Their foolishness will be revealed to everyone,
2 Tim. 3:9.2 )
1. walt's god and our dear lord jesus christ. There is a new continuation. I had almost laid myself down to rest, and thought it was all over: so it lifts up first of all, and goes to me as the wise man says [Sir. 18:6]: "When a man ceases, he must lift up."
2) Doctor Andreas Carlstadt has fallen away from us and has become our worst enemy. Christ does not want to frighten us, and give us his mind and courage, so that we do not 3) err or despair before Satan, who pretends that he wants to justify the sacrament, but has a very different thing in mind, i.e., the sacrament.
2) This motto is on the title of all single editions of both the first and the other part of this writing.
3) So the Wittenberg and the Jena, "yes" is missing in the Erlanger.
The first step is to corrupt the whole teaching of the Gospel, which he has not yet been able to deaf by force, with a cunning action of the Scriptures.
Now I have proclaimed it, and my prophecy will come true (I am worried) that God will visit our ingratitude and strike down the truth, as Daniel says [Dan. 8, 12], because we persecute them and do not accept that we must have vain error and false spirits and prophets again, some of which have now been present for three years; by His grace they have been prevented 4) until now, otherwise they would have broken down long ago. Whether he will continue to endure, I do not know, because no one cares, no one prays for it, and all are safe, as if the devil were asleep, who nevertheless walks around like a fierce lion [1 Petr. 5:8]. Although I hope that there will be no need for it in my life. Therefore, as long as I live, I will resist,
4) "they" is missing in the Erlanger.
*) This writing appeared in many single editions at Wittenberg, at Strasbourg, at Basel in the time indicated by us, also without indication of time and place. In no single edition is the name of the printer given. I" the collections: Wittenberg (1551), vol. II, p. 11b; Jena (1556), vol. Ill, p. 41b; in the Altenburg, vol. Ill, p. 40; in the Leipzig, vol. XIX, p. 156 and in the Erlangen, vol. 29, p. 136. We give the text according to the Jena, comparing the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions.
as God gives me, let it help whom it can help. And this is my sincere and faithful warning and admonition:
First, that everyone with all earnestness pray to God for right understanding and for His holy pure word, considering that under such a powerful prince and god of this world, the devil, it is not at all in our power to preserve neither faith nor God's word, but there must be divine power alone to protect it, as the 12th Psalm [vv. 7-9] prays very finely and says: "The words of God are pure, purified sevenfold. Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve 1) them, and keep us from this generation for ever. For the wicked are around and around, where the loose people arise." If we presume to have it, and care not how we keep it, it is soon lost.
(5) Secondly, that we also do our diligence and do not let our eyes slumber, but be steadfast, for God's grace nevertheless always keeps us stiff above the world, so that he does not allow any false prophet to do anything other than outward things, such as works and subtle pointed feet of outward things. No one takes on faith and a good conscience before God, but only what glitters and shines before reason and the world. Just as the Arians had a subtle appearance before reason, since they claimed that God was only One Person, the Father, but the Son and the Holy Spirit were not true God.
Item 6: The Jews and Pelagians found it gentle and easy to believe that works without grace made one pious; and under the papacy it was sweet to say that free will also had something to do with grace. Therefore, because it is in accordance with reason, it is well to say that in the sacrament there is bad bread and wine; who cannot believe this? 3) If it were admitted to the Jews today that Christ was a pure man, I think they would be easily converted.
(7) Now then, let us be diligent to separate far from each other the two doctrines: one that teaches of the principal things, the spiritual, and the spiritual of the other.
1) In the German Bible: "wollest".
2) Walch and the Erlanger: wiire.
3) Walch and the Erlanger: one still.
know how to rule in the spirit before God; the other, which teaches about outward things or works; for it depends more on the teaching of faith and a good conscience than on the teaching of good works. Since, although works are lacking, there is help and counsel 4) that one can do them where the doctrine of faith remains firm and pure. But where the doctrine of faith is set aside and works are brought forth, there can be no good, neither counsel nor help, unless the works bring vain honor with them and want to be something great in the sight of men; so God's honor perishes.
8) Just as these ambitious prophets do, who do nothing but storm images, break churches. They do not master the sacrament and seek a new way of mortificationis, that is, self-chosen killing of the flesh. They have also never yet taught the doctrine of faith, never taught how to raise consciences, which is the most noble and necessary thing in Christian doctrine, as has been said.
(9) And if they had 5) made all things equal, that there was no image, that there was no church, that there was no one left in all the world that the flesh and blood of Christ was in the sacrament, and they were all dressed in gray peasant's skirts, 6) what would have been the result? What would they have gained by this, since they are so nearly pressing, 7) driving and hunting? If they had become Christians, where would faith and love be? Shall they come after? Why should they not go first? Glory, vain honor and a new monk's certificate would be acquired, as happens in all works, but the conscience is not helped. Such false spirits do not inquire, just as the pope does not inquire where faith or love will remain, if only the works of his obedience and law will go, there he penetrates; and if they happen, nothing has happened.
10 Because now D. Carlstadt goes the same way and among so many books does not even teach what faith and love are (yes, they speak mockingly and derisively of the same).
4) Walch and the Erlangeners: Rath da.
5) Walch and the Erlanger: it now.
6) Carlstadt walked along in such peasant clothes.
7) Erlanger: nordringen.
Let every man be warned against him, and know that he has a perverse spirit, which intends nothing 1) but to murder consciences with laws, sins, and works, and yet nothing is accomplished thereby, even if everything were done which 2) he pretends to do in all his books, mouths, and hearts, but even wicked men may do and teach all such things as he practices. Therefore there must be something higher to solve and comfort the consciences: this is the Holy Spirit, which cannot be obtained by breaking images or by any work, but only by the gospel and faith.
(11) Now, lest we open our mouths too wide, and be astonished at the art of these false spirits, and so let the right principal things pass away, and be led craftily out of the way (so that the devil may go about by these prophets), I will tell here lately the principal things of Christian doctrine, which every man ought above all things to remember and keep in mind.
The first is the law of God, which is to be preached in such a way that sin is revealed and recognized, Rom. 3:20 and 7:7, as we have often shown in our writings. But these prophets do not understand anything right about it, because this is called the law preached spiritually (as St. Paul Rom. 7, 14.3) ) and used rightly. 1 Tim. 1, 8.
13. the other, when sin has been recognized and the law has been preached so that consciences may be frightened and humbled before God's wrath, then the comforting word of the gospel and forgiveness of sins should be preached to comfort consciences again and raise them to the grace of God etc.
14. these two pieces in this 4) order teaches Christ himself Luc. 24, 47.: "One must preach repentance and forgiveness of sin in his name." "And the Spirit (He says Joh. 16, 8.) will punish the world for sin, righteousness and judgment."
1) In the issues: not.
2) Erlanger as well as Walch's old edition: that.
3) These brackets are set by us. In the old edition Walch's: "1 Timoth. on 1, 8. says", which the Erlangen edition has reprinted.
4) Walch and the Erlangeners: such.
(15) These two things are not found in these or any other false prophets, nor can they be, yet they are the most important and necessary things.
The third is now the judgment, the work to kill the old man, of which Rom. 5. 6. 7. There the works begin, the sufferings and tortures also, since we kill our flesh by our own compulsion and fasting, watch, work etc., or by other persecution and shame. These false prophets also do not do this killing rightly; for they do not accept what God inflicts on them, but what they choose themselves, wear gray skirts, want to be like farmers, and much of the fool's work.
(17) Fourth, let works of love toward one's neighbor be done with gentleness, patience, charity, teaching, help, and counsel, both spiritual and corporal, freely and in vain, as Christ has done for us. Joh. 13, 15. 34.
(18) Now the last thing is to do the law and its works, not for the Christians, but for the rude and unbelieving; for for the Christians it must be done spiritually, as it was said above, to recognize sin. But for the rough people, for Him omnes, it must also be done physically and grossly, so that they do and leave His works, and thus must be outwardly pious with compulsion under the sword and laws, as one keeps the wild animals with chains and imprisonment, so that outward peace remains among the people, for which secular authority is decreed, which God wants to have honored and feared in it. Rom. 13, 1. 1 Petr. 2, 13. 17.
19 But besides this, care must be taken that Christian liberty be preserved, and that such laws and works be not practiced upon the consciences of Christians, as if they must thereby be pious or sinful. And to this belongs the question of how to break or tolerate images, food, clothing, place, person, and all manner of outward things. etc. He who does not teach according to this order certainly does not do it right. From this you see that D. Carlstadt and his spirits put the lowest for the highest, the least for the best, the last for the first, and yet wants to be seen of all-
5) Walch and the Erlangeners: den.
supreme spirit who ate the Holy Spirit with feathers and with everything.
(20) Therefore I beseech every Christian who is entitled to us in this matter, as we dispute, to remember that we are not dealing with high things, but with the very least, and to know that the devil would gladly magnify such low things and draw the eyes of the people to himself, so that they may disregard the right, noblest things and gape at them; so that every one may know how D. Carlstadt's spirit is a false and evil spirit, so that he leaves the high, right things alone and gapes at them. Carlstadt's spirit is a false, evil spirit, which is not sufficient for him, that he so silences and leaves the high, right things, and so inflates the least things, as if the world's salvation were more important than Christ himself; but also forces us from such high, necessary things down to the little things, that we lose time with him and give way to forgetting the high things. And this is the first fruit by which this tree is known.
21 But lest there be too many books, I will answer him with this one book to all his; and because I have not yet written anything special about images, this shall be the first. Because he has started the work from his own head, he wants to mend himself afterwards and cover the shame with fig leaves.
From the iconoclasm.
22 I attacked iconoclasm by first tearing it out of the heart by the word of God and making it worthless and despised, as was done before Carlstadt dreamed of iconoclasm. For where they are from the heart, they do no harm to the eyes. But D. Carlstadt, who cares nothing for the hearts, has reversed this and torn them out of the eyes and left them in the heart. For he does not preach faith, nor can he preach it, as I only 1) unfortunately see. Which of these two storms is the best, I will let everyone judge.
23. for where hearts are taught that by faith alone one pleases God, and by images he is not pleased.
1) Walch and the Erlangeners: now first.
If the teaching of the law is not done, but is a lost service and food, the people themselves willingly fall before it, despise it, and do not let it be done. But where such teaching is omitted, and only the fist is used, nothing follows, except that those blaspheme who do not understand it, and who do it only out of compulsion of the law, as a good necessary work, and do not do it with a free conscience, but think to please God with the work. Which opinion is a true idolatry and false confidence in the heart. This is what happens through such legalism, that they outwardly remove images and set their hearts full of idols against them.
I say this so that it may be seen what kind of spirit is in Carlstadt, who blames me for wanting to protect images against God's word, and yet knows that I want to have them torn out of all hearts, despised and destroyed, without putting up with his free fist and impetuosity. If the Holy Spirit were here, he would not lie so knowingly and impudently, but would say: "Yes, dear Luther, it pleases me that you are destroying images in the heart so much; so that I will destroy them all the more easily before my eyes, and I accept your service as conducive to this. Now I shall act against God's word and protect images, who destroy them of all things by heart and inwardly, and I shall not say that he acts against God's word, who only destroys them by heart and leaves them in the heart, and sets up others beside them, namely, false trust and glory of the work.
(25) Further, I have admitted and not denied that they should also be removed externally, so far as it is done without swarming and storming by proper force. In the eyes of the world, it is called a knavery when one hides the right reason for a good thing and in the meantime broods over making a hole in it. But the fact that Carlstadt puts my spiritual and proper image abdication behind 2) and pretends that I am nothing but an image guardian, that must be a holy prophetic piece, if I resist nothing but his red, tempestuous and rapturous spirit. Because the evil spirit is so stubborn in his mind, I want to
2) In the old editions: enhinder.
I will now give way to defiance and suffering less than I did before. And I will first speak of the images according to the way of the Law of Moses, then in the evangelical way. And first say that according to the Law of Moses no other image is forbidden than God's image, which one worships. But a crucifix or any other image of a saint is not forbidden to have. Now, you iconoclasts, defy and prove it otherwise.
26] After this, the first commandment, Exodus 20:3, says, "Thou shalt not have other gods before me." After this text follows immediately, and shows and expresses what he calls other gods, and says: "Thou shalt not make any image or likeness," Ex. 20, 4. This is spoken of the same gods etc. And although our spirits dwell on the little word "make," and are always throbbing: To make, to make is another thing than to worship, yet they must let it be known that this commandment speaks in essence of nothing but God's glory. It must be made, of course, if it is to be worshipped, and unmade it is not to be worshipped. But it is not valid to pick out a word and insist on it; one must look at the opinion of the whole text as it is connected, then one sees that it speaks of God's images, which are not to be worshipped, and no one will prove otherwise from it. Therefore, in the same chapter, v. 23, it follows: "Thou shalt not make thee any gods of gold or silver," that such a making is certainly meant for the gods.
(27) For this saying, "Thou shalt have no gods," is the main saying, the measure and the goal, according to which all the words that follow are to be drawn, directed and measured; for it indicates and expresses the meaning of this commandment, namely, that there shall be no other gods. Therefore the word "make," "images," "serve," etc. and what follows must be understood no further than that no gods and idolatry come of it. Just as the word: "I am your God" [Ex. 20, 2.] is the measure and goal of everything that may be said about worship. And it would be foolish of me to include under it something that does not concern godliness or worship, as building a house, plowing etc. So also under the word "thou shalt not
The words "to have gods" can be drawn in no other way than as far as idolatry is concerned. But where images or pillars are made without idolatry, such making is not forbidden, because the main saying "you shall have no gods" remains intact.
If they do not want to let the "making" go to the images of God, as the text compels, then I also want to say that worship is not forbidden (because one clings so stiffly to the letter). For in the first commandment there is nothing about worship; so I would like to say: If you do none, let others do it; but worship is not forbidden to you. But if from other places they gloss making with worshipping, which is not in the text here, then I gloss from the same text making to the gods, as the text clearly says. Therefore we do not read any example that they were punished for images or altars without worshiping them; that also the bronze serpent of Moses remained [4 Mos. 21, 8] until Ezekia took it off only for the sake of worship [2 Kings 18, 4].
