which D. Carlstadt led against him to defend and maintain his false opinion of the Holy Sacrament. *)
November (?) 1527.
Translated from Latin.
To Doctor Andreas Carlstadt.
Grace and peace in Christ! I had hoped, dear Carlstadt, that you would present reasons that could or would have moved you to your opinion; but just from your explanation of the word dedit (he gave) I recognize that you rather search for reasons (exquirere) from syllables and letters. This can be nothing else than that you want to flee the light intentionally. For where will be the end of the disputing, if you want to continue in this way to forcefully press and stab the syllables? 1) Why don't you rather come to the point? Accept what I say in short words, because I want to speak most clearly.
There are two things involved in this matter, namely the words and the thing. With regard to the words, the question is whether it can be proved that they must be taken differently than they read? with regard to the matter, the question is whether the body of Christ is given and eaten bodily in the Lord's Supper? We therefore endeavor to wrest the matter from you by the words, as you endeavor to wrest the words from us by the matter. For if the words must be taken as they are, we have undoubtedly prevailed and wrested the matter from you; but if you
1) muAirs st xunZers. Instead of muZirs - to roar, to shout, we assume urZsrs, after which we have translated. In the old translation it is "stöcken und blöcken", which is also what ours comes to.
you have proved the matter, you have undoubtedly wrung from us the words, namely, that they must be understood differently than they read.
Now, this cannot be denied, the question of the words must be treated first, that is, one must first see what the words say (quid nominis), then what the thing is (quid rei). Here we stand and say (since neither you, nor anyone among you has so far proved that these words: "This is my body" must be taken differently than they read) that one must simply hang on the words as they read. For you too have not brought forward one letter from Scripture, by which you proved that ôïýôï refers to the body of the seated Christ, but you invent this from your head, just as neither Zwingli nor Oekolampad prove with any syllable from Scripture that "is" is taken for "means," or "body" for "sign of the body," 2) but they too invent such from their head. Since we seize you here publicly as arbitrary inventors of words, against the use and nature of all languages: how then can we be moved to your opinion? Yes, how should not your conscience beat you (movet), which feels this sting and calls out to you, saying: The words are so, and you do not prove that they must be taken differently? For if
2) Instead of oorporsa, read oorxoris, as the old translation has.
*This writing is originally written in Latin and is found in Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 196, but with the wrong year 1524. From another manuscript in Löscher, Historia motuurr", suvpl. p. 4, and in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 231, according to Aurifaber. German under the year 1528 in the Wittenberger, vol. IX, p. 277; in the Jenaer (1566), vol. IV, p. 376; in the Altenburger, vol. IV, p. 447 and in the Leipziger, vol. XIX, p. 701. We provide a new translation According to Aurifaber. Comparison with the old translation has enabled us to make several significant improvements to the Latin text.
Even if we admit, which is impossible (per impossibile), that you prove the matter, namely, that the body of Christ is not given in the Lord's Supper, what will you do, since conscience holds these words against you: "This is my body"? Will you say they must be taken differently? How? Here you will all be forced to fall silent, since neither you can prove your ôïýôï, nor those their "means" or "signs" (figuram). And so you leave us no text at all, because you impose nothing else (concluditis) than that the words must be taken otherwise than they are. But how they should be taken, you cannot say at all, and so you pass over the cry of conscience, which is tormented (mordetur) by the words as they are, since it has never heard that they are taken otherwise than they are. But what kind of spirit this is, which alone brings about that no text remains in the Lord's Supper, then also asserts that the words must be taken differently than they read, contrary to the use of all languages, and neither wants to nor can prove this, can easily be judged. Since, then, in the wrong order, you ignore the right understanding of the words (quid nominis), then also seek to attain "what the thing is" (quid rei), without 1) giving the words their right, we stand against you invincibly and say: This is how the words sound, and you also do not prove with one syllable that they are to be understood in the opposite sense or in a different way, yes, you ignore them contemptuously: therefore it is certain that you are mistaken. Especially in the holy Scriptures it is necessary that one first and certainly has the right understanding of the word (quid nominis), because it is about unknown things that can only be grasped with faith.
Now I come to your perverse order, by which you struggle to attain what the thing is (in quid rei), while you despise what the words say. And first of all, I would very much like you to have omitted a great many things, of which you no doubt have
1) 8IH6 Httiä nominis must be read; 8IV6 is wrong. The old translation has "without".
