End of September 1544.
Grace and peace in the Lord.
My dear friend! That Schwenkfeld spreads my letter from time to time, and speaks ill of me along with his eutychers and sacrament abusers, I must therefore believe that you have just received the copy of the same letter and sent it to me. And it is dear to me that he spreads such a letter, to his honor and glory and to my unhappiness and shame. For that is why I did not want to seal it but leave it open, nor did I want to attribute it to him but to his messenger 1) nor to honor his name. For such a damned blasphemer shall not (whether God wills it) be worthy with me, that I should ascribe a letter to him, or speak with him, nor see him, nor hear him. It is just as much to me, if he or his cursed pack of the enthusiasts, Zwingler and the like, praise me or scold me, as if Jews, Turks, Pabst, or equal all devils peeled me or praised me.
For I, who now walk in the pit, will bring this testimony and this glory with me before the judgment seat of my dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that I have condemned and shunned the heretics and enemies of the sacrament, Carlstadt, Zwingel, Oecolampad, Stenkefeld, and their disciples at Zurich and where they are, with all seriousness, according to his command, Titus 3:10. 3, 10: "You shall avoid a heretic, if he is once or twice admonished, and know that such a one is perverse and sins, as he who is evil wants to be condemned."
1) This letter (dated November 8, 1543) is in this volume No. 34.
They are often enough, also seriously enough admonished by me and many others, the books are in the day. And all of us still preach daily against their blasphemous and lying heresy, which they know well.
3) Therefore, it alienates me not a little and makes me think that Schwenkfeld has become so bold and audacious to approach me with writings and books, because he knows, or should know, that he is my unreconciled enemy: first, in this matter of the holy sacrament, which he has made into vain bread and wine in Silesia, deceived so many thousands of souls, for which he has not repented, but, as Solomon says [Prov. 2, 14]: exultat in rebus pessimis, as if he had done well, and yet thinks that Luther must be glad of his letters and books. For from this should probably arise a delusion 3) as if Luther were well at one with Schwenkfeld and the enthusiasts, and had revoked everything, taking and giving letters* and books to each other as good friends 2c.
(4) It is true that I have often been told before that the fanciers should boast that I was one with them, which I did not want to believe because no one wanted to write it publicly. But by this means faith shall come into my hands before I fail. It is true, fifteen years have passed since Zwingel and Oecolampad, and we some too, were in Marburg [1529].
2) "körrn" in the Wittenberg and Jena editions, probably as much as "dreist"; while "körre," which the Erlanger offers here, is as much as kirre, tame. Cf. Erlanger, vol. 22, p. 68.
3) Walch and the Erlangers: "such a delusion".
*This writing appeared in the year 1544 at Wittenberg with Hans Luft; further in the same year without indication of the printing place. Similarly, in 1545, also without indication of place and printer. In the collections: Wittenberger (1551), vol. II, p. 255; Jenaer (1562), vol. VIII, p. 174; Altenburger, vol. VIII, p. 345; Leipziger, vol. XXI, p. 439 and in the Erlanger, vol. 32, p. 396. In the Erlanger edition, this writing is erroneously assigned to the year 1545, although all editions, including Mathesius, Luthers Leben, St. Louiser Ausgabe, p. 265, place it in the year 1544, yes, although the Erlangen edition itself had cited the two above-mentioned individual editions from the year 1544. We have taken the closer time determination from Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 593. We give the text according to the Jena edition, comparing the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions.
We came together and made up in many articles, which are completely Christian, as the printed note testifies; but in the article about the sacrament it got stuck, so that we should otherwise be good friends, so that the sharp writing against each other would rest, whether God would in time, through our prayer, also give unity of mind in this, and I had quite a bit of hope, because Zwingel and his gave up so many good articles, that in time some article would also be found. And so there was a silence between us with writing against each other for several years.
However, the Zwingel was miserably slain in the field by that part of the papists, and Oecolampad, much too weak to bear such an accident, also died of suffering. Which caused me such heartache myself two nights, 2) that I could easily have stayed, because I was hopeful of their recovery, and yet I had to grieve for their souls to the highest degree, because they, still immersed in error, 3) thus perished in sins.
But after Zwingel's death a booklet went out, which he is said to have made hard before his end, with the name: Christianae fidei expositio, ad Christianum regem etc.. It was supposed to be an exception to all his previous books. And that it had to be his, the Zwingel's, gave the nature of his wild, wild speech, and his previous opinion. I was very frightened by this booklet, not for my sake, but for his. For since he may have written such things according to our agreement at Marburg, it is certain that he acted against us in Marburg with a false heart and mouth, and [I] would have to despair (as I still do) of his salvation, since he died in such a sense, regardless of the fact that his disciples and descendants made him a saint and martyr. Ah, Lord God, the saint and the martyr!
1) In the editions: "bleib's"; this is the imperfectum, as is clear from 10.
2) "that" is missing in the Wittenberg and Jena, but is found in Walch and in the Erlanger.
3) In the Wittenberg and Jena editions: "verteufft", which we have resolved with "vertieft". Luther derives "baptism" from "deep". Erlanger: "verteift".
4) Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Erlanger: had to.
For in this booklet he not only remains an enemy of the holy sacrament, but also becomes a pagan altogether; so finely has he improved, according to my hope. You can notice that, among other words, he addresses the same king thus: You will see there in all kinds of company all holy, pious, wise, manly, honest people, the redeemed and redeemer, Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Pinhen, 5) Eliam, Elisäum, also Jesaiam, and the virgin, God's child-bearer, of whom he prophesied, David, Ezechiam, Josiam, the Baptist, Petrum, Paulum, Herculem, Theseum, Socratem, Aristidem, Antigonum, Nurnam, Camillum, Catones, Scipiones, and your ancestors all who died in faith 2c.