29. about this I have 3 Mos. 26, 1. a mighty saying: "I am your God, you shall not make for yourselves an idol nor an image, nor set up a mark nor a stone in your land that you worship." How now? Here, I think, he indicates enough to himself that it is a matter of worship, if he therefore bequeaths idols and painting stones, that they should not worship, without doubt, that where they do not worship, they may well set up and make, otherwise what would be the need of such an addition from worship? Therefore, in the first commandment, making must go to worship and no further. Thus also Deut. 4, 15. ff. the saying about worship is clear, since it refers to making images.
30 We also have examples of this in the Old Testament. For Joshua, Cap. 24, 26, 1) set up a painting stone under an oak tree as a witness 2) etc., but it is forbidden to set up such stones, 3 Mos. 26, 1.
1) The Erlangen edition has reprinted "25" from Walch's old edition, plus, as usual, all of Walch's erroneous biblical citations in this writing, twenty-six in number. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 885, note 2; vol. XIX, 240, note 2; Col. 617, note; Col. 676, note 2; Col. 768; Col. 820, note 1 etc.; vol. XXII, Introduction, p. 38 f.
2) Walch and the Erlangers: Signs.
were higher than the images. But because it was a stone of testimony and not for worship, it did not violate the commandment. Accordingly, Samuel, 1 Sam. 7, 12, set up a stone and called it a helper stone. This was also forbidden, as has been said, but because no worship but only remembrance was sought there, he did no sin.
031 But concerning all these things, Joshua 22:10, the children of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, made a great altar by Jordan; and all Israel were afraid, and sent messengers thither in earnest, as though an altar had been set up contrary to the commandment of God: for it was forbidden. But behold, how they apologized. The altar remained standing, because they heard that it was not for worship or sacrifice, but for a memorial. But if it had been wrong to make an altar, and if God's commandment was to be understood so rigidly as "to make," they should have burned the altar to powder; otherwise they would not have escaped the sin, as they pretended. Now making altars is forbidden as hard as making images. If one can make and erect altars and special stones, so that God's commandment nevertheless remains, because the worship remains, then also my iconoclasts will have to leave me a crucifix or Mary's image, yes, also an image of Abgot, even according to the strictest law of Moses, that I wear it or look at it, as far as I do not worship it, but have a memory.
32 But I wonder at these Jewish saints, who cling so stiffly to the law of Moses and rage against the images, how they do with florins and jewels, since images stand up? For I hear that they have many florins and jewels; so they coin St. Joachim into pennies in Jáchymov. It would be my advice to help the great saints from their sins and take away their gold and silver pennies and cups. For even if they are hostile to the images, it is to be feared that they are not yet so far removed from them, nor have they come into study and wonder and sprinkling, 1) that they could throw them away from themselves. Also, 2) perhaps
1) Here Luther mocks the mystical, often senseless jargon that Carlstadt and his followers used. Cf. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 310, the notes.
2) "is" is missing in the Erlanger.
mankind is still so weak that even the living voice from heaven is not enough, but good strong fellows who otherwise would not have much to consume.
33) There is also another fault with these iconoclasts, 3) that they themselves fall without order and do not drive with proper force, as their prophets stand, shout and incite the mob and say: Hit, 4) hit, tear, bite, throw, break, stab, kick, throw, strike the idols in the mouth; if you see a crucifix, spit it in the face etc. This means that Carlstadt has removed the images, yes, to make the rabble mad and foolish and secretly accustom them to rebellion, who then plump into the work, think that they are now great saints, become so proud and insolent that it is beyond measure; and if one looks at it in the light, it is a law work, done without spirit and faith, and yet makes a hope in the heart, as if they were something special before God through such work. This is then actually called work and free will taught.
34 We read in Moses, 2 Mos. 18, 21. ff., that he first appointed princes, officials and secular authorities before he gave the law, and teaches in many places: All things should be heard, judged and punished with justice, witnesses and in an orderly manner.
35) What else should the judges and overlords in the country do to us? My Carlstadt always skips this piece very finely, and what Moses teaches, he points to the disorderly mob, and teaches them to fall into it without any order, like swine. This is and is called a red, rebellious spirit, which despises the authorities, and freely goes about itself as if they were masters of the land and of the law. If one allows the mob to storm the churches without authority, one must also allow each one to lead and kill the adulterers, murderers, and the disobedient etc. For God has given the same authority to the people of Israel to kill, as to destroy the images. I,
3) In the old editions: "with these iconoclasts"; Erlanger: "with this iconoclasts". Perhaps it should be read: "with these iconoclasts".
4) Erlanger: "ha". In the old editions: "Haw", i.e. "hau".
5) "us" is missing in the Erlanger.
What a fine being and regiment that would become! That is why I said that D. Carlstadt is not a murderous prophet; but he has a rebellious, murderous, red spirit with him, which would probably lead out if he had room.
36 Therefore we read in the Old Testament, where images or idols were destroyed, that not the mob but the authorities did the work. In the same way Jacob buried the idols of his servants [Gen. 35:4]. Thus Gideon broke the altar of Baal, when he was demanded by God to be the prince [Gen. 6:27]. So Jehu the king (not the mob) broke the Baal of Ahab [2 Kings 10:26 ff]. So did Ezechia with the brazen serpent [2 Kings 18:4]. Item, Josiah with the altars at Bethel [2 Kings 23:15]. It is clear that where God calls the community to do something and calls the people, he does not want it to be done by the mob without authority, but by the authority with the people, so that the dog does not learn to eat the leather on the straps, that is, to get used to the images to rot, even against the authority. One must not paint the devil over the door.
Now that we are among our rulers, lords and emperors, and must live by their laws outwardly instead of Mosiah's law, we shall be silent and humbly ask them to put away such images. Where they will not, we have nevertheless the word of God, that we may cast them out of the heart, until they also be put away outwardly with the fist by those who are due. But when these prophets hear such things, they must be called papist and hypocritical to the princes. But that they awaken the disorderly rabble and make them red, that is not called hypocritical. For it should not be called hypocritical before we teach the rabble to kill princes and lords. But whether I am papist and the princes hypocrites, let the pope and princes themselves be more honest witnesses to me than this lying spirit that speaks, that he knows well that it is known otherwise before all the world.
(38) Let this be said of images according to the strictness of the Law of Moses; not that I mean to defend images, as has been sufficiently said, but that murderous spirits are not to be allowed to commit sin.
and make consciences where there is none, and murder souls without need. For though imagery is an outwardly small thing, yet if by it, as by the law of God, the consciences are burdened with sins, it becomes the very highest. For it corrupts the faith, profanes Christ's blood, condemns the gospel, and nullifies all that Christ has purchased for us. That this abomination of Carlstadt is nothing less to disturb Christ's kingdom and good conscience than the papacy has been with its prohibition of food and marriage, and what else was without sin and free. For eating and drinking is also a small outward thing, but it murders the soul if one entangles the conscience with it.
39 From this now notice which of us teaches the most Christian 1). I want to have the consciences and souls free and clear of sins, which is a right spiritual evangelical preaching ministry; so I want to catch Carlstadt with laws and burden him with sins without any cause. And yet he does the same not with God's law, but with his own conceit and iniquity, that he is not only far from the gospel, but also not yet a Mosaic teacher, and yet always praises God's word, God's word; just as if it were God's word so soon that one can say God's word. As there is generally nothing behind those who make much boasting of God's word, as unfortunately our papal tyrants have also gone along with us so far.
(40) But to speak of the images evangelically, I say and state that no one is guilty of breaking God's images with his fist, but is all free and does not sin, whether he does not break them with his fist. But he is guilty of breaking with the word of God, that is, not with the law of Carlstadt, but with the gospel, so that he instructs and enlightens the consciences how it is idolatry to worship them or to rely on them, because one should rely on Christ alone. Then he let them go outwardly, God granting that they are broken, fall apart or remain standing,
1) Walch and the Erlanger: allerchristlichsten.
This is of equal importance to him and is none of his business, just as if the poison had been taken from the snake.
41 I say this once again to keep the consciences free from sacrilegious laws and invented sins, and not because I want to defend the 1) images or judge those who break them, especially those who break God's and worshipful images. For the memorial images or witness images, as the crucifixes and images of saints are, is proven above from 2) Moses, that they are to be tolerated, also in the law, and not only to be tolerated, but, because the memory and witness lasts, also praiseworthy and honest, like the painting stone of Joshua, 24, 27, and Samuel, 1 Sam. 7, 12.
42) As if the images to the oak, in the Grimmenthal, to the pear tree, and where such runnings are more to the images (which are then right idolatrous images, and the devil's hostel), were broken, destroyed, is praiseworthy and good. But that those who do not break them should sin, is taught too much and the Christians are driven too far, who do enough with it, that they fight and argue against it with the word of God.
043 And sayest thou, Yea, because they stand still, yet some are offended at them, and run? Answer, what can I do? I, who am a Christian, have no authority on earth. Set up a preacher to turn the people away, or make it be done in an orderly way, not with swarms and storms.
44 Let us go to the right reason and say that these teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets should not make us swear to Moses; we do not want to see or hear Moses. How do you like that, dear red spirits? And say further that all such Mosaic teachers deny the gospel, cast out Christ, and abrogate the whole New Testament. I speak now as a Christian and for the Christians. For Moses was given to the Jewish people alone, and is of no concern to us Gentiles and Christians. We have our Gospel and the New Testament;
1) "the" is missing in the Jena.
2) Walch and the Erlangeners: also from.
3) In the Wittenberg and the Jena: "so far"; in Walch and in the Erlanger: "too far".
If they prove from the 4) that images are to be destroyed, we will gladly follow them. But if they want to make Jews out of us through Moses, we will not suffer it.
How do you think? What do you want to become here? That it may be seen how these fools understand nothing in the Scriptures, neither Moses nor Christ, and neither seek nor find anything in them but their own dreams. And we lay the foundation here from St. Paul, 1 Tim. 1, 9: "To the righteous (as a Christian is) no law is given." And Peter, Apost. 15, 10.: "Why do you tempt God to lay upon the disciples burdens which neither we nor our fathers might bear? But believe me, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, to be saved in like manner as they also." With this saying (like Paul with his) St. Peter lifts the whole of Moses with all its laws from the Christians.
46 Yes, you say, that would be true of the ceremonies and judicial practices, that is, what Moses teaches about outward worship and outward government, but the Decalogue, that is, the Ten Commandments are not abrogated, in which there is nothing about ceremonies and judicial practices. I answer: I know very well that this is a common old distinction, but without understanding, because from the ten commandments flow and hang all the other commandments and the whole of Moses.
47 For this reason, that he would be God alone and have no other gods, etc. he has instituted many ceremonies or services, and thus interpreted the first commandment by them and taught how to keep it. Item, because he wants parents to be obedient, not to suffer adultery, murder, thievery, false witness, he has given the Judicalia or outward rule, so that such commandments are understood and carried out.
48 Therefore it is not true that there are no ceremonies in the Ten Commandments, or no judicialia; they are and are all in them and belong in them. And in order to indicate this, God Himself has inserted two ceremonies with expressed words, namely,
4) Walch and the Erlangeners: the same.
the images and the Sabbath, and wants to prove that these two pieces are ceremonies, also in their own way abolished in the New Testament, so that one can see how D. Carlstadt in his book deals with the Sabbath 1) just as wisely as with the images. For St. Paul, Col. 2, 16. 17. speaks freely and brightly: "Let no one make you conscience about food and drink, or about one part of the days, namely the holidays, new moons or Sabbaths, which is the shadow of that which was in the future." Here, St. Paul does indeed cancel the Sabbath by name, and calls it the past shadow, because the body, which is Christ Himself, has come.
49 Gal. 4:10, 11: "Ye keep days, and moons, and feasts, and seasons: I fear yours, lest peradventure I have wrought upon you in vain." Here he calls lost work keeping days and feasts, among which is also the Sabbath. Isaiah also proclaimed this before, Isa. 66:23: "There shall be one Sabbath on another, and a new moon on another," that is, daily Sabbath in the New Testament, no difference of time.
50 And thanks must the pious Paul have with Isaiah, that they have delivered us so long before from the spirits of the wicked, we must otherwise sit on the Sabbath day, and grasp the head in the hand, and wait for the heavenly voice, as they jingle. Yes, if Carlstadt were to continue writing about the Sabbath, Sunday would still have to give way, and the Sabbath, that is, Saturday, would be celebrated; he would truly make us Jews of all things, that we would also have to circumcise ourselves etc.
(51) For this is true, and no man can gainsay it, that whosoever keepeth or maketh it necessary to keep one law of Moses, must keep them all as necessary, as St. Paul, Gal. 5:3, concludes, saying, "Whosoever is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law." So also, whoever breaks images or celebrates the Sabbath (that is, whoever teaches them to be kept as necessary) must also be circumcised and keep the whole of Moses; which is also true-
1) The title of this book is "Von dem Sabbat und gebotenen Feiertagen," which probably belongs to the beginning of the year 1524, because it was printed for the second time in Strasbourg in May 1524. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 381. 393 ff.
In the course of time, they were urged to do, teach and keep the law, even if there was room for these spirits. But now, by the grace of God, they do just as St. Paul says in Gal. 6:13: "Those who want to circumcise you do not keep the law themselves, but seek only glory in your bodies. So the iconoclasts themselves do not keep the law. For without leaving the others all in line, they also do the storming without spirit, as if hastening work, so that they might lose Christ, the fulfillment of the law, and seek only to gain glory in us, 2) as if they had taught something fine and masterly.
52) But that the imagery in the first commandment is also a temporal ceremony, St. Paul concludes and says under other words 1 Cor. 8, 4: "We know that [an] idol is nothing in the world. Just as he says of circumcision 1 Cor. 7, 19: "Circumcision is nothing," that is, it is free and does not bind consciences, just as he himself speaks of freedom in the same place. In spite of both St. Paul and all the angels, however, that they call nothing or free what God gives so strictly, as the enthusiasts pretend. For God's commandment is not to be regarded as useless or as nothing, as Moses says in the 5th book, but life is valid.
