About April 1527.
(1) How true the proverb is that it is said: The devil is a thousandfold. Which he proves mightily in all other things, so that he rules his world, as in bodily outward lusts, deceits, sins, mischievousness, murders, destruction, etc., but he proves it especially and beyond measure in spiritual, inward things, which concern God's honor and the conscience. How can he turn, drag, steer and turn on all sides, and at all ends block himself and put himself in the way, so that no one should be saved and remain with the Christian truth!
Let us take the history of the Christians (the old fathers and the Jews will remain silent) as an example. In the beginning of the
Since the first Gospel, when the Word of God was preached by the apostles in a pure and clear way, and no commandments of men were presented, but only holy Scripture, it was as if there should never be any need, because the holy Scripture would be the empress among Christians. But what could the devil not do? In the end he allowed only the Scriptures to be valid, 1) and no Pharisaic, Jewish commandment or value law should be valid any longer, and he also had some of his own in the Christian schools,' through which he secretly crept and crawled into the fierce Scriptures.
003 And when he was come in, and was sure of the things, he brake out, and went forth unto
1) In the old editions: gölte.
*) This writing appeared in 1527 (first probably in April, because on March 21 Luther wrote to Clemens Ursinus: "Auch ich mache jetzt ein deutsches Buch wider sie (Zwingli und Oecolampads fertig ssksolvos) in several individual editions (the Erlangen edition lists their five), of which two with Melchior Lottber in Wittenberg, one with Friedrich Peipus in Nuremberg, one at Wittenberg without indication of the printer and one with Gabriel Kantz without indication of the place. In the collections: in the Wittenberg (1551), vol. II, p. 119k; in the Jena (1556), vol. Ill, p. 375; in the Altenburg, vol. Ill, p. 691; in the Leipzig, vol. XIX, p. 388 and in the Erlangen, vol. 30, p. 14. Matthäus Judex, professor in Jena, translated this script into Latin. This translation first appeared at Nuremberg in 1556 and was incorporated into the Latin Wittenberg edition, Dona. VII (1558), toi. 379k. We reproduce the text according to the Erlangen edition, which printed the text of the first-mentioned original edition, comparing the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
He made such a mess of the Scriptures, and created many sects, heresies and sects among the Christians. And because every sect took the Scriptures for itself and interpreted them according to its meaning, the Scriptures began to be worthless and were finally called a book of heresy, because all heresies make use of the Scriptures. Thus the devil was able to drain the Christians of their weapons, their defenses, and their fortress (that is, the Scriptures), so that they not only became weak and ineffective against him, but also had to fight against the Christians themselves, and made them so suspicious of the Christians as if they were poison against which they should defend themselves. Tell me, was this not a trick of the devil?
When the Scriptures had become such a torn net that no one could be held with it, but every man bored a hole in it where his snout was, and followed his own mind, interpreting and turning it as he pleased, the Christians knew how to do things no differently than to make many concilia, in which they made many outward commandments and orders beside the Scriptures, to keep the multitude together, against such divisions. From this presumption (even though they meant well) flowed that it was said that the Scriptures were not enough, that one should also have the Conciliation and the Fathers' commandment and interpretation, that the Holy Spirit had not revealed everything to the apostles, but had saved some things for the Fathers, until in the end the papacy came out of it, in which nothing is valid but the commandment and glosses of men according to the shrine of the Holy Father's heart.
When the devil saw this, he sneered and thought: Now won! the writing lies, the castle is destroyed, the weapons are down, for this they now weave stout walls, and make weapons of hay, that is, they now want to set themselves against me with human commandments; there, there it is serious! What shall I do? I will not fight against them, but I will help them to build with confidence, so that they may be fine, and gather straw and hay enough. It serves me well that they do not quarrel in the Scriptures, and walk idly on the word, but are content with the same piece.
stand, and believe what Concilia and Fathers say.
(6) In such peace and unity, I will cause other disputes and quarrels, so that popes will strive against emperors and kings, bishops against princes and lords, scholars against scholars, clergy against clergy, and always one against the other, for the sake of temporal honor, good and pleasure, but the unity of faith in the holy fathers will remain intact. The fools, what do they want to do with bickering in the Scriptures and God's things, which they do not understand? It is better that they quarrel about honor, kingdoms, princedoms, goods, pleasures and the thirst of the flesh, which they understand, yet remain devout Christians in unity in the faith of the Fathers, 1) that is, in loose faith.
(7) Thus was the counsel of the fathers: when they thought to have the Scriptures without strife and discord, they were caused thereby, that they came wholly from the Scriptures into pure man's hand. There had to stop discord and strife in the Scriptures, which is a divine strife, that is, since God is at odds with the devil, as St. Paul says Eph. 6, 12: "We do not have to fight with flesh and blood, but with the spiritual wickedness in the air" etc. But for this, human discord for honor and good on earth has broken down, and yet united blindness and ignorance of the Scriptures remained, with loss of the right Christian faith, that is, unanimous obedience of the Fathers and the Holy See at Rome. Is this not also a piece of devilish art? How one starts it, he is a master and squire in the game.
(8) Now in our day, when we saw that the Scriptures were under the bank, and that the devil held us captive and deceived us with the straw and hay of human commandments, we also, by the grace of God, sought counsel in the matter, and indeed with great sour labor brought forth the Scriptures again, and gave leave to the commandments of men, and set ourselves free, and escaped from the devil, though he honestly resisted and still resists; but
1) In the old editions a play on words: "glosen Glauben" - "loose faith".
But because he has to let us go, he still does not forget his art, has also secretly mixed his seed among us, who should grasp our doctrine and words, not that they should assist us and help to drive the Scriptures, but because we fight against humanity in front, they invaded our army behind us, caused turmoil and raged against us, so that we perished the easier between two enemies. That is (I mean) mercury thrown into the pond.
(9) But he will not leave it at that, but begins with the least, with the sacraments; although in the same piece he has already torn the Scripture into ten holes and evasions, that I have never read more shameful heresy, which in the beginning has among itself so many heads, so many factions and disagreements, although they are united in the main matter of persecuting Christ. But he will continue and attack more articles, as he already sparkles with the eyes that baptism, original sin, Christ is nothing 1). Then again there will be a jumble in the Scriptures and such discord, so many groups, that we may well say with St. Paul: "The mystery of wickedness is already stirring", just as he also saw that after him many more groups would come. And where the world should stand longer, one will again, as the ancients have done, for the sake of such 2) discord, also seek human suggestions, and again make laws and commandments, which will unite people in the faith. This will then also succeed, as it succeeded before.
(10) In sum, the devil is too clever and too powerful for us; he blocks and hinders everywhere. If we want to enter the Scriptures, he creates so much discord and strife in them that we grow weary of the Scriptures and stupid to trust them, and must lie at loggerheads with him and wrestle with him. If we want to rely on human concilia and advice, we lose the Scriptures altogether and remain the devil's own with our skin on.
1) Thus the Wittenberg and the Jena editions. The old edition of Walch and the Erlangen edition: "not". Also Zwingli (in the writing No. 83 in this volume, § 10) has read "nothing".
2) In the Wittenberg and Jena: "such". In the old edition of Walch and Erlangen: "such".
and hair. He is Satan and is called Satan, that is, an adversary; he must resist and cause misfortune, otherwise he cannot do it. For this he is a prince and god of the world, that he has power enough and can do it. Because he can and will do it, it is not to be thought that we may have peace before him; he neither feasts nor sleeps. So choose whether you would rather fight with the devil or be his own. If thou wilt be his own, then thou shalt have his company, that he may leave thee well satisfied with the scripture. If you do not want to be his own, fight him, grab his hair, he will not miss you; he will cause discord and riots in the Scriptures so that you will not know where Scripture, faith, Christ and yourself remain.
11. Alas, alas, alas to all our teachers and scribes, who are so sure of themselves and spit out everything that falls into their mouths, and do not first look at a thought ten times to see if it is right before God; who think that the devil is now in Babylon, or sleeps next to them like a dog on a cushion, and do not think that he is around them with poisonous fiery arrows that he shoots, which are the most beautiful thoughts, adorned with scripture, so that they cannot notice it. But no admonition, no warning, no warning helps here, the devil is a thousand artists; where God does not defend and help, our actions and advice are nothing; turn it back and forth, and he is the ruler of the world. He who does not know, let him try; I have learned something of it, but no one will believe me until he also learns it.
(12) It is the same devil who now attacks us through the devils with blasphemy of the holy and reverend Sacrament of our Lord Jesus Christ, from which they want to make vain bread and wine the sign or emblem of the Christians, as they dream and like; and the body and blood of the Lord shall not be there, as yet the thin and bright words stand there and say: "Effet, das ist mein Leib" ("Effet, this is my body"), which words still stand there, firm and un[b]iffened by them. I have indeed against the Carlstadt the things with diligence acted, and so that who would not have desire to err, should
I think I can make do with it against such a devilish specter. But my dear enthusiasts despise me so magnificently that they do not consider me worthy to answer with diligence; it is enough for them that they look at the book and turn up their noses at it, and say: There is no spirit there. What does it help that I write a lot? They despise it, and if they only chatter a little on it and don't really touch an argument, then they call it answered, and only put their things on a lot of book writing and paper clicking.
13 And this is also one of the causes that I have hitherto refrained from writing further against them, because I have sensed such arrogance and contempt under their highly famous humility. The other, that their rapture is a loud loose talk, that I wonder how such fine learned people might be caught with it. And they also act with such a stupid, despondent conscience that I think they want the beer to be back in the barrel. And if they hadn't started it, I think they should leave it in the queue.
I see nothing else in the matter, but God's wrath, which leaves the devil the bridle to cause such gross foolishness and tangible darkness, to punish our shameful ingratitude, which we have so miserably despised and worthless the holy gospel, so that, as St. Paul says, we believe the wrong, because we have not accepted the love of the truth. There is also nothing lacking in this enthusiasm, except that it is new; for we Germans are such fellows: what is new, we fall on it and hang on to it like fools, and whoever resists us only makes us madder about it; but if no one resists, we soon get tired of it ourselves and gape at it for another new thing. Thus the devil has the advantage that no doctrine nor dream can arise so clumsily; he finds disciples for it, and the more clumsy, the sooner.
15 But God's word alone endures forever; error always rises and falls beside it. For this reason, I am not worried that this fanaticism will stand for long; it is too coarse and insolent, and does not fight against arrogance or uncertain Scripture, but
against the light and dry Scriptures, as we shall hear. But now I will set myself against the devil and his enthusiasts, not for their sake, but for the sake of the weak and simple. For I have no hope that the teachers of a heresy or a fancy will be converted; indeed, where that would be possible, so much has already been written that they would be converted. It has never been heard that he who has invented false doctrine has been converted; for such sin is too great, because it blasphemes God's word and sins against the Holy Spirit; therefore God makes them obdurate, so that it goes according to the saying of Isaiah 6:10: 1) "With seeing eyes you shall not see, and with hearing ears you shall not hear. For this people's heart is hardened."
16 Christ did not convert a high priest, but their disciples were converted, as Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul and the like. The prophets of old did not convert a false prophet. Paul also could not convert a false apostle, but gave the teaching: "if one is admonished two or three times, he should be shunned and let go, as a perverse one". Thus the holy doctors have never converted any heretics; not because all of them had not sufficiently denied and convinced all of that error with the truth, but because their hearts were possessed with their own conceit, and they were as 2) he who sees through a painted glass: You put before it what color you want, and it sees no other color than its glass has. But it is not lacking that one does not put the right color before him; it is lacking that his glass is colored differently, as the same saying of Isaiah Cap. 6, 9. f. also gives 3): "You will see it (he says), and yet you will not see it." What else is this said, but: It will come before your eyes enough and well that you will see it, and others will also see it; but you will not see it? This is
1) Here the Erlanger has reprinted from Walch's old edition: Is. 6, 9. On the whole, Walch has fourteen wrong Bible quotations in this writing, which the Erlanger edition has included all of them.
2) "it" is missing in the Erlanger.
3) Wittenberg: doch. Latin: etiam.
the reason (John 12:40) that such people cannot be converted: the truth presented does not do it; God must take away the painted glass, but we cannot do that.
(17) Even if I do not convert a master blasphemer, I shall not fail (if God wills) to place the truth brightly enough and dryly enough before their eyes, and to tear down some of their disciples, or to strengthen the simple and weak, and to protect them from their poison. Even if this is not possible (since God is in favor), I hereby testify and confess before God and all the world that I do not hold with these blasphemers of the sacraments 1) and enthusiasts, nor have I ever held, nor do I ever want to hold (whether God wills it,2) ) and I will have washed my hands of all the blood of the souls who 3) steal, seduce and murder them with such poison from Christ. For I am innocent of it, and have done what is mine. For my sake, I may not write against them, but their own writing is my strength. When I read them, they make me strong and full of joy, because I see that the devil rages against God's word with such earnestness, and yet God does not allow him to do more than slander lame, stale, rotten things, so that I must speak: You would like to, but you cannot. So now, again, to despise the devil, I will take no more than Christ's one saying before me: "This is my body," and see what the devotees have broken off from him so far. Mostly because they are slippery and inoffensive, twisting and turning in a thousand directions, whether I would ask them in God's name to stand on the one saying and answer me correctly. I will save the other sayings for another time.
(18) And I have asked them kindly not to be angry with me for condemning their doctrine and ascribing it to the devil; I cannot do it or call it anything else than what I believe in my heart. Because they call us the
1) Erlanger: Sacramentslästern. Latin: Sacramentariis.
2) "Whether God wills" is missing in the Erlanger, but is in the Latin.
3) "die" is in the Wittenberg and Jena editions, but is missing in the Erlangen edition.
If they think that they are unbelievers and that the spirit of God has left them, they should be patient according to their spirit and their glory, and prove by deed the patience of which they click so many books full. For there is no end nor measure of praise in their writing, how holy martyrs they are, how much they suffer, how temperate and patient they are, how they seek glory in Christ alone. And yet they always cry out and complain with them, how they revile the servants of Christ, and thus give offence to the common people, and desire that they should be badly praised, and say: Vain spirit, vain spirit you are; vain truth, vain truth you teach; then they would be patient.
19. Because we godless unbelievers and impatient ones must suffer from such holy, moderate teachers that they blaspheme us idolatrously, and call our God the baked God, the gluttonous and boozy God, the brooding God, the weeping God, and us the denied Christians and the like, such thoroughly poisonous, devilish disgrace and blasphemy that is beyond measure; For one would rather be scolded full of devils than to have a baked God, and yet we must not be patiently or moderately praised above such suffering. Our servants of Christ are not reviled with it, and our people are not given any trouble with it; it must be called vain praise and correction, pleasure and joy, as they revile us.
020 But if they be but looked on crookedly, or not fallen to: o that is Christ's glory hindered, Christ's servants profaned, the whole world vexed; there is suffering, there is patience, there are all the martyrs' crowns in one heap. And where they are not publicly scolded, they martyred about a word, about written, and picked out a complaint about their suffering, as one breaks a thing from a fence; as Oecolampad does against the Pirkheimer at Nuremberg, that they may boast of their patience, that one may not speak to them. They make a howling and complaining out of it, without doubt before great patience and holiness.
(21) Because (I say) we unbelievers and impatient Gentiles must suffer such abominable blasphemy and shameful reproach from them, it is right that they should suffer something in turn,
772 Srl. so, LÜ-S7. 20. l.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. XX, 961-961." 773
than the holy Christians, even though they do not want to suffer as much as we do. For they have to consider that our conscience and faith is as serious about God's word as theirs can be about their faith, because we also wanted to be saved and come to God, and we also hope that we have done as much as they have, and before them. Thus says St. Paul: "We do not fight with flesh and blood" etc., Eph. 6, 12. Therefore I do not look almost at them, but at the one who speaks through them, the devil I mean, just as they also consider me full of devils. But we would gladly be the Kerich and Shabab 1) that they may reign; only that we may be free to confess our faith, and to shun and condemn that which is not of our faith. Now let us get down to business.
22 First of all, when they write and make books and exhort that Christian unity, love and peace should not be torn apart for the sake of these things, for it is a small thing (they say) and a small quarrel, for which Christian love should not be hindered, they reproach us for being so stiff and hard about it, and for making disagreements. Behold, dear man, what is there to saw? We are like the sheep that went with the wolf to the watering place. The wolf stepped above, the sheep stepped below into the water. Then the wolf scolded the sheep for making the water murky. The sheep said, "How can I make it cloudy for you? You are above me, and you make it cloudy for me. In short, the sheep had to be used, it must have made the water murky for the wolf. So my enthusiasts also, they have lit the fire, as they themselves gloriously boast, as a blessing, and now they want to shift the blame of the disagreement from themselves to us. Who called D. Carlstadt? Who called Zwingel and Oecolampad to write? Did they not do it themselves? We would have liked to have peace and still do; but they would not admit it: now the blame is ours; that is right.
23. but I would still like, if such enthusiasts do not want to fear God.
1) Shabab - the scraped off, the waste, sweepings.
They say that one should have peace, and they themselves do not stop increasing such discord, as everyone sees and hears. They say that one should have peace, and do not stop themselves to increase such discord, as everyone sees and hears, is also their joy, the further it goes. They say that it is a small matter, and yet there is not a single piece that they so nearly drive, worry about and stop; the other pieces all lie still. Here they become martyrs and saints; whoever does not rave here is no Christian, and can do nothing in the Scriptures nor in the Spirit, so excellent is the great art who can say bread and wine; in the art the Holy Spirit alone now works. In truth, however, it is nothing else than that our wretched devil mocks by it; as if he should say: I will cause all unhappiness and disunity by deed, and then wipe his mouth and say with words: I seek and desire love and unity; as the Psalter also says: "They speak of peace with 3) their neighbor, but they have evil in their hearts", Ps. 28, 3.
(24) Now then, because they are so wicked, and mock all the world, I will add a Lutheran warning, and say thus: Cursed be such love and unity in the abyss of hell, because such unity not only miserably divides Christendom, but also, after the devil's manner, mocks and teases it to such its misery. Now, I will not interpret it so badly that they do it out of malice, but are thus blinded by Satan, and perhaps make such a conscience among themselves that bites them, namely, "We have truly caused great trouble and set fire to it, so let us now paste and cover it up with words, and pretend to find happiness, it is not a big thing. And even if we lost the matter, we would have prevented ourselves from losing great things, and we would have put in a little disgrace, and, as they say of singers, when they are missing, they have only made a piglet.
No, not to me, dear sirs, of peace and love. If I strangle a man's father and mother, wife and child,
2) "one" is missing in the Erlanger.
3) Erlanger: under.
And I would choke him, and then say, "Peace, dear friend, let us love one another; the matter is not so great that we should disagree about it; what should he say to me? Oh, how he should love me! So, the fervent ones strangle Christ, my Lord, and God the Father in his words, as well as my mother, Christianity, and my brothers, and want to have me dead, too, and then they say: I should have peace, they want to cultivate love with me. But I want to expose the fools here, so that everyone can see what kind of spirit is in them, 1) so that those who follow them will know whom they believe and follow.
(26) This is a public thing in the day, that we are in dispute about the words of Christ concerning the Lord's Supper, and it is known by both parts that they are the words of Christ or of God. This is one. So we say on our part that, according to the words, Christ's true body and blood are there, when he says: "Take, eat, this is my body" etc. We believe and teach in the unrighteous; counsel, what do we do? We lie to God, and preach "that which he hath not spoken, but hath spoken the contrary," we are surely blasphemers and liars against the Holy Spirit, betrayers of Christ, and murderers and deceivers of the world.
(27) Our testimony says, "That there is bread and wine, not the body and blood of the Lord. If they believe and teach therein unrighteously, they blaspheme God, and reproach the Holy Ghost, and betray Christ, and deceive the world. One part must be the devil's enemy and God's enemy; there is no remedy. Now let every devout Christian see whether this thing is small, as they say, or whether God's word is to be joked with. There you have the enthusiasts and their spirit, as I have often said that no godless person can esteem God's word great. This is what these fanatics honestly prove, how they consider the words and works of Christ to be nothing but human gossip, like the school bullies are conceited, which should give way to love and unity. But a devout Christian holds and knows that God's word concerns God's glory, Spirit, Christ, grace, eternal life, death, sin, and all
1) Thus the Wittenberg. Jenaer and Erlanger: stickt.
Things. But these are not small things. Behold, this is how they seek God's glory, as they boast everywhere.
28 It does not help them to say that they have always thought much and greatly of God's words and the whole Gospel, but only in this piece. Dear, God's Word is God's Word, that must not be much of a problem. Whoever blasphemes and blasphemes God in one word, or says that it is a small thing that he is blasphemed and blasphemed, blasphemes the whole of God, and despises all blasphemy against God. It is One God who cannot be divided, or praised in one place, blasphemed in another, honored in one place, 2) despised in another. The Jews believe the Old Testament, and because they do not believe in 3) Christ, it does not help them. Behold, the circumcision of Abraham is now an old, dead thing, and neither necessary nor useful; nor would it help me to say that God had not commanded it at that time, even though I believed the Gospel. This is what St. James means: "He that believeth in one thing is guilty of all things," Jac. 2, 10. He may have heard from the apostles that all the words of God must be believed, or none; although he refers to the works of the law.
29) What wonder is it, then, that frivolous enthusiasts, with the words of the Lord's Supper, fool with their own conceit, and even deceive, 4) because in this little piece they are convinced that they hold God's word and things in low esteem, and put them under human love; just as if God should have to give way to men, and allow His word to be valid according to it, after which men would be at one or at odds with one another about it? How can one believe such enthusiasts that they teach well and rightly, who are publicly found to be dealing with such devilish thoughts, and advise such things that are enough for God's contempt, blasphemy, disgrace, and for us eternal death and destruction, and yet think that they have done well and given a wholesome Christian teaching with it?
2) Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Erlanger: word. Latin: loco.
3) "an" is missing in the Erlanger.
4) "ebentheuern" - to sail into the unknown.
776 Erl. so, 2S-SI. 20. l.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. XL, 966-969.' 777
(30) But we poor sinners, who are without spirit, say against such holy Christians from the holy Gospel: "He that loveth father and mother, wife and child, house and home, and his soul more than me, is not worthy of me," Matt. 10:37, and again v. 34: "I am not come to give peace on earth, but the sword"; and Paul: "How rhyme Christ and Belial together?" Now if we are to be Christianly one with them and have Christian love for them, we must also love their doctrine and actions, and put up with them, or at least tolerate them. Let him do this who will; I will not. For Christian unity is in the Spirit, "since we are of one faith, one mind, and one courage," Eph. 4:4, 5.
(31) But this we will gladly do; worldly we will be one with them, that is, keep physical, temporal peace. But spiritually we will avoid them, condemn and punish them, because we have breath, as idolaters, transgressors of God's word, blasphemers and liars; besides suffering from them, as from enemies, their persecution and separation, as far and as long as God suffers, and praying for them, also admonishing them to desist; but we will not and cannot consent to their blasphemy, be silent or approve of it.
32 I have revealed all these things so that one may see how the devil can adorn himself with false humility, peace and patience, as a warning to all who do not humble themselves from the heart, so that they may beware both of the devil and of themselves. For God will not be deceived or fooled; He would take a donkey and condemn great prophets with her mouth, as He did Balaam, Numbers 22:28 ff. Therefore we may well say to such gushers and spirits who offer us such peace, as Christ said to his betrayer Judah in the garden: "O Judah, dost thou thus betray the child of man with the kiss?" Luc. 22, 48. Yes, indeed, a Jewish peace and treacherous kiss is this, since they want to be friendly to us, and obtain from us that we should be silent and watch their burning and murder, so that they bring so many souls into the hellish fire eternally, and have thought it small and nothing.
God warns us with this against the spirits, that he lets them go out like this and betray themselves and show how they deal with lies and falsehood. And whom such a little piece does not frighten nor warn, let him go, he will be lost. The Holy Spirit does not speak and preach such things through his poor sinners, as the devil does through his saints.
33) Now that we have come to the meeting, let us take before us the saying of Christ, of which Matthew and Mark write: "He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Receive, eat; this is my body which is given for you,'" Matth. 26, 26. 14:22 For I said that this time I would do this saying alone, in defiance of the devil and his spirits, that I might prove how this one saying is strong and powerful enough against all their idle babblings; and the other sayings shall find their time. There now stands the saying, sounding clear and bright, that Christ giveth his body to eat, when he giveth the bread. On this we also stand, believe and teach that in the Lord's Supper one truly and bodily eats and partakes of Christ's body. But how this happens, or how he is in the bread, we do not know, nor should we know. We are to believe God's word, and not set a way or measure to it. We see bread with our eyes, but we hear with our ears that the body is there.
(34) Against this saying they have not yet brought up anything in so many writings that has even a semblance, let alone a reason. I will let them boast and boast, and also swear confidently by God's judgment and wrath, that they are sure of things and have grasped the truth: but these are words so that they would gladly cover and adorn their uncertain conscience, so that no one should notice how their heart inwardly wavers and weaves, like a reed moved by the wind, before the great uncertainty of their conceit and madness. For I may well swear that this saying of Christ, "This is my body," is in their hearts like an eternal pen, which they cannot get rid of unless they are completely wicked, who no longer feel anything, Eph. 4:17, 18. I know well how wicked spirits are.
They do not know when they begin to wrap themselves in fig leaves and want to hide themselves. For because they lack God's word and follow their own conceit, it is easy to judge their heart from Scripture, which teaches us that "the wicked has no rest, but his heart is like a wave of the sea that cannot stand still," Isa. 57:20.
35 Their writings also prove how anxiously they write. Here they boast once, there they complain; here they ask for peace, there they desire instruction; here they shun trouble, there they seek the glory of Christ, and there is so much unnecessary fuss and fuss 1) that they seldom come to the point and write very little about it. And when they have to come to it, they tread as softly as if they were walking on eggshells, wipe over it afterwards as if the devil were chasing them, and fear that they will have to fall down their necks in all letters. When they are over, they wipe away the sweat and the fear, and thank God for the truth; and there is such a teaching and praising of the spiritual food of the body of Christ and of his memorial, etc., about which no one disputes with them, and we have known it so well and before than they; that one grasps how they do not know what they are saying, or how they should make a nose at people. Rather, a sure conscience, which is certain of the matter, does not tatter and shred in this way, it says it dryly and freshly, as it is in itself; therefore only no one believes their swearing and boasting, they are certainly lying.
(36) Nevertheless let us hear how they take away our understanding from this saying of Christ, and put theirs into it. They say that the little word "is" is to be considered as much as the word "indicates," as Zwingel writes, and the word "my body" is to be considered as much as the word "my body's sign," as Oecolampad writes; that Christ's word and opinion, according to Zwingel's text, is thus: Take, eat, that is my body. Or, according to Oecolampad's text, thus: Take and eat, this is my body's sign. Oh, they are so sure of this opinion, and they also stand so firm in their heart, like a reed that the wind blows away.
1) Geplätz - patching.
and strikes back and forth, as has been said. They then quickly boast that we have no Scripture that says that Christ's body is in the Lord's Supper. Then they humble themselves again, wanting to be informed and to follow where we can prove with Scripture that Christ's body is there.
