About the dispute over Holy Communion, its cause and progress.
A. How Ulrich Zwingli is to be regarded as the main author of this dispute.
1. Ulrich Zwingli's letter to Matthäus Alber, preacher at Reutlingen, in which he reports to him that he and others do not dislike Carlstadt's opinion of the Holy Communion. Nov. 16, 1524.
This letter is found in Latin in the opera Zwinglii tom II, toi. 153 and in
des Christoph Matthäus Pfaff ^etu st seripta pudlloa eeelssius ^VirtemdsrAieas, p. 9. (Tübingen 1719.)
Translated from Latin.
Grace and peace from the Lord! We have heard rumors of a dispute you will have with a brother who also means well with Christ, whom I know by sight but not by name. You, on the other hand, we know by name and by the glory of the gospel, but not by person. But our Michael has heard that there is a discussion about the holy supper, in which, as I fear, many are mistaken, because I myself must be mistaken more than all. And if I understand the quality and understanding of the Scriptures, even godliness itself, we have so far missed the mark by a long way. Who is the cause of this error cannot now be told by the letter, which must be brief.
Carlstadt, that I do not remain silent about this, has either at the right time or at an inopportune time brought this matter to the people unawares, and has sent out a booklet, about three sheets, under the title "On the Abuse of the Lord's Supper: On the Abominable Abuse of the Lord's Supper. 1) I have read this, since
1) The exact title of this writing, which is included in the St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 92-109, is found there in the note. - triuru p "ginaruvr" must be translated by "three bows", as well as in § 3, where quaterniones is used.
asked the brothers, especially our Leo, to read it, and they liked it earlier. When I read it, I liked it in many places; others disliked it because it was too weak in the highly important matter, and I do not know whether this is due to the language, which is somewhat foreign to us, or our clumsiness. We see that he speaks true in such a scripture, but in such a way that he annoys more than he builds; not the brethren who already have trained senses, but those to whom everything that is said a little carelessly is equally annoying, for the sake of those whom the whole gospel annoys.
We do not dislike Carlstadt's opinion at all, if we understand the said writing correctly; but the words are not in accordance with the highness of the matter. In making this judgment, other brothers are immediately found who report: he has produced a conversation 2) that is much harsher, in which he makes what already sounds atrocious in itself even worse with untimely mockery, and makes the matter, which is in itself unusual in the ears of simple-minded or godless people, even more hateful, as it were, with diligence. I have not read this conversation, indeed, have seen nothing else of Carlstadt than the aforementioned three sheets. That is why many of us are annoyed by Carlstadt's writings, but mainly because they sound a little different from what we have taught so far. Hereafter. For what one is to think of the matter itself, you may decide afterwards, when you have read our matter. For 3) we present what is ours so that we may compare ourselves with one another, not so that we may pass judgment on it. For the matter is so important that if the Lord does not give understanding, everything we say will be in vain.
Now to the matter itself. The summa of this matter can easily be taken from John 6.
2) "Carlstadt's Dialogus or Conversation Booklet" in the St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 2312.
3) Instead of Xou at the beginning of this sentence, we have assumed Nos.
And one must not hear those who cry out again and again: Christ does not act anything of the Sacrament there; for we also hold the same; but he does act such things there, by which that is certainly refuted which we judge of him quite clumsily. We started from this chapter, since we wanted to take this dangerous matter in hand after prior mature consideration. Therefore, it is by divine grace that there are few among us who do not know what this bread and cup are. Our faithful do not come to any mass. And we had intended to finally replace the old order of Mass with a new one. But it is again by the grace of God that things have turned out differently. For if we had been followed, one nail would have been knocked out by the other, and it would have been more difficult to abolish the new way than that which has come down from the old. You see, then, as we had promised, in what order we have attacked the matter, namely, that we have taken the 6th Cap. Johannis as an exceedingly firm and strong order of battle.
(5) There Christ, as he is wont to move from earthly things to inward and spiritual things, reminds those who sought him in hope of food, very kindly above all, that they should work and seek food that never perishes or perishes, since from here he found occasion to pass on to spiritual things, that as bodily food nourishes and refreshes the members, so also spiritual food refreshes the soul. Therefore, he very appropriately passes from the eating of food that fills the belly to the eating of the Word, which he calls spiritual food that makes the world alive, so that whoever eats it will never hunger again. And such food he calls, as the Hebrews call all food bread, sometimes bread, sometimes food. And since those who heard this imagined bodily food, and praised the manna given under Moses, he gives to understand what the food is, of which he speaks, and says: "I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst." By these words he sought nothing else than that they who come to him, that is, trust Christ, as he soon adds, saying, "He that believeth on me," etc., shall never suffer the hunger of despair. For as many as trust in him, they are already certain that they are children of God, John 1, and must no longer, like hungry dogs, scour the whole city.
and seek food, because they have the pledge, the Spirit, in them, through which they know that they have been reconciled to God through God. And this opinion Christ inculcates with many words. But the Jews, who did not understand the matter at all, murmured that Christ had made Himself the life-giving bread or food, and resorted to the common insult, as we despise people born among us. "Is not this (say they) Joseph's son?" And they wondered for a twofold cause, both because he had called himself a living food, and because he boasted that he was descended from heaven. Now the Lord warns these, lest they fall into worse blasphemies and sins, and beware lest they murmur, for this thing is not in human understanding, but in the Spirit's teaching and inspiration; as the Lord foretold by the prophet, saying, "They shall all be taught of the Lord." Hence it comes to pass that no one will take Christ for one who sprang from heaven and for a food of the soul, whom the Father does not draw to Himself. Then he clearly shows how he is food for the soul. And finally, how it must be eaten. Of the first he speaks thus: "Verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If anyone eats the same (that is, the heavenly), he will have eternal life." But that I do not detain you too long: The bread of which I preach unto you now is nothing else, but that my flesh, which ye see at present, shall be given for the life of the world. This my surrender and death for the ungodly will reconcile the world to the Father, which is nothing else than a restoration to life. What I have told you so far with many words is recently this, that I, by being given for the world, will then be food for the souls, through which they receive their hope and become certain of the mercy of God. And how could she deny something to the wretched people, since she has given the Son to them? So then the bread, that is, the food of the soul, which I have promised, is my flesh; not, as you think, as it lives and deals with you, but in so far as it is given for the life of the world, that is, cruelly broken for the dead, that they may live. And this then is the opinion of these words, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, in so far as it is given for the life of the world." So my flesh, in so far as it is executed by death, is the food,
that is, the hope of the soul. From these words we learn clearly that the flesh of Christ is in no other way the food and hope of the human soul than since it was killed for us. For "that which is born of the flesh is flesh"; therefore the eaten flesh of Christ can create nothing but flesh. But the flesh of Christ, which was killed for us, makes him who trusts in his death spiritual, that is, a child of God. It follows, then, that the bread of which Christ speaks is nothing other than this: that Christ was given over to death for our life.
(6) But since the Jews did not understand this sufficiently, but also, like certain theologians, became more and more carnal-minded, they quarreled about it and in anger said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? See how their minds 1) became more and more incomprehensible, because their minds understood nothing else than what the senses input. Christ's opinion of the words was this: No one shall live who does not believe that I was given in death for his salvation, although he clothed and hid it with fine similes: "I am the bread of life," that is, the living bread: "Whosoever therefore eateth me shall never hunger nor thirst."
(7) But the Jews, who were far too rude and unintelligent to accept the word, "He that eateth me," as spoken by Christ, that it meant, "He that believeth on me," answered not only rudely, but even blasphemously, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Now the heavenly wisdom, after her manner, attacks these somewhat more fiercely and more strongly, punishing their unbelief and saying: "If you will not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will have no life in you." Dear God! How? does no one live who does not eat with his teeth and greedily gulp in? And how do the unbelievers live, who not only do not eat you, but do not even know that you are God, or that you exist at all? But, they will say, there is a twofold error here: For those who eat here do not eat bodily, and what is eaten is not the body that falls into the senses. Quite right! Why do we err even longer than the king of Ithaca? Is the body something other than what one feels and grasps? But what one grasps with the senses is something for the sensual instruments. But since the limbs (or sensual tools) have nothing to do here, but everything happens inwardly:
1) nientes I read for dentes. (Walch.)
What need is there to speak of the body or corpse, in so far as it is a body? Since Christ is not food for the soul in this way, otherwise the Jews would not have been so afraid of it; but in so far as he was killed after this body, he is food for the soul. Whoever therefore trusts in Christ, who died for him, is already refreshed inwardly with his body and blood; and if he does not trust in this, what else will help him to want to eat Christ bodily, but to nourish the body? For this remains constantly true: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," and again: "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." So Christ here means a spiritual meal. But what kind? 2) By saying that Christ is here eaten in the flesh, would spiritual and flesh eating be one and the same, which must sound highly inconsistent to all who understand the art of reasoning. If it is spiritual food, why do you call it bodily? If bodily, what can it do but help the body? So Christ wants this, that if we do not believe that he died for us and shed his blood, we will not have life. Again, if we eat his flesh, that is, believe that he died for us, and drink his blood, that is, firmly believe that his blood was shed for us, then Christ is in us and we in him. But is Christ in anyone bodily? Not at all. So what are we arguing about eating the body? Then one eats his body, if one believes that he was killed for us. So it is faith that Christ is talking about here, not eating.
But thou sayest, Thou declareest it so, and makest the scripture to serve thy error. Not at all! But we have learned by these marks that Christ here spoke of faith, and not of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The first is that right from the beginning of this sermon Christ spoke thus: "Work meat, which perisheth not, but abideth unto life eternal, which the Son of man shall give unto you." But Christ gave no other food to make us blessed than the gospel, namely, that he suffered death for us freely and without cost. The other sign is, "Him hath the Father sealed" (or drawn). And how? By being the sign by which we are delivered from the serpent's bite. But how? By eating his body; not by eating the body, for that is impossible, because even though we may have eaten Christ once after
2) Instead of: earu, us is to be read: sUrnLs.
We have known him in the flesh, but we do not know him now in this way; but inasmuch as it is believed that he died for us. The third sign is: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. Behold, here is the work whereby we may make meat that perisheth not, that is, to trust in him whom the Father hath sent. So faith is the work that saves, not the eating of the body in the flesh. For if the body eaten in this way made us blessed, there would be two ways in which we would be blessed, namely the work of God, faith, as has already been said, and then eating his body in the flesh; it is easy to say how inconsistent this is. The fourth sign is, "He is the true bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world." Christ's body did not come from heaven, but was born in the womb of the Virgin, who always remained a virgin. But as far as Christ gives life to the world, he does it as God and the Son of God, not as flesh. Thus, once again, it is seen that he is life, inasmuch as he is believed to be the Son of God, and died according to the flesh assumed by her virgin; and that, if one believes in him in this way, he makes alive, not by being eaten in the flesh. There are, moreover, many other signs from which we may infer that this mind of which we speak is the right one.
(9) But we will come to the understanding which Christ himself made known, and which it would be unfaithful to forsake. And that is this: When the Jews did not understand the sweet and flowery sayings of Christ, they did as all stubborn people do, namely, they spoke out against him and went away. Since Christ saw that this was because he had always insisted, "Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood, you have no life," but the Jews could not lift their minds from the body they had before them to remember the trust in his death, he addressed them with the clear words, "This offends you. How then, when ye shall see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no use. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." What can be said that is clearer, more explicit, more revelatory and shorter than: "The Spirit is he who gives life, the flesh is of no use"? Are not all questions sufficiently driven back by this, by which one now claims, more out of presumption than out of godliness, that the essence of the bread changes into the essence of the flesh? But now this opinion is ridiculed.
But they still maintain that it is to be eaten substantially and bodily. And since they mock others, they do not see that they are also completely wrong. Self-love is such a tremendous thing that when it has found a mistake in a matter and imagines that it has found out how it is, it cannot be moved from its place. What could have been said more emphatically to overthrow all the poems about the bodily and essential body of Christ in this sacrament than this word: "The flesh profiteth nothing"? But will we now say: Christ has given what is of no use? Far be it from us! For wonderful are the glorious works of the Lord, which are done according to his will. Therefore, as we have said from the beginning, this word is a barrier against all the undertakings of those who speak of the essential body of Christ. For we will always hold this word up to them as a shield, saying, "Be silent with this your carnal wisdom, for the flesh is of no use." But what profit is there then? Answer: that which follows: "The words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life." What words then? "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life." What kind of flesh? What kind of blood? Not that which has moisture or juice, nor that which has weight, but that which we recognize in the mind to be a pledge of our blessedness, for the cause that it was killed for us on the cross. These words, if we believe them and hide them deeply in our hearts, bring us eternal life. For we are justified by faith alone. So faith, which keeps itself assured that the crucified Christ is our salvation and blessedness, is what the Lord meant by these words that he spoke, which are spirit and life.
10 You will teach, dear Matthew, first of all what Christ means by "eat" here, namely believe. This we have also done, so that there is almost no one with us who does not have an abhorrence of these great questions. For all arrows can be stopped with this one shield. If any man say, Believest thou not that the body of Christ is eaten here? then thou shalt answer, The flesh is of no use: why therefore should I dispute anything concerning the [flesh]? That one should remain firm in these words, you shall teach. For these are words of the gospel; they are faith itself. For what is a Christian but to believe that Christ, the Son of God, died for him? Would someone say: This faith also makes me blessed, if I believe.
that in this bread I eat the true and essential bodily body of Christ, then one can answer: You say this from your own, but here Scripture, God's word, is necessary for you to prove that the faith in which you believe that Christ is eaten here bodily makes you blessed. And since you do not have such a faith, you see, of course, how the whole opinion is without foundation and an exceedingly damnable sin of idolatry; for who has not worshipped this sacrament? But why have we not also worshipped baptism in the same way? since the sacraments, as far as their description is concerned, are of one and the same kind.
Now comes the most difficult thing in this matter, namely, how to interpret Christ's words, which they call the words of blessing. For since Christ said, "This is my body which is given for you," the words cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the bread which Christ presented was his body, but not the spiritual body, the church, for it was not given for us, but the true body of Christ slain for us on the cross. The words are clear and evident; and heaven and earth must pass away rather than one tittle of it. Here, of course, all the power of faith is to be strained, and the heavenly throne of grace to be implored; that all that is hidden here may be revealed. For if the words have not been rightly understood up to now, more has been sinned against here than in any other matter. And I know not whether it were a greater abomination to worship the golden calf in Dan, than to worship this blessed bread, if it be otherwise mere bread. For although the opinion we wish to express is very well regarded by us, we do not make a judicial pronouncement, but merely state what is ours, so that, if it pleases the Lord, others may also be brought to the same opinion, but by the Spirit who teaches us everything. For if he forbids to understand it in this way, our speech is in vain. I therefore pray to the most high God to guide our ways, and if we, like Balaam, stubbornly strive against the truth, to put his angel in our way, who, by the threats of his sword, will destroy this ass (I mean, our ignorance and boldness), I mean, our ignorance and boldness, where something else is done by us out of boldness and glory-seeking) to the wall in such a way that we withdraw the broken foot, that is, the unclean and unwashed sense of the flesh, so that we do not further blaspheme the name of the Lord our God.
12 So there are some who have learned by faith (for from it one learns the thorough truth) that it is salutary for us to believe that
Christ suffered for us; this is the only way to heaven, this is the word that we all preach, 1 John 1. Therefore they easily conclude that salvation can come by no other way than through Christ, and therefore not through the sacramental partaking of the bread and wine. But when they look at Christ's words, which we call the words of consecration, they think that there is an obscure expression underneath; but what kind and what kind it is, they cannot easily say. Carlstadt, in the writing which I have read, pretends that the pointing is changed. For when he said, "Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat: this is my body which is given for you," he pointed by the pronoun "this" not to the bread, but to himself, so that the meaning was this: Take, eat: for I will give this my body for you.
(13) I readily confess that I praise man's diligent efforts, but I wish him much more happiness in his faith, since he has learned that there is no other way to be saved than through the faith by which we believe that Christ suffered for us. Even if he did not understand these words correctly, the godly man saw that there must be another meaning behind them; but he did not have enough insight to explain it clearly, unless we see less than he does. But far be from this word any spite! He adds that this pronoun "that" has the meaning that his body will be crucified, as the prophets also proclaimed; so that this is the meaning: What the prophets proclaimed, I would take flesh and in it bear the pain of men: Behold! this body of mine is the same that the prophets promised; it is he who will be given up for the multitude.
14 If this were the understanding, the two things might also have been added, namely, that now his imprisonment and death were at the door, and what he had said John 6, "The bread which I will give for the life of the world," that therefore he now said, "Behold my body, which is given for the life of the world. 6: "The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world", that he now says: "Behold, this is my body, which is given for the life of the world, of which I made certain promises to you in former years, and when we came up from Galilee a few days ago, I told you what would happen to me. Now this time has come.
15. you also say that in the conversation, which we haven't read, he was thinking about it a lot of
something from the Greek language is cited, which clearly illustrates the change in pointing, because the Greek word
xxxxx [bread] is a masculine, but [body] is a neuter. But, with permission, it is certain that the Greeks as well as the Latins have many such ways of speaking, that what was given before in the masculine or feminine gender is expressed afterwards by the neuter. I do not have the time to look for examples now, because I had to write in the greatest haste. Whoever wants to accept Carlstadt's opinion will not offend us in the least, but I ask you to consider ours as well.
(16) For we believe that everything depends on a single syllable, namely on this word: "is", which does not always have the meaning "to be", but also "to mean". But I want to remind you, beloved brother, that you will not believe us in this unless we prove everything we say with exceedingly clear words of Scripture. Joseph answered Pharaoh's dream, "The seven fat cows are seven fruitful years," and yet seven cows cannot be seven years. So it is clear that "are" there must mean as much as "signify", and the mind of this one is: The seven fat cows, which you may have seen in your sleep, signify or represent seven fruitful years etc. Christ says John 15: "I am the vine", and yet he was not a vine, but behaved as a vine. So we see that the word "I am" cannot be taken for "to be", but as much as: "I present", I represent, so that the mind comes out: I represent a vine, or signify it, or am of the same kind as it. He again says: "The seed is the word of God", and yet the seed was not the word of God. Therefore, also here the word "is" cannot mean as much as "is real", but it is clear that it was put for "means". For Christ explains to the apostles the similitude which he had presented of the sown seed with these words: The seed (he says) of which I speak "is", that is, "signifies" the word of God. These and similar expressions can be found sufficiently in the holy scriptures, and therefore it is not necessary here to burden you with more.
Now take the words of Christ before your hand. Matth. 26 it says: "Jesus took the bread etc. and said: Take, eat, this is my body." Luc. 22: "Which is given for you." Here put me for "is" the word "means." Take unk
eat, that means my body, which is given for you; so this will be the mind, of course: Take and eat, for what I now command you to do will signify or bring to your remembrance my body, which is now given for you; for immediately afterwards he adds, "This do in remembrance of me." Behold, there is the final purpose for which he commands to eat, namely, for his remembrance. This is what Paul gave: "As often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord." What does Paul command here but to publicly commemorate the death of Christ? Since then this supper of the Lord, or, as Paul calls it, the Lord's Supper, was instituted that we should remember the death of Christ, which he suffered for us: it is clear that it is a sign, since those who trust in Christ's death and blood testify before the brethren that they have such faith. And so the meaning of these words of Christ becomes quite clear in this way: This meal means, or is a sign, by which you will remember that my body, that is, the body of the Son of God, your Lord and Master, was given for you. This is how Tertullianus understood it, a man of extraordinary godliness, of special learning in languages, of excellent eloquence, when he finally says of the words of Christ in the book against Marcion, after many speeches: "He also did not disdain the bread that represents his holy body. For he does not want Christ to have rejected his sacraments, nor to have abolished the bread (see, he calls it bread) by which he presents his body. He did not say: which bread is his body, but: which represents his body. But how does the bread represent the body? Namely, by eating it in this way, we are reminded that Christ presented his body for us to those who struck him.
18, Now we come to Paul's words, by which this understanding will become even clearer, which Lucas gives thus: "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you." Behold, what the two others have thus given, "This is my blood," Lucas calls a new testament. And he did not say, This new testament is my blood; but, "This drink is the new testament in my blood." Now what is in another is not itself that in which it is. The new testament has its power and ground in the blood of Christ shed for us, and the drink of the new testament is the cup. Now it is clear that the blood is not the cup, but the testament that is,
the memory of the life-giving shedding of the blood of Christ. With these words of Luke the key is given to explain the words of Matthew and Marcus. For since the latter says that such drink of the New Testament has power in the blood of Christ, I conclude that those said in a faded way, which is somewhat unusual for us, "This is my body", instead of: This eating of the new testament is a sign and emblem, which has its power in that I give myself for you and for the whole multitude. And, "This is my blood," they said, instead of: This cup is the sign, or will signify to you, that this my blood has been shed for you. This is how Augustine understands it in the preface of the 3rd Psalm, where he says: the Lord Jesus also took Judas to the banquet, in which he commanded the image (figuram) of his body and blood to the disciples. But what does he mean by figure here? Is it the appearance of his body and face, or a figure, by which he foreshadows something that is to come, like that which happened to the fathers in the model? Not at all; but a figure, that is, a figure that is a reminder and memorial to us that his body was given for us and his blood was shed for our atonement.
19 Here I want to remind you, beloved brother, that I do not hold Augustine or anyone else in such high esteem that I would want to assert something on this, but therefore I am leading the opinion of the ancients, so that you see that it is not a new poem, what we bring forward about these words and the sacrament. But that Augustine wrote of this sacrament in earnest in this way will become clearer soon after, when we have quoted Paul's saying. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 10, and wanting to discourage all idolatrous fellowship (because there were some who boasted of their knowledge that an idol was nothing, and yet ate of the sacrifice made to idols), Paul, I say, wanting to discourage such from idolatrous fellowship, reproached them with the use of the Lord's Supper, which he considered of such a kind and so high that it accused him of idolatry who was at the same time partaker of the Lord's and the devils' table. Thus, as he reproaches them for the use of the Lord's Supper, there is no doubt that he is not actually and skillfully speaking of it. He therefore speaks thus, "The blessed cup which we bless," or praise, "is it not the communion of the blood 1) of Christ?"
(20) Here those who teach rejoice immediately,
1) In Latin: corporis.