53 He especially says: "In the world the idol is nothing" [1 Cor. 8, 4], that is, external. For the idols before God are no joke, as there are the idols in the heart, false righteousness, glory of works, unbelief and what more sits in the heart, in Christ and his unbelief 3) instead. As if he should say: the Jews shun the outward idols in the world and are full of idols in the heart before God, as he also says of them Rom. 2, 22: "Thou dost abhor idols, lind take God his glory." With which words he finely interprets the first commandment, which says, "Before me thou shalt have no other gods" [Ex. 20:2]. As if to say, Idols before thee, or before the world, are nothing; but before me, that is, in the heart, that thou shouldest worship them, or trust in them, that shall not be.
54 Because St. Paul to the Corinthians now speaks all these three pieces freely and for nothing.
2) "to us" is missing in the Jena.
3) Shouldn't it perhaps read "faith"?
The fact that I want to have idols, the idolatrous house and idolatrous food, which are all three highly forbidden in the first commandment and which follow from it, is clear and powerful enough proof that imagery in the first commandment is a temporal ceremony, abolished in the New Testament. For if I may eat and drink things sacrificed to idols with a good conscience, and sit and live in the house of idols, as St. Paul teaches, I Cor. 8:7, 8, I may also tolerate the idol and let it be, as it counts for nothing and hinders my conscience and faith.
55 This was not taught by St. Paul alone, but also in the Old Testament the prophet Elisäns, 2 Kings 5, 18. 19., proved this with an excellent example, who also under Moses and against Moses (as our red spirits want to understand Moses) allowed Naaman, the prince of Syria, to worship the right God in the temple of Rimmon, the idol of Syria. If the first commandment of Carlstadt was to be kept strictly, then 1) neither Naaman should have done this, nor the prophet should have allowed it, because it is forbidden to go into an idol's house and to worship before an idol, even if he worships the right God. Since God so severely forbids the Jews, they are not to build an altar, an image or a place for His own service and worship without His command; He forbids much more severely that one serves and worships Him before other idols. From this it can be seen that even in the Old Testament the right idols do not harm, if one worships before them outwardly, if only the right God is worshipped with the heart; and our enthusiasts want to bind and catch us free Christians so hard that we should not tolerate any idol without sin.
56 If the iconoclasts do not want to show us mercy, we pray that they will be merciful to our Lord Jesus Christ and not spit at him and say to him, as they do to us, "Fie on you, you servant of idols. For the three evangelists Matthew, Marcus, and Lucas write that he took the coin from the Pharisees when the image of Caesar was in his hand.
1) "so" is missing in the Jena.
2) Erlanger: for.
and asked what the image was and told to give it to Caesar [Matth. 22, 19. 20. 21. Marc. 12, 15. 16. 17. Luc. 20, 22. 23. 24. 25.]. If all kinds of images were forbidden, the Jews should not have given him any, nor should they have brought any 3), much less should Christ have attacked it and left it unpunished, especially because it was the image of a Gentile. He must have sinned when he told Peter to take such an interest penny out of the fish's mouth and give it to him for his own use. There he must have created and made the same image himself on the penny and with the penny in the mouth of the fish. I also consider that the gold of the three kings, offered to Christ [Matth. 2, 11], was coined with images, according to all the customs of the country. Likewise also the two hundred pennies, Joh. 6, 7. when the disciples wanted to buy bread for themselves, even the money of all fathers and saints when they traded with it.
Now we do not desire anything more than to have a crucifix or an image of a saint to look at, to bear witness to, to remember, to sign, as the image of the same emperor was; should it not be as much without sin for us to have a crucifix or an image of Mary as it was for the Jews and Christ Himself to have the image of the pagan and dead emperor, the devil's member. Devil's member, image to have? Yes, the emperor had his image painted in his honor. But we seek neither to have nor to do honor in it, and yet we shall be so highly damned, since Christ remains undamned above such an abomination and shameful image.
(58) Do you want to speak here: You will not say that the first commandment is abolished, one must have a God? Item, one must not commit adultery, murder, steal? etc. Answer: I have spoken of Mosiah's law as Mosiah's laws. For having a God is not Mosaic law alone, but also a natural law, as St. Paul says in Romans 1:20: that the Gentiles know of the Godhead that there is one God. This is also proven by the fact that they have raised up gods, and have
3) So the old editions. Erlanger: "gebraucht"^ which is perhaps the right reading.
This would have been impossible if they had not known or remembered anything about God, but God revealed it to them through works, Romans 1:19. Now that the Gentiles lacked the right God and worshipped idols in God's place, what wonder is there? The Jews also lacked and worshipped idols in the place of God, even though they had the Law of Moses; and still lack the Lord Christ, who have the Gospel of Christ.
59 Therefore this is not only the law of Moses: Thou shalt not murder, commit adultery, steal etc., but also the natural law written in everyone's heart, as St. Paul teaches Rom. 2, 1. Also Christ Matth. 7, 12. himself includes all prophets and laws in this natural law: "What you want people to do to you, you also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets." So does St. Paul Rom. 13:9, when he includes all the commandments of Moses in love, which also naturally teaches the natural law: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Otherwise, if it were not naturally written in the heart, one would have to teach and preach the law for a long time before the conscience would accept it; it must also find and feel it in itself, otherwise no one would make a conscience. Although the devil so blinds and possesses the hearts that they do not always feel such laws. Therefore, they must be written and preached, until God cooperates and enlightens them, so that they feel it in their hearts, as it is written in the Word.
(60) Now where the law of Moses and the natural law are one thing, the law remains and is not abolished externally, but spiritually through faith, which is nothing else than fulfilling the law, Rom. 3:28, which is not to be spoken of now, and has been spoken of enough elsewhere. Therefore, imagery and the Sabbath, and everything that Moses set above and beyond the natural law, because it does not have natural law, are free, separate and apart, and are given to the Jewish people alone. It is no different than when an emperor or king makes special laws and ordinances in his country.
1) Thus the Erlanger. Wittenberger,: services to the gods; Jenaer: services to idols.
The Jews have made a law, like the Saxon mirror in Saxony, and yet the common natural laws go through all countries and remain, such as honor parents, do not murder, do not commit adultery, serve God etc. Therefore, let Moses be the Saxon seal of the Jews, and let us Gentiles not swear by it. Just as France does not respect the Sachsenspiegel, and yet in the natural law agrees well with him etc.
(61) Why then is the Ten Commandments taught and kept? Answer: Because the natural laws are nowhere so finely and properly written as in Moses. 2) And I would that some more in worldly matters were taken from Moses, as the law of divorcement, of the year of jubilee, and of the year of manumission, of tithes, and the like, by which laws the world would be governed much better than now with the interest of selling and freeing. 3) As when one country takes examples from another country's laws, as the Romans took the twelve tables from the Greeks.
It is not necessary to celebrate the Sabbath or Sunday, nor is it necessary for the sake of Moses' commandment, but that nature also gives and teaches that it is sometimes necessary to rest for a day, so that man and cattle may rest; which natural cause Moses also sets in his Sabbath, so that he sets the Sabbath among men, as also Christ does Matth. 12, 1. ff. and Marc. 3:2 ff. among men. For if it is to be kept for the sake of rest alone, it is clear that whoever does not need rest may break the Sabbath and rest on another day for it, as nature allows; it is also to be kept for the sake of preaching and hearing God's word.
In addition to this, there are many better things in Moses, namely the prophecies and promises of Christ's future, as St. Paul says in Romans 3:21. There are also the creation of the world, where marriage came from, and many great examples of faith, love and all virtue. Again, examples
2) This sentence is missing in the Jenaer.
3) We have taken away the comma, which in the old editions is after "interest", because we are of the opinion that Luther is speaking here of the purchase of interest and of the freedom (of spiritual goods) from interest. "Free" in the meaning of "to make free" also occurs elsewhere in Luther.
of unbelief and iniquity, from which one learns to know God's grace and wrath; all of which are written, not for the sake of the Jews alone, but for the sake of all Gentiles. For there are also many things written about unbelievers and Gentiles, so that all these things serve as an example and a lesson for all the world. But the law of Moses concerns only the Jews, without whom the Gentiles have willingly given themselves up and accepted, who are called fellow Jews. St. Paul says in Romans 9:4 that the law is given to the Jews, the testament, the promise; and Psalm 147:19 ff: "He declares his judgments to Jacob and his laws to Israel. He does not do this to any nation, nor does he declare his judgments to them" etc.
I have also seen and heard the iconoclasts read from my Germanized Bible. So I also know that they have the same, read from it, as one can well sense from the words that they lead. Now there are many pictures in the same books, both of God, angels, men and animals, especially in the Revelation of John and in Moses and Joshua. So we kindly ask them to allow us to do what they themselves do, that we may also paint such pictures on the walls for the sake of memory and better understanding. Since they do as little harm on the walls as in the books. It is better to paint on the wall how God created the world, how Noah built the ark, and what more good histories are, than to paint any other worldly impudent thing: yes, if God would, I could persuade the lords and the rich to have the whole Bible painted inside and out on the houses before everyone's eyes, that would be a Christian work.
I know for certain that God wants us to hear and read His works, especially the passion of Christ. But if I should hear or remember it, it is impossible for me not to make images of it in my heart. For I will or will not, when I hear Christ, an image of a man hanging on the cross is formed in my heart, just as my face is naturally formed in the water when I look into it. Now it is not sin but good that I have Christ's image in my heart; why should it be sin to have Christ's image in my heart?
when I have it in my eyes? Since the heart is more 1) valid than the eyes, and should be less stained with sins than the eyes, as this is the right seat and dwelling place of God.
But I must stop, I should otherwise give cause to the iconoclasts, that they never read the Bible or burn it, and then also tear their own hearts out of their bodies, because they are so hostile to the images. I have only indicated this so that one can see what reason does when it wants to be wise and become a master in God's words and 2) works, and what the fame has behind it that D. Carlstadt boasts so highly that he has God's word, and for the sake of God's word he must suffer much. Yes, the devil must also suffer much for the sake of God's word: not that he keeps it right, but that he perverts it and strengthens his wickedness and lies with it, as D. 3) Carlstadt also does out of the same challenge.
And if I had time, I would atone for my lust for Satan and, before all the world, thrust the sayings that he takes from the Scriptures into Carlstadt's booklet and uses to help himself, back down his throat, so that he would be ashamed. For I have seized him finely, that I see God's miracle, how he can lead the devil in the fool's rope. But I have other things to do, and whoever does not want to be instructed by this reason, let him go and storm for the rest of his life; I am excused.
In the end, I must give an example of this matter, whether D. Carlstadt wanted to recognize himself a little and be ashamed that he teaches his disciples so finely. Since I was at Orlamünde and dealt with the images with the good people, and I all the sayings from Moses, so were brought forward, showed from the text that he
1) Thus the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen. Wittenberg and Jena: not" instead of "more".
2) Thus the old edition of Walch and the Erlanger. In the Wittenberg and Jena editions, "words and" is missing.
3) Here we have a proof (we have already expressed this as a conjecture several times) that the old edition of Walch also had an influence on the text design of the Erlangen edition. In the old editions, "D." is used throughout for "Doctor". Walch has sometimes "D.", sometimes "Dort.", sometimes (as here) "Doctor". The Erlangen edition has reprinted this exactly each time.
When I was talking about idols that are worshipped, one came forward who wanted to be the smartest in front of everyone and said to me: "Do you hear? I may call you You, if you are a Christian. I said, "Call me whatever you want; he would have preferred to beat me, too; he was so full of Carlstadt's spirit that the others could not keep him quiet. And he went on, and said, If then thou wilt not follow Moses, yet thou must suffer the gospel; thou hast thrust the gospel under the bench; no, no, it must come forth, not remain under the bench.
69 I said, "What does the gospel say? He said: Jesus since the Gospel, who 1) does not know where it is written, my brothers know it well, that the brood must nakedly remove the skin, it must be closed by the brood. So the images must all be broken off, so that we can be rid of the creatures and become pure. Haec ille.
What should I do? I had come among Carlstadt's disciples; I learned then that breaking pictures meant taking off the bride's shirt naked, and should stand in the gospel. Such words, and of the Gospel under the bench, he had heard from his master, that perhaps Carlstadt blamed me, I put the Gospel under the bench, and he was the man who pulled it out. Such vain honor brings the man into all misfortune, and has pushed him out of the light into such darkness that he lays such ground for storming images that the bride takes off her shirt; just as if they were thus rid of the creatures in the heart, that they break the images with raving. But how would it be if the bride and groom were so modest and kept their shirts and skirts on? Of course, it should not almost hinder them, if they would otherwise have pleasure together.
But that's how it goes when you bring the disorderly rabble into the game, so that they forget civic discipline and manners before the great abundance of the spirit, and no longer fear or honor anyone but themselves alone; D. Carlstadt is in the mood for that. These are all fine precursors to mobs and rebellion, that one fears neither violence nor authority. That is enough said about the pictures, and [I] mean,
1) d. i. white.
It is proven strongly enough how D. Carlstadt does not understand Moses at all and sells his dreams under God's word, and respects orderly authorities less than the disorderly rabble. Whether this is conducive to obedience or rebellion, I will let everyone see for himself.
On the complaint of D. Carlstadt that he has been expelled from the land of Saxony. 2)
So far we have seen what D. Carlstadt has for a word of God, for which he exalts himself and makes himself a holy martyr. Now let us see the work of God for which he suffers and praises such great persecution. Although I would rather he had kept silent and not imposed such distress on me to stir his unwillingness. But because he attacks the princes of Saxony in such a way that he cannot leave even the rhyme they wear on their sleeves with all honors unsmirched, so precisely does the bitter resentment in his heart seek cause to disgrace people, I must, as much as I know of it, answer for M. G. Herren's honor. G. Herren's honor. For the princes of Saxony certainly deserve better for D. Carlstadt than that he should leave such thanks behind, as he well knows. Well then, let's go, it will be found.
First of all, I may well say that I have done nothing of Carlstadt with the Elector of Saxony, indeed, I have never spoken a word with the same prince all my life, nor have I ever heard him speak, nor have I ever seen his face, except once at Worms before the Emperor, when I was interrogated for the second time. It is true that I have often written through M. Spalatinum and urged, especially that the Alstavian spirit should be resisted. But I did nothing, so that I was also highly annoyed with the Elector, until the same spirit fled from him, undispelled. For this reason, Carlstadt should have been
2) In the two farewell letters, which Carlstadt addressed to the men and to the women at his departure from Orlamünde, he signed himself: "Andreas Bodenstein, Unverhört und unüberwunden, vertrieben durch Martinum Lutherum. (Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 447.) These letters are probably meant by the "Schmachbüchlein" in the following § 73; in § 86 it is spoken of as a "Schmachbrief".
