against the heavenly prophets, from the Sacrament.
I have no doubt that this discord of ours is a source of great joy and hope among the papists, as if it would put an end to our doings. Well, let us praise them and have good courage over us. I have said it many times and long ago: If what I have begun is from God, then no one shall stop it; if it is not from God, then someone else shall stop it; I certainly do not want to keep it. I cannot lose anything in it, because I have not put anything into it. But I know well that no one shall take it from me without God alone. And although I am also sorry for these annoyances, 3) I am nevertheless pleased that the devil comes to day and is disgraced by these his heavenly prophets, who have now long murmured and have never wanted to come forth until I have lured them out with a florin; it is well invested by God's grace and does not repent me.
2. there is no need, in God's name; I know and am sure who the master is here, who has not been lacking to me in many a strong fight; he will also be available to me in this fight.
2) This refers to the second part of this writing, which was written somewhat later.
3) Taken by us from Walch's old edition. In the editions: ist.
not be lacking. Therefore only be fresh and undaunted to whom the gospel is given. We have a cheerful consolation and good courage, and fight against melancholy, stupid, despondent, afflicted spirits, who are afraid even of a rustling leaf, without fearing God, as is the way of the wicked (Ps. 36:2), and mastering His word and work. This means that he is hidden and cannot be seen or felt. But if he were a present, visible man, he should chase them out to the land with a straw.
For this is what this spirit did. First he crept to and fro in the country, and 1) secretly threw himself about, seeking where he could find those who fell to him. Now, if he lets himself think that he has a following, he suddenly 2) bursts out and thinks that he has won, [so] that his defiance does not stand on God, who speaks with them, as they boast, but on the chance of the mob, and builds on flesh and blood. For whom God drives to speak, he lifts up freely in public, though he alone, and no one falls to him, as Jeremiah did [Jer. 2:2 ff]; as also I can boast that I have done. Therefore this is certainly the devil, who sneaks in secretly and maliciously, and excuses himself afterwards, that he was not strong enough in spirit at first. Yes, God's spirit does not excuse itself in this way; my devil, I know you well.
4) The right devil is not out yet either. For he still has something else in mind, which 3) I have long since smelled. That will also come out, if God wills. It is, praise God, so far away, that one may not be particularly allowed of me; there are enough people, who can answer such a spirit, without me, because I am alive, also having to be in the game. I also know well that D. Carlstadt has long since cooked this porridge in his heart and will never be able to prepare it. I also knew that he would not do much better than he has done, and that all his clever thoughts would be in vain. For no art, no wit, 4) no poetry against God [Proverbs 21:30] will help, he can do it with one word.
1) Erlanger: rambled.
2) Erlanger: cheerful.
3) Walch and Erlanger: that.
4) In the old issues: no jokes.
disgrace everything. He knows that human thoughts are vain.
(5) Therefore, if there is anyone who is so weak that he cannot bear the blow, and doubts the sacrament, let him be advised, and in the meantime remain without the sacrament, and otherwise practice the word of God, faith and love, letting those who are secure in conscience handle it. You are not condemned if you remain without the Sacrament. But let it be said to the papists, who rejoice in this astonishment, that they beware and not harden their hearts. For God has often acted foolishly and weakly, as if His word and deeds were to perish, in order to harden and blind the ungodly; and yet, by this very means, He has gone out in the strongest possible way, and those who harden and blind themselves to all His foolishness and weakness 5) have perished most horribly; as happened to the Jews through the cross of Christ [1 Cor. 1:18 ff.] and to the Gentiles through the suffering of the martyrs.
Because the devil throws one thing into another in such a disorderly and wild way, and his writing is like D. Carlstadt's head, in the most disorderly and clumsy way, that it is extremely annoying to read and difficult to remember, I will try to put his displeasure and poison in order, and deal with it piece by piece. And first I want to strike out the reason and opinion, to which all his raving turns, 6) so that the reader may have a light to look at and recognize this spirit through and through. But the opinion is this.
God, out of great kindness, has given us again the pure gospel, the precious treasure of our salvation. This gift must now be followed by faith and spirit in a good conscience, as He promises in Isa. 55:11 that His word shall not go forth in vain; and Rom. 10:17: "Faith comes by preaching."
8 The devil is hostile to this gospel and does not want to suffer it; and because he has not been able to resist it with force or sword, he now attacks it with cunning (as he has always done) and with false prophets. And I beg you, Christian reader, will you respond to this
5) Erlanger: obdurate and blinded.
6) lenden - to steer, to turn.
See, I will reveal to you, if God wills, the devil in these prophets, that you may seize him; it is for your benefit and not mine that I write. And the thing goes thus.
9 Therefore, when God has sent forth His holy gospel, He deals with us in two ways. Once outwardly, the other time inwardly. Outwardly he deals with us through the oral word of the Gospel and through the bodily signs, such as baptism and the sacrament. Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy Spirit and faith along with other gifts. But all this in such a way and in such an order that the outward parts should and must go first, and the inward parts afterwards and through the outward parts, so that he has decided not to give any man the inward parts without the outward parts; for he does not want to give anyone the Spirit or faith without the outward word and sign, which he has appointed for this purpose, as he says in Luc. 16, 29: "Let them hear Moses and the prophets. Therefore St. Paul may also call baptism a bath of new birth, in which God pours out the Holy Spirit abundantly, Titus 3:5, 6, 7, and the oral gospel a divine power that saves all who believe in it, Romans 1:16.
(10) Pay attention to this order, my brother, it will be entirely up to you. For even though this spirit of the order presents itself as if it thinks highly of God's word and spirit, and boasts of the excellent fervor of love and zeal for the truth and justice of God, it is nevertheless its opinion that it is turning this order around and setting up a perverse one out of its own iniquity, and is conducting the matter in such a way:
(11) First, what God ordains outwardly to the spirit inwardly, as has been said, oh how he scornfully and mockingly throws this to the wind and wants to enter the spirit first. Yea, saith he, should a handful of water make me clean from sins? The Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit must do it within. Should bread and wine help me? Should breathing on the bread bring Christ into the Sacrament? No, no, you have to let Christ
1) "the" is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlanger.
The Wittenbergers know nothing about it, they steal the faith from the 2) letter; and the magnificent words much, that, who does not know the devil, would like to think they have five Holy Spirits with them.
But if you ask them, how do you get into the same high spirit? they do not point you to the outward gospel, but to the land of the sleeping monkeys, and say: Stand in boredom, as I have stood, and you too will experience it; there the heavenly voice will come, and God himself will speak to you. If you ask further about boredom, they know as much about it as D. Carlstadt does about Greek and Hebrew. Do you see there the devil, the enemy of divine order? How he opens your mouth with the words spirit, spirit, spirit, and yet at the same time outlines both bridges, footbridge and path, ladder and everything, through which the spirit is to come to you, namely, the outward orders of God in the bodily baptism, sign and oral word of God, and will teach thee, not how the Spirit shall come to thee, but how thou shalt come to the Spirit, that thou shalt learn to ride upon the clouds, and to ride upon the wind, saying not how, or when, or where, or what; but shalt know it thyself as they do.
Again, what God does not order outwardly, they 3) plumb out, as if they were nonsensical. And as they invent their own inward spirit, so they also establish their own outward order, since God has neither commanded nor forbidden. So that one should have no images, churches, altars, not call mass, not call sacraments or abolish them, not have chasubles, but wear gray skirts, rather call oneself neighbor, kill godless princes, suffer no injustice and do much of the outward humility and gestures, which they themselves invent and which God does not respect. Whoever does otherwise than they do is a two-faced pope, who executes and murders Christ, and must be a Christian scholar. But he who does so has already jumped into the spirit with boots and all, and is a spiritual scholar. O excellent
2) Erlanger: den.
3) In the old editions: loddern. The same stem is found in Lotterbube.
Saints! If you ask them who calls them such, they throw up their hands: Oh! my God tells me, the Spirit calls me; yes, all their dreams are the word of God. How thinkest thou of the fellows? Do you almost grasp who this spirit is?
14. further, what God ordains inwardly, as faith, is not valid, go to, and all outward words and scripture, which press on the inward faith, in an outward new way, make the old man dead, and invent all this disenchantment, study, wonder, boredom and more of the jiggery-pokery, since not one letter of it is written in the scripture. Therefore, my Carlstadt plods in like a sow that has now devoured the pearls, and like a dog that has devoured the sanctuary [Matth. 7, 6.], and tears up everything that Christ speaks and puts from inward faith to such outward, fictitious works, so even that he makes nothing else out of the supper of Christ and his remembrance, and out of the knowledge of Christ, but a human work, that with ardent heat and (as their foolish words read) with outstretched lust we should also thus kill ourselves. So that he makes a mist and clouds, that these bright words should not be seen, since Christ says: "My blood is shed for you for the remission of sins" [Matth. 26, 28. Marc. 14, 24. Luc. 22, 20.], which without doubt are grasped, obtained and kept by faith alone, and by no work, as we shall see when we now come to it.
(15) Now let this much be said to indicate that you know how these spirits are wont to do a perverse thing contrary to God's order; that which God orders from the inward faith and spirit, they make out to be a human work. Again, what God orders from the outward word and signs and works, they make out to be an inward spirit, and put the killing of the flesh first before faith, yes, before the word, thus (as is the devil's way) going out where God wants to go in, and in where God wants to go out. That I now call him a devil, no one should be surprised;
1) Erlanger: is also called.
because I do not care about D. Carlstadt, I do not look at him, but at the one who has possessed him and speaks through him, as St. Paul speaks: "We do not fence with flesh and blood, but with spiritual wickedness in the air" etc. [Eph. 6:12.]
(16) You then, my brother, hold fast to the order of God, namely, that the killing of the old man, in which one follows Christ's example, as Peter says [1 Pet. 2:21], should not be the first thing, as this devil does, but the last; so that no one should kill his flesh, bear the cross, and follow Christ's example, unless he is first a Christian and has Christ in his heart through faith, as an eternal treasure. But this is not obtained by works (as these prophets rave), but by hearing the gospel, so that the order is as follows: first, before all works and things, one hears the word of God, in which the Spirit punishes the sinner for sin, John 16:9. When sin is recognized, one hears about the grace of Christ. In the same word, the Spirit comes and gives faith where and to whom He wills. After that you go to the death and the cross and the works of love. Whoever proposes another order to you, do not doubt that it is the devil, as this Carlstadt spirit is, as you shall yet see.
Come on, let's get down to business.
First of all, dear children, how the spirit makes itself so useless over the word and name "sacrament"; there the sow has a shell on! It is a shame that one should speak of it. But nevertheless, because the spirit drives here so gloriously, Christ and the apostles did not call it so, he wanted to have a word from the Biblia. God gives names to his creatures; we humans are not to give names to divine things. Finally he becomes a Jew and calls it Sekerment, as the Jews mock us Christians, and call it Seker Theminith, that is, a false simile. Although the Hebrew language speaks of Naschhusen as Sekerment, as you see here, and makes Ment into a picture. 2) What is the purpose of this word splendor? For this,
that the mad rabble should shut their mouths and noses, and say: Traun, I mean yes, that is something, that is a man, he can do it, there is the spirit.
18 But in essence, this is the opinion, as I said above, that such outward names and appearances, of which God has neither commanded nor forbidden, should be the right head, since all power lies with it, as He also did with the name Mass and Lifting above. Whoever does not call it Sacrament has the Spirit and is holy. But he who calls it Sacrament is called black and white, and deceives people from God, and more of the abominable vices; in sum, he denies Christ. Is this not a grievous thing from the spirit of sacrilege, which makes such a great thing out of that which is nothing?
19 Now then, you murderer of souls and spirit of sin, we confess: God has not called it a sacrament, nor commanded it to be called a sacrament. But tell me again: Where did he forbid it? Whoa! but only a bag; if so? Who has given you the power to forbid what God does not forbid? How are you so wicked as to commit such a great sin, when God does not want any? Are you not the real murderer of souls, who sets himself over us in God's stead, and takes away our Christian freedom, and casts the consciences under him?
20 Yes, you do not call it, like Christ and the apostles. Why do you deny so grossly? We also call it the Lord's Supper, or the bread and cup of the Lord, since we read the apostle 1 Cor. 11:26, 27. So you should sue us, you mad spirit: you command it to be called a sacrament, and forbid it to be called the Lord's Supper. If thou couldst bring such things upon us, thy bitter venomous resentment would have been somewhat visited upon us. But since we neither command nor forbid it, but call it a sacrament with a free conscience, you are a denier and blasphemer of Christ, who, without command from God, forbid, condemn and disgrace such freedom, acquired and given to us by God, and make such a necessary, spiritual, great thing out of your outward name and appearance.
Should I not call my Lord Jesus Christ by one name?
which is not written in the Scriptures? What if I called him my heart's crown, my heart's delight, my ruby, as long as I did not feel guilty about it, as if I had to call him that and not something else? But where are these names in the Scriptures? Item, if we should speak of baptism and the Lord's Supper altogether, how would we do it? There is no name in Scripture that covers all the sacraments or signs. Here we would have to be silent, or not speak of them all, or these prophets would judge us as Christ deniers. Item, there are many articles of faith, many pieces of Christian doctrine, many chapters in the Bible. How shall we do to him? These names, "articles, pieces, chapters" are not in the Bible, so now we must not speak of articles of faith, pieces of doctrine, chapters of the Bible. Yes, how do they themselves want to do, the heavenly prophets, they lead the chapters from the Scriptures with names? Are they not also murderers of Christ according to their own judgment, that they give names to divine things, which are not written in the Scriptures?
(22) If fools were to juggle like this at carnival, it would be all right, but that such high spirits, such heavenly prophets, should fool so childishly in such serious matters, and want to make it as great as all Christian mainstays, that is never a good spirit. What light should be in the minds, since such palpable darkness is within? This is what I am saying, to expose the devil to you and to show you tangibly what I have said above. Therefore, only look at the devil, how he sets up external order, which God has not commanded, and makes spirit out of it, which he himself has invented, in turn, destroying and disgracing the Christian freedom, which we have 1) in spirit and conscience. Dear, let it not be a thing of herrings, forbidding where God does not forbid, breaking Christian freedom that Christ has tasted blood, loading the conscience with sins where there is none. He who does and may do this may also do all evil, yes, he already denies everything that God is, teaches and does, together with his Christ, so that it is no wonder whether he also has bad bread and wine in the sacrament.
1) "so we have" in the old edition Walch's and m the Erlanger.
and cause even more misfortune. What good should the devil do?
23 Therefore listen, my brother, you know that by Christian liberty, as by any article of faith, we are to leave life and limb, and do all that is contrary to it, and leave all that is contrary to it, as St. Paul teaches in Galatians 5. Since then this same Christian liberty suffers distress over this little word and name "sacrament," you are henceforth guilty of defying and opposing these prophets of the devil by calling the Lord's Supper a sacrament; and wherever you are with them or come to them, you must call it a sacrament; not that it is necessary for your conscience, but that it is necessary to confess and maintain Christian liberty, 1) and not to allow the devil to make a commandment, prohibition, sin or conscience, since God does not want any. But where thou sufferest such sin to be made, there is no more Christ to take it away. For with such a conscience one denies the true Christ, who takes away all sin. Therefore you see how in these little things there is no little driving, if one wants to get on the conscience with it.
024 As if it were forbidden thee to eat flesh on a fish day, thou must eat it: but if it were commanded thee on a flesh day, thou must not eat it. If you are forbidden to marry, you must marry or pretend to marry. And so on, where one wants to make commandment, prohibition, sin, good works, conscience, and driving, since God wants freedom and nothing, hunted or committed, you must hold fast over such freedom, and always do the contradiction, until you receive freedom. So Paul did not want to circumcise Titum, Gal. 2, 3, because they insisted on it and wanted to make it necessary; and yet he circumcised Timothy, Acts 16, 3. 16, 3, because he was not urged. So you may call this a sacrament or not. But where these prophets urge and forbid it, you must and shall call it a sacrament.
25. on the other hand, since he now wants to prove that Christ is not flesh and blood in the Sa-.
1) In Walch and in the Erlangen edition: "not preserved".
crament, he himself confesses that he is moved by the preaching that has been said so far: Christ's natural body is as great, wide, thick and long in the sacrament as when he hung on the cross; and says he cannot believe it etc. God forced him (like Caiphas [Joh. 11, 50.]) to speak of himself, so that everyone would see that he did not get his opinion from the Scriptures, but carried it in, and was willing to run to the Scriptures with such delusion, and to bend, tear and torture them on such his conceit, and not to break or judge his foolish mind according to God's word and Scriptures.
(26) Now it is true that such talk and conceit are gladly heard by the rabble and by reason, and indeed it would be no need for them to boast of the heavenly voice and of so excellent a high spirit. There is no reason so small that is not inclined to believe that there is bad bread and wine, rather than that Christ's flesh and blood are hidden there. One does not need a mind for this; it is easy for anyone to believe it. And the mad mob needs nothing more here than that only one, who has a small reputation, should be so bold and preach it, then he already has enough disciples. It would also have been easy for me to believe and preach that D. Carlstadt may not boast of great intellect or art here.
(27) But if our faith is to be treated in this way, that we first put our conceit into the Scriptures, and then direct them according to our own mind, and look only at what is plain to the common people and common conceit, then no article of faith will remain. For there is no one in Scripture who is not placed above reason by God. And this is precisely the cause that betrays Carlstadt's error, that he speaks of faith and God's word in such a way that reason gladly and willingly accepts it, which otherwise rebels against all God's words and articles of faith, and is allowed to write such a 3) thing about himself as his most noble reason. So I would also like to say: I cannot believe that God's Son has become a man, and that the majesty, so heavenly, has become a man.
2) Walch and the Erlanger: gemeinen.
3) i.e. as one of his most distinguished WÄLdL---.
I did not understand the world and the earth, and I put them into the narrow body of a woman, and then I let myself be crucified. And then he wanted to tear down all the Scriptures and God's Word and interpret them according to my mind, as Manichaeus did. Now it is confessed first enough that he carried his conceit into the Scriptures and did not get it out, as he also cannot get it out. He might well have kept silent about the reason. But God wanted it that way, that the cuckoo would have to call out his own name.
After that he takes the scripture before him, before which his skin was afraid, and wants to charm it, so that it should not strike him, and says: "The verse" etc. 1) But, because he mumbles so in the dark with fear, I will set his mind a little clearer. So he wants to say: Under the words, where the evangelists describe the Lord's Supper, namely:
Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, and brought and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this is My body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of Me," (D Cor. 11:24. Matth. 26:26).
29) Among these words, he says, the part "this is my body, given for you" is entirely its own part, and is not connected with the preceding "take, eat," but is a special speech and opinion added, since without it the speech would be complete.
30 Summa, D. Carlstadt wants to say so much with it, Christ could have left these words "this is my body, which is given for you" outside in the Lord's Supper, and the Lord's Supper would have been sufficiently instituted with these words:
Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it, eat. This do in remembrance of me.
(31) For that his body should be given for us is written in many other places. But he has added it to the abundance, to remind them of what they have been given.
1) Thus the old editions have interpungirt. Walch and the Erlanger: "and speaks the verse" etc. That the punctuation we have used is correct is clear from the "Gesprächbüchlein", "this verse: 'this is my body' etc. is a fully adequate verse" etc.
should remember. As you 2) may well think that the drunkard Christ got so drunk in the evening that he drowned the disciples with the rest of his words.
(32) What do you think? Is this not a foolhardy spirit, who so boldly reaches into God's words and forces out what pleases him? Now because these spirits boast that they want to say wedded words, they want to force it with bright sayings, it must be so; as he then in the same book 3) always drives his poor Gemser, and says: Show reason, show scripture, you must force it, urge, fear and drive, so that one may not escape you etc., so we also need such his rule and say: Dear Spirit, you say two things here; the first: that this thing, "this is my body, given for you," is a special thing, and do not hang on the 4) other. We pray thee, make us blind with eyes to see, and show reason, show scripture, enforce it, compel us to confess this. Oh yes! If so? For God's sake, show a word that clearly says or forces that this piece is a special one, then we will believe it. Won't you? Where is your spirit? Where is your God? Is he asleep? Or is he over the field? 5) Dear children, how silent and mute is the spirit here, which writes so many books, and yet does not show a word to the reason that this piece is a special piece!
33 Therefore, if the high spirit is silent and gives no indication, we ask for mercy. We must trust our eyes and ears, for we see and hear that this piece is not a special addition, as this spirit is doing, but it stands in the midst of other words, and hangs on it so hard that it could not hang on it any closer. For it follows without means the piece "Take and eat, this is my body," so that whoever hears them speak one after the other cannot think that it is another new piece. Therefore there must be a strong reason here
2) In the old edition of Walch and the Erlanger: "Wie magst du."
3) In the "Gesprächbüchlein," No. 3 in the appendix to this volume.
4) Erlanger: den.
5) d. i. Egg! look.
and mighty cause are given from the Scriptures, one shall prove that a new special piece is, and does not hang on the proceeding. These same causes and reasons we comfortingly assume and are certain that this spirit will arise when the devil becomes God.
34 For where it should be an addition, it should not stand in the middle of other words, nor be interspersed when he speaks of eating, but should be added afterwards, when the other speeches were all finished, so that the text would stand thus according to Carlstadt's opinion:
Receive and eat, this do in remembrance of me: for I say unto you, that here sitteth the Lender which is given for you.
This is how Christ would have spoken if he had wanted to have understood an addition and D. Carlstadt's opinion. For he is not as unspoken or as confused in head as D. Carlstadt, although D. Carlstadt thinks, as he plops one thing into another and brews without all order, that Christ also does so; but he should prove it first. For it is sufficiently proven that he himself has such a head and manner.
The other thing that the Spirit is to prove is that he says that this particular thing, "this is my body," was added for the purpose of reminding and teaching them what their memory should be based on. etc. Well, that is out, the Spirit has said it; now where is the reason and cause that Christ therefore added this? Whoa! Peter von Naschhusen, show poor Gemser a little word, urge, force, compel him that he must confess it so. For Gemser hears well that you say it. But it is a great shame that your heart should fall away like this when you have to prove it. Where is it written? What scripture says it? that it is added to teach the memory? I know that Christ's death is to be commemorated, but that this piece is added for this reason I do not know, since the Lord's Supper is perfect without such a piece, and other oters show well enough why Christ is to be commemorated. If I had been with you, my Peter, I would have introduced you to another gem, which should have wedged the plow of such a spleen.
So now this matter stands: If D. Carlstadt is the man who has power to set articles of faith, and we must believe him, if he speaks without Scripture what he dreams, then his writing is right, so this piece is to be taken out, and has added and patched up a peculiar opinion to the whole complete text, like a shell on a Jacob's coat, and does not approach the Lord's Supper. But if he is not the man, then you see how the devil rides him, that he tears, sets, changes, interprets, tortures God's word according to his will, so that I myself believe that he is not serious, but has surrendered into the entrenchment, that he asks neither for God nor man. For how can a man do this without a special devil? That he wants to tear clear words out of both eyes and ears, without 1) speaking and setting all Scripture as he thinks fit, and to arrogate such conceit so high, as if nothing more constant had been heard on earth, that he also therefore blasphemes and reviles the repulsive, as if he were full of devils; as his little books show.
38 It reminds me of his tearing and torturing in God's words just as those, of which I read a book when I was a young master, who tore and tortured the Lord's Prayer thus: Our Father who art in heaven be sanctified, thy name come, thy kingdom come etc. And was strangely and strangely divided, had also their cause thereupon. Item, as some Jews have done, Gen. 1, 27: God created man in His image male and female; He created them; and thought that God had made Adam in such a way that his one person would be both male and female. If it were to be torn and divided in this way, what a fine Bible we would make, especially if it were done in places where power lies, and articles of faith are established; in other places there would not be so much power in it.