2) so that it would not be necessary to waste time and words. But because you may not be able to do this, since I see that you have become a new orator from books without a teacher, one must give you credit for this and bear it.
First, that you teach me that passages of Scripture are to be interpreted by comparing them with other passages, and that, trusting in this rule, you also begin to draw the sixth chapter of John, as it were, as a light on the words of the Lord's Supper - here, I beg you, hear me patiently. If every passage of Scripture must be interpreted by another passage, where will there be an end to comparing the passages of Scripture? For in this way it will happen that no passage of Scripture will be certain and clear, and such a comparison of one passage with another will take place ad infinitum. In this way, another will presume to interpret the sixth chapter of John through the Lord's Supper, just as you presume to interpret the Lord's Supper through the sixth chapter of John, and he will make use of your rule, namely, that one passage must be explained by another. Do you not feel that you have here laid a quite unreliable foundation, and are proceeding from the particular to the general? For this rule: one passage must be interpreted by another, is without doubt only something particular, namely, a doubtful and dark passage must be interpreted by a clear and certain one. For to want to interpret clear and certain passages by comparing them with others is to mock the truth in an unworthy manner and to bring clouds into the light. Likewise, to interpret all passages by comparison with others would be to throw the whole of Scripture into an infinite and uncertain desolate heap. Is this not clear enough? No doubt you realize very well that this is the case. When you
2) In Latin: me tidi non sonssäsrs, which does not fit into the context. The old translation offers: "that I know and admit", which we have assumed. We assume that it must be read: ins NO88S st sonssäsrs, which is repeated at the beginning of the penultimate paragraph in this writing.
328 De Wette III, W3f. 8. L.'s answer u. refutation en, erriger Argumente re. W. XX, 431-433. 329
Therefore, if you wanted to use this rule of comparison as a basis, you had to 1) first make certain and read the proof that the passage about the Lord's Supper is doubtful and obscure, that is, that it requires the application of this rule of comparison with respect to the sixth chapter of John. But you do neither of these; neither do you show that the passage on the Lord's Supper is doubtful, nor do you prove that it must be compared with the sixth chapter of John, but both, though unproven and uncertain, you boldly seize upon and presuppose as something certain and proven. What wonder if you dispute and conclude nothing but monstrosities? But the doubtfulness [of the words] in the Lord's Supper you could have presented (docuisses) in such or similar a way, if you had said: Because these words "my body" etc., or this speech "this is my body" are taken in Scripture in various ways and doubtfully, therefore a certain understanding must be taken from elsewhere. If you had proceeded in this way, truth would have met you and said: 2) Stop, brother, the passage about the Lord's Supper is not doubtful; or prove the doubtfulness, because these words: "This is my body" are clear according to the use of all languages and are nowhere taken or understood differently in Scripture, unless you prove the opposite. Therefore, it cannot be admitted to you that you compare them with the sixth chapter of John according to the rule mentioned before. For this rule does not apply here unless you can prove the doubtfulness either in the words or in the syntax.
Secondly, that you assert in many words that Christ quite actually taught John on the sixth, where, how, for whom, when, how often, for what purpose, for what instruments [mouth or heart], his body was given for food, - there I commend your effort to show your oratory. But, dear man, you know that I do not know this.
1) Instead of erit, erat will be read.
2) äixissst, not äixissss.
nor was it necessary for this to be brought forward. 3) The sixth chapter of John is sufficiently known to me, and I know that it is taught there that the body of Christ or rather the flesh of Christ is the food of souls. Again, you do what should not be done 4) but omit what you should do. From one particular you conclude the exclusiveness, 5) namely: in the sixth chapter of John it is taught that Christ's flesh is eaten spiritually, therefore it is taught that Christ's flesh is eaten only spiritually. Where did you learn this inference: Eating spiritually is the same as eating only spiritually, or because Christ's flesh is eaten spiritually, it cannot also be eaten bodily? Show the passage of John 6, which proves this conclusion, which you are inventing here. How can I believe that you are moved by this conclusion? At least I think you see clearly that we cannot be moved by it. For with the same conclusion you could say according to Gal. 4, 19: Christ is born spiritually in the Galatians, therefore he cannot be born bodily of Mary; Christ dwells spiritually in the believers, Eph. 2, 22, therefore he cannot dwell bodily in Capernaum or in heaven; Christ is crucified spiritually, Gal. 3, 1, therefore he cannot be crucified bodily by the Jews on the cross. And many such things could be attracted by the spiritual touching, seeing and hearing, in order to deny that this could not have happened in a bodily way. So you see in how many ways this reason of yours is not valid, namely, that you make something exclusive out of a certain thing (ex definito), then also that you violate the passage John 6.