1) Prince, and to know the matter very well before he thus shouted him out into the world with a book of shame. Nor is it right, much less Christian, if it were true [that he was chased out by the C.F. 2)], to take revenge in such a way with blasphemy writing. One should first have humbly asked the cause and presented the right, and then kept silent and suffered. It would be too much for me, who should be and unfortunately am vain flesh. But the high spirit of Carlstadt cannot do wrong nor err, he is the right itself.
I have talked about it with my gracious young lord Duke Johann Friedrich (I confess that) and denounced Carlstadt's sacrilege and thurst. But because the spirit burns so bright and white, I will tell here the reasons, which even some of today's princes of Saxony do not realize, why it is dear to me that D. Carlstadt is out of the country, and as much as I am able to ask, he should not come back in, nor should he have to come out, where he would be in (he would then become another, God helping him). I will, if God wills, not hypocritical to any prince, but I will suffer much less that mobs and disobedience, to the contempt of worldly authorities, should be brought to justice.
75 And this is first my humble admonition and request to all princes, lords and authorities, as I have also written before against the Alstavian spirit, that they seriously threaten to forbid the country to preachers who do not teach in silence, but draw the mob to themselves, and behind the back of the authorities with their own fists and iniquities storm images or break churches, or to deal with them in such a way that they have to leave it. I do not want to have resisted the word of God with this, but rather to set a measure and goal for the sacrilegious zealots and Gothic spirits of their will to courage, which the secular authorities are entitled to do. Most of all, however, D. Carlstadt with his gang, as the obdurate one, does not want to
1) Thus the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen. Wittenberg and Jena: solchem.
2) The bracketed words are missing in the Wittenberg and Jena editions, but are found in Walch's old edition and in the Erlanger. Did they come from the original print or from Walch into the Erlanger?
and still justifies and defends his redness in addition.
76) And the 3) is my reason and cause: We have heard above how D. Carlstadt and similar iconoclasts do not interpret Mosiah's commandment to the proper authorities, as it is due, but to the disorderly rabble. That is certainly not a right good spirit. For, as I have said, where the mob is to have power and right to execute a commandment of God in this way, they must be given room for it and allowed to execute all the commandments; so they must then kill murderers, punish adulterers, thieves, husks, each one who comes to it first, so that court, judgment, power and all authority may go down with it. And if, as they say, you leave a hand's breadth to a rogue, he will take a cubit's length. For why do the overlords sit there? why do they carry the sword, if the mob is to plump up and execute itself?
After this it shall be broken down, and they shall slay all the wicked. For so Moses commanded in Deut. 7, when he commanded the images to be broken, that they also should slay the people without all mercy, which had such images in the land of Canaan. For this killing is commanded as hard as the breaking of images, which commandment these evil spirits are so stubborn as to insist upon. But Moses commanded this to the people, who had Joshua as their ruler and much authority, and were an orderly people; not over all the wicked, but only over the heathen of Canaan, who had been handed over to death by God's judgment for the wicked, as the text clearly shows. For he took out the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, who were also ungodly. So this work of God was done by a proper authority of the people, and over those whom not men but God Himself publicly condemned and commanded to be put to death. 4)
78) But our murderous spirits, because they apply Mosiah's commandment to the mob, do not have God's judgment on the ungodly, but judge for themselves that the ungodly are ungodly, and
3) Walch and the Erlanger: this is.
4) Erlanger: had.
5) In the Wittenberg and Jena editions: "die". In the old edition of Walch and the Erlanger: "they". Did this come from the original print or from Walch into the Erlanger?
worthy of death, so images have, they are urged by such commandments to riot, to murder and kill, as to the work, which God has commanded them. Take an example of the Alstavian spirit, which had already gotten to the people from the images, and publicly pretended sedition and murder against all authority. How could he do otherwise? He had to teach. For since he had asked the devil so far to be his godfather that the mob should storm the images without proper force, as commanded by God, he had to go on and do the secondary commandment that was attached to it, too, and murder the people by name. And if I were in the mind to storm images like them, I would also have to go and murder the people, because the commandment is there and it pushes. Dear sirs, the devil does not mean iconoclasm; he only wants to break a hole by causing bloodshed and murder in the world.
Yes, you say, D. Carlstadt does not want to murder, that is evident from 1) your letter, which the Orlamündians wrote to the Alstätians. Answer: I believed it too! the belief is over. I no longer ask what Carlstadt says or does; he is not missing the truth for the first time. I say of the spirit that they have, that drives them, that it is not good and has murder and rebellion in its spirit, even though it stoops 2) and bends down, because it sees that it has no room, as I will prove hereafter. For (since God is for), if D. Carlstadt would gain a large mob, as he intended to arm himself at the Saale, and now the Biblia is read almost in German 3), and Mr. Omnes would begin 4) to hold this commandment (to murder the wicked) in front of his nose, where would he go? How was he going to resist? Even if he had never been willing to do so, he would have to leave; they would revolt and cry out so harshly: God's word, God's word, God's word stands there, we must take it, so hard he now cries out against the images: God's word, God's word. Dear, it is not to joke with Mr. Omnes:
1) Walch and the Erlangeners: from.
2) deceives - ducks.
3) Erlanger: German almost.
4) In the old editions: "he Omnes begonte."
That is why God wanted to have authority, so that things would be 5) orderly in the world.
80 If it were true and I had to believe that D. Carlstadt did not have murder or rebellion in mind, I would have to say that he has a rebellious and murderous spirit like the one in Alstät. Carlstadt does not have murder or sedition in mind, I must say that he has a seditious and murderous spirit, like the one at Alstät, as long as he remains on the sacrilegious iconostasis 6) and draws the disorderly mob to himself. I can see that he neither cuts nor stabs, but because he carries the murder knife and does not take it off, I do not trust him, he would lurk in time and place, and then do what I fear. But I mean the murder-knife, the false sense and understanding of the law of Moses, which comes from the devil, by which the mob is aroused, becomes insolent and proud.
81 But sayest thou, He will not be so stiffnecked; he will tell him, and cease from such doings? Who? D. Carlstadt? Yes, he can say the words finely, and blow them out with writings, he will let himself be instructed, and will obey a better. If he is serious, then I am golden. When has he ever yielded or obeyed anyone? How often did D[ominus] Philipps 7) admonish him at Wittenberg that he should not rave so with Moses, with the images, with the mass and confession! And when I came again and preached against his iconoclasm and mass, why did he not desist and obey? Item, since D. Justus Jonas and Mr. 8) Ditterich of Bila were acting between us, how finely did he back away and let him be told? That he also invited me to the last judgment over the raving mass, which he had caused at that time (help God!) as if with a great Holy Spirit, which he himself now condemns and changes.
82) Item, at Jena in the inn, when we were talking about the matter, and he promised to defend his case in the strongest possible way, 9)
5) "it" is missing in the Erlanger.
6) In the old editions: "frevel Bildstürmen". In Walch and in the Erlanger: ,,Frevel Bildstürmen."
7) In the Wittenberg edition: "D. Philippus Melanchthons."
8) In the old editions: He.
9) In the old editions: wand. We are of the opinion that here it is said of Carlstadt's unsteady speech: "he wandt das Maul," but not of the throwing up or pulling of the mouth, which is expressed in the next paragraph: "he rüsselte das Maul." Therefore, "wand" is to be derived from "to turn," not from "to wriggle."
He opened his mouth and smote me with a clipphine, saying, "I care nothing for you. If he respects me not, whom will he respect among us? Or what shall I then much reprove? I think he considers me to be one of the most learned men in Wittenberg, and yet he himself says under my nose, "There is nothing the matter with me," and pretends to want to be instructed.
Item, he writes freely in the countries now and then, and judges poor Wittenberg as nothing against him. And now, once again, we must be called papists and cousins of the end Christ. Item at Orlamünde, when Magister Wolfgangus Stein, princely preacher, asked D. Carlstadt in the most gentle and cleanest way that he should leave, he shut his mouth and gave him such an answer as if he were a prince in the country, and Magister Wolfgang was there as a princely envoy, whom he should have obeyed if he had commanded at once. But this is how one should honor the authorities; yes, if it were the rabble. There are many more of the pieces of his articulated mind.
I am telling you this 1) so that I can prove how vain false words are, that D. Carlstadt has taken it upon himself to learn, so that he only makes glimpses and good appearances to his obdurate mind, and disgraces both princes and me. Nor is it fine to preach and teach in divine matters and then first want to ask whether it is right. Either the teaching is wrong or the questioning is hypocrisy. But let him be in earnest, and let him desist from his raving. I have ever so cut out the imagery above that he may take hold of it as he pleases; let him still say, and let the heavenly prophets do it, that everything should be bad and forgotten, and I will do and leave with him everything I can; I want to have him as a friend, he wants; if he does not want it, then I must let God rule.
It is also of this nature that he offered to speak and they did not want to admit him. Dear God, how can a man speak so publicly against his conscience? If he should be denied disputes by me or by someone else, then both princes and
1) Thus the Jena. Wittenberg and Erlangen: these.
University have not been able to do so much with so much writing and demanding that he would come to Wittenberg and wait for his sermon, lection and disputation, as he was obliged and obligated to do? And add to this: where he would certainly be escorted. Just as if he were uncertain at Wittenberg, since his status and nature were such, and since they liked to have him; who would want to do [something] to him? It is all vain words to adorn oneself; unless his conscience had feared, as the wicked are wont to fear, since there is no fear that he had fallen for and encroached upon the sovereign's property and right at Orlamünde; although that would also have had no need.
If I were a prince, and a doctor? If I were a prince and a doctor were obliged to read and preach for my pay in my city or country, and he turned elsewhere without my knowledge and will, and encroached on my right and property with sacrilege, but I demanded that he do his duty through me and my university, but he would do what he pleased on my pay and property, But he would do what he pleased on my pay and on my property, and then write a letter to me and ask to be escorted to my city to dispute, since I had demanded it beforehand, and he was guilty, what should I answer, because he thought I was a fool? And if I did not answer, and he then sent out a letter of disgrace against me, as if I had not wanted to let him speak or interrogate him, what would I think? I would secretly think: There is a knave in the skin. Not that I am scolding D. Carlstadt as a knave, but that I am indicating what might occur to a sovereign in such a case as a human being.
But the man lacked nothing 2) except that he had princes who were too soft; princes should have been found, if he would have brought such pieces into their country with such sacrilege and thurst, which would have made his head jump over a cold blade together with his pack, and would perhaps hardly be right. That is why I wanted to advise D. Carlstadten to leave the princes unscathed and thank them that they have so graciously let him come from them, so that they will not finally be punished.
2) So the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen. Wittenberg and Jena: "hats nothing."
would be forced to act more sharply with him, according to his merit.
This is also the reason, not a small one, that he drags himself along with the heavenly prophets, to whom the Alstavian spirit has come, 1) as is known; from them he learns, to them he adheres, who creep secretly in the country and crawl together at the river, where they thought to nest. The impotent devil wants to go nowhere but to our places, where we have previously made room and safety through the gospel, and only wants to defile and spoil our nest, like the cuckoo, playing with the warbler. The same prophets pretend that they talk with God, and God with them, and that they are called to preach, and yet none of them is allowed to stand out and appear, but rather throw around secretly, and pour their poison in D. Carlstadt; he then did it with tongue and pen; but since he could not do it in Wittenberg, he went to the Saale. 2)
(89) These prophets teach and hold that they should reform Christendom and establish a new one in this way: They must slay all princes and ungodly men, that they may become lords on earth, and live among the holy ones on earth. I myself and many others have heard this from them. This knows D. Carlstadt also knows that they are swarmers and murderous spirits, and that such misfortune has been unleashed by them. Which should be warning enough for him, and yet he does not avoid them, and I am to believe that he does not want to cause sedition or murder? Also, when I confessed it to him in Jena and defended it, I said: Why should he not keep it with them, as they said right? Why does he not also stand with us or with the papists, in which we are right? Or is there nothing right with us or with the papists? No, against these prophets he cannot preach nor write; against us he must preach, write and rave.
90 If D. Carlstadt had such a spirit, yes, he would be an honest man.
1) Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1822, No. 125: "After these [Marcus von Zwickau and Nicolaus Storchs came the pupil of both, Münzer."
2) Orlamünde is located not far from where the Orla flows into the Saale.
If a prince were to go out into the world and find such people in his country, he should be the first to shun them and put them to death, and he should sternly forbid them to desist from such prophecies, or he would have to write against them, as I have done against the Alstavian spirit. For since they are prepared and directed to strangle and murder, they can come from nowhere else but from the devil himself, even if they knew all art and writing. For the devil knows the Bible and the Scriptures as well as other arts.
(91) Is it not a plague that now and then the rabble has become so proud and restless through such spirits, before the princes have become aware of it, that as soon as they hear a preacher who teaches them to be quiet and obedient to the authorities, they call him a fox-tailer and a hypocrite and point fingers at him. But those who say, "Beat to death, give nothing to no one, and be free Christians, you are the right people," are called the right evangelical preachers, who take off the shirt of the bride in Orlamünde and the pants of the bridegroom in Naschhusen, who do not put the gospel under the bench, and 3) for the time being never learn what Christ is, or what they should know of him.
Because a prince would find D. Carlstadt in such a way that he would stick to the mobs and murderous spirits, thereby making his subjects proud and restless, and he would also want to justify and defend himself, should it not be time that he would say to him: If you are the Hare, 4) then roll yourself out of my country, before I have to speak to you differently? For what good can be hoped, if such prophets stay in the country, if the seed already proves to be so powerful? He must not claim here that he was not warned before, that he did not know, that love was spared him. Who should be able to warn him, since they acted so secretly until they spread the poison that no one could know what they were doing? But are they not sufficiently and publicly admonished by
3) Thus Walch and the Erlangeners. Wittenberg and Jena: "leren".
4) i.e., you are like this: a figure of speech that is found more frequently in Luther.
did Scripture 1) stand against the Alstäter spirit? How finely did they allow themselves to be led astray? Item, have they not known that I have judged these prophets with their spirit as the 2) devil's spirit? What good has it done, if they are only more hardened, and with cunning secretly set themselves against me?
