The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt 9780271091129

Citation preview

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt

Habent sua fata libelli Early Modern Studies Series General Editor Michael Wolfe St. John’s University Editorial Board of Early Modern Studies Elaine Beilin Framingham State College

Helen Nader University of Arizona

Christopher Celenza Johns Hopkins University

Charles G. Nauert University of Missouri, Emeritus

Barbara B. Diefendorf Boston University

Max Reinhart University of Georgia

Paula Findlen Stanford University Scott H. Hendrix Princeton Theological Seminary Jane Campbell Hutchison University of Wisconsin–Madison Mary B. McKinley University of Virginia Raymond A. Mentzer University of Iowa

Sheryl E. Reiss University of Southern California Robert V. Schnucker Truman State University, Emeritus Nicholas Terpstra University of Toronto Margo Todd University of Pennsylvania James Tracy University of Minnesota

Merry Wiesner-Hanks University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt

Translated and Edited by

AMY NELSON BURNETT

The

Early Modern Studies 6 Truman State University Press

Copyright © 2011 Truman State University Press, Kirksville, Missouri USA All rights reserved tsup.truman.edu Cover: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, engraving, ca. 1540s, from broadsheet “Reverendus … Christodan Andreas Botenstein Carolstadius.” [Basel?, 154-]. Image courtesy of Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität Basel. Cover design: Teresa Wheeler

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolff-Bodenstein von, ca. 1480–1541. [Selections. English. 2010] The eucharistic pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt / translated and edited by Amy Nelson Burnett. p. cm. — (Early modern studies series ; 6) English translations from German originals. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-935503-16-3 (alk. paper) 1. Lord’s Supper—Early works to 1800. 2. Sacramentarians—Doctrines—Early works to 1800. 3. Lutheran Church—Controversial literature—Early works to 1800. I. Burnett, Amy Nelson, 1957– II. Title. BV825.3.K37213 2010 264'.36—dc22 2010045562 No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any format by any means without written permission from the publisher. The paper in this publication meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1992.

Contents Maps and Illustrations vii Chronology ix Introduction 1 1 On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (June 1521) 21 2 On the Adoration and Veneration of the Signs of the New Testament (November 1521) 39 3 On Both Forms in the Holy Mass (November 1521) 49 4 Sermon of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt Given in Wittenberg on the Reception of the Holy Sacrament (January 1522) 78 5 On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ (December 1523/January 1524) 89 6 Against the Old and New Papistic Masses (October 1524) 110 7 Whether One Can Prove from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament with Body, Blood, and Soul (October 1524) 116 8 Exegesis of This Word of Christ: “This Is My Body, Which Is Given for You. This Is My Blood, Which Is Shed for You,” Luke 22 (October 1524) 144 9 Dialogue, or a Discussion Booklet on the Horrible and Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament of Jesus Christ, 1524 (October 1524) 163 10 On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup (October 1524) 205 11 Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10: “The Bread That We Break, Is It Not a Fellowship of the Body of Christ?” Answer of Andreas Karlstadt to Luther’s Book, and How Karlstadt Recants (March 1525) 219 12 On the New and Old Testament. Answer to the Saying, “The cup, the new testament in my blood,” etc., Luke 22; 1 Cor. 11. How Karlstadt Recants. 1525 (April 1525) 238 13 A Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching about the Venerable Sacrament et cetera and Wants It to Be Regarded (September 1525) 258 Bibliography 271 About the Author 279 Index 281

BLANK

Maps and Illustrations Map 1: The Holy Roman Empire in the Sixteenth Century Fig. 1: Title Page of On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (Augsburg: Oeglin, 1521). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [97.6 Theol. (6)]. Fig. 2: Title Page of On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (Augsburg: Otmar, 1521). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [96.14 Theol. (11)]. Fig. 3: Title Page of On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (Strasbourg: Prüss, 1521). Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta GA. Fig. 4: Title page of Karlstadt’s Christmas Sermon (Augsburg: Ramminger, 1524). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [127.6 Theol. (7)]. Fig. 5: Title Page of Dialogue, or a Discussion Booklet on the Horrible and Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament of Jesus Christ (Bamberg: Erlinger, 1524). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [Yv 2178. 8° Helmst].

2

22

27

33

79

164

vii

BLANK

Chronology This chronology is not intended to be exhaustive; it lists only the most important evangelical works on the Lord’s Supper published through the end of 1525. Specific dates are taken from the work’s preface when given; these indicate but are not identical with the date of publication. Where there are no English translations, I have listed modern editions of the original Latin and/or German texts, if they exist. For a discussion of Karlstadt’s travels in 1524 and 1525 and the printing of his pamphlets, see Burnett, Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy, 143–47.

1520 5 April (Maundy Thursday):  Luther preaches on communion; his Treatise on the New Testament, That Is, the Holy Mass published in July (LW 35:79–111). 6 October: Luther, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (section on the mass, LW 36:19–57).

1521 28 March (Maundy Thursday):  Luther preaches his Sermon on the Worthy Reception of the Holy, True Body of Christ (WA 7:689–97). 17 April: Luther refuses to repudiate his teachings at the Diet of Worms. 4 May: Luther is “kidnapped” and goes into hiding at the Wartburg castle. 24 June: Karlstadt, On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament. 19 July: Disputation at Wittenberg in which Karlstadt argues for communion in both kinds. late summer: Hinne Rode possibly in Wittenberg with a copy of Cornelis Hoen’s Most Christian Letter … Discussing the Lord’s Supper (Oberman, Forerunners, 268–78). 29 September: Philipp Melanchthon and his students receive communion in both kinds in the Wittenberg parish church. 6 October: Augustinian friar Gabriel Zwilling preaches in Wittenberg against adoration of the host and private masses and urges communion in both kinds. ix

x

Chronology 17 October: 20 October:

Disputation on the mass at the university of Wittenberg. Report of the Wittenberg university commission to the elector on the proposed reform of the mass. 1 November: Chaplain administers communion in both kinds in Wittenberg parish church. 1 November: Karlstadt, On the Adoration and Veneration of the Signs of the New Testament. 11 November: Karlstadt, On Both Kinds in the Holy Mass. mid-November: Luther writes The Misuse of the Mass in response to the turmoil in Wittenberg; it is published in January 1522 (LW 36:133–230). 19 December: Elector Frederick the Wise orders that no changes be introduced to worship. 25 December: Karlstadt celebrates the first evangelical mass; his Sermon Held in Wittenberg on the Reception of the Holy Sacrament is published shortly thereafter. 26 December: Karlstadt becomes engaged to Anna von Mochau.

1522 24 January: 6 March:

late March: April: November:

New church ordinance concerning worship and poor relief adopted in Wittenberg. Luther returns to Wittenberg and criticizes changes to worship in a series of sermons (Eight Sermons Preached During Lent; also known as the Invocavit sermons, LW 51:69–100). Luther, On Receiving Both Kinds in the Mass (LW 36:233–67). Wittenberg university faculty prohibits publication of Karlstadt’s pamphlet on the mass. Hinne Rode in Basel and Zurich.

1523 29 January:

First Zurich disputation, for which Zwingli writes sixty-seven articles defending his teaching. end April: Luther, On the Adoration of the Sacrament (LW 36:275–305). 14 July: Zwingli, Exposition of the Sixty-Seven Articles (Article 18, on the sacrifice of the mass, Zwingli, Writings, 1:92–127). summer: Karlstadt moves to Orlamünde. December: Luther, Formula Missae et Communionis (LW 53:22–30). 29 December: Karlstadt, On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ.

1524

Chronology

xi

22 August:

Karlstadt and Luther meet at the Black Bear Inn in Jena, and Luther gives Karlstadt permission to publish works against him (Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther, 38–48). early/mid-September:  Gerhard Westerburg sent to Switzerland to oversee publication of Karlstadt’s pamphlets. 18 September: Karlstadt banished from Electoral Saxony. 22 September–8 October:  Karlstadt in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. October: Westerburg publishes seven of Karlstadt’s pamphlets in Basel, five of which concern the Lord’s Supper (Masses, Prove, Exegesis, Dialogue, Abuse). mid-October: Karlstadt briefly in Zurich. mid/late October: Karlstadt in Basel with Westerburg. late October: Karlstadt in Strasbourg. end October: Wolfgang Capito, How One Should Think About and Respond to the Disagreement between Martin Luther and Andreas Karlstadt (Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Walch, 20:340–51). early November: Martin Reinhart oversees publication of Karlstadt’s Abuse in Nuremberg. 7 November: Karlstadt stops in Heidelberg on his way to Rothenburg ob der Tauber. 16 November: Ulrich Zwingli writes his Letter to Matthew Alber Concerning the Lord’s Supper; the letter circulates in manuscript and is published in March 1525 (Zwingli, Writings, 2:127–45). December: Reinhart oversees publication of Karlstadt’s Dialogue in Bamberg. December: Urbanus Rhegius, Warning Against the New Error of Dr. Andreas Karlstadt about the Sacrament (Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Walch, 20:110–32). mid-December: Luther, Letter to the Christians at Strasbourg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit (LW 40:61–71). end December: Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Part I (LW 40:75–143).

1525 late January:

Luther, The Second Part Against the Heavenly Prophets, on the Sacrament (LW 40:144–223). late January: Karlstadt expelled from Rothenburg; he travels through southern Germany and meets with Nördlingen pastor Theobald Billican. mid-Febuary: Karlstadt returns to Rothenburg and remains there in hiding. February: Theobald Billican, Renovatio Ecclesiae Nordlingiacensis. March: Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion. early March: Karlstadt, Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10.

xii

Chronology 16 March: early April: 6 April: late May: end June: mid-July:

19 July:

25 July:

Karlstadt, On the New and Old Testament; published in mid-April. Karlstadt preaches openly on the Lord’s Supper in Rothenburg at Easter. New liturgical order published in Zurich for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper at Easter time. Karlstadt leaves Rothenburg during unrest of Peasants’ War. Karlstadt lives secretly with Luther during negotiations with the elector concerning the lifting of his banishment. Johann Oecolampadius finishes On the Genuine Exposition of the Lord’s Words, “This Is My Body” and sends the manuscript to Strasbourg, where it is published in early September. Johannes Bugenhagen writes letter to the Breslau pastor Johann Hess, published soon after as Against the New Error Concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Walch, 20:500–506).

Karlstadt, Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching; published in late September or early October. 17 August: Zwingli, Subsidiary Essay on the Lord’s Supper (Zwingli, Writings, 2:187–231). late summer: Hoen’s Most Christian Letter on the Lord’s Supper published. 17 September: Karlstadt given permission to settle in Electoral Saxony under restrictive conditions. 23 October: Zwingli, Response to the Letter of Bugenhagen (Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke, 4:546–76; Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Walch, 20:506–20). October/November:  Conrad Reyss zu Ofen, Answer to Bugenhagen Concerning the Sacrament.

Introduction

A

lthough Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541) played a key role in the Reformation debate over the Lord’s Supper, his eucharistic theology has not received the attention it deserves. In fact, in both the sixteenth century and the present, Karlstadt’s views have generally been misrepresented or caricatured by others. Modern histories of the Reformation, if they discuss Karlstadt at all, sum up his understanding of the sacrament by repeating the assertion in the Dialogue on the Horrible and Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament that when Christ said, “This is my body,” he was pointing to himself and not to the bread.1 As Karlstadt’s biographer Hermann Barge pointed out, this claim was not original to Karlstadt, but had been used already by Cathar and Waldensian heretics in the thirteenth century.2 More importantly, the claim that Christ physically pointed to his body was only one of many arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence in the elements made in the Dialogue, and it did not hold a major place in Karlstadt’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper. His surmise about Christ’s gesture can better be understood as growing out of his understanding of the sacrament rather than as the basis for it. Martin Luther directed his criticism at another of Karlstadt’s arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence in the sacrament: his exegesis of Christ’s words instituting the sacrament. According to Karlstadt, Christ’s statement, “Take and eat; this is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me,” fell into three parts, the first and last phrases applying to the bread and the central phrase applying to the body. The pronoun “this” referred not to the bread that was the subject of the first phrase, but to Christ’s body that would be given as a sacrifice for sin, as stated in the second phrase. In his Dialogue, Karlstadt supported this exegesis by referring to the gender of the words “this” and “bread” in the original Greek and to 1

Karlstadt, Dialogue, b4r (p. 175 below); Greengrass, Longman Companion, 231; Lindberg, European Reformations, 140; and Hillerbrand, Division of Christendom, 150. The latter two have published articles with more sensitive presentations of Karlstadt’s eucharistic theology: Lindberg, “Conception of the Eucharist According to Erasmus and Karlstadt,” 79–94; and Hillerbrand, “Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt,” 379–98. Euan Cameron more accurately describes Karlstadt’s position as arguing that Christ referred to (rather than pointed to) himself when he said, “This Is my body”; European Reformation, 163–64. Karlstadt’s inference concerning Christ’s gesture appears in English-language treatments of the eucharistic controversy as well; Barclay, Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 38; Sasse, This Is My Body, 125; and Heron, Table and Tradition, 116. 2 Barge, Karlstadt, 2:170–71.

1

2

Introduction

Map 1. The Holy Roman Empire in the Sixteenth Century. Drawn by Christopher Ladegard.

Introduction the punctuation separating the phrases of Christ’s statement.3 Luther’s mockery of this exegesis, expressed in part 2 of his treatise Against the Heavenly Prophets, would perpetuate the belief that Karlstadt’s rejection of Christ’s bodily presence in the elements was based on a wrongheaded and perverse interpretation of the original Greek.4 By the mid-sixteenth century, when the eucharistic controversy began anew between Jean Calvin and Joachim Westphal, the memory of Karlstadt’s contribution to the debate over the Lord’s Supper would be reduced to his claim concerning Christ’s gesture and his exegesis of the words of institution.5 Ulrich Zwingli came closer to understanding Karlstadt’s central conviction that the sacrament was instituted so that Christians would remember Christ’s suffering and death as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Zwingli’s knowledge of Karlstadt’s position was based not on the Dialogue but on another pamphlet, On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup, where Karlstadt described this function.6 Nevertheless the Zurich reformer preferred the figurative interpretation of the words “this is my body” to that proposed by Karlstadt, and his criticism of Karlstadt’s exegesis has generally been interpreted as a rejection of Karlstadt’s eucharistic theology more broadly.7 This does not mean, however, that Karlstadt had no impact on the debate over the Lord’s Supper. Because Karlstadt developed his understanding of the sacrament in a series of pamphlets, discussing various aspects in different works, it has until now been extremely difficult to trace the influence of his views. The translations contained in this volume are intended to make Karlstadt’s eucharistic theology better known in both its earlier and its later forms, so that readers can see how Karlstadt’s ideas changed over time and can form their own judgment about his understanding of the Lord’s Supper and its role in the eucharistic controversy. Karlstadt wrote his eucharistic pamphlets at two distinct points during his career as a reformer, and they therefore give insight into two crucial phases of the early Reformation. The first four pamphlets were published in the second half of 1521 and reflect the turmoil of the “Wittenberg troubles,” when Luther’s followers in that city first began to introduce the concrete liturgical reforms that were the consequence of his evangelical theology. The translations of these pamphlets complement the existing editions of Luther and Melanchthon’s works as well as

3

Karlstadt, Prove, F1r–v (pp. 137–38 below); and Karlstadt, Dialogue, b3r–b4r (pp. 173–74 below). Luther, Das ander teyl wider die himlischen Propheten, in WA 18:145–57; and LW 40:155–68. 5 Westphal, Farrago confusanearum … opinionum, A4v, B3r–B4r. 6 Karlstadt, Abuse, a4r (pp. 208–9 below). 7 Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke, 3:335–56, 343–45; and Zwingli, Writings, 2:131, 137–38. In his classic work on the eucharistic controversy, Walther Köhler considered only Karlstadt’s travels in Switzerland and south Germany, and not the contents of his pamphlets, as an important influence on Zwingli; Zwingli und Luther, 1:67–69. For a reevaluation of Karlstadt’s influence on early Zwinglianism, see Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 91–114. 4

3

4

Introduction the correspondence and other archival documents published a century ago,8 and so they give a more complete picture of the developments in Wittenberg during Luther’s absence from the city in the year after the Diet of Worms. The remaining nine pamphlets shed light on the origins of the eucharistic controversy that broke out in the fall of 1524. With the exception of On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ, published in the closing days of 1523, the remaining pamphlets were all printed between October 1524 and the fall of 1525. Their publication forced a public debate over the meaning and purpose of the Lord’s Supper within the evangelical movement. While there is some repetition of ideas between the pamphlets in this second group, Karlstadt wrote each one with a particular purpose in mind, and so each contains some aspect of his eucharistic theology not discussed in any of the other works. K arlstadt’s Development as a Reformer Andreas Bodenstein (1486–1541), called Karlstadt after the town in Franconia where he was born, was by training both a theologian and a legal scholar.9 After obtaining his bachelor’s degree at the university of Erfurt in 1502, he matriculated at the university of Cologne, where he was trained in the moderate realist philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and introduced to the ideas of John Duns Scotus. In 1505 he moved to the newly founded university of Wittenberg, where he was awarded a master’s degree, became a professor in the arts faculty, and began to study theology. He received his doctorate in theology in 1510 and a year later was appointed archdeacon of the chapter of All Saints, which brought with it a chair in the theology faculty. At the same time he began the study of law and in May 1516, at the end of a six-month stay in Rome, he received the degree of doctor in both canon and civil law. In 1508 the Augustinian friar Martin Luther was sent by his order to teach theology at Wittenberg. Luther received his doctorate four years later and joined Karlstadt on the theology faculty. In his lectures given over the next several years, Luther developed a biblically based theology in opposition to the medieval scholasticism in which he had been trained. Initially opposed to Luther’s theology, Karlstadt was won over to it in 1517 as the result of his own intensified study of the works of St. Augustine. The two theologians worked together over the next year to introduce a humanistically influenced reform of the university curriculum, at the same time that Luther’s ideas first began to gain wider notice. Karlstadt’s defense of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, which were published in the fall of 1517, 8

Müller, “Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521 und 1522.” The most recent overview in English of Karlstadt’s life is Goertz, “Karlstadt,” esp. 5–20. See also Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings, 123–30; Bubenheimer, “Karlstadt”; and Bubenheimer’s longer article in German, with bibliography, “Karlstadt.” Zorzin, “Karlstadt,” devotes more attention to Karlstadt’s theology. The most detailed discussion in English of Karlstadt’s early career is Sider, Karlstadt, 6–20. 9

Introduction drew the attention of the Ingolstadt theologian Johannes Eck. Their conflict led eventually to a public disputation in Leipzig held at the end of June 1519. During the course of the disputation, Luther replaced Karlstadt as Eck’s chief debating partner and was pushed to the point of denying both papal primacy over the church and the inerrancy of church councils. From this point on, his break with the Roman church was virtually inevitable. By this time, Karlstadt had become closely identified with the evangelical theology advocated by Luther. The appointment of Philipp Melanchthon as professor of Greek in 1518 brought another leading figure to Wittenberg, and the publications of these three men were crucial for spreading Luther’s ideas beyond the confines of the university.10 Luther’s importance as the author of Reformation pamphlets is well known. Less recognized is the role played by both Melanchthon and Karlstadt. While Melanchthon published works almost exclusively in Latin, Karlstadt was second only to Luther in the publication of vernacular pamphlets.11 Produced in response to specific circumstances in Wittenberg, his earliest pamphlets on the mass helped spread evangelical views especially to the cities of south Germany where they were reprinted. Karlstadt’s originality, as well as his profound debt to Luther, can only be appreciated when his pamphlets are read together with Luther’s discussions of the sacrament from this period, and especially his two pamphlets published in 1520, the Treatise on the New Testament, That Is, the Holy Mass, and On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church.12 The “Wittenberg Troubles” and the Reformation of the Mass The first of Karlstadt’s pamphlets to address the sacrament of the Eucharist, On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament, was intended to help laymen and women prepare for worthy reception of the sacrament.13 This was a topic common to sermons preached during the week before Easter, when all Christians were required to receive communion. Karlstadt’s pamphlet contains some of the same ideas as Luther’s sermon given in Wittenberg’s parish church on Maundy Thursday of 1521.14 Both sermons opposed the traditional view that those intending to receive communion needed to prepare for it not only by making a full sacramental confession to a priest but also through prayer, meditation, and other ascetic 10 Although Melanchthon belonged to the faculty of arts rather than theology, he had matriculated in the theology faculty and gave lectures on the Greek text of the New Testament and so should be considered as one of the university’s theologians; Wengert, “Higher Education and Vocation,” 1–21. 11 Zorzin, Karlstadt als Flugschriftenautor, 19–37. 12 Luther, Ein Sermon von dem neuen Testament, in WA 6:353–78; and LW 35: 79-111; and the discussion of the mass in De captivitate Babylonica, in WA 6:502–26; and LW 36:19–57. On the formation of a common Wittenberg theology in the early years of the Reformation, see Kruse, Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform, 301–5, 315–17; and Wengert, “Higher Education.” 13 For a more detailed discussion of this and Karlstadt’s other pamphlets from 1521, see Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 13–15, 19–23, 27–28. 14 Luther, Sermon von der würdigen Empfahung ... gethan am Gründonnerstag, in WA 7:692–97.

5

6

Introduction practices intended to make one pure. Such preparation, both Luther and Karlstadt argued, amounted to works righteousness. Instead, the only proper preparation for receiving communion was an awareness of one’s sinfulness and desire for God’s forgiveness. As Karlstadt put it, only the sick realized that they needed a physician. In the second part of his sermon, Karlstadt took up Luther’s definition of a sacrament as promise and sign. This part of the sermon was intended to counter popular preoccupation with the presence of Christ’s body in the consecrated host, which drew attention away from the promise of forgiveness. Karlstadt told his readers that signs were given to remind and reassure Christians of God’s promise and, like Noah, Abraham, and Jacob in the Old Testament, they could hold to the promise attested to by the signs to give them firm assurance that God had forgiven their sins. The theme of sacrament as sign and promise would recur in Karlstadt’s other early pamphlets on the mass and would help spread this aspect of Wittenberg theology in the very early years of the Reformation. Since Karlstadt was the preacher of the castle church, his pamphlet may have originated as a sermon preached during Holy Week of that year. It was not published until the end of June, however, after Luther had gone into hiding at the Wartburg Castle following the Diet of Worms. In Luther’s absence from Wittenberg, popular pressure for the practical reform of worship grew steadily.15 Karlstadt’s next three pamphlets reflected his efforts to channel and direct these reform efforts. One of the central demands made by both reformers and the laity was that the mass should be modified to conform to Luther’s evangelical teachings. This meant that the liturgy—or at least the consecration of the elements of bread and wine—should be in German, so that the congregation could understand what was said, and that laypeople should receive communion in both kinds—that is, they should be given both the bread and the wine.16 In early October, the Augustinian preacher Gabriel Zwilling preached a sermon in which he not only advocated communion in both kinds but also condemned the celebration of private masses, those said by a priest without the presence of other believers. According to some reports, he went even further, calling the adoration of the consecrated host a form of idolatry.17 15

The so-called Wittenberg Troubles are described in Preus, Carlstadt’s “Ordinaciones” and Luther’s Liberty; Sider, Karlstadt, 148–73; and, with an emphasis on Luther’s motivation, Edwards, Luther and the False Brethren, 6–33. 16 From the twelfth century on, it was the practice of the church to give only the bread to the laity. The right to lay communion in both kinds was one of the demands of the Hussites and so was closely associated with heresy by the beginning of the sixteenth century. Luther had condemned the church for denying communion in both kinds to the laity in his 1520 treatise On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in WA 6:503–7; and LW 36:21–28. He argued that Germans should hear the words of institution in German and spoken audibly in his Treatise on the New Testament, in WA 6:362; and LW 35:90–91. 17 The condemnation of adoration as idolatry may have been sparked by the circulation in Wittenberg of Cornelis Hoen’s Most Christian Letter Discussing the Lord’s Supper; on this possibility,

Introduction While Luther had rejected private masses and called for liturgical reform, Zwilling’s attack on the adoration of the sacrament, one of the most prominent aspects of late medieval popular piety, went beyond what Luther taught and provoked Luther’s supporters on the university faculty to take action. A committee of professors reported to the elector that Zwilling had been misunderstood and in fact had not rejected the adoration of the consecrated host. In mid-October the theology faculty staged disputations in which both Karlstadt and Melanchthon discussed the meaning of the sacrament and defended the practice of adoration.18 Karlstadt’s two pamphlets, On the Adoration and Veneration of the Signs of the New Testament and On Both Forms in the Holy Mass, both published in November, were popular presentations of the ideas debated in these disputations and so can be seen not merely as a statement of Karlstadt’s beliefs but a presentation of the position of Wittenberg’s theology faculty as a whole. The first pamphlet defended the practice of adoration but taught that such adoration should not be excessive. The signs of bread and wine were to be honored as Christ’s body and blood, but Christians were to move from those signs to Christ and then to God the Father. Karlstadt asserted that, while the host could truly be called Christ’s body, it remained bread even after the priest’s consecration. He developed this point further in On Both Forms. Rejecting the scholastic formulation that Christ’s body was “under the form of bread,” Karlstadt argued that Christ said the bread was his body and so Christians should believe that the consecrated host was both bread and body. The bulk of the pamphlet, however, was devoted to the proper understanding of signs as something given to remind and assure of a divine promise. The two signs of the sacrament, bread and wine, signified two different promises, and so Christians should receive both. Karlstadt’s pamphlet went beyond Luther’s position by calling communion in only one kind a form of sacrilege. Karlstadt’s pamphlets helped focus popular demands for practical liturgical reform. By December there was significant unrest in the city, as students and citizens demanded the free preaching of the gospel, the abolition of private masses, and the right to receive communion in both kinds. Karlstadt supported these demands in his sermons at the castle church. In the sermon he delivered on Christmas Day, he repeated some of the ideas expressed in his earlier pamphlets. Awareness of one’s sins was the only sufficient preparation for worthy communion, and the signs of bread and wine were given as assurance of God’s promise of forgiveness. To this he added a lengthy discussion of the sin of unbelief, which dishonored God and see Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 16–18. The letter is edited in Spruyt, Hoen and His Epistle on the Eucharist, 226–35. All but the final section is translated in Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation, 268–78. 18 The theses for Karlstadt’s disputation are printed in Barge, Karlstadt, 1:484–91; and for Melanchthon’s disputation in Melanchthon, Opera, 1:477–81. Melanchthon also presented his understanding of the sacraments in the first edition of his Loci Communes, which was printed in the fall of 1521; Melanchthon, Opera, 21:208–11, 221–22.

7

8

Introduction merited his judgment. Following the sermon, Karlstadt celebrated what is generally considered to be the first evangelical mass. Without donning the required vestments, he celebrated a simplified mass purged of many of its gestures, such as the repeated sign of the cross and the elevation of the host, and he placed both the bread and the cup in the hands of communicants. All who wished to receive communion were allowed to do so, even if they had not first confessed their sins to a priest and received absolution. Karlstadt published this Sermon Held in Wittenberg on the Reception of the Holy Sacrament soon afterwards, in order to publicize his views and to justify his actions.19 By the beginning of 1522, Karlstadt had become the most visible advocate of reform in the city.20 Together with Zwilling, he now began to press for the removal of images from Wittenberg’s churches, and with other university professors and town council members he helped draft a church ordinance prescribing the celebration of the evangelical mass as he had held it at Christmas. There were some even among the reforming party who did not favor these changes, though, especially since the elector had forbidden the introduction of liturgical innovation. The continued unrest and fear of damage to the young evangelical movement prompted Luther to return to Wittenberg in early March 1522. In a series of eight sermons, he condemned the introduction of reforms before the laity had been sufficiently instructed to understand their purpose. In the wake of Luther’s return, many of the traditional practices, including communion in one kind, were reinstated. Karlstadt did not agree with these measures and in April he wrote a pamphlet ostensibly criticizing the Catholic mass but whose arguments could also be used against Luther. The pamphlet was suppressed by the censors and never published, but some of its ideas, such as the rejection of the word “mass” and his opposition to the elevation of the host, would reappear in Karlstadt’s later pamphlet, On the Old and New Papistic Masses.21 The Development of K arlstadt’s Eucharistic Theology After Luther’s return to Wittenberg, Karlstadt faded into the background. He continued to teach at the university, but he was not permitted to preach. Over the next year his views continued to move away from those of Luther and the other Wittenberg reformers. His pamphlets published in the spring of 1523 suggest the 19

The sermon is analyzed by Leroux, “Karlstadt’s ‘Christag Predig,’” 102–37. In addition to the three works on the sacrament, Karlstadt published several other pamphlets between the summer of 1521 and the spring of 1522; Zorzin, Karlstadt als Flugschriftenautor, 93–96. Two of these, On the Removal of Images and the Circular Letter Regarding His Household, in which he defended his recent betrothal, are published in Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 100–132. 21 The contents of the pamphlet are known from the censors’ report, reprinted in Barge, Karlstadt, 2:562–66; and summarized in Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 31. Karlstadt’s differences with Luther have also been discussed by Simon, “Karlstadt neben Luther”; and Beinert, “Another Look at Luther’s Battle with Karlstadt.” Although he concentrates on later developments, Brecht, “Luther und Karlstadt,” also considers the implications of this earlier disagreement.

20

Introduction deepening influence of late medieval mysticism on his thought.22 He also became a more strident critic of the external distinctions that separated the clergy from the laity. In February he announced that he would no longer participate in the granting of academic degrees, and he refused to wear academic robes, choosing instead to wear the felt hat and grey cloak typical of the common people. Two of his pamphlets identified their author as “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, a new layman.” Finally, in the summer of 1523, he moved to Orlamünde, a small town about fifteen miles south of Jena in Thuringia, to assume the post of parish pastor.23 Because Karlstadt did not publish anything after his arrival in Orlamünde, it is hard to tell how his ideas were evolving during this time. At the end of the year, though, he finally found a printer in Jena who was willing to publish his pamphlets. On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ was one of several works that Karlstadt had printed at this time.24 On the Priesthood reveals how much emphasis Karlstadt placed on the Old Testament sacrificial system as a figure of Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross commemorated in the Lord’s Supper. Directed against the teaching that the mass was a sacrifice, the pamphlet asserted that Christ’s death on the cross atoned for all sins, both past and future, and to call the mass a sacrifice was to say that Christ’s death was insufficient. The pamphlet demonstrates Karlstadt’s familiarity with the course of reform outside of Saxony, for Ulrich Zwingli had used the same argument against the sacrifice of the mass in his Exposition of the Sixty-Seven Articles, published in the summer of 1523.25 Karlstadt’s publishing activity provoked a reaction from Luther, who appealed to the elector to prevent Karlstadt from printing anything without first gaining the approval of the theology faculty. This virtual ban on publishing did not stop Karlstadt from writing, however, nor did it reconcile him to the Wittenbergers’ more conservative attitude towards the introduction of liturgical reform. At the end of December 1523, Luther published his Formula for Mass and Communion,

22 This is particularly true of The Meaning of the Term “Gelassen” and Where in Holy Scripture It Is Found, translated in Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 133–68. Karlstadt’s interest in German mysticism was not new; for its role in his theology as a whole, see Kriechbaum, Grundzüge der Theologie Karlstadts. 23 Technically, Karlstadt had been pastor of Orlamünde since his appointment as archdeacon of All Saints, since the position was incorporated into the chapter; that is, its revenues were used to support Karlstadt’s position in Wittenberg, with a small portion reserved to pay the salary of a vicar in Orlamünde who performed the pastoral responsibilities required of the parish priest. There were legal difficulties associated with Karlstadt’s move, however, because of both his obligations to lecture at the university and the existing contractual arrangements with his vicar in Orlamünde. These would eventually be used to force Karlstadt to leave Orlamünde. Sider explains the details and describes Karlstadt’s Orlamünde period; Karlstadt, 176–97. 24 For more detail on the publication of this and the later eucharistic pamphlets, see Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 54–76. 25 Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke, 2:111–20; and Zwingli, Writings, 1:92–98. On the importance of this idea for Zwingli and the south German/Swiss reformation more generally, see Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 48–51.

9

10

Introduction a description of how a pastor could celebrate the mass in an evangelical fashion.26 Written for the pastor of Zwickau, Nicolaus Hausmann, the new liturgy retained the use of Latin as well as many of the traditional elements of the mass, whether words or gestures. Although Luther encouraged the distribution of communion in both kinds, he did not require it. Sometime in the first few months of 1524, Karlstadt received a letter from a friend asking his opinion about the new liturgy. His response, later published as Against the Old and New Papistic Masses, contained a sharp criticism of the continued use of Latin, the elevation of the host after consecration, and even the word “mass.” The new liturgy was in Karlstadt’s opinion only a “new papistic mass,” no better than the “old papistic mass.” Over the next few months, Karlstadt continued to think through his understanding of the sacrament that he now insisted should be called the Lord’s Supper. The fruit of his reflections was expressed in two pamphlets probably written in the late spring or early summer of 1524. Both of these pamphlets would be important for introducing a number of objections to Christ’s corporeal presence into the public debate over the sacrament. In the first, Whether One Can Prove from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament, Karlstadt presented several arguments that might be used against Christ’s corporeal presence in the bread and the wine. Although Karlstadt distanced himself from those who rejected Christ’s bodily presence in the opening sentence of the pamphlet, it is clear that he felt that they had much stronger arguments than did the defenders of that presence. Several of Karlstadt’s arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence in the elements were derived from points made by Erasmus in his annotations on the accounts of the Last Supper in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians. There are also striking parallels with Cornelis Hoen’s Most Christian Letter on the Lord’s Supper, which Karlstadt may have seen in the fall of 1521.27 Unique to Karlstadt, though, was the exegesis of Christ’s words instituting the sacrament. “This is my body” could not be separated from the following phrase, “given for you,” and used to posit some kind of change to the bread. Instead, when Christ said, “This is my body given for you,” he was telling his disciples that his body was the same body foretold by the prophets. The command that followed, “do this in remembrance of me,” referred back to Christ’s opening words, “take, eat,” and taught the disciples that when they ate the bread and drank the wine they should remember the sacrificial giving of Christ’s body. With this exegesis, Karlstadt could preserve a literal interpretation of Christ’s words and still justify an interpretation of the sacrament that was entirely commemorative. In the second pamphlet, Exegesis of Christ’s Words, “This Is My Body,” Karlstadt abandoned the pose of reporting the views of others and argued more directly 26

Luther, Formula Missae et Communionis, in WA 12:205–20; and LW 53:19–30. Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 60–62. Hoen, in turn, drew on arguments against Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament that had first been advanced by the Waldensians, Wyclif, and the Hussites: Spruyt, Hoen and His Epistle, 127–65. 27

Introduction against Christ’s corporeal presence. Picking up on his earlier characterization of Luther and his followers as “the new papists,” he argued that anyone who said that Christ’s body was “in the bread” or “under the bread” or “in the form of bread” deviated from Christ’s simple statement, “this is my body.” Christ gave his body on the cross, not in the sacrament, and the bread of the sacrament remained simple bread, just like any bread made by a baker. The purpose of the sacrament was to remember and to proclaim Christ’s death, and only those with genuine love for Christ and each other received it worthily. By the spring of 1524, Karlstadt had begun to introduce changes to worship in Orlamünde.28 He translated some of the Psalms into German for his congregation to sing, removed images from the parish church, and reportedly refused to baptize infants. Rumors of these innovations reached Duke John Frederick, the elector’s nephew and co-ruler of Thuringia. They were all the more disturbing in light of the violent agitation for change being urged by the pastor of Allstedt, Thomas Müntzer. Duke John Frederick asked Luther to go on a preaching tour of the area to counter the unrest associated with Karlstadt and Müntzer. On the morning of 22 August, Luther gave a sermon in Jena in which he denounced the “Allstedtisch spirits.” Karlstadt, who was present at the sermon, felt that he was being personally attacked and asked to meet with Luther.29 Their meeting took place that afternoon at the Black Bear Inn, in the presence of many witnesses. At the end of a heated exchange, Luther dared Karlstadt to attack him publicly and gave him a golden gulden as token of that permission.30 Taking up Luther’s challenge, Karlstadt quickly wrote two new pamphlets on the sacrament. Dialogue on the Horrible and Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament was a popular and polemical summary of the ideas presented at more length in Whether One Can Prove and Exegesis of Christ’s Words. To these Karlstadt added other objections to Christ’s corporeal presence that he drew from the late medieval heretical tradition. Some of the scripture passages that Karlstadt used to argue against Christ’s corporeal presence, for instance, had been used by Wyclif and the Hussites. Karlstadt may have become aware of these arguments through reading Hoen’s Most Christian Letter. It is also possible that he heard them from his friend Martin Reinhart, the pastor of nearby Jena, who had already published one Hussite pamphlet and had other Hussite manuscripts in his possession.31 28 For details on what follows, see Barge, Karlstadt, 2:94–143; Trappe, “Zwischen Reformation und Revolution”; and Joestel, Ostthüringen und Karlstadt. 29 Karlstadt and Müntzer had corresponded in the summer of 1524 but, as Karlstadt pointed out to Luther, he firmly rejected Müntzer’s appeal to violence; on the relationship between Karlstadt and Müntzer, see the documents translated in Pater, Karlstadt as Father of the Baptist Movements, 279–89. 30 The meeting is described in WA 15:334–41; an abridged English translation is in Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther, 38–48. Edwards puts Luther’s conflict with Karlstadt into the larger context of the disturbances caused by Müntzer’s revolutionary theology; Luther and the False Brethren, 34–59. 31 Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 84–85. On Reinhart, see Hoyer, “Martin Reinhart und der erste

11

12

Introduction The Dialogue opened as a discussion between Gemser, who defended the traditional belief in Christ’s corporeal presence in the consecrated elements, and Victus, who questioned that belief. Partway through the dialogue, Karlstadt introduced a third figure, “Peter the layman.” It was Peter who, upon overhearing Victus’s (and Karlstadt’s) new exegesis of the words instituting the Supper, suggested that Christ had pointed to himself rather than to the bread when he said, “This is my body.” Peter then replaced Victus as Gemser’s chief opponent and introduced the most trenchant criticisms of Christ’s corporeal presence, focusing especially on the logical absurdities that resulted from this belief. Karlstadt closed the Dialogue with a list of his other works devoted to the sacrament. It included not only his three pamphlets written earlier in the year, but also two topics that in the end were combined in a single pamphlet, On the AntiChristian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup. Here Karlstadt argued that reception of the sacrament did not bring forgiveness, nor could the sacrament be understood as a pledge of that forgiveness. Instead, the Lord’s Supper was intended to aid the heartfelt remembrance of Christ’s passion and death, which was to lead to an internal transformation of the believer. Karlstadt had earlier exchanged letters with some of Zwingli’s more radical supporters, including Conrad Grebel in Zurich, and he hoped to have his pamphlets published in Switzerland. Accordingly, he gave his five pamphlets on the sacrament, together with three others he had written earlier in the year, to his brother-in-law Gerhard Westerburg, who took them to Zurich. Westerburg was in turn directed to Basel, where he found two printers willing to publish the pamphlets.32 In the meantime, Karlstadt was expelled from Saxony in mid-September. After a brief stay in Rothenburg ob der Tauber, he went on to Basel, where he arrived in time to add a short polemical conclusion to the Exegesis before it was printed. He then returned to Rothenburg, traveling through Strasbourg and Heidelberg and distributing copies of his pamphlets on the way. Joined by his family, he spent most of the next several months in hiding in Rothenburg.33 Karlstadt’s brief stay in Strasbourg, combined with the circulation of his pamphlets, had divided that city’s evangelical movement on the issue of the Lord’s Supper. To settle their own uncertainties, the pastors wrote to other reformers asking about their understanding of the sacrament. In their letter to Luther sent at the end of November, they not only summarized some of Karlstadt’s most persuasive arguments, but also included copies of several of Karlstadt’s pamphlets.34 Druck hussitischer Artikel.” 32 On Westerburg and his Zurich contacts, see Pater, Karlstadt as Father of the Baptist Movements, 159–62. 33 The printing history of these pamphlets, including a description of the travels of both Westerburg and Karlstadt, is discussed in Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 143–46. 34 Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie der Strassburger Reformatoren, 217–37; Müsing, “Karlstadt und die Strasbourger Täufergemeinde”; and Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 68–69, 106.

Introduction This letter prompted Luther to publish not only an Open Letter to the Christians at Strasbourg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit35 but also his lengthy Against the Heavenly Prophets, printed in two parts at the turn of 1524/25. In this work Luther combined insult, exaggeration, and invective with a more serious theological critique of the dualistic understanding of external and internal that underlay Karlstadt’s eucharistic theology. Responding to Karlstadt’s arguments in Against the Old and New Papist Masses in part 1 of his book, Luther asserted that the reformers could not replace papist requirements about the celebration of the mass with new prohibitions or commandments; to do so denied Christian liberty and would lead to the reintroduction of works righteousness.36 In part 2 he derided Karlstadt’s exegesis of “this is my body” and then countered five of the arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence used in the Dialogue, which Luther attributed to “Frau Hulda” or human reason.37 Luther’s book prompted Karlstadt’s final two pamphlets on the Lord’s Supper, both of which were published in Augsburg in the spring of 1525. Provoked by Luther’s accusation that he did not understand the proper relationship between material and spiritual things, he argued more clearly and forcefully than in his earlier pamphlets for the absolute separation between the two. Like Luther’s work, the Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 was polemical, but it also presented the major points of disagreement between the two men. It discussed two scripture passages whose interpretation would be central to the eucharistic controversy: not only 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, cited in the pamphlet’s title, but also 1 Corinthians 10:1–4, whose description of how the Israelites were fed with manna was traditionally seen as a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. Karlstadt’s treatment of these passages emphasized that no material thing could bring spiritual benefit. Christians could partake of Christ’s body and blood only through faith, and for this reason Judas and other unbelievers received nothing in the sacrament. In On the New and Old Testament, Karlstadt returned to the relationship between the sacrifices of the Old Testament and Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. The sacrifices established by Moses could only cleanse externally, but the sprinkling of Christ’s blood cleansed internally. Karlstadt accused Luther of not properly understanding the difference between corporeal and spiritual by insisting that Christians must physically eat Christ’s body. By the time these pamphlets were published, the series of revolts known collectively as the Peasants’ War had begun. Karlstadt emerged from hiding in Rothenburg and preached openly in the city at Easter time. He also tried, without success, to influence the peasant band that had gathered near Rothenburg.38 The 35

WA 15:391–97; and LW 40:65–71. WA 18:112–22; and LW 40:129–40. 37 WA 18:134–214; and LW 40:144–223. 38 On Karlstadt’s influence in Rothenburg, see Vice, “Valentin Ickelsamer’s Odyssey”; and Vice, 36

13

14

Introduction increasing level of violence gave Karlstadt a strong incentive to seek the lifting of his sentence of banishment. He twice asked Luther to intervene with the elector on his behalf in the first part of 1525, and in June he published a pamphlet to clear himself from charges that he was involved in the peasant revolts.39 In turn, Luther allowed Karlstadt to live with him in secret while negotiations for his pardon proceeded. One of the conditions for the pardon was a pamphlet in which Karlstadt renounced his earlier position on the sacrament. The Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching about the Venerable Sacrament was written to fulfill this requirement. It was published in late September or early October, along with a preface by Luther emphasizing that Karlstadt’s earlier works had been published more as hypothetical explanations than as definitive statements about the sacrament. Karlstadt’s pamphlet is important for both what it does and what it does not say. It is by no means a retraction of Karlstadt’s views, but instead an encouragement to readers to examine scripture themselves and draw their own conclusions concerning the Lord’s Supper. It is thus a fitting testimony to Karlstadt’s deeply held belief that the common man and woman had the right to judge doctrine themselves. K arlstadt’s Impact on the Eucharistic Controversy Karlstadt’s eucharistic pamphlets struck directly at the heart of late medieval Christianity. The rejection of Christ’s corporeal presence in the bread and wine was not only a heresy associated with John Wyclif and the Hussites; it directly opposed one of the church’s fundamental teachings about the Eucharist and removed the justification for the practices of eucharistic piety that were such a marked feature of popular religion, such as the adoration of the consecrated host, its reservation, and its use in processions. It also negated Luther’s understanding of the sacrament as God’s gift of forgiveness conveyed and appropriated through the reception of Christ’s body and blood. It resonated, however, with the Erasmian critique of externalized religion prominent in the preaching of the Swiss and South German reformers. In fact, Karlstadt’s pamphlets advocated a position publicly and in the vernacular that both Ulrich Zwingli in Zurich and Johann Oecolampadius in Basel had already adopted and were discussing privately in Latin among a small circle of like-minded men.40

“Ehrenfried Kumpf, Karlstadt’s Patron and Peasants’ War Rebel.” 39 Apology by Dr. Andreas Carlstadt Regarding the False Charge of Insurrection Which Has Unjustly Been Made Against Him, translated in Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 378–86. The pamphlet is striking for Karlstadt’s account of incidents in which he and his family were personally threatened by peasants involved in the revolt. Frederick the Wise had died in early May. His brother John succeeded him as elector. 40 Staehelin, Theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads, 269–70; Köhler, Zwingli und Luther, 1:49, 61–63; and Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 92.

Introduction Accordingly, the immediate reaction to the publication of the pamphlets ranged from the horrified response of the authorities to their enthusiastic endorsement by Zwingli’s most radical followers, those who had helped with their publication and who would soon break with Zwingli to become the first Anabaptists.41 Zwingli reported that the Zurich Anabaptists “flew to Basel, and carrying [Karlstadt’s] books upon their shoulders filled not only the cities, towns, and cantons but almost all the farm houses with them.”42 In Basel, however, the two printers responsible for printing the pamphlets were arrested, jailed, and interrogated, and the city’s censorship provisions were tightened to prevent the publication of similar works in the future. When it came to the attention of Nuremberg’s Senate that Karlstadt’s Anti-Christian Abuse had been printed in that city, they likewise prohibited its sale and forbade the completion of the Dialogue, which was in press at that time.43 Several authors took more direct action to oppose Karlstadt’s ideas. The Augsburg preacher Urbanus Rhegius published his Warning Against the New Error of Doctor Andreas von Karlstadt Concerning the Sacrament before the end of 1524. The Nördingen preacher Theobald Billican condemned Karlstadt’s errors concerning the sacrament in his defense of the liturgical changes that had been introduced in that city’s church published in February 1525.44 Although Zwingli’s eucharistic theology differed from Karlstadt’s, Luther’s colleague Johannes Bugenhagen felt no compunction about linking the two in his Open Letter Against the New Error on the Sacrament, published in the late summer of 1525.45 In his polemical exchange with Johann Oecolampadius on the Lord’s Supper that began in early 1526, the Nuremberg humanist Willibald Pirckheimer repeatedly joined Karlstadt’s name to that of Thomas Müntzer and asserted that the rejection of Christ’s corporeal presence undermined public order and was responsible for the violence of the Peasants’ War.46

41

For a more detailed discussion of Karlstadt’s role in and influence on the early eucharistic controversy, see Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, chap. 5. 42 Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke, 4:464; Zwingli, Writings, 2:195. Pater’s analysis of Karlstadt’s influence on the Zurich Anabaptists should be used with caution, for he fails to recognize Zwingli’s much greater influence on them; Karlstadt as Father of the Baptist Movements, 144–69. And see Fast, “Dependence of the First Anabaptists on Luther, Erasmus and Zwingli.” 43 Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, appendix. 44 Billican, Renovatio Ecclesiae Nordlingiacensis, in Sehling, Evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts, 12/2:298–301. 45 On the differences—and the similarities—between Zwingli and Karlstadt and a discussion of Bugenhagen’s pamphlet, see Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, chap. 5. On Rhegius’s pamphlet, see ibid., chap. 6. 46 Pirckheimer implied this in his 1526 De vera Christi carne et vero eius sanguine, ad Ioan. Oecolampadium responsio, A6v–A7r; it came out more clearly in his 1527 De vera Christi carne et vero eius sanguine, aduersus conuicia Ioannis, qui sibi Oecolampadij nomen indidit, responsio posterior, A4v, C3r–v. Pirckheimer’s Responsio was an attack on Oecolampadius’ 1525 De Genvina…expositione. Oecolampadius responded to each of Pirckheimer’s pamphlets, and the debate continued well into 1527.

15

16

Introduction The Swiss and South German reformers also distanced themselves from Karlstadt by condemning his vehement attacks on Luther, and they specifically rejected his exegesis of the words of institution. At the same time, however, they adopted several of his arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence without acknowledging their source.47 Johann Oecolampadius, who as one of Basel’s censors had read at least two of Karlstadt’s pamphlets before their publication, incorporated a number of Karlstadt’s arguments into his Latin treatises on the Lord’s Supper.48 In this way, Karlstadt’s arguments entered the general debate about the sacrament, but they were associated with Oecolampadius rather than with Karlstadt. The Strasbourg reformers Wolfgang Capito and Martin Bucer were also persuaded to adopt a symbolic understanding of the Supper at least in part by the arguments of Karlstadt and Hoen. They would cite those arguments in letters they wrote over the course of 1524 and 1525 to win support for Zwingli. Although he was not so directly influenced by Karlstadt, Zwingli would incorporate some of Karlstadt’s ideas that had been adopted by Oecolampadius and the Strasbourgers into his own later discussions of the Lord’s Supper. The most blatant use of Karlstadt to support a position that came to be called Zwinglian was the pamphlet by Conrad Reyss, Answer to the Highly Learned Doctor Johann Bugenhagen … Concerning the Sacrament, whose contents were drawn almost entirely from Karlstadt’s works. Since the pamphlet did not mention Karlstadt in conjunction with these arguments, however, even Zwingli thought it was intended to defend him and not Karlstadt.49 The Silesian reformer Kaspar Schwenckfeld too read Karlstadt’s pamphlets. Although Schwenckfeld was also influenced by both Zwingli and the Bohemian Brethren, his objection to the belief that the godless received Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament was probably derived from Karlstadt, who was the first to advance this position publicly.50 Within a year after the publication of Karlstadt’s pamphlets, then, his ideas had become common currency among those who opposed the belief in Christ’s corporeal presence in the bread and wine, even though Karlstadt himself was vilified.

47

For a more detailed discussion of the following, see Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 98–110. Oecolampadius used ideas first expressed by Erasmus and Hoen, both of whom influenced Karlstadt, but he also used arguments unique to Karlstadt in De Genvina…expositione; Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 97. In his response to Willibald Pirckheimer, Oecolampadius followed Karlstadt in asserting that if priests could not heal the sick, blind, and lame, although Christ had expressly given his disciples this power, they most certainly could not bring Christ’s body into the bread, for they had no express command to do so; Ad Pyrckhaimerum de re eucharistiae responsio, d8r. 49 Antwort dem Hochgeleerten Doctor Johann Bugenhagen…das Sacrament betreffend. Already at the time of the pamphlet’s publication, the author’s name was believed to be a pseudonym; for a discussion of the pamphlet and its author, see Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 125–27. 50 Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 130–31. 48

Introduction K arlstadt’s Later Career Karlstadt’s pamphlet explaining his teaching satisfied the demands of the elector of Saxony, and his banishment from Saxony was lifted.51 The conditions for his return were restrictive, however. Karlstadt was not allowed to preach, teach, or write, and he was subject to the constant surveillance of the officials in the village near Wittenberg where he settled. He turned to farming to support himself and his family but had little success.52 In November 1526, the elector granted permission for him to move to Kemburg, a slightly larger town in the area where he hoped to improve his financial situation. Despite his apparent acquiescence to the terms of his pardon and his public silence, the Wittenbergers continued to be concerned about Karlstadt and his influence. The visitation begun in 1527 revealed that he still had supporters in and around Orlamünde, and an intercepted letter that he wrote to Kaspar Schwenckfeld and Valentin Crautwald fed suspicions that he was seeking contact with Luther’s opponents.53 By the summer of 1528, Karlstadt’s situation in Saxony was becoming unbearable. He steadfastly refused to write against Zwingli and Oecolampadius, although he was pressured to do so. As he wrote to the elector, “it is as possible for me to accept Dr. Martin’s [Luther’s] opinion on the sacrament with good conscience and from the heart, as he has written it in all of his books, as it would be to fly through the air like a bird.”54 Luther told the electoral counselor Gregor Brück that he was at his wit’s end in dealing with Karlstadt. He could not recommend that Karlstadt be imprisoned, which might cause him to despair, but if he were allowed to leave Saxony he could cause even greater harm.55 In the end Karlstadt resolved the situation by fleeing Saxony in early 1529. He spent the next year in the far northwestern part of Germany, moving through Holstein and East Frisia. In the spring of 1530, he left East Frisia for Strasbourg, but he was not allowed to stay, so the reformers sent him on to Zurich with their recommendation. In Zurich he held a series of temporary positions as preacher and teacher, and from September 1531 to early 1532 he served as pastor in the town of Altstätten in the Rhine valley above Lake Constance. Finally, in the spring of 1534 Karlstadt received a call to the post of theology professor in Basel. The following year he was appointed senior pastor of one of the city’s parish churches. In 51

On Karlstadt’s four years in Saxony, see Barge, Karlstadt, 2:369–93. In a letter to Luther asking for his intercession with the elector, Karlstadt described how both of his horses had died within the space of a week and he had had to sell some of his land in order to avoid poverty; 17 November 1526, in WA Br 4:131–32. 53 See Melanchthon’s letters to Caspar Aquila, 1 August 1527, in Melanchthon, Briefwechsel … Texte, 3:120–21, and to Joachim Camerarius, 8 August, in ibid., 3:125–27; and Karlstadt’s letter to the Silesians, 17 May 1528, in WA Br 4:571–73. Melanchthon told Camerarius that Karlstadt had left secretly to visit Silesia; 23 January 1528, Melanchthon, Briefwechsel … Texte, 3:263–64. 54 Karlstadt to Elector John, 12 August 1528, in Barge, Karlstadt, 2:584–86. 55 24 September 1528, in WA Br 4:568–71. 52

17

18

Introduction his position as pastor and theologian in Basel, Karlstadt followed closely Martin Bucer’s efforts to bring about eucharistic concord between the Wittenbergers and the Swiss, and in the summer of 1536 he was sent to Strasbourg, along with his colleague Simon Grynaeus, to hear the Strasbourgers’ report about the negotiations that had resulted in the Wittenberg Concord. Basel was the only Swiss city to endorse the concord, a move that Karlstadt apparently supported, but he played no further public role in discussions of the sacrament. Instead he became embroiled in a long-running conflict with his fellow pastors concerning the relationship between the church and the university and the authority of the city’s magistrate over the church, a conflict that ended only with his death of the plague on 24 December 1541. Even after his death, Karlstadt continued to attract attention, for rumors circulated that he had seen a demon several times in the months before his death.56 Interpretations of K arlstadt Karlstadt’s reputation as a theological radical would long outlive him, especially among Lutheran historians of the Reformation. Only at the beginning of the twentieth century was there a serious attempt to reexamine Karlstadt’s life and rehabilitate his reputation. Hermann Barge’s two-volume biography, published in 1905, presented Karlstadt as a champion of the common man and leader of “a lay Puritan movement,” and it sparked a vigorous debate over Karlstadt’s role in the Wittenberg movement.57 Sixty years later, E. Gordon Rupp would allude to Barge’s interpretation in the subtitle of his biographical sketch of Karlstadt, “the Reformer as Puritan,” one of the first scholarly discussions of Karlstadt in English.58 It was not until the 1970s, though, that research on Karlstadt finally came into its own.59 Western social historians and Marxist scholars from the German Democratic Republic were particularly interested in Karlstadt’s relationship to Thomas Müntzer, his role in the Peasants’ War, and his connections with early Anabaptism.60 Anglophone church historians from Mennonite and Baptist backgrounds also looked more closely at Karlstadt’s possible influence on the 56

Barge’s chapter on Karlstadt’s career in northwestern Germany and Switzerland, Karlstadt, 2:394– 505, should be supplemented by Hasse, “Zum Aufenthalt Karlstadts in Zürich (1530–34)”; Schmidt, “Karlstadt als Theologe und Prediger”; Looß, “Karlstadt und der Bann”; and Burnett, “‘Kilchen ist uff dem Radthus’?” The rumors about the demon were reported to Heinrich Bullinger by Karlstadt’s Basel colleague Oswald Myconius, 14 January 1542, in Bullinger, Werke, pt. 2, Briefwechsel, 12:27–29. 57 Although dated, Barge’s Karlstadt is still the most detailed presentation of Karlstadt’s life and thought. The debate over Barge’s presentation of Karlstadt is described by Kruse, “Karlstadt als Wittenberger Theologe.” 58 Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 49–153. 59 Sigrid Looß gives a detailed overview of recent research in “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.” 60 Representative of the early approach of social historians is Stayer, “From Monogenesis to Polygenesis.” More recent is Stayer, “Saxon Radicalism and Swiss Anabaptism.” The clearest statement of the East German approach to Karlstadt in English is Looß, “Radical Views of the Early Andreas Karlstadt.” Looß’s later publications do not have such a strong ideological framework.

Introduction development of their own religious tradition,61 while Lutheran church historians interested in the earliest period of the Reformation took up again the question of Karlstadt’s involvement in the Wittenberg troubles.62 In several influential publications, the German scholar Ulrich Bubenheimer took the lead in reevaluating Karlstadt’s role in Wittenberg and his relationship with Luther.63 Over the last three decades, there has been a slow but steady stream of works on Karlstadt, looking particularly at his early theological development and his importance as a pamphleteer.64 Two different conferences held at the end of the twentieth century brought together a number of scholars who have studied Karlstadt, and the published papers demonstrate the significant advances made in the century since the publication of Barge’s biography.65 One of the greatest hindrances to research on Karlstadt continues to be the lack of a critical edition of his writings and correspondence. His letters and references to his activities are scattered throughout the published correspondence of other reformers, not only Luther and Melanchthon, but also Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bullinger, Bucer, and Capito. Some of Karlstadt’s pamphlets have been reproduced in modern collections and editions, beginning with the edition of Luther’s works by the eighteenth-century German theologian Johann Georg Walch. In the twentieth century, Erich Hertzsch edited several of Karlstadt’s treatises written between 1523 and 1525, while a team of scholars headed by Adolph Laube included others in their collections of German pamphlets.66 Despite these efforts, however, a number of Karlstadt’s pamphlets, including some of those dealing with the Lord’s Supper, are still available only in their original sixteenth-century form. Karlstadt’s works are even more difficult to find in English. Translations of a few of his pamphlets are included in various source collections dealing with a specific topic, such as the use of images or the political thought of the Radical Reformation.67 More important is the collection of fifteen pamphlets translated by 61

In addition to the monographs of Sider, Karlstadt, and Pater, Karlstadt as the Father of the Baptist Movements, see Furcha, “Zwingli and the Radicals: Zwingli and Carlstadt.” 62 Preus, Carlstadt’s “Ordinaciones”; Edwards, Luther and the False Brethren; and Lindberg, “Conflicting Models of Ministry.” 63 See Bubenheimer’s major studies: “Scandalum et ius divinum”; Karlstadt als Theologe und Jurist; “Gelassenheit und Ablösung”; and “Luthers Stellung zum Aufruhr in Wittenberg.” 64 Hasse, Karlstadt und Tauler; Otto, Vor- und frühreformatorische Tauler-Rezeption, 241–54; Leppin, “Mystisches Erbe auf getrennten Wegen”; McNiel, “Karlstadt as a Humanist Theologian”; Zorzin, Karlstadt; idem, “Karlstadts ‘Dialogus vom Tauff der Kinder’”; Looß, “Wirksamkeit von Flugschriften des Andreas Bodenstein aus Karlstadt”; Leroux, “‘In the Christian City of Wittenberg’”; and Matheson, Rhetoric of the Reformation, 59–80. 65 Looß and Matthias, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt; and Bubenheimer and Oehmig, Querdenker der Reformation. 66 Luther, Sämtliche Schriften; Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften; Laube, Flugschriften der frühen Reformationsbewegung; and Laube, Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg zum Täuferreich. 67 Karlstadt, Reformation Debate; Baylor, Radical Reformation; Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther; and Hendrix, Early Protestant Spirituality.

19

20

Introduction Edward J. Furcha in The Essential Carlstadt. Furcha deliberately included only two of Karlstadt’s eucharistic pamphlets in that volume because he intended to publish the rest separately, but he died before he could carry out his plans. The present translations thus fill an important void in Karlstadt research, making most of Karlstadt’s eucharistic pamphlets available in English for the first time. All of the translations in this volume are my own, although I made use of existing English translations, in particular the two translations of Karlstadt’s Dialogue.68 I have tried to walk a fine line between faithfulness to the letter and natural-sounding English, but where I had to choose between the two, I have preferred a more literal translation, especially since other English translations tend to be more free in their rendering. Karlstadt delighted in long sentences and he often piled up clause upon clause. As a result, his train of thought can sometimes seem tangled and hard to follow, but to keep the flavor of Karlstadt’s prose, I have resisted breaking up his sentences unless necessary for the sake of greater clarity. Karlstadt wrote for a popular audience rather than for scholars, and some of his pamphlets on the sacrament originated as sermons. As the translators of his early pamphlet on images have noted, his prose reflects the cadences and ellipses of oral speech.69 In order to convey that style and to express Karlstadt’s ideas in the way that he intended, I have deliberately used colloquial language. I especially thank Dr. Patrick Hayden-Roy for reading through and correcting errors or making suggestions to improve several of my translations. All errors that remain are my own. Karlstadt’s deep familiarity with the Bible is apparent in all of his pamphlets. He frequently gave scripture references to support his argument. Where these references are given in the margin, I have moved them into the text and enclosed them in parentheses. In addition, Karlstadt often alluded to scripture passages that he did not cite explicitly. I have identified these by enclosing them in square brackets. He apparently relied on his memory when citing Bible verses, especially in the later pamphlets that were written under time pressure, and in a few cases I could not identify the passage to which he referred. Where Karlstadt’s citation is incorrect or incomplete, I have enclosed the correct or complete biblical citation in square brackets. Karlstadt often paraphrased or expanded upon the scripture text rather than citing it word for word. His translations, especially those from the Old Testament, could also be somewhat unusual, which suggests that he was translating directly from the Hebrew or Greek text rather than from the Vulgate.70 In several instances, Karlstadt’s translations are closer to those of the King James Version than to any modern translation, but in a few places they do not accord with any English translation. For this reason, I have translated Karlstadt’s German directly rather than using a standard English Bible translation. 68

Lindberg, “Karlstadt’s Dialogue on the Lord’s Supper”; and Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 269–316. Karlstadt, Reformation Debate, viii. 70 On Karlstadt’s knowledge of Hebrew, see Rüger, “Karlstadt als Hebraist.” 69

1

On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament, Christ’s Flesh and Blood (June 1521) Karlstadt’s first eucharistic pamphlet, Von den Empfahern: zeychen: vnd zusag des heyligenn Sacraments fleysch vnd bluts Christi, was printed in Wittenberg in the summer of 1521 (VD16, B6239; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 54). Before the end of the year, it was reprinted in Strasbourg by Johann Prüss (VD16, B6237; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 56), as well as twice in Augsburg, by Silvan Otmar (VD16, B6236; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 55) and by Erhard Oeglin (VD16, B6235; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 57). While the title page of the Wittenberg imprint gives only the title and place of printing, all three of the other 1521 imprints have illustrations pertaining to the sacrament on the title page.1 The pamphlet was reprinted in 1522 together with Karlstadt’s Von Anbettung vnd Erbietung der Zeichen des Neüwen Testaments by Matthias Schürer in Strasbourg (VD16, B6238; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 58). I used the Wittenberg imprint for my translation (Köhler, Flugschriften, 357, no. 996), but I also compared the text with the 1521 Strasbourg (Köhler, Flugschriften, 1818, no. 4659) and the Augsburg/Oeglin imprints, using for the latter a microfilm from the Thrivent Reformation Research Library (Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN) of the pamphlet in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

T

o the honorable and esteemed lord Nicolaus Demuth, provost and arch[a2r] deacon of the New Foundation in Halle, my beloved brother and patron, I, Andreas Karlstadt, wish health and a good life through Christ, Amen.2 Honorable and most favorable lord: some who have fallen away from the faith continue to hinder the comforting and evangelical teaching, causing the weak in 1

The Augsburg/Oeglin imprint has a small woodcut of a priest administering communion in one kind to a kneeling layman on the left, with a woman holding a rosary kneeling on the right (fig. 1), while the Augsburg/Otmar imprint shows two kneeling angels holding a Gothic monstrance (fig. 2). The Strasbourg imprint has a border surrounding a more detailed woodcut showing a priest raising his right hand in blessing while with his left hand he offers the host on a paten to a kneeling man (fig. 3). 2 Demuth was Karlstadt’s uncle and an advisor to Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz. He had come to Wittenberg in early 1521 and with Karlstadt’s help was able to persuade Luther not to attack the archbishop in print; Barge, Karlstadt, 1:241.

21

22

Chapter 1

Fig. 1. Title Page of On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (Augsburg: Oeglin, 1521). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [97.6 Theol. (6)].

On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament faith to fear Christ, who came for their good, their redemption, and their help, and especially causing the sick to avoid and flee their physician and his medicine. For this reason I wanted to give here a brief account to show that no one should abstain from receiving the flesh and blood of Christ because of his sins. I also want to show, using holy scripture, that those who are sinners should, on account of their sins, joyfully receive the Lord into their arms and their house, as Zacchaeus did [Luke 19:5–6]. This isn’t contrary to the statement of the centurion used by the church, namely, “Lord, I am not worthy for you to enter into my house.” 3 Christ answered him, “I have found no greater faith in Israel” [Matt. 8:8–10]. With these words Christ praised the centurion not because he considered himself unworthy of his presence but rather only because he believed that Christ, although absent, could help him. So the centurion grasped and received Christ spiritually, as Zacchaeus accepted him spiritually and bodily.4 To the latter Christ says, “Today salvation has come to this house, for he is a son of Abraham” (Luke 19[:5–10]), that is, a believer. The centurion placed the greatest emphasis on the word (Luke 7[:6–9]), while Zacchaeus grasped the sign in the word. Which word? “Today I must [a2v] stay in your house.” Christ also stayed with the centurion, for he healed his servant. In short, they both received Christ in the word, and it is a wonder that those who go to the sacrament aren’t told to say, “I receive the Lord joyfully, as Zacchaeus does,” instead of the word of the centurion, “Non sum dignus,” [I am not worthy] etc. Christ didn’t praise him as he praised Zacchaeus. I don’t know what has moved teachers to prefer the word of the centurion, “Lord, I am not worthy for you to enter under my roof,” for Zacchaeus confessed his sins, faults, and unfitness no less than the centurion, who also received the Lord in spirit. Accordingly, I want to explain that the signs in the sacraments are less important than and exist on account of the promise, that only a sinner receives the sacrament of bread, and that everyone can know whether he receives that sacrament worthily. I have written this, Your Honor, in order to prove my willingness to serve you, asking your favor with all due diligence. I ask Your Honor to be patient until the other pamphlet is printed,5 for I am always ready and willing to serve Your Honor and all those whom you love, and especially to answer the request of your

3

In the mass, this verse was spoken by communicants immediately before receiving communion; Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, 82–85. 4 An allusion to the relationship between spiritual communion, the mystic union of the believer with Christ and the church as his body, and sacramental communion, the physical reception of the sacrament. Spiritual communion was to be joined with sacramental communion, but it could occur at other times as well. Late medieval preachers commended spiritual communion to the laity as a substitute for the reception of sacramental communion, which would bring judgment if not received worthily; Burnett, “Social History of Communion and the Reformation of the Eucharist.” 5 Karlstadt also dedicated his pamphlet Berichtung dyesser red: Das reich gotis leydet gewaldt, und die gewaldtige nhemen oder rauben das selbig, to Demuth. The preface of that work is dated 29 July 1521; Barge, Karlstadt, 1:293n124.

23

24

Chapter 1 chamberlain, Lord Andreas Zeytloß from Karlstadt. Dated at Wittenberg on the feast of John the Baptist [24 June], 1521. So that my discussion will be easier to follow and to understand, I will ask two questions. First, should sinners abstain and refrain from receiving the venerable sacrament on account of the sins and misdeeds that they have committed? In the second part I will ask, [a3r] since there are two things that comprise this sacrament, namely, the sign and the divine promise, which is the highest and the one that we should view as the most important? Which is greater, the flesh and blood of Christ or the divine promise to which the sign is attached? Concerning the first question, some conclude that a person should abstain from receiving the venerable sacrament on account of sin, and they seem to base themselves on scripture when they read that our sins separate us from God. If sins separate us from God, then one must abstain from the sacrament on account of sins committed, for he should avoid that from which he is separated. Likewise, God says to the sinner, “Why do you take my testament in your mouth?” Psalm 49 [50:16]. If a sinner may not take the command and testament of God in his mouth, how can he be allowed to take the flesh of Christ in his mouth? If it displeases God that a sinner sets the divine word in his mouth, how much less will he permit a sinner to eat his flesh? This accords with Isaiah 1[:18], through whom God says, “When you raise your hands to me, I will turn my eyes away, and when you worship me, I will not hear.” How much less grace will he show towards a sinner using the venerable sacrament than towards those who call on him with hands and words? They also cite Paul’s statement, 1 Corinthians 11[:27], which says that whoever eats the bread and drinks from the drink unworthily will be guilty of the death of Christ. Now Paul earlier speaks about the sinners who quarreled among themselves and had no discernment and judgment of the body of Christ, saying that when they [a3v] ate the flesh of Christ unworthily, they were just as guilty of Christ’s blood and death as the Gentiles and Jews who murdered Christ. With these scripture verses they scare sinners away from the use of the sacrament and the communion of the saints. “Yes,” they whisper, “how can Christ enter into sinners?” making of our savior a destroyer and of Christ (who was born for the joy of all sinners) a terrifying man. Therefore, I will set forth this conclusion: The sins that someone has committed shouldn’t keep him from receiving the venerable sacrament, but instead should much more drive and incite him to run quickly and soon to the venerable sacrament. This is why: Christ says, “I came to call not the righteous but sinners,” Matthew 9[:13]. Here we hear clearly that Christ has come because of sinners, to take away their sin and their unfitness. Why else would he say, “I did not come to call the righteous,” if he was born for the pious? And if Christ wants us to flee from him on account of our sins, why does he say, “I came to call sinners”? When he calls us, we should come. Now hear that he calls sinners and has come for this purpose, so that he would call and summon

On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament the erring and lost sheep to himself, Matthew 15[:24]. If this is so, then the sheep shouldn’t flee the shepherd on account of their lost and erring state. Likewise, if you fear and avoid the venerable sacrament on account of your sins, what could Christ have meant when he said, “The shepherd leaves the ninetynine righteous sheep and seeks the one erring sheep,” Luke 15[:4]? And how does the parable of the lost coin help us, Luke 15[:8–9]? I tell you, don’t on account of your sin flee from Christ, [a4r] who came for this reason and seeks you so that he can free you from sins and save you. For this reason his name is Jesus, for he was born to make his people holy from sin, Matthew 1[:21]. Each person should consider Christ’s words that he spoke to those who made a display of their piety,6 “It is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick and the weak,” Matthew 9[:12], Luke 5[:31]. Christ gave this answer when the Pharisees and scribes (who did great, praiseworthy, and impressive works, as now the monks, priests, and other representatives of the church do) asked him, “Why do you eat and drink with sinners?” To this Christ replied, “The healthy do not need a physician,” and he gave a clear reason why he came, saying, “I did not come to call the righteous but only sinners to repentance.” With these words Christ compares sinners to the sick, for what sickness does to the body, sins do to the spirit. Thus David says, Psalm 40 [41:4], “Lord, heal my soul, for I have sinned against you.” Now everyone knows that the healthy don’t desire a doctor and they don’t seek one out to heal them. But the sick who notice their ills and sickness desire a physician and don’t shy away at all from showing their faults to the physician. Yes, the more they feel their illness, the more quickly and eagerly they flee to the physician and consider nothing other than the help of the physician and their own illness. It is the same with sinners: they shouldn’t be afraid of Christ, for Christ came in order to call sinners to himself and to heal them. The greater and the more horrible a person’s sins, the more quickly and ardently he should run and hasten to Christ. If you have sinned, you need [a4v] nothing on earth more than to recognize your sickness and sins, to realize that you need your lord Jesus, and to believe that he can and will forgive your sins, and then you are worthy of Christ’s help. Those who run to him with good works will hear that the healthy don’t need a physician; likewise, “I did not come to help the righteous,” etc. Let this be your eternal comfort, that Christ said, “The sick need a physician.” If you confess your sickness, you have Christ before you as a physician to help you. Therefore I tell you that no one should abstain from the venerable sacrament, whether he has sinned openly or in secret, or has committed great or small sins, vices, and crimes. For even if the act was recent, great, and vicious, you still shouldn’t fear Christ if you perceive your sickness, because Christ says, Matthew 12 [21:32], that prostitutes and notorious sinners will enter the kingdom of God 6

Heiligenfresser, lit., “those who gobble holy things,” used mockingly of those whose ostentatious kissing of images was compared to eating them; Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, 10:840.

