Feb. 1, 1526.
Johannes Oecolampadius wishes Diebolten Billicano, Predicanten zu Nördlingen, peace and grace from Christ.
Dear brother, I guess my letters, of which there is more than one now, which I sent you some time ago, as one good friend to another, are convenient witnesses of how much you have counted with me so far. But now that 2) this your
2) "now" put by us instead of "and".
letter has come to light, in which you find me, I think, 3) unvirtuous, and but reject the Christian opinion of the Sacrament, as if it were not the most Christian, in it, I might be considered to be acting contrary to my office and use, if I left it unreported,
3) "I" put by us instead of: not. Oecolampad inserts this "halt ich" more often. According to what is asserted in the 9 against the end, the "not" seems to us not to be permissible.
*) This writing was published together with the "Antisyngramma" and the two following sermons in 1526 (without indication of the place) under the title: XpoloMlieu 4o. Oseolumpnclii. The special title of this writing is: .44 Tüeodnlciuin Uillwunuin; Huinum in Verdis eosnue ulisnuin ssnsurn intsrnnü The translation is by Ludwig Hetzer. That this translation was already published in 1525 (Walch, alte Ausgabe, Vol. XX, Einl. p. 44) is probably an error, as is evident from the date of this writing.
how much I would have liked your writing. For my part, I would have been content to open my mind to you with special letters, like one benefactor to another (as happened about more than once before); now, however, business requires that I act publicly and with you in particular (as you have also done).
My previous book "on the true understanding of the words of the Lord's Supper" did not require anyone by name on the plan. But you offer me politely with the Tertulliano. Well then, I am still undoubted in the matter 1) (as the business of truth is serious, and is not made secret with mockery of the false, 2) nor with admonition of those who look only at human glory), and give account of my faith willingly, 1 Peter 3, secretly and publicly, where the occasion of the matter allows it, and especially to those who require it of me. It is not that I am not moved to silence, or that I am moved to it by contentiousness; no, my conscience gives evidence before Christ that I am hostile to contentiousness. But I write for the reason that I ever think it would be detrimental to the truth if I let it slip unaccountably. I pray Christ that your honor and reputation for teaching may not diminish but increase from this. If it should turn out otherwise, that would be exceedingly difficult for me to hear; for I do not undertake such antics, which I know to be foreign to Christian love. As far as I know your doctrine, it is irreproachable in all other articles and worthy of all glory, but in this matter of the sacrament I may not agree with you, unless it were Christian to write another and confess another with my mouth; this I will not do. I should also not remain silent about it, since it is undoubted with me, from the memory of holy scriptures and the Spirit of God, that the truth is on our side. The fact that you recently let it go out publicly in your writings, I think it flows from a diligence to fathom the truth. I would also prefer to regard it as anything else, neither that it happened out of free will. For as I understand you, I do not yet completely stink with you. So I have not yet misjudged you at all, 3) because I hope that as soon as and 4) you will confess our way, that is, our opinion of the Sacrament to be the more certain one, that you will move over to us in our camps from now on without delay.
1) Marginal gloss: The truth does not lie.
2) "Verrummpfer" put by us instead of "Verumpfern".
Verrümpfer - "smoocher".
3) d. i. abandoned.
4) and - as.
3) It does not have the opinion that your good fame and praise will be made. No, it is my desire that your praise be even greater; and this will certainly happen if the truth shines even brighter in this chip, 5) although there is no doubt in my mind that you have long ago despised all the greed, 6) as human glory etc. By the truth, I would consider it honest if the truth prevailed and I were overcome. Now God forbid that I should be a cause for the desecration of the excellent pounds and the manifold gifts that the Lord has bestowed upon you. May God forbid that all your goodness should wither because of my writing, whether you already stumble in this one article according to the ways of men, or that your practice, which you need according to holy scripture, should be diminished because of me, or that your ardor in preserving the praise of Christ should be considered colder or weaker, or that your bravery, which you need against the enemies of the faith, should be weakened and praised less because of this; may God forbid. I grant you all honors and good things. Yes, I desire that all the gifts of Christ remain unharmed and untouched in you.
4 Well, you worry, if you do not write, that you do not do enough for the evangelical ministry; and this has aroused you to write. This is also what urges me to answer you. I think that those who either do not understand or do not read the next book I have written on the right natural understanding of the night meal, and yet condemn it and judge about it in an unwarranted manner (without doubt because they are still prisoners of their previous rusty opinion and delusion), these, I think, should and must be overcome with patience, with sedan chairs and with silence (because they allow themselves to be told neither wise nor better); or else one must at least suffer with them. But against those who publicly have books printed, with which they require us to be told of our faith, as you and other Swabian preachers have done; unless this is done out of superfluous elf or out of courtly courtesy, I do not know how I would answer for it if I said nothing to your letter.
5. I know that I have wronged you, so be pious, where I have known truth, as that would be; so it will be a service to you, if I
5) glazed - shining. - Marginal gloss: This is the desire and triumph of all Christians.
6) Gaucherie - foolishness. - "sämliche" - such. Cf.
§ 7 of this writing.
I will not be deterred from my task (to open the recognized truth) by any dangers. It is no less, it has frightened me that the thing with the first book has not turned out to be the very best. However, it will not deter me. Indeed, I hoped that the next book, in which I had compiled the opinion of the very old teachers about the Sacrament, would be written much more chastely than that my friends should scold it. I had persuaded myself, which is even more, that it would also cut off all cause for my angry adversaries to be angry with me, if they, eight [me], wanted to restrain themselves from anger; considering that I had such a great stir out of love in the same book, and used so few abusive words in it, which I also want to do this time, even if I would not yet obtain from my patrons that they accept this writing of mine of the opinion in which it is written. Yes, I say, since I ever thought that I had shunned all restraint, there have nevertheless been some who have not been ashamed 1) to make of me, a peace-seeker, a rebel and a zealot; of a lover of truth, a blasphemer; of a faithful expounder of the old teachers, a dissolver. So that I may also answer them, you give me good instruction. I will also answer them plainly, and set forth my innocence apart from some deceit and strife, bad as it is in himself. God forbid that we should be reproached for what has been thrown at our adversaries, which has almost completely ruined their cause.
We do not want to fight with quarrels, it is up to old wicked women. We don't want to deal with wicked wiles; the children of the world shall need it. The full cones 2) shall mock the people. The papists, they shall call the tyrants' rages. Let the Jews stop up their ears, if one wants to teach them. The sophists shall practice useless tapering 3) and chatter. The worldly wise have their smooth words for them. Let the magicians blind the eyes of the sighted. We have none to do. What is it? That we should take care to testify that we are believers in Christ and disciples of Christ, and that our Master, Jesus Christ, who is merciful to our sins and pours out his heartfelt mercy on us, should do this so that it may serve the glory of his name. This is what I desire.
1) Marginal gloss: This is our gratitude!
2) Cones - drunkards.
3) "Tabernacle" is synonymous with "chatter". Compare § 14 of the following scripture.
I ask you, dear brother, not to deny me all the patience to listen that you also require from others.
(8) Well then, let him know that this suspicion (of which you take much pains, on which you also begin your letter, and with which you also conclude it),' to write to you and to me, is an original one. Namely, this suspicion that we do not bring into sacred Scripture the understanding that it requires of itself, but that which pleases us. This suspicion you do for and for. I am no less hostile to this main vice (namely, giving holy scripture an alien mind), 6) nor even to the greatest vice that may be on the face of the earth. Rather, what would that be but mixing wine with water, as the innkeepers did, of whom the prophet Isaiah writes? Isaiah 5: Or what would it be but to set up abominations and idols in the house of the Lord, as Jeremiah saith? Jer. 7. In sum, what would it be different, neither to counterfeit the word of God? It would be nothing else, but my conscience does not condemn me, yes, it absolves me, because I am innocent of the main sin. But we want to consider this deal even more diligently, so that it may become clear whether you or I are following the strange understanding of the Scriptures. 7) And this is the whole sum and action of this writing of mine.
9) It may be that I have given a cause for this suspicion in that I have considered the Sacrament trade according to the 8) writings of the ancient teachers. This is also the reason why you call me a supporter of Tertulliani, 9) who, I think, is not too important a teacher. But how is it that you do not call me more an assistant Augustini, who is still more clearly of my opinion, and whose name would be less suspicious? Yes, why did you not name me as more of a supporter of the general Christian church, which also agrees with us that neither blood nor flesh is essential in the sacrament, as we have declared and still want to declare? Have we not long since renounced the name of the sect and given leave? I want to be Tertullian just as lützel 10) as you are Lutheran or Carlstädtian, although we do not reject them if they teach something sound; which you also do, as I can see, because you do not yet despise the old fathers at all. Not the less
4) i.e. such, the same.
5) Urhab - beginning, origin. Compare § 41 of the previous scripture.
6) Marginal gloss: Forging scripture is a grave sin.
7) nachhetschen - to follow.
8) "the" put by us instead of "the."
9) Marginal gloss: They are rhetorical pebbles.
10) "eben als lützel" - just as little.
You should not have been hurt by the diligent reading of the old teachers' sayings, 1) in which 2) more work is needed, neither courting 3). We have also never placed our hopes in the old teachers. But since I could notice that their great reputation was held in higher esteem by many people, and that everything they said was regarded as true; item, that to this day they are less suspicious of interpreting the Scriptures, that they are also generally regarded as more faithful than the new teachers, it was necessary for me not to keep quiet about it, but to indicate freely that the old fathers together with the Christian church were not against us. I am well aware that I have not completely failed you in this, although I have not yet served you according to my will, as I would have liked. Therefore, I will now use the old teachers' testimonies more moderately, neither pre-painting, because you refer to the very words of the Lord's Supper, and besides that you block your ears, and do not want to hear the convenient statements, the good causes and counter-reproaches. All the reasons that Christ may not be in the bread are of no value to you. The secondary arguments with which a Christian may be told that bread may not be flesh, that wine may not be blood, these you advance. You do not pay any attention to the unkindnesses that result from your opinion, and in other places you can beware of them. The idle, useless and unbelievable heap of so many miracles, with many other inconsistencies, does not concern you (as you say).
10 Now, even if you do not respect all these things, I will not consider you the less worthy; indeed, you will be all the more dear to me in that case that you call me to the word of God, thinking that one should fight only with the exquisite weapons of the spirit, that is, with the loud word of God and not with the teachers.
(11) But why should I be upset, since even the words of the supper protect me and are superior to you? I trust God, you will see that even in this case our cause will be more steadfast, and your cause almost weak, yes, even out.
I have presented enough writings before, which have not yet been approached as they should be; nevertheless, it is a greater pleasure for me to deal with the Scriptures, neither with the old teachers. Cause, which did not want to air baß,
1) Side note: Why old teachers are needed.
2) "the" put by us instead of "their".
3) "hurt" - bumped, annoyed.
to drink from the well neither from the murky streams?
(13) Therefore, let us submit ourselves simply, so that this suspicion may be removed from your heart and from the hearts of other people.
Before and before God the Lord pardoned me, I myself was a great spiritualist beyond measure, and so superstitious that I also contradicted the spirit of God that spoke in me, so that I would not oppose men all around me. As often as I read the order of the words of the Lord's Supper (which we are also dealing with here) in the Evangelists, it always occurred to me that there might be another little tale hidden under the bark, but so I knocked it out of my heart with a little struggle and thought, just as even today the majority of people think: "Hey, I thought, that's not supposed to be 5) anything, don't you want to be wittier than other people? You must believe that other people believe etc., and so I have experienced enough that it is a great pity to be too much and without need to be pusillanimous.
15 Dear, what do you think that I sacrificed for a mind to the Lord in the temple? Oh, wretched me! I sacrificed my own mind to him. I also sacrificed a foreign mind to him. Therefore it was my own, because it was not almost Christian. 6) Yes, it was also my own for the same reason, because I am also a man, and am just in the habit of sinning (neither because I am prevented by the grace of the Lord), in which other men are also. I often shamed myself for it, before 7) I learned what was hidden in the hearts of other people, and thought: Are you alone rejected from the presence of the Lord, that you would set yourself against it, against which no one else sets himself? Ah, God, how did I now so thickly 8) subject myself to overcome my weakness by reading the old teachers' Scriptures? But how little I initially found in the evangelists, so that my weakness would be helped. The same happened to me when I visited the fathers for this reason. I often found it written: corpus Domini, sanguis Domini, the body of the
4) "all-around"--complementary.
5) "shall" --- applies, serves. Compare § 20 of the previous writing.
6) Marginal gloss: Everything that comes from flesh is all false.
7) "before then" put by us instead of: before and.
8) "thick"--often.
The blood of the Lord, but how it was a body, and how or in what way it was a blood, was discovered miraculously. And even if it was discovered at times, it was done in an exceedingly careless manner. And therefore I must not speak that I brought my own mind into the writing. But if I say that I have brought a foreign mind into it, I am not lying; and that for two reasons. The first: I only hang on other people's judgment. The other: My opinion of the sacrament was not in accordance with the Holy Spirit. So if someone brings into the Scriptures a sense or an understanding that he has borrowed from men, he does not bring anything different, nor anything wrong, although countless thousands of angels would be of the opinion. What else was this strange mind neither a human interpretation, which interpretation the divine scriptures, as Peter testifies, do not accept? What did I do differently then, neither that I built on the sand? Nothing else everywhere, for if I had found a different faith among men, I too would have said something different. However, when I realized that even the noble people, on whom special attention is paid, 1) teach falsely in many articles, and also allow themselves to be deceived: then their plastered face no longer counted for so much with me. The truth has never appeared clearer to me before. It was also unnecessary for me to bring the papal understanding (that Christ is essentially in the bread) into the Scriptures. No, it was not necessary, for the shining light came to meet me, which I might well have resisted, 2) if I had thought to turn back into darkness; I might well do so yet. But I do not want to do it. Why? Therefore, I am frightened by the terrible saying to the Hebrews in the 6th [and] 10th chapter, which is reproached to me there by Paulo, that it is an unavoidable sin to knowingly fall from the recognized light into darkness.
I would not bring anything foreign into the Scriptures by force, as if I were to bohlete it in with a noose or like a Scripture poacher, 3) [God] give it rhyme or not. No, I do not want to do that. I want to share that with others, so that I am helped to understand the sacrament correctly. There are still some who have
1) Marginal gloss: So it goes, if one does not *) look at God's honor.
2) entrathen" put by us instead of: errathen.
3) Marginal gloss: xx xxxxxxxxx x Hi-vMwox [i.e. like a
Slinger or a bully. - In the old edition:
*) "not" put by us instead of "only".
They want to prove in writing that they have itched to write me out of this deal with an evil conscience, and this they will do once they prove with gossip that the truth is a lie and the lies are truth. 4) But the things are not suitable here, because they are secrets of the hearts; but on the day of revelation, that is, at the last judgment, it will have power to prove that they do me too short and wrong. And therefore I will bring forward with more plain evidence, who they are that bring in the temple of the Lord unsullied and foreign men, that is, I will prove who they are that bring in a strange mind into the Scriptures.
It is true that Christ has indicated a purpose that cannot be 5) concealed, how one should act and interpret the Scriptures, since he was falsely accused of being a destroyer of the law. How will we therefore sufficiently thank him that he has strengthened our ears, which now have to hear the same things, with his injured ears because of this disgraceful speech? What is the same purpose? It is, Christ says John 5: "I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness would not be true." He also speaks in another place: "How can you believe, who do not seek the honor that flows from the one God? Again John 7: "My doctrine is not mine, it is his who sent me. If any man will obey his doctrine, he shall judge the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of Him who sent him is true, and in him is no unrighteousness." From these words of Christ, we will almost certainly determine which of us is more upright 7) and honest in dealing with the Scriptures. For if two were to fight with each other, and the one were to give much to God, the other little to Him, the first, who looks much to God's glory, undoubtedly gives the Scriptures their right natural understanding, but the other, who now and then balances the Scriptures for his own benefit, just like a horse-deceiver (ins-nAo). For by the truth, since God is the origin of the Holy Spirit of holy writings, he will also give his favor to it, so that it may serve for his glory, for he wants his
4) Marginal gloss: hoc est, nunquam.
5) verschupfen ---- reject.
6) "Like" ----- just such things.
7) i.e. more sincere.
8) i.e. after that.
Have glory unharmed before all things. And the same will be the natural, and not an innumerable, that is, not a human sense. Example: We read how Christ the Lord could do no deed in his homeland except 1) to heal a few sick people by laying his hands on them. This saying now reported, Marc. 6, if it were to be understood badly according to the letter and according to human understanding, portrays Christ to us as if he were not omnipotent; that is, that his power was overcome by the malice of other men, that he could not do deeds where and how much he wanted, so that they were against him. It would have to follow that those who are unbelieving by nature would remain in unbelief. But the Spirit, who does not let the glory of God perish, improves such ungodly suspicions (that Christ is not omnipotent) from the beginning, and ascribes to God that which is most proper, and teaches that this is the highest power of God, that he may not do anything improper. For if God would have him do something unseemly, he would still sin, and that would be nothing other than sinning, and thus as much as not [liking] anything. Now the Spirit of God interprets the above text, that Christ might not have done any deed in His Father's country, in such a way that He might not have done any sign on account of it, as follows more closely in the text; namely, on account of their great unbelief, because of which Christ is astonished. For because they despised the greater gifts, which were given them by attendance, and by the doctrine of Christ, the lesser gifts were also rightly withheld from them. Yes, I say, as the evangelist says, Matt. 25: Those who did evil with the lesser things were not worthy to be set over the greater. So then the Holy Spirit wants to say that the ungodliness of unbelievers is such a great evil that they are unworthy of God's doing anything good to them, and it is not Christ's place to use his goodwill against all ungrateful people. If it is not due to him, it is certain that it is impossible for God to do it. And that is actually being omnipotent, although the external letter denies it.