Yes, why have they themselves spared love and acted so diligently against us in their hole behind our backs, written against us in several countries, and in the pulpit have no one but the Wittenbergs beaten to the meat rack, and have never yet shown us our error? The Wittenberg has done it, the spirit wants to eat it, otherwise all things in the world are bad. And we do this under our prince's protection, yes, under our name and space. But watch out, you evil and angry spirits, it is written that Wittenberg has grown too big for you, and God may send you to swallow it and strangle you. We know Satan, and even if we overslept something as men, you will not lead it out; for he who neither sleeps nor slumbers, who guards and watches over us [Ps. 121, 4], we rely on.
94 Carlstadt has brought this trouble and misfortune, I think, because he did his thing without being called, and deliberately let his calling 3) go. For he entered Orlamünde as a wolf, therefore it was not possible that he should start something good. He was, by princely endowment and pension, appointed an archidiacon at Wittenberg, who was to preach God's word, read and debate, so God called him there, and he also committed himself; as he did for a time with benefit and honor, and was held dear and worthy, he cannot say otherwise, and had more support from the Elector than many others, until the prophets of murder came and made the man wild and restless, so that he had to find something better.
1) This probably refers to the "Letter to the Princes of Saxony on the Rebellious Spirit" (Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 8), which was written at the end of July 1524 (not on August 21).
2) So the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen, Wittenberg and Jena: "den".
3) d. i. "his profession," which both the Jena and Wittenberg editions offer in the marginal gloss.
and special wanted to teach, because in the Bible God teaches.
95 Then he set out of his own wrongdoing and went to Orlamünde behind the knowledge and will of both the prince and the university, and drove out the priest there, who had been placed there by princely order and the university's right, and took the parish by his own power. How do you feel about this little piece? Does it serve for quiet obedience to the authorities, or for insolent sedition among the mob? The spirit is kicking out as I speak of, for the very same spirit that swallows such a little strap might well eat a whole leather, if it gained room. Whoever dares to let a sovereign look on, and to encroach upon his property, law and order in a thuggish and unlawful manner, what should he do behind a sovereign, where he would find room? That is to say, the authorities are feared and honored; so the mob should also be taught both by word and deed that the priest is like the people, as Isaiah says [Cap. 24:2].
If the devil bursts, he will not deny that the princes of Saxony sit in secular authority decreed by God; land and people are subject to them. What kind of spirit is this, then, that despises such divine order, proceeds with sacrilege and violence, does it with the prince's property and right as if it were his own, and does not even look at the prince for it, or greet him for it, as if he were a block, and he himself were prince in the land? Shouldn't a good spirit fear God's order a little bit more, and because the estate, the parish and the land of the prince is, first humbly take a leave of absence, recite the duty and ask for favor to sit there?
Now, however, D. Carlstadt leaves his duty at Wittenberg behind the prince's back, deprives the university of the sermon and lecture, and what he owes to do from the princely endowment, and nevertheless keeps the pay or pension for himself, and appoints no one else in his place, and there at Orlamünde also takes the university's parish, expels those whom he had not appointed, nor had the right to appoint, much less dismiss. Dear, why that? That is why some think that he is all the more
and relied on the fact that the Elector is too soft and does not punish easily. But I think, besides the cause is also this, that the prophets sought space and hole all there at the Saale to spread their spirit and poison, so that they could not creep the length so in Wittenberg and mousing in the darkness.
He cannot claim here that he could not have kept his heresy in Wittenberg, because, praise God, the gospel there is pure and fine. And if it were not so, he would not be forced to be godless. If we have to be under the devil in the world and among his members, we must not become devils nor devil's members. So Carlstadt was especially free from all things, that he should only act the word of God, and let the other priests do what they wanted. And even if there were vain devils in Wittenberg, he should still not leave behind the prince without leave and favor, and nevertheless keep his pension, and in another place brazenly take hold of his property.
He may also not say that he went to Orlamünde out of mercy to teach the misguided sheep. For the same parish was provided with a Christian pastor, namely M. Conradus, 2) through the university, who knew and taught the gospel well. And even if it had been so, he should still have asked the authorities for it. For one should do no wrong for the sake of God, Rom. 3, 8. It was only to be done so that the evil spirit would find room and place to let out its poison, as I said, so that we would become special masters and no one would be equal to us.
If he did not seek money or poison, but only God's glory, why did he not seek other cities, 3) since he would not have found such a pension, and since it would have been more necessary to preach God's word, and would have been closer? Yes, but it was not convenient for the spirit and the belly. But if such an outrage happened because of God's inner call, then it is
1) Wittenberg and Erlanger: or.
2) Magister Conrad Glück. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 349.
3) d. i. selected.
No need that he proves it with miraculous signs, because God does not break his old order with a new one, he does great signs. Therefore, no one can be believed who appeals to his spirit and inner feelings, and rages against God's usual order by heart, because he performs miraculous signs, as Deut. 18:22 Moses indicates.
101 But since he pretends, together with the Orlamündians, that he was chosen by them to be a pastor, and thus outwardly called, I answer: I do not care that they will have chosen him afterwards 4). I am talking about the created entrance. He had letters that those at Orlamünde had demanded him from Wittenberg, and had not run there himself. Rather, if that meant that I ran out of my duty and obedience into a city, and then stood so finely and persuaded the people that they chose me and expelled others, then I say that no principality is so great that I wanted to become prince in it and drive the present ones out. How easily has a people been called? That does not mean to call; it means to drive out mobs and sedition and to despise authority.
Nor did the people of Orlando have the right to choose a priest on someone else's salary, because it was the prince's duty and his order. Thus, the prince is not unchristian, as well as the university, who overlords them with ungodly priests. And because he would have ordered [an] ungodly person there, when he has not done so, they should nevertheless not encroach on their sovereign's right, property and authority, and choose pastors behind his back, and give away pensions (which are not theirs) to whom they wanted; much more should he accept it, and leave the prince unsought, but, as is due to subjects, have humbly complained and petitioned the prince and university and asked for a Christian pastor. If he had not wanted to, they would have done their best 5).
But now they gather behind the prince, elect priests, and let themselves be made priests, as they themselves desire, and stand as if they gave a damn.
4) "werden" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.
5) Erlanger: dacht.
their natural hereditary lord and sovereign, whose property and right they freely seize and take for themselves, that both Carlstadt and Orlamünde deserved a good strong distemper, 1) as an example to the other troops, that they knew how they had lords and were not themselves lords in the country. But I will have forbidden and excused the good people of Orlamünde, as they were too weak for the mad spirit of D. Carlstadt, and overpolled with his humble gestures and big words (as he is wont to do), so that they might not have seen how they were doing against their own lord. But D. Carlstadt, as he is possessed with the spirit of the mob, I will have answered with this, as it is well to be felt from this little piece that he does not rest, because he clings to the poor rabble and destroys worldly authority.
104 Above that, all this would have been given to him in honor of the Gospel, if only he had not stubbornly refused to defend it. For when the university wrote out of princely order and demanded that he go to Wittenberg for his duty and office: "Yes, my Carlstadt should come! Then he incited the poor people to write so proudly and impudently against the university that [it] was too much. The university had to be called papist, and I don't know how, and nothing was evangelical, without what D. Carlstadt talked and did with the Orlamunders. Now tell me a pious reader: Have the princes of Saxony not borne patience enough with the great mischievous spirit? Yes, unfortunately too much. If they had been more diligent in practicing their sword, the rabble on the Saale would probably be quieter and more restrained today, and the spirit would not have taken root.
Since there was still no end to the game, but only with the head purde purde through, both princes and university considered nothing, I came to the Saale by princely order, and preached against such enthusiasm as best I could. There the devil received me, as I had long since deserved. 2) How
1) Erlanger: Stauche.
2) So the Jena. Wittenberg and Erlangen: have.
He snorted, hurried and wriggled there, as if Christ were there who wanted to cast him out, so that D. Carlstadt also took me by surprise over the table with such a gentle heart and clean words that I immediately felt the spirit speaking out of him, until I finally indicated to my gracious young lord, Duke John Frederick, that such a thing was not to be suffered at his mercy; for the work was there, one wanted to leave nothing to the mobs and the authorities. So far I am aware of this matter and no further.
And what shall I say? What the spirit does is neither serious nor true, and they themselves do not believe what they say, nor do they keep what they say; only that the devil seeks only to cause misfortune in the world. For D. Carlstadt, when he was last in Wittenberg, he willingly agreed to resign from the parish, because he saw that it could not be otherwise, and vowed there that he wanted to be employed in Wittenberg. If he had been sure that he was called to be a pastor, he should not have handed it over and let it go before he died, as he had fought and resisted until then. For one should not let go of a divine calling, as they boast here that they have the same fellowship as God.
107. But that was the opinion: he let himself think that his poison was now spread enough, and the misery was now deeply and strongly enough rooted, and the rabble was now attached to him, as it is unfortunately all too true; [so] he probably thought to remain pastor, even if princes and university were sorry; and such a seeming surrender of the parish should not hurt, because the rabble was so spoiled that no one should have it good who would come after him, and finally the princes would be able to leave him there, as one has also let oneself be heard publicly. The spirit does not think that God could see or defend against such cruel and clever plots, and thus wants to have made his redoubt before one should realize it. Now we men easily provide the redoubt; but the spirit has truly provided it also, and God is invented wiser than he is.
I had to do this expansive speech, although reluctantly, because the ugly spirit wanted so much to make itself beautiful with
of the princes of Saxony, from whom he has honor and property. I also think that if he had not fled so despondently and hurriedly, 1) but had had a good conscience to demand the things from the princes at that time, these and others, which I perhaps do not know, would have been reported to him. Above all, I think that the land is the property of the princes of Saxony, and not of Carlstadt, in which he is a guest and has nothing. If they now take from no one what is his, and yet do not want to know one in their country for a secret reason, I think they would not be obligated to tell anyone what moves them, nor to come to terms with him. For princes must conceal many things and keep them secret. If a householder does not have the right and the power to undress a guest or a servant, he would have to tell causes beforehand and to stand the law with him, then he would be a poor captive householder in his own estate, and the guest would be a householder himself.
This spirit does not consider this, and goes on, and attacks the princes with public disgrace, as if he 2) were sitting with them in joint fiefdoms, and would also be lord in the land of Saxony, and defies them with the right in their own property. What else could one answer such an impudent and thirsty head, but, as the father of the house says in the Gospel: "Friend, I do you no wrong; take what is yours and lift yourself up. Shall I not do in my goods what I would?" [Matth. 20, 13-15.] This mischievous rogue also wanted to know the cause and the right why the master of the house did with his goods according to his will. O fine spirit, how can you not know what you have in mind? You want to be master, and what you pretend and do should be called right. That is the sum of it.
What do you think now? Isn't it a fine new spiritual humility? Wear a gray skirt and felt hat, don't want to be called doctor, but rather brother Andres and dear neighbor, like another peasant, be subject to the judge at Orlamünde and obey like a bad citizen, and thus, with your own hea-
1) Thus the Wittenberg and the Jena. Erlanger: "flown"; from the original print or Walch's old edition?
2) Erlanger: sitting. - assembled - gesammt.
Do the special Christians want to be seen and praised for their chosen humility and submission, which God does not command, as if a Christian being were standing in such an outward jiggery-pokery, and yet striving and driving against the duty, honor, obedience, power and right of the sovereigns and secular authorities, which God has commanded? This is the high new art of God from the heavenly voice, which we in Wittenberg, who teach faith and love, cannot understand and know. This is the beautiful disenchantment, study, wonderment, boredom, and the same devil's alfenzerei.
From the fair.
With this, D. Carlstadt's books are responsible for one or three. Now let us take this from the mass before us, so that we come properly to the sacrament. For I do not know what he means by making so many books, even of the same thing, and might well bring them to one sheet, since he spoils ten; perhaps he likes to hear himself speak as much as the stork hears his rattle. For otherwise there is neither light nor form in his writing, and one would as soon break a path through hedges and bushes as read through his books. But it is a sign of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit can speak brightly, neatly and clearly; Satan mumbles and chews the words in his mouth, and throws the hundred into the thousand, so that it takes effort before one hears what he means.
112. D. Carlstadt had seen that we in Wittenberg had acted against the mass as a sacrifice and good work, both with writings and deeds in great earnest, admittedly the very first, and perhaps worried that we would gain honor from it, and thus sin in 3) the vain doctrine, and thought to advise us thus: How do I do that I make the Wittenbergers cry out that all their writings and deeds about the mass are not valid and are slandered, that they consider the mass a sacrifice and a good work, and that I alone am the hero who has brought this into the world, that the mass is not a sacrifice? I will do this: I will not respect what they say.
3) Thus the Jena. The remaining issues: an.
I will rebuke them for calling it a mass, which is called a sacrifice, and for taking away the sacrament, 1) as if they were offering it, so I can say afterwards that the Wittenbergers are all far wrong, and the poor bishop of Zwickau 2) with them.
Well, then, we must again be grateful to the blessing and ensure that the vain doctrine does not deceive even the rich country runner and the unappointed preacher Carlstadt, and give an answer from the name of the mass and the lifting up of the sacrament, that more shame than honor comes from it: not that it is necessary to answer for such bad childish and foolish work, but that one sees how no good spark of right understanding remains in D. Carlstadt. Carlstadt, so that everyone knows to beware of the mad spirit and not to trust his splendid words, since there is nothing behind them but vain false murderous tricks to confuse the conscience with all unnecessary jugglery.
First, that he reproaches us for the name, that 3) we call the sacrament a mass, and puts it upon us that we are Christ's executioners, murderers, and of more abominable words, and even worse than the Papists, because mass is called a sacrifice in Hebrew, and it shall not help us that we have argued and fought with such earnestness and driving that the mass is not a sacrifice. Now it is also a shameful, childish, womanish thing in the eyes of the world, if one is otherwise one in the matter, and yet quarrels over the words; which Paul reproves, and calls it xxxxxxxxxx, word warfare.
and quarrelsome etc. [1 Tim. 6, 4. 2 Tim. 2, 14.] But it is the devil, as I have said, who through Carlstadt's head would gladly load sin and abominable driving on the consciences in the things that are 4) free and without sin. Therefore he has no rest, because he corrupts good consciences and deadly souls, which nevertheless live, as Ezekiel says [Ezek. 13, 19].