This is written in his booklet, which (as said) is supposed to be the most precious and best booklet, made hard before its end. Say now, whoever wants to be a Christian, what may one believe in baptism, sacrament, Christ, the Gospel, or the prophets and holy scriptures, if such godless pagans, Socrates, Aristides, yes, the abominable Numa, who first founded all idolatry in Rome through the revelation of the devil, as St. Augustine de civitate DEI writes, and Scipius, who was the first to be born in Rome. Augustinus de civitate DEI writes, and Scipio, the Epicurus, are blessed and holy, with the patriarchs, prophets and apostles in heaven, if they have known nothing of God, Scripture, Evangelio, Christo, baptism, Sacrament, or Christian faith? What else can such a writer, preacher and teacher believe about the Christian faith, but that it is equal to all faiths, and that everyone can be saved in his own faith, even an idolater and epicurean, than Numa and Scipio?
Because in this booklet Zwingel has not only fallen away from the Marburg treaty (yes, the same is not meant seriously), but has become much worse and even a pagan, and yet the enthusiasts, his companions, praise and honor such a booklet (in which there are also many more abominations), I have also abandoned all my hopes of their improvement, and have so completely disregarded them that I have also not wanted to oppose such a booklet.
5) i.e. Phinehas. 4 Mos. 25, 7. 13.
I pray for them even more, because I saw that all my previous writings and exhortations, as well as my Christian love and faithfulness, shown at Marburg, had to be so badly invested and so shamefully lost.
(10) Now, if anyone has heard or talked out of such a contract that I am in league with the enthusiasts and that we are one in this matter, I sincerely ask him for God's sake not to believe it. Then God protect me, as He has done until now, that I should knowingly cover up or 1) strengthen the very smallest article of the enthusiasts with my name. For even at Marburg we did not come to them in a single article, they came to us in all articles, without the Sacrament article (as the note printed indicates), which (as said) remained stuck on hope that it should also finally follow. But how this hope turned out, you have now heard. I would much rather, I say, let myself be torn or burned a hundred times, before I wanted to be of one mind or will with Stenkefeld, Zwingel, Carlstadt, Oecolampad, and whoever else they are, the tiresome enthusiasts, or approve of their teachings.
11) For I still think, it is also still written in their books, how exceedingly shameful they blasphemed us with our dear Lord and Savior, calling him a baked god, a broiled god, a weeping god, a breaded god 2c. They call us flesh-eaters, blood-drinkers, 2) Anthropophagos, Capernaites, Thyestas, 2c., since they knew that they were wilfully and exceedingly blaspheming the Lord and us and telling shameful lies about us; which was a sure sign that there could be no good spirit in them. We still let it all go in Marburg, in the hope that they would and would completely mend their ways. For they knew very well that we had never taught nor believed such things, without which they would have liked to make the illusion for their glory and for our disgrace before the mob, as if we were such mad, senseless, raving people, who had believed in Christ in the name of the Lord.
1) Wittenberger: "and".
2) Wittenberger: "Blutfrefser".
crament localiter, and eat them as a wolf eats a sheep, and drink blood as a cow drinks water. Well did they know (I say) that in this they called us flesh-eaters and blood-drinkers out of the devil's gear with obviously insolent lies; for the papists also never taught such things, as they also well knew, so that they also wanted to hurt us with the name papists, the holy, spiritual people.
12. For this is how it was taught under the papacy, as we also keep and still teach, as the true old Christian church has kept from 1500 years ago (for the pope neither founded nor found the sacrament, which the zealots must also testify themselves, as almost they want to make it papist), when you receive the bread from the altar, you do not tear an arm from the body of the Lord, or bite off his nose or a finger, but you receive the whole body of the Lord; the other also, if it follow thee, the same whole body, as the third, and a thousand after a thousand for and for. Likewise, when thou drinkest the cup or wine, thou drinkest not one drop of blood from his finger or foot, but drinkest all his blood, so also he that followeth thee unto a thousand times a thousand, as Christ's words plainly are, "Take, eat, this is my body." He does not say, Petre, you eat my finger; Andrea, you eat my nose; John, you eat my ears 2c., but: It is my body, take it and eat it 2c., each one for himself undivided.
No, praise God, we, the holy church under the papacy, are not such coarse dolts, as the evil spirit would have liked to have imagined us through the enthusiasts to adorn their heresy with such desperate lies to the great annoyance and displeasure of the people. For they knew that their mouth was a lying mouth, also because they had undoubtedly often sung and read the masses of the Holy Corpus Christi (as it was called) themselves, in which, among many others, it is clearly written: Sumit uniis, sumunt mille, quantum iste, tantum ille, nec sumptus absumitur. Therefore, they knew well that we were not carnivores, blood drinkers, Thyestes, Capernaites, nor localists, and that our God was not a ge-
baking god, weeping god 2c. could be. 1) Nor did we have to hear such their courageous, recognized blasphemy, and, who will not leave it with them, still blasphemes, because they read it in their books.
(14) We still let everything go to Marburg (as I said), so that we would show abundant Christian love. For (help God!) how we had to hear that we had no Christian love, despised the servants of Christ, distressed and confused the churches 2c.! And there were no sinners on earth, because we alone, and no saints in heaven, because the enthusiasts alone, with them was vain fire of love, with us vain ice of unmercifulness; because we were carnivores, they were vain pure, pure, pure, the spirit itself.
(15) But what good has such superfluous love and humility done us? without making everything worse and our good hope miserably lacking; for love is and must be deceived, because it believes and trusts everything, 1 Cor. 13:7. But faith cannot be lacking, for God does not lie as man does, 1 Sam. 15:29. 15, 29. How should and could I now burden my poor conscience with such unrepentant blasphemy of the impenitent blasphemers and blasphemers, as I would have to do if I joined them with books, writings or words, as Stenkefeld seems to me now? St. John says, 2 John v. 10 f.: "If any man come and bring not this doctrine, receive him not at home, and salute him not: and he that saluteth him maketh himself partaker of his evil works." Here you hear who is the man who calls me neither to hear nor to see the heretics, but to shun and condemn them, as I also said above from 2) St. Paul, Titus 3:10: "You shall shun a heretic when he is once or twice admonished" 2c.