16 This understanding will also not be contrary to the Holy Spirit, if we understand by this above-mentioned saying, [that] Christ had a displeasure because of the unbelievable hostility of his countrymen, that he was not able to do what he did not have a desire to do. In this way
1) Set by us instead of "neither".
2) sämliche-----solche.
God also speaks through Isaiah the prophet Cap. 1: "I do not like," he says, "the iniquity and the boasting." Christ speaks in Matthew chapter 17: "O faithless generation, how long must I be with you? how long must I tolerate you?" It is also our custom to speak that if we do not desire or do not deserve a thing, we speak it: I may not do it. Namely, even the right-minded have to speak in the usage, saying: We do not like that, if we are not able to do it rightly. From this it follows in the same way, how in the first example of Christ the outward words, that he might not do deeds, gave the quarrelsome heathen cause to despise Christ, and how the Spirit guides him who is able to magnify the glory of God on the right path;
17 This is also the form it takes in our trade. How? So: The literal sense, saying: "This is my body", speaks to a small mind, that it is a rotten body of Christ; 3) but the spirit rubs his ear, and leads us to higher understanding, admonishing that we neither speak nor hold anything of Christ, which is not 4) honest.
(18) That Christ has ascended with his holy body into the heavens, and is seated there at the right hand of the Father in the highest goods, and that therefore he will also be hereafter, serves and shows the glory of Christ. Our prayer should be more that Christ with his divine power may be with us and helpful, and not that he may be with us bodily. Oh, it is much more honorable for our Lord Jesus Christ not to be with us in the flesh, and yet to assist us with his power, than for him to be with us in the flesh without some enjoyment which we do not have before. I pray thee, what increase is there in the glory of Christ, if we had his flesh and blood even as thou wilt in the sacrament? Or tell me, what benefit do we derive from it? 5) That is why I say that everything from which [the] godly receive enjoyment and benefit serves and is sufficient for divine glory; but from the bodily attendance no benefit arises for them. The Spirit of God publicly cries out against this, that the fleshly meal is no use at all. From this it follows that this will not be a human self-conceived mind, which confesses and claims to be a truth, against which no article of faith disputes, and which reaches more to the glory of Christ.
3) Marginal gloss: So Christ in the bread, is a true disgrace to him, because he uses nothing in it.
4) "not" set by us instead of: nothing.
5) Marginal gloss: I would also like to hear that.
19. Who among the ancient teachers has ever taken it for an article of faith? Which bishop ever swore that he would teach this for an article of faith, since he was made a bishop? None ever. Until the papa, who did not like to be called a bishop 1) came 2). Who has ever undertaken to teach this article (understand that the bread is flesh and the wine is blood) before the papal church, according to its pleasure in the Scriptures, has taken to courage, 3) and given its own dreams for certain sightings of the Lord. Woe to us if we presume to teach this article, which is not for the glory or honor of God. For thus says Malachias Cap. 2: And now, O you priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear it, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, then will I send malediction among you.
20 [If you] want to speak: Yes, dear Oecolampadi, the wolves also clothe themselves with the sheepskin, for we usually vault all of the Lord's name or glory. Also the notarii raise their instruments in worldly affairs in the name of the Lord. Caiphas has also reproached God's name. What then will judge the matter between me and you? My no will be considered as much as your yes. Matth. 20.
21st Answer. Dear brother, I know well that there is hardly anyone who is concerned with divine business who does not also want to be considered an excellent, pious and faithful expounder of divine honors. We all have Christ in our mouths, but with different faith. But which is the pure faith, it becomes clear when one compares it with other serene writings, or when one compares it with unbelief. 4) For this reason, it is better to trust in the faithful and faithful proclaimers of divine honor. Therefore it is better to bring faith and unbelief out into the light of the scriptures. Since there are many dark and obscure sayings in the holy Scriptures, those who desire to teach have this as a common rule, that they always use the clearer sayings to reach the more obscure sayings of the Scriptures.
Here you may thank me for this opinion of mine, and base your opinion of the Sacrament from the beginning on the Lord's word "The Sacrament".
1) Pappe - poppy flower, or puppet - woolly seedling, which the wind carries away.
2) Marginal gloss: kontttex, kulpikex [i.e. flesh maker. ?ulpa is the fleshy part of the animal body).
3) Willingness to be brave - willingness to be brave.
4) d. n bright.
is my body", Matth. 26, Marc. 14, Luc. 22, and you already want to shout (as is the custom) as if you had won: Ho! Ho! what need is there for further testimony? Why darken clear writing with darkness? Nothing clearer can be said than this: "This is my body. Now hold still, the triumph will be even greater, if you will also judge my opinion according to the string of words, "This is my body". How will I be considered to have missed so far, if I call the sacrament a bread and the body of Christ a memorial, and the Lord says, "This is my body." How will this rhyme? So they speak on your side. I know well that you will also hear me patiently.
speak thus:
(23) There are some things, as soon as 5) they are heard, that are quite clear and evident, and yet unknown, neither of which is good for one who desires to come to the truth. Now if anyone desires to fathom the truth, he will not be dismayed at this, nor will he lie straight thus at the beginning of the words. Oh no! What does he do then? He will remember the admonition of the wise Solomon, Ecclesiastes 7, saying: "The end of speech is better than the beginning. Since it seems advisable to a reasonable man to do so in daily affairs, how much more is it necessary in divine affairs to pay attention to the end of speech! It is true that if a careless person were to catch these dry words of the Lord, "This is my body," just according to their bad common sense, he would swear that the matter was already over, that the body of Christ was also bread etc. But if he were to look with open eyes (as is usually said) at other writings, which can be regarded as if they were contrary to each other, and if he were to consider all the circumstances, then he would certainly see that this, which he had only just said was clear, was something hidden. That it is so, I will give a good example of another thing. The words that Christ spoke to his mother on the cross were bright and clear words that no one can deny: "Woman, behold your son," John 19. Now if there were someone who did not know that Mary was an eternal virgin, and John was a son of Zebedee, whom he had with another woman, would he not from that moment on take a reason to fight from these few words of Christ, which are brighter than the sun: John would have been born of Mary the Virgin? Yes,
5) "as" put by us instead of: and.
Of course, if he would fight, and especially if he knew that Christ would not lie, John 14, such a one would not say from the beginning (as some of your people do): Behold, these are exceedingly bright and pure words of Christ: "Woman, behold, your son. There is no need for much glossing or guessing here, the words are clear, Christ has said it. Would not the opinion of the struggling man, that John was a son of Mary, also be confirmed from the words Christ says thereupon, that she calls Christ a woman and not mother, and again says to John: "Behold, thy mother!"? I think so. But if he should learn and realize that Mary is a virgin, and that John had another mother, he would not reproach the Holy Spirit for not having dealt freely with his things in public, even though he had no gloss on them. He would also confess that in this speech of Christ: "Woman, behold, your son", and: "Behold, your mother", there was a figure of speech. The opinion will have it also in the matter of which we are dealing now. The words of Christ, "This is my body," are cheerful words to one who pays no attention to the articles of faith, and who otherwise passes by all circumstances, item, who does not inquire further what the Scriptures say about them in other places. But if the whole order of things, what goes before and after, is decreed together, and if one holds other Scriptures against these words, "This is My body," yes, if one considers the glory of Christ, 1) then it becomes apparent that it is a dishonor to the Spirit of God to lie thus bitingly on the outer words, and now to quarrel about the letter, regardless of other interpretation 2) of Scriptures raised against it; and therefore one should and must not only interpret the dark ones with the words presented, but one must also put other scriptures next to them and thus explain them. One must also not disregard all other circumstances. 3) I believe that you will not go against this rule, and that you will not accept other passages of Scripture that are contrary to it, nor will you accept only a little saying. For though you find it written in four places, "This is my body," yet they stand just as if they were found in only one place, so that nothing can be gleaned from them that will serve a clearer understanding. Should we then reduce all other writings to this
1) Marginal gloss: This you consider, are [dul a Christian, the glory of Christ.
2) "gehebten" put by us instead of: gehabten. - rushed - held.
3) Marginal gloss: A good rule to the industrious.
some saying, "This is my body", penetrate and bend? No, we have not been taught that way.
(24) We would also mock if we wanted to prove that these words, "This is my body," were not figurative speech, but that the words "this is" must be understood essentially, and that the word "body" remains in its natural, proper meaning, that is, that it is called a true, essential body, and we would teach that: so we come to the point where it was begun, saying, "The bread has the word. Is not this that which was desired at the beginning to prove to you, that the bread was given the glory, that it began to be the body of Christ? Yes, it [is] truly [so], you shall teach it with scriptures! Do you think that this is what you mean when you say, "The bread receives the words in such a way that it is, or becomes, the essential body of Christ, and that it does not only mean the body? No, we are not to be fenced in this way. If, however, it is fair and honest to fight in this way, then we will fight in the same way, 4) that the drinking vessel is blood, and we do not want to allow any figure here, since the vessel is taken for that which is in the vessel, as the cup for the wine. But we want to speak: The drinking vessel has received the word, therefore it is blood; as you also speak of bread.
(25) Now what benefit would we get from the disputation? Quarrels and all other carnal things that are not supposed to 5) happen. What do I care if they cry out a hundred times: templum Domini! Temple of the Lord, temple of the Lord, Jer. 7. or also, which is just like the shouting: verbum Domini: the word of the Lord, the word of the Lord: 6) "This is my body." Nothing everywhere concerns me, it is a different matter, that here in the words the purity, which the spirit requires, is not sought. On the other hand, nothing is dearer to me, neither if one dealt with things honestly without deceit; but that will not hold anywhere. But let this be said to others, not to you, in passing. We will take what we have promised, namely, that it will come to light from the evangelists, even though we tear apart holy Scripture from our own self-conceived understanding. But we shall then come to the truth itself, when we come to the hidden Scriptures through the more public Scriptures. Now even the things in holy scripture are the darker ones, which are the first to be understood.
4) Marginal gloss: That would be a word fight.
5) "Not supposed to" will also be taken here, as in § 14 of this writing, for: not belonging here, serving nothing, proving nothing.
6) Marginal gloss: or: the church, the church!
are written. Note, 1) The prophets teach just what Moses taught, but they do not teach hidden and intricate things. The evangelists teach just what the prophets taught; that is, that God's word neither appears nor grows, but is and remains the same everywhere, yet the evangelists' teaching is full of light and clearer than the prophets' teaching. It was also noted that those who came after them always wrote things more comprehensibly, and made up for what was omitted by the first ones.
26 Well, who has been a more excellent teacher than Paul, who has been able to stand against all men, and has become all things to all? 1 Cor. 7. he is an instrument of Christ, Apost. 9; a teacher of the Gentiles, 1 Tim. 2; and a teacher of the wise and the foolish, Rom. 1. Who has been more learned, neither he who heard mysteries in the third heaven? 2 Corinthians 12: No one. Nevertheless, the matter may be considered that Paul himself in his subsequent epistles had improved a spiritual and a holy indiscipline, 1 Thess. 4. Is it not true that it was not wrong for him to have confused some who were slow of understanding with the first epistle to the Thessalonians, and to have given them a spark of error, as if the day of the Lord were already present? which could be seen in other of his epistles, where he wants living men to wait with fear for the future of the Lord, and promises those who remain until the future that they will run to meet the Lord, 2 Thessalonians 1. 1 Yes, I say, the error was not far, where he would not have admonished them with the other epistle that follows, of the signs that will be before the future of the Lord.
27 Thus the majesty of the things written before and first is great, but nevertheless it is not so great that it rejects the interpretation of the descendants who have attained the same spirit. Now everyone thinks that Matthew and Marcus wrote good, strong, brave things in the first place, and from the undoubted Holy Spirit of God; nevertheless, the things of the second part, which Lucas, John and Paul wrote later, are the clearer. As this is evident in many other things, so it is also evident in the things concerning the evening meal, in which the Holy Spirit faithfully comes to the aid of our slowness. Let us be of good cheer, there is still almost enough healing resin.
1) Marginal gloss: Do not despise this rule.
2) ferr == far; "not ferr missing" == not far missing.
(The apostles, our fathers, have put enough great treasures behind us, as long as we, as righteous children, see what they teach and leave the quarreling behind.
(28) Although, I say, more light is found in those who are written last; for such things are not soon settled by the adversaries in the controversy, that they leave them alone: Well then, we will start right from him who wrote first, as one speaks; yes, I say, at Matthew we will begin the trade, and see whether our, that is, the general Christian opinion of the Sacrament may be sufficiently understood and grasped. For, by the truth, if I read Matthew only about the supper, I will not be hurt, and yet I am not particularly versed in the Scriptures. Yes, it strengthens me a lot, even though nothing further is said about the words "This is my body", neither is this written in the text, and if one did not pay attention to the description of the other evangelists. Cause, the Christian sense opens also from the same some place 3) in Matthew, and does not allow that a foreign mind creeps in against someone, he would be completely sleepy, or overmastered with delusions. And it is quite a wonder how the wicked have so completely taken over. But why am I surprised? Our hypocrisy and ungodliness 4) have caused much, much more serious things. 5) Now God wanted it to be over.
Neither must we despise the things that have passed away before the supper, for the truth is much more fully revealed from the circumstances of which some pay no attention; for which reason it is not strange if they ever fall. Now Matthew writes about this:
From the night meal from Matthaeo.
On the first day of sweet bread they came to him, and said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover, or the passover, or the passover? And he said, Go ye into the city unto one, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; with thee will I keep the passover, or the passover, with my disciples. And the disciples have
3) Here we have omitted "in" which is too much.
4) i.e. godlessness.
5) Marginal gloss: O HErr, verleih uns noch Gnad.
6) d. i. simply.
They have done as Jesus commanded them, and have prepared the Passover or the Paschal Lamb. So now play from Matthew.
(30) I note here what the disciples understood by the name "Passover," transition, or paschal lamb. 1) No doubt they understood it to mean the lamb eaten with great festivity. And so they were immediately admonished by the name, what the Hebrew little word Passover, which we call the paschal lamb, held for a secret in itself, and from where it had taken the name. It was also not a common name of all lambs. No! for if at that time the father of the house had once met many lambs together in a heap, he would not have called them all Uebergang or Paschal Lamb, 2) No! But the one lamb, which was taken to the Begängniß of the old lamb, the same lamb was called in Hebrew Passover, in good German, Uebergang or paschal lamb, 1 Chron. 31.
(31) Why was he thus spoken of? Because it was a sign of the previous lamb, which had recently been slaughtered in Egypt. It is true that the wedding day on which the lamb was eaten was also called the Passover, but the day takes its name from the lamb more than the lamb takes its name from the day. In addition the scripture calls the day, or the feast, also often with the name Uebergang, or paschal lamb. As it is written in Deuteronomy 34: "Nothing of the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover shall remain until morning. But that the Lamb is called the Passover is certain: as it is said in Exodus 12, 2 Chronicles 30, 35. 30, 35: They have offered up the Passover. By the little word Passover one understands the lamb, and one cannot understand the day with it; cause who has ever slaughtered the day or the feast? Just so it is in the place here in Matthew, where the disciples say: Where wilt thou that we prepare the passover, to eat the passover, or the passover lamb?" No one can interpret this to mean that the disciples meant to eat the wedding day. Or, if it is ever so awkward for us to interpret it, let us also make a wedding day out of the sweet bread and the bitter salts. Why is that? Because we also read: "the day of sweet bread", Matth. 26.
Thirty-two, that thou mayest remember the feast where the lamb was eaten,
1) Marginal gloss: Passover, transition, paschal lamb, is one like the other.
2) Side note: Read the history of Exodus 12.
If you give the name of the transition because of the lamb and the memory of the transition, you are doing the right thing. But if you turn it around, and want to call the lamb, or the memory of the once happened transition in Egypt after the feast, that would not be right. The Holy Spirit interprets this Hebrew word Passover for the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, and does not interpret it for the day on which the sacrifice of the Lord was kept. But how is the lamb a sacrifice of the transition? and what sacrifice is it? The Spirit also gives this to understand. How? Thus: It is a sacrifice of the passing over, or of the lamb that was sacrificed when the Lord passed over the houses of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt, and smote the houses of Egypt, but redeemed our houses. Here the children do not ask what kind of day it is, but they ask what kind of ceremonies, what kind of clergy and what kind of service it is, because of which this day is so honest and wedding day. And so the little word Passover, in German Uebergang or paschal lamb, right at the beginning has taken on a figure of speech, that the following lambs, which were eaten from year to year, and which were called the Uebergang, signify and indicate the first lamb, which was sacrificed in Egypt because of the Uebergang. Therefore, the disciples of Christ began to use the name Passover or Paschal Lamb.
