful to Christ.

To love in truth, to be strengthened in faith, which must happen when we consider with a believing heart what unmeasured grace and good deed Christ has shown us by offering up his body and blood on the cross for us to the Father. After the exhortation, he proclaims the Gospel of the Last Supper of Christ, as described by the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Lucas, together with Paul, 1 Cor. 11. Then the priest distributes the bread and the cup of the Lord. The priest then divides the bread and the cup of the Lord among them and partakes of it himself. The congregation then sings another hymn of praise, after which the minister blesses the supper with a short prayer, blesses the people, and lets them go in the peace of the Lord. This is the manner and use in which we now keep Christ's supper on Sundays alone.

Our reason and cause from Scripture is this. The beginning of Christian life is to confess that all our doings are sins. That is why John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles began their sermons by saying, "Correct yourselves"; and in the assemblies of God, confession of sins has always been the first thing, which among the ancients also preceded baptism, for it was the intelligent, not children, who were commonly baptized. That is why we begin our service with a common confession of our sins and prayers for mercy. "For this," says David in Psalm 32, "all the saints will pray before you in due time.

97 Paul says more in 1 Corinthians 14: "When ye come together, every one hath a psalm, every one hath a doctrine, every one hath a tongue, every one hath a revelation, every one hath an interpretation of this and of that. In the which this apostle ascribes to the Corinthians in the reported chapter, we are told that when the congregation of God comes together, there is teaching, praise, and prayer. And therefore we ordain that in our assemblies doctrine, that is, law and gospel, both be taught and urged with exhortations; and at the same time psalms and hymns, to the praise of God and strengthening of faith, be sung; and thirdly, prayer for the authorities and all men, according to the teaching of the same apostle, 1 Tim. 2:1 f.

Lastly, we keep the breaking of bread and the fellowship of Christ's table according to the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, which we conclude with thanksgiving, since the Lord Himself has decreed His supper in this way, Matt. 26. In all this we would gladly follow those of whom it is written in Acts 2: "But they continued in the apostles' teaching, and in the breaking of bread, and in fellowship, and in prayer. 2: "But they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer."

408 10 Bucer's reason and cause of the innovations 2c.- W. xx, 528-830. 409

99 Here I think it is good, since through D. Carlstadt and others the question: whether in the supper of Christ there is only bread and wine, or also the body and the blood of Christ bodily? has come back on the track, the reader will also wait for something definite from us here. Although our brother and co-worker, Wolfgang Capito, has given it in a booklet with the title: "What one should think and answer about the division between Martin Luther and Andreas Carlstadt", 1) I want to talk a little bit about it, because some are too afraid about such a question, others want to fall too much on such a question.

Therefore all lovers of Christ know that we would like to make an effort to lead people from the flesh, from bodily elements, to the spirit and spiritual exercises, so that faith is strengthened and becomes active through love and good works. For as God is a spirit, so he wants those who worship him, that is, to serve him in spirit and truth. Thus Paul says 2 Cor. 3, 6: "GOD has made us competent to be ministers of the new testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit." So we admonish people who have died to all bodily ordinances through the death of Christ, and have received from the Lord only two bodily ceremonies and signs, baptism and the supper of Christ, that they should pay more attention to why he has instituted them for us than to what they are in themselves.

101. Did not the Lord say in the Lord's Supper (we will speak of baptism later), when he took the bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to the disciples: "Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me"? The same also when he gave them the cup: "This cup is a new testament in my blood; do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of me"? Shall we then eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of Him; why then should we quarrel much over the bread and wine, and not rather, to signify the death of our Savior, enjoy it with simple faith? Paul writes: "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord," and we want to start a quarrelsome dispute about the bread and the cup?
102. As if a father had left a golden head 2) to his sons at the end, and commanded that they should drink from it as often as they drank, that they should remember him, and what good he had taught them,
103. The preceding paper, No. 9 in this volume.
104. head - drinking vessel, cup; English and Low German: eup.

that they lived one at a time and honorably, and they began to quarrel about the head, of what kind of matter it was, or how delicious, until they fell into each other's hair: would not these be ungrateful and wicked children, who would be better off if they had never received the head? Or, that I may give another similitude, it is just a thing to raise a quarrel of the bread and wine of the Lord, which is to be used for the strengthening of faith and the greatest unity, as if a great lord had given his servants some special garments and ornaments, and commanded them to wear the same in honor and remembrance of him, by which they might obtain high reward from him, and keep them good friends one with another: And they left these things, and began a quarrel about the gift, that they might provoke the Lord to anger, and separate themselves: 3) Were not such men foolish?

(103) Now it is the same with those who seriously quarrel about the bread and cup of the Lord. The bread and the cup, whatever they may be, may be of no use to them, except that they may consider the death of Christ with faith, and thereby faith and love be strengthened, and they may spiritually enjoy the flesh and blood of Christ, and thus have eternal life; and they leave all this, and let it be to them a matter of disunity, which is to be an alliance of the greatest unity; thus they become truly guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and make it fatal to them, which is to promote eternal life.

104 Christ says John 6, when he said many things about his flesh being food and his blood being drink: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no use. Why then do we quarrel about the presence of the flesh? The words of the Lord, when he says, "Take, eat, this is my body; take, drink, this is my blood," or, as described by Luke and Paul, "This cup is the new testament in my blood," let them be true, as they must be true, and only consider that he says to both, "Do this," that is, eat and drink, "in remembrance of me." If one will do this, and if there is . If this is done, and if there is faith, no other physical thing is done, except to eat the bread and drink the cup, and immediately come to the spiritual, to signify the death of Christ. Which memory will be so great in every believing heart, without any doubt, that there will not be a moment's delay.

3. Walch explains this word by "schadeten". Whether this explanation is (formally) possible, we do not know. If not, it will have to be understood by Anrichten of a divorce.

410 I. Luther's Writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 530-533. 411

The whole heart and all the powers will be inclined to proclaim, praise and extol such death as His redemption, and also to become like Him with mortification of sin and manly bearing of the cross, and also heartfelt love toward all men.

(105) This is what the Lord willed, and not that we should remain in the flesh. For that the Lord said, "Do this in remembrance of me," Paul explains by writing, "As often as ye eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall proclaim the death of the Lord, until he come"; that it has not the opinion, as some say, "Do this in remembrance of me," that is, turn 1) thus bread into my body, or the like. He had commanded to eat the bread and drink the cup, and the same was that they should do in remembrance of him; as the words of the Lord themselves clearly enough testify to every one that will not be contentious.

If D. Carlstadt had wanted to take such words of Christ into account, he would not have started such a quarrel, and in several parts a dispute over words, about these external things, but would have been more diligent in pointing from the physical to the spiritual. For this purpose, as he is well read in the Scriptures, he would have had enough reason left over, and would not have been allowed to force and torture the words of the Lord with unfounded causes; 2) as if the Lord, when he said, "Take and eat, this is my body," had indeed commanded the disciples to eat the bread, but had pointed to his natural body with the little word "this," because the bread was not crucified for us.

107. in the words which the Lord spoke concerning the cup, when Lucas and Paul described them, it may not be denied that "this," in Greek xxxxx, signifies the cup, and not the bodily blood of the Lord. For he says, the drinking vessel, or cup, in Greek ôïýôï τό πο- τήριον,, is a new testament in my blood, and yet neither is the same cup or cup shed for us. It is well known that the one true body of Christ is given and crucified for us, and the one true bodily blood is shed once for us, and not bread nor wine. But therefore it is not permitted to do violence to the words of Christ, but to teach,

1. In the old edition: transform.
2. Note with how apt a judgment Bucer dismisses Carlstadt's method of explanation, and yet accepts Carlstadt's result. How he justifies it, we see in § 109 ff.

That the bread may be eaten and the wine drunk, that the offering of the body and blood, once made, may be righteously remembered, so that the flesh may be eaten and the blood drunk spiritually and truly.

(108) The words themselves give this, when he is called to remember him and his death. And is also to be taken from the words he spoke to the cup, which Matthew and Marcus describe thus: "This is my blood of the new testament"; Lucas and Paul: "This cup is the new testament in my blood. Now these two speeches must have one meaning each. Since there is no doubt that when he says, "This is the new testament in my blood," he is speaking of his natural blood, once shed for us on the cross, through which the gracious new eternal covenant was established between God and us, of which all Scripture, and especially Jeremiah Cap. 31, that He is our Father and we are His children, of which Paul writes much in Romans 8, Hebrews 8, 9, and 10, along with many other places: so the same blood must also be meant in the words that Matthew and Marcus have, namely, badly: "This is My blood"; likewise, when He says, "This is My body."

And as when he says, "This cup is a new testament," it must be understood that it is a sign or figure of the new testament, which is spiritual; why then, when he says of the bread, "This is my body," and in Matthew and Mark of the cup, "This is my blood," should not the same bread and the same cup also be made a figure, a memorial, and a sign of the true one body and blood of Christ, which are no longer to be with us in bodily form? "I tell you the truth," says Christ, "it is better for you that I go away"; and Paul also no longer wants to know Jesus after the flesh, 2 Cor. 3. We have the same speech in the first book of Moses, Cap. 17, where God calls the circumcision "His covenant" between Him and Abraham, and such a "covenant sign".

(110) And if any man would say, I would well understand, because the Lord himself saith, Do this in remembrance of me; and Paul, As often as ye eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall proclaim the death of the Lord; that this bread and this cup are the figure and sign of Christ's sacrifice once for us. Bread and this cup are a figure and sign of Christ's sacrifice, once offered up for us; but the dispute is not about this, but whether this bread and cup are a figure and memorial of Christ's death, whether it be his bodily body and blood, or only bad bread and wine.

412 10. Bucer's Reason and Cause for the Innovations 2c. W. xx. 533-535. 413

Answer: You hear that Christ says: "The flesh is of no use"; why do you ask about the flesh? If you could recognize this as a figure and sign, with righteous faith, considering how he once gave and sacrificed his body and blood on the cross for your redemption, you would truly enjoy the true body and blood of Christ and have eternal life. But if you do not receive and need the bread and the cup for this purpose, you will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, whose glorious memory you thus dishonor. That which is bodily may not help thee; but if thou couldst lay hold on that which is spiritual, it would bring thee eternal life.

Therefore let questions remain; the words are true: "This is my body, this is my blood. So also the Spirit of God speaks rightly in Paul, saying, "This bread, this cup." Let both of these be true and right; but see what you eat, that you eat it in remembrance of the Lord, so that through faith you may spiritually eat the flesh and blood of Christ, that is, believe completely that through such a sacrifice you have been redeemed from all evil and have become a child of God. God will reveal to us what further knowledge may be of use to us.

Summa Summarum is: Keep the words of the Lord and do them no violence; only remember that the flesh is of no use, and that everything corporeal here refers to the spiritual. The Lord calls you to eat and drink, that is, bodily, but only because you remember him who gave his body and blood for you, believe him, give thanks and obey him. Whereof Ps. 22:27: "Let the poor eat, that they may be filled; and let them praise the Lord that ask after him: let your heart live for ever." This is where everything must come from; this is what all the divine Scriptures refer to; Martin Luther also directed everything he ever wrote about the spirit and faith; therefore Carlstadt would have spared his pointed, envious and light words against him.

But God grant that there are not also in this part those who please themselves too well and think that it is shameful for them to deviate somewhat from an opinion once preached, thereby subjecting themselves to act violently, and entangling the poor consciences more than they entangle them from error. Praise be to God! The reputation of the person has fallen greatly: one no longer wants to believe immediately that my doctor, preacher or pastor has said it. If you do not have clear writing, go ahead, it will no longer be believed.

persuasion. And if God wanted that, as D. Martin Luther admonished us in Strasbourg, 1) everyone would be careful to fast the main things, then we would easily become and remain one in such external things.

(115) For some to come from the law and the prophets to explain something in the New Testament in the words and works of Christ, that is, to learn by the shadow how the body sees, and to recognize from the hidden face of Moses the brightly revealed face of Christ, and to make the present truth known by the figures, is ever perverse. Moses and the prophets testify of Christ; but Christ who discovers the face of Moses and the prophets and transfigures them. Therefore, if some will let the words of Christ in the evangelists pass away, and will overbear the ceremonies of the law, that is, will set fire to the sun, they do no more than to drive men away from them, and to strengthen them in their opinion.

(116) So, if you will come here: In the law they did eat of the sacrifice that offered, and were of the altar; so must we also eat of our sacrifice, which is the body and blood of Christ; and therefore the bread of the Lord must be bodily his body, and the cup bodily his blood; would not Carlstadt then say, We shall eat of our sacrifice; yea, "whoso eateth not the flesh, and drinketh the blood of the man child, may not have life in him," John 6. 6 Now these words of the Lord are spirit and life; this must be done spiritually, by faith; the flesh is of no use; and it will not follow for a long time that I must partake of these things bodily in bread and wine; for the law is spiritual, and is fulfilled in spiritual things, not in bodily things. Read the epistle to the Hebrews; one figure does not fulfill the other, but the spiritual truth is the fulfillment of the figures. That we still have these two ceremonies, baptism and the evening meal, is something legal; just as we are still partly under the law, insofar as we are clothed with the sinful body. What actually belongs to the New Testament, attested in the Law of Moses and the Prophets, is a spiritual thing; as there is the baptism of Christ by the Spirit and fire, and the spiritual partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ.

(117) Therefore I exhort in Christ all who think it necessary for them to write or preach in this matter, that they may remember,

1. In his letter "To the Christians of Strasbourg" of December 15, 1524. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 2444.

414 I. Luther's Writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 535-538. 415

that they should be servants of the spirit, and that they should not want to please them themselves, but should present the reason for their faith with gentleness and fear in the most sober and certain way, and that through the bright words of Christ. Otherwise, they will only confuse the consciences of the simple, who now also read the Scriptures.

Our faith is to let the words remain in their natural order, but at the same time to turn our and our hearers' minds from the corporal, which the Spirit of God in Paul calls the bread and the cup of the Lord, which is to be freely followed, to the spiritual and eternal, namely, the one sacrifice of Christ, so that those who are sanctified may be perfected forever; and to exhort manfully, since the Lord himself says that the flesh is of no use, so that they may not cling to the flesh and externals, much less quarrel with anyone because of them. Do not cling to the flesh and outward appearance, much less quarrel with anyone because of it. And we also know how to stand before the gates of hell, which neither Carlstadt with his multitude nor some of his abominable ones are able to do. But undaunted, "there must be divisions, so that those who have stood the test may be revealed," the gospel must be contested and tested, as it always is, on both sides, by enemies and supposed friends. Each one prays to God with David: "Turn away mine eyes, that they see not the vain; make me alive in thy way."

From baptism.

(119) The anti-Christ also obscured baptism with his feet, although not as much as the evening meal. The most serious thing is that people are under the illusion 1) that mere baptism makes the child blessed, and that if it dies without baptism, it will never see God's face. In addition, he brought chrism, oil, salt, bread, candles and consecrated water into such esteem that the baptism would not have been perfectly respected if the pieces had remained a little. All this was enough to disgrace and diminish the death of Christ, by which we are sanctified at once, as all Scripture teaches.

(120) Therefore, as Christ's witnesses, we must preach "that through His name all who believe in Him should receive forgiveness of sins," and have taught of baptism, according to the Scriptures, that there are two kinds of baptism, a baptism of water and a baptism of the Spirit. With this baptism Christ alone baptizes, with the baptism of water John baptized.

1. "verwähnt" i.e. brought to delusion. In the old edition: verwehnt.

the apostles and all others who baptize. The baptism of Christ, who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire, cancels sin and makes children of God; water baptism is an outward sign of the same. So John says: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who comes after me is stronger than I 2c., he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire", Matth. 3, 11. and the Lord Himself, Apost. 1, 5. "John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

(121) Let no one be disconcerted that I regard the baptism of John the apostle and ours as the same, for we baptize with water, as did John and the apostles. The other baptism, of the Spirit, Christ reserved for him. And as John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people that "they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus, that he is the Christ," Acts 19:4. 19, 4. So it is also with the apostolic and our baptism. For Peter, Apost. 2:38, says to the Jews, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," that is, confess that ye are in need of repentance, and be baptized in the name of Christ, that is, with one faith to obtain remission of sins through the name of Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Behold, this then is the baptism of Christ, wherewith he baptizeth.

And if any man would say: Did Paul baptize again those who were baptized with John's baptism in Ephesus in the name of the Lord Jesus, Apost. 19. how could John's baptism and the apostles be one? Answer: These were not baptized with John's baptism, but were baptized into John's baptism, or into John's baptism. For in the Greek it says: åéò τδ Ιωάννου βάπτισμα; otherwise they would have had more knowledge of Christ and his baptism, which is by the Spirit. But now Lucas writes there that they said, "We know not whether there be also a Holy Ghost." But John had told everyone how "after him would come one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire."

In the 18th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles it is reported about Apollo, who alone knew about the baptism of John. Lucas writes that Aquila and Priscilla interpreted the way of God to him even more diligently, but it is not reported that they baptized him again, as we also do not read about the apostles; yes, Christ, who wanted to fulfill all righteousness and receive the baptism of the New Testament, had enough of baptism.

416 . 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx, S38-S4v. 417

John's death. With this he testified to his suffering, by which the sins of the world, which he took upon himself, even though he was without sin for himself, had to be washed away. So that he did not only confirm the outward baptism, but rather indicated what it was for and what would follow if we accepted him with faith and the fulfillment of all righteousness. For the Holy Spirit certainly comes upon us; the Father recognizes us as his beloved children. But in a moment we will have to go through trials, trials and sufferings, until the sinful body is completely accepted. It is not read of the apostles that they were baptized with another outward baptism. Thus it is known that the twelve men at Ephesus, because they knew nothing of the Holy Spirit, that is, of the true baptism of Christ, were not baptized with the baptism of John, but only, as the text says, with the baptism of John, as if the baptism of water itself were to help them. Therefore the apostle had to point them to Christ, and that is why he had them baptized into him.

Therefore we know only two kinds of baptism. One is with water, with which John, the beginner of the New Testament, baptized the apostles and all Christians. The other is that with which Christ baptizes by the Holy Spirit and fire, which is the very Holy Spirit that burns out sin and cleanses and purifies the inner man like gold. And the outward water baptism is nothing but a sign of the inward and spiritual. Therefore it is given in the name of Christ, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that it may point to the faith and hope of inward baptism, which Christ, even the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, perform as long as this life endureth; for so long are we in sins.

For this reason Paul also says in Romans 6, "that all who have been baptized into Christ JEsum have been baptized into his death, even buried with him through baptism. For he that is baptized aright confesseth that he is a child of wrath, wholly unclean, -but believeth that Christ shall make him clean from all sin. This is done through the death of Christ, whom we must become like by the daily death of our old Adam, that is, of our whole nature. The baptized person has surrendered to this; therefore the death of sins will also have to be completed in him; and because of the certainty of faith he is already counted as dead and buried with Christ, so that he now only waits for the new and eternal life. Because of this certainty and assurance the apostle also says

Gal. 3: "As many of you as were baptized have put on Christ." Now we are still clinging to much filthy rags and tatters of the old Adam, as long as we live here, and are still far from Christ being our garment: yet, if we believe this, it will come to us, if we are baptized into his name, it will certainly come to pass. Therefore it is by faith that we now have it, as the Scripture says.

It is clear from all this that outward water baptism is nothing but a sign of inward spiritual baptism, that is, of the cleansing from all sins that we must believe, which the Spirit of God works in us as long as this life lasts, and is the right repentance and correction, which faith those of understanding perform through baptism. 1) And therefore the forgiveness of sins cannot be added to external baptism as anything more than a sign. For the forgiveness of sins is the baptism of Christ, which he works in the elect by his Holy Spirit.

Therefore, when Peter said, "the water in baptism makes us blessed," he immediately explains himself and says, "not the putting away of filthiness from the flesh, but the covenant of a good conscience with God through the resurrection," 1 Petr. 3, 21. 3, 21. So also Paul Eph. 5, 26, when he says, "Christ has cleansed His church through the water bath", he adds: "in the word"; thereby faith, the effect of the Spirit, is indicated, that is, the inward baptism. Likewise he writes Tit. 3, 5: "He made us blessed by the bath of regeneration and renewing of the spirit", since he indicates water baptism by "the bath". But the fact that he adds "the regeneration and renewing of the spirit" indicates the baptism of the spirit, without which water is water and baptism is a miracle. The flesh, and that which is bodily, is of no use in itself.

Therefore, what is read of grace or forgiveness of sins to be given to baptism, is to be given to the baptism of Christ. Thus, when Ananias said to Paul, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, and call upon the name of the Lord," he did not direct him to water baptism alone, but rather, through it, to the baptism of the Spirit, which washes away sins and gives joy in calling upon the name of the Lord. Therefore, a disgrace to Christ and a corrupting obscuration of His true

1. We suspect that there is an error in the text, but we are not able to resolve the difficulty. It seems to us, according to what Bucer teaches about baptism, that it should be read: which inward baptism those of understanding perform by faith.

4181- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 540-543. 419

spiritual baptism, say or think that outward water baptism makes one blessed, or, if this does not happen, that therefore a child cannot be blessed. The Lord says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned," but he does not say, "He who is not baptized will be condemned. God does not bind His grace to water.

He intended water baptism to be a sign, confession, practice, and admonition of his internal baptism. Therefore no one should despise it. But one should not rely on it, but only on the baptism of Christ, through which we are watered and baptized with the waters of salvation, that is, His Spirit, John 7. Therefore it is superstitious folly to want to baptize children before they come out of their mother's womb, or otherwise to hurry clumsily with baptism, as if 1) our salvation were in mere water, as is often done by women in dangerous births. It is even more nonsensical that they have been taught to despair of the salvation of unbaptized children.

130. So our chief reformation in baptism is to teach by the Word that we hold outward baptism to be a sign of Christ's true baptism, that is, of inward cleansing, regeneration, and renewal; by which they are to be esteemed and held by themselves and others as devoted to Christ, and to obtain such inward new birth; and that the washing away of sin and renewing of the mind are all imputed to Christ alone, who by his Spirit cleanseth, believeth, and sanctifieth the elect. Which is called his baptism because he earned and acquired such a Holy Spirit for us through his suffering.

131/ The other reformation or innovation in baptism is that we do not respect nor need to teach chrism, oil, salt, bread and candles. The cause is that they are little feet of men, made without word, which have served to much superstition. Hence came that such chrism and oil may be blessed only by a bishop, and only on the Green Thursday. For this reason, many children were not allowed to bathe, because the priest would have first de-esterified them for a penny or kreuzer, that is, washed off the chrism and oil. Such trickery is unacceptable to prudent, understanding Christians who only respect and follow their Lord's word.

1. "stände" put by us instead of: "sonder", and immediately afterwards "im" instead of "am". Bucer had a terribly bad handwriting, as we can see from the facsimile from the last sheet of the second part of Neudecker's "Merkwürdige Actenstücke".

They do not have a word about it, and it is not better to do so, as has appeared to be the case so far.

Therefore, after a brief explanation of what baptism is and means, we also pray in common that Christ will baptize the child by His Spirit and cleanse it from all sins, baptizing the children without such ostentation, and commanding them to the fathers and other brethren to love them as their members in Christ and, as soon as possible, to lead them to Christ through sound doctrine. We have reason for this in the Scriptures, and nothing more. Since the Scriptures teach all that is good, we know not to burden ourselves or our brethren with further ceremonies, which would not bring any improvement to our fellows, but might well be an offence.

Now those who think it quite necessary should also make the third reformation and change here, namely, not to baptize infants; think that we have neither word nor example in Scripture to do so. For Christ commanded his disciples first to teach the nations, and then to baptize them; so also the apostles baptized only those who had 2) repented of the faith.

(134) We do not agree with these, nor does it follow that they claim that the apostles were sent by Christ to bring people to faith, which had to begin with teaching and preaching. For who else would have baptized himself or his children? No doubt every apostle would have said, as Paul did, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Therefore, they must have dealt primarily with those of understanding; therefore, what they did with those of understanding is described primarily, as the fruit of their preaching may be seen in them.

135 Nevertheless, as often as we read that the apostles baptized whole houses, as Paul baptized the household of Stephana in Corinth, the household of the purple maid and the jailer in Philippi, Acts 16, and the household of Cornelius in Peter, not all of them will have had the right knowledge of the faith. 16; Peter, the household of Cornelius: of course, not all of them would have had the right knowledge of the faith, namely the jailer's household in Philippi, who had only heard preaching for half a night. Thus it is proved above that John's baptism and the apostle's baptism is one. Now John baptized many who had not yet had much knowledge of Christ, but the apostles, who had other baptisms, had baptized many who had not yet had any knowledge of Christ.

2. "to rejuvenate" - to say yes to something, to confess.

420 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx, 543-545. 421

John 4, even had a childish faith. Yes, he and the apostles baptized many who never had no faith, as Simon the Sorcerer, Apost. 8, with many others.

We are to pray for all men, 1 Timothy 2: and since God does not look at the person, and we do not immediately know who are chosen or rejected by God, we are to provide better for everyone; and if baptism is an outward thing, not to deny it to anyone whose ungodly life is not well known to us, so that we can no longer consider him a sheep. So, since we do not know of children whom he has rejected, but know that the children of the faithful are holy, 1 Cor. 7, that is, now numbered among the household of God; more, that our Lord Jesus says that such is the kingdom of heaven, he also wanted them to come to him, he welcomed them, laid his hands on them and blessed them, Marc. 10: Why then would we not give them baptism, as among the ancients they were circumcised? for baptism is to us the same as circumcision was to the Jews.

137 And if thou wilt say, But the Lord did not baptize the little children. Answer: You will not show me an old man whom he baptized, for he did not baptize for himself, Jn. 4. And if you would seek a remedy in the fact that the Lord says "such a one" and not "this one" is the kingdom of heaven, as if he meant that the kingdom of heaven is for those who humble themselves as children, it will nevertheless be enough for me that he has blessed them and blessed them, and Marc. 9. said that whoever receives a child in his name receives him, and whoever reproaches one, it would be better for him to die in the sea; and their angels see the face of the Father. All this shows that the children are so precious to God that they are baptized; the water is already lost in some, it was also lost in Simon the Sorcerer, and in many others.

In sum, you can go wherever you want, so you must leave baptism, as an external thing, free to me, which God has not bound to any time. For as the Scripture does not refer to any time, so it also does not refer to any time. So then it cannot be denied that it is a comfort to parents that the church of Christ accepts their children and intercedes for them, and that baptism given to children is also a cause for parents and others to teach the children, as soon as they are able, Christ, as they are devoted to Him in baptism: so it follows that baptizing children is also better, I am silent that one should forbid such a thing.

(139) And though you give many examples that those who believed were baptized, I say that those who did not believe were also baptized, as proved above. There was no need to write much about infants, since they wanted to report what fruit the apostle's preaching had brought, which could not have happened to unbelieving infants. Yes, even if you wait a long time to baptize, you will still baptize many unbelievers, and by such waiting you will make the young people of Christian life negligent. They will say, "I am not yet a Christian; now when I become a Christian, I will become devout.

So let us trust God more for our children, to command them. The Scriptures so often report that he cares for his own from the womb, even before they are born: why then should we esteem them unholy? What do we care for so much water? Shall we ask God for all men: why then shall we not also command him our little children, to whom Christ himself has been so kind? If we already baptize some goats, which Christ does not want to baptize by His Spirit, so much water and prayer is needed. The apostles also failed, because they did not baptize all believers.

It seems to me, however, that the devil would like to divide us over outward things, which he does not know how to divide in the main. Therefore, brethren who have the commandment of the word, think that the devil does not celebrate. Consider always that the sum of the law is love of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith, and do not let such outward things be so hard for you. Paul says that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel; That ye also wait, and seek more that the baptism of Christ by the Holy Ghost may be well known, than that ye should much quarrel about water baptism, trusting that if we baptize them out of the opinion of how the holy fathers circumcised their children, confident that they shall be holy and children of God, thereby giving us cause to teach them Christ the more diligently, and also, as soon as they come to their understanding, to follow such doctrine the more earnestly: do not want to condemn us so much. Do not condemn us in this way, for you will not prove us wrong by any scripture, just as we do not act contrary to faith or love with such baptism. For we testify with all diligence that water baptism does not make

1. In the old edition: but.

422I- Luthers Schriften wider Carlstadt. W. xx, s4s-s4s. 423

blessed, but only the spiritual baptism of Christ, which this signifies, and for which one should pray.

And if God would have you admonish us and yourselves in other matters, which are far more important than this baptism, with such seriousness not to do anything of which we do not have a word from God or a written example, then more patience, discipline and love should certainly appear among us. Read the Histories and the Old Scriptures, and you will find how, from the beginning of the Christian community, the enemy of unity has caused all divisions and separations, most of them from unnecessary wars of words, or external things without which one might be saved. He watches and walks around like a roaring lion. Let us also be valiant and take good care that he never falls in. Let us diligently study the teaching of Christ and the apostles. How little you find there of the supper, how little of outward baptism, but how much of the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, and of spiritual baptism, that is, of faith, mortification of sin, and a new spiritual life! So, if we are to die to worldly outward things, let us also set all things on the spiritual, that is, right faith and true love; and always have in our hearts: "The Spirit gives life, the flesh is of no use"; and never let this be out of our minds: "Knowledge is a stimulant, and love is a corrective; but if anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know how to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him." 1 Cor. 8, 1-3.

143. But if anyone would ever persevere with baptism, and would keep those with whom he dwells without destroying love and unity, let us not therefore be divided with him, nor condemn him. Let each one be sure of his own mind. "The kingdom of God is not like food and drink, nor water baptism, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever serves Christ in this," says Paul Rom. 14:17-19, "is pleasing to God and worthy of men." 1) Therefore I conclude with the apostle in this place: "Let us pursue that which is for peace, and that which is for the betterment of one another." So much for baptism.

Why we abort the holidays.

144. besides the Sunday, one has noticeably many days, to the glory of God, His angels and dead saints, at the ban and Christian

1. In the old edition: bewerth.

Obedience, commanded to celebrate, that is, to go idle on it, and where someone would have worked bodily, out of necessity, something on such days, such has been severely punished, so eating, whoring, gambling, and everything what the devil teaches, has not interrupted the celebration. Thus the simple-minded people were persuaded that the celebration of bodily labor on the aforementioned days was a great service, but on such days no one but the devil was served, partly by many superstitious works, such as masses, unintelligent chants, strange prayers, indulgences, and the like; partly by all kinds of riotous and carnal works, with which the rude people never angered God more severely than on the feast days.

145 Paul writes Gal. 4, 9-11: "Therefore, if you have known God, or rather are known by God, how do you turn back to the weak, meager statutes that you want to serve anew? You keep days and months, and feasts and anniversaries: I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have labored with you in vain." Behold, the apostle regards keeping days as much as turning away from God and apostasy from the faith, because he fears that he has worked on them in vain, that is, that his preaching to them has been in vain. How many thousands then are those who keep the feast days as a necessary and meritorious service, which is a certain apostasy from the faith! For Christ has freed us from all such outward ordinances: all time, place, food, and whatsoever is of the thing, made all things free, for love and the betterment of our neighbor, to serve in and with such; as Paul proves very closely in all his epistles.

(146) Therefore, just as Paul seriously rejects such superstition of days, by which one day is thought to be kept before another, as we see in the place now mentioned, as also Colossians 2, we are not to do this with less, because in our times people hang on to days much more vexatiously. They thought that because God commanded some days to be celebrated through Moses, it would be fair to keep them, and erred only in that they did not recognize that Christ had redeemed them from such ordinances and that he was working their salvation, not they through such outward ceremonies, for they were not yet fully informed of Christian freedom; But ours have fallen into days which only men have commanded, and have drawn much of theirs from heathen customs, contrary to the bright commandments of God; by which, they think, they are doing God a great service, when they are only doing some church ceremonies, and after that they are not doing God a great service.

42410 . Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx. 548-551. 425

Much more than in other days, they defile themselves in all evil carnal works; and not only do they want to serve God with such, but rather the Mother of Christ and the saints, but there is much innumerable error mixed in. And because of this error they hold harder than to so many divine necessary commandments, regardless of the fact that Christ and the apostles have so diligently warned us against such human doctrines and commandments, and we also see and grasp that the holidays give cause and room for all evil. How then should a Christian, who should always be inclined and ready to promote the destruction of sins and the end of righteousness, even with the loss of his life, not have an abhorrence of holidays and use all possible diligence to drive them away?

147 And if someone wanted to say that the superstitions should be driven away, that the Christians keep one day as another, do not think to earn anything with celebrations for God, nor to honor the saints in a Christian way, that they also stop all idleness and carnal works on such days, and hear the word of God instead, with practicing the works of brotherly love. Answer: If we 1) already want to bring about everything through the one word, without examples, so that the abuses of the holidays would cease (which may not be possible, if one already bears witness to the words with examples and breaks the Sabbath with Christ, since those who let themselves be led by the word are the lesser part), what cause should there be to change the days, to make useless celebrations, without one word of God? If you want to reproach people to whom you can prove a favor by doing so, know that you must please people only for the good, Romans 15, so that it may bring them improvement. He who would otherwise please people would not be a servant of Christ, as Paul writes, even as he speaks of holding such outward ceremonies, which many people have often held to their own detriment.

Therefore, if one first begins to preach the gospel in a place, and until such a time as it is preached, tolerates the holidays, so that they will not be deterred from the word by their untimely departure before they have heard it, this would serve the people well and do them a favor. Of which much has been said above. But where people have heard the gospel long and much, and may well understand that one day is to be kept like another; whoever there would tolerate 2) holidays for the sake of the people, would please them unjustly,

1. In the old edition: me.
2. "there" put by us instead of: there itself.

because he strengthens them in the superstition of the time, or to great respect of the enemies of God, whose one may then enjoy, and thus shuns them more than God the Lord.

For how would one who has no special food, and yet would gladly feed his wife and child, keep so many holidays, if he were sure that such is not pleasing to God, nor to all the godly, and that some wicked people, to whom Christian liberty is irksome, do not shun it for the sake of benefit? Whichever of these two is the cause, it shall be of no account, and such weak ones shall also be strengthened with examples of Christian liberty.

(150) Others are those who want to adorn such evil deceit of the unbelieving heart by saying: All external things are free, why do I not want to celebrate or work for my pleasure? If indeed either superstition or unchristian timidity of wicked people keeps them at the holidays. These should consider that Paul says: "I have it all power, but it is not all useful; I have it all power, but it does not improve everything. Let no one seek what is his, but let each seek what is another's," 1 Cor. 10:23 ff. So for your own sake you are free to celebrate or not; but if you are not to live for yourself, but for your neighbor, and do nothing that is not better for another: how then will you keep the holidays, which have arisen contrary to the word of God, and so may not be better? For what may be good and better, the Scripture has everything clear and abundant.

But what may it say? It is understood that the holidays have been among the most harmful of all the ordinances of man; for they do harm to faith and love not only for themselves, but that many foolish people think that they want to earn much from God and His saints by their idleness, and that they often want to do good to their neighbor on such days, and should do so, as the Lord has taught by words and deeds. For the Sabbath, which God has commanded for the sake of man, is a day on which one should do good to one's neighbor; I am silent about our holidays, which God has not commanded and for which no one has to judge us, Col. 2. Thus, in their opinion, they may not do it in the case of mortal sin, but they have also promoted and strengthened all other error, superstition, blasphemy, along with all kinds of carnal sins and vices. When have false prophets deceived people more than on feast days? When have the mass-goers been more free from their blasphemous masses and made them more delicious than on the holidays?

426I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, 551-533. 427

Holidays? When have indulgences, howling and crying been more valid than on holidays? When was the worship of saints, together with all superstitions, more practiced than on holidays? And, coming to the outward vices, when is there more courtliness, splendor, gluttony, drunkenness, unchastity, murder of souls, than on holidays? It is obvious and cannot be denied that on holidays all good is destroyed and all evil is planted; by which evil poisonous fruits manly good may see that this planting is not from the Father, but from the enemy of all good, the devil.

If God has set us to establish such things, we have used all diligence, and still Christians keep one day as another; but to celebrate God every day is to let him work and make them, and to give them themselves serenely into his will. And although some have long said that the abuses should be abolished by this word, and that the holidays should be left, experience has shown that the Scriptures also demand that one bear witness to the doctrine with examples. Paul ever says, just as he speaks of holidays, "Be like me, for I am like you," that is, I am with you who are without law, as having become without law, yet now you also be like me, free Christians, who set their cause on the one Christ, and on no outward things. Therefore, if we are to preach that one day is like another, why would we ourselves do otherwise? We should teach that birth, circumcision, death, suffering, and resurrection should be considered every day and that we should thank God for them, and we should select special days for this purpose? so that we would give cause for gloating to many who did not want to be the most wicked, and their hearts would be shaped as before; thus God would be more angered and reviled, and respect and difference of days would be caused and maintained.

If we do not have the word of God everywhere, how can we be wise? Wise is he who becomes wise from other people's harm: and we do not want to become wise through our own harm. We cannot deny how bad it was for the ancients, who set aside a few holidays for the sake of those who were too attached to the world, so that they might also hear the word of God. And we experience daily how frightfully the devil destroys all piety and respectability on the holidays: and we still please ourselves well, and may pretend to keep some holidays for the benefit of the servants, or I do not know whom, may bring benefit.

But whether anyone would say, "So do away with Sundays. Answer: It does not follow. In the Ten Commandments, we commanded that the seventh day be observed, so that the servants and servants might also have their rest, as is read in the other book of Moses, Cap. 20 and in the fifth book Cap. 5. Now, love does not like to be deprived of such rest, therefore one should work six days, as the commandment of the Lord says, and rest the seventh. Since a Christian prefers to keep all ordinances that are not against God rather than to make ordinances, and since he is always more willing to serve than to be served, there is no reason why Sunday, which common Christianity has celebrated for the seventh day for so many years, should be discontinued. If one is to celebrate one day out of seven, as love requires, then Sunday is as good as another; and if one rests physically on it, then it is also wise to have Christian fellowship on it, to practice the word of God, prayer and the Lord's supper. For this purpose, no special feast or superstitious service was held on Sunday, as on other holidays. But since the celebration of Sunday has also been abused, it must be stopped by the word of God among the elect, and by the good order of Christian authorities among the rest of the people; this will be easier to do on the one Sunday than on so many holidays.

Thus it is that brotherly love requires the celebration of Sunday, but not of the other holidays at all; but, because they are as harmful to the neighbor as they should be, it cannot tolerate them at all. Therefore we have reason to put an end to these, but to keep the celebration of Sunday, and to put an end with all diligence to the abuses that have arisen there. But that love, which then requires the Sunday celebration, may be the master of directing and keeping it, as it may be useful to the neighbor; That it be always proved that the Sabbath is for man's sake, and not man for the Sabbath's sake, who then with Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, and if he may profit any man, he ought to know how to use Christian liberty, and not, as the Jews and their descendants, the Papists, think, if it should happen to do anything useful to one's neighbor on Sunday, to break the observance thereby. -

(156) Wherefore, if any man said, In the law were more feasts than, First of Easter, the first and last of seven days, in the which unleavened bread must be eaten; the day of firstfruits;

428 10 Bucer's reason and cause of the innovations re. W. xx, .M-sös. 429

the first and tenth days of the seventh month, and seven whole days of the feast of tabernacles, in which they shall rest and give thanks for the good deeds of God: might not the free love of God and of one's neighbor keep, besides Sunday, the celebration of Christmas, the circumcision of the Lord, Epiphany, and Ascension Day?

(157) Answer: Christians should daily remember the divine good deeds that are supposed to be commemorated on such days, and never, without all Scripture, give such commemorations a time of their own; otherwise the simple-minded crowd will immediately be led back to the shadows, images and meager statutes of external things, and will be accustomed to think more of one day than another; which love, which does nothing, cannot tolerate, unless it brings improvement. But nothing can bring improvement that is done without a word from God. Thus the law does not report that the holidays declared by Moses were set aside in addition to the seventh day, for the rest of cattle, servants, and servants, so that love must set the same holidays for us Christians 1).

But if it is preached daily that the masters should do likewise to their servants, and think that they also have a Lord, there will be no lack of it; the servants will have as much to celebrate as those under the law. Many trades have half a holiday every week: if the servants are generally free with us, they may well impose as many holidays as they want on their rulers, so that love really does not require any more holidays; and they may not tolerate such holidays as are called Christmas, New Year's Day and the like. For by such celebrations the error would still be preserved as if one day were more valid than the other; in addition, their festivals are none, they have special superstitions and obscenities attached to them.

When, at Christmas, one rings the bell, there must be water wine, eats and drinks after the three measured meads, and drives the holidays out of all splendor and opulence. On the circumcision one gives, in pagan way, the good year with many superstitions. On Epiphany they make kings and hold Saturnalia. On the Ascension Day they cut up the hammers. And who would tell all the superstitions and pagan abuses, of which every place has its own? Therefore, love requires a reason to put an end to them.

160 Do you then say: Let the abuses be driven away by the word. Answer: They do not all accept the word, but it is to the greater good.

1. In the old edition: see.

It is necessary to stop the abuses of the reported days among them, so that the days are indeed stopped. For this purpose, among those who accept it, there are many weak ones who also need examples, so that they may be torn away from the superstition of such days. If then the godly do not need set days to consider divine good deeds, and we cannot deny that such days are harmful to the great multitude, which must be governed by statute and order, and which knows how to use the freedom from bodily labor only for lavish idleness: Why do we not want to do away with such holidays one by one, which have been set without a word, and have brought much hindrance to the word, and great damage to all respectability, which cannot be resisted even by the word, which the smaller crowd accepts? We preach here every day zwiret twice, often dreistet [three times; would God that the seriousness were so great that we would have cause to preach more, the work should not weigh us down. For this purpose, the rulers are exhorted to keep their servants friendly and to demand divine things, which can be better obtained through the word, because the servants, 2) the young and large crowd, make good use of the holidays.

Since there is no reason at all why one festival should remain and the other go away; nor can it be denied that they have all done harm, and the greatest the most, we will be content to celebrate the one Sunday that brotherly love alone requires. And God grant us grace that we may drive away the abuses by the word, on which the fewest have reigned. And so, that we may put aside all other holidays, we have no doubt that we are doing what our ministry requires, which will be pleasing to God and highly useful and beneficial to God's community. There shall be no lack of preaching, which some accuse of quarreling, and yet do not otherwise esteem. And to whom no contentiousness or superstitious regard for the days vexes, he will also recognize and receive it. Let every man look to himself; our hearts are not just, though they seem to us to be quite just: all their wickedness is known to God.

Cause, therefore the images should be turned off.

We have also preached against idols and images. Among them, an examination has been made by an honorable council, and in the noblest temples all the images that are in use have been removed.

2. In the old edition: Gesinge.

430I . Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, sss-sss. 431

but had been held in honor. The congregation of Christ, which I served, has removed all idols and images from their temple, because they were unanimous about it, and have not been hindered by any congregation or other obnoxious authority, as some other parishes have been. That this is Christian and well done, and that it would be even more Christian if the idols and images were all removed from all temples with justification and silence, has been abundantly shown by the leaders of the congregation of God at Zurich in clear writing, so there is no need to mention much about it here.

The first commandment of God among the ten is clear enough, for he says: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods beside me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness, either of them that are in heaven above, or of them that are in the earth beneath, or of them that are in the waters under the earth: worship them not, neither serve them." From these words, which are the reason for everything else that is read back and forth in the Law and the Prophets about idols and images, everyone who seeks the truth may well understand that God has also forbidden making idols and images; but that is so that no one would give them honor, 1) hold anything against them and serve them, so that the one true God would be despised and handed over.

Otherwise, the idol in itself is nothing but a mere work of human hands, like other things that are made by the skill that God gives. Therefore, where there is right faith, they may also be had; as Solomon had lion idols made on the steps of his king's throne, cattle idols on which the poured sea stood, and other things more, roses and the like.

Therefore, in all places where idols and images are forbidden, it is found that they are forbidden because they are not honored, because one does not want to serve God by them, so that the heart falls from true faith to outward appearance. This is an abomination in the sight of God, which is why idols and graven images are commanded and preached against everywhere in Scripture. Now no one can deny that our churches make idols and images as things pleasing to God; they are worshipped, that is, one bows before them, discovers the head, falls on one's knees before them; which is the name of the Hebrew word that is interpreted here as "to worship. One

1. In the old edition: "verbiete", which may well be set for "erbiete".
2. goes to them, one sacrifices to them, one decorates and adorns them, builds them houses and cages. And what may it say? what has ever happened to idolatrous images, happens also to these. Therefore, they are no longer idols to many, but abominable idols, in which the people corrupt themselves and take an abominable offense at faith and love.

For this reason, all Christians should spare no possible effort to be converted, especially by the word out of the heart, and then also out of the eyes, for the sake of the weak and simple, who, let it be said and preached as strongly as one may, still have a superstitious regard for idols. We have preached here with all diligence for a long time that one should serve God in the spirit and not in idols; not in the dumb images of men, but in the living images of God, our neighbors, turn to expenses and prove good deeds. Even when, by the order of an honorable council, the most annoying idols, to which the foolish people had burned and served the most candles, were discarded, there were not a few of them who thought that they had nevertheless grasped the word, who had a heartfelt complaint about such image-devotion, but who now, through such a deed, along with the word, have fallen away from idols and images altogether. So deeply has this superstition and respect for images taken root, and in many people it also wants to have active examples of the word.

167 Which, unless there is good permission in the church, is due to the authorities as a remedy for external grievances, and not to any particular man, as we do not read of any prophet or apostle how much they preached and wrote against idolatry, that any of them ever actually removed an idol. In the days of Jeshua, Jeremiah and all the prophets, there were many idols in Jerusalem, against which they preached fiercely, but they never removed any with their own hands.

168 For he that is not set over other men ought to teach only by words, and to confirm them by his own example; nothing else may be due, but to them that are set over others. Therefore, as John preached freely to Herod, that he should not have Herodiadem, his brother Philippi's wife, yet he did not go to her with his appetite, and took her from him, and stoned her, as the law commandeth to punish adulterers. Why? He had no command and did not carry the sword. So, do you see one in front of an image

2. "Promises" - makes vows; "goes" - goes on pilgrimage.

432 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause for the Innovations 2c. W. xx. ss8-"n. 433

kneel and offer him honor: according to the law he should die; but as little as you dare to do the same, because you do not bear the sword, are not set in authority, so little is it your duty to overthrow or take away his idol.

And if you would reproach me with Moses, who without special command slew the Egyptian, who did violence to the Hebrew; or Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, who stabbed Zimri, a captain of the Simeonites, when he whored with the harlot; or Eliam also, who strangled the sacrificers of Baal, I say, Behold the Scripture of all three of them, none of them did this without special command. Moses had already been appointed by God as judge and avenger of the Israelites, as Stephen testifies in Acts 7. 7. Likewise, before Phinehas performed his deed, God commanded that everyone should slay his captains for the sake of the harlots, Deut. 25. Likewise, Elijah had the consent of all the people, who also attacked the sacrificer of Baal himself, 1 Kings 18.

(170) But truly, the authorities who want to be Christians, as is their due with the pious Jofia, must first make the law of God known to the people and re-establish the divine covenant with them. They are to be ministers of God and rule in such a way that the people gather to God and he is the right ruler, as David ruled, Ps. 7. So then one cannot deny that idols harm faith and love; faith, that one hopes to obtain grace and help from one image more than from another, and also thinks* it is a pleasing thing to God to make, adorn and honor idols; of love, that so much expense is expended on them, which should be laid to the poor, also that the idols are used as decoys, so that the more is given to the useless shorn multitude; I am silent about many great superstitions, sorceries and false miracles, which go on to and fro, especially where pilgrimages are made, which are not to be counted: Truly it follows that Christian authorities should put a stop to such aversions and hindrances to the kingdom of God, for they are to be feared in evil works.

And even if this is not to everyone's liking, they should think that other things, which they set Christian and honorable, are not pleasing even to the greater multitude, which should not 1). The authorities are the servants of the law, from which the unrighteous are not,

1. i.e., which is no good.

The disobedient, the unholy 2c. are not exempt; but to the righteous there is no law, 1 Tim. 1, 9. Wherever there are Christian communities, they should plead with their authorities for the abolition of idols and other things that are contrary to sound doctrine, because there are many weak people who really need active examples to speak. For although everyone would know that the idol is nothing, and no one would be offended by it, which, alas, is not, and appears daily: nor, if we have only One God, who is invisible, and whom no man has ever seen, also only One Christ, who is indeed a man, but has put his human and bodily presence out of sight, as useless to us: then we should serve God in spirit and in truth, turning all expenses and good deeds to the poor, as the Lord says: "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor"; how should it not be an abomination to us to tolerate so many idols and images, which come from many idolatrous fables, contrary to the word of God, in our churches, where the one word of God is to be taught and kept?

It is true that idols must first be torn from the heart, and that by the word, then they do no harm. But of course, to whom they are out of the heart, he will not like to see them around him, because he knows that divine honor has been proven to them, and is still being proven by many. And if they do so little harm, why then has God, who is ever the wisest, and has commanded or forbidden nothing in vain, forbidden them so horribly everywhere in the Scriptures? Do you say: We are free from the law. Answer: Yes, the small group of the elect; the other, the great group, must be governed today, as well as in the times of Moses, by law and sword; and the commandments concerning faith and love, such as the Ten Commandments, in the first of which idols are forbidden, must be practiced and kept by men everywhere.

And what else would the images bring, than they have ever brought, great trouble and harm, as all things do, contrary to the word of God? Therefore, whoever is a Christian and knows that he should judge all things for the better, and do away with what is annoying, will recognize that it would be highly beneficial and salutary if the idols and images were removed everywhere. May God grant that it be done. With the word of God one should teach the layman, not with dumb blocks, stones and paintings, as with the ancients the idolatrous work did not stand for long. It is a carnal, flying devotion, which does not arise except by looking at the images. If you are a Christian, listen; this

434I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, sei-sss. 435

Word will be left enough to move you to all good.

I have to answer for one more thing: In the parish church, in which I serve in word, to St. Aurelian one calls it, we still had an idol, a coffin and grave, in which St. Aurelia, a virgin of the so-called 1) 11,000 maidens, who is said to have died of fever, when the same bunch passed by Strasbourg, and to have been buried in the reported grave, of whose sanctity one reads two miracles. One: that at one time some soldiers wanted to seek good in her grave, and were therefore made insane by St. Aurelia, that they themselves ate off their fingers and hands, and thus died. The other: Some have dug glues on their day, and because they have not celebrated their day, 2) the vengeful virgin has fallen prey to them. 3) Eleven hundred years she is said to have lain in the grave; but in a hundred years her grave was raised only when it was hoped that she would gain. The journey and the running to the grave are even more recent. A lot of trips were made to the grave, usually for fever. People ate the ground from it; an idol stood on the altar, which was decorated and adorned, and shirts were hung around the grave as decoys.

All of which is contrary to faith and love. And that is why, after a sufficient report of the divine word, the parish church 4) removed the same grave; the legs that were found, very large and unequal, so that they could not have been of one body, that is, of a virgin, were removed from the eyes of the people. God is to be invoked with faith in all places, and not the dead saints; for there is no word of God, so no one is more merciful and more inclined to help us than our God and Father. Now, by polluting this tomb, many a man has sought his help and God at the tomb from afar, and has given his gifts, which he was supposed to give to the poor, to the wooden idol and legs.

First, the shirts and other decoys were taken away, then the idol. The tomb in which the grave stood was no longer opened to keep people away from such annoyance. All this did not help:

1. In the old edition: "called by the 11,000 maids".
2. "have" put by us instead of: have.
3. "verfellet" in the old edition is probably as much as "gefällt" i.e. killed. 2 Kings 19:7.
4. So put by us instead of: the parish common.

They have pushed in their shirts and jiggery-pokery through the grave, which they did not want to grant to the naked Christ in so many poor children and others. Then the congregation of Christ, so that no foreign God would be sought among them, removed the tomb altogether and hid the tomb; just as they, as Christians, could not have suffered such a fabulous work, which had become so annoying.

177 No one may reproach that the legs of the saints were also kept large among the ancients, or that great miracles took place at their tombs. The ancients could also have erred, just as in the times of the apostles many errors occurred, according to the apostolic writings. Thus the ancients held the tombs of the martyrs in high esteem only so that others would be exhorted to the same masculine confession of faith, and not so that one should seek special help there. But soon the devil got involved with the false miraculous signs, of which it is read in Matth. 24, that many foolish people sought their help and comfort at the graves of the dead 6), which must come from the one true God; they then gave much to such places, which one will get on 7); as one knows, whores and boys bring the best booty from it, except what is laid and hanged on stone, iron and wood, or burned in oil and wax.

Of course, he who loves Christ will help and advise that such idolatries, superstitions and pernicious abuses, which have arisen and been practiced against the Word of God, come to an end. The true miraculous signs occur for the confirmation of God's word and the establishment of God's unified glory, as is evident from Marc. 6 and from many other places in Scripture, and not to confirm such idolatrous superstitions of seeking more grace and God's help in one place than another, for the sake of a basket full of 8) legs; legs are legs, and not God.

Why chants and prayers in church changed.

179. there has been much orderly chanting and prayer in the masses and sevens for the sake of money, and still is, the Chri-

5. This word is not found in Luther. Perhaps: framing, latticework.
6. So put by us instead of: "by the dead graves".
7. In the old edition of Walch: "that one becomes on", "become on" - get rid of. The meaning will probably be: one gets rid of this giving to whores and boys by putting away the false sanctities.
8. In the old edition: full legs.

436 10 Bucer's Reason and Cause of the Innovations 2c. W. xx, sW-sös. 437

The people do not yet know the stumbling block, which in many places is drawn from the Scriptures and from fables: Collects and prayers of St. Barbarians, St. Catherine, St. Christopher, St. Margaret, St. Gorges and many others; in addition, they sing and read such in Latin, which the common man does not understand at all, and they themselves often understand little. They are also bound to time, place, and number, as opposed to the kind of prayer and divine praise that is supposed to be voluntary.

Now, since we know that only the Spirit of God can know divine things, 1 Corinthians 2, and that the Scriptures of God contain all good things, 2 Timothy 3:16 ff, we do not use any song or prayer in the church of God that is not drawn from divine Scripture. And because what is done in the church of God should be generally better for everyone, we do not pray or sing anything except in the common German language, so that the layman may commonly say Amen, as the Spirit of God teaches, 1 Cor. 14, 16.

181. The Latin language, which everywhere contains nothing good or useful that is not written more artfully and better in Hebrew and Greek, be it divine or natural; and which like the ancient Romans, so much more the new papists, has served highly to blind other nations and to bring them into servitude, and to keep them in it, we do not know how to do the honor that with such the church of God is stopped, and only from it to interpret what is better for the layman to know.

Furthermore, because it is a reproach to God not to pray and sing with the heart, we in the church do not allow this to be bound to any time, "nor written with any statutes, but voluntarily on Sunday, when one keeps the supper of Christ, something is prayed and sung with brevity, all drawn from Scripture, which is indicated with its cause above. Likewise, at the time of vespers, since the bodily celebration is to be used for the betterment of the soul, one sings a psalm, two or three with a prophecy, that is, an explanation of a chapter from divine Scripture; thus also, daily before and after the sermon, a psalm is sung by the whole congregation.

183. In the assembled congregation, nothing is done without the sermons, but each one's spirit and devotion is set apart to pray and praise God in his heart without ceasing, so that we do not, contrary to Christ's teaching, give cause to make many words in prayer, Matt. 6, or with pretense.

and glorification of God more than praise, where such would be done without heart.

184 And in this we know that we are following the teaching of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 14 and elsewhere. Col. 3, 16. Paul also writes: "Let the word of God dwell in you richly, in all wisdom; teach and admonish yourselves with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," in grace, "and sing to the Lord in your hearts." Likewise he also said to Ephesians 6, with all our strength we should love God, why should we not also sing to Him, as all the saints of the Old and New Testament have done? only that such singing should be done in the heart, not with the mouth alone, but that it should spring and come from the heart; which the apostle means when he says, "and sing to the Lord in your heart." For his opinion is not to sing without voice, otherwise how could the others be admonished and corrected, or we talk with one another, which he writes to the Ephesians ?

Therefore, those who reject the singing in the church of God know little, neither about the content of the Scriptures, nor about the use of the first apostolic churches and congregations, which always praised God with singing. For this purpose, the Psalms are especially used; we read of this not only in the writings of Paul and our Histories, but also in the writings of the Gentiles, especially Pliny secundi. In the same way, Christ himself concluded his supper and last sermon with a hymn of praise, Matt. 26. But there are some who have such a love that nothing is very pleasing to them, so they approach it. So we have now also shown reason and cause for the change with prayer and song, in which, of course, the godly may not bear any displeasure. God help the others, that he himself may please them and his word, so they will also get along well with us.

Other things, such as not burning a candle in God's church during the day, not needing salt and water for consecration, and leaving the dead in God's hands after burial, have been changed, as the spirits of all believers are in his hands. Such and such reformation is the cause, which is now often indicated. Scripture does not teach such things, which all good teaches; they have been used to the detriment of faith and love, therefore Christians should be idle.

187 Therefore, we ask all lovers of the Gospel to consider our stated causes of the things that have changed among us, along with other writings of God, with faithful, simple eyes.

438 I- Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx, sse f. 439

and in outward things of Christian liberty to use themselves in such a way that in every way what may be better and useful may be pursued; also to take to heart that, although idols are nothing, all outward ceremonies are free in themselves, that nevertheless there are very few who recognize such things as nothing and free in the truth, even if they have long said so. For of course, if such things were recognized as nothing, since they have done much harm and are still today a stumbling block to many weak people, one would not worry about nothing for long, yes, one would want to prove such knowledge by deed, to strengthen others.

Some also think that they do such things for the sake of Christian freedom, since carnal freedom, which shuns the cross, prevents them from laying themselves against the wicked and meeting the weaklings seriously. How often does it happen that we pretend to the weakness of the people, since we really drag them behind us out of our own weakness? Nothing is to be done rebelliously and with rumor; therefore, whoever wants to rush into something without previous diligent preaching, before the elect have approved it, we would not recognize him as one of us; just as not those who do not direct their preaching to faith and love in the first place. On the other hand, we cannot praise those who pay so little attention to outward things, that they do not only shun idols and ceremonies, which they say are blind, are not nothing to many simple-minded people, but are highly harmful, but may also let splendor of dress, cowardly, wanton revelry, and often grosser things creep up on them. May the Lord grant that his word be preached loudly everywhere, which is then powerful enough to drive away everything that has not arisen from him, and therefore is not good, in a salutary way, and without any rumor.

free it may always be in himself, unless also better. For we shall ever live to others, and not to ourselves. Also that we, who are guided by. One Spirit should be guided in all things, both external and internal, to be of one mind, mouth and use, according to the word of God, so that Christian freedom is not violated, no human statute is established, but the divine law is lived by, to the praise of God and to the blessed improvement of our neighbor. May God grant this. Amen.

189. The content of this booklet is our common faith, which we find in the service and command to preach the Gospel publicly here in Strasbourg, who, according to all divine Scripture, direct all our preaching so that faith in God and love for our neighbor, which then give birth to true discipline and constant patience, be planted, increased and strengthened in our listeners at all times, and that everyone make use of the outward ceremonies, such as the Lord's Supper, baptism and others, for the promotion of faith and love, as described in this booklet. And therefore, what of these and other things described herein may be taught or printed improperly or contrary to what has come forth from us, let no one impute to us; for it will have been done without our knowledge and understanding 1) and therefore we will not answer for it. But what is taught in this and other books, which have come from us, we offer to give its manly sufficient reason and cause from divine Scripture, whoever desires it; and our names are: Wolfgangus Capito. Caspar Hedio. Matheus. Cell. Symphorian Pollio. Theobaldus Niger. Joh. Latomus. Antonius Firn. Martinus Hag. Martinus Users.

1. i.e. without our being unanimous about it,

440 11 Zwingli's opinion of the night meal of Christ 2c. W.xx,üS8f. 441

II. writings against Zwingli and his followers,

who denied the presence of Christ in Holy Communion.

a. Zwingli's dispute with Joh. Bugenhagen.

11. Ulrich Zwingli's opinion of the night meal of Christ, remembrance or thanksgiving,

translated into German by three unnamed persons. *)

April 1525.

To the reader grace and peace from GOD.

Dear in God brother. We have hurriedly translated the opinion of the table or supper of Christ, which we call the remembrance or thanksgiving, because one or two could not have prepared it in time enough from the Latin Commentary, which Huldrich Zwingli let go out in the middle of March, in the hope that our work will bring no small fruit to all faithful Christians. For we see that the devil is looking at us with stubborn heads, which, as one has supposed, stand by the Gospel; but when the truth comes forth, and not through it, they begin to storm, throb and rebuke, that it may not well be deepened in nonsense 1). For this now this well-founded and diligent piece from Zwingli's Commentario will be well. The main and right burden of faith and Christianity are: Faith, piety and mercy. Everyone should keep these, and not let the quarrels of the scholars interfere with them. For in that they quarrel, there is no salvation; but in that we have a right trust in God, in that we trust in him.

1. In the old edition "verließt"; "Verliesen" here seems to mean as much as dulden, leiden.

To live praise and service truly and piously from the heart, to have mercy on our neighbor, yes, to love as ourselves. Ueppjge honor is an evil herb, and not everyone knows it. Therefore one should keep only the main things, as stated in Matt. 23, and let them shout and fight until they have had enough. Now men know well that before too many scriptures, neither too few, go forth; yet this one is so well established, and so conformable to the faith, that we have regretted that it should not long be kept in the Latin language. Understand it, dear reader, in the best way, and strive to learn the truth in the light of truth, not in fighting books; and may God, who gave His Son, grant that we may understand His word according to His will! Amen.

Of the night meal of Christ, commemoration or thanksgiving.

From Huldrich Zwingli's Commentario faithfully translated.

1. we have two years ago, among the 67 articles in the eighteenth, 2) of the Eucharistia,

2. On January 29, 1523, a solemn disputation was held at Zurich between Zwingli and papist opponents (in front of 600 people), to which Zwingli brought 67 the-.

*This "opinion" is compiled by three unnamed persons from two of Zwingli's writings, namely from Zwingli's Latin Commmtar äs vera et kalsa rsligioue, which went out in mid-March 1525, and from the Latin book "Antibulon" written against Emser. The full title is: "Von dem Nachtmahl Christi, Wiedergedächtniß oder Danksagung, Huldrichen Zwinglius Meinung, now described in Latin Commentario and hastily brought into German by three faithful brothers. Whether God wills for the good also of the German nation." This translation was done "hurriedly" in order to bring the book to the people at the Easter Fair in Frankfurt am Main. This Easter fair begins on Wednesday after Judica and lasts 21 days. In 1525, therefore, this fair took place from April 4 to April 25. We give the text after the old edition of Walch.

442 ' II. Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. M. xx, sss-sri. 443

That is, of thanksgiving, written as we have written much, driving more of the time than of the matter. 1) For even Christ cannot praise enough the faithful conductor and minister of his word, who in due season put food before the Lord's servants, Matt. 24, saying in great amazement, "How great and excellent is the faithful and careful conductor, to whom the Lord has entrusted and commanded his servants to give him food in due season! For this reason 2) we have also resolved to distribute the word in this way for all time to come. [So that we may give and receive much fruit to our Lord.

(2) For who would not chase away such a servant, who in the cold wintertime would dare to plow the ground and throw seed into it? In the spring 4) such shall be done. So we also have abated much at the same time, admitting the stupidity and hardness 5) of those to whom we have written; but all for this cause, that we might build. And after the example of Christ we have now kept behind and hidden, now brought forth and opened. Who also, when he made this thanksgiving, said that he had yet many things to say unto the disciples, which they could not now understand: for which cause he counted it expedient 6) to hold his peace until the coming of the Holy Ghost.

(3) Wherefore, devout reader, if thou shalt find any things herein, which thou hast not seen in the former of our scriptures; or here some things perhaps clearer 7) and more pure, than elsewhere, even some things different from before, wonder not. For we do not want to present food at the wrong time, nor do we want to throw the pearls to the swine.

4 Also, we did not want to present such a thing at that time (although we could have done it without any danger), since no one could understand and grasp it. And therefore improve and as much as

The eighteenth article reads: "Christ, who was once offered on the cross, is eternally sufficient for the sins of all believers. The 18th article reads: "Christ, who once offered himself on the cross, is the sacrifice which is eternally sufficient for the sins of all believers. From this it follows that the Mass is not a sacrifice, but a memorial of the sacrifice offered on the cross, and, as it were, the seal of the redemption accomplished by Christ."

1. driving" - serving, as follows from § 4.
2. In the old edition: and.
3. "eeren" - arare, to till, to plow.
4. In the old edition: Glenz.
5. In the old edition: Zarti.
6. kommlich - fitting, befitting.
7. In the old edition: klärerer.

We revoke here in this place that which we have said before, not that it is false, but in such a way that this, which we are now writing in the 42nd year of our age 8), is far superior to that which we wrote in the 40th year. For at that time (as mentioned above) we wrote more to serve the time than the cause in itself; and that by command of the Lord, who calls us to build and establish in such a way that the dogs and pigs do not tear us apart when we first begin. It is to be feared that they may shamefully err in honoring and worshipping one true God, 9) that this may be done in the abuse of thanksgiving. If it had been used in the right way and according to Christ's order, such terrible vices would not have crept into God's people, the Church.

5. run, if we are all more excreted, be, 10) that we touch the sanctified things, have around us and with us, yes, made holy by our own power (publicly aperte I say it), which perhaps were not holy (for who does not know how much cost is put on the bones of the saints, so that honor may be done to them?), for that we would become holy and pious, it has come to that, that we wood, stone, earth, ground, shoes, clothes, rings, helmet, swords, belts, leg, teeth, hair, milk, bread, plate, table, wine, knife, jug, and what the pious people ever only touched, honored, adored, embraced and kissed; Yes, even more foolishly, we thought we would be blessed if we only looked at these things; then we were promised the remission of sins, yes, happiness and salvation would meet us everywhere.

(6) But the true mercy of God, which is nothing else but innocence, flowing from love and filial fear of God, we have so departed from; that even common righteousness, that is, human righteousness, is held worse by the heathen than by Christians. We thought we were doing great things when we spoke highly of holy things, which we had made holy, even when we could speak politely of them; and in between we were so full of the filth of all vices that we passed over, like the consecrated 11) graves, trusting in God, living piously and innocently, that is, being a Christian.

7 Therefore no one, if he will hear us speak of the thanksgiving and supper of Christ 12),

8. "Hulderich Zwingel" (that's how he used to write himself) was born on January 1, 1484 at Wildhaus in the county of Toggenburg.
9. "geirret" - to err.
10. have looked his" - have had our attention from the fact that this happens that 2c.
11. In the old edition: geweißgeten.
12. In the old edition: talking.

44411 . Zwingli's Opinion of the Night Supper of Christ 2c. W. xx, "71-574. 445

that he must therefore accept that Zwingli has spoken and keep it that way; whether perhaps some have sworn in a man's word that way, of which we think there are few or none.

(8) On the other hand, let no one reject what he will see brought forth from the well of God's secrets, for the sole reason that he who brings it forth is small and inconsiderable, for we see that one falls into both of these. Therefore let each withhold his judgment until the matter is decided, and we may actually see what is to be judged 1).

9 The night meal of the Lord was called thanksgiving by the Greeks, who in the right knowledge of God, in faith, and in right art, far surpassed the Latins (we say this without envy), as their books and writings clearly enough prove and testify. They gave it this name without doubt because they understood by faith and by the power of the words of Christ and the apostles that Christ intended nothing else with such a supper than that they should remember it with joy and rejoicing, publicly giving thanks for the good deed that he has poured out for us so abundantly and so mildly 2). For Eucharist is a thanksgiving, that he who would be present in the common and open thanksgiving, would show himself to the whole church, to be of that number who trusted and believed in Christ given for us; from which number to utter, to withdraw, and to alienate (it would be by falling away from the faith, or by impurity of life) is a high unbelief.

For this reason it is also called by Paul, 1 Cor. 10, a union or a common; from where then also the ban or exclusion and separation from this common comes, if one does not allow someone to go into such a common of believers for the sake of his life.

11. So now we understand from the name what Eucharistia is, what the Lord's Supper is; namely, nothing else but a thanksgiving, a common rejoicing and joy of those who proclaim the death of Christ, that is, proclaiming, praising, rejoicing, 4) and excelling.

12 Because the deep and difficult sermon of Christ, John 6, is not understood by many in the right way, although it is also drawn elsewhere by those who do not understand it, it has given us the right to know it.

1. In the old edition: to give.
2. ,.fürmild" - especially mild; Latin praelarZuZ.
3. Disgraceful - shamefulness.
4. verjährn - to say yes to something, to confess.

It seemed good to put before all things the right and natural sense and opinion of the same place, so that those who force all scripture, willingly or unwillingly, to serve their opinion, may not, from such a place, protect their insanity.

(13) Christ, when he saw that those who came to him were inclined only to the belly (to fill it), took occasion (as was his custom) to speak of the matter; now those who were recently satisfied by him with bread, he addresses with such speech: You come to me for this reason, that you may be satisfied with food and fed. But I did not come into this world to feed the body, but the soul. You have great work, and labor after me for the food of the belly. You clumsy ones! Work the food that may not spoil; for the food you seek until now spoils with the body.

014 But the food which I give you shall never perish, because it is spiritual; therefore it shall not perish, but abide forever. For my Father hath sealed me, that is, confirmed me, that I should be a sure salvation, and a sure pledge of life. 5)

015 The Jews therefore, not understanding what Christ meant by these words, when he commanded them to work a meat, that is, to seek that which should not spoil, say: What shall we work, that we may work the works of God? supposing that he spake of some outward work, which he would have them do, Jesus answered them, saying, This is the work of God, that ye believe and trust in him whom he hath sent. Here we see what the work is that God requires of us; none at all, but that which Christ here indicates, believing and trusting in the Son of God.

(16) Here also is seen what is the meat which he hath prepared above, saying, Work ye meat that perisheth not. So we find no other, but to trust in Christ. Therefore the food of which Christ speaks here is faith. Here you have the first sign by which we may understand that those who think that Christ speaks of sacramental food in this whole chapter are quite mistaken. For he means to seek food that does not perish, and this is nothing other than the work of God. But the work of God is to trust in the Son whom the Father has sent. And therefore the food that is called seeking Christ is nothing else than trusting in the Son. So faith must be the food of which Christ speaks so powerfully and bravely in this whole chapter. Therefore the Jews speak:

5. In the old edition: shall.

446II . Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 574-577. 447

What sign do you do, that we may know to trust you and believe you? What do you do, in that we recognize you to be God, to whom alone God gives our law to adhere? It is not hidden from you how our fathers ate bread rained down from heaven in the wilderness; for this is also described in the Psalms by David: He gave them bread from heaven. Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, Moses did not give you bread from heaven, for even though it fell from above, it was not heavenly; but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven, for it is the bread of God which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. The bread of Moses contained the bodily life, but the bread that my Father gives, feeds and sustains the soul, is also so superfluous and powerful that it gives life to the whole world.

017 But because the Jews did not understand the words of Christ (which were nothing else than an interpretation and explanation of the gospel, for by eating bread he understands nothing else than to believe in the gospel), they said to him, "Lord, give us bread for all our needs. Then said Jesus unto them, I am the bread of life: whosoever cometh to me shall never hunger; and whosoever trusteth in me shall never thirst. When the Jews heard that Christ said, "The bread that comes down from heaven gives life to the world," they desired that such bread might be given to them always. But Jesus, perceiving that they did not understand the meaning of the Gospel, explained to them what the bread was that gives life, saying, "I am the bread of life; whoever then comes to me, whoever is implanted in me, whoever accepts me, will never hunger. But that "come" is used here for "accept" is clearly indicated by the following words, when he says, "He who trusts in me will not thirst. From this it follows that faith alone replaces and quenches all hunger and all thirst; but what hungers, or what thirsts? Of the soul. Only faith and trust in Christ satisfies and waters the soul, so that there is neither hunger nor thirst.

018 Christ saith further, But I have told you, that ye have seen me, and have not believed, neither have ye trusted. - But what is this saying, that ye marvel that I have said, Whosoever cometh to me shall neither hunger nor thirst any more, seeing ye are now present with me, and are no less subject to hunger and thirst? But this is because you have me well with the flesh.

But I speak not of seeing, nor of coming to me in the flesh, but of the light of faith. They that have the same shall want nothing henceforth; they shall not covet; they shall not seek by night whom they love, and to whom they shall confess their anguish and their distress; they shall not wander to and fro through all things, for they know that he whom they have embraced is a true sponsor and spouse of the soul; they shall thirst for that 1) one precious treasure, and for no other. You do not have this clear light of faith, because you do not trust in me. Therefore you may not understand in what way I am food, that is, a hope of the soul. But the cause of this blindness of yours, lest I speak a rougher word, is that my Father has not drawn you to know me, for otherwise you would accept me. For all that the Father gives me comes to me. What therefore comes to me, I do not cast out. For I am not come down from heaven to do my will, but the will of my Father which hath sent me.

You think that I have a will like other people. It is true, I am a true man, and according to human nature I also have a special will, but much more obedient than you; because your will is repugnant to the will of God for the thickest 2) time, my will is always pleasing to the divine will. So then I have not come to do my will, but the will of Him who sent me. But that ye may know what is the will of him that sent me, know that this is the will of my Father which sent me, that all things which he hath given me I should lose nothing of them, but raise them up at the last day. But in order that you may understand what I mean by this word "the Father gives me" and "the Father has given me," and what you are to realize, I will say it even more clearly: This is the will of him who sent me, that everyone who sees (that is, understands, recognizes, and trusts and believes in) the Son may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

20. See what food Christ is talking about here. God sent His Son into this world that we might live through Him. But who will live through him? Only those who put off my grace. But how will they put off His grace, since they know Him? Therefore Christ said: Everyone who sees the Son,

1. "your" put by us instead of: "the".
2. "for a thicker time" - usually.

448 11 Zwingli's Opinion of the Supper of Christ 2c. W. xx. 577-579. 449

that is, understands why he was sent into the world, and trusts in him, putting his trust in him, he will have eternal life.

(21) Here the flesh (the Jews) thinks that Christ is taking on too much, when he says, I am the bread of life. For immediately before this he said: The bread of God comes from heaven and gives life to the world; from which it must follow that he is the bread that came from heaven.

022 Against these things murmureth the flesh, saying, Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he: I am come down from heaven? Therefore JEsus answered them, saying: Do not murmur among yourselves; have you not heard that I have now said: All that my Father giveth me cometh to me? Your unbelief, which is the source of your lack of understanding, forces you to say the same thing many times. So it has a form: No one may come to me, that is, no one comes to me as a special pledge of salvation, except my Father who sent me. But whom he will draw to me, that is, whom he will agree with me by a right faith and trust, him will I raise again at the last day. It is a wonder that my words always seem so strange and foreign to you, when I say nothing or little that is not written in your own prophets or in the law. Now this also is written in the prophets: They are all taught by God, Isaiah 54 and Jeremiah 31. Why then does it seem so strange to you when I say: The Father will not lead you into my knowledge (of your unbelief), when your own prophets write that such things must be taught by the Father?

(23) But more plain and undisguised things cannot be said, except what I am about to say. And this I will say unto you, that ye may not justly complain, that I spake it before in these words: What the Father has given me will come to me; or in these words, Let no one come to me, let my Father draw him. Now I will speak this in other words that are even clearer. Understand it thus: He who has heard from the Father and learned from him, he comes to me as the certain salvation. Not that anyone has seen the Father; lest perhaps you think that "hearing" and "learning" are here given to the outward senses and to the bodily things 1) that are present: No, no! hearing and learning

1. In § 40 of this pen, the term "sensitivities" is explained by: "face, taste" 2c.

Here, the inner enlightenment of the mind and intellect is encountered. No one has ever seen the Father (although he works within; and that he wills, we hear and learn), for he alone, who is of God, has seen the Father.

024 Therefore I say unto you, as truly, truly, so also plainly, plainly, that whosoever will trust in me hath everlasting life. Now you have the whole sum of this doctrine of mine, yea, the sum of all the doctrine which is commended unto me, that whosoever trusteth in me hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life, whose power, virtue and nature I have declared to you from the beginning of this discourse. No one denies that our forefathers ate the bread of heaven in the wilderness, but they died. Whoever eats this bread, me (I say), that is, whoever trusts in me, has eternal life. This is the bread which came down from heaven, that whosoever eateth thereof should not die.

(25) Here it must be seen and perceived in one process that Christ has two natures, divine and human. But only because of the divine nature, which comes down from heaven, Christ is salvific for us; not because of the nature, which he took from the immaculate virgin Mary, and was born man; although he had to suffer and die according to the human nature. Nevertheless, if he had not been the Son of God who died, he would not have been able to save the whole world. Therefore this is the other sign, that in this chapter Christ understands by the bread and meal nothing else but gospel and faith, so that everyone who believes that he was sacrificed for us, and is confident of it, has eternal life; and that he does not speak here at all of the sacramental meal. For that he might the more clearly signify and understand this opinion, he saith again, I am the living bread which came down from heaven: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

(26) But lest I tease you any longer, I will explain to you in a few words what is the cause of my salvation to the whole world, or how it comes about: The bread, of which I have spoken so much, and which I will give you, is my flesh, which I will offer for the world. Now this is the third infallible sign, that Christ does not speak here of the sacramental meal; for as much as he died, so he is salvific to us. Now he alone may be killed according to the flesh, and be healed according to the Godhead alone. So then Christ is

2. "at a process" - first of all.

450II- Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, S7S-S82. 451

the soul's food, if the soul sees that God did not spare His only begotten Son, but gave Him into the most terrible death, so that He made us alive again: then it will be sure and certain of God's grace and its salvation. Let no one here be subtle in his reasoning: Yes, Christ said that his flesh was given for the world; so Christ alone must be salvific for all men after mankind; for he said that his flesh was given for the life of the world; so it must make the flesh alive. This sophistical objection must therefore be countered: As the one Christ is God and man, so also, if he is killed according to the flesh (for who would want to kill God?), and his death has become a life for us, it happens that, for the sake of the union and unity of the two natures, to the one is given at times that which belongs to the whole Christ.

27 Now after this saying, when he spake: The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will lay up for the life of the world, the Jews were not taught, and that because of their unbelief and hardened hatred; for they did not understand the mind and meaning of Christ's words, namely, that Christ would not be salvific to us if we ate him, but if he were killed for us. For the human mind does not become certain of the grace and mercy of God until it understands and believes that God has not spared His only Son 2c. So the Jews murmured in displeasure, 1) and as much as they were unrepented of, so much more sacrilegiously and challenged 2) they murmured, saying, How can he give us his flesh to eat? For they still clung to the flesh that was before their eyes; therefore it was not unreasonable for them to shun and be afraid, even though our theologians do not shun the flesh of Christ.

028 When Christ therefore saw that he had subdued and tried in vain all that he would have them know, he dealt with them as Isaias said before in the sixth chapter, where thus saith God the Lord: Go, and say to the people, Hear, and understand not; and see the visions, and know them not. Blind the heart of this people, and afflict their ears, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand in their heart, and be converted; and I heal them, and make them whole. So, I say, when Christ saw that he had made nothing with them, he made their ignorance to be a thing of the past.

1. "in Unwürß" - gruff.
2. In the old edition: grumbling.

He said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed: understand, the flesh of Christ, as much as it was given in death for our redemption, and his blood, as much as it was shed for the washing away of our sins, as is clear from the above.

29 For since they did not want to understand the hidden secret speech, but which he so clearly revealed. For since they did not want to understand the hidden secret speech that he had so clearly revealed to them that they should no longer have desired it, he struck them even harder, made them even more blind (for they were well worth it, and these are the judgments of God); and on top of all this he added: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. This is spoken to harden the unbelievers, but to instruct the believers. And this is the fourth sign, by which it may be perceived that Christ is not speaking here of the sacramental meal, but of the meal of faith. (For there are unfortunately many who eat the body of Christ sacramentally and drink the blood sacramentally, who are neither in GOD, nor GOD in them, for as He is in an elephant or in a flea).

(30) Therefore, whoever believes himself redeemed by the gift of the body of Christ, and washed away by the blood of Christ, remains without doubt in God, for he surely and without doubt places all his trust in the Son of God, and does not direct his hope elsewhere; for whoever sneezes at the highest good may not thirst for another good. (But here I call noshing as much as a mortal man 3) takes it here in time; not as the theologians speak of needing and noshing; for the rejecters of God also noshe God in this time; although this is hidden from all those whose inward mind does not burn in divine love).

(31) God also abides in him, for no one can come to Christ except the one whom the Father begets, as was evident from the words of Christ above. Whoever therefore learns from the Father (who teaches inwardly), in him without doubt is God; so that whoever abides in Christ, in him also abides Christ. For to abide in Christ is nothing else, but through love (that Christ has given himself for

3. "a mortal man" put by us instead of: "a mortal man."

45211 . Zwingli's Opinion of the Night Supper of Christ 2c. W. xx, 582-584. 453

has stretched out to us) stiffly cling to God. But love is God Himself, 1 John 4: Whoever therefore abides in the love of God, in him is God, and he in God. But love (as much as human reason may understand) follows after faith; from which it follows that faith (by which we trust in the grace of Christ) is that by which we abide in GOD, and he in us.

But that this is the meaning and the opinion is clearly indicated by the words of Christ, which immediately follow, when he says: "In like manner as my living Father has sent me, and I live for the Father's sake: so also, without doubt, those who eat me, that is, those who trust in me, will also fashion themselves after my example. In vain would be your apes, that is, in vain shall it be, that ye should be like one another, 1) as believing; unless it be that thereby ye also change the life. I came not only to redeem the world, but also to change it. Those who now trust in me will also be formed according to me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, and it is evident from its effect. For he that eateth this bread shall live for ever: but he that eateth the bread of the flesh shall not live for ever. And this you may understand from the fact that your fathers ate the bread which came down from heaven, and died; from which it is clear enough that no bodily food can keep a man in everlasting and eternal life.

(33) This speech offended not only the enemies of Christ, but also some of his disciples, who said (lest they speak more rudely): This is a rough, hard speech; who may hear it? For they were still in the visible flesh, as were the enemies of Christ. When Jesus therefore perceived that some of his disciples also murmured of it, he said unto them: Are you angry about this? What would you say or mean if you saw the Son of Man going up to the place where he was before? You do not understand my speech, for you do not believe that I am the Son of God. But what will you say then, if you see me going up to heaven by my own power? Will not such a deed force you to confess that I am a son of God? Therefore, you do not trust me, because you do not believe that I am a son of God. The cause of your unbelief is that you do not understand all that I say. I have commanded you by parables, by lovely lovely strange sayings, 2) to bring to your understanding the heavenly things that I have said.