25

26

Chapter 1 before you. Stand fast on this, that Christ has come to heal those made sick by sin. Don’t be hindered but believe this and feel your sins, and come joyfully, boldly, and without doubt. I say further, if someone realizes that he doesn’t feel much sorrow over his sins but he still wants to abandon them and to repent, he should come to this sacrament comforted. Hear this, that your many sins should incite you to reception of this sacrament and should drive you to it, not keep you from it. For this reason Christ says of Mary Magdalene, Luke 7[:47], that her many sins are forgiven because she has loved her physician greatly and that one who has been forgiven for little will love little. This is what Paul says in Romans 5[:20]: “Where sins abound, [b1r] grace abounds and overflows.” I don’t say that one should sin because of God’s goodness, as the crafty hypocrites are accustomed to argue when they preach about God’s grace. No, I say that if you have sinned, you should feel your sickness and flee to Christ with confidence and without fear, and with no doubt at all that your sins will be forgiven. This is what Paul taught, 1 Timothy 1[:15], saying, “This is a sure saying that we should accept in all ways, that Christ came into this world to make sinners holy.” If this is a sure saying, then it must also be certain and true and deceive no one, and so you should also meet Christ as a sinner and not flee from him, because he comes to you on account of your sins. Hold to his word and joyfully bring your sins with you to the Lord. Therefore it is written, “My dove is in the clefts or caves of the rock,” Song of Solomon 2[:14]. The rock is Christ, the clefts or caves are the deep wounds that he received on account of our sins, and sinners flee to these same clefts. As the Psalmist says, Psalm 103 [104:18], “Petra refugium herinaceis.”7 The rock, that is, Christ, is a refuge for the spiny hedgehog, that is, the sinner, and all sinners should flee to him. Why should I on account of my sins flee from the one who is placed as a help, assurance, and refuge to save me from my sins? In conclusion, Christ instituted the venerable sacrament of his precious flesh and blood for this purpose, because he wanted to help sinners and the sick, and not the righteous and the healthy. For before his final departure the Lord took bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat, this is my body, which is given for you,” Luke 22[:19], or as Paul says, “which is broken for you,” 1 Corinthians 11[:24]. If we [b1v] had not committed a sin, why would the body of Christ be given into passion and death for us? But if his body was given for us, then he died on account of our sins. Now as he was given, tormented, and died for us, in this way and with this intent he instituted his sacrament. If he died for sinners, then he has also ordained his sacrament for the good of sinners. Thus Paul says, 1 Corinthians 11[:26], that we should proclaim the death of the Lord as often as we receive the sacrament. To proclaim and confess the death of Christ means to say why Christ died and how he killed 7

“The rock is a refuge for the hedgehog.”

On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament

Fig. 2. Title Page of On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (Augsburg: Otmar, 1521). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [96.14 Theol. (11)].

27

28

Chapter 1 and buried our sin with his death. When I eat his flesh I should know that Christ forgives my sin, and if I believe this in strong faith, I receive it worthily. Why then should I flee from Christ on account of sin, since he has come to me on account of sin and died for me? “Yes,” some say, “but to honor the sacrament you should abstain on account of your sins.” My friend, where did you learn this? Is it an honor to Christ to avoid him on account of sin? Or do I honor him when he seeks me and I don’t want to be found? So I would honor a physician when I don’t trust him with my illness. In short, the first and most worthy reception consists in recognizing your sins and believing that Christ certainly heals you freely and without your merit. This is the first and most worthy preparation for seeing a physician, when the sick person recognizes his sickness and gladly wants to be healed and has no doubt at all that the physician can and will heal him. The priests with their reverence for the holy sacrament have murdered the souls of many people because they have made oppressed consciences terrified of their physician and his medicine. [b2r] Do what you will, you will never receive Christ worthily unless you feel your faults. But if they seem too distant from you, say with Job 13[:23], “Show me my sins and misdeeds,” and with Paul, 1 Corinthians 4[:4], “I am aware of nothing, but I am not for that reason righteous.” When you do good, you still sin; as it is written in Ecclesiastes 7[:20], “There is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin.” Thus we pray in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our debts,” Matthew 5 [6:12]. Thus there is no one who is without sin and who doesn’t need the venerable sacrament. This is my answer to the objection raised at the beginning. The scriptures cited above can’t weaken or counter this reason and conclusion. Those who commit sin gladly, who don’t feel their sins, and who fear and flee from God as if their sins could not be forgiven have sins that separate them and place them far from God. With one word I say to everyone that these sinners are separated from God and they shouldn’t take his law in their mouths. God doesn’t heed their prayers and the works they do on their own account; that is, they seek God with works and they want to atone for their sins first with meditation, fasting, prayer, sorrow, chastisement, and other works. God won’t hear these but will turn his eyes from them, for you must purify your heart with faith and make it wholly at peace. Know only that you are a sinner and that Christ is your savior. Your trust and faith purify you, for it binds you to God and makes you spiritual; it makes you one spirit with God and washes away your sins. You shouldn’t be frightened by what scripture says about sins and works because all of the suffering threatened in scripture, and all scorn and rejection and all the divine disfavor of God [b2v] that occurs to us, happens so that we become wise and understanding. We have a pleasant text in the last chapter of Numbers [Lev. 26:41], “I will walk against them (says God) and will surround them with enemies until their uncircumcised heart becomes ashamed, and then they will pray on account of their evil ways.” Hear then how God walks against you for a long time, until you recognize yourself and

On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament pray inwardly for your sins. In short, God wants you to come to your senses and pray for your sins. All God’s punishment, disfavor, and wrath points and leads you to an awareness or perception and confession of your sins. Therefore if you want to approach God and take his word in your mouth, or to fast, pray, and celebrate rightly, you must become aware of, that is, feel your sins, you must feel woe and evil, you must have a desire for God. What would a physician think if you come to him for sick and crippled feet, but you run to him as if you were healthy? God will think the same thing if you’re a sinner and want to run to God with your works. For just as someone with crippled feet can’t walk well, so a sinner can’t come to God well or without harm with his works before he has been healed. This is the reason for the statement in Isaiah 1[:15], “I will not hear your prayer,” etc. For these same hypocrites, like our monks and priests and others who display their piety, begin to go to God with their works. Thus Paul wrote, Romans 3 [4:5], “To the one who doesn’t work but who has faith in the one who justifies the sinner, faith will be counted as righteousness.” If you want to be far from God, then come with your works and piety. If you want to approach God and be righteous, then come with confession of your sins. This is what Job 13[:15–16] says, “I know that if I [b3r] maintain my way before his face, he will become my savior, and I know that no hypocrite, no one displaying his own holiness, will come before his face.”8 And so hear who it is who comes or turns to or from God, and note that you need nothing else on earth when you want to receive the sacrament worthily other than that you confess your guilt and sin, and that you feel your wounds. Christ says, “Come to me, all who are burdened,” Matthew 11[:28], and Job says, “I know that when I maintain my way,” that is, when I perceive my burden, “then he will become my savior.” But to those who display their piety, who want to make themselves fit and worthy for the sacrament with impressive and good works, Christ says, “I didn’t come for the righteous,” and Job, “No hypocrite will come before him.” Each and every person who comes with their works and piety is a hypocrite, for they cannot be godly persons. In this life you can know whether you receive the sacrament worthily, or unworthily and for your harm. For as Job 9 [13:18] boldly says, “I know that I will be justified when I am judged.” So, being consoled, you may say, “I know that I receive the sacrament worthily and for my use because I feel my sins and my contrary nature”; (but if you don’t feel this in yourself, then say) “Oh, that I would feel sorrow for my sins and my unwillingness [to repent], even against my will.” Likewise, “I know that God will certainly forgive my sins through this venerable sacrament.” 8 The Wittenberg imprint has in the margin “Scio quod non stabit in conspectus etiam hypocrita” (“I know that the hypocrite will not stand in his sight”; Job 13:16). Karlstadt’s Latin differs slightly from the Vulgate.

29

30

Chapter 1 Now I will respond to the second article, which asks, since the venerable sacrament of the flesh and blood of Christ has two things, namely, [b3v] flesh and word, or the bread and the promise, which is the highest and the most important? Before I answer, you should know that I speak according to scripture and that I mean the same thing when I say the sacrament of the bread or of flesh and blood. For Christ calls it sometimes bread, sometimes flesh and blood, and sometimes body. Second, it should be understood as the same thing when I say word, assurance, covenant, or promise. I don’t want to hide from you that this promise or word is called a testament in some places in scripture. It shouldn’t hinder you if I use many words for the same thing. Third, hear how Christ instituted the sacrament, Luke 22[:19]: “When the Lord and his disciples had eaten, Jesus took the bread, thanked God, broke the bread and gave it to the disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat’ ”; Matthew 26[:26], “This is my body which is given for you.” Here you have the bread and the promise. Bread, for he took the bread, saying “This is my body.” The word or promise is this consolation, “which is given for you,” that is, sacrificed, tortured, and killed. Paul also says, 1 Corinthians 11[:23–24], “Our Lord Jesus, in the night when he was given over to his enemies, took the bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is my body which is broken, taken away, given over, or destroyed and killed for you.’” Fourth, so that I may speak briefly about the sacrament, note that the bread, the flesh and blood, is called a sign, as Christ himself says, John 3[:14–15], “As Moses affixed the snake in the wilderness, [b4r] so must the Son of man be affixed and raised up.” Now scripture says clearly in Numbers 21[:9] that Moses made a bronze snake and set it up as a sign so that everyone who was wounded and looked at that snake would be healed. Now because Christ himself says that he would be displayed as Moses displayed the bronze snake, it follows that Christ’s flesh, blood, body, or bread is a sign. In addition, Isaiah 55[:13] says that the Lord is called a sign that will be eternal and never perish or be taken away. The other signs signify and end in this sign of flesh and blood, and many of them have disappeared, as can be seen from the old and new law, but the sign that is the Lord himself will stand eternally. There are some who differentiate between the flesh or bread on one hand and between the sign of this sacrament on the other hand, and they base this on the word of Christ when he says, “Take and eat, the bread is my body.” From this they conclude that eating the flesh of Christ is a sign of the worthy sacrament and say that the bread or body or flesh of Christ is not a sign if it is not eaten or used. In consequence, they say that if you don’t eat the flesh of Christ and don’t drink his blood, you can’t have the sign of the promise or of the word that belongs to this sacrament mentioned above. I won’t attack this subtlety, but I know that food is

On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament food, even when it is not eaten, insofar as it is called food and is prepared and useful for the mouth and stomach. [b4v] Now Christ says, John 6[:55], “My flesh is truly a food and my blood a drink,” but food doesn’t attain its final essence before it is eaten, and so Christ says the following, “Whoever eats me, remains in me,” as if he were saying, “You must eat me if you want to participate in me.” From this they conclude that Christ isn’t a sign of the holy sacrament unless he is eaten. But if someone wants to be so subtle, he could say that Christ is a sign of this sacrament, even if you don’t eat and drink him, and he could use the text of John 3[:14], where Christ says, “Just as Moses raised up the snake in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be raised up, so that everyone who believes in the Son will not perish but have eternal life” (for scripture sometimes uses to look upon to mean to believe). From the words just cited it follows that because the sign and God’s word or promise make a sacrament, Christ, when he is raised up and looked at, is a sign and these words, “Everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life,” are the comforting promise, and that these two parts make a sacrament. But I won’t follow this subtlety I’ve introduced any further. It is certain that some signs of sacraments are used with touch, some with sight, and some with the other senses. You feel circumcision because it is done to the body with the sense called touch, Genesis 17[:10–14]. Circumcision was done with hands and caused pain, and it was a sign of faith, as Paul says, Romans 4[:11]. The sign belonged to this promise of God, that Abraham should increase and through his seed would become great and as many as the stars in heaven, Genesis 15[:5] and 17[:5–6]. [c1r] And we have more signs that use the sense of touch, as for example the sacrament instituted for the confession and forgiveness of sins. For when a prince of the people acted against a divine command through error and ignorance and recognized that he had done something in ignorance against God’s command, he had to sacrifice a ram and lay his hand on the head of the sacrifice. Then the priest killed the sacrifice and prayed for the prince, and his actions or sins would be forgiven, Leviticus 4[:22–26]. See, you hear that the sign given for the confession and forgiveness of sins must be used and touched with one’s hands. So the snake that Moses set up in the wilderness was seen, used, and touched with the eyes, Numbers 21[:9]. God also promised the rainbow in the clouds, Genesis 9[:12–13], and one could only touch and use this same rainbow with the eyes. One finds signs of many different uses here and there in scripture and can’t know why circumcision should be a sacrament and the above-mentioned signs and promises don’t make a sacrament. In the end, I won’t criticize too much the idea that Christ’s flesh isn’t a sign if it isn’t eaten or tasted and touched with the mouth, but I will include this, that when a Christian sees with the eyes of faith, he has no less of a sign, as is clear and obvious from John 3[:14]. In this roundabout way, we have partaken of the sign of this peace-giving sacrament, namely, the bread and drink that is the flesh and blood of Christ.

31

32

Chapter 1 Now to move to the promise. The promise and assurance depends on these words, “the body [c1v] given for you; the blood which is shed for you,” Luke 22[:19– 20]. But as Paul says, 1 Corinthians 11[:24], “This is my body broken for you.” The words, “which is broken for you” is the promise, for Christ tells us surely with such words that the body he tells us to take and eat will be deprived of life and killed for our redemption and good. This is an evangelical word that brings us a joyful and comforting message. What is more comforting and joyful to hear than that the body (which we should take and eat) should be given for us into death and destruction, for our increase and redemption? My will, life, and mind should cling firmly to these words and have no doubt at all that the body of Christ, which is my food, has died for me. Thus Paul says that we should proclaim the death of the Lord as often as we eat his flesh. What does it mean to proclaim his death? To say how Christ has died? No, for the Jews and executioners could do this. The spirit must here feel in itself and know the reason for Christ’s death. It must recognize that the death of Christ happened for our salvation and that he put our sin on the gallows with him and killed our old evil Adam, paid all our debts and buried our evil life, and finally made it so that no evil harms us and his righteousness becomes our righteousness. We should ponder deeply in our hearts this and much more that we read in the holy Bible, and especially in Paul, as often as we have anything to do with the sacrament. Whoever wants to eat it worthily must do no more than feel the wounds of his sins and evil life and firmly believe the words that the body of Christ (which he wants to eat) died for his sin and illnesses, and that his evil and sin have fallen away and died with the death of Christ. Whoever doesn’t have this faith eats unworthily. [c2r] Whoever doesn’t have such thoughts when he receives the bread of Christ eats the flesh of Christ as the Corinthians ate, who took it for their bodily hunger and pleasure. You must pay attention to the promise. The divine promise is a word of faith and teaches you the spirit of the sacrament. Whoever doesn’t pay attention to the promise, for him the sacrament is of as little use as the flesh of Christ, where he says, John 6[:63], “The flesh is of no use, but it is the spirit that makes alive.” The divine promise is a word of faith and proclaims the fruitful spirit that enters into desiring ears with the comforting and evangelical message. It makes the spirit of men living, new, righteous, and spiritual if you believe the word, for the promise of God doesn’t serve to blessedness if one doesn’t believe, Hebrews 4[:2]. So no one without faith can obtain contentment and have his heart at rest, unless he believes. As it is written in Psalm 94 [95:11], “Quibus iuravi in ira mea,”9 etc., that is, “I have sworn to the unbelievers that they will not enter into my rest.” In accordance with this statement, I say that a sign is less than the word and that the sign is established for the sake of the promise. In short, the flesh of Christ 9

“To whom I swore in my wrath.” Karlstadt uses the Vulgate’s wording for Hebrews 4:3, which is citing Psalm 95:11.

On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament

Fig. 3. Title Page of On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (Strasbourg: Prüss, 1521). Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

33

34

Chapter 1 is there on account of God’s word, which we have often called an assurance or promise. This is because Christ himself says that on account of scripture he must die and enter into the glory of his father, Luke 24[:26]. So Christ is also one who carries out his father’s word, John 12[:44–50]. And God spoke through Christ as he spoke in olden times through the prophets, Hebrews 1[:1–2]. Thus it follows that Christ as flesh and blood is established as a sign on account of the promise, and we should first and foremost hold and bind ourselves to his word rather than to his flesh. Although this sounds foreign and strange, [c2v] still we learn this from scripture, especially in the Gospel of John, which can’t speak or teach wrongly. Genesis 9[:11–17] makes clear to us that the sign is established on account of the assurance or promise and that we should be reminded through recognition of the sign. There God says to Noah, “I will pledge or bind myself to you with the covenant, or this assurance and promise, that I will never again destroy the earth with a flood and water. Hear this promise and look at the sign. I will (God says) set my bow in the clouds as a sign of the covenant or promise.” See that the bow is a sign of the comforting promise that God will never again destroy the earth through a flood and that the bow is only a sign of the divine promise. Now note what you should learn from the sign: “When I (says God) have covered the sky with clouds, then the bow will appear in the clouds and I will remember my promise.” It continues, “Then I will see the bow and remember the covenant that I have established and promised between God and all living souls.” From these words of Genesis 9[:9–17] we should learn that we should receive nothing other than a sure comfort from the sign and reject all doubt. For we should know that God will remember his promise and hasn’t forgotten his word at all. That is, the signs should make us firm and strong in the word of God, that without any doubt God will fulfill his word and give the promised comfort and help. And so when you eat and drink the bread, flesh and blood of Christ, you should be certain that Christ will hold to his word without failing and10 you shouldn’t doubt his help but believe firmly and hold nothing to be more certain than [c3r] that the flesh and blood of Christ, when you receive it, kills your sins and is a medicine for you and is for righteousness and newness of your spirit. God is truthful and mighty and considers it to be a great injury, wrong, and insult when you doubt him and his word. Therefore he established signs for his promises, so that you would be more sure and at peace and rest and so that you would stand in a living Sabbath. But if someone wavers concerning the word and signs of God, he will be severely punished for his unbelief,11 and that much more severely because he believed neither the sign nor the words.

10

The Strasbourg imprint omits, “you should be certain that Christ will hold to his word without failing and.” 11 In the Strasbourg imprint, this says “belief.”

On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament Thus it is said and proven that signs serve the promises and covenant of God and that the word is more than the sign; for example, fleshly circumcision is less than faith and the promise. In what follows you learn how you should hold to the best part, that is, how you should believe firmly the word of God and retain it in your hearts. For the sake of brevity, I will explain through the account of scripture that is written in Genesis 32[:9–12]. Jacob greatly feared his brother Esau beyond measure, but he held single-mindedly and with full faith to the divine promise to the measure that it was promised him, namely, in Genesis 28[:13–15] God says to Jacob, “I will give to you and your seed the land on which you sleep; your seed shall become like the dust of the earth, that is, your descendants shall be as many as the grains of dust on the earth.” It continues, “and in your seed shall all peoples be blessed, and I will be your guardian and bring you back to this land, and I will not leave you until I have fulfilled all that I have spoken to you.” [c3v] Jacob noted well this promise and assurance of God when he was worried, sad, and fearful on account of his brother Esau and he said in his fears, “Lord, you have told me that you will do good to me. You have said that my family and seed should spread like the sands of the sea, which no one can count. I am less than all of your mercy and your true promise. Save me from the power of my brother Esau, for I fear him greatly, so that he will not murder the mothers and their children.” Jacob held to the divine word as a ship holds to its anchor in the sea. In the same way a Christian should hold fast to the word and promise of Christ when his brother Esau, the old Adam and the devil and sin, makes him sorrowful or plagues him and disturbs his conscience. When he notes that his sins have begun to make him anxious, then he should seek the sacrament, which offers peace and rest to the spirit. He should hold to the word of Christ in the same way that Jacob held, in heart and mouth, to the promise that God had given him. The word, “The body is given into death for you and the drink is shed for you,” he should hold in his heart and mouth. Lord my God, a God of all believers, Abraham, Isaac, etc., you have said, “Take and eat the bread, this is my body which is given for you.” Lord, I rely on this word that you speak, that I should eat your flesh, for it was given for me and for us all in need, anxiety, and death. I remind you of your promise and do not doubt that you will give me the fruit of your bitter death when I eat your flesh, for you have promised this. You are almighty, good, and truthful, you never break [your promise], you deceive no one, your word is “yes, yes,” 2 Corinthians 1[:19–20] and not “yes” today [c4r] and “no” tomorrow. I stand and base myself on your word. You have said to me with these words that you want to do good to me, forgive sin, grant peace, make sure, new, and spiritual. I cling to your word and hang on your promise as Abraham hung on his promise, Romans 4[:9], and had no doubt that you would give him that which you had said. And so I build on your promise. I do not doubt that you can and will give to me redemption from sins, although my old

35

36

Chapter 1 Adam won’t yield. I hold up your word to you, as Jacob held up his divine promise to God. You have said, Lord, you have spoken, “I came not for the righteous and the healthy but for the sick and sinners.” And Lord, you have said I should joyfully eat your flesh and drink your blood, that you gave your body into death for me, for my sin and evil, all for my good. And so I come—I, an impure basket,12 I, a wounded sinner and an oppressed man without peace—and I hold your word up to you in prayer and in faith. You are not like humans who make promises, whether kings, princes, lords, and others who promise much and won’t allow anyone to hold their promise up to them or remind them of something on the basis of the promise they have made and claims from them what they have vowed. No, you are a different kind of Lord, and you want us to lay your word in our hearts and mouths, so that we place everything, heart, mind, will, and senses, on your promise, and say as those who have been comforted, “Lord, you have spoken and said that we should take and eat your flesh, because you gave yourself into death for our salvation.” My faith, comfort, and hope stand on your word, I will not let either sin or my wickedness hinder me, for you have said that you were born and died [c4v] to heal and to forgive our sicknesses and our sins. Abraham stood firm on your promise; he didn’t doubt that you would give him what you said, although he knew that it wasn’t possible according to nature. But he didn’t heed his old and dead body, and you fulfilled your word [Rom. 4:18– 19]. What else should I think about than your promise? How can sin and evil draw me away, since Abraham did not allow his age to draw him away from your word? Jacob held this promise up to God, that he said he would do good to Jacob and spread out his seed. Jacob knew this, and so he firmly believed that his wives and children would not be murdered, and he reminded God of his promise and became so strong in the divine word and in his faith that he could struggle and wrestle with God, and he held God so firmly in faith that he wouldn’t let God go before he blessed him, Genesis 32[:24–29]. With this faith and constant dependence on the divine promise Jacob was transformed in nature and name, for scripture says, “You must be called Israel; you were strong against God, how much stronger will you be against men?” Isn’t it comforting that a firm dependence and faith in the divine word can hold and overcome God? This should comfort us more than heaven and earth, and this should be our foundation. It is impossible that someone should perish who believes the divine promise firmly and with constancy.13 Just as God cannot lie, so he cannot allow you to perish if you depend on his promise firmly, strongly, and manfully. It is impossible that God will forsake a person who perseveres in 12

The Wittenberg and Augsburg/Oeglin imprints have a marginal note: “cophinus Aegyptius” (Egyptian basket). 13 The Strasbourg imprint omits, “and with constancy.”

On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament such trust; all things must be for his good and better than we can understand. All blessedness rests on firm and [c5r] earnest dependence on the word of God, and the opposite in unbelief, loss, harm, and all unworthy reception of the sacrament. Christ himself says, John 3[:18], “Whoever believes will not be condemned; whoever does not believe is already lost.” God cannot forsake you any more than he forsook Jacob, if you, like Jacob, cling strongly and firmly to the divine promise. And so one comes to genuine peace and all that is bitter becomes sweet; opposition becomes a friend and evil is transformed into good, as happened to Jacob. Jacob prayed seven times and for so long until Esau, that is, his enemy and persecutor, approached him, Genesis 33[:1–3]. What happened? When Jacob clung to the divine promise with faith and prayer, his persecutor and enemy Esau turned into a benefactor and friend, for Esau fell on Jacob’s neck and embraced him as a friend and kissed him and cried, and wanted to give Jacob his goods and possessions. So all that is evil turns to good, all dissension and discord into good peace and tranquility. This happens to all those who stand and base themselves firmly on and persevere in the divine promise. In this faith Moses said, Exodus 14[:13–14], “Stand and see the great miracle of God and do not fear, for the Egyptians whom you now see you will see no longer. God will fight for you, and you will be silent.” Stand firm in the promise of God; do not fear, do not doubt at all in his promise, for heaven and earth will be destroyed before his word remains unfulfilled. Even the sea was obedient and parted and made a place and path for the faithful, and it destroyed the Egyptians, who signify our sin. So it is also [c5v] with receiving this joyful sacrament. Anyone who wants to receive it worthily should not fear, that is, he should not doubt that Christ will fulfill his promise. The Egyptians, which are the evil actions and sin that oppose God, should not scare him away from God’s word. It is God who fights and who destroys sin; we stand still and are silent and are completely without works in the forgiveness of sins. This is because when God wants to work his great and miraculous deeds, we should do nothing more than direct our eyes to God and stand in good confidence, as Jehoshaphat says, 2 Chronicles 20[:15], “Only stand in trust and in firm reliance in God, and you will see divine help come to you. Believe in God and you will be sure.” This is what Moses says, “Be silent, it is God who fights.” We don’t need to worry whether we have prayed, fasted, gone to church, burned candles, and done enough other works when we want to receive the venerable sacrament, for we should be still with our ears and feet. As it is written, Ecclesiastes 4 [Eccles. 5:1], “When you enter God’s house, guard your feet and listen”; that is, we must not come with any work, for if such works counted and made us worthy recipients, then it would not be God who alone fights for us and kills the Egyptians. So if I want to receive the sacrament, I should do nothing other than believe the divine word that Christ gave his flesh into death and shed his blood for us, and that he has given his flesh as a food and his blood as a drink as a sure sign. If I believe this, I will be sure, if I otherwise stand with full trust in the divine

37

38

Chapter 1 promise, that I will no longer see the Egyptians, that is, that my sins will [c6r] no longer assail me and take away my peace. Then I will discover his help and benefits. In my own person I need feel nothing but manful, bold, and firm faith and trust in God, that he will not forsake me. This is the first. The second is that I feel no strength, no health, no ability, no good work, and no piety that I can bring to the holy sacrament, but instead I feel my nothingness, powerlessness, evil, and sin, and that seven times over. As Jehoshaphat says, there is no strength in us that we can overcome the enemy, which is our sins. And so we see our weakness and the Egyptians and flee to this sacrament, so that they are all struck down and drowned, and it makes us alive, gives strength in our work, and makes Esau into someone who gives us his goods and possessions, as the Gentiles gave tribute to the Jews, Genesis 33[:4], Joshua 16[:10], Judges 2–3. And so in conclusion we have this, that a worthy recipient needs nothing other than that he feels the wounds of his sin, that he sees his Esau, the Egyptians, or others who injure him, and he stands manfully still, firm as a knight, in the divine promise. So God cannot forsake him, he holds to God and his enemies are transformed into servants, as said above. You have also heard that in the sacrament the word is more than the sign and that the signs remind us that God will remember his promise and keep faith, that he will not allow us to be destroyed in any way or through any temptation. May God help us through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

2

On the Adoration and Veneration of the Signs of the New Testament (November 1521) Karlstadt wrote his pamphlet Von anbettung vnd ererbietung der tzeychen des newen Testaments after finishing his pamphlet Von beiden Gestaldten der heylige Messze, but it was published before the latter pamphlet, by Nickel Schirlentz in Wittenberg (VD16, B6218; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 68). It was reprinted two more times before the end of 1521: by Melchior Ramminger in Augsburg (VD16, B6216; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 69) and by Reinhard Beck in Strasbourg (B 6217; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 70). It was also published in 1522 together with Von den Empfahern: Zeichen: vnd Zuosag des heilige Sacraments by Matthias Schürer in Strasbourg (VD16, B6238; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 58). There is an English translation in Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 40–50. I based my translation on the Wittenberg edition, Köhler, Flugschriften, 791, no. 1995, but I also compared it with Furcha’s translation.

T

o the esteemed and renowned Albrecht Dürer of Nuremberg, my dear [A1v] patron, I, Andreas Bodenstein, wish God’s grace and peace. My gracious patron, hatred and envy have from perfidy invented many lies and much libel concerning us Wittenbergers, for evil always seeks hiding places from which it can bark, scold, and chatter, and some dream-seekers speak about us as though we preached and argued that the venerable sacrament should not be given honor, praise, and favor.1 Therefore I wanted to write a short pamphlet on the adoration and veneration of the above-named sacrament, through which I might demonstrate the service I owe to all Christendom, for your goodness has obligated me to serve you according to my abilities. I commend this to God. Wittenberg, on the day of All Saints [1 November], 1521.

1

Rumors about the unrest in Wittenberg had reached Nuremberg the previous month. On 9 October, Melanchthon wrote to Wenceslaus Link in Nuremberg to describe the situation in Wittenberg and to defend the demands for liturgical reform; Melanchthon, Briefwechsel Texte, 3:358–60, no. 173.

39

40

Chapter 2 [A2r] 1. First it should be noted that worship is a fruit of faith, for true worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth, John 4[:23]. Faith makes spiritual, for it unites the believer with Christ, in whom all creatures become new and spiritual. Just as one becomes a Christian through faith in Christ, so one also becomes spiritual; as it is written, “He gave them power to become sons of God, as many as believed on his name,” John 1[:12]. Without this spirit, all prayer is blasphemy of God, contempt for God, lies, and deception, and it cannot please God. It would be much better not to pray than to pray without faith. As it says in scripture, “peccatori dixit Deus,” to the sinner God says, “Why do you take my testament in your mouth?” Psalm 49 [50:16], and Isaiah 1[:15], “I will turn my eyes away from you when you pray.” Without faith it is impossible for anyone to please God, Hebrews 10 [11:6]. This same faith has its own truth and word, as we read, “Faith comes from hearing the word of Christ,” Romans 10[:17]. “My sheep hear my voice,” John 10[:27]. “I will tend and feed them on the mountains of Israel,” Ezekiel 34[:14]. Likewise, “Whoever does not hear him shall be rooted out from the people,” Acts 3[:23]. Just as faith has Christ before its eyes, so it has the word of Christ and all his prophets. Whoever doesn’t have the divine promise in his heart when he prays does not pray in truth; he prays in the visions and inventions of his heart. From this it follows that no one can pray rightly and to salvation unless he worships God in faith, which brings him to Christ, and through Christ to God. It also follows that Christ doesn’t become for him the way, the truth, and the life [John 14:6] if he doesn’t simply remain in the words of Christ. As it is written, “My disciples remain in my word,” John 8[:51]. In short, it is not possible that you can believe rightly and be outside of the truth of the divine promise. Just as little as faith may spring up and be sustained without the word, so little can you truly pray [A2v] outside of the divine word. Christ sums up these two points concerning prayer this way: “When you pray, believe that you will receive, and it will be given to you” [Mark 11:24]. In these words you have the spirit and truth: the spirit in this word, “believe”; the truth in this, “that you will receive.” We must believe that all we desire in prayer will be given to us. God has given us his promise, through which we are shown what he wants to give and what we should ask for; without that we don’t know what is useful and good for us. See, we hear here that in prayer I must wait for him whom I worship. From this comes the premise that I shouldn’t worship that from which I receive nothing and that can give me nothing. He is a fool who seeks and asks something of someone but knows that the person can’t give it. At this point I could speak about the bread and wine in the sacrament and consider what bread and wine give us and how we should worship them. But I’ll wait until I come to the appropriate place. In Hebrew, worship means to genuflect often, to fall on the ground, and to pay homage. It is often used this way, as in Genesis 49[:8], where it is written, “The

Adoration and Veneration of Signs of the New Testament children of your fathers shall worship you.” Although this worship is insignificant and common, God has forbidden that we show such honor to created things and that we honor them as gods. Thus God forbade us to worship either the sun or the moon. 2. Concerning the bread and wine, I will now say, and have said, that I don’t like the human, papistic, and misleading words, “form of bread” or “form of wine,” as I wrote to Jorg Reich in my booklet On Both Forms, which, God willing, will soon be printed.2 3. Accordingly, I ask whether the bread over which the priest has thanked or blessed God or spoken a benediction [A3r] should be worshiped, because it is said that the bread is the body of Christ. 4. First, I confess and say that bread and wine (which the papists call the form of bread and wine) were not instituted so that we should honor them on bended knee and accord similar ceremonies to them. The gospel explains clearly how we should use bread and wine, and it is not hidden that Christ presented the bread to eat and the wine to drink, saying, “Eat, this bread is my body. Drink the wine, which is my blood” [Matt. 26:26–28]. If Christ had the desire and pleasure that we should honor the bread and wine with our eyes, with genuflection, with kissing and processions, he would have been clever enough to have spoken about it and he wouldn’t have concealed it from us. Therefore I know that angel masses (which are dedicated and endowed for the purpose of carrying the worthy sacrament in processions) are not especially praiseworthy.3 For I know that if I want to please and serve God with external things, I should live according to and follow his law and judgments. I am also aware that I should only use ceremonies in a way that God wants to accept. Now Christ said that we should eat his flesh and drink his blood. Thus I say that the venerable sacrament wasn’t instituted so that we should honor it with our worship. 5. Christ didn’t establish the bread and wine for us to worship or to show it any other honor, but it doesn’t follow that therefore we should not show any honor to the bread and wine. For we all know that Christ said, “I did not come so that you should serve me, but so that I would serve you,” John 13[:13–15; cf. Matt. 20:28]. Nevertheless, he praised the ministry and good deed of the woman who washed his feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and kissed them with her mouth, Luke 7[:37–50]. Likewise Christ said that the woman [A3v] who anointed his head with costly ointment had done well and a good work. He also didn’t criticize Martha

2

The preface of Forms is dated 11 November 1521; it was printed by the end of the month. The missa de angelis was a setting of the ordinary of the mass commonly used in votive masses celebrated on a specific day of the week; Hughes, Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office, 157, section 748. In Franconia, Karlstadt’s homeland, Corpus Christi brotherhoods promoted the endowment of angel masses with associated processions; Smith, Reformation and the German Territorial State, 19; and Haimerl, Processionswesen, 58–62.

3

41

42

Chapter 2 or rebuke Zacchaeus, who both took him with joy into their houses, Luke 10[:38] and 19[:1–10]. Moses was given to the children of Israel for this reason, that he should lead them out of Egypt, protect them from evil, and bear them as a mother bears her children in her bosom or on her back, Exodus 3[:7–10], Numbers 11[:12]. But God will not tolerate anyone who shows him dishonor or contempt, as the histories of Miriam and Aaron prove, Numbers 12[:1–16]; likewise of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Numbers 16[:1–16], and of many others. Christ didn’t institute bread and wine, or his flesh and blood, so that we should honor it or that we should worship it, but it doesn’t follow from this that we shouldn’t give it any honor, praise, and glory. We are obligated to give it honor and we must honor it. Paul expressed this sufficiently to the Corinthians, saying, “When you come together, you quarrel and are divided into sects, and you drink as if you were in a gambling house or tavern. Each one tries to outdo the other in eating and drinking. And so one is drunk and full, and the other sober and hungry. If you intend to do this, it isn’t fitting that you receive the venerable sacrament. Don’t you have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise God’s house? And do you shame those who have nothing? On this point I cannot praise you,” says Paul, 1 Corinthians 11[:18–22]. And he teaches that we should partake of the sacrament worthily, saying, “Whoever uses the sacrament unworthily, whoever eats the bread unworthily and drinks from the cup of the Lord unworthily, he is guilty of the death of the Lord, and he is like someone who attacked Christ’s body and blood and killed him.” Paul gives us this reason for receiving the most worthy sacrament with veneration and discernment, [A4r] saying, “You should discern the body of the Lord” [1 Cor. 11:27–29]. Hear what Paul says earlier concerning the bread and wine, that the Corinthians should receive them with worthy honor, and he gives this reason, that the recipient must discern the body of the Lord. Thus Paul says in a concealed way what he earlier wrote about openly, namely, that the bread is the body of the Lord. This is the reason why we should show honor to the bread. Whoever doesn’t see this in the bread receives the bread unworthily because he doesn’t discern the Lord’s body. This is what Paul said earlier, in chapter 10 [1 Cor. 10:16–17]: “The cup that we bless is the fellowship of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break is a fellowship of the body of Christ.” See, this is the reason that Paul often gave, following Christ, that we should show honor to the sacrament: the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is the blood of Christ. Anyone who says that we shouldn’t honor the bread and wine that have become the body and blood of Christ is saying that we shouldn’t show honor to the body and blood of Christ. No one says this except an enemy of Paul and of all the prophets, a blasphemer against God, whom no one will heed into eternity, although the hypocrites count on nothing but the lies they have invented. 6. Now this puffed-up toad (whose eyes blaze, glitter, and blink with evil and lies) must still hear what he doesn’t want to hear, and bite his own fingers, because

Adoration and Veneration of Signs of the New Testament he said that the Wittenbergers want to call on Christ in heaven in order to force him down.4 May that be far from us, you poisonous dragon and miserable worm! We have a lion from the tribe of Judah who can easily stop your lying mouth, and the laity will believe not us but him. And so hear what I have learned from him, the one who taught me what I should hold to in this matter. 7. I show honor to the signs (that is, bread and wine) because I know that the consecrated bread is the body and [A4v] the wine is the blood of Christ, as I have proven at length from scripture in the pamphlet On Both Forms. Just as I believe that Christ is true God and man, so I believe that the consecrated bread is the body of Christ and that it remains bread, which he took into his hands or which the baker baked, because the scripture says the bread is the body of Christ. It is as easy for me to believe the former statement as it is the latter, for I believe both. And I know that the more the laity learns of the gospel and becomes as accustomed to this phrase, “The bread is the body of Christ,” through such long usage as they have the other phrase, “Man has become God,” that the one will be as easily and well believed as the other. 8. I think that to someone born blind it would certainly sound strange to say “The wall or the man is white,” for he has seen neither of them. In the same way, it is unbelievable according to nature that a man should be God and that natural bread should be the body of Christ. But faith finds both of these statements easy and believable. Just as I know that the bread is white and round because I see it, so I know that the bread is the body of Christ because I see it written in the gospel. I don’t doubt the word of Christ and I believe him, even if on account of me and my old Adam this is too bitter and weighty. 9. I know truly and without wavering that the consecrated bread is the body of Christ and is of Christ as he said—that is, of the whole and living Christ—and the consecrated wine is the blood of Christ. Therefore I have no doubt at all that I should show honor to the body and blood of Christ and may say to it, as Thomas said, “My Lord, my God” [John 20:28], and like the centurion, “I am not worthy that you enter under my roof, but say the word and my soul will be saved” [Matt. 8:8]. But I may receive it with joy like Zacchaeus [Luke 19:6], which was more praiseworthy, more comforting, and more in accord with Christ. [B1r] 10. And so I may worship the bread that is Christ and ask help from it, although it was instituted for eating and given as a sign, because I worship Christ with whom the bread has become one thing, as God and man are one person. 4

Karlstadt refers to the belief that priests brought Christ’s body and blood down from heaven when they consecrated bread and wine on the altar, a belief he would sharply condemn four years later in his Dialogue, a4v (p. 169 below). The “toad” may be Hinne Rode, who brought a copy of the Most Christian Letter of Cornelis Hoen to Wittenberg in the late summer/early autumn of 1521. This paragraph is a reaction to a sermon preached in early October by the Augustinian Gabriel Zwilling, who argued that it was idolatry to worship the signs of bread and wine; Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 15–18.

43

44

Chapter 2 11. Not that grace and help are given to me originally from the bread, or that I should grant such power to the natural bread from the baker once it has become the body of Christ, or finally that I should base myself and remain at rest on the bread with love, faith, hope, worship, and veneration. In that case I would worship what the baker made or what a created thing had brought about. But I proceed and go forth in Christ and honor the bread simply because it has become the body of Christ, and the wine because it has become the blood of Christ. If I worshiped the bread according to its own nature or because it is only a sign, may that happen to me that happened to the Babylonian king Belshazzar, about whom Daniel 5[:30] wrote.5 12. Our papists can’t honor or worship their “form” with good conscience, for they don’t have the basis for true worship that Christ, and after him Paul, and now I have given. This is the reason: they can’t say, “The form of bread is the body of Christ, the form of wine is the blood of Christ” because they lack scripture. Therefore they are the ones who can’t honor the sacrament and into whom all filth flows. We know through the gospel that the bread is the body and the wine is the blood of Christ. Therefore we discern the body of the Lord, which they can’t discern. 13. We move from the bread to Christ, whose body is the bread, and so we do and do not honor the bread. We honor it because we know that the bread is the body of Christ, and we do not honor it for we cling not to the bread but to Christ. 14. This shouldn’t sound strange to a pious Christian, for ultimately our faith doesn’t stand on the humanity [B1v] of Christ but penetrates through all created things to God. Therefore Christ says, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in the one who sent me,” John 12[:44]. See here, you envy and hate what Christ says, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me”; so I say, “Whoever believes in the bread does not believe in the bread.” If I should believe in God, then I must first believe in Christ, for through Christ we have access to God, so that we believe not in Christ but in his father, as Christ says. See how faith flees through all the heavens and from creatures and clings only to God. Why else did Christ say, “Whoever believes in me, does not believe in me”? For the one who believes in Christ doesn’t stand still at the man Christ but rises up to his father, whose command and word Christ preached. Thus Christ said, “Whoever sees me, sees the one who sent me,” John 12[:45]. It didn’t help the Jews that they saw Christ, but it served for the salvation of believers that they saw Christ, for they saw something in Christ that was over all created things. For this reason Christ says, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see” [Matt. 13:16]. Christ always led his disciples beyond himself to his father. And so whoever worships and honors the bread or wants to seek help from it must go 5 Belshazzar was slain the night after Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall, “mene, mene, tekel, parsin,” to mean that his days were numbered, his reign found wanting, and his kingdom would be given to the Medes and Persians.

Adoration and Veneration of Signs of the New Testament beyond himself into the heavenly bread that is Christ. As he himself says, “I am the living bread that has come down from heaven,” John 6[:51]. In this way I can worship, honor, praise, and glorify the bread that is the body of Christ. But if I separate the bread from the body of Christ and either won’t or can’t believe (may God preserve me from this) that the bread is the body and the wine is the blood of Christ, as Christ said with clear words, then I shouldn’t seek help in it, worship or honor it, for then I would be setting up for myself a created thing as an idol. Therefore each person should consider whether he believes Christ or not. [B2r] And then, if he has believed the words of Christ, he should give honor to the bread and wine, since they have become the body and blood of Christ, as I have written above. 15. Bread and wine are not merely signs, as the rainbow was [Gen. 9:8–17] or the cattle of Abraham, Genesis 15[:9–21], or the fleece of Gideon [Judg. 6:36–40], but they are signs and have become that thing that suffered and was shed for us; 6 that is, bread and wine have become the body of Christ and the blood of Christ, which we should worship, as is said above in article 14. 16. Some find fault and say that many people are offended that we call the sacrament a sign. Answer: Those same people call much worse things “signs” than we do. We call bread and wine signs not of the body and blood of Christ or of bread and wine, but of the word, that is, of the two promises of Christ. Why do we care if some are offended by the word of God? Many people took offense at Christ’s words that he and his disciples confessed. Christ is the cornerstone of all unbelievers, and they take offense at him and are wounded, as it says in 1 Peter 2[:6–8]. Didn’t Simeon say that Christ would be placed for the destruction of many men, Luke 2[:34]? Should we fear those who accept and praise human inventions rather than divine scripture? Should the light and God’s word remain hidden under a bushel [Matt. 5:15]? No, the word of God must be spoken and written openly. If anyone is silent concerning it out of fear or for the sake of money, Christ also will not recognize him. Bread and wine are signs of the divine promises given to us to quiet our doubts. If you are surprised at this or want to speak of us in a useless or unchristian way because we call these above-mentioned things signs, what will they say when they read the word of Christ, who says, “As Moses raised up the snake in the wilderness, so must the Son of man [B2v] be raised up, so that the many who believe in him will not perish but have eternal life,” John 3[:14–15]. With these words Christ lets us know that he was a sign on the cross, as the snake of Moses was made into a sign in the wilderness, Numbers 11 [21:8–9]. What will they say now, when they clearly understand the divine word that Christ on the cross was a sign, just as the snake of Moses was suspended so that those who were bitten could view it? 6

An allusion to the scholastic teaching that the consecrated bread and wine are both sacramentum et res, the sign (bread and wine) and the thing signified (Christ’s body and blood); Peter Lombard, Sent. 4, dist. 8, cap. 4 (PL 192:857–58).

45

46

Chapter 2 Those who looked at the snake were healed; those who looked at Christ in faith had eternal life and were assured against damnation. The snake was a sign of the promise that proclaimed bodily health; Christ is a sign of the promise that assures all believers of spiritual health, protection from destruction, and eternal life. See that Christ is a sign; see how Christ bears all righteousness beyond himself to his father, who alone is God and is not united with any created thing as Christ was united. See, this is what Paul says, “He is the righteous one who makes righteous those who belong to Christ through faith,” Romans 3[:26]. 17. Although this should be enough, our enemies should know that the Lord is called a sign in Isaiah 55[:13], which says, “The Lord will make him a name and an eternal sign that will not pass away.” See, the Lord shall be an eternal, imperishable sign, as he himself says, “I will remain with you until the end of the world” [Matt. 28:20]. And so Christ is an eternal sign for us. To unbelievers he is a sign of the opposition that is encountered by everyone when they oppose him, as Simeon said, Luke 2[:34]. 18. Isaiah also says that the Lord will become a name for us. We will be called by his name and so we call ourselves Christians, from Christ, and just as we have one name in him, so we are one body in Christ. Accordingly, Paul also says, [B3r] “We who eat from one bread are all one bread” [1 Cor. 10:17]. So the Lord is named or becomes a name for us, so that we are one bread, one body, one Christian assembly. From this it follows that because Christ is a sign, bread and wine could also be called two signs, and that those who use and partake of the signs receive their name and may be called bread. Therefore it shouldn’t hinder any Christian if someone calls bread and wine signs. If he wants to become angry, let him become angry with scripture. 19. Now no one should either begin or end by basing himself on the bread and wine with worship or faith, for they are created things. The bread is still bread that the baker has baked, although it has become the body of Christ, just as Christ also remains man as he was conceived in his mother’s womb, although that same human body is God. Thus when I invoke the sacrament, when I direct my faith, love, and hope to it, I don’t cling to what I see but to that which is invisible, that is, to the body and blood of Christ. 20. Therefore I don’t praise those who consider the bread in the sacrament to be just like any other bread, as it is said that the Picards do.7 Paul applies all the dishonor that is done to the consecrated bread (which is the body of Christ) to the body of Christ, as said above. Therefore each person should know what to do, but he should also read the scripture and ask whether my pamphlet accords and agrees with God’s word.

7“

Picard” was a common derogatory name for the Bohemian Brethren, a Hussite group who rejected the Utraquists’ reconciliation with Rome.

Adoration and Veneration of Signs of the New Testament I don’t want to write about recent news here, and it doesn’t belong in this pamphlet. But because I want to praise and glorify God’s grace especially now, I won’t hide this from you, that my most gracious lord the archbishop of Magdeburg and primate, His Electoral Grace, gives praise, honor, and glory to God.8 He has splendidly enlightened the princely estate of His Grace the Elector, so that His Electoral Grace [B3v] has begun to read and consider the evangelical truth in all seriousness. It is said here that His Grace the Elector wants to administer the highest and most honorable episcopal office himself (if he is fit for it) and to preach the gospel, which gives me inexpressible joy. I don’t know if there is anything I would rather see happen. May the living God sustain and increase His Grace, so that others will follow and will surely throw the Roman yoke and chains from their necks. It is a shame that our German prelates (may God give them great understanding, so they see that the papal regiment walks on flat feet) do not govern the German nation themselves without seeking papal appointment or confirmation, in view of the fact that they send much money to Rome and bring nothing home with them except short letters and airy words. We should consider the pope as nothing other than one who empties our purses and injures Christian souls. I would gladly bring this about, and with God’s help I may be able to do so. I also know that the prelates must agree with me in their hearts. If their mouths were united with their consciences, then I’d already have their agreement. I wish to God that they had the will as much as they have the power, right, and justification to break the Roman net. It would soon rip and snarl (but if the matter proceeds well, no priest would need to beg for bread or suffer bodily injury. Anyone who wants that is not evangelical). They lack nothing but goodwill; I lack the power. If they had my will or I had their strength, we could expel papal and unchristian teaching, virtue, morals, and religion out of Germany and would proclaim an anathema against the pope in Rome. We are imprisoned in his realm as the Jews were in Babylon; yes, it is even more harmful, for we not only lack godly victims and sacrifices, like the Jews, but also God’s word, which is much more dangerous, Hosea 6[:6], Daniel 9[:27]. [B4r] The priest who was arrested because he married has been freed and released, and he retains both his parish and his wife, as a reliable person told me.9 This is a clear indication to me that my gracious lord of Magdeburg is increasing 8

Cardinal Albrecht von Brandenburg was both the archbishop of Magdeburg and archbishopelector of Mainz; in the latter position he was the primate of the German church. At least in part due to the influence of Wolfgang Capito, he had not yet taken a clear stance against the evangelical movement, which accounts for Karlstadt’s optimism concerning his support; Rummel and Kooistra, Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito, 1:xix–xx. 9 Bartholomaeus Bernhardi, a pastor in nearby Kemberg who had taught in Wittenberg’s arts faculty, was one of the first priests to marry, in May 1521. Karlstadt held a disputation defending clerical marriage in June and published the theses, Super coelibatu, monachatu et viduitate, in August. He published a vernacular pamphlet on the topic, Von Gelübden Unterrichtung, in November; Buckwalter, Priesterehe in Flugschriften der frühen Reformation, 79–81.

47

48

Chapter 2 in evangelical freedom and truth, as is fitting and appropriate for His Electoral Grace as the German primate. May the merciful God strengthen and preserve His Electoral Grace.

3

On Both Forms in the Holy Mass On Signs in General and What They Effect and Signify

Those Who Receive Both Forms Are Not Bohemians or Heretics but Evangelical Christians (November 1521) Written in October 1521, Karlstadt’s pamphlet Von beiden gestaldten1 der heylige Messze. Von Czeichen in gemein was sie wirken vnd dewten. Sie seind nit Behemen oder ketzer, die beide gestaldt nhemen sonder Ewangelische Christen was printed in Wittenberg by Nickel Schirlentz (VD16, B6219; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 71) in November. It was reprinted three times over the next year: in Augsburg by Jörg Nadler (VD16, B6220; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 74), in Strasbourg by Johann Prüss (VD16, B6221; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 73), and in Wittenberg by Johann Rhau (VD16, B6222; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 72). I used the Strasbourg imprint (Köhler, Flugschriften, 92, no. 249) for my translation but compared it with the first Wittenberg imprint (Köhler, Flugschriften, 131, no. 353). Although the Strasbourg imprint occasionally substitutes words or changes spellings to make the pamphlet more easily understood by a south German audience, there are no significant textual differences between the two imprints. The numbering of the sections in the Wittenberg imprint is faulty, however, suggesting that the pamphlet was printed in haste. After section 14, the numbering restarts at 12, there is no section 17, and number 27 is repeated. The Strasbourg imprint corrects the duplicate numbering of the Wittenberg imprint and breaks the original section 16 into two 1 Form (species or Gestalt) was the technical term in scholastic theology for the outward appearance (or accidents) of bread and wine that remained unchanged even after the inner essence was transformed into Christ’s body and blood through the consecration by the priest. As is clear from this pamphlet, Karlstadt rejects this belief, but he continues to use the traditional terms for the bread and wine.

49

50

Chapter 3 articles, so that the numbering is consistent throughout. Where they differ from the Strasbourg imprint, I have given the Wittenberg section numbers in square brackets within the text.

[a1v]

T

o the honorable Jorg Reich, a citizen of Leipzig,2 my especially beloved patron, I, Andreas Karlstadt, wish God’s grace and mercy. Gracious brother, I have resolved to serve you, since you heard some sermons concerning the mass here3 and asked me to explain my beliefs. I know well that some flee this matter as if it were dark and not to be examined, but I’m not afraid to write something about the mass. I consider it to be a great evil and a mockery that we don’t understand that which we daily celebrate, see, hear, or otherwise use. I know it to be true that the holy gospel is in itself light, clear, and simple, and easily enters anyone who tastes it in pure faith and in its own nectar. It is true that papist dreams and visions have made the simple gospel difficult, the light dark, the clear obscured, and the divine human. And they have mixed in and muddled up their frivolous practices or customs with the firm truth, so that unfortunately we don’t know our gospel anymore. Thus it has come about that priests ask about or consider not what is evangelical but instead what is usual or customary. Although the Roman blind guides proclaim the truth at times, as Balaam [Num. 22–24] and Caiaphas [John 11:49–52] did, they can’t stand by their own words. They say that custom should yield to the truth and that the truth is greater than custom and that if the truth is revealed, the [a2r] practices and customs contrary to it should give way without hindrance. But if you pay attention to the papists, especially concerning the mass, many will note that what they do is to say one thing and do the opposite. For they put their customs up against divine truth, and they don’t know how to speak of anything other than their customs. There is nothing they understand less than the gospel truth; in fact, they can’t bear it and they stop up their ears when someone presents the truth of the gospel to them in order to destroy old customs. They have no other cry and no other argument except “It is an old practice, it is usual and customary.” They dispute about whether the truth is good and true or not, but they won’t allow any question whether custom accords with the gospel or opposes it, whether it is good or evil. It has finally come to the point where we must not ask how Christ instituted, held, and commanded his disciples to use his mass. Anyone who wants to know about the mass must seek out papist teaching if he wants to be called a Christian. That seems to me just as if I wanted to have a golden chalice made 2

Reich was a merchant whom Karlstadt may have met while in Leipzig for the disputation with Johannes Eck in 1519; Barge, Karlstadt, 1:274. 3 In the wake of a controversial sermon given by the Augustinian preacher Gabriel Zwilling on 6 October, the theology of the mass and the need for liturgical reforms became the subject of debate in Wittenberg; Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 18–25.

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass and you sent me to a cobbler or chimney sweep. It should be the case that those who want to understand the mass should learn it from the gospel in which it is described; our opponents must agree with this. If I wanted to know where a river flows from, I must search for its source until I come to the place where it springs from the ground. We want to know the source of the mass, and so we should look for it in the gospel. But the pope and his followers lead us away from the water and take us away from the origin of the mass to its misuse. Dear brother, we are also presented with so much hypocritical pomp in the mass that we can no longer see and recognize our Christian [a2v] mass. What should be spoken openly and preached, the mass-priests hiss like geese.4 What should be given to our mouths, they display over their heads.5 What they should do freely, they do with an eye to their endowments, for the sake of money, gold, and interest payments, for honor and praise. What they should receive without any fear, they receive in fear. What they should partake of with pleasure and desire, they must eat at times with reluctance and fear.6 What they should carry out with brief words, they draw out and extend beyond measure. What they should teach to everyone, they hide from Christians, and they themselves don’t want to learn about what they are doing. They have made the mass into a sacrifice, twisted its words and actions, and say that they offer to God that which God gives to them. They say that they can make others participate in their mass, and they persuade us that none of us should touch it. They say that if someone desires the sacrament, he should see the mass and he will receive the fruit of the mass, just as if, when I was hungry, someone else could eat it for me and I would become full. In sum, everything is perverted: word, manner, work, fruit, and use of the mass. They have commanded the laity to hear or see mass every Sunday and established many other similar aberrations. Therefore, according to the grace God has given, I have undertaken to help pull down such evil misdeeds and customs and to bring to light again the evangelical, fruitful, and holy mass, [a3r] and especially how the signs or both forms should be used. I will show what use the bread and wine are, what promise they signify, and through this what dangers are faced by those who receive only one form, that of the bread. I will prove that those who receive the sacrament without judgment and knowledge or who seek in the bread what they should look for in the wine are more deserving of punishment than the Corinthians, and they sin more horribly than those who let the sacrament fall to the ground. Before I begin, I will speak 4

A reference to the canon of the mass, which was recited quietly so that bystanders could not hear what the priest said. 5 A reference to the elevation of the consecrated host. 6 According to the university commission’s report to the elector, one of the arguments used against private masses by the Wittenberg Augustinians was that “it is impossible even for a pious and spiritual priest to have the desire and love of celebrating the mass as often as he is bound and obligated to do so by endowments”; Melanchthon, Briefwechsel Texte, 1:360–70.

51

52

Chapter 3 of signs in general, for the good of you and all Christendom and for the glory and honor of God. Amen. Dated Wittenberg, Martini [11 November] 1521. Introduction and Apology No one should think that he can strike me with any other sword than the one that scripture calls the word of God. You must shoot your arrows from the Bible in order to wound and vanquish me. You can’t make use of old customs if you want to hit me. I am a Christian, baptized not through custom but in the divine word. You can’t oppose me and puff up your belly with the resolutions of councils, for I am not sworn to accept them and will accept them only insofar as they have a divine foundation. I rely not on the word of councils but on the voice of Christ and the word of God. I belong to Christ and am deaf and have closed my ears to all statements, teachings, and letters of this world, because I have died with Christ and am crucified and a fool to the world, and conversely, worldly teaching is not only death but also a cross for us [Col. 3:3, Gal. 6:14, 1 Cor. 3:18–19]. [a3v] I thank God for his grace, that through grace he has made worldly laws bitter and harsh to me. I call worldly laws all those teachings that are not found in the Bible but that claim to serve God’s honor, praise, or will, which Isaiah and Christ avoid as a devil. In the time of Moses, when the priests judged all errors according to God’s law, the Jews had to accept the knowledge of the priests under pain of losing life and limb, Deuteronomy 18[:18–19]. But the priests transformed pure white silver into black and smoky dross, Isaiah 1[:22]. When God’s word was dishonored by the prophets of Israel, when they said “God says this,” when God did not say it, and preached the thoughts, visions, and dreams of their own hearts, then God made us free and released us from the hands and counsel of the priests, and pastured and led his sheep to the mountain of Israel, Moses, the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, Jeremiah 23[:3], Ezekiel 13[:6–7], 14[:9–11]. God says in Matthew [17:5], “Here is my beloved son; hear him.” Christ says, John 10[:27], “My sheep hear my voice.” He doesn’t say, “They hear councils” or “They hear old customs and practices.” Christ says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” [John 14:6]; he doesn’t say, “I am the practice, custom, or council.” If we want to have a way to salvation or hold to the truth, we must cling to Christ. You can’t show me the way or the truth or the life anywhere but in Christ, in his prophets and apostles. I won’t be led to anything else. I fear divine scripture, I yield to divine scripture, and I honor it, and I have diligently asked many people to judge this evangelical matter according to the holy gospel and to condemn or defend it through holy scripture. [a4r] 1. Accordingly, I say that the evangelical mass consists of two parts. It is nothing other than promise and sign, which we should use well and in an orderly manner. I will first write about the signs, although God’s word is greater than the

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass appended signs and so God’s word should justly be treated first, and then the corporeal thing. But I must accommodate certain priests who set the smallest things before the greatest (as the hypocrites always did) and who darken them first with their pomp. It is also not opposed to the divine order, for sometimes the signs come first and God’s promise comes afterwards, at other times the divine promise comes first and the sign afterwards. You have an example of the first in Leviticus 4[:27–35], where sinners first had to present their sacrifices that were signs, etc., and then the promise followed. We have an example of the latter in Genesis 9[:12–13] with the rainbow. 2. I have also specified publicly that if I speak in the way the common crowd has spoken until now, you shouldn’t imitate me, but everyone should try to speak simply, as scripture speaks. The ignorant crowd says “form of bread” and “form of wine” in the belief that there is no natural bread under the form of bread when the priest has consecrated it. This is wrong and against the holy gospel, for the same bread that the baker has made and baked remains bread after the consecration. For if the consecrated bread didn’t remain the bread that the priest took in his hands before the consecration, then Christ couldn’t have spoken truly when he said, “Take, this is my body.” For Christ took natural and common bread in his hands, thanked God, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “Take and eat, this is my body,” Matthew 26[:26], Luke 12[22:19]. [a4v] Christ didn’t say, “The form of bread is my body,” but rather, “The bread that I have taken in my hands and blessed, broken and given to you, that is my body.” Without any doubt these two things—“the form of bread” and “bread”—are different and they are so far apart from each other that the one can’t be the other. So we can say truly that the form of bread is not bread; it is something that adheres to the bread, such as a red or white color, or the size and taste of bread that adheres to the bread. Bread is the essence, base, and ground to which such form adheres, just as the form of a man is not the man but adheres to the man. Thus the form of bread is not bread but adheres to the bread. The form of a man often changes, but the man retains his essence, so that one can say, “How he has changed!”7 As when someone is red, brown, and white, and then through illness becomes yellow and thin, one rightly says, “He has changed or lost his form,” although he is still the same man. So we speak of bread when we have put white and sweet bread in a cellar and it loses its color and taste, and we would say truly, “The form of the bread has changed,” and say that the bread is there but the form of bread is gone. From this you can see the great difference between the form of bread and the essence of bread. When we say, “Someone has bread,” we are referring to the essential bread. If you say, “the sweet and white, large, small, or round bread,” you are referring to bread and its form together.

7

ungestaldt, lit., “unformed.”

53

54

Chapter 3 Now it is unbelievable that the evangelists say, “Jesus took bread, blessed it or thanked God, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is my body,’” Matthew 26[:26]. The scripture speaks of [b1r] the basis, ground, and essence of bread about which Christ said, “This is my body,” and it isn’t speaking of the form. The text doesn’t say, “The form of bread is my body,” but clearly, “The bread is my body.” No one has ever heard that someone could be fed and satisfied with the form of bread, but Christ took the bread in his hands, [and lifting up his eyes] to heaven, etc.,8 and gave it to the disciples so that they might eat and be fed. How then can the papists say, “The form of bread is the body of Christ”? How are they so iniquitous that they speak differently than the gospel speaks? The gospel points to the bread and says, “This is the body of Christ,” while the papists point to the form of bread and say, “Under the form of bread is the body of Christ.” On this issue I can also rebuke all those sinners and heretics who use these words, “The bread is not the body of Christ,” for Christ says that the bread is his body. I can tolerate as judge and jury all men who have a tablespoon of brains and understanding, who believe that the gospel words are true, good, and right, and that God’s word can’t deceive anyone. I ask the laypeople simply to believe the gospel and to consider the pope as a heretic, who blabbers against the clear text of the gospel and says that bread isn’t the body of Christ. Look at the text, you laypeople, and let it have more authority than the pope. Ignore the statements of men and accept Christian and divine statements on this matter in which you want to be Christians, for God wants us to hear and speak his word, John 10[:27] and 2 Esdras 16[:40], and to flee superstitious tongues, as is written in Hosea 2[:17]. The text says, “Jesus took the bread.” Now I ask the papists whether Christ took bread or the form of bread? Did he take genuine bread? They have already said yes [b1v] and confessed that Christ took true bread that the baker baked. How then can they doubt that the bread is the body of Christ, because Christ says, “This is my body; this same bread that I have taken in my hands, blessed, and given to you is my body”; and Christ speaks the truth. What devil gave the papists the power to say that the natural bread disappears or goes away through consecration, so that it no longer remains bread and that only the form of bread remains? If they can show me that in the gospel, I’ll follow them. Is thanksgiving and benediction so poisonous that it annihilates the bread, even if they say non annihilatur quia habet terminum succedentem?9 But they still say that the substance of bread doesn’t remain, but only the form of bread and wine remain. 8

Karlstadt alludes to the words of Qui Pridie, the prayer within the canon of the mass that contains the account of the institution of the sacrament; Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, 74–75. 9 “It is not annihilated because it is followed by something,” an allusion to one of the possible understandings of transubstantiation, that the substance of the bread was annihilated and succeeded by Christ’s substantial body; McCue, “Doctrine of Transubstantiation,” 390–94.

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass What else have they created with their subtlety than to lead us away from the gospel to their mad belief, and made from one incomprehensible article four articles that are even more difficult and incomprehensible? The first is that we should believe that bread is not under the form of bread. The second, that we can’t comprehend how the large body of Christ can be under such a small form of bread. The third, that Christ wants to feed us with the form and not the substance of bread. The fourth, that we are commanded to believe that the pope has the power to make new words and a new gospel. Now these words are clear: “Christ took bread and thanked God.” The evangelist doesn’t say, “He took the form of bread”; nor does he say, “He made the bread no longer remain under the form of bread.” No, he says, “He thanked God.” Look at these words: “He took bread and blessed or gave thanks to God, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is my body.’” Here you should [b2r] consider the first and last words with diligence, namely, the words accepit panem, Matthew 26 [:26], that is, “Christ took bread,” etc. and the last words, commedite, hoc est corpus meum, that is, “Eat, this bread is my body.” From these words you will come to a proper understanding and proper expression of the Christian understanding. If you see or hear these words well, you will note that these words refer to the natural bread that the baker has baked. You will also conclude that all people should say, “Bread is the body of Christ.” For my part I would always like to speak as scripture and the holy gospel speak, especially about this sacrament. But the poisonous tongues of the papists have dumped this strange, unevangelical language on me since childhood. They have allowed me to grow up with their language and invention, and they have brought me to the point that their words and dreams fall from my mouth unintentionally and without thought, and sometimes I say “form of bread” when I should simply say “bread.” Sometimes I bear with the illness of my brothers in Christ who have been led astray and I speak as they do so that I may bring them away from such evil speech to evangelical language. Therefore I have called this book On Both Forms in the Holy Mass, not because they should speak that way, but so that their tongues will be free and quit of such invented words. 3. Christ says, as is written in John 6[:32–40], that God has given a true bread from heaven and he says that this same bread that has come down from heaven is a true bread that gives life to the world. He explains that he himself is this same bread, saying, “I am the bread of life.” Christ explained his meaning in the words that follow: “I am the bread of life. I am the living bread and have come down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever” [John 6:51]. [b2v] It follows from this that Christ is the living bread that lives in itself and gives eternal life to those who eat it. Christ says further that the bread that he will give is his flesh and that his flesh is truly a food and his blood truly a drink [John 6:55]. Christ didn’t say this about bread that the baker makes and that he gave as

55

56

Chapter 3 a sign, but about that which was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the body of the virgin and was born. For Christ says that he is the living bread, that the bread is his flesh, that his flesh is truly food, and that he himself is truly bread. None of this is said about baker’s bread, which we call a host, which is white and round or has some other shape and form. Christ teaches us how his flesh is truly food, saying, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,” and, “Whoever eats me will live for my sake” [John 6:54–56]. This is truly food that nourishes one and preserves life. Natural bread gives temporal and perishable life; heavenly and living bread gives eternal and imperishable life. Christ gives this, and therefore he is truly food, etc. 4. The bread that the celebrant takes in his hands is not living; it is also not the bread of life that can give eternal life. It has also not come down from heaven like Christ but has come out of a baker’s oven. It is also not flesh but bread. But when the bread has become the body of Christ, then I may say that the bread is living, fleshly, heavenly, and gives life to the world. Not that I give such nature and characteristics to the bread in its own substance; that is far from my intention. But because there is a new essence and, as I may say, bread is the body of Christ, I may also say that bread is the flesh of Christ, the life of Christ, and is Christ himself. But it retains [b3r] its old characteristics in itself and doesn’t lose them; that is, the consecrated bread retains its substance, it remains essentially bread, it is round or long, sweet or sour, is black or has another color, perishes and spoils like any other bread. 5. Now there is the example of Christ’s humanity. Christ’s humanity was mortal, could feel and suffer cold, heat, hunger, and thirst. Christ’s divinity can’t suffer any of these; it was and is eternal, immortal, can neither hunger nor thirst, nor feel cold or heat. But this same man became God and retained his own nature. This article is just as hard and firm, “Man is God,” as the other, “Bread is the body of Christ,” or this one, “Wine is the blood of Christ.” The former statement is easy [to accept] for laypeople who have been raised and taught so from childhood. But the latter article, “Bread has become the body of Christ,” is new and strange to them, and although it stands clearly in the gospel, no one is allowed to speak as the gospel speaks, because the heretics in Rome mock the words and meaning of Christ and have taught something different. You believe that the man remains man although he has become God, because the scripture teaches you this. Why don’t you also believe the clear gospel that says openly, “The bread is my body” and “The wine is my blood”? “Yes,” you say, “the pope has forbidden me to use these words.” Oh dear brother, you shouldn’t listen to the pope. He lies, as Jeremiah says, and is in this case an obvious heretic. Let him show you scripture if he says this to you; otherwise don’t believe him. “Yes,” you say, “the Parisians10 say that this article, ‘The bread is the body of Christ,’ is heretical.” Answer: If someone is a heretic because the heathen Parisians 10

The theology faculty of the Sorbonne.

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass call him a heretic, then Matthew, Mark, and Luke [b3v] are heretics, who say with simple words, “Bread is the body of Christ” and “Wine is the blood of Christ,” and Christ himself must also be a heretic, who distributed the bread and said, “This is my body.” The Parisians don’t judge you according to holy scripture and so you shouldn’t be afraid. They judge the teaching of Christ according to their Aristotle and other heathens and according to their Parvis logicalibus.11 They despise holy scripture and so they despise God, who said, “The wisdom of the world is sheer folly to God” [1 Cor. 1:20]. Don’t worry that they want to be considered theologians; they have their glory and appearance, but they are strangers to the truth. You say, “There are many of them and few of you.” Although we are few and the crowd of our enemies is large, don’t worry or be concerned. God fights and establishes his will with a few, Judges 7[:7], 2 Chronicles 14[:8–12]. The great crowd can err, Exodus 13[14:11–12], the rulers of the people can err, Leviticus 4[:22], Numbers 15[:22–26], and the people can err, Leviticus 4[:13]. We can also err if we don’t remain on the path and in the truth, that is, in divine scripture. Those who stand on scripture cannot err or fall short, but those who waver and stumble to the side will go astray. 6. See how it is possible for nature to make one thing from a rose and its color, although these are two natures, for the color of the rose is a particular thing and the essence of the rose is also its own thing. So it is no less possible for God that with one little word he makes two substances into one thing and allows each to retain its own essence; namely, through the word God makes the bread the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ, so that one thing is made of the bread and the flesh of Christ. The Parisians must still confess that the color and substance are two natures and say that the rose is red and has become one thing. And so I also say that bread and flesh are two natures, but the consecrated bread is the body of Christ. [b4r] The natural bread is heavenly bread, the lifeless bread is living bread, and the baker’s bread is God’s bread. Therefore we honor the sacrament because the signs have become one thing with Christ’s body and blood, as I have written in my pamphlet, On the Adoration of the Signs of the New Testament. 7. I would have babbled on for too long about this matter, if Christians used Christian words and spoke as the gospel does. But because the devil’s harbingers have beaten us black and blue with threats not only about their perverse teaching but also their perverse words, I wanted to show my goodwill to the sick and not spare myself from what I must hear.12 I have written too many words on this. In what follows I will write about what the two created things, bread and wine, do in the mass, what signs signify in general and in particular, how one should use 11 The Parva logicalia, or “small logics,” was a series of treatises dealing with special problems in logic that were commonly used for dialectic instruction at late medieval universities; Dumitriu, History of Logic, 2:124–29. 12 An allusion to the complaints Karlstadt anticipates as the result of this pamphlet.

