21. D. Martin Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. *)

March

On the Lord's Supper, Confession.

Bad and right keep me. Psalm 25.

1) Praise and thanks be to God through Jesus Christ, our Lord, forever, that my book, which I have sent out this year against the enthusiasts and enemies of the holy sacrament, has brought forth no small fruit. First of all, many pious hearts, which had been confused and troubled by the useless words of the enthusiasts, have been 2) satisfied and thank God with great joy, as they happily confess with writings to me. On the other hand, that I have just met Satan and have not missed him, so that he has now at first become nonsensical and furious about me; as this also probably indicates the spirit's next answer against such a booklet of mine, which has long since gone out, and at last on this St. Martin's Day [Nov. 11, 1527] will also come to me once in Wittenberg, because perhaps it has so far been afraid of dying.

2) In the old edition of Walch and in the Erlanger: "they are". Does the Erlanger have the "they" from the original or from Walch?

2. help god, how angry are the heroes, that they not only forget their moderation, which they are used to praise highly against me, and would also like to maintain, when no adder is so poisonous as they are in these writings, but also do not see what or to what they should answer because of great anger and wrath. And of Zwingel's spirit in particular, which mixes in a lot of images, purgatory, saints, honor, keys, original sin, and knows not what more of his new great teachings, only that he may spout a lot where there is no need, and skip where answering would be necessary, as I will indicate.

For this reason I have had enough of her, and will write to her no more, lest Satan become even more foolish, and spew forth more lies and foolish works (as he has now done), defiling the paper uselessly, and thus hindering the reader's time to read better things; for if I have not been able to bring forth a correct answer with the book, in which I have so often recorded, even in large letters, what I desire an answer to, then I have no hope, even if I wrote a thousand books,

*This writing, which is usually called "Luther's great confession of the Lord's Supper" in distinction from the "Short Confession" (1844) reported in No. 47 of this volume, was published in March 1528 by Michel Lotther in Wittenberg, then reprinted there in the same year (without indication of the printer) and in 1534 by Hans Weiß in Wittenberg. In the collections: in the Wittenberg (1551), vol. II, p. I65b; in the Jena <1556), vol. Ill, p. 476 b; in the Altenburg, vol. Ill, p. 812; in the Leipzig, vol. XIX, p. 440 and in the Erlanger, vol. 30, p. 151. We give the text according to the latter, since it printed the same after the first original edition, comparing the Wittenberg and the Jena editions.

896 "kl. so, 15S-ISS. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. XX, IHS-NS2. 897

that I would get an answer. And Satan is not to be blamed either, for the liar is not joking with the truth. May the merciful God convert them and deliver their minds from the snares of the wretched Satan, for that is all I can do. I am worried, unfortunately, that I must be a true prophet, since I have written that no heretic will be converted. So I will let them go according to the teaching of St. Paul, Titus 3:10: "You shall avoid a heretic when he has been admonished once or twice. For they will do no better henceforth: it is out of their power, and I will turn to ours, instructing them further, as much as I can, by Christ's grace, in this article.

4. And although I have done enough by the two little books, one against the celestial prophets, the other against the enthusiasts, for all understanding Christians, so that whoever does not want to err, can well be appalled by it against the seducers, and so far are still unbitten by the enthusiasts' spirit, however nearly they cry out, I still want to let this little book go out for the last in this matter, for the strength of the weak and to explain the article the better; For I see, indeed I must see, that because Satan answers so foolishly and spouts vain useless words, he has in mind to hinder me thereby in other matters, since he is much more interested. Therefore it is no longer fitting for me to deal with his foolish work and to leave the holy scriptures lying around. He feeds from now on as much as he wants.

But I want to take three pieces before me in this booklet. Firstly, to warn our people with an indication of how this spirit of enthusiasm has not responded to my reasons.

On the other hand, the sayings deal with teaching about the Holy Sacrament.

Third, confess all articles of my faith against this and all other new heresies, lest they should boast at some time or other, or after my death, that Luther had kept it with them, as they have already done in some pieces.

First of all, let every devout Christian be warned against the enemies of the sacraments, from the

The reason that this sect has so many factions and heads in the beginning, and are even divided among themselves because of this text: "This is my body, given for you", is that such disunity and disputes cannot and may not be of the Holy Spirit. It is certainly the troublesome Satan, as I have also indicated in the next booklet. For the text must be uniform and simple, and must have a certain understanding, if it is to be clear and based on a certain article. But because they have so many different understandings and texts here, since each is contrary to the other's understanding, and no one is certain of his understanding, no one has ever been able to prove his understanding and to put it aside for others: so it follows that they are all wrong, and none of them has the text in this place until this day, and so they must all keep the Lord's Supper without a text. For an uncertain text is just as no text. Now what kind of supper is this, since there is no text or certain word of Scripture? For Christ's words must be certain and clear, otherwise they are not to be had; but we have certain text and understanding and simple words, as they stand, and we do not disagree about them.

7 "Whom" then they answer that it is no harm that they have many words or understandings, because they are of one main thing, that is, that there is bread and wine of the same kind, and they make such like statements: As in the Gospel Christ shows the sum of the Gospel in many ways, as, John 4:14, 1) by drinking water; item, John 6:51, by eating his flesh and drinking his blood; item, by the father of the house who feeds the laborers in his vineyard, Matt. 20:1 ff.By eating His flesh and drinking His blood; item, by the householder feeding the laborers in his vineyard, Matth. 20,1. ff.; and so on by many and various similitudes the one kingdom of God is shown in the Gospel; therefore it is not unreasonable that also the spirit of enthusiasm has various understanding and word about various things.

What do you think? Doesn't it rhyme well? Who does not see here that the wretched spirit either does not want to answer because of great arrogance, as if he mocks our question, or

1) The Erlangen edition here reprinted from the old edition of Walch's "Joh. 4, 13.", as well as all of Walch's "other" false Bible citations in this writing, in total three and thirty.

898 Srl. 30.1SS-1S7. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. XX, N22-I1L4. 899

is completely blind as a bat that he does not see what is asked or what he should answer? Who has asked this of him? Who has asked him to teach us how one thing may be presented by various interpretations, speeches, likenesses, and forms? We know all this better beforehand than he can always teach us. I know well that Christ, the only Savior, has not only various interpretations, but all the interpretations of Scripture. He is called a lamb, a rock, a cornerstone, a sun, a morning star, a spring, a bridegroom, a householder, a teacher, a father, yes, everything and everything points to him and says about him, each in its own way. Just as if we acted here, as a thing may have many names and signs, or as if there was someone who doubted it.

(9) But here he should answer, because we asked how it was among the enthusiasts, that among them one name, word, and mind were at variance with himself about one thing, one saying yes, the other saying no. When Carlstadt says that Tuto points to the seated body. Zwingel says that the same Tuto points to the bread. Now both cannot be true; one must lie and be the devil's teacher; for in one speech it cannot be that one name or word has at the same time two vile meanings and interpretations. I cannot say, in the one saying, Joh. 1, 29.: "Behold, this is the Lamb of God" etc., that Lamb here should at the same time interpret a sheep and wolf, or at the same time a sheep and not a sheep, as yet in the one word Tuto Carlstadt, Oecolampad and Zwingel disagree, and one says, it interprets this; the other says no, it interprets another. Item Zwingel speaks: "is" means "interprets"; Oecolampad says no, it means badly "is". Again Oecolampad says: "my body" means "my body's sign"; Zwingel says: No, it means bad my body. Here, here one should answer, and compare this disagreement, so that the devil would not have to stand so coldly and be so publicly seized in his lie. But this will probably remain unanswered by them forever.

10 For though one place of Scripture calls Christ a lamb, and speaks as of a lamb, yet in no place does it speak against it.

Nor does he punish himself, nor say no to it; for the fact that he is called a lamb does not contradict the fact that elsewhere he is called a rock or a stone, and there is no disagreement. But the spirit of enthusiasm skins itself here in the cheeks, and interprets not only many words, but also one word at the same time in one place against itself. The lie would not be so gross, and the disgrace not so great, if they interpreted the same word in different places discordantly and unequally, or interpreted different words in one place unequally; but that they interpret the same word, in the same place, in the same speech, unequally and repugnantly, that is, with leave, well bethan, and the devil beaten naked in the pillory; for no language speaks thus, and a child must say that [it] cannot be. For if I say, Christ is the Lamb of God, it cannot be that one by the Lamb understands a wolf, the other a sheep; one must lie, and is not both of the Holy Spirit. Now the enthusiasts have almost ten different understandings of the words of the Lord's Supper, and no one is the same as the other in interpreting them. There must be lies and devils and no good spirit.

(11) But that the false spirit blames us, because we ourselves do not abide by the words and the same mind, because we say, "This is my body," to be understood thus: "Under the bread is my body;" or, "In the bread is my body," etc., and thus ourselves also disagree, I answer, "The lying spirit knows well that he does us wrong here, and does so only to disparage us and to adorn his lies with his own. For he knows very well that we argue about it with all seriousness, that these words "this is my body", as they are written and read, should be understood in the most simple way, and do not make various and disparate texts out of one text, 1) as they do.

(12) This I have said in my booklet, that those who say in common speech, Under the bread is Christ's body, or, In the bread is Christ's body, are not to be condemned, because with such words they confess their faith that Christ is in them.

1) The words: "aus Einem Text" are missing in the Erlanger.

Body is truly in the Lord's Supper. But with this they do not make another new text; neither do they want such their words to be the text, but remain on the one text. Paul says: "Christ is God", Rom. 9, 5, but 2 Cor. 5, 19: "God was in Christ", and yet both places are each in their own mind simple and certain, and not contrary to each other. But the enthusiast's text is divided in one place, in one word.

(13) And if we should be sought so carefully, and if there should be so great a power in it, or if it should be proved that the text, "This is my body," could not suffer me to speak otherwise: In the Lord's Supper is Christ's body; then we are ready, and would have it recanted, that it should not be thus spoken, but badly and plainly, "This is my body," as the words are there. Let them also do so, and be agreed in the text. Although no Christian will require us in this way, that in all other sermons and conversations, as often as one speaks of the Lord's Supper, we should be bound to say, "This is my body," provided that in the Lord's Supper we leave the text to itself and to its place. In other places and speeches we may well be allowed to say: Under the bread or in the bread is Christ's body. Item: In the Lord's Supper Christ's body is true; for we would not be granted to speak of our faith.

(14) But the fanciers thus make a joke to mend their holed furs. They well feel that their lies are different in one place and word, and want to defend their disagreement with it and not revoke it; but it does not apply. We grant that they may speak of the sacrament elsewhere as they wish or are able. But we want the text in the Lord's Supper to be one, simple, certain and certain in all words, syllables and letters. Since they do not do this, I freely conclude that the devil, the father of all disunity, is their teacher. For St. Paul says: "God is not a God of disunity" [1 Cor. 14:33]. So also all Christians are of one mind, Eph. 4, 3. and do not make divisions, 1 Cor. 1, 10. So you know this spirit from the first fruit of their disunity.

(15) Concerning this, where the Scriptures give various names or sayings to one thing, these are not only good, and never contrary to one another, but also certain and well founded, that one may stand upon them. As where Christ is preached a lamb, I am sure and certain that he is well and truly called a lamb. But the enthusiast none can make his interpretation certain. For Carlstadt has not made his Tuto certain to this day that he interprets it as he claims, as they themselves confess. Zwingel and Oecolampad, however, have never attempted with a single letter to make it certain, as "is" is so much as "interprets," "body" is so much as "body's sign"; but say it badly, as their own word and opinion, of which they themselves are uncertain, and regard no one as wanting to try whether they want to make it certain.

(16) Therefore the swarming spirit shall not teach us here how in the Scriptures the kingdom of God has various interpretations, but shall prove that such interpretations are contrary to each other and uncertain, as we complain and prove that their erroneous false interpretations are not only various, but also contrary to each other and uncertain. Is it not well answered? When I fight against their disunity and uncertainty, he answers me from diversity, just as if diversity and disunity were one thing. I ask how it is that their interpretation and understanding are not only diverse, but also disunited and contrary to each other, he answers that it is not wrong that they are diverse. Let us be satisfied with this, and confess our error, and give credence to their faith.

(17) But when will the answer be given, how the disunity in such diversity comes from the Holy Spirit? There is no one here at home. If we are to come to them, then they must truly put away such disagreement, and become one and certain of the text and understanding beforehand; otherwise we will quite rightly shy away and say, "The devil is in the hedge. For such aggravation would be more necessary, because the images are storming. Images

1) "and" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.

902 "rl. so, 1KS-1S1. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, U27-UW. 903

would not hinder us; but disunity of mind and speech, that is the devil.

18 For even if they had won their cause and shut us up, they would not have accomplished anything more and would not have advanced their cause any further than to have taken this text "this is my body" from us according to our understanding. But with this they have not yet proven their understanding, nor can they ever prove it. Now if a right spirit were with them, it would not only take away the false understanding, but also give and prove another and constant true understanding in its place. If St. Paul had taken away the righteousness of the law or works in the most violent way, he would not have achieved anything, but he would have taught another righteousness in its place and made it certain. God did not abolish the Old Testament until He put the New Testament in its place and made it much more certain than the Old.

(19) It is not a fine spirit that teaches and says, This is a lie, and yet there is no certain truth to it. It is not valid to punish a lie, and on the other hand not to know nor to want to denounce the lie, namely the truth. He who wants to overthrow lies violently must put public, certain and constant truth in their place; for lies are not afraid 1) nor do they flinch until the bright, constant truth comes. It is far away in the darkness and absence of truth. Now if our understanding is wrong in these words "this is my body," then Zwingel is guilty of making his understanding and text (namely, this means my body) certain and proving it constantly. Likewise Oecolampad, and all the others, each one his own. But when will they do this?

(20) Yea, I will tell thee more, because they cannot certainly have nor prove their understanding or text, it is certain that they also may not constantly reproach our understanding and text falsely. For, as it is said, who can certainly and constantly punish a lie, who does not know the vile truth?

1) Thus the Wittenberg. In the Jenaer, with Walch and in the Erlanger "itself" is missing.

can muster? Who can reprove wrong who does not prove right? Light must ever punish darkness: one darkness does not punish another; so Beelzebub does not cast out a devil either. The enthusiastic spirit feels this well, therefore it walks around like a cat around a hot pudding, looking at how our text and understanding is not right, and yet it shuns and shuns, like the devil, the word of God, so that it does not have to prove how its text and understanding is right, because it feels well that it cannot do it.

(21) Therefore he thinks that we should leave it there, that he should abolish the text of the Lord's Supper according to our understanding, and not put another certain one in its place; no, that does not apply. If thou wilt break off, build again. If thou wilt warn against error, teach also certain truth in its place, or let thy mastering and teaching stand. 2) You are a false lying spirit, because you reproach falsely that which you cannot make true or certain, nor do you want to. The Holy Spirit, however, knows how to prove the contradiction and make it certain, where he punishes lies or error.

22 Let this be written as a warning to you, my dear lords and brethren, for here you can grasp this spirit, that it shuns the light, and is a useless washer when it is not necessary, and flutters and flutters about when it is necessary to speak. And, as I also said in that book, you must not think that he will go right under your eyes on one argument or rebuttal; but, as he did on this first rebuttal, so he does almost on all the others, as we shall hear.

(23) Therefore beware of them, or attack them freshly with this dissension and uncertainty of their speech and mind, and confidently require of them that they make thee a right, certain, united text in these words, "This is my body." If they do this, come confidently to them, and I will also give myself 3) gained. But because they do not do so, they shall be called false, heretics, seducers, and in addition to these things.

2) "to give oneself won" == to admit that one is defeated.

3) So the Jenaers. Wittenbergers and Erlangers: me too.

lost, even if they were still so stiff and proud. For even if their main thing and insanity were right and true, one would still have to have 'one, unified, correct, certain, unanimous text; because nothing can be built on an unstable, discordant, repugnant text. So my first objection still stands, that this sect has so many disunited heads, as a sign that Satan is master and spirit here.

(24) Secondly, I had requested that we also be shown from Scripture how the little word "is" means "interprets" in the Lord's Supper. For I had proved in my booklet that the Spirit in his previous writings did indeed lead some sayings from Scripture, in which "is" should mean "interprets"; but it would be his own conceit, and had not yet proved it. Therefore I desired that he should still do it, and prove his interpretation. For it is not very necessary for us that he should say sayings; we know such sayings almost as well as without his saying them, as: "Christ is the Rock" etc. (Rom. 9, 33.) But that there is interpretation in it, we do not see and know, and would like that such would also come forth.

25 He now goes on, and does the same, but again he says such sayings as: "John is Elijah" [Matth. 11, 14], "Christ is a vine" etc. [When this is done, he 1) clatters long and much with his own words, and smiles without Scripture, saying, "Here is interpretation. For John is not Elias, but interprets Eliam. But there you see that he does not want to prove how "is" should mean "interprets". He says that it means "interprets," but who asks that he says it? We know beforehand that he says so; but he should prove with Scripture that he says right.

26 And even though he himself almost feels that his Klüttern is just gibberish (as he takes great pains to speak bad German, though without such pains he would still be un-German enough), and confesses that his opinion is not to stand on it: whether "is" would be taken for "interprets", that therefore also here in the Lord's Supper should be taken that way;

1) klüttert == rings.

but that, because other oerters of Scripture and faith compel that the words of the Lord's Supper may not have all our sense, let the "is" be taken for "interprets" with them, quia is sensus sit absurdus etiam fideli intellectui. Yes, carnali intellectui. Now, how our understanding does not rhyme with Scripture and faith, they have not yet proved, and will see it further afterwards.

(27) But this is not to say that they would thus make the text of the Lord's Supper uncertain, and turn themselves out as thieves in secret; let them stand; and because they have taught that "is" means "signifies," let them prove it continually, and instead of the former certain text, which they would have broken up and made uncertain, let them set before us again a new certain one; as I also said above that they are bound to do. Because they now shy away from this and do not want to do it, they give it to be understood what kind of spirit they have, as one that only wants to break and not to build, to tear and not to heal; that is called the devil. Therefore be warned against this devil, who flutters and flutters so that he does not want to answer properly, and let him go.

28 But to instruct you further, as ours, you should know that it is a pure poem who says that this little word "is" means as much as "interprets. No man can ever prove it in any part of Scripture; indeed, I will say further, that if the enthusiasts in all the languages that are on earth bring a saying in which "is" means as much as "interprets," they shall have won. But they should leave it well alone; the high spirits are lacking in that they do not rightly regard the art of speech, grammatica, or, as they call it, tropus, which is taught in the children's school.

The same art teaches how a boy should make two or three words out of one word, or how he should give one word new usage and more interpretations. As that I prove with some examples, the word "flower", according to its first and old interpretation, means a rose, lily, violet and the like, which grows and blossoms from the earth. If I now want to praise Christ with a fine praise, and see how he is blossoming from the Virgin Mary

906 Erl. so, 1S3-10S. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, 1132-1134. 907

If such a beautiful child comes, I may take the word "flower" and make a trope, or give a new interpretation and custom and say: Christ is a flower. Here all grammarians or masters of speech say that "flower" has become a new word and has a new interpretation, and is now no longer called the flower of the field, but the child Jesus, and must not here the word "is" become an interpretation, because Christ does not mean a flower, but, he is a flower; but another flower, than the natural.

30 For thus says the poet Horatius: 1) Dixeris egregie, notum si callida verbum reddiderit junctura novum; that is, it is finely spoken, if you can well deny a common word. From this it is clear that one word becomes two or many words when it receives a new interpretation over its common meaning. As "flower" is another word when it means Christ, and another when it means the natural rose and the like. Item, another, if it is called a golden, silver or wooden rose. Thus, when one speaks of a meager man: He is a dog; here "dog" means the meager felt, and has become a new word from the old word, according to the doctrine of Horatii; and need not be here "is" an interpretation, for the meager does not mean a dog.

(31) So then they speak in all languages, and change the words; as when we say, Mary is a morning glory, Christ is a fruit of the womb, the devil is a god of the world, the pope is Judas, St. Augustine is Paul, St. Bernard is a dove, David is a little woodworm, and so on, the Scriptures are full of such speech. And in grammar it is called tropus or metaphora when two things are given the same name for the sake that there is a likeness in both of them, and so the same name is one word according to the letter, but potestate ac significatione plura, according to power, custom, interpretation two words, one old and one new, as Horatius says and the children know well.

32 We Germans use to put "right", or "other", or "new" with such negated words and say: You are a right one.

1) I>6 arte pvetioa, v. 47. 48.

Dog, the monks are right Pharisees, the nuns are right Moabite daughters, Christ is a right Solomon. Item, Luther is another Hus, Zwingel is another Korah, Oecolampad is a new Abiram. In such speeches all Germans will bear witness to me and confess that [they] are new words, and the same is so much when I say: Luther is Hus, Luther is another Hus, Luther is a right Hus, Luther is a "your Hus. So that one feels how in such speeches, according to the doctrine of Horatii, a new word is made from the previous one; for it does not work nor sound when I say: Luther means Hus; but: he is a Hus. In such sayings one speaks of the essence, what one is, and not what he means, and makes over his new essence also a new word. So you will find it in all languages, that I know for sure, and so teach all grammaticali, and know the boys in school, and will never find that "is" may mean "interpret".

33 Therefore, when Christ says: "John is Elias", no one can prove that John means Elias, because it would be ridiculous that John should mean Elias, as much cheaper Elias means John. And according to Zwingel's art Christ would have to turn it around and say: Elias is John, that is, he means Johannem. But Christ wants to say what John is; not what he means, but what kind of being or office he has, and says: he is Elias. Here Elias has become a new word, and does not mean the old Elias, but the new Elias, as we Germans say: John is the right Elias, John is another Elias, John is a new Elias. In the same way it is said: "Christ is a rock", that is, he has a being, and is truly a rock, but still a new rock, another rock, a right rock; item: "Christ is a right vine.

34 Dear, how does it work, if you want to interpret such things according to Zwingel's conceit: Christ means the right vine? Who then is the right vine that Christ signifies? So I hear, Christ should be a sign or interpretation of the wood in the vineyard? Oh, that would be fine! Why would not Christ have said so more cheaply?

The right vine is Christ, that is, the wooden vine means Christ? It is more reasonable that Christ should signify, than that he should signify first of all, since that which signifies is always less than that which is signified, and all signs are less than the thing they signify; as all this is well understood even by fools and children.

But the Zwingel does not look at the word vera. in this saying: "Christ is the right vine. If he had looked at it, he could not have made an interpretation of the "is". For no language nor reason suffers it to be said that Christ signifies the right vine. For no one can say that in this place the right vine is the wood in the vineyard. And so the text forces by force that "vine" here is a new word, which means another, new, right vine, and not the vine in the vineyard. Therefore, "is" here cannot be an interpretation, but Christ is real and has the nature of a true, new vine. Even though the text reads, "Christ is a vine," I do not mean to say that Christ means the vine, but rather that the vine should mean Christ.

So also this saying: "Christ is the Lamb of God" [Joh. 1, 29.], cannot be understood that Christ means the Lamb of God, because then Christ would have to be less than a sign than the Lamb of God. But what then is the Lamb of God that signifies Christ? Should it be the paschal lamb? Why did he not turn it around and say more cheaply: The Lamb of God is Christ, that is, "Paschal Lamb" means Christ, as Zwingel interprets? But because the little word "God" is next to the word "lamb", it forces by force that lamb here is another, new word, also means another, new and the right lamb, which is truly Christ, and not the old paschal lamb.

37. and so henceforth, what they lead more for examples, as: "The seed is God's word" [Luc. 8, 11. ff.], "the field is the world" etc. [Matth. 13, 38.], they cannot make an interpretation out of the "is" with good reason; but the children in school say that seed is the world.

and Acker are Tropi or negated words after the Metaphora. Because Vocabulum Simplex et metaphoricum are not one, but two words. So seed here is not called grain nor wheat, but God's word, and field is called the world; for Christ (says the text itself) speaks in parables, and not of natural grain or wheat. But he that speaketh in parables maketh common words into common words, new and different words; otherwise they were not parables, where he used the common words in the former interpretation: That there is a foolish spirit without understanding, which will take the words in parables according to the common interpretation, contrary to the nature and manner of the parables, he must then gain by interpretation and jugglery.

Item, also the saying from the first book of Moses: "Seven oxen are seven years, and seven ears of corn are seven years. [Since the text itself says that it speaks of a dream, and of a likeness or sign of the seven years, the words "seven oxen, seven ears" must here also be metaphorae and new words, and mean just the same as these words "seven years"; that therefore these words "seven years" (according to common interpretation), and these words "seven oxen" (according to new interpretation) mean one and the same. For the seven oxen do not mean seven years, but they themselves are essentially and truly the seven years; for they are not natural oxen that eat grass in the pasture, which are called "seven oxen" by old common words. But here it is a new word, and are seven oxen of hunger and plenty, that is, seven years of hunger and plenty. Summa, they may well say, "Here is interpretation," but they will never prove it in any way, just as they have never yet had the courage to prove it; they think it is enough when they say, "Here is interpretation. But it is not enough for us, because we do not believe in a constraint or a few people; we want to have reason and proof.

39 But here the other group will perhaps boast and say: Hereby you will confirm the sign of Oecolampadii, because he, according to such a teaching of Horatii, also has a new word.

910 am. so, IS7-I70. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX. NS7-U40. 911

and Tropum makes of the common one, and says: "my body" here means "my body's sign". To this is soon answered: that the Grammarians, and also all Christian teachers, forbid that one should never depart from the common old interpretation of a word, and adopt a new interpretation, unless the text and the understanding compel, or are proved by force from other places of Scripture; otherwise one would never retain a certain text, understanding, speech, or language. As when Christ says: "John is Elijah"; here the text and faith compel that Elijah must be a new word, because it is certain that John is not nor can be the old Elijah. Item, "Christ is a rock", again the text itself and the faith force that "rock" here is a new word, because Christ is not nor can be a natural rock.

(40) That Oecolampad here makes the word "body" into "sign of the body" is not to be confessed to him, for he does it willfully, and cannot prove that the text or faith so compels. Just as if one would willfully tropisize or deny the words "The gospel is God's power," Rom. 1I, 16, so much should apply: the gospel is Roland's sword. So if someone wants to call Christ Belial, Paul Judas or interpret, who wants to prevent him? But one does not accept it, he proves it then, and forces it from the text. So Oecolampad does not argue any further than that he makes vain bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. But if he already contends for the same (as he is not able to do), he still cannot contend nor prove that "body" means sign of the body, as I also indicated in the previous booklet, and thus Oecolampad must remain without certain text and understanding of the Lord's Supper. Now one must have a certain text and understanding here, even if there should be straw and chaff in the Lord's Supper. But who will give the same? They do not, do not want to, and cannot.

(41) Well then, let us stick to 1) ours, and admonish all who wish to be admonished to beware of such uncertain, unstable tropists and dentists;

1) Thus the Erlangen. In the old editions: den.

For it is not enough that they say: bread is bread, and wine is wine, but they must and should prove how the text is to be read and understood, "this is my body", whether it should thus stand: this means my body, or: this is my body's sign; or: this is my body. We do not let ourselves make a child's game or small things (as they like to do) out of this text. They are Christ's words, we must know what they hold and give. Summa, it is as I said, they do not want to answer where they should answer, and in the meantime they chat about their own thoughts.

42. to the third: Although the spirit of the covenants 2) knows well that I understand by God's grace how one must explain one place of the Scriptures by another, as I, before Zwingel's name arose, have stated in so many writings before all the world: nevertheless, he must teach me this through almost many leaves, only so that one should think that he wants to answer once. Now God knows that I have answered all my objections, and have not desired such art from him, nor do I know how to thank him for it. But that is what I would like even today, that he teaches himself and his own, who would be better off than I, such an art, and also shows it in the text of the Last Supper, since 3) it is necessary for him.

(43) He scolded me for doing the part "this is my body" alone, and leaving the following "which is given for you," and washed horribly how that following part explained the previous part. Well, I understand very well that one place explains the other; so I was in the bath the other day, and washed my ears, so that I can hear how in the text of the Last Supper the following piece "which is given for you" should explain the preceding piece "this is my body. But I ask, how such explanation is proved or comes about? There hear once a master, you have never heard one.

44) Christ's body (he says) is visibly given for us on the cross; because in the Lord's Supper it says: "This is my body, which is given for you", it should also be 4) visibly given in the Lord's Supper.

2) i.e. flush.

3) In the old edition of Walch and in the Erlanger: that.

4) So the Jena. Wittenberg and Erlangen: had to.

If the same body, given for us, is to be the Lord's Supper. So the following piece explains the first, 1) that because Christ is not visible in the Lord's Supper, "is" must be an interpretation. Here tell me, dear brethren, whether this spirit is in earnest to answer us, or whether he does not rather make a mockery of this matter. But I thank thee, Jesus Christ, my Lord, that thou canst so masterfully see thine enemies in their own words, and put them to shame, to strengthen our faith in thy simple words. This few pieces should reasonably deter anyone from this sect, when he sees such great gross blindness in such a high learned spirit. The boys in school know the quod refert substantiam, and this spirit says: quod refert qualitatem, imo accidens communissimum et mutabilissimum. I have to speak German.

45, If and where I can say of Christ's body: "this is Christ's body, given for us", then it must also be visible:: because it is given for us in no other way than visibly; but if it is not visibly there, then it is not there at all 2). Now I point with my hand toward heaven, and say these words: There sits at the right hand of God the body that was given for us, so it must truly sit there visibly, or there is nothing at all. For the following words "which is given for you" thus declare, according to the art of this spirit. Item: Since Christ Joh. 8, 59. hid himself and went out to the temple- I would like to say: There goes the body, which is given for us, but it is given visibly for us, therefore it certainly goes visibly there, and the evangelist lies when he says that it goes hidden there, or will not be there at all. And summa, Christ's body be where he will, it is the body that is given for us. Because he is visibly given for us, he cannot be anywhere, unless he is visibly there. What do you think? Did you once hear a master? Thou hast scripture and faith, which our understanding cannot endure. Now believe this spirit, that he may teach thee rightly in the Lord's Supper. But so the devil must always keep his wisdom....

1) In the old editions: föddexst.

2) Erlanger: nothing.

of the Lord's Supper. W. xx. U4v-ii4s. 913 Seal it with dirt, and leave the stink behind, so that it will be known that it was there.

46 Therefore the poor body of Christ, because it is once visibly given for us, is so imprisoned that either it cannot be anywhere invisible; or, if it is invisible, it is not there. For where this hinders him to be in the Lord's Supper, that he is visibly given for us, and cannot be otherwise than visibly there, because the words are there, "This is my body which is given for you," he must of course be nowhere but visibly; for such declaration these words give, "Which is given for you." What does "He" mean? "The One?" The spirit says: It means as much as, as, or the form, as he hung on the cross. Now he hung there visibly before the eyes of the Jews, under spikes and steeds. If he were in the Lord's Supper, all the Jews, horses, spears, crosses, nails, and everything else would also have to be in the Lord's Supper, yes, also at the right hand of God and in all places where Christ's body is.

(47) Thus shall the scripture be expounded, and one place shall be judged by another. They are angry that I consider the devil to be speaking through them. Dear, how can reason say here that [it] is human error and not the devil's mockery? Especially because the Zwingel makes such great art, spirit, and blather out of it, as if it were one of his best main reasons and masterpieces. Muenzer was a foolhardy spirit; but this one is so foolhardy, spews out what falls into his mouth, does not even think what he says. But God warns us thus.

(48) Is it not to be pitied, then, that for such a trivial false reason one should deny the bright words of Christ, "This is my body," and thus profane the Lord's Supper? If a boy in school made such a syllogism, he would be given a shilling; 3) if a master among the sophists did it, he would have to be called a donkey; and here, in the spirit, it should be called divine Scripture and truth, of which they boast highly against our understanding. So one would also do such spirituality and say: Christ at the right hand of God is the Son, who was born of Mary; but He is

3) This is no doubt ironically spoken instead of: "Schelle" (Maulschelle).

born of Mary mortal, he must also sit mortal at the right hand of God. Herr Hans Ritter does not ride in a cuirass, therefore he is not a knight. Rachel has no veil on, therefore Rachel is no woman, Juxta regulam novam: accidens est substantia, nec potest abesse suo subjecto.

In the fourth place he comes to the words of the Lord's Supper, and divides them into two parts. Out of some he makes a command, which tells us what to do or command, as these: "Take, eat. Out of some he makes speech or conversation, which tells us badly what is to be done. But here I must use his filthy, hostile German, which he likes much better than the stork's rattling, although one would sweat before he understood it. He wants to have stammered or coughed (I should say talked) so much: Where God gives, there are hot words, like: "You shall have no other gods" [Deut. 5, 7. 2 Deut. 20, 3.]. But where he does something, there are actually words, as Gen. 1, 14: "Let there be light" etc. So he would like to say so much, if he could speak: Wherever there are words, even if I speak them, nothing will come of them, as if I speak from Genesis 1: "Let there be sun and moon," nothing will come of it. So even if Christ gave his body in the Lord's Supper when he said, "This is my body," it does not follow, if I repeat it, that Christ's body will also become his body immediately; for Christ has nowhere said that from my word his body will become etc.

50 O poor wretched spirit, how he wrestles and writhes, and yet has nowhere to turn! Now, we first assume that he admits that Christ gave his body to the disciples in the Lord's Supper; for he confesses that these are the words: "This is my body," which happened that time, and we thank them kindly for letting us keep the first part of the Lord's Supper. But if we have this, let the others also remain with us. We also want to take the same first supper from them with force and by their own words, in this way:

51 Zwingel keeps the words in the Lord's Supper the same as he wants, it may be hot words or lassel words, Thätelworte or Leselworte; since

I have no interest in them. But this is what I ask: whether these words of Christ are lies or true words? If they are lying words, then Christ himself is responsible for them, and they do not concern us. But if they are true words, we cheerfully answer that even the spirit of error must confess that Christ gave his body in the Lord's Supper; for they are words of truth, which Christ speaks for the first time, and does not deny when he says: "Take, eat, this is my body" etc. Just as the sun and the moon stood there when he spoke Genesis 1:14: "Let there be sun and moon," and was not a lying word: so his word is certainly not an epilogue, but a word of power, which creates what it says, Psalm 33:9: "He speaks, so it is written"; especially because it is spoken here for the first time, and is supposed to be a phalanx word. Thus we have received the first few suppers, which they themselves also give and confess.

Now let us also see how the tender spirit, from the words of the word, 1) wants to make "is" a word of interpretation and take our understanding. Where words are used, it does not follow that this is what happens when we speak them, but remains bad speech about what has happened. If we say in the Lord's Supper: "This is my body," it does not become Christ's body. Therefore, of course, there must be bread of the same kind. If there is vain bread, then "is" must be an interpretation. So our understanding is nothing, and the enthusiast is right. Here he does not dispute further, because in the first supper our understanding is right, but not in the other following etc. If I now ask here: who has given the Spirit the power, or by what means he wants to prove that the words in the Lord's Supper should thus be separated and separated from one another, some hot words, some pent-up words: then he gives no other answer, but says: he hopes that no one may say that in the Lord's Supper there are hot words, by which one makes Christ's body. Thus his proof is based on his hope, which always boasts that it is based on God's Word and bright Scripture. Whoever now wants to build on the hope of the spirit, may at least believe that there is vain bread in the

1) Thus the Wittenberg and Jena editions. In the old edition of Walch and in the Erlangen edition: "aus dem Thätelworte."

The Lord's Supper: for such faith shall have just cause.

(53) But we say against this, that this spirit teacheth us once which we know, and leaveth that which he ought to teach, and needeth sacrilege to divide and separate the words of the Lord's Supper thus. He should prove that they are to be torn apart from one another in this way, since they all stand in one place after another: "Take, eat, this is my body," etc., and are not our words at all, but Christ's own words.

54 Although these words, "This is my body," would themselves be words of the baptism, where they would be forced out and set apart in a dungeon from the others, they are nevertheless hot words, because they are embodied in hot words. For I also hope, indeed I know, that all Christians are guilty, from the institution and commandment of Christ, of speaking such words in the Lord's Supper, and do not think the revelers themselves so bold as to leave them outside with a clear conscience. If they must be had and spoken in the Lord's Supper, then they are truly hot words, because they are put into 1) hot words, and it is not valid to separate them from the hot words, as the spirit does. But when the words of the sacraments are thus put into hot words, they are no longer bad words of the sacraments, but also hot words, for everything they say is also done by the power of the divine hot words by which they are spoken.

55. as Matth. 21, 21. there is a word that the disciples should say: "Lift yourself up and throw yourself into the sea", which, if someone speaks badly, certainly follows nothing from it and remains a word. But since Christ puts it into a hot word and says, "If you will say with faith to this mountain, 'Lift yourself up,'" etc., then it truly no longer has to be a word for the purpose of baptism, but happens as it reads when it is spoken according to his command. Item, when the priest baptizes and says, "I baptize you," etc., this is certainly a mere word of baptism; but because it is put into the hot word, where Christ says [Matth. 28, 19.], "Go and baptize," it must be

1) Thus the Wittenberg. Jenaer and Erlanger: in.

nevertheless be a baptism before God. And if Peter or Paul said: "Your sins are forgiven you", as Christ said to Mary Magdalene [Luc. 7, 48.], well, that is a loud word; nevertheless, the sins are forgiven, as the words say; therefore, that [it] is commanded in the hot word, since Christ says Joh. 20, 22. 23: "Take the Holy Spirit, to whom you forgive sin" etc.

And if the word Genesis 1: "Let there be a moon and a sun," would also be put into a hot word and commanded to be spoken, then you should see whether God would lie and not become a sun, where I would speak it to the sterile or sky. But now that there is no hot word, it will certainly not become a sun.

So also, if a hot word were, that I should speak to the water these words, "this is wine," thou shouldst well see whether there should not be wine. Therefore it is a loud division of wills 2) and useless chatter, that this spirit separates the words of the bawd from the words of the beast in one and the same text, since they are taught and commanded to be spoken to the words of the beast, and equates them with other words of the beast, which are without command and are words of the beast. This is called acting sophistically and maliciously in God's words; but with them it is called Scripture and faith, which our understanding does not like.

(58) Since this does not prove an interpretation, nor does it overthrow our understanding, let us now ask whether Christ has called us liars, since he commands and calls us to speak these words: "Take, eat, this is my body," because they are all spoken in his person and as his own words? If he calls us liars, then he watches; but if he calls us truthful speakers, then his body must of course be present in the Lord's Supper, by virtue, not of our speaking, but of his commanding, heating and working. And so we have not only the first and only supper, but all the others, which are kept according to the command and institution of the Lord Christ.

59. if then they ask, Where is the power that makes Christ's body in the Lord's Supper, when

2) Erlanger twice: Tillens.

we say: "This is my body"? I answer: Where is the power for a mountain to rise and throw itself into the sea, when we say: "Lift yourself and throw yourself into the sea"? Certainly, it is not in our speaking, but in God's hotness, who connects His hotness to our speaking. Item, where is the power for water to come out of the rock, because Moses does nothing but strike it? If striking should be enough, then we would also make all the stones water; but there is God's command and Moses has nothing, because he may speak the word: I strike the rock. Which I also could speak well and follows nevertheless only water; because the hot word is with Moses and not with me.

(60) So also here: If I were to say about all the bread, "This is Christ's body," of course nothing would follow from it. But when we say in the Lord's Supper, "This is my body," according to its institution and sanctification, it is his body, not because of what we say or do, but because of its sanctification, that he has thus commanded us to speak and to do, and has bound his sanctification and doing to our speaking. If, however, according to the Spirit's highly praised art, God's command and our speaking were to be torn apart from one another, then he would not be allowed to teach us, as then our speaking would be of no avail, as we would well know. But then he should answer and prove art, where hot and speaking are together, that God would have to lie and deceive, and nothing would come of it. 1) The great spirit must always speak differently than one asks or the matter demands.

But if I had intended to write against the Spirit, I would also do here a strange question, namely, because the Spirit fights so high: Quod verbum facti non efficiat factum, sed narret factum, that the word does not create what it reads, but only preaches about the business. So he admittedly confesses that it happened in the first supper of Christ, that Christ's body was given to the table; what else could he torture himself with, as these are words of the word, that is, that speak of history. It would be quite a vain babble, because he puts it all on the fact that words of tidings are the

1) Erlanger: was.

are those who say of the deed that it happened once (otherwise they would not be words). Well then, the Spirit herewith confesses that in the first supper Christ's body was given to eat, and such a thing happened once; but it has no consequence where it is spoken of afterwards, as he does not deny it above.

62 Now I ask where this spirit has left forehead, reason, discipline and shame? if he says above that his reason and cause that Christ's body is not in the Lord's Supper is that the Scriptures and faith may not suffer such understanding of Christ's words: Absurditas hujus sensus repugnaret intellectui etiam fideli. Can the first supper have Christ's body, how can it be contrary to Scripture and faith? If it is contrary to Scripture and faith that Christ's body is in the Lord's Supper, how can he be in the first supper? For I speak not here of unworthy ministers, whether they confect or not, but of the words of Christ, "This is my body," of which they say, cry, and prate, that it is contrary to faith and scripture that Christ's body should be there, as they [the words] are, though there were saints of the same kind.

(63) And yet here again the spirit bites its tongue, and admits that it is not contrary to Scripture nor to faith, that, according to its sound, Christ's body is present in the first supper; but only that it does not follow that therefore it is also in other suppers. So they should not cry out and boast that our understanding is contrary to Scripture and faith (as they so gloriously insist), but contrary to the consequence and other communions. For this is much another question, whether I or thou have Christ's body in the Lord's Supper, and whether the old understanding is contrary to Scripture and faith. If it is not contrary to Scripture and faith, as the first supper proves, even with the confession of the Spirit, then we ask very kindly that they grant us to teach and believe, which they themselves confess contrary to themselves, that it is not contrary to Scripture or faith. But if they have Scripture and faith against it, that they themselves would answer it, as they so nearly strive against such their confession. We are told that they themselves admit that it is not against

contrary to scripture and faith, how they chatter, so that they reveal themselves as the liars, and cannot hide their false sense.

64 Because we here seize the lying spirit, that it lies against itself, and confesses to us that our understanding is not against Scripture nor faith (as it nevertheless denies), that Christ's body is in the Lord's Supper, but only against the consequence: so we will stay with it. For since it is not contrary to Scripture or faith that the words of Christ, according to our understanding, give Christ's body in the first supper, we see no reason why it should be contrary to Scripture and faith in other suppers. What is not contrary to Scripture and faith is not contrary to any consequence.

(65) Is not this a fine, cautious spirit? In the very passage in which he wants to prove that our understanding is contrary to faith, he takes before him and proves that words of the baptism are in the Lord's Supper, and does not see that he thereby proves against himself that our understanding in the first Supper is right and not contrary to faith. For words of the baptism first give what they say, or are not words of the baptism, as he himself confesses. So he smuggles against himself, either that there are no baptismal words in the first supper, or that our understanding is right in the first supper.