1. gleichsnet - gleißnerisch stellet.
2. "Agreements" - figurative, figurative speeches.

But you will always be dragged along by the heavy burden of unbelief.

(34) This I speak of is spiritual, not in bodily things, but the Spirit instructs the spirit; yes, the Spirit of God draws the poor spirit of man to Him, so that it may unite, unite and change in itself as much as in itself completely; this feeds the soul, makes it joyful and certain of salvation. This making the soul sure and joyful, what is it but food? or by what equation can it be expressed and understood more comely 3) and skillfully than by food? For in the same way as the hungry stomach becomes cheerful by receiving food, and the consumed spirits, heat and strength are renewed, strengthened and replaced, so also the hungry soul becomes cheerful and courageous when God opens up to it; yes, not only does it become cheerful, but from day to day it increases more and more, becomes stronger and stronger, and is formed according to God, until it grows into a perfect man. And therefore the food of which I speak is spiritual; for the Spirit alone gives it, if he alone draws and feeds the mind of man to him.

35 Your thoughts are unwise, if you think that I am talking about the flesh, which is made up of veins and nerves, or wood wax, 4) and is put together and intertwined; the same flesh is not useful. How long will you be without understanding? I tell you this in plain words: I do not speak of my essential flesh and body in such a way that I will publicly testify to you that my flesh is not useful at all.

(36) And this is the fifth and most expressive sign, by which we may understand that Christ did not speak here of the supper and sacramental food at all. Yes, not only do we learn the same, but also that Christ, as much as by a law, willed to occur and prevent us from niendert 5) thinking of any flesh. For if Christ says that the flesh is of no use at all, let no man's iniquity be so presumptuous as to dispute or quarrel about the flesh as it is eaten. And if you say that there must be a different meaning and opinion, for even if the flesh of Christ is of some use, since we are redeemed from death by it, we reply, "The flesh of Christ is almost, indeed, unspeakable.

3. d. i. more appropriate.
4. The word "Waldenwachs" is used to describe the sinews. In German: "Haarwachs".
5. niendert - nowhere.

454II . writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx. "84-587. 455

1. But not when it is eaten, but when it is killed and slaughtered for us. Then it has been useful to us, because it has delivered us from eternal death and saved us. But if one wanted to eat it, it would be of no use. This has spoken the truth, otherwise it may not be. For the Jews also disputed how one should eat his flesh, and not how it should be killed and sacrificed: so the speech of Christ, being present to them, must also be to this effect.

(37) However much and almost the theologians may dispute and quarrel about the essential body of Christ, or about the flesh of Christ, they may gain and conquer nothing from it, except that they thereby show themselves to be much more incomprehensible and sacrilegious than the Jews have ever been, and that against all diligence and friendly instruction of Christ, our Sustainer and Savior. For the Jews, being always in the visible flesh, would forsake Christ before they would understand the kindly Teacher; though he (as befits a loving Teacher) openly shows them their error, lest they perish therein, saying, The flesh which ye look upon is of no use.

(38) But the theologians do likewise, as if they said, O Jesus, thou must not give us such explanation and declaration; we understand the opinion well, for we perceive well that thou speakest of a flesh which is touched with the hands; the same flesh must we eat, if we would be saved otherwise. Thou, who knowest the hearts and minds of men, art in vain careful, when thou sayest, Thy flesh is of no use: for we, who are mightier than thou in our kingdom, will easily conquer, that every man with words uttered shall be barred, they eat thy flesh. Yea, we will bring it to pass, when they eat it, that they must speak, they feel sensitive, that they eat thy flesh, and drink thy blood. And therefore, Jesus, repress and refrain from speaking your words (the flesh is not useful) until we surpass the Jews (who wanted to depart from him who knew the hearts of all men, before they wanted to flatter them into thinking that they understood the words correctly, as Christ meant them, but which they did not understand) 2) in ignorance, so that we conquer them, that they must commonly understand, believe and feel, which they have never understood, believed nor felt.

39. and do you see, JEsu, the berengarium, the

1. In the old edition: geseyn.
2. Here we have erased the word "we" which is too much.

We have forced to confess and publicly confess (as in spiritual rights in the Decret de consecratione, distinet. 2. cap. Ego Berengarius), that as soon as the priest speaks the words about the bread, the true bodily and substantial body and blood of Christ are present, and that the same body and blood are not a sacrament and sign, but the fleshly body of Christ truly and sensibly handled in the hands of the priests, broken, and ground with the teeth of the faithful 2c. So let us also compel others all who may now speak against it. But wilt thou, JESUS, ever stand stiffly upon this word: The flesh is of no use, and if ever thou hast said it, we will depart from thee: for ever it is more grievous to us, 3) We depart from thee, lest any of our profit and gain should fail us.

40 You do not want to be hurt here, Christian reader, with this rude 4) and pointed mockery; because soon after you will realize why one must act in such a way with such incomprehensible sticks, which have also forced the external and internal senses and feelings (as the face, taste 2c.) to rejuvenate, which they have not found.

41 Since Christ has clearly taught that this food is eaten with the spirit, not with the mouth, therefore the flesh is not useful, he continues: "The words that I speak to you are spirit and life. Here this little word (verbum in Latin, Hebrew dabar, in German word) is taken after Hebrew manner for the whole trade, for the whole history. This is common in the holy scripture everywhere, as namely Lucae at the 1st: All these words have sounded through the whole mountain of the Jewish country. Here "all words" means the whole trade, how the angel appeared to Zachariah, how he became mute, how Elizabeth gave birth 2c.

(42) Therefore Christ is to be understood here as saying, "This thing and this transaction, which I have explained to you and told you in many words, is nothing but a heavenly spirit, and brings life to those who believe and hold to it. But that so few of you understand and accept it is because the greater part of you do not believe. This is as much as a conclusion of the whole discourse. I preach the gospel to you, the good news, but you do not believe it. But the gospel

3. "wegerer" - more profitable, a better WW; this is a double comparative, instead of "weger". Cf. § 45 of this writing on "weger" and § 3 "klarerer".
4. ratchet- hard.

456 11. Zwingli's opinion of the night meal of Christ 2c. W. xx, sn-E 457

And the glad tidings are nothing else, but I myself; though I have made myself known modestly from the beginning, and with hidden words, lest I should be suspected of pride or iniquity: yet thus must I speak that which my Father hath commended unto me, and which he willeth. I have therefore told you that I am he whom my Father promised to the fathers, a food for the soul, a sure salvation, and an unfeigned pledge of hope. Whosoever therefore trusteth in me, comforting and keeping me, is now and ever saved and blessed: for he perceiveth in himself, as soon as he putteth all his trust in me, that his conscience is made joyful and sure, as his mind is lifted up from despair into a certain possession of salvation.

(43) We have gone a little further, for the contents of this sixth chapter (as far as thanksgiving is concerned) have been drawn out; yet, as we think, not without fruit. For (as we hope) it will become clear from this, that all that the theologians and of spiritual law reported 1) hitherto from this chapter to the supper of the Lord, or to thanksgiving, was forced and bent, either from iniquity or from ignorance; 2) therefore their reputation is to count for little, where their word is not founded in truth. And whether thou reproach for and against their doctrine and writings, as a shield that may not be broken, I say not otherwise than that faith itself must declare and say that this is the right understanding of the place; unless I am almost mistaken in faith, if I stubbornly believe that there is only one way to heaven; if I firmly believe that the Son of God is an infallible, untrustworthy pledge of our salvation, and trust in him to such an extent that I do not admit any bodily, sensitive thing to obtain salvation.

(44) But whether anyone would ask me impertinently, why I have interpreted and explained this part of John so diligently and anxiously, I answer, For the sole purpose of bringing the truth to light. But if we have lacked any part of the truth, it must be proved by the testimony of the Scriptures, not by any man's accusation. It was easy to accuse Christ before the judge with false and fabricated lies; but when the judge asked, "What evil has he done?" they produced no testimony, but acted with murmuring and shouting. So now we are to look at the pab-

1. So put by us instead of: "report".
2. So put by us instead of: "gethan hqben".

We must not rage against the harmless truth (which is Christ Himself), for we would be like the godless enemies of Christ.

45 If this is the right natural meaning of this place, let no man (be he what he may) prevail in reputation or authority, let no flesh ever again prevail to make any man's reputation or authority prevail over the truth and be held in higher esteem; yea, let no man's wisdom prevail over divine truth. All that is now taken from this chapter, whether in papal laws, or in the teachers of the holy Scriptures, or which is sung in temples and in the streets, which in another mind than that which the Lord has given to understand through us, is otherwise bent and forced, shall therefore count for nothing; that we should all think it had been much better, and otherwise, 3) that those who did such things had never acted and touched the righteous truth, but that they had thus defiled it with their iniquity.

046 What then can their power and renown do, how great and high they are? for higher and more excellent is the truth. To the others, who thus break forth: Methinks thine opinion is, that the flesh of Christ, and the blood, are not in the sacrament; we answer them, saying, Speakest thou this of thyself, or hast others told thee? If you are a believer, you know where salvation lies, and then the word of God has so much power over you that you do not inquire about the flesh. But if others have told you that we are of the same opinion, I say to them that in this I mean the same thing that the church of Christ means. The same allows this question niendert 4): whether the essential body of Christ is bodily and essential in the sacrament of thanksgiving? For if you bring and introduce these elements to the world, it will reproach you with this buckler or shield: The flesh is not useful. If then the flesh is not useful, what dost thou dispute about the flesh? And though thou shalt cry, O heavens and earth, yea, even stars and waters, I will not speak otherwise than this: The flesh is of no use at all. Why then art thou (actually to speak) thus more forward than careful? This is supposed to be a brazen 5) wall: The flesh is of no use at all. Go now, and bring in all the weapons, 6) banker's rooks, counterbloods, cats and all kinds of projectiles! Still so it is so impossible that you

3. Compare the note to § 39.
4. i. e. nowhere.
5. In the old edition: ehrine.
6. "Gewerf" - projectiles; the following words are provincial names of various kinds of guns.

458II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, sss-sW. 459

the wall umwerfest that you do not like them now bidmen 1).

(47) Therefore, this sacrament must be spoken of or held differently, neither theologians have yet recognized, whose opinion has been contradicted by all sensibility, reason, and understanding, as well as by faith itself. For one should not dissolve here 2) those who hear speak: I have always firmly believed that in the sacrament I eat the essential body, or the bodily and sensitive flesh of Christ. As if by such speech they might persuade someone to think that he feels what he has never felt. But when they speak: All things must be done with faith; therefore it may not be denied, but firmly believed, that we feel the flesh of the body. To this we give this answer: We know well what faith is, and what feeling is: but if thou knowest not this, or thinkest that we know not, thou dost not bring darkness to our light. Faith is made in our hearts by God's Spirit, so that we feel in it; 3) for it is not a dark thing, namely, that it is a relative of the mind: although we do not feel it with the sensibilities 4).

48 But now they come, and if they think that faith is a free turning of our minds to every impossible thing, they pretend that we believe with unmoved faith that here is the sensitive flesh, but they are mistaken in two ways. First, they think that faith comes from the judgment and election of man. 5) Here they are thus deceived, that though faith is a hope and confidence, and reaches things 6) which are altogether far from the sensibilities, yet it does not come from our judgment or election, but the things to which we put our hope, which make us have all our hope in them. For if we would believe by our choice or counsel, all men by their own power, even the unbelieving and ungodly, would believe. But if faith does not come from emotions or reason, nor is it based on

1. i.e. to make quivering.
2. "one should not dissolve them" - one should not listen to them.
3. Marginal gloss: Here, to feel is not taken to mean to comprehend, but to become aware of.
4. Marginal gloss: Sensations are taken for the five senses.
5. Side note: Theologians do not know what faith is.
6. "Things" put by us instead of: "a thing".

If a person is not sure how to do something, he can easily learn how to do it the other way around. 7)

(49) Secondly, they err in drawing faith even to sensible things, saying that it brings certainty through them, which is not at all necessary. For things that are felt with the senses owe nothing to faith; for how can anyone hope or believe that which he sees? Now these are sensible things, which, if they are added to the sensibilities, are felt. Let us now see how these two opinions may stand with each other. We believe by faith that here is the bodily and sensitive flesh of Christ. And by faith one trusts in things that are far from all sensibilities. Now all bodily things are so sensitive that where they are not felt, they are not bodily. Therefore it must follow that believing and feeling strive against each other to the highest 8).

(50) Therefore, notice how clumsy it is to say, "I believe that I eat the sensible and corporeal flesh. For if it is corporeal, there is no need of faith, for it is felt; and the things that are felt have no need of faith, because they will certainly know it by feeling. But again, if you believe that you are eating flesh, what you believe may not be flesh or sensible. Therefore you speak nothing else but a miraculous speech. Here theologians pretended that the sensibilities do not feel, namely, that the bread was flesh; for if it were, it would have to be with sensibility, not with faith; for faith is not of the things or in the things that belong to the sensibilities.

(51) We also think that those should not be heard who understand that this opinion is not only gross, but also contrary to God and without reason, and yet recognize or judge in this way: We eat the bodily and true flesh of Christ, but spiritually. For they do not yet understand that they cannot be one body, uno, eaten spiritually. For flesh and spirit stand thus contrary to one another, that if thou takest one of them 9) for thyself, the other may not be. If that which is spoken of is a spirit, it must certainly follow that it is not* a body. But if it is a body, he who hears the speech is sure that it is not a spirit. Dannenher

7. In the old edition: erring.
8. In the issues: ströben.
9. Thus put by us instead of: "neither thou takest for thyself"; neither - which of the two.

460 11. Zwingli's Opinion of the Supper of Christ 2c. W. xx. M-ssi. 461

Eating the flesh spiritually is no different than saying firmly that what is one body is also one spirit.

52 I have introduced this bouquet from the philosophers' art or fountain against those who have made philosophiam (which should be avoided, as Paul warns in Col. 2) a master and teacher of the divine word, so that they may see clearly how well they consider their judgments. In short, faith does not force sensibility to miss, to feel what it does not feel; rather, it draws to invisible things and imprisons all its hopes in them. For faith does not walk or graze in sensible things, nor does it have anything in common with them. Dearly beloved, observe what blessed or happy thing may come of it, if thou thinkest that thou eatest here the bodily and sensible flesh of Christ; or, as others say, thou eatest the bodily flesh spiritually, thou shalt no doubt understand that nothing else comes of it, neither entanglement, awe, and (that I may speak freely) suspicion, which therefore also begins to doubt of the other certain and most holy things of faith. Although the clever fellows also say that this miraculously incomprehensible eating of the sensitive and bodily flesh would be a fortification of faith, and they also put it forward as a miraculous sign, which no one felt. Dear, who has ever thought up such a mockery? and that before the eyes of those who adhere with their minds to the highest and true God? who also, as soon as they remembered their faith, saw that there was no need for such unbelievable things. For what did God ever promise to those who believed that they would eat flesh here? Did not all those who truly believed understand that salvation lay in this, if they relied on the mercy of God, of whom we have an undoubted sign and pledge, the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ? What do you think now, that this subtle poem (yes, behind itself!), which is spoken with words alone (for no mind can understand it, nor does faith indicate it, as has been heard), has any power with the faithful? Nothing with God.

(53) Then it followed that all who were truly godly either did not believe such things here, or, when they were urged to believe, they fled with their minds, even though they were lapsed with their mouths; indeed, they believed that it was so, as the ungodly prescribe; for who (whom one thus introduces into unbelievable things) has not given flight thus: I will not search it 1) (expendam), but will the fathers.

1. Instead of the words: "I do not want to explore it" in the old edition, "I do not want to weigh the thing."

and so often the nudges 2) of truth spoke thus: This is ever a miracle! How is it always that you are forced to believe that you see well, that it may not be so; that even Christ himself taught, that the words should be understood spiritually, since the Jews also could not understand it?

54 But now the theologians pretend that it happens bodily and sensitively, which I neither feel nor realize. Has not every one thus spoken to himself? It is not proper for you to look anxiously at things? But the theologians did thus learn i.e. teach to flee, that the truth might the less 3) come forth and be understood. But those who have been godless have not left themselves to Christ; much less have they given thanks to him for the salvation he has given us. What else have the theologians done but to cast us out with their iniquity, so that it is impossible for them to have believed it themselves, even though they say it a thousand times? For faith is a gift of God. If God has never given such a gift, he has not caused it to be believed. But that he did not prescribe such things is evident, for the flesh is not useful at all.

(55) This is also the very brightest and firmest thing, that we have all admonished our minds in regard to this bodily-spiritual (that is, I must speak, whether I want to or not) food, mostly for the reason that truth conquers all; and the cold, fearful mind would not resist, because it saw another commanded by the pope. Where then did this call or exhortation come from, since no other thing can so exhilarate our minds as the chewing of the divine word? As David also testifies in the 118th Vulgate, or 119th according to the Hebrew Psalm: "O Lord, how sweet are your words to my throat? they are honey to my mouth. And again: The word or commandment of God is bright and enlightens the eyes. And: O Lord, thy word is a candle unto my feet, and a light unto my footsteps.

(56) If the curtain, which diminishes the splendor of the face of Moses, has been accepted, what was the reason why we all fled in contemplation of this meal? For if it has reason in the power of the divine word, it should also have the common way with other words of God,

2. "The nudges of truth" will probably mean: those who shut up the truth.
3. Here we have erased the words "the truth" because they are too much.

462II . writings against Zwingli and his followers r,e. W. xx, ss4-sss. 463

that the more it was acted upon, the more it became clear and pleasant. Thus it is found that, since faith is a perfectly sweet and joyful thing of the soul, and this bodily sensible food either weighs down the mind, or makes it sad, it is brought forth neither from the opinion of unrighteous men, nor from the word of God. However, so that we do not do anyone too short, some might want to feign ignorance of their guilt, for the sake of Christ's words, which we call consecrationis, that is, of consecration, because they publicly speak thus, pointing to the bread: This is my body 2c. Of which we will now speak.

Now we have (as we hope to God) conversely the unflavored opinions of the bodily flesh. In this alone we want to have conquered that the opinion which is given that one eats in this remembrance or thanksgiving the bodily and sensitive or touchable flesh of Christ is not only ungodly, but also foolish and cruel. Unless you dwell with the anthropophagi, that is, with man-eaters. Let each one be free to choose the way in which he understands spiritual food; but that this may not be in our favor, but in Christ's, until such time as one shall consider the opinion which we shall bring forth. Then it will be proper for each one of us to know what the Lord will give him, for we neither like nor want to prescribe the law to anyone.

58. So I testify to the one Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who knows all hearts, that the things we will soon bring forth will be done solely for the sake of truth experience, 1) We well know the insatiable thirst for honor of the old Adam. 2) Which days of suffering (if we ever had them) 3) we could have satisfied long ago with the favor of the greatest princes of Christendom; which we nevertheless want to conceal so stiffly that we do not proclaim (as some do) with silent rejection. We also know how difficult it is to stand up against an opinion that is outdated in all people. For we are Christians for the most part, that we want to be seen how we have done such a great thing, when we have not accepted the outward things.
59. The translator has lost the construction. He wants to say: The following things we want to bring forward only for the sake of the investigation of the truth.
60. Marginal gloss: Ueppige Ehre thut den Gelehrten viel zu Leid.
61. So put by us instead of: "if we ever loved him". Zwingli wants to say: If I had ever had this disease of ambition, I would have been able to satisfy it through the favor of the greatest princes.

We have protected the things we call sacraments, although we never, or even seldom, seek our life in them, and strengthen what is dilapidated in them; 4) although we should take care of them above all things, so that we come closest to the model Christ, whose name we have. Therefore it is a dangerous thing to enter into such a controversy, since you must have so many enemies, and they are quite cruel and ungracious.

59 For he who is able to rage here in the most imprudent way wants to be considered the most godly. But what is to be done for him? The law says that if you find an erring ox that is your enemy's, you must send it home to him. And if any man see that the whole world erreth, shall he not warn? And if one sees that in our time so many Hercules come forth fearlessly, and bring out everything that has been taught harmfully so far? The heavenly king has recommended many pounds to many, so that some of them may diligently advertise, but some of them may fill up. 5) So he has also given us a penny, whose care burns us all the way, warning us for and for that we should not let him be put off. 6) And as others sail fearlessly through the great sea of the holy scriptures, because all their harness is strong and firm, the sail boom, the sail pole, the rope, the nail, the oar, the fore and aft shoals, 7) the sides also; so they bring forth great goods everywhere.

But our boat, 8) so badly fastened as it is, forces us to navigate carefully by the land and safely guide the small, undecorated ones. Therefore, we will also take care that everything we produce in this is so strong and firm that it cannot easily be torn or broken. We also hereby ask all who dispute under Christ not to judge before they have 9) heard the whole transaction. Accordingly, we want to bear amicably, God grant! whatever judgment they make 10); for if they keep with us, there is no doubt that we will be honorable; but if they in turn spank us, condemn us, curse us, they will do it (if they are in their right mind) by the power of the Scriptures.

4. In the old edition: vestnen.
5. Who - are lazy.
6. Instead of "put off", perhaps "rust" would like to be read.
7. In the old edition: "in front and behind horror". From the context one recognizes that front and rear part of the ship must be meant.
8. Weidling - weak vehicle. - Who" is probably as much as barge.
9. So put by us instead of: "and".
10. In the old edition: joch.

464 11 Zwingli's opinion of the night meal of Christ 2c. W. xx, SW-ssg, 465

Therefore, we owe them no small thanks, namely, if they will lead us from the wrong to the right path.

(61) For we are of a mind to be exceedingly willing to loosen 1) and obey him who warns us rightly with heavenly teaching. But those who try the matter with cries will do it no less in vain, because Hercules Hylam 2) prepares. For we are hardened by the cries: This is heretical, erroneous, injurious to the ears of Christians. For the cries have so often blown up our ears that they have made a drive. Therefore let no one speak here: Who would suffer this? the whole world is of a different opinion 2c. But let each one consider for himself: It hath often happened, that a whole nation hath erred, even to a few; as it was in the days of Noah. Elijah also thought he was of one mind; but Micah stood of one mind against all the company of the wicked prophets.

(62) The most truthful things have always been known least of all; so perhaps even those who do not keep the remembrance or thanksgiving in the common way do not do so unjustly. Therefore, as Moses counsels, I will see what this fire will do.

63. But I faithfully forget 3) before my God and Lord Jesus Christ, and before all creatures, 4) that I am more inclined to the meaning of Christ's words, which we will bring forth, than to the other one, which we have held until now. Although I freely speak nothing, but I wonder if someone would bring forth something clearer and more conformable to the faith, that I will embrace it with great thanks. '

(64) So we have said that the ignorance of Christ's words, "This is my body," led us astray, because we thought we were eating the flesh in the flesh and in the flesh. And if we had considered the meaning of the words more from the holy Scriptures, neither from the most ambitious of men's decrees or judgments, we would never have fallen into so many clumsy questions. Nor should these words, that is my body, have been so handled with unwashed hands, that we had not beforehand searched all the nooks and crannies of the scriptures, and seen what sense they

1. i.e. listen.
2. Hylas, a companion of Hercules on the Argonauts' voyage, was robbed by the nymphs in Mysia, where he wanted to draw water, therefore Hercules' calling and searching for him was in vain.
3. "to forget" - to confess, to pray.
4. i.e. creature.
5. "Abweg" set by us instead of: "Allweg".

which they would not bear; as we have seen in other things.

(65) For example, if at this time some admit to works, but that is by the grace of God alone, they do not do so without Scripture. For there are no fewer places in Scripture that ascribe to works, but that which is of God's grace alone, than those who ascribe it all to God's grace. But which sense or opinion shall overcome here? The one that faith states. Thus faith says: We are a work of God; we breathe or live from Him, we are moved in Him, and are in Him; we walk or walk according to Him; so also all things are His, and we are useless servants who are not sufficient for any thing; but all our sufficiency is from God. Now those who hold this meaning or opinion, easily dissolve themselves where they fall into the span 6) or trade of works in Scripture; for they see that it is of God's grace and kindness that He imputes to us works which yet He forfeits, yea, that the work is His, not ours; and therefore safely proceeds through all Scripture.

66. So also in this place it should have been done. Now after 7) Christ has said to the Jews, "The flesh is not useful at all" (for the Greek "ö-- oüS^" is able to do this much), no mouth should be allowed 8) to speak any more about the flesh. to speak of the flesh, especially when it is seen clearly that the Jews also offended against the flesh, and Christ met their offense with the words: the flesh is of no use at all; so that no one may now pretend to be unequal in this matter. For nothing else offended the Jews, but that they thought that one must eat the bodily and delicate flesh. So Christ comes to the rescue of their error and says: the flesh is of no use at all, the spirit makes the mind alive; he has spoken salutary words, namely, that whoever relies on him or on him, that is, that we speak, believes that he 9) will give his body and blood for us, and he will have eternal life. The words are short, but from them breathe the heavenly spirit and life.

Why then have we so unawares fallen into such a hard mind and opinion, when we would have such a strong blessing or power, that all sorcery of human gall 10) might be seen? Is not the word of Christ

6. Chip - Dispute.
7. "now" put by us instead of: and.
8. gedüren - to dare, to submit.
9. So set by us instead: The but.
10. Galstrung - spoilage; galstrig - rancid.

466II . Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, ss9-"oi. 467

such a barrier, 1) that a believing mind neither should nor may jump over? Is it not a cord by which one levels everything that is rough and uneven, where one is of righteous faith in God? For he who has grasped the head and sum of the matter, namely, that all those who have trusted in Christ have been given power to become sons of God; yes, they now recognize themselves to be sons of God and heirs through the same unifying Spirit; yes, those of them who are thus accomplished in faith 2) will shun, just as the Jews do, when he hears the words: This is my body, when he hears Christ speak so publicly next to it: The flesh is of no use at all?

68. Thus, O just and merciful God, you let us fall into darkness after we have ceased to trust in you, so that we are blind in the midst of light, and grope like the blind! For if our faith had been right, it would have dispelled the darknesses in the same way as the visible sun dispels the night. O how inexperienced are thy judgments? For as it hath befitted thy righteousness to smite us unbelievers with such blindness; so also it hath befitted thy gentleness to open our eyes again, and to lift them up unto the light, as it is said of eagles, that they do unto their young. That after we feel that we may suffer the light, we also recognize the good deed, that we could not have opened our eyes against the light out of our strength; unless you, who also call things that are not yet, had called us into your wonderful light.
69. therefore the said words of Christ,.the flesh is of no use at all, compel all understanding into the obedience of God; so that henceforth thou shalt not understand the words, that is my body, any way, neither mayest thou understand them from the flesh or sensitive body; as it is opened. For this reason it is now necessary to see what or what meaning they must have. For (so that we do not leave this behind) this clumsy counterstatement: Why do we not force as more these words: the flesh is not useful at all, according to the prescription of those: this is my corpse? So, that we recognize those before being understood according to these, neither force these according to that force. Yes, the counter-accusation is not valid. First, because the words that Christ speaks there: the flesh is not useful.

1. In the old edition: "such a cabinet that the" 2c.
2. performed - reported; also in the opposite sense: brought out of the right direction, reversed. Here it will probably be taken in the former sense.

is not useful at all, are exceedingly clear, that no one may conquer that there is another or significant sense in them. Secondly, that faith admits that this is the true meaning which the words bear. For who would believe that Christ would have thrust us into darkness, in which he did not let the Jews remain? Christ is the light, the gospel is a light. Who then can think that we are forced into those things from which Christ led the Jews away, so that they would not be afraid? Lastly, that the sensibilities 3) here be not so much repugnant and unwilling, as that the false faith may boast that it believes that bodily flesh is eaten. For the sensibilities may not be persuaded to rejoice, they feel that they feel no way; for they poorly yield to faith, believing the things which they do not feel and experience; though nothing is expected of them that is above their law and nature. But if this fictitious faith, which thus judges the sensitive flesh, forcibly strikes the sensibilities, so that they are forced against their nature, they feel what they do not feel, they never become obedient. And if you force them with violence and rage, so that they are forced against their will to rejoice, which they do not feel, then they also cry out eternally against it.

Now we come back to the track. We must see what is the right natural sense of these words of Christ, because they may not have the gross and physical sense.

In this time of ours, there have come forth those who have said that the symbolic, that is, other-meaningful sense of this little word "that" must be explored. 4) Whose faith I boast, if it is not fictitious. (For God knows the hearts; we poor people must now judge from what we see. Yes, I praise their faith highly; not because they may act these words unwise enough, but because they have seen that it may not exist that we understand a bodily flesh here. But which charybden fear forced them to approach the Scyllam, I will not say here, because it does not belong here.

Seventy-two: Now when they read in three evangelists and in Paul, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, saying: Take, eat, this is my body!" they argue.

3. Marginal gloss: Sensations are seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, tasting.
4. Here Zwingli comes to Carlstadt's interpretation. Compare the next following marginal gloss.

468 11 Zwingli's opinion of the night meal of Christ re. W. xx, soi-604. 469

They, the meaning or pointing is changed here so that this pronoun or pointing word does not show 1) the bread, which he took, broke, and offered; but the body of Christ, which he himself received. And no doubt their meaning or opinion (for we have not read anything of their writings, except a very small booklet) is that Christ wanted to show the disciples that his body was the true one, 2) of which the prophets said much before how it should be used. Their opinion may well help that Christ John thus said on the sixth: The bread that I will give you is my body, which is given for the life of the world. For they would like to present here: "Behold, the body, which I told you long ago must be killed, is now accepted for slaughter; but let all fear and delay be removed; here I am; I myself present myself. And lest you fall into error, and think that because I am the Son of God, I will not thus put this body to death, but will quickly blow out and present another, as has often been seen to be done by the angels; yea, lest ye think (for human invention is sacrilegious) that I will present another body for him: I tell you publicly and clearly that I will give the body, which you see before you, for the redemption of the world.

I want to say with kind leave that I think of the words that we will also see very clearly to be the right thing. If we want to forcefully bend this little word "this" to Christ, then all the action, which is so fearfully described by all, will grow cold and perish; that it must be against God, who meant that it was so diligently expressed in vain: Jesus took the bread, passed it on, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take and eat, that my body may be given for you. For what need was there of so great a proclamation, which the evangelists have so actually presented, that even to this day, as often as we hear the words, we think we see Christ Himself acting and speaking all things? Yes, why did Christ need so much armament, if he did not want to speak anything else, neither that his body now stands between the guest 4) and the enemy? Does he make them eat according to the custom of hospitable people (now had

1. Marginal gloss: Insxts odtsnäitur variatio äernonatrutionis.
2. Maybe: would be?
3. In the old edition: den.
4. "Gäche" perhaps: a steep slope.
5. as if he wanted to say: Be happy and eat? To what does it belong: He has spoken good things over, he has given thanks, he has broken, he has given? Did they not eat, Christ put before them or offered? 6) Therefore we are forced here to leave all action and speech (which is ungodly and ungodly), or else to understand badly that what Christ gave with such diligence and splendor was a sign of his corpse.
6. Nor does it prevent that panis, that is, bread, is masculini generis to the Latins and Greeks, and corpus, that is, corpse, neutrius; for such speech you will find without number very near in all tongues; with which speeches one reaches from art 7) to matter. Example: Take the cup, for this is the best gold, which is among all the king's crockery. See how here cup, man's craft, 8) signifies the art, and the gold the matter; for the cup is made of art, but the gold is of which the cup is made. So one goes from the art or handicraft to the matter, so that one recognizes by the things deliciousness. Therefore one would give to the old opinion with this argument before weapons, neither would break from the hands. Yes, if we fell into the disease of word-fighting; then 9) the meat-eaters would say: Behold, in this speech one goes from bread to matter, from art to body; and the meaning is: The bread is to matter half the same body of Christ.

(75) Although here, too, there would be deceit (which we must say, however, so that no one takes it in hand), for it happens in common speech that one goes from the art to the matter, which the laborers have seized, 10) to work in it. Therefore, one should go from the bread to the flour 11) and speak: Bread is flour. 11) But we have not said these things, which are more subtle, nor firm, because we put one power into them; but learn that such speeches are found in all tongues. From this, then, it follows that that argument, which was taken from change of gender (generis), is stupid.

The third. If Christ adds: Do this in remembrance of me! Dear, what are the disciples told to do in remembrance of him? If you say, "Eat," we will answer in the affirmative: Where will

5. The brackets are set by us.
6. "bote" probably as much as: nöthigte.
7. Art here is in the meaning: that which is made by art.
8. i.e. cup, which is of masculine gender.
9. After "then" we have deleted "it".
10. Here we have deleted the word "has".
11. In the old edition: "meal".

470H ' Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, eoi-E. 471

Do we then throw down the words "this is my body", which stand between them? Does it not seem to you to be wonderfully sacrilegious, since all the actions and speeches that precede and follow these words make it clear that what is served to be eaten here is the body of Christ, even though it is a sign, and what is said to be done in remembrance, expresses the whole cause of the meal? Does it not seem sacrilegious to you that the words which are between them are pressed elsewhere? It seems to me that one should not do such violence to words, even though faith does not doubt the other meaning.

So the whole burden does not lie on this little pointer "that", but on another, which is nothing greater after the letter number, namely on the little word "is", which is taken in the holy scripture not in few places for "means". Here I hear (so that I say this for the first time) that the Wiklef before times, and the Waldenses still today hold the opinion that this word "is" is taken here for "means" 2); whose reason of the scripture I have not seen, however. For it may well be that they are right in the opinion, but that they mean or understand right, they do not prove right. Which may have been a cause that their opinion was rejected as erroneous. For we too have experienced, by the grace of God, in many struggles that we have had with some of the meaning of the holy Scriptures, that some have allowed themselves to be forced into some things, and have given way to others to answer for, solely because they could not rightly understand nor prove the righteous opinion 3).

78 Therefore, I have ignored these cries: He is Viking, Waldensian, heretical, want to draw out the places from the Scriptures, 4) where no one may deny, this word "is" badly be put for "means". Accordingly, we want to prove brightly that also in this place "is" must be taken for "means".

In the first book of Moses, in the 41st chapter, Joseph, the interpreter of Pharaoh's dream, says: "The seven beautiful cows, and the seven full ears of corn, are seven fruitful years, and have a power of dream. Dear! how? are seven fat cows seven years? No. But the cows he saw "mean" seven fruitful years. What power of words denied before no one

1. "zreichlich" - to a character.
2. Marginal gloss: Behold, how great things are often attached to small things!
3. In the old edition: preserve.
4. So put by us instead of: "will".

He may become, he is not right-minded. So it is without contradiction that "are" is taken here for "mean". Soon after the words followed Also the seven dry and lean cows, which went up after those, and the seven thin ears of corn, which were spoiled by burning 5) are the seven years of the future famine 2c. See again "are" taken for "mean".

80 Now let us come to the New Testament. When Christ, in Luke 8, by the likeness of the seed falling into the earth, signified the manifold difference of those who received the word, and the disciples did not understand it, but asked what he meant by the likeness, he spoke to the last: The seed (of which they had heard much), yes, the seed is the word of God. Now no seed is the word of God; but by this word he signified the word of God: but here "is" is put for "signifies." Soon after: But he that fell into the thorns are the 2c. That is, but whom I have spoken falling into the thorns, signifies the 2c. Soon after: But he that fell into the good ground is the 2c., that is, the seed which I said would fall into the good ground is the 2c. So Matth. 13. is put in the same simile "is" for "means", although the speech is a little stranger.

In the same place, when he opens the likeness of the wheel sown 6) between them, he says: The field is the world. Now the field is not the world, but means in this likeness the world. There: the good seed are the sons of the kingdom, that is, the good seed means the children of the kingdom. There: the weeds are the children of the evil one; that is, they mean the children of the evil one. There: but the enemy who sowed them is the devil; that is, he signifies the evil enemy. There: the harvest is the end of the world, but the reapers are the angels; in which both places "is" and "are" are taken for "means" and "signify".

82. I mean, it is enough brought forth, so that we prove, "is" and its kind for "means" to be put. But some of them break out in such an ineffable way 7): If we want to force every word to mean every thing in such a way, nothing will remain whole in the holy scriptures; for it is forfeited that the wicked will press or force some sense into any words; so it is necessary that mau
83. So put by us instead of: "Brenner" after Gen. 41, 23: .wersenget".
84. Rade - weed.
85. inhospitable - inhospitable.

472 11. Zwingli's Opinion of the Supper of Christ 2c. W. xx. sos-sos. 473

answer them a little sweeter, neither throw them. Who is ignorant that no word is not, it is sometimes 1) (like a plant) taken out of its own soil and put in a foreign one, since it is much more delicious, neither if you left it in its own soil, that is, in its proper custom? Which custom 2) is common to the Hebrews above all others, as being publicly invented by all the speech of Christ, even though it is described in a foreign (namely Greek) tongue.

83 Take a most rejected word, which is beloved to you: dung. Now Christ, Luc. 13, introduces the arborist, who prefigures the idle barren tree, and promises to put dung around it: how could he more sweetly signify a mild minister of the word? Which ministry is undoubtedly to nourish some idiots with all artistry and to commend them to the Lord with fervent prayer that he will not judge them according to their merit.

Take another word: stone. Is this word not in a more honest place, if it means the stone of Christ, or if it means a useless stone standing upright in a field or in a wall?

So also the effects are drawn into another sense. Did not Paul use this effect "to walk" wisely when he says to the Galatians: "You walked well" for: you lived or walked well and with good conscience? Also when Christ our Savior says, "I am the door," was he a door? Now he must be a door according to the impatience of those who do not want to tolerate the words and effects of other borrowings. So tell what kind of door he is, a wooden, stone, ivory or horned door, as one reads in Plinio and Homero? I am the way. I am a vine. I am a light 2c. The words conquer, it pleases us or not, that we are forced to give them another meaning. For is he a vine? No; but he holds himself like a vine.

Therefore, one should not cry out so clumsily: Behold, dear brethren, the thing befalls you, they want to deprive you of your language. If only we could not conduct our daily speeches in an orderly manner 4) without needing to borrow words from somewhere else and borrowing them from somewhere else. But faith must teach us to see in what meaning we should take any speech or word. But

1. i.e. sometimes.
2. Marginal gloss: To carry elsewhere, to take elsewhere from where or for each other.
3. So put by us instead of: run.
4. commensurate.

We would be unfair to Christ and to ourselves if we understood him to be a lamb or a ram (John 1 and 21) and a fatted calf (Luke 15). Now when he says, "I am a vine," he says nothing else but: I bear or hold myself against mine own as a vine. Who now will stir up this understanding? Who can complain that they are doing what is not right?

So also in this place one should interrogate the faith. If he states in this speech, that is my body, that one should let this word "is" remain in its natural meaning, then one should badly follow the faith, and fear nothing at all those who as we see, out of ungodliness may subject themselves to all things; for they may not snatch the truth out of the hands of the godly, God grant as they wish. But may the. But if faith cannot bear the meaning that is found in some of the ways above, and is especially firmly opened with the single word: the flesh is not useful at all, then in this place the little word "is" (short of it) must have another meaning, God grant what the unlearned and unbelievers cry out.

Therefore, according to our understanding, this word "is" is here taken to mean, although the understanding is not ours, but of the eternal God. For we cannot boast of any thing that Christ has not wrought in us, Romans 15.For we cannot boast of any thing that Christ has not wrought in us, Romans 15, as has been sufficiently proved above; that since faith is from the invisible God and reaches to the invisible God, it is a thing that must be prior to all of the five sensibilities, therefore everything that is a body, and that is sensible or touchable, has no way of belonging to faith: Now it follows that if we say that according to our understanding the word must be taken in that place, we do it only for the sake of some idiots; and not that this understanding may be truly reversed with some scriptures. For either the word "the flesh is not useful" must be rejected, which is spoken ungodly; for it is possible that heaven and earth perish not one letter from the word of God; or else this must be the single and simple sense.

89. Therefore let us see before all things how all things will turn out, if we take "is" for "means. And all things will turn out well, if we are also proved in the midst of 6) that also in this place "is" must be taken for "means"; which we had taken upon us to prove for the other. So it stands
90. In the old edition: in.
91. "mittenzu" - meanwhile.

474 H- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx. sos-sii. 475

in Lucas, that 1) we will be satisfied from the evangelists: And when he had taken the bread, he gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it unto them, saying, This is my body given for you: do this in remembrance of me. Stand here, O faithful believing soul, which thou art caught with unskilful opinion; would well 2) all things be fitting, as one here takes nothing freely from them, nor does to them, and yet all things remain well fitting; that thou art astonished that thou hast not seen this meaning all along; yea, much more thou art astonished that the 2) beautiful whole body of this speech is so freely torn asunder by some: He took the bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying 2c.

90. See how this passage here gives nothing but: This (indeed, that I give you to eat) is a sign or emblem of my body, which is given for you; and this you shall do for the memorial of me. Does not this saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," publicly indicate that this bread is to be eaten in remembrance of him? Therefore the supper of Christ, as Paul calls it, is a remembrance of the death of Christ, not a remission of sins; for that alone is of the death of Christ. For he says: That I now command you to eat and drink shall be unto you an eminent sign, which ye shall all use, as ye eat and drink together, keeping my remembrance. Which remembrance Paul 1 Cor. 11 (so that nothing would break the proper sense and understanding, after he has put to both wine and bread: Do this in remembrance of me!) thus declares: "Therefore, as often as you eat the bread (which is a meaning, for none of them calls it meat) and drink the drink, proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

91 But what is proclaiming the death of the Lord? Nothing else, neither to proclaim, to proclaim, to give thanks for, to praise; as also Peter 1 Epist. Cap. 2: That ye may declare the virtue of him that called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. And therefore Paul teaches us that until the end of the world, when Christ shall come again and deal justly with the human race, we are to accomplish the remembrance of the death of Christ by proclaiming his death, that is, by proclaiming the virtue of Christ.

1. So put by us instead of: that.

2. In the old edition "they". > > 3) So put by us instead of: "the pretty whole body ... be torn".

4. So set by us instead: Word mark.

The Greeks also called the remembrance a thanksgiving.

Now we want to come to the words of the drink, in which this sense is found even brighter. But we want to indicate before that here the drinking vessel is taken for the drink; that which is kept, for that which is kept. So the words are: This drinking vessel the new testament, in my blood, which is poured out for you 2c.

Here we want to request each one in particular. 5) Drinking utensil (is said before that it is taken for drink). The New Testament (that is, privates 6) or covenant). We know well that the article x in the place as much the-may, as "is". Same as also in Hebrews Hif and Hu. For Paul in 1 Cor. 11. put them both, the article and the word "is": x SeaS^ xxxxx that is, the drink is the new testament; that nothing may break us. I have yet to speak "this" (without the little word "is"), lest any man should accuse me of iniquity; how is he now? Is the drink or the dishes the new testament? Yes, it is; the truth speaks thus. But the new testament has no power neither in the death nor in the blood of Christ. Yes, actually the death and blood of Christ are the testament or covenant itself. But if the drink also is the testament, then it follows that this drink is the true and sensitive blood of Christ; for the same, poured out for us, has sanctified the covenant, made it firm and solid.

(94) Here we have to step down from good people, even though we do not have a different mind from them, but the thing itself is different; think what would be the point, even though we are far from them, and the thing itself is different?

95 Therefore in this place the word testament or covenant is used elsewhere for the sign or emblem of the testament. Just as the letters are also called messages, although they neither breathe nor speak, but find them signs of the speeches and deeds of those who lived and spoke sth.

Another and clearer example. Letters are often taken for wills or legacies, as is often seen in Cicero. The will is opened and read 2c. Now the letters were not the will, but the goods that were made to one.

5. "request" - to inquire, to investigate.
6. "Made" - Legacy.
7. "nierinnen" - in nothing, nowhere in.

47611 . Zwingli's opinion of the night meal of Christ 2c. W. xx. sn-M". 477

[For what good would it have been to have made a letter? But in the letters was understood, 1) what was made bequeathed to each one and had to be given.

97. So also in this place the testament is the death and blood of Christ; but the testamentary letter, in which the order and sum of the testament is comprehended, 1) is this sacrament, for in it we commemorate the death of Christ and the shedding of his blood, which good things they have brought us. And when we partake of the same good, we give thanks to God for the will or testament that He has made for us by grace. Then the testament (that is, the testamentary letter) is opened and read when the death of Christ is recognized, proclaimed, praised and thanked. But then the testament is divided and torn up, when every man trusts in the death of Christ; for so he misses the inheritance that is made to him.

98. But that this potion, or vessel, is thus taken for a sign of the true testament, is indicated by the words themselves, when he says, The potion a new testament (that is, the sign of the testament and the letter of privation) is in my blood. He does not say: The potion which is the new testament is my blood; but: The drink a new testament is in my blood. Now where one thing is in another, there is a difference between them, as between two things; which the sophists call realiter, that is, as distinct things. But those things that are divided from one another as distinct things can never come together to be one thing. For the thing that is in another is not the thing in which it is.

99. Now what was the cause, that after the other evangelists, Matthew and Marcus, had spoken? This is my blood of the new testament, that therefore Lucas and Paul speak: The drink of a new testament is in my blood? There would seem to be a great difference, for those call it a blood of the testament, but these a testament of the blood, that is, a letter of privity and a sign of the testament, which has power in the blood of Christ. All things were done with diligence; for Lucas and Paul, who wrote after those two, have impressed something light upon their words. For when they saw the words: The drink is my blood, enough to be dry or arid to some understanding, although they were understood clearly enough by the ancients (as one may notice in Tertulliano, which will come after). But when they (Lucas and Paul) judged that
100. In the old edition: out of print.

in the future not everyone would understand this speech thus: The potion is a sign of my blood, which blood is a blood of the new testament (for so much can the article xx), they have formed the speech differently: This drink is the new testament, that is, this is the new testament's drink, which new testament has power in my blood. For Matthew and Marcus said: of the new testament; but which Lucas and Paul called: the new testament. Then it may be seen that they spoke "the new testament" for "it is a sign of the new testament".

100. Just as the letter is called a testament, in which the things bequeathed 2) are understood, and the emperor is called the images of the emperor; from this it follows that it is a sign of the new testament. This sense becomes brighter, if we will actually consider the articles in all four 3) 2c.
101. So then the words of the drink stand thus: The drink is a new testament in my blood; since "in my blood" can have no other sense than: which testament has power in my blood: so it is evident that the words of the bread are also to be taken and understood in the same way. This (which I tell you to eat) is a sign, or means my body, which is given up for you. But here we desire that no man be vexed in the fearful inquiries of the words; for we put our ground not therein, but in the one word, The flesh is not at all profitable; which word alone is strong enough to compel that "is" be put in the place of signifying, or signifying, or "is a sign," although otherwise the speech would not have the sense to be understood at all.

One should also visit Paul in other places; 4) so that we may understand more clearly which way the faithful used this sacrament in the times of the apostles. In the first Corinthians, on the 10th, he writes: "The drink of grace (that is, of the free gift and honor of God), which we bless (that is, which we must also give thanks to Him), 5) is it not the common of the blood of Christ? This is so much said: If we drink with one another of the drink that Christ has given us as a sign of His free

2. In the old edition: "made" and immediately after "out of print".
3. Marginal gloss: Here is something lim Latin original that can not be well translated; meets dre language.
4. d. i. examine.
5. Marginal gloss: dsueäiotio, a free gift, vsnoäwsrs, give thanks, is the right kind in the writing of words.

478 II. writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx, 479

Is he not whom we alone drink, who have the blood of the testament in common? He therefore that drinketh here openeth himself to all the brethren, that he is of their number that trust in the blood of Christ: and that this is the certain natural sense of these words, some certain signs do prove, which follow soon after.

103. The bread that we break (understand, among one another), is it not the sharing of the body of Christ? That is, if we break bread among ourselves, is it not that we all, who are the body of Christ, open ourselves to one another and open ourselves up, that we may be of the number who let themselves be joined to Christ? Now follows a sign, by which it is understood that this is the right meaning, and that this word "body" is here taken differently 1) neither for the sign of the body of Christ, namely for the church, when he says: "For we are one loaf, one body, the whole multitude; for we all share with one another of one loaf.

We see here in the 11th chapter that the custom of this sacrament in Paul's time was like this. The disciples of Christ came together and initially ate the whole supper with each other. Then some of them had them carried to the table, splendidly and deliciously, after which shame was born for those who did not have such things. Some ate in time, some delayed it, from which it happened that some of them were already full and waiting for the festive bread or the bread of thanksgiving, but some had not yet eaten when the bread and drink of remembrance were carried around. For the sake of abuse, Paul taught them to eat at home and not to despise the church of God, that is, the congregation, and not to eat the bread of remembrance at home, but the daily supper.

But when they were gathered together to give thanks and praise to the Lord, they were admonished that they should not eat without a show, for then he says, "Man proves himself. 2c. For whoever eats of the sign shows himself to be a member of the church of Christ; therefore it is not fitting for him to eat of the sacrifices of the idols, nor to sit at the table, who has sat in the great supper of Christ (for Paul reaches here in this place, 1 Cor. 10). For those who eat here become One Body and One Bread; that is, all those who come together here (for the reason of proclaiming the death of the Lord, that is, to give thanks and praise) and eat this Meaningful or Significant Bread,

1. Marginal gloss: The body is taken differently and differently.
2. i. furthermore.

to present themselves as the body of Christ, that is, members of his church and community; which church, having one faith and eating one substantial bread, is one body and one bread.

From this it is evident that Christ has fed and watered us for the reason that, as each of these priceless berries and sticks of flour come together in one body, we are also joined together in one faith and one body. Therefore also the Greeks called this feast and supper 3), that is, the joining together, because with this sign or supper they were joined together into one body, just as they were otherwise joined together bodily.

The places in the stories of the messengers, which are about the breaking of the bread, serve almost well to this sense and understanding, if one is to understand them, as many think of them, from the common of the important bread. And truly, no one can contradict, it must be understood Acts 2 the first opinion of the breaking of bread of this significant bread, because it says: And they all firmly adhered to the teaching of the apostles, and the common, and the breaking of bread and praying. For soon after this he speaks of the bread, that is, of the bodily food, as they needed it in every house.

From this it appears publicly that the apostles used this bread of remembrance, as is now shown, as you may well judge from the things that go before and after. Then also, as bright as the sun shines, it is evident that circumcision and the paschal lamb, both of which could not be used without blood, were turned into the two things acceptable to man by Christ, who with his blood represents all blood; by which we see that the roughness of the law was turned into the goodness of grace. To the law, which was sanctified with the blood of cattle, was committed the blood of circumcision. To the Lord Christ, who sanctified the eternal testament with his own blood, we are committed or attached with the superfusion of water; by this we learn that the sacrificial fire is extinguished with the blood of Christ.

The paschal feast was a great wedding and memorial, in which they thanked God for having redeemed them from the Egyptian power. But so that no footprint of the bloody law remained, he (Christ) wanted his feast or remembrance to be celebrated with the emblem of wine and bread, which are two things for all people.

3. In the old edition: genämet.

480 11 Zwingli's opinion of the night meal of Christ re. W. xx. si6-ei9. 481

are friendly and useful to people. And according to such an understanding, baptism is our circumcision, and thanksgiving our Easter, that is, the feast, wedding and remembrance of our redemption.

(110) From this it follows that this was a false faith, which taught that the use of this important bread cancels sin, because the one Christ cancels sin when he dies. Now he died only once, as is learned by the whole epistle to the Hebrews and Romans on the sixth. From this it follows that he, having died once, is able to go on into eternity and is strong enough to put away all the sin of the world. It has also been a false faith or doctrine that has pretended that this bread is a work or sacrifice that, offered daily, pays for our sin, as we have proven in other places with much labor. But in no place shorter neither against Hieronymum Emser Steinbocken; in which booklet1) we have closed the whole sum in two bad short accounts, which we also want to put here. But we want to speak here before, which we have also spoken there before.

From the book Antibulon, that is, Widerwehr, which Zwingli wrote in Latin Wider den Emser.

1. the new testament is eternal, as Isaiah 9. and Jeremiah 31. is learned: so also the blood, in which the new testament is founded and sprinkled, must be eternal; for the blood is the blood of the eternal Son of God, 1 Peter 1. Hebr. 9.

Now follow the two accounts. 1) The one blood of Christ takes away our sins; for he alone takes away the sin of the world, and hath reconciled all things with his blood, Col. 1. For if our sins had been put away any other way, Christ died in vain; and they that did eat him were yet hungry, and they that drank him were none the less thirsty; but which be far from all believers, that they should remember such things! For when he (Christ) was lifted up from the earth, he drew all things to him. Nor is sin accepted without blood, Heb. 9. 2) Now the blood of Christ is not offered up more than once2) , for it is the eternal blood of the eternal Son of God, Heb. 9. He is offered up once with His own blood.

1. What follows is from the cited book against Emser. The book ^ntidulon is therefore according to the time the earlier.
2. In the old edition: einest.

entered into the holy places. 3) It follows that the blood of Christ, once offered, endures forever to pay for all the sins of all men.

3. On the other hand, notice: 1) Christ is sacrificed only when he suffers, sheds his blood, dies, for all things are equally valid; which I prove: Paul speaks to Hebrews 9. thus: Not that he sacrificed himself thickly3) , for if that were the case, then he must have suffered often from the beginning of the world. From this it is clear that sacrificing Christ is nothing else than suffering and dying for Christ. For Paul, when he says that there must be only one sacrifice, proves it for the reason that Christ died only once. From all of which it follows that Christ alone is sacrificed when he dies. For sacrifice follows death and occurs after death, for the sacrifice is not accomplished until that which is sacrificed is killed. 2) Christ may henceforth die no more, suffer no more, shed no more blood, Rom. 6, 9. f. Christ, who has risen from the dead, dies no more; death has no more power over him. For when he died once, he died for sin, and that only once; but when he lives, he lives. 3) Thus it follows that Christ may henceforth no longer be sacrificed, for he may no longer die.

(4) Hereby it is revealed how the Roman bishop, and all his followers, have so flagrantly deceived the Christian race. For what good have they not done by keeping the mass4) ? They were given whole kingdoms or territories to eat the Lord's supper for us, even though they did not eat it, but they pretended to sacrifice Christ for our sins; which way, if it had come from the apostles or most distinguished brothers of Christ, would have given it a form and a prestige. But since there is no reason at all for this custom of measuring 5) either from the institution of Christ or the apostles, why do we suffer in the temple, that is, in the congregation of God, such an impertinent crudity, 6) which so obviously breaks out to the dishonor of Christ? Why then do we not call all ministers of the Mass to desist from such a frightful dishonor of Christ? For if it is necessary that Christ be offered up daily, it must then be done and followed, that

3. d. i. often.
4. In the old edition: Mißhälten.
5. Marginal gloss: vox äudiss siAnitwLtioni" ^i.e. this word has two meanings].

6. d. i. Krämerei.

482II . writings against.Zwingli.and.his.followers 2c. W. xx, sis-"ri. 483

Christ, once sacrificed on the cross, is not enough for eternity. What greater thing can be called against such dishonor?

(5) Therefore all masses are to be laid down with care, and the Lord's Supper is to be used after the exposition of Christ; and yet no injustice is to be done to the sacristans, who were chosen for this office, but they are to be nourished with peace until they die. And therefore, in the place of the deceased, one should not take others, but use their goods for the use of the poor.

(6) But the things which are here opposed from the fathers, and from the councils, and from the papal laws, are so unfounded, that it is not necessary to refute them: for as no man before the birth of Christ could make us blessed by any sacrifice, so no man hath reconciled us to God, since Christ once suffered death on the cross. No assembly, no council, no fathers have been able to make him sacrificed again.

7 For as he hath blotted out all the sins of the world from everlasting1) : so is he also unto the end of the world salvific unto all them that trust in him. For he is eternal God; through him we are created and redeemed. And if anything contrary to this should come out of the holy Scriptures, let it not move thee: but hasten quickly to the place of the Scriptures, whence it is plain; and then thou shalt quickly know that it is a theft, or a necessity of the Scriptures. Take the same: Many are they that have dealt variously of the priesthood of Christ; yea, that they have made themselves such priests; and for a remedy of such error have they brought in that which is written to the Hebrews in the fifth, Every priest taken from among men is set apart for men; and many other places out of this epistle. But if you look at the matter more closely, you will see that there is no other colbe to make you crush all these objections than this epistle to the Hebrews, which I almost advise you to read.

(8) Now when you come to the aforementioned place to the Hebrews, you will find publicly that Paul, by the parables of the old chief priest, wanted to give an understanding of the priesthood of Christ, which was not administered in such a way that one priest after another was appointed to it, or another was put in the place of the one who died. For how would Christ be a priest for eternity, according to prophecy?

1. i.e. from the beginning of the world.

of the prophet, if another were to take his place? Is Christ then dead? or is he deprived of his office, that another should be put in his place? But because he sitteth in eternity at the right hand 2) of the Father, and taketh away our sins for ever with the sacrifice once made on the cross, there is no need that any man should sit in his stead: for only he that dieth as the just for the unjust may take his place. But since no one can be such a one, and no one can do such a thing, except the Son of God, it is an ungodly thing to speak of the sacrificial priesthood.

(9) I am not speaking here of the ministers of the word and the church of God. For such are the keepers of the secrets of God, that is, the secrets of God; and are not the priesthood of Christ. For no one can be such a one, except Christ, who is sufficient for us in eternity with the Father. And if anyone would object that in the new translation of the New Testament in3) the book of the stories of the messengers it is written Cap. 13, 8.: But when they sacrificed to the Lord 2c., you should know that among the Greeks it is called liturgunton [xxxxxxxx-

xxxxxxx]; which word is no less with them, that we speak: the serving, than: the sacrificing. And also with the Greeks in no place by the whole New Testament, if one deals with the table of God, is drawn in. Then it is evident that this little word sacrificari is not taken in this place for offering or slaughtering a sacrifice, but for serving. For it is a common thing in the epistles of Paul that this little word ëåéôïõñãüò [liturgos! is taken for servant.

when to the Hebrews on the 1st day the little word

ëåéôïõñãßá liturgia is taken for the word service; the same also Phil. 2. But more cheerfully4) he expresses it Rom. 15. since he calls the ministers of the word by an agreement 5) immediately as sacrificial apostles, liturgus Λεί-π^/ούς- or hierurgus ñýò]. For as the ancient priests slaughtered cattle for a sweet savor unto the LORD; so also the ministers of the Word are to convert the vicious people to a true sacrifice unto GOD. For thus saith he: I have written to you more boldly, brethren, in part as one who warns you by the grace given me of God, that I may be liturgos, that is, a minister of JEsu Christ among the Gentiles, handing the hierurgon, that is, the

2. In the old edition: Just.
3. "in" here and otherwise in the same case put by us instead of: an.
4. d. i. clearer.
5. i. e. transferred speech.

48411 . Zwingli's Meinung von Hern Nachtmahl Christi 2c. W. xx, "2r-"24. 485

Gospel of God, that it may become a pleasing sacrifice to the Gentiles, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. From these words of Paul it is clear what we are to understand by the little word liturgian also in the stories of the messengers Cap. 13. For the men who are called ministers of the word with great concern, with much sobriety, 1) for otherwise the ministering of the word is not thought of here, which is unusual in the custom of the apostles who preach the word unitedly.

(10) Therefore, the thanksgiving or communion or supper of the Lord is nothing else but a remembrance with which those who firmly believe that they have been reconciled to God the Father through the death of Christ proclaim the life-giving death, that is, praise, rejoice in, and proclaim it.

11. Now it follows that those who come together for such a ceremony or wedding, bringing the death of the Lord to remembrance, that is, proclaiming his death, testify to themselves by the act that they are members of one body, and one bread; for all those who trust in Christ are one body; which Paul testifies in many places, namely, in the above-mentioned place, 1 Corinthians 1:10. 10 Therefore whosoever eateth with the Christians when they proclaim the death of the Lord, whosoever eateth with them the meat of the flesh, the same shall live afterward without doubt according to the ordained rule of Christ: for he hath made others to understand that he trusteth in Christ. Therefore they that trust in him shall walk even as he walked, 1 John 2. Then cometh it to pass, that they which had agreed in this bread cast themselves out of this common place one from another; 2) If any man did any unruly whoring, or drinking, or profiteering, or worshipping idols, or speaking after them, or robbing them. What custom, if it had never departed from the congregation of Christ, would not the life and attendance of Christians have been better?

(12) Look, O godly heart, how vain we become when we pursue our sins! We have all wanted to attain our salvation through masses, even though the Lord's supper (performed according to Christ's custom) does not forgive sin (for this belongs to Christ alone), but it was an obligatory sign that testifies to us of God's community, as warmly devoted to Christ. What a testimony, if we did not keep it faithfully, that we had been excluded from the company of the

1. i.e. fasting.
2. Marginal gloss: It is the right custom of thanksgiving of the congregation of God.
3. so that Christian innocence would be kept all the more skillfully. But what happened after we changed this rule of our life and the discipline of Christian morals into another custom? That is, we have all seen with our own eyes that we have become more impudent than Turks and Jews (as far as life is concerned); for with them there is not so much common adultery, not so much sneaking and sneaking, not so much dog-like stuffing, not so much unlawful robbery; not to mention the arrogance and grandeur of princes and the common people, eternal wars, so many impure blasphemies, shameless words, lies, deceit and falsehoods. Do we not want to exhaust this swamp of vices all together with measuring, listening, creating and reading?

13. This I believe, no one will deny, that we have all fled to the Mass as the last refuge; indeed, we have come to the folly of thinking, when we had seen the bread, that it would serve us for salvation; Nor have we been pleased with such things, but have worshipped those things which we have seen, forgetting also our own statutes and articles (as they are called), in which the New and the Old, who have written, speak alike in this matter, namely, that the righteous humanity of Christ should not be worshipped. God alone is to be worshipped, and no one has ever seen God: why then do we worship that which we see, since God alone is to be worshipped, whom we have never seen? Where do those go who teach that one should worship the Eucharist, that is, thanksgiving? Who has ever worshipped thanksgiving? What is thanksgiving? or where is it? or how is it? Is it not then alone, if one gives thanks? So what is the common? indeed nothing else, but a gathering, a wedding gathering. But who has ever worshipped such? It is the effect and a custom, which then has its essence, if it happens.

(14) The supper of the Lord is not to be regarded differently; then it is a supper and a thanksgiving, when one eats with the proclamation of the death of Christ. Does one also read that the apostle worshipped this supper, since Christ has set up his remembrance of it? 5) Woe to our souls, who are thus bound to error, that I fear, when we already see the truth placed before our eyes, that we will not be able to understand it.

3. So put by us instead of: and.
4. i.e. shameful, shameless.
5. So put by us instead of: which.

486 H. Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, Wi-E. 487

accept! Where then does our faith reach out? or in what things does our faith hang? Is it not in God? Why do we refuse to turn our minds away from the outward show? Why do we put our hope in things that Christ has not shown us? Is not our salvation therein, who is a beatifier of all nations? Why then do we seek our salvation in the bread of remembrance? Although I am of the opinion that the bread and the drinking vessels of remembrance should not be handled without all discipline and shame in the congregation of God, in which congregation all things should be done with discipline and respectability, 1 Cor. 14. But in the discussion we will speak more about this.

(15) Now let us bring forth some of the ancients, who, as we shall clearly understand from their words, understood no flesh, indeed no flesh at all, in this sacrament or significant bread. For what is the use of calling the spiritual flesh, which is much the same as calling water fire and wood iron? But afterward they that have kept silence of the flesh, yet so that it may appear openly, that they also have been in the mind in which we are; but keep not silence of this, that they may say where-to 1) this supper is set up. Then it becomes known that with them there has been a different custom of the supper than the Roman bishops have indicated to us.

16 Tertullianus in the first book Wider Mareionem writes thus, namely: Christ has not rejected the bread, with which he wanted to signify his body. Luge, how cheerfully 2) he speaks that by the bread the body of Christ is signified! not that by the appearance of any bread the body of Christ is signified; but with the significant bread, which the faithful used in the proclamation of the death of the Lord. Then we call it a significant bread, which signifies and signifies. 3)

17 Augustine, although he speaks of this bread differently in another place, can be seen in two places what he wanted to understand through the body. The first place does much for the understanding of Tertullian, which is in the preface of the third Psalm, where he speaks of Christ and Judah thus: "And in the history of the New Testament of our Lord, such great and marvelous patience, that he called Judam one of his own.

1. ,,wozu" put by us instead of: wo.
2. serene -clear. Compare § 9 middle and § 32 end.
3. In the old edition: listed.

Good 4) as long as his thoughts were not hidden from him, because he called him to the supper, in which he recommended and presented the figure of his body and blood to his disciples". How clear is this, as Augustine speaks here, namely, that Christ gave the figure of his body and blood to the disciples? but how the figure? No doubt the custom of this significant or figurative bread, in which bread is signified and indicated, with an outward sign and glory, the remembrance of the death of Christ the Lord; or as the man in the Old Testament indicates and signifies the future bread of souls, Christ, that this bread also brings to our remembrance the slain body of Christ for us and his shed blood.

18 Augustine also, writing in John in the 72nd treatise, clearly rejects the flesh of Christ. As to the first: "But he hath laid out the manner of his gift, as he gave his flesh to be eaten, saying, Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. The sign that someone has eaten and drunk him is this: If he dwells and abides in GOD, and GOD in him; if man cleaves to him, and is not forsaken by GOD. This he exhorted and taught us with hidden words, that we should be in his inheritance, and under the head he is in his members, who there eat 5) his flesh, and not forsake his unity. But many of them that were there understood not the Lord, and were vexed: for hearing these things, they thought nothing but meat, which they also were. But the apostle says: "Verily, to understand after the flesh is death. The Lord gives us his flesh to eat, and to understand after the flesh is death, if he says of his flesh, for there is eternal life.

19 "Therefore we should not understand the flesh according to the flesh, as in these words: Therefore many, when they heard, not of his enemies, but of his disciples, said: This is hard speech, who may hear it? If the disciples thought this speech hard, what did the enemies do? And so it must have been that Christ spoke that which was not understood by all; the secrecy of God should have made them cautious, not contumacious" 2c.

With these words of Augustine we see clearly that he has also been of understanding, namely,

4. as a good one," that is, as if he were good.
5. In the old edition: "eating" and "leaving".

48811 . Zwingli's Opinion of the Night Supper of Christ 2c. W. xx, 62v-"29. 489

that one should not pay attention to the flesh of Christ. Soon after, in the same treatise, he explained more clearly, saying:

21. Has Christ been of much use to us through his flesh? How, then, is not the flesh profitable? But the Spirit has dealt through the flesh for our salvation's sake. The flesh hath been the crockery; therefore lye what it hath held in it, and not what it hath been in itself."

22' Notice that he says again that one should not pay attention to the flesh, whatever it is. Why then do we look at the flesh alone here, since it is of no use?

Now we want to step to those, 1) who have laid out the custom of this food so that we can see completely how this sacrament was held by the ancients (not only the thing itself, but also the custom). Then we can easily see how Augustine, a man before others of a sharp and prudent mind, was not allowed to speak the truth in his time, which at that time was to a large extent lost. The godly man saw completely what this sacrament was and in which custom it was used.

24 But the opinion of the flesh was too far torn. For the first we carry out Origen to this saying in two places, which also of the custom and the thing half at it itself with us hellet. 2) The first place is in the homily on the 23rd chapter of Matthew, at these words: You tithe mint, dill and caraway 2c., saying thus:

25. "But if in these words of the gospel a moral mind is also to be taken in hand, it is to be known that, just as mint, dill, and caraway give flavor to food, and are not in themselves a principal food: That there are also in our walk some things of this kind which are more excellent and necessary for the justification of souls, than these are the principal things of the law, namely, judgment, mercy, and faith; but the other things are like unto those things which 3) give savor to our works, and make them more acceptable and sweet, as, breaking off of laughter, fasting, kneeling, perseverance in the assemblies, going often to the sacrament, and other things of this kind, which are not righteousnesses in themselves.

1. Marginal gloss: Come forth, you theologians, and scold your Augustinum a heretic!
2. d. i. agrees.
3. "the" put by us instead of: is.

are, but are respected as a serving taste of the same righteousnesses."

26 Lye, how Origen disguises the common works that we call going to the sacrament (which was done more often by the ancients than in our times) as the lesser and external works of the tongue! 4) Which he would not have done if he had understood the matter of the flesh, as we do, and had made himself famous.

The other place is also about this evangelist in the 35th homily, about these words: This is my body 2c., in which place he soon speaks this way:

28. "This bread, which God the Word professes to be His body, is a nourishing or feeding word of souls; yea, the word that proceedeth from the word which is God; and the bread from the heavenly bread, which bread is laid upon the table. Of which table it is written: Thou hast prepared in my presence a table against them that trouble me. And the drink, which the Word, GOD, calls His blood, and passeth away, is the Word that watereth, and filleth abundantly the hearts of them that drink. Which drink is in the vessel, of which it is written, And thy watering drink, how glorious is it? And this drink is a sprout of the true vine, which saith, I am the true vine. And is the blood of this vine, which cast into the troughs 5) of suffering, which hath brought forth for us this drink.

29] "So the bread is the word of Christ, made from the wheat, which, falling into the good ground, brought forth much fruit. But why did he not speak thus? This is the bread of the new testament; when then he said: This is the blood of the new testament? For the bread is the word of righteousness, with which bread souls, if they eat it, are fed and led. But the drink is the word of the knowledge of Christ according to the secrecy of his birth and passion. Forasmuch then as the covenant or testament of God is set forth and given unto us in the blood of Christ, that we, believing the Son of God to be born and to die according to the flesh, should be saved; not in righteousness, wherein, without the faith of the passion of Christ, there can be no salvation. For this reason alone is here from the

4. "Tongues" perhaps as much as: appendage. - "verschupsen" --- to disregard, to reject. Instead of "verschnupft" m the old edition must be read "verschupft". Cf. § 2 in No. 15 of this volume in Oecolampad's answer to the Syngramma. Likewise § 81 in No. 16 of this volume.
5. "Trotten" (from Treten) - winepress.

490II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx. ess-Wi. 491

Drinking vessel spoken of: This is the cup of the New Testament."

30 It is too long to put all the trade here. In these words of Origen, we recognize that he also believed that the true principal of this sacrament is faith, in which we believe that Christ offered himself to the Father for us, for this is the food of souls.

(31) But the custom of this sacrament he interprets, saying immediately afterward in the same place, "And Jesus, therefore, with them that keep the marriage feast with him, taketh bread of the Father, and giveth thanks, and breaketh it, and giveth it to the disciples, according as every man is able. He gives it, saying, "Take and eat." Notice how he calls the wedding feast, that is, a glorious gathering of the congregation, or running together. But that he says: Christ gave, after each one is able, it is clear that he speaks here of the faith of thanksgiving (which God does not give in equal measure to all).

32 Thus Origen here cannot be understood of the flesh, for such flesh is like one with all those who perceived it, as they speak according to their opinion. But what follows here in Origen is for the first time seen by a stupid reader as if he were speaking of the flesh; yet it is no less 1) found in him, as is well known to one who sees him closely. Yes, also the things, which he puts afterwards, show cheerfully, what thanksgiving or Eucharistia is with him, and what his custom is, since he speaks thus:

33. "After teaching the disciples, who had celebrated the wedding feast with their master (lug, the wedding feast), and had taken the bread of dedication, and eaten the body of the word (see if he meant a sensitive body here), and had drunk from the drinking vessel of dedication" 2c.

34. perceive the thanksgiving, 2) the common of glory, or proclamation of the death of the Lord.

35 Hilarius, in the 9th Canon, speaking of the fasting of the disciples of John and Christ, says thus: "But that Christ answered the disciples not to fast in the presence of the Bridegroom; he teaches and gives to understand the joy of his presence, and his presence in the presence of the Bridegroom, and his presence in the presence of the Bridegroom, and his presence in the presence of the Bridegroom.

1. "minders" - in the least.
2. Marginal gloss: The paschal lamb is reversed into a thanksgiving.
3. No one needs food in his presence, that is, because Christ is preserved in the image of our minds. But when he cometh from us, saith he, they shall fast: for all they that believe not that Christ is risen shall not have the meat of life. For in the faith of the primitive 4) shall receive the sacrament of heavenly bread; and he that is without Christ shall be left in fasting of the food of life."

Here Hilarius understands the secrecy of Christ to be the food of souls, which food, if it is present, is not fasting for anyone. But if the food is taken from them, fasting will also come. But those to whom Christ is risen, that is, those who admit that Christ is risen from the dead, they alone eat the sacramental bread, which is the meaning of the heavenly bread. On the other hand, those who are outside of Christ are left at the fasting of the food of life. Therefore he thinks that the Lord's supper is a sign of those who trust in Christ, in whose hearts he is risen; that is, those who firmly believe that he is risen; for those who believe him risen must believe him to be a true God. Now those who believe him to be a true God may not be, but they must trust in him. Therefore the brave man says: In the faith of the risen ones the sacrament of the heavenly bread is taken.

But in the 30th canon, of Judah, he speaks thus: He would not drink well with God, who would not drink with him in the kingdom 2c. Which speech also (as I am concerned) has something, then it is learned that Hilarius did not understand that in the bread of the Lord the body of Christ is eaten, who hung on the cross, or wept in the manger, as they speak. For he says: to drink with God, and not: to drink the blood. But to think this of Hilario, 5) also that he speaks nothing of the Lord's supper, but these few words.

38 Hieronymum about the prophet Sophoniam 6) in the 3rd chapter I bring in for the reason, not that he serves much in this matter, but that he has much different opinion about thanksgiving than the pope. Therefore he says: "Also the priests, who serve thanksgiving and

3. "which" put by us instead of: which".
4. "Urstände" - resurrection. Compare the following paragraph.
5. "wehrt" put by us instead of: mehrt.
6. i.e. Zephaniah.

492 11. Zwingli's Opinion of the Night Supper of Christ 2c. W. xx, Wi-en. 493

distribute the blood of the Lord to their people, act ungodly in the law of Christ, thinking that thanksgiving is in the words of the sacrificer and not in life, and that only the glorious commandment 1) and not the merit of the priests is necessary" 2c.

39 He says to the first, "And they share the blood of the Lord with their people. In which words it is not obscured that even in the times of Jerome the priests not only ate, but also served the whole congregation, not only with bread, but also with drinking vessels.

40 Accordingly, he says: "Thinking that the words of the sacrificial priests make thanksgiving, 2) and not life. With these words she 3) cheerfully opposes the teaching of the popes, who do not deny any boy to make thanksgiving, but Jerome means the opposite, although neither Jerome (lest I anger those who think much of him) nor the pope speak rightly of thanksgiving.

(41) Lastly, if by the merits of the priests he understands the works of the law, he also errs with the pope; although the pope does not ascribe anything to the merits of the priests, but to the glorious commandment. But if by the merits he understands the Christian life, which is fashioned according to a righteous faith, that the same make thanksgiving; he meant it rightly. For thanksgiving is when the new people, gathered together by faith and life in Christ, give thanks to their original 4) body.

42. Augustine on Johannem, Tract. 84, on these words: No one has greater love than this, that he lay down his life for his friends, he speaks soon after thus: "Without doubt it is that which is read in the Proverbs of Solomon, Cap. 23: When thou sittest at supper at the table of the mighty, consider and understand what is set before thee; and so knowingly put thine hand to it, for such things thou must prepare. For what is the table of the mighty but this alone? From thence is taken his body and blood, who hath set his soul for us. And what is sitting at the table, but going there with humility? And what is to take heed, and to understand the things that are set forth, but to have sufficient grace?

1. "Commandment" placed by us instead of "prayer" according to § 41.
2. "make" put by us instead of: mache. How this sentence is to be understood follows from § 38.
3. "they," namely, Jerome's opinion of thanksgiving.
4. "Urhab" here will probably mean "originator" or "creator". Walch explains it by "intention". Otherwise it also stands in the meaning: beginning, beginning.

think? And what is to put the hand so that you know you must prepare such things, other than what I have now said: That as Christ laid down his life for us, so shall we lay down our lives for the brethren?

43 "Thus also saith the apostle Peter, Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow in his footsteps." Notice to what custom Augustine tells us to eat the body and blood of Christ; namely, in the custom that we give life for the brethren no other way than as Christ did for us.

But lest anyone think that Augustine understands these bodily things through the body and blood, let us also bring in what he said above in the 26th treatise in this way: "He now goes on to explain how the things he says are done, and what it is to eat the body and drink the blood. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. Therefore to eat this food and drink this drink is to abide in Christ, and to have him abide in him. Of him that abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, neither eateth he his flesh spiritually, neither drinketh he his blood, though he carnally and visibly presseth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ with his teeth; but rather eateth and drinketh the sacrament of such a high thing unto him for a judgment."

What could be spoken more clearly than these words? What could be said that is more pure and gentle? For while he has spoken, though he presses it carnally and visibly with his teeth, yet soon after, lest anyone should think that it should be understood of the flesh of Christ, he puts the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, supposing that this is called eating carnally, when it is eaten sacramentally. But sacramentally eating may be nothing else, but eating the sign or meaning. Again, so that no one disparages what he has said, eat sacramentally, as if such eating weakened the words of Paul 1 Cor. 11: Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself 2c., for one might say: If I eat it sacramentally alone, how can I be guilty of the body and blood of Christ? Therefore Augustine drives such an outrageous reproach, which has grown up from there, behind him, when he says: "But rather he eats and drinks the sacrament of such a high thing for his judgment. Luge, as he does not say: of such a high thing; but: that which is high.

5. Here we have omitted "that" because it is too much.

494II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 634-636. 495

Sacrament of such a thing. But what thing? That we are in Christ through faith, and he is in us. Therefore (when he then speaks more carefully) he speaks and indicates that everyone who eats the sacrament of faith in Christ alone eats and drinks the meal, thinking that this sacrament should not be eaten by anyone but those who trust in Christ.

46 This Augustine also, in the third book of the unanimity of the evangelists, in the first chapter, when he showed the reason why John was silent about the body and blood, when he described the supper and the washing of the feet, says: "But John said nothing here in this place about the body and blood of the Lord, but testified that in another place the Lord had spoken of it much more superfluously. Therefore Augustine thinks that the meal is necessary (as much as belongs to the matter), which is dealt with in the 6th chapter of St. John. But that same eating is to give faith to the words of the Gospel. Therefore, according to him, we do not eat Christ other than by faith, if we trust in him as the undoubted pledge of our salvation.

These things we have brought forth from the bravest of the fathers, not that we wanted to support the cause, in itself clear and confirmed with the word of God, with human prestige, but that it be opened to the weakest, 1) that We are not the first to bring forth this opinion without doubt not to the weakest. For I testify with God that I made this deal in silence with many scholars some years ago for the sake of His honor alone, for the custom that I would not unwisely scatter something unprovoked among the common people, which might at some point cause a great commotion; and as I have discussed the matter with many, 2) so I have found many more who have indulged me in this opinion of mine.

(48) Therefore, I have asked God for the 3rd time to show us a way by which commerce, which is almost difficult according to the judgment of the simple, may come to the knowledge of many people. Which trade, on the one hand, is not so difficult as we all would have thought; and, on the other hand, nothing more convenient and nothing more useful to the community of God would be. For what has given further occasion to all vices, but that we, if we have sinned brazenly, have not withdrawn ourselves from this fellowship? Or

1. In the old edition: become.
2. spoken about - discussed.
3. d. i. more often.

What could have provoked us more to love and favor, than if Christ, who died voluntarily for us poor and enemies, had been brought before our ears without interruption? Or in what way might the danger of shame have compelled us from adultery, usury, lavishness, grandeur, arrogance, avarice, and other vices, but that we were often and thickly at such a supper, from which some would be driven away with great shame, since daily punishments were inflicted on the vices?

Therefore, because I saw that the natural right custom of this sacrament would be so useful, I (when I spoke) earnestly asked God to show us a way by which we could take such a dangerous matter in hand prudently 4) and with good consideration. So God heard me, since I prayed earnestly; 5) therefore we consulted at last that this custom might come forth if the Mass were overthrown; which, if it were overthrown, we hoped that thanksgiving also might be restored,

50. But here I saw nothing more vehemently opposed than the sixth chapter of John, where this immovable and stiff adamant, the flesh is not useful, is so set in its colors and all hard metal that it stands indestructible, whatever you stick in it, and also it wants 6) all things to be broken in it, unless you do a little damage to it.
51. After this place, this seemed to me the most skillful: God has never seen anyone, John 1. There he forbade to worship anything that is seen and felt. Lastly, it was necessary to explain the natural and right custom (of this thanksgiving I mean), which, after it is understood, the forgiven hopes and abominable opinions will fall away from themselves.

I have spoken this advice to many. But before the matter has come to light, some little books come forth, I do not know what urgent words they utter, nor are they strong and loud enough; 7) they do not attack the matter in the place where victory may be achieved. So the divine power holds itself in human dealings, against which we are forced with unwillingness 8) to bring forth this opinion of ours; and also many brethren everywhere require such from us as much as with unwillingness.

4. i.e. mindful.
5. "since I prayed earnestly" put by us instead of: earnestly praying.
6. Maybe..rather" ?
7. louder - clear.
8. In the old edition: vanquished.

496 11 Zwingli's opinion of the night meal of Christ 2c. W. xx, 636-639. 497

(53) We have also written an epistle to the preacher of the gospel at Reutlingen, 1) as to one who is unknown to us face to face, which we have presented with such high admonition that no one would let it go forth, 2) which I have not seen go forth from the graces of God, although many devout brethren in the Lord have seen it. But since we started these commentaries afterwards, how could we have expressed our opinion differently than we did in the above-mentioned epistle? Since it was necessary to write commentaries, for we had promised such to not a few pious and learned men from France.

54. Therefore, we ask God, before whom we stand today and lift up our hands without stain of diligence to riot or honor, that this be the will of His establishment, which we have declared (as there is no doubt in our minds), that through the favor by which He has had mercy on all the human race, He may open the eyes of all men, so that they may all recognize the abomination that has placed itself in God's stead, and cease to worship. For this must be a great abomination, so that which is a creature is taken for God.