37 And this is indeed an excellent thing, just as if I had denied beforehand that God had created the heavens and the earth, and said with Aristotle and Pliny and other pagans that the world was from eternity. But someone would come and hold Moses up to me, Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; would I make the text thus: God, which should be called so much as "cuckoo"; but created so much as "ate"; heaven and earth so much as "the warbler with feathers and with everything"; that Mosi's word according to Luther's text thus reads: In the beginning the cuckoo ate the warbler with feathers and with everything; and should not be called: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. That would be excellent art, which even the lottery boys could do. Or if I denied that God's Son had become man, and someone held up to me in front of John 1: "The Word became flesh", I would say: Word means a crooked piece of wood; flesh means a piece of meat; and the text would now have to read like this: The crooked wood has become a hay 2); and where my conscience would punish me here and say: You point freely there, Squire Martin, but, but etc., then I would press until I became red, and say: Silence, you traitor, with your but, so that people do not notice that I have such an evil conscience; then I would boast and clap my hands and say: The Christians have no scripture that proves that God's word has become flesh; but again I would also humble myself and be gladly instructed, where they would do it with the scripture; which I would have turned thus before. Oh how I would rumble both among Jews and Christians, both in the New and Old Testament, if I were allowed such thurst!
38 Thus you speak: What devil do you want
2) Heie - mallet, wooden hammer, pile driver (Grimm). In Latin: miluus. The translator misunderstood "Heie" - "Stößer" i.e. pile-driver and substituted "Weihe" - "Stößer" i.e. bird of impact.
allow you to do this? Answer: Which devil should do it, because he allows Zwingel and Oecolampad? Otherwise I also know no one. Who has ever read in the Scriptures that "body" should mean as much as "body's sign", and "is" should mean as much as "interprets"? Yes, what language in all the world has ever spoken like that? It is only the arrogance and idle malice of the wicked devil, who mocks us with such enthusiasts, in this great matter, that he pretends to be instructed by Scripture, so far from first putting Scripture out of the way, or making his conceit of it.
39 As if I were to strip a man of his weapons with cunning words, and in exchange give him painted weapons made of paper like his own, and then offer him defiance, so that he would strike me with them or defend himself against me. O that would be a bold hero, whom one should spit at and throw out with lungs to the village, 1) where he would do it seriously, or would only be a good carnival laughter, where it would be shame 2). These enthusiasts do the same to us, wanting to change the Scriptures from natural words and meaning into their words and meaning, and then boast that we have no Scriptures, so that the devil may have his laughter at us, or rather, as the defenseless, may surely strangle us. But against this only one little word, that is no, serves from the measure; then they stand like butter in the sun.
(40) Now let us be judges between us, not only Christians, but also pagans, Turks, Tatters, Jews, idols, and all the world, to whom it should be due that he prove his text, whether Luther should do it, who says: Moses says: In the beginning the cuckoo ate the warbler, or whether he should do it, who says: Moses says: In the beginning God created heaven and earth? I hope that it will be judged that Luther should prove his text, because in no language does God mean so much as cuckoo. Well, Luther crept to the
1) The expression: "to throw out with lungs," that is, to chase away with disgrace, is also found in the Hauspostille. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XIII, 1224, § 9. Latin: pi1lis ex stercore gHuino oonl66ti8 iZuominio8i88lrll6 6 xaZo ejieiatur.
2) Rant - Joke.
Crosses, he is sorry, he can not prove that God is called cuckoo. For whoever dares to interpret the words in Scripture differently than they read, is guilty of proving the same from the text of the same place, or from an article of faith.
But who will be able to make the enthusiasts prove that "body" is as much as "sign of the body" and that "is" is as much as "interprets"? So far no one has been able to get them to do so. They scream and rave: Where is Scripture? Where is Scripture? and urge us to prove that in the Gospel it says, "This is my body," as the whole world reads and must read. But that it is written, "This signifies my body," or "This is the sign of my body," is so certain that they defy God's judgment, even though no one has ever read it in the Gospel, nor can read it.
God knows that I do not want to speak too close to the Zwingel with such crude parables, especially not to Oecolampad, to whom God has bestowed many gifts before many others, and I am heartily sorry for the man. I also do not look at them in such speeches, but only at the hopeful mocking devil, who has thus deceived and seduced them, 3) so that I in turn also atone for my pleasure in him, in honor of God, and mock him again in such his foolish jokes. For he shall and must be subject to God's words. And this year, if it pleases God, I will dare the devil, 4) that, if God wills, he should also come on a day that prevents me from doing other necessary things; God grant that he tie a rod over his butt, and wake up a slumbering dog, amen. For I write these things so that our people may have the opportunity to answer the ravishers. When they so mockingly ask where it is written that bread is Christ's body, and act so foolishly as if they had never read it, they should be asked again where it is written that "body" is the sign of the body. It is written in the smoke hole, there is their Bible.
3) Erlanger: umführt. Latin: eireumvenit 6t 86<Iuxit.
4) Here is "to dare" - to take on. Latin: äsMnabo.
782 Erl. so, LS-L7. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, "74-976. 783
(43) This is the sum of it, that we have for ourselves the light and dry scripture, which saith, Take, eat; this is my body; and it is not necessary for us, neither shall it be enjoined upon us, to write over such a text (though we may do it abundantly), but let them bring up scripture, which saith, This signifieth my body, or this is the sign of my body. For this time we do not want to do the devil the honor of leading more scripture than this saying, "This is my body"; for if we set aside all the glasses that are in the world, we do not find it written in any evangelist: Take, eat, this is the sign of my body, or, this means my body; but we find this without all glasses, so that even young children could read, "Take, eat, this is my body."
. 44 Therefore we ask the enthusiasts not to desire from us to prove this text: "this is my body. For they may ask boys of seven years old to learn such words in school, because the Bible is available in Greek, Latin and German. But they wanted to do that, to show a Bible, in which it was written: this is my body's sign. If they cannot do this, 2) that they will put their mouths and feathers in obedience for a while until they produce such a Bible, or else prove with good reason that such a text can thus be made; but keep silent and do not boast: Where is Scripture? Where is Scripture? for they would cry out such words to themselves, and not to us. For they act against their own conscience.
Here one defies me out of all measure: Oh dear Luther, how easily they will show you the cause and prove their cuckoo. But I am also truly so eager to hear them (believe me), if they are willing to do the same. Well, whistle up and don't spoil the round; let's see whether we should kick or jump. Against the mocking devil I speak thus, not against flesh and blood.
46 First of all, it is certain that Zwingel and Oekolampad are united in mind, as in-
1) letters - spelling.
2) Erlanger: "künnten". Latin: possunt.
the words are different. For the Zwingel says: "this means my body", is just as much as the Oecolampad says: "this is my body's sign"; the German language also gives it and all language, that it is the same, if I say: laughter means joy, and laughter is a sign of joy; that no question still has doubt, "to mean" and "to be a sign" is one and the same. But because here the power lies in whether the word "is" must apply as much in Scripture as the word "signifies," the Zwingel is obliged to prove this from Scripture. If he does not do this, his thing is dirt. Similarly, Oekolampad is also obliged to prove from Scripture that this word "body" must be as valid as the word "sign of the body"; if he does not, he is also dirt, and our text, "this is my body," remains like a rock. 3)
(47) Yes, that it may be seen how far they fall short of the truth, they are not alone guilty of proving from Scripture that "body" is so much as "sign of the body," and that "essence" 4) is so much as "to interpret," but one more thing. Even if they were to find this in one place in Scripture, which is not possible, they are nevertheless also obliged to prove that here in the Lord's Supper it must also be so, that "body" is "sign of the body. And it would be of no use at all if the whole of Scripture were to contain the same sign of the body in other places, and if it were not also contained in this place in the Lord's Supper. For now we are not primarily wondering whether in Scripture "body" is called "sign of the body"; but whether it is so called in this place of the Lord's Supper. The consciences want to be sure and certain in this matter. Therefore, whether you prove that in Genesis "body" is so much as "sign of the body," they are not satisfied with it, but mumble and say: Yes, dear, who knows whether it should therefore also be called so in the Lord's Supper? We must also be assured of this by God's word; otherwise the words stand there for us, and saw us with dry bright text: "This is my body.
3) The Erlanger edition has the words: "das ist mein Leiv" last.
4) Being - to be. In the old edition Walch erroneously: the being.
784 Erl. so, S7-SS. 20. l.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. XX, S76-S7S. 785
O how the devil's pants stink here! how he feels so well that he is guilty of this, and does it so sincerely. For we demand both and defy him in both. That is why the enthusiasts shun this debt more than any devil ever shied away from the cross; you must not hope that they will stand here and meet you face to face, or hear what you ask them; it is just a matter of escaping and rushing past; no one wants to bite the piece. Our pastor, Johann Pommer, once reproached the Zwingel in writing that he should prove how in the Lord's Supper "to be" means as much as "to interpret. Yes, the Zwingel, that he would have answered; he sang him a little song about his great suffering in return, and tried to find out whether it was called that way in other places of Scripture, and did not find it either. But that it should be so called in the Lord's Supper he would not touch. He would also have been a fool, and was not to be advised.
49 For thus he proves his interpretation. St. Paul says 1 Cor. 10, 4: "The rock was Christ," that is, the rock signified Christ, therefore it should also apply here "this is my body," and say: this signifies my body. Item, Genesis 2, Mos. 12, 11: "Effet das Osterlamm eiligend, denn es ist des HErrn Passah", that is, it means the Lord's Passover; therefore, "das ist mein Leib" should also read like this here: that means my body.
50 If I now asked Zwingel: Does St. Paul not say thus: the rock means Christ, but thus: "The rock was Christ"; how can you then prove that in the Lord's Supper there is interpretation, which is also not in Paul, by which you want to prove it? but just as you dream it in the Lord's Supper, so you seal it also in Paul. In the same way Moses does not say: "Eat quickly, it means the Lord's Passover," but thus: "Eat quickly, it is the Lord's Passover.^ It is just as necessary for the oppressor to prove his interpretation in Paul and Moses as in the Lord's Supper: for it is not evident in any place. Such an argument is taught to boys in school, that it is called kstitio prinoipii, ivosrtum per inesrtum prodara, and such high spirits do not yet know it. What does Zwingel want to say here to such a hole-laden matter? His
He should not confess error, for it would be shameful; he would much rather say that he is full of the Spirit and must suffer much, and boast until we believe him willingly that there is interpretation in Paul and Moses that no one sees in them.
51 Now I suppose it is true that in Paul and Moses there is interpretation, and we believed it to be his service: what did he accomplish with it? Let us see how he so finely and masterfully casts: Paul says, "The rock was Christ," that is, the rock signified Christ; therefore here also, since Christ says, "This is my body," it must be as much as, "This signifies my body. Dear, let us conclude in the same way, according to the beautiful art. Well, I will prove that Sarah, the holy archmother, remained a virgin, in the Zwinglian way, thus: Lucas writes that Mary remained a virgin, therefore Sarah must also have remained a virgin. Is it not well concluded and well proven? Item, I want to prove that Pilate was an apostle of Christ, thus: The evangelist Matthew writes that Peter was Christ's apostle, therefore this Pilate must also be Christ's apostle, and so on. What I want should and must be concluded from such art for articles of faith.
(52) Yes, you say, it is not true; you must prove each one in particular, how Sarah was a virgin and Pilate an apostle. Why is that? Zwingel is not allowed to prove that there is divination in the Lord's Supper: if it is only in one place in Paul or Moses, then it is enough. The children know it in school, that Partibus ex puris sequitur ml, atHua nsZatis. Nor is the highest art of our spirits to make such "argument" ex partieularidus without Scripture in such high articles of faith.
(53) Then we must conclude that it is a very arrogant mockery of the devil, who, with great certainty, fools us and mimics us with such lazy deception and jugglery. How else would it be possible that such learned men, without the effect of Satan, should be so blind, and praise such loose dreams so highly and propel them into the world for the very strongest reasons of faith? Surely it is not human to have such great thick darkness. So the Zwingel lies in the ashes with his interpretation, just as it has fallen before.
D. Carlstadt with his Tuto. For Zwingel can prove none, namely no interpretation in any place of Scripture, much less that it must be in the Lord's Supper, and does not do so, as he is nevertheless guilty of doing both.
54 For the interpretation in Paul and Moses is soon taken away from him, because Paul says: "They drank from the spiritual rock, but the rock was Christ. Here St. Paul himself shows that he is speaking of a spiritual rock. Now the spiritual rock does not signify Christ, but the rock was Christ Himself with the Jews; just as our rock now signifies nothing, but is nothing else but Christ, as all this also the preachers in Swabia, and I also before against D. Carlstadt have abundantly convinced. But the high spirits do not respect our Scripture, run over it, and only grumble a little about it; so we have answered enough.
55 Similarly, when Moses says: "Hurry up, it is the Lord's Passover", Zwingel cannot prove that it means the paschal lamb. Because one answered soon, thus: "Effet hurry, it is the HErrn Passah", as we say in German: Eat meat, because it is Sunday; drink water, it is Friday. Here no one will force out of me that meat means Sunday, or water means Friday. So also here: "Make haste, for it is the Lord's Passover," that is, it is the day when the Lord went into Egypt etc.
(56) So also, what more of the sayings they use, in which there is interpretation, none is proven. As when Christ says, "I am a true vine," John 15:1, for he speaks of the true spiritual vine, which he was, and did not signify. How should it read: I signify the right vine; or: I am signified by the right vine? Who then should be the right vine without interpretation? Item: "I am the shepherd", "I am the door", "I am the life and resurrection" etc., and what are the more. Everything is spoken and understood from the "being," not from the "interpreting," and will never consistently indicate any interpretation; it is vain reverie and one's own conceit. In addition, as I have said, if they already find some interpretation, they can nevertheless use it to
They cannot prove that this is also the case in the Lord's Supper, and all the effort and diligence they have put into it is vain labor.
You still give me so much credit for Carlstadt that I knocked down his tuto, and that there was no solid reason. But if I were to judge between Carlstadt and Zwingel, I would say that D. Carlstadt's "Tuto" would be better suited 1) to such an error than Zwingel's interpretation; it has nothing at all that 2) might adorn it, because he 3) wants to prove his thing out of vain ignotis, incertis, et particularibus. Which, for all reason, is mocking and ridiculous.
58 Oecolampad also wanted to help this insinuation, and since the preachers in Swabia had put it down with a mighty writing, that he himself could not deny that Paul spoke of the spiritual rock, and that there was no insinuation, he did not honor the truth, but rebelled a little against it and said: Paul had nevertheless thought of the physical rock in such speech and had looked there, which means Christ. It is as if we were asking here what Paul had thought or where he had seen, and not rather whether there was interpretation in Paul's words. We know almost well that the physical rock means Christ, and therefore Christ is and is called a spiritual rock, which they must not teach us; but whether there is interpretation in Paul's words, as Zwingel dreams. Then they are silent and rush on, and in their way they let us ask of God, and answer us from their cuckoo; then they boast that no scripture is brought against them. If it is true that one does not have to answer a scripture that has been brought forward, and may speak something else instead, then one does not bring a scripture against them, even if the world were brought against them full of scripture.
59 Now D. Oecolampad is to prove his body sign also from the scripture. Our scripture says: "Take, eat, this is my body"; and it does not say: this is my body's sign. But it is also impossible for him to find a place in the Scriptures where the body
1) i.e. was good.
2) Erlanger: that.
3) In all German editions "es" instead of: "er", namely Zwingli, as must be read according to the Latin.
so much as a sign of the body, let it not be said that he should prove it in the Lord's Supper; and for the sake of proof it lies as deep in ashes as Carlstadt and Zwingel. Nor do they confess so much to God's honor that it is true, and boast as no scripture is brought against them. But if they were not so careless despisers of the Scriptures, a clear saying from the Scriptures should move them as much as if the world were full of Scriptures; as it is true. For it is so to me that every saying makes the world too narrow for me. But if they flutter about and think it is the word of men, it is easy for them not to be forced by the Scriptures.
60 And even if Oecolampad wants to be of the opinion that there is all bread and wine, he still cannot conclude with certainty that "body" must mean "sign of the body"; that is, his reason is not consistent, since the word "body" may be interpreted differently from "sign of the body," and his interpretation cannot be certain or unanimous, as it should be if it were consistent. There are already many others who are of the same opinion with them, and yet accept neither the interpretation nor the sign. Carlstadt lets Leib Leib remain Leib, and stands on Tuto. Some martyr the text thus: Take and eat, "my body is given for you," hear, a spiritual food. These also let the body be the body, and yet are of one faith with him. Some crucify the dear words thus: "Receive and eat; that is given for you is my body." This is how many sects and heads this certain sect has, which in the main are one, and yet the Holy Spirit must be in all of them, as they all boast, and he must, to show evidence and reason in this, not only be diverse, but also repugnant to himself and at odds with himself. But he certainly testifies that one is as well mistaken as the other, because no one can hold the Scripture as it reads, nor prove that it is to be understood differently than it reads.
61 Yes, if swarming were an art, I would certainly want to be as swarming here as they are, and also keep that there would be all bread and wine, and yet raise a new one against them all, and be in harmony with none of them,
and bring forward my conceit, thus. D. Carlstadt in this sacred text, "this is my body," martens the little word "that"; Zwingel martens the little word "is"; Oecolampad martens the little word "body": the others martens the whole text, and reverse the little word "that," and put it behind, and thus say: Take, eat; my body, which is given for you, is this. Some half martyr the text, and put the little word "that" in the middle, and say: Take, eat; that which is given for you is my body. Some torture the text thus: This is my body for my memory, that is, it should not be my body here of course, but only for the memory of my body, so that the text reads thus: Take, eat, this is my body's memory, which is given for you.
62 Above all of these are the seventh, who say: It is not an article of faith, therefore one should not quarrel about it, and may well believe here whoever wants what he wants. These even trample it underfoot. Now the Holy Spirit is here in them all, and no one wants to err in such repugnant proofs and orders of the text, 1) and after all only one order of the text must be right. So grossly does the devil fool us. Well then, there is nothing left to martyr in the text, except the little word "my", which I want to pull through the swarmers' hackles, so that no leg of your text remains whole and unmarred, and 2) want to leave no one anything more to swarm in it. But I will be the best of enthusiasts, and neither distort nor reverse the text, and not interpret any word differently than it reads in Scripture, but leave each one as it stands, so that Oecolampad may see that "body" need not necessarily be called "body's sign.
(63) And my enthusiasm is most simple. Since Christ says, "Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you," let it be understood that Moses commanded in the Old Testament to sacrifice the body of the unreasonable beast, that is, the paschal lamb; but I will give you another body for the paschal feast, that is, the bread; on which I will give you the bread.
1) "Proofs" and "orders" set by us according to the Latin, instead of "proof" and "order".
2) "want" is missing in the Erlanger.
that it would be easy for anyone to have it, because you Christians must be poor, and only my memory is driven. But that bread may be Christ's body and be called, I will prove from the Scriptures exceedingly, because Oecolampad his body sign. For thus speaketh the Scriptures, that all things are and are called of God, as he called the Jewish land his land in Moses, and our good works his work, our word his word. Item, in Hosea Cap. 2, 8, he speaks of the Jews: "They took my gold, my silver, my grain, my oil, my wine, and gave it to their Baal" etc. So here Paul 1 Cor. 15, 38. tells me that every gross thing is called corpus or body, since he says: "God gives to every seed its body, and other bodies are the heavenly ones" etc.
(64) From this I can easily and delicately deduce that Christ is of the opinion that this bread in the Lord's Supper is His body, which He made as a God who makes all bodies, and calls them His bodies. In addition, he ordained the same his body to be his body in a new way, namely, to eat at his memorial. So that the bread is called his body for two reasons; first, because of creation; second, because of order; contrary to Moses and the body of the paschal lamb in the Old Testament, in which he calls the same bread his body, that is, a body for his use; as I call a knife my iron, a skirt my cloth, for the sake of custom, whether I have not made it according to the essence, but God alone, or according to the form, but the smith and tailor. So Christ can call the bread his body, because he needs and has made such a body for his will.
(65) For this I am helped by St. Paul's saying, "Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you. Which, according to the Greek language, may well be understood to mean: which is broken among you and divided or given, as the Scripture calls "breaking bread" distributing bread etc. Likewise, the words of the cup may well be understood from the Greek and Hebrew: This is the cup, a new testament, which is poured out among you, as wine is poured out of a pitcher for the guests.
How I would like to make a greater impression here, if I were as bold and nimble as my dear enthusiasts.
66) But that in the words of the cup it is written, "A cup in my blood," but that the wine may not be called Christ's blood, I answer, O almost well, and yet may not tut, nor interpret, nor sign, but will lead Scripture to the fact that red wine is called blood in Scripture, Gen 49:11: "He shall wash his robe in the blood of grapes," that is, in red wine; and Deut 32:14: "That they may drink well of the blood of grapes. Now if red wine is blood, but Christ used wine of the same land, which is red, and all wine is his wine, as he made it and now needs it here for his supper, it must be understood in this way. Moses sacrificed much blood of the animals, also much red wine for the drink offering; but what may it be in the New Testament with the poor so much essence? This red wine, which is usually my grape blood, shall also now be my blood with you, instead of all the blood and wine that Moses used for the sacrifice. In German, too, a red wine can be called blood, and one can say: "How is the blood so good in the glass? Thus the philosophers say: The wine is the blood of the earth. Just as Christ says in John 4:34, "that his food is to do the will of his Father," which is like food, so he may also call his red wine and the blood of the earth his blood, because he is like the blood, especially because the Scriptures call red wine grape blood. In spite of Oecolampad, that he also leads his body sign thus from the scripture.
(67) Yes, you say, Squire Martin, you are a great man, but where are you going with this, that Christ says, "That which is given and poured out for you for the remission of sins"? Bread and wine are not useful for the forgiveness of sins, if they are broken and given over the table. Answer: Oh, dear one, do you want to see a fanatic with the Scriptures? I would be sorry to be called a swarmer, if I should not answer; I would at least throw up my trunk and say: You are pretending to conjecture, conceit and conceit. If that would not help, I would unbutton my pants and say: "You are a fool.
If I jump over it so that my ribs crack, I should also become lame immediately, and then say: "Marriage! he has not brought me a scripture. Whoever cannot do this should be thrown out of the swarmers' guild and guilds, for this is our swarmers' highest art and aid. Now do not watch me too closely, how I want to jump and flutter so enthusiastically. Bread and wine are eaten and drunk for the remission of sins; that is, because Christ ordains to eat and drink, that one should keep his remembrance thereby; so it is called a cheap eating and drinking of the remission of sins, because one should remember and act such remission thereby, as he says afterwards, "This do in remembrance of me"; just as one drinks wine for a like purchase, 1) that there may be a cheap and like purchase, which one should remember and hold fast.
Have I raved enough? Have the words of Christ not been sheerly crushed around and around? I have truly done it a little too well, more than befits a raving man. Please forgive me, dear Christians, for thus mocking the wretched devil who mocks us. My wretched enthusiasts are still too young to be able to despise good ideas and thoughts; that is why they think that if they dream of something, it will soon be the Holy Spirit. Oh how many fine ideas I have had in the Scriptures, which I had to let go, which, if a fanatic had had them, all the printing presses would have been too little for him. And I still want to believe that if such thoughts of my enthusiasm would have occurred to someone, perhaps neither Carlstadt, Zwingel, Oecolampad, nor the others should now count for anything; nevertheless it is enthusiasm, and Christ's words remain firm: "This is my body, which is given for you.
69 O how my Oecolampad should rejoice, if he could bring up such a saying, that the body should be called the sign of the body, as I have now foolishly brought up, that bread and wine should be called the body and blood of Christ; how gladly would he let him use it, that it should be called so, even though he has not yet brought it up.
1) "Gleichlauf" - a lawful fully valid purchase or sale. Latin: eontraetus enaptionis st veuäitionis; in the Wittenberg and the Jena missing: and.
2) Erlanger: Wider.
cannot prove that it should and ought to be called that, which he is nevertheless obliged to do. But he cannot, God has denied it 3) to him before, it must be called his own dream and Oecolampad's drawing and yawing 4). But a pious Christian man, who listens to our raptures, how we play dice with the holy words of Christ, each one on his dream, would of course say: Oh, you are all boys, and respect God's word for jesting and smoking 5), I want to stay with the bad text.
70 But you will perhaps chastise me here for giving Oecolampad's sign so entirely to the devil, and argue that even if he cannot prove the word "sign of the body" with Scripture, there are nevertheless many Scriptures which enforce that there must be vain bread and wine. Answer: Where there, my beautiful love? They say: The Scripture contends against itself, and no man can bear it where it is not believed that there is bad bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Answer: What Scripture? They say, "It is where the article of faith is established, that Christ has ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God in His glory. Item, that eating flesh is of no use, John 6:63: "Flesh is of no use." If there should be flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper, then he could not sit at the right hand of God in his honor, and would also give us to eat, which is of no use for salvation. Therefore, one and the same 6) Scripture must be made wise, and Christ's body must be made a sign of the body; this must be the text in the Lord's Supper.
Who would have provided such high wisdom to the enthusiasts? Here is some of the best reason they have. Now if I ask them here if they have from Scripture and can prove that these two Scriptures are contrary to each other: Christ is seated in heaven, and his body is in the Lord's Supper; item, that flesh is not useful, and that Christ's body is eaten in the Lord's Supper, and yet these things are written? they will answer me.
3) Erlanger: has.
4) i.e. foolishness.
5) Gäucherei - Gäuchelei.
6) ...one scripture" here in the meaning: any scripture. This meaning of "one of a kind" also occurs elsewhere in Luther, though rarely. Cf. Dietz, Wörterbuch, p. 5(W s. v. einerlei.
ten: Thou wilt love us with the Scripture; thou must believe us; we are certain without the Scripture, and more certain than when the Scripture saith it,
Seventy-two I answered, "How can this be? Open your eyes, you fool, do you not see that heaven is high above, where Christ sits in his glory, and the earth is low here, where his supper takes place? How can a body sit so high in honor and at the same time be here, let itself be disgraced and be traded with hands, mouth and belly as if it were a sausage? Should this rhyme with the glorious majesty and heavenly honors? Yes, it is more than certain. Thank you, dear sirs, I did not know that in articles of faith one should not ask anything about God's word, but rather open one's bodily eyes and judge with them according to reason what is to be believed. Now I understand what this means, Fides est non apparentium, which is said so much in a new interpretation of these spirits: Faith should not believe any further than the eyes can show it with fingers and reason can measure.
Now, he who asks much becomes unpleasant; but I must ask more, that I may become still wiser. But how can we be sure, dear sirs, that a body cannot be in heaven and in the Lord's Supper at the same time by God's power, because God's power has no measure nor number, and does such things that no reason can comprehend, but must be badly believed? Because he says, "This is my body," wherewith shall I satisfy my heart that God has no way nor power to do such things as his word says? And perhaps, even though One Body is not visible in many places, He would like to have a way and know how to keep One Body invisibly, even visibly, in many places. If he could do that, wouldn't you have betrayed us, you who say no to it before you know it? Do you also have proof from Scripture that would deny God's omnipotence in this regard?
