Mid-February 1520.
To any devout Christian to whom this booklet comes, I offer Martinus Luther, Augustinian, Doctor 2c., my poor fortune and all blessedness in Christ our Lord.
(1) A note has gone out under the name and title of the most reverend in God Father and Lord, Bishop of Meissen, but only under the official's seal at Stolpen, commanding that my sermon on the Holy Sacrament be repealed and enclosed, for many reasons, as it reads 2) especially that I wrote: It seems fine and good to me, if by a common Christian concilium it were decreed that both forms of the sacrament should be administered to everyone; and that the same should be the-
2) namely, the Zettel. In the editions "she" is written instead of "he", because "the Zeddel" is female in Luther.
Because they do not like to reproach as heretical nor erroneous in the Christian faith, as they would like to do, they do not like to hide the miserable envy and hatred, and invent a new dream, that it is annoying, seditious, sacrilegious, written in a presumptuous way. For whoever wants to be a devout Christian in our times must be forbidden by these new teachers to reject, deny and blaspheme even those things which they themselves must confess to be neither heretical nor erroneous. Such time shall have such teachers.
2. although I know, and consider it certain, that the same reverend in God father and lord of Meissen is much too learned and pious, that he should let such unfounded, insulting and malicious writing, sealed with many public lies and blasphemies, go out of knowledge and will; and I would also not be interested in it, it should be put up, put down, and put down.
*Luther completed this writing on Feb. 7, 1520, and already on Feb. 16 a printed copy came into Miltitz's hands. In the Erlangen edition four individual editions are given, all without place, time and name of the printer. In the German collective editions, this answer is found: in the Wittenberg (1554), vol. VII, p. 25; in the Jena (1564), vol. I, p. 218; in the Altenburg, vol. I, p. 346; in the Leipzig, vol. XVII, p. 286 and in the Erlangen, vol. 27, p. 77. We give the text according to the Jena edition with comparison to the Wittenberg. The text of the Erlangen edition seems to us to be from a corrumpirte reprint.
tear down, tear up or keep this and all my other writings, whoever would do it or leave it. The judge is not far away. It is not strange to me that the truth is rejected, mostly by those who are its own and boast of it, because Christ, the truth itself, had to be killed by his own people. But for the salvation of the truth, as much as I have in me, I am obliged to warn every Christian man against the poisonous, treacherous tongues, especially those which may adorn themselves under such a great and pious prelate's name; and will also herewith humbly excuse and undress the same my gracious Lord and Father 1).
3) First of all, the highly learned master of this note confesses and must confess that I have not taught that one should serve both forms, whether it seems good to me or not; for I have not set my own opinion as a rule or doctrine for anyone: but with expressed words I have preferred a common Christian concilium, where the same would prescribe such, so that then both forms would be served obediently, according to the same concilii order. Since this master of the notes himself has no other reason for his opinion in this case than the order of a concilii, I would like to receive instruction from his groundless wisdom, why his concilii order is better, and my concilii order annoying? Or who allowed him to confirm one Concilii order and to condemn and blaspheme the other? Therefore, I hereby ask him to write another time on the sober morning notes, and not fence against me by order of one Concilii, which he imposes on me by another Concilii 2) [order] for annoyance, sedition, discord, so that I do not have to suspect that he has lost his brain in the Kötzschberg 3), and does not know himself what he is saying.
1) d. i. excluded.
2) The words: "so er mir durch eines andern Concilii" we have inserted from the Wittenberg edition. In the Erlangen edition meaningless: "by order of a concilii order."
3) Marginal gloss in the Jena and Wittenberg editions: "Kötzschberger Wein." The Erlangen edition offers the reading "Gecksberg."
Nor is this a small diminution of his own authority, indeed, a great abrogation of Roman authority, and strength of Bohemian ambivalence, that the poor, bare, naked Zetteler imposes nothing else on his cause than the last Roman Council, which is not yet ten years old, has been considered by many in Rome itself to be nothing, and has also gained little honor in German and all countries. So much so that I doubt very much whether this scribbler has done such a thing, to the honor of the Bohemians and to the shame of the Roman See, willfully or unknowingly. And even though the same council stands strong, this wretched tittle-tattle gives the Bohemians right from a hundred years ago to the same council. Should not such a holy teacher in such a great matter indicate, either Scripture or some other reason, so that the Bohemian error would have been criminal not only in these ten years through a new Council, but from the beginning a hundred years ago?
I am annoyed that such people want to write against Bohemian error, and do not think that there are also people on the other side of the mountain; but with their childish chatter they make the Bohemians stiff-necked and our group contemptuous. And if I myself were a Bohemian, so such lazy and unhappy grimaces 4) would be presented to me, under such a great name, how would I like to do to him, I could not leave that, I thought the Germans would be drunk, as one blames us. I also think that such notes are considered especially to Rome and by all reason more foolish than foolish.