How can the worship of bread not be the highest ungodliness, since God alone is to be worshipped, and no creature at all, that even the theologians think that the righteous humanity of Christ may not be worshipped without the danger of idolatry? But what is that they say: They worship not the bread, but the body of Christ? Do they not now also worship a creature? Where then are their decrees, in which they forbade to worship mankind? But again they say: We worship, and eat also the spiritual body of Christ. Oh God! What is the spiritual body of Christ? Has anyone in Scripture found any other spiritual body of Christ than the church? as Eph. 4, Col. 1 is written. Or our faith, by which we believe, have paid our debt to him on the cross, and are assured of salvation through him? Why do we trouble the godly ears with the voices, 3) which no mind has been able to grasp? The spiritual body is understood by man in the same way as if you said: a bodily mind or carnal reason. Or do we not then eat the body of Christ, especially spiritually, when we believe it to be slain for us, and

1. The letter to Matthäus Alber, preacher at Reutlingen, dated November 16, 1524; found Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1880.
2. "let" put by us instead of: let.
3. i.e. words, expressions.

Is not the spirit and the life in us now? What do we tie together words that do not rhyme, just because we bicker without ceasing? Let us speak more brightly! We eat spiritually, if we come to Christ through the favor of God. What else can "eating the body of Christ spiritually" be but trusting in Christ? What do we devise new foes that cannot stand up to any reason?

(56) I am the light of the world, says Christ. Since he is the light, who would believe that he would have thrust us into such darkness, by which faith is much more likely to be weakened than strengthened? True and experienced things we speak. For if the human heart is now assured in faith toward God through Christ, has it not grasped the summa of its salvation? Without a doubt, yes.

57 What do you think grows in him when he is driven to such unruliness, which horrifies all understanding? Truly nothing but a wavering. But you would say: Faith is able to do all things; which if thou hast not, thou canst not be saved. Let us answer: In this way everyone has been deceived, for those who receive this crude opinion strictly demand faith, to which they otherwise do not admit much.

(58) Thus those who, out of the temptation of the flesh, as Paul says in Ephesians 4 and Colossians 2, do what they will, present it as stiff. Because you urge them to such an extent that they have to surrender, or are rushed, they flee 4) to faith; which if they had had faith, they would never have been able to produce such things as stiffnecked. For those who trust in Christ have no hunger nor thirst for anything else, for now they have the food with which the souls are refreshed. Therefore they put into faith that which it does not have, nor does it allow to be put into it, 5) as has been sufficiently proved above.

(59) Therefore they put not a bad dishonor upon him, that the flesh of Christ might endure through him, and that twofold:

First of all, that they may beautify this flesh with faith, for faith opposes it; then it will be necessary to have such a thing of itself, and not by faith; for faith extends itself into the things that are, before 6) you trust them. Therefore our faith may not make this flesh, which indeed I had not said,

4. they flee - this is how they escape.
5. "lässet" put by us instead of: lässest.
6. "before then" put by us instead of: before and.

498II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, ms-sii. 499

if it were not for some who bring forth such a lukewarm expedient of faith that they may speak: The flesh exists through faith. What could be said that is more clumsy? Can faith bring it about that bread is flesh? One should have stiffly proved this with the word of God, through which faith takes place, and not thus imposed on faith by force. 1)

60] To the other: Do they so dishonor the faith, that they say: Faith makes blessed; which is true in itself. But in this place it is as far from the truth as light is from darkness. For they pretend 2) that faith makes blessed him who believes in the bread, or that the same bread is bodily flesh.

(61) But these things are spoken without all valor of the word, because nowhere is it read: Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever believeth that he eateth my flesh in this bread shall be saved. Yes, much another error will follow, namely, that two ways to salvation are useful. One, if we trust in Christ; the other, if we believe that this bread is flesh. For thus they say, Except thou believe it to be so, thou mayest not be saved.

62. Lug, how human reason, willing and knowing, found darkness in the midst of light, in which darkness it groped, and thus in the grasping and requesting of its subtlety found glory with the simple.

What is the sharp diligence of Scoti and Thomae, in the investigation of the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood, other than a quest for the fame of subtlety? They have become like physicians who are not well versed in the art, who, in order that they may be regarded as experienced, bring about with their medicines that at the same time that they come to you, you become aware of a new disease; which new disease, if they take away the 3) disease, is considered good. See if the thing of which we are here speaking is not like them?

64. These have spoken first: Christ's bodily flesh shall be eaten, as he wept in the manger, as he hung bloody on the cross; they speak no more, 4) for as he passed through closed doors to the disciples, so shall he be eaten.
65. So put by us instead of: "aufgetrochen" - imposed.
66. "arch before" -^"turn before.
67. "the" put by us instead of: "it". The meaning of this sentence: If they eliminate this new disease, they will be considered good doctors.
68. "speak" put by us instead of: speak.

They were happy to go after the rulers. And so that they would not be held as unjust masters, they devised marvelous intrigues, so that they would present the matter in such a way, and their foolish minds, which truly never believed, or yet rejected, what was true, would see it, and led them as in an erroneous course, now showing this, then that, so long that they no longer had any regard for the outcome. Which, when they had conquered most of it, they used a tyranny against those who wanted to look at the matter more closely; they called those who wanted to bring forth the truth heretics. What can there be much talk about?

(65) When they were about to sell this bread to the common people as a merchandise, they must have made something of it, which greatly astonished all men, that they might increase the reward. Therefore they started to make the bread into meat, have put the word: The meat is not useful.

(66) Therefore, all those who read this opinion of ours, we pray by faith, through which we are all saved, not to hastily reject or condemn what they hear, even if it seems to them to be completely unheard, but to ask God to give them the light of a true understanding, by which light they may look at what is true, right and firm.

Truth is cheerful to look at, has no arrogance, and cannot be won with flattery. Then it comes about that those who know something bad about them must not look at such truth stiffly and without fear at first sight; but if they have tried it now and often, they will not let it go any longer.5)

68. May the Almighty God grant us in the end that we may recognize this as the right glory of God, by which the mind alone adheres to the one God, alone follows, alone desires to please and to live His will!
69. Again, may He grant us to realize that the outward things of this world do not make us better, but if we give them much, they will take us away from the true adornment of God. This happens in such a way that we turn the things that we have so far offered to the adornment of God Maozim (whom we have honored according to the saying of Dan. 11. as being in the holy place, even though we did not know what he was, with gold, silver, precious stones and other precious things) to the poor, and so our minds (which have so far been wandering with false hopes) are attached to the one God through the eternal pledge, his Son. Amen.

5. i.e. refresh.

500 12 Bugenhagen's Epistle Against the New Error 2c. W. XX, 641-643. 501

*12. John Bugenhagen's "Letter against the New Error in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. )

About September 1525.

Johann Bugenhagen Pomeranus wishes the grace of God through Christ to > the highly learned Doctori Johanni Hesso, pastor of the congregation > of Christ in Breslau.

Esteemed Doctor! I now know nothing special that I would like to write to you at this time, except that we would like and always desire that the gospel of the glory of God may increase among you through Christ with all modesty and meekness, which we also owe to our enemies, as far as we are allowed, if only the gospel remains pure and righteous: For what should I write much, since Doctor Majobanus, 1) who is to be our mouth and our epistle to you, is again traveling to the ruch; but the same Doctor asked me to indicate to you only in one or two words what I should think of answering to the new errors which are now rising against the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is not possible to answer them with more certainty than with the bad text and words in the Scriptures, which the masters and perpetrators of such error tear and tear up pitifully. And although I know that you do not need this, yet, because I am asked, I will gladly serve you and others with this little.

1. so the words in the evangelists, Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. read: "this is my body, this is my blood."

2. It is against the common usage to speak in all languages that the little word "that", with which one is accustomed to indicate something, should indicate and mean something else than the very thing that is presented. And this Carlstadtian error, with the two little words hoc and hic, that and this, 2) does not please Zwinglio either.

3 But Zwinglius, seeing that it has not gone out well, nor' wants to go, so takes

1. Ambrosius Moiban, pastor in Breslau. - "Mobian", Köstlin, "Martin Luther" (3rd edition), p. 84, is a misprint.-.
2. In the old edition: that.

he has before him the little word "is", and argues about it, it should mean so much here, as: This is my body, this is, this means my body, and: This is my blood, this is, this means my blood, and brings up sayings where it is thus taken and understood. But Christ does not here interpret any dream or likeness; and though three evangelists, and Paul, have written of this thing, yet none of them, not even with one word, has signified that the little word "is" here should be so much as: This is my body, that is, it means my body; yes, they say publicly differently, as I will soon indicate.

4. But Zwinglius sees that it will not follow immediately when I say: the little word "is" means in another place as much as "means", therefore it must stand here also in this way, otherwise it would be taken and understood everywhere in this way, as if I spoke: Peter is a man, that is, he signifies a man; and now sees that there is still available to prove that it should also mean so much here in this place: so he has nothing else that he would like to bring up (which he nevertheless makes him dream strongly enough) but this saying in John: The flesh is not useful, John. 6 Here we must laugh at the great theologian with his Carlstadt: so now lie down these two little words 3) that and is.

5 Who does not see that Christ there in John condemns and punishes the carnal mind of his disciples, in that he holds the flesh and the Spirit against each other, and now speaks not of his flesh and his blood, as before, but of the flesh and the Spirit; as the Scriptures in all places condemn and reject the flesh, but praise and accept the Spirit? places condemns and rejects the flesh, but praises and accepts the Spirit. At times the Scripture calls the flesh the letter. And Isaiah says: All flesh is hay, Isa. 40. And St. Paul to Romans on the 8th: "To be carnally minded is death, and to be spiritually minded is life and peace. For to be carnally minded is enmity against the flesh.

3. Marginal gloss: Äöo 6t es" sueeudusrunt.

*) This missive appeared about September 1525 (for on October 23 Zwingli replied to it) both "Latin and German. The title of the Latin writing is: Oontra novum 6rrorsm äs saeramsnto eornoris st "anZuinis Domini nostri losn Oüristi spistola .lo. LuMnüaNi Domsrani acl D. Hsssum, Vratislav. pa "torsm. German under the title we placed over it. We give the text according to the old edition of Walch.

502II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 643-sts. 503

God, since it is not subject to the law of God, because it is not able to. But those who are carnal may not please God."

But again Peter said to the Lord, John 6: "Lord, where shall we go? Thou hast words of eternal life, and we have believed and known that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." For Christ does not say there, John 6, My flesh is not useful; otherwise he made himself a liar. For he had said before to the Jews, "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Now wilt thou say that this is not a useful thing, from which the life of the world comes? Or, is the life of the world nothing, which before was dead and condemned? But Christ says badly here: "The flesh is not useful; as he also says to Petro in another place, Matth. 16: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven," that is, the Spirit of God.

7. no flesh is useful, but this flesh is useful, in which God is; then John says: "the word became flesh", Joh. 1. just as no water is useful, so is 1) the baptismal water useful, in which the word of God is. Likewise, no bread is useful, but this bread is useful, in which is the body of Christ, because of Christ's word, which cannot lie.

8 Therefore this saying of Christ, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth not, John 6, condemneth and overthroweth all human wisdom, and all human righteousness, and all things that are in man, and that pertain unto men: but he would have us to be taught of God. Therefore it is ungodly and unchristian to interpret this saying to this flesh, in which God is, through which flesh we have been sanctified. So you see how Zwinglius can muster nothing at all, and how he is not at all a theologian here in this place.

(9) But that he calls us Christ-eaters and flesh-eaters is blasphemy; for we neither rend nor eat the flesh of Christ, but we eat the bread, and in the bread the true body of Christ, which is not seen nor torn, but is believed to be present and eaten, because of the words of Christ.

Now take the text and grammar before you from St. Paul's epistle, 1 Cor. 10: "The cup of consecration, which we consecrate (which is commonly called consecrating), is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" Communion, that is, in which the blood of Christ is in-

1. "yet" put by us instead of "also".

common is distributed, and becomes common to you, to me, and to all who drink it; so that this treasure in the sacrament, by reason of the word of Christ, may be distributed as Christ commanded.

11. Further, "The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" Communion, that is, in which the body of Christ is shared and made common to us. Therefore here truly is the body and blood of Christ, for he thus saith, "The bread which we break, and the cup which we bless." But in that he says, "For we many are One Bread and One Body," he certainly indicates a spiritual union, but soon after he says, "Because we are all partakers of One Bread." We among us, he says, are one thing, but for the sake of the one bread which we eat, and of which we are partakers among ourselves; how can the bread be one which you eat in Breslau, and which we eat here in Wittenberg, if in the bread is not the one body of Christ? But that he speaks of the bodily bread, there is no doubt about it.

12 And in the following chapter, 1 Cor. 11, St. Paul further says: "The Lord Jesus, in the night when he was betrayed, took bread, gave thanks, and broke it, saying, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you (that is, for your use)", that is, distributed to each one. Just as the word "break" is used in this way in the prophet Isaiah: "Break the hungry man's bread," that is, divide it and give it to him. He must be blind who does not see that in the bread is the body of Christ, and that the body of Christ is taken from all, and that only the bread is broken; for so he says beforehand: "He took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it": just as Paul also said above: "The bread we break", and soon after says here: "Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you", so there is the body of Christ. But how it is there, what is that to me? for he that hath appointed it so looketh on it, whereunto I alone believe, and do that which he hath commanded me.

013 And of the cup he saith thus, This cup is a new testament in my blood. Review and repeat the whole Scripture, and you will not find anywhere that the New Testament is called anything else than the forgiveness of sins through Christ or through the blood of Christ. As the prophet Jeremiah Cap. 31. writes of the new testament, where God says: "The time will come when I will give another testament than has been given until now; for I will be merciful to their iniquity, and their sin and their unrighteousness I will remember no more".

504 12 Bugenhagen's Epistle Against the New Error 2c. W. xx, 646-648. 505

also the epistle to the Hebrews stands these words in the prophet Jeremiah, Heb. 8, and St. Paul repeats the same to the Romans on the 11th v. 27., thus saying, "This is my testament unto them, when I shall take away their sin."

If then this cup or drink is a new testament, verily it is forgiveness of sins, which ungodly and unchristianly is ascribed to bad wine; therefore so is the blood of Christ in the wine, which then is clear from the following words, as he speaks quickly upon it, "In my blood"'; and in the evangelists it is written, "Which is shed for you for the remission of sins."

14. Paul continues: "Whosoever therefore shall eat of this bread unworthily, or drink of the cup of the Lord, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"; 1) does not say: he is guilty of the bread and of the wine.

015 Further, "Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, lest he should discern the body of the Lord." Verily, they do not discern the body of the Lord, who say that it is bad bread; neither do they discern it, who believe that the body of Christ is there, and yet do not go to it as Christ commanded, that they may eat it in remembrance of Him.

16 Now tell me, what does Zwinglius want to do here, in these two places, since there is nothing in them, that he may say that the little word is so much as signifies; for St. Paul speaks thus, "He is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and does not distinguish the body of the Lord"; and does not say, "He is guilty of the body signified, and does not distinguish the body of the Lord. Paul thus says, "He is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and does not distinguish the body of the Lord." He does not say, "He is guilty of the signified body and blood of the Lord, but of the true body and blood, which is truly here in the bread and wine. For of the man he saith here, he that eateth, and he that drinketh; neither saith he, that he distinguisheth not the signified body of the Lord, but the body of the Lord 2c.

(17) Likewise, what will the others do in these two oerterns if they do not find a koo?

18 I have led wood, Doctor, you may build. And herewith be blessed in Christ! Ask God the Father for us.

Johannes Bugenhagen Pomeranus.

(19) Now and then a booklet is sold in which is written the order of the mass, as if it were so ordained and kept by us.

1. Marginal gloss: In these two places there is no äoc, also no

But I may freely confess, first of all, that I did not write this; then, that we do not keep this order of the mass in Wittenberg in Latin, which some, who act in the play as boys, not as Christians, presume to have interpreted into German. If the same fellows like their thing so much, they defend it with the holy scripture and do not lie under our name. But I am especially perverted and displeased by the fact that they make things necessary that are not necessary. But that we preach the Gospel of Christ daily in German here in Wittenberg, they do not consider that a German mass. However, I will not say that they have no regard for the weak brethren, 2) in that, even though the gospel has not yet been preached sufficiently, they make themselves think that they have all the power to do so, even to the annoyance of their brethren; but of that another time.

(20) Likewise, in the same booklet, they indicate a manner of trusting the married persons, as if we also used the same, and were prescribed by us; without which they clumsily cobble together many things from Scripture. Thus they pretend that when we marry, we say that God cursed and maledicted the marital state after the fall of Adam. But that is what some devil has said, not me. So unlearned are they, these new theologians of ours, that they understand and interpret as a malediction that which we sometimes say about the cross, which God has placed on us in the conjugal state.

(21) But to that which is also written there in the booklet of both or one form of the Sacrament, I confess and do not deny that I have written it at this time in Latin to a good friend, but which I would much rather be read in my words, wherein it is written.

(22) I would have said this long ago if I had not thought that it was to be despised. But now, because many of them fall and deviate in a new way to the doctrines of men, I should not despise it.

23 Dear one, tell me, what is the use of some who, in matters concerning the salvation of the soul, condemn the doctrine of men, as is right and just? because they cannot indicate and give a reason for the things to which they are subject, except to say that some write such things and hold them so.

2. "that they have no respect" put by us instead of: "that I have no respect".

M6H Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. - W.xx.sts-rrso. 507

*13 Mch Zwingli's answer to Johann Bngenhagen's letter. )

23. oil. 1525.

Translated from Latin by M. Aug. Tittel.

Johanni Bugenhagen, the Pomeranian, Huldrich Zwingel withdrew his > greeting!

Grace and peace from God! If I had ever wanted to make a name for myself and to quarrel, I would have had a very nice opportunity through your letter from the holy supper, through which I could have gained the approval of the common man, as if I had atoned for both desires. But since this, namely to write out of quarrels or vain honor, is supposed to be as far removed from a Christian mind as it is, unfortunately, common at the present time, I have resolved to answer all your things freely and heartily, but also modestly and kindly; you, however, will listen and pay attention, because I do not want to make any further lengthy preface.

The title of your letter is: "Against the new error. On account of this title, you cannot unwind that you did not put it forward, either out of ignorance or by force. For if you do not know that the ancients were of this opinion of ours concerning the supper, your ignorance will be overlooked; provided, however, that you do not at another time so quickly come out with "new error," namely, to call that what Christ, the apostles, and the earliest Christians held. Read the book of Oecolampadii, 1) and if it is not contemptible to you, our "contribution". 2) But if you are not ignorant in the old opinion about it, it is something violent and wanton that you nevertheless took this title to it.

1. "Oecolampadii book" is the book that Oekolampad sent to the Swabian preachers: ^oauuis Occolumpackii äs Senninn vcrftorum Domini, Doc 68t Corpus lneuin, juxtn V6tu8ti88imo8 nutores 6Xpositions over. It is reprinted in ^etn ct scripts pudlicn ecclssine hosts mdcrSicac; sä. DtnL DudinMC 1719, p. 41- p. 150.
2. This refers to the book that Zwingli wrote in August 1525 to strengthen his oonunentsrius äs vern st kaisa rcIiZionc. It appeared under the title: Lubsiäiurn äs sucknristin.
3. In the letter itself, you think, I have found this loophole, that is so much should apply as, it means; because I saw that it does not go well with Carlstadt's interpretation. Dear! Why do you do this, since you see that our letter went straight to one from Reutlingen (since Carlstadt's books only came out) 3) and was copied afterwards, and soon came to more than 500 brothers before it was publicly printed, although no one knew yet how Carlstadt's books would be received. What you attribute to me here, you have rather, in my opinion, attributed to Carlstadten. For when he saw that you had long decided that the i st here should not apply as much as it means; likewise, that one should worship the Lord's Supper, he considered the argument too hard if he attacked the matter on this side; for he chose another, which any other judge would have attributed to fairness and gentleness rather than bitterness. For he has seen that it would be a foolish thing to say that a memory is to be worshipped. Since he could not tolerate such ungodliness, and since he was worried about quarrels, he attacked it in order to help himself out of such distress. But how can you accuse us of a finding, since I attacked the matter where you had long thought it was impossible to grasp?

4 But that you say: No dream or parable is interpreted here, is inconsiderate. For, as will become clear, here is the figurative speech that is in the words: The seed is the word of God. Now that we have proved that it is just such a figurative speech, what is the difference whether it is put differently in the interpretation of a dream or parable, or in a complete and definite speech? since the interpretation of a dream or parable must also be a complete and correct speech? But that you may have enough, see here complete (or bad) speeches: this is the Pesah Passover; He is the Elijah; these are the

3. These brackets are set by us.

*This writing appeared in October 1525 in Zurich in Latin under the title: Rcsponsio aä DuMnünSii spistolnin; in the same year there also in German under the title: "Eine Antwort Huldrichs Zwinglii auf die Epistel Joh. Bugenhagen aus Pommern, das Nachtmal Christi betreffend". We give this writing after the old edition of Walch.

508 Zwingli's answer to Bugenhagen's letter. W. xx, 6so-6S3. 509

two testaments. And since you say: Neither an evangelist nor Paul has indicated with only a few words that this is to be taken meaningfully here, this is a futile evasion; just as if the scribes, when they needed disguised words, always added a book of interpretation to interpret such disguise (or blurring). One must know how to find the disguises with the light of faith; for otherwise we have many passages in Scripture with such undoubted markings that nevertheless one will not be able to force a quarrelsome or unbelieving person to admit a disguise there; e.g.: I am a right vine, and: my flesh is truly food. Behold, truer (right) and also true! And yet, one must allow a blunt speech there, or commit blasphemy. How much more must we admit a blunder where no mark stands in the way, and the truth of faith requires it? And that I open my opinion to you in this, because I see that you do not consider the flowery things so very carefully: so hear, with permission to speak, what is also clearly felt in Psalms. I have seen that in these words there is a blurring long before Carlstadt comes forth with his "this" (or "that"); but by what word I should explain the blurring I have not seen. For it is not enough to say: this is a tropus (or efflorescence), if one does not give the efflorescence at the same time with other words. For example, when Christ says, I must be baptized with a baptism; likewise: I have food to eat; the hearer is not helped if I merely say, It is a vague speech; but I must also give the vague with other clear words; namely, to be baptized with a baptism, by this: to bear the cross, or to die, or to suffer; likewise also the other speech (scil. of food). But who will be so foolish as to say that because I here explain "to be baptized" by "to suffer," then everywhere where baptism is written, suffering must also be implied? This is perhaps none of your business, but is only incidentally taken along for some ill-minded people who spread themselves with such conclusions among the simple-minded. For, they say, if is means so much as it means; so when the heavenly Father says of the Son, This is my Son, we shall have to interpret it thus: This means my son; just as if we had given a law that is must be taken nowhere else but for means. Whose impudence any blind man may see. So we have, since the care for the simple ones makes us

I learned taught how to take the word "is" for "means," but I did not see that the words "this is my body" were spoken in a figurative way. I saw that the words, "This is my body," were spoken in a faded manner; but in which word the faded manner actually was, I did not see. Then it happened, by the grace of God, that two pious and learned men, whose names I will not mention, came to our Leo Jude and me to discuss this matter, and when they heard our opinion in the matter, they thanked God for it. For they concealed theirs, because at that time it was not safe for everyone to reveal what he believed in this matter, and they only took out of their bundle the letter of a learned and pious Dutchman, 1) which is now printed without a name, and showed it to us. There I found the beautiful pearl that is to be explained by means here. And since we had to necessarily explain this word in our interpretation (Commentario), it seemed best to open the word, in which the flowering stood, with this its key, than merely to say: It is something flowered, we have thus taught that the is is put here instead of this: It is a sign or figure; it means. And I am not at all sorry for this interpretation. For if one says a thousand times, It is a flowering, and does not explain it, one gives the child a hard (unopened) nut. As if I had not said it yet, so that the author (or authorizer) of the sweetbread would not be exposed to some unintended danger by our way of writing, if the letter, as I said, had not already been printed.

5 Soon after, you say, "We imagined that the word of Christ, which is flesh, is of no use, would have special power to prove that the "is" here means as much as it means. It is true that we imagine such things, or, as you say, dream them. For those who do not see this certainly sleep very deeply, and are all the more unhappy than we are, because even in sleep they do not see a single image of truth. But let us see which of us dreams best: you, since you say, even with testimonies of Scripture, which are somewhat distorted, that Christ in these words, the flesh is no

1. A jurist, Cornelius van Hon or Honius, had written a letter to Luther in the summer of 1522, in which he presented the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which Zwingli later appropriated. This letter is probably meant, which Zwingli published (without a name) under the following title: Npistvla oliristiann ndmodurn, ab annis guatuor ad ^uendarn, npud guerv vmne judioiuiu saorne soriptnrne tult, ex Latavis missa, "ed kpreta; lonM aliier traotans ooeuana dominioam, ttaetenus traotata est.

510II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, vss-sss. 511

not speaking of his flesh and blood, of which he only spoke before, but condemning the carnal mind of the disciples, and falling from his purpose to a common doctrine, or 1) we, who hold that he speaks of his very flesh and blood, about which the disciples murmured with the Jews, and before which they bore an abhorrence, as they flesh and blood were bodily? 2) Especially since one sees that Cyril, Augustine, Chrysostom, although the latter is somewhat darker, among the ancients; among the moderns who are still alive, Erasmus and almost all scholars in the heap are of the opinion that Christ here takes the flesh as those took it to whom he answered; but who took it in such a way that they believed that he spoke of his bodily flesh. If one, I say, sees this, why will you say that we are only dreaming? Does he who diligently reads the old authors dream? It seems to me that those are rather dreaming who rather bring their things thoughtlessly to the table than read the old ones. For 3) it is over with the saying of Comici: Nothing is said that was not said before? Since we now bring the opinion of the ancients to light again, as we have sufficiently indicated in our "commentario," why are we blamed for concocting a new error?

(6) But there is something that may be offensive to the simple reader in the reading of the above authors, which may also have caused you to stumble. For since they also use the words of the spiritual and carnal mind, and you have just the same in your mouth, your mind is not directed to what they mean by it. For when they here reject carnal mind, they mean by it that which the rude disciples and Jews had, when they thought that Christ spoke of his flesh, but they do not mean a common doctrine of the carnal mind; which may be seen from a certain discourse of Augustine, Tract. 27: "The flesh was the vessel; mark what it had, not what it was." And soon after, "The flesh helps nothing." As they understand the flesh, so I do not give my flesh to eat. But they do not call the spiritual mind here in general, but actually that, by which was believed what Christ taught under the parable of eating and drinking, namely, that those who believed that they were redeemed by his death, and by his blood

1. So put by us instead of: the.
2. "would have been" put by us instead of: were.
3. "for" put by us instead of: the.

would be reconciled to eternal life, as Peter understood it when he said: "We believe and have known that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God"; since we clearly see that the spiritual mind of Peter was nothing else than trusting in the death of Christ. But you take the carnal and spiritual mind in general for the carnal and spiritual mind, and believe that Christ falls from the former speech of the flesh and blood, given for us, to the common mind of the flesh and spirit, as a common doctrine, in which you are quite mistaken. Which is clear for this single reason: Dear one, tell me whether Christ, from the place where he thus began to speak, "Does this offend you? How, then, when ye shall see the Son of man depart thither," 2c., do you better their error and rebuke them, or not? Where you deny it, many things will hinder you, which follow, e.g., "There are some among you who do not believe." Which is a word belonging to the former matter, since he had said, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." And this, "Therefore I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given him of my Father," which is also taken again from former matter; likewise all the rest that follow, from which every one sees that Christ fall not from the intended doctrine to something common. If then you admit that he meets their error, you must also further admit that he understands flesh as they understood it; but they believed that bodily flesh was presented to them; therefore Christ also said that bodily flesh was of no use. For if these words of Christ do not set us free from the understanding of the flesh, we shall still today have to understand the words: My flesh is truly meat, according to the will of the Roman pope, from the flesh. But who has ever doubted that what is written in John 6 must be opened with the axe "the flesh is of no use" and shown that he is not speaking of the flesh? Do you not yourselves also make it evident with this single key that the eating of the flesh is not taught here? But how is it that we deprive ourselves of our best defense? For if this word be taken away, we have none further by which the antitype may be so valiantly repulsed.

(7) But if Christ here proceeds from a special doctrine to a common one, I ask, whether he intended to cause error by the common doctrine of the Jews and disciples, or not? If he did, then the common teaching has become a special teaching.

512 13 Zwingli's response to Bugenhagen's letter. W. xx. 6S5-6S8. 513

has been. He then meant nothing more than this: As the carnal mind is harmful, so this also hinders you in the understanding of the gospel, that you think I speak of the flesh; one must put the carnal mind entirely away, so that you think of nothing carnal at all, and so may also know that I speak of no flesh. But if in these words he has not wished to remedy their error, he has allowed them to err freely. And how can we also know whether they have erred or not, since such an obvious sign, which you demand of us, is with them, which also the Roman Catholics have now used for so long a time, namely: "My flesh is truly meat" ? What shall be a sure sign, if it is none? Go then, and leave off this: "The flesh is of no use"; on what grounds then do you want to enforce that this word: "My flesh is truly meat" is not to be understood of the flesh? Finally, if the words, "The flesh is of no use," do not refer to the foregoing, tell me whether you think that the flesh of Christ, eaten (or devoured) in the flesh, is of any use? If you say yes, you will not be able to prove it by any other word than this: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." Two ways of attaining salvation are thus presented to us: one is by trusting in Christ; the other is by eating his flesh in the flesh. By such an answer, however, we fall into a double error; the first, namely, that we falsify the said words, "He that eateth my flesh," 2c.; the other, that we promise life to those who eat bodily. But if the eaten flesh of Christ avails nothing, why do we dispute so much? why do we dwell so on such words?

8 Let us not, my dear friend, seek such hiding places and evasions, which not only obscure the truth but also betray it to the enemies.

Now I come back to your letter. Isn't this a strong conclusion: If the flesh is not useful, then there must be an obfuscation in the words "this is my blood", or "this is" means as much as "means"? But you, since you cannot outline this fortress, reverse the order of the conclusion for me. For I do not thus proceed: Is is put for means. I prove it, because the flesh is no good, as you put it. But in this way: The flesh is of no use, therefore the words of Christ: This is my body, are spoken in a vague way. Which order you may not break by any art or violence. Then

we do not explain the dumb speech according to our wit or delusion, but with the help of the Scriptures. You also mock me, as a great theologian, who never arrogated to myself the name of a divine scholar, but often read with annoyance the titles Doctor or Professor Theologian in the writings of such people, who are perhaps theologians. For how should the Roman pope deny me the title of Doctor, which Zurich offered me, 1) but which some hardly attain when they travel to Rome with all danger and great expense? You do not know that I recognize more than too well that everything about me is poor and insignificant, otherwise you would have omitted this insult. But what you mockingly laugh at will one day make you weep. For woe to you who laugh, for you will weep. I should be pitied rather than mocked and laughed at if I were in this error.

(10) You call Carlstadt mine; why, or for what purpose, you will know. For I think to myself: If Carlstadt is an evil man, why does he make him mine? The disgrace must necessarily fall on you if he makes you a companion of someone of whom he does not think much good, even if you do not know him. But if he is a good man, as in truth many think, why do you belittle him so? And so I may turn where I will, but I cannot absolve you of insolence, which I have long since forgiven you.

(11) Ye have also added this very untimely: Shall you say that this is not profitable, whereof the world hath life? For in order that we might bear clear and glorious witness to the fact that Christ's flesh is not only useful but also life, we have used the same words at the end: Christ's flesh is very useful, coesa, non ambesa, as it is bruised (or sacrificed), not as it is chewed or eaten. But you, since you do not hear these so bright things, I must almost believe that you are dreaming.

(12) The testimonies which you bring from the Scriptures are certainly taken from them, in the places where the common doctrine of the carnal mind (or understanding) is practiced by godly men. But what use is this in the way you conclude here? You should have brought testimonies, since the place: The flesh...

1. Marginal gloss: One has Hadriani of the Pabst's letter to Zwingli, so still to be found with me. (On January 23, 1523, Pope Hadrian had issued a flattering letter to Zwingli, so that he would use his influence to keep the powerful Canton on the papal side in political matters).

514II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, ssg-eso. 515

is of no use, would be drawn to your mind. But since this is not possible for you, you do as much as you can, and cite some that come closest to him, and in words are quite related and have the same meaning, but in substance they differ by leaps and bounds. Therefore, for their sake, I leave nothing of our opinion, for they are not at all suitable here, but are spurious. But your opinion or statement, which goes like this: "But that you call us eaters and carnivores is blasphemous," I am very glad to hear, although I recognize only a little blasphemy in it, that I call the carnivores who do not eat meat even where they think it. Since you notice this about yourselves, you have called me 1) a blasphemer, therefore that I attribute something to you, which you neither eat nor feel. But before I hear anything from you of the art of teaching language, we pray, dear Master, remember the words which you finely presuppose in due season: "We do not rend (or bite) the body of Christ, but eat the bread, and in the bread the true body of Christ." For here you must teach us the art of language in a masterly way, in order to bring out that the words of Christ, "This is my body," have been changed into the following: in this bread my body is eaten. You must undoubtedly be a true teacher of the art of language if you deny that the bread is the body or the flesh, and yet believe that you eat flesh in the bread; for Christ by no means said, Eat this bread, for in it you will eat my body; but, This, which he gave, is my body. Dear Master, show us more such passages in holy scripture. But lest I jest at an inopportune time in a serious matter, I appeal to you, Mr. Pommer, to make the pronouncement which explanation of Christ's words is more compulsory: whether yours, since you say: bread is bread, but in the bread the body of Christ is eaten; or ours, since we say these words are blurred, "this is my body," and explain the blurring thus: "this is," that is, it is a sign, figure, or antitype of my body, which 2) is given for you.

Now let us look at your artificial things from the linguistic doctrine, namely the other part of your letter. Pommer (says): The blessed drink, which we bless (that is, according to the common way of speaking, consecrate), is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? that is, the communion, since the blood of Christ is communicated and distributed to you, to me, to others, so that such treasure is distributed and made common to us 2c.

1. "me" put by us instead of: the.
2. "the" put by us instead of: that.

(14) First of all, my dear Pomeranian, see how you have not yet done anything about this, if this is already the meaning of Paul's words that you have given. For you would see that the drink and the bread are called the body and the blood, because they are signs of these things; just as in Genesis 17 circumcision is called a testament and a covenant, which was only a sign of the covenant; as you can see in our "Subsidio".

15 But now let us look at your grammatical things, so that it is obvious how you do not understand things from the art of language, as they are necessary here. 1) Since you explain this "which we bless" thus: which we generally consecrate. Dear, let us look at your: vulgo quem consecramus3) a little bit right. Who is the vulgus (or rabble)? This is not how Ambrose, or Athanasius, or some of the ancients interpret it. Erasmus gives it thus: Does not the holy cup, which we take and consecrate (sanctify) with thanksgiving in remembrance of the death of Christ, indicate the communion, that we are at the same time redeemed by the blood of Christ? You see here that Erasmus, in the first part of this interpretation, takes "bless" for "give thanks," as his Theophylactus and all the ancients do, but not for conseeriren or einsegnen, where he does not take it for it is so much as to grow together into one; although he has added the word "consecriren," but so carelessly and after the fact that one can well see that he was not concerned about it. Which rabble or common people then explains the place in this way? For you can easily see which interpretation is according to Erasmi. Namely, the rabble, which we had already left in Egypt with the onions and garlic, we seek out again, I say, and turn, as the proverb says, again to the acorns. Remember also the other piece of Erasmi's interpretation, where he speaks: It indicates a fellowship, that we are all redeemed by the blood of Christ.

Now we want to show clearly where you get stuck in these words. Community is not taken passively in these words (because we also want to speak from a master tone once, since we see that you not only need their the grammar's words out of your own power, but also defy them), as you explain it, namely for the healing of the body and for the healing of the soul.

3. These words of Bugenhagen are completely twisted by Zwingli. Compare § 10 of the previous scripture. Bugenhagen says: "The cup, which we bless (commonly one says: which we consecrate)," Zwingli makes out of it: "which we consecrate in common (vulgo - to the rabble)."

516 13 Zwingli's reply to Bugenhagen's letter. W. xx, ssv-sez. 517

blood of Christ himself, which is the sole cause of your error, but for us who are Christ's body, namely his church, people, assembly, congregation, or, as Erasmus gives it, community. Therefore perhaps xxxxxxxx dear community

Communication (Mittheilung) may have given rise to the error that Paul was thought to have understood Christ's bestowal by it. Therefore the words: xx xxxxxxxx (the cup of blessing we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ) would be better translated thus: the cup of thanksgiving, that we may give thanks, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? that the understanding would be this: the cup of thanksgiving, that we may give thanks, what is it but ourselves? For we, what are we but the fellowship and the company, people, congregation, and society of the blood of Christ? that is, the people washed away by Christ's blood' and he calls those the blood of Christ who trust in his blood. As elsewhere he calls those the circumcision who serve God in the Spirit, Phil. 3, so also here are those the fellowship of the blood of Christ who rejoice and are glad in the very glorious church, that they are set at liberty by the blood of Christ. That this is the right mind of Paul, we will prove, both from his words and from the ancient mind. If we look at the matter Paul is dealing with, we will have to admit that this is Paul's opinion. For he admonishes against idolatry. Which is done much more emphatically when he says: "You are a different and more glorious people than to mix with the idolatrous crowd," than when he says: "You have fellowship with the flesh and blood of Christ, therefore you should not have fellowship with the idols in their idolatry. For all that Paul says is not only very emphatic, but also well-timed and quite proper. But who does not see that this is much stronger and more excellent when he says, If ye desire remembrance or thanksgiving, 1) are ye not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? Christ's people and church? than if he only said: When you eat the blessed bread like this, do you not share out Christ's body? The last mind would not keep so much from idolatry. For there are still men who think they have power to limp on both sides; but the former, as a torrent, sweeps away all falsehood, when he says, Ye are the communion of the blood of Christ. So much of the opinion and content.

1. Perhaps: "commits". Cf. § 17.

(17) But the words themselves are so strong and well put that we have no reason to suspect some obscurity in them. For since, after the words, "Is not this the communion of the blood of Christ?" he immediately adds, "Because we many are One Bread and One Body, in that we are all partakers of One Bread," he gives the reason that those who repeat such thanksgiving are the communion of the blood of Christ; indeed, he declares it, saying, as it were, "No one is surprised that those who celebrate this assembly have been called by me the communion of the blood of Christ; for we are all One Bread and One Body. Behold! One loaf, One Body, not Christ's flesh, but His Church. Now he explains how it comes about that we are all One Body, One Church, and One Bread; namely, because we (he says) all enjoy One Bread. But if Paul, the incomparable speaker of Christ, had thought that by eating the fleshly body of Christ we became One Body, he would not have said, in concluding the speech and explaining the cause, For we all partake of One Bread, but: Of One Body. But since he says: We would therefore be One Body, Bread and Church, because we would be partakers of One Bread, does he not clearly show that it is a spiritual Bread? But when some of the mob make a noise and cry out: If Christ had not wanted his flesh to be eaten here, he would not have used a fancy speech in such important matters, but would have spoken in a bad way: nothing is clear from this but a restless and deceitful head; as if Christ had not also spoken in a fancy way in the main work of Christianity, when he says: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Item: "I will make you fishers of men." Item: "You shall carry neither bags nor bundles." Item: "My flesh is truly meat." For are not such doctrines of the highest importance? and yet he has spoken in them in a vague way. And the jurists say that it is a title of handing over the keys; but if a person in authority, that is, of worldly rank, held the same in low esteem, and, handing them over to the emperor, said, This handing over of the keys signifies our handing over, and the handing over of all things; would he not thereby become a laughing-stock? Thus there are innumerable things, both in things and actions, and even in speeches, which neither happen nor are said without a sign and a blurred understanding.

18. As far as the authors are concerned, it is well known to you that the ancients wanted to indicate by the single word "synaxin" that in this assembly the whole body of Christ, that is, its

518II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 663-665. 519

Church, not by the presence of the body, for how could its remembrance take place where it itself was present? but by the presentation of the symbolic (meaningful) bread, that is, by the fellowship. For the ancients considered that they sacrificed and served God when they ate together. Otherwise, enough has been said about the name Eucharistia. Augustine is also of this opinion, Tract. 26. in John, when he says: "Believers know the body of Christ when they do not fail to be Christ's body." And soon after: "By this food and drink he wants to understand the fellowship of the body and its members, which is the holy church" 2c. Read the whole of this tract and the following, and you will find that what we defend is not a new error, but a common doctrine with the ancients. I also ask that you read in the papal decrees de Consecr. dist. 2, the chapter: Quia passus est, and another soon after, Prima, of which Battus Effinger, a councilor with us, of whom much is to be hoped, recently reminded us, who was very surprised that many made such a clamor, since precisely what is taught publicly is also in the papal decrees. So much of the place 1 Cor. 10.

19 You will, however, consider what Oecolampadius wrote about the old opinion. For since you say that it cannot otherwise be possible that One Bread is eaten at Breslau and Wittenberg, this is as much as nothing; for it is also not One Bread that you eat with your wife. But in the mind of faith we eat One Bread, that is, of the same sign, because the same is one; though the bread is distinct, yet that is one, for whose sake all believers eat it.

(20) What you say about the testament, namely, that it is the forgiveness of sins given by grace; that 1) is rightly said. But you soon lose your way again, because you make the cup a testament, since even the blood of Christ is not the testament, or the blood by which the testament was confirmed. Therefore, it is a vague speech when the blood of Christ, or the cup of thanksgiving, is called a testament. More about this in our "contribution".

21 You say: Paul says: "Let him be guilty of the body and blood" 2c., but not of the bread and wine. Answer: But you are somewhat foolish, which you will forgive me for understanding, to speak in a dumb way. For you may take the body and the blood for the bodily things, or you may take the bread and the wine for the bodily things.

1. In the old edition: "is that". - Soon after, we put "It is" instead of "Is it".

for the church; so Paul means nothing else than that he desecrates and betrays Christ's institution who does not go to it with a proper mind or willingness. For why should Paul say this of the carnal body, since his way of reasoning is entirely to keep from the company of idolaters those who are Christ's body? But Christ's institution or foundation is the thanksgiving and union of His body. For those who are in such thanksgiving testify that they are members of the one body of Christ. All this is betrayed (or destroyed) by those who either have only the appearance of giving thanks, since their faith in Christ is not correct, or who despise Christ's church, and are members of the harlot, that is, (the church) of idolaters. Ambrose agrees with us when he speaks of these words in 1 Cor. 11: "But what is to be punished but for the death of Christ? For there he is killed for those who yet make his death void." Read also Athanasii interpretation about this place, you will see if he believed that here the flesh is eaten. Here Myconius also reminded me at the appropriate time of your own things. Read therefore what you yourselves wrote about the 110th Psalm: Those do not distinguish the body of the Lord, who make no distinction between the church of Christ and a harlot devoted to idolatry; or who do not sit at table here other than in an idolatrous sacrifice. You ask: What will Zwinglius do here, since no 68t (is) present here? Answer: Exactly what I did before. I say that almost everything that Hebrews, Christ, Paul, the apostles speak is obscure. And if some of them do not notice this enough, they obscure everything by seeking great mysteries from it, yes, by writing poetry, because with them there is just as much lovely food (deliciae) of a manifold learning as with the most distinguished Greek scholars. That you think you have given Joh. Hesso, our common friend, matter (silvam) to hand, I understand from your words; but what kind of construction he will lead from it, he sees. Unless by "give wood" you understand as much as to dare something, or to challenge it to the battlefield, where your words draw it, but not I myself. For they make you Achilles, but me Hector, since perhaps both our persons would hardly be suitable for such a game; at least we hardly consider ourselves a common soldier. Let us, my dear John, not listen to such voices of parties and gangs. For this opinion of ours is provided with such firm grounds,

2. "the" put by us instead of: "the".

520 13 Zwingli's reply to Bugenhagen's letter. W. xx, "ss-sn. 521

Not only a few Achilles, which you do not make, but also not a thousand Hercules will throw them over the heap.

Here you have my opinion on all your things that you have gathered in this letter above. If someone wants to indulge in quarreling, we do not have this way. So far we have kept these measures, that although we have seen that many do not teach too correctly about purgatory, about the intercession of the saints, about secret confession, about keys, about the images (statuis) in churches, and about the Lord's Supper, we have not touched anyone's error by name.

(23) If, however, you or anyone else wishes to quarrel with me, I diligently refuse to do so, as much as is possible; but where it is not possible or desirable, I will quarrel under the umbrella of truth, before the eyes of Christ and by his help, so that it may hopefully be seen that I am not blown to smithereens. But I exhort you as well as the others to refrain from the shameful custom of reviling and scolding, that they may not be taken for brawlers rather than investigators of the truth.

We have to settle the matter with Scripture and reasons based on faith and Scripture. We must settle the matter with Scripture and with reasons based on faith and Scripture; not with great bluster and market clamor. There will be no lack of enemies and shouters who will mock us, even if we remain moderate and silent. Will Rome be silent? likewise the princes, who have long since grown weary of the gospel they have received? Let us then act the truth in a pure and undefiled way, so that when the prince of this world, the devil, comes, he will find nothing in us. The Antichrist cannot be completely defeated unless this error is also destroyed and he completely falls down. Let us first of all look the truth right in the face, but not at the reputation of men and their high persons. For when the truth appears, everything must give way before it.

24 Be well, and interpret everything for the best. For we, too, are happy to forgive you, since you have called us masters of error in the words of Hieronymi, along with other abusive words. From Zurich, October 23, 1525.

b. How Oecolampadius joined the Zwinglian leadership and got into a dispute with the Swabian preachers, as well as with Luther himself.

The Syngramma Suevicum; Or of the preachers assembled at Schwäbisch-Hall Scripture against Oecolampadius,

with D. Mart. Luther's preface. *)

October 21, 1525.

To the Christian reader I wish, Martinus Luther, grace and peace in Christo.

However, no one can resist the devil, because God alone does not always bring misfortune.

and do harm, because he, a desperate evil spirit, never rests, but, as St. Peter says, prowls around us as a fierce lion, seeking whom he may tempt.

*) This writing, which is dated October 21, 1525 (according to this our time determination), was still published in 1525 in Latin in a single edition in Schwäbisch-Hall under the title: elarissimoruna, (jui Halas

Luevoruva eonvenerunt, virorum super Verdis eoeuae Domini, et piuru et eruckitum, ack 4oannsin Oecolarnpackium; then at Wittenberg 1526 and at Frankfurt 1561. It is included in the ^.eta et serixta pudliea eeelesiae irtemder^ieae etc., edited by Christoph Matthäus Pfaff, Tübingen, 1719, p. 153. The Syngramma was translated into German in 1526. There are two different translations from this year; one of them has the title: "Genöthigter und fremd eingetragener Schrift auch nützlichen Deutens der Worte des Abendmahls Christi Syngramma" 2c. Wittenberg 1526 by Joseph Klug; the other has the title: "Gegründter und gewisser Beschluß etlicher Prediger zu Schwaben über die Worte des Abendmahls Christi JEsu (das ist mein Leib) an Johannem Ecolampadion geschrieben, von neuem durch Johannem Agricolam verdeutscht. Actual report of D. Martin Luther concerning the Jrrthuin of the Sacrament. Hagenau, by Johann Secerium. Anno 1526." Luther wrote prefaces to these two editions of the German translation. One (which is found in the editions only in Walch and in the Erlanger, vol. 65, p. 185) is prefixed here to the "Syngramma"; the other forms the following number (15) of this volume. We have retranslated the "Syngramma" according to the latter Latin edition. '

522II . Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhä.nger re. W. xx, ss'-sss. 523

we are still guilty, as much as we like, to be God's co-workers, and to resist him by the word. He has indeed devoured many through the new seducers and sacrament abusers, and does not yet stop devouring; he would also like to have me in; look at and want to adorn himself with our poor sack, and indeed the booklet I have written against D. Carlstadt should give me enough testimony to what I believe. Which he has also so far left unbitten and uneaten, and my reasons there still stand firm and unmoved. But they are far superior to us in one respect, that is that they are idle and embroider full of words, hurry the world with books and shower it. Now then, I hold, the proverb shall strike them too: Haste broke the neck, cito fit, cito perit. But we miserable worms also crawl out against the great talkers, and confess our

Faith against their error; let it help what and where God wills. Accordingly, I have the fine little book Syngramma, made by my dear lords and friends in Swabia, to spread among many, now for the second time helped to promote into German, and is the longer, the dearer to me, because I see how they commit crimes against it, and do nothing, but that they betray their spirit and bring it to light. It has remained before them and will remain before them, because it is the truth and puts lies to shame. Therefore I command every Christian to arm himself with it in conscience, and to beware of the devil, until God gives the truth the victory. It must and will be argued: he who lies there lies, let the word help him up again, and preserve those who are still standing; if I can do it, I will also do it, as much as God gives me. May God's grace be with us all, and soon wipe out these mobs. Amen.

Godly and learned treatise (syngramma) of the very famous men who met in Schwäbisch-Hall in 1525 1) about the words in the Lord's Supper.

To Johann Oekolampad, preacher in Basel.

Johann Lachmann of Heilbronn, Erhard Schnepf of Wimpfen, Bernhard Griebler of Gemmingen, Johann Geiling of Ulsfeld, Martin German of Fürfeld, Johann Gallus of Sulzfeld, Ulrich Schwiger of Weifsach, Johann Valtensis, Wolfgang Taurus of Orendelsal, Johann Herold, Johann Rudolphi of Oeringen, Johann Jsenmann, Michael Gretter, Johann Brenz and other preachers assembled at Schwäbisch-Hall wish to Johann Oekolampad preaching Christ at Basel: 1. Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen. In Christ, beloved Oecolampadius, love 2) (by which you have sacredly sworn to us, who preach Christ in a large part of Swabia, that we should rid ourselves of the most harmful poison, the quarrel in the church,

1. In our Latin original erroneously: 1526.
2. In our Latin copy the subject of the sentence is missing. According to the letter of Oecolampad to the preachers in Swabia, "Karitas is to be added. Therefore, xer is to be read immediately following.

The first thing we have to do is to respond in writing to your outgoing booklet on the interpretation of the words "this is my body. We are also urged by faith to speak what we believe. For since this booklet of yours on the Lord's Supper was read to us, what should we do? Should we remain silent? Not at all. Faith in Christ desires to burst forth even in the midst of temptation and to make itself known to the whole world; so far is it from it that it should be deterred from public confession either by embellished speech or human prestige. For us also, as the prophet says, the speech of the Lord has become a consuming fire, and having shut it up in our bones, we have passed away Ps. 102:4 and could not endure it. Should we not rather have sent out a booklet into the world and testified that our faith is different from your opinion, which is based on reason and (as you will no doubt hear) quite miserable (qualibus-what kind)? But love hindered us, lest we, without having first admonished thee, should bring thee into the mouths of men. We, as many as are ours, have hitherto acknowledged thee as a father to be worshipped in Christ; why hast thou not treated us as thy sons? For behold, how fine it rhymes that thou didst first, without admonishing us, in our churches, which we did not by our own merit,

524 14. the so-called 8^Q§ramma 8usviouw. W. xx, sss-"7i. 525

but by God's grace (munere), you stir up discord over Holy Communion, but then you counsel us with many reasons that we should not violate love (servemus). If you expect so much (tantopere) love from others, why did you first sow the seeds of discord? You, the father, lay dice and forbid the children to play. Hardly had we escaped Carlstadt's pernicious gruel, behold! you stir up the same mischief 1) again (albeit in a much more learned manner). But thanks be to God, who according to His mercy, which we have received in Christ Jesus, His Son and our Lord, has instructed us that we do not consider that which is foreign to the word of Christ to be better and truer for its own sake, because it is spoken in a better and more learned way. For even an unpalatable food is not palatable to us because it is presented to us in a silver vessel. We value the taste, not the vessel, and John prescribes that spirits should be tested to see if they are of God. Are we not prevented by this very fact from looking at the appearance of the speech, but rather urged to look at the truth of the word?

2 Therefore, dear Oecolampadius, we are fully convinced that, according to your own modesty, indeed, according to Christian integrity, you will easily tolerate that we differ from your opinion about the bread and the wine in Holy Communion until the Lord has granted both you and us to be of the same mind. But we wish this to happen shortly, for if we disagree longer, how great evil will we have to expect for our churches, which have hardly been snatched from the jaws of the Antichrist? If a private man errs, that brings little danger, if a neighbor quarrels with another, little harm, but if a prophet errs, if a bishop quarrels with another, what joy is that for Satan, what rejoicing! We sacredly affirm that in this matter we seek nothing else (though we are not justified in it) but the glory of the Word and the benefit of the churches. Now may Satan go and still greatly boast that strife is in the church, for he will boast to his detriment (rnalo); for we dare to promise ourselves a very great benefit from this friendly disagreement, by God's grace. Paul disagreed with Peter about the custom (onsrs) of the law, but in such a way that from this disagreement our

1. Carnerina is a large stinking swamp in Sicily.

harmony has come into being. Why should we not hope for the same thing in this matter, which is basically not so dissimilar to that one? But now let's move on to the matter itself.

First of all, the spirit, which is at odds with itself from the beginning, makes us very suspicious of your matter of the Sacrament of the Supper. For Carlstadt, the champion (xo/M^aio^) in this struggle, refers the pronoun "that" in this speech "that is my body" to the body, not to the bread; this is sufficiently attested by his outgoing books. But he has left the battlefield and someone else has the litter. Zwingli, however, refers "that" to the bread, but agonizes over the word "i st" in a marvelous way, until he makes "is" into "means" by a transformation, or, if he prefers, by a kind of transmigration of souls (^sT-s^^wa-sr). You come as the third one and give us also in a third way of speaking a sample of what you are able to do, and make "body" a sign of the body. There are three words, namely just the apple of discord, 2) about which we argue: "that", "is", "my body", and they have already produced three sects for us! It is not surprising that Isaiah says Isa. 8, 14 that the Lord is "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense", since this word that is my body is a very small one according to the letter, but a very large one according to the matter, and it annoys so many and so great people. If one had to infer the father from the offspring, that is, from the sects, then we would certainly judge that the father was deformed. But we have learned to treat the word of the Lord with the greatest reverence, although it gives many a cause for ruin (ruinae), certainly not through his fault, but through the ignorance of those who read or hear it. And indeed you and Zwingli, you agree, but where is Carlstadt's "that"? For either he teaches evil by referring "that" to the body, not to the bread, or you err from the right aim (scopo) by referring "that" not to the body, but to the bread. See to it, dear Oecolampadius, lest a somewhat nosey man sing to you this saying: lies do not stand with themselves. But you say: Far be the quarrel about words, we want a fight about the matter. However much we may differ in words, we agree on the matter itself, namely, that the bread is not the body of Christ, and that the wine is not the blood. - Surely you will not consider your cause justified for that reason, because you agree on the main point?

2. Latin: ipsissiina seilieet Helena.

526 H- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx. S7i-S73. 527

Is it not the case that the miser also makes a bargain in the gathering of goods, but in different ways? For the one increases his fortune by theft, the other by fraud, the latter by filthy frugality, the latter by shameful services. Are they not united in that they gather goods together? but they seek to accomplish this in different ways and in various ways. The truth, however, is not based on reasons that do not agree with each other, but on those that do agree with each other.

4 But this we leave aside, although it briygt your spirit quite strongly to the day. We must set about treating the reasons (rationes) of your booklet. For we cannot see our way to believing that you write seriously what you write right at the beginning: that we have drawn the error of the body of Christ from Peter Lombard and other writers of sentences. For the fact that we teach that the bread of Holy Communion, sanctified by the word of Christ, is the body of Christ given for us, we have not drawn from Peter Lombardus, for we do not do such great honor to a man, but from Christ's own words and from his holy mouth. Neither the famous Lombardus, nor even Damascenus, is so highly regarded by us that we should confess that we got our faith from them. We do not despise their work, for that would be spiteful and dishonest. But the fruit of the work in this matter (whatever they may have written in other matters, for we do not now intend either to excuse or to accuse them) we attach to GOtte. At least you should see with what intention you call us disciples of Lombardus, because perhaps you want to use this name to make our cause suspicious, if not yet reprehensible, among the godly. For the same reason, if we are not mistaken, in the further course of the booklet you conflate our doctrine with the condemnable mass of the papists. Is this because we approve of the impiety of the masses by claiming that the bread of the Lord's Supper is the body of Christ? Not at all, for we are sure that you do not even suspect such a thing of us, and even this is our greatest concern, that we, with the word of the Lord, drive away this so abominable and detestable idol from our churches, at least work towards it with all zeal; but the Lord gives prosperity to this undertaking. It remains, therefore, that you accuse us solely for this reason, that we are on the side of the

papist impiety, so that 1) we should lose faith in our doctrine, yes, not in ours, but in Christ's doctrine of Holy Communion, among the godly, to whom everything in the papist church is suspect, but not so much the word as the sacraments. However, venerable Oecolampadius, far be it from us that we should suspect this of your disposition (somnienius); your sincerity is too well proven to us that we should suspect anything of the sort from you. But, thou sayest, the greatest cause of superstition and hypocrisy is given, if we are to believe that the bread is the body of Christ. - Well then! no godly man can approve of the idolatry (we would more properly say superstition) with which the bread of the Lord's Supper has hitherto been treated. For Christ says Matt. 20:28, "I am not come that we should serve, but that I should serve." Thus by the word he brings his body in bread (pani tradit), and has given it to us, not that he might be ministered to, but that he might minister to us, that we might eat and drink it, to fortify our conscience. For how the bread of the Lord's Supper fortifies the conscience will follow hereafter. Now however much the hypocrites abuse the bread of the Lord's Supper, should it not therefore be the body of Christ? Or, because it would give rise to superstition, should we deny that it is the body? On the same ground, surely Christ would not be Christ, nor the Son of God. For because he had made himself the Son of God John 19:7, they cried out, Crucify, crucify. The abuse of a thing takes nothing away from the truth of it. Even the word of the Lord is abused by the wicked; shall we therefore deny that it is the word of the Lord? Everybody knows how ungodly the Jews treated Christ, with the strokes of the cheek, the scourging, and the death of the cross. Should Christ therefore not be Christ, because he gave rise to these ungodly acts by preaching that he was Christ or the Son of God, or should we declare that he acted unjustly? For if he had lived as a private man, without holding a public office, according to the ways of the world, he would have given no cause to rage against him. But since he preached and became famous for his miraculous works, do we now want to cast the Jews' anger on Christ? Let that be far from us. In the same way one can speak of the bread of the Lord's Supper. For

1. Instead of st, we have assumed ut.

528 14. the so-called LzmKrawwa 8uovivmn. W. xx, "73-67s. 529

We would be unjust judges if we were to cast the cause of superstition, ungodliness, hypocrisy, idolatry out of the bread, which is the body of Christ. As if the bread were not the body for its own sake, because the flesh is superstitious, which sometimes even makes an idol out of God, seeking from God not what is God's, but what is its own. Will it therefore be evil that GOt is GOt? Do not many hypocrites make an idol out of St. Valentine or any other saint? But for the sake of foreign hypocrisy, Valentine, if any of the saints is called by this name, is not expelled from the number of saints. Therefore, as far as this reason is concerned, it still remains firm that the bread of the Lord's Supper is the body of Christ, according to the word of Christ. For what you bring from Augustine concerning the various kinds of miracles, we take as if you had adduced it in passing, not that we should think that you had presented it with the intention of refuting our doctrine. For although Augustine calls the bread a form (speoiow) which will pass away after the completion of the sacred action (peracto Ministerio transituram), he does not deny that the bread is what it is, namely the body of Christ, which is evident from the foregoing. For since he calls the serpent raised in the wilderness a figure which will remain only for a short time, he naturally lets the serpent remain what it is. Furthermore, what the bread of the Lord's Supper is, should become quite clear to us from the comparison with the brazen serpent.

For so it is written in the fourth book of Moses, Cap. 21:8: "The Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a serpent of brass, and set it up for a sign: whosoever is bitten, and beholdeth it, he shall live. So what is the serpent? Is it only a snake or only a sign? Not at all, but it is a healing serpent, or a healing sign. Where does it get this from? Because it is a snake, or because it is brazen? No, but because it has this word: "Whoever is bitten and looks at it shall live." This is how the Spirit interprets it in the 107th Psalm v. 19. f., "They cried," he says, "unto the LORD in their trouble, and he helped them out of their distresses; he sent his word, and made them whole." He does not say: he sent the serpent, but "the word." What kind of word? Certainly this: "He that is bitten, and beholdeth it, the same shall live." Therefore, by adding this word to the serpent, it becomes a serpent of such a nature as the word

It is a serpent, but it is also a sign, but it is also healing (sanativus). This is how one must speak of the bread in Holy Communion. For this bread, even though it is baked in the oven, even though it nourishes the body, is nevertheless of such a nature as the word which is added to the bread that we say so. But the word is, "u." Now as the word of the serpent brought the gift of sanation to the serpent, why should not the word of the Lord's Supper bring the body to the bread, since, as the word of the serpent possessed in itself the power of sanation, so also the word of the Lord's Supper has the body of Christ with it as its possession (secum possideat)? For that it is not a figurative speech (tropum), neither in the expression "is" nor in the word "body", we will show convincingly hereafter.

But you see, excellent man, that we present our opinion in a very rough way (pinguissima Minerva). Therefore, you will gladly put up with it if we have not been gentle in our words at times. So, since Augustine calls bread a form that will pass away, he does not deny that the bread is the body, just as he does not deny that the serpent has healing power (not insofar as it is a serpent, but insofar as it has the word), although he calls it the bread a form that will remain only for a short time. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that from this it is now quite clear how it is with the sacrament or the bread of the Lord's Supper. For many find fault with the fact that in such bread we seek fortification of faith, consolation of conscience, forgiveness of sins. For they say that outward signs cannot be a strengthening of conscience and a fortification of faith, but only proofs (protestationes) of faith, since carnal things are not efficacious in spiritual matters: "Trust! the cautious people, who thirst most for our salvation, fear that we would build our hope and confidence on the sand. But we have the right doctrine (recte sentimus), but those do not understand our opinion correctly. For who denies that the Sacrament is a sign (symbolum) and a public manifestation (testatioutzln) of communion? We agree with the Fathers, who called it both a communion and a gathering, as well as a love feast, so that in this very supper Christ speaks more of love, more of

530II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W.xx.s7s-"77. 531

of the fellowship of the brethren than anywhere else. But because Holy Communion has not only bread as a sign of communion, but also the Word, we do not wrongly seek consolation of conscience, forgiveness of sins, and strengthening of faith in the Lord's Supper. For all these things are found in the Word, if one seeks them only in true faith, for the Word comforts the afflicted, raises up the downhearted, strengthens the faith, in short, it brings us all the goods of God- Now since the bread of the Lord's Supper has this word: "This is my body, which is given for you," by which the conscience is fortified and sins are forgiven (for it is the word of the Son of God), what should prevent our not seeking these things in the bread? Since the bread of the Lord's Supper is not bread alone, but has the word: "This is my body" 2c. And we also seek the strengthening of faith in bread, not insofar as it is bread, but insofar as it has the word. Just as every civil meal is a sign of civil friendship; but it is also a strengthening of the same, not in so far as it is a meal, but in so far as it has friendly promises, or, if nothing else, friendly conversation.

(7) Moreover, there is a great difference between the sacraments given to Gideon and Hezekiah and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For the old word is confirmed by miracles, just as Christ's word was confirmed by miracles. The bread of the Lord's Supper, however, does not confirm the word, but is confirmed by the word. In addition, other miracles, which are miracles of action, not of the word, confirm faith for the sake of action, not for the sake of the word. But the sign of the Lord's Supper confirms faith, not for the sake of a deed, but for the sake of the word. As every word of God is a miracle, so is the word of the Lord's Supper, for no one can deny that the word of the Lord's Supper is the gospel.

8. listen, then, to what Paul says in Romans 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God, which saves everyone who believes in it. Will we hear your new interpretation also in this passage: the gospel (which also has letters and syllables and bodily oarualss ways of speaking) is not the power of God, but signifies it? Would not all the glory (laus) of the Gospel be destroyed by such interpretations? And that you may fully understand what miracles we see in the bread and cup of the Lord's Supper.

we want to indicate this more clearly and coarsely. You believe without a doubt that Christ is not only true, but also the truth itself. For he says, "I am the way, the life, and the truth," and has also strongly declared that he is the truth, through signs and wonders and the resurrection and the sending of the Holy Spirit: for all these things are the confirmation (xxxxxxx) and seal of the truth of Christ. Since Christ spoke to the gout-broken man Matth. 9, 2 or to the sinner Luc. 7, 48: "Your sins are forgiven you", is not the forgiveness of all sins included in this very short word and brought to the gout-ridden man and the sinner? Moreover, when he commanded the apostles 1) to wish peace to the house into which they were entering, saying Luc. 10:5, "Peace be in this house," did he not include in this word, "Peace be in this house," and in a sense give peace captive to the word (for we speak roughly that we may be understood), which, included in the word, the apostles brought to the inhabitants of the house? What man of understanding would deny this? Further, since he says John 11:25, "I am the resurrection and the life," is not life and resurrection brought by this very word to him who hears it, not an imaginary one, but a true one, yea, one 2) by which we shall rise and be resurrected if we accept the word? Thus, since he says Ex. 20, 2., "I am the LORD thy GOD," does not by this word "thy GOD" the LORD give himself to thee wholly, at the same time with all his goods? For he cannot be God without his goodness. Therefore, when he gives himself in word, he gives all that is his. In the same way, when Christ said: "my body is given for you" and "my blood is poured out for you", did he not conclude the body and the blood in this word? (Far be it from this word a spiteful declaration invidia even to such an extent that whoever takes hold of this word and believes and holds it in faith, he takes hold of, receives, has, and holds the true body and blood of Christ, namely, that which is shed for us, not a spiritual but the bodily (carnalem)? since it is not a spiritual blood that is shed for us but the bodily. Since the word alone has such a powerful effect that it brings the bodily body of Christ to us,

1. Instead of ^postolus is to be read ^postolos.
2. Instead of tali, read talis.

532 14. the so-called 8/LAramwa Kuevioum. W. xx. 677-679. 533

namely, that which is given for us, and the bodily blood which is shed for us: why should it not retain the same powerful effect when it is added to the bread and the cup? Or, does this word: the body is given for you, contain the body, and bring it itself to the hearer, but when to the bread is added "this is my body given for you," should it not retain the same as before? Should the bread take anything away from the word? Far be it from that, but it adds to the bread that which it contains. But it contains the true bodily body of Christ, therefore it also brings the body to the bread. [Here, then, is the miracle we confess to have taken place in the bread and cup of Holy Communion. For the whole miracle is a miracle of the word by which the body and blood are distributed by means of the bread and wine, not in so far as it is bread and wine, but in so far as it has this word: "this is my body, this is my blood." And it is no wonder that the apostles in the Lord's Supper did not wonder about it (however, who knows whether they wondered about it or not?), since Luc. 18, 32-34. voy is written to them, although Christ had said most clearly: "The Son of Man will be delivered to the Gentiles, and he will be mocked and reviled and spit upon, and they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise again," - yet it is added: "But they heard none of these things, and the speech was hid from them, and they knew not what these things were spoken." For if at that time the speech was hidden from them, what wonder would it be if in the Lord's Supper also almost the same word had been hidden from them?

(9) Moreover, who can deny that Satan has undertaken many juggleries in regard (oiroa) to bread and wine? But he has done this with a far different intention than you suspect. For he did not intend with his absurd specters 1) that we should believe that the bread is the body, especially since the word of Christ says so, not the devil, but that he might drive us from truth and godliness into hypocrisy, ungodliness, and even idolatry. For Christ instituted the Lord's Supper that we might eat and drink, that we might seek in the Lord's Supper all that we seek in the Word. From diösem exceedingly

1. For example, that drops of blood are seen on the hosts and the like. Several such things are mentioned in Oecolampad's writing De Zenuina vorkorum Domini eto. "x^ositiouo mentioned. Cf. et Koripts eoolesiae MirternderZioae, eä. Dtatk p. 52. sq.

The devil would have liked to dissuade us from the wholesome use of the Lord's Supper, and he has dissuaded many, so that as partakers of the Lord's Supper, both by food and by reputation, they believed, deceived by vain seduction, that they were doing, giving, and offering something to Christ rather than receiving something.

(10) Now that it is not read that the church of the ancients bowed the knee to the bread and to the cup, should not the bread be the body for this reason? But perhaps they also did not bow the knee to the Word, for the sake of which the Word is not the Son of God? And even nowadays we do not pay bodily homage to this word, "the body of Christ is given for you," but as often as we hear it, we receive it with a reverent heart and faith, because that is the right homage; should it not bring the body to us or contain it in itself? When Christ washed Peter's feet, Peter did not bow the knee; is Christ not the Word or the Son of God? We have already mentioned this matter, that Christ did not give his body in the Lord's Supper to be ministered to, but to minister to us. For the same reason he gave us the whole Gospel, so that through it not only the body and blood of Christ would be present to us, but the whole power of God, the whole God, with all his goods. If a godly person does not uncover his head before the Gospel, does not take off the head covering (capitium), would he sin by doing so? Or does he declare by this sign that salvation is not brought to him by the word of the Gospel? Not at all, but what is brought by the word, he accepts with reverence (adoratione) of the heart, that is, with faith.

(11) But, you say, I have the fathers on my side, who agree with my opinion, and hold that the bread is a sign (figuram) of the body of Christ, or that it signifies the body of Christ, but is not the true body. We do not want you to urge us with human prestige, however sacred it may be, nor do the holy fathers themselves want this, that we should accept their sayings (sensa) with greater faith than those of Scripture, but neither are we so enamored (^ίλαοτοι) of ourselves, nor such despisers, that we should reject the fathers. We receive them with the greatest respect and recognize in them very many excellent gifts of the Holy Spirit; their work and their care (sollicitudo) for the churches please us extra-

534 II. Writings Against Zwingli and His Followers 2c. W. xx, "79-"8i. 535

properly. But with all this, we do not prefer their interpretations to the very clear words of Christ. For although we admit that the Fathers, in a godly manner, called the bread and the cup signs (symbola) of the body and blood, likewise that the bread signifies the body, and the like, yet they will not be able to detract from the word of Christ (praejuckieadunt - they will not awaken any prejudice against it). For that otherwise they also call the holy supper a sacrifice, we interpret this to them for the best (oanckicke), not according to the sharpness of the word, but according to the word of Christ, who said, "Do these things," not for my sacrifice, but "in remembrance of me." Who will therefore prevent that we should not also interpret for the best, if they have sometimes called the bread and the cup signs, that the bread is not only a sign /and model, but a sign connected with the thing itself, since they call the bread sometimes the body, sometimes the sign of the body, 1) so that you must refer the sign from the bread, if it is bread, because in such a way the bread signified the body of Christ, before Christ was revealed to the world, as Tertullian quotes from Jeremiah Jer. 11, 19. according to the Vulgate, "Come, let us devise a plot Against him: let us cast wood into his bread, that is, let us cast the cross upon his body." But a more correct reading is thus, "Come, let us cast poison into his food." For the citizens of Anathoth went about killing Jeremiah with poison. But this we will credit to Tertullian, since he has no ungodly opinion. Now as bread, inasmuch as it is, bread, is a sign of the body, so, inasmuch as it has the word "this is my body," it is not only a sign, but also the body itself. For it is much cheaper (justius) that we interpret the fathers by Christ's word, than Christ's word by the fathers. Let us listen to Chrysostom, who in the 83rd Homily on Matthew writes as follows: "Christ also drinks from the cup, lest they, hearing the words, should say: What, then, shall we drink blood and eat flesh? and be troubled. For even when he spake of these things before, many were troubled for the words only. So that this might not also happen at that time, he himself did it first, to cause them to participate in the hidden things (mysteriorum) with a calm mind." So far Chrysostom. Behold, he says, the apostles have eaten the flesh and have eaten the blood.

1. Instead of appellat, read appellant (so. patres).

and Christ had done this first (for neither from what precedes, nor from what follows, will this be understood of a spiritual drinking manducatione, but of the bodily); therefore, if he elsewhere calls the bread a sign, we shall meanwhile accept it in a godly and right way (candide), but in such a way that it does not contradict his former opinion, according to which he testifies that the apostles had drunk the blood.

12 You see the same thing in Augustine, who says: "He carried his body in his hands. Well, if he added afterwards: "to some extent," he does this only to soften and correct his expression (sermonis), not to say that the bread is not the body; if he calls it a sign, or a model, or an antitype (áíôßôõðïí), as Basil does, this will not detract from his earlier interpretation of the words of Christ. Thus, elsewhere, in reply to the inquiries (inquisitiones) of Januarius, book 1. cap. 6. he writes: "It is clearly evident that the disciples, when they first received the body and blood of the Lord, did not receive it soberly (jejunos)"; he does not say that the disciples received the sign of the body, but the body itself. Furthermore, that Tertullian explains "body" by "sign of the body" in the fourth book against Marcion, this does not show that for Christ's sake he understood it that way. For even if we admit that Tertullian strengthened his argument against Marcion by this interpretation, we will not admit that he compelled by his reputation to understand the word of Christ in this way. There are other fathers, probably of greater faith, who write something quite different. For thus, according to your interpretation, dearest Oecolampad, we read in Theophylact about the 26th chapter of Matthew: "Furthermore, when he says: 'This is my body,' it is shown that the body of the Lord is itself the bread which is sanctified on the altar, and not a corresponding sign. For he did not say: this is a sign, but: 'this is my body'. For by ineffable effect the bread is changed, although this is not seen." Likewise about Marcus, Cap. 14: "When he had blessed, he gave thanks and broke the bread (fo do we also, adding prayers) and said: this is my body. This, I say, which ye take; for the bread is not merely a token and a type of the body of the HErrn, but into the same is changed the body of Christ" (oonvsrtitur) 2c. Behold, how evil thy work succeedeth unto thee, so that it may be used against thee. But do you say.

536 14. the so-called 8^NKrs.mma Lueviouw. W. xx^ ö8i-683. 537

that Theophylact belongs to a later time than Tertullian? However, time does not take anything away from godliness. The dispute is not about stories or events, in which one must perhaps believe the older and earlier living more, but about the mind (ingenio) and spirit of the words of Christ. Now if it pleases you to compare Theophylact with Tertullian, Theophylact has left stronger traces of the true faith behind him, for the whole world knows what Tertullian taught of the double marriage (digamia) Against the Scriptures, and what he taught of the Comforter (paracleto) after the manner of Montanus. This is what we say about Tertullian, whom we venerate and hold in the highest esteem, not because we want to put something on him, nor do we perurtheize him for the sake of it, not to the fire or to hell, as the pope is wont to do, but to show that in this matter his reputation is not to be held in such high esteem that one should not deviate from it, although we do not deviate from him in this matter either, for we confess that the bread is a sign and image (exemplar) of the body of Christ. For as bread nourishes the body, so the body of Christ animates and nourishes the soul. But we affirm that the bread of Holy Communion is not only a sign, but also the true bodily body of Christ. On what ground? with what proof? Our reason is not taken from reason (dialectica), not a conjecture, but contains the proof in itself ("áðïäåß÷ôáüò). It is the word of Christ who says: 'Mehmet hin und esset, das ist mein Leib' 2c.

(13) They say that it is an obscure speech (tropum), notice, either in the word "is" or in the expression "body," so that you must take either "is" for "means" or "body" for "sign of the body. It is to be wondered at that not also in the word bread, or broke, or take, or eat, a faded manner of speaking is devised, since with so great arbitrariness of mind a faded speech in "is" and "body" has become popular to them. Well then, let us consider your reasons, by which you assign the faded speech to the word "is": For also in other places of the Scriptures one finds "is" for "means", as in the 1st Book of Moses, Cap. 41, 26.: "The seven beautiful cows are seven fruitful years." Matth. 13, 38.: "The field is the world," and elsewhere: "The adversary is the devil"; "The seed is the Word." If you do not take "is" for "means" in these speeches, you no longer have an adequate speech. Truly! a beautiful conclusion art and a lovely proof: The raven is black,

therefore also the swan must be black; Absalom is beautiful, therefore also that Thersites 1) must be beautiful in Homer. Or is this not of the same kind: "Is" is taken for "means" in some places of the scriptures, so also in this speech "this is my body" must be taken for "means"? Far be it from us, when we hear such things, to learn to tear up the Scriptures in such a manner according to our liking; the anointing of the Holy Spirit teaches us far otherwise. For in the former discourses "is" may be taken for "signifies," which requires the interpretation of the dreams and the parable, and the peculiar nature (proprietary), for where either a dream or a parable is interpreted, only then will it be lawful to interpret "is" with "signifies," but not likewise in other discourses. For in the Lord's Supper Christ interprets neither a dream nor a similitude with the words "this is my body". But if we had any desire at all (which is far from us) to spin out the argument further, we should like to find the faded speech in these sayings: "the field is the world"; "the word is the seed", not in the word "is", but rather to transfer it to the words "field" and "seed", so that in the simile the expressions would be taken in their original meaning, but in the interpretation would be changed from the original to the faded (tropicum) way of speaking. And this is also according to the holy scripture, since in the first letter of Peter Cap. 1, 23, the word is called a seed, not a perishable one, but an immortal and imperishable one; if one were to take the word seed in its original meaning, one would not attain the right understanding of Peter's speech.

14 But, they say, even where there is no likeness and no dream, "is" can be found in Paul for "means," saying, "the rock was Christ." We acknowledge Paul's words; who better than Paul himself could interpret them? For that we might interpret "was" by "meant" in this passage, the foregoing does not admit of it under any condition, for he says thus 1 Cor. 10:4: "all drank of one spiritual drink; but they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed with them." Which was the spiritual rock? (For nothing is said there about the bodily rock.) It follows: "That rock," namely, the one of which it was said, the spiritual one that accompanied the fathers, "was Christ."

1. About Thersites compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 1899, note 4.

538II . writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx. ess-aes. 539

Now, if in this saying "the spiritual rock was Christ," "is" were to be explained by "signifies," what inconsistency would that be? It is quite understandable to us that a physical rock signifies Christ, just as we also confess that the bread here and there shadows him. For as a bodily rock is a strength to him that is founded thereon, so also is Christ a strength to him that believeth; and as bread feedeth the body, so also Christ feedeth the soul. But in the Lord's Supper it becomes another bread, which has been sanctified by the word of the Lord. For if the bread in the Lord's Supper is nothing but a sign of the body, what need is there of sanctifying the bread, or of setting it apart from common use, since it was the same before sanctification? And since Paul speaks of the rock among the Corinthians, he understands this not of the bodily but of the spiritual, which no one can deny who carefully compares this passage with the preceding. It is true that the fathers drank from the physical rock, but in this passage Paul is speaking of the spiritual drinker, for he says: "they drank from the spiritual rock that followed with them". Here also belongs 2 Sam. 22, 2.: "The Lord is my rock, the Lord is my fortress". And in Zechariah Cap. 2, 5., "I will be to them a fiery wall round about." Will you then take "is" for "means" in these passages also? No, for the nature of the speech demands that we look for the figurative (tropum) in the words "rock" and "wall." For in these speeches the words "rock" and "wall" have passed from their original to a transferred meaning (translatitiam); but this cannot happen in such a way in this speech: "This is my body", because indeed "body" remains in its original meaning.

15 Let us go through the Scriptures and investigate the meanings of "body". For soon the Holy Spirit uses it for the physical body, as Isa. 50, 6 according to the Vulgate: "I presented my body to those who struck it" 2c., and Luc. 24, 23: "They did not find the body of the Lord in the grave." But soon it stands for the figurative (metaphprico), for the spiritual body, or for the church; 1 Cor. 15, 44.: "A natural body is sown, and a spiritual body is raised"; Eph. 4, 4.: "We are One Body"; Col. 1, 24.: "for His body, which is the church." But for "signs of the body" we find it nowhere. Now in this speech: "This is my body" the word "body" can be taken neither for the spiritual body, nor for the church, because soon follows: "who was given for you

becomes." Because neither a spiritual body nor the church are given for us, therefore "body" remains in its original meaning.

16. Furthermore, what is brought forward from the 12th chapter of the second book of Moses v. 11: "It is the Lord's Passover" rather confirms our doctrine than that it should overthrow it, because in this speech neither "is" may be interpreted by human presumption with means, nor "Passover" with sign of the Passover. For indeed the Spirit has reserved to Himself the interpretation of His words, and does not give this honor to the flesh. And as Paul says 1 Cor. 2:11, "No man knoweth what is in man, except the spirit of man which is in him," so who should know better what is to be understood by the words of the Spirit than the Spirit himself? Therefore, most learned Oecolampadius, allow us to obtain this from you, that we may interpret "Passover" not according to a dream, but according to the opinion of the Spirit, who interprets it not as a sign, but by "Passover sacrifice." For thus it is written in the same second book of Moses, Cap. 12, 26. f.: "And when your children shall say unto you, What manner of service have ye? ye shall say, It is the LORD'S Passover sacrifice." You see that the Spirit, the best interpreter of His words, explains "Passover" not by "sign," but by "Passover sacrifice," so that the sense is, "For it is the Lord's Passover," that is, it is the Lord's Passover sacrifice. For neither can sacrifice and sign be said to be the same thing, unless thou wilt understand that Christ is a sign, when the Spirit says Christ is a sacrifice. For that Zwingli says that these words, "It is the Lord's Passover," are the reason for what immediately precedes, "and ye shall eat it as they hasten away"; does he not by such speech bring it about that he says nothing? Does the haste of eating have a reason, but the preceding has none? What then is it: "It shall be a lamb without blemish; in one house shall ye eat it; the posts shall ye put blood upon; about your loins shall ye be girded; ye shall have shoes upon your feet" 2c.? Shall there be no reason for this? But more correctly and beautifully Moses interprets himself, who refers "Passover" to the whole service (religionem - service, according to Ex. 12, 26.) of the lamb, not to a part. 2) We want to ask you, highly learned Oecolampad, that you carefully consider and
17. In the original erroneous: 22.
18. Instead of pairem is to be read pariern. - It seems to us that right after that instead of: arnakimus - orakirnns should be read.

54014 , The so-called 8^vZrannnL 8utzvionw. W. xx, s8s-"87. 541

consider with you whom we follow by deviating from your opinion. For you see most clearly that "was" in the statement: "The rock was Christ" and "Passover" cannot exist at all according to your way. Now, when the iron and brass reasons fall away, will you not fast the suspicion that the whole thing is a fraud?