Dear one, let us not swear by the Scriptures; it is not for enthusiasts to stand on the Scriptures: But thou shalt bring scripture, that God may do and do these things.
could. Well, here is my scripture: "What God says he can do", 1) Rom. 4, 21. God says he can do", 1) Rom. 4, 21. And no word is impossible in the sight of God, Luc. 1, 37. Because he says here: "This is my body", he can truly do it and does it. Now you must prove again that he does not do it, nor could he do it. For this is your glorious reason for wanting to strike these words: here is the strike, and we are standing on the right battlefield. If you do not prove that it is impossible, then we will overthrow you and break through with the word: "This is my body." God says it; God does it. Defend yourselves, dear knights, it is time.
You may say here: We can prove it well, we once secretly ascended into heaven at midnight, when God was sleeping most deeply; we had a lantern and a lockpick with us, broke into his most secret chamber, and unlocked all boxes and drawers, since his power lay within. Then we took a gold scale, so that we could be sure of it, and we weighed it exactly: but we found no power that could do this, that one body could be in heaven and in the Lord's Supper at the same time; therefore it is certain that "body" must be called "body's sign". God forbid you, Satan, you wretch, how shamefully and surely you mock us. But my mockery shall also tickle you again, what does it matter!
(76) This is the highly famous reason why they drool the most before others, and stand and insist the most stiffly on it, because they say that the two Scriptures are contrary to each other (Christ is seated in heaven, and his body is in the Lord's Supper), and yet they do not prove it. They do prove that these two Scriptures and their reason are contrary to each other. But this would have been unnecessary to prove, and I would have told them just as well. For that you say that Scripture is contrary to one another does not apply; who asks about your saying? But then I would praise and honor them if they proved this saying with writing or otherwise. Let them leave it, so that the text may stand firm: "This is my body.
1) Marginal gloss in the Wittenberg and Jena editions: "Was GOtt sagt, das kann er thun."
If we now receive this, that Oecolampad cannot prove such his saying, nor show how the Scriptures are contrary to one another before God, as he certainly never can do, then the whole matter is won, and we have received it all. For if this remains, that the words "this is my body", that is, that Christ is the body in the Lord's Supper, persist, then the saying of John 6:63, "Flesh is of no use", will soon come to pass: then miracles enough will be found, and the sacraments will not be bad signs, and all their sores, of which they have much, will dissipate and fly away like dust before the wind. For Christ's body and blood must not be left a useless or small thing; I know this well.
But if we, according to our reason and eyes, judge by our articles of faith and the Scriptures, as Oecolampad does here, then of course one piece of Scripture is contrary to the other. For the scripture that Mary is a virgin and mother is contrary to the scripture: Grow and multiply; item: I will create a helper for man around him. That I should therefore deny that 1) she is not a virgin, and cry out: The Scripture is contrary to one another; would I be justified in answering, Yes, before you and your reason it is contrary to one another; but how is it contrary to one another before God, tell me? Then I would stand as Oecolampad stands here.
79. Item, that Christ is God, is contrary to the Scripture: "God created man"; if you now go on and say, He is not God, because Godhead and mankind are more contrary to each other than heaven and earth, and cannot at the same time be the person of Christ in Godhead and mankind, and let your reason be that such Scripture is contrary to each other, then you will be answered, Yes, you say it, and before your eyes it is contrary to each other; but show how it is also contrary to each other before God.
80 So also that Christ's body in heaven and in the Lord's Supper is contrary to each other, this is what Oecolampad says, and it is so before his eyes. Yes, but one does not desire that he teaches us his saying, and what is before him otherwise or
1) Erlanger: leugen. Latin: nexare.
but what God says and how it is before God; there he lies, there he cannot do anything, and yet he must and should have certainty and certainty if he wants his teaching. Here let them answer. Here let them see how they want to commit crimes. But they do not do it; beyond that they will purr and whistle something else, so that one does not notice how they are pushed here in the hollow way.
81 Now hold them against each other, the enthusiasts and the writers. Carlstadt brought forth the xxxxx; that would not stand. Then Zwingel came, and wanted to make it better with his interpretation; that is even worse. After that, Oecolampad comes with his Leibs Zeichen, as with the very best piece; and passes most badly. For this is his reason: I Oecolampad say that the Scriptures in this piece are contrary to each other. Now is not this a tender, fine reason for faith? when a man thus says, "Although God's word stands there and says, "This is my body," yet, because I cannot understand nor believe it, and think it to be contrary to Scripture, it is not true, and must have another interpretation, regardless of how brightly God's word stands there. This is Oecolampad's spirit and highly praised truth, that human conceit and unbelief should prevail over God's word and establish our faith. Who could not do the same in all other articles? That is how deeply Satan should seduce such people. So this reason of Oecolampad's is overthrown with one word, that is, No, these Scriptures are not contrary to each other; one can say it and make oneself believe it, but not prove it. So then all his splendor lies in the mud.
82) Do you want to have the scripture from us, dear devotees? there it is: "Take, eat, this is my body. Bite yourselves with the same this time, after that you shall get more. O how sure ye were, and thought not that this saying might ever 2) be reproached or reproached against you. For ye had not crucified him alone, but buried him also, and laid guards round about the grave, that he was no more wicked. But now he rises again from the dead, and will never-
2) d. i. ever.
798 Erl. sa, 81-54. II. writings Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, SS4-SS7. 799
more die, and throws you, his enemies, under him, and makes you footstools. This deceived the good man Oecolampad, that Scripture, being contrary to each other, must of course be reconciled, and one part take a mind that suffers with the other; because that is certain that Scripture may not disagree with itself. But he did not realize and consider that he would be the man to pretend and prove such disagreement of the Scriptures; but he accepted it and presented it as if it were certain and wanted to be proved. There it falls and is missing.
But if they would think beforehand, and see how they would speak nothing but the word of God, as St. Peter teaches, and leave their own sayings and doings at home, they would not do so much harm. This word, "Scripture is not contrary to one another," would not have deceived Oecolampad, for it is founded in God's word that God does not deny, nor does His word deny: but the addition of his word (I Oecolampad say that the Scripture here is contrary to one another) brings him into such sweat and misery that he denies, turns back, interprets, and tortures God's word as he wills. Lord God, how easy it is for such a horrible case to happen; and we are still safe and do not fear on such a slippery path.
But I will better touch and report their right reason, which moves them to such error, and will bet on it for my body and soul (which I also do not like to lose), that I do not want to miss; for I poor sinner also know a little of the spirit, and a large piece of the old mischief, which rages in us, I mean the flesh. She is most moved by this bit, that it is foolish in the sight of reason to believe that we should eat and drink Christ's body and blood in the flesh in the Lord's Supper. And truly I know, where they gain, that should be the final rejoicing: Yes, I thought it would not be right; I never wanted Christ's body and blood to be eaten in this way. As they are now talking secretly among themselves and the mad mob is obviously chattering. But they would gladly hide this, for they are ashamed to confess it, they know well that it is no good, and they see that it is not right.
but gladly that the great rabble drives out with it, speak and write also not dawider.
85. but it is shameful that there is not so much integrity and honesty in them to freely confess such things as they desire in their hearts, like to have, to see, and to hear, but pretend that the Scripture compels them, which they know is not true, but attack the Scripture with cunning and iniquity, to adorn themselves with it before men, and under the name of the Scripture to bring their poison among the people.
86 However, even though they hide such things with great diligence, the rogue still comes out and lets himself be noticed. Zwingel confesses so much that he has never believed it all his life; and I believe it well that he believes nothing everywhere. Yes, that is even more, he sits in judgment and judges all men's hearts and minds that no man has ever believed such things. If that is not too bold, it is bold enough, and it is not true, I know that all too well. Now from such a confession it is easy to notice that he did not get such conceit from the Scriptures, which he found long after, as his book Subsidium in particular, and others prove; but long before, before he found such Scriptures, he believed so, and now runs first of all, seeks Scriptures and forces them on such conceit, D. Carlstadt also, before he wrote, long before, he said to one: Dear, you will not persuade me that God is in bread and wine. So they go out unawares, by God's power.
The same Oecolampad, when he has jumped over the Scripture that is presented to him: help God, how he licks, how horny he is, how he dances in his conceit and asks: what is it good for? Why the disciples did not worship the bread? Why the Scripture does not indicate such a miracle? What good does it do that Christ is invisible? Why Christians should believe such hard things? How can it be rhymed that the King of honor should let such wicked men play with him? But especially the blasphemous words paint his heart well, since he calls our God the baked God, the baked God, the fleshly God, and of that he calls him the baked God.
1) "Licks" here will probably be as much as "licks" i.e. jumps. Jer. 50, 11. Latin: exultat.
800 tri. 30, ö4-ss. 20. l.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. xx, ssr-ssg. 801
beyond measure. Who should not grasp here what they think in their hearts? If they were moved by the Scriptures, they would probably stop such jokes and deal with the Scriptures.
It is the resentment and disgust of natural reason, which does not want and does not like this article; therefore it spews and köcket 1) thus against it, and then wants to cover itself in the Scriptures, so that one should not know it. It shall not be an article. If I wanted to follow reason's disgust, I would do just such spitting and coking against it, so that the blasphemers would not think that such spitting is the art of the Holy Spirit. I want to say about God: What is the use that he is man? Why should one believe such a hard thing? Why don't the apostles worship him in the Lord's Supper? How does it rhyme that such majesty allows himself to be crucified by evil men? O of the carnal God! O of the bloody God! O of the dead God; and so on.
My enthusiasts, however, prepare the way with such disgust that one will almost deny Christ, God and everything with each other; as they have already begun to believe nothing at all. For they step out of reason's conceit, which is to lead them rightly. But such mockery serves to excite the mad mob, which asks nothing of the Scriptures. For they themselves know almost well that such pagan mockery does nothing against this article. Or, if it smears against this article, it also smears against all articles. For the word of God is always foolishness to reason, 1 Cor. 2, 14. Therefore they would have kept silent about all this, if they were 2) serious about the Scriptures and did not have their hearts full of disgust and unbelief, of which their mouths must be so full. More about this hereafter.
90 Since Oecolampad in his first book of the Fathers' Proverbs desecrates and mocks, he must confess that he did not get his conceit from the Fathers' Scriptures. For they speak so powerfully that they often force the word out of him: Hoc apparot oontra nos "886, it seems as if it were against us. Dear, what is this said otherwise, because, the fathers
1) "köcken" synonymous with: to spit.
2) "it" is in the Jena; missing in the Wittenberg and Erlangen.
What are the strong words there? I cannot get my thing from their writing, but must work diligently to turn their noses on my mind. But he who has to work in such a way that he directs and forces the sayings to himself, confesses that he does not have it from such sayings, but rather has the contradiction from them, and carries and drives his thoughts into them. But what his turning of the nose in the fathers helps him, we will see later.
91 But it is a wonder that the fathers, as much as they are, have never spoken of the sacrament as these enthusiasts do; for they have no need of such words as, It is bad bread and wine; or, Christ's body and blood is not there. And yet it is impossible, because the matter is very much acted with them, that such words should not once have escaped them, It is bad bread; or, Not that the body of Christ is bodily there, or the like, when much is concerned that they should not deceive the people; but speak badly, as if no one doubted that there was Christ's body and blood. After all, among so many fathers and so many writings, there should be one negative, as is done in other articles. But now they all stand united and constant on the affirmative; our enthusiasts, however, can speak of nothing but the negative. Summa, Oecolampad has it neither from the Scriptures nor from the Fathers, but works and sweats to carry it into both.
(92) This is enough of an answer to the enthusiasts. For since we contend and win so much that Christ's saying "this is my body" still stands firm, and their best reasons are nothing, and without all proof naked and bare: so also all other sayings of Christ's supper certainly still stand firm. For I have taken the least and most simple before me, only in defiance of the impotent, lazy, lame babblings of the enthusiasts. In the book against the celestial prophets, too, I have not been industrious in this matter, and no fanatic has yet mislaid the same booklet for me. But I think they despise it and do not read it; or if they read it, they shut their mouths and run away from great humility and the fullness of all wisdom and holiness.
(93) But for the sake of ours, to strengthen them, I will go on, as the reason and causes of the rejecters are nothing; and, moreover, prove that it is not contrary to the Scriptures, nor to the articles of faith, that Christ's body is both in heaven and in the Lord's Supper; though I am not obliged to do it to the rejecters, but they are obliged to prove that it is contrary to the Scriptures, and cannot do it? as has been said. But if I have proved this, let the words go and stand, "this is my body," as they read. For that I should visibly show with eyes and fingers that Christ's body is in heaven and above the table at the same time, as the enthusiasts desire of us, I truly cannot do. He who does not want to believe God's words must not demand anything further from me; I do enough when I prove that it is not contrary to God's word, but according to the Scriptures.
94 And first, let us take the article that Christ sits at the right hand of God, which the enthusiasts hold that he does not suffer, that Christ's body could also be in the Lord's Supper. If we ask them here what they call God's right hand, where Christ is seated, I think they will tell us how children are used to imagine a gilded heaven with a golden chair in it, and Christ sitting next to the Father in a choir cap and a golden crown, just as painters paint. For if they did not have such childish, carnal thoughts of the right hand of God, they would certainly not allow themselves to dispute the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper, or to be so puffed up with the saying of Augustine (whom they believe nothing else, nor any other), Christ must be bodily in one place, but his truth is everywhere etc.
From what childish thought must it follow that they also bind God Himself in One place in heaven on the same golden chair, because apart from Christ there is no God, and where Christ is, there is the Godhead completely, as Paul says Col. 2, 9: "In Him dwelleth the whole Godhead bodily"; and Joh. 14, 9. 10: "So long am I with you, and ye know me not: Philip, he that beholdeth me beholdeth the Father; believest thou me?
do you not know that the Father is in me and I in the Father?" Ans this will follow still further, that also we and all creatures sit in the same chair of God, perhaps like the lice and fleas in his choir cap, because Paul says Apost. 17, 28.: "We are his kind, and in him we live, weave and are."
We further ask them: Where is the Scripture that thus forces God's right hand into One place? So they say: Help God, do we not have enough Scripture? Are you blind? Do you not see how full of sayings our books are from the Scriptures? Surely I see that you are useless spouts. You talk a great deal where there is no need; for example, about spiritual food, about Christ's sitting in heaven, about his memory in the Lord's Supper, and the like, since no one asks you. It is your cuckoo that lets itself be heard, there you are full of scripture; but where it is necessary, there you pass by and are as dumb as the blocks, let yourselves dream after it, the whole scripture sounds on your conceit, as Solomon says Ecclesiastes 5:2, that in the world so goes what is due to one, there dream of it. And Virgilius: 1) Qui amant sibi somnia fin^ gunt. There one does not bring him also from.
(97) Why are you not thoughtful and see beforehand whether it is Scripture or not, that God's right hand is a special place, because Scripture teaches abundantly about God's right hand? But now you build such a great and dangerous fancy on your vain dream, and then boast that you have much Scripture. And because you dance so gladly at this round dance, you think that the sky hangs full of violins; and as one says: Who gladly dances, one may easily whistle to him. So because you like that Christ is in heaven and not in the Lord's Supper, you let St. Augustine's saying so easily persuade you to say yes, that God's right is a place in heaven, who are otherwise so rigid, clever and immovable in all the fathers' sayings that, 2) even if they all unanimously urge you to say yes, you nevertheless make no of it. Nor do you think that no one should notice why you write a great deal about unnecessary things and not about necessary ones.
1) Luooliea, Lei. 8, v. 108.
2) Erlanger: da.
Pieces not a bag, but Alone leads your dreams.
The Scriptures teach us that God's right hand is not a special place where a body should or may be, as on a golden chair; but is the almighty power of God, which at the same time can be nowhere, and yet must be in all places. Nowhere can it be in any place (I say), for if it were in any place, it would have to be understood and decided there, just as all that which is in one place must be decided and measured in that same place, so that it cannot be in any other place. The divine power, however, may not and cannot be decided and measured in this way. For it is incomprehensible and immeasurable, apart from and above all that is and can be.
Again, it must be essential and present in all places, even in the smallest tree leaf. This is the reason: for it is God who creates, works and sustains all things, 1) by his almighty power and right hand, as our faith confesses; for he does not send out officials or angels when he creates or sustains something, but all such things are the work of his divine power itself. But if he is to create and maintain it, he must be there and make and maintain his creature in the most essential as well as in the most essential.
For this reason He must be in every creature in its innermost, innermost, around and around, through and through, below and above, in front and behind, so that nothing more present or more inward can be in all creatures, except God Himself with His power. For it is he who makes the skin; it is he who also makes the bones; it is he who makes the hair on the skin; it is he also who makes the marrow in the bones; it is he who makes every bit of the hair; it is he who makes every bit of the marrow; it is he who must make everything, both pieces and whole: so his hand must be there to make it, that cannot fail.
101. here the scripture goes violently Isa. 66, 2. from Gen. 1: "Did not this
1) Erlanger: contains.
2) Erlanger: not.
all my hand made?" Ps. 139:8, 9: "Where will I go before your Spirit? Where shall I flee before thy face? If I go to heaven, you are there; if I go to hell, you are also around me. If I take the wings of the dawn (which are greater wings than half the world), and sit down at the end of the sea, thine hand shall hold me there.
The Scriptures give all the miracles and works of God to His right hand, as Acts 4:10: "Christ is exalted by the right hand of God"; Psalm 118:15, 16: "The right hand of God does miracles. 4, 10: "Christ is exalted by the right hand of God"; Psalm 118, 15. 16: "The right hand of God does wonders, the right hand of God exalts me" etc. And Apost. 17, 27. 28. Paul says: "God is not far from each of us, for in Him we live, hover and are", and Rom. 11, 36.: "From Him, through Him and in Him are all things"; and Jer. 23, 23. 24.: "Am I not a God who is near, and not a God who is far away? Do I not fill heaven and earth?"
103. Is. 66, 1: "Heaven is my chair, and the earth is my footstool." He does not say, "A piece of heaven is my chair, a piece or place of the earth is my footstool; but what and where heaven is, there is my chair, whether heaven is below, above, or beside the earth; and what or where earth is, whether it is on the bottom of the sea, in the grave of the dead, or in the middle of the earth, there is my footstool. Now guess, where is his head, arm, breast, body, if he fills the earth with his feet, the sky with his legs? Far, far he reaches above and beyond the world, above heaven and earth.
104 What can or does Isaiah mean by this saying? For as St. Hilarius also speaks about God being essentially present at all ends, in and through all creatures in all their parts and places, that the world of God is full and he fills it all, but is not determined or encompassed by it, but is also at the same time outside and above all creatures? These are all things beyond all comprehension, but they are articles of our faith, brightly and powerfully attested in Scripture. It is little
3) Erlanger: an.
806 Erl. 3", 60-62. II. Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. xx, 1004-1007. 807
against this piece, that Christ's body and blood are in heaven and supper at the same time, and if the devotees began to come here with reason and eyes, they should soon fall away and say, "It is nothing," and, as is the virtue of the wicked, to say, "There is no God," Ps. 14:1.
For how can reason suffer the divine majesty to be so small as to be present and essential in a grain, in a grain, over a grain, through a grain, inwardly and outwardly? And even if it is a few majesties, it can still be completely and utterly in every single one, 1) which are so innumerable. For he makes every grain special 1) in all things, inwardly and everywhere; so his power there must be everywhere in and on the grain. Now his power is one and the same, and is not divided, because he made the skin of the grain with his fingers and the 2) marrow in the grain with his feet: then the whole divine power must be there in and on the grain everywhere, because he does it all alone. Again, that the same majesty is so great, that it cannot compass this world, nor a thousand worlds, and say, Behold, he is here.
Here let me now answer the enthusiasts. Body still has a comparison with body and may rhyme together. As, bread is a body, wine is a body, Christ's flesh is a body. Here one may be in another, as I may be in the air and in a garment or house, as money in a bag, wine in a cask and jug. But here, since not body, but spirit, yes, who knows what is called God; it is above body, above spirit, above everything that can be said, heard and thought; how can such a one at the same time be completely present in every body, creature and being everywhere? and again, apart from and above all creatures and beings, nowhere must be nor can be, as our faith and the Scriptures both testify of God? Here reason must immediately conclude: "Surely this is nothing, and must be nothing.
1) Thus the Wittenberg. Jenaer and Erlanger: special.
2) Thus the Jena. Wittenberg and Erlangen: den.
If he has now found the way that his own divine essence can be completely in all creatures and in each one in particular, deeper, more inward, more present, than the creature itself is, and yet again nowhere and in none can and can be encompassed, that he indeed encompasses all things and is in them, but none encompasses him and is in him: should he not also know a way in which his body would be completely in many places at the same time, and yet none of them would be, since he is? Ah, we wretched children of men, who judge God and his doings according to our own conceit, and think that he is a cobbler or a day laborer.
(108) Yes, they say, we believe that God's power is everywhere, but that does not mean that his divine essence or right hand is everywhere. Answer: I also believe that in the depths of your heart you believe nothing either of God or of God's power, and I am sure that you should skip all these mighty sayings that I am speaking and acting here, and open your mouths and say, "He speaks of grains and tree leaves, but does not write. For this is what you do, and then you talk about your patience or about unnecessary things. That must be writing.
But we know that God's power, arm, hand, being, face, spirit, wisdom etc. is all one thing. For apart from the creature there is 3) nothing but the one simple Godhead itself, and thus before the creation God's power and hand, God's essence itself, was without doubt; so after the creation of the creature it will not have become 4) something else. He does nothing except by his word, Genesis 1 John 1. This is his power; and his power is not an axe, axe, saw or file, by which he works, but he himself. If then his power and spirit is everywhere and in all things most inwardly, most outwardly, thoroughly present, as it must be, if he is to make and maintain all things everywhere; then his divine right hand, being and majesty must be in all things.
3) Erlanger: is.
4) So the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Erlanger: nothing different. Latin: in atiuä trnnsmutata.
He must, of course, be present if he is to do and maintain it.
And to top it all off, I will also prove this with an example and a story from the Scriptures, and that in this way: It is our faith, as the Scriptures teach us, that our Lord Jesus Christ is an essential, natural, true God, and the Godhead dwells in him completely bodily, as St. Paul says Col. 2, 9, that is, that apart from Christ there is no God or Godhead. As he himself says John 14:9: "Philip, he who sees me sees the Father; do you not believe that the Father is in me, and I in him?" Well, there goes Christ on earth, and is the whole Godhead, personally, essentially in him on earth.
Tell me now, how can it be true at the same time, that God is completely in Christ personally, present, essential on earth, in the womb, yes, in the manger, in the temple, in the desert, in cities, in houses, garden, field, on the cross, grave, and yet also in heaven in the bosom of the Father? If this is true and irrefutable according to faith, that the Godhead in Christ is essentially, personally, present on earth, in so many places, and yet at the same time in heaven and with the Father, it follows that he is everywhere at the same time, and essentially, personally fills heaven and earth and everything with his own nature and majesty, according to 1) Scripture, Jer. 23, 23. 24.: "I fill heaven and earth, and am a God who is near"; and Ps. 139, 7.: "Where shall I go before your face?"
(112) Also, since Christ, the Son of God, was to be conceived in the womb of the mother and become man, he had to be essential and personal already there in the womb of the virgin, and there put on mankind. For the Godhead is immovable in itself, cannot move from one place to another, like the creature. Therefore he did not ascend here from heaven as on a ladder, or descend as on a rope, but was there before in the virgin body, essential and personal, as in all other places everywhere, according to divine nature, kind and power. Is he
1) Erlanger: still.
Now if he is in one place, as in the virgin's womb, essentially with his own person, and at the same time with the Father, as our faith requires, 2) then he is also certainly so at all ends. For there may be no reason why he should be in the virgin's womb, and not be so at all ends.
But in Christ there is something different, higher and greater than all other creatures. For in Him, God is not only present and essential, as in all others, but also dwells in Him bodily, so that One Person is man and God. And although I can say of all creatures: There is God, or God is in them, I cannot say: This is God Himself. But of Christ, faith says not only that God is in him, but also that Christ is God himself. And whoever strangles a man may well be called a murderer of the thing that is God and that God is within. But he who strangles Christ has strangled the Son of God, God and the Lord of glory Himself. That God is not only in him, but also dwells in him, so that God and man become one person, is the great work and miracle of God, which makes fools of all reason, and faith alone must hold; otherwise it is lost.
Therefore, we speak now of the first alone, as God is in all things Himself personally, without which presence God could not have become man, and One Person out of divinity and humanity; for He had to be there beforehand in the womb, as He is in Himself in the divinity. O Lord God, where are they who believe all this? What will become of them when reason comes here with its swarming? The sacrament's rapture will then become a delicious thing against these. Well, God remains, and so do his own.
(115) This is a powerful enough proof that God's right hand is not a special place, as the enthusiasts dream, where Christ's body is seated, but is the power of God Himself. For God's right hand cannot be a creature, but must be something above and apart from all creatures. But there is
2) Jenaer: forces.
not, but only God Himself, who is everywhere in all things; therefore it must also be true that God's right hand is everywhere in all things, as we have heard. I mean that here we do not, like the scribblers, run over the Scriptures, or deal with other things than belong to the matter, but have firmly established and decided, on the right clear ground of the Scriptures and articles of faith, that God's right hand is everywhere; but they, the scribblers, lose the piece and cannot stand, because they say: It is a strange place, as they comfort their carnal thoughts from St. Augustine.
Now let us speak to them. They confess that Christ is at the right hand of God, and by this they want to have won that he is not in the Lord's Supper. This, of course, is the terrible sword of the giant Goliath that they insist upon. But how would it be if we took the same sword from you and cut off your head with it, and proved with the saying that Christ's body must be in the Lord's Supper, so that you would prove that it must not be there? Would you not take it for a true thing of David? Well, look and listen to us. Christ's body is at the right hand of God, that is known. But the right hand of God is at all ends, as you must confess from our previous revelation. So it is certainly also in the bread and wine above tables. Now where the right hand of God is, there Christ's body and blood must be; for the right hand of God is not to be divided into many pieces, but a single simple being. So also the article does not say that Christ is in one part, as in a little finger or nail of the right hand of God, but that he is at the right hand of God, that where and what the right hand of God is and is called, there is Christ, the Son of Man.
This is also what Christ wants, as often as he confesses in the Gospel that all things have been handed over to him by the Father, and "all things have been put under his feet," Ps. 8:7, that is, he is at the right hand of God; which is no different than that he is also over all things as a man, has all things under him and rules over them. Therefore he must also be close to it, in it and around it, having everything in his hands etc. For according to the Godhead nothing is handed over to him, nor
He has put all things under his feet, if he has made and kept them beforehand. But to sit at the right hand is as much as to rule and have power over everything. If he is to have power and rule, he must of course also be present and essential, through the right hand of God, which is everywhere.
What does it want to become here? It wants to become this: If Christ in the Lord's Supper had never said these words, "This is my body," nor had he ever said them, yet these words, "Christ is seated at the right hand of God," compel that his body and blood be there, as in all other places, and may not here be some transubstantiation or change of the bread into his body; yet it may well be there, just as the right hand of God must not therefore be changed into all things, even though it is there and within. But how this happens is not for us to know; we are to believe it, because the Scriptures and articles of faith so powerfully confirm it.