16 And if it were per impossibile, and they were right, that all bread and wine were in the Lord's Supper, should they therefore rage and thunder against us, with such abominable blasphemies: baked God, baked God 2c.? Should they not be accused of the holy
1) Wittenberg and Jena: "could". Walch and the Erlangeners: "could".
2) "from" is missing in the Wittenberger.
(which we have not invented): "This is my body", in which he ever clearly calls the offered bread his body? So they would also blaspheme him 3) a cloth-covered, woven-in, sewn-in God, because he walked in skirts and garments, sewn and woven; item, a watery God, because he was baptized in the Jordan; a cloudy God, because he went up to heaven in clouds.
17. I would have known how to call their God, and I would have done so, if I had not spared the name of God, and I would have given them their right name, so that they would not be bad bread eaters and wine drinkers, but soul eaters and soul murderers, and they would have a devilish, devilish, over-devilish, blasphemous heart and lying mouth; and would have told the truth with it, because it cannot be contradicted that they have lied brazenly with such their blasphemies, against their own conscience, and have not yet repented, even boasting in their wickedness.
(18) Well then, no one of the Christians should and can pray for the devotees, nor take care of them. They are given and sin unto death (as St. John says). I speak of the masters; the poor people who are among them, may the dear Lord Christ help them from such murderers of souls. They are (I say) highly and often enough admonished, they do not want mine; so neither do I want theirs; they have nothing from me (they boast), of which I thank God; so I have much less from them, praise be to God. Let always go what does not want to stay, it will find itself, has it not already found itself too much.
19 First, they were warned in the beginning by the Holy Spirit, because they were divided into seven spirits over the text, always one different from the other.
The first, Carlstadt, made the text thus: "This is my body" should mean so much: Here sits my body. And the text should stand thus: And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, Here sitteth my body.
3) Taken by us from the old edition of Walch. In the old editions: "jnen", that is, them.
my body, which is given for you. Oh, this was so certain that not only the Holy Spirit, but the heavenly Father Himself had revealed it to him, of which I have written enough against the heavenly prophets.
The other, Zwingel, said that this was not done correctly, regardless of the fact that the heavenly Father Himself had revealed it. And made the text by his other holy spirit thus: Take, eat, that means my body, which is given for you. Here "is" had to mean "means".
22 The third, Oecolampad, brought forth the third Holy Spirit, who again made the text different, that is, Take, eat, this is the sign of my body.
23) The fourth, Stenkefeld, thought his stench was theses 1) in all the world, brought 2) from the fourth holy spirit this rule: One must put these words "this is my body" out of one's sight; for they hinder the spiritual mind. You must remember this rule if you want to become a theologian; namely, where the bright words of God hinder your understanding, you must seek another that pleases you, and then say that it is the Holy Spirit, and then arrange and interpret the words as seems good to you. So, here you must first grasp the high spiritual understanding that bread is bread, wine is wine, which no pope nor Luther ever understood, nor any baker nor Kretzmaier. 3) And therefore make the text so, putting the hindmost first, namely: Take and eat, my body, which is given for you, is this (hear, a spiritual food). There you have it; now go and say that Stenkefeld does not have the Holy Spirit far above the three holy spirits of Carlstadt, Zwingel, and Oecolampad.
(24) The fifth holy spirit, and some of his covenants and ungodly ones, thus say, Take, eat; that which is given for you is my body.
The sixth Holy Spirit thus says: "Take, eat, this is my body, for a memorial," should be so much: Take, eat, this is my body's memorial (nominativum).
1) "Thesem" a fragrance from the thesema apple.
2) Wittenberger: needs".
3) Kretschmar - Krämer, Wirth, Weinschenk.
corpus per genitivum corporis exponendo) given for you 2c.
The seventh holy spirit, John Campanus, makes it thus: "Take, eat, this is my body", corpus, scilicet paneum, should mean so much: The bread, which I give you, is a body or body for itself, not my living, natural body, but a dead, lifeless body, as stone and wood is a body. But because it is my creature, it is also my body, which I have created. This is the most high holy spirit, against and above all others, so that he takes the honor from the baker, who nevertheless also made something in the bread, and God does not create the bread, but the grain for the bread.
(27) Above these, another holy spirit (for the devil is holy and a great spirit) was wandering around, saying: there is no article of faith here, therefore one should not quarrel about it, everyone may believe here what he wants. This holy spirit seems to me to be a young holy spirit, which the old holy spirit, Stenkefeld, has incubated and hatched. For he finely keeps Stenkefeld's rule, and not only puts the text out of sight, but throws it away behind him, with faith and all, like a numb nut, making nothing else out of it.
(28) These holy spirits, though they may disagree about the text, agree together in the high spiritual sense that bread is bread and wine is wine. And he that hath not such a high understanding should be led astray, and believe that bread is not bread, but wood or stone; that would be a dangerous thing.
29) So the Lord's Supper with them is nothing else than a daily common meal, where bread and wine are needed; for in it one can speak of Christ, read, praise, give thanks, and thus eat spiritually, just as in the Lord's Supper of Christ. And Christ is exceedingly a great fool, in that he institutes a separate supper, which the world before is full, full, and daily. It would have been enough if he had said, "When and where you eat bread and drink wine, do it in remembrance of me. Just as St. Paul said of the
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, whatever you do, do it, giving thanks to God the Father through him" [Col. 3:17]. What is this but to keep a spiritual meal in everything we do, that is, to remember the Lord and to strengthen our faith? Thus, in time, the Lord's Supper would become a fine fellowship, as the Corinthians began.
(30) Secondly, they were warned by many, and by me in particular, because I wrote so diligently against them, and greatly misrepresented their reasons and causes, that their consciences felt it. For they had two sayings for themselves, one, Joh. 6, 63. 1): "Flesh is of no use," which Oecolampad called his iron wall. The other, "Christ has gone to heaven", Eph. 4, 10, therefore his body and blood cannot be in the Lord's Supper. And more of the sayings that speak of Christ's ascension taught us very vehemently that Christ had gone to heaven, just as if we had never heard such a thing 1500 years ago. But that therefore all bread and wine were in the Lord's Supper, they would never bite nor touch the little nut, as my books, where they exist, testify against them.