115 To the other, if it were equally true,
1) namely in the elevation.
2) Nicolaus Hausmann.
3) Erlanger: da.
4) Erlanger: yes.
that mass would be called a sacrifice, and would be a good vein to D. Carlstadt, he should have warned and admonished us before publicly exposing us to such great vices before all the world. For it was ever to be hoped, because we deny and fight with the fact that the mass is not a sacrifice, we would also like to leave the name where we would be reported that we should make it a sacrifice. Where is the 5) brotherly love left in the high spirit? Is it not a sin among these saints to blaspheme their neighbor so highly and shamefully without any cause? But there you see how D. Carlstadt is afflicted with blindness, who neither respects nor recognizes such quite great sin, and wants to burden all the world with false, fictitious, great sins. That means, I think, to have the beam in one's eyes and to want to pull out the splinter from another [Matth. 7, 5. Luc. 6, 42].
I have never known, nor do I know yet, that Missa is called a sacrifice, and D. Carlstadt should forgive me that, although I do not know much Hebrew, I know more about it to saw and to judge than he does, have now also almost translated the entire Bible, and have not yet found that Missa is called a sacrifice, so that I think he must have found it written somewhere in the smoke hole, or have recently invented his own Hebrew language, as he can invent sin and laws and evil consciences, or perhaps the heavenly voice speaks so. It would be good, if one did not understand a language, to let himself be unacclaimed for it, and to give honor to those who can, so that one might not say, "Behold, what a presumptuous ass this is! And especially if one wants to establish articles of faith, as Carlstadt does here, and therefore rages: "I dreamed that Missa in Hebrew means a sacrifice, therefore the Wittenbergers hash, execute, murder, scourge, crucify Christ, and are worse than Caiphas, Judas, Herod, because they call it Mass. Drive along nicely, drive along nicely, 6) dear Rottengeist; if it were a carnival play, the farce would probably go.
In my Hebrew language, I find that Ma's hot interest or lap, which is given annually to the authorities, as Gen. 49, 15:
5) Wittenberg and Erlangen: hie.
6) In the old editions: already.
"Issachar became interest-bearing." And in the Kings books it is often written, how land and people became interest-bearing to the children of Israel; therefore Moses once, 5 Mos. 16,10. calls Missa not the sacrifice, as D. Carlstadt dreams, but the first fruits, which sitz should bring to the priests on the day of Pentecost willingly, as a yearly interest, and there before the Lord by offering confess and thank that they had such fruits and land from the Lord, as he teaches them very fine 5 Mos. 26, 10. 13., just as also every interest man confesses by his interest that he has such money or property from the feudal lord. But sacrifice is not interest, nor was it commanded like interest. So one also had to slaughter and burn the sacrifice, so that missa and sacrifice rhyme together like fist and eye; although I had to translate it from necessity 5 Mos. 16, 10: voluntary sacrifice. But these spirits, who have the heavenly voice alone, pay no attention to my interpretation.
118. Thus the apostles and first Christians, when the Hebrew language was still common among them, called the bread and wine that they brought together for the sacrament, Missa Hebrew, in the Jewish way, after which one part was blessed for the sacrament and the other was distributed among the servants of the common and poor, which afterwards for a long time they also called Collecten from the same gathering, as the Historia Tripartita testifies, of which the word Collecta still remains in the Papist Mass, that Collecta and Missa are one thing, until the abomination came and made the sacrifice out of it. Therefore, the word Missa does not refer to the blessed Sacrament, which is performed between God and men, but only to the bread and wine, which is performed and brewed between people, not to give and sacrifice anything to God, but to divide among men.
119) Where are you now, dear spirit of the rotten and sin-mongers, with your Hebrew language? Tell me, why should I not call the Christian ministry a Collecta or Missa, as the apostles and first Christians did? Yes, say, where do you get the lies, that you blame us, we call the blessed bread and wine a mass, when mass equals
is called a sacrifice? The whole office is called a mass, and it is said: Under the mass, or in the mass, one blesses the bread and wine; item, in the mass one takes the sacrament. Who has ever heard say: I want to receive the mass, or have received the mass, when he receives the sacrament? I do not know if I have ever written or spoken it. But be it as it may, I know for certain that we in Wittenberg do not teach or say this way, although it would be without a doubt that the sacrament is or is called a mass, that this lying spirit certainly invents this on us, just as he calls Missa a sacrifice from his own dream, to prove his will to be brave.
120) But what if the apostles had called the sacrament itself Missa? I think they would have defended it before the 1) spirit of the mob, saying: "Just as the Jews had to bring their missa, that is, their firstfruits, to the priests, so that they would not give anything to God, but rather confess it and thank God that they and the whole country had this from His grace: This is what we do with the Sacrament or our Missa, and we keep it only for this reason, not to give or sacrifice anything to God, but to confess and give thanks to God, who has given us these things together with all the goods of the Kingdom of Heaven, just as Christ's words say: We should do it in remembrance of Him [1 Cor. 11:24, 25]. Hereby, I think, they would have finely shut the mouth of the spirit and led it to school, so that it would learn the Hebrew language and Moses in English, before it blasphemed and condemned that which it neither knows nor understands.
(121) I say this as if it were a matter of dispute that missa is a Hebrew word, on which I do not rely at all, for whether it is Hebrew or not, there is nothing to it; although it is almost similar to Hebrew. But what one wants to make an article of faith and rule the consciences with it, one must know much more certainly, because one knows that Missa is Hebrew, of which there is nothing in the Scriptures, without that everything must be a certain article of faith to this reckless red spirit, which only occurs to him or seems to him, and then quickly to 2) on
1) Erlanger: to apply for.
2) "to" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.
the poor consciences, stormed and raged, made sin, since there is none, as all his teaching and spirit kind is. If he were a good spirit, he should first be sure of the matter and prove that Missa is Hebrew before he interprets it Hebrew; then also prove that it is called sacrifice; finally also prove that one should not call it Missa. He does none of these, only drools his own slobber; and we are to take all this for articles of faith.
But that 1) I paint the devil very well and prove how he does not lie like this from any cause, but all his actions are a 2) thing, if I equate that Missa is called a sacrifice, and we call not the office, but the sacrament a sacrifice (which does not happen, but the spirit of the mob denies both), then what would he be? Should we therefore be Christ's executioners and murderers, as the spirit of the mob spouts? Or should it follow that we consider the Sacrament a sacrifice? For if he himself confesses that we do not consider it to be a sacrifice, how can he lie so blatantly and say: we consider it to be a sacrifice at the same time? We cannot at the same time believe and confess two different repulsive things in one heart.
(123) Yes, I want to say further, because we publicly confess with heart, tongues, feathers and work that it is not a sacrifice, and besides, out of ignorance call it a mass, as if they did not know that mass means a sacrifice: should God no longer judge us according to the heart and all other signs, because He Himself says that He sees and judges according to the heart, not according to the appearance, Is. 11:3. 11, 3, because that he should condemn us for the sake of the appearance and name, as this devil does through D. Carlstadt, who blasphemes us so shamefully according to the outward appearance of an unconscious name, and will neither judge nor see according to the heart and all the fruits of it, which we prove by deed?
How many times does a mother call her daughter a little hurdle, both from anger and from love? How often does a father call a son: Jack,
1) Erlanger and Walch: on that.
2) d. i. sought.
you rogue, or if she were called the daughter Putana, and did not know that Putana was called a whore, but meant a virgin by it! If here D. Carlstadt's spirit listened, he should rebuke the mouth and drive out: O the mother and the father are of the. They murder, execute, strangle, break the noble virtue of virginity in their own child, they are as evil as no whore-keeper or murderer. For although they profess with the heart and other signs that the daughter is a pious virgin, but because they call her a little whore or putana by name, they do just as much as a whoremonger who keeps her to fornication. Dear, what would the mother say to such a judge? She would ask for God's sake that he be bound with chains, like a foolish, raging man. It is just such a thing that Carlstadt knows well that we are not serious if we call the sacrament a sacrifice, even though we do not, and yet he judges that we think it is a sacrifice, and blasphemes so unjustly. There you can see how he only seeks cause to blaspheme us, out of sheer spite.
(125) Envy and vain doctrine have made man so senseless and even obsessed him that he no longer sees how the heart gives the name to the work, and not the work to the heart. If the heart is right and good, the name be what it will, it does no harm. What good and right mind should there be in the head to do the Scriptures or divine things, who is so wrong-minded that he has also lost the common sense of human reason and does not know that everything should be judged according to the opinion and fruits of the heart, not according to the name or appearance, as all natural laws also teach? Believe such a teacher only if he wants to write about the sacrament in a right and Christian way, who looks at all things through a stained glass and judges according to his bitter and false heart. But if he knows it, and yet writes like this willfully, it is so much the worse than if one grasps at it clearly that he must be possessed, for a man who is in his right mind does not do so willfully.
How, if we still today feed, and did not call the sacrament Mass,
but in bright German a sacrifice, only to defy the Rottengeist? Do you also think whether we could preserve it before him? For we have it in mind that everything that we have done and will do in Wittenberg should be arranged by God's grace in such a way that the devil may challenge it with all infernal gates and evil spirits, but should not gain anything, as has happened so far. Well then, I now call the sacrament a sacrifice again; not because I consider it a sacrifice, but because the god of the 1) spirit of hell, the devil, wants to prevent me from calling it that: so I will do what he does not want and leave what he wants, and I will also say my cause and reason for it.
I will call St. Peter a sinful fisherman, as he calls himself in the Gospel, and say: St. Peter, the poor sinner, has converted the world with his Gospel [Apost. 2, 41, 42]; St. Paul, the persecutor of Christianity [Apost. 9, 4], is the teacher of the Gentiles [1 Cor. 15, 9]; the sinner Mary Magdalene, Luc. 7, 48, 2) has been saved, and the like. I write this because Carlstadt's spirit has cause to write more books, although he is not commanded to do so, and thunders at me and says: The Wittenberg preacher "of the high senses" desecrates God's grace and Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit, because he calls the saints sinners; for although he considers them holy with the heart, and otherwise cherishes them with the pen (according to his German speech), but because he calls them sinners, he also considers them so and makes them sinners, murders and executes Christ, and sheds his blood etc. As the common preacher of deep senses is wont to rave.
(128) Yes, I will make it worse, I will call Jesus Christ, the Son of God, crucified and dead; so that the spirit of the wicked shall prove his art, and say, Christ is now in heaven, and is no longer crucified; because thou callest him so, thou crucifixest him, and art worse than the Jews, from whom he is crucified, whether thou with heart and pen, and with mind, and with heart and pen, and with mind, and with mind, and with mind, and with heart, and with pen, and with mind, and with mind.
1) Erlanger: this.
2) Thus the Jena; Wittenberg: "the sinner, of which S. Luc. Cap. 7. writes."
say differently. What do you think? This spirit should still well ward us off the length that we may no longer call a name of the previous stories. For if I cannot say of the mass how it was a sacrifice, and such an abominable thing it is, when I say, Here is a sacrifice of the papists, or, We received the sacrifice (hear, that was once a sacrifice), neither must we in the Gospel call Simon the leper, Peter a sinner, nor Paul the persecutor, nor Christ crucified; because all these things were, and were of the devil, and now are no more.
How often does it happen that an evil name remains for a thing when the evil is gone? Should the one who calls it by the evil name make it so evil? It could not be worse than that someone crucified and killed God's Son now; still, because it happened once, the evil name remains eternally and does no harm, because heart, courage and all works go differently than the name says. Should it not now also be held to one's credit whether he calls the sacrament a sacrifice out of habit, or out of the evil work of the papists, which they have practiced on it? Although we do not do it. Would I not call it a martyred, a crucified, a killed sacrament, as D. Carlstadt himself calls it? For all these things are included in the word "sacrifice"; should I therefore also martyred, crucified and killed and be like them, who do it with the deed, that I call [it] by the name?
130 Therefore, I ask the spirit of the mob and shove his own word down his throat. Say: Why do you call bread and wine a sacrament martyred, crucified, killed? Are ye not also the executioners and murderers of Christ, whether ye chirre with the pen otherwise? But do you say, "They do not mean it for that reason, but show what others do with it? He, dear squire, why could I not also call it a sacrifice of the opinion that others have made, prepared and called it so? Do you see that all the world and also the children see how one should not judge according to the name or appearance, but according to the heart and the deed? All this I want to have said for the sake of abundance, when
some who called it a sacrifice would be with us, so that I may show how nothing the spirit is able to do, that [it], if its dreams were true, nevertheless created nothing. But such a spirit, which has lost reason and truth, and deals only with external things, shall have such a theology of appearance and shadow.
It is a sin and a shame, as has been said, that we should waste so many words, time and paper on this child's play. But this fruit we have from it, that this spirit is stripped of its shell and brought into the light, so that everyone may see where D. Carlstadt is and what he has in mind, so that everyone may know to beware of him as of the devil. For this would be given to him as to a man, whether he taught something from name and appearance, and whether he let the reason in the heart and the deed of truth stand in the way and not be true. But that he so casts out the useless appearance, so drives it with high words, as if it were only because of that, in addition to blaspheming the inward, the right reason, which he himself confesses about us, and so horribly condemns, and gladly wants to bring to nothing, no one does that but the devil himself; for no honest pious man would do so. It would be all too easy for him, if he could bring it about, that he would disgrace the fine light of truth and grace of God, given to us in Wittenberg, only to the highest degree, and that he would persuade the people, that the right sun would have gone out through him in Orlamünde.
What do you think now? Who would have relied on D. Carlstadt's reason, how well should he stand with his Missa? who proves nothing that Missa is Hebrew, that [it] means a sacrifice, that one should not call it [so]; and even if he proves all this, nevertheless accomplishes nothing with it, except that he makes a mockery of himself and us. If the papists would only refrain from offering the mass, Lord God, how gladly I would allow them to call it whatever they wanted; I would not care about the name, because Carlstadt is completely and utterly interested in it, and the main part, the reason, is held in too low esteem.
The other part of the abolition of the sacrament is also of this kind; it must also be end-Christian and papist. Oh, who could advise man that he should do both predi
and writing, and do another work! Unfortunately, he is not good for it, he wants to make a new law and sin, and establish new articles of faith, whether God likes it or not, he cannot do anything else.