(66) But if anyone should say, Christ did not command these words to be spoken in the Lord's Supper, "This is my body," answer, This is true; it is not written in the text, You shall speak: This is my body; nor is there a hand painted pointing to it. But let them be so bold as they will, that they let such words stand without and for unbidden words. For it is not written in the text: Ye shall say: Take and 'eat; item: It does not say: You shall take the bread and bless etc. But let it be seen who will be so bold as to say, Ye shall not take bread, nor bless it, nor say, Take and eat.

67 So I hear that Christ must put these words by every letter, Thus shall ye speak and do, and shall it not be enough that he should say at the end, Do this in remembrance of me? If we shall do such things as he hath done, verily, then

we must take the bread and bless it, break it and give it, and say: "This is my body", because it is all put into the hot word "Such things do", and we do not have to leave the words outside; because St. Paul also says, "he received it from the Lord, and so gave it to us" etc. 1 Cor. 11, 23. ff. Which, of course, are also hot words, and do not allow us to tweak or change some of them.

68 So it is true that nowhere did Christ tell us these letters: "You shall make my body out of bread. What need is there? But he has told us to speak these words in his person and name, out of his command and decree, "This is my body," since he says, "Do this." Neither do we make his body of the bread, as the Spirit leans upon us. Neither do we say that his body is made of the bread; but we say that his body, which was made long ago, is here, when we say, "This is my body," for Christ does not say, "This is my body," or, "Make my body," but, "This is my body."

69 And because we have spoken of the hot words, we must do something else to protect our people against the chatter of the spirits. For it is not possible to shut the devil's mouth; he is like the wind, which finds (as they say) very narrow holes. 1) Hot words are of two kinds, some of which involve faith, such as Matt. 21:21, about moving mountains, and Marc. 16:17, about the signs that follow the faithful. Now if someone without faith were to say to the mountain, "Lift yourself up," and say that he was doing it from the word of God, it would not happen, because Christ binds faith into the word of God.

70 The others are not included, since faith is not involved, as these words in the Lord's Supper: "Take, eat," for here also the unworthy and unbelieving eat Christ's body, as also Judas and many of the Corinthians did. Therefore it is not necessary for those who take this supper to have faith, just as those who baptize do not have to believe. Item,

1) Erlanger: "gar enge Löcher, (as they say)."

922 "rl. so, IW-18L. II. writings Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, riss-u." 923

Those who preach the same, and all those who hold public office: for Christ has put all these things in his word, and not in men's holiness, that we might be assured of the word and of the sacraments etc. This is why I say that the greatest annoyance is of course the enthusiasts who baptize the unworthy, celebrate mass, preach etc., and do not consider that they themselves may be worse before God, or that no one can ever know how pious they are, that they must let the sacraments stand and go in God's words and command alone.

71 After this he points my finger, as a blind man, to the word "such", or "that doeth", which St. Paul is supposed to explain thus: "As often as ye eat the bread" etc. From this he wants to have decided that Christ, by the word "that doeth," points to eating bread, and not to eating Christ's body. Indeed, if St. Paul were to say: "As often as you eat this bread, which is not the body of Christ (which the Spirit adds from his head), do not put your finger on it, I would have seen it long since over five steps. I always hope they should lead scripture; so they lead their own dreams. Therefore I say again: I would also like them to put their fingers on the previous word, since Christ points to the bread, and yet says: "This is my body." There is also a "that" here, and they would gladly let themselves be grasped with the fingers of the enthusiast's spirit, which urges me harder and more powerfully that Christ's body be eaten in the bread, because his "that," by which he wants to make bread vain, since my "that" and his "that" point to the same bread, as they confess, and yet with my "that" it says "it is my body", but with his "that" it does not say "it is not my body", but he himself must put it with it, and jumps over that which is with my "that", the faithful diligent scribe.

Now let all the world be judge between me and this spirit, which bread shall give way to the other. My bread has with it the text: "Eat, this is my body," and declares itself with expressed words that this bread is the body of Christ. The bread of the Spirit has with it the text, "Do this," or "as often as you eat the bread," and does not declare itself to be vain.

The Spirit must amend the text, and say: it is not Christ's body, as he then has commanded to do; yes, from the devil! If then one "that" is to give way to the other, let its "that" give way to mine, as it is bare and naked, without explanation, but mine has its explanation with it, or else it must sweat in another way, if it is to prove that my "that" is to give way to its "that"; with pointing fingers it is lost.

73 And if he were willing and faithful, he should not show us with his fingers how his "this" points to bread; we would probably find this without his spirit, explanation, and art; but he should first reject this text: "Eat, this is my body"; if it were rejected that bread was not preached as Christ's body, then we ourselves would know that his "this" should point to the same bread. But since he does not do this, it is petitio principii, and lost chatter, that he should not answer, since one asks and desires, as I always complain. For we say that where the first "this" points to the body of Christ, his "this" afterwards 1) must also point to it; because both "this" points to bread, and yet the first at the same time brings Christ's body, as the words read: "Eat, this is my body.

74 We do not admit him to say that where Christ says, "these things," or "these things do," it is as much as when Paul says, "As often as ye eat this bread. The Spirit says it, but he does not prove it, as is his way. For these words, "as often as ye eat this bread," etc., speak only of eating and drinking. Now if another spirit were as quarrelsome as this spirit, he would probably want to argue that one should not take, give thanks, break, give, and bless the bread, but only eat it, as the words say, and thus grasp the bread with the mouth from the table, or bite it out of the oven. But if the words "as often as ye eat this bread" can suffer that it must be taken, broken, given thanks and blessed: Dearly beloved, they shall also suffer the other certain piece, which is the blessing, when Christ saith, This is my body. etc. But if the same some part shall not be suffered in it; then

1) Erlanger: after and.

I also want to argue just as powerfully that, according to the letter, one should eat it alone, not take it, not break it, not bless it, not give it. For St. Paul does not say, "As often as you take this bread, break it, give thanks, or give," but only, "As often as you eat it.

Seest thou how fine a thing it is to patch and burst oneself thus with letters? And such things must then be called the Scriptures, which are contrary to our understanding. Therefore we say that Christ, by the word "these things" or "that doeth," does not command the eating of bread alone, but the whole text of the Lord's Supper, and St. Paul also, though he alone sets the letters of the eating of bread; for he certainly intended to call the eating of bread as Christ set it, and not as the swarming spirit fools, though he could not comprehend such a manner in the letter "eating of bread," but he had taught it before in many words enough.

In the fifth place, he wants to prove that our understanding is contrary to faith, and once again he has much to do to teach us how Christ died for us. For the Spirit must always teach me what I have taught so long and often, and in the meantime leap over when he should answer. For I well know, by the grace of God, that our faith is as Christ redeemed us from sins by his suffering; all this he ought not to teach us. But how our mind is against such faith in the Lord's Supper, as it throbs and boasts, I would very much like to hear; there my dear spirit is silent as a mouse, yes, it leaps over as a deer. But that he says, If one teaches that Christ's body eating bodily forgives sin, etc. that is against faith, I answer, "I truly think so too; indeed, I have said more, namely, that Christ's body eating bodily, without spirit and faith, is poison and death. To what then does the spirit answer, or against whom does it contend? Do you also think that he is in his right mind, who wants to fight against Luther, and fights against no one?

For let it be understood that Christ's body is not eaten in the Lord's Supper because of our sin, how does it follow that his body is not eaten in the Lord's Supper, or that it is contrary to faith? If Christ therefore

I will also conclude from this art that it is against the faith that Christ is in heaven, and I will lead all the sayings of this spirit thus: St. Paul does not say that Christ went to heaven for our sin, but that he was crucified for our sin; therefore he is not in heaven, nor does he forgive sin there. Item, Paul does not say: Christ was born for our sin, nor did he live; but died: therefore he was not born, nor did he live. All the same as the Spirit here casts, Christ's body is not eaten for our sin, but died for our sin; therefore it is not to be eaten in the Lord's Supper. So let us make of Christ nothing but one who eternally suffers on the cross for our sin, lest we act contrary to faith, believing in other articles that Christ is there and forgives sin, which this Spirit alone wants to have on the cross.

The blind mad spirit does not know that meritum Christi and distributio meriti are two things, and mixes them together like an impure sow. Christ once earned forgiveness of sins on the cross and purchased it for us; but he distributes it where he is, every hour and in every place, as Lucas writes Cap. 24, 46. f.Thus it is written, that Christ suffered, and rose again the third day (there is his merit), and preached repentance and remission of sins in his name" (there is his merit); therefore we say, that in the Lord's supper there is remission of sins, not because of the food, or that Christ there merits or acquires remission of sins; but because of the word, by which he distributes such acquired remission among us, and says: "This is my body, which is given for you." Here you hear that we eat the body given for us, and hear and believe this in the meal; therefore forgiveness of sins is distributed there, which was nevertheless obtained at the cross.

79 Otherwise, I would also want to deceive, as the Spirit does, and say, "Christ has not redeemed us through our preaching; therefore it is against faith that one should receive forgiveness of sins.

926 Trl. so, IS1-1S7. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX. 11S8-NS1. 927

sins in preaching. Where, then, should we seek them, since Christ says that the forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name? For Christ did not redeem us by faith; therefore it is contrary to faith to seek forgiveness of sins by faith. Wherefore then shall we seek it, seeing Christ saith, He that believeth shall be saved [Marc. 16:17]. Item: Christ did not save us through our baptism, therefore it is against faith whoever seeks remission of sins in baptism. Dear, why then does Paul call baptism a washing away of sins? Christ has not redeemed us through the Holy Spirit; therefore it is contrary to faith to seek forgiveness of sins from the Holy Spirit. Dear, where then? But he who is blind must see nothing. The spirit has been misled and blinded by the sacrament, therefore he does not need to know any part of the Christian doctrine. But we know that Christ died for us once, and such a death he passes on 1) through preaching, baptizing, the Spirit, reading, believing, eating, and as he pleases, where he is and what he does.

80 I have so diligently written in the next booklet how our Lord's Supper has two parts, namely, word and food, and how the word demands faith and spiritual food, besides the bodily, and I have asked them to prove how it is contrary to faith. The spirit is still allowed to shout out these lies so often in all books, that I do not teach spiritual food nor faith, but only bodily food. Read my booklet, and you will have to say that this spirit is a false, lying spirit, who blames me for teaching forgiveness of sins only through the bodily eating of the body of Christ, if he knows and has read otherwise. For he alone seeks to chat with such lies, that he only need not answer, as our understanding is contrary to faith. Well, with such tricks they will not take away our understanding, but rather strengthen us, because they attack us with public lies. For we do not believe that Christian faith and public lies are one thing.

1) In the old editions: "he hands out."

(81) In the same way, I have written diligently against the heavenly prophets, how the history and custom of Christ's suffering is not one thing, factum et applicatio facti, seu factum et usus facti. For Christ's suffering happened only once on the cross; but to whom would this be useful, if it were not divided up, applied and brought into 2) use? But how should it come into use and be distributed without Word and Sacrament? But why should such high spirits read my little books? They know better. Well then, they also have this to reward them, that they consider factum et usum to be one, and make fools and disgraces of themselves about it; they do not see that in the Lord's Supper usus passionis et non factum passionis is acted upon. It serves them right who read nothing, or read beyond what is written against them, with great arrogance and certainty.

The impotent spirit should prove that Christ's body is not in the Lord's Supper; he leaves that pending 3) and proves that we are not redeemed by eating his body, but by his suffering. Who would know such a new art if the Spirit did not produce it now? It is the Spirit's way, he must spit out other things, because one asks, and always teach us what we know, so that he does not have to prove what he has done and is guilty of, but so that he always strengthens us the more, as a spirit fleeing from the field, which must not go right under the eyes of its opposite. We know well that Christ did not redeem us by our food, and no one has ever heard it otherwise from us; but that it should follow from this that there is only bread in the Lord's Supper, we would be eager to hear that, and would praise the Spirit if he proved it.

That he is also angry when we warn that one should not ask how it is that Christ's body is in the Lord's Supper, but should believe the words of God, which we have not done to the simple (for they must not), but to the arrogant, and even to the enthusiasts themselves. But as they will, let them search and rise; only that they may do enough for their glory, and prove how our understanding is contrary to faith;

2) The old edition of Walch and the Erlanger: im.

3) Thus the Wittenbergers. Jena and Erlangen: stand.

Which they will do on the day of the devil's ascension. But we can see that they become public liars above their research and dispute what they themselves invent and no one teaches. It is to be noted that they rise too high and get the spirit of deceit, that they finally take quod pro qualiter; item, mix factum unb usum into each other, like the right sow cooks, in addition to which they are divided among themselves and become uncertain in all their ways, and always fall from one error into the other without stopping. Such shall be the reward of those who do not believe God's word, but seek it out.

In the sixth place, he wants to prove how the Scriptures are also against our understanding. The first is this very saying: "This is my body, which was given for you. Now it is not true that his body is as it was given for us, for it is visibly given for us. To this is answered above, how the Spirit makes of quod quale, vitiosissimo syllogismo, in quo quatuor termini, nullum dici de omni, nulla praedicatio in quid aut distributio, and much other vitia, as the Logici well know that sub termino substantiali non potest subsumi accidentalis. Such, however, is called Scripture and God's word in this spirit.

In other words, we do not say that in the Lord's Supper Christ's body is given to us in the same form or shape (for who would say that?), but that it is the same body that is given to us, not in the same form or shape, but in the same essence and nature. Now the same being can be visible here and invisible there. Oh, it is the work of fools! They do not want to answer us, but they only want to talk and boast uselessly.

86) Item, it should be against the text: "As often as you eat the bread" etc.; because here "this" points to bread, so should it there, "this is my body", point to the same bread etc. Answer: it does not have to do anything everywhere, nor is such a must proven; but above we have proven the contradiction that both "this" points to bread, which is Christ's body, and neither to vain common bread.

Item, Marci 16, 19.: "The Lord is taken up to heaven"; item [Joh. 16, 28.]:

"I leave the world and go to the Father"; item, Joh. 17, 11: "I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world", and what is more of the sayings, since Christ is preached to be in heaven. Well, this we also believe and say, and would have been no need to teach us. But this would be needless to teach, that because Christ is in heaven, his body cannot be in the Lord's Supper. If they were to prove this repugnance, we ourselves would know that these sayings were contrary to our understanding. Now we are always taught with much verbiage that we know, and masterfully silent that we demand; therefore we must remain on our understanding.

(87) And what is meant by "being in the world" is explained by Christ Himself in Luc. 24:44, when He says: "These are the words that I spoke to you while I was still with you. How? Is he not with them? and yet eats with them after his resurrection? But certainly he is no longer with them, as he was with them before, mortal, and who had to need this life in the world, as Paul 1 Cor. 15, 44. speaks of the natural and spiritual man. But from this it cannot be proved that he therefore should not be there in the flesh. For, as it is said, he sat and ate and talked with them, and yet is not in the world. So also: "You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me with you. What is meant by "with you" is given by the text itself, and is well to be reckoned, namely, as the poor are with us, so he is not with us. And so henceforth, 1) what they of the Proverbs more bring forward, is soon said: Christ is not with us, as the poor, mortal and worldly.

(88) Therefore, they cannot yet say that our understanding is contrary to Scripture, but it is to use Zwingel's logic, substantiam pro accidente, quod pro qualiter; as if I said, Christ is not in some form in the Lord's Supper, therefore he is not bodily in it. Christ is not with us in some form, therefore he is not with us in all things, fresh a particulari ad universale.

1) In the punctuation, we have followed Zwingli's counter-writing, which there in § 152 crtirt this passage. In the editions, the words "und so fortan" are added to the previous one and followed by a period.

930 Tri. so, iss-isi. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx, ii "s-iiss. 931

The sheriff is not in the bath with red pants, therefore he is not in the bath. The king does not sit crowned over tables, therefore he does not sit over tables. This is children's play and jiggery-pokery, as the schools well know; but with the spirits such must be Scripture and Christian faith.

(89) And if they stand on these sayings, that Christ is no longer with us, they must also conclude that Christ is not with us spiritually either; for the words stand dry: "I am no longer with you" [John 16:4, 12:8, 17:11], which means that he is not with us at all. Yes, they say, we have clear sayings against him being with us spiritually, such as John 14:23: "We will make our abode with him"; and Paul Eph. 3:17: "Christ dwells in your hearts" etc. Answer: Dear, can they find such sayings against those: how can they not find the text in the Lord's Supper against the same? If Christ can be with them in some ways, so that the text does not hinder them, "I am not with you"; he can also be with us in the Lord's Supper, so that the same text does not hinder us, "I am not with you"; but if such a text does not overthrow their sayings about the spiritual nature of Christ, it does not overthrow our text in the Lord's Supper about the invisible nature either.

90 Thus their objection is as strong against them as it is against us, and by their working themselves loose, they make us loose also, and our mind remains firm, "This is my body. For if they prove many things with their sayings, they prove that Christ in the Lord's Supper is not visible, mortal, and worldly; which is not at all necessary to prove, for we confess all these things. But that which they should prove, namely, that our understanding is false, and that Christ lies when he says, "This is my body," no one wants to come to that, they are vain, fleeting, fluttering spirits; meanwhile they cheat a lot of good paper with useless, futile words, and fool the poor, simple Christian.

91) What he then says about the Passover, since Paul calls 1 Cor. 5, 7 Christ a Passover, and wants to conclude from this: just as Christ in that place is not the natural Passover, but per tropum a new Passover; thus

Even in these words, "This is my body," a tropus, nothing is said. For it is known beforehand from himself that it does not follow whether there is a tropus in a place, that therefore there is also a tropus here; but one should prove such a consequence, and we have written enough about the tropis above. It is all to be done to the mind, that it may only write a book, and court its own, that it may not answer what it ought and owes, and yet have a standing as if it answered. He is to prove that our understanding is contrary to the Scriptures; so he teaches us that Christ is Passover, that is, he is a transgression. Let them speak and do as they will, for this does not answer how our understanding is contrary to the Scriptures.

(92) After this the Spirit is very wroth, because I have mocked their preaching so cheerfully, and reproacheth me evil. But to rebuke and to be angry, or to rage, is not scripture with us, which is against our understanding. But he that cannot answer, rageth and rageth justly, as that mother taught her child: Dear child, if thou canst not win, bear grudges. I have thrown the shillelagh among the dogs, and by the shouting I know which one I have hit.

It reminds me of the spirit, as if a mad man had a crossbow, and took the winds with great shouting and being, and stretched the crossbow, threatened with excellent words to split the iron nail in the blade 1) and did not put an arrow on it because of great haste and joy, and thus pressed it, and when he heard the string click, threw the crossbow around, and said: There it is, the nail is broken. And when the others laughed and said that there was no arrow, he peeled it so that they would not consider it an arrow. This spirit does the same: with great splendor he pretends to answer and to hit, and always forgets the arrows, so that he does not even answer correctly. But nevertheless he likes the rattling of the mouth, and wants to think that it was an arrow, and has shot the nail in the leaf. But we are used to such foolish shots; even if they put an arrow on the crossbow, we still want to be sure that they will be shot before the arrow hits the nail.

1) Leaf - the disc. The "nail" the Centrum.

into the ashes, or shoot three cubits over the rampart before they hit us.

94. as when they say the words of St. Paul, Col. 3:1, 2: "If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God; be mindful of those things which are above, and not of those things which are on earth. There, there, you carnivores and blood drinkers, hear that Christ's body is not to be sought in the Sacrament; for the Sacrament is on earth, so Christ is above at the right hand of God.

Here it is not necessary for the Spirit to show us what St. Paul means by "on earth," since the power lies in this saying; but rushes over, plops down, as their conceited spirit drives them. If I now say, Why then do they go to the preaching and seek the gospel? Item, why do they keep the Lord's Supper? Why do they love and do good to their neighbor? Father, mother, master, servant, and our neighbor are all on earth; so let us not seek them, honor, obey, serve, or love anyone. Is it not fine? Is not all this on earth? And St. Paul says, "Do not seek what is on earth. Truly the apostles did all wrong in following Christ, for he was on earth, and Christ himself comes on earth, even Paul himself preaches and visits Christians now and then on earth. What do you think? Have they not strained the saying?

But now we are used to the devil, that he only mocks us, and out of great arrogance does not esteem us worthy to whom he should answer, as otherwise he can get enough disciples with useless mocking. So we accept his mockery again, and offer him defiance against it, that he overthrows our understanding with mockery, and let it be a strength of our faith, because he can muster nothing against us but his melancholy, impotent mockery.

97 St. Paul calls "on earth" the earthly life, as the world lives, in fornication and all kinds of immorality. For he speaks of the killing of the old Adam, as his words stand there, and brightly read: "Have you died with Christ" [Col. 3, 1]. And afterwards v. 5: "Mortify therefore your members which are of the earth, fornication, uncleanness, unchastity, covetousness" etc.

There we hear that he is called "on earth" an earthly, old life after the old Adam, as one lives in the world without the Spirit of God. For this is how the old Adam lives; we should not seek this, (says St. Paul), for we, having died to the world and earthly life with Christ, should henceforth live heavenly in Christ.

98 Therefore we cheerfully say that our Sacrament is not on earth, nor do we seek it on earth. But if the devil shall prove that we hold our sacrament and the body of Christ to be fornication, covetousness, hatred, and vain iniquity, let us confess that we do wrong in seeking Christ on earth. But if he does not do this, we say that he is lying in his infernal mouth, and blasphemes St. Paul for this, so that he is called Christ's body on earth when he is in the sacrament. For that is not what St. Paul is called to be on earth, as we have heard. But there you have the enthusiasts, how finely they regard the Scriptures, and who is the Spirit that speaks through them. For the devil knows well what St. Paul means "on earth", and yet he drives his blinded enthusiasts to call Christ's body in the Sacrament "on earth". With such reasons they shall confirm their Lord's Supper, and overthrow ours.

99 The devil also makes such a mockery with the saying of Paul 2 Cor. 5:16, 17: "We no longer know Christ according to the flesh, and in Christ is the new creature. Such sayings must always conclude as much: Christ's body is not in the Lord's Supper. Well, we like to be mocked, let us see what the devil gains from it. The spirit of the swarm should indicate here what St. Paul means by the word: "According to the flesh"; since the whole power also lies with him. Yes, says the devil, I do not look at you, it is enough how my disciples lead, one must accept it. Well then, let us be so humble as to denounce the same.

St. Paul also speaks there of the death of the old Adam and wants to say that we should no longer live according to the flesh, but a new creature in Christ. Hear for yourself his words: "We consider," he says, "that if one died for all, they all died. "etc. [2 Cor. 5, 14.] What can

How can this be otherwise, for as he says in the next verse, Col. 3, 3: "We died with Christ"; and Rom. 6, 6: "Our old man was crucified with Christ"? And here it follows, "And therefore died for all, that they which live should not live 1) unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again" [2 Cor. 5:15]. What is this but that we should live anew in Christ?

101. follows v. 16: "Therefore from now on we know no one according to the flesh." Here let Paulum and the enthusiast speak to each other. The enthusiast says: "To know according to the flesh" is to respect something bodily present, or to be present for someone with his body, as Christ is in the sacrament; and such is wrong, and Paul denies it. Dear, why does Paul know his Corinthians live bodily before him? Why does he know his own body? Item: Why do the swarms know their companions bodily before them? Why do they know their bodily supper? Is it not all a bodily thing, and present according to the flesh? Now here St. Paul forbids to know after the flesh. But can they know their things according to the flesh, so that St. Paul must not be against them? Dear, why then should he be against us, that we know Christ bodily in the sacrament? But let the scoffer mock: he that mocketh another best, let him be master.

In this place St. Paul means "according to the flesh", which is carnal or fleshly, and not according to the spirit or spiritual, as he says in 2 Cor. 10, 3: "Though we walk in the flesh, we do not contend according to the flesh", that is, not in a carnal way. Secundum carnem non significat in carne, sicut somniant; sed more adverbii significat: camaliter, vel studio et affectu carnis, vel quomodo caro facit. "In the flesh" and "according to the flesh" is far from each other. Paul, Gal. 2, 20, lived "in the flesh", but not according to the flesh, but "in the faith of Christ". For Rom. 8, 6. 13. he calls "living according to the flesh" death, since he says: "If you live according to the flesh, you will die."

1) "Hinsort" is missing in the Erlanger.

Therefore the text forcibly compels St. Paul that this is his opinion: "Because we have all died to the world and the flesh with Christ, we should no longer live or think according to the flesh, and thus know no one carnally, but only spiritually. For to know another carnally is to know him no further than flesh can; now flesh can do no more than seek its own in everyone, hating, envying, and doing all evil to the enemy, but seeking pleasure, favor, enjoyment, and friendship in everyone, for its profit etc. In this way the world knows one another. But we Christians know no one in this way, for "we are one new creature in Christ" [2 Cor. 5:17] and know one another according to the Spirit, that is, each seeks not his own, but what is another's, for his own good; as he also teaches in Rom. 14 and Phil. 2:4.

104. "And though we had known Christ in the flesh, (saith he [2 Cor. 5:16]) yet now know we him no more." It is well to understand that he does not mean Christ personally in the flesh (as the spirit deceives); for Christ remains in the flesh forever, and all the angels in it must know him forever. But as we know our brethren spiritually, and no more carnally; so we know Christ much less carnally. But before, when we were holy in Judaism and in the works of the law (to which the false apostles are now drifting again), we knew nothing of Christ spiritually, but sought vainly carnally: "For we hoped that he should redeem Israel," Luc. 24:21, and look upon our holiness, and make us glorious according to the flesh. This, of course, was knowing Christ according to the flesh, and a right carnal mind. But all this has now passed away and died with him, and we no longer know him in this way, for all these things have passed away, and we are like new creatures in Christ. Paul himself will give you this understanding, just read and look at the text properly.

All who look at Christ in the flesh and know Him must be offended at Him, as happened to the Jews. For since flesh and blood thinks no further than to see and feel, and to see that Christ is a mortal man, it is not possible for them to know him.

When a man is crucified, he must say: This is finished, there is neither life nor salvation, he is gone, no one can help him, he himself is lost. But he that shall not be offended in him must pass over the flesh, and be raised up by the word, that he may know in the spirit how Christ is made alive and glorious by his very suffering and death. And whoever does and can do this rightly is a new creature in Christ, endowed with new spiritual knowledge. Just as even now all are offended at Christ, when they look upon his supper in the flesh, as the devotees know it, and they themselves are (which they owe to us), who know Christ according to the flesh; for the flesh can neither say nor know any more than, here is bread and wine, therefore it must be offended at Christ, when he says, "This is my body," for it is an old creature in Adam. If it is not to be offended, it must go over such flesh and believe the words, "This is my body," and then it will understand that such bread is not bad bread, but the true body of Christ.

I am disturbed that the devil makes such a mockery of God's words, but it grieves me that the poor people should not see how they lay such loose thoughts at the foundation of their arrogance. They boast about how they have learned nothing from us, but they really should not, their writings show it all too much, if they were silent about the boasting, and we would be sorry that they should learn such things from us. And this is their way of interpreting the Scriptures and preaching in Zurich, Basel and Strasbourg, and where they teach, it would be desirable that they were still papal; for the same are now almost convinced throughout the world that they teach wrongly. Lord God, whom such public error and wrong understanding of St. Paul does not frighten nor move against these enthusiasts, what shall move him?

107 And as for the rest of the proverbs which they introduce, where Christ is preached that he has left the world, gone to the Father, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God, etc., they do not answer anything, except that they teach us what we have long known, so that we may not notice how they leap over when they are to answer. But that

they should teach and prove that therefore our mind is wrong and these words of Christ "this is my body" are false. They say that it is contrary to one another that Christ is the body in heaven and in the Lord's Supper, but they do not prove it. Therefore we say it is not contrary to one another, because Scripture says it both ways, and our no is as strong as their yes; for we cannot deny the bright clear words for the sake of their bare, naked, bad yes. It has been known longer than a thousand years ago that Christ ascended into heaven, without all the teaching of this new spirit; nor has it therefore been denied that Christ's body in the Lord's Supper or Christ's word are true. Now if this Spirit were lacking, he ought to show us and teach us; but this will not come out.

(108) But I will tell you the truth, dear friends: If the Spirit is in earnest, and does not wilfully deny that our understanding is contrary to the Scriptures, then I will have lost all my things. I will prove it thus: First, the Spirit allowed Christ to give his body to be eaten in the first supper, since he makes the word of the cup in the supper, as has been sufficiently heard. Tell me, then, how can he seriously say here that it is contrary to Scripture and false, when he himself confesses above that it is right and was done once? For if he were in earnest, he would also attack it in the first supper with scriptures, and not make a word in it, which he does not do, but lets our understanding remain. If then our understanding remains in the first supper, there can be neither interpretation nor signification in the words, but as they stand and read, so they interpret, and so all their tempest and raving is in vain, that they seek interpretation.

109 Secondly, no one can deny that Christ took the first supper while he was in the world, before he went to the Father. Tell me, then, how can the Spirit seriously say that the sayings which speak of Christ's going to the Father contradict the text of the Lord's Supper? For he must confess that none of these sayings has yet been fulfilled, and that Christ did not sit up in heaven. When Christ comes down from heaven after the Ascension

If the Lord's Supper had been instituted, then the false prophets would have their appearance; but now Christ acts as if he should say: "There will be false prophets who pretend that my Lord's Supper is contrary to the sayings, who say of me how I am going to the Father and am no longer in the world. For this reason I will come before them and institute my supper, because I am still in the world and on earth, so that before they know it they will be taken as public liars in their own words, and you, little children, will be strengthened in the right faith.

How will they stand here? They must abandon all such sayings as they have hitherto so valiantly defied, and as public liars confess that because Christ is not in heaven when he takes supper, such sayings may not have moved them in earnest to deny that Christ's body is in supper, but are deceived by the devil into thinking that they saw what they did not see; for sayings do nothing to prove that Christ's body is in supper or not, any more than these sayings do: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and fled into Egypt.

But I will give them good advice, they must now think of other scriptures, namely this one: In the evening Jesus sat down at table with the twelve, and what is more of those who speak of sitting at table. From which they must conclude: The Scripture says: Christ sits above tables, therefore he cannot be in bread. If they say this, then it is enough, and it is not necessary that they also prove to us how it is against such Scripture, as they also do with the previous sayings. For what the Spirit saith is right, wheresoever he listeth. But we will answer, Too slow, dear spirit, too slow; for these writings of sitting over tables have not moved thee hitherto to thy error, neither hast thou ever thought, hold thy peace, that they should move thee. Since these have never moved you, and those have not been able to move you in earnest, tell me what has moved you? Dear spirit, seize us also so on public lies, so we want to have lost.

112 But whether they speak: If equal the

If the first supper is not contrary to the scriptures we have heard, then the other suppers after the ascension are. I answer, I do not inquire now; it is enough for me this time that I have received the first supper, which cannot be contrary to the sayings of the ascension of Christ, and the Spirit has been publicly absent. For now that I have this, that the sayings of the ascension of Christ cannot induce anyone to deny the first supper according to our understanding, let us also receive the other suppers. For who will believe the enthusiasts that the sayings of the ascension of Christ seriously move them against the Lord's Supper after the ascension, if they are overcome, that they are not moved by them against the Lord's Supper before the ascension? If Christ's body can sit over tables and still be in the bread, he can also be in heaven and where he wants to be, and still be in the bread; there is no difference between being far or near the table and being in the bread at the same time. Well, that is publicly found to be lying; but they will not yet give way, or confess their error, that they honor the truth for God's sake.

Let this be enough, that our understanding is not contrary to Scripture or to faith, as the mad spirit is in control of itself. Then he comes to the two main points which I have attacked most severely, namely: that Christ is at the right hand of God, and flesh is of no use etc. There he should prove how the two pieces could not suffer Christ's body to be in the Lord's Supper, as I had drawn it with large letters, so that they would not jump over it. So the dear spirit comes here, and brings his figure Allöosis, by which he wants to make everything bad, teaches us how in the Scriptures one nature is taken for the other in Christ, until he falls into the abyss, and smuggles that this saying, "the Word became flesh", John 1:14, must not be understood as it reads, but thus: the flesh became Word, or man became God etc. This is how one should take the scripture in the mouth.

I cannot attack all the errors of the spirit this time. But this I say, whoever wants to be warned, let him beware.

940 srl. so, iss-sos. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. xx, ins-ins. 941

from the Zwingel, and avoid his books, as the infernal Satan's poison, because man is completely wrong, and has lost Christ purely from. The other sacramentals remain on one error; this one does not produce a book, it pours out new errors, the longer the more. But he who will not be warned, let him go so far as to know that I have warned him, and he is excused.

(115) Thou shalt not believe nor suppose that the trope of allosis is in such sayings, or that one nature is taken for another in Christ. The nonsensical spirit invents such things, that he may also rob us of Christ; for he proves it not to thee, neither can he prove it to thee. And even if such an error of his were true and right, it still does not prove that Christ's body cannot be in the Lord's Supper. For I have insisted that they should show reason why these words would be false, "this is my body," as they read, even though Christ is in heaven, because God's image is not conscious to us, and he may well find a way that both are true, namely, Christ in heaven and his body in the Lord's Supper. That was the most noble question, I demanded, so I wrote big letters to show how the two were against each other. Then he is silent, 1) he does not remember it with a letter, as if it did not concern him, and in the meantime he is talking about his allöosi.

For the reason that I have shown how Christ's body is everywhere, because God's right hand is everywhere, I have done this (as I have publicly stated there), so that I might indicate a certain way in which God might enable Christ to be in heaven and his body in the Lord's Supper at the same time, reserving to his divine wisdom and power more ways by which he might accomplish these things, since we do not know the end or the measure of his power.

(117) Now if they would or could have answered, they should have proved to us constantly how God neither knows nor is able to know any way that Christ is in heaven and at-

1) Thus the Jena; "still" is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlangen.

like his body in the Lord's Supper; there lies the knot, there they jump, the good fellows. For they should not teach us the visible way, that heaven is high above according to the eyes, and that the Lord's Supper is here on earth; we know it well ourselves, that to reckon according to the eyes cannot be here above what is here, and again; for that is a human, visible way. But God's word and works are not according to the sight of our eyes, but are incomprehensible to all reason, even to the angels. So also Christ is neither in heaven nor in the Lord's Supper in a visible way, and as the eyes of flesh judge something to be here and there.

118 And of course it is an impotent spirit that judges God's word and work according to the eyes, for in such a way even God Himself is not, wherever He is, be He at all ends, or at some ends. Dear, why then does the spirit attach itself to the certain way indicated by me? First, because he was afraid that his belly would burst with great art. Secondly, so that he would deceive the simple, so that they would not see how he would jump over when he was supposed to answer, and so start another game, so that he would pull us off course, so that we would forget the thing that frightens him. If I now argue with them about the same of my indicated way, then they would have won game. Why? Because that would give them cause not to answer the right knot that presses them, and at the same time to write book after book, spouting their useless chatter into the world; for they think that spouting a lot and writing useless books is right answering, and they deceive the poor people.

119) Therefore you should protect yourself against them, if they constantly prove to you that divine power and wisdom is no further than our eyes are, and no more capable than we can see and judge bodily with our eyes, and grope with our fingers, then you should keep it with them; so I also want to believe that God no longer knows a way like Christ in heaven at the same time,

2) "den" is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlanger.

942 Erl. so, 202-204. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX. 1I7S-11S1. 943

and that his body be in the Lord's Supper. Urge and demand this of them; they are obliged to do it, and their doctrine may not stand before they have made this clear and certain, for their doctrine stands on it.

The devil feels well that he cannot do it, therefore he rumbles with useless chatter that we should not push him there, and in the meantime he spends art that no one desires. For if he could overthrow the way I have indicated (which he cannot do), he would still have accomplished nothing, because it would still not prove that the two are opposed to each other: Christ in heaven and his body in bread. He must prove that not only the same way is impossible, but also that God Himself no longer knows or is able to do any other way, as I also demanded in the previous book. Since he does not do this, we say: God is almighty, able to do more than we see; therefore I believe his words as they read. Behold, then, the spirit stands, and has entrusted himself with all his art.

121 For to all his useless spouting, which he does against my indicated way, I answer with a single word, that is, no. For he brings his all-eosiness, which no one confesses to him in the article; and it needs to be proven just as much as his entire doctrine of lies. But if he proved it, then one could answer him further. So my indicated way (for the sake of his Allöosi) still stands out from all the others; for that he says it is Allöosis, one does not give a damn, he would like to say that it is Ironia or another trope. It does not apply so Troppens or Troppelns in the scripture, one must prove the Tropos first that they are there, before one argues with it. Ah, it is as I said, the devil is struck that he cannot answer, therefore he wanders about with vain words. Praise and thanks be to God, who knows how to equip us so well against the devil.

But you, dear brother, should keep this instead of the allöosi: because Jesus Christ is truly God and man, in One Person, let no nature be taken for another in any place of Scripture; for

that is called Allöosin, when something is said of the deity of Christ, which nevertheless belongs to mankind, or again; as, Luc. 24, 26.: "Did not Christ have to suffer, and thus go to 1) his glory?" Here he gules that Christ is taken for human nature. Beware, beware, I say, of the Allöosi, it is the devil's larva; for it finally brings about such a Christ, after which I would not gladly be a Christian, namely, that Christ henceforth be no more, nor do with his suffering and life, than another bad saint. For if I believe that human nature alone has suffered for me, then Christ is a bad savior to me, so he himself needs a savior. Summa, it is unspeakable what the devil seeks with the Allöosi.

This piece is a higher article, and should be in a special book, and does not belong in this matter. But recently, let a simple Christian be satisfied with the fact that the Holy Spirit knows how to teach us how we should speak, and must not be a fool or a foolish man. 2) And thus says the Holy Spirit Jn. 3:16: "God so loves the world, that He gave His only Son"; Rom. 8:32: "He did not spare His own Son, but gave Him for us all." And so henceforth, all works, words, sufferings, and what Christ does, does, works, speaks, suffers, the true Son of God, and is rightly spoken: Son of God died for us, Son of God preaches on earth, Son of God 4) washes the disciples' feet, as the epistle, Heb. 6, 6. says: "They crucify to them even the Son of God." 1 Cor. 2, 8. "If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory."

124) If the old weather-maker, Mrs. Reason, the grandmother of Allöosis, would say: Yes, the Godhead cannot suffer nor die, you shall answer: That is true; but nevertheless, because Godhead and mankind in Christ are not the same, you shall say: Yes, the Godhead cannot suffer nor die.

1) Erlanger: in.

2) Toppeler - cheating dice players.

3) Wittenberger: "has loved" and "gave".

4) Here the words are missing in the Erlanger edition: "died for us, God's Son preaches on earth, God's Son".

One person is, so the scripture, for the sake of such personal unity, also gives to the Godhead everything that happens to mankind, and again. And is also thus in truth. For this you must say, the person (show 1) Christ) suffers, dies; now the person is truly God; therefore it is rightly said: The Son of God suffers; for although the one part (that I speak thus), as the Godhead, does not suffer, nevertheless the person, who is God, suffers in the other part, as in humanity.

(125) Just as one says, "The king's son is sore," yet his leg alone is sore. Solomon is wise, yet his soul alone is wise. Absalom is beautiful, yet his body alone is beautiful. Peter is gray, yet his head alone is gray. Because body and soul are one person, everything that happens to the body or soul, even to the smallest member of the body, is rightly and well done to the whole person. This is the way of speaking in all the world, not only in the Scriptures, and is also the truth; for in truth the Son of God is crucified for us, that is, the person who is God, for he is, he (I say), the person, crucified according to mankind.

(126) Thus, what happens to the other part of the person is to be appropriated to the whole person, for the sake of both being one person. Thus speak all the old teachers, all the new theologians, all language and all Scripture. But the cursed allosis turns such things upside down, and wants to change, and to appropriate to the pieces, that which is assigned to the whole person in the Scriptures, makes its own tropos, to turn the Scriptures upside down, and to separate the person of Christ, as it also does with the "is", only that it teaches something new and brings its foolish thoughts also to the sun.

And because he likes to trope so much, why doesn't he stick to the old trope, which the 2) Scripture and all teachers have used here so far? Namely, synecdoche, as, Christ died, after mankind etc., but that would have been nothing new, and was no glory to hunt in it, would not have liked either.

1) Wittenberger: shows.

2) "the" is missing in the Erlanger.

bring new error. That is why AllŒosis had to come forth and teach us that one nature would be taken for the other. As if the apostles had been mad and foolish, that they could not have spoken of the Godhead, they had to call it mankind, and again. If John had wanted to consider 3) Allöosin, he could also have said: The flesh became word, since he said: 4) "The word became flesh."

But is this not a sacrilegious spirit, which so foolhardily goes forth, and makes us allöosin at these oerterns? Who ordered him to do it? How does he prove that AllŒosis is here? No, that is not necessary, but is enough when he says: I Zwingel say that here is AllŒosis; therefore it is so; because I was yesterday in the bosom of the Godhead, and now I come from heaven, therefore one must believe me. He should prove beforehand that here is AllŒosis; he leaves that and accepts it as if he had fought for it a thousand years ago, and there is no one who may doubt it; but it is much more necessary to prove that here is AllŒosis than that which he wants to confirm with it. That is from the Zwingelian Logica, incertum per incertius, ignotum per ignotius probare; O beautiful art, which even children should throw out with dirt.

If this is true, that he may troll and play with figures of his will, and what he says must be right, what wonder is it if he makes a Belial out of Christ in the end? Who may say everything he likes (and does not have to show reason), dear, what shall he not conclude? It is not different, because as I lament, the spirit boasts scripture to smear the people's mouth, and yet leads vain own dreams and his great conceit against the scripture. But we condemn and curse the Allöosin in this place to hell, as the devil's own input, and want to see how he wants to confirm it; because Scripture and good reason we want to have, not his own snot and slobber.

130. they cry out over us, that we mix the two natures into one being; that is

3) Erlanger: Had.

4) Here the words are missing in the Erlanger: "The flesh became word, when he said:"

not true. We do not say that Godhead is humanity, or divine nature is human nature, which would be nature mixed into one being. But we mix the two different natures into one person, and say: God is man, and man is God. But we cry out again against them, that they divide the person of Christ, as if it were two persons. For where the allosis is to exist, as it leads Zwingel, Christ will have to be two persons, one divine and one human, because he shows the sayings of suffering to the human nature alone and turns all things from the Godhead; For where the works are divided and separated, the person must also be divided, because all works or sufferings are not assigned to natures, but to persons; for it is the person who does and suffers all things, one according to this nature, the other according to that nature, as all this is well known to the learned. Therefore we hold our Lord Christ to be God and man in one person, non confundendo naturas, nec dividendo personam, so that we do not mix the natures, nor separate the person.

Now this is enough of an accidental thing, for it serves nothing here without the spirit being so full of error that it seeks cause everywhere to abuse the simple, and in the meantime drives the right thing out of its place. We stand on this, because the righteous spirit will not nor can prove that the two are against each other: Christ is in heaven, and his body is in the Lord's Supper, so let the words "this is my body" remain to us as they are; for one letter in it is more certain and better to us than all the books of all the gossips, even if they wrote the world full of books.

132 Item, because they do not prove that God's right hand is a special place in heaven, my indicated way also still remains firm that Christ's body is everywhere, because he is at the right hand of God, which is everywhere, although we do not know how that happens; because we also do not know how it happens that God's right hand is everywhere. Of course, it is not the way we see a thing with our eyes, as the devotees look at the sacrament; but God has certainly

a way that it can be and therefore is, until the enthusiasts prove otherwise.