We poor sinners are not so foolish as to believe that Christ's body is in the bread in the crude visible way, like bread in the basket or wine in the cup, as the fanciers would like to put on us to tickle ourselves with our foolishness; but we believe straightway that his body is there, as his words on it read and indicate: "This is my body. etc. But that the fathers and we sometimes speak thus, Christ's body is in the bread, happens in simple opinion because our faith wants to confess that Christ's body is there; otherwise we may well suffer it to be said that he is in the bread, that he is the bread, that he is where the bread is, or however one pleases. Let us not quarrel about words, but let the meaning remain that it is not bad bread that we eat in the Lord's Supper, but the body of Christ.
120. so also the enthusiasts should consider that God has more ways to have one thing in another than this coarse one, which they pretend, as wine is in the cask, bread in the box, money in the bag. "Levi was in the loins of Abraham," says the apostle 1) to the Hebrews Cap. 7, 5. as the Scripture calls all the children in the loins of the fathers and out of the loins.
1) Erlanger: the zun Ebräern.
describes. Item, all color and light, and what one sees is called to be in the eyes, that also heaven and earth may be in the eye. Item, everything is in the mirror, what stands before it. Item, trees and all fruits are in the kernels and seeds. All things are in our heart, even God Himself, which is as great a wonder as any. Who will doubt that God has more ways that he does not tell us, since one is in another, or since two are in one place at the same time?
(121) It is as great a wonder that many bodies are in one place, as that one body is in many places. He who can do one thing can do another. Now we have clear scripture that Christ came to his disciples through a locked door, and from his tomb also through a sealed stone. If he came in through the window or the door, his body and that by which his body had disappeared had to be in one place at the same time, both intact and unchanged. The evangelist does not say that they saw him come in, but that he stood or stood in their midst. That is, as if he had been hidden there before, and had revealed himself; as he also did to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, and to all to whom he appeared. And Apost. 7, 56. he appeared to St. Stephen standing in the council house at the right hand of God; and Apost. 22, 17. he appeared to St. Paul in the temple; item Matth. 17, 1. 2. 3. the Father appeared in the cloud on Mount Thabor; and Luc. 3, 21. 22. also the Father in his voice, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. These and similar appearances, which happened many times to the prophets, apostles and saints, show that both God and Christ are not far away, but near, and are only to be revealed, since they do not move up and down, nor back and forth, because God is immovable and Christ also sits at the right hand of God, and does not move.
122 Christ also says Joh. 3, 3: "No one leads to heaven except the one who descended, namely 1) the Son of Man who is in heaven. This indicates that his body is in heaven and on earth at the same time,
1) "namely" is missing in the Erlanger.
He is already present at all ends. For through his transfiguration he has not become another person, but, as before, so also afterwards, present everywhere. Although Oecolampad wants to have done a great honor to Bilibald Pirkheimer at Nuremberg, and does not know how great a sin it should be that Pirkheimer interprets such a saying about the man Christ. But if I were Pirkheimer, I would send Oecolampad a pair of glasses and ask him to count the letters, if it would help, so that they do not lead so lightly over the sayings of Scripture and click their dreams into the books for us.
What does Filius hominis descendit, adscendit mean? He speaks so clearly of the Son of Man, how he descended and ascended. Now it is certain that Christ neither descends nor ascends after the Godhead, but after mankind. And if Oecolampad wants to boast so gloriously, he should first prove that such a saying of Christ speaks according to the Godhead, and teach what descending and ascending would be, and act the saying diligently and mightily. But this is not necessary for us enthusiasts, it is enough that we enthuse in this way, so it is said as soon as it is written. But because some teachers have interpreted the descent from heaven, I will save it until I hear my enthusiasts; I cannot write it all at once.
(124) Upon this saying, I may now get other enthusiasts, who will see me, and pretend: If Christ's body is at all ends, I will eat it and drink it in all wine houses, out of all bowls, glasses and jugs: there is no difference between my table and the Lord's table; oh, how we will devour it! For we unholy Germans are such shameful swine that we have neither discipline nor reason, and when we hear from God, we regard it as much as if it were the jugglers' fairy tales. Speech and history are now going on among the rabble against the Sacrament, who are seduced by the doctrine of the jesters, that one should rather die than write a sermon among them. For they quickly go away when they hear that [it] is nothing.
And they want to do it and wipe their butts on it. Secular authorities should punish such blasphemers. It is fornication and impudent thurst, because they know nothing about it and still blaspheme like this. And God knows, I write such high things very unwillingly, because it must come under such dogs and sows. But how shall I do it? The enthusiasts must answer for it, who force me to do it.
Hear thou now, thou sow, dog, or swarm, who art thou unreasonable ass, though Christ's body be at all ends, thou shalt not therefore soon eat, nor drink, nor take hold of it; neither speak I to thee of such things; go into thy sow-house, or into thy dung. I have said above that the right hand of God is in all places, but at the same time it is nowhere and incomprehensible, above and apart from all creatures. There is a difference between his presence and your grasping; he is free and unbound wherever he is, and does not have to stand there as a knave in the stocks or forged in the irons.
Behold, the sun's rays are so close to you that they sting your eyes or skin, so that you feel them, but you cannot grasp them and put them in a box, even if you grope for them forever. Thou canst hinder it, that it may not appear at the window; but thou canst not grope and take hold of it. So also Christ, although he is everywhere, cannot be grasped and held; he can peel himself off, so that you get the shell and do not grasp the core. Why is that? Because there is another when God is there and when he is there for you. But then he is there for you when he gives his word, and binds himself with it, saying, Here you shall find me. If then thou holdest the word, thou mayest surely take hold of him, and have him, and say, Here have I thee, as thou sayest. Just as I say of the right hand of God, Although it is everywhere, as we cannot deny, yet, because it is nowhere, as has been said, you can truly grasp it nowhere, but it binds itself to you, and makes you stay in one place. But it does so when it enters and dwells in the humanity of Christ; there you will find it in a place where it is not only in the humanity of Christ, but also in the humanity of God.
Otherwise you will run through and through all creatures, groping here and groping there, and yet you will never find it, even though it is truly there, because it is not there for you.
127 Therefore, because Christ mankind is at the right hand of God, and is now also in all things and above all things, after the manner of the divine right hand, you will not eat him nor drink him as the cabbage and soup on your table, if he will. He is now also become incomprehensible, and thou shalt not catch him, though he be in thy bread, except he bind himself to thee, and appoint thee to a special table by his word, and signify the bread unto thee by his word, when thou shalt eat it; which then he doeth in supper, saying, This is my body. As if to say, "At home you may eat bread, since I am close enough to it, but this is the right thing, this is my body. If you eat this, you eat my body, and not otherwise. Why? Because I want to attach myself here with my word, so that you do not have to swarm and seek me in all the places where I am: it would be too much for you; you would also be too little to take me there without my word.
How few there are, even among the learned, who have ever so deeply considered this article of Christ, or ever believed that it is so exceedingly incomprehensible that God should be man, and man should be God. But the Scripture says so, and faith certainly believes it to be true. If it is true, then we have herewith overthrown the enthusiasts of their best reasons, namely, that it is not contrary to one another, but in accordance with Scripture and faith, that Christ's body is both in heaven and in the Lord's Supper. And it is actually founded in the first article, where we say: "I believe in God the Father, Almighty Creator of heaven and earth". This same article protects and preserves our understanding in the Lord's Supper, as we have heard. It is not that I want to measure and encompass God's power with cubits, as the prophets do, as if he did not have more ways than I have now demonstrated. To have one body in many places. For I believe his words that
He can do more than all the angels can understand; but in this way he has shown us how to shut the mouths of the enthusiasts and to answer for our faith.
But since they are so far from boasting that their opinion is certain truth; certissima, certissima veritas it must be called: they are truly also guilty of proving that Christ's body may not be in heaven and the Lord's Supper, and that such articles are contrary to each other, and that the right hand of God is a special place. For if their fame is 1) true, that they have the truth for certain, then they must also be certain that the right hand of God is a special place, and even more certain that a body may not be in heaven and the Lord's Supper, and that such articles are contrary to one another. For the sake of glory 2) let them be defiant, that they prove it, as they ought and owe. If they do, I will recant and come to them; but there I am assured. But I warn them that they bring clear writing and lay good ground, better than they have done so far. For I will tell them beforehand that they will have overseers, and if I live, and God helps me, I will tell them honestly, if they do not meet it.
130) That now Oecolampad wants to be seen here, how he almost seeks Christ's honor, and drives his mockery against the Pirkheimer, and says: There must be a fine king of honor, who lets his body be thrown back and forth on the altar, even by godless boys etc. Such words and the like serve to make a minty saint read them and say: He would do well to the king of honor and show him the butt. What then is the honor of Christ, that his body is in the Lord's Supper? Here I answer: It is true, according to Oecolampad's wisdom, Christ has no other honor than that he sits at the right hand of God on a cushion of garments, and lets the angels sing, violin, sound and play for him, and is unburdened with the toil of the Lord's Supper; but according to the faith of our poor sinners and fools, his honor is manifold, that his body and blood are in the Lord's Supper.
1) In the Jenaer: "jrthum" and in the "Correctur" again a misprint: "jr thun" instead of: "jr rhum".
2) Erlanger: still.
is. First of all, that he makes fools of the learned and prudent, and makes them angry and hardened by his words and works, which he speaks and does so foolishly that they cannot believe, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:23: "We preach Christ as an offence to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. And again v. 25: "The foolishness of God is wiser than men."
Now this is a great honor of divine wisdom, and with us fools is a glorious and praiseworthy God, who saw the wise with vain foolishness and put their wisdom to shame, so that they must be blind where they want to be the wisest. Such wisdom and honor no other king has or is capable of, as St. Paul says 1 Cor. 1:27: "Has not God put to shame the wisdom of the world?" To put wisdom to foolishness and to shame is not a small honor and virtue.
132. On the other hand, it is an honor and praise of his unspeakable grace and goodness that he takes such hard care of our poor sinners and shows such kind love and benevolence, and does not let him be satisfied with being everywhere, in and around, above and beside us, but also gives his own body for food, so that he assures and comforts us with such a pledge that our body, too, shall live forever, because here on earth he is blessed with an eternal and living food; Now we poor fools think that honor comes when someone proves his virtue, goodness and benevolence to others. For that someone lets himself be honored and served by others is a bad honor and not a divine honor: therefore one would like to lead the enthusiasts to school, so that they learn what honor means.
(133) And here the false-hearted show themselves honestly what kind of spirit they have. For since they do not know the Scriptures for themselves, they fall on this piece and want to confirm their error through Christ's glory, making themselves useless enough and concluding thus: It is not honest, but shameful that Christ is in the Lord's Supper; therefore he is certainly not there, and cannot be there. For Christ must be honest. Now when I ask them who
818 Trl. "o, 7S-74. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX. 1020-1022. 819
does it say that is not honest? Answer them: We say so. I ask further: Who are you? How do you know it, and how do you prove it? Ho, is it not enough that we say it? One should always answer you with the Scripture.
(134) Be ashamed in your heart that you make such a show with this piece and cannot prove anything about it, and do not see that if the result were good and effective, 1) I would also boast and boast that God's Son was not born of a woman, as the pagans boasted against St. Cyprian and Augustine. Cause: It is not honest for God to be born of a frail body of a vain man. Item: It is not honest for Christ to be led by the devil out of the wilderness to the temple and the high mountain, therefore it did not happen. Item, it is not honest that he was crucified, therefore it did not happen.
Oh Lord God, are these the high spirits? Shall one lead the people away from the bright and certain words of God with such idle and vain talk: "This is my body"? Is the honor of God of all things made worldly and carnal, just as it would be dishonest for a worldly king to be hanged or crucified? But the glory of our God is that, if for our sake He gives Himself down most deeply into the flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, heart and bowels, and suffers for our sake to be dealt with dishonestly, both on the cross and on the altar, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:27, that some eat of this bread unworthily.
He suffers without ceasing that before his divine eyes his word, his work and everything he has is persecuted, blasphemed, desecrated and abused, and yet he sits in his honor. If I had not read it in their books, I would never have believed that they would have wanted to found this article with such foolish things. But they are blinded by God's wrath, and are not serious about instructing the consciences and making them certain, but only about confusing them, and opening the mouths of the mad mob, so that they should listen to their cuckoos and
1) i. e. proved.
astonish you. For, as I said, the devil mocks us.
(137) But because we poor sinners must be accused of profaning and blaspheming Christ with our faith and doctrines, that Christ's body is in the Lord's Supper, let us hear how they honor and praise him. First of all, they take and deny the love, grace and good deed in him, that he wants his body to be our food in the Lord's Supper bodily, and in return they give him to sit in one but a single place, like a bird in a farmer. Doesn't this mean that Christ would be considered a child or a fool, if he took a florin and gave him a penny or an aspen leaf for it, and said that it was more precious than the florin? Summa, our faith is that all works of God are honest. As the 111th Psalm v. 3. says: Confessio et decor opus ejus, that is, "what God does is praiseworthy and beautiful." God cannot do anything dishonest or ugly; but the beautiful is not everyone's knowledge, it is spiritual.
It is also of the same high spirit that they lay such a hard rock at their foundation. Yes, they say, because this work is such a great miracle, that Christ's body is both in heaven and in the Lord's Supper, why do not the apostles and evangelists praise it as a miraculous work, as they do other miracles? Answer: How can one do it? He that hath not scripture must have his thoughts; he that hath not lime maketh mud. Who can answer such an excellent objection? But someone might say: The apostles and evangelists may have been so poor that they could not have produced so much vermilion or silver, 2) so that they could have painted a little hand on the edge and written at the same time: Here stands a miracle. For our enthusiasts want to have Christ and his disciples badly bound, where they describe a miraculous work of Christ, that they should write to it that it is a miraculous work; if not, then they want to dispute by this that neither work nor miracle, but badly nothing is. Because Christ says, "This is my body," and does not add, "This is a miracle.
2) i.e. red color from Brazil wood.
great wonder, it is nothing, since he says, "This is my body." This is almost the same as D. Carlstadt came with his point and big letters, and should also become a rock on which Christianity had to stand, or fall down and sink completely.
Sensible, honest people see that it is a disgrace to let out such talk among the people, and that it is not worthy of being answered. People still fall for it, cling to it, and it must be called vain scripture and truth, against such clear, dry, bright words: "This is my body. Not that they can hold it for truth in conscience, but would gladly that [it] were truth. But we are to thank God, the merciful Father, that He thus puts to shame those who are false in their own prudence, so that they must report themselves as they deal with lies and dreams, to warn us that it is vain devil's spew and mockery 1) so that everyone may beware of such falsehoods; but whoever does not allow himself to be warned, that he will be condemned all the more severely. So we believe that all the words and works of Christ are miracles. Therefore Isaias 9, 6. his name is called: "Wonderful". But we leave the evangelists and apostles free to call them miracles or not.
But they have one reason, which I consider to be the strongest and which they also mean seriously, and I believe it to be true; that is this: It weighs down, they say, the people of such articles. For it is hard to believe that One Body is in heaven and in the Lord's Supper at the same time. I praise my enthusiasts for freely confessing for once the right reason that moves them. They might well have long since kept silent about the other reasons and so much writing; this one alone would certainly have been enough to prove their faith. For from this reason all the other reasons spring. They would not have made such an effort with the others if this one had not urged them on.
141 Therefore, if anyone finds anything difficult to believe, let him believe and say, "It is not true.
1) Jenaer: mockery. Latin: luäikria.
This reason is conclusive and proves it. Therefore it is certainly not true that Christ is God and man. For it is difficult, even impossible, to believe, except for the saints, for whom it is not only easy, but also a pleasure and joy, yes, life and bliss, to believe all the words and works of God. But they do not concern us.
Now we have the enthusiasts with their own confession that they are hostile to the Sacrament, that they have resentment, disgust, disgust and abomination in their hearts against it; that is why they rave so against it. Oh, they should be a little more careful, leave such little pieces in the pen, but God does not want. The Greeks say: A liar should have a good memory. Thus Hilarius says: A godless man cannot be thoughtful. The devil always seals his thing and leaves a stench behind him. Why? Oh, it is not to be fenced against God's wisdom, he still wins.
They also have more reasons, namely, because it is not read that the apostles paid homage to the sacrament nor worshipped, but sat as to other food; so it is concluded that the apostles did not believe that Christ's body was there, therefore it is certainly vain bread etc. This is a very good and solid reason, from which I will conclude: The apostles sat over the table in the Lord's Supper and did not worship Christ, whom they saw sitting there in the flesh, and did not pay him homage, so it is concluded that they did not believe that he was sitting there; therefore it is certainly not true that Christ was sitting at the table in the Lord's Supper. Mary and Joseph did not worship Christ when he was born, so it is certain that Christ was not there, but Mary gave birth to a moon child.
Such faith should have such evidence, such church should stand on such pillars. Should the apostles worship the sacrament they did not see, and not worship Christ whom they saw? But they should have shied away. Yes, if they had been enthusiasts. But now they cling to Christ with full love, so that they believe his word without all shyness, 2) as love is wont to do.
2) In the old editions: ohn alle Scheuen.
822 Srl. so, 77-70. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, 10SV-1M. 823
She believes everything," and she thinks nothing is impossible, especially what she hears from her beloved. She is more attached to his words than to what the words say. Mary Magdalene at the tomb thinks she wants to take Jesus herself, so her heart burns with love.
But my enthusiasts measure the apostles' hearts according to their own hearts, which are full of abomination and hatred of the sacrament, and think, We are disgusted and abhorred by the sacrament, and would not have believed it nor honored it. In the same way, the apostles would have had no desire or love for Christ's word, and would have shied away if Christ's body had been there. I can stand it that the devil mocks us with such ridicule. For I think he mocks himself more than he mocks us.
146 One more. Yes, they say, the works and miracles that Christ did were visible, as when he made wine of water, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and so on. But since the miracle is not visible here, Christ's body is certainly not there. Mend, dear fellows, mend, the fur may be well, it is skin and hair not well off. Such little pieces are called vain scripture and the truth among such people. Now I accept it, let it be true: What miraculous sign is not visible, that is nothing and never happened. Christ, the Son of God, was conceived in Mary's body by the Holy Spirit, the greatest miracle of God; but it was not visible to the eye, therefore it is certainly not true. The Godhead dwells in Christ on earth and still for eternity; but it is not visible, therefore it is not true. But how will they do to their chief foundation and cornerstone: Christ sits at the right hand of God, but it is not before their eyes, therefore it is not true? But it is perhaps no miracle with them that Christ sits at the right hand of God, but a common thing, as when a teacher sits in his chair.
If these are good reasons and causes that teach us certain truths, prove our faith, and assure our consciences, then we are truly in a bad way. If someone were to bring me such books without title and name, and [I] did not know that [there are] such lofty
I would certainly think that they had been made by a gypsy or a loose lad, making a mockery of us Christians. There is no appearance that they are deceived by spiritual blindness, as happens to the heretics, but it seems as if it is vain will to deceive with God's word. It should not be possible that such lazy, lame, stale talk would seriously move a man who was in his right mind, even if he were a Turk or a Jew, let alone a Christian.
But the great resentment and disgust that they have against the holy sacrament, and the fierce desire that they have for their conceit, makes them so rash that they think that everything that they can grasp, even if it is a straw, is a spear and a sword; they think that with it they can kill a thousand at one blow. The own conceit has the heartache with us all, God forbid him, amen.
So our rock and dry light text still stands firm: "This is my body," and has confidently allowed itself to be stormed with stubble and chaff, which has been scattered and blown away by a small wind.
150 Now we want to attack their other cornerstone and the other best reason. For although they have many other loose reasons besides the first reason, which we have now attacked, about which we have told; yet I will now leave it enough at this one, and at the other cornerstone I will also do some, lest I also become a gossip about such loose, lazy frivolities. For I am truly hostile to such gossip, because they are not sayings of the Scriptures, where one could usefully act on some spiritual teaching, but must give word after word, and yet lose time over it and leave better things. But Satan must do so and always cause misfortune and hindrance.
151) So their other best piece is the saying John 6:63: "Flesh is of no use," which Oecolampad boasts is his iron wall, and he truly believes it to be true. But if everything is false that is hard to believe (as they say), then it is certainly also false that this is his iron wall.
I find it almost hard to believe; methinks it is paper, but perhaps it would like to have an iron color.
First, when they are to prove with Scripture that the flesh, in this place, must be and be called Christ's body, in which they are most concerned, for which reason they are also asked, they do as is their way, wipe it away, accept it and pretend it, as if it were certain, and as if they had fought it out chivalrously, and say: "Well, it is certain truth with us. Dear Lord God, who asks you about your conceit? Or, who seeks from you what you think is certain? How often have you heard that these two things, possibile and necessarium, may and must, are farther apart than heaven and earth? as even children and laymen of all languages know well. If you are asked whether what you teach must be so, you answer, "It may be so. Yes, Judas wants to be pious; follows very finely, therefore Judas must be pious. Pilate wants to become a Christian 2); therefore Pilate must become a Christian.
153] So here also: since you are to prove that flesh here must be called Christ's body, you are all mutes, since you are nevertheless obliged to speak, and therefore tell us that it should be called Christ's body. There you are all too washful and garrulous. Yes, it would also like to be called a roast pig, if the "to be called" is to stand with me and to apply to chattering and washing. For one can testify most powerfully against you that Christ, whenever he speaks of his flesh or body in Scripture, adds the word "my" and says: "My flesh," "my body," as he says in the same chapter of John 6: "My flesh is the right food. Item, "who eats my flesh" etc. Item, "if ye eat not of the flesh of the Son of man" etc.
154 But since he does not say here, "My flesh is of no use," but rather, "Flesh is of no use," you are truly in distress and fear that you would have to prove that this is called Christ's flesh. There is a great difference between Christ's flesh and bad flesh. For they cheerfully demand of you, and defy you, who shall afflict you.
1) Wittenberger: "from".
2) In the old editions: "Christians" instead of: a Christian.
I told you to change and improve the text and to make "flesh" into "my flesh", and you would have to be humiliated about it. Item, you are not able to prove it, and yet you accept it and insist on it as if it were proven in the most certain way. So the reason also lies there and is unproven, also remains eternally unproven. That is Oecolampad's iron wall.
(155) Yes, they say, the circumstances of the speech indicate that flesh is called Christ's body here. Where there? The word Christ speaks, "Flesh is of no use," and does not say, "Fleshly sense or mind is of no use," as you carnivores say; the word "of no use," in Greek ùöåëåß, conducit, prodest, actually means that which is of no use or good, or of no use. Now if Christ had wanted to understand the fleshly sense here through flesh, and not his own flesh, he would have had to speak like this: Flesh hears or understands nothing. But since he says that flesh is of no use, he must speak of his own flesh, which understands much, but is of no use when eaten. Behold, I thought that ye would answer otherwise than ye were asked, and pass by when ye were called. You are to prove that flesh here means Christ flesh, so you prove and teach us that percipere et conducere, to hear and to be of use, are two different words. Who asked you and asked for this? We know all this well ourselves, and the Vocabularius Exquo 3) or Gemma would also have taught us, without such high spirits and masters.
156 It is still unproven that flesh here means Christ's flesh. For let it be that here not the word percipere (to hear), but the word conducere (to use) is written, what does that help you? Shouldn't Christ speak like this: Flesh is not useful? That is, everything that flesh understands, hears, wants, speaks, does, lets, has, suffers, in short: flesh and what is flesh, which is of no use. And if I want to condemn fleshly sense, I must not be bound to speak thus: The carnal mind hears nothing; indeed, it is much better condemned if I say, "The carnal mind is of no use. Now we have no great power here, whether flesh here is not so much fleshly as carnal.
3) Thus in the old editions. Erlanger: 6X quo.
826 Erl. 30, 81-83. II. Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, Ivso-um. 827
The word "flesh" means the sense of the flesh, but flesh comprehends everything that is in the flesh, sense, reason, will, word, work, etc., as has now been said. All this is of no use, and neither forces nor proves such a word use) nor that therefore flesh here must be understood of Christ's flesh; since it can well be spoken of and understood of bad flesh, as I have now proved. Where is the iron wall here? Where is the certain truth?
157 So the iron wall is blown down with a little word, which means mea, "my," because since it does not say, "My flesh is of no use," but simply, "Flesh is of no use," we have won first of all that it cannot be understood of Christ's body. For since he does not add it himself, saying, "My flesh," it is forbidden to amend his words and add anything to them, even if we do not understand it of his flesh.
158 Secondly, that they may not prove with a few letters that flesh here means Christ's flesh. For if we were to admit to them, without any proof, that "flesh" here means as much as "my flesh", who would then refuse that Christ's flesh is not called everywhere, where flesh is written in the Scriptures? Soon all the old heresies would swarm in with crowds, saying that Christ did not naturally have flesh and blood, and was not really man, because they saw that so much evil is said of the flesh in Scripture; as, the Manichaei, Valentiniani etc. And indeed, such bumblebees are already buzzing around the head of the Zwingel, and sting quickly, since he writes against D. Ecken zu Baden thus: If Christ's flesh is eaten, then nothing but flesh comes of it, because everything that is born of flesh is flesh, as we want to hear. Fie, that the devil should fool and ape us so shamefully, that for the sake of such loose talk we must deny such brightly revealed words: 1) "This is my body", and pretend that the Scriptures are against each other, and force us to it; but our ingratitude deserves well.
1) Erlanger: leugen. Latin: adsidainus.
Although this foundation and iron wall has been sufficiently overturned, yet because there is no measure to their defiance and boasting, we still want to reveal their foolishness. We also want to swarm with them, and immediately admit that the flesh here is called Christ's flesh, as they are joking; not that [it] may be so; but thus we want to fool and run along this carnival in such foolishness, so that one may see what is to follow from it. Let the iron wall stand firm that Christ's flesh is of no use.
160 Now here I ask: Mary the Virgin, when she was bodily pregnant with the Son of God, and carried Christ our Lord in her womb for nine months, and after that gave birth to him bodily, as a mother, as our faith and the Gospels say, whether she also bodily carried and gave birth to Christ's flesh, in and through her flesh? I, as a fan, do not believe this. Why is that? Because that Christ's flesh, bodily conceived, borne and acted, is of no use. If it is of no use, it is not done, as our reason says: Christ's flesh is of no use; therefore it is not there. For if in the sacrament his flesh is not therefore, that flesh profiteth not, neither is it in the womb, even therefore, that it profiteth not. It is the same cause in both pieces.
161 The angels told the shepherds, and the shepherds found that Christ was lying in the manger, bodily and in his flesh. But who will believe that it is true? If Christ spoke with all the angels: My body is in the manger, we say no. For flesh is not useful, therefore your body cannot be there bodily, but the swaddling clothes and the manger signify your body; because it is one thing, flesh is not useful, and is not there.