33) After the disciples have undertaken to kill the lamb, which was called the crossover, they have certainly not gained a small cause to remember the great goods, which were given to the fathers in Egypt. They themselves may have helped them with this exercise of faith, so that they may be provided with even greater good deeds for the sake of divine mercy. Just as the fathers had faith in pleasing God in bodily external things, in that they provided themselves to God from the small temporal help of a greater one. No doubt (as it is customary) they greeted the lamb devoutly: "Oh, you innocent and simple little animal, how well you have protected the tents of our forefathers in Egypt from the plague with your blood! You unarmed warrior, you have averted the terrible devastating 4) angel, because your blood was sprinkled on the house thresholds. Thou dear little beast, thou hast been a healing physician with thy blood to our firstborn, to whom death was imminent. O thou art
3) "now" put by us instead of "and".
4) "devastating" put by us instead of: exalting.
We have been a long-sought avenger against the Egyptians, who have been repaid sevenfold for afflicting us so miserably with glue carrying and brick making, Exodus 1. We have no doubt that God has set you apart for yet hidden secrets, of which we know nothing yet, that you will prepare for us a wedding day, Exodus etc.
34 Truly it is not unlike him that such words were used. Yet the disciples were not so grossly ignorant, or so ignorant of figurative speech, as to suppose that the lamb which had been sacrificed so many years ago in the land of Egypt had not been born again. Nevertheless, the disciples were not so grossly ignorant or so ignorant of figurative speech that they would have assumed that the lamb that had been sacrificed in Egypt so many years ago had come back to the earth by a strange Pythagorean rebirth and imagination, so that the very lamb to which they perhaps used such words, which they also killed, would be the very lamb that had been slaughtered in Egypt so many years ago. So they were not so foolish as to think that another lamb was killed and eaten in the visible lamb, and thus two lambs, the one that was seen, the other that was eaten long ago in Egypt. No, the disciples did not fantasize such things.
35 When they remembered the words of the Lord, who said in Matthew 26, "My time is at hand" (or how could they have forgotten the words, since they were commanded to tell the father of the house?), they realized that Christ was to be killed, for they had often been reminded of it, even though they did not yet understand the business of the resurrection and the calling of the Gentiles. Therefore it is similar to the truth, they thought to themselves: "Behold, if our Lord Christ must be put to death, he is truly no less innocent than this same lamb is. Now, by the truth, he is just as meek as the little lamb etc.
36. I put it thus: If the disciples of Christ had also used 2) such (as now reported) imagination or contemplation, when they slaughtered the lamb, which Christ wanted to eat with them: nevertheless they did not say that Christ was in the lamb, or that he was present, who was still far from them on the way, although the lamb which they slaughtered was a holy sign; which John indeed recognized, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," John 1:1. 1. I also respect that it is Jeremiah, Jer. 11, Isaiah, Isaiah 16, and David,
1) neißwen - approximately.
2) In the old edition: joch.
Ps. 117, was also known. Paul, who uses figurative expressions at will, speaks beautifully in 1 Corinthians 5: "Christ our Passover," or our Easter and Passover, "is offered up. It is also known who say Revelation 5: "Thou art his worth, that thou shouldest receive the book with his seals: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us by thy blood." It is no less, the things now reported are not particularly solid prefabrication of the thing, nevertheless they fit on our nobleness. For those who want to study the holy Scriptures must be accustomed to figurative speeches.
37 Now let us look further at what Matthew says about these things, for there is not a jot or tittle, but it guides and leads us, even as by the hand, to the true understanding.
Now when evening was come, he sat at meat with the twelve, and as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were greatly distressed, and every one of them said unto him, Lord, is it I? He answered, saying, He that putteth his hand into the dish with me, the same shall betray me. The Son of Man leads away as it is written; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be good for him if the man had never been born. Judas answered him that betrayed him, and said: Rabbi, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast spoken it.
38 Here one wants to speak: What does this rhyme with the interpretation of the following words? Doesn't Matthew discover the wicked 3) Judea with this place? Answer: It rhymes exceedingly well with it. But before 4) I show how it rhymes, let us consider how those who kept the passage had a habit. When they held the crossing, they ate of it quickly, 2 Mosi 12; they stood, protected by their feet; they carried staves in their hands; they needed unheated 5) bread, and sour salts, with which they contemplated the escape and the exit from Egypt. We are not to consider that they used the outward signs without understanding, and that they did not keep the things for which they were set up and appointed, because Matthew says, "He was at the table with the disciples.
3) Godless - godlessness.
4) "because" put by us instead of "and".
5) "ungeheflet" - without yeast, unleavened.
For the Scriptures indicate by the same saying that they prepared to keep the supper; some of them may have stood by it. There is no need for words: if they had omitted something from the noble commandments of the law at the same hour that Judas was paying attention to them, Christ would not have let it be good, and therefore they, who otherwise kept all things as they should, did not omit without care even the things that they were especially commanded to do, such as thanksgiving and the remembrance of the trade that they were commanded to do. They admittedly admonished themselves, one to the other, or Christ himself reminded them with the words spoken by Moses, Exodus 12, saying: "Eat, this is the Passover of the Lord". He does not call them the Day, but the Passover, that is, he calls them to eat the Lamb. Perhaps he still admonished them with clearer words, thus: Effet, that is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, since he passed by the houses of the children of Israel, smiting the Egyptians and redeeming our houses. Although in the words now reported there is a figurative speech, it did not hinder the disciples, because they could well realize that this lamb, which they ate with each other at that time, was now a sacrifice of the long ago passed over. That is so much, the disciples well understood that it should be sacrificed for a remembrance and a sign of the lamb killed before in the land of Egypt, and how the angel (which they should remember) struck the houses of Egypt, and thus the houses of the children of Israel passed by unpunished, having seen the blood of the lamb.
(39) Dear one, what do those who presume to teach us from the Hebrew the name Passover from the text of Moses throw at us, as if it were for use, and the lamb was not the Passover 1)? Do we not read according to the Hebrew: 2) "And when your children shall say unto you, What manner of service have ye? then ye shall say: It is the Passover sacrifice of the Lord, which passed over the houses of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt," Ex. 12. So much from the Hebrew text. Behold, here in this Hebrew text are two little words, the first is called "Abodah", in German: Gottesdienst; the other is called "Hu", in German: der, oder das. And these two little words cannot be drawn together, so that one would want to speak; the little word Passover, transition, is drawn to the service of God; would it not be more fitting
1) genämt = called.
2) Marginal gloss: We must be seen to be learned.
interpreted to the little word "shee", in German, "Lämmlein"? 3) Which is a sacrifice of the transgression to the Lord. Note also the mystery of who is the pure lamb without change, which should be a male, chosen and of age. And that is why the lamb itself, even the transition, is called by figurative speech. 4) And so, after 5) the disciples had performed the old custom, they sat down at the table to have the supper of wine and bread, that they might atone for hunger. In this, Jesus began to admonish his betrayer, and to open his suffering, which he had formerly blown in many ways about their ears; for it was exceedingly profitable for us, that his suffering was much commanded. From this also it comes that the prophets have foretold so much the suffering of Christ. John called him "a lamb of God", Joh. 1. Nicodemus heard of him, "he should be lifted up like the bronze serpent in the wilderness", Joh. 3. Peter, after he proclaimed him a son of God, also heard the secrets of the suffering, Matth. 16. Moses and Elijah also talked with each other on the mountain about the death of Christ, Matth. 17. Marc. 9. Luc. 9. Christ also foretold them of His suffering, not just one journey, when He set His face against Jerusalem, and purposed to go there, Luc. 13; namely, when the Pharisees accused Him of Herodi's deceitfulness, when He gave sight to the blind man, Joh. 9. Luc. 18; when He answered the sons of Zebedee, whether they would drink the cup that He would drink? Matth. 20; when he wept over the city of Jerusalem, Luc. 19; when he was anointed by Mary, Matth. 26, Marc. 14; when he taught about the wedding day in Jerusalem, that it must be raised, and the grain would not bear fruit, but would die or rot, as before, Joh. 12; item, when he indicated in parables that the temple would have to be dissolved, Matth. 26, Marc. 14, Joh. 2, and the son, the heir of the vineyard, would have to be killed, Marc. 12. In short, the closer the time of his suffering was, the less he hid it from them. And so he repeats it here in the supper, as if he were saying, "Behold, my beloved disciples, we are eating one lamb with another. Another lamb, much more gentle and much more innocent, must be killed. Yes, you will be horrified at the act, as if it were an atrocious thing, for it is a very great act, and it becomes man,
3) Marginal gloss: This belongs to the scholars.
4) Marginal gloss: Christ is the Lamb.
5) "now" put by us instead of: and.
6) "verjach" ----- verjahte, known.
who prepares it, to the greatest evil. But nevertheless you see, the thing is so certain, that also one of you, who eat with me from one bowl, will betray me, a lamb, and give me up to death. However, this is how it must be, because the scriptures refer to it, that they foretell how the betrayers and death will come upon me; because it is thus provided by the Father, for which reason it will also be shot for great salvation, and will bring you much more benefit neither the unreasonable lamb's death.
40 While the disciples still ate, and thus persisted in the memory of the old custom, and so the suffering was commanded to their hearts even more deeply. Jesus takes the bread, and when he has given thanks, he breaks it and gives it to the disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this is my body.
41 Christ now taught the disciples with words and sacramental signs, which he had often taught them with words alone; and that is why the things we see with our eyes tend to move our hearts more than those we only hear. 1) And for this reason Christ takes bread, which is food that neither a lamb may be given, and which is more needed; with which bread Christ commanded the death of another lamb, that is, with which he commanded his own death, which is the most innocent lamb of all. He gave thanks, and broke it. Why? Because he indicated that he accepts the breaking, that is, the death of his own body with thanksgiving. And so that 2) the meaning of the sign would not be unknown to them, he also taught them with the word, saying, "Take, eat, this is my body." What other understanding would the disciples have of these words of Christ than this, as if he had said to them, "Look up, this is how my body will be treated: it will be betrayed and broken, that is, my body will be killed"? And as they saw that he dealt with the bread, the same did they also learn in themselves, from the words of Christ, that it must be fulfilled in the body of Christ. 3) By the truth, this is a clear proclamation of the Passion, as hardly any can be clearer 4). But how useful and how salutary his death would be for them,
1) Marginal gloss: Read Jeremiam at the 19th chapter of the port he threw.
2) "so that" is put by us instead of: herewith.
3) Marginal gloss: Here [you] find a true mind of Sacrainent.
4) In the old edition: "Leides" and "klärerer".
they learned in thanksgiving, and in that he commanded them to take it and eat it. Now if the death of Christ were not fruitful, and if Christ were not at all lost to us, who are commanded in the breaking of bread, we should also be afraid of the bread. But because the death of Christ gives us life, we eat the bread, which is a witness of the goodness of Christ, with great thankfulness and with great desire of our hearts. Just as it was a pleasure to eat of the lamb, so it is delightful for believers to eat of the bread of the Lord. Do you see, dear brother, how the meaning becomes clear, if one lifts the attached order of the words according to spiritual understanding against it? Do you see how no foreign sense breaks in here, if one does not despise the sense that is subtly simple? But if there is another sense or understanding behind it, it has not yet been opened to us; for this reason we are not allowed to teach it, but we disguise it as an alien foreign understanding. 6) What understanding is this that you have? What kind of mind is this, if you say, "this is my body", that is, in the bread there is the body of the Lord, or, the bread is the essential body of Christ? Now how can we imagine such a final 7) mind? Do you think that the apostles themselves imagined such a thing with the Passover, or with the paschal lamb? and said that the lamb, which was killed many years ago in Egypt, was and is in the lamb, which they then slaughtered at the feast for a sacrifice of the Lord's Passover? Oh woe! No, of course, they did not think so. Nor would it have been possible for God to have brought the same lamb that was slaughtered so many years ago in Egypt into the lamb that they kill year after year in remembrance, when he brings the body of Christ into the bread. 8) The lamb that they kill year after year in remembrance is the lamb that they bring into the bread. 9) It is certain that the apostles were not of this opinion. This will be an indisputable proof that they were neither mute nor fishes in such a great matter. If they knew and recognized that he was bodily in the bread, they were still negligent in all their service and thanksgiving, and did not keep it honest enough. But yet a pious simple heart easily confesses what the apostles learned by bread. I will open the bargain with a more skillful example than I think. Listen:
5) In the old edition: wunfam.
6) spurn - reject.
7) letzen - reversed, "letzen" put by us instead of: last.
8) Year by year.
9) Marginal gloss: If you are a Christian, do not despise it.
Philip, the king, received a ring from his father Carl, on which the image of Caroli is engraved; he receives the same ring as a sign that he is dear to his father Carl and that he received his kingdom from him. Philip shows the same ring above the table to all his relatives and says: "Do you see Carl, my father, who gave me the kingdom and from whom I was born? So Philip calls the ring "Carl," because the image of Caroli, the great benefactor, is engraved on the ring. Now he lies there and wants to die; he shows his children a penny and says: You, my children, do you see Carl, who gave you the kingdom and from whom you were born? None of them who have seen the ring will say that Carolus has risen from the dead and has been brought into the ring. No; but they will all recognize this, as it is yes, that this ring is now a pledge 1) and a pledge of love, also a monument of good deeds. Well, if he kept this ring again, and drew out another new one, which no one had seen before, on which his image would be, and offered it around, saying, Behold, here I am, Philip; or, Behold, this is my face, have this in remembrance of me. Then some of his children would cry out and argue, "Hey, my father is a true man (unless he is omnipotent in that case), he said that the image on the ring is Philip, and therefore it must be Philip, my father, because he said it. Wouldn't the child be nonsensical? Would it not bring a strange mind? Yes, truly. And again, for what reason are those who recognize the commanded remembrance in the memorial called the rude ones? The same opinion has it with the things that got lost in the night meal. How so? First of all, the lamb was brought forth as a memorial of the redemption from the Egyptian prison. Now all the world knows well that it was not the lamb that had been slaughtered in Egypt long ago, but that it was no longer either a sign or a sacrament, that is, a signification; just as the ring of Caroli is. After that, when they are reported with the sign, they are also given the bread, which is the body of Christ, as a memorial of the new and greater good deeds. What is needed is to turn with a different new mind from time to time, and to speak differently of the bread that is the body,
1) Letze - Farewell.
neither one speaks of the lamb that is the transition?
(43) Now, if it is not a vexation to thee, hear another example: I show you an apple in the mirror, which lies over against the mirror, and say to you: Do you see the apple that grew on this tree or on that tree? Now no one will ever be so imprudent, unless he is even an idiot, who thinks that this figure of the apple, which I show you in the mirror, has grown neißwen 2) on a tree. Just so, no one will say that this lamb, although it is the transition, is the lamb that was killed recently in Egypt; nevertheless, this present lamb is the one that is not present and was killed many times ago, a figure.
44 Accordingly, if one showed a grape in another mirror, with the words: Behold, the grape there in the mirror gives wine, and the same makes the people drunk; which would now be such a fantasist, who would not let himself be reported with the grape, and would have been reported earlier with the apple in the mirror. Here perhaps someone would like to speak again and say: Yes, dear Oecolampadi, you speak well of the ring, but there is not such an image in the bread as there is in the ring or mirror: then I say yes to it; it is no less. Cause, it is bread by its own nature, that it feeds, and therefore it is given and broken, that it should feed. But that the bread is called a body, a believer will soon learn what the bread teaches to keep from the body. Namely, that it feeds the faithful with its breaking, that is, with its dying, and keeps them alive.
(45) Christ might also have put a lamb in the place of the bread. I also think it would not have been difficult for him if he had pointed to another lamb, saying: "This is my body. This would be just as much as saying, "Behold, as the lamb which you have just eaten, the lamb which was slaughtered in Egypt, and the sacrifice, is a memorial: so also the lamb which I now set before you to eat, my body which is slain for you, is a memorial. Since he did not take a lamb, but bread in his hands, and commanded it with words first spoken, it should not seem heavier to us, even if he had taken a lamb. It was also due to him that he chose bread, as a thing that may well be obtained, and is not inconvenient to signify his suffering. For just as a lamb is stung, that it may be eaten, so shall it be eaten.
2) Compare § 34; neißwen - about.
also broke the bread, that it might be eaten. See also this: the first lamb, which was killed in Egypt, would not have been so powerful by its own nature, as it is not yet, that it could have driven the destroying angel from the houses of the Israelites. No; but by the favorable will of God, who promised it, it protected the Israelites, and yet was only a figure of him who protected them. Yes, the same lamb does not protect. But our Lamb, who takes away the sins of the world, John 1, in whom the Father is well pleased, Matt. 3, 17, Mark 9, the same Lamb protects and shields, even though the rude would not know about him. The lamb was eaten; the blood of the lamb sprinkled the posts and house thresholds, Ex 12, the redemption happened; and although the redemption from Egypt only happened once, this custom is eternal: the people did not have to be taken out of Egypt even once; the firstborn of the Egyptians did not have to be destroyed even once; nevertheless the custom remained.