3) According to the old translation, instead of eo read: sa, and after prockuei put a period.
4) The text: Iterum yuoä uZsnäuW 6kt obviously needs a change. According to the old translation we have added: Itsrum uZis, r^uoä von uZenäum 68t, 6t omittis, c^uoä LAsnäuiri 6st. This omission will be caused by the occurrence of the same words twice.
5) Dx partieulari inksrs exelusivurn. This is rendered in the old translation: "From a single piece you conclude into the common, and absolutely everything." This one sample alone irrefutably proves that Luther did not make the translation.
You are twisting the meaning of the Lord's Supper and proving nothing.
Thirdly, that you urge with a very long and very dark verbiage that there is a contradiction in our opinion, namely, that because the word "he gave" is placed before this text "this is my body," this proves that the giving had already happened before Christ spoke: "This is my body," so it is necessary that the disciples had already received the bread given by Christ, and so Christ only said, "This is my body," after the giving and receiving had taken place, so that this necessarily refers to the body of Christ sitting there, since the bread had already been given and received beforehand. This, if I am not mistaken, is the meaning (vis) and the bright light (lux) of the word "gave," which you have treated so splendidly. But I beseech thee for Christ's sake, that thou mayest consider and observe with thyself, if thou canst, how tremendous blindness thou sufferest here. I fear that you are so struck [with blindness] as a punishment for such blasphemous teaching. Let us speak roughly. Some of the words are the words of the evangelist who tells the story, namely these: "He took the bread,' gave thanks, and gave it to his disciples, saying" (dicens); some are the words of the Lord who speaks, namely these: "Take, eat; this is my body." Now between these words of the evangelist, who tells the story, and the words of Christ, who speaks, put a certain length of time (aliquod intervallum temporis), during which Christ gave the bread, and the disciples received and swallowed the same; but after the bread is swallowed, then Christ shall continue, saying: "This is my body," where "this" necessarily points to the body of Christ, 1) because the bread is already gone, namely given and received, perhaps also [completely] consumed, so that it cannot be shown by "this." Who should not see here your ridiculous thoughts or rather the effort of a man who wants to err and seeks to err? Why don't you stick to this
1) Instead of äsnaonstrunt may well be read äsnaonstrst.
Word of the evangelist "and spoke" 2) Respect given, by which he clearly indicates that the bread was given while speaking, and he adds what he said, "Take, eat, this is my body." From this it is clear that the giving of the bread took place at the same time as the speaking or with the speaking, while these words of Christ "this is my body" sounded and were pronounced, so that your thought is absolutely nothing, according to which you imagine that the bread was given before the words were pronounced, just as in the book and on the paper "gave" is written before this speech "this is my body". Therefore, according to your understanding, the text should be multiplied in this way: Christ broke and gave to the disciples, and they took and ate; whereupon Christ said, This is my body etc. For so you think that it happened immediately, since the evangelist wrote down the word "gave" to read, and you do not see that by these words: "Take and eat, this is my body" an event (factum) is represented by the evangelist. For imagine that you were present at that first supper of Christ, that you saw and paid attention to Christ, what he did and said. Here behold his hands with which he takes the bread, saying nothing of giving, but keeping the bread in his hands; he gives thanks; after giving thanks he is again silent, saying nothing of giving, but saying these words, "Take, eat; this is my body." Under these words, or soon after them, or with them, and not necessarily before, the giving itself takes place, as the nature of the event and of the story compels us to understand, so that no one can deny that the bread given is his body, since in giving it he calls it his body. Therefore, since you put a space between the giving and the naming, 3) you are inventing something against the nature of the event. At least you commit yourself to an impossible thing, that is, to prove this interspace.
2) VO06U1 äiosutis must be translated like this. This refers to the above-mentioned words of the evangelist, in which "he spoke" was expressed by diosirs.