39 Therefore this is our reason: Wherever the Scriptures give a foundation for believing, one should not depart from the words as they read, nor from the order as it is written,
1) Wittenberg and Erlangen: and without.
unless an expressed article of faith compels to interpret the words differently, or to order them. What else did the Bible want to become? When the Psalter says: God is my rock, Ps. 18, 3, here the word "rock" is written, which otherwise means a natural stone. But because faith teaches that God is not a natural stone, it forces me to interpret the word "rock" differently from its natural meaning. So also Matth. 16, 18.: "On this rock I will build my church."
(40) But since there is no article here that requires this piece to be separated and taken out, or that the 1) bread is not Christ's body, one should badly take the words as they sound, and not change them, and let the bread be Christ's body.
41 Yes, says my Peter Rülz, that [it] is a special piece proves that, because it begins with a large letter, namely: "This is my body" etc. Item, there is a large dot in front of it etc., where one is in the habit of starting new pieces. What do I hear? I had demanded reason and cause from the Scriptures; so you give me a dot and a capital letter. Is a dot and a capital letter holy scripture at Nashhusen by the plow? So I hear that once again you give me your conceit instead of divine scripture, and pay dirt for gold. Because you think that a dot and a large letter make something special and new, you want to persuade me to think so without writing. No, it is not a matter of opinion; Scripture, Scripture, Scripture, compel, urge, compel me with God's word that a dot and a capital letter always make a new thing. Where does a clear saying in the Scripture say: A dot and a capital letter make a special thing? Do you not hear, Peter? Peter, don't you hear?
Is not this a sin and shame of the spirit, that he would base such a great thing on such idle talk, who rages so horribly when he is not shown writing? How if my book had no point nor large letter, and your book had it both? So I hear well, our faith
1) "that" is missing in the Jena.
would stand on the ink and pens, yes, on the good will of the scribes and printers; ei there it would stand fine! We say and want to have it in short, there should be dry, bright sayings and text, which force us with a clear mind, God gives, whether it is written with large or small letters, with dots or without dots. For if it were true among men that a dot and a capital letter make a new thing (as they do not), should my faith in the Holy Scriptures, without all sayings and words, stand only on an impotent dot and letter, which neither says nor sings anything? Then it would stand on a fur sleeve.
43) How, if in some books (for they are not all the same) a large letter and dot is put to remind that there is said a great thing, that the reader should remember and remember it the better? and not that something new is there. Something new starts there? How fine then would my faith stand on the doubt, which would have held that the point and letter would be there, that a new thing would begin! How often does one write the name of Christ with large letters through and through? How often does one draw a line underneath, or paint a hand, or otherwise make a special sign in a text, when nothing new begins? After all, dots and letters are a human thing and work, and it is even within man's power to make and set them as he pleases; and my D. Carlstadt wants to base divine faith and word on such a humanly impermanent thing?
44 Oh, what can I say? The spirit is truly not serious. One can see that it is a vain desire and does not care much about faith and God's word. Woe to faith, which one must support and seek help for and beg for, that it cannot find a word from the vast great Scriptures, when all articles are otherwise so abundantly and powerfully founded. And even if D. Carlstadt's opinion were right and true, I would not and could not believe it, because he uses dots and letters and does not come up with a word, and then does no more than say no to our bright, fine, orderly text. For I would have to think: Awe, it is a jugglery, and no reason there.
Here I want to address all who accept D. Carlstadt's opinion, and say: D. Carlstadt's highest and some reason is that this piece "that is my body" etc. is special and new beginning and addition as heard. Carlstadt's highest and most important reason is this, that this piece "this is my body" etc. is a special and new beginning and addition, as has been heard. If he does not prove and maintain this, all his thing falls. He has no more; for everything that he subsequently says about his xxxxx and other things, all stands on the fact that this piece is a special new beginning; if this falls, and our reason remains that this piece hangs on the other, then Carlstadt helps neither nor Tatta, we have won. So such attachment forces and compels by force that the bread be Christ's body. For so the words read: "Take, eat, this is my body"; that forces by force, because it clings to each other, that that which he calls them to eat is his body. Carlstadt himself saw this well, so he took pains to divide and tear it apart, and yet found nothing but a dot and letters, which (as is known) are not in all books; and whether they are in all, nothing is certain whether they are there so that a new one begins, or for the sake of the reader's devotion. 1) And this is more plausible than that.
(46) But faith must be certain, and have for its foundation not dots or letters, but bright, dry sayings and whole, clear words from the Scriptures. Well, there you Carlstadters lie in a heap, as much as is yours. Your faith and art stands on an ohumächtigeu, uncertain point and letter. On it the Belial dares his conscience and bliss, I do not. Therefore, dear sirs, my Carlstadters, you make many books; but look here, for God's sake, since you suffer need, and think that you prove this little piece "this is my body" to be a new beginning; there it all lies, there it burns, dear brothers, there it divides, there it tears, there it divides. Whether you write as many books as there is sand on the sea, if you do not help the cause here, you have lost. For (as I have said, and say again) the text is one upon another, "Receive, eat; this is my body". Let
1) i.e. to attract the reader's attention.
you hang the food on the body of Christ, it is contended that the bread is the body, and the body is that which they shall eat. You may not pass by. In spite of you all, and yet in spite.
Now tell me, what is to be thought of the spirit that can dare to do such an excellent thing without all scripture and word, only on a single point and letter? Is he not mad and foolish enough? Do you also think that he has a conscience? What should he not dare more, if he had room? What pious heart wants to provide something good or righteous to him? Well, I have done my part; he who wants to err about it always errs. And even though this is enough to answer all of Carlstadt's books, for since it remains that the host is Christ's body, it will probably learn for itself that he must confiscate the pipe, that he blasphemes us so shamefully and calls us dog-beaters, and pours over us with barrels full of disgraceful words. He has fought against us with his point and letter (which is his some wretched armor), as if one were running on a rock with a broken straw. And if he is right, why did he not remain full of his prophets.
48 But let us answer further, to establish the matter the stronger. And to the first, if he would say that I should also prove my belief that this piece "this is my body" is closest to it, because he denies it, and cannot prove his, that they are to be separated from each other, I answer: I let them stand together for this reason, that I find it so in the text, when one speaks, reads and hears it, that they all hang together, according to natural speech, and know no reason why I should or should separate such natural order and appendix of speech. I find it hanging together; but if it is to be divided, someone must prove it to me. That is probation enough for me. As soon as I let the Lord's Prayer stand thus: "Our Father, who art in heaven," etc., I can no longer take it as a test, because the natural speech follows one another in this way, and I know of no other 2) reason why I should divide it thus: Our Father, who art in heaven
2) "other" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.
sanctified etc. But if it is to be divided, I will hear the cause and offer defiance.
49 So this is the natural speech: "Take, eat, this is my body," etc. that it hangs on each other and follows, and knows no cause why it should be divided. For Carlstadt's point and letter create nothing; so he himself, and no one else, has no other. But afterwards we want to prove it also from clear writing, not with a dot or letter, for the sake of abundance, that [it] should and must hang on each other. Now let this probation be enough for a defiance against the Tenfel.
50. the third time he comes forth with his Greek language, and chokes on your word ôïýôï. For in Greek the words are thus: ôïýôï Éóôé τό σωμά μου. Which from the beginning of the Greek language should have been and still must be interpreted thus: "This is my body"; and Latin: Hoc est corpus meum. This is the Greek completely given, that not a hair is missing, as this must testify 1) all, who know Greek there; without Peter Rülz to Orlamünda, he has found something new there and pretends, one may not interpret it enough, but would be fair, one leaves the ôïýôï and says: ôïýôï is the body mine. 2) What
shall I say? I would like to laugh at the monkey game, if it did not concern such serious matters. The donkey's head wants to master the Greek language, and does not yet know German or Latin properly, is silent about Greek and Hebrew, and appears so impudently before all the world, as if there were vain Peter Nützen from Naschhnsen here, who did not understand Greek.
Now, the only thing that matters to the spirit of the mob is that he excites and attracts the mad rabble, who otherwise have a desire for strange new things, and he should speak up here and say: "How is D. Carlstadt such an excellent man, who finds such things that are hidden from all the world, and yet wears a gray skirt and felt hat with great humility, and does not want to be called Doctor, but neighbor Endres; God and the Holy Spirit dwell here with
1) Walch and the Erlangers: show.
2) In the "conversation booklet".
all feathers and eggs. For what falls to the lot of Carlstadt is not because they understand his reason, which is impossible. For he mumbles, breaks and strangles himself over the words, and can't speak out what he wants; God perhaps refuses him, or is otherwise not skilled. To speak German. I also know that no one can say what D. Carlstadt's reason is, if he were to eat all his books. But that is why they fall to him, that he pretends to great art and splendid words and confidently blasphemes, and shows how it is so foolish to reason that Christ's body should be in the sacrament. But in this way one must excite and ape the rabble. It does not matter much if he does not know the reason, but it does not hold.
52 Therefore, I must do two things: the first is to explain Carlstadt's reason and opinion more clearly; the second is to answer it. Now D. Carlstadt's dream of his ôïýôï thus holds. The German, Latin and Greek languages all three speak of all kinds of things in three different ways. Of some as of man-forms, and call it the, this, that. By some as of female formations, and call it the, this, that. By some as neither male nor female, and call it this, this, that. Thus one speaks: the sky, the moon, the star, the man, the boy, the dog. Item, the sun, the earth, the air, the city, the woman, the maid, the cow. Item, the water, the wood, the fire, the light, the horse, the pig. But the Hebrew language has no that, but vain the and the.
Now Carlstadt contends thus: Brod in Greek and Latin is a der, and not a das. For they say, the xxxxx, the panis, but we Germans say, the Brod. But body is a that in Greek and Latin; for they say, the xxxxx, the corpus; but we Germans say, the body. Because Christ speaks here: ôïýôï Éóôé τό.
óùìÜ ìïõ, "this is my body", and does not say, "this is my body", he does not point to the "bread", which is a der in Greek, but to his "body", which is a das in Greek. Do you understand now what D. Carlstadt wants? This is his Greek
ôïýôï, which in German means that. With this, as a new Greek, he wants to have won from the Greek language that Christ's body is not in the sacrament, because he does not say: this is my body, but, this is my body; because it is said in un-Greek about bread: this is my body.
No Greek has ever seen such art, which was born in the language from the time of Christ. But now it is invented at Orlamünde, perhaps in an old picture, since they stormed images, or have it from the heavenly voice. And the man, who has hardly seen the abece in Greek, does not give so much honor to those who were born and educated in it, nor to those who now know Greek deliciously in German and all countries, that they would also have felt and noticed it in so long a time; yet nothing easier would have been to feel and notice; for no child is in German, if someone speaks of a woman before him thus: the woman is beautiful, the man is pious, it would laugh and say, you are a dodderer or gypsy. And all Greece and all the world should not have felt the same in the Gospel, when Christ says, ôïýôï is my body; yet all the world knows that with the ôïýôï they pointed to bread, and still point today. If a Greek child hears that someone says: the Üñôïò, it should also laugh soon; and yet no one has laughed, since all the world has said of Üñôïò or bread: this is my body.
And this foolish spirit still wants to lead all Greeks to school. But, as I have said, man has lost his forehead, eyes, brain and heart, so that he is neither ashamed nor afraid, and may dare everything as it occurs to him. He knows indeed that he does not know Greek, and proves [it] also honestly, since he uses the Greek ôïýôï Éóôé τό σωμά μου thus ver
interprets in Latin: istud panis est hoc corpus meum, and in German, ist der Leib mein, makes the article ôü a pronoun, and puts panis drein etc. But which German thus speaks, "This is the body mine"? Nor may he knowingly build his faith on such his ignorance, and all the world with him. If one may rely on his conscious and recognized ignorance, article of the
How much more could he do it on an uncertain delusion or doubt? Yes, what should not such an impudent spirit dare? My heart is frightened in my body at the thurst and iniquity of man in divine matters, who is so stupid, fugitive and despondent against men on earth.
56. now we want to say cause, why Christ ôïýôï, that, and not the, from the
Brod says. In the German tongue there is a kind of language that when we point to a thing that is in front of us, we call it a das, otherwise it is a der or die. As if I were to say: This is the man I am talking about, this is the virgin I mean, this is the woman who can, this is the maid who sang, this is the journeyman who told me, this is the city that did, this is the tower that lies on, this is the fish I brought. Here I refer to all Germans, whether I also speak German. It is ever the right mother tongue, and so speaks the common man in German lands.
(57) In the same way, the Greek language with its ôïýôï says of bread, when it points to it and says: this is my body, which is given for you; therefore I refer to all those who know Greek. But the Latin language cannot speak in this way, for it has no articles like the Greek and German. And especially it is said among my Saxons, who did and did, like the Greeks, that they almost agree with the Greek, ôïýôï Éóôé τό σωμά μου,Tut es te Lif, Tut es te
Fruwe, Tut es min Lif [this is the body, this is the woman, this is my body] Otherwise, where D. Carlstadt's dream should apply, one would also have to say that it would not be said in German, if I said: this is my body, which is given to me, because body is one in German tongue. For so we say: the body is great, and yet say: this is the body that pleases me etc. So also: this is the body that is given for you. But D. Carlstadt shows herewith that he knows almost as much German as Greek.
58 So, if I wanted to speak in German in the sacrament, and had a roll or a bread roll.
host before me in my hand, which are both the same, I would say: this is the food, and not: this is the food; so also, of the same bread roll or host Christ says: this is my body etc. Ask now why I cannot say: this is the man, and yet say: this is the man. I cannot say: the woman, the maid, the city, the journeyman; and yet I must say, this is the woman, this is the maid, this is the city, this is the journeyman. I know of no other cause than that there is and wants to have the kind of languages as God created them. So no Greek can say: this xxxx, and yet must say, this is the xxxx; so he also says: this is my body which is given for you.
> One more thing, dear Peter Rülz, let Gemser try whether he could pierce your ears. You say that your ôïýôï should point to the body of Christ, and not to the bread, since he says: ôïýôï, or this is my body.
Tell me, dear Peter, what does the other ôïýôï, which soon follows, point to? Since Lucas Cap. 22, 20. and Paul 1 Cor. 11, 25. say of the other part of the sacrament, thus: "Likewise (he) took the cup after they had supped, and said, ôïýôï or this cup is the new testament in my blood" etc. Here the word ôïýôï is expressed, and in the text points to the cup which he presents, and not to the blood of Christ which sat there. For this is how it reads in Greek:
ôïýôï ôï ðïôÞñéïí ç ÷áéíÞ äéá&Þ÷ç Ýóôßí Ý" ôþ αίματί μου,, "this cup is the new testament in my blood." Say on, so the Tuto yes should and must point to Christum, and yet points here in the text expressed to the cup, whether your faith considers or calls Christ's blood or Christum Himself a cup? Would it not be an opinion, so that all your things are vain new things, that you call his blood not a cup, but a bowl basket or spoon food?
60 Do you hear it, Mr. Peter? How do you sweat so much? Isn't it winter and hard and frozen? Would you like to have a sweat towel? Won't a big letter or a dot help here? Or doesn't the ôïýôï here want to be a das, and the cup a der? so that grammar would come to the rescue, because the spirit does not
can? For chalice in Greek is also a that, and not a the, ôïýôï ποτήριον.... Be
are you not the man who loves the straight truth? and, as you boast, you are stiff-necked against lies, but soft against the truth. Well then, be soft here and let it be said to you, give honor to the truth and confess that you did not look at the ôïýôï rightly, and that the man who came to you and tells you was not your heavenly Father, as you lie and blaspheme, but the wretched devil or his mother, that he showed you the one ôïýôï with the bread and let the other go with the cup.
61 What do you want to say against this, hui! all Carlstadters in one heap? Then you must be silent and punish your blasphemy and lying mouths, and as the publicly and irrefutably conquered confess that, just as the cup does not point to the sitting Christ, but to the cup and blood, which Christ gives to his disciples and calls them to drink, and says that it is a new testament in his blood, so you must also confess that the bread does not point to Christ's body, but to the bread, which he gives to them and calls them to eat. Do you have anything against this? Let me hear. Behold, thus God can catch the prudent in their own prudence. For these prophets thought that with the ôïýôï on the bread they would turn the whole world around, but did not see that the ôïýôï on the cup would instantly trample them into dirt, that they would no longer be allowed to kick.
Is this not a misfortune for the man? The evangelists put it there precisely so that they would certainly point to the bread and speak in the most simple way, and to ward off the error that Carlstadt is driving at it: and he takes it and pulls it to himself to strengthen such error with it. Tell me now, dear Peter Rülz, who has the sword by the edge, or who has it by the hilt? I mean, you are hit, and Gemser has thrust you with your own ôïýôï, so that you pretend to fence excellently. You should know which one of us has the spirit and knows the right art. If I should now also pay thee with blasphemous words, as thou didst not know the reverend Sacrament, the holy Body and
Blood of Christ, so gruesome and horrifyingly beautiful, where would I take words enough? For your sin and blasphemy is beyond measure.
But even if D. Carlstadt were to stand by all things with his ôïýôï, and [it] were as he dreams, I have proven above that [it] would not help him, because he has not fought for it nor can he fight for it, that this piece "this is my body" is a special new thing, separated from the others, that my poor Rottengeist, where he wants to go out, is too far away from all bushes 1). For where the piece is not a special one, but clings to the other, then it tears away everything that D. Carlstadt does or does not do, cackles or cackles, and remains firm with all defiance that in the sacrament is Christ's body. But where this remains, the Holy Spirit has power to speak thus: the servant, the man, and it does not matter at all, does not hinder and does not help, whether he says: the bread or the bread; not that he does so here, but if he did so, that Carlstadt would gain nothing by it. Everything must be something higher than roZuIao Zramwatioao are, which is to establish the faith. For also John in his Evangelio, Cap. 1, 4. ff., where he speaks of the light, and calls it a that, soon after he calls it a that, and speaks: The world did not know him, does not speak thus: The world did not know it; that D. Carlstadt is ridiculous in this, not only with his Greek art, but also that he wants to put articles of faith from grammar. If then my faith is to stand on the donat 2) or primer, then it stands truly badly.
How many new articles will we have to put if we want to master the Bible in all places according to the grammatical rules? How often does it speak contra convenientiam numeri, generis, personae, etc.? Yes, what language does not? We Germans have night for a die, and say, die Nacht. Nevertheless, we also sometimes make a das out of it and say: des Nachts; it is quiet at night and sleeps well. That my D. Carlstadt might have stayed at home with his grammar, and instead would have given us sayings and
1) In the old editions: "püsschen", which is probably to be resolved with "bushes" i.e. hiding places, evasions.
2) "Donat" at that time the first textbook in Latin.
He brought forth the text from the Scriptures, as was fitting, so that he would have overcome the fact that his ôïýôï had to rhyme with Christ's person and not with bread. For he wants scripture from us, so we want it from him again. Well, hui! still fresh on, dear Peter, show but one little word from Scripture that ôïýôï points to Christ's person, not to bread? If so? We don't believe anything in your grammar, the reason is too sandy and uncertain.
So now you see, my dear reader, how the matter stands over this Tuto. D. Carlstadt defies it only by saying no to it, that it does not point to bread, and that it is not bright and certain enough; he stands on it. This is an outright insolence against the natural way and sequence of language, and he wants to have it proven that it points to bread. Thus, although the nature of the speech assists us, we have, to top it all off, proved violently from the text that it must point to bread, because it points to the cup in the altered part; this shuts him up. So we now also step again on our No, and demand that he prove how the Tuto points to the body of Christ, as he says and puts. For he who says yes must prove his yes against him who says no. Come on, Defiance, Defiance, let him also bring a text for his yes, as we have brought for our yes. For that he says no to our yes, which does not suffer the manner of speech, and says yes to our no, is nothing; he shall punish our no with a bright saying from the text, and confirm his yes, just as we punished his no with a bright saying in the text, and confirmed our yes. If he puts us in defiance, he shall have won. But we pray that he may be merciful to us here, and not scorch our turnips.
But it goes as I said; the spirit is not serious in the great matter, the devil only drives his game and mockery out of it. Well, then, I will order D. Carlstadt with his Greek language to the Greek speakers, that they drive away the tickle from him, and I will punish him quite well, so that he does not pretend to speak Greek another time, because he could do it before. I will act against him with the Scriptures 3),
3) Walch and the Erlangeners: him.
and scripture set forth by him. If he does that, he shall be knighted. I hope, however, that we at least want to remain safe from him this Shrove Tuesday, but God will help us further. Let this be said of dear Tuto, on which the great heavenly prophets have so vehemently insisted.
67 Let us take the text before us and see how it would rhyme if this piece "this is my body" were a special one, and pointed to Christ's person, not to the bread. For since Christ takes the bread in his hand, gives thanks and breaks it, gives it to his disciples and says, "Take it and eat," and immediately says without any means, "This is my body," the nature and natural consequence of the words compels him to say of the bread that he took in his hand, and gave it, and commanded it to be eaten. The disciples could not have understood it any other way, nor could anyone else understand it who heard it from him. For their eyes had to look on his hands, how he takes the bread, breaks it, gives it and offers it; and their ears had to hear the words, which he speaks over the giving and in the giving. Now he speaks no other word in the giving, but these: "This is my body" etc.
68 If it is not his body, which he presents and calls to be eaten, when he says, "Eat, this is my body," then he has deceived them and teased them with words. What would it be like if I gave a gray skirt to someone and said, "Take it, eat it, this is my skirt," and pointed the words to my garment that I had on? Wouldn't that be foolish and deceived, if I, after I had said: Take it, show it, followed it without any means and said: This is my mardern hood? Other words would have to fall in between, which would lead him from the gray skirt, which I handed him and told him to put on, to my hood; from these words it would be impossible for him to understand. So, what would it be like if I gave a man a piece of bread and said, "Take it and eat it," and in this offering and hot
1) marten - covered with marten fur. - Schaube - a wide outer garment.
eat quickly followed it and said: This is a pound of gold in my pocket?
(69) Truly there must not be a tuto or a tatta nor a dot nor a letter in between, which would start a different and new understanding, it is too powerful on each other. There must be expressed straight words in between, which distinguish it, namely: Take and eat, because I have, or there is still a pound of gold in my pocket. So also: Take away, eat, here I still have, or there is still a mardern Schaube. So Christ should also have said here 2) Take, eat, for I say to you that here sits my body, which is given for you; otherwise it would have been a mockery and sophistical. As if one handed another a drink and said, "Take this, drink; here I sit, Hans, with the red pants. Or thus: Take it, drink, the Turk has beaten the soldier [Sultan], or otherwise led in a strange joke, which did not rhyme at all with drinking. In the same way, when Christ says: "Take, eat, this is my body, given for you, if it is to be a new beginning.
(70) If he had not spoken this word immediately and just at the time of giving, but a little before or after, it would have seemed so. But now, as soon as he gives and offers and is called to eat, he says, "This is my body," no man of any language can understand otherwise than that it is his body which he gives and is called to eat; or else we must allow that no one can be sure what one is saying to another. For if this bright and dry speech is to be torn asunder, no one is to speak to anyone else, I will interpret it differently, or must see to it that he interprets it differently. What would have been Christ's need, that he should say such words just now over the offering, and when he is called to eat, if he had other time for it, and well knew that they would not understand it otherwise, but from the bread, which he presented to them and told them to eat?
Therefore, it is not true that Carlstadt says that he added it to teach them what the memory should stand on.
2) "hie" is missing in the Jena.
228 Erl. 28, L3S-L3S. 5 Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets etc. W. XX, 303-306. 229
He says this by force from his own head, and can prove it neither with writing nor otherwise. This does not mean to teach, to break off the speech at the wrong time, treacherously and briefly, and to fall unawares and without warning on another thing, precisely in the presentation of another thing, since he does not speak of it; it means rather to obscure, to deceive and to deceive. Teaching must be simple, clear, and must show that which is taught, and not give or show another thing, and at the same time teach or name another thing. It is not his teaching if I show you white and teach you about black, or show you the devil and teach you about God. Jacks and villains, or mockers and jokers do so, who either want to seduce or cause a laughingstock 1). A pious man who is serious does not do so.