(6) After this, he cites the saying of Scripture that it is better to obey than to sacrifice [1 Sam. 15:22], therefore only one form should be given according to the order of the concilii. I also praise the same obedience, and have never said anything against it; but it pities me that we build obedience on our fur sleeves by such stumbling blocks, and make a carnival play of ourselves for our adversaries, the Bohemians. For the Bohemians also use the same slogan against us, and more strongly than we, and reproach us as the disobedient ones.
4) i.e. antics, silly talk.
The two figures of Christ are arranged in the gospel. But I notice that this master wants to teach us to fence in such a way that we give the sword into the hands of the Bohemians and strike the blows with bare heads. I have also written against the Bohemians and am still willing to write; but the fine scribbler falls into my work and bogs it down with each other.
(7) But it pleases me that he commands and teaches that one should be content with one form and firmly believe that Christ is not piecemeal, but wholly and completely under each form of the sacrament. This I also believe, and also ask everyone to believe this note, and is also not different in my sermon. But see, how denouncing and cautious Junker Neidhard is. Who has ever doubted that Christ is whole under any form? Which Bohemians have ever believed or said otherwise? Or against which enemies does this undaunted scribbler fight so diligently with so many useless words? Who could not become a knight in such a quarrel, since no enemies are not, and the iron eaters fence so manly with their own dreams? Indeed, it would have been a pity, where the note would have gone out at the other, because carnival time.
8 But do you want to know why he takes such great care to teach this? listen to me. He could not publicly call me a heretic, because he did not like to prove it, and yet he wants to bring it across. His love has been advised, among other things, of my blasphemy and disgrace, to introduce such a point, so that whoever reads it should think that I, Luther, teach much differently than this disparaging note, and the simple-minded man, poisoned by such a treacherous sting, should say: O woe, does Doctor Luther not think that Christ is completely under both forms; now he must truly be a heretic: O to the fire, to the fire.
9 Caiaphas also poisoned the people against Christ [Matth. 26, 65]. For this scribbler seeks to strengthen the poor people's suspicion of me, his artless envy. But he has reserved an excuse for him, so that he can say that he did not mean it like the prostitute, Proverbs 30:20, when she
When she had killed a lot of them, "she wiped her mouth and said: I have done nothing wrong." So does my scribbler, who desires of me with many of his peers that I should write clear, correct, plain words. That I also refrained from doing, and was much too clear to them; but they have the freedom to grind wash blisters, and with assassins to make the poison [into] honey.
(10) It is true that I have said that the sacrament would not be given piecemeal; the master of the paper, like everyone else, has well understood that it is not said of Christ's body, but of the form of bread and wine. That must draw his love from the right mind, where he wanted to go, and does not want to be a liar nor blasphemer. For he himself must confess that both forms are a whole sacrament, and although he receives the whole of Christ, he takes only a part of the whole sacrament, that is, only one form of the two. But if he has not understood this, he should have gone to school and learned what it means to give the sacrament in pieces and the body of Christ in pieces, which are more differentiated than going out and coming down, and should not drive his mad mind into the poor people under such a bishop's name.
Summa Summarum, dear Neidhard, if it is possible for you, then change. If you do not change, then do what you want, I do not respect you. You are too small for me, God wills it; if you take away my body and my honor, you will let Christ remain with me. But I am not hostile to you, I can credit you with such a blasphemous note, considering your pious nature and good opinion.
12 For just as your comrades were accustomed to drive poor people around and to torment them with bannsheets, and also to rebuke married women innocently, thereby causing lamentable discord and often murder in the marital state, and they could not protect themselves from their violence and outrage; so, according to the same simple-minded opinion, you also hoped to find Doctor Luther, according to your will, without protection and answer to your murderous, secret, poisonous cue and blasphemy. But now that you have failed, so that you do not yet despair, I have given you my faithful counsel, and
think that you have more help; for that, since you have no brain at all, I will show it to you.
The first, that you drop the main matter and, as you began, change to the bishop of Meissen's person and name, complaining with a great cry that Doctor Luther is proud and hopeful, that he has written against great prelates; and see to it that you do not say that he alone has written against you, Neidhard. Also keep silent about all the causes of his writing. For if you had the bishop's persons and names torn from you and told the matter, you would not long be playing the carnival game, but would be seen before everyone as a shameful, evil Neidhard.
14 Or, if that is not enough, remember what your Cologne people did with Doctor Reuchlin: burn his books and say no more.
for they are false, and do not go to the trouble of proving the same, but you might 1) fail. For where one cannot resist the clear truth and yet does not like it, fire is the best patron against books, and death against poets. By such means you might truly be considered more learned than Doctor Luther, since your breath almost stinks. Just as the cook is much more learned than the coals and wood he burns; so you too, just burn, then you are already the most respectable, most learned doctor and have resolved all arguments with short effort. Herewith go, dear Neidhard, and if you purr and purr a lot, then remember, there are some who give nothing for it.
1) i.e. again.