About September 1525.
Johann Bugenhagen Pomeranus wishes the grace of God through Christ to the highly learned Doctori Johanni Hesso, pastor of the congregation of Christ in Breslau.
Esteemed Doctor! I now know nothing special that I would like to write to you at this time, except that we would like and always desire that the gospel of the glory of God may increase among you through Christ with all modesty and meekness, which we also owe to our enemies, as far as we are allowed, if only the gospel remains pure and righteous: For what should I write much, since Doctor Majobanus, 1) who is to be our mouth and our epistle to you, is again traveling to the ruch; but the same Doctor asked me to indicate to you only in one or two words what I should think of answering to the new errors which are now rising against the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is not possible to answer them with more certainty than with the bad text and words in the Scriptures, which the masters and perpetrators of such error tear and tear up pitifully. And although I know that you do not need this, yet, because I am asked, I will gladly serve you and others with this little.
1. so the words in the evangelists, Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. read: "this is my body, this is my blood."
2) It is against the common usage to speak in all languages that the little word "that", with which one is accustomed to indicate something, should indicate and mean something else than the very thing that is presented. And this Carlstadtian error, with the two little words hoc and hic, that and this, 2) does not please Zwinglio either.
3 But Zwinglius, seeing that it has not gone out well, nor' wants to go, so takes
1) Ambrosius Moiban, pastor in Breslau. - "Mobian", Köstlin, "Martin Luther" (3rd edition), p. 84, is a misprint.-.
2) In the old edition: that.
he has before him the little word "is", and argues about it, it should mean so much here, as: This is my body, this is, this means my body, and: This is my blood, this is, this means my blood, and brings up sayings where it is thus taken and understood. But Christ does not here interpret any dream or likeness; and though three evangelists, and Paul, have written of this thing, yet none of them, not even with one word, has signified that the little word "is" here should be so much as: This is my body, that is, it means my body; yes, they say publicly differently, as I will soon indicate.
4. But Zwinglius sees that it will not follow immediately when I say: the little word "is" means in another place as much as "means", therefore it must stand here also in this way, otherwise it would be taken and understood everywhere in this way, as if I spoke: Peter is a man, that is, he signifies a man; and now sees that there is still available to prove that it should also mean so much here in this place: so he has nothing else that he would like to bring up (which he nevertheless makes him dream strongly enough) but this saying in John: The flesh is not useful, John. 6 Here we must laugh at the great theologian with his Carlstadt: so now lie down these two little words 3) that and is.
5 Who does not see that Christ there in John condemns and punishes the carnal mind of his disciples, in that he holds the flesh and the Spirit against each other, and now speaks not of his flesh and his blood, as before, but of the flesh and the Spirit; as the Scriptures in all places condemn and reject the flesh, but praise and accept the Spirit? places condemns and rejects the flesh, but praises and accepts the Spirit. At times the Scripture calls the flesh the letter. And Isaiah says: All flesh is hay, Isa. 40. And St. Paul to Romans on the 8th: "To be carnally minded is death, and to be spiritually minded is life and peace. For to be carnally minded is enmity against the flesh.
3) Marginal gloss: Äöo 6t es" sueeudusrunt.
*) This missive appeared about September 1525 (for on October 23 Zwingli replied to it) both "Latin and German. The title of the Latin writing is: Oontra novum 6rrorsm äs saeramsnto eornoris st "anZuinis Domini nostri losn Oüristi spistola .lo. LuMnüaNi Domsrani acl D. Hsssum, Vratislav. pa "torsm. German under the title we placed over it. We give the text according to the old edition of Walch.
God, since it is not subject to the law of God, because it is not able to. But those who are carnal may not please God."
But again Peter said to the Lord, John 6: "Lord, where shall we go? Thou hast words of eternal life, and we have believed and known that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." For Christ does not say there, John 6, My flesh is not useful; otherwise he made himself a liar. For he had said before to the Jews, "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Now wilt thou say that this is not a useful thing, from which the life of the world comes? Or, is the life of the world nothing, which before was dead and condemned? But Christ says badly here: "The flesh is not useful; as he also says to Petro in another place, Matth. 16: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven," that is, the Spirit of God.
7. no flesh is useful, but this flesh is useful, in which God is; then John says: "the word became flesh", Joh. 1. just as no water is useful, so is 1) the baptismal water useful, in which the word of God is. Likewise, no bread is useful, but this bread is useful, in which is the body of Christ, because of Christ's word, which cannot lie.
8 Therefore this saying of Christ, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth not, John 6, condemneth and overthroweth all human wisdom, and all human righteousness, and all things that are in man, and that pertain unto men: but he would have us to be taught of God. Therefore it is ungodly and unchristian to interpret this saying to this flesh, in which God is, through which flesh we have been sanctified. So you see how Zwinglius can muster nothing at all, and how he is not at all a theologian here in this place.
(9) But that he calls us Christ-eaters and flesh-eaters is blasphemy; for we neither rend nor eat the flesh of Christ, but we eat the bread, and in the bread the true body of Christ, which is not seen nor torn, but is believed to be present and eaten, because of the words of Christ.
Now take the text and grammar before you from St. Paul's epistle, 1 Cor. 10: "The cup of consecration, which we consecrate (which is commonly called consecrating), is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" Communion, that is, in which the blood of Christ is in-
1) "yet" put by us instead of "also".
common is distributed, and becomes common to you, to me, and to all who drink it; so that this treasure in the sacrament, by reason of the word of Christ, may be distributed as Christ commanded.