One eats Christ bodily: what further testimony do we need? We have heard here that it is a communion of the body and blood of Christ. For Paul did not say a communion of bread or wine, but of the body and blood. But be patient until you have heard everything to the end, otherwise there will be nothing but loud quarrels, arguments and noise. Pay attention to what follows, and you will see what he calls the communion of body and blood. After saying, "And the bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" he explains what kind of fellowship it is, saying, "Because we, being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all made partakers of one bread and one cup." Here Paul seems to clearly indicate that those who eat this bread and drink the cup become One Body with the other brethren, which is the Body of Christ, because he believes that the Body of Christ, that is, the flesh of His Lord and Creator, was slain for Him and His blood was shed. So he wants them to be partakers of the body and blood of Christ when they confess with the other brothers that they trust in Christ's death and shed blood. And that they may testify to the brethren that they sincerely believe this, and that they bear an abhorrence to all idols and the service of strange gods, they take with them in the holy supper the bread and the cup of remembrance, that one brother may see how the other, as it were by this oath (hence it is also called a sacrament), has grown together with him into one body, into one bread, into one confession. For thus he says: Because we, the whole multitude, are One Bread and One Body, therefore we eat this Bread, that we may finally become One Bread. But what is the bread into which we are knit together? For this is a strange change of words: We eat bread that we may become One Bread. We do not know what Paul is talking about here. But, my dear man, you be who you are, these are fine words of Paul, full of heavenly eloquence! He calls bread what we eat, and he also calls it bread what we become by such eating. Now what we become by such eating, if only we have first eaten Christ, who suffered for us, not the flesh, sinews and bones, in our hearts: what we become, I say, is the body of Christ. But which are the body of Christ? Those of whom he is the head, and they his members. But of whom is he the head? Those who follow him, who trust in him. What are the members? Just those of whom we have said. And though the members are so great a multitude, yet they shall be
only One Body. Not only when they eat this bread and drink this cup, but as soon as they believe that the founder of this meal, Christ Jesus, died for our salvation and was crowned with shame. What does such a meal accomplish? Nothing else, but that by it it is made known to your brother that you are a member of Christ and among those who put their trust in Christ, and it also binds you to a Christian life, so that if you were not afraid to live boldly in sins, you would be excluded from the other members. This is where the church ban and exclusion came from among the ancients.
21 So it is clear from Paul's words, "Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Is it not the fellowship of the body of the Lord?" that "fellowship" is not taken for "eating," as theologians have taken it up to now, but for fellowship of the church, that is, that in this way each one makes himself known to the church and incorporates himself into it, as it were, with an oath taken. For Paul himself says: "So we many are one bread and one body, because we are all partakers of one bread and one cup." Behold, this is the cause why we become One Bread, because we become partakers of One Bread and One Cup.
22 Now behold the sweetness of Paul's words! Christ has given us the bread, that we should eat the same with one another and thus become One Body, if only we first eat the heavenly bread (as He taught John 6). This body is the church of Christ. Therefore we, who are His body, are also called one bread. are called one bread; for by this bread we prove to the brethren that we are members of the body of Christ. This change of words and relationship has made that before some have even applied the words of Christ: "This is my body" to the church, as can be seen in Thomas or Scotus, where I am right, and have meant that Christ pointed to those to whom he had given the bread and said: they were his body, so that the mind would be: You who are at this supper are my body. And since the following did not rhyme well, they interpreted the words, "That is given for you," as if it meant, "For whom I am given. Now I admire their faith more than all the scholars of God. For I do not think that there has ever been anyone who believed that he was eating Christ bodily and essentially in this sacrament, although all have bravely taught it, or pretended to do so, as hypocrisy is an insolent evil.
23 Here, my dear Lord, you do not want to be
and cry out with the hypocrites: I have believed (so), what do you judge my conscience? you have either not believed with me, or have turned your mind to something else, so that it would not contradict here, or have anxiously worried how the truth would finally come to light freely. I admire, I say, the faith of these people, who were terrified of this tasteless traditional doctrine, and since the words themselves seemed so very firm, nevertheless searched the Scriptures as to how this body should be understood. And when they came to this passage of Paul, they wanted to cut this knot in two, as it were, with an axe, and considered certain what we said above about Carlstadt, that faith does not need the way of eating that the theologians teach, and the words of Christ must have a different understanding, no matter which one wants it. I praise the faith of these people, I say; they only lacked perspicacity, which they did not need because they had faith. Behold what it means to be taught from the Scriptures, and what it means to be taught from the Spirit!
(24) I said just before: This mean opinion of the theologians is tasteless, do not be angry with it; I would rather have said, it is not only great, but also godless. For have not these excellent theologians become more godless than the Jews? Since these thought it was all spoken of the bodily food, they had an abhorrence; but Christ helps them up by friendly teaching, and delivers them from their foolish mind, saying, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh is of no use. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life"; and since they understood it as little as the first, they have completely forsaken Christ. But ours have become infinitely more foolish, boldly asserting that which vexed the Jews, and rejecting Christ's teaching, by which all things could be clearly seen, even against his will; and yet not fleeing from him, but remaining with him, and teaching that Christ's body is eaten here [in the Lord's Supper], as the Jews abhorred it, more cruelly than all the Scythians, which their words sufficiently show. For some eat him out of the manger, others as he still wriggles on the cross. For thus they say: We eat the body of Christ truly and bodily, as he lay in the manger, as he hung on the cross, which is most inconsistent. But, that we conclude once, because you certainly want to have everything summarized briefly. There you have it:
25. Christ, now that he was about to die, with
He ate with his disciples in the most friendly way. For he said: "I have been longing to eat Easter with you. For he did not merely feast them with the dishes, but set before them the sweetest morsels and sweets of his heavenly word. And because he wished to leave a ceremony in remembrance of his having been miserably killed for us, he took the bread and commanded that they should all eat. For this is an emblem or sign to the faithful that the body of him who was their God, Lord and Master, was killed; therefore let it be done in remembrance of him, that we also eat together, praising his grace. The same is to be said of the cup. So it happened among Christ's disciples that all who called themselves brethren ate and drank with the other brethren after Christ's institution, and in this way were received into the fellowship of the brethren who believed that they had been redeemed by Christ's body and blood: But this, according to conscience, was in vain, if he that did eat had not first the faith that was sure of salvation through Christ. Therefore this is also clear in passing, that eating in the Lord's Supper does not take away sins, but is a sign of those who firmly believe and give thanks that through Christ's death sin has been taken away and blotted out. See Augustine on John 6, in the 26th tract, and you will clearly find how he separates the sacramental meal from the spiritual. See also Origen on Matthew in the 35th Homily, for it is only to this that I now turn. For very many ancients have had godly thoughts about this sacrament.
This, my honest brother, is what I have wanted to do with you in writing. For I worry that some would rather be inclined to swear by their masters' word.
27. If you say to me, "I have begun to say mass in German, and if I were to teach otherwise, many would be very angry, use this remedy, and teach that you do not abolish the communion of the Lord's table, but show the right use of it more and more every day, and often inculcate this: that if they eat the bread of communion (or fellowship), and are not pure in faith, nor upright in the love of their neighbor, they eat and drink judgment. Believe me, many will resign; and when Easter comes, everything will be done according to Christ's appointment, as we also want to do. Take it well and cling to the word of God alone. Ask the Lord to guide your way! The brother (whose name is
1) do not contest this, if he is not grossly mistaken, but if it is appropriate, give him this letter to read as well. Farewell in Christ Jesus our Lord. Zurich, November 16, 1524.
Huldrych Zwingel, from the heart of yours.
To Matthew Alber, 2) pastor in Reutlingen.
I adjure you by Jesus Christ, who is the future judge of the living and the dead, that you give this letter to no one except one who is known to be righteous in the faith of the same our Lord. I will do the same. And if necessity requires that it be printed, I will see to it. For I have written everything in such a hurry that I have hardly read it over once and again.
Zürch, in the heap of Christoph Froschauer. Anno 1525 in the month of March. 3)
2. letter of D. Joh. Eck to the Confederate Estates, in which he warns them against the false doctrine of the Lord's Supper of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, and offers to hold a disputation with these two men. October 28, 1525.
After the copy of Werner Steiner, which is in the city library in Zurich, printed in the first part of Johann Fuslin's "Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Kirchen-Reformationsgeschichte des Schweizerlandes", with extensive notes.
To the noble, strict, firm, prudent, honorable and highly respectable lords of the cities and countries of the old Confederation of the High German Nation of the Confederates, my gracious, magnanimous, commanding lords.
Noble, strict, honorable, respectable and prudent, wise gentlemen and good friends! My willing, persevering dimste before, magnanimous and commanding lords! I have in the ver-
1) The latter had taken upon himself to present Zwingli's opinion at the Reutlingen. See Pfaff, vs aotis seriptisqus publieis eeelssias tVirtentbkrZjeue lidsr eomnasotarius, x>. 6.
2) Pfaff 1. e. p. 5 notes that the correct spelling of this name is "Aulber".
3) Pfaff 1. c. p. 6 says that the previous letter was already printed in March 1525 by Christoph Froschauer in Zurich. Therefore, here, in the postscript to this letter, the last sentence, which contains the time determination, which does not fit to the letter, will have to be deleted. These words will be found from the last page of the print.
In the past years your grace, severity, firmness and wisdom have exhorted you to remain with the true, old, undoubted faith and not to be moved by the erroneous, seductive, heretical teachings of Ulrich Zwinglin, as I then commanded before your glory, or its appointed judges, with a disputation on the basis of the Holy Scriptures against Zwinglin, but that Zwinglin, as one who hates the light and walks in darkness, did not want to accept it, as I acted before according to the length.
Since I have heard nothing for a long time, only (praise be to God!), how the majority of your grace and favor still steadfastly stand and continue in the true Christian faith, those, however, who have separated themselves from Christian unity and accepted erroneous, heretical doctrines, have fallen forever into more serious insanity and blasphemous heresy, not only the Anabaptists, who have risen in some places of the Confederates and their neighbors, but also Zwinglin and Hausschein (who calls himself Oecolampadius) have fallen into the terrible heresy that in the reverend sacrament of the altar there is not the Corpus Christi of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, nor His precious holy blood. So the blind heretics, who have lost the eyes of the holy faith, shall fall into the dark pit of all heresy.
3 From this, your grace and favor will easily determine what a false, devilish faith the obdurate people teach, since they are repugnant to themselves and to one another. For Zwinglin and Hausschein did not want the reverend sacrament to be a sacrifice in the office of the holy mass, but taught that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ should be highly venerated. Zwinglin also proves to the popes their mischievous cries (as he says) when they accuse him of not wanting to make anything of our dear Lord Christ's Corpus Christi and of depriving poor people of heavenly food. Since in the year 1523, in the month of hay, he did not want to suffer such a thing to be said, he now falls into it two years later with all nonsense, and not only accepts the mass of the church, but also his fictitious heretical mass, and deprives, as much as is in him, the people of the heavenly food.
4. so loose, lucke, 1) fickle people are the
1) "lucke" probably as much as: lying. Cf. St. Louis edition, vol. XV, 1320, s 48 and Col. 1328, s 80 the also used by Eck: "Luckmann" - "Lügemnamr".
Heretics; however, they cry out that the rock of undoubted and eternal truth is with them. Zwinglin is not mindful of the fact that he praised Luther so highly at that time: he is a diligent servant of God, who searches the Scriptures with such great seriousness as has ever been done in baptizing years on earth, and with a manly, unmoved mind. For, if Zwinglin thinks so highly of Luther, as he himself has written, why does he not follow and believe Luther, who overturns Carlstadt's heresy of the reverend sacrament with the bright Scriptures? Yes, even though Carlstadt has fallen away from this heresy again and has voluntarily revoked and denied it, I still hear that Zwinglin in Zurich and Hausschein in Basel (he is probably a Hussian) are leading many thousands of people into the abominable heresy, that they do not believe that the true body and blood of Christ are in the worthy Sacrament; just as the blind Jews have contested the reverend Sacrament for many years.
5 Therefore, gracious, strict, firm and prudent lords! I ask your grace, firmness and favor for the sake of God, you should not let yourselves and your covenant relatives and subjects be seduced by this heretical, blasphemous doctrine; You have unfortunately seen what miserable fruits this heresy has brought to Germany, namely, all dissension, displeasure, disobedience, mobs, riots, destruction of country and people, extinction of all worship and honor, as well as strengthening of all will to courage and all sin and vice. etc. Behold the inconstancy and division of the heretics, how in a short time so many sects have sprung up among them, the iconoclasts, the Anabaptists, the red spirits, the despairers (who say that Christ, our dear Lord, doubted and sinned on the cross), the crucifiers of hell (who say that Christ suffered little things on earth, but that in hell the devils crucified him all the more), and many other sects! How many different masses they have started in all places, and finally they make a good meal and a feast out of it on the Rhine, which now only happens in a few towns in High German; for last summer I walked through the Netherlands in England, and passed through more than 70 towns, out of which no more than three were Lutheran, and two out of the three had not yet changed anything into public offices of the church.
6 Therefore, I ask Your Grace and friendship, for the sake of God, that you, as hearty people of good will, manfully handle the true, ancient, undoubted Christian faith, and
f532 Erl. Briefw.v, 261 f. Section 1: Dispute over the Lord's Supper. No. 2 f. W. XVII, 1905 pp. 1533
to purge and exterminate the false, seductive, blasphemous heresy. What I poor priest can and may prove in service to this, I will do it with all my heart and with the utmost diligence; Especially if Zwinglin or Hausschein want to dispute before you, my lords of the common confederation, under an appointed judge, and finally remain in recognition of the same, as I have offered twice in the past year, I will quite willingly appear at your admonition at the place and end where you appoint me, and execute the disputation on the basis of the holy Scriptures, in the good hope that God will assist his truth and the holy faith through his mercy. May your grace, firmness and favor be fully extended to me, so that, wherever I may be of service to you in these matters of faith, I may be willing to do so diligently. May God Almighty command and protect your grace, severity, firmness and wisdom. Date at Ingolstadt in Bavaria, on the day of the holy apostles Simonis and Judä [Oct. 28] 1525.
Your graces and lordships obediently willing
Johann von Eck, Doctor etc.
B. How the people of Strasbourg sent Gregory Laset, professor of the Hebrew language, to Luther so that he would not write against Zwingli and Oekolampad, and what he answered, also wrote to others about the growing sacramental controversy.
3. V. M. Luther's answer to the Strasbourg preachers, given to Gregor Casel along with an instruction. Nov. 5, 1525.
It is not known who published Luther's letter to the Strasburgers along with the instruction. The Strasburgers were very unhappy that this had happened, as can be seen from Bucer's writing, in which he takes responsibility against Luther's letter to Secerius and Herwagen. See the following 15th number in this part, K 35. Our writing first appeared under the title: Epistola lliol" Hast ack loannsna KtiKlsriurn, super controuorsiana rei Lscramontariao. Itoro. Nosponsio D. Martini Imtkeri ack ministros uerdi cksi spuck ^rMntinam, per 6. Oaseliurn DoZatuna, äs uerkis eoense äorninieae. Item, ^nckreae Httismeri LrenÄj Dpistola ack 6lionrackum 8om Ooneionstorem Vlmensem, qua Dreuibus respon.
cket, yusteüus prosit corporalis Okristi prsessntia in menss, ckomini. At the end: ^orimderZse lr^ck. ke^pus exeuckebst 5.Dsbruarii. M.V.XXVII. two sheets in 8. another single print came out in 1529 M Wittenberg by Georg Rhau under the title: Doctori" Martini Dutkeri Manckatum ^nno Dni M.D.XXV. trsckitum 6rexorio Eiraselio, quemsckmockum responäere ckelreret Laeramentaris s, (jui ipsum VuittemberZam miserant. M.D.xxix. 5 leaves in 8. Printer and place of printing is mentioned at the end. In the collections: in Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 302; in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 42 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. V, p. 261. Also appended to an edition of the 8^nZramma Lusvicum published at Nuremberg in 1556; in Historie des Sacramentsstreits, 1584, p. 39 and in Pappus, Widerlegung etc., p. 427. German in the editions only in Walch. Even before the Latin edition, a German translation had appeared under the title: "Ein Christenliche Warnung, auß dem gehst vnd Wort Gottes, sich vor den öffentlichen jrrungen, so htzo vor äugen sein, des Sacraments des leibs vnd Bluts Christi halben, zuuerhütten." 4 leaves in 4. Another edition with Luther's name from 1526 is cited in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XI, 475; a print from 1527 with Luther's name is in Berlin in the royal library, Dutft. 4350. An abbreviated form of the Instruction to Casel is printed from a manuscript in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 46 and in the Erlangen edition, vol. 53, p. 333. We have translated from the Erlangen correspondence, which reproduces the first printing.
Newly translated from the Latin.
a. Luther's letter to the Strasbourg preachers.
To the venerable brothers in Christ, the servants of the Word of God in Strasbourg, the pious and learned men.
Grace and peace in Christ. Dear sirs! Casel, the most lovable brother in the Lord, returns to you. And what shall I ask in many words? I ask Christ that through Casel, through His Spirit, He may tell you what we desire for you. The matter is too great 1) for this short letter and my so little leisure. Be wise, dearest men, Satan is not a man, nor even the world, but the God and prince of the world. Who should not rejoice that the holy being (sanotimoniain) of Oecolampad and Zwingli and their churches (66ol68La8) are praised by you? But see where Zwingli goes in the doctrine of original sin! But what you call holy being and church, I do not understand sufficiently, so
1) We have adopted the reading of the first edition: supsrat; suspirat, what the others offer, seems to us to give no suitable sense. The old translator offers: "The thing requires this brevity and little while."
Your writings make me think in many ways. 1) We 2) do not dare to claim something like that about ourselves, and yet God wanted you to reign without us. We dare to boast that Christ was first made known by us, but Zwingli now heckles us because of his [Christ's] denial. We can err; how if you also err? But you will hear everything from Casel. But let the Lord do what is good in his sight, amen. Wittenberg, Sunday after All Saints' Day [Nov. 5] 1525.
Mart. Luther.
b. Instruction for Gregor Casel on what he should communicate to the people of Strasbourg.
To Gregor Casel.
Tell the lords and brothers, my dear Casel, what you have seen and heard. First of all, since they themselves realize that this matter will kindle a great fire, let them obey this warning of the Spirit and hold it in honor, so that they do not have to sigh afterwards with vain sobs of conscience that this reminder of the Spirit has been left unheeded by them. We have nothing better than peace, which we have hitherto taught and kept with all, as much as was in us, with all diligence; as their own consciences testify, that useful did not first begin this wicked bargain (tragoediam), but answered because we were forced to it. But to remain silent is not possible, since they (namely Zwingli and Oekolampad) have stirred up the minds by their published writings, unless they wish us to abstain from the ministry of the word and pastoral care. It is not to be suffered that we remain silent while they speak, and that we give way to those who confuse our church and diminish our prestige. They may consider that, if they are in favor of their prestige
1) The term litsris is not only to be understood as the letter of credit given to the casel (in Kolde,
p. 68 and Erl. Briefw., vol. V, p. 251), but also another writing, which, as De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 41, says, no longer exists. For in the former writing the above expressions do not occur. In addition, Luther also says in No. 5 of many letters or writings, which the Strasburgers sent to him.
2) Instead of Non in Erl. Briefw. is to be read Nos.
We fear the doctrine and do not want it to be disparaged, nor do we want ours to be disparaged. That one refrains from vituperation is fair; but how can one answer or contradict if one may not condemn, and the word "condemn" is taken as a vituperation? Is it not a blasphemy, then, that those exceedingly humble people, in their omitted books, heckle us as carnivores, say that we worship an edible God, a bred-in God, then also that we deny the redemption wrought on the cross? With them is modesty, we are accused of being immodest people. Yet we have borne this until now, while they cannot suffer us to say that they are mistaken. Do they want everything to be good for them? Of course, we will not suffer such things.
This advice does not hold: that believers should be diverted from the question of the presence of the body and blood, and that they should practice the word and faith alone. With us the word and the faith are not without the thing on which they are based, since the words themselves bring this opinion with them: whether the body and the blood are there? Nor can the people be diverted from it, since so many writings are scattered by them and received [by the people]. It would have been proper for them to remain silent at first; now it is too late to ask for silence. 3)
But what do they fear, if they are certain by experience of faith (as they boast), if they do not deceive nor err? Who are we to resist them? 4) Because they are so certain of such faith, they are bound to come forth and condemn us for the error, so that they may not be able to resist the sea-
3) This last sentence reads in the above-mentioned abbreviated form of the Instruction: "It is now chained, one now seeks silence too late." De Wette conjicirt instead of "verkettet" - "verbreitet"; the Erlangen edition has placed the latter in the text. But the former reading is correct; verkeilet - missed. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. IV, 1722, Ps. 130:5: betten gewartet; betten - to wait, to hesitate.
4) Here, the abbreviated form of the Instruction just mentioned breaks off, and, omitting everything that follows, does not resume until the fourth-to-last sentence.
1536 M. Briefw.v, 284-266. Sect. 1, Dispute over the Lord's Supper. No. 3. W. XVII, 1908-1911. 1537
They are obliged to do so by virtue of their office. But since they also hesitate here and look for something else, we remind them that they should now be afraid at the second warning of the Spirit and see what they do. For those who are certain by experience of faith do not seek such things, nor do they give such counsel. For the Spirit does not hesitate and dispute like this.
Then we have never said that the flesh and blood of Christ is an indifferent (neutram) thing, or does not bring salvation with it, but we have said that it must be preached through the word as a right food for the soul. Here the Spirit warns them a third time to beware, since they have fallen into making a useless and indifferent thing out of a necessary thing, and have falsely laid this on us.
In short, one of the two must be Satan's servant, either they or we. Therefore, there is no council or means here; each party must confess what it believes. And here we ask, because they are so certain, that they may not conceal from the people that they disagree with us. This is the fourth warning of the Spirit, which is not so hypocritical. If then they continue not to come out openly, it will be incumbent upon us to confess that we are at a distance from one another, since the spirits are against one another. For how does Christ agree with Belial? [We gladly accept peace, if only the peace against God, which Christ has acquired for us, remains unharmed. The reasons given are useless. We do not allow a blurred speech (tropum), and they do not prove the same, and here I ask that they give way to the warner, the spirit. It should have been proved that the word "is" must be taken for "means" in this place. But they prove that it is taken for "means" elsewhere in the Scriptures. Who did not know this? Then they must fear this most of all, since they are obviously blind in other places, they would like to err also in this place. Namely, they are evidently blind in this passage [1 Cor. 10:4.], "The rock was Christ." For Paul does not say of a physical rock, but of the spiritual. For thus it is said, "They drank of the spiritual rock.
The rock that followed was Christ. Was not this, namely the spiritual rock, Christ? How can "was" be taken for "meant" here? Is there not, therefore, a manifest misstep here? Likewise also the other [2 Mos. 12, 11.]: The lamb is the transition of the Lord, is a manifest error. For where is this written? Moses speaks thus, "Ye shall eat in haste, for it is the passover of the Lord." That is, therefore ye shall do all these things, because this day is the passover of the Lord, or the transition of the Lord. As if I said, Eat roast meat, because it is Sunday. Namely, it refers to the time or day, not to the lamb; and nothing else can be proved from this passage. So also this: This cup is the new testament. This would have validity if it had to be admitted that something is cut off in the speech (apocope). But now he says thus: "This cup is the new testament in my blood"; the cup for itself is admittedly nothing, but through my blood it is a testament, because the blood could not be given without the cup. And what reasonable reason is there for the sign (symdoli) that the cup should signify a testament, or the wine signify the blood of Christ? Where is this found in Scripture? Are these not mere buffoonery and fabrications of one's own delusion? As if it were enough to say, Methinks the cup (which is gold and silver) is a sign of the blood shed for us, though it is hard and solid, and cannot be poured out (fusibile); and if thou mayest add the wine, the wine is drunk, not poured out. How much more correct would be the sacrifices of wine in the Old Testament, which were poured out, a picture of the shed blood! But this shall be nothing. The sum is this: though it can be proved that elsewhere "is" is taken for "means," yet it cannot be proved that it is so taken in this place. Now this is a sacrilegious offense, if one does violence to the words without reasonable reason and without scripture.