(72) Also, what need would it have been for Christ to point to Himself twice, once to the body, and the other time to the blood? It would have been enough for him to say: It is I, or: This is my body, of which the prophets said that it should be given for you, as D. Carlstadt wills. Now, however, it is all fit to eat and drink; put it both ways. He takes something hard that is similar to food, namely his body, and something soft that is similar to drink, namely his blood. What would he have needed? He would have taken just as much something else that was not so similar to food and drink. For, as I have said, he might well have said badly, "I am the man who was given for you; in it there would have been no form of edible or drinkable thing.
Now that he gives both in bread, which is like an edible thing, and in wine, which is like a drinkable thing, and does this at no time except at table under the food, and also at the very moment when he presents it and calls it to be eaten and drunk, no conscience can ever be sure that denies this. And I know for a fact that even D. Carlstadt's conscience itself is fidgety and uncertain here, as it cannot digest such punches, even if it were so obdurate and
1) Erlanger: Blaspheme.
blinded. For Christ might have taught it at another time, and not spared it until they ate and drank, and until he presented it, and commanded it to be eaten and drunk.
74. item, what does this mean? When he had given the bread and said, "This is my body," etc. he begins again with the cup, and again gives the wine and says, "This is my blood. If this were a new beginning, when he says "this is my body," and wanted to teach what this 2) remembrance should stand on, he should not have thus divided it and separated it from one another, but should have attached body and blood to one another and thus said, "This is my body and my blood: This is my body and my blood, which is given and shed for you. Thus the teaching would have been his and just accomplished. But since he separates them, keeping one for the food and the other for the drink, and puts so many words between the two, namely, "He also took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it,'" it may well be understood that it is for the food and drink that the Lord is concerned, that he says, "This is my body, this is my blood.
(75) Yes, behold, how this spirit in his cleverness is deceived. He pretends that this piece, "This is my body, which is given for you," does not belong to the one that goes hard before it, namely, "Take, eat," but should be a new thing of its own for itself, and yet he confesses, must also confess, that this last piece, "This doeth for my remembrance," belongs to the first, as "Take, eat. Now is this not a wanton outrage, when in a speech three pieces follow one another and hang on one another, that someone may say: The first and last belong together, but the other and middle belongs to none, but is a special thing, and does this without reason of Scripture from his own head? How can reason suffer that the third or last should be attached to the first, and the other, which stands between the two, should belong to neither?
76. that would be just as if I had said in this speech [Matth. 7, 15.]: "Jesus said to his disciples: Beware of the false pro-.
2) Erlanger: the.
230 Erl. SS, S3S-S40. I. Luther's Writings Against Carlstadt. W. XX. sos-sos. 231
(77) But that D. Carlstadt here mends himself with a gloss, and says that so much is said, as if Christ would have said: Dear disciples, you have heard that the prophets proclaim of a body that is to be given for sin; so I tell you that this is the same body, etc. I answer first, Who said it? Who told him to put such a gloss here? How can we be sure that this gloss and addition is right? Where is Scripture and reason here? Where does the text enforce this? Yes, where does it show it with a single syllable? Carlstadt says so; if this is enough, it is much more enough that I say otherwise, who have the clear text and nature of the language for myself. Was Christ not so wise as D. Carlstadt that he would have added this himself, because it was so highly necessary that such an opinion be understood here? Where are the high prophets here, who also do not call the Lord's Supper a sacrament, but want to have a name from the Bible? Item, they do not want to suffer the little word enim. Now you tell me, to add a little word or name (since there is no driving), they cry out for the very highest vice. But that they add such a big talk and gloss, which spoils it all, that is called indulgence. Do you see the devil there, who makes all trouble out of that which is nothing and free, and makes nothing out of the word of God, where all power lies? This is his way through and through.
78. dear god, when we are equally bright and
Although we have certain sayings of Scripture for us, there is still effort and work to keep us from the devil; and this lying spirit wants to lead us to his own words, so that we have no other remedy than to say: D. Carlstadt said it. Oh, how finely we should insist, that is, I mean, lead the people to Christ; yes, to the devil in the bottom of hell. But I will report his advice. He probably thought, the Schalksgeist, they will attack me with these bright sayings, what will I do? I will come before them and dull them with glosses. But he did not see, the mad fool, that making them dull and blunt with his own gloss without writing would do nothing, except that it would only become the sharper; for because one sees that he brings no writing for himself, and goes out alone with his own invented gloss, that he himself had to feel that the text was too powerful and too bright for him; that therefore his denial is probably as good as a twofold confession, and his patching is probably as bad as two cracks. It does not mend itself so, dear lying spirit, you must lead writing and text.
79) On the other hand, I would also like to hear a text from the prophets that proclaim a body and blood to be given for sin, as this lying spirit alfenzt. They say of the whole person that he should suffer, but not of the body and blood. Since here Christ clearly mentions body and blood and thus points to the prophets, as the spirit says, the word body and blood in the prophets should agree with Christ and be found in one place, so that he would remind the disciples rightly and they would understand him. Hui! you lying spirit, who does not suffer a word to be put to God's words, show us where the prophets say about a body or blood? Where did the disciples hear it in [a] few prophets? Seest thou, but once, that [it] is vain honor and fancied thing and addition with the Spirit? The whole Christ should suffer; but over the table he divideth it so, that he giveth the body to eat, and the blood to drink. Which division was not necessary nor could be in suffering. That is why the prophets also spoke of suffering, and
not said of this division or communion.
80) In the third place, if such a great addition is to be made, how is it to rhyme with what follows soon after, "This do in remembrance of me?" which is to rhyme with the meal, when he says, "Take, eat. Shall this leap back over so many words and long sermon, that it comes to that to which it belongs? What language has such a way or manner of speaking that between two words that belong to each other, it throws in such a heap of words and such a sermon? Surely one must conclude that [it] is a wanton sacrilege. But, as it is said, he shall prove it; we will wait for that.
This is to answer the reasons and causes that D. Carlstadt gives for his dream from the Scriptures, which were three. The first, that a large letter stood there in some books, not in all. The other, that there was a dot. The third was the dear ôïýôï. O holy excellent reasons, which no one should lead 1) without such heavenly prophets who hear God's voice! The fourth is that he cannot bring for himself a single saying from Scripture. And this reason is the strongest of all, which will remain forever; I will not overthrow it, but help to strengthen it.
82) Furthermore, he teaches us what Mrs. Hulde, the natural reason, says about these things, just as if we did not know that reason is the devil's whore, and nothing can but blaspheme and defile everything that God speaks and does. But before we answer this arch-whore and bride of the devil, let us first prove our faith, and set forth not great letters, nor dots, nor Tuto Tato, but dry, bright sayings, which the devil shall not overthrow.
In the first place, no one can deny that the three evangelists, Matthew [Cap. 26, 26], Marcus [Cap. 14, 22], Lucas [Cap. 22, 19], and also Paul (1 Cor. 11, 24), since they write about the first part of the sacrament in unison, also say almost in the same words that Christ took the bread, gave it, and gave it.
1) lead - guide.
and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Receive and give; this is my body, which is given for you." They were speaking of the same thing, that whatever the words of Matthew the Evangelist are understood to mean in this place, they must also be understood to mean the words of Marci, Luke and Paul the Evangelist. Is it not certain then? Despite who says otherwise. So it is certain that all four are of the opinion that Christ did not call the disciples here dancing or whistling, but eating, according to the words: "Take, effet, this is my body" etc.
(84) Well, then, it must be irrefutably confessed that these four, writing of the other part of the sacrament, are of the same mind, and all four want to speak of the same thing in the same place. Defiance, which here could also say otherwise. So then, when Matthew says [Cap. 26, 28], "This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," it must be just the same, and as much as when Marcus says [Cap. 14, 24], "This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many." Item, therefore also since Lucas [Cap. 22, 20.] and Paul [1 Cor. 11, 25.] say, "This is the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you," must be and want just the same, which Matthew and Marcus want by these words: "This is my blood shed for many." Who can always say or think otherwise here? Since Lucas and Paul, by the words, "This is the cup," do not point to the visible body, or to the visible blood of Christ, but to the visible cup, as the words forcefully and brightly stand, saying, "This is the cup," but Christ's body, or blood, is neither cup, nor pitcher, nor bowl, nor plate: we must also say that Matthew and Marcus speak of the same visible cup, and not of the visible blood of Christ, since they say, "This is my blood." So that the little word "that" in all the evangelists is nowhere intended to indicate or refer to anything other than that which Christ presents, namely the cup or drink, and which is called drink. Or we will have to say that the evangelists did not
The same thing was meant, nor was it written in the other part of the sacrament.
With this we have enough for this time that, as was said above, Carlstadt's acts and deeds are lost, and it remains firmly established that the evangelists and Paul do not speak of the visible blood of Christ, but of the cup or wine, since they say: "This is my blood of the new testament," item, "This is the cup, the new testament in my blood. But where we have received that in the sacrament the blood of Christ is true, as these words enforce, this must at the same time remain firm, that in the other part of the sacrament also the body of Christ is true. And so everything that D. Carlstadt says against this is laid low, and it is found that nothing is but his own dream, which he has quite carelessly wanted to drive into Scripture, and must be called sta foris [stay out].
(86) Now that he blasphemes with many mocking and scornful words, such as that Christ should be brought in bread and wine, whether he [Christ] should whistle us up if we will, and such like words of shameful blasphemy, it is evident that they are words of a reckless spirit or devil, which serve to excite the loose rabble and to provoke those who do not care much for faith and conscience. But where there are good hearts that ask about conscience and faith, they are truly not satisfied with such jokes and invectives and blasphemies. They want to have God's word, and so they say: What do I care about Carlstadt's dreams, mockeries or blasphemies? I see here dry, bright, powerful words of God that force me to confess that Christ is body and blood in the sacrament. So I should stop answering and mocking. How Christ is brought into the Sacrament or how we must be whistled up, I do not know, but I do know that God's word cannot lie, which says that Christ's body and blood are in the Sacrament.
I do not yet want to answer the sophistical and poor little bells that D. Carlstadt mends and laps about the chalice here. 1)
1) "läppen - to put on a rag.
O! it must bite badly, 2) what this text is supposed to break off. Carlstadt's words do not; they are Carlstadtian and nothing more. But after this I will show his sophistry. Now let it be enough that it is strongly proven how the evangelists and Paul, with the words "This is my body, this is my blood, this is the cup," do not point to the visible body and blood of Christ, as Carlstadt dreams, but to that which he presents to the disciples and calls them to eat and drink. We have conquered and won this little piece in such a way that neither Carlstadt nor all the devils with all their sophistry can overthrow it, that I know for sure. But it is the way of the spirit, as I have said. He has no interest in the outward word of God and signs; he attacks them freshly and does with them as he pleases, and then tells us his own trumpery, invented from his own head without any foundation in Scripture; this must be called the right spirit.
88) On top of these four great sayings, we have another, 1 Cor. 10:16, which reads: "The cup of libation which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" This is, I think, a saying, yes, a thunderbolt on D. Carlstadt's head and of all his rotten. The saying has also been the living medicine of my heart in my contestation over this Sacrament. And if we had no more sayings than this one, we could strengthen all consciences sufficiently with it, and strike all opponents mightily enough.... Oh how D. Carlstadt feared the spell, and began to build a great strong vault over himself against this thunderbolt. But when he reached for stone and lime, he seized cobweb and amen, 5) as we will hear when we come to the tender gloss of his witty and scriptless head.
89 But notice here, first of all, that Paul here neither did nor did not do great or great things.
2) So the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Walch and the Erlangeners: "hot".
3) Erlanger: still.
4) Erlanger: one.
5) So the Wittenbergers and Jenaers: "amen". Walch and the Erlangeners: "one". "Ainen" - little glasses, tips of the ears.
but brightly says: "The bread that we break". And especially he says: "That we break", not only that Christ broke in the Lord's Supper, so that herewith Carlstadt's lie lies in mud, since he pretends: if Christ had given his body and blood for food in the Lord's Supper, would it not follow that also the Christians afterwards or we may do it. To this we answer with this saying: "The bread we break"; we, we, we. Who are these we? I hope that D. Carlstadt will find another ôïýôï in the Greek language that teaches us that "we" means as much as Christ himself alone, and will then boast to his Peter Rülz that the Greek language does not suffer otherwise.
90. note secondly that Paul speaks of the bread in the sacrament, which Christ broke, and afterwards the apostles also broke; which breaking is nothing else than making pieces or dividing, in the Hebrew way, Is. 58, 7: "Break the hungry your bread"; Klagl. 4:4: "The young [children] were eating bread, and no one was breaking it for them. "etc. Lest we be reproached here once more by the spirits of the wicked as Christ's betrayers, that we 1) do not bake or break with fingers, but take many particles and hosts. For this they call breaking, and are not satisfied with it, that it is otherwise made into pieces, let it be with hand, knife, or however it may be, as it is called broken in the Hebrew way. Also, do not forget that he does not call it the shape of bread, as the papists do, but fresh and bad bread; so that we know how not to sin on this side, if we call it bread and keep it according to St. Paul's way, which the papists make a heresy.
Notice for the third time that he says brightly and clearly, "The same bread which we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ. Do you hear, my dear brother? The bread that is broken or divided into pieces is the fellowship of the body of Christ; it is, it is, it is (he says) the fellowship of the body of Christ.
1) Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. In the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen: "wir's".
of the body of Christ. But what is the fellowship of the body of Christ? It cannot be otherwise than that those who take the broken bread, each his part, take in the same the body of Christ. That this fellowship is so much as to be partakers, that each one receives the common body of Christ with the other, as he says there [1 Cor. 1:17]: "We are all one body, partakers of one bread." Therefore, from time immemorial, it has been called communion, that is, fellowship.
(92) Here, D. Carl-, stadt, masterfully commits a crime, and would like to make this saying dull and dull beforehand, so that no one would notice how he is affected by it, and needs his spirit to be wrong, which makes everything that God sets outwardly and physically spiritual and inwardly, and again, what God wants to have inwardly and spiritually, that he makes outwardly and physically, as I have said above. So here he takes the word "fellowship" before him, and with it wants to enter into the spirit and make a spiritual fellowship out of it, and pretends that those of the body of Christ have fellowship who with outstretched desire consider the suffering of Christ and also suffer with it etc. How then they have invented their new speech to such new understanding.
But if one asks: Where is the reason and the Scripture that prove such gloss; or where is the text that enforces it? then he points us to the smoke hole, or to the man who came to him and tells him. How could he do otherwise? The sentence was not to his liking, and yet he could not resist it. Therefore, before he left him like this, he thought, "It is better that I give him a nose as I can; if the Scripture will not help, then let my mad, mischievous head help, it is full of spirit, that is just enough for it, it tells me even more, namely, that the fellowship of the passion of Christ and the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ are one thing. Is it not his? Awe 4) Yes, quite. It is only a matter of one letter, that one changes the d into the b and the b into the d, then the word "suffering" becomes the word "body", and again. So you have
2) Walch and the Erlangeners: "sich nun".
3) Walch and the Erlangeners: "from the."
4) Cf. Mos. 10:10.
238 Erl. 2S, 24S-24S. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX, S1K-SIS. 23^
it like the eel by the tail, must not lead any writing to it.
Oh, let the mad spirit depart. We answer his gloss thus: First, that the fellowship of Christ's suffering cannot be the fellowship of Christ's body and blood. For he that shall suffer with Christ, or be partaker of his suffering, must be fresh, spiritual, and believing. A sinful, carnal man cannot. But the unworthy also become partakers of the body of Christ, as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 11:29: "He that eateth bread unworthily eateth judgment." Just as it happened to the traitor Judah in the Lord's Supper, who had fellowship with other disciples of the body and blood of Christ and was partaker [Matth. 26, 23. Luc. 22, 21]. For he received it, ate and drank with it, as well as the other disciples.
But that Carlstadt makes the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ a spiritual fellowship, and does not want it to be the reception of the body and blood in the bread and cup, I leave it to St. Paul, who says: "The bread that we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ" [1 Cor. 10:16]. Now the breaking of bread is a bodily external thing, no one can deny that. So they themselves say that an outward breaking or eating is nothing, one must eat Christ's body spiritually etc. How then can the outward breaking and eating of bread be a spiritual communion, as D. Carlstadt says? Item, the unworthy and ungodly also break and eat bread, as Judas Iscariot and some Corinthians did, 1 Cor. 11. These have fellowship of the body of Christ and are partakers of it, as this saying forces that the breaking of bread is fellowship of the body of Christ. For this saying must be strictly obeyed, that where this bread is broken, there is the fellowship of the body of Christ.
96 Thus it is evident here that Paul is not speaking of the spiritual fellowship that only the saints have, as Carlstadt dreams of, but of a bodily fellowship that both saints and unholy have, just as the breaking of bread. That
one sees how D. Carlstadt's dream is a lie, who thus 'has perhaps' thought: I want to attack and torture the little word "community" alone, and do not want to see that it says before: "The bread that we break" etc.; otherwise my gloss would not suffer. If I do not look at it, then there is no one who will look at it or hold it against the word "fellowship"; so I have won, it costs me no more than that I think: the people are all blind.
97 Why then does St. Paul not say badly, "The bread we break is the body of the Lord," but adds, "the fellowship of the body of the Lord? I answer: Why does he not also say badly: The bread is the body of the Lord, like the evangelists and himself, 1 Cor. 11, 24, but adds: "which we break" [1 Cor. 10,16.)? He undoubtedly added both because he wanted to speak as brightly and clearly as he always could and forcefully ward off Carlstadt's error. For he wanted to speak of the bread of the sacrament; he could not do that better than to speak of the broken bread. Item, he wanted to teach that each one received Christ's body in his piece; therefore he did not want to call it the body of Christ alone, as in a whole loaf, but the body that was divided into the community and given to all in common through the breaking of bread: that therefore this breaking of bread was not only the body of Christ, but the community of the body of Christ, that is, a body that was divided and received by all in the community. For with these words he sees in the midst of the breaking of bread, the dividing and receiving, how it is done when bread is broken and presented and received, and says: This broken bread is the fellowship of the body of Christ, that they all take in common and mine the one body of Christ and become partakers of it bodily.
So you see and notice how this evasive devil has no other remedy than the one that he does spiritually (as is his way) what God does bodily, and yet he shows nor gives any reason or cause for his doing so, but says it as one who would have power to change articles of the
faith according to his good pleasure. So" here the bodily fellowship of the body of Christ must be spiritual, as he will do afterwards also with the unworthy eating and drinking; item, with the discerning of the body of Christ, as we shall see. Only that thou mayest notice and know the devil, I will show him to thee.
(99) It is a good little thing of his, which I could almost do; if a saying were too powerful for me, which speaks of bodily doings, and struck me on the head, so that my brain wavered, I would lead and say, He hath not struck me, he speaks of: spiritual doings, and were then free, that I might not prove any reason for such an interpretation, it would be easy to be a celestial prophet. And if I were forced to show reason, I would have to stand there like butter on the sun, and leave a little sweat for it, and say: He would have me be like this and be right.
100 Therefore this saying of Paul stands like a rock, forcibly enforcing that all who break, eat and receive this bread receive the body of Christ and become partakers of it. And this cannot be spiritual, as it is said, it must be bodily. For one cannot become partakers of Christ's body in any other way than in the two ways, spiritually or bodily. Again, this bodily communion cannot be visible nor sensible; otherwise no bread would remain. Again, it cannot be vain bad bread; otherwise it would not be a bodily communion of the body of Christ, but of the bread. Therefore, since the bread is broken, the body of Christ must also be real and bodily, even though invisible. There it is said, "Let him who is an iron-eater bite a gash at him; I will watch.
In the third place we have the saying 1 Cor. 11, 27: "Whoever eats this bread unworthily or drinks the cup of the Lord is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Here, however, the spirit of the mob comes along and makes spirit, as St. Paul puts body, and calls unworthy to eat, who does not have Christ's remembrance and knowledge of his body right etc. Do you ever ask: Where is Scripture? Where is reason? Where does the text give that? it shows you its slobber, and proves nothing.
more than that such sayings have caused him the burnt sorrow and wanted to make them incapable beforehand. It is as if I wanted to persuade someone who is waving a sword at me to believe that it is a straw, so that he will not strike me. But trembling before death does not help. Thou fainting spirit, how long wilt thou suffer thyself to be defied, that thou bringest writing or text? Are you not ashamed that you allow yourself to be defied as long as you put your slobber, your lies, your dreams into writing?
(102) Now when Paul says here, "He who eats and drinks unworthily," etc., this is not rightly spoken, but should have been said: He that remembereth or knoweth not the Lord unworthily etc. That unworthy eating and drinking is unworthy knowledge and remembrance of the Lord. Unless D. Carlstadt's spirit was missing here. But who wants to believe that? You must think that St. Paul was drunk in the evening, and when he spoke of unworthy food and drink, he forgot it and got lost. For he should have spoken of unworthy memory. But D. Carlstadt got it right on the sober morning and has now brought St. Paul's words into his order; Peter Rülz and the bride at Orlamünde thank him for this.
103) Now that we also say 1) St. Paul puts the bread and the body of Christ together here, just as he did above when he said, "The bread that we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ" [1 Cor. 10:16]. Did not mean to say: The bread we break is the fellowship of the bread of the Lord, as it would have sounded to D. Carlstadt. Neither did he want to say, "Whoever eats this bread unworthily sins or is guilty of the bread of the Lord," as Carlstadt would have liked, but "sins against the body of the Lord"; so that he would receive in both places that the bread of the Lord is the body of the Lord. For if he had not wanted this, he would have had to say as above: Whoever eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the bread of the Lord. How does the sin in the body of the Lord come to the eating, if he is not in the eating or
1) "also" is missing in the Erlanger.
Bread? Or should have said: Whoever eats this bread unworthily sins against the Lord's Supper, or against God, or against the commandment, or against the order of the Lord.
Now the nature and manner of speech dictates that he who eats unworthily is guilty of that which he eats. Therefore, it is not enough that D. Carlstadt says no and therefore carries a gloss, but because there is a clear text, and nature and manner of speech give: "Whoever eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the Lord's body," that the body of the Lord is eaten in the bread, and sin is committed in eating and drinking, he must use very powerful sayings and text so that we believe him. For the text forcibly enforces that sin is committed in eating and drinking, because it says, "He who eats and drinks unworthily"; and yet it says that the same sin is committed in the body and blood of the Lord. This is a great thing, that in eating and drinking he hath offended the body and blood of Christ, and hath dealt foully with him.
For not remembering the Lord properly is a special sin of unworthy eating, of which St. Paul does not say here. All the words in the whole chapter there, where he punishes them for their unworthy eating, indicate that the sin occurred entirely in eating and drinking. For this reason St. Paul rebukes them and wants them not to think that it is bad bread or wine that they eat and drink, and thus think themselves unworthy, but that it is the body and blood of Christ, against which they sin with such unworthy food. Such, I say, is the nature and manner of speech, so that one may think it is a vainly desired, compelled, and wantonly devised thing, which Carlstadt suggests against it, on which neither conscience nor faith can rest.
(106) It is not true that the sin which St. Paul gives to eating is to be appropriated to the memory by one's own thirst, since St. Paul does not speak of it. For he does not say how they unworthily keep the Lord's memory, but how they unworthily eat and drink. For there is neither appearance nor reason that one should be guilty of the body of the Lord by eating unworthily, and of the blood of the Lord by drinking unworthily, if not the body in the food,
and the blood in the drinking. "What was the need that he should divide it into two parts, that in unworthy eating the body of the Lord should be offended, and in unworthy drinking the blood of the Lord should be offended?