46 What does the lamb do? What was it good for? Answer: It brought with it the memory of things foretold, and admonishes the faithful to persevere in God's mercy. At the same time, just as the Lamb would not have been so powerful in itself, so also the body (in so far as it was only flesh) would not have been so powerful in itself that it would have redeemed us, even if it had been killed, if it had not been the very body of Christ, and offered up to the heavenly Father of good will in the Holy Spirit, Isaiah 53. Now the body of Christ has not been sacrificed more than once, but has finished us with eternal redemption, Heb. 9, and there is no need for the angels of the Lord to kill the firstborn again; that is to say, there is no need for Christ to overcome the world and the princes of darkness once more. And so, as far as redemption is concerned, the Lamb was a figure or a signifier of the body of Christ, which he faithfully displayed. But as far as spiritual training is concerned, the lamb of our supper was only a foreshadowing, and prepared the way for it. When we speak of redemption, we do not say that the body of Christ is only a figure of another redemption of ours, or of another Christ for whom we are still waiting. No, it is far that we call the body of Christ only a figurative body. For "Christ is the truth," John 14, he also has the truth.
1) oneest - once.
He himself begat of his own true body, which was to be crucified and betrayed. But if one looks at the custom of the ceremonies, or at the spiritual training, then it is different. How? In the same way that the lamb which they ate together every year at a certain time renewed the memory of the other absent lamb, which was no longer present, so also the bread in the supper is a mystery, that is, a sacrament of the true body of Christ, which is seated up there in heaven. And as there was no more destroyer after the Israelites came out of Egypt, yes, even in the supper when they ate the lamb there was no visible angel, although they had a firm faith in the future redemption: just so also in the supper the body of Christ was not in the bread, nor the bread the body, but the true body sat there with them, in which body the angel of the great council, who became true man, Isa. 9, appeared, and on the same night he defeated the world and overcame it. The above things are ever clear, and should not hinder anyone. We also believe that the spiritual Egyptians, that is, all our resistors, have been overcome; and we eat the Lord's supper in remembrance of this.
47 There is one more example, which also serves to explain the matter. This, the raised serpent in the wilderness, would not have healed a man by itself, through its power; but that it healed someone, happened because God had promised it. She did not receive any inherent power at that time either. So also God, the Word, did not unite [with] the serpent; so that one might say that the serpent was the essential Word. But God works his work, and the serpent remains for a long time.
What did the serpent do? 3) It did nothing but preserve the memory of God's good deeds. But the foolish people, inclined to idolatry, thought that the erected serpent was something more than a bronze figure of a serpent, and thought that there was a hidden divine power in it. 4) The serpent was not a figure of a serpent. Then the good pious king Ezekiel, out of divine zeal, went to it, and sharpened 5) the serpent to them, so that he would muffle the idolatry. 2 Kings 18.
49 Look, this is how it happened with the bread, little by little, that it was taken for one's own use.
2) "now" put by us instead of: and.
3) Marginal gloss: The serpent's office.
4) neißwan - about.
5) "schleizt" - destroyed. 2 Kings 18, 4 - "dennen" == "from then on". Cf. § 58 of this scripture.
But if it is not to be taken for a memorial of the body, it is not to be taken for a memorial of the body. No doubt, if Christ had praised the figure of the cross, there would be no end to idolatry, since you will find many bad people who ever think that the wood and the image of the cross are capable of many things, and yet they have no word from God about it. Where does it come from? Therefore, the devil 1) fakes them so that he may extinguish the true glory of the cross. 2)
It is certain that the ignorant people, whom one first begins to teach the Christian faith, were not taught in the sacrament, that is, the mysteries, in the way they are taught now and in our times. So that it may be so, visit St. Augustine for this reason. Dear, let it be a good thing that I report a pious man who is well deserved in the business of faith. Yes, I say, they were not taught that way, as we are now. But which the ancients should by no means have omitted; is it not 3) such an abominable unavoidable capital sin, if one does not know that the body of Christ is in the bread, so that it is proper for Christians to rave and stir up on account of sin, 4) until it costs blood, and until cities are destroyed because of it? See how Augustine teaches, and where his words end. 5)
Augustine says: "The sacraments are visible signs of divine things, and divine things are honored by the sacraments. Also (says Augustine) one should not keep the figure, which is sanctified with the dedication, even, as one is used to do in other customs. One should also say besides [that] what the speech they (understand, that one teaches) hear means, and what it holds in itself, and what the sign means." So Augustine taught the Christians growing up. There is no doubt that he himself was taught by Ambrosio. One hears that Augustine says that things are honored by the signs of which they are signs. He does not speak that the signs conclude in themselves the essential things whose signs they are. No, but he speaks clearly and freely: The signs have a likeness of the things they signify.
1) "fatzet" is probably as much as "fetzet," i.e., he hangs such rags on them, as in the idiom: "flicken und läppen," in this volume Col. 234, § 87.
2) Marginal gloss: Therefore, it should be done away with.
3) "icht" probably as much as: about.
4) Marginal gloss: They are quite gushers.
5) lenden - to steer.
And for this reason you must either say that the bread is neither a sacrament nor a sign, against the whole assembly of Christ, which considers it a sacrament. Or else you must affirm that it is only a sacrament, that is, that it is only a sign of the very body of Christ. If then it is conquered from you, that it is no longer a sacrament either of the body of Christ alone, well, then our mind, according to the mind of which the faithful have used themselves, will not be a foreign mind. But if ye say, Yea, it is a sacrament, that is, a sign, and yet is the body also; I speak thus: You will never prove that a sign and the thing signified by the sign are essentially one thing. How can a painted bishop and a true bishop be one thing? What is sacramentum different, neither only a holy sign? Indeed nothing different. Well then, if we speak of things, let us be taken for such theologians who have just come out of the shell 6). I beg you, dear, let us learn how the holy man Augustine 7) in the third book, when he writes of Christian doctrine, taught and instructed us in the articles, which are sacraments, in that he indicates clearly enough where it is proper to use figurative speech, or where it is not proper. He says, "Let us beware lest we adopt figurative speech according to the letter"; and on this he draws the saying of Paul: "The letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive," 2 Cor. 3.
Dear, do not take Augustinum for the man who has put on this saying of Paul in an unformal way 8). For I know of some who put on some sayings in such an unpleasant way that they think it is an unforgivable sin, even in a disputation, where one does not quarrel, and where neither faith nor love is hurt. Augustine continues thus: "If a figurative speech is understood as if it were not figurative, then the same saying is understood carnally, nor can a thing be named if the soul dies before it, nor even this, in that it surpasses unreasonable animals, that is, if intelligibility is subjected to the flesh, so that it follows the letter; for he who follows the letter understands figurative or borrowed speech just as if it were not figurative speech, and interprets the thing as if it were a figurative speech through the
6) geschloffen - hatched.
7) Marginal gloss:August de doctrina christ. op. 3.
cap. 5. 9.
8) So put by us instead of: angezöge.
The meaning of the word "Sabbath" is the same as the meaning of one's own words, not another. For example, when he hears the word "Sabbath," he understands nothing more than a few days out of the seven days in the week that come and go. When he hears the word "sacrifice," he thinks nothing more, neither of the sacrifice in which cattle are sacrificed along with other earthly fruits. 1) And this is your miserable bondage of the soul, so that the signs are taken or understood for the essential things themselves, and that one may not raise the eye of the mind above the bodily creature to draw eternal light." Up to here Augustine.
Do you hear now, my dear Diebolt, how it is such a great pity, if I would make a figurative speech into an essential or a real speech? Do you not think that we need care, so that we do not turn freemen into servants? and that we do not deprive the soul of its glory, in which it surpasses other unreasonable animals, yes, that we do not kill it in the end? Other things that Augustine writes about the signs, I will also put here, saying: The Jewish people, who under the disciplinarian, the law, honored the signs of divine things for the essential things that were signified by the signs, are excused. Why? Because they did not know, when the signs were enough, why they were so eager to serve the one God, whom they did not see, before all things. But after Christ came, and the law ceased, people praised those who were closest to the clergy, even though they were still hanging in outward, temporal and human voices and signs, and did not know how to understand these outward things. Nevertheless, they were able of the Holy Spirit, so that they sold all their possessions and goods, and what they got out of them, they put before the feet of the apostles to distribute it to the poor, and they completely surrendered themselves to God as new temples, whom they had served before in the earthly image, that is, in the old temple. For it is not written that the Gentiles ever did the same.
54) The pagans are punished if they interpret their signs, that is, their idols, in such a way that they are no more, neither only meanings of the essential things. Why? Because it is a carnal bondage, says Augustine, so much so that one depends on the sign that is to be used.
1) Marginal gloss: Thank you, dear Augustine.
is inserted, holds, as if it were the essential thing itself, on which it is put for love, that it should mean. Is this true? Yes. How much more, then, is it a carnal bondage, if one takes the signs of things that are not meant 2) for the essential things themselves?
55. further, Augustine says: Christian liberty has disposed of all those whom it caught under useless signs (understand the Jews), and has interpreted to them the signs to which they were attached, and has directed them up to the things which were signified before by the signs; and hence the first churches of the Israelites grew up. [But to those who took Christian liberty under useless signs, not only did it destroy the servile service under all the signs, but it also destroyed the signs themselves, and turned all things aside, that the Gentiles might be converted from the shameful, unholy multitude of so many false gods to the service of the one God, that they might henceforth no longer serve useless signs, but that they might exercise their minds in spiritual understanding.
(56) The man is a captive servant of the sign, who needs or honors a thing that means something, but does not know what it means. But if one needs and honors a useful sign, which is instituted by God, and understands the power and the meaning of the same sign, he honors not that (says Augustine) which is seen and passed away; no, he honors that to which all things are to be pointed. Yes, if God has put it on, otherwise not. He who thus deals with the signs is spiritual and free, even in the time of bondage, in which it is not yet necessary for the carnal heart to discover the signs with which it must be paschalized 4) and to give them understanding, as all those who were forced among the people of Israel, through whom the Holy Spirit has given us the help and comfort of the Scriptures.
(57) Where do all things go together? They are drawn out there, so that we also know what we should think of our sacraments; for one may also speak of our sacraments in this way. So that no one would think that Augustine attracted these things in vain, he immediately says: "But at that time, after zero 5) the resurrection of our Lord has given us a very clear and bright indication of our freedom.
2) "nothing intended" - useless, not useful for anything.
3) d. i. such.
4) "paschgen" --- catch. Cf. § 9 of the second following sermon.
5) "now" put by us instead of: and.
has appeared, neither are we burdened with the heavy custom of these signs, which we already understand; for the Lord, even apostolic teaching, has given us few signs, which he has drawn from many. They are also only slight, and easy to do, and they have a high understanding, and they are of a clean merry custom; as then is the sacrament of baptism, and the righteous committal of the body and blood of the Lord. Now if one is so informed that he understands where the signs are directed, he will know that he honors these two signs not out of carnal service but rather out of spiritual freedom. So much Augustine. Oh that God would want [those] who so freely stab at us without cause, to measure above-mentioned things well and more diligently with themselves. Augustine counts the celebration, that is, the honest reception of the body and blood of Christ among the things that must be understood figuratively. 1) If the Latin word celebratio were understood correctly, it would partly explain the matter of the mystery, for we think well and truly of the body of Christ. Now when a man thinks well of a friend, he extols his virtue and praises the good deeds that his friend has done for him. The friend is not physically present, even though he 2) already thinks well and honestly of him.
58. Augustine thus speaks by name: "In the same way as it is a carnal bondage to follow the letter and to take or understand the meanings for the essential things which are indicated by the meanings, so it is also an evil, wicked, dizzy madness to interpret the signs uselessly. But if anyone does not understand the sign, what it means, and yet understands so much that he knows that it is only a sign, he will not be pressed into bondage. For it is much less likely, 3) that one is pressed with an unknown sign, but with a useful one, neither that he interprets it last 4) or uselessly, and thus his neck, which he has first drawn under the yoke of bondage to them 5), binds him anew in the ropes of error." Until here Augustine of the figurative speeches.
(59) You will have heard 6) that this above-mentioned saying of the supper, drawn from Matthew, is bad according to the literal one presented.
1) Marginal gloss: Augustine is a gusher.
2) In the old edition: joch.
3) weger --- a better way.
4) letz verkehrt.
5) dennen--vr>n dannen.
6) Heaved - raised, proved.
The reason of the soul (as Origen said before Augustine) is death. Now it cannot and may not be; cause, death arises from it to the soul (as Origen spoke before Augustine). You call our mind a mangler or a smasher 7) of sacred writings; but this is not so. For if we do not give just this sense, we will overload the people who learn from us with carnal bondage, which is only a miserable bondage.
(60) Go, you who are such fellows, and mock us, since you have long been mocked by good Christians, as if you were children, and children's teachers who do not know what they are saying, by the deed of the Spirit of God; and so you accuse 9) people of mocking you when you do not mend your ways.
(61) If we understood nothing else on our side, 10) except that we knew that they were signs, we would not be pressed with any bondage; but if we were to follow you, 11) we would interpret the signs badly and uselessly. Yes, we would be so completely bound to the outward word that we would accept no interpretation anywhere, and therefore we would have to wait for two bondages if we were of your opinion; God would grant that we interpret them or leave them uninterpreted. Dearly beloved, do you bring forth some benefit of the presence of the Body of Christ. If you want to say that the consolation of consciences is a benefit, I speak thus: if there is a consolation of consciences, it comes from the remembrance of the death and other good deeds of Christ, otherwise those who may never come to the Lord's table, but whom the Father of all consolation, 2 Cor. 1, often comforts more abundantly, neither just those who go to the sacrament, would have to receive such consolation]. 12) This same consolation should also be one of those gifts which do not serve to edify the Christian community, but it should be one of those gifts which secretly delight our minds in Himself, 13) to which minds the insensible body (if it were in the bread), and which should not be pondered (as you speak of it), brings just as much benefit if it is not present as if it were present. Did not Christ have to go bodily so that the disciples would be able to receive heavenly comfort? John 16: Yes, he [had to]. Dear, what is this
7) Zerschrenzern --- Tearing.
8) used - tested, experienced.
9) indebted ----- indebted.
10) "Page" set by us instead: Secken.
11) nachhetschten-----nachhmgen, succeeded.
12) Such an intercalation seems to us to be necessary in order to give meaning.
13) So put by us instead of: in einsgeheim.
Comfort, from which you draw your mind from hour to hour to the memory of other good deeds? So the fourteen Swabian brothers saw fit to answer me. If ever there is comfort in the bodily presence of Christ, that same comfort is only given to those who think and reflect on the bodily presence. 1) Why then do you so soon wean people from it? that is, why do you so quickly withdraw the minds of men from the contemplation of this presence? Christ also signified the like, that it was a sign of love toward him, when men would gladly see him go, saying, "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I go unto the Father. Shall we call Christ down from heaven? What is this great, intemperate, selfish love, that we cannot spare a little time from its consolations? Some of them say: Yes, it comforts us, even though we do not know what benefit comes to us from the bodily presence; for we delight in his promise that he wants to be bodily in the sacrament. Yes, it is well directed, that would be just the thing to begin again; and that would not be a small obstacle to finding the truth, and would be a good fire to chaffing. For this is always our question: whether there is a promise in the words "this is my body"; but where has a promise (if there ever was one) ever lifted up someone's mind, from which he should have withdrawn his mind (as they say), so that he did not meditate on the promise, and since it was recognized that there was no 2) benefit in it.
62) I have to say the slug 3) freely, and thus say: We comfort ourselves with mere dreams, and follow after the idol of our own vanity. And if I then consider it with myself, I do not need to speak more forcibly of the Scriptures. 4)
Now let us take other things in hand, which will not be much obscure, where one understands more clearly the above-mentioned things. Yes, they will make the above interpretation clear and confirm it with their clarity. It is also evident from this that we do not allow any foreign foreign understanding.
64 And Matthew continues thus: "He took the drinking vessel, gave thanks, and took it.
1) Marginal gloss: I mean. Christ is an unworthy guest for them.
2) ninen---nowhere; otherwise also written: "nienen."
3) "Usefulness", the point that matters; except - out.
4) The meaning of the last sentence is obscure to us.
5) ächter - different.
given to them, saying, Of this drink ye all: for this is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many, for the remission of sins."
From the time after that until the time of the apostles, it was not proper to drink or eat blood, whether it was human or animal blood. The apostles themselves, even out of a pretense of love, enjoined that one should abstain from blood, Acts 15. 15) Whereby the weakness of the Jews was nevertheless somewhat abated, until the circumcised and the uncircumcised, that is, until the Jews and the Gentiles were joined together in one community of God. 6) Therefore the fathers, the Jews, were not commanded to drink the blood of the Lamb. Nevertheless, the blood was also given as a sign; and when the Passover or Easter was celebrated, they took of the blood of the lamb while it was being offered, and spread it on the upper thresholds or posts of the houses where they were going to eat the paschal lamb. "And the blood," saith the Lord, "shall be your mark upon the houses wherein ye are, that, when I see the blood thereon, I may pass over before you, and the destructive plague shall not befall you, when I smite the land of Egypt," Exodus 12. The Lord also commanded them to keep this custom forever. Therefore also in the night meal of the Lord, when they slaughtered the lamb, the sills and both posts were sprinkled with blood. There is no doubt in my mind that the apostles understood, which was not hidden from anyone, that this sign of blood, which they had taken from the lamb they had killed in Egypt, was a sign and a memorial. And so they were still more admonished of their foreknown good deeds. And so Christ, looking at this previous figure, skillfully discovers the secrets of his blood and says, "This is my blood. As if he said, "You have seen the sign, namely the blood of the Lamb, on the thresholds and posts of the house, which is an indication of the blood that was shed long ago. But now, dear disciples, turn your eyes here to the drinking vessel, for it is not a drinking vessel of the eternal old Lamb's blood. No, it is a memorial of my own blood. That old blood was shed in Egypt land, but my blood will be shed only at the cross. And because the blood cannot be drunk, I have appointed bread in the place of the Lamb; and now I sanctify a solemn 7) remembrance.
