Translated from Latin.
First letter.
July 4, 1543.
To the venerable man in the Lord, M. Simon Wolferinus, pastor at St. Andreä in Eisleben, his brother in the Lord and faithful fellow servant!
Grace and peace in the Lord. In addition to so many miseries of my old age, you, my dear Simon, and Mr. Friedrich, 2) pastor of St. Peter in my fatherland, have caused me distress. It is nothing that you can foresee.
2) D. Fridericus is, as reported by Seckendorf, Hist. Inittt. Ill, p. 467, Friedrich is a robber. - De Wette, VI, 690 is said to be "Pastor zu St. Andreas in Eisleben", but Luther writes here that he is "Pastor zu St. Peter".
test, as if that one alone had been given a hearing in your absence. I have seen your disputations and letters, in which you revenge yourself in such a bitter way, as if he were the most damned of the papists, although you are both of one city and shepherds of one people, indeed to very great annoyance. Well then, if he has offended you in public, which he denies, and of which I do not judge, why have you not dealt with him either according to the law or according to love? but, inflamed with rage, you have avenged yourself and set yourself up as a judge with the most terrifying words, which any drunkard 3) would find more offensive.
3) Bacclius - Bacchant.
*) These two letters of Luther are found in Latin in Buddeus, x. 277 and x. 279; in the Jena edition, Dorn. IV, foI. 585 and tol. 585d; transcribed in 6o6. eUart. Ootli. 399; also in De Wette, vol. V, p. 572 and p. 577; the first letter according to the "Fortgesetzte Sammlung" 1732, p. 868, in I. Hachenbnrg's "Nöthige Unterrichtung" u. s. w. (Burkhardt, p. 427.) German in the Leipzig edition, vol. XXI, p. 435 and p. 436, and in the Hall volume p. 461 and p. 462. We have retranslated according to De Wette.
1606 De Wette V, 572-574. II. writings against Zwingli and his followers 2c. W. XX, 2009-2012. 1607
than a preacher would stand against his fellow preacher. For he is neither a heretic nor an enemy of the doctrine whom you treat with such hostility. Or is there no one of understanding among us or among you to whom you could have reported your anger before you raged in such a way?
2 But to the matter. Not we have it from you, but you have it without doubt from us, that the sacraments are actions (actiones), not continuing holy things (stantes factiones). But what strange audacity is this of yours, that you do not avoid such an evil appearance, which you should know to be annoying, namely, that you mix what remains of wine and bread with the previous bread and wine? After what example do you do this? Surely you do not see how dangerous questions you will bring on the way, if you insist on your sense and claim that with the cessation of the action the sacrament also ceases. Perhaps you want it to be said of you that you are a Zwinglian, and I would like to believe that you suffer from Zwingli's nonsense, since you incite with your peculiar and boastful wisdom in such a proud and contemptuous manner. Was there no other way, so that the simple and the adversaries would not suspect that you are a despiser of the sacrament, than that you caused offence through evil appearances, by mixing what was left over from the sacrament and pouring it together with the previous wine? Why do you not follow the other churches? Why do you alone want to be considered the author of new and dangerous things? I write this so painfully that you may know that you have given me trouble and grieved my spirit. You yourself say that these are trifles, and you are so angry about trifles? Yes, they are very serious trifles. But you may not care who is angered, if only you come out victorious in these trifles. But the Lord, whom you resist, will resist you again.
3 Therefore I exhort you, since you know, or should know, how to walk in the church, that you should communicate with Mr. Frederick.
and that you are unanimously of the same opinion and speak the same language. For you may thus, as we do here, drink and eat up what is left of the sacrament with the communicants, so that there will be no need to raise these vexatious and dangerous questions of the cessation of the sacramental action, which you will choke on if you do not repent. For with this reason you will abolish the whole Sacrament, and have nothing to answer the slanderers, who will say that under the action the Sacrament ceases more than it is practiced. Finally we shall arrive at the monstrosities of the Cratylus, that we shall be compelled to have the Sacrament only in the actione, and not in the intermissione accidentium, and at last the time and the moment will become the cause of the Sacrament, and many other inconsistencies will follow. Therefore, conform yourself to more arid churches and do not start a war against them, lest you fall with disgrace. I will certainly oppose, as much as I can, your peculiarity and your offensive and annoying presumption, and will not allow my last hour to be burdened with your annoyances. Fare well in the Lord; in the Lord, I say, and restrain your desire for revenge and arrogance, especially against a brother who is not heretical, nor sets himself against our doctrine. Wednesday after Peter and Paul in the year 1543.