For if the allosis existed, that one nature should be taken for another, this would only concern the works or transactions of the natures, and not the essence of the natures. For although in the works, when one says: "Christ preaches, drinks, prays, dies" [Christ] may be taken for the human nature, it cannot be so in the essence, when one says: God is man, or man is God. Here there can be no allöosis, yes, also no synecdoche or some trope; for there God must be taken for God, man for man. Now, when I wrote that Christ's body was everywhere, I did not speak of the works of natures, but of the essence of natures. Therefore, neither alloesis nor synecdoche can overthrow such things for me; for essence is essence, each for itself, none for the other; and whoever wants to overthrow it for me must not bring alloesis, synecdoche or tröpos, they accomplish nothing here, but he must overthrow my reasons, on which I stand in the piece.

My reasons, however, on which I stand in such a piece, are these. The first is this article of our faith: Jesus Christ is essentially, naturally, truly, completely God and man in One Person, undivided and undivided. The other, that God's right hand is everywhere. The third, that God's word is not false or lies. The fourth, that God has and knows many ways of being in one place, and not only the few that the philosophers call localem. For the Sophists speak of this rightly, since they say: There are three ways to be in one place, localiter or circumscriptive, definitive, reple- tive, which I will thus translate for the sake of easier understanding.

First, a thing in a place is circumscriptive or localiter, apprehensible, that is, when the place and the body within rhyme, meet and measure with each other evenly, just as in the barrel is the wine or the water, since the wine no longer takes up space, nor does it take up room.

the barrel gives more space than so much of the wine is; thus a wood or tree in the water does not take more space, nor does the water give more than so much of the tree is inside. So a man, walking in the air, does not take more space from the air around him, nor does the air give more, than so great the man is. In this way, place and body measure themselves off against each other from piece to piece, just as a pitcher measures, feels and grasps the pots in his form.

Secondly, a thing in a place is definite, incomprehensible, if the thing or body is not tangible in a place, and does not measure itself according to the space of the place where it is, but can occupy about much space, about little space. So, they say, the angels and spirits are in places or locations; for thus an angel or devil can be in a whole house or city; again, he can be in a chamber, chest or box, yes, in a nutshell. The place is corporeal and comprehensible and has its dimensions, according to length, width and thickness; but that which is inside does not have the same length, width or thickness as the place in which it is, indeed, it has no length or width at all. Thus we read in the Gospel that the devil possesses men and drives into them, and also drives into the swine. Yes, 1) Marci 5. says that a whole legion was in one man, that was about six thousand devils. This I call incomprehensible in one place; for we cannot comprehend it nor measure it, as we measure the bodies, and yet it is nevertheless in the place.

137) In this way was the body of Christ, when it came out of the closed tomb and came to the disciples through the closed door, as the Gospels show; for there is no measuring nor understanding in which place its head or feet were, when it passed through the stones, and yet had to pass through; it took no space, so the stone gave it no space, but the stone remained stone, whole and solid, as before, and its body also remained as large and thick as it was before. Besides, it could also be seen in places, as it wanted, because it took space from the place and could be measured.

1) "Yes" is missing in the Jena.

In the same way, Christ is and can be in the bread, although he can also show himself understandably and visibly wherever he wants. For as the sealed stone and the closed door remained unchanged and unchanged, and yet his body was at the same time in the place where the stone and the wood were: so also he is in the sacrament at the same time, where there is bread and wine, and yet bread and wine for themselves remain unchanged and unchanged.

Thirdly, a thing in places is repletive, supernatural, that is, when something is at the same time completely in all places and fills all places, and yet is not measured and comprehended from any place, according to the space of the place where it is. This way is attributed to God alone, as he says in the prophet Jeremiah 23:23: "I am a God from near, and not from far; for heaven and earth I fill" etc. This way is beyond all measure, beyond our reason incomprehensible, and must be kept in the Word by faith alone.

139) I have told all these things for this reason, that it may be seen that there are more ways of being a thing 2) than the one, comprehensible, bodily way, on which the scribblers stand, and it is enforced by the Scriptures, that Christ's body must not be solely comprehensible or bodily in a place, where it takes up and gives place according to its greatness; for it was in the stone of the tomb without such a comprehensible way, likewise in a closed door, as they cannot deny. If then he could be there without room and place according to his greatness, why should he not also be in bread without room and place according to his greatness? But if he is in this incomprehensible way, then he is outside the bodily creature, and is not grasped nor measured in it. But who can know how this happens? Who can prove that it is wrong for a man to say and hold that, because he is apart from the creature, he is indeed where he wants all creatures to be, as continuous and present to him as another body is to its bodily place or location?

2) etwo == somewhere. The Wittenbergers and the Jenaers offer: about.

950 Drl. so, 210-212. II. Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, 11SS-11S1. 951

See our bodily eyes and faces. When we open our eyes, our vision is present in an instant for five or six miles, and at the same time in all the places that are within those six miles, and yet it is only one vision, one eye. Can a bodily vision do this, don't you think that God's power can also find a way that all creatures are also present and pass through Christ's body? Yes, you say, so you do not prove that it is so? Thanks be to you, but I prove so much with it, that the scribes also cannot overthrow nor prove that such a thing is impossible to divine power, which they nevertheless must and should prove. They should prove that God knows no way in which Christ's body can be other than bodily and comprehensible. If they do not do this, their teachings are disgraced; now they can never do it.

Since we prove from Scripture that Christ's body can be in more ways than this bodily way, we have thus sufficiently established that the words "this is my body" should be believed, because it is not contrary to any article of faith, and is also in accordance with Scripture, as when Christ's body was led through a sealed stone and a closed door. For since we can indicate a way above the bodily, comprehensible way, who would be so bold as to measure and encompass God's power, as not to know other more ways? And yet, the enthusiasts' argument cannot stand, for they prove that God's power is to be measured and encompassed in this way, because all their reasoning is based on the fact that Christ's body alone must be in one place, in a bodily and comprehensible way. But here it is not a matter of answering, but of jumping, and meanwhile chatting about Mrs. Allöosi.

And that I come to my things, because our faith holds that Christ is God and man, and the two natures are one person, so that the same person cannot be separated, he can certainly show himself according to the bodily, comprehensible way, in which place he wants; as he did after the resurrection, and will do on the last day. But in this way he can also be

The first is the need for a different, incomprehensible way, as we have seen from the Gospel in the tomb and the closed door.

But now that such a man is supernaturally one person with God, and apart from this man there is no God, it must follow that he also is and may be according to the third, supernatural way, wherever God is, and that everything is fully Christ through and through, also according to humanity; not according to the first, bodily, comprehensible way, but according to the supernatural, divine way. For here you must stand and say: Christ according to the Godhead, where he is, there he is a natural divine person, and is also naturally and personally there, as this well proves his conception in the womb. For if he was to be the Son of God, he had to be natural and personal in the womb and become man. If he is now natural and personal where he is, then he must also be man there. For there are not two separate persons, but one single person. Where it is, there it is the one undivided person. And where you can say: Here is God, you must also say: so is Christ the man also there.

144. And if you were to show a place where God is and not man, then the person would already be separated, because then I could say with truth: Here is God, who is not man and has never been man. But not to me of God! For from this it would follow that space and place separated the two natures from each other and divided the person, when death and all devils could not separate them nor tear them apart. And there should remain for me a bad Christ, who would no longer be a divine and human person at the same time, and in all other places he would have to be a mere separated God and divine person without humanity: No, journeyman, where you put God for me, there you must put humanity with me; they cannot be separated from each other, it has become one person, and does not separate humanity from itself, as Master Hans unzips his skirt and puts it away when he goes to sleep.

1) Thus the Jena. Wittenberg and Erlangen: had to.

For that I may give the simple a rough similitude, mankind is more closely united with God than our skin with our flesh, yes, 1) more closely than body and soul. Now, as long as man lives and is healthy, skin and flesh, body and soul are one thing and person, so that they cannot be separated, but where the soul is, there the body must also be; where the flesh is, there the skin must also be; and you cannot give a special place or space to the soul alone without the body, as a kernel without the shell, or to the flesh without the skin, as an inheritance without a shell; but where one is, there the other must also be. So you cannot peel off the divinity from the humanity and put it there, since the humanity is not with it; for in doing so you would separate the person and make the humanity a shell, even a skirt, which the divinity would take off and put on, after which the place or space would be, and should the bodily space here be capable of so much that it would separate the divine person, which neither angels nor all creatures can separate.

146. here you will speak with Nicodemo [Joh.3, 9.]: "How can this happen?" Shall now all places and space become One space and place, or (as the foolish spirit dreams according to his coarse carnal sense) shall the humanity of Christ spread out and stretch like a coat as far as all creatures are? Answer I, you must take off the old shoes with Moses here and be born anew with Nicodemo. According to your old conceit, which understands nothing but the first, bodily, comprehensible way, you will not understand this; as the enthusiasts do, who do not think otherwise than as if the Godhead were bodily, comprehensible way everywhere, as if God were such a great spreading thing, which reached through and over 3) all creatures. Notice that, because they blame us for spreading and expanding mankind, and fencing in the

1) In Walch's old edition and in Erlangen's: each. 2) d. i. pea.

3) Erlanger: "through and over from". In the Wittenberg and in the Jena, the last two words are drawn together: "exceedingly." That the reading we have given is correct follows from § 169 of this writing. The' opinion is: that reached through all creatures and towered above all creatures.

Godhead with it, which words speak clearly of the bodily, comprehensible way in which a peasant is in doublet and pants, since doublet and pants are stretched out so that they surround the body and thighs.

Lift thyself up, thou coarse spirit of enthusiasm, with such idle thoughts; if thou canst not think higher nor otherwise here, then stay behind the stove and roast pears and apples in the meantime; leave this matter in peace. Christ passed through a closed door with his body, and yet the door was not extended, nor was his body drawn in; how then should mankind be extended here, or the Godhead fenced in, since much is another and higher way?

It is high thing (you say) and I do not understand its. Yes, I also complain that these carnal spirits, who can hardly crawl on earth, untried in faith, inexperienced in spiritual matters, want to fly high above the clouds, and measure and judge such high, secret, incomprehensible things, not according to God's words, but according to their crawling and walking on earth. So it is with them, as the poets say of the Jcaro; for they have also stolen foreign feathers (that is, sayings of the Scriptures), and glued them on with wax (that is, made even with reason to their sense), and thus fly aloft. But the wax melts, and they fall into the sea and are drowned in all kinds of error etc.

149. Christ says: "If I have told you of earthly things, and ye believe not; how would ye believe me 4) if I told you of heavenly things?" Behold, this is still all an earthly and bodily thing, when Christ's body passes through the stone and door: for his body is a body that can be grasped, as well as the stone and the door; yet no reason can comprehend how his body and the stone are at the same time in one place, when he passes through, and here the stone is not enlarged nor extended further, and Christ's body is not drawn in smaller nor narrower. Here, faith must blind reason, and it must be removed from the bodily, comprehensible, and the spiritual world.

4) So the Wittenberg; "mir" feblt in the Jena and in the Erlanger. Erlanger: "wollt" instead of: "würdet".

954 Erl. 30, S14-21S. II, Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, uvs-utzs. 955

Way lift in the other, incomprehensible way, which it does not understand, and, nevertheless, cannot deny.

If then the other way must be understood by faith, and reason must perish with its first, comprehensible way; how much more must faith alone stand here, and reason perish in the heavenly, supernatural way, since Christ's body in the Godhead is One Person with God! For everyone will admit to me that there is a much different, higher way, since Christ's body is in the sealed stone and closed door, than since he sits or stands in the first way in his clothes or in the air around him. For here the air and the garments are stretched and spread out according to the greatness of his body, so that the eyes may see it and the hands may grasp it. But in the stone and door there is none.

151 Further, everyone must also admit to me that there is still a much higher being and way, since Christ's body is One Person with God, than since he is in the stone or door; for God is not a bodily thing, but a spirit, above all things. So Christ is not One Person with the stone or door, as He is with God; therefore He must be more and deeper in the Godhead than He is in the stone or door; just as He is deeper and closer in the stone or door than in the clothing or air. And so the stone or door must not have expanded or spread, nor fenced in the body of Christ; much less will here, in the most supreme way, mankind expand, spread, or fence in or draw in the Godhead, as the carnal mind dreams.

For the spirit must stand here and confess to me that Christ's body has a much higher, supernatural essence, since it is One Person with God, than it had when it was in the sealed stone and door; since this is the highest manner and essence, and nothing higher can be, than that a man is One Person with God. For the other way, as Christ's body was in the stone, will also become common to all the saints in heaven, that they pass with their body through all creatures, just as it is already common to angels and devils; for the angel came to Petro in the dungeon, Acts 12:7. 12, 7, so the poltergeists come.

The stone is the only thing that has been in the body of Christ. 1) So he must also confess to me that the stone has not expanded, nor has Christ's body been fenced in.

What then does he pretend about the supreme being and manner, since Christ is One Person with God, that there mankind had to expand and surround God, where it should be with God everywhere? Without indicating his coarse, fat, thick thoughts, that he never thought of God and Christ in any other way than in the first, bodily, comprehensible way. Rather, if mankind is in one place or in all places, it does not enclose the Godhead, much less as the stone, which was in one place, enclosed its body, but it is one person with God, so that where God is, there man is also; what God does, that is also done by man; what man suffers, that is also suffered by God.

So Christ of some body has three kinds of being, or all three ways of being. First, the comprehensible, bodily way, as he walked bodily on earth, taking space and giving according to his greatness; such way he can still use, if he wants, as he did after the resurrection, and will need at the last day, as Paul says 1 Tim. 6, 15: "Which will reveal in his time 2) the blessed God" etc. and Col. 3- 4: "When Christ, your life, will reveal himself" etc., in such a way he is not in God or with the Father, nor in heaven, as the mad spirit dreams; for God is not a bodily space or place. And this is what the sayings lead the spiritualists to, how Christ leaves the world and goes to the Father etc.

(155) Secondly, the incomprehensible spiritual way, since he neither takes nor gives space, but passes through all creatures where he wills, as my vision (that I may give a rough likeness) passes and is through air, light, or water, and neither takes nor gives space; as a sound or tone passes and is through air and water, or board and wall, and also neither takes nor gives space; item, as light and heat pass through air, water, glass, crystal, and so on.

1) "Kemnoten" synonymous with chambers.

2) "In his time" is missing in the Erlanger. The Wittenberg has the text of the Bible: "Which will show" etc. w.

and such like goes and is, and neither gives place nor takes place, and such like much more. He used such a way when he came out of a closed tomb, and came through a closed door, and in the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, and, as it is believed, when he was born of his mother etc.

156. Thirdly, the divine, heavenly way, since he is one person with God, according to which, of course, all creatures must be much more pervasive and present to him, because they are according to the other way; For if, according to the same other way, he can thus be in and with the creatures, that they do not feel, touch, measure or comprehend him; how much more will he be in all creatures according to this high, third way, that they do not measure or comprehend him, but rather that he has them present before him, measuring and comprehending! For you must understand this being. Christ, if he is one person with God, far, far apart from the creatures, as far as God is outside. Again, place him as deep and close to all creatures as God is within; for he is One inseparable Person with God. Where God is, He must also be, or our faith is false.

But who wants to say or think how this happens? We know that it is so, that he is in God apart from all creatures and with God One Person; but how it happens, we do not know, it is above nature and reason, even of all angels in heaven, only God is aware and known. Because it is unknown to us, and yet true, we should not deny his words beforehand, because we know to prove for certain that Christ's body of all things cannot be where God is, and that such a way of being is false, which the fanciers should prove, but they will leave it alone.

(158) Whether God has and knows even more ways of how Christ's body is, I do not want to deny herewith, but to show how coarse hempeners our enthusiasts are, that they do not admit Christ's body more than the first, comprehensible way. Even though they cannot prove that this 1) is contrary to our understanding; for I have said it in

1) In the editions: the same.

I do not want to deny any way that God's power should not be capable of so much that one body may be in many places at the same time, even in a bodily, understandable way. For who will prove that God is not able to do this? Who has seen an end to his power? The enthusiasts think that God is not able to do it, but who will believe their thinking? With what do they make such thinking certain?

If thinking is enough, I will also think better than them, and thus say: If Christ's body would be in one place (as they say) in heaven, still all creatures before him and around him may be like a bright, transparent air. For, as has been said, a spirit sees, travels and hears through an iron wall as brightly and easily as I see or hear through the air or glass, and what is thick or dark to our face, as wood, stone and ore, is to a spirit as glass, yes, as bright air. As the poltergeists and angels prove, and Christ also proved in the sealed stone and locked door.

Now I have seen crystals or precious stones, where inside there is a little spark or flame, as in the opalo, or a little cloud 2) or otherwise a little bubble, and yet that same little bubble 3) or little cloud appears as if it were at all ends of the stone; for wherever one turns or turns the stone, one sees the little bubble as if it were in the front of the stone, when it is in the middle. I do not speak now from the Scriptures, it applies to thinking, or let equal swarming apply. If Christ were to sit in the middle of all creatures, in one place, like the little bubble or sparkle in the crystal, and a place of creatures were presented to me, as if bread and wine were presented to me through the word, as if a place of the crystal were presented to my eyes, I should not be able to say: Behold, there is Christ's body truly in the bread; even as I say, Behold, there is the little spark just ahead in the crystal? Do you not think that God could much more wonderfully and truly present Christ's body in the bread (even if it were in one place in heaven),

2) Wittenberger: wöcklin.

3) In the old Walch edition and in the Erlanger: Blöslein.

because the sparkle in the crystal is presented to me?

I do not think that this is certainly so, but that it is not impossible for God, so that I may give the enthusiasts something to mock and falsely interpret, as is their way, but nevertheless also show that they cannot preserve their thing, nor condemn our understanding, if it were true, since they say that Christ is in heaven in a different place. Although they neither know nor prove the same, so far are they from the certain truth, that even if their thinking were right (as it is not), yet they cannot thereby prove their supper, that there is vain bread, nor overthrow ours.

162 Further, that they may see how it is no art at all to think anything without Scripture, I take before me the similitude of Laurentii Vallensis. There stands a preacher and preaches, his voice is a single voice that comes out of his mouth and is made and is in his mouth; Nor does this same one voice, which is in one place, that is, in his mouth, come into four, five thousand, or ten thousand ears in one moment, and yet is no other voice in the same many thousand ears than that which is in the preacher's mouth, and is at the same time, in one moment, one voice in the preacher's mouth and in all the ears of the people, as if his mouth and their ears, without any means, were one place where the voice was.

Dear one, can God do this with a bodily voice; why should he not be able to do it much more with the body of Christ, even if he were in one place (as they say), and yet be true in bread and wine in many places at the same time, than in two ears? Because his body is much swifter and lighter than any voice, and all creatures pass through it more easily than the air of the voice, as he proved in the tombstone, since no voice can pass through a stone as easily as Christ's body did.

164 But I say and think no more of these things, forasmuch as the enthusiasts' thinking is true, that Christ is bodily and comprehensible in one place, that thou mayest see to the abundance, though they have obtained the same,

that nevertheless his body can be in the Lord's Supper by divine power, because such things are not only possible to lesser creatures than voice and sound or reverberation, but also natural and ordinary, tangible and sensitive; therefore their dreams do not exist that there must be vain bread in the Lord's Supper, because Christ's body is in heaven.

One more thing. In the same way, it was taught among the pontiffs that if a mirror were broken into a thousand pieces, there would still remain in each piece the same whole image that had previously appeared in the whole mirror alone. Here is a single face standing before it and looking at it, and yet in all the pieces it is the same face, whole and complete in an instant. How if Christ were also like this in bread and wine and everywhere? For God can do this with the face and mirror, so that his face is instantly in a thousand pieces or mirrors; why should he not also make Christ's body in such a way that not only his image, but he himself would be in many places at the same time, even though he is in heaven in one place, because his body is much easier to enter into bread and wine than a face into the mirror, as he also enters through stone and iron, through which no image or face enters?

166) O desperate 1) pope! they will shout here. Well! shout, whoever shouts, with shouting one will not answer for a long time, nor will one 2) overthrow anything; otherwise the geese or donkeys or full peasants would probably also be theologians. So I have not yet seen a single piece that the enthusiasts, the great Rolands and giants, would have knocked off the pope, so that they could boast so highly or cheaply against the papists. The poor woods and stones, the images, they have mewed a little, but not bitten. They are now attacking baptism and the Lord's Supper, but it has not yet been done.

I also know almost well that they may say hereupon: The images in the mirror are not the face itself, but its likeness, as bread and wine are signs of the Lord's body;

1) So the Wittenberg and the Jena. The latter gives the reading: "zwiefältiger" in the margin as Conjectur. The Erlanger has this, just like Walch, in the text.

2) ichts - something. Erlanger: "nothing".

Therefore such a likeness is more for them than against them. But I also know that bread and wine are not equal to the body of the Lord, as the image in the mirror is to the face. Therefore, my equation is: If God can make so many images of a face in a mirror in a moment, and such a wonderful thing happens naturally and visibly; then it should be much more believable that he can make Christ's body truly in many places in bread and wine, even if he were in a bodily place, as they dream. 1) That I may show how nothing is their conceit, but that they think no more of Christ than in some intelligible way. And even if this were true, it still does not follow from it what they want to conclude from it. But now it follows much less, because Christ's body is not in heaven in such a bodily, comprehensible way, nor can they also prove that he is thus in heaven.

168) Now that the spirit swarms against me, if Christ's body should be everywhere where God is, then I would become a Marcionist and make a preached Christ, because his body could not be so large or extended that it would surround the Godhead, which is everywhere, etc., 2) I answer first that the spirit perhaps speaks such things with great tickling and courage, because he does not prove that such follows from my speech; therefore I do not respect such washing.

On the other hand, he knows well that allegare inconveniens non. est solvere argumenta. If it were enough for one to say that it does not rhyme, then no article of faith, indeed no law, could exist in the world. But the proud, haughty spirit lets himself think, because he merely says that it does not rhyme, such and such would follow from it, so it must be and must not prove it. Thirdly, with this he reveals his crude foolish thoughts, that he thinks no differently of God's being in all places, than as if God were a great, vast being that filled the world and towered over it by all means. 3) Just as if a straw bag were full of straw, and yet protruded above and below, just after the first,

1) Walch and the Erlangeners: Aufs.

2) "u. s. w." is missing in the Erlanger.

3) Compare the note to § 146.

bodily, comprehensible way. Of course, Christ's body would be a mere poem and ghost, as a big straw bag, since God would be inside with heaven and earth; wouldn't that be speaking and thinking of God roughly enough?

But we do not speak thus, but say that God is not such an extended, long, wide, thick, high, deep being, but a supernatural, inscrutable being, who is at the same time in every grain completely, and yet in all and above all, and apart from all creatures; therefore there must be no enclosure, as the spirit dreams. For one body is much, much too wide for the Godhead, and many thousands of Godheads could be in it. Again, also much, much too narrow, that not one deity can be inside. Nothing is so small, God is still smaller; nothing is so big, God is still bigger; nothing is so short, God is still shorter; nothing is so long, God is still longer; nothing is so wide, God is still wider; nothing is so narrow, God is still narrower, and so on, it is an ineffable being above and apart from everything that can be named or thought.

But to this the Spirit should answer, first, where the Scripture or reason is that Christ's body has no more way of being than the bodily, understandable way, like straw in sackcloth or like bread in a basket and meat in pots, especially because I have proved that he has other ways than in the tombstone etc. Item, that God's right hand is a special place in heaven. How is it that the Spirit is so silent here, when the greatest need is to speak? For because he is silent here, he has lost; since his faith stands on this piece, that Christ's body must have no other way of being in heaven than Iocalem, like straw in sackcloth; which, however, is publicly wrongly convinced by me. Here he should be wise and prove such. Yes, how can he? He has gone too far into mud, and cannot get out.

On the other hand, the spirit should answer: Because Christ is God and man, and his humanity has become One Person with God, and thus is completely drawn into God over all creatures, so that he sticks to him in the same way: how it is possible for God to be sth.

962 Ekl. so, "iw-sst. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, IS04-I20S. 963

is not man? And how can it happen without separation of the person that God is here without mankind and there with mankind? Since we do not have two Gods, but only one God, and he is completely man according to the One Person, namely the Son. What is it that he otherwise chats a lot, and here, when it is necessary, jumps and is silent?

If God and man are one person, and the two natures are united with each other in such a way that they belong closer together than body and soul, then Christ must also be man where he is God. If he is God and man in one place, why should he not also be man and God in another place? If in another place he is also man and God, why not in the third, fourth, fifth, and so on in all places? But if the third, fourth, fifth place does not let him be man and God at the same time, then also the first place does not let him be man and God at the same time. For if a place or a place can separate a person, the first place does so as well as all the others. Here one should have answered; I urged this, since I indicated how God and man would be One Person, and Christ would thereby have received a supernatural being or way of being in all places.

If we want to be Christians and think and speak rightly of Christ, then we must think of him in this way, that the Godhead is apart from and above all creatures. Secondly, we must think that humanity (although it is also a creature), but because it alone, and none else, is so attached to God that it is one person with the Godhead, it must also be higher, above and apart from all other creatures, but under God alone. 1) Well, this is our faith. Now here we come with Christ apart from all creatures, both after mankind and Godhead; there we are in a different land with mankind, because when they walked on earth, that is, apart from and above

1) The construction in this sentence is broken. The sentence should probably read like this: Secondly, we must think that mankind (although it is also a creature, but because it alone, and none else, is so attached to God that it is one person with the Godhead) must also be higher, above and apart from all other creatures, but under God alone.

all creatures, only in the Godhead. Now let faith judge and conclude here. Apart from the creatures there is nothing but God, and this humanity is therefore also apart from the creatures, so it must be, since God is, that is never missing; but essentially it cannot be God. But because it reaches above, out of, above all creatures, to the essential God and sticks to it, and is, since God is, it must be God at the least personally, and thus also be in all places, since God is.

It is true that our reason is foolish to think here, because it is used to understand the word "in" in no other way than in a physical, comprehensible way, as straw is in the sack and bread in the basket. Therefore, where it hears that God is in this or in these, it always thinks of the straw sack and the bread basket. But faith hears that "in" is as much in this matter as over, out, under, through, and again through and everywhere. Oh, what do I say about such high things, which are unspeakable, and unnecessary for the simple, but for nothing at all for the enthusiasts, and also harmful! For they understand it as little as a donkey understands the psaltery, unless they can pinch out a little piece that they blaspheme and desecrate, so that they go idly about the main things and skip over them, as the oppressor is fooling here, and from my discourse he is saying that if Christ is everywhere, then he cannot be received with the mouth, or the mouth must also be everywhere. This is called a real wilful wickedness, because the devil shows himself with it.

For this reason I will also stop speaking of this piece: whoever can be advised has had enough of this; but whoever does not want to, let him always go. The simple have enough of the simple words of Christ, which he says in the Lord's Supper, "This is my body," because the foolish have nothing certain or lasting to say against it, nor do they answer correctly to some of it. For whoever is found on some foul ground in this great matter, he is to be held reasonably suspect and shunned. Certainly because they arrogantly and confidently boast that they have Scripture and that everything is certain; how much more should they be considered as the erroneous, pompous, red-baiting spirits?

because they are not found on one alone, but for vain loose reasons, that they also lie so much publicly and answer no piece correctly.

177 And especially the heretic is henceforth not worthy of any more answer than to recant his blasphemous allies. For as it is said: A public lie is not worthy of an answer; so also he is to be shunned as a public heretic who denies a public article of faith. Now the Zwingel not only denies this highest, most necessary article, "that God's Son died for us," but also blasphemes it and says that it is the most outrageous heresy that has ever existed. This is where his arrogance and damned alliosis lead him, that he dissects the person of Christ, and leaves us with no other Christ than a sincere man who died for us and redeemed us. What Christian heart can hear or suffer such a thing? Surely the whole Christian faith and all the blessedness of the world is taken away and condemned. For he who is redeemed by mankind alone is not yet redeemed, of course, nor will he ever be redeemed.

But there is neither time nor space to go on about this now. I confess for myself that I consider Zwingel to be an unchristian with all his teachings; for he holds and teaches no part of the Christian faith rightly, and has become worse seven times than when he was a pope, according to the judgment of Christ, Matth. 12, 45: "It will be worse with such a man hereafter than it was before. I make this confession so that I may be excused before God and the world, as I am not in agreement with Zwingel's teachings, nor do I want to be for eternity.

Summa Summarum, we do not allow allöosin nor heterosin, nor Jthipöian 1), nor some gankelwerk, which Zwingel brings out of his gaukelsack. We want to have reason from Scripture, and not art from his poem. Ask nothing about the fact that he rages and foams so cruelly here, as if he were possessed with great anger. With anger and wrath one will not take our mind. That does not want to the angry spirit

1) xxxxxxxx.

that we might be made sure how Christ's body might not be in heaven and the Lord's Supper at the same time, as the words read: "This is my body. Perhaps from great anger or from great moderation, he leaves the piece and rushes past, and in the meantime teaches us new tropos, without all distress.

180 For that he is slandering and therefore concludes: If my doctrine should exist, that Christ is body everywhere, per God, then Christ body would be alterum infinitum, an infinite thing, like God Himself etc. He could well see for himself, where anger does not blind him, that such a consequence is nothing. If the world itself is not infinitum or infinite, how should it follow that Christ's body would be infinite if it were everywhere? To this end, the blind mind infers such a consequence in the crude, comprehensible way, and yet we know that God is able to hold something in place in more than one way, as has been proven above. An angel can be in heaven and on earth at the same time, as Christ testifies, Matth. 18, 10.: "Their angels always see the Father's face in heaven." If they serve us, they are with us on earth, and yet they always see the Father's face in heaven; yet they are not infinitum or infinite in nature.

The coarse spirit does not yet know what it means to be in heaven, and wants to make inferences about it. For since I said how Christ was in heaven while he was still on earth, as John 3:13 says, "the Son of Man who is in heaven," etc., help God, how does he infer and juggle? How could (he says) Christ be in heaven at that time? Does one eat and drink also in heaven? Does one die and suffer in heaven? Do you sleep and rest in heaven? See, where you come, you mad Luther, fie your 2) times. How do you think about this victory of the spirit? Constantinople he has won herewith, and the Turk eaten, there goes his gaukelsack in jumping with vain Allöosin and Ithipöien.

182. but go, you beautiful devil; a pious christ) tell me if it's not higher

2) Wittenberger: you.

3) In the old editions: one from Christians.

and greater is that mankind is in God, yes, with God One Person, than that it is in Heaven? Is not God higher and more glorious than Heaven? Now Christ humanity has been higher and deeper in God and before God from the womb than any angel; so, of course, it has also been higher in heaven than any angel. For what is in God and before God is in heaven; just as the angels are when they are on earth, as is said in Matth. 18, 10. Unless God Himself is not yet in heaven. So I would also like to conclude and juggle from the Zwinglian art: Does one also eat and drink in the Godhead? Does one also die and suffer in the Godhead? Behold, whither comest thou, thou mad John the Evangelist, who wilt teach us that Christ is God and in the Godhead? For if with God there is no dying, nor suffering, nor eating, nor drinking, then Christ's humanity cannot be with God, much less be One Person with God. That is where I wanted to go (says the devil) with my jugglery; but you, hostile Luther, are here to ruin my jugglery.

If Christ can suffer and die on earth at the same time, even though he is one person in the Godhead and with God, why should he not be able to suffer much more on earth if he is already in heaven at the same time? If heaven should hinder it, much more would the Godhead hinder it. How can I say that not only Christ was in heaven when he walked on earth, but also the apostles and all of us who are mortal on earth, if we believe in Christ? First of all, there should be a rumble in Zwingel's bag of tricks. There he would conclude: Does one sin also in heaven? Does one also err in heaven? Does the devil also attack in heaven? Does the world persecute us even in heaven? Does flesh and blood also tempt us in heaven? and so on. For we sin and err without ceasing, as the Lord's Prayer teaches, "Forgive us our trespasses," and are always challenged by the devil, world and flesh. With this manner you should put the devil and the world, flesh and blood in heaven. Look where you are going, you mad Luther. Fie, will you not yet

Grab hold of the fact that our spirit is not a juggler, there you have it once.

How shall I do to him? St. Paul deceived me when he said Eph. 1, 3: "God has blessed us with all kinds of spiritual blessings in the heavenly realm." And again Cap. 2, 5, 6: "He has made us alive together with Christ, and has raised us up together with Him, and has seated us together with Him in the heavenly realm," and Col. 3, 3: "Our life is hidden with Christ in God. This, of course, must be in heaven; but the spirit can certainly call upon his magic bag here, that it may give him out an alloiosis or ithiopoeia, which teaches us to change here and to take one for the other, that heaven here should be called earth, as he also says in Joh. 6, 55, that Christ must be called flesh his Godhead. For the allosis is master in the Scriptures, and where we do not want to believe it, he will force it on us with inferences and say: "We did not go to heaven on Mount Oel, and from there to heaven, but here in German lands; therefore St. Paul must call heaven as much as earth. For this spirit is called heaven no more than that 1) he may show with fingers and eyes above him, where the sun and moon stand; and because they never stand still, I hold that they give Christ such a place in heaven, where he can never sit still. For I cannot think, nor bring out of them, what place they give Christ in heaven. But let what goes there go.

185: So to my saying from Col. 2, 9: "All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily" etc., he must not say more than: bodily means essential, just as if Christ had not also been essential God before he [God] dwelt bodily in Christ. It is fine that the spirit may interpret what it wants, and must not prove it. Just like the saying Eph. 4, 10: "Christ descended and ascended into all the heavens, that he might fill all things. 2) Here he calls "fulfill" the holy Scriptures, and again shouts against the mad Luther, as if he had broken hell. But that he should prove it, that is not necessary, it is enough, that the

1) Walch and the Erlangeners: that.

2) Erlanger: "füllet" and immediately following: "fill".

968 Erl.sü.sss-sso. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. xx. 1211-4214. 969

Spirit says so, then enough is answered, and our mind is wrong.

But there he meets Luther right at first, since he proves his inference about the saying of Christ: "Where I am, there you shall be also. Behold, he says, if Christ is everywhere, we must also be everywhere. I am surprised that he does not also conclude: because we are where Christ is, we must also all be God and man; for Christ is, since he is God and man. Item, Christ passed through sealed stone and closed door, therefore we must also pass through it. Item, Christ is spiritually in us, so we also must be spiritually in us etc.

(187) Yes, again he might well conclude, Where Christ is, there we cannot be. For it is no more true that many bodies are in one place than that one body is in many places; but since Christ has a place in heaven (as they say), each one must also have his own place. Since this saying, "Where I am, there ye shall be also," is contrary to Scripture and faith, where it should be understood, according to which it reads, Mrs. Allöosis or Heterosis, or perhaps the common figura Narrosis, must become godfather here, and help us to the right understanding. Can I not also finely drive her consequence?

Now a sow shall not be a dove, and the cuckoo must not be a nightingale. The proud devil acts as he pleases in the world, and indicates with such jugglery that, because he cannot answer, he wants to practice his flush on us. But we know that the Scriptures set this one man and no other at the right hand of God. Whether we will be the same where he is, according to the first or the second way, as shown above, we will not be the third way where he is, that is, at the right hand of God, one person with God, according to which way he is where God is. Yes, because he is everywhere, we are certainly where he is; for he must also be with us, if he is to be everywhere. If the inferential spirit has overturned this, it mixes it up and does not want to know more than the one, understandable way. He must know nothing about it everywhere and understand nothing himself, what he raves about.

That is enough of this first part; for from these sayings and answers of the spirit everyone can see that all their art is much chattering and shouting, but they can neither answer nor understand anything; and the more writing they have, the more they show their foolishness. Let us now consider the other saying, "Flesh is of no use," and hear whether the devil will answer or mock. 1)

First, since I had written that Christ flesh does not belong under the saying John 3:6, "That which is born of flesh is flesh," but under this, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and had proved this very powerfully from our faith and gospel, since the angel says to Joseph, Matt. 1:20, "That which is born in Mary is of the Holy Spirit," and Luc. 1:35, "That which is born in you is holy," etc. Against such thunderbolts of Scripture he does no more, but sets his bare and naked jealousy, and says: Christ flesh is also born of flesh, and I do wrong to make it spirit. This is not different (as I understand it), as if the hopeful devil wanted to say so much: You impotent, mad Luther, shall I answer you and lay your sayings? I do into thee. I say that Christ's flesh is born of flesh; let it remain so, and do not murmur a word against it.

191 Now I should say: Mercy-2) Junker, what you say is right and must not be proven. If I were so little interested in the matter as the spirit, which, where it feels that it is struck by me, either jumps or is angry, or meows One word or two half, 3) and is then called an answer!

But we know that Christ's flesh cannot belong to the saying (that which is of the flesh is flesh), if it were ten times a zoom 4) or if it had fifteen allöoses vain change banks. It does

1) Erlanger: wool.

2) Grace == gracious. Also well written: Gnadjunker.

3) two the neck and a half.

4) i.e. a saying, a generally accepted aphorism.

970 . srl. so, ssoHs. II. writings Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. Lx, 1214-121". 971

nothing to the matter that a gnome is; because Christ speaks there of the new birth and condemns "the" fleshly old birth, that it can not see the kingdom of God etc. Therefore be anathema and cursed, where it is said that Christ is born of flesh, since Christ flesh is not condemned, nor had to be born elsewhere to the kingdom of God, but is holy and has brought us the new birth.

Who brought the spirit to school, and taught him what flesh and spirit mean! For he calls the creature flesh, if it is not spirit, as it was created by God, as Christ says Luc. 24, 39: "that a spirit has neither flesh nor bone. How is it possible that he should understand with such a sense the sayings of John 3 and the like, where flesh and blood are condemned? Since we know that "all creatures of God are good", Genesis 1, and God does not condemn His creatures. After such a manner Christ's flesh and blood came from Mary's flesh and blood; but since flesh and blood, John 3:6, is condemned, since it cannot know the kingdom of God, it must certainly not be called the creature of God, since it is flesh, bone, skin and hair; for all these are good creatures of God.

194 For this reason flesh must be called here, not only blood, bone and marrow, as it is God's creature, but as it is without spirit and in its own power, work, custom, wit, will and ability. Therefore Christ would not be born of man's seed, that he might not be born of flesh, that is, of fleshly work, desire, will, or activity, but only of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit, and thus his flesh is spiritless, holy, pure; for what can holiness, purity, innocence be but spirit and spiritless?

But our enthusiasts call the spirit nothing more than a being that has neither flesh nor bone; therefore holiness, purity, innocence are not spirit with them. They are grossly unlearned hemps in these matters, they want to teach a lot, and they understand the

Words they do not speak. Christ, Joh. 3,6, 1) is also called all those spirit, who are born of the spirit, who must have flesh, bone, marrow, skin and hair. I have written enough of this in that book, for even if I write it a thousand times, my dear Junker enthusiasts do not read it or respect it, so I let them go.

The Spirit lays three great vices upon me over these words, "Flesh is of no use," so let us hear and see how the angry devil writes such poisonous lies through his deluded, wretched enthusiasts. The first is that I should be against myself, because I have taught from time to time that eating Christ's body in the flesh is of no use, and I teach here and there that eating Christ's flesh is of use. My little books are in the day, by which one can convince this lying spirit that he acts on me as befits such a disciple. Dear, what is the use if I write against this spirit forever, because he is busy acting with public insolent lies; let the devil go.

I have thus taught and still teach that Christ's flesh is not only of no use, but also poison and death, if it is eaten without faith and word. I have said more that God, and the Holy Spirit Himself, are poison, death, and no good, if they are received without faith; for there is written, "To the unclean nothing is clean," Titus 1:15. Item, Psalm 18:27: "With the perverse thou art perverse." For indeed the Jews did not become holy when they attacked and killed Christ. But again, the eating of Christ's flesh is blessed, necessary and useful, if it is eaten bodily together with the word and faith. For there it is written, "To the pure all things are pure." Read my booklet, and you will see that the lying spirit does not know how to answer, and therefore wants to make my booklet suspect with crude, impolite lies.

A child of seven years can well understand that these two are not contrary to each other: To eat Christ's flesh without faith is not useful, and to eat Christ's flesh in the flesh is not useful.

1) Here the Erlanger has improved Walch's wrong Bible quotation: Joh. 3, 16.

972 Erl. so, SSS-2SÜ. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. XX. I21S-I21S.. 973

eating with faith is useful. Just as the two are not contrary to each other: Christ's flesh is of no use to the ungodly, and Christ's flesh is of use to the pious, as I have almost abundantly set forth in the next booklet, that in faith even death and all evil are found useful, except the flesh of Christ, which in itself is holy and useful, full of divinity etc. Nor may the lying spirit lie publicly that I should have said that Christ's flesh is useful, enjoyed without faith, as he rages with his examples. For the touching was not useless, since the bloody woman touched Christ's hem; or we would also have to say that she did not touch Christ's hem, because touching is not useful; just as they are lying here: Eating Christ's flesh is not useful, therefore his flesh is not there; it is the devil's trickery.

199 The other bad thing, so he interprets me, is that I should not have translated the text correctly "meat is not useful", because in the Greek it says: the meat is not useful, and I have omitted the little word "that". Why the spirit makes such fools, I cannot know, without methinks he wants to twist himself on the place, and charm the people, that they should wonder at great 1) art of the Greek language in his head, when he has not forgotten much of the same. If he knows that such chatter does not matter at all, then it is a knavery; if he does not know, then it is an indication that he still needs a schoolmaster for a while; for both Latin, German, and Greek speakers must confess to me that this text, óáñî ούκ ωφελεί ουδέν, in the

Thus, the following must be interpreted into Latin: Caro non prodest quicquam, that is, "flesh is not useful", and cannot stand for "that" in Latin; as Erasmus and all the others interpret it.

The Germans must also testify to the fact that, according to our language, it is a very common custom and manner to add "that" or "a", or to let it stand. As when we say: man and woman is one body, it is just as much as, a man and a woman is one body; yes, it is more finely spoken:

1) Walch and the Erlangeners: larger.

Husband and wife is one body, for a husband and wife is one body. Item, Peter has house and yard, wife and child in Bethsaida, is as much as, Peter has house and yard, wife and child in Bethsaida. Item, master and servant is one cake, is equal to, the master and the servant is one cake; item, he gave me dog for dog, horse for horse 2), is equal to, he gave me a dog for a dog, horse for a horse; item, woman shall not be master in the house, is equal to, a woman or the woman shall not be the master or a master in the house.

201 Henceforth, there will be a lot of talking in the German tongue. And such words, which may be left out or added, are called "articles" by scholars. In the Latin language, there are none, and no one can set certain measures or rules as to when they are to be omitted or added, but one must set and leave them according to the common usage of the language. For it sometimes happens that it reads more delicately when they are omitted than when I speak of two equals: It is man against man, which is finer than when I say, It is one man against one man. Item, so one speaks: piece for piece, eye for eye, fist for fist, money for money, body for body. In which speeches the articles are better left out, than that they stand by.