107 Why does he not say: Whoever eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the blood of the Lord; whoever drinks this cup unworthily is guilty of the body of the Lord? since one of the two would have been enough for D. Carlstadt's opinion to stand. Carlstadt's opinion. Yes, it would have been enough, because he would have said: Whoever eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of Christ, or of the death of Christ, because D. Carlstadt understands by the unworthy eating the sin that one does not honor and practice Christ's suffering and death properly etc. Now, because Paul attributes the guilt of the blood to the unworthy drinking of the cup, and the guilt of the body to the unworthy eating of the bread, the natural light of speech forces that the body is in the eating, and the blood in the drinking, and that no one who has some appearance can raise a reason against this.
But summa summarum, it is the Spirit, as I have said above, that makes inward all that which God makes outward. Therefore he must do the same here, and draw the blame that St. Paul gives to bodily eating and drinking into spiritual eating and drinking. For when he slandered them for eating and drinking unworthily, because they did not recognize Christ's body inwardly, nor remember it rightly, it is understood that he draws the eating and drinking into the spirit, which Paul puts outside. For to eat spiritually is to know Christ's body rightly and to remember it. But do you see the devil with his great spirituality, without any reason, scripture, cause, or some evidence spun out of his own head?
In the fourth place St. Paul says again in the same place [1 Cor. 11, 28. 29.]: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup: for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment, because he discerneth not the body of Christ. Here comes Peter Rülz buteins 1) with his Taratantara da-.
1) Erlanger: about.
and becomes a Greek man again, and says: the word äéá÷ñßíùí, which is
The word "who discerns" also belongs to the memory, that one must spiritually discern the body of Christ sharply, and follow the suffering of Christ with unshaken desire and eagerness etc. Everything that this spirit teaches here must go to the spiritual memory of Christ. The bulge can no longer sing any other song. And would God that he could do the same, and did not use it so for the pretense of spreading his poison!
Dear Peter, I beg you, put your glasses on your nose or blow a little, so that your head will be lighter and your brain will be cleaner. Look at the text with us. You say that discernment is a matter of memory, but Paul says that it is a matter of eating and drinking. For he saith not thus, He that keepeth the memory of the Lord unworthily deserveth judgment, because he distinguisheth not the body of the Lord: but thus, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment, because he distinguisheth not the body of the Lord." Do you hear it, Mr. Peter? In unworthy eating and drinking this discernment does not happen; therefore judgment is earned. Is this not clear enough? Doesn't the text make it clear?
I could still give D. Carlstadt two guilders, if he would only once in all this trade, not for my benefit but for his own, do one thing to the two, either that he led sayings out of the Scriptures, or enforced from the text that his thing was right. But now he does no more, for he catches a little word and smears his slobber on it, as it seems good 1) to him, and in the meantime does not see that next to the same little word there are other texts, which both smearers and slobbers 2) push, so that he turns all four upside down. As here, when he long scribbles and drools that the distinction belongs to the memory of the Lord, he does not see that the light text stands there, and says that it happens in unworthy eating and drinking. Just as above, when he wanted to make the fellowship of the body of the Lord spiritual, he saw that the body of the Lord was spiritual.
1) "good" is missing in the Erlanger.
2) Jenaer: Drool.
he did not that the bodily breaking of bread broke his neck.
It is like the ostrich, which is such a foolish bird, because it comes with its neck under a branch, it thinks it is covered; and the young children, when they hold their hands before their eyes and see no one, they think they are not seen either: so this spirit also does, seizes a little word so that it adorns itself, and leaves the whole text, which exposes it and disgraces it.
I do not know whether he lets himself think that there is no Biblia or that there are no more people on earth. And indeed he should not do it against me, who warned him faithfully at Jena, he should just see to it that he does, I would not miss his. But he understood my words as he understands the Biblia, and calls me a mad sophist, a sow in the blood, a two-faced papist, and much the like. But I meant that he should perceive the matter well and hit it right. I almost wanted to say: "Around again, mass of souls, the penny is worth the pound. But it is God's work that Pharaoh's heart is hardened and blinded to his truth and word, to the comfort of all believers and to the terror of all hopefuls.
114 So then, this distinction is to be made in eating and drinking, as above this trespass and sin, in the body of the Lord, that "he who eats and drinks unworthily eats judgment. Why is this? Therefore, saith Paul, "that he distinguish not the body of the Lord." Now tell me, how is one to distinguish in eating and drinking the body of the HER? The Greek word äéá÷ñßíùí, in Latin discernere,
means that one has a difference and does not consider one like the other, but one more noble, better and more delicious than the other. That St. Paul thus means: He who eats and drinks unworthily deserves judgment or good punishment; for with his unworthy eating and drinking he does not, non discernit, distinguish the body of Christ, but keeps and goes on with the bread and wine of the Lord, as if it were otherwise bad bread and wine, if it were not.
3) Walch and the Erlangers: the.
is the body and blood of the Lord. For if he took it seriously for the Lord's body, he would not approach and eat a loaf of bread with such indignity as usual, but with fear and humility and honor, for he would have to shrink from the Lord's body.
If this opinion is not right, then give another and say what Christ's body is. For there is no more in the word than this, that Christ's body should be something better and more delicious and special than other things. This is enforced strongly enough by the nature of the language. Since St. Paul testified and wants to have such a distinction in eating and drinking the Lord's bread and cup, it is strong enough from the text that one should hold the body of Christ better and higher than the bread and cup. So it must follow that the body and blood of Christ is in the bread and cup, because those who eat the dish with unworthy food do not distinguish the body of Christ: Eat not distinguish the body of Christ, and [those^ who eat it worthily, rightly distinguish.
But D. Carlstadt is not to be blamed. For since his spirit has in mind, as I have said, that he wants to make spiritual what God wants to have bodily, he must also proceed with the distinction here, and set a spiritual distinction inwardly in the spirit before: the knowledge and memory, since God wants to have a bodily distinction between the bread and body of Christ. But that he should also show reason and cause, or enforce it from the text. Rather, let him not be sworn to; you see that he has other things to do. It is enough that such a man says it. If you do not believe him, then believe his gray skirt and felt hat, in which the Holy Spirit must be, as you may well grasp.
It reminds me of this high art of D. Carlstadt as well as of those who deal with allegories, which St. Jerome compares to the jugglers in Prologo, as if I wanted to make Christ out of Dietrich of Bern, and the devil out of the giant with whom he fights, and humility out of the dwarf, and death out of his prison: Death
1) Walch and the Erlangers: shows.
Christ, or any other knightly play or history before me, as I practiced my thoughts all and played with it, as he did, who drew Ovidii Metamorphosin completely on Christ. Or, lest my spirits be angry that I compare their thing so to worldly fables, if I took St. George's legend and said that St. George was Christ, the virgin he redeemed was Christianity, the dragon in the sea was the devil, the horse was the humanity of Christ, the spear was the gospel etc. Item, since St. Peter sank into the sea, and Christ helped him, I would like to say: The sea is the persecution and tribulation in the world, Peter is every Christian when he doubts, and Christ is the grace of God etc.
118 All the art of these prophets is in such deeds, which they do diligently; and because they have found many other such interpretations in the Old Testament, they also find more of them every day, and teach much about the seven sprinklings, and fill their books with such art, just as if it were a delicious thing, and no one but they alone could interpret it, and yet they generally interpret such foolishly foolish things, that one might cringe at them, especially the sevenfold sprinkling. Nor do they think that such interpretations must be proven from Scripture, and that they are not valid unless they are expressed clearly elsewhere, as I have written in the sermon on the ten lepers 2). But they, if they have only invented it, it is enough, so it is, already proved.
119. Carlstadt also does. After he has learned this from his prophets and has a whimsical head by nature, which always looks for something strange, which no one knew before, he goes to and wants to play dice with St. Paul's words and make allegories, as he is used to in the Old Testament. That is why St. Paul has to tell him here about spiritual and not about bodily fellowship, about spiritual and not about 3) bodily difference, about spiritual and not about bodily difference.
2) Walch, St. Louis Edition,.vol. XII, 1444.
3) The words: "and not of bodily fellowship, of spiritual" are missing in the Wittenberg and Jena editions, and we have taken them from Walch's old edition.
talk of bodily unworthiness in eating, of spiritual and not of bodily guilt in the body of the Lord. And the silly fainting devil thinks that he should not be seen. No, journeyman, you are seen, you have not painted yourself enough, you must use more and different paint.
120. Would you like to say: Well, if it is true that the sea means persecution, and Christ means the grace of God, and the sinking means weakness or despair, it is also true that God's grace helps in persecution. So it is neither wrong nor false to have spiritual fellowship, to spiritually distinguish the body of Christ, to spiritually eat unworthily, and to spiritually be indebted to the body of Christ; and such allegories or interpretations are all true and quite beautiful.
121 I answer, "I do not now dispute whether they are all false or not. But I do know that they are often missing and are just a dream, because they are presented without any reason of the Scriptures, just as the sprinkling of these prophets is nothing at all, as they make believe. I dispute that D. Carlstadt not only puts all this in this place without any foundation in Scripture and text, but also wants to forcibly dampen, deny, and disgrace the right written understanding by such high spiritual pretense, which the text naturally enforces and does not suffer from its jugglery. If he would let us keep it intact, I would let him allegorize and spiritually interpret, juggle and play until he got tired of it. As if someone would let me keep that Peter had gone and sunk on the sea according to the written meaning, I would not ask anything about how he interpreted it, so far that it would happen without harm to the faith.
So, if Carlstadt would leave the bodily fellowship of the body of Christ, the bodily separation, the bodily unworthiness in eating, the bodily guilt in the unworthy eating, I would let him do what he wanted. For St. Paul also says Rom. 12, 7: "The prophecies should be similar to faith", so that each one does not interpret what and how he desires, and then lead his conscience to it. For
This is actually quite an illusion, since a thing seems to happen and to be true, and yet there is nothing behind it. Just as this D. Carlstadt's spiritual interpretation of St. Paul by him and his followers seems to be a deliciously excellent thing. But if you look at it in the light and according to the text, it is quite a jugglery. For it is neither reason nor truth, but invented by himself and imposed on the text by force.
If such a spiritual jugglery is to apply, then I would like to teach D. Carlstadt and all his prophets for another three years. Carlstadt and all his prophets for three more years; I am almost trained in this, since I first began to learn the Bible ten years ago, before I hit the right ground. I also wanted to say easily, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth", Gen. 1, 1.: "Heaven", that is, the angels and spiritual creatures; "earth", that is, the bodily creatures; don't you think it would be rightly said? Yes, but where is the text in the meantime? How shall I prove that in this place heaven and earth are not called the natural heaven and earth, as the languages are? Dear, the natural language is Madam Empress, it transcends all subtle, pointed, sophistical poetry; one must not depart from it, unless a manifest article of faith compels; otherwise no letter would remain in Scripture before the spiritual jugglers.
In this way also the great teacher Origen was deceived, and he deceived St. Jerome and many others with him, so that before times his books were cheaply forbidden and condemned because of such spiritual jiggery-pokery. For it is dangerous to play with God's words in such a way as to govern conscience and faith. Therefore, it should be bright and certain, and everything should have a firm, secure, good reason, on which one may comfortably rely.
These are the main sayings in this article, so that by God's grace we may do enough for all good consciences to strengthen their faith. But if we do not convert the stubborn Carlstadters with this, we have won two things against them. The first is that they do not prove their case with Scripture,
nor force from the text, but lead vain own conceits and thoughts, so that they subjected themselves to darken the bright sayings, but nevertheless have failed. For that he says no to our opinion, we do not demand reason, but shall show reason, as we then do. But that he should say something else and show no reason, oh that is shameful of such a high spirit.
The other, that everything they bring up against us does not smear us, nor does it hold the sting; and in the end we also offer them defiance, that they still do their best; we do not want to be man enough for them with any other than these sayings, both on all their past, present and future art and wisdom, they should not take them from us like this. For Carlstadt's certain defiance lies in the fact that everything that the evangelists and apostles draw on food and drink with clear sayings, he draws on the memory of the Lord with his own conceit without any reason. Another one who can do it better.
If Carlstadt's rage of all things existed and falsely overcame our faith of all things (as it is impossible), what would he have accomplished? His faith would therefore not be right nor certain. For he proves nothing, but says it only therefore, as one says a fairy tale, leading neither reason nor scripture nor cause, so that no conscience can stoop to it 1) or rely on it, unless it wanted to rely on D. Carlstadt's louder words. So that whoever follows D. Carlstadt's opinion must sit down between two chairs and hover between heaven and earth, and keep nothing at all of the sacrament. For he leaves our faith and cannot take hold of it, unless he has some reason or saying for himself. And this is also what I have always said, that the devil's final opinion is to abolish the whole sacrament and all outward order of God, so that one only gapes at the spirit inwardly with the heart, as the 2) prophets teach.
128 So now (I think) everyone sees
1) d. i. support.
2) All other editions have "die", yet the Erlangen one has adopted "diese" from Walch's old edition.
well, that D. Carlstadt's spirit is the one that wants to ape people with the word "spiritual" and intends to make everything spiritual that God wants to have bodily, so that he makes a great appearance and prestige of his poison. But if he also set a reason for it, and did not just say, "This is how it is," but proved that it should and must be this way from and in the text, then it would be one of his spirits. But now he alone says his own, we may say, Thou deniest, dear spirit. "For all men are liars" [Ps. 116,11.The pope also lied like this, but his spirit acted more, that he made the spiritual bodily, as he made the spiritual Christianity a bodily external community, this red spirit again deals most with it, that he makes spiritual, what God makes bodily and external. Therefore, we go between the two and do nothing either spiritually or physically, but keep spiritually what God makes spiritually, and physically what He makes physically.
Whether some remain and persist in such error and the Sacrament of Carlstadt, or still fall into it, what would it be then? yes, if all the world were to fall away from our opinion. What must we do with the gospel, since there is more power in it? Does not the whole world fall away from it and fight against it? How few are they who are rightly attached to it? So do not be mistaken whether few act or believe the sacrament rightly. Let go what goes, see where you stay. It is no wonder that many err. It is a wonder that there are some who do not err, however few there are. Christ himself says: "Do you think that the Son of Man will find faith when he comes? [But whoever is mistaken here is mistaken through no fault of mine, for I have faithfully enough taught and taught.
By Mrs. Hulda, -the wise reason of D. Carlstadt in this Sacrament.
Now that we have laid the foundation from Scripture and proven our faith, and have laid Carlstadt's foundation, let us now see how he speaks of this matter, since he begins to consult reason, which first of all tells him the right reason. For D. Carlstadt has now become much more foolish than the papists have ever been. The Papists
252 Erl. 29,2SI-SSS. 5. Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets etc. W. XX, sst-ssa. 253
have always made a point of using sayings from the Scriptures, even though they have dealt with them incorrectly. But D. Carlstadt has only Tuto and Tatto, point and letters, and own gloss from his head, not a single saying of the Scripture. Thus the papists profess that in the Sacrament not reason but God's word is to be followed. But D. Carlstadt picks up and brings together everything that reason can show, teach, judge in this; are these not joyful prophets and heavenly spirits to me?
The first part of this highly praised reason is that it concludes: Where in the Sacrament Christ's body and blood would be, it must follow that the bread would be crucified and given for us, and not Christ Himself, because the text speaks, "This is my body given for you." What words, then, does Frau Hulda interpret to be said as much as: The bread is given for you. Item, be also as much as: My body will not be given for you before it has become bread etc. What do you think about prudence? Defy! and say now that these are not heavenly prophets. Ask now where they have learned such grammar, or for what reason they interpret Christ's word in this way, and you may hear the heavenly voice.
132 Let us continue. It is pure evil, since the devil is involved. Tell me, Mrs. Hulda, you who are otherwise so pure that you do not suffer a word of addition or interruption from us in God's word, how then are you so impolite here, and add so many words, and say: My body is not given for you before, it has become bread? Item, why do you break off in the other part and say: The bread is given for you? Show me, which language has the kind, that it understands this piece "this is my body, which is given for you" thus or expresses: The bread is given for you; or thus: My body is not given for you before it became bread? How, if all languages understand this piece not differently than thus: "This is my body, which is given for you" etc. ? There is no other body, which is given for you, but this, which I give you here in the bread 1).
1) Walch and the Erlangers: "in death".
to eat. It does not follow that he will be eaten and crucified at the same time, but the one who is eaten at this time will be given to you afterward, when he is not eaten.
I will take John the Baptist as an example, when he points to Christ and says: "Behold, this is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" [John 1:29]. Listen here, red spirit, John says that Christ carries or takes away the sin of the world, and yet he is not yet on the cross. Dearly beloved, go and say, From this it follows that Christ is not crucified for us. For the words are, that Christ did not bear the sin of the world before John pointed to him and called him the Lamb of God, and that no other Christ was crucified for us, nor at any other time or place than when John pointed to him at the Jordan. For there he bears sin before he is crucified, just as here he is given for us in the bread.
Item, Joh. 10, 12, Christ says: "I am a good shepherd, and I lay down my life for my sheep. Let us learn from you that because Christ here points to Himself as laying down His life for us, it must follow that it was at the same hour in the Jewish school that He spoke the words to Himself and about Himself, and not on the cross, that He was not crucified for us afterwards. For the words *do not indicate otherwise, when he speaks v. 15, "I lay down my life." Say not, I will lay down my life; as he saith here, He that is given for you, and saith not, He that is given for you. Item, so also this must be understood, when he says there, "I give them eternal life;" says not, I will give them. Item, when he says Joh. 17, 19.: I sanctify myself for them; does not say: I will sanctify myself for them. Oh, be ashamed in your heart, you great rude asses, who pretend such great art and prophecy, and let such things go out into the world, that they are taken hold of, that ye will not for great wickedness, or for great ignorance cannot rightly speak, nor understand to speak.
2) "not" is missing in the Erlanger.
135) But if the devil stands so firmly on the word, "which is given," as at present, and does not say, "which shall be given for you in the future," we thrust his own words into his mouth, saying, If these words, "this is my body," etc. point to Christ's sitting body, it follows that Christ was not crucified for us. For the words refer to the seated Christ, who is not crucified for us; for he could not hang on the cross and at the same time sit in the Lord's Supper. So he would not have to be given for us before, because if he sat there and pointed to himself. Does not this mean that he was shamed in wisdom?
136. Now if Christ can sit with you heavenly prophets and say of him, "He will be given for you," and you must interpret the word "will be given" to mean, "He who is to be given for you," or, "He who is decreed and ordained to be given for you," and must tune another time to his sitting and showing, and another time to his crucifixion and surrender: We beseech you also that ye forbid his body to be in the bread now, and not to be in the bread afterward at the cross; that we may also say over the bread, This is my body which is given for you; that is, which is to be given for you, or is already decreed and determined to be given, as if it were already given.
Where are you now, Mrs. Hulda, with your wisdom? Yes, where is the testimony in your inwardness, that you are not allowed the outward testimony for yourselves? This is what I say, my dear reader, so that you may not be able to ignore the wretched devil who is exploiting himself in D. Carlstadt for a spirit. For in this first piece of reason Peter Rülz praises his spirit almost highly, and speaks excellently of the matter in the way of the heavenly prophets, which is, as I said, that they do not first come to the spirit through the outward word, but first from the spirit to the outward word, and then they quote Christ's saying John 15:26, 27: "The Spirit of truth shall bear witness, and ye also shall bear witness," just as if the apostles had received the spirit without the outward word of Christ. Therefore Peter Rülz boasts that he has had his fill of the
The inward testimony; the outward he accepts for the others, to teach them and to punish them.
You hear their theology, that others should learn it outwardly by their word, which they call an outward testimony; but they themselves are better and higher than the apostles, and want to learn it without outward words and without means inwardly in the spirit, which was not given to the apostles, but to the only Son of Jesus Christ alone. There you see the devil, as I told you above, that he does not respect the outward word and does not want to have it as a prelude to the spirit. Beware of this, and be sure that these prophets are full of devils, as you see here in the first part of their reason, and will see much more. Such a high spirit, which is above the apostles' measure, shall indeed show greater signs. But as they prove their doctrine and outward testimony by writing, so they prove their spirit and inward testimony by signs; one devil is like another.
139 But if D. Carlstadt and his mob could abandon their sophistry and reasoning, because they so harshly dispute that Christ says about the bread, "this is my body," and do not want to or cannot understand how bread can be the body, and do one thing to the two, either give God the honor and let his words be right and true, although they do not understand how it happens that they are right and true, let them suffice and believe it, because they hear that God speaks and wants so; Or, if they wished to be wise, they would do so according to the custom of the Scriptures and the simple manner of speech, and leave their subtle and pointed thoughts in place.
For if one looks at the simple kind of language, one can say of a fiery iron: This is fire, or thus: The iron that lies there is fire. Now if a quarrelsome sophist, to prove his pointed cleverness, woke up and wanted to fight against all the world that iron and fire are two different things, and that it could never be true that iron is fire, tell me whether he would not be a nonsensical fool who wanted to lead people away from the simple way of speaking to his pointed, sharp, sophistical way? since the simple language no longer wants anything.
with the saying "iron is fire", because it wants to interpret how iron and fire are in each other, that where iron is, there is also fire. And no one is so great that he needs the great sophistical wisdom, as wood is not stone, fire is not iron, water is not earth.
Just as iron is fire, and fire is iron, according to simple language, and these two things are one in the same and the same thing, but each keeps its own essence, so they could easily have humbled themselves and abandoned their pointed cleverness, and with Christ and all the world, in a simple and bad way of language, said of the bread, "This is my body. Since this is so much to say that bread and body are one thing or with each other, like fire and iron, and yet no one is so foolish as to say that body and bread are not two different beings.
Just as we also say of the man Christ: He is God, and again: God is man, and yet no one is so great who does not know that Godhead and humanity are two different natures, neither of which is changed into the other, but the simple speech wants to say and interpret so much, that in Christ there is Godhead and humanity in each other as one thing, that where man is, there also God is bodily, as Paul says Col. 2, 9: "Behold, they could easily have done away with the simple manner of languages, 1) which, by their pointed and solicited sharpness of reason, give them and others so much useless trouble and labor.
And you shall see, because they go on the way that they will not honor God's word with faith, or accept it according to simple language, but measure and master it with sophistical reason and subtle subtleties, they will even come to deny that Christ is not God. For by reason it is as foolish to say that man is God as that bread is body. And because they deny one, they will also deny the other very soon and freshly. This is also what the devil, who has led them out of the Scriptures into their reason, seeks, that he may bring old 2) heresy
1) i.e., to bring in the right direction.
2) Thus the Wittenberg and Jena. Walch and the Erlangen: all old.
bring them in again. For you shall see how wise reason will be, especially in the mad mob, and shake your head and say: Yes, Godhead and mankind are two different things, immeasurably separated from each other, as an eternal from a temporal; how then can one be the other, or someone say: Man is God? So you would also have to say: temporal is eternal, mortal is immortal, and the like, as they say here in D. Carlstadt's head against the sacrament, then she will have met it.
Or, if they do not like this kind of language, they should follow the way of the Scriptures, which in common usage has the figure called synecdoche, that is, when it calls a whole and yet only means a part, as it does when it calls the Israelite people a possession and a special people of God [Ex 19:5], yet the greater part underneath was always the devil's, and the wavier part God's. As Paul also calls the Galatians, Corinthians and other cities God's community [1 Cor. 1, 2. Gal. 1, 2.], yet the lesser part are rightly God's children. Yes, 1 Cor. 10,17. He calls all those one bread and one body, who partake of one cup, yet many of them took the cup unworthily, as he himself says.
145 So these sophistical and pointed men of wisdom might in this place also have pointed the whole piece, as bread and body, which Christ speaks of, to the body alone, when he says, "This is my body," not considering the bread. Not that bread should not be there, but that the body is so important in the speech that he speaks of it as if the body were there, and everything that is there, whether bread or paint, is nothing but the body. Just as if a mother pointed to the cradle where her child was lying inside and said, "This is my child," and a sophist scoffed at her and said, "How? Don't you think she would take him for a fool or a joker? as he would not want to understand the language, since she points both to the cradle and the child, and yet the child primarily means, as if there were no cradle.