Therefore, for the sake of Christ and all that we have in Christ, we ask the brethren to desist from this error,
who, as indicated by many signs, is not according to the spirit, and who relies on such trivial grounds of proof, and who refrains from deceiving the minds. For this is the greatest danger of blessedness. If, in complete conviction, they will not or cannot desist, we will compare this to the raging of the Arian times, and since the wrath of God will punish our ingratitude, we will work until he has mercy on us. They will do great damage, but they will not win! That Zwingli or they are annoyed by my word, that I said: "It must be right what I write", I am sorry. For they show that they have an evil disposition toward me. Why then do they boast of their faith experiences? Is it not a very hopeful word, if one looks at the flesh, but a very salutary one, if it is true? as Peter testifies [1 Pet. 4:11], who wants us to speak in such a way that we may be sure that we are speaking the word of God. If they were not themselves bereft of this certainty, they would not so condemn my certainty and confidence. For what is the experience of faith and the testimony of the Spirit, if we cannot boast of ourselves and hear others boast of us? 1) But the thing itself will give more, when it is begun to be acted upon. We are sure that they err; let them see how sure they are that they do not err. May the Lord grant that they may indeed not err, that is, be restored, amen.
The other you will say, my dear Casel, for you see that we are not burdened with just one or two businesses.
Marti. Luther.
Luther's letter to Spalatin, in which he informs him, among other things, of the Strasbourg request. October 30, 1525.
The original of this letter can be found in the Anhaltisches Gesammt-Archiv. Printed by Lncklkms, p. 49, No. 69; by De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 41 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, Vol. V, p. 258. We have translated according to the latter, which reproduces the original. In the other editions, the wrong date is: "October 31".
Newly translated from the Latin.
1) Only here does the abbreviated instruction begin again. -
His brother in Christ, Georg Spalatin, the servant of God in Altenburg.
"Grace and peace in Christ." Since the messenger is in a hurry, I cannot answer all the questions, and will answer at another time, my dear Spalatin. Our Eberhard will, God willing, go to you soon after St. Martin's Day 2), who will bring letters with him. However, if you would grant him his wish, you would hasten your wedding, so that we could come there with him at the same time, with the same costs, on the same way, at the same time, on the same carriage, with the same intention, and discuss and hear everything verbally. I will see to it that within a fortnight I finish the writing "That Free Will Be Nothing"; before its completion I cannot depart. Farewell and pray for me. The Strasbourg preachers have sent an envoy with many letters, requesting our approval of the Zwinglian doctrine of the Lord's Supper. You will soon see and hear. On Monday after Simonis and Jude [Oct. 30] 1525. Martin Luther.
5. Luther's exhortation to the Christians of Reutlingen to beware of sacramental error and to stand firm on the pure doctrine of Holy Communion.
January 4, 1526.
The original of this letter is in the royal library in Stuttgart. A single print was published under the title: "Allen lieben Christen zu Reutlingen meinen lieben Hern freunden bruedern in Christo Martinus Luther Wittemberg NVXXVI. 5 sheets. Printed in the Eisleben edition, vol. I, p. 393; in the Altenburger, vol. Ill, p. 332; in the Leipziger, vol. XIX, p. 372; in the Erlanger, vol.53, p. 359; in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 79; in Füsing's (actually Neger's) Reform.Historie von Reutlingen, p. 105 and in Pfaffs 6t soriptu 6661. IVirtsmb., p. 26. The variants of the editions from the original find in the Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. V, p. 302 f. given. We have used the same.
To all dear Christians of Reutlingen, my dear lords, friends, brothers in Christ.
Grace and peace in Christ our Lord and Savior! We have, dear
2) The departure of Eberhard Brisger was delayed, only on December 6 he went to Altenburg (Erl. Briefw.)'. - Brisger had been Luther's prior, and now followed a call as pastor to Altenburg.
1540 Erl. 53, 359-382. sec. I. Dispute over the Lord's Supper. No. 5, W. XVII, 1913-1916. 1541
Friends in Christ, your brethren who were sent to us rejoice greatly with the comforting message they have brought us, how that the merciful God has graciously gifted you with righteous preachers and pastors, through whom he has led you, and is still leading you daily out of the former darknesses, and, as St. Peter says [1. Ep. 1, 18.], out of our forefathers' and parents' statutes and ways into his truth and marvelous light, to know his Son and our Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed us from sins and death, and brought us to life and salvation, not by our works or powers, as we have hitherto learned and believed, but by his own blood, according to the eternal counsel of God our Father, to whom it has thus pleased from eternity to bestow his mercy on us so abundantly at this time, without our merit, doing or remembrance, purely out of grace, on the unworthy and much otherwise deserving; To him be praise and thanksgiving, honor and glory forever and ever, amen.
(2) We also pray from the bottom of our hearts to our Father that he will graciously preserve, strengthen and increase you and us in this knowledge of grace and light, and that he will protect and shield you from all cunning attacks of devilish malice in a sincere and constant mind and spirit, as is highly necessary for us. For you are undoubtedly well aware how our enemy, the devil, has settled around us, raging and roaring like an angry lion, seeking to devour us [1 Pet. 5:8], and has truly proven himself this year to be a mighty lord in the world, where God has imposed upon him; and this in two pieces.
First of all by force, that he drives emperors, princes and lords against us, and at last he has also aroused the poor rabble to revolt under the name of the gospel. Behold his diabolical and superhuman mischievousness; because he could not sufficiently exercise his power through pope and emperor, he wreaks havoc and puts the gospel to shame, so that now the gospel is blamed for all the evil that has been committed by and against the peasants. And now many innocent people must shed their blood over it. The
1) Original: "to pray". Pfaff: "to ask".
So now the gospel suffers both tribulation and disgrace in the highest way, brought on by such trickery of the devil; it must take the reward for all the grace it has brought us.
4 And if one wants to confess and say it right, the lords have not beaten the peasants, as they boast, but if they had not been beaten before God beforehand through the gospel, princes and lords would have left them undamped and unbeaten. St. Paul says Rom. 13, 2: "Whoever resists God's order will receive punishment." This saying struck them; he did it altogether, before there was no weapon or defense. Nor must the gospel hear, that it is smitten, and hath wrought and deserved such evil. Well, the blasphemy he has brought upon him in his own way, and he has succeeded; but it shall not help him, whether God wills it or not; his wickedness shall be put to shame again, and the gospel shall be restored to honor.
5 The other part of his wickedness is that he attacks us with sects, herds, heresies and false spirits, especially in the holy sacraments of baptism and the altar. In this way he has also torn down tremendously, and is doing more harm through this piece than through the first, so that we really need to watch out and look up. For he still does not rest. Now we have seen that the spirit that first began it has dissipated and flown away, so that no one knows where it has remained. Others now follow after it; they also shall not long abide, as the first Psalm saith, "The wicked abide not in judgment, but are scattered as the dust of the wind."
(6) I mean those who now want to teach us that in the sacrament of the altar there is bad and vain bread and wine, but not the true body and blood of Christ. And here behold and take hold of the gross devil, how carelessly he acts, prevented by God's power. This sect already has three heads. For they agree that in the sacrament there is bad bread and wine, but why and for what reason this must be so, they are not at all in agreement.
The first mind and head gave this reason,
2) In the original: "to him is".
that the ^uto should point to the sitting Christ, and not to the bread; as you know that D. Carlstadt held, and I also wrote against it.
8 The other mind and head rejects this reason, but gives another, namely, that the little word Est, or Is, should be called Significat, or Interpret, as Zwinglius and Oecolampadius are fooling and torturing the Scriptures and sayings, so that [it is] sin and shame.
(9) But this reason the third spirit and head rejects, and will have neither Tuto nor Significat, but will reverse the words, and so make: My body 1) given for you is this, hear a spiritual food. As some around you shall pretend, and give themselves still more abundantly in the day. 2)
(10) Behold, the puffed-up, carnal mind writhes and wriggles, seeking how it may not abide under God's word. But what kind of spirit is this, which is so uncertain in a matter, and so divided among itself? yet every head of these three swears that it is right, and condemns the other, and wants to be right. I do not call such little pieces subtle, but gross, tangible devils; for God, too, is pleased to let them bite, eat and consume each other, so that the disunited kingdom may be rejected by Himself and not deceive us. For we know that the Holy Spirit is a God of unity, and gives one mind, reason and teaching. Therefore, this sect already has its verdict that it does not come from the Holy Spirit, but from the devil.
(11) But in the course of time, all their grounds shall and will be 3) laid. I write this only so that your love may remain firm and not turn to their useless talk and boasting about how learned they are and how much spirit they have. If the pope were still in power and fear, as he was before inside, there should be splche book writers and spirit writers.
1) Here we have deleted "is" after Pfaff, which is found in De Wette and in the Erlangen edition.
2) "come" in the Eisleben edition. Original: "give".
3) In the original: "their".
4) "Book writer" in the original. Pfaff: "Umschwärmer"; De Wette: "Circumlocutor.
They will be as quiet as little mice. 5) But now they have space, they look at us boldly, they oppose us, through whom they have such space, and they also want to take honor, and to be the highest and best. Even though they always have in their mouths and pens: God's honor, God's honor, God's honor we seek; but the work and the fruit show otherwise.
12. therefore I beseech you, beloved of all, to keep plainly and badly the words of Christ, wherein he giveth us his body and blood in the sacrament, saying, "receive and eat, this is my body which is given for you" etc. You may write and glossirize. The text is there, the words are clear and evident'; they will not for a long time make something else out of it according to their meaning. I have seen their books; but since they did not want to do better, they would have stayed home. If D. Carlstadt's, the first spirit, reasons do not apply, which had more appearance than these, then these will apply much less; this you shall also learn in time, if God wills it.
I have written these things for your love as an admonition and warning. Not that you have any special need of it, but that you may see how we are like you in Christ and of one mind in Christ against such enthusiasts and mobs. For he who called you to his light without us is able to keep you without us. But let the members care for one another, and let one rejoice or grieve for another. Accept all this in Christian love and faithfulness before God, and help us to pray that God may increase His saving word in all of us, and transfigure it in all the world, in praise and honor of His rich grace given to us, amen. May God's grace be with you, Amen. Let He Matthes Alber and his co-workers, as your faithful shepherds of your souls, be warmly commended to you. At Wittenberg, Thursday after the New Year's Day [Jan. 4] Anno 1526. Your servant
Martinus Luther.
5) "als die Mäuslein" is a conjecture; no longer legible in the original due to the folding of the letter. Pfaff offers: "als ein Mäußlein".
1544 Erl.Briefw.v, 376.383. sect. 1. dispute over the Lord's Supper. No. 6 ff. W. XVII, 1918-192." 1545
Luther's letter to Michael Stiefel in Tolleth. Aug. 11, 1526.
This letter is found in manuscript in the Royal Library at Copenhagen, 1393, p. 117. Printed in Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 317 d; in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 125 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. V, p. 376. We have translated from the latter.
Newly translated from the Latin.
Luther's letter to Nicolaus Hausmann. September 13, 1526.
The original of this letter is in the Gefammt archives in Anhalt. Printed in Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 319; in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 127 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. V, p. 383. We have translated from the latter.
Newly translated from the Latin.
1) aosrvns will stand here in the meaning of 8orit68, a form of conclusion in logic, where one always adds something to the previous, and draws a conclusion from it at the end. What is meant is Erasmus' ll^xsrsspi8ts8, the writing in which he seeks to defend his vintrids. - The Imperial Diet is the one at Speier.
2) Mrs. Dorothea Jörger of Tolleth and her sons.
To the faithful Dieuer Christi, Mr. Nicolaus Hausmann (Haus Man), his superior in the Lord.
Grace and peace in Christ, o, would that God, grace and peace in Christ! For I believe it is not necessary, dearest Nicolaus, that we communicate news to each other; they fly by themselves and in all too great numbers. Christ has begun to be disgusted with these runs of the world, therefore he hands them over to Satan, that he may avenge the unspeakable contempt of the word of grace, here with raging heresies, there with the weapons of enemies and the fall of great kings. In short, the whole world falls and collapses, namely to a great sign that the last day will be at the door.
I have been challenged by Oecolampad; 3) I am dealing with a writing; 4) if only I had leisure! This is how a man must begin when he is finished [with other things]. I am sorry for Oecolampad from the bottom of my heart, such a great man, who is trapped in the godless mob by such ineffectual and futile grounds of proof. May the Lord have mercy on him!
Luther's letter to Michael Stiefel. October 25, 1526.
This letter is handwritten in the old royal library at Copenhagen, Ns. 1393, toi. 117. printed in Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 319 d; in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 130 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. V, p. 399. We have translated from the latter.
Newly translated from the Latin.
Grace and peace! Your letter has been very dear to me, my dear Michael, especially
3) By the writing: "Johann Oecolampads Antwort auf Luthers Vorrede, sammt einer kurzen Antwort auf das Syngramma der Prediger in Schwaben." St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 582.
4) This is how paro is to be understood here. Still on October 25, Luther wrote to Stiefel: "I intend (msckitor) to write against them." It was not until the following year that Luther wrote: "Daß diese Worte Christi, das ist mein Leib, noch fest stehen wider die Schwärmgeister," which was almost finished on March 21, 1527 (De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 165) and went out about the beginning of April. St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 762.
Luther's letter to Nie. Hausmann. October 29, 1526.
The original can be found in the Anhaltisches GesammtArchiv. Printed by Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 320; by De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 132 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. V, p. 401. We have translated from the latter.
Newly translated from the Latin.
To the extremely faithful servant of God, Mr. Nicolaus Hausmann, his superior in Christ.
Grace and peace in the Lord! Mrs. Stephan 3) returns to you, who has been the
1) Here the text of this letter breaks off at Aurifaber and De Wette.
2) In the Copenhagen AIs. meaningless: unaoumckauruin.' Perhaps the following should be added: "sammt den Herren; auch das Geld sist angekommen)".
3) Domina KtepNanissa, the wife of Stephan Roth from Zwickau.
Theobald Billicanus's Priesmechsel with Man Rhegius about the words of the institution of the Lord's Supper.
10 Theobald Billicanus' letter to Urban Rhegius on the words of the Lord's Supper and the different opinions about it. 1525.
This letter, together with the following one, was printed in a single copy under the title: De verbis eoenae äorninioae et opinionuirr vsrietutelkeodaläl Lillieuni aä Vrdanum KUeNuva epistota. lie^ponkio Vrdani RüeAÜ aä eunäew. ^ited. 1526. octav. Because in ? 30 of this writing already the syngramma dated 21 October 1525 is referred to, so our letter will have been written in November or December.
Translated into German by M. Aug. Tittel.
(1) That I, my dear Rhegius, have not yet answered your previous letter is due to my business, so that (as you will know) I am always swamped. For there is no ge-
4) By the death of King Louis of Hungary and Bohemia, the crown of Bohemia was finished. By this time, Archduke Ferdinand of Austria had already been elected king by an overwhelming majority of the estates.
5) This was a false rumor.
It is a difficult job to deal with young people in school who are to be taught wisdom and eloquence, among which I do not know which is the most difficult, but both certainly require great and hard work. And what is not the ministry of the Gospel entrusted by God! Could I not easily find excuse for my silence, especially at this time, with this noise, with this disloyalty of the people?
2) But that it should not seem as if I had forgotten all about you, or that with such silence I should confirm the opinion of some about the words of Holy Communion, or that I should lay aside the office entrusted to me of teaching and defending the Gospel, I have tried to do at night what I could not do by day, so that I might be somewhat at your beck and call, since you have done so well not only for me but also for the whole Catholic and universal Church.
But I do not want to teach you herewith, who have a sharp insight from God in this matter, of which the speech and the dispute is here, but only show my good will, do justice to my office and keep my promise to you.
In the beginning, I almost liked what Carlstadt, such a great man, had said, and also what others had sneaked into the church, partly with more luck, partly under more pretense; and I was already to some extent drawn to such an opinion. So much hypocrisy was able to do in the beginning, although the spirit and a holy awe held me back from the words of the Lord. Much could also be presumed from the papal canon, by which I could have been brought to their opinion, because it has been common to the church and is old, as it already had its beginning in Gregory's time, and in it nothing but the sacrifice of bread and wine was written. Human reason also had its censures (or reasons), by which, as tends to happen with the weak, the most certain understanding of Scripture can easily be overthrown, just as the popes overthrew everything, who did not learn from Scripture what the Lord wanted, but brought their will into Scripture, and as is now also happening with many. But since Tertullian's sentence against Marcion Ponticus came out, one of the oldest scribes among those who are now read, and who explains everything very well, I have considered the matter a little more closely with all the passages and reasons, and have taken it up again and, as it were, from scratch.
look through, whether I would like to put finally once my conscience thereby freely and surely. But what do you ask? I am getting deeper and deeper into it, and the more I want to help myself out of it, the less I am able to do it, and I see that it is a barren, bare ground, where I spend the costs and effort in vain, and where the one who wants to build it can promise himself little income. So I want to tell you my opinion in this disagreement of the words of the Lord, and to announce in advance that I want to see in this dispute above all to remain with the words of the supper itself, whose composition, circumstances, nature and power I want to discuss as much as my little one is able. Neither the 6th Cap. St. John, nor whatever other passages, reasons or conjectures are read together, shall move me. But when I have been confirmed by the words of the Lord's Supper, then I will, according to my right, either reject or accept what they put forward, as is necessary.
(5) For this I hold, and even those who disagree will not deny it, that the right understanding and power of the supper is undoubtedly in the words of that supper itself, quite real and true. But first I will tell you how they come to mock and twist the words of the Lord in so many ways.
6. First, I could easily see that they were united in the main work, of which they also boast, although, looking at the reasons of the parties together, it is much different, namely, that there is nothing but bread and wine in the Lord's Supper; That as the flesh and blood of the Lord are not so useful in the Lord's Supper as they were on the cross and in the work of redemption (for that is what they mean by it), so Christ, who is at the right hand of the Father, does not descend to let himself down into the belly of every one who takes him, since Christ himself, by the remembrance of his suffering, has indicated that he would not be present at the Lord's Supper. After this, a new miracle: the bread is the body, and the wine is the blood, was never presented by the disciples through questions, or explained by the Lord, which they certainly would not have concealed or kept with them; from this it can be seen that neither the body nor the blood is present in the Lord's Supper in any other way than spiritually, as the Waldensian brethren also believed before, and therefore it cannot be otherwise that we can excuse and defend ourselves in vain. All the benefits of the Lord's Supper, which consist in the fellowship of all believers in one spirit and body of Christ, and in the communion of all believers in the Lord's Supper, can also be denied.
The memory of the Passion, so that through the pleasure of redemption and freedom, and through the sweetness of love, He may keep us in our duty, because without our merit, through the blood shed on the Cross, and through the body given on the stem of the Cross, He has placed us in the kingdom before God and the Father, without the presence of the body and blood, to enjoy quite well and without the slightest hindrance.
7. secondly. But since one wanted to come to the words of the Lord, and to fortify the minds of men, which they had once imagined (or imbibed), against the gates of hell, with the words of the Lord, which are in the holy supper, they were scattered in as many opinions as there are minds. For there is a) one among them who tore these words, "This is my body," from the preceding ones, by a changed indication, because the words compelled him, "He that is given for you, is broken for you," which did not lend themselves to the bread, nor let the body be taken otherwise than actually and naturally. For who among the faithful denies that Christ came in the flesh, and that his body was given for us, and his blood shed for us? "Is given for you, is shed for the remission of sins," Carlstadt well saw, rhyme, confessing the truth of the body and blood in the words of the supper, "This is my body, this is the cup, a new testament in my blood"; but to the bread they did not seem to rhyme. But there is also b) another, who, seeing that the pronoun "this" (or that) was strongly prefixed, and having to confess that, according to the common sense and usage of the language, that which was preceded by "this" (or that), reversed the whole order of speech, and then brought out, "That which is given for you is my body;" but by a foolish and shameful error.
8. But since others of the same kind saw that the thing would not go off without laughter, and Christ would be accused of rashness, and the apostles even (with permission to say) of foolishness, if the Carlstädtian mob continued in this way (for the apostles knew well that no Marcionite arrow or gourd, or the same bread would be given by Christ, or, if he had wanted to give such bread to the servants of the high priests, the servants would accept it; for I must mock here); likewise, seeing that this inversion of speech was not in Matthew nor in Marco, because only there it was said: "This is my body", without the words "so for you" being added.
is given", or according to Paulo: "so is broken for you", they have devised another way. For since they, out of the same timidity as Carlstadt, were not allowed to turn away either the body or the blood from the actual meaning and forge, for example, a flowered body, so given, or a similar blood, so shed, they then c) fell on the little word. Is, and proved their art and wit in it, so that they would not be forced to deviate from their main opinion. So they took the Is for what it means, and since neither the bread nor the body nor the cup nor the wine could be changed into a different meaning, they did it to the little word Is. But since the teachers of the art of language (for all controversy here runs into the art of language) do not attach to the verbo substantivo "to be" a tropum or verblümter Verstand, where the word attached does not have another meaning (hence Tertullianus and my excellent teacher, Johann Oecolampadius of Weinsberg, did not look for the verblümter Art in the word Ist, but in the word "body"; as in this speech: "I am the door," the verblümter Verstand, according to Christ's own interpretation, is in the word door; and in the: "Seven cows are seven years," according to Joseph's interpretation, the faded mind is in the word cows; for he interprets it, seven years of great fruitfulness shall come throughout all the land of Egypt. As it is also in other similar sayings of the Scriptures, e.g.: "I am the bread of life", Joh. 6. "I am the true light", Joh. 8), so they are held back by Christ Himself, not to do violence to the word Is.
9. Since these, who are the fourth, saw that it did not want to go with the wrong sense of the word is, and especially in Hebrew the word is is not present at all, consequently the blurred sense falls on the words standing next to it, either subjectum [the noun, or praedicatum [the word of legend] (for I must now use such artificial words), they had to blur either the bread or the body; which Zwingli, as a learned and excellent man, seemed to avoid quite carefully, because he saw that the circumstances of the words did not suffer it. So the Fourth made the body into a figure (or illustration), and followed Tertullian, who took Matthew's words, and easily brought it out of it without much constraint of words. For Matthew has: "This is my body," and does not add anything to it that could overthrow or destroy the figure; which, however, would not have been so approached in Lucas. Howbeit, in my opinion, he has used the words of Marcion, in the
The author of the 4th book refers to the figure of the body and points to the truth, or has not really considered or pondered; for it would not always have been well with the blood in Matthew, for he could not have given blood for the figure of blood, because it followed: "which is shed for many", nor of the body in other pieces, in that neither the figure nor a figurative body was given, nor was the figure of blood shed; which, however, indisputably follows from Tertullian's explanation.
10 Now see how I deduce from so many opinions of the commentators and bring out what they mean: Jesus took the bread, and when he had thought, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this signifies the figure of my body, which is given for you; or, this signifies my figurative body, which is given for you.