3) ÄppsNutionkiL refers to appsllat in the next preceding sentence.
332 De Wette III, 286 f. 8. L.'s answer u. refutation of etl. erroneous arguments etc. W. XX, 435-438. 333
since the evangelist, through that participium dicens [Luc. 22, 19. xxxxx = speaking], has a
The idea of the mixing space of the time and the giving, which happened in the same, as you invent, remains unproven (nuda) and useless. Thus, your thought of the mixing space of time and the giving, which, as you invent, took place in it, remains unproven (nuda) and useless. 1) For that you demand to be answered whether Christ gave his body before he uttered the first letter of this speech, "this is my body," what is this but a mere rank and captious mockery of the words of Christ? For suppose the bread was given either after the speech was finished, or before it was begun: what, I pray thee, is the use of that? or what is the use of it to thee? since the participle "speaking" shows that Christ, in giving, had said, "This is my body." Certainly, if I gave you a hundred florins, it would not matter whether after or before giving I said thus: Here are a hundred florins. Nevertheless, the nature of the event and the narration of the story would lead to the conviction that the giving and the saying took place at the same time, that he gave the bread and at the same time said, "This is my body. For this is what happens in every action, that the giver gives and speaks at the same time, or calls what he gives. Unless you want to bring back to us that old Vettelian question of the instant of confirmation (de instante2 ) consecrationis, since the papists teach that after the last syllable the body of Christ is there and not before. We despise these thoughts and do not impute specific moments or times to GOtte, but let it suffice that we simply believe that what GOtte has said will certainly happen or be, may it be what it may. For we do not argue about the moment in which the leper was cleansed, since Christ said Matth. 8, 3: "I will do it, be cleansed", but rather about the moment in which the leper was cleansed.
1) Instead of mutiUs (what does not exist) read inutilis.
2) So the old editions; in De Wette and Aurifaber irrstunti. - By "Dirmung" the papists understood the transformation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ.
It is enough for us to believe that he has become clean, as Christ said. So we believe that the son of the king, Joh. 4, 50, was healed, as Christ had said: "Go, your son is alive", and do not worry about the syllable or the moment in which this happened. And that Lazarus came to life again, as the word of Christ cautions [John 11:43], "Lazare, come forth!" and leave it to idle men and useless babblers whether he came to life again at the word "come forth" or "Lazare," and the like. So also here we say that the bread is the body of Christ, because Christ says, "This is my body," and leave it to others, namely to the word-wranglers (xxxxxxxxxx), to argue about the nu and about syllables. For we are commanded to believe that the words of God are true; but not to inquire in what nu or how they are true and fulfilled.
From this, I think, it is sufficiently clear that you draw the word "gave" quite badly to the action of the Lord's Supper, since it is a word of the evangelist who narrates the past (praeteritam) Supper, therefore he was forced to use a time word in the past time (praeteriti temporis). But the action itself is presented to us with words belonging to the present, in the form of command and in the mode of reality (imperativi et indicativi modi), namely, "Take, eat, this is my body," which do not allow one to imagine a commingling space or a giving in past time (praeteritam dationem), but show (objiciunt) that from Christ there is a giving in the present time, precisely by saying, "This is my body." But that thou exaltest that it is called bread, 1 Cor. 10:16, "The bread which we break," etc., who denieth this? but that thou makest it nothing but bread, how wilt thou prove this? But you can read about this in my last booklet. For this very passage bears powerful witness against your ôïýôï: "The bread which we break" is not bread alone, but the sharing (communicatio) or "the fellowship of the body of Christ." And these are the passages of Scripture which you demand, by which
We prove that the disciples have been given the body, and they cannot be overthrown by you, we know that. Of course, I wonder why you say that these words, "This is my body," are held against you in vain, on no other grounds than that you say that the dispute is over the word "give," and that the word "gave" means something different from the word "is," but just as they mean different things, so they also prove different things. What you want here I do not understand; only that I think these words: "This is my body" are despised by you, and yet you bring up nothing but that "gave" means something different than "is". As if we could not also despise your "gave" and say that "body" means something different than "mine". Yes, every word has its own meaning; does it follow from this, with correct inference, that a speech consisting of such words is false or to be despised?