Again, sometimes they are much more subtle than if they were left outside, as when I say, "A man is stronger than a woman," or, "A man is stronger than a woman. Although it would be just as much if I said, "Man is stronger than woman," it is not quite so true. The Zwingel is worse than the Oecolampad, is better, because so, Zwingel is worse than Oecolampad. An apostle is higher than a prophet, so it is better: Apostle is higher than prophet.

203 Yes, it happens that we Germans often have to put such articles, since they are not in the Greek, as Matth. 1, 1. is Âßâëïò ãåíÝóåùò, that is, book birth of Jesus.

Christ, that is nothing at all 3) therefore must be

2) Gorre - bad horse.

3) Wittenberger and Erlanger: "ja" instead of: gar.

974 Srl. so, 235-237. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, 1219-1221. 975

I translate it thus: the book of the birth, or even better: "This is the book of the birth of Jesus Christ. Item, Joseph did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. There is no article "of" in the Greek, but schlechts, the angel of the Lord, and must nevertheless stand in the German. Item, Matth. 3, 3. and Marc. 1, 3. Luc. 3, 4. we must say, "a voice or the voice of one calling in the wilderness", although in the Greek it stands badly xxxx xxxxxxx, that is, voice calling.

Again, we must not put an article, since it must be in the Greek, as Matth. 1, 2. 23: "Abraham begat Isaac", there it is written in the Greek, Abraham begat Isaac. Item, "Emanuel, that is interpreted, God with us", here it is written in Greek: God with us. Take the Greek Testament before you and hold it up against the German language, and you will find, as I say, that articles are often written there, since they do not have to be written in German, and again, they are not written in Greek, since they have to be written in German.

I say this so that one may see how the oppressor deals with jugglery and bases his error on such loose talk; for where the article should be so necessary and give that something special or dependent on the forerunner would be spoken, as he drools, then it should also be right in Marc. 1, 3, since Marcus says: "Voice calling", since it is probably such a special voice and caller as has never come on earth. Item, should also stand Jn. 1, 6, since he writes: "There was a man sent from God. Now in the Greek it does not say: there was a man sent, but: there was a man sent. And so from now on, Zwingel will have to study Greek for five years before he can prove his dream of the articles, or before he will indicate where and when they are to be removed or added. I know of no other proof, for it may well be spoken in one way (as has been said) without articles and with articles, and this also gives one meaning; but one is more completely or finely spoken than the other, which must be recognized from the custom and usage of the languages.

206: So here also: "Meat is no good", is probably in the Greek: the meat is no good.

But because one is as valid as the other, as I have proved above with examples, and everyone may find plenty of the same in the Greek, I have also used both, and will also use both henceforth, because they are both right, and the belly of the spirit shall burst; although it reads more finely in German: Fleisch ist kein nütze, denn, das Fleisch ist kein nütze. It is as much the opinion of Christ as if I said, "Meat is of no use," or, "It is a useless thing about the flesh. You may speak such an opinion as follows: Flesh is of no use, or as follows: Flesh is of no use; one and the other are equally valid. Otherwise the Latin would never have to have this text, nor could they get it, because they would have to say without all articles that meat is not useful, and yet they would have the right interpretation. But the fact that Zwingel refers to some teachers who teach such things from the articles does not help him; for they do not teach like Zwingel in the play; so their proofs do not dispute anything either; nor is he serious, for he does not consider them so learned that they should advise or help him in this matter.

Now he does not let him suffice with such jugglery of the articles, but continues and interprets the article "that" in this place, "the flesh is no good" thus: just the flesh is no good, and "that" and "just that" shall apply equally. Will the opinion of Christ thus master/ just the flesh (hear, of which I said above, "my flesh is the right food"). Now the whole world knows that in German "eben das" is not an article, but a pronoun of good strength, which is relativum and demonstrativum at the same time, as the idem. Here the scholars understand well, what a gross ass piece this is, ex articulo pronomen demonstrativum et relativum facere. So Luther should be taught to interpret the text. What shall one do with such sacrilegious spirits, who take quod pro qualiter, articulum pro pronomine, carnem pro divinitate, and put everything they may think into the Scriptures? If he has learned such things from Cyrillo, Chrysostom and Erasmo of the articles, he has truly learned them in a dream or smoke-.

1) Walch and the Erlanger: is.

For no one teaches them in this way, he teaches them falsely.

There is a great difference between "the flesh is of no use" and "this flesh is of no use," or "the very flesh," or "the same flesh. etc. For "the same" or "this" or "that" may not be omitted, like the articles, without change of mind. If I say: The man shall be lord of the house and not the woman, here it does not show me a certain present man or woman, but speaks freely in general of all women and men. But if I say: this man or this very man shall be master, and not this woman or this very woman, then it shows me a particular man and woman, excluded from all, as present; for this is what a pronoun is called, when it points to a particular, immediately as present, and separates the same from all others.

But the article does not indicate anything special or present, separated from others, but speaks freely, without signs or interpretations. As when one says: This man is pious, this woman is chaste, this bread is beautiful; here the speech points to special persons as present, and if one were to take away such pronouns or little words and say: Man is pious, woman is chaste, there would be neither sense nor understanding left of the previous. But if I say: The man shall be a man, the woman shall be a woman, I can well take off the articles and still have the sense as: Man shall be man, woman shall be woman, for the article shows nothing present or as present, as the pronoun does.

Because this spirit must confess that there is no pronoun, but an article: "the flesh is of no use," and yet he makes a pronoun out of it, not only with the interpretation, since he says that "this" is as much as "that," but also with the interpretation, since he says that in that place the same flesh should be called, of which Christ spoke above, Joh. 6, 55: "My flesh is the right food", he himself testifies that he falsifies God's word and deals evil with the simple. For an article is never from the former or the latter.

The word "flesh" does not speak of things as a pronoun, but speaks of them freely in general, so that it can be understood just as well when it is spoken of without an article, even though it does not read as well or as finely. Therefore it is impossible, according to grammar, that flesh here should be called Christ's flesh in particular, of which he speaks above; but must be called flesh in general, so that one could also speak of it without the article, namely, "Flesh is of no use.

We Germans also have such a difference of pronouns and articles in the sound or tone, which the Latin call accent. For there is many other "that" where Christ says Matth. 26, 26: "This is my body", and many other where he says Joh. 6, 63: "The flesh is of no use. The first "that" is a pronoun, and the letter a inside is strong and long, as if it were written dahas, as a Swabian or Algauian daas reads, and whoever hears it, it is as if there is a finger pointing to it.

212) But the other "that" is short, so that one hardly hears the letter a or does not know whether it sounds a, e or i, and there is no finger to show that it reads; just as the Bohemians short their letters and say: Przikasani, there you cannot notice whether he says Parzikasani or Perzikasani or Pirzikasani, so it reads nimbly. So, when a German speaks correctly: Wie ist das Korn so theuer, you can't tell whether he says das, des or dies Korn; for it reads as if the words were without middle letters: wie ist dsKorn so theuer, or thus: wie istds Korn so theuer, so briefly and nimbly it reads. As I now say of the "that," so one should also think of the other articles, as: this, the, the, the, the; if they stretch the middle letter long, as if it were in between, then they are pronouns; if they read nimbly, as if the middle letter disappeared, then they are articles; as if you speak: Dfrau, Drherr, Dskind, Dshaus, verhauen auf kürzeste, there they are articles and do not point with fingers to something.

1) Wittenberger and Jenaer: "kündet"; Erlanger: "kunntet".

978 "rl. "o, LSS-S41. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, 1221-1226. 979

From this, every German can understand this quarrelsome thing, and notice the mischievousness of this spirit. For Joh. 6, 51: "That is my flesh", he makes a long Swabian dahas, or a pronoun, when it is an article and short "that", and in the proper German it reads: Ds Fleisch ist kein nütze, or thus: Sfleisch ist kein nütz, as if only the single letter s stood in front of it. There you have actually and clearly the text Joh. 6. and what the articles are or are able to do. Now be the judge, who knows German, between me and Zwingel. Zwingel says that the text should apply as follows: the flesh is of no use, or the same flesh is of no use. Who is falsifying the text here? Who is so coarse that does not feel a great difference when one says: the flesh is no good, and the same flesh is no good? Do you understand what the evil spirit is dealing with? Further, if I now say in one place: "Meat is no good", and in another: Meat or flesh is no good, dear, what is the difference between them? One is spoken differently from the other, but the meaning is the same. It is as I say, the spirit must do a lot of useless talking, so that it smears people's mouths, as if it wanted to answer, so that one does not notice its jumping and flapping.

214. after that he takes up the matter with seriousness and wants to prove from the text Joh. 6, 63. that Christ speaks of his flesh when he says: "Flesh is of no use. Here let us hear art. First of all, he says, the disciples grumbled because Christ taught that they had to eat his flesh. Now they did not grumble against the spiritual mind, but against the bodily food; there it is. Tell me, dear one, does this prove that Christ's flesh is of no use? Or that such a saying is to be understood of Christ's flesh? Certainly, for in Zwinglian logic everything follows in all sorts of ways. Ah, it is a vexatious thing to deal with such boys in God's words.

215 We say that the disciples both murmured against the mind of the Spirit, and against the bodily eating of the flesh of Christ; for they understood none of them aright, thinking that they must tear his flesh with their teeth, as

other perishable flesh. But from this it does not yet follow that Christ's flesh, as incorruptible, spiritual flesh, may not be eaten bodily with faith in the Lord's Supper. The Spirit should overthrow this; so he teaches us how the disciples understood to eat Christ's flesh bodily, just as if we did not know this without his mastery; he answers where he can.

216 Secondly, he teaches us that the disciples were offended at such talk of Christ eating his flesh in the flesh; from this it must follow that Christ, in his answer, speaks for and of his flesh. Dear, why does it follow? Because it says Zwingel; that is enough. Just as if Christ 1) could not speak of other flesh, when he wants to teach the spiritual mind to eat of his flesh, if he could not teach more subtly than to indicate two kinds of flesh and teach two kinds of eating, and thus say: Flesh and blood does not let you understand such eating of my flesh, because such flesh is not useful; but this flesh is life, quia unicum et optimum genus docendi est, bene dividere et definire. Therefore it follows rather that this saying, "Flesh is of no use," must be understood of other flesh, which Christ separates and sets against his flesh, as all right teachers are wont to do where they teach best.

217 To the third/Christ speaks: "If you now see the Son of Man going up, where he was before. What he means by this, I cannot think up, without everything that he speaks must serve the spirit for his lie. Perhaps he wants to sing a mean little song to her: Christ is going to heaven, therefore his body cannot be eaten in the Lord's Supper. What such talk is capable of, is said enough above. But that he thereby wants to prove that the saying, "Flesh is of no use," speaks of Christ's flesh, that is a pretty logic and a very beautiful consequence. As if I said: Christ went to heaven, therefore the saying of his body is to be understood: "All men are liars" [Rom. 3, 4. Ps. 116, 11.]. Doesn't it rhyme and follow well? That means in Swiss the Luther beaten, that

1) Erlanger: could.

not one footman remains, as Kleist boasts.

218. fourth, "the Spirit is that quickeneth," John 6:63. There, there, that is short and good (he says), the saying shall conclude, if the Spirit alone quickeneth, then is Christ's flesh no good, because it is not the Spirit. So then we must say, Since Christ's flesh is not the Spirit, and therefore is not useful, since the Spirit alone is useful, how can it be useful if it is given for us? How can it be of use if it is in heaven and we believe in it? For if the reason is right and sufficient, that because Christ's flesh is not spirit, it can be of no use, so it can be of no use either in the cross or in heaven; for there is no spirit either in the cross or in heaven, or in the Lord's Supper. Therefore, since there is no Spirit crucified for us, Christ's flesh is crucified uselessly for us; and since there is no Spirit, but Christ's flesh ascended into heaven, we believe in a useless flesh in heaven. For Christ's flesh, be it where it may, is not a spirit. If it is not a spirit, it is not useful and does not give life, as the devil is smuggling here. Behold, where the devil goeth forth, that is, to remove the mist from the eyes.

219. fifth, "the words that I speak are spirit and life" etc. From this he concludes that Christ speaks of his flesh, since he says, "Flesh is of no use." Awe yes, beautiful consequence, like the next one above! I fear that the wise man with great arrogance thinks that there is no man on earth, or considers all men to be vain geese and jackdaws; how else would it be possible that he should be so impudent and thirsty as to display such gross foolishness?

We know that Christ's words are spirit and life, but that it should follow that Christ's flesh is useless, no one will say, because he is mad and foolish, or because he despises the mind and thoughts of the world. The Spirit says it follows, but when does he prove such a consequence? Of course, these very words of Christ, "Flesh is of no use," are spirit and life, for with them he enlightens us, and points us from the flesh to the Spirit; which is a wholesome spiritual teaching that gives life. Now it would be a public blasphemy if someone wanted to say that Chri

stus should reject his flesh, to which he nevertheless points us, and says: "My flesh is the right food", v. 55. It would be that Mrs. Allöosis here once again made God out of flesh for us; but we do not listen to the sinful.

221. sixth, Christ says: "But there are some of you who do not believe. V. 64. Item, Peter speaks there v. 68: "To whom shall we go? Thou hast words of eternal life." From these two sayings, he concludes and gags again that because such sayings speak of faith and the living Word, Christ's flesh must be understood in the saying, "Flesh is of no use," and he must not start a new one to speak of other flesh etc. I have also heard many a foolish consequence or consequence all my life; but I have never heard a more foolish and sacrilegious consequence than this spirit makes, that because Christ speaks of faith and word, it must follow that the saying, "Flesh is no good," is spoken of his flesh. I truly believe that this spirit does not think differently in his heart, but thus: We Zwingel by the grace of God, giant and Roland, hero and victor in French and German lands, apostle of all apostles, prophet of all prophets, teacher of all teachers, master of all masters, scholar of all scholars, lord of all lords, spirit of all spirits etc., say thus and thus, let it remain so; that and no other. For how could it be possible that he should walk so proudly, and infer and act in the Scriptures and God's Word everywhere, where he was not possessed with inhuman pride and iniquity?

222. we poor sinners and carnivores have nowhere and never said that Christ began a new thing when he said, "flesh is of no use," as the Spirit owes us, but confess even to this day that Christ, when he began from his flesh, spoke through and through, for and for, to the end of the chapter, John 6:51. of the spiritual eating of his flesh; but so we say: Because out of such a speech of his two disciples were made, some being offended at it, and murmuring, and running away from him, and some believing, and praising, and abiding with him, he hath at such a discord

982 Srl. so, 243-246. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers re. W. XX, I22S-1N2. 983

without all new beginnings, may say: "Spirit gives life, flesh is of no use. Which we have not understood otherwise, but thus: My doctrine is spiritual; he that will understand it carnally lacks, and such understanding is of no use; but he that understands it spiritually lives. Here is nothing new spoken of his flesh eating, but difference of the disciples, who heard such, indicated, and have always been ready to learn differently, where someone would do it with good reason.

223. as if I preached, Good works are not profitable for righteousness; here I get two kinds of disciples; some are angry, murmuring, running away, and saying, How? does this man forsake all good works? but others believe, praise, and remain. Here I also want to say: My doctrine of good works is spiritual, and spoken differently, namely, good works for righteousness, and good works for God's praise. He who understands them to be necessary for righteousness is lacking; but he who understands them to be necessary for God's praise meets the mark. Here I mean that this is not a new sermon, but is preached through and through, for and for, of good works, although I am preaching from two different disciples.

224 Christ does the same in John 6:51: He teaches about the eating of his flesh, and then deals with the difference between the disciples who hear this teaching. He finds some carnal, some spiritual, and pronounces the judgment on them in v. 63: "the flesh is of no use, the spirit gives life. He declares himself and says: "My words are spirit and life. Which can be nothing 1) but this: I must have spiritual disciples for my words; carnal disciples will not do, for they are disciples of the flesh, and not of my words; "But the flesh is of no use," and deceives them. For as the Spirit 2) is his word and doctrine, so must flesh also be the word and doctrine of the flesh. So the "Spirit", that is, his word and teaching, gives life, and "flesh", that is, the word and teaching of the flesh, "is of no use", of which I have written enough elsewhere.

225. the third virtue, so I have to

1) "nothing" put by us instead of: "not" in the issues.

2) In the Jena: so.

The reason for this is that my rule was wrong when I wrote: Where spirit and flesh are set against each other in the Scriptures, the flesh must not be called Christ flesh, but must be called the old Adam. Oh, here the great Christophel of Zurich tears down vain trees, and throws mountain and valley into one another. If I understand his filzicht, zötticht German correctly (which is truly difficult for me), then he makes a distinction between God's spirit and our spirit, which is as necessary to the matter as the fifth wheel to the wagon, without it serving to make the poor rabble think that the great giant of Zurich wants to answer, and is hidden in him vain art.

226 But we do not care whether it is God's Spirit or our spirit, so my rule still stands, that where in Scripture spirit and flesh are set against each other or in opposition to each other, flesh cannot be called Christ's flesh, for his flesh is not against the Spirit, but rather born of the Holy Spirit, and full of the Holy Spirit to boot. But since here Christ says: "Spirit makes alive" and "flesh is of no use", it is clear enough that he means such flesh, which is not spirit, nor has spirit, but is contrary to the spirit: for "to make alive" and "to be of no use" are contrary to each other as death and life, as I have explained further in that book 3).

227 But that the disciples teach me afterwards how the spirit and the flesh rhyme together, as John 1:14: "The Word became flesh", and 1 Peter 3:18: "Christ died according to the flesh, but was made alive according to the spirit", the dear God thanks him; for who could have found this without his help? So my rule holds: Where spirit and flesh are opposed to each other in Scripture etc. In order that I may confess clearly enough that the spirit and the flesh are not opposed to each other at all ends. For even here the question is not whether flesh and spirit are compatible with one another in Scripture; but this is the question: Where spirit and flesh are not compatible with one another, as here happens: "Flesh is of no use, spirit makes alive," there (I say) flesh cannot be called Christ's flesh.

3) Erlanger: Büchlin.

Here the defiant hero should answer; so he flutters by, and in the meantime another, and teaches us that spirit and flesh are not contrary to each other in some places of the Scriptures; nor is all this called answered; as the one asks: Where does the way go out, and this one answers: I cut out young woodpeckers etc. Satan is hastening master to chat, where he cannot well answer.

I also urged the little word mea, that Christ should not say here, My flesh is not profitable, as he saith above, My flesh is meat. Then he gives me this notice: "Just as Christ does not say, 'My spirit gives life,' and yet it is his spirit, so he does not say, 'My flesh,' even though it is his flesh. Distort yourself once, little spirit, but Christ does not speak here of his own spirit, which he has personally, but, as the text reads, of the spirit that makes alive, that is, of the common spirit, which is in all believers. Although Christ gives the same, and is Christ's Spirit, yet here he is a common Spirit everywhere where he gives life, for he does not give life to Christ alone. So here flesh must also be the common flesh, which is without spirit and is of no use.

229 Therefore the oppressor needs a real sophistry and deception in the word "my", which is called fallacia figurae dictionis. For above, when Christ speaks Joh. 6, 55: "My flesh is the right food", "my" means his own personal flesh, which is not common to anyone. But when here the Spirit is called his Spirit, it is 1) not his own personal Spirit alone, but the common Spirit in all, which he gives. Therefore "flesh" here cannot be called his flesh, as the spirit is called his spirit; for his flesh is not the common flesh in all. But he who knows nothing to answer must thus make do.

(230) That is enough of the other main thing, in which everyone can see that the swarming spirit cannot bring this saying, "Flesh is of no use," upon Christ's flesh, and how he stands over it with shame, and so can answer nothing at all. For he leaves all the examples in place and remains silent,

1) Wittenberg and Jena: is.

Since I had so abundantly proven how Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and the rest of the holy flesh would have been of use for faith, and was thus powerfully convinced that much more of Christ's flesh would have to be of use, etc., I must give him credit for this; it is better that he remain silent and pass by, than that he should suffocate over it and lie down in public; he well feels that it would not help to be angry and blaspheme.

231 So also that he does not answer to the fathers' sayings, but says badly, you Luther do not understand them right, so he does not care much if they do not stand with him etc. is also well done. What should such a high 2) spirit answer to such ragwork? Well, he may go and be taught, but he shall never become my master nor helper, if God wills that he turn from his blasphemous teaching, not only in this matter, but in all others, since he deceives himself and the people so miserably. May he and all be helped by Christ our Lord, amen.

232 Let us now also hear Oekolampad, how he answers, which I still hope he will not hold with constraint in all things, but only in the sacrament and baptism. God help him out, amen. I have proved above that Oecolampad's trope cannot be in the Lord's Supper, nor should it be; for he cannot prove it. Above that, it is also a perverse and naughty trope against all the tropos of Scripture, so that one must take it to be a deliberate poem; I must make that clear.

233) Wherever a trope or a new word is used in the Scriptures, there are also two interpretations; a new one, over the first 3) old or previous one, as said above. As, the word "vine" in the Scripture has two interpretations, an old and new one. According to the old or first one, it badly means the shrub or plant in the vineyard; according to the new one, it means Christ, Jn. 15:5: "I am a vine," or a child's mother, Ps. 128:3: "Your wife will be like a vine," or what is similar, so that it has a likeness to the vine in fruit, as the orators teach, quae transferun-

2) Erlanger: higher.

3) In the issues: first.

986 Erl. so, p47-24S. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, 1234-1237. 987

tur, secundum similitudinem transferuntur, that is, all renewal or tropi happen an equation halden.

234 Now these same tropes in Scripture are done in such a way that the words, according to the old or first interpretation, show the thing that is like the new thing, and according to the new interpretation they show the new right thing or being itself, and not back again. As in this saying, "I am the right vine." Here the word "vine" has become a trope or new word, which cannot interpret back the old vine, which is of the new likeness, but interprets for itself the right new vine itself, which is not a likeness. For Christ is not a likeness of the vine, but again, the vine is a likeness of Christ etc. Item, "the seed is God's word" (Luc. 8, 11.]; here seed does not indicate the grain, which is a likeness of the gospel, but (as a negated word or trope should) it indicates the gospel, the right new seed itself, which is not the likeness. And so henceforth, all tropi in Scripture interpret the right new essence, and not the likeness of that same new essence.

But Oecolampad reverses this, and makes such a trope, or negated word, that interprets back the likeness of the new being, and says that "body" should be called the sign or likeness of the body in the saying, "This is my body," when, if he would follow the Scripture, he should rather negate the word "body" so that it would be called the true new body, to which the natural body of Christ would be a likeness. For the Scripture does not trop back in this way, nor does it read, if I were to trop back in this way: "Christ is a vine" [John 15:5], that is, a sign of the vine. Gospel is a seed, that is, a sign of the seed. "Christ is a lamb" [John 1:29], that is, a sign of the lamb. "Christ is a rock" [Matth. 16, 18.], that is, a sign of the rock. Christ is our Passover, that is, a sign of our Passover. "John is Elijah" [Matth. 11, 14.], that is, a sign of Elijah. Summa Summarum, such a trope is not in the Scriptures, nor is it suitable. Therefore also Oecolampad's trope cannot be valid, since he says: Bread...

is my body, that is, my body's sign; for it is a backward, inverted trope, makes of the right being a likeness or sign, which is not of the Holy Scripture kind, therefore it is a mere poem.

236 But if the text stood thus: Take, eat, this is my righteous bread; then one could make a nice trope, and say very delicately, "Bread is here a new word, which according to the first interpretation means: bad bread, which is a likeness of the body of Christ; and according to the new interpretation it is called the righteous new bread itself, which is the body of Christ. But now the text says: "This is my body", and he wants to make a trope there, he must say according to Scripture: The word "body", according to the old interpretation, means the natural body of Christ, but according to the new interpretation it must mean another, new body of Christ, to which 1) his natural body is a likeness. This would be according to the scriptural way the word right and well negated, that the new text would stand thus: This is my right new body, which is not a likeness; just as I say of Christ: This is our vine, that is, a new right vine, which likeness is the old vine in the vineyard.

237 Whether someone wants to pretend here that one nevertheless finds such an oecolampadstropum in common speech, as when one says of the images: This is St. Peter, this is St. Paul, this is Pope Julius, this is Emperor Nero, and so on. In which speeches the words Peter, Paul, Julius, Nero, are taken for images. First of all, I answer: I do not inquire into this; Oecolampad did not intend to use common speech, but the Scriptures, and he must remain in them and follow the same manner. But if he could show me an example of his tropes in Scripture, then he shall have won, and I will fall to him in all things. But if he does not produce an example, he has lost, and his trope is nothing, and a mere poem.

For the Holy Scripture holds itself with speech, as God holds Himself with action. Now God creates in all ways that the interpretation or

1) In Walch's old edition and in the Erlanger: welchen.

The first likeness was made before, and after that the right essence followed, and the fulfillment of the likenesses. For thus the old testament, as a likeness, goes before, and the new testament follows after, as the right essence. In the same way, when it makes tropos or new words, it takes the old word, which is the likeness, and gives it a new interpretation, which is the right essence.

For what would it be if I said, The gospel is a new testament, that is, a likeness of the new testament? That would be saying so much: The gospel is the old testament. Item, "Christ is the Lamb of God", that is, an image or likeness of the Lamb of God, that would be said as much: Christ is the old paschal lamb of Moses. Likewise does Oecolampad with his backward Tropo, since he makes an old word out of the new word "body", and says: It shall be called: This is my body's sign, which is so much said: This is bread. Now here 1) bread shall be the old word, and the body the new, and the word "bread" shall mean the body, not the word "body" the bread. Thus its trope becomes water, and cannot stand in Scripture.

240 Secondly, it is also not true that such a trope of Oecolampad is in some common speech or language in the whole world, and whoever brings me a constant example of it, I will give him my neck. They say that such a trope is in this speech: Here is St. Peter, this is an image of St. Peter; but I say no to it, and they cannot prove it, it is their own false poem. For this is a certain rule in all languages: Where the little word "is" is used in a speech, one certainly speaks of the essence of the same thing, and not of its interpretation. Notice this: I take a wooden or silver rose in front of me and ask: What is this? I am answered: It is a rose. Here I do not ask what it means, but about the essence of what it is; so I am also answered what it is, and not what it means. For it is much a different question when I say: What does it mean? and when I say: What is it? "Is" always refers to the essence itself, which is never missing.

1) Erlanger: je.

(241) Yea, saith thou, it is not a rose, but a wood? Answer: That is good, but it is still a rose; even if it is not a natural rose that has grown in the garden, it is still essentially a rose in its own way; for there are many kinds of roses, as silver, gold, cloth, paper, stone, wood; nevertheless, each one is essentially a rose in its essence, and cannot be a mere interpretation. Yes, how could there be an interpretation that did not have a being first? That which is nothing interprets nothing; but that which interprets must first have a being and a likeness of the other being.

242 Therefore, in the case of a wooden rose, both the essence and the interpretation are to be separated from each other, sicut actum primum et secundum, sicut verbum substantivum et activum; according to the essence, it is truly a rose, namely a wooden rose; after that, if the essence thus stands, one may then say: this rose means or is made after another rose. For these are two different sayings or propositions: This is a rose, and: This means a rose; and he who made a speech out of it would be doing as much as if he took propositionem hypotheticam and categoricam for one proposition; quod est impossibile. How clumsy this thing is, the scholars know well.

Just as the essence of roses is various, wooden, silver, golden, etc., and yet each one is truly a rose in itself and is called so; so also the word rose often becomes another new word (although it remains the same letter) according to the interpretation, as often as the essence of the roses becomes different and different. So that one may nowhere use Oecolampad's tropos, or say: This is the image of a rose. For it is also not true that whoever says, "This is a rose," wants to say or understand, "This is the likeness of a rose;" but he wants to say what it is in essence. And when he further wants to say what it means, he makes two different speeches and says: This is a rose, and means a rose. And everyone must confess that these two sayings are not equally valid, nor do they speak of the same rose, but each one says something different from the other. I truly know that this is true of all, and no one can deny it.

990 Erl. so, 252-254. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX. 1239-IS42. 991

244 Therefore Oecolampad cannot stand with his Tropo, that he wants to let these two speeches count equally, "this is my body", and "this is my body's likeness"; because neither tongue nor language suffers this. Equal as not can apply equally, if I say of the image of St. Paul: This is St. Paul, and: This means St. Paul. For the first speech wants to say what the image is, that it is St. Paul, namely a wooden St. Paul, a silver St. Paul, a gold St. Paul, a painted St. Paul. In short, the little word "is" speaks of the essence, be it whatever essence it is, and here St. Paul has become a new word, which is not called the living St. Paul. After that, when I further ask: What does it mean? There is immediately another speech, which now does not speak of the essence, but of the interpretation. So that, just as essence and interpretation are not the same, neither can they be expressed with the same words or speeches; each must have its own special speech.

If now Oecolampad is to stand with his tropo, then he must also make two speeches in the Lord's Supper; one of the essence, thus: "This is my body", because there is an "is", which wants and must speak of the essence. Since in the Lord's Supper there is no more than the one speech that speaks of the essence, namely, "This is my body," it must be spoken of an essential body of Christ, God granting that the same body be wooden, silver, or whatever He wills; for there is an "is" that wants to have a body of Christ, which is and is called Christ's body; just as it is common language that there must be a Paul when one says of the image: This is Paul. So Oecolampad must have a body of Christ in the Lord's Supper, he may think whether he wants to make it of bread, wood, clay or stone; the trope must have a body of Christ, because the other speech is not included: This means, or: This is my body's sign, but thus: "This is my body".

246 Summa Summarum, as I have said about the rose, where in a speech the word rose is to become a new word or trope, there must come two roses, both of which bear the name rose with truth;

one that signifies, the other that is signified, and each of the two roses must truly be and be called a rose, though each in its own way, one wooden, the other natural. So also, if the word "my body" is to become a new word or trope in the Lord's Supper discourse, two bodies of Christ must also be added, both of which bear the name "my body" with truth; one which signifies, the other which is signified. So that each of the two bodies of Christ is truly and rightly called one body of Christ, and be it essential that it be like wood, silver, or brass.

If Oecolampad can prove that bread is truly the body of Christ, and may say that it is the body of Christ, which is a likeness of the natural body of Christ, as the wooden rose is truly a rose, and a likeness of the natural rose, he has thus accomplished so much that his trope may be found to be an example, and his trope to be like that which is commonly spoken of in images: This is St. Peter, this is St. Paul etc., whether it is not yet a trope according to the Scriptures. But if it is not, then its trope is nothing apart from Scripture. How then will he prove that bread is and is called the body of Christ, or that Christ has a body of bread, as St. Paul has a body of wood 1)? Now he must do it, or it is lurking; 2) and if he were to find it, what good would it do? if, nevertheless, such a trope is not valid in Scripture. Because his trope has no exemplars either in Scripture or outside of Scripture, indeed, it is contrary to Scripture and all languages, one can well conclude that it is a purely useless poem.

248 Oecolampad has deceived himself in the saying Tertulliani: Äoo ost figura corporis msi, that is my body's shape, there he has considered llZura or shape for a tropum. For it is good to note that Oecolampad has not invented such a trope from himself, nor taken from the Scriptures, because neither Scripture nor no

1) Thus Walch has already changed instead of: "as St. Paul has a wooden St. Paul" what the editions offer.

2) In the Jena: Lürtzsch. We assume that this is an Onomatopoeia, after the manner of "futsch" - lost.

Language thus speaks; but at Tertulliani saying he has run on, and stumbled at it, that he has been misled. Tertullianus, however, does not make a tropum there, but gives an exposition or explanation, 1) how bread is the body of Christ, namely, that it is the figure, under which the body of Christ is, and does not speak of vocabulis, sed de rebus, since he says: Hoc est figura corporis mei, quia panis non est figura sermonis in Grammatica, sed figura rei in natura. And Tertullianus cannot be so great gewesep that he wanted to say that Christ made of the bread a vocabulum in Grammatica, as it MUST follow from Oecolampad's opinion. Sic, panem fecit corpus suum, id est, figuram corporis sui, hoc est, figuram grammaticam; quia talis figura nec in re, nec in usu Scripturae est, quod panis sit figura Corporis Christi.

Hereby, I think, Oecolampad should be deprived of his trope and sign, just as Zwingel is deprived of his interpretation, and Carlstadt is deprived of his xxxxx, that none of them has nor can have his text, and thus all of them sit naked and bare in the Lord's Supper without text. Now if they have no text, they can have neither sense nor understanding. If they have no understanding, they cannot know whether they have vain bread and wine or not. For they must first come to know what they have in the Lord's Supper. But they cannot get there unless they get certain text and understanding. But they can never get that, as we have proved. So we conclude: The enthusiasts themselves do not know what they have in the Lord's Supper. O of the fine spirit! O of the beautiful supper! That is truly sitting and eating in darkness, since one does not know what one is eating or where one is sitting. O dear one, for God's sake give a penny for the light to the poor spirit.

(250) Not that I scoff at the visionaries and their God, but I do so in words; for I am not Elijah, who may scoff at the most holy prophets of Baal, especially because they themselves testify, and though they sit in darkness, yet they have seen that Luther has lost his spirit, and has become a Saul.

1) Erlanger: Transfiguration or Exposure.

and cannot understand that bread is bread, which dogs and sows understand. For if I wanted to mock them, I wanted to advise them in such misery and distress that they followed one of their disciples, who asked one another about the sacrament, and at last, when he had nothing left, he said: Oh, my dear brother, it is truly said in the Greek: hoc est tropus2 ) meus, unb çßöß, hoc est corpus meum. So they would like to get nevertheless a certain text, and so long tropus, until they hit it once.

But if they disdain this, let them do as that priest did, who came to about two other priests, and found them high, grieved, in this very matter of the sacrament, above the text, hoc est corpus mehm; one of them argued, 3) it should be called hoc est corpus, meus, the other, it should be called hoc est corpum meum, so that it would rhyme. When they then put the matter to the third to judge, he said: Truly, it has also often troubled me; but I do to him so, when I come to the same text, I pray a Hail Mary for it. Now here is a big question, which one did I consecrate? We will leave that aside now. For since our enthusiasts do not consecrate or perform, 4) and yet sit over the text in such doubt, error, disagreement and gloom, it would be good for them, according to the example, to pray a Hail Mary instead of the uncertain text; or, since they are afraid to be old or new papists, and are too afraid of Mary and the saints or images, they might sing for it: Christ is risen, or, Christ ascended to heaven; because such singing and words especially conflict with the text in the Lord's Supper, and make the same so uncertain. For it should pity a stone that such high enlightened spirits, who otherwise have as many suns in their heads as hair on their heads, should sit in darkness in this piece alone, so that they do not see even a little star.

2) Thus the Erlanger and Walch in a note. The Wittenberg and the Jena edition: corpus. We have given preference to the former reading because corxus M6U8 is repeated in the next paragraph in the example that follows immediately.

3) In the Wittenberg and Jena editions: "sacht". In the old edition of Walch and in the Erlangen: "says."

4) "dannen" - dirmen or tirmen, i.e. to consecrate.

252. If anyone thinks that I am too harsh in my attack on the devotees and too contemptuous of them, I beg him to think that, although I am a lesser Christian, I am not unreasonably displeased with Satan, who makes nothing else out of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ but a reckless fool, and mocks him as if he had been a mule or a drunkard in the Lord's Supper. First of all, because they interpret Christ in his words and works in such a way that there is nothing more in the Lord's Supper than merely to receive bread and wine and to commemorate the death of the Lord, they may not use this text "this is my body" etc., "this is my blood" etc. anywhere, and it is entirely a vain, unnecessary, useless text, without which the Lord's Supper can well and completely be held. For they have enough text left, when they read thus: "Take, eat; take, drink; these things do in remembrance of me." In these words they have their supper wholly and completely. Therefore Christ must be a real fool, who at his end is such a useless washer, and puts such unnecessary text "this is my body" etc., "this is my blood" etc., which such high spirits can well guess, and in addition are also hostile to him, and would gladly have out. For, let them say, what use is such a text, if they can well commemorate the death of the Lord with bread and wine (which is to be the main part and some cause of the Lord's Supper) without such a text?

Secondly, if the bread and wine of the Lord signify the body and blood, what need is there that Christ should teach us such an interpretation just this once? For, although one should not ask why God does something; but since he must be a fool here, I do not ask this unreasonably. Or what use is it if I know that the bread means the body of the Lord? What good is such an allegory to faith, which even the devils and the ungodly can invent? Again, what good and harm would it be if I never knew that bread means Christ's body, but kept bread badly? Did Christ have nothing to teach, because that is not useful at all, and even we may invent of ourselves afterwards without his teaching, and that the devil and the wicked may invent it?

Devil and his own can? And especially because there is no analogia fidei; for all the words of Christ must drive faith and love and "be similar to faith," Rom. 12:7. No, he had to prove his foolishness and not only burden us with vain, useless text, but also teach useless, useless art, which one can well have without his teaching and over all the tables of the wicked.

254 Above this, he teaches such useless art in such obscure words that the apostles at that time did not understand it; as we read that they never or rarely understood his speech when he spoke in unison, and he always had to tell them the interpretation. How then did he become so envious in the supreme work of his love, and give no interpretation to the foolish, simple-minded disciples, and let them remain in such obscure words, which they could not understand without interpretation otherwise than as they read, and yet is so mild in other places with his interpretation? The short answer is that Christ, as a fool, before the rest of his leisure, wanted to fool and ape the disciples with useless and obscure words, without which they might well have taken the Lord's Supper with him.

Thirdly, this is the greatest foolishness of all, that he says the bread means, or is, a likeness of his body, given for us, and the cup, or because, is a likeness of his blood, poured out for us. Dear, where is such likeness in the bread and cup of wine? For where there is to be a figure, symbol or likeness, since one is to signify the other, there must be something the same in both, so that the likeness stands, as John 15:4. The vine is a likeness or figure of Christ, in which, as he himself says, that "just as the branch cannot bear fruit, but withers unless it abides in the vine"; item, Elijah is a figure or likeness of John, in which, as the angel Gabriel says, Luc. 1, 17. that he has the same spirit and power with Elijah; the paschal lamb is a likeness of Christ, in which, as Apocalypsis 1) [Cap. 5, 6. 13, 8.] says,

1) In Walch's old edition and in the Erlanger: "Apostg."

that he was slain and sacrificed for us; and so henceforth in all figures and likenesses there must be something in which the likeness stands, and rhymes with both. But here in the bread and wine cup there is nothing in which Christ's body and blood should be like them.

When Christ therefore says, the bread is of my body, given for you, the same, the cup of wine is of my blood, poured out for you, the same, it is just as if he said, the bread, which has no likeness at all of my body, given for you, is nevertheless of my body, given for you, the same; just as if I spoke from St. Paul [2 Cor. Paul [2 Cor. 6, 15. 14.]: Belial, who has no likeness at all to Christ, is nevertheless a likeness of Christ; the light, which rhymes nothing with darkness, rhymes nevertheless well with darkness etc. What kind of people are those who talk like this, everyone knows well, namely, mad, nonsensical fools, or lottery boys, who talk about tables of iron birds flying over the lake, or of black snow falling in summer, so that they cause laughter among the guests. The same foolish fools or fools make of Christ, when they accuse him of saying that the bread is my body, given for you, likeness, when there is nothing of this likeness anywhere in the bread.

257 But whether they would pretend that the likeness is that as the bread is eaten and the cup of wine drunk, so Christ's body is eaten spiritually and his blood drunk spiritually etc. Dear, this is not speaking. For the enthusiasts do not put the trope on these words: "Take, eat", or give thanks etc., but on these words: "This is my body, given for you", therefore here one does not ask about the likeness in eating, taking, giving thanks. Here, here, I say, a likeness must be shown in the bread, how it is given, killed, martyred, and sacrificed for us, for the remission of sins, that it may be a figure or likeness, and be called the body of Christ, given for us, for the remission of sins, as the words are; or Christ is a fool to call the bread a likeness, when it is not, nor can be, such a likeness. So also in the cup

In the same way as the wine is poured out for us for salvation, Christ's blood is also poured out for the forgiveness of sins.

For so does Moses with his parables, showing how the oxen and calves are slain and sacrificed, and their blood poured out on the floor of the altar, and sprinkled for the remission of sins, and to cleanse the people and the tabernacles, and all the vessels, as the epistle to the Hebrews masterfully shows us such a likeness [Cap. 9:12]. And especially the paschal lamb has a very fine likeness to the body of Christ, given for us for the remission of sins, in that it is slain and sacrificed, its blood poured out, sprinkled and sprinkled at the door, for redemption from the destroyer. Such likeness must also be shown in the bread and wine; or we must say that it is a fool who likens them to the body and blood of Christ, given and shed for us for the remission of sins, when nothing of such likeness is to be found anywhere in them. For if it be likeness, there must be something like it in it; or if it be called likeness, it is a lie and a falsehood.

If Christ would have instituted a supper, in which not his body and blood, but the likeness of his body and blood would have been inside, he would have left us the old supper of Moses with the paschal lamb, which out of measure and all around, through and through, most finely signifies his body, given for us, and his blood, shed for us for the remission of sins, and is a figure or likeness, as all the world well knows. Why then does he fool, and abolish such a fine supper of the Old Testament, and set up against it such a supper, which after all is nothing at all compared with that, neither with interpretation nor with essence?

(260) So you might say to him that the New Testament is to be a fulfillment and light compared to the Old Testament, but you turn it around and say that the New Testament is an emptying and darkness compared to the Old Testament. For there is a lamb, a living body, sacrificed for the people, which signifies the body of Christ much more brightly and clearly than bad bread, which is the same.

is a dark likeness to the Lamb. And there is blood of the lamb, which interprets Christ's blood much more brightly and clearly than bad wine. In sum, this supper is in no way comparable to it in interpretation and likeness. Therefore, if everything in the New Testament is to be more complete than in the Old, even the likeness, then Christ should have left us with that supper; or it will not be true that bad bread and wine are in our supper; for it must truly surpass that supper of Moses by far, otherwise Christ would not have raised that one.

261) Here, however, the enthusiasts will seek an evasion and pretend that St. Paul 1 Cor. 11, 24. says in his text: "This is my body, which is broken for you. There is the similitude and interpretation in the breaking, that as the bread is broken over the table, so also Christ was martyred for us on the cross etc. O who then would not have forbidden to honor the saints and to have images, would now fall down before St. Paul's image and call out: O holy St. Paul, help us poor, miserable, forsaken enthusiasts against the raging Luther; see how he drives us are revengeful until we can no longer, you alone can help us when you say that Christ's body is broken. But briefly. St. Paul cannot and will not help-because the images of the saints have ears and do not hear [Ps. 115, 6].

262 First, that "broken" here means as much as crucified, they say from their head, but they can prove it just as little as they can prove the likeness in the bread to the body of Christ, and is vain uncertain gossip, ignotum per ignotum. But we demand certain proof of such likeness. For since they boast so certainly of their thing, let them also make it certain, or let them stand sure. 1)

263 Secondly, I have said above that the fanciers do not place the tropum or similitude in the words, "Take, eat, give thanks," nor in these words, "Christ took bread, broke it, and gave it to the disciples. Here they leave these words "take-

1) "Gack stehen" - to stand at the pillory. Gack - kaak, pillory.