Some seem to be able to strengthen their opinion somewhat from the first book of Moses, chapter 17, where it is thus written v. 13: "So shall my covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." Circumcision, they say, is called a covenant or a covenant, although it is nothing but the sign of the covenant. For thus it is written v. 10. f., "Every male among you shall be circumcised. But ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh. The same shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you." We thank thee, Holy Spirit, that thou hast freely made known what thou understandest by covenant, for since circumcision was before called a covenant, it is now called a sign of the covenant. Does he also give such a declaration (dissertat) of the body of Christ? For since Christ had said, "This is my body," is it added afterwards, that it is a sign of my body? But that would have been superfluous in such a great matter. But even Paul does not dare to make the body a sign of the body, for he says 1 Cor. 11:29, "that he might not distinguish the body of the Lord"; he does not say, "that he might not distinguish the image or the sign of the body". Furthermore, the whole manner (ratio) of circumcision makes our, indeed Christ's, opinion of the bread of the Lord's Supper most clear, for circumcision is both a covenant and a sign of the covenant, since it is not only a cutting off of the foreskin from the flesh, but also has a word added to it; which therefore is the word, such also is circumcision. Listen, God has spoken it. Deut. 17, 1. f., "I am Almighty GOD, I will make my covenant with you." What is a covenant but a promise, an agreement (conventio), an alliance (foedus)? Now what promise happened to Abraham? It follows soon after v. 4.: "Thou shalt become a father of many nations"; v. 6. f.: "I will make thee almost very fruitful, and will make nations of thee, and kings also shall come of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee," 2c., "that I may be thy God, and of thy seed after thee. And I will give thee and thy seed

give after you" 2c. Behold, there thou hast the covenant; now is added, even the seal of the covenant v. 10. f., "All that is male among you shall be circumcised. But ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh. The same shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. "2c. Behold, there you have the sign of the covenant. Therefore circumcision is the seal of the real covenant, but it is also called the covenant itself, or the covenant; why? Because the word of the covenant is attached to it. For where circumcision is called a covenant, it is not to be interpreted that it is a sign of the covenant, but because the Holy Spirit has the word in mind, he rightly calls circumcision the covenant itself. For that it is a covenant, it has from the word; that it is a sign, it has from the outward sign of circumcision] (specie). Thus the bread of the Lord's Supper has the word, "This is my body, which is given for you." From this word it has that it is the body of Christ; but that it thereby also shadows Christ, this it has from its nature (natura). For as bread nourishes the body, filling the stomach, so Christ nourishes the soul's food; just as a rock, because it does not waver by nature and is firm, therefore most correctly represents Christ, who is a strength, a fortress, a stronghold (fortalitium) to all those who trust in him.

18 Now let us also consider the other things that are quoted from Paul and Lucas about the cup. "This cup", he says Luc. 22, 20. 1 Cor. 11, 25., "is the new testament in my blood" or "through my blood" (for this is the same). But we must wonder how any one can presume to interpret, almost to say desecrate, in this passage "the new testament" by signs of the new testament. For it is added: "in my blood," as a declaration of the cup or wine. For whence is it called "the cup of the new testament"? because it is a sign of the new testament? Not at all; but because it contains the blood of the New Testament. Give glory to the Holy Spirit, and let Him interpret His own through Himself, which He does most carefully, both in Matthew and in Marcus. For what Paul calls "the new testament" is not called a sign in Matthew, but "the blood of the new testament". For so it is said Matth. 26, 27. f., "Drink ye all of it: it is my blood of the new testament. "2c. Do you want to have a clearer interpreter? We are still afraid to contradict the interpretation of the

542II . Writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. . W. xx, 687-ess. 543

Evangelists to make of the New Testament not the blood of the New Testament, but a sign? In addition, what is written in the second book of Moses Cap. 24, 8: "Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said: Behold, this is the blood of the covenant" 2c., he does not say: this is the sign of the covenant 2c. In like manner, when Christ sprinkled among his people by the word the blood, not of the old testament, but of the new, he took the cup, and said, "Drink ye all of it; for this is the blood of the new testament, which is shed for you." By this word, which was spoken at the cup, he sprinkled his blood, not the sign of it, into the cup of the new testament 2c. Unless someone wants the blood fei a sign of the testament, not the testament itself, no one will disagree. For the new testament is the forgiveness of sins, eternal blessedness, and, as Jeremiah says Cap. 31, 33., "I will put my law in their heart, and I will be their GOOD" 2c. The seal of this testament, yes, the attainment of it is the blood, but because the blood is the seal of the testament, shall it not be blood for its sake? Let this be far from it; for because the blood is the blood of Christ, therefore it seals and confirms the new testament. So also the wine in the cup of the Lord's Supper, because it is the blood of Christ, is the sealing and confirming of the new testament.

(19) But let us pass from the blood to the manner of baptism. For baptism is a burial with Christ and a bath of rebirth. How, then, are we to make of the bath and the being buried with Christ again a sign of the bath and of regeneration? We would rather that the Scriptures be treated according to their spirit, not according to our reason or invention, lest the ungodly, instructed by our sacrilege, subsequently become accustomed to trample the sanctuary underfoot. The words of God must be treated with fear and trembling, lest we be regarded as desecrators of them. Therefore, who can better interpret that baptism is the bath of regeneration than he who said this? For thus Paul writes to Titus Cap. 3, 5., "he made us blessed by the bath of regeneration." Why he calls baptism the bath of regeneration, he explains in Eph. 5,1) 25. f. Is it because it is supposed to be a sign? But in this way it does not wash the soul. Perhaps because it has water? but in this way it only cleanses the body. Wes-

1. In the original erroneously Eph. 6.

So why is it called a bath? Listen to Pau; lum: "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, and purify it by the bath of water in the word." Here you have quite clearly that baptism is called and is a bath of regeneration, not for the sake of the sign, but for the sake of the word. And what do we say differently of the bread of the Lord's Supper? For we do not say that the bread, inasmuch as it is a sign, is the body, but for the sake of the word, "This is my body. "2c. For that there is no obscure speech in the expression "body", we think, is already somewhat clear, after we have overturned your reasons of the rock, of the Passover, and of the New Testament. For it has been shown how forcible and completely contrary to the mind (ingenium) of the Holy Spirit your interpretations are.

20 Now let us move on to the other things. Matth. 11, 14. Christ says of Johanne: "He is Elijah." But how? Does he call John Elijah for his own sake, because he is similar to Elijah (refert) or because he is supposed to signify Elijah (signet)? Why is added: "he who is to be in the future"? Is the Elijah to be future who had to do with Ahab (^dabita) ? We have in mind in a much more certain way what the scripture intends (soopcm). For there are two people who are called Elijah. One is Elijah the Thisbite, contemporary of the king of Israel, Ahab. The other is the Elijah of whom the prophet Malachi proclaims in the third and fourth chapters that he will come. This Elijah is John, as also Christ's words testify, who says: "This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my angel." And afterwards v. 14., "If ye will receive it: He is the Elias that is to be future," not the Thisbite, but 8of whom Malachi says, "I say unto you, Elias is come already, and they have not known him." It is true that John went before Christ in the spirit and power of Elias, as Lucas testifies. But on this occasion one must not make "is" into "means" (rslsrt), because John does not mean that Elijah, the Thisbiter, but "he himself is Elijah, 8who is to be hereafter", that is, the one of whom Malachi proclaimed long before that he' would be before Christ.

21. furthermore, with what good judgment you have cited to confirm your opinion from the first book of Moses the tree of knowledge good and evil, furthermore from John: "Behold, your son" [Joh. 19, 26. according to the vulg.

544 14. the so-called K^vAramma Kusviouw. W. xx, 68s-ess. 545

we do not recognize yet. For if you compare the word in the first book of Moses with the word of the Last Supper, they will be very far (xxx ûéÜ ðáóþí) from each other, because it says: XXX XXXX XXXX from the tree of knowledge.

Good and evil, not: from the tree, which is the knowledge of good and evil. For you know better than we that n in the article is in the genitive. In the Lord's Supper you will hear nothing of the kind, for Christ does not say, "Take and eat, this is the bread of my body," but, "This is my body." And since John is called the Son of Mary, you cannot take "is" for means, nor "Son" for sign of the Son; for who ever heard such interpreters?

22 We demand firmer ground. And to confess the truth, your sect becomes much weaker and more despicable by these testimonies begged together, because you do according to the habit of the orators, who, where solid proofs are lacking, justify theirs by suppositions, and persuade themselves that they have carried out the speech excellently, if only they have not brought the speech to an end without beautiful paint (coloribus), the thing may be proven, however it may want. Almost right from the beginning of your booklet, you gather everything from everywhere that could give even a semblance to your cause. But we demand solid proofs, against which even the devil can't be afraid, especially in divine matters. Human affairs are guided and supported by conjecture, which, though it may fail from time to time, fails with less harm. For it is not a tremendous harm if we lose our bodily goods. Divine things are based on solid evidence, so that our faith may be sure, so that we do not run in vain, so that we do not fall into temptations.

23 For suppose that we also believed that the bread of the Lord's Supper was only a sign of the body, convinced by this reason that in the first book of Moses the tree of knowledge is called good and evil, and because of the passage in John, "Behold thy Son." But what will we then answer the devil, if he should reproach us against it, that "son" is not taken for the sign of a son in this passage, and that also in the Lord's Supper it is not said, as in the first book of Moses, "This is the bread of my body"? Now, even if you could take "Son" for a sign of the Son (which the right nature of the speech by no means allows), who could make it certain that "body" must also be taken in this way? since you are not easily in the

You will find in Scripture that "body" is taken for "sign of the body".

If it were free to tear the Scriptures apart in this way, who could prevent another from doing the same in the statement found in Matth. 3, 17: "This is my beloved Son", so that the meaning would be: This is the sign of my beloved Son, since he would also have his reasons, which would be obvious to the flesh, and is still reproached by the Jews today, how a man could be the Son of God? And if our suspicions do not deceive us, then this spirit of the sacramentarians deals with it and works towards snatching away from us the outward Christ, the outward word. For he gives us a very beautiful sample of this matter by asking: What then is the outward word of God? Is it not the letter? does it not have syllables? Should letters and syllables make us blessed? It is obvious that he also wants to say: What is the outward Christ? Is he not a man? is he not flesh? But flesh is of no use, and cursed be he that trusteth in man.

(25) We are frightened as often as we think of this trick of Satan, for we know what he is up to, and it is certain that he is now preparing (coquere) such things in his house, but he does not yet come forth in open battle; but if one allows him to make signs of the body out of "body", what blasphemies should he not subject himself to? For the devil has the nature (naturam) to bring forth from his lair something far different than he initially pretended, for he knows how to easily transform himself into an angel of light. Have we not experienced this wickedness abundantly in our time in the peasants' revolt? In the beginning, he acted as if he wanted to assist the Gospel, relieve the poor of their heavy burdens and help them to freedom, but in the meantime he was intent on perjury, robbery, murder and all kinds of evil.

This spirit tears apart the word of God and pretends to teach the right use of the sacrament, as he is a cloak-holder (versipellis), but secretly he works for something else. It grieves him that the word of the Gospel has been revealed, he feels the decline of his kingdom and therefore pulls out all the stops so that he remains the prince of the world. For that would not be the smallest part of his victory, if he could impute the sign of the body for the "body". See, how great a gift he would have deprived us of!

546 H- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx. <w2-"ss. 547

For since God's Word makes the gifts of God present to us, which we will speak about later in the appropriate place, then through this word: "This is my body" the body of Christ becomes present to us and is presented to us.

(27) Now if the devil should be permitted so much as to make a sign of the body out of the body, will he not impute a ghost for the truth, an empty mirage for the cause? And he, when he has accomplished this, will not be satisfied with it and confine himself to it, but will proceed further and try to make also of peace a sign of peace, of the forgiveness of sins a sign of forgiveness. For since Christ commanded the apostles to wish peace to the house into which they entered, and sent them forth to forgive sins, a malicious man might say that the apostles were not able to offer peace and forgiveness of sins to their hearers, since Christ alone was the peace and forgiveness of sins, and no one ever saw Christ carried on the shoulders of the apostles from city to city and from house to house; but of these things afterward.

Now we return to what we have digressed from. You say: To Mary it is said in relation to John: "Behold, your son", of course he takes care of her 2c. There you could have answered yourself, because in this saying "son" is not taken in the original but in a figurative meaning, because there is a son by nature, a son after care, a son by adoption (adoptione), a son begotten by teaching. But since John is not a true and natural son of Mary, he will be her son by care for her and obedience to her.

29. But that in this speech, "This is my body," such a figurative meaning is not, is indicated by the following words, where it is said, "Who is given for you." In this way, even if in this speech: "Behold, your son" were added: who is born of you, what is added: he is born of you, would undoubtedly force that "son" should be taken not for a son of concern, but for a natural son. Nothing like this can be said of the word of the Lord's Supper, which is fully protected by what follows against taking "body" figuratively (metaphorice) or figuratively (translatitie). Furthermore, since you are so astute in asserting figurative speech, you should have been careful not to make an

figurative speech, where this is by no means permissible. For you say that there is a trope in these sayings Matth. 11, 11.: "He who is least is greater than he," and Matth. 13, 12.: "He who does not have, from him will also be taken what he has." See thou do not, by asserting a figurative speech, not only deal unjustly against the Scriptures, but also sin against Christ. For if he only appeared smaller, but was not in fact smaller, then the eighth Psalm lies, which says v. 6. according to the Vulg. cf. Heb. 2, 7. 9., "Thou hast made him for a little while less than the angels"; so he himself lies Matth. 27, 46., "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" so Paul also lies, Eph. 4, 9.: "He is gone down into the lowest parts of the earth." What more is needed? If Christ was not in truth smaller, but only signified a lesser, it follows that he was also not in truth greater, nor did he ascend in truth, but only signified a greater, and that his ascension was not a true fact, but only a shadow, since he ascended only because he descended; was only exalted because he was in truth humbled to death on the cross, Phil. 2:8, and Eph. 4:10: "He that descended is the same that ascended above all heavens, that he might fill all things." This is what we said before, that the devil deals with making a ghost, a mirage and a sign out of Christ. Moreover, if you maintain that Christ is not speaking of the humiliation on the cross and of the abandonment of the Father, but of the opinion of men, according to which John was considered greater, but Christ smaller, you are speaking rightly in our opinion. For in the kingdom of heaven, that is, in the matter of the gospel, two people were held up by the people at that time, John and Christ. John was considered greater because of the severity of his life, but Christ was considered lesser because of the friendly intercourse with sinners, so that he also ate with sinners. Therefore, if you look at the opinion of the people, he was indeed smaller, that is, in the hearts of the people; but if you compare him with John, he was the greatest.

30. you see again that no trope can be admitted here, and in Matthew Cap. 13, 2. "He who has not" is called a not having, not because he does not have the sign (figuram) but because he does not have the thing 1) namely, faith; for the sense is: because

1. The sense requires such an intercalation.

54814 . the so-called K^vZ^amma Huovioum. W. xx, ess-E 549

If he does not have faith, what he has (that is, the gifts of either nature or others) is taken from him; for to him who does not have faith, the gifts and presents of God never prosper. A bishopric is a gift and a gift. Whoever administers the bishopric without faith will be taken away from him, that is, it will not benefit him, it will not promote his salvation. For the gifts are of no use, but do more harm, if one possesses them without faith. Will someone, because he possesses the wisdom 1) of the flesh, without the spirit of faith, not really be wise according to the flesh? Certainly he is not wise according to the spirit, but in truth he is wise according to the flesh. Whoever possesses riches without faith, will he have only the appearance (figuram) of a possessor? Then it would be well with the thieves, who could protect themselves with this excuse against the death penalty, if they answered the judge according to your tropes, they had not taken the money from real owners, but only from those who seemed to possess. But who would not like to excuse his shameful deeds by these tropes also before the world and before God? For imagine that a citizen accuses another of the crime of a robber; if now the slanderer were brought before the court, could he not then easily excuse himself with the trope and interpret "robber" with signs (figura) of the robber? And we could object to being accused of being sinners before God's court by pleading the trope and saying, "Why do you condemn us? We are not sinners, but only have the form (formam) of sinners. Therefore, O Christ, why hast thou come down from heaven? Why did you not teach us, through some angel, the trope with which we could excuse ourselves? Certainly, the trope would have freed you from your suffering and death; we excuse ourselves from sins by your exceedingly bitter death, but surely it would have been more sweet (dulcius) for you to do so, that we might have saved ourselves from the judgment of God by the trope.

We are not playing a game, dear Oecolampadius, but we are only giving a small foretaste of future interpretations in Scripture, when we admit that "body" is made into the sign of the body. But you say: It is not uncommon that the signs of things are expressed by the words of things. Whether this is quite true, we cannot say in this place. At least what you teach about the fiery tongues and the dove and the blowing proves that

1. Instead of sapisntia, read sapientiarn.

not your sentence, because also the Holy Spirit is neither called a fiery tongue in the flesh, nor a dove, unless a little word (particula), which denotes a likeness, is added, as in Jeremiah Cap. 23, 29. the word of the LORD is called as it were (quasi) a fire, and as it were a hammer that breaketh rocks, for so it is written: -ow Ðï ê'6ð :/?? ö'( ιτΒΜί nin, and Matt. 3:16: ôü *πνεύμα του -&εοΰ χαταβαΐνον ώςεί περιστεράν,*The.

Scripture says the Spirit of God descended like a dove, it does not say the Spirit of God is a dove, and John 1:32: 2) xxxxxxxxx xx

you see that it is said: "like a dove", but not that he is the dove.

32 Since this whole speech must be understood according to the way (rationem) of faith, there is a much different sense in the whole report (sermone) than is indicated by the words. Was not the Spirit in Christ before? Did Christ not have the Spirit before baptism? Far be it that we should say this of Christ, who is by nature the Son of God. What is it, then, that you say, "I saw the Spirit of God descend from heaven in the form of a dove, and remain upon him? Did the Spirit descend if he is bodily (quod corporis est)? Did the dove remain on Christ? Did he carry it around on his shoulders or on his head wherever he went? Therefore, when it is said that the Spirit of God descended, the Scripture expresses that the Spirit did not come upon Christ only recently, or that He fell upon Him from heaven, but that He made known His presence, with which He was always fully present with Christ (praesentissimus), through the outward form of the dove. Therefore to "dove" the circumstantial word ^like] is added, which is not added to the word of the Lord's Supper. It is not said: This is as it were my body; it is also not said: My body is as it were bread, but simply: This bread is my body. We also read in Genesis 19:18 that God descended, but what is that but that the Lord, who is present everywhere, made His presence known through the trembling, the smoke and the fire? The same is written in the 1st book of Moses in the 11th cap. [V. 5: "Then the Lord came down to see the city and the tower. Was he not present before? Does he not accomplish all things? "Of him," says Paul [Rom.

2. In the original Latin: "äxe".

550II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W.xx.ss7f. 551

11, 36.], "and through him, and in him, 1) all things take place"; so what is: "he descended"? The Lord is everywhere present, but his presence is not everywhere manifest. Therefore, according to our way of speaking, he is said to descend from heaven when he makes himself known as present through some outward form. Now when he had confused the languages at Babylon, he made his presence known by the act itself, that is, by the confusion of the languages, but this does not mean that the confusion of the languages is the Lord. And in the Acts of the Apostles Cap. 2, 3 there were seen by the apostles cloven tongues like fire, and the fire or the fiery tongue sat upon every one of them; yet it is not yet said that the fiery tongues are the Holy Spirit. Likewise, John 20:22, "he breathed on the apostles, and saith unto them: Take ye the Holy Ghost," but does not say, Take ye, this breath is the Holy Ghost, as it is said in the Lord's Supper, "Take ye (even the bread), which is my body."

(33) Now see how your disputation may stand, for since Christ says, "Do these things in remembrance of me," you presume to conclude that the body of Christ is not present for its sake, because Christ commanded that its remembrance should take place; but a remembrance takes place in absent things, not in present things. For this is your reasoning (ratiocinatio). But how is it that now, for the confirmation of your reason, you summon signs of things that are not absent to something present, as it were, as auxiliaries? Have you forgotten that, according to your doctrine, the signs are signs of things that are absent, not of things that are present? The dove, the breath, the fiery tongues are signs of the spirit, but also the spirit is present, not absent. Do you also want to affirm that the body of Christ is present in the Lord's Supper, even though according to you the bread is only a sign?

(34) We do not suppose that anyone has such an ungodly opinion that he should deny that faith drinks the blood of Christ and eats his flesh. For so it is said in John 6:55: "My flesh is meat, and my blood is drink." Whose? Of faith, for faith eats the flesh of Christ and drinks His blood by believing. If then faith eats the flesh and drinks the blood, it follows that the flesh and blood are present to faith, since, if they were not present, they would not have been eaten or drunk, or, if they were not present, they would not have been consumed.

1. üunt seems to be intentionally set instead of suut.

Since, of course, no one can eat God himself, that is, believe, except the one to whom God is present. For the wicked and unbelievers, He is absent, therefore they also do not eat GOD, that is, they do not believe in GOD. In short, as faith has God present when it believes in God, so when it eats the body 2) and drinks the blood, that is, when it believes, it must have the body and the blood present.

35. But who makes God present for faith (for we are not speaking of the presence according to which God fulfills everything, but according to which He is with the godly) but only the Word? For as He is revealed through the Word, so He is also given out as a present ^GOtH through the Word. Joh. 1, 18.: "No one has ever seen God. The only begotten Son (who is the Word), he hath declared it unto us." And elsewhere Joh. 14, 9.: "He who sees me, sees also my Father", that is, he who has the word, receives, believes: he who has, receives, believes GOD. And so it is entirely ordered (comparatum) in such a way that faith cannot be directed to GOD in any other way than through the Word, which is the Son of GOD, and that also GOD does not meet faith in any other way than through the Word, because indeed GOD dwells in the cloud in the dark and, as that one Paul 1 Tim. 6, 16, in a light where no one can come; and since no one goes in, no one goes out, except only the Son, who is the Word, who goes out and comes in, ascends and descends, and no one else. John 3:13: "No man goeth up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven." The godly also ascend, but in Christ and through Christ, in the Word and through the Word. Furthermore, since the Word offers God with all His goods to faith as a present one, why should the Word not do the same with the body and blood of Christ? since these are our gifts (dona) and through them we are snatched out of the jaws of death, sin, hell, yes, even the devil. John says in the first epistle, Cap. 1, 7. "The blood of JEsu Christ makes us clean from all sin." So if the blood makes us clean, the blood must be present to us, since an absent thing does not make clean. But the blood of Christ may be trampled underfoot, or sucked out of the earth, and it is not possible for us to be clean.
36. Instead of crsäat here must be read säat, and the comma after the following orsäat is to be deleted.
37. Instead of üäs, üäsi will probably read sem.

55214 . the so-called 8^llKran-uns, Kusvionm. W. xx. ess. 553

lich that it should have lasted until us. Nevertheless, if we want to be cleansed in the meantime, we must be cleansed by this blood. But we do not see what could bring this blood to us, except the word. Faith, you say, offers us the blood. But whence does faith take the blood, if not from the word? For faith is not faith unless it is directed to the word. The Word is the object of faith, the Word offers to faith all that it receives or believes. And even wherever the gifts of God may be placed, be they either taken from us, or hidden and far from our eyes, they are brought back (restituuntur), revealed, and set before us by the Word. Let us look recently at some of the kinds of gifts which are brought to us through the Word, and it will soon be revealed how we receive through the bread, to which the Word is added, the body and blood of Christ, the excellent gifts which can never be praised highly enough. Food and clothing are gifts from God, but who brings us these gifts? who makes these gifts from God our own? You have the word Matth. 6, 30. 26.: "The Father clothes", "the Father feeds"; through this word God pours himself into our bowels, through this word food and clothing are brought to us. It seems as if the cooks filled us with food (farcire), and as if the tailors clothed us with garments, but the eye of faith, which turns its attention to this word, easily recognizes from where both food and clothing have been provided-. The wicked also have food and clothing, but not as a gift from God, because they have no word, or even if they have the word in abundance, they do not take it in faith. For the benefits of God are judged by the word, not by the appearance (specie), just as among men the benefits are judged by the attitude of the giver, not by the appearance of the gift. For even to Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians, a drink of water, which was given to him in both hands by a man of labor, 1) a common soldier, because he had no other vessel, was a delicious drink of rennet (nsotar), in that he measured the service of love according to the good will of the giver, not according to the usefulness of what was given.

1. Stat aLT-oL/rT--" will probably have to be read.

due, but then also tremendously great, if they have the word and are received in faith. Therefore, the land of Canaan, the kingdom of Israel, was praised above all other countries and kingdoms, not because Canaan was more productive through the fertility of the soil, or because the kingdom of Israel, as far as outward appearances are concerned, surpassed other kingdoms in glory and power, for both the Babylonian and the Greek and the Roman empires were greater, but because it had the Word. Therefore, if you compare the land and the kingdom of Israel with others, it is by far the smallest of all, according to its prestige. What was the extent of the land of Canaan, what was the importance of the kingdom of David, when compared with Babylon and Rome? But if you compare it by word with others, it is by far the greatest of all. For the Word, from whose gift the Jews received the land and the kingdom, made known the benevolent and kindly disposition of God the Giver. But the value of the gift depends on the attitude, not on the prestige of the gift. What is the purpose of this? So that you may see that the gifts of God become true gifts for us when the Word is added to them. Now also the peace of God is a gift that is acquired for us through Christ, for since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5:1. But how is this gift set before us, how does it become present? Is it not through the word? Which one? "Peace to this house," or, "Peace be with you," or, "My peace I give unto you." When someone takes hold of this word in faith, he takes hold of peace. To this is added another gift, the forgiveness of sins, which is obtained from the Father through JEsum Christ. But what is it that makes this gift present to us and holds it up to faith? Is it not the word of the apostles? It is also said in Matth. 16, 19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." For this is not said to Peter alone, but to the whole company of the apostles, to whose confession Peter lent his mouth. But the meaning is: I will deliver (oommittam) the word of the gospel to you who confess me, Christ, the Son of God, which, confirmed by the Spirit, is the key of the kingdom of heaven, so that you may distribute (spargatis) forgiveness of sins throughout the whole world. He fulfills this promise later, Joh. 20, 22. f.: "Receive the Holy One.

554II . writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx, ess-mi. 555

Spirit; whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." As before he said, "I will give," now he says, "Receive;" as before he said, "the keys," now he says, "the Holy Ghost." For the Holy Ghost is the seal and pledge of the word; by which word sins are both remitted and retained, for what is called in this passage "remitting sins," is called in Lucas Cap. 24:47., "having repentance and remission of sins preached in Christ's name," and in Marcus 16:15., "preaching the gospel to every creature." Therefore (spargebant.) the apostles by their word brought forgiveness among the people and remitted the sins of the true believers. By what? By their power? Let that be far away, for Christ alone forgives sins, but by the word of Christ they spread among the people that which was Christ's, in the meantime keeping Christ seated at the right hand of the Father and neither depriving Him of anything nor taking anything away from Him. What then should hinder (vetarst) why the same should not be done with the body and blood of Christ, which is done with the forgiveness of sins? For as the forgiveness of sins is Christ's alone, who sits at the right hand of the Father, but is nevertheless committed (commendata) to the word, so that it might be distributed in the world through the apostles by means of the oral external voice, so the body and blood are Christ's alone, who sits at the right hand of the Father, but meanwhile is committed to the word: "This is my body; this is my blood," so that they might be distributed through bread and wine, external things. For if the forgiveness of sins is our gift, why should not the body and blood, by which forgiveness is effected (oontinKit), be gifts also? Now if they are gifts, it follows that they are dispensed according to the manner of gifts; but they are to be dispensed by the word, which is evident from what has been said before. Therefore, if the word presents us with the body and blood, what is to prevent it from bringing to the bread what it contains? since the word "this is my body" is directed to the bread.

Perhaps you fear that there will be two bodies in one and the same place. Let go of this fear and get away from fleshly imagination; give the word the honor. For if it was not inconsistent for the body to be borne by the word (Zsstarl), how should it be inconsistent for it to be borne by the word in the bread? We do not hear Aristotle here, nor the speeches of reason (praedicationes logicas); let Aristotle on his battlefield.

of two bodies; in the word of God we recognize another teacher. Does not Chrysostom also say, as you do, that in the Lord's Supper many things are inconsistent for our understanding, and which exceed our thinking? Well, you may be mindful of the fact that faith endures many inconsistencies not only in this sacrament but also in many other things. Why? Because faith is free to imagine anything as it pleases? Not at all, but because it has the word.

037 For give faith the word, and it shall take hold of far other things than the whole nature of things can bear. Does he not bear it that sins are not sins? that shame is not shame, death is not death? Why? Because he imagines it so? Far be it from him; but because he has the word John 1:29. "Behold, this is the Lamb of God, which bareth the sin of the world," likewise Hos. 13:14, "Death, I will be death unto thee." Preach this to Aristotle; see if thou canst persuade him that death is not a death? For he will hold common sense (sensum) against thee, he will hold the nature of things against thee, he will hold reason against thee. What do you want to answer? Do you not believe because Aristotle does not believe?

(38) The same must be said of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For although reason cannot bear that the bread is the body, yet faith bears it for its sake, because it has the word, "This is my body," in which, as is evident from your collatis above, faith also cannot recognize a trope. Does not this word: "I am your GOtt" bring GOtt to us with all His goods? How, then, if reason could not grasp in what way in such a small speech, consisting of letters, syllables and expressions, such a great incomprehensible treasure is brought? And if anyone relies on this word, will he put up with a sophistical disputer and a sophist who says, "You trust in letters and syllables? We know and have learned from Paul Rom. 1:16 that the gospel is the power of God that makes blessed all who believe in it. We reject the sophistic antics, namely: the gospel is a dead letter and consists of syllables, so how could it be a power of God?

39 But what is this? If the bread is the body of Christ, then the body of Christ must be crucified again. Truly! a beautiful demonstration. As if Christ would rise again

55614 . the so-called K^nZramina Lusviouin. W. xx, 701-703. 557

because the word: "I am the resurrection" brings to us the resurrection of Christ, which is also ours, and this: "the Word became flesh" makes Christ's incarnation present to us. Wouldn't it be absurd to claim now that Christ had to become man again for the sake of this? Christ, by this word: "Peace be with you," "My peace I give unto you," has left peace behind Himself: will He, for the sake of it, again be obliged to eat with the disciples, and to converse, or to go through closed doors to those who are afraid (consternatos)? For because we confess that for the word's sake the bread is the body of Christ, nothing should have been imagined of any future (adventu), either in lowliness or in glory. For Christ came in lowliness in the flesh, but in glory he will come on that day which the Father knows; but by the word of God the distribution of Christ's gift m bread and wine takes place. Just as the forgiveness of sins, which is by far the best and greatest gift, is revealed and distributed to us through the Word, but no one, no matter how grossly minded, imagines a future in lowliness or glory, so when the body of Christ, through which the forgiveness of sins has taken place, is distributed in the bread through the Word, the distribution and administration of the gift takes place, but not a kind of new future of Christ, as it is said in 1 Cor. 10:16: "The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?"

40 Pay attention to the Hebrew way of speaking. What is "the fellowship of the body" but the body that is shared and given? So also Rom. 1, 4. according to the Vulgate] is "the spirit of sanctification," that is, the spirit that sanctifies, which we call the Holy Spirit. So the bread that we break is the body of Christ divided, administered, and made common (communicatum). This is what Augustine has in mind in the 9th book of the "Confessions", Cap. 13, where he writes of his mother and says: "She did not ask us this (that her body be embalmed in a precious way), but only desired that she be remembered at your altar, at which she had served every day without ceasing, so that she could know that the holy sacrifice would be administered (dispensari, by which the handwriting is erased, which was against us 2c). What is "that the holy sacrifice be administered" but that the body of Christ be distributed, which was given for us? But as peace and the forgiveness of sins, so the body and the blood are distributed through the word in the bread and in the offering.

Wine, since the word is added to bread and wine. The matter becomes clearer by an example. Any teacher who wants to communicate his will and his attitude to about a thousand students, does he not do it together in teaching by the word of doctrine and distribute it? For by including his will, so to speak, in the word, he distributes it among all of them, as many as there are who receive the word. In the meantime, he keeps his mind to himself, but still distributes it to others through the word. For here we shall not pretend, with Aristotle, that the words (vooss) are only the signs of the things that are in the soul; but to speak more correctly: the voice or the word offers us the things that are in the soul (res animae), brings them with it and presents them, while it the soul itself loses nothing in the process, but keeps its own for itself. Therefore, when according to the common custom the words of an author have been stated in a loud voice, we immediately add: This is the meaning of that author, this is the opinion of that writer. Who could tolerate that interpretation: This is the sign of that opinion?

(41) If a man is free to put his mind and opinion into the word, and to communicate it to the hearer, losing nothing of his opinion in the meantime, why should not Christ, who is God, be free to distribute and communicate his body and blood, enclosed in the word, through bread and wine? Furthermore, since the bread is the body of Christ, there is no need to fear that the same thing will happen to the body as to the bread; for the bread is baked, it is white, round or square, it goes into the stomach, is digested, and is thrown out by the natural process. For this reason should the body of Christ be baked, white, round or square, enter the belly, be digested, and the like? Let this be far off! For as the word of the Lord abideth for ever, being neither limited by place, nor by time, nor by accidental properties, nor can it ever be digested or destroyed (perdi), so the body is and remains put into the word (verbo commendatum). Now we maintain that the bread is the body, not insofar as it is bread, for otherwise what happens to the bread would also happen to the body, but insofar as it has the word. Therefore, the bread of the Lord's Supper, inasmuch as it is the body through the word, has nothing like fleshly accidental properties, for then 1) it is neither round nor square,

1. tiiQ6 i.e. if the bread is the body.

558- II. Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 708-706. 559

neither white nor black; but this it has and retains, provided it is bread.

We thank thee, Oecolampad, that thou, by thy own similitude, which thou adduceest of the key and of the royal scepter, assistest our opinion, and makest clear the meaning of the words of Christ. For whoever gives the key to a steward (oustoäi) and entrusts to him the power over the house, does he not make the key, the instrument of the house, the power over the house? Yes, the power not over the key, provided the key is only a tool, but add this word: I give you the power over the house, or: Behold, here you have the power over the house. Now the key no longer remains a mere tool, but also becomes the power over the house, not in so far as it is a key, but in so far as it has the word: I give you the power, or: Take away the power 2c. Why should we not be granted the same by you, that we hold such things of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, that the bread, inasmuch as it has the word, is the body of the Lord?

But far be it, you say, that the spiritually minded, who were under the law and awaited the Messiah in faith, should have been poorer than we, to whom he the Messiah is revealed; to them the sacraments are only darker, to us they are brighter. We wonder, most learned Oecolampadius, why you constantly hold that conclusion against us: The fathers were saved by faith and did not have the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, therefore the bread of the Lord's Supper is not the body of Christ, nor the wine his blood; for this is the brief epitome of your proof, which is taken from the patriarchs and from their faith.

44 But if you continue to draw conclusions in this way, Christ will also become a non-Christ. For who can shut the mouth of an ungodly man, and prevent him, that he should not, after your manner of disputing, bring up his reasons, which deny that Christ had flesh? The fathers were saved by faith, and did not have the bodily presence of Christ, so Christ was not bodily present to Peter, John, or James; for what need is there of Christ's presence, if we are saved by faith, and the fathers were saved by it; or if he is present, he is idle. Who could suffer these ungodly things? And yet they would have an example (analogiam) in your way of proving. Well then, let us indicate, however crudely (crassa Minerva), a

How great a difference there is between the godly: of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

It is a very different way in the spiritual world than in this carnal world, and in a different way the eye of God sees than the eye of the flesh, because in the spiritual world nothing is past, nothing is future; there are not years, not hours, not time, but everything is One Perpetual, a completely present moment: "One day before the LORD is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as One day," because the eye of GOD sees everything as One moment. Therefore, in that the prophets use the past time for the future, as in Isaiah [Cap. 21, 9Z; "Babylon is fallen," they have not used the speech of man, but have spoken by the Spirit of God; but the eye of the flesh sees this as future, that as present, that as past.

46 Since everything, whether past or future, is seen by God in a completely present moment, it follows that the incarnation of Christ, His suffering, death and resurrection began, was completed and fully executed (consummata.) at the time when the Lord decided with Himself to declare and make known this to the world once, according to the manner of the time of this world. Therefore John says in the Revelation, Cap. 13, 8: "The Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world." How? The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world? Was Christ then, or had Christ then already become man? Certainly; for if Christ had not already assumed humanity, suffered and been glorified in the eyes of God at the time of Adam and Abraham, the patriarchs would never have been freed from sins nor attained to righteousness. In the eyes of God, we say, this was presently and quite truly accomplished and perfected; not in the eyes of the world, for in the eyes of the world the Incarnation of Christ did not happen until under the emperor Augustus. But it did 1) not happen at that time first, but in the eyes of God it is accomplished and fully executed beforehand, but it sang to be revealed and made known under the emperor Augustus, under the priest Simeon.

47. similarly, the Passion of Christ did not happen at that time first under Pontio Pilato, but...

1. The text seems to us to need an addition here, approximately in the way it was done in the bracketed words.

56014 . The so-calledKusvioum . W. xx,706f. 561

Under this governor, that which had previously been fully accomplished in the eyes of God was revealed and made known to the world. For the fact that Christ hung on the cross under the high priest Caiphas was not new in the eyes of God, as he had hung there from the beginning of the world, but now it was new in the eyes of the world, which see much coarser and more carnal than the eyes of God. Since neither the Incarnation, nor the Passion, nor the Death, nor the Resurrection of Christ had been revealed in the time of the former patriarchs, although they were already present to the divine vision, the Spirit did not want to reveal such a great mystery to the weak world, which was still under the disciplinarian, until the fullness of time came, for then God sent His Son, born of a woman and under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law. Therefore, under the law and in the time of the patriarchs, the things that were to be revealed were hidden under the coverings of sacrifices and other shadows, lest, if by the outward word that which had not yet been revealed before the eyes of the world by the outward deed were revealed, the world should not be able to grasp it, or rather should be offended. Therefore, everything that is Christ was presented to the world through shadows, signs and images. All sacrifices are directed to Christ and have their aim on him, as it is said in the 40th Psalm v. 7. ff.: "Sacrifice and meal offering are not pleasing to thee, but thou hast opened mine ears. Then said I, Behold, I come, in the book is written of me; thy will, O my GOD, do I gladly." For Christ is not the Passover Lamb, but He is shadowed by the Passover Lamb, and the Lamb alone had His purpose in Christ. Nevertheless, the faith of the godly, as it is more sharp-sighted than a lynx, has had, received, and believed in the present Christ under the Lamb. Christ was, at the time of the Passover lamb, far from the ears and eyes of the flesh, but he was still completely present to faith, which flew on its wings (motis alis) from this world into the spiritual world and, according to the way of God's seeing, saw what Christ is. For thus God sees everything, even that which is to come, present before Him. In this way, faith makes what is very distant in the world's mind completely present to itself and sees it in this way. Was not the gospel also hidden from the fathers until it was revealed under Christ and the apostles? Nevertheless, the faith of the fathers had the gospel, even though it was still hidden.

very hidden and covered with strange shadows. But for us, who live according to Christ and are born again, the veil has been removed from our eyes and the gospel has been clearly presented, which was previously covered with veils.

(48) Now behold, what a good reason he would have who would say that this gospel, which is with us, has not been there in any other way than covered under a shadow. Therefore it is also not true, evident and clear with us. What could be more inconsistent than this conclusion? 1) And with your case it is just so, since you say that with the fathers the body of Christ was only shadowed and prefigured by signs, so also with us it is not signified in any other way than by signs; as if there were no difference between the shadows and the things that are shadowed, between signs and the true essence *veritas of the* signs. If then there is no difference between the fathers and us, why then does Christ say Matth. 13, 16. f., "Blessed are your eyes, that they see, and your ears, that they hear. Verily I say unto you, Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see that ye see, and have not seen it; and to hear that ye hear, and have not heard it"? No one will more easily explain how great an advantage we have over the fathers than this word of Christ. For he does not say: the prophets desired to believe and did not believe, but: they desired to see and hear what they did not hear and see.

(49) The fathers were not less than we in faith, for our faith and that of the fathers is the same, but they had much less than we in word and deed, that is, in revelation of Christ and manifestation of the word. By one example our opinion becomes clearer. Paul was called from his mother's womb to preach the gospel, as Gal. 1:15 says. But the calling was revealed from heaven long after he had become a man, Acts 9. 9 Did not Paul in the beginning, when the calling was still hidden, become less than he was before, but afterwards, when the calling was made known, he became greater than he was before (se ipso)? Or do you, because he was set apart from his mother's womb, deny that he received greater things after the revelation of the setting apart had taken place?

50 To this is added the condition of the apostles. For the apostles also had the Holy Spirit before the death of Christ and His resurrection, for how else could they have been born but from the Holy Spirit?

1. i.e. a conclusion from the opposite.

562 II- Writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx, 707-709. 563

The apostles can confess Christ through the Holy Spirit, Matth. 16, 16. f., where Christ also testifies that the Father revealed this; but the Father reveals and draws through the Holy Spirit. So the apostles must have had the Holy Spirit before the death of Christ, but in what way? Did they reveal it, or did they announce it? No, but still hidden and concealed. For it is written, Joh. 7,39.: "The Holy Spirit was not yet there, because Jesus was not yet glorified. But after Christ was glorified, he sent the Holy Spirit into their hearts to preach the gospel of the forgiveness of sins to the whole world. But what is this sending but to reveal and make known Him who was before hidden? Will you then say that the sending of the Spirit was in vain because they had it before? Let that be far off, for who could tolerate that? Were not the apostles more blessed by the revelation of the Spirit than before, when the Spirit was still hidden? They were more blessed, not through the Spirit, which they had received in the beginning through faith in Christ, but through His presence and revelation, since they had possessed Him before without noticing (tacitissime).

(51) Thus the fathers are not inferior to us in faith, but they are far behind in revelation. For what was present to them in faith, but nevertheless hidden in a dark 1) word and in deed and far from their eyes, is presented to us in deed and word. The fact, that is, the bodily offering (traditio) and the shedding of blood took place before the eyes of the world under Pontius Pilate. But because it had already lasted in the eyes of God from the beginning of the world, that we may say so, and had now been revealed to the world, therefore Christ, wishing to have this also present and made known before the world, put it into the word of the Lord's Supper, saying, "Receive and eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood," 2c., which could not have happened before Christ, because Christ had not yet been revealed. But after the revelation happened, he gave the revelation and presence to the Word 2) for preservation, because thus the forgiveness of sins, which was obtained under Pontius Pilate (that is, revealed, because it was brought about in the eyes of God from the foundation of the world), is preserved by the Word. Why should the same not be said of the body

1. Instead of aesrto, which does not seem to us to puff here, we have assumed oxerto.
2. Instead of verdi will read verdo.

and blood of Christ, by which forgiveness of sins was obtained, and without which forgiveness is not? The fathers saw Christ under the Passover Lamb, under the manna, under the rock of the wilderness, but in very hidden faith, and which was known to the spirit alone, since nothing of these things was yet revealed to the world. But we receive the body of Christ in the bread and his blood in the cup by the word, not hidden, not absent, but distinct (for distinct is the word, "This is my body"), but present, since the revelation has taken place and is preserved by the word. Therefore all that is based on these grounds falls away: we are saved by faith, and the fathers, who are not less than we, did not have the bodily body of Christ, so neither do we, either present or idle. For on this ground also the gospel would be idle, idle also would Christ himself be, preaching in Jerusalem, and manifesting himself by miracles throughout all Judea, since the fathers had neither the outward gospel, nor such an outward Christ as our forefathers saw under Pilate the governor.

Because Abraham did not see Christ hanging on the cross with the eyes of his body (for in faith he saw the day of Christ), did neither Peter nor John see him? The evangelist John and Abraham were completely equal with regard to faith, but unequal with regard to Christ. For Abraham saw Christ by faith and spiritual knowledge (Kpiritus tione), but John not only by faith, but also by clear revelation and bodily sight. In this way the fathers also ate the body of Christ and drank his blood in the spirit, but we eat his body and drink his blood not only in the spirit but also in the flesh. For the bread we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ. And Christ says, "Eat, this is my body, which is broken for you," just as we hear the gospel not only in the spirit, which also the fathers did, but also according to the flesh, with bodily ears. Will we then say that the bodily (carnal) gospel is idle with us, or does not save, because the fathers did not have it bodily and were saved without it? There is no one who could deny that the body of Christ was present in the spirit to the fathers, because through the word 'of the promises the whole Christ became present to them, but with us it is quite different. For we are

564 14. the so-called LMAramms, 8u6vioum. W. xx. 7v9-7u. 565

not only in the spirit, but also by the letter, not by him who kills, but by the present delivery (sxtübiticms) of the word, the body and blood of Christ presented.

Let us explain the matter by means of an example. In the first book of Moses, Cap. 3, v. 15, there is the word: "The same shall bruise thy head." Gen. 23, 18: "By thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." 2 Sam. 7, 12. 14.: "I will raise up thy seed after thee. I will be his father" 2c. Jer. 23, 5: "I will raise up a righteous seed for David, and he shall be a king" 2c. The spirit of the word of these promises offered the present Christ to the godly fathers, but the letter of the word does not offer him presently, but is directed to the future (which is quite obvious, since it says: he shall tread down, it shall be blessed, I will raise up, not: he shall tread down, I will raise up), since the spirit, to whom everything future is present, comes to meet faith, but the letter is according to the capacity of the world. For since elsewhere, Isa. 9:6, he says, "A child is born to us," the letter assumes the manner of speaking common to the spirit, to whom future things are as certain as if they had passed away. Now that Christ is revealed, not only the Spirit of the Word, but also the letter (far be it from a spiteful interpretation of this word) offers Christ's body and blood to us as present, bringing them with it and showing them, saying, "This is my body, this is my blood. "2c. Further, if you would continue to ask what use is the eating of the bodily body, since the fathers did not have it and were none the less saved? we may also ask what use is the hearing of the revealed bodily gospel, which the fathers likewise did not have. Or, since the Gospel consists of letters and syllables, shall we not say for the sake of it that it is a power of God for salvation to all who believe it? And if we believe the gospel, will you then reproach us? You believe in a spelled or spoken God, as we have been harshly told by some others: Do you also believe in a spelled God?

(54) Therefore, since we affirm that we eat the body of Christ bodily (eus), meanwhile we will be able to obtain this from your kindness, that you do not receive this other than in an interpretation that is for our good (candida). For we eat the body and drink the blood bodily (oarus), not that we rend and break the body of Christ. As it is written in the recantation Beren

gars is called, but we treat the bread itself (ipsum) as bread, we break it, eat it and bite it with the teeth, but take the body, as we take the word: "this is my body", so that someone has said very beautifully: What we eat goes into the belly, what we believe goes into the mind (mentem). But, what is it that we are afraid to speak and teach (sentire) here according to the word of Christ? For he said, "Eat, this is my body, which is broken for you," that is, to be distributed. For this word be broken, ÷ëÜåóàáé, comes not to the body, but to the bread, Isa. 58:7, "Break thy bread to the hungry." For now Christ says his body is broken because the bread is broken. Who should take it amiss of us to say that the body of Christ is attacked with the hands and bitten with the teeth, not that this is to the body of Christ, but that it is to the bread, which is the body of Christ. For since the bread is the body of Christ through the Word, why should not that which is due to the body of Christ be due to the bread, inasmuch as it is the body of Christ? And since the body of Christ is added to the bread by the word, what prevents that which belongs to the bread from not belonging to the body? Hence it is that the body is broken, because the bread is broken, while at the same time the body remains in its entirety (integritate); and the bread is life-giving, because the flesh of Christ, now added to the bread by the word, is life-giving, giving life to the world, while meanwhile the bread remains in the same essence (substantia) which it had before.

(55) And there is no reason to fear, best Oecolampadius, that at the time of the Lord's Supper someone would occupy himself in a trivial way with contemplating the miracle, namely, in which way the body would be united with the bread, because even by us this could not be approved if it happened, but we will admit that this happens by those who are too superstitious. How now? Would we deny for the sake of it that the bread is the body? With this reason we could certainly force the eaters to have their teeth pulled out and their lips cut off and thrown away, lest, preoccupied with the taste of the bread, they forget to eat it. We could also deny that Christ is a man, since the sophists have spent long years in futile, not to say ungodly, disputations and even quarrels about the unity of the different natures in Christ. How

566II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 711-713. 567

But would it be proper for us to deny the truth because of the vanity of others? Therefore, according to the teaching of the Spirit, who says: "the Word became flesh", we confess that the Son of God is man, and even here we do not stand still, but continue to ask what use the Incarnation is to us? how we are to use the man who is the Son of God? So also, after Christ's word, "This is my body," we confess that the bread is the body, and even here we do not stand still, but go on, asking and teaching what is the use of this bread, which is the body of Christ?

(56) Finally, let us also answer the scriptural passages held against us (contrarias). One of these is the passage quoted from John, Cap. 6, 63: "the flesh is of no use," to which you all run, as to a sacred anchor, as many of you deny that the bread is the body of Christ, and with which your opponents, as you urge them, should struggle. Because the interpretations of the godly of our time about this passage are not up to you, since they understand "flesh" not for Christ's flesh, but generally of what Paul speaks of 1 Cor. 15, 50.: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" and Christ Hoh. 3, 6.: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," well then, let us consent to Augustine's interpretation, according to which he understands the flesh as Christ's flesh; but so much is lacking in it that he should confirm your opinion, that he almost nowhere overturns it more violently.

57 For thus he writes to the sixth chapter of John, What is it that he adds: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh is of no use?" We want to speak to him, because he carries (patitur) us, since we do not contradict, but wish to know: O Lord, dearest Master, how is your flesh of no use, since you said, John 6:53: "Whoever does not eat my flesh and drink my blood has no life in him"? Is life of no use? and why are we what we are, but that we might have eternal life, which thou promisedst through thy flesh? what is it then: it is of no use; "the flesh is of no use"? But how did they understand "the flesh"? Certainly they understood it as it is mangled on a corpse or sold in a meat market, not as it is made alive by the Spirit. Therefore it is said, "The flesh is of no use," as it is said, "Knowledge alone puffeth up" without love, therefore it is added: "but love mendeth." Therefore, add love to the

Knowledge added and the knowledge will be useful, not by itself, but by love. So it is here also: "The flesh is of no use," that is, the flesh alone; but let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as love is added to knowledge, and it is of much use. For if the flesh were of no use, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell in us. So far Augustine. What thanks, blessed Augustine, we owe you for teaching so clearly and so Christianly, inasmuch as it is of no use, for we shall be able to say the same of the body of Christ, which is made bread by the Word. For the body of Christ alone is of no use if it has been eaten without faith and, as Paul says, unworthily, for then it will do more harm. "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily," he says, "eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, because he distinguisheth not the body of the Lord." Add therefore the faith of the eater to the body, and it profiteth much. For if the body were of no use, why would it be given for us? why condemned to death? Likewise, the body of Christ alone profits nothing, but because it is given for us, but because it is the life of the world. So the blood of Christ alone is of no use, but it is of great use because it is poured out for us for cleansing, and this is even the only reason why we eat the body and drink his blood in the Lord's Supper. For if his body were not given for us and his blood shed for us, we would eat and drink in vain. Furthermore, that in faith the body must be eaten and the blood drunk does not take away from the bread that it is not the body. For as Christ was not without flesh for that reason, because Peter or another apostle ate him spiritually, so it must not be denied of Christ's body for that reason that it is in the bread, because it must be eaten spiritually. By touching the feet of Jesus, Mary touched the feet of the Son of God, who cannot be touched bodily (carnaliter).

(58) How then should it be inconsistent for us to confess that we eat the body of Christ, which cannot be eaten, bodily, by eating the bread of the Lord's Supper? For no one has denied that the body which he eats in the bread by the word must be eaten spiritually, just as no one is so limited that he should deny that the word of the gospel must be received spiritually, that is, in faith, however much one may receive it with the bodily. And just as faith takes the word that is received with the ears, according to its own nature, so it must be taken in spiritually.

568 14 The so-called 8^n§ramma Kuevioum. W. xx, 7is-7is. 569

In the same way, the body that is received through the bread is received according to the way of faith. Just as a sulfurized cask that receives tasty wine does not receive it according to the manner of the wine, for the wine is tasty, but according to the manner of its sulfur, so the bodily body of Christ is received by the heart, the mind, the faith, only according to the manner of faith, which is spiritual, however bodily it the body may be.

59.. From this it is easy to see with what accuracy you cite the passage John 3:6: "Everything that is of the flesh is flesh," as if faith really receives the body of Christ in a fleshly way. But we want to see in a more reliable way what the opinion of this passage is, so that one can see in how forced a way it serves your opinion. Nicodemus disputes with Christ about righteousness, because he thought that the righteousness of the law was the true one, but meanwhile he heard that another righteousness was preached by Christ, namely that of faith and repentance or regeneration; therefore he goes to Christ to inquire about the true righteousness. Therefore, two kinds of birth are presented to Nicodemus by referring to some elements of the world (mundi elementis). One is from the flesh, that is, from the earth (for the flesh is earthly), a coarser element, as it is said in the first book of Moses, Cap. 3, v. 19. is said, "Thou art taken from the earth"; 1 Cor. 15, 47. "The first man is of the earth and earthy." The other is of water and spirit (aere), and, as it is elsewhere said, of fire, the finer (subtilioribus) elements. This, therefore, is the correct interpretation of this passage and Christ's opinion. Before that Adam, created from the earth, became earthly, coarse and carnal, and all who are reproduced from him are born earthly, coarse and carnal, so that this procreation is not very good. For all become flesh and earth from the carnal and earthly Adam, grasping and understanding (sapientes) nothing but flesh and earth. For since they are cast down into the workhouse (ergastulum - penitentiary) of the flesh, they cannot grasp true, high, heavenly and spiritual righteousness. For this is not the true righteousness which is enforced by the law or the tumult of the law, nor is it the righteousness which is enforced by the hypocrisy of the flesh, for if it were the true righteousness, the first birth, fleshly and earthly, would not have gone forth to evil. Since now

the true righteousness comes from heaven, so the other birth and the rebirth will be necessary, but from finer and higher elements than the earth, that is, from water and spirit (aere). For Christ uses absolutely carnal words at this point, in that he understands something far different by the image (metaphora). For the fact that he says, you must be born from above, has not yet from the outset (prima facie) its intention on the heavenly rebirth, but on the rebirth from the so-called higher elements, that is, what is born from the earth and the flesh, that is not suitable (male cessit), therefore another birth must be sought, which happens from higher elements than the earth, namely from water and spirit. But what should he understand by this fleshly speech but the true rebirth, which is from on high, from heaven, which consists of the water, that is, mortificatione, and the wind, the spirit, or the air, which is the life of the athmians, that is, the quickening of the spirit? This is otherwise expressed by the one word repentance (resipiscentiae).

(60) Now let any man come and make great words (glorietur) that Christians become carnal because they eat the flesh of Christ, for in this passage, "that which is of the flesh is flesh," he will find no protection for his opinion. For it is different to be born of the flesh of Adam than of the flesh of Christ; those who are of the flesh of Adam are flesh and earth. But those who are of the flesh of Christ, that is, who not only eat the flesh of Christ in the bread of the Lord's Supper, but also believe, are of the Spirit. For eating the body of the Lord will do little good, and much more harm, if one does not eat in faith; just as the gospel: what good will it do if you do not also hear it in the spirit? But will not the outward gospel be gospel for its own sake, because it must be heard in the spirit? In this way, who would presume to conclude that the bread of the Lord's Supper is not the body, because the body of Christ must be eaten in faith?

(61) Now, what is said in Matthew Cap. 15, v. 11, "What enters into the mouth does not defile a man," overturns yours rather than ours. For if the bread, according to you, were not the body of the Lord, the food cannot defile. Why then does Paul say 1 Cor. 11:27, "Whosoever eateth of this bread unworthily, or drinketh of the cup of the Lord, he is guilty.

579II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 715-717. 571

in the body and blood of the Lord"? And afterwards [v. 29.st. "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, lest he should distinguish the body (he does not say the sign of the body) of the Lord." Do you want to say to Paul: Why do you make a great clamor about unworthy food, since what enters a man's mouth does not defile him? Watch, dear Oecolampad, lest we learn through you as predecessors (autoribrm) what it means to make sophistries (ôà σο- φιστεύειν). But the eating of the bread of the Lord's Supper is to be understood thus: inasmuch as it is bread, it does not defile, nor does it sanctify; but inasmuch as it is the body of Christ through the Word, it defiles the unworthy eater, and sanctifies the worthy and believing eater, since indeed Christ says John 15:3., "Ye are now clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you." And afterwards John 17:17., "Sanctify them in thy truth," that is, by the speech which is truth; but the loan is taken for the word's sake in the bread of the Lord's Supper. Therefore, as the word sanctifies the believer, so also the body; and as the word defiles the ungodly, so the body defiles the ungodly eater.

62 For the fact that you also add to your auxiliary forces what is written in Matth. 24, 23: "Behold, here is Christ, or there," will not help you; you will be defeated by this army, according to all judgment about foreign auxiliary forces, because it has an entirely different weapon than is appropriate for your battle. For there it speaks of the false prophets, who take captive the kingdom of Christ in the conscience, which otherwise is free, bound to no place, to no time, to no person, and, as Paul says, has brand in the conscience. Otherwise, if it were to be understood of the outward Christ, or of his fleshly body, no one could have said of Christ as he sat at the supper: Behold, here is Christ, or of his body as he hung on the cross: Behold, this is the body of Christ. Even after the transfiguration Stephen should not have said, "I see heaven open and JEsum standing at the right hand of GOD." But it is well that Christ Himself freed His own from this misgiving (soiupulo), saying in Lucas Cap. 17, 20., "The kingdom of GOD cometh not with outward gifts"; for the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of freedom; we are dealing here with the body, not with the kingdom. Something else is the kingdom of Christ, something else the body, of which that great and admirable (èáõìáóôüò) evangelist of Christ, Luther, speaks enough in the second chapter.

Book against the false prophets 1). But, you say, Christ has departed and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and has sent the Holy Spirit m the hearts of the disciples. For he says John 16:7, "If I go not away, the Comforter cometh not unto you." Listen! Has he then departed in such a way that he has left us nothing of what is his? Has then also the forgiveness of sins departed? Has sanctification and even all righteousness departed? Has the Holy Spirit also departed? for all this is Christ's. Then we are still sinners, still condemned. We wretched people, who will deliver us from the devil's jaws? But we thank thee, O Lord Jesus Christ, that thou hast not withdrawn thyself from us in such a way as to leave us nothing of thine. You are seated at the right hand of the Father, but in the meantime you do not deny us your gifts and do not hide them from us as an envious person. Is not the Holy Spirit most closely related to Christ (LKuatisÄmus - the closest relative) and completely inseparable from him? For he says in the prophet Isa. 61, 1.: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore he hath anointed me"; and elsewhere Ps. 45, 8.: "Thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, more than thy fellows." Christ, however, shares his Spirit with the godly and sends it into their hearts, and meanwhile remains seated at the right hand of the Father, in no respect separated (disjunctus). But how does he communicate it? Through the Word. Thus you read Apost. 10:44: "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all who were listening to the word." By what did it fall or through what vehicle (vedloulo) was it brought? By the word of the gospel; for the word is the vehicle of the Spirit. Why then is not the Holy Spirit given to all who hear the Word? The reason is obvious (in promptu est). For the Word is scattered among all nations, but the revelation of the Spirit of the Word the Lord has reserved to himself alone, that he may open it to whom and when he will, for he says Ex. 33:19. according to the Vulgate, "I have mercy on whom I will." Since the Holy Spirit is brought to us through the Word, as a vehicle, while at the same time He remains intimately united with Christ, who sits at the right hand of the Father, why should not the Body and Blood of Christ be given to us through the same vehicle, the Word?

1. This refers to the second part of Luther's writing "Wider die himmlischen Propheten" (No. 5 in this volume).

57214 . the so-calledSuevieuM . W. xx. 717-719. 573

Since we speak in this way, the Holy Spirit is much more closely connected with Christ than His body and blood? Do you still have imaginations of a kind of future (adventu) in lowliness and glory, as if this were a new future of Christ, when either the Holy Spirit, or forgiveness of sins, or righteousness, or his body and blood are sent to us through the Word? For this is not a kind of Christ's future, as he came in the flesh in the beginning and will come in glory on the last day, but a sharing and dispensing of the gift, since the Word preserves and dispenses to us that which was brought to us and acquired through Christ's first future. Acquired is the forgiveness of sins, which is preserved by the word; brought is the body, brought is the blood, not such things as Adam has, but life-giving and sanctifying things. These are preserved by the Word, while meanwhile the chief bishop and priest, Christ, remains at the right hand of the Father, and is not divided into many Christs; for Christ is One, so also is One Body of Christ. And as by the great number of those who believe in Christ there are not many Christs, so by the great number of those who eat there are not many bodies. Is not the word, which is heard from the mouth of a man, one, which nevertheless remains with the speaker, and is thereby distributed among many hearers, while its unity also remains? In the same way, the One Body of Christ is distributed to many eaters through the word in the bread, while it remains with Christ, who sits at the right hand of the Father, and the unity of the body also remains.

By the way, what is quoted from the second letter to the Corinthians, Cap. 5, 16, is quite insignificant and not at all relevant: "We know no one according to the flesh; and though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him no longer. How now? Does Christ therefore not have flesh, because we no longer know him according to the flesh? Let that be far from it. For if he were not in the flesh, he would not have been truly resurrected, nor would he come to judgment in the same form in which he was taken away from our sight. Therefore Paul's opinion is: now we must not seek carnal things; the old has passed away, everything has become new, one must seek spiritual things. For in this passage, "to have known Christ in the flesh" does not mean to have seen and known Him face to face, but to have sought carnal things in Christ, such as worldly dominion,

The apostles did before Christ's suffering, which is evident from their argument, Matth. 20, 20. ff. Is not Christ still man today? but we do not know him in a human way (secundum hominem), that is, we must not look for human things in him. Thus the bread of the Lord's Supper is the body of Christ through the Word, but we do not seek in it bodily or carnal things, for we do not eat to fill the belly but to nourish the spirit (mutiny).

64. Do you still dare to claim that these are the sayings: I am the true vine; I am the living fountain; I am the living bread, like that which happened at the Last Supper: 1) "Take and eat, this is my body"? Have you not yet lost the conceit of a vain speech (tropi)? We appeal, dear Oecolampad, to your own conscience, whether you can constantly cherish the opinion with yourself that these speeches are the same? But what do the secondary circumstances in the words of the Lord's Supper prove, which do not take place in the speeches mentioned before? For the fact that it is written, "Jesus took bread, and brake it, and said, Take, eat," all this clearly proves that the bread is not to be understood figuratively. That now it is added, "which is given for you," is a secondary circumstance, because it is understood that "body" is not taken figuratively, but in its original meaning 2); in the other speeches you will find nothing of these secondary circumstances. For he did not take a vine in his hand and say: I am this vine, nor the fountain, that he said: I am this spring, nor elsewhere the bread since he said, "I am the living bread." But supposing the speeches were the same, is the body then taken as a vine, as a fountain? But the vine and the spring now already do not mean a natural vine or a spring of water, but have been taken away from this original meaning. Therefore also "body" in this speech: "This is my body" according to your opinion would no longer be taken for the natural body, but for a spiritual one, as Christ is called a spiritual vine, source and rock; but what could be conceived more inconsistent? Is there then a spiritual body given for us, and not the bodily? What news do we have to hear? What will finally become of Christ's body? Furthermore, since one
65. Instead of 8unt, read 6st.
66. Instead of WQotiüeatloük, read kiMiüeatioQk.

574II . writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx, 71S-721. 575

that which is heavenly (supsrna), not earthly things, moreover, in the holy action we are called: "Lift up your hearts", not: "Set your hearts on the bread", should not the bread be the body of Christ? A strange art of conclusion! For in this way one would never have to hear the gospel, nor even seek that which is the brother's, since we are to seek that which is above. Or do we not seek in the Lord's Supper that which is above? We seek the body that was given for our sins, we seek the blood that was shed for our cleansing. Are not then the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing and our sanctification heavenly things? Here we hear with our ears the Gospel, in which is life, blessedness and the power of God, but because we pay attention to what is said, what gifts are brought to us through the Word, do we seek earthly things? So we seek in the bread of the Lord's Supper, for the sake of the Word, don't you hear? for the sake of the Word, peace, joy, life, forgiveness of sins. Who will slander us now that we seek carnal things and not spiritual things?

Therefore, human reason, away with the carnal quibbles, away with the spiritual forces (al øõ÷é÷áÀ virss), yes, with the evasions, which are even more dishonest! Having carefully contrasted the reasons, we are forced by the spirit of the Word to confess that the bread of the Lord's Supper is the true body of Christ, neither a tropical nor a hydropic one, 1) but the very one given for us, in the meantime not tearing Christ from the right hand of the Father, but receiving with the greatest gratitude of mind the gift of the body and blood, which is entrusted to and preserved by the Word, and is added to the bread through the Word.

66 For not to pass over this either, although it is a small thing that in Marcus, Cap. 14, v. 24, these words: "This is my blood of the new testament" are read as if (were)

1. hydropicum, i.e. a water addict. The out

print is chosen because of the pun with tropioum.

they] spoke after they had drunk from the cup: of this the other evangelists testify that it is the figure of speech of protk^stsron 2 ); this is quite frequent in Scripture (non infrequens). So also Joh. 18, 24: "Annas sent him bound to Caiphas", what is said later should have followed immediately after these words v. 13: "They led him first to Annas? It follows: "Annas sent him bound to Caiphas", because the denials of Peter, which are inserted between these two sentences (clausulas), happened according to the testimony of the other evangelists in the house of Caiphas, so that the interpreter should have said here Joh. 18, 24. in a clearer way: he had sent him. So also in the other place in Marcus 14, 24. it would have been clearer: he had spoken to them, than: "he spoke," for and ÜçÝóôåéëåí are aorists, to which the meaning of the plusquamperfectum 3) is not remote.

Now, beloved brother in Christ, Oecolampadius, what we have gathered about this matter of the Lord's Supper has been moved by the booklet you have published; it is not eloquent, but strong, not learned, but godly; if you receive it according to love, we will give thanks to God. But if thou shouldest reject it, or despise us, far be it from us that we should make provision for it to thee, we will nevertheless beseech the Lord to make his grace shine, and to bestow that which is for peace. For what conflagration will the devil cause in the church, if in this different view 4) we should lack the helping hand of the Lord? Therefore, by the consolation that is in Christ, by the leniency (solatium) of love, by the fellowship of the Spirit, we beseech thee, on this occasion, to give no offence to the gospel that is just arising. Let the truth be too holy, let the word of the Lord be too sacred, to be stained by fleshly adinvention. The Lord be with you; pray for us. Farewell. From our assembly, Schwäbisch-Hall, October 21, in the year of the Lord 1525.

2. xxxxxxxx a figure in grammar, according to

which the last is said first.

3. Instead of xxxxxxxx should read xxxxxxxxxxx

be

4. oollattons 86" rationum.

576 Erl. SS, isa f. 15. L.'s preface to the first edition d. Syngramma. W. XX. 721-723. 577

*15. D. Mari. Luther's preface to the first German edition of the Syngramma. )

Before August 1526.)**

Martinus Luther to all dear friends in Christo.

Grace and peace in Christ our Lord and Savior.

A Latin booklet, called Syngramma, has gone out through the preachers in Swabia against the new rats, who bring up new dreams from the Sacrament 1) and confuse the wager. This pleased me so much that I was willing to translate it, because otherwise I would not have been able to write something special in a hurry. But now that it has been delayed, it has been translated by my good friend, Magister Johanne Agricola, pedagogue at Eisleben, 2) so that I am now relieved of the effort.

(2) I was also careful at the time when I wrote against the heavenly prophets and attacked Carlstadt's Tuto, that there should still be those who should distinguish themselves with the est and significat, and especially such learned men, because it is such a childish, inept reason, which has no example in Scripture; and if it already had an example, nevertheless it could not be proven that it should and must also be taken so in the words "this is my body". That they will never prove, I know for certain. For it is very different when I say: This may be called so;

1. Wittenberg and Jena: Lord's Supper.
2. Wittenberg and Jena: "Germanized by another". The name of Agricola is probably omitted from these editions because he had caused trouble through his antinomianism and his participation in the Augsburg Interim.

and when I say: This must be called so and cannot be called otherwise. Conscience cannot rely on the first, but it can rely on the second.

I also thought, and still think, that I have established this matter in my booklet against Carlstadt so that no one should overthrow it, and I do not yet see that my reasons, laid out there, are rightly attacked or moved. But my writing is despised by the high spirits, that they do not look at the reasons, think that if they only wave 4) against it, then it is all bad, and must write differently about it.

4. Since I do not yet have the time to write against this spirit in particular, I will testify to my faith with this preface, and whoever wants to be warned, I will faithfully advise them to beware of these false prophets, who call our God a baked God, a baked God; they call us God's flesh-eaters, God's blood-drinkers, and I do not know how many more horrible blasphemous words, and yet they are patient, gentle people who suffer great persecution and rightly recognize Christ. The devil, however, 5) is the patience and litter that overthrows faith. But I hope that such abominable blasphemy will soon come to an end with them: even though we have well deserved such miserable creatures and sects through our ingratitude and persecution of the gospel, and

3. In the old editions: "sihe".
4. Jenaer: me. That "only" is the correct reading results from § 15 of the next following writing.
5. Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers; Erlanger: wolte. That the reading "walte" is correct follows from § 20 of the following writing.

*Luther wrote this preface to the German edition of the Syngramma, which was published by Agricola in 1526. Oecolampad already mentions in his answer to it the letter addressed by Luther to the Christians at Reutlingen on January 4, 1526. In the editions: in the Wittenberg (1551), vol. II, p. 117 b; in the Jena (1556), vol. Ill, p. 340; in the Altenburg, vol. Ill, p. 473; in the Leipzig, vol. XIX, p. 386 and in the Erlangen, vol. 65,180. According to the latter, which brings the original print, we give the text comparing the Wittenberg and Jena... .

**This writing is of course earlier than Oecolampad's answer to it. Compare what is said in the note to the superscription of no. 16 about the determination of time.

578 Erl. 65, 181-183. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. XX. 723-72S. 579

still earn Aergeres, that also unfortunately! will come. 1)

At first, this sect is so fertile that it has gained five or six heads within a year. The first was D. Carlstadt with his Tuto. The other was Huldrich Zwingel with his significat. The third is Johann Oecolampadius with his figura corporis. The fourth reverses the order of the text. The fifth is on the track, shifting the words. The sixth is still in the process of birth and dices the words. The seventh will perhaps also come and shuffle the cards. Everybody wants to become a master here.

6. See if the Spirit of God does not warn us sufficiently against these sects, which are so divided in their beginning. 2) Where else should this image belong, but among the animals in Apocalypsi Cap. 13? 3) There are also some animals that have one body and many heads, just as these sects in sum are one and the same body. But to show the causes and reasons, every sect has its head 4) and its way, yet all set up to blaspheme the one solitary Christian truth. He who is not offended nor warned by the horrible image and God's admonition is worthy to believe that in the Sacrament there is not only bread and wine, but also chanterelles and fairy tales 5).

(7) Secondly, the right spirit not only avoids contradictory reasons, and always presents one reason in all his sermons, even in all the world. For he is not a God of ambiguity, but of simplicity; yes, he also lays down consistent reasons, so that the longer one fights against them, the firmer they become and increase. 6. But in this animal things are different. The first

1. So the Wittenberg and the Jena. Erlanger: that will also come unfortunately.
2. So the Jenaer; Wittenberger: "sich so theilet". Erlanger: "so sich theilet".
3. Here the Erlanger has reprinted from Walch's old edition: 13, 17. which does not fit.
4. Wittenberg and Jena: jre Köpff.
5. "Morche" - the nightshade. From the composition with chanterelles it can be concluded that a mushroom is meant, perhaps "morels".
6. Erlanger: "constant". The next scripture, § 39, confirms our reading.

Head, Carlstadt's Tuto, is lying low, and may not have had a poof, that they themselves must confess that he was absent, and that the spirit was not at home there; and no sparing helps here, that holy people sometimes stumble in faith and life, as it is true. But to lay the foundations of doctrine, especially when it is to arise anew, he has never 7) left his teachers wanting. He lets them 8) be weak, but not fall nor succumb, but, as I said, increase and surrender, not like Carlstadt's Tuto fell and lies.

8. The same is true for 9) the signet of the Zwingel, which has hung down its head and dies freely. For one cannot bring a significat in the Scriptures to 68t. And even if one were to bring it up (as they cannot), they may never bring it up in the Lord's Supper, and so the spirit is also missing there, and lies. These are two great admonitions and warnings from God to all who fear Him and want to believe Him. Nowhere can the devil be known so well as in lies and ambiguity in faith; and nowhere can the Spirit of God be known so well as in truth. But it does not help. The world must and will be deceived, just as in Arius' time such lies were found as a warning, but nothing helped.

(9) Thirdly, this spirit is especially a fleeting or floating spirit, which does not remain on any piece, as I have tried them both in writings and words. When it is demanded of them that they should prove this saying, "This is my body," or the like, that it is to be understood in their opinion and otherwise than the dry natural words are, they looked at another little song, according to which they are full of words and thoughts; therefore they say from John 6, how 10) two kinds of food are spiritual and bodily, as if no one knew this before; or praise themselves once, how they are pious and suffer much; or defy what it is useful for that

7. In the following scripture § 39 and in the Erlanger: never. Wittenberg and Jena: not.
8. So the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers: "the", namely the teachers. Erlanger: the reasons.
9. "also" is missing in the Erlanger.
10. In A 47 of the following scripture and in the Erlanger: wie; in the old editions: dass.

580 Erl. "s, IS3-18S. 15. L.'s preface to the first edition d. Syngramma. W. xx, 725-727 581

Christ's body and blood must be there; or else they tear something in, so that they do not have to stay on the words, otherwise they would be caught; thus filling leaves and ears with vain words, so that one must grasp, as Satan fears and changes into all shapes, lest he be caught in his 1) lies.

I say then, such digression and evasion does not matter, they should stick to their words, and there, in that place, prove their opinion from the text. Yes, I have the eel by the tail, they lead me again into the 6th chapter of John or otherwise on a monkey's tail, that one however comes from the matter by much chatter and yet does nothing. That is a real Satan's art, to hover like the night fires in the evening in the field.

(11) Therefore, I say my judgment, even though it is highly distorted, yet I know that it is true. For in this case I know faith and the devil well. There are two reasons for their error. One, that it is almost an unskillful thing by reason. 3) The other, that it is unnecessary to be Christ's body and blood in bread and wine, which is absurdas et nulla necessitas. They have grasped these two things, and have 4) thus passed through Satan's temptation, as oil passes through the bones, Ps. 109:18, 5) that they may not be rid of it. 6)

1. Erlanger: his. The old editions and K47 of the following writing have the reading given by us.
2. Erlanger: they shall me. In K 47 of the following script: "only" instead of "me". In the old editions both are missing.
3. So the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Erlanger: "is".
4. "are" put by us instead of "ares", according to K 50 of the following scripture.
5. Here the Erlangen edition reprinted from Walch: Ps. 109, 8.
6. The words "that they may not get rid of him".

Twelfth, then, having such painted spectacles before their eyes, they come rolling to the Scripture, seeking how they may carry their sense into it, and draw the Scripture to their opinion. Then the words do not have to be understood as they are; they have to be stretched and bent, as a tuto, as a significat, as a figura, as the words are inverted, as the text is shifted, as the text is mixed like a map. Behold, that is where the sects come from. But if they remained on the words as they stand, and 7) proved from the text and sequence, or otherwise with good reason, that the words were to be understood differently than they read, then they would not cause any sect.

If they want to confirm their opinion, they will have to take up the sword in a different way. The writings presented, whether subsidium or antisyngramma, 8) will not do it. They may seduce a lot, but they will not achieve anything thoroughly.

(14) I also want to admonish all devout Christians to beware of these sects and to stick to the pure, honest words of Christ. We have the advantage that we, like them, may not stretch or bend the words. Please also read this booklet diligently. If God gives me time, I will write about it in particular. However, thank my God that He does not allow the devil to bring up stronger lies than these. May God's grace be with us all.

are in the Erlanger and in the following writing, but are missing in the old editions.

7. Erlanger: or.
8. About Zwingli's book Subsidum compare the note to No. 13, § 2. - Oekolampad had let his book AntisyngraiQMa go out before the end of 1525 against the Spngramma. Seckendorf, Nist. I^utk., vol. II, x. 35, (2).

582II . writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx, 7L7-7rs. 583

16. Johann Oecolampad's response to Luther's preface to the Syngramma,

sammt einer kurzen Antwort auf das Syngramma der Prediger in Schwaben. *)

About August 1526.

Johannes Oecolampadius to the famous Doctor Martin Luther. Grace and > peace from Christ, our one and only Lord and Master.

Dear Martine! If you praise and command some Swabian preachers' books, written by the words of the Lord's Supper, with serious judgment in a preceding epistle, but unbrotherly attack, slander and condemn me and others besides; that you have also cursed yourself in several other of your epistles, namely, to those at Reutlingen 1) and others; however, praise be to God, without all my fault; and God would that such had happened without your and many others' injury: I do not want to keep quiet about it and leave the matter completely, because it is not mine, but the Lord's, affecting the truth and purity of our faith. I would also not like to be considered such a one, and even less to be the one for whom you are blowing me out, 3) God forgive you.

2. How I would like to be relieved of your unpleasant letter! For I do not like to lie against you, whom I recognize as a well-deserved and dear servant of the Gospel, through whom God has opened the eyes of many to discern the true way of truth, and yet now makes it known to us that you too, like a man, may fail and fall. I did not like to turn it around. You were kindly asked and welcomed. But you threw all admonitions to the wind, despising them not only as foolish but also as blasphemous.
3. This letter to the Christians of Reutlingen from

4 January 1526 is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1913.

2. In the original: but.
3. In the original: "ausspläsenierest."

(3) It is the same with thee as with many others, that I would gladly say with Jeremiah, Alas, my mother, why hast thou born me a man of strife and discord in all the earth? I have neither given nor taken usury, and they all speak evil of me. I would gladly bring forth the complaint of David and of our Lord Jesus Christ: With them I walk in the house of the Lord with one accord, and they lift up their feet to overthrow me.

4 This is commanded by God, who tries and proves us in many ways, and perhaps you yourself, with such an occasion, seek a favor and a trial, whether Christ will speak through me or not. And perhaps you are waiting to see if this truth will also suffer a puff (as you speak). That is why I say this, because I would like to interpret your matter in the best way,

5. Now, my Martine, in my opinion, such unequal understanding is a kind sending and warning from God, to me and to everyone, that we should open our eyes and learn, each one of us, to be of small and insignificant fortune, how it will soon be over with man, when the Lord removes his hand. Let no man become infatuated with men, 4) who all lie with one another. Look to the one Master in heaven and to the truth itself, with a gentle and teachable heart, there will be the way to peace and unity.

6 For your sake, I am still confident that you will be kinder and more cautious in this matter than before, remembering that others are also allowed to speak in the church of Christ; and if you are a co-worker, you will be ashamed to tyrannize among us. The Lord

4. "Larre" will probably be "teaching"; this form is chosen because of the rhyme.

*This writing appeared in German in 1526 at Basel under the title: Billige Antwort Joh. Martin Luther's report of the Sacrament, together with a short concept of several preachers in Swabia writing about the words of the Lord's Supper. I ask for interrogation." We reproduce the same according to Walch's old edition. The approximate time determination results from the following: In § 1 of the second section of this writing, Oecolampad says: "Therefore, at the end of the year i.e., about a year ago, I have presented my mind to the Sacrament of the Altar" 2c. This was said with reference to his book: De genuina vordorum Domini ote. expositione, which gave rise to the Syngramma Suevicum. Luther, however, mentions this writing of ours already on September 13, 1526, in a letter to Nicolaus Hausmann, Walch, old edition, Vol. XVII, 1919.

58416 . Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx, 720-731. 585

The Lord's authority is ever. On the other hand, I request that you kindly put an end to this displeasure that has fallen upon me 1) (which I cannot avoid), and in doing so, do not forget Christ's command to give disgrace word after disgrace word. It is enough for me, if I reject your incompetent judgment and admit that in the discernment of spirits you are at this time shooting far beyond the mark.

(7) What the speech is about, you yourself may well accept. It looks to me as if you wanted to make me and others false prophets in the matter of the sacrament, and call us seductive and rebellious enthusiasts and devilish, and with other dubious names, that you prepare a pit for yourself and your followers. And in 'the points touching the sacraments (for I will not speak of others), I do not know how you may escape being considered as an unhappy dreamer yourself, who complies with the instructions of the flesh and the counsel of the erroneous spirit, and who subsequently, among the understanding, does not burn a small measure 2) to your wholesome previous teachings, that you almost pity me. Nevertheless, I must reply to your writing, which I will do in the shortest and truest way.

1. 1. Initially, you call me and others with me, who do not follow your opinion, new hordes, raising new dreams and confusing the world.

2. This is your friendly greeting, which we should not thank you for, we are not known for such things, either, 3) Here is neither innovation, nor redirection, nor dreaming, nor confusion of the world. All our things are based on the fact that one remains with the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and as they were initially believed and accepted by the church. Now the apostles' teachings are not dreams; they do not bring redirection, but love and peace and agreement in Christ; they do not confuse conscience, but resolve what was confused by the teachings of men. That it is so, 4) shall be found in the scriptures hereafter, whether you or we introduce more of our own jealousy into the scriptures here.

3. 2. You say further that you like the syngram so much that you yourself were willing to translate it, although this is superior to you because of business.

1. rayed - carried, brought, weighed down.
2. "Measure" here is probably - blemish, spot. The word "unbemaßget" occurs in Zwingli in the meaning: unblemished.
3. Perhaps confessed.
4. In the old edition: "That therefore be."
5. It might have been good, because you might have been warned not to touch me so unkindly; but few would have thought that you would praise it so, much less that you would interpret it yourself; although it is easy to think that their kind will might not have displeased you. 5) I suppose that you still consider this booklet to be a man's writing, and will not count it among the rules or books of holy scripture, to which alone you have so far earnestly directed us.

5. 3. You also say, "At the time when you wrote Against the Heavenly Prophets, you foresaw that there would come some who would excel in this, especially such learned men, because it is such a childish, inept reason that has no example in Scripture.