I will now go back again, and what I have presented in a short time, I will now explain one after the other in order, without going beyond the measure of a letter. Before that, however, I still want to remember that I must say of the one who perverts the order of speech and plays his tricks with words: I not only marvel at the foolishness of this man, but also detest his insolent foolishness; who, although he sees that his foolishness does not take place in Matthew, nor is such word order common in the holy Scriptures, nevertheless has not become any wiser, but makes Carlstadt's opinion worse and worse, even against Carlstadt's will; since he does not seem to be satisfied with such a change of Christ's speech in his writing against me, especially because no evangelist has changed it, since otherwise they have omitted some things or put them differently, e.g., the words of the Bible. E., this is my body, and that is my body.
I now come to Carlstadt, whose change of mind (or pointing word) I already rejected earlier, but now speak of it a bit more fteier. That the little word "this" indicates previous things can be seen from the same passages and reasons and testimonies.
13. I. From the same passages. E.g. 2 Mos. 32, when Aaron had the golden earrings brought to him, follows in the text: "And they made them a cast calf, and said, These are thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt" (Greek: genöthiget). Here everyone sees that the little pointer is drawn to the cast calf. For I do not think that an unlearned and wicked follower of Carlstadt will give it that way, and turn the speech around: who brought you out of
These are your gods, Israel. And though here already (in the Greek) is the pronoun mascul. generis, and the calf also, yet one is in the plurali or number of the many, but the other in the single number; and yet the pointing is not changed thereby, for they worshipped the calf. "They made for themselves (according to Ps. 106:19) a calf in Horeb, and worshipped a graven image." 2) Another example is Gen. 2, where God built a woman from Adam's rib, there it says according to the translation of the seventy interpreters: "And he brought her to Adam, and Adam said, This (tuto) is now bone of my legs, and flesh of my flesh." Does the tuto here go to the woman, so in the foemin. genere is, tuto but ucutri? Yes. And yet the pointing is not changed; therefore, what should a new or different pointing be sought in the words of the holy supper for the sake of the language and its correctness? since the Holy Spirit has made no art of speech for Himself, but has used the words according to our custom. 3) The third example can be brought from 1 Pet. 1 (to take all kinds): "But the word of the Lord abides forever, which is the word that was preached among you." Here the tuto (that) does not indicate anything else than the preceding word. From this (that I do not mention more) Carlstadt will see that he should and must not, for the sake of any language or linguistic art, tear the tuto (that) from the preceding, 1) but draw it necessarily to the preceding bread (ton arton).
14, II. Now also with reasons to prove such things, so 1) the participle "saying", so in Lucas stands, gives clearly that the bread and little word "that" belong together (arton and tuto). For the participle "saying" is of the one who takes the bread, gives thanks, and shows what he gives. It is also in the text: "and gave them, saying"; as also you, Urban, indicate in the Scripture, in which you first met Carlstadt; for "saying" belongs to the "gave". For the text reads: "gave them saying". But he gave bread; so he said of the bread, "This is my body." Therefore the tuto (or this), which is connected with "saying," is to be drawn quite easily and merely by force of consequence to that very thing which is given. 2) Is also that, which we mention elsewhere, a proof that, if the pointer is changed, as Carlstadt wants, then what will Matthew mean in such short words: "This is my body"?
1) Secunckurn it must be called" for sseuuäurri. (Walch.)
and Paul preached the gospel, and yet said nothing more than: "This is my body. So the disciples either did not believe Christ that it was the true body, or at the Lord's Supper they were drunk and thought it was a ghost, because Christ first had to tell them that this was his body sitting there. Afterwards, since they so often ask about the use of Christ's words or institution, they may tell me: what use or understanding is this of the words, which are thus declared according to the Carlstadtian way of showing: "This is my body". They will probably tell us some fantasy or cricket of theirs, as they are always well equipped and furnished with spiritual wisdom. But what is much to ask, my dear Rhegius? I am ashamed of the foolishness of people to whom the Scriptures must also go mad and help their error because of their insane brain that is not at ease with itself.
15, III. If you require testimonies, then I can 1) place against Carlstadt those who, although otherwise in agreement with Carlstadt's opinion, are not satisfied with his explanation of the words of Christ; among them Zwingli also testifies in an issued writing that Carlstadt's separation (or tearing away) does not please him, and that what he brings forward is of poor relevance. What another has written to me, I will not bring forward, because it was written in confidence.
16. 2) Furthermore, I can refer to all the teachers of the Church, especially Jerome, who says in the letter to Evagrius: "At whose prayer the body and blood of Christ are finished (conficitur). And from this it could be assumed that neither Origen, nor Augustine, nor Tertullianus were of a different opinion. For who has read Origen and the ancients more diligently than Jerome, who in no place accuses them of any error in the sacrament of bread and wine, since he does not allow worse errors to pass? What Carlstadt otherwise brings forward, Luther has refuted completely and scholarly.
17 Now I must also speak of the Zwinglian Is. But if anyone asks why Zwingli did not take up the word "body," since he is referring to Tertullianus and others who interpret not the "is" but the "body," the reason is that he wanted to appear more deliberate and yet secretly sought precisely what Tertullianus did: The reason is that he wanted to appear to be more thoughtful, and yet secretly sought precisely what Tertullianus sought, and because he saw that it would not only be weak, but also not at all godly; in short, he saw that a knot would come out of Christ's body, which had already done a lot of heretics in the past; to avoid this, he attached himself to the little word Is..
For since he agreed with the main opinion, which I have already considered above, that the flesh, even if it were already present in the Lord's Supper, was nevertheless of no use, John 6, he then concluded, with all the combined power and scriptural passages as well as presumptions, that the flesh and blood were not present in the Lord's Supper. And that he could do this also with the words of the Lord's Supper, he knew to arrive nowhere but at the little word Is. Let us now take this before us. And say first of all that it does not really apply in Hebrew idioms. Which Zwingli himself testifies in his contribution (subsidio) of the Lord's Supper, in these words: "The sacrifice the phase (Passover) to the Lord." Just as it is also missing in Genesis 2, both in Hebrew and in Greek books translated according to the Hebrew truth, in the speech: "This now bone of my legs." Likewise Exodus 32 in the same translation: "This thy gods, Israel"; which passages we have touched upon, speaking of the index word "this" (tuto). If now the controversy is over the words of the Hebrew master JEsu Christi, in which the word Is either is found or does not stand necessarily, as it also does not stand 1 Mos. 41: "Seven beautiful cows seven years": so it follows, that quite indecisively and to satisfy the conscience with a bad reason, an obscure meaning is sought in the word Is, since such is never found in the speeches of Scripture, and such has only the meaning which the attached words have, so that the obscure meaning must be in the addition, if the word Is is to lose its actual meaning. And is this not to be respected when one says: If such a word were not there, one would have to understand it underneath, or add it instead of the Hebrew pronoun. For if it were understood under it, added to it, or used instead of the pronoun, it is necessary that the understanding be not in the word Is, but in the word added to it. If, therefore, Zwingli proves that in the words of the Lord's Supper there is either in the word body or in the bread a vague understanding, we will readily admit that the word is must be judged according to the vague meaning, as in the expression Gen. 41, which he cites, where, because the blooming mind is in the cows and ears, the 70 interpreters do not unspeakably change the Hebrew pronoun into the verbum substantivum: "are," that by it is meant a blooming mind in cows 1) and ears. Because otherwise.
1) donuni should be doiim. (Walch.)
If one goes by the Hebrew, where the word Is is not written, what will he cite for such a blurred mind?
Now we will gladly agree with Zwingli when he proves from the basic text what he writes. I do not ask what Zwingli's opinion is in sacred Scripture; but what both I and he should have for opinion, and 1) what one should hold. It is true that he has Greek authors and the 70 interpreters, from whom the little word Ist is sometimes added. But if I stay with the basic text, where Ist is not written, how will I get out of it, if I hate the flowery understanding of the added words to the extreme? But hopefully Zwingli will not let me sully the body and the blood with a flowery mind, because both are not at all godly and come close to the Marcionite heresy. But if he leaves bread, body, blood, wine in their right meaning, he will against his will either have to leave out the is altogether, or give it its proper meaning. Which I will prove from the only place he cites: seven cows seven years; seven ears of corn seven years. Thus it stands in the Hebrew context; the verbum substantivum is missing. Now if neither the years nor the cows are verblumen, the speech is bad and without change of mind, and consequently also the verbum substantivum, so instead of the pronominis stands, has its natural and proper meaning. But if the cows or the years are flowered, then we use the little word Is in vain. So in the words of the Lord's Supper: If the body or the bread is withered, we need not martyr the verbum substantivum. But if those two words remain bad in their natural meaning, the verbum substantivum will be of no help to us and will not be able to make a blessed understanding, because it can be left out according to the Hebrew way of giving it: The bread of this my body; as the 70 interpreters give it in Exodus 12: The sacrifice of this Passover to the Lord. This is the example Zwingli gives in his contribution, which we also cite.
(19) Now if he will follow the Hebrew in this example and give it: This paschal sacrifice to the Lord, that he may put the sacrifice and the paschal into one, the one in the nominativo, the other in the genitivo, as it is otherwise: "The word of the Lord" etc., that the pronoun "this" may come to the sacrifice; or to the 70 interpreters who give it: "The sacrifice
1) yuoäns for HUOÜV6. (Walch.)
the Passover to the Lord," that there are two nominativi, sacrifice and Passover, he need not trouble us at all with the word Is, but may apply the obfuscated sense to the parts of speech, either sacrifice or pascha, or must take the speech without obfuscation. In the Hebrews, the pronoun is at the sacrifice, and not at the passover. For it is attached to the sacrifice in such a way that it does not appear in the other part of the speech, that is, "The sacrifice is the passover to the Lord," or of the Lord, in the genitive, which otherwise is not uncommon nor unspeakable in this idiom, but, "the sacrifice of Easter this of the Lord," or "this sacrifice of the Lord. And with one word, it is a ludicrous poem with the word Is, and does not take place in the Hebrew, from which, however, is argued here.
20 Let us now return to Tertullian's figure, who has abandoned the verbum substantivum and has taken up the "body", which the excellent man, John Oecolampadius, agrees with, whom I do not want to attack, because he is not the author of this opinion, whether he follows it or not, and has also written much more modestly than some blaspheme him. I have to do only with Tertullianus himself. For he is the author of the figurative body in the Lord's Supper. However, one does not find many traces of this figure in him. The first clear passage is L. I.; another, but much clearer, L. IV. against Marcion, in these words: After he (Christ) said that he had eagerly desired to eat the paschal lamb as his own (for God cannot with honor desire something foreign), he made the bread that was taken and distributed to the disciples his body and said: This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. But it would not have been a figure (or image) if the body were not real. For a vain thing, like a ghost, could have no figure. Another passage is found in L. V. against Marcion: "We have often shown that the heresies of the apostle are counted among the evils as an evil, and that those who avoid the heresies as an evil are to be considered praiseworthy. Therefore we have already made the sacrament of the bread and cup in the Gospel a proof of the truth of the body and blood of the Lord, against Marcion's specter. Another passage is L. II. to his wife: The man shall not know what you taste secretly before all food, and if he knows it, he does not believe that it is bread, as it is called.
21 These are the most distinguished passages in Tertullian, although in others, which are not
The first thing we want to check is whether Tertullianus had the opinion attributed to him or whether it was not rather Marcion's figure. Let us examine whether Tertullianus had the opinion that is attributed to him, or whether it is not rather Marcion's figure, which he borrowed from the adversary to prove the truth of the matter, as I think likely.
22 Let us now return to the words of the Lord's Supper, and let us keep all the circumstances of the Lord's Supper together, first in Matthew and Marcus, of which we thought above. Without doing violence to the evangelical text, the body could be given by the figure1) , because nothing else follows there (namely in the two evangelists), but only these words are put: "This is my body", that is, the figure of my body. But let us see whether what he does in the body also applies to the blood. If it does not, then it follows that the figure was not used correctly and validly in the body. But the words concerning the cup and the blood are thus in Matthew: "He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it: for this is my blood, which is of the new testament, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins"; and in Marcus: "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 the new testament, which is shed for many." Now if Tertullianus always keeps the flowery understanding from his body, and this is his opinion and not Marcion's, which he only needs (abutatur) to show the truth, then he must necessarily believe the flowery understanding in the blood; which he also does, and for this he cites testimonies from the prophets, who would have called the wine the blood figure long ago. But what is the meaning of the two things added by all two evangelists: "which is the blood of the New Testament" and "which is poured out for many"? For either 1) there will be only a figure in the new testament; which is ungodly, for the figure is gone and the thing and truth itself is now there; or 2) Christ's blood will be only a sham, from which Tertullianus otherwise flees as from a serpent. But that one of both, or both, necessarily follow, is easy to show; for so he interprets: This is a figure of the blood. Now add: Which is shed for many. For what is said here of the blood is certainly said of what the blood is supposed to mean; as those clearly teach who have composed the art of speaking certainly and actually of things. If here the blood
1) per ÜAura; but should mean per L^uram. (Walch.)
If the word "blood" stands in a flowery way, then also what is added to such a flowery way must be interpreted in a flowery way. For it is put here to the blood, and thus consequently to what the blood means, namely, the New Testament and the shedding. Which I will prove with examples, so that, when I bring this out, there will be no further doubt about the body.
23 Jn 10 Christ calls himself the door, namely in a faded way, by using the word differently than it is actually used. What is said there about the door must be taken in a faded way; for example, going in and out, finding pasture. Also in Genesis 41, cows and ears mean something different, so everything the Holy Spirit says about them must be understood differently, just as Joseph interpreted it. So that the scorched ears eat up the full ones, and the lean cows eat up the fat ones, means something quite different than the sound is, and belongs to an obscure understanding. So John 15: "I am a true vine," because there is a flowery mind in the vine, everything that is written about pruning the branches, likewise about not bearing fruit, about withering, about fire, must be understood flowery. In the same way, Tertullianus quotes from the 1st book of Moses: "He shall wash his skirt in wine, and his mantle in the blood of grapes." For since wine and grape-blood are there in a blurred form, he rightly says that both washing, as well as skirt and cloak, are understood in the same way. On the other hand it is different 2 Mos. 32 of the calf: "There are your gods, Israel, who led you out of Egypt." Gods is not taken there in a vague way, but actually means the present gods, whose service this would be, and who would be present at such service. Ps. 106: "They have worshipped a cast image." Therefore it is written, "who have performed," to indicate the actual meaning of the gods. Therefore gods remains in its proper sense, and the calf is worshipped as the true God. As also Hos.2: "You shall no longer call me my Baal, but my husband (Jschi)", therefore he gave 2 Mos. 30 and 3 Mos. 25: they should not form him (bodily).
(24) I could give innumerable examples of this, for the Scriptures are full of them. But in obvious matters, one does not need to cite many reasons and proofs, so that one does not make the matter suspicious by one's diligent efforts. I refer, however, to the teachers of the art of speech, and those who were called art judges (xxxxxxxxxx) among the ancients, who seek in it a great adornment in
the speeches given, if one sends oneself finely into the verblümten speech types.
25 In this way, then, one who wants to accept Tertullian's speech, where it is otherwise seriously his, must admit that the words, "This is the blood of the New Testament that is shed," must mean as much: This figure of the New Testament that is shed; or: This is the figurative blood of the New Testament that is shed; which is ungodly and foolish. So the right meaning of the blood must remain, and thus the true blood must be present in the Lord's Supper. If now Tertullianus must go back with the blood, it will soon be right also with the body, for it is the same with both, as we shall soon prove with Mehrerm. But if I am saying my right thoughts, then either Tertullianus has not thought things over properly (which also happens sometimes in other things and often happens to people of great wit), and it has slipped his mind what is added to the body in Lucas and Paul; or he has not cited his opinion, but Marcion's, and used it for the truth against Marcion, which I conclude from the so anxious treatment of the figure. For the Pontic mariner (Marcion) gave Christ an illusory body (ghost) because the body in the Lord's Supper would be taken for a figure. There followed now in Lucas: "so for you is given", so the figure would have to be given. Or, which I think is best, he only made the bread a figure, and thus did not cancel the true presence of the body, as Aaron made the calf a figure, and yet testified to the presence of God, and God Himself gave the mercy seat a figure, and yet was present and spoke of the mercy seat, Exodus 25. 25. This seems to be corroborated by the things he says in the 5th book contr. Marcion: Therefore we have already made the sacrament of the body and blood in the Lord's Supper a proof of the truth of the body and blood of Christ, against the figure of Marcion. And what he writes L. II. to his wife belongs just there. For I cannot believe that either Tertullianus would have been so careless as to pass over Luca's words, or Jerome, that he would not have exposed such things to Tertullianus, since he otherwise conceals or spares nothing in other, lesser errors or misconceptions. Nor would the holy martyr Cyprianus, who relates most of the miraculous things of the holy bread and wine, the body and blood of the Lord, and always calls Tertullianum his master, have concealed the error. But they all saw, without a doubt, that the African (that is, Tertullian) was right in this,
that he would leave the truth of the body and blood of Christ in its dignities (hence the name Sacrament), and punish the Pontian heresy that took away the body and blood from the Lord's Supper, because, according to him, Christ had neither a body nor blood, nor had he suffered nor been truly bodily, but only a ghost or simulacrum.
26 But let us return to our purpose. Supposing Tertullianus really believed only one figure of the Lord's Supper, that it abolished the truth (of the body in it), what followed from this? Answer: That which Marcion blasphemously pretended, that Christ had not truly suffered, nor truly been bodily, or truly become man. Carlstadt shied away from this, therefore he changed the way of pointing, and left bread and wine, body and blood in their proper sense, and even the verbum substantivum. Is. And Zwingli, who intended to be quite cautious in this, did not set about to invert the body from its proper meaning, for he saw what trouble would come from it, but he attacked the is; but just as unhappily, for he did just as if he had made the body figurative or faded. Only with the inexperienced it seems to be written differently, and more deliberately. But we have proved that those who, whoever they may be, have tried in vain to spread the substantivo verbo Ist, who twist and reverse the 6th chapter of John. Joh. and turn it around.
(27) But that this follows from the confused understanding of the body, which Marcion ungodly believed, we will prove to you, and first draw on the words of Luke himself and Paul the apostle. The latter said: "He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you.'" But this 1 Cor. 11: "Jesus, in the night when he was betrayed, took bread, and after he had given thanks, he brake it, saying, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you." Matthew and Marcus, as already thought, have only this, "This is my body." But I must tell you, my Urban, first of all this, that Matthew and Marcus are not only very repugnant to Carlstadt, but also to his foolish follower (successor), who perverts the order of speech; because, if the words "this is my body" are not to go on the bread, so much comes out that either Christ was great, who showed or indicated to the disciples that which was more than too well known to them, and of which they did not doubt at all; or Matthew and Marcus did most wrong, that they did not nevertheless explain with more a thing so necessary, which they should not have concealed from their churches; or that the
Holy Spirit did not act too honestly, since he himself did not speak of this mystery in a pure way in front of his church. It is clear from Lucas that the body cannot be taken in a figurative sense, because it says: "which is given for you", otherwise a figurative body would be given. Hence it can also be seen that the little word "is" cannot mean "is" if neither bread nor body is to be taken in any other way than as it actually is. The apostle Paul enforces that the body is present in the Lord's Supper, and is taken by those who are seated, since he says: "which is broken for you"; for this means as much as distributed, as it is explained in 1 Cor. 10, and in Scripture the same sense is often used, and it gives the implication itself; that it cannot be taken otherwise. For if the body is not to be taken, which we have proved, and the whole discourse belongs together, "Took bread etc. saying, Take, eat; this is my body," then it follows that the being broken belongs to the body that is eaten; which then is present as that which is true and given on the cross, which is broken for those who take it. This is therefore the unanimous apostolic conclusion: the bread is the body given on the cross, which is broken for the church.
Now from the body. The body (says Tertullianus) means the figure of the body. What do I hear? So the body in the Lord's Supper is a figure of the body? Now let Luca's words be added, "which is given for. you." So the African must say: this is the figure of my body, which is given for you; or (according to a Hebrew way of speaking and change): this is my figurative body, which is given for you. What are these tremendous opinions?
(29) But you will have to express it this way: this is the figure of my body, which is given for you; that the indicator "the" or "that" does not go to figure, but to body. See, what an artifice this is of a man, who refuted this and immediately fell into my speech with it; which for his sake I again adduce here. But back to the matter at hand! Either the words: "who is given for you" are actually taken, or they are taken in a faded way. That they are actually taken, all churches testify so far, and, on the other hand, the shedding of blood, which is actually taken, also proves it; which Tertullianus cannot deny. Carlstadt also does this, and does it well. So "the" will go to something that is truly and actually given. Since "the" is now the body, it follows that the body is actually taken, and not in a flowered way, and that it is therefore not verstcm for any figure.
could be the body. For how could the body be the noun on which the propositional word was not appropriate?
(30) For the second, we must establish a certain way of speaking, so that what we want to say and what we want to talk about, we put into a right mind. Therefore, we are based on the common proposition that everything that is said must be consistent with the things of which it is said. This proposition is necessary everywhere, and especially in sacred things, where the conscience must be confirmed with the words of the Lord, which cannot be done unless what the Holy Spirit speaks is grasped with a certain and limited meaning. Now if what is given is said of the body in the Lord's Supper, it is necessarily said of the body as it is taken here. But it is taken for a figure. For it is certain that Tertullianus takes the body for a figure or figurative body; so that what is said of it being given must come to the figure or figurative body; that it is said: this is the figure that is given. Hence also Tertullian reproaches Marcion: Why did he not give the bread to be crucified? But we can also justly reproach Tertullian: Why do you accuse Marcion, since you yourself teach that a figure was given? This is a common rule in the sciences: If you take the word in its sense differently than otherwise, or use another for it, then what was of the former belongs to the latter. For if you take storm or weather for a movement of the mind, then here you must attach to the weather what is suitable for a violent movement of the mind. If you now make the body into a figure, then the figure must take upon itself what was of the body. And so much for flowery meanings. So you see what blasphemy follows from it, if Tertullianus always remains on his opinion. And I noticed this immediately when Carlstadt began the game, and wrote to the most esteemed brothers, Johann Brenz and Johann Eisenmann, seniors of the church at Hall in Swabia, and admonished them not to venture onto such dangerous ice; although they had already forestalled my memory because of their skill and the divine grace that is in them, as you can read what was widely taught at the meeting of the most learned and best preachers in Swabia at Halle. 1)
1) By the so-called Syngramma Suevicum.
St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 520.
But I will briefly summarize what I have done more extensively in the whole letter. 1) I do not let any scriptural passages refer to the meaning of the holy supper, if one does not first agree on the words of the supper of the Lord, from which one must first seek understanding, as each one shows the truth in its place more certainly and more actually than in another. 2) That the bread in the Lord's Supper may remain in its proper meaning and use is given by the words, "Take, eat," and the custom of the church which takes it. 3) "Take, eat," also remains in its proper meaning, and the "breaking," as Paul does to the body and at the distribution of the bread, is just so, 1 Cor. 10. 4) The body retains its natural meaning, and it is the body that was given for us on the cross, as well as the blood that was shed for us. This is evident from Lucas, who says, "The body that was given," and-(the other) evangelists, "The blood that was shed." 5) The pronoun of pointing: "This" (and "That", in Greek: tuto) belongs to the bread. Therefore also Paul "is broken", so happens at the bread, to the body thut. And in Matthew and Marcus the words: "This is my body", can go to nothing but to the bread. 6) The words cannot be confused to say, "What is given for you is my body," because in Matthew and Mark there is no such thing. 7) That which is of bread is given to the body, that is, to be broken; and that which is of wine is given to the blood, that is, to be drunk. 8) There is nothing, therefore, that admits of a foggy mind. And because of what body and bread have in common, namely, to break, the word is cannot be turned from its proper meaning. The Hebrew way of speaking does not have the word is either. Therefore everything remains whole and unchanged.