6) erwalken - to come together.
7) "trungenliche" perhaps: what you can drink.
Mine, in the form of the wine you may drink; and therefore this drink is my blood.
(66) Dear, what would move some to pick another and an unrhymed understanding from the words of Christ, who saw how things were handled and how the new was compared to the old, if Christ would have left it at the words "this is my blood. Indeed, the counter-attitude that Christ needs, as the good householder who brings forth new and old from his treasure, Matth. 13, will be just enough as an interpretation that is not to be despised. Yes, if one understands the speech of the blood of Christ in the same way as one understands it of the blood of the Lamb. It would have been easy for the well-versed in the law, as Eliezer and Phynees 2) were, to recognize in the spirit precisely that through the lamb and blood which we recognize through the sacrament of bread and wine. Now, we consider the apostles, who nevertheless were more misunderstood, to have been able to take from the paschal lamb and from the blood what figure Christ's speech had. Even if the things now reported are not yet clear enough and do not make any difference, the certainty that Christ has attached to them forces us not to suspect anything crude. For Christ saith immediately after, "It is a blood of the new testament." To those who know what the new testament is, it is immediately evident from these words, just as the blood of the testament is in the drinking vessel, for the truth brings its light with it. Indeed testamentum is nothing else in the place, neither a paotuw nor a covenant between God and between men, which is established for this reason, so that we may be sure that our sin will be forgiven us; as one also reads in the prophet Jeremiah, Cap. 33, and there is nothing 3) that the consciences would like to have at hand, which would be more preferable and desirable to them. 4) The most merciful Father has deigned to seal this testament, that is, this covenant, with the seal of the death and blood of his only begotten Son, as he has purposed from eternity; and lest we falter, for that it should be strong, it is
1) "ja auch" put by us instead of: "jach".
2) Eleazar and Phinehas will be meant. 4Mos. 25, 7.
3) niernen - nowhere.
4) Marginal gloss: Where there is not the knowledge that God is our Father, all this serves nothing.
also confirmed with the death of the Testator Jesus Christ. Therefore the church was born, and at the same time as Eve came forth from the side of the sleeping Adam, Genesis 3, so also the church was built from the blood-flowing side of Christ. Yes, I say, she (the church) is built from the side of Christ, not from the cup, from the cross, not from the table, although she testifies to this with the signs before men, which before all happiness before God has raised through faith; and this testimony could also be called edification, and yet would not be spoken unformally. But actually to speak of it in essence, the blood of the dying Christ makes pure, it delights and makes alive; for the church is in the blood of the testament, as Zacharias the prophet speaks of it with few words and merrily, saying: And you are a blood of your testament, Zach. 9, 11. So it is written in the Hebrew text, that the Hebrew word "athe", in German "du", is drawn to the church; that it has the meaning: that you are or remain my people; yes, I say, that you are such a delicious, peaceful, free, honorable people, and that there are so many of you, that you shall receive of the blood of your testament. Look, Zacharias calls it a blood of our testament, as Matthew badly calls it a blood of the testament. Zacharias does not speak, a testament in your blood; no, a blood of your testament, he speaks. The testament, that is, the covenant is ours, for God has agreed with us, and has confirmed it by His Son's blood. Although, stop 5) (I), the blood is also ours through faith, because it was shed for our love, but it is therefore the blood of the testament, because it confirms the testament, that is, the covenant. For this reason the Lord immediately says in Zechariah: "And I have let your prisoners out of the pool where there is no water," (since the Hebrew text says: "I have let out," we read in our Bibles: "You have let out"), and thus the Lord says: "Because the sacrifice and blood of my Son is so dear and pleasing to me, I will let out all the children of the church who were imprisoned in the wretched bondage of sins, according to the prayer, and I will set them free. But what does he mean when he says: "The blood of the testament"? Will the blood that is in the cup, and that can be drunk, confirm the testament? will it subside sin? will it comfort consciences? O woe! no, indeed not! For the Holy Spirit, that he might prevent such madness, hath added, saying, "Which for the after-
5) Set by us instead of: has.
remission of sins is poured out." Now the blood is not poured out of one drinking vessel into the other, that sins may be remitted. No! Where then? On the cross and nowhere else. And so (as it is shed on the cross) the blood of the testament is in sealing, and makes us sure of the gracious will of our heavenly Father. Out of this must ever come to pass, if the blood, which ye say ye have in the cup, is for the confirmation of the testament, that it may confirm [the] testament, and assure our consciences. Yes, I say, it must follow that Christ's death on the cross will not be sufficient, and that from day to day the lack which Christ did not fulfill on the cross with his death must still be fulfilled; and that the prisoners are not yet let out of the puddle, since there is no water in it. But what would that be otherwise, neither especially to blot out all the merit of Christ together? For if his merit is not sufficient, it is not merit at all; but this would be offensive to a Christian to hear. What then do they mean when they say that the outward signs and seals are to strengthen consciences? For, in short, when they have rightly experienced themselves, they certainly realize that they are deceived and robbed, for they have received comfort beforehand from the infallible pledge of the Holy Spirit. 1) The sacraments do not comfort anyone for themselves, but because they are signs and preach Christ in the place of words, they bring comfort to the person by serving as an instrument.
67. Further, one would cry out against this, saying: Listen, was the blood of Christ, when he was still a young boy, not also a blood of the testament? Now it was just one blood after and before. Since the blood in the chalice and the blood that was poured out afterwards is one blood, will it not be in the chalice as the blood with which the testament is confirmed?
68 Answer: It is true that it was one blood when he was a boy, and when it was poured out; but because it was still boy's blood, it could not be considered testament blood. But when it began to be shed, it was considered testamentary blood, for the covenants are confirmed with blood, for which reason it cannot be called testamentary blood. About the nmnt's Lucas and Paul clear enough "a new testament in blood", Luc. 22. 1 Cor. 10. which here Matthew speaks, that it should be shed. Had it now another opinion with oem testaments, and with the shedding, further, neither that
1) Marginal gloss: The spirit alone is the pledge.
If we only have a memory of him, then we are again preparing for the papists their butchery and their sacrifices. But the handwriting of our sin is pinned to the cross, Col. 2, and the exalted Christ has drawn all things to Him, John 12. In this is the covenant.
69 Look now, my thief, the testament has not yet been fulfilled in the supper, so the blood has not yet been poured out; what else will we find of the blood, that it is present, neither just on the form, that one remembers it? and this is exceedingly good for thanksgiving. Yes, faithful and diligent remembrance is itself a true thanksgiving. We can truly grasp no other meaning, and especially since the honest accompaniment of the old custom takes place, which warns us as a teacher and leads us by the hand.
(70) Not enough has yet been done for your argument and counter-argument, which you pick up from the rules of the world's orators, and which you now and then steer out of there, because out of there, and ever suppose that you want to conquer with it that this preannounced interpretation, or the figure of speech, may not exist. And because Christ the Lord speaks of it, "which is shed," you assume from the beginning that if our opinion stands, then it must and will follow [that] the figurative (not the natural, true, right) blood is shed and is a blood of the New Testament; from which then it follows that we well deserve to be punished for Marcionite heresy; for the Marcionites also said: Christ did not truly suffer, and his blood was not truly shed. Answer: What does it matter to us that we are concerned about a danger when it is not necessary? What compels me, then, to make a reckoning, saying, This is a figure or memorial of the blood that is shed, and so the memorial is shed? Wouldn't that be a great opinion? Why do I not speak as more thus, as I should speak: The wine is a figure, or a memory of the blood, and therefore so the memory of the blood, in so far as it is shed, is signified by the wine? Or therefore: The wine is not only a memory of the blood, but it is a memory that the blood is shed? Well, if Christ had understood it with a few words, saying, this is an outpouring of blood [xxxxxxx]; would not both memories have been solved with it? Since no one is hurt because of the speech that has 2) been taken away, one should certainly be hurt even less because of the speech that has been cut into pieces. Yes, there is more strength in the speech that has been cut up, and a
2) out-of-print, i.e. in the word.
greater reputation, and remains the sense nevertheless completely neither so 1) he would have said: This is a figure, or a memory of my blood, and a memory of the shedding. I say also, it is not a baeurische speech, God gives, how one bequeaths to us a mist with much dizzy intrigues. And this we hear from the pagan poets' writings, and from common speeches, also from the custom of the church. The poet Virgilius 2) did not speak uncleanly when he tells how Venus brought her dear son Aenea the shield that her husband Vulcanus had forged; and speaks among other things thus: How Vulcanus freely cut out on the shield woolen pointed hats and fine little shields that had fallen from heaven etc. Do you mean to say that the painted shields that he had in his shield fell from the sky? No, because it was only a figure. So he also says in another place, 3) how Aeneas neißwa 4) had seen several times how Troilus, the unfortunate youth, was fleeing defenseless on one side, and was not in accordance that he should fight with Achilles, and how he was leading along there on the empty chariot, and was thus hanging with his feet still on the chariot etc. This was the painting that Aeneas saw, nor does the poet speak of things as if Aeneas himself had apparently seen them. Did you therefore mean to say that the unfortunate painting had fought with Achilles? Another mean speech: If I showed thee a painted image of Paul, and said unto thee, This is Paul, who hath warred with the sword of the word against the whole river of Illyrici and of the Greek country, Rom. 15; or, if I saw the image of St. Peter, and said, This is Peter, who hath received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Now if you would interpret these sayings in such a way that you would say: This is the image of Paul, which image preached the word of God in Grecia? and this is the image which is full of the Holy Spirit, and which has determined heaven with his preaching? and would you rebuke me for my speech, as one who had sinned against the common bad habit of speaking? You would not do it.
(71) Even if the disciples had said of the lamb which they ate: This is the lamb whose blood, sprinkled on the threshold of the house, killed the Egyptians and finished us off: would anyone understand from this that just for the sake of speech the figure of the
1) quite neither so == quite as if.
2) Marginal gloss: VirZ. 8. lik. Aeneid. [v. 664.].
3) Marginal gloss: VirZ. 1. lib. Aeneid. [v. 474.].
4) i.e. something like.
blood was blown up on the doorposts of the house, and that the angel had seen them? How is it that in such an excellent matter you grate together such childish, powerless arguments (but that they are childish, powerless arguments, logic may admonish you, what power the pregnant propositions (as the Logici of it tanten5) ) have, and the righteous, brave things and sayings, which we are wont to throw at you, are swallowed up 6)? Verily, verily, the things indicate that you are well with quarreling and with strife. If we were so well pleased with strife, would we not also say: Christ said that his blood would be shed, so that it should be understood that just as he said it, and just as they had the supper, it should be shed at the same hour, and the body broken? Yes, we would like to do it, because the text can be seen for it, but we do not want to do it. Because we fear that the Egyptian plague of frogs will come upon us. That is, we fear that, if one were to serve the quarrel in this way, as some do, a new sophistical frog talk would grow out of it. We do not want to know the things that do not serve anything.
(72) Therefore there is nothing to prevent us from accepting the figure of speech, which every child would understand if he had been at the supper, as the apostles were. And so what I have answered of the blood, let the same also be answered of the bread, of which Lucas and Paul speak. For since both Lucas and Paul say, "This is my body, which is given or broken for you," it is not their opinion that therefore only the figure of the body is given or broken, but thus: the bread, which signifies the body, the same designs and signifies also the giving or breaking of the body. That is so much said: the bread brings it again to our remembrance, how the body is given for us (the true right body). And here we are far enough from the nonsense of the heretic Marcioni, to whom the coarse mind you hold would not have given a little instruction that the fantastic assumed body of Christ is hidden in the bread. 7) Enough of this. There are still other things more, which also indicate and maintain not an ungodly, but a right natural mind.
5) "tanten" - to make trumpery. Compare § 104. Otherwise also written: "tandten".
6) pushed aside - pushed aside, disregarded.
7) Marginal gloss: In short, if the body is in the bread, then the same body has been crucified.
For it follows in the text Matthäi further thus:
I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from itzuud until the day I drink it anew in my Father's kingdom.
74. With this common saying Christ says badly that he will no longer be with us in the flesh (meaning that he will neither drink nor eat, as Lucas says), but that he will go away to the Father, which John also reports in the supper, John 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. For this reason the Holy Spirit diligently prevents us from understanding anything coarse in the things spoken of in marriage; in that he immediately says that he will go away, and so earnestly commands them that they may have remembrance of him, he shows sufficiently what the wine and the bread are. As he called the wine 1) blood before, so he calls it 2) wine after, yes, in clearer words, by a fine circumlocution, he calls it a fruit or a plant of the vine. Out of all this, what other understanding does Christ leave, neither that wine is wine, and not essentially nor actually blood, which should now be taken away? Indeed, he leaves no other understanding, but he 3) conceals the unknown meaning, that the body is in the bread and the blood in the wine, in such a way as 4) one speaks of it. 5) What would that be for an afterward 6) bad speech to such a man as Christ is, saying: I will drink no more wine? As if] our Master Jesus Christ had been a schoolmaster of the full Philoxenians and Epicureans, that he should speak of bodily need, which is in eating and drinking, if they should cease, as of great things? For we know that the kingdom of God is neither in food nor drink, 1 Cor. 4, and that there is no power in it. What does Christ mean by this? Nothing else, neither he is now near death, and henceforth one should no longer seek his bodily presence in the world. That is his opinion. Although he ate and drank with the disciples after his resurrection out of special freedom, Apost. 10, it was only for the reason that his resurrection, together with our faith, was truly a sign of the world.
1) commensal - appropriate.
2) hinnach- nachher; "hinnach" put by us instead of "him yet".
3) d. i. rejects.
4) i. e. approximately.
5) Randglosse: Niam von woäo yuoäarn iusükdlli.
6) indulgent -- indifferent.
For at that time he did not eat for hunger, nor did he seek pleasure in it, for he was full and satisfied with the highest bliss. He did not drink new wine, but the same wine that we drink, or else he would not have proved that he had a true body. To this he says: "Until the day, he understands the high desired day, when he will show himself a friendly table companion to all the gathered elect. He means the day when the hidden secrets will be opened, when the godly will be resurrected, when they will run to meet him, 1 Thess. 3, when he will hand over the kingdom to his Father, having overcome the last enemy, 1 Cor. 15. He will also give the dead their joy on that day, because of the strange and innumerable tribulations they now endure. And as Christ is already rejoicing in immortality, so on that day we immortals will be compared to his glorified body, and we will rejoice with him, and there we will live well with him in a new and holy way. Of course, the wine will be new at that time, and the heavens will be new, and the earth new, and even all things new, Revelation 21. For he will dwell with us again in the flesh, and this will be an unspeakable joy for us. For in this way he will satisfy our desires with the goods of his presence.
75 Does the opinion not immediately depart from itself? Is it not clear and obvious, and worthy of a Christian spirit? Yes, truly. But I am very worried that if I were to seek bodily presence with you now in this misery, before the day, it would be as it wanted, 8) if it were only really bodily, yes, I say: I am afraid that in the future, in the kingdom of God the Father, I would not be a comrade or a partaker of the delicious desired meal; 9) since I am so well acquainted with the pure interpretation of the words, and especially since even now, in this time, I realize how much the carelessness, not to say the childish imagination, of how Christ is in the bread, brings harm to true righteous vision. All those who are endowed with the gift of discerning the spirits and who actually pay attention to the inner man's training will testify to this.
My Diebolt, you have probably noticed how the truth can be achieved with little work even with the
7) d. i. such.
8) Marginal gloss: Visible or invisible.
9) Marginal gloss: O Christ, seek Christ in heaven, nowhere else.
(1) He was considered to be fighting against us. The testimony of other evangelists would not be necessary. Nevertheless, let us also examine them to see if they say anything that proves to us that our mind is not at all Christian, and whether they admonish us from our understanding, and call us to depart; for this is the business of all together, on which I go, that we have not gone astray from the truth.
From the night meal from Marco.
77 Next, look at the next one on Matthaeum, the Marcum, whether he says something further neither Matthew, although he uses almost the same words. But in it, Marcus writes more neither Matthew, how the supper was prepared, and how Christ did not present the host without miracles. Marcus also indicates that the disciples found him. Namely, when Christ commanded them to go to his house carrying a jar of water, and boldly demanded that he show them the large, paved, prepared room. 2) And by the majesty of the place, that in this supper they might be led to high things, and not to low things; that is, that they might learn heavenly things, and not earthly things; and that they might follow spiritual things, and not carnal things. 3) But some who use the signs for the essential things, and thus pretend that the flesh is united to the bread in the supper, these are quite carnal, as I reported above, and crawl along on the ground, so that they cannot come up into the room of the supper.