(6) It is no wonder that this has been before you, for it is the truth, and has not remained behind; indeed, this interpretation has not been behind, but has always been seen by those of understanding on the way, even though the devil and Antichrist have fought hard against it and still will. Hasn't it also been discussed in school for a long time? And does not the interpretation also stand with the master of high senses? and he meets it quite badly, yes, rather confirms it, because he overturns it. Does one not read in the 1st book of Moses at the 40th chapter: Three baskets are three days? of which St. Augustine says in the first book of the discourses: "This way of speaking is to be noted, that some important things are called by the name of the things they signify, and therefore the apostle says: But the rock was Christ. He does not say: the rock signifies Christ." Up to this point Augustine speaks. And he also introduces the reason to Bonifacio, so it should not be made herbaceous. Is it not also the custom of the church to call the bread of the Lord the sacrament, the body of Christ, because it is a sign of the body of Christ and signifies the body of Christ, or else there would be no sacrament?

(7) Not much speech is needed. In these words of the Lord: This is my body, there is an interpretation of the ceremonies, then especially used, from which the matter requires that one should interpret such speech after the manner of the interpretations of the parables, parables and other hidden speeches. But if it is against thee, it must be a childish, unprofitable, and unfounded thing; but if it were with thee in it, perhaps it would be glorious.

5. In the old edition: their friendly will you not have 2c.

586II Writings against Zwingli and his followers re. W. xx, 731-734 . 587

and delicious; which I do not dislike where it wants to be with God.

8. 4. To this you say: Let it never be taught that one may accept such an interpretation here, and that one should call it so. I would have to agree with you, if it were true to be haderic and quarrelsome and not to judge the Scriptures according to the instruction of faith and comparison of other Scriptures. For even so would a man fight, that it should never be brought to pass, that it should be a figurative saying, when the Lord saith, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. Now the scripture shall not suffer it to be thus compelled upon the dry letter, as thou knowest in the place.
9. 5. You also write: Although examples may be presented, it still does not want to be proven that also in the words: this is my body, the little word "is" should or must be taken thus, we will never prove that. It might be, Martine, if one did not want to hear the counter-answer, that one did not create, 1) and before that, because you state our case thus. What do you say? We do not speak of it in this way, as you say: The speech may be used in one place or two, therefore, it must be accepted in this way in all places. But we say, "Speech may be interpreted figuratively, and may not be interpreted figuratively, and speech that is not figurative may not suffer the words, therefore it must and should be interpreted figuratively.

(10) Therefore it will not follow that on this understanding of ours conscience will remain without consolation, and in your understanding it will find consolation. But the contradiction will be there. Even though, if it were to be understood in principle, the consolation of the soul does not lie in how the word "is" is interpreted in that place, it is very important that the promise in the words that the body is offered for us be obtained. The art of interpretation in the Scriptures commonly inflates rather than comforts; but in the promises there is comfort; indeed, if the promise is obtained by faith, the soul is comforted, although the ceremonial custom of the supper would be set entirely in one place. Such a custom is also instituted beforehand for the sake of the neighbor-man, that he may be united with others in love in proclaiming the good deed of Christ.

11. 6. You continue in your writing and think that your book against Carlstadt stands firm.

1. "nicht schüf" - did not accomplish anything.
2. "conscience" - the conscience.

12 But it is not surprising that your opinion is lacking, because in your writings Against Carlstadt, your old Adam is too prominent, and the evil words beat the wholesome doctrine back and forth, understood therein. At that time, when I read it, I might well have suffered that it had been better kept, so that it, if I or another had wanted to receive your opinion from the common man, might have stood. I still say it, if you like the same writing, if you would not write differently, you would not create anything. For the sake of the word tuto (ôïàôï), you have argued something against Carlstadt in the matter. Otherwise, in the resolution of some arguments, you are not equal to yourself, because they are not sufficiently resolved.

13. 7. Item the four reasons from Scripture do not help you to maintain your opinion, because you apply them in a misunderstanding, as Zwinglius and partly also I have indicated, and with short; afterwards I will give it further to understand.
14. for these four sayings thou layest to a foundation. First, from the three evangelists and Paul: "This is my body" 2c. Secondly: Is not the bread which we break communion of the body of Christ?" Thirdly, "He that eateth of the bread, and drinketh of the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Fourth: "But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, if he distinguish not the body of the Lord." But the sayings are about, and soon will be even more, answered to all.

(15) But here, that you reproach us with words, that we think, if we only wave, it is completely done, you do that here yourself, and it is not well believable to me that you have read our scripture with half diligence, because you thus scornfully make us hateful with scornful words in this and other epistles. But the scolding and contempt and other pompous words shall not frighten us for a long time, if God wills it. If it seems to you to be a beckoning, if your argument is dissolved and overturned, you do not accept it, and thus you want to silence us with words. It would have been cheaper and less suspicious if you had attacked us with writings earlier, after they had answered your letter in your honor by concealing your name.

16. 8. But what is this, if we are waiting for scripture and doctrine from you, so you testify to the matter?

588 16. Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx. 734-736. 589

With your faith, as it were, to build on your faith or another man's faith, which we do not know whether it is a righteous faith. Now I consider your opinion to be a delusion, not a faith, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the word of God. Yes, truly it is a conceit and a dream, yes, a seduction it is considered more reasonable, in which we know well that you have spent a long time, whether you would not have let such and such a protestation and judgment go out. If this were true, the papists would also cry out: they believe in transubstantiation. And if you were to go for the faith of man, the large number of bishops, universities and monasteries would also do something about it. But here they do not respect your faith, because we would be building on a rotten foundation. Nor do I think that you can expect us to do so, for you also bring the reason for your faith.

17. 9. We must be false prophets and blasphemers to you, and bring some causes. Namely, that we call your God the baked and fried God, and you: God-flesh-eaters and God-blood-drinkers. My Martine, how I would like the matter to be presented as it is in itself. It says: Outside the matter of the Sacrament, we praise you as faithful co-workers and preachers of the ineffable majesty and praise of God. But here in this matter you are going out of the way. Therefore, if we denounce your misunderstanding, even such unseemly clumsiness follows, 1) who then bring such words with them; otherwise we are not comfortable with mockery. Therefore, the disgrace does not fall on the high and true God, whom we usually confess with one another, but on those who turn divine honor into lies through their carnal mind.

(18) Well, my dear Martine, if it is the truth as you speak of it, you should not let the words err, but take them for your great honor. But if thou wilt be ashamed of the names, thou shalt make thy doctrine suspicious; for if thy doctrine be suspicious, how shalt thou escape the names?

19 Christ's body, to which the Godhead is agreed, was crucified. Now no Christian is ashamed to confess this; indeed, he considers it his honor to preach Christ crucified, even though the Jew resents it and the pagan mocks him for it. Now if the body of Christ is essentially bread, and the Godhead is not separate from the body, let us be honest in confessing a crucified God as well as a crucified God.

1. Clumsy - inconsistencies.

God, although the Godhead is neither crucified nor blasphemed. But if it is not so, the blasphemy does not come from our mouth, but from yours. We have to complain, and not you. For your opinion puts the body of Christ, which after the ascension is to be found in glory and in the most honest place, also in such a small breadbasket, and in the hands and power of sinful priests. We are to say yes big Gramersi 2) to it! or against it may not turn up our noses. 3)

20. 10. Here you sneer further and say: "And yet these are patient, gentle people who suffer great persecution and know Christ rightly. But beware of the patience and gentleness that overthrows our faith. But I hope that such abominable blasphemy will soon put an end to them, although we have well deserved such miserable creatures and sects by our ingratitude and persecution of the gospel, and deserve even more trouble." These are your words, in which little spirit of Paul or meekness of Christ is felt. In my opinion, you answer with these words some brothers who have approached you in a friendly manner, and have desired to act in matters so that one might report to another in peace, and that much trouble among the people might be stopped; perhaps you have also been told that we are not so bad people as they make us out to be, that we do not write so harshly, that we would allow ourselves to be reported. You might have thought that we would also be proven by the cross, that we would know Christ.

(21) This has so spurred your arrogant spirit, (4) that it gumbles and beats, and may praise neither the rough nor the litter in us, and when one discovers his insanity, he speaks with piteous words: one overthrows the faith, and it is atrociously blasphemed, that God may not tolerate it, and speaks that it is a miserable being and punishment of the persecution of the Gospel. But the Christian reader may well assume that these are the words of an enraged man who cannot help himself; if he has escaped from him, he thinks that there is no greater sin and evil on earth than that he has been touched. There then is a wretched being, and heaven and earth fall down, that it is said to him that he also may err as a man, and that those who rely on him may also fall short. Thus the whole faith is overthrown. Oh not so, my brethren, let us not think that the Holy Spirit is bound.

2. Gramersi - grand msroi, beautiful thanks.
3. to ruffle - to balk.
4. "gesport" --- spurred. - gumpet" -- jumps.

590II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 7gs-7M. 591

To Jerusalem, Rome, Wittenberg or Basel, to your person or to another. In Christ alone is the fullness of grace and truth, of which now to one, now to another is imparted; as you yourself bear all this well knowing.

22 It is no less, spurning the truth awakens the wrath of God. But do not follow, who does not follow Luther, that he hates the truth. If God wills it, it shall not happen that I set myself against the truth; I may never be served more than with teaching and spiritual food, which is why you have been so dear to me until now. But the fact that I do not follow everyone now makes it clear that they do not want to pay me. I and Zwinglin have not yet acted unkindly toward you, but we have taught and written against insanity; perhaps you will shake your coat. If some of your followers, who cried out so horribly, had given and received a friendly report, things might be better. But what is to become of them, if they continue with us, as the papists did with them, in banning of books, in expulsion, in raging vituperations? just as if greater heresy had never arisen in Christendom. God grant that they may yet remember; it is not yet proven that we are false prophets or seditious, as they may cry out and write.

23. 11. After that, you introduce three tests by which you certainly judge our spirit as seductive and command others to judge, which we will see with what reason they are brought forth.

(24) First, since those who are not subject to your error do not compare themselves in the interpretation of the words, "This is my body*,*" and one interprets it thus, another takes it for "means," and another seeks another way, you compare them to the seven-headed and one-bodied beast in Apocalypsi, which sets up seven heads of interpretation against solitary Christian truth, and consider this probation a great warning of the Holy Spirit.

(25) Well, you should come with such strikes, that you yourself may be struck; for then you will not strike me, nor others, as I hope, not depending on your madness.

Twenty-six: You would like to turn us into robbers, and we know nothing about it. You are struggling to fulfill the number of seven, and yet you do not exist, and you know that the number of seven is a number of perfection and of the whole multitude. We are, if God wills, not in the dragon's body, but in the body of the sorrowful woman.

How can you ascribe many heads to us for the sake of such an interpretation? As far as I know, the reason for all of us is one, that Christ has gone to heaven with a true body, from which he will judge in the future. This reason and the head of our cause is an article of faith, taught by apostles and founded in the Scriptures.

28 But you and yours, and with you the popes, want to keep such articles besides the article of faith; and if one were to look at your division, one would find almost seven and seventy changes, not only in the interpretation of Scripture, but also in some fantasies. The popes have their transubstantiation, but you have the supposition; for both places you need the Scriptures, as is fitting for everyone.

(29) To him Christ is glorified; to him he serves; to him he is given; to him bread is a sign; to him it is not. The one should not remember Christ's presence; the other also wants him to be worshipped. The other wants badly, one should say it is the body, and not decide whether it is essentially there or not; and there are almost as many senses as many heads, and one puts this now to us.

(30) But our case is this: Our foundation of faith is one with Christian truth. But the weapons to fight against the sentence that is contrary to this foundation are not equal, and one hits better, the other worse. But how is one to do it? We are not all equally trained and equipped to resist the enemy. It is, I think, the same among you; your disciples do not all find themselves so skilled in writing as you.

31 Therefore, one has not yet completely missed the faith, if one does not even meet the est, or hoc, or corpus, in the interpretation; if he alone truly recognizes the promise of the merit of the suffering of Jesus, and does not deny the use of the sacraments besides.

32. Dear, if I Christianly confess with other Christians that we are not able to do anything by our works 1) and I have for myself the saying of the Lord: "Without me you are not able to do anything", and by this saying I contradict the Pelagians who claim the power of free will. I suppose that my reason is firm with all Christians, but a Palagian, who admits to his powers the effect of good, leads the saying from the 5th book of Moses at the 30th chapter: The word is almost near you in your mouth, and in your heart that you do it; there the Pelagian rejoices.
33. "nothing" set by us instead of not.

592 16 Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx, 739-741. 593

The heretics of the world look at these words as if he were able to penetrate heaven with his own strength, and say that they are clear words. Then he is contradicted by the faithful, that this and other sayings should not be understood in this way; and one Christian interprets the saying of Moses to mean the incarnation of Christ. Another says: Moses did not say that the power is in us, although the knowledge is given to us by God. The third comes, and also brings an interpretation, and yet all three do not meet in the same way. Would the Pelagian do well, therefore, to accuse the Christians and call them degenerates and seducers and false prophets, since every Christian has the next ground of Scripture on which he builds? So it is here also. Our reason is that the body of Christ is in heaven, which is now certain and not lacking. But that the saying, "This is my body," is brought forth contrary to it, it is to be rightly understood; and if not every one obtains it, yet love requires that it be instructed brotherly. For although it is said, "This is my body," it is not therefore said, "This is essentially my body," and every anointed priest, by preaching the word, serves that the body may come into the bread.

(33) Oh, it would be mighty evil in the Christian faith that no one would believe rightly except those who might interpret all the Scriptures in the most artificial way. If one did not keep a side ceremony in the church like the other, there would have to be divisions, and God would have nothing to do with it.

34 Therefore I like the saying of Saint Augustine: "Have faith and love, and walk fearlessly in the Scriptures, for all the law is satisfied in love, and faith in Christ is the fulfillment of the law. And further Augustine says in the book of Christian doctrine: "Whoever takes such a meaning from the Scriptures, which is useful for the edification of love, and yet does not say evenly as he of whom it is written supposed, does not therefore lie altogether, and is not great harm in it, though he already misses." Here it is to be checked that one can bring up about many interpretations at once from one place without any harm. Therefore, the seventy interpreters are not always the same as Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Jerome and others. And yet they are not seditious, or masters of the mob.

35 Therefore, Doctor Martin, you forget about us, brotherly love, that you may compare us to the evil animal for such a reason.

The head, the tail from the sky, also throws the stars from the sky and the apparent saints, and the sorrowful woman 1) is smothered. As if we were outlawing the Christian truth. Now the simple faith and truth of Christian unity does not stand in that the body of Christ is essential in bread. But Christian truth is that the body of Christ is in heaven with honor and glory; but here on earth he rules his church with his spirit and with his grace, to whom he bequeathed the memorial and sacrament of his body, that it may remain united in love.

My Luther, you do not want to speak to us more harshly. Well, do you ever want nothing else, but that your careless zeal becomes a poisonous, envious anger, and you become a carnal from a clergyman, if we are already patiently silent, then the spiritually intelligent will well see who throws down the stars from heaven. They will see who the red and blood-colored beast is, and which heads have two little horns.

37. 12. I would have let the speech fall, if you had not brought it on the way. And you present them with such splendid words that whoever does not believe them is worthy that in the sacrament there is not only bread and wine, but that there are chanterelles and morels.

(38) What do you mean by these words? You leave the common man in the opinion, as if I taught no difference between common bread and the Lord's bread, which I never taught. I have often excused myself of this, and here without need to deny it; 2) but now I say: Because and as long as bread is a sacrament, that is, as long as it is used in the act, it is in substance only bread; but because of thanksgiving, and because of the institution of Christ, which is a sanctification, for the contemplation of the passion of Christ and of our holy covenant of love, it is much more than bad bread, has its worthiness, and should not be called morchen or Rübschnitz. Therefore your test is useless. But where it makes me guilty, I would gladly let myself be instructed and myself warn everyone of the doctrine; besides, I am of good hope that where Christian love counts for something, people will not be embittered by your words and let themselves be prevented from knowing the truth.

1. "Durchächtet" put by us instead of: "durchächet". "Durchächten" as much as pursue. Cf. Revelation 12, 13. In Scripture No. 23 of this volume, § 9, the form "durächten" is found.
2. d. i. repeat.

594II . writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx, 741-743. 595

39. 13. Likewise, the other test is also incompetent; not in itself, but against us, if you say: the Holy Spirit lays down constant reasons, so that the longer one fights against them, the firmer they become and increase, especially if they are to go up anew, he has never left them. It is all true; but that you say in addition that it happens differently in the animal, and understand us thereby, therefore, that Carlstadts could not keep a whorehouse, which we ourselves confess; and according to your legend, Zwinglin's, or also my Significat hang the head and die freely there:

(40) If thou wert true to our one reason here, thou wouldst not speak thus. The fact that Christ is in heaven is an enduring reason, and may suffer all blows. But if we had based our reason on the words, "This is my body," then your test would be in part, and you and yours would not yet have become beautiful. For a long time, your opinion has also had its head hung by papal authority, and is the process of transubstantiation.

Item, what we teach is not a new original, 1) but was taught and kept by the apostles; therefore, it does not arise first of all. But whether the Significat dies from the power of Lutheran challenge, I cannot yet feel. But if everyone were free to say what he believed, and had heard both reasons, things would soon be different than they are now.

Some of your people may suffer the popes to be sold in public, but forbid us to answer your reproaches in the matter of the sacraments, in which there is not so much invective as in their booklets. It would not depend on whether my booklets are also put up; but I do not see how it is right to condemn and not to interrogate, to hear complaint and not to hear answer, as the popes have also long dealt with you and yours. But it is not a wonder if it is dark where they shut the stores. Therefore it does not seem what the test creates; and yet you make a great warning of God from it to all who fear him and want to believe rightly. As if you said: He who does not believe, does not fear God, has no right faith.

(43) Then every ignorant man will say that he believes before he wants to be in the suspicion that he does not fear God, and does not believe rightly. And he would do just as the king who had given money to an ignorant painter, to

1. Urhab" - to begin. Cf. Col. 492, where the word is used in different meanings.

When he had spent the money and painted nothing, he said to the king: He who could not see the painting was not born in wedlock; then the king said he saw such a painting as the painter stated. Not everyone will allow himself to be overawed by the words 2).

44. teach beforehand that we have brought a new doctrine, and prove that it must be taken substantially; and if thou mayest make it an article of faith, say then, he that believeth it not, is not godly.

45.14) It is also true that you write afterwards that the devil cannot be known better anywhere than by the truth; and that the world wants to be deceived and must be deceived, just as in Arius' time.

My dear Martine, where did you find me, still in a lie concerning faith, or elsewhere, that you write thus? Now I desire no less that the truth should come to light than you do. Is this not rashness on your part, that you speak such shameful words to me 3)? I mean, if you wanted to say it even more roughly, it would have to come out. The truth shall testify that I do not speak from the devil, and Arii Rumor is not raised by me. Arius took the honor of Christ; that I desire to admit; Arium punishes the Scripture of his insanity; that will not be thrown at me. Punish me of the lie and destruction of the peace in my doctrine, and then need your angry words, as long as you want, you may answer it differently with God.

47. 15. The third sample you give thus: "This spirit is especially a fleeting or floating spirit, which does not remain on any piece, as I have tried them both in writings and words. If one demands of them that [they say this: This is my body', or the like, to prove that it is to be understood in their opinion, and differently from natural words, 4) they looked at another little song, according to which they are full of words and thoughts. Therefore they say from the 6th chapter of John, how there are two kinds of food, spiritual and bodily, as if no one knew it before; or they praise themselves once, how they are pious and suffer much; or they deny what it is good for, that Christ's body and blood must be there; or they tear into something else, so that they do not have to stay on the words, otherwise they will be caught; so they fill their ears and leaves with vain words, so that one must grasp, as Satan is afraid, and in all the flesh they will be caught.

2. "overthädigen" well - to dupe.
3. "wichest" - bürdest. Cf. Col. 584, § 6.
4. So put by us instead of: "shall" according to ? 9 of the previous scripture, which is repeated here completely.

596 16 Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx, 743-746. 597

He is not to be caught in his lies. I say then: such circumlocutions and evasions do nothing 1) to the matter, they should only stay on the words, and there, in the place, prove their opinion from the text. Yes, then I have the eel by the tail. There they lead me again to the 6th chapter of John, or else to a monkey's tail, that one only gets away from the matter by a lot of chatter, and yet accomplishes nothing. That is a right Satanic art to hover, as the night fires drive in the evening on the field." These are your kind words.

Here, first of all, I do not know who the two are of whom you say; whether you mean Zwingli and Carlstadt, or Zwingli and me. Well, as you have recognized others, I leave it, I answer for myself. I first kindly requested you and other Wittenbergers with writings, but invented bad report. Accordingly, I have publicly said in a congregation how the words according to your interpretation are not founded, but your spared; and do not yet know any fleeing, your sword in this not so sharp. But to set one place of Scripture against another is unreasonably called a flight, or a going round like the night fires. The Scriptures must not be set against one another, but compared with one another, according to the manner and instruction of faith. But where this is not permitted in the Scriptures, no insanity would be so great, it would find its handholds, and would want to be shielded with tenacity. It is well known that where the spirit is fleeting, where we desire to compare Scripture with Scripture, and say how the body of Christ is in heaven, we are answered that it may be in many places, and that in the bread it is an insensible body, and that God has recommended this to the priests in words. And if we ask for the Scriptures, we will see where we are told and how we are told.

48 To ask: what is the use of bodily presence in bread? is not out of the way, the teaching should be different. Our God teaches us useful things, as Isaiah says. Now, if there is to be great benefit here, we should reasonably know it too. But I am sure that neither you nor yours can teach such things on the basis of divine Scripture. For by faith we already have what we need, and it is not in the rote custom. But this benefits 2) the

1. "nothing" put by us instead of: "not"; according to the preceding Scripture, 10.
2. So put by us instead of: to good.

Next turned, will have to be memorized and comprehensible; but the body is not there like that.

49. For the last, that they may exalt their own holiness and persecution to thee, 3) I hold to have been done, as reported above, by some for the sake of peace. And would it be so wrong for us to be called devilish and rebellious, and to confess, as Christ also says, that we have no devil, and are peaceable, or the like? For my own part, I know well that I am a sinner, but I would like to help proclaim the praises of the Lord, who forgives my sin, without offending all men. That I must say, because you attack me so harshly, and desire to make me hateful to all men; and not only a sinner, yes, also a devil, or in the least, that our doctrine is devilish; and thus we are considered the devil's instrument. Knowest thou the devils as well as thou wilt, thou knowest none in me for the matter of things, and in the trial thou hast failed one thing.

50. 16. According to your judgment, you bring two reasons for our error, as you say. One, that it is almost clumsy in reason; the other, that it is not necessary to be Christ in bread and wine. And you say that the two pieces have seized us, and have thus passed through Satan's temptation, as oil passes through the bones, so that we cannot get rid of them. After that, when we have such painted spectacles before our eyes, we come rolling to the Scriptures, and draw in our mind, and draw them to our opinion.

(51) Here it must be assumed where you are going, and that you do not want to be told our reason; for we do not put here the reasons that you present, but the articles of faith according to the content of Scripture, and the glory of God, whose goodness is not felt where no benefit follows; and if no benefit follows, and Scripture does not urge us to it, we should not put wonderful things that are contrary to reason, nor should we make them base. And so unruly things are set forth against reason, that in the Trinity itself such incomprehensible things are not used. Well then, if one is diligent about these things, and takes note of the glory of God, and does not allow himself to be persuaded by inadequate 5) Scripture, it is called giving the devil his due. Yes, if I were to think otherwise, you would have reason to think that

3. to lift up - to reproach. This refers to § 4 of the previous scripture: "and yet are patient, gentle people who suffer great persecution" 2c.
4. but one - again.
5. "undemanding" put by us instead of "undemanding".

598II . Writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx. 746-749. 599

to complain to me. Other writings of mine will show whether I have put my mind into writing or not.

52.17) In conclusion, you tell us about sects. Now we are not satisfied with the dispute over words. Where we signed (your doctrines) to you, it would be pardonable to us if something inconsistent were already going on in writings. But must we therefore be robbers, so that we do not give our minds captive to you? Yes, it is captive to Christ and his words. In that way, you and those who follow you would also be sectarians to the pope. We are no more fond of sects than you are, and also desire to remain in the faith preached by the apostles in all the world, and what is imposed on us against the article of faith we do not like and do not want to bear.

53. 18. And that you exhort that one remain with the pure words of Christ is thus exalted by you, 1) as if we would like against the word of God, and we contaminate it or bend it, and also do not have clear words of God for us.

Dear D. Martine, it would have been unkind, it is more said to you earlier that you do not only wield the sword of the word of God, we have such clear and serene 2) sayings of our reason that you cannot deny them. But that your saying is dark is evident; and no darker incomprehensible one would be accepted than the understanding you bring, which 3) never compares with preceding and following, yes, even contrary Scripture and articles of faith. You put forward the pure word, and thus lead to unlearning 4) and word controversy. If it is to be so, then each one will receive his own error. Oh how there will then be sects with heaps!

55. 19. My answer to (the) syngramma does not apply to you. Now it wants to be too long in German, therefore I will draw it into a Summarien to the shortest; perhaps others will also see in it whether I have written in vain, and whether it is enough with your book against Carlstadt, and the Syngramma.
56. 20. But if you were willing to write, I would suffer that you had already written; indeed, you would have done it long ago, since we are harmful people to the Christian community. Why did you let the fire get out of hand? Why hast thou alone with reproaches, words of reproach, and words of oppression brought many to unhappiness?

1. d. i. held.
2. serene - bright.
3. Set by us instead of: them.
4. d. i. what cannot be assumed.

and you watch with a laugh. So that a legend goes out from you: you want to let us run riot, and afterwards you will make it up to us in one fell swoop. Ah! you see us going astray, why don't you lead us home again? you would owe it to your enemy's donkey according to the law of God. If the right true spirit of God had not left you at this time, and if you knew something that would benefit us, you would not do it. Well then, I still wish you from the bottom of my heart that the princely, slain and joyful spirit of Christ may return to you. And if thou hast any good thing to do for the glory of God and the benefit of thy neighbor, teach with all meekness, according to the commandment of the apostle. That I do not speak, that I doubt in the main matter of our doctrine, as you probably blaspheme about the ears, as if they were devil's lies. God forgive you.

Dear one, if you want to teach, then leave your scandalous words at Wittenberg. They do not improve your cause, nor do we need them; nor do I know how you will answer for them to God. May He grant you and me to continue in the knowledge of His Son. Amen. To Basel.

Answer of Johannis Oecolampadii to the Syngramma of the 14 Predicants in Swabia, about the Lord's Supper.

To Christian readers.

Grace and peace from God the Father through Christ. Beloved in Christ! If it were possible to joke with divine truth, as with temporal possessions, I would have kept my writing with good Christian conscience last year and also now. But you know that the truth is the greatest treasure of Christians, for which they should leave all their possessions in order to possess it; and it must be known by us, if we want to know anything else about Christ. Christ, who is the truth himself, if we are not to be rejected as unknowns at the last day. Therefore I have presented my understanding of the sacrament of the altar and the words of the Lord's Supper at the end of the year, as it is learned from the oldest teachers; in good hope that no one will be offended by it, but that many will be improved by it.

Now my writing has been received more unkindly than I had hoped, and some have written against it most bitterly. Among others, a number of preachers in Swabia have

The first booklet of this kind was published in the year 2000.

60016 . Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx. 749-721. 601

D. Martin praises it as if it were the thorough truth, but in many places it is erroneous, and scolds me and others who do not agree with him in the matter of the sacrament as seductive. Therefore, the love of truth causes me to continue to give account of given doctrine, and to answer for such counter-accusations. In this, my opinion is no different than that the light of truth should shine forth more brightly; and I would not like to see D. Martin and other preachers reported as being ungrateful to others for their Christian teachings 1) or that they should suffer any harm from it. They think of me what they will; about my request is to them and all readers, want to hear the Scriptures with impartial minds, and be most favorable to the truth itself, it will let itself be seen, I am undoubted. The Lord grant mercy.

But so that my and the opponent's matter is presented in the clearest and shortest way, it is unnecessary to answer the whole syngramma, as I did in Latin. For such a thing is too much for the common reader; but in a short term, and that in four main articles, they shall be answered.

4. first, I will tell reason and cause why the bread is not essentially the body 'of Christ, with rejection of the counter-accusations.

(5) Secondly, I will set against it the adversary's cause, and show that he is unfit.

6. Thirdly, I will answer for other counter-accusations and features, conceived in their book.
7. Fourthly, I want to decide in which way we want to be or become one.

The first part.

Our reason and understanding is based on the fact that the Word of God became flesh, born of the virgin Mary, and wanted to serve us here on earth, in his body, which he also gave in the most shameful death of the cross. To whom the Father also gave the highest honor and clarity when he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. For Christ, according to his soul and body, is entitled to the best and highest goods. Therefore it is said of him that he sits at the right hand of his Father, and let every tongue confess that he is the glory of God the Father, according to Philippians, chapter 2. In heaven he has his throne, from thenceforth to judge the living and the dead.

1. "verschupft" - disregarded. Cf. Col. 489, § 26.

These are articles of the ancient undoubted faith; this is what the apostles preached, this is what the prophets prophesied, this is what the Scriptures record in heaps.

(3) This reason is firm, and may not fail us; and what is contrary to this reason we may not accept in any way. For we have a rule for interpreting the Scriptures, in which we are commanded not to accept anything that is contrary to the articles, or that is not according to them. For these are the secondary doctrines which are forbidden, Rom. 16, Gal. 1, 2 Pet. 2. Let not the articles of our faith be obscured with the superstitious secondary doctrines, as, confessing the articles of faith, yet speaking of those things which break in beside them, let them also be believed; as the Popes do in their doctrines. As when they say: Marriage is not forbidden to anyone by God; but marriage is still forbidden to the priest. Christ is a single mediator, but the saints who have died are also mediators. Christ has suffered and done enough for our sin; but we must also do enough here or in purgatory. These are secondary and superstitions. Therefore, in the main matters of faith, one must be firm, constant, and not let oneself be rejected anywhere. We have an article that Christ was born of the virgin Mary. Although it does not speak of the eternal virgin, 2) the believer may not hear that Mary had other children than Christ. And if anyone, together with the heretic Nestorio or others, should want to make a statement that Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth to her firstborn son, Matt. 1, or that Christ was said to have had brothers, he should be rejected as a heretic, for he takes the Scriptures against the article of faith, and does not help him anywhere by saying that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, and therefore her opinion is not contrary to faith. No, we cannot accept this. Item, we have in the faith an article, resurrection of the flesh. Now if someone wanted to introduce here the saying of Paul: The flesh and the blood will not possess the kingdom of God; or from the first Psalms: The wicked will not rise in judgment; and wanted to introduce a gloss next to it: They rise with the body to the judgment, as the article of faith holds, and the same body remains invisible in other places than in the grave and in the same way.

2. "of the everlasting virginity" = of the everlasting virginity.

602II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 7.V-754. 603

he does not possess the kingdom of God. Such glosses may not be suffered in any way. For all other sayings must give way, and their interpretation must be such that they are not contrary to the articles in any way. For that thus creeps beside it, all is suspicious. Therefore, that we certainly believed, the summa of our faith is in little, and if we did not let ourselves penetrate further, one would remain satisfied. What are all heretical doctrines other than secondary doctrines in the Articles? So here, too, we have three main articles, in which we are told about the honesty and glory of Christ, and also about his body. Therefore, if one wants to introduce something next to it, and make an aberration, 1) we cannot hear it; but if one says: Christ with his body is in heaven, this is our faith, because by this our hope is strengthened that we may also go to heaven through him. Therefore, the gloss may not be accepted: His body is essentially in the bread, or is therein insensible; or any other gloss.

4. it is also a mighty thing that God has taken only mankind out of all creatures to His divine nature, yes, He has not even dignified the angels in this way, as it is written in Hebrews, chapter 2: "He does not accept angels, but the seed of Abraha". Now, if the bread is essentially the body of Christ, as the opponents say: then the bread is also accepted by God, and will be more worthy than the body of the Virgin Mary, or the body of a man, yes, more holy, than the hands, which present the bread to us.

5 It should have such holiness. For though bread has no understanding by its nature, yet it has such honor, according to the co-existent soul of Christ, which is to be highly praised above all that is. Therefore, whoever wants to be sure, let him keep the old undoubted faith, which we began to confess at baptism.

Now let us see whether the strongholds 2) may also stand against the adversaries.

The preachers, almost at the end of their book, introduce such an answer to this: "Dear one, what do we hear now, if Christ has thus departed from us, that He has left nothing of His own behind, then the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sin, and all righteousness and the word of God are accepted.

1. Aberle - an objection.
2. Forts - fortresses.

Response.

(7) This is an inadequate, even pitiful, comparison. Are spiritual things to be likened to bodily things? It is not said that Christ left nothing behind him. That which he left behind him he confesses to be his peace. Item, the Holy Spirit he sent. Spiritual things, by their nature, without any harm, may be divided into many parts, and remain unchanged in their essence. The nature of the body is to be in one place. The body does not want to be considered a true body, which may be in many places at once. A body has one place, or let the Scriptures teach it otherwise.

8 And that it is further said that it is not so with the insensible body, which is invisible in many places. Yes, where it is said that the body is so, it is not a natural, essential body, which has this in its nature, to be in one place. Would it also follow that no natural body would have suffered for us, and would be our gift, not a body according to our body, for which sake we may call it our brother, a bone out of our bones; or it would give us the insensible, and as it is sensible and truly a body, and in which it is our brother, it would retain it. Therefore they have not that they say to it. Above that, to receive the spiritual gifts, we may not at all receive the bodily presence of the Lord; indeed, the Lord says the contradiction, and says: "Unless I go away, the Comforter will not come"; that is what he speaks of his body, and not of the Spirit or his divinity. Doctor Martin Wider den Carlstadt shows the next way, and says: "We are not commanded to inquire how it comes about that our bread is or becomes Christ's body. But it does not apply, where something besides faith leads along, that it is not proper to ask. Then they want to pay us with other empty words, and say: God's word is there, and we abide by it and believe it. And on the speech all that they write in many little books, and is their reason the words, "This is my body," they will do it; and is quite another mind: either they must come entirely to our opinion, or it is a trumpery that they speak. Not that the words of God are despised, but that they interpret and expound them unfaithfully.

(9) For this reason I have taught in the booklet which has just gone out, that it is impossible that the sentence should be interpreted according to their mind; therefore our foundation shall remain firm and immovable, but they have nothing on their side.

10. there are three excellent pieces in the way, such as

60416 . Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx, 754-736. 605

I have said in my first booklet, so that their interpretation may not stand. First, the articles of faith, and other Scriptures compared against them; as is also now said. For the words must be interpreted according to the instruction of faith, and not again, faith according to the words; as it is written in Romans, Cap. 12: "He that hath prophecy, let him have it according to the instruction of faith"; as Tertullianus de praescriptionibus clearly states.

11. Secondly, the preceding and following words of the evangelists do not allow this to happen, as: if one hears the custom of the paschal lamb, the bodily departure of the Lord, the order of the evangelists does not really insist on the same words; and other pieces more, which I have written at length to the well-learned Billican, prebendary of Nördlingen, that I have not brought my own sense into the Scriptures, but the Scriptures have given it to me, if I consider one and the other.

Thirdly, there are many clumsy ones on the path that cannot be admitted, and therefore their opinion does nothing against us. However, there are a few particular clumsy ones that follow from their opinion.

The clumsy, so follow when the essential body of Christ is in the Sacrament.

(13) First, they give greater and more incomprehensible miracles, such as the creation of heaven and earth, or the incarnation of Christ; yet the Scriptures do not tell us of such miracles. Neither did the apostles follow them when the supper was instituted and the words were spoken. It is not the custom in Scripture to invent miraculous signs. I have referred to Saint Augustine, who clearly indicates that there is no miraculous thing that happens when something changes or a person appears in another creature, as one should say here. And St. Augustine spoke this with seriousness; he did not write it without reason. For in the bread, outside of the meaning and sacrament, he does not want anything essentially new to be invented there. And since this is the case, Luther's excuse, and that of other people, is soon answered, who want to have everything answered. One should not ask, it happens miraculously and unspeakably; and is but that of the first, that one does not pass it. 2) They shall bring it. Item, that the word:

1. Clumsy - unrhymed things.
2. exists - confirms, proves.

"This is my body", is spoken to the bread, therefore will not make the miraculous work, as they have wanted to answer for it.

14 Secondly, it has been said that the bread of the Lord is a sacrament, that is, a holy sign; therefore it signifies something. Now it is abominable in all understanding that the sign should be one thing essential with that which is signified thereby. This they can with no justification contradict; for even in the holy trinity one must not entirely exclude the two ways of speaking, of substance and relation. For it may not be said that the Son, who is the antitype of the Father, is the Father, though he has all the substance of the Father. Item, if the Scripture and the faith say: "The Word became flesh", we may not say that the divine nature is the human nature essentially, although they are agreed in one person. Nevertheless, this way of speaking must not be excluded here. Do we then speak Calecutically, that one may not compare it against the other?

(15) Thirdly, I have brought forth an awkwardness to them from Chrysostom: there would be much Christ; this no Christian can endure. For there is not one loaf on many altars; and if each is said to be essentially the body of Christ, it must have another form than that it is One Christ, and have such an example:

(16) If the divinity and the soul of Christ were also united in another body, not conceived by the Virgin Mary, then it would be said, for the sake of the matter, that there were many Christ's; and if then the body with the soul and divinity were united in many divided loaves, and that essentially, then it will give many persons, for the sake of the multiplicity of the loaves. They never say that the body has the bread on it, like a clinging garment, because they cry out: essential, essential!

17 And if one of their hands is caught in the bosom, they should say, "The Lord's bread is not a sacrament;" as I know preachers in a large city, and they give me nothing in response but, "I give too much to the woman Hulda, human reason, and all things happen miraculously; that is so much, one wants to persuade people by force, that it is not proven.

18. Fourthly, there is another unfortunate thing that would follow: that the sacraments of the old and new law would not be of the same content for every law minister, and we would be more blessed than the sacraments for the sake of the sacraments.
19. "themselves" set by us instead of: "they".

606II . writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx, rss-rss. 607

Abraham or Moses, or other ministers; for there is no other difference between the sacraments of the old and new law, except that those in the old mean that 1) Christ is coming, and those in the new teach us that Christ has already come. Therefore, as little as it was necessary for those under the old law to eat Christ bodily in the paschal lamb, so little is it necessary for us now to have Christ essentially in the bread and thus eat him. The ancients ever had one faith with us; they are also of one worthiness with the saints in the new law; they were also saved by faith, just as well as we are; their ministers ate the body of Christ, which was not yet there, just as well spiritually as we do. For spiritual enjoyment may also enjoy what is not yet there, let alone not enjoy what is not present in the place. And if our sacrament were so superior to theirs, certainly Christ would not have withdrawn it from his own, he would rather have been born in Abel's time.

Your answer.

(19) Here they have not answered, but with unrighteous reproaches, and they draw it hard, with such words: If you proceed in this way, Christ will not be Christ afterwards; for who would prevent the wicked from making such arguments as these, to prove that Christ did not become man, and thus say, "The holy fathers were saved by faith alone; therefore neither St. Peter nor St. John saw Christ, nor was he ever bodily with them. For what need is there of Christ becoming man, if we are saved by faith alone? But if he was ever bodily present, his bodily presence was of no use.

Rebuttal.

(20) Lords have no need to worry; they soon know how to answer the ungodly and others. For, they say, the ancients were saved by faith; if they be asked, Whether they also in their faith were not assured of Christ, they must answer, Yea. Well then, it follows that Christ had to come to save them. But if it be asked, Did the fathers also wait for our Lord's supper? they may not say: Yes. Neither do we desire that the custom of the paschal lamb should be kept again. There is a great difference between Christ and the ceremonies.

1. Thus set by us instead of: significant.

In Christ we have in common, but not in the ceremonies. Christ was promised to them, therefore they waited, therefore they hoped: otherwise what kind of hope would it have been? So it is evident that this likeness is nothing, 2) for they waited not for Christ in bread, but for him as a Savior.

Another counterclaim.

021 Behold, they say, we also are better than the ancients; we have the gospel, which must now also be preached unto us, because they lacked it: shall we not therefore have Christ for meat in bread, because the ancients lacked him?

Response.

(22) But it is not fitting, for the ministers of the law were never without the gospel, and Christ dwelt in their hearts; for because they prophesied all these things before, they were not altogether ignorant. Of course, they also understood themselves, and that which they believed they spoke. They also recognized something further, because the predicants say that they saw with the spiritual eyes, the same could have been admitted to their children still underage, but that would have been too little for Abraham and his kind. Unless I do not understand the words of the preachers, this is not appropriate. The old fathers also waited for the gospel to be proclaimed in all the world; therefore it had to happen, and they had their part as well as St. Peter and St. Paul. But in the bodily supper they had no part, neither did they wait for it; but in the change of ceremonies with Christ they might well have considered that One Faith, One Church, One Lord and One Spiritual Food. With that, however, they have not escaped the clumsiness.

Fifthly, it is a great misfortune that no benefit comes from such a wonderful work; for through spiritual enjoyment, without bodily presence, one has no less than if there were bodily presence, and I suppose that, according to our stupidity, there is also more.

(24) Here they turn to and fro, and know not how to raise anything, and have for evil that it should be desired of them to know; but God wills it,

2. "shall" here stands in the meaning of "aligns, serves"; compare § 14 of the following scripture.

60816 . Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx, 7S9-76i. 609

That we may recognize his good deed, proved to us by him, and therefore give him his praise.

(25) Here they murmur, saying, "If the sacraments are discontinued altogether, they are of no use. Answer: Who says that the sacraments, instituted by Christ, are of no use? It is another thing to say that bodily presence in the sacrament is of no use, or the sacrament is of no use. We know many benefits of the sacraments, in edification of love, in purification of the churches, in exercise of faith, in joy of thanksgiving. But all this happens as perfectly with the bodily absence as with the presence.

26 To this they add: O the world has become negligent, since it has believed that the body of Christ is present, it will become even more negligent if it does not believe this. To this I answer: God does not need our lies to increase His praise. What the memory and faith in the suffering of Christ do not accomplish, it will accomplish even less that I remember and want to think that the body is in the bread. Can anyone have greater love than to die for someone? What is this kind of love in the burning? One feels what brings improvement, for believing that the body is in the bread, or not believing that it is in the bread, does not bring improvement; but discernment of the body of Christ, believing that such a divine body is given for us, and practicing all Christian good works out of the impulse of the Spirit and love: therein it is, and not in superstitious dreams.

27 They come again to their inconsistent similitude, and ask: why should the bodily hearing of the gospel, which the ancients did not have? But I answer as before, that the gospel was preached to the ancients also, to some also quite clearly. I think that Isaiah and David emphasized the glory of Christ to us. But what the preaching was good for, I will tell you later. Since I also do not let them down in any way, that in the outward word the inward or eternal, or God's word stands essentially, and in a different, but clearer way; as in the same they have mischievously 1) mishandled it. Have no more than patience, and read on.

28. And if one presses them further, and tells them that no benefit of bodily presence, to eat in bread, may be shown, for he would otherwise have to lie, who says John on the 6th, The meat is nowhere useful: so they shake themselves from it with a loose solution, and is but the saying with the true-believers sufficient, their opi-
29. "desert" put by us instead of: "would know".

nion. It does not help that they say that the flesh, that is, the carnal mind, is of no use; for the very thing they teach is of a crude kind of mind. What is that they say: Yes, the body is not broken, or bitten, as Pope Nicolaus speaks of it? There is no escape. Rather, if one were to say: The king has not been murdered, but otherwise he is hidden in a basket, without his body being put under the swords; would he not still be in dishonor? So it is according to the common sense in this matter, one does not eat the body with the teeth; but now, if it is essential in the bread, it is under the teeth. Is this supposed to be a high Christian understanding? That is why St. Augustine still says: "What hast thou prepared the teeth, and the belly? believe, thus hast thou eaten." It is the natural understanding of the whole chapter: that to eat the flesh of Christ bodily, whether in bread or out of bread, sensible or insensible, is of no use; but to have such faith in the merit of Christ's death and bloodshed, makes the soul fed and fattened with the flesh of Christ, for he is dear and acceptable to it, and comforts and refreshes it. Now if it be considered that the body is in heaven, that our place also may be prepared for us; for thus the soul is made drunk with joy; then reigneth Christ with his Spirit with power, which is shewed us by the evangelist, saying, How then shall ye see the Son of man ascending into the place where he was before? But it is even a deviation to turn faith to incarnation; which all true ministers feel to be true.

29 These are the adversities before which the Lord's words may not serve their purpose; but they must give way to the article of Christian faith, and take a pure mind. Several more mishaps could be counted; they have to be resolved in those.

Many examples show that Christ's speech: "This is my body" should and may be a figurative speech.

(30) If our foundation is firm, and their weapons, according to their reckoning, do no mighty thing, it is strange and odd to some that the Scripture should be thus interpreted, "This is my body," that it should be said, this is a figure or signification of my body; or, that it is just so much, it signifies my body. And because it is thus unfamiliar to the untrained, I have gathered many examples in which figurative speeches are invented, and are not drunge, 2) or un-

2. drunge - clumsy.

610II . Schriften wider Zwingli und ftine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 761-764. 611

but dainty and intelligible speeches, and amusing to the readers; and if I did not put them all on, that they should serve just for that reason, the preachers have picked them all up quite closely, and with many speeches have left none unshortened, and have tapped me with many little key words. Now that I have looked into them, I find that they all serve to some extent for the figurative kind of speech: "This is my body", to interpret it: this is a meaning of my body, or means my body. Now because they are so strange about it, I have to take them in hand again.

First of all, the saying in 1 Corinthians 10, where it says: "The rock was Christ", must be suffered; and I have interpreted: the rock, indeed, the very mountain of the rock, means Christ. There they want, and before that D. Martin on Sunday Septuagesimä 1): that the spiritual rock is essentially Christ. But his interpretation may not stand. For Paul says before: "They all drank from the spiritual rock, which was their companion." In that place is not called the spiritual rock, which the Spirit drinks with faith, or which is understood by the Spirit.

32. but therefore it is a spiritual rock, that he gave the water obedient to the commandment of God, which is a spirit, or to the working of angels. As also that an angel is called bread, that it is prepared of the angels in lust. From it all have drunk, young and old, good and bad, all who had passed through the sea. If the rock were to be understood as Christ Himself, then even the unbelievers would have had Christ. But Paul says immediately afterwards that many perish in the wilderness because of their unbelief. And the rock is called a companion, because the water of the rock followed the people in the wilderness. Now when Paul tells a hidden story, he interprets it as follows: "The rock was Christ, as if he said, "Do you want to know what the rock means? And this rhymes exceedingly well with the words, "This is my body." For after Christ had taken the bread, had broken it, had given it to the disciples, and had hot them to eat, so he expounds to them what he signifies by the ceremony, saying, "This is my body"; that is, this bread, broken, signifies that this, my body, shall be offered and broken for your salvation and feeding. What is unskilful in all this? And the Lord himself commands us the interpretation, when he says on it, "This do in remembrance of me."
33. after which they have undertaken to prove in another speech, not useful here,

1. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XII, 406, § 19 ff.

namely, which I brought from the 2nd Book of Moses in the 12th Cap. V. 11., where it says of the paschal lamb, it is the phase, 2) that is, it is a remembrance or meaning of the phase, or leaping over and passing over. And the paschal lamb is called the phase, or the passing, or the passing over, or the passing over, because the angel of God passed in Egypt before all the houses at which door the blood of the paschal lamb was found, without harm and strangulation of the firstborn, or, according to the Hebrew, passed by. Here they say, "We do not accept your interpretation; the Holy Spirit interpreted it afterwards, and we will listen to him, who says that it is a slaughtered sacrifice of the Lord's phase; and they make a feast out of the lamb, as if he wanted to say, "Yes, it is a sacrifice for the Lord's paschal feast.

34 I will not argue much about this, although it is better to call it the paschal lamb than the paschal feast, since it is not the feast that is slaughtered, and the evangelists subsequently call the paschal lamb Pascha, that is, the transgression, as it is also called in many places in the old law. Be it as it may, so also in the other saying a figurative speech must be assumed, that this sacrifice is a remembrance of the paschal lamb, or the Easter, which took place when the children of Israel were redeemed and remained unharmed by the angel. And if one wants to draw it to the day, then the festivals have their figurative meaning, because if I say: Today is the day of the Ascension, I cannot deny that on today Christ goes to heaven again, but today is the commemoration of the Ascension of Christ; but then a figurative speech is invented. But so the speech of the paschal lamb is much more clever to understand the figurative speech. For as the lamb was called a lamb of the transfiguration, and was not the same lamb: so also the bread of the Lord signifies to us the body of Christ, though it is not essentially the body. So there is another thing that this figurative speech serves our purpose.

35. The example of circumcision, which is called a covenant in the seventeenth chapter of the first book of Moses, is also unimpeachable, and yet it is a sign of the covenant, as it is also called in the same place; although they suppose that the Scripture should have interpreted itself here.

(36) It would be enough to explain where to accept it, for the Lord says, "Do this in remembrance," so that it will ever be a memorial sign. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit interprets a ceremony, we should be able to interpret other ceremonies from it. The

2. i.e. Passover; Hebrew: xxx.

61216 . Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. jW. XX. 761-766. 613

The way would be prepared for whoever wanted to walk in it. So they let the wine be a sign of the testament, and interpreted the hidden scripture with a clearer one; the testament will not be fulfilled in the blood as in the cup, but when it is poured out on the cross; only the death and the shedding of the blood are seals of the covenant and testament with God; but how we will be made a part of it, I will save until the end.

The Scripture also instructs us with the other ceremonial sign of baptism how we are to conduct ourselves in this sacrament, as it says in the epistle to the Romans and Colossians: "that in baptism we are buried with Christ. What is being buried with Christ other than that we have received such a meaning? And for this very reason external baptism is a bath of rebirth, that it means that we are born inwardly and washed away from the filth of sins. But they do not want to let this remain, and everything must be spoken to them without figure. The word must give it to baptism that it is essentially rewashing, but the word alone gives it the power to signify. Neither the Holy Spirit, nor the grace by which we are inwardly born, is bound to water, let alone that it is essential to baptism. It is quite a lot of talk to be essentially a thing. And so, what wonder is it that the Lord's bread is a signification of the Lord's body in the Lord's speech, when he says, "This is my body"?

(38) Neither have I yet repented that I have used the saying of Matthew concerning John the Baptist, "He is the Elias that was before. For the name Elijah is spoken in a figurative way by the evangelist and Malachia.

39 And therefore, John 1, John himself says that he is not Elijah, that is, in a natural sense, because for the sake of figurative speech he was Elijah, and the soul and body of Elijah was not John. So here, for the sake of figure and memory, the bread is the body, not that the bread is essentially the body.

(40) Likewise, the saying that John is a son of Mary is that he represents a natural son, and therefore he is not the natural son; and Mary proves maternal fidelity to him, even though she is not a natural mother, and yet for the sake of fidelity she is called a mother. Therefore, it should not be so strange to one, although in others similar speech was also encountered. In the words: "Take note, he is your son," a disputant would also take an argument, and not let himself be wise, and speak: Christ would be the essential

natural son of Mary, who died on the cross, and yet by a miraculous change would also have become John. It would hardly be a great miracle to say that the bread is essentially the body of Christ; and it would also be a gloss that the body may be in two places, in one place deadly and dying, in the other place sensitive and alive; but what would that be but to will to go astray, and to lead other people astray?

(41) Nor is it right for them anywhere that I should introduce the saying of Matthew 11, where Christ says of himself, "He that is less in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he"; and likewise 1) they take exception to the saying of Matthew 25, "From him that hath not shall be taken away, even that he hath." If I say that the speeches are figurative, they interpret them to me strangely and lastly, 2) and they leave the first saying behind, if they have spoken many words, that Christ, who is less than John according to the mind of men at the same time, is truly greater in the kingdom of heaven. Now is not he actually called the inferior, who is considered inferior according to the conceit of men, and who bears the figure of an inferior? so it is ever found that the name is diverted from the natural understanding. But the other saying is interpreted by the evangelist Lucas in the 8th chapter: "From him who does not have, even that he thought he had, is taken away from him", one sees how it is clearly interpreted, that one thinks one has, is called in Matthew, one has. They are each indications of a strange 3) speech. So then, what evil and unheard of thing is it to call the figure and sacrament by the name of the thing that is signified, and to take the meaning there?

(42) In the end, I am also well aware that I said: The Holy Spirit was called a fiery tongue, a breath, and a dove; but he is not a dove, nor a breath, nor a fiery tongue, but he was signified by them, as a sign. But they suppose that it does not take place here, because the little word of the parables stands with it, namely he says: as a dove, and divided tongues as fire. But it is not in the word of the Lord: as a body, but badly "body". This is ever exactly sought, if it would help. St. Augustine interpreted the example of the dove in this way in the epistle to Evodio; for I not from my own mind thus

1. "to be resisted by" - to be resisted against.
2. letz - wrong.
3. strange - dark, unusual.

614 Writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. . W. xx, 76s-7 "s. 615

The face is called by two names, as if it were the image of a dove, and signifies the Holy Spirit in Christ. For the vision is called by two names, as if it were one name, namely, the image of a dove, and signifies the Holy Spirit in Christ, just as if a living dove were a signification of the Spirit. Likewise Apost. 10 we read, "The Holy Spirit fell upon them," since without doubt the fiery tongues, the signs of the Spirit, are called the Holy Spirit. Behold then, if the Scripture should say, The graven image is the Holy Ghost, would it not be like saying, The graven image signifieth the Holy Ghost? or, The fiery tongue is the Holy Ghost; so much would it be said, The fiery tongues are signifiers of the Holy Ghost; and therefore follow not that they are essentially the Holy Ghost, which would be right blasphemy, to say that God is essentially a creature.

Item: In vain is their going forth 1) In the breath of the Lord, because the Lord hath not said: Take ye, that is the Holy Ghost. Now this is spoken more strongly, "Receive the Holy Ghost," and he speaks of his breath, wherewith he offered them; wherefore it was no less, than if he had said, Receive, this is the Holy Ghost. Where now the Lord would have said in the supper: Take, eat my body, their speech would have even more credit than if he had said, "Take, eat, this is my body." Therefore the examples are all still of good value, not only to show that Scripture is accustomed to speak figuratively, but also that one may thereby be nicely introduced into the understanding of the nature of this Scripture, what it speaks, for it is not so strange as those who say of it, yes, even well to hear that the ancients, according to such understanding in the words of the Lord, afterwards had in common usage to call the sacrament the body of Christ. But some naughty people do not want to understand this, and from the time they read no more than Corpus Christi with the old teachers, they must have spoken of the essential body, and want to shout over everyone with the great pile of books: the church has kept it almost fifteen hundred years, as Eck and Faber at Baden 2) also cried out. But you, Christian reader, may well have heard what my, indeed the Christian reason; how weak all counter-accusations of the adversaries, how completely not strange I am found in the speech. Prepare now to hear the reason of the adversaries also; and is he then

1. Extract - Evade.
2. At the disputation in Baden in May 1526.

firmer than ours, according to impartial judgment, fall to them and not to me, indeed neither to them nor to me, but to the truth.

The other part.

44 The reason for the opinion of our opponents is not based on an article of faith, but they boast fiercely of the Word of God, which would truly be on their side. In spite of some creatures that they opposed it. Primarily they base themselves on the words: "This is my body", as they are found in the three evangelists Matthew, Marco and Luca, and also in the apostle Paul. Otherwise they still have three sayings from the tenth and eleventh chapters of the first epistle to the Corinthians; but where they lack the first reported saying, they are already shot with the other three. Therefore, let us look further at what the first one can do.

(45) They show the power of the saying very subtly, and it is no wonder if someone's eye is covered by many words. As far as I understand them, they hold it thus: They hold that bread is bread, as indeed it is, although the papal church has always believed that it is not bread, but only the things pertaining to bread, in which we are with one another against the papists, and among ourselves not against one another. But further they speak: Let the bread be as the word is that is spoken to the bread; and if the word is, "This is my body," which is given for you, let it follow that the bread is essentially the body, for the strengthening of consciences.

(46) They also say that in such words the body is wonderfully made up, so that whoever accepts the word and believes has and essentially holds the true body of Christ. For the word has power to carry the bodily body of Christ to us, and so it also has power to carry the body into the bread, and so the word holds the body in it, and brings it into the bread, and also brings it to us who hear it.

(47) They mitigate it thus: the body is distributed by the bread, not as it is bread, but as it has the word, "This is my body"; and as it is bread, it is the sign, but as it has the word, it is also the body. They prove this with many examples, namely, how the Word brings clothing and food, peace and forgiveness of sin, resurrection and God Himself. With these words they fill their whole book very close 2). The

3. i.e. almost, "even close" put by us instead of: "even yet".

616 16 Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx, 7K9-771. 617

Words have an appearance and favor, and a color is to be painted on them. For the divine word has cheaply a great favor. God is omnipotent. By the Word he created all things; by the Word he governs all things, and by the same we must be saved. Therefore also the marvelous things are to be admitted to them cheaply, and is much of the splendid speaking. But now listen to my answer to this, and you will see how firm their foundation is, and how it disappears like the wind, or they will also have to compare themselves to my faith.

Opposite answer.

(48) Let it be said beforehand that I do not speak against the omnipotence of God, for no one who knows that God exists denies it. Neither shall I speak of the eternal word that is with God, as John speaks. I also do not mean that one wanted to drive here with it, because it should not 1) ever. But of the power of the temporal spoken word, how far it extends, shall be spoken, because it admits to the same so much, even too much.

(49) First of all, I would like to hear from them, from what Scripture they would prove that Christ has given such power to the outward words, that they should have his body, and bring it 2) essentially to us. Did he ever sit and say, "Where you speak these words, they will have my body and offer it to you or to others who believe? I do not believe that there is a letter of this in all the Scriptures. Therefore the next way, as the words are spoken without probation, so let them go. Nor is it otherwise in the nature of words that they are able to do this, but they have the nature of bearing the meaning of those things which before in man's mind were an inward concept, or an inward word; for what the outward words have over the sound, they have from the inward mind and from the inward word. In the same way, in the inward words in the soul of man there is essentially the body, which inward words are nobler than the outward ones. But I have not yet heard this from them. Dear, to what or from where should the external word have such worthiness? We men have fellowship in the body and blood of Christ through faith, that man may be brought to heavenly worthiness through Christ. Will the

1. should - served.
2. "him" put by us instead of: in.

Words and bread finally also blessed? Who believes for them? We believe for ourselves, not for the words, nor for the bread or wine.

How? if ten Christian mutes were gathered together, who had the inward word and not the outward word, would they not think that they would be equally and perhaps more grateful for the signs?

(51) Here they would like to say: Well, it happens out of the divine order, because as God once said: "Let the earth bring forth grass and seed"; thus, according to His order it happens, and therefore it should be understood here, because it is the order of God, but as long as the words, that is my body, are spoken. Therefore, one does not have to be aware that the words are spoken by a man, but on divine order.

52 But with the answer a good part of their speech will already come off; and although some of them seek such intrigues, they will not be satisfied with it, and without Scripture will not believe them that this is God's order. They must not run to the words "this is my body", in which the order is not proclaimed, for they have taught the command 3) before. But where to take?

(53) But let us see what the words themselves can do, for we do not like to make a jugglery out of words.

(54) The words, "This is my body," are not bad historical words; for so it would not concern us, as little as that Christ went to the mountain of oil, in that he does not now go for it. But if there is to be a commandment and order of God in the words, show the word of the commandment. One does not say here: Bread, become my body! as of the creation of light the Lord says: "Let there be light!" and to the leper: "Be cleansed." And where there would already be a semblance of a commanding word, where would be the order for the future time, so that it should happen, as it is said in prophecies? Therefore, turn and interpret the words as you will, and they will not show themselves otherwise than that they are interpretative words of the ceremonies, then instituted by the Lord. Learn what the bread and wine mean, and the promise will be found in the sign and in the word, and the sign itself will be a visible word, that is, by its meaning it will proclaim the very thing that the word proclaims. For there is a promise that Christ's body will die for us,

3. Geheiß - command, commandment, as can be seen from § 54. In Zwingli, the word "command" means promise.

618II Writings Against Zwingli and His Followers 2c., W. xx, 771-774. 619

to bring us life, and his blood is shed for our sin. But because such words signify the signs, and are as it were a voice of the words, so also by the signs it is learned: for bread is broken, it shall eat; and wine is emptied, it shall drink; so to bring us into life, Christ's body should die; and still so must some have been led to believe in the Scriptures.

55 The promise is not given to bread or wine, but to us, but the signs are capable of words, that they may interpret and admonish. Therefore the Lord said: "This is to remember me. So it will not be a miraculous word, but a badly sanctified word, which after its institution has the same power as when it was spoken by Christ, to signify, admonish and remind. They also go on with Paul's saying to the Romans: "The gospel is the power of God, which saves all who believe in it. There the "is" must be interpreted essentially, that is, that they want to unite the power of God with the external word.

(56) And the preaching of the Gospel is no more than an instrument of God through which His mercy is revealed, as Paul's following words also testify, when he says: "In it is revealed the faith that is valid before God. How can we attribute this to the outward words, that the divine word has been inwrought into the outward? Since the apostles themselves want to be considered as nothing, confessing that they plant and water, and that they are nothing 1) but God, who gives the flourishing; he is the one. In the Scriptures the word is not known at all, and what is it that God works in all things all things? He is not therefore essentially the same things, or his instruments are not God. Nor does the example of a master serve this purpose, whom six hundred hear, and take his mind from his words, so ever sees his mind in words. I say that in words alone stand the signs and meaning of the things that are signified, and the mind is not essential in words.

If you want to know how it is, listen, and you may understand it differently. The inner man is created according to the image of God in his being, has a mind that inwardly gives birth to intelligibility, which is compared to the eternal words of God, through which inner speeches are made, which also have no more than images, so far as the mind now lets intelligible power work. Where now the will consents, so

1. "nothing" put by us instead of: not.

The external word also has this meaning, as do images. Now the outward words are nothing but signs of the inward ones, and are therefore called the mind. Even if this were true, it is still a false comparison to compare physical things with spiritual things. A word may be used to describe a thing that has never been, but should the body also be sent to such a place? Oh, it is not a directory!

So also that they say with much talk: In words be and be distributed peace, forgiveness of sin, yes, God Himself. I am glad that they are attacking it highly, perhaps it will be more detrimental to unity. I know well that the apostles proclaim all things in their words. But that the things in words drive here to the believers, I will not permit yet, because the honor is God. We also read of Jeremiah that he would plow up kingdoms and also plant them; but God works this, not in the words of the prophet, but by the power of the kings. He needs the prophets to proclaim such things; thus also the apostles exhorted. But the Spirit of God teaches those who mend their ways inwardly.

59 They still wanted to preserve the rotten ground with pleasure. But he may not resist. They say: "Faith is of the hearing", as Paul says Romans 10, and the word is a counter-throw of faith. Here, however, one wants to be the tool master. No one denies that preaching should not proceed from divine order. But why? So that man may hear the true teacher Christ inwardly, who teaches with the Word or long after it. For neither the outward word, nor any creature, nor painting, nor ceremony, nor sacrament, can actually teach; but to exhort one to go within himself and hear the inward teacher, who will show the goodness of God and his truth with the inward word, and thus give and increase faith. Many hear the outward voice, but they do not believe. To believe is to be taught by GOD and drawn by the Father. "No one will speak: Jesus Christ, but in the Holy Spirit"; who does it, to speak with the inward according to his will.

(60) But they think that the spirit is involved in the words and is not separated from them. If this were so, no teaching would be in vain, the spirit would not be idle. But the inward consistent word and the outward are as far apart as the law and grace. Now grace is not included in the law, and as it is spoken of outward words,

620 16 Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx. 774-777. 621

The word may also be used for ceremonies, paintings and sacraments. Although the word is more powerful, because it is closer to the inner word. However, all together 1) they may not teach the least, let alone do anything greater. Only to mean, to admonish and to remind is their office. Here you can see where the devil lies, who gives the sorcerers and superstitious people such insanity, that there are secret hidden forces in characters, signs and words. The suffragan bishops, priests and monks have helped a lot in the sorceries, yes, they themselves have been involved in them. Now at the opinion they would reach a good hand. Babylon must always have magicians, so that she will not recognize God. Jerusalem will put her hope in God, her Lord.

But one would like to cry out: "Do you see now where the devil is? he would like to stop all preaching, because if he pretends that the external word does not teach, then no book, no scripture, no ceremony, no priest, no teacher, no preacher is needed. This I contradict, for it will nevertheless be exceedingly necessary the preaching of the outward word of God and ceremonies, instituted by Christ, and their faithful ministers. Adam, our first father, was created in the image of God, in marvelous illumination of truth and sincerity; so that he was little less than the angels. But through sin the light in him and us has corroded, and we with him have fallen into deep mire, and become quite animal-like, in contempt and ignorance of divine things. Now, that we may be renewed again in the spirit of our minds, and be driven out of the mire, we have great need of spurs, goads and arrows; these are the trials of the cross, and the fervent preaching of the word. They make a man lively, so that he goes into himself, seeks the inner light of truth, by which man is enlightened. Where there is contempt for the Word and a cowardly life of lust without any cross, as is commonly the case with the rich and belly servants, and those who presume they know everything beforehand, God is not to blame, they want to be stuck in the cesspool and in the thick darkness. In particular, the word has a way of exhorting. Elijah's words burned as a torch. The words of the wise are as a sting. And there is no one on the earth too wise and prudent for him who does not need admonition and remembrance. For though the words do not teach us to speak of them, yet they find exhorting signs, which provoke us to seek in ourselves the things which are signified by the words;

1. with one - together, with each other.

Not that we learn them through them, but that we seek the truth in ourselves, and are thus taught. From words we may not ever understand further, because the sound and the voice, if we did not know before, inwardly in us, what external words meant. Inwardly, inwardly it must be accepted by faith.

(62) Therefore the outward word does not give faith, but Christ does; it does not comfort, Christ comforts; it does not honor, it does not enlighten; but our inward, secret, heavenly teacher is Christ; as Augustine famously established in the book of Magistro, and there put down all contradiction. So then it is certain that the outward word has no other power than to exhort and remind through meaning: how then will one admit to it higher effects and the marvelous thing? That is why all talk falls: that something is essentially included in words and brought about. And even less will it exist that the body or blood of Christ is given to the words and is brought by them into the bread and wine; so also their interpretation, which they desire to apply to the words of the Lord, will disappear.

Short rejection of three sayings of the adversaries.

63 Hereafter, since their first sentence may not stand according to the reported meaning, the other three may not stand either, to which we answer in the shortest way. The first sentence is found in 1 Cor. 10 and reads thus:

64. "The bread that we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" The saying is called by them a thunderbolt and a medicine; but let them boast and go forth with high words, a lump of wool beats harder. May one not have the fellowship of an absent thing in a sign: must therefore the corporeal and essential be in the sign? If ten heirs had a letter of testament before the judge and said: This letter which we hold behind us, is it not a community of the abandoned inheritance and treasure of our father? But should the letter be taken to mean that the field and the mats 3) are essential? should it be taken to mean that it says: "It is"? Will one strengthen the conscience with it? If we speak in this way, it will follow that we are essentially one body, my body your body and yours my body.

2. Shouldn't "teaches" be read?
3. Mats - meadows. In the old edition: painting.

622II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 777-779. 623

For it follows: "We many are One Bread and One Body, inasmuch as we are partakers of One Bread?" Would one not also like to cry out: are, are, are? But it would not be right to cry out, for when one deals with sacraments, one should take the interpretation that serves the sacraments, otherwise one will not lose the truth. Item, when he says hereafter: "Behold Israel according to the flesh, which eat sacrifices, are they not commoners of the altar?" Shall we then make the food of the altar also essentially an altar? According to the sacraments we testify that we have fellowship in the body of Christ, and if we do not lie, we have part in the body, for he is our own, he was born to us, he suffered for us; yes, he is also ours in heaven. Need of the essential inbroden 1) not at all. But if it is the case that we are in the church according to the sacraments, but without faith, we are still not in it, and have no true fellowship of the body of Christ; as John says of the anti-Christians, "They went out from us, and were not of us," therefore they have not truly had a part in the body of Christ. Judas may have received the sacrament, that is, the sign, but he may not have eaten the body of Christ, otherwise he would not have been a Judas, nor would he have died in eternity, John 6: "He that eateth of the bread shall live forever."

(65) It is also easy to answer the other saying. It is found in 1 Corinthians 11, and reads thus: "Whosoever eateth unworthily of this bread, or drinketh of the cup of the Lord, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But there is a splendid glorification and boasting: one may not pass over before the saying. One should be surprised that the matter is so certain that one goes along with such defiant words. But it should be no wonder; where equity is not enough, one must resort to great clamor, so that it may be seen that one can speak powerfully, even tyrannically; for they speak: there no one can muster up some semblance against it. Oh, not only appearance against it, there is no true appearance that can be obscured. Look no further than the words. Paul says, "eat of the bread," "become guilty of the body"; he does not say, eat the body, for he who eats the body cannot become guilty of the body. Christ says John 6: "He that eateth of my flesh, and drinketh of my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. He who eats of my flesh and drinks of my blood has eternal life.

1. So set by us instead: Inbrodes.

Blood, he abideth in me, and I in him." Now the Scripture does not indicate any other eating of the flesh and the blood. If the eating of the bread is not accompanied by the eating of the flesh, then there will be no eating, and the flesh will not be in the bread. Why should it be in the bread, if it is not there for the sake of eating? But if it is to be eaten, it cannot be otherwise than as the Scripture speaks of it.

(66) They say that the manner of speaking is a great constraint, that he who eats unworthily is guilty of that which he eats; therefore the body must be in the bread. Answer: Where sacraments and sanctified signs are spoken of, it does not compel speech: he who eats unworthily of the bread is unworthy beforehand. Therefore it is said afterwards: "Man proves himself, and so he eats of the bread. But how is he to prove himself? "He distinguishes the body of the Lord," that is, he eats the body of the Lord spiritually beforehand, and believes that the body, which died for him and suffered for him, is united to the Godhead, and tests himself whether this draws him to love his neighbor. If he finds such faith in himself, he may eat of the bread and be included in the number of the elect. But if he holds the body of Christ in such low esteem that he has less trust and love toward God, does less or leaves less on account of Christ, neither if any bad man had delivered him from temporal danger, he is ever unworthy to eat this bread; not for the sake of the bread, but for the sake of his inward unworthiness. So the punishment is not for eating, but for being unworthy, and yet he is like Judah, as if he were also a faithful disciple, and loved the Lord above others, but is nothing behind it; he is ever guilty of the body and blood, because it was shed for him in vain; such a one, if he had been there when Christ was killed, would also have helped to crucify him.

67 This is as far as the speech will go, for a sign may be dishonored, and the Lord will not let it go unpunished. For example, one who breaks a prince's messenger box, whose son has suffered much for the fatherland, and has painted such a good deed in the box. But the wronged man commits sacrilege by breaking the box. The prince takes the disgrace so much more highly, so much and greater the good deed proved to the country, and the offender becomes guilty of that which he has suffered. But it is not because it does not say here that he is guilty of suffering. For it is more explicit what is meant by the signs, namely, body and blood. One finds such speeches in Zech. 1:

62416 . Oeeolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx, 779-782. 625

"He that offendeth you offendeth the apple of mine eye." And to the disciples, "He that despiseth you despiseth me also." Item 1 Cor. 11: "The man who covers his head defiles his head," that is, Christ. Should Christ therefore be essentially in the head? Therefore they have not yet brought forth from the Scriptures and other writings. Well then, you may now yourself set both reasons and causes against each other. For myself, I see no solid reason on their side. So on our side is the article of the Christian faith, beside which one should not let anything break in.

The third part.

68 There are some traits in the preachers' booklet (which I would rather leave unanswered than let them proceed much, because I do not like to quarrel), which I will now also answer for in the truest way.

69. First, they make me a beginner of quarreling. I say: teaching the truth, apologizing, pointing to love in those who are eager for truth, there is no suspicion of quarreling. Now I have, and still desire, to be diligent about it; that some take offense at it, I cannot help, for I would even be silent.

70 Secondly, they say that I am again raising Carlstadt's, the hypocrite's, matter. I say: If Carlstadt is a hypocrite, I will let him answer to God, his writings have seemed too noisy to me; however, where he adheres to the truth, I will not leave it for his sake.

Third, they complain that they are counted among the popes. Answer: I wanted them both to keep right from the Sacrament. They 2) are therefore not popes.

The fourth: Because of idolatry and other abuses, they themselves confess that one has hardly sinned in this; why then should I not have done it? 3) Because of worship, they are not one with the thing itself. Pirkheimer wants to have the worship.

Fifthly, they accuse me of overthrowing the Scriptures, and the devil's wicked cunning is seen, who desires to make a sign and figure out of the body. And so it is brought to some people, as if I said that Christ had no true body at all.

74 You may well see, my Christian reader, whether it is not necessary for me to be responsible when I

1. go ahead - go there.
2. "You" put by us instead: Hie.
3. d. i. repeated.

with knowledge I have never spoken dishonestly of sacraments, and still less of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. And is not the Scripture overthrown, though I say that the bread of the Lord is a figure or signification of the body of Christ. Neither does it follow that the body of the Lord is not a true body, but a fanciful one. And that from this it may be drawn that sin is a figure of sin, hell is a figure of hell, and all things are nothing but figures, as they most grievously attract. They do not need the worries at all, they have more interpretation in the Scriptures, so here also is an interpretative speech. How is it then that they are so almost afraid here, and have done it nowhere else?

You say: Yes, it is nowhere written that the body should be called the figure of the body; I say: It is true, the body is not taken for a fantastic body, I do not say that either. But the way to interpret it in this place is not clumsy. Likewise Christ is nowhere called a figurative Christ, and yet nothing less, so in the interpretation, when Paul says, "The rock was Christ," it is interpreted that the rock was a figure of Christ; not that the name "figure" is attached to Christ, although in the interpretation it falls on the very word Christ. For the rock is the figure, and therefore Christ is not. So that in another example one may hear: If I point to a king's figure, and say that the painting is the king. It is not the opinion that the true king is therefore not a true king, but in the interpretation of the words, so it happens: The painting is a figure of the king; and is the king a king, and the painting a figure. That is ever clear. And as I also said: the painting is the king who won the battle; is not the opinion that a figure of a king won the battle; but the king who painted there won the battle. So also it is to be interpreted here, "This is the body which is given for you," that the true body, signified by the bread, is given in death for us, and therefore it does not follow that the bread is a figure given, or a figurative body. Behold, whence cometh a lamentation and a reproach?

The old teachers were not ignorant of the interpretation, although they commonly called this sacrament the body of the Lord, by which name I would also like to call it. 4) For the ancients, by the name of the sign, wanted to point from the sign to its meaning, and make a spiritual people, and still want to free the people.

4. In the old edition take; näme - name.

626II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 782-784. 627

No true Christian should be considered to have testified to himself by the bread alone, but also to be famous in that which is signified by the bread. It would be a great and unpleasant dishonor to be accused 1) of having received the bread or sacrament alone, for then he would also have fellowship with Judah. Therefore every believer wants to be famous for having received the body of Christ, even as Christians received it, through faith, that is, he wants to consider himself a believer. Therefore, it is not surprising that this sacrament, even because of its name, is so highly praised among the faithful. Indeed, all my writings and teachings should have made me free from suspicion. And because they speak of the devil's wiles, I must also report that the devil would gladly make something out of nothing, even a corpse out of a sign, and give words strange power. My opponents are watching, and they should know that in their opposition the gospel and the truth are also opposed 2). May God bring it to a good end. No authority may be disposed of by our preaching, for we teach obedience, patience, peace, love and voluntary service. Neither shall the true preachers dispose themselves, for we teach and point to Christ crucified, and lead away from the elements of this world to heavenly things.

Sixth, I am also accused of having attracted the old teachers in the same way. 3) I thereby desired to be superior to the evangelical preachers with their authority and reputation, and should give preference to human doctrine over divine doctrine. Thus, one can interpret all things in the most evil way; and this is done in a friendly humble opinion. If I had produced an opinion of my own, how would I have been scolded? And if I had not followed my head in interpreting the Scriptures, and had actually looked to the teacher's opinion, I would have been judged to have acted with malicious speed. What will become of the world afterwards? They say that one should interpret the words of the teachers by the words of Christ, and not again. It is a good opinion, where the. It is a good opinion, where the words of Christ would be brighter; but if a darkness is found in them, because of our stupidity and foolishness, and the gift of prophecy and interpretation is given to some of the fathers: why would I not perceive what they would have held in it? Now is

1. aufrupfte - moved up.
2. So put by us instead: Refuting.
3. equal sam - as if.

but the chip 4) almost completely in it, we bring something new; but that should not invent itself. Therefore I say that Christ's words and those of the old teachers agree, where they are rightly understood. However, some of the old ones, where they are read above, are more in line with the opinion of the adversaries, but basically not. Therefore St. Augustine and Chrysostom, attracted by them, are in good sense not contrary to me, as is found where they are also read in other places.

The Theophylactus, which is almost entirely Papal in the matter, is said to have unconnected me, although I brought it in Latin for the first time, as far as I know.

79] In the seventh, they urge that Paulum and Lucam be interpreted by Marcum and Matthäum. But this is a wrong order, to interpret the clearer by the darker. Paul and Lucas are much more understandable in many places.

80] Eighthly, they ask for stiff arguments and only the word of God, against which the gates of hell are not able to do anything, with the disregard of proven speech. Answer: If only proven speeches had been used, this complaint would have been justified. But with the articles of faith we should be sure enough, if we only believed it. Here I exhort them to look at Paul. Has he not also, together with the word of God, often used proven speech, and in himself not so mightily used blessedly? They also want to consider whether they do not sometimes let go with the word of God in their sermons some proven speech that does not go against the word of God? About this, the common proofs, also indicated above, are not so much zedauzen. 5) Doesn't it concern them to leave so many miracles in vain? Does it not concern them that the old fathers of our times did not know custom and insanity? Don't you think that in the physical presence no usefulness has been shown? Shall we not hear natural causes, where no miracle can be set? and therefore regard them as pagan? as that one body in two places, and two bodies in one place?

(81) Ninthly, they 6) hide the question whether the body of Christ is in humble or bodily form in the bread, and confess none of these; but they say that it is therein given and bestowed. But there my question still remains: whether he glorifies us or in a humble form there is a gift.

4. Span - dispute, discord.
5. "zedauzen" probably as much as: geringachten, verwerfen.
6. i.e., to hold in low esteem, to shun, to spurn, to reject.

628 16 Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx, 784-787. 629

The body of Christ is a gift, or both. They should also remember that the body of Christ is no less a gift and offering to believers absent than present.

82. tenthly, they make a mockery, when it is said to them that the remembrance of bodily presence is inferior to the remembrance of suffering, which is commanded us by God. And they mockingly answer, "Let someone break his teeth, so that he will not remember the bread. The mockery should not take place. Shall one compare the miraculous bread to the noblest body of Christ? Item, how honest would be the presence of Christ, which we should not remember? 1) How would the true believer refrain from doing this, whether they make a mockery of it or not!
83. eleventh: The sayings of Scripture do not have to apply to them, if they remain unresolved by them. The saying of John on the 5th still does something to them; 2) of which is said above. To the saying of John Cap. 3: "That which is of the flesh is flesh," they say that one should recognize the fleshly and spiritual rebirth. But with this they have not done justice to the saying, for it is a saying that extends in a common way. And it follows that bodily things feed the body, and spiritual things feed the soul. Now this is certain, that the body of Christ does not feed our body, but the soul is fed through faith into the body of Christ. Where then does the body of Christ go? When does it separate from the bread? does it separate before it enters the mouth or the body? ei, it is not eaten.

84 The saying in 2 Corinthians 5, "Though we know Christ, yet know we him not after the flesh," I know not that I have put it on for an argument; bring it to the natural sense. But nevertheless, if one has it for a common rule saying, it is also still against it. St. Augustine interprets it thus: "As soon as we have learned the work of salvation through the flesh of Christ, we should not hang on to the flesh, but we should rise to the higher things of the Godhead"; this is still against them.

85] Lastly, when it is said to them, how that one should seek heavenly things, they say, they seek not carnal things, though they desire to have the flesh in the bread essentially. But who will believe that one seeks a well and does not seek water?

86. these disgraceful words and clumsy have

1. "remember" put by us instead of: consider.
2. The meaning is good: the spell still gives them some trouble, gives them an opportunity to express themselves further.

Nevertheless, I would not like to leave them unanswered, even though they do not almost annoy me. If I knew something that would serve love and friendship, even unity, I would turn to my utmost diligence, so that complaint would not be on me, as far as that would be without harming the truth. Now, to come to a decision, I will look around to see if something would compare our two minds, so that peace could be achieved with the truth at some point, otherwise there would be enough crosses.

The fourth part.

I ask of God, through Christ, the Prince of Peace, if it is possible, that I may reach peaceful agreement on the matter of the Sacrament, not only with those who have written against me, but also with the popes; and, in my opinion, means may be found therein which will stand with Christ and the truth. But there would have to fall, first of all, a dispute of words, as soon as one would have taken the right opinion.

On the other hand, what are foolish fables and fictitious dreams should remain unchallenged.

Thirdly, it is not allowed to establish a new article of faith in it. Which would be superior to Christian freedom.

90 Fourthly, that the sacraments be considered sacraments. For where one remains on the way, I do not know how peace would be with us. Now I will see in my adversary's words what serves peace.

91 You have given me thanks, as I hope, without mockery, for two parables given by me, from which the sense of Christ's words may be taken: one, of keys; the other, of royal scepter; and are not at one stroke. The parables thus bring them forth.

92. If one gives someone the keys to the house, one also gives him the power to the house, and thus one makes the keys, which are an instrument to open the house, the 3) power of the house. Without doubt, however, not because the keys are an instrument, but because from them it is said to someone: See, here you have the power to the house. There the keys are not alone, and remain the authority of the house, not as the keys are, but as the word is said to them, and they have received the word. Why then would it not be permitted to speak thus of the bread and wine of the Lord's supper, that the bread, when it has the word, is the true body of Christ?
93. "the" put by us instead of: to the.

630II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 78--78p. 631

These words of theirs they carry out almost throughout the whole book, and so they say: That the multitude and multiplicity of miraculous signs cease; thus they say that the bread is the body, as it has the word, and therefore the bread of the supper, as it is the body of Christ, by virtue of the word, has nothing at all of the bodily incidental things, but retains the same incidental things in it and in it, as it is bread. Thus they also compare it to the brazen serpent; thus they say: that the body and the blood are written in the words; thus they 1) speak of baptism, and of other things more.