32) So the flesh may be useful or not useful, which I do not want to argue about here; the sixth chapter of St. John may be about spiritual or bodily food. The sixth chapter of St. John may be about spiritual or bodily food; Christ may be seated at the right hand of God or among men; the teachers of the church may consider the body to be a figure or not; and even if there are more miracles in the bread than in the whole life of Christ and the whole work of redemption, and even in the whole of heaven, the words of the Lord's Supper cannot be turned away from their true meaning, which is that the true body and the true blood are in the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's Supper the body is broken and distributed to those who sit at the table (or communicants). The body is broken that was broken on the cross.
is given. The blood is drunk and distributed in Holy Communion, namely, the blood shed for the forgiveness of sins. In short, everything rhymes with bread and meat, 1) which is said of it: to eat, to break, to shed, to drink.
This is what I wanted to write to you, my esteemed Lord Urbane Rhegius, in short, in order to inform you of my opinion; and I ask you to let the pious and famous man, Oecolampadius, and others be so commanded to your prayers, as I myself, whose booklet I have much to thank, from which I have also learned to understand the meaning of the Lord's Supper more precisely and to speak of it more clearly.
34 This is the fault of the rabble, that they do not ask what opinion the words of the Lord's Supper have, but what they imagine themselves to be, bring to the market, and attach to the words of Christ, so that almost no one can be called a Christian at the present time, who does not drag himself about with the words of the Lord's Supper. But I am waiting for Philip Melanchthon to reveal what he intends to do. For he wrote in his last letter that he wanted something to come out of the Lord's Supper. I pray to God that he will finally bring to light what he is pregnant with and awaken it for the benefit of the church! Farewell with your whole church! Nördlingen, in the year of the birth of Christ 1525.
11 Urban Rhegius' reply to Theobald Billicanus to the above letter.
December 18, 1525.
See the previous number.
Translated into German by >1 Aug. Tittel.
Urbanus Rhegius (wishes) his Theobald Billican grace and peace in Christo!
Your silence for so long, dearest brother, which some have already interpreted as if you had fallen away, has not at all displeased Urbanum, that he also considers it better than much writing, because such a beautiful book has come out instead of the letters. So keep silent, that is, send letters from whole large sheets. I knew well with what business you are burdened, with what anxious worries and efforts, both to teach the youth and to preach Christ, you are scattered without ceasing.
1) should probably be called body and blood, or bread and wine, because drinking follows shedding. (Walch.)
But I only fear (as I am wont to do for brethren) that you too may be driven by a storm into the present floods of the mind and be swept there, where, alas, the best and most learned people are now tossed about to the greatest harm to their souls. The evil enemy, who could not stand Christian unity, saw that through so many learned writings and abundantly poured out gifts of languages and through the unconquerable steadfastness of the preachers, the darkness of ignorance would be driven away and Germany would again be brought to good thoughts, and the abomination of desolation in the holy place would obviously be grasped, and with unanimous wishes and great steps he would hurry freshly to the freedom with which Christ has endowed us, not of the flesh, but of the spirit. Now he makes every effort to ensure that we do not climb from such a happy beginning to the highest little peak. That is why he first caused disunity among the supreme teachers. And since those have become disunited through whom the world was otherwise inflamed to the highest love of Christian peace and the Gospel, the crowd has also been divided into almost as many sects as there were preachers. At first, quarrels arose without enmity (bitterness). Afterwards, as the quarrels continued, the stubbornness to defend one's opinions broke out into open hostility, and especially over the sacrament of our religion, which Christ had made the sign of the highest love and unity among us. For some of the people of Carlstadt have become so mad that they would hardly have considered him a Christian who did not always keep his mouth full of these blasphemies: Eßgott, bröderner Gott, and such monsters more. Finally, they have even begun to play the supreme judge, and to condemn to eternal fire those who, out of a godly mind, remain with the mere words of Christ with bad honest faith, praise the redemption that took place on the cross with the greatest gratitude, and want to believe that God, through a secret presence of His Son in the Lord's Supper, as a pledge, comforts His own until He once appears visibly and gloriously. Not to mention that many hate the word preached by us merely because I am not a Carlstadtian, as if the Carlstadtians alone constituted the secret body of Christ, for whom the Son of God gave himself in death, but we were only attached to it like some ulcer or rotten limb, until he would sooner or later cut us off.
So much can do a few article faith, which they have not yet first conceived. For Wiklef, an Englishman, has in the last century,
and the Waldenses in their confession sent to the king in Hungary, Vladislav, asserted the very article with the very scriptures and reasons, and zealously argued that the bread was figuratively and not naturally the body of Christ; as John was figuratively Elijah, and not personally. What should I do here? There were many great scholars by her side, and I was not allowed to write properly nor to keep silent. I begged God to turn His face upon us, for haste in judgment is, as is always the case, especially in matters of faith, full of deadly danger. I have therefore diligently considered the reasons and scriptural passages by which the Carlstadt doctrine tends to be strengthened; afterwards I have confessed that everything could be well heard before the people, and that with this grasp the sacrifice of the Mass could at once be thrown overboard. But that I did not immediately accept this opinion completely was due to the forced interpretation of some passages, and the eagerness everywhere to draw many voices to their side, causes which have also become alarming to you. And since first of all the words of the holy supper must be consulted and looked at more closely, one has been more concerned about other passages than about the one which alone must satisfy the conscience, if we have a right understanding of it.
3. the passage 1 Cor. 10, on which there was no small hope of victory, hardly seemed to admit of an obfuscation, since the apostle does not speak of a physical but of a spiritual rock. For thus we read, "But they drank of the spiritual rock which followed. But the rock was Christ." The words are quite clear: they drank from the rock, that is, Christo. And the spiritual rock that accompanied them was Christ, since I don't see what compels me to attach a dumbed-down mind to the word Is. Yes, I would be ridiculous, if I needed a faded mind there. Now the place of Exodus 12 [troubles us]: "This is an Easter to the Lord!" For I knew well that hu, or the same, was often taken for "that is," though the erbum substantivum did not stand in Hebrew. For thus the Hebrew would speak: This my soul; this my body! But since, according to their way of speaking, it does not stand for "is" or "has been," I really believed at first that there was something flowery among them. Finally, I also saw that the "is" could be taken susistantively, without some impurity in the sense, if one understood Moses thus: "You should eat in haste, for it is the passing of the Lord"; as if he spoke: "What I have commanded above of the paschal lamb, you avoid doing, as the ceremonies are prescribed,
because the same day is the Passover of the Lord; that it may be preferred to the day when they shall remember the benefit they have received, rather than to the Lamb.
4 The apostle's words in 1 Cor. 11: "The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ? etc., if they are not forced but interpreted badly, strengthen ours, if we understand by fellowship of the body of Christ that by which the body of Christ is shared with us; by fellowship of the blood that by which Christ's blood is shared with us. For even the adversaries will not consider us so stupid that we should not know what the Scriptures teach about the fellowship of the secret body of Christ. He does not deny the communion of saints who confesses the communion which we believe, namely, of the body of Christ in the breaking of bread, and the communion of the blood of Christ in the administration of wine, because of Christ's words of institution, and because of his command that we should do the same.
5 And although the ancients speak somewhere in such a way that it seems as if they were in favor of the Carlstadters, they have often written quite differently than this doctrine reads; so that I have not been moved at all by their testimonies to depart from my opinion: for Chrysostom writes in clear words that in the Sacrament is the body of the Lord. And after him Theophylactus, a very fine author, in Matth. 26: He did not say, this is a figure, but, this is my body. And John 6 he says: "Notice that the bread eaten by us in the sacrament (or mystery) is not a figure (or image) of the flesh of Christ, but the flesh of Christ himself; for he did not say: The bread that I will give is the figure of the flesh, but my flesh; for the bread is transformed by the secret blessing in the sacramental words, and also the Holy Spirit comes to the flesh of the Lord.
6 Cyprian speaks of the Lord's Supper: "The bread which the Lord gave to the disciples, not changed in appearance but in nature, was made flesh by the omnipotence of God. And as in Christ's person mankind was seen, and the Godhead was hidden: so in the visible Sacrament the divine essence was poured out in an inexpressible way, so that religion would have reverence (or devotion) at the Sacraments.
7 It is also not to be ignored that Theophylactus, since he acted the words of the Lord's Supper, Marc. 14, affirms our opinion so obviously that I, by some differently sounding passages
I will not be misled at all to the Carlstadt doctrine. For thus he says, "This is my body. For the bread is not a mere figure and image of the body of Christ, but the body of Christ is changed into it. For the Lord says: "The bread that I will give is my flesh"; he did not say the figure of my flesh, but my flesh. And again, "Wherefore ye eat not the flesh of the Son of man." But would one say, Why then is the flesh not seen? Answer: O man, it is because of our weakness. For because the bread and the wine are of the things to which we are accustomed, we are not afraid of them; but if we saw the flesh and the blood before us, we could not bear them, but would abhor them. Therefore, the merciful God takes our weakness into account and leaves the bread and wine as they are, but transforms them into the power of flesh and blood.
8 Athanasius 1 Cor. 11 about the words: "Because he does not distinguish the body of the Lord" says: "That is, do not first inquire into the greatness of this present mystery in order to know it rightly. For if we knew who and how great he is who is before us, we would need almost no other thing for our need. Do you think Athanasius would have spoken like this if he had believed, after the manner of the Carlstadters, that there was nothing but bread and wine?
(9) Yea, even upon these words, My flesh profiteth nothing, they cannot rest, if they would have the testimonies of the fathers. For Cyril treats of it thus: Because the flesh is joined to the life-giving Word, it has become wholly life-giving, although the nature of the flesh, being flesh, cannot give life; yet it does, because it has received all the power and effect of the Word. For it is not the flesh of any man, whose flesh can profit nothing (not Paul's, Peter's and others), but the very body of life and salvation of JEsu Christ, in which the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, can do it. The flesh of all others is of no use, but the flesh of Christ, because the only begotten Son of God dwells in it, can alone make alive. All this I do not say to leave the light of the Word in matters of faith and turn to human glosses (or interpretations), but to show how justly I have considered, since I have seen that even the most distinguished ancients have never fully agreed with the adversaries.
(10) What tempests of temptation do you think, my Theobald, fell upon my mind when I saw that such excellent men were not at one with me, who otherwise were so dear and precious to me because of their godly conduct and rare learning? I was in the greatest doubt; I was not allowed to do anything rashly or out of haste against my conscience; and to speak against such great men was foolish; who, if the spirit had taught them and they had the experience of faith, who was I to resist them? I honor the truth, as is right, and search for it with the greatest diligence. If they come before me, then they will act as brothers and will be grateful to God that I, a poor man, am not left behind.
He who examines hearts and kidneys knows that I am completely removed from ambition and evil affections. Cursed be the honor, cursed be the gain, by which one departs from the truth! Blessed is the shame, and blessed is the loss, which one suffers because of truth and righteousness!
(12) As far as I am concerned, if I can do nothing else, I will never cease to ask and desire the Father of Light for the knowledge of the truth, so that the hearts of the simple will not always be driven by all kinds of strange teachings, but will be fortified in the wholesome teaching against the gates of hell itself.
(13) Continue, you of your place, to do what you are doing, and be assured that I also like nothing better than this truth. The grace of the Lord be with you! Amen. Augsburg, December 18, 1525.
John Cana, Stephanus Agricola, and the other brothers and faithful co-workers of the Gospel, who have also willingly agreed with your opinion, greet you.
D. How Brenz defended himself against the accusation of Bucer, and the latter did not act faithfully in the writings of Bugenhagen and Luther translated by him.
12. Johann Brenz's letter to Martin Bucer about the words: "This is my body", to his responsibility to him.
October 3, 1525.
This letter is found in Pfaff's ^sta st ssrixta xudlisa ssslskias ^VlrtsrnderZisas, x. 198.
Translated from Latin.
Johann Brenz sends his greetings to Bucer!
Grace and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.
I have received your letter, dearest Bucer, which was very dear and pleasant to me, in which you so kindly wish me happiness in my ministry. But you also admonish me with many reasons for wanting peace in the church. First, if anything good has been done by us in the church, it is the Lord's and not ours. Secondly, I gladly accept that you exhort me to harmony in the controversy of the Lord's Supper. For I am not the man, nor have I so great a standing or learning in the churches, that through me, though I would, controversy could be begun or increased in the church. For since I am not able to do much, I will not be able to do much harm or good with my learning; but whether I have promoted godliness somewhat, others may judge. But why have you not first shown yourselves what you exhort us to do? You announce war, and yet you want to forbid us the rights of war. Take care, my Bucer, that no one compares you to the pillars of the road, which indeed show the way, but never walk themselves. In any case, Carlstadt gave the occasion to think differently than usual about bread in the Lord's Supper. Who has increased the controversy? The omitted writings show who has stirred it up. You have stirred up the filth; now you exhort us not to smell the stench, nor to put it out of the way. The fire that you have set burns on; and you now forbid that we should not run to put it out, or perhaps not even think that there is a fire. Do you think that peace will be made in these matters? But if you offer peace, lay down your weapons and be reconciled to us; for as long as we see your bare swords, we detest you as enemies.
2 You will say: Where have we twitched the sword, or announced war? My Bucer, we have seen splendid words: We seek peace, the benefit of the churches, we have only the honor of Christ in mind. 1) But in the meantime you teach quite differently in your churches, and make it known in printed writings. We have hitherto taught from Christ's word that the bread of the Lord's Supper is not a mere sign, but the true bodily body of Christ. You teach and write differently, and still dare to say that you seek the peace of the church.
1) We have assumed kxsstamuk instead of kpsramus with Walch.
(3) For the fact that pious men are divided among themselves in this matter is very close to us, and we pray daily in the name of Jesus Christ that the division may be removed. For the pretense of men does not move me as much as the word of Christ. For if I had ever been attached to men, I would do so especially now, since Oecolampadius, as my teacher, could claim me completely for himself, since I can never say thanks enough to him (although I am now of a different opinion than he, and for just reasons), and I admire and revere him highly. For the right of love is not abrogated among us because we are not of the same mind in this matter of the Lord's Supper. I recognize him as my teacher, and I recognize him as an excellent bishop in the church, and I know that he will gladly allow me to be of a different mind than he is in his booklet, which he has based on the explanation of the words of the Lord: "This is my body", if I only teach differently with good reason of the word.
At that time we were gathered at Hall with some brethren and consulted together what we thought of the bread of the Lord's Supper. We want to answer Oecolampadius in writing and give an account of our faith. If he does not accept our disagreement kindly, he will not, as we certainly believe, reject us altogether. For the reasons you give for believing that the bread is a mere sign and not the true and bodily body of Christ do not satisfy us.
(5) You say that the Scripture calls circumcision a covenant, when soon after it calls it a sign of the covenant. We thank the Holy Spirit that he himself has explained and taught his word what we are to understand by "covenant," namely, a sign of the covenant. But instruct me in the Scriptures, where the body in this saying, "This is my body," is explained by signs of the body. You will attract, for example, Tertullianus or others who interpret the body by the figure of the body. We, on the other hand, want to cite Theophplactus, who absolutely does not allow the body to be interpreted by the figure of the body. Tertullianus (you will say) is much older than Theophylactus! But Theophylactus is not less godly. For here is not the dispute about what happened, or the histories, in which perhaps the older are to be believed more than the younger, but about the understanding of the words of Christ. But let us see how in the first book of Moses the circumcision is a
Covenant; for God has said, "I am your God, and I will make my covenant with you, and you shall be a father of many nations." And then further, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and between thy seed after thee in thy generations, with an everlasting covenant, that I may fei thy God and thy seed after thee, and will give thee etc."
(6) If these words are properly connected with the following, it is easy to see what God's covenant with Abraham is, and why circumcision is called a covenant. For the true covenant with Abraham is this: "I am your God and your seed after you, you shall be a father of many nations; I will make you grow, and give you and your seed after you etc." This is the covenant. It is followed by: "There shall be circumcised among you all that is male. Ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, that it may be a sign of the covenant between me and you." And circumcision is a sign of the covenant. What kind? namely, of this covenant, "I am the Lord and God, I will make you a nation etc.; I will give you the land" etc. But why is circumcision called the covenant itself?
7 Hear, my Bucer, and be not averse to the account of my faith. Circumcision is both a covenant and a sign of the covenant. The sign it is, in so far as it is circumcision, in so far as it is the tearing off of the flesh of the foreskin; but because it has the word, "I am thy God; I will make thee a nation etc., give thee the land" etc., it is no longer a sign of the covenant, but the covenant itself. And so we say also of the bread. For bread as bread is a sign of Christ and of his body. Who denies that? And of course it is bread before it is sanctified. For bread, before it is sanctified, also feeds and refreshes the body. Therefore, even before it is sanctified, it will be a sign of the body, yes, of the whole Christ who feeds the soul. But the bread of the Lord's Supper, in so far as it has the word, "This is my body," is no longer a figure, but the true bodily body of Christ himself. For so it is with the gifts of God that they come to us through the Word. Forgiveness of sins, peace, sanctification are gifts of God that we have obtained through Christ. But how do they come to us? Through the Word. Which one? "Your sins are forgiven." "Peace be to this house!" and since Christ speaks [John 15:3], "Ye are now clean, because of the word which ye have heard." Behold, there comes sanctification or
Purity through the Word. Thus 1) Christ has given us his body and blood as certain glorious gifts, by which we would be washed from sins. But who brings these to us? For the body hung on the cross and lay in the grave; it rose from the dead and now sits at the right hand of the Father. His blood, which was shed on the cross, may have been trampled underfoot. Who therefore receives these gifts and presents them to us at this time? You hear: the Word, the Word offers them. What word? There you have it: "This is my body, and this is my blood!" To this word Christ gave his body and blood, so that they would be preserved and presented to us presently. Since then Christ committed and trusted his body and blood to the Word, what wonder is it if, when this comes to the bread, it brings to the bread what was trusted to it? For the Word has received from Christ the Body and the Blood; if therefore the Word does to the bread, "This is my Body," why should we not then receive in the bread what is in the Word?
If you also accept this honest and sincere explanation of Christ's words, peace and harmony would remain. But you would rather be something.
(9) That you also in this speech: "The rock was Christ", under "was" 2) understand: "meant", I cannot see for what reason you do it. For even if I had been of your opinion before, the twisted and forced interpretation of this passage would at least, if nothing else, make your cause suspicious to me. Just look at Paul's passage a little more diligently, and you will find that the "was" cannot mean as much as "meant". For Paul says, "They drank of the spiritual rock which followed them; the rock abex was Christ." What rock? Not true, the very one from whom the fathers drank, and who 3) followed them along? Who is he? Hear Paulum, "They drank of the spiritual rock, and the rock followed." 4) What kind? The physical one? He did not accompany them. But the spiritual one was Christ. Now go and substitute "was" for "meant"; so the mind would come out: The rock (namely the spiritual one, from which the fathers drank and which followed them) meant Christ. See what a beautiful interpreter of Paul you are! We know well that a loaned
1) 81 should read 816. (Walch.)
2) par srat, meaning per first. (Walch.)
3) wrong vo8, for 608th (Walch.)
4) 86<jN6tar, for 86<jN6t)atur. (Walch.)
The first is that the rock, even though not sanctified, is a figure of Christ, just as the bread, though not sanctified, is a figure of the body of Christ. But Paul is not speaking here of the bodily rock, but of the spiritual rock, for he says, "But they all ate one kind of spiritual food, and all drank one kind of spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual rock that accompanied them." Hereupon he saith, "But the rock was Christ." Why should he here speak of the bodily, since he had before expressly added "the spiritual"? And since we confess, according to Christ's word, that the bread in the Lord's Supper is the body of Christ, we do not make a miracle of the bread out of it, and this conceit, or the memory of Christ's suffering, does not make us mistaken about it. But we praise the word by which the gifts are presented to us.
(10) And since Christ wants us to do it in remembrance of him, that is, to proclaim his death and suffering, as Paul declares, how can we do this better than when the body and blood have been made present to us through the Word? Certainly much better than when we have mere signs before us. For if you want to know what they are doing who are looking for a vague way of speaking in the words: "This is my body", I will tell you easily. They do even as another, who, when Christ speaks, "I am the light of the world," made of the light a figure of light; or (when he speaks), "I am the resurrection," made a figure of the resurrection. For as by the word, "I am the light of the world," light is brought to us (he who accepts this word in faith receives the true light), so also by the word, "This is my body," the body of our Lord is brought to us. And why should it not do so when it comes to the bread?
(11) Now when Paul and Lucas say, "This cup is the new testament," you understand this as if the cup were called a new testament because it is a figure of the new testament; but we will interpret it differently. For Matthew and Marcus give it in hand. For what is elsewhere said, "The cup is the new testament," is elsewhere explained as, "This is the blood of the new testament," so that the new testament is not a figure of the new testament, but, according to Matthew and Mark, the blood of the new testament. Testament. Do you want to make the blood and the figure one thing? The same is written in Exodus 24, where Moses sprinkles the blood taken over the people and says: "This is the blood (he does not say the mark) of the
Covenant." And what others draw from Exodus 12: "Is the phase (Passover) of the Lord", and explain phase for figure, is probably a miracle, if they do it seriously; for they err, because the Holy Spirit explains it differently. For it follows: "If your sons say unto you, What is this service? ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the passing of the Lord." And what above he bad called phase, he now explains and interprets from the sacrifice, not from the figure of phase.
12 For that you also state from Christ's sermon: "John is Elias," that John means Elias, you will have said more in jest than in earnest; for you will never get out of Ist: "means. For when Christ says that John is Elijah, what Elijah do you think is meant by him? Is he the one who was under Ahab? Not at all; but the one of whom Malachi writes Cap. 3 and 4, for these passages do not refer to Elijah under Ahab, but to John. John is therefore the same Elijah in the flesh, and does not merely present the one of whom Malachi writes, as Christ clearly enough indicates in his words, when he says Matt. 11: "This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger."
I write this in a few words to you, but more extensively to Oecolampadius. I am completely willing to peace and harmony. For I care for nothing more than the peace of the churches and the glory of Christ. But if you yourselves had preferred peace to strife, you would not have issued writings. We could hope for peace if we agreed with you, but we could also hope for peace with the papal impiety if we agreed with them. For that we do not agree with the pope is because he falsifies the gospel through human folly and dreams. And that we do not agree with you is because it seems to us that you do violence to the word of the Lord. And 1) that you seem to take from us the gift that is given to us by the word, which we will in no way suffer. Away with your flowery speech! We confess that by this word, "This is my body," Christ gives us not the figure of his body, but his body itself. The body feeds our soul, but not the figure. But what the bread has from the body, it has 2) from the word, and it is
1) 86<1 should be called st. (Walch.)
2) In Latin, Ladet is missing once. (Walch.)
the bread is not otherwise the body, as far as the word brings the body to us.