From the ordinary (translatitia) meaning, according to which you dispute that the body was given and broken for us, we allow you to say as much as you want. For we also maintain that Christ was given for us on the cross, although we deny that he was broken on the cross. You, too, will not prove this, nor have you proved it so far. But that in the Lord's Supper there is an ordinary (translatitiam) giving 1) is not true, although it is true that there the bodily giving represents the spiritual giving, by which the Holy Spirit gives into the heart to believe that it is Christ's flesh, as the same [Holy Spirit] gives us this flesh bodily to eat in the Lord's Supper. And this twofold giving does not conflict with each other, nor does one exclude the other, but agrees very well, just as that he gave himself bodily to the disciples as a servant [John 13:4 ff], by washing their feet and serving at table, does not prevent his not giving himself spiritually to believe in him. You make very bad fol-
1) In his writings, Carlstadt mocks Luther's teaching by mockingly asserting: whether the body of Christ is given in the Lord's Supper as long and large as it hung from the cross? Cf. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 2487, § 21.
It is a spiritual giving, therefore there is not a bodily giving in the Lord's Supper. Such conclusions, I say, you should prove, while you always pass over them and prove to us the antecedent, which we admit and which does not need proof. In short, you ask me to produce a clear scriptural passage which says that Christ took his body and gave it, just as you have proved that Christ took the bread and gave it. Very well! If you insist on this and will not believe, if I will not show these syllables and letters: Christ took his body and broke it and gave it to his disciples, then be victorious and follow your head; I cannot show such syllables. But at the same time, behold, if I could teach such a text: Christ took his body, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples: what need is there then that he should call it, and say, This is my body? Do you wish him to become only an idle talker, that he might speak in the words which you prescribe for him? 2) We know that in these words: "Take and effet" the present giving is indicated by the giving, which no one can deny, so that if someone wanted to put an explanation (glossam) over these words, he could write over the word "Take" like this: Behold, here is a present giving. But after one has this present giving under the word "Take," the naming that follows immediately without intervening space [and] without change of person, namely, "this is my body," by which he names the bread, compels that the body of Christ be truly given. For it is against all reason that one should understand that something else is given than what the giver names in the act (eo facto) and at the time when it is given and named by him, as I have also declared against you in the first German book 3). Therefore your time word in the past time "he gave" falls away completely.
2) Here follow in the old translation the words which we do not find in the Latin: "Rather than believe the words which he has presented to you...".
3) "Against the Heavenly Prophets. No. 5 in this volume.
336 De Wette III, 238 f. 8. L.'s answer u. refutation of etl. erroneous arguments etc. W. XX, -40-442. 337
and is cancelled out by the word of the present time "Take", in which not "he gave" but necessarily "he gives" is understood; and "he gave" remains in the mouth of the evangelist, who narrates the past, and "he gives" in the mouth of him who narrates the present and hears and sees Christ presently giving and speaking and calling the received bread his body. And as much as you insist on the word "he gave," which is the word of the evangelist who tells the past, so much do we insist on the word "take," which is the word of Christ who acts presently.
But since the understanding of the Lord's Supper depends on what Christ does (ex Christo agente), it is clear that your disputation is wrong, in that you presupposed to speak of what Christ does, but leave that open and take the narration of the evangelist. Yes, not [once] the narrative, but the time of the narrator, namely, because the evangelist narrates long after the supper, he is forced to use a word of the past because of the time that has passed, which you paralogist 1) insert into the action of Christ, after the past time has previously been made a present one. 2) You also do not consider that if the evangelist could have described the present action as a present one, he would not have said "he gave", but thus: "Jesus takes and gives, saying, Take" etc. Now look at your conclusion (syllogismum), which you conclude from the time to the work, as if you wanted to say: The evangelist wrote like this long afterward, so Christ did not do so then, because that one wrote in past time, "he gave," 3) so Christ gives.
deceives. - EvangsIista, paraloZista a play on words.
2) This particularly difficult passage is called in Latin: ante tsrupus prastsriturn praesenter taotuni. The old translation reads: "which word alone happened before the present time, you, Squire Paralogist, the rst, you deceiver, into the doing of Christ hinem brauet, so it yet alone before and before present action geschehen heißt und interpret."
3) After äeclit a comma will have to be placed and after "VUristus the comma will have to be deleted.
not in the present time. It is to be marveled how you can come up with such trivial thoughts, but even more to be marveled that you base yourself so much on them. I have spoken this more broadly because I see that you are confident and praise many things here that I would have refuted immediately with the one word "Take," but I wanted to speak at length so that you would not think that you had been despised in your many speeches.