Now God wanted it to remain with the words, so the chip would have a whole end, and would be a beautiful explanation of the words of Christ and the sacraments. For it is ever true, as St. Augustine said: "If the word goes to the element, or to matter, it becomes a sacrament." Which is also the speech of the old bishop Irenaei, when he says: "Like the earthly bread, when it takes upon itself the invocation of God, it is not a badly common bread, but a Eucharistia; which consists of two things, namely, of the earthly and the heavenly." Here Sacrament is called Eucharistia, the matter or element the earthly; the Word and thanksgiving the heavenly. Therefore, from its most honest part, that is, from the Word and thanksgiving, it has the name that Sacrament is called Eucharistia.

95 But this is a hindrance to many who will not be content with what has been reported; for them the bread must be essentially the body, and completely, as if I were saying, "Christ is God"; that is, throwing the axe too far. They are not justified in adding the word essential to the words of the Lord: "This is my body. Well then, I hope that they will allow themselves to be invented with good will; for if not, this would help a great deal of evil, and a strange intrusion into the Scriptures would take place.

(96) The likeness of keys does not lead us to say that the key is essentially a power, but that through it, as a sign, the power given is recognized by the word spoken from the key, namely, that one says, "Here you have the power. There it should also exist that the words are not given more than is given to them in themselves. Now the outward word can do no more than signify, and in the meaning admonish, or remind, as said before. But that it is to be

1. "them" put by us instead of: him.
2. gang-comes.

It brings everything to the one to whom it is spoken. Now the word "body" is not the body, but signifies the body; and the speech, "This is my body," does not hold in it essentially, neither the bread, nor the body, nor their joining together essentially. But it holds the meaning in it; therefore, if it is said or added to the bread, and the bread and the speech become a sacrament, the sacrament has its meaning, as do the words.

(97) Now here will be the very power of the sacraments, which is that of words, namely, that they signify, and in signification exhort, that we seek in us that which they signify. For in the memory of man are the images of the things signified by word and sacraments, and if they are sought within, they are found; or they are brought to our knowledge, as we have known before. Therefore the Lord said, "It is good to remember"; and so the Lord wants the bread to be a memorial sign. It would not be so if it did not signify. Hence it is that the sacraments are called by scholars visible words, as well as the Scriptures. For as the word is to the hearing, so the sacraments are to the eyes; images which are carried by the senses into the mind, and there are recognized. This is not to say, however, that the signs or words are essentially that which they signify, but that they are meaning.

So, according to the essence of what sacraments are, we would be well satisfied. But now, for the sake of use and enjoyment, I have invented some words for them, but if we were to stay with them, we would come to one mind. For they speak: We eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, not so that we bite the body with our teeth and drink it with our hands. For they say, "We eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, not so that we bite the body with our teeth and break it with our hands, as it is written in the recantation of Berengarius; but we act upon the bread, as it is bread, by breaking it, eating it, and crushing it with our teeth; but we receive the body in virtue of these words: "This is my body. As one has spoken of it quite beautifully: That which we eat goes into the body, that which we believe goes into the soul. So they say. Oh, if one were to leave it at that, and understand the words, the matter would be simple.

(99) This is a Christian saying, for bread is indeed bread, and is meat for the belly; but the promise of the word, by which it becomes a sacrament, if one believes it; that is, if one believes that Christ died for our sins, and by the shedding of his blood was sufficient for us: this comes into the soul, and feeds it; for the promise of the word is a sacrament.

632 16 Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. W. xx, 739-792. 633

The bread, if it is believed, is the food of the soul. But the delusion that the bread is essentially the body of Christ is not the true food of the soul; it leaves man as he is and does not make him more foolish and evil. But to know and believe by the words and signs that God's love for us is so great that He gave His Son to die for us, that rejoices and feeds and keeps the soul in life. This is spiritual feeding and enjoyment, and through it people become better and more spiritual. And therefore Christ Himself is food or bread of life to our souls, which came down from heaven; if God would that we would teach in such a simple and careful way! The noble body of Christ, dwelling in the most honest place, will not ever enter our belly and maggot sack; but with his word and with his promise he will comfort and refresh the soul, which is just as much as feeding. For by such consolation, when it is found in us, man is strengthened, becomes fervent in love, and exercises himself in all kinds of good works.

In the end, if we were to understand one another about the giving of the testament of the forgiveness of sins and the acceptance of grace, the truth would be more peaceful. They say that the forgiveness of sins was obtained on the cross, but that it is distributed, offered, and given in the sacraments and words when the gospel is preached.

But I will rather speak thus, and hope more truly and clearly: From eternity, before the creation of heaven and earth, the testament was given out of divine mercy to the children of God, ordained for eternal salvation and inscribed in the book of life. No one with understanding can deny this.

In time, from Adam until the last righteous man, such a will of divine alliance 1) with the faithful has been proclaimed and inaugurated by the outward word; as also in the Lord's supper at this sacrament: so it is not presented otherwise, but by proclamation, what is decreed and ordained for all the faithful, by the true God, before all time.

103. further, the most sufficient assurance of such a will has been accomplished at one time through the shedding of Christ's blood and his fervent sacrifice on the cross on which our sins are hung, and the handwriting has been erased. But these things are accepted by us, and taken as our own, if we believe the assurance in the cross, which for death's sake is called cheap, to be true.

1. So set by us instead: Verbindniß.

becomes a testament, believe. We may not fix the faith from divine providence, which before the creation of the world chooses and decrees what belongs to each one. For divine secrets are ignorant to the flesh. And even though the Father's mercy is faithfully proclaimed through the Word or Sacrament, as a testamentary letter, the flesh is still so timid about the abomination of sin that it does not fully believe, and does not want to be assured of conscience until the attached seal and the testament, accomplished through the highly meritorious death of Christ, is recognized by it.

How is it then to be done to him? Thus: where I hear 2) not only the word of God's gracious will, considered from eternity, opened in time; but also sealed with the death of His only begotten Son. For if there is faith, the words of the promise will gladden and comfort the soul, which is nothing else than feeding. But this does not require the bodily presence of Christ, which the opposing party himself confesses that the soul receives, even as often as the word is proclaimed in the Gospel and accepted with faith. But that the promise is accepted is thus: in the outward sound of the words or outward appearance or matter of the sacraments, the promise is not essentially attached. For, as stated above, both words and sacraments are signs according to their nature, and from their office they admonish or remind us of divine mercy and promise. Which, if it is thus communicated to us through the outward gospel or sacrament, and we come within ourselves and listen to the enlightening word with which Christ teaches His own, and opens to them the goodness of the Father, there is the true effect of the Holy Spirit, who brings trust and faith in God, together with the subsequent joys, consolations, and fruits of faith. There then is the reception and acceptance of the graces and the testament and covenant with God. Those who have been taught about the anointing and have learned from the Scriptures will testify to this. 3) For this is the order of God, to deal beautifully with human stupidity.

105 Therefore it would be fine and good, without all danger, and I think, permitted by both parts, to send themselves to the reception of the sacrament, as to the hearing of the gospel; because, after

2. So put by us instead of: hear.
3. "erturen" probably as much as "erdauren" - to accept, to receive, to put up with.

634II . writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W.xx, 792 f. 635

According to the legend, the Gospel is the most important thing in the sacrament, and the only difference is that in the sacraments the neighbor is served. For the reception of the sacraments is to be done for the neighbor, for the testimony of the things that man possesses inwardly, by the effect of the divine word. O God, that they would be practiced in such a way, and remain unmeasured 1); as this happens in many ways through the anti-Christian Baalish Mass servants. Their ungodly ways are even more harmful, than if one had the Word of God faithfully, and no Sacrament any more; for with them neither faith nor love can be felt, which should be practiced especially and diligently, because we want to accept the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus in hearing the Word, through faith. So also

1. "unbemaßget" untainted, not contaminated.

The lamentation is silent, as if we were deprived of our body, our treasure and our food, because in this way alone our salvation is wrought and such goods are obtained. But I pray to our God that we may thus be able to receive the word, so that we may practice love diligently. For I know that the very things which Paul received from the Lord and taught us, or gave us, are just as many. Wherefore, how soon would it make us of one mind! Yes, if word controversy and superstition were a thing of the past! And would God that we were awakened by the rote admonitions of the holy words or signs, and thus truly learned to recognize Christ as a Master, so that all honor might be given to Him, and to no creature, at all times! For he is at the right hand of God the Father, ruling and upholding all that is. To Him be honor and glory forever and ever, Amen.

Here are to be looked up two letters against which the following writing of Oecolampad is directed, viz:

Theobald Billican's letter to Urban Rhegius, of the words of the Lord's Supper and the different opinions about it. 1525.

Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1922.

Urban Rhegius' reply to Theobald Billicanus. December 18, 1525.

Ibid. Col. 1945.

*17. Johann Oecolampad's responsibility against Theobald Billicanus. )

Feb. 1, 1526.

Johannes Oecolampadius wishes Diebolten Billicano, Predicanten zu > Nördlingen, peace and grace from Christ.

Dear brother, I guess my letters, of which there is more than one now, which I sent you some time ago, as one good friend to another, are convenient witnesses of how much you have counted with me so far. But now that 2) this your

2. "now" put by us instead of "and".

letter has come to light, in which you find me, I think, 3) unvirtuous, and but reject the Christian opinion of the Sacrament, as if it were not the most Christian, in it, I might be considered to be acting contrary to my office and use, if I left it unreported,

3. "I" put by us instead of: not. Oecolampad inserts this "halt ich" more often. According to what is asserted in the 9 against the end, the "not" seems to us not to be permissible.

*) This writing was published together with the "Antisyngramma" and the two following sermons in 1526 (without indication of the place) under the title: XpoloMlieu 4o. Oseolumpnclii. The special title of this writing is: .44 Tüeodnlciuin Uillwunuin; Huinum in Verdis eosnue ulisnuin ssnsurn intsrnnü The translation is by Ludwig Hetzer. That this translation was already published in 1525 (Walch, alte Ausgabe, Vol. XX, Einl. p. 44) is probably an error, as is evident from the date of this writing.

63617 . oecolampad's responsibility vs. billicanus. W. xx, 793-796. 637

how much I would have liked your writing. For my part, I would have been content to open my mind to you with special letters, like one benefactor to another (as happened about more than once before); now, however, business requires that I act publicly and with you in particular (as you have also done).

My previous book "on the true understanding of the words of the Lord's Supper" did not require anyone by name on the plan. But you offer me politely with the Tertulliano. Well then, I am still undoubted in the matter 1) (as the business of truth is serious, and is not made secret with mockery of the false, 2) nor with admonition of those who look only at human glory), and give account of my faith willingly, 1 Peter 3, secretly and publicly, where the occasion of the matter allows it, and especially to those who require it of me. It is not that I am not moved to silence, or that I am moved to it by contentiousness; no, my conscience gives evidence before Christ that I am hostile to contentiousness. But I write for the reason that I ever think it would be detrimental to the truth if I let it slip unaccountably. I pray Christ that your honor and reputation for teaching may not diminish but increase from this. If it should turn out otherwise, that would be exceedingly difficult for me to hear; for I do not undertake such antics, which I know to be foreign to Christian love. As far as I know your doctrine, it is irreproachable in all other articles and worthy of all glory, but in this matter of the sacrament I may not agree with you, unless it were Christian to write another and confess another with my mouth; this I will not do. I should also not remain silent about it, since it is undoubted with me, from the memory of holy scriptures and the Spirit of God, that the truth is on our side. The fact that you recently let it go out publicly in your writings, I think it flows from a diligence to fathom the truth. I would also prefer to regard it as anything else, neither that it happened out of free will. For as I understand you, I do not yet completely stink with you. So I have not yet misjudged you at all, 3) because I hope that as soon as and 4) you will confess our way, that is, our opinion of the Sacrament to be the more certain one, that you will move over to us in our camps from now on without delay.

1. Marginal gloss: The truth does not lie.
2. "Verrummpfer" put by us instead of "Verumpfern".

Verrümpfer - "smoocher".

3. d. i. abandoned.
4. and - as.
5. It does not have the opinion that your good fame and praise will be made. No, it is my desire that your praise be even greater; and this will certainly happen if the truth shines even brighter in this chip, 5) although there is no doubt in my mind that you have long ago despised all the greed, 6) as human glory 2c. By the truth, I would consider it honest if the truth prevailed and I were overcome. Now God forbid that I should be a cause for the desecration of the excellent pounds and the manifold gifts that the Lord has bestowed upon you. May God forbid that all your goodness should wither because of my writing, whether you already stumble in this one article according to the ways of men, or that your practice, which you need according to holy scripture, should be diminished because of me, or that your ardor in preserving the praise of Christ should be considered colder or weaker, or that your bravery, which you need against the enemies of the faith, should be weakened and praised less because of this; may God forbid. I grant you all honors and good things. Yes, I desire that all the gifts of Christ remain unharmed and untouched in you.

4 Well, you worry, if you do not write, that you do not do enough for the evangelical ministry; and this has aroused you to write. This is also what urges me to answer you. I think that those who either do not understand or do not read the next book I have written on the right natural understanding of the night meal, and yet condemn it and judge about it in an unwarranted manner (without doubt because they are still prisoners of their previous rusty opinion and delusion), these, I think, should and must be overcome with patience, with sedan chairs and with silence (because they allow themselves to be told neither wise nor better); or else one must at least suffer with them. But against those who publicly have books printed, with which they require us to be told of our faith, as you and other Swabian preachers have done; unless this is done out of superfluous elf or out of courtly courtesy, I do not know how I would answer for it if I said nothing to your letter.

5. I know that I have wronged you, so be pious, where I have known truth, as that would be; so it will be a service to you, if I

5. glazed - shining. - Marginal gloss: This is the desire and triumph of all Christians.
6. Gaucherie - foolishness. - "sämliche" - such. Cf.

§ 7 of this writing.

638II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, rss-rse. 639

I will not be deterred from my task (to open the recognized truth) by any dangers. It is no less, it has frightened me that the thing with the first book has not turned out to be the very best. However, it will not deter me. Indeed, I hoped that the next book, in which I had compiled the opinion of the very old teachers about the Sacrament, would be written much more chastely than that my friends should scold it. I had persuaded myself, which is even more, that it would also cut off all cause for my angry adversaries to be angry with me, if they, eight me, wanted to restrain themselves from anger; considering that I had such a great stir out of love in the same book, and used so few abusive words in it, which I also want to do this time, even if I would not yet obtain from my patrons that they accept this writing of mine of the opinion in which it is written. Yes, I say, since I ever thought that I had shunned all restraint, there have nevertheless been some who have not been ashamed 1) to make of me, a peace-seeker, a rebel and a zealot; of a lover of truth, a blasphemer; of a faithful expounder of the old teachers, a dissolver. So that I may also answer them, you give me good instruction. I will also answer them plainly, and set forth my innocence apart from some deceit and strife, bad as it is in himself. God forbid that we should be reproached for what has been thrown at our adversaries, which has almost completely ruined their cause.

We do not want to fight with quarrels, it is up to old wicked women. We don't want to deal with wicked wiles; the children of the world shall need it. The full cones 2) shall mock the people. The papists, they shall call the tyrants' rages. Let the Jews stop up their ears, if one wants to teach them. The sophists shall practice useless tapering 3) and chatter. The worldly wise have their smooth words for them. Let the magicians blind the eyes of the sighted. We have none to do. What is it? That we should take care to testify that we are believers in Christ and disciples of Christ, and that our Master, Jesus Christ, who is merciful to our sins and pours out his heartfelt mercy on us, should do this so that it may serve the glory of his name. This is what I desire.

1. Marginal gloss: This is our gratitude!
2. Cones - drunkards.
3. "Tabernacle" is synonymous with "chatter". Compare § 14 of the following scripture.

I ask you, dear brother, not to deny me all the patience to listen that you also require from others.

(8) Well then, let him know that this suspicion (of which you take much pains, on which you also begin your letter, and with which you also conclude it),' to write to you and to me, is an original one. Namely, this suspicion that we do not bring into sacred Scripture the understanding that it requires of itself, but that which pleases us. This suspicion you do for and for. I am no less hostile to this main vice (namely, giving holy scripture an alien mind), 6) nor even to the greatest vice that may be on the face of the earth. Rather, what would that be but mixing wine with water, as the innkeepers did, of whom the prophet Isaiah writes? Isaiah 5: Or what would it be but to set up abominations and idols in the house of the LORD, as Jeremiah saith? Jer. 7. In sum, what would it be different, neither to counterfeit the word of God? It would be nothing else, but my conscience does not condemn me, yes, it absolves me, because I am innocent of the main sin. But we want to consider this deal even more diligently, so that it may become clear whether you or I are following the strange understanding of the Scriptures. 7) And this is the whole sum and action of this writing of mine.

9. It may be that I have given a cause for this suspicion in that I have considered the Sacrament trade according to the 8) writings of the ancient teachers. This is also the reason why you call me a supporter of Tertulliani, 9) who, I think, is not too important a teacher. But how is it that you do not call me more an assistant Augustini, who is still more clearly of my opinion, and whose name would be less suspicious? Yes, why did you not name me as more of a supporter of the general Christian church, which also agrees with us that neither blood nor flesh is essential in the sacrament, as we have declared and still want to declare? Have we not long since renounced the name of the sect and given leave? I want to be Tertullian just as lützel 10) as you are Lutheran or Carlstädtian, although we do not reject them if they teach something sound; which you also do, as I can see, because you do not yet despise the old fathers at all. Not the less
10. i.e. such, the same.
11. Urhab - beginning, origin. Compare § 41 of the previous scripture.
12. Marginal gloss: Forging scripture is a grave sin.
13. nachhetschen - to follow.
14. "the" put by us instead of "the."
15. Marginal gloss: They are rhetorical pebbles.
16. "eben als lützel" - just as little.

640 17 Oecolampad's responsibility against Billicanus. W. xx, rss-Mi. 641

You should not have been hurt by the diligent reading of the old teachers' sayings, 1) in which 2) more work is needed, neither courting 3). We have also never placed our hopes in the old teachers. But since I could notice that their great reputation was held in higher esteem by many people, and that everything they said was regarded as true; item, that to this day they are less suspicious of interpreting the Scriptures, that they are also generally regarded as more faithful than the new teachers, it was necessary for me not to keep quiet about it, but to indicate freely that the old fathers together with the Christian church were not against us. I am well aware that I have not completely failed you in this, although I have not yet served you according to my will, as I would have liked. Therefore, I will now use the old teachers' testimonies more moderately, neither pre-painting, because you refer to the very words of the Lord's Supper, and besides that you block your ears, and do not want to hear the convenient statements, the good causes and counter-reproaches. All the reasons that Christ may not be in the bread are of no value to you. The secondary arguments with which a Christian may be told that bread may not be flesh, that wine may not be blood, these you advance. You do not pay any attention to the unkindnesses that result from your opinion, and in other places you can beware of them. The idle, useless and unbelievable heap of so many miracles, with many other inconsistencies, does not concern you (as you say).

10 Now, even if you do not respect all these things, I will not consider you the less worthy; indeed, you will be all the more dear to me in that case that you call me to the word of God, thinking that one should fight only with the exquisite weapons of the spirit, that is, with the loud word of God and not with the teachers.

(11) But why should I be upset, since even the words of the supper protect me and are superior to you? I trust God, you will see that even in this case our cause will be more steadfast, and your cause almost weak, yes, even out.

I have presented enough writings before, which have not yet been approached as they should be; nevertheless, it is a greater pleasure for me to deal with the Scriptures, neither with the old teachers. Cause, which did not want to air baß,

1. Side note: Why old teachers are needed.
2. "the" put by us instead of "their".
3. "hurt" - bumped, annoyed.

to drink from the well neither from the murky streams?

(13) Therefore, let us submit ourselves simply, so that this suspicion may be removed from your heart and from the hearts of other people.

Before and before God the Lord pardoned me, I myself was a great spiritualist beyond measure, and so superstitious that I also contradicted the spirit of God that spoke in me, so that I would not oppose men all around me. As often as I read the order of the words of the Lord's Supper (which we are also dealing with here) in the Evangelists, it always occurred to me that there might be another little tale hidden under the bark, but so I knocked it out of my heart with a little struggle and thought, just as even today the majority of people think: "Hey, I thought, that's not supposed to be 5) anything, don't you want to be wittier than other people? You must believe that other people believe 2c., and so I have experienced enough that it is a great pity to be too much and without need to be pusillanimous.

15 Dear, what do you think that I sacrificed for a mind to the Lord in the temple? Oh, wretched me! I sacrificed my own mind to him. I also sacrificed a foreign mind to him. Therefore it was my own, because it was not almost Christian. 6) Yes, it was also my own for the same reason, because I am also a man, and am just in the habit of sinning (neither because I am prevented by the grace of the Lord), in which other men are also. I often shamed myself for it, before 7) I learned what was hidden in the hearts of other people, and thought: Are you alone rejected from the presence of the Lord, that you would set yourself against it, against which no one else sets himself? Ah, God, how did I now so thickly 8) subject myself to overcome my weakness by reading the old teachers' Scriptures? But how little I initially found in the evangelists, so that my weakness would be helped. The same happened to me when I visited the fathers for this reason. I often found it written: corpus Domini, sanguis Domini, the body of the

4. "all-around"--complementary.
5. "shall" --- applies, serves. Compare § 20 of the previous writing.
6. Marginal gloss: Everything that comes from flesh is all false.
7. "before then" put by us instead of: before and.
8. "thick"--often.

642II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, soi-8os. 643

The blood of the Lord, but how it was a body, and how or in what way it was a blood, was discovered miraculously. And even if it was discovered at times, it was done in an exceedingly careless manner. And therefore I must not speak that I brought my own mind into the writing. But if I say that I have brought a foreign mind into it, I am not lying; and that for two reasons. The first: I only hang on other people's judgment. The other: My opinion of the sacrament was not in accordance with the Holy Spirit. So if someone brings into the Scriptures a sense or an understanding that he has borrowed from men, he does not bring anything different, nor anything wrong, although countless thousands of angels would be of the opinion. What else was this strange mind neither a human interpretation, which interpretation the divine scriptures, as Peter testifies, do not accept? What did I do differently then, neither that I built on the sand? Nothing else everywhere, for if I had found a different faith among men, I too would have said something different. However, when I realized that even the noble people, on whom special attention is paid, 1) teach falsely in many articles, and also allow themselves to be deceived: then their plastered face no longer counted for so much with me. The truth has never appeared clearer to me before. It was also unnecessary for me to bring the papal understanding (that Christ is essentially in the bread) into the Scriptures. No, it was not necessary, for the shining light came to meet me, which I might well have resisted, 2) if I had thought to turn back into darkness; I might well do so yet. But I do not want to do it. Why? Therefore, I am frightened by the terrible saying to the Hebrews in the 6th and 10th chapter, which is reproached to me there by Paulo, that it is an unavoidable sin to knowingly fall from the recognized light into darkness.

I would not bring anything foreign into the Scriptures by force, as if I were to bohlete it in with a noose or like a Scripture poacher, 3) God give it rhyme or not. No, I do not want to do that. I want to share that with others, so that I am helped to understand the sacrament correctly. There are still some who have

1. Marginal gloss: So it goes, if one does not *) look at God's honor.
2. entrathen" put by us instead of: errathen.
3. Marginal gloss: xx xxxxxxxxx x Hi-vMwox [i.e. like a

Slinger or a bully. - In the old edition:

*) "not" put by us instead of "only".

They want to prove in writing that they have itched to write me out of this deal with an evil conscience, and this they will do once they prove with gossip that the truth is a lie and the lies are truth. 4) But the things are not suitable here, because they are secrets of the hearts; but on the day of revelation, that is, at the last judgment, it will have power to prove that they do me too short and wrong. And therefore I will bring forward with more plain evidence, who they are that bring in the temple of the Lord unsullied and foreign men, that is, I will prove who they are that bring in a strange mind into the Scriptures.

It is true that Christ has indicated a purpose that cannot be 5) concealed, how one should act and interpret the Scriptures, since he was falsely accused of being a destroyer of the law. How will we therefore sufficiently thank him that he has strengthened our ears, which now have to hear the same things, with his injured ears because of this disgraceful speech? What is the same purpose? It is, Christ says John 5: "I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness would not be true." He also speaks in another place: "How can you believe, who do not seek the honor that flows from the one God? Again John 7: "My doctrine is not mine, it is his who sent me. If any man will obey his doctrine, he shall judge the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of Him who sent him is true, and in him is no unrighteousness." From these words of Christ, we will almost certainly determine which of us is more upright 7) and honest in dealing with the Scriptures. For if two were to fight with each other, and the one were to give much to God, the other little to Him, the first, who looks much to God's glory, undoubtedly gives the Scriptures their right natural understanding, but the other, who now and then balances the Scriptures for his own benefit, just like a horse-deceiver (ins-nAo). For by the truth, since God is the origin of the Holy Spirit of holy writings, he will also give his favor to it, so that it may serve for his glory, for he wants his

4. Marginal gloss: hoc est, nunquam.
5. verschupfen ---- reject.
6. "Like" ----- just such things.
7. i.e. more sincere.
8. i.e. after that.

644 17 Oecolampad's responsibility against Billicanus. W. xx, 8vs-"x;. 645

Have glory unharmed before all things. And the same will be the natural, and not an innumerable, that is, not a human sense. Example: We read how Christ the Lord could do no deed in his homeland except 1) to heal a few sick people by laying his hands on them. This saying now reported, Marc. 6, if it were to be understood badly according to the letter and according to human understanding, portrays Christ to us as if he were not omnipotent; that is, that his power was overcome by the malice of other men, that he could not do deeds where and how much he wanted, so that they were against him. It would have to follow that those who are unbelieving by nature would remain in unbelief. But the Spirit, who does not let the glory of God perish, improves such ungodly suspicions (that Christ is not omnipotent) from the beginning, and ascribes to God that which is most proper, and teaches that this is the highest power of God, that he may not do anything improper. For if GOD would have him do something unseemly, he would still sin, and that would be nothing other than sinning, and thus as much as not liking anything. Now the Spirit of God interprets the above text, that Christ might not have done any deed in His Father's country, in such a way that He might not have done any sign on account of it, as follows more closely in the text; namely, on account of their great unbelief, because of which Christ is astonished. For because they despised the greater gifts, which were given them by attendance, and by the doctrine of Christ, the lesser gifts were also rightly withheld from them. Yes, I say, as the evangelist says, Matt. 25: Those who did evil with the lesser things were not worthy to be set over the greater. So then the Holy Spirit wants to say that the ungodliness of unbelievers is such a great evil that they are unworthy of God's doing anything good to them, and it is not Christ's place to use his goodwill against all ungrateful people. If it is not due to him, it is certain that it is impossible for God to do it. And that is actually being omnipotent, although the external letter denies it.

16 This understanding will also not be contrary to the Holy Spirit, if we understand by this above-mentioned saying, that Christ had a displeasure because of the unbelievable hostility of his countrymen, that he was not able to do what he did not have a desire to do. In this way

1. Set by us instead of "neither".
2. sämliche-----solche.

God also speaks through Isaiah the prophet Cap. 1: "I do not like," he says, "the iniquity and the boasting." Christ speaks in Matthew chapter 17: "O faithless generation, how long must I be with you? how long must I tolerate you?" It is also our custom to speak that if we do not desire or do not deserve a thing, we speak it: I may not do it. Namely, even the right-minded have to speak in the usage, saying: We do not like that, if we are not able to do it rightly. From this it follows in the same way, how in the first example of Christ the outward words, that he might not do deeds, gave the quarrelsome heathen cause to despise Christ, and how the Spirit guides him who is able to magnify the glory of God on the right path;

17 This is also the form it takes in our trade. How? So: The literal sense, saying: "This is my body", speaks to a small mind, that it is a rotten body of Christ; 3) but the spirit rubs his ear, and leads us to higher understanding, admonishing that we neither speak nor hold anything of Christ, which is not 4) honest.

(18) That Christ has ascended with his holy body into the heavens, and is seated there at the right hand of the Father in the highest goods, and that therefore he will also be hereafter, serves and shows the glory of Christ. Our prayer should be more that Christ with his divine power may be with us and helpful, and not that he may be with us bodily. Oh, it is much more honorable for our Lord Jesus Christ not to be with us in the flesh, and yet to assist us with his power, than for him to be with us in the flesh without some enjoyment which we do not have before. I pray thee, what increase is there in the glory of Christ, if we had his flesh and blood even as thou wilt in the sacrament? Or tell me, what benefit do we derive from it? 5) That is why I say that everything from which the godly receive enjoyment and benefit serves and is sufficient for divine glory; but from the bodily attendance no benefit arises for them. The Spirit of God publicly cries out against this, that the fleshly meal is no use at all. From this it follows that this will not be a human self-conceived mind, which confesses and claims to be a truth, against which no article of faith disputes, and which reaches more to the glory of Christ.

3. Marginal gloss: So Christ in the bread, is a true disgrace to him, because he uses nothing in it.
4. "not" set by us instead of: nothing.
5. Marginal gloss: I would also like to hear that.

64ßII- Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger rc-. W. xx. Sos-sos. 647

19. Who among the ancient teachers has ever taken it for an article of faith? Which bishop ever swore that he would teach this for an article of faith, since he was made a bishop? None ever. Until the papa, who did not like to be called a bishop 1) came 2). Who has ever undertaken to teach this article (understand that the bread is flesh and the wine is blood) before the papal church, according to its pleasure in the Scriptures, has taken to courage, 3) and given its own dreams for certain sightings of the Lord. Woe to us if we presume to teach this article, which is not for the glory or honor of God. For thus says Malachias Cap. 2: And now, O you priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear it, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, then will I send malediction among you.

20 If you want to speak: Yes, dear Oecolampadi, the wolves also clothe themselves with the sheepskin, for we usually vault all of the Lord's name or glory. Also the notarii raise their instruments in worldly affairs in the name of the Lord. Caiphas has also reproached God's name. What then will judge the matter between me and you? My no will be considered as much as your yes. Matth. 20.

21st Answer. Dear brother, I know well that there is hardly anyone who is concerned with divine business who does not also want to be considered an excellent, pious and faithful expounder of divine honors. We all have Christ in our mouths, but with different faith. But which is the pure faith, it becomes clear when one compares it with other serene writings, or when one compares it with unbelief. 4) For this reason, it is better to trust in the faithful and faithful proclaimers of divine honor. Therefore it is better to bring faith and unbelief out into the light of the scriptures. Since there are many dark and obscure sayings in the holy Scriptures, those who desire to teach have this as a common rule, that they always use the clearer sayings to reach the more obscure sayings of the Scriptures.

Here you may thank me for this opinion of mine, and base your opinion of the Sacrament from the beginning on the Lord's word "The Sacrament".

1. Pappe - poppy flower, or puppet - woolly seedling, which the wind carries away.
2. Marginal gloss: kontttex, kulpikex [i.e. flesh maker. ?ulpa is the fleshy part of the animal body).
3. Willingness to be brave - willingness to be brave.
4. d. n bright.

is my body", Matth. 26, Marc. 14, Luc. 22, and you already want to shout (as is the custom) as if you had won: Ho! Ho! what need is there for further testimony? Why darken clear writing with darkness? Nothing clearer can be said than this: "This is my body. Now hold still, the triumph will be even greater, if you will also judge my opinion according to the string of words, "This is my body". How will I be considered to have missed so far, if I call the sacrament a bread and the body of Christ a memorial, and the Lord says, "This is my body." How will this rhyme? So they speak on your side. I know well that you will also hear me patiently.

speak thus:

(23) There are some things, as soon as 5) they are heard, that are quite clear and evident, and yet unknown, neither of which is good for one who desires to come to the truth. Now if anyone desires to fathom the truth, he will not be dismayed at this, nor will he lie straight thus at the beginning of the words. Oh no! What does he do then? He will remember the admonition of the wise Solomon, Ecclesiastes 7, saying: "The end of speech is better than the beginning. Since it seems advisable to a reasonable man to do so in daily affairs, how much more is it necessary in divine affairs to pay attention to the end of speech! It is true that if a careless person were to catch these dry words of the Lord, "This is my body," just according to their bad common sense, he would swear that the matter was already over, that the body of Christ was also bread 2c. But if he were to look with open eyes (as is usually said) at other writings, which can be regarded as if they were contrary to each other, and if he were to consider all the circumstances, then he would certainly see that this, which he had only just said was clear, was something hidden. That it is so, I will give a good example of another thing. The words that Christ spoke to his mother on the cross were bright and clear words that no one can deny: "Woman, behold your son," John 19. Now if there were someone who did not know that Mary was an eternal virgin, and John was a son of Zebedee, whom he had with another woman, would he not from that moment on take a reason to fight from these few words of Christ, which are brighter than the sun: John would have been born of Mary the Virgin? Yes,

5. "as" put by us instead of: and.

648 17. oeeolampad's responsibility against billicanus. W.xx, ">8-8n. 649

Of course, if he would fight, and especially if he knew that Christ would not lie, John 14, such a one would not say from the beginning (as some of your people do): Behold, these are exceedingly bright and pure words of Christ: "Woman, behold, your son. There is no need for much glossing or guessing here, the words are clear, Christ has said it. Would not the opinion of the struggling man, that John was a son of Mary, also be confirmed from the words Christ says thereupon, that she calls Christ a woman and not mother, and again says to John: "Behold, thy mother!"? I think so. But if he should learn and realize that Mary is a virgin, and that John had another mother, he would not reproach the Holy Spirit for not having dealt freely with his things in public, even though he had no gloss on them. He would also confess that in this speech of Christ: "Woman, behold, your son", and: "Behold, your mother", there was a figure of speech. The opinion will have it also in the matter of which we are dealing now. The words of Christ, "This is my body," are cheerful words to one who pays no attention to the articles of faith, and who otherwise passes by all circumstances, item, who does not inquire further what the Scriptures say about them in other places. But if the whole order of things, what goes before and after, is decreed together, and if one holds other Scriptures against these words, "This is My body," yes, if one considers the glory of Christ, 1) then it becomes apparent that it is a dishonor to the Spirit of God to lie thus bitingly on the outer words, and now to quarrel about the letter, regardless of other interpretation 2) of Scriptures raised against it; and therefore one should and must not only interpret the dark ones with the words presented, but one must also put other scriptures next to them and thus explain them. One must also not disregard all other circumstances. 3) I believe that you will not go against this rule, and that you will not accept other passages of Scripture that are contrary to it, nor will you accept only a little saying. For though you find it written in four places, "This is my body," yet they stand just as if they were found in only one place, so that nothing can be gleaned from them that will serve a clearer understanding. Should we then reduce all other writings to this

1. Marginal gloss: This you consider, are [dul a Christian, the glory of Christ.
2. "gehebten" put by us instead of: gehabten. - rushed - held.
3. Marginal gloss: A good rule to the industrious.

some saying, "This is my body", penetrate and bend? No, we have not been taught that way.

(24) We would also mock if we wanted to prove that these words, "This is my body," were not figurative speech, but that the words "this is" must be understood essentially, and that the word "body" remains in its natural, proper meaning, that is, that it is called a true, essential body, and we would teach that: so we come to the point where it was begun, saying, "The bread has the word. Is not this that which was desired at the beginning to prove to you, that the bread was given the glory, that it began to be the body of Christ? Yes, it is truly so, you shall teach it with scriptures! Do you think that this is what you mean when you say, "The bread receives the words in such a way that it is, or becomes, the essential body of Christ, and that it does not only mean the body? No, we are not to be fenced in this way. If, however, it is fair and honest to fight in this way, then we will fight in the same way, 4) that the drinking vessel is blood, and we do not want to allow any figure here, since the vessel is taken for that which is in the vessel, as the cup for the wine. But we want to speak: The drinking vessel has received the word, therefore it is blood; as you also speak of bread.

(25) Now what benefit would we get from the disputation? Quarrels and all other carnal things that are not supposed to 5) happen. What do I care if they cry out a hundred times: templum Domini! Temple of the Lord, temple of the Lord, Jer. 7. or also, which is just like the shouting: verbum Domini: the word of the Lord, the word of the Lord: 6) "This is my body." Nothing everywhere concerns me, it is a different matter, that here in the words the purity, which the spirit requires, is not sought. On the other hand, nothing is dearer to me, neither if one dealt with things honestly without deceit; but that will not hold anywhere. But let this be said to others, not to you, in passing. We will take what we have promised, namely, that it will come to light from the evangelists, even though we tear apart holy Scripture from our own self-conceived understanding. But we shall then come to the truth itself, when we come to the hidden Scriptures through the more public Scriptures. Now even the things in holy scripture are the darker ones, which are the first to be understood.

4. Marginal gloss: That would be a word fight.
5. "Not supposed to" will also be taken here, as in § 14 of this writing, for: not belonging here, serving nothing, proving nothing.
6. Marginal gloss: or: the church, the church!

650II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, sn-8i3. 651

are written. Note, 1) The prophets teach just what Moses taught, but they do not teach hidden and intricate things. The evangelists teach just what the prophets taught; that is, that God's word neither appears nor grows, but is and remains the same everywhere, yet the evangelists' teaching is full of light and clearer than the prophets' teaching. It was also noted that those who came after them always wrote things more comprehensibly, and made up for what was omitted by the first ones.

26 Well, who has been a more excellent teacher than Paul, who has been able to stand against all men, and has become all things to all? 1 Cor. 7. he is an instrument of Christ, Apost. 9; a teacher of the Gentiles, 1 Tim. 2; and a teacher of the wise and the foolish, Rom. 1. Who has been more learned, neither he who heard mysteries in the third heaven? 2 Corinthians 12: No one. Nevertheless, the matter may be considered that Paul himself in his subsequent epistles had improved a spiritual and a holy indiscipline, 1 Thess. 4. Is it not true that it was not wrong for him to have confused some who were slow of understanding with the first epistle to the Thessalonians, and to have given them a spark of error, as if the day of the Lord were already present? which could be seen in other of his epistles, where he wants living men to wait with fear for the future of the Lord, and promises those who remain until the future that they will run to meet the Lord, 2 Thessalonians 1. 1 Yes, I say, the error was not far, where he would not have admonished them with the other epistle that follows, of the signs that will be before the future of the Lord.

27 Thus the majesty of the things written before and first is great, but nevertheless it is not so great that it rejects the interpretation of the descendants who have attained the same spirit. Now everyone thinks that Matthew and Marcus wrote good, strong, brave things in the first place, and from the undoubted Holy Spirit of God; nevertheless, the things of the second part, which Lucas, John and Paul wrote later, are the clearer. As this is evident in many other things, so it is also evident in the things concerning the evening meal, in which the Holy Spirit faithfully comes to the aid of our slowness. Let us be of good cheer, there is still almost enough healing resin.

1. Marginal gloss: Do not despise this rule.
2. ferr == far; "not ferr missing" == not far missing.

(The apostles, our fathers, have put enough great treasures behind us, as long as we, as righteous children, see what they teach and leave the quarreling behind.

(28) Although, I say, more light is found in those who are written last; for such things are not soon settled by the adversaries in the controversy, that they leave them alone: Well then, we will start right from him who wrote first, as one speaks; yes, I say, at Matthew we will begin the trade, and see whether our, that is, the general Christian opinion of the Sacrament may be sufficiently understood and grasped. For, by the truth, if I read Matthew only about the supper, I will not be hurt, and yet I am not particularly versed in the Scriptures. Yes, it strengthens me a lot, even though nothing further is said about the words "This is my body", neither is this written in the text, and if one did not pay attention to the description of the other evangelists. Cause, the Christian sense opens also from the same some place 3) in Matthew, and does not allow that a foreign mind creeps in against someone, he would be completely sleepy, or overmastered with delusions. And it is quite a wonder how the wicked have so completely taken over. But why am I surprised? Our hypocrisy and ungodliness 4) have caused much, much more serious things. 5) Now God wanted it to be over.

Neither must we despise the things that have passed away before the supper, for the truth is much more fully revealed from the circumstances of which some pay no attention; for which reason it is not strange if they ever fall. Now Matthew writes about this:

From the night meal from Matthaeo.

On the first day of sweet bread they came to him, and said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover, or the passover, or the passover? And he said, Go ye into the city unto one, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; with thee will I keep the passover, or the passover, with my disciples. And the disciples have

3. Here we have omitted "in" which is too much.
4. i.e. godlessness.
5. Marginal gloss: O HErr, verleih uns noch Gnad.
6. d. i. simply.

652 17. oeeolampad's responsibility against billicanus. W. xx. 8is-si6. 653

They have done as Jesus commanded them, and have prepared the Passover or the Paschal Lamb. So now play from Matthew.

(30) I note here what the disciples understood by the name "Passover," transition, or paschal lamb. 1) No doubt they understood it to mean the lamb eaten with great festivity. And so they were immediately admonished by the name, what the Hebrew little word Passover, which we call the paschal lamb, held for a secret in itself, and from where it had taken the name. It was also not a common name of all lambs. No! for if at that time the father of the house had once met many lambs together in a heap, he would not have called them all Uebergang or Paschal Lamb, 2) No! But the one lamb, which was taken to the Begängniß of the old lamb, the same lamb was called in Hebrew Passover, in good German, Uebergang or paschal lamb, 1 Chron. 31.

(31) Why was he thus spoken of? Because it was a sign of the previous lamb, which had recently been slaughtered in Egypt. It is true that the wedding day on which the lamb was eaten was also called the Passover, but the day takes its name from the lamb more than the lamb takes its name from the day. In addition the scripture calls the day, or the feast, also often with the name Uebergang, or paschal lamb. As it is written in Deuteronomy 34: "Nothing of the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover shall remain until morning. But that the Lamb is called the Passover is certain: as it is said in Exodus 12, 2 Chronicles 30, 35. 30, 35: They have offered up the Passover. By the little word Passover one understands the lamb, and one cannot understand the day with it; cause who has ever slaughtered the day or the feast? Just so it is in the place here in Matthew, where the disciples say: Where wilt thou that we prepare the passover, to eat the passover, or the passover lamb?" No one can interpret this to mean that the disciples meant to eat the wedding day. Or, if it is ever so awkward for us to interpret it, let us also make a wedding day out of the sweet bread and the bitter salts. Why is that? Because we also read: "the day of sweet bread", Matth. 26.

Thirty-two, that thou mayest remember the feast where the lamb was eaten,

1. Marginal gloss: Passover, transition, paschal lamb, is one like the other.
2. Side note: Read the history of Exodus 12.

If you give the name of the transition because of the lamb and the memory of the transition, you are doing the right thing. But if you turn it around, and want to call the lamb, or the memory of the once happened transition in Egypt after the feast, that would not be right. The Holy Spirit interprets this Hebrew word Passover for the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, and does not interpret it for the day on which the sacrifice of the Lord was kept. But how is the lamb a sacrifice of the transition? and what sacrifice is it? The Spirit also gives this to understand. How? Thus: It is a sacrifice of the passing over, or of the lamb that was sacrificed when the Lord passed over the houses of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt, and smote the houses of Egypt, but redeemed our houses. Here the children do not ask what kind of day it is, but they ask what kind of ceremonies, what kind of clergy and what kind of service it is, because of which this day is so honest and wedding day. And so the little word Passover, in German Uebergang or paschal lamb, right at the beginning has taken on a figure of speech, that the following lambs, which were eaten from year to year, and which were called the Uebergang, signify and indicate the first lamb, which was sacrificed in Egypt because of the Uebergang. Therefore, the disciples of Christ began to use the name Passover or Paschal Lamb.

33. After the disciples have undertaken to kill the lamb, which was called the crossover, they have certainly not gained a small cause to remember the great goods, which were given to the fathers in Egypt. They themselves may have helped them with this exercise of faith, so that they may be provided with even greater good deeds for the sake of divine mercy. Just as the fathers had faith in pleasing God in bodily external things, in that they provided themselves to God from the small temporal help of a greater one. No doubt (as it is customary) they greeted the lamb devoutly: "Oh, you innocent and simple little animal, how well you have protected the tents of our forefathers in Egypt from the plague with your blood! You unarmed warrior, you have averted the terrible devastating 4) angel, because your blood was sprinkled on the house thresholds. Thou dear little beast, thou hast been a healing physician with thy blood to our firstborn, to whom death was imminent. O thou art
34. "now" put by us instead of "and".
35. "devastating" put by us instead of: exalting.

654- ll. Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 8ia-sis. 655

We have been a long-sought avenger against the Egyptians, who have been repaid sevenfold for afflicting us so miserably with glue carrying and brick making, Exodus 1. We have no doubt that God has set you apart for yet hidden secrets, of which we know nothing yet, that you will prepare for us a wedding day, Exodus 2c.

34 Truly it is not unlike him that such words were used. Yet the disciples were not so grossly ignorant, or so ignorant of figurative speech, as to suppose that the lamb which had been sacrificed so many years ago in the land of Egypt had not been born again. Nevertheless, the disciples were not so grossly ignorant or so ignorant of figurative speech that they would have assumed that the lamb that had been sacrificed in Egypt so many years ago had come back to the earth by a strange Pythagorean rebirth and imagination, so that the very lamb to which they perhaps used such words, which they also killed, would be the very lamb that had been slaughtered in Egypt so many years ago. So they were not so foolish as to think that another lamb was killed and eaten in the visible lamb, and thus two lambs, the one that was seen, the other that was eaten long ago in Egypt. No, the disciples did not fantasize such things.

35 When they remembered the words of the Lord, who said in Matthew 26, "My time is at hand" (or how could they have forgotten the words, since they were commanded to tell the father of the house?), they realized that Christ was to be killed, for they had often been reminded of it, even though they did not yet understand the business of the resurrection and the calling of the Gentiles. Therefore it is similar to the truth, they thought to themselves: "Behold, if our Lord Christ must be put to death, he is truly no less innocent than this same lamb is. Now, by the truth, he is just as meek as the little lamb 2c.

36. I put it thus: If the disciples of Christ had also used 2) such (as now reported) imagination or contemplation, when they slaughtered the lamb, which Christ wanted to eat with them: nevertheless they did not say that Christ was in the lamb, or that he was present, who was still far from them on the way, although the lamb which they slaughtered was a holy sign; which John indeed recognized, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," John 1:1. 1. I also respect that it is Jeremiah, Jer. 11, Isaiah, Isaiah 16, and David,

1. neißwen - approximately.
2. In the old edition: joch.

Ps. 117, was also known. Paul, who uses figurative expressions at will, speaks beautifully in 1 Corinthians 5: "Christ our Passover," or our Easter and Passover, "is offered up. It is also known who say Revelation 5: "Thou art his worth, that thou shouldest receive the book with his seals: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us by thy blood." It is no less, the things now reported are not particularly solid prefabrication of the thing, nevertheless they fit on our nobleness. For those who want to study the holy Scriptures must be accustomed to figurative speeches.

37 Now let us look further at what Matthew says about these things, for there is not a jot or tittle, but it guides and leads us, even as by the hand, to the true understanding.

Now when evening was come, he sat at meat with the twelve, and as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were greatly distressed, and every one of them said unto him, Lord, is it I? He answered, saying, He that putteth his hand into the dish with me, the same shall betray me. The Son of Man leads away as it is written; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be good for him if the man had never been born. Judas answered him that betrayed him, and said: Rabbi, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast spoken it.

38 Here one wants to speak: What does this rhyme with the interpretation of the following words? Doesn't Matthew discover the wicked 3) Judea with this place? Answer: It rhymes exceedingly well with it. But before 4) I show how it rhymes, let us consider how those who kept the passage had a habit. When they held the crossing, they ate of it quickly, 2 Mosi 12; they stood, protected by their feet; they carried staves in their hands; they needed unheated 5) bread, and sour salts, with which they contemplated the escape and the exit from Egypt. We are not to consider that they used the outward signs without understanding, and that they did not keep the things for which they were set up and appointed, because Matthew says, "He was at the table with the disciples.

3. Godless - godlessness.
4. "because" put by us instead of "and".
5. "ungeheflet" - without yeast, unleavened.

65617th Oecolampad's Responsibility v. BNicanus. W. xx, 818-Wi. 657

For the Scriptures indicate by the same saying that they prepared to keep the supper; some of them may have stood by it. There is no need for words: if they had omitted something from the noble commandments of the law at the same hour that Judas was paying attention to them, Christ would not have let it be good, and therefore they, who otherwise kept all things as they should, did not omit without care even the things that they were especially commanded to do, such as thanksgiving and the remembrance of the trade that they were commanded to do. They admittedly admonished themselves, one to the other, or Christ himself reminded them with the words spoken by Moses, Exodus 12, saying: "Eat, this is the Passover of the Lord". He does not call them the Day, but the Passover, that is, he calls them to eat the Lamb. Perhaps he still admonished them with clearer words, thus: Effet, that is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, since he passed by the houses of the children of Israel, smiting the Egyptians and redeeming our houses. Although in the words now reported there is a figurative speech, it did not hinder the disciples, because they could well realize that this lamb, which they ate with each other at that time, was now a sacrifice of the long ago passed over. That is so much, the disciples well understood that it should be sacrificed for a remembrance and a sign of the lamb killed before in the land of Egypt, and how the angel (which they should remember) struck the houses of Egypt, and thus the houses of the children of Israel passed by unpunished, having seen the blood of the lamb.

(39) Dear one, what do those who presume to teach us from the Hebrew the name Passover from the text of Moses throw at us, as if it were for use, and the lamb was not the Passover 1)? Do we not read according to the Hebrew: 2) "And when your children shall say unto you, What manner of service have ye? then ye shall say: It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, which passed over the houses of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt," Ex. 12. So much from the Hebrew text. Behold, here in this Hebrew text are two little words, the first is called "Abodah", in German: Gottesdienst; the other is called "Hu", in German: der, oder das. And these two little words cannot be drawn together, so that one would want to speak; the little word Passover, transition, is drawn to the service of God; would it not be more fitting

1. genämt = called.
2. Marginal gloss: We must be seen to be learned.

interpreted to the little word "shee", in German, "Lämmlein"? 3) Which is a sacrifice of the transgression to the Lord. Note also the mystery of who is the pure lamb without change, which should be a male, chosen and of age. And that is why the lamb itself, even the transition, is called by figurative speech. 4) And so, after 5) the disciples had performed the old custom, they sat down at the table to have the supper of wine and bread, that they might atone for hunger. In this, Jesus began to admonish his betrayer, and to open his suffering, which he had formerly blown in many ways about their ears; for it was exceedingly profitable for us, that his suffering was much commanded. From this also it comes that the prophets have foretold so much the suffering of Christ. John called him "a lamb of God", Joh. 1. Nicodemus heard of him, "he should be lifted up like the bronze serpent in the wilderness", Joh. 3. Peter, after he proclaimed him a son of God, also heard the secrets of the suffering, Matth. 16. Moses and Elijah also talked with each other on the mountain about the death of Christ, Matth. 17. Marc. 9. Luc. 9. Christ also foretold them of His suffering, not just one journey, when He set His face against Jerusalem, and purposed to go there, Luc. 13; namely, when the Pharisees accused Him of Herodi's deceitfulness, when He gave sight to the blind man, Joh. 9. Luc. 18; when He answered the sons of Zebedee, whether they would drink the cup that He would drink? Matth. 20; when he wept over the city of Jerusalem, Luc. 19; when he was anointed by Mary, Matth. 26, Marc. 14; when he taught about the wedding day in Jerusalem, that it must be raised, and the grain would not bear fruit, but would die or rot, as before, Joh. 12; item, when he indicated in parables that the temple would have to be dissolved, Matth. 26, Marc. 14, Joh. 2, and the son, the heir of the vineyard, would have to be killed, Marc. 12. In short, the closer the time of his suffering was, the less he hid it from them. And so he repeats it here in the supper, as if he were saying, "Behold, my beloved disciples, we are eating one lamb with another. Another lamb, much more gentle and much more innocent, must be killed. Yes, you will be horrified at the act, as if it were an atrocious thing, for it is a very great act, and it becomes man,

3. Marginal gloss: This belongs to the scholars.
4. Marginal gloss: Christ is the Lamb.
5. "now" put by us instead of: and.
6. "verjach" ----- verjahte, known.

658II . Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, "21-023. 659

who prepares it, to the greatest evil. But nevertheless you see, the thing is so certain, that also one of you, who eat with me from one bowl, will betray me, a lamb, and give me up to death. However, this is how it must be, because the scriptures refer to it, that they foretell how the betrayers and death will come upon me; because it is thus provided by the Father, for which reason it will also be shot for great salvation, and will bring you much more benefit neither the unreasonable lamb's death.

40 While the disciples still ate, and thus persisted in the memory of the old custom, and so the suffering was commanded to their hearts even more deeply. Jesus takes the bread, and when he has given thanks, he breaks it and gives it to the disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this is my body.

41 Christ now taught the disciples with words and sacramental signs, which he had often taught them with words alone; and that is why the things we see with our eyes tend to move our hearts more than those we only hear. 1) And for this reason Christ takes bread, which is food that neither a lamb may be given, and which is more needed; with which bread Christ commanded the death of another lamb, that is, with which he commanded his own death, which is the most innocent lamb of all. He gave thanks, and broke it. Why? Because he indicated that he accepts the breaking, that is, the death of his own body with thanksgiving. And so that 2) the meaning of the sign would not be unknown to them, he also taught them with the word, saying, "Take, eat, this is my body." What other understanding would the disciples have of these words of Christ than this, as if he had said to them, "Look up, this is how my body will be treated: it will be betrayed and broken, that is, my body will be killed"? And as they saw that he dealt with the bread, the same did they also learn in themselves, from the words of Christ, that it must be fulfilled in the body of Christ. 3) By the truth, this is a clear proclamation of the Passion, as hardly any can be clearer 4). But how useful and how salutary his death would be for them,

1. Marginal gloss: Read Jeremiam at the 19th chapter of the port he threw.
2. "so that" is put by us instead of: herewith.
3. Marginal gloss: Here you find a true mind of Sacrainent.
4. In the old edition: "Leides" and "klärerer".

they learned in thanksgiving, and in that he commanded them to take it and eat it. Now if the death of Christ were not fruitful, and if Christ were not at all lost to us, who are commanded in the breaking of bread, we should also be afraid of the bread. But because the death of Christ gives us life, we eat the bread, which is a witness of the goodness of Christ, with great thankfulness and with great desire of our hearts. Just as it was a pleasure to eat of the lamb, so it is delightful for believers to eat of the bread of the Lord. Do you see, dear brother, how the meaning becomes clear, if one lifts the attached order of the words according to spiritual understanding against it? Do you see how no foreign sense breaks in here, if one does not despise the sense that is subtly simple? But if there is another sense or understanding behind it, it has not yet been opened to us; for this reason we are not allowed to teach it, but we disguise it as an alien foreign understanding. 6) What understanding is this that you have? What kind of mind is this, if you say, "this is my body", that is, in the bread there is the body of the Lord, or, the bread is the essential body of Christ? Now how can we imagine such a final 7) mind? Do you think that the apostles themselves imagined such a thing with the Passover, or with the paschal lamb? and said that the lamb, which was killed many years ago in Egypt, was and is in the lamb, which they then slaughtered at the feast for a sacrifice of the Lord's Passover? Oh woe! No, of course, they did not think so. Nor would it have been possible for God to have brought the same lamb that was slaughtered so many years ago in Egypt into the lamb that they kill year after year in remembrance, when he brings the body of Christ into the bread. 8) The lamb that they kill year after year in remembrance is the lamb that they bring into the bread. 9) It is certain that the apostles were not of this opinion. This will be an indisputable proof that they were neither mute nor fishes in such a great matter. If they knew and recognized that he was bodily in the bread, they were still negligent in all their service and thanksgiving, and did not keep it honest enough. But yet a pious simple heart easily confesses what the apostles learned by bread. I will open the bargain with a more skillful example than I think. Listen:

5. In the old edition: wunfam.
6. spurn - reject.
7. letzen - reversed, "letzen" put by us instead of: last.
8. Year by year.
9. Marginal gloss: If you are a Christian, do not despise it.

660 17. oecolampad'sresponsibility against billicanus. W. xx, 823-82." 661

Philip, the king, received a ring from his father Carl, on which the image of Caroli is engraved; he receives the same ring as a sign that he is dear to his father Carl and that he received his kingdom from him. Philip shows the same ring above the table to all his relatives and says: "Do you see Carl, my father, who gave me the kingdom and from whom I was born? So Philip calls the ring "Carl," because the image of Caroli, the great benefactor, is engraved on the ring. Now he lies there and wants to die; he shows his children a penny and says: You, my children, do you see Carl, who gave you the kingdom and from whom you were born? None of them who have seen the ring will say that Carolus has risen from the dead and has been brought into the ring. No; but they will all recognize this, as it is yes, that this ring is now a pledge 1) and a pledge of love, also a monument of good deeds. Well, if he kept this ring again, and drew out another new one, which no one had seen before, on which his image would be, and offered it around, saying, Behold, here I am, Philip; or, Behold, this is my face, have this in remembrance of me. Then some of his children would cry out and argue, "Hey, my father is a true man (unless he is omnipotent in that case), he said that the image on the ring is Philip, and therefore it must be Philip, my father, because he said it. Wouldn't the child be nonsensical? Would it not bring a strange mind? Yes, truly. And again, for what reason are those who recognize the commanded remembrance in the memorial called the rude ones? The same opinion has it with the things that got lost in the night meal. How so? First of all, the lamb was brought forth as a memorial of the redemption from the Egyptian prison. Now all the world knows well that it was not the lamb that had been slaughtered in Egypt long ago, but that it was no longer either a sign or a sacrament, that is, a signification; just as the ring of Caroli is. After that, when they are reported with the sign, they are also given the bread, which is the body of Christ, as a memorial of the new and greater good deeds. What is needed is to turn with a different new mind from time to time, and to speak differently of the bread that is the body,

1. Letze - Farewell.

neither one speaks of the lamb that is the transition?

(43) Now, if it is not a vexation to thee, hear another example: I show you an apple in the mirror, which lies over against the mirror, and say to you: Do you see the apple that grew on this tree or on that tree? Now no one will ever be so imprudent, unless he is even an idiot, who thinks that this figure of the apple, which I show you in the mirror, has grown neißwen 2) on a tree. Just so, no one will say that this lamb, although it is the transition, is the lamb that was killed recently in Egypt; nevertheless, this present lamb is the one that is not present and was killed many times ago, a figure.

44 Accordingly, if one showed a grape in another mirror, with the words: Behold, the grape there in the mirror gives wine, and the same makes the people drunk; which would now be such a fantasist, who would not let himself be reported with the grape, and would have been reported earlier with the apple in the mirror. Here perhaps someone would like to speak again and say: Yes, dear Oecolampadi, you speak well of the ring, but there is not such an image in the bread as there is in the ring or mirror: then I say yes to it; it is no less. Cause, it is bread by its own nature, that it feeds, and therefore it is given and broken, that it should feed. But that the bread is called a body, a believer will soon learn what the bread teaches to keep from the body. Namely, that it feeds the faithful with its breaking, that is, with its dying, and keeps them alive.

(45) Christ might also have put a lamb in the place of the bread. I also think it would not have been difficult for him if he had pointed to another lamb, saying: "This is my body. This would be just as much as saying, "Behold, as the lamb which you have just eaten, the lamb which was slaughtered in Egypt, and the sacrifice, is a memorial: so also the lamb which I now set before you to eat, my body which is slain for you, is a memorial. Since he did not take a lamb, but bread in his hands, and commanded it with words first spoken, it should not seem heavier to us, even if he had taken a lamb. It was also due to him that he chose bread, as a thing that may well be obtained, and is not inconvenient to signify his suffering. For just as a lamb is stung, that it may be eaten, so shall it be eaten.

2. Compare § 34; neißwen - about.

662 II. writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W.xx, sss-Ws. 663

also broke the bread, that it might be eaten. See also this: the first lamb, which was killed in Egypt, would not have been so powerful by its own nature, as it is not yet, that it could have driven the destroying angel from the houses of the Israelites. No; but by the favorable will of God, who promised it, it protected the Israelites, and yet was only a figure of him who protected them. Yes, the same lamb does not protect. But our Lamb, who takes away the sins of the world, John 1, in whom the Father is well pleased, Matt. 3, 17, Mark 9, the same Lamb protects and shields, even though the rude would not know about him. The lamb was eaten; the blood of the lamb sprinkled the posts and house thresholds, Ex 12, the redemption happened; and although the redemption from Egypt only happened once, this custom is eternal: the people did not have to be taken out of Egypt even once; the firstborn of the Egyptians did not have to be destroyed even once; nevertheless the custom remained.

46 What does the lamb do? What was it good for? Answer: It brought with it the memory of things foretold, and admonishes the faithful to persevere in God's mercy. At the same time, just as the Lamb would not have been so powerful in itself, so also the body (in so far as it was only flesh) would not have been so powerful in itself that it would have redeemed us, even if it had been killed, if it had not been the very body of Christ, and offered up to the heavenly Father of good will in the Holy Spirit, Isaiah 53. Now the body of Christ has not been sacrificed more than once, but has finished us with eternal redemption, Heb. 9, and there is no need for the angels of the Lord to kill the firstborn again; that is to say, there is no need for Christ to overcome the world and the princes of darkness once more. And so, as far as redemption is concerned, the Lamb was a figure or a signifier of the body of Christ, which he faithfully displayed. But as far as spiritual training is concerned, the lamb of our supper was only a foreshadowing, and prepared the way for it. When we speak of redemption, we do not say that the body of Christ is only a figure of another redemption of ours, or of another Christ for whom we are still waiting. No, it is far that we call the body of Christ only a figurative body. For "Christ is the truth," John 14, he also has the truth.

1. oneest - once.

He himself begat of his own true body, which was to be crucified and betrayed. But if one looks at the custom of the ceremonies, or at the spiritual training, then it is different. How? In the same way that the lamb which they ate together every year at a certain time renewed the memory of the other absent lamb, which was no longer present, so also the bread in the supper is a mystery, that is, a sacrament of the true body of Christ, which is seated up there in heaven. And as there was no more destroyer after the Israelites came out of Egypt, yes, even in the supper when they ate the lamb there was no visible angel, although they had a firm faith in the future redemption: just so also in the supper the body of Christ was not in the bread, nor the bread the body, but the true body sat there with them, in which body the angel of the great council, who became true man, Isa. 9, appeared, and on the same night he defeated the world and overcame it. The above things are ever clear, and should not hinder anyone. We also believe that the spiritual Egyptians, that is, all our resistors, have been overcome; and we eat the Lord's supper in remembrance of this.

47 There is one more example, which also serves to explain the matter. This, the raised serpent in the wilderness, would not have healed a man by itself, through its power; but that it healed someone, happened because God had promised it. She did not receive any inherent power at that time either. So also God, the Word, did not unite with the serpent; so that one might say that the serpent was the essential Word. But God works his work, and the serpent remains for a long time.

What did the serpent do? 3) It did nothing but preserve the memory of God's good deeds. But the foolish people, inclined to idolatry, thought that the erected serpent was something more than a bronze figure of a serpent, and thought that there was a hidden divine power in it. 4) The serpent was not a figure of a serpent. Then the good pious king Ezekiel, out of divine zeal, went to it, and sharpened 5) the serpent to them, so that he would muffle the idolatry. 2 Kings 18.

49 Look, this is how it happened with the bread, little by little, that it was taken for one's own use.

2. "now" put by us instead of: and.
3. Marginal gloss: The serpent's office.
4. neißwan - about.
5. "schleizt" - destroyed. 2 Kings 18, 4 - "dennen" == "from then on". Cf. § 58 of this scripture.

664 17 Oecolampad's responsibility against Billicanus. W. xx, 828-330. 665

But if it is not to be taken for a memorial of the body, it is not to be taken for a memorial of the body. No doubt, if Christ had praised the figure of the cross, there would be no end to idolatry, since you will find many bad people who ever think that the wood and the image of the cross are capable of many things, and yet they have no word from God about it. Where does it come from? Therefore, the devil 1) fakes them so that he may extinguish the true glory of the cross. 2)

It is certain that the ignorant people, whom one first begins to teach the Christian faith, were not taught in the sacrament, that is, the mysteries, in the way they are taught now and in our times. So that it may be so, visit St. Augustine for this reason. Dear, let it be a good thing that I report a pious man who is well deserved in the business of faith. Yes, I say, they were not taught that way, as we are now. But which the ancients should by no means have omitted; is it not 3) such an abominable unavoidable capital sin, if one does not know that the body of Christ is in the bread, so that it is proper for Christians to rave and stir up on account of sin, 4) until it costs blood, and until cities are destroyed because of it? See how Augustine teaches, and where his words end. 5)

Augustine says: "The sacraments are visible signs of divine things, and divine things are honored by the sacraments. Also (says Augustine) one should not keep the figure, which is sanctified with the dedication, even, as one is used to do in other customs. One should also say besides that what the speech they (understand, that one teaches) hear means, and what it holds in itself, and what the sign means." So Augustine taught the Christians growing up. There is no doubt that he himself was taught by Ambrosio. One hears that Augustine says that things are honored by the signs of which they are signs. He does not speak that the signs conclude in themselves the essential things whose signs they are. No, but he speaks clearly and freely: The signs have a likeness of the things they signify.

1. "fatzet" is probably as much as "fetzet," i.e., he hangs such rags on them, as in the idiom: "flicken und läppen," in this volume Col. 234, § 87.
2. Marginal gloss: Therefore, it should be done away with.
3. "icht" probably as much as: about.
4. Marginal gloss: They are quite gushers.
5. lenden - to steer.

And for this reason you must either say that the bread is neither a sacrament nor a sign, against the whole assembly of Christ, which considers it a sacrament. Or else you must affirm that it is only a sacrament, that is, that it is only a sign of the very body of Christ. If then it is conquered from you, that it is no longer a sacrament either of the body of Christ alone, well, then our mind, according to the mind of which the faithful have used themselves, will not be a foreign mind. But if ye say, Yea, it is a sacrament, that is, a sign, and yet is the body also; I speak thus: You will never prove that a sign and the thing signified by the sign are essentially one thing. How can a painted bishop and a true bishop be one thing? What is sacramentum different, neither only a holy sign? Indeed nothing different. Well then, if we speak of things, let us be taken for such theologians who have just come out of the shell 6). I beg you, dear, let us learn how the holy man Augustine 7) in the third book, when he writes of Christian doctrine, taught and instructed us in the articles, which are sacraments, in that he indicates clearly enough where it is proper to use figurative speech, or where it is not proper. He says, "Let us beware lest we adopt figurative speech according to the letter"; and on this he draws the saying of Paul: "The letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive," 2 Cor. 3.

Dear, do not take Augustinum for the man who has put on this saying of Paul in an unformal way 8). For I know of some who put on some sayings in such an unpleasant way that they think it is an unforgivable sin, even in a disputation, where one does not quarrel, and where neither faith nor love is hurt. Augustine continues thus: "If a figurative speech is understood as if it were not figurative, then the same saying is understood carnally, nor can a thing be named if the soul dies before it, nor even this, in that it surpasses unreasonable animals, that is, if intelligibility is subjected to the flesh, so that it follows the letter; for he who follows the letter understands figurative or borrowed speech just as if it were not figurative speech, and interprets the thing as if it were a figurative speech through the

6. geschloffen - hatched.
7. Marginal gloss:August de doctrina christ. op. 3.

cap. 5. 9.

8. So put by us instead of: angezöge.

666 II. writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. xx, Wo-M. 667

The meaning of the word "Sabbath" is the same as the meaning of one's own words, not another. For example, when he hears the word "Sabbath," he understands nothing more than a few days out of the seven days in the week that come and go. When he hears the word "sacrifice," he thinks nothing more, neither of the sacrifice in which cattle are sacrificed along with other earthly fruits. 1) And this is your miserable bondage of the soul, so that the signs are taken or understood for the essential things themselves, and that one may not raise the eye of the mind above the bodily creature to draw eternal light." Up to here Augustine.

Do you hear now, my dear Diebolt, how it is such a great pity, if I would make a figurative speech into an essential or a real speech? Do you not think that we need care, so that we do not turn freemen into servants? and that we do not deprive the soul of its glory, in which it surpasses other unreasonable animals, yes, that we do not kill it in the end? Other things that Augustine writes about the signs, I will also put here, saying: The Jewish people, who under the disciplinarian, the law, honored the signs of divine things for the essential things that were signified by the signs, are excused. Why? Because they did not know, when the signs were enough, why they were so eager to serve the one God, whom they did not see, before all things. But after Christ came, and the law ceased, people praised those who were closest to the clergy, even though they were still hanging in outward, temporal and human voices and signs, and did not know how to understand these outward things. Nevertheless, they were able of the Holy Spirit, so that they sold all their possessions and goods, and what they got out of them, they put before the feet of the apostles to distribute it to the poor, and they completely surrendered themselves to God as new temples, whom they had served before in the earthly image, that is, in the old temple. For it is not written that the Gentiles ever did the same.

54. The pagans are punished if they interpret their signs, that is, their idols, in such a way that they are no more, neither only meanings of the essential things. Why? Because it is a carnal bondage, says Augustine, so much so that one depends on the sign that is to be used.
55. Marginal gloss: Thank you, dear Augustine.

is inserted, holds, as if it were the essential thing itself, on which it is put for love, that it should mean. Is this true? Yes. How much more, then, is it a carnal bondage, if one takes the signs of things that are not meant 2) for the essential things themselves?

55. further, Augustine says: Christian liberty has disposed of all those whom it caught under useless signs (understand the Jews), and has interpreted to them the signs to which they were attached, and has directed them up to the things which were signified before by the signs; and hence the first churches of the Israelites grew up. [But to those who took Christian liberty under useless signs, not only did it destroy the servile service under all the signs, but it also destroyed the signs themselves, and turned all things aside, that the Gentiles might be converted from the shameful, unholy multitude of so many false gods to the service of the one God, that they might henceforth no longer serve useless signs, but that they might exercise their minds in spiritual understanding.

(56) The man is a captive servant of the sign, who needs or honors a thing that means something, but does not know what it means. But if one needs and honors a useful sign, which is instituted by God, and understands the power and the meaning of the same sign, he honors not that (says Augustine) which is seen and passed away; no, he honors that to which all things are to be pointed. Yes, if God has put it on, otherwise not. He who thus deals with the signs is spiritual and free, even in the time of bondage, in which it is not yet necessary for the carnal heart to discover the signs with which it must be paschalized 4) and to give them understanding, as all those who were forced among the people of Israel, through whom the Holy Spirit has given us the help and comfort of the Scriptures.

(57) Where do all things go together? They are drawn out there, so that we also know what we should think of our sacraments; for one may also speak of our sacraments in this way. So that no one would think that Augustine attracted these things in vain, he immediately says: "But at that time, after zero 5) the resurrection of our Lord has given us a very clear and bright indication of our freedom.

2. "nothing intended" - useless, not useful for anything.
3. d. i. such.
4. "paschgen" --- catch. Cf. § 9 of the second following sermon.
5. "now" put by us instead of: and.

66817 . oecolämpad's responsibility vs. billicanus. W. xx. 8ss-sss. 669

has appeared, neither are we burdened with the heavy custom of these signs, which we already understand; for the Lord, even apostolic teaching, has given us few signs, which he has drawn from many. They are also only slight, and easy to do, and they have a high understanding, and they are of a clean merry custom; as then is the sacrament of baptism, and the righteous committal of the body and blood of the Lord. Now if one is so informed that he understands where the signs are directed, he will know that he honors these two signs not out of carnal service but rather out of spiritual freedom. So much Augustine. Oh that God would want those who so freely stab at us without cause, to measure above-mentioned things well and more diligently with themselves. Augustine counts the celebration, that is, the honest reception of the body and blood of Christ among the things that must be understood figuratively. 1) If the Latin word celebratio were understood correctly, it would partly explain the matter of the mystery, for we think well and truly of the body of Christ. Now when a man thinks well of a friend, he extols his virtue and praises the good deeds that his friend has done for him. The friend is not physically present, even though he 2) already thinks well and honestly of him.

58. Augustine thus speaks by name: "In the same way as it is a carnal bondage to follow the letter and to take or understand the meanings for the essential things which are indicated by the meanings, so it is also an evil, wicked, dizzy madness to interpret the signs uselessly. But if anyone does not understand the sign, what it means, and yet understands so much that he knows that it is only a sign, he will not be pressed into bondage. For it is much less likely, 3) that one is pressed with an unknown sign, but with a useful one, neither that he interprets it last 4) or uselessly, and thus his neck, which he has first drawn under the yoke of bondage to them 5), binds him anew in the ropes of error." Until here Augustine of the figurative speeches.

(59) You will have heard 6) that this above-mentioned saying of the supper, drawn from Matthew, is bad according to the literal one presented.

1. Marginal gloss: Augustine is a gusher.
2. In the old edition: joch.
3. weger --- a better way.
4. letz verkehrt.
5. dennen--vr>n dannen.
6. Heaved - raised, proved.

The reason of the soul (as Origen said before Augustine) is death. Now it cannot and may not be; cause, death arises from it to the soul (as Origen spoke before Augustine). You call our mind a mangler or a smasher 7) of sacred writings; but this is not so. For if we do not give just this sense, we will overload the people who learn from us with carnal bondage, which is only a miserable bondage.

(60) Go, you who are such fellows, and mock us, since you have long been mocked by good Christians, as if you were children, and children's teachers who do not know what they are saying, by the deed of the Spirit of God; and so you accuse 9) people of mocking you when you do not mend your ways.

(61) If we understood nothing else on our side, 10) except that we knew that they were signs, we would not be pressed with any bondage; but if we were to follow you, 11) we would interpret the signs badly and uselessly. Yes, we would be so completely bound to the outward word that we would accept no interpretation anywhere, and therefore we would have to wait for two bondages if we were of your opinion; God would grant that we interpret them or leave them uninterpreted. Dearly beloved, do you bring forth some benefit of the presence of the Body of Christ. If you want to say that the consolation of consciences is a benefit, I speak thus: if there is a consolation of consciences, it comes from the remembrance of the death and other good deeds of Christ, otherwise those who may never come to the Lord's table, but whom the Father of all consolation, 2 Cor. 1, often comforts more abundantly, neither just those who go to the sacrament, would have to receive such consolation]. 12) This same consolation should also be one of those gifts which do not serve to edify the Christian community, but it should be one of those gifts which secretly delight our minds in Himself, 13) to which minds the insensible body (if it were in the bread), and which should not be pondered (as you speak of it), brings just as much benefit if it is not present as if it were present. Did not Christ have to go bodily so that the disciples would be able to receive heavenly comfort? John 16: Yes, he had to. Dear, what is this

7. Zerschrenzern --- Tearing.
8. used - tested, experienced.
9. indebted ----- indebted.
10. "Page" set by us instead: Secken.
11. nachhetschten-----nachhmgen, succeeded.
12. Such an intercalation seems to us to be necessary in order to give meaning.
13. So put by us instead of: in einsgeheim.

670II . Writings Against Zwingli and His Followers re. W.xx, 83S-W8. 671

Comfort, from which you draw your mind from hour to hour to the memory of other good deeds? So the fourteen Swabian brothers saw fit to answer me. If ever there is comfort in the bodily presence of Christ, that same comfort is only given to those who think and reflect on the bodily presence. 1) Why then do you so soon wean people from it? that is, why do you so quickly withdraw the minds of men from the contemplation of this presence? Christ also signified the like, that it was a sign of love toward him, when men would gladly see him go, saying, "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I go unto the Father. Shall we call Christ down from heaven? What is this great, intemperate, selfish love, that we cannot spare a little time from its consolations? Some of them say: Yes, it comforts us, even though we do not know what benefit comes to us from the bodily presence; for we delight in his promise that he wants to be bodily in the sacrament. Yes, it is well directed, that would be just the thing to begin again; and that would not be a small obstacle to finding the truth, and would be a good fire to chaffing. For this is always our question: whether there is a promise in the words "this is my body"; but where has a promise (if there ever was one) ever lifted up someone's mind, from which he should have withdrawn his mind (as they say), so that he did not meditate on the promise, and since it was recognized that there was no 2) benefit in it.

62. I have to say the slug 3) freely, and thus say: We comfort ourselves with mere dreams, and follow after the idol of our own vanity. And if I then consider it with myself, I do not need to speak more forcibly of the Scriptures. 4)

Now let us take other things in hand, which will not be much obscure, where one understands more clearly the above-mentioned things. Yes, they will make the above interpretation clear and confirm it with their clarity. It is also evident from this that we do not allow any foreign foreign understanding.

64 And Matthew continues thus: "He took the drinking vessel, gave thanks, and took it.

1. Marginal gloss: I mean. Christ is an unworthy guest for them.
2. ninen---nowhere; otherwise also written: "nienen."
3. "Usefulness", the point that matters; except - out.
4. The meaning of the last sentence is obscure to us.
5. ächter - different.

given to them, saying, Of this drink ye all: for this is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many, for the remission of sins."

From the time after that until the time of the apostles, it was not proper to drink or eat blood, whether it was human or animal blood. The apostles themselves, even out of a pretense of love, enjoined that one should abstain from blood, Acts 15. 15) Whereby the weakness of the Jews was nevertheless somewhat abated, until the circumcised and the uncircumcised, that is, until the Jews and the Gentiles were joined together in one community of God. 6) Therefore the fathers, the Jews, were not commanded to drink the blood of the Lamb. Nevertheless, the blood was also given as a sign; and when the Passover or Easter was celebrated, they took of the blood of the lamb while it was being offered, and spread it on the upper thresholds or posts of the houses where they were going to eat the paschal lamb. "And the blood," saith the Lord, "shall be your mark upon the houses wherein ye are, that, when I see the blood thereon, I may pass over before you, and the destructive plague shall not befall you, when I smite the land of Egypt," Exodus 12. The Lord also commanded them to keep this custom forever. Therefore also in the night meal of the Lord, when they slaughtered the lamb, the sills and both posts were sprinkled with blood. There is no doubt in my mind that the apostles understood, which was not hidden from anyone, that this sign of blood, which they had taken from the lamb they had killed in Egypt, was a sign and a memorial. And so they were still more admonished of their foreknown good deeds. And so Christ, looking at this previous figure, skillfully discovers the secrets of his blood and says, "This is my blood. As if he said, "You have seen the sign, namely the blood of the Lamb, on the thresholds and posts of the house, which is an indication of the blood that was shed long ago. But now, dear disciples, turn your eyes here to the drinking vessel, for it is not a drinking vessel of the eternal old Lamb's blood. No, it is a memorial of my own blood. That old blood was shed in Egypt land, but my blood will be shed only at the cross. And because the blood cannot be drunk, I have appointed bread in the place of the Lamb; and now I sanctify a solemn 7) remembrance.

6. erwalken - to come together.
7. "trungenliche" perhaps: what you can drink.

672 . 17. Oecolampad's responsibility against Billicanus. W. xx, Ws-sio. H7I

Mine, in the form of the wine you may drink; and therefore this drink is my blood.

(66) Dear, what would move some to pick another and an unrhymed understanding from the words of Christ, who saw how things were handled and how the new was compared to the old, if Christ would have left it at the words "this is my blood. Indeed, the counter-attitude that Christ needs, as the good householder who brings forth new and old from his treasure, Matth. 13, will be just enough as an interpretation that is not to be despised. Yes, if one understands the speech of the blood of Christ in the same way as one understands it of the blood of the Lamb. It would have been easy for the well-versed in the law, as Eliezer and Phynees 2) were, to recognize in the spirit precisely that through the lamb and blood which we recognize through the sacrament of bread and wine. Now, we consider the apostles, who nevertheless were more misunderstood, to have been able to take from the paschal lamb and from the blood what figure Christ's speech had. Even if the things now reported are not yet clear enough and do not make any difference, the certainty that Christ has attached to them forces us not to suspect anything crude. For Christ saith immediately after, "It is a blood of the new testament." To those who know what the new testament is, it is immediately evident from these words, just as the blood of the testament is in the drinking vessel, for the truth brings its light with it. Indeed testamentum is nothing else in the place, neither a paotuw nor a covenant between God and between men, which is established for this reason, so that we may be sure that our sin will be forgiven us; as one also reads in the prophet Jeremiah, Cap. 33, and there is nothing 3) that the consciences would like to have at hand, which would be more preferable and desirable to them. 4) The most merciful Father has deigned to seal this testament, that is, this covenant, with the seal of the death and blood of his only begotten Son, as he has purposed from eternity; and lest we falter, for that it should be strong, it is

1. "ja auch" put by us instead of: "jach".
2. Eleazar and Phinehas will be meant. 4Mos. 25, 7.
3. niernen - nowhere.
4. Marginal gloss: Where there is not the knowledge that God is our Father, all this serves nothing.

also confirmed with the death of the Testator Jesus Christ. Therefore the church was born, and at the same time as Eve came forth from the side of the sleeping Adam, Genesis 3, so also the church was built from the blood-flowing side of Christ. Yes, I say, she (the church) is built from the side of Christ, not from the cup, from the cross, not from the table, although she testifies to this with the signs before men, which before all happiness before God has raised through faith; and this testimony could also be called edification, and yet would not be spoken unformally. But actually to speak of it in essence, the blood of the dying Christ makes pure, it delights and makes alive; for the church is in the blood of the testament, as Zacharias the prophet speaks of it with few words and merrily, saying: And you are a blood of your testament, Zach. 9, 11. So it is written in the Hebrew text, that the Hebrew word "athe", in German "du", is drawn to the church; that it has the meaning: that you are or remain my people; yes, I say, that you are such a delicious, peaceful, free, honorable people, and that there are so many of you, that you shall receive of the blood of your testament. Look, Zacharias calls it a blood of our testament, as Matthew badly calls it a blood of the testament. Zacharias does not speak, a testament in your blood; no, a blood of your testament, he speaks. The testament, that is, the covenant is ours, for GOD has agreed with us, and has confirmed it by His Son's blood. Although, stop 5) (I), the blood is also ours through faith, because it was shed for our love, but it is therefore the blood of the testament, because it confirms the testament, that is, the covenant. For this reason the Lord immediately says in Zechariah: "And I have let your prisoners out of the pool where there is no water," (since the Hebrew text says: "I have let out," we read in our Bibles: "You have let out"), and thus the Lord says: "Because the sacrifice and blood of my Son is so dear and pleasing to me, I will let out all the children of the church who were imprisoned in the wretched bondage of sins, according to the prayer, and I will set them free. But what does he mean when he says: "The blood of the testament"? Will the blood that is in the cup, and that can be drunk, confirm the testament? will it subside sin? will it comfort consciences? O woe! no, indeed not! For the Holy Spirit, that he might prevent such madness, hath added, saying, "Which for the after-

5. Set by us instead of: has.

674II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx. 840-843. 675

remission of sins is poured out." Now the blood is not poured out of one drinking vessel into the other, that sins may be remitted. No! Where then? On the cross and nowhere else. And so (as it is shed on the cross) the blood of the testament is in sealing, and makes us sure of the gracious will of our heavenly Father. Out of this must ever come to pass, if the blood, which ye say ye have in the cup, is for the confirmation of the testament, that it may confirm the testament, and assure our consciences. Yes, I say, it must follow that Christ's death on the cross will not be sufficient, and that from day to day the lack which Christ did not fulfill on the cross with his death must still be fulfilled; and that the prisoners are not yet let out of the puddle, since there is no water in it. But what would that be otherwise, neither especially to blot out all the merit of Christ together? For if his merit is not sufficient, it is not merit at all; but this would be offensive to a Christian to hear. What then do they mean when they say that the outward signs and seals are to strengthen consciences? For, in short, when they have rightly experienced themselves, they certainly realize that they are deceived and robbed, for they have received comfort beforehand from the infallible pledge of the Holy Spirit. 1) The sacraments do not comfort anyone for themselves, but because they are signs and preach Christ in the place of words, they bring comfort to the person by serving as an instrument.