14 Furthermore, that you want to corner us with this, that if we do not agree to anything else, we should not say that the bread is the body, or that it is not, if we only remember the suffering and death of Christ: we would have gladly done this long ago, if only this question had not arisen in past writings: what is the bread? For Paul says, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat and drink." So who refuses to ask: what we eat or drink, since we have the commandment that we should test ourselves in eating and drinking?
15 But I will leave it at that with the letter, but we must never stop praying that God will no longer let us disagree to the detriment of the church. However, my Bucer, let us also move you so that we receive from you and your church what you desire so much from us. And what is this? That you abstain from words against the word of Christ, not to say from blasphemies. For what do you mean by this: Do you believe in a bred-in God? Are you a carnivore? Because this is how many brothers from Strasbourg tell us about yours. But perhaps they report us wrongly! We want to accept this, we want to think nothing bad.
(16) We have already attained this, that we do not revile anyone. I wish that the same could be achieved by you! For I know what you wrote the other day to Bernhard von Gemmingen, our brother. How you ridicule Theobald Billican and, as it were, hold him in such low esteem from on high! And you also ridicule him in the issued scripture, even though you conceal his name. These are not signs of an honest mind, no matter how much the words may speak of it. You may mock me and despise me as much as you like, because I do not want to have anything in me that is worthy of speech or respect. But as far as the administration of my office is concerned, I will see to it that I am faithful. For this is what Paul requires of ministers of the word, and I hope to build as much with poor (unlearned) faithfulness as others with great learning; yet not I, but Christ. Therefore, my Bucer, do not immediately pull us through so scornfully, but let us for the time being crawl quietly on the earth, if we cannot raise our flight to your high things.
(17) You teach that the bread of the Lord's Supper is only a sign of the body of Christ. That we do not grasp this teaching of yours is due to the anointing;
The word of Christ admonishes us, through which word he has presented the gift of his body to us. The word brings the body, consequently also the bread, 1) to which the word was added. And Paul says, "He that discerneth not the body"; he does not say, "He that discerneth not the figure of the body. For that we do not here admit of any obscure mode of speech, your weak reasons and distortions do, as may well be seen from what we have said before.
18 In short, let us sincerely pray to God with one another that He may grant us to be like-minded. For I do not see how else we can come to harmony in this matter. You have stirred up the conflagration; now see to it that it is quenched again. I, in my place, will not let anything be lacking according to my ability. For why should I lack where the glory of Christ, the Word, and the best interests of the churches are concerned? Be well. Given at Hall in Swabia, October 3, in the year 25.
To all the ministers of the Word in Strasbourg, my lords and brothers in Christ, I send my best regards, and I ask you to pass on my recommendation to them.
Luther's complaint in his writing, "That the words of Christ, This is my body, still stand firm," that Bucer had taken the liberty of introducing sacramental error into the translation of Luther's church postilion and Bugenhagen's interpretation of the Psalter.
See St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 888 ff, § 316 ff. Likewise the appendix therein, Col. 892 ff.
14 Luther's letter to Joh. Secerius, printer in Hagenau, 2) and the same to Joh. Herwagen, printer in Strasbourg.
September 13, 1526.
This letter was prompted by the falsifications which Bucer had allowed himself in the translation of Bugenhagen's interpretation of the Psalter and the fourth part of Luther's Church Postil, by introducing his Zwinglian error instead of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper. What can further serve as an introduction to this writing, may be read in our edition, Vol. XX, Introduction, p. 36. Only the following is to be noted here
1) Here we have added panis.
2) not in Basel, as De Wette has put in his superscription, and as, according to him, in the St. Louis edition, vol. XX, introduction, p. 36 b, line 12 above.
nor, to explain the strange fact that Luther addressed this letter to two printers, that the actual main letter is addressed to Herwagen, but the one to Secerius is to be regarded as an auxiliary letter, which should only become effective for the latter if Herwagen would not grant Luther's demand to include this letter in the new edition of the Postille as an antidote against the errors mixed in. Secerius, however, did not wait for the time set by Luther, but published this letter together with the "Sermon of Luther on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the Swarm Spirits" translated into Latin by Obsopoeus (St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 734). Bucer was very displeased about this. (See the following number, § 34.) The first printing appeared under the title: Martini Lutheri Sermo elegantissimus super sacramento corporis et sanguinis Christi . . . (barin: Epistola eiusd. adversus Bucerum sacramen- tarium errorem nouum. refellens.).... Haganoae per Joh. Secerium. Anno MDXXVII. octav. Furthermore, in the text published by Herwagen in Strasbourg: Praefatio M. Buceri in quartum tomum Postillae Lutheranae, continens summam doctrinae Christi. Eiusdem, Epistola, explicans locum 1. Corinth. 10. An nescitis quod qui in stadio currunt, usque: sed plures illorum non approbauerit Deus, cum Annotationibus in quaedam pauculis Lutheri. Epistola M. Lutheri ad Iohannem Heruagium superiora criminans. Responsio ad hanc M. Buceri, Item ad Pomeranu satisfactio, de uersione Psalterij. Probate omnia, quod bonum est, tenete, 1. Thessalon. 5. Anno M.D.XXVII. 6 sheets in octavo. No indication of place or printer. In the collections: in Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 348 b (addressed to Secerius and with the year 1527); in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 201 (according to Aurifaber; also 1527) and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. V, p. 384 (according to the Strasbourg printing with the correct year 1526). We have translated according to the latter. German only in Walch, with the correct date, but in the 21st volume he has placed this letter under the year 1527. As we see from Bucer's next writing, No^15, § 34, Secerius has put N. instead of his own or Herwagen's name in the copy he printed.' We put Herwagen's name here because we follow his edition. Aurifaber and De Wette have the name Secerius.
Newly translated from the Latin.
Martin Luther to Johann Herwagen, printer at Strasbourg.
Grace and peace! My dear Herwagen, I am not displeased that you are publishing my so-called Postille, divided into four volumes, translated into Latin by Bucer as an interpreter, since you have the hope that through this book some fruit will grow in Christ among people of a foreign tongue, which I wish with all my heart. I liked Martin Bucer as a translator and still like him, since he, with his light and flowing eloquence, has made mine so clear to others.
He sends and happily reproduces in Latin, although here and there he does not record my words and images, but this in very few and such places that do not have great weight, so that I, since the other can exist, would also like to blame myself in this 1) that I have perhaps not spoken clearly enough. Incidentally, he has completed the work himself in a dignified manner by reproducing my meaning and my words, and I confirm this by my testimony.
But unfortunately, in the midst of this praiseworthy work and labor, he fell (by God's permission) into that blasphemous abomination of the sacramental spirit, and the glorious gift of eloquence and understanding was tainted, yes, corrupted by that harmful poison. For after the previous volumes had been completed in a godly and pure manner, in the fourth volume the snorting spirit could no longer hold on to itself, which is eager to spread its meaning with unbelievable rage: it had to crucify my work with an abominable and blasphemous preface, then also with poisonous annotations. Thus, wretched men are not satisfied with having spread their poison in their own and now already innumerable writings; they must also spoil other people's books by their smeared poison.
He did exactly the same thing to Johann Pommer in his Psalter, with a very powerful perfidy, since he knew very well that he was far away from that godless sect. Recently, a certain nonsensical Leopold 2) did the same to me, claiming in a booklet that had gone out that Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Pomeranus and all of Wittenberg were with them. What will happen when we have died, since such things are against us during our lifetime?
1) Instead of veniam, which gives no right sense, we have adopted the vitiurn already suggested by Walch.
2) "Ludwig Leopold" was an assumed name used by Leo Jude of Zurich for his book that went out under this title: "DES Hochgelerte Erasmi von Roterdam, vn Doctor Luthers maynung vom Nachtmal vnsers Herren Jesu Christi, neuwlich außgangen auf den XVIII. tag Aprellens." 2 sheets, without place and year (Zurich, Froschauer, 1526). Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XX, introduction, p. 34.
drive? Who should not now consider all the books of the Fathers to be suspect? 3) Certainly, those heretics cannot be without us! 4) They cannot be challenged (so that I speak of myself) by the fact that three years ago, in your German booklet to the Waldenses "Vom Anbeten des Sacraments" ("On the Adoration of the Sacrament"), 5) which among other sermons started from the Lord's Supper, I abundantly testified not only what I hold, but also refuted the Significatistas before anyone thought that there would be such, and that with reasons of proof which have remained unconquered until now. Then, in a very sharp booklet (as they themselves testify) against Carlstadt 6) last year, I made known to the whole world my meaning and my doctrine. I have also not yet seen anyone come forward who could refute this book, although they are otherwise so rich in words that they can rain books. Nor do they cry out: Why is Luther silent? Why does he not give his opinion? Dear, suppose I wrote a thousand books, what would I achieve with these deaf and angry people who neither hear nor see? The Swabian Syngramma 7) has been published. That it is praised by me annoys them, because by praising it, I also confess my opinion; and they do not hear that either. Oecolampad desired to refute the same, 8) but he did not approach this work with any other thought than: It is enough to write against it; to refute the reasons of proof is not necessary; the common people will finally believe us, and be satisfied that they have heard that a book against it is not true.
3) Namely, because heretics may have added their errors.
4) The scnii66t at the beginning of the sentence forbids to understand this sentence as an interrogative sentence. The question mark, which is found at the end in all Latin editions, is to be taken as exclamation mark. Because the latter was not present in the old printing, one used the question mark instead. Thus Isa. 38,22. is to be put an exclamation mark instead of the question mark. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. IV, 654, note 2.
5) St. Louis edition, vol. XIX, 1308.
6) "Luthers Schrift wider die himmlischen Propheten," St. Louis Edition, Vol. XX, 132.
7) St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 520.
8) by writing No. 16 in the 20th volume of the St. Louis edition, Col. 582.
went out. But perhaps this is to refute the evidence of what Bucer says in this preface: Christ's miracles were such that when he said: This is that, it was also immediately perceptible to the senses. Therefore, Christ's body must also be visible in the sacrament, or it is not in the sacrament. Of course, with these antics our consciences must be fortified in the things of God, more than by the very clear words of Scripture: "This is my body"! 1) The children in the streets are laughed at, who conclude thus: Some animals walk, so does every animal, and yet this exceedingly boastful spirit surely triumphs, when he thus disputes: Some miracles of Christ are visible, therefore it is necessary that all should be visible. Therefore it is false that Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, reigns, lives, works, because it is an invisible miracle.
Whoever wants to get lost, let him believe that truth is taught by these spirits, although they have only accepted a doctrine (dogma) that has been brought up with obvious lies, assert it with lies, and then also spread it by faithless falsification of other books. Then, when they protect it best, the extremely bad disputants make use of parables, conjectures, inconsistencies and conclusions from the particular to the general. But no one is willing to listen to the crying anguish of our consciences, since we say that the words of Christ are clear: "Eat, this is my body." Here, I say, our consciences are caught. We desire that a passage be shown which would force it that our opinion is wrong in these words. But here no one even murmurs in their so many books. They counter us that meat is of no use. But we already knew that; we ask for something else, namely from the place: "This is my body." They say to us: this is not true. But we already knew that; rather, we ask about something else. They answer: The miracles are visible. We knew that too; we ask another one. They always answer us with something else, as yet.
1) Again, in the Latin editions, there is a question mark instead of the exclamation mark.
whom we ask. We ask QUae? so they answer Ble. 2)
Nevertheless, they boast that we do not stand out, even that they are not refuted. I confess that if writing many books means so much as protecting a doctrine (dogma), then they certainly also triumph over the whole of Scripture. But if protecting a doctrine means so much as fighting with well-founded proofs and making consciences secure, then it is true that they have not yet begun to write even a single leaf.
I am writing this letter to you, my dear Herwagen, so that you, when you send out that four-part volume anew, will under all circumstances either prefix or append it to it, so that it will serve the reader in my book as an antidote against Bucer's preface. For this reason, however, I allow you to publish the postilla translated by Bucer, because he (as I have said) has a fluent manner of writing and, through God's goodness, the gift of skillful translation in abundance. Would to God that he would gratefully acknowledge this! Then, because through this very preface he bears witness to me that I am a fierce opponent of his sect; and would to God that I would not be hindered by my business from being an even fiercer one!
But he would like this to be considered a very minor disagreement, even without harm to the faith. For this spirit holds that faith is not lost when Christ is blasphemed as a liar in his words. By this evidence he sufficiently shows how highly he regards Christ and his whole kingdom. For since we claim on both sides that Christ says such and such, and this is contrary to each other, then either we or they must necessarily accuse Christ of falsehood and lying. But if to make Christ a liar is not to deny Christ and blaspheme his faith, then what is blaspheming Christ? Namely, this spirit sees so sharply that it considers a matter of such great importance to be quite insignificant and harmless!
And that is what I have always said,
2) This is from a comedy, namely Reuchlin's Sergius (Erl. Briefw.).
that those heretical sacramentarians consider Christ to be a mockery, and that he is seriously never recognized or taught by them, however splendidly they may boast that they seek the Gospel and the glory of God. A godly man does not seek the glory of God in such a way that he should not know when Christ is blasphemed, or think that this is a very minor matter. But we are sufficiently warned: whoever is lost, is lost after all. The world, by despising the Word, has long since earned this wrath of God, which causes corrupt sects to break in, as Paul [2 Thess. 2, 10. f.] proclaimed beforehand: "God will send them strong errors, so that they will believe the lie, for not having accepted the love of the truth." This word has begun to be fulfilled and will be fulfilled, so that the elect will be proven and the hardened will be rejected. The grace of God be with you. September 13, 1526.
15 Martin Bucer's writing in which he answers Luther for his letter to Secerius and Herwagen. March 29, 1527.
This answer of Bucer is contained in the booklet mentioned at the previous number: krastutio 21. Luesri in Hnartnln tornnrn koMIIas I^ntüerunus ste.
Translated from Latin.
Why I testified in prefaces and notes that I did not like some of Luther's things.
First of all, I have indicated in the preface and in the annotations what I consider to be human in this work, and I have warned the reader of some things that he should not accept them in a human sense: this I did not do first. For learned men, tried by all the pious, have remarked the like about Lactantius, Origen, Jerome etc., who yet have not translated their writings into another language. Since now the churches of Christ arose, which did not understand German, I took it upon myself to translate these works of Luther, as certain and with the Scripture and the faith similar interpretations. And how should I knowingly and intentionally by such
My work, instead of the living word of God, was to impose human poems on the brothers? What else would I have done than to let a brother who was recovering from a long and serious illness eat poisonous food (without reporting it), since I would have seen that he was corrupting himself with it? The word of man is a lie, and if it is offered instead of the word of God, it harms faith as the life of the righteous, just as poison instead of healthy food harms the life of the body. Otherwise, as he himself testifies, I have done a good job with the work, and I have found its meaning and words well.
(2) But lest he should complain that I took for human things that which was God's, I referred to the judgment of the churches, according to the saying, "If one prophesies and another prophesies, let the others judge. Next to this I have remembered him with all honor, and have excused his so domineering as bitter vehemence, about which all righteous people complain, because I wanted to preserve the man's reputation, because of many good things of Christ, which he has taught and still teaches. What else could I do? If anyone wants that no one should have other thoughts than he, let him prove that he is God. We have learned to do this honor only to the canonical writings, as he himself teaches that we consider everything in them to be true without judging it. In all things on which the Christian religion is truly based, namely, faith in Christ and love for one's neighbor, I have always recognized and praised Luther as an excellent servant of Christ, and perhaps more gloriously than is sufficient for God's honor and the edification of the brethren, although I have primarily looked to this with such praise.
(3) That we do not accept everything in [Luther's] translation and interpretation of Scripture, as they say, as vain gold, is due to the fact that he obviously and often stumbles, not in a completely unbearable way and with the overthrow of Christ's faith, but to such an extent that one can see from this that Luther is also among the number of those who can stumble and fall. Read what he formerly wrote about the Psalms and compare it with the translation of the Psalms that he subsequently issued. If one also holds some of his other first writings together with the later ones, one will find how many things in the Scriptures are explained quite differently than at first; and thus he has shown that the first day is the disciple of the other. And what else is the dispute now, but that we do not agree with his interpretation of the words of the Lord's Supper, because we think so,
that it comes merely from human wit and conceit? So I have also noted what else has been noted by me, especially because of the explanations of Scripture.
4 As it is evident that he can err in the explanation of the passages of Scripture, he should not be offended at once when his things are judged and presented as things to be judged, nor should bad and honest presentation of them be called poisonous, as they will show themselves to be. His whole work has remained whole and uncrossed, although something in it has been judged and given to be judged, so that the brethren may examine everything and keep that which is Christ's. I, in my place, will give it to the Lord. I, in my place, will know how to thank the great one who so crucifies my writings.
Here you, Christians, have the information why I have indicated things about the book of Luther translated by me in the preface and notes, in which I give to understand that I am differently minded than he.
Answer to the other.
Luther reviles (that I answer the other first), I would have poured out the things in the preface and notes with heated and indescribably greedy fury of my spirit. These are even his heated words. But God, the Savior of the heart, knows that I have done this to the best of my ability, so that instead of God's word one would not believe the word of men, and the merit of Christ, who is our only Savior, would be obscured, nor would faithful servants of Christ come into disrepute. This testimony of my conscience comforts me more than Luther's vituperation vexes me. Because of (my) writings (or because of what I have written in the works) I appeal to the judgment of the churches, if they have only first read and considered mine, but because of my mind to that of God. If I have spread any poison in it, I wish to be reminded of it; I want to warn against it myself; but I am not aware of it. But I wish that Luther would realize that what he is spreading in this trade (controversy) is not wholesome, not only because it teaches human things, but also much more because it divides and disturbs the churches without any cause, and makes most of them consider it a peculiar virtue to blaspheme what they have neither read nor understood. But suppose our doctrine of the Lord's Supper were human, and therefore a poison: how then have I corrupted his work? Especially since I asked that no one should accept what is ours unless he knows for certain that it is God's?
Answer to the third.
(7) Regarding Pomeranus' Psalter, I will answer below. He had allowed me to interpret some things differently in it, to add and take away from it, so that it would not be his Psalter as well as mine; and shall it be a terrible disloyalty to add something that is not written by Pomeranus, but is nevertheless God's? If it should have been my book as well as his, why should I not have been allowed to write in my book what I considered to be Christ's teaching? although, as I will show hereafter, I have added nothing to the Psalter that is in conflict with Pomeranus' writings. For the rest, Luther knows that it is two things: 1) to show from his books how he used to speak of the Lord's Supper in a healthier way than now, since he has become unequal through the quarrel, and 2) to seek protection and help from it. We base ourselves on God's word, therefore we do not need the protection (and accession) of men; and even without him we will be Christians, but not heretics. If God only brings him back from his error, he has nothing to fear from us because of his books. He may judge the writings of the fathers as he pleases, the clergy judges everything.
Answer to the first.
Luther complains: "By God's decree, I have fallen into the blasphemous abomination of the sacramental spirit, and the gift of eloquence and understanding is impaired in me by such harmful poison.
9 These words of Luther are German and coarse enough. But I appeal from Luther in the heat to Luthern in calm judgment and mild courage, that he should say what the blasphemous abomination of the sacramental spirit is? We do not know the sacramental spirit, nor do we know as little as the Scriptures of God about the word sacrament, and prefer to speak with Christ's apostles of bread, chalice, supper, the table of the Lord, communion (or fellowship) of the body and blood of the Lord for sacrament and mass, which God's enemies need; although we do not take away anyone's freedom even in such words, if he needs them for edification.
010 But why call ye our opinion an abomination, which is not yet a hair's breadth from the scripture of God? Give us disciples of Christ, for we ask nothing of others, who keep Christ's supper, and celebrate the memorial of his death: so we confess of such that they truly eat his flesh, and truly drink his blood, but in the spirit and by faith.
What is monstrous here? The fact that we do not add that Christ's body is brought bodily and by a miracle into the bread is the reason that you have not yet proved from any Scripture that, if Christ's words were recited over the bread, something bodily would be changed in the bread, and Christ would be bodily included in the bread, nor that such a thing is commanded or promised to us. For the word, "Do this in remembrance of me," though it is clear in itself that it has no such promise in it, is further explained by Paul, who adds this: "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye shall proclaim the death of the Lord, 1) until he come." So to eat this bread of the Lord and to drink His cup, and to remember with praise His death suffered for us, is that which Christ commanded us to do with the words, "Do these things in remembrance of Me." What blasphemy is here? what abomination? what is not fitting for Christ's Spirit?
(11) Let Luther and his followers see to it that they are not driven by the sacrilegious, and not by Christ's spirit, which is not so bitter and unkind, and does not so reject and condemn the lovers of truth. They may see that they do not themselves speak monstrous and blasphemous things. It is truly similar to an abomination that they say that Christ, with the words, "This is my body," made it so that the bread would not become Christ's body, but would remain bread, but in the bread the body of Christ would be real and bodily, but would not appear; such a work of the Lord is not to be found in all Scripture, and such a thing is not even implied by the words. But is it not blasphemous to say that any ungodly person, if he recited these words, could really bring down into the bread the body of Christ, which has been exalted to the right hand of the Father, that is, to the fellowship of the invisible majesty of God, until he comes again to judgment, as he ascended? However, I do not know whether this is also Luther's opinion. Most of his people have it after all.
(12) They make of us the many-headed beast in Revelation, since we all recognize with one faith and teach with one mouth that there is nothing carnal here, except that words and signs, the bread and the wine, are used bodily, but all the rest, as thanksgiving and eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ, must be committed only to the spirit of the saints. But with the adversaries
1) Latin: you proclaim. (Walch.)
it is so unanimous that I have not yet heard two of them speak in the same way. But enough of this has been written by others. If only Luther would allow ours to be read, and indeed with free judgment, so that some, as enemies of the truth, would not either be prevented from reading ours by the authorities, or deterred from it by evil prejudices (or prior condemnation). But the Lord will see to it that the truth will nevertheless prevail among His people in His time.
Answer to the fourth.
Luther boasts that he refuted the Significatistas three years ago with reasons that had not yet been overcome; which perhaps seems to him to be the case with those who either do not read ours or do not want to be overcome by Scripture and reason. The main reason is based on this: If the word "is" were allowed to be taken as meaning here, then it would also have to be allowed elsewhere; and thus, if one said: Christ is God and man, then one would be able to interpret it: it means God and man. But this does not follow at all, for there are innumerable places in Scripture where it is quite clearly stated that Christ is truly God and man. But prove it by a single place that Christ Himself, or we ever by the same words, made true and substantial of bread what is Christ's body. The opposite is proved to those who are not deaf to the truth, even by the fact that the bread in Christ's Supper remained bodily bread, so it could not have been substantially and bodily changed. Then all Scripture says that Christ was not present bodily, but spiritually. And you cannot find a single point where men are promised or commanded either to change him bodily into bread or to transfer him. So the bread as bread, which also my Brentius, who made the syngramma, confesses, is only a sign of the body of Christ; what then is it an abominable thing to say that it signifies?