146. item, St. Paul Rom. 1, 16. calls the oral gospel "a power GOt-.
tes". Let a clever sophist come here, who knows how to distinguish God's power (as it is eternal) from the oral sound of the voice, which passes away in a moment. He will prove his art, and also produce a Tuto or Tatto, and conclude thus: A bodily voice cannot be God's power, so St. Paul must lie that he calls such an oral, bodily word God's power. Item, St. Peter would also have to suffer the same, because he speaks 1 Pet. 1, 23. 25.: "The word of God remains forever", as also Isaiah says [Is. 40, 8.], and yet interprets the same word that is preached among us. How is it 1) true here that an eternal thing is a perishable thing?
A sophist cannot believe it; but he who knows the common usage of the Scriptures is not at all mistaken, and it is quite easy for him to understand. For it is the figure of the synecdoche that governs all things, which rules powerfully not only in the Scriptures but in all languages. Therefore, you see that this evil spirit cannot yet speak or understand the mother tongue, and D. Carlstadt, who pretends to great art in Greek and Hebrew, would be well worthy of being led back to his mother with his prophets, or to a German school, so that he could first learn to speak and understand German.
The other part of the high reason is that Carlstadt goes along as if he had contended that there is nothing but bread and wine in the sacrament, and says: Where Christ commanded to receive his body, who said: Take bread and eat? That is why the Hutzelprediger (O beautiful German) should have preached how to eat the bread of the Lord worthily, as Paul preaches. If I now ask these high spirits again: Where is it then that Christ says: Take the bread and eat? Then they will perhaps show me the testimony in their inwardness; the Kielkrob believes this, 2) I do not. I do not know anywhere that Christ calls us the bread.
1) Jenaer: is.
but says, "Take, eat; this is my body" [1 Cor. 11:24]. Here he tells me to take his body and eat it, not bread. But this spirit has all power to set, change, add and subtract as he pleases, how can he err?
To strengthen this little piece of reason, he blames the pope for many great and terrible things. The first one, that he steals God's honor, because he says to us in the form of bread: "My God, have mercy on me. The second, that he contradicts the truth by teaching that we should remember the bread, and makes us forget the body of Christ. The third, that he should destroy Paul's doctrine by exalting the bread so high that we forget the remembrance of the Lord. The fourth, that he makes foolish men by teaching us to eat bread honestly, though we never remember Christ. The fifth, that he makes Christ's suffering useless, because he teaches that Christ forgave sin in the form of bread and redeemed us; for then he would have died on the cross in vain. There you have it, Pabst, run after me more, I mean, you are troffen. These five pieces he has so chaotically spit into one another that it has become sour to me to bring them into such order.
What should I do? If I answer here, then I am papist. But D. Carlstadt has thought: "Pabst's abomination has been brought to light by others before me; now I would also like to become a knight in the dead Hector. But if I am to write what others have written and produce nothing new, it is a shame for me, as such a great heavenly prophet. Well, I will write to him, and shall I write vain lies about him. It is true that the pope has caused me much more suffering with his own than [D. Carlstadt], and still does daily. Yes, they have so far held D. Carlstadt in the highest contempt. Nevertheless, I do not want to be so foolish that I should attack the pope with it, knowing myself that [it] would be falsehood in public. The pope and his followers do not care that I have attacked them with public truth and clear scripture; what should they care that D. Carlstadt attacks them with tangible lies that he himself knows?
151 For the life of the pope and his own, be it as it may, we are now talking about his teaching, non de moribus, sed dogmatibus papae. Here, I say, D. Carlstadt is not mistaken, but his conscience knows that he is obviously lying about the pope. For he has also been a sophist, and has learned and taught both the theology of the high schools and that of the pope. Now nowhere does the Pope teach that one should say to the figure of bread: My God, be merciful to me, as all the world knows. Nowhere does he teach that one should remember the bread and forget the body of Christ. Nowhere does he teach that the form of bread should be so highly esteemed that the remembrance of the Lord should be forgotten. Nowhere does he teach that the bread should be eaten honestly, so that Christ is never remembered. He does not make Christ's suffering useless by teaching that Christ in the form of the bread forgives sin and saves us; indeed, he does not teach this. D. Carlstadt directs such five pieces against his own conscience to the pope, which he knows himself and all the world.
152 Therefore, since he wanted to blame the pope for stealing God's glory, contradicting the truth. He should show other pieces and causes, since he wanted to blame the pope for destroying the teachings of St. Paul, for making nonsensical people, and for making the suffering of Christ useless. For such pieces rather prove that D. Carlstadt has a lying evil spirit, which robs people of their honor publicly, contradicts his own conscience, and as a nonsensical fool makes himself sinful and a disgrace before all the world. What a spirit of his should this be to me, who wants to cast out the devil with the devil, yes, desecrate the public truth with public lies!
What might D. Carlstadt have sought in these impudent lies? I consider two: the first, that the rabble should think: O! it is nothing that Luther or others have done to the pope? They are all pretending to him; here is the man, D. Carlstadt will do it, he knows how to put the pope in the right mood. What do you think, dear Endres, and dear Gevatter Peter? The other thing, that he will wrap Luther up with the pope and his
1) Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Erlanger: nehber.
I am not going to tell you that Luther teaches exactly what the pope teaches; yes, he is a two-faced pope, as he also calls me. The devil of D. Carlstadt does not do this, that he is the enemy of the devil of the pope, from whom he is sent to D. Carlstadt to teach the pope the same things that the pope teaches. Carlstadt to cunningly help up the papacy again, but that he nullifies everything that God has worked through us in the Gospel up to now and saved so many souls, that gets sour in the devil's nose.
Now then, my reader, know again, because D. Carlstadt's spirit is so insolent and impudent that he lies to the people in public against his own conscience in such a great and worthy cause, since all error and doubt (let us be silent, public lies) are to be avoided like poison, that such a spirit is no other than an evil angry devil, who is not at all serious about doing this thing, but through D. Carlstadt's envious grudge would like to take revenge on us and destroy our gospel. Carlstadt's envious resentment, he would like to take revenge on us and destroy our gospel. For we do not teach to worship, fear or honestly hold the form of bread, nor to forget the death of the Lord, but we honor the body and blood of Christ in the bread, as he himself well knows, and also fights against us in this whole book, so that we do not think it is vain bread or the form of bread, and yet we are guilty of honoring vain bread, as one who is senseless and speaks against himself.
Therefore, we may more reasonably say that D. Carlstadt robs God of His honor, contradicts the truth. He devastates St. Paul's doctrine and makes Christ's suffering useless, because he denies against the clear, powerful text that the body and blood of Christ are in the sacrament, and therefore carries glosses out of his head, since there is neither reason, cause, nor scripture, and in the end he cannot prove anything, except that he lets out good, fat, strong lies, and speaks as a nonsensical man against himself. See, there you have the other piece of his dear reason, how it knows how to adorn itself in divine things. But how this is true, that Christ forgives us our sins in the sacrament, we want to save from that, because he makes himself quite useless about it.
156. the third piece of Mrs. Hulden, öamit she proves that Christ's body is not in the
Sacrament is this, because Christ says, "His flesh is of no use", Joh. 6, 63. Item: "It is of use to you that I go away; if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come" [Joh. 16, 7.]. Where did Christ command his body to be received? Which question he often indicates with his ôïýôï, as certain that he had won. So again we answer, as to him that lost with all shame, that Christ commanded us to receive his body, saying, "Receive, eat; this is my body." Let this be said once, as much as a thousand times, in answer to such a question. For the ôïýôï and great letter and dot have lost the banner, as we have proved above.
But is it not his art and a mighty conclusion: The flesh is of no use, therefore one does not receive the body of Christ in the sacrament? Rhyme Bundschuch. Why not just as well? Carlstadt is no longer at Orlamünde, therefore Christ's body is not in the sacrament; since one thing follows another. What should this do to or hinder the sacrament, that Christ's flesh is of no use? What use is it that he sits there in the Lord's Supper, and that Tuto points to him according to her dream? Dear, let me use your art, you spirits: Christ's flesh is no good; therefore he does not sit at the table, and the Tuto does not point to him. Is it not so strong as your consequence? Tell me, where is Christ's flesh useful? On the cross? In heaven? In the womb? Where then? So I hear that he must be nowhere, because he is nowhere useful. For if this follows: Christ's flesh is of no use, therefore it is not in the sacrament; so it also follows that he is 1) nowhere. For that it is of use is as much of the Spirit when it is on the cross or in heaven as when it is in the sacrament. What do you think? These are heavenly prophets; so one should attack the sacrament if one wants to overthrow it.
(158) Further, tell me: Your sacrament, bread and wine, what is it good for? If it is not useful, it is not in the Lord's Supper, nor does anyone receive it. For what is of no use is not there, as you yourselves say,
1) Erlanger: es.
that Christ's body may not be there, because his flesh is of no use. Where then is the Lord's Supper? For of course none will ever be nor become so holy as to be of use, because Christ's flesh is not of use, which is the most holy. Is this not raving and raving. Dear, what then is raving and raving? I will be silent, that the blind impudent spirit masters and perverts Christ's word. For Christ does not say, "My flesh is of no use," but rather, "Flesh is of no use" [John 6:63]. But of His flesh He says: "My flesh is meat" [Joh. 6, 55].
159 There is much another thing: flesh, and Christ flesh. Item, another thing: Christ flesh is of no use, and Christ flesh is of no use to you or me. This I must further strike out, to prove that these spirits, who despise God's outward word, understand nothing rightly in Scripture. "God is good" [Luc. 18, 19], and everything that he has created is also good, Gen. 1, 4. 10. 12. 18. 21. 25. 31. But what is good is also useful. But to an ungodly man nothing is good or useful, nothing is pure or wholesome, but everything is harmful, evil, unclean and damning, even to God Himself, not because of God or the creatures, but because of his unbelief, which misuses it all.
160 Therefore it should not be said that Christ's flesh is of no use; but flesh is of no use, as Paul says, "Flesh and blood possess not the kingdom of heaven," [1 Cor. 15:50] that "flesh" here is carnal mind, will, understanding, and conceit, as Paul says, Rom. 8:6, "To be carnally minded is death." So when Christ, John 6:55, speaks of His flesh as being the right food, He punishes the mind of the Jews who understood it carnally, saying that such words are spirit and life, but that flesh is not useful, that is, to understand such spiritual words carnally is nothing but death.
161 Yes, they say, the bread of the Lord and the cup are good, if one eats and drinks worthily; which is done in the knowledge of Christ, that one may know and taste him heartily and fervently. Dear, what shall we say? Your bread and wine is good if you eat it with a fervent knowledge of Christ.
and tastes? Why is not also our sacrament useful, if one eats and receives it with right faith? Or is Christ's body and blood not as powerful, if it is partaken of with right faith in the sacrament, as your impotent bread and wine? Or is right faith not so much as fervent knowledge of Christ? But tell me, you lying spirit, when or where have we taught that the Sacrament (although it is always beneficial, healing and good in itself) is beneficial to someone who takes it in faith, through the words of God that are in it?
162 There are real devils' little tricks that D. Carlstadt uses. First, he uses splendid, splendid words (heartfelt, ardent, savour, knowledge of Christ), so that one should think that he is serious, for he saw that bread and wine are too bad things, therefore he must blow them out with such additions, and yet he does not show how or how one should get there. Secondly, he does not need the word "faith," so that he may be seen as teaching much higher and different things than we do, and as if right faith were nothing compared to fervent knowledge, and yet he knows just as much what the knowledge of Christ is as what faith or a good conscience is. Third, he stabs us viciously and wants to make us out as if we were receiving the sacrament badly without word and faith, when he knows otherwise, and again he lies poisonously and wantonly. Now I have said above: Acting with public lies in these great matters is not the work of a good spirit, but of a vengeful devil, since D. Carlstadt is also possessed.
After that he comes to the word sacramentaliter and says that Christ flesh sacramental is of no use, as little as he is of natural use, because in it one can see neither death nor resurrection etc. And boasts here that he has struck the ear of the pope with the piece, so that his whole face is blackened, both with new and old papists. Boast, Rüplin, your father was a cabbage worm. I do not yet know 1) whether the spirit is acting wantonly, as if it were nonsensical and mad, or whether God is plaguing it so horribly.
1) "yet" is missing in the Erlanger.
He says a bare, naked, impotent word therefore in his head without any reason, that Christ's body sacramentally is of no use etc. And with such a word he wants to strike the pope and all of us. Yes, if it were the pagans Priapus, he would perhaps leave a forz before such an excellent terror.
I said above that it is not right, but blasphemous to God, to say that Christ's body is not useful, as this mad spirit rages. He is always useful where he is, even if he is not useful to me because of my unbelief. The sun always shines, even if the blind do not see it; and the word of God is always healing, even if it is a poison to the wicked and a "stench of death unto death" [2 Cor. 2:16.And Christ's body is always in the sacrament, whether it is not in these mad, blind spirits, who have not yet learned so much from their high heavenly spirit that they would know how flesh and Christ's flesh are not one flesh, but one is a flesh of life, the other a flesh of death, and what do such prophets care about life and death? If only they had the honor of being holy spirits, that would be enough.
But that he says that in the sacrament one may not see the death and resurrection of Christ, therefore Christ is of no use there: Dear, is it true? Or high prophets! But tell me again, how does one see the death and resurrection in Christ's body, who sits there in the Lord's Supper, to whom the ôïýôï points? Is it painted on his forehead? Not? Well, then he is of no use to you. How the spirit is so proud in all his words! He cannot say anything that will not hit him on the head again, so that he not only turns black, but also has to stagger like a drunken man. If the words of Christ show us and teach us to recognize his death and resurrection in the seated Christ, why should they not also do so in the body and blood in the sacrament? For it is not the body of Christ, whether sitting at the table or in the bread, but the words when he says, "This is given for you," that teach us the death and resurrection of Christ.
2) Wittenberger and Jenaer: baumeln; Erlanger: dümmeln.
But if their knowledge and remembrance of Christ were vain heat, vain heart, vain heat, vain fire, so that even the spirits of the wicked would melt away, and their spirits would be puffed up with a thousand times more splendid words, what would happen then? What would be gained from it? Nothing, but new monks and hypocrites, who with great devotion and earnestness would oppose bread and wine (if they could), as the stupid consciences have so far opposed the sacrament. Such fear and distress would arise over this knowledge and remembrance as has arisen up to now over the desire to receive Christ's body worthily. For the knowledge they give does not do it; the devil also knows almost well and recognizes that Christ's body is given for us, and yet helps him nothing.
The knowledge helps, if I do not doubt, but hold with right faith that Christ is the body and blood given for me, for me, for me (I say) to blot out my sins, as the words in the sacrament read: "This is the body that is given for you" [Luc. 22, 19.]. Through this knowledge a happy, free and sure conscience is formed. This is what Isa. 53, 11. means: "By his own knowledge he will justify many." Carlstadt's spirit is as hostile to this teaching as to death, and would like to destroy it, and therefore pretends to have a fervent, heartfelt, earnest knowledge of the body of Christ, as if it were his earnestness, and yet leaves it there, does not think that one sees how he makes a pure commandment and law out of the words of Christ, which does no more than command us to remember and know him. And in addition the knowledge makes nothing else than a work, which we do, and because nothing but bread and wine is to be received there. But more of this later.
But I will tell you the spirit. With such splendid words he wants to avoid the clamor, so that one should not say that he destroys the sacrament because he makes bad bread and wine; therefore, he boasts and makes up such great words, so that one should think that he wants to lift up the sacrament. But in fact this is the devil's opinion, that he even pushes it to the ground, and
The first thing is to make a good collation, where people sit down and eat and drink, and throw jars and pitchers against the walls, and scuffle and beat each other over them. For if one has not been able to maintain fear until now, believing that Christ's true body is there, what fear will remain if one believes to be bad bread and wine? Let us become like good companions, feasting and tempering, so that the dear heath waits. 1)
So you see the devil clearly, who makes that which Christ promises a commandment, and instead of faith performs a work, as I said about him above. For all the spittle that D. Carlstadt throws out about the knowledge of the body of Christ in this matter is fouled by the fact that he has directed his ôïýôï to the seated body of Christ, from his own head, as we have heard. For with the Tuto, he thinks, we are commanded nothing else than to practice the knowledge of Christ in this sacrament, although Christ does not speak a word of such knowledge, commandment, or work there; nor can he put 2) any reason, Scripture, or cause, apart from his lost Tuto and his conceit, whom he believes who wants to believe the devil. And for this purpose he makes such a knowledge a pure work, so that he disturbs both the faith and the promise of Christ.
From which you may conclude that D. Carlstadt's theology is no higher than that it teaches how we should follow Christ. Carlstadt's theology is no higher than that it teaches how we should follow Christ, and makes of Christ only an example and master, from which nothing but works are learned. But he does not know and does not teach how Christ is our treasure and God's gift, from which follows faith, which is the highest thing, and he thinks to obscure and darken everything with these words: "ardent knowledge, ardent memory" and the like. And so, again, faith falls finely on the works, so that his teaching and art, as I have long since well noticed, finally wants to return to the point that
1) Thus the Jena edition. Wittenberger: wacht. Walch and the Erlanger: wagt. In Low Germany the saying is still now: "saufen, dass die Haide wackelt." We find the same root again in English: to vuA, to move back and forth.
2) "cans" - may deß.
free will is something in God's things and good works.
To this the foolish spirit is so ignorant of the Scriptures that he understands the word "remembrance," when Christ says, "This is for my remembrance," in no other way than, like the Sophists, from the inner thoughts in the heart, as one remembers someone; for this spirit must inwardly and spiritually do what God wants outwardly, so that nothing else comes of it. But this is even worse and greater, that he gives such a memory the power to justify, like faith, and leads to such a reason. For it is written (says he), that they have done this in remembrance of me. What do you think? It is written, they have done it in remembrance of me; therefore such remembrance makes them righteous. There you grasp how finely D. Carlstadt understands the Lord's Supper, his memorial, 1) and justification, namely, that the devil has only his game and mockery in this matter.
172. but know and keep that the memory of Christ is an outward memory, when one speaks of someone and says, according to the Scriptures, Ps. 16:4, "I will not remember their name in my mouth"; item Ps. 9:7, "Their memory is gone with them"; item Ps. 83:5, "That the name of Israel may be remembered no more"; item Ps. 112:6, "The righteous has an everlasting memory". 83:5: "That the name of Israel be remembered no more"; item, Ps. 112:6: "The righteous have an everlasting remembrance"; that Christ, therefore, by the word "do this in remembrance of me," means as much as Paul does by "ye shall proclaim the death of the Lord" etc. [1 Cor. 11, 26.]; that Christ wants us to preach about Him when we partake of the Sacrament, and to tell the Gospel to strengthen the faith, not to sit and play with thoughts in our hearts, and to make a good work out of such remembrance, as D. Carlstadt dreams. O that the prophets studied before, before they left out books.
173 From this you well realize that such memory does not justify, but they must be
1) The comma after Abendmahl is in the old editions, but is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger. Almost throughout (not alone in this writing) the interwanttion of the Erlanger edition is taken from Walch's old edition.
first be justified, who shall preach, proclaim, and do the outward remembrance of the Lord, as it is written, Rom. 10:10, "With the heart one believeth, and is justified; but with the mouth confession, and salvation." But justification, which Carlstadt also brings from knowledge, is also nothing, and beware of it, for he will lie to you and deceive you. For he does not make such knowledge spiritual, as it should be. For Isaiah speaks (Cap. 53, 11.] of the spirit and spiritual knowledge, which the Holy Spirit works in us, and not we ourselves. Which is, if I know, am certain, and do not doubt, Christ is given for me. But Carlstadt makes of it a human, carnal devotion, and a fervent work in the heart; but not above knowing and knowing how Christ was given for us; which the devil and the hypocrites also can do. Scientiam docet, usum scientiae non potest docere. He may speak much of knowledge, but he does not practice it or conduct it properly, but lets it be a bad work; that is to make knowledge carnally and not spiritually. For his spirit suffers no other way; what is spiritual, he must make carnal.
The fourth piece of Mrs. Hulden is when she takes before her the saying of St. Paul 1 Cor. 11, 24: "Receive, eat, this is the body that is broken for you", and wants to master it. Help God, how the spirit pales and trembles before this thunder! But he takes courage from him and says, "Oh, you poor unwise man, do you think that Christ's body will be broken as bread is broken? etc. But, beloved, let him hear how he chokes and tortures himself here. Tell me, did Christ break himself in the bread? He was not in the bread when he broke it; so you cannot show any apostle who broke Christ's body in the bread. At last he comes to the conclusion that Christ's leg was not broken; therefore this breaking must be understood of his suffering, that is, "this is the body which is broken for you," that is, which is crucified for you. Behold, beloved, how the spirit here walks on eggs, how it writhes and wriggles, how it has mush in its mouth and mumbles, as a half-dead despondent man.
No, dear little spirit, you do not escape me like this. And although I should have placed this saying above among the others, I was prevented from doing so by the unorganized suction 2) and confused writing of this book. First of all, it does not help that he wants to understand suffering and crucifixion by breaking. For the Scriptures do not say so, and he cannot prove it; so his own dreams and glosses count for nothing. It is true that the Scriptures call the afflicted broken-hearted and broken-spirit; but bodily suffering 3) is not. And even if it did, it is therefore not certain that it should be so here; it must be proved very well. So it does not matter that Christ did not break a leg. For there is none of us so foolish as to say that Christ is visibly broken in the sacrament, as thieves are broken. So we prove that Christ and the apostles have broken Christ's body, according to this saying, "this is the body that is broken for you", and must have been inside the breaking, Paul is lying.
But let's go for the joke's throat. Above we have thoroughly and powerfully proved that D. Carlstadt's ôïýôï must point to bread, since he says: Take, eat, Tuto, or this is my body, which is given for you. Because here St. Paul also puts the ôïýôï, and says, "This is the body that is broken for you," it must also point to bread. Thus the text enforces that this bread is the body that is broken, that in short, by force, this breaking must remain in the Lord's Supper, and over the table in the meal, and be nothing else (as I said above), but that the body is distributed into the community, as one otherwise breaks bread or distributes it into the community, that it is not necessary here to dream how Christ's body is just broken in the bread; but it is enough that it is broken, that is, distributed in all the pieces and particles of the bread completely and perfectly.
177 So the saying stands firm that Christ's body and bread are one, and where the body and bread are one, the bread is one.
1) Wittenberg and Jena: should.
2) Ströde -Spülicht; hence Saugeströde - Schweinetrank. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1944, the last line.
3) Walch and the Erlangers: suffering in the flesh.
Bread is broken, that [it] is as much as the body of Christ is broken or distributed, that it may be divided and received among many. For if St. Paul had not wanted the body of Christ to be in the bread, he should not have assigned the breaking (which actually belongs to the bread, according to Scripture custom and manner) to the body of Christ. But since he includes both in one another, so that he points to the bread, and calls it the broken body of Christ, that in the breaking both bread and the body are broken, no one can pass by, one must confess that the body of Christ is there in the bread; and just as through the breaking the bread does not lose its essence or name, and nevertheless remains bread and is called, even if it is broken up, so also the body of Christ remains there, even if it is divided into many pieces among many.
178 There is one more thing back there. St. Paul speaks of bread, "which is the body broken for you." Dear, how might it be broken for us? Broken among us would have been better. O how light legs has this spirit here, how his leaps over the word "for us"! Dear, why? Because he has undertaken to deny that in the sacrament there is forgiveness of sins; but such an assumption is dirt, where the word "broken for us" remains, which cannot be otherwise than that such breaking of bread and body should take place, and be instituted that [it] may benefit us, deliver us from sins. For Christ has put the power and authority of his suffering into the sacrament, that it should be taken and found there, according to the words, "This is my body, which is given for you for the remission of sins," as we shall hear now soon after; therefore this word was not to be touched by the Spirit.