But lest it be thought that I am more jesting with the foreign and spiritually borrowed mind, nor that I am pondering the proper meaning of the Scriptures, let us leave it at that, and now have a look at how the evangelist Marcus describes all things with diligence. He does not do it in vain nor without cause that he indicates the word Passover, 4) which we call in German Osterlamm or transition, so many times before. For thus he speaks: "On the first day of the sweet bread, when they offered the Passover, or the passover lamb. After this the disciples inquired where they should prepare to offer the
1) i. e. shines.
2) Delicious - preciousness. - In the old edition here and immediately following: "beyder" instead of "bei der".
3) Marginal gloss: Though a Christian must seek high things with earnestness.
4) Marginal gloss: Passover, in good German, Uebergang.
Passover, or eating the paschal lamb." Finally he says, they have prepared the Passover, the Passover or the Paschal Lamb. Passover is a figurative word to the Hebrews, and reminds them of another, neither they saw before their eyes; as the kind of sacraments is. Marcus also needs such diligence (so that the memory of death is imagined), since Judas, the enemy of the house, is admonished with such brave, defiant threats; for it was not the smallest part of Christ's pain that he had his own traitor with him among his servants. Yes, the pain was so great that the Holy Spirit also reproved it through the psalmist, saying: "My benefactor, on whom I trusted and who ate with me, tramples me underfoot," Ps. 41.
79 So Marcus is talking about the drinking vessel:
And he took the cup. Gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and he said unto them, This is my blood of a new testament, which is shed for many.
Those who have not yet drunk a foreign opinion, and read that the disciples drank before Christ spoke his words, will recognize from the beginning that nothing outside of wine is granted to be a holy remembrance of suffering; nor will they suspect anything inconsistent. But the others, who want to keep the pope's opinion, need the figure that is called prothysteron in Greek, that is, when the last is put forward and the first behind, and they cry out to other evangelists for help, since there is no need for it. Cause, the Holy Spirit (from which breath the evangelists wrote) has seen our great clumsiness and superstition, from which we lie exceedingly anxious for unfamiliar words, well before. And in order to rid us of this evil and to put an end to the unnecessary fantasizing about the body being in the bread and the blood in the wine, he does nothing but cry out.
81 Now see thou, seeing that the evangelists have described the time, the order, and the words of the supper in so excellent a matter, without any particular care: see thou be not too much wise, if thou puttest a burden of piety in things that ought not, lest thou fritter away love and the matter in itself. 5) For the remembrance and thanksgiving of the passion of Christ,
5) In the old edition: verzettest.
to which wine and bread with their matter serve, is the whole sum of this trade. 1) Here is no scruple, here is no knof, 2) and nothing heavy. How is it, then, that the simple-minded reader, who perhaps does not like to be instructed, is presented with a scripture from which he cannot judge himself? Why do we darken the Scriptures without cause? Why do we accuse the Holy Spirit as not having taught publicly enough? Why do we not send ourselves to the Scriptures? Gelt, the Scripture should serve our slow? What does it matter to us that we prefer to walk in darkness rather than in light? If we seek adornment in the Scriptures, why do we ponder such confused opinions?
From the night feast from Luce.
82) There are other things, too, which Marcus precedes and Lucas follows in the supper. For as Marcus speaks of the wine, that Christ, after they had already drunk from the cup, had said that he would henceforth drink no more of the fruit of the vine until he drank anew in the kingdom of God; Lucas tells the same before the thanksgiving of the bread of the paschal lamb and of the drink. At which place not only the old custom ended, but also there (as I said before) the Lord's going is cheerfully indicated. If other evangelists had also described it in this way, we might suspect that Christ wanted to teach with these words alone that the burden of the law was to be lifted up and carried away. 3) But what he meant by this is not clear. But what he meant by this is no less clear from the brevity of other evangelists than from their length. Again, what the other two evangelists say about the betrayals of Judah before the supper, Lucas describes after the supper; and with this change, that one puts it before, the other after, the remembrance and the going of the Lord is taught in a fine, simple and quite beautiful way, and besides this, the ornament of the speech does not lose so much, but still remains a beautiful speech. Other things that go before or after the supper will be left for this time, because it is clear from other gospels how much goes into it. We will only consider the words spoken about wine and bread. For as Matthew and Marcus say, "this is my body"; Lucas adds, "which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me."
1) Marginal gloss: Summa of this trade: do not forget love.
2) Knof button, knot.
3) d. i. taken.
Here the Holy Spirit teaches us fortunately what to think of the words of the supper. Above that, one should not do anything else in the supper, neither the Lord has commanded. Dear, what has the Lord commanded to be done in the supper? He commanded that we should take the bread and eat it, as the other two evangelists speak of it, in which we are commanded nothing more. I do not read that they tell us to take the body and eat it. I do not read that they say to us that the body will be in the bread. I do not read that Christ has given those, the priests, authority to make his body out of the bread, so that it begins to be the essential body. 4) No, I do not read any of these. I do read here in Luke that we are to have a remembrance of his body, which is set forth for a gloss and interpretation, so that that which is obscure in other evangelists may be revealed here. And this is the third thing the Lord has commanded us to do. Therefore, the two words "take, eat" should be interpreted as referring to the bread, but "have remembrance" as referring to the body.
The fact that Lucas speaks here: hoc facite, that does; since facere does not mean to sacrifice, as a Hanseatic Guly 5) who wants to try it out of the pagan Virgilio, 6) since the poet needs facere for sacrifice. He may not bring the sacrifice here with the same verse. Therefore, we interpret this again just as we did above, [that] the bread is the body, that is, we say it is a memorial sign and a figure of the body. In what way is it a figure? Just in the way that it should be a memorial that the body is offered for us. I put it on before, so that the figurative speech does not force us to speak that the figurative body, and not the true body, is given for us. No, we are sufficiently warned against this by the very public statement: "It does you good to remember me. How shall we do it in remembrance of Christ? Thus: His body was given up for us. You might also interpret the little word quod, in German "der", after the Hebrew manner, for "sofern", so that it would have the meaning: this is my body, insofar as it is given up. However, we have also spoken of this before; it is not necessary to imagine it so often.
84. it is clear enough that this figurative speech
4) Marginal gloss: Yes, you read, Andreas Flamm, the learned man, wrote it.
5) Probably as much as "Hansnarr". - "sich gäuchen" - to imagine foolishness. Cf. § 98 of this paper.
6) Marginal gloss: Virgil, edos. 3 sv. 77.]: oum kaoiana vituw. (In the old edition: vineula)
Christ's "this is my body" holds more force, neither if he had spoken without figure: this is the figure of my body. Also this, when he says: "which is given for you," neither when it is interpreted without figure, that you would say: this is a figure of the body, which means that the body is to be given, or that it is given. When I hear that the body is to be given up or broken for us, as Paul speaks of it, I say, if the right natural mind does not approach, then that which is given up or broken for us is not bread, nor is it given up or broken for us in bread. But that it seems good to some that the two words "to give" and "to break" should be applied more to the bread than to the body is not appropriate. The reason is that the two little words "for you" attached to it do not make it good. For when you look at the distribution, as one distributes bread, we do not say: I give the bread for you; no, I say badly: I give you the bread. If something is given for the other, it indicates that something else should have been given, which is not given. Understand it thus: We should have been given to death, but that we might be free and live, Christ was given for us, in our stead, to the Jews from Judah, from the Jews to the governor, from the governor to the executioners. And all these things were done for us and for our sake. If someone gave me bread, and you said: He gives you bread; the speech does not rhyme, if you look at the common usage of speech; you must say, He gives you bread.
(85) Now, if ever I should interpret it according to your opinion, that the body is in the bread, what consolation is left me? What promise will refresh my heart? What change will this be, that the body of Jesus Christ, for that [that] he should be given into death for me, was hidden in the bread? Christ made me alive on the cross, not in the bread; so also the promise to make me alive is not on the bread. 1) O woe, no! by no means; otherwise what need would it have been that he had died? And for this reason it is evident who they are who teach another thing in the Scriptures, known neither to the biblical scribes, nor to the evangelists and apostles, together with the prophets. But that the two little words "to give" and "to break" also apply to bread pleases me well. Nonetheless, the other buried words force the reader to
1) Marginal gloss: Consider seriously what dishonor it is to have Christ in bread.
Words, namely, "which is given for you," that we first put them on the body, as far as it is given for us in death, and accordingly they may well be applied to the outward sign and sacrament, so that the sacrament may be understood the more fully, and taught the more intelligibly: That just as bread by its nature feeds, and is wrought from many grains together, and is broken and distributed in custom, so I also should learn and believe that faith, that is, the firm trust I have in the body given for me, feeds me, 2) and that love provides that I am united to the body of Christ, that is, to other believers in Christ, yes, also to the head, Christ himself. 3) Again, as I say by faith, Christ is broken for my love and for my use, killed, and divided in such a way that he is all ours, as much as we put our trust in him. Now look, the old custom of the lamb reminds us, why should not also the bread remind us?
(86) Nor is it necessary to stand in this way (4) over the word "break". We do not speak of the legs of Christ our Lamb being broken. Nay, we, seeing we also read in the Scriptures, that he was poured out like water; that he became dry as broken pieces; that he became soft as wax; that he was a worm, and not a man, Ps. 21 [22]: what then doth it grieve us, when we say that he is given up and broken, seeing that he hath given a sign, which is exceedingly fitting? That they ask me to indicate to them, when in other places the little word "body" is taken more for a figure of the body: that must grieve me lützel 5). Is it not enough that it is written here? An industrious man would find almost two hundred words (if he did not find eight), which are not written more than once in the Bible: how should one interpret them, because the Scriptures do not give them to be understood anywhere? For this reason, the evangelist Lucas takes great care not to be understood in a crude way. Even more apparently he teaches this also in the words of the drinking vessel, saying:
2) Marginal gloss: Do not be driven by it.
3) Marginal gloss: Love unites us to Christ and his members.
4) i.e. upside down.
5) lützel -less.
6) The text in the words of the parenthesis seems to be corrupted. The sense which is required here is: [So many hapaxlegomenal he found, he paid any attention to it. - Perhaps it is to be read: [So many Wortes fände er, achtete er icht [i.e. any] drob.
The drinking vessel, a new testament in my blood, which will be made for you.
He who would not be at ease with quarreling would soon learn from the Luke here, for he would be more unlearned, neither the German Michel, what the blood of the testament would be in Matthew, yes, what the trade would be with each other. And therefore, that we may interpret it here in no other way, neither for a memorial of the testament, so the little word "blood" will also be a memorial in other places of the true blood, by which the testament is confirmed, and the little word "body" of the body, which was given for us. For if 1) this interpretation exists in one place, then those who can hold spiritual against spiritual, 1 Cor. 2, will well accept by a counter-attitude what the other's opinion is, because they know well what Christ has given them. All men know that the drinking vessel is not a testament, but that it is a sign of the testament is clear. Is it true? Yes. Dear man, what is it that we are pressed with such a narrow mind, that we do not allow the bread of the body to be called a sign, when it is called a body, since it is all in one text?
What the Hebrews call berith, the Greeks diathikin, the Latins testamentum, we call in German a pact or a covenant. Now, this is the covenant between God and between men, that God is their God, and that they are his people. But there can be no covenant either between two, namely between the one who makes the covenant and the one with whom he makes it. But that God is in fact a true God, that is, that he is regarded as a gracious protector and sustainer, it will be necessary for him to remit and forgive sin, and to communicate the delightful knowledge of his name. 2) But that we may be His people, it will be necessary that we obey His voice and believe Him to be merciful. As far as God is concerned, it will not need sealing that he may be sure that we trust in him and bear an inclined will toward him. Why is that? Because nothing is hidden from His eyes, and He has no need of our works. But we, who are very much afraid because of our sins, are not satisfied with the simple promises, because of our unbelief, that he will be gracious to us and inclined to us; therefore we are frightened and are not satisfied whether God swears to us yet. Dero-
1) i.e. to go; "lead" put by us instead of: foro.
2) Marginal gloss: Do not forget love, so you remain in the covenant.
Therefore, our weakness must also be strengthened with an external sign; and so that this may happen most perfectly, the wickedness of our most miserable, unwholesome pressing 3) receives a sign to which nothing can be compared. And so, because God the Father has nothing better nor more precious than His Word, which is His only begotten Son, He willed that He should take on Himself mortal flesh and blood, which He was to shed on the cross. Whoever does not trust in this sign, Christ Jesus crucified, will certainly not be in the testament, that is, in the covenant; he will also never recognize God as a father, that is, as a merciful God. He will never be able to comfort his conscience; he will not know that his sins have been forgiven him. 4) From what? Of not knowing the Son, John 7, through whom is the way to the Father, John 10; who is also the way, the truth and the life, John 14. And this testament, this covenant and pact is completed and confirmed with the death of Christ, so that we may henceforth trust in God and confess Him in truth as a Father, who did not spare His own Son for our sakes, but gave Him up for us, Romans 8. 8 Whereby we also, now made spiritual, allow the law of love to be written by His Spirit, no longer in stones but in fleshly tablets, that is, into our hearts, Jer. 31. How blessed indeed is he who understands it! Now the sealing of this covenant is such an excellent and precious sealing that it could not be greater. Nor is there greater love, neither that a man should lay down his life for his friends, nor, as much as is in him, for his enemies, nor for sinners, John 15. Nor shall such a sealing ever be reopened again, for it would indicate that this covenant had not been sufficiently strengthened by the bitter death of Christ. The fact that the Word was to become man was a sure seal of the covenant and the testament. But from the blood of the dying man all sufficiency, that we no longer lack anything, has been given to us. Therefore, for this reason, we actually call the blood a testament, that is, a seal of the covenant, insofar as it makes the covenant complete and perfect. If the blood had already been in the cup, it could not have made the covenant, for there it would also have been shed by the godless Jews. 5) How then is it possible,
3) Presten - infirmity.
4) Marginal gloss: Whether he already goes to the sacrament a thousand times.
5) Marginal gloss: If there is blood in the chalice, it is New Testament blood. O blasphemy!
that the drinking vessel there is actually a testament, that is, a seal of the testament, since the blood itself, even that which should be in the cup (as you speak of it), is not actually the testament? Why is it not a blood of the testament? Because it is not shed there in the chalice according to the perfection required by the seal of the testament. How would a heart sprinkled with this holy blood sweat accept such a sense and understanding? Would such a one 1) not profane and trample underfoot the precious blood of the testament, if he alienated it from its glory, which it has at the cross? I ever mean it. Perhaps you confess, yes, you should confess, that the testament on the cross is perfect, and next to it you would say that the blood was in the chalice, with which blood the testament is sealed afterwards; so it will also be nothing. 2) Because the same blood does not make the heart of the drinker drunk, it is too weak to help the pressing of unbelief.
It may be that one quarreled, speaking: The memory of the following suffering and bloodshed makes the hearts drunk, and the blood is nevertheless present in the cup. So I say: Thank God that you now know the new testament, so that it is useful to you, and here is a remembrance of the testament. Why is it that you, not just out of freedom, forget that the blood, in that place, 3) of the blood is a memorial? Since it is good for you and tastes good, you accept figurative speeches; since it does not taste good for you, you do not want to hear them at all, that is the deficiency of all. One more thing: The blood most of all gladdens and delights the soul for the reason that it is remembered, not drunk. It has pleased Christ to give me his blood by the way, so that I might be helped much; and not by the way, so that I might be helped little; as if he had given it to me to drink from the cup, for I derive almost little benefit from it. A Christian heart rejoices and comes to satisfaction from the joyful, faithful remembrance of the shed blood on the cross; but from this it does not come to satisfaction that the wine has become blood. 4) O woe, no! Dear, what is the sacrament? Is it not sealing to me?
90. So I am talking about [the] thing. If one speaks of it in the reason, as it belongs, the
1) "not" is erased here by us because it is too much.
2) d. i. serve.
3) i.e. in the chalice.
4) Marginal gloss: Constantly remembering God does the trick.
The shed blood, the blood of Christ, is the right seal, and the body is the true sacrifice. Neither wine, nor bread, nor seal, nor sacrifice may actually be. But if you leave it out, that it is a figurative speech, and teach that they are a remembrance of the seal, then all the business is already done, and we are already one in the matter.
(91) We shall learn from the old testament that the things spoken of above are true. The old testament was carnal; therefore it was old, as the testament is a new testament, for it is spiritual. As the people are, so is the pact or testament. Now several of the same people were carnal, and yet were counted for and for among the people of God, because they kept only the laws and the given ceremonies. But God was their God and protector, they were also warmly his own people. The covenant was firm if they kept faith and did not turn to the idols honored by the pagans who knew nothing of God. For the one idolatry, or the one worship of idols and images, has been a cause of all their driving out, of all their bondage and dragging to and fro. 5) The other sins were otherwise punished in the land of Israel, so that the covenant remained untouched. Although the old law was also spiritual, because it gave a free spirit; but because it does not accomplish that which it requires, it is not worthy to be called a new law, but is legally called the old law, because it is carnal.