Here a Christian can see with what insurmountable reasons Luther overcame the Bedeuteler! This word, which denotes a sect, not love, he commanded the brethren to give. Those believe in Christ, whom he calls "Bedeuteler", therefore he would rather call them Christians than heretics. We have enough sects like this. Our John Oecolampadius has thrown down four foundations in the book against Carlstadt. The first: "This is my body,
is undoubtedly not important, because Luther himself admits that the "is" in such speeches does not always mean a real coexistence or presence. So this place alone will not sufficiently prove that Christ really made the bread the body1) , just as other works of the Lord in the flesh2) are not done in the flesh, as far as one can see, much less by other men, because such things are neither promised nor commanded to them. 2) In other passages of Scripture, only the spiritual eating of Christ is taught, not a bodily eating. And it is especially clear that 1 Cor. 10 speaks of the spiritual, that is, true communion of the body and blood of Christ. The other two words in 1 Cor. 11, "He who eats unworthily," are of no help to Luther, because if one sins against the sign of the body of Christ, it is rightly said that one is guilty of the body of Christ itself and desecrates it; just as one can say that Christ is despised if one despises his apostles.
But what need is there of many words? Luther does not see anyone who can refute his book against Carlstadt, because he might not read anything that is written against it. However, there are many thousands of Christians who are completely assured that it has long been completely refuted and can be refuted by any student of sacred science.
Answer to the fifth.
16 He says, "We cried out, 'Why does Luther not appear? Why is he silent? But even if he wrote a thousand books, he would do nothing for us, for us deaf and dumb, who hear and see nothing else. O a defiant wrath and a wonderful judgment of God! that makes such a noble instrument of his so forgotten; those who are Christ's may well beware of it, but do not detest Luther, as such an excellent vessel of the Lord! For pious people will not despise so many things of God for the sake of so few human things. No one cries out that Luther should not come forward or remain silent; [no one cries out that he should come forward] 3) with bitter vituperations, by which he might blaspheme faithful servants of God, and consequently give both the wicked and the simple cause to blaspheme Christ in them, and hinder the gospel.
1) Corporis for corpus. (Walch.)
2) should probably mean spiritual works, otherwise I cannot comprehend the understanding; unless one should understand, how also bodily works do not happen visibly. (Walch.)
3) Completed by us to give meaning.
Why does a man so great in the Scriptures, whom Christ used for such glorious things, not show himself meek toward everyone, as befits a servant of God? Why does he not teach, why does he not bear the wicked with meekness, and teach those who resist? 2 Timothy 2: That if he thought we were erring, he would answer us kindly according to Christ's example in all things, and show us from the Scriptures wherein we err. For if we are to gain or learn anything, it must be through Christ's Spirit and Word. But the Spirit of Christ is not unkind, does not revile, and the word of Christ is not blasphemous and vain, and a servant of Christ does not contend merely with his reputation and abominable cursing. We are deaf to mockery and insult, but the word of Christ we are eager to hear. We do not pay attention to those who only blaspheme and revile, but those who teach us what is right with Christ's word, we want to hear eagerly and willingly. We do not look at the person of the one who tyrannically dictates to us, but we never want to be blind or close our eyes to the sight of the Spirit of Christ.
Answer to the sixth.
17 The Syngramma of the Swabians, he writes: it grieves us that he has vowed it.
18 The reason why we regret, partly that my Brenz wrote it, partly that both Luther and any righteous man praised it, is because it has no Scripture and is full of invective. The whole summa of this book is: the body of Christ is truly and bodily extolled in the words: "This is my body." So, when the words come to the bread, they bring the same body, and so in the bread the body of Christ is true. Where is the Scripture here, or what body is proclaimed by the words: Or where does it say that these words are to be said to the bread, and not rather preached to credulous hearts; or that what is said to the bread puts the body into it, and not rather should bring it to the spirit and mind?
19 But that he writes: Oecolampadius had no other opinion or thought about this work than that it was enough to write against it without refuting the reasons that the rabble will believe us after all, the answer is: Dear, how great an impertinence is this! For if he had read Oecolampad's refutation against the Syngramma, by which, which was quite easy, their poem was refuted according to the order, I do not know what I
that such a perceptive man does not see what everyone sees. Least of all, I do not believe that he wants to rage against a truth that is obvious to him. If he has not read anything and only makes such a statement according to other people's prejudices, then such a great man's carelessness is certainly to be lamented. Be it as it may, for I do not want to judge so unreasonably of his obvious things; whether he has taken the liberty of judging the heart of a brother and faithful servant of Christ who, I will say no more, is to be revered and not so reviled. One has to ask God to free Luther's mind from this heavy temptation and to protect the hearts of all the elect so that they do not despise God in him because of such human things. For the thought that it is enough to write against this is much better suited to him, who gives nothing but invective to our reasons. But this is the time in which God shows Luther as a man.
Answer to the seventh.
20 Here it concerns me. Luther accuses me: I say in the preface: The miracles of Christ were of such a kind that when he said that is what it is, it was also immediately perceptible to the senses; so Christ's body must also be visible in the sacrament, or else it would not be in the sacrament. This he calls an antic and a conclusion from the particular to the general.
What shall I say to that? If he has read mine, then again I do not know. For I almost did not want to trust myself to accuse him of such an obvious insolence that, since so many copies are available, he should be allowed to attribute to me what had not occurred to me. But if he has not read it, and only believed some flatterer who told him so, why does he only believe the people against us, who are nothing but lies and vanity? The brethren may read in the 21st paragraph of the preface, where I write: "All the works of the Lord, which the Scriptures declare to be bodily, as he says, that is, as when he changed water into wine at the wedding, when he made the dead alive, when he healed the sick, etc., as we read, have also truly appeared bodily, that is, perceptible to the senses.
22 Where then is such a conclusion: Some miracles of Christ are visible, therefore all must be visible? Why is "bodily" omitted, since the whole conclusion is based on it; so it befits the enemies of truth to blaspheme the brethren's writings, but it does not befit Luther. My
The conclusion is rather from the general to the particular. All bodily works of Christ, which the Scriptures report, have appeared visibly, so also this should have appeared so, if it had been a bodily work or miracle. This could be attributed more to you, who, because it is said in some places of the Scriptures that this is so, and it really is so, also want it to be so in the words of the holy supper apart from all other Scriptures.
(23) Truly, if I had not seen that some people were so taken in by the splendor of Luther's name that they believed everything he said to be true without any examination, I would not have answered these things, which are so obviously human. What has he to reproach me with concerning the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual, since I speak of bodily works? I know that spiritual things appear spiritual, and bodily things bodily. The works of God are true, and they never lack power and effect. Christians eat Christ spiritually, which is spiritually manifested through godly living. The bodily (eating) is not recognized by anything, so it is not. For if the quality of a thing is absent, then the thing itself, whose quality it is, is also absent. Is this not quite closed? But because the Spirit of God must take away self-love from us and drive away the darkness from the hypocrites' service, all this in itself is not enough.
Answer to the eighth.
(24) That the truth is taught by such spirits (he says), let him believe who wants to be lost! With such praise Luther praises the Church of Christ and his holy gospel, which we preach aloud. To which spirit should this speech be attributed? To the sacramental spirit, that is, to the one who defends human poetry, or to the spirit of Christ who asserts the truth of God? The spirit of Christ in Paul rejoices that Christ is preached even by the wicked, even if it is in evil cause. We who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, whose contradiction they will never show us by our fruits, and who teach the gospel for no evil cause, let God be the judge, should nevertheless, as the latter says, whatever spirit he may be, have lost all faith, so that, even if we teach the truth of Christ himself, still no one believes that we teach the truth, except he who desires to perish. If we were to hang on to evil thoughts here, what would we answer? All of this shows a spirit of
I am not a man who would like to have banished not only from the preaching of Christ, but also from all the world those who do not agree with them in everything and who worship their own. The honor of Christ, my dear Luther, should be dearer to you than that you should admonish people in this way to believe those who preach it. But that the honor of the things that the Lord has done through you, and what he still does gloriously through you, may remain with him, he has wanted to make it known in this dispute that it was and remains not your work, but his.
(25) How much sooner would it be seen that you wrote from Christ's Spirit, if you, as we had asked through our Casel, had left it at that, to present your truth to the churches with Scripture and reasons, and to refute in the same way what you considered to be false (or wrong) in our case, and to leave the judgment to others 1) but otherwise to praise the very truth, which we preach with you at the same time! But against all reason you write, and want to deprive us of all faith, even though we preach only the Word of God. See what kind of spirit leads you in this! Let it be that we err in this, shall we therefore be able to teach nothing right?
(26) If it is so, that he who does not have the right understanding in one or another passage of Scripture, must only corrupt (others) with lies, then you also will not be able to be heard without the greatest harm, who have done such violence to so many passages of Scripture, that they get an entirely wrong understanding. Which I remind not that any man should despise your things, but that all may see how it is not at all safe to approve all your things without distinction, though ye make them so great.
(27) You add with your own kind of insults that we have accepted a doctrine that sprouted from obvious lies; we defended it with lies and continued to plant it by faithlessly beginning to counterfeit other people's books. You will see one day that you have reviled us too unreasonably and sensitively. I do not want to say more. We hate and punish lies to the danger of our lives, so we will even less accept some doctrine from obvious lies, or defend it with lies. You will never show that I have ever treacherously falsified a book. Would to God, dear Luther, that you would consider who you are. But now is the time and occasion to which you must surrender a man; no one despises you.
1) Mis should be called aliis. (Walch.)
therefore Christ in you, but rather read everything carefully.
This also shows that Luther's mind is not Christ's in this dispute, because he reproaches the parables, conjectures, and rhyming conclusions. For he will find the conclusion from the particular to the general, as far as this trade is concerned, more in his than in our learned dispute. Christ concludes at least from a similitude or equality, since he proved that one must do good on the Sabbath; likewise, since he excused himself as to why he would rather do good to strangers than to his fellow citizens (countrymen). Likewise, he drew the conclusion from something inconsistent, since he proved the resurrection from the fact that God was called the God of Abraham. For he wanted to show that it would be inconsistent that God would call the dead God, if they should never live again. And what else did he want with his answer to John's disciples than that they should assume or conclude from his works that he was Christ? So he also quoted the 110th Psalm to the Jews: "The Lord spoke to my Lord", and wanted them to conclude that the Messiah was greater than David, because he called him his Lord.
29 And by what other means could we bring out the understanding of the Scriptures? Luther does not use any other, just as human wit has no better, which the rules of the teachers of oratory and the art of reason indicate. But with us everything must be wrong that is right and good with them. But what do you think is the cause, as many think, why he is so unjust to us? There are indeed some who think that it is none other than because we do not say to everything: It is his word (it must apply). Luther first brought the gospel back into the world; he was not mistaken in great things: so he cannot be mistaken in anything. But be it that ye seek this, or that some other temptation doth tear you away from equity, yet I know that we have tasted Christ more than that we should yield to flesh and man. And therefore we would rather endure this and harder things than not preach Christ's word, which we consider a man's duty.
Answer to the ninth.
(30) He complains that no one wants to hear the anguish of his conscience, which cries out so clearly and obviously. Answer: But not so cry fearful and bruised consciences, which are exceedingly gentle, which gladly tolerate everything, and which are so wimg to
and that with gentleness. They do not know how to blaspheme, to condemn, to curse, to hand over to Satan, to judge so wrongly of the minds and intentions of the brethren. But their conscience may have cried out as it will, but we have long since heard it, and have shown that these words cannot indicate the bodily presence of Christ, because even the Lord Himself did not change the bread into His body in the Lord's Supper. For how can we say that what has not happened has happened? Bread remained bread, so it did not become a body, as has often been said. After that there is also no mention anywhere: In it is the body, in the Scripture. Nor does it help that the body is eaten bodily; he certainly did not want to institute a bodily eating of himself. Therefore the words: "This is my body" must be understood in such a way that bread and the body of Christ are truly there, but in a spiritual way, that as the bread is eaten with the body, so the body of Christ is eaten with the mind (or spirit).
For this is forced, that they understand the word John 6: "The flesh is of no use" in a carnal sense. For Luther also writes differently, but in the postilion that is taken from 1 Cor. 10 for the lection, thus: Christ said of Himself: "The flesh is of no use.
32 And it is also something important, since we prove that believing that Christ is bodily present in the Lord's Supper, if one repeats the above words of Christ, is an inconsistent thing, according to the Scriptures; for God does not want anything inconsistent. And this is also not so easily despised by them, that all bodily miracles of God appear visibly. And therefore, when Luther asks: quas? we by no means answer blah, as Luther indecently reproaches us; Paul at least used to write differently. We always answer modestly and thoroughly to what they ask us; but they either do not read ours or do not want to understand it. The churches of the saints find at least something different from blae, and recognize most of the writings, both those of Zwingli and Oecolampadius. Would to God they had heard our anguish of conscience and sighing like that! For we have written to them several times with such modesty, and twice even by our own messenger, that they have considered us more timid than reasonable, and have forged their warning of the spirit, from which we should learn that we are mistaken. And besides, they are wont to write: We do not think so; we do not accept the reasons; you shall not be right,
with large letters, 1) and that we had fallen, which is not proven. We have not been able to receive an answer; one has often rejected (dismissed) a letter before reading it. And other many human things etc.
Answer to the tenth.
Luther writes once again: we made ourselves broad so that he would not appear and refute ours. I reply, as above to the fourth: he appears enough with invectives and insults; but he has not yet appeared with Scripture and reasons. For the parables of the omnipotence of God, which is manifested in the body of the Virgin, the God-bearer, which is manifested in grain, corn, and seed of trees, of which a sermon he preached is full, do not refute ours by a long shot. For we like to believe that God can do everything, but we recognize and confess that He only does what the Scripture says about Him, and which in fact shows Himself like what He says in the same book. He may nevertheless bring forward Scripture in which it is stated that, as often as the same words are said about the bread, the body of Christ is really present in the bread, as it is stated so often in it that the virgin bore and gave birth to him; or he may prove that such presence takes place through the very power that is seen in the seeds (and grains), so he is said to have won. For nothing should seem so impossible to us, nothing so inconsistent 2) that we do not want to ascribe to God, if someone shows us that the Scriptures want it. But that he adds: If this means defending a doctrine, fencing with sound reasons and satisfying consciences, then it is true that they have not yet begun to write a leaflet, I will include this among Luther's other grandiloquies.
Answer to the eleventh.
34 Here, see the honesty of the people! Luther sent this letter to Herwagen so that, if the fourth part went out again, he would come to it; and, as I have testified above, Herwagen wanted to print it on my coaxing. I am not afraid of the churches' judgment, and he also answered Secerius that he would do so as soon as he had sent him and asked whether he wanted to print it. But although Luther had sent his original (autographum) to Herwagen, which we still have, Secerius has a copy, which he received, I do not know from whom,
1) See No. 3 towards the end.
2) dünken is missing. (Walch.)
Without waiting for the answer, which was sent in three days, Luther started to print and put N. instead of Herwagen's name; he also answered afterwards: he had to do it. Who then gave this one a copy, since Luther himself sent the writing, sealed and written with his hand, to Herwagen? Who forced him to print especially what Luther wanted to have added as an antidote to the fourth part?
35 You Christians, see here that the spirit of a man rules who knows nothing of the right of love. Thus one has translated into German the instruction which Luther gave to Casel, a learned and godly young man who teaches Hebrew with us, last year when we sent him to Wittenberg with such a writing. For since we saw how this dispute would give rise to arousal, we dispatched letters to Luther from the same young man, asking him, for the sake of Christ's honor, to help the truth in the matter of the Lord's Supper in such a way that he would not at the same time throw love overboard and make Christ completely an abomination among the brethren. The one who sent Luther's report to us was not driven by love or natural fairness to at least present our essay to Luther to the churches, so that they, since they have to judge it, would have seen what Luther had answered to us and how decent he was for an evangelical man. He who published Pomeranus' accusation against me in German also had the same love.
They betray themselves too much. For Christians do not act so, but do and speak all things, not to quarrel and blacken the brethren, but for the edification of faith in Christ and love. Fools do not know that they do their cause great harm when they try to promote it by laws that are so contrary to the mind of Christ. But Christ will take care of that. If God wanted us to please Him in everything, together with His members, we will be recognized in His time for who we are, even if they blacken us with their colors and not with ours. A human day will neither make us blissful nor miserable. Luther wishes that he only had time to be more vehement in this argument. If he understands this by vehemence (and emphasis) of the reasons, then I too would wish the same; but if he speaks of vehemence of the vituperative words, then I would like him to realize how far this is from Christ's spirit!
Answer to the twelfth.
Luther writes: "I would have considered this quarrel to be something quite minor, which passes without harm to the faith. And from this he concludes that we would have Christ with his whole kingdom only as a mockery, as we would think that faith would not be lost, even if Christ were blasphemed in his words. But Christ would necessarily be blasphemed as lying from one side or the other, in that we would claim on the one side that he said one thing and on the other that he said another, which would be contrary to each other. From this he concludes, as something necessary, that one of the two parties makes Christ false and a liar, and concludes in the words: "But to punish Christ for lying, if this is not denying Christ and blaspheming his faith, what then is blaspheming Christ?
Behold, dear Christians, where we finally fall when God leaves us to ourselves. This is Luther's conclusion, which he claims to be as certain as if it had been spoken by a god, since it is against all reason. However, he 1) acts wrongly in that he writes that I want to have considered this dispute, he calls it a small dispute, to be quite minor, so that faith does not suffer damage. I have indeed written in the preface, as it is written in the 19th section: There is also trouble about this, namely about the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but more to the detriment of love than of faith, because they are brothers and faithful servants of Christ on both sides who argue about it.
(39) I do not say here, then, that it is a trifle, or without any harm to faith, but only write that love suffers more from it than faith, because both of us at the same time want the main sum of Christian doctrine to be preserved unchanged; at the same time we recognize and teach that we are all sinners; that nothing good can come from us, and that our righteousness and blessedness rest entirely on Christ's work and merit. Thus we also both recognize that we must turn all our good works to our neighbor through love, follow the Scriptures as true in everything, and also hold the words of Christ in the Lord's Supper to be true and reverence them. Now those who confess and teach this, and do not contradict it in works, why should we not consider them Christians and faithful ministers of the gospel, even if they do not understand one or some passages of Scripture correctly, since there is no one who is not sometimes lacking in them?
(40) We all err and fall short in many ways, but the faith remains if only Christ is not rejected. That is why I have written that
here, love would be more damaged than faith, and that the rights of love would be acted against the most, although when love is weakened, faith also decreases.
(41) Therefore I did not say that faith would suffer no harm at all, but only that love would suffer more, since, on the other hand, those who listen to the Anabaptists, of whom I spoke, who teach that we must seek salvation by our own works and powers, and that Christ has not fulfilled the law for us, will suffer more damage to faith. So Luther has charged us wrongly here; I consider this little dispute to be a minor thing, and without harm to faith.
(42) And out of this false pretense he forges a much worse blasphemy, though so foolish and silly that it has no reason at all. For he concludes from it that we hold Christ to be a mockery, and have never really known or taught him. But I say that faith in Christ can exist, even if people differ in other passages of Scripture, as well as in the words of the Lord's Supper, if they only hold that Christ is our only Savior and his words are true, and therefore Christ is not blasphemed as lying. Is the emperor therefore blasphemed as lying, if one brings this mind, the other another, out of his laws? Is the father therefore a liar, if the children, who otherwise want to do his commands with all their heart, argue about his words? And how many times have you, Luther, if it is so, made God a liar, since you have explained so many passages wrongly, according to your own state of mind and judgment! For you explain many things in your newer works quite differently than you did in the first ones. And in how many passages have you and your Pomeranus in the Psalms quite adverse interpretation!
But what need is there of many words? There must be someone blind who does not see here that you have gone too far out of anger. For if this were true, then all those would have to blaspheme God in his words, and therefore deny Christ, who had not understood everything in Scripture according to the true understanding, and thus all the fathers and the whole church of the saints would have to be guilty of blasphemy against God and of denying Christ. Behold, my dear Luther, if here you can see the truth otherwise, how far your presumption and your anger have led you astray. We know that God and Christ will one day be much more merciful. It will be enough for Him that we believe His words to be true and accept them in their meaning,
that we expect everything from his grace, and that what we want to do for him, we give to our poor neighbor. You know Augustine's doctrine or rule, even if we do not accept with you all and every passage of Scripture in its proper and certain sense.
(44) Therefore, we consider you to be truly Christian and honorable servants of Christ, believing and teaching that your salvation and that of all the elect is based only on Christ's death and not on any merit of men; we also command our churches to consider you so, although we know that you take the words of the holy supper from a carnal way, which is not at all suitable for the kingdom of Christ. We also command our churches to hold you to this standard, although we know that you take the words of the holy supper from a carnal way, which is not at all suitable for the kingdom of Christ. In the same way, if you want to have the spirit that Christ and the apostles had, you should keep and teach from us, if you already knew that we stumbled in these words, since we were willing to do and suffer anything for the truth that we [and] all the elect are sanctified by the one death of Christ since the gospel was made known to us. For it is not at all necessary, as you, Luther, have written to us through Casel, that a part of both of us must be of the devil. Christ and the apostles tolerated people who were mistaken in far more important matters and considered them children of God. How little the apostles knew! How reluctant were those who converted to Christ from circumcision to accept the freedom of Christ! How much they taught and did against it! And yet neither Paul nor the others, who had the right truth, stormed against them as Luther and his followers did against us.
May Luther therefore only realize that in this he is driven by a spirit other than Christ's, and that he will not succeed as in other things that were truly Christ's, for in Christ's matters it is not directed by the favor and hatred of the world. You wrote to us, dear Luther, that it was a warning from the Spirit, testifying that our cause was evil, because we saw that the churches were being disrupted by the Lord's Supper controversy. And we wish that you would not go against us so harshly, for we have always put up with the defense of the truth. But should not this itself rather be a warning to you from the Spirit, that you yourselves are destroying, confusing, tearing apart the churches with reasons so contrary to love, with blatant blasphemies and terrible invectives, depriving them of teachers and thus of Christ Himself, undoubtedly depriving the Gospel of faith?
and arm his enemies against the same, saying, that they should believe that the truth is preached by us, who would gladly perish? For with this one word you have both condemned us and the truthful words of Christ himself, which we preach.
46 We saw this beforehand, and would have gladly turned it away from the churches if Christ had blessed us. And therefore we have twice sent a messenger to you at our own expense. For this makes the churches confused and obscures Christ's honor; since the truth, if it is preached modestly and in time, makes no disruption at all, which you could well have taught even without reviling. We were afraid not of ourselves, but of the churches, and not of the truth, but of your invectives. And that is why we have written so humbly to you; and have never asked that you would not punish our things of error if you had found them false, but that you would not at the same time defile other things which you yourselves teach as true with us, and make a lie of the words of Christ himself, as you do in this epistle and other writings.
Answer to the thirteenth.
If God would, you would see how badly you are offended by what you are adding here: That is why I have always said that the heretical Sacramentans have Christ as a mockery, and they have never recognized or taught Him in earnest etc. For God, who is also a judge of hearts, has not given the office of judge to you, but to Christ, and he will certainly declare your judgment of us to be wrong in the day when he comes to judge the living and the dead. We do not recognize the word sacrament, as I said above, but we worship Christ our Savior, that we may have eternal life in him; otherwise you may say what you will about us, for we must be called sacramentarians before you and not Christians, while you would much rather call yourselves sacramentarians than those who contend for the sacraments, since we, on the contrary, contend only for Christ.