162 Item, Simeon took him bodily in his arms, when his parents brought him bodily into the temple, Luc. 2, 28. But great lies are all these together, and is contrary to the glory of Christ, because that flesh is of no use, that is, it cannot be there bodily. This is our ground, this is where we stand, and this is our iron wall. Item, Christ
He was baptized in the Jordan, he walked in the deserts and cities and on the sea, and all this in the flesh, Matth. 3, 13. ff. This is all a fictitious thing. Why? Flesh is of no use, that is, Christ's bodily presence is not there, as is now said. Item, Christ sat bodily at the table, in the Lord's Supper, and also talked bodily with His disciples, and they with Him, Matth. 26, 26, and also washed their feet bodily, Joh. 13, 5. Yes, it is said, but it is a lie, and blasphemed God's honor. For flesh is of no use. Therefore he was certainly not there in the flesh, but only in the spirit.
Do you say: Stop for God's sake, you are probably raving yourself to death. In the same way, you should also swarm Christ out of the garden, the cross and all his suffering, so that none of them would ever have happened in the flesh, because he had to be there in the flesh in all of this, and his flesh is of no use where it is there in the flesh. Yes, dear one, I will also let him rave about the right hand of God, since everything is up to us, and prove that he is not there. For flesh is of no use. Even though his flesh sits at the right hand of God, it is the same flesh of Christ. For there is no other flesh at the right hand of God. If then it is the same flesh, it is of no use there; if it is of no use, it is not there, and is nothing at all, and goes through this saying just as in the Lord's Supper.
164 And more than this, I will prove that the body of Christ is not spiritual in their hearts, which is their greatest gossip. For, as I have said, flesh is of no use; but flesh is and abideth flesh, whether in the belly, or in bread, or in the cross, or in heaven, or in the Spirit, or wheresoever thou wilt. For the places do not change it; yet wine, grain, money, and cloth remain just the same as they are; they come in a thousand places in one day. Should Christ's flesh not remain the same flesh, be it in heaven, spirit, crib, mother, or wherever you want? If then it be bodily, as it must be, it is no good: if it be no good, it is not there, and nothing at all.
(165) Behold, what a mighty swarm the saying, "Flesh is of no use," can bring about, so that it can destroy the heavens and the earth for Christ's body.
He has made the earth too narrow, and he has driven him out of heaven and out of the spirit, where the devotees had sent him, as into a strong fortress, fortified with iron walls, so that he would be well guarded, so that the boys on the altar would not be able to deal with him dishonestly. Therefore this saying is indeed the strongest foundation and a real iron wall; yes, for us against them, and they could not have raised anything stronger against themselves than this very saying, which they boast of most highly for themselves. So it is with us poor sinners and unthinking, defenseless servants of the baked and bloody God, that whoever wants to strike us brings us weapons enough for us to strike them and defend ourselves.
166 Here they will perhaps answer thus: We do not say that Christ's flesh is of no use in all things, but only when it is eaten bodily. Otherwise, if one eats it spiritually, that is, if one believes that it is given for us in death etc., then it is useful according to the word of Christ Joh. 6, 55: "My flesh is a true food" etc. I thank the good instruction. But it still remains that this does not prove that Christ speaks of the bodily eating of his body. For he does not say thus: Eating my flesh in the flesh is of no use, but badly thus: Meat is of no use. Therefore such teaching does not help the matter; it must and should be proved that he speaks of bodily eating. This you will never do.
167 And if you prove this (as you could not), I would like to hear why Christ's flesh is of no use when it is eaten in the flesh, and not also when it is conceived in the flesh and born, placed in the manger, taken in the arms, seated above the table in the Lord's Supper, hanging on the cross etc. Are all these external ways and customs of his flesh as well as when he is eaten bodily. What is better that it is in the womb than that it is in the bread and mouth? If it is of no use here, it cannot be of any use there; if it is of use there, it must be of use here also, since no more can be made of it anywhere than that it is bodily and outwardly Christ's body, whether eaten or received.
830 Erl. 30,85-87. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers re. W. xx. lass-iose. 831
I am not born or borne, seen or heard, and there is nowhere the spiritual food that is useful, but only the bodily need or action, according to your way of speaking. Who wants to report me here? Is there no one at home here? Well then, the previous teaching is also of no use, and helps me nothing, and must remain on the fact that I have said that Christ's flesh must either be of use in the Lord's Supper, or must be of no use at all, whether it be in heaven or in the Spirit.
168 But again I ask, How? if I eat Christ's flesh in the Lord's Supper bodily, so that I eat it spiritually at the same time, will you not admit to me that Christ's flesh in the Lord's Supper is almost useful? But how can this be? So it can be: I will eat his body bodily with the bread and yet at the same time believe in my heart that it is the body that is given for me for the forgiveness of sins, as the words are Matth. 26, 26: "This is my body, given for you," which you yourselves call spiritual eating. If there is spiritual food, then the physical food cannot harm, but must also be useful for the sake of the spiritual food. Now answer me, I am allowed to give necessary instruction here.
Yes, you say, we but the spiritual food from the bodily. Thank God! Are you the hair, 1) and so pious honest people, that you with impudent lies into the world through so many books so disgrace and blaspheme us innocent poor sinners? Is this your new art and high spirit, which the blinded Luther cannot comprehend? When have you ever heard of us eating or teaching to eat the Lord's Supper in such a way that it is only an outward bodily eating of the body of Christ? Have we not thus taught by many books that in the Lord's Supper there are two things to be remembered? One is the highest and most necessary, which are the words: "Take, eat, this is my body" etc. The other is the sacrament or bodily eating of the body of Christ. Of course, no one can pass the words through the throat into the belly, but must grasp them through the ears into the heart. But what does he take into the heart through the words? Nothing else, but that they are lukewarm.
1) i.e. are you like this?
namely, "the body given for us," which is the spiritual food. And we have further said that whoever eats the sacrament bodily without such words, or without such spiritual food, it is not only of no use, but also harmful, as Paul says 1 Cor. 11:27: "Whoever eats the bread unworthily is guilty of the Lord's body."
(170) Therefore you should not have taught us that bodily food is not useful. We say more and say that bodily food is also poisonous and deadly. But this does not prove that Christ's body is not there. Rather, it proves that he is there. For if it were not there, the bodily food would be harmless and useful. But since it is not useful, and is also harmful, it must of course be there and be eaten. Neither is it proved that the saying belongs to the Lord's Supper, since Christ says: "Flesh is not useful. And so your dream stands everywhere with vain lies and shame. The mouth that eats Christ's flesh does not know what it eats, or what the heart eats in it; it would be of no use to it, because it cannot grasp or hear the words. But the heart knows well what the mouth eats. For it grasps the words, and eats spiritually that which the mouth eats bodily. Since the mouth is a member of the heart, it must also live forever for the sake of the heart, which lives forever through the word, because it also eats the same eternal food that its heart eats with it spiritually.
We ask you, dear sirs, if you want to rave against the Lutherans or the new papists (as you disgrace us), please abstain from lies and preach and write nothing else about us than what we teach. For as ye have lied unto us hitherto, so do we not teach as ye have now heard. Or if you want to write against us, then write and prove how the Lutherans are such idols that they teach that there is no word of God in the Lord's Supper, but only the body of Christ in the bread. Item, that they have neither heart nor soul to grasp and eat such words, but only the mouth to eat the body of Christ. If you prove this, then I confess that your Scripture is right and well-founded out of measure.
is founded. For your enthusiasm goes against such people, and against no one else; as if mice or sows ate the sacrament, it would be of no use to them.
But if you leave us the words in the Lord's Supper, and admit that we have souls, we will cheerfully ask what devil commanded you to separate the word from the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper; item, to separate the heart from the mouth in us, and to drive only the bodily food into the Lord's Supper, and to tear out the spiritual. For although in the Lord's Supper the ungodly practice such separation for their own condemnation, and eat only the body of Christ without the word, with the mouth, without the heart, only bodily and not spiritual, yet Christ did not institute it in this way, but did both together, eating the word and his body, spiritually with the heart and bodily with the mouth. Now, of course, the abuse of the wicked cannot and should not break or change God's order and appointment.
From all this we conclude that the iron wall of Oecolampad, or the saying, "Flesh is of no use," cannot belong to the Lord's Supper at all. For, as we have heard, in the Lord's Supper a spiritual food of Christ is instituted, besides the bodily, because in it is God's Word, which says to the heart, "Take, this is my body," which the belly or mouth cannot bodily eat nor grasp. Although the ungodly, the papists, and the fanatics do not respect such words, and thus lack the spiritual food, the Christians meet it with their faith.
174 For this reason it is less than nothing, since they say, "Flesh is of no use"; therefore it is not there. For in this way I would also prove that there is no God nor creature, if I only put away God's word, as they do in the Lord's Supper. If you take away the word: "God created the heavens and the earth," then I would like to see who has a God, or what God is good for. Take away the word, "Christ, the Son of God, is our Savior," and I will see who has Christ, or to whom he is useful. In the flesh he is well known, for God and Christ would still be there.
even if he did not let a word of it be preached. But who would it help? Who would benefit, because no one would know that he was anything? If it is of no use, then it is certainly of no use, as the iron wall shows that what is of no use is not.
So also, if God's Word does not say that the heavens and the earth are His creatures, to whom would they be of use? Or what do they help? They are useful to the belly, but not to the soul; if they are not useful, they are nothing everywhere etc. But where the word of God is added, the heart needs and enjoys the same word spiritually in the word that the body needs and enjoys outwardly and bodily. Oh, what can I say! The old rogue, the devil, has blinded the enthusiasts in such a way that they do not know what they themselves are saying; they talk a lot about spiritual food, but do not know either what spiritual or bodily food is. Therefore, we will speak a little about it here, for the instruction of those who need it to further expose the folly of the devotees and to betray the mocking devil.
First, it is not called spiritual eating, drinking, or acting, if that which is eaten, drunk, or acted upon is spirit, or a spiritual being. For then Christ's flesh might not be spiritually eaten or drunk; since Christ's flesh, wherever it may be, in spiritual or bodily essence, visible or invisible, is truly, naturally, bodily flesh, which can be grasped, felt, seen, and heard, born of a woman, died on the cross: but therefore it is called spiritual, that it comes from the Spirit, and wants and must be spiritually eaten by us. Objectum non est semper spirituale, sed usus debet esse spiritualis. We must prove this with examples.
When Mary, the virgin, conceived and bore Christ, Christ was a real bodily, visible man, and not only a spiritual being; nor did she also conceive and bear him spiritually. How so? So she believed the word of the angel that she should conceive and give birth. With the same faith in the angel's word, she conceived and gave birth to Christ spiritually in her heart at the same time as she conceived and gave birth to him in her womb.
834 Srl. so, 8S-SI. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, 1040-1048. 835
gave birth bodily. For if she had not conceived Christ in her heart spiritually, she would never have conceived him bodily. God might have made Christ's body from her body, in her sleep, without her knowledge, as he made Eve from Adam: but then she would not have become his mother, just as Adam is not Eve's mother.
Now what did she receive in her heart? Nothing else, but the word of the angel, namely: "You shall be pregnant with the Son of God" [Luc. 1, 31]. Since she grasped the word and became pregnant with it in her heart through faith, she also became bodily pregnant with that which the word in her heart told her. Her womb does not know what it receives, for it does not hear the angel's word; but her heart does hear what the womb receives. Now she is pregnant in two ways, spiritually and physically, and yet with one fruit. And the bodily pregnancy would have been of no use to her, if it had happened without the spiritual pregnancy. Now here you see that spiritual pregnancy does not force the fruit to be a spiritual being. Yes, the fruit is bodily, but it is also a spiritual conception next to the bodily one.
Item, the shepherds saw the Lord, the child, in the manger bodily, and also Mr. Simeon in the temple, Luc. 2. But the seeing would have helped them nothing, if there had not also been a spiritual seeing. But who gave them the spiritual sight? Without doubt, not the sight of the Child, but the word of the angel that sent them to Bethlehem to see the Savior, and the answer of the Holy Spirit that came to Simeon, that he should see the Christ of the Lord before he died. Through the same word, spiritual sight, that is, faith, arose in their hearts, so that they first saw the child spiritually as the Savior, and then with their physical eyes as well. Now it is one child, one Savior, and yet it is seen in two ways: spiritually by the word, bodily by sight. But the eyes of the flesh do not know what they see, for they see the Savior, but cannot understand that he is the Savior. For they cannot comprehend the word. But the heart knows well what the
Eyes see. For it hears the words, and knows that the eyes see the right Savior. Now here the thing is bodily, and yet a spiritual seeing beside the bodily.
180) The woman with the issue of blood did not touch a spiritual thing when she touched the hem of Christ, but the bodily garment of Christ; nevertheless, there was a spiritual touching of the same garment in her heart, because she said to herself, "If only I would touch the hem of his garment, I would be healed. Behold, such word and faith in her heart is a spiritual touching. For her hand, of course, could not grasp the word that her heart spoke, "Touch," nor knew what she was touching. But her heart knew that her hand touched the garment of the Savior. But how did it know? Not from touching it, but from the word, "This is the Savior." Now what touches the heart spiritually? Nothing else, but the same bodily garment that touches the hand bodily. The bodily garment is one, and yet there are two kinds of touching, spiritual and bodily.
The land of Canaan was given to Abraham by God. Now the land is a physical thing, but there is also a spiritual taking of the same land. For Abraham took it spiritually by faith, because his heart said: I believe it, and take it. But from where did he take it? Doubtless not from the land, of which he never possessed a foot; but from the word which he said, "Unto thee and unto thy seed will I give this land." Now that his children Since his children took it bodily, their body or hand did not know what they took. For the body does not hear the word of God, but Abraham's heart knew and saw what his children's bodies took. Now they take nothing else bodily than what Abraham had previously taken spiritually through faith in God's word.
182And when he begat Isaac his son by Sarah, the same was a man in the flesh: neither is there two witnesses, spiritual and corporeal. For Abraham begat Isaac spiritually by faith, when his heart said: I believe that I will beget Isaac. But where did he get the witness? Not from
836 sri. so, sr-st. 20. L.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. xx, 1043-1046. 837
His body, or of Sarah, but of the word, "Sarah shall bear thee a son." Now when he begat the son in the flesh, his body knew not what he did, because it could not hear the word. But his heart knew what his body did, for his heart heard the word and knew that his body begat Isaac, whom he had begotten before by the word of God in faith. Now it is the same Isaac in the flesh that his heart begat spiritually through faith and his body begat bodily through the work, as St. Paul Rom. 4:3 almost praises this faith of Abraham.
Henceforth, all that which our body does outwardly and bodily, when God's word comes to it, and is done by faith, it is and is called spiritual; that nothing can be so bodily, carnal, or outward, it becomes spiritual when it is done in the word and faith. That "spiritual" is nothing else, but what is done by the Spirit and faith, in and through us, God grant, that the thing with which we deal, be it bodily or spiritual, scilicet in usu, non in objecto, spiritus est; be it seeing, hearing, speaking, grasping, bearing, carrying, eating, drinking, or what it may. For he that serveth his neighbor, and doeth it bodily, it is no good to him. For the flesh is of no use. But if he does it spiritually, that is, if his heart does it through faith in God's word, then it is life and blessedness. Now there is one kind of bodily neighbor, that he may walk, but two kinds of doings. The body does not know what it is doing, it is driven like a beast; but the heart knows what the body is doing. From where? Not from the neighbor, but from the word of God, which says: "Love your neighbor.
For so God does with us, that he sets before us both his work and his word. The work is to be done by the body, the word by the soul; for if the work were presented without the word, it would be of no use to anyone. As if he had sent Christ to Mary without a word, the work would be of no use to her. For she would know nothing about it, nor would she know it. Item, if he had let Christ die and rise again, and let such a work remain hidden and not proclaim it by word, to whom would it be of use? What use is it even now, to whom he has preached?
Is it bodily carried by the eyes, and they do not accept the word in the heart? Since our body is to deal with such works bodily, and yet cannot hear the word; again, the soul cannot go out and deal with the work bodily, God thus divides it according to both measures, and gives the word for the soul, and the work for the body, so that they both may be saved and enjoy the same grace in two ways, each his own humble portion.
Now tell me here who are the true Capernaites. For Oecolampad chides us that we are Capernaites, because we eat Christ's flesh bodily in the Lord's Supper. But I say that dw gushers are right Capernaites. For the Capernaites also separated the work from the word, and fell upon the bodily meat-eating; even as our enthusiasts do, separating the words, and leaving them, wherein is the spiritual meat, gazing and yawning 1) while at the bodily meat, as fools look into the mouth, and gape with their eyes, that they cannot perceive the words which are plainly written, "Take, eat; this is my body." This is what the Capernaites did.
But we may not be Capernaites, for we keep both bodily and spiritual food. The mouth eats the body of Christ bodily, for it cannot grasp the words nor eat them, and does not know what it eats, tasting as if it were eating something other than Christ's body. But the heart grasps the words in faith, and eats the same spiritually that the mouth eats bodily. For the heart sees what the mouth eats bodily. But from where does it see? Not from the bread, nor from the eating of the mouth, but from the word which is written, "Eat, this is my body," and yet is one body of Christ. For both. mouth and heart eat, each in its own measure and manner. The heart cannot eat it bodily; so the mouth cannot eat it spiritually. God therefore makes it equal, that the mouth may eat for the heart in the flesh, and the heart for the mouth in the spirit, and so both may be satisfied and saved with one food.
1) Thus the Wittenbergers: "gehnemeulen" i.e. yawning open the mouth. Jenaer and Erlanger: "genemeulen". Latin: xatulo ors indiant.
For not even the body with no understanding knows that it eats such food, so that it should live forever. For it does not feel it, but dies and rots, as if it had eaten other food, like an unreasonable animal. But the soul sees and understands that the body must live forever, because it eats an eternal food, which will not leave it in the grave or dust rotting and decaying.
Yes, they say, Mary, when she was with child and gave birth, she also saw her child in the flesh; the shepherds and Simeon also saw him, and so on; the others saw everything they believed. What shall we say: I hear you, you tender, disgusting fruit, want to teach your God how He should present Himself to you in the flesh; perhaps you also want to become Mary, His mother, and Simeon, and are not satisfied with the way He presents Himself to you? As you wish, go and make your own, you will see. But we trust in our God, who has willed to give birth to Mary spiritually and physically, and not to be eaten or drunk either physically or spiritually. Of the shepherds and Simeon he would be seen spiritually and bodily, and not born, neither eaten. So according to his pleasure, to whom he desired to be seen, heard, born, suckled, borne, touched, and the like, both bodily and spiritual.
But of us here he will neither be born, nor seen, nor heard, nor not touched, but only eaten and drunk, both bodily and spiritually, so that by such eating we may have as much and be as far away as those who gave birth, saw, heard, bore, etc. and be as near to us bodily as he was to them; but that there must be another way, so that he may be so near in all the world, which could not be where he appeared visibly. For this purpose he has not denied us sight, but has promised it; only that it may be kept up and saved until the last day, that there may be room for faith, and that we may not be saved here in this miserable life. What more can he do?
But that all this is right and well said, which means spiritual, I hope, is quite obvious. For this must be spiritual
are called what the Spirit does and comes from the Spirit, just as what the flesh does and comes from the flesh is carnal; as Paul says Rom. 8:5: "Those who are of the flesh are carnally minded; those who are of the Spirit are spiritually minded." Item Rom. 8:13: "If ye put to death the works of the flesh in the spirit, ye shall live." There you hear that also the fruits 1) and works of the Spirit are called spiritual, because they come from the Spirit, as he also says Gal. 5, 22: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, patience," etc. And Summa, the whole life of Christians he calls spiritual, and they all at once spiritual, 1 Cor. 1, 30. and Cap. 2, 12. that [there] is no doubt that whoever eats Christ's body in the Lord's Supper in faith spiritually, that the same also eats spiritually in the bodily meal and lives and walks spiritually.
(190) But our enthusiasts have a dizzy and fluttering spirit, (2) think that there is nothing spiritual where there is something corporeal, and pretend that flesh is of no use; so that the contradiction is true, that the Spirit cannot be with us except in corporeal things, but in the Word, water, and Christ's body, and in his saints on earth. Have we now almost overthrown the iron wall?
Now let us take Christ's saying before us, "Flesh is of no use," and see if we can do it better than the scribes. And let our reason be this, that where the two words "flesh" and "spirit" are set one against the other in Scripture, flesh cannot be called Christ's body, but is always called the old flesh, 3) which is born of the flesh, John 3:6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." For why should they set the Scriptures against each other, if they could get along together? Now Christ's body and flesh are almost compatible with the Spirit; indeed, he is the Spirit's dwelling place in the flesh, and through him the Spirit comes into all others.
192. the first is Moses, Gen. 6, 3.:, "My spirit will not be judge forever.
1) Erlanger: Fruit.
2) Thus the Wittenbergers. Jenaer and Erlanger: fladdern spirit. Latin: sxiritu vertiZinis et erroris agitantur.
3) "the old flesh" is missing from the Erlanger.
among men, because they are flesh"; item, Is. 40, 6. 7.: "All flesh is hay, but the Spirit blows into the hay, so that it withers"; and Christ Joh. 3, 6.: "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, that which is born of the flesh is flesh." But St. Paul, Rom. 8, more or less throughout the whole chapter, always sets spirit and flesh against each other; and Gal. 5, 17: these two, "spirit and flesh, are against each other" etc. And I consider that this is known to everyone who reads the New Testament; but if anyone does not believe it, let him read it, and he will find that the flesh and the spirit, where they are set against one another, are certainly condemned there, as being sinful, God's enemy and adversary, so that there is no need to introduce all the sayings here.
Since this is true and irrefutable, the flesh, where it is set against the Spirit, is not called Christ's body, but the old Adam, born of the flesh, it is certain that also John 6:63, "Flesh is of no use," cannot be understood of Christ's body, because Christ holds flesh against the Spirit. For his words are clear: "The spirit gives life, flesh is of no use. My words which I say unto you are spirit and life." You see that he separates the flesh from the Spirit and sets it against the Spirit. For he teaches that life and spirit are in his words, and not in the flesh. But to the flesh he gives that it is of no use. And how shall it be of use, if neither life nor spirit be in it? If there is neither life nor spirit in it, there must be death and sin in it. But which heretic has ever been so desperate (except the Jews), who held such things of Christ flesh? Now let the heretics here try themselves; let them see what they can do; they have boasted that it is an iron wall and certain truth; if they can confirm the fame, I will watch.
194 If then we have that in this place "flesh" may not mean Christ's body, but certainly the old Adam, and that is contrary to the Spirit, or ever without the Spirit and not the Spirit (which is as much as contrary to the Spirit): then I hope that we poor sinners
We were not so far off the mark when we interpreted the flesh to be the mind of the flesh. For in the flesh, where there is no spirit, the highest and best is of course the mind, spirit, will, heart and courage. If then flesh is of no use, neither is its mind, understanding, will, and all its doings and abilities of any use, and the opinion of Christ in this place must be this:
Dear disciples, you who murmur and take offense at my words, you do not understand me well, for you fall into the work of eating flesh in the flesh, and understand it as it is torn with teeth and digested in the body, as flesh from the womb. 1) This is a carnal, deadly mind. Such flesh I will not give you to eat so 2); there must be spirit here, not flesh; spiritually my words must be understood, of spiritual flesh. All my words are spirit; therefore both flesh and food, and all that I speak of, are also spirit and spiritual to be understood and used. "For the spirit quickeneth; flesh is of no use."
(196) If then the fervent are allowed to stand so stiffly on this saying, "Flesh is of no use," which must be quite dark and uncertain with them, but with us it is almost certain that it stands against them, they should also hold it against us, whether we stand firmly and stiffly on the saying, "This is my body," which is quite bright, certain, and clear; so that it cannot be made dark and uncertain by any art or power, and all fervency about it will come to shame. For we do not yet see the Scriptures, 3) which should strive against this saying, as they boast and pretend, for whose sake we should not stand so stiffly upon it. We see that their blind conceit sees through a painted glass, and lets itself think that the Scripture strives in many places against this saying; but it rather rhymes with it, and strives against their enthusiasm.
the same expression is also found in Luther's "Hausrechnung," De Wette - Seidemann, vol. VI, p. 330. There Seidemann explains "Fleisch ynn Schernn" by "Krebse"; likewise incorrectly the Erlangen edition, vol. 65, p. 234.
2) "so" is missing in the Jena.
3) Scripture----Scriptures.
But Zwingel is first of all an unskilled carpenter and hews rough chips, since he writes in Baden 1): "That which is born of flesh is flesh", Joh. 3, 6. Now if Christ eats flesh, nothing but flesh comes of it. Fie and shame to him who says this; nor does it follow according to the mind of the eye. Haec ille. I say that you enthusiasts are bold, 2) insolent people. You pretend to be very humble, patient and patient toward men, but you are equally foolish and foolish toward God and His Word.
198. Behold now, how subtle is this: "That which is born of flesh is flesh"; therefore, where Christ is eaten flesh, nothing but flesh can come of it. The saying John 3:6 speaks of the birth and nature of the flesh, so it refers to fleshly eating; this spirit even has the Scriptures under its control.
199. for I hold that Zwingel here speaks of natural flesh; as bread and flesh, where it is eaten, becomes flesh and blood of him that eateth it, and would that Christ's flesh were eaten, it should be digested, and become flesh and blood, as other meat. And this is what the saying of John 3:6 means: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Rhyme well down the stairs. But if his opinion is this, that he who eats Christ's flesh becomes flesh, or carnal, and not spiritual, then it rhymes even more finely, and may be concluded likewise: He who eats bread becomes bread, and he who eats sausage becomes a sausage, and he who drinks wine becomes wine. So it would be a wonder that the wolves have not long since created 3) or become vain sheep, because they eat so much. Well, such alfenzen we want to let go.
200 But the blasphemy is not to be suffered, that these enthusiasts also want to weave Christ flesh into this saying, "That which is born of flesh is flesh"; and their opinion is bad, that Christ flesh is born of flesh. Thus they indicate how finely they read and understand the 6th chapter of John. The wretched Satan drives them to
1) To D. Eck. Cf. 8158.
2) Erlanger: "bold and".
3) "schüfen"----- sheep-like. Latin: oviles.
To believe and speak with such thirst and stubbornness. How can they think anything good of Christ's flesh, because they insist that it is born of flesh and is flesh? Then they must go on and on saying that his flesh is of no use, and may not deny it.
201. But we poor sinners and servants of the baked God say thus: That Christ flesh belongs under the saying, That which is born of the Spirit is spirit; for his flesh is not born of flesh, but of the Holy Spirit, as also the children and all the world confess in faith, saying, "I believe in Jesus Christ our Lord, who is conceived of the Holy Spirit." And the angel, Matth. 1, 20., speaks to Joseph in his sleep: "Do not be afraid to take Mary, your spouse, to yourself. For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit",
202. and Luc. 1, 34. 35. when Mary consulted with the angel how it should be that she should have a child, because she knew no man, Gabriel said: "The Holy Spirit will come into you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy thing that is born of you will be called the Son of the Most High. Here you hear that Christ's body is born of the Spirit and is holy, therefore it must certainly not be flesh but spirit, according to Christ's saying, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." But of no other man does the Scripture speak thus. Not that I put these sayings before the zealots, for they should be able to revile them and quickly jump over them, as their virtue and high spirit is wont to do; but I want to strengthen and comfort us poor Capernaites and carnivores with them against their arrogant devil. For if their ravings continue that Christ's flesh is of no use, soon Marcion, Manichaeus, and Valentine will come, teaching that Christ had no right body, but a ghost of a body, because it does not rhyme that Christ's body is of no use, and yet should have a right body.