67. Further, one would cry out against this, saying: Listen, was the blood of Christ, when he was still a young boy, not also a blood of the testament? Now it was just one blood after and before. Since the blood in the chalice and the blood that was poured out afterwards is one blood, will it not be in the chalice as the blood with which the testament is confirmed?

68 Answer: It is true that it was one blood when he was a boy, and when it was poured out; but because it was still boy's blood, it could not be considered testament blood. But when it began to be shed, it was considered testamentary blood, for the covenants are confirmed with blood, for which reason it cannot be called testamentary blood. About the nmnt's Lucas and Paul clear enough "a new testament in blood", Luc. 22. 1 Cor. 10. which here Matthew speaks, that it should be shed. Had it now another opinion with oem testaments, and with the shedding, further, neither that

1. Marginal gloss: The spirit alone is the pledge.

If we only have a memory of him, then we are again preparing for the papists their butchery and their sacrifices. But the handwriting of our sin is pinned to the cross, Col. 2, and the exalted Christ has drawn all things to Him, John 12. In this is the covenant.

69 Look now, my thief, the testament has not yet been fulfilled in the supper, so the blood has not yet been poured out; what else will we find of the blood, that it is present, neither just on the form, that one remembers it? and this is exceedingly good for thanksgiving. Yes, faithful and diligent remembrance is itself a true thanksgiving. We can truly grasp no other meaning, and especially since the honest accompaniment of the old custom takes place, which warns us as a teacher and leads us by the hand.

(70) Not enough has yet been done for your argument and counter-argument, which you pick up from the rules of the world's orators, and which you now and then steer out of there, because out of there, and ever suppose that you want to conquer with it that this preannounced interpretation, or the figure of speech, may not exist. And because Christ the Lord speaks of it, "which is shed," you assume from the beginning that if our opinion stands, then it must and will follow that the figurative (not the natural, true, right) blood is shed and is a blood of the New Testament; from which then it follows that we well deserve to be punished for Marcionite heresy; for the Marcionites also said: Christ did not truly suffer, and his blood was not truly shed. Answer: What does it matter to us that we are concerned about a danger when it is not necessary? What compels me, then, to make a reckoning, saying, This is a figure or memorial of the blood that is shed, and so the memorial is shed? Wouldn't that be a great opinion? Why do I not speak as more thus, as I should speak: The wine is a figure, or a memory of the blood, and therefore so the memory of the blood, in so far as it is shed, is signified by the wine? Or therefore: The wine is not only a memory of the blood, but it is a memory that the blood is shed? Well, if Christ had understood it with a few words, saying, this is an outpouring of blood xxxxxxx; would not both memories have been solved with it? Since no one is hurt because of the speech that has 2) been taken away, one should certainly be hurt even less because of the speech that has been cut into pieces. Yes, there is more strength in the speech that has been cut up, and a

2. out-of-print, i.e. in the word.

676 17 Oecolampad's responsibility against Billicanus. W. xx, E-sis. 677

greater reputation, and remains the sense nevertheless completely neither so 1) he would have said: This is a figure, or a memory of my blood, and a memory of the shedding. I say also, it is not a baeurische speech, God gives, how one bequeaths to us a mist with much dizzy intrigues. And this we hear from the pagan poets' writings, and from common speeches, also from the custom of the church. The poet Virgilius 2) did not speak uncleanly when he tells how Venus brought her dear son Aenea the shield that her husband Vulcanus had forged; and speaks among other things thus: How Vulcanus freely cut out on the shield woolen pointed hats and fine little shields that had fallen from heaven 2c. Do you mean to say that the painted shields that he had in his shield fell from the sky? No, because it was only a figure. So he also says in another place, 3) how Aeneas neißwa 4) had seen several times how Troilus, the unfortunate youth, was fleeing defenseless on one side, and was not in accordance that he should fight with Achilles, and how he was leading along there on the empty chariot, and was thus hanging with his feet still on the chariot 2c. This was the painting that Aeneas saw, nor does the poet speak of things as if Aeneas himself had apparently seen them. Did you therefore mean to say that the unfortunate painting had fought with Achilles? Another mean speech: If I showed thee a painted image of Paul, and said unto thee, This is Paul, who hath warred with the sword of the word against the whole river of Illyrici and of the Greek country, Rom. 15; or, if I saw the image of St. Peter, and said, This is Peter, who hath received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Now if you would interpret these sayings in such a way that you would say: This is the image of Paul, which image preached the word of God in Grecia? and this is the image which is full of the Holy Spirit, and which has determined heaven with his preaching? and would you rebuke me for my speech, as one who had sinned against the common bad habit of speaking? You would not do it.

(71) Even if the disciples had said of the lamb which they ate: This is the lamb whose blood, sprinkled on the threshold of the house, killed the Egyptians and finished us off: would anyone understand from this that just for the sake of speech the figure of the

1. quite neither so == quite as if.
2. Marginal gloss: VirZ. 8. lik. Aeneid. v. 664..
3. Marginal gloss: VirZ. 1. lib. Aeneid. v. 474..
4. i.e. something like.

blood was blown up on the doorposts of the house, and that the angel had seen them? How is it that in such an excellent matter you grate together such childish, powerless arguments (but that they are childish, powerless arguments, logic may admonish you, what power the pregnant propositions (as the Logici of it tanten5) ) have, and the righteous, brave things and sayings, which we are wont to throw at you, are swallowed up 6)? Verily, verily, the things indicate that you are well with quarreling and with strife. If we were so well pleased with strife, would we not also say: Christ said that his blood would be shed, so that it should be understood that just as he said it, and just as they had the supper, it should be shed at the same hour, and the body broken? Yes, we would like to do it, because the text can be seen for it, but we do not want to do it. Because we fear that the Egyptian plague of frogs will come upon us. That is, we fear that, if one were to serve the quarrel in this way, as some do, a new sophistical frog talk would grow out of it. We do not want to know the things that do not serve anything.

(72) Therefore there is nothing to prevent us from accepting the figure of speech, which every child would understand if he had been at the supper, as the apostles were. And so what I have answered of the blood, let the same also be answered of the bread, of which Lucas and Paul speak. For since both Lucas and Paul say, "This is my body, which is given or broken for you," it is not their opinion that therefore only the figure of the body is given or broken, but thus: the bread, which signifies the body, the same designs and signifies also the giving or breaking of the body. That is so much said: the bread brings it again to our remembrance, how the body is given for us (the true right body). And here we are far enough from the nonsense of the heretic Marcioni, to whom the coarse mind you hold would not have given a little instruction that the fantastic assumed body of Christ is hidden in the bread. 7) Enough of this. There are still other things more, which also indicate and maintain not an ungodly, but a right natural mind.

5. "tanten" - to make trumpery. Compare § 104. Otherwise also written: "tandten".
6. pushed aside - pushed aside, disregarded.
7. Marginal gloss: In short, if the body is in the bread, then the same body has been crucified.

678II- Schriften Wider Zwingliund seineAnhanger 2c. W.xx. sis-sis. 679

For it follows in the text Matthäi further thus:

I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from itzuud until the day I drink it anew in my Father's kingdom.

74. With this common saying Christ says badly that he will no longer be with us in the flesh (meaning that he will neither drink nor eat, as Lucas says), but that he will go away to the Father, which John also reports in the supper, John 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. For this reason the Holy Spirit diligently prevents us from understanding anything coarse in the things spoken of in marriage; in that he immediately says that he will go away, and so earnestly commands them that they may have remembrance of him, he shows sufficiently what the wine and the bread are. As he called the wine 1) blood before, so he calls it 2) wine after, yes, in clearer words, by a fine circumlocution, he calls it a fruit or a plant of the vine. Out of all this, what other understanding does Christ leave, neither that wine is wine, and not essentially nor actually blood, which should now be taken away? Indeed, he leaves no other understanding, but he 3) conceals the unknown meaning, that the body is in the bread and the blood in the wine, in such a way as 4) one speaks of it. 5) What would that be for an afterward 6) bad speech to such a man as Christ is, saying: I will drink no more wine? As if] our Master Jesus Christ had been a schoolmaster of the full Philoxenians and Epicureans, that he should speak of bodily need, which is in eating and drinking, if they should cease, as of great things? For we know that the kingdom of God is neither in food nor drink, 1 Cor. 4, and that there is no power in it. What does Christ mean by this? Nothing else, neither he is now near death, and henceforth one should no longer seek his bodily presence in the world. That is his opinion. Although he ate and drank with the disciples after his resurrection out of special freedom, Apost. 10, it was only for the reason that his resurrection, together with our faith, was truly a sign of the world.

1. commensal - appropriate.
2. hinnach- nachher; "hinnach" put by us instead of "him yet".
3. d. i. rejects.
4. i. e. approximately.
5. Randglosse: Niam von woäo yuoäarn iusükdlli.
6. indulgent -- indifferent.

For at that time he did not eat for hunger, nor did he seek pleasure in it, for he was full and satisfied with the highest bliss. He did not drink new wine, but the same wine that we drink, or else he would not have proved that he had a true body. To this he says: "Until the day, he understands the high desired day, when he will show himself a friendly table companion to all the gathered elect. He means the day when the hidden secrets will be opened, when the godly will be resurrected, when they will run to meet him, 1 Thess. 3, when he will hand over the kingdom to his Father, having overcome the last enemy, 1 Cor. 15. He will also give the dead their joy on that day, because of the strange and innumerable tribulations they now endure. And as Christ is already rejoicing in immortality, so on that day we immortals will be compared to his glorified body, and we will rejoice with him, and there we will live well with him in a new and holy way. Of course, the wine will be new at that time, and the heavens will be new, and the earth new, and even all things new, Revelation 21. For he will dwell with us again in the flesh, and this will be an unspeakable joy for us. For in this way he will satisfy our desires with the goods of his presence.

75 Does the opinion not immediately depart from itself? Is it not clear and obvious, and worthy of a Christian spirit? Yes, truly. But I am very worried that if I were to seek bodily presence with you now in this misery, before the day, it would be as it wanted, 8) if it were only really bodily, yes, I say: I am afraid that in the future, in the kingdom of God the Father, I would not be a comrade or a partaker of the delicious desired meal; 9) since I am so well acquainted with the pure interpretation of the words, and especially since even now, in this time, I realize how much the carelessness, not to say the childish imagination, of how Christ is in the bread, brings harm to true righteous vision. All those who are endowed with the gift of discerning the spirits and who actually pay attention to the inner man's training will testify to this.

My Diebolt, you have probably noticed how the truth can be achieved with little work even with the

7. d. i. such.
8. Marginal gloss: Visible or invisible.
9. Marginal gloss: O Christ, seek Christ in heaven, nowhere else.

680 17 Oecolampad's responsibility against Billicanus. W. xx, 848-gso. 681

(1) He was considered to be fighting against us. The testimony of other evangelists would not be necessary. Nevertheless, let us also examine them to see if they say anything that proves to us that our mind is not at all Christian, and whether they admonish us from our understanding, and call us to depart; for this is the business of all together, on which I go, that we have not gone astray from the truth.

From the night meal from Marco.

77 Next, look at the next one on Matthaeum, the Marcum, whether he says something further neither Matthew, although he uses almost the same words. But in it, Marcus writes more neither Matthew, how the supper was prepared, and how Christ did not present the host without miracles. Marcus also indicates that the disciples found him. Namely, when Christ commanded them to go to his house carrying a jar of water, and boldly demanded that he show them the large, paved, prepared room. 2) And by the majesty of the place, that in this supper they might be led to high things, and not to low things; that is, that they might learn heavenly things, and not earthly things; and that they might follow spiritual things, and not carnal things. 3) But some who use the signs for the essential things, and thus pretend that the flesh is united to the bread in the supper, these are quite carnal, as I reported above, and crawl along on the ground, so that they cannot come up into the room of the supper.

But lest it be thought that I am more jesting with the foreign and spiritually borrowed mind, nor that I am pondering the proper meaning of the Scriptures, let us leave it at that, and now have a look at how the evangelist Marcus describes all things with diligence. He does not do it in vain nor without cause that he indicates the word Passover, 4) which we call in German Osterlamm or transition, so many times before. For thus he speaks: "On the first day of the sweet bread, when they offered the Passover, or the passover lamb. After this the disciples inquired where they should prepare to offer the

1. i. e. shines.
2. Delicious - preciousness. - In the old edition here and immediately following: "beyder" instead of "bei der".
3. Marginal gloss: Though a Christian must seek high things with earnestness.
4. Marginal gloss: Passover, in good German, Uebergang.

Passover, or eating the paschal lamb." Finally he says, they have prepared the Passover, the Passover or the Paschal Lamb. Passover is a figurative word to the Hebrews, and reminds them of another, neither they saw before their eyes; as the kind of sacraments is. Marcus also needs such diligence (so that the memory of death is imagined), since Judas, the enemy of the house, is admonished with such brave, defiant threats; for it was not the smallest part of Christ's pain that he had his own traitor with him among his servants. Yes, the pain was so great that the Holy Spirit also reproved it through the psalmist, saying: "My benefactor, on whom I trusted and who ate with me, tramples me underfoot," Ps. 41.

79 So Marcus is talking about the drinking vessel:

And he took the cup. Gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and he said unto them, This is my blood of a new testament, which is shed for many.

Those who have not yet drunk a foreign opinion, and read that the disciples drank before Christ spoke his words, will recognize from the beginning that nothing outside of wine is granted to be a holy remembrance of suffering; nor will they suspect anything inconsistent. But the others, who want to keep the pope's opinion, need the figure that is called prothysteron in Greek, that is, when the last is put forward and the first behind, and they cry out to other evangelists for help, since there is no need for it. Cause, the Holy Spirit (from which breath the evangelists wrote) has seen our great clumsiness and superstition, from which we lie exceedingly anxious for unfamiliar words, well before. And in order to rid us of this evil and to put an end to the unnecessary fantasizing about the body being in the bread and the blood in the wine, he does nothing but cry out.

81 Now see thou, seeing that the evangelists have described the time, the order, and the words of the supper in so excellent a matter, without any particular care: see thou be not too much wise, if thou puttest a burden of piety in things that ought not, lest thou fritter away love and the matter in itself. 5) For the remembrance and thanksgiving of the passion of Christ,

5. In the old edition: verzettest.

682ll Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, Wv-W". 683

to which wine and bread with their matter serve, is the whole sum of this trade. 1) Here is no scruple, here is no knof, 2) and nothing heavy. How is it, then, that the simple-minded reader, who perhaps does not like to be instructed, is presented with a scripture from which he cannot judge himself? Why do we darken the Scriptures without cause? Why do we accuse the Holy Spirit as not having taught publicly enough? Why do we not send ourselves to the Scriptures? Gelt, the Scripture should serve our slow? What does it matter to us that we prefer to walk in darkness rather than in light? If we seek adornment in the Scriptures, why do we ponder such confused opinions?

From the night feast from Luce.

82. There are other things, too, which Marcus precedes and Lucas follows in the supper. For as Marcus speaks of the wine, that Christ, after they had already drunk from the cup, had said that he would henceforth drink no more of the fruit of the vine until he drank anew in the kingdom of God; Lucas tells the same before the thanksgiving of the bread of the paschal lamb and of the drink. At which place not only the old custom ended, but also there (as I said before) the Lord's going is cheerfully indicated. If other evangelists had also described it in this way, we might suspect that Christ wanted to teach with these words alone that the burden of the law was to be lifted up and carried away. 3) But what he meant by this is not clear. But what he meant by this is no less clear from the brevity of other evangelists than from their length. Again, what the other two evangelists say about the betrayals of Judah before the supper, Lucas describes after the supper; and with this change, that one puts it before, the other after, the remembrance and the going of the Lord is taught in a fine, simple and quite beautiful way, and besides this, the ornament of the speech does not lose so much, but still remains a beautiful speech. Other things that go before or after the supper will be left for this time, because it is clear from other gospels how much goes into it. We will only consider the words spoken about wine and bread. For as Matthew and Marcus say, "this is my body"; Lucas adds, "which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me."
83. Marginal gloss: Summa of this trade: do not forget love.
84. Knof button, knot.
85. d. i. taken.

Here the Holy Spirit teaches us fortunately what to think of the words of the supper. Above that, one should not do anything else in the supper, neither the Lord has commanded. Dear, what has the Lord commanded to be done in the supper? He commanded that we should take the bread and eat it, as the other two evangelists speak of it, in which we are commanded nothing more. I do not read that they tell us to take the body and eat it. I do not read that they say to us that the body will be in the bread. I do not read that Christ has given those, the priests, authority to make his body out of the bread, so that it begins to be the essential body. 4) No, I do not read any of these. I do read here in Luke that we are to have a remembrance of his body, which is set forth for a gloss and interpretation, so that that which is obscure in other evangelists may be revealed here. And this is the third thing the Lord has commanded us to do. Therefore, the two words "take, eat" should be interpreted as referring to the bread, but "have remembrance" as referring to the body.

The fact that Lucas speaks here: hoc facite, that does; since facere does not mean to sacrifice, as a Hanseatic Guly 5) who wants to try it out of the pagan Virgilio, 6) since the poet needs facere for sacrifice. He may not bring the sacrifice here with the same verse. Therefore, we interpret this again just as we did above, that the bread is the body, that is, we say it is a memorial sign and a figure of the body. In what way is it a figure? Just in the way that it should be a memorial that the body is offered for us. I put it on before, so that the figurative speech does not force us to speak that the figurative body, and not the true body, is given for us. No, we are sufficiently warned against this by the very public statement: "It does you good to remember me. How shall we do it in remembrance of Christ? Thus: His body was given up for us. You might also interpret the little word quod, in German "der", after the Hebrew manner, for "sofern", so that it would have the meaning: this is my body, insofar as it is given up. However, we have also spoken of this before; it is not necessary to imagine it so often.

84. it is clear enough that this figurative speech

4. Marginal gloss: Yes, you read, Andreas Flamm, the learned man, wrote it.
5. Probably as much as "Hansnarr". - "sich gäuchen" - to imagine foolishness. Cf. § 98 of this paper.
6. Marginal gloss: Virgil, edos. 3 sv. 77.]: oum kaoiana vituw. (In the old edition: vineula)

684 17. oecolampad's responsibility against billicanus. W. xx, ssz-sss. 685

Christ's "this is my body" holds more force, neither if he had spoken without figure: this is the figure of my body. Also this, when he says: "which is given for you," neither when it is interpreted without figure, that you would say: this is a figure of the body, which means that the body is to be given, or that it is given. When I hear that the body is to be given up or broken for us, as Paul speaks of it, I say, if the right natural mind does not approach, then that which is given up or broken for us is not bread, nor is it given up or broken for us in bread. But that it seems good to some that the two words "to give" and "to break" should be applied more to the bread than to the body is not appropriate. The reason is that the two little words "for you" attached to it do not make it good. For when you look at the distribution, as one distributes bread, we do not say: I give the bread for you; no, I say badly: I give you the bread. If something is given for the other, it indicates that something else should have been given, which is not given. Understand it thus: We should have been given to death, but that we might be free and live, Christ was given for us, in our stead, to the Jews from Judah, from the Jews to the governor, from the governor to the executioners. And all these things were done for us and for our sake. If someone gave me bread, and you said: He gives you bread; the speech does not rhyme, if you look at the common usage of speech; you must say, He gives you bread.

(85) Now, if ever I should interpret it according to your opinion, that the body is in the bread, what consolation is left me? What promise will refresh my heart? What change will this be, that the body of Jesus Christ, for that that he should be given into death for me, was hidden in the bread? Christ made me alive on the cross, not in the bread; so also the promise to make me alive is not on the bread. 1) O woe, no! by no means; otherwise what need would it have been that he had died? And for this reason it is evident who they are who teach another thing in the Scriptures, known neither to the biblical scribes, nor to the evangelists and apostles, together with the prophets. But that the two little words "to give" and "to break" also apply to bread pleases me well. Nonetheless, the other buried words force the reader to

1. Marginal gloss: Consider seriously what dishonor it is to have Christ in bread.

Words, namely, "which is given for you," that we first put them on the body, as far as it is given for us in death, and accordingly they may well be applied to the outward sign and sacrament, so that the sacrament may be understood the more fully, and taught the more intelligibly: That just as bread by its nature feeds, and is wrought from many grains together, and is broken and distributed in custom, so I also should learn and believe that faith, that is, the firm trust I have in the body given for me, feeds me, 2) and that love provides that I am united to the body of Christ, that is, to other believers in Christ, yes, also to the head, Christ himself. 3) Again, as I say by faith, Christ is broken for my love and for my use, killed, and divided in such a way that he is all ours, as much as we put our trust in him. Now look, the old custom of the lamb reminds us, why should not also the bread remind us?

(86) Nor is it necessary to stand in this way (4) over the word "break". We do not speak of the legs of Christ our Lamb being broken. Nay, we, seeing we also read in the Scriptures, that he was poured out like water; that he became dry as broken pieces; that he became soft as wax; that he was a worm, and not a man, Ps. 21 22: what then doth it grieve us, when we say that he is given up and broken, seeing that he hath given a sign, which is exceedingly fitting? That they ask me to indicate to them, when in other places the little word "body" is taken more for a figure of the body: that must grieve me lützel 5). Is it not enough that it is written here? An industrious man would find almost two hundred words (if he did not find eight), which are not written more than once in the Bible: how should one interpret them, because the Scriptures do not give them to be understood anywhere? For this reason, the evangelist Lucas takes great care not to be understood in a crude way. Even more apparently he teaches this also in the words of the drinking vessel, saying:

2. Marginal gloss: Do not be driven by it.
3. Marginal gloss: Love unites us to Christ and his members.
4. i.e. upside down.
5. lützel -less.
6. The text in the words of the parenthesis seems to be corrupted. The sense which is required here is: [So many hapaxlegomenal he found, he paid any attention to it. - Perhaps it is to be read: [So many Wortes fände er, achtete er icht i.e. any drob.

686II . writings against Zwingli and his appendages re. ". xx, sss-"s. 687

The drinking vessel, a new testament in my blood, which will be made for you.

He who would not be at ease with quarreling would soon learn from the Luke here, for he would be more unlearned, neither the German Michel, what the blood of the testament would be in Matthew, yes, what the trade would be with each other. And therefore, that we may interpret it here in no other way, neither for a memorial of the testament, so the little word "blood" will also be a memorial in other places of the true blood, by which the testament is confirmed, and the little word "body" of the body, which was given for us. For if 1) this interpretation exists in one place, then those who can hold spiritual against spiritual, 1 Cor. 2, will well accept by a counter-attitude what the other's opinion is, because they know well what Christ has given them. All men know that the drinking vessel is not a testament, but that it is a sign of the testament is clear. Is it true? Yes. Dear man, what is it that we are pressed with such a narrow mind, that we do not allow the bread of the body to be called a sign, when it is called a body, since it is all in one text?

What the Hebrews call berith, the Greeks diathikin, the Latins testamentum, we call in German a pact or a covenant. Now, this is the covenant between God and between men, that God is their God, and that they are his people. But there can be no covenant either between two, namely between the one who makes the covenant and the one with whom he makes it. But that God is in fact a true God, that is, that he is regarded as a gracious protector and sustainer, it will be necessary for him to remit and forgive sin, and to communicate the delightful knowledge of his name. 2) But that we may be His people, it will be necessary that we obey His voice and believe Him to be merciful. As far as God is concerned, it will not need sealing that he may be sure that we trust in him and bear an inclined will toward him. Why is that? Because nothing is hidden from His eyes, and He has no need of our works. But we, who are very much afraid because of our sins, are not satisfied with the simple promises, because of our unbelief, that he will be gracious to us and inclined to us; therefore we are frightened and are not satisfied whether God swears to us yet. Dero-

1. i.e. to go; "lead" put by us instead of: foro.
2. Marginal gloss: Do not forget love, so you remain in the covenant.

Therefore, our weakness must also be strengthened with an external sign; and so that this may happen most perfectly, the wickedness of our most miserable, unwholesome pressing 3) receives a sign to which nothing can be compared. And so, because God the Father has nothing better nor more precious than His Word, which is His only begotten Son, He willed that He should take on Himself mortal flesh and blood, which He was to shed on the cross. Whoever does not trust in this sign, Christ Jesus crucified, will certainly not be in the testament, that is, in the covenant; he will also never recognize God as a father, that is, as a merciful God. He will never be able to comfort his conscience; he will not know that his sins have been forgiven him. 4) From what? Of not knowing the Son, John 7, through whom is the way to the Father, John 10; who is also the way, the truth and the life, John 14. And this testament, this covenant and pact is completed and confirmed with the death of Christ, so that we may henceforth trust in God and confess Him in truth as a Father, who did not spare His own Son for our sakes, but gave Him up for us, Romans 8. 8 Whereby we also, now made spiritual, allow the law of love to be written by His Spirit, no longer in stones but in fleshly tablets, that is, into our hearts, Jer. 31. How blessed indeed is he who understands it! Now the sealing of this covenant is such an excellent and precious sealing that it could not be greater. Nor is there greater love, neither that a man should lay down his life for his friends, nor, as much as is in him, for his enemies, nor for sinners, John 15. Nor shall such a sealing ever be reopened again, for it would indicate that this covenant had not been sufficiently strengthened by the bitter death of Christ. The fact that the Word was to become man was a sure seal of the covenant and the testament. But from the blood of the dying man all sufficiency, that we no longer lack anything, has been given to us. Therefore, for this reason, we actually call the blood a testament, that is, a seal of the covenant, insofar as it makes the covenant complete and perfect. If the blood had already been in the cup, it could not have made the covenant, for there it would also have been shed by the godless Jews. 5) How then is it possible,

3. Presten - infirmity.
4. Marginal gloss: Whether he already goes to the sacrament a thousand times.
5. Marginal gloss: If there is blood in the chalice, it is New Testament blood. O blasphemy!

68817 . oeeolämpads responsibility v. Biüicanus. W. xx, 858-sso. 689

that the drinking vessel there is actually a testament, that is, a seal of the testament, since the blood itself, even that which should be in the cup (as you speak of it), is not actually the testament? Why is it not a blood of the testament? Because it is not shed there in the chalice according to the perfection required by the seal of the testament. How would a heart sprinkled with this holy blood sweat accept such a sense and understanding? Would such a one 1) not profane and trample underfoot the precious blood of the testament, if he alienated it from its glory, which it has at the cross? I ever mean it. Perhaps you confess, yes, you should confess, that the testament on the cross is perfect, and next to it you would say that the blood was in the chalice, with which blood the testament is sealed afterwards; so it will also be nothing. 2) Because the same blood does not make the heart of the drinker drunk, it is too weak to help the pressing of unbelief.

It may be that one quarreled, speaking: The memory of the following suffering and bloodshed makes the hearts drunk, and the blood is nevertheless present in the cup. So I say: Thank God that you now know the new testament, so that it is useful to you, and here is a remembrance of the testament. Why is it that you, not just out of freedom, forget that the blood, in that place, 3) of the blood is a memorial? Since it is good for you and tastes good, you accept figurative speeches; since it does not taste good for you, you do not want to hear them at all, that is the deficiency of all. One more thing: The blood most of all gladdens and delights the soul for the reason that it is remembered, not drunk. It has pleased Christ to give me his blood by the way, so that I might be helped much; and not by the way, so that I might be helped little; as if he had given it to me to drink from the cup, for I derive almost little benefit from it. A Christian heart rejoices and comes to satisfaction from the joyful, faithful remembrance of the shed blood on the cross; but from this it does not come to satisfaction that the wine has become blood. 4) O woe, no! Dear, what is the sacrament? Is it not sealing to me?

90. So I am talking about the thing. If one speaks of it in the reason, as it belongs, the

1. "not" is erased here by us because it is too much.
2. d. i. serve.
3. i.e. in the chalice.
4. Marginal gloss: Constantly remembering God does the trick.

The shed blood, the blood of Christ, is the right seal, and the body is the true sacrifice. Neither wine, nor bread, nor seal, nor sacrifice may actually be. But if you leave it out, that it is a figurative speech, and teach that they are a remembrance of the seal, then all the business is already done, and we are already one in the matter.

(91) We shall learn from the old testament that the things spoken of above are true. The old testament was carnal; therefore it was old, as the testament is a new testament, for it is spiritual. As the people are, so is the pact or testament. Now several of the same people were carnal, and yet were counted for and for among the people of God, because they kept only the laws and the given ceremonies. But God was their God and protector, they were also warmly his own people. The covenant was firm if they kept faith and did not turn to the idols honored by the pagans who knew nothing of God. For the one idolatry, or the one worship of idols and images, has been a cause of all their driving out, of all their bondage and dragging to and fro. 5) The other sins were otherwise punished in the land of Israel, so that the covenant remained untouched. Although the old law was also spiritual, because it gave a free spirit; but because it does not accomplish that which it requires, it is not worthy to be called a new law, but is legally called the old law, because it is carnal.

92. Furthermore, the fleshly covenant, and that which was only temporal, was also instituted with blood, namely with calf's blood, when it is described in Exodus 24, how Moses sprinkled the people together with the book with blood, he said: "This is the blood of the testament", or of the covenant, "which the Lord has made with you, over all these his words"; from which the Israelites were assured that they were of the people of God. The greater Jewish people also had other sacrifices, and although they did not clearly realize that they would be the perfect sacrifice (Christ) in the future, they were reminded by these sacrifices of how they were inscribed at Mount Sinai according to the given law for a people of God. The ashes of the red heifer, which they sacrificed when they worshipped the calf at Dan, served for this remembrance, Book 4, Mos 19, and they kept the same ashes in the water of desecration. Christ, however, reminds us of a greater good deed and covenant with a spiritual blood, with which blood not the blood of the Lord is sacrificed.
93. Marginal gloss: idolatry of great tribulation a well.

690II . Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, sso-sez. 691

The only thing that is cleansed is that which is inside. Yes, even the external, because he came into the world to make the whole man whole. Now in the same way as the old covenant, which was once 1) established with the people and promised to Abraham, was not renewed. No, it was and always remained a covenant; for God was always God of the people, and always considered the people to be His people, until He eradicated the old with the new and a spiritual testament came in place of the old carnal testament. Nevertheless, they always showed their good deeds with carnal sacrifices and outward worship.

Therefore, the new covenant, which is called the New Testament, which is much, much higher, more and better, does not need to be renewed, as long as we do not forget it with diligent and spiritual sacrifices, that is, with thanksgiving, whether in praising God and proclaiming and magnifying His good deeds, or in serving our neighbor through works of love. 2) This covenant of ours is an everlasting covenant; it is and will be of use to all those from the beginning to the end of the world. Who then are instructed, how may you then consider them to be rippers of the Scriptures?

94 Some will perhaps interject and say with even more words: The New Testament was ever completed at the cross, yet it began to be ours in the supper, in that we accepted the word and the sign, which is just as much as the word, in faith.

95 Answer: If they are then renewed, and their cause becomes better, I may well grant them that, but the blood is ours; and at that time the testament began to be ours, as soon as we believed in Christ our piety, and his blood was shed for us, even outside the supper; as we clearly learn from the 6th chapter of John. It is, in short, faith and the inward hearing of the Word, which hearing comes from the Father who seals our hearts with the Holy Spirit; the same faith makes us a people of God, yes, a willing people who have a desire to be obedient. I leave it at that, that we then become more certain (in the night meal) of the testament through the Spirit, 3) by the help of the sacramental instrument; but should I therefore just speak, that the sacrament would be

1. einfart - simple. Compare § 130 of this paper, at the end.
2. Marginal gloss: The works must follow shortly.
3. Marginal gloss: Through the Spirit we become certain.

actually the will, and the wine would be blood? No, it reminds me well of the testament, and it is not itself the testament.

And so there is nowhere that would allow these words "this is my body" to be an essential speech and forbid figurative speech. For this reason, I would be carrying an entirely human, that is, a false interpretation, where I bring forth a different interpretation, neither of which I have reported.

Now it would be enough with what Lucas writes, if not first of all a clever one would have assumed that "shed" should not be applied to the blood, but to the wine, and thus, according to his opinion, a beautiful secret would remain behind it. He also assumes that if Christ had meant his blood to be shed, he would have spoken differently about the matter. Well, he does not note on the words "for you" that such simple speech has more force than if Christ had said by name: "For so the new testament is consecrated with my blood, when it is shed for you. The same good man also thinks that the words that are written in Matthew, "That is poured out for the remission of sins", belong to them badly, 4) and not to the text, and therefore it is not strange that he also 5) already seeks intrigues with the pouring out.

From the night meal from Paulo.

As Lucas was a companion of Paul, so he writes almost like Paul. At the beginning, Paul gives him credit for having taught the things he received from the Lord, namely, the custom of the evening meal, as it was kept by Christ and the apostles. At the outset, I warn against this on account of some who boast and boast in this way, as if Paul had indicated with these words that the priests had been given power to transform the body of Christ into bread with certain five words (with leave), whereas Paul only takes care that he prescribes the history of the supper, which rhymes well with his presumption; For he himself was not with Christ in the supper, but after he became a disciple, he received his teaching from the Lord, so that he might learn that Christ had left a memory behind him with the signs of his death, believing that he was extending a true love among his own. This mystery was explained by Paul before, 1 Cor. 10,

4. dennen - from then, out.
5. In the old edition: joch.
6. gäuchen - to fool.

692 17 Oecolampad's responsibility against Billicanus. M xx, ssr-sss. 693

saying, "For we many are One Bread and One Body, all partaking of One Bread." How so? Notice, Paul also indicates, "The bread," he says, "which we break, is it not a fellowship of the body of Christ?" As if he were saying, "Why do we break and eat the bread? Do we not do it to testify to the fellowship and love which the death of the body of Christ, which is commonly in our hearts, makes us?" which love is so great that it unites us all as members of one body. 1)

This secret of the night meal Paul learned from the Lord, which he also taught the Corinthians before; now he tells it to them again, so that he might give a strong tryak 2) to the remnants in which they were ill, and he tells it in this way:

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he gave thanks, he broke it and said: Take, eat, this is the body of me which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, after the supper, he took the drinking vessel, saying: "The drinking vessel, a new testament in My blood, do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.

(100) That Paul remembers the night here with few words is because he reminded the Corinthians of the custom of the paschal lamb, and of the discourse of Christ, which he spoke before the supper, as he was betrayed, as Lucas says: "This is my body, which is given for you"; so Paul says: "This is my body, which is broken for you"; and they both say "for you," and not badly above: which is given to you. Which they would have done, if they had only wanted to indicate the giving of the bread, and not rather the remembrance of death - for the breaking of the bread is also a sign of death, just as the slaughter of the lamb was also a sign. Cause, how would we eat the bread if it were broken? But if the bread is broken, and thus divided in the breaking to eat, we learn from it that we are made alive. It is true that the bread is broken for us, but the body of Christ is broken for us and to us. Now if the body of Christ is in the bread, it would not have been broken for us, but only badly for us. Do not be offended by the word "broken", if there is not already a leg broken.

1. Marginal gloss: Liebe thut allessammen.
2. "Tryaks" - theriac, remedy.

For there are many forms of breaking, as when the soul is separated from the body, it is called and is a breaking; as Christ said other things more before the supper of his death, namely, "the grain would not bear fruit, it would die"; from which it need not follow that the body of Christ, like the grain, is rotten.

(101) Paul is very diligent to understand these things when he says, "Do these things in remembrance of Christ," for this is the commandment of Christ. In the same way he says of the drinking vessel, "Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." And lest anyone should take something inconsistent from the word "do this," he interprets it again, saying:

As often as you eat of the bread and drink of the drink, proclaim the death of the Lord.

We have enough glosses and comments 3) in these words of Paul. What does the Lord command us to do? Does he command us to eat his body in bread? No, he does not. Does he command us to drink blood in wine? No, he does not say so. What then? He commands us to eat of the bread and drink of the drink. What more? He calls us to have remembrance of his death. Nor do the two words "that is" have such force that we would understand that the essential body is in the bread and the essential blood in the wine. No. What did he mean by this? Nothing else, neither that we should not regard them as other bad food, which is not so well commanded to us by the Lord. They have some power, I confess, but it is not so great as to make wine and bread more honorable than all creatures. 4) No, they do not have the power. But is it not honor enough for them that they are assigned to the most sacred custom?

What should one do in Estonia? One should be mindful of the Lord, and this should not be done badly with a cold mind. For Paul interprets it this way: "Proclaim" he says, that is, often remember with sincerity, and proclaim that the body of the Lord has died and been broken for you. 5) Yes, proclaim

3. Comments - explanations. In the old edition: Comments.
4. Marginal gloss: If Christ's body and blood were there, bread and wine would be the highest creature.
5. Marginal gloss: O Christ, until earnest in the business of God.

694N . SWf^n Wider Zwingli und'seitte AnPWW ik W. xx, gss-ssg. 695

but not in a dark corner, 1) that the pious brethren are excluded, that the rich are present, and the poor must be excluded. No, it is to be done publicly, for the Lord's supper does not separate the poor from the rich, the priest from the layman, the learned from the unlearned, the man from the woman; death is proclaimed to all men, and all believers become partakers of the righteousness and merit of Jesus Christ. This custom shall not only last for a few days; it shall remain until the end of the world, because the world will also remain until the future of the Lord. Therefore Paul says: "Until he comes"; and with these short words he indicates what other evangelists have presented with many and different words, namely, that Christ will no longer eat of the lamb, nor drink of the fruit of the vine, until he drinks it anew in the kingdom of the Father. Other evangelists describe the history of the supper when Christ was still present; Paul, however, looks at the proper custom of the supper that began to be celebrated and kept among Christians at that time. Nevertheless, they all deny, Paul and the evangelists alike, that he will not be bodily present or that he will not be present.

I cannot be surprised enough by those who say that the body is there in a new way, but has not yet come; that would be strange with the unpleasant angels; it would also be unbelievable that they would be in a place, and one would say, "In that place they are," and yet they would not be there, as they speak of the body, that it begins to be present, but has not yet come. He is in the bread (so they say), but neither glorious nor humble. 3) I cannot believe that the journeymen know what they are doing. 4)

105 Paul further drinks and lets the bread remain a bread for and for, saying:

And so whoever eats the bread and drinks of the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and the blood.

(106) Now if Paul were of your opinion, he should not be so stingy about words, nor so utterly indifferent 5) about things. He should have said freely: He who has the body

1. Marginal gloss: Publicly our praise shall be from God. 2) i.e. > approximately.

3. Marginal gloss: This is the punishment of our art, so talk, and not know what.

4. aunts - talk trumpery. > > 5) i.e. indifferent.

who eats unworthily of our Lord Jesus Christ will be guilty of the Lord's death. Paul says: "The bread is the bread of the Lord"; 6) as he also calls the drinking vessel of the Lord the drinking vessel. How is it that he says it is the Lord's cup or drinking vessel? It is because the Lord Himself has appointed it as a memorial of His death. Dear, what is the cause of Paul's incurring such a heavy public penalty, namely, that he is guilty of the body, when the body is not in the bread? Do you ask? Yes. Oh, there is already a prepared answer, which is now well suited to your question. Remember, if anyone desecrates or defiles the king's image, he is punished as if he had defiled the majesty, as if he had offended the king himself. 7) The king's image is not to be desecrated. As one betrays himself, that he does not pay much attention to God, if he takes the name of God lightly in his mouth, without need; 8) and if one desecrates a holy place, 9) he sins against the Lord of the place itself; so it is here also. If someone is so unmoved by the memory of the Lord that he despises his sign, he is undoubtedly called a reprover of the absent body; here I mean the true natural body. By the truth, if one is such an ungrateful man that he persists in grudgery, malice and ingratitude, he is guilty of death; yet here he is given such a good opportunity of remembrance and gratitude. If the memory of death neither moves nor softens one, did Christ not die in vain? I hold it ever. If one does not consider that he has been redeemed with such an inestimable price, 1 Peter 2, and does not repent of his sins, what could make him more pious? Has our God had anything more delicious than His Son? Has the Son been able to do something greater, neither to take on sinful flesh like us, without sin, and to be killed innocently, like a sinner, for our sake? No, indeed. Since it is so, why would not one be guilty of blood and body, who does not keep the memory of such a high and precious thing?

Now, how is it that he is guilty of this? Does it come from the fact that he does not believe that

6. Marginal gloss: Des HErrn Brod, nicht Bäckerbrod.
7. d. i. Violence.
8. Marginal gloss: By the song one knows the bird.
9. vermaßget verletzt, verunreimgt.
10. "niener" occurs only here. Maybe "nienen" - nowhere.

696 17. oecolampad's responsibility against biüicgnus. W. xx, ss8-87o. 697

the body in the bread and the blood in the wine? No, Paul does not say it. This is what he says: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. In what shall he prove himself, that he may not be guilty of the body, nor of the blood? In seeing that Christ did not die for him in vain. Who are they? They are all those who do not believe that they are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and that his death is our life, and his blood has washed away our sins. That is one thing.

The other thing is that he should also test himself in this, so that he may actually know whether Christ is feeding him. Why is this? Therefore, if Christ did not feed him, he falsely testified to being fed with the sign of the bread. Another indication is that the bread is not the body of Christ, because all those who are not fed with the heavenly bread and do not eat the flesh of Christ in faith, eat the external sacramental bread unworthily. So then, what does the sacramental meal add that faith did not give beforehand? Well, we will talk about it later.

A man must prove himself, then, whether faith "begins to work in him through love; 1) for if the greatness of such a high good deed clothes you with the new man, that is, that you love the brethren on account of Christ and everything that belongs to Christ, and are hostile to everything in which Christ is displeased, such as dishonesty, anger, pride, unfaithfulness, committing dishonest acts, and the like. For the Corinthians are punished because 2) they proclaimed the death of Christ, but just then, like the rest of them, they still did not improve on their old splendor, nor did they let it go, and they have not yet been converted to the new life, nor to brotherly love. What kind of a wrongly conceived contemplation of death is this? What hypocrisy is this, now in the rising blossom 3) of the Church? If the body that died for us does not come closer to our hearts, neither that we do not weep, nor that we are not moved to godliness, then we do not esteem it higher than a dead dog; and this is not to distinguish the body of the Lord. There are also some who interpret this saying "to discern the body of the Lord" in such a way that this little word "body" is much more than a sign of the body, because they do not discern it, and make no distinction between the holy and the common food.

1. Marginal gloss: The works must now follow.
2. Marginal gloss: Paul, a rough Moses.
3. "Blust" == Blüthe.

set. This interpretation of theirs is not the best, just as this one does not rhyme very well, that they point to the spiritual body, that those do not distinguish the body of the Lord, who do not fear God's community. However, our interpretation is the clearer one.

110 Now notice how often Paul says in his speech "to eat bread" and "to drink from the cup", so that no one will easily fall into another sense, because he is only miserably overtaken with insanities. For if there had been more, neither wine nor bread, the majesty of the matter would have required a more powerful and courageous speech.

Finally, he also points out the punishments of those who use the signs unworthily; a severe judgment, which also begins in this life through several severe bodily diseases, as can be seen. And so they understood the words of Paul:

For this cause many of you are weak and sick, and many sleep: for verily, if we had judged ourselves, we should not have been judged: but if we be judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

(112) I do not object to some being punished for disregarding the sacramental custom, which is most notable in that the body of the Lord is not distinguished. From this it follows that diseases first of all affect the heart, that they are truly weak when it comes to confessing the truth, and unfit for it; they become unskilled in overcoming the desires of the mind; they become discontented when it comes to helping the brethren; 4) they are children in understanding, women in strength, and please themselves, despising all other people; they are false. But where the memory of the death of Christ JEsu truly possesses the hearts, there nothing is hindered that can serve to improve the nature. Therefore it is no wonder that while the mind is sick, the body is also afflicted with God's judgments. 5) So then, I think, it also happened to the gout-ridden man, as we have it from the words of the Lord, who says to him, "Go, and sin no more," Luc. 5. But I am much more astonished at the damage to faith and good virtues than at the above-mentioned corporal punishment, which is always connected with it.

4. Marginal gloss: Abominable to the hypocrites.
5. Marginal gloss: Becoming powerless in faith and love is certain death.

698 II. Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx. 870-87". 699

1. where one goes unworthily to the table of the Lord. And therefore it is no wonder that no people are more wicked, more venal, 2) impure, proud and merciless, neither priests nor monks. Why? Precisely because they themselves so sacrilegiously undertake the sacramental rites and holy business. For this reason we want and should judge for ourselves whether we are truly fed with the bread of heaven. For if we lived our lives without hypocrisy, we would go less astray in darkness, and we would be more manly in freely confessing the truth. Yes, I say, we would lift up our heads not only in fears, but also in the future of the Lord with a free and joyful mind. For we would know that everything we suffer here will be shot for our good.

Vom wahren rechten geistlichen Esten, from the 6th chapter of John.

Long enough we have hemmed ourselves in the words (for you have willed it so) of the supper; consequently you will not unwillingly allow us that we also step to the sixth chapter of John, and there set him as a probationer of our coin.

Paul was led by opportunity to speak of the signs. John, however, does not think of external signs at all, indeed, he only does not touch them. If it had been such a counsel of God to honor the bread so highly, it would have been even more of a miracle that such an excellent man as John, who only had a desire for high heavenly things, should pass by the matter with such profound silence. Yes, truly! The faithful evangelist John has sufficiently admonished us of all this that serves our salvation. There are some scholars who become deaf from the moment they hear some things from John about the sacraments, because he wrote nothing in particular about the sacraments. How justly they do this, they see. Who would despise the school physicians, who write only about medicine, if they do not practice medicine themselves, and yet prescribe common rules on how to maintain health, how to attain it, and how to make medicine? Yes, who would not love them more, and diligently indulge in them, 3) since they are not the only ones.

1. So put by us instead of: "der dann abweg damit hetscht." "heischen""==follow. Cf. § 61. The meaning is: This harm always follows when one goes to the sacrament unworthily.
2. "more reasonable" probably as much as: forbidden.
3. to allow == to listen.

It is uncertain what illness would possibly trigger him, so that he would not need a running medicine, if it took the way that he would become ill? No one should shy away from Johannem, because he does not want to be taught; his writings are a good eye ointment for me, which are now very necessary for the supporting people, and serve well for the cause. Yes, if they are properly applied. Hardly may we recognize more cheerfully elsewhere who holds more rightly to the Sacrament. How so? So John teaches what the bread of the soul is; from whom it is served; how it is obtained and eaten. Do things not seem right to us? Do you think that it is taught in vain to teach how and in what form the flesh of Christ may or may not be eaten? Is it not good to know how far the flesh is useful or useless? The things look to me for it, one may well dissolve from the things the greatest heavy part. Cause, as soon as I understand that the meat is of no use, and that it cannot be eaten for itself.

(115) If I know that the heavenly Father alone gives me this bread, I can immediately judge what I should expect from men and from the supper. Therefore, let us also consider the things John says in chapter 6, to see if they might rhyme with our intentions. For indeed, we find in these two places, from which we may prove ourselves, whether we went to the sacrament worthily or unworthily.

In the sixth chapter we are instructed how faith or trust must be, so that we may go to the supper without danger. Other things like this are not omitted when he writes of the supper, but John does not speak of the outward signs, wine and bread. How is it? Thus it comes to pass that one should not be angry because of outward signs, for they are nowhere so great as they are made.

(117) As to the first, we are taught from the sixth chapter of John, which is the bread of souls. For indeed, a badly common bread would not do for those who suffer insatiable hunger and have sorely troubled consciences of sin. It must be only a delicious bread. Dear, what kind of bread is it? It is Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God Himself, through whom all things are created and remain in their essence. Without a doubt, it is he who can make us alive and feed us. For he says, "I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall not hunger." Again: "I am the living bread that comes from heaven.

70017 . oeeolampad's responsibility against billieanus. W. xx. 87L-87S. 701

he that eateth of the bread shall live for ever.

The other thing we learn for the nourishment of our souls from this sixth chapter of John is this: Whence hath Christ, or whence cometh he, that he is the bread of life? Did he get it from being a son of man? No, "from that he hath it, that the Father hath sealed him. Or is it because he has a flesh, as we have? No; but hence he hath it, that he came down from heaven. Would the flesh he received from Mary the virgin, his mother, have been useful? Alas, no; but therefore it was profitable that the living Father sent him, and that he should live for the Father's sake; "for the Spirit is he that quickeneth; the flesh is not profitable."

(119) We learn, thirdly, in what manner or form his flesh becomes to us, that we may eat it, and thus proceedeth: When he was like unto God, he esteemed it not robbery to be like unto God, but poured himself out, and took upon him the form of a servant, and became like unto men, and was found in manner and form like unto men. He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the gallows; because of this God exalted him and gave him a name above all names, Phil. 2. Christ indicates Paul's words above with the words: "For I am," he says, "come from heaven, not to do what I will, but what the Father wills who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but that I should be raised up at the last day.

120 Seeing then that he, being like God, poured himself out, that is, descended from heaven. Item, he did not do his will, but the will of the Father; and that is to be obedient unto death, wherein he hath given us life. And that he might make us alive with his death, he teaches thus: "Every one that seeth the Son (that is, every one that knoweth that the Son of God hath thus humbled himself unto death, and wrought divine power on earth), and believeth in him, the same shall have eternal life."

Immediately after this he says more clearly, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. This is just as much: my flesh will be bread for you, because I will voluntarily give it to death out of great love, so that I may make you alive.

122. so someone now reported sayings on the

sacramental bread, the same brings us a foreign sense of Scripture, as my Theophylactus also does, the Doctor Urban Rhieger, 1) a distinguished man, who is learned and quite eloquent, has sought 2) to attract. But in the matter of the Sacrament, the same Urban (with leave before him) is of a lesser mind than is proper. For even though the teacher Theophylactus in other places happily directed his teaching according to Chrysostom, in that place he was sorely lacking; for these are also Chrysostom's words, which he speaks of John's saying reported before, saying: "Christ calls Himself a bread of life from causes, that He may strengthen our present and future life." It is true, Chrysostom confesses, that Christ's speech refers to the Sacrament, but in a different way; for in the next 47th homily, after Nothdurft, he indicates what his opinion is, how one should understand his words when he speaks of the Sacrament, saying: "What is to be understood carnally? This is when one understands a thing simply as one speaks of it, and considers nothing else; one should not judge visible things in this way either. No, one should view the mysteries with the inward eyes, that is, spiritually." So much Chrysostom.

In other places Chrysostom admonishes this even more clearly, saying: "As soon as the inward eyes see the bread, they fly over the creatures, and do not think of the bread that the baker has baked, but they think of him who has made for himself a bread of life, who is then signified by the sacramental, or by the spiritual bread. I am also sorry, on account of the same Urbani, that he does not note it better, that it is not Athanasius whom he cites for this, but just the previous Theophylactus; although he is not to be despised, he is nevertheless in the business of the sacrament nothing careful, not at all. However, his words may not receive anything, because 4) they are of the kind that Chrysostom has in him, who likes to talk about signs rather than about the essential things that are signified by the signs.

You will also find that all the old teachers call the body and the blood the sacrament of the body and the blood; enough has been said about this in my previous booklet, so there is no need to repeat it here.

1. Urbanus Rhegius.
2. "jerked" perhaps: taken out.
3. "his revenge of the words" perhaps: his questions about the words.
4. "for" put by us instead of: the.

702 II. writings against Zwingli and his followers re. W. xx. 87S-S7S. 703

The book of the Lord's Supper, which went out under the name of Cyprian, has deceived many people, and all who know Cyprian a little better will give evidence of it. That it is a false and secretly patched up book is easy to assume: for the dissolute man who wrote the book says in the preface that he wants to keep his name secret; which Cyprianus would by no means have done; and therefore it appears that it was never 1) a monk. But the things that he accuses, along with other evidence gathered here and there in heaps, I myself have long since considered, and in the past accused some of them of the same. But now we are sure what the old teachers' opinion is. Well, this is therefore poorly resolved in passing. Let us return to the things that John says:

126. "The bread that I will give is my flesh." From this it is seen what is the use of Christ's flesh, and what is the unusefulness of it, and how far it is useful or not useful. But because it is the flesh of Christ, and is given for the life of the world, if it be believed, it truly feedeth; but if it be put into the mouth, or into the stomach, it profiteth the soul nothing at all.

The flesh of Peter, or the flesh of Moses, would have been of no use, God grant, if it had been eaten or sacrificed. But the flesh of Christ may (as Cyril rightly speaks of it) make alive; for the flesh is agreed to the word of God. Still so the presence of the flesh serves no purpose. The disciples who learned it did not like to understand such a flesh's worthiness, and therefore they were annoyed. For how would carnal men see glory in the cross, wisdom in foolishness, and life in death? The trouble became very great when the flesh was taken from the earth, when Christ received a name above all names for the great deep humility.

In that John saith, This offendeth you? how then, if ye see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? For the Spirit gives life, the flesh is of no use," thus he will speak: Then, forsooth, all vexation will cease from the true disciples, when they shall see divine power, from which Christ rose again, and ascended into the heavens, and so the flesh will no longer be present; for the fleshly presence was a hindrance to the disciples in the sending of the Holy Spirit, John 16. Yes, even then, forsooth, the truth will not be any the less present in all the world.

1. i. e. approximately.

Then it will undoubtedly be that Christ is a son of God, and those who believe the words that I speak into their hearts, they will be a spirit and a life. That is so much, the same my words will be a good tax for them to a spiritual life, that they are henceforth no longer minded after the flesh, and so in this way my flesh will be food for them (the believers), and my blood a drink. Not for the sake of any other food, but just for the sake of faith, which faith is not false or hypocritical, but a brave faith, so that the heart is born anew through it, and thus begins to fear and love God. After that, when it is so well fattened with faithful, diligent remembrance, that it also breaks forth into works and thanksgiving; and this is the eating of Christ's flesh only, for in the supper he did not give his flesh, but only bread to eat.

But if one said: One must or should eat the body, then it will be necessary that he put a figurative speech from the word "eat". But since, in short, there is no other food, neither reported above, it should not have been recognized that bread is the essential body. Note also this, that just as it is not a violent figurative speech to say, "My flesh is indeed meat," so it is not a forced figure to say, "This is my body. The reason is that in the two sayings the little word "is" is used only very subtly. [Those people who eat the flesh in faith, the essential thing, the true body and blood of Jesus, is not only shown to them by the outward sign, but it is shown to them by faith. How? That the body is essentially present? No. How then? So that it becomes ours, just as it was ours before. I will gladly confess that the body is present, yes, especially when the enjoyment it produces is given and present, namely, the knowledge of the Father's mercy, which knowledge is the only food of conscience. 3)

The fourth thing we learn from the sixth chapter of John is what enjoyment or use this spiritual food has. Yes, what is its use? The spiritual food remains and makes us remain until eternal life. That he may have it, saith Christ, Whosoever cometh to me shall never hunger; and whosoever believeth in me shall never thirst. He further says, "Him that cometh to me, I will not

2. d. i. such.
3. Marginal gloss: Hear, O Christ! Hear.

704 17. oecolampad's responsibility against billicanus. W. xx. ns-sso. 705

throw out." Item: "He that eateth of the bread shall live for ever." And, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day: he that eateth me shall live because of me." Further, "Those who ate the manna died, but whoever eats this bread will live forever." These first told tidings are also a cause that we do not let it happen just so above, that one makes the body into the bread, or out of the bread. For, by the truth, the words can be taken for revealed words, and promise without proverb 1) life to all who eat and drink in this way. 2) And if any man but eat or drink of it, 3) he shall have in himself the fountain of life; and he shall have no more need of it, neither to eat, nor to drink.

Item 131: If your opinion existed, there must be two ways to salvation. One way would be to believe that the body that should make us alive is in the bread. The other way would be this: that faith, that is, the good firm trust in Jesus Christ crucified, made us blessed. From this it follows that one who wanted to be saved would have to derive as much benefit from the supper as he derives from the cross. Now, how can or how should a man prove himself, if he hopes for remission of his sins from the supper, since he has not obtained such remission beforehand by faith in the death of Christ? If the body of Christ can be eaten and the blood drunk in the way you speak of, there is a worry that malediction will come upon all those who do not drink wine or who are ill, and that their consciences will suffer evil. For as soon as they hear, when the sacraments are administered, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you." Who now would be well pleased with the fencing, if he ever had clear words here. However, one should be glad that these words of John do not serve for the supper, although, if the opinion of the dead body existed, I could not see it, as this whole 6th chapter does not belong to the sacrament. For that is ever so, Christ will not work such excellent miraculous signs without a particularly great cause, understand that his body is in the bread, and one body in many places, and as many altars as many bodies. No, indeed!

132. fifth. Who gives this bread, and

1. "Pronoun" probably as much as "circumlocution". > > 2) Marginal gloss: May all devils not overthrow this. 3) i.e. > serious.

From whom shall it be desired? From the Father who is in heaven. For thus saith the Lord, I have told you, ye have seen me, and have not believed. All that my Father gives me comes to me." Item: "Moses did not give this bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven, and no one may come to me, but the Father draws him. It is written in the Prophets: They are all taught by God. Therefore every one that hath heard and learned of the Father, let him come unto me." Christ pollinates his speech, saying: "No one may come to me unless it is given him by the Father."

Will all people have this bread? No, no. Who then? Only those who have longed for it, and those who are drawn by the Father. Therefore, no one will have this bread with his own strength, nor with the experience of many scriptures.

134. Sixth, we learn how and when we received this bread. For thus we receive the bread, if we work a meat that fadeth not away, and if we follow neither the world, nor the things that are in the world, but custom, 4) honor, riches, yea, I say, even ceremonies, and all that is under and less than Christ. Yea, then first of all we receive this bread, and work an incorruptible meat, if we seek JEsum Christum, the Son of Gattes, who showeth divine deeds, with great desires, and if we esteem all things as filth, as Paul did, that we may win Christum.

(135) And when they asked, What is to be done? "This," said Christ, "is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent: and verily I say unto you, He that believeth in me hath everlasting life. Well then, if we seek the flesh of Christ in bread, do we not receive it from the hands of man, whose only gift we should expect from the hands of the one Father? Moreover, if Christ will be in a wheat loaf, he will start to be ours in another way, neither in eating by faith. But this is not so. For Christ is not eaten in any other way, nor can he be eaten in faith alone.

136. seventh, we learn from examples who have eaten the flesh of Christ or not. Peter has eaten the flesh of Christ and drunk his blood, therefore he says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we believe and confess that you are the Son of the living God." How well the flesh of Christ tasted to Petro, and how useful it was to him.

4. Maybe: "Belly"?

706II . writings Against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W.xx.8so-883. 7(^7

No one can know how much it pleased him, since he himself was enlightened by the Father. But Judas, who is a model of all hypocrites, was the one who did not eat the flesh among the disciples, but he was the devil, and remained so; and he was also, without doubt, an instrument of wrath, and one who would betray his Master, whom, after so many great deeds of miracles, he thought only bad for a man, like another. We see it even today in the descendants of Judea, how far they depart from Christ, in whom there is only one great faith. So much from the sixth chapter of John, from which we are told who they are that eat the flesh of Christ, and in what manner and ways it may be eaten. Therefore, there is more than one thing that denies 1) that the Lord Christ used and spoke a figurative speech in the supper.

137 I also added the things that Christ, as John writes, said in the supper about his departure and about the desolation of Judea. Item, how many obstacles his bodily presence brought to the future of the comforting spirit. Item, of the one commandment of Christians, that is, of love. Of humility, of the patience we should have in adversity, as Christ our Master did before. But these things do not do much to explain who they are that have brought the true natural sense into the Scriptures, above that which is now reported. Therefore I leave it.

138. But this I must still answer some who say: If then the true believers find salvation through the one faith and eat Christ in the one faith, never thirst, and live forever, even if they then 2) never come to the evening meal; what need is there of the custom? I would have said to them that this custom should be ordered for this very reason, because the blessed have a desire to proclaim their blessedness to other people, and to thank the Benefactor, and to draw all people, as much as they can, to the glory of God, which is done in any case in the proclamation of the Word and in the exhortations. Nevertheless, human frailty is also somewhat diminished, in that Christ has instituted outward signs, with which such would be spread and praised, as with a sincere 3) welcome, so also otherwise with
139. disputes == disputes.
140. Perhaps it should be read: "dannethin" i.e. fernerhin.
141. i.e. about one, any one.

writings and words. One would also be poorly united without external signs in one and the same service of God. One should also keep such external signs instituted by Christ with all honor in all purity, truth and love. If we love Jesus, who died for us, we should also love our brothers, who are members of the body, and help them as appropriate. For this purpose the supper custom serves not only a little, but also Jesus Christ will dwell in us much more blessedly, neither in bread. Who JEsus Christ is for eternity given. Amen.

Now, my Billican, as you have heard, so my heart understands the words of the supper. I trust God, it understands them Christianly and blamelessly. But after you let the light come to you, you will see that all things are much clearer and smoother than you would have thought. That you want to excuse my Tertullianum, he was of a short memory, I say so:

Tertullianus does not accept this excuse of Heine, because it is obvious that he was not such a forgetful man that he forgot the highly famous words of the supper; he also does not speak in the person of Marcioni, because the whole text there screams against it. And therefore it seems good that you had more to do, neither that you consider all things. However, I would like you not to consider his words, which he introduces against the Marcionian heretics, as a small, unremarkable argument, since he says: "The truth of the body is signified by the signs"; for you will find the same in Chrysostom and Jerome. His speech is also suitable for the same time, in which not a few Manichaeans were present.

141. What hinders you, so Tertullianus writes to the housewives at the second book, saying: "The man should not know what you eat secretly before the food, and if he would know it, he does not believe that bread is that one speaks that it is. What is it that penetrates you here? How would a pagan pig distinguish between the holy and the unholy? How would a pig judge from the stones of the earth? How would he call the bread a holy corpse, who bravely denies that Christ rose from the dead? Do you think he would believe that the bath of regeneration is what it is called? Tit. 3. I do not mean it."

How often do teachers, when they speak of the sacraments, exhort the consecrated, that is, the faithful, to know what is being said? You should

708 17 Oecolampad's responsibility against Billicanus. W. xx, 883-ÄW. 709

For this is not Tertullian's opinion, that he understood the figure of the supper in such a way that he thereby raised the truth, that is, the true body. No. Beyond that, the name figure also does not enforce such. For if the name figure enforced such a thing, you would also have to say that Christ was only a ghost; for we read of Christ in Phil. 3 that he was invented in figure or form, like a man. Everything that shows the likeness of a thing, we call a figure, which one might also call a sign or a sacrament.

143. The rest of the things we have just said before; therefore, even if Tertullianus insists on his opinion, Christ will no less be our brother, who has put on our true flesh to make us alive.

Further, that you like my Swabian booklet, I truly do not know whether you have read it with open and alert eyes or not. Truly, lest I be a superior judge, methinks they have badly failed in that they want to be seen as having forgotten neither discipline nor love in their writing; cause, which write for unity's sake, they arrange their writings differently, neither they have done.

I ask God to forgive them and to do them good. Oh that God would want it to be my business alone, how I would gladly swallow even more evil words, and not say a little word about it. But it is the business of truth, which it is not proper to neglect. I have answered them as much as the Lord has given me. Those who read and examine your writing and my answer against each other will perhaps find out whether you or I have dealt with these matters more honestly.

Finally, by entrusting me to the prayers of good friends, you are doing me a special service; you cannot serve me any better. My request to you is that you also pray to God for me always, so that I will not forget you. May Christ grant that we may long help one another with prayer and exhortation, for the benefit of the Christian community and for the glory of His name. Farewell.

Here are two sermons, containing that one should not separate brotherly love because of the Lord's Supper. Also on the worthiness of the sacrament, with brief rejections of many objections of the opponents, preached by John Ecolampadium of Basel, pastor of St. Martin's there.

O God, save the prisoners!

*18. Johann Oecolampad's two sermons on the worthiness of the Lord's Supper. )

Held on 21 and 24 December 1525.

The first sermon

Of the Worthiness of the Sacrament, done by John Oecolampadium from St. Thomas Day 21 Dec. 1525 on the Gospel, read according to the time, John 20.

But in the evening of the same Sabbath re.

1 Watch wonders, one hears also a quarrel among the disciples of the Lord, because of a thing that is not to be despised in any way, and just in the Easter. The ten disciples told Thomas that Christ had risen from the dead, but Thomas opposed it. But so the quarrel is well tolerated, for he was fearful. Christ has

The ten disciples who had received mercy were friendly toward Thomas, although he was a little more deliberate. Those ten disciples, having obtained mercy, were friendly toward Thomas, although he was a little more superior. 2) Thomas, on the other hand, also took care that no harm would come to love out of this3) span, even though he did not believe their words that Christ had been resurrected, and nevertheless remained with them.

1. i.e., on neither side.
2. "superior" - too much, not to suffer, peevish. Cf. Col. 629, § 89.
3. d. i. Discord.

*) These two sermons appeared in 1526 together with the previous "Responsibility" and the "Antisyngramma" without indication of the place under the title: Apologetica Jo. Oecolarapadii. The separate title

of the sermons is: Vs äiMitats kuoüarlstiak serraouk" äuo. They are translated into German by Ludwig Hetzer. We give the text according to the old edition of Walch.

710 II. writings against Zwingli and his followers rc7 W.n.sW-887. 711

But how should Christ, who is a prince of peace, Isa. 9, and a God of love, Joh. 4, hold himself in the chip? Should he despise Thomam, who did not have a bad temper at all, whether he was well-headed? or should he let the erring sheep go? Oh woe, no. What is he doing? He brings the erring sheep to him, now that he has risen, which he redeemed only before on the cross. He also lets him go free of this error and makes him a confessor of his glory.

Now God would have us even to this day live with and among one another in such gentleness, and not be so carnal, but truly spiritual. Since all things, in our time, are full of quarrels, I have no doubt that the gentle Christ would also settle our quarrels in a short time. Yes, we have no reason to complain about him, for he is today the same Christ that he was before, Heb. 13. Therefore we should not despise anyone, if we are taught by others about God. Out with strutting! Out with selfish, self-seeking love! One should kindly instruct the rude. But if we are of a slow mind, and even now and then dwell in darkness, even if we are not all of the same mind in all articles, all this does no great harm; so far, only let our heart be taught, and keep strong peace. Yes, everything, one only sins nowhere against love. Let us have an unquenchable desire for the truth, and the truth, which is Christ, will not be far from us. O it is evil that Herod and Pilate became one for Christ's sake, and yet the disciples of Christ, and those who confess and preach one God, are divided among them, Luc. 23. The lamb and the wolf will be one, and cannot the sheep remain one among themselves? Isa. 11 Certainly, as soon as we indulge our sensualities, we will never see an end to the strife, nor the growth of truth.

(3) Well, though our adversaries are not almost humble, let us give them a soothing account of the faith, and especially of the things which they accuse us of concerning the sacrament. For I fear that some of the fainthearted might run away because of their sacrilegious cries, 1) or become even more despondent. Moreover, Christmas Day is approaching, on which (as I hope) your many will testify with the holy sacramental sign of brotherly love. Therefore, I will speak about it a little more clearly, not only from the cause,

1. "lausen" put by us instead of: zausen.

That you may learn from it how others wrongly judge us; but whether there be any who have not hitherto noted the opinion of sacramental mysteries to the very best, that he, now and more fully reported, order his life in such a way that he give no occasion to the adversaries to persuade.

(4) Let us begin with the things which those throw at us from the text of the Gospel now read, to whom it is not sufficient for the glory of Christ, which we confess in the articles of our faith founded in holy Scripture. Namely, they are not content that the most holy body of Christ is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father, but they also say that it is essentially in the bread. For as soon as the simple-minded meet them with their vile reproaches, that their opinion is contrary to common sense, yea, that they also test in the mouth another thing, neither do they teach, of which also the eyes, the ears, and other senses bear witness; well then, from this hour they wipe out the saying of the Lord out of this gospel, and say, "Blessed are they which have not seen, and believe," from which then they make such a reckoning. Well then, though the senses mean another, and the things we speak feel none, for we know that our sensuality is deceived: so let not the words deceive. Concerning "such is the faith of those things which are not seen," Heb. 11. This is the adversary's speech. But let us diligently consider where the meaning of the words is directed. It is undeniable that there is no mention of the sacrament in today's Gospel, but that only the faith of the resurrection is strengthened. But if it were proper to argue that one must believe everything that one does not see, we would also want to prove that an ox is stuck in a pea, and a mosquito is an elephant; indeed, it would not be a lie so hideously large that one would have to believe it, because one does not see it. From this, however, the actual meaning of this saying may be written. Christ, our Lord, has it in custom that he praises the faith of Abraham and the archfathers, saying: that all the trusted ones 2) in him are true children and true successors of Abraham, Luc. 19, as the Zachaeum, together with those who come from the going out and the going down of the sun, and will rest with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven, Matth. 8. 8. On the other hand, he also said that the Jews were not children of Abraham, but of Bastarte, and were even of the kind of Abraham, John 8. So Christ also looks in this place upon the fathers, that they believed

2. Familiar == those who trust.

712 .18. Oecolampad's two sermons on the Lord's Supper. W. xx. 887-sso. 713

They had been admonished only by word, without any sign, and so Thomas was unequal to his 1) brothers in that case, in that he did not believe even after the deed. Therefore he says to him: O Thomas, the sign does not make you blessed, yes, it punishes you, the true believers believe the word without sign.

(5) Furthermore, if the adversaries would deny that this sentence was said in the church and rhymed with their assumption of the sacrament, we will find that it is closer to our opinion than to theirs, and that they fall by their own sword. Why? For this very reason, one should first have publicly stated with an undeniably clear word of God that the bread is the body of Christ, and therefore one should not waver in this, because it would be just and precisely so. God granting that human or angelic reason would be against it, would be equally valid. Yes, that is the defect, that one offers it with cheerful words. But if they cry out, "This is my body," there are many other causes that do not allow one to take all 2). from these words, that the bread is the essential body of Christ, or that the body in the bread is also in heaven. This is a freer thing: it is found in the writings of the papists themselves, 3) that this sense understanding, that the body is in the bread (or that the bread is the true body), cannot be obtained or grasped from the clear words of the evangelists, but comes only from the fact that the church has thus recognized it. The others, too, will never conquer together that the essential body is in the bread, or that the bread is the true body, even if they use their art and all their speed, because God wanted to punish us for our sins, so that we step away from His light. Now, since the bodily presence is not proved by divine words, no one should urge us not to believe our sensitive senses, so that we eat bread for meat, gall for sugar. Yes, it would be foolish to urge anyone to believe without a displayed word, for "how will they believe if they do not hear?" Rom. 10.

(6) If it is a matter that the helpful control of the face and the sensuality are detrimental to the saving faith, then also the bodily presence of human afflictions will be a blessing.

1. "his" put by us instead of: his.
2. d. i. such.
3. Marginal gloss: The bishop Ravensis has written it.
4. and so much more, the more hidden it is; for Christ says, "Unless I go, the Comforter will not come. Now saving faith comes neither from the flesh, nor from the blood, but from the Holy Spirit, who draws us away from the flesh; for in order that we may be saved, we must, for the sake of necessity, leave all that is not highest and best, and pass quickly by. All who cling to the flesh are easily repelled. But the few who cling to the word have already conquered these things; nothing can harm them. The faith that the Lord requires of us is presented at the end of this Gospel (as in many other places) in few words. For all these things which are written are written, that we may believe that Jesus is the anointed Son of God, and that believing we may have life. This is the faith that is commanded us in the Scriptures, and not the delusion that the bread is the body of Christ. Many other things that Christ did are of no concern to us, therefore they are conveniently omitted; but what is necessary is here opened in one sum. If, however, taste and sight deceive and hinder us in this place, we legally understand by sight all preconception of bodily presence, for preconception or postconception hinders no less than sight itself. It also happens that the things one sees before one's eyes do not draw the mind away from contemplation; but this never happens if someone models something for him, so that his mind is not prevented from resting. If I were to say that the body was in the bread and that I was convinced of it, it would happen suddenly and in a miraculous way, human stupidity would not be able to refrain from such an innovation of higher things. From which it follows that the Christ, because he wanted to take the flesh from our eyes, Apost. 1, he also willed that we should be withdrawn from the imagination of his bodily presence; and in order that we may be saved, we must fly above everything that is not the highest. In order that I may discover the trade even more cheerfully, I will indicate it with an example, and set it thus: I have imagined myself talking to God in the dark of midnight and contemplating something high, when it happens that my dearest benefactor sits down bodily next to me, whom I neither see nor hear, nor grasp, I alone know,
5. Marginal gloss: If the small harms, the larger also harms.
6. i. e. approximately.

714II . Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 890-892. 715

that he is with me; how is it, then, that his nimble, unforeseen presence did not confuse me, and did not separate my mind from the higher thoughts I had resolved to think? How is it possible that the presence of the body of Christ, which is so full of miracles, and in which contemplation strives, no longer deters the mind, neither that it may properly use and exercise itself in the memory of the suffering of Christ? There we show ourselves our hypocrisy by saying: Yes, we believe it, if only we do not believe it.

(7) It is true that the fathers who believed in the word did not need to be present in the flesh, yet they were saved. Therefore, it is unnecessary for our adversaries to apply this saying, "Blessed are those who have not seen and believe," to their opinion, for it will be on our side that this is the meaning: Blessed are those who have believed without bodily presence; this is the faith God wants us to have in what He wants to be believed.

8 Further, as one easily answers their childish reproaches, so also one soon answers their abusive words with which they sprinkle us. First, they cry out that we defile and destroy divine sacraments. Secondly, they complain that Christ, the spouse, who is the most beautiful among men, is being removed from the Church 1). Thirdly, the spiritual food of souls, together with its precious treasure, is taken away by us. Fourth, they cry out that the very body and blood of Christ, above which there is nothing more divine in all this world, is stolen by us. They do not take pleasure in this, they go at us more boldly, saying: "We have nothing in our commonwealth but wine and bread; we have neither God nor Christ. They and their swine (so the opponents say) live at home just as deliciously as we do; although we already have much, they esteem the sanctity of bread just as highly as a loaf of bread given in the honor of Saint Ulrich, or Saint Hupertus, or another saint. Above all these disgraceful speeches they attribute to us the disbelief of the Jews, which Jews are always repugnant to the sacrament of the Christians. They say that the ancient Jews were higher in worship because of their ceremonies and sacrifices than we are. I would have liked to do all these things for my own sake, just as I heard and realized it.

1. i.e. taken away.

not. But I must not do it from the unused 2) and weak, because the truth must be discovered aloud. I ask you to resolve patiently, I will not say anything ungodly. Things are not so bad yet, they can still be helped.

(9) First of all, that we deny the sacraments their honor and take it away is a lie. Yes, it is true, we deny their honor, and we desire that their honor remain unharmed. 3. But this true honor does not stand in the adorning of garments; it does not stand in adorned and gilded vessels; it does not stand in great, delicious torches, and the like. No, God has never desired any of these things, nor praised them, nor loved them. What does God desire? He desires purity of faith; He desires truth without falsehood and hypocrisy; He desires innocence, love and the like. All these things we desire to build. Now, if Christ had first considered external things, indeed, he would have considered them first. But he is the one who dispensed with us from external things and taught us not to cling to the elements of this world. Dear, consider our cause and the cause of the adversaries against each other; they will be disgraced if only one makes a cross too small. [But those who first run from the harlots over the altar or to the sacrament, spiritual usurers, death-beaters, people-shamers, blasphemers of the word of God, the greatest blasphemers are good companions and patrons to them, keep them honest, if they have only the papal way, that is, ungodly, messt. Which one do you think defiles the sacraments, us or them? Which one should not be suffered? Which one is detrimental to God's community and the sacraments? You know it well yourselves, and you see it before you. And so much for now.

You also see that they are more guilty than we are in other cases. We find ourselves quite innocent, God grant how they bark and rave against it; cause, that with which they subject themselves to make us hateful to all, is only worth nothing, nothing at all. For who are we to take away the church's sponsor, of whom it is said that he will cling to his wives, and they two will be one flesh, Genesis 3? they will never learn this from our words.

(11) Just as we do not take away the spouse of Christ from the church, so we do not take away the spiritual food of the souls, but we bring it forth.

2. i.e. untried, inexperienced.
3. "Aufnen" probably as much as: raise.

716 18 Oecolampad's two sermons on the Lord's Supper. W. xx, sss-Ms. 717

(12) But it is fitting that they should remind us here of the marriage. For as Christ is the spouse of the church, so he also feeds her with flesh and waters her with blood, for both (the marriage and the feeding) take place in faith alone; it is also unnecessary that neither in the marriage nor in the supper there should be bodily presence. If our adversaries dream of a carnal supper, they undoubtedly also dream of a carnal marriage. But nothing, far be it from the congregation of God with such blasphemy! God has married us to him in faith, in mercy and in pardons, as Hosea says Cap. 2, we also cleave to him in faith. So also (by faith) what Christ has becomes ours, and our things become Chrisü. He endured words of shame that he might make us honorable; he was poor that he might make us rich; he died that he might make us alive. His glory, his righteousness, his inheritance, in sum, all that he has is our own; 1) but we have no need of his bodily presence for it. Christ, our spouse, remains with his own and is helpful to them, even if he is not already present in the flesh. Yes, I say, whether he is already not bodily present. Yes, I say, even if he is not present in body, he has promised to be present with his power, with his help and with his blessing, and he is. Still we are not the people who make him absent. No. He (Christ), when it was convenient for him, departed to his Father. Of this his bodily absence he foretold, Matt. chap. 9, saying, "The bridegroom's children may not grieve, because the bridegroom is with them; but the time cometh, that he shall be taken from them." When Paul said, Phil. 1: "I desire to be redeemed and to be with Christ," Christ was never with him. Do you mean whether Paul ran to the sacrament house or box? No, of course not. Where then? He went to heaven, where he also told us to go. "If ye be risen," saith Paul, Col. 3, "seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of the Father: for this is our citizenship, our headship, and our treasure. 2) True believers in faith know well that Christ cannot be taken away from them, because their faith remains firm and sound.

13. Now see who is more careful, the one who is the most careful.
14. Randglosse: Ein Mümpfeli - mouthful d. i. a small consolation für ein betrübtes Herz.
15. Marginal gloss: For faith keeps him.

To teach faith, whether it be those who teach spiritual adultery by their own works, or whether it be those who will not hear that we live and are saved by faith. Do not they abolish faith who give it so little, and so the bridegroom himself? I think so, they accept the bridegroom. There is also another holy marriage, in which the Word of God, John 1, thus made flesh, has taken our nature, and has accepted it in such a way that he will not leave it henceforth. And who is this who assumes that Christ is not our spouse in this way? Yes, I also firmly believe that the Word did not leave the flesh even in death; and therefore, since he bears our flesh, we also bear his flesh, for his divinity is so powerful that, just as his flesh was resurrected, so we also will be resurrected. As he in his flesh, yea, hold I, in our flesh, ascended up to heaven, so shall we also ascend. That every godly man may swear to him with five words 3) that he may enter into bread: o we do not desire this, and yet we do not fear that in that case anything will be detrimental either to Christ or to us. They should tell us 4) where the holy scripture speaks differently of the marriage of Christ.

(14) This is also the answer we give to the spiritual food of souls. How and what kind of food it is is sufficiently evident from its marriage. For in like manner as we are espoused to Christ in faith, so also we are fed with the flesh of Christ through faith. This is clear from the 6th chapter of John, which cannot be interpreted in any other way. Here we again conquer that blasphemy is legally attributed to those who praise faith exactly and little, and ascribe blessedness to works. They say, however, except what is the food of souls! Indeed, the food of souls and the food of angels is one food. The angels are guided by the wisdom and knowledge of God, and remain in their nature from God's Word. So also our souls are not led in any other way, neither with the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ: for "this is life eternal (says Christ), that they may know thee, that thou only art the true God, and that thou hast sent Jesus. This knowledge, if it is true and without falsity, makes alive; it feeds, it delights, it satisfies and fattenes the soul. This is the difference between the angels and us, that we see by faith and by hope, that they see by faith and by hope.

3. In the old edition: complain.
4. i.e., to speak out.

718II . Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. xx, 8ss-ss8. 719

In short, there is nothing that feeds the soul, 1) but only the highest wisdom, and everything that is contrary to this is pure poison. Now we teach and preach this doctrine publicly, and this one thing grieves us, that they receive so little, and that the several part speak another and do another. The unbelievers deprive themselves; or if the blame is ever to be ascribed to anyone, then those will be guilty who take it amiss that faith is so highly emphasized in the sermons, and worry that something might be taken away from the works. But nothing is taken away from the believer, because he keeps his treasure. What is the treasure? It is not the bodily presence, but it is the Word by which all things were created, which also dwells in the hearts of believers. Nevertheless, this treasure is also in our hearts, because our heart is with him in heaven. Example: If a man had a field far away in a foreign land, and yet needed and enjoyed the fruit that grew on it, and it remained his own, so that all the income served him home, who would say that the field was taken from him? Rather, what harm does it receive? None. See, it is the same here with the body of Christ. Christ is your gift, the Father has given it to you; Christ was born for your benefit; Christ suffered for your benefit; all that he has is yours; his glory is yours, his inheritance is also yours; yes, all the fruits that may come to you from him you already possess in hope. Therefore, dear Christian, do not be frightened by the adversary's taunts, 3) indeed, by their shameful persuasions, for their words of shame go out from their own heads. So we have our bridegroom, we enjoy spiritual food, and are also rich from our treasure; give as they swarm.

(15) Now let us go from the first disgraceful speech to the other, with which they mockingly blast among the common people: in our churches there is nothing else but wine and bread. I wonder why they are allowed to speak like this; do they say this because they hear the words wine and bread, supper, table and meal called? O the cause is too bad for them to speak of us in this way; for we do not sin, even though we call the sacraments by the words wine and bread, since the Holy Spirit also is the Holy Spirit of God.