134. In the first place, we have taught from St. Paul the Christian freedom, that everything should be free, which God does not forbid with clear words in the New Testament, as there is, eating all kinds of things, drinking all kinds of things, clothing all kinds of things, place all kinds of things, person all kinds of things, giving all kinds of things, that we owe nothing at all to God, but to believe and to love [Rom. 14, 2. ff. 1 Cor. 8, 8-10.] Now tell me, where did Christ forbid to abolish the sacrament, or command to abolish it? Show me one little word, and I will yield. D. Carlstadt is still allowed to come out freely and say that Christ's prohibition, which he cannot prove, is also not true; and values sin as great as denying God. Is this not a miserable, pitiful blindness, to load souls with sins and murder, and to make law where there is none?
135. Tell me, my brother, what thinkest thou of the spirit that may impute to Christ, and say that he doeth that which he doeth not; yea, that he doeth that he doeth the contrary? For Christ does not deny it, and let it go free; this spirit denies it, and catches the conscience out of its own thirst and iniquity. Is this not blaspheming Christ? Is it not denying Christ? Is it not putting oneself in Christ's place and murdering souls under Christ's name, binding consciences, charging sins, making laws, and in short, dealing with souls as if he were their God? Such, all, and how it is to be counted more, he does, who makes laws and sin, since Christ wants to have freedom and no sin. Just as we have proved the pope to be the end of Christ because he breaks such freedom with laws, since Christ wants to have freedom; lind my spirit of the mob plunges just the same way, also wants to catch what Christ wants to have free.
But it has a different nose in this with the Rottengeist than with the pope; they both break the Christian freedom and are.
1) "den" is missing in the Jena.
both are anti-Christian, but the pope does it by command, D. Carlstadt by prohibition; the pope means to do, D. Carlstadt means to let. As Christian freedom is broken by the two things, if one commands, forces 1) and urges to do, which is neither commanded nor forced by God; or if one forbids, resists and hinders to let, which is neither forbidden nor resisted by God. For my conscience is just as much trapped and seduced when it must refrain from doing something that is not necessary to refrain from as when it must do something that is not necessary to do; and Christian freedom perishes just as much when it must refrain from doing something that it is not necessary to refrain from as when it must do something that it is not necessary to do.
The pope breaks the liberty, so that he gives up the sacrament, and wants to have it for a right and a law, and whoever lets it sin. The spirit of the mob breaks it by beating a hasty retreat to abolish the sacrament, and wants to have it for a prohibition, right and law, and whoever does it shall sin. There Christ is driven out of both parts; one pushes him out in front, the other drives him out behind; one falls to the left side, the other to the right side, and none remains on the right free road. I am almost very surprised, however, and if I did not read it myself in D. Carlstadt's books, then all the world would not have persuaded me that he should not know such things; for in this I have considered him to be learned and understanding. O Lord God, what are we when you let fall? What do we do when you cut off your hand? What can we do when you never shine? Is this free will and its capacity, that so soon the learned becomes a child, the wise a fool, the wise a madman? How terrible you are in all your works and judgments!
Let us walk in the light, for we have it that the darkness may not seize us also, and let him know who is able to know. I will speak roughly of this. There are two things: to teach and to do; but I say again, let teaching and doing be separated from one another, as far as heaven and earth.
1) This and the next following "man" in the Wittenberg and in the Jena editions; both are missing in the Erlanger.
and earth. Teachings belong to God alone, who has the right and power to command, to forbid, to be master over the consciences. But doing and not doing belong to us, that we keep God's commandments and teachings. Wherever there is a doing or not doing that God has not taught, commanded or forbidden, one should let it be free 2) as God Himself has let it be free. But whoever goes beyond this, and teaches or forbids, falls into God's own office, burdens the conscience, makes sin and sorrow, and disturbs everything that God has freely and safely given, and in addition drives out the Holy Spirit with all His kingdom, work and word, so that all devils remain there.
Now, lifting the sacrament, wearing plates, putting on chasubles and albums etc. is a doing, since God has neither commanded nor forbidden anything; therefore, it should be free, whoever desires to do and to leave it: God wants to have such freedom etc. But because the Pope does not leave the doing free, but forces it with doctrine and commandment, he encroaches upon God's office and arrogantly sets himself up in God's place, as St. Paul proclaimed of him [2 Thess. 2:4], and makes sin, since God does not want sin, and thereby kills souls and binds consciences. But because D. Carlstadt does not give the letting freely, but forces with prohibition and doctrine, one should not cancel it etc., he also interferes with God's office, puts himself in his place, and makes sin, since no sin can be nor should be, and thus kills the soul on this side, like the pope on the other side, both break, like the soul murderers, Christian freedom.
But we walk on the middle course, and say: There is neither commanding nor forbidding, neither to the right nor to the left, we are neither papal nor Carlstadtian, but free and Christian, that we abolish the sacrament, and do not abolish it as, where, when, how long we desire, as God has given us the freedom. Just as we are free to remain outside of marriage or to enter into marriage, to eat meat or not, to wear chasubles, and to be a Christian.
2) The old edition of Walch and the Erlanger: remain.
3) Thus in the old editions. Erlanger: "das Aufheben." In the marginal gloss of the Erlanger edition it is stated that "das" is an addition by Walch, as it is; nevertheless, ßdas" is placed after Walch in the text.
186 sri. ss, isi-iss. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. xx.ssi-M. 187
or not, .to have frocks and plates or not. Here we are masters and suffer no law, commandment, teaching or prohibition. As we have also done both here in Wittenberg. For in the monastery we had mass without chasuble, without fuss, badly in the most simple way, as Carlstadt Christ exemplifies. Again, in the parish we still have chasuble, albums, and altar, and we lift them up as we please.
For this reason, my spirit should not fight against us Wittenbergers in this way: They abolish the sacrament, therefore they sin against God; but thus: They teach and command that one must abolish the sacrament in case of mortal sin, therefore they sin against God; for this is what the papists do and teach. We, however, do not teach this way, and yet we do it freely as long as we feel like it. The doing does no harm, but the teaching is the devil. Again, in the monastery we leave it; but I do not teach it, as D. Carlstadt does; the leaving does not harm 1), but the teaching is the devil. Now notice from this which of the end Christians are cousins, we or D. Carlstadt. We do like the papists, but we do not suffer the teaching, commandment and compulsion; we also let like the Carlstadtians, but we do not suffer the prohibition. So the Pope and D. Carlstadt are right cousins in teaching, because they both teach, one the doing, the other the burdening. But we teach neither, and do both.
Now, gentlemen, we are talking about small things, if you look at the doing. For what is the abolition of the sacrament? But if you look at the doctrine, we are talking about the very highest things. The spirit of the wicked is too frivolous, and falls too boldly into the breach; he regards the doctrine as small and the deeds as great, but once does not see the beam in his eye, and has so much to do with the mote in our eye [Matth. 7, 5]. For with doctrine he attacks the consciences that Christ purchased with his blood, and kills the souls with commandments and sins that God so dearly purchased, so that Christ's kingdom is destroyed and all good 2) is extinguished.
1) The words: "wie - nicht" are missing in the Wittenberg and Jena editions, but are in Walch's old edition and in the Erlangen edition.
2) "Good" is missing from Erlanger.
eradicates what the gospel brings us. For Christ cannot abide in the conscience that whores with strange doctrine and the commandment of men; faith must perish. Therefore, everyone must make sure that D. Carlstadt has a spirit that is hostile to Christ and the gospel, to faith and to the whole kingdom of God, which he in turn wants to disturb with humanity and his own conceit, as you may well grasp from this piece and will hear much later.
But that he teaches us that Christ did not abolish it in the Lord's Supper, we thank him kindly, though we knew it otherwise also, and almost as well as he. We say here of teaching, not of doing, and ask us to point out where Christ is teaching or doing. We already know where he leaves it or does not do it, because we believe that it is not necessary to do and leave everything that Christ has done and left undone; otherwise we would also have to go on the sea and do all the miracles that he has done; again, leave marriage in order, leave the secular government, leave the fields and plowing, and everything that he has left undone. For that which he would have us do and leave, he not only did and left, but also signified it with words, commanded and forbade what we should do and leave. For even when he says, John 13:15, "I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done," he himself does not point to Lazarum, whom he raised from the dead, but to the washing of feet.
Therefore we do not allow any example, not even of Christ Himself, let alone of other saints, unless God's word is with them, which tells us which one we should follow or not follow. We do not want to be satisfied with works and examples; indeed, we do not want to follow any example: we want to have the word, for the sake of which all works, examples and miracles are done. For he is so wise and so eloquent, and so careful, that he has made known to us in words all that he has commanded or forbidden. Now then, all you riffraff, be confident, and show us where Christ has revealed with a bag.
3) Walch and the Erlanger: Plow.
188 Erl. SS, 1SS-1SS. 5.. Luther's writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten etc. W. XX, 253-256. 189
to abolish the Sacrament? Because you boast and rave that it is a prohibition of Christ: where is the prohibition? I respect the bride in Orlamünde in a shirt, or the groom 1) in pants in Naschhusen.
If this is to be true, that one should follow the example of Christ so rigidly and not the word alone, then it follows that we must keep this supper nowhere but in Jerusalem in the paved hall [Luc. 2:12, Marc. 14:15]. For if the outward ordinances 2) are to be so strict, the outward places and persons must also be kept strict, and it will come to pass that this supper was to be kept only by the disciples, to whom alone he commanded and administered it at that time, and St. Paul 1 Corinthians 11:17 ff. will become vain foolishness. Item, because we do not know, and the text does not give, whether it was red or plain wine, whether it was bread rolls or barley bread, we will have to leave the Lord's Supper in doubt until we are sure that we do not do any outward thing a hair's breadth differently than Christ exemplifies. 3. Yes, we will also eat the paschal lamb in Jewish beforehand. Since the text does not say whether Christ took it into his hands and presented it to each of us himself, we must wait until it is known, so that we do not lift it up or weave it differently from Christ. For wherever we do so, the spirit of the mob is there, crying out: We execute, murder, and crucify Christ. This is how good a lesson is here, and how much more blessedness is buried here than in Christ's wounds, blood, word and spirit.
Oh, the blindness and mad folly of such great celestial prophets, who boast of talking to God daily! Children should be ashamed to fool so grossly. I am thinking here of a prophecy that was said by D. Carlstadt when he first came into our teachings, which read thus: Yes, D. Carlstadt
1) Thus the Wittenbergers. Jenaer: "Brüt" and "Brütgam".
2) In the old editions: "die eusserliche Geberde", which Walch had correctly resolved with "die äußlichen Geberden". The Erlanger gives the latter as a variant of Walch.
3) Erlanger: one.
will not stay on it for long, he is a fickle man, and never stayed on anything. I did not want to believe such a thing then; now I must grasp it. For he has completely fallen again from faith to work, and unfortunately to the work of man or reason, invented by himself. So then we say that in the sacrament we do everything that Christ commanded in words, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," 1 Cor. 11:24. But what he did not forbid we do freely, as far as it pleases us, saying, "It is not to be commanded nor forbidden," just as he neither commanded nor forbade it.
(147) And though I had intended to do away with the abolition, yet I will not do it now, in defiance and opposition for a while longer of the spirit of enthusiasm, because it will have forbidden it, and held it as a sin, and driven us from freedom. For before I would give way to the soul-murdering spirit a hair's breadth or a moment to let our freedom (as Paul teaches [Gal. 5:1]), I would before tomorrow become such a strict monk, and keep all monasticism as firmly as I have ever done. It is no joke here with Christian freedom, which we want to have as pure and intact as our faith, even if an angel from heaven said otherwise. It has confessed too much to our dear, faithful Savior and Lord Jesus Christ; so it is also all too necessary for us, we may not give in to it if we lose our blessedness.
From this piece you should now notice and certainly test the spirit of D. Carlstadt, so that he deals with it, how he pulls us from the word and leads us to the works. For in order that he may do this more effectively, he holds up to you the works of Christ himself as a perfect pretense, as if you should be frightened by them and think, "Truly, who would not follow Christ? And meanwhile he conceals the word, because he has none to show for it. For after he has seen how we do not want to trust in the word and work of men, whether they are holy or old, and want to have Christ alone as our master, the prankster divides Christ into two parts, namely, how Christ once does and leaves some works without a word; and secondly, how Christ does and leaves some works without a word.
times how he does and leaves works with the word, and is so mischievous that he presents Christ alone, how he does and leaves without a word, in which he is not to be followed, and is silent where Christ does and leaves with the word, in which we are to follow him.
Do you see the devil here? the one who deceived us before through the saints wants to deceive us here through Christ himself. Beware, where you do not hear God's word that calls you or bewitches you, do not go astray and turn back, even if Christ Himself does. Is it not said enough? It is said: "Your word is my lamp", Ps. 119, 105. The word, the word shall do it, do you not hear? Now if it be held against thee, how Christ hath done, say thou freshly thereupon, Well, hath he done it, hath he also taught it, and called it to be done? Item, if one reproaches you: If they reproach thee that Christ hath not done this thing, then say freshly, Hath he also forbidden it? And if they show thee not his word thereon, say, Do, let it be, it is no concern of mine; neither are they examples, they are works done for his own person. If they say, Omnis Christi actio est nostra instructio, let them say, but see what he means by instructio. A man has said it, which is as much as thyself.
This is how it is in the world, as they say: He who cannot sing always wants to sing; he who cannot preach nor write wants to preach and write. But he who can, shuns and does not like to do it. Carlstadt, who herewith proves that he does not understand anything about Christ, just as he does not understand Moses above, must preach and write, since no one calls him or demands him, and since he is demanded, he does not do it. So he teaches Moses to understand that the disorderly rabble should rise up and punish public vices. But that he teaches Moses spiritually, how he reveals sin, and physically drives the rough rough people to works, he does and cannot, and makes him his own Moses. So here also he makes his own Christ, that we should follow his works without word. But how Christ is first our salvation, and then his works with the word our example, he cannot do, and knows as much of the New Testament as he does of the Old, and wants to know of the Sacrament and the
The same write, as if there was great need for his great, blind art, yes, ignorance.