I took the first saying, "Meat is not useful," from them so powerfully that even Zwingel no longer remembers it in his last booklet.
(32) The other also I took away from them, namely, that it was impossible that they should be moved in earnest to deny the body and blood of the Lord in the Lord's Supper for the sake of the saying, "He is gone up to heaven," as they always insisted in many books and with proud words; but they must surely lie in this. I proved this for this reason: Christ instituted the Lord's Supper and gave his body and blood to his disciples, as the words are written, "Eat, this is my body," before he ascended into heaven. For there he sitteth over tables on earth, and keepeth the first supper. Therefore it cannot be true that they boast, namely, that they were moved by the sayings of the Ascension.
1) The Erlangen edition has again reprinted Walch's wrong Bible quote here: "Joh. 6, 65."
For it is contrary to this that Christ holds the Lord's Supper before he ascends to heaven. If then his ascension hinders the first supper, how can it be true, and not a lie, since they say that the ascension moved and hindered them? since we now keep 1500 years no other supper, than that which the Lord instituted and commanded at the first, as he says: "This do in remembrance of me. They do not know or understand what "go to heaven" means, so how could they have been moved to do so?
They could do nothing more against this, and sought ways to mend their wicked ways, and to compare themselves with us. Then the colloquium was held in Marburg, in which they rectified the matter and admitted that it was not just bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, as they had so far most vehemently disputed, but that the body and blood of Christ 2) were also in it, but not bodily, but spiritual. Such would not hold the sting either; for spiritual partaking is of the saints and righteous alone. But St. Paul says that the unworthy receive the body and blood of Christ as well as the worthy, 1 Cor. 11:27, 29.
(34) And the disciples had a long discourse with me on local inclusione, that the body of Christ could not be in the bread as in the room or vessel, just as if we taught that Christ's body was in the bread as straw in a sack, or wine in a barrel. Accordingly, some of them excused themselves, saying that they had not understood it otherwise, that we and the papists taught that Christ's body was in the sacrament localiter than straw in sackcloth. Oh, that was a lazy, cold, lame excuse. For they knew very well that neither the papists nor we had taught so. And even if they (unbelievably to speak) had not understood otherwise, they would have to confess that they, as the nonsensical ones, dispute such things which they themselves had never heard nor understood. For the teaching of the papists was much more at that time, than now, in the day, yes, there was no other teaching in the day, that the fanciers must have had the same science.
2) "Christi" is missing in the Erlanger.
(35) Now the papists, yes, not the papists, but the holy Christian church, and we with them (for the pope, as I said, has not instituted the sacrament), teach that Christ's body is not localiter (like straw in a sack) in the sacrament, but definitive, that is, it is certainly there, not like straw in a sack, but still bodily and truly there; as I have strongly proved in my little book. This, I say, they knew well, or were ever guilty of knowing, since they wanted to rage so horribly against that which they did not know.
So we left Marburg with such hope (as said), because they yielded to all Christian articles, and in this article of the holy sacrament also departed from the previous error (that it would be bad bread), that they would come to us fully and completely with time. Because now, through the devil's business, such a thing has failed, and I have been deceived, as I found out from the booklet, after Zwingel's death, that he became worse after the colloquio than before, and certainly acted wrongly with me at Marburg: I am forced not to accept the fellowship of any of the enthusiasts, called Stenkefeld, Zwingel, Oecolampad, Carlstadt, or whoever they are, the enthusiasts, bread-eaters and wine-bibbers, that is, Christ's blasphemers and enemies, but must neither know nor see nor hear their letters, books, greetings, blessings, writing, names or memory in my heart.
37 For because I am sure, and their own conscience must be against them, that they are unrighteous and blaspheme God, I will and can gladly say before my dear Lord Jesus Christ at the last day, Lord Jesus, I have faithfully warned and admonished them, and their own conscience has convinced them, and they must confess this before you, you know, dear Lord.
38 For the third time they were admonished by the terrible judgment of God, when the devil was so miserably slain, as the histories and their letters testify, and with him about five hundred 2) men, very fine people. Although they immediately wanted to interpret such a wrathful judgment as a sign of grace, and the Zwingel
1) Wittenberger: by.
2) Thus the Wittenbergers and the Jenaers. Erlanger: five thousand.
as a saint, who (as all saints must suffer much) was also innocently slain. What does it help if God sends even more plagues upon them than he did upon Pharaoh, because they are of such a mind that they want to make vain holy suffering out of it? as the Jews now also interpret their suffering and misfortune for 1500 years and harden themselves with it, so that they are admonished so horribly. But I, as certain as I am that Zwingel (as his last booklet testifies) died in great and many sins and blasphemies, cannot believe their interpretation.
39 Although I wish and wish that God would have used with him the saying of St. Paul 1 Cor. 5, 5: "Delivered to the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"; and 1 Cor. 11, 32: "When we are punished, we are chastened of the Lord, that we be not condemned with the world. Oh, how I would have liked him to follow these sayings, for I was, and still am, exceedingly sorry for his misfortune. If suffering is to be called holy and make holy, there must first be innocence and a good divine cause, as St. Augustine also says: Non poena, sed causa facit martyrem. Now you know well that Zwingel, beyond the blasphemy against the sacrament, also had a worldly evil cause, since he acted sacrilegiously against that part of the 3) street. That it is more likely that he was judged according to this sentence: Qui acceperit gladium, gladio peribit [Matth. 26, 52]. Yes, so we must think and hold, they may interpret, say, decorate, what they want; the histories and their writing are against themselves.