The words "men," "break," "give," "bread," "disciples," all remain without a trope, bad, as they read. Therefore they may not afterwards make "breaking" a trope, since Paul says, "This is my body broken for you"; for it is of the same breaking that he says above, "He took bread and broke it," until they prove conclusively that there is another breaking. But we say that the breaking is the same in both places, and may not Christ's crucifixion or suffering be understood by it. For Christ did not catch Himself, crucify Himself, nor kill Himself, as He ought to have done, when breaking should have meant killing, for He Himself took the bread and broke it with His own hands.

264 Third, let us stick to the Scriptures, that "breaking bread" means giving out bread, as I have proved "against the heavenly prophets," and St. Paul says: "The bread we break is the giving out of the body of Christ," 1 Cor. 10:16. And it is quite sacrilegious for anyone to call breaking as much as crucifying or killing without Scripture; for even breaking is nowhere as much as strangling or killing. Therefore it is a pure poem, that the enthusiasts wanted to mend their ways with it. But it is meant to indicate a certain likeness that the bread has with the body of Christ, given for us. Even if the breaking were the likeness (as it is not), there is not yet the main part of the likeness, namely, that the bread is broken for us and the wine is poured out. For the bread and wine should and must be a likeness of the body and blood of Christ, given and poured out for us, so that we are redeemed by it, as the text reads: "This is my body and blood, given and poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. Such a likeness, however, cannot be broken; but the paschal lamb and the old supper can from the covenants.

265 Therefore, wine and bread cannot be the same here, nor can they be called the body and blood of Christ, as the words in the Lord's Supper indicate.

2) In the Wittenberg and the Jena: "losunge", that is, solution.

talk about it. I will keep silent that John completely denies the word "break" from the suffering of Christ, since he writes that in. He writes that not even one of Christ's legs was broken, "so that the Scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break his leg" etc. Therefore the Scripture does not suffer that one rhymes breaking with Christ's suffering or death.

266 Fourthly, I now say that by the breaking of the bread it is like the crucified body of Christ, as it is not; but how will it be in the other part with the cup or chalice of wine? How will the wine here be a likeness of the shed blood of Christ for our sin? For drinking is a likeness, not of the shed blood of Christ, but of spiritual drinking, that is, of faith, as they themselves teach. Here the poor cup of wine stands so bare in all shame, that it could not stand more shamefully; for it has not a likeness in itself, and yet it is to be a likeness, and to be called the blood of Christ poured out for us.

Where are you now, St. Paul? If you had said about the cup, how Christ's hands would have trembled and spilled the cup, we poor enthusiasts could have lived for a while with the same spilling, as we now live for an hour with the breaking. If St. John, sitting in Christ's arms, had bumped Christ's elbow with his head when he took the cup and gave it to the disciples, we would have enough and could say, "Behold, the wine is like the shed blood of Christ, in that it was spilled. Whether then such spilling is not done for our salvation or benefit, and so is not like the blood of Christ in the main part of the likeness, as the words in the Lord's Supper demand, let it nevertheless be done for the salvation of us poor enthusiasts from this great misery and shame, that otherwise we can show no likeness, and yet have cried out so long ago, so far and wide, and with so many books, that the wine is like the blood of Christ.

1) So the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers: Am". Walch and the Erlanger: "one a large" etc. "Amen" are the little fases or points into which the ears of grain run out. In § 421 of this writing, Luther says: "Can they not indicate a tittle Gleichniß."

Be like and a figure of the blood of Christ, shed for us for the remission of sins, and now is not found one jar of such likeness.

268 See what the mockers of our Lord Christ gain, and who best makes a fool of the other. For their figura nec grammatica, nec theologica, nec naturalis esse potest, that is, their likeness consists of nothing; for there is no such likeness to be found either in words, or in sacred Scripture, or in nature. If it were in words, the word "body" would have to become two words, and yet remain one letter, and be called two bodies of Christ, just as the word "vine" becomes two words, and yet remains one letter, and is called two vines. Now bread cannot be Christ's body, nor can it be called Christ's body. If it were in the Scriptures, the bread would have to have such likenesses in itself, which Christ's body, given for us, would show, as all other likenesses do in the Scriptures. But if it is a natural likeness, then the bread would have to be as similar to the body as a wooden rose is to the natural rose. For this is called a natural likeness, when every one perceives by nature, without all teaching, what it shows, as the pictures show. For whoever knows a rose, no one may say that a painted rose is equal to a natural rose. But so bread is never like the body of Christ, let it be said that it should be like him, as he was given for us.

So, where one turns to the arrogance of the enthusiasts, he is lazy and nothing. For we have proved above that they have no certain text at all. But now, even if we would like to accept their text as certain, the prankster does not want to keep it, and becomes nothing to us under our hands. For who can remain with such a text, which thus reads: The bread is the likeness of Christ's body; and yet cannot be the likeness of Christ's body? Who can say "no" and "yes" at the same time in one speech and about one thing? They are like that fool who built a water mill on a mountain; when the mill was ready, he was asked where he would take water. Then said he, Behold, I never thought of that.

1002 Erl- so, 2S4-LSS. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W, XL, 1254-^1257. 1003

(270) So also the enthusiasts are so eager for interpretation and likeness that they cannot think of anything before it. If, then, one would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept such a likeness, and would like them to teach that such a likeness of the bread to the body of Christ exists, they must also say, "Behold, we have never thought of this; we thought that if we called it a likeness, it would be there; for our spirit wanted to be God from the beginning, so that everything he said would be true. Behold, that is to say, it is called itself with its own words.

271 Although the Tropus of the devils has been pushed hard enough, they will not be able to give way, nor will they be able to keep quiet; for who can shut the devil's mouth? Such devils do not go out without fasting and praying, they want and must have won for a while. They will say how the parables do not 1) apply in all things, and may bread be Christ's body's likeness in other things, but in that "Christ's body is given for us" as in eating, take etc. To this it has been answered enough above, that they themselves have not sought nor placed the likeness of such words or pieces in the Lord's Supper, but on the body given for us. If they now find likenesses in other pieces, they do not approach the Lord's Supper and do not help their conceit; they must remain on this piece: This is a likeness of my body given for you. If they do not denounce it, and come in with it, they stand as the fur on their sleeves. Let this be said enough of the tropes for the present, so that our people, and those who wish to remain true, may well protect themselves against the devil's gossip.

272 Further, since Oecolampad complains about me, how I blaspheme, item, my writing of the devil anfahe, as the Zwingel also fools, and some say, at seven and seventy times I have called the devil, is a laudable, honest thing, but highly necessary to write, because one can answer nothing. Why don't they also count how many times I call God and Christ, and how I fight for Christ against the devil? Yes, that

1) In the Erlanger is missing: "Not".

The viper breed wants to boast of love, peace and moderation, and is as full of poison as a colorful newt.

I have made it clear to myself that I am not writing against flesh and blood (as St. Paul teaches), but against the devil and his members; therefore I am doing the right thing when I mention the other word devil. Should I then become so shy for the sake of the tender, highly spiritual, deeply holy enthusiasts that I should not even name my enemy? I will also gladly let it be called blasphemed and raged, where I attack the devil so freshly and cheerfully in his messengers, because my free, public, simple biting against the devil shall be dearer to me than their poisonous murderous stabbing, which they practice under the appearance of peace and love against the sincere, as the Psalter says of such vipers etc.

274 Thirdly, he writes that this text "this is my body" is not clear, as I claim, because Christ's body is not visibly there; I also do not prove such my affirmatives; the reason is that I do not bring up a scripture that Christ's invisible body is there; so it does not rhyme either, because Christ's body is visibly given for us, and the text speaks of such Christ's body as is given for us, that it should be invisibly there. I answer, "For the scribblers, of course, I have not proved anything, nor can I ever do so, for they neither want to read nor know nor understand how the Psalter saws, so that they plug their ears like a snake, so that they do not hear the wise magician's voice [Ps. 58:5, 6]. For our people I have made this text clear enough (I know that), and given such a rule: Let the words of Scripture be taken for what they are according to their nature, and let no other interpretation be given, except by a public article of faith. Such rule is in my book. Nor does the Oecolampad say that I have given no rule. Since these words: "This is my body", according to the manner and sound of all languages, are not called bread or a sign of the body, but Christ's body, they should be left as they are, and nothing else should be interpreted, except by the Scriptures.

275 Where mau now has such words, which have certain interpretation, known to everyone, and no other interpretation is proven, these are called clear, dry, bright words and text. For no man on earth has ever heard that "body" should be called a likeness of the body, and is a new, dark, unknown interpretation in all the world, so it must be proved quite strongly. But the first interpretation is clear and certain in itself, as everyone is aware of it. Is it not a fine thing that Oecolampad brings up a new, unknown, dark, uncertain interpretation, and thereby wants to create that the old interpretation should be dark and uncertain? In this way, no word in Scripture would remain clear if any spirit were given the space to bring a new interpretation to it, and then say: The old interpretation is dark and uncertain. But what this lazy consequence, which here Oecolampad makes, namely, the text says: "This is my body, given for you"; now he is visibly given for us, therefore his body cannot be there invisibly, I have shown enough above to the Zwingel; but it is the sheriff once without red pants in the bath, and not in the bath.

I did not know that Oecolampad was such a wicked, poor logician or dialectician that he would also take quod pro qualiter and syllogize ab accidente ad substantiam. In Zwingel it is no wonder, he is a self-grown doctor, they are used to guessing like that. Truly, he who wants to dispute, and does not yet know his puerilia in Logica, what good should he do? Hereby Oecolampad annoys me so much that I can henceforth have no special understanding for him. For even if he is not allowed to know the useless sophistry and sophistry of the sophists, he should know the puerilia, that is, common dialectica, as regulas consequentiae, formas syllogismorum, species argumentationis, etc., well. Unless I have pushed him with the truth in such a way (as I think) that he cannot well see what he is talking about.

277 For, tell me, who can think that a prudent man can say what Oecolampad says here, namely that this text "this is my body" is therefore not

clear, because the body of Christ is not visible in the sacrament, and only the faithful understand such words, as Augustine should say? Should a text therefore be unclear, if the thing is invisible, and only the believer grasps such? Which part then wants to remain clear in Scripture? If everything that faith teaches is invisible, then this text should not be clear: "God created the heavens and the heirs" [Gen. 1:1], because God and his creation are invisible. How can it be made clear that in the Lord's Supper there is only bread and wine? For whether there is anything more is invisible. What does such illusion help the spirit, if they disgrace themselves? Truly, with such loose theidings they will not bring us to themselves and confirm their thing for a long time.

But we know that these words, "This is my body," etc. are clear and bright. For if any Christian or Gentile, Jew or Turk, hear them, he must confess that they speak of the body of Christ which is in the bread. Otherwise, how could the Gentiles and Jews mock us and say that the Christians devour their God, if they did not understand this text brightly and clearly? But that what is said is grasped by the believer and despised by the unbeliever is not the fault of darkness or clarity in words, but of the hearts that hear it.

Poets are able to speak in the most subtle of words, not only about invisible things, but also about trivial things. How is many a man deceived by liars with beautiful words, which he so heartily understands what they mean? How are people now deceived by liars, who speak of invisible things, precisely because they understand the words clearly? Yes, the words are sometimes brighter and clearer, so that people are deceived, and talk of nothing, than those who speak of the truth. For if the words were not understood brightly and clearly, what they mean, they would remain unconvinced. But (as I said) Oecolampad and this spirit lack the puerili dialectica, bab er ex difficultate vel obscuritate intelligendi in re infert obscuritatem significandi in vocabulis; hoc est, maler

1006 Erl. so, sss-271. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers re. W. xx, iLeo-iE. 1007

dividere, tertiam partem scilicet Dialecticae ignorare.

280 It is the same cleverness that he pretends that because the Lord's Supper is a sacrament, the words "this is my body," that is, a sign of my body, must also be understood sacramentally; what is the use of such jugglery? I heartily admit that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament, though it is not so called in Scripture, but how does it follow that the words should be sacramental, tropical, or (as they say) figurative? Is it not a pretty consequence: there is a sacrament; therefore the words in it must be taken figuratively? Dear, why are not the other words also taken figuratively, and does the trope only go over the word "is" or "body"?

281 Or where is there a rule that tells us last which ones must be taken figuratively and which ones must not? For on this teaching I will also make the words: "Take, eat, do these things in remembrance of me," tropos, and say: "Take" means to hear, "eat" means to believe, "do these things" means to think in the heart, "remembrance" means a crucifix or some other sign of thought. The cause should be this: Here is a sacrament, therefore the words inside must be taken sacramentally or figuratively; for I know of no reason why these, as well as those, should not be taken figuratively. God himself should not be able to use a sacrament in this way; for how can he speak of sacraments, if all his words are understood differently than they are? If he speaks plainly of the manner of words, it is not a sacrament; for they are not tropes or figurative words. If he speaks figurative words, one does not know what he says. It is a fool's work.

Since Moses installs the paschal lamb, which was an image and figure of Christ, he does not need a figurative word at all, but dry, clear, simple words, as they were in common usage, and all the figures of the Old Testament are spoken with dry, simple, clear words, and there is not one in all of them that is spoken figuratively. That one must reverse Oecolampad's rule, and say: One cannot speak of any sacrament.

or figure, unless you need dry, simple, common words to do so.

Otherwise, who would understand it if Moses said, Exodus 12:3, 5: "You shall take a lamb of the year and eat it," etc. if he did not mean to indicate a natural lamb and eating, but should be the opinion: You shall take a sign of the lamb of the year, and eat spiritually? Also, who would understand John when he said John 1:26, "I baptize with water," if he was not speaking of natural water and baptizing, but should have the opinion: I baptize with a sign of water? Ah, what shall I say? If Oecolampad does not write this out of malice (as I hope), then I have not heard a sillier, more simple, more thoughtless man to the learned man all my days; but it is all straight against himself, what he only wants to say for himself.

But I worry that the devil is looking for something else in this (for who is safe from the devil among us?), namely, because he knows that Christ is called a sacrament in Scripture, as 1 Tim. 3, he wants to go out there, that figurative words should also be, when one says: Christ is God and man etc. For he must have something in mind, he does not say this for nothing. Summa, the Oecolampad here lacks the puerili dialectica, which teaches bene dividere, that is, to speak differently. For the sacrament or history, 1) and the words spoken of the sacrament, are two different things. The sacrament or history is supposed to be a sign or likeness of another thing, but the words are not supposed to mean anything else, because they are. 2) But the words with which Moses speaks of the paschal lamb should simply teach that same paschal lamb and nothing else. Item, the circumcision is to model the killing of Adam, but the words that Moses speaks about the circumcision are to teach about the physical circumcision. So baptism is to mean the drowning of sins; but the words of baptism are simply to teach immersion in water.

1) History - what happens, event, occurrence.

2) sign - designate. Erlanger: show.

1008 Erl. so, L7I-L7S. 21. Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. XX, I262-I26S. 1009

So also the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is to model and signify something, 1) namely, the unity of Christians in one spiritual body of Christ, through one spirit, faith, love and cross etc. But the words of such sacrament should and must give simply what they ring. But my dear Oecolampad meets here blinzling 2) a right Zwingelische Allöosin, and therefore changes in the dark, and makes Res est figurativa, ergo verba de rebus figurativis sunt figurativa. That must be a good silly Father to me, who comes into this matter truly innocent, and would probably have remained outside.

Because I consider that he does it out of pure simplicity, I will grant him this, since he is much concerned about the saying Gen. 17:10 ff. that circumcision is a covenant, when it should be a sign of the covenant. For my Genesis does not say that circumcision is a covenant and a sign, as I wanted to prove, that it should hurt the devil. But since it does not help the matter, even if he would be right there, I let it go; for this would not yet prove that therefore in the Lord's Supper the body must also be the body's sign. I will also give him the same thing, since he makes a spiritual rock out of the natural one in Paul's saying [1 Cor. 10:4, 2 Mos. 17:6]: "The rock was Christ," since he thus speaks from his head and proves nothing; and even if he could still prove it tomorrow, it still does not follow that therefore the body must also be the sign of the body here. So also the saying 2 Mos. 12, 11: "It is the Lord's Passover", because enough is said about such sayings and about the tropes above. To the main thing we want to come, how the scripture should be against our mind, perhaps the jokes will be found here.

The Scripture urges that Christ is not in the Lord's Supper. Which? Since Christ says: "You have the poor with you always, but you will not have me" [Matth. 26, 11]. Item, Christ will not be sought here and there etc. [Matth. 24, 26.] Because

1) sign - designate. Erlanger: show.

2) i.e. blindly.

Now "being there" and "not being there" are contrary to each other, so there must be vain bread in the Lord's Supper. Enough has been said about these sayings. In my next booklets, however, I had requested that they should not tell us that such sayings are contrary to one another, for we had now heard such things from them long enough, and knew almost well that they say so; but they should prove it. Oecolampad is just as silent about this as Zwingel; therefore, what they say is nothing. For it can both be true that Christ is there at the same time, in another and in another form; he has more than one way of being sth. 3) as is said above.

Since I said of the right hand of God that Christ's body must be where God is, Oecolampad also concludes, like Zwingel, that Christ must not have a right hand, and spins the same yarn that Zwingel spins, namely, that Christ's body must be as great as heaven and earth, and yet incomprehensible. He should prove this consequence, but he is silent again. In short, the spirit does not want to answer, since one asks. We say no to it, Christ's body should not be as wide as heaven and earth. God himself is not so great and wide, who is everywhere. Although I have said much about this above, I must also admit a little against Oecolampad. Because God can do more than we understand, we do not have to say that the two are contrary to each other, Christ's body in heaven and in bread, just according to our conceit and reasoning, because they are both God's word; but we must prove with Scripture that they are contrary to each other. As long as this is not done, faith says: God can keep Christ's body in heaven in one way and in bread in another way. If there is another way and another way on both sides, then it is not contrary to one another.

289) Just as it is not contrary to one another that Christ sat with the disciples after His resurrection, Luc. 24, 36. ff, and yet at the same time was not with them, as He says there, "These things I said while I was still with you.

3) "etwo" (i.e. somewhere) will, as before in this writing many times, probably also be read here instead of "about", because Luther refers to the above comparisons §§ 139. 154 etc. In the editions it says: "about".

1016 srl- so, 27S-87S. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx, i2ss-M. 1017

Here it says "with you" and "not with you," yet they are not contrary to each other. For the Kinderdialectica teaches that contradictoria debent fieri ad idem, secundum idem, circa idem, etc., that is, such spirits should be led to school, and Petrum Hispanum 1) teaches, that they may well.

290. But I must give a rough simile: Behold, the sun shines into a large lake or pond, there must of course be no more than one image of the sun in the water, because there is only One sun; How is it, then, that if a hundred and a hundred stood around the lake, each would have the image of the sun before him in his own place, and none in the other's place; and if he went around the lake, the image would go with him, and be in all the places where he went; and if a thousand eyes looked in, each would see the image before him, and not before the other?

291 Well, this is one creature, and can be in all places in the lake. Dear, who would have us deny that God knows no more than one way, and is able to make Christ's whole body be what it will, wherever it will, or where it will? Here, here, I say, one must first answer and prove that God's power is not able to do this. If this is not proven, it is 2) a terrible sacrilege to reproach the two against each other, Christ's body in heaven and the Lord's Supper, because they cannot be sure of it, and yet the certain words of God stand there: "This is my body.

But here the wise spirits do not hear, yes, they should laugh at us with such parables. Therefore I speak to ours thus: Let them laugh, quod, pro qualiter, carnem pro divinitate, et contra, accipere et, ignorantia tota Logicae, vitiosissime disputire, it is enough for us that they prove nothing. I want to set another simile: If a pillar stands in the square, if a thousand and a thousand eyes were around it and looked at it, then every eye grasps the same pillar completely in its face, and none hinders the other; and if the pillar is also completely in every eye and before every eye, as

1) The first textbook of logic in that time.

2) Erlanger; is.

If they were all one eye and one face, for none sees less or more of the column than the other, and such a likeness could be shown much more, especially from mathematics; but because we are used to it, no one considers it a miracle. That is why it is such a miracle to the mad mind that one body should be in many places at the same time, because it does not see it.

Of course, it would be a great and incredible miracle if there were no eye, and we had only the four senses of touch, smell, taste, and hearing, which must feel not far away, but close by, and so it was preached how God could create a member that could reach and feel through and over eight, nine, ten miles in an instant, namely an eye. Even a born blind man should be surprised and say: "My dear, how is it possible? My hand does not feel a cubit away, my tongue does not taste a finger's breadth, my nose does not smell a span away, my ear, if it hears afar, hears it a street away, and you tell me about a limb that feels ten miles away?

But we, who see, no longer consider it a miracle, for we feel further with our eyes, namely, up to the sun and the stars, even from the beginning to the end. Now the eye is a bodily, carnal thing, and in addition one eye should grasp half the world in an instant, and at the same time be in all the places of half the world with its face. Why then should we measure and measure God's power, as if He could not do more with the body of Christ than He does with our mortal eye, when our eyes are so much less against God's power and work than the blind man's sense and taste against our sight?

295 Because the bright, dry words of God are written here, "This is my body," so that neither in Scripture nor in any language has it ever been heard that this word "my body" is spoken or understood in any other way than it is slurred, and divine power is unconscious to us, and is nowhere contrary to Scripture, and is much the same in natural works, even though the enthusiasts are caught up in so many false lies and groundless reasons about it, it is only fair that God should be heard in the Scriptures.

more than our own conceit. If the enthusiasts were to be falsely invented in one piece, then we would be sufficiently warned by God not to believe them, and to remain with the words of God. For the Holy Spirit does not deny, nor lack, nor doubt. Now, by God's grace, we have found them false and lying in almost all things. In the others, however, we have found them to be least uncertain and doubtful, so that even if I were uncertain of my mind and would gladly fall for them, I cannot do so, because I so publicly see either lies or doubts, and not one sound or certain reason.

296 Since I had proved that two bodies could be in one place at the same time, as when Christ came through a closed door, which is as great a miracle as that one body should be in two places, he says it is nothing. For there are other ways in which Christ came in through a closed door, namely, by the subtilty of the body he put himself in, so that there should not be two bodies in one place. If I now ask, what are these ways, and how did the subtlety come in? then silence applies. I consider that one way is to the church, that Oecolampad, since he should answer, had to go preach; the other way is a bad memory, that he forgot to answer it afterwards.

So does this spirit, muttering a word or two, so that no one knows what he says, and that is answered. Can he find the subtlety of the body of Christ, that Christ goes in at the door, and that there are not two bodies in one place, dear, how can he not also find the subtlety that he is in the bread at the same time, and does not have to go down from heaven like a stone from the roof? But they do not escape me with the subtlety, it is nevertheless the same Christ's body, and the door is also closed, and Christ is not closed in between the cracks or nail holes; he had bone and flesh, as he himself confesses, Luc. 24, 39.

298) To the appearance of Christ to St. Stephen, Acts 7:55, and to other saints. 7:55 and other saints, and that the Father's voice came from the clouds, Matth. 17:5,

which examples I introduced to prove that Christ should not be in one place but in heaven, he nevertheless proves his jokes just fine and says: "Does this prove that there is one body in two places? what kind of speeches are these from a learned man? I confess my guilt, for such examples do not prove that the wolf likes to eat sheep, or what he might introduce. I add such examples to the fact that Christ is near, and does not sit in heaven in one place. So he interprets it as he pleases, and doubts whether St. Stephen saw Christ spiritually or bodily, and wants Christ to be seen in an image and not Christ himself. And all this is true, but because Oecolampad says it from his head, such bright words of Scripture must give way to his conceit. That is all answer to Luther's book. If I did, I would be called a guide to the Scriptures.

But this is not wrong, and certainly better, because the Zwingel does, from the saying Joh. 3, 13. spoken, "the Son of Man is in heaven", since Oecolampad confesses that [it] is rightly spoken for the sake of the person: God was born of Mary, and descended from heaven; without directing me to the blasphemous exegesis of Zwingel, in which, among other abominations, Allöosis teaches us, carnem pro divinitate accipi, and the best thing in it is that one should know how learned Zwingel is in all kinds of arts; the things, indeed, he does little enough, prevented from great art.

(300) Oecolampad also does too much about this in this place, that he puts Christ, contrary to himself and all Scripture, after the Godhead in heaven, and after the body alone on earth. They do not see my reasons correctly and do not understand their own word. If Christ is One Person in the Godhead and in humanity, then humanity must also be on earth and in heaven at the same time, as I proved above against the Zwingel. For to be One Person in God and with God is higher than to be in heaven. So it is also not true that Christ was then in heaven after the Godhead. Where was he after the Godhead, when he became man in mother's body? Was he not personally and essentially

1014 srl. so,-77-87". II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx, 1270-1272. 1015

also after the divinity in mother's body and on earth? I have said so much in the next booklet. But it is a matter of overrunning, not to look at nor to think rightly what one hears or says.

(301) Therefore his similitude does not stand, when he says that if one descended from the mountain and clothed himself in the valley, one could say that no one ascends but he who descends. For the Godhead does not descend from heaven as he descends from the mountain, but is in heaven and remains in heaven; but is also at the same time on earth and remains on earth. So also of the clothed one it cannot be said, He is on the mountain, if he is still on earth, as Christ says of himself, "The Son of man, he is in heaven." What is there to say? The kingdom of heaven is on earth, the angels are in heaven and on earth at the same time, the Christians are in the kingdom of God and on earth at the same time, if one wants to understand "on earth" as they speak of it, mathematice vel localiter. God's word is on. The Spirit was given on earth; and Christ the King was on earth, and shall have a kingdom on earth as far as the world is, Ps. 2:6, "and establish justice and righteousness on earth," Jer. 23:5, 33:15. Oh, childishly and foolishly they speak of heaven, so that they make a place for Christ up in heaven, as the stork makes a nest on a tree, and they themselves do not know what and how they speak.

302 After this he challenges that Christ has not joined himself in places, nor will he be found here or there, but will be known in the spirit. Then they rush over again, and do not see what I write against them. Recently, who binds Christ to special places? Do not the enthusiasts themselves put Christ in a special place in heaven, and force us to say, "Behold here, behold Christ" [Luc. 17:23]? And what do they themselves do when they direct people to the gospel and to their neighbor? Is not the neighbor and the gospel in but places on earth? Is not Christ in the believers? Spiritually he is there (they say). What does spiritual mean? Does it mean carnal or real? Just as if we were saying that he is bodily or visibly in the sacrament.

ssi. Is not Christianity and God's kingdom, as far as the world is, on earth, as the prophets proclaim? Where are they themselves, if they want to be the most distinguished in the kingdom of Christ? If the kingdom of Christ is on earth, it is also here and there. I have written such things against the heavenly prophets. It almost displeases them that I always praise such a book as unbitten by them; it is still unbitten by them, and shall also remain unbitten; I do not call mouthing and chattering biting.

Here the children's logic is lacking in the spirit, so that they do not distinguish these words "to be here and there", because Christ clearly interprets himself, whereof he speaks such words, and how they are to be understood, since he speaks before [Luc. 17, 20.]: "The kingdom of heaven does not come with an outward manner or gesture. Neither shall it be said, Behold here it is, behold there it is. For behold, the kingdom. God is within you." What is lacking in these bright words, so that no enthusiast may look at them: "The kingdom of God is within you"? Who are these "you"? If they are not on earth, to speak bodily, as they speak of it, then they are certainly here and there.

304: Therefore such word "here" and "there" must be understood in two ways, loco 6t more loci. First, essentially, thus: To be here and there is that it is certainly found there and is present. For they must let God be here and there and in all places, and let him be sought and worshipped both here and there and everywhere, that I truly know. On the other hand, more loci, useful, that is, it does not remain or live in the same place where it is. Just as Paul says 2 Cor. 10, 3: "We walk in the flesh, but we do not fight in the flesh." What is this but: We are in the flesh, and not in the flesh? If we are in the flesh, we are certainly here and there; for one would not let flesh be here and there. But we do not fight in the flesh, that is, our being and doing does not go as it is wont to go in the flesh.

So I may say: We are on earth and not on earth, that is, we live on earth, but we do not live earthly, that is, earthly way. Item, we are in the world and not in the world, that is, we live

We may be in the world, but we do not live in a worldly way. Just as Christ sits with the disciples and lives after his resurrection, he still confesses that he is not with them nor does he live. "These things spake I while I was yet with you." What can such "with you" be but: in your way, or as you are now? Personally or essentially he sat there, and spoke, and let himself be touched.

306 A similarity: A wanderer can come to Wittenberg and say: I am in Wittenberg, and I am not in Wittenberg. How so? So: I am physically and essentially here, but I am not Wittenbergian here, that is, in the Wittenbergian way; for I do not have a civil right here, nor do I nourish or live by the Wittenberg law and goods. So also St. Paul writes Phil. 3, 20: that our ðïëßôåõìá, that is, our citizenship or civil being is not here, but in heaven. Now because Christ says, "The kingdom of heaven cometh not by outward means," he plainly confesses that the kingdom of heaven cometh to us on earth, as he says, "Repent ye; the kingdom of heaven is at hand" [Luc. 17:20, 10:9. Matt. 3:2.). But it does not come in such a way as the worldly kingdoms come; for it does not keep and live in a worldly or human way, as I have said. The spirit only led into the school, and the puerilia. learned from Petro Hispano, that would be highly necessary for him!

307 But there he gives Luther even more of a haircut, 1) since he cites the saying of John 4:24: That "God wants to be worshipped in the spirit, not in Jerusalem, nor on the mountain." From this you have a certain answer, that Christ's body is not here and there, therefore also not in the Lord's Supper. If the spirit only answered, it would be fine; but where it leaps, there it is hostile. Well then, heaven is spirit; for Christ is in the spirit, that is, to worship in heaven. But how will he be in heaven in one place? Is spirit also so much as a special place? Why not? If the spirit says so, then it is certain; but how did the blind man, John 9:38, who worshipped Christ on earth?

1) give hairab == prepare a sensitive defeat.

Christ has been fooled into accepting it; or spirit will also resound as much as "on earth". Dear, you do not have to laugh, the spirit wants to be angry, because it is his seriousness.

But this is even more subtle. Christ speaks of the worshippers, the same should neither worship at Jerusalem nor on the mountain [Joh. 4, 21.], just as also the woman said to him [Joh. 4, 20.]: "Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, and you say that one must worship at Jerusalem." Such words also speak of the worshippers; for it does not speak, God is not on the mountain; Christ also does not speak, God is not at Jerusalem or on this mountain etc., but the Spirit teaches us such saying of God that He is not here and there, and not to be understood by the worshippers.

Dear, what do you think God means by letting the swarm spirit so grossly deceive you in the Scriptures? Certainly nothing else, but as if he should say: Dear child, I shall not be lacking, I will do faithfully enough to you, and not allow the spirits to act in the Scriptures, for so rudely, clumsily and foolishly, that whoever allows himself to be seduced has no excuse, as if he was not warned and preserved enough by me. He who believes such spirits will be lost, because he cannot do so much as look at what they are fooling about, but he takes it all on, as they say, as an impudent sow.

310. But we believe that "worship in the spirit" means that we should worship spiritually or in a spiritual way, whether Christ is in heaven, on earth, in the sacrament, or wherever he wants; For spiritual worship Christ sets against bodily worship, which the Jews and also our hypocrites bind to place and time, so that it must be done outwardly, as the place and time determine, as if prayer had its essence, power, life, and all virtue from the place or time, as they teach that obedience is the chief thing in such prayer, though they ask nothing nor know what they babble. Behold, this is Christ at Jerusalem and in places, not prayed in spirit and truth.

311) How strong then this saying is, that Christ's body may not be in the bread, and that these words "this is my body" may be otherwise.

1018 Erl. S0, LM-L8S. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX. W5-M78. 1019

are to be understood, for they are, I hope, to be understood by a child. Rather, if they want to protect their thing and persuade us, then they must truly, truly put themselves differently to it; with such a way they scare us further away from them, so that we must say that the thing is not serious to them, or they go around with insolence, that they build so hard on such uncertain, false, loose reasons.

312 So also Oecolampad stands cold in this main part, and cannot prove that Christ alone is in heaven in a special place, and still does not want to find an answer how the two are against each other: Christ in heaven, and his body at the same time in the Lord's Supper, which I have insisted on in my little book; they cannot teach it, it is impossible, and they also feel it well; because all what they talk about teaches us nothing more than that Christ has gone to heaven, which no one desires to know. But as it happens that Christ's body is not in the Lord's Supper, after the words, "This is my body," there is silence, fluttering, leaping, or speaking against themselves, and seeing themselves in their own words, as we have seen.

And what is the use that I stir all the dirt of the devil? I would do sin to rob myself and the reader of time 1) with such idle jokes. For even if we took the whole Scripture over this matter in all its sayings, we would do nothing more than, as has been done up to now, only give the spirit a lot of room to chat uselessly and to misinterpret the Scripture, so that it forgets the main things in the meantime and demonstrates unnecessary art.

For, I have said it, I still say it, and I keep on saying it, the reason of their doctrine is that Christ's body should no longer have the way to be sth. 2) than as flour in a sack or money in a bag, id est, localiter. The same reason they shall show us with the Scripture, what may much book writing? Let them show you this reason, and then cheerfully give it to them; for, believe me, if they could have done it, they would not have kept silent for so long. Because they then

1) Erlanger: raube.

2) Compare the note to § 287.

here are so patient and out of measure good monks, who keep silence very well, since it is most necessary to speak, and in as many books as they scatter, have never wanted to touch this blood swarf with a letter, it is good to notice why they boast, rumble, flaunt and throb so, as if their thing were certain, namely the devil fears the light and wants to silence us with rumbling.

Because now (I say) no one can bring out of this dumb poltergeist this few necessary pieces, I will also let Oecolampad go herewith, and only look at the last piece: "Flesh is no good. For what he blasphemes about the external word should be shown one day, when I write again about baptism, which God bestows.

316) Oecolampad wants to prove from circumstances of the text, Joh. 6, 53. ff., that flesh here is to be understood as Christ's flesh, and yet does nothing, because there is a likeness of a king in a torn garment, which the citizens should kiss and do not want to, but are annoyed by it etc. This is his answer to me, and he fortifies his iron wall. Then behold the fluttering spirit again; he promises to bring his understanding out of the circumstances of the text, and gives a parable of the king. What do we ask about the parable? It is equally good and valid as it wishes; but how can we be sure that it belongs here? We say no, and he must prove it. But that is not necessary, it is said: sufficit ita nos dicere, Graad-Herr, da stehet's; so I have my answer.

317 After that, he makes do: "It is certain that the Jews grumbled because of his flesh; therefore he must speak and answer of his flesh and of no other. Is it not a fine consequence and a certain consequence? The Jews grumble about his flesh, therefore Christ must also speak of his flesh; that is, prove it from the circumstances of the text. Dear, why should not someone be able to speak of Christ's flesh, of the Spirit, of the Gospel, of faith, or whatever he wants, and yet soon after of flesh and blood or of men?

1020 nr. so, LSS-M. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's SupperChrrsti. W. XL. 127S-1LSÜ. 1021

speak? Just like Christ Matth. 16, 15. when he talks to the disciples and asks them what they thought he was, that is, he talks to them about Christ, who was God and man, and yet immediately says of common flesh v. 17: "Flesh and blood did not reveal it to you. And Paul Gal. 1, 16, when he writes of his profession, immediately says: "I did not converse with flesh and blood." If the iron wall is not stronger than this, let him build on it who wants to fall; I do not, it is not as good as paper.

318 The circumstances of the text help our understanding much better, if we pay attention to it without quarreling and simple-mindedly (as it should be); for I do not give the same opinion, but the text says openly that the Jews and disciples were annoyed at Christ's speech about eating his flesh, which is certain. Here I can and must say from the circumstances of the text that Christ had two kinds of disciples; some who were angry and murmured, and some who believed and reformed. Now if a master has disciples who do not understand his business properly, it is natural that he should turn to such unruliness to punish them, and may say, "Oh, rough heads will not do it," or, "An ass is not a good disciple; new hoses belong to the moste etc.

319 In the same way Christ can do here; when he finds rude disciples, he turns the speech to them and says: Does this upset you? Here he punishes their false understanding, and may say finely afterwards, Oh, flesh is of no use, spirit gives life; so spirit here must be called spiritual understanding or teaching, because Christ himself interprets it this way and says: "The words that 1) I speak are spirit and life. Therefore, of course, flesh must be opposed to fleshly mind or doctrine. This, I say, is much better given by the text, with all its circumstances, without all its equal, than by the enthusiast's gloss.

This is also said above against the Zwingel, and Oecolampad needs just the sophistry over the little word mea, which Zwingel needs, and answers nothing. Item, he also wants to make my rule wrong, that I have said: Where flesh and spirit contradict one another.

1) The Jenaers. Wittenberg and Erlangen: so.

other, the flesh cannot be Christ's flesh, and yet do nothing, for it leads to the saying 1 Tim. 3:16: "It 2) is manifest in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit." What shall I say? I am speaking of the spirit and the flesh, which are opposed to one another in Scripture; so he gives a saying that the flesh and the spirit are one. Nor does it prove that there Christ's flesh is to be understood; nor must it all be answered. Well then, my rule still stands, that here flesh may not be called Christ's flesh; because the same stands, this must be its main part.

He also acts in this way with the fathers' sayings. I have their texts; so he gives his gloss for it, and forces nothing out of the text, as I have done; just as he has also mastered John 6 out of his head. With this they indicate how highly they despise all men, and consider that when they say something, it is to be held strictly thus. Well, I have written against the celestial prophets; there is nothing answered but such their own conceit and gloss. To the booklet against the enthusiasts it goes to me in the same way: They want to chat, they cannot answer, as I have well proved in this booklet. So let them go and be holy, spiritual, learned; I have done according to the teaching of St. Paul, and have admonished them for the next time. May God convert them and protect our people from their poison, amen.

322 But so that I may be free and loose in this matter everywhere, I must also remember my neighbors 3) so that they do not think that I despise their art and spirit. This spirit writes that neither Zwingel, nor Oecolampad, nor Carlstadt, nor Luther, nor Pabst is right, and makes the text in the Lord's Supper thus: "My body given for you is this." Since the evangelists and Paul put the little word "this" in front, he puts it at the end, and should mean as much as: "a spiritual food"; therefore their text stands thus: "My body, which is given for you, is this, (hear) a spiritual food". Do you ask why they do this, and not, for example, the Carl-

2) "It" i.e. according to Joh. 1, 14: "the word".

3) Here the Jenaer has the marginal gloss: "He means the spirit in the schlesi", namely Schwenkfeld and Krautwald in Silesia.

1022 "rl.M, ssa-L88. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. ' W. XX, IL80-1M. 1023

What do you think about the text of Stadt, Zwingel, or Oecolampad, if they are of the same opinion?

There may be three answers: The first is divine, namely, that God would have them disagree and be repugnant and unequal among themselves, so that the Holy Spirit may remain unsuspected and be publicly excused before all the world, as having nothing to do with them, because he is a spirit of unity and stings of disunity, and thus warns everyone against their lying spirit. The other is human, namely, why should they be so humble and accept Carlstadt's, Zwingel's, or Oecolampad's text, when Carlstadt, Zwingel, and Oecolampad themselves are so proud among themselves that none of them accepts the other's text? Should they not be as witty to make a special text as those, that would be a great shame! Rather, the honor does them well as gently as it does those three. The third is diabolical, namely, that the evangelists and Paul have been drunk or insane, that they have gone on the ears and head, and thus have put the highest to the lowest, the foremost to the hindmost in the text of the Lord's Supper; therefore this spirit had to come and set the text right, and master the evangelists.

The reason and cause of their conceit is, first, that these words, "this is my body," must be put out of sight, and the things must first be considered by the spirit. For he who begins with these words, "This is my body," cannot come to such a conceit (I should say, to such a high understanding) that bread is bread and wine is wine; but he who puts these words out of his sight can then come to such an understanding. There you have a certain rule that guides you better into all truth than the Holy Spirit himself can do, namely, where the holy Scriptures mislead or hinder your conceit, put them out of your sight, and follow your conceit first, and you will surely find the right way of all things, as Moses teaches Deut. 12:8: "You shall not do what seems right to you," that is, you shall do what seems right to you.

This devil walks freely without a mask and does not teach us to look at the Scriptures in public, like the coiner and Carlstadt.

who also had their art from the testimony of their inwardness, and were not allowed to teach the holy scriptures for themselves, but for others, as an outward testimony of the testimony in their inwardness. Whoever believes such a public devil wants to go into the hellish fire. No one is allowed to answer, even for vain fools, but such blasphemers shall have such a reason for their faith, because they do not believe Christa.

326 Secondly, the incarceration of the body of Christ (as they say) is against the whole holy scripture etc. How thinkest thou of this spirit? he may open his mouth wide enough; for he will be far, far, high, high, far, far above the 1) Zwingel and Oecolampad, which lead not all scripture against it. But listen; the Old Testament (he speaks) says nothing of this, to which yet Christ points us Joh. 5, 39. So the New Testament says of his future into the flesh, of which John is a forerunner, and not into bread. Thus Christ himself says: "No one knows the Father without through me", does not say: without through bread.

You see how much it helps the truth when these words, "This is my body," are put out of sight; for otherwise how could this spirit say that our mind is contrary to all Scripture, if he should keep these words before his eyes? Above this, if these words were bound before his eyes with iron chains, so that he could not take them away, he has another art and rule for truth, namely, he says: that such words are not in the Old Testament. For that St. Lu'cas [Cap. 22, 19], Matthew [Cap. 26, 26], Marcus [Cap. 14, 22], Paul [1 Cor. 11, 24] put them in the New Testament, that is nothing, he can well put them out of sight; but God must and shall give himself captive, that he may not put his words when and where he wills, but where and how this Spirit directs him. If he then tunes and seeks them in the Old Testament, and God does not set them there, then the spirit has once again won freely and beautifully 2).

1) "den" is missing in the Erlanger.

2) Wittenberg and Jena: already.

How can this spirit lack truth? Yes, who can resist him, because he has such two fine arts and rule for himself? One is to put the words of God, where they are written, out of his sight; the other, where he cannot put them out of his sight, to turn his eyes from them to another place, where they are not written, and then he says, "Behold, there are no such words, prove to me that they are written here, here; if not, you have lost; for you must present the words to me in such a way that I cannot put them out of my sight, or turn my eyes from them to another place. So shall we carnivores be attacked, so shall we overthrow our brute god.

329. See and take hold, if the devil does not mock us with great courage; but it serves us nevertheless for the strength and security of our faith, because the wretched Satan is so unskilful in his jugglery; he knows that we cannot show the words of Christ to him 1) in the Lord's Supper in the Old Testament, therefore he poses as if he wanted to be shown where we showed them in the Old Testament; and thinks that his gross lies are not seen; for since he does not want to see them in the New Testament, but does them out of sight, what should he do, if we could show them in the Old Testament in the same way? Then he should do them much more out of sight, and pretend that the Old Testament is dark or abolished, one should show them to him in the New Testament, that would be the fulfillment etc.