The fifth piece of Mrs. Hulden is now especially about Luther, who taught that whoever's conscience is heavy with sins should go to the sacrament and get comfort and forgiveness of sins there. Here Peter Rülze is first of all a fine fellow and speaks joyfully: "O you false prophets, you promise the people God's kingdom for a piece of bread; I know that you do not make the bread better by your secret breathing and hissing; why then do you say that [it] is better for you?
sins when you have blown over it? Why do you not take a handful of barley etc. and eat it in God's name, that you may be free from sin? Here I must speak with D. Carlstadt himself.
My dear D. Carlstadt, since you would not or could not contest this article otherwise than thus, why do you not stay at home? You have your hands full, if there were a thousand more of you, where you are supposed to overcome me with writings and causes, and you go to and attack me only with scornful words and openly insolent lies. Do you think that I am afraid of lies, since you yourselves know that you are lying? If, in worldly matters, someone were to attack another's honor with lies in such a way that both parties knew that it was a lie, my dear, should one not say to the other: "You are lying as an arch-robber and dishonorable villain? But what should one say here, since one lies brazenly against conscience in divine matters? Well, who still does not believe that these 1) prophets are full of devils, listen here, I will convince them with their impudent lies.
First tell me, He 2) Lying Spirit, when have we ever taught that a piece of bread forgives sins? Wow! Peter Rülz and Victus Knebel, show us a single letter or point, you use it to prove your point. Since you know that we do not do this, what kind of spirit is it that makes you lie so shamefully? If you were lying out of forgetfulness or ignorance, I could take you for a human being. But now you lie so willfully, knowingly and poisonously in such serious matters, no one can see anything else in you but the evil spirit. But it is the manner of these prophets to speak thus mockingly and scornfully of divine things, to excite the mad mob, who by such words shall think that there is vain victory and triumph, though they hear no Gvund.
The other tells me, when do we hiss or blow over the bread? Yes, show it! Item, where did we ever hiss or blow over the bread?
2) d. i. Mr.
teaches that our hissing and blowing makes the bread better? Oh yes! If so? Well, I will also make an oath: If D. Carlstadt believes that there is a God in heaven and earth, then Christ, my Lord, shall never be kind nor gracious to me; this is indeed a solemn oath. The reason is this: D. Carlstadt knows that we do not blow nor hiss over the bread and wine, but speak the divine, almighty, heavenly, holy words, which Christ Himself spoke and commanded to be spoken in the Lord's Supper with His holy mouth; I will be silent of the wicked and sinful priests. This I say, if these words were spoken by a donkey, as Balaam's donkey was, yes, if they were spoken by a devil, nevertheless they are God's words and are to be held in all honor, as is fitting.
183. Now tell me, whoever knows for certain that it is God's word, and yet may knowingly shout it out for a human hissing and blowing, mocking and laughing at it, and corrupt the poor rabble with such lies and poison, and take no fear nor awe nor remorse over it, but rejoice and take pleasure in such wickedness, as if God would crown him for such blasphemy and seduction of people and call him a grace-junior: How can he believe or think that there is a God? He must not be possessed with a devil. Now let him go, D. Carlstadt will find it, if he has not already found it; if God gives him that, then I will also say that there is no God. But I kindly warn D. Carlstadt that he should repent; God has tried hard enough, He has granted long enough, it will and must soon change. God grant that I must be a liar and false prophet here. Oh, dear God, what will we do if you let us?
You wretched spirit, why do you not attack the right cause? Why don't you punish our doctrine? You challenge a foreign doctrine in us, which you impose on us and deny, and which is not ours. What is easier to do than to conceive a lie and to attribute it to one, and to argue about it and to become a knight? 3) But this is our doctrine, that bros are not ours. But this is our doctrine, that bread
3) "to" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.
274 Erl. 29,284-288. I. Luther's writings against Carlstadt. W. XX. 362-365. 27fi
I will go on: Christ on the cross with all his suffering and death does not help, even if it is recognized and considered in the most fervent, heated, heartfelt way, as you teach; there must be something else. What is it? The word, the word, the word, do you hear, you 1) lying spirit, also? the word does it. For even if Christ were given and crucified a thousand times for us, it would all be in vain, if the word of God did not come and distribute it and give it to me, saying, "This shall be yours; take it and have it.
So also, if I were to practice the memory and knowledge of Christ with such fervor and earnestness according to Carlstadt's teaching that I sweat blood and burned over it, it would all be nothing and completely lost. For there would be vain work and commandment, but no gift or word of God, which would offer and give me Christ's body and blood, and it would happen to me just as if a chest full of florins and great treasure were buried or kept for me in one place, then I might remember to death and recognize with all pleasure, have great ardor and heat in such knowledge and remembrance of the treasure, until I would be sick over it; But what good would all this do me if the same treasure were never opened to me, given to me, delivered to me and handed over to me? That would truly be "to love and not to enjoy," that would be to be satiated by the smell and drunk by the sight of the glass, just as Isaiah says, "that a man dreams that he eats and drinks, but when he wakes up, his soul is empty" etc. [Isa. 29:8.]
The whole teaching of D. Carlstadt is just such a reverie. For with the splendid words "ardent memory, ardent knowledge, sensitive taste of the suffering of Christ," he mimics us, and brings us no further than that he shows us the sanctuary through a glass, or in a vessel, where we may see and smell until we are full, yes, in a dream; But he does not give it, does not open it, and does not let it be our own, yes, with such splendid words he wants to darken for us the word that gives us such treasure,
1) The second "du" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.
saying, "Receive, this is the body given for you." The "for you" is a poison and bitter death to him. But it is our comfort and life, for it opens up the treasure and gives it to us for our own. 2)
But that our doctrine may be heard the more earnestly, I will speak of it plainly and roughly. We speak of the forgiveness of sins in two ways. First, how it is obtained and acquired; second, how it is distributed and given to us. Christ acquired it on the cross, that is true, but he did not distribute it or give it on the cross. He did not acquire it in the Lord's Supper or Sacrament, but there he distributed and gave it through the Word, just as in the Gospel, where it is preached. The acquisition happened once at the cross, but the distribution happened many times, before and after, from the beginning of the world to the end. Because he had decided to acquire them once, it was equally important for him to distribute them before or after by his word, as this can easily be proven with scriptures, but now there is no need nor time.
If I want to have my sins forgiven, I do not have to go to the cross, for there I will not yet find them paid out; nor do I have to go to the remembrance and knowledge of Christ's suffering, as Carlstadt says, for there I will not find them either, but to the sacrament or gospel, where I will find the word that pays out, gives, bears and gives me such forgiveness acquired on the cross. Therefore Luther taught rightly that whoever has an evil conscience because of sins should go to the sacrament and take comfort, not in the bread and wine, not in the body and blood of Christ, but in the word, which in the sacrament gives, bestows and gives me the body and blood of Christ as given and poured out for me. Is this not clear enough?
189 Therefore, this great spirit should have fought against us, saying, "O false prophets, you have no word in the sacrament that gives or gives you forgiveness of sin; but I say again, the word in the sacrament he should have contested, that is, the word in the sacrament that gives forgiveness of sin.
2) In the Wittenberg and the Jena: "to show".
If he had proved that we did not have it in us, he would have become a great knight. For though there were vain bread and wine, as they say, yet if there were the word, "Receive, this is my body, given for you," etc., yet for the same word there would be forgiveness of sins in the sacrament. Just as in baptism we confess water, but because the Word of God is in it, which forgives sin, we freely say with St. Paul that baptism is a bath of rebirth and regeneration [Titus 3:5]; it is all in the Word.
190) There you now have D. Carlstadt's devil, my reader, and see how he intended to nullify God's outward word, which he neither respects nor considers, and calls a hissing, breathing and blowing. Item, how he wanted to abolish the sacrament completely, both bodily and spiritual, so that bodily. Christ's body and blood should not be there, and that the forgiveness of sins should not take place spiritually, that neither the sacrament nor its fruit should remain, and that instead of such divine order and word he should set up his own dreams of memory and knowledge. But he lacked the art. Now know what to think of him.
Here I must bring that at the very end of the book he speaks out of great reason and wisdom, saying that Christ's body was mortal in the Lord's Supper, but now it is immortal, and may not be given for us, as the words are, "this is the body that is given for you. But if it is not now, nor can it be given for us, and the words are now out and false, if they speak of the immortal body, it must also be false that the mortal body was in the bread and wine, because we have just such a supper after the death of Christ, now it is immortal, and is not given as Christ held when he was mortal. What do you think? How does Mrs. Hulde look for gaps and holes!
192 To this we first reply that Christ's blood did not become Gabriel's or Michael's blood, since it became immortal, but remained Christ's blood. For
We believe, and it is true, that Christ's blood, which now sits at the right hand of God in heaven, was shed for us once, and no other. Now if we look at the history 1) so that he acquired the forgiveness of sins, it was not done at the Lord's Supper; but now it is done and has passed away. But if one looks at the bestowal of forgiveness, there is no time, but has happened from the beginning of the world, as John also says in Revelation 13:8 that the Lamb of God was slain from the beginning of the world.
193 Because the body and blood of Christ is necessary for all who still have sins to be forgiven, it is still true that it is given for them. For although this 2) history has happened, as long as it is not given to me, it is the same as if it had not yet happened for me, that such sophistical sophistry creates nothing for Mrs. Hulden, who does not see how it is all about the giving out, and Christ has done the acquiring for the sake of the giving out and has put it into the giving out. Therefore St. Paul also says, as mentioned above, "the body of Christ is broken for us" [1 Cor. 11:24]. Nothing prevents the forgiveness from being mortal or immortal, whether it is done or should be done; it is enough that it is the same blood. For it is poured out for me, when it is poured out and given to me, which is poured out for me; which still goes and must go daily.
These are almost the best and most beautiful pieces of Mrs. Hulden in these matters, in which one can see how she is the bride of the devil and speaks what he tells her. That now the promoter D. Carlstadt is joking and says that Christ does not come down from heaven, because Paul says, "we should proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes" [1 Cor. 11:26], and again scoffs at the word of God, whether Christ has to jump up because of the stinking breath of a drunken priest, and whether we could snatch him from heaven and banish him? Item, that Christ would have had to leave his place where he sat, if he had crawled into the bread,
1) i.e. what has happened, the factum.
2) Thus in the Wittenberg and the Jena. Walch and the Erlanger: the.
and would still have to leave heaven if he were to enter bread, etc., and the like many shameful blasphemous words, these are all such childish, foolish, shameful thoughts and lies among themselves that they are not worthy of responsibility.
For we do not say that he comes from heaven or leaves his place alone, otherwise this spirit would also have to say that God's Son, when he became man in his mother's body, also left heaven, and everything that Carlstadt scoffs at the body in the sacrament, he must also scoff at the divinity of Christ in the flesh, as he will also do in time. Item, when St. Stephen saw Jesus, Apost. 7:55, he did not say that he came from heaven, but stood at the right hand of God. And Paul, Apost. 9, 4, also hears him speak, yet he did not come from heaven. Summa, the great spirit deals with children's thoughts as if Christ were ascending and descending. Neither does he understand Christ's kingdom as it is in all places, and, as Paul says, "fulfill all things," Eph. 1:23. We are not commanded to inquire how it comes about that our bread becomes and is Christ's body. God's word is there, that is what it says; then we abide by it and believe it; then take a bite of it, you poor devil, and inquire into it until you know how it is.
Item 196: That he also mocks us, as if we were to say and teach that the cup is in the blood, and therefore he alienates, as one sees no blood there, and always turns his ears away from God's word, and looks with his naked eyes at the bread and wine. For this spirit does not want to believe what God's word says, but what he sees and feels. O a beautiful faith! Now we answer the evil devil thus: that these words Luc. 22, 20."This is the cup, the new testament in my blood," are not to be understood in this way, that this word "in my blood" should belong to the word "this is the cup," as this spirit pretends to be, because of its loud and wanton wickedness, but to the word "a new testament," as they also naturally stand and follow one after the other, so that it is said: "This cup is a new testament, not by itself, because it is perhaps a glass or silver, but because my blood is in it.
By the same blood he is a testament. 1) For whosoever receiveth the cup. For whoever receives the cup in this way, receiving Christ's blood poured out for us, receives the new testament, which is the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
But I will tell you why D. Carlstadt had to blaspheme, juggle and mock in this place. The saying was too bright and too powerful, and [he] knew nothing to say about it. For he forces with all his might, and more powerfully than anyone above, that Christ's blood is in the sacrament; therefore he thought to fill the ears of the rabble with other antics 2) and to avert their attention to these words of Luke. And methinks it can also be felt in this place that D. Carlstadt denies against his own conscience that Christ is blood and body in the sacrament, and is hostile to God in his heart, and wants to blaspheme and desecrate his holy word and sacrament to his sorrow and annoyance; it seems to me, I say again, that D. Carlstadt has surrendered and has chosen to be a public enemy of God, and wants to run rather than trot into hell. God let me miss and lie.
For this saying of Luke and Paul is brighter than the sun, and mightier than thunder. First, that no one can deny that he speaks of the cup, because he says, "This is the cup." Secondly, that he calls the cup "the new testament," this offends mightily. For it cannot be that it should be a new testament by and for the sake of bad wine. Dear, 3) what is "new testament" but forgiveness of sins and eternal life, acquired by Christ and granted to us in the sacrament? If the cup is to be a new testament, there must be something in it and on it that is as valid as the new testament. If it is not Christ's blood, as he says, "in my blood," let it be said what it is. Now therefore we would say unto these spirits, O ye false prophets, which give the new testament, and promise unto the people for and in a
1) Walch and the Erlanger: new testament.
2) Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Erlanger: Bösen. "Possen" is given in the Erlanger as a variant of Walch, although the editor should have known that "Bossen" is another spelling of this word. Cf. Erlanger, vol. 28, p. 372, line 4 from the top.
3) Erlanger: Because.
Drink of wine. The text should also be written like this: This is the cup, the new testament in the wine. But since the words are: "This is the cup, the new testament in my blood", D. Carlstadt's art, writing, books, both which he has made and can still make, are thereby all pushed to the ground and overcome in such a way that he cannot rebel against it; but if he rebels, he shall make it even worse.
There now stands our text; now bite, bite, scoff, scoff, blaspheme confidently, be angry, dear heavenly prophets: you must let the cup remain that it is the new testament, although there would be none that points to it, and all would be on your side. You must also let it remain that it is the new testament, not through or in its essence, but through and in the blood of Christ. The blood, the blood of Christ, makes this cup a new testament, which may not be understood from the sitting blood of Christ; for the cup cannot be the new testament from the blood, which is not in it, which neither touches it nor concerns it; but cup and blood must here be one thing, as it is said above, that he who has or takes the cup, has and takes also the blood of Christ. Where do you want to go out now, dear spirits of the mob? So I will let them write and cry out for a thousand years, and I will not hold more than one word against them: "This is the cup, the new testament. O the word "new testament," how it crushes the prophets and spirits into a lump like dung!
200 I also hear them say (for I have not seen or read all of these poisonous books), how they make use of the fact that Christ, Matt. 16:18, says to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. Here, they say, Christ begins to speak of Peter, who is called a rock, and then immediately turns to another rock and says, "And on this rock I will build my church. In the same way, when he says, "Take, eat, this is my body," he turns the speech from the bread to his seated body. Behold, how he seeketh; help that which can help; a lie.
must always have seven other lies, if it is to resemble the truth and gain a semblance.
To this we reply: If it were so that Christ spoke in the way of Matth. 16, 18, it is still not enough to set an article of faith and to build conscience on it, that it must also be so here, but one would have to prove with a clear text that it should and must also be so in this place. Therefore it does not help if these spirits say: Christ, Matth. 16, 18., turns the speech quickly from one rock to another, therefore it is also so here to turn from the bread to the body. Who can assure us of this and make us certain that this must also be so? You say it, but how can anyone believe you, since you do not prove it? You must force the likeness 2) of speech to Scripture, and not carry it from yourself. For faith (as I have often said) does not want to have a bad saying or a bad singing; it wants to have God's word, which says, "This is how it is and not otherwise. For it does not want to be a reed that the wind weaves [Matth. 11, 7].
Secondly, it is not true that Matthew 16 speaks in this way. For there the word "and" stands between both pieces, and repeats the word "rock" again, and thus says: "You are Peter, and on this rock" etc., so that here, when he says: "You are Peter", one part is over and then begins a new one, namely: "And on this rock" etc. Such an "and" and repetition of the word "body" is not there in the Lord's Supper, but says straight: "Take, eat; this is my body." If Matth. 16, 18. were to say: "You are Peter or rock, on whom or on which I will build my church," it would be the same speech; or if it were to say in the Lord's Supper: Take, eat the body, and this is my body; it would be the same as Matth. 16, 18.
Now Matth. 16. has an "and" and there is no "and" in between, and Christ repeats the word "rock" Matth. 16. again, and says: "on this rock",
1) Jenaer: so too.
2) i.e. equality.
But if in the Lord's Supper the word "body" is not mentioned again, it is said that with the word "rock" he points to himself or to the word that Peter spoke, and with the word "body" he points to the bread, so that these two sayings are as similar as water and fire. Also the evangelist Matth. 16, to indicate such a difference and new beginning, distinguished the rock with diligence. For he calls Peter "the one," but the other rock "the one," so that it should be understood that Peter, as "the one," is not the other rock, which he makes "the one" on which Christ wants to build his church, and he puts such "the one" and "the one" into two separate sayings, which does not happen in the Lord's Supper, where he applies the word "the one" to both bread and body in one saying, "This is my body.
204 Finally, so that he does not speak without the Scripture of all things, he (praise God!) once says a sentence, perhaps to the last, and it is Matth. 24, 23: "If they say to you, here or there is Christ, you shall not believe it. If we then say that Christ is in the host, let it be said that Christ is here and there, therefore it is not true. There, there, it is true. Well, I will give the prophet herewith also Eli singing 1) and holy evening. So blind does hatred make these spirits that they cannot see what goes before or after these words, but fall on it as it seems to them at first sight; therefore we must show it to them clearly once again.
(205) It is very different when I speak of Christ and of Christ's body and blood. For when the evangelist says, "Here or there is Christ," and the like, he is speaking of the whole of Christ, that is, of the kingdom of Christ, as is forcibly enforced by the text Luc. 17, 20. f., where he says, "The
1) "Eli singen" - to sing a last little song for the farewell. In the Tischreden Cap. 54, H 25 should be read "Heli singen". An explanation of this expression results from what Carlstadt noted against it (Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 457): "There Luther sings scornfully: Eli! etc.; but the sacrament will sing to Luther: ut czuid äereliqurkti! and Luther will sing to the truth: how hast thou forsaken me!" According to these words of Carlstadt, in the expression "Eli singen" is a relation to Matth. 27, 46.
The kingdom of God does not come with outward appearances, nor will one say, "Behold here, behold there it is," which the other evangelists thus explain, "here or there is Christ. All this is said: Christ's kingdom is not in outward things, places, times, persons, works, but, as he says there, "the kingdom of God is within you." Now it does not follow that Christ is nowhere, but that he is everywhere and fills everything, Eph. 1:23. But he is not bound to any place in particular, so that he must be there and nowhere else, as those do who do not leave our conscience free, but bind it to particular places, works and persons.
Just as he himself, Christ and his kingdom, is not bound to any place or external thing, so also everything that belongs to his kingdom is free and not bound anywhere, as there is the gospel, baptism, the sacrament and the Christians. For the gospel should and must be free at all ends and bound to no place but Rome. For it is not in Rome alone, or here or there, and nowhere else. So is baptism and sacrament. For it is not necessary to preach, baptize, and administer the sacrament in the church or anywhere else, but in all places where necessity demands it. From this it does not follow that Christ is in the sacrament as bound to a place here or there, but that he and his sacrament are or may be free in all places. Therefore these prophets do not properly apply the saying about the kingdom of Christ to the sacrament.
For if this were true, one would also have to deny [and say] that the gospel and baptism and sacrament are nowhere. For in the gospel Christ is also present, and yet must be verbally and bodily in places and places of worship. Item, Christ would not have to be in heaven at the right hand of the Father, because here one would also like to say: Behold, there is Christ. Item, St. Stephen might have said, when he saw Jesus standing, Apost. 7, 55, you deny, because Christ is neither here nor there, if the carnal thoughts of these prophets were suitable. Yes, their own teaching of Christ's knowledge and memory would also have to be nothing, because they would have to be in one place with it.
Therefore this saying "Here and there" must be understood first of all of bodily outward places and dwellings. Secondly, of such bodily places as are especially set apart before others and made necessary for salvation by false prophets, so that not all places remain free, as has hitherto been done with us under the papacy. But we do not teach that Christ's body and blood are visible in outward places, but hidden in the sacrament. Neither do we say that he must and should be free in special places and not in all, but that he, 1) together with the bread and wine, may and should be free in all places, times, persons.
209. But that he speaks: "This is my body," and not, "This is Christ," was done so that in the sacrament one might not understand the whole of Christ, that is, his kingdom, but clearly and actually his body, bodily and truly, as a piece of his kingdom and of the whole of Christ, just as the gospel is also not called Christ or a kingdom of Christ, but an oral bodily sermon, as a piece of the whole of Christ or his kingdom, and yet also has the nature of the whole of Christ, that it is free in all and not necessarily bound to a special place; therefore it is spoken of Christ as of the whole, but of his body as of the piece of the whole.
I will leave it at that for now. For the fact that D. Carlstadt denies that we have the authority to bring Christ's body and blood into the sacrament, has been proven enough above, and he must also let us, if we receive this, that the bread we break is the body of Christ. These "we" will of course have the power, in the very words, as Christ himself had them in the Lord's Supper. Item, that he pretends of the righteousness of dying, that it is inward before the righteousness of the Spirit, is his poem and has no reason. For above you have heard the right order, that the beginning and the first is faith in the heart, the righteousness of the spirit, followed by the death and dying of the old man, Rom. 8,13:
1) "er" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.
"If by the Spirit ye put to death the works of the flesh, ye shall live." "By the Spirit," he says, as the one who must be there first.
211. Herewith I answer to all of D. Carlstadt's books of the Sacrament, since he has now done and written for three years. I have answered him these three weeks, and will give him another three years and three more, so that they will become six, that they will answer me constantly, and warn them one more thing, that they watch and meet it, because they may well. I thank them with all my heart for my right of hope 2) and do not want to take much for it, so finely they have strengthened my heart in this article. For I now see how nothing at all can be raised against this article. But I have spoken of it so widely and in so many words that I have made it light and clear that D. Carlstadt writes so darkly and disorderly; and I hold it that from this book D. Carlstadt will first of all understand himself very well. For I have no doubt that he has not yet seen for himself what he is doing or where his teachings reach. For he cannot grasp or comprehend anything properly, much less talk or write.
In the end, I will faithfully and brotherly warn everyone to beware of D. Carlstadt and his prophets for two special reasons. The first, that they run and teach without being called, which God punishes through Jeremiah, saying: "They ran, and I did not send them; they speak, and I commanded them nothing" [Jer. 23, 21]. Therefore Christ also judges them, Joh. 10, 1, for thieves and murderers, who do not enter the door, but enter elsewhere. They boast almost highly of the Spirit, higher than the apostles, and yet they have been sneaking and sneaking longer than three years. If it had been the right spirit, he would have appeared quickly and would have proved his calling with signs and words, but it is an insidious devil who sneaks into the corners of the world.
2) Thus in the Wittenberg. Jena and Erlangen: Court Law. In the great "Confession of the Lord's Supper," No. 2t in this volume, § 427: "Court right. According to the latter passage, the expression "for my court right" seems to mean: according to my opinion, as my discretion.
creeps around until he does harm and spreads his poison.