11. Further, "The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" Communion, that is, in which the body of Christ is shared and made common to us. Therefore here truly is the body and blood of Christ, for he thus saith, "The bread which we break, and the cup which we bless." But in that he says, "For we many are One Bread and One Body," he certainly indicates a spiritual union, but soon after he says, "Because we are all partakers of One Bread." We among us, he says, are one thing, but for the sake of the one bread which we eat, and of which we are partakers among ourselves; how can the bread be one which you eat in Breslau, and which we eat here in Wittenberg, if in the bread is not the one body of Christ? But that he speaks of the bodily bread, there is no doubt about it.
12 And in the following chapter, 1 Cor. 11, St. Paul further says: "The Lord Jesus, in the night when he was betrayed, took bread, gave thanks, and broke it, saying, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you (that is, for your use)", that is, distributed to each one. Just as the word "break" is used in this way in the prophet Isaiah: "Break the hungry man's bread," that is, divide it and give it to him. He must be blind who does not see that in the bread is the body of Christ, and that the body of Christ is taken from all, and that only the bread is broken; for so he says beforehand: "He took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it": just as Paul also said above: "The bread we break", and soon after says here: "Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you", so there is the body of Christ. But how it is there, what is that to me? for he that hath appointed it so looketh on it, whereunto I alone believe, and do that which he hath commanded me.
013 And of the cup he saith thus, This cup is a new testament in my blood. Review and repeat the whole Scripture, and you will not find anywhere that the New Testament is called anything else than the forgiveness of sins through Christ or through the blood of Christ. As the prophet Jeremiah Cap. 31. writes of the new testament, where God says: "The time will come when I will give another testament than has been given until now; for I will be merciful to their iniquity, and their sin and their unrighteousness I will remember no more".
also the epistle to the Hebrews stands these words in the prophet Jeremiah, Heb. 8, and St. Paul repeats the same to the Romans on the 11th [v. 27.], thus saying, "This is my testament unto them, when I shall take away their sin."
If then this cup or drink is a new testament, verily it is forgiveness of sins, which ungodly and unchristianly is ascribed to bad wine; therefore so is the blood of Christ in the wine, which then is clear from the following words, as he speaks quickly upon it, "In my blood"'; and in the evangelists it is written, "Which is shed for you for the remission of sins."
14) Paul continues: "Whosoever therefore shall eat of this bread unworthily, or drink of the cup of the Lord, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"; 1) does not say: he is guilty of the bread and of the wine.
015 Further, "Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, lest he should discern the body of the Lord." Verily, they do not discern the body of the Lord, who say that it is bad bread; neither do they discern it, who believe that the body of Christ is there, and yet do not go to it as Christ commanded, that they may eat it in remembrance of Him.
16 Now tell me, what does Zwinglius want to do here, in these two places, since there is nothing in them, that he may say that the little word is so much as signifies; for St. Paul speaks thus, "He is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and does not distinguish the body of the Lord"; and does not say, "He is guilty of the body signified, and does not distinguish the body of the Lord. Paul thus says, "He is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and does not distinguish the body of the Lord." He does not say, "He is guilty of the signified body and blood of the Lord, but of the true body and blood, which is truly here in the bread and wine. For of the man he saith here, he that eateth, and he that drinketh; neither saith he, that he distinguisheth not the signified body of the Lord, but the body of the Lord 2c.
(17) Likewise, what will the others do in these two oerterns if they do not find a koo?
18 I have led wood, Doctor, you may build. And herewith be blessed in Christ! Ask God the Father for us.
Johannes Bugenhagen Pomeranus.
(19) Now and then a booklet is sold in which is written the order of the mass, as if it were so ordained and kept by us.
1) Marginal gloss: In these two places there is no äoc, also no
But I may freely confess, first of all, that I did not write this; then, that we do not keep this order of the mass in Wittenberg in Latin, which some, who act in the play as boys, not as Christians, presume to have interpreted into German. If the same fellows like their thing so much, they defend it with the holy scripture and do not lie under our name. But I am especially perverted and displeased by the fact that they make things necessary that are not necessary. But that we preach the Gospel of Christ daily in German here in Wittenberg, they do not consider that a German mass. However, I will not say that they have no regard for the weak brethren, 2) in that, even though the gospel has not yet been preached sufficiently, they make themselves think that they have all the power to do so, even to the annoyance of their brethren; but of that another time.
(20) Likewise, in the same booklet, they indicate a manner of trusting the married persons, as if we also used the same, and were prescribed by us; without which they clumsily cobble together many things from Scripture. Thus they pretend that when we marry, we say that God cursed and maledicted the marital state after the fall of Adam. But that is what some devil has said, not me. So unlearned are they, these new theologians of ours, that they understand and interpret as a malediction that which we sometimes say about the cross, which God has placed on us in the conjugal state.
(21) But to that which is also written there in the booklet of both or one form of the Sacrament, I confess and do not deny that I have written it at this time in Latin to a good friend, but which I would much rather be read in my words, wherein it is written.
(22) I would have said this long ago if I had not thought that it was to be despised. But now, because many of them fall and deviate in a new way to the doctrines of men, I should not despise it.
23 Dear one, tell me, what is the use of some who, in matters concerning the salvation of the soul, condemn the doctrine of men, as is right and just? because they cannot indicate and give a reason for the things to which they are subject, except to say that some write such things and hold them so.
2) "that they have no respect" put by us instead of: "that I have no respect".