57

58

Chapter 3 and partake of wine and bread, and whether it is also necessary for a Christian to eat and drink these signs if he wants to be saved. 8. I won’t say much about natural signs, as, for example, that smoke is a sign of fire. As it is said, “Where smoke rises the fire follows.” I will also refrain from writing about artificial signs invented and established by reason, such as when a green bush signifies beer and a wreath wine and the like, when something signifies this or that. I will speak only about the signs of scripture to which a divine promise or assurance is attached. 9. It is not a bad thing that the patriarchs sometimes asked for signs, as is proven by the stories of Abraham, Genesis 15[:1–5], Gideon, and Manoah, Judges 6[:17–21] and 13[:2–14], and others. If there is anyone who does not want to be taught from histories or things that have happened, let him read [b4v] Isaiah and note that God said to Ahaz, “Ask of your Lord and God a sign, whether in the depths or on high,” and when Ahaz answered, “I will not ask and put God to the test,” the scripture says, “Was it too little that you insult the people, that you must insult God as well?” Isaiah 7[:10–13]. Ahaz wasn’t humble or God-fearing when he didn’t want to ask God for a sign, but instead he was stiff-necked, proud, and disobedient, and didn’t please God but angered him. Therefore scripture says, “Wasn’t it enough that you didn’t believe the prophets? Won’t you believe God either, and create work and effort for him because you won’t demand a promise or sign at his command?” Ahaz was proud and said, “I will not ask for a sign.” He also didn’t stop there but went further and considered such a request for a sign to be tempting God. Now because scripture clearly says that by this rejection Ahaz offended God, you shouldn’t believe or consider that the encouragement and request for signs is forbidden and to be avoided. God also commanded his faithful that they should recognize true and false prophets by signs, Deuteronomy 18[:20–22]. I don’t think that Zechariah had his voice and speech taken away because he desired to have a sign of the angel’s message and divine promise, Luke 1[:18–20], for the text says, “Because you did not believe, you will be silent until the day that the divine promise is fulfilled.” And so it follows that signs are of the Bible and that they can justly be asked for and desired, and it is clear that God has explained and armed his word and prophets with signs that precede and follow. I could have been silent about this point, but those who envy us search all the holes and ditches from which they clatter. Therefore I have stopped up their hole, [c1r] and it will be easy to show in what follows that the signs of scripture, which God has often given without being asked, are not to be scorned. 10. It is good, however, to learn what signs in general signify from this scripture, when we read Genesis 9[:11], where it is written, “God says, ‘I will establish a covenant or agreement with you, that henceforth all men will not perish through a flood.’” This is an evangelical statement, that is, a good and comforting message that God has proclaimed. God also gave a sign for this promise, for the text continues, “And God said, ‘This is the sign of this law and promise that I give between

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass you and me. I will place my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign between me and the earth. As often as I cover the air with clouds, my bow will appear in the clouds, and I will remember my promise and will never again send floodwaters to destroy all flesh that lives. See, my rainbow will shine in the clouds, and I will look at it and will remember this eternal promise’” [Gen. 9:12–16]. Here we have, first, the gospel, the joyful promise, namely, this statement, “I promise that I will not wipe out the entire earth with water; henceforth I will never destroy all living things with water.” This is the law and promise, after which God in his grace gave a sign that would mediate between God and men, so that the rainbow should be that same sign that he wanted to place in the clouds and which should be a sign of the divine promise or covenant. This does not mean that his promise is so weak and insignificant, like human letters to which are affixed many signs for greater security and more documentation; no, not at all, for God’s promise is [c1v] “yes, yes” [2 Cor. 1:20] and would be carried out even if it never had a sign. But because we are fragile and all danger consists in our suspicions and unbelief, God has freely expressed his law and promise and given signs that should impress and assure us. Thus God says, “As often as I make clouds in the air, as often as I frighten you with something, as often as your sins rise up as smoke and pile up, or as often as you are hard-pressed with suffering so that you might fall into doubt, then my sign appears in that same oppression and I will remember my promise.” I hope that by clouds (in the above-mentioned chapter, Genesis 9) one rightly understands all misfortune, sorrow, sin, and all kinds of oppression. For I hope that everyone must confess that God first vowed that he will never again destroy the earth through a flood and that clouds signify water that will come. And the heavens that are covered or full of clouds are a sign of the coming flood that consists of doubt, fear, and worries that God has forgotten his promise. Note that this is as if I promised peace to you but then made a great noise and disturbance with knives and shooting, so that you would quickly think that I’d forgotten what I had said and wanted to endanger you. So it is also with us poor men, for although we hold that God is righteous, true, and powerful and will carry out his statements and consolation, still, when he lets a storm break that causes us fear and dread, we think that God might not keep his word or he won’t keep it with us or with me because I am unworthy of his consolation. “See, remember as you will, you on earth” (says God), “I will send lightning, thunder, hail, rain, and avalanches, but I will never forsake you if you believe my promise manfully. [c2r] Therefore I have given my sign that will appear for you in the clouds, that is, in fear and anxiety, in times of opposition.” He divided the sea and gave the Jews a road and a way to escape the attacking enemy. So God says, “When I have covered the air with clouds and made the heavens dark and gather all of the planets that bring floods, and I present myself as if I wanted to cover the whole earth with waters again and destroy it, you should not let your faith waver, for my sign shall appear in these same threatening and horrible things. By this you will note that I have not forgotten my promise, that is,

59

60

Chapter 3 I will make true in deeds what I said with words.” And so the rainbow is a sign of the promise and covenant, not that the promise isn’t in itself full and strong, but the bow signifies that God hasn’t forgotten his word and promise. 11. It follows from this what signs effect and signify: first, that they don’t effect holiness in those who use them properly; for example, seeing the rainbow in the sky doesn’t make anyone holy or give either piety or righteousness. Second, that signs are called signs of the promise because they remind us of divine honor and trustworthiness, that is, that God hasn’t forgotten his word and covenant. Third, we know what a horrible, great sin it is when someone doubts a divine promise when he sees or otherwise uses the sign. For through unbelief you say in your heart, “God is untrustworthy, he doesn’t keep his word.” How can you show a greater disgrace, insult, mockery, and shame to God than when you think that God is an untruthful God? God sees into the heart as well as and even better than we hear human speech. [c2v] Now consider, if you held a valued man as a liar and as an unreliable or faithless man and called him a liar, what could you do to him that would be more bitter and offensive, especially if that man regarded neither money nor possessions and wanted nothing more from you than that you believed him? God doesn’t need our works and desires no other service, but only that you believe his word. For this reason God considers that when someone doesn’t believe him, that person has diminished and taken away from his divine honor. This is what God says to Moses: “How long will the people break off from me, how long will they detract from my honor?” (and what follows concerns faith), “How long will the people not believe me?” See here the unbelief of the one who doesn’t believe God’s word. Hear what follows concerning the signs: “How long will they not believe me in all of the signs that I have done before them? Therefore I will strike them with pestilence and destroy all of those who are over twenty years old,” Numbers 14[:11–12] What more must you have to realize that you rob God of his praise and honor when you continue to disbelieve in his word and in his signs? Here I could add what it says in 1 John 5[:10], “Whoever doesn’t believe him makes him into a liar.” Let what has been said show you how much rests on faith, and that God has given signs so that we should believe his words, and that we defame God’s honor and trustworthiness if we don’t believe him. From this, note how signs are signs of a promise and assurance. Write this on your doorposts [Deut. 6:9] and consider it whenever you want to receive the venerable sacrament. Fourth, it follows that the signs are especially to be used when you are oppressed by fear and anxiety or cares, so that you fear that God will forget his promise. [c3r] For this reason God says, “When I place clouds in the air, my bow, my sign, will also appear, so that you know that I remember my covenant and that you should have nothing more certain than that I will hold to and accomplish my word with deeds.” Accordingly, many will introduce at this point the two signs of the mass, that is, bread and wine, and will learn from what has been said that one

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass should partake of bread and wine as often as his conscience is grieved for his sins and the devil fills his mind with despair in God’s promise. Or whenever he falls into doubt that he will rise again to eternal life, he should use the bread and wine, and through receiving such signs consider it sure—indeed, that there is nothing more sure than that God has promised and will give him eternal life and forgiveness of sins. Fifth, we should note that signs don’t make us righteous or pious, but only give and increase certain assurance. The first is clear from Christ’s word, where he says, “No external thing makes men evil or impure, but what comes from the heart of man, that is what defiles him,” Matthew 15[:11]. What Christ has said about the defilements of man, he also said privately, with the same words, that no external thing can make someone pious, righteous, or holy. St. Peter proves this as well, 1 Peter 3[:3–4], saying that no external thing can make a person esteemed and valuable in the eyes of God, but only a pure spirit that dwells in the heart, which is a precious and most treasured thing before God. This is what Joel says, “You should cut or tear up your hearts, not your clothing,” Joel 2[:13], and Hosea 6[:6] says clearly, “I desire mercy [c3v] and not sacrifice,” and David, “You have no pleasure in sacrifice; a repentant and oppressed heart pleases God,” Psalm 50 [51:17]. Paul teaches briefly that the circumcision of the flesh is nothing and that Abraham was not made righteous through fleshly circumcision, but instead that Abraham was righteous before he was circumcised. He received external circumcision only as a sign and seal of the righteousness that he had when he was still uncircumcised, and not because through circumcision he became righteous, Romans 4[:10–11]. So that you may fully grasp this, note that the visible flesh of Christ makes no one holy, righteous, or pious. Christ himself teaches this, saying caro nihil prodest, John 6[:63], “The flesh is of no use, but the spirit is.” Now no one can deny that Christ is raised above all created things, but he is still of no use if he is used only externally. How can a created thing or sign make you righteous and holy? Therefore you should know and understand that signs suppress the old Adam, limit and deaden his unbelief, and break your doubts and make you assured of the promise that you already believed, as I have said in this explanation and above, and they bring certain assurance from which is shown the use and growth that we derive from signs in general. Sixth, I can well believe that signs may be called seals. Not that they can make any stronger or more believable words that are already full of truth, indeed that are the truth themselves. But instead God gives us his signs to the envy and hatred of our unbelief. It is true that someone to whom something has been promised has this promise notarized and sealed because of unbelief, but experience teaches us that [c4r] we need letter and seal on account of the person who has promised us something. This is far from God, for men do not keep faith as God does; yes, sometimes they deny their words, letter, and seal. That is why I have explained why I call signs seals with this qualification, so I give no one a reason to err. Moses

61

62

Chapter 3 sealed his testament and sprinkled it with blood in this way, Exodus 24[:5–8]. In this way God has given signs for his promises and calls them signs of his covenant and law. Seventh, if I were to say how bread and wine are signs of both promises of Christ, I would overturn the established order, but this harms nothing if I also write here that the consecrated bread and wine are not signs of Christ’s body and blood, nor are they signs of the vanished bread and wine, as the heretics of Paris and other hypocrites of the heretical pope in Rome say. They are signs of the divine promises that are given with them. This is the reason: God says, “The rainbow is a sign of my promise,” Genesis 9[:17]. Just as the rainbow is a sign of his promise and the blood of the twelve calves with which Moses sprinkled the old testament and the people was a sign of the covenant of his word [Exod. 24:6–8], so the cup is a sign of the new testament in the blood of Christ and the bread is a sign of this word, “My body is given for you.” 12. Now, using other scripture, I will show what is common to all signs. From the scriptures already discussed, it clearly follows that all signs in general have this characteristic, that they are signs of divine promises and words, as I explained above in the fifth point. Second, it follows that all signs have this in common, that they make us sure and bring us peace, [knowing] that God will not forget his promise, [c4v] and that there is no doubt he will hold to what he has spoken and promised. Take the example of Abraham, Genesis 15[:8–9]: God promised to Abraham the land of the Gentiles, to which Abraham said, “Lord, in what way can I know that I will possess the land?” God answered, “Take a three-year-old cow, a three-year-old goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a common dove,” etc. God gave these animals to Abraham as a sign from which he would learn that he would certainly possess the land of the Gentiles. From the way that Abraham learned through a sign, we conclude that God wanted to fulfill his promise and give him the promised land of Canaan as a place of pilgrimage or sojourning, Genesis 17[:8]. 13. Shall we take an example from the law? God promised the Jews in the old law that he would forgive their sins when the priest would pray for them. But after this they should sacrifice an animal on which they had laid their hand or hands when they desired forgiveness of their sins, Leviticus 4[:13–21]. From this has sprung the abuse that our priests lay their hands on the head of a person making a confession, when the ones confessing should be laying their hands on themselves or on calves that they brought to confession. But I’ll let that go and say only that through this sign the ones confessing became sure that God wanted to forgive their sins. 14. From the prophet Isaiah (in chapter 38[:5–8], and as it is also written in 2 Kings 20[:9–11]), we learn that God made this promise to King Hezekiah, who was mortally ill: “I will add fifteen years to your days and preserve you from the power of the king of Assyria and protect your city.” This is the divine statement and promise. Then the sign follows that God himself gave: “And this will be your

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass sign from [d1r] the Lord, that God will accomplish his word that he has spoken. I will make the shadow fall back ten lines”; that is, the shadow that has grown over ten hours will move that distance backwards. One line signifies one hour and ten lines signify ten hours of shadow. I’ve seen peasants who note the shadow on their houses and tell the time according to the shadow. God gave this sign of a retreating shadow to Hezekiah so that he would learn and know for sure that he would live for fifteen more years. From these signs you should note how signs accompany promises and that they don’t make anyone pious, righteous, or blessed. I ask, how can a shadow make me blessed and pious? No one can truly say that a three-year-old cow, goat, and ram made Abraham pious. I must repeat and restate this so that no one makes an idol out of signs, as the Jews made of the snake that Moses set up as a sign in the wilderness, 2 Kings 18[:4]. And I fear that our so-called Christians will burn their fists and feet on the signs. It would perhaps be more useful if they had no signs, as I will describe below. But note, good friend, how animals, shadows, and other external things could save you, especially because God has not established and given form to his signs for this purpose. Salvation is not a fruit of the sign, it is a fruit of faith. Accordingly, Christ says, “Your faith has saved you” [Luke 17:19]; “whoever believes will not be condemned” [John 3:18]. The reversal of the shadow made King Hezekiah sure and certain that he would live for fifteen more years and deadened unbelief and doubt, as has been said about the rainbow. [d1v] 15 [12]. I should also use Gideon’s sign, which was a sheep’s fleece, as an example. I should say that Gideon demanded a sign from God by which he would know with certainty that by his hand God would save the Jews from their enemies, and explain that such a sign is a sign of a divine promise or of the gospel. But I have spoken at length about the rainbow, and this example is so well known that I won’t discuss it. 16 [13]. Although Christ didn’t say with clear words that bread and wine are signs, no one denies that they are signs. But there is some doubt about what they signify, and so I’ll also speak of them in general and say that they are signs of their promises. Bread is a sign of this promise, “My body is given for you.” Wine is a sign of these words, “My blood of the new testament is shed for you, or it is shed for many for the forgiveness of all sins,” Matthew 26[:26–28], Mark 14[:22–24]. To these two promises Christ also gave two signs, just as other promises had signs attached. In general, they also have no other meaning than that they make the one who uses them sure and certain that God hasn’t forgotten his statement and promise. Thus Paul says about Christ, 1 Corinthians 11[:24], that he said, “You should do this in my remembrance.” That is, “As often as you use these two signs, when you want to eat the bread and drink the wine, you should be mindful of me.” But how can anyone remember Christ more blessedly than when he thinks about these Christian promises with his heart? Christ says, “Who sees me and believes my words will be saved,” John 6[:40]. It isn’t enough that one sees Christ if he

63

64

Chapter 3 doesn’t believe his words. The Jews, Gentiles, and executioners saw Jesus but still perished. [d2r] The people of Chorazin and Bethsaida also saw and heard the Lord and were condemned, Matthew 11[:21–22]. Thus it doesn’t help you to remember the Lord Jesus when you eat his bread and drink his cup; you must believe him. Now you can’t believe anyone unless you believe his words, because faith comes from the words, Romans 10[:17]. And so it follows that no one can rightly remember the Lord before he believes his words. Now Christ wants us to be mindful of him (as Paul teaches), and so we can’t eat his bread usefully or drink his cup fruitfully unless we remember the words of the Lord. Which words? Both promises. Through the bread and wine we have consumed, we must hold firmly and know for certain that Christ wants to work in us the fruit of his death and his shed blood. Therefore Paul says, “As often as we eat the Lord’s bread and drink his cup, we should proclaim the death of the Lord,” 1 Corinthians 11[:26]. No one can well proclaim the death of the Lord unless he proclaims in faith and notes in his spirit that he believes that the Lord also died for him and doesn’t doubt that God will raise him from the dead and that his sins are forgiven. 17 [14]. So you see that in general, signs of promises signify that God will certainly hold to and carry out for his own what he has spoken in grace, as said above. This is also the fruit of signs, that they deaden doubt and bring forth assurance. And so we tame our contrary Adam and throw a sop into and muzzle the mouth of the flesh. So the spirit is sure that the divine promise belongs and is said to him, and that God wants to and will give to him what he has promised. [d2v] Just as certainly that he has graciously granted that you have used his signs, so surely you have the promise of the Lord. 18 [15]. Now we must speak of the particular significance of both signs of the new testament, and I’ll also discuss other signs so that this matter is easier and more understandable. I won’t be silent about the fact that some explain the signs of holy scripture in a defiant way and aren’t satisfied with what scripture says, but make a new explanation. But I’ll protect my conscience, for I know that it isn’t seemly for me to add anything to scripture. And so such a brazen explanation is not praiseworthy but gives cause for frivolity, as can be seen in the allegories of the book that is called the Gesta Romanorum.13 No figurative exegesis can prove anything unless it is contained in the Bible, and even then it proves nothing as a figurative explanation but rather as written text. We should apply our labors in a better way, for we have enough to do to understand the Bible without this, and it isn’t necessary that we concern ourselves with strange expositions and waste our time, especially since we aren’t allowed to add anything to or take away from the divine words, Deuteronomy 4[:2], Revelation 22[:18–19]. We should handle and explain scripture with such fear and veneration 13

The Deeds of the Romans is a medieval collection of stories and fables.

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass as when we handle the body of Christ and place that same body into someone’s mouth, in view of the fact that the Holy Spirit himself spoke his word through the prophets, Luke 1[:70], Hebrews [1:1], as encouragement that we shouldn’t consider what we want to say about the articles of faith, and considering that every passage commonly has its own light by which it is illuminated, and that we can’t [d3r] illuminate any dark saying of God if we don’t simply follow the words of Christ, for it is written, “Whoever doesn’t follow me enters into darkness,” John [8:12]. I like very much the two sayings that the Jews are said to have: the first, “Who gave me the power to explain God’s word in a different way than we have it written?” The other, “Do you think God isn’t clever enough that he could have said as much as you, if he had wanted to?” I say this against those who explain divine scripture out of their own temerity, crumpling it up and drawing it out. I will let this be, but I say that they are worse than the Jews. Holy scripture explains many signs and external things, such as what circumcision and the tabernacle signify and what the twelve stones that Joshua laid signify, Joshua 4:[6–7]. Now we come along and say that these twelve stones signify our twelve apostles, and we sing and bellow it in the temples.14 But when someone asks us where this explanation is found in scripture, we can’t show them any verse and so we are rightly punished for adding something, since Moses forbade such additions. So it also happens that such authors keep people with them and with their books, when they should lead them from themselves and from their books to the Bible. It was not in vain that the apostles wrote only a little, and I also haven’t written or want to write in the future more than what will bring the reader of my books from me to scripture, so that they can judge me freely through scripture. They shouldn’t believe me any further than what they find grounded in scripture. Now about the sign of bread, I say that its particular signification should be understood from its own promise and particular words. For divine words [d3v] explain divine signs, just as human words make you understand what signs signify when they are established. So we learn from God’s promise what the sign signifies and what is given with that same promise. As an example of this, from the promise in Genesis 9[:15], “I will never again kill all people and living flesh with a flood,” I understand that the rainbow, which was discussed at length above, signifies in particular that we are sure that God will never again destroy the world with water. I shouldn’t think that the rainbow shows me that the seed of Abraham will become as great and as many as the stars in heaven and as the grains of sand in the sea or that countless men will be blessed, nor can I infer from the rainbow that Gideon should redeem Israel from the kingdom and power of the Midianites, Judges 6[:36–40]. 14

Karlstadt may be referring to the Epiphany hymn of Prudentius, “Quicumque Christum quaeritis,” which links the twelve stones to the twelve apostles, lines 177–80: “Who when the waters rose on high / And now the Jordan’s bed was dry, / Set up twelve stones of memory, / Types of apostles yet to be”; in Pope, Hymns of Prudentius.

65

66

Chapter 3 It’s true that God may also have established his signs differently, and that he could have given Gideon a rainbow and Noah a sheep’s fleece. But God established all things according to his pleasure, just as God created all creatures according to his will, and we shouldn’t undertake anything that is disorderly or consider them in any way other than what God has introduced. So also we shouldn’t confuse these signs or order them in any way other than God established them. Therefore I shouldn’t think that through the rainbow I understand that the Jews obtained assurance of the forgiveness of sins, for God established particular signs for those promises that assure of forgiveness of sins, Leviticus 4[:13–21]. Abraham and his children also couldn’t know from the rainbow that they would not possess the earth as a fatherland or as a lasting city but that they would live in it as sojourners and beggars on pilgrimage, [d4r] as is written in Genesis 17[:4–8; cf. Heb. 13:14], “I will give you the land as a land of your pilgrimage,” as can also be seen in Genesis 26[:3–5], Exodus 6[:5], and 1 Chronicles 29[:15], and in the Psalms and Hebrews 11[:9–10]. Likewise, no one can understand from the rainbow that his wounds (when the snake bit him in the wilderness) would be healed when he looked at the rainbow; the snake was established for this purpose, Numbers 21[:8–9], and not the rainbow. Conversely, the snake doesn’t signify what the rainbow signifies in particular. We shouldn’t make the signs signify and mean something according to our will but according to divine pleasure. Otherwise we make all things uncertain and turn divine signs into human things, true signs into deceptive things. Accordingly, we Christians can’t be assured by the rainbow that God has made harmful death harmless and the bitter sweet, and that he wants to and will give resurrection of the flesh to eternal life. For the bow in the clouds wasn’t created for this purpose, but instead the bread in the mass was, which Christ gave us as a sign. 19 [16]. What I’ve said about the signs of the Old Testament and the patriarchs, I must also say about the two signs of the New Testament or the mass. Because there are two of these, they must necessarily have two different meanings, and each signifies something different from the other; otherwise they wouldn’t be sure and certain signs. Their transposition won’t give us any assurance. The bread signifies something in particular that the cup or wine doesn’t signify. Likewise the wine or cup has its own particular meaning. You shouldn’t transpose such particular significations or make one sign and meaning from both, because Christ is wiser and higher than all of us. [d4v] And it would be no less of a diminishing and insult if you offended against his ordinance than if you changed or broke the law of your prince or ruler. A Christian can’t change or abolish the laws and things of the Lord Christ any more than a subject can break or change the ordinances of his ruler, whether he is called pope, bishop, prince, mayor, or commune, for Christ is far higher and greater than the whole world. Thus no one should heed what the pope, bishops, princes, and cities, etc., hold and do with the sacrament, but each one should look to the gospel, which is light and simple and doesn’t need a gloss. A courageous and believing person doesn’t need human explanations. Here I say

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass that even if we had no other reason to speak, this would be enough, that we should leave both signs of the mass with their old, evangelical meaning, because Christ who spoke is as clever and wise as all men considered together could ever be. If Christ had desired that we could or should change and confuse the signification of his signs, he wouldn’t have kept silent about it. This applies to their use as well. Now tell me, pope, where did you get the authority that allows you to change the meaning of the signs? If you’re the vicar of Christ and have acted as befits a pious vicar, show us Christ’s command. If you can’t do this, then I can rebuke you as an imposter on the basis of your own law. 20.15 The pope has convinced the laity that it is a dangerous thing if someone spills a little drop of wine from the cup onto the earth, and he has added that anyone who takes one form receives the same as if he had taken both, [e1r] because Christ is complete under both forms.16 Is it true that Christ is fully under the bread and in the same way that he is in the cup (which I don’t reject)? Then Christ no doubt knew this long before there was any pope on earth. Why then did he give two signs? Or why did Christ keep to himself that we could do whatever we wanted to his signs without any danger? Why did Christ also give two promises, or two words, if the signs are the same thing? 21 [18]. I will present you, pope, with one more thing, though you hate it: Christ says to all who have eaten his bread and he still says today in scripture to those who eat his bread, “You should all drink from the cup,” Matthew 26[:27]. And so all who received the bread also drank from the cup, Mark 14[:23]. Listen to me, pope, and open your ears, you big hare! Christ didn’t speak only to the priests, saying, “Drink from the cup, all of you who consecrate the sacrament,” as the pope’s little gloss teaches, but he says to each of those who eat his body or partake of his bread that they should also drink from the cup. How are you then so brazen that you can keep the cup from the mouths of the laity? Listen to what Christ says: “You who have eaten my bread should all drink from the cup.” See how the pope agrees with Christ, like a kettle with a nightingale. The pope says, “You who have eaten the bread of the Lord should not all drink from the cup”; Christ says, “You should all drink from it.” Now, my brothers, see: you have the word of Christ before you and that of the anti-Christian pope. Christ saves you, the pope damns you, so consider which one you should follow. [e1v] The pope has made only his priests worthy of both forms; he makes the laity unworthy of the cup and he does this from pure iniquity and impudence, so that he and his priests are more esteemed than the laity, although he won’t admit this. I must now dispute with him. He says that anyone who divides the venerable 15

In the Wittenberg imprint, which has no section 17, this paragraph is not separately numbered but is part of section 16. 16 The doctrine of concomitance, that the body and blood are both present in the consecrated host, was used to justify communion in one kind.

67

68

Chapter 3 sacrament commits a great and powerful sin because he receives only one form.17 And so I ask, if a priest receives only one form, doesn’t he sin by splitting and dividing the sacrament? It would then follow that the laity commit this horrible sin when they receive only one form. This is the reason: they divide what Christ has given together; that is, they take one form and not the other, and so they commit sacrilege just like the priests. For the pope doesn’t make the priests guilty of sacrilege when they consecrate the bread and receive it before the wine, but instead when they take and eat the form of bread and don’t want to drink the wine. This is the basis for speaking of a division of the sacrament. When the recipients divide the sacrament, then they are guilty of sacrilege, that is, they are thieves of spiritual things, who rob or steal spiritual or divine things. Note, my brother, how dangerous it is to divide this sacrament of both signs. The pope himself recognizes that his priests commit spiritual theft if they partake of one form alone without the other in their masses. Therefore I wanted to terrify and remind the papists so they now learn how their pope has led them astray. I want to shoot them with their own arrows. To pious Christians I can say nothing other than God’s word, because I have said above that the gospel says clearly, “You should all drink from it,” and speaks to those who have eaten the bread. It follows [e2r] that all who have eaten the bread should use the cup, and if they don’t, then they divide the mass and the venerable sacrament. 22 [19]. The scripture sets truth and lies or curses against and opposed to each other, Hosea 4[:1–2], just as promise and threat are opposed to each other, Joshua 23[:15], Deuteronomy 27[:15–26] and 28[:1–6]. Whoever does not preach the divine promise and truth and promises you something that should serve your salvation, he proclaims lies to you, Jeremiah 23[:16–17]. This happens when the pope says that anyone who earns or buys an indulgence will have his sins and punishment forgiven. This is a noteworthy lie, and whoever says this lies, as does the pope, and he proclaims peace when there is no peace [Jer. 6:14]. Likewise we must listen to many wagons and carts full of lies from the monks and priests for which they can find no signs in scripture. On the contrary, if someone makes you sad and depicts a black, horned devil for you and can’t show you such threatening words from the Bible, he is terrifying you with lies, as Ezekiel says, Ezekiel 13[:6–7]. If the pope terrifies someone and makes him sorrowful when God has not terrified him or made him sorrowful through his word, then he proclaims deceitful curses. This happens when the pope makes you timid and fainthearted because of dangers that God doesn’t consider important, or leads you away from something that could serve you well, although there is no evidence or basis for this in the holy scriptures; in this case he is preaching to you a fictitious and deceitful curse. Thus he has brought the ban to light. The pope has also dreamed up a danger concerning 17

Decretum III (De consecratione), dist. 2, chap. 13, in Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, 1:1318.

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass the blood when he wanted to take the cup from the laity, saying it would be a great sin if someone spilled a drop of consecrated wine [e2v] when he drinks from the cup, and with his reverence he has done violence to the sacrament and to people and made the significance of the signs wholly foreign to Christians.18 Now listen: the pope isn’t much terrified if the whole sacrament falls into a person who doesn’t know what he is receiving, which Paul considers to be more punishable, saying that anyone who doesn’t discern the bread and wine doesn’t discern the body of the Lord. If he has no discernment and knowledge of the Lord, then he will be guilty of the Lord’s death [1 Cor. 11:27–29]. Now the pope has caused many thousand people to receive such signs without discerning the Lord, who all receive the sacrament unworthily and much more harmfully than if someone unintentionally and without meaning to were to tip over an entire cup. But the pope thinks it is a small thing when such unbelieving people who lack understanding receive the sacrament. It is true that someone who intentionally spills the consecrated wine sins and becomes guilty of Christ’s blood, for he doesn’t discern the Lord; that is, he either despises the blood of Christ or doesn’t believe that the wine is the blood of Christ. But when someone spills the cup accidentally, I don’t think he should be punished. This is my reason: Christ could bear having his blood spilled on the ground for our salvation; how then can he be opposed if someone wants to come for assurance of his salvation and the divine promise, and against his will spills the consecrated wine? Dear friend, it is a thousand times less important if you spill some drops of wine accidentally than if you eat the bread and abstain from the wine, because Christ says, “You should all drink from it.” Anyone who scorns these words should see that he doesn’t share the fate of those who were invited to the banquet and didn’t come [Matt. 22:1–14]. [e3r] 23 [20]. I know well that you could go for the rest of your life without the sacrament, and no one is compelled to receive the sacrament once or many times, if he otherwise firmly believes and perseveres in Christ’s promises. But when you want to receive the sacrament, you should receive it as Christ gives it to you and not in another way. For Christ gave to his disciples (and to us following them) two forms and he wants all who have eaten the bread to drink from the cup. 24 [21]. So that you note what danger comes from neglecting the cup, I will speak further about the individual signification of both signs, beginning with wine, for its meaning is easier to understand. Wine signifies the forgiveness of sins. This is the reason: Christ said that the wine is his blood that would be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. Christ’s words are as follows: “This is the cup of the new and eternal testament in my blood, which is shed for you and for many for forgiveness of sins.” These are the words of Christ when one combines Matthew [26:28], Mark [14:24], and Luke [22:20]. 18

Decretum III (De consecratione), dist. 2, chap. 27, in Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, 1:1323.

69

70

Chapter 3 From these words we can look for and learn the unique and particular signification of wine, for we can grasp the meaning and significance of the sign from these words of promise. Thus I say that the wine uniquely and particularly signifies the forgiveness of sins. So when you or I drink from the cup of the Lord, we should be sure and certain that Christ keeps his word and promise firmly and without breaking it, and he wants to give that which he promises. Now he has promised and vowed to us that he would shed, and has shed, his blood for the forgiveness of our [e3v] sins. I must first drink or eat the word before I drink from the cup; that is, I must believe the word without any disagreement. Then I may receive the sign of this word, through which I actually know that Christ has not forgotten his promise and that he will fulfill his word, and that his blood has drowned and wiped out my sins. If I believe this, then God is here and reckons my faith as righteousness, and he will no longer remember or punish my sins into eternity. As Isaiah says, “Remember your sins, and I will not remember them.” In such faith I will have peace with God through Christ, and if I had such a contented and tranquil conscience, then I wouldn’t need a sign. But, oh God, it happens that many thoughts and doubts arise that make our conscience unsure and fearful. Therefore Christ has given us his signs, namely, the cup and wine, and has placed such signs at hand that we may use as often as the clouds, that is, the oppression of the conscience, fill the air and make distant the sun, that is, Christ. Through these signs no fear, no hell, and no devil can separate us from the divine promise. This is the fruit of the sign of wine, namely, to signify assurance and sure knowledge that Christ spilled his blood for the forgiveness of my sins and those of many. 25 [22]. The bread of the mass also has its own particular significance that is learned through this promise: “My body is given for you.” I confess here that this promise is not all too clear, for I fear that there are many of us who don’t know what these words contain and include. In sum, whoever wants to explain these words in their breadth [e4r] must search thoroughly through and draw from Moses, the prophets, the evangelists, Paul, and all the other apostles. Now I’ve just said that these words of Christ, “My body is given for you,” promise the conquest and victory over death and the resurrection of the flesh in glory, and so they promise that Christ has overcome, defeated, and conquered death. Therefore all people who believe in Christ with their heart will find within themselves that through this promise of Christ and through faith they don’t fear death. They know that death does not lead to condemnation and are sure that bodily death will not bring eternal death, but that through bodily death they will have rest and a mild sleep in Christ and in sum will be led from death to life. So bitter death becomes sweet, what is fearful becomes joyous, and loss becomes profit. So death becomes a gate and path to life, although outside of faith it hinders and leads you away from the path to rest in Christ and makes you fearful and estranged. The righteous person obtains all of this through faith in Christ and hears this voice from God, “If you believe that my son was given for you, death will

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass not harm you, and although you don’t want to die, hold to the death of my son and believe that he has conquered and overcome death, and I will take away all of your failings and cover all your sins in the death of my son.” It is the same with the resurrection of the flesh, for in the same way that the death of Christ kills and devours our death, the resurrection of Christ’s body brings our resurrection, so that we are sure, if we have faith in Christ, that we will also rise again with a spiritual body and will say to death, [e4v] “Oh death, where is your sting?” Likewise, “Death is killed or swallowed up” [1 Cor. 15:54–55]. So it is with the fulfilling of the law and divine commands and other things. In sum, this promise, “My body is given for you,” promises to all believers that all of Christ’s suffering shall be our suffering, and that all the treasures of his grace and righteousness shall be our own righteousness, his holiness our holiness, his strength our strength. And conversely, Christ has taken all of our sins and faults on himself and made them his, as Isaiah, Paul, Peter, and others say, as I have shown at more length in the pamphlet on both promises of the New Testament.19 Therefore I say that if such a divine promise flowers and grows in one’s heart, and he wants to learn this through some external thing and to have assurance that God remembers his promise and will wholly fulfill his word, he should take the bread that the Lord Jesus blesses, breaks, and gives him, saying, “You should eat this in my remembrance.” He should push back all doubts and not fear any sin or unworthiness, and should hold as certain and know that God wants to bring about all the fruit of his promise in you. He should trust in this and fear neither death nor hell, and not seek fulfillment of the law or resurrection anywhere other than through faith in Christ. 26 [23]. From this, my friend and good brother, you can draw out and observe what harm or evil the papal government and the kingdom of his followers have done to us. Isn’t it a woeful and lamentable thing, that among a thousand Christians you can scarcely find one who knows why Christ gave and instituted his signs or who doesn’t err about the meaning of both signs? How [f1r] many of us have sought the forgiveness of sins in the sign of bread, and perhaps still seek it there, although this is in many ways wrong and erroneous? I will now present to you two errors. The first is that they imagine that signs, whether as signs or in that which they signify, make us pious and save us, and so they say that the holy sacrament forgives sins. I don’t deny this, if they speak of the sign in the flesh of Christ and hope in the body of Christ, with which the bread and sign have become one thing. But few people make this distinction, and so they err not a little. The second error is that they transpose the significance of each sign and make them disordered and uncertain. This is because the laity in the past have sought and still at present seek forgiveness of sins in the bread. They neglect the sign that Christ gave on account of the promise and word, which promises and 19

This pamphlet was either never written or never published; see note 25 below.

71

72

Chapter 3 assures forgiveness of sins to all believers. They abandon not only the sign through which the recipient should become certain and sure that Christ has washed away his sins, but in addition they abandon his word and promise, which says that the blood is shed for the forgiveness of your sins and those of many people. They abandon this promise together with its sign and they seek such forgiveness of sins and assurance of forgiveness in the bread, which Christ did not establish for this purpose, and they overturn God’s precept and ordinance. It would be a grievance to the papists if someone so overturned and broke their ordinance. And so there has come to be much overturning and disorder in the promises and signs. Uncertainty follows from this, for the signs become uncertain when a Christian reads the gospel and sees that the consecrated wine has been given as a sign so that one may obtain certainty that all of the recipient’s [f1v] sins are forgiven but notices that, on the contrary, Christians seek this assurance in another sign. He soon thinks that the signs must be uncertain and so falls short of the remembrance of Christ, which one should keep in mind when one wants to grasp the fruit of the signs. You might say, “Have Christians erred up until now?” Answer: You have the gospel before your eyes and see the significance of both signs; judge your predecessors and fathers from this. To me this question sounds like what the hypocrites asked of Christ, “Why do your disciples transgress against the traditions and precepts of the forefathers?” Christ answered, “Why do you transgress against God’s law on account of the laws of your fathers?” [Matt. 15:2–3]. Ezekiel 20[:18] says, “You shall not walk in the commands and judgments of your fathers.” Age and custom do not protect one from error, otherwise the old clog-wearers in Jüterbog20 would also be wise. And so you shouldn’t rattle on about whether our forefathers have erred, for it is true without contradiction that they have stumbled and erred when they lived contrary to the divine institution. God’s word is the way and the truth, and whoever goes outside of it errs and goes alongside the way and truth. You say, “I can do with the signs whatever I want.” Answer: Show me this authority in scripture. And I ask, if this is true, why don’t you look at the rainbow when you want to partake of the venerable sacrament? Or why don’t you take Gideon’s sheepskin or erect a snake in the wilderness? If I allow a misuse of the signs, then I must allow all other misuses and say that one can use the bread in some way other than eating it and the wine in some way other than drinking it. May that be far from and alien to me! I want to hold to the best and most [f2r] sure part and speak of the signs as scripture speaks, for God is clever and wise enough. “Yes,” you say, “I may receive the blood or not.” Answer: The gospel says, “Drink of it, all of you.” If you want to eat the bread of Christ, you should also drink the wine, or abstain from the one along with the other.

20

A village near Wittenberg.

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass “But I know,” you say, “that the apostles remained in the breaking of bread, as scripture teaches, Acts 2[:42], and it says nothing about the cup.” Answer: They remained in the breaking of the bread, as Paul teaches the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 11[:23–29] and in accordance with Christ’s institution; there is no doubt of that. But you ought not therefore believe that they remained in the ordinance of the pope. Christians shouldn’t believe me, but do as the pious Thessalonians, who sought out Paul and searched the scriptures day and night and saw written there what Paul preached and many believed, Acts 17[:11].21 In short, I’ll throw the gospel in your face even if you place the cleverness and reason of all men against me, and I’ll say that the laity seek in the bread something that the bread doesn’t give and for which it was not instituted. Therefore they don’t receive it unless God would allow us to establish new signs according to our own brains. You say, “Through the bread and flesh of Christ recipients may also become certain and sure that they receive forgiveness of sins.” I respond that Christ gives us his cup, wine, and blood to drink so that we will become sure and certain of such divine grace. I have the gospel. What do you have? I lead Christians to what is certain and sure. Where do you lead them? I hold that Christ wouldn’t have kept it from us if we should have been satisfied with the bread alone, and I have this proof and reason, for Christ said, “Drink of it, all of you.” [f2v] He would never have taught this if we could do without the cup. That is my reason. What do you have for a reason and proof? You have a long-established custom and practice and don’t know whether it is good and right or not. I have the old and eternal truth that is good and right without any contradiction. Can you doubt the books of the gospel? You devil’s head! I’ll lay those books before you that you and your anti-Christians have held as evangelical. I don’t say that they have drawn their anti-Christian teaching from the holy gospel, but that they have suppressed the gospel, although they held it to be the true gospel. From this it follows first that those who receive the bread, or the form of bread, so that they can be saved err in two ways. First, they seek righteousness, help, and comfort in external and bodily things, against the word of Christ, caro nihil prodest [John 6:63], which is sufficiently discussed above. They don’t want to drink from the cup and they eat the bread alone. First,22 they make their own signs and do not consider what God has instituted as a sign of forgiveness of sins. Second, they act against Christ’s command, who said, “Drink from this, all of you who have eaten the bread,” as if he were to say, “If you don’t want to drink, you shouldn’t eat as well.” Christ makes clear and teaches us that we won’t obtain and receive the fruit and grace of his death unless we have first obtained the forgiveness

21

The passage refers to the Bereans, not the Thessalonians. A misprint for Karlstadt’s second subpoint, perhaps mistakenly corrected, because it is followed by the second main point. 22

73

74

Chapter 3 of sins. Therefore he says (it seems to me), “Drink, all of you, from the cup that is my blood, which is shed for the forgiveness of sins.” Through death, all unbelievers come to condemnation and eternal death. Through sin, death comes [f3r] into the world, as it is written, Genesis 2[:17], “You will die if you eat against the command.” Likewise, “You are ashes and shall become ashes,” Genesis 3[:19]. This is what Paul says, 1 Corinthians 15[:56], “The thorn or sting of death is sin,” for just as a thread goes through cloth by means of a needle, so death came into the world through the sin that preceded it, like a skewer, Romans 5[:15–17]. The death of Christ has killed and destroyed this horrible death. The Father sent his son Christ for this reason, so that he should redeem us from all evil and harm, and he promised us that we would be saved through faith in his son and that death would be destroyed and condemnation overthrown through this righteousness of faith, Romans 3[:22–25] and 4[:22–25]. So death will lead us from the flesh of temptation to the flesh of obedience and peace and do no harm. But the danger and harm of death won’t pass away until the pointed tip of death, which is sin, has been broken off. Therefore God gave two promises and two signs. One promise pertains to the effect of Christ’s death and resurrection or the fulfillment of all the things that God demands from us. This promise points to the body of Christ, for the body of Christ was given into death for us and rose again in his glory and so killed death, fulfilled the law, abolished all that is mortal, and rose again in immortality. All this certainly comes for our good and has already happened for our good when we believe that Christ died and rose again for us. The second promise (through which God promised us grace, peace, and joy in his testament and last will or farewell) is that we obtain forgiveness of sins without doubt, if we believe that Christ shed his blood for the forgiveness of our sins. [f3v] Thus he says, “Drink from this cup, which is shed for the forgiveness of sins.” With this, Christ says, “Believe me, that I will shed my blood and now have shed it, and you will be saved. Precisely this, and as much as you wish (Matthew 2623[:17–18]), you will certainly and without any doubt receive, if you believe in me. If you don’t believe my words, then my blood is lost to you. But if you believe and the flesh oppresses you (which always tries to draw the spirit to the worst things and to bring from faith to a false faith), you should take my sign, the wine; drink it, and through it come to assurance and certainty that I not only have not forgotten my word, but also that I have spoken my word to you and your sins shall no longer overcome you.” And so through the shed blood of Christ, the sting and thorn of death and the fear of hell is stifled and loses its point, through which death was earlier introduced, and it no longer rules over hell. “If you believe that my blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, the thorn of death, that is, sin, will no longer bring forth 23

The Wittenberg imprint has Matt. 16; clearly a typographical error.

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass any fear and anxiety about death or hell in your consciences and hearts. All things will be comforting and serviceable for you, for I have abolished death and sin. So that you may come to such joy and security, I give you a simple and bodily sign, the wine, which is my blood. Drink this and remember me, remember that I have proclaimed and promised you my comfort, and know that just as surely as you drink my wine and remember my word, so surely are your sins covered and forgiven and God won’t hold them against you; as it says in James 1[:5], he gives to all and charges no one with his sins.” 27 [24]. It follows from this that forgiveness of sins in the sacrament consists in this: that I must believe that [f4r] Christ shed his blood for me at the command of his heavenly father. And that those (who feel burdened on account of their sins and want to throw off this burden) should grasp this promise of Christ with their hearts and believe that Christ has washed away and extinguished their sins through his blood. The sign of wine (which is the blood of Christ) makes its partakers sure and certain that God has forgiven their sins. 28 [25]. It also follows that the assaults of sin give occasion especially for the use of this sign, just as the clouds in the air give occasion for the use of the rainbow, as I have said above in points 10 and 12. 29 [26]. It also follows that this promise of the blood should be grasped and firmly believed in all forgiveness of sins. 30 [27]. It also follows that you don’t need any worthiness and fitness if you want to use this sign without harm, other than that you first lay both promises in your heart and, conversely, that you lay your heart on the promises and believe that God’s word is true, powerful, and good, and that God cannot forget his word. If you believe this, then you are worthy and properly prepared, and you give God his glory, which he wants to display without any diminution. This is the true gloria in excelsis deo. But if someone doesn’t believe these two gospels or promises and doesn’t heed the signs that give testimony, he should know that he is unworthy and unfit for this sacrament. For Christ says that the signs testify to the word, John 1[:25], and he follows this with, “If they had not seen the signs, they would have been without sin,” John 11 [9:41]. This rightly seems strange [f4v] up to now, but it is comforting that Christ says, “Blessed is the one who is not offended or injured by me,” Matthew 11[:6]. Christ said this to the disciples of John, who had instructed them on the signs of his coming. Therefore I also say, blessed is the one who through the signs of the promises comes to certainty and assurance that God will accomplish his word and will fully and surely give what he has promised. Through this faith neither the devil nor sin shall make you afraid or cause you to fail. Even if you had committed all the sins of the world, you would still be prepared for the sacrament, yes, even more prepared than the holiest person, if you believe the word and through the signs are made sure and certain. Conversely, if you don’t believe and are sure, then you blaspheme against God and call or consider him in your heart to be an unreliable, lying, weak, and shaky God. Therefore it would be a thousand

75

76

Chapter 3 times better to guard yourself against this sacrament than to approach it as a blind person. You should also reject all other kinds of preparation and consider well how you have prepared your heart in faith. 31 [27]. Some fast, some pray for a long time, some strike themselves with rods,24 some do other things, but none of this makes a person fit; in fact, they hinder more than sin. This is because everyone wants to make themselves pious through their foolish gestures, although they should obtain piety from the word and faith. But those who have and feel their sins realize their illness and flee to Christ, who came to aid the weak and sinners [Matt. 9:13]. Grasp his word that makes you sound, and use his signs that make you sure. 32 [28]. Finally, know that because all the assurance and certainty of the signs (which are given by God) flow from this, that God himself has given his signs at his own incentive, [f5r] it is a dangerous and devilish thing when someone changes the meaning of the signs or makes one sign do that for which God gave two. First, human wisdom always contends with God, Romans 8[:7], and doesn’t please God at all. Second, God considers the wisdom of this world as folly, 1 Corinthians 2 [1:20]. Third, a horrible pride and sin arises, that a small and wretched little worm that is so needy should diminish or break the ordinance of the most high king. Fourth, it leads to unbelief and false hope, for one must fear that he will have no assurance if he knows that God didn’t establish the wine so that he would surely obtain forgiveness of sins. And so he is driven by the wind and storms, as James says, chapter 1[:6], that is, human sin and doubt, and he may not obtain it. For one mustn’t think that he will obtain anything if he doubts, James 2 [1:7–8]. The pope and his followers have led us to this, saying that it is sufficient that one receives the bread if he wants to use the sacrament and that the meaning of the wine is also found in the bread. 33 [29]. And so the figures of the old law are not fulfilled, for there is no sin forgiven without blood, Hebrews 9[:22]. It is true that the Jews brought animals when they wanted to receive forgiveness of sins, but their sins were not forgiven without blood. And so we should consider how the new testament consists in blood, which the pope has hindered. Now I should explain and make clear the use and misuse of the signs of the mass, but this pamphlet is already too long, and so I will put this material in its own pamphlet and call it On the Misuse of the Signs of the New Testament.25 I will also show the content and summary of both [f5v] gospels, that is, of both promises, and then the significance of the signs will be more understandable and faith will grow the more.

24

The Strasbourg imprint substitutes schlagen sich mit rütten for the more obscure steuppen sich, lit., “to punish oneself,” of the Wittenberg imprint. 25 This is probably the title of the unpublished pamphlet mentioned on p. 71.

On Both Forms of the Holy Mass Likewise I should write about the evangelical mass. These pamphlets are all most necessary for Christians, and God grant that we all take to heart the basis of both promises and signs; we would without doubt perform for God the most acceptable service.

Example Following From What Has Been Said of how you should receive both gospels and signs in your heart. Lastly and at the end of this pamphlet I will give Christians an example how they should hold to the divine word and signs in their need and trials, which follows here. Jacob the holy patriarch, when he was returning home, feared his brother Esau beyond measure. He began to think and say, “God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, Lord, you have said, ‘Go into the land and place of your birth, so that I may do good to you.’ I am less than your mercy and truth that you have fulfilled to your servant, etc. Free me from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him greatly, so that he will not come and kill the mothers with their children. You have said and spoken, you will do good for me and spread my seed like the sand of the sea, which no one can count,” Genesis 32[:9–12]. Jacob grasps God’s promise in anxiety and fear and says, “Oh God, you have spoken and said that you will do good to me and spread and increase my seed.” [f6r] Jacob grasps this promise and reminds God of his promise (which God promised to him and to his fathers) and sets his heart on this divine promise and says, “Because you have done good to me before, I ask that you will do even more good to me. I am small and less than your mercy and truth, but save me from the power and wrath of Esau, for you have said that you will do good to me and spread my seed.” So a Christian heart in need and disquiet, deadly fear and anxiety, should grasp the divine promise and hold God with his own words, saying, “Lord, you have said that you gave your body for us, and you have also said that you would shed your blood for the forgiveness of our sins. This word I have placed before my eyes, and I hold it in my heart. Although I am less than all of your promises, I hope in your word. I know that you are true, good, and almighty, and that you forsake no one who calls on you. See, this is your word that I believe; see, I take your signs, through which I learn and am certain that you will redeem me.” Then one should fall asleep in the word, as Jacob did. So you should be certain and sure in the signs as Gideon was, and rise up in peace, Judges 6[:23–24] and 7[:15]. For although his sign was miraculous, and bread and wine are natural and made by artifice, natural signs don’t create any less assurance than supernatural ones, Leviticus 4[:13–21], Genesis 15[:5], Exodus 3[:2]. Solomon also rested in the divine promise that God promised to David, 1 Kings 8[:18–20].

77

4

Sermon of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt Given in Wittenberg on the Reception of the Holy Sacrament (January 1522) Karlstadt’s Christmas sermon, Predig Andresen Boden. Von Carolstatt zu Wittenberg Von empfahung des heiligen Sacraments, was printed by Nickel Schirlentz in Wittenberg (VD16, B6185; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 76) in the early days of 1522.1 The Christmas sermon was reprinted three times in 1522: twice in Augsburg, by Silvan Otmar (VD16, B6182; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 77) and by Melchior Ramminger (VD16, B6183; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 78), and once in Vienna by Johann Singriener (VD16, B6184; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” 79). Ramminger printed the sermon again in 1524 with a different title: MCXIIII Ayn Sermon / ob dye Orennbeicht oder der Glaub allain / oder was den menschen zuo wirdiger empfahung des hailigenn Sacraments geschickt mach (VD16, B6195; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 80).2 There is an abridged English translation of the pamphlet in Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther, 7–15. I used the Augsburg/Otmar imprint (Köhler Flugschriften, 331, no. 935) for my translation, comparing it to the 1524 Augsburg imprint (Köhler, Flugschriften, 600, no. 1554) and to Sider’s English translation.

[a1v]

A

ndreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt wishes joyfulness and a good life to the small Christian flock in Wittenberg. Because you have been moved by a good desire to receive the venerable sacrament and are inclined to hold an evangelical mass, I want to show you as a brief 1

78

The title page of the Sermon is reproduced in Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 128. Shirlentz had used the same border for his imprint of Karlstadt’s Sendbryff Andres Boden. Von Carolstatt, Erklerung Pauli. Ich bitt euch brüder das yhr alle sampt ein meinung reden welt, dated 10 December 1521 (VD16, B6188; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 75), and he would use it again for Karlstadt’s Predig oder homilien vber den propheten Malachiam gnant, which he published in 1522 (VD16, B6181; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 93). 2 The title page of the 1522 Augsburg/Ramminger imprint is reproduced in Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 168. The 1524 Augsburg/Ramminger imprint is reproduced here as fig. 4.

Sermon of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt

Fig. 4. Title Page of K arlstadt’s Christmas Sermon (Augsburg: R amminger, 1524). Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel [127.6 Theol. (7)].

79

80

Chapter 4 admonition the form and manner whereby you should receive this sacrament or hold the mass, so that you will further discover and learn about the evangelical mass as I have begun [to celebrate it].3 Your fervent ardor and immeasurable desire for the holy mass compels and drives me to serve you in diligence and with pleasure, insofar as I am able. May the living God grant the preservation and completion of the grace he has richly given you. Amen. Dated in Wittenberg on Christmas 1521.4 1. Anyone who wants to know and learn what makes one unworthy of this venerable sacrament must attend to the histories, accounts, and writings of the old law and diligently observe what made the Jews unworthy of the divine promises. Then he must compare the New Testament with the Old, just as when someone places the sun against the stars of the sky. Then he will doubtless note and realize what makes him unable to appropriate this sacrament. We can learn about such unfitness only in the divine law, for as Paul says, “I would not have known sin except through the law,” Romans 3[:20]. You should be content, sure, and certain that it is a complete lie and invention when someone says to you, “This or that makes you incapable or unworthy of divine grace,” if he can’t show you scripture. Therefore God says that they preach fictitious curses to the people, Hosea 4[:2], and that they terrify the people with lies, creating fear where there is no fear and making the righteous sorrowful where there is no sorrow. As Ezekiel 13[:19–23] says, “Woe to you prophets, you snare the souls of my people for the sake of a handful of barley and [b2r (sic)] for the sake of a piece of bread, so that you kill the souls that do not die and make alive those souls that do not live. You deceive my people, who believe these lies. You have made the righteous sorrowful with lies, whom I do not want to sorrow. Therefore you shall no longer preach dreams and see such shamelessness, for I will take my people from your hands.” That is as much as to say, “Because you rogues may kill living souls and make the righteous sorrowful with lies when I don’t want them to sorrow, I will take my sheep out of your jaws and hands so that they will no longer listen to you.” Jeremiah 23[:2–3], “They shall fear and flee your voice. You shall no longer tend and feed them.” Ezekiel 34[:10], “They shall hear my voice.” When you frighten them and say, “Anyone who doesn’t fast is unworthy of the sacrament,” or “Anyone who doesn’t keep a vigil or is otherwise anxious is not fit for this sacrament.” Or “Whoever doesn’t go to confession and bewail his sins with grief should abstain from this sacrament,” etc. In sum, if anyone5 wants to tell you that this or that makes you unfit and unworthy, he should teach you from holy scripture, “For I feed my sheep” (God says in Ezekiel 34[:14]) “in the mountains of Israel, and I have saved them from the teeth of the false prophets. But if they follow your lies, stories, dreams, and shamelessness, they are not my sheep.” God strikes such mad sheep with insanity 3

A reference to Karlstadt’s celebration of the mass in an evangelical manner on Christmas Day 1521. The salutation and opening paragraph are omitted from the 1524 imprint. 5 In the 1524 imprint, “no one.” 4

Sermon of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt and blindness of their mind so that they grope at midday like a blind person in the darkness, so that they can’t direct their way, Deuteronomy 2[:28–29]. That is, you can’t do what is right if you lose God’s word; you can’t prepare or direct your way, and so it is in vain that someone wants to say much about unfitness for this sacrament if he doesn’t have the divine form and teaching before his eyes. In brief, the sacrament is divine and heavenly. Therefore flesh, blood, and earth can’t say anything about fitness or unfitness. It follows that any little woman should look into the divine word just as she looks into a [a2v] private mirror, 1 Corinthians 13[:12], and from this discover what makes her worthy or fit for this sacrament, or conversely what makes her unworthy and unfit. Thus we should look into scripture. 2. Accordingly, let us look into scripture and note what made the Jews unworthy of divine consolation, and from this understand what makes a recipient of this sacrament unworthy. I won’t use many scripture passages, but only one or two; namely those that tell the history of the Jews as they were led out of Egypt to the promised land. Scripture tells how the Jews wandered in the wilderness of Sinai, where they had no water to drink. Therefore they murmured against their leader and prince Moses, saying “Give us water to drink.” The people were very thirsty and so they said, “Have you led us out of Egypt so that we, our children, and our cattle will die of thirst and be destroyed?” And so they tested God. But the good God commanded Moses to strike the rock Horeb with the rod with which he had struck the sea. Moses did this and water flowed from the rock from which the people could drink, Exodus 17[:1–7]. This cry of the Jews came from their unbelief and stubborn resistance. So Moses said, “Listen, you unbelievers and you rebels, couldn’t we bring water from this rock?” Then Moses struck this same rock twice, and gentle, lovely water flowed out of it, so that the people and cattle drank, Numbers 20[:2–13]. Now note God’s judgment. God said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you didn’t believe me and sanctify me before the children of Israel, you shall not lead the people into the land about which I have spoken to you.” See how God says that Moses and Aaron didn’t believe, which David also says in Psalm 140[141:6], “Absorpti sunt iudices apud petram”; 6 in Hebrew, this is, “The princes or leaders have lost their faith by the rock,” where they wanted to bring water from the rock. [a3r] But what does God say? Listen to him say, “You shall not lead the people into the land that I will give to them.” See, this is the unfitness that makes them unworthy of the divine promise. See how God says, “You have not sanctified me before the children of Israel.” Do you see how all unholiness, all unfitness, springs from unbelief? Do you see what a horrible sin unbelief is? Do you see how one

6

“Their judges have been swallowed up at the rock.” Karlstadt’s Latin translation differs from that of the Vulgate (Ps. 140:6).

81

82

Chapter 4 shouldn’t doubt about receiving any help when he hears the divine promise? See how God punished Aaron. 3. In Numbers 20[:23–28], God says to Moses, “Let Aaron go to his people, for he will not go into the land that I have given to the children of Israel because he did not believe my mouth. Remove Aaron’s robes, for he must die,” etc. And so God punished Aaron’s unbelief and didn’t want to keep his promise to him. The Lord also let Moses die and showed him the promised land from the mountain Abarim, saying, “Behold the land that I will give to the children of Israel. When you have seen it, you shall also go to your people like Aaron, because you injured me in the wilderness of Sinai, in the murmuring of the people, and you didn’t want to sanctify me before the people.” 4. Now many can grasp with their hands what a horrible sin unbelief is, for God considers unbelief as an injury and says that the unbeliever doesn’t consider God as holy and sanctify him before the people, but instead he dishonors God and diminishes and lessens his honor and trustworthiness. This is what God says, “You have not sanctified me before the people, you have injured and insulted me, and so none of you will enter into the promised land.” God showed particular scorn and insult to Moses when he showed him the land and then let him die. 5. This was said not only about the leaders of the people, that they lost and fell away from the divine promise because of their unbelief, but also about the common people, as we read in Numbers 14[:11–12], and [a3v] as I have recently preached, how they didn’t want to believe that the promised land was pleasant, rich, and full of milk and honey. And that God said to Moses, “How long will the people slander me? How long will they diminish my glory, praise, and honor? How long will they not believe me, in all of the signs? I will strike them with pestilence and destroy them.” And so God brought it about that the Jews had to wander for forty years in the wilderness, so that no one who was over twenty years old and didn’t believe the divine promise was left alive and could enter into the promised land. I ask you to pay attention to the histories I have explained and don’t for your life forget how much God despises the mockery, insult, contempt, and sins shown to him and committed by the unbeliever. God says that the unbeliever slanders him and diminishes his glory and trustworthiness, and he says openly that they injure, wound, and profane him. Each person should note that unbelief has made many thousand people— I would estimate that there were more than several hundred thousand men— unworthy of and unable to grasp the divine promise and comfort and killed them. Even Aaron and Moses had to die and didn’t try out the enjoyment or fruit of the divine promise. 6. In short, all is lost and it doesn’t help anyone to hear evangelical talk or to understand its gracious and favorable messages if he doesn’t believe, Hebrews 4[:2–3]. No one can come to any peace or rest; as it is written, “I have sworn to him that if he is to enter into my rest [… he must believe],” and so if someone hears

Sermon of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt God’s word, he shouldn’t harden his heart, that is, he shouldn’t be unbelieving, for unbelief causes unfitness, unworthiness, and a hard heart, and it brings God’s anger and wrath. 7. Therefore no one should think how to make himself worthy and receptive for this sacrament through prayer, fasting, confession, chastisements, and the like, for even if you did all these things, together with having all the repentance and good practices in the world, [a4r] and still lacked faith, you would be unworthy of this sacrament and not at all fit for it. 8. You should also not fear sin, because Christ came to redeem his people from their sins and purify them, Matthew 1[:21]. Christ doesn’t call any of the righteous but only sinners, Matthew 9[:13]. Christ instituted the sacrament only for sinners. Therefore your sins should incite and drive you to run to this sacrament. 9. Even if you haven’t confessed, you should go joyfully in good confidence, hope, and faith, and receive this sacrament, for it must always be true that faith alone makes us holy and righteous. This is always true, “Your faith has saved you” [Luke 17:19], and “For the one who believes, all things are possible,” Mark 9[:23]. 10. He who believes little obtains little. Anyone who believes strongly and much will obtain much. As Christ says, “May it be done to you as you believe and as you will,” Matthew 8[:13] and 15[:28]. 11. Sin shouldn’t make you shy away, for Moses says, “You shouldn’t be afraid, for the Egyptians whom you now see you will see no longer. God works and fights for you; you should stand still and be silent,” Exodus 14[:13–14]. You will no longer see and fear sin when you receive this sacrament in true faith, for even if your conscience oppresses and accuses you, God is greater and more than your heart, and he knows all things, 1 John 3[:20]. 12. Stand freely and manfully in your faith, don’t fear any deed and misdeed. God gives to all those who call on him in faith and doesn’t hold their sins against them, James 1[:5]. You shouldn’t think, “I have often angered God, or I have fallen away from him many times, and so he will say to me, ‘Should I help you? Should I be gracious to you? You have done this and that,’” as angry men at times speak to those who have moved them to anger. No, God is gracious, good, merciful, patient, and forgives evils, Jonah 4[:2], [a4v] and he remembers them no more, Isaiah 43[:25], and he doesn’t hold any believer’s guilt and villainies against him. 13. Remember only that you shouldn’t approach with unbelief when you want to receive the sacrament, for God will say to you, “Because you haven’t believed, you aren’t worthy of my comfort and won’t see the fruit and increase.” Note what Christ said to the one who wasn’t wearing wedding clothes: “Throw him into the outer darkness” [Matt. 22:13]. You can show no greater scorn to God in this sacrament, you can’t injure and diminish him more strongly than when you don’t believe him, as shown above in articles 2, 3, 4, and 5. 13. Finally, Christ says, “Whoever believes in the Son of God will not be condemned; whoever does not believe is already condemned, because he hasn’t believed

83

84

Chapter 4 in the name of the only-begotten Son of God,” John 3[:18]. This faith grasps the word of Christ, so that a Christ-believing person grasps together the Christian words and promises. Therefore he says, “Whoever hears what I say and believes him who sent me, he has eternal life and will not enter into condemnation,” John 5[:24], and that is why he says, “Who keeps my word will never see death for eternity,” John 8[:51]. 15. Thus fitness and worthiness consist in faith alone, so I can say nothing else to those who want to receive the sacrament than what Moses said, “Fear not. Stand and you will see the great miracle of God,” Exodus 14[:13], and Jehoshaphat, 2 Chronicles 20[:15], “Only stand in good confidence, and you will become sure and find divine aid.” 16. Now someone might ask, “What should I believe in this sacrament? And on what should I rely?” Answer: You should believe the words of Christ, the two gospels that Christ spoke to his companions at table, namely these: “My body is given for you,” and “My blood is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” These are the two promises that you should accept in your heart and [b1r] must believe, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken them. If you don’t believe them, then you must die and are spiritually dead before you eat the bread and wine of the Lord, just as Aaron died because he didn’t believe the divine mouth, Numbers 22 [20:24]. Anyone who doesn’t grasp these words in faith is wholly unworthy of this sacrament and diminishes Christ’s honor. He injures him and mocks him when he sits at his table and remembers the Lord as the Jews and Judas Iscariot remembered him, not as the disciples did. 17. Therefore you should consider seriously how Christ speaks to you and what he says to you. In short, this promise, “My body is broken or given for you,” promises to all men a harmless death and a joyful resurrection. For Christ died for us so that he could destroy death, as it is written, “Oh death, I will become your death; I will bite and strike you, death,” Hosea 13[:14]. Christ makes us sure that no death can lead us to damnation if we can believe that he has killed our death. And so death becomes a gateway and path to a better life and leads us not to hell or damnation but to life. Anyone who knows this will find death sweet and pleasant, acceptable and dear, although before it was bitter and horrible to him. You receive this fruit from this promise, “My body is given for you.” You also obtain the sure hope of a joyful resurrection, for Christ says that his body was given for us. Christ kills our death with his death and brings us resurrection with his resurrection, just as we have been buried with Christ and have participated in his death. So we have risen with him in sure hope and will also surely rise again. Christ has shown us this, John 6[:40, 54], saying, “Whoever believes in me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Likewise, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” From this promise of Christ we draw this and other salutary fruits, [b1v] such as the fulfilling of the law and daily bearing the cross of Christ, and in sum, all kinds of benefits, etc., which I can’t list now.

Sermon of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt 18. The sign of bread effects nothing other than certainty and assurance of this promise, so that in the bread one should be certain and sure that God graciously wants to give him all that he has promised. You should think, “Now I am certain and sure that Christ has said to me, ‘My body is given for you,’ and I am sure that death won’t harm me but leads to a better and desirable life. Likewise, I am so sure and desirous of the future life that I don’t heed death on account of this desire. I’m like someone who sees a great treasure through a hard rock but because of his great joy he doesn’t feel his work or effort when he splits the rock. I know that I will come to eternal life through death; why then should I fear the bitterness of death, why shouldn’t I be comforted in my struggle with it, why shouldn’t I gladly test it?” 19. The bread that is eaten also makes you certain that through Christ you can escape the wrath and curse of the law, because Christ became a curse for all believers, Galatians 3[:13]. You must think and say, “I know that I am blessed in Christ and that the law can no longer kill me, for Christ has made me share in all of his righteousness and the fulfillment of the law.” 20. And so in future I should be sure that the harm of the cross won’t harm me, for Christ stands before me and bears the same cross that he has given and laid upon me. In sum, I must be sure that no devil, no hell, and no evil can harm me. 21. If it occurs to you that God punishes in righteousness into the fourth generation, you should also remember that God wants the life of men much more than their death. Take to heart the fact that Jonah feared God’s mercy so much that he didn’t want to proclaim the destruction of the city of Nineveh, saying, “I know that you are a good, merciful, and patient God [b2r] and you forgive evils, and so I fled and didn’t want to preach your threats,” Jonah 4[:2]. 22. The gospel (which applies to the drinking vessel or cup) brings you forgiveness of sins, if you believe. For Christ says, “My blood is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” This saying purifies everyone who believes it, for faith alone makes God’s word useful to those who accept the divine promise in faith, Hebrews 4[:2]. If you accept God’s comforting promise with faith, you will become pure and clean, as Christ testifies, saying, “You are now clean because of the words that I have spoken to you,” John 15[:3]. God’s word purifies and sanctifies all who receive it in faith. Therefore Christ says, “Oh Father, sanctify them through your truth” [John 17:17]. See how Christ implores and asks his father to sanctify his disciples through his truth. And he answers the heart that might ask, “What is the truth?” saying, “Your statement or word is the truth that sanctifies.” Now hear what Christ says next, “I sanctify myself for them, so that they will also be sanctified through the truth” [John 17:19]. Here note the unfathomable joy that Christ proclaims to his disciples. What can a disciple of Christ hear that is more consoling than what Christ says: “I sanctify myself for the sake of my disciples”? For he here speaks privately with this word what he says publicly in John 3[:16] and elsewhere, “Anyone

85

86

Chapter 4 who believes in me will be saved,” as if he wanted to say, “You don’t need any work or effort; there is nothing on earth that you need except that you look at me and believe that I have been sent by my father to save the world.” See how Christ makes you share in his blessedness, if you believe. See how he sanctifies and purifies you through his promise. See even more that Christ stands before you and lifts from you all your labor and takes away all of your doubt, so you can know for sure that he will save you through his word. Now God must forgive sin if he [b2v] sanctifies; as it is written, “Blessed are those who have their sins forgiven” [Ps. 32:1]. Anyone who believes the proclamation of divine truth and grace is holy, and it is impossible that Christ doesn’t say to him, “Stand up, your faith has saved you. Stand up, your sins have been forgiven” [Matt. 9:2–7]. But anyone who doesn’t believe the word injures God, takes away from his holiness, mocks his word, and is the pig that tramples a pearl under its feet and the dog that howls against these divine statements and attacks with its teeth the one proclaiming them [Matt. 7:6]. Concerning this, you tell me, “If I should drink the cup and its promise without first confessing and were allowed to do so, then I would go sinfully and like a pig to this sacrament.” Answer: Slowly, dear friend! I ask you whether Christ speaks truly, “Take and drink. This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Likewise, whether Christ speaks rightly, “Sanctify them through your word” [John 17:17]. If you believe that Christ made these statements rightly and truly, then you must also believe that he forgives sin if you grasp his word that he has given to the cup. Furthermore, if you want to obtain forgiveness of sins first in confession, what do you want with the sacrament? In addition, if you want to have forgiveness of sins before you receive the sacrament and then use the sacrament, then you must not believe Christ’s words. And it would be more useful for you to drink pig’s sweat than to drink from the Lord’s cup, or more useful for you to eat donkey dung than to eat the bread of Christ. In addition, if someone doesn’t believe the words of Christ, he is like the pig that tramples the noble jewel in the filth or manure. Again, even if forgiveness of secret sins were obtained in auricular confession (which I don’t believe), you must still carry the sin with you that the sacrament can take away from you. For the promise points to the forgiveness of sins, which this word can’t forgive if there are no sins. Furthermore, these words, “All that you bind shall be bound, [b3r] all that you loose shall be loosed,” [Matt. 18:18], pertain to public sin, and even if other sins are included, you can’t give me a more certain word of absolution than these cited above about the cup. You also can’t show me any more encouraging and more precious words than the words concerning the cup, because Christ left them behind as his testament and commended them to us as his last will, and he spoke them to us before his bitter passion. You must either consider this point as unimportant or not believe it, if you can’t or won’t seek the forgiveness of sins in the gospel of the cup.

Sermon of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt In short, I would advise someone to flee from this sacrament if he can’t believe that he can or will7 receive forgiveness of sins through the sacrament of the cup, for God says to Moses, “Because Aaron did [not] believe my mouth, he will not enter into the land that I have given to the children of Israel,” Numbers 20[:24]. With this God teaches us that someone becomes unworthy of his promise when and at the moment he begins to doubt the divine promise. God wants to say, “Because you don’t believe what I speak to you and say, therefore you will lose my comfort and you must be punished, just as Aaron had to die.” It is a lamentable and horrible thing that I believe a priest when he absolves me and I can’t believe him when he speaks the word of Christ in the manner, form, and way that Christ says it for the forgiveness of sins. It is nothing but a devil’s game and anti-Christian teaching that I shouldn’t grant the word of the cup as much validity as the invented formula of a wretched priest, especially since they have heard only the form of their authority from Christ, which says, “What you bind is bound and what you loose is loosed” [Matt. 16:19]. This is a form and word of authority that they and laypeople may and can absolve and bind. But I would gladly like to see or hear that they can show me the formula and words for their absolution. I know well what formula and words Paul used in rejecting and separating the notorious sinner, [b3v] whom he gave over to the devil for the destruction of his flesh, 1 Corinthians 5[:5]. Paul also took his formula and words from Christ, as is written for us in Matthew 18[:17]. It follows from this that no priest can bind without a Christian assembly, for Paul says, “Congregatis vobis et spiritu meo,” 1 Corinthians 5[:4], and Christ said, “Dic ecclesiae, si non audierit ecclesiam, etc.”8 It continues, “All that you bind or loose is bound or loosed,” Matthew 18[:19]. So Christ gave Peter the keys when he answered for the whole group, Matthew 23 [16:16–20]. 23. Now even if I conceded that private confession were divine and good, you must still confess to me that the words of the cup also forgive sins and that someone obtains no less forgiveness of sins in the cup than in confession. Because this is so, I think that those who turn their eyes to confession have little trust in these words of the cup. To the extent that they trust in confession and cling to confession, to that extent they are alienated from the sacrament. For they make their confession because they don’t seek forgiveness of sins in the reception of the sacrament. This is dangerous and harmful, although the fleshly man can’t grasp it, for their god is the pope; him they fear and him they follow. If the Lord were their God and if they feared and followed God, then the gospel of the drink would be a

7

The text has a double negative—he can’t believe that he cannot or will not receive forgiveness— that is probably a misprint. 8 1 Cor. 5:4: “When you are assembled, and my spirit is present”; Matt. 18:17: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church” (RSV).

87

88

Chapter 4 sweet, dear, friendly, and living word. The apostles were sinners like us and they didn’t go to confession. 24. I should stop, but I have to point out that God’s word, accepted in faith, cleanses us. Christ says, “You are clean on account of the words that I have spoken to you,” John 15[:3]. The word of God is clean, and so it must make him clean who grasps it. Yes, the word of God brings forth and makes new, James 1[:18], “He gave us birth in the word of his truth so that we were the beginning of his spiritual creatures.” See how God gives birth to us and makes us spiritual creatures in his word. Peter also says this, [b4r] 1 Peter 1[:23], “We have been born from an imperishable seed through the speaking of the living God.” 25. But anyone who has a hard heart, that is, who is unbelieving, should guard himself from this sacrament, for he seeks Christ as Judas did, who betrayed the Lord, and as the Jews, who wanted to capture Christ and fell to the earth when Christ said to them, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you seek” [John 18:4–6]. For (may God preserve us) when we don’t believe that the word of Christ effects in us what it proclaims, then it says, John 8[:37], “You seek me in order to kill me, and so my word has no place within you.” This text and others I will explain in time. Peace be with you. Amen. God be praised.

5

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ (December 1523/January 1524) The first imprint of Von dem Priesterthum vnd opffer Christi bears on its title page the statement, “printed in Jena in Thuringia, 1523, on December 29,” but the colophon, which identifies the printer as Michael Buchführer, gives the year as 1524. It was one of several pamphlets by Karlstadt that Buchführer published after he moved from Erfurt to Jena in 1523. VD16 lists three imprints by Buchführer (VD16, B6226; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 112; VD16, B2667; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 113; and VD16, ZV25128) but notes that the third imprint is a variant of the first. There are no modern editions of this pamphlet; my translation is based on the first imprint, Köhler, Flugschriften, 67, no. 175.

T

o all God’s saints, especially you in Orlamünde who are God-fearing, I [A2r] wish the knowledge of God’s merciful will, which God the Father has explained through his son Jesus. Amen. Much weight rests on the knowledge of Christ, that one knows whether Christ is still a sacrifice today. For blessedness or damnation are based on this: blessedness to the one who has a right, divine knowledge; damnation and hell to the one who repudiates Christ in unbelief and takes away from Christ’s honor and scorns his life and death, his love and obedience. Whoever considers Christ as a priest and sacrifice according to the ordinance of divine righteousness, and does this from heartfelt love, serves God the father of Christ with a well-pleasing service and is a true friend of Christ, for he believes rightly and approaches the kingdom of God. But anyone who is unbelieving runs towards the kingdom of the devil, because he considers Christ as a sacrifice according to his own mind and against the testimony of divine truth. His lies have deceived and led him astray, and the devil is his father. Thus you should hear and learn something in brief form about the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. I will incite you to knowledge, if you give me cause to do so, especially in this matter, and may God grant us his divine wisdom. Amen. 89

90

Chapter 5 [A2v] Priest A priest is someone who is established inwardly or outwardly by God and men to give sacrifices and gifts for the sins of the people or also for his own sins to the Lord and God in heaven above. Two Kinds of Priests We have two kinds of priests. Some come from the law, and some are from God and above the law. Those ordained by the law have their vocation through men, which is uncertain unless men have first recognized God’s will and unless the priests of the law hold to the testament of truth, righteousness, and peace in truth and not in evil, as many Levites held it. Those who do not have the knowledge of God and understanding of divine truth and of peace are not priests before God; as the Spirit says, “Because you have rejected knowledge and wisdom, I have rejected you from the priestly estate” [Hosea 4:6]. Likewise, “You have gone away from my paths and have offended many and have nullified the law of Levi, which I gave as a bond of life and peace, of truth and righteousness, of judgment and counsel” [Mal. 2:8]. Thus you are deposed and contemptible and have become less than the laity over whom you stand. The priests1 will not be excused because they say a little prayer or wear a breast covering with this inscription, “Here you will find the cause of genuine wisdom and truth,” if under this breast covering there is a breast or heart full of worldly wisdom, full of yeast, full of folly, full of lies, and full of unrighteousness. They are not priests before God who are not internally what their external [A3r] clothing and ornaments show. God has not called them, and it was never God’s intention that he would be satisfied by external advancement, glamour, and appearance. Instead, through external ornamentation (which God has placed on them), God wants priests and the common man to understand how the priest whom God has chosen should be ornamented internally in spirit, for example how righteous, true, wise, and peace-loving the priests must be. But we see among the priests of the law such faults and a lack of all of the above-mentioned virtues or decorations, so that we can tell that the law does not make one pious and righteous. We draw this conclusion, then, that the priests of the law must be chosen and enter [their office] as from God’s command, as Levi and his crowd, or from [that of] men as others do, and no one should arise from his own decision, although this external advancement is dangerous and uncertain. Those set as priests above the law enter inwardly into the virtues that the priests of the law bear externally in their clothing as figurative signs. They are born not of flesh and blood, but from above and from God, in divine truth, righteousness, and peace, and they have a truly divine essence and life, for they are called internally and awakened by God, not by men. These pay no attention to how they are externally 1

Here, as in all of his later pamphlets when he is speaking of the Catholic clergy, Karlstadt used the term Pfaffen, which from the beginning of the Reformation was used in a derogatory way.