92) Furthermore, the fleshly covenant, and that which was only temporal, was also instituted with blood, namely with calf's blood, when it is described in Exodus 24, how Moses sprinkled the people together with the book with blood, he said: "This is the blood of the testament", or of the covenant, "which the Lord has made with you, over all these his words"; from which the Israelites were assured that they were of the people of God. The greater Jewish people also had other sacrifices, and although they did not clearly realize that they would be the perfect sacrifice (Christ) in the future, they were reminded by these sacrifices of how they were inscribed at Mount Sinai according to the given law for a people of God. The ashes of the red heifer, which they sacrificed when they worshipped the calf at Dan, served for this remembrance, Book 4, Mos 19, and they kept the same ashes in the water of desecration. Christ, however, reminds us of a greater good deed and covenant with a spiritual blood, with which blood not the blood of the Lord is sacrificed.
5) Marginal gloss: idolatry of great tribulation a well.
The only thing that is cleansed is that which is inside. Yes, even the external, because he came into the world to make the whole man whole. Now in the same way as the old covenant, which was once 1) established with the people and promised to Abraham, was not renewed. No, it was and always remained a covenant; for God was always God of the people, and always considered the people to be His people, until He eradicated the old with the new and a spiritual testament came in place of the old carnal testament. Nevertheless, they always showed their good deeds with carnal sacrifices and outward worship.
Therefore, the new covenant, which is called the New Testament, which is much, much higher, more and better, does not need to be renewed, as long as we do not forget it with diligent and spiritual sacrifices, that is, with thanksgiving, whether in praising God and proclaiming and magnifying His good deeds, or in serving our neighbor through works of love. 2) This covenant of ours is an everlasting covenant; it is and will be of use to all those from the beginning to the end of the world. Who then are instructed, how may you then consider them to be rippers of the Scriptures?
94 Some will perhaps interject and say with even more words: The New Testament was ever completed at the cross, yet it began to be ours in the supper, in that we accepted the word and the sign, which is just as much as the word, in faith.
95 Answer: If they are then renewed, and their cause becomes better, I may well grant them that, but the blood is ours; and at that time the testament began to be ours, as soon as we believed in Christ our piety, and his blood was shed for us, even outside the supper; as we clearly learn from the 6th chapter of John. It is, in short, faith and the inward hearing of the Word, which hearing comes from the Father who seals our hearts with the Holy Spirit; the same faith makes us a people of God, yes, a willing people who have a desire to be obedient. I leave it at that, that we then become more certain (in the night meal) of the testament through the Spirit, 3) by the help of the sacramental instrument; but should I therefore just speak, that the sacrament would be
1) einfart - simple. Compare § 130 of this paper, at the end.
2) Marginal gloss: The works must follow shortly.
3) Marginal gloss: Through the Spirit we become certain.
actually the will, and the wine would be blood? No, it reminds me well of the testament, and it is not itself the testament.
And so there is nowhere that would allow these words "this is my body" to be an essential speech and forbid figurative speech. For this reason, I would be carrying an entirely human, that is, a false interpretation, where I bring forth a different interpretation, neither of which I have reported.
Now it would be enough with what Lucas writes, if not first of all a clever one would have assumed that "shed" should not be applied to the blood, but to the wine, and thus, according to his opinion, a beautiful secret would remain behind it. He also assumes that if Christ had meant his blood to be shed, he would have spoken differently about the matter. Well, he does not note on the words "for you" that such simple speech has more force than if Christ had said by name: "For so the new testament is consecrated with my blood, when it is shed for you. The same good man also thinks that the words that are written in Matthew, "That is poured out for the remission of sins", belong to them badly, 4) and not to the text, and therefore it is not strange that he also 5) already seeks intrigues with the pouring out.
From the night meal from Paulo.
As Lucas was a companion of Paul, so he writes almost like Paul. At the beginning, Paul gives him credit for having taught the things he received from the Lord, namely, the custom of the evening meal, as it was kept by Christ and the apostles. At the outset, I warn against this on account of some who boast and boast in this way, as if Paul had indicated with these words that the priests had been given power to transform the body of Christ into bread with certain five words (with leave), whereas Paul only takes care that he prescribes the history of the supper, which rhymes well with his presumption; For he himself was not with Christ in the supper, but after he became a disciple, he received his teaching from the Lord, so that he might learn that Christ had left a memory behind him with the signs of his death, believing that he was extending a true love among his own. This mystery was explained by Paul before, 1 Cor. 10,
4) dennen - from then, out.
5) In the old edition: joch.
6) gäuchen - to fool.
saying, "For we many are One Bread and One Body, all partaking of One Bread." How so? Notice, Paul also indicates, "The bread," he says, "which we break, is it not a fellowship of the body of Christ?" As if he were saying, "Why do we break and eat the bread? Do we not do it to testify to the fellowship and love which the death of the body of Christ, which is commonly in our hearts, makes us?" which love is so great that it unites us all as members of one body. 1)
This secret of the night meal Paul learned from the Lord, which he also taught the Corinthians before; now he tells it to them again, so that he might give a strong tryak 2) to the remnants in which they were ill, and he tells it in this way:
The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he gave thanks, he broke it and said: Take, eat, this is the body of me which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, after the supper, he took the drinking vessel, saying: "The drinking vessel, a new testament in My blood, do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.
(100) That Paul remembers the night here with few words is because he reminded the Corinthians of the custom of the paschal lamb, and of the discourse of Christ, which he spoke before the supper, as he was betrayed, as Lucas says: "This is my body, which is given for you"; so Paul says: "This is my body, which is broken for you"; and they both say "for you," and not badly above: which is given to you. Which they would have done, if they had only wanted to indicate the giving of the bread, and not rather the remembrance of death - for the breaking of the bread is also a sign of death, just as the slaughter of the lamb was also a sign. Cause, how would we eat the bread if it were broken? But if the bread is broken, and thus divided in the breaking to eat, we learn from it that we are made alive. It is true that the bread is broken for us, but the body of Christ is broken for us and to us. Now if the body of Christ is in the bread, it would not have been broken for us, but only badly for us. Do not be offended by the word "broken", if there is not already a leg broken.
1) Marginal gloss: Liebe thut allessammen.
2) "Tryaks" - theriac, remedy.
For there are many forms of breaking, as when the soul is separated from the body, it is called and is a breaking; as Christ said other things more before the supper of his death, namely, "the grain would not bear fruit, it would die"; from which it need not follow that the body of Christ, like the grain, is rotten.
(101) Paul is very diligent to understand these things when he says, "Do these things in remembrance of Christ," for this is the commandment of Christ. In the same way he says of the drinking vessel, "Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." And lest anyone should take something inconsistent from the word "do this," he interprets it again, saying:
As often as you eat of the bread and drink of the drink, proclaim the death of the Lord.
We have enough glosses and comments 3) in these words of Paul. What does the Lord command us to do? Does he command us to eat his body in bread? No, he does not. Does he command us to drink blood in wine? No, he does not say so. What then? He commands us to eat of the bread and drink of the drink. What more? He calls us to have remembrance of his death. Nor do the two words "that is" have such force that we would understand that the essential body is in the bread and the essential blood in the wine. No. What did he mean by this? Nothing else, neither that we should not regard them as other bad food, which is not so well commanded to us by the Lord. They have some power, I confess, but it is not so great as to make wine and bread more honorable than all creatures. 4) No, they do not have the power. But is it not honor enough for them that they are assigned to the most sacred custom?
What should one do in Estonia? One should be mindful of the Lord, and this should not be done badly with a cold mind. For Paul interprets it this way: "Proclaim" he says, that is, often remember with sincerity, and proclaim that the body of the Lord has died and been broken for you. 5) Yes, proclaim
3) Comments - explanations. In the old edition: Comments.
4) Marginal gloss: If Christ's body and blood were there, bread and wine would be the highest creature.
5) Marginal gloss: O Christ, until earnest in the business of God.
but not in a dark corner, 1) that the pious brethren are excluded, that the rich are present, and the poor must be excluded. No, it is to be done publicly, for the Lord's supper does not separate the poor from the rich, the priest from the layman, the learned from the unlearned, the man from the woman; death is proclaimed to all men, and all believers become partakers of the righteousness and merit of Jesus Christ. This custom shall not only last for a few days; it shall remain until the end of the world, because the world will also remain until the future of the Lord. Therefore Paul says: "Until he comes"; and with these short words he indicates what other evangelists have presented with many and different words, namely, that Christ will no longer eat of the lamb, nor drink of the fruit of the vine, until he drinks it anew in the kingdom of the Father. Other evangelists describe the history of the supper when Christ was still present; Paul, however, looks at the proper custom of the supper that began to be celebrated and kept among Christians at that time. Nevertheless, they all deny, Paul and the evangelists alike, that he will not be bodily present or that he will not be present.
I cannot be surprised enough by those who say that the body is there in a new way, but has not yet come; that would be strange with the unpleasant angels; it would also be unbelievable that they would be in a place, and one would say, "In that place they are," and yet they would not be there, as they speak of the body, that it begins to be present, but has not yet come. He is in the bread (so they say), but neither glorious nor humble. 3) I cannot believe that the journeymen know what they are doing. 4)
105 Paul further drinks and lets the bread remain a bread for and for, saying:
And so whoever eats the bread and drinks of the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and the blood.
(106) Now if Paul were of your opinion, he should not be so stingy about words, nor so utterly indifferent 5) about things. He should have said freely: He who has the body
1) Marginal gloss: Publicly our praise shall be from God. 2) i.e. approximately.
3) Marginal gloss: This is the punishment of our art, so talk, and not know what.
4) aunts - talk trumpery.
5) i.e. indifferent.
who eats unworthily of our Lord Jesus Christ will be guilty of the Lord's death. Paul says: "The bread is the bread of the Lord"; 6) as he also calls the drinking vessel of the Lord the drinking vessel. How is it that he says it is the Lord's cup or drinking vessel? It is because the Lord Himself has appointed it as a memorial of His death. Dear, what is the cause of Paul's incurring such a heavy public penalty, namely, that he is guilty of the body, when the body is not in the bread? Do you ask? Yes. Oh, there is already a prepared answer, which is now well suited to your question. Remember, if anyone desecrates or defiles the king's image, he is punished as if he had defiled the majesty, as if he had offended the king himself. 7) The king's image is not to be desecrated. As one betrays himself, that he does not pay much attention to God, if he takes the name of God lightly in his mouth, without need; 8) and if one desecrates a holy place, 9) he sins against the Lord of the place itself; so it is here also. If someone is so unmoved by the memory of the Lord that he despises his sign, he is undoubtedly called a reprover of the absent body; here I mean the true natural body. By the truth, if one is such an ungrateful man that he persists in grudgery, malice and ingratitude, he is guilty of death; yet here he is given such a good opportunity of remembrance and gratitude. If the memory of death neither moves nor softens one, did Christ not die in vain? I hold it ever. If one does not consider that he has been redeemed with such an inestimable price, 1 Peter 2, and does not repent of his sins, what could make him more pious? Has our God had anything more delicious than His Son? Has the Son been able to do something greater, neither to take on sinful flesh like us, without sin, and to be killed innocently, like a sinner, for our sake? No, indeed. Since it is so, why would not one be guilty of blood and body, who does not keep the memory of such a high and precious thing?
Now, how is it that he is guilty of this? Does it come from the fact that he does not believe that
6) Marginal gloss: Des HErrn Brod, nicht Bäckerbrod.
7) d. i. Violence.
8) Marginal gloss: By the song [one knows] the bird.
9) vermaßget verletzt, verunreimgt.
10) "niener" occurs only here. Maybe "nienen" - nowhere.
the body in the bread and the blood in the wine? No, Paul does not say it. This is what he says: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. In what shall he prove himself, that he may not be guilty of the body, nor of the blood? In seeing that Christ did not die for him in vain. Who are they? They are all those who do not believe that they are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and that his death is our life, and his blood has washed away our sins. That is one thing.
The other thing is that he should also test himself in this, so that he may actually know whether Christ is feeding him. Why is this? Therefore, if Christ did not feed him, he falsely testified to being fed with the sign of the bread. Another indication is that the bread is not the body of Christ, because all those who are not fed with the heavenly bread and do not eat the flesh of Christ in faith, eat the external sacramental bread unworthily. So then, what does the sacramental meal add that faith did not give beforehand? Well, we will talk about it later.
A man must prove himself, then, whether faith "begins to work in him through love; 1) for if the greatness of such a high good deed clothes you with the new man, that is, that you love the brethren on account of Christ and everything that belongs to Christ, and are hostile to everything in which Christ is displeased, such as dishonesty, anger, pride, unfaithfulness, committing dishonest acts, and the like. For the Corinthians are punished because 2) they proclaimed the death of Christ, but just then, like the rest of them, they still did not improve on their old splendor, nor did they let it go, and they have not yet been converted to the new life, nor to brotherly love. What kind of a wrongly conceived contemplation of death is this? What hypocrisy is this, now in the rising blossom 3) of the Church? If the body that died for us does not come closer to our hearts, neither that we do not weep, nor that we are not moved to godliness, then we do not esteem it higher than a dead dog; and this is not to distinguish the body of the Lord. There are also some who interpret this saying "to discern the body of the Lord" in such a way that this little word "body" is much more than a sign of the body, because they do not discern it, and make no distinction between the holy and the common food.
1) Marginal gloss: The works must now follow.
2) Marginal gloss: Paul, a rough Moses.
3) "Blust" == Blüthe.
set. This interpretation of theirs is not the best, just as this one does not rhyme very well, that they point to the spiritual body, that [those] do not distinguish the body of the Lord, who do not fear God's community. However, our interpretation is the clearer one.
110 Now notice how often Paul says in his speech "to eat bread" and "to drink from the cup", so that no one will easily fall into another sense, because he is only miserably overtaken with insanities. For if there had been more, neither wine nor bread, the majesty of the matter would have required a more powerful and courageous speech.
Finally, he also points out the punishments of those who use the signs unworthily; a severe judgment, which also begins in this life through several severe bodily diseases, as can be seen. And so they understood the words of Paul:
For this cause many of you are weak and sick, and many sleep: for verily, if we had judged ourselves, we should not have been judged: but if we be judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
(112) I do not object to some being punished for disregarding the sacramental custom, which is most notable in that the body of the Lord is not distinguished. From this it follows that diseases first of all affect the heart, that they are truly weak when it comes to confessing the truth, and unfit for it; they become unskilled in overcoming the desires of the mind; they become discontented when it comes to helping the brethren; 4) they are children in understanding, women in strength, and please themselves, despising all other people; they are false. But where the memory of the death of Christ JEsu truly possesses the hearts, there nothing is hindered that can serve to improve the nature. Therefore it is no wonder that while the mind is sick, the body is also afflicted with God's judgments. 5) So then, I think, it also happened to the gout-ridden man, as we have it from the words of the Lord, who says to him, "Go, and sin no more," Luc. 5. But I am much more astonished at the damage to faith and good virtues than at the above-mentioned corporal punishment, which is always connected with it.
4) Marginal gloss: Abominable to the hypocrites.
5) Marginal gloss: Becoming powerless in faith and love is certain death.
1) where one goes unworthily to the table of the Lord. And therefore it is no wonder that no people are more wicked, more venal, 2) impure, proud and merciless, neither priests nor monks. Why? Precisely because they themselves so sacrilegiously undertake the sacramental rites and holy business. For this reason we want and should judge for ourselves whether we are truly fed with the bread of heaven. For if we lived our lives without hypocrisy, we would go less astray in darkness, and we would be more manly in freely confessing the truth. Yes, I say, we would lift up our heads not only in fears, but also in the future of the Lord with a free and joyful mind. For we would know that everything we suffer here will be shot for our good.
Vom wahren rechten geistlichen Esten, from the 6th chapter of John.
Long enough we have hemmed ourselves in the words (for you have willed it so) of the supper; consequently you will not unwillingly allow us that we also step to the sixth chapter of John, and there set him as a probationer of our coin.
Paul was led by opportunity to speak of the signs. John, however, does not think of external signs at all, indeed, he only does not touch them. If it had been such a counsel of God to honor the bread so highly, it would have been even more of a miracle that such an excellent man as John, who only had a desire for high heavenly things, should pass by the matter with such profound silence. Yes, truly! The faithful evangelist John has sufficiently admonished us of all this that serves our salvation. There are some scholars who become deaf from the moment they hear some things from John about the sacraments, because he wrote nothing in particular about the sacraments. How justly they do this, they see. Who would despise the school physicians, who write only about medicine, if they do not practice medicine themselves, and yet prescribe common rules on how to maintain health, how to attain it, and how to make medicine? Yes, who would not love them more, and diligently indulge in them, 3) since they are not the only ones.
1) So put by us instead of: "der dann abweg damit hetscht." "heischen""==follow. Cf. § 61. The meaning is: This harm always follows when one goes to the sacrament unworthily.
2) "more reasonable" probably as much as: forbidden.
3) to allow == to listen.
It is uncertain what illness would possibly trigger him, so that he would not need a running medicine, if it took the way that he would become ill? No one should shy away from Johannem, because he does not want to be taught; his writings are a good eye ointment for me, which are now very necessary for the supporting people, and serve well for the cause. Yes, if they are properly applied. Hardly may we recognize more cheerfully elsewhere who holds more rightly to the Sacrament. How so? So John teaches what the bread of the soul is; from whom it is served; how it is obtained and eaten. Do things not seem right to us? Do you think that it is taught in vain to teach how and in what form the flesh of Christ may or may not be eaten? Is it not good to know how far the flesh is useful or useless? The things look to me for it, one may well dissolve from the things the greatest heavy part. Cause, as soon as I understand that the meat is of no use, and that it cannot be eaten for itself.