203. Now from these sayings we learn what is called spirit or spiritual, what is called flesh or carnal, so that we do not follow our eyes and fingers.
844 "rl. so, 100-102. 20. L.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. XX, 1053-1056. 845
But, as I have said above, that all things are spirit, spiritual, and of the spirit, and that which comes of the Holy Spirit, however bodily, outward, visible it may be; again, flesh and carnal, whatever comes without the spirit from the natural power of the flesh, however inward and invisible it may be. For also St. Paul, Rom. 8, calls carnal sense flesh, and Gal. 5, 20. among the works of the flesh also counts heresy, hatred, envy etc., which are nevertheless completely inward and completely invisible.
(204) Now if Christ be separate flesh from all flesh, and only spiritual flesh above all, born not of the flesh, but of the Spirit, it is spiritual meat: If it be spiritual meat, it is eternal meat, which cannot perish, as he himself saith, Joh 6:27: "Work 1) meat that perisheth not, which the Son of man shall give unto you." And again, v. 33, 48, 50, f.: "I am the living bread come down from heaven." Item: "He who eats me lives forever." And so on through the whole chapter he teaches how his flesh is the true, living, eternal food, which makes alive and keeps all who eat it, and whoever does not eat it must die etc.
205 Why is this? Because his flesh is not of the flesh, nor carnal, but spiritual; therefore it cannot be eaten, digested, or changed. For it is incorruptible, like all that is of the Spirit, and is food altogether and of a different kind from corruptible food. Perishable food is transformed into the body that eats it; this food, in turn, transforms into itself the one who eats it, making him like it, spiritual, living, and eternal, as it is when he says, "This is the bread from heaven that gives life to the world."
If Christ's flesh is eaten bodily or spiritually, the same body is the same spiritual flesh, the same incorruptible food, which is eaten in the Lord's Supper with the mouth bodily and with the heart spiritually,
1) Erlanger: "the".
after Christ's institution, or eaten only with the heart spiritually through the word, as he teaches, John 6:35. For the fact that in the Lord's Supper he is eaten with the mouth bodily does not break him off, so that he must become flesh or carnal food; but if he goes into the mouth or heart, it is the same body; just as when he went on earth, he remained the same Christ, if he came into the hands of the pious or the wicked.
Therefore, the disciples should not conclude thus: If Christ is eaten meat, then nothing but meat is made of it. This is true if one speaks of beef or boar meat, and Capernaites speak in this way. But thus: If Christ is eaten flesh, nothing but spirit comes of it. For it is spiritual flesh, and cannot be changed, but changes and gives the spirit to him that eateth it. Since the poor sack of maggots, our body, also has the hope of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal life, it must also become spiritual and digest and consume the old fleshly things in it. This is what this spiritual food does, when he eats it bodily, it digests his flesh and transforms him, so that he also becomes spiritually alive and blessed forever, as Paul, 1 Cor. 15:44, says: "The body will rise spiritually."
For in this eating it is so, that I give a gross example, as if the wolf devoured a sheep, and the sheep was such strong meat, that it changed the wolf, and made a sheep of it. So we, if we eat Christ's flesh bodily and spiritually, the food is so strong that it transforms us in itself and makes spiritual, holy, living men out of carnal, sinful, mortal men; just as we already are, but still hidden in faith and hope, and is not yet revealed, on the last day we will see it. And if they can badly eat bread and wine and drink without harm, because they also eat Christ's body and blood spiritually, they should also admit to us that it would be harmless to eat Christ's flesh bodily, besides the spiritual food; because Christ's body is as good as bread and wine, as I have written against D. Carlstadt. But it is not worth that
It 1) such high spirits should read and answer, therefore 2) I must let it pass here also.
209] Here I will leave it with the two main points and cornerstones of the prophets, since they say: Christ is seated at the right hand of God, and flesh is of no use, therefore his body may not be in the Lord's Supper. Where these two pieces lie down, they have lost the matter altogether, as they themselves well feel and also confess. But I hope they have become stubble and dust, and the truth has smelled itself on the devil. For this he can do nothing better, but come again and bring straw support, so that he can settle such a case. So he who has helped me now will also have more in store than they think (peace I would like to have where it could be), 3) and bring forth the prophets; but if it should not be, then let go what goes there. I trust to do more with one book than they with ten. For lies need much washing and chattering; truth is soon told.
210 But when they lay little foundations, and make a pretense, Matt. 24:23, "If they shall say unto you, Behold, here is Christ; believe ye not. I have answered this sufficiently in the book against the heavenly prophets, and have not yet been overthrown by them. In the same way, when they say: If the bread is Christ's body, then the bread is crucified for us, I have also answered that there. For the two pieces are D. Carlstadt's, which he leads against me among others. Item, that they ask: Where Christ commanded to eat his body in the Lord's Supper, is also D. Carlstadt's and easy to answer, so: Let them put on Brill, or a boy spell these words: "Take, eat, this is my body", then they will find it well.
211. summa, if we conquer these two main pieces, so that they do not contradict each other: Christ is seated on the right, and yet is in the evening.
1) "it" is missing in the Erlanger.
2) darum" is missing in the Erlanger.
3) .These brackets are set by us. The meaning will be: GOtt, who has helped me so far etc., will bring the prophets to the day. In the editions por "peace" is a dot.
I will teach them where Christ commanded his body to be eaten, where it is written that in the Lord's Supper there is forgiveness of sins, consolation of souls and strength of faith, and all their questions, since they so beggarly with places and mending, and yet can nowhere cover nor warm their evil conscience with it. Of such art I may well boast myself a master, by the grace of God. For where Christ remains for me, there all shall remain for me and be found, that I know well.
D. Oecolampad also has mercy on us, and wants to help us poor people, and complains: If Christ's body were in the bread, we would have to worry so much and have so many thoughts about such a miracle, as Christ's body would become bread, that we would forget about his memory, which he commands so harshly: Therefore, it is better that there is nothing to it, than that we have to have such sorrow. Truly, it is a yearly trade here, and should still give the spoiled lazy student cause for concern, as the cow would have gone through the door, and would still have had to leave its tail attached, or as the ox would have had to hang its dung on the top of the beam. It is a tiresome thing to waste time and words with such devilish jiggery-pokery, just as if Christ had commanded us to investigate how his body was in the bread. So I also wanted to say: Christ is not God. For if this were true, we would gain so much to think 4) about such a great miracle, how the Godhead might become man, that we should forget about faith. But lest this should happen, it is better that Christ be not God.
After that he first of all comes into great distress, whether the bread is nobler than the virgin's body; and there is a great deal of such talk in their books. In all of which this is the very best, that they bear witness to how they have a restless, uncertain, insecure heart in this matter, which cannot cease nor desist, ever more and more.
4) Jenaer: commemorate. Latin: ooNtationum st inäaZationum.
848 Erl. so, 104-10". 20. l.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. XX, 10Ü8-IV61. 849
And yet, because they have seen that I am full of joyful words, they want to persuade us with high defiant words, as they are also certain of the matter from the measure. But words do not do it, truth and sure conscience must do it; a sure conscience does not beg thus.
214 So that I now keep her on the two main pieces, I will now leave all other her chatter and have enough of these told. For I know such spirits well, I have also had many of them before me, how they slip, flutter to and fro and only seek cause, even if it is not, to chat, only that they do not have to stand and answer to the right main pieces, since one asks them and presses them. For they think it is answered, when they make a book, and write on it the little word: answer.
At the end, we will also discuss one or two of the Fathers' sayings, as D. Oecolampad discusses them. They consider St. Augustine as their own, because he often uses the words: mysterium, sacramentum, signum, invisibile, intelligibile. But Oecolampad cannot conclude anything certain from it, as he boasts that he has the certain truth. For although St. Augustine often says that bread in the Lord's Supper is a sacrament and sign of the body of Christ, Oecolampad has not yet concluded anything certain from this. Oecolampad has not yet established that there is only bread and not Christ's body, because one can say that Christ's body is invisible under a visible sign, as the same St. Augustine says: Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma, Sacrament is a visible form of the invisible grace.
Here St. Augustine himself explains in his own words what he means by the words sacramentum, signum, invisibile, intelligibile, much differently than Oecolampad interprets them. For St. Augustine does not say that sacrament is a figure or sign of a future or absent thing, as the stories of the Old Testament find; but a figure of the present and yet invisible thing. Because we have Augustinum himself, who is in contact with his own
If we explain it in words, we may not interpret or explain it to any other stranger.
217 As often as St. Augustine uses such words: 8Loramsntuiv, vsl: siZnum oorxori8 st 8LvZuim8 Domini, the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, and the like, he stands strongly on our side against the enthusiasts, and wants bread and wine to be a visible form of his invisible body and blood present. But it is due to Oecolampad that he proves how St. Augustine uses the little word sacrament and the like here for a sign of an absent or future thing, as he invents from his head and interprets St. Augustine with falsehood and lies. If he does that, let us depart. We have St. Augustine's explanation ourselves, as has been said. If they now take many sayings from St. Augustine, since he has such a way of saying that the bread is his body's sacrament or sign, and must be invisible, spiritually understood, etc., then they do nothing more than bring us weapons,' so that we should strike them on the head, if we were not otherwise equipped enough.
218) But what do they say to the saying that St. Augustine ad Januarium, epist. 118, writes thus: It is evident that the disciples, when they first received the body and blood of the Lord, did not receive it sober; but it pleased the Holy Spirit that, in honor of such sacrament, the body of the Lord should first enter the mouth of the Christian before any other food.
219 To this, you interpreters, interpret us this saying, here St. Augustine stands and calls the Lord's Supper a sacrament and yet says: The disciples took the body and blood in the sacrament. St. Augustine calls the Lord's Supper a sacrament, yet he says: "The disciples received the body and blood of the Lord in the sacrament. Item, that the body of the Lord should go into the mouth of the Christians before other food, in honor of this great sacrament. What does Christian mouth mean here? What does it mean that the body of the Lord enters the mouth before other food? And this happens in this sacrament? Is it clear enough what Augustine means by the word sacrament? Does it still mean a mere empty sign of an absent thing? What does the Lord's body mean? Does it mean a piece of bread, or does it mean a piece of bread? There it is that Augustine sacramentum corporis
et sanguinis means an outward visible form, under which Christ's invisible body and blood is truly present, received and taken into the mouth bodily, like other visible bodily food. Item, Psalm 33. St. Augustin says: Christ was carried in his hands, when he gave his body to the disciples and said: "This is my body"; yes, he carried the same body in his hands. Is the saying also dark?
I must address their conscience a little here. For their mouth and pen have gone so deeply into the no (as they say) that they cannot turn back to the yes. Their conscience (I say) must therefore think: Truly, we interpret and direct St. Augustine and the Fathers to our mind; but it does not want to be certain. It is not a matter of liking, but of needing. It is not great art to say: This or that may be understood in this way; but this is art, this is also demanded of us, that we prove that it must be understood in this way and cannot be understood in any other way. Possibile does not do it; necessarium does it, as the logicians say. Now we boast of certain truth; but truly we do not prove it, and especially because there are one or two sayings of St. Augustine that are quite clear and bright, that Christ is the body in the sacrament, and sacrament is not a mere sign, as we say. So it is indeed possible that Augustine also uses the word "sacrament" or "sign" in all other sayings, and all his sayings are of no help to us. What does it matter (I say), their conscience must tell them so? For how do they know that Christ's body in the sacrament should go into the sober mouth of the Christian, and that Christ's body should be in his hands and carried, when he says: "This is my body"?
After the apostles, holy Christianity has no better teacher (of my understanding) than St. Augustine, and the holy, dear teacher should be so defiled and blasphemed by the scribblers that he should be kept under cover and protection of their poisonous, blasphemous, seductive teaching, then I will say no to it, because I have a breath, one does him wrong. And it is indeed good to say no to it, because the blasphemers will not accept his words.
alone point to their meaning, and such interpretation nevertheless do not prove, nevertheless boast, they have the bright pure truth certainly. Their proof gives no more than this: it may thus be understood. When they have this, they fall on it and defy that it must be understood in this way. For he who boasts that he is certain of truth, as these enthusiasts do, speaks of course that it must be so. And yet they hit themselves in the cheeks and punish themselves by lying, because they prove no more than: it may be so, potest esse, ergo necessario est; the children in the schools know what that means.
They look only to see whether they will make the sayings of the Scriptures or of the fathers uncertain and bring them into doubt before the people. When they have done this, they leave it there; then they immediately boast that they have the truth for certain, and do not even think that they should prove their actions, just as if they were doing this to spite us. But what kind of spirit this is, which alone directs its art to make the sayings of the Scriptures uncertain and doubtful, and does not also again build certainly and firmly on the other side, and thus on the sand, and boasts of certainty, which it itself makes uncertain, is easy to recognize. For it is certainly not Christ's Spirit who makes certain and certain all that he teaches, as St. Paul praises the Plerophoriam, Rom. 4, 8, and 2 Cor. 1, 19: "In Christ JEsu is not yes and no, but yes yes."
Now Oecolampad does nothing else with the sayings of the fathers, but that he throws them out of the sense, so they were held until now, and makes them uncertain. And again he does nothing to make them certain and firm in his mind, so he lets them float and hover between heaven and earth with all those who follow and adhere to him. This is not teaching, but deceiving; and to boast of such as certain truth is to lie twofold, and to deceive the poor consciences.
224 Tertullianus, the oldest teacher of the time of the apostles, in the fourth book against the heretic Marcion, says thus: "The bread that Christ took and divided among his disciples, he made his body, saying, 'This is my body,'" which is as much as to say: "This is my body.
as the form of my body. But it could not have been a form if it had not been a real body. Now that which is vain or nothing (as a ghost is) can of course take no form. Or did he make the bread a vain thing, or a ghost of the body, because he had not a right body? then he should have given the bread for us. This saying is to help Oecolampad that in the Lord's Supper there is vain bread, and stands stiffly on the word figura, since Tertullianus interprets the words of Christ thus: "This is my body," that is, my body's figura, or form. Hence Oecolampad has his reason for making the word of Christ in the Lord's Supper "my body" of my body sign.
Here I must once again remind them of their duty and office, which they always and forever forget, namely, that they should prove that Tertullianus' statement is not only possible or possible, but should and must be understood on the basis of their delusion. If they do not do this, then we justly reproach them as liars and deceivers, because they boast that they are certain of the matter and have the truth, condemning us with our faith. Now he is never able to prove that figura here is so much as a sign, as others have shown him before, but he forces Tertullianum with his conceit that figura must be called a sign here, and yet cannot be called so, Tertullianus does not suffer it; as we shall hear. Because Oecolampad thus forces the same word and does not prove it, he is already down, and Tertullianus helps him nothing everywhere. How should one interpret it differently? Then you see, what do I ask about it? You shall prove it, it is your duty to speak, to listen to me: There stands the mute.
226 But we do not deal now with whether Tertullianus and other teachers teach rightly or wrongly. For we do not want to build our faith on men, but on God's word, the one rock. Not that we despise them, for they certainly meant it as well as we can always mean it, and offered their work to benefit us; but we act whether the fathers' enthusiasts use sayings rightly, or whether they deal in lies, and see what the fathers held. Now Tertullianus stands and says: Christ
made the bread his body in the Lord's Supper, according to the words: "This is my body. Here is no conceit nor wavering; for to make bread his body is to speak aridly, clearly and brightly. Oecolampad lets this go, and jumps once; for it is for us.
But that follows: "that is so much as my body's figura," which Oecolampad accepts as for itself. But figura is a conceit and a fickle word. He would like to interpret it as a likeness, model, or sign of interpretation, just as the stories in the Old Testament are called figures of the New, as Adam is called a figure or model of Christ, as a bride of Christianity is called a model or figure. But figura according to Latin kind does not mean such model; but the little word figura is misused there. For Oekolampad almost gladly accepts the abuse, for it serves him well; but he should prove it and yet cannot. For we say that Tertullianus uses the word figura according to the proper manner of the Latin language, since it means a form or shape, mathematice, which is long, thick, broad, round, white, black, which can be seen, felt, "traded"; as we Germans also say of the Sacrament that Christ's body is under bread's shape, and his blood under wine's shape. This is what we call Gestalt, which Tertullianus calls figura in Latin.
If Oecolampad cannot prove that figura is called a model here, then he is invented a falsifier of Tertulliani and a fraud, and his bodily mark goes to the ground. But when will he prove it? When the cuckoo becomes a nightingale. What is it, nuy, to so excellently insist on the teacher's sayings, and to present them so falsely and fraudulently, and then to boast that it is the truth? That is what I said, with vain dreams and uncertain conceit they mislead the consciences, shutting the mouths of the simple, as if something great were there, and nothing is behind it. False coiners are burned, but forgers of the Scriptures are called holy teachers.
229 Now to understand Tertullian's opinion, it is to be noted that the heretic Marcion teaches how Christ would not have taken natural right body from Mary, as also other more heretics taught, but would have been
854 Erl. so, 1I0-1IS. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, roas-ioss. 855
The devil has been only a shadow or ghost of a body that can neither be grasped, felt nor held; as the devils sometimes appear in various ways, and yet is nothing and 1) a vain ghost before the eyes.
230 Now Tertullian contests this Marcion, and wants Christ to have had a true natural body, and thus concludes: "What is a vain thing, a shadow or a ghost, cannot take on any form. For a ghost has neither color, nor thickness, nor length, nor width; it is a vain appearance. If it had color, one could grasp it and take the color; if it had thickness or length, one could break it, lift it and carry it, set it and lay it. Item: one can also make no color, thickness, length on it, on it, around it or over it. That is one. Now Marcion confesses that Christ's body (that is, his body's shadow or ghost) is in the bread. Tertullian replies: "How could Christ's body be in the bread, and take the form of bread, if it were not a true body; because it is not possible that form should exist where there is a ghost and not a true body?
This is the one syllogism or conclusion of Tertullian; this is what he wants, since he says: The bread, which Christ took and divided among his disciples, he made his body, when he said: "This is my body", that is, my body's form. He made the bread into the form of his body, so that Christ's body was under the bread; for form cannot be without body, as he says afterwards. But he had to speak of form, because Christ's body is seen invisibly, not differently than under bread's form; yes, it is no longer bread's form, but it is Christ's body's form (says Tertullian). But it could not have been a form (he continues) where it was not a true body. For that which is vain (as a ghost is) can take no form. Then you hear again that the bread could not be the form of Christ's body unless his body were a true body, because a ghost cannot take form.
232. what such conclusion Tertulliani against
1) Erlanger: "and one".
Marcion, I leave it, it does not concern us now. But we can see that Tertullianus is of the opinion that Christ's real natural body is in the bread of the Lord's Supper, so that the shape of the bread, its thickness, width, length, and color, has become the shape, thickness, length, and color of Christ's body through his word, when he says: "This is my body. I do not add my words here, but I show Tertulliani's own words. And what kind of fencing would it have been against Marcion, if Tertullian wanted to prove from the Lord's Supper that Christ had a real suffering, and did not believe himself that Christ. Body would be in it? But now he says that. The form cannot be without the body, and the bread is the form of his body. So surely Christ's real body must be truly there, since his form is, which from the bread, through the word, has become his form. This is Tertulliani's opinion, I truly know, and his words are dry and clear.
233 The other syllogism or conclusion is: But if this should not be, and Christ should have made the bread a ghost of his suffering (as you, Marcion, would like to say), because he should not have a proper body, then you must say that he gave bread badly for us, for the forgiveness of sins, because he says: "This is my body, which is given for you. If there is nothing but ghost in the bread, and the ghost cannot be given for us, then the bread must be given for us, because there is nothing left to suffice the words, "This is my body, given for you." That is what he says. Or if for this reason he made the bread a ghost of his body, because he did not have a right suffering, he had to give the bread for us. Then we can see that Tertullian wants to have in bread the body that was given for us, so that we do not have to say that bread was given for us. So that he clearly confesses that the words of Christ: "Take, eat, this is my body, given for you," summarize bread and body, that the body is in the bread. But no one would say so who held the bread in the sacrament.
234 From all this it is (I think) clear enough that Tertullian does not understand figuram here in Oecolampad's way for an equivalency.
It is called the form of the body of Christ, because Christ's body is in it and under it, and speaks out dryly: Where Christ's body would not be there, it would remain bread and bread's figure, which would be given for us. Let Oecolampad prove his figure also thus. They are strange saints to me. The holy teachers have the way of interpreting the Scriptures, that they take bright, clear sayings, and thereby make the dark, wavering sayings clear; it is also the way of the Holy Spirit to illuminate the darkness with light. But our enthusiasts do something absurd, they take a dark, shaky word from a text that pleases their conceit, leave out what is written next to it, run after it and want to make a bright, clear text dark and shaky with it, and then say that it is the truth. This is the way of the devil, who is a master of darkness and wants to make the light dark with darkness.
As here in Tertullian, Oecolampad takes the dark word figura, which he himself is not sure what it means, and also does not see it right. This must now be the bright sun; then runs to the bright words: "This is my body", which must badly be the clouds and darkness; just as they are the dark sayings: "Flesh is of no use," "Christ is seated at the right hand of God," also for suns, and thus want to darken the words of the Lord's Supper; not that the Scriptures are dark, but their conceit is blind and lazy, so that he cannot see the clear words rightly; just as a lazy man does not open his eyes to see the right light, and takes the gleam for light.
236) Tertullian has another saying in the book against the Jews, where he deals with the saying Jer. 11, 19. They said: "Let us throw the wood into his bread. 1) Tertullian interprets this as follows: "Without doubt the wood is thrown into his body. For this is how Christ Himself interpreted it, when He calls the bread His body, which body the prophet had previously proclaimed to be bread.
237 I am not fencing here whether Tertullian has
1) In the Vulgate: Miiiamus liMum in pansm "to".
Jeremiah's saying properly interpreted. Demi in the Hebrew it says thus: Let us root up the tree with the food, that is, with fruit and with everything; from this we do not act now, but we act what Tertullian understood in this. Now it is certain that by the wood he understands and interprets the cross that Christ bore, and by the bread his body, and calls the bread in the Lord's Supper; for Christ nowhere else calls the bread his body. John 6:35 says that he is bread, but does not say that bread is his body. Whoever then calls the bread in the Lord's Supper the body of Christ crucified, beloved, does he also confess that there is bread in it? Now Tertullian does it here and speaks clearly of the bread, that Jeremiah called it crucified, and threw the wood into it, and that the same bread was his body, making bread and body one thing.
In the same way, in the third book, he writes against Marcion, and he repeats the same saying of Jeremiah: "Let us cast the wood into his bread. Without doubt (says Tertullian) "into his bread", that is, into his body. For this is how God Himself interpreted it in your Gospel (you Marcionites), when He calls the bread His body; so that it may be noted that He made or gave the bread into the form of His body, which body the prophet showed beforehand in the form of bread, which mystery the Lord Himself was to interpret afterwards etc. Here Tertullian speaks again how the bread is a figure or form of the body of Christ, and Christ gave such a form to his body when he said, "This is my body"; just as we heard in the first sentence above. So that it may be taken that he is speaking here of the bread and the body in the Lord's Supper, and says: mathematice, that is, the prophet gives the body of Christ of the bread form so long before; which afterwards Christ has done more clearly, since he says: "This is my body", et dedit panem sui corporis figuram.
239 These are all Tertullian's words, that Jeremiah, with his prophecy, had previously given the bread to the body of Christ, which Christ then accomplished by giving the bread to his body. All this
858 Erl. 30,115-117. II. Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, 1071-1074. 859
must be spoken of the natural bread, which has a form, as it is in the Lord's Supper, not of the spiritual bread, of which John 6:35. For this does not give form to Christ's body, but is Christ himself, as he says: "I am the bread from heaven" etc. Since Tertullian understands that this is natural bread, of which Jeremiah says that the Jews threw the wood into it, and says that it is Christ's body crucified, I think it is powerfully proved that Tertullian confesses in the Lord's Supper, under the form of bread, Christ's true body, to which the wood of the cross was thrown. Let us see what our fintechs and conceiters want to do here in this light.
240. And that they may try their thinness and prove their art, I also give them as a gift this saying of Tertulliani, which he writes in the book of the resurrection of the flesh and says: The flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated to God; the flesh is marked, that the soul may be kept; the flesh is shadowed by the laying on of hands, that the soul may be enlightened in spirit; the flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fattened by God.
241 Now here teach us how our flesh is nourished with the body and blood of Christ. Turn it around once; and as you say in the Lord's Supper that bread signifies the body, and wine the blood of Christ; so again teach us here that the body of Christ signifies bread, and the blood signifies water or wine, by which the body is nourished. But see to it that you also make the interpretation certain that this must be so. For we are not satisfied, either here or elsewhere, if you alone say that it must be so.
242 What kind of spirits and people are these, who play the good old teacher in the world with lies and deception, to seduce and confuse the simple consciences, and then boast that it is the pure truth, blaspheming God and the Holy Spirit. It would be much better that they freshly deny the dear fathers, than that they want to draw them to their mind with such deception and falsification, and deceive the world.
under the fathers' names, whom they wrong before God and the world.
Irenaeus is also one of the oldest teachers, who had to fight against the Valentine heretics, who taught that Christ was not the Son of God, and the resurrection of the flesh was nothing; the body would also not be saved, but only the soul, because St. Paul says: "Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God", 1 Cor. 15, 50. Against this Irenaeus writes that the body also becomes blessed, and is a resurrection of the flesh, as our faith confesses. And among other things he gives this proof against it: "If the body is not also saved, why is it fed with the body and blood of the Lord in the sacrament? If he eats an eternal food, he will certainly live on it eternally. But let us hear his own words. In the 4th book, chapter 5, he says: "Just as the bread that comes from the earth, when it is called by the name of God, is no longer bad bread, but a sacrament, which stands in two things, an earthly and a heavenly. So also our bodies, when they receive the sacrament, they are already no longer rotten, because they have the hope of resurrection.
244 How do the enthusiasts do here, who boast that Irenaeus stands with them, and want to be sure of the matter? Oecolampad wants to be a knight against the papists and their transubstantiation, and against Valentinum. But I would like to hear and see him who would interpret this saying to mean that there is only bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. There stands Irenaeus, and says: the bread is not bad common bread, after it is called or appointed by God, but Eucharistia (so the ancients call the sacrament); but what may be the calling, since God calls the bread with? It can be nothing else, but the word, when he says: "This is my body", then he calls it and gives it a new name, which it did not have before, because it was bad bread, and says: "The bread stands after such naming or word in two things; the one is earthly (that is bread, which comes from the earth, as Irenaeus says here), the other heavenly; that must be Christ's body,
860 Erl. so, 117-11p. 20. l.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. XX, 1V74-1O77. 861
who is in heaven. What other heavenly thing can there be in the sacrament besides the earthly one, which is there by God's naming or word?