Then you dispute this about the person of the giver, and in many words say that Christ is the only one (unicum) and the glorious one who gives his body. As if anyone did not know or doubt this, although you know well enough that we completely hold and teach that Christ alone is the giver of his body in the Lord's Supper. For no one among us says in his own person, "Take, this is my body"; indeed, no one says, "Take, this is the body of Christ," but Christ speaks and says, "my body," and commands us to speak thus. It is therefore that you give such superfluous (copious) reasons that the body of Christ is not given by us, 4) when you should rather have proved that Christ does not give his body through us, as through his instruments. Does he not also give his baptism, himself as the only one and only one, but through us? Does he not remit sins only through us? Does he not teach the gospel alone and preach and exhort (as Paul says) through us? Does he not alone give food, drink, and clothing, wife, house, and all things, yet through others than [his] instruments? Therefore it was not necessary to teach that. Christ alone is the one who gives his body, for no one denies this. But this conclusion you should have proved, which you presuppose and do not prove, namely, that he cannot give his body through men, although he gives everything else through men, even gave the Son through the Virgin Mary, and even gave the Godhead through mankind. But your reasons are rather sought, because you strive to contradict...
4) "not" is inserted by us from the old translation.
338 D" Wette m, 239 f. I. Luther's writings Wider Carlstadt. W. XX, 412-444. 339
than that they should be brought forward or flow from the inclination 1) to learn. In the same way, you would deny that the Holy Spirit was given through the apostles; indeed, it would be said that not even Christ gave the Holy Spirit through his bodily blowing, since he alone could give the Spirit as God. If I had known beforehand that you would be moved by such reasons, I would not have agreed (pactus) with you to dispute this matter. For what is to prevent you from bringing forward many wagons full of such reasons at every hour until the end of the world, of which you know that they serve nothing for the matter and only prevent time [spoil] and better work? But I had hoped to hear reasons that could move you. Now I, who am busy enough elsewhere, am given to hear how various and improper things you could invent or think, as if no one else but you alone could do this.
Therefore, I ask you again that you henceforth, when you want to present your reasons (argumentari), spare me, and that you do not overburden me of this difficulty, nor teach me 2) about what you know that I know and admit, that is, that you do not merely state the propositions 3) but also discuss and prove the sub-propositions (subsumta) and the conclusions. I concede almost all of your propositions, but I deny your subsumptions and conclusions. I
1) In Latin: yuana odlata aut movsvtia uKsetuin üisoenüi, which probably needs an alteration. According to the old translation, we have assumed: ant üueutia aüeotu, etc.
2) Instead of us, we have assumed nee according to the old translation.
3) askuiutum is the first part of a final speech, usually called the major spar8 propoMoni], which tends to contain a generally valid sentence.
You wanted to make an effort to prove these [latter], but you constantly neglect them and make yourself sour to prove the supersets, which nobody denies. E.g. here: Christ alone gives his body, therefore we do not give it, the conclusion must be proved. For the proposition is admitted that Christ alone is the giver of his body, but the conclusion that we do not give it, that must be proved. For although we do not give, yet because Christ gives through us, it is also rightly said of us that we give as servants, as of an alms which the Lord gives, it is also rightly said that the servant gives it at the command and by the order of his master, since Paul also [Rom. 2:16] calls it his gospel, although it is God's, and Christ says that his teaching is not his [John 7:16], and promises that he who believes will do greater works than he himself has done [John 14:12], although he himself does everything in us. This, I say, you should have invalidated and made your conclusions firm against such things. I am forced to let my pen stand still here, for I have hardly been able to write this with many interruptions; then I am also prevented by much business. Furthermore, because I have been called to Torgau three times and have traveled to the court and am now required to go there for the fourth time, I want you to read this in the meantime and see the answer I have begun. 4) I will, after I will have returned and as soon as I can, answer some more. 5)
4) According to the old translation, videri must be read instead of viäers.
6) The further answer to Carlstadt's arguments was omitted because Luther had learned in the meantime that Carlstadt had secretly published several books and had contacted the enthusiasts in Silesia, Schwenkfeld and Krautwald. Compare the introduction.