(115) If I know that the heavenly Father alone gives me this bread, I can immediately judge what I should expect from men and from the supper. Therefore, let us also consider the things John says in chapter 6, to see if they might rhyme with our intentions. For indeed, we find in these two places, from which we may prove ourselves, whether we went to the sacrament worthily or unworthily.
In the sixth chapter we are instructed how faith or trust must be, so that we may go to the supper without danger. Other things like this are not omitted when he writes of the supper, but John does not speak of the outward signs, wine and bread. How is it? Thus it comes to pass that one should not be angry because of outward signs, for they are nowhere so great as they are made.
(117) As to the first, we are taught from the sixth chapter of John, which is the bread of souls. For indeed, a badly common bread would not do for those who suffer insatiable hunger and have sorely troubled consciences of sin. It must be only a delicious bread. Dear, what kind of bread is it? It is Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God Himself, through whom all things are created and remain in their essence. Without a doubt, it is he who can make us alive and feed us. For he says, "I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall not hunger." Again: "I am the living bread that comes from heaven.
he that eateth of the bread shall live for ever.
The other thing we learn for the nourishment of our souls from this sixth chapter of John is this: Whence hath Christ, or whence cometh he, that he is the bread of life? Did he get it from being a son of man? No, "from that he hath it, that the Father hath sealed him. Or is it because he has a flesh, as we have? No; but hence he hath it, that he came down from heaven. Would the flesh he received from Mary the virgin, his mother, have been useful? Alas, no; but therefore it was profitable that the living Father sent him, and that he should live for the Father's sake; "for the Spirit is he that quickeneth; the flesh is not profitable."
(119) We learn, thirdly, in what manner or form his flesh becomes to us, that we may eat it, and thus proceedeth: When he was like unto God, he esteemed it not robbery to be like unto God, but poured himself out, and took upon him the form of a servant, and became like unto men, and was found in manner and form like unto men. He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the gallows; because of this God exalted him and gave him a name above all names, Phil. 2. Christ indicates Paul's words above with the words: "For I am," he says, "come from heaven, not to do what I will, but what the Father wills who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but that I should be raised up at the last day.
120 Seeing then that he, being like God, poured himself out, that is, descended from heaven. Item, he did not do his will, but the will of the Father; and that is to be obedient unto death, wherein he hath given us life. And that he might make us alive with his death, he teaches thus: "Every one that seeth the Son (that is, every one that knoweth that the Son of God hath thus humbled himself unto death, and wrought divine power on earth), and believeth in him, the same shall have eternal life."
Immediately after this he says more clearly, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. This is just as much: my flesh will be bread for you, because I will voluntarily give it to death out of great love, so that I may make you alive.
122. so someone now reported sayings on the
sacramental bread, the same brings us a foreign sense of Scripture, as my Theophylactus also does, the Doctor Urban Rhieger, 1) a distinguished man, who is learned and quite eloquent, has sought 2) to attract. But in the matter of the Sacrament, the same Urban (with leave before him) is of a lesser mind than is proper. For even though the teacher Theophylactus in other places happily directed his teaching according to Chrysostom, in that place he was sorely lacking; for these are also Chrysostom's words, which he speaks of John's saying reported before, saying: "Christ calls Himself a bread of life from causes, that He may strengthen our present and future life." It is true, Chrysostom confesses, that Christ's speech refers to the Sacrament, but in a different way; for in the next 47th homily, after Nothdurft, he indicates what his opinion is, how one should understand his words when he speaks of the Sacrament, saying: "What is to be understood carnally? This is when one understands a thing simply as one speaks of it, and considers nothing else; one should not judge visible things in this way either. No, one should view the mysteries with the inward eyes, that is, spiritually." So much Chrysostom.
In other places Chrysostom admonishes this even more clearly, saying: "As soon as the inward eyes see the bread, they fly over the creatures, and do not think of the bread that the baker has baked, but they think of him who has made for himself a bread of life, who is then signified by the sacramental, or by the spiritual bread. I am also sorry, on account of the same Urbani, that he does not note it better, that it is not Athanasius whom he cites for this, but just the previous Theophylactus; although he is not to be despised, he is nevertheless in the business of the sacrament nothing careful, not at all. However, his words may not receive anything, because 4) they are of the kind that Chrysostom has in him, who likes to talk about signs rather than about the essential things that are signified by the signs.
You will also find that all the old teachers call the body and the blood the sacrament of the body and the blood; enough has been said about this in my previous booklet, so there is no need to repeat it here.
1) Urbanus Rhegius.
2) "jerked" perhaps: taken out.
3) "his revenge of the words" perhaps: his questions about the words.
4) "for" put by us instead of: the.
The book of the Lord's Supper, which went out under the name of Cyprian, has deceived many people, and all who know Cyprian a little better will give evidence of it. That it is a false and secretly patched up book is easy to assume: for the dissolute man who wrote the book says in the preface that he wants to keep his name secret; which Cyprianus would by no means have done; and therefore it appears that it was never 1) a monk. But the things that he accuses, along with other evidence gathered here and there in heaps, I myself have long since considered, and in the past accused some of them of the same. But now we are sure what the old teachers' opinion is. Well, this is therefore poorly resolved in passing. Let us return to the things that John says:
126. "The bread that I will give is my flesh." From this it is seen what is the use of Christ's flesh, and what is the unusefulness of it, and how far it is useful or not useful. But because it is the flesh of Christ, and is given for the life of the world, if it be believed, it truly feedeth; but if it be put into the mouth, or into the stomach, it profiteth the soul nothing at all.
The flesh of Peter, or the flesh of Moses, would have been of no use, God grant, if it had been eaten or sacrificed. But the flesh of Christ may (as Cyril rightly speaks of it) make alive; for the flesh is agreed to the word of God. Still so the presence of the flesh serves no purpose. The disciples who learned it did not like to understand such a flesh's worthiness, and therefore they were annoyed. For how would carnal men see glory in the cross, wisdom in foolishness, and life in death? The trouble became very great when the flesh was taken from the earth, when Christ received a name above all names for the great deep humility.
In that John saith, This offendeth you? how then, if ye see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? For the Spirit gives life, the flesh is of no use," thus he will speak: Then, forsooth, all vexation will cease from the true disciples, when they shall see divine power, from which Christ rose again, and ascended into the heavens, and so the flesh will no longer be present; for the fleshly presence was a hindrance to the disciples in the sending of the Holy Spirit, John 16. Yes, even then, forsooth, the truth will not be any the less present in all the world.
1) i. e. approximately.
Then it will undoubtedly be that Christ is a son of God, and those who believe the words that I speak into their hearts, they will be a spirit and a life. That is so much, the same my words will be a good tax for them to a spiritual life, that they are henceforth no longer minded after the flesh, and so in this way my flesh will be food for them (the believers), and my blood a drink. Not for the sake of any other food, but just for the sake of faith, which faith is not false or hypocritical, but a brave faith, so that the heart is born anew through it, and thus begins to fear and love God. After that, when it is so well fattened with faithful, diligent remembrance, that it also breaks forth into works and thanksgiving; and this is the eating of Christ's flesh only, for in the supper he did not give his flesh, but only bread to eat.
But if one said: One must or should eat the body, then it will be necessary that he put a figurative speech from the word "eat". But since, in short, there is no other food, neither reported above, it should not have been recognized that bread is the essential body. Note also this, that just as it is not a violent figurative speech to say, "My flesh is indeed meat," so it is not a forced figure to say, "This is my body. The reason is that in the two sayings the little word "is" is used only very subtly. [Those people who eat the flesh in faith, the essential thing, the true body and blood of Jesus, is not only shown to them by the outward sign, but it is shown to them by faith. How? That the body is essentially present? No. How then? So that it becomes ours, just as it was ours before. I will gladly confess that the body is present, yes, especially when the enjoyment it produces is given and present, namely, the knowledge of the Father's mercy, which knowledge is the only food of conscience. 3)
The fourth thing we learn from the sixth chapter of John is what enjoyment or use this spiritual food has. Yes, what is its use? The spiritual food remains and makes us remain until eternal life. That he may have it, saith Christ, Whosoever cometh to me shall never hunger; and whosoever believeth in me shall never thirst. He further says, "Him that cometh to me, I will not
2) d. i. such.
3) Marginal gloss: Hear, O Christ! Hear.
throw out." Item: "He that eateth of the bread shall live for ever." And, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day: he that eateth me shall live because of me." Further, "[Those] who ate the manna died, but whoever eats this bread [will] live forever." These first told tidings are also a cause that we do not let it happen just so above, that one makes the body into the bread, or out of the bread. For, by the truth, the words can be taken for revealed words, and promise without proverb 1) life to all who eat and drink in this way. 2) And if any man but eat or drink of it, 3) he shall have in himself the fountain of life; and he shall have no more need of it, neither to eat, nor to drink.
Item 131: If your opinion existed, there must be two ways to salvation. One way would be to believe that the body that should make us alive is in the bread. The other way would be this: that faith, that is, the good firm trust in Jesus Christ crucified, made us blessed. From this it follows that one who wanted to be saved would have to derive as much benefit from the supper as he derives from the cross. Now, how can or how should a man prove himself, if he hopes for remission of his sins from the supper, since he has not obtained such remission beforehand by faith in the death of Christ? If the body of Christ can be eaten and the blood drunk in the way you speak of, there is a worry that malediction will come upon all those who do not drink wine or who are ill, and that their consciences will suffer evil. For as soon as they hear, when the sacraments are administered, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you." Who now would be well pleased with the fencing, if he ever had clear words here. However, one should be glad that these words of John do not serve for the supper, although, if the opinion of the dead body existed, I could not see it, as this whole 6th chapter does not belong to the sacrament. For that is ever so, Christ will not work such excellent miraculous signs without a particularly great cause, understand that his body is in the bread, and one body in many places, and as many altars as many bodies. No, indeed!
132. fifth. Who gives this bread, and
1) "Pronoun" probably as much as "circumlocution".
2) Marginal gloss: May all devils not overthrow this. 3) i.e. serious.
From whom shall it be desired? From the Father who is in heaven. For thus saith the Lord, I have told you, ye have seen me, and have not believed. All that my Father gives me comes to me." Item: "Moses did not give this bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven, and no one may come to me, but the Father draws him. It is written in the Prophets: They are all taught by God. Therefore every one that hath heard and learned of the Father, let him come unto me." Christ pollinates his speech, saying: "No one may come to me unless it is given him by the Father."
Will all people have this bread? No, no. Who then? Only those who have longed for it, and those who are drawn by the Father. Therefore, no one will have this bread with his own strength, nor with the experience of many scriptures.
134) Sixth, we learn how and when we received this bread. For thus we receive the bread, if we work a meat that fadeth not away, and if we follow neither the world, nor the things that are in the world, but custom, 4) honor, riches, yea, I say, even ceremonies, and all that is under and less than Christ. Yea, then first of all we receive this bread, and work an incorruptible meat, if we seek JEsum Christum, the Son of Gattes, who showeth divine deeds, with great desires, and if we esteem all things as filth, as Paul did, that we may win Christum.
(135) And when they asked, What is to be done? "This," said Christ, "is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent: and verily I say unto you, He that believeth in me hath everlasting life. Well then, if we seek the flesh of Christ in bread, do we not receive it from the hands of man, whose only gift we should expect from the hands of the one Father? Moreover, if Christ will be in a wheat loaf, he will start to be ours in another way, neither in eating by faith. But this is not so. For Christ is not eaten in any other way, nor can he be eaten in faith alone.
136. seventh, we learn from examples who have eaten the flesh of Christ or not. Peter has eaten the flesh of Christ and drunk his blood, therefore he says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we believe and confess that you are the Son of the living God." How well the flesh of Christ tasted to Petro, and how useful it was to him.
4) Maybe: "Belly"?
No one can know how much it pleased him, since he himself was enlightened by the Father. But Judas, who is a model of all hypocrites, was the one who did not eat the flesh among the disciples, but he was the devil, and remained so; and he was also, without doubt, an instrument of wrath, and one who would betray his Master, whom, after so many great deeds of miracles, he thought only bad for a man, like another. We see it even today in the descendants of Judea, how far they depart from Christ, in whom there is only one great faith. So much from the sixth chapter of John, from which we are told who they are that eat the flesh of Christ, and in what manner and ways it may be eaten. Therefore, there is more than one thing that denies 1) that the Lord Christ used and spoke a figurative speech in the supper.
137 I also added the things that Christ, as John writes, said in the supper about his departure and about the desolation of Judea. Item, how many obstacles his bodily presence brought to the future of the comforting spirit. Item, of the one commandment of Christians, that is, of love. Of humility, of the patience we should have in adversity, as Christ our Master did before. But these things do not do much to explain who they are that have brought the true natural sense into the Scriptures, above that which is now reported. Therefore I leave it.
138) But this I must still answer some who say: If then the true believers find salvation through the one faith and eat Christ in the one faith, never thirst, and live forever, even if they then 2) never come to the evening meal; what need is there of the custom? I would have said to them that this custom should be ordered for this very reason, because the blessed have a desire to proclaim their blessedness to other people, and to thank the Benefactor, and to draw all people, as much as they can, to the glory of God, which is done in any case in the proclamation of the Word and in the exhortations. Nevertheless, human frailty is also somewhat diminished, in that Christ has instituted outward signs, with which such would be spread and praised, as with a sincere 3) welcome, so also otherwise with
1) disputes == disputes.
2) Perhaps it should be read: "dannethin" i.e. fernerhin.
3) i.e. about one, any one.
writings and words. One would also be poorly united without external signs in one and the same service of God. One should also keep such external signs instituted by Christ with all honor in all purity, truth and love. If we love Jesus, who died for us, we should also love our brothers, who are members of the body, and help them as appropriate. For this purpose the supper custom serves not only a little, but also Jesus Christ will dwell in us much more blessedly, neither in bread. Who Jesus Christ is for eternity given. Amen.
Now, my Billican, as you have heard, so my heart understands the words of the supper. I trust God, it understands them Christianly and blamelessly. But after you let the light come to you, you will see that all things are much clearer and smoother than you would have thought. That you want to excuse my Tertullianum, he was of a short memory, I say so:
Tertullianus does not accept this excuse of Heine, because it is obvious that he was not such a forgetful man that he forgot the highly famous words of the supper; he also does not speak in the person of Marcioni, because the whole text there screams against it. And therefore it seems good that you had more to do, neither that you consider all things. However, I would like you not to consider his words, which he introduces against the Marcionian heretics, as a small, unremarkable argument, since he says: "The truth of the body is signified by the signs"; for you will find the same in Chrysostom and Jerome. His speech is also suitable for the same time, in which not a few Manichaeans were present.
141) What hinders you, so Tertullianus writes to the housewives at the second book, saying: "The man should not know what you eat secretly before the food, and if he would know it, he does not believe that bread is that one speaks that it is. What is it that penetrates you here? How would a pagan pig distinguish between the holy and the unholy? How would a pig judge from the stones of the earth? How would he call the bread a holy corpse, who bravely denies that Christ rose from the dead? Do you think he would believe that the bath of regeneration is what it is called? Tit. 3. I do not mean it."
How often do teachers, when they speak of the sacraments, exhort the consecrated, that is, the faithful, to know what is being said? You should
For this is not Tertullian's opinion, that he understood the figure of the supper in such a way that he thereby raised the truth, that is, the true body. No. Beyond that, the name figure also does not enforce such. For if the name figure enforced such a thing, you would also have to say that Christ was only a ghost; for we read of Christ in Phil. 3 that he was invented in figure or form, like a man. Everything that shows the likeness of a thing, we call a figure, which one might also call a sign or a sacrament.
143) The rest of the things we have just said before; therefore, even if Tertullianus insists on his opinion, Christ will no less be our brother, who has put on our true flesh to make us alive.
Further, that you like my Swabian booklet, I truly do not know whether you have read it with open and alert eyes or not. Truly, lest I be a superior judge, methinks they have badly failed in that they want to be seen as having forgotten neither discipline nor love in their writing; cause, which write for unity's sake, they arrange their writings differently, neither they have done.
I ask God to forgive them and to do them good. Oh that God would want it to be my business alone, how I would gladly swallow even more evil words, and not say a little word about it. But it is the business of truth, which it is not proper to neglect. I have answered them as much as the Lord has given me. Those who read and examine your writing and my answer against each other will perhaps find out whether you or I have dealt with these matters more honestly.
Finally, by entrusting me to the prayers of good friends, you are doing me a special service; you cannot serve me any better. My request to you is that you also pray to God for me always, so that I will not forget you. May Christ grant that we may long help one another with prayer and exhortation, for the benefit of the Christian community and for the glory of His name. Farewell.
Here are two sermons, containing that one should not separate brotherly love because of the Lord's Supper. Also on the worthiness of the sacrament, with brief rejections of many objections of the opponents, preached by John Ecolampadium of Basel, pastor of St. Martin's there.
O God, save the prisoners!