40 They also comfort themselves (I hear them say) by writing many books and doing great work in the church and on the Scriptures. What does it help, because they counterfeit and pervert God's Word and Sacrament, and do not want to hear? He who does not hear God does not hear him again, but his prayer is an abomination, Proverbs 28:9. The Jews also work very hard on the Scriptures, now probably 1500 years. Yes, which
3) The five Catholic cantons were deprived of their supply by occupying the roads, which caused them to wage war against the Zurichers.
4) Erlanger: Theils.
Heretics have not worked much more with teaching and writing, than the Christians? The devil's martyrs (as they say) will deserve hell much more sourly than heaven to the right saints.
41. Because so many and great warnings and admonitions of God are badly lost on them; for my writing, which went out 17 years ago 1) I can also boast with a good conscience and strong faith [as a] divine admonition, besides the other two admonitions; I am also not too low, that they should be admonished by me, if they boast highly; for I am also a servant of Christ, as well, if not more, than they, and have also worked in his church, before them, will not boast too highly: I must let them go and shun them as the autokatakritos [αύτοχαταχρίτους, Tit. 3, 11.] who knowingly and willfully want to be damned, and have no fellowship of any kind with any of them, neither with letters, writings, words, nor works, as the LORD gives Matt. 18, 17.For I count them all in one cake, as they also are, who will not believe that the bread of the Lord in the Lord's Supper is his true natural body, which the ungodly, or Judas, receives orally, as well as St. Peter and all the saints. Whoever does not want to believe this (I say), let me be satisfied with letters, writings or words, and hope for no fellowship with me; nothing else will come of it.
Herewith you have, my good friend, my reason why I did not want to hear the blasphemer, Schwenkefeld, nor answer him; you may, if it is revealed to you otherwise, report this to those whom perhaps Stenkefeld is chewing the fat against me. I (as I said) like it that such blasphemers disgrace me, and that they are very angry with me; there is no one here who gives in to their anger. May they reproach the father of the house Beelzebub, what should they not reproach his servants? that is, may they reproach our dear Lord Jesus Christ, and may they reproach his servants?
1) In the first edition it says "15 years". What is meant is the writing No. 20 in this volume, which went out in 1527.
To give the lie to his words "Take, eat, this is my body" 2c. and to interpret and turn his blessed, consoling sacrament into a peasant's lark: what should the most arrogant spirits not do to poor Luther?
Summa, they are invented by me and overcome manifold as the blasphemers and liars. First, since they taught in the beginning that there was nothing but bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, they called us carnivores, blood drinkers, Thyestas, Caperuaites; our Lord the baked God, the baked God, the weeping God 2c., as the books of the day testify forever. What Christian heart can or will believe that the Holy Spirit, and not rather the wretched devil, is in them again and forever? because they interpret the bright words of the Lord, "Take, eat, this is my body," out of their own thirst and iniquity, to their dream that he is there spiritually and not bodily. For we know very well that although the Lord Christ dwells in our hearts through faith (as St. Paul teaches Eph. 3:17), which is called a spiritual dwelling place, he has not taken a spiritual body or blood, nor given it for us, as he says Luc. 24:39: "Take hold and see, a spirit has no flesh and legs, as you see that I have," and yet he dwells spiritually in our hearts.
44 Secondly, the sayings which they have spoken, such as those concerning the ascension into heaven and the useless flesh, I have clearly proved that they have interpreted them falsely and used them in a lying mind, and thus have been caught in many gross lies, and in such public blasphemies and lies they remain unrepentant, obdurate, and stiff-necked to this day. So I would have to condemn myself to the abyss of hell, together with them, where I should hold it with them, or have fellowship with them, or keep quiet about it, if I noticed or heard that they presumed or boasted of my fellowship; this the devil and his mother do or keep quiet about, I do not.
I will stand with the holy father Abraham and all Christians on the saying Rom. 4, 21: "What God speaks, that He is able to do", item Psalm 51, 6: "That you may
I do not want to first ask my reason how it rhymes or is possible that I may receive his body and blood verbally, and then, as a judge of God, interpret his words according to my conceit. No, I will not rave like that; he has said it, so I will leave it at that; if he deceives me, then I am blessedly deceived. He has never lied, nor can he lie. But the enthusiasts are public liars invented by me and by themselves; they must also continue to lie, because they trust their conceit more than the word of God.
46 And whoever does not want to do this, and does not stand on the or similar sayings: "What God speaks, that He can do"; item: "God cannot lie" 2c., to him I faithfully advise that he leave the holy Scriptures and the articles of the Christian faith alone; for with his interpretation he demonizes himself the longer the more, and it is better for him to remain a damned heathen than to become a damned Christian.
O dear man! who will not believe 2) the article in the Lord's Supper, how will he ever believe the article of the humanity and divinity of Christ in One Person? And if it offends you that you receive the body of Christ orally when you eat the bread from the altar; item, the blood of Christ orally when you drink the wine in the Lord's Supper: then it must certainly offend you much more (especially when the hour comes), how the infinite and incomprehensible Godhead, which is and must be essential everywhere, is bodily resolved and comprehended in the humanity and in the virgin's body, as St. Paul says Col, 1, [2]. Paul says Col, 1, 19. [2, 9.]: "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
(48) And how is it possible that you should believe that the Son alone became man, and not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit, when the three Persons are none other than the one God, in the very essence and nature of the one Godhead? How can it rhyme? How is it possible that the unified whole perfect Godhead of the Son can be
1) i.e. sunk; cf. K 5 of this paper. Erlanger: verteifet.
2) Wittenberger: does not want.
So should we separate or divide it, so that it is at the same time united with mankind, and the same one Godhead of the Father and the Holy Spirit is not united in mankind? And is at the same time one Godhead in Christ with mankind One Person, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Oh, how they shall rave, stagger and rumble when they come here! There they shall find to interpret; as I then hear that they go on confidently and piously with eutycherei and nestorei. For I thought so, I also said that they must come here; the devil cannot celebrate where he founds a heresy, there he must find more, and no error remains alone. If the ring is broken in one place, it is no longer a ring, no longer holds, and always breaks away 2c.