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ adorned, but to how their spirit and inner self is adorned before God, so that they please God and not men. I call these priests the priests above the law and not under it, according to the written expression of the law. Thus the law (which is wholly legal according to the letter) makes so much ceremony and word about external adornment, as if the entire priesthood were based on external things. [A3v] Two Kinds of Anointing The priests of the law are anointed externally through an oil that can neither teach nor make the one anointed better. But it is a figure of the true oil and so God allows it. But tonsures and papist smearing are neither figures of God’s gifts nor of any use other than folly and deception. Thus God has forbidden tonsures and pig-smearing and rejected all heathen customs and practices. God has anointed the priests above the law in their inner selves with the valuable oil that makes one prudent, wise, righteous, true, and holy, and he teaches the anointed all that he earnestly desires and that he needs for the edification of his neighbors, and it is not necessary that any one teach him, as 1 John 2[:20] says. Notice from this that a true priest is a high being, just as the entire people of God is high and priestly. What an Offering Is An offering is a gift that a person brings to a priest to offer to God for his sins for reconciliation. Or an offering is what the priest himself takes and brings to God’s chosen place and offers to God for his sins. I won’t speak of all the different kinds of offerings, for there are so many of them and they have so many different meanings (for each has its own particular significance) that I would need to write another pamphlet if I wanted to write about all of the parts of an offering. For there are offerings made due to vows and voluntary offerings. There are many kinds of voluntary offerings, such as burnt offerings, death offerings, food offerings, peace offerings, first fruits, tithes, and the like. [A4r] But I will speak here about the chief offering in which commonly the figures are found. An offering is a gift of God that God allows or has allowed to be offered to him for sin, to obtain peace and reconciliation with God. Two Kinds of Offerings All of the offerings of the Old Testament, for the most part, consist of unreasoning animals, which a sinner took and brought to the priest so that the priest would offer them to God and obtain forgiveness of sins. One should note that the sacrificed animals were innocent and none of them deserved death. They were killed as innocent beings, which Moses commanded and prophesied about Christ; that an innocent man would come and bear our sins himself and with obedience and innocence would pay for us. And Moses wanted to remind the Jews of God’s surpassing love so that they would understand that innocent animals should die because of

91

92

Chapter 5 their guilt. For this was a sure sign of divine love and mercy to the people of his inheritance. And it was the intention of Moses (who wrote of Christ) that, out of recognition of such fatherly love, God’s people would reach a higher understanding and learn to understand the great love of the Father towards the sinful world, that God would not spare his own son [Rom. 8:32] but would send him to pay for our sins with his innocent death, so that the name Jesus would accord with Christ’s priesthood and offering, that he would save his people from their sins [Matt. 1:21]. This I’ve said as an aside. [A4v] Thus we learn how Moses wrote about Christ, which is especially pleasant and also necessary to know, since Moses wrote about Christ with words and stories, with works and all kinds of deeds. Among these is this article: that the innocent, unreasoning animals of the old testament were an imperfect sacrifice, although they were innocent, for they did not understand the cause of their innocent suffering, nor did they note what the will of God was. They were also neither just nor obedient, because God’s righteousness and genuine obedience must come after hearing the divine voice. Obedience and righteousness follow from an understanding of divine wisdom, as Christ showed at all times. From this it follows that these same animals could not be righteous. This is the first point. Second, they were also imperfect. Third, their blood could not wash away any sins. Fourth, they could not establish peace with God, even if the sin offering was recognized both internally and externally. The sprinkling of their blood washed away bodily unrighteousness, but not the conscience. Thus they were imperfect and pointed in all ways to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, who himself cleanses conscience and soul, as soon as his sacrifice is rightly known. All sacrifices of the new testament are reasonable [Rom. 12:1]—that is, the one who offers them is wise and knowing, and what is offered is also reasonable and full of the knowledge of God, and what one offers should be innocent and righteous. The body corresponds to the shadow, [B1r] and the new is good and fulfills what the old shows as a figure. Thus it is said, “I desire the knowledge of God more than sacrifices,” Hosea 6[:6]. The Office of Priest and the Manner of Sacrifice The office of every priest consists in this, that he sacrifices something to God for sin. He does this for his own sin, if he is a sinner, as are all priests born of the will of the flesh, even if they have been born of God and have not experienced the sevenfold sprinkling of the curtain with blood.2 Or he sacrifices only for the sins of others, if he is not a sinner, and in this latter consists the true and eternal priesthood. The sacrifice should atone for sin if it is otherwise a true sacrifice. For it will wash away the sins of the one who rightly acknowledges it. And it should be a 2

According to Leviticus 16:14, the priest was to sprinkle not the curtain in the tabernacle, but the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant, seven times with the blood of the sacrificed bull.

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ living creature that dies, and his death should be reasonable and innocent. Among all the priests in heaven and on earth, there has never been one who was so pure that he did not need to sacrifice something for his own sins, except Christ alone. Thus Christ is the head of all priests and is called their prince and the first anointed priest. There has also never been a sacrifice that was completely innocent and reasonable or that could be given for sin with full righteousness, with the exception of the sacrifice of Christ alone. Through Moses, God instituted many kinds of sacrifices, as listed above. This was done because none of them were perfect, and each had its own particular characteristics and procedures through which it could signify Christ’s genuine sacrifice more clearly than the others [B1v] that did not have those characteristics. Thus some were burned, others were eaten. The priest and those who offered them ate some, along with the poor, others not. The food offerings had a special figure of Christ that the burnt offerings and peace offerings did not have. The thing or sacrifice of the new testament that should be offered in the new and invisible tabernacle and on the altar that no created hand has established [Heb. 9:11] can also be listed: our life, our soul, our spirit, our flesh, our blood, our goodwill to God, God’s praise, God’s strength and wisdom, God’s name and confession, with the help, counsel, and willingness to serve one’s neighbor. Or also mortification of the flesh, compassion, a slaughtered offering, a burnt offering in persecution, a burned death offering, submission of our wills, the hatred and envy of our souls, destruction of our own desires. And on the other side, priesthood, glorious resurrection, ascension, life in heaven. The priesthood is also a sacrifice, the priest is a sacrifice. They are united in the person, but [they are] two things. Moses spoke about the sacrifice and priesthood, Christ about death and resurrection, Paul about the mortification of the flesh or members and about life in heaven, and also about the resurrection and life of Christ. Christ accomplished all of this and alone has attained for us sacrifice and priesthood, descent into death and resurrection of life. Christ died for our sins and rose in the flesh for the sake of our righteousness, which is the true sacrifice, through his spirit, who is also a true priest. But everyone is a sacrifice and priest. [B2r] On the scaffold of the cross Christ offered to his father and gave into his father’s hands not only his flesh and blood but also his spirit. He offered himself everywhere and has now gone before us, so that we can follow him with our flesh, body, blood, life, soul, and spirit. Christ’s sacrifice is called obedience, body, blood, life, and the glory of his father. And in summary, Christ did God’s will with the greatest diligence, more than all created beings, and more diligently than all angels and saints, more purely than his holy body, which is his holy church. And his obedience was his highest sacrifice, from which all other sacrifices in Christ receive their righteousness. For it was written of Christ in the beginning that he should do and become God’s will, which he also perfected more than all other created beings could. Thus

93

94

Chapter 5 Christ is a prince and head, not only the priest but also the justification of all sacrifices in heaven and earth, which the angels in heaven or the holy men on earth offer to God. On Christ’s Priesthood and Sacrifice Christ’s priesthood is a priesthood of peace and righteousness after the order of Melchizedek the king of Salem, that is, of peace [Heb. 5:5–6]. The consciences of all who know Christ deeply and well are made at peace through Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice, because they see that Christ is a blameless priest with whom God is entirely pleased, and who is powerful before God, and that God will deny him nothing, and God has eternal pleasure in what he does before God. [B2v] Christ is a priest of righteousness according to the order of Melchizedek, for Christ has paid for all the failings of all sinners in heaven and on earth and so is called God our righteousness, for he has atoned for everything in which we are unrighteous and liable to punishment. His body and blood were conceived without sin by the Holy Spirit, his life without fault, his death in full obedience, his wisdom and understanding the highest, his will the most perfect. Thus Christ is a righteous priest who carries out a truly righteous priestly office and is also a righteous, innocent sacrifice that he himself offers to God. This was the order of Melchizedek, the king of Salem, that is, the king of righteousness and peace, according to which Christ was established as an eternal priest with an oath of confirmation. All who have a heartfelt knowledge of Christ in his righteousness desire to partake of his righteousness and to love Christ not with a strategy of their own souls but with singular love, and they gladly want to lay aside all their unrighteousness through Christ’s righteousness and be united with and pleasing to God the Lord through Christ. When they have heard and learned this understanding from the Father (who alone draws and binds to Christ [John 6:44]), then their hearts rejoice and sing praises to God and Christ and have an ardent desire to come to such a priest, and to receive from him and through him his wisdom, peace, righteousness, obedience, and judgment and everything that belongs to a priest. Even more, one who lovingly knows Christ in this way is already [B3r] content and righteous, for he looks to Christ and knows in Christ that Christ is such a high, God-pleasing priest and sacrifice that he brings all of his own concerns before God. Thus he holds to Christ with earnest pleasure and goes through Christ to the Father. Christ is ready with his love to distribute his goods to those who think so favorably of him, and he so freely gives such a priestly treasure, decoration, and ornaments and makes all believers (if they accept Christ, that is, love and confess him) into priests. Then they may stand without danger before God’s eyes, as acceptable sons of God and brothers of the one who was figured by the highest priest. That is, they say, “You have made us priests before God, as joyful and blameless as you are” [Rev. 5:10].

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ I have spoken of the ministry and priesthood of Christ, saying no spirit may stand before God as a blameless priest if he has not recognized the eternal and righteous high priest Christ with loving faith and desired to direct himself towards him. Likewise all priestly spirits must diligently observe Christ’s sacrifice and see what Christ has offered and in what mind and will. They must become wise through Christ and direct themselves according to him and stand firm in all of Christ’s armor. They must learn from this that all the offerings that they might offer to God are faulty and too small and little. Even if they wanted to slaughter their flesh, kill their members, and offer them to Christ, they would find so many faults in their slaughter and sacrifice, so much resentment and unwillingness, that they would say, “I cannot [B3v] go before God, for he might condemn me with my offering.” If they want to offer their spirits into the hands of the Father, then they will perceive a thousand defects in love, in faith, in genuine trust, in hope, in praise, in holiness, and also in other things, so that they must retreat and flee from God’s countenance. If they want to measure and offer their obedience and goodwill against God (which is a right sacrifice), they realize that there are so many defects that they must be ashamed and must hide their own righteousness (like the cloth of a menstruating woman [Isa. 64:6]). Thus they have no entrance or way to go to God and can offer nothing to God, for there is in them guilt and not innocence, folly and not wisdom, suffering without knowledge, spirit without inner adornment, unbridled flesh and evil blood. And they understand that God doesn’t want to receive oxen or other animals as a sacrifice, but that they must offer their flesh with its suffering, their life with its bitterness, their soul with its hate, their love with their whole heart, their praise with their entire soul, their goodwill from their entire mind, and all kinds of offerings from all their powers. This is impossible for them, for they don’t understand and don’t know how they can escape. Thus they should make a sacrifice but don’t have an offering. But through the dear, unblemished priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, they have the boldness and satisfaction of bringing an offering for God through Christ and from Christ. They say with sighs, “My Lord and my God, your son has given you an offering such as you desire and want to have. [B4r] And he has offered it for me and for others so that all of us together are righteous and acceptable to you through his sacrifice. I hold myself and my offering to this same, and confess to you that Christ alone is righteous before you and that Christ’s sacrifice alone is without fault or blemish before you, and his offering is so high in my eyes that I must hold my own as nothing. I accept that offering and hold to it with thoughts and heart. Lord, accept it as my offering, or as my offering within it, for his offering is a fulfillment and righteousness of my own. Christ’s flesh is without sin and bears my sin. I offer this to you for my sinful flesh, for Christ’s flesh has become mine, and my flesh has become Christ’s flesh, through the loving knowledge and his flesh, in which my burnt and death offerings become nothing and only his are something.”

95

96

Chapter 5 Three Kinds of Persons Offer Christ Three kinds of persons have offered Christ: God the father of Christ, Christ himself, and the third group are the great priests and Pilate and the executioners and hangmen. God the Father sent his son into this world out of the great love that he had, still has, and eternally will have for his elect. And he gave him into death for us, so that Christ redeemed the entire world of the faithful and brought them to God his father. Thus the Father’s love is the cause of Christ’s sacrifice, which he makes to God his father for us. [B4v] The Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, offered himself to God his father out of his free will and obedience, and he gave himself into the hands of the betrayer Judas, the great priests, and into the hands of the Gentiles, Pilate, and the executioner. And his life and death stood powerfully in his own power and will. If he had wanted to retain his soul, no one could have taken it from him. With one word he could have saved and defended himself. For as Christ twice caused the mob of captors in the Garden of Olives to fall back with a single word [John 18:6], so he could have escaped all violence at any time. For Christ proved through his miraculous power in the garden that no one could kill him if he did not allow it. Thus he gave himself from his own will and killed and sacrificed himself and allowed himself to be captured from his own intention. From his great love for his friends and brothers, and out of the obedience that he must show to his father and carried out with a glad will, Christ was obedient unto death, and unto death on the cross [Phil. 2:9], and was sacrificed. If he had not willed it, he would not have been sacrificed. The third [kind of] person is those who stood on the side of Judas, Pilate, and the great priests (as one person), who also made Christ into a burnt offering and a sin offering. With their ardent envy and hot outcry, they burned Christ on the wood on which one killed or hanged only the great sinners who deserved to be cursed, since God said of those who were hanged, “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree” [Gal. 3:13]. This same curse [C1r] was so horrible before God that God forbade that anyone hanged from a cross should remain overnight so that the earth was not cursed [Deut. 21:23]. But as horrible and shameful as the death on a cross was, still the priests directed their wrath against Christ, the dear child of God, and ordered them to murder him without cause by the most despicable death, and so they sacrificed Christ as a burnt offering through their fiery hatred. The Father also sacrifices the Son, and the Son sacrifices himself; otherwise the savage raging of the Jews and Gentiles would not have gone according to their will. But their will and intention was different, as was the deed. The priests, Annas and Caiaphas,3 offered Christ not out of love, as the Father did, nor out of obedience, as Christ offered himself, but instead they offered Christ out of envy and hatred, and not to God the Lord but for cursing. But if they had offered Christ out 3

The high priests who condemned Christ; John 18:13.

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ of fear of God and out of obedience or at God’s command, as Abraham wanted to sacrifice his son Isaac [Gen. 22:1–14], and they were simply obedient ministers of God’s eternal will, they would have corresponded with God’s will in the killing of Christ. But it happened as it was written of them: they hated Christ without cause and in vain [John 15:25]. Likewise, Pilate said, “I find no cause to put him to death” [Luke 23:14–16]. Thus they had no valid reason to sacrifice Christ. But anyone who fulfills God’s commands has a valid reason. The priests served not God but their hatred, for they had no command from God to kill Christ, as Christ had a mandate to offer himself. [C1v] Thus they became murderers and shedders of blood through Christ’s death, and Christ was obedient without sin. So the Son of God, the lord and master of life, went into death in many ways, and he did not flee the death sentence and judgment of the evil priests without seeing it carried out but suffered without resistance, just as God knew from the beginning. But woe to those through whom Christ went [Luke 22:22], for they are cursed and murdering arch-rogues. But the Father is not guilty of Christ’s blood, for he is mighty Lord of all things and created beings. Christ also remained innocent, for he was obedient to the Lord, who had a good right to murder the living and to raise the dead. What Christ’s Sacrifice Has Brought Us If Christ had not died, we would all be lost, but because Christ has died, we have redemption through him. For as the highest priest, Christ has offered the best and highest sacrifice to God his father for our sins and has earned and richly obtained for us forgiveness of all sins. And he has reconciled us sufficiently to his father, from whom we were far away through our sins that separated us from God [Eph. 2:13]. As Christ said, “This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” [Luke 22:19–20]. The priests of the old testament came with the blood of oxen [C2r] or other animals before God and poured or shook it out around the altar or sprinkled the curtain with blood and offered the body of an innocent animal, and they did this so that the sins of those who brought the innocent animals would be forgiven. All of this was done for the sake of the figure of Christ’s blood, since Moses did nothing other with such shedding or sprinkling of blood than show through such hidden accounts that the sins of all people would be washed away in the blood of Christ. Thus Christ has also come as a priest of the new law, as Moses also wrote of him. He shed his blood so that we would all be washed from sin with it, who held the shedding of Christ’s blood as a great, most valuable grace and desired that we would be sprinkled with his blood and washed or baptized in it. Moses wrote so wonderfully about Christ, with writings and deeds or accounts. From this it is easy to learn that the sacrificed body and shed blood of Christ has brought us redemption and forgiveness of all sins, for the holiness of all of us who know and desire this.

97

98

Chapter 5 It is clear as day that Christ’s blood has washed away the sins of all the world, if the world wishes to understand this. For Christ’s submission is higher and more pure than the striving of all the world ever was, is now, or will be in the future. [C2v] Faith in God must also have a sacrifice that has no faults and is without change and that corresponds to the figured sacrifices of Moses (which point to Christ), which must be without blemish, scabs, blindness, or lameness, and have no defect. Thus it was prophesied that a sacrifice would come to earth in which there would be neither blindness, lameness, manginess, nor any kind of fault. And such a sacrifice was necessary for faith so that it would be righteous before God. But faith found nothing except in the sacrifice of Christ alone. Genuine faith must also have a priest without change, who is holy, innocent, unblemished, who is set apart from sin, just as he has a sacrifice without fault. This was Christ, who offered himself without fault to God through the Holy Spirit in order to purify our consciences from dead works to serve the living God [Heb. 9:14]. And so faith makes us righteous, blameless, without fault, and without change through Christ to God. For Christ’s sacrifice is our sacrifice and his priesthood is our priesthood. This is true if the sacrifice of Christ is considered dear and high in our hearts and eyes. Since it must be that the glorified Christ draws us to himself and wants to make us one flesh and one blood with his flesh and blood, one will with his will, and one spirit with his spirit. So all of us together (angels and men) are made righteous at one time in Christ’s will through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ and through the full obedience of Christ. [C3r] Whether Christ Can Be Sacrificed Often The figured sacrifices of the Old Testament could not be offered often; an ox was only offered once and then another one had to be sacrificed. For just as an animal cannot die often, so it was not possible that the priests could offer a sacrifice frequently. Thus Moses wrote about Christ’s perfection, that Christ would at one time atone and pay for the sins of all the world and would grant it eternal holiness and redemption, that he would not die often and would not have to sanctify anew his elect with a new reconciliation. This was already said about Christ through the figured sacrifices of Moses, that the most high priest would offer only one sacrifice and that only once, which would be so perfect, so high, so noble, and so sufficient that it would and could establish all things at one time, and he did not want the figured sacrifice to be carried out many times, because all sins would be forgiven, all prisoners redeemed, all the stained washed, all those not at peace pacified, and all consciences purified of those who considered the sacrifice with high esteem and desire in faith. Much rested on looking to the snake, and so I use it here [Num. 21:6–9]. The snake was a figure, Christ is the truth. Therefore all wounded and sick must be reconciled who look at the hanged and sacrificed Christ, if they look at Christ rightly and see what the holy eyes of the apostles saw [John 3:15].

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ Christ therefore died once and was offered as a sacrifice only once for all spirits that have ever been and ever will be in the future, so far as they accept the sacrifice and justify their own sacrifice through Christ’s sacrifice. [C3v] Thus it is not necessary that Christ die once more for newly created spirits. Christ died as richly and sufficiently for all the newly created as he did for those who lived at the time of his passion. Whether Christ Is a Sacrifice in the Daily Priestly Masses The devil has masterfully introduced many lies and much damage to Christendom because he has brought it about that the priests have made from the glorious Supper of Christ a mass and sacrifice and has given the priests a lovely way of speaking in how they shape the matter, in that they have made a sacrifice out of Christ’s bread and wine and made more money from this than Judas did through his betrayal, so that they built great palace-like cloisters and chapter churches, and they filled every corner with chapels and devil’s houses for their profit and oppression, and they endowed masses and ordained priests who held mass daily and daily offered Christ. This was a bodily display and cunning plan for a new form of worship, and it grew strongly in the hearts of the godless, and so Christ’s bread and cup became a mass and sacrifice. It isn’t necessary to say here what the priests’ money and goods have gained or profited from with the Christ they sacrificed daily, for one sees it before their eyes and the matter of such deception is too small to toss it here and there. So I will leave it aside and attack and criticize only the spiritual appearance of the devil. [C4r] The devil commonly produces a familiar truth when he wants to mix in lies, as he did in the temptation of Christ. So the devil does here. He says (through his priests) that men sin every day and so they need a daily sacrifice for their sins. This is true, if it is rightly understood. And so he said, “You have no sacrifice other than the body and blood of Christ, and so you should offer Christ daily for your daily sins and institute a mass, and you should make this out of Christ’s Supper.” And so the mass arose, in which the priests offer our Lord Christ daily, and this more than a thousand times at every hour and every city, so that it wouldn’t be a wonder if Christ were completely consumed. I will briefly give the reasons that all the priests call God a liar. They say that Christ is a sacrifice in their mass or that they offer Christ in their mass. For they say with their deed or work that Christ’s sacrifice is not so powerful and mighty and sufficient as God the Father has vowed and promised. The Father in heaven promised us his son through a sacrifice according to the law and through the clear promise of the prophets that his son would be our righteousness and would offer himself for us for our sins, and would bear our sins himself and pay for them through his death and the shedding of his blood. God the Father promised his son

99

100

Chapter 5 in this manner, power, might, piety, and use, that he would come for us in such power, blessedness, and for such a use. [C4v] But now the priests step forth and say that the death and sacrifice of Christ are not as God promised, and they act like the new commanders who were sent by Moses with three others into the promised and praised land, in order to see if it was as God had praised and promised it. For although they saw clearly that the promised land was so good and fruitful, they knowingly contradicted the mouth of God and so attacked God’s honor and called him a liar [Num. 13:31–32]. The priests do the same thing, some from greed, some from pride and wickedness, who say that Christ’s sacrifice must be offered anew each day for new daily sins. For they contradict the promise of God and make the sacrifice of Christ, which is Christ himself, less than God the Father promised and proclaimed. God said that Christ would pay for and expiate the sins of all the world with the sacrifice of his body and blood, but the priests contradict this when they say that one must daily offer Christ anew for new sins and that it is not enough that Christ was sacrificed once. This is a horrible lie, for it follows that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient for all sins and that his death did not bring as much holiness as God claimed it would. And so our priests contradict God, for they say that they should offer Christ daily for sin, but then God lies when he says, “Christ my son has paid for the sins of all the world and was obedient to me unto death.” But this wouldn’t stand at all if Christ hadn’t paid for and abolished new, daily sins through his one death and unique sacrifice. [D1r] Now it is never possible that God lies, and so the priests are arch-liars, who say that Christ is a sacrifice in their daily masses. For they claim God’s truth is a lie and blaspheme against God and stick their tongues out against God’s word and act as do the new rogues about whom I have spoken. This is the reason why Christ is not a sacrifice in the mass. If a speaker wants to help himself by saying that Christ is not a sacrifice, but Christ’s bread and wine are a sacrifice, this would be a subtle defense, as if they had an ass singing in their bagpipe. The reason is that they divide Christ and make him into absolutely nothing and they shove all figured sacrifices into one lump. It is clear that Christ lived and didn’t come without life as bread is [without life], and he still lives even more than all created things in heaven and earth. And Christ washed and cleansed the spiritual and heavenly vessels through his blood, and did all in such glory and essence that no angel is able to come after him. But the priests want to attribute this to a dead creature, namely, the bread that the baker has baked or the wine that is pressed through a winepress, and they take away from and steal the power and glory of Christ, which is beyond the power of angels, and so they make Christ into nothing. And so through their sacrifice of bread and wine, which feel nothing, they cut off and destroy the honor, wisdom, obedience, love, and goodwill of Christ, who has all his senses. Neither bread nor wine can assume for themselves the powers

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ or gifts of Christ. If the priests’ meaning could stand, it would clearly follow that bread and wine [D1v] were the best created things, better than all saints and angels, yes, than even the Son of God Jesus Christ himself. And they must say that the food offerings of the old law were as perfect as Christ’s sacrifice, which goes against the current and is against Moses and the Holy Spirit and completely impossible. It also doesn’t help the priests that Christ calls himself a living bread and wants us to drink his blood and eat his bread [John 6:52–56]. The reason is that this same bread of Christ is an eternal and imperishable bread, just as the blood of Christ is imperishable. But the priests’ round bread and their wine perish. The priests are the wine chuggers, as the spirit of God says, and through their teaching they make the poor laity drunk and go away from God. But they should know that their bread and wine has not come down from heaven, like the bread that is Christ [John 6:58], but is the fruit of the earth that grows up from below. Accordingly the priests shouldn’t cover themselves with a fool’s cloak and say that bread or wine is a sacrifice (and not Christ) that we offer for daily sins, for we don’t want to have their bread or wine as an offering, since our consciences cannot become better or purer through this. So this reason why Christ is not a sacrifice in the mass is proven, and it is much more devilish when they say that the bread and wine of Christ is an offering. Another Reason Why Christ Is not a Sacrifice in the Mass They must either be senseless and foolish or sly and wicked skulkers who say that Christ is a sacrifice in the priests’ masses. The reason: they must not know what belongs to a burnt or sin offering [D2r] and they speak about the sacrifice of Christ like a blind person does about color, and before God they are like horses and mules in which there is no understanding [Ps. 32:9]. Or they do know and speak out of pride against God’s truth and want to kill him who cannot die. The priests slaughtered the living animal that they sacrificed. According to this same figure, Christ had to die when he was sacrificed. And so it means the same thing to say that Christ is a sacrifice in the mass as to say that Christ is killed in the mass. But this is impossible, even according to Christ’s flesh in which he was a sacrifice, for Christ died only once and will not die again but lives as God eternally. Whoever continues to say that Christ is a sacrifice is rejecting St. Paul, who says that Christ will not die again [Rom. 6:9]. Christ also rose in a glorious and immortal flesh. Thus those who call Christ a sacrifice in the mass are attacking his glorious resurrection and say that Christ is as mortal and untransformed as he was before he died. This would be a great insult to Christ and a mockery of God his father, and it would be a devastation of the glorious resurrection, touching on our righteousness and against the hope of the resurrection. They also make a worse sacrifice from Christ than any other sacrifice of the old testament was. No ox or any other animal was slaughtered and sacrificed more than once; they died with one suffering and death. But Christ must often be

101

102

Chapter 5 held, suffer, and die repeatedly for the mass-priests without cease. Thus they make Christ’s reality worse than the suffering and dying of the figured sacrifice. [D2v] Christ’s priesthood would also be worse and much less than that of the high priest in the old law, who entered into the holy place with blood (and that the blood of another) alone and only once, while Christ (as the priests claim) must shed his blood daily. And with his own blood he must enter into four hundred devil’s houses every day, not just once a year. From this it would follow that sins remain eternally, for according to the priests’ view the sacrifice of Christ takes away only some sins, those that are past or those from today. But if someone sins tomorrow, then Christ hasn’t paid for it with the sacrifice he has already made. Thus future sins require a new sacrifice every day. The new testament, which is supposed to take away sins so that none of them remain, would collapse in a heap. It would necessarily be annulled if new sins had to be expiated with a new sacrifice and weren’t forgiven through the old and earlier sacrifice of Christ, which was offered through one suffering, one death, and one shedding of blood. If one allowed this to the priests, then they would long ago have shoved God out of his heaven. It must also follow that Christ must enter every day into his heavenly and invisible tabernacle through a new sacrifice. Through this, the priestly office and sacrifice and spiritual tabernacle of the most high priest of all, Christ, is less esteemed than the tabernacle of Aaron and of other figured and mortal priests. The reason is that Aaron and his descendants entered only once a year, through the suffering, death, and blood of another. But Christ [D3r] must enter into heaven every day through new suffering and sacrifice, and we should no longer wait for Christ to return in the way that his apostles saw him depart into heaven [Acts 1:11]. Thus the glorious ascension of Christ is also nullified. Now, you devourers of sacrifices, know that Christ’s reality is in a better state than you allow. Know that he has given a perfect sacrifice and has died only once and has entered into the holy place once, with one sacrifice through his own blood, and thereby has obtained eternal redemption from sins, not alone those of the present but of all future sins. And he has not entered your physical temple as a holy place, but into the high heaven at the right hand of the throne of the divine majesty in heaven, a caretaker of all heavenly goods and protector of the heavenly tabernacle that God himself has established and is not built with human hands [Heb. 9:11–12]. He has escaped from your hands, you can no longer torture him and he will not allow himself to be sacrificed and does not want to be sacrificed repeatedly. He stands before the Father for us and intercedes and represents us, not through a new drink of his cup from which he once drank and will no longer drink [Luke 22:18]. Christ drinks a new wine in his father’s kingdom, where he will not allow himself to be tortured and murdered.

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ I say all of this not in order to scold you, the laity, but so that you come to a right understanding and will stop scorning and torturing Christ. I wish you God’s mercy and tell you about your sins with critical words that are worthy of you, so that you resent having such an evil name among Christians. [D3v] Those who call Christ a sacrifice (in the priests’ masses) and want to offer him daily for new, daily sins make Christ’s death and sacrifice useless, unjust, and into nothing, since Christ died for the sake of our sins, and not only for our sins but for those of the entire world. He washed them all away at one time from the consciences of those who truly know Christ and his blood through faith in their hearts and consciences, and he is the lamb that took away the sins of the world. He did this through one death and one sacrifice and obtained full righteousness for us. Whoever says that Christ is a daily sacrifice so that we may obtain forgiveness of sins through the mass must also say that the death and sacrifice of Christ has not obtained forgiveness of sins for us, and that Christ has died in vain and for nothing, and that our righteousness is not found in the obedience of Christ through which he went to death. But this is nothing other than to eliminate and remove Christ, and to make Christ into nothing, as has been said. See, Paul considers it a great evil, as it is, that some say that righteousness comes through the law. He says it must follow that Christ died in vain [Gal. 2:21]. So I say to you, if you could sacrifice Christ every day in your masses for our new sins, it must follow that Christ’s solemn death and the sacrifice that he made were done in vain, and finally that our righteousness comes not from Christ but from you, for you have dreamed up the mass. [D4r] I confess for myself and I know that it is against God and Christ that Christ is a sacrifice in the mass. I know that Christ entered into heaven only once through one sacrifice and has given us an eternal and unending redemption and forgiveness of all sins, and that he will never leave the holy city and tabernacle as a priest but that he stands before his father’s face as a mediator, intercessor, and reconciler. It doesn’t serve your devilish reasoning and intention that Christ said, “Take, this is my body, which is given for you,” or “This is the cup of my blood, which is shed for you.” For Christ didn’t command you to do this in the way that you explain it, in the belief that Christ’s flesh and blood is daily offered anew. If this were so, what would the saints have done who do not hold or have not held mass? You should eat the bread and blood of the Lord in his remembrance, that is, you should have a heartfelt remembrance of the passion, death, and sacrifice of Christ, as someone might think of his dear brother who has redeemed him from death through his own death or who died for him; that is what you should do. You should eat the bread of Christ and drink his wine in his name and remembrance. The name and remembrance of Christ should incite and compel you toward that which you previously had in mind.

103

104

Chapter 5 Thus anyone may remember daily the finished sacrifice of Christ, as we are obligated to do, to know the high priestly mind of Christ and his innocent and reasonable sacrifice that he offered to God. [D4v] But that doesn’t mean to sacrifice Christ anew, but instead to thank him and to remember the passion and sacrifice of Christ and to sink into the heartfelt knowledge of Christ the priest and his office and to remain in Christ. Some of the holy fathers wrote about Christ’s sacrifice and supposedly said that the host is a sacrifice in the mass, but this can’t stand into eternity. I also can’t believe that this was the belief or intention of the holy fathers, that Christ, under the round host made of flour, is a sacrifice in the mass, as many now hold. For they would have erred more crudely in their day than our priests do in ours, because the priests now have grown up in this error and have heard from childhood until now that the mass is a sacrifice. But before the mass was invented through human minds (as in the days of the holy fathers), there was no reason for the abominable error that Christ should be a sacrifice in the mass. And during the fathers’ times, the scripture was treated almost as highly and understood as it is now, and the right judgment of scripture was in better state than has been the case in the time of our priests. Thus it is unbelievable to me that Augustine or Ambrose had any thought that bread and wine were a mass or a sacrifice. Accordingly, I consider that these same fathers called Christ a holy sacrifice, an unblemished victim, a confirmed offering, a reasonable sacrifice or victim in the same way that the apostles called Christ’s suffering, death, shed blood, and murdered body a sacrifice, through which they confessed what [E1r] Christ had suffered, not what he today suffers or might suffer, and that Christ was a sacrifice, not that he is today a sacrifice. The apostle Paul calls Christ a sacrifice of righteousness and a forgiveness of sins and tells what Christ has obtained for us with his sacrifice offered once. Not in the belief that we were so foolish that we would diminish the power and merit of Christ, or should think that it was necessary to offer Christ again every day for our daily sins. For then we would throw down Christ and tread on him with our feet and make his suffering into nothing, as said above. But if the holy fathers were so forgetful that they thought up such an unchristian teaching (as our papistic priests boast and explain the church fathers), then you should not accept the fathers nor heed their meaning but say, “Go away, you satanic teachers, you hinder the right knowledge of Christ.” This doesn’t do any harm to God and the saints, for Peter was also holy, and Christ said, “Blessed are you, Peter,” etc. [Matt. 16:17], but not long afterwards Christ also said to Peter (when he erred in the knowledge of Christ), “Get behind me, you Satan, you are a hindrance to me” [Matt. 16:23]. For Christ wanted us to understand that we shouldn’t let ourselves be misled by the holiness of the saints, but instead stay straight on the way of God and not look at any man.

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ Paul rebuked Peter because he didn’t follow the truth on the right footing [Gal. 2:14]. Who forbids us, if we’re sure of the matter, to stand against all the church fathers? [E1v] If we can judge angels, why not men [1 Cor. 6:3]? We should judge Satan in the alien form of light [2 Cor. 11:14]; shouldn’t we judge holy men and see whether they are holy or not? If their holiness isn’t tested through seven purgatories or circumcisions, then they can easily err and teach wrongly. Erring blindness will not cease as long as there is sin. Once sin no longer has a place among men, then blindness and lack of understanding will also come to an end. If a writer writes something out of his own wisdom, then it is all human and not divine. Thus you must note what the spirit of God effects when he speaks and direct yourself according to the Spirit. Whoever ignores the Spirit’s working will fall short, whether he writes or speaks. Thus no one should be ensnared by Augustine’s holiness. He wouldn’t want us to consider his holiness, or that of anyone else, as an inerrant standard. Therefore you shouldn’t look so carefully at what the much-esteemed fathers said or wrote as much as you should see whether what they wrote was right or wrong. Those who call Christ a sacrifice in the mass are guilty of the death and blood of Christ because they speak evilly of Christ and treat him more evilly than those who use the bread and cup of the Lord without discernment. For they are not only more heedless than the Corinthians were due to their drunkenness [1 Cor. 11:20–21], but they reject the promise (about Christ) of God the father of Christ and they repudiate the passion, shed blood, and death of Christ, and if they could they would torture Christ anew so that their sacks would be full of gold or their endowments full of praise or their reason [E2r] highly esteemed or their views would dominate. If they want to say, “We intend it for well and good, and want to serve God with our customs; we don’t know anything otherwise; if we knew better, then we’d follow what was best.” Answer: Some of the Jews also knew no better than that they should murder Christ and thought that they were serving God by this. But Peter didn’t want to accept them into Christian fellowship before they recognized and repented of their misdeeds [Acts 2:38]. So should genuine Christians do and tell the priests that it is a sin to hold mass, and if some repent, they should be accepted. But those who don’t want to recognize this should be left to stand outside of Christian fellowship. It doesn’t follow to say, “I intend it well and so I am excused.” Peter also meant well and good when he said to his Lord, “May it be far from you that the Jews should handle you so shamefully,” etc. For Christ told him to get behind him and called him a Satan, as said above [Matt. 16:22–23]. Thus the priests can’t defend themselves through their good intentions. One should hold still and first listen to what God wants to have, and direct our thoughts according to God’s thoughts. Then the deed or right intentions and

105

106

Chapter 5 the work will follow God’s teaching. Whoever looks at many things, or not only at God’s word, is wanton before God and sins horribly, Numbers 15[:39]. Someone may say, “Christ cannot die when we offer him and so we are not the same as the betrayers, persecutors, and executioners.” Answer: [E2v] All profit or harm in any matter depends on the heart. And God didn’t forbid only external murder, but also the thought of murder [Matt. 5:21–22]. Thus it is the same thing before God to murder in deed or in intention. Whoever has the intention to kill Christ and can’t kill him is still a murderer, just as the devil was a murderer of Christ before Christ was born. Christ himself says, “The devil was a murderer from the beginning” [John 8:44], which someone also proclaims, “The lamb was slaughtered from the beginning of the world” [Rev. 13:8]. Now just as the devil was a murderer in the time before Christ could die, so now those are murderers of Christ (who will no longer die) who want to do to him what the deadly murderers did—Annas, Caiaphas, Judas, Herod, Pilate, the Pharisees, persecutors, and executioners. And our priests (to whom God’s truth is proclaimed) are genuine Pharisees who lay on Christ all kinds of scorn, mockery, floggings, blows, and death. Oh what a wretched thing must our eyes see! Don’t they see that the houses that one wants to build to praise and honor God have become pits of death? In fact, they are dens of thieves and murderers [Matt. 21:13], to the extent that they are dedicated to the daily bloodshedding and to the daily death or sacrifice of Christ. Those who want to be the most holy are the most horrible persecutors and murderers of Christ. Where do we see more masses than in the holy cloisters? One has scarcely ended before another begins. Isn’t what happens today like what happened long ago in Christ’s passion when Annas sent Christ to Caiaphas, one priest sent him [F1r] to another? Must we not see that one rips his clothing because of Christ, the other spits in Christ’s face? [Matt. 26:65–67]. The laity bring Christ out as Pilate did and say that they find no guilt, fault, or crime in his death and bloodshed, and that Christ has obtained reconciliation for all sins with one sacrifice and so they don’t want to offer him anew. But the Pharisees cry out with loud voices, “We must crucify or offer Christ daily, for he has made himself worthy of such an offering, because he didn’t offer sufficient satisfaction for all daily sins,” and finally they bring the highest laity to their side. But woe to you, for you must be fastened like a tail over an asshole because you repudiate our head and our savior and have forsaken the one who has set you over all the people of this earth. I have told you about three persons who sacrificed Christ: about God his father, who gave his son, etc.; about Christ, who gave himself. These are two persons and they alone have intended the matter well and rightly, and none of the priests can pass themselves off as God or Christ. Thus they must suffer our calling them Pharisees, persecutors, or executioners as long as they offer Christ daily. If this falling away saddens them, they should forsake their evil ways. I haven’t called them persecutors because I take pleasure from their displeasure and harm,

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ but instead so that they would feel an earnest horror at the mass from these horrible names and turn from evil to good. The laity will be reasonable enough (I hope) that they won’t make [F1v] new beggars from the priests and monks. It seems to me that the laity are more guilty of the anti-Christian blindness and the evil of the mass than the so-called religious persons,4 because every layman wants to have a priest and because they have endowed masses without cease and have thrown money like grain into a flock of birds, feeding the poor priests as a bird-catcher throws grain or food to the unreasoning birds. If they hadn’t offered money to the priests, then the priests would have refrained from their masses. Thus they should rightly be the first to let go of the mass and give the money that supported the masses to the poor, upright priests and monks for as long as they live or help them to a godly means of support that would last longer, and thank God that after the priest’s death they will obtain their property back as in a year of jubilee. I don’t say this on account of my own person, for I don’t want to have a pension or possess a parish. The word mass is devilish and comes too close to the death Christ suffered, for mass in German is an offering before God. Now it can’t be that you consider the glorious Supper of Christ’s bread and wine as a sacrifice without repudiating Christ’s bitter suffering. Thus it is impossible that one can now use the mass without harm, and so I ask you, consider and let go all that is against God’s mercy. Know that Christ abolished all sacrifices, but he left many offerings, for we must offer ourselves as a reasonable sacrifice in divine wisdom and understanding, as said above [Rom. 12:1]. Thus we should understand the way in which Christ gives us an example for us to follow in his footsteps and suffer as he did [1 Pet. 2:21]. And we should understand how our flesh is nailed to the cross with Christ’s flesh. [F2r] For a broken heart and a contrite spirit is the sacrifice that is well pleasing to God [Ps. 51:17]. God is pleased with all kinds of sacrifices of confession, knowledge, and the praise and extolling of God in flesh and spirit, and without these we have nothing. Those who still say that Christ is a sacrifice blaspheme the blessing of Christ and curse Christ anew each day. For if Christ hadn’t borne all our curses on the tree and suffered sufficiently, then it could be accepted that the priests offer Christ every day for the curses of the world. For we must have redemption from our curse through the blessed one who was cursed, although innocent. For Christ was cursed for us so that we would all obtain true blessing in him [Gal. 3:13–14]. Now if it is right that the priests nail Christ to the cross daily out of their own will and intention so that Christ redeems us from our curse every day by being cursed anew, then it is also right that they curse Christ anew each day as he was cursed when he hung on the tree, and it can’t be otherwise. And on the other hand, it would be false and wrong that Christ was once and for all most horribly cursed, 4

A play on the word Geistliche, which can mean either spiritual or clergy.

107

108

Chapter 5 and cursed in such a horrid and high way that he paid for the cursing of all people at one time. And so it follows that the mass-holders curse Christ anew and every day because it is completely impossible and incomprehensible that Christ must be sacrificed daily without being cursed, or that Christ suffered the curse of all created beings through the curse he bore and still daily bears and pays for our curse anew and doesn’t become a daily curse. [F2v] For Christ must become that which he takes from us, today as in the past. Thus Christ must today become a sin, a folly, a contempt, a desertion, a cursing, and all things that Christ became for us on the cross. From this it should be well noted that it is the same thing to offer Christ daily and to curse Christ daily, and it cannot be otherwise. Thus it is proven that those who curse and damn Christ every day are those who sacrifice Christ every day in the mass or say that the Lord’s bread and wine is a mass or sacrifice, which is even more anti-Christian, as I’ve said above. From this everyone can understand what a horrible owl the mass is, which flees the light and hunts the birds of the heavens (which praise God) during the night and diligently seeks to seize what tries to escape it, which hates the light that is Christ. See to your wonder how it sparkles in the light and circles one eye over the other. Beware lest it also eat you up. Now I will also briefly show how those who say that Christ is a daily sacrifice or that Christ’s bread and wine is a mass or sacrifice (which is more unchristian) destroy Christ’s blessing. God promised to Abraham a seed in whom all Gentiles would be blessed and become a blessing [Gen. 22:17–18]. The same seed is Christ, in whom all people obtain their blessing, and through him all people, both the uncircumcised and the circumcised, are sanctified [F3r] and made blessed. God promised this same seed with such fatherly favor that Christ, God and man, should bless all men, yes, all citizens of God, angels and men, through his death, and should wash and cleanse through his shed blood. And the obedience of Christ would establish and obtain all of this at one time for us, namely, as soon as Christ proved his love and his obedience with his highest work or fruit, which Christ then proved on the cross when he gave his soul. Moses wrote long ago about the obedience that he imposed on and wanted to have from God’s people. For all blessings or benedictions signify and point to obedience and are promised for obedience, which all can learn who understand Moses, Deuteronomy 28 [:1–35]. Christ has demonstrated this obedience in the highest way when he died on the cross, as he also proved the highest work of his love by giving up his soul for us. Who is now so brazen and bold that he can say that Christ blesses us in the mass or with a daily sacrifice? He must also say against Christ that Christ’s love and obedience was not of the highest and most fitting when he surrendered his soul or his spirit to the Father through his death for us, and that Christ didn’t carry out

On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ his obedience in the greatest way to the death. All of this opposes Christ’s teaching and is stubbornly against the figure of Abraham and his son Isaac, also against what Moses wrote about Christ. And it rips out all of God’s seedlings [F3v] and scatters what Christ has gathered. The giant warriors do this, who want to storm and destroy heaven.5 For this is nothing other than to rebuke the Father for his promise and hold Christ’s benediction as nothing. For it is clear that only Christ’s obedience in death and the shedding of blood have made us blessed and righteous. Christ was most highly known to God the Father in his passion, and showed to his father the highest obedience and the most noble work or the very best fruit of love and mercy to his brethren. All that Christ did or suffered earlier in his life, in his teaching, and in his miracles, all this looked to the highest obedience and fitting love of Christ and had its end in the same. I must confess this long-established statement: if Christ had been born and not died, then his birth would not have been sufficient for reconciliation with the Father. In life we must listen to Christ, in death and through Christ’s shed blood we have reconciliation, etc. I know of no higher work of obedience nor a better fruit of Christ’s love through which we can recognize Christ’s obedience and love than the obedience and love of Christ on the cross, unless Christ’s teaching was insufficient. Thus Christ blessed or gave a benediction to all his brethren through his most virtuous obedience on the cross, through no one before or anyone afterwards. Thus they must openly confess (who daily sacrifice Christ) that Christ either uses a higher work of his obedience in the daily mass than [F4r] he did on the wood of the cross, which even the devil doesn’t dare say, or they must say that Christ did not suffer so much and was not so obedient that he obtained for us sufficient blessing, or that we aren’t blessed through his blessing. But this is an increase of heresy and a blasphemy against God. Thus the mass is a devilish confession that the sacrifice Christ accomplished is insufficient, that his love was too little and his obedience too weak. And in sum, that the whole Christ in his flesh, blood, and spirit on the cross was too little to give us redemption so that we would be blessed through him. But this is to despise Christ just as the Jews and heathens despised and mocked Christ on the cross, whom we Christians regard as dogs and flee as harmful devastators of the Christian faith. What they do before God with their mouths and lips, they corrupt with their hearts. And although they are better before Christ with their lips than the Jews, they are the same as the Jews in their hearts; before Christ and God they are so wickedly evil and abominably against Christ as the Jews and heathens were against Christ on the cross. Thus it is time that they recognize themselves and flee like dogs that attack the truth. May God help them to this. Amen.

5

Karlstadt’s language suggests that he is conflating Genesis 6:4 and Matthew 11:12.

109

6

Against the Old and New Papistic Masses (October 1524) Karlstadt’s short pamphlet Wider die alte vnd newe Papistische Messen was concerned with issues of liturgical reform rather than the more controversial question of Christ’s bodily presence in the mass. It proved to be the most frequently reprinted of Karlstadt’s eucharistic pamphlets. In addition to the first edition printed by Thomas Wolff in Basel in October 1524 (VD16, B6261; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 131), there are two more imprints from 1524, one printed in Colmar (VD16, B6262; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 132) and the other in Strasbourg (VD16, B6186; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 133), with the variant title Ejn schone kurcze vnd Christliche vnterrichtung der rechten widder die alte vnnd neüwe papistische meß. There were two more imprints in 1525, the first printed in Augsburg (VD16, B6175; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 134), with the title, Ain nutzliche vnd auß hayliger schrifft gegrünte vnderweisung, wider der alten vnd neuwen Papistischen Messzen müsszbrauch, and the second in Ulm (VD16, B6263; not in “Verzeichnis”). I have used the Basel imprint for my translation (Köhler, Flugschriften, 95, no. 256).

[A1v]

110

D

ear Brother N., you have asked me to write something about the German mass, and especially about the new inventions and additions, etc. I am willing to serve you not only in this matter but in others as well. Thus I will briefly respond to your articles, beginning with the first. It is not only right but necessary that in our German lands we read, preach, and do the other things that Christ commanded chiefly in the German language. All bystanders should be edified by this and know whether one is proclaiming God’s word to them or not, as you see in 1 Corinthians 14[:5]. Paul took this reasoning from Moses, who told how some read the benediction over God’s servants and some [read] God’s curses against the devil’s members, and all the people were to say “amen,” as you can learn from Deuteronomy 27[:15–26] and other passages in Moses. But the people can’t say “amen” to the statements of those leading worship if they hear the speaker using an unknown language. Thus it is necessary that one explain everything in the church to the people in their own language. Each one

Against the Old and New Papistic Masses should lay aside his prayers and all else in the church and simply listen to what is being proclaimed,1 and he should listen to the speaker or preacher as if he were going to judge or pass sentence on him. Thus Paul says that one or two should speak and the others interpret, 1 Corinthians 14[:27]. Second, watch out that some do not confirm the old errors using the German language and strengthen the poor simple people in their error. For they will soon say, “Now I’ve rightly heard the mass,” if the lesson has been read to them in German. This is what those do who call the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice with their words or works and deeds. [A2r] Our poor neighboring priests are reformed in this way: they read to the simple people the Epistles and Gospels in German, which in itself is blameless, but they say at the same time and along with it that Christ is a sacrifice in the holy mass. But you as a Christian can judge what kind of abominable sin this statement is. For my part, I have revealed this in a pamphlet On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ, and I hope you will not allow your pastor to bring forth our savior Jesus Christ as an executioner would treat an evildoer, for his misdeeds will also be credited to you for allowing this. Some say, write, and preach that Christ isn’t a sacrifice, but they still use the word mass and call the Lord’s Supper a mass. This is the same as if I were to say publicly, “N. is a pious man, he doesn’t steal from others,” but I still called him a thief or robber. The reason is that the word mass is not German or Latin but Hebrew, and in good German it means “a voluntary offering.”2 Although it is allowed for Christians to call Christ in the sacrament—or the sacrament in which Christ is supposed to be—a mass, I want you to know that this so much as says that Christ didn’t suffer sufficiently once and for all, that Christ is still mortal, that he must be tortured for our sins in the mass. Also, that Christ’s sacrifice is so small that a poor, stinking, impure, knavish priest can offer him, although no one can make this sacrifice but Christ himself, the highest and purest priest. Look at the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapters 4[:14–16], 5[:1–6], 8[:1–7], 9[:11–14], and 10[:11–14], and read it diligently and meditatively, and you will learn what an abominable sacrilege it is if a sinful man claims to sacrifice Christ. It is much worse to say that Christ is a sacrifice when a priest holds mass than to say that Christ’s passion was insufficient, because from such a statement or saying [A2v] it follows that Christ’s sacrifice was and still is impure, guilty, sinful, blemished, insufficient, unreasoning, self-willed, and disobedient, as the lousy and 1

In the late medieval church, the laity were encouraged to recite prayers during the mass, since they could not understand what was being said; Wieck, “Book of Hours,” esp. 502–3. Several of the early evangelical pamphlets on the mass reflect this practice by including prayers to be said at specific points in the mass; Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 44–47. 2 The (false) etymology of the Latin missa from the Hebrew word for a voluntary sacrifice came from Reuchlin’s Hebrew grammar. Karlstadt had already expressed his dislike of the term because of its etymology in 1521; Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 18–19.

111

112

Chapter 6 wicked priest is who claims to sacrifice Christ’s body and blood. If the above-mentioned points are rightly considered, all kinds of abominations are seen to follow from them and it becomes clear that the word mass is now applied to Christ against Christ’s passion, sacrifice, and glory. In this Dr. Martin3 is completely wrong, and the poor bishop of Zwickau4 has in this case a papist holiness because he calls the Lord’s Supper a mass. They confirm their falling away with their deeds and practices and confess that Christ is a sacrifice in the mass, although they squeak out something else with their pens, and they do it this way: they elevate the host as well as the cup, and show by this elevation that the one whom they elevate is still a sacrifice and that their bread and wine is a sacrifice, for this practice is based on the old law and has its origin and basis there. In the old law God commanded that the Jews had to bring their sheaves of grain and other things to their priests, and the priests raised them up and then lowered them, and through this raising and lowering they offered such things to God, as you read in Leviticus 8[:27–29], 9[:21], 10[:14–15], 14[:21–24], 23[:12–20], and Numbers 21 [8:11–21]. This elevation or offering is called in Hebrew thruma.5 In the same way the priests raise up and lower the sacrament in the mass, and without vocation they put themselves forward as lazy priests of the angelic offering that Christ alone can offer and so step into the place of the executioners, persecutors, and murderers of Christ. There was another type of elevation of what was offered that was called thnupha in Hebrew, in which he waved or raised the offering to the right and left, in front and behind himself,6 as they now move the sacrament around on the day of Corpus Christi, and so they again show that Christ [A3r] is a sacrifice and that the stinking, faithless priests can sacrifice to God and that the newly offered Christ can forgive sins. This [practice] is now beginning to decline and more so than the mass. But both are against God’s honor and a confession of their unbelief, for they value Christ less than the unbelieving Turks esteem him. In the first elevation all Wittenberg errs, but they say that they don’t mean it this way and they boast that they are so highly freed from the law that they can twist God’s word and interpret it in another way than how God interpreted his word and practices. How Christian that is, you must decide. You know that Christ 3

Martin Luther. Nicolaus Hausmann, the Zwickau pastor for whom Luther wrote his reform of the Latin mass, the Formula Missae et Communionis. 5 “What is raised up or offered,” what Karlstadt elsewhere calls a heave offering, e.g. Abuse, b4v (p. 213 below). As with the etymology of “missa,” Karlstadt’s association of these offerings with the elevation of the consecrated host strengthened his opposition to the mass. 6 Wave offerings, so called because portions of the sacrificed animal were raised or waved in front of the altar, were one form of peace offering; Lev. 7:28–36. They were first prescribed for the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood; Exod. 29:22–28. 4

Against the Old and New Papistic Masses never did any of this, that he also never broke the law but fulfilled it, and that we should judge the Wittenbergers according to God’s law and may call them erring if they twist the work of the law or act wrongly. If they were to allow circumcision, wouldn’t we rightly call them circumcised Jews even if they snort and seethe about it? And so I say that if they can elevate the sacrament, then we can say or write that they are offering Christ because God appropriated and established elevation for offerings. If they protest that they don’t call Christ a sacrifice but they still offer him through their elevation or waving about, you know what their protestation means, which occurs as an act against the substance. God has blinded them in their willfulness and allowed them to fall into many horrible errors. Act as a knightly Christian and let that go which has the color of an antiChristian practice. Fear God and not men. The time for our lives is short and eternity approaches. You must remain eternally either in God’s wrath and punishment or in his grace and peace. Now some have come up with a new practice: they turn [A3v] towards the people and read the words that Christ spoke, etc., and in the other hand they hold the sacrament and say, “Take, eat,” etc., and elevate it. This is as devilish and evil as the old custom because their elevation agrees entirely with the old elevation. It is as horrible as the old [custom] and has all the faults that the old has. It is more of a mockery because they say to the people, “Take, eat,” and show them the bread, and when they have said, “Take this bread” and offered it to them, then they immediately turn around as if they were worried that someone would take what is offered and they lay the bread aside. It belongs to one of those things they promise but don’t do. If we held Christ’s ordinance plainly and considered Christ as wise and clever enough to establish and institute his Supper in the very best way, then we wouldn’t fall into so many kinds of errors. Then the Lord’s bread would have remained food and his cup a drink that we would all use rightly and well in his remembrance, as the apostles and their brethren used it. To whom did Christ command that he should elevate his Supper in the air and show it to the people? But if Christ didn’t command it, how are we so bold that we criticize such a great prince and lord in his ordinance? Could they endure such sin against their laws? And they have neither redeemed us nor reconciled us to God. I don’t need to teach you how the Gospel speaks of the use of the Lord’s bread and cup, for the text is easy, clear, and bright enough in itself, Matthew 26[:26–28], Mark 14[:22–24], Luke 22[:19–20]; Paul, 1 Corinthians 11[:23–25], the other apostles in the histories, Acts 2[:46], 20[:11], 27[:35]. A supper means a food, but one puts food in the mouth. If it is a food or drink that one eats or drinks in remembrance of someone, then you must keep that same remembrance. Now Christ [A4r] gave us his bread and cup to eat so that we would think of him as one who gave his soul for us, who placed himself in the hands of the executioners and devils who had bound us and led us to death, as you have

113

114

Chapter 6 heard and well know. In the same way and in no other, we must take and eat the bread and cup of the Lord Christ. Anyone who wants to do it better acts as if he wants to teach and instruct Christ and as if he scorns Christ’s wisdom, as you can understand. See, if you had made an ordinance and a poor peasant came along and wanted to improve your ordinance, would you endure this without resentment? Wouldn’t you think that the peasant considers himself much wiser than you? But isn’t it true what Paul says, Romans 8[:7], that the wisdom of the flesh is enmity with God and the death of men? Truly, truly, all our reason, understanding, and wisdom in divine things are our death, for they are opposed to God and can’t be subject to God. Our wisdom repudiates God’s wisdom and makes God into a fool in all of those things that our wisdom devises when it wants to serve God better than God instituted, as you have seen from the above-mentioned examples. Yes, although the wise man said, “You should not depend on or trust your own wisdom,” Proverbs [3:5], and Paul, “You should not consider yourselves wise,” Romans 12[:3]. You know what Peter heard from Christ when he wanted to make something better than what Christ said, Matthew 16[:23]. Didn’t Christ say, “you Satan,” only because he was wise according to his flesh and blood? But reason wouldn’t have been able to punish Peter. Oh how constant and true is the statement, Isaiah 55[:8], “My thoughts are not like yours and my ways are not like your ways.” For God’s ways are constant, but our ways are a slippery path in the [A4v] darkness, Jeremiah 23[:12]. He who builds on his own thoughts and ways will be as firm as one who goes up a slippery, wet, and icy mountain in the dark. Thus God has overthrown all that we or others have devised. Nothing is fitting before him but what is his. Everything else must be uprooted, in accordance with what Christ said, “Every plant that my heavenly father has not planted must be uprooted,” Matthew 15[:13]. And he said the same thing against human inventions or teachings when he said, “Behold, the people want to honor me with human teachings, but their heart is far from me” [Mark 7:6–7]. It is truly far away, for it despises divine wisdom, although it appears good and divine. God long ago recognized our carelessness and destroyed it through his prohibitions when he said to the Jews, “When you enter into the land of the Gentiles and see their lovely and harsh worship with which they serve their gods, you should not do as they do,” Deuteronomy 12[:29–31]. That is to say, “You should not be moved to worship me in any other way than I have commanded by either the appearance or the harshness of divine worship or anything else.” The Gentiles had a more harsh worship than the Jews did, for they sacrificed their children to worship their gods. But the Jews were not to do this, Deuteronomy 18[:10–12]. Thus one must not look at either the holiness or the harshness or at anything other than God’s ordinance. For this reason it is truly devilish, as you write and say, that men can be so stubborn and stupid that they break the ordinance of our Lord Jesus Christ and

Against the Old and New Papistic Masses want to establish his worship better than Christ ordained for them. They have all broken their obligation to Christ. Let the mass fall away completely, I advise you, but if you want to have the Lord’s Supper, hold it according to the ordinance of Christ, which is clear and bright and doesn’t need my explanation. If you aren’t content, write me about the faults you find, for I desire to serve you. 1524.

115

7

Whether One Can Prove from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament with Body, Blood, and Soul (October 1524) Ob man mit heyliger schrifft erweysen müge / das Christus mit leyb / bluot vnd sele im Sacrament sey was the first pamphlet in which Karlstadt presented his arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence in the sacrament. It was printed by Thomas Wolff in Basel (VD16, B6178; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 124) in October 1524 and was reprinted once the following year by Johann Prüss in Strasbourg (VD16, B6179; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 125); there is no modern edition. I have used the Basel imprint (Köhler, Flugschriften, 48, no. 133) for my translation.

[A2r]

116

I

n this answer to the above question, I specify first of all that I don’t want to set forth or reveal my mind and understanding, but only to show what our opponents might answer if we wanted to prove with the following discussion that Christ is in the sacrament with his body, blood, and soul. Common speech calls the Lord’s Supper, or the Lord’s bread and drink, a sacrament, although this is most uncommon and unfounded in scripture. Our priests claim that some of Paul’s statements, which I will set forth in order, lead one to conclude that Christ is in the sacrament. First, Paul says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? And the bread that we break, is it not a fellowship of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10[:16–17]). They say, “See, the cup of blessing is a special cup, better and more holy than any other, and it is not called a cup of blessing in vain. It is called a cup of blessing because we bless it, as Paul proclaims in the above statement. But what does it mean to bless? Doesn’t it mean to consecrate? Doesn’t it mean to bring the blood of Christ into the wine? Doesn’t the wine become the blood of the Lord when we priests read the word of blessing? The words of Christ, which bear and make all things in the power of his word (Heb. 1[:1–2]), [A2v] are powerful. He speaks and it comes into being (Gen. 1[:3]). His word is powerful and he creates through his word what he wills, as God at the beginning only said, ‘Let there be heaven and earth,’ and they immediately came into being. Christ is

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament God and because of his divinity he can make all things and create something out of nothing. How much more can he bring his blood into the form of wine? And through his powerful word, all of us can transform the blood in the cup. Thus the cup is a cup of blessing, which we can well say through Christ’s word. “Paul also says that the cup that we bless is a fellowship of Christ’s blood, but this fellowship cannot exist if I do not unite the cup and the blood with each other, and the one must become the other or must become one thing with the other. But because Christ doesn’t himself speak or work in the sacrament, then it must be true that we can and should convert his blood in the cup through the word he once spoke and unite it with the form of wine. “In the same way that I have spoken of the cup and wine, so I also speak of the bread and say that the Lord’s bread that we bless becomes the Lord’s body through our benediction, or it comes under the form of bread in its nature, as it was born from his mother’s womb and hung on the cross. Hear what Paul says to show this is true: ‘The bread that we break, is it not a fellowship of Christ?’ [1 Cor. 10:16]. If it is a fellowship, then it has become one thing with the bread or under the form of bread, bodily, naturally and substantially.” [A3r] Answer Our opponents may quickly say to the above-described argument, “The cup of blessing is a special cup,” etc. This is true, for each one who wants to drink from it should consider that the Lord shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins and that the blood of Christ, rightly understood, washes all consciences from sin through the faith, knowledge, and recognition of the crucified Christ (1 Peter 1[:18]). For anyone who drinks from the Lord’s cup and doesn’t think about the Lord or doesn’t discern the Lord’s blood is guilty of judgment and of Christ’s blood. Anyone who wants to drink should examine and experience within his ground1 to see whether he has an ardent remembrance of Christ’s blood, namely, such that he resolves and says to himself, “See, for the sake of my sins I should have allowed my blood to be shed through grave wounds, but my most dear friend, who is also my Lord and God, who gives me body, soul, honor, and goods, he came down, without any obligation or on the basis of my merit, and he surrendered himself in my prison and to the executioners who should have spilled my blood for the sake of my sins. I know and consider this, and I will drink from his cup in remembrance of him.” So one should drink from the Lord’s cup and clearly note: First, the great, dear love of Christ. Second, his great innocence.

1

In German mysticism, the ground of the soul was the inward part of the person where mystical union with God is possible. Karlstadt used the term ground more generally to mean the heart or affective faculties; Sider, Karlstadt, 211–12, 230–34.

117

118

Chapter 7 Third, his great wisdom through which he took upon himself my guilt and his suffering. Fourth, the great power through which he has body and life mightily in his power. Fifth, the most high will of his father, [A3v] which he who is the head of all righteousness wanted to carry out. Sixth, the fitting and strict obedience in which he shed his blood humbly and without any complaint. I will write about these articles fully and in an orderly way. If our created spirit and soul understands these and other articles well and rightly, as it is obligated to do, it is absolutely impossible that it doesn’t value the blood of Christ highly and very dearly, or that it intentionally does or omits anything that dishonors the shed blood of Christ. It is also impossible that it doesn’t raise the blood of Christ over all the blood of oxen, rams, doves, and lambs, or any other animal in the Old Testament whose blood had to be shed for sin although they were innocent. The knowledge and remembrance of Christ’s shed blood naturally brings with it the surrender of our bodies and washing away of sin and brings forth in our hearts a great glow and warmth towards the blood or death of Christ, just as water brings forth dampness. Now anyone who understands and considers the Lord’s blood—who discerns and values it well and highly (1 Cor. 11 [:29])—will not practice any immorality or, out of his own laziness or neglect, allow anything that isn’t fitting for such innocent, pure, and salutary blood. He will not only abstain from all gluttony and drunkenness but will flee all kinds of sin. Thus the cup of the Lord is rightly a cup of blessing and of sobriety (1 Cor. 10[:16]), and no evil speaker or drunken man can use it without harm. It is better and more holy in that it reminds us of the Lord’s blood or is an external exercise of remembrance, that we shouldn’t drink from the cup unless we have well discerned his blood, that is, fundamentally understand and can determine [A4r] and state a right and fitting judgment or decision. Christ shed his blood with this mind and will, and for such reason, for our good and to honor God. Thus Paul says, “You should proclaim the Lord’s death” [1 Cor. 11:26], and to the Hebrews, “If the blood of animals did this, how much more the blood of Christ?” [Heb. 9:13–14]. But it is still unproven that the Lord’s cup should be called a cup of blessing because you have blessed it, etc., although it is true that Paul says, “The cup that we bless,” etc. For Paul doesn’t say with these words that through these words the Lord’s cup becomes better than other things that we also bless, such as the food and drink in our homes. And why, if it is true that all drinks are sanctified through the word of God and prayer when one drinks them with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4[:3])—as it is true—must it also be true that with thanksgiving and prayer and through the word of God, the blood of Christ must be transformed in all the

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament pitchers and mugs over which one reads the St. John’s blessing or the Benedicite or any other prayer?2 The apostle calls any meal a Eucharist, that is, he desires that one should eat every food and drink with eucharistien, that is, with thanksgiving [1 Tim. 4:3]. Accordingly, they won’t talk about the many different Greek words, because Paul speaks of common food or drink that we should receive with such thanksgiving, as Christ gave thanks over his bread and cup. How does it help you now, that you say the cup of Christ is a cup of thanksgiving or a Eucharist? Mustn’t you also allow that each drinking vessel is a cup of blessing if we drink the drink from it with thanksgiving? The same applies to the bread of the Lord, which we speak well of or bless and pronounce a blessing. If it were supposed to become more through this blessing than bread, [A4v] then this would have occurred when the apostles and others noted the increase and multiplication of the five or seven barley loaves, for Christ spoke a blessing over them as well [John 6:11; Matt. 15:36]. But because no one has come who can say that the bread became more than bread or greater than it was before and wine more than wine through Christ’s thanksgiving, and especially because we have no basis in scripture (which the papists boast for themselves, and we show honor), we won’t believe that Paul or another apostle could through their blessing make the Lord’s bread or wine better, more, or different from other food that we also bless through the word, which food remains as it was before. Otherwise it must surely follow that Christ brought his flesh or blood into all food and drink that he ever ate with anyone because Christ commonly gave thanks beforehand. And Christ must have fit himself into many other men’s bodies, for he helped them after having given thanks. But because it is a mockery to hear that Christ brought himself into so many different created things, it is also a great mockery to argue that Christ and Paul spoke their thanks or pronounced a benediction over the sacrament, or that the priests speak their thanks over the Lord’s bread and cup and so Christ’s body is in the bread and his blood is substantially in the sacrament, etc. Accordingly, you can see what our enemies are able to say to the arguments of the poor papists when they want to prove that Christ brought his natural body and natural blood into the sacrament and that the priests still today have the power to bring him into the sacrament, for this reason and because Christ gave thanks and Paul called the cup a cup of blessing (which the apostles blessed). But the simple people ask, “What else does to bless mean [B1r] than to consecrate?” Answer: the word consecrate would be allowed with this understanding, that to bless means to consecrate, that is, to sanctify for God or Christ the Lord, but this might well happen and it would be good if Christians sanctified the Lord’s bread and the cup of the Lord; that is, if they ate the Lord’s Supper in such a way as was appropriate and worthy of the honor of the Lord. That means that they 2

St. John’s blessing originated in the twelfth century as a drink given at departure, especially of a group of soldiers; by the later Middle Ages, the cup was also drunk for other ceremonial occasions.

119

120

Chapter 7 would abstain at times and didn’t receive it every day like a common meal, didn’t seek to fill their bellies with it as the Corinthians did, who came together for the Lord’s Supper just as when they otherwise gathered to eat a common meal, for the pleasure of their bodies, to the delight of their bodies, in pleasure and satiety [1 Cor. 11:20–21]. But this isn’t to sanctify, it is to desecrate, for they lived against the Lord’s orderly manner of eating the Lord’s bread and cup. Similarly, in the Old Testament God established his own way to receive his bread or food and drink, and those who well observed the Lord’s ordering sanctified themselves and the Lord’s food, but those who didn’t rightly prepare themselves according to the Lord’s ordinance received it unworthily and desecrated themselves and the Lord’s laws and food. I will grant here that you call the Lord’s Supper a sanctified meal and I wish to God that we all together had turned our highest diligence to the institution or manner of Christ, who told us for what reason we should receive his Supper, what we should look to, and what should lie on our hearts, for then the priests wouldn’t have made a sacrifice or mass from the Lord’s Supper, much less sold it for money or property, and without doubt the dishonest stewardship and papist pomp, foolish fear, false trust, and fictitious faith would not have developed. But because we, and especially the so-called religious people,3 [B1v] have desecrated the sacred Supper, as they say, and not received and honored it in the way that Christ portrayed, we have made ourselves impure and desecrated and perverted all of Christ’s ordinance. See from this what it means to sanctify and in what measure we should be worthy when we give thanks and sanctify. But I fear, yes indeed I know, that the thanksgiving, consecration, and sanctifying of the priests stick only to the front of their lips, but their heart is far away and against their own mouths [Mark 7:6] and against God, and is nothing more than an ape’s game and a mockery before God. It has been said above that to consecrate or sanctify means the same as to bring the Lord’s body into the bread and his blood into his cup. This can’t be proven and it has no basis either in the law of Moses or in the prophets, or in the evangelists’ or apostles’ laws. It would also be more harmful to, and not consonant with, the right gospel and true faith in Christ, as I will show in another pamphlet, if God allows, in which I will set forth the reasons why Christ is of no use to us in the sacrament and that he is not in it as they say, etc.4 Now I will stick to my path and say that the above-mentioned grounds neither compel nor persuade [one to believe] that Christ is bodily in the sacrament. The simple can be as well consoled with dreams and their own brains. It is also said that Christ’s word is powerful and mighty and it isn’t by their own authority but by the authority of Christ’s word (which is powerful, as Paul says) that the priests bring and transform Christ’s body and blood in the sacra3 4

A play on the word Geistliche, which can mean either spiritual or clergy. This pamphlet was never written, for none of Karlstadt’s later pamphlets address this issue.

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament ment. I answer by saying, if the priests wanted to help themselves with Christ’s word and to perform their task through Christ’s word, then I ask where Christ gave them this authority or command, that through the proclamation of his word or of his [B2r] name his body is transformed into bread and his blood into the cup. They must indeed show from scripture [that they have] this authority just as any other kind of authority. Namely, they can show Christ’s words that he gave them the power to preach God’s word, proclaim the kingdom of God, baptize, perform miracles like healing the sick, making the lame walk, and the blind see, raising the dead, forgiving the sins of those who sinned against them, expelling demons, treading on snakes and scorpions, overcoming all the power of the devil, teaching the people to obey all the things that Christ commanded (Luke 9[:1–2], Matt. 10[:1] and 28[:18–20], Mark 16[:17–18], Acts 4[:29–30]). These and similar works Christ gave to his followers (Luke 10[:1], Matt. 28[:18]), although the priests claim this belongs especially to them. But it is true that neither they nor anyone else can boast of a new or different power than those listed. Those who boast about and want to use such power must also know that it was given to them by God. Accordingly, I want to see where this power is prescribed and ask that they show me the scripture where Christ gave them the power to convert5 his body and blood into the bread and cup. Let them search through the entire Bible, eating and chewing, but they won’t be able to show me. Therefore they boast of God’s power like knaves, as is the manner of the papists and the custom of sophists. They may say, “We read the words of Christ as Paul read them to the Corinthians, saying, ‘In the night when the Lord was betrayed, he took the bread and gave thanks,’ etc. (1 Cor. 11[:23ff.]), and so we’ll also bring forth Christ’s words and say, ‘In the night before the Lord suffered and died,’ etc. and bring the body and blood into the sacrament through Christ’s word that we [B2v] read and not through our word. So we transform through the words with which Christ transformed himself into the sacrament.” 6 Now listen well. You can’t prove your reasoning, namely, that Christ brought himself into the bread: this is the first. Second, even if Christ brought himself into the bread with such words, I don’t yet know that you can do so through his words. But I know this, that Christ didn’t command you, and even if you were commanded, it is still unsure that you could transform as Christ did. For the apostles fell so far short that they couldn’t expel the demon of dumbness, even though Christ gave them the power to expel demons and the fault and failure lay in their lack of faith (Mark 9[:17–23]). But because it’s clear that the majority of priests don’t have a spark of faith, who wants to believe that they can bring Christ 5

Verwandeln, also used for the more technical term transubstantiate. In Catholic sacramental theology, the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” were the form that together with the matter of the elements (bread and wine) comprised the sacrament. The conversion of the elements occurred when the words of consecration were spoken by the priest; Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 8, cap. 4 (PL 192:856).