And if it were all in the Old Testament that we should believe, what should we 2) believe of the New? What would it be necessary for Christ to come on earth to teach us? In the same way, I wanted to say: Baptism would be nothing, the sending of the Holy Spirit would be nothing, that God's mother is Mary would be nothing, and recently, no article of the Christian faith should exist. For in the Old Testament it is written of Christ's future; but that He has now come and fulfilled everything, instituted baptism, granted forgiveness of sins, given the Holy Spirit, etc., there is not a letter in it. The New Testament had to explain all these things; but the Spirit has to explain himself, what he considers to be the reason for his coming.

1) "him" is missing in the Erlanger.

2) Wittenberg and Jena: may.

his lies, so that we may be all the safer from him.

331 The third reason is that incineration is contrary to the Christian faith. For faith must have a spiritual sight to cling to; but bread is a bodily sight. For this reason it can also be concluded that Christ was not a man on earth, for his humanity was a bodily and not a spiritual sight; therefore no one can believe without heresy that such a man is God. Item, no one can believe that a Christian man is our neighbor, that husband and wife are our parents, cousins, brothers. Item, no one can believe that heaven and earth are God's creatures. Cause, faith can have nothing corporeal to look at; but these pieces are all in the corporeal sight. Such a blind mind is this, that it knows nothing, how a bodily sight is always presented to faith, under which it understands and comprehends something else, as I have proven this in my booklet with many examples, as from Rom. 4, 19. of the body of Sarah, and the like.

The fourth reason is that it is contrary to the nature and kind of the word. For the word is not called the voice or oral word, but the eternal truth of God etc.; this same word cannot bind itself to bread and creatures. This article, in which they blaspheme the outward word as unfit for faith, needs to be proved; therefore it is nothing that they prove by it, because it is not itself proved. Another time about this.

The fifth reason, that it is against the priesthood and kingdom of Christ, as the epistle to the Hebrews teaches. For Christ, where he is, is king and priest; but in bread he cannot be king, for bread is a creature in the world. Now his kingdom is not of the world. Is it not fine? Christ's kingdom is not of the world, therefore it is not in the world: for this Spirit makes "of the world" and "in the world" one thing. Woe to us poor Christians, who must be in the world, in death, under the devil, and our King is imprisoned in heaven, that he cannot rule us, nor protect us, nor help us, nor be with us, for his kingdom is in heaven, and

not in the world. Such great, nonsensical teachers should have this pack and no others. Praise and thanks be to God, we know that Christ did not say before Pilate: "My kingdom is not here," but rather: "My kingdom is not from here" [Joh. 18, 36]. It is and reigns everywhere he is, in bread, the world, death, hell, among devils; but his kingdom's power is not in the power of bread, the world, death, hell, devils; for he takes nothing from it to strengthen his kingdom, as the world and devils must do in their kingdom.

The sixth reason is against the glory of God, because Christ is in heaven in the glory of the Father, Phil. 2, and has not prepared his seat in bread, but in heaven etc. This reason wants just that the previous, that Christ is in heaven, as in the dungeon and stick, imprisoned. For it would be a shame for him to be with us on earth in all the troubles of sin and death; it is better for him to leave us the devil here, and to play with the angels above. Isn't it a wonderful thing? It is not contrary to God's glory that he should be after the Godhead everywhere, even in hell, and it should be contrary to God's glory that his body should be in bread, as if his body were more noble than the Godhead. Away, away, it is a beautiful fine spirit.

Lastly, it shall be against the institution of Christ and the rehearsal of the first church. For the words of Christ are words of the baptism, when he saith, "This is my body," and are not words of heat: for nowhere saith Christ, When ye have spoken these words, then shall my body be there. He has stolen this piece from the kennel, and has answered it sufficiently above. So we have also heard this mad spirit, and no tooth wants to come forth yet, which bites the words of Christ, yes, which also attacks my little book. I have also read my booklet against the celestial prophets again, and I am surprised that the devil, who is a fugitive from the field, does not oppose it with writings, but only with words, and has left it unbitten until now.

De praedicatione identica.

336. it is the biggest and most annoying piece in this matter back there, which, methinks,

No enthusiast understands, because they do not touch it, or even touch it unskillfully, against which the enthusiast's chatter is vain quite jugglery. But this piece moves all honest reason, which the Viklef 1) in his books drives as the noblest, even the high schools have blued themselves with it in all the world until they have forced themselves to teach that in the sacrament no bread remains essential, but only the form; because there is neither in Scripture nor reason such praedicatio identica de diversis naturis, that is, that two different natures should be one thing. If the enthusiasts were not so unlearned logicians, they could have done this; it would have been worth talking about, and they would have left their useless flesh and Christ in heaven with others of their children's work, therefore we will speak of it here.

It is true and no one can deny that two different beings cannot be one being. As, what is an ass, that cannot be an ox; what is a man, cannot be a stone or wood. And do not suffer me to say of St. Paul, This is a bodily stone or wood; for I would make stone and wood a new word and a new interpretation, as is said above. All reason in all creatures must confess these things, for nothing else will come of it. Now when we come to the Lord's Supper with such an understanding, reason is displeased, for it finds that two different beings, as bread and body, are spoken of as one thing or being in these words: "This is my body," so it shakes its head and says: "It cannot and may not be that bread should be body; if it is bread, it is bread; if it is body, it is body, which is the one you want.

338 Now here the sophists have kept the loan, and have left the bread, and say: The bread perishes, and leaves its essence above the words, and the little word "that" points not to the bread, but to the body of Christ, since the text says: "This is my body." Wiklef, on the other hand, contests this and keeps the bread, leaving the body, saying,

1) In the old editions: Vigleph.

1028 Erl. so, SSL-2S4. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. xx, 1288-1290. 1029

The little word "that" points to the bread and not to the body. So these pointed heads have sharpened each other, that the Sophists had to invent a miraculous sign, how the bread perishes, and let its essence come to nothing.

339 Now I have taught hitherto, and still teach, that such a struggle is not necessary, and that there is no great power in it, whether bread remains or not. Although I hold with Wiklef that bread remains; again, I also hold with the Sophists that the body of Christ remains. And so, against all reason and pointed logic, I hold that two different beings may well be and be called One Being, and this is my reason: First, that one should give reason and all wisdom captive in God's works and words, as St. Paul teaches in 2 Cor. 10:5, and allow oneself to be blinded and led, guided, taught and mastered, so that we do not become God's judge in His words. For we certainly lose with our judging in His words, as Psalm 51:6 testifies. 1)

340 Secondly, if then we are caught and confess that we do not understand his word and work, that we are content to speak of his works in his words, plainly, as he has commanded us to speak of them and has made us speak of them, and not in our words, but to speak of them differently and better; for I shall certainly miss where we do not plainly repeat after him as he speaks to us, just as a young child repeats after his father the faith or the Lord's Prayer. For here it is a matter of walking in darkness and blindness, and of badly hanging on to the word and following it. Because God's words "this is my body" are written here, dry and bright, common, certain words, which have never been a trope, neither in Scripture nor in some language, one must grasp them with faith, and thus blind and captivate reason, and thus, not like the pointed 2) Sophistria, but as God speaks to us, repeat and adhere to them.

341 If now here the praedicatio identica wants to speak into it that neither in the Scripture

1) Walch and the Erlanger: zeiget.

2) Erlanger: top.

nor reason shall suffer two beings to be one thing, or one being to be another, as it is said that stone cannot be wood, water cannot be fire, even in the Scriptures; therefore it shall be contrary to God's word and article of faith, that one thing shall be something else than it is, and bread must be bread, and cannot be body: you must answer that it is not contrary to Scripture, nor to reason, nor to right logic; but it seems to you to be contrary to Scripture, reason, and logic, because they do not hold it right together. We must prove this with examples, so that it may be understood all the better, first from Scripture and then from common language.

342 The high article of the Holy Trinity teaches us to believe and speak that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons; yet one is the only God. Here it is said of the one Godhead that it is threefold, as three persons, which is much higher and harder to reason than that wood is stone; for wood, of course, does not have such a unity of essence in itself as the Godhead, and again wood and stone are not so certainly and unmistakably distinct as the persons are. Now, if the unity of nature and essence can cause different persons to be spoken of as one and the same essence, then it must not be contrary to Scripture or the articles of faith that two different things are spoken of as one and the same essence, as bread and body. But let this article be too high; let us take another before us.

I point to the man Christ and say: This is the Son of God, or, this man is the Son of God. Here it is not necessary that mankind perish or come to nothing, so that the little word "this" points to God, and not to man, as the sophists in the Sacrament of Bread write, but mankind must remain; nevertheless man and God are much more different and farther from and against each other than bread and body, fire and wood, or ox and ass. Who makes here that two so different natures become one being,

1030 Erl. 30, 294-29". II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, I2SV-1293. 1031

and one the other is spoken? Without doubt not the essential unity of natures (because there are two different natures and beings), but the personal unity. For although it is not one being according to the natures, it is nevertheless one being according to the person. And so from this arises two kinds of unity, and two kinds of being (as one natural unity and personal unity), and so on. From the personal unity arises such a speech that God is man and man is God. Just as from the natural unity in the Godhead arises this. Speech that God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit; and again, the Father is God, the Son is God, etc.

344 There we have two unities, one natural, and personal, which teach us that praedicatio identica is not contrary to Scripture, or that two different beings are spoken of as one being. Want to seek more of the same. Ps. 104, 4. says, "He maketh his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire." Here also are two kinds of beings, as angels and wind, or angels and flames of fire, as in the sacrament bread and body; nor does the Scripture make both of them one kind, saying, "He maketh his angels winds and flames," as he maketh his body bread, so that of such wind and flame it must be said, This is an angel; and the Scripture thus speaks, that whosoever seeth such wind or flame, the same standeth an angel. Now no one can see an angel in his nature, but only in his flame or bright form, nor must such a bright form perish, if one shows and says: This is an angel, as the Sophists destroy the bread in the Sacrament etc., but it must remain.

345. Now here is also a unity of the two different beings, namely the angel and the flames, I do not know what to call it; it is not a natural unity, as in the Godhead Father and Son are One Nature; also not a personal unity, as God and man are One Person in Christ; let it be called real unity, because the angel and his form perform one work; nevertheless the Scripture speaks thus here:

Abraham and Lot saw, heard, fed and sheltered angels [Gen. 18, 2. ff. 19, 1. ff.], 1) Gideon and Manoah saw and heard angels [Judges 6, 12. 13, 2. f.], David and Daniel saw and heard angels (2 Sam. 24, 17. Dan. 7, 10.], the Marys at the tomb of Christ saw and heard angels [Matth. 28, 5], and so on many other examples; in all of which no angel is seen according to his nature, but only according to his form or flames; and where one points to it, one must say: This is an angel, and yet such "this" points to the form of the angel.

346. Whether here the pointed Wiklef and Sophists wanted to pretend the praedicatio identica, that two different beings may not be one thing, nor one the other be spoken, but either a vain form without angel must remain, as Wiklef wants, or a vain angel without form, as the Sophists want, we do not inquire; the clear Scripture and the public work of God stands there, that God makes his angels flames, and the flame is the angel, if one points to it and speaks: This is an angel, for the sake of real unity, that the two beings have become One Thing; as in Christ, for the sake of personal unity, God and man are One Personal Being. So also of the sacrament one must speak: "This is my body", although such "this" points to the bread; for it has also become a unity of two different beings, as will follow.

347. Fourth, the evangelists write how the Holy Spirit came upon Christ in the form of a dove in the Jordan River [John 1:32]. Item, about the disciples in the form of wind and fiery tongues on the day of Pentecost [Apost. 2, 2. ff.]. Item, on the mountain Thabor in the clouds figure etc. [Matth. 17, 5.] Here Wiklef and the Sophists may lie and say: this dove is there without the Holy Spirit, or, the Holy Spirit is there without the dove. We say against both parts, that if one points to the dove, it is right and well to say: This is the Holy Spirit; for the sake of this, that here the two different beings,

1) Here the Bible citations are offset in the Erlangen edition, just as in Walch's old edition.

1032 Erl. so, LSS-2SS. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. XX, 1293-1296. 1033

as the Spirit and the dove, are also one and the same being, not natural or personal. Well, they are called formal unity, because the Holy Spirit wanted to reveal Himself in such a form, and here the Scripture freely says that whoever sees such a dove sees the Holy Spirit, as John 1:33: "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him" etc.

348 Why should one not say much more in the Lord's Supper: "This is my body", although bread and body are two different beings, and such "this" points to the bread? For here also a unity of two beings has been established, which I will call sacramental unity, because Christ's body and bread are given to us there for the sacrament; for it is not a natural or personal unity, as in God and Christ; so also perhaps a different unity, as the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel; nevertheless it is also a sacramental unity.

349 Therefore it is rightly said that if one points to the bread and says, This is Christ's body, and whoever sees the bread sees Christ's body; just as John says that he saw the Holy Spirit when he saw the dove, as has been heard. So from now on it is rightly said that whoever attacks this bread attacks Christ's body, and whoever eats this bread eats Christ's body, and whoever crushes this bread with his teeth or tongue crushes Christ's body with his teeth or tongue; and yet it remains true throughout that no one sees Christ's body, grasps it, eats it or bites it, as one visibly sees and bites other flesh. For what is done to the bread is rightly and properly appropriated to the body of Christ for the sake of sacramental unity.

(350) For this reason, the pagans do wrong, as well as the glosses in spiritual law, when they punish Pope Nicolaus for having urged Berengar 1) to make such a confession that he says, "He crushes and grinds with his teeth the true body of Christ. Would God that all popes had acted as Christian in all things as this pope acted with Berengar in such a confession.

1) In the old editions: Berenger.

has! For it is the opinion that whoever eats and bites this bread eats and bites that which is the right true body of Christ, and not bad vain bread, as Wiklef teaches, for this bread is the body of Christ, just as the dove is the Holy Spirit, and the flame is the angel.

The pointed Viklef and the Sophists were deceived by untimely logic, that is, they did not first consider grammar or oratory. For where one wants to know logic before one knows grammar, and before teaching than hearing, before judging than speaking, nothing right shall follow from it. Logic teaches rightly that bread and body, dove and spirit, God and man are different natures; but it should first also hear the grammar for help, which teaches to speak in all languages in such a way that where two different beings come into one being, it also grasps such two beings in one speech; and as it sees the unity of both beings, it also speaks of both with one speech.

In Christ, God and man are one being; therefore it speaks of both beings thus: He is God, he is man. Item, of the dove, Joh. 1, 32: This is the Holy Spirit, this is a dove. Item, of the angels: This is a wind, this is an angel; [item,] this is bread, this is my body. And again also at times one from the other; thus: the man is God, the God is man; the dove is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the dove; the wind or this flame is the angel, the angel is the flame; the bread is my body, my body is the bread.

For here one must not speak according to which the beings are differentiated and two in themselves, as Wiklef and the Sophists wrongly use logic, but according to the essence of unity, after such different beings have become one being, each in its own way. For it 2) is also in truth thus that such different natures, coming together in one, truly get a new one being from such joining together, according to which they are rightly and well called one and the same being, although each one for itself is peculiarly one and the same.

2) "it" is missing in Walch and in the Erlanger.

1034 srl. so, 2S8-soo. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx, iWs-isss. 1035

Such has deceived the Wiklef and the Sophists, quod, de unitate totali per unitatis partiales, et econtra, syllogisant.

Such a way of speaking of different things as of one thing is called synecdoche in grammar, and is almost common, not only in writing, but also in all languages. As when I show or present a sack or bag, I say, "These are a hundred florins," the pointing and the little word "this" go to the bag; but because the bag and florins of some measure are one being, as a lump, it also applies to the florins. According to the way, I touch a barrel and say: This is Rhenish wine, this is Welsh wine, this is red wine. Item, I touch a glass and say: This is water, this is beer, this is ointment etc. In all these speeches you see how the little word "that" points to the vessel, and yet, because the drink and the vessel are to some extent one thing, it applies at the same time, indeed primarily, to the drink.

355 Thus I have also given an example above: Whoever pricks the king's son in the hand is judged to have pricked the king's son, because the hand is one being, that is, one body with the king's son, although it also has a special being in itself, as a hand; for the hand is certainly not a body. Here also belongs my parable of the fiery iron, taken from St. Augustine, on which the enthusiasts have almost committed a crime, and yet have achieved nothing. For be the fire what it may, so it is rightly spoken in all languages: This is fire, and this is iron etc.

356 If now here a pointed Viklef or Sophist should laugh and say, Thou showest me the bag, and sayest, This is a hundred florins; how can the bag be a hundred florins? Item, if he said: You show me the barrel and say: it is wine. Dear, the barrel is wood and not wine, the bag is leather and not gold; even the children would laugh at this as a fool or a joker. For he tears apart the two united beings from each other, and wants to speak of each one separately, since we are now in such speech, since the two beings have come into one being. For the barrel is no longer here.

It is not bad wood or barrel, but it is a wine wood or wine barrel, and the bag is no longer bad leather or bag, but a gold leather or money bag. But if you want to separate the whole thing, to separate gold and leather from each other, then each piece is of course for itself, and then you must speak differently of the thing, so: This is gold, this is leather, this is wine, this is barrel. But if you leave it completely, then you must also speak of it completely, point to the 1) barrel and bag and say: This is gold, this is wine, for the sake of the unity of the essence. For one must not pay attention to what such pointed sophists are joking about, but look at the language, what kind of way, custom and habit there is to speak.

Since this way of speaking is common to both the Scriptures and all languages, nothing prevents us from praedicatio identica in the Lord's Supper. Neither is there any, but it dreams the Wiklef and the Sophists thus. For although body and bread are two different natures, each for itself, and where they are separated from each other, certainly none is the other; but where they come together, and become a completely new being, there they lose their difference, as far as such a new one being is concerned, and as they become and are one thing. So they are called and spoken of as one thing, so that it is not necessary for the two to perish and become one, but both remain bread and body, and for the sake of sacramental unity it is rightly said: "This is my body", with the little word "this" pointing to the bread, because it is now no longer bad bread in the oven, but flesh bread or body bread, that is, a bread that has become a sacramental being and one thing with the body of Christ. So also of the wine in the cup: "This is my blood"; with the little word "this" pointed to the wine, because it is now no longer bad wine in the cellar, but blood wine, that is, a wine that has come into a sacramental being with the blood of Christ. That is enough about the piece for ours; the others are taught by their spirit to respect nothing but what they think is right.

1) Erlanger: on.

The other part.

Now let us take the sayings of the evangelists and St. Paul before us to strengthen our conscience. And first of all, you must accept the confession of the false-minded. For they confess, and must confess, that our understanding is as the words naturally are in themselves, and to speak according to the sound of the words is our understanding right, that has no doubt. But they fight that the words should not be understood as they are. Such a confession you (I say) shall accept. For this is as much as more than half gained. Since they now confess that if the words were to be accepted as they are, our understanding would be right, they free us with their own testimony. First of all, that we must not prove our understanding any further than the words tell how they are written and read. That is one thing, mark well. Secondly, they burden themselves with two great labors; one, that they must prove why the words should not be understood as they are, but in a different way. The other, that instead of such words they give us other words and text, which would be certain to stand on. They have not yet done either of these, and especially the other they have never yet undertaken to do; as we have told and proved all this above, so that they force us at once to remain with the meaning that the words give as they read, and disgrace themselves with their uncertain lies.

Secondly, you know and should know that our text "this is my body" is not spoken and set by men, but by God Himself from His own mouth, with such letters and words. But the gushing text "this means my body", or, "this is my body's sign" etc. is not spoken by God Himself with such words and letters, but by men alone.

Third, you have heard above that they themselves are all uncertain of their text, and none of them has consistently wanted to prove that it should and must stand as they claim,

and can also never bring up a certain one. But our text is certain that it should and must stand as the words read; for God Himself has placed it thus, and no one may add a letter either to it or to it.

Fourthly, you know that they are divided, and make many vile texts of the words, so that they are not only uncertain (which alone would be devilish enough), but also against one another, and must punish themselves among themselves with lies. But our text is not only certain, but also unanimous and simple and one among us all.

362. fifthly, suppose that our text and understanding is also uncertain or dark (as it is not), as well as their text and understanding; nevertheless, you have the glorious, defiant advantage that you can stand on our text with a good conscience, and thus say: If I then and must have uncertain dark text and understanding, I would rather have that which is spoken from the divine mouth itself, than that I have that which is spoken from the mouth of man. And if I should be deceived, I would rather be deceived by God (if it were possible) than by men; for if God trusts me, he will answer for it and make restitution to me. But men cannot make restitution to me if they have deceived me and led me into hell. Such defiance cannot be had by the enthusiasts, for they cannot say: I would rather stand on the text that Zwingel and Oecolampad speak in conflict than on that which Christ himself speaks in unity.

363 Therefore you can speak joyfully to Christ, both at your death and at the last judgment, thus: My dear Lord Jesus Christ, a dispute has arisen over your words in the Lord's Supper; some want them to be understood differently than they read. But because they teach me nothing certain, but only confuse and make uncertain, and will not nor can prove their text in any way, I am stayed on thy text, as the words are. If there is something dark in it, you have wanted it to be so dark, because you have no other explanation about it.

1038 Erl. so, 328 f. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, 1361-1303. 1039

given nor commanded to give. Thus in no scripture nor language is it found that "is" should be "interprets"; or "my body" should be "body sign".

If there were darkness within, thou wilt give me credit for not meeting it, as thou didst give credit to thine apostles, when they understood thee not in many things, but when thou didst proclaim thy passion and resurrection, and yet they kept the words as they were, and did not do otherwise. Just as your dear mother did not understand when you said to her, Luc. 2:49, "I must be in my Father's house," and yet she simply kept the words in her heart and did not change them. So also I have kept these words of yours, "This is my body," etc., and have neither wanted to make any others out of them, nor have I allowed them to be made out of them, but have commanded you and kept them secret, if there were anything dark in them, and have kept them as they are, especially because I do not find that they strive against some article of faith. Behold, so shall no reprobate speak with Christ, that I know well; for they are uncertain and divided about their text.

For I have tried, though the Lord's Supper were all bread and wine, and though I would for pleasure try to say that Christ's body was in the bread, I could not say it more surely, more plainly, and more clearly than thus, "Take, eat, this is my body. etc. For where the text thus stands: Take, eat, in the bread is my body; or, with the bread is my body; or, under the bread is my body; there should first of all rain, hail, and snow vain swarms, which cry, Behold, hearest thou? Christ saith not, The bread is my body: but in the bread, with the bread, under the bread, is my body: and should cry out, O how gladly would we believe, if he had said, This is my body, that would have been spoken arid brightly. But now he says, in bread, with bread, under bread; so it does not follow that his body is there; and thus a thousand evasions and glosses would be invented about the words "in, with, under," even with greater pretense, and much less to be kept than now.

366. nor may they say: where does it stand ge

Just as if they were ready to believe, where we could prove it, and yet do not want to believe, since we prove more powerfully that the bread is the body of Christ, which expresses his body to be there more strongly and clearly than this text: In the bread is my body. But they lie and pretend that God should put texts as they show them to him, and even if he did, they would not accept it, because they do not accept him.

367 Since we have now proved strongly enough that neither Zwingel's interpretation, nor Oecolampad's drawing, can stand, we have also contended that all the texts that speak of the Lord's Supper should give us an understanding of what they say. And although I have sufficiently dealt with them in the booklet against the celestial prophets, and still today nothing has been brought up by the enthusiasts against them, but mere, naked little bells, without some saying of the Scriptures, invented from their head, and built on the foundation of their interpretation and signatures, and now all this together with the interpretation and signatures has also fallen to the ground, and my booklet still stands, as you may read and experience for yourself in the sexters J. K. 1) etc., so I will once again deal with the same texts one after the other, to strengthen our understanding.

368 St. Matthew is the first to speak Cap. 26, 26, 27: "As they were eating, Jesus took the bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, Take, eat; this is my body. And took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it unto them, 2) saying, Drink ye of it all: for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

369. these words are by the mouth of GOt-.

1) Thus the Jena edition. In the Wittenberg edition: "D. E". In the old edition of Walch and the Erlangen: "G. H. J. K". That we have decided for the reading "J. K", this is the reason. Luther refers here to the second part of his writing Wider die himmlischen Propheten. In the original edition, it has 15 sheets, signed A-P. By the indicated signature, we are referred to the section that bears the superscription: "Von Frau Hulda, der klugen Vernunft D. Carlstadts in diesem Sacrament. Cf. in this volume Col. 251 ff>, § 130 ff. Our reading is confirmed by § 397 in this writing.

2) "den" is missing in the Erlanger.

They may not think more highly of the enthusiasts than if they had been spoken by a fool or a drunkard. For even the devil in one place is equally angry with us, and says: We hold so firmly over five 1) poor and wretched words. He does all this 2) out of the art of rhetoric, when someone has an evil thing, and the opposite with the bright truth causes him heartache and anxiety, he should reject it with his hand, and open his mouth and say: it is nothing, it is not worth answering for, it is five poor miserable words etc. But besides this he must not think otherwise, for God is an idol or ape, and all the world is vain sticks and stones, which let them off badly when they hear such contempt. Thus Zwingel's rhetoric finely agrees with the spirit in Silesia 3) that one must put such words out of one's sight and despise them as poor miserable words; thus they have won and found the certain truth; that should be the reason to gloss over and understand these bright words.

We poor, miserable carnivores must nevertheless wonder how it is that such mighty iron-eaters and hell-breakers can muster nothing at all against these miserable, poor five words, but a mere, naked, arrogant contempt. If contempt is enough for the truth, then the devil is God above all gods. But with such speech they testify against themselves what kind of spirit they have, and how highly they esteem God's word, that they revile these same precious words as poor, miserable five words, that is, they do not believe that [they are] God's words. For if they believed that they were God's words, they would not call them wretched, poor words, but would also consider one tittle and letter greater than the whole world, and would tremble and fear them more than God Himself. For he who despises a single word of God, of course, does not esteem any of them very highly. If they were to peel away our understanding or wrong sense, and not the words of God Himself, it would be to suffer. But how do you do to those who do not despise such wretched words?

1) Erlanger: funft.

2) Erlanger: as.

3) Compare the note to § 322 of this paper.

but glorious, mighty and terrible? How shall one do? They must also be taken for miserable fools, who cannot despise such words, nor put them out of their sight.

371. Since here "is" cannot be "interpreted" and "my body" cannot be "my body's sign", and the sayings "flesh is of no use", "Christ is seated in heaven" do not compel, and indeed no reason can be given to understand the words differently than they are, as we have heard above: we must remain and cling to them as to the very brightest, most certain, surest words of God, which cannot deceive us nor make us miss them; for it is most plainly said, "This is my body, this is my blood of the new testament," that, if all the language and words of the world were put together, one could not choose or take from them more plain speech or words. Christ cannot speak more simply of his body and blood, than thus, "My body," or "this is my body," "this is my blood."

372 For that the falsifiers pretend that Christ did not say: In the bread is my body, or: If you speak these words, then my body shall be there, is nothing. Let them have the choice and try for themselves how they would speak of it more simply. If Christ had said, "In the bread is my body," they would have much more pretense, and would want to pretend that Christ is spiritual or spiritual in the bread. For if in these words, "This is my body," they could find a figurative speech, how much more would they find it 4) in these words, "In the bread is my body," and with greater appearance; for it is more brightly and plainly spoken when I say, "This is my body," than "in whom is my body."

373 But if Christ had thus said, When ye speak these words, my body shall be there, they would soon depart: Yes, beloved, Christ does not say, The bread is my body, but my body shall be there. Now he may well be there, that yet bread is not his body. Behold, how well would they be kept? But if he said thus, If ye have these words

4) In the editions: the same.

they would say again, "Yes, Christ's body is indeed present in the bread, but not essentially, but spiritually or figuratively. But if he were to say, "When you say these words, my body shall be substantially present in the bread," they would say again, "Yes, indeed his body is substantially present in the bread, but in such a way that "substantially" is understood of Christ's body, namely, that Christ has an essential body and not a Marcionian one; the same essential body is indeed present in the bread, but as in a sign and not truly.

In sum, if God Himself gave them the choice of setting the text, they themselves would not set one as simple as this one is, but would always find many more holes and gaps in it than they find in this one. Therefore, whoever does not allow himself to be held by this text in our understanding, will never be held by one. Now it is certain that the enthusiasts have decided among themselves that they do not want to be held. They prove this by drilling and perforating this simple text in so many different ways. One wants to make a hole through Tuto; another through "is"; the third through "my body"; the others otherwise and so, as the fish tore the net of St. Peter, and thus lead loose, rotten causes, which are much more uncertain and darker than this text is. And it is all lies and deception that they demand a more certain, simple, lighter text. For they know that it cannot be made brighter nor more simple, if they themselves had the choice to make it so; but because they feel that this text is too bright and too certain, they would like to entice us to make another, since they could find many more holes and gaps in it, and thus have a pretense that they have overthrown a brighter text than the one in the Gospel, which would then have to count for nothing at all. No, devil, you create nothing, you shall and must strangle and succumb to this text, nothing shall help you for it.

375 St. Marcus is the other one who speaks Cap. 14, 22. 23. 24.: "And as they were eating, Jesus took the bread, blessed it and broke it, and

gave it to them, saying, "This is my body. And taking the cup, he gave thanks and gave it to them, and they all drank from it, and he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many."

From this text Carlstadt has drawn his first thoughts of the Tuto, because here Marcus reads, as if the disciples had all drunk from the cup before Christ said: This is my blood; so that he should then point to his sitting blood, because the cup was now already drunk; but all this has long since been misplaced and nullified. For not only do the other evangelists and St. Paul write differently, but he himself, St. Marcus, in speaking of the other part of the sacrament, does not write that the disciples ate the bread, and after that Christ said, "This is my body." Therefore, the talk about drinking must be in accordance with the order of the other evangelists and Paul, and St. Marcus himself in the talk about eating; for he cannot be against himself and against all the others.

377 But I wonder how it is that only St. Marcus writes this piece: "and they all drank from it," and does it at the very place where Matthew writes in his text: "Drink from it, all of you," so that it seems for the most part as if the text in St. Marcus was changed, and made xxxxx [drink] into xxxxx [they drank]; for where xxxxx would be there, it would be the same text with Matthew, with whom St. Marcus otherwise tends to agree almost identically. This I command the scholars. I think that both, since Matthew alone writes "drink from it" before all others, and since Marcus also writes "they all drank from it" before all others, are written because the two evangelists want to show how the disciples all drank from this cup; not to thirst, as other drinks might have done, when it was necessary to pour more than once before it went round; but that they should let this cup go round, and so drink moderately from it, that they all drank from it; just as Lucas also writes that he also gave the last drink before the sacrament, that they all drank from one cup.

When he says, "Divide this cup among yourselves," Luc. 22:17, he should say, "There were more cups at the table, for each one drank from it, or one cup was poured out more than once, but this cup was given for the last time, so that they all drank from it, to give valete to the old paschal lamb.

So Matthew and Marcus may also be understood by this special cup, that the apostles otherwise had each a cup for himself at the table, or indeed there was more than one cup. But here, when he gives a new special drink of his blood, he tells them all to drink from this one cup, so that Christ, with presentation and special gift, takes his own cup and gives it to all, above the other common cups over the table, so that they may know all the better how it is a special drink, above the other drinks that are given over the meal. For he could well give out the bread, indeed, he had to give it out in such a way that each one got his piece for himself. But the wine he could not distribute in this way, but had to leave it in one cup for all of them, and indicate with words that [it] was a common drink for all of them, and not to be put in front of one or two or three alone and to be drunk, as the other cups over the tables were free for each one as he wanted.

Thus, with these gestures, he wanted to distinguish his Lord's Supper noticeably from the old Lord's Supper. First, that he gives the valet drink, as Lucas writes. With this he moved the minds of the disciples, so that they had to think: What does he want to do with this, that he gives the last drink from his cup? So far he has not done this over tables. And especially because St. Lucas writes that he also expressed such a last drink in words and said: "I tell you that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes"; as we will hear.

380 Secondly, that he takes a special loaf in his hands before all the other loaves, blesses it, and breaks it after such a last drink; so they must have thought, "How will he eat again, since he has had the last drink?

than has. They were watching what he was doing and listening to what he was saying. For so he did not do with the other bread at the table and at the supper of the Lamb, and now, after the last drink and supper, he sows a new bread, saying, "It is his body. Here they are silent, and believe simply; no one asks how the bread is the body.

381 Third, that he gives his cup and tells everyone to drink from it, which must have moved them, because he had not done this with any other cup before, and says that it is his blood, and they keep quiet and believe. For they thought that what he said must be true. Because they see such a new offering after the last, that he begins anew, gives thanks anew, speaks the Benedicite anew, and takes a special bread, which he divides among them all, and also divides his cup among them all, and blesses such a supper with one bread and with one cup. Then they thought that he knew what he was doing and saying, that there should be no question about it, and yet they saw that it was a new and different supper.

382. Summa, they ate the paschal lamb in such a way that he did not call them to eat or drink, nor did he present or set it before anyone; but each one ate and drank for himself as it was placed and stood before him, as Matthew and Mark also say: "As they ate, he took the bread" etc. But here it is done in a new way: he takes and approves a certainly special bread, gives thanks for it, breaks it himself and divides it among them, and puts it before them and tells them to eat, saying, "This is my body, given for you." He does the same with the cup, agrees and gives a special drink for them all. He does not make them eat other bread or drink other cups, nor does he put or set anything before anyone, as he does here. By all of which he indicates that this bread and wine is not bad bread and wine, as was eaten at the paschal lamb, but much more special, higher, namely, as he himself says in words, his body and blood.

1) In the old editions: from neues.

1046 Erl. so, sn-srs. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, 1311-ISI3. 1047

So we have that Matthew and Marcus agree, and both speak the most simple and almost one and the same words, without Matthew adding at the end this part: "for the forgiveness of sins". Again, Marcus, speaking of bread, says:

ÅõëïãÞóáò, that is, "He blessed it," since others everywhere say, Åõ÷áñéóôÞóáò that.

He gave thanks, as he himself, Marcus, also does with the cup, that it seems to me that he wants to bless and give thanks for one thing. But I leave this to those who have the desire to take care of it.

This is probably more useful to remember: Because the evangelists all so unanimously put these words "this is my body" in the simplest way, one can assume from this that there must be no figurative speech, nor some trope in it. For if there were some trope in it, someone might have touched it with a letter, so that there might have been another text or understanding. Just as they do in other things, where one puts in what the other leaves out, or puts it in other words, as Matthew 12:28 writes that Christ said, "If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God," etc., but Lucas said, "If I cast out devils with the finger of God," 2c, Luc. 11, 20., 1) and since Marcus says: one seed bore thirtyfold, one sixtyfold, one hundredfold fruit, Lucas says badly: And it bore a hundredfold fruit, and the pieces much, since one explains the other or speaks differently.

But here they are all the same in the most simple way, and none of them can be remembered with a different letter than the other, as if they should all say, "No one can speak of it differently, more simply and more certainly than thus, "This is my body," although Lucas and Paul speak much differently about the cup than Matthew and Marcus, as we shall hear. Since there are four witnesses, and they agree in words, we may cheerfully and confidently rely on their testimony, and judge and believe on it. For thus God speaks: "that the testimony of two mouths may be true" [Matth. 18, 16],

1) In the original edition, as well as in the Wittenberg and Jena editions, these two biblical passages are confused with each other.

How much more should these four testimonies be stronger for us than the cries and chatter of all the enthusiasts! They must not say that Matthew, Marcus, Lucas, Paul were not as learned, holy, pious and spiritual as they and theirs are. But if they make the speech of such witnesses doubtful, then the speech of the falsifiers should be much more doubtful, especially because they themselves disagree among themselves, none of them is certain of his text, nor can be; but these four witnesses in the text are also one in letter. With ours I speak thus; for the enthusiasts can answer all things well, because they may give no writing, but naked little bells from their own head.

386 St. Lucas is the third, Cap. 22:19, 20: "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This is the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you."

387 If anyone wanted to say to him that he had enough in this matter at St. Luke's alone, he speaks about the Lord's Supper in such a clear and fine way. First, he describes the last drink of Christ (as stated above) and speaks:

He took the cup and gave thanks, saying, "Take this and divide it among yourselves, for I tell you: I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Here Christ testifies that this is to be his last drink of wine on earth with his disciples; but soon after he gives the cup of wine of the new supper etc. Now if it is all bad wine in the new supper, how can it be true that this is to be the last drink, that he will drink no more wine? If it is the last drink of wine, then this cannot be wine that he gives to drink afterwards. If it is not wine, it must be what he calls "his blood" or "the new testament in his blood. So Lucas says here, that in the Lord's Supper of Christ there cannot be bad wine.

389) Here you might say, "Yes, who knows whether Christ spoke such words about the last drink before or after his supper? for Lucas writes, "He spoke such words before the Last Supper.

But Matthew and Marcus write as if he spoke them after the Lord's Supper. Well, then, the matter stands on which evangelist keeps the right order in writing. If Lucas keeps it, then the matter is bad, and our understanding is right, and the scribblers are lost; there is no doubt about it. Or if the scribblers have doubts about it, we are sure that we are right, and that is enough for us.

390 Now let us learn from the words and works of the evangelists who keep the right order in writing. St. Lucas in the beginning of his Gospel testifies [Luc. 1, 3] that he wants to write from the beginning and in order, and this he also proves by deed; for his Gospel follows one another finely to the end, as all the world testifies. But this is not what Matthew and Marcus promised; nor do they do it, as would be proven in many pieces. As when Matthew describes the temptation of Christ, Matth. 4, 1. ff., and the appearance of Christ after the resurrection, etc., when he does not keep the order at all; and St. Augustin De consensu evangelistarum works much in it. Marcus does not keep the order in this place in the Lord's Supper, since he put the part "and they all drank of it" before these words "and he said, This is my blood," etc.

Since there is no doubt that Matthew and Marcus do not keep the strict order, but Lucas, who undertakes to keep the same 1) and also keeps it, Matthew and Marcus must be judged with their writing according to St. Luke's order, and not again. And have to say that Matthew and Marcus have put this after the new. They do not ask much about the order, they have enough that they write the history and truth, but Lucas, who wrote after them, confesses that the causes of his writing were that many others had written such history without order, therefore he had undertaken to write properly. And so also many think, and is

1) In the editions: the same.

It is almost believable that St. Paul meant St. Lucam, because he testifies to the Corinthians, praises and says: "We have sent a brother with him, who has the praise of the gospel through all the common people" 2). [2 Cor. 8:18.] This also helps Lucas to keep the order with diligence, that he not only writes and speaks the last drink, but also the whole paschal lamb's last beforehand:

When the hour came, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them: I was heartily desirous to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, that I will eat no more of it henceforth, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup" etc. There you see that everything in one text is spoken of properly one after the other, both in eating and drinking, which Matthew and Marcus do not do. So then, if the last part of the meal stands before the new supper and should stand before it, then the last part of the drink must also stand before the new supper, because they are both one last part, and not different from each other.

393 Now we come back to the above-mentioned reason and decision. If Lucas keeps the right order (as is now proved), then Christ drinks the last drink of wine before the new supper; but if he drinks the last drink of wine before the new supper, then in the supper no worse wine can be drunk; for his words are clear that he says: He will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine after this drink.

394 "But if any man say against this, Thou thyself dost contend that wine should remain in the new supper; and this speech of thine ought well to be papistical, who believe no wine in the supper. I answer: I do not care much about that. For, as I have often enough confessed, it shall not matter to me whether wine remains there or not; it is enough for me that Christ's blood is there, let the wine do as God wills. And before I join the gushers

2) Thus the Wittenberg and Jena editions, according to the Bible. Erlanger: "We have sent along a brother, whose praise in the Evangelro gehet with all Christians." - Jenaer: "im" instead of: am.

1050 srl. so, 3i5-3i7. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx. isis-isis. 1051

If I wanted vain wine, I would have kept vain blood with the pope.

395 Further, I said above that when the wine has become Christ's blood, it is no longer bad wine, but wine of blood, so that I can point to it and say, "This is Christ's blood. Neither is Christ silent about this, when he says, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine. Why does he not say wine, but the fruit of the vine? Without doubt, the drink that is in the Lord's Supper does not come from the vine, like other bad wine; and even though it is wine, it did not grow as it is now. It is like pouring malt liquor under a little water; there is water, but it has become malt liquor to such an extent that it is no longer tasted. Then I can say of such a drink: The water is not drawn from the spring. So the wine in the Lord's Supper is no longer a crop from the vine, for a crop from the vine is certainly bad wine.

How? if Christ had not drunk in his supper, but only the disciples? I answer, How? if a fool could ask more than ten wise men could answer? It is not written that he gave the last drink; nevertheless, he did not give it to the disciples alone, but also drank it with them. After the last drink, the disciples will not have drunk any more, but will have kept themselves like Christ. Again, if the disciples drank the Lord's blood after the last drink, he will undoubtedly have drunk with them. Also 1) what am I fooling myself with such great questions? Let it be enough for the first piece from St. Luke, which is clear enough, it must not be vine's growth in Christ's supper. If it is not the vine, it can be nothing else than Christ's blood, according to his words: "This is my blood.

397] On the other hand, this part "who is given for you", which Lucas and Paul alone put, is also still tormented by some enthusiasts, especially of the Carlstadian kind, and they pretend that because it says "who is given for you", as a present history, Christ can be given for you.

1) Maybe: Oh.

The Lord's body will not be in the Lord's Supper, because neither then nor now will his body be given for us, nor will his blood be poured out; but in the first Lord's Supper it should read: who is to be given for you, and now: who was given for you. O wise high spirits. To this I have answered abundantly in the booklet against the heavenly prophets to the woman Hulda in the quatern J. K. 2) etc.

They do not see, such spirits, that what they conjure up is just as strong against them as against us. For let Carlstadt's text apply: This is my body, which sitteth here; this is my blood, which sitteth here etc.: how then shall his body be given, and his blood shed presently, as the words are, "Which is given for you, which is shed for you"? Christ cannot lie nor speak in vain, since he says in the Lord's Supper, "This is my body given for you; this is my blood shed for you." Now it is neither given nor poured out, as it should be, where the fanatic art should consist in these words. If they can now have both in their supper, namely, that Christ's body and blood are sitting there, still un-given and un-poured out for us, and yet it is true that he says: the body and blood are given and poured out for us, dear one, then our supper will also keep the same words true, although Christ is not given now, but once before. Read further in the same booklet, if you feel like it.

Thirdly, this text comes from Saint Luke: "This is the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you", which must suffer, and still today are not one, how they want to torture and break the same enough. One takes the word "new testament" before itself, the other the word "in my blood" etc. But no one pays attention to how he dresses or strengthens his naked thoughts and glosses with Scripture and good reason.

400 We also want to pay ourselves. 3) First of all, Lucas and Paul alone put these words

2) Thus the Wittenberg and the Jena. The old edition of Walch and the Erlangen: "K". Should the latter probably have it from its original?

3) "To teach" here means to instruct, to bring into the right direction.

1052 Srl- so- S17-SIS. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. XX. ISIS-1WI. 1053

"These things do in remembrance of me," and put them both when they speak of the bread, and not when they speak of the cup. For they think that it is said once enough, as it is true, although it refers to both parts of the sacrament and thus to the whole supper, as Paul further emphasizes and says: "As often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord" etc. [1 Cor. 11, 26.) They do this to indicate the cause and fruit of this supper, namely, that we should praise and thank God for the redemption from sins and death, as the Jews had to give thanks and praise for their redemption from Egypt. This is what we should speak and write about, because this is how the zealots get us into such hostile disputations.