1. Marginal gloss: Meat is also not a food.
2. sth - anyone; "sth" put by us instead of: sthan.
3. i. e. chatter.

thus by Paulum 1 Cor. 10. and 11. and by the Evangelists spoke. Now we will not be more learned than he is. Cause it is bread, and will remain bread, because there is some bread left. Nevertheless we do not speak that it is only a badly common bread. Although it is, as far as matter is concerned, no different from the bread we eat at home, it is still not bad bread. But that it is bread, the mice and the worms give evidence, whether it already denies the pope's heap. Yes, indeed, it is nothing but bread before and after the use, and therefore it is not necessary to keep it in the boxes with such great idolatry, for it is only bread; nor did Christ appoint it to be used for idolatry.

(16) Lest anyone think us sacrament abusers, let us freely declare how highly we hold the sacrament. If the twelve shewbreads in the law were not common bread, and yet had no difference in matter from other common bread, Leviticus 25, 1 Kings 21, how much more will there be nothing common or bad in this sacrament, even though the true body is not in the bread, provided that only the due thanksgiving does not remain undone!

17. at the beginning: Everything that Christ has commanded us is exceedingly dear to us, be it, stop I, however indifferent 4) it may be. Even if he had commanded us a small pebble, he would have given us a thing that was dearer to us, neither a precious stone. Isn't it so, that the bad simple-minded people feel a special charm, if one brings stones or water out of the holy land of Jerusalem? How much more then will they take heed to a thing that Christ commanded us? For he never commanded to be astonished at the things brought out of Jerusalem, no doubt because they did not serve superstition. All that Christ Himself ever personally tried (though bitterly) is almost dear and pleasant to us. Christ starved; therefore hunger is also a blessed thing to us. Christ died; therefore death is also sweet to us. Christ was blasphemed and reviled with the shame of the cross; therefore we also have the cross honestly. How much more, then, should we be commanded by the sacred custom of the Supper! For Christ himself has used it, he has commanded it to us; therefore the thing is well commanded to us. Because now the

4. i.e. indifferent.

720 18 Oecolampad's two sermons on the Lord's Supper. W. xx, Wg-soo. 721

The gifts of other friends of ours, which we nevertheless possess at times contrary to their will, are so much valued by us: how then shall we mock the custom commanded us by Christ himself in the last supper? If you measure the worthiness of him who commanded you, who he is, and who you are, and how excellent is that which he commanded you, then it will not seem bad to you. 1) Thou art a sinner worthy of many hells, and otherwise unworthy of all good. [But he that commandeth is the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation, by whom and from whom all things were created, who is dear to the Father, and without measure; yea, he and no other hath commanded it. So because of Christ, the instigator, the sacraments are holy and venerable.

18 Secondly, the things by which Christians are told and enlightened of more divine business are held more sacred by them than other things. For this reason, we have the evangelical and biblical Scriptures, from which we have received salvific teaching, in all fairness, but in honor. That is why people swear by the Gospel and gild the Bible. No Christian would tolerate that they were spurned or burned. Now the sacraments are also in the place of books, for according to their interpretation they are sacred signs and belong to divine things, and teach just as the Scriptures do. And so we say not only that bread is bread, but that it is a sacrament, that is, a holy sign, yes, a sacrament; but not of every bad thing, but, we say, that it is a holy sacrament of the most holy body of Christ. It also reminds us of the holy body, how it was given and died for us, making us alive, and thus being our spiritual bread, which is skillfully signified by the material bread. Nothing holier can be taught in all books than this bread teaches, as now heard. But lest a coarse man should understand the signs to be 2) lollipop, the words have also been added which indicate 3) clear. Others use mockery, as Paul testifies in 1 Cor. 14, who speak with unknown tongues. But we speak good German, which is understood by the most common children, and has the greater power to move the hearts of men.

19. This also refers to the fact that the believers in Christ in all the world have nothing more sacred, neither the memory of the Lord's death, which is the only thing they have.
20. Marginal gloss: There practice you.
21. d. i. little.
22. d. i. such.

This is the night feast, which is celebrated so brightly as Christ commanded, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," Luc. 22, 1 Cor. 11; indeed, it happens so brightly that nothing makes a person more joyful to remember the passion of Christ. How can anyone say that there is nothing but wine and bread when the remembrance of our Lord's suffering is held in high esteem?

There are people who kill those who turn back idols and images; who also, perhaps moved by divine zeal to shun idolatry, have done it wrongly. How angry they would be with those who do not honor the memory of death! They say that we teach in the right, if only we confess that the body is present. To whom we reply: The memory of the body that suffered for us is more than its presence. Understand me right, I am not saying that the memory is more, neither the body itself. Well, I say that the memory is more neither the presence of the body. Of what? Of the fact that the memory of suffering is useful, so that the presence of the body is useful to a few, since the body has already been seen. How much greater is the faith of the centurion, 5) Matth. 3, neither of the royal, who desires to have Christ, the physician, present in the house! Joh. 4. They say: what benefit is there for us, that Christ is in the bread, if he is not in the heart? They also say: What harm do we receive if we have him in our hearts, if we do not have him in our bread? O dear Christians, it is much, much better to strengthen the heart with the necessary remembrance of Jesus' suffering, Heb. 13, nor else in some fleshly food. Now you see, if we have Christ in our bread and not in our hearts, how can we go to the sacrament and give thanks? Why do we not remain more than with those who pray and abstain from the Sacrament? This is our probation, which Paul requires of us, 1 Cor. 10. Here we see who they are that take away Christ their sponsor from the congregation of God, even, I say, from themselves; for by their own speeches they betray themselves, that they are not yet married to Christ, nor incorporated, but are to be incorporated only at the hour when the sacraments are administered. They cannot reproach us that Christ is not with us, since we come together to give thanks to him for the good things we have received. The faithful eat his flesh and drink his blood in faith, so that they may be the first to receive him.

4. d. i. away.
5. i.e. Centurion, the captain.

722- ll. Schriften wider Zwingli undseineAnhanger 2c. W. xx, vao-wr. 723

They are not sure whether they are such, as they show themselves with the sign afterwards. They are well satisfied with themselves. But if they have not yet tasted the bread of life, how can they claim to be Christians? Or how do they give thanks if there is no Christ in their hearts and they do not yet believe?

(21) There is another thing in the supper which is no less wonderful, neither the presence of the most holy flesh of Christ; namely, the covenant of love, 1) on which Christ would have us take such great care that, if necessity required, he would have his body crucified again, yea, a thousand times more, that we might not be deprived of such a gift of love. Let another boast of such faith, with which he moves mountains. Boast of such tongues as give nothing before even angelic tongues, 1 Cor. 14. Boast of such great contempt of riches that he also distributes all his possessions among the poor; or boast of such deep contempt of his flesh, which also dares to burn itself: nevertheless, we still have a better good, namely, chosen holy love, of which God is the author. [Those who thus offend us should look at what they are doing, because they do not value such a high good, love, by a hair's breadth, and because they rage more fiercely against us solely for the sake of their madness, neither do the hunted angry tigers rage at those who take away their young.

22. These are our mysteries, that we are all one bread and one body; that we are all one wine and one blood; that we are all partakers of one bread and of one drink, 1 Cor. 10. We are admonished beforehand that no one should be angry with another; that no one should keep in his heart the injustice done to him by another; that no one should seek vengeance. We desire to become servants of our neighbors, and so desire to grow in faith and love, that we may, after the example of Christ, die for our neighbor. I will not say that we are prepared to help our neighbor in his need from the rest of our goods. We do not come together as Rotters and. Enthusiasts. No, because we banish them and exclude them from others, where they, eight me, are denounced. We do not carouse as the gluttons who begin to indulge in gluttony early in the morning, Isa. 7. Worldly pleasure does not make us one. What then do we do? Nothing else, neither that we desire to give thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ, from

1. Marginal gloss: Love, the highest everywhere.

to whom all our goods come; to whom all glory belongs. And now our Lord God would that all things in heaven and on earth would raise their voices with us in praise of our Lord Jesus Christ! And since we have nothing to give back, let us take the drinking vessel of salvation and call on the name of the Lord. This common thanksgiving, which is known to God more than to men, commands us love, and exhorts us to holy correction of our lives, so that the holy name of God may not be blasphemed by us, as by unworthy members of Christ. We profess to be brothers and sisters, and are prepared, as soon as the church admonishes us, to improve our lives in such a way that God may be pleased with them.

(23) Since there is so much unity of hearts, so much peace, so much heavenly thanksgiving, would anyone say that it is not good? Who would be so sacrilegious as to say that God is not among us? Who would take away the giver of love from us? The adversaries speak out for once and say, are they different Christian people, what they have in their churches, with which they invite the people to his (badly tasted) meal, of which we are lacking? Do they boast of the proclamation of the death of Christ? so do we boast of it. Do they, with their public testimonies, boast of faith and love? We do the same. If their hearts are spiritually gladdened, we are also spiritually gladdened. Yes, there is one thing in which they think they are richer than we are, and that is the presence of the body and blood of Christ. Nevertheless we are not deprived of these benefits, for we believe that the body and blood of Jesus are seated in heaven with greater honor than they have. Although it is an abomination and a horror to us that anyone should think that the flesh and blood of Christ should be present, as they speak of it, for the sake of any minister's words. Nevertheless, we have Christ also under the sacrament; yes, if one only knows what sacramentum is; and I have no doubt that we have him more truly, neither those who hold opinions that do not serve the glory of Christ. The flesh of Christ keeps us incorruptible; the blood of Christ is also profitable unto us, that the Father remember us no more of our former sins, and lay not unbearable punishment upon us. We are also assured of the inheritance and the covenant, confirmed with the blood of Christ. In sum, there is nothing that we lack, that is due to Christ, or that brings any benefit.

72418 . Oecolampad's two sermons on the Lord's Supper. W. xx. gos-sw. 725

And therefore, do not listen to the evil tongues that diminish our glory, but live all your lives with such humility, love and respectability that the vanity of the talkers and our godliness may shine before God and men, through the help of Jesus Christ our Lord. God help us to do this.

The other sermon of protection,

by Johann Oecolampadium preached on Christmas Eve Dec. 24, 1525 at Basel.

(1) In this sermon I shall also answer the adversaries, who are so bold that they are allowed to speak in order to make us hateful to men: we stink after the Jewish manner, and in our congregations or churches there is much less spirituality and worship, neither just among the Jews themselves. Now it is fitting to answer them, since 1) we have just explained the text of today's Gospel, from which a just judge will see how far we and the common Jews are from each other, all of whom commonly deny the Virginity of Mary.

(2) Hear therefore first of all what Matthew saith, after which I will not forget my office to answer them.

First, we are to take an example from the virgin Mary and from St. Joseph, Matthew 1, that all those who follow God's words will never be abandoned by His mercy, even though they may suffer danger and fear at times. For there is no doubt that as soon as Mary the Virgin consented and surrendered to divine will, saying: "Behold, a servant of the Lord, let it be done to me as you have spoken of it," she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit from that moment on. Although she enjoyed this gift and grace of God the Lord, she still did not escape all dangers, because she did not open this secret (that she was pregnant) in front of virginal discipline; only to Elizabeth did she reveal it. Now that 2) she had already been revealed due to incentives 3) of the Holy Spirit, and the fruit could not remain hidden any longer, there was still a danger for her, because of the unbelieving, merciless Jews, who are not ashamed to tell even pious people, since there is already no indication of suspicion.

1. "now" put by us instead of "and".
2. "now" put by us instead of "and".
3. "Incentives" set by us instead: Arrivals.

Would they have spared the virgin first? Even if the Jews did not dare to stone Mariam, they would have directed her 4) least of all against all people. Therefore, God did it in time, and provided for her through her parents (before 5) she became pregnant, and heard the angel's bargain), that she was married to a pious God-fearing man, who would take care of her. We do not read that she was a lustful virgin or that she desired a man. No, but that was the right of the parents who decreed her marriage. Now, God wanted that the parents also in these times would have righteous care to marry their children; and it would be good that the marriages, which are carried out without the consent of the parents, would be cut up with public city bylaws and would be refused. But we will preach about this at another time.

4. well! Joseph, who had also chosen a godly housewife for himself, also began to be almost afraid, because he learned that she was pregnant: at the same time he also saw that she was of such a pious life that he would not want anything dishonest to happen to her, and he was not allowed to live with her, because he was pious. In addition, he would have been a cause of death for her. The holy scripture prevents it everywhere, so that you do not suspect the last 6). It is also written that Joseph learned that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit; but how he came to know this, we do not wish to know, for the Scriptures have not revealed it; unless he was told by a prophecy, or because of her pious life, or that Elizabeth had made this known to him, or that he had only recently seen that she was not pregnant, and immediately afterwards appeared pregnant, the Scriptures say nothing about it. However, the scripture testifies that he was pious. Now if he had had an evil suspicion of her, and yet had kept her with him, he would not have been pious. Therefore, because Joseph's mind was wavering and he had actually resolved to leave her secretly, so that the virgin would not have a bad cry and no harm would come to him because he was staying with her. When all human counsel failed him, divine counsel came to his aid. How? Well, the angel appeared to him in his sleep and told him all about it.

4. "they" put by us instead of: themselves. - "aligned"--- publicly reviled.
5. "for" put by us instead of: and.
6. i.e. wrong.

726II . writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W.xx.soö-sM. 727

He spoke to him in such a way that he made him certain and strengthened him in every word. In that the angel calls the child a son of David, he reminds Joseph of the promise made to David by God, 1 Kings 7 and 23. And in that he tells him of the fear, he frees Joseph from worry, in that he discovers the secret thing to him. The angel said that the fruit was conceived by the Holy Spirit, confirming their godly opinion that they were not deceived. In that she would give birth to a son, he indicates that it would be a deed or work of God, and says that he should be called JEsum (that is, a beatific), while Joseph learned him to be a God, for no one can make blessed, but the one God, who makes blessed, and absolves from sins, no one else. In the last, the angel confirms all this also by the prophecy of Isaiah, who foretold in chapter 7: "Let a virgin give birth to God, who will help people". For even though Christ is called Jesus, God is with us through Him, which is why He is called "Immanuel" in Hebrew, and "God is with us" in German. How would Joseph have been able to sit down with him in the presence of all the world, since he who is the child's protector is also God? Therefore Joseph, strengthened by the angel, did as he was supposed to do.

5. besides, watch out that you do not perhaps take offense at the little word donec, until, as if she had not remained a virgin after that. For the manner of the language gives such that one might suspect it, as also those consider it, who from the saying, Matth. at the 5th chapter written, read: "There he does not come out, until he pays the last quadrant"; yes, from the little word "until" they believe, one must pay the last quadrant in purgatory. In the same way, beware that you do not err in the little word "the firstborn. Christ is called the firstborn in Scripture because Mary did not bear a child before him, not because Mary had more children after him. In addition, the firstborn sons had an exceedingly beautiful advantage over other children.

(6) And so, just as we and the Jews have nothing in common with each other in this Gospel, so also we are not one in the matter of the reverend Sacrament. Dear, what is it to us that they are hostile to our sacraments, which we desire to keep in the form and measure in which Christ instituted and instituted them, and we also want them to be pure and pure.

be kept without confusion? It may be that a Jew understands the simplicity of some Christians, and bears an abhorrence for idolatry; item, that he is hostile to the avarice of our priests, to whom nothing is finer, neither the sacrament; and thus in that case with us, 1) should we also judge of it, if we are hostile to the unreasonable, to which the Jew is also hostile? No, we know well that the Jews are an obdurate, blind and faithless people; nevertheless, so are abominable vices, which the Jews are also forced to reproach ours for. For example, the Jews reproach death, they reproach theft, they reproach adultery, and such major vices: should all those also be Jews, who do not reproach all the wicked 2)? I do not consider them to be Jews. Now if idolatry arises in the sacraments (as it does), the idols are not excused on that account, even though the Jews are very harsh 3) and vehemently reproachful; our zeal is still undiminished on that account, otherwise we are sufficiently distinguished.

(7) Just as the Jews dislike our baptism and the use of the evening meal, so we also dislike their circumcision and synagogues. But let us see which party among us stinks according to the Jewish customs, and they must be finely judged which are least favorable to Christ. This is the one thing that separates the Jews from the Christians, and the further one departs from the knowledge of Christ, that is, the more he resents Christ, the closer he is to the Jews. Otherwise, in other points that do not concern Christ, the learned Jews would soon become one with our scholars. The one Christ, who is our cornerstone, rejected by the Jews, Isa. 28, Eph. 2, will give those who confess him evidence of their innocence, 1 Petr. 2.

There are three things about which the Jews were most vehemently angry. The first, they were very annoyed that Christ did not make the rites of their forefathers high and great. The second, they resented that he did not allow the Sabbath and ceremonies 4). The third, they might have become nonsensical, yes, they were more furious than dogs, because Christ called himself a son of God. In the three points now reported, one can freely see who is the one who now, in our times, has been at the Jews' and at the-

1. hull - voice.
2. all the ungodly - such ungodliness.
3. d. i. hard.
4. d. i. little.

728 18 Oecolampad's two sermons on the Lord's Supper. W. xx, sog-sio. 729

Pharisee's side. It is true that our doctrine and sacrament is now very far from their opinion; you will all give evidence of this, where you, mind I, will deign to notice me?

9. we read in Matthew 15 that the Jews were offended at the rude 1) or impoliteness of the disciples, who ate the bread with unwashed hands, contrary to the ordinances of the fathers. The disciples were also excused by Christ, who said to the Jews, "What goes into the mouth does not defile a man, but what comes out of the mouth does"; and he rebuked them with the saying of Isaiah 26, saying, "O hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied the truth of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; yet in vain do they honor me, when they teach the commandments of men." So Christ, who is a doctor or teacher of the truth, has delivered us from all human teachings. Who judges now? Counsel, those who cling to the words of men, judging the same (here we are not talking about the fact that one need not or should not be obedient to worldly rulers in matters of common use, no, we are talking here about the freedom of souls). Those are Christians, 2) who know that they are free; for which reason Paul writes to the Galatians, Cap. 5, 1. thus: "You shall stand firm in the liberty with which Christ has set you free, and shall henceforth no longer be paschalized with the yoke of bondage 3)." He also writes this opinion to the Colossians, Cap. 2, saying: "If you have died with Christ to the outward elements of this world, why then do you allow yourselves to be treated with statutes, 4) as if you were living in the world, as if it were said to you, "Do not touch this, do not try this, do not attack this." Truly, Paul was not allowed to set anything for the Corinthians to eat at night, but he teaches them the same things he received from the Lord. We also follow him, so that we may be free from the Jewish ceremonies.

Some time ago, women were scolded severely if they did not come along in the smartest way 5). At that time it was not proper for men to have a knife on them. They had to wash their teeth; yes, and if only one had drunk a drop of water early in the morning,

1. Bäursche - coarse creature.
2. Side note: Who is a Christian?
3. Paschgen - sang. Cf. Col. 667, § 56.
4. "behamen" - to hang, to bring into the Hamen (fish net).
5. consternated - veiled (?)

he was no longer able to go to the sacrament on the same day. There the sacraments were given only in gold or silver vessels. The priest had to dress himself with the alb, with the main cloth, with the stole, with the little hand flag, 6) and with the measuring spike. If he had not had a plate, he would have been unfit for it; and this offering, along with many others, all flowed only from human essays, and not at all from the word of God, with which some people's consciences are bound. Now look who are the ones who are fighting at this time of the ceremonies, stirring up stone and bone and everything they can think of, so that they do not leave. Are they not the monks and the pope's crowd? and the greatest virtue seems to them to be the greatest piety.

(11) Those who first come from the harlots, the spiritual usurers, and who are full of envy and greed, now offer the sacraments, and give themselves for Christ; yet no one interferes with them. But if a simple man, without all pomp, according to the word of God, proclaims the death of the Lord and serves the brethren, behold, he is beheaded, he must be hanged and burned; yes, he is considered more vile and mischievous than the greatest evildoers. Nevertheless, those cry out against it: Love will be hurt, one should take care of the weak 2c. 7) Answer: Yes, the wolf also gave the sheep such an answer, it would have clouded the brook for him, although it drank below at the brook, the wolf above at it. For the very ones 8) break the bond of Christian love, so persecute those who live according to God's word. Again, those who live by the word of God have no regard for them (for which the gospel is sufficiently preached), of whom Christ said, Matt. 10: "Let them go, for they are blind guides of the blind." Yes, they need their freedom, they are in bondage to the word, and they draw on it. The weak and the untrained do not fight against it. It is only the Pharisees who do so, and they will always be weary of the trouble, yet their messages, which they introduce to us, are not comfortable.

12 Secondly, the Jews ever thought that they had a just cause to be angry with Christ, because they regarded him as wanting to do away with the law, as Marcus Cap. 2. of this

6. Main cloth - humeral; hand flag - maniple. Compare about the vestments Col. 390, § 59.
7. Marginal gloss: So it must go to.
8. i.e. to tear.

730II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhsngör re. W. xx, sio-sir. 731

writes: As the disciples went through the seed on the Sabbath, and on the way they 1) plowed the ears, the Pharisees said, Lying, why do they do that which is not proper to do on the Sabbath? Jesus answered them: The Sabbath was made for man, and man was not made for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. From this we learn that all those who judge someone on account of the holidays are judging them. Why? Because the Jewish celebration is over, the temple is destroyed. Where are the sacrifices of the Jews? All ceremonies of the old law are gone, the circumcision together with the purifications and anointings have come to an end. In sum, the law contains imperfection, Heb. 7. The shadow and the meanings are to give place to light and truth, for thus they are redeemed; just as Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to redeem it, Matt. 5. For this reason, the people who reintroduce legal ceremonies to us obscure Christ and introduce darkness into the community of God. What then grieves our adversaries? Behold," they say, "Aaron wore the majesty of the divine name in front of him on his forehead, beautifully adorned with precious stones, yellow with gold, adorned with purple and silk wool, 2) he smelled 3) of delicious balsam, and created with the sound of the cymbals, which banged at the bottom of the garment, that everyone marveled at him. Yes, they say, we are worse clothed than the common Levites, and yet the Jews had something to offer; so we have nothing at all; shall we then be impious, that we have no sacrifice? I answer, O wretches, how long will you remain under the disciplinarian? When will you grow up to be a perfect man of God? Behold, the apostles do not forbear women to wear garments embroidered with gold; they exhort them to the adornment of souls; and will the shepherds and bishops only esteem it? for otherwise they are highly commanded not to esteem such things, 1 Pet. 2. Now if it be so excellent a thing to fight for, why did not Christ also array himself with such garments, and set others an example? But Christ did not want to know anything about these things, and he covered them up. 4) He also did not want to be born of the family of Levi, but of the family of Judah, so that he could be a

1. prätschen - to scrape out.
2. i. Secdenzeug.
3. smacked - smelled.
4. i.e. shunned, disdained.

the true priest would be recognized, according to the order of Melchizedek. Yes, he is the right Melchizedek (that is, a king of righteousness). Now how much more and higher is Melchizedek than Aaron? For Aaron gave tithes to Melchizedek, in that Abraham, of whom Aaron was born, gave tithes to Melchizedek. So he who takes the tithe is more, neither he who gives it. How then does Aaron stand so splendidly in his adornment? Since Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron, why do they urge us to this order? The king of larvae, the pope, he should thus arm himself according to the preached gospel. The faithful servants want to follow the footpath of their master; for they know well what darkness this finery brings to men who are otherwise inclined to superstition. Those who walk in the light are beautifully and deliciously enough adorned. See that you do not despise evangelical simplicity, which Naam 5) also spurned in the Old Testament, when he learned from the servant that even the waters of the Jordan were not to be spurned.

(13) That we have no sacrifice is not true. That is, we do not sacrifice calves or sheep; but Christ once before offered the most holy sacrifice of his body for our sins; there is no need to offer that again. He has once done enough, and the sacrifice is an everlasting sacrifice in the eyes of the Lord God. We do not want to sacrifice it again. But if it has not been enough for someone, let them do well; we, the redeemed, therefore give thanks to him. And in remembrance we have that which was lost of old; the benefit of the sacrifice is ours. Those in the city 6) who do not keep the light anywhere, the same squat in the shade, and confess to be the disciples of the Pharisees. [Those who undertake to introduce sacrifices anew betray themselves quite freely, that they taste after the Jewish way. Let us eat in the footstool of sincerity and truth, 1 Cor. 3, that is, let us be diligent to keep our faith, which we have in Christ, unspotted 7) from all hypocrisy.

14 About this we can also catch our adversaries' remnants 8) from other statements. Namely, when the priesthood is put down, the law is also put down. Another law the rude Jews have, another law we have, Heb. 7. as how? Understand it thus: The Jews will be

5. Naam - Raeman, 2 Kings 5.
6. Kadt - Koch.
7. Unmeasured, uninjured. Compare Col. 695.
8. Bresten - infirmity.

732 18 Oecolampad's two "sermons" on the Lord's Supper. W. xx, si2-sis. 733

The Christian community, however, is governed by the law of the spirit and love. To the Jews the law was given with thunder, with lightning and with great fright of all the people, Exodus 19; but the law which the Spirit writes in our hearts gives birth to joy and peace. From this it is evident that all people who are diligent in piety or go to the sacrament only out of fear of punishment or for their own sake are undoubtedly judging, Jer. 31. But those whom the Father begets with the lovely curls 1) and who become pious out of the prompting of the Spirit of God and receive the sacrament, these give thanks to God the Lord; they are truly noble children of God, and how much higher to be esteemed than the people of the Jews! Well then, if it lusts thee, compare also this doctrine of ours and the doctrine of the adversaries. Dear, how much do you think that you will find priests who only light a traffic light in vain? A great multitude of them serve the belly, Malachi 3. Many are inspired by glitter. Few are those who are not urged by commandment. You also know how much effort it took for everyone to go to the sacrament on Easter. Yes, of course, you are also well aware of how little fruit has come from it. Now there is no need for words. All those who go by law, ordinance or commandment are not worthy of Him, for one would not bring them to it without a commandment; such as these do not give glory to God. Who gives him the honor? The one who freely does undeserved work. Do you see the Jews now? We remind the people that, regardless of selfishness and pain, they should look to God alone, and that they should do all things of good will out of the indication of the Spirit. All who find themselves trusting in the Word of Christ, by which they are being prepared for a new life, should come in good cheer. But if anyone should find himself lacking in faith, or not having the heart to amend, let him take heed that he be not subdued, let him be put to the sword, that he go to the dreadful mysteries. From what cause? For this reason: Christ wants and requires a new, good, willing and spiritual people.

(15) Neither shall we despise this mark, which may be felt by the Jews. What can so nearly cut the hearts of the Jews than that the Son of God became a curse on the cross? Nothing more; and because he said he was a son of God, they want to kill him. JEsus

1. So put by us instead of: with the bodily curls.

He said to them that he was the bread of life that came from heaven, and that the same bread was such necessary bread that whoever did not eat it would not have life in him. The Jews do not understand anything high or divine about Christ; they always cling to fleshly food. But Peter, who was taught by the heavenly Father, understood; he ate the bread of heaven and had life, for he ever said, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life, and we believe and confess that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. From the confession it is sufficiently evident that Peter was led with the flesh of Christ; therefore, he undoubtedly did not receive the sacrament unworthily afterwards. To the Jews it was a hard speech, and when they heard that this was the work of God, believing in him whom the Father had sent, they said, "What sign are you doing? For though he had always done many miraculous signs, yet they thought nothing of him, but that he was the son of Joseph.

(16) From this it is evident that we are further from the opinion of the Jews, neither are all our adversaries. Why is that? Therefore they all wait for a carnal supper, and for another meal, neither of which is cheerfully presented in the 6th chapter of John. We eat as Peter ate, and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and then we testify to this faith of ours with the holy sign. Now if anyone eats the flesh of Christ in any other way than Christ taught, he is not yet capable of the word of God, and there is still something Jschariothic or Jewish in him, who is always prepared (interpret the words correctly) to tear the body apart. In sum, the flesh is of no use to them. Yes, the incarnation of Christ is of no use to them either. We think much of those who are led by the divine word. Which words the Father wanted to be so sure that he sealed it with the death of his only begotten Son.

(17) And so, dear friends, you see how it is so soon done and so easy to clean out each one with mockery 2) and malicious words, of which our adversaries are well used 3). Nevertheless, the truth remains unchanged, and for the sake of its gushing and stumbling 4) it may not be measured 5): whether one can

2. i.e. vituperation.
3. need == practice.
4. "Stumpiren" probably as much as: Stamping - useless talk.
5. d. i. injured.

734 Erl. 29.3SV f. II. writings Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger 2c. W. XX, S1S-H17. 735

Even though it seems to darken at times, it returns to its old color from time to time. You have now understood how much we honor the sacraments. Therefore, for God's sake, I ask you to make every effort so that the mouths of our adversaries may be more filled with innocence and with the bravery of our lives, and neither with insolence nor with insolence.

be stuffed. Yes, we want to need ourselves, if we want to rhyme them 1) to acquire such from Christ with unceasing supplications; who is of one glory with the Father and with the Holy Spirit. God grant us this.

1. rhyme -----.

*19. D. Martin Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the Fanatical Spirits. )

1526.

In this sacrament there are two things to know and to preach. First, what one should believe, which in Latin is called objectum fidei, that is, the work or thing that one believes or to which one should be attached. Secondly, the faith itself, or the custom of using what one believes in the right way. The first is outside the heart, held outwardly before our eyes, namely, the sacrament in itself, of which we believe that in the bread and wine is truly Christ's body and blood. The other is inwardly in the heart, cannot come out, and stands in it, how the heart is to hold itself against the outward sacrament. Now up to now I have not preached much about the first part, but have dealt only with the other, which is also the best. However, since this is now being contested by many, and the preachers, who are also considered to be the best, are dividing and blushing over it, so that already in foreign countries a large number are falling for and holding that Christ's body and blood are not in the bread and wine, the time demands that something be said about it as well.

2 To begin with, however, I say that if anyone is of the opinion that he is caught in such error, I would faithfully advise him to stay away from the sacrament until he hears the word of God.

and become strong in faith. For we have for ourselves the bright, dry text and word of Christ: "Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you; drink ye all of it, this is my blood, which is poured out for you for remission of sins; this do in remembrance of me." These are the words we insist upon; they are so plainly and clearly spoken that even they, the adversaries, must confess that it takes effort to draw them elsewhere, and yet they leave such bright words, and go after their thoughts, making darkness for themselves in the bright light.

(3) But if any man will ride aright, and not tarnish, let him beware of the sharp thoughts which the devil stirreth up in the world, that he may drink up the egg, and leave us the husks; that is, take the body and blood of Christ out of the bread and wine, that it be no more than bad bread, as the baker bakes. And mocked us, as they longed to do, that we were carnivores and blood-drinkers, and worshipped a chopped-up God, just as the apostate desperate wretch Averrois, who had also been a Christian, mocked the believers and blasphemed: "There is no worse people on earth than Christians, because they worship their own God.

*This text was published in 1526 in Wittenberg by Hans Lust under the title we have given, and also in another edition, without place and printer. In the collections: in the Wittenberg (1551), vol. II, p. 109 b; in the Eisleben, vol. I, p. 234; in the Altenburg, vol. Ill, p. 340; in the Leipzig, vol. XIX, p. 374 and in the Erlange, vol. 29, p. 328. A Latin translation of this sermon is found in the Wittenberg edition, loru. VII. fol. 334b. The title of the scripture is repeated again before the beginning of the sermon, but instead of "Schwärmgeister'' it is written: "Schwärmer. We reproduce the text according to the Erlangen edition, which has the text of the first original edition mentioned above, with comparison of the Wittenberg.

736 Erl. 2S, 330-332. 19 Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body 2c. W. XX, S17-S1S. 737

which no other people had ever done. Wasn't that a delicious, pointed word? This is what the devil is doing against us everywhere in the world.

Now God is such a man, who delights in doing what is foolish and unprofitable in the sight of the world, as Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:23: "We preach Christ crucified, an offense to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles"; item v. 21: "Because the world through its wisdom did not recognize God in His wisdom, it pleased God to make blessed through foolish preaching all those who believe in it 1). Well then, whoever does not believe, let him believe that it is only bread or a bowl of water. He that lacketh faith, let him believe what he will; the same is true. As he that is drowned, if he drown in a brook, or in the midst of a river, he is as well drowned. So I say of these spirits, if they drop the word, let them always believe and divide as long as they want; as has already happened, that six or seven sects have risen above the Sacrament, but all in the delusion that Christ's flesh and blood is not there.

(5) This makes, I say, first of all, that they have not abode by 2) the words of 3) Christ; then that they have followed and seen with their 4) thoughts: Should Christ be in the bread and wine, and be spread so far in the world, and every man eat the Christ? that would be an unskilful thing. This is the first thing they have conceived, and they have a painted glass before their eyes, and the words must be called what they think. This is what all the spirits of the mob do; they make up their own minds beforehand, and when they like them, they are obliged to force the Scriptures on them as well. But he who draws the right faith from the words, the

1. So the Bible and the Wittenbergers. Erlanger: to him.
2. Erlanger: in.
3. Wittenberger: Christi.
4. Variant of the Wittenberg edition: fall into their reason threefold, and think about the matter, thus: If Christ's body and blood should be in the sacrament, and should be distributed throughout Christendom as often as the year, and everyone, as often as he goes, should eat Christ's body and drink his blood; what would that be for an awkward, inconsistent thing?

believes thus: God gives, Christ crawls into the bread or cup, or into what he wants; if I have the 5) words, I will neither see nor think further; what he says, that I will keep. Thus he wraps himself in the word, does not let himself be turned away from it, is also preserved by it.

6. for we are ever not so great 6) fools that we do not understand the words. If such words are not clear, I do not know how to speak German. Shall I not hear what it would be if someone put a roll in front of me and said: Take, eat, this is a white bread? Item: Take and drink, this is a glass of wine? So when Christ says, Take, eat, this is my body, even a child understands that he is speaking of what he is offering.

It is a natural speech when one points to something, that one knows what one says. If I were to make such a word even more obscure to myself, and think up something pointed about it, I would be making a mistake. They are all clear and plain words: to take bread, to give thanks, to break, to give, 7) to eat, to drink, this is my body, this is my blood. They break themselves with great difficulty over it, come with their conceit before; according to it the words must interpret, what each one has conceived. Therefore we stick to the words and close our eyes and senses, because everyone knows what it means: "This is my body", and especially that he adds: "Which is given for you. We know what Christ's body is, namely, born of Mary, who suffered, died, and rose again.

(8) Now they have two principal things which they bring against us. First, they say that it is not fitting that Christ's body and blood should be in the bread and wine. Secondly, that it is not necessary. These are almost their best reasons on which they build, and we will see them.

5. Wittenberger: his word.
6. "large" is missing in the Erlanger.
7. "geben" ("give"), which is also in Latin, is taken from Walch's old edition; it is missing in the Erlangen edition. The Wittenberg edition has instead of this sentence: "There are always clear and distinct words: 'Take and eat, this is my body'; item: 'Drink from it, all of you, this is my blood'".

738 Erl. SS, 382-334. 11. writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. XX, BW-S22. 739

First fanatical reason. 1)

(9) In the first place, I would just as soon say: It does not rhyme that God should descend from heaven and give Himself in the womb of a mother, that He who feeds, sustains, and gives breath to all the world, lets Himself be fed and given breath by the virgin. Item, that Christ, a king of honor, to whom all angels must fall at His feet, Ps. 97, 7. Hebr. 1, 6. Phil. 2, 10. and all creatures tremble before Him, throws Himself down among all men, and is to be hanged on the cross for a most heinous transgressor, in addition by the most desperate of men. So I also wanted to conclude that God had not become man; or that the crucified Christ was not God. So they say that it is not fitting that God should do so many miraculous works in the sacrament as He does nowhere else. For that we believe that the one body of Christ is in a hundred thousand places, as much bread as is broken, and 2) that the great legs are to be hidden there, so that no one sees them or feels them, they consider this to be an unskillful thing, and they make great miracles of it; but they do not see that they are vain thoughts. For if one would measure it this way, one would not have to let any creature remain.

(10) For if I should and could measure the creatures and mark them out with words, you should see as great, even greater wonders in them than in this sacrament. Take before you the soul, which is a single creature, and yet is in the whole body at the same time, even in the smallest toe; so that if I prick the smallest member of the body with a needle, I strike the whole soul, so that the whole man wriggles. Can a soul be in all the members at the same time, which I do not know how it happens: should Christ not be able to be in all places in the sacrament at the same time?

Item 11: My soul can think, speak, see in speech, hear, feel, 2c. at the same time, and also digest food in blood, flesh,

1. This caption is taken from Walch's old edition.
2. Wittenbergers: and that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is truly and essentially present, presented and received, they consider this to be an incredible thing.

Leg, urine and dung: no one thinks this is a miracle, because we see it every day and are used to it. People lack nothing, except that they have never really looked at any creature, as we shall hear further.

012 Behold a grain of corn in the field, and tell me how it is that the stalk grows out of the ground from a single grain, and bears so many grains in the ear, and gives form to each one.

(13) There are many, many wonders in one grain, which they neither perceive nor respect. Item: How does this happen? I have only two eyes, and yet I take all the heads in my eyes at once; indeed, I can do it as well with one eye as with both. Thus one eye can aim at a thousand grains, and again at one grain a thousand eyes 3) can aim.

14 Further, take an example of the very word that I speak; it is a poor miserable voice, and so to reckon the least creature, nothing more than a wind; as soon as the mouth ceases, it is over and nothing more, that no weaker, more perishable thing can be: nor is it so mighty that with the voice I could rule a whole country. Now where does it come from that I capture so many hearts with words? I have a small voice, so there are hundreds or thousands of ears; nor does each ear catch the whole and perfect voice; I do not divide it so that one ear has a piece of it, but each has it completely. They see this and think it is no miracle; indeed, if we had never seen it, it would be the greatest miracle.

15. Now if my voice can fill all ears, and each takes as much of it as the other, and the word spreads so far, should not Christ be able to do it much more with his body? 4) How much more enlightened is the transfigured body than the bodily voice? 5) You will find many more such things.
16. "eyes" in the Wittenberg, also in Latin.
17. Wittenberger: Wie viel ein leichter Ding ist's 2c. Latin: illuminatior.
18. Wittenberger: If you cannot understand this, how it happens, which you experience daily: Dear, give Christ the glory that it is true that he says here: "This is my body" 2c., even if you do not understand how it is possible.

740 Erl. LS, SS4-336. 19 Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body 2c. W. XX, SS2-924. 741

Miracles in the creatures, that, who looks at a creature rightly, this article will let nothing err.

Item 16: I preach the gospel of Christ, and with the bodily voice I bring Christ into your heart, that you may form him in you. If then thou thinkest rightly that thy heart receiveth the word, and the voice dwelleth therein, say unto me, What hast thou in thine heart? Then you must say that you have the true Christ, not that he sits in it as one sits on a chair, but as he is at the right hand of the Father. How this is, thou canst not know; but thine heart feeleth it well, that it is surely there, through the experience of faith. But if I can tell you in one word that the one Christ comes by voice into so many hearts, and everyone who hears and accepts the sermon grasps him completely in the heart, for he cannot be divided into pieces, and yet he is spread out completely in all believers, so that one heart receives no less, and a thousand hearts no more, than the one Christ: we must ever confess, and is a daily miracle, yea, as great as here in the Sacrament; why then should it not rhyme, that [we received his body and blood, according to his words, in the Lord's Supper?1) He also distributes Himself in the bread?

(17) Now if I bring Christ into the heart, what will happen? Is it so, as they think, that he comes down on a ladder and climbs up? Christ is still seated at the right hand of the Father, and also in your heart, the one Christ who fills heaven and earth. I preach that he sits at the right hand of God, ruling over all creatures, sin, death, life, the world, devils and angels: if you believe this, you already have him in your heart. So your heart is in heaven, not in a semblance or dream, but truly. For where he is, there you are also: so he dwells and sits in your heart, John 17:23, nor does he fall from the right hand of God.

18 The Christians experience this and feel it publicly. But those who see things

1. The bracketed words are from the Wittenberg edition. The following words "he - austheile" are missing there.

not how great it is that Christ thus dwells in the heart, and divides himself completely in every heart, and is spread out through the word. Therefore, whoever can believe this, it is not difficult for him to believe that his body and blood are in the sacrament. For if you were to measure the miraculous sign 2) with reason and thought, you would eventually come to the point where you would also have to say that Christ does not dwell in the hearts of believers.

19 Now, behold (as I said), the weak bodily voice is able to do all these things, that it first brings the whole of Christ into the ears, and then into the heart of all who hear and believe: should it be so strange that he brings himself into the bread and wine? Is not the heart much more subtle than the bread? That you now want to measure such things, how it happens, you will probably leave. Just as you cannot say how it is that Christ is in so many thousands of hearts, and dwells in them, as he died and rose again, and yet no man knows how he gets himself into them, so here also it is incomprehensible how it is. But this I know, that the word is there, "Take, eat; this is my body, given for you; this do in remembrance of me." When we speak the words 3) about the bread, 4) he is truly there, 5) and yet is a bad word and voice to be heard. Now as he cometh into the heart, and breaketh not a hole in it, but is taken by word and hearing only; so also he cometh into the bread, that he may make no hole in it. Just as he came to the disciples after the resurrection through a closed door, and yet made no hole through the door. 6)

20. Take another example: How did his mother, Mary, become pregnant? Although it is such a great miracle that a woman becomes pregnant by a man, God has reserved for him that he should be born of a virgin.

21 Now how does the mother come to this? She

2. In the Wittenberg instead of: "the miraculous sign" - "the miraculous works so done in the Sacrament." In Latin: Vo6 miraeulum.
3. "Words" is missing in the Erlanger.
4. Wittenberg: and wine.
5. Wittenberger: his body and blood are truly there.
6. The bracketed words are switched on from the Wittenberg edition; they are missing in the Latin.

742 Erl. SS, S3S-SSS. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers re. W.LX. 924-927. 743

knows of no man, and her whole body is decided; nor does she conceive a natural child, with flesh and blood, in her womb. Is there not more wonder than in bread and wine? Where does it come from? Gabriel the angel brings the word: "Behold, you shall conceive in the womb and bear a son" 2c. With these words Christ comes not only into her heart, but also into her womb, when she hears it, grasps it and believes. No one can ever say otherwise than that the power comes through the word. Just as it cannot be denied that she becomes pregnant through the word, and no one knows how it happens, so it is here. For as soon as Christ says, "This is my body," his body is there through the word and power of the Holy Spirit, Psalm 33:9. If the word is not there, it is bad bread; but if the words come, they bring that with them, of which they are called.

22. item: We believe that Jesus Christ is set over all creatures according to mankind, Eph. 1, 20. f., and fills all things, as Paul says in Ephesians 4, 7. ff. Is not only according to the Godhead, but also according to mankind a Lord of all things, has everything in his hand, and is present everywhere. If then I am to follow the spirits that say it is not fitting, I must deny Christ. We read from Stephano Apost. 7:55 that he said, "I see the heavens open, and Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father." How does he see Christ? Must not cast his eyes high up. He is around us and in us, in all places. They do not understand this and say that he sits at the right hand of God, but they do not know what it is to see Christ ascend to heaven and sit at the right hand of the Father. 1) They do not know what it is to see Christ ascend to heaven and sit at the right hand of the Father. It is not as you go up a ladder into the house, but that he is above all creatures, and in all creatures, and apart from all creatures. But that he was taken up bodily was done for a sign. Therefore he now has all things before his eyes, more than I have you, is nearer to us than any creature.

1. These bracketed words, which are also in the Latin, are from the Wittenberg edition. Because such additions are often repeated in this writing, we will no longer indicate them by notes, but only by square brackets.

the other. So they speculate that he must go up and down from heaven through the air, and be drawn down into bread when we eat his body. Such thoughts come from nowhere but from foolish reason and flesh. 2) Our words, when we speak, must not draw him down, but are given us as a safeguard, that we may know to find him assuredly.

For though he is everywhere in all creatures, and I would find him in the stone, in the fire, in the water, or even in the rope, as he certainly is there, yet he does not want me to seek him there without the word, and throw myself into the fire or water, or hang myself on the rope. He is everywhere, but he does not want you to grope after him everywhere, but, where the word is, grope after it, and you will seize him rightly, otherwise you will tempt God and cause idolatry. Therefore, he has given us a certain way how and where to seek and find him, namely the word.

(24) The wretched people do not know or see this, who say that it is not true that Christ should be in the bread and wine, because they do not understand what Christ's kingdom is, sitting at the right hand of God. If Christ were not with me in prison, torture and death, where would I stay? He is present with the Word, although not in the same way as here in the Sacrament, where he binds his body and blood with the Word in the bread and wine, to be received also bodily. If we believe this, it is easy to grasp and believe. Heaven and earth are his sack: as the grain fills the sack, so he fills all things. And as a grain bears such a stalk, ears, and many grains; item, as a few cherry stones, thrown into the earth, bring forth such a tree, bearing so many flowers, leaves, shells, bast, cherries; item, my voice is given in so many ears: much more can Christ divide into so many little pieces, whole and undivided.

25. Because those 3) do not see this, they start with their human arrogance, what it is that God is doing with it such 4) illusion. Well, let them only confidently fool;
26. Wittenberger: carnal thoughts.
27. Wittenberger: the Rottengeister.
28. Wittenberger: Wunderwerk. Latin: delirst.

744 Srl. SS, 33S-S41. 19 Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body re. W. XX, 927-929. 745

But let it be said that Christ does all these things by the word, as he has said; and as there are innumerable wonders which he works daily by it, shall he not know how to do them by the same power? He has taken hold of the word, and by the word he also takes hold of the bread. If he can travel into the heart and spirit, 1) and dwell in the soul, then the bodily thing can be much less 2) open to him, since the heart is much more subtle. But he keeps the small miracles, so that he reminds us of the greater ones. For it is much greater that he comes into the heart through faith than that he is in the bread; yes, 3) he needs the very bread or sacrament for the sake of faith.

(26) If we saw this, we would not speak so highly of miracles. But if one wants to think about it with reason, 4) then we must also say of faith that no man could believe; for it surpasses all reason too far. Summa Summarum, therefore, that those 5) who say that it does not rhyme, therefore it is not so, let us turn around and say the contradiction: God's word is true, therefore your conceit must be false. Should it therefore not rhyme, that you think it does not rhyme, and think that the word must not be right, and your conceit should be valid?

Second fanatical reason. 6)

The other reason they give is that it is not necessary. Then Christ must be led to the school and mastered: the Holy Spirit has not done it right. For so they say: If I believe in Jesus Christ, who died for me, what need is there that I should believe in the baked God? Well, he will also bake them once, so that the bark will burn. Who says this? God or a man? A man says it. Why? Because Satan has possessed them; have not learned more than the

1. Wittenberger: come.
2. i.e. lighter. Latin: kaoiliors. "
3. "yes" is missing in the Erlanger.
4. ömen - to make assumptions, to make up one's mind.
5. the gushers.
6. This caption is taken from Walch's old edition.

Words speak and preach that Christ died for us rose from the dead, and the like 2c., but in the heart they feel nothing of it. Do you now want to master God, what is necessary and what is not necessary, and let him conclude according to your conceit? It is much cheaper to turn it around and say: God wants it that way, therefore your conceit is wrong. What God considers necessary, who are you to speak against it? You are a liar, so he is true.

28. Tell me also, because faith alone justifies that Christ is not necessary, let us say to God: You had sin, death, the devil and everything in your power, what was the use or need that you sent down your Son, let him act so abominably and die? If you could have let him stay up there, if you had not cost you more than a word, sin and death would have been wiped out with the devil, because you are ever omnipotent?

29 Let us conclude, then, that Christ was not born of a virgin, and say, "Why was it necessary? Could not God just as well have caused him to be born of a man, and yet have created him in such a way that he was conceived without sin and remained innocent? Yes, further we want to say: it is not necessary that Christ is God, because he could just as well have resurrected from death by God's power and redeemed us, if he had been a real man. Thus, the devil blinds people so that they cannot see God's work properly.

(30) Secondly, that they also regard not the word, but will search out all things with their head. If you search out a grain in the field, you should be surprised that you stumble. God's works are not like our works.

31 Therefore you say, "What is it to me whether it is necessary or not? God knows well how or why it should and must be so. If he says that it is necessary, then all creatures are silent. Because Christ says here with clear words: "Take, eat, this is my body" 2c., it is mine to believe the words, as firmly as I must believe all the words of Christ. If he has only one straw

7. Thus the Wittenbergers. Erlanger: kunnten.

746 Erl. SS,L41-S4S. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers re. W. LX. 9M-SM. 747

If a man were to reach out and speak such words, 1) I would believe it. Therefore one must restrain mouth, eyes and all senses and say: Lord, you know better than I do. It is the same with baptism: the water is baptism, and in baptism is the Holy Spirit. You might also say, "Why is it necessary to baptize with water? But the Spirit says: "Listen, here is God's will and word, stay with it and let go of your arrogance.

(32) These are the two reasons why they say that it is not to be believed that Christ's body and blood are in the sacrament; which are also the best, and especially the other they leave out by far. Now these are such reasons, which nevertheless would move pious hearts, and have also moved them in the past. I myself have also been concerned about what is needed, and how in such a small piece of bread 2) there is such a large body, undivided and whole in each piece. But if they look at a grain or a cherry stone, it can teach them 3) morals. For why does God feed us by bread or under bread, when he could just as well do it by the mere word, without bread?

(33) Why does he not make man, as he made Adam and Eve, in a moment, so slowly that man and woman must be together, and bring up the child so long with toil and labor? But he says thus, "What is it to thee?" Joh. 21. I have done so from the first 4) Adam and Eve, now I will do so. Once I let a son be born of a virgin, I will not do it again. So people want to bind God with their laws, which is just as much as if I said, "Why did you give this one a large body and me a small one? Why did you give this one black hair, and the other yellow; this one brown eyes, and that one gray?

1. Thus the Wittenbergers. In the old edition of Walch and the Erlanger: sollts ichs.
2. Wittenberger: the truly essential body of Christ.
3. Wittenbergers: to lead to school, and to remember that they could not wonder enough about it.
4. Instead of: "from first" the Wittenberg edition has: "in the beginning".

34. Therefore this is the summa: See that you pay attention to God's word and abide in it like a child in the cradle. If you let this go for a moment, you will fall from it. And this alone is the devil's way of pulling people out and making them measure God's will and work with reason.

35 These, I say, are still sensible hearts, which grieve over the two things touched; such are still to be advised. But the others are vain enthusiasts, who go on, and break and stretch the words of Christ 5); yes, they are real arch-enthusiasts, and have not one reason for themselves; they have a standing before reason. But as these tear and force the words, reason can still well see that they are fools. There are only three words: "This is my body. Someone gives the little word "this" a nose, and tears it from the bread, so that it should be interpreted this way: Take, eat. This is my body; just as if I said: Take and eat. Here sits Hans with the red jope. 6) The other takes the little word "is," which is supposed to mean as much to him as the word "means. The third says, "this is my body" means as much as, this is a figure of my body; set such own dreams without all reason of the scripture.

(36) These enthusiasts do not challenge me, nor are they worth fighting with; they are crude grammatical enthusiasts; the others are subtle philosophical enthusiasts. Therefore let them depart, and let us stick to the words as they are, that in the bread is the body of Christ, and in the wine truly his blood. Not that he is not elsewhere also with his body and blood; for he is wholly with flesh and blood in the hearts of the faithful; but that he will make us sure where and how thou shalt fast him. There is the word that says: when you eat the bread, you eat his body, given for you. If this were not there, I would not look at the bread either. That is enough of the first part.

5. Wittenberger: to interpret and stretch differently than Christ spoke them.
6. Jope - jacket. - The first interpretation is Carlstadt's, the second Zwingli's, the third Oecolampad's.

748 Erl. W, S4S-S4S. 19. Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body 2c. W. XX, W2-S34. 749

The other part.

37 Since we have now received the treasure, lest we should take the kernels out of the husk, and keep the chaff for the grain, it is now necessary to preach of the other part, how the sacrament is to be used and enjoyed. For it is not enough that we know what the sacrament is, namely, that Christ's body and blood are truly there; but it is also necessary to know why it is there, and why or for what purpose it is given to us to receive.

38. But they have the heartache to inflict; the devil cannot leave it, he must defile what God makes and speaks; if he cannot even tear it away, he makes a hollow nut out of it. The pope has taken one form from us; but these leave us both forms, but make a hole in the nut, so that we shall lose the body and blood of Christ; for this they leave the right custom standing on both sides.

39 So we say: In the past, we have labored and worried over how to go worthily to this sacrament. We now call this "worthy going" the custom of the Sacrament. There we were taught to purify ourselves with many hard works, fasting, confession, and to prepare ourselves in such a way that we needed it only for one work. So far the papists have done it, and yet it has remained constant, and still a grace that evangelion, scripture, baptism, sacrament, and the thing has remained, 1) as it is in itself. But the custom they have torn and taken away from us, we must bring it up again and preserve it, as we have done before. For when I preached against the abuse, I did not take care of the heresy that is now rampant, and only struck with those above the right custom.

40 I have now taught that one should not use the sacrament as a work; as they have said, whoever has confessed and knows no mortal sin on him, and thus goes to the sacrament, does a deliciously holy work, so that he deserves heaven. Whoever wants to use his right, does not have to receive in this way,

1. Wittenberg instead of: "and the thing remained" - "remained in the custom".

That he should say, I have done this, as though thou hadst fasted or watched; but thou shalt believe, not only that Christ is there in body and blood, but also that he is there given unto thee, and always rest upon the words, "Receive, eat, this is my body which is given for you; drink, this is my blood which is shed for you; this do in remembrance of me." In these words His body and blood are given to us. So that there are two things to believe: that it is truly there, which the papists also believe; and that it is given to us, which they do not believe, and we should use it as a gift.

(41) Then you hear that it is spoken clearly and in German; he commands you to take his body 2) and blood, for what or why? That the body may be given for thee, and the blood shed for thee. Our new preachers have such misery to inflict on us, that they also take it away from us; they deal with it in such an abominable way that I think the devil is trying his utmost, and that the last day is not far off, that I would rather be dead than hear Christ reviled and blasphemed by them.

They say that it is only a sign to recognize and judge Christians, that we should have nothing but the husks. Then they come together, eating and drinking, because they are considering his death. In the remembrance shall be the power, that bread and wine shall be no more than a sign and a paint, that we may know that we are Christians. Why do they do this? Because they throw the words to the wind: "This is my body, which is given for you. The words mean nothing to them, they rumble on above. Nothing shall be valid anymore, but to proclaim and preach death. Yes, of course, one should proclaim his death; we have also preached it, more gloriously than they always do, and if they had not heard it from us, they would probably know nothing about it; the papists have never spoken anything about it. Therefore they must not teach it to us and boast about it as if they had invented something new.

2. Wittenberger: to eat and drink his blood, and to do this in his memory. For what or why? That thou mayest be saved, and believe, and be comforted, that his body is given for thee 2c.

750 Srl. SS, S45-S47. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. XX, W4-YS7. 751

(43) Therefore we also preach the death of Christ, according to the words, "This do in remembrance of me. But there is a difference: when I preach his death, that is a public sermon in the congregation, in which I give to no one in particular, whoever grasps it grasps it; but when I offer the sacrament, I give it in particular to him who takes it, giving him Christ's body and blood, that he may have forgiveness of sins, obtained through his death, and preached in the congregation. This is something more than the common sermon.

44 For although in the sermon there is just that which is in the sacrament, and again, the advantage is that here it points to a certain person. There one does not point to and paint a person; but here it is given to you and me in particular, that the sermon comes to us as our own. For when I say, This is the body which is given for you; this is the blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins: then do I remember him, and declare and speak of his death, not that it is done publicly in general, but that it is drawn to you alone.

45 Christ has decreed that when we come together, each one should take of the bread and cup, and then preach about 1) him. Why? Because this is not to be given to anyone except Christians who have heard Christ preach before. But the preaching or proclamation applies generally to everyone, even to those who are not yet Christians. The Christians alone should enjoy it, but still remember that you will become more.

46 For this reason it should be proclaimed publicly and such a public commemoration should be held, so that those who do not yet know it will also come. But that they make such remembrance alone in the corner is of no value; it is to be done publicly before the congregation, and to be preached at mass at all times. Therefore the word "do this in remembrance of me" means as much as this: As often as you do it, preach about me; as Paul interprets it in the first epistle to the Corinthians on the 11th, v. 26, when he calls it "proclaiming the death of Christ. He uses the word "proclaim" to indicate that there is

1. Wittenberg: the death of the Lord.

not in a corner among Christians alone, who know it beforehand, and are not allowed to preach, but only to exhort, but publicly in crowds for those who do not know; so that both, remembrance and proclamation, mean nothing else than doing the public preaching of him; as is done in all preaching.

(47) This, I say, is to be done always when we receive the sacrament. But those who go to the sacrament should believe and be sure, not only that they receive Christ's true body and blood in it, but also that it 2) is given to them and is their own. For what purpose? Not for the sake of money or merit, as a work, as the monks and priests keep Mass; but "for us for the forgiveness of sins". Now we know well what forgiveness of sin means. When he forgives, he forgives everything completely, leaving nothing unforgiven. If then I am free from sin, I am also free from death, the devil and hell, and I am a son of God, a Lord of heaven and earth.

48. So let every man know how to answer, especially when he is challenged and persecuted, that he may say, I understand the words, that his body and blood are given me for the remission of sins; therefore every Christian must know these words from letter to letter that he may say from the heart: Then hath my Lord given me his body and blood in bread and wine, that I should eat and drink, and be mine, that 3) I may be sure that my sins are forgiven me, and that I may be loosed from death and hell, and have everlasting life, and be the child of God, and an heir of heaven. Therefore, I go to the Sacrament to seek such things.

49. I am a poor sinner, I have death before me, I have to go through it, the devil challenges me, and I am in all kinds of trouble and danger. Because I am now in sin, a prisoner of the devil and death; 4) I feel,
50. Wittenberger: this treasure.
51. "damit" taken by us from the old edition of Walch. Erlanger: "so that I may be sure." Wittenberger: "shall be sure of it." Latin: ut seeurus siru.
52. So in the Wittenberg edition. In the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen edition: caught. Latin: eaptivus.

752 Erl. SS, 347-350. 19 Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body 2c. W. XX, SS7-9SS. 753

that I am weak in faith, cold in love, whimsical, impatient, envious, sin clings to me behind and in front; therefore I come, finding and hearing Christ's word, that forgiveness of sin through his blood and death should be given to me. Therefore, when we have received the gift, let us proclaim it, that we may bring other people also to it. Behold, so should the children and the simple be instructed of the Sacrament, that they may know what they should seek.

(50) This is what we call the right custom, not that it is only done and obedience to the church is performed. For in this way a sow might well go. It is not to be done for the sake of the work, but that your heart 1) may be strengthened, as the words are, "Which is given for you, which is poured out for you." And even if the words are not there, as Paul leaves them, you still have the body that died for your sin and the blood that was shed for it. But if Christ is given to you, forgiveness of sin is also given to you, and all things 2) acquired through the treasure. If you have grasped this with your heart, as it cannot be grasped anywhere else, and believe, you must say: No work, no deed helps me from sins, but I have another treasure, my Lord's body and blood, given to me for the forgiveness of sins. This is the only treasure and forgiveness, and no other in heaven or on earth. Apost. 4, 12.

(51) For this reason he has given himself to us, and will be with us and remain until the last day, Matt. 28:20, not only because he is as the papists have him, and carries about against the command of Christ without fruit; or as others say, ut siZnum, that is, as only a slogan, which would bring us neither improvement nor fruit. Should Christ use such a great thing in vain, without benefit and piety? But this shall be the fruit, that thou mayest strengthen thy faith, and make it sure, that thou mayest preach thereunto.

52 They say it is a useless concern that is of no use to you or anyone else.

1. Wittenberger: Trost empfahe and.
2. Wittenberger: what Chrrstus has and is.

be. Therefore, God still protects us, as before. The devil 3) has nowhere to go, except to come and smite where the gospel has begun. Therefore we must base ourselves on the words and insist on them, so we can answer the heretics well, for they are clear and German enough, and the summa is in them: First, that we receive forgiveness of sins as a gift. Secondly, to preach and proclaim the same afterwards.

(53) Thus you have the distinction of what memory is, and how it is to be used and enjoyed; namely, not otherwise than that we amend our infirmities and defects. With other people we have common infirmities; for ourselves each has peculiar ones; for their sake one comes to seek strength here. For this reason, this sacrament is called the food of hungry and poor souls who feel their sorrow and want to be helped from death and all misfortune.

(54) Then the papists taught, Beware, go not thou, but be pure, and have no evil conscience; that Christ might have a pure place. With this they made the poor souls so stupid and frightened that they fled from the sacrament, and yet had to take it out of compulsion, with such trembling that one would have liked to go into a furnace of fire.

(55) So let us be pure, that we may be sorry for our sins, and be glad to be rid of them; and (5) let us be grieved that we are so poor, so far from being in earnest, without fencing. But that we should be free from sin, no one will bring it about. Even if we were, you would not be allowed to go there. It is just for the sake of the weak. This is the custom of the sacrament, to strengthen the conscience against all adversity and temptation.

56 Now there is left the piece of the fruit of the sacrament, of which I have otherwise given much.

3. Wittenberger: strives with great diligence to get him there, and to throw the doctrine of the gospel, since it has begun.
4. Wittenberg: thirsty. Latin: egentiuna.
5. Wittenberger: should be sorry for us from the bottom of our hearts.
6. Thus the Wittenbergers. In the old edition of Walch and Erlangen: dürfest. Latin: nulla ts urZsrst 6NU8N.

754 Erl. SS, SS0-3W. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. XL, 939-942. 755

and which is nothing other than love, which the old fathers also practiced highly and most of all, and therefore called the sacrament communion, that is, a community. Now this is also held up to us in two ways or teachings. First, with an example; then with a likeness or sign of the bread and wine, so that every Christian, however coarse he may be, may grasp in the sacrament all the Christian doctrine, what he should believe, and 1) what he should do by faith. For this is necessary for every man to know, that Christ gave his body, flesh, and blood, on the cross, that it might be a treasure to us, and help us to forgive sin, that is, that we might be saved, redeemed from death and hell.

This is the first main part of Christian doctrine, which is presented to us in words and given to us as a sign and safeguard of his body and blood, which we receive in the flesh. He had indeed done it once, arranged it and acquired it on the cross, but every day he has it recited to us, distributed and poured out with sermons; he commands that we always remember it and not forget it. The other part is love, first of all indicated by the fact that he gives us an example; just as he gave himself for us with his body and blood to redeem us from all distress, so we should also give ourselves, as much as we can and can, for our neighbor. He who knows this and lives in this way is holy, must not learn much more, and will find nothing more in the whole Bible, for the two pieces are painted here in a heap, as on a tablet, so that they should always be before our eyes and in daily use. 2)

(58) Secondly, about the example there is also the figure or model, which the teachers have diligently shown, that he has given his body and blood under the form of things, which have such a nature that they are made of many things into a house. As, a loaf is made up of many grains, out of which one makes a dough, or

1. Wittenberger: and according to what fruit is to follow faith.
2. Thus the Wittenberg. Erlanger: is. Latin: strsnus sxsruuntur.

A loaf of bread is nothing else than many grains baked into one another: "So we also are many (says Paul 1 Cor. 10:17), but all are one loaf and one body. So that as every grain loses its shape, and becomes one with the others, so that you cannot see or separate one from the other, all are the same, and yet all are distinct in themselves: so also Christianity should be one without sects, that all may be one, as faith, gospel, baptism, one heart, mind and will, Eph. 4:5.

(59) Thus does a Christian, and knows no other way, but that the good that is his is given to his neighbor; makes no distinction, helps everyone with life and limb, good and honor, as he can. Such a picture is also painted in the wine; there are many berries pressed together, from which one juice becomes, and each loses its shape. All the berries are in the wine, but there is no difference, so that one can know one for the other, has flowed all too often and become a juice and drink.

Thus Christ has beautifully 3) painted and carved 4) the whole Christian essence, so that no more books may be written without it being further outlined, so that it may ever be well understood and grasped. There we have a lesson, on which we have enough to study all our lives; you must not worry about something that others do not know, as our new sects always think up something new. There you have it all: learn as long as you want, but it will always remain flesh and blood that you are not perfect in faith, love and patience. So that this sacrament is a disciplinarian, by which we judge ourselves and learn as long as we live.

(61) What is it, then, that you want to know a particular thing before others, if you do not know that, in which it all lies? And he who knows this knows all that he ought to know, without which all other things, as much as can be known, are nothing. 1 Cor. 13:2: "If I could prophesy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, 2c. and have not love, I am nothing."

3. Wittenberg: bodily. Latin: amablliaäumlrrations.
4. Wittenberger: Fürgebildet.

756 srl. ss, 352-söi. 19. Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body 2c. W. xx, 942-944. 757

(62) Thus the devil leads men by the nose, so that they do not look at the main thing, want to go above, and bring forth something special, and thereby lose the highest and only treasure. Behold, it is most plainly spoken of, that the simple may well know how to use it, and also the fruit, that they may see whether they have used it aright. Let every man see what he lacks, and let others speak and talk as they will.

The third part. 1)

From confession.

63. about this also confession is to be preached, to teach the simple again, because one knows how we have let ourselves be tortured and disgraced with confession up to now, with such trouble that there has been no severe commandment, because the world has confessed. First, I think the word "confess" comes from the little word jahen, from which is made confess, besähet, that is, confessed; hence we have made it into one syllable, and call it confession, that is, a confession. As some saints were also called in Latin: Confessores, in German: Beichtiger; as Beichter, that is, Bekenner.

But, as I have said before, there are three kinds of confession. One before God. For first of all, it is necessary that I recognize myself as a sinner before God, as the Gospel reveals, Rom. 3, 23; and Joh. 3, 5: "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. He who confesses that he is born of woman must give glory to God and say, "I am nothing but a sinner," as David sings in Psalm 51:7: "Behold, I was brought forth in sins, and in sins did my mother conceive me." As if to say, I must be a sinner, it is inborn in me; as soon as I was made in my mother's womb, I was a sinner, for flesh and blood, of which I was made, was sin; as it is said, Where skin and hair are evil, there is no good fur. So is

1. This third part is missing in the Wittenberg edition; however, it is in the Latin.

The clay of which we are made is not good; what mother and father do and bring to it is already sin.

Whoever does not want to confess this, nor be a sinner, but still have a free will that something good should still be in him, blasphemes and punishes God with lies, and must be eternally damned; how just. For he wants to be right and not suffer God's judgment. Therefore the prophet says again, Ps. 51:6: "Against you alone have I sinned, and done evil in your sight; therefore you will remain right in your words, and be found pure when you are judged." As if to say, "I will not quarrel with you, but let your word be right, and confess me wrong, that you are true; but those who punish you want to have a reasonable light, and something by which they may obtain mercy; before them you will be found pure.

Now this confession we must make forever, 2) as long as we live, that we may always say, Lord, before thee I am a knave in skin. But there is a difference. For even a knave and an unchristian can say this, but he certainly denies it. No one speaks it from the heart but a true Christian, as the 32nd Psalm v. 5 says: "I said, I will confess my transgression against me unto the Lord; and thou forgavest me the iniquity of my sin: for this shall all the saints pray before thee in due time." All the saints, as much as they are, have the virtue in them that they confess their sin to God and ask for it. Therefore, no one makes such a confession except the Christians, who are holy.

Now it is a strange thing that he who is pious before God and has the Holy Spirit should say that he is a sinner. But it is right; he confesses what he has been, and what he still is. He has the Holy Spirit, but is still a sinner because of the flesh; therefore all the saints cry out against the flesh. Nor is the devil far from it, who stirs up that he may bring the flesh into sin; therefore it is a high and great confession.

68. others also say they are sinners; but when other people say it of them, 2) "immerdar thun" put by us instead of: immer darthun. Latin: eitra Lutsrnüssionsua taeisnäs. est.

758 Srl. W, SS4-S5S. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. XX, 944-847. 759

they do not want to hear it. But the saints, when it is said to them, or when God punishes them for sin, they say: Yes, it is right. Those hypocrites can well deceive themselves, but stop when they want to: but from other people they want to be unpunished and unlearned 1); as now clergymen and monks do, they also say they are sinners, but do not want to hear that we say it. Therefore God does not ask for such confession. This confession is now commanded and necessary, and the whole world is obliged to do it; but no one does it except the Christians.

69 The other confession is that which is made not to God but to one's neighbor, of which Christ speaks in Matthew 5 and 6; Jacob also writes of it in the epistle, chapter 5, 16: "One confesses his sin to another," that is, keep yourselves thus, that each one may humble himself before the other, and confess his guilt where he has offended someone. Offense, however, is of various kinds, common and special.

We are all in the community (I am concerned), and the Lord's Prayer interjects into us. This is that we do not help our neighbor as much as we owe to help him, with words, preaching, advice, comfort, money, goods, honor, life and limb; this is so high that no one is so holy, he remains in debt; therefore we must all say among ourselves: I am indebted to you, you are indebted to me, but especially to whom God has given much, he is also indebted much. I also owe more than perhaps twenty or even a hundred; he will also demand it of me, nothing else will come of it, it will count to the last penny, as I have invested it and advertised it. This debt now passes through in general, that it affects no one in particular: I am indebted to everyone; so everyone is indebted to me again for comfort and assistance where I suffer hardship and need help. But we are not diligent enough to seek out the people who need us; and offering service is also too much for us.

71. now when we look at the register how much we owe, we have to fidget

1. So taken over by us from the old edition of Walch; Erlanger: "and honored". Latin: nolunt oulpari st rexrekendi.

And we are afraid, and we find no counsel, because we say, One is indebted to me again, I have to reckon with others also, I want to give them all that; therefore I ask, Lord, that you also forgive me; so I make a line through it, and erase it. If we did not have this advice, we would be in a bad way; therefore it remains with this. Our Father, it is also necessary that we forgive our debtors, so that our guilt may be forgiven us; as Christ teaches in the Gospel Matth. 18, 22. ff. This is the one confession, that one must confess publicly before the people and confess the guilt; before God I am not pious, before the world, also after the common guilt, there each one has to promise the other, no one does enough. Therefore, one must ask the other to forgive him.

Now no other man than a Christian makes this confession. For the unbelievers do not suffer this, that they reckon such things to be sin; they lead the spiritual law, which says: To each his own is due; they think that they have the goods they have for their own sake, therefore they also need all kinds of goods only for their honor and pleasure, as Solomon says in Proverbs: "The wicked has food only for sin, but the righteous is mild. The wicked needs his goods, wisdom, art, honor, that he may have pleasure and use thereof; all this is sin, and so sin that he still thinks it is not sin, but right.

God created us for this reason, that we should be our neighbor's caretakers; but we are all guilty of this. But this we have before, that we recognize it and are sorry for it, striving to do more and more every day, fearing God, doing as much as we can and Adam allows; what we do not do about it, God puts a stop to it, as I said; not daring to pay it, it is too much, so we say: Forgive me, I will forgive again.

(74) Over and above this common guilt there is also a special guilt, as Christ speaks of it in Matt. 5:25. If a special person is insulted, lied to, damaged, scolded, or defiled by rumor, one should also confess and say that one has done wrong, and apologize to one's neighbor. Oh, that also hurts, the

760 Srl. s", sss-sss. 19. Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body 2c. W. XX, 947-949. 761

To break Adam in this way, and to lower oneself against a poor man whom one despises, and to give him justice and the highest honor, and himself the greatest disgrace. This was also the custom in monasteries in former times, that the monks were forced to do this; but it was evil.

A wicked man does not humble himself so deeply that he disgraces himself, does not see that he would be greatly honored before God and before pious people. Christians can protect themselves from this guilt to some extent, both for themselves and for others, by covering it up and punishing it when one hears and sees it from others. But no one can defend against the common guilt. But we do not speak here of the two confessions; for these go on all the year round, and not only when you want to go to the sacrament.

(76) But here we speak of secret confession, which I consider to have come from public confession, which happened in this way: that the Christians made the previous two confessions together, so that each one confessed publicly before he went to the sacrament, before God and man. When the Christians were few, each one told it to the other. After this, it was decided that sins should be counted and numbered, but they will remain uncounted; you will never count how much you should do that you neglect.

Of this we now say thus: If these two are done publicly, one is not guilty of doing them. God knows your sin well; if you confess it to Him and then to your neighbor, your sins are forgiven. But it is by no means to be rejected for the sake of those who want to use it gladly; for in secret confession there is much that is useful and delicious. First of all, absolution, that your neighbor absolves you in God's stead, which is as much as God Himself would say; that should be comforting to us. If I knew that God was in one place, and wanted to absolve myself, I would not go there once, nor in one place, but as often as I could. This is what he has put into the mouth of man, so it is very comforting, especially to the afflicted spirit.

know to get such" there. Secondly, it serves for the simple-minded children. For because the common people are industrious, they always listen to sermons and learn nothing, and even in houses they do not stop anyone from doing it; therefore, even if it is not good for anything, it is good for instructing people and hearing them believe, pray, learn, etc.; otherwise they go like cattle. That is why I said that the sacrament should not be given to anyone, so that he knows what he is getting and why he is going. This can be done most easily in confession.

78 Thirdly, there is comfort in the fact that anyone who has an evil conscience or any other concern or need would like to have counsel, so that he can ask for it. Therefore, we cannot despise confession, for it is God's word that comforts and strengthens us in faith, teaches us what we lack, and gives us counsel in our needs. That is why no one does this confession properly except devout Christians. For it must be such people who feel that they would like to get advice and comfort. But this is the mistake, that one did not pay attention to the absolution, but to our work, how well and purely one confessed; in addition, one wanted to count the sin, which one cannot do, is also too much and great work with listening.

Therefore, this would be the best way to get away with it briefly: Dear brother, I come to lament my sin, that I am a sinner before God and man, especially I care about this and that piece 2c. Will you say it or not, is up to you. Then decided: Therefore I pray, give me good comfort, and strengthen my soul 2c. So it would have no trouble and work, without it being delicious work, which no one does, but a devout Christian.

80. From all this you see that the devil's commandment is that he presses everyone into obedience and mortal sin, and that those who do not do it give it to the devil, since it is not in our power either to take or to give, but it is a gift from heaven, Jac. 1. If I drive all to it, how many are they who gladly confess that they are driven to it?

762 Erl. SS, "58 f. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. XX, S4A-S5I. 763

without all distress? Not one in twenty thousand. With the others they do no more than mock God and blaspheme abominably. For the priest pronounces a judgment in God's stead, which is lacking and does not come true. For he does not like to confess and to hear absolution, nor does he believe in it. The fault is not in the priest, but in the one who confesses, who confesses and does not desire absolution from the heart.

Now God is not pleased that one should keep His word in vain, Exodus 20:7. If you do not desire it, let it stand, even all three confessions. It belongs only to pious people; otherwise it is better to leave it pending; it is not righteous, but

damnable. So far we have only confessed to the pope for his service, not to our souls, and that is rightly called the pope's or the church's obedience; he has had benefit and honor from it, but the others have had their souls condemned.

So you have a short and clear instruction of the two, sacrament and confession, so that it all happens willingly and out of desire, so that you come from yourself, and present your sin, get comfort and strength, so it is useful and blessed. And it is necessary that the children and the simple people be taught and instructed in this way, not by force, but with good words. For it is especially, as has been said, also for this purpose, and for this reason it should be done in pregnancy. Amen.

*20 D. Martin Luther's writing: That these words of Christ: "this is my body" 2c., still stand firm against the swarming spirits. )

About April 1527.

(1) How true the proverb is that it is said: The devil is a thousandfold. Which he proves mightily in all other things, so that he rules his world, as in bodily outward lusts, deceits, sins, mischievousness, murders, destruction, etc., but he proves it especially and beyond measure in spiritual, inward things, which concern God's honor and the conscience. How can he turn, drag, steer and turn on all sides, and at all ends block himself and put himself in the way, so that no one should be saved and remain with the Christian truth!

Let us take the history of the Christians (the old fathers and the Jews will remain silent) as an example. In the beginning of the

Since the first Gospel, when the Word of God was preached by the apostles in a pure and clear way, and no commandments of men were presented, but only holy Scripture, it was as if there should never be any need, because the holy Scripture would be the empress among Christians. But what could the devil not do? In the end he allowed only the Scriptures to be valid, 1) and no Pharisaic, Jewish commandment or value law should be valid any longer, and he also had some of his own in the Christian schools,' through which he secretly crept and crawled into the fierce Scriptures.

003 And when he was come in, and was sure of the things, he brake out, and went forth unto

1. In the old editions: gölte.

*) This writing appeared in 1527 (first probably in April, because on March 21 Luther wrote to Clemens Ursinus: "Auch ich mache jetzt ein deutsches Buch wider sie (Zwingli und Oecolampads fertig ssksolvos) in several individual editions (the Erlangen edition lists their five), of which two with Melchior Lottber in Wittenberg, one with Friedrich Peipus in Nuremberg, one at Wittenberg without indication of the printer and one with Gabriel Kantz without indication of the place. In the collections: in the Wittenberg (1551), vol. II, p. 119k; in the Jena (1556), vol. Ill, p. 375; in the Altenburg, vol. Ill, p. 691; in the Leipzig, vol. XIX, p. 388 and in the Erlangen, vol. 30, p. 14. Matthäus Judex, professor in Jena, translated this script into Latin. This translation first appeared at Nuremberg in 1556 and was incorporated into the Latin Wittenberg edition, Dona. VII (1558), toi. 379k. We reproduce the text according to the Erlangen edition, which printed the text of the first-mentioned original edition, comparing the Wittenberg and Jena editions.

764 Erl. so, IS-1". 2V. L.'s writing: That these words 2c. still stand firm 2c. P. XX. 765

He made such a mess of the Scriptures, and created many sects, heresies and sects among the Christians. And because every sect took the Scriptures for itself and interpreted them according to its meaning, the Scriptures began to be worthless and were finally called a book of heresy, because all heresies make use of the Scriptures. Thus the devil was able to drain the Christians of their weapons, their defenses, and their fortress (that is, the Scriptures), so that they not only became weak and ineffective against him, but also had to fight against the Christians themselves, and made them so suspicious of the Christians as if they were poison against which they should defend themselves. Tell me, was this not a trick of the devil?

When the Scriptures had become such a torn net that no one could be held with it, but every man bored a hole in it where his snout was, and followed his own mind, interpreting and turning it as he pleased, the Christians knew how to do things no differently than to make many concilia, in which they made many outward commandments and orders beside the Scriptures, to keep the multitude together, against such divisions. From this presumption (even though they meant well) flowed that it was said that the Scriptures were not enough, that one should also have the Conciliation and the Fathers' commandment and interpretation, that the Holy Spirit had not revealed everything to the apostles, but had saved some things for the Fathers, until in the end the papacy came out of it, in which nothing is valid but the commandment and glosses of men according to the shrine of the Holy Father's heart.

When the devil saw this, he sneered and thought: Now won! the writing lies, the castle is destroyed, the weapons are down, for this they now weave stout walls, and make weapons of hay, that is, they now want to set themselves against me with human commandments; there, there it is serious! What shall I do? I will not fight against them, but I will help them to build with confidence, so that they may be fine, and gather straw and hay enough. It serves me well that they do not quarrel in the Scriptures, and walk idly on the word, but are content with the same piece.

stand, and believe what Concilia and Fathers say.

(6) In such peace and unity, I will cause other disputes and quarrels, so that popes will strive against emperors and kings, bishops against princes and lords, scholars against scholars, clergy against clergy, and always one against the other, for the sake of temporal honor, good and pleasure, but the unity of faith in the holy fathers will remain intact. The fools, what do they want to do with bickering in the Scriptures and God's things, which they do not understand? It is better that they quarrel about honor, kingdoms, princedoms, goods, pleasures and the thirst of the flesh, which they understand, yet remain devout Christians in unity in the faith of the Fathers, 1) that is, in loose faith.

(7) Thus was the counsel of the fathers: when they thought to have the Scriptures without strife and discord, they were caused thereby, that they came wholly from the Scriptures into pure man's hand. There had to stop discord and strife in the Scriptures, which is a divine strife, that is, since God is at odds with the devil, as St. Paul says Eph. 6, 12: "We do not have to fight with flesh and blood, but with the spiritual wickedness in the air" 2c. But for this, human discord for honor and good on earth has broken down, and yet united blindness and ignorance of the Scriptures remained, with loss of the right Christian faith, that is, unanimous obedience of the Fathers and the Holy See at Rome. Is this not also a piece of devilish art? How one starts it, he is a master and squire in the game.

(8) Now in our day, when we saw that the Scriptures were under the bank, and that the devil held us captive and deceived us with the straw and hay of human commandments, we also, by the grace of God, sought counsel in the matter, and indeed with great sour labor brought forth the Scriptures again, and gave leave to the commandments of men, and set ourselves free, and escaped from the devil, though he honestly resisted and still resists; but

1. In the old editions a play on words: "glosen Glauben" - "loose faith".

766 Erl. 30,1S-21. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. XX, 954-956. 767

But because he has to let us go, he still does not forget his art, has also secretly mixed his seed among us, who should grasp our doctrine and words, not that they should assist us and help to drive the Scriptures, but because we fight against humanity in front, they invaded our army behind us, caused turmoil and raged against us, so that we perished the easier between two enemies. That is (I mean) mercury thrown into the pond.

(9) But he will not leave it at that, but begins with the least, with the sacraments; although in the same piece he has already torn the Scripture into ten holes and evasions, that I have never read more shameful heresy, which in the beginning has among itself so many heads, so many factions and disagreements, although they are united in the main matter of persecuting Christ. But he will continue and attack more articles, as he already sparkles with the eyes that baptism, original sin, Christ is nothing 1). Then again there will be a jumble in the Scriptures and such discord, so many groups, that we may well say with St. Paul: "The mystery of wickedness is already stirring", just as he also saw that after him many more groups would come. And where the world should stand longer, one will again, as the ancients have done, for the sake of such 2) discord, also seek human suggestions, and again make laws and commandments, which will unite people in the faith. This will then also succeed, as it succeeded before.

(10) In sum, the devil is too clever and too powerful for us; he blocks and hinders everywhere. If we want to enter the Scriptures, he creates so much discord and strife in them that we grow weary of the Scriptures and stupid to trust them, and must lie at loggerheads with him and wrestle with him. If we want to rely on human concilia and advice, we lose the Scriptures altogether and remain the devil's own with our skin on.