The other is that these prophets avoid the main part of Christian teaching, flee and remain silent. For they do not teach in any place how one should get rid of sins, have a good conscience and gain a peaceful and joyful heart toward God, in whom all power lies. This is the true sign that their spirit is the devil, who with strange new words excites the consciences, frightens
and misleads them, but does not put them to rest nor to peace, nor can he, but goes to and teaches some special works, that they may practice and be blued. But how a good conscience should be done and skillful, they know nothing at all, for they have not felt it nor ever known it; also how can they know or feel it, if they come and teach without being called by themselves? since no good can come from it. God's grace be with us all, amen.
6. D. Andr. Carlstadt's writing "On the Old and New Testament etc. How Carolstadt recants", containing in itself an "answer to the saying: the cup is the new testament in my blood etc. Luc. 22. 1 Cor. 11." *)
March 16, 1525.
Andreas Carolstadter, Unverhört vertrieben: zu einem Gezeugniß des Evangelii, welches ich predige von JEsu von Nazareth, dem gekreuzigten Son GOttes, den ernsten Christen, meinen geliebten Brüdern, zu Rothenburg an der Tauber, divine Weisheit, Erkenntnisniß, Glauben, Liebe, Stärke und Friede von GOtt durch Christum!
1. favorable brothers! I have now almost completed a full reply to D. Luther's scriptless and unchristian letter a full answer now almost completed, besides other letters, that I really have to write not a little to brothers who ask me for it. But after the same answer was too large, I have taken out several articles 1) which I, each one in particular, think should go out, among which this one is from the cup, which the Scriptures call a new testament, and D. Juther calls a thunderbolt on Carolstadt's head, and considers it the best reason to prove that the Lord's blood must be bodily in the cup of dedication.
2. the same article I send to you out of good Christian love, willingness and service, considering that there are many among you to whom God's truth and judgments are earnestly dear, who will
1) Compare the introduction to this volume.
I ask you to thoroughly and diligently assess the reason for this teaching and, if you find that I am in error, to inform me of the error, and I will willingly grant divine truth and gladly deserve it.
3) But in my conscience I am sure what I have finally written in the matter of the Sacrament, that it is so and does not dare 2) to be otherwise. I also hope that you will feel and notice in this article that my teaching is divine, well-founded and demonstrable, that I greatly praise God's grace and the surpassing love of Christ, and that I confess the right faith in Christ; and that I am not to be regarded as an errorist or heretic. I am also willing to be heard by you, and ask you for God's sake to admit me to a public interrogation, to hear the merits of my faith.
(4) I am ever ready and willing to answer enemies and friends; I will also come to you shortly and ask for interrogation, which I hope to obtain. But if it should be refused to me, I would have to defend myself not only against God, but [also] against the imperial majesty,
2) In the old edition: nothing.
We reproduce this writing according to Walch's old edition. -The time is determined according to the date of the letter. For the reason for this, see the introduction.
as the highest member of the Christian community, and especially that I, against the order of Your Imperial Majesty, am being persecuted and expelled without being heard. But I have no doubt that you will fear God, our almighty Lord, so much and give Him the honor that you will hear me for the sake of the instruction and leave a better one with you. God commanded. Date 16 Martii, Anno 1525.
From these words: The Cup, the New Testament.
Now of Christ's speech concerning the blood, it is to be noted that Matthew and Marcus do not say of the cup that the cup is the New Testament; therefore, according to the opinion of the preacher at Nördlingen, it should follow that it is not necessary that we call the cup a New Testament. But the above two evangelists tell how Christ took the cup and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. And how the Lord then spoke these words: "This is my blood of the new testament, which was shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. Matth. 26. Marci 14.
2 But from this we learn that the disciples drank a purely natural wine; for the priests say that their bread and their wine remain in their nature until such words, which they call verba consecrationis, have been spoken or read over them. Now Christ made his disciples all drink hot from the cup (in which was natural wine) before he spoke verba consecrationis. Therefore they drank the wine before, because the wine was changed into blood. Therefore, from these two evangelists, it cannot be concluded that the disciples drank the blood of the Lord bodily in the first supper, but the contradiction that they did not drink the blood of Christ bodily, as now reported.
(3) But that Christ called them all to drink out of it is explained that Christ speaks of the drinking vessel which the Lord gave to his disciples. It must not be proved that the disciples drank out of a drinking vessel; it is necessary that one have eyes or ears to understand words, and see or hear what Christ says. But that some priests say that Christ says, "Drink from this blood, all of you," and want to dispute this from Matthew and Mark, we must let happen. For they will say the length, that fire is not warm or hot, calix blood is called, and sanguis
1) Theobald Billicanus, pastor at Nördlingen.
"ulh"" Works. Vd. XX.
a drinking vessel, so that they keep their Lord God and their benefice.
4) But it belongs to you laymen to investigate, to read books or listen to books, and even to look for what you need to know. 2) Do this yourself and you will soon find out the truth. Do this yourself, and you will soon discover the truth, and learn that the disciples did not drink from the blood, but from a drinking vessel. I am amazed that the priests are so great that they dare to prove from Matthew and Mark. Just look at what Matthew and Marcus write. The pronoun ôïýôï points to the blood, and not to the cup or drinking vessel; this I refer to unsuspicious judges of the Greek tongue, who have experienced the manner of our New Testament in the Greek tongue.
Luther does not rely on Matthaeum and Marcum, but on Lucam and Paulum, Luc. 22. 1 Cor. 10. b) But some Lutherans (whom I have taken from Luther's arrow through a bad scripture, 4) and Luther himself) resort to this speech: "they all drank from it" Marc. 14); and say: they all drank from the blood of Christ. To this one should now ask: whether they could prove this? for you are to believe them nothing without scripture. But if we had no evangelist but Marcum, it would be done for the priests. For Marcus tells us that they all drank from the cup, and that Christ then spoke the words of the blood, which they call verba consecrationis. From this it follows that they drank pure wine. What is your wine, you priests, before your words of blood? Is it not pure natural wine? You should all say yes. Let the wine remain natural wine, of which Marcus writes, and reports that the Lord said the words of blood afterwards.
Luther devastates these words: "The cup, the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you", Luc. 22, and thinks that this text is the right scripture to prove that the blood is in the cup, and must be, yes, it is the right thunderbolt on Carolstadt's head.
If this is the right reason to prove that the blood of Christ must be in the chalice of the priests, then I have good days, because the priests do not read this scripture when they eonserrir; therefore I demand their missals to testify.
2) i.e. see.
4) "by a bad writing" i.e. by a simple scripture.
I do not know any other way, because the new pope 1) and his bishops at Zwickau and Nördlingen, 2) keep the words of the old pope; I have to let their books judge and pronounce that.
8) Since neither the old nor the new pope hold the right reason, it is believable that they have not had the blood of Christ in their cup thoroughly and truly until now, because 3) they omit the right words. So the Carolstadt will not be of the devil for the reason that he writes thus: The priests have no blood in their chalice. Then I think that Luther's thunderbolt will be a buttered bread, and his strongest servant will also be dead.
009 But I will give him better, and say, that the cup was not a new testament in the time of the first supper of Christ. How do you like that? I say, Christ taught in his first supper what his blood would become in the future, and what the memorial cup would become by blood.
Will.
(10) You all know that a will is not a testament before the death of the testator, for a will is a last will and testament made or confirmed at death. Now where there is no death, there is no will. Hebr. 9, 16. 17.: "Death makes the will strong and perfect"; the life of the testatoris makes the will ineffective and invalid. "A will becomes firm by death, otherwise it has not yet power, if he who made it is still alive." This is the nature of the will, that he who made it dies and is dead, since a will is the last will and testament. But where he remains alive who makes his will, it is not a last will. What shall I say, because there is writing? "Where there is a will, there must be the death of him who makes the will," Heb. 9:16.
(11) That Christ was still alive (at the time) when He instituted His supper is so evident that no one may prove it; therefore His blood was not the blood of the Testament at that time, and even less the blood of the New Testament, in the time after which Christ said, "Father, take away the cup from Me," Matt. 26:39, after which the angel comforted Christ, and the Lord sweat blood, Luc. 22:44. But if the blood of Christ at that time was not the blood of the
1) This refers to Luther.
2) Hausmann and Billican.
3) Zn the old edition, Carlstadt's writings consistently say "seitmal" instead of "sintemal".
new testament, the cup was much less a testament, which does not belong to the testament, but only through the blood, or in the blood of the testament. Therefore I say: Christ touched the secret and hidden article of the law in the Lord's Supper, and told the disciples about his spiritual priesthood, sacrifice and blood, through which Christ wanted to enter, although the disciples did not understand it, because only on the day of Pentecost.
(12) Christ taught his disciples that his blood should become the blood of the new testament only in the future, and that the cup should be poured out through his blood when his blood is poured out for us for the remission of sins. Therefore Christ says, "This is my blood of the new testament which is poured out."
(13) When the blood of the goats and calves became the blood of the Old Testament, when the goats and calves died, and the blood was sprinkled upon the people for a purification of the flesh, Heb. 9. The New Testament must answer the old, and yet surpass the old.
(14) Of this article of faith Christ said, and taught, that his own blood would become the blood of the new testament, and that the old testament (which was full of sins) would soon have its end. For he who speaks of the new says that the old must pass away. Heb. 9.
The Old Testament.
(15) The old one was an outward revelation of God's will, and all that was of the old law was outward and bodily. Moses read and told God's commandment to the people, he stabbed calves and goats, he gathered blood; he had bodily things to take the blood and sprinkle it on the people. Namely, he took hyssop water and purple wool (as a sprinkler) and sprinkled the blood on the people bodily; he sprinkled the book, the tabernacle and all the vessels of God's service; and all that Moses did was external and bodily. His preaching was external and his sprinkling was external and bodily. For Moses sprinkled the people outwardly and bodily with blood; and the same blood was a blood of the testament, for which innocent animals must die. (And in the same it is not like a testament of a man, who fixes his last will with his own death). The same blood did not purify more, because as far as it touched. It touched the outer body and not the conscience. The conscience of the sins remained dammed; but the external and bodily impurity of the blood did not touch the conscience.
purity to serve God outwardly: as to approach the tabernacle, to go in before God, to stand in service bodily.
New Testament.
16 But the new testament is a true testament, because he himself died who made it, that is, the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth. It also has death and blood, as the old, and the death of him who was a mediator or preparer of the new testament, and in him the new is above the old. But in this it is especially above the old, that the priest of the New Testament does not sprinkle us bodily with his blood, but spiritually, that is, Christ does not cast his blood bodily or with drops into the people, but spiritually. Neither does Christ take an outward sprinkling, as Moses took Hysophe etc., but Christ sprinkles His people with His blood by the Holy Spirit, Heb. 9.' And by His divine power Christ pierces all things bodily, and enters into the conscience and heart of His people, and washes the consciences from evil lusts and works, to serve GOtte in truth and in the Spirit. Heb. 9. Jn. 6. 1 Pet. 1. 1 Jn. 1 and 4. Eph. 1. Col. 1. Rom. 3. 2 Cor. 6.
The shed Blnt on the cross of the will.
(17) Therefore the blood of Christ shed on the cross is the blood of the new testament, and it had to be poured out to become the blood of the testament, as the blood of goats and calves was poured out for the old testament. And the blood of Christ had to become a blood of spiritual sprinkling and forgiveness of sin, if it was to become a blood of the new testament. For this reason Christ says: "This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for you and for many, for the remission of sins", Matth. 26. Marc. 14. And everything that belongs to the new testament must become a new testament through the blood or through the death of Christ, as the cup etc. "The cup, the new testament," which is a new testament "through the blood," is because we drink from it in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ. 1 Cor. 11.
Sprinkling.
18) In this way the poet 1) writes to the Hebrews that the blood of the Lord is the blood of the New Testament. Namely, for the reason that
1) "Poet" here stands in the meaning of author.
The blood of the Lord, shed on the cross, is a blood of spiritual sprinkling, which touches and cleanses our consciences, Revelation 5, Acts 20, Hebrews 9, 10, 12 and 13, and washes away sin. 20. Heb. 9. 10. 12. and 13. and washes away sin; figured in the third book of Moses 4.14. and 16. For God promised that He would give His new testament in the heart and be merciful to sinners and remember their sin no more, Jer. 31. Heb. 8.
(19) There are two characteristics of the New Testament: one, that God would write His laws on the heart; the other, that the forgiveness of sins should follow this writing on the heart so surely that God would remember no more sins. Jer. 31. Isa. 43. That God writes into the heart is the revelation of His Son, an art or understanding of His sacrifice and shed blood, which understanding the Father alone gives, Joh. 6. Matth. 11. That is faith, or the heartfelt and living knowledge of the death and shed blood of Christ. So Christ as a spiritual priest (through the Holy Spirit) casts His blood into hearts, souls and consciences, and cleanses our hearts and consciences through faith. Apost. 15. Rom. 3.
20) This revelation, or the new law, is immediately followed by the forgiveness of sin so sufficiently and with such foreknowledge, 2) certainty, that man actually feels that God no longer remembers any sins. Thus God cleanses through faith, from the shed blood of Christ. Apost. 15, Rom. 3. Therefore, we must walk with full faith, Heb. 10, and not with our feet. We must draw the blood of the cross of Christ with our hearts, and not draw the blood in the body of Christ or in the cup with our mouths, if we want to think it is a blood of the new testament, when it is a blood of the true divine new testament.
21. This faith and this way of the New Testament the new pope devastates; and makes us out of the blood of spiritual drink and spiritual sprinkling a blood of bodily drink and bodily sprinkling, and lately, a blood of the Old Testament, against all the writings of God that write of the blood of the New Testament, especially against these: "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many, in remission of sins"; because Christ by this saying "which is shed in remission of sins" publicly indicates that his blood is a blood of spirits, of souls, of hearts, and of consciences, and is not
2) Precocity will probably mean as much as clear manifestation.
a blood of the body. Revelation 5 and 7, Hebrews 9.
and 10.
22 For the new pope writes against it, and
says that we should drink the blood of the Lord bodily for a new testament; which is contrary to the manner, contrary to the nature, and contrary to the attribute of the blood of the new testament. The pope also uses external things, as an external cup, and gives the blood of Christ bodily into the mouth and belly of his apes, and is like the must in two ways, namely in that he takes external and bodily things to the blood of Christ, as Moses.
(23) Moses took hyssop water and purple wool, and dipped or dipped them in the poured out blood and sprinkled his people. But the new pope takes a cup of water and wine and gives the blood of Christ bodily into the mouth of his people, and says it is the blood of the New Testament. But is this not a great mockery and derision of the blood of the New Testament? Does not Luther, in such words, say that Christ's blood is a blood of the New Testament, but with his sense and heathen otherwise, and thus that [it] is a blood of the Old Testament? It is One kind and One power of the blood of Christ in the cup (if it is drunk bodily, as Luther writes of the bodily partaking of the blood of Christ) and of the blood of Moses. For this will not help the sacramentalists, 'that they give the blood hidden under a strange form, since Moses had the book and tabernacle, the altars and other vessels with his
blood, to whom the blood of Moses was as unknown as the blood of Christ in the cup is unknown to men; this you shall keep.
(24) If ye know that the blood of Christ is the blood of the new testament, ye know also that only the blood of Christ poured out on the cross is the blood of the testament; for therefore it is the blood of the testament, and the answer of the character of the old testament. And so you also know that you are not to taste the blood of the Lord bodily, but only spiritually; that you are to receive it in your heart, in your conscience, and in the depths of your souls; for this belongs to the new testament, which cancels the old, which was received bodily.
(25) Now you will notice that Luther is a Mosaic preacher and teacher, and not a Christian one; and you can understand all this from the words of Christ, who said in his supper, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for the remission of sins. Only notice these words of the new testament. Item, "forgiveness of sins" etc.
(26) Whoever receives the blood of Christ other than for the remission of his sins receives the blood of Christ in unbelief and does violence to the blood of Christ, for he takes away from the blood the glory of the New Testament and the power of forgiveness.
27 But he that receiveth the shed blood of Christ, as the blood of the new testament, receiveth it spiritually with his heart at the cross, and not out of the cup bodily with his mouth.
028 But whosoever receiveth the blood of Christ bodily receiveth it not for the remission of sins, neither as a new testament, but as a bodily drink.
(29) Therefore, if he drinks from the cup of the Lord, thinking that he will drink the blood of Christ in the flesh, he is guilty of the blood of Christ. For he contradicts this word, that the blood of the Lord is the blood of the New Testament, shed on the cross for the remission of sins.
30 The new popes lead us into such unbelief, and the thief Billikan is especially mischievous and willing to make such a foolishness and idleness of the Body and Blood of Christ. But whoever wants to be saved, let him pray to God; for you all truly need great prayers and help from God, since we see that the devil is standing in new choir robes, and dares to blind those who see.
(31) Our new popes are not sufficient for the evil of making the blood of the Lord common blood, the blood of the New Testament the blood of the Old Testament, and the blood of spiritual sprinkling and spiritual purity the blood of bodily sprinkling and bodily purity. No, because they want to continue with their error, and not only give us the blood of Christ to drink bodily, but also put poor, miserable, lousy, sinful and unbelieving priests over it as mediators of the New Testament and the blood of the New Testament, so that they may sin against the blood of Christ.
For they write, preach, and sing that a poor, afflicted, and unbelieving minister, in virtue of the words of Christ (which they may not show), may give the blood of Christ in their cup or sacrament to the people of God, as a blood of the New Testament. Therefore, I must show them their unbelief and say thus:
(33) If the blood of Christ, which a priest gives to him or to another to drink bodily, is not a drink of righteousness, then the precious blood is not a drink of righteousness.
1) In the old edition: solchem. - "Diebold" is Theobald.
The blood of Christ in the chalice of the priests is not the blood of the new testament, because it does not quench the thirst for righteousness, that is, it is not the blood that forgives sin, Rom. 3. And again, it cannot make the chalice of the new popes a new testament, because such blood itself is not the blood of the new testament, nor can it be the blood of the new testament. Therefore I would not have anything to do with them, and they, in turn, could not claim by their blood that the cup is a new testament through their invented blood, which is to be in their cup.
34. But if the blood of Christ in their cup is blood of the New Testament (as Luther once puts, but denies the other time, times thus, [at] times differently, as his book writes in front thus, behind differently) - but if the blood of Christ is blood of the New Testament in the cup of the priests, and the true, that our beautiful, new, wordy, adorned priests could give the blood of Christ to drink: so it will follow that the blood of the Lord shed on the cross would not be blood of the new testament, and that the poor ass-drivers, and the pleasure-grabbers, and the godless parsons would be the colored graves, mediators and preparers of the new testament. This would ever be a beautiful figure, and so Isaiah must lie, who writes of Christ that he is very high and excellent, Is. 52, 13, Cap. 11 [and] 9, and Paul would also have to lie, who gives Christ the process in all things, Col. 1, 15. ff.
35 But that the people, that the sinful priests would be priests and mediators of the new testament, if they could give the blood of Christ to be the blood of the new testament, is found in the epistle to the Hebrews in the 9th and 10th, and also in other books. And I reserve this beforehand, that one thing is in the bottom, if I say: Christ sprinkles the believers with his blood, or so: Christ waters the believers with his blood' you have Hebr. 9. and 10. Joh. 6. Open your eyes, you will find this. Or put thus: The blood of Christ is a blood of the new testament, or a blood of our redemption, Eph. 1. That is one. The other: He that can give the blood, or sprinkle us with it, is a mediator of the new testament.
36. the last I must prove, and gladly do; "for these are bright words, that Christ Jesus by his blood is entered once into his tabernacle, which was made by God, and not of men's hands, which is heaven, Heb. 9:11, 12. and now sitteth on the right hand of God, and waiteth till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet, Heb. 2 and 10. item,
By his own blood the high priest Christ Jesus entered into the holy place, Heb. 9. Take this in hand, for you hear that Christ entered into his holy and divine tabernacle by his own blood, that Christ became a mediator and preparer of the new testament by his poured out blood. This is written in Heb. 9.
37. that Christ, as the most high priest, is due to sprinkle his people with his own blood, you have Heb. 9. it was necessary that the heavenly things were sprinkled and cleansed by the sacrifice and shed blood. Item, the blood of Christ has cleansed our conscience, Heb 9. It sprinkles our hearts, Heb 10. Item, Heb 12. You have both, the mediator JEsum and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. Hebr. 13: Christ sanctifies his people through his blood.
(38) From these scriptures it follows that it is proper for one thing and one office to give the blood of Christ, and to cleanse by the blood of Christ the one to whom the blood is given. For the blood of Christ is by its nature and power of God a blood of spiritual sprinkling and holiness. But this is impossible for all apostles, to sanctify the least of these by the blood of Christ; for if apostles could do this, they would be like Christ and be our beatifics.
(39) Nevertheless, the new pope is a mediator of the new testament and testator when he says that the priests give the blood of the Lord in their cup to the laity. But is this not a great dishonor and contempt of the blood of Christ, since Luther holds the blood of Christ in such low esteem that a priest can give it as a drink? Is it not a wretched thing that we have to hear that Luther compares such vile and lowly priests to the most high priest and puts them at his side and may deny the entrance (which once, to an eternal and full redemption, was made through the blood of Christ) so often in one day? This actually means: to promise the blood of the New Testament and to trample it underfoot, Hebr. 10.
Luther writes great books against the sacrifice of the priests, that they get lost in the mass and speak thus: We sacrifice Christ! and writes how they lest God destroy the suffering and sacrifice of Christ. But he does not want to see that he retains the root of the error of the apostles, writes on it and from it, and that he writes the blood of the New Testament from it, and that he promises, despises and blasphemes the blood of the New Testament just as horribly as the old papists promise the sacrifice of Christ.
41. Is not this that Luther sets poor sinners as priests [a contempt] of the blood of Christ?
So that at one end he writes thus: The blood of Christ, drunk from the cup, cleanses the sinner, and says that the priests pass and give the same blood? Is this not blaspheming the priesthood of Christ? Is this not promising the blood of the cross as if it were not powerful and rich enough for eternal salvation? What will follow? That Christ is not a single mediator, a mediator of the New Testament; that we have many mediators, namely crooked godless priests; that the blood of the Lord on the cross is not the blood of our sprinkling, our righteousness and our life.
42. for if the blood in the cup of the priests be the blood of our sprinkling, or of our righteousness, or the blood of our remission of sins: then Christ poured out and offered his blood on the cross (through the Holy Spirit) freely. Gal. 3.
(43) These and such despises of the blood (shed on the cross) are as bad, harmful and shameful as the old papists' foolishness in sacrificing the body and blood of Christ for a memorial, against which Billican cries fiercely.
About our priesthood.
44. but this will not help the old nor the new popes, that we have all become priests through Christ, as it is written: "You have made us priests before God", Revelation 5:10. 1 Peter 2:9. For this is not meant that we might offer the flesh and blood of Christ anew, or that we might make ourselves powerful of the body and blood of Christ, as those do who present and give the body and blood of the Lord to their people through their sacrament; for this power belongs to the most high JEsu Christ alone, and to no one else. If we assumed such power, we fell from our priesthood, that is, from Christ, through unbelief, because we sinned against the priest, against his sacrifice and against his blood. Against the priest, that he should die more; therefore also his ministry would not be better than that of 1) Aaron, Heb. 9. Against the sacrifice of Christ, which would not have been fully adequate to give eternal redemption at once; Against the blood, that its shedding could not work eternally for redemption.
45 But so we became priests through Christ. We had no access to God, we were in God's wrath, we were criminal before God.
1) In the old editions: des.
God, we were ugly, we stank of sins etc., were not allowed to come before God at all: and then Christ the priest came and offered his body, and shed his 2) blood by the Holy Spirit on the cross; and sprinkled our consciences, and cleansed us from evil works, to serve before God, Heb. 9. And gave us access to God, took us from the wrath of God and placed us in the love of God; made us undefiled and blameless, that we might offer to God through Him a sacrifice of praise, the fruits of our lips confessing to God, Heb. 10, that we might offer to God our bodies, sufferings, lives and spirits, Rom. 12, of which we were not able before any. So we find priests through Christ.