6

121

122

Chapter 7 into the sacrament? Who may commend himself to their unbelief and think that through Christ’s word they are able to do the same as Christ did? Even if we could see their power to bring Christ into the bread, their anti-Christian life and devilish lack of faith would lead us to the point that we couldn’t believe that they have the least bit of power in essence. For they have concocted [the claim] that they should baptize or consecrate standing in the person of the church; this is a bold-faced lie. It is impossible that an unbeliever can stand in the person or place of the church, just as little as the devil can. As Paul says, “What fellowship do the children of Belial have with Christ? How can the darkness represent the person and stand in the stead of the light?” (1 Cor. 10[:21]). If they stand there, then they stand in appearance only and they have no foundation. Just as they have no foundation to support [B3r] the appearance, so no work follows from their fiction. Now it is nevertheless higher in that case than in the case where one expels demons, and it would be more praiseworthy and divine if someone could bring Christ into the bread than if he could expel demons. It may also be that prophecy, expelling demons, and similar works are works of common power and of members who aren’t subordinate to the head, who are still unredeemed, impure, and punishable before God. But it is now much greater to bring Christ into the sacrament, since Christ destroyed the power of all devils and unbelievers and is no longer and never will be subject to them. Whoever can do this can also bring Christ into his belly, into his heart and soul, and save himself. For it is obvious that no unbeliever has more power over Christ to bring him into bread than he does to bring him into his heart. This should also be woven into [the argument]: that Christ gave all power to his apostles to do everything so that unbelievers would see and, out of amazement at what [the apostles] did, turn to God and accept him in whose name these things were done, as the miracles of the apostles and the conversion of the Jews and Gentiles showed. Christ taught this when he said, “He was born blind so that God’s glory would be revealed” [John 9:3]. And in sum, miracles testify to Christ and his father in heaven. Therefore they must be public. But when one speaks of the sacrament, everything is done in secret, when the priests boast that the body of Christ secretly comes into the bread. No one is improved in his soul through this, no one is amazed and moved to praise God. Instead, since Christ is supposedly brought secretly [B3v] into the bread, he isn’t in the sacrament either for his father’s honor or for the improvement of our souls. As has been mentioned, the priests boast about reading Christ’s words, saying, “If Christ brought himself into the sacrament with specific words, then we can read these same words and do what Christ did.” I know that they boast of this and claim it. For as Christ said to the girl, “Kumi thabita” 7 [Mark 5:41], and also spit 7

“Little girl, I say to you arise.” Karlstadt inverts the word order of the original Aramaic.

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament and made mud and opened the eyes of a blind man [John 9:6–7] and did similar things, so they imitate Christ and read Christ’s words over little babies and with such words want to drive out devils from those who are not possessed and open the stopped up ears and eyes of those who are neither deaf nor blind. If they were blind or deaf, they would publicly be put to shame, for no one has ever heard that our priests ever made anyone hear or see or raised anyone from the dead through Christ’s words that he used when he healed, even if they cried “Kumi thabita” for a thousand years. I [don’t] 8 know whether we can be blinder than we are, who with seeing eyes and in clear daylight allow and are convinced that we believe that the priests can make someone see, hear, be healed, and drive out devils through Christ’s word with which Christ made someone see or hear, healed, and drove out demons, since all the blind, deaf, sick, and possessed over whom they read Christ’s words remain blind, deaf, sick, and possessed. If they persist and make use of the words written in the Bible, and through the powerful words of Christ bring Christ into the sacrament, then let them do so, let them read these words: “In the beginning God created heaven [B4r] and earth” (Genesis 1[:1]). And these: “God spoke, let there be earth, and it was” [Gen. 1:9]. And see whether through the power of such powerful and holy words they can create heaven and earth, water and fire, fish and animals. If they can prove their creation, then you can believe them further, but if they fail, then beware. You should respond to them with the word effeta, that is, be opened [Mark 7:34]. But isn’t it a mad, irrational, and foolish thing that they boast about their reading because there are so many thousand who have read the words concerning the resurrection of Lazarus, but we’ve found no one who raised Lazarus from the dead a second time. I think if they could do the former, then they should be able to do the latter or else nothing at all. Thus it is useless to the priests and an insult to say that they read Christ’s words and bring his body and his blood into bread and wine. Now step forth and say, “Christ made all things in the power of his word”; this is true, and place yourself in Christ’s stead and do all that he did through his word. You’ll fall short of the gate. Fellowship Further, they announce that the cup is a fellowship of Christ’s blood and that such fellowship can’t exist if the cup isn’t united with the Lord’s blood.9 This is already truly against the priests, for I’ve never heard anyone who could say that the cup becomes the fellowship of the Lord’s cup in this way. This is because it would 8

The negation is not in the text, but its omission was probably a printing error since the sense of the argument requires it. 9 Karlstadt translates the Greek word koinonia as Gemeinschaft, which can also be translated as communion, community, or association. English Bible translations use communion, participation, or sharing; the Vulgate has communicatio.

123

124

Chapter 7 follow that they drank plain wine, although from a cup that was blessed, for the cup isn’t the drink and vice versa; they are two things, cup [B4v] and wine. Now if the cup is fellowship with the blood of Christ, then it must follow that Christ is brought into their cup and not into the wine, and that Christ’s blood remains in the cup so long as the cup exists. But where they say, “Continens capitur pro contento,”10 [i.e.,] the cup signifies the wine in the cup, they make this up out of their brains and must nevertheless confess that they have left the clear words of Christ and understand one thing for another. A goldsmith would never grant what we allow them. But I’ll leave aside this statement and say this: fellowship means a society, and Paul wants to say that the cup of Christ serves the blood of Christ and that all those who drink from the Lord’s cup have their desires, senses, and mind set on the Lord’s blood. I’ll show this through the following words of Christ concerning the bread, as Paul says, “Isn’t the bread that we break a fellowship of the body of Christ? We many are one bread and one body, since we all partake of one bread” (1 Cor. 10[:16–17]). The word fellowship leads some astray, who also don’t know their own language very well. These should be pointed in the right direction. Thus you should know that for the word fellowship, one can write and use the word society and with this meaning: “The cup of blessing, is it not a society of Christ’s blood? The bread which we break, is it not a society of Christ’s body?” That is, all those who bless the cup and break the bread are associated in the blood and body of Christ. For Paul didn’t want us to conclude from this passage that soulless created things like bread and wine have any understanding of the blood and body of Christ. Therefore they also can’t have fellowship or society with the blood and body, for fellowship or society can’t exist without understanding [C1r] as little as the union of reasoning creatures with God can begin or persist without God’s knowledge. Thus the reason follows in the text, and Paul explains the basis of union or society, saying, “Isn’t the bread which we break a fellowship of the body of Christ? For we many are one bread and one body” (1 Cor. 10[:16–17]). See this: if you want to know to what extent the Lord’s bread is fellowship with the body of Christ, then you must know that we many are one bread and one body. Why one bread? Answer: because we all have a share in or partake of one bread. We eat one kind of bread and so we are one bread. Just as many goldsmiths have a society with those who deal with one material, so is the unity of the bread that we break and in the breaking we deal with one bread. This is the reason why we have a fellowship and a society with the body of Christ and are figuratively called one bread. Likewise all who bless our one cup and use it well are figuratively called one cup. The fellowship of the cup and bread of Christ is called a fellowship or society of the blood and body of Christ because the cup is used and taken in remembrance 10

“The container is understood as the content;” gloss of the medieval commentator Nicolaus de Lyra on 1 Corinthians 10:16; Nicolas of Lyra, Postilla super totam Bibliam, vol. 4, ee6v.

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament of Christ, who shed his blood for us. His body likewise [is taken] in remembrance of Christ, who gave his body for us, as Christ and Paul teach (1 Cor. 11[:24–25]). Accordingly, the remembrance and knowledge or understanding of Christ’s body and blood is the right basis and the foundational bond of fellowship of the bread and cup of Christ. We are one bread and one cup because we break one bread and drink from one cup in remembrance, knowledge, and confession of Christ, who gave his body to die and shed his blood [C1v] for the sake of our sins. And because our highest purpose should be set on the body and blood of Christ, so we become one body and one blood with Christ. It follows much more from this that the Lord’s body and blood aren’t in the sacrament, for no one may eat the Lord’s bread or partake of it in remembrance of the substance that the body of Christ has in the sacrament, but only in the substance that he had on the cross. Likewise no one may drink from the Lord’s cup in the remembrance that he has of the blood of Christ in the cup, but he must look to the cross because the blood wasn’t shed in the sacrament as it was on the cross. Nor is there an executioner in the cup who shed the Lord’s blood as there was before the cross. Thus we should rightly have our fellowship in the bread, or else they would be blind and false. You can also read about the society or fellowship in the histories: “They remained in the apostles’ teaching and in fellowship or society and in the breaking of bread,” etc. (Acts 2[:42]). The apostles preached the crucified Christ, the surrendered body and the shed blood of Christ, and many accepted this teaching and remained in it. Those who remained in it had fellowship or society in the apostles’ teaching and consequently in breaking the bread and drinking the cup. The teaching went forth and from it you should take the basis of Christian fellowship or society, just as in all guilds knowledge is the foundation of common society. So also the entire great people of God have or should have its society and fellowship in the one known God (Deut. 4[:10–13]). This is the first [point]. The second rests on this, that all the apostles write simply about the body given and the blood shed, and none of them mixes the bread and cup further in with the passion of Christ [C2r] except as a bread of remembrance, etc. The third, if it had to be that the bread was the body or the body of Christ was in it so that the bread of the Lord could be a fellowship of the body of Christ, then it would follow that the sacrifice of the altar must be the altar, for Paul introduces this as a similitude (1 Cor. 11[10:18]). The fourth, it should be noted that just as those who eat sacrifices have through their sacrifices a society with the altar, so we also have through the bread a fellowship with the bread and through the cup a society with the blood of Christ. If we act rightly with it, then we must find ourselves conformed to his body and blood and be completely dependent on Christ externally and internally, in spirit and in our body and blood, and forsake all that is against Christ. Thus Paul says, “You can’t drink from the Lord’s cup and from the cup of the devil. You can’t participate in the

125

126

Chapter 7 Lord’s table and also in the table of devils” [1 Cor. 10:21]; and what is unworthy of the Lord can’t be used at all with the Lord’s bread or cup. That means righteously and well and rightly, for one can eat of the Lord’s bread unrighteously, evilly, and wrongly and also partake of the devil’s food. Thus I have shown what one can answer to these words of Paul, 1 Corinthians 10[:16], as the first argument. The Second Argument The second argument is this: The Lord says, “This cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22[:20]). “The cup is the new testament,” Christ says, and his words are simple and clear words and so easy that we don’t need to explain them, except so you know what the new testament is. [C2v] The new testament is called new because there was previously an old one. A testament is a last will that is confirmed with a death. All that someone wants before death and testifies to externally is a testament, that is, a testimony of the inner will and mind. But it isn’t a completed testament, that is, it isn’t the final or last testimony of the will or mind of a person before he dies unless the man perseveres until death and remains of the same will. Accordingly, the bodily death of the testator who testified to his will externally is a part of a testament. Also, we are accustomed to write the testament, that is, the external testimony, in a booklet, and this booklet is commonly called a testament. But here we don’t find a writing of Christ that Christ gave to his disciples, nor do we find any command where Christ commanded that his testament be written down. Thus Christ’s testament is an oral testimony of Christ’s will. One might further ask, “What was the will of Christ?” Answer: Christ’s will is testified in this, that he said, “Father, if it is possible that this cup goes away from me, then let it go by, but not my will but thine be done” [Matt. 26:29]. From this I understand that Christ wanted to shed his blood for us and redeem us and this was his last will or testament. Christ said, “This cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Thus the last will of Christ was that his blood should be shed for us. Through this it is said that Christ’s blood is the new testament and consequently that it is the cup or in the cup. What could be clearer than [C3r] what I want to assert, namely that the natural, shed blood is in the cup? But in order to make this easier and more persuasive and to show it more clearly, I want to put the old and new testaments together and show from them that the Lord’s blood must be in the cup if the cup is rightly called the new testament. As Moses explained God’s word, commands, and laws to his people, he wrote all the words in a book, which is called the book of the covenant or testament, and then he read the book to the people and all the people said, “All that God has spoken, that we will do.” Then he took the blood, sprinkled the people with it, and said, “See, this is the blood of the covenant or testament that the Lord has made with you” (Exod. 24[:3–8]). In acceptance of the old testament, the people were

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament sprinkled with the blood of innocent animals without blemish; in the new [testament] though, [they are sprinkled] with the blood of the Messiah, who was also offered without guilt and without sin. Moses poured the blood into a basin, Christ into a cup. Moses called his blood a blood of the covenant, testament, or alliance. Christ called the cup a new testament in his blood, but the testament of Christ consists in Christ’s blood. Thus it is clear as day that the Lord’s blood was in the cup, as Moses’ blood was in the basin from which Moses sprinkled the people. Answer When Christ said, “The cup, the new testament,” etc. and called the cup the new testament, he didn’t compel us with these words to believe that he transformed his blood in the cup from which the disciples drank. This is because Christ gave the cup to all of his disciples to drink from and only afterwards said, “This is my blood which [C3v] is shed for many” (Mark 14[:24]). For as Mark proclaims, Christ gave them the cup to drink before he said these words, “This is my blood,” through which it is clearly shown that the disciples drank wine over which Christ had not said, “This is my blood,” etc.—unless you want to say that Christ blessed the wine in the disciples’ bellies. But Matthew says, “Drink from this, all of you; this is my blood,” etc. (Matt. 26[:27–28]), which doesn’t contradict what Mark says, “They all drank from it, and he said to them, ‘This is my blood’,” etc., since Mark fills in what Matthew was silent about. Matthew doesn’t reveal when Christ said, “This is my blood,” but Mark tells this. The Greek language aids in this, for these words, “This is my blood,” begin with a capital letter and so it shows that Christ didn’t say in this way, “This is my blood,” etc., so that we should learn from this that Christ’s blood is in the cup or that something in it is useful for us or that it was shed in the cup, but instead in this way, “This is my blood, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Christ didn’t point to the cup when he said, “This is my blood,” but instead to the blood that was promised in Moses and the prophets, which should and would wash away our sins from our souls. And he intended to say, “This is my blood that shall be shed for sin. You have heard that blood must be shed for the forgiveness of sins. Look, this is the same blood and it is my blood that I will shed,” as if Christ also wanted to say with this, “You ought not to look or wait for any other blood. The blood is here and it is my blood that is shed for the forgiveness of sins.” If Christ spoke of the blood in the cup, then all of the figures of Moses would be false [C4r] and the prophets’ promises wrong. For Moses commanded the shedding of the blood of animals that had to die for the forgiveness of sins, and the animals had to shed their blood with their own pain and death, which would all be false if Christ wanted to shed his blood in the cup. Moses could not do otherwise than to pour the blood into a basin and sprinkle the people from it, as will be explained in what follows. Faith pushes and compels us to say that Christ shed his blood on the cross, from the body of Christ and not from the cup; otherwise Christ would have shed

127

128

Chapter 7 his blood without pain and suffering. And no one would have seen it, since no evangelist ever wrote, nor did anyone else ever say, that he saw Christ’s blood flow from Christ into the cup. And Paul would have spoken falsely and would have fallen far short when he said, “I know nothing among you but Christ and him crucified” [1 Cor. 2:2]. In addition, all the apostles write of Christ’s life, teaching, customs, suffering, death, burial, descent into hell, resurrection, or ascension and the like, and none of them says that Christ’s body and blood are in the sacrament or that Christ’s sacramental essence was or may today be necessary and useful for us and honorable to his father in heaven. It would be dreadful forgetfulness if they wrote about all of the many articles concerning Christ’s humanity, but none of them wrote whether Christ was in the sacrament or that he taught, did anything, or suffered in it, or how Christ did his father’s honor, will, and the like in the sacrament or how he showed his love to God and us, what his righteousness is, how his innocence is recognized in it, how he was mocked and martyred, how he was ever seen [C4v] in the sacrament by people, when Moses, the prophets, and Christ say, namely, that his essence must be known. How many essences did the Levites have with the blood of the animals that they sacrificed? Didn’t they have to drain the blood on the altar and publicly pour it out next to the altar? Wasn’t the essence directed entirely so that the shedding of Christ’s blood would be realized from this? May God grant that Christ’s shed blood not be treated so shamefully, mockingly, and scornfully as they do who seek it in the cup, for then this saying of Christ would be understood, “Moses wrote of me,” [John 5:46] and this, “We have seen him,” from Isaiah, and finally this, “I know nothing more among you than Christ the crucified” [1 Cor. 2:2], which Paul says for our instruction. It is at the very least foolish, if not downright sinful, that on the basis of some dark statement that they can’t hold to simply and literally, they say that Christ meant that his blood was in the cup on account of these words, “He took the cup, gave thanks, and said, ‘Take, drink from this, all of you, this is the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sin.’” Spread out these words and observe whether they can draw their position from them. First, let us unfold these words, “The cup is the new testament.” Likewise, “in my blood which is shed for you.” I know that they must fall away from these words as they sound. See what the word testament means: it means the last will and consequently all that flows from the last will. At the beginning it is clear that the cup is an external thing, outside of the soul, if the cup is a drinking vessel. But the last will is an internal [D1r] thing in the soul and invisible. Thus these words can’t stand as they sound, “The cup is the testament,” any more than this statement, “The cup is an inner will that is in the soul.” If they want to say that the cup is the testament in the blood of Christ and that Christ’s blood is an external thing that should be shed in accordance with Christ’s last will, this is true and rightly understood. But if they understand that

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament the cup is the testament in literal speech, then it is false, for these words show that this isn’t a literal statement, “The cup, the new testament through my blood,” for Christ says clearly through such words that the cup is a new testament only in that the cup signifies his blood. Thus he says, “The cup, the new testament through my blood,” and it isn’t a literal statement that one must understand as it stands and sounds, which the other evangelists show more easily when they say, “Christ said, ‘This is my blood of the new testament,’” etc., as Mark (14[:24]) says or as Matthew (26[:28]) says, “This is my blood which is the new testament,” etc. See, these two evangelists say that the blood of Christ is the new testament, and through this they want to show that the new testament and the blood of Christ are two different things, as there is a difference between what Christ is and what is of Christ. We may say, “The robe was of Christ,” and may not say, “The robe was Christ.” Correspondingly, the blood of Christ isn’t the testament but it is of the new testament; that is, it is something that should happen in accordance with Christ’s last will and decision, namely, that the blood of Christ should be shed from his last will. The will of Christ in the Supper was not yet the last and so his blood wasn’t shed from his last will. The last will of Christ was on the cross and on the cross he shed his blood, and on the cross [D1v] his blood was his last will. Thus it is impossible that his unshed blood is a new testament or is of the new testament before it was shed, for Christ said, “which is shed for you.” Christ’s testament rests not on the unshed blood but on the blood insofar as it would be shed. Thus it can easily be understood that Christ’s blood was not in the cup. This is because Christ’s blood was not yet shed and his unshed blood was not yet the blood of the new testament, but with its shedding it belonged to the new testament. So also the cup was not a new testament and it didn’t belong to the new testament until the blood was shed—not that after Christ’s death the shed blood came into the cup, but rather that the cup should be drunk in remembrance of the blood that was shed in accordance with the last will. Now hear, if Christ’s blood wasn’t of the new testament before it was shed and only then became completely the blood of the new testament as it was shed in Christ’s last will, how much less was it the cup of the new testament before Christ’s blood was shed? The new testament doesn’t point to wine or cup, for Christ didn’t say that the cup served any purpose beyond drinking. The blood is of the new testament, and so Christ said that it would be shed for us for the forgiveness of sins. Christ’s testament was a free, gracious will to do good to us, to shed his blood for the forgiveness of our sins. Thus you must rightly understand Luke and Paul when they say, “the cup, the new testament,” and must ascribe the blood of Christ to the new testament, which is of the new testament. He must not only take this from Mark and Matthew, but also from Luke and Paul themselves, because they say with clear words, “the new testament in my blood.” [D2r] Thus you should look more closely at Paul and faithfully understand his words when he says, “As often as you drink from the Lord’s cup, you should

129

130

Chapter 7 proclaim the death of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11[:26]); that is, understand and proclaim his last, high, and righteous will in death, and use the cup in remembrance of the Lord who shed his blood. Christ could not ordain his testament in any other way. It only first became a right, complete testament when he had died and shed his blood and so Paul says, “You should proclaim the Lord’s death” [1 Cor. 11:26]. In the Supper it was only an ordinance and stood as a promise. After his death his will was concluded, completed, and from a promise was made into a joyful gift or inheritance, that is, the desired gospel. I hold that the disciples still didn’t understand in the Supper and also didn’t know sufficiently what Christ’s testament contained, for they were always without understanding whenever Christ spoke of his passion (Matt. 20[:17–19]). Moses’ first testament had the blood of animals that also died, but this was a figure of a new testament, as one says, that would truly be a testament. God’s will is often called a testament when it is understood, for Moses called God’s covenant a testament and Paul called the promise made to Abraham a testament (Gal. 3[:17–18]) and there are also often times when every will of God was called a testament. But there is in God neither a new nor an old will since God is unchangeable and so, speaking humanly, God didn’t make an old testament. Through the figure of animal blood, however, he showed that someone would shed his innocent blood out of great wisdom, obedience, patience, strength, and innocence, and legally fulfill his divine will, and this was Christ. Thus Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament and it signifies this in that all people who want to obey God’s law must be sprinkled with or drink from the blood of Christ. [D2v] But in that the blood was poured into the cup there is no further similitude than what has been said; the figures cannot completely depict the truth. Whoever wants to make figures completely congruent falls into error. See, if you want to make Moses’ blood completely similar to Christ’s blood and say that Christ’s blood must be in the cup like Moses’ blood in the old testament, then one could answer, “Then Christ’s blood must be visibly in the cup,” which is not the same as the truth. Conclusion Christ showed and testified to his last, highest, and most righteous will to God and to the whole world, which he wanted to redeem with the shedding of his blood and his death on the cross and not in a cup. But as a remembrance of his death and shed blood, he instituted an external drink that we might drink. As Paul says, “As often as you drink from the cup, you should remember the Lord’s death and proclaim his death.” When Christ gave the bread to his disciples to eat, he said only, “Do this in my remembrance,” but it also belongs to the drink of Christ that all those who drink from the Lord’s cup should remember the Lord and proclaim his death (1 Cor. 11[:24–26]), in which Paul, and not I, refers to the use of both the bread and wine. Thus we must use external things in the meaning, ordinance, and manner that Christ instituted and ordained if we otherwise want to act rightly towards and

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament fittingly carry out the new testament of the Lord. So we will have three things. First, the inner will of Christ to suffer all that his father had resolved, so much, so bitterly, so innocently, so patiently, so vilified, so pitifully, so consciously and sufficiently as God’s eternal [D3r] counsel had known beforehand. This is the foundation of the new testament that is in the soul. To this foundation belongs our redemption, forgiveness of sins, our holiness, our wisdom, and all other benefits that Christ has deigned and distributed through his obedience, that is, his last will. Likewise, the overcoming of suffering and in sum a likeness to Christ externally and internally, for we must direct and present ourselves in accordance with him as a model. Second, and from this foundation flows the blood of Christ of the new testament, which Christ shed in such goodwill for our sins as an eternal, rich, and most complete redemption. But this is an external sign of the internal will of Christ, without which the blood would be of no use to us. And it was shed visibly, as it had to be shed, as Moses wrote. And in the visible and external pouring out, Christ’s blood is a sign of Christ’s beneficent will. And it is of no use at all for redemption where it is invisible or unshed. As Christ says, “This is the blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.” For from these words it follows that Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament only then, when it was shed publicly through his murderers and those who hated him. Note here that Christ shed his blood once and he made only one testament and died once, all of it publicly before enemies and friends, before God, before the angels, before the saints, before the world. He also does nothing from within the tabernacle, as those say of him who want to bring him into the sacrament. Thus it is shameful to hear that Christ brought his blood secretly into the cup and has obtained something good for us or that his blood is a blood of the new testament [D3v] because it is invisible and not shed in front of anyone and can’t show the true and internal testament. As an upright man, Christ wanted to show and demonstrate his secret, righteous will with external things, like a codicil or booklet, and not signify it in a secret, unknown, questionable, or sacramental way. Thus he was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem, offered in a shameful death, publicly killed, and he shed his blood openly and for many, as said above. No one should be put off by the fact that Christ shed his blood on the cross only once, for it is appropriate, on account of his sufficient suffering and testament, that he shed his blood only once and not often. If he had spilled it out often or suffered often, this would be a sign that it was insufficient. Thus it is fitting for the one testament that he died once, for if he had to die often, then he could not confirm his testament. Thus the priests do great violence and wrong to the onceshed blood of Christ when they act with the Lord’s blood as if it must be shed daily in the cup, and through this they falsify the external sign or attestation of Christ. Third, Christ also instituted an external thing, namely, the cup, which anyone can use in his remembrance, if he wants. Anyone who doesn’t want to [partake]

131

132

Chapter 7 isn’t compelled to do so, for he can still be saved; as Christ says, “Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life within you” [John 6:53]. Accordingly, there is a great difference between the blood of Christ and the cup. What I say about the blood and cup should also be understood about the flesh and external bread of Christ. Christ said openly that they would perish who do not eat his flesh and drink his blood, that is, who don’t [D4r] rightly taste or try his surrendered body and shed blood, that is, who don’t perceive in this great nectar all the gifts of God. But where does he say that it is necessary that anyone receive his sacrament? Or where does Christ say, “If you don’t eat the external bread or drink from the external cup, you will perish and have no life in you”? This is why I have said that the sacrament doesn’t belong to the new testament in the same way as the blood of the Lord [does], and that there is a noteworthy difference between the sacrament and the death or blood of Christ, and that the new testament isn’t shown through the sacrament as [it is through] the blood. This is why neither Matthew nor Mark mention the cup when they speak of the new testament but say simply, “This is the blood mine,11 which is of the new testament, which is shed for you for forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26[:28]), or, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many” (Mark 14[:24]). Don’t both evangelists say that the shed blood of Christ is of the new testament? But does either of them say that the cup is a new testament or of the new testament? Thus we must rightly understand the statements of Luke and Paul, and it is necessary that we must recognize Christ’s testament, as Christ says; but the knowledge of the cup isn’t necessary, as you sacrament servants confess. Another difference between the cup and the blood becomes clear from this. It is this: without the knowledge of Christ’s new testament, no one is saved, John 6[:53]. Without knowledge of the cup, many are saved. The angels in heaven knew, accepted, and tasted Christ’s testament, but they never tasted the cup. The gospel gives the reason for this difference in that Christ says, “Do this in my remembrance,” that is, [D4v] “As often as you drink from the cup, you should remember me. That means you shouldn’t drink before you think of my message and earnestly speak of my death” (1 Cor. 11[:25]). But no one is compelled to drink, and the external cup will pass away and a new way [of drinking] will come. We should drink from the cup in remembrance of the testator and the testament, and in this manner the cup is a testament; that is, an attestation or testimony of the inner, last will. Yes, in the blood of Christ that was shed and not at all in itself, otherwise it would be false and against the figurative testimony of Moses and also against the word of Christ. A friend can’t show his love to his friends in any higher way than that he gives his soul for his friends (John 15[:13]). Christ wanted and had to demonstrate and prove his inner testament with an external one, to which there was nothing equal or that was the most high of all. Now there is nothing higher in 11

Karlstadt here follows the word order of the original Greek.

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament Christ through which he could prove and demonstrate his love and obedience more highly than his death and shed blood. Christ’s ordinance can’t be used to support [the claim] that Christ’s blood is a new testament in a cup, because in the cup he was neither killed nor his blood shed. In brief, the cup is placed as a remembrance so that those may drink from it who remember the Lord and who want to demonstrate or exercise their remembrance in the cup. Thus one can use the cup as a remembrance of the new testament of the Lord who shed his blood for us. Here you see, friends, that your argument doesn’t prove or compel one to believe that Christ’s blood was in the cup when [E1r] Christ spoke these words, “This is the blood of the new testament,” etc., or “The cup, the new testament in my blood,” or that it now flows into the cup when the priests renew and read the words of Christ. Whoever understands the reasons explained above—especially how Christ said of his blood that it was the blood that would be shed for the sake of the forgiveness of sins, and that the words that or this point to the blood alone and not to the cup, as if they meant that the cup is the blood.12 Then it would sound like this, as if Christ didn’t truly shed his blood but instead shed wine in the place of blood, and that Moses’ writings should be understood not about natural blood but instead about wine, which is a mockery and anti-Christian and too near to Christ’s suffering. But this must be the consequence, if Christ had spoken in this way, “The cup is my blood,” and even more, his statement would push and compel us instead to consider and hold that Christ wanted to shed wine for blood and that the blood would become wine and not natural blood, which would be shed by the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins. These people must say that the Lord’s blood is not the wine but instead that it is in the wine or under the wine, which they set forth from their own power, adding more words to the text than Christ did. These disputers are so skilled, although they give themselves out as if they are serious scholars of scripture. Finally, they aren’t content with Christ’s words, for they add something to them and deceive with their tattered rags as best they can. Eucharistia They base their third argument on this, that Christ took the bread and gave thanks, and they want to conclude from this thanksgiving that Christ’s body is [E1v] in the bread and his blood in the cup. So they can hide their purpose or make it unknown, they take the Greek word eucharistia and say, “See, the sacrament is a Eucharist.” If it is a Eucharist, then the Lord’s body and blood must truly be in the sacrament, for if his flesh and blood weren’t in it, then it wouldn’t be a Eucharist. But because it’s

12

Karlstadt seems to have forgotten the point he started out to make with the opening phrase of the sentence.

133

134

Chapter 7 clear as day that the sacrament is a Eucharist, then it must be necessary that Christ’s body is in the bread and his blood in the cup. Answer Above all, I want to know how Christ’s thanksgiving sounds and what its words and content are. For indeed, I read often and in many places that Christ gave thanks, and I’d like to find out how and in what way Christ gave thanks and I’m still curious about it. For from the words and content of his thanksgiving or benediction we will quickly note what justification such people have who simply bring his body and blood into the sacrament on account of Christ’s thanksgiving, as we understand from Christ’s thanksgiving in John 11[:41]. The simple word thanksgiving or benediction doesn’t compel us to hold that Christ was in the sacrament or that he must or can be today in the priests’ sacrament. Thus it is an unjustified attempt to conclude from the simple statement “He gave thanks” that we should believe that Christ is in the sacrament, if they find no simple and strong truth or word to support this belief in Christ’s thanksgiving. We must have a true, divine word that says Christ’s body and blood are in the sacrament or enter into it when one speaks or reads, “Christ gave thanks.” But [E2r] we don’t find this in the thanksgiving. It is also strange and amazing to me that some make the Greek word eucharistia or eucharistisas so important and emphasize it so highly in order to prove that Christ’s body and blood are in the sacrament, a word that Luke (22[:19]) and Matthew (26[:26–27]) use twice, namely, in Christ’s thanksgiving when he took the bread and cup. Mark wrote, “When Christ took the cup and gave thanks” (Mark 14[:23]); Paul to the Corinthians (11[:24]) used in this place the word eucharistias and in the other place eulogomenon (1 Cor. 10[:16]), which Mark also writes at the end, namely, eulogisas, “When the Lord took the bread and gave thanks” [Mark 14:22]. I see that they make their argument more unstable and fragile rather than strengthening or building it up from such a violent use of the words eucharistia or eulogia. For if we look at the meaning of both words and search for these words in other places of scripture, we quickly find that their ground is shaky and built on arid and pulverized sand. Doesn’t eulogia mean blessing or benediction, and eucharistia, thanksgiving? Such meanings don’t at all compel us to believe that Christ’s body and blood were or are still in the sacrament. Even if the scripture says that the Lord’s bread or cup are a bread and cup of benediction or thanksgiving, it still wouldn’t prove that Christ’s body and blood are in the sacrament. No one can justify more from this than that we should give thanks to and bless God as often as we eat the Lord’s bread or cup, as Paul proclaims to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9 [11:26]). Moreover, we should all take our food and drink with benediction and thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4[:4–5]), as I’ve mentioned above. And so the meaning of both words doesn’t compel [E2v] anyone to hold that it was the view of Christ or any of the apostles that we should seek his body and

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament blood in the sacrament or that we ought to believe that Christ is, or is supposed to be, in the sacrament. Paul uses the word eucharistia right at the end, where he speaks of all kinds of food and says that they aren’t to be rejected if they are received with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4[:4]). And he says immediately before that God has created every kind of food for believers to receive with thanksgiving. Doesn’t Paul with this teaching give a form that every kind of food is a food of thanksgiving or benediction in that he says, “God created food for this purpose, that we should receive it with thanksgiving”? And so each kind of food is a food of thanksgiving or blessing, especially the food of Christ, which we should use in no other way but only as a simple remembrance of Christ’s death. It is true that every food is a food of thanksgiving, but the food of Christ is especially so. But no one can read and draw from this that in the bread there is something more than bread just because it is a bread of special benediction, for the special benediction consists of this, that one should use the Lord’s Supper only in his remembrance and we eat other food to be filled (1 Cor. 11[:25]). Now you should know that the body of Christ must be in all foods that we must receive with thanksgiving if you want to conclude from the word eucharistia that Christ’s body is in it, since Paul wrote the same word at that place where he spoke of giving thanks for every kind of food. But this would be against the institution of the sacrament, as they say, and against themselves. It would also follow that [E3r] Christ transformed his body into the five barley loaves and two fish because the evangelist John in his gospel writes that Christ took the five loaves and gave thanks (John 6[:11]) and he writes the word eucharistisas in the sense and literal meaning that Matthew, Luke, Mark, and Paul wrote in the chapters where they wrote about the Lord’s Supper, although Luke (9[:16]) and Mark (6[:41]) use the word eulogia in the history of the five barley loaves and two fish, and Mark about the seven loaves, Mark 11[8:6], (Matthew 14[:19]). Further, if someone wants to compel us with the word eucharistia to believe that Christ transformed himself in the sacrament, they must also hold and compel to hold that Christ transformed himself or his body and blood not only in the five barley loaves but also into the dead man Lazarus, whom Christ raised from the dead after he gave thanks (John 11[:41]). Likewise the one leper out of the ten, who thanked Christ with the word eucharistia, must have transformed Christ’s body and blood into something (Luke 17[:15]). Finally, it would also follow that the Pharisee transformed Christ’s body and blood into himself or into something different because he used and spoke the word eucharistasi (Luke 18[:11]), which is laughable and scandalous to hear, and horrifying to Christian ears. Thus they can’t at all conclude that Christ or an apostle or any priest transforms or has transformed the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s bread and cup by the power of this word, eucharistien, or that the Lord’s bread must have his body substantially because it is called a Eucharist by the church.

135

136

Chapter 7 The Fourth Argument “I have received from the Lord what I gave to you, [E3v] for the Lord Jesus in the night when he was betrayed took the bread and gave thanks and broke it and said, ‘Take, eat. This is the body mine,13 which is broken for you. Do this in my remembrance’” [1 Cor. 11:23–24]. With these words Paul elevated the sacrament on high because he wanted to pull the Corinthians away from their piglike life and use of the sacrament, and bring it to their serious consideration so that they would eat the Lord’s bread in a good Christian manner and drink from his cup in another manner than they were accustomed to drinking when they sat in bars or taverns (1 Cor. 11[:21–22]). Thus Paul says, “Don’t you have your own houses, if you want to eat and drink to satiety?” Don’t you know that the Lord shows great consideration and seriousness in this and wants to have these from all who hold his Supper when, on the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave thanks and broke it and said, “Take and eat, this is my body, which is broken for you.” Look here, on the night when Christ was betrayed, when he told them earlier that he must suffer and be betrayed, that the Son of man must go as it was written of him and fulfill everything (Luke 22[:22], Matt. 26[:24]), at that time Christ spoke with great consideration, “Take and eat the bread, for this is my body.” What can we have or hear more clearly than this statement, “The bread is my body”? But if the bread was the body of Christ, then it is still today the body of Christ, since Christ said, “Do this in my remembrance.” In addition, the word of Christ is powerful and through faith in the word the priest can do the same thing that Christ did, for he said, “Whoever believes in me will do greater things” (John 14[:12]). [E4r] Now if it is true that the Lord’s bread is the Lord’s body, it follows that Christ is also in the sacrament today. Answer It is shown above through the arguments of scripture that each person should receive the Lord’s bread and drink in a good Christian manner and in great fear. Otherwise it would be better to abstain, for it is a bread and drink of remembrance of the Lord. Thus Paul also announces at what time and in what way Christ took the bread, that Christ also gave thanks, broke the bread, and said, “Take and eat,” etc., and showed everything that each one should do who receives the Lord’s Supper. That Paul or, before Paul, Christ spoke of his suffering and betrayal so that with the announcement of such a future thing he wanted to signify that the bread became or was his body, this would be too near to Christ’s suffering and against Paul’s entire discussion, 1 Corinthians 11[:23–26]. For what else did Christ establish than that we should know that his body was an external bread that neither suffered 13

Again, Karlstadt consciously inverts the word order, which is that of the Greek text in Luke 22:19, not 1 Corinthians 11:24.

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament nor was capable of suffering for it has no soul, nor could it understand the cause of the suffering because it doesn’t have a rational soul, nor could it accept divine wisdom because it wasn’t yet received or elevated to God’s right hand. But Christ wanted to say what the prophets had prophesied before him, namely, that he must suffer and be stricken [Isa. 53:4], and that even his disciples would take offense at him, and so Christ said, “The Son of man goes as it was written of him, but woe to him through whom…” [Matt. 26:24]. Likewise, “The hand of the betrayer is at the table, and the Son of man goes as it was [E4v] decided. Woe to the same man through whom he would be betrayed” [Luke 22:21–22]. Likewise, “I tell you, it must still be fulfilled in me what is written, ‘He was reckoned among the evildoers’” (Luke 22[:37]; Isa. 53[:12]; 1 Peter 1[:10–11]). The prophets prophesied earlier about the suffering of the Messiah, and Christ speaks about these same prophecies and teaches his disciples that he is the same Messiah who has the body that should be given for the life of the world. Paul also wanted to explain and tell the Corinthians that they should meditate on and be thankful for Christ’s passion as often as they wanted to eat the Lord’s bread or drink from his cup. For on the night he was betrayed, the Lord gave his bread to his disciples to eat and said that they should eat the bread and drink from the cup in his remembrance. For his body was the same body that would be given for the elect. In this manner Christ said, “This is my body, which is given for you. You have heard it preached or understood from the prophets that someone would give his body for the salvation of the world. See, the same body is my body, which is given for you. You should hope for no other, for my flesh or body is given for you; so you should look to my suffering. For I will surrender my body into the hands of Herod, Pilate, Annas, Caiaphas, and others who will martyr, mock, and kill me, all for your good and to honor God my father.” Scripture pushes and compels us powerfully to believe that this is true and that we must hold this: First, that Christ’s passion must be external and take place publicly, as the prophets promised, as Peter says (1 Peter 1[:12]), and as it is written, “They will see him whom they have pierced” [Rev. 1:7]. But this was impossible in [F1r] the bread. For the “sacramenters” themselves say that the sacramental substance is invisible, secret, and hidden. Thus it would be too near to Christ’s suffering if we wanted to apply the clear prophecies and the statements of Christ and the apostles to the sacramental substance or passion. Second, they break the scripture who want to cite Christ’s words, “The bread is the body,” for Christ never said this. Instead, he said, “Take and eat. This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in my remembrance.” From this, according to the literal understanding, nothing else follows but that Christ’s body is the body which must be given for the world and that we should take and eat his bread in his remembrance. But not only can one not understand from the literal contents that the bread was the body of Christ, but it is against the characteristics of the Greek language. First, it is against the punctuation, for this verse, “This is my body,

137

138

Chapter 7 which is given for you,” etc. is separated from the previous verse by a period. In addition, it begins with a capital letter, as you can see in Luke (22[:19–20]). And we know that artos, which is Greek for the German word bread, is masculine and tuto is neuter, and they don’t go together any better whether I say, “Hoc est corpus” [This is the body], or if I were to say in Latin, “Istud panis est corpus meum” [This bread is my body]. Finally, the demonstrative tuto signifies something particular, namely, the body to which John the Baptist pointed when he said, “Behold, he is the lamb who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1[:29]). And so this verse, “Hoc est corpus,” says this: “This is the body mine, which is given for you.” Through such words Christ spoke of his suffering, that he would surrender his body for us, as he must do, for the prophets prophesied earlier about his suffering and body. [F1v] John the Baptist came afterwards, who was more than a prophet and who pointed to Christ and said, “He is the one about whom I spoke, who is greater and more than I, who will redeem the world.” Finally, God also spoke through Christ his son, saying, “I am the one, I am the Messiah,” said Christ, “I am the Son of God. I am the one whom the Father sent into this world. I must die; see, this is my body, which is given for you.” All of this is found in the promises about the highest obedience in the suffering of Christ, which became a pure light and clear gospel proclaimed by the apostles after his completed suffering (1 Peter 1[:12]). Thus one should pay attention to these words and observe that Christ gave his body for us. This is necessary, and the gospel and faith together require it. But the blind guides lead us to bread and say that we should take to heart that the bread is the body of Christ, although no scripture shows this. They also make the simple pay much more attention to how the bread is the body of Christ than to eating the bread in ardent remembrance of Christ, to their judgment. Concerning Paul’s elevation of the Lord’s bread, one could answer, “One should eat the Lord’s bread only for the remembrance of Christ.” And in this it is a different bread and a bread of blessing in particular, but there is nothing better or more holy, nor can it make either holy or good. In addition, in response to what is said about believing in Christ’s word, it should be said that what some distort and twist like a wax nose is not Christ’s word. Moreover, faith should have a clear and incisive word that doesn’t deceive, although a clear word is reckoned as a dark word against God himself (1 Cor. 13[:12]). Some speak about the power of God’s word and stress the power of the divine words as [F2r] magicians do. It’s no surprise that the learned doctor Ochsenfurt14 some time ago forbade young boys to sing the responsorium, Discubuit Jesus, in 14

The Leipzig theologian Hieronymus Dungersheim von Ochsenfurt. Students at Latin schools often doubled as the choir singing portions of the mass, and they received alms by singing the liturgical songs and responses outside of church.

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament front of houses because through these words, dicens, hoc est corpus meum, etc., they might bring the body of Christ into all the bread of the citizens and make the bread of all the people into a sacrament. If they bring up what Christ said, “Do this in my remembrance,” in such a way that the priests have received a command from Christ that they might bring Christ’s body into the bread, one can quickly answer, “These words are dark; it isn’t written before them, ‘Bring my body into the sacrament and do this in my remembrance,’ for it is written, ‘Take, eat, do this in my remembrance.’” And so they can make no more objections, for Paul concludes that we should eat the bread of the Lord in his remembrance and we should do this in remembrance of the Lord as often as we do it. It also doesn’t follow, even if Christ did give the priests the power to bring his body into the sacrament, that they can therefore do it. For as they boast, Christ also gave them the even more clear command to raise the dead and drive out demons, but they aren’t able to do anything. Finally, these fellows must themselves move away from Christ’s words and add something in front of the words, “This is my body,” saying, “My body is within this.” But can they show us the word in, or this word, within, or this, in this, or that, in the bread, or this, in the form of bread, is my body? The Fifth Argument Christ says, “I am the bread of life, and the bread which I give is my flesh, which is given for the life of the world” [John 6:48, 51]. And he teaches us that [F2v] we should truly know that his bread is his body. Answer If this argument were well founded, it would follow that the external bread is substantially the flesh of Christ, as Christ’s statement says. But the papists can’t say this, because you say that Christ is under the bread or in the bread or, what is worse, that Christ is under the form of bread since the bread has passed away and is no longer present, as you say, for one thing. For another it follows that the external, visible bread suffered for us because it is Christ’s flesh that was given for us. Who has ever been found who would be so mad and anti-Christian that he could say that the sacrament suffered for us? Third, it would follow that the sacrament could give eternal life to those who eat it, as the flesh of Christ gives eternal life to those who eat it. It is clear as day that sacrament-gobblers die, as the patriarchs who ate manna died (John 6[:49– 51]). And some of you eat judgment and condemnation in the Lord’s bread, as Paul says (1 Cor. 11[:29]). From the Lord’s flesh and from the bread that he himself is, no one may eat death; those who don’t eat it are the ones who die. Fourth, it would follow that the sacramental bread comes down from above and didn’t grow up from below (John 6[:33]).

139

140

Chapter 7 Fifth, it must follow that the angels were fed with wheat as we are fed with wheat, for the angels have the same esteem as we do for the bread that comes down from above, from which we eat life (1 Peter 1 [:12]). Sixth, it would follow that no one would be saved without the sacrament. [F3r] Seventh, that the sacrament would be our redeemer and savior as Christ is through his flesh. And so the papist mass would be on the best footing and would make Christ’s suffering into nothing. Eighth, that a soulless created thing would be better than all angels and saints, since all created things, angels and men, receive from Christ (John 1[:16]). Ninth, that the sacrament is the head in place of God and that the sacrament was conceived in the womb as bread, about which Christ spoke, John 6[:32–58], and it follows that Christ instituted the sacrament in the womb, which both the old and new papists deny. Lastly, that Christ would be of use to us in the sacrament and that he would not be of use to us outside of the sacrament. For we do not learn from him in the sacrament or see miracles or [learn] that he was our priest and sacrifice or intercessor, and Christ would still be mortal, as he was when he said, “My flesh is given for the life of the world,” or when he took the bread and said, “This is the body mine, which is given for you.” Then we could also forget the cross of Christ without danger. This would dishonor the cross of Christ and is harmful and disgraceful to hear. So see that you don’t grab at such an arrow. We must also bring forth other and clearer scripture together with firmer grounds that press and compel us to believe that Christ’s body and blood are in the sacrament. It isn’t necessary for me to explain here what the eating of Christ’s flesh is. But Christ showed that it isn’t a fleshly eating that is done with teeth and mouth when he said, [F3v] “The flesh is of no use” [John 6:63]. If this were understood to apply to the eating of the sacrament, which one receives and consumes with mouth and belly, it would follow that fleshly eating would be useful, that the sacrament would be more than the Lord’s natural flesh. This is because the eating of the Lord’s flesh would be of no use to those who ate it externally. But he who eats the sacrament externally has some use from his external and fleshly eating, if it is true that the sacrament, or Christ in the sacrament, is useful to salvation. Augustine: Crede et manducasti Some want to understand this statement of Augustine, who wrote “Crede et manducasti”15 as applying to the external sacrament, but this would be heretical and anti-Christian if one also knew it to be true that Christ’s body and blood were in it. The reason: Christ according to his humanity is the only created being through whom God has redeemed us and there is no other created thing. And Christ would 15

“Believe, and you have eaten”; Augustine, Homilies on John, tractate 25.12 (PL 35:1602).

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament not have redeemed us if he had not been exalted through the right hand of God. Thus our faith must look only to Christ the crucified or it all must be false—that Christ is God, our righteousness, our redemption, our savior and our head, our best sacrifice and our most high priest, etc.—if all our faith must be based on the sacrament. And all the sayings (about Christ) of all the prophets and apostles, and especially Paul, which they wrote about Christ, are unsuitable and made into nothing. But Augustine’s statement, “Believe, and so you have eaten,” accords with what Christ says, “My flesh is of no use,” and before and after that he says, “He who believes in me has eternal life,” which is given by the bread that he himself is, for those who eat his flesh, who believe, receive in spirit and in truth, [F4r] and for them it is unnecessary that they prepare the teeth or belly to eat the Lord’s flesh, for their faith is useful and sufficient; the flesh is of no use. I wrote in a bad pamphlet that we should say to the sacrament, “My Lord and my God,” as Thomas Didymus said to Christ,16 and on this point and likewise on the adoration of the sacrament I fell short of the truth and at base went so far as to write that we should say to the Lord’s robe, “My Lord, my God” [John 20:28]. That is written in a good Thomist and devilish way but as a bad Christian. But I later learned what kind of foreskin or obstruction of the heart is caused by the fear of the power and esteem of learned society. And so no one should rely on me but on the simple righteousness and truth of God. If he is moved by God’s judgment that I use, he should know that he is on the side of the truth. If my person moves him, then let him be sorry, for I am not a god or redeemer. And I don’t want to say that whoever doesn’t accept my word is condemned; this belongs to God alone. The Sixth Argument Christ had two kinds of existence, one in poverty and wretchedness and the other in glory. The first he led here in his mortal flesh, the second after his resurrection. Between these two existences, Christ has a middle existence, just as purgatory is in the middle between heaven and hell. Christ has this same middle existence in the sacrament, secretly and hidden. Answer This argument is laughable, but I will answer it nevertheless. [F4v] I am unaware of any kind of middle existence of Christ. Bring scripture to prove it and teach me. Christ says, “I have done nothing in corners or taught secretly” [John 18:20]. There is testimony about his gestures, life, essence, preaching, works, suffering, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, etc., beforehand in the prophets (1 Peter 1[:10–11]), then at that time among his contemporary hearers, observers, or bystanders. Only in the sacrament is he more secret than when he was in hell and so secret that his alleged sacramental existence can have no testimony, either in the 16

Karlstadt made the statement in Adoration, fol. A4v; p. 43 above.

141

142

Chapter 7 prophets in scripture or from men. Nor is there anyone who can say, “I have seen Christ in the sacrament.” So he isn’t of use to us in it, for he was neither born nor died in the sacrament. He doesn’t teach us from within it nor does he confess his father in the sacrament, which he should do, since he came here to do so, etc. And so we can’t seek Christ in the sacrament or follow him, which we should do. He suffered on the cross and became our righteousness and redemption. In heaven he stands before his father and intercedes for us. That is where we must seek Christ, not in the sacrament; we should have heavenly thoughts and concerns, not sacramental ones (Col. 2[3:1–2]). Thus this secret sacramental existence is an insult to Christ’s honor; make of it what you will. The Seventh Argument It is said that faith in the promise and word of Christ makes Christ come into the sacrament substantially, and that faith in Christ’s promises can do all things. Answer First of all, I ask, where is the promise? [F5r] They answer that these words are the promise, “This is my body, which is given for you.” But I say that we don’t now have a promise of a future thing, but a simple and true gospel, that is, this good news: Christ has suffered for our sins, etc., or: Christ has given his flesh for the life of the world, or this: Christ has given his body for us. The apostles proclaimed Christ’s suffering and evangelized, and they couldn’t say much about the promises and about faith in the promise because we have received the promises and all things have come into existence for us and are simply things that have happened, which were a promise for the patriarchs, the apostles, and the whole people of God before Christ’s passion. Christ’s words, “This is my body, which is given for you,” will not stand eternally as a statement of future things that we should cling to in faith. For this would be to say that Christ would give his body for us as if Christ has yet to suffer, which is nothing other than a Jewish faith of the obstinate Jews, who deny Christ and hold to the promise of a coming messiah and await a different redeemer who will fulfill and establish in the future all the things written about him. Thus it is an anti-Christian way to refer people to the promises of the prophets or of Christ. It is a faulty argument when someone says that faith in Christ’s promise brings Christ into the sacrament. There is also a significant difference between words that promise something and words that affirm. This statement, “This is my body,” is an affirmation, and this statement, “which is given for you,” is a promise. Now I know [F5v] that they can’t say that Christ is in the sacrament because of these words, “which is given for you,” since there is neither a syllable nor a letter that agrees that Christ was in the bread or is still there today. What use is it then, that they place much emphasis on faith in the promise?

Proving from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament But this affirmation, “This is my body,” is their ground on which they build. But this isn’t a promise any more than it was a promise when Christ said, “I do the work of my father,” or “I am the Messiah, the Son of God,” unless you want to interpret or explain a promise other than is usual. And even if we granted to them that this statement, “This is my body,” were a promise, then as is shown above, we couldn’t force or compel our opponents to hold that Christ is in the sacrament. It is laughable to me that one speaks so often without differentiating that faith in the promise can do anything, although it is clear that not all promises signify doing, effecting, allowing, or receiving, but some signify simple knowledge of what is promised. Abraham and Sarah had their promise to have a son against the course of nature, and Abraham’s faith in the same promise was mighty enough to bear a son, but it is laughable that he could have brought Christ into the sacrament through the same promise, although this would follow from the statement that faith in the promise can do all things. Moses had a promise that concerned effecting and doing something, such as that he should lead the people out of Egypt. This same Moses became so powerful and strong in words and deeds through his faith in this promise that he was able to do all that the promise contained, but he didn’t give birth to Isaac, as Abraham did, and he couldn’t transform the body of Christ in the sacrament [F6r] or do many other things. Thus it is false to say that faith without a promise can do all things. There are many kinds of promises and some contain no more than the knowledge and the effecting of what is known, such as this promise of Isaiah, “He will justify his servants through his knowledge” [Isa. 53:11], and this of Jeremiah, “He will be a man, God our righteousness,” or this of Zechariah, “Your king will come, poor and humble” [Zech. 9:9], and this of Christ, “The Son of man must be raised up,” etc., John 3[:14]. It’s the same with this promise of Christ, “My body is given for you.” Christ didn’t say that the apostles would do something through this promise or should or could bring Christ into the sacrament, but he said only that it was his body that would be given for them and for many. With this he wanted to lead them to the knowledge of his suffering so that they would remember it, as he also did earlier in the gospels when he spoke of his suffering, which it is also necessary for us to know. Thus one should preach to us about necessary things such as the suffering of Christ, etc., and leave aside arguments without scripture and not set before the people a Jewish hope or preach promises when all things have happened and are no longer in the future, such as the article on the redemption of our spirits. Whoever thinks that this answer is unchristian or without foundation and baseless, I ask him humbly to instruct me quickly, with this reservation, that if he seems to me to do so insufficiently, then I will show him his faults and defects in the same way that he teaches me. I commend this to God.

143

8

Exegesis of This Word of Christ: “This Is My Body, Which Is Given for You. This Is My Blood, Which Is Shed for You,” Luke 22

Against the Single and Two-fold Papists, Who Use These Words to the Destruction of Christ’s Cross (October 1524) Like the previous pamphlet, Karlstadt’s Auszlegung dieser wort Christi … Wider die einfeltige vnnd zweyfeltige papisten / welche soliche wort / zuo einem abbruch des kreützes Christi brauchen was published only twice, the first time by Johann Bebel in Basel (VD16, B6111; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 129) in October of 1524 and the second time by Johann Prüss in Strasbourg in 1525 (VD16, B6112; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 130). There are no modern editions. I have used the Basel imprint (Köhler, Flugschriften, 1446, no. 3833) for my translation. [a1v]

T

his word of Christ, “This is my body, which is given for you,” stands boldly and clearly against all sophists and papists, old and new,1 who say that Christ with these words brought himself into the sacrament or into bread and wine; especially against the current priests and mass-holders who by the power of these words undertake to consecrate the body and the blood of Christ in the sacrament, as they call the Lord’s Supper. This Will Be Examined First, the above-mentioned words of Christ oppose the blind sophists because no papist can remain by such plain words or accept these words as they sound, but instead he adds something so he can maintain his own fantasy and understanding 1

144

I.e., Catholics and Lutherans; cf. the full title of Masses.

Exegesis of This Word of Christ from his own brain, disregarding that the sense and meaning of this Christian statement is changed and destroyed by such additions. Namely, no one says that Christ’s flesh is bread made from wheat or that Christ’s blood is the wine harvested from the vine (which Christ’s words would allow and contain if Christ had signified and spoken the pronoun “this” with reference to bread and wine, “This is my body, this is my blood”). They say instead, “The body of Christ is under the bread, the blood under the wine,” or “The body of Christ is in the bread, or in the form of bread, the blood in the cup or wine.” And so with great wickedness and willfulness the papists add an “in” or “under” to the Latin words, against the command of God, who says, “You should add nothing,” Deuteronomy 4[:2], 12[:32]; Revelation 22[:18]. And what Christ said in the nominative case, they turn into the ablative, which is destruction and a devastation of a [a2r] Christian statement. See, if I say, “This is my body,” and point to the bread (as Christ says, John 6[:35], “I am the bread,” and you say, “Your body is in it” or “Christ is in the bread”), you would rebuke me, for it follows without contradiction that my body is not that which contains it. When my body is in a room, you would conclude from this, “The room isn’t your body and your body isn’t the room.” In the same way it follows that if Christ is in the bread, then Christ isn’t the bread. Now as Christ says, John 6[:51], “My flesh is the bread.” By this he said the same thing, although in a concealed way, as “My flesh is not in the bread,” for then the flesh wouldn’t also be the bread. Accordingly, it must also follow that Christ wouldn’t be in the sacrament if Christ is supposed to be the sacrament. For if one of these meanings or statements is proved, then the other must necessarily be nullified and pass away. I’ll give you another example by asking how these statements can both be true: on the one hand, “The wine is in the barrel,” and on the other, “The wine is the barrel.” If the latter is true, then the first must be false. If the wine were the barrel, it must be everywhere where the barrel is and can’t be in the barrel any more than the barrel can be in itself. Now it’s impossible that a barrel can be in the barrel which it itself is. So it is with Christ’s body and bread, which are both material. If the body of Christ were in the bread made from grain, then Christ’s body couldn’t be the same bread. If the papists spoke rightly when they said, “Christ’s body and blood are in the bread and wine,” then Christ would be wrong when he said, “The bread is my body, the cup is my blood.” The twofold papists attribute this to Christ, saying “Christ pointed to the bread when he said, ‘This is [a2v] my body.’” If Christ’s words say and mean this, “The bread is the body, the cup is the blood,” and if they are thus understood as true, then you sophists are certainly lying when you say, “The body of Christ is in the bread, the blood of Christ is in the cup.” Your interpretation has as much scriptural basis as hell being in heaven or as I’d be right to say, “Christ is the upper room in which he ate the supper.” Thus the new blind guides, the fanatics, must proceed with great willfulness when they undertake with their additional and patched-together inventions and

145

146

Chapter 8 words to compel and force the pious Waldensians2 to this understanding: that Christ’s body and blood are in their fictitious and anti-Christian and soul-murdering sacrament. They will say, “See, faith does this.” I answer, “Dear John, why do you boast of clear, bright, and strong words? You don’t have God’s word with which you can force and compel anyone. If you don’t have God’s word, I’ll immediately state that faith has its testimony in scripture, Romans 10[:11]. If God has granted divine knowledge, you should still show me the same word in scripture, for what God writes in the hearts of his disciples is contained in the law, Jeremiah 31[:33], Isaiah 8[:16], 51[:7]. If you want to boast of a faith that tells you what no scripture does, then you have already fallen away from the true faith. If you want to speak so lightly about faith, then magicians, soothsayers, and devils will also stand firm.” For this reason I won’t regard your faith before you set forth the word of true faith. But that word fails you through which you might prove that Christ’s body is in the sacrament. Thus you have no faith, however much you may boast of your faith. [a3r] Second, know that Christ never said that the bread which he broke and gave to his disciples was his body or the cup was his blood, much less that his body was hidden in the bread or in the form of bread. Instead he said simply, “This is my body, which is given for you.” And Christ spoke this verse, “This is my body,” not so that we would understand from it that the baker’s bread (which he held in his hand) was his body or that his body should be in that same bread or that Christ therefore wanted to give his body to the disciples in the bread (note these three different statements), but rather for the sake of the following verse, which says, “which is given for you.” Accordingly, Christ’s words state, “This is my body, which is given for you.” Christ didn’t say that the bread was his body, for this would be against the manner of the Greek and Latin languages. It would also be against the twofold new papists, as said above. And it would be against all prophecies that prophesy the suffering of the Messiah and against what Christ himself preached when he preached to his disciples about his suffering. Before his death and suffering, Christ had to proclaim the highest promise that is contained in holy scripture, and to speak clearly and understandably what Moses earlier had said in a figured and darker way and what the prophets said, some like Moses and some with clearer words. And in this his sermon, Christ not only had to proclaim a more joyful promise than all of the prophets proclaimed, but in addition also to surpass John the Baptist (for which I’ll soon present good evidence), who was himself more and greater than any prophet when he pointed to the Messiah with words and fingers, when he spoke of Jesus of Nazareth to his 2

Karlstadt was referring not to the Waldensians, a heretical group that dated from the twelfth century, but to the Bohemian Brethren, a Hussite group commonly called the Waldensian Brethren in Germany. In Adoration, B3r, he had criticized the Picards (a derogatory term for the Hussites) for believing that the bread was only bread; above, p. 46.

Exegesis of This Word of Christ disciples and said (when he saw Christ) [a3v], “This is the one of whom I spoke,” etc., “This is the lamb who bears the sins of the world,” etc. [John 1:29–30]. This was a much greater message, which pointed to someone in the present, than that of the prophets, who promised someone in the future. But Christ surpassed this message and promise, for he spoke not of another, as John the Baptist [did], but of himself. He also didn’t say, “He is the one,” like John; he didn’t say, “That one will bear our sins in his body on the way of the cross,” but instead, “This is my body, which is given for you. This is my blood, which is shed for your sins.” With this he proclaimed this thought, “You shouldn’t imagine that there was another body before me or that another will come after me or that there is now present another body besides my body that is given for you, which you should also well know and discern. It is my body alone, about which Moses and the prophets wrote before and to which John the Baptist pointed, that is given for you in the highest obedience. It is my flesh that is given for the life of the world, John 6[:51]. You should neither hope in nor look for any other flesh or body. My body will be given for you and for many,” Luke 22[:19]. Accordingly, it is clear that Christ spoke these words, “This is my body,” so that his disciples should pay attention to the following words, “which is given for you,” and know that Christ’s body and no one else’s would be given for them and for many, which they didn’t earlier understand, although Christ often spoke of his suffering that he would be given for them, as the evangelists testify. And now we are obliged to consider earnestly that Christ has given his body since Christ [a4r] said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” For all of us who desire to eat the Lord’s bread and drink from his cup worthily and without condemnation must have a strong and thankful remembrance that Christ gave his body for us and will no longer give it. What Christ announced to the disciples as a promise in the future tense—namely, that Christ would give his body for us—the apostles and evangelists proclaim to us as something that has happened, as a fulfilled promise, Acts 13[:28–39]. Thus we must hold not to the written promise (for in this way we would be like the Jews who denied Jesus of Nazareth), but to the true, pure, and perfect gospel, namely that Christ has already given his body, as he has already died, and will no longer give his body, just as he will not die again. And so we must hear these words of Christ, “This is my body,” and understand that Christ gave his body. In this manner all the apostles, especially Peter and Paul, write about Christ’s body, how Christ gave his body into the hands of evildoers and to the cross and into death, as Paul says to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and in other epistles, and especially to the Hebrews, and Peter [says] in both epistles, teaching diligently how one should discern the Lord’s body, which I will speak more about below. Third, I hold it as a heretical and perverse statement if these words, “This is my body,” are applied to the bread and are understood as if the bread (which Christ

147

148

Chapter 8 held in his hands and gave to the disciples) is the body of Christ. I know that this is a false statement, not only for the above-mentioned reasons, but also for this reason, which comes from faith and holy scripture [a4v] and can explain the dark words. This is because it is against all prophecies and it is not only wrong to hold but also to think that the body of our savior and messiah, which at that time was still to be given and now has been given, was or should be bread baked from flour. All prophets prophesied about the natural body and blood of the Son of man who would be true God and man, and said that the same God-man would give his true natural body and shed his true natural blood for his elect. But the papists belie this fundamental argument of Christ when they say that Christ’s body is the bread, which Christ was not born into but is instead an alien created thing. For if it is true that Christ’s body was the baker’s bread, it must follow that this same bread was given for us when the body of Christ was given and that at the time when Christ spoke such words, a bread baked in the oven would be given for sins, since the clause, “which is given for you,” follows and refers to “the body,” and all that one can say about “This is the body of Christ” may be applied to it. Thus all the sophists’ imaginings firmly oppose all prophecies, gospels, and epistles of holy scripture. From this spring the mockery and insults that they might want to say. What do the prophets say of Christ’s great suffering? It isn’t that his body was a baked bread that has no soul and can’t feel anything. Why did Christ say, “My soul is sorrowful to the point of death,” if at the time Christ’s body (which would be given) was bread made of wheat, ground, kneaded, made into dough, and then baked [b1r] in the baker’s oven? If the text and words of Christ mean what the sophists say, then the Antichrists have sound reasons to blather about the body of Christ. This should be well noted. For if Christ said these words, “This is my body,” about the bread and thereby wanted it to be understood that the bread that was set before him was his body, then Christ would have said, “My natural body will not suffer, but this bread will suffer and be given, for my body that will suffer for you is a baked bread that will be tortured and crucified.” This is clearly heretical and anti-Christian and against all prophecies written about the death of the Messiah, against all gospels and apostolic teaching written about the surrendering and suffering of Christ. It follows strongly from this explanation, position, and twisted understanding of the papists that the body of the Messiah must be this kind of body. For if the body of Christ, which was given for the sin of the world, is a bread grown out of the ground and baked in a baker’s oven, then it follows that the natural and fleshly body of Christ, born from Mary, did not suffer nor was it given for us. Isn’t that heretical? It doesn’t help the twofold papists if they quibble and say, “Christ isn’t the bread, but he gave himself for the world in the bread.” For they don’t have a single letter [of scripture] nor can they show that Christ is in the bread or was crucified in it. He wasn’t nailed to the cross in the bread nor did he die for us sacramentally or secretly, but instead he died publicly.

Exegesis of This Word of Christ Our twofold papists don’t understand that it says and means the same thing when Christ says, “I give you my body,” and “I give my body for you.” These may indeed seem [b1v] to be two different statements, but at base they have the same meaning and understanding. These subtle sophists should understand this from their own statements, since they commonly say to those to whom they claim they give the body and the blood in their sacrament, “Take the body of the Lord”; “May the body of the Lord grant or increase in you to eternal life.” For when they say to someone, “I give you the body of Christ,” they want to be understood that it is to salvation, comfort, and eternal life. Thus it’s all one thing if they say, “Take the Lord’s body,” and “Take the Lord’s body unto salvation.” And so it means the same thing to say, “Christ gives you his body,” and “Christ gives his body for you.” As scholars of scripture, they should also know this from these words of Christ, John 6[:51], where Christ said, “The bread that I will give is my flesh that I will give for the life of the world.” Because it means the same thing [to say] “to give” as “to give for someone,” they should also know that Christ gives and has given his body at that time and for those [people], when and for whom he gives himself. If Christ gave his body to the disciples in the bread, then Christ also gave his body in the bread for his disciples and further, will give his body in the future for all those to whom he should give his body today in the sacrament. But this is anti-Christian, for it would be as if to say that Christ was crucified and died for us in the bread [and] Christ shed his blood in the cup. It would also follow that Christ must die as often as a priest gives him to a Christian in the sacrament. This would be against Peter and Paul, who say that Christ will die no more. If it is unchristian, then the tree [b2r] is also evil and unchristian from which this branch grows. The tree is this statement, “Christ gives himself in the sacrament,” or “Christ allows himself to be given in the sacrament for salvation and consolation, for redemption and eternal life.” The explanation that I have just given of these words, “the body of Christ given” and “given for you,” flows from true faith and the surrounding words of holy scripture, from which these words, “the bread that I will give,” become understandable and clear, which are otherwise hard to understand and difficult, or are signified and explained by the anti-Christians against Christ’s cross and glory. On this basis of faith and their context in scripture we can and ought to explain these words, “the cup, the new testament in my blood,” which sound as if the cup were in the blood. We can say without harm that Christ didn’t speak these with the intention that we should believe that the Lord’s cup is in Christ’s blood, just as little as it was Christ’s intention that the earthly bread that Christ broke and gave to his disciples was his body or that his body was in that same bread, even though the text says this on the surface, since then all other clear and obvious texts that speak of the giving of Christ’s body must fall away.

149

150

Chapter 8 Fourth, if someone says that Christ spoke these words, “This is my body,” because Christ gave his body and blood to the disciples with the bread before he was given into suffering, this opposes the entire text of Christ, since Christ in the night and hour when he gave the disciples his bread and cup said, “The body is given for you, my blood is shed for you.” Now this would be given in the future, or would first be given in another form after Christ [b2v] gave the bread; it had not yet been given when Christ gave the bread. The blood also was still to be shed when Christ gave the cup; Christ didn’t give it when he gave his cup. If it is the same thing and intention to shed blood for someone and to give him the blood, as said above, then these words masterfully resist the papists. For with his words, Christ spoke about future things or signified another giving of his body and announced that his body would be given for his disciples later, after the Supper. Here someone might say, “See, do you want to twist Christ’s words or make words signifying present things into words about the future?” Answer: Now let me propose that these words, “This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is shed for you,” are not promises nor are they words that promise or signify future things (which the literal meaning of the Greek language also supports), but these words of Christ stand powerfully against the fictitious and dreamed-up sacramental giving of the body and shedding of the blood of Christ for the reasons discussed above. Because it is clear as day that Christ didn’t redeem us in the sacrament and that he didn’t die in it. And Christ must atone and pay for our sins through his death on the cross. Thus no one can deny that Christ didn’t give himself in any way in the sacrament. It wasn’t Christ’s intention that his words about the present giving of the body and shedding of his blood be understood about the sacrament as if it should happen when the Lord held his Supper and spoke the above-mentioned words. [b3r] This can be proven for many reasons, which follow here. Scripture has a customary way of speaking about future things through words that signify present things or even past times and things gone by. Even the new and crafty papists in this case have gone horribly astray, who speak constantly of this promise, “This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is shed for you,” and daily preach or write that faith and such a promise forgives sins. For if it weren’t Christ’s intention to speak of future things, he wouldn’t have proclaimed such a promise because each promise must have words that signify future things. Where would your German be? For this reason it should be noted that Christ’s will and intention was that his body would be given later, after the Supper and not in the Supper, and much less in the sacrament, which would make Christ’s later death superfluous and useless since Christ would give himself for their salvation as often as he gives himself to them. From these words that Christ speaks about his shed blood, you can well understand that Christ gave neither his body nor his blood in the Supper, but that

Exegesis of This Word of Christ he gave and shed them afterwards, and for this reason it follows that Christ spoke of a future giving and shedding. For the Lord’s words about the Supper say, “This is my blood, which is shed for you.” I ask whether Christ shed his blood then when he spoke such words or if the Lord shed his blood after the Supper on the cross and not in the house in which [b3v] they held the Supper. They will answer, “The Lord shed it afterwards, on the cross.” Then I will ask, “Was it then the Lord’s intention through such words to speak of the future shedding of his blood?” We should hold and speak in the same way about the giving of his body. Here we must translate and understand the Lord’s words according to the Lord’s intention and will, and know that the words should serve the will. For this reason I say that Christ preached the highest promise of his body and blood before his death and so spoke of future things. You can understand this, my brothers, from the fact that Christ would not have brought any people to himself nor increased among that people if he had not died and been glorified. If Christ had not fallen to the ground and died, he would have borne no fruit and drawn no one to himself, and the giving of his body and shedding of his blood would have remained fruitless without his death and dying. For Christ said, “If a grain of wheat falls to the earth and doesn’t die, it remains alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit.” Likewise, “When I am raised up, I will draw all people to myself,” John 12[:24, 32]. From this it is clear that Christ speaks of the giving of his body and shedding of his blood, which can bear fruit in the elect. But this happened only on the cross. For where the Lord gives without death, he remains alone, and where he is not raised up, he draws no one to himself. On the cross and in obedience, Christ has become a perfect prince and king of his people, and for the sake of his obedience on the cross, God has raised him up over all things and given him a name over all names, so he is rightly called Jesus, Philippians 2[:9], that is, a savior of his people. For this purpose [b4r] Christ wanted to give his body and shed his blood, which not only the scripture but also the history of Christ’s death proves. Therefore, compelled by other scriptures, we must say that Christ’s intention was to preach one or two promises, and to speak of future things and not of past or present things. Thus Christ said, “This is my body, which will be given in the future,” and not “which is given now.” Likewise concerning his blood, “This is my blood, which will be shed,” and not “which I shed now.” Paul’s statement supports this: “You should proclaim the Lord’s death as often as you eat the Lord’s bread and drink from his cup” [1 Cor. 11:26]. For Paul’s account helps us understand that Christ spoke these words, “This is my body, which is given for you,” [referring to] the same time when he would give his body into death, and that Christ would shed his blood on the cross and didn’t shed it in the Supper when he said, “This is my blood that is shed,” etc. 1 Peter 2[:24] agrees, saying that Christ bore our sins in his body on the cross. From this it follows that we all must understand Christ’s word, “This is my body,

151

152

Chapter 8 which is given for you,” as that Christ wanted to and would give his body on the cross for us, which was in the future when Christ held his Supper. But I think that Christ didn’t use words that signify present things in vain, perhaps because his bitter and acknowledged suffering was already present in Christ’s soul, and that Christ perceived and felt the pains of death when he held his Supper. [b4v] Because before his Supper (which the papists call a sacrament), Christ said, “My soul is sorrowful,” etc. Likewise, “The hand of the betrayer is with me at the table,” which Matthew 26[:23] describes. He also tells, in the same chapter [26:14–15], how Christ was betrayed by Judas before the Supper. The same suffering and knowledge of Judas’s betrayal affected Christ in his soul and spirit, John 13[:21]. And Christ saw it as so important and bitter that he called it a glorification or revelation of the Son of man, although he would be glorified more highly and gloriously later, John 13[:31–32], Hebrews 2[:9] and 5[:5], Song of Solomon 3[:11]. I think that for the sake of such suffering and the testing of the cross Christ said, “Now is my body given and my blood shed; realize now that the hour is at hand.” But the body must still rightly be given and the blood poured out later, after the Supper was held and the words spoken. When? When Christ went to the cross and in free will became the most high priest who alone is fitting to offer the most pure, innocent, righteous, and wisest sacrifice on the cross, when he surrendered and commended his spirit to God his father in his fatherly love and prayed for his persecutors, the poor people, which is fitting for Christ as the one eternal priest. But this was a giving of his body, when he gave himself for the world and offered himself to his father. In the same temple and at the same time, Christ destroyed the devil’s kingdom and cast the prince of the world out of the world when in great obedience he presented himself in our stead, in which we were bound and imprisoned by the devil, and had the devil caught, bound, and scorned for us, John 12[:31] and 14[:30–31]. For this, Christ wants to and must give himself, and Christ spoke of this giving of his body. From this you can again note [c1r] that Christ’s intention was to speak of the future giving of his body when he held his Supper. Accordingly, no Christian can say that these words, “This is my body, given for you; this is my blood, shed for you,” signify a giving and shedding that happens in the Supper as soon as Christ speaks such words. It is also anti-Christian and devilish when one says that Christ is supposed to have spoken about the giving of his body and shedding of his blood in the sacrament. You won’t find a single line in any of the books of holy scripture that say this. Thus it should be enough to conclude that Christ promised and that he spoke of future things, namely, about the giving of his body that would happen on the cross. But I will willingly and without their asking give this comparison to the Godfearing who desire examples. John the Baptist said, “Behold, this is the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,” John 1[:29]. This statement sounds as if Christ the lamb of God at that time bore the sins of the world when John pointed to him and spoke of him, as just said. But the scripture testifies everywhere that

Exegesis of This Word of Christ Christ paid for our guilt, debts, and sins on the cross through his death and reconciled us through the cross to his father, Ephesians 1[:7] and 2[:16]. Thus John’s statement must be understood as Christ is the lamb who goes to his death without rebellion and who will pay for the pains and sins of the world, Isaiah 53[:7]. Thus the words in the present tense must be understood as future tense. Another example concerning Christ: Christ says to the sons of Zebedee, “You will be baptized with [c1v] the baptism that I receive,” Matthew 20[:22], Mark 10[:38]. Christ wasn’t speaking of the baptism that he had previously received from John in the Jordan, but about his suffering with which Christ would in the future be baptized, and he speaks of such baptism through a word that signifies a present baptism, namely, baptizor. But it was Christ’s intention that one would understand his future baptism through this word, and not the past and present baptism. Christ had this way [of speaking], that through words signifying present things we should understand future things, especially when the intention and desire, as well as the context of scripture, require this, as we can easily recognize from the chapter just cited. For Mark wrote using words that signify present things. In the same way, Matthew described with words that clearly show a future thing (which wasn’t present but that would happen in the future); namely, Mark says that Christ said, “Can you drink the cup that I drink?” Here Mark used a word that means to drink in the present, which is expressed in Latin through the word bibo and that we say as “I drink,” and he used the same word again when he writes, “Christ says, ‘You will drink from the cup that I drink.’” But Matthew uses for this word, “which I drink,” a word that means the same as “which I will drink,” and the same word means not to drink in the present but to drink in the future. Christ’s statement also supports this, when he was taken captive and said to Peter, “Will I not drink the cup that my father has given me?” John 18[:11]. For with this Christ shows that he will experience death in the future and his suffering, which was still [c2r] to come. Thus we may happily say without harm that Christ’s intention (when he held the Supper and said, “This is my body, which is given for you”) was to speak of the future giving of his body. For we are compelled to this by God’s word, faith, and the context of scripture. Christ also had such a manner of speaking from the nature of the language that Christ spoke, which wasn’t Greek but was a mixture of Hebrew, Syriac, or Chaldaean. Therefore the papists fall short when they help themselves with such words and want to give Christ’s body in their sacrament. It will also follow that Christ didn’t give his body afterwards unto death or shed his blood on the cross for us. This would be nothing other than to deny what even Christ’s enemies must confess and to overturn that on which our faith is grounded. If Christ our Lord and savior had said, “Take, eat, this is my body, which I now give you in the bread; take, drink, this is my blood, which I now pour into the cup,” then our sophists would have a way to the prize, and they’d fight for and win the prize if Christ had said, “My body is in this; take this in the bread and eat it.