151 For how is it possible that there should be a right understanding of Moses or of the law, as it teaches to recognize sin, Rom. 3:20, and as it drives the rude to works, Deut. 18:4, 5, where it is interpreted that the disorderly mob should rise up and take hold of the authority's office and overthrow all order and opinion of the law with it? So how is it possible that Christ should be rightly understood as given to us for life in faith, and his words and works for an example in love, who wants to go out with him, and who alone drives this, as we are to consider and follow Christ's work, unbidden and unbidden, as necessary examples? Then faith and love must perish with the whole gospel. And that is why they speak so scornfully of the doctrine of faith and love, as D. Carlstadt himself reproached me in Jena, just as if they knew much that is higher and better, and yet they do not say it, do not want to go into the day with it. By which piece alone one can prove that the devil speaks from them, because they ridicule the doctrine of faith and love, that is, Christ himself with his gospel.
After this, the man returns to his Hebrew language and argues against us in this way: "The Wittenbergers abolish the sacrament, therefore they consider it a sacrifice, because they are doing the work of the Law of Moses, in which there were two kinds of sacrifices, the heave offering and the sacrifice of peace offerings. Now he who annuls does a heave offering etc. This comes first of all out of the art. Is this not blindness, what is blindness? Everything that is lifted up is called a sacrifice by this spirit, and argues a particulari ad universalem,1 ) sic etc. Una est elevatio in lege, quae est oblatio; ergo omnis elevatio est oblatio. This sounds as if I were to say: One finds an elevation that is a sacrifice; therefore all elevations are a sacrifice. Or thus, a cow at Orlamünde is black; therefore all cows in the world are black. I have to listen to the new layman and farmer and talk peasantly. There
1) Walch and the Erlanger: universale.
Let us see what the plow of Naschhusen is capable of, of which he boasted at Jena that he should put to shame all the doctors in the world. When the maid picks up the mirror to look at it, she sacrifices it. If the farmer picks up the axe or flail to hew or thresh, he sacrifices the same. If the mother picks up the child and dances with it, she sacrifices it; therefore she does against Christ's commandment, henches, murders, slaughters, crucifies Christ, and does all the evil that those who sacrifice Christ do; as the spirit of the swarm rages; for the plow of Nashhusen has said, He who picks up sacrifices.
Tell me, has this farmer not earned enough to have his plow wedged quite 1) well? But so shall God overthrow them that sit down and rise up against the knowledge of God and undertake their own. 2) Egypt must not be smitten with common darkness, but which may be seized [Ex. 10:21]. I think this means losing reason, senses and wit. The papists themselves were never so mad or of the opinion that they sacrificed the sacrament by lifting it up, although they otherwise consider it a sacrifice, but lift it up so that they show it to the people, to remind them of Christ's suffering etc. Therefore also the priest does not speak a word, neither of the sacrifice nor of anything else, when he lifts it up; how should we then sacrifice it by lifting it up, who fight so hard that it is no sacrifice?
But it is the same fiddle on which he always fiddles, that the outward appearance is the main piece, according to which everything that heart, mouth, pen and hand confess should be judged and respected. Therefore it is of no use that we believe from the heart, confess with the mouth, testify with the pen, prove with the deed, as we do not consider the sacrament a sacrifice, because we still cancel it. So strong is the abrogation, and so much does it count, that it outweighs and condemns all such things. Is this not a peevish spirit, which thus gambles with outward appearances, contrary to the truth in the spirit? If you only consider the
1) recht" is missing in the Jena.
2) In Walch's old edition and in the Erlangen one: "one's own taking;" in the latter not from the original print, but from Walch.
If they let themselves be lifted up outwardly, they would be right, undressed, naked brides, God grant that they would keep it in their hearts as they wished.
But enough has been said above about such insistence on outward appearances; now it is only indicated that I also take the spirit out and let him see how he deals with vain folly, and can do nothing honest about the main points of Christian doctrine, and yet drives such folly so hard on the consciences with such pompous words, as if they were the main points, where all power lay. 3) So that everyone may beware of the spirit that always wants to go out and establish new articles of faith, where God knows nothing about them, and to introduce a new doctrine, which he is not commanded to do.
But I have said these things as if it were true and established that there is an abolition that is 4) a sacrifice, as this spirit is suggesting; for no man on earth calls abolition a sacrifice except this spirit, who invents such things and tries to interpret them for us, because he knew nothing else to write; nor will he ever indicate that 5) abolition means a sacrifice. He also forgets his own words when he says that "to sacrifice" 6) is as much as to slaughter, to kill, to execute, to murder, to burn etc. But who would be so mad as to say that to lift up is as much as to slaughter, to kill, to murder, to burn? without this spirit, which perhaps also learns new German from his heavenly voice; nor does he rage against himself, and fights that he who lifts up sacrifices.
157) But that he draws from the Hebrew 7) the two words, Thnupha and Thrüma [Ex. 25, 3. 4 Mos. 18, 8. 11.], which are Webeopfer and Hebeopfer, or Hebe and Webe translated by me, that he does again to prove his excellent art in the Hebrew language, about which the world should be surprised that the plow at Nashhusen also knows Hebrew language, but not the common language,
3) In the outputs: anlege.
4) Walch and the Erlangeners: that.
5) Wittenberg and Erlangen: da.
6) Erlanger: the sacrifice.
7) In the old editions: testifies. Hereby Luther points to § 11 and § 12 of Carlstadt's writing: "Wider die alten und neuen papistischen Messen" (No. 2 in the appendix of this volume).
which everyone talks about, but which the Spirit teaches recently and still teaches daily from the heavenly voice.
For my Hebrew language teaches me that before offering anything according to the law, it must first be lifted up and woven, and therefore it must be lifted up and woven, so that one confesses and gives thanks to God, as for a gift that was not offered or given to God, but received from Him. Just as I said above about the name Missa. After that, it was first sacrificed and set on fire, if it was previously lifted up and woven, so that lifting up and weaving cannot be a sacrifice in the law, nor at any end.
Behold, this spirit understands the Law of Moses and the Hebrew so well, and yet is so thuggish and wicked that he builds his dreams on such articles of faith, and wants to entangle the consciences so highly that they shall be Christ's murderers, executioners, and killers if they lift them up. So the devil must always have a mouth full of blasphemy and disturb Christ.
160 Carlstadt fell out of the kingdom of Christ and was shipwrecked in the faith; therefore he also wants us out, straight into the works, and wants to make Galatians out of us. For behold, dear man, what gross blindness this is, that he thus contends, If any man circumcise himself, shall he not 1) be called a Jew? So, he who lifts up is called cheaply a sacrificer etc. You poor wretched spirit, where did you read that he who circumcises himself is called a Jew? Did not Paul circumcise Timothy, since he was already baptized and a Christian? Apost. 16, 3. Does not St. Paul absolve circumcision? 1 Cor. 7, 19: "Circumcision is nothing, foreskin is also nothing", that is, one may be circumcised or not, have foreskin or not. And this spirit judges freshly and boldly against St. Paul's judgment: it is not free, but makes Jews. So he should say: whoever circumcises himself, as if he had to do it for the sake of the law and conscience, is a Jew; for circumcision does not make Jews, since one may well be a Jew.
1) "not" is missing in the Jena.
Finds those who must have their skin cut off because of sickness or rotten flesh; should they therefore be called Jews?
161 But this makes a Jew, who has a conscience, as enforced by the law, he must circumcise himself. This Jewish sense and conscience makes a Jew, whether he could never circumcise himself outwardly or not. Thus the foreskin does not make a Gentile, but if he thinks in his conscience that he must have foreskin, he is a Gentile if he lets himself be circumcised a thousand times externally. Just as D. Carlstadt is actually a heathen and has lost Christ because he considers the foreskin necessary and circumcision condemned and does not leave it free as Christ wants it. There you can see clearly how this man is completely immersed in works and drowned in outward appearances, that he cannot give a unified judgment in spiritual matters of conscience. For it is impossible that there should be a spark of Christian understanding left in him, because he thinks that an outward work makes a Jew or a Christian, a Gentile or a Turk, and does not judge according to conscience, but according to appearance, which even sensible people do not do.
162 Thus he should also have said here: Whoever annuls the sacrament out of necessity of conscience, as if he had to annul it, would also be a Jew. But we do not do this, as he well knew. Therefore he was afraid that he would have to stand in disgrace, as if he had publicly lied against us, but he did not see that he would thereby gain much greater disgrace, that he would lie against God, and he forbids the work, as if he were condemned by God's prohibition, which God has not forbidden. Again, he who forces the sacrament not to be abrogated, as is necessary, is a heathen, as D. Carlstadt does, and here makes a necessary law about the consciences, which, however, only God has the right to do; but he who abrogates it or does not abrogate it, out of free conscience, as it is loved by him, is a Christian; which is done by faith, which alone makes Christians without all works.
Item 163: He should further say: Whoever takes away the sacrament with such a conscience and the opinion that he is sacrificing it, is a sacrificer and a pope. For where such a conscience
If there is no conscience, one sacrifices, even if one never stops the sacrament or immediately sinks it into a deep well. But where there is no such conscience, no sacrifice is made, even if it were raised above all the heavens and all the world cried out: sacrifice, sacrifice; for everything is connected with the conscience; this swarming spirit knows nothing about it, or does not want to know.
I fear that this letter will be annoying for many to read, because it deals with such trickery. But how shall I do to him? This mad spirit forces me to do so. But still, as I said above, we have the fruit of this, that we may defend our Christian freedom and understand more clearly, and also recognize this false spirit and see how it is blind to all things and lacks understanding, according to which each one should know how to keep himself. For because he does not understand such small things, and thinks so highly of them, God interferes with his office, makes laws, sins and consciences where there are none, breaks Christian freedom, and draws consciences away from the understanding of grace to outward works and appearances, so that Christ is denied, his kingdom disturbed, the gospel profaned: who can hope that he will ever write or teach anything good? For surely it can be proved from these things that Christ's spirit is not there; then the devil must be there, and he is also; and every man must judge himself according to this.
I like the fact that the mass is held in German among the Germans, but that he also wants to make a nuisance of it, as if it had to be that way, that is once again too much. The spirit cannot do otherwise than always, always make laws, distress, conscience and sin. I have read in 1 Corinthians 14:27, 28 that he who speaks with tongues should be silent in the church, since no one understands anything 1). But one wants to skip that it says: nisi interpretetur quis, that is, speaking with tongues, St. Paul allows, if it is interpreted next to it, that one understands it; therefore he also gives there that they should not resist those who speak with tongues etc. Now we do not give the sacrament to anyone, unless he understands the words in the sacrament, as is well known; that we therefore
1) Walch and the Erlangeners: "nothing from".
In this we do not do anything against St. Paul, because we do enough for his opinion. Whether we do not do enough for this spirit, which only looks at outward works and pays no attention to conscience or opinion, is not the issue; we give nothing to his new articles of faith.
166 I would like to have a German mass today, I also deal with it; but I would like it to have a proper German style. For that one interprets the Latin text and keeps the Latin tone or notes, I let happen; but it is not correct nor righteous. Both text and notes, accent, manner and gesture must come from the right mother tongue and voice, otherwise it is all an imitation, as the monkeys do. But now that the spirit of enthusiasm insists that it must be, and 2) wants to burden the conscience with law, work and sin, I will take my time and hurry less than before, only to defy the sin masters and soul murderers who compel us to works as commanded by God, which he does not give.
For he who goes to the sacrament with such understanding that he has the words in German or clearly in his heart: "Take and eat, this is my body," etc. which he learns and remembers from the preceding sermons, and receives the sacrament thereupon and thereby, receives it rightly, and hears not vain tongues, but right understanding. Again, whoever does not grasp them in his heart and understand them, nor receive the sacrament, it does not help him if a thousand preachers stand around his ears and shout madly and foolishly with such words. But the mad spirit is all too concerned with the outward work and appearance that he always wants to make necessary from his own head and make it the article of faith, without God's command.
168) The fool does not understand the words of St. Paul when he writes about speaking in tongues 1 Cor. 14, 2-29. For St. Paul writes about the ministry of preaching among the congregation, where they are to listen and learn, and says: "Whoever starts there and wants to read, teach or preach, and yet speaks with tongues, that is, he speaks Latin in front of the Germans or any other unknown language, let him be silent.
2) but - again.
and preach to him alone. For no one hears it nor understands it, and no one can improve from it; or if he wants to speak with tongues, he should also translate it or otherwise interpret it so that the congregation understands it. Therefore, St. Paul does not use tongues in such a disturbing way, as this spirit of sin does, but does not forbid them, if the interpretation is done in addition.
Therefore, it is the custom in all countries to read the Gospel in Latin before the sermon, which is called St. Paul speaking with tongues in the congregation. But because the sermon goes on soon, and the tongue translates 1) and interprets, St. Paul does not reject nor condemn it; why should I condemn it or anyone? Yes, God would have it that such an order of St. Paul would happen everywhere enough, that nothing else would be preached after the Latin Gospel but the same interpretation. Now this zealot spirit wants to condemn everything that St. Paul allows and insists that it should not be condemned; to this end, he does not want to suffer any singing or Latin word, and he does not apply St. Paul's teaching on tongues to the preaching ministry alone, but to all outward appearances, since there is no power in it, as is his way.
170 Not that I want to refuse to use vain German in the mass, but I do not want to suffer that one forbids to read the Latin gospel without God's word out of one's own thirst and sacrilege, and makes sin where there is none, so that we do not get the spirit of the sect with its fanaticism to be master in God's stead. For we do not need to establish our cause or strengthen it against the papists with such illusions, otherwise we would stand before them with all our shame. It should all be certain and pure word of God, on which we build and fight against them, so that they may not raise anything honestly against it. For even if we now have the German mass, it will not be enough that the words in the sacrament are spoken in German; for they must be spoken before and before the sacrament is received, so that those who go must have it in their hearts and not in their ears. What lies
1) In Walch and in the Erlanger: verdeutsch.
For if they do not hear them in the sacrament, if they have only heard and grasped them hard beforehand in the sermon, and confess them afterward, then one would want to shout the same words especially in the ears of everyone who goes to it, and bless the sacrament as many times as there are who take it.
I had intended to cover everything in one book, but I am in a hurry and it wants to become too big. Therefore, I must break off here in haste, and begin another 2) about the Sacrament; for I do not yet have all of its venomous books, as they boast. Do not let the time be long, I have written this in a short time; the other shall follow on its heels, God wills it. To Him be praise and glory forever, amen.