(48) You call us heretics, who have never formed, and still do not form, a sect or separation, but want to be in one church with you and worship the same Christ with you. We understand one passage of Scripture spiritually, you bodily, but nevertheless confess and teach that Christ is truly present with His own and is their food and drink. So small a cause is it that you have such a dangerous fire of contention over it.
You have puffed us up, expelled us from the church, denied us the Christian name, given us the name of heretics, yes, handed us over to Satan, and can think up nothing so horrible and ugly enough that you would have the misgivings to speak and write against us publicly. But it is still the best thing that your spoken judgment will not be repeated and confirmed by Christ, who knows well, if you judge the worst of us, what we are looking for here, and for the sake of which we have endured and still endure the most. And if you had to suffer just such things, you would not go off like this for the sake of friends and act modestly in other things.
(49) That Christ should be blasphemed is nothing small or trifling to us, else we would have remained with the world that blasphemes him. But we know that we are free from blasphemy against Christ, and we do not introduce corrupt sects, nor teach anyone wrong or falsehood for truth. We are human beings, we can fall and stumble in many things, but only in those that do not in themselves serve anything for salvation. For since we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, that he has sanctified and perfected us through his death for eternity, we know that we are partakers of eternal life, which therefore neither you, Luther, nor death, nor life, nor angels, nor authorities, nor any other creature, will separate from the love of God, which he has shown us in Christ Jesus.
50 We pray to God to teach you to know yourselves well and to show how much you hinder the glory of Christ with your defiance, which is not at all apostolic, and with all too bitter vehemence. In those things which really and truly belong to the glory of Christ, it pleases me quite well that you teach and establish everything most certainly: but that you boast that all your things which you write and teach must be right and true, in this you do not at all wisely, since you have allowed so many and great errors both in the translation and in the interpretation of Scripture to run under. Not to mention how you act against love, against which you truly, since it is none other than that which Paul describes in 1 Cor. 13, grossly violate. You teach Christ, but let Christ's spirit (I ask this for God's sake) rule in you, and do not hand over to Satan those whom he has redeemed from his tyranny with his death; surely believe that Christ also has vessels of his name that can be used apart from you.
If God would have you know Zwingli better, along with the church he serves; likewise, if God would have you know Zwingli better, along with the church he serves.
Oecolampadius; for we will say nothing of us; you would certainly have to blaspheme the Holy Spirit if you did not honor Christ in them. The evangelical tree truly bears more delicious fruit in them than one could deny that the glory of Christ dwells in them.
By the way, we want you to think of us as loving and honoring you warmly in the Lord, which is why it grieves us from the bottom of our hearts that the most holy word of God in (or among) us is partly mocked and partly darkened by the dung of abuse and the shameful vapor, if not of brotherly hatred (as I do not hope), then of contempt and contemptuousness. For in this way it happens, since your writings are so devoid of all flame of love, that even what you write as truth loses faith. Then you should also know that although we hold you in high esteem, the higher the world praises and emphasizes you, the more we examine your things according to the Scriptures. For we know that sometimes one must be most careful of what has the greatest appearance and prestige, and that the devil is very fond of using imposing and respectable people to deceive through them. Moreover, we are well aware of the defiance of the human species, which, when it has attained some prestige, then immediately wants to do a master stroke in everything and break through. But we must also believe God; we will not be saved by your faith, therefore we must also know exactly what God's word is. If God has not yet revealed this to us sufficiently, do not think that we will believe it immediately for the sake of your word, but we hope that we will be preserved in the truth by His Spirit.
(53) I considered it good to answer Luther's accusation, since he or his friends wanted the sharp letter of accusation to be printed once, so that the churches would see how much different we look than he wanted to portray us in it, and how he had reviled and belittled us through no fault of his own. Those who do not like to read our things will not condemn us by any right; and if they take such liberties, as many, alas, are wont to do, it is our consolation that the Father has left the highest judgment with the Son. But let us all remember the saying: "If I did not have love, I would be nothing. But I ask again, for the sake of God's glory and Christ's redemption of our Savior, that no one should say anything to Luther that he does not certainly believe to be human by the Spirit of God.
condemn. God has preached the gospel to us through mortal men, and not through immortal angels, even from ancient times, and we all sin manifoldly. But what madness would it be to despise the word of life for the sake of a servant who has stains or dirt on him? Read and listen to what is presented to us in God's name, everything, but not in the day, without any distinction, but examine everything and keep the best.
Therefore, the enemies of truth must not take advantage of this discord and rejoice over it. Everything is for the good of the chosen ones, and so God is in the habit of revealing the proven ones who do not cling to any man but to Him alone; they will be stronger than the gates of hell can do against them. Let them not continue to cry out that we ourselves are not of one mind, for in their case everything is torn and tattered. In this we are in complete agreement, that all the elect seek their salvation in Christ alone, and that it behooves us to be like our heavenly Father on earth through love for one another and through good deeds, even toward our enemies. May the Lord turn away from His church all offences, and may He teach us to be meek and humble of heart, according to His example. The grace of the Lord be with you all. March 29, Anno 1527.
16 Martin Bucer's letter to Johann Bugenhagen, in which he answers against Bugenhagen's accusation, as if he had tried to bring him into suspicion of sacramentarian error. March 25, 1527.
This letter is also found in Bucer's booklet mentioned in the two previous numbers.
Translated into German by M. A. Tittel.
To Johann Bugenhagen Pomeranus (wishes) Martin Bucer grace and peace!
You had a gentle spirit from God, and as you thus promoted Christ's honor more happily than those Archilooki, 1) so you were also very dear to the elect. But it has happened to you, as it is wont, that he who dwells with the lame (and limping) also learns to limp with them. But would it not be better that you should always
1) Archilochus, a Greek poet who wrote bitingly and vituperatively; a side-swipe at Luther.
How did you show both Christ's and Paul's modesty and honesty, as Luther's defiance and vituperation, since you do not seem inclined to such defiant and wild courage by yourselves, by God's grace? But in order for God alone to have all the honor of truth and justice, you must of course also show that you are a human being. If God wanted everyone to recognize this so that they would not despise what God is doing through you for the sake of your thing!
2. For your speech written against me to Spalatin and Agricola I cannot ascribe to Christ's spirit, not only because you have accused me so horribly in it before the churches before you punish me secretly, but also because you falsely accuse me of a falsi (fraud), and then also all who deny the bodily presence of Christ in the bread with us, because it is nowhere in Scripture, make confounders of consciences, as we have vexed many, hindered the gospel, and brought to nothing the most important things; Likewise, because you hold in low esteem the integrity of the word of God in the Psalms, and in this you exalt yourselves too much and without cause.
3. I would have preferred to remind you of this secretly; but since it is through your fault that Christ, whom at least I preach, is blasphemed among the simple; for the prudent do not allow this to be disputed, since those to whom the accusations apply have not been heard; so I have been compelled, against you and others, who have read your accusation against me, and so, according to the requirement of fairness, will choose to read my answer, to answer me with little truth and modesty for what you have blamed us against truth and modesty before the churches.
(4) But I will follow your order, and first deny the vice of deceit (or falsi). Then also the other accusations, e.g., that we confuse consciences, vex the weak, and hinder the gospel. Finally, I will remind you again of the sincerity of the Psalms and of your untimely presumption, which at the end of your discourse you have so thoughtlessly allowed to show itself.
(5) First of all, you complain and accuse me that in your glorious work, which you do not seek to improve, I have sought an opportunity to expose the ungodly opinion of the Lord's Supper, which denies that when believers eat the bread of Christ and drink the cup of Christ, they eat and drink the true body of Christ and the true blood, not only under your name, but also under Luther's, Phil. Melanchthon's and your whole school's name to the world.
and thus made both you and those who praise you suspicious of this harmful error, yes, I have insulted your name and office with such an impudent lie, because I know very well that you would have a completely different opinion.
6th 'This is about the sum of your accusation against me, and that in your own words, on which you are so defiant that you have no hesitation in crying out to all righteous people that I am an impostor, and cutting off all hearing from me by writing that it is ridiculous to excuse yourself in this; by which you do almost exactly as the Jews do with Pilato, namely, that you ask that I be condemned without responsibility, merely on your word. But you should not be so presumptuous in your cause. You are a human being. If you had approached me secretly, as is only fair, I would soon have refrained from such bold accusations and, if you had come under suspicion for the sake of my writings, I would have helped you out in a better way. You have truly acted here out of the instinct of the flesh and not of love.
(7) But hear at least now, because you want to be both plaintiff and judge at the same time. But if you do not feel like it, let the Christians hear.
8) First of all, 1) I wish that the earth devours me and that Christ will not be merciful to me, if I have acted with a different sense or opinion, both of the Lord's Supper and of other things that I have written in this work of the Psalms, than that the true, honest understanding of both the Psalms and other doctrines of the Christian faith, which may have been subverted, should be presented to our Germans for the edification of faith and love. And I will lose my head if either you, my Pomeranus, or someone else can prove from what I have written in the same work, or otherwise, that this is otherwise, that is, that I have tinkered with something that conflicts with Christ's teaching in such a work.
(9) After this, the opinion (denying that when believers eat the bread of Christ, they eat his true body, and when they drink the cup of Christ, they drink his true blood) is nowhere found in the same whole work, and I have not spoken of the Lord's Supper in any other way than you yourselves have written in Latin. I say in clear words: that the believers truly eat Christ's flesh and drink the blood, but by faith; that it happens bodily I do not deny, as you have not affirmed it in Latin. For so you wrote, after you had spoken of the spiritual food in a very godly way.
tet: But the outward sacrament of bread and wine, or of the body and blood of Christ, is to this (namely, the spiritual food of Christ) merely a sign, which, without it, one receives unworthily for judgment. Therefore, I think that the outward sacrament of the evening meal should be taught or written without the aforementioned (which is taken away from our eyes into heaven, but is still present with its power at all times with those who fear God), so that it does not seem as if we were accepting a sacrament without faith. These are your words.
(10) Now if I have added anything to the Psalter that is contrary to this, I will gladly be called a falsarius (or falsifier). Only I have added about the worship of Christ in the bread: that even if it were free, it would not serve for edification, because, without the word of God, it was brought on the path by superstition, and therefore one must unlearn it. In that I, as I live (dispeream si)! I am surprised how you could have dared to attack me with such false blasphemy and say: that I, under your name, have hung an opinion on the world, denying that believers eat the true body of Christ; which words you will find neither in this Psalter, nor anywhere else in my writings, as my protective letter to Brenz, my preface to the fourth part of Luther's Postilion, and my commentaries on the three evangelists Matthew, Marcus, and Lucas show.
(11) But perhaps I should not have added the above against worship? Answer: Why then did you allow your then highly learned Bucer (for that is how you wrote to me, who does not like to know about such things) to freely move, change, add and subtract everything, to put it in a different order, to put some things in their right place, to translate others more clearly or differently, so that it would not become both your Psalter and mine? you allowed everything to happen that I believed would be convenient for un-German. These are your words. This is the law of the translation, which you have prescribed for me, whether you write in this your accusation, I do not know with what conscience (or forehead): as if I did not prescribe my thoughts, according to which he would have to act? Where are then the same thoughts, since you had allowed me everything, which I would only find useful for the Germans? But I will have my head taken away, as I have said, where you prove that I have added something harmful.
(12) See, then, with what justification you attribute forgery to me, as if I had mixed my thing treacherously into your work; this could not be attributed to me, even if I had put in much that differed from your opinion, after you had wished that it should be more my work than yours. If it were both my book and yours, why would I not have been allowed to write in my book what the Lord had revealed to me and what I had found good for the Germans?
13. Moreover, I have testified in my preface that I would have used the permission you gave me, but in such a way that I did not pass by what is yours, which serves me for the right understanding of the Psalms; and this precedes yours as well as Luther's and Philip's (preface); Therefore I have given out what is found only in this case, both in my name and yours, and therefore you would not have needed to make any noise at all if there were already something against your opinion of the Lord's Supper in the Psalter, as you have believed a hypocrite, since you should have read and considered the place yourself. For since I had testified at the very beginning of the work that I had used the liberty given me by you, and thus changed, added to and removed from it etc. (which is indicated by the words: according to which I have thus kept myself etc., but not as you gave them [Latin]: according to which I have kept myself etc.): who would have been so imprudent as not to have attributed this to me rather than to you, who, as you say, have long since made it known to the world in the most certain way that you are straightforwardly against us in the matter of the Lord's Supper, whether it is in fact only a dispute over words?
(14) So you were vainly concerned about your honor and yours, and trusted the brother of Augsburg (who is more of a screamer than a Christian, for I know the man) too much without cause, and so did not find Satan, the father of lies, deceitful here, that he wanted to make the world believe through me that you were of the same opinion with us. For he knows well how unpleasant you are, and that he could not have hoped that you would have taken it upon yourselves, if you had not previously attacked us in this way; which all enemies know, that you are handing us over to the devil, let alone that you should keep it up with us. If you have so diligently put on this, then in truth it is your bad mind, or senseless rage of the affections in this, or both with each other, that are to be deplored. But if you act only as an orator, then it is to be regretted that you have not done this.
Gospel that we preach, which is greatly blasphemed when you go off on us like this, not to mention that you disregard love like this.
(15) Finally, you should know that I am never of the kind (which is known to those who either read or hear me preach, or look at my writings, and especially what I have testified to in my preface above) that I seek to obtain and kindle a light for the word of God from your or any man's vapor; and so I have neither used nor sought, as you say, such begged and stubbed testimonies. I write both in the preface of the Psalms and in other places that no one should rely on your or anyone else's reputation or be attached to it. I say that neither you nor anyone else has seen everything; therefore I exhort that each one invoke the Holy Spirit and see for himself what God teaches him. And you may suppose that with your name's obscurity I would have wanted to explain the truth of God that we teach about Holy Communion? We know, my Pomeranus, that it is not only ungodly, but also a foolish thing to want to praise the truth of God with the veneer of a human name. So you see, or where you cannot, all Christians, how ridiculous all my excuses come out against your claims.
16 I have written about the Lord's Supper in Psalm 3 on the same occasion as you, which is not at all contrary to your opinion; I have written it with the purpose and intention of glorifying the glory of God; where it is otherwise, I will perish. I have written such things that if you can prove it to be something ungodly, I will forfeit the head. I have written it about a book that is both mine and yours; I have let it go out under my name as well as yours; I have been ready to testify it before the world, if only you had reminded me. Yes, I confess (which I can prove with many credible and honest witnesses), since your letter to Hess went out, which is quite indecent to you, I intended to testify at the end of the book (for what I wrote about Ps. 3 was out before your letter arrived with me): that I would not agree with you about the Lord's Supper, that it did not seem as if, because I had only thought of the spiritual meal of Christ with you, I had cunningly concealed the bodily. But to please the printer, since what I wrote was not much different from what you wrote, I omitted it, hoping that if anything were offensive to you, such as that about the worship of bread, you would report it to me, and then there would be time enough for me to do so.
The churches should be informed of such disagreement (or difference).
(17) So I hope it will be clear to all righteous people that you are falsely accusing me of the vice of forgery (and fraud).
18 Now I come to the other things, but with little, because I have already refuted such things in other writings and above in the protective writing to Luther, also Zwingli and Oecolampadius have long since done the same, if one would only read it.
(19) You blame us: we taught things about the Lord's Supper so that we ourselves could not calm our consciences, as our books showed; so we annoyed many, hindered the gospel, and caused some to abandon more important things and to get involved only in this sacramentalism. But you should know, my Pomeranus, that nothing separated us from your doctrine (from which we certainly did not like to depart, because in doing so we would not only have kept you as friends, but would also have drawn less cross from the world and the army of the Antichrist), but because it was uncertain, and we could not be assured of it from the word of God. For from which Scripture can you prove that to the words: "This is my body", one must add: bodily; or also your foggy speech, since you say by a change of name (metonym.) instead of what Christ said: "This is my body",: "In this is my body"? And what Scripture can assure us that if the words of Christ are recited over the bread, something will really (or truly) be changed in the bread?
020 Now what is there uncertain, if we teach the Christians, when they take supper, and recite what Christ said to his disciples in the same last supper, "Take, eat, this is my body," etc.., that they should not doubt that this was also said to them, and that the body and blood of Christ were given to them for their redemption; which, if they believed it, they would truly be fed with the body and blood of the Lord, and strengthened to all godliness, and so be truly thankful and righteously praise that Christ also died for them? But there is more about this in the preface above and in the protective writing against Luther, as well as more completely in Zwingli's and Oecolampad's books, which show to those who are not as enchanted by Luther's name as you are, quite another thing than you, namely that we are completely certain of what we teach here.
21. and as modestly as it has been presented, it would be, if you did not go against it like this.
Do not anger the weak at all, nor hinder the gospel. It is not the truth of Christ, but such anger of the people, and the enmity and division against all love, even against human evidence, which you have stirred up without any cause, and which you keep because of it, that cause trouble, hinder the gospel, and have forced many who would have liked to write something different and better to write and teach about the Lord's Supper. But who would suffer that he was of the devil? Who should keep silent that he should not find faith, even if he teaches Christ in the clearest way? Which some of you are endeavoring to do with Luther, and may swear that no worse heretics have ever risen than we. What others do, I do not know; but we certainly speak very little of this matter in the church, and keep silent, as much as possible, of your blasphemies, and only always diligently preach Christ, and that crucified.
(22) You are also surprised that if we wanted to give one thing to the other part, we would say that the ancients also had our opinion. But I am surprised that you do not believe that we speak the certain truth in this. For since you draw for yourselves from Tertullian: Our flesh eats the body and blood of Christ, that the soul also may be fed with God, I see that you have not yet come to understand the words of the fathers. He explains these words, "This is my body," in another way, and concludes that the bread is a figure (or image) of the true body, that Christ had a true body. That he now here also proves the honor (or preference) of our flesh, he emphasizes in the best way what the body has to enjoy, and in doing so takes the liberty of using the fanciful form of speech that Christ also used. For, beloved, does not the soul eat much more than the body the body and blood of Christ? or is the body and blood of the Lord really food for the flesh, that it may go down into the belly (the other would be blasphemy) or 1) is the soul rather to be made fat by God? What will you rightly understand in the fathers, if you do not see that this is spoken in a blurred way? It would be desirable for you and most others not to hold Luther so high as to despise all others because of it. You should rather ask the Spirit of the Lord yourselves, and judge everything according to the similarity of faith. If you did that, the truth of the Lord would not seem so strange to you.
1) ot must probably mean aut. (Walch.)
ken. But I hope the Lord will let these scales fall from your and other people's eyes one day.
23 Finally, I exhort you to consider what you have written of the Psalms in this accusation of mine: You command that the sellers and buyers be confident, and not fear that you would improve your Psalter; and say, as much as is in you, let it remain as it began, that it may be a memorial of the peculiar gift of God, which he gave you, without another instructor to penetrate to the end of the Psalms. How does all this taste, my dear Pomeranus, so like self-love and disregard for the integrity of Scripture! How? shall we not fear that you improve the Psalter, in which you have lacked right understanding in so many places? Would we then rather have so little money, for which we would have to buy the same improved work, as you will, than that we should buy the interpretation of the Psalms improved? But how thoughtlessly did you not also write in it: let the Psalter, as much as is in you, remain as it came out at the beginning, so that it may be a monument to the glorious gift through which it was given to you to penetrate to the end of the Psalms without instructions. Dear Bugenhagen, Lyra and other clumsy writers have also penetrated to the end of the Psalms. In the copy you sent me, you have improved many things with your own hand, and thus recognized that it would be your work if the Psalms' meaning were wrong; should these also be God's gifts? Rather, improve the work and do your part, so that the church of God may read what is truly God's gift.
24. Luther makes it clear that those who are otherwise correct in other matters of faith, and only cannot bring out the right understanding of the words of the Lord's Supper or any other part of Scripture, should by no means be cast out, because they do not lose their faith because of this, that we have made a mockery of Christ and have never recognized or taught him in earnest; and he pronounces the judgment that he who does not accept or grasp his words in their right understanding blasphemes Christ and ascribes falsehood and lies to him. You, however, who have not interpreted so many passages of the holy Psalms, which are certainly the words of God, in their right sense, consider it to be such a small thing that, since you have let much of your German go out in print in an improved form, you deny that you want to do the same in Latin.
(25) Nor is it fitting for you to write that you do not want to change anything in the work of the Psalms, even in defiance of those who want to be masters of another's book, only to find something to blame in it that you do not want to believe etc. These are your words. But will you not accept it if someone shows you a better one? Or should the churches of God rather read your dreams instead of the word of God because of a somewhat harsh reminder (from others)? Where is St. Peter's word, that whoever speaks, that is, as you write, has the teaching office upon him, should be sure that he speaks only God's words? But now you are sure that you speak human things and things that do not belong to Psalms, that is why you also changed many things in the book sent to me with your own hand: why then do you not want to change such things in Latin?
How childish is not also that which you write: But (such masters) may rather themselves first interpret a prophet from those who are not yet interpreted, that we may see their art (or mastery)! So shall we, on your admonition, interpret prophets to show our art? Ah! my dear Pomerane, what are we when it comes down to you? Oecolampadius has long since written on Isaiah, only recently on the last three minor prophets, as they are called; Capito on Habakkuk, not alone before Luther, but what is also read with to Luther's explanation not without benefit, and ultimately on Jonah, Malachi and Hosea. And there would be more of the like, which both you and your kind could read with benefit, if the men of God could come to it before your blaspheming and reviling.
27. How much I wish that you would recognize what you already recognize, as you write; Namely, how poor you and all men are, and so each one would remain within his limits, and would have enough of what he thinks God has revealed to him, to have modestly and honestly presented to the churches the opposite, or what is contrary to it, and then to leave the judgment of it to those who sit there, but otherwise to be idle of the terrible invectives, of which we find nothing in Paul and other saints. For in this way there would be less quarreling.
ger, and be much more thorough science of the Scriptures.
28 I therefore exhort and beseech you to look within yourselves, and examine your own, ours, and all things according to the word of God, and to strive and strive only against that which overthrows faith in Christ and love. If any man fall short of the right understanding in the Scriptures, remind him, but with sincerity, and be reminded again; and where ye see that ye fall short, let it not offend you to make it known unto the churches. The pearl of God's word must be dearer to us than that we should knowingly offer it to the churches stained with the dregs of our dreams, or, if it is shown to us, that we should not wipe it off.
(29) And if anyone provides it for you, do not be judges yourselves, and do not accuse him so harshly before the churches before you have addressed and admonished him especially for this reason. We are also Christ's and seek his glory. May He grant us to be like-minded in Him, and to preach His word also in One Spirit!
(30) Be well in it, and give me credit for having apologized honestly and kindly to the churches, whom you had accused dishonestly and unkindly. May the Lord forgive you, for you did not know what you had done. Strasbourg, March 25 [1527].
E. How Urbanus Rhegius sided with Zwingli and Oecolampad in 1527, but soon adopted Luther's opinion.
Luther's report to Spalatin about how Urban Rhegius threatened to write against him and did not want to offend Oecolampadius and Zwingli.
See below in Appendix No. 1.
18 Luther's report to Wenceslaus Link about how Urban Rhegius had turned back and was now bravely fighting with him against the Sacramentirans.
See Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 1532, ß 1.