153

154

Chapter 8 Likewise in the cup is my blood that I pour out, and so take the cup and drink my blood.” But Christ said nothing of the sort, and so the papists run along the way and lead their followers away from the merit of the bitter suffering of Jesus Christ if they seek in the sacrament for the body given and the blood shed. [c2v] Fifth, they not only lack scripture, but they run as enemies of the truth against scripture. For it is against the gospel, John 6, if one says that Christ gave his body or his flesh as food in the sacrament, or what is even worse, that a sinful, impure priest who is mortal can give this innocent, most pure, and eternal food in the sacrament, especially since it belongs to Christ alone to give the bread and flesh of life. That it is contrary to scripture to say that Christ gave his body as food and his blood as drink in the sacrament can be proven from Christ’s statements in John 3[:14–15], 6[:51], 12[:32], and other chapters, that he will give his flesh as food on the cross. I will briefly summarize the arguments that prove that the sacrament in which Christ is supposed to be is not the food of life. Christ speaks in John 6[:33–35, 51] of how he is a heavenly bread come down from heaven, a true bread of life, a flesh that will be given for the life of the world, and that all those who eat his flesh will live and remain in Christ. The sacramental bread is an earthly bread that grows up from below, which cannot give life. Christ wants us to understand that he will give himself as the flesh of life on the cross through his death, where he renders the highest obedience and love to his father, and where he is our grace that cannot be rejected, the cause of our eternal blessedness, our perfect prince and Lord, Hebrews 2[:14–15] and 5[:9]. He has been exalted above all things and won the highest name of all, Philippians 2[:9], and has become the most high priest, Hebrews 9[:11–12] and 10[:21]. Christ’s words also show this, where Christ [c3r] often spoke of his flesh and his blood, John 6[:53–56], from which he would be completely separated on the cross on which Christ suffered and died. Thus on the cross Christ’s flesh and blood are recognized as a food and drink of life. The Son of man must be raised up so that he is raised up on the cross and redeems from destruction those who believe in him, John 3[:14–15]. Because the body of Christ is to be a flesh or food of life and Christ’s blood a drink of life, so must his flesh be raised up and his blood shed from the height of the cross. Anyone who desires to draw life from Christ’s flesh and blood must seek in spirit the raised up Christ as a food and drink on the cross and not in the sacrament. But anyone who seeks Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrament and wants to eat and drink [them] in it, he rebukes Christ who said, “The Son of man must be raised up,” John 3[:14]. It is also proven and well founded through a prophecy of David how Christ gave his body or flesh as food only on the cross and wanted to give it after his Supper. For David prophesied thus: “God has made a remembrance of his miracles, he has given a tereph to those who fear him” [Ps. 111:4–5].3 A tereph was a living 3

The medieval gloss interpreted Psalm 111 (Ps. 110 in the numbering of the Vulgate) as referring

Exegesis of This Word of Christ creature that was torn apart and killed by wild animals. According to his humanity, Christ was this same living creature, for he was torn apart and slain by mad princes and tyrannical priests and ferocious crowds. Scripture calls such people the wild animals of the earth, namely, lions, bears, wolves, griffins, eagles, and the like. Such animals sharpened their teeth, claws, and nails, cross and cursing, and slew Christ and left him, but God gave Christ [c3v] as the tereph not to these, but only to those who fear God. Now I ask whether Christ the tereph was in the sacrament or also in the Supper, or only on the cross? It’s clear that his flesh wasn’t a tereph in the Supper. For this reason it is even more clear that Christ’s flesh isn’t food in the sacrament. This reveals the lies of the sophistic papists who claim that Christ’s body or flesh is food in the sacrament. But now I must provide an excursus for those who don’t understand, for it occurs to me that some may take offense at the writings of the prophets and consider it as wrong to say that the prophet David called Christ’s murdered flesh a tereph, since the law calls every tereph unclean and common and forbids the people to eat it, and it considered unclean those who ate flesh killed in this way. But this opposes Christ’s worthiness and overlooks the entire chapter of John 6. Therefore I give this response, that it was a new and miraculous food about which David prophesied and Christ spoke. His flesh is our food, and it would be very good to write about food offerings and this matter at sufficient length, which I must now omit for the sake of brevity. I say now that Christ has become such a common food through our sin, when he innocently and in his holiness and purity truly grasped and took our sins upon himself. And the blessed one laid our curses and condemnation upon himself as he hung on the cross and became accursed before God and before man, Deuteronomy 21[:23]. The Lord Christ willingly submitted to the curse of the law and blessed us, Deuteronomy 27[:26], Galatians 3[:10]. [c4r] The Lord through his obedience paid for our disobedience, Romans 5[:6–8]. Christ hung between two murderers and was counted with them, and bore our shame, pain, and evil and was despised by the people as one whom God had rejected, Isaiah 53[:3–5]. In the same form and manner, the murdered flesh of Christ became a common and unclean food that only the God-fearing eat, according to what David says, “He has given a tereph to the God-fearing.” From this it follows that God doesn’t give this same food to the godless and unrepentant. But in this way it is impossible that Christ is now a food in the sacrament or was such food, for on the cross, as he hung over the earth and suffered all weakness, as the wild animals killed him, he became at that time an eternal food and tereph of the God-fearing. And he himself became to the Eucharist; Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria. Karlstadt’s unusual translation of Psalm 111:5 was derived from Johann Reuchlin, who translated the word tereph as prey; Principivm Libri II Ioannis Revchlin de Rvdimentis Hebraicis, 207. The KJV translates the word as meat, and most modern English translations use the word food.

155

156

Chapter 8 a bread and flesh of life in which the righteous live, as Paul says. Isaiah also said this, who masterfully depicted the Messiah, Christ our Lord, hanging on the cross and numbered with the iniquitous, and says that the righteous one, known in the same poor and wretched form, justifies many through his knowledge [Isa. 53:11]. This knowledge is the faith and life of the righteous, which is poured into the soul through the revelation of the Father, to those whom the Father reveals his son, the crucified Jesus of Nazareth. This is what Christ said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him, and he has eternal life” [John 6:54]. Christ cannot be such food in the sacrament, for his flesh is a bread of life and those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have true divine life. And anyone who eats or drinks has an internal and spiritual life. But if Christ [c4v] were a food in the sacrament, then all who receive the sacrament would live through reception of Christ’s body and blood. But this isn’t true, since Judas the betrayer ate the Lord’s Supper and his soul was not made alive, but if Judas ate the Lord’s flesh he would have been made alive in Christ and remained, John 6[:51], and not gone out and been corrupted. The godless, who have no fear of God, can neither receive nor eat Christ’s flesh. Thomas Aquinas writes that both the good and the evil receive it, 4 but this is a lie and against the prophet David, Psalm 100[Ps. 101:7], and Christ, John 6[:63]. But the evil can truly take and eat the Lord’s bread to their judgment, 1 Corinthians 11[:29]. It is true that evildoers can take and slaughter the body of Christ, as Annas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate, and other murderers did. But they don’t eat the food that David called a tereph and Christ called his food. They slaughter the prey and mock it and then go away. But only the God-fearing accept Christ, see the internal goods of Christ, eat his flesh and drink his blood, and find in him life and blessedness, and their hearts are firmly assured that God is true, John 3[:18–21], 6[:47–51], and that Christ is truly the one who refreshes the burdened and sorrowing. The sacrament strengthens like the manna with which God fed his people for forty years. Thus we must judge and differentiate between the sacrament and the bread that is Christ’s flesh, as Christ distinguished the manna from his flesh that is the bread of life. It is also completely impossible that the text, John 6, speaks of the sacrament. [d1r] For the sacramental bread has grown up from below and is made by human hands and is not the bread of heaven, like the bread that is Christ’s body or flesh. Now what Christ said about his flesh and blood, John 6[:53–58], is briefly summarized in these words (Luke 22[:19–20], 1 Cor. 11[:24–25], “My body is given for you; my blood is shed for you”). And Christ briefly renewed his precious sermon about his person as the redeemer with these words. Thus it is absolutely impossible that Christ thought about the giving of his body and shedding of his 4

Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, pt. 3, q. 80, art. 3.

Exegesis of This Word of Christ blood that is supposed to happen in the sacrament. Christ said nothing about this, and his prophets and apostles also said nothing about Christ giving his body in the bread and his blood in the cup as a food and drink. It is pure willfulness that the sophistic papists set forth their own words as divine words and reject scripture through their own additions, as if it were insufficient. And so these words of Christ boldly resist the old and new papists and overturn their papist sacrament, since these words openly refute this dream from which they say that Christ’s body and blood are in the sacrament, along with this, that such words not only speak of the giving of the body and shedding of the blood that happened after Christ’s Supper was held and finished, but also that they speak of a different giving of the body and shedding of the blood apart from anything done through or in the sacrament, as shown and described above. Thus the papists should know that they are judged and handed over by these words, that they have no more help [d1v] or excuse for their idolatry, and that they should be avoided as subtle enemies of Christ’s cross. And I want to say to the world that the devil has brought no greater hidden harm to Christendom throughout the world than what he introduced through the papistic sacrament. But although he presents himself as an angel of light [2 Cor. 11:14], and clothes and hides his own with cloaks of righteousness, God will uncover them and reveal the dishonor that they have offered to Christ’s most high friendship. I well know that you will trot out and cite the holy [church] fathers, but I point to the sole word of God to which all of the fathers are subject, just like you and me. Someone might ask, “I see that the Lord’s bread is simply that and nothing more than bread. But why did Paul consider the misuse of such bread as so important and dangerous? What caused him to say that whoever eats the Lord’s bread unworthily is guilty of Christ’s flesh and of judgment?” [1 Cor. 11:27–29]. I answer that this should not seem strange to anyone, for God is the Lord and he wants to be feared in all his ordinances as the Lord, and so God says, “I am the Lord, where is my fear?” Malachi 1[:14]. Thus Moses says, “Guard yourself before the holy things of God,” Leviticus 25 [22:2], although the holy thing was an unreasoning created thing. God doesn’t want us to speak of or transgress against what is his. God punished the sinners who misused his holy things, burning Nadab and Abihu who offered a foreign fire, Leviticus 10[:1–2], and otherwise commanded that his people should root out the sinners who didn’t deport themselves properly with his created things, even though those things were unreasoning. Thus God also commanded, under pain of death, [d2r] that no oil of anointing should be used for or sold to a foreigner, Exodus 30[:32–33]. We have many examples of similar things in scripture, Numbers 19[:1–22]. Each one should use the things God has established in the way that God has ordained. Now in and of themselves such things are no better than other things. Thus it should not seem strange that someone can misuse the Lord’s bread, although it is nothing more than bread, and make himself guilty of judgment. We learn from Paul’s teaching

157

158

Chapter 8 that we shouldn’t act in any other way, either with baptism or with the bread, than as God has ordained. Ignorance will also excuse you somewhat in that you won’t be so strictly punished as those who knowingly act against the Lord’s will. But you won’t be wholly excused, for God wants to have an understanding people who first hear and learn, and then do and carry out what pleases God, as Moses says over thirty times in his book. And so we answer like Paul, that they are guilty of judgment who eat the Lord’s bread unworthily and who don’t rightly know or discern the Lord’s body [1 Cor. 11:29]. I fear that all papists have received and still receive the Lord’s bread unworthily and to their condemnation. For all those who discern the sacrament and seek the body of Christ in the sacrament, when they should seek in the cross or in Christ’s crucified body, forget the passion and death of Christ and so don’t discern the Lord’s body. In discerning the sacrament or the Lord’s body in the sacrament, they act as unreasoning donkeys and horses that have no understanding and that do not serve God [Ps. 32:9], but act against the Lord’s will, some knowingly and some from blindness, and so they fall into judgment. [d2v] God gave his people a high and wise word, Deuteronomy 4[:1–2]. Whoever doesn’t have it is foolish and can do nothing before God; as it is written, “The people honor me with the teachings of men,” etc. [Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8–9], and, “Every plant that my father has not planted will be rooted out” [Matt. 15:13]. Now the papists have not a letter of divine wisdom. What they say about the body of Christ in the sacrament all comes from human emptiness and droning. The papists seem to me like a big herd that follows the lead ox that goes through mists and swamp, always following the leader even though it could follow a better path. There was some horned bishop who out of exaggerated holiness wanted to honor the body of Christ in the sacrament and his church followed him. Paul did not say that we should discern—that is, recognize seriously and well—the Lord’s body in the sacrament, but he spoke from the knowledge of Christ’s passion at the time when Christ died. For when Paul wanted to show the Corinthians their evil abuses and bring them to the correct use, he showed them the discerning of the body and blood of Christ with a few words, i.e., “Christ, in the night when he was betrayed,” etc. This was the first; the second, Christ said, “This is my body, which is broken for you; eat in remembrance of me.” The third, “You should proclaim the Lord’s death as often as you eat of the Lord’s bread and drink of his cup” [1 Cor. 11:23–26]. Through these three statements Paul tells how we should discern the Lord’s body, what we should look to and think about when we want to discern the Lord’s body. If Paul had said nothing more than only this, “You should proclaim the Lord’s death,” [d3r] we would be satisfied and discern the Lord’s body on the cross where Christ died out of his all-surpassing love of God and the world. Now Paul explained further to the Corinthians and us, and he began his statement, “In the night when Christ was betrayed,” etc. The

Exegesis of This Word of Christ Corinthians came together and wanted to partake of the Lord’s Supper without serious consideration of the Lord’s death, moved by the fact that in the apostles’ times the Lord’s bread was held to be pure bread and nothing more than bread. But Paul says, “When you come together to eat the Lord’s bread, you should know when and why Christ instituted his Supper. For in the night when the Lord was betrayed, he took bread (the same that you want to eat) and said, ‘Eat; this is my body that is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ See, in the night when Christ was betrayed, when he sorrowed for your sake, at that same time the Lord established and gave his Supper. This is the time you should remember.” His reason: “Eat in remembrance of me.” Thus the remembrance of the Lord should move you. Christ didn’t hide what this remembrance should consist of or what we should note, for he said, “The body is given for you. You should remember this in the future, after I have died and risen again, that I gave my body for you.” From this it is good to note that we must well consider and discern the Lord’s body if we want to receive his Supper without harm. Whoever wants to discern and judge rightly the Lord’s body must truly and diligently learn what is written especially about Christ’s body, and judge from this [how] to recognize Christ’s body rightly. Now the characteristics of Christ’s body are so many that I am thinking about writing a separate pamphlet [d3v] and showing through verses or as theses what scripture says.5 But now for the sake of brevity I will remind you that Paul calls the Lord’s bread a sign or figure of our body of which Christ is the head, and he says, “Are not we many one bread?” [1 Cor. 10:17]. With this he says in a concealed way that those who come together to eat the Lord’s bread must also judge themselves as Christians and as the body of Christ, and understand and examine themselves to find the powerful love, unity, peace, and heartfelt society [that should exist] among them as members of one body. This can clearly be proven from Christ’s words, especially in the Gospel of John. Thus the communicants must know and have a genuine divine and brotherly love among themselves as members of one body. Without such love they do not rightly judge the Lord’s body and so eat the Lord’s bread unworthily. Thus communicants should examine themselves well before they eat of the Lord’s bread, so that they correspond to the figure of the external bread among themselves in their body. This love of the figured body, through which we are members of each other, flows from the genuine and loving knowledge of Christ’s all-surpassing love for his church, which he purified through his shed blood and placed as blameless before God’s eyes. The almighty God grant that we encounter such powerful love through his son. Amen.

5

Karlstadt never wrote this pamphlet.

159

160

Chapter 8 Conclusion Here, dear brothers, you have three arguments from this verse and statement of Christ, “This is my body which is given for you,” that strongly stand against all papists.6 And they conclude that Christ was not and cannot be in their sacrament. These are the three arguments. The first: Where Christ pointed to the bread and said, “This is my body,” it clearly follows that it is impossible that the body [d4r] of Christ is in the bread. For we do not have in nature or scripture any similitude of bodily things where one thing can be the other that contains it. Second: If Christ said of the bread, “This is my body, which is given for you,” then all the prophecies, gospels, and the books of the apostles would be false in which the clear suffering of the natural body of the Messiah is described. Third: Because it was the Lord’s intention in the Supper to speak of the future giving of his body, which would happen after the Supper was held, it follows that Christ did not give his body in the Supper nor did he want to give it in the sacrament when he said, “My body is given for you.” This means the same as, “My body will in the future and after this Supper be given as a food on the cross and not in the sacrament.” Thus these words stand bravely against all papists, old and new, and they bring such words with them to their own defeat, just as Goliath brought his sword and was killed by David with his own sword [1 Sam. 17:50–51]. These wicked people try to do more than they are able, just as Moab gave advice and then was justly mocked. For Christ did not bring his body into the sacrament nor did he command anyone after him to undertake to bring him into the sacrament, much less to give anyone the Lord’s body as a food, whether outside or within the sacrament. For he said, “The bread that I give,” etc., John 6[:51], and through this cut off from them any power to give him as a bread or food to anyone. This is a great presumption of the papists, and it is not only their own willfulness but [also] destructive harm to all Christendom [d4v], which they lead on a line into the trap of idolatry and cause them to adore bread, which is nothing more than bread, so that all recipients of the Lord’s bread make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ together with judgment and damnation, as Paul says. For the whole world must hear that up until now they have received the Lord’s bread to the destructive harm of their souls, as I’ve said above. And he is blessed who now recognizes this, takes the path of righteousness, forsakes his errors and henceforth will eat the Lord’s bread in the proper remembrance of the Lord, of his death, and in the discernment of his body. Then, as a true and faithful servant of God who does only his Lord’s will, he will guard himself against the devilish idolatry of the papist sacrament. Idolatry is always and without contradiction a great and horrible sin that arises from this, which Christ forbade to the highest degree when he said, “It is written, you shall worship God your Lord and serve him alone” [Matt. 4:10]. 6

The more polemical tone of the conclusion suggests that Karlstadt added it after his arrival in Basel, just before the pamphlet was printed; Burnett, Karlstadt and Origins, 68.

Exegesis of This Word of Christ And Paul said that idolaters will not enter the kingdom of God [Gal. 5:10–21]. Thus it is necessary that the world circumcise its tough foreskin and chop out the obstruction of its heart (which made this old and well-established abuse). They must earnestly and anxiously pray to God that through recognition of the truth he make them free and clear of such devilish bonds of this and all kinds of idolatry, so that henceforth they do not forfeit heaven and merit God’s wrath, as happens the most when they hurry and desire to approach as quickly as possible to God’s kingdom. They overthrow and abandon Christ’s cross when they think they partake of Christ’s passion in the best way, of which they should eternally console themselves and boast, as Paul says, “It is far from me to boast of anything other than the cross of Jesus Christ” [Gal. 6:14]. Yes, Paul speaks to you, [d5r] “May I know nothing other than Jesus the crucified” [1 Cor. 2:2]. Did Paul speak anywhere of the sacrament as you are accustomed to speaking? The cross of Christ actually comes into scorn, or at least into neglect, as often as you seek something in the sacrament or in the body of Christ as he is supposedly in the sacrament. Seek where you should seek, where Christ was hung, raised up, died, and gave himself as our food and the bread of our life, there where he revealed his highest love, obedience, wisdom, innocence, strength, grace, and similar benefits, and distributed them to all who know him. Paul for himself did not want to disdain or lose this great grace of Christ. Why then do you want to lose such grace or be enticed away to where you should neither seek nor find such grace? I ask, what grace is Paul speaking about? Hear his words, who says, “I live through faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not reject this same grace of God,” Galatians 2[:20–21]. Here Paul says that he will not lose the grace of Christ on the cross, that his life consists in this, that in faith he knows the love of the Son of God who gave himself for him. What will the foolish world bring? Why doesn’t it flee to the grace of Christ on the cross, which Paul doesn’t want to lose? Why doesn’t it seek redemption, forgiveness of sins, strength of soul, and assurance of the heart in the cross? That is where all grace and redemption is. I want to say to you, beware of your condemnation, for the abomination and anti-Christian manner of the papistic sacrament have been revealed to me so that I may admonish you about the true gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, so that you do not put the cross of Christ to shame and do not build on the good and valuable ground (which God has produced through [d5v] thankless and greedy and insolent men) with wood, hay, rubbish, or manure (which will all be burned away) [1 Cor. 3:12–13]. Now see that you do not lay the cornerstone as an offense and opposition, and reform through knowledge of the truth, the sooner the better, so that you do not hunt after your own damnation. The most prominent should have told you this, but the poor patrons of idols have become blind, deaf, and dumb, like the idols that they love and protect. Although they have good eyes, they do not see the light and

161

162

Chapter 8 the clear truth so that they can teach others whose students they must still be. If they use these blasphemous idols against God’s will, then God holds them in great blindness so they grope in the light of truth like blind people in the night. Thus God drives those who want to be acclaimed as great leaders of the church to distort and overturn the true gospel. And so beware the papist sacraments and idols, follow the truth, which (praise God, against the command and will of the new sophistic papists) mightily breaks forth and returns with fruit to God. But if you follow him, God will also leave you stuck in the error in which this hairsplitting sophist sticks (up over his ears). And it is possible that you, like him, will remain and continue in your old life and error. But you should be judged only according to your teaching (over which he will not endure any teacher so that he can keep his reputation as learned7) and not according to your works. I fear that he is a late-born friend of the Antichrist, who has spread precious silver and gold (that is, much good and blameless doctrine) and now through this reputation and the praise he has obtained, like the devil he wants to lead us onto sheer ice so that in the future we knowingly and against God’s will hold to and use the idols and sacrament and [d6r] all kinds of evil works that we held to and did before out of blindness and ignorance of the truth. His teaching is that one should vanquish opponents with salutary words. But his actions are to chase someone who is both unheard and undefeated out of the land.8 I had hoped that the truth would come to light without insults and that he would dispute with me or tolerate me without harming me, which he offered with a handshake and a promise. But now he aims his gun at me and with his letter he shoots me out of Saxony, to my insurmountable harm. And so I must be silent so that he doesn’t shoot me out of the whole world, which he would gladly do if he could and God were dead. But I do not fear death, for death cannot harm me. I’ll sit in one place, lurk and lie in ambush to see how this jolly, slippery, and lovely sophist (who chops up scripture) will make his papistic Lord God into a food of life and source of Christian grace. But to the God-fearing, I hope that they will not believe either D. M. L.9 or me, which I truly desire, but will hunt for the truth and find out which one rightly teaches divine truth or not. Similitudes in scripture: You are Peter. And on this rock I will build my church. [Matt. 16:8] Take the bread, etc. This is my body given for you, etc.

7

An allusion to Luther’s refusal of Karlstadt’s repeated request for a public debate, which would have allowed the audience to judge between the positions defended by the two men. 8 Karlstadt believed that Luther was responsible for his banishment. 9 Doctor Martin Luther.

9

Dialogue, or a Discussion Booklet On the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament of Jesus Christ, 1524 (October 1524) The first edition of Dialogus oder ein gesprechbüchlin von dem grewlichen vnnd abgöttischen mißbrauch des hochwirdigsten Sacraments Jesu Christi may have been published in Erfurt in the fall of 1524 (VD16, B6142; not in Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis”), but there are no extant copies of this imprint. The Basel imprint by Johann Bebel was published in October 1524 (VD16, B6141; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 126). Working from a separate copy given him by Martin Reinhart, Hieronymus Höltzel began to print the work in Nuremberg in November, but he was forbidden by the city council to continue. Reinhart took the pages already printed to the Bamberg printer Georg Erlinger, who finished the pamphlet before the end of the year (VD16, B6140; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 127). The pamphlet was also printed in Strasbourg by Johann Prüss in 1525 (VD16, B6143; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 128). There is a modern German edition, based on the Basel imprint, in Hertzsch, Schriften, 2:5–49, and two English translations, the first by Carter Lindberg, in “Karlstadt’s Dialogue on the Lord’s Supper,” and the second in Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 269–315. I have used the Basel imprint for my translation but have noted variations in the Bamberg imprint in the notes. Hertzsch moved the text of fol. a4v of the Basel imprint to between fol. f3r and f3v; the translations of both Lindberg and Furcha follow Hertzsch and so have the same transposition. I have restored the transposed text to its original place, so that this translation now matches the sixteenth-century imprints. My translation is based on that of Lindberg, but I have modified it to reflect Furcha’s translation as well as my own reading and to correspond more closely to the style of the other translations in this volume.

To all believers in Christ I wish God’s grace and knowledge.

[a1v]

No one should think, dear brethren, that I write in an outrageous way about the anti-Christian use of the most venerable sacrament from impudence and wantonness, although I certainly know that the greatest part will think that 163

164

Chapter 9

Fig. 5. Title Page of Dialogue, or a Discussion Booklet. On the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament of Jesus Christ (Bamberg: Erlinger, 1524). Herzog August Bibliothek,Wolfenbüttel [Yv 2178.8° Helmst].

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament I’ve sought nothing other than innovation and oddity. This is because my work sets itself against so many thousand scholars of scripture,1 and especially because the princes among the most learned and scripturally wise maintain the old papist abuse that the common person runs after, dancing up and down to their piping and holding everything that they hear from these scribes as the foundation of righteousness.2 And [they think] that they everywhere do right when they sing, jump, and babble in imitation of those same highly learned song leaders, saying “Yes” and “Amen” to all their advice. But if the bound consciences freed themselves of some of their bindings and let the personages and the highly esteemed trot along, and [if these consciences] held to the pure truth and considered that it is unseemly and sacrilegious to twist the truth according to human deception or to judge the scripture according to the reputation of men, they would no longer depend upon the arm of man but rather upon the undeceptive foundation of truth and obtain eternal peace and a drink of the water Christ gives to drink, which satisfies completely and springs up to eternal life [John 4:14]. I desire that one seriously consider the truth. I also have no doubt at all that they would better ponder and receive this distinguished sacrament more worthily than they have up to now. [a2r] And if, dear brethren, you could take to heart how divine love together with faith, hope, and trust in God are cut off, waste away, and come to nothing through the misuse of all external, well-intended signs, then everyone would say that neither impudence nor innovation nor my own fame nor anything else invited and brought me to this work, but only this, that through the false use of the sacrament, the love of God is extinguished, faith hindered, and consciences imprisoned in horrible error—those consciences that through the traditional practice wanted to be strengthened in God’s love and faith and freed from all fear. God understands all things better than we, no matter how well-prepared one is or can become. For this reason he often abolished the use of external things and totally forbade what he himself instituted, because he saw how the simple people took offense out of ignorance. Thus God has rejected sacrifice, fire, incense, temple, the snake, and the ark, and said, “What do I care about your sacrifice, your incense? What is it that you say: ‘The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord?’ You shall no longer call upon the ark” [Jer. 7:4]. Hezekiah took away the uplifted serpent and broke it to pieces because of its misuse [2 Kings 18:4], despite the fact that God himself had set it up and that it was a particular sign of the body of Christ that would be given into the hands of evildoers on the cross. Dear brethren, what do you think we should do, we who see such a dreadful misuse of the most worthy sacrament? We who understand how these 1 Schrifftgelerten, also used as the first term in the phrase “scribes and Pharisees,” and so with the negative connotation of those who are experts concerning the letter but not the spirit of scripture. 2 A criticism of the unquestioned authority attributed to Luther and his Wittenberg colleagues by their followers.

165

166

Chapter 9 and blind Christians behave and act with the sacrament so that they fall into the error of believing that Christ has suffered for our sins in the host? [a2v] Or that Christ has washed away and forgiven our sins in the host? Or that Christ remains with us eternally in the sacrament? We who see that some make greater feast of the sacrament than of the death Jesus3 Christ suffered?4 My matter will seem new to you. But I will present the truth to you as if I were presenting it before God’s eyes and severe judgment seat. Therefore I admonish you on oath to consider neither me nor anyone else but instead the foundation of my pamphlet, and that you weigh the truth in it seriously and wisely. You shouldn’t imagine that because I’ve written a dialogue, I want to insult or entertain. I am greatly concerned about your salvation and am very serious about this matter. For the sake of brevity, I have named persons who discuss together this use of the sacrament, for the argument is grasped more quickly in conversation than in a single straightforward statement. Therefore you should know that I have sought brevity and your benefit, and above all God’s glory and honor, and not derision or diversion. It befits you to apply diligence to each argument and ask God that he would preserve and keep us through his discernment of his truth from all that dishonors him, which consists most of all in a perverted mind and will contrary to God. Amen.

Speakers: Gemser, Victus, and Peter, a layman. G. Dear brother Victus, why are you so depressed? V. What’s the use of complaining to you? You can’t help me. G. Don’t you know that it is written, [a3r] “Ad aliquem sanctorum convertere”?5 You should call upon a saint in your time of need. V. Whoever said that was a fellow like you, who would make the afflicted Job flee from God to created things. It seems to me that you’re more deceitful than he, for your advice is the same—that I should flee to you as to a saint. G. What’s the harm? V. Plenty, for you are immersed in sacramentalist teaching and consider as health what to me is sickness and a horrible ulcer. G. I perceive that you are in doubt about the sacraments. V. You have perceived my ulcer. G. We have seven sacraments. Which one troubles you? V. I know of neither one nor seven sacraments. G. Oho! 3

The Bamberg imprint omits Jesus. Karlstadt is comparing the celebration of Corpus Christi to that of Easter. The Basel imprint has fest (feast); the Bamberg imprint uses the more negative geprenge (pomp). 5 “Turn to some of the saints”; Job 5:1 (Vulgate). 4

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament V. I don’t know what sort of word the word sacrament is, much less what it means, and so it’s possible that I err and stumble, as Aristotle says, “Ignorantes virtutes vocabulorum defacile,” etc.6 G. Sacrament is a Latin word and not Greek; but the Jews say that it’s a Hebrew word and that in German it means “a false, fictitious image.” Seker in their language means “false, fictitious, and useless.” Ment they say is “an image.” V. I thought you were a patron of the sacraments, but you’re a mocker. G. I’ve told you what the Jews think of the little word sacrament and would have told you what it means in Latin, but you interrupted me in my speech like a peasant and want to humiliate me. V. Your speech and the appearance of your face appear as if you agree with the Jewish view. G. God forbid and preserve me [from that]! V. But what does the word sacrament mean? G. Sacramentum is a Latin word and in good German it means “a sign of a holy thing,” as the Master of High Minds teaches and says, “Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum.”7 [a3v] As we say it in Latin, “Hoc est sacramentum militare, hoc est castrense; nihil ad propositum.”8 V. You are a master of high minds who thinks little of God’s word, to whom God also doesn’t reveal many things, whom God also hates and destroys their understanding and wisdom [1 Cor. 1:9]. I want to have a right, clear biblical word. G. “Hoc sacramentum magnum est.”9 V. Your answer fits like a helmet does on a foot! You know that our old translation has many invented words that don’t conform to the Greek and Hebrew, and that the sentences of our Latin Bible at times are opposed to the original languages. So if you don’t push me away with mere words, you must cite for me the [original] languages, as Jerome teaches. G. The Christian church uses that word.

6 This reading is from the Bamberg imprint; the Basel imprint gives the nonsensical “Ignorantes virtutes herbarum defacile.” The quotation is from Aristotle’s De sophisticis Elenchis, section 1: “Those who are not well acquainted with the force of names misreason both in their own discussions and when they listen to others”; McKeon, Basic Works of Aristotle, 208–9. The Latin translation, “Qui virtutes vocabulorum sunt ignari, de facile paralogizantur, id est decipiuntur,” was cited in the preface to the popular medieval dictionary of legal terms, Vocabularium utriusque iuris, which was frequently reprinted in the sixteenth century. 7 Meister von Hohen Synnen, an appellation of Peter Lombard. His definition of a sacrament as “a sign of a holy thing” in Sent. IV, dist. 1, cap. 2 (PL 192:839) derives from St. Augustine. 8 “This is a military, i.e., soldier’s, oath; it does not pertain to the subject.” In classical Latin one of the meanings of sacramentum was “a soldier’s oath.” Zwingli pointed out that the scholastic meaning of the word differed from the classical definition in his Exposition of the 67 Articles; Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke, 2:120; Zwingli, Writings, 1:98–99. 9 “This is a great mystery,” Ephesians 5:32.

167

168

Chapter 9 V. That’s why I want to know where the word sacrament has a basis in the word wherein the church lives, and that’s why I want to have a godly and true basis. G. We have seven sacraments, among which the highest and most excellent is the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. V. God has pleasure in his words, as the prophet Nehemiah says; so tell me whether God or a prophet or an apostle used the word sacrament for those things that you call sacraments. God has always given his creatures their own names. G. But God led all the animals to Adam and let them be named by Adam [Gen. 2:19]. V. And so you’ll give the church this power: that it can give names to its acts and practices as Adam did to the animals? G. Right and good. V. Wrong and bad, because [it’s] too late. G. How so, too late? V. Christ and the apostles gave baptism and the Supper of Christ their names long before the “church of high minds” came to be. You’ve missed out [a4r] and were born too late. G. We have the power that Adam had. V. So I hear that you have the power to call black what is white and good what is bad, to rebuke Christ and his apostles as you have done for several hundred years, even though Adam never received or used such power. G. Propter bonum sensum.10 V. Then the apostles and Christ would have had a poor mind and understanding, and the apostles and Christ weren’t wise enough to give correct names to those things that you call sacraments. G. I see that the names bother you. V. Not on my account, but for the sake of the sick and the weak who are led onto slippery ice with such words and are kept from continuing on and coming to God. One of these two things must always follow: Christ was either not wise or not benevolent enough when he instituted his Supper and [so] he didn’t leave behind [the knowledge] that his bread and cup should be called a sacrament or sign of holy things. Although it could be allowed that, when rightly understood, one called baptism, bread, and wine signs of things, as the apostles at times used them as figures, Romans 6[:3–4], 1 Corinthians 10[:16–17]. If you papists would allow such explanations to remain, there would be no danger. G. You’ve revealed your sickness, Victus.11 V. Let’s hear it. G. You’re distressed because of the most high sacrament. V. If you hit home, I’ll cry out. 10 11

“for good reason.” The Bamberg edition omits Victus.

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament G. You’re worried about whether Christ is in the sacrament according to his humanity. V. You guessed it. For to ask whether Christ is here or there according to his divinity is a question of whether Christ is in all created things according to his divinity, which is foolish; for God is in hell as in heaven and12 fills all created things.13 [a4v]G. That’s why I speak of Christ’s humanity. V. I truly doubt whether the body of Christ is in the bread and his blood in the cup. G. Why? V. Because they say that his natural body, which was conceived in his mother’s womb and afterward nailed on the cross, is supposedly as large, broad, thick, and long in the sacrament as it was hanging on the cross. G. “Oportet credere.” “One must believe” [Heb. 11:6]. V. “Maledictus qui credit verbis mendacii.” “Cursed is he who believes lies.” G. That is the truth, that Christ is as large in the sacrament as he was hanging on the cross. V. I know nothing at all of the truth and can’t believe it unless you show me God’s true statement that declares this freely and clearly. G. You haven’t been a priest, for the priests have certain words (which they call verba consecrationis14) that are so powerful that they bring the body and blood of Christ from high heaven down to earth into a little host. If you understood such words, you would speak more sensibly. V. You present much that I should ask you about. First, you say that the priests or monks bring the body and blood of Christ down from heaven, but that contradicts and stands against your previous statement when you said that Christ is as large in the sacrament as he was hanging on the cross. Therefore you would have to bring Christ into the sacrament from the cross where he died and shed his blood. In heaven Christ doesn’t have the form or the dimensions as when he was on the cross, so one of these things must be false. Second, you speak of certain little words that you call verba consecrationis, etc. I’ve never read them and I think that the priests have made them up. Third, you speak of a host. Explain this article for me. G. The host is bread that the priest blesses and into which he brings Christ. V. But I can’t understand it.15 [b1r]  G. The priests make the bread nothing, leaving only the form of the bread there, and into this same form in place of the bread, they put the body of Christ. 12

The Bamberg edition adds he. The section that follows is transposed in Hertzsch, Schriften, where it appears on 2:40–41; see note 15 below. 14 “words of consecration.” 15 This is the end of the transposed section. 13

169

170

Chapter 9 V. If I hear correctly, it isn’t sacramentum, but rather fermentum Pharisaeorum [Matt. 16:11–12]. For the form of the bread always remains so small and so big, so thick, and in every way as it was before the priests breathe over it or blow and cackle like geese. And so I ask whether Christ’s body, arm, breast, shanks, and bones, crown of thorns, nails, and spear are in the bread, which is smaller than Christ’s little finger was? G. Yes. V. Must he then shrink himself and crumple up when the priests blow out such words? G. What are you whistling about? V. I doubt, and so I ask. G. You shouldn’t mock. V. I don’t know any other word to use. G. You shouldn’t question. V. That’s what your priests say when you’re completely unsure of your case. But I think if what you say were true, that one should investigate and search scripture, which testifies to17 Christ, for scripture praises the Thessalonians because they investigated.18 For since scripture tells of the other things Christ did and teaches us how Christ was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb, how he lived and spoke, suffered and died, rose again and ascended into heaven, the scripture must also tell how Christ is in the sacrament, which certainly is as miraculous as any one of these articles just listed. G. Where I am going, says Christ, you know nothing about [John 7:34]. V. Duck, you’re hurting yourself! G. Doesn’t that fit? V. Just like the statement that one should preach until the carved, molten, or painted idols run out of the churches, but before that happens, one shouldn’t lay a hand on them. [b1v] G. You shouldn’t inquire into such things. V. Then why does the Truth say to examine the scriptures? And in another place, “My sheep hear my voice, but they don’t hear a stranger’s voice” [John 10:27]. And again, “You shall not hear the word of the false prophets” [Jer. 23:16], but God’s word we should examine day and night [Ps. 1:2]. You’ve never said to any stone or block of wood that Christ is in the host as he was on the cross. G. Christ’s body is as large in the host as when it hung on the cross. V. You sing your song like a raven, but I still can’t believe it. I would more easily believe that Christ’s body is as small in the host as it was when he was born or conceived, but I don’t believe any of it unless you present me with the word of 16

16

“The leaven of the Pharisees.” The Bamberg edition adds our Lord. 18 Karlstadt confused the Thessalonians with the Bereans; Acts 17:11. 17

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament faith. Otherwise if I had to believe your wind, the state of my case would be worse than that of a set of pipes. G. How so? V. The pipes have only twelve or twenty-four mouths for the wind to blow through, but I would have to suffer as many blasts as there are heads if I were to hear and believe every priest. G. Anyone who doesn’t believe is condemned [Mark 16:16]. V. Worry about yourself. I believe in Christ, in his passion, and all his words. Whoever doesn’t believe in Christ, he is condemned. Show me Christ’s word or a letter of faith from the Bible that Christ’s body is in a little host, and see whether I don’t believe. G. You’re bound to the Bible. V. I seek God in the Bible and not scripture in the written works. G. Why then do you have scripture? V. As testimony to the truth. G. Let’s speak Greek, Jewish, and Latin. V. Do you know these languages? G. If need be. V. What need is there? G. Don’t you see the peasant standing behind us, who is diligently taking in and considering all our words and speech? V. Is that bad? G. It’s bad that the laity [b2r] have just now come into their Christian freedom and will no longer give even a small coin to a priest to administer a sacrament. V. So I hear that you have something in your pot that you could and should dump out. G. I’m not joking, for you see that God is now giving to the simple some revelations that he conceals from the wise [Matt. 11:25]. V. Will you then hinder God’s power? G. Indeed, no! But I would like to keep my honor and high position. V. Instruct me. I will be quiet as a watermill. G. For a long time the text “hoc est corpus meum” [Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19] has been understood as “the bread is my body,” as if it were written “hoc panis est corpus meum,”19 but the Latin language doesn’t allow this. V. Isn’t that the text with which priests, the new and old papists,20 mend and patch, cover and conceal, and want to maintain that Christ’s body is in the bread and his blood is in the cup? G. You’ve hit on it. V. Have you then covered yourself with a scoundrel’s cloak? 19 20

“This is my body” and “This bread is my body.” I.e., Lutherans and Catholics; cf. the title of Against the Old and New Papistic Masses.

171

172

Chapter 9 G. Don’t scold me and I’ll tell you a wonder. V. You’re a learned scribe. G. I’m jesting. V. You can’t withdraw. G. How so? V. This verse, “Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis traditur” [1 Cor. 11:24], is a complete verse that Christ has placed by itself elsewhere in the Gospels, although with other words, when he says nothing about the sacrament, as Matthew 16[:21], John 3[:16], 6[:32–33]. G. Prove that. V. Easily, for the pronoun hoc has a capital H. But a capital letter means the beginning of a new sentence and verse. Therefore this verse is placed in the statement about the Lord’s bread, as one normally adds something that assists the speech or sermon, but it is still a complete saying in itself. [b2v]G. But what purpose does this verse serve? V. For this: so the disciples would learn what their remembrance should consist of, for which the Lord has commanded that his bread be eaten. G. But where did Christ speak of his body, which he would give for us and now has given? V. In all the prophets and gospels that write about his passion. G. It doesn’t sound right. V. The old fiddle, and the pope’s laws and customs, and your honor have filled your ears with creaturely noises and so it doesn’t sound right to you. Clean out your ears and hold free and open ears to God’s words, and see whether what I’ve just now told you doesn’t sound right to you. G. It’s difficult to leave behind old custom and one’s own honor. V. That’s why the road to heaven is narrow and bitter [Matt. 7:14]. G. Since you’ve begun, lead on. V. I should learn from you. G. Lead on. V. The Greek language serves this division and also the completeness of the verse, that it is a separate verse; for Greek writing and speech has separated this verse, “Hoc est corpus,” etc., with punctuation and letters better than the Latin. G. Vide quomodo omnia rusticus ille perpendit.21 V. You should search and read, and I’ll listen. G. “Touto estin to soma mou.”22 V. Translate it into German. G. “Istud est hoc corpus meum, quod pro vobis,” etc.23 21

“See how that rustic weighs everything.” “This is my body.” 23 “That is this body mine, which for you…” a very literal rendition of the Greek into Latin. 22

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament V. You should say it to me in German. G. But don’t you see how this peasant opens his mouth and acts as if he would gobble up all our words? V. That’s why you should speak German. G. It isn’t good that we reveal this thing to the laity. For then the peasants will be worth as much as the priests. V. That won’t hurt me or you. I’ll guarantee you that the God-fearing man will love you for the sake of the truth; besides, [b3r] you should confess God’s righteousness even to your harm and even with your death. G. With that hope, I’ll translate it into German. “Touto is my body, which,” etc. And it would have been good if the Greek pronoun touto had been retained and mixed with the Latin. V. Why? G. Then it would have read, “Touto est hoc corpus meum.” V. I ask, Why? G. Then the people would have wondered, “What is the little word touto?” V. But that would not have been inopportune to the priests. G. All the better! V. You will always go the way of the priests. G. Mocker! V. With reason, for then it would become a question or delusion that there was something there that was called touto and that thing must have been the body of Christ. G. What would be involved in that? V. Much, for you priests would have persuaded us laity that Christ had I don’t know what in the Supper and changed his body into it, and we would have festooned it with silver and gold. G. You shouldn’t believe that. V. Not believe it? I know right well the substances you’ve made from the chalice, and how you say you must have gold and silver chalices, and entice our silver and gold from our purses. G. For myself, I would gladly have instructed and made known that touto is a Greek pronoun. V. Who knows what you would have done when the old women had brought pennies and gulden? G. I’m too devout. V. But the avaricious and the fools really would actually have made a silver and gold chest from the little word touto. G. Yet it would still have been a fine saying: “Touto is my body,” as all the evangelists say. V. But what do you understand of the Greek text, and how does it sound in German?

173

174

Chapter 9 G. “Touto estin to soma mou,” etc. [b3v]V. Speak German! G. Hush! Be still! Quiet! The peasant will notice, quia verba sunt apertissime contra nos sacerdotes.24 Peter, a layman:  Dear sirs, allow me to speak. Don’t take it ill of me that I ask, for I understand that you are discussing the body and blood, bread and cup of the Lord Jesus Christ. G. Prius, oh Victe, dixi de rustico, quod audiret et ruminaret verba nostra.25 V. What’s the harm? P. Dear sirs, I notice that you quarrel over a little word that is not too well known to me. V. For that reason, Gemser, you should speak in German and say what “Touto estin to soma mou, to huper humon didomenon”26 means in German. P. I ardently desire that. G. Touto is the body mine, which is given for you.27 P. That’s a strange saying. V. Truly, a mixed saying. P. I’ll ask and hear whether you can make it understandable for me. G. If it stood as is or were translated as “touto is the body mine,” etc., it would stand well. V. But what if someone came along who said that touto was perhaps “a golden bread,” as you have made the word calix into “a golden goblet”? P. Dear sirs, speak more understandably and in good German, for although I understand you in part, I don’t understand you completely. G. In good German, the Greek language says this: “This is the body mine, which is given for you,” etc. But it seems to me to be better to let stand the pronoun touto, as I said. P. But it would sound strange. G. Each language or tongue has its own characteristics that can’t be translated into another language; and if anyone wants to speak about a characteristic of a foreign language, he must use the words of that same foreign language; thus we have many Latin words in our chancelleries. So now we’re using the Latin and Greek languages and should speak to you, an illiterate, [b4r] of the hidden content and sound of both languages. For this reason we must speak to you with Latin and Greek words.

24

“Because the words are most clearly against us priests.” “I told you before, Victus, that the peasant would hear and consider our words.” 26 “This is my body, which is given for you.” 27 Karlstadt deliberately follows the order of the Greek words. 25

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament P. Continue on. Who knows whether I might notice something. I was always beaten over the knuckles with Greek, Hebrew, and Latin boards and learned less than I have forgotten. G. Have you understood us? If so, you are ill-disposed and opposed to us. P. Speak for yourself. G. The Greek language has articles and pronouns that teach the gender28 and instruct so that one clearly sees which words the article or pronoun belongs to, and which it does not. P. That sounds good. Say more. G. Touto is a Greek pronoun that indicates a neuter noun. Now the word artos, in Latin panis, in German bread, is masculine. Therefore the pronoun touto can’t be applied to it and so it doesn’t support the opinion of those who say, “The bread is the body,” etc. For the Greek language won’t allow this any more than if I were to say in Latin, “Istud panis est hoc corpus meum,” or in German, “The bread is my body.” 29 P. That’s good. G. Do you like this? P. Yes indeed; because for a long time I couldn’t discover how it might be possible that the bread should become the body of Christ. I’ve always figured it this way: that Christ pointed to his body and said, “This is the body mine, which is given for you.” For Christ didn’t point to the bread nor did he say, “The bread is the body mine, which is given for you.” But those who say that the bread is the body speak on their own and lie, or at least promote their insolence. Listen: Jesus took the bread and thanked God and broke it, and gave it to his disciples and said they should eat it in remembrance of him [1 Cor. 11:24]. And he placed in the midst of these words [b4v] the reason for and manner of his remembrance, namely, because his disciples should remember that he gave his body for them. Paul strongly conveys this meaning, and those who speak otherwise pervert God’s word and are perverse people. G. Who has taught you this? P. The one whose voice I hear, although I didn’t see him, nor do I know how he came to me and went from me. G. Who is he? P. Our father in heaven. G. Oh that I also learned from him. P. Didn’t you promise his spirit? Aren’t you the poor man who gives God’s living voice a created form?30 28

Karlstadt uses the Latin terms articulos, pronomina, and genera nominum. Latin: “This bread is this my body”; the German sentence uses the masculine article (der Brot), rather than the correct neuter (das Brot). 30 As would become clear over the course of the eucharistic controversy, Luther believed that God always worked through the external means of the word, whether preached or contained in scripture, 29

175

176

Chapter 9 G. At one time, but not now. P. If you have a wide-open desire for righteousness as righteousness and a burning heart in addition, then the Greek scripture that you have read just now is a means bestowed upon you. G. What kind of assurance do you have, that you rely so firmly on your delusion and have remained in it up to now? P. I don’t have a delusion but rather truth and certainty and can confirm that the text is true. G. That’s why I ask about the assurance. P. If Christ is said to have redeemed us with his body when he was united with the bread as you say, then Christ would have suffered in the host or in the bread or with the bread. Without the bread, he wouldn’t have come to the cross and he could only have suffered in the bread; all of which is obviously false. G. Who has ever said that? P. Those do (although from ignorance) who say that Christ’s body was united with the bread or in the bread or under the form of the bread. G. How does that follow? P. They say thus: Christ said, “The bread is the body, which will be given for you.” Isn’t that as much as to say that the bread will be given and suffer for you, or “My body under the bread,” or “My body which is [c1r] the bread, which is given for you?” Doesn’t that sound like “My body won’t be given for you before it has become bread or when it is under the form of bread?” From this it follows that Christ would have suffered secretly and hiddenly, just as he is secretly and hiddenly in the sacrament. This is against God’s truth and all the prophets. Secondly, it also follows that Christ wouldn’t have given his body for us on the cross, for you priests can’t place any man there who at the same time brought the body of Christ into the bread. If you will display Christ, then tell how he took the bread when his hands were nailed down. If you want to produce an apostle, then prove that the apostles could have consecrated the sacrament, as you say, at that time when they were all scattered and had fled from their shepherd and suffered scandal in Christ. Thirdly, it would follow that the bread that the baker baked must have been the body of which the scripture writes much, that it should be given for us. But this would be a strong contradiction of all scripture. G. If you are so convinced of your position, why were you so happy when I told you how the Greek language behaves? P. Because I hear an external witness through which I might now raise up and edify the fallen, and silence and overcome the opponents. I don’t need the external witness for my own sake. I want to have my testimony of the Spirit inwardly, as Christ has promised. G. Where? and sacrament.

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament P. Once again, don’t you know that Christ said, “The Spirit, the Comforter, will give you testimony, and you will also give testimony about me” [John 15:26]? So it happened with the apostles who were assured inwardly through the testimony of the Spirit [c1v] and thereafter preached Christ externally and confirmed through the scripture that Christ must suffer for us and that the same Christ was Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified one. G. That is said of the apostles. P. Shouldn’t we be like the apostles? Why did Peter say about Cornelius that he had received the Spirit as they did? [Acts 10:47]. Why did Paul say that we should be his followers? Hasn’t Christ promised us his Spirit as he did the apostles? The Spirit alone leads us into knowledge of God’s statements; therefore it follows that those who don’t understand God’s statements don’t hear the Spirit of God speak. Nor are they Christians, for Christ said, “Those are Christ’s who have the Spirit of Christ.” Therefore God’s Spirit alone gives testimony and assurance, Romans 8[:14–16]. This is the reason why God’s Spirit is called a pledge, arra and arrabo31 [Eph. 1:13]. G. Look! If the Spirit testifies, then you should also testify why you didn’t reveal your position earlier. P. The Spirit didn’t impel me quickly enough. If he had sufficiently impelled and compelled me, I would have concealed or hidden much less than if I had a consuming fire in my bones. At times one must conceal the Spirit for the sake of his honor and sometimes fight with externally received testimony. I knew quite well that you and the whole world, especially the “scripture-wise,” would have laughed at me and said, “He raves,” if I had burst forth earlier. But now the languages are better known and more common; therefore I attack those learned in languages in their own knowledge. G. Because you would listen so seriously and earnestly to God’s truth, I will also disclose for you that this statement, “This is my body, which is given for you,” is enclosed by periods, with periods both before and after it. P. Is that good for what I’ve said? G. Exceedingly good. [c2r]  P. Why didn’t you say that before? G. I feared the fury of certain princes who claim to be learned in the scripture and have read little or nothing in it. P. You should confess God’s sayings joyously. G. I lacked the strength of the Spirit. Also, up until now I haven’t taken into consideration that to which I now pay great attention. P. One should be alert and not be in too great a hurry in a thing and examine punctuation and everything with leisure and diligence.

31

Both are Latin terms meaning “pledge” or “down payment.”

177

178

Chapter 9 G. I also can’t keep from you that this statement, “This is my body,” etc., begins in Luke [22:19] with a capital letter, which means that the verse “This is my body, which is given for you” isn’t linked to the previous words, but rather is a saying in itself. P. As God often spoke them for himself? G. Yes, yes. And therefore I must quickly agree with you and confess that Christ has said directly, “This is my body,” etc; that he pointed to his body and not to the bread. P. If you can introduce anything to the contrary and demolish or otherwise affect the argument I’ve given, then do it. G. Although I can’t say anything against it, I still can’t be silent. P. Let’s proceed and treat further the issue of how one worthily eats Christ’s bread and how Christ’s body is given. G. Tell me what it means to say, “My body is given for you.” When, how, and why is it given, if it is a particular saying and not appended to or united with the bread, as you and Victus said and I must confess? P. Should you have partaken of the Lord’s bread and cup like dogs eat grass? G. Dear fellow! Don’t sneer at me. P. Whoever doesn’t eat the Lord’s bread worthily vomits out the body of Christ and becomes guilty of the Lord’s body [1 Cor. 11:27–29]. G. I am a priest and have prepared and sacrificed him in the sacrament myself. P. Oho! [c2v] With four boots in a manure pile!32 Shame on you, you neglectful priest. G. Do you rebuke me? P. Freely and happily. G. Why? P. Because you’re so stone-blind and don’t know that the priests have killed Christ. G. We’re speaking of the worthy reception of the sacrament. P. I thought that we were going to speak of the handing over of Christ’s body. G. You said not long ago that we should treat these two articles together. P. I grant that. G. Why do you accuse me as if up to now, I had eaten the sacrament unworthily? P. You claim to be a good Paulinist and you don’t know? G. I often eat mustard until my eyes start running and sweat flows, but I still stick with it. P. You’re a courtier. You can ignore it and be silent when someone mocks you. 32

Misten (manure) is probably a derisive play on Messe (mass).

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament G. Tell me why you said that I’ve eaten the Lord’s bread unworthily. P. Paulinist! Don’t you know how all Christendom sings, namely, that each person shall eat the Lord’s bread in discernment and judgment of the body of Christ? But anyone who eats without recognition of the body of Christ is guilty of the body of Christ. G. Cunning! P. How so? G. I wanted to use these words of Paul against you, “Anyone who eats the Lord’s bread without discernment” [1 Cor. 11:29], and so trap you and firmly subdue you that you should confess that Christ’s body is under the sacrament, and that we should be prostrate before the sacrament and show it divine honor, and that we’re obligated to do everything that Christians now do. But you’re cunning and flee my battlefield and try to strike me with my own weapons. P. I reject the word “cunning,” for I fight against you with the truth and not with cunning. But that would indeed turn out to be rubbish if the aforementioned words of Paul [c3r] serve and suit you instead of me. G. Don’t mock me, for I have a Wittenberg letter. P. But it’s still a mockery and disgraceful for you to boast of Paul as if he were yours and yours alone. You write and occupy yourself with him daily and you don’t know what you’re doing. And if I were silent, the dead Quintus Mutius33 would arise and say, “It is unbecoming for such a brave man who wants to value the gospel when he doesn’t correctly consider and understand Paul whom he daily cites by mouth and pen.” G. Do you mean I don’t understand Paul? P. The stars suggest your ignorance and blindness. G. Let me use Paul against you. P. Chop away! G. Everyone should eat the Lord’s bread worthily, and whoever eats it unworthily is guilty of Christ’s body; and whoever drinks the Lord’s cup unworthily drinks to judgment, 1 Corinthians 11[:29]. P. What’s new there? Solomon said it better when he stated, “Whoever eats the king’s bread shall eat it with great fear and respect so that he does not fall under the king’s wrath.” If I ate with a prince, even though I ate my own bread or such bread as I have, I would have to sit more respectfully and eat more politely and with greater discretion and greater timidity than in my home. How much more should I eat with due honor the bread of the most high king of all, my Lord Jesus Christ, who although innocent allowed himself to be slain for my sake? G. I should eat the Lord’s bread worthily; that is, I should know what kind of bread it is, how it is the Lord’s bread, how the Lord is in and under it. I should beat my breast, honor it, kneel down, and await the forgiveness of sins through the 33

A Roman jurist who died in 82 bce.

179

180

Chapter 9 sacrament, [c3v] and I will as certainly receive it as I receive the sacrament, and I should cast away all doubt, and trust and comfort myself with it. P. You have grasped the sword by the blade and hold out the handle toward me; the faster you fight with it, the deeper you will wound yourself. G. How so? P. He who misuses God’s word uses it to his own harm. G. I’m using it correctly. P. Correctly, as a priest and papist. G. Isn’t it good? P. It’s evil and devilish. G. Why? P. Because he robs God of his honor and lordship like a thief, opposes the truth, destroys Paul’s teaching, and makes people foolish. G. You rave. P. I will gladly rave for you so that I might be truthful and wise before God. G. You’ve now listed many accusations. Tell me why the pope’s teaching in this case makes the people foolish. P. When wise people eat a greater lord’s bread at the lord’s table, they aren’t afraid of the bread and they kneel not before the food but before the lord; they act respectfully and discreetly before the lord and don’t consider what the bread is but why and how they eat with the king. The pope also wants to have this from those who eat with him. But when he speaks of the bread of Christ, he says how we are to discern, honor, and eat the bread respectfully, although we never remember Christ, which is certainly a foolish manner. Therefore the pope makes people foolish. He teaches how they should clean the teeth and rinse the mouth, but the Antichrist teaches nothing about how they should regard and consider the body of the Lord Jesus. G. How does he steal God’s honor? P. Like a thief. G. Why? P. Because he says we should say to the form of the bread, “My God, be merciful to me.” G. Do you have anything more? P. The pope makes Christ’s passion useless and into nothing. [c4r]  G. How? P. If Christ redeems us and forgives our sins in the form of the bread, then Christ died in vain on the cross. G. How does the pope contradict the truth? P. He says that we should be mindful of the bread, but Christ didn’t command that to us, and he allows us to forget the Lord’s body, which we should remember as often as we eat the Lord’s bread. And so no one has eaten the Lord’s bread more unworthily than the papist crowd.

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament G. Haven’t you eaten the bread of the Lord according to the pope’s institution? P. Not in twenty years. G. How do you come to such great fortune? P. I was under the papal ban, to my salvation, and learned what is written, “I will speak well of your ban and curse.” G. How does the pope destroy the teachings of Paul? P. Paul applies the greatest diligence to make us understand and be mindful of the Lord’s death. The pope overturns that and presents us with his form of the bread and lifts it so high that we forget the Lord’s body and death in great fear, anxiety, and recognition of his form, and we consider as nothing what the Lord suffered on the cross when we are supposed to have the greatest consideration for it. But Paul keeps us thinking34 and instructs us that we should partake of the Lord’s (whom we do not see) bread and wine (which we do see and feel) with the fear of the Lord, as the food of the highest Lord of all. G. Now I know that remembrance makes one worthy. P. You must add something to that. G. My remembrance is precious, since I remember that the form of the bread is the body of Christ. P. Has Christ commanded that remembrance to you? Did he say, “Do this in remembrance of me?” or, “Do this in remembrance of the sacrament, or of the form of the bread under which is my body?” Haven’t you yourself confessed [c4v] that the pronoun hoc can’t refer to the word panis? Doesn’t Christ want us to remember his body that was given for us? Was your form of the bread also given for us? Was it crucified and slain? If we laypeople granted that, we would be as bad as the worst priests. You’re a priest and are aware of what might befall you. G. Spare me! P. Spare yourself! We’re quarreling not about money, but about the truth. G. All my life I’ve heard over and over how we should prepare and make ourselves fit to receive the sacrament and the body of Christ. I’ve always believed that it is the same thing to receive the sacrament and to receive the body of Christ, and so I’ve believed one to be the other, just as those from whom I heard this believed it. P. We’re not talking about either your preachers or your hearing; we’re talking about whether you heard rightly or wrongly. If you mean to say, “I speak rightly,” then you must prove [your] correctness with divine righteousness and truth. Without that I believe nothing from you. G. Indeed! How often have I heard, “Prepare yourself to receive the body of Christ worthily!” P. Indeed, I believe you; but show me a word of Christ or an apostle that says this. I know that Christ never gave us his body to receive [in this way], as our 34

Lit., lasset uns bey synnen; Karlstadt contrasts Paul’s manner with his previous statement that the pope’s teaching makes people foolish (unsinnig).

181

182

Chapter 9 subsequent discussion will make clear. Christ also says that his flesh is of no use to us [John 6:63]; and also, “It is useful to you that I go away, for if I don’t go the Comforter will not come” [John 16:7]. If all of this is true, then it is also true that we don’t receive the body of Christ either naturally or sacramentally. G. Prove that better. P. Did Christ ever say, “Receive my body,” the way he said, “Take the bread and eat it,” etc.? Your wretched preachers would have preached more fittingly if they’d said, “Look to see that you receive and eat the Lord’s bread worthily,” [d1r] as Paul preaches. G. Isn’t it written, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, there is no life in you”? [John 6:53]. P. Did Christ say that when he said, “Take the bread and eat,” etc.? G. No, but it is written in another place. P. Yes, in the place where Christ said the flesh is of no use [John 6:63]. G. Yes. P. So the reception of Christ’s flesh is also of no use. Further, I ask whether by the above-mentioned words Christ wants to say that we will perceive no life in us unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood. G. Right. P. If you grant me this, then you must also grant that the eating of Christ’s flesh is an inward tasting of Christ’s passion and that its meaning is that the Son of man is lifted up so that whoever looks to him—that is, believes—is not condemned but has everlasting life [John 3:14–15]. G. I won’t criticize you on that. P. Thus to receive Christ means to accept Christ; that is, to recognize Christ heartily and ardently. G. That belongs to the sacrament. P. Even if one didn’t receive the sacrament into eternity, he would still be saved if he were justified otherwise. But to obtain salvation without the tasting of Christ is impossible, and no one can be justified without the knowledge of Christ, Isaiah 53[:11]. The sacrament isn’t necessary; the knowledge of Christ is necessary. You also know that long before the institution of the sacrament, Christ said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” etc. Thus you haven’t used Christ’s words correctly. G. There is a little word that is called sacramentaliter, which answers many questions. P. Among fools. But it has no effect among those with understanding, for those who know God speak with Christ’s words and say, “We must eat the Lord’s flesh spiritualiter,” [d1v] that is, “spiritually.” Sacramentally it is of no more use than the natural external flesh of Christ. G. You’re pouring out everything that lies hidden in your innards.

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament P. It will get better; for those who want to eat Christ sacramentally are worse than those who went away from Christ or those who wanted to eat Christ bodily [John 6:52, 60–66], like the unicorn and lions from which Christ himself wanted to be preserved, according to what is written: “Libera a cornibus unicornium, et erue de ore leonis animam” 35 [Ps. 22:21]. G. Say on. P. Sacramentally, the body of Christ is of no use at all, for one can perceive in it neither the death nor the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, as sacramentally understood, it is of no use either carnally or spiritually; it is nothing. G. There you have struck the pope such a box on his ear that his entire face is black and blue. P. And all papists too. G. And the new papists as well. But what must we do in order to accept or receive the body of Christ spiritually? P. We must let go36 and do nothing. G. That’s too severe for me. Tell me, how should we worthily receive the bread of the Lord, as you define it? P. Anyone who has a passionate remembrance of the surrendered body of Jesus Christ and desires to testify to that externally in the church by wanting to eat the Lord’s bread, he is worthy to receive the Lord’s bread, as Christ said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Anyone who doesn’t have the right remembrance of Christ isn’t fit as Christ wants him to be fit. G. Be good and forbearing enough to speak further. P. Look, shall we return to an often-cited statement? G. Yes; it doesn’t hurt, for this material is unusual. In which article is remembrance based? P. You’re the master so should answer me, but you ask me. G. Heed nothing, neither my worthiness [d2r] nor my great outcry, and answer my question. P. The remembrance has many aspects in Christ, but one article is foremost, which we must understand and should consider as often as we would eat the Lord’s bread worthily. G. Name it. P. The body of Christ delivered up is what each person must remember who wants to eat the Lord’s bread without judgment [1 Cor. 11:29]. But we’ll speak of that at a more opportune time and place. G. What does Paul call this article and the knowledge of it? 35

“Free me from the horns of the unicorns, and snatch my soul from the mouth of the lion”; Karlstadt’s Latin differs from that of the Vulgate (Ps. 21:22). 36 Verlassen, lit., “relinquish” or “forsake”; in German mysticism, a surrendering of self that was the first step on the soul’s path towards union with God. It is linked with the idea of Gelassenheit, or renunciation, a central concept in Karlstadt’s theology; Sider, Karlstadt, 208–10, 216–23.

183

184

Chapter 9 P. Paul calls it the Lord’s death, and the remembrance he calls proclamation [1 Cor. 11:26]. But you should understand that through the surrounding verses. G. Speak, I’ll listen. P. You do this out of humility. G. Out of necessity. P. These are Paul’s words: “Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me. This is the New Testament in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me” [1 Cor. 11:24–25]. Paul says with clear words that we should do everything in remembrance of Christ, such as eating the bread of the Lord and drinking of his cup. Through this Paul indicates to us that the remembrance of Christ shall kindle and stimulate us to take the bread and cup of Christ. G. You skipped over that like a frightened hare over a bush. P. What’s that? G. You’re afraid of the little word broken. P. Why? G. Paul has confirmed our opinion of the priests, for he says, “This is my body which is broken for you” [1 Cor. 11:24]. But that has no basis if you don’t allow the body of Christ to come into the form of the bread, for the bread is broken. The body of Christ can’t be broken in itself, but the body of Christ is broken in the form of the bread per consequens. P. Oh, you poor and foolish man! Do you think that Christ’s body must be broken when the bread is broken? [d2v] Don’t you know that it is written, “You shall break none of his bones” [Exod. 12:46]? Don’t you know the manner of speaking when one says, “You have a broken mind, a broken spirit”? [Ps. 51:17]. If you want to say that Christ was broken in the form of the bread, you can’t succeed. Tell me, who broke him? If you want to say that Christ broke the bread himself, I answer, if Christ wasn’t in the bread when he broke it, then nothing in his body was broken when he gave the bread to his disciples. G. Christ’s substance is one thing in the sacrament and another outside of it. P. So you priests have a different Christ in the sacrament than we laity have on the cross. Anyone who has a broken limb has it where it is broken. Now I ask further, did Christ break himself without others’ hands? G. No. P. So you can’t point to any apostle who broke Christ’s body in the bread as you can show that they ate the bread. Therefore it is false that Christ’s body is broken in the bread and it is a lie that Christ’s body on the cross is broken under the form of bread. So sneak off, you poor sophist. G. Let’s stay with the matter begun and see further with what words Paul speaks about remembrance and about what we should remember. P. Paul calls the broken body and the shed blood the death of the Lord;

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament that is what we should remember. But as I’ve said, Paul calls the remembrance proclamation. G. Speak more and explain Paul’s words. P. “As often as you eat of this bread (says Paul) and drink of this cup, you should proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” [1 Cor. 11:26]. G. Explain that. P. It’s as clear as a bright light to me. G. I note well what we need for the worthy reception [d3r] of the Lord’s bread and cup, namely, the remembrance and proclamation of Christ’s death. But I still don’t exactly understand the proclamation. P. Learn to understand this: “One believes in the heart to righteousness and with the mouth to salvation” [Rom. 10:10]. G. Relate this verse to remembrance and proclamation. P. The remembrance of Christ can’t exist without faith and knowledge of Christ, any more than I could have a remembrance of my father if I hadn’t known him. So remembrance follows knowledge or faith in essence and manner. If the knowledge is ardent and pure, then the remembrance is ardent and pure. If it is from hearsay, then the remembrance is the same way. G. Can remembrance also justify? P. Why not? G. Prove that! P. Isaiah portrays the mocked and slain Messiah in all his dreadful bitterness; then Isaiah says that the Messiah will justify many of his servants through knowledge of him. G. Is this the text, “In scientia sui justificabit ipse multos,” 37 Isaiah 53[:11]? P. You have said it. G. Do you mean to [say] that the remembrance of Christ, in the way in which he was cursed, derided, nailed up, and put to death, also justifies as knowledge of him? P. That I do. For it is written, “They will say that they have done it in remembrance of me.” G. How does that accord with this clause, “With the mouth one believes unto salvation”? P. The proclamation of the death of Christ. For the proclamation is a statement of faith that proceeds from the heart through the mouth. Therefore the outward confession or preaching of the death of Christ is a sign or fruit of inner righteousness, so that all who hear such external preaching must say, “God is in [d3v] the person who is preaching” or “God speaks through him.” G. So I understand that the remembrance of Christ must be so rich, so boundless, and so powerful in him who desires to eat the Lord’s bread that it compels the 37

“In the knowledge of himself he will justify many”; Karlstadt’s Latin differs slightly from the Vulgate.

185

186

Chapter 9 man to preach publicly before the church or otherwise proclaim the death of Christ, and then to eat (out of great love and remembrance) the Lord’s bread. P. You guessed it. Don’t you know how Paul preached of Christ at Troas and the people were impelled afterwards to eat the Lord’s bread? G. Yes, as in Acts 20[:11]. P. Do you also know that the disciples remained steadfast in Christ’s teaching and afterwards also remained in the breaking of the bread [Acts 2:42]? G. Indeed. P. But do you know that the proclamation of Christ’s death always should come before one begins to break and take the Lord’s bread? G. By whom? Concerning what? P. The preaching of Christ’s death is necessary. As Paul says, you should proclaim the Lord’s death as often as you receive it [1 Cor. 11:26] and the Acts of the Apostles also show this. Sermons on the resurrection or the birth of Christ aren’t at all appropriate for the reception of the Lord’s bread, although one might mix in the articles of Christ’s birth and ascension. G. By whom? P. By the one who wants to break the bread or by another. G. I consider it to be unnecessary that all recipients be examined, since Christ gave his bread to Judas the betrayer. P. You’ve already heard me say a lot. I also think it’s enough to understand how the words of Christ and Paul agree and what one needs in order to take and eat of the Lord’s bread worthily. G. Good brother, in things one hasn’t experienced it isn’t too much to discuss something twice. P. What is that? G. We should speak again of the worthy reception or acceptance of the Lord’s bread, since I notice that something still sticks in the pen. P. What? [d4r] G. The word dijudicare, which Paul used and means (in German) “to judge correctly,” “to consider well,” “to condemn vigorously.” The Greek word diakrinon means both “to distinguish” and “to judge.” He who wants to distinguish a thing correctly must observe that thing inwardly and outwardly and consider thoroughly what he desires to distinguish. P. What are you referring to? G. To Paul’s statement that says, “The one who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment on himself, for he doesn’t distinguish the body of the Lord” [1 Cor. 11:29]. P. We dealt with this statement at the appropriate time. G. Oblige me and let us deal with it once more. P. I want to hear how you’ve understood me.