Here, Oecolampad makes earthly and heavenly into one thing, namely bread, which is earthly because it comes from the earth, and also heavenly because one gives thanks and praise to God about it. In this way, one should move Irenaeum around and teach it to swarm. If one asks: How can we be sure that this is the opinion of Irenaeus? or who has ever heard that our thanksgiving or word is a heavenly thing? The answer is: I Oecolampad say it; if it is not enough, you have no spirit. In this way, all the bread on all the tables, when the Benedicite is said, is called heavenly, because there is thanksgiving. Shall one now believe this badly, and may no proof, but is the certain truth, if only the enthusiasts say it? Certainly, defiance, who demands further proof. Well then, that is jumped over Jrenäum and answered nothing at all to his words; nor must it mean not only answered, but also the certain truth.
But Irenaeus does not want to suffer it. For we know that bad, common bread remains bad, common bread, even if Ehristns and all the apostles themselves speak the Benedicite over it, and no heavenly thing comes of it. Just as Christ divided the bread among the people, and gave thanks and praise to God over it, yet bad bread remained there and did not become heavenly.
But Irenaeus says here that according to the word of God there is no longer bad bread, but besides the earthly bread there is also a heavenly thing. And it is an impudent thurst, where someone wanted to interpret the calling of God to mean humanly thanking, blessing or praising. Paul teaches us Rom. 4, 17, what God's calling or calling means, since he says: "God calls or calls that which is not that it is. So here Irenaeus also speaks of God's calling or calling, as also Moses testifies in Genesis 1 that God creates everything by calling or calling (that is, by the word). Or be you master and tell me what vocatio Dei might otherwise mean, quando
Deus vocat, dicit, appellat, nominat; that is his word, since he speaks: "This is my body", just as he speaks Gen. 1,3: "Let there be light", so it is light. Rather, it is God who names or sets up, and what he names, that stands as soon as there, as Ps. 33, 9. says: "He speaks, so it stands."
248 So there are three parts in the sacrament according to Irenaei. The first is vocatio Dei, the word or naming of God, which is, since he says: "This is my body", by the naming or word the bread (he says) becomes Eucharistia, or Sacrament, so that the bread is now two things, since before it was bad bread and one thing. Before it was vain earthly; but now both earthly and heavenly. What the heavenly thing is, let the scribblers show us, if it be not that which is shown in the naming or God's word, when he saith, "It is my body." For that it is our thanksgiving or word, Oecolampad says freely, and yet is as certain of it as he is of this whole article. Therefore it is a vexatious thurst to boast of something so boldly as certain, which one must take for granted that it is uncertain and its own dream.
Item, Irenaeus says that our bodies are already no longer corruptible when they receive the sacrament, but have the hope of resurrection etc. For we see how the ancient teachers spoke of the sacrament in such a way that it also gives the body an immortal being, but hidden in faith and hope until the last day. Now bad bread cannot preserve the body eternally, nor make it imperishable. For it is perishable food, even though Christ Himself gives thanks for it, as He Himself called bread perishable food, which He divided among the people. Thus, according to Irenaeus, there must be something heavenly in the sacrament, which may live forever and give eternal life. For he speaks of the bodily food, since our bodies (he says) receive the sacrament, through this same bodily food our bodies are already incorruptible in hope. This cannot be because the body of Christ, since he speaks of Joh. 6, 55: "My flesh is meat, and he that eateth my flesh liveth forever.
862 Srl. so, 118-121. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, M7^107S. 863
The enthusiasts should take such pieces before them and answer them with diligence, not fluttering about and drooling over something else, as Oecolampad does; for they should think that such pieces would move us to address them and not let them go like this. For such a thing shows to a haughty heart, which despises all men as blocks; just as if they had to let it suffice them, if a gusher murmurs a little to it, and should then be accepted immediately for certain truth. If we are not as learned and holy as they, we nevertheless also have consciences that move and drive us to search for the truth; so they are guilty, because they certainly boast of the truth, of proving this to us who say that their truth is vain quicksand 1) and uncertain whirl.
251 Item, hard before it Irenaeus speaks thus: How can they say that the flesh must decay and may not come to life, if it is fed with the body and blood of the Lord? Here we see that the body is fed with the body and blood of the Lord, so that it may live forever and not decay, as the heretics say. Irenaeus speaks of bodily food and the food of the body, and yet the same food should be the body and blood of the Lord. It is not enough to say that the body and blood of the Lord are called bread and wine, as a sign of his body and blood. For these do not give the incorruptible life to the body, of which here Irenaeus speaks against the heretics, that they do not allow the incorruptible life to the body, when it eats such food as gives it. Nor is it enough that they interpret it to their liking; they must prove it and make it certain, as they boast that they are certain.
252 In the fifth book, chapter 5, he says: "He confesses that the cup (which is a creature) is his body, through which he strengthens our bodies. And behold, the body of Christ in the cup strengthens our bodies. This is spoken of the bodily food without any doubt, and yet it is the body of Christ, even though the cup is also a creature. Item,
1) In the old editions: Trebesand.
soon after: When therefore the mixed cup and the made bread come upon the word of God, it becomes the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, by which our body's nature increases and endures. How then can they say that the body should not be able to receive the gifts of God, which is eternal life, when it is nourished with the body and blood and is its member?
Here we hear that bread and wine are the word of God, which he calls the calling of God above, and interprets itself that the sacrament is not a sign of the absent body of Christ, but is the body of Christ itself, so that not only our body is fed bodily, but also our body nature and being is nourished, strengthened and preserved for eternal life, and thereby becomes a member of the body of Christ etc. I long and desire to hear how the enthusiasts not only want to resist these and similar sayings, but also immediately bring them to the contrary mind, and that in such a way that it is tangibly certain that Irenaeus holds with them. For we do not believe their 2) mere uncertain interpretations and word marters, as Oecolampad does; it should be dry, clear proof, stronger than this is ours. If they do this for me, I will praise them of the Holy Spirit's own heart.
254 Let us also hear St. Hilarium, who was also one of the ancient teachers and an excellent man in the Scriptures. He writes against the Arians lib. 8. de Trinitate thus: If the Word truly became flesh, and we also truly take the Word that became flesh to ourselves in the food of the Lord, how can it be believed that he does not naturally remain in us, who 3) took upon himself the nature of our flesh when he became man, never to leave the same 4) and in addition has mixed the nature of his flesh together with his eternal nature under the sacrament of the flesh, of which we are partakers in common?
255 Here Hilarius speaks that we are true-
2) Walch's old edition and the Erlanger: theirs.
3) Wittenberger: "die die Natur", a misprint. Latin: qui naturLm.
4) In the editions: the same. Latin: inssparavUsna.
T64 - Erl. so, 121-123. 20. L.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. XX. 107S-I082. 865
Hastily take in the food of the Lord (that is, in the Sacrament) the Word that became flesh, or, as we would like to speak more clearly, the incarnate Word, and therefore let Christ remain in us naturally or with his nature and essence, not only spiritually, as the spirits dream. And calls the sacrament sacramentum carnis nobis communicandae , a
Sacrament of the flesh, which is shared among us in common, that there not only bread is shared among us, but also flesh. And further says: that Christ under the same sacrament mixes together, not only spiritually, but the nature of his flesh together with his eternal nature. But what does the nature of his flesh mean? Is it bread and wine? Or does it mean his natural essential body? Now let whoever wants to gloss and interpret here, only that they make their gloss certain, and interpret the words Hilarii with good reason differently than they read. For as they stand there, they give us in the sacrament not only Christ naturally in the flesh, but also his eternal divinity.
Soon after this he says: "If we want to speak how Christ is truly and naturally in us, if we do not learn to speak it from him, we will certainly speak it as fools and ungodly men. For thus saith he, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood drink indeed: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him," John 6:55. f. There can be no doubt that the body and blood are true, because they are both, by the Lord's own confession and our faith, truly flesh and truly blood, which, when taken and drunk, make us in Christ, and Christ in us. St. Hilarius, in the same place, is quite clear that just as Christ, according to the Godhead, is natural in the Father, and one thing essential; so Christ, through the sacrament, if we open and drink, is natural and essential in us, and we in him. For this purpose, the word "natural" is used everywhere, so that it proves a natural union of the body of Christ with us, and not only a spiritual union, which is in the will and sense.
257 Thus Hilarius says: Haec accepta
et hausta efficiunt in nobis, does not say: Haec credita et intellecta spiritualiter etc.. The true body, the true blood is taken and drunk etc. What does acci' pere et haurire mean? It is easy for the enthusiasts to invent a gloss on it here, and call it mysterium, cibum dominicum, accipere, haurire, whatever they think. Which we could do just as well as they, and do not need their mastery; but no one desires such art from them, but that is what one desires, even if they have interpreted and glossed most artfully, that they also want to prove that such glossing is certain and right, must be so and could not be otherwise. They have not done this to this day in any writing or saying, and they despise doing it. Just as if it were not necessary, nor they guilty to do, and was equal enough, if they only say: God is called a cuckoo. But if they do, they will not make me so many books, I know that well. Let their spirit and art be small and thin enough. Anyone can interpret and gloss according to his own will, and does not need a special spirit to do so.
258 The holy martyr St. Cyprianus. Cyprianus, writing to Pope Cornelio on how Christians in persecution should be strengthened to suffer through the Sacrament, speaks thus: Now, however, peace is needed not only for the sick but also for the healthy, and we must give communication, the sacrament, not only to the dying but also to the living, so that we do not leave those whom we incite and provoke to strife bare and unarmed, but strengthen them with the shield of the blood and body of Christ; For since the sacrament is administered so that those who receive it may have protection from it, whom we want to have safe against the enemy, we must equip them with the Lord's food. For how shall we teach them or provoke them to shed their blood over his name's confession, if we deny them Christ's blood when they should fight? Or how can we make them drink the cup of suffering, if we do not first allow them to drink the cup of the Lord in the church, as is fitting in the sacrament?
259. in this saying we see how with
866 srl. so, i2s-isö. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx. i "s-ios4. 867
Cypriano Communicatio, Eucharistia, Pax Be One Thing, and speaks of the presentation of the Sacrament to those who are to contend, for strength, and speaks out arid that they receive the Lord's body and blood in such presentation. It is true that a fanatic can make a blood sign and an insinuation out of the blood, the chalice, the sacrament, that Cyprianus must speak as they wish; but that they also prove this is not necessary, it is enough if the spirit says it.
260] In the sermon against the apostates, he says: "When they return from the altars of the devil, they come to the sanctuary of the Lord with unclean hands, which still stink from the smell of sacrifices, and still 1) smell from the poisonous food of idols, and want to touch the body of the Lord with their mouths, which still stink from their evil deeds, and still smell from the deadly flesh, despising everything that St. Paul says against it. They despise everything that St. Paul says against it in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, but commit sacrilege and violence against his body and blood, and now sin against the Lord with their hands and mouths more grievously than when they denied him.
261 Then you hear that Cyprian shows how they take Christ's body in the throat and mouth, and act freely with hand and mouth on his body. Now the mouth cannot spiritually eat Christ's body. But a scribbler soon answered that the body and blood of Christ are called bread and wine here, as a sign, and must not prove it; summa, if this applies, that one may change the words and interpret them anew, so freely that he is not even obliged to prove it, then no saying, indeed, no letter in all the world, it serves for the scribblers. But if the words are to be accepted for what they are according to the languages, that bread is called bread, body is called body, etc., or if other interpretations have to be proved with good reason, then there is neither a saying nor a letter in all the world that helps the enthusiasts, and their fame is vain lies that they have certain truth.
262 For even the saying of Augustine does not stand with them, who has the most appearance of all when he says, Psalm 98: "You will not eat the body that you see, nor will you eat the body that you see, nor will you eat the body that you see, nor will you eat the body that you see.
1) i.e. spit.
drink the blood which they that crucify me shall shed: a mystery have I given you, which if ye understand spiritually, it shall make you alive etc. And Joh. 6: What do you send teeth and belly to? Believe, so you have already [eaten]. For Augustine, because he speaks of teeth and belly, is certainly his opinion against the Capernaites and our enthusiasts, who think that Christ's body should be torn and bitten with teeth, and digested with the belly, like a piece of beef. Christians do not teach this, nor do we poor sinners; they know this, but they do not want to know it.
263 So also, when St. Augustine says: one shall not eat the flesh that one sees, etc., he also says of eating as one eats beef, as he himself declares that he speaks against those who think that Christ would cut his body into pieces and divide it. Yes, if they want to hold on to this saying of Augustine, it will take away Christ's body and flesh completely, even spiritually. For this is how it reads: Not the flesh that you see, not the blood that is shed etc. Just as if one should eat other blood and flesh than Christ's flesh and blood. Now we eat no other flesh and blood, even spiritual, than the very same that was seen and crucified. So St. Augustine does not have to deny or condemn that one eats Christ's body and blood, as his words read, but the fleshly food, as one eats sausage and bread, tears it with teeth and digests it with the stomach.
The enthusiasts lack everything in that they do not distinguish Christ's body (as St. Paul says 1 Cor. 11, 29.) from other flesh, and do not speak differently of it, except as if it were perishable, digestible, consumable flesh, which one buys in the shops 2) and cooks in the kitchen. So coarse are they that they do not see how this flesh is an imperishable, immortal, imperishable flesh, as the 16th Psalm v. 10. sings of it: "Thou wilt not let thy holy one decay", and "my flesh shall rest in hope" [Apost, 2, 26.]. Death has probably tried it once, and wanted it ver-
2) See the note to § 195 of this paper.
868 Erl. so, 1LS-1L7. 20. L.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. XX, 1084-1087. 869
But he could not, but it tore his belly and neck more than into a hundred thousand pieces, so that death's teeth were crushed and flew apart, and he remains alive. For the food was too strong for death, and it consumed and digested the eater. God is in this flesh; it is the flesh of God, the flesh of the spirit; it is in God, and God in it; therefore it is alive, and gives life to all who eat it, both body and soul.
265 If the fanciers had seen the little piece, they would not have been so mad as to call us carnivores, but would have taken themselves by the nose. For they are real carnivores, because they act with such carnal thoughts in this matter, and believe that Christ is flesh like other flesh, of no use at all and perishable. And all their defiance and glory is that they think that if they twist and turn the Scriptures and the sayings of the fathers to suit their conceit, it is enough, and so the truth is certainly established; but there is still a long way to go.
266 I have also written before against the heavenly prophets, and asked how it is that with them bread and wine in the Lord's Supper is useful, and does not prevent the suffering of Christ from being remembered, and that Christ's body and blood should not also be as useful or good as bread and wine, so that Christ's suffering can still be remembered? Or why this should follow: "Christ's flesh is not useful, therefore it is not there," and should not follow: "Bread and wine are not useful, therefore they are not there. But there you have to rush over and not answer. But this is the summa of it, the fanciers direct all their teachings and writings to this, there they penetrate and work after, that they make our text and faith in this article uncertain and shaky. If they could do that, they would think they had won. But if they could do it right away, and make us uncertain and unstable, they still have not made their faith certain, because they do not prove one letter of the glosses they give.
What kind of spirit is this, then, that wants to make this part uncertain and misleading, and yet cannot make its part certain nor firm;
Yes, he does not want to do it, nor does he take it upon himself to make it certain? Of course, there is no other spirit than the devil, who has the desire to shake hearts everywhere, and does not let them be sure and certain on any part, but rather stirs and floats, after which his wind weaves like aspen leaves. But the Holy Spirit is such a teacher, who is certain, makes certain, and does not let them so weave and float. For in Christ there is not yes and no, but "yes and amen", 2 Cor. 1, 20. And St. Paul teaches and praises in Christ plerophoriam, the complete, certain, secure mind, on which one can die and dare everything [Rom. 4, 21. Col. 2, 2.].
268 But I would advise the revelers to revel as much for full as for half, and, since it should be daring, to come through briefly and do these words, "This is my body, given for you," entirely out of the Lord's Supper. For as they believe and partake of the Lord's Supper, they must not include these words at all, but it is enough for them to partake of the Lord's Supper with these words: Christ took bread, gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat: this do in remembrance of me [Matt. 26:26]. For these words are sufficient for a man to eat this bread, and to remember Christ in it. But this is the supper of the scribes altogether: why then should the useless, unnecessary text be written, "This is my body given for you," since it is sufficiently comprehended in the remembrance of the Lord, when it is proclaimed how his body is given for us? For what else is to be remembered but how he was given for us, as St. Paul interprets?
269 O how gladly we would do this, if the words were not in all evangelists 1). O there 2) is good advice to, you must be bold and say, they are put in from the margin into the text, but not written by the evangelists themselves. Because your reason is that what seems to you to be useless and unnecessary is not true, just as Oecolampad cleverly says, "It is not true.
1) Erlanger: Evangelion. Latin: LvavZelistis.
2) Erlanger: the.
870 Erl. so, 127-irs. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx. M7-ioso. 871
There is no use nor need for Christ's body to be in the bread, therefore it is not true. So here also, it is a vain and useless thing to say that the words are in the Lord's Supper, therefore they should not be in it, since without them the Lord's Supper is completely described, instituted, and used, and no need or benefit has yet been shown that they should be in it; but if any were shown, it would be easy to make up something to the contrary. It is in your hearts that these words are left over and of no use, and you would very much like them not to be in there, because they do you the burnt harm.
270 For these are also two of Oecolampad's shameful blasphemies, that he asks why it is useful or necessary for Christ's body to be in the bread. And if we do not indicate it, he wants to conclude: there is nothing to it. What am I to say to the infernal Satan's wicked thurst? Well then, if we cannot declare it, as it would be useful and necessary that Christ's body be in the bread, should God's word therefore be false or to be twisted according to our conceit? A devout, God-fearing heart does this: It first asks whether it is God's word; when it hears this, it muffles this question with hands and feet: for what is it useful or necessary? For it speaks with fear and humility: "My dear God, I am blind, I truly do not know what is useful or necessary for me, nor do I want to know, but I believe and trust you that you know best and mean it according to your divine goodness and wisdom; I am content, and I am glad that I hear your mere word and hear your will.
But those who are possessed with devilish hope turn this around, and want to curb God's word with the question: "for what it is useful and necessary", set themselves free to the judgment seat, demand God's word before the court, and ask the poor culprit why he says and speaks such words? what use and need is it to do and speak such things? If he does not show benefit and need, they crucify him there and then as an evildoer, and then boast with the Jews, as if they had the certain truth, and God had done them a service. Is this not terrible to hear? Thus
one runs at, if one wants to act God's word with humans conceit.
Now, dear sirs, who have such teachers, be warned herewith, that you see what kind of preachers you have. They are the devil's larvae, who, under good appearances and fine words, model the devil for you in God's stead. For here they show that they do not understand anything about God's word and faith. St. Paul says Rom. 8, 26: "We do not know what to ask." This was also known to the pagan Socrates, who said: "We should ask God to give us what is good for us, because He knows best. And our enthusiasts want to go even higher, badly about God, and set a goal for him, and know what is useful or necessary for us to believe, or stand there, and want to say to him: You deny.
But if they had some understanding in faith, and had ever felt a little of it, they would know that the highest virtue, nature and honor of faith is that it does not want to know what it is useful or necessary for what it believes. For he does not want to question God, or to ask why, for what purpose, or for what need he has, but rather to be unwise, to give glory to God, and to believe his mere word. Be ashamed, you leaders of the blind, that you should not yet know such things, and spout so many books with such great glory into the world, so that you reveal your own foolishness and ignorance to everyone!
God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, Genesis 22:2, and Abraham was of course deep enough to know what it was necessary or useful for. If he would have quarreled with God (like our enthusiasts) and wanted to know what it would be useful or necessary for, or if he would have wanted to turn his word against Him, what blessing would he have received? Just that Lucifer deserves in heaven.
275. again our mother Eve also had God's word that she should not eat of the one tree, Gen. 2, 17.; then the swarming Abgott came to her with this very question, and said: "Why did God command this?" Cap. 3, 1. ff. As if to say: What is it good for? What is the need? Well, it is nothing
God's word does not mean this, and interprets God's word differently. Then it fell, and drew us all along with it, in all measure, as he is now also raising us up through these gushers, and creeps along on his serpent's belly: Why did Christ put his body into the bread? What is it good for? What is the need? Well, it's nothing, his word doesn't mean that; and so he interprets his poisonous lies and blasphemies for divine understanding, and praises the bright truth. Therefore St. Paul warns us against such a serpent, 2 Cor. 11:3, saying: "I fear that just as the serpent deceived Evam with his deceitfulness, so also your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." Isn't it true? These fanciers lead us away from the simple-minded meaning of these bright simple-minded words, "This is my body," by their deceitfulness.
276 I suppose that it is possible that Christ visibly and bodily cuts up his flesh and gives it to us to eat, as the Capernaites understand and as the enthusiasts dream, but it is not useless, and the saying, "Flesh is not useful. Why is that? Because there is the public article of our faith, that Christ is flesh full of divinity, full of eternal good, life, blessedness, and whoever takes a bite of it takes eternal good, life, all blessedness and everything that is in the flesh. And if he believed it, he would also have life and blessedness from it, but if he did not believe it, it would not help him, but rather harm him with such treasure.
Now it is impossible that the flesh should be cut, divided, torn, corrupted, or decayed, for it is a blessed, divine, incorruptible flesh, as Peter says in Acts 2:27: "It was impossible that death should retain the flesh. 2, 27.: "It was impossible that death should keep the flesh", because the 16th Psalm v. 10. speaks: "You will not let your holy one decay", and Joh. 19, 36. from Moses: "You shall not break a bone in him" [2 Mos. 12, 46.]. Suffering and dying it has once been able, but to dismember, to divide, to break, to chew, to digest, to consume, to decompose is not possible. It must be completely at once
to be conceived, born, borne, eaten and believed. And where it is, there it must be of use; for there is good in it, without, where it is without faith; for without faith nothing is of use, as St. Paul says [Titus 1:15], "To the unclean all things are unclean." And Rom. 14:23: "That which is without faith is sin."
278. Therefore, as has been said, this is one of the greatest blasphemies heard in our times, and truly horrible to hear that Zwingel and Oecolampad may say: Christ's flesh is 1) of no use where it is eaten bodily, even to believers; just as if eternal good could not be good, eternal life could not be life for the sake of our custom, and would have to change its essence, nature and kind, according to whether it was eaten by men or not; or as if it were bad an empty flesh, since there was no divinity in it. And from this we may certainly judge that the wicked Satan speaks through it. For the Holy Spirit is not so forgetful that he should so shamefully blaspheme the flesh of Christ, and cry out for a useless flesh, since he himself dwells within, and works vain good and profit thereby, whether it be in bread or heaven, or in the heart. It cannot be useless, that is not possible.
279 Neither does it help them to boast as they otherwise rightly teach and praise Christ in other things. For whosoever earnestly denies, blasphemes, and profanes Christ in one piece or article, cannot in any other place teach or honor him aright; but it is vain hypocrisy and deceit, be it what it may. For this is what it means to lose Christ completely or to keep him completely. He does not split or divide himself; he wants to be loved and honored with all his heart, with all his soul. But the devil prepares the way for other heretics who will come and say that Christ is not, that he has neither flesh nor Godhead, as happened in the beginning of Christianity. If this little piece does not move and convert them, and if it does not help the others to beware of them, to notice and shun their devil, then there is no more counsel, they will be lost; but without my fault,
1) Erlanger: be.
her blood was on her head, I warned her enough.
280 Although no Christian desires to know what good it is to believe that Christ's body is in the bread, but badly believes the words of God with fear and humility, we still want to show some benefits; not to teach the enthusiasts, because they do not respect it, nor do they ask to know it, but the devil mocks us through them. First of all, this is also a benefit, that arrogant clever spirits and reason may be blinded and defiled, so that the arrogant may stumble and fall, and never enjoy the supper of Christ; on the other hand, the humble may stumble and rise, and enjoy the supper alone, as St. Simeon says: "This is set for the fall and resurrection of many in Israel" [Luc. 2, 34.]. For it is expedient and good that the arrogant, ungodly blasphemers should be thus separated, that they should not partake of the holy Sacrament; "for one should not cast the sanctuary to the dogs, nor pearls to swine" [Matt. 7:6]. But now the scribblers believe that there is vain bread and wine, so it is certainly so, as they believe, so they have it, and so eat vain bread and wine, enjoying the Lord's body neither spiritually nor bodily. This is very good and useful, so that our goods are not scattered among the unworthy, but are kept holy and pure among the humble alone.
281 Secondly, we have heard above how Irenaeus and the ancient fathers indicated the benefit of our bodies being fed with the body of Christ, so that our faith and hope might endure that our bodies also might live forever on the same eternal food of Christ's body, which he eats in the flesh; which is a bodily benefit, but nevertheless exceedingly great, and follows from the spiritual. For Christ will also make our bodies eternally alive, blessed, and glorious, which is much greater than that he should give us his body to eat for a little while on earth. Therefore he wants to be in us naturally (says Hilarius) both in soul and body according to the word Joh. 6, 56: "He who eats me abides in me, and I in him." If one eats him spiritually through the word, he remains spiritually in us in the soul. If you eat it in the flesh, it remains in the flesh.
As he is eaten, he abides in us, and we in him. For he is not digested nor changed, but without ceasing changes us, the soul into righteousness, the body into immortality. This is what the fathers said about the bodily meal.
The third benefit, I hope, will be tremendously proven. For they will have to confess to us that we have God's words in the Lord's Supper, namely these: "This is my body, given for you, this is my blood, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. So I ask them again, is God's word of any use? If it is of no use, why does the prophet Isaiah Cap. 55, 11. say: "God's word does not return empty, but creates benefit"? Why does St. Paul say Rom. 1, 16: "God's power, which makes blessed all who believe in it"? Why is it called "the word of life" [Phil. 2, 16], "the word of grace" [Apost. 14, 3], "the word of blessedness, the word of wisdom" [1 Cor. 1, 24], and so on? Is life, grace, blessedness, wisdom, strength, power vain things? What then wants to be useful?
Why then do my nobles 1) rage and ask what Christ's body is good for in the Lord's Supper, just as if it were bad beef, and put the Word of God out of sight, as if we had a Lord's Supper without the Word of God? Who are the capernaum and carnivores here? We have God's word in the Lord's Supper, they must confess to us. But God's word creates innumerable benefits, yes, it does all things: it brings and strengthens faith, overcomes sin, the devil, death, hell and all evil, it makes us obedient to God, yes, children and heirs, it praises God, delights all angels and saves all creatures. But all this must also be in the Lord's Supper, because God's Word is in it.
Yes, they say: 2) We do not ask whether God's word is useful, but what the body of Christ is useful for itself in the bread? There, there, Luther, take a bite. Here one's heart might well fall away before the high spirit, if he wants to ask in this way. But if I
1) In the old editions: Junghern.
2) So in the Wittenberg and in the Jena. In the old edition of Walch and in the Erlanger: they say.