(46) We have the priesthood by faith and by the glorious knowledge of the priesthood, the sacrifice and the blood of Christ. Without faith and apart from the knowledge of Christ we would have none of these. But through our faith we are neither able 4) to offer again the sacrifice of Christ, nor to give His body as food, nor 4) to shed again the blood of Christ, nor to give it as a drink. Therefore our priests must not subject themselves to the great things of the priesthood of Christ; they may well let the sacrifice, the body and the blood of Christ remain as [it] is sacrificed.
47. So we have that Luther by his teaching (when he writes that he can give the blood of Christ bodily to drink in his cup) put himself and his followers at the side of Christ, and want to make themselves mediators of the New Testament, to be like the highest priest, to have a like office; to have power to distribute the body and blood of Christ; To make of the blood of the new testament the blood of the old testament, and of the blood of our spiritual sprinkling the blood of bodily sprinkling, which is a great abominable sin, that is, an antichristian doctrine, contrary to the blood of the cross, and a punishment or contempt of the new testament.
48 It will also not excuse Luther, whether he writes differently with the appearance (because the evil root of his teaching remains), that he boasts much of the word and says: The word does it, and we do it in the word (of which the devil could also boast), if it is evident that Luther boasts of the word of God, which he does not have. Luther boasts of the word of God, which he does not have.
2) "shed his" put by us instead of: "shed".
3) In the old edition: den.
4) So put by us instead of: "against", which often stands for "neither".
5) Here We have erased the words: "and blood".
and cannot hang it up. Luther has not one syllable in Scripture that indicates that the blood of Christ in the cup is New Testament blood. Then he has much less in Scripture that the cup is a New Testament through the blood of Christ that is in the cup than he says. And has still less indication in the Scriptures that a minister can bring the blood of Christ down from heaven into the cup and give it as a blood of the testament.
(49) By these reasons (of faith) it is well established that the cup is not a new testament by the blood that is to be in it, but by the blood of the cross, by the blood that Christ the priest poured out. And it is immediately said that the cup is a new testament in the blood, but that in death the cup is a new testament. For the death of Christ belongs to the new testament, just as the poured out blood of Christ. - The 9th chapter of Hebrews and the other apostles who write about death and the shedding of blood will tell you this.
50 Now as little as it will follow that the death of Christ must be in the cup, if it were written publicly, than secretly, yet powerfully, is written: The cup the new testament in my death. 1)
(51) Therefore Luther's will that the blood in the cup must be bodily, if the cup is a new testament in the blood or through the blood, does not exclude it. Behold, we find a people of God and a people of the New Testament by the blood or in the blood of Christ. But does it follow that the blood of Christ must be bodily in us? No. We have faith, and the cup is used by us, in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, as a drinking vessel. Therefore the cup is a new testament through the blood [shed on the cross].
Now let us see if this text: "the cup the new testament in my blood" may serve Luther somewhat! Let us lay this text back and forth, unfold it, turn the back to the front, the innermost out, and try whether Luther has a foundation for his teaching, which he built on this foundation.
(53) Let us leave the text as it is, and thus insist: "The cup the new testament in my blood"; what follows? that the blood of the Lord is bodily in the cup? Where do you have Scripture? you answer: Allhie. How does it read? not thus: in the blood, in the blood? Not? Well, then you would read nothing 2) from it, except that the cup is in the blood. Does this seem foolish to you, and contrary to our senses, reason, and faith? you should know that your braided mind is much more foolish, scripture-less, bare, and wretched.
54 For he hath all the infirmities which this mind hath: The cup is in the blood bodily; and concerning these infirmities he lacks writing or written conjecture. You should read: The cup is in the blood; so thou readest the same contrary to sense, and contrary to the scripture thus, The blood is bodily in the cup: if I am foolish in thy mind, to say, The cup is bodily in the blood of Christ, therefore it is a new testament: thou art foolish still in our mind, when thou sayest, The cup is a new testament in the blood, which is bodily in the cup. For this scripture leaveth thee, and setteth up, according to the letter, another understanding, which no man receiveth.
55. lay the text thus: The new testament in the blood is the cup. Does not the sense and understanding follow again, which no man and no church has ever accepted, namely this: The cup is in the blood? But this you would well notice, if you thus collect the words: The new testament in the blood of Christ; the cup is the new testament; therefore the cup is in the blood of Christ.
56. turn the same speech thus: In the blood the new testament the cup. But what would you draw from it? This? The new testament is in the blood, the cup is in the blood, because the cup is a new testament in the blood? Doesn't that follow? It doesn't? [It] follows, b) Ei! so thou seest that this bright writing overthrows thy ground, and takes the blood out of the cup. Now where is the bright sun? Has it faded? Has it become dark? Where is the thunderbolt? I mean, it has fallen into Luther's doctrine and dreams, and has struck the ground and the building into a heap, and he is waiting for it not to fall on his head. Such weather God imposes, if one wants to be ungrateful. There the Billikün will concoct new blood, 4) and invent a blood and bring it into his cup from
2) So put by us instead of: not.
3) "lM) follows." put by us instead of: "folget?" in the old edition.
4) So put by us instead of: hack out.
a new Bible, which is neither 1) a blood of the New Testament, nor a blood that is useful for anything; for he does not want to suffer that one thus smuggles: The blood is, by these and other scriptures, not in the cup, therefore it is not in it; although he does not present any scripture that the blood of the Lord is in the cup.
I preached the grace of the cross at the beginning; some laymen have taken it so well that they conclude that Christ is of no use to them in the sacrament; after this protection, 2) "that the sun may shine on all ends, and that Christ may be useful to all ends," they asked nothing, for they knew how to speak of the usefulness of Christ's suffering. Then our papists should say: What do the body and blood of Christ accomplish in the sacrament? to what end are they useful to the recipients? They do this 3) so inconsistently that everyone almost begins to doubt whether Christ is in the sacrament? Our papists should also prove that Christ is in their sacrament. But what they do seems to be good from our Scripture, which we are now dealing with. If it were directed with scolding, blaspheming, cursing, banishing, and giving to the devil, they would have already gained their cause; for I would not like to answer them to their mockery.
(58) But this I desire, that they teach me with clear, bright, and certain Scripture, that how and why Christ is in the Sacrament? If they would do this, I would gladly let myself be taught; so gladly that it should be noticed that I would follow without scolding.
But what shall I do? I, who am attacked with the above-mentioned scripture as with a thunderbolt, am assigned to the devil? I, who declare that this writing, "the cup the new testament" etc. brings the blood from the cup and gives a mind, which no pope has accepted? What shall I do? I know this need to no one but God alone to complain.
But that this text: The cup is the new testament etc. does not keep the blood in the cup, is indicated in two ways. I will turn and reverse the text a third time, thus: The cup is your blood, the new testament. What follows? That the blood is your cup? No! Because that would have to be
1) "Neither - neither" in the meaning: neither - nor. So put by us instead of: "again - again", because the opinion of Carlstadt will be: Billican will invent a new blood kmd in his cup, which is neither a blood of the new testament, nor something useful.
2) So put by us instead of: "nor diß Schützerey. (That the sun shines all end" etc.) - Schützerei - pretending of an ABC pupil.
3) In the old edition: des.
also follow: The blood of Christ is in the cup a new testament; or: The blood is through the cup a new testament. This would be to blaspheme the new testament of Christ! Although Luther's opinion struggles for it, if he succeeds. So again the mind remains: The cup is in the blood, understand: bodily; because the popes want to have the blood of Christ bodily in the cup. But the popes do not accept this; so we accept even less from dreams.
61 I am afraid that the popes will lose their status, how much they are angry, throbbing and shouting, cursing, maledicting.
62) On this article, I must make it known to Christians that the blood of Christ is a true drink, John 6; the same drink no Christian should drink bodily, that is, with mouth and belly, for then the blood of Christ would not be a true drink, but with the heart in faith, who well recognizes the blood of Christ shed on the cross; he drinks well and his thirst is quenched, as Christ says, "He who believes in me will not thirst forever," John 6.
63. I would gladly know what the godly thirst for? Do [they] not thirst for righteousness? What is the righteousness of the godly? Is it not faith and knowledge that washes away the many sins? Isaiah 53. 1 John 1. Is not the forgiveness of sins the blessedness of the faithful? Let Paul answer you in Romans 3, and Romans 8.
This must be the reason of those who thirst for righteousness, that some feel their sin and thirst for certain forgiveness; for God has revealed it to them, that through the shedding of His blood One would give sure forgiveness of sins abundantly, fully and sufficiently, with full assurance, and eternal peace, Rom. 5. 5; the same is the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth, for God has sealed and sent him, John 6:9. Whoever therefore recognizes Jesus Christ finds in him that his blood is the true blood of the new testament, which was shed for all sin. Therefore his thirst is satisfied forever, for he knows by faith that Christ Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, who through the Holy Spirit shed [his blood] for the remission of sins. In the same he is satisfied; he thinks of no other salvation, and it grieves him that some seek their salvation in other things, or by other means, than those do who would rather be saved by the blood of the sacrament than by the shedding of the blood of Christ on the cross.
that which Christ says: "Whoever believes in me will thirst no more for ever [not]," John 6.
Therefore we must recognize or rightly believe the shed blood of Christ, shed on the cross, if the blood is to be our drink; for Christ poured out his blood on the cross for a spiritual drink, when he gave his flesh, raised on the cross for the life of the world, for a true food, John 3:6, 12.
But if we are to know the blood of Christ shed on the cross, if it is our true drink, we must come with faith and in the heart, Heb. 10, Rom. 3, our inward man must come, and not the outward. Is this true? Yes, it is true. It is false, made up and lied about, that the blood of Christ is our bodily drink, which Luther teaches.
67) Yes, 1) the pope punishes Christ; Christ says: We are to drink in the heart and faith; so the pope says: You are to drink with the mouth, Christ says: You are to hear and learn from the Father and thus come to me. Luther says: You shall hear me and come to the blood in the cup. Christ says that his blood is a true drink, that is, a drink of eternal salvation, of eternal life before God; for it is a spiritual drink. But Luther says: The blood in the cup is not a true drink, and is not a drink of salvation and life before God, but the blood of Christ you shall drink from our cup bodily.
68) The blood in the cup is a blood of a new testament, although it does not forgive sin, nor does it give birth to spiritual life. 2) It is a common blood that Judas the betrayer, Pilate, Herod and the murderous priests drink. But what comes of it? What? Not that Christ said wrongly that his blood was a true drink of life? and that the truth was a lie, saying, "He who drinks the blood remains in me? Item, he who drinks, has eternal life? And that Jesus also knew not what he spake, saying, There cometh no man unto me, but he whom my Father hath begotten? But so Luther writes against Christ, and not against me. And especially he writes against the blood of Christ, when he writes: that the blood of Christ can be a bodily, or false, and ischariothic drink; for the little river flows out of this well: This blood of Christ (in
1) Za" set by us instead: Da.
2) So put by us instead of: gebühret.
the cup of the priests) is a bodily drink in which Judas, the betrayer of Christ, has fellowship.
Luther found and dug out this well, therefore the poisonous water is also his, which tries to wash away the ground of the cross of Christ. But it will split on the hard rock, believe me. We have neither sand, nor gravel, nor pebbles, but pure, hard and true rock; know this, and you will know it.
(70) If Luther did no other harm in Christendom, it would be truly great and terrible that he makes a false drink out of a true drink, a bodily drink out of a spiritual drink, a drink of life out of a drink of death, a drink of the elect out of a drink of the damned, and punishes Christ, who publicly says that his blood is a true drink, John 6 and 1 John 1. 6, and 1 John 1, which says that those who have fellowship in the blood of Christ have no fellowship with sins. And again: that they enjoy nothing of the blood of Christ, who have fellowship with sins. For this I would like to praise something from the 12th chapter of John, if it were necessary. But there is enough in the teaching of Christ at one end and St. John at the other to shut Luther's mouth as it is now shut in front of him and will soon be shut more powerfully or more violently.
Luther has already been revealed that he writes differently about the blood of Christ than the truth, and wants to make the blood of Christ a bodily, unspiritual, powerless and spiritless drink, to dishonor the Lord Christ and to disgrace his blood; therefore beware of his teaching. Take care that his rhetoric does not deceive you; do not let it be said to you, 3) that Christ (John 6) did not write enough about the drinking of his blood.
Wait, and do not make the blood in the chalice of the priests the blood of the Old Testament, as Luther does, who gives it bodily to drink, who leaves the name of the blood of the New Testament in appearance, but in root and reason he robs the precious, noble, delicious blood shed for us of all worthiness. He takes from the blood the spirit, the strength, the power, the perfection, the benefit, and the name of the New Testament, to his own detriment and to the condemnation of all those who sit on the beast he rides.
I write, as I understand it, without desire,
3) So put by us instead of: to put away. Probably "einrunen" will be written by Carlstadt.
that one might fall into God's wrath, and know it no other way. And I ask God daily for His mercy, so that He will not let me write otherwise than His truth, and reveal it to me if I am wrong. But the more I think, strive and think, and the more firmly and steadfastly I have pleaded and begged, the more I have come to understand the devil's trick, who has given Christians the idea that they can get help from the sacramental nature of Christ when they bodily receive the Body and Blood of Christ through the Sacrament.
May the Father of all mercies enlighten us, teach us right reason, and keep us in constant peace! Amen.
Luther has faith in Christ against him, so all scripture abandons him. What should I do? What do you want to do, dear Christian? We must ask for wisdom and strength.
75 From the above speech it is easy to notice 1) that these words: The cup is the new testament in my blood, which is poured out, Luc. 22, or these: This is my blood, which is of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matt. 26, are necessary words, which Christ spoke out of necessity, for many causes.
76) To the first. That Christ had to proclaim publicly before his end that he was the Messiah 2); that all the writings of Moses, the prophets, who had prophesied of a new testament and of the blood of the new testament, should be fulfilled in the Lord and in his blood and attain an end.
This was a joyful and necessary sermon and promise; it was also a ministry above the ministry of all the prophets, and above the ministry of John the Baptist. For the Baptist pointed to a stranger, but Christ pointed to himself, and to his own blood, and said, This is my blood of the new testament; and that ye know it even now, that the blood of the new testament is blood, I say, which is shed for many for remission of sins. If you hear the new testament, that is, the forgiveness of sins, just realize that my blood is the blood that is to be shed for the forgiveness of sins.
78. in that true and full pardon shall be through my blood, my blood is the blood of the new testament, in which sins are made whole with one another.
1) In the old edition: dissolute.
2) This form "Messiach" is probably set by Carlstadt on purpose to let see that he understands Hebrew.
forgive, so that [the] conscience takes precedence over sin, and God no longer wants to think anything about sins.
79) But in that 3) [it] is poured out, it is a blood of the testament, for every blood must be poured out and sprinkled into the people of the testament, which is to become a blood of the testament, since a testament without death is no testament. Therefore, the blood of the testament must be the blood of death, as the blood of Christ was on the cross. For this reason the apostles write at times of the death of Christ, and [at] times of the shedding of blood. This is a valiant and sufficient cause, that Christ before his end said of his shedding of blood that [it] would be a blood of the Mediator of the new testament, which would be shed for the full and everlasting remission of sins, and thus become a blood of the new testament.
80 From this cause another follows, that Christ spoke of his blood in such a way, that we might know how the cup of the supper would become a new testament. Namely, when Christ had shed his blood for the remission of sins, and his congregation came together and drank from the cup in right remembrance of the shed blood; as Paul writes to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11, with bright words thus: You shall do this (as often as you drink) in my remembrance. Paul says soon before that, that the cup is a testament in the blood of Christ; this was also true of Paul: a new testament in my blood; as if the other clause had been added to it, which reads: which is poured out for the remission of sins (which the other evangelists have expressed to us in a greater and more certain sense). For we all see what Paul calls a new testament, Heb. 9. 10. 12. 13. why the blood of Christ is a blood of the new testament, namely on account of forgiveness; which with him enough is written: The blood of Christ is a blood of the New Testament, and thus much is said as that the blood of Christ must be shed for the full remission of the sins of Christ's people and of God. This is what everyone sees in Hebrews 8. 9. 10. So the name of Christ coincides with the death of Christ, Matth. 3. 2. lucae at the last.
(81) Therefore the cup is a new testament through the blood, or in the blood of the new testament, that we drink of the cup in remembrance of Christ who died and shed His blood for us.
3) In the old edition: that.
Luther may lay it on me as if I had written that such glorious and necessary words of blood should be left outside; but let it be far from me! But it would serve Luther if we put such words under a bench. It would serve me and the believers in Christ, that we try such words of the Lord and understand their content.
83. for we grasp that the cup of the Lord is a cup of the new testament through the blood of the cross, which flowed from the body of Christ hanging on the cross. For the same blood is the blood of the new testament. But if the cup is a new testament through the blood of the cross, then the cup is not a new testament through the blood that is supposed to be in it. For even if the blood of Christ had been in the cup at the time of the supper, when it was in the body of Christ, yet the cup would not have been a new testament through the same unshed blood, since the nature and quality of the blood of the new testament is that it is shed; when Christ would shed his blood 1) for the remission of sins.
If the blood (which is said to be bodily in the cup) made the cup a new testament by the same bodily essence, then the weapons of Christ's suffering would certainly have become a new testament, the scourges, the crown, the spear, the cross, the earth, the nails, on which the blood of Christ bodily and visibly hung or stuck. But who says that all these things are new testaments? And if someone said so, he would have to dispute it with scriptures, if we were to believe him. But if these things are not called the new testament, who can stand to call the cup of the Lord a testament, that the blood of the Lord should be bodily in it?
85 Let us call the Scriptures the New Testament because they testify of the New Testament, that is, of death and the shedding of blood, and keep the remembrance of death, and not because death and the shed blood, or Christ himself, is bodily in it; why not also drink of the cup of the Lord, which the Lord hath set before him for his remembrance?
The blood shed on the cross is the blood of the New Testament because Christ shed and offered his blood through the Holy Spirit for us and our sin on the cross, Heb. 9. To this we must direct our remembrance. He that thinketh long, and thinketh not the power of the cross, thinketh not that which he ought to think, or that which he ought not to think.
1) We have erased "the" before shedding.
how he should think, because Christ clearly says: that is poured out for you. Therefore, if a man drinks from the cup of the Lord without a remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, he is guilty of the blood of Christ, and all the thinking you have is lost if you do not have such a remembrance.
From this speech of Christ it also follows that they are fools who call the Lord's supper a new testament, especially those who call it a new testament because Christ forgives sins in the invented sacrament, or that the power of forgiveness is in the sacrament. etc. For this reason is fictitious and false, even if an angel set it up.
Forgiveness of sins is on the cross. Christ bore our sins on the cross, washed them away and paid for them. 1 Pet. 2. Is. 53. Col. 1. For this reason they lie to Christ crucified, who call the Lord's supper a new testament for the forgiveness of sins; and they break the power of the cross of Christ, in which alone and sufficiently is forgiveness of all sins. But Luther is a master of this error, who also damages many people, and makes the suffering or death of Christ fruitless for half or half of what it was.
(89) But that Luther might paint his doctrine with a color, and not be seen to do what he does, he says, The cup is a new testament, for the remission of sins; for remission is contained in it.
This is a color and a lid without writing. But isn't it a beautiful color? Doesn't it shine well? If Luther had put writing on it, who would not believe him? But must Luther ever lead the fools by the monkey rope? Or is this blasphemy of the blood, of the cross, only 4) of men, and not also of God? If we did not have the speech of the Lord about the blood of the New Testament, what would we put against it? How good would Luther have it? What would I have to hear?
But praise God! we have the Word of God, which is bright and clear and powerful, to uncover this mantle, and to reveal the promise of the cross of Christ. For Christ speaks thus: The cup the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for many etc. Come here! Do not both your ears ring? Ei, how do they buzz? I mean, this saying breaks Luther's foundation? Not? if then? Why has
2) Thus placed by us instead of: "in the new. That the correction we have made is correct is evident from the following paragraph.
3) So put by us instead of: and.
4) So put by us instead of: all.
Christ did not say: The cup the new testament in my blood, in which the forgiveness of sins is granted? Answer more! Is it enough that the cup is a new testament, that forgiveness is granted in it (which is still unproven)? why then does Christ say: the blood that is poured out? and not in vain, but is poured out for us in forgiveness of sins?
(92) But if this is true, that the cup is a new testament in the blood shed for us in forgiveness, the other is a lie, that the cup is a new testament for the sake of the confession of sins. For the confession is powerless, and not a testament; but the shedding is powerful, testamentary, and fixed. Now if Luther wants to insist on his Scripture and hold that Christ acquired forgiveness of sins through his shed blood, he must also confess that the cup is a new testament in the acquired forgiveness of sins, because Christ says that his blood is a blood of the new testament, which should be shed in forgiveness of sins. But the other thing Luther says is punished: the cup is a new testament, because Christ has decreed [forgiveness of sin] in it. Do you see now, Luther, how I do not distinguish these words? how they smash your building into heaps? how they shatter and crush your vault? how they take the blood from your cup?
This is one of Luther's strongest warriors, who is not only struck down with his own sword, but robbed of all his possessions.
(94) I counsel you, brethren, to open your eyes, to ask God for wisdom, to meditate well on the Scriptures; for you see how the Scriptures at first have a semblance of establishing the error of the popes, only because they are used by one whom you take for a prophet. But if you look rightly into the Scripture, you will find not only a rock, [but also] a sharp sword and a powerful hammer, 1) which strikes the new pope's sophistry to the ground and crushes it.
95 Whosoever therefore shall call the Lord's supper a new testament, for the remission of sins, which shall be strong therein, doeth violence to the new testament of Christ, and is an enemy of the cross of Christ: know ye this. The cause is shown above.
Now notice what springs from this finding:
1) So put by us instead of: not the pure rock; [but] a sharp sword and a troublesome hammer etc.
The cup is a new testament in the blood that is to be in it. First, that the blood in the cup is poured out for us and is poured out as often as the blood of Christ makes the cup a new testament. For this is what the Scripture gives: Where the blood of the new testament is bodily, there is shedding of the blood, Heb. 9. From this it follows that the ministers give the blood of Christ for us, as they give us the blood of Christ to drink. For it is a giving 2) and blood for us, and for our sin, and for the life of the world; therefore he that giveth must give that which cleaveth to him.
97 Secondly, that the blood of Christ may forgive the new sin. To this they will say no with their mouth and yes with the root of their error.
From this it follows for the third, that the priests sacrifice the blood of Christ as often as they give it to the people for a drink. Therefore the new popes are as bad and evil as the old papists; therefore I refer to the reason of the 9th and 10th chapter of Hebrews. Chapter to the Hebrews.
The fourth is that they want to be mediators of the New Testament.
100. fifth, that Christ must die often; for where the negation of the testament is, there is the negation of death, Heb. 9.
101. sixth, that the death and shed blood of Christ was not the death and blood of the new testament. Heb. 9.
Seventh, that Christ's death, sacrifice and blood are imperfect.
All this flows from the error of the popes, who are also pious 3); and all this an understanding man can nullify from the words of Christ, especially by these words: This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many, in remission of sins; the cup the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Dear brethren, let us not tarry with the scriptures against the new testament: for they that despise, or have no respect unto the sacrifice, and blood, and testament of Christ, have no redemption.
105. before this letter I> have reported that any will and promise of God may be called a testament; as the promise of Abraha, Gal. 3, and the Jews of the testament children, Apost. 3, and this promise, that the body will be given for you, can be a testament; therefore, I have not wanted to further unfold it.
2) In the old edition: enter.
3) This probably means: one is as pious as the other, Luther as pious as the pope.