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament G. You say that everyone who wants to receive the sacrament without harm must have the remembrance of Christ and diligently judge the body of Christ and also proclaim outwardly the death of Christ; but we priests, as you say, take this away from Christ and attribute it to the sacrament. P. Why are you “sacramenting”? Where in the scripture did you learn that word? G. Bear with me, for I can’t express myself, and act as if you hear the word bread as often as I say sacrament. P. Continue on. G. We clergy, priests and monks, say that the sacrament forgives sin and we preach thus, “Oh sinner, if your conscience terrifies or oppresses you on account of your sin and you can’t be freed of your anxiety and burden, go and receive the sacrament for your sin and be at peace.” P. You false prophets! You promise the people the kingdom of God for a piece of bread; what would you promise for silver and gold if you weren’t ashamed? You promise the simple people peace of conscience in those things that are smaller than the conscience and can make or give no peace. G. Go easy! P. It’s true. I know that even with your secret breathing and [d4v] hissing you can’t make the bread anything better or different. Why do you say that it can forgive sin when you’ve blown over it?38 Wouldn’t it be the same as if you also said, “Man, if your sins oppress you and you desire to have peace, then take a handful of barley and eat it in God’s name; then you will be free and quit of your sins and at peace in your conscience.” In this manner the pope gave letters of indulgence, and the false prophets in prior times took wheat and corn, and our priests take the offering money for sin. This would free the peoples’ consciences and give peace for themselves and before other people, but how about before God? Didn’t they have a false peace and security when there was no peace or security? Don’t be surprised that the foolish people believe and let themselves be contented with lies, for they let themselves be raised up, spun around, and put down by every wind that blows on them. But in the end, they will be put to shame and see rightly how they are deceived. G. But Martin Luther himself has given this counsel. P. It is most harmful that the simple people sell themselves with their esteem for one person, for they don’t depend on the pure truth but rather upon a person and so they can’t hear or see the pure truth because they have such a thick foreskin over their ears and eyes. G. The bread has the body of Christ. P. Even if I granted that Christ’s body were united with the bread, it nevertheless would be false and speaking deceptively if I gave the bread a hair’s breadth of so much might and power that it could forgive our sins and give us peace. What 38

The words of consecration were spoken in a low voice and so were inaudible to bystanders.

187

188

Chapter 9 I give to the bread I take away from the passion of Christ. Also, Christ’s body or death would be of no use at all if Christ were not God and sealed by God the Father when he [e1r] was (and still is) a man, and if Christ hadn’t known his passion and death to the highest degree. Now consider, dear sophist, and see how Paul directs us to know the remembrance of the bitter death of Christ, which we remember when we think back over some fifteen hundred years, although knowledge and memory go beyond time and place and shouldn’t be attached to anything that contributes nothing to the forgiveness of sins. G. I fear you’re right and that we play a monkey’s game whenever we adore the sacrament, carrying it about our cities and villages in silver and gold monstrances, wanting to preserve and protect ourselves and ours with it and to drive out the devil; for what we ascribe to the external bread we take away from the death of Christ. P. What do you think of it now? G. I think it’s a lousy trifle and a cunning deception to have talked this way about the sacrament for so long. For the sacrament is an external thing that can’t make us blessed or holy or pious or better or righteous or free, even though we view it a thousand times. I fear that the prophet Haggai was prophesying of us when he said, “They hang a little piece of holy flesh on the hem of their clothing and say that what they touch with it is holy” [Hag. 2:12]. P. You are more wavering and fickle than a feather in the wind. Now you agree with me in everything, now you agree with the priests; one moment you speak papistically and the next truly about your sacrament; sometimes you approach me, sometimes you back away from me, you Proteus you! G. I am so agile out of great subtlety. It’s also useful for me, for in this way I flee the cross and have an easy life among the great. P. I believe you. G. If I didn’t know this skill, I would have been scorned long ago. P. But it is neither honorable nor Christian; [e1v] it would be more becoming to a thoughtless liar than to you. G. I still say that Haggai prophesied of us. P. How so? G. We say that when the bread is blessed it can forgive sin and make everything holy that only touches it. So we give to the sacrament just as much honor, praise, love, and respect as to the body and death of Christ. P. You have no basis for that in the scriptures. G. Not a letter. Christ said, “Anyone who loves father or mother more than or as much as me is unworthy of me” [Matt. 10:37]. What will he say to us who have given the same honor, fear, and love to a lesser creature that has neither soul nor body—namely, the bread—as we have given to him? P. The person who esteems the bread of the Lord, or who fears, honors, or loves it as much as the Lord’s bitter death, is unworthy of Christ’s death and

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament doesn’t comprehend it. He also takes and eats the Lord’s bread unworthily to his judgment, to his injury and fall. G. If it were right that we should adore or fear and honor the Lord’s bread with such pomp, then the prophets would have prophesied of the holiness and righteousness of the bread and told us that the bread would bear our sin and pain and that it should be sought when our sins terrify or grieve us. P. You speak well and rightly. John the Baptist wouldn’t have pointed to the uncovered Christ if the Christ concealed from us in the host should forgive sins. Christ also would have been so kind to us that he would have shown us how we must eat his bread if we would be certain of the forgiveness of our sins. G. How about Paul? P. He points us to the remembrance of Christ’s death when our sins oppress us; therefore he says, “Many have become righteous through the obedience of one man” [Rom. 5:19]. [e2r] G. Prove it. P. Anyone who wants to have the sure forgiveness of sins and to eat the bread of the Lord worthily and without injury—what you call receiving—should be certain in the knowledge of Christ’s death, i.e., understand and accept the death of Christ to such an extent as God our father promised it, and seal it with his heart that God is truthful. The one who is so fit [for the sacrament] is well fit, but he who has a fault is unfit and unworthy; it would be better for him if he ate peasant bread than the Lord’s bread. G. Why? P. Because of his hypocrisy and unworthiness. G. Prove it. P. “As often as you eat from this bread and drink this cup, you should proclaim the death of the Lord” [1 Cor. 11:26]. Paul says this about the Lord’s death and not about the Lord’s bread when he imposed on us the remembrance and proclamation until he [Christ] comes. With this Paul shoves to the ground all the mass-sayers, monks, and priests in one heap. For Paul says when the Lord comes, then one no longer will eat the Lord’s bread nor preach before its reception; and he concludes that the Lord doesn’t come in the bread or the sacrament, and if he came the sacrament would cease. So Christ can’t come in the sacrament. He remains above in heaven, which holds him until the time of refreshment comes [Acts 3:19–21]. Now whoever eats unworthily from this bread and drinks from the cup of the Lord is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. G. That’s terrible! P. Let each person examine himself and thus eat from the bread and drink from the cup of the Lord [1 Cor. 10:28]. G. Do I hear that I should be certain of the matter? P. Whoever examines or considers himself must know [e2v] and not imagine. Anyone who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment on himself

189

190

Chapter 9 if he doesn’t discern the body of Christ. G. So it is better that we abstain than that we receive it. P. You’ve said it. G. We’ve gone far afield and see that the sun is setting, so we should turn back and cut short this matter of the delivering up [of Christ] to a more opportune time. Then I’ll want to hear and learn how Christ was delivered up, to whom he was handed over, for what reason, and for whom or for whose benefit he gave himself; what we should understand and recognize in it, and how our spirit must be assured by God’s Spirit. P. What should we discuss now? G. The matter now touched upon in which you said that Christ doesn’t come into the sacrament. That would closely concern all priests and monks. P. Are you the great giants and children of Anakim who are able to draw God down from heaven?39 G. We can, and do it with the power of another. P. Who has given you the power of another? G. Christ, when he said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” P. Has Christ also commanded that you should bring his body into the bread? G. Yes. P. I have believed, and know it is true, that you priests lie; for Christ didn’t command you to force his body to come into your host. G. What then? P. Christ says you should take and eat his bread, with the addition that as often as you take and eat it, you should take and eat it in remembrance of him. As Paul says, you should do this, and all Christians are able to do so, the unanointed better than the anointed tonsure-wearers. They are truly the brave giants who through such words have stolen by force their supposed and falsely vaunted power [e3r] through which they claim to bring Christ’s body into a little piece of bread. G. It seems to me that Paul has confirmed our power strongly and well when he said, “I have received from the Lord what I have given to you. For the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was betrayed, took the bread and gave thanks and broke it, and said, ‘Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” [1 Cor. 11:23–24]. There! There! See, Peter, how Paul holds a mass and repeats the words of the Lord and brings his body into the bread, and also gives us the power to summon and bring the Lord’s body into the sacrament. P. Oho! Indeed! How laughable your babble is to me. G. How so? P. Did Paul give you the power with these words, “Do this,” etc., to conjure 39

The Anakim were a people who inhabited Canaan; according to Numbers 13:32–33, the “sons of Anak” were giants.

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament the Lord’s body into the bread and hold mass? Even a blind man deep in the night can grasp that Paul does nothing other than narrate the Lord’s words and the time in which Christ instituted his Supper, and that he wants to teach us that we should eat the Lord’s bread not like other bread but rather in his remembrance. If you want to take a special power from repeating these words in order to force the Lord’s body into a small piece of bread, as Christ is said to have done (as you say), then I could say that Moses gave us power to create heaven and earth, and that Moses created all the creatures when he began to describe the creation of heaven and earth. If you want to ascribe to yourself the one, you must also take the other. If you now would prove your creation of a new world with the deed, then I’ll also believe that you or another tonsured one can summon and bring the Lord’s body into the sacrament. G. But what did Paul establish with the Lord’s word? P. Many good things; for he exhorts us about the time [e3v] of Christ’s passion, of the fitness and manner in which we should eat the Lord’s bread. G. Explain yourself! P. Concerning the time, we shouldn’t eat the Lord’s bread like pigs, for when he administered the bread to us in his remembrance, it was the night in which he was innocently betrayed on our behalf; therefore, it is right that we stand in the bitterness of our life when we eat his bread. Concerning his passion, it’s clear that we should contemplate the magnitude and horror of our sins, as well as Christ’s boundless obedience and burning love. The manner consists in the remembrance and proclamation of Christ’s death. As frequently said, that is the reason Christ pointed to his body and said, “The body is given for you; before this, no one was given nor was there anyone who might have been given; nor will anyone come after me, for I am the one and my body corresponds to and truly is the body that is given for you.” Now whoever takes and eats the Lord’s bread in contemplation of all these things truly has sufficient reason earnestly to eat the Lord’s bread, although it is neither holier nor better than any other bread. G. But Christ did bless the bread. P. It says that he gave thanks—that is, to God his father. For that reason some call the sacrament a Eucharist, as if only the sacrament were a Eucharist; these follow their brains more than God’s word. G. This thanksgiving was always an effective power through which Christ brought his body into the sacrament. P. Prove that. You’ve fled your former defense and now take another defense for yourself. If your first argument had been any good, when you let the words be heard, “Do this in remembrance of me,” etc., you would have [e4r] held the battlefield. But because your ground forsook and disgraced you, you seek these words, “Christ gave thanks,” but they’ll sustain you like the previous ones. G. I have three grounds or swords. If one ground sinks, I flee to the next. Isn’t it priceless that when I break one sword, I take another and defend myself?

191

192

Chapter 9 P. That’s a sure sign that the sunken ground and broken sword weren’t firm and strong. But the one who fights with the truth has the very best ground and the very strongest sword, since the truth is the strongest of all. G. That matters little to me, if only I protect myself and contradict you. P. You’re a born sophist, a deceiver, a seducer. But according to your reputation, you should force your case, compelling, forcing, and frightening your enemies, capturing them with power and stopping their mouths with the truth so that they can’t say anything against you. G. My grounds appear good. P. You shouldn’t have only the appearance, but rather the truth. Now put forth your apparent arguments and let’s see how bright and light that appearance is. G. One is this, “Jesus took the bread and blessed it.” The second is, “This is my body, which is given for you.” The third is, “Do this in remembrance of me.” P. This still appears so distant and so dark that I can’t see that any one of these grounds serves the priests. G. You have weak eyes. P. If yours are so sharp, lead me to these so-called apparent arguments. But I think you have such sharp eyes that they see what’s not there. G. Jesus took the bread and blessed it or gave thanks to God. P. Do you want to hold that blessing and giving thanks are the same thing? G. Yes. [e4v] For one evangelist has the word bless in the same place where another has written give thanks [Matt. 26:26; Luke 22:19]. P. But explain your apparent argument that Christ through his blessing put himself into the sacrament and that you priests through Christ’s blessing can bring his body and blood into the sacrament. G. That’s so clear that no proof is needed. P. But to me it’s so obscure that I can’t believe the priests at all. G. Point out the obscurity. P. You’ve boasted of the light and aren’t able to show it, so I’m not obliged to prove the obscurity. The one who boasts of the light or apparent argument must prove his point with scripture or witnesses. G. Christ said thanks and through the very words of giving thanks he put himself into the sacrament. P. Because you speak so much of the thanksgiving, I ask you what Christ said when he gave thanks. When Christ raised Lazarus, he also thanked God [John 11:41] and the formula of thanksgiving is included in the same story. But about this thanksgiving, I can’t give either the manner or the formula. But if you know the formula, then tell it. G. In my whole life I’ve never heard of it, nor have I considered or asked about it. P. So you boast about something you don’t understand. It must be necessary that you must know the words of thanksgiving that Christ used, if you claim that

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament through Christ’s thanksgiving you can bring Christ’s body and blood into your sacrament. G. Do you find more faults with me? P. Many. G. Pour them out! P. If Christ brought himself into the bread or the cup through the blessing that you make use of, it would follow that Christ was already in your sacrament before he spoke these words, “This is my body,” etc., and that these words, “This is my body,” don’t serve [f1r] you in bringing Christ into the sacrament. G. More here! P. If Christ had come into the sacrament, then he would have left his place where he sat. For Christ always left his earlier place when he came or went to a new place, as the scripture shows, John 6[:15]. Likewise, when Christ went up the mountain, he left the valley, and when Christ went to heaven, he left this world, bodily speaking. Isn’t it written, “I will go away from you and come to you again” [John 14:3]? G. That’s all true naturally, but sacramentally and supernaturally it’s true that Christ is in many places at the same time. P. Do you also have a basis for that in scripture? G. No. P. So you’re a liar. G. Then the entire crowd lies. P. That is possible and human, Leviticus 4[:13], Exodus 19[:7–8]. G. Have you completely poured out your opinion? P. No, I have more in reserve. But one thing I don’t want to hide from you, that it is a sandy foundation when the priests say that the words of blessing or thanksgiving, which they don’t even know, are so powerful that they can drive Christ into their sacrament. For if their words could stand, then it would also stand and be true that the priests of the old law also brought their bodies into the food and drink, indeed even into the people whom they blessed. In sum, it must follow that you priests and monks bring your bodies into your food and drink when you’ve blessed your food and drink or read the benediction, and that you yourselves and your guests devour your body and your flesh and your blood; that you must bring yourselves sacramentally into the food that you bless or receive with thanksgiving. For Paul uses the same word, eucharistien, 1 Timothy 4[:4–5], when he speaks about the common use of all kinds of food. And so you see, [f1v] your first apparent argument and ground is a dark lantern and quicksand for you who misuse the clear scripture. G. Then another ground will serve me, “This is my body,” etc. P. Little; indeed, not at all. G. How so? P. You priests say that Christ is in the bread or under the bread or in the

193

194

Chapter 9 form of the bread, but the words just cited don’t serve you at all. G. But it is written, “This is my body,” etc. P. That’s why it’s against you; while it stands written, “This is my body,” etc., it is another thing to say “under which” or “in which bread is my body.” If Christ had said, “under the bread” or “in the bread is my body,” then you would have had an apparent argument. G. Is it sin that we add an in? P. Truly a great sin, for God says, “You shall not add to it” [Deut. 4:2]. Yes, it’s a falsification. The highest priest40 would burn anyone who falsified his bulls with such a little word and gave it a different meaning as you bring to Christ’s statement. If you priests wanted to defend your sacrament with such fraud, you’d have a better basis in the words concerning the cup, since the words about the cup are this, “The cup, the new testament in my blood,” etc. [1 Cor. 11:25]. From these words you could have had a clearer pretext to say that the cup is in the blood and must be in the blood, by virtue of the words of Christ when you read and say them, “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” For when you say, “The body of Christ is in the bread” or “in the form of bread,” it isn’t correct, but there is no in in the statement about the cup. G. Yes, it would have been better to have hit upon that. P. Not hit upon it? You would have cloaked yourselves excellently with scriptural words if you had said straight out, “The cup is in the blood,” as the text says, and in addition it is a new testament. [f2r]   G. Yes, well cloaked. But what would the peasants have said? Wouldn’t they have said: “I don’t see any blood in which there is a cup; I see the cup, but I don’t see blood.” Perhaps the peasants would have stoned us. P. Of course not! G. Of course! P. I don’t believe it. G. I know it to be true, for they wouldn’t have seen any blood in which the cup was. P. Couldn’t you persuade them with your chatter, saying, “You must take captive your reason [2 Cor. 10:5] and subdue your mind and act as if you can neither see, taste, nor understand.” G. Are you mocking? P. Haven’t you persuaded the laity that they taste bread and wine, but nevertheless that they shouldn’t say they taste bread and wine when they receive your sacrament? In the same way, you would also have brought it about that they would have believed that your cup was in the blood that, however, they could not see. You would only say, “Faith comprehends all things, understands all things, and is capable of all things.” So faith is also capable of seeing the blood that the eyes of 40

I.e., the pope.

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament men and angels can’t see. G. I don’t know whether or not you’re mocking us. P. How could I? G. What about if it says directly, “The bread is my body,” as Christ said? P. Christ never said that the bread was his body. The Greek language won’t allow us to relate the words this is to the bread, as has been shown above. In addition, it’s ridiculous if one wants to say, “The bread is my body,” etc. For this makes it sound as if the Lord’s body, which would suffer and be given for us, is bread and not a natural human body. It isn’t the body born of his mother, Mary, but rather bread that a baker made. Moreover, it’s against the stream of all the prophets who have written of the surrendered body of Christ and against all the gospels and the apostolic books. For it is always true [f2v] that anyone who is not with scripture scatters and is against scripture. G. Then let the third ground serve me. P. “Do this in remembrance of me”? G. Yes. P. But I’ve heard great scarecrows use these words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” in the sense that they want to maintain that priests are able to summon and confine the body and blood of Christ in the papistic sacrament. G. Who are the scarecrows? P. Those who are called doctors, who wear the round, handsome, pointed little hats and go about in long robes and stand around like the straw and wooden scarecrows that are dressed in beggars’ old clothes. G. Easy! P. How can I speak gently of them? Because one of them says that through these words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” bishops consecrate priests, another that the priests conjure Christ into the sacrament, and a third carries on in another way. G. I believe that through these words, “Do this,” etc., Christ has given us power to summon his flesh and blood into the sacrament when we read such words. P. Oh poor blindness! Are reading and doing the same thing to you? Did Christ speak first of reading or doing, or did he say what his disciples should do, before he said, “Do this,” etc.? G. What we should do. P. You should take and eat the bread; you should do this in remembrance of the Lord. As Paul says, “You should proclaim the Lord’s death as often as you eat the Lord’s bread and drink of his cup” [1 Cor. 11:26]. G. Let’s speak further about several arguments. P. Which ones? G. About thanksgiving. P. Do you think that through his thanksgiving Christ changed his body into bread?

195

196

Chapter 9 G. Yes. P. Then you must also confess that Christ changed his body into five barley loaves, for Christ also gave thanks [f3r] or blessed them, as you say, for the word he blessed stands there too [John 6:9–11]. G. Stay on track. P. Was the blessing or the benediction and thanksgiving of Christ that power through which Christ brought his body into the bread, and was it the power that Christ supposedly gave to the priests? If so, then Christ instituted his sacrament long before the night when he was betrayed, against all those learned in scripture and even Paul. It also follows that Christ fed several thousand people with his body and that Christ gave his flesh and blood to others before the apostles. You must also admit that Christ placed his body into Lazarus’s body when he raised him from the dead. G. You almost make me doubt. P. Now assuming that Christ brought his body into the bread on Thursday as you say, do the priests then have the same power as Christ? G. The same and greater. “Majora his facietis” 41 [John 14:12]. P. Now I hear that the scurvy priests can bring the body of Christ into their so-called form of bread, which Christ couldn’t do. G. No. Christ changed himself into the bread with a clear voice, but the priests bring Christ into the bread with a quiet whisper. P. That’s a good one! Make sense! Let’s clear our throats so we don’t laugh ourselves to death. G. Christ in any case said, “This is my body.” P. Christ stood as present and said, “This is the body mine,” etc. So when a priest says, “This is my body; take, eat the bread,” and we eat, then we are devouring a lousy priest. But if the priests speak of the body of Christ and recall to memory how Christ stood and said about his body that his body was the body that was promised to be offered up for us, then they speak correctly. But he’s not stuck in the bread as they say.42 [f3v]  G. Don’t the priests have a command to bring Christ’s body into the sacrament? P. We read of all kinds of commands and many articles through which God has entrusted all kinds of power to his apostles, but among them all we find not one that says that Christ gave priests the power to fit his body into the bread and his blood into the cup. G. Is that so? P. I say, “Yes,” for Christ gave his disciples power to preach, baptize, cast 41

“You will do greater works than these.” Fol. a4v of the Basel imprint is inserted here in Hertzsch, Schriften, 2:40–41, and in the English translations that follow him; see notes 13 and 15 above. 42

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament out devils, heal the sick, shake the dust from their feet, and raise the dead [Luke 10:1–19]. But among all of these commands I see not one that says, “You should or will bring my body into a small piece of bread.” I’d like to see a single letter that you ink-gobblers might boast of and base your claim on that Christ commanded you to bring his body into bread or the form of bread. So I say that you have knavishly, thievishly, and deceptively appropriated this power to yourselves. G. Then shall Christ remain eternally up above? P. It was concluded above by Paul and also by us that we will need the sacrament or bread only until the Lord comes. When Christ returns from heaven, then the sacrament and all external things will pass away. G. Christ comes secretly in the sacrament; but Paul is speaking of a clear and visible advent. P. If Christ comes secretly into the sacrament, then he must be ashamed of his coming or be afraid of you. G. Christ comes secretly to us priests. P. Truly, he comes so secretly that you yourselves don’t know whether he comes into the sacrament or not. For there is no priest who can maintain on oath that Christ comes at his command into the sacrament [f4r] as large as he was hanging on the cross. G. I’ve celebrated many a mass and frequently, but I’ve never felt that he had come. P. I know. G. Wouldn’t Christ come down from heaven secretly? P. No. G. Bring scripture! P. Two men said to the apostles, “Christ will come as you saw him ascend” [Acts 1:10–11]. Christ ascended visibly into heaven, so he must also return visibly. I won’t let myself be persuaded to anything more than that the apostles neither hoped for nor desired the secret advent in their bread. G. I don’t know who the two men were, so I’d much rather hear scripture. P. Take Christ’s word, who said, “When they say, ‘Here is Christ, there is Christ’ (as you priests have long done and said, ‘Christ is in this host,’ and ‘in that host,’ and ‘Christ is in all corners’43); you shouldn’t go out or believe it.” For Christ’s advent won’t be secret but rather as evident and visible as the lightning that shines from east to west [Matt. 24:23–27]. G. Christ says that of the second advent. P. But there are no more than two advents, one in the form of the cross and passion here on earth, the other in glorified form. For you mustn’t invent a third and you can’t apply either of these two to the host. Christ will remain in heaven

43

inn allen winckeln, a reference to the side altars on which private masses (winkelmessen) were said.

197

198

Chapter 9 until the day in which all things will be brought to an end, as Peter says in Acts [3:20–21] and as we’ve established above. G. I think it’s difficult for you to believe that Christ can be in many places at the same time. P. No; I believe that you can bring and place him in many places at the same time just as easily as I believe that St. Anne had five heads and an innocent [f4v] child has a beard twelve yards long. G. Don’t you believe that Christ in one moment is present in ten thousand places? P. Essentially, I don’t believe it. But I do believe that you’d gladly bring him from heaven if he were so forgetful as to leave there and come down. G. Do you also not believe that Christ is at the same time in many ciboria?44 P. In your jails? G. What do you mean by jails? P. You’re accustomed to lock up your God with iron doors and to attach many iron bolts and bars so that he won’t escape you, and so you greatly mock, shame, and disgrace Christ our savior. G. Disgraceful! P. You have invented for yourselves a God who is no God. G. He is Christ. P. Christ is bodily in heaven. If your scripture shows that he is in your bread, then I’ll speak differently. G. We bring him down. P. Oh, you powerless priests! Do you want to ascribe such great power to yourselves? It belongs to a greater power to bring Christ from heaven into the sacrament, to drive out the devil, than to cast a great stone mountain into the sea—none of which you can do. I know that if you tried to cast out the devil, the same thing would happen to you as happened to the seven sons of the Jew Scaeva45 [Acts 19:11–17]. G. What we do, we do with good intention to honor Christ. P. You honor Christ like a cat honors its captured mouse. G. Oh, no! P. Now even if you mean well in all things, to speak of human intention, you should still abandon your good intention if you don’t know that God the Lord is pleased by your good intentions. You should remember Peter who had a capital good intention, humanly speaking, for he was opposed to Christ’s being disgraced and martyred; and nevertheless he had to hear, “Go from me, [g1r] you Satan!” [Matt. 16:22]. 44

A ciborium is a container for the consecrated host. The seven sons of Scaeva tried to cast out a demon in Jesus’ name in imitation of St. Paul, but they were attacked and overcome by the possessed man.

45

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament G. We believed it would honor Christ and be good for us if we brought Christ into the bread and held him in it as in a miraculous temple. P. Where do you have a basis for that intention? G. In the scripture. P. Set forth the scripture! G. What shall I set forth? Don’t you know that Moses built God a tabernacle and Solomon afterward built God a house? P. On what basis do you want to build Christ a house from bread? G. It is argumentum a simili.46 P. With such bread47 you’ll destroy the entire scripture and make entirely worthless the precious passion of Christ. G. Is it against the scripture and Christ? P. It is so completely against the scripture that you have no basis therein for it. It is also against Christ that you priests want to make him a temple constructed by human hands. Christ is the highest priest and through his one sacrifice and one death he has entered the eternal tabernacle that God’s hands alone have formed, without the work of any creature [Heb. 9:11–12]. From this same temple and tabernacle you bold warriors dare summon Christ into a thing that will be consumed in time, whether by worms, by fire, by mice and pigs, or by fattened swine as you priests are. G. Is that wrong? P. Christ says, “What kind of house will you build for me? Shall I stay in your bread?” Haven’t you imagined and invented all that? Haven’t you chosen such paths and abominations yourselves? Out, you dog-butchers! G. The cup that we bless is a fellowship of the blood of Christ. Look here and realize that we bless the cup, and that the cup is a fellowship of the blood of Christ [1 Cor. 10:16]. P. The blessing consists of the remembrance and proclamation of the death of Christ, as Paul explains in the following chapter and as mentioned above. Otherwise I don’t know what the formula for the blessing was and I’d gladly like to know. G. Answer me then, that the cup is a fellowship. P. Fellowship consists in this: [g1v] that no one should drink the Lord’s cup unless he understands why Christ shed his blood and he should drink from the Lord’s cup from great love and thankfulness and a burning remembrance. One can’t drink with blessing from this cup without the fellowship of the Lord. G. The verba consecrationis effect and create these things. P. Who made them up? G. Fingere licet.48 46

“Argument on the basis of similarity,” i.e. proving an argument using similar cases. An untranslatable pun based on simili (similarity) and Semmel (a hard roll). 48 “It is allowed to invent.” 47

199

200

Chapter 9 P. Lapidare jus est.49 How many powerful words are there? G. Five, as there are five wounds, and he who omits one can’t consecrate.50 P. How many of them are there in Greek? G. Four. P. Then the apostles didn’t consecrate. G. Does that surprise you? We should, after all, daily increase in the knowledge of Christ. P. They say that Christ spoke in a mixture of Jewish and Syrian. If that’s true, you’ll hardly have more than two words. G. Our power is expanded and extended. P. I’d like to have that. G. What do you think? Do you want to make other words? P. I know truly and certainly that the body of Christ without the passion would have been useless to us. As Christ said, “The Son of man must be lifted up, so that anyone who sees him suspended will not perish” [John 3:14–15]. So the clause, “which is given for you,” is firmly tied to and of equal power as the clause, “This is my body,” and I’ll prove this with my remembrance, although I neither hold nor believe that such words are verba consecrationis. G. You’re obstinate. P. Against lies; but I yield to the truth. G. Shouldn’t Christ come into our sacrament when a priest reads such words? P.51 Should Christ jump up for every priest because of his stinking breath? G. Why not? P. Surely the majority of the priests belong to the race of the Pharisees and brood of vipers [Matt. 3:7] whom Christ won’t approach or have much to do with. G. Christ must come because of the words. [g2r]  P. The Pharisees also had God’s word, and so well that Christ said, “You should listen to them” [Matt. 5:20], but he still didn’t want to go near them. G. He feared them. P. Christ should fear much more now, for now the priests tear Christ with their teeth and kill him for three pennies. God says to such sinners, “Why do you take my word in your mouth? Therefore it does not help you,” etc. [Ps. 50:16]. G. I always thought Christ should come into the sacrament. P. Christ would truly have restless days; he’s tossed to and fro more disgracefully than a juggler’s rod by the priests. G. You compare Christ to a juggler’s rod? 49

“It is legal to stone [someone].” “Hoc est enim corpus meum” (“For this is my body”), the words of consecration as they are contained in the canon of the mass. 51 The text of both the Basel and the Bamberg editions says Gemser here, but this is obviously a misprint for Peter. 50

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament P. No, but I say that the jugglers handle their rod more skillfully than the priests handle Christ. This is why: the jugglers are chaste and remain sober and speak their lines clearly. But the priests stink early of wine and beer like a vinegar jug; and some of them are still so drunk in the morning that they can’t hold their heads up or move their tongues properly, and they babble rather than read. Some sleep during low mass, as one did who fell asleep and in his dream stood up and said, “To me!” for he dreamed he sat in a wine cellar. And another stood up during low mass in his dream and said, “Shuffle the cards.” Now see whether the juggler’s rod isn’t better handled by the jugglers than the words of Christ are by the priests. But who can believe that such a wine flask could bring Christ into the sacrament? If Christ is in their power, his situation is worse than that of the juggler’s rod. G. I don’t believe myself that Christ has fellowship with such priests. P. Then why do you command us poor peasants to fall down and beat our breasts when you drunkards elevate your idolatrous bread? G. Prove it! P. You priests have printed a blasphemous image of Christ [g2v] on your bread with a branding iron so that all consciences are polluted. And God regards all images as an abomination and hates and flees them. So for this reason I don’t believe that you are able to convert Christ in your sacrament, for he always did his father’s will here; does he now oppose the same will? I don’t believe that at all. Your bread is an idolatrous bread, an abominable and rejected bread. G. Easy! P. The image also makes the simple people think that Christ has turned himself into the image and that Christ’s feet are where they are in the image, his head where the head is in the image. Some think that the priests upset Christ’s stomach if they turn the image upside down, and so forth. G. We know that images are nothing. P. We also know they are much less than dung and are laid as a trap to bring someone to a fall. G. How would it be then if we used bread without the idolatrous image? P. But you can’t summon and convert Christ into it. For the sake of brevity, I ask you whether you are able to bring the mortal body of Christ into the sacrament, or the glorified immortal one? G. Your question is a snare thrown to draw and entangle. P. But you’re obligated to answer me. G. Christ is in the sacrament in his immortal and glorified body. P. Why? G. Christ died once and will die no more, as Paul says in Romans [6:9–10] and the Acts of the Apostles teaches. P. You’re a bold Paulinist. G. That I am. P. But you know little of his teaching.

201

202

Chapter 9 G. More than the whole world. P. Are you so learned and you don’t know that Paul says, “The Lord took the bread,” etc., and said, “This is my body, which is given for you”? The mortal body, not the immortal, was given into the hands of the Jews and the heathen to be slain. G. Yes, that is true when Christ converted52 himself into the sacrament. P. It’s true in the morning when you’re sober; [g3r] in the afternoon it’s a dream when you’re so drunk. G. Why do you mock? P. Can you bring another body of Christ into the sacrament than the one Christ brought into it? G. No, but with another form and figure. P. In which? G. Christ brought himself into the bread with lowly form and in the form of a servant [Phil. 2:8]. But I and others like me bring Christ into the sacrament in glorified form. P. Where do you have the grounds for that? G. Ground here, ground there, so it is thus: “He who does not receive my word will not be saved” [John 12:48]. P. No. You won’t entice me into your snare with such a tune. May the devil accept your words in every respect. G. How could we otherwise justify the verba consecrationis? P. I too fear you’re unable to do anything with them. G. How so? P. If your verba consecrationis are right, then they have this meaning: “This is my body, which is given for you,” that is, which is laid aside and will die at the hands of evildoers; but they don’t serve you in your delusion. G. That’s why we have only five words that we call the verba consecrationis. P. Count them! G. Hoc, est, enim, corpus, meum. P. You left out the attached words, “which is given for you.” G. Certainly, we stand firm on that. P. Like butter in the sun and a thief on the gallows. G. Don’t be so wicked! P. A thousand times worse. G. Why? P. Because you interpret Christ’s word differently than he does. G. Prove that! P. Easily. Christ says it is the body in the form and figure that could and would suffer, but you reverse it and say it is the body that could not suffer. 52

Karlstadt uses verwandelt, also the technical term for transubstantiation.

Dialogue on the Horrible, Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament G. What causes you to attack me so violently? P. The truth and righteousness of God. G. If only I could hear it from you! P. Christ redeemed us and wants to lead us out of the devil’s kingdom and power, as out of Egypt, into God’s kingdom and power. But Christ could accomplish that only through his death, as God had ordained. [g3v] He had to fulfill the figure of the Passover lamb and stretch out his hands on the wood. G. Say more. P. Christ had to justify us who receive him from our sins with his righteousness; but he had to accomplish this through his death. G. What is that righteousness? P. Obedience unto death. V. Do you have scripture? P. “Through one man’s obedience, many have become righteous” [Rom. 5:19]. Christ proved this obedience with his humiliating death, where he became obedient unto death, in the death of the cross [Phil. 2:8]. G. Don’t we have this righteousness through the resurrection? P. No. We have the righteousness of our mortification through the death of Christ and not through the resurrection. G. It is written, “Christ was raised for the sake of our righteousness” [Rom. 4:25]. P. That is the righteousness of the resurrection of the spirit, which has only its beginning here and will break forth after death. The righteousness of mortification precedes, the other follows. G. You would soon draw me to your position. P. If Christ’s glorified and immortal body were in the sacrament and entered it by the power of his word, then we don’t have the first righteousness. But anyone who doesn’t have the first, doesn’t have the second either, and so it is also false that his body is given for us. But if Christ’s mortal body were in the sacrament, then by the power of Christ’s words that he spoke you could bring his body into the bread in no other form and figure than he brought himself there. Then you must say that Christ’s mortal body is in your sacrament and that Christ dies every day when you sacrifice him; that opposes God’s truth in every way. G. I saw this snare easily and note that you would trap me before I would answer. If I say, “Christ’s mortal body is in the sacrament,” then you rise up [g4r] and snare me and say, “Then Christ is still mortal.” But if I say, “Christ’s immortal body is in the sacrament,” then it would follow that we don’t have any verba consecrationis and that the ground upon which we build collapses. So I don’t know what I should say. P. Confess the truth and say Christ’s body isn’t in the bread and his blood isn’t in the cup. But we should eat the Lord’s bread in remembrance or knowledge of his body that he gave for us into the hands of the unrighteous; and we should

203

204

Chapter 9 drink of the cup in the knowledge of his blood, which Christ poured out for us. In sum, we should eat and drink in the knowledge of Christ’s death. G. If only I could evade the trap just presented. P. Good. G. But how? P. Christ didn’t speak of the resurrection when he gave his bread and cup; therefore it isn’t necessary that the recipients be concerned with the resurrection. Christ will drink and will give us a new and second cup when he brings his resurrection to completion in us, and the bread and wine of mortification will cease. Therefore Paul said, “You shall proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” [1 Cor. 11:26]; as if he said, when he comes, your mortification with Christ is at an end. But now before we sufficiently mortify our powers, as often as we want to eat the Lord’s bread and drink of his cup, so often we must confess the Lord’s death with heart and soul. That is, we must also experience our death of Christ in us and feel the righteousness of Christ, not our own. G. God be praised! P. God help us into the fervent knowledge of the death of Christ! G. Amen.

Let anyone who can better instruct us do so, and soon, for God’s sake; for we are ready, willing, and eager to receive and to honor God’s truth, to whom be honor forever! [g4v] Anyone who has the desire to read about this subject without derision in straightforward form may read these pamphlets: [1] Whether One Can Prove from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament with Body, Blood, and Soul. [2] Also, The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11. [3] Also, Exegesis of this Word of Christ, “This Is My Body, Which Is Given for You. [4] Also, That the sacrament is not a sign by which men can strengthen and secure their consciences. [5] Also, Against the Old and New Papistic Masses. [6] Also, The faith in the promise and the sacrament, as the new papists speak, is a false faith, brings forth sin, and forgives no sin.53

53

Three of these pamphlets—[1] Prove, [3] Exegesis, and [5] Masses—were already written and were published in Basel at the same time as the Dialogue. Karlstadt did not write separate pamphlets on the remaining topics, but in Abuse he discussed 1 Corinthians 11:26–29 [2] and argued that the sacrament did not forgives sins [6] and was not a deposit or pledge [4].

10

On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup

Whether Faith in the Sacrament Forgives Sins and Whether the Sacrament Is a Pledge or Deposit of the Forgiveness of Sins

Explanation of the Eleventh Chapter of the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians on the Lord’s Supper (October 1524) Von dem widerchristlichen mißbrauch des herrn brodt vnd kelch was printed three times in 1524. Johann Bebel published an edition in Basel in October (VD16, B6233; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 135). Using a separate manuscript provided by the Jena pastor Martin Reinhart, the Nuremberg printer Hieronymus Höltzel also published an edition in late October or early November (VD16, B6234; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 136). The Basel imprint was the basis for the copy of the pamphlet published before the end of the year in Augsburg by Heinrich Steiner (VD16, B6232; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 137). There is a somewhat modernized German edition in Walch, Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, 20:92–109 and an English translation in Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther, 74–91. I have used the Basel imprint (Köhler, Flugschriften, 1949, no. 4973) for my translation, but have compared it with the Nuremberg imprint (Köhler, Flugschriften, 135, no. 367) and with Sider’s translation. Differences between the Basel and Nuremberg imprints are given in the footnotes.

I

, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, confess publicly, proclaim, and make known to everyone that because it is an abominable error and for the sake of poor, deceived Christendom, I can no longer conceal the fact that many Christians receive the Lord’s bread and cup to their great harm. Through their blind

a1v

205

206

Chapter 10 and unworthy use of the Lord’s Supper, they forfeit and make themselves guilty of Christ’s death and forsake the great righteousness of Christ, which Christ had and distributed to all believers. I must also speak out and criticize my own earlier writings on the sacrament1 and tell the truth, although this rightly should have been done before me by others who are considered as princes among the experts on scripture and who wanted to attach us to them, so that we would neither write nor undertake anything before they did. But because they hid behind the bushes and dug pits for the simple and laid snares in their way, I must go to it and confess God’s truth and the high righteousness of Christ, whether it cost me life or death. I humbly ask that none of you will look at me or at anyone else, but instead that each person will heed the inner testimony of the Spirit. But if anyone needs external and written testimony either for himself or another, he should simply look to the scripture that I will cite, because I always suffer them to go from me to God’s true judgments, as John did when he said, “It is him, not me. He whom you do not know stands in your midst” [John 1:15]. If he finds this instruction is correct and that it helps him out of his difficulties, then he should praise God and grasp the truth. But if there is anyone who is uneasy with this admonition, he is free to instruct me to write something better for the world. I want to ask everyone who thinks [a2r] that I have erred to teach me, whether gently or with sharp words, so that God will give me grace to recognize my supposed error and will amend it. No one should think, when I call the Lord’s bread and cup a sacrament, that I have seen it called this in the scripture, but instead I’m babbling with children so that they will listen to me. Whether the Sacrament Forgives Sins It is a common and horrible injury that we Christians seek forgiveness of sins in the sacrament; namely, when their consciences (as they say 2) are anxious or sorrowful due to their sins, they prepare to receive the venerable sacrament, and when they have received it, they are content through a false dream and faith, which I call false and3 will call false until they can show me one word in scripture that they can trust that supports their belief. Since faith comes from hearing what is preached, but preaching comes from the word of God [Rom. 10:17], no one should believe them until they preach a word of faith and can show that the Lord’s bread is a sacrament or forgives sins. And if they have preached and can point to a word of true faith, then you should depend on the simple truth and not on a person. You must also understand from what they say whether they are speaking true and godly things.

1

In Adoration and Forms, both published in 1521, Karlstadt upheld the traditional belief that Christ was corporeally present in the elements. 2 Luther and his followers, and Karlstadt himself in his pamphlets from 1521. 3 The Nuremberg imprint omits “call false and.”

On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup The faith that reflects or portrays for itself what it wants to is a magical faith and at base a false light and reasonable4 knowledge. Faith in Christ must be in accordance with Christ’s manner, recognize Christ as to how and what he is, and not make Christ into what or how it wants. Otherwise that faith will present to him a [a2v] false image. And even if one had long known and believed, he still wouldn’t know that what he believed is a false and fictitious thing. So I say, anyone who places his peace of mind and forgiveness of sins in that which God has not established for peace and forgiveness of sins will not have peace and forgiveness of sins; he has given himself peace by means of a false comfort. Instead, he will and must eventually come to harm, even though he stands at peace for a time. Accordingly, all men will be put to shame and mocked who without a word of faith consider the sacrament a peace for their consciences and forgiveness of sins, or who make the sacrament into a pledge that should assure our consciences, because they won’t find a single letter in the word of faith (2 Cor. 1[:22]; Eph. 1[:13–14]). In order to show that this isn’t correct, I will for the sake of brevity take and discuss Paul’s teaching that he wrote about the worthy use of the Lord’s bread and cup, 1 Corinthians 11[:26–29], for I’ve written about this topic at greater length in a dialogue and in other pamphlets. Paul says why and5 how and when we eat the Lord’s bread and [drink from his] cup worthily and usefully, and like the prophets and apostles, he writes about the knowledge of Christ’s body and blood. Whoever teaches differently or brings another gospel is banned and cursed, and his teaching is also a banned, horrible, and accursed teaching (Gal. 1[:8–9]). Text: 1 Corinthians 11:[26]: “So often as you eat of the bread and drink from this cup you should proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” [a3r] Everyone should observe this form and manner and then eat from the Lord’s bread and drink from the cup, for Paul gave it as a rule that all people who wish to receive the Lord’s Supper should observe. We should note that this proclamation is the fruit of a tree, namely, the remembrance of Christ’s body and blood, about which Paul spoke just a bit earlier, when he cited the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. For all that happens through external works or things must spring from the ground of the heart and be upright internally.6 God judges the heart, and the internal man is a dear possession and noble thing in God’s eyes, if he is rightly prepared as God wants him to be prepared. Thus God spoke through Isaiah and through Christ himself, “The people praise me with their mouths, but their hearts are far from me” (Isa. 29[:13]; Matt. 15[:8]). Thus proclamation must flow from a good, hidden spring if it is right. For Paul pointed to this same spring and ground in Romans (10[:10]), “He who believes in his heart is justified, but he confesses with the mouth and is saved.” 4

In the Nuremberg imprint, “unreasonable.” The Nuremberg imprint omits “and.” 6 On Karlstadt’s use of the term ground, see Prove, n1 (p. 117 above). 5

207

208

Chapter 10 It is absolutely impossible that any kind of external thing can be upright or just if the heart isn’t first upright and7 just. It is written, “The unbeliever has in himself no righteousness” (Hab. 2[:4]). To the impure, all things are impure and stained (Titus 1[:15]). But for believers all things are pure, good, and just. The eyes of God look at faith (Jer. 5[:3]). If one has a true heart and upright spirit, then he pleases God and his external confession also pleases God. For this reason I say that the proclamation of Christ’s death, [a3v] which is an external work or thing, must flow from a secret and hidden heart, where it is good and God-pleasing. Thus we must seek the same ground from which the external speaking of Christ’s death proceeds. That ground can easily be found if you desire to be his. Paul didn’t want this to be left unsaid. What is that same ground, you ask? Answer: remembrance. “For the Lord Jesus, in the night he was betrayed, took bread and gave thanks and broke it, saying, ‘Take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in my remembrance.’ In the same way he took the cup after the supper and said, ‘This cup, the new testament in my blood. Do this as often as you drink, for my remembrance’ ” [1 Cor. 11:23–25]. Here Paul gives the reason for the proclamation of Christ’s death, from which flows this fruit of our lips, namely, the proclamation that edifies and reforms other people and so is called a confession to salvation [Rom. 10:10]. Anyone who wants to proclaim or confess uprightly the death of Christ externally must first go into his ground and then proceed outwards from this ground or inwardness, and his heart must bear this fruit of his lips, namely, proclamation, just as a tree bears fruit from its roots. What Remembrance Is Remembrance is an ardent and loving knowledge or recognition of the body and blood of Christ. No one can consider what he doesn’t know. This knowledge must be shaped and conformed to its object; that is, it must recognize and know the body and blood of Christ in such a way and with its reasons, that Christ gave his body and shed his blood for our sins (Gal. 1[:4]). [a4r] For this reason Christ spoke clearly, “Eat the bread, for this body is the body which is given for you, and this is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22[:19–20]). As if he wanted to say (although the disciples first learned this on Pentecost), “Moses and the prophets wrote for you and all men about a body that would be given, which would be the seed of a woman and would crush the serpent’s head, which would also stretch out his hand to the tree of life (Gen. 2[3:15]). ‘My body’ or ‘This my body’ is the same as that about which they prophesied, which would be given for the world. Therefore you should eat my bread in remembrance of me.” Christ said the same, or wanted to say the same, about his blood. “Moses and the prophets wrote about blood that would make a new testament and would

7

The Nuremberg imprint omits “upright and.”

On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup be shed for sins. Realize that my blood is the same blood that will be shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” In this way you should know Christ’s surrendered body and his shed blood, if anyone wants to have an upright remembrance and a blameless proclamation of Christ’s death. If remembrance isn’t directed in this way, then it falls short of Moses and all the prophets to whom Christ steadfastly referred, saying, “Christ must suffer, shed his blood, die and rise, and enter into his glory, as it is written in the prophets” (Luke 24[:26–27]). Those who have the right knowledge of Christ have righteousness in their ground. As Paul says, faith is the righteousness of the heart (Rom. 10[:10]). Yes, this is true, if it isn’t a frozen or dead knowledge but an ardent, burning, active, and powerful knowledge of Christ, who transforms the one who knows into the known life and death [a4v] of Christ and for Christ’s sake can do or suffer all that Christ wants him to. Isaiah shows that this upright faith in Christ is a knowledge of Christ’s death and its causes, who earlier portrayed the surrendered body of the Messiah in his own form, and then says, “In knowledge or recognition of him, the righteous one will make many of his servants righteous” (Isa. 53[:11]). You ask, “When and in what form is Christ known in a way that his knowledge and recognition can justify?” Answer: Look at Isaiah and you’ll find that Christ was offered as a lamb unto death because he wanted this; that he was wounded for our sins and held as despised and accursed, whom God has rejected, etc. And when Isaiah presented Christ as crucified, he said, “In knowledge of him he will make righteous”; that the Christ who was mocked, wounded, and hanged makes righteous. This is what Christ says, “The Son of man must be raised up, so that each person who looks at the one raised up or who believes in him will be saved and not perish” (John 3[:14–15]). This is what Paul says, “Through the obedience of one man are many men made righteous” (Rom. 5[:19]). Understand the obedience about which it is written, “He was obedient unto death. Therefore through his obedience in the death he suffered, he has raised the name of Jesus above all things, so that Christ is called a savior” (Phil. 2[:9–11]). This is the reason why Paul praises so highly and treasures the surpassing knowledge of Christ and says that righteousness comes only through knowledge of Jesus Christ, and he announces very clearly that the righteousness that comes from God stands in the knowledge of Christ and in the power of his resurrection and in the fellowship of his suffering, [b1r], so that one becomes similar to and like him in his death (Phil. 3[:10–11]). For this reason Paul writes, “I know nothing but Jesus the crucified” [1 Cor. 2:2], from which it follows that the knowledge of the crucified Christ makes righteous. In brief, the knowledge or recognition of Christ’s surrendered body and shed blood is the first reason that should move one to receive the Lord’s Supper. But you must see to it that you don’t make empty flesh from the Lord’s body and blood, which is of no use (John 6[:63]). You must have before your eyes and understand

209

210

Chapter 10 the great, invisible love, the all-surpassing obedience, the excellent innocence of Christ and the like, and understand in the depth of your hearts, and then you will be justified, redeemed from sin. You must hold these words of Christ, “This is my body, of which it was prophesied that it would be given for you,” as the right and joyful gospel that all apostles proclaim, that was once a promise and now is no longer a promise but rather ended in Christ and made into a clear gospel, as Paul says (Acts 13[:32–33]). Moses wrote long ago about Christ’s body and blood, and he wrote surpassingly well.8 The prophets promised the body that would be given for us. But we and the apostles proclaim the joyful news of Jesus Christ’s surrendered body and shed blood, about which Christ spoke before his death (Gal. 1[:4]; Eph. 1[:7–8]; Col. 1[:22]). From the knowledge of Christ grows the remembrance of Christ, which isn’t a rough, cold, or lazy remembrance, but rather a fresh, ardent, and powerful remembrance that makes or gives joyfulness, that holds the surrendered body and the shed blood of Christ dear, that values it, gives thanks, that conforms one to Christ, and that makes one ashamed before all that is opposed to Christ. Consider this example. See, if you had to die [b1v] on the gallows or the wheel or in the fire, and the judgment was already spoken against you and you must be put to death, and someone came who would die for you and make you free through his death, wouldn’t you be eternally ashamed if you did something that you shouldn’t do out of love for such a good friend? And again, wouldn’t you be happy when his name was well spoken of? Wouldn’t you always speak highly of him, and if he left you something that you should use in his remembrance, wouldn’t you use it with fresh, ardent remembrance and be horrified at yourself that you had done something for which you should justly be killed if an innocent person hadn’t taken your guilt upon himself and paid with his death? So we should have the remembrance of the Lord, understand and consider from our hearts that Christ gave his body into death and shed his blood in a shameful death9 for our sake, innocently, out of great love and incomparable obedience. The remembrance of Christ has two parts. The first is for the sake of the surrendered body and the second is for the sake of the shed blood. Anyone who wants to receive the Lord’s Supper must consider the reasons and know why10 Christ shed his blood and gave his body for us, together with the fruit, just as the apostles and disciples of Christ, when they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, knew the reasons for Christ’s surrendered body and his shed blood, which the books of the apostles, the histories, and the epistle to the Hebrews show (Heb. 6[:19–20]; Heb. 10[:10–14]). See how Christ was a sacrifice and a priest and why he offered himself, and then you’ll certainly realize that through one sacrifice, one death, one body, 8

The Nuremberg imprint omits “and he wrote surpassingly well.” The Nuremberg imprint omits “in a shameful death.” 10 The Nuremberg imprint adds “our lord.” 9

On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup one obedience, one innocence, one holiness, one redemption, and one washing away, we have all obtained forgiveness of our sins and righteousness. [b2r] Thus it isn’t true that the sacrament forgives us our sins. It is against Moses, the prophets, the apostles, and Christ, and it is a repudiation of the suffering and high obedience of Christ. Those who seek forgiveness of their sins in the sacrament are as mad and evil as the priests who sacrifice Christ daily for new sins, or they are only a little less evil. To know Christ’s obedience or to understand Christ’s will, which was the Father’s will, is our justification and it purifies the heart and forgives guilt (Ps. 39 [40:7–8]). We’ll see this more easily as we consider the text further. Now I’ve said that the proclamation of Christ’s death flows from the remembrance of Christ, and the remembrance of Christ from the recognition of the surrendered body and the shed blood of Christ, so that we must know the cause and power and fruit of the crucified body and the shed blood of Christ if the proclamation is going to be done rightly, so that we aren’t found in our own wisdom and thoughts. Beware of Christ’s rebuke, who said, “Oh you fools, don’t you believe what the prophets and Moses wrote about me?” [Luke 24:25]. They wrote about the body and blood of Christ, that Christ would wash away our sins in his body and with his blood; no one wrote about the sacrament that forgives sins. Christ told us also about the body that would hang on the cross, that he would pay for our sins, but no prophet or Christ or any other Christian brother ever wrote that Christ forgives sins in the sacrament. For if it could be that Christ forgave sins in the sacrament, it would follow that we must know Christ not on the cross but in the sacrament, and that Christ didn’t forgive our sins through his body, and that his death wasn’t sufficiently powerful. But this would be to tread Christ underfoot, [b2v] to repudiate his suffering, and to call God the Father a liar. Show me one little letter that says that the sacramental essence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament is there for forgiveness. Christ said, “My blood is shed for the forgiveness of sins.” I ask you, is the blood shed in the sacrament, or on the cross? If it is shed in the sacrament, then the boast of the cross of Christ is abolished and false, and Paul, who boasts of nothing but the cross of Christ, is made into nothing [1 Cor. 1:31–2:2]. If it was shed on the gallows, then we must direct our knowledge to the cross and not to the sacrament. We are truly anti-Christians, repudiators or despisers of Christ’s suffering, as long as we attribute to the sacrament what belongs to Christ on the cross. Christ says, “Do this in remembrance of me,” but they say, “You should think about the sacrament.” Christ: “You should remember my body which is given, not which is now in the sacrament (as they dream), but which will be given on the cross.” But they say, “You should consider the body in the sacrament,” and they can’t show even a little hair of scripture through which we can understand how the body and the blood of Christ are in the sacrament or why they should be there.

211

212

Chapter 10 Paul says, “As often as you eat of the Lord’s bread and drink from his cup, you should proclaim the death of the Lord” [1 Cor. 11:26]. But they teach the opposite: “You should believe that Christ is in the sacrament. You should believe that the sacrament forgives your sins. You should believe that the sacrament is a sure pledge of forgiveness of sins and your sanctification,” and they continue on all fours in this abominable contradiction to the righteousness, love, innocence, and wisdom of Christ, which he proved through his death. Paul says, “You should speak of the Lord’s death”; they say, “You should speak of the sacrament.” [b3r] I have written in my Dialogue what “until he comes” means.11 The text follows: “Whoever eats of this bread unworthily or who drinks from the Lord’s cup, he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11[: 27]). Christ announced this guilt when he said, “The Son of man goes as is written of him, but woe to him through whom …” (Matt. 26[:24]). Peter says, “You have murdered the Lord of life and denied and rejected your savior” (Acts 2[:23]). Whoever receives the Lord’s Supper unworthily is guilty like the murderers of Christ, who not only repudiated Christ but also killed him. I will explain what unworthiness is and what it consists of by expounding the following text: “Whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment upon himself ” (1 Cor. 2 [11:29]). Why? Because he hasn’t discerned the body of the Lord. Here you have the cause of unworthiness, namely, that anyone who doesn’t well discern the Lord’s body eats and drinks unworthily. Show me a little word from Paul where he says, “Anyone who doesn’t discern the sacrament eats the Lord’s bread unworthily.” We must discern the Lord’s body, I know this, and it is also true that I sit at the Lord’s table with appropriate manners and take his bread and drink in the intention in which he laid it before me, but I haven’t been commanded that I should consider his bread and wine as himself. The Lord can give me life, salvation, redemption, righteousness, and the like goods and treasures, which no bread and cup can give me. Thus I must look not to his bread or drink but to him. Set your heart, mind, sense, and thoughts on the Lord and [b3v] you will be ravished with delight in him, but it won’t harm me at all whether I shake up some of the sacrament or spill it out. All worthiness lies in knowledge of him and not in his Supper. Unworthiness and the guilt of death, etc., consist in not understanding the body and blood of Christ or in the heedlessness that doesn’t distinguish what should be distinguished. These little words, “not discern,” can also be understood as “not judge well” or “not rightly know.” For Paul bases his entire teaching on the words of Christ, who says, “This is my body which is given for you. This is my blood,” etc. And he wants to show, as he does in all his epistles, that Christ said, “My body is the body given for you. And this is my blood that shall be shed for you.” Someone must come who 11

Karlstadt, Dialogue, fols. d2v–d3r, g4r (pp. 184–85, 204 above).

On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup must present his body and his blood for our sake. We must understand this same body and blood if we think we can escape destruction in any other way and be saved. We must eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6[:53–56]) and must know that without his knowledge, judgment, and justice or discerning, we can’t be saved. Whoever does not separate the body of Christ in this way from all other bodies and [does not] esteem it by distinguishing it over all bodies, and then eats from the Lord’s meal, is guilty of his death and of judgment. For Christ gave us his bread to eat and his cup to drink in the intention that we should remember him. Anyone who remembers must first understand the Lord’s words when he says, “This is my body,” etc., “This is my blood,” etc. Anyone who doesn’t understand, doesn’t remember, or he isn’t remembering the Lord as he should. If he doesn’t remember, then he doesn’t discern the Lord’s body and he doesn’t esteem [b4r] the Lord’s body, or he doesn’t value it as greatly and as highly as he should value it. Thus he will be most guilty when he eats the Lord’s bread and drinks from the Lord’s cup and doesn’t recognize the Lord’s body and blood. Now I ask, where should we discern the body of the Lord, or consider and judge it well? You answer, “In the sacrament.” So I ask, did Christ die in the sacrament? Did Christ give his soul for us in the sacrament? Where is the great and wide bread in which Christ stood with his cross among the great crowd of mockers? Did the Jews and heathens mock the Lord inside the sacrament? They must have been in it with him. There were also the two thieves with their crosses who must also have been in it with their words and bodies. If Christ in the sacrament was obedient to his father to the point of death, why didn’t his disciples run away from him as he gave them his bread and cup, as they would run away when Christ was captured? Was Christ offered outside the gates of Jerusalem or within the city of Jerusalem where they ate the sacrament? Did the betrayer give Christ into the hands of the Jews when Christ sat with his disciples at table or did he hand him over to them afterwards? I think that no one can say that Christ gave his body in the sacrament for our sins, for one of these positions must fall away and be destroyed, either that Christ gave his body for us in the sacrament or that Christ gave his body unto death on the cross for us. But the latter is true, through Moses, the prophets, and especially through Isaiah, and as was often prophesied, most clearly through Christ. Thus the first must be false and destroyed, as it has been. If the first were to stand, then almost all the writings of the apostles [b4v] must fall away and be eternally mocked. We must then judge or measure and well discern the Lord’s body not as he is in the sacrament, but rather as he offered his body as a sin offering, a food offering, a heave and wave offering to his father from his free will,12 and proved the greatest innocence, highest obedience, and sweetest love. It thus follows that they have all taken the Lord’s bread and cup unworthily and so have made themselves 12

On the heave and wave offerings, see Masses, nn5–6 (p. 112 above).

213

214

Chapter 10 guilty of Christ’s death and judgment who have not looked back on the figured and upraised snake (Num. 21[:8–9]; John 3[:14–16]) but have only turned their attention to the sacrament, that they receive Christ with the sacrament. It would be better for them if they ate figs instead. The Lord’s body is the promised body that would take away the sins of the world through his suffering and death. Thus it was written of him that he would be wounded for the sake of our salvation, etc. [Isa. 53:5]. Christ wanted to remind us of all this and have it understood when we want to eat his bread. Paul speaks only of his body here, but he doesn’t do so as if we were to leave the blood of the Lord unmeasured and unjudged and not to know with discernment and to value it over all blood. Instead with the blood we must also realize that we should discern the Lord’s blood if we don’t want to be guilty of his blood. Therefore Paul called it all body and blood. If we had such an earnest understanding of Christ’s body and blood, then no one would gorge himself or drink too much, as the Corinthians who lacked understanding did [1 Cor. 11:20–22], but instead each one would refrain from every kind of sin that is opposed to Christ or that shames him. Therefore each person should test himself sufficiently beforehand and, as said above, should eat of the Lord’s bread [c1r] and drink from the cup. To test oneself means to know certainly, that is, to experience. Paul uses the word dokimazeto, which in Greek is used in many places,13 Romans 5 [2:18] and 12[:2], 1 Thessalonians 5[:21], and it always means to actually experience, to understand with certainty. 1 John 4[:1] uses it in this way when it says, “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God,” etc. Paul makes this the responsibility of each person and says that each one should go into his own breast, and he wants everyone to test himself, that is, to understand from sure experience whether or not he knows the body and the blood of Christ, which the prophets promised, with knowledge that is loving and holds him dear. For if he has a worthy and ardent knowledge of the body of Christ, who bore our sins through the greatest bitterness and mockery, and of his blood, which has washed him from his evil works and sins, then he will be conformed to Christ and thankful in suffering, sober, modest, wise, reasonable, disciplined, and he will avoid the evil customs of the Corinthians who drank too much, and he will sit at the Lord’s table in a disciplined way, and take care that he doesn’t eat the Lord’s bread for his own pleasure or to satisfy his body, and also that he shouldn’t take it like any other bread or without knowledge of him who gave it to him to eat in his remembrance. This testing consists of turning inward and looking directly into the ground of the soul in which God acts and creates his gifts. Thus Paul brings each person 13

The Basel imprint gives the word in Greek letters; the Nuremberg imprint says, “Paul uses the word in the Greek language in many places.”

On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup to himself and into his own ground14 and not to other men, as the papists have done, who refer the partakers of Christ’s Supper to poor blind leaders (whom they call confessors). Paul was wiser in this matter and allowed each to look to himself and into himself, because [c1v] no man can know what is in the spirit of man except the spirit of that man (1 Cor. 3 [2:11]). You should go into yourself when you want to receive the Lord’s Supper and not superficially recognize whether you have a sound and worthy remembrance of Christ so you can receive it, but instead feel and experience, that is, have a sure knowledge of yourself, that you are what Christ would have you be. The Sacrament Is Not an Arrabo, Arra,15 Pledge, or God’s Penny From this saying of Paul, namely, that each should test himself, etc., follows the overthrow of another saying, as it is commonly said that the bread and the cup of Christ are an assurance and certain pledge through which someone can be sure and certain in himself that Christ’s death has brought his redemption. For if one could or should be sure of his redemption—that is, forgiveness of sins—through the Lord’s Supper, it would be unnecessary for anyone to test himself before he received the Lord’s bread and cup. It would be enough that he afterwards felt and16 understood whether he was prepared as God would have him be. But this is against Christ, who says, “Do this in remembrance of me”; that is, “Take my bread and my cup in remembrance of me, the bread in remembrance that I gave my body for you, the cup in remembrance of my shed blood.” Thus each one, before he takes it, should test himself to see whether he has the remembrance of Christ or not. If he has it, then he is also sure of his redemption and has peace with God through Christ (Rom. 5[:1]), not through the sacrament, and he can receive it joyfully. If he doesn’t have it and doesn’t find in himself that he has a sure knowledge of his redemption, then he is not prepared as Christ would have those who eat his Supper, just as he was not prepared who sat at the king’s table but wasn’t wearing a wedding garment (Matt. 22[:11–14]). [c2r] Therefore he should abstain from the Lord’s Supper so that he isn’t guilty and thrown into outer darkness as that person was thrown. This assurance should exist beforehand in those who want to receive the Supper and doesn’t occur or come to them through the bread and cup, which some call signs. This is what Paul showed clearly and fully when he says, “Each one should test himself and then eat of the bread,” etc. What does this verse mean? Doesn’t it mean that he should test himself first and actually understand whether he has the remembrance of the Lord and can proclaim the Lord’s death in the intention, will, and manner that Christ wants [him] to have? If he has this in the ground 14

The Nuremberg imprint omits “and into his own ground.” Arrabo and arra are both Latin words for pledge, deposit, or down payment. 16 The Nuremberg imprint omits “felt and.” 15

215

216

Chapter 10 his soul], then he also has the Spirit of Christ who shows him his savior Christ hanging on the cross and that same Christ dying in full obedience, in high righteousness and sweet love and innocence, and assures his heart that he has salvation through Christ. If he has this assurance of Christ’s Spirit, which he must have, then he can eat from the Lord’s bread and drink from the cup. But he eats and drinks when he is already assured and certain that Christ paid for and bore the sins of all the world, before he receives the sacrament. Christ refers us all to him on the cross where he obediently died and fulfilled all that was written of him. We must look at him with blessed eyes, that is, believe in him and know certainly that he has redeemed us, etc. If we know this and look back to the death Christ suffered, then we are justified in ourselves and [are] worthy to eat and drink the Lord’s bread and wine worthily. When we realize that we are such knowers and rememberers, then we can eat and drink joyfully. Thus he said, “Let a man test himself and then. …” This phrase “and then” means worthiness and time: worthiness, of remembrance; time, that the worthiness [c2v] must come first, just as someone must have a wedding garment before he goes to the royal table. Now even if I were to grant and concede that one can experience and be assured of God’s promise or work through some signs, when these are so beyond the grasp of reason that the soul, from amazement on seeing the signs secretly, experiences the high power of God, as Hezekiah experienced God’s power and will through the backward motion of the sun [2 Kings 20:8–11], it is neither sure nor good that we should grant and attribute to the bread and wine of Christ that which actually belongs to Christ and to the Spirit of Christ. Christ is the way, truth, life, and peace, and we have all these through Christ. Whoever ascribes these benefits to the Supper, bread and wine of the Lord, what else do they do than grasp after Christ’s treasure and attribute to lesser creatures than him that which belongs to Christ alone and which Christ alone grants? He is a thief and murderer who doesn’t enter through Christ [John 10:8]. But this means to enter through bread and wine and not through Christ, or at least it means not through Christ alone but to enter through both Christ and his Supper. But Christ hates this, for he wants to have the entire heart, which would be divided and partial in this way I’ve just described. If Christ is our peace and assurance, how can soulless created things satisfy and make us certain? His blood washes us and our consciences from dead works [Heb. 9:14], that is, the ardent knowledge of the shed blood of Christ. But if the blood can do this, it must also assure us, just as it does when it is known. But if the cup does it, then the cup that we take today was previously shed for our sins before it grew on the vine. The fault lies in the understanding, and [c3r] for this reason Christ didn’t want to give us a sign that would act on our powers and soul in the way that he otherwise acted when he did works that no one else had done, so that we would attribute to him alone and not to the sign that which many foolish people now attribute to soulless signs.

On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup Christ promised to send us his Holy Spirit and promised, “When he comes he will tell you all things, and he will give you a testimony and you will testify about me” [John 15:16–17]. See, the spirit of Christ gives us the testimony that he gave his body for us, shed his blood for us (Rom. 8[:16]). Now if this belongs to the Holy Spirit, it is wicked and willful to attribute it to bread or wine. It is even robbery through which one steals from the Spirit his actual work and characteristics and attributes them to a poor created thing and so makes a new idolatry. The spirit of sonship (Paul says) makes us cry, “Abba, Father,” and assures our spirit (Rom. 8[:15]). But the sacrament doesn’t make us cry, “Father, Father,” to God, for it is much too coarse to touch the ground of the soul, let alone teach it. Now the bread or the cup doesn’t teach us to cry to God, “Father, Father,” which we must do in Christ’s passion. If we rightly understand, the sacrament can’t assure our spirit and help the weakness of our spirit, for such crying and assurance belongs to a master workman. The assurance belongs to God’s Spirit and not a created thing. The Spirit of Christ anoints us, he seals us, he assures us,17 he is the pledge of our salvation (1 Cor. 1[:6–7]; Eph. 1[:13–14]). Because it belongs to God’s Spirit to assure our spirit and make us sure of our salvation, we should hurry after the Spirit, learn to desire him, and receive from the Spirit what belongs to the Spirit, which no one [c3v] but the Spirit can give, namely, the assurance of sins forgiven. If it were true that we might seek such high things in created things as the sacrament, that is, Christ’s bread and wine, then no doubt Christ would have been so wise that he could have told us this and been so good that he wouldn’t have kept it from us. For Christ commanded his disciples that they should go into the world and preach to them to obey all that he has commanded (Matt. 28[:20]), and Paul said that the scripture is rich and sufficient. But because it can’t be found in any scripture that we are assured or made content through the bread or wine of the Lord, or that we should experience our salvation from them, this is an addition that is against the scripture and should be avoided as a blasphemy of God’s Spirit and Christ (Deut. 4[:1–2]; Prov. 30[:6]). Anyone who understands me rightly can’t conclude that I have brought such new things to the light for the sake of argumentation or boasting. I do it, as God is my judge and as I must confess, because I fear to remain silent. For I know that I will suffer bad-mouthing and persecution, especially from those who want to be considered good evangelical people. But this concerns the surpassing obedience of Christ, it touches the death and suffering of Christ. Through the nonsense that we now hear preached in all churches, the gospel of Christ is mocked and Christ’s death lessened and Christ’s righteousness made into nothing, or at least is not sufficiently spoken of, which I and all Christians should guard against according to their abilities. Therefore I must also speak out and point Christians to the true gospel, which all the apostles preached. They broke the Lord’s bread only in remembrance and 17

The Nuremberg imprint omits “he assures us.”

217

218

Chapter 10 confession of Christ’s death, and for this reason [c4r] ate it after a sermon had been held. God grant that we accept the right gospel concerning Jesus of Nazareth, for this has been deeply hidden and held in dishonor and repudiated almost entirely in the use of all sacraments, which hasn’t been preached rightly.18

18

The Nuremberg imprint adds “for several hundred years.”

11

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10: “The Bread That We Break, Is It Not a Fellowship of the Body of Christ?”

Answer of Andreas Karlstadt to

Luther’s Book, and How Karlstadt Recants (March 1525) The Erklerung des x. Capitels Cor. i. … Antwurt Andresen Carolstats: auf Luthers schrift Vnd wie Carolstat widerriefft was Karlstadt’s immediate response to his reading of part 2 of Luther’s Against the Heavenly Prophets. It was printed only once, in mid-March 1525, by Philipp Ulhart of Augsburg (VD16, B6157; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 142). There is a modern edition in Laube, Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg, 1:51–73. Both the original (Köhler, Flugschriften, 106, no. 275) and the modern edition were used for this translation.

L

ast night I received a copy of Dr. Luther’s second part of Against the Heav[A2r] enly Prophets, and today, 27 February 1525, I have extracted these articles and intend to write short pamphlets, one pamphlet for each article, one after the other.1 This I have done for the benefit of the common man and so that my answer will be printed more rapidly, to the praise of God and the annoyance of the devil. Articles [1] Whether Karlstadt is a murderer of souls and sinful spirit because he attacks the word sacrament and wants to use the word Supper.2 [2] An explanation of these words, “This is my body, which is given for you” [Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24].3 1

Karlstadt was able to write only two of these pamphlets—this one, which responded to article 3, and On the New and Old Testament, which responded to article 10—although in each pamphlet he also discusses some of the other articles. 2 WA 18:139–42; LW 40:149–52. 3 Luther’s criticism of Karlstadt’s explanation of the words of institution from the Dialogue; WA 18:144–64; LW 40:154–74.

219

220

Chapter 11 [3] That these words, “The bread that we break is a fellowship of the body of Christ” [1 Cor. 10:16], harm more than help the Lutheran sacrament.4 [4] This text, “Whoever eats the Lord’s bread unworthily,” etc. [1 Cor. 11:27– 29], is falsely applied and turned against Paul by Dr. Luther.5 [5] On Frau Hulda, whether baker’s bread is given for us; here you’ll note Luther’s sophistry.6 [6] Whether the bread and the body of Christ can be the same thing, as the new pope writes.7 [7] The flesh is of no use [John 6:63].8 [8] Whether the body of Christ may be broken for us in the sacrament [1 Cor. 11:24].9 [9] Whether the sacrament can assure the conscience.10 [10] Explanation of this statement of Christ, “The cup, the new testament [A2v] in my blood” [Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25], as the new pope insists on and persists with.11 [11] Whether priests have power to bring the body of Christ into the sacrament.12 [12] Whether the mortal body is within it. Here the new pope is a good papist, but Peter Rültz won’t take off his hat.13 [13] Whether Christ obtained and didn’t distribute forgiveness of sins except in the sacrament.14 4 WA 18:166–72; LW 40:177–82. Luther also discussed the passage in On the Adoration of the Sacrament; LW 11:437–41; LW 36:282–87. 5 WA 18:172–75; LW 40:182–85. 6 Luther devoted a large portion of part 2 of Against the Heavenly Prophets to refuting five arguments advanced by “Frau Hulda,” or natural reason (WA 18:164; LW 40:174), against Christ’s corporeal presence in the sacrament. The first of these arguments was that if Christ’s body and blood were in the sacrament, then the bread, and not Christ himself, was crucified; WA 18:182–88; LW 40:192–98. 7 Luther addressed the second claim of reason, on the equation of the bread with Christ’s body; WA 18:188–91; LW 40:198–202. 8 Frau Hulda’s third argument; WA 18:192–93; LW 40:202–3. 9 Frau Hulda’s fourth argument; WA 18:198–200; LW 40:208–10. 10 Frau Hulda’s fifth argument; WA 18:200–204; LW 40:210–14. 11 Luther discussed Christ’s words concerning the cup, based on all three Gospels and Paul, WA 18:161–66; LW 40:171–76; he addressed Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25 specifically; WA 18:206–8; LW 40: 216–18. 12 Against Karlstadt’s claim that priests could not bring Christ down from heaven, WA 18:205; LW 40:216. 13 Against Karlstadt’s argument that Christ’s body is now immortal and so cannot be given for us; WA 18:204–5; LW 40:215–16. Luther elaborated on Karlstadt’s identification of “Peter the layman” in the Dialogue by calling him Peter of Naschhausen (WA 18:146, LW 40:156) or Peter Rültz of Orlamünde (WA 18:151; LW 40:161). 14 WA 18:203–4; LW 40:213–14.