876 Erl. so, 1S4-13S. 20. L.'s writing: That these words re. still stand firm re. W. HX, 1VSS-1097. 877
Again, if I say that I will not let the body of Christ be separated from the word, then they should whistle and whistle at me. 1) Well then, let it be as they dream that Christ's body is in the bread alone, and that there is no word of God with it, which is not possible; but let them see what they gain, and they will escape the rain and fall into the water. For if Christ's body is without the outward Word of God, it cannot be without the inward eternal Word, which is God Himself, John 1:14, for this Word became flesh and is in the flesh.
Now I ask again: whether God himself may also be of some use? Indeed, when he walked on earth, he was so useful that whom he touched through his flesh, he helped. He called Lazaro out of the grave with a bodily voice through His body (Joh. 11, 43.), He touched the leper and made him clean (Matth. 8, 3.), He walked on the sea and reached out His hand to the sinking Petro (Matth. 14, 21.), and He went about in the land and did wonders and good deeds (Matth. 9, 35.). It is also his way and nature to do good where he is. How then could he be useless in bread, since it is the same flesh, the same word, and the same kind, and must be good and useful.
Thus they say: Yes, one does not see and feel the benefit. Well, my dear, is that where the error lies? Of course, it is of no use to the enthusiasts, who would gladly grope and feel, so that they would not have to believe, like the carnivores and Capernaites, who would also feel and bite. But we who believe know that the body is useful to us wherever it is. If it is in the bread, and is eaten bodily with faith, it strengthens the soul to believe that it is Christ's body which the mouth eats, and so faith clings to the body which is in the bread. Now this is not useless, but blessed, which lifts up, supports, and fastens faith. In the same way, the mouth, the neck, the body that eats Christ's body, shall also have its benefit, that it may praise forever, and on the last day rise again to eternal blessedness, This is the secret power and benefit that comes from the body of Christ.
1) "Pfisten" in Latin: sannis ras sxploäant.
in the Lord's Supper enters into our body; for it must be useful, and cannot be in vain; therefore it must give life and blessedness to our body, according to its nature.
I would have said this if it were possible for Christ's body to be in the Lord's Supper alone and without God's word. But this is not the case, for there are God's words: "This is my body," which grasp, comprehend and give us the body of Christ bodily, therefore the body of Christ must be useful through the word. Yes, even if it were true that Christ's flesh was like beef, and yet God's word was with it, and if it 2) were to be eaten by us, it would still be useful for the word's sake. When Abraham was promised his son Isaac [Gen. 15:6] (who was bad flesh and a child in the flesh), Abraham was justly praised by God, because he believed that he would have the son Isaac, Rom. 4:22. Here, the enthusiasts would also ask how Isaac would be of use to Abraham's faith, and then say that Isaac would never have been nothing, the spirit must be there, flesh would not be of use.
And what is the wonder that Isaac or beef is useful, if it is put into God's word and presented? After all, the devil, death, sin, hell and all misfortune will be of use and help if it is put into God's word and presented to us and believed by us. Can death be useful to me for body and soul, if I have Christ's word for it, which says: "Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" [Matth. 16, 25.], and must therefore death, through the word, drive and strengthen my soul to righteousness and obedience of faith, and chase my body through to life: should not Christ's body, which is in itself vain life, blessedness and full of God, also be as useful to me through the word as death, sin and the devil? Yes, one does not feel and see it. Neither do we feel and see how the devil and death are useful through the word. But faith feels it. Come now, my dear, and persuade us that because death without the word is not useful but harmful, it must of course be nothing, because that is your reason, that nothing is good.
2) "it" is missing in the Erlanger.
that which is of no use, so that Christ's body must also be of no use to you.
The great arrogant prudence, by which they despise God's word so shamefully, as Oecolampad does in his blasphemous antisyngram, leads them to not see the word of God in the Lord's Supper, and only look and gape at the bodily food, thinking that the divine word should present vain spiritual things and not act outwardly bodily things. This is still the seed of Münzer's and Carlstadt's spirit, who also did not want to suffer anything outwardly until they were completely drowned in the flesh.
But God turns this around and does not give us a word or a commandment, since he does not bind a bodily external thing and reproach it to us. He gave the word to Abraham when his son Isaac was bound. To Saul he gave the word, when the Amalekites were gathered to kill. To Noah he gave the word when the rainbow was bound. So from now on you will not find a word of God in the whole scripture, where a bodily external thing is not bound and presented. If we were to follow the enthusiasts, we would have to say that all such bodily external things were of no use and vain. So here also in the Lord's Supper we are given the word, when Christ's body (crucified for us) is taken in, that it is to be eaten bodily, and that such eating is to avail for the forgiveness of sins, as the words read. Just as Isaac had to come bodily and become Abraham's son, as the words read, and the rainbow had to stand bodily, also as the words read.
They themselves, the scribblers, must admit that even in their spiritual food a bodily thing is presented. For Christ's body, though it be at the right hand of God, is nevertheless a body, and an outward bodily thing, having bone and flesh, which hath no spirit, as he himself saith Luc. 24:39: "Spirit hath neither flesh nor bone, as ye see that I have." If then they want to be almost munificent and not suffer flesh and bone, they must not eat Christ spiritually, for they eat flesh and bone. Now what is the difference? Yes, what is better that they eat flesh and bone with their soul, than that they eat it with their mouth?
isset? If it is of no use in the mouth, how can it be of use in the soul, because it is the same flesh and bone everywhere? But they want to have a vain spirit, which they also have, that is, the devil, who has neither flesh nor bone.
I have written this little piece, that external things are of no use, diligently against D. Carlstadt, how it should be distinguished, thus: External things without God's word are of no use, as the Pope's laws are; but external things, taken with God's word, are salvation and blessedness, because they are in the word and fasten faith; as I have now said of Isaac and the rainbow, which are both external bodily things. But because they are written in the Word, Abraham had to attach his faith to the future Isaac, who was written in God's Word. But the devil with his enthusiasts is so hostile to the word that he always wants to separate it from the outward things, but God wants them undivided and puts them together. What one then says: Here is not a vain outward thing, but put into words: "This is my body," etc., they do not hear, they rage past as the foolish, and cry out: External things are of no use, external things are of no use. They will not let go of such a minting spirit until they also cause misfortune like the minting man. Because they have the same spirit, it is to be feared that they will bear the same fruit. As the tree is, so it bears fruit.
For from such a spirit it must follow that worldly authority is of no use as an external thing, because one does not want to hear nor see that it is written in God's word, and to believe that it is God's order, Rom. 13:1, which faith is not useless before God, and this fanatic spirit must remain rebellious and murderous. Now behold, worldly order is an outward thing; nor does it bind faith, and is also an article of faith, for the sake of the word into which it is put, Romans 13: "All orders that are in every place are of God. But it does not help with the nonsensical until they bash their heads.
But I would like to know where they got that there is a God, that the Son of God is a man, that one must believe, and
880 Err. so, iss-140. ZO. L.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. xx, 1100-1102. 881
all the other articles of our faith, which have never fallen into no understanding, whether they have known them by the Spirit before they have heard or read of them bodily and outwardly? Here they must say no, that I know for certain; for they have it by the bodily outward word and writing. How then shall such an outward word be of no use, by which the Holy Ghost is given with all his gifts? Ah, it is blind hope, that they have shut up Christ at the right hand of God in a chamber, and do not believe that he is present in his word and outward things, since his word speaks of them; therefore they themselves do not know (as St. Paul says) what they speak of, or what they put, wanting to be masters of the Scriptures, and have become useless washers, 1 Tim. 1:6. Another time we will speak of it more fully.
295 They go on to say: But what need is there that Christ's body should be in the sacrament? Faith can be strengthened without it by the Gospel, which is otherwise preached. That is right, but let us bring God to trial once more and hold before Him what is His need, or what we need, that He should hold before us such His word and work. Does he now want to make fools of us, as if we ourselves did not know as well as he what is necessary for us and for him? does he think, even if he is a god, that he alone is therefore wise, and wants to master us, the clergy? 1) If he has flesh and blood, then we have the spirit, and his flesh is of no use; but our spirit is alive, and we want to sing to him something else, so that he may think and say such words to us, and present such works to us, which we recognize to be necessary to us; if not, then we have decided that he should be a Capernait, Atreus, 2) Thyestes and carnivore, and we want to see how he will fight against us.
How do you think about this spirit? is he not humble and reasonable, moderate and sedentary? I mean, yes, he lets his evil words
1) Walch and the Erlangeners: "und wolle uns die Geistlichen meistern?"
2) Atreus put the flesh of his son before Thyestes in revenge for committing adultery with his wife.
and blasphemies to Basel and punish Luther finely for his scolding and biting. But who are the worst scolders and reproachers? Are they the ones who both reproach God and the people? Or are they the only ones who reproach 3) the seducing spirits? That is, to have the beam in one's eye and to master the mote in another's eye.
This is Oecolampad's other blasphemy. For he who asks why it is necessary what God speaks and does, wants to be smarter and better than God. This is the right coining spirit, which also said that he would put both in Christ and in the Scriptures, if they did not want to conform to his spirit. Immediately after the Zwingel, when it was held up to him that we eat Christ's body in the Lord's Supper invisibly in an unspeakable way, he goes on and cries out about Christ, saying: "O how is Christ such a fine light of the world? How finely he enlightens us, if we are not to know how his body is eaten in the bread! He would not be far off if, like the coiner, he were to enter into Christ.
One's heart might burst at such impudent talk of the infernal devil and his enthusiasts. They want to know how Christ's body is in the bread, or should it be false that he is in it, and cannot yet know how it is that they open their mouths, move their tongues, take the pen in their hands, and much less, I will be silent, that they should know how they see, hear, speak, and live bodily. We feel all these things, and are daily in them, and yet know not how it is; and want to know how Christ's body is in the bread, or let Christ be neither light nor master.
299 But we want to show, although we are not obligated to do so, also for the sake of abundance, why it is necessary that Christ's body be in the bread. And recently the first need is for God's sake. For if it were not so, Christ would be a liar in his words, since he would be
3) In the old Walch edition and in the Erlanger wrongly interpungirt: "Or are's die allein, die verführischen" etc.
882 Erl. so, 140-142. II. writings Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, 1I0S-II05. 883
says: "Take, effet, this is my body, given for you". Then you beautiful devil have the trouble: "God is true, what He says, He does, and can do" [Ps. 33, 4]. Because he says here: "This is my body", and points (with the little word "this") to the bread, as the scribblers confess, then his body must of necessity be there. And there is also power in this need, that God may receive His glory, since He boasts that He is true and faithful. In addition, we want to believe that this adversity is not hard on the spiritual God of the devotees: for he might well suffer our fleshly and baked God to be a liar, as he [the devil] has been from the beginning, and not keep or fulfill his words as he does.
The other need is for our faith; for faith in God's word is necessary for us, because it is said that we should believe it, and God demands and wants faith where His word is. Now there are God's words, which in themselves comprehend and grasp the body of Christ, that it is there. Therefore, just as the word and faith are necessary, so also the body, composed in the word, is necessary to us, so that our faith may be right and rhyme with the word, because the two, word and body, cannot be separated; and even if it were separated and without word, it would still be necessary, because life and salvation are in it.
(301) Yes, this may well be done apart from the sacrament. It is true that it may well be done apart from the body of Christ, which is at the right hand of God; should Christ not therefore be at the right hand of God? Item, it might happen without the gospel, for who would want to oppose God, if he had wanted to redeem us by deed, and had neither preached anything about it, nor become man? Just as he created the heavens and the earth, and still makes everything without outward preaching, and does not become man because of it: should the gospel therefore be nothing? But now that he will give it to thee by mankind, by the word, by the bread of the Lord's Supper, who art thou, a trusting and ungrateful devil, to ask why he doth it not otherwise and without manner? Will you set and choose for him ways and measures? You should be glad of joy
He will jump and do it in whatever way he wants, only that you get it.
302 Do you not think, I would well ask, that because one can have the gospel and the memory of Christ in all sermons, what need is there that one must keep a communion and drink bread and wine with it? What need is there for anyone to read the Scriptures with him? What need is there for one to exhort and comfort another in particular, since all this can be done in public, common preaching? Are these not childish, blind thoughts in such great matters? God wants to fill the world and give Himself in many ways to help and strengthen us with His word and works; so we want to be so fed up and weary that we refuse Him, and suffer badly only in the way that pleases us. You are a black, desperate devil. That is enough of that now.
When the enthusiasts think they have won their cause, they go and make the Lord's Supper a symbol, that is, a sign, so that Christians can be recognized outwardly, as beggars and Jews are known by their yellow 1) rings, and should badly be a sign of Christians among themselves, not against God, so that they practice and maintain love among themselves. This must also follow from this spirit. For since they snatch God's word from the bread and wine, and leave nothing but eating and drinking, as in the tabernacles, nothing must of course be served by this for God, nor must our faith be helped, but rather it must become a mere belly service and a grudge. For what does God ask of our eating and drinking, as He says in Jeremiah [Cap. 7:21]? And what does it help our faith that the belly eats and drinks? So it was said in ancient times of church consecrations that they were held so that friends might know and love one another. So Christ's supper has also become a church consecration here.
But if it be asked, wherewith do they prove this? the answer is, Oh, is it not enough that we say it? And indeed, whoever finds the words of God difficult to believe
1) gel--yellow.
in this article, which is discharged by such gossip of a great unwillingness. But if we receive that his words are true, and Christ's body and blood are in it, they should let us keep the Lord's Supper a little more than a church consecration. But if they tear out his word, and make vain bread and wine of it, then I let it happen that they make a church consecration or carnival out of it, it counts the same; if they lust for it, then they may also make a dance or play out of it, we ask nothing of it; only that we do not come into their blasphemous and hostile meal.
But we know that it is the Lord's supper and is called, not the Christians' supper. For the Lord not only instituted it, but also makes it and keeps it himself, and is the cook, waiter, 1) food and drink himself, as we have proved our faith above. Neither saith Christ, when he commandeth and appointeth, Do these things for your sakes, to know and to love one another; but thus, "Do these things in remembrance of me." If we are to do it in his memory, it is appointed for his service, for his honor. But with what do we serve him? With eating and drinking? I think that by strengthening our faith and getting to know him, as we have often taught, there should be no doubt when we receive that his body and blood are there, just as the holy fathers tell us about such fruits of the Lord's Supper.
306. I also hear it said that this error also pleases some of the papacy, and some now hope to preserve the mass first of all, that it is a sacrifice, especially because some of the fathers call the sacrament a sacrifice, as Irenaeus, Cyprianus, Augustine, and because they well feel that it is unchristian to sacrifice Christ daily, who sacrificed himself only once, and can no longer be sacrificed, they now fall on bread and wine, and since in the sacrament there should be only bread and wine, it seems to them to be without danger that they keep the mass for a sacrifice, and may now earn the interest more easily, because they should sacrifice bread and wine badly.
1) Erlanger: "cellar". Latin: eeUarius.
If this were true, it would hardly be right for him, so that God's judgment would remain true, since St. Paul [2 Thess. 2, 11] says: "God sends them strong errors, so that they must believe the lie, because they did not want the love of the truth, so that they would be saved. And Christ John 5:43: "I come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: another shall come in his name, and him will ye receive." So these gentlemen also, persecuting and hating the gospel without end, shall accept for it ravings and lies.
308 But how if the mass were to perish in the first place, so that you think you are preserving it, and thus lose both the gospel and the mass through this assumed fervour, so that you keep neither faith for the soul nor interest for the belly? For if the common man should find out that you are offering bad bread and wine in the mass for their sin, they would soon throw off their hands and withdraw both sacrifice and interest. For who would be so foolish as to give a piece of bread and a drink of wine for his soul, especially in the New Testament, "since we are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, not by gold or silver," not by bread or wine [1 Pet. 1:18, 19]? For even the hopeful are, that by such a doctrine they would cast down the church, with the pope and with all, and establish a great unity and equality among all Christians.
309. Now let him who wills, and as he wills, let it be bread or Christ's body, he will have to answer: It is certain that Christ cannot be sacrificed more than and more than the one time when he sacrificed himself. For such a daily sacrifice and to sell such a sacrifice for our sin, as it has been instituted and held until now, the papists themselves see (praise God) that it is the greatest blasphemy of God and abomination that has ever been on earth, and none of the ancient teachers ever held, taught or wrote such a thing. For Irenaeus calls it a sacrifice, that one offers bread and wine, since the sacrament is made by God's word, solely for thanksgiving, that one thereby confesses how God has made us
886 Erl. so, 144-its. . II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XL-1108-1110. 887
as was done in the Old Testament, but not at all for our sin, or to redeem our souls, or to propitiate God, as the papists keep the Mass. Some call it a sacrifice, for the sake of remembering the one sacrifice that Christ once made for us; just as every year Easter Day is called Resurrectio or Resurrectionis diem, the resurrection, and says: Today Christ is risen; not that Christ rises every year, but that every year the day of his resurrection is remembered. In this way St. Augustine calls the Sacrament a sacrifice. But if anyone does not want to believe, let him always go on sacrificing and blaspheming until he stops; the truth has sufficiently come to light in this piece.
I hereby ask and admonish my enthusiasts to do as much honor to the truth as they can, so that we may soon come to the point and the end, and avoid unnecessary pieces, answer us to the right main pieces of the matter, remain on them and be constant. So that I may state it again: It is not necessary for this matter that they teach us how Christ sits at the right hand of God, has left the world, has ascended to heaven, and our hearts are to hang there, not to give to earthly things, and the like; for we know all these things well by the grace of God; but this is necessary that they make certain and prove how the two parts are opposed to each other: Christ's body sits at the right hand of God, and at the same time is in the Lord's Supper.
How it is that God's power has become so weak that it is not able to do this, and that all this can be overcome with good reason and clear Scripture; now here we are to teach 1) where the need lies, so that we may be sure that the words: "This is my body" are dark and obscure, and are to be understood differently than they read. Do you hear, dear sirs, what I ask? where I lie? where I call? Dearly beloved, pass not by, and despise me not so haughtily, and sing me not another thing for it.
312 Likewise, you must not teach us how flesh is of no use, and how
1) Erlanger: us. "us" is not expressed in Latin.
We already know how without the spirit nothing is of use; we would like to know more, namely, how the saying, "Flesh is of no use," is contrary to the saying, "Christ's body is in the bread. Item, that we may be sure that of Christ's body it is said, "Flesh is of no use." Item, that Christ's body is perishable, useless, corruptible food, when he himself says John 6:51 that it is imperishable food that gives life, and just as in the Lord's Supper it is perishable, useless meat, yet by nature and kind it is eternal food. Here, here, we call, here hear us. So also, as the saying must be understood of the Sacrament: "When they shall tell you, behold, here is Christ, behold, there he is." Such, and what more you consider to be your own conceited reasons, make us certain and clear. For all that ye have wrought hitherto is lost, and nothing is accomplished thereby, because ye have said many things, but have undertaken to prove nothing.
313 The disciples boast that they wanted to press and press the meaning of the words "This is my body": "This is the sign of my body. But someone was standing there watching him press the grapes, and he noticed that someone had put some pebbles into the winepress, but they were painted with grape colors; so the poor man pressed the grapes over the pebbles with great difficulty, but nothing would come out, until the winepress fell on his head, stones and all, and crushed him. Admittedly, Christ's words cannot be much pressed nor pressed; they are pebbles, yea, vain rocks, which the wicked cannot handle without harm, as he saith Matt. 21:44: "Whosoever shall fall on this rock shall be bruised; but on him whom he shall fall, he shall bruise."
314 So also, if you want to keep the fathers on your mind, as you boast, and not deny them freshly, do not leave it there that you gloss over them badly for your liking, but press and press their words well, if they wanted to give it. Do not teach us how the sayings of the fathers may be directed or bent this way or that, but whether it is certain that they should and must be directed this way. For ye have heard that we
888 Erl. 30,146-148. 20. L.'s writing: That these words etc. still stand firm etc. W. XX, 7110-1112. 889
Such know your art well, and do not even desire your mastery in the pieces that we already know. Yes, we confess and praise you as the very finest teachers; you teach that which can be well understood and needs no faith. For he who cannot understand that bread is bread, wine is wine, must of course be mad. But there you are lacking, that you should prove that bread is vain.
St. Paul is not such a fine teacher, for he teaches what no one can understand, but his proof is so strong that he forces one to believe it. This you do not do, but meanwhile speak of other things. 1) But if you must point out your art, and think that it helps the cause, do so, and let most of your talk be about the main thing. I mean that herewith I sufficiently admonish what you should do; but what does it matter whether it will help? For I know the fleeting, shy and slippery devil almost well.
But that you praise your holy life and suffering, and judge me that the Spirit of God has abandoned me, we gladly let happen; indeed, we poor sinners wish that you would be much higher than your fame is, because we are sure that it is not only harmless but also beneficial for us where pious, holy people are on earth. Of course, we do not want to reward them, but enjoy them well, and we can truly enjoy them. But if you want to boast more about your life, I ask you to prove it by deed, and to punish and correct yourselves for the sake of their evil, † 2) and not allow them to
1) Thus the Jenaers. Wittenberg and Erlangen: "but of other things dieweil redet."
2) Here, to please the sacramentarians, in the first Wittenberg edition of 1548, a longer section (from this cross to the next following cross) is knowingly omitted, as one assumes, at Melanchthon's instigation. Amsdorf wrote a whole book about this, and Rörer, in the table of contents to the third volume of the Jena edition under the year 1527, talks about it extensively. See the appendix to this writing. The title of the book published by Amsdorf in 1549 is- Daß die zu Wittenberg im anderen Theil der Bücher D. Martini im Buch 'dass die Worte, das ist mein Leib etc. noch fest stehen' mehr als ein Blatt und vier ganze Paragraphos [Absätzel vorsätzlich ausgelassen haben." The same paragraph is also missing in our Latin Wittenberg edition of 1558, Dorn. VII, toi. 417.
Do so much harm and injustice to others that your fame may not be taken for lies, and your holy life not for hypocrisy.
317. Martinus Bucerus is among you one of the most distinguished, and a Christian dear brother and fellow servant of Christ among you, who also sanctifies you already in life, the same one has verlateinet our pastor, He Johann Pommers, Psalter (as he then has great grace to speak of God and to interpret) and has thus corrupted the fine book with the poison of your doctrine of the holy sacrament, that it is difficult to find counsel, because the same book comes among so many people, and under John's name and work is sold among them, the very error, since he constantly refutes it with his hand and mouth. You holy people let such a little piece go as if you were pleased with it, and do not hold it up for retraction and restitution, since you know well what is in it for John and how highly he is offended by such a knavery.
318 Similarly, my very best book, which I have ever made, the postilions, which the papists also like, he has also prepared with prefaces, subliminaries and objections, so that under my name this blasphemous, shameful doctrine is brought and carried further than perhaps through all your books. What shall I do? How can I advise the matter now? I must feel as if a dog had bitten me. I have punished it with prefaces, but what is the use? The devil saw well that this book penetrated everywhere; therefore he seized the same, loaded and smeared his dirt on it. And so I, an innocent man, must be the devil's muckraker, whether I want to be or not. As yet we suffer nothing, but walk on roses, and are scoundrels and biters; but they are vain sanctuary: and yet do such poisonous wiles and murderous stings besides, which cannot be healed. And indeed, if I were a Christian, I would be of a mind that someone would rather cut off my neck, because such treachery proves that I must present the poison of the soul with my book, ignorantly and unwillingly.
319. so gach 3) is the people and their
3) "gach" ---- abrupt, hurried.
890 Srl. so, Its-iso. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, ms-ius. 891
Devils with their insanity, that they spread the same also by foreign books, just as if the books were too few, so that they wanted to deceive the world now. 1) What should happen after my death? That is what they do to me during my life, and let me sit here in Wittenberg and watch. Martinus Bucerus should not have taught me his dream and poem of brabeo et eadem esca. It is not such a big thing, I would have liked to have seen it, where I would have enjoyed it. In addition, if he had found fault with my interpretation, he would have known how to find me with writings or his own little books, and would have had no need to desecrate my dearest book behind my back and to drive his poison into the hearts with it. Such little pieces all pass among you as holy, moral, Christian works. In spite of us impatient ones, that we rebel against it.
The same Bucerus does not let him be satisfied with this. M. Philippus Melanchthon must also serve, from whom he freely writes: Philippus may now believe what he wants, but he certainly also taught that there is only bread in the Lord's Supper. Behold, dear, behold, how the holy people press upon us, and want to have us blind, spiritless carnivores by force into their faith, as if their God could not come to his glory without us Wittenbergers, and preserve their faith. I do not want to delete the little trick now, as it would be well worth it, so that they do not take cause from our impatience to forget the main things and to praise their holiness. We only ask that they first do such things out of their own means and not suffer among themselves before they burn themselves so brightly and wipe their mouths; for it behooves holy people badly to prove such arch-rogues and devilish tricks to their neighbor.
321 Paul says, Rom. 2, that not the perpetrators alone, but also those who consent, are guilty of death. If it were our lives alone, we poor, unholy, impatient sinners would gladly keep silent, and suffer such from the great, sedentary saints; but it concerns our doctrine, which is not the same to other people.
1) In the old editions: wöllen.
They come before us and insult, poison and mistype it, so that it does more harm through us than through its own books. 2) We must protest against this a little. Against this we must protest a little. Whether one notices what her famous holiness is, I cannot be responsible for; it is Christ's fault who says: "by the fruits one should know the trees".
322 Their mob also carries me with such a judgment that because I have written against the peasants, the spirit has departed from me, that I may not understand the bright truth etc. I let go of the fact that such and other things are said of me. I do not boast of a high spirit, but of the great gifts and graces of my God and Spirit I boast (I hope) quite justly and not without cause. Nor do I think it a great thing to understand how vain bread and wine may be on a table, which even a child and a fool understands well, I also see it every day before me on my table; but you dear councilors of Basel, Strasbourg, and all those, if you have such sacramental caves with you, may well let such their speech warn you that you do not put your eyes into the bag, but take good care of the game. The coiner is dead, but his spirit is not yet extinguished. † 3)
For what is to be thought of the spirit that still rebelliously comforts and excuses the peasants, 4) and condemns me for writing against it, is easy to notice. The devil is not asleep, but is still spouting. That is why I said above that this spirit is not good, nor does it mean well through these enthusiasts; although I respect that the preachers, against whom I write, still have nothing evil in mind. But, dear God, they have no power of their own; the spirit has blinded and captivated them, therefore they are not to be trusted. For whichever spirit dissolves Christ flesh is not of God, says St. John [1 Ep. 4, 2. 3.], and says to this,
2) dump - poison.
3) Up to this point is omitted in the Wittenberg edition of 1548. In the edition of 1551, vol. II, p. 164 f., this piece is inserted again.
4) The words: "and excused" are missing in the Erlanger.
it should be the test. Now this spirit dissolves Christ's flesh, because it makes a useless, perishable and all mean flesh out of it, like beef and veal, as we have heard, therefore it cannot be righteous. I warn, I advise, beware, beware, Satan has come among the children of God.
I will leave it here until they return, for the saying, "This is my body," still stands firm against all their fanaticism. This is what I (praise God) have raised with this writing for this time, God grant that they may convert to the truth. If not, that they should write vain cords, that they might see themselves and come into my hands, amen.