(49) And if they boast much that they believe this article about Christ's person, and talk much about it, you must not believe it, they certainly lie about everything they say about it; they say it with their mouth (as the devils in the Gospel also call the Lord the Son of God [Marc. 5, 7]), but the heart is far from it, Matth. 15, 8, that is certain. Just as the Jews swore by the living God, but swore falsely, says the prophet. The Turk also praises the name of God, but in death they find out who their God is. For it is certain that whoever does not believe an article rightly, or does not want to (after he has been admonished and taught), certainly does not believe one with earnestness and right faith. And whoever is so bold that he may deny or punish God with a lie in one word, and does this wantonly against and above that which he has been admonished or instructed once or twice, may also (certainly does) deny and punish God with a lie in all his words.
(50) Therefore it is called round and pure, whole and all things believed, or nothing believed. The Holy Spirit cannot be separated, nor divided, so that he should teach or make believe one part true and the other false. Wherever there are weak people who are willing to be taught and not 3) stubbornly contradict. Otherwise, where that should apply, that
3) In the editions: "to be taught".
If every one of them were to deny one article because he considered all the others to be right (although this is impossible in principle), then no heretic would ever be condemned, nor would any heretic be able to be on earth. For all heretics are of this kind, that they first begin with one article alone, then they must all be denied afterwards, and all together, just as the ring, if it gets a bristle or a scratch, it is no longer good at all, and if the bell bursts in one place, it also no longer rings anything and is completely ineffective.
51 Let the examples teach you this. Arius took this one article, that Christ was not God, but a creature; the other articles all, and especially that God the Father was one God, Creator of heaven and earth, that Christ died for our sins, that baptism, sacrament, key, resurrection of the dead and eternal life, he believed more devoutly (as his words read) than the true Christians believe: nor does the holy scripture stand, and testify that he believed no article. For thus saith St. John 1 John 2:23 [4:15], "He that denieth the Son hath not the Father; and he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. "2c. If Arius does not have the Son and the Father, then he does not have God, nor the Creator of heaven and earth, that is, it does not help him that he calls God the Father Creator of heaven and earth with his mouth and praises Him highly, although no other God is Creator of heaven and earth than the one whom Arius calls with his lying mouth; nor is he a God to him, to Arius, because he denies his only Son Christ and blasphemes that he is not God.
So baptism is no longer baptism, forgiveness of sins is no longer forgiveness of sins, sacrament is no longer sacrament, that is, it is no longer of use to him, even though he was previously baptized correctly, received correct forgiveness, and correct sacrament. So he has lost all articles of faith, because he denies the right God of faith, Christ, and no article is of any use to him, and he can also deny no article with right forgiveness.
He must not believe in it seriously, but must use it all for his condemnation, as the other commandment says: "You shall not take the name of your God in vain" [Ex. 20:7]. There you hear that even the right holy name of God does not help, 1) but harms those who do not believe rightly, but misuse it. Therefore the old fathers also disputed whether Arian baptism was also true baptism. So one misfortune always comes from another.
Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, the heretic, also believed all the articles, without the one that the Holy Spirit was true God. What did it matter to him and his people, he believed none of them. And even if he pronounced and named them correctly with his mouth, he still has no God, because he does not consider the Holy Spirit to be a God; therefore he also has no Creator of heaven and earth. His baptism is nothing, no forgiveness of sins, no sacrament, no eternal life. And even if he lives strictly and leads an apparently Christian life, nor is he a true Christian, but a great hypocrite, it would be much better for him not to be a Christian, nor to misuse the Christian name in such a way, and to lead it falsely, that is, to lead and honor it so damned.
So Nestorius also, bishop of Constantinople, was with his own a strict man in all the other articles, but in the one he was a heretic, that the Son of God, Christ, was not born of Mary of virgins, and Mary was not, and could not be, the mother of God. With this, the other articles were also nullified for him, without what he could call them with his mouth and abuse them. Therefore, from these three heretics, many more heresies finally broke out and appeared in the day (because they were hidden inside before), until the troublesome Mahomet came out; because all histories testify that Mahomet came from the Arians, Macedonians and Nestorites, in whom he was also in time and from the beginning.
55 And whence has the pope become so full of heresy, and has always been a heresy after heresy?
1) So the old edition of Walch and the Erlanger, "helps" is missing in the Wittenberger and the Jenaer, but the latter has the Randglosfe: "perhaps: nützet".
until now in Rome, especially in the Pope's court, they are vain epicureans and mockers of the Christian faith? namely, because they have fallen from the faith of Christ to works, that is, to their own righteousness. Of what use is it to him that all the other articles remain? What does it help him that he praises with his mouth the right God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and puts on a good show of a Christian life? Nevertheless, he is and remains the greatest enemy of Christ and the real antichrist, has made himself the head of Christianity, yes, the underhole and backhole of the devil, through which so many abominations of masses, monasticism, fornication are thrown into the world, until so long even the monks helped the dying Christians to heaven with their lousy caps.
(56) So it will not help the fanciers that they make a big fuss about the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, and about the love and unity of the Christians. For these are vain fig leaves, since Adam and Eve wanted to cover and adorn themselves with them, so that God should not notice their shame and sin. Much less will they help their great work with teaching and writing, with serious chaste behavior; that is still all a pagan thing. This also is lost, that they believe God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and Christ the Savior. All, I say, is lost with all articles, however rightly and blamelessly they call or give them with the false blasphemy, because they deny this one article and punish it with lies, since in the Sacrament Christ says: "Take (the bread) and eat, this is my body, which is given for you" 2c.
For all their talk about spiritual food and love is intended to cover up and adorn such harm and poison that it should not be respected or seen, but should be regarded as the best and most special Christians. That means in German, to put a devil's specter before the eyes, and to adorn the dark devil (as St. Paul teaches [2 Cor. 11, 14.]) with the bright garment of the light angels. Therefore, their great boast and much work, because
they do not want to be Christians in this some article, lost.
(58) This is what the Lord says in Luc. 11:35: "See to it that the light in you is not darkness. If therefore thy body be all light, and have no part of darkness, it shall be all light. There you see that the Lord wants everything to be light in us, and not a piece of darkness under it. As also Matt. 6:23: "If the light that is in thee be dark, how great shall be the darkness itself?" and Paul Gal. 5:3: "I testify unto every man, that whosoever shall be circumcised (which was one piece) is fallen from Christ and from grace, and is guilty of keeping the whole law." Hence the saying Jac. 2, 10. f.: "He that keepeth the whole law, and sinneth in one piece, is guilty in all pieces: for he that commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery, commanded also, Thou shalt not kill" 2c. There is One God who has commanded all things; he who is angry with Him in one, with you again are angry all creatures and all commandments of God, even his own good works which he thinks he has done according to the other commandments; for they are not done in the right obedience of God, nor in the faith of Christ 2c.
(59) Would you like to say: Oh, dear Luther, it is to be hoped, or ever not to be feared, that God should be so fiercely and cruelly strict that He would condemn men for the sake of one article, when they otherwise faithfully keep and believe all other articles. For not only the heretics, but also other sinners, as Sirach writes [Cap. 7, 9], comfort themselves as if God would look upon their other good works and be gracious; just as King Saul wanted to adorn his disobedience with his devotion and sacrifice, 1 Sam. 15, 15. So go there safely and surely, as if there were no need for them: the many great works and labor, which they otherwise do, will outweigh a few things. On the other hand, it must be said that God can neither hope nor provide for His poor, miserable, blind creature to be so foolish and proud against its Creator and Lord that it would deny, punish with lies and blaspheme His divine word; rather, it is to be hoped that its humble, submissive, obedient, and faithful creature will be able to do the same.
The creature will not deny and blaspheme a single word, but will warmly accept all and every one in particular, and will give thanks with all joy that it is worthy to hear a single word from its dear God; indeed, this is how God is to be remembered.
60 Now the heretics do nothing else with the word of God, except as if it were the word of men, or the word of a fool, which they despise, mock and blaspheme, and could make everything better according to their own beautiful conceit. They will not let themselves be instructed to do so; then all is lost. And here the great many good works and labors will not outweigh the few evil things. For there is neither much nor little, neither small nor great good works, but vain, evil, damned works; for unbelief or blasphemy makes even the good (as they call it) works vain and damned. Yes, such good works are worse than the bad sins, because they go and happen in blasphemy and stubborn denial of God's name and word, so that it would be much better and desirable if they did sin and evil works for it, so that they would know what they were doing.
(61) Now it is according to the saying of Solomon, Ecclesiastes 5:1: "Keep thy foot when thou goest unto the house of God, and come near to hear: for this is better than the sacrifice of fools, which know not how evil are their works. Sacrifice is a good work; it is still called evil when the fools who do not want to hear (that is, the godless or heretics) do it. But they will be judged much more harshly and cut by the saying Ps. 50:16: "God says to the wicked, 'Why do you take my word into your mouth? That is enough of that, let him who will not hear go away.
In the end, I must also add this. I hear it said that some are moved to think that we are at one with the enthusiasts, that we have dropped the elevation in our churches and left it standing, so that we should confess that Christ's body and blood are not in the sacrament, nor are they received orally. But this is the way it is: it happened twenty or twenty-two years ago, when I began to condemn the Mass, and wrote harshly against the papists that they were
would not be a sacrifice nor our work, but a gift or testament of God, which we could not offer to God, but should and must receive from God, just as baptism would not be a sacrifice, but a gracious gift of God, 2c. I was at the same time well inclined to abolish elevation for the sake of the papists, who held it to be a sacrifice and work offered by us to God, as they still do, and have done for over six hundred years so far.
But because at that time our doctrine was new and beyond measure annoying in the whole world, I had to go cleanly, and for the sake of the weak I had to let up a lot, which I did not do afterwards; so I left the elevation, because it could have a good interpretation, as I wrote in the booklet De captivitate ba- bykonica 1), namely, that it was an old custom, taken from Moses, and remained with the first Christians for and for. For what Moses writes of the Tnuphah and Trumah, especially 2 Mos. 35. and 25., 2) can now be read by any layman in the German Biblia, that they were not sacrifices to propitiate God for sin, as the papists held their sacrifices and sold them most shamefully 2c., but vain thank offerings or thanksgiving for the received goods of the land 2c.
This would also be a fine interpretation, that the priest with the abolition of the sacrament did nothing else, but that he transfigured the words "this is my body", as if he wanted to say with the deed: Behold, dear Christians, this is the body that was given for you. So that the lifting up was not a sign of the sacrifice (as the papists would have it) against God, but an admonition against men to provoke them to faith, especially because he lifted it up just after the words "this is my body, given for you," and yet did not report a single letter of the sacrifice. You will find this in the book De captivitate Babylonica.
In thinking and remaining like this, Hans Unver- rumbles and rumbles against me.
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XIX, 4ff. The passage Luther is referring to here is found in Col. 50.
2) In the original edition, the Wittenberg and the Jena erroneously: "Deuteron. 16."
Carlstadt, with his heavenly prophets, and sends out a booklet against us, in which he calls us Wittenberg Christ murderers, Christ crucifiers, new papists 2c. and makes it very crude and insensitive. 1) He had no other reason than that we had abolished the sacrament. He interprets such abolition as sacrificed. He further interprets sacrificed as much as Christ was crucified, murdered, slaughtered, and acted much worse than the Jews had ever done. Now he knew very well that we Wittenbergers did not consider the sacrament a sacrifice, but had argued against the papists for almost three years that it could not be a sacrifice, nor could it be called one, but a gracious gift and testament of God (as said above), and we did not have to thank him for the teaching that the sacrament was not a sacrifice, because we had not learned it from him so long before, but he had to thank us, from whom he had learned it; otherwise it might never have fallen into his head.