Martin Luther, Doctor.
I, Johann Bugenhagen from Pomerania, Doctor, subscribe to the opinion of our venerable father Luther.
Second letter.
July 20, 1543.
1. grace and peace. Dear Simon Wolferinus! Should I not be justly saddened and grieved to see that you, preachers of one city and of the people in one church, who are united in all doctrine, have clashed with one another in such a contentious spirit because of a matter that is not sufficiently clear to you, nor is it of such high importance to you?
1608 De Wette V, p77 f. 29. Luther's two letters to 21 Wolferinus 2c. W. XX, 2012-2015. 1609
Meaning, if it were clear? See for yourself your sentences, whether such horrible shouting rhymes with love and brotherly behavior. I see that the devil tempts you to make a beam out of a splinter, rather a great fire out of a spark. You could have settled this by a friendly conversation, since you did not have to argue against the fury of the papists, but with a comrade in office and in Christianity.
2 Admittedly, Mr. Philip has written correctly that there is no sacrament apart from the sacramental act, but you take the sacramental act too hastily and briefly. In this way you will bring about that you seem to have no sacrament at all. For if this hasty cutting off of the action should endure, it will follow that after the utterance of the words, which is the most excellent and principal action in the Sacrament, no one would receive the Body and Blood of Christ, because the action would have ceased. This is certainly not what Mr. Philip wants. And this explanation (definitio) of the action would generate innumerable conscientious doubts and endless questions, just as among the papists it was disputed whether during the first, middle or last syllables the Body and Blood of Christ were present. Therefore, one must not only look at this movement of the instantaneous or present action, but also at the duration of time (tempus), not in mathematical, but in physical extension, that is, one must give this action a period of time (mors), and indeed a period of time in right extension, as one says, öv [according to the width].
3 We will therefore declare (definiemus) the time or sacramental action in such a way that it begins with the beginning of the Holy Prayer of the Father and lasts until all have communicated, drunk the chalice, eaten the Hosts, and celebrated the Eucharist.
People have been dismissed, and one has departed from the altar. Thus, we will be safe and free from conscience concerns and aergernissen of endless questions. Mr. Philip explains the sacramental action with reference to external things (ad extra ----- outwardly), that is, against the enclosure and circumambulation of the Sacrament; he does not divide it into himself (intra se ipsam), nor does he explain it against himself. Therefore, if there is anything left over from the Sacrament, you will see to it that either some communicants or the priest himself and the preacher receive it, not that the deacon alone or only one other drinks the rest in the cup, but that he gives it to others who have also partaken of the body, so that you do not seem to share the Sacrament by an evil example, or to treat the sacramental act dishonorably. This is my opinion, and I know that it is also Philip's.
I further exhort you to harmony and peace, and that you forgive and reconcile among yourselves, as you have the commandment of the Lord, otherwise you will not be able to be servants of the church without danger and trouble, yes, without severe wrath of God. You could (if you were afraid to talk to each other in the beginning) make use of other and suitable persons who would be mediators among you. What I write to you, I want to be regarded as if I had also written it to Vigelius and Mr. Friedrich. May the Lord guide your hearts in the love and patience of Christ. Take this, which I have had to dictate, for the best, for I have not been able to write myself because I suffered from my head. Therefore, pray for me and rejoice my heart. This you will do when I receive the news that you are reconciled in the Lord; in him you are well. Given at Wittenberg, July 20, 1543.
Martin Luther.