401 Both Lucas and Paul also put these words for the cup: "The same also the cup after supper", or, "after they had supped". Why this? I truly respect, all for the sake of future enthusiasts, as if Lucas wanted to point back with the word, as with a finger, and remember the last drink. As if to say, "Remember what I said above about the last drink, that Christ will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine, so that you may know that I am speaking here of another drink, which took place after the Last Supper, when people had stopped drinking of the fruit of the vine, and that you do not understand this drink to be the same last drink, but a drink for the beginning of the New Supper. And especially Lucas and Paul speak this about the cup and not about the bread; because it is more dangerous and necessary with the cup, because one does not use to eat at the last, but to drink, so that it would not be understood as the last drink; although it goes to both, and to the whole supper/just as also the piece above about the remembrance etc.

402 We let them rave and gloss as they wish; of course, 1) we are certain that Lucas does not mean anything else with this text "this cup is the new testament in my blood", but just the same as St. Matthew and Marcus mean with this text.

1) Erlanger: the.

say, "This is my blood of the New Testament." For they must not disagree with each other, but with each other. Now make the text of Lucas as you will, so this must be the opinion that Marcus and Matthew say, "This is my blood of the new testament." If we now understand Lucas' words in such a way that they give us in the Lord's Supper the blood of Christ for the new testament, as Marcus and Matthew do, then we certainly have his right opinion. But whoever takes it differently or martyrs it, does not have it right. For then he would not agree with the others.

403 From this it follows that they are gross hemophiliacs who want to conclude from the words of Luca that the cup must be in the blood, when we want to follow his words as they are, because he says: "The cup, the new testament in my blood. For they think that "in the blood" here means the same as a peasant in boots, or meat in the pots, when they must confess that such an opinion cannot be in Mark and Matthew, and yet must not be contrary to each other.

But Lucas speaks (as he often does) in a Hebrew way, because this is how the Hebrew language speaks, Ps. 78, 64: Their priests fell by the sword, that is, they fell by the sword. Item: The princes were raised up in their hands, Klagl. 5, 12, that is, raised up by the hands. Item [Klagl. 5, 4.]: We drink our water in money, that is, for money. Item [5, 13.]: The boys fell in the wood, that is, they fell under the wood they had to carry. Item [Hosea 12, 13.]: Jacob served in Rachel, that is, for Rachel's sake [Gen. 29, 20.], and likewise much. So you see that "in" in Hebrew has a broad interpretation, but so that it nevertheless indicates that the thing of which it speaks must be present.

405. so here also Lucas wants to say: this cup is the new testament, in the blood of Christ, that is, through the blood or with the blood, or for the blood's sake etc. Just as Matthew says, "This is my blood of the new testament." For the cup cannot be the New Testament, in silver, or by silver, or for silver's sake. Speak now, as you desire, these words:

"This cup is the new testament in blood", so far that you do not speak against Matthäum and Marcum. For it is soon told to a quiet, unconcerned spirit that the words Luca in German mean so much: This cup is a new testament, not because of its beautiful silver, or because of the wine, but because of the blood, and because of or for the blood of Christ. So that a German might read the text of St. Luke at home, or otherwise speak to himself in this way: This cup is the new testament because of the blood of Christ; which everyone understands to mean that the cup is a new testament because of the blood of Christ in it. Christ's blood is in it.

406 I have had to go so far as to make the text of Lucas certain, because, except that he speaks in the Hebrew manner, it is spoken in himself in the most obvious and simple way, and agrees with Matthew and Mark, without transposing the words, as the Hebrew language is wont to do. For as Matthew speaks in the Greek way, "This is my blood of the new testament," Lucas speaks in the Hebrew way, "This is the new testament in my blood." Now "new testament in my blood" and "my blood of the new testament" are not spoken against each other, but one word and interpretation, without one order being set; which makes the Hebrew speech kind, 1) as the scholars well know. And in order to avoid all confusion, I interpret the text of Lucas in the clearest and shortest way: "This cup is the new testament in my blood. Although Lucas does not put "is", but speaks thus: "This cup, the new testament in my blood" etc. Which, if someone lusts, would like to interpret with two "is", thus: This is the cup, which is the new testament in my blood. But because Paul (who uses these very words of Luke) puts only one "is" and says: "This cup is a new testament in my blood", Lucas' text must of course be interpreted with one "is".

407 But I like Lucas with St. Paulo very much that they have kept the Hebrew way of speaking stiffly in this place, because Mat-.

1) The old edition of Walch and the Erlanger: Redeart.

The words of Christ were spoken in the Greek way by St. Matthew and St. Marcus, so that the words of Christ would be all the more true and so that the future mobs could be controlled. For they themselves confess how mightily Lucas and Paul have overthrown Tuto with their text of Carlstadt. And who does not know it, read my booklet against the heavenly prophets, tormentors G. H. 2) etc. As they overthrow Carlstadt's Tuto, so they overthrow also the Silesian 3) Tuto, who reverse the Tuto and put it behind, as we have heard above, and say: My body, which is given for you, is this, namely a spiritual food.

408 Well, because here St. Lucas puts the tuto by the cup, and says, "this cup," let them also turn this text thus, and say, The new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, is this cup, that is, a spiritual drink. How thinkest thou here? A bodily cup is a spiritual drink. Dear, what does Lucas make of such enthusiasts when they thus turn him back? He makes such people who think silver or gold cups are spiritual drinks. This should be a strange spirit to me, who would drink and devour bodily, silver, and gold cups; he would not come to me, he would soon have drunk up my money and gold, and should be much more difficult to keep than the whole papacy, and devour more gold without masses than the papacy devours with masses.

409 See, this is what happens to the careless spirits, who think that where they can make a color in one place for their conceit, it is well done everywhere, and do not see around them how it rhymes in other places. For since they could say in Marco and Matthew: My body is this, my blood is that, namely spiritual food and drink, because they found the Tuto standing there alone, they wanted to deal with it to their liking, like those in Daniel with Susanna, and to dislocate the same and desecrate it with a false sense.

2) Thus the Wittenberg and the Jena edition. This refers us to the second part against the heavenly prophets, in this volume Col. 218, § 50 ff. - In the old edition of Walch and in the Erlangen: "K. etc.

3) Krautwald and Schwenkfeld.

1056 Erl. so, SS1-SSS. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. XX. 1323-1326. 1057

But they did not look to Lucas to turn them around with their art through his text, so that they would be seized with all the disgrace of their evil.

That is, "with the perverse you consort," Psalm 18:27. They want to turn God's word from the physical to the spiritual, and thereby turn themselves from the spiritual to the physical; for Lucas stands there clearly with his Tuto, and points with it to the physical cup and says, "this cup," that it is impossible to point Tuto here to a spiritual drink. Again, these gushers stand there with their reversal, saying that Tuto should point to a spiritual drink. Either Lucas or the enthusiasts must lie and deceive publicly. But if this Tuto in the cup cannot be turned around and made into a spiritual Tuto, then Tuto in the bread cannot do so either; and so the Silesian Tuto lies as deep in the mud as the Carlstadt Tuto. But when will the Rotten ever be ashamed of themselves, when they are so often caught in lies?

411 Ahead of the line, Oecolampad must also appear before St. Lucas' judgment seat with his sign. Body and blood (he says) are tropi in the Lord's Supper, and are called body's sign, blood's sign. If this is true, then without a doubt blood must also be a tropus, that is, blood sign, in Luke's text; for he speaks of the same blood that Matthew and Marcus speak of, no one can deny that. Well then, according to Oecolampad's opinion, Luca's text must be considered as such: This cup is a new testament in my blood sign, namely in the bad wine. This will be a good thing, if the new testament is no more than a drink of wine, or that a drink of wine has the power to make this cup a new testament; for this is what such an Oecolampadian text gives and wants.

(412) Take "testament" here as you will, it is certainly set against the old testament, because he calls it the new; therefore it must have the spiritual goods in it, which are signified and promised by the old testament and its goods, and are directed and fulfilled in the new; no one can say otherwise. But what Christian heart can suffer that our New Testament is a drink of wine?

Or that this cup is a new testament for a drink of wine? For Oecolampad leaves the word "is" as it reads, therefore, according to his art, the New Testament must be nothing else than the wretched cup, and yet that same thing no other than in virtue and for the sake of the wine, as a sign of the blood of Christ; so all the figures of the Old Testament would also be justified in calling the New Testament, because they are all such signs.

413 But if he wants to say that the text is to be put thus: This cup is a sign of the new testament in my blood, that the trope here is not in the blood but in the new testament, why then does he not make it all a sign and vain trope, and thus says: Ista figura calicis est figiira testamenti in figura sanguinis mei, id est, iste pictus calix est imago novi testamenti per signum sanguinis mei, id est, per vinum: This sign of the cup is a sign of the new testament, in the sign of my blood. That would be in German: This painted cup is a picture of the new testament, through the wine. O beautiful thing! who wants to show cause why one word and not the others all must also be tropus?

414 But let us admit to him that he verses this text thus: This cup is a sign of the new testament in my blood, so that blood here is not a trope, but real blood. First of all, he confesses that in the Lord's Supper, "blood" is not a trope, but the true blood of Christ. Here we ask, why does he make it a tropus in Matthew and Mark? How can Lucas be said to call the blood in the Lord's Supper different from that of Marcus and Matthew? If it is the right blood of Christ in Luke, then it must also be in Matthew and Mark; for they certainly speak of the same Lord's Supper, so they must also speak of the same blood and drink. Turn as you will: if blood is a trope in Matthew and Mark, it must also be a trope in Luke; if it is not in Luke, it must not be in Matthew and Mark. But if blood is not a trope, then body must not be a trope either. And so Lucas makes all the tropes null and disgraceful at one time.

1058 Erl. so, sss-sss. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers re. W. xx. isss-isss. 1059

Word. So the Tropo, like the Tuto, falls over himself.

415 Secondly, it is even more shameful that such a text "this cup is a sign of the new testament in my blood" confesses that Christ's true blood is in the cup, and yet creates nothing more than that this cup is thereby a sign or figure of the new testament. This is nothing else than: the cup with the blood of Christ is a figure of the new testament. And so Christ's blood must not give the true new testament, but be a sign of the new testament, which is nothing better than the paschal lamb or goat's blood in the old testament, which is also a figure or sign of the new testament. For we have heard above that this word "in my blood" means as much as: through or with my blood, so that it is present in the cup, and the cup is therefore a new testament, because it has the blood of Christ in it.

416 This is called his death, and Christ's blood honored, that it should be reckoned like the blood of a goat, and be a figure of the new testament, and that we should be in the new testament, and yet at the same time be in the old testament. For he who has the figure of the New Testament cannot yet have the same New Testament, as the epistle to the Hebrews teaches. But from such a text of Oecolampad (where he wants to hold it) we would still have the new testament at the same time and would not have it; for we would have the figure of the new testament at the same time, and the new testament itself; that is not different, because we would have Christ's blood at the same time, and not his blood.

417 About that it is not to suffer, that "new testament" should be a trope. With what one wanted to prove it? Where is any of it an example? Yes, where would common language remain, so that I would like to or perhaps should speak plainly of the New Testament, if one wanted to have understood a sign or figure, as often as I called the New Testament? In this way, the New Testament would not be the Gospel or promise of the Spirit or of eternal life, but an old figure or image of the future New Testament. And in short, the trope does not want to send itself anywhere in the word "new testament".

much less can it be proved with some reason; that Oecolampad must remain on the first text, since blood is a trope, and say: This cup is a new testament in the sign of my blood; which text, nevertheless, our faith cannot suffer that bad wine should make this cup a new testament.

418 For the new testament is a promise, rather a bestowal of grace and forgiveness of sins, that is, the true gospel etc. For though the cup is a bodily thing, yet because it becomes a sacramental thing with the blood of Christ, or with the new testament, it is properly called a new testament, or the blood, that one may point to it and say, This is a new testament; this is Christ's blood; just as above the bodily flame of fire is and is called a spiritual thing, namely the angel, and the dove the Holy Spirit. Therefore he that drinketh of this cup drinketh truly the true blood of Christ, and the remission of sins, or the Spirit of Christ, which are received in and with the cup; and shall not receive here any living figure or token of the new testament, or of the blood of Christ; for that is due to the Jews in the old testament.

419. But if someone wanted to look for a little help, and pretend that Oecolampad would put his text thus: This cup is a sign of the new testament in my blood, that not the blood should belong to the cup, but to the testament, on this opinion: The new testament is in the blood of Christ, and exists through the blood of Christ, and not so that the cup is a sign or figure through the blood of Christ, as if its text were written out, thus: This cup is a sign of the new testament; but the new testament is a thing that stands in the blood of Christ. Answer: Oecolampad knows well that such a text cannot be here; because there would have to be an article in the Greek after the "new testament", thus: xxxxx xxxxxxx x xx xx xxxxxx xxxx. The

The same article, however, is not there, but the text is attached to each other, as if it were all one inseparable word, just as the cup, blood, and New Testament are also in each other, as if it were one inseparable being, so that the meaning must be: This cup is one

1060 Erl. so, 3SS-SS8. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. xx. isss-ini. 1061

new testament in my blood, that is, because of my blood the cup is such a thing, and without my blood it would not be.

420 As Oecolampad lies down here with his tropo or sign, so also the Zwingel lies down with his interpretation. For what is contrary to the sign, is also contrary to the interpretation, because it is almost equally valid. For the Zwingel's text would have to stand thus: This cup signifies the new testament in my blood; that would be so much: This cup has so much through my blood, which is in it, that it thereby signifies the new testament; and therefore Christ's blood would have to be a signification and nothing more, however, as I have proved about Oecolampadii signification. For Zwingel cannot make the text so either: This cup means the new testament, so in my blood is. For the article "so" is not there, but it is the whole text equal as one word, as is said.

421 Is not St. Lucas a hostile man, who with a single word (to speak so) at one blow strikes so great giants and heroes, both tutists, figurists and interpretists, and all enthusiasts into one heap? And what does it help, if their texts could stand with the signification and interpretation? they cannot show a cup of likeness, in which such signification or figure could stand, as we have just heard in Oecolampadii Tropo. For in what is the cup like the New Testament through the blood of Christ? Is it in this that just as our sins are forgiven by it, so they are also forgiven by the blood of Christ? Or wherein will they be found? In the smoke hole. Why then do they teach figures when there can be none?

422. but Lucas has in this text a piece which no other evangelist has, nor Paul, namely, "which is shed for you," and not, which is shed for you; for in the Greek it is of the cup, and not of the blood, as no one can deny:

ôïàôï ôü ðïôçñéïý etc. Ý÷÷õíüìåíïõ, and not

It's hard to remember when they say: Qui pro vobis funditur, because cup and blood are both "der" in Latin; but in German it's easy to remember, because blood is "das" and cup is "der. Such has me

Once, three or four years ago, a fine learned priest in a village recalled and presented to me his opinion that Lucas should be understood thus: This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you, that is, which is given over tables to you, and set before you to drink, as one otherwise pours wine out of a jug for the guests. And was that of his causes one, that Lucas (as said) is poured not of blood (as Matthew and Marcus), but of the cup says Ý÷ãííüìåíïí. And led to this the text of Paul: "This is my body, which is broken for you", that is, divided out and presented to you over tables.

423 I, because I found that he did not hold it with the enthusiasts, but confessed that true body and blood were in the sacrament, I was glad, and let myself like such an opinion, without me considering it unnecessary, because no driving stood in the old mind, and pleases me still today, would also well wish that one could bring such an opinion from the Greek text; because with it the mouth of all enthusiasts would be shut again with all force. There is no doubt in my mind that Paul's text, "This is my body which is broken for you," is to be understood badly of the breaking and dividing over tables, as he also says in 1 Cor. 10:16: "The bread which we break is the body of Christ divided."

424 Since the text in Paul, which speaks of the bread or body of Christ, is understood of the distribution over tables, and not of the giving on the cross, the text of the cup can also suffer the same understanding. And so Matthew and Marcus would also find themselves, namely, "this is my body"; in which they say nothing of giving, as if it were otherwise well to be noticed that he gives his body to them, when he says, "this is my body," "there you have my body." So also of the cup, "this is my blood, poured out for you," that is, distributed over tables and set before them for the remission of sins. I still see nothing in [the] words that almost contradicts such understanding. For even St. Paul leaves out of the cup "which is poured out for you," as if he wanted to have said enough, because the bread was for them.

1062 Erl. 30,3L8-330. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX. 1331-1334. 1063

When the cup is broken, the cup will also be distributed for them.

425. Although this understanding was not held until now, but from the giving into suffering, and from the shedding on the cross everyone understood the text, it would not have been a harmful error, as it is not yet; For no one does wrong in keeping Christ's body and blood given and shed for us on the cross, though he does it in a place where nothing is said or read about it, without it being disputed or disputed, as otherwise the dear fathers have often kept the Scriptures without a road, in an uneven place, but in a good and useful understanding; so it looks to me as if some of the old fathers also had this understanding, as when they say that Christ's blood is so often given and shed on the cross: that Christ's blood is shed as often as one takes the Lord's Supper. And especially Ambrose, when he says: "If the blood of Christ, as often as it is poured out, is poured out for sin, then I should take it daily, because I sin daily. For the word luneitur means not only to pour, but also to pour and to give. Item, Gregorius: The blood of Christ is poured into the mouth of the faithful etc.

I do not say this because I am sure of it, for I do not want to teach anyone what I am not sure of myself; but because I would like it to be so, and because I am not experienced in Greek, I would give scholars cause to investigate whether the Greek language would give it: then all the devotees would no longer have a remedy or an excuse against our understanding. They would have to confess 1) that Christ's body and blood would be distributed over tables, eaten and drunk in the flesh in bread and cups.

427. for my court right 2) I say that also meiues Dünkens Lucas and Paul are strongly on this opinion: Paul with that he speaks (as is said): "this is my body, broken for you", and "the bread, so we break, is the distribution of the body of Christ." Thus we find probably more oerter, since Paul needs xxxx xxxxx, for us, pro: coram vel ante, than 1 Cor. 15.: "Why let

1) Erlanger: had to" and immediately following: "became".

2) For "Court Law," see the note to Col. 285 in this volume, § 211.

they baptize themselves before the dead?" Lucas with that, that he speaks: "The cup in the blood is poured out", also xxxx xxxx, that is, for you, before your eyes presented to drink etc., and with that, that he speaks: "The body is given for you", as Paul also speaks. Now "to give" admittedly means to give something, and not to deliver something in death.

428 But Matthew and Marcus let themselves be looked upon as if they were against it, because they say, "This is my blood, shed for many," or poured out. This is as if Christ were speaking of many, who are also not present over tables; and say not ýðåñ õìþí, sed ðåñß πολλών, which I leave to be fought out by those who understand Greek. Whoever would have a mind to the above opinion, let him answer thus or similarly, that Lucas and Paul speak of pouring or giving over tables, but report the shedding on the cross by saying: one should do this in his memory, or proclaim his death; as they speak more properly and clearly than Matthew and Marcus.

Again, Matthew and Marcus speak of the pouring on the cross, and are silent about the pouring on the tables, as they want to have sufficiently indicated by the word "that". Since we know that it is the habit of the evangelists that one says more and more about one thing than the other, and one leaves out what the other says. And so this word "which is given for you" would not be so clear and certain of the suffering of Christ, as the Zwingel dreams, who thereby wants to explain the previous part "this is my body", as we have heard above.

430. but he who has no desire to do so may answer that Lucas says, "The cup is poured for us," and thus say, "Since cup, and blood, and New Testament are One Sacramental Being, for the sake of such unity the cup is poured, though the blood alone is poured, per synec-.

but as we have said above, that the Son of God is spoken rightly, that he dies, although mankind alone dies, and the Holy Spirit is seen, although the dove alone is seen, and the angel is seen, although his bright form alone is seen etc. Does anyone think this is too stale or

be too lazy, he had better give it, or let the above opinion stand. I think it is right and enough to answer; for we also see and drink the cup, that is, Christ's blood. With us there is no driving, but vain advantage, which opinion we keep of the two, they are both good and right; for it is both so in fact, namely, that Christ's body is both given over tables and on the cross, though we do not meet it in the right place of Scripture (as has happened to many saints), yet we lack nothing of opinion and truth. But the enthusiasts have all power in this; for if such an opinion is not right in this text, they have nothing better in their cause with it; but if it is right, they lie altogether in ashes.

The fourth and last is St. Paul, who says 1 Cor. 11, 23-25: "I have received it from the Lord, which I have given you. For the Lord Jesus, on the night that he was betrayed, took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, saying, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink, in remembrance of me."

If I were as learned in Greek as Carlstadt and Zwingel, I would conclude from this text that in the bread the true body of Christ is eaten. For Erasmus shows that in Greek there is no "is" in the bread, but thus: öÜãåôå τούτο έμοΰ σώμα, comedite hoc meum corpus, which I wanted to interpret thus: Take, eat this body of mine which is broken for you. This would have to be interpreted 1) from word to word correctly, without me skipping a little point, that would not have to hinder, so I would have won pure and fine. But now that I am not so learned, I must let it go, that I do not also compose an article for a pronoun, or an alloosin, and need casum pro casu.

433 But this is nevertheless true, how imperfectly Matthew and Marcus describe the Lord's Supper, we must notice from it,

1) Erlanger: had to.

That if it were not for Lucas and Paul, we could not have this sacrament. For Matthew and Marcus do not write that Christ has called us to do this, and also to keep it that way. And so we would have to leave it as another story of Christ with his disciples, which we could not or would not have to do. But Lucas and Paul write: Christ also called all of us to do this. Yes, if it were not for Paul, even Lucas could not do enough for us, as the only one who would be understood by the apostles that they should imitate Christ in this way; unless in Matthew something were done at the last, when Christ says: "Teach them to keep what I have commanded you. But whether it would be enough, I do not know. Paul is the right teacher and apostle, sent among us Gentiles, who also speaks freely and abundantly, saying, "Take, eat, this is 2) my body, which is broken for you."

434 For he places the word "my" harshly after the word ôïàôï or "this," which none of the others do. In addition, as some texts should read, he leaves the little word "is" outside, just as Lucas also leaves it outside with the cup. Which two little things the Holy Spirit shows us for our strength, that we may be sure that the body of Christ is in the bread. For although it is spoken as much among us when I say, "This is my body," and "This my body," or "Here my body," yet it is spoken more clearly and certainly of the presence of the body when I say, "This my body," or, "Here my body," and the spirits of the wicked with their swarming therein cannot so easily deceive as in the speech, "This is my body.

435 Now there is no doubt that Christ speaks such words against the old paschal lamb, which he herewith abolishes, as if he should say: Until now you have eaten the lamb and the body of an animal; but now in its place is my body, "mine, mine," I say even differently. Therefore Paul insists so diligently on the word "my" that he puts it in a new way soon after "that," and says, "That my," as if

2) is" is missing in the Erlanger. That it must stand here, proves the immediately following. Because if the "is" should be missing here, Luther could not say in the following: "Dazu, als etliche Texte sollen lauten" etc.

1066 Erl. so, ssr-334. II. Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX. 1SSS-1Ä9. 1067

he would like to tie it to it in such a way that it would become one word with the "that," since "my" and "body" must be much closer to each other. He does all this so that he may pronounce the body of Christ clearly enough in the Lord's Supper.

436. "Who is broken for you." Of this we have said much above, that the Scripture cannot suffer that "breaking" should mean Christ's suffering. The enthusiasts may say it, as they say other things, but never prove it; for we must neither interpret nor use "breaking" according to our own conceit, but according to the scriptural custom. Now "to break" in Scripture, especially where it is said of bread or food, means as much as to cut or divide; so that even such broken bread is called both in Greek, Latin and German ÷ëÜóìá, fragmentum, Brocken.

Yes, also in Hebrew, for the sake of such breaking, grain is called Sheber, that is, Brocken, Gen. 42, 1: "Jacob heard that Brocken was in Egypt", that is, food or grain, which is brocken for eating; and after that buying grain there is called Shabar, as if we should say: We want to get Brocken, that is, food etc. But Christ's body was not broken nor cut in pieces at the cross, of which more is said above. So this text is strong, that Christ's body is broken over tables, and cut in pieces, and crushed, and eaten, as other bread, but in the form of bread, or in the bread etc.

437 And if it could be proved that the breaking here should be called Christ's suffering, wherein then will the likeness stand, that in the Lord's Supper the bread of Christ's body is a sign? For I gave in above, that they might make broken bread, as they might, the likeness. But now they separate the breaking also from the bread, and appropriate it to the body of Christ on the cross, tell me, wherein then will the bread of his body be the likeness? Not otherwise, for as I said above, the bread must be called like Christ's body, and yet is nowhere like it in the sense demanded by the words in the Lord's Supper. Further:

438. "This cup, the new testament, is in my blood." Now it may be that this text applies just as much as if I say: This cup is a new testament etc. Still

Paul did not put the "is" after the word "new testament" and not before it for nothing. The Holy Spirit has wanted to precede the future rotten. For St. Paul puts utrumque a parte subjecti, tam calicem, quam testamentum, ceu unum subjectum, that is, his text reads thus: that this cup, being a new testament, is the same in Christ's blood; and thus freely calls the cup the new testament. If the enthusiasts had as much text for themselves as we have here, how should they defy and insist? Now the New Testament cannot be bad wine or cup.

439 But that they would pretend that "new testament" here means a sign or figure of the new testament is abundantly and mightily accounted for. For they say it and do not prove it. But nothing is given to their saying, for it has never been heard in Scripture that the "new testament" should be called a sign of the new testament. They say: The thing itself compels it. Which one? The cup (they say) must be a physical thing, as silver, wood, gold or glass etc. Now silver can never be the new testament, but if it is something, then it is its sign, and that is all it can be. This is what is said above in Luke.

440 But because they are so stubborn and stiff, I will also need their umbrella. Tell me, how can the cup be a sign of the New Testament, since it is bad silver or wood? Is it a sign of the new testament according to the material, or according to the sound, or according to the form, or in what? Well then, any cup, whether it be in a box, or in a goldsmith's store, or wherever it may be, empty or full, is nevertheless a sign of the new testament, for it has silver, wood, sound, form etc. What then might Christ call the cup over tables, as no other cup in the world has silver, sound, form, that is, the likeness of the new testament in itself? No (they say), but the cup, as presented with wine to drink, so it is a sign of the new testament etc.

441 There hear two pieces: The first, here they themselves must make a new unity and being out of cup and wine, if they are nevertheless two different natures, and must make such a unity and being out of cup and wine.

new beings call cup and sign, yet they do not mean the cup alone, but especially the wine, just as we said above about the flame and angels. Can they now let it happen among themselves that one says: The cup is 1) a sign etc., if they do not mean the cup alone, but the wine (as it has become one thing with the cup), and do not like that one separates such unity or essence of the cup and wine, and calls the cup without wine a sign: We kindly request that they also allow the Holy Spirit to speak to us in this way in his matters, so that he may call the cup a testament and show that it has now become not only a cup, but with the testament and blood of Christ a sacramental being; or show us the reason and causes why they have such power to speak in this way among themselves, and that the Holy Spirit should not have it.

442 If they mock us, that we call the cup a new testament, and us the cup of the new testament, and divide such sacramental unity or essence, we again mock their sign, and divide the cup and wine from one another, and divide their sign unity or essence, as they divide our sacramental unity. For if the cup and the new testament were to be separated from one another, and if each were to be kept apart in its own essence, we would know that a cup is nothing more than a cup or silver, even as well as they know that if cup and wine were to be separated from one another, then the cup would not be a sign of the new testament, but a bad cup. Such deception is called the logici arguere a parte ad totum negative, hoc est, ab inferiori ad superius negative, sive a particulari ad universale; which is common to the enthusiasts. As if I said: Peter has no ear, therefore Peter has no body; gold is not black, therefore gold is without color. But the gushers can't do child logic either.

443. secondly, we would like to know how or with which piece the cup with the

1) "is" is missing in the Erlanger.

the wine should be a sign of the blood of Christ, or new testament, and yet in it such likeness should stand, however grossly acted. For the new testament is the gospel, the Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, in and through the blood of Christ, and what is more; for it is all one thing, and gathered into one heap or essence, all in the blood, all in the cup. Where one is, there is the other also; whoever names or shows one thing, meets it all. Now how can bad wine interpret or signify such great things, when all the figures of the Old Testament can hardly signify them? Not differently, because as I said: The wine should and must be called a sign, even if it can not be, there is no power. Are these not poor people who not only lose the essence, as the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but also the sign or figure for it, and have nothing more than the peasants in the common wine house, without being able to comfort themselves with words, as if the figure were there, and cannot say in what such a figure stands. So it serves them right; because they do not want to have the kernel and pith, they should not keep the skins and husks either, and over which they want to dispute and spoil our thing, they should also lose their own and keep nothing.

444 We have proved above in Luke that these words cannot be a trope: "This cup is the new testament in my blood", because the word "in my blood" means as much as through or with my blood. For Christ's blood does not have to be such an impotent thing that it only gives a sign of the new testament, as the calf's blood of Moses did in former times. So also "blood" cannot be tropus; for the cup cannot be such a great thing, namely the new testament, by blood sign, or bad wine.

445. Summa, if we hold the evangelists and Paul together, that they stand for one man, then they suffer no Tutists, Tropists, nor Dentists. If the tropists in Matthaeum and Marcum want the blood to be called blood sign, Lucas and Paul come forth and overthrow the tropists by force, because they show with their text that blood should not be called blood sign or be tropus, because the tropists themselves have no blood sign.

1070 Erl. so, sss-sss. II. writings Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, 134^-1344. 1071

In this text, "this cup is the new testament in my blood"; therefore, in Matthew and Mark, the same blood must also be without a trope, because it is the same blood, of which all four speak.

But if they want to take Lucas and Paul and make the word "new testament" into a trope, that is, a sign of the new testament, then Matthew and Marcus, along with Luke and Paul, go and overthrow them again, and show that the "new testament" cannot be a trope. And even in Matthew and Mark, the enthusiasts cannot make the word "new testament" into a trope, just as little as they cannot in Luke and Paul. For it does not suffer me to say in Matthew and Mark, This is my blood of the figurative new testament. For Christ's blood is not of the figurative testament, or of the old testament, but of the new, which consists in his blood; and yet the same new testament must be understood in Luke and Paul, which is understood in Matthew and Mark, because all four of them speak of the same testament. So Matthew and Marcus hold the word "new testament", pure and simple without any trope. Lucas and Paul hold the word "blood", pure and simple without any trope. There the enthusiasts must lie, that I know for certain, and if they answer you correctly on this, then you shall give them cheerfully won.

447 Therefore the text must remain as the words read, that, I hope, is tremendously won, and our conscience well assured that our understanding is right, and the enthusiast not only uncertain, but also wrong.

448) Where are now the little enthusiasts, who are insisting that Christ has never done no sign, except 1) visibly or sensitively 2) standing there? Was this not a sign that John saw the Holy Spirit coming from heaven? John 1:32; the Holy Spirit was not yet visibly present.

1) "denn" is missing in the Erlanger.

2) "or sensitive" is missing in the Erlanger.

but in the form of the dove. Was this not a sign? When Zacharias saw the angel Gabriel at the altar of incense? Luc. 1, 11. The angel was not yet visible, but in the form of flames of fire. Was this not a sign that the Son of God was walking on earth personally? God's Son was not yet visibly there. What is it then, that one builds on such loose, rotten grounds, and thereby denies and blasphemes God's word and works, without wanting to be deliberately lost?

449 Admittedly, it is a miraculous sign that Christ's body and blood are in the sacrament; it is not yet visibly there, but it is enough for us to feel that it is there through word and faith. Yet their sign is not visibly there either. For though they see the cup of wine visibly, yet they cannot see that it is a sign of the body and blood; but they must speak it with words, and believe it with their hearts; for it is not written on the cup, neither painted, nor formed, that it is a sign of the blood of Christ. This is foolishness, but it is terrible that one should build on it and defy God's word.

(450) Where are all the others who say that there is no forgiveness of sins in the Lord's Supper? St. Paul and Lucas say that the New Testament is in the Lord's Supper, and not the sign or figure of the New Testament. For the figure or sign of the new testament belonged to the old testament among the Jews; and whoever confesses that he has the figure or sign of the new testament confesses that he does not yet have the new testament, and has run back, and denied Christ, and become a Jew. For Christians shall have the New Testament in themselves without figure or sign. They may have it hidden under a strange form, but they must have it truly and presently. If then the new testament is in the Lord's Supper, then forgiveness of sins, spirit, grace, life and all blessedness must be in it. And all these things are put into words; for who would know what was in the Lord's Supper if the words did not proclaim it?

451 Therefore, behold, what a beautiful, great, wonderful thing it is, how it is all intertwined and is one sacramental being.

The words are the first; for without the words the cup and bread would be nothing. Further, without the bread and cup, the body and blood of Christ would not be there. Without the body and blood of Christ, the New Testament would not be there. Without the New Testament, forgiveness of sins would not be there. Without forgiveness of sins, life and blessedness would not be there. Thus, the words firstly include the bread and the cup for the sacrament. The bread and the cup fast the body and blood of Christ. The body and blood of Christ fast the New Testament. The New Testament fasts forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins grasps the eternal life and blessedness. Behold, the words of the Lord's Supper suffice and give us all these things, and we grasp them by faith; should not the devil then be hostile to such a Supper, and raise up enthusiasts against it?

Since all these things are one sacramental essence, one can well and rightly say of each piece, as of the cup: This is Christ's blood, this is the New Testament, there is forgiveness of sins, there is life and blessedness. Just as I point to the man Christ and say: This is God, this is truth, life, blessedness, wisdom etc. That is enough of that, Paul wants to hear further.

453. "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Notice again that cup here cannot be understood for bad silver and wood (for who can drink silver and wood?), but because the cup has become one being with the drink, cup here is also called the drink in the cup; so that you see how such a way of speaking is common in all languages. After this also: "He eats of this bread and drinks of this cup. Who can drink of the cup, that is, of silver or wood? But, as I said, it is the way of all languages to speak in this way, where two things become one, that the same one thing keeps both names; as the Holy Spirit is the dove, and the dove is the Holy Spirit.

Here the enthusiasts are rejoicing and shouting: Won! There, you hear that St. Paul calls bread and cup, and does not say, "As often as you eat the body of Christ and the blood," but, "I have won.

Christ's drink etc. Dear, let us also cry out: St. Paul does not say: As often as you drink the wine, but the cup. Why then do they drink wine, and not the cup? When St. Paul speaks of drinking the cup, does it not follow that they drink the cup, but understand the wine in the cup, because the cup and the wine have become one thing? Dearly beloved, why then must it follow that we eat vain bread, when Paul speaks of eating bread, and may not also as well be understood the body in the bread, for the sake of the sacramental unity? May the poor carnivores not have such understanding, but only the glorious enthusiasts?

I call out once again. St. Paul does not say: As often as you eat the sign of the body and drink the sign of the blood etc. Therefore bread cannot be the sign of the body, nor wine the sign of the blood. Is it not fine? But if such a text does not deny to the enthusiasts their sign, dear one, why should it then deny to us that there is body and blood? For he speaks so little of the sign as of the body and blood. Therefore he must be as strong against them as against us; and if he does not strike them, he does not strike us either, if that is enough: Paul says here not so, therefore it is not so; that is, ex puris negativis syllo- gisare. What reason this is for founding special articles of faith, children know well.

456 But this is true, according to the rule of the Silesian spirit they are right, and I must give them victory; for this rule holds: that one should put the texts out of sight and not look badly at them, since Christ's body and blood are spoken of as being in the Lord's Supper, for they hinder the spirit and spiritual mind. The other rule is to turn one's eyes elsewhere, where such texts are not written, and then cry out, "Behold, behold, it is not written here that the body and blood are in the Lord's Supper. They follow these rules also in this place. For hard before, when St. Paul said, "This is my body," item: "The new testament in my blood," that is nothing, they act as if this text were in no place in the world, and do not look at it. Here again, when it is not there, they stare, open their mouths and noses, and search for such a text.

1074 Erl. so, 311-343. II. Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. xx. 1347-1349. 1075

as if St. Paul in all places and in all ranks 1) had to put no other word than this: "This is my body" etc., so that they could see it. But since all their diligence is to look for this text "this is my body" elsewhere, where it is not written; why do they not also look for it in Marcolpho, or in Dietrich of Bern? then they would be sure that they would not find it. These must be either boys or furious people, who seek and demand a thing, since it is not, and do not want to see, since it is, and since one puts it before their noses.

457 Although St. Paul does not forget this text, even in this place, because he does not speak of bad bread and cups, but says: "This bread, this cup", and with these words: "this" and "this" he points back to the bread and cup, since he had said about it. Now if they were to follow these two pointers back, and see what kind of bread and cup he is pointing to, they would probably find that this bread is the body of Christ, and the cup the New Testament; for he is speaking of the same bread and cup when he says, "this" and "this," as even children and fools well know.

But the enthusiasts jump over these words "this" and "this", yes, they do them according to their rule from the eyes, and stare only at the words "bread" and "cup" old, but do not want to suffer that one should look at "cup" so over, as they overlook our "this" and "this". If they now cry out: St. Paul does not say here: As often as you eat the body of Christ etc., you should say: He nevertheless says it here. Where? and with what text? Then say, With the word "this" and "this"; behold the same, thou shalt find therein such a text, "This is my body, this is the new testament in my blood," for they repeat such a text, and lay it before thee; but before thine eyes they cannot lay it, for thou turnest them always elsewhere.

But how serious it is to the spirit such questions and defiance, notice: Dro-.

1) d. i. series.

When there are bright words: "This is my body", "This is my blood", they can find little bells and say: "This is my body's sign, my blood's sign. If then Paul already puts such a text here: "As often as you eat the body of the Lord and drink his blood," etc., how sour it would be for them to do the same and say: "As often as you receive the sign of the body and the blood," etc. The spirit thinks that one does not understand his mischievousness; rather, whoever can gloss over this text: "This is my body," which cannot be said more brightly nor more clearly, will certainly be able to gloss over this text much more: "As often as ye eat the Lord's body," which is not so bright as that; without the mind having to color and preen itself as if it would believe where Paul said, "As often as ye eat the Lord's body," lest it should be seen how his hopefulness despises the text, where it is clearly stated that one should eat his body, namely, "Take, eat, this is my body." Rather, let them themselves give a bright text, which they could not gloss over, that I would like to hear. For where the word "body" comes out, there can soon be the gloss: "sign of the body"; although it is a shame that one should use such words in such matters; but the enthusiasts are not ashamed of it. 2) Well, it helps us for the best that we become the more certain of our understanding, because they are so frivolous and childish in their giddiness against it. Further:

V. 29. Whosoever therefore eateth the bread unworthily, or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the suffering and blood of the Lord.

460) Now here is bread and a cup for the scribblers, since they are to make out bread and a cup (that is, wine), and then ask and demand why St. Paul does not say, "He who eats the body of Christ unworthily" etc. For the fact that St. Paul says, "This bread," and points back to the bread of which he spoke above, must not be looked at, but put out of sight, lest it hinder the spiritual mind, and think otherwise than that St. Paul did not say, "This bread," but badly.

2) Erlanger: nothing.

1076 Erl. so, sts-sts. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. xx, 1349-1352. 1077

"Bread", as if its text stood here thus: Who a bread unworthy isset etc. So we certainly find the truth. But we praise God that we see how Paul always repeats and introduces this text "this is my body" with the word "this", as it is said above; and confirms this even more brightly, since he says: "Whoever eats this bread unworthily, let him be guilty", not of mere bread, or of the sign of the body of Christ, but "of the body of the Lord".

461 Dear, let us here also insist a little on their way. Why does not St. Paul say: He is guilty of the bread or of the sign of the body of Christ who eats this bread unworthily? Since the text forcibly enforces that this sin is the unworthy eating, and yet they pretend that it is vain bread which they eat, he must be guilty of the bread which he eats, according to the manner of the words and language. For Paul saith not, Whosoever unworthily considereth the passion of Christ is guilty of the body of the Lord. If they can attack us with the questions, why Paul does not say: Whoever does not eat Christ's body worthily etc., and want to have won that Christ's body is not there, where we do not show it; then they should stand us again to our question: Why St. Paul does not say: Whoever does not consider Christ's suffering worthily, or does not eat the sign of his body worthily etc.? And where they do not show it, they shall also have lost their gloss, according to the measure and right, since they want to measure us with it.

462 But I know well that they themselves do not believe such glosses; but because they stand on it, that it is vain bread, they think it must be said and glossed. For where they do not stand on it, they would spit at such glosses themselves. And they themselves see Carlstadt's gloss and must confess that it is a pure poem. For St. Paul does not punish the Corinthians for the unworthy remembrance of Christ's suffering, as a child can read and prove; for he describes in express words that the Corinthians were sinners, that one did not wait for another, but he who came before ate before, so that those who came after found nothing, and passed with disgrace, and so made a noisome meal of the Lord's Supper, as if they had not come before.

Otherwise it would be a bad meal. For thus saith he, When ye come together, there is no supper of the Lord, but every man taketh his own supper before him." Do you hear here that they did not take supper of the Lord, but of their own bellies; for because the others were slow in coming, they went and left the Lord's supper, and ate in the meantime, just as he also says afterwards, "When you come together to eat, wait one for another, lest you come together for 1) judgment." There you see that sin has been in the eating.

Therefore Oecolampad gives a better gloss (as he thinks) and says: The Corinthians have sinned against the sacrament, that is, against the bread and wine, which are signs of the body and blood of Christ, with unworthy eating, as if he who dishonors an emperor's image dishonors the emperor himself. So whoever eats this bread and wine unworthily dishonors the body and blood of Christ, whose image or sign they are. So they are divided among themselves of the glosses, as well as of the text; nor shall the one Holy Spirit teach them both. In particular, however, Oecolampad's gloss is nothing. First of all, since we have just proved and lamented that bread and wine are not, nor can they be, signs or images of the body and blood of Christ; for no little thing can be shown in which such likeness stands; therefore even this example of the emperor's image cannot rhyme with the gloss, unless it is first made certain that bread and wine are images or likenesses of the body and blood, just as the emperor's image is likeness.

464 Secondly, if such a simile were here, it would be a fine idea for a gloss, but not certain. For who could not make glosses and go away and say: Here I have been? No, because they want to interpret the text differently than the words read, and overthrow our understanding, they do not have to set such naked, bare, hungry and thirsty little bells there, and turn and troll away; but they must prove tremendously that such little bells are right and must and should belong here. Now we

1) Erlanger: ins.

1978 "rl. so, S4S-S47. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, I3S2-13S4. 1979

Oecolampad does not even think that he wanted to do such a thing, but thinks that his mere little bell is enough. But where is my conscience, which would like to stand on good ground and secure? Should it stand on the hungry, thirsty and meager little bell? But what is it to the spirit where the conscience remains?

465 Thirdly, such a gloss, because it is uncertain, can also have no appearance, unless it is first certain and proven that in the Lord's Supper there is only bread and wine. For where the true body and blood of Christ is in the Lord's Supper, this poor fainted little bell lies in the ashes. Now they have not hitherto proved, nor can they prove, that there is the same bread and wine, neither have they proved, nor can they prove, that there is the sign of the body and the sign of the blood, if they could prove that there is the same bread and wine; for they have neither proved, nor can they prove, either of these; but we have strongly proved that, as the words are, there is the body and blood of Christ. Therefore, if they had previously proved the text in the Lord's Supper according to their meaning, we might suffer such little bells in this place for the sake of good friendship; for it [the gloss] is not good even in itself, 1) as we shall hear.

Fourth, the very finest thing, that Oecolampad in this place does not consider "body and blood" to be tropus, but as the words read, "he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," what will come of that? This is what wants to come out of it: If body and blood are to be understood in this place, as the words read, and are not tropus, then they must not be tropus in the text of the Lord's Supper either: for it will not suffer itself into any way that Paul should use one and the same word over one thing or matter, and in one speech, differently and otherwise, as a two-faced and cunning deceiver; but he must plainly let body and blood be the same in both places, and one word. If "body" in the Lord's Supper is called the sign of the body, and "blood" the sign of the blood, then here it must also be called the sign of the body and the sign of the blood. If here it is properly called body and blood, then in the Lord's Supper it must be called body sign and blood sign.

1) In the editions: taug.

If he speaks of the same Lord's Supper in both places, he must also speak of the same body and blood, for there he teaches and institutes it, and here he exhorts to the proper use of it.

467 Where is this hungry, thirsty little bell: "He who eats unworthily is guilty of the Lord's body," that is, he who scorns the King's image scorns the King himself? If the body is the sign of the body, then the little bell must turn: Whoever eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the sign of the body, that is, of the bread; for the body here must also be called the sign of the body or the bread; if not, then both text and glosses, with gushers and all, lie in the dirt over a heap. See what toil, what journey and what misfortune are those who want to make lies into truth and bring them to market against the truth.

468 If the saints are to persevere, they now have three great tasks. The first is to prove in the Lord's Supper how the body and blood are the sign of the body and blood, or vain bread and wine. The other, that they prove how such vain bread and wine is the sign of the body and the sign of the blood. If they have done this (on the devil's ascension), they must again have so great and greater an effort that they prove in this place that body and blood are not signs of body and blood; for they must prove that at the same time in the same speech and thing blood is not blood, body not body, yet again that same blood is blood, and the same body is and is called body; there art will belong, id est, contradictoria simul vera facere.

Fifth, even if all other things were bad, and he lacked none, yet the little bell itself is also unworthy. For St. Paul does not say: "Whoever eats this bread unworthily is guilty of Christ," according to Oecolampad's opinion, as he is guilty of the king who scorns the king's image, but St. Paul indicates that the guilt is due to the pieces of Christ, to which the bread and wine should be equal or a sign, namely, "of the body and blood (he says) he is guilty" etc. According to this, Oecolampad would have to put his graces and examples thus or similarly: He who dishonors the nose on the image, the

dishonors the king's nose. He who mocks the mouth of the image mocks the mouth of the king. So that the dishonor done to the image is not to the person, but to the pieces that are dishonored in the images. For Paul does not refer here to the person of Christ, but to the body and blood of Christ as pieces of the person.

I say this so that you may see how Oecolampad does not conduct his glosses and examples correctly and does not rhyme with St. Paul's text. For if it were to rhyme, St. Paul, as has been said, would have to speak thus: Whoever eats this bread is guilty of Christ; just as he is guilty of the king who dishonors the king's image, that is, he sins not against a member or part of the person, but against the majesty and regiment of the king. For this is what is meant by such speech. But here St. Paul says: "One sins against the parts of the person, as against the body and blood of Christ, which is closer and more than against the majesty or regiment of Christ. Therefore such a little bell is also in itself nothing that speaks of the majesty and regiment, as the text speaks of pieces or parts of the person. Further:

V. 28: Let man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

471 Here again is bread and cup. So Paul does one thing after another; now he calls it bread and cup, then again body and blood, then again bread and cup, and again for the third time body and blood. That he may make us ever sure that this sacrament is not bread and wine only, but also the body and blood of Christ. Without this, the enthusiasts must take their eyes off where he calls it body and blood, and stick to it only where he calls it bread and cup; or they must gloss and drop body and blood, but not gloss nor drop bread and cup, and thus play and go with the text as they please.

472 And especially is this place strong for them; for St. Paul saith not, So eat he of this bread, but badly, Of the bread, and of the cup, not of this cup. Well, we leave it up to them whether they want St. Paul to speak here of another bread and cup, or of the

the same. If he speaks of another, it does not matter to us, and we may suffer them to make vain bread and wine, and it does not help them; for we speak of the bread in the Lord's Supper. But if he speaks of the same bread and cup (as there is no doubt), we have heard enough what the same cup and bread are in the previous text. What is said there also belongs here. Last of all:

V. 29: He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, as he who does not distinguish the body of the Lord.

I have written enough about Carlstadt's distinction in the booklet Against the Heavenly Prophets. For it cannot be spoken of the remembrance of the Passion, as Carlstadt's spirit pretends, because here the text forces violently that one thing is to eat unworthily and not to discern the body of Christ; which we understand from the word as it reads, that the Corinthians ate the bread with such ignorance or lack of reason as if it were bad bread, and made no distinction between this bread and other bread; that is, to eat the body of Christ unworthily. Therefore he exhorts them to examine themselves, and to know who they are, and what they think of this bread. For if they do not consider it to be the body of Christ, or if they handle it as if it were not the body of Christ, they do not distinguish the body of Christ; for this does not go unpunished. We know well how St. Paul uses the word dcaxptvmv pro discernere, as 1 Cor. 4:7: Who hath discerned thee? That is, who has made you so special above others, as if you were better and different than the rest? And Rom. 14:23: "But he that distinguisheth is condemned," that is, he that esteemeth this sin and that right, and yet doeth contrary. And so henceforth St. Paul is called dcaxptvziv, which we call making a difference, distinguishing, holding this different from that.

474 Oecolampad, however, has better appearances, because he also shows such a difference to the honor, which happens to the king through the honor of the image, as we have seen above in the other saying. But it lacks here just that

1) Thus the Wittenberg. Jenaer and Erlanger: a.

1082 Erl. so, 349-ssi. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx, issr-isso. 1083

There, and everything I said against him in that saying is also to be said against him here. For since we have the text plainly as it reads, and they want to take it from us and interpret it differently, it is not enough that they say a naked little bell, and thus bid us good night, but must prove it with scripture and causes that such a little bell should be right and belong here. He does not do this, nor can he. For who will believe that "Christ's body cannot be distinguished" is nothing more than Christ himself in his signs of dishonor? For it has not yet been proven that in the supper there is only bread and a sign of the body, on which such a dilapidated little bell is based.

475. In addition, he must not take "the Lord's body" for the true body of Christ, but for his body sign, because St. Paul cannot speak of another body, because he says: "This is my body" [1 Cor. 11, 24], since he still speaks of the Lord's Supper in one thing; so he must also be in one word. If then here the body is not the sign of the body, why is it the sign of the body there? If it is body here, why is it not also body there? Therefore this little bell must go down with texts and with everything, or must be put thus: "Who does not distinguish the sign of the Lord's body. So the piece also lies, and Paul is still firmly on our side; for we find his words rhymed simply, unanimously, unobjectionably to our understanding, and must neither gloss over nor trouble to interpret them otherwise than they read.

476. Now let us also see the text of St. Paul in the tenth chapter, where he says: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" [1 Cor. 10:16.]

This text I have praised and still praise as my heart's joy and crown. For it not only says, "This is Christ's body," as in the Lord's Supper; but it calls the bread that is broken, and says, "The bread is Christ's body"; yea, "the bread which we break" is not Christ's body alone, but "the body of Christ divided. This is once a text so bright and so

clear, as the enthusiasts and all the world could not desire nor demand; nor does he help. To such a text they answer me nothing more, because after that they are divided among themselves. Some say that Paul speaks of symbolic or figurative fellowship; but others of spiritual fellowship, and add that it follows of the fellowship of the altar and of the devils, and so strike it off, not seeing that they prove it or force it out of the texts; so I am to be satisfied with their mere words and glosses, and do just as if I greeted one, and he turned back, and thundered with his buttocks, and so went away. Well, they should not run away and leave the stink behind, if God wills it.

In the first place, there is no doubt that St. Paul here also speaks of the Lord's Supper, because he speaks of the bread, cup, body and blood of Christ; and must certainly speak of the same body and blood, bread and cup, since the Lord's Supper speaks of them; if not, then this text is of no concern to us, and whoever may think that he speaks of bad common food. From this it follows that on Oecolampad's art this text must stand thus: The bread which we break is a communion of bread, which is a sign of the body of Christ. The cup of blessing which we bless is a communion of wine, so a sign is the blood of Christ. Isn't it a fine text? Bread is a communion of bread, cup is a communion of wine? What is this then? The broken bread is a fellowship of bread, that is, the broken bread is a common portion of bread? Could Paul not teach us anything else here, except that the bread that is broken is the bread that is made whole? Or was he worried that we would understand unbread as unbreaded sausages, and unbreaded wine as unbreaded water? These are their own words, that body shall be called body sign, that is, bread, blood shall be called blood sign, that is, wine, as we have heard enough, and they have clicked all books about it.

479 But if the trope is to stand on the word "communion" and be a sign of communion, or a figurative communion, thereby signifying spiritual communion, then, to this retrograde and ver-

1084 Erl- so. ssi-sös. 21 Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. xx, iseo-issr. 1085

According to Tropo, Oecolampad's text thus stands: The bread we break is a figurative communion of the figurative body of Christ, which is the bread. Dear, what is this more and more said: Bread is a figurative communion of the bread? For so they must speak, so their trope must stand. Now shall one bread be another's sign or figure, as the same is divided and common? For they must both be natural and corporal bread; the first because it is broken, the other because it is a sign of the body of Christ.

I consider that the Spirit, because he is able to do all things, considers the first bread that is broken to be a painted bread on paper, or a carved bread, which may well be a figure or sign of the other right bread that signifies Christ's body, so that the text may read: "The broken wooden bread is a figurative communion of the right bread, which is a sign of Christ's body. For all these things enforce their tropi. If not, it must stand thus: The broken bread, which may not be a figurative communion of the bread, is nevertheless a figurative communion of the bread. For it is not possible for one bread to be a figurative communion of another.

481 We have also proved above that such a retrograde and inverted trope cannot be in Scripture or in any language, but is a pure poem. For according to the Scriptures and all languages, the word "fellowship" must thus become a trope, so that it indicates a spiritual fellowship, or a new and different fellowship, above the old bodily fellowship. Just as body and blood must be called a spiritual or other body and blood, where they become a trope, or are not to be called the bodily blood and body. Therefore, in this place "fellowship" must be called bad bodily fellowship or distribution; or if it is to be a trope, it must be called a new spiritual fellowship, according to which the text should read thus: The bread we break is a spiritual fellowship of the body of Christ. But if body here is also a proper trope, it must be called the spiritual body of Christ, which is the church etc. And the text would stand in summa thus:

The bread we break is a spiritual dispensation of Christianity, on the opinion that where this bread is broken, Christianity is dispersed, and many abominable abominations would follow.

482 Let them choose here which one they want. If the "body" and "blood" in this place are tropus, or the sign of the body and the sign of the blood, namely bread and wine, as their doctrine holds, then they may not resist all this abominable consequence which I have now introduced, as everyone must grasp this and cannot deny it, especially where they also want to have communion figuratively. But if it is not tropus, but the body and blood of Christ, as our doctrine holds, then it cannot be tropus in other places of the Lord's Supper. For no one can deny that here St. Paul speaks of the Lord's Supper, and calls and means the same blood and body that Matthew [Cap. 26, 26], Marcus [Cap. 14, 22, 24], Lucas [Cap. 22, 19, 20] and Paul himself call and mean in other chapters, when they say: "This is my body, this is my blood. What can they complain about?

483 Now they must choose that here blood and body are tropus. For so their doctrine holds: since here the sacrament is spoken of, and in the sacrament sacramental or figurative words must be, as Oecolampad teaches, then they must also have such a consequence that bread is a figurative communion of bread, that is, it is a painted bread, or is, which cannot be, as is said. For the Oecolampad admits that "is" does not mean "signifies," therefore he must admit that bread is the figurative communion of bread, and cannot say that the broken bread is spiritual communion; for with him bodily thing cannot be nor be called a spiritual thing.

484 But if he would have the trope on the word "fellowship" alone, and have his text thus: The bread we break is a sign of the fellowship of the body of Christ, and could prove this, then he would have his opinion well; but then "body" would not be a trope. But if the body were not a trope here, it could not be a trope there either in Matthew, Mark and Luke: "This is my body", because it is the same supper and body that are spoken of. So, where the spirit

1086 Erl. so, sss-ssö. II. writings Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, 1362-1365. 1087

When he wants to go there, he bumps himself so that he staggers and has to fall. I give the advice that they speak: The outward word of God is of no use, and they have enough of the testimony of the spirit within, and St. Paul's word poor, wretched. Ten letters scold them, according to which "body and blood" would have to be tropus and not tropus, as they wanted; otherwise I don't know how they can escape from Paul here. But they would also have to think how the whole world would be bound to believe their testimony and spirit, then they would have won.

485 What is now said against Oecolampad's text is also said against Zwingel's text. For where Oecolampad makes signs, Zwingel makes interpretations, and is one opinion without other words. Oecolampad has figuram corporis, Zwingel significans corpus; that is One Thing. Therefore Zwingel's text would have to stand thus: The bread, so we break, is the fellowship of the significant body of Christ, that is, of the bread, the same as Oecolampad. But if he could put his text thus: The bread we break means the communion of the body of Christ, it would be for his opinion. But this does not suffer the text in Matthew, Mark, Luke, since he [Zwingli] says: This means my body. If he has an important body there, he must also have an important body here; for it is one body, as has been said. Now everything follows him to the significant body that follows Oecolampad to his signifying body, as everyone can well think and see for himself; therefore it is not necessary to recover everything again.

486) The 1) Silesian spirit with its reversal let also Herkommen, which thus reverses the text Matthäi, Marci and Lucä: My body is that, namely, a spiritual food. For "this" is supposed to point to the Spirit, so it must be so here, and this text "the cup of blessing we bless" etc. is thus reversed: The fellowship of the body of Christ is the cup of blessing which we bless, namely, a spiritual cup of blessing. Now this fellowship is a spiritual thing, and yet here it must be and be called a bodily cup of wine; indeed, the bodily cup must be too-

1) Erlanger: Den.

The same is also a spiritual cup, that is, spiritual and not spiritual at the same time, bodily and not bodily; for Paul speaks of the bodily, but the Spirit makes the same spiritual and not bodily. Is it not great spirits? Let them drive away with their mad jiggery-pokery.

Our text and mind are fine and bright, light and light: "The bread we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ" etc.

488 Here you must first notice that he says of the bodily bread which we break in the Lord's Supper, which no one can deny. Then it is also certain that in such bodily breaking or communion there must be not only holy and worthy men, but also unworthy men, as Judas and his kind. Thus you have heard that "is" cannot nor may mean "interprets" in some language on earth, but speaks of the essence where it stands. Finally, "community" here means the common good, of which many are partakers and enjoy, as that which is given among them all in common. This may be received in two ways, bodily and spiritual. For common thing means, that much is enjoyed in common, as, common well, common goods, common field, meadows, wood, fire etc. For it cannot here in this place mean the communion of faith in the heart; for the text here speaks of such common goods as are to be received and enjoyed, as there is the bread and the cup. For he says, "The bread we break, the cup we bless," and then, "We are all one body, partakers of one bread and of one cup," etc. [1 Cor. 10, 17.] It is therefore certain that ÷ïéíùíÀá, the fellowship of the body of Christ, is nothing else but the body of Christ, as a common good divided among many and given to be enjoyed.

489 Paul therefore says, "The bread which we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ," that is, whoever approves of this broken bread approves of the body of Christ, as a common good distributed among many; for the bread is such a common body of Christ, says Paul; this is said plainly and plainly, so that no one can understand it otherwise, except he make the words otherwise. Now enjoy

1088 Erl. so, sss-sss. 21. Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. XX, 1365-13S7. 1089

of this broken bread, not only the worthy, but also Judas and the unworthy; for the breaking of bread is with the good and the evil. Now it is not possible for them to partake of it spiritually, for they have neither spirit nor faith; so also Christ has no more than One Body.

490 If then the unworthy are to partake of it and have it in common among themselves, it must be bodily and not spiritual, because there is no partaking, either bodily or spiritual. For the figurative, signifying, and signifying enjoyment cannot be in the Lord's Supper, because there is neither signification nor signification. Therefore the real true body of Christ must be bodily in the bread we break, so that those who are unworthy may enjoy it bodily, because they do not enjoy it spiritually, as Paul says: "The bread we break is communion," that is, the common body of Christ divided among those who receive the broken bread.

491 Against this, the swarming spirit fights over the little word "fellowship" and wants to make a spiritual fellowship, which is with the pious alone, which is to be signified by the breaking of bread, as by a figurative fellowship. So that Paul's text would have such a nose: "The bread we break is a sign of the fellowship of the body of Christ," in Oecolampian. Or thus: The bread we break signifies the fellowship of the body of Christ etc. in Zwinglian. They prove this first of all for this reason: "It seems to us to be right; for their own conceit is the strongest reason they have in the whole matter, without baptizing and calling it Scripture and faith.

492 After this they use the saying that Paul uses after this text: "One bread it is, one body we many are, because we are partakers of one bread. Here some of them again make a new trope, that "bread" here is a spiritual bread, namely the body of Christ, and "one body" is also a trope, namely the saints alone, who are spiritually partakers of the spiritual bread, and fight against me thus: Because we are all one body of Christ, the unworthy must not be in this body, but only the right members;

therefore this fellowship of the body must be spiritual etc.

What shall I do with the erroneous spirits? Now they make figurative bread and fellowship. Again, the others make spiritual bread and fellowship, running against each other as if they were mad, and no one is sure of his course. We know that St. Paul does not say here, "We many are one body of Christ," but rather, "We many are one body," that is, one group, one community; just as every city is a separate body and body from another city. From this it does not follow that all the members of this body are holy, spiritual members, and therefore have spiritual fellowship alone; but it is a bodily company and body, in which are both holy and unholy, who are all partakers of the one bread.

494 So also bread here cannot be spiritual bread; for St. Paul speaks of the same bread, as he speaks before of: "The bread which we break. Such bread is one kind of bread, therefore it makes a peculiar heap and body of those who partake of it; not one 1) body of Christ, but badly one body. For there is a great difference between the body and Christ's body, and here "body" is a true trope according to the Scriptures; not a figurative body according to the backward trope, but another new body, to which a natural body is a likeness etc. And such a tropum is enforced by the text, since it says: "We are One Body." Now we cannot be a natural body. So the fanciers should also make and prove their trope, and prove that Christ's body and blood are signs of the body and blood.

495 In sum, St. Paul speaks in this whole place of neither spiritual nor figurative, but only of bodily fellowship, or of a common bodily thing that is distributed. You will see this in all the sayings and examples he gives. First of all in this: "One bread it is, one body are we many, who are partakers of one bread" [1 Cor. 10:17]. So that here you must understand the fellowship in the flesh,

1) In the issues: one.

1090 Eri. so, sss-sso. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx, 1367-1370. 1091

He says: it is one bread, namely, he speaks of it in the text, "the bread that we break", of which we are all partakers. Now the broken bread cannot be spiritual bread; so also its distribution, breaking or communion must not be spiritual.

496. the other saying, "Consider Israel according to the flesh; which eat the sacrifices, are they not in the fellowship of the altar?" [1 Cor. 10:18.]

497 There is no spiritual or figurative communion here; for "to eat of the sacrifice" is to enjoy the altar bodily, or to be partaker of the altar bodily. And the altar with its sacrifice is also a bodily thing, bodily common and divided among the sacrificers. So our bread is also a bodily communion, divided among us. But if the bread is bodily broken, distributed and received by us, the body of Christ is also bodily broken, distributed and received by us. For the broken bread is the common or divided body of Christ, as Paul says: "The bread that we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ" [1 Cor. 10:16].

498 Yes, they say, St. Paul speaks afterwards, v. 20, of the fellowship of devils: "I do not want you to have the fellowship of devils"; here must be spiritual fellowship, because the devils have no body; therefore the fellowship of the body of Christ may also be spiritual. Answer: Methinks the word "fellowship" deceives them, that they do not rightly understand it. And it is certainly true that it is not really German as I would like it to be. For to have fellowship is commonly understood to mean to have something to do with someone; but here it should mean as much as I have explained above, as when many need, enjoy, or are partakers of a common thing; such I must interpret fellowship, I have not been able to find a better word for it.

499 Well, if the devils have no body, yes, if this saying speaks of spiritual fellowship, how does it follow that one must also understand spiritual fellowship of the body of Christ above? Is it enough to say so? But Paul is speaking here of the bodily fellowship of the teu

This is proven by the words that follow before and after. So before he says, "What the heathen sacrifice, they sacrifice unto devils." Then 1) thou hearest that he speaketh of things sacrificed unto idols, and calleth it devil's sacrifice, and dealest with the matter of eating things sacrificed unto idols. He who eats devil's sacrifice is in the fellowship of the devil. This is bodily communion; for a devil's sacrifice is a bodily sacrifice, which many enjoy and eat, and so they are bodily in the devil's bodily communion, that is, in the devil's sacrifice made to the devil. Just as we would like to say that both of us. Worthy and unworthy, are in the fellowship of God when we receive Christ's body bodily, for we enjoy and are partakers bodily of Christ's body, which is a sacrifice to God and offered to God.

The following words, v. 21, also force this: "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the devil at the same time. Do you see whereupon he says that he does not want us to be in the fellowship of the devil? namely, that we should not drink the devil's cup. Since "the devil's cup" is a bodily thing, "drinking the devil's cup" must be bodily fellowship with the devil; just as "drinking the Lord's cup" is bodily fellowship with the Lord or with God, that is, being partakers of the thing that is the Lord's or God's, or offered to God. Now the cup of the Lord is not only a cup, but also a communion of the blood of Christ, which we many enjoy.

He further says: "You cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the devil's table at the same time. Is this not clear enough that the devil's table is a bodily thing? So the fellowship or partaking of it must also be bodily, just as the Lord's table must be bodily, and his fellowship must be bodily. For we must not be so coarse as to understand here in this place the fellowship of the devil to mean that one enjoys or is partaker of the devil himself, without an outward bodily thing, because here both the table and the cup are called the devil's; but that one is called the thing of the devil.

1) Erlanger: The.

or thing that is of the devil or belongs to the devil. Just as one is called God's or the Lord's fellowship if one is partaker of the thing that is God's or the Lord's, or belongs to it, as the text clearly says here: "You cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the devil's table at the same time, and I do not want you to be in the devil's fellowship.

502 It is a different speech, if I say: The community of the devil, and the community of the devil's table; but still the same opinion, as it is also of one thing. For the fellowship of the devil's table indicates the piece or thing in which such fellowship stands; but the fellowship of the devil indicates which that same thing or piece is, or to whom it belongs, since the fellowship stands within. So also fellowship of the Lord's table is a different speech than fellowship of the Lord. Fellowship of the Lord's table indicates the thing or piece in which the fellowship is; but fellowship of the Lord indicates who is the one in whom such fellowship is.

503 Just as Paul, in chapter 11, v. 26, uses the same two kinds of speech in the Lord's Supper, and sometimes says of eating bread: "As often as you eat this bread. Item [v. 28] "And so he eats of the bread," he says. Then [v. 27, "He who eats the Lord's bread" etc. The first speech says what it is that one eats. The other, what it is, and to whom it belongs, that one eats. So in this speech "fellowship of the body of Christ" it is badly indicated what the thing is in which the fellowship stands, namely the body of Christ, and not what such a piece or thing is; for it is God's or the Lord's. Therefore, no spiritual fellowship can be understood here, because the broken bread is such fellowship of the body of Christ, and the body of Christ is the thing or piece in which such fellowship stands, which both. Worthy and unworthy may enjoy, because they enjoy the broken bread.

504 Even if one wanted to speak of spiritual communion, it would not be necessary to mention the two parts, the body and blood of Christ, but it would be enough to call them Christ,

as Paul says in another place: that we are called to the fellowship of the Son of God. [Why should he speak so differently of the body and blood, and put two fellowships together, as two different fellowships, since none is the other? Since the spiritual fellowship is only one fellowship, and not two different fellowships. Thus the fellowship of the body of Christ is not the fellowship of the blood of Christ, nor again. For St. Paul here divides them from one another. Now it is impossible that in spiritual fellowship the body and blood of Christ should be distinct from one another, and make two distinct fellowships, as happens here. Therefore, here the communion of body and blood must be bodily and not spiritual.

505 Thus we have this strong text for us against the naked, miserable little bells of the enthusiasts, still firm and pure. Whether they do not accept or believe all these things, we have thereby shown causes and reasons enough why we are forced to keep our wits about us. For if I were a Turk, a Jew, or a Gentile, who did not believe in the Christian faith, and yet heard or read such writings about the sacrament, I would have to say: I do not believe in the Christian doctrine; but this I must say: If they want to be Christians and keep their doctrine, they must believe that Christ's body and blood are eaten and drunk bodily in bread and wine.

506 And the enthusiasts should know that, because they must confess that our understanding is simple according to the sound of words, and yet they do not have enough of it, nor do they want to be disputed with it, that we, in turn, have much less enough of their hungry, thirsty, naked glosses, which they bring up from their heads against the simple sound of words, nor do we want to be disputed with them. For if we are to cling to naked, bare words, we would rather cling to naked, bare text, which God Himself has spoken, than to naked, bare glosses, which men invent. And whether they run and call the same little bells Scripture and faith, it does not matter to us until they also prove that it is Scripture and faith, as they falsely say.

1094 Erl. so, SSL-3S4. II. writings Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. XX, 1372-1375. 1095

call it. For they should also take it for granted that we are as reluctant to teach wrong as they are. As we have so far, praise God, proved more and more than they by our deeds, that they must not ascribe such glory to them so gloriously, as if they alone were so minded. But Christ will be the judge of all who lie and deceive.

. I will boast in God that I have conquered so much in this booklet that no trope can be in the Lord's Supper, but the words are to be understood as they read, "this is my body, this is my blood," that I truly know. For if they were tropus, they would have to be tropus in all places where the Lord's Supper is spoken of. Now we have seen how the revelers themselves teach and confess that they are not tropus in the saying of Paul [1 Cor. 11:27], "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." So also not in this saying [Cap. 10, 16.], "The cup of blessing which we bless is the communion of the blood of Christ. "etc. To this there is nothing that may be answered against us. Now, if there is no trope not in the Lord's Supper, it is clear enough that our understanding is right and that the dreamer is wrong and unjust.

508 The sixth chapter of John, because it speaks nothing of the Lord's Supper, and is otherwise dealt with by others, such as Philipp Melanchthon and Johann Brenz and others more, I will now leave undone, although I have in mind to deal with the same with a sermon, and to add my own. 1)

Third.

509. Because I see that the longer I live, the more I err, and that there is no end to Satan's raving and raging, lest in the future, during my life or after my death, some should take advantage of me and falsely lead my writing to strengthen their error, as the sacramental and baptismal devotees have begun to do: then I will confess with this writing before God and all the world my faith from piece to piece, whereupon I intend to remain until death, within (that God will help me) from

1) Erlanger: dazuthun.

of this world, and to come before the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ. And whether someone would say after my death: Where Luther lived now, he would teach and hold this or this article differently, because he did not consider it enough etc..:

I say against this, now as then, and then as now, that by the grace of God I have most diligently considered all these articles, have often traced them through the Scriptures and back again, and have wanted to defend them as surely as I have now defended the sacrament of the altar. I am not drunk or thoughtless now, I know what I am saying, I feel well what I am saying for the future of the Lord JEsu Christ at the last judgment. Therefore let no one make a joke or loose theiding 2) out of it, I am serious. For I know Satan by the grace of God to a great extent; if he can pervert and confuse God's word and scripture, what should he not do with my words or anyone else's?

First of all, I believe with all my heart the high article of the Divine Majesty that Father, Son, Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, One true, natural, truthful God, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things, against the Arians, Macedonians, Sabellians, and the like heresy, Genesis 1:1, as it has been held both in the Roman Church and in the Christian churches throughout the world.

Secondly, I believe and know that the Scripture teaches us that the Middle Person in God, namely the Son, alone became truly man, conceived by the Holy Spirit without man's assistance, and born of the pure Holy Virgin Mary, as of a true natural mother; as all this is clearly described by St. Lucas [Cap. 1, 26.] and the prophets have proclaimed, thus that not the Father or Holy Spirit became man, as some heretics have taught. 3)

513. also that God the Son not only took the body, without the soul (as some heretics taught), but also the soul, that is, a whole complete humanity, and right seed or child, Abraham and David.

2) Erlanger: Interpretation.

3) "have" is missing in the Erlanger.

and that the natural Son of Mary be born, in all manner and form, a true man, as I am, and as all others [Heb. 2:17, 4:15], having come without sin, of virgins only, through the Holy Spirit.

514. and that such a man is truly God, as One eternal, inseparable Person from God and man, so that Mary, the holy virgin, is a right true mother not only of the man Christ, as the Nestorians teach, but of the Son of God, as Lucas [Cap. 1, 35] says: "That which is born in you shall be called the Son of God," that is, my and all Lord Jesus Christ, God's and Mary's only, true, natural Son, truly God and man.

515. I also believe that the Son of God and Mary, our Lord Jesus Christ, suffered, was crucified, died and was buried for us poor sinners, so that he might redeem us from sin, death and the eternal wrath of God through his innocent blood, and that he rose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, Lord over all lords, King over all kings, and over all creatures in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, over death and life, over sin and righteousness.

516. For I confess, and know to prove from the Scriptures, that all men are descended from one man Adam, and from the same bring with them by birth and inherit the fall, guilt and sin, which the same Adam committed in paradise through the wickedness of the devil, and thus together with him are all born in sins and die, and would have to be guilty of eternal death, if Jesus Christ had not come to our rescue and taken such guilt and sin upon himself as an innocent little lamb, paid for us by his suffering, and still stands and steps daily for us as a faithful, merciful mediator, savior, and priest and bishop of our souls.

517 I hereby reject and condemn as vain error all doctrines that praise our free will, as they strive against the help and grace of our Savior Jesus Christ. For since apart from Christ the

If death and sin are our masters, and the devil our god and prince, there can be no strength nor power, no wit nor understanding, so that we might send or strive for righteousness and life; but must be blinded and captive, of the devil and of sins, to do and think what pleases them and is contrary to God with His commandments.

518 Therefore I also condemn both, new and old Pelagians, who do not want original sin to be sin, but to be an infirmity or defect. 1) But because death passes over all men, original sin must not be an infirmity, but a sin too great, as St. Paul says: "The wages of sin is death" [Rom. 6, 23]. And again: "Sin is the sting of death" sl. Cor. 15, 56. 1) So also David says Psalm 51, 7: "Behold, I am begotten of sinful seed, and my mother conceived me in sins"; 2) does not say: My mother conceived me with sins, but "I, I, I am begotten of sinful seed", and my mother conceived me in sins, that is, I grew in my mother's womb from sinful seed, as the Hebrew text is able to do.

519. Accordingly, I also reject and condemn, as vain devil's rottenness and error, all 3) orders, rules, monasteries, convents, and what is invented and instituted by men above and apart from the Scriptures, written with vows and duties, even though many great saints lived in them, and as God's elect at this time were deceived by them, and yet were finally redeemed and escaped through faith in Jesus Christ. For since such orders, foundations and sects are lived and held in the opinion that one can be saved and saved through such

1) Zwingli also teaches this.

2) Thus the Wittenberg edition has quoted this saying according to the Bible, and in accordance with it is also the following execution. In the Erlangen and Jena: "Behold, I am conceived in sins, and my mother hath borne me in sins." Then in the Jena edition follows the text as we have given it here to the end of the paragraph, which does not fit the wording of the saying as it has it. Whereas in the Erlanger follows: "I, I, I was conceived in sins, and my mother bore me in sins, that is, that I grew in my mother's womb from sinful seed" etc.

3) Erlanger: than all.

1098 Erl. so, 3SS-3SS. II. writings Against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. XX, 1377-1380. 1099

If any man, by his ways and works, would and might be saved, escape from sin and death, it is a public, abominable blasphemy and denial of the one help and grace of our one Saviour and Mediator JEsu Christ; "for there is no other name given unto us, whereby we must be saved, but this, which is called Jesus Christ" [Acts 4:12]. 4, 12.), and it is impossible that there should be more saviors, ways or means of salvation, without the one righteousness, which our Savior Jesus Christ is, and has given to us, and set before God for us, as our one mercy seat, Rom. 3, 25.

(520) It would be good if monasteries or convents were kept to teach young people the Word of God, the Scriptures, and Christian discipline, so that they could educate and prepare fine men to be bishops, pastors, and other servants of the churches, as well as competent scholars for secular government, and fine scholarly women, who could then keep Christian households and raise children. But to seek a way of salvation is a 1) Devil's doctrine and faith, 1 Tim. 4, 1. etc.

521. But the holy orders and right orders instituted by God are these three: the priesthood, the married state, the secular authority. All those who are found in the priesthood or ministry of the Word are in a holy, right, good, pleasing to God order and state, as those who preach, administer the sacrament, preside over the common treasury, sextons and messengers or servants who serve such persons etc. These are vain holy works before God.

522 Thus, he who is father and mother, who rules the house well, and breeds children 2) for God's service, is also holy and holy works and holy order. Likewise, where children or servants are obedient to their parents or masters, there is also a holy spirit, and whoever is found therein is a living saint on earth.

523 Thus also prince or overlord, judges, officials, chancellors, clerks, servants, maids, and all who serve such, to this all,

1) "one" is missing in the Erlanger.

2) Wittenberger: Kinderzucht.

who are submissively obedient, 3) everything is holy and holy life before God, because such three foundations or orders are set in God's word and commandment. But what is set in God's word must be a holy thing; for God's word is holy and sanctifies everything that is in it and in it.

524 Above these three foundations and orders is the common order of Christian love, in which one serves not only the three orders, but also in general every needy person with all kinds of good deeds, as feeding the hungry, watering the thirsty etc., forgiving the enemies, praying for all people on earth, suffering all kinds of evil on earth etc. Behold, these are all vain good holy works. Nevertheless, none of these orders is a way to salvation, but the only way above them all remains, namely, faith in Jesus Christ.

525 For there is much difference between being holy and being blessed. We are blessed through Christ alone; but both are holy, through such faith and also through such divine foundations and orders. Even the ungodly may have many holy things, but they are not blessed in them; for God wants such works from us for His praise and glory, and all those who are blessed in the faith of Christ do such works and keep such ordinances.

But what is said of the married state should also be understood of widowhood and virginity, for they belong to the house and to the household etc. If these orders and divine foundations do not save, what should the devil's foundations and monasteries do, which only arise without God's word and strive and rage against the one way of faith?

Thirdly, I believe in the Holy Spirit, who is One true God with the Father and the Son, and comes from the Father and the Son eternally, yet in One divine essence and nature a distinct person. Through Him, as a living, eternal, divine gift, all believers are graced with faith and other spiritual gifts, raised from death, freed from sins, and made joyful and confident, free and secure.

3) "is" is missing in the Erlanger.

in the conscience. For this is our defiance, when we feel such a testimony of the Spirit in our hearts that God wants to be our Father, forgive sin, and give eternal life.

These are the three persons, and One God, who has given himself completely to all of us, with everything that he is and has. The Father gives Himself to us with heaven and earth together with all creatures, so that they may serve (us1) ) and be useful. But such a gift became obscured and useless through Adam's fall. Therefore, the Son gave Himself to us as well, bestowing all His works, sufferings, wisdom and righteousness, and reconciling us to the Father, so that we might again know and have the Father with His gifts, alive and righteous.

Since such grace would be of no use to anyone if it were so secretly hidden and could not come to us, the Holy Spirit comes and gives Himself to us completely; He teaches us to recognize the benefits of Christ shown to us, helps us to receive and keep them, to use them usefully and to distribute them, to multiply and promote them. And does the same both inwardly and outwardly: inwardly through faith and other spiritual gifts; but outwardly through the gospel, through baptism and the sacrament of the altar, by which he comes to us, as through three means, in an unprofitable way, and exercises the suffering of Christ in us and brings it to the benefit of salvation.

530 Therefore I hold and know that as there is no more than One Gospel and One Christ, so there is no more than One Baptism; and that Baptism is in itself a divine ordinance, as His Gospel is also. And as the gospel is not therefore false or unjust, whether some use it falsely, or teach it, or believe it not; so neither is baptism false or unjust, whether some receive it, or give it, or otherwise abuse it, without faith. Therefore, I completely reject and condemn the doctrine of the Anabaptists and Donatists and whoever they are who baptize again.

531 In the same way I also speak and confess that

1) "us" is in the text in the Wittenberg, bracketed in the Jena, missing in the Erlanger.

Sacrament of the altar, that there the body and blood in the bread and wine be eaten and drunk orally, whether the priests who administer it or those who receive it do not believe or otherwise misuse it. For it is not based on man's faith or unbelief, but on God's word and order. Unless they first change God's word and order and interpret them differently, as the present enemies of the sacraments do, who, of course, have vain bread and wine; for they have not changed the words and established order of God, but have perverted and changed them according to their own conceit.

532 Therefore I believe that there is one holy Christian church on earth, that is, the congregation and number or assembly of all Christians in all the world, the one bride of Christ and his spiritual body, of which he is also the one head; and the bishops or pastors are not heads, nor lords, nor bridegrooms of the same, but servants, friends, and (as the word bishop indicates) overseers, keepers, or overseers.

533 And this same Christianity is not only under the Roman church, or Pabst, but in all the world, as the prophets proclaimed, that Christ's gospel should come into all the world, Ps. 2, 8. Ps. 19, 5. So that under Pabst, Turks, Persians, Tarians and everywhere the Christianity is scattered bodily, but gathered spiritually, in one gospel and faith, under one head, which is Jesus Christ. For the papacy is certainly the right end-Christian regime, or the right counter-Christian tyranny, which sits in the temple of God and rules with the commandment of men, as Matth. 24, 15. Christ, and 2 Thess. 2, 4. Paul proclaim. Although the Turk and all heresies, where they exist, also belong to this abomination, which is prophesied to stand in the holy place, it is not equal to the Pabstacy.

534 In this Christianity, and where it is, there is forgiveness of sins, that is, a kingdom of grace and of right indulgence. For there is the gospel, baptism, the sacrament of the altar, in which forgiveness of sins is offered, obtained and received, and there is also Christ and his Spirit and God. And apart from such Christianity

there is neither salvation nor forgiveness of sins, but eternal death and damnation; though there be a great appearance of holiness, and much good works, yet all is lost. Such forgiveness of sins, however, is not to be expected at once, as in baptism (as the Novatians teach), but as often and often as one needs it, even unto death.

535 But the indulgence which the papal church has and gives is a blasphemous deception, not only because it invents and sets up a special one over the common pardon which is given in all Christendom by the gospel and sacrament, and thus defiles and destroys the common pardon; but also because it sets up and bases the pardon for sin on the work of men and the merit of the saints, when Christ alone can and has done enough for us.

536 For the dead, because the Scriptures do not report anything about it, I think that it is not a sin to ask this or the like out of free devotion: Dear God, if the soul is in such a state that it needs to be helped, then have mercy on it etc. And when this has happened once or twice, let it be enough. For the vigils and masses for the soul and the annual celebrations are of no use, and are the devil's fair.

537 We also have nothing in Scripture about Purgatory, and it is certainly also brought up by the spirits of poltergeists; therefore I think that it is not necessary to believe one. Even though God can make all things possible, and even let the soul be tormented after parting from the body, He has not let it be said or written; therefore He does not want it to be believed. Otherwise, I know that you have a feg, but nothing of it is to be taught in the church, nor is it to be countered with pens or vigils.

Others have attacked the calling of the saints before me; and it pleases me, and I believe it, that Christ alone is to be called as our mediator; this is given in the Scriptures and is certain. Calling saints 1) is nothing in the Scriptures, therefore it must be uncertain and not to be believed.

539 I would let go of the obeisance if it was held according to the Gospel, Marc. 6, 15. and Jac. 5, 14.

1) In the Erlanger: to call.

is nothing. For just as one might preach a sermon on death and eternal life instead of vigils and masses, and thus pray at the funeral and consider our end (as it seems that the ancients did), so it would also be fine to go to the sick, pray and admonish, and if one wants to sprinkle him with oil, he should be free, in the name of God.

(540) Thus no sacrament may be made of marriage and the priesthood; otherwise they are holy orders enough in themselves. Penance is nothing else than the practice and power of baptism. That the two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, remain alongside the gospel, in which the Holy Spirit abundantly offers, gives, and exercises forgiveness of sins.

541) But for all the abominations 2) I consider the mass, which is preached and sold for a sacrifice or good work, on which all monasteries and convents now stand, but (if God wills) shall soon lie. For although I have been a great, grave, shameful sinner, and have also spent and lost my youth damnably, these are my greatest sins, that I have been such a holy monk, and with so many masses for over fifteen years have so grievously angered, tormented, and plagued my dear Lord. But praise and thanks be to his unspeakable grace for eternity that he has led me out of such abomination, and still daily sustains and strengthens me (though almost ungrateful) in right faith.

542 Therefore I have advised, and still advise, to leave the monasteries and convents, together with the vows, and to give oneself up to the proper Christian orders, so that one may escape such abominations of the masses and blasphemous holiness, as chastity, poverty, obedience, by which one intends to become blessed. For as fine as it was in the beginning of Christianity to keep the state of virginity, it is now abominable that one thereby denies Christ's help and grace; for one can indeed live a virgin, a widow, and a chaste life without such blasphemous abominations.

543. pictures, bells, chasuble, churches

2) Sense: But for the very greatest abomination of all re.

1104 Erl. so, 372 f. 21. Luther's Confession of the Lord's Supper. W. XL, 1S8S-I387. 1105

I keep the decoration, altar, light and the like free; whoever wants it, may leave it. Although images from the Scriptures and from good histories I keep almost useful, but free and arbitrary; because I do not keep it with the iconoclasts.

544 In the last place, I believe in the resurrection of all the dead at the last day, both of the righteous and the wicked, that each one may receive there in his body what he has deserved, so that the righteous may live forever with Christ, and the wicked may die forever with the devil and his angels. For I do not hold with those who teach that the devils also will finally come to salvation.

545. this is my faith; for thus believe

all true Christians do, and this is what the Holy Scriptures teach us. But what I have said here too little, my little books will give me enough witnesses, especially those that have gone out in the last four or five years. I pray that all devout hearts will be witnesses to me, and pray for me that I may stand firm in such faith and resolve my end; for (since God is for) whether I would say something else out of temptation and mortal need, it shall be nothing, and I hereby want it publicly confessed that it is wrong and inspired by the devil. May my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who is eternal, help me to do this, amen.