When I saw such a mad spirit raging against us without cause, that he wanted to make us sin, and such an abominable sin, since there was no sin, nor could there be any sin, I closed and kept the elevation, contrary to the same devil and to annoyance, which I was nevertheless inclined to drop against the papists. For I did not want to suffer it, nor did I want the devil to teach me anything to order or set in our church. Especially not that I should have such an awful conscience, as if I had murdered, crucified, desecrated Christ 2c., where I held the elevation and did not abstain, as the mad spirit pretended, and for the sake of such an evil conscience would have to and would be forced to abstain from the elevation. No, no, I was innocent of such a conscience, I knew that for sure, and if I could not accept it, he knew it well. For before I would accept such a conscience or burden myself with it, that I would have to drop the elevation because of it, that I would consider myself a murderer of Christ, an executioner, I would not only keep the elevation this very day, but, if it was necessary
1) i.e. inedible.
One would not be enough, three, seven, ten elevation would help. That is why I want it to be free (as it is and must be a free thing), so that no sin could occur if it were held or dropped.
For this reason elevation has remained with us. For what is free, that is, neither commanded nor forbidden, in which one can neither sin nor earn, that shall be in our power, as subject to our reason, that we may use it or not, keep it and let it go, without all sin and driving of the conscience, according to our liking or need; In short, we want to be free masters in this, and not servants, who may do with it as, what, where and when they want, and not be forced to abjure such grave, great, terrible sin, as Carlstadt's spirit wanted, nor to abjure it at the loss of the soul's blessedness, as the devil of the pope wants; but it should be said: If you do not want to pick it up, leave it; if you do not want to leave it, pick it up. What does God ask about it? What does my conscience ask about it? Just as little as the altar asks about it, whether you want to lift it up or lay it down is equally important to it.
68 Accordingly, the enemies of the sacrament have no reason to boast that we are doing it for their sake and service by dropping the elevation. And let no one think that we thereby incline to their blasphemous error, much less commit it; but let us steadfastly and firmly hold them for God's and our damned enemies, and not deny, profane, and pervert Christ's word along with them, as if we had to learn from them to eat bread and drink wine, which we can well do without Christ's Supper, and the whole world does too much daily without God.
69 But this is the only reason that we leave the abolition in place: because almost all of the churches have long since abandoned the abolition, we wanted to compare ourselves to them and not practice something special in such a piece, which in itself could stand or lie freely and without danger to the conscience. Especially because I was inclined to do so from the beginning and certainly would have done so at the time when Carlstadt did not have such greu-
The church would have made a sin out of it, as has been said. For, where it can otherwise be done without sin and danger or without annoyance, it is quite fine that the churches compare themselves, even in outward things, which are nevertheless free, as they compare themselves in spirit, faith, word, sacrament, 2c. For such is fine and pleases everyone.
70 Also because such inequality, being unnecessary, looks very much like a schism, disunity or division of hearts. For from the beginning of the Church, the ceremonies have caused much unhappiness in the Church; as, the Easter feast caused such an essence that few churches were of one mind with each other about it. And the bishop of Rome, Victor, put under ban all the churches in Greece and in the east, because they did not keep Easter on the same day with the Roman church. But he was punished by the bishop of Lyons, Irenaeo, so that he had to desist and let every church have its own way and day for Easter, because it could not be compared without danger and annoyance, and there was no question whether Rome kept Easter on a different day, and the Greeks also on a different day.
71 Such a thing is much more, in which the Greeks did not compare themselves with the Romans, nor do they compare themselves yet. And what does the bishopric of Milan still do today, which lies under the pope in the French lands? Since not only the elevation, or a part of the mass, is unequal to the other churches, but the whole mass, especially that it does not have the small canonem, and all things have their own way in the mass, so that in 1510, when I passed through there, I could not say mass in any place, 1) and the priests told us: os sumus Ambrosiani, non poteritis hic celebrare. And what may it be much words? There is no church on earth with so many inequalities and ways in worship and in the church as in the Roman church. This shows
1) Compare the Table Talks, Cap. 35, § 6. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1001 f.
not only the experience, but also the books in the spiritual law, which would be much less, where more equality would have remained in the Roman church. But it was of use to the pope that much or everything was unequal, if they became equal only in that they considered him the head of the whole Christendom.
72 Hence the saying went among them: Si fueris Romae, romano vivito more, if thou art at Rome, keep thyself Roman. So I may also say here: If you come to a place where elevation is still held, you should not be angry, nor condemn it, but let it be, because it is done without sin and danger to the conscience; perhaps they cannot yet change it. But nevertheless it is finer and better that the piece be compared in all churches. And since elevation is offered and unnecessary, as without God's command of human devotion, it is cheaper to compare with the churches that do not have elevation than with those that do. For St. Paul faithfully teaches us everywhere to be diligent to teach and live alike and in one accord, and to guard against disunity or inequality where we can, Rom. 12:16: "Have one mind among yourselves"; 1 Cor. 1:10: "I remind you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you speak one mind, and do not suffer division among yourselves."
But where this cannot be, the 14th chapter of Romans should be followed. V. 1 ff.: "Do not confuse consciences. One thinks he may eat all things, but he that is weak eats herbs. One man keeps one day before another; another man keeps all days alike. Let every man be sure in his own mind. [The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Therefore let us strive after that which leads to peace, and serve for the betterment of one another." This help us all our dear Lord Jesus Christ with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, praised forever and ever, amen.
The following writings also belong to the above section:
Luther's report to Melanchthon of the new prophets who reject infant baptism. January 13, 1522.
Walch, old edition, vol.XV, appendix, no. 103.
Luther's letter to two pastors about rebaptism. Beginning of February 1528.
Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 2643.
Luther's Preface to the Book of Justus Menius on Anabaptist Doctrine and Mystery. 1530.
Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 276.
Luther's sermon on Holy Baptism.
January 6, 1535.
Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 2054.
Luther's preface to the new Münster newspaper. Beginning of 1535.
Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 328.
Luther's preface to Rhegius' refutation of the Münster Anabaptists. 1535.
Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 323.