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 [14] On the vocation of Dr. Luther and of Karlstadt.15 [15] When they say, “Here is Christ,” etc. [Matt. 24:23], Luther scornfully sings “Eli,” but the sacrament will sing to Luther “ut quid dereliquisti me,” and Luther will sing about the truth, “Why have you forsaken me?”16 Now in this pamphlet I will discuss the third article, namely, the words of Paul, “The bread that we break, is it not a fellowship of the body of Christ?” 1 Corinthians 10[:16]. And here we must pay attention, for Luther says that this saying “is a thunderbolt on Karlstadt’s head and his whole party.” Luther also says that this statement is “a life-giving medicine of my heart in my trials concerning this sacrament.”17 So we must open our ears and hear whether Dr. Luther is as ungracious to us in deeds as he is with words, attacks, thunderbolts, and outbursts. First, we’ll look at the text as it stands. Then we’ll look at Dr. Luther’s thunderbolt to see if it falls and strikes from scripture or if it comes from Dr. Luther’s dream and blows over like the wind. In the previous chapter, Paul said that an athlete who wants to obtain the prize must exercise self-control in all things [1 Cor. 9:24–25], and on the same basis the tenth chapter follows, in which Paul speaks of two kinds of food: spiritual and corporeal. And he announces that our fathers also proceeded in external and internal things and that God punished them when they [A3r] got mixed up with those things that hindered God’s fellowship or ordinance, saying, “Our fathers passed through the sea and were under the cloud, and were also baptized into Moses, and they all ate one spiritual food and all drank from one spiritual drink. This drink was Christ who was still to come” (Exod. 13[:21; 1 Cor. 10:1–5]).18 These two things Paul presented and he said with clear words that Christ is a spiritual rock from which they drank. Note this, Luther, and understand so that you can remember it when you accuse me of inverting the order and nature, making spiritual what Christ made corporeal,19 for you know that you are doing violence to me, and see that both the food and drink of the fathers were spiritual, which they ate and drank from Christ. It wasn’t a corporeal drink or corporeal food that they put in their external mouths, but spiritual, which one receives only in the inner man and in spirit (as Christ teaches, John 6[:47–58]). He rebukes the coarse bumpkins who want to eat or drink corporeally from Christ when he says, “The flesh is of no use” [John 6:63], for it is, it is20 a spiritual food and a spiritual drink, and not a corporeal drink and food. You must have faith and the knowledge 15

Luther closed part 2 of Against the Heavenly Prophets with a warning against “Karlstadt and his prophets” because they taught without the calling to do so; WA 18:213; LW 40:222. 16 WA 18:210–12; LW 40:219–21. Luther alluded to Christ’s cry from the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). 17 WA 18:166; LW 40:177. 18 Luther discussed this passage in On the Adoration of the Sacrament, WA 11:435–36; LW 36:280–81. 19 WA 18:136–39; LW 40:146–49. 20 Here and throughout the pamphlet, Karlstadt repeats phrases for emphasis.

221

222

Chapter 11 of Christ, not an external mouth and sharp teeth. You must extend the internal man if you want to drink from the blood of the spiritual rock (which is Christ) (Eph. 3[:16–17]), and you must whet and sharpen the powers of your faith and prepare rightly when you want to eat the spiritual food that is the flesh of Christ. If you come in another way, then you come as a mouth that has no understanding, and the closer you step bodily, the farther away you go with your heart. To this belongs what it says in John 6[:61], “Do you take offense at this? What will you do when you see the Son of man ascending into heaven, [A3v] whence he came?” (John 6[:61–62]). Christ taught sufficiently whether and how he is our food and drink, and richly expressed that we eat and drink of him in no other power or way than through faith or knowledge. All Christians who want to eat the Lord’s flesh and blood blessedly must direct themselves according to this same teaching, in spite of anyone who undertakes any way of eating the Lord’s flesh and drinking his blood other than spiritually, just as Christ’s words are spirit and life, John 6[:63]. This is the reason that Christ said not even one little word in the Supper that the disciples should eat his body and drink his blood when he taught them why they should eat his bread and drink from his cup. On the contrary, when Christ taught how his flesh is our food and his blood our drink, Christ didn’t think about the Supper with one word. He did all this so that we wouldn’t be so mad as our popes, old and new,21 who have become mad and crazy and who want to make us so mad and blind that we must receive the Lord’s body corporeally in the Supper when we want to partake of the Lord’s Supper and assure our consciences. For it is unbelieving and destructive folly before God to eat Christ’s flesh corporeally, as I will prove in a better way, God willing, when I treat these words (“the flesh is of no use” [John 6:63]) against Dr. Luther. Many can realize this from what Paul says with clear words, “The fathers have eaten this food that we eat (Paul speaks of the spiritual food), and have drunk from the spiritual drink that we drink” [1 Cor. 10:3–4], for our fathers have eaten and drunk the spiritual drink and the spiritual food that we eat and drink, and they ate and drank both food and drink. For Christ was born corporeally, yes, [A4r] even before Abraham was born [John 8:58], to whom the seed of our blessing was promised [Gen. 22:18]. Thus the fathers could not eat or drink Christ corporeally, but because their faith and our faith have the same spiritual food and spiritual drink, so we must eat and drink from Christ as our fathers, in spirit and not bodily, because Paul uses the little word “spiritual, spiritual.” Whoever wants to eat in another way, he eats in unbelief, John 6 and throughout 1 Corinthians 10 and John 12 and 16. This is the only difference, that Christ was promised to the fathers and was in the future, and he was given to us and is not in the future. But time doesn’t change anything concerning the spiritual nature of the food that feeds spiritually and not 21

The bishop of Rome and Luther.

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 in a fleshly way. What they waited for we have, and what they hoped for has been granted and given to us. They rejoiced to see what we now see through faith. But they drank from the rock that followed them or came after them, and the rock was Christ [1 Cor. 10:3–4]. This is the summary: whoever wants to eat and drink of Christ must not eat and drink corporeally from Christ, as our new papists claim, but spiritually in faith or in glorious, ardent, hearty, and loving knowledge of Christ the crucified. For our fathers Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc., ate and drank from Christ in their faith, through which they knew that Christ should come and be crucified, and woe to those who want to eat of Christ in any way other than spiritually, John 6[:52]. For although they have overcome their horror at Christ’s flesh, they still have disbelief, for they dare to eat the flesh of the Lord Jesus bodily when they claim it is covered over with bread and want to eat it like a coated pill. I say this to honor my savior and not to mock; but to Satan, who attacks Christ Jesus, our food and drink, so iniquitously [A4v] in his teaching and who blasphemes the great grace of the cross, to him I say this to mock and to scorn, and I say that some act with Christ’s flesh and blood like apothecaries who bring to the sick their sugarcoated medicines, etc. Paul stands and says, “They all ate the spiritual food and drank the spiritual drink,” etc. [1 Cor. 10:3]. How do you understand this? Is it not a strong beginning and entrance that turns your thunderbolt into a piece of butter or a plumage feather? Do you hear? Do you hear that our fathers received the food and the drink that we receive? Do you hear that the drink is spiritual? Do you hear that the food is spiritual? Do you hear that Christ in that same time had neither flesh nor blood and was not yet born? Do you hear that Christ would come afterwards and was not yet there? Do you hear that Christ is the spiritual rock from which one drinks? If you don’t notice what and who the spiritual food is, look at what Paul wants when he says, “Christ was the spiritual rock.” Go now, dear Luther, and make a corporeal drink and a corporeal food from Christ in your sacrament. Don’t you know what the spiritual drink is? Hear Christ, who says, “My blood is truly a drink” [John 6:55]. If you don’t know how it is called a spiritual food, listen to Christ, “My flesh is truly a food” [John 6:55]. If you don’t know that we must eat the flesh and the blood of Christ spiritually and not corporeally, read John 6[:29] where it says that it is God’s work that you believe on him whom the Father has sent. Likewise, “Whoever comes to me will not hunger” [John 6:35]. Don’t you know (oh Luther) what to come means? Listen, whoever hears and learns from God the Father (hear and learn, hear and learn) will come to me. Do you hear now the living and heavenly voice of God, whom you insult? Do you hear that whoever wants to come to Christ and be filled must hear and learn from God? [B1r] Isn’t this learning to know and believe? Isn’t it faith that comes and brings to Christ, stills hunger, and satisfies the hungry according to God’s righteousness [Matt. 6:6]?

223

224

Chapter 11 It is, it is that all coming and eating is lost if you don’t come in the bare and living knowledge or recognition of Christ and eat in it. Does Luther still doubt this, that Christ’s blood is a spiritual drink that one can draw from and drink only by faith, and not a corporeal drink that one is accustomed to drink with the mouth? So listen, Dr. Luther, to what Christ teaches, who says, “Whoever believes in me will never thirst” [John 4:14]. Do you thirst? Do you want to drink Christ’s blood? Then know and believe, and you have drunk; listen and learn it from the father of Jesus Christ. Whoever draws water from the wells of the savior will rejoice, Isaiah 9[12:3]. How can anyone suffer thirst or need who has received living water through faith in Christ, that wells up to eternal life, John 4[:14], and flows into his belly, John 7[:37–38]. The spirit alone reveals the spiritual food and the spiritual drink of Christ, John 7[:39]. Thus it is to be understood spiritually—spiritually, Luther, and not corporeally, as often as we hear in scripture that Christ is our food and our drink, and all believers in Christ drink and eat in a spiritual way before Christ and after Christ’s coming, but the one more than the other. The one who knows much, eats and drinks much. There is also a difference between Christ known as he still was presented in prophecy and as he came and suffered on the cross (Eph. 3[:4–5]). As an example of how the fathers ate the spiritual food of Christ, Isaiah 52[:13] speaks of the Messiah, who is Christ Jesus: “My servant will be understanding and wise, and exalted and shown forth.” Everyone who wants to eat and drink from Christ must know [B1v] that Christ is higher than any man or angel (Eph. 1[:21]), full of grace and full of truth [John 1:14]; this is also explained in part from Isaiah 9[:6–7] and 11[:2–5], John 6[:38–40]. Isaiah tells what the Messiah will accomplish and says that he will sprinkle or make clean many nations, Isaiah 52[:15]. He will arise from dry ground, that is, without male seed, Isaiah 53[:2]. [He says] that the servant of God, Jesus Christ, was the most rejected and most despised man, who had neither color nor form nor comeliness. So the world thought nothing of him; yes, they thought he was rejected by God. But he bore our sins and was wounded for our sakes. Likewise, he offered himself freely and willingly, Isaiah 53[:3–9]. He was taken away from fear and judgment. The seed of grain has fallen and died and gathered to itself, John 12[:24]. Thus no one can tell of his birth or family. He gave his soul for sin and so he will sow the eternal seed; he will never again die but will bring the people to himself, and God’s will shall prosper in Christ [Isa. 53:8–10]; that is, Christ will preserve all of those whom the Father has given and he will bring them to his Father. For because Christ’s soul had this work, Christ will see and be satisfied. He will be honored and will take up his kingdom. His food is to do the Father’s will [John 4:34], that he drink the cup and declare his Father, who sanctifies his own, John 17[:6–18]. Thus he sees the fruits of his passion and will be satisfied. In knowledge of him the righteous servant of God will justify, Isaiah 53[:11–12].

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 See, Luther, how Christ justifies, how he feeds, how he sprinkles and cleanses us all in knowledge of him or faith and not bodily. Note that Isaiah and other pious servants of God among the Chaldaeans and Jews ate and drank of Christ, who write what Isaiah in the two chapters prophesied [B2r] concerning the Messiah, and tell me in what sort of bread they received Christ? Tell me, tell me, in what kind of bread does one learn to recognize the Messiah in the form in which Christ bore and paid for sins and redeemed us from our sins? You can’t show me any bread or any cup that the fathers received in which was Christ’s food and drink; how much less will you persuade us that we may have any use at all if we eat or drink Christ bodily in bread and wine? This is said about the beginning of 1 Corinthians 10[:1–4], that the fathers had the external and internal things that we also have, and that we are united with the fathers in the spiritual food and the spiritual drink; that we must be maintained spiritually and not corporeally, as the fathers were maintained; that our eating is called believing and knowing, and our drinking is also believing and knowing. Paul says further and asks all those who use the Lord’s cup or bread to flee idol worship, for one can’t at the same time participate in the Lord’s cup and bread and serve idols, 1 Corinthians 6[:9], 9[:13], and 10[:21], 2 Corinthians 6[:14–18]. From this the papists want to conclude that Christ is in the bread and cup, and although they have long since concluded this, they have neither gate nor bolt nor lock, and the matter lies further open than they will concede.22 Their reasoning is based on these words, “The bread that we break, is it not a fellowship of the body of Christ?” [1 Cor. 10:16]. Here I confess that Paul writes about an external bread, as he did about the external clouds and sea. Second, the bread breaking should be understood [B2v] as distributing bread, as one can interpret, “Break your bread with the hungry” Isaiah 58[:7].23 But to speak about breaking bread as our New Testament is accustomed to use it, I find that breaking means “to break apart or to divide into pieces,” as in “to cut up,” and that he breaks bread who cuts it up or otherwise breaks it, as Paul broke the bread on the ship, Acts 27[:35], before he distributed it. You have in Luke 9[:16] and 24[:30] the word break and the word distribute next to each other. Thus to say “to break” and “to distribute” is to say two different things. I agree in this with Luther, that Paul spoke of an external bread of the Lord, which some ate but still wanted to have fellowship with idols, as my new pope does.

22

An untranslatable pun on the German schliessen, which can mean both to conclude and to shut. Luther introduced this verse to support his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10:16; WA 18:167–68 and LW 40:177–78.

23

225

226

Chapter 11 The Body of Christ Paul uses another word, that is, “the body of Christ.” Here one should note that Christ has two bodies. The one is natural, conceived by the Holy Spirit in his mother’s body, which Christ gave unto death on the cross for us; the other body is his holy congregation or church.24 On the first body, Luke 2[:7], 17[:25], 22[:63] and 24[:3]; John 2[:21], Hebrews 10[:5]. On the second, Ephesians 1[:22–23], 4[:12] and 5[:30], 1 Corinthians 12[:12–27]. The second body of Christ is brought together from the head, which is Christ, and this one Christ loved so greatly that he gave himself for it so that he would sanctify it and cleanse it through the water bath in the word, so that he would present it as a glorious church, and we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bone (Eph. 5[:25–27]; John 17[:17]. There is now in our text, 1 Corinthians 10[:16], a question concerning which body Paul speaks about. Fellowship The third word is the word society or fellowship. I’ve written previously about this fellowship25 and so [B3r] it would be enough that I let what I’ve written stand. But since I wish to serve consciences, I will explain through an example what a fellowship is and will examine the Greek word—and no other—that Paul uses here in 1 Corinthians 10 and that we translate as society or fellowship.26 Fellowship is sometimes a voluntary sharing of possessions or goods, as when the Corinthians sent taxes and shared what they had, 1 Corinthians 9 [2 Cor. 9:5]. This is perhaps the fellowship in Acts 2[:45–46]. Thus they have fellowship with each other, each one extends aid to the other, helps, loans, or gives. Those who have such fellowship don’t become a natural body but are a figured body and a true society. And no one becomes the thing that he gives to another. For example, when I share with or help someone, I have fellowship with him, but I am not naturally his body, nor is he my body. Likewise, my body isn’t the aid that I [give] him, nor is my body the money that I give, although we have a society or fellowship in money or goods. If I now say that the money we share is a fellowship of the one who gives it, it doesn’t follow that the money is in the body of the one who gives or receives it or, conversely, that he is in the money he gives or receives. But instead, the opposite follows more strongly, that the giver is neither in his gift nor the gift in him, as is clear from this example in Galatians 6[:4–5]. I find nothing in all of scripture that a thing must be in that of which it is a fellowship, as the new pope writes that the bread is the body of Christ because the bread is called a fellowship of Christ’s body. I search here and there, but I find nowhere that one thing is another, much less that one thing must be another thing [B3v] or in that with which it has fel24

Luther made this distinction in On the Adoration of the Sacrament; WA 11:437 and LW 36:282–83. Prove, fols. B4r–C2r (pp. 123–25 above). 26 On Karlstadt’s translation of koinonia as Gemeinschaft, or fellowship, see p. 123, note 8. 25

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 lowship or is called its fellowship; and if I did find such an example, that example doesn’t prove that it must therefore be so in all things, particularly since one also finds the opposite and has already found it. So Luther has very little to compel me to his position, namely, that the body of Christ is in the bread, because the bread is supposed to be a fellowship of the body of Christ. This is no more compelling than that a fellowship is corporeally in the action in which it has its fellowship. I’m surprised that Dr. Luther has given his body to such dark medication, when he always cries, “the word, the word,”27 and claims to have a clear, bright, strong, and powerful word that compels, pushes, conquers, and takes captive. Where then, Luther, is your sure word on which you insist? Your ground position is dark, obscure, and weak, and doesn’t compel. Yes, he pronounces his sentence with no word that he claims to have, but I must also teach him that he has himself invented and dreamed up such grounds (which are supposed to be so strong) against what Paul says. So listen, Luther, to what I say! You know that at the beginning of [1 Cor.] chapter 10[:1–4], Paul speaks about the food of faith, that it is a spiritual food; likewise that the drink of faith is a spiritual drink. After that Paul writes briefly about the corporeal food that cannot bring, support, or nourish faith. Thus, dear Luther, you should have employed your great brilliance to write about these two foods, about each one as the truth has written it and nothing else, which would have been fitting. But Dr. Luther doesn’t do this, for Luther wants us to put Christ in the mouth as a [B4r] bodily food, as he presents the bread to us, but the bread is visible and the body of Christ invisible, although still corporeal. [This is] against Paul, who writes at the beginning about the spiritual food and drink, and who separates the spiritual food from the corporeal food. If Luther says, “the scripture,” I answer that this is scripture, “They ate one kind of spiritual food and drank one kind of spiritual drink” [1 Cor. 10:3–4]. How do you like that, Luther? Don’t you have scripture? Do you want more scripture? Haven’t you heard that whoever believes will not thirst? Who comes to me will not hunger? The flesh is of no use? John 6[:35, 63]. Haven’t you heard how one draws water with joy from the well of the savior [Isa. 12:3]? Isn’t this joyfulness a fruit of the spirit and of faith? How many priests drink from the Lord’s cup sadly and sorrowfully, who know Christ as well as a sow knows a pearl [Matt. 7:6]? Whoever draws water in joy from the well of the savior, won’t he draw in the right and true knowledge of Christ, about which knowledge Isaiah prophesied? Haven’t you understood how the prophet Isaiah came to Christ? How he was sprinkled, given drink, and fed? Don’t you know that the blood of Christ flows into the conscience and heart and not into the mouth, and so is a blood of the new testament? Don’t you know that the blood of Christ makes us free from our sins? That it frees the conscience from dead works and washes the conscience of sins [Heb. 9:14]?

27

WA 18:202–3; LW 40:212–13.

227

228

Chapter 11 See, it is in Paul, Romans 3[:24–25], Ephesians 1[:7] and 2[:13], 1 Peter 1[:19–21], 1 John 1[:9], and Revelation 5[:9] and 7[:14]. What kind of blood do you think it is? The blood in the cradle or in your cup? No! Or is it the blood of the cross? I believe so and I’m certain that it is the blood of the cross, Colossians 1[:22], Revelation 5[:9], 1 Peter 1[:19–21], Hebrews 9[:12], which is signified by the figures of the shedding of blood. [B4v] How should we drink the blood of the cross? With the mouth or only with faith? Should the blood of the cross be our spiritual drink? Yes! Or must we also drink the blood of the cross bodily? No! “So let us, so let us,” it stands written, “approach with true heart and full faith, sprinkled in our hearts from a bad conscience,” Hebrews 9 [10:22]. Do you hear, Luther, that we drink Christ’s blood only in faith or in knowledge, 2 Peter 1 [1 Pet. 1:18–21], Hebrews 12[:24] and 13[:20–21]? The blood through which Christ entered into the sanctuary, Hebrews 9[:11–12] and 13[:11–12], the blood that washes away evil works, Hebrews 9[:14], and sanctifies and sprinkles us, Hebrews 9[:13–14] and 13[:12], Isaiah 9, Leviticus 14[:6–7] and 16[:14–15]—that blood sprinkles (note this word, sprinkles) our conscience, sprinkles and washes our soul. How then are you so thirsty that you dare to pour the blood of Christ bodily into our mouths in your wine? Which apostle ever spoke in this way about the drink and the food of Christ? How does it happen that the author of Hebrews doesn’t say a word about the sacrament, who refers us to Christ outside the gate [Heb. 13:12–13] and writes even more about the shed blood of Christ than anyone else ever wrote? But it hasn’t yet been decided which body Paul is speaking about. We know that Christ has two bodies and gave his natural body for the one he obtained, which is us, and the text speaks more surely and at more length about Christ’s body—we, the many—than about the natural body of Christ; who, then, can prove firmly and with clear words that Paul meant Christ’s natural body when he said, “The bread that we break, is it not the fellowship of Christ’s body?” [1 Cor. 10:16]. It is so unbelievable that Paul speaks about the natural body in these words that I’ve just mentioned; it is much more believable that Paul spoke of the body of Christ that Christ redeemed, sanctified, and made blameless, Ephesians 5[:25–27]—we [C1r] who are believers. For the text is clear and says this, “We many are one bread and one body, because we all partake of one bread” [1 Cor. 10:17]. If we are many, we many are one bread and one body, of which the bread of Christ is a fellowship. It follows that Paul spoke not about Christ’s natural body that is our food but about the body of Christ that is us who are fed spiritually through the natural body of Christ. How do you like this thunderbolt? What would you think if you had such clear words in your favor as you now have against you? How would you thunder and send lightning, hail, and a downpour? Oho, if the text were to say, “The bread that we break is a fellowship of the natural body of Christ, because the bread is the natural body of Christ,” how badly it would go for me, and woe to me and my

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 skin if I didn’t want to follow the truth. Yes, if Dr. Luther had such a text that said this, which he could turn and bend on its head, then I wouldn’t argue with him. But Luther has no such text, but instead one in which Paul explains which body of Christ Paul is speaking of, that simply sends a thunderbolt into Luther’s own mouth. For now I ask you whether we many are in the bread that we break or are we the bread that we break and eat and so partake of? How will you answer? You won’t? Are we a figured and signified bread and not a natural baker’s bread that we break? Why aren’t we a natural bread from the baker? Answer me! For how can you answer me? For what you would respond to me, I have as an answer to you, if you were to ask me whether the body of Christ is baker’s bread, because the baker’s bread is called a fellowship of the body of Christ. I say this: it isn’t true that the natural body of Christ is a natural, baked bread any more than that God is naturally a fortress or a rock or a wall, and [C1v] Christ is no more a natural rock, a natural vine, a natural lamb than he is a natural, baked bread. To support this I have as basis John 6[:35–57] and all those reasons that Dr. Luther has written that we many are not a right, natural, baked bread, but instead a signified bread. I also have to say that Christ’s body is not the baked bread that we break. So it is with the cup as well, that we are a signified cup or drink. That is first. Second, I ask whether we many are bodily in the bread that we break. If Luther would answer that we many are bodily in the baked bread that we break and could prove this sufficiently, then he could truly persuade me about his fantasy and I would believe that Christ must be bodily in the baked bread that he breaks. But I think that Luther won’t be able to attempt this. And if he did undertake this, I wouldn’t celebrate but would prove that the many in Wittenberg must be bodily in your sacrament, for the text says, “We many are one bread who partake of one bread.” I would also prove that each of you is in the other bodily and personally, for it is written, “We many are one bread and one body, one body, who partake of one bread.” How would that be? But if, against this clear text, Luther would deny that you many are bodily in the sacrament that they eat, then he can’t be angry that I resist his gloss and lead people to the grace of the cross, since he is much less able to write with truth that the bread that we break is the natural body of Christ or that the natural body of Christ is in the broken bread. I think this because my gloss would have apparent support in this chapter in the Lutheran way, but the other has no apparent support or indication, not even a hint of it, in this chapter, 1 Corinthians 10[:16–17]. But because Luther pushes me away from this clear text, “We many are one bread because we partake of one bread,” and he won’t allow that we many [C2r] are bodily in the one bread that we break bodily, how can he be angry when I reject his gloss that he gives to the words, “The bread that we break, is it not a fellowship of the body of Christ?” He presents it and says, “Hear this thunderbolt: the bread is the body of Christ, or the body of Christ is in the bread that we break,” for these words aren’t in the text, but instead are a fictitious gloss against the words of Paul here cited.

229

230

Chapter 11 Now from the particular love that we have for Luther, let’s keep that for the time being and grant that the text 1 Corinthians 10[:16] says with clear words, “The bread that we break, is it not a fellowship of the natural body of Christ that Christ gave for us?” What would he make from this? Would Luther say, “If the baked and natural bread is a fellowship of the natural body of Christ, then the natural body of Christ is in the natural bread of the baker that we break”? Could he say no? What would it matter if he became angry? But, friend, I want a sure pronouncement of scripture that pours forth its understanding just as the sun pours out its noonday light. But where is the text in scripture [saying] that the fellowship of something can enable and compel one thing to become something else naturally or to be in something with which it has fellowship? Luther must present me with plain and clear scripture, and not examples, if he wants to compel me. This is a clear and plain text, “We many are one bread and one body, for we many partake of one bread [1 Cor. 10:17].” We eat one bread and put it in our mouths and have closer fellowship in the natural bread of the Lord than any kind of society or fellowship of goods has, but I can’t say from this that because of such fellowship or participation in the bread, we are essentially and bodily in the bread. Yes, if I wrote this, Luther would call me a fool and donkey’s head. How much less is the Lord Jesus Christ (who ascended bodily from us into heaven) in the natural bread bodily, if indeed the text was as Dr. Luther glosses it? [C2v] Now we want to serve Luther again and allow that we many have fellowship with the natural body of Christ through the bread of the Lord that we break, so that the bread is a means of our fellowship to the body of Christ, just as the sacrifice was a means between the altar and Levi. What will Luther draw from this? Not these words, “It follows that the natural body of Christ is the bread or is corporeally in the bread that we break”? Doesn’t that follow from this? No, for where this river flows from such a spring, it must follow that the altar was corporeally and essentially in the priests and the sacrifices through which Levi had fellowship with the altar, because the words of Paul say this [1 Cor. 10:18], “Behold Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices in the fellowship of the altar?” Here we have the word fellowship, as above. Likewise, many people, namely the Levites, are also many persons, just as we are. Likewise, a means, namely the sacrifice, as we have the Lord’s Supper, bread and wine, [is like] the altar, as we have the Lord’s body and the Lord’s blood. If Luther can now truthfully conclude, compel, and argue that the altar was corporeally and substantially in the priests or the sacrifices of the Levites, then he has the expectation and appearance [of being right]. But he still has not established that the natural body of Christ was in the bread or that he brings the body into the bread that he breaks. I can’t conceal the fact that we do not come into the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ through the bread and wine of the Lord, but instead through baptism when we are baptized in Christ, as Paul writes in many places, Romans 6[:4], Ephesians 2[:16], Galatians 3[:27], Colossians 1[:21–22], and the old pope

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 confesses and teaches in his books. For this reason I fear that the new pope will do greater violence to the gospel than the old if he compels us [to believe] that we should enter into the fellowship of the right body of Christ through the use of the Lord’s Supper. [C3r] For we eat the Lord’s bread in remembrance, Luke 22[:19], 1 Corinthians 11[:24], and we aren’t incorporated through bread or made partakers of Christ’s body. We partake of the body of Christ through knowledge, Isaiah 53[:11], 2 Peter 1[:3]—“If they knew, they would not have crucified him,” 1 Corinthians 2[:8], 1 Corinthians 12[:2–3]—or through loving faith, which is the same thing, Romans 3[:22], Galatians 2[:16], Acts 15[:9–11]. Through faith he cleanses the hearts, through love and faith Christ dwells in us, not in the belly or in the mouth but in the spirit, in the internal man, in the knowledge of the surpassing love of Christ; and through knowledge we have fellowship, Ephesians 3[:14–19]. As it is written, “If anyone loves me, the Father and I will come to him and have our dwelling in him,” John 14[:23]. Now see, dear Doctor Luther, that we have fellowship and society with Christ and with his fullness through faith, through love, through knowledge of the surpassing love of Christ, and we are filled with all kinds of gifts through knowing Christ, Ephesians 3[:18–19], 1 John 1[:7], John 15[:1–17] and 17[:1–26] (almost all the books of the apostles say this). Thus we must first have fellowship with the body and blood of Christ before we eat the bread and the cup of Christ, and our fellowship stands entirely and wholly in the love and knowledge of or faith in Christ. From this I let each one conclude whether an earthly, natural bread may have fellowship with the body of Christ or not. And I ask about the natural wine, whether it has a fellowship of Christ’s blood. Someone may say that the bread has this in common with the body of Christ, that it is also a body and a food, and the drink is like blood in that both quench thirst. But this is easily answered from John 6[:31–33], that bread has nothing more in common with Christ’s flesh than the bread of heaven, etc. Thus this fellowship doesn’t consist in bodily or spiritual unity. I’ve also explained fellowship in an earlier work.28 [C3v] Second, I ask whether the corporeal fellowship, which isn’t spiritual, isn’t against the true fellowship of Christ. I ask this for Luther has a Christ from whom he eats and drinks bodily and not spiritually in his sacrament. Third, isn’t baptism just as rightly called a fellowship of the body and death of Christ as bread and wine are? Romans 6[:3–4], 1 Peter 3[:21], Titus 2[:13–14], Colossians 2[:12], Galatians 3[:27]. If it were written in plain words in scripture, wouldn’t it compel us to believe that Christ is corporeally with his body in baptism? I say no, it would neither drive nor compel us, so we should also remain undriven and uncompelled, even if we were to read that the natural bread is a fellowship of the natural body of Christ. 28

Karlstadt has apparently forgotten that he had already referred readers to this earlier work; see note 25 above.

231

232

Chapter 11 So this fellowship begins, “One God, one faith, one baptism, one Lord, one Christ,” Ephesians 4[:4–7], 1 John 1[:3], 1 Corinthians 12[:12–13]. See how the congregation has society with God among itself, for the same Greek word is used here as in 1 Corinthians 10[:16–17]. It should be noted that Luther wrote a book to the Waldensians, and in it he publicly confessed that we many are a signified bread and a figured or signified drink.29 Therefore Luther can write nothing particular about these words, “The cup that we bless, is it not a fellowship of the blood of Christ?” nor can he conclude from this that the natural blood of Christ is in the cup that we bless, since Luther has gone from the natural drink of Christ to the figured or signified drink, which drink is we many who drink from one cup of the Lord and have fellowship or friendship through knowledge or through faith in the blood of Christ and partake of him in our consciences and hearts, and so drink from the cup in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ. [C4r] Paul announces in what understanding and will we should eat the Lord’s Supper, and he does this as a faithful servant of Christ, who shows how each should eat the Lord’s Supper, what each should guard against, what he should do for the good of his neighbor, what he is obliged before God to avoid. But idol worship is against God and the fellowship of idols is against the fellowship of the members of Christ’s body, which should be brought together from many members into one body to Christ and according to Christ for their edification [Eph. 4:15–16], and the Lord’s bread should be eaten as a remembrance; the same with the Lord’s cup. So we must separate and refrain from all things that stop, hinder, or confuse our faith, or that cut short or harm our love for our neighbors, 1 Corinthians 10[:20–22]. Thus no one should allow evil desires as our parents allowed their desires and perished at the “graves of craving.”30 Let each guard himself against idolatry in which our fathers sinned. Do not indulge in immorality, do not test Christ, let no one murmur against God’s mouth, for things went evilly for our fathers for these reasons, 1 Corinthians 10[:6–11]. You should not be in the fellowship of devils; you cannot at the same time drink from the Lord’s cup and the cup of the devil [1 Cor. 10:21]. Why? Because blood is in the cup? No, but because you should drink from the Lord’s cup in remembrance of Christ’s death. But such remembrance, if it is righteous, can neither allow nor see anyone drink from the devil’s cup without horror. You cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the devil’s table at the same time. Why? Because the body of Christ is corporeally in it? No, for where is this written? On what page? In these [words], “Take, eat, this is my body,” etc? In no way, for there is not even 29 Luther said that Christians were all “one bread, one drink, and one spirit,” but he did not use the words “signified” or “figured”; On the Adoration of the Sacrament, WA 11:440–41; LW 36:286–87. 30 Lustgrebern, the translation of kibroth-hatta’avah; Numbers 11:34, one of the incidents alluded to in 1 Corinthians 10:6–11.

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 a syllable that Christ’s body is bodily in the bread. This is the reason that each one who sits at the Lord’s table should know and be encouraged that the Lord gave his body for us and shed his blood for us. [C4v] This is said and to be understood not only about the Lord’s table, but also about baptism and all external things. Anyone who wishes to hear the external word rightly and partake of its contents must cast off all things that hinder or darken the word or that stop up the ears. Anyone who wants to take baptism rightly and be baptized in the name of Christ must repent, forsake the old life, and put on the new one, Acts 2[:38], Romans 6[:3–4]. And it is not possible that one can have fellowship in baptism and share anything with the devil at the same time, although the water bath is an external thing and is nothing more than water. The sin of idolatry or sins against the love of neighbor aren’t the only ones opposed to Christ’s Supper, but so are many other sins, such as drunkenness, debauchery, blindness, etc., as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 11[:21–22]. This isn’t because the body and the blood of Christ are in the sacrament, but because the Lord said, “Eat the bread and drink from the cup in remembrance of me.” The remembrance of Christ’s death can suffer no fellowship with the devil and it also opposes the desires of the flesh. Whoever eats without remembrance eats judgment. We must understand these words, “You cannot at the same time eat the Lord’s bread and drink from his cup and eat of the devil’s flesh” [1 Cor. 10:21]. That is, you cannot without harm have society with the Lord’s bread and with the devil’s table. If you dare to do this, you should know that it will go the same for you as it did for our fathers who were baptized through the sea by Moses, who ate from the spiritual food that you eat and drank from the spiritual drink that you drink, and they stood up against God with their desires, murmured, tested, and played, and God had them destroyed. For God allowed them to be destroyed, and you will also experience the same thing if you forsake Christ in your spirit and want to make use of his Supper as well as the devil’s meal. [D1r] Paul notes this when speaking of the fathers’ baptism and about the bread of the Lord that they broke daily during the times of the apostles, for through the use and breaking of bread Paul drove frivolous Christians from the devil’s table. This is the first part, which has concluded that these words, “The bread that we break is a fellowship of the body of Christ,” do not help Luther nor do they show us with even a syllable that Christ is [present] with body and blood in the bread that we break or in the cup that we bless. But instead they show more the opposite, namely, that neither the natural body of Christ nor the natural blood of Christ is in the sacrament. It also proclaimed that the beginning of [1 Cor.] chapter 10 is opposed to all the interpretations or opinions of all popes, and it makes the body of Christ only a spiritual food and the blood of Christ only a spiritual drink for us, which the internal and spiritual man receives, and the external and corporeal [man] may not receive. For it is entirely impossible for the external man to receive

233

234

Chapter 11 a spiritual food with hands or teeth or mouth, whether or not the spiritual food is coated or covered over with bread. Here follows the second article, in which we must regard the great, black, thick, and red-striped storm cloud, for it thunders and threatens to rip out the trees by their roots. Dr. Luther: Note here where Paul says, “The bread that we break, that we break.” Not only that Christ breaks it, etc.31 Karlstadt: I see and hear it, but what do you want to make of it? Dr. Luther: Paul speaks about the bread in the sacrament. Karlstadt: Don’t you mean the bread in Christ’s Supper? Dr. Luther: The bread breaking is nothing other than to divide into pieces or to distribute. [D1v]Karlstadt: How so? Can you prove this other gloss better from the writings of the New Testament? Luther proposes this distribution out of his head, so that he can hide his anti-Christian trickery, which I will reveal at the proper time. Dr. Luther: The fellowship of Christ’s body is nothing other than that those who each take a piece of the broken bread take in this same [piece of bread] the body of Christ. Karlstadt: If Luther proves his gloss with clear, strong, and plain scripture, then I’ve written evilly, but I have no Bible in which Luther’s gloss has its clear and strong proof. Here I say that Dr. Luther’s storm can’t bring thunder or lightning or outbursts. Bring the sword of God, Luther, strike with scripture and not with dreams, and show me the scripture that each one receives the natural body of Christ in the broken bread or in its pieces. Dr. Luther: Thus Paul said, “We many are one bread” [1 Cor. 10:17]. Karlstadt: Here Luther harms himself, as I’ve shown above. But I ask where Paul ever wrote that each one receives the body of Christ in the piece of bread that he takes? Second, which body is Paul talking about? How now, Luther, has your thunderbolt been gracious? I think it will become a cornerstone of offense for you [Ps. 118:22]. Dr. Luther: Karlstadt makes a spiritual fellowship that consists in the right meditation on the body of Christ. Where is his ground? Where is his scripture? Karlstadt: Here you see well the understanding that Dr. Luther has in all the gospels and epistles in which it is written about faith in Christ, that our fellowship in Christ consists in a spiritual food and a spiritual drink. Paul shows this at the beginning of this tenth chapter [1 Cor. 10:1–4] so clearly and strongly that no one can deny it except the one who denies the sun, [D2r] fire, and water. Isn’t the text clear and bright? “They ate the spiritual food that we eat and drank the spiritual drink that we drink,” 1 Corinthians 10[:3–4], even if you take away the word “we.” Don’t you know, Luther, that we must have the remembrance of the 31

Luther’s portion of the following dialogue is taken from WA 18:167–71; LW 40:177–80.

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 Lord if we break and eat his bread, 1 Corinthians 11[:24]? Where is it written that we must put Christ in the mouth, which you write from your dream? If faith is sufficient to make fellowship with Christ, then Christ was wrong to say, “Whoever believes will not thirst, who comes to me will not hunger,” John 6[:35]. Don’t you know what to come means? What about this, “You are my friends,” John 15[:15]? Read John 15, Paul in 1 Corinthians 10. But I think the new pope wants to receive Christ bodily, as the old one did sacramentally, and not have Christ for any longer than the bread exists and remains. But when the bread has decomposed, he wants to send his Christ back to heaven, and when he wants to become pious again, he summons Christ down again and brings him into the bread and eats him anew, and then sends him back into heaven again. Who ever read such foolish things in the scripture? What Christian can be pleased by such a statement? I want to have a Christ who dwells in my heart through faith and is implanted through love, Ephesians 3[:17], Galatians 2[:20], so that I know the crucified Christ and have knowledge of him eternally, for knowledge of him is eternal life, John 17[:3]. For this Christ does just as much bodily in heaven as here below in my mouth, yes more, oh you Lutheran Christians. Dr. Luther: Karlstadt says that the fellowship of the suffering and the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ are the same thing. Karlstadt: I think Luther is mad and foolish. I’m truly angry and my spirit is wrathful that Dr. Luther speaks so scandalously about the Son of God, Jesus the crucified. Oh now I truly know who you are, and if God doesn’t [D2v] enlighten and convert you, other people will also learn to recognize you. What do you say, Luther? Do you think that we have a sophistic fellowship in the body of Christ? Let Christ answer you, who says, “This is my body, which is given for you, this is my blood,” etc. Doesn’t Christ speak of the passion of his body and shed blood? If this is still dark to you, look at what Paul writes, 1 Corinthians 11[:26], who says, “You should proclaim the Lord’s death as often as you eat the Lord’s bread and drink from the cup.” Do you see, Luther, that our fellowship of bread and wine is a fellowship of suffering? Unless Christ gave his body and shed his blood without suffering, which is impossible, 1 Peter 2[:21], Hebrews 9[:11–15], Luke 9[:22], 17, 24[:6–7], Acts 1[2:23–24], or unless Christ died without suffering, which also didn’t happen. Yes, Luther says that the text 1 Corinthians 11[:23–29] says nothing about fellowship. I answer that it speaks of two kinds of fellowship, even though the word fellowship itself isn’t written there. One fellowship consists of the breaking of bread and eating as often as you come together. The other fellowship consists of discerning the body of Christ in the word or proclamation of Christ’s death in the remembrance of Christ, that Christ gave his body for us, that he suffered, for we many are one fellowship or one bread who break one bread; how much more are we one fellowship who know and believe in the one savior, who eat one spiritual food

235

236

Chapter 11 and drink one spiritual drink, 1 John 1[:3], 1 Corinthians 10[:3–4], 12[12–13], 6,32 Ephesians 4[:4–6]. This other fellowship is so much more heartfelt, pure, certain, and constant than the fellowship of an external thing. Dr. Luther: The unworthy and traitors, such as Judas, partake of the body of Christ. Karlstadt: Where is the scripture? Dr. Luther: Judas ate and drank the body and the blood [D3r] of Christ with the others. Karlstadt: This I destroyed [even] before Luther’s answer, writing that it isn’t true that an evil and unbelieving person may drink the Lord’s blood or eat the Lord’s body.33 I’ve proven this from the sixth chapter of John. For the flesh or the body and blood of Christ is a food and drink of life. Thus it is impossible that anyone can eat or drink from Christ and not live, that is, not have the faith by which the righteous lives, Romans 1[:17], John 13[:19] and 17[:8]. To eat means to believe, to drink also means to believe.34 For these reasons of Luther’s, each one can see how sinfully, without scripture and against the scripture, Luther has made up and imagined the phrase “corporeal fellowship of the body of Christ,” who uses the phrase “sacramental fellowship” so that he speaks something new and isn’t thought to be an old pope. But neither the old nor the new inventions will help the new pope, for if it is true that one eats the body of Christ in the Supper bodily or sacramentally and likewise drinks the blood bodily, then the popes have an eating and drinking that no scripture ever spoke of. This is the first consequence; the second is that the corporeal reception of Christ’s body is of no use at all, for it is a reception that must be corporeal and not spiritual, as Luther writes. If it is only corporeal, then it can neither feed nor assure the soul, nor strengthen it or lead it to blessedness, and so in itself it is of no use. Since this is a new form of unbelief, all Christians should guard themselves against the fellowship of the corporeal reception of Christ’s body or consider it as nothing, for Christ did not consider it great that he was conceived bodily and born from his mother’s body, but Christ praised this, that his mother believed and conceived through the Holy Spirit, as it is written, “These are my mothers [D3v] who hear and keep God’s word, those who do the will of my father,” Luke 8[:21], Matthew 12[:49–50]. Likewise, “Blessed are you who believed,” Luke 1[:45]. Third, it is not true that one can receive or eat Christ’s body corporeally and drink Christ’s blood corporeally, for Christ’s words are spirit and life that tell us about eating and drinking, John 6[:63]. The devil in hell, or in the priests and 32

The sequence of chapter numbers suggests that the printer omitted the name of the book of the Bible that Karlstadt cites here. 33 Exegesis, fol. c4v (p. 156 above). 34 An allusion to Augustine’s “crede et manducasti”; see Prove, n13 (p. 140 above).

Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 monks, has dreamed this up and taught that they eat the Lord’s body corporeally and not spiritually, without use. It is shown sufficiently and at length above that we must approach with faith and must know in our spirit alone the surrendered body of Christ and the shed blood of Christ, Hebrews 10[:19–22]. Fourth, I ask whether Christ’s body is bodily a true food. If it is a true food, then he gives his life bodily against the clear text of John 6 and against our text here, 1 Corinthians 10. If the blood is a true drink drunk bodily, then he gives life and abolishes the spiritual drink, John 6[:63], “The spirit gives life, the flesh is of no use,” and 1 Corinthians 10[:4]. Fifth, the new popes murmur like Christ’s unbelieving disciples, John 6[:60– 61]. These murmured because they had a horror of eating Christ’s flesh corporeally, but our popes murmur because they eat Christ’s flesh not bodily but coated in broken bread. But both of them are unbelieving and hit with this shot, “You must eat the flesh of the Son of man, when the Son of God has ascended to where he was before,” John 6[:53–58], for with this Christ showed that you must not put his flesh in the mouth or eat him corporeally, also that his blood is not drunk with the mouth or corporeally, for he will be taken up from the earth [D4r], from men, and will remain above until he comes again openly. The prophets and apostles write about such spiritual eating and drinking; there is no scripture written about corporeal eating and drinking. Thus it is a dream and a fable of deception that Luther writes. God grant the true knowledge of Jesus Christ the Son of God to him and to all of us who desire it. Amen.

237

12

On the New and Old Testament Answer to the Saying, “The cup, the new testament in my blood,” etc., Luke 22; 1 Cor. 11

How Karlstadt Recants. 1525 (April 1525) Karlstadt’s final eucharistic pamphlet, Von dem Newen vnd Alten Testament. Antwurt auff diesen Spruch Der Kelch das New Testament in Meinem blut etc. Luce xxij .i. Corin .xi. Wie Carolstat widerrieft, was his second response to Luther’s Against the Heavenly Prophets. It was published twice in 1525 by Philipp Ulhart in Augsburg (VD16, B6225; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 143 and VD16, B6226; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 144). A somewhat modernized version is published in Walch, Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, 20:286–311. I have used the first Augsburg imprint (Köhler, Flugschriften, 107, no. 277) for my translation.

[A2r]

A

ndreas Karlstadt, expelled without a hearing as a testimony of the gospel that I preach about Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified Son of God, to the earnest Christians, my beloved brethren in Rothenburg ob der Tauber: divine wisdom, knowledge, faith, love, strength, and peace from God through Christ. Dear brothers, I have almost finished a complete answer to Dr. Luther’s unscriptural and unchristian writing, along with other works that I must write to the brothers, truly not a few, who have sought them from me.1 But since this answer is too long, I have excerpted some articles from it that I am having published, each of them separately. Among them is this one, on the cup that scripture calls a new testament and that Dr. Luther calls a thunderbolt on Karlstadt’s head,2 1

238

This full refutation of Luther’s Against the Heavenly Prophets was never published. In January Karlstadt had published his Anzeige etlicher Hauptartikel christlicher Lehre (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525), translated as Several Main Points of Christian Teaching in Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 339–77. 2 WA 18:166; LW 40:177.

On the New and Old Testament thinking he has the best reasons to prove that the Lord’s blood must be bodily in the cup of blessing. I am sending you this very article written in good Christian love, willingness, and service, since there are many among you who earnestly love God’s truth and judgments, who could doubtless show me if I err. I ask you to consider the basis of this teaching thoroughly and with diligence, and if you find that I have erred, you will explain my error to me. Then I will willingly yield to and serve divine truth. But in my conscience I am sure that what I have concluded in this matter of the sacrament is [true] and cannot be otherwise. I hope, too, that you will feel and note in this article that my teaching is divine, well founded, and [a2v] proves to confess God’s grace, Christ’s surpassing love, great praise, and true faith in Christ, and that I should not be considered in error or a heretic. I am willing to be heard by you and I ask for God’s sake that you allow me a public examination and hear an account of my faith. I have always been ready and prompt to answer friends and foes. I desire to come to you soon and ask for a hearing, which I hope to obtain. But if you refuse me, then I must complain not only to God, but also to his imperial majesty as the highest member of the Christian community, especially because I have been persecuted and expelled without a hearing, against the ordinance of his imperial majesty. But I do not doubt that you will so fear God, our almighty Lord, and give him honor, that you will hear me, who seeks direction, and let me learn what is better from you. I commend this to God. 16 March 1525. [A3r] On These Words: “The Cup, the New Testament” Now concerning Christ’s saying about the blood, it should be noted that Matthew and Mark do not say of the cup that the cup is the new testament. Thus according to the opinion of the Nördlingen preacher,3 it must follow that it is not necessary to call the cup a new testament. But the above-mentioned two evangelists recount how Christ took the cup and gave it to his disciples and said, “Drink from this, all of you,” and how afterwards the Lord spoke these words, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins,” Matthew 26[:27–28], Mark 14[:23–24]. From this we learn that the disciples drank a pure, natural wine, for the priests say that their bread and their wine retain their nature up until one has spoken or read over them those words that they call the words of consecration. Now Christ told all of his disciples to drink from the cup (in which there was natural wine) before he spoke the words of consecration, and so they drank the wine before the wine was converted4 into blood. Thus one cannot conclude from these two evangelists that the disciples drank the Lord’s blood bodily in the first Supper, but 3 Theobald (or Diebolt) Billican (Gerlacher), who criticized Karlstadt in his description of liturgical changes in Nördlingen, Renovatio Ecclesiae Nordlingiacensis, published in February 1525; Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 12/2:298–300; and Barge, Karlstadt, 2:244–51. 4 Or “transubstantiated” (verwandelt).

239

240

Chapter 12 instead the contrary, that they did not drink any blood of Christ bodily, as is now proclaimed. That Christ commanded them all to drink from it is explained by the fact that Christ spoke of the cup that the Lord gave to his disciples. It doesn’t need to be proven that the disciples drank from the same cup; for this it is enough that you have eyes or ears, can understand the word, and see or hear what Christ said. We will let some priests [A3v] say that Christ said, “All of you drink from this blood,” and want to support this from Matthew and Mark, for they will argue at length that fire is not warm or hot, that calyx [chalice] means blood and sanguis [blood] means a drinking vessel, so that they can hold on to their Lord God and their benefices. But it is appropriate for you laity to examine, read books or hear them read, and look yourself at that which is necessary for you to know, and if you do this yourself, you will soon get at the truth and realize that the disciples did not drink from the blood but from a drinking vessel. I’m amazed that the priests are so mad that they attempt to prove this from Matthew and Mark. Just look at what Matthew and Mark write. The pronoun touto [this] signifies the blood and not the cup or drinking vessel; I call on impartial judges of the Greek language, who are skilled in the art and manner of our New Testament in Greek. Luther does not rely on Matthew and Mark but rather on Luke and Paul, Luke 22[:20], 1 Corinthians 10[:16]. But some Lutherans (which I’ve drawn, like Luther’s arrow, from a bad writing and from Luther himself 5) grasp at this statement, “They all drank of it,” Mark 14[:23] and say, “They all drank from the blood of Christ.” One should ask whether they can prove this, for one should not believe anything they say without scripture. But if we had no evangelists other than Mark, it would all be up for the priests, for Mark explains that they all drank from the cup and that Christ afterwards spoke the words concerning the blood that they call the words of consecration. From this it follows that they drank pure wine. What is your wine, you priests, before your words concerning the blood? Isn’t it pure, natural wine? You must all say yes, so let the wine remain natural wine, about which Mark writes and declares that the Lord afterwards spoke the words concerning the blood. [A4r] Luther calls forth these words, “The cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” Luke 22[:20], and thinks that this text is the proper scripture to prove that the blood is and must be in the cup; 6 yes, even that it is a proper thunderbolt on Karlstadt’s head. Now if this is the proper basis to prove that the blood of Christ must be in the cup of the priests, then I have a good day 5 The “bad writing” was the pamphlet of Urbanus Rhegius, Wider den newen irrsal Doctor Andres von Carlstadt des Sacraments halb warnung (Augsburg: Ruff, 1524); reprinted in Walch, Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, 20:110–32. Luther’s views are addressed below. 6 WA 18:155; LW 40:165.

On the New and Old Testament because the priests do not read this scripture when they consecrate. I call their mass books as witness to this.7 I know only that the new pope8 and his bishops in Zwickau9 and Nördlingen10 hold to the words of the old pope, which I must allow to be judged and stated on the basis of their books. Since neither the old nor the new pope has convincing reasons, it is believable that they have never had Christ’s blood fully and truly in their cup, since they leave out the proper words. And so Karlstadt doesn’t belong to the devil just because he writes that the priests do not have any blood in their cup, and I think Luther’s thunderbolt is made of butter and his strongest servant is dead. I’ll go one better than him and say that the cup was not a new testament at the time of the first Lord’s Supper—how do you like that? I say Christ taught in his first Supper what his blood would be in the future and what the cup of remembrance would be through the blood. Testament You all know that a testament is not a testament before the death of the testator. For a testament is a last will concluded or confirmed with a death. Where there is no death, there is no testament, Hebrews 9[:16]. Death puts the testament into effect and makes it complete; the life of the testator makes the testament without effect and incomplete, Hebrews 9[:17]. [A4v] A testament is confirmed by death; otherwise it is not established if he who made it still lives, Hebrews 9[:16–17]. This is the nature of a testament, that the one who made it dies and is dead. A testament is the last will; where the one who establishes his will remains alive, it cannot be a last will. What then should I say, since it is written, “Where a testament is, there must be the death of the one who makes the testament,” Hebrews 9[:16–17]. Christ was still living (at that time) when he instituted his Supper, which is so obvious that no one needs to prove it. Thus his blood at that time was not the blood of the testament, much less the blood of the new testament, at the time when Christ said, “Father, take this cup of martyrdom from me,” Mark 26 [Matt. 26:39], at which time the angel comforted Christ and the Lord sweated blood, Luke 22[:44]. If Christ’s blood at that time was not the blood of the new testament, then the cup was much less a testament, which only belongs to the testament through blood or in the blood of the new testament. Accordingly, I say that in the Supper Christ touched on the secret and hidden article of the law and spoke to the

7

The words used in the canon of the mass for the consecration of the wine were based on but did not repeat verbatim any of the accounts in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 11, and they contained additional phrases not found in those accounts; Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, 74–75. 8 Karlstadt’s term for Luther. 9 The Zwickau pastor Nicolaus Hausmann, for whom Luther wrote his Formula Missae et communionis, published at the end of 1523; in WA 12:205 and LW 57:19. 10 Theobald Billican.

241

242

Chapter 12 disciples about his spiritual priesthood, sacrifice, and blood through which Christ would enter, although the disciples did not understand until Pentecost. Christ taught his disciples that his blood must become a blood of the new testament in the future, and the cup through the blood, at that time when his blood would be shed for us for forgiveness of sins. Thus Christ says, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out” [Matt. 26:26]. In the same way, the blood of rams and calves became a blood of the old testament, for the rams and calves died and the blood was sprinkled over the people for their corporeal cleansing, Hebrews 9[:13]. The new testament must correspond to and surpass the old. [B1r] Concerning this article of faith, Christ said and taught that his own blood would become a blood of the new testament and that the old testament (which was full of sins) would soon have an end, for whoever speaks of a new says that the old must pass away, Hebrews 9 [8:13]. The Old Testament The old consisted in the external revelation of God’s will, and what belonged to the old law was all external and corporeal. Moses read and explained God’s commands to the people, he slaughtered calves and rams, he collected the blood, he had corporeal things with which he caught the blood and sprinkled it over the people, i.e., he took hyssop water and purple wool (as a sprinkling wand) and cast the blood over the people bodily. He sprinkled the book, the tabernacle, and all the vessels for the worship of God, and all that Moses did was external and corporeal [Heb. 9:18– 22; Exod. 24:6–8]. His preaching was external and his sprinkling was external and corporeal. For Moses sprinkled the people externally and corporeally with blood, and this same blood was a blood of the testament for which innocent animals had to die (and in this it is not similar to a testament of a man who confirms his last will with his own death). This same blood cleansed nothing more than those things it touched. It touched the external body and not the conscience. Thus the consciousness of sin remained, but the external and corporeal uncleanness passed away [so that one could] serve God outwardly by approaching the tabernacle, entering it to go before God, and standing in his service bodily. New Testament But the new testament is a true testament, since the one who made it died, namely, the Messiah who is Jesus of Nazareth. It also has death and blood, like the old, and the death of the one who was a mediator or preparer of the new testament, and in this [B1v] the new testament surpasses the old. But in this especially it surpasses the old, that the priest of the new testament does not sprinkle us bodily with his blood but spiritually; that is, Christ does not cast his blood bodily or by drops over the people, but spiritually. Christ also does not take an external sprinkling wand the way Moses took hyssop, etc. Instead, Christ sprinkles his people with his blood through the Holy Spirit, Hebrews 9[:14], and through his divine power Christ

On the New and Old Testament penetrates all that is corporeal and enters into the conscience and the heart of his people and washes their consciences of evil desires and works, to serve God in truth and in spirit, Hebrews 9[:14], John 6[:63], 1 Peter 1[:3–4], 1 John 1[:7] and 4[:2], Ephesians 1[:7–8], Colossians 1[:22–23], Romans 3[:24–25], 2 Corinthians 6 [7:1]. The Shed Blood on the Cross of the Testament For this reason, the blood of Christ shed on the cross is a blood of the new testament and it had to be shed if it was to become a blood of the testament, as the blood of rams and calves was shed for the old testament. And the blood of Christ had to be a blood of spiritual sprinkling and forgiveness of sins if it was to be a blood of the new testament, because Christ says, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many in forgiveness of sins,” Matthew 26[:28], Mark 14[:24]. And all that belongs to the new testament, like the cup, etc., must become a new testament through the blood or through the death of Christ. The cup, the new testament, which is a new testament through the blood, that is, because we drink from it in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, 1 Corinthians 11[:25]. Sprinkling In this way the author of Hebrews writes that the [B2r] Lord’s blood is a blood of the new testament; namely, because the Lord’s blood shed on the cross is a blood of spiritual sprinkling that touches and purifies our consciences, Revelation 5[:9], Acts 20[:28], Hebrews 9[:19–22], 10[:11–14], 12[:24], and 13[:11–12], and washes away sins, figured in Leviticus 4[:5–7], 14[:10–20], and 16[:11–16]. For God promised that he would give his new testament in our hearts and be gracious to sinners and no longer remember their sins, Jeremiah 31[:31–34], Hebrews 8[:8–12]. There are two characteristics of the new testament. First, that God wants to write his law in our hearts. Second, that the forgiveness of sins will follow this inscription in our hearts so surely that God will no longer remember our sins, Jeremiah 31[:31–34], Isaiah 43[:25]. What God writes in our hearts is the revelation of his Son, a knowledge or understanding of his sacrifice and his shed blood, an understanding that the Father alone gives, John 6[:44], Matthew 11[:25]. This is faith, or a hearty and living knowledge of the death and shed blood of Christ. So Christ as a spiritual priest (through the Holy Spirit) casts his blood in our hearts, souls, and consciences, and purifies our hearts and consciences through faith, Acts 15[:8–9], Romans 3[:22]. The forgiveness of sins immediately follows this revelation or new law so sufficiently and in such clear proclamation and certainty that one genuinely feels that God no longer remembers his sins, that God has purified him through faith from the shed blood of Christ, Acts 15[:9], Romans 3[:24–25]. Thus we must approach with full faith and with our feet, Hebrews 10[:22]. We must draw from the blood of the cross of Christ with our hearts and not draw from the blood in the body of Christ or in the cup with the mouth if we otherwise

243

244

Chapter 12 want to consider it as a blood of the new testament and as a blood of the true, divine new testament. [B2v] The new pope devastates this faith and this manner of the new testament, making for us out of the blood of spiritual drinking and of spiritual sprinkling a blood of bodily drinking and of bodily sprinkling and, in short, a blood of the old testament, against all of God’s scripture that speaks of the blood of the new testament and especially this: “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins,” because Christ through this statement (“which is shed for the forgiveness of sins”) publicly showed that his blood was a blood of spirits, of souls, of hearts, and of consciences, and not a blood of the body, Revelation 5[:9] and 7[:14], Hebrews 9[:14] and 10[:22]. For the new pope writes against this and says that we should drink the Lord’s blood bodily as a new testament, which is against the manner, against the nature, and against the characteristic of the blood of the new testament. And the pope also uses external things, such as an external cup, and gives his apes the blood of Christ bodily in the mouth and belly, and this is like Moses in two ways, namely, in that he uses external and corporeal things for the blood of Christ as Moses [did]. Moses took hyssop water and purple wool and dunked or dipped it in the shed blood and sprinkled the people. But the new pope takes a cup of water and wine and gives to his people the blood of Christ bodily in their mouths and says as he does so that this is the blood of the new testament. Isn’t this a great scorning and mockery of the blood of the new testament? Doesn’t Luther say with such words that Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament, but [says] differently with his mind and heart that it is a blood of the old testament? It is the knowledge and power of Christ’s blood in the cup (if it is drunk bodily, as Luther writes about the bodily drinking of Christ’s blood) and of the blood of Moses. For it doesn’t help these sacramentarians to say that [B3r] they give the blood hidden under an alien form, since Moses sprinkled the book and tents, the altars and other vessels with his blood, for the blood of Moses was as unrecognized by the people as the blood of Christ in the cup is unrecognized by the people. You should remember this. If you know that Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament, then you also know this, that only the shed blood of Christ on the cross is a blood of the testament if it is at all a blood of the testament and corresponds to the figure of the old testament. And you also know that you should drink the Lord’s blood not bodily but only spiritually, that you should receive it in your hearts, in your consciences, and in the ground of your souls, for it belongs to the new testament which abolishes the old that was received bodily. Thus you’ll now note that Luther is a Mosaic preacher and teacher and not a Christian one, and this you can understand from Christ’s words, who in his Supper said, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for the forgiveness of sins” [Matt. 26:28]. Notice here these words, “of the new testament” and “forgiveness of sins,” etc.

On the New and Old Testament Anyone who receives Christ’s blood other than for the forgiveness of sins receives Christ’s blood in unbelief and does violence to Christ’s blood, for he takes from the blood the honor of the new testament and the power of forgiveness. But anyone who receives the shed blood of Christ as a blood of the new testament receives it spiritually on the cross with his heart and not bodily from the cup with his mouth. Anyone who receives the blood of Christ bodily receives it not for the forgiveness of sins and not as a new testament, but as a corporeal drink. Thus he will be guilty of Christ’s blood as often as he drinks from the cup of the Lord in the belief that he [B3v] is drinking Christ’s blood bodily, for he contradicts this word, that the Lord’s blood is a blood of the new testament shed on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. The new papists lead us into such unbelief, and Theobald Billican is especially filthy and ready to make such foolishness and worthlessness of Christ’s body and blood. But whoever wishes to be saved prays to God, for you all truly need great prayer and the help of God since we see that the devil stands in a new cassock and attempts to blind those who can see. Our new popes aren’t satisfied with this evil, that they make the Lord’s blood into common blood, the blood of the new testament into a blood of the old testament and the blood of spiritual sprinkling and spiritual cleansing into a blood of bodily sprinkling and bodily cleansing. No, for they want to continue with their error and not only give us Christ’s blood bodily to drink, but in addition they want to set poor, wretched, lousy, sinful, and unbelieving priests as mediators of the new testament and of the blood of the new testament so that they sin sufficiently against Christ’s blood. For they write, preach, and sing that through the power of Christ’s words (which they are not able to show), a poor, dejected, and unbelieving priest can give Christ’s blood in their cup or sacrament to God’s people as a blood of the new testament. For this reason I must show their unbelief and I say it this way: If Christ’s blood, which a priest gives to himself or anyone else to drink bodily, is not a drink to righteousness, then the precious blood of Christ in the priest’s cup is not the blood of the new testament, for it cannot slake the thirst for righteousness, that is, it is not the blood that forgives sins, Romans 3[:25]. Furthermore, it cannot make the cup of the new papists a new testament, for such blood is itself not the blood of the new testament, nor may it be a blood of the new [B4r] testament. For this reason I would have nothing to do with them, and for their part they cannot convince with their blood that the cup is a new testament through their fictitious blood that is supposedly in their cup. But if Christ’s blood in their cup is a blood of the new testament (as Luther once claimed but another time denied, at times this, at times that, as his book says one thing at the beginning and another at the end)—if Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament in the priest’s cup and it were true that our lovely, new, verbose, foppish priests could give Christ’s blood to drink, then wouldn’t it follow that the Lord’s blood shed on the cross was not a blood of the new testament and that the

245

246

Chapter 12 poor donkey drivers and pleasure-seekers and godless priests, those whitewashed tombs, were mediators and preparers of the new testament? This would be a lovely figure, and then Isaiah must be lying, who wrote about Christ that he was exalted and lifted up, Isaiah 52[:13], 11[:2–5], 9[:6–7], and Paul must have also lied in giving to Christ the precedence over all things, Colossians 1[:15–20]. One finds in the Epistle to the Hebrews 9[:1–10] and 10[:1–4, 11], and also in other books, that the people, that the sinful clergy, would be priests and mediators of the new testament if they could give Christ’s blood as a blood of the new testament. I maintain only that it is at base the same thing when I say Christ sprinkles believers with his blood or that Christ gives believers his blood to drink; this you find in Hebrews 9[:12–14] and 10[:12–14], John 6[:54]. Open your eyes and you will find or see that Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament or a blood of our redemption, Ephesians 1[:7]. That is first. Second, the one who can give the blood or sprinkle us with it is a mediator of the new testament. I should prove this last point and I do it gladly for these are clear words, that Christ Jesus through his own blood entered once into his tabernacle [B4v] that was made by God and not with human hands, which is in heaven, Hebrews 9[:24]. And he is seated at God’s right hand and waits until his enemies have been laid as a stool for his feet, Hebrews 2[:7–8] and 10[:12–13]. Likewise, through his own blood the high priest Christ Jesus has entered into the holy place, Hebrews 9[:12]. Grasp this, for there you hear that through his own blood Christ has entered into his holy and divine tabernacle, that through his shed blood Christ has become a mediator and preparer of the new testament, which is in Hebrews 9[:15]. You will find in Hebrews 9[:14] that it is fitting for Christ as the most high priest to sprinkle his people with his own blood. It was necessary that the heavenly things were sprinkled and cleansed through the sacrifice and shed blood. Likewise, that Christ’s blood has cleansed our conscience, Hebrews 9[:14]. It sprinkles our hearts, Hebrews 10[:22], and in Hebrews 12[:24]. You have both the mediator Jesus and the sprinkling of Christ’s blood, Hebrews 13[:12]. Christ sanctifies his people through his blood. From these passages it follows that it is the same thing and belongs to one office to give Christ’s blood and to cleanse through Christ’s blood the one to whom he gives that blood. For in its manner and by God’s power, Christ’s blood is a blood of spiritual sprinkling and holiness, but it is impossible for any priest to sanctify in the least bit through Christ’s blood, for if the priests could do this, they would be like Christ and our saviors. But the new pope establishes mediators of the new testament and testators when he says that the priests give the Lord’s blood in their cup to the laity. Isn’t this a great insult and scorning of Christ’s blood? Since Luther considers Christ’s blood to be so little that a priest can give it to someone to drink, isn’t it a wretched thing that we must hear that Luther compares such worthless and lowly priests to the most high priest and places them at his side? And the entrance (which happened once and for all as an [C1r] eternal and complete redemption through Christ’s blood)

On the New and Old Testament may be renewed so often each day? This actually means to promise the blood of the new testament and then tread on it with your feet, Hebrews 10[:26–31]. Luther writes big books against the sacrifice of priests, charging that they have gone astray in the mass by saying, “We sacrifice Christ,” and he writes how they blaspheme against God and negate the passion and the sacrifice of Christ. But he will not see that he retains the root of the priestly error, and then he writes in such a way that he nullifies, despises, and blasphemes the blood of the new testament just as horribly as the old papists nullify Christ’s sacrifice.11 Is it nothing that Luther makes poor sinners into priests of Christ’s blood? Or that he writes in one place that Christ’s blood drunk from the cup cleanses the sinner and says that the priests offer and give this same blood? Isn’t this to blaspheme Christ’s priesthood? Isn’t this to nullify the blood of the cross, as if it weren’t powerful and rich enough for an eternal redemption? What would follow from this? That Christ is not the sole mediator of the new testament, that we have many mediators, namely the mangy, godless priests, and that the Lord’s blood on the cross is not the blood of our sprinkling, our righteousness, and our life. For if the blood in the priests’ cup is the blood of our sprinkling or our righteousness or the blood of our forgiveness of sins, then Christ shed and offered his blood on the cross (shed and offered through the Holy Spirit) in vain, Galatians 3[:1–5]. This and similar ways of scorning the blood (shed on the cross) are so evil, harmful, and shameful as the follies of the old papists who sacrifice the body and blood of Christ as a remembrance, against which Billican cries and writes so ferociously. [C1v] On Our Priesthood It doesn’t help either the old or the new popes that we have all become priests through Christ. As it is written, “You have made us priests before God,” Revelation 5[:19], 1 Peter 2[:9]. This isn’t intended to say that we may sacrifice the flesh and the blood anew or that we have power to make the body and the blood of Christ as they do who offer and give the Lord’s body and blood through the sacrament to their people, for this power belongs only to our highest priest Jesus Christ and to no one else. If we claimed such power for ourselves, we would fall away from our priesthood, that is, from Christ, through our unbelief, since we would sin against the priest, against his sacrifice, and against his blood, since he would have to die again. Then his office would be no better than that of Aaron, Hebrews 9[:25–26]. [This would be] against the sacrifice of Christ, which would not be perfect once and for all to give eternal salvation, [and] against his blood, whose shedding would not avail eternally for redemption. But we have become priests through Christ. We had no access to God, we were under God’s wrath, we were punishable before God, we were hateful, we stank 11

The repetition of a line in the original (omitted in this translation) is clearly a printing error.

247

248

Chapter 12 from sins, etc., we were not able to go before God. Then Christ our priest came and offered his body and shed blood through the Holy Spirit on the cross and sprinkled our consciences and cleansed us from evil works to serve before God, Hebrews 9[:14]. And he gave us access to God, took away God’s wrath and placed us in God’s love, made us unspotted and blameless, so that through him we who confess God could offer to him a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips, Hebrews 10[:22], so that we can offer to God our bodies, suffering, lives, and spirits, Romans 12[:1]. We who could do nothing before are now priests through Christ. This priesthood we have through faith and [C2r] from the glorious knowledge of the priesthood, sacrifice, and blood of Christ. Without faith and outside the knowledge of Christ, we would have none of this. But through our faith are we able, against the sacrifice of Christ, to sacrifice [him] again or to give his body as a food, against the blood of Christ to shed it anew or to give it to someone as a drink? For this reason our priests should not undertake the great things of Christ’s priesthood. They should leave the sacrifice and Christ’s body and blood as they were sacrificed. And so we have Luther, who through his teaching (for he writes that he can give Christ’s blood to drink bodily in his cup) sets himself and his followers alongside Christ, and they want to make themselves mediators of the new testament equal to the highest priest, having the same office and authority to distribute the body and blood of Christ, to make from the blood of the new testament a blood of the old testament, and from the blood of our spiritual sprinkling a blood of corporeal sprinkling, which is a great, horrible sin, namely an anti-Christian teaching against the blood of the cross and a rebuke to or contempt of the new testament. Luther isn’t excused if he seems to write something different, since the evil root of his teaching remains, that he boasts so much about the word and says, “The word does it, and we do it in the word.”12 The devil could also boast that he does this, so that it is clear as day that Luther boasts of the word of God, which he does not have and cannot produce. Luther does not have a syllable in scripture that shows that the blood of Christ in the cup is a blood of the new testament. He has even less from scripture that the cup is a new testament through Christ’s blood that is in the cup as he says, and he has even less from scripture that a priest brings Christ’s blood down from heaven into the cup and can then give it as a blood of the testament. [C2v] Through this ground (of faith) it is well proven that the cup is not a new testament through the blood that is supposedly in it. Instead, it is through the blood of the cross, through the blood that Christ the priest shed. To say that the cup is a new testament in the blood is to say the same as the cup is a new testament in this death, for the death of Christ belongs to the new testament just as Christ’s shed blood does. The ninth chapter of Hebrews [9:15–28] makes this clear, as do 12

WA 18:202–3; LW 40:212–13.

On the New and Old Testament the other apostles who write about the death and shed blood. And this would not follow, that Christ’s death must be in the cup, even if it were written as openly as it is written in a secret but powerful way, “The cup, the new testament in my death.” From this you cannot conclude, as Luther wants, that the blood must be corporeally in the cup, if the cup is a new testament in the blood or through the blood. See, we are God’s people and a people of the new testament through the blood or in the blood of Christ. But does it follow from this that Christ’s blood must be in us bodily? No, we have faith, and the cup is used as a drinking vessel by us in remembrance of Christ’s shed blood and so the cup is a new testament through the blood. Now let’s see whether Luther can make use of this text, “The cup, the new testament in my blood” [Luke 22:20]. Let’s unfold the text this way and that, putting the last first and turning it inside out, and see whether Luther has any justification for the teaching that he has built on this foundation. Let the text stand as it is and affirm, “The cup, the new testament in my blood.” What follows from this? That the Lord’s blood is bodily in the cup? Where do you have scripture? If you answer “here,” how does it say that? Doesn’t it say “in the blood, in the blood.” No? You can read from this only that the [C3r] cup is in the blood, and doesn’t that sound foolish to you and against our minds, reason, and faith? You should know that your unleashed reason sounds much more foolish, bare, wretched, and without scriptural foundation. For it has all the [same] faults as the belief that the cup is bodily in the blood, and beyond these faults it crumbles before scripture or scriptural assumptions. If you should read “the cup in the blood,” your reading is absurd and against scripture [to say that] the blood is in the cup bodily. To you, I am absurd for saying the cup is bodily in Christ’s blood and therefore it is a new testament, but your understanding is even more absurd to us when you say the cup is a new testament in the blood that is bodily in the cup, for you have abandoned [the wording of] scripture and add to the literal sense another understanding that no one will accept. If you read the text in this way, “The new testament in the blood is the cup,” won’t that result in a meaning and understanding that no person and no church has ever accepted, namely this: “The cup is in the blood”? This you will note well if you arrange the words, “The new testament is in Christ’s blood.” The cup is the new testament, thus the cup is in Christ’s blood. If you turn the same statement in this way, “in the blood, the new testament, the cup,” what can you draw from this? This, that the new testament is in the blood, the cup is in the blood, for the cup is a new testament in the blood? Doesn’t this follow? No? Follow? So do you see that this clear scripture overthrows your foundation and takes the blood out of the cup. Where now is the clear sun? Has it paled? Has it gone dark? Where is the thunderbolt? I think that it has fallen into pure nothingness and dreams, and it has caused building and foundation to collapse into a heap, and he should be careful that it doesn’t fall on his head. God sends such weather to those who are ungrateful! Billican will carve out new blood

249

250

Chapter 12 and dream up a blood that he brings into his cup from a new Bible [C3v] that is against the blood of the new testament, against a blood that is useful for something. For he cannot bear that anyone concludes from this and other scripture that blood is not in the cup, and so it is not in it, although he can present no scripture [that says] that the Lord’s blood is in the cup. I originally preached the cross of grace, and some of the laity have accepted it so well that they conclude that Christ is no longer any use to them in the sacrament. Nor did they ask this nonsense (that the sun shines in all places and Christ is useful in all places), for they know how to speak of the use of Christ’s passion. Then our papists say what Christ’s body and blood do in the sacrament and what use they are to recipients, but they do this so inconsistently that everyone must begin to doubt whether Christ is in the sacrament. Our new papists should also prove that Christ is in their sacrament. But what they do is apparent from our writings that we now discuss. If by insults, slander, swearing, curses, banning, and giving over to the devil they could accomplish anything, they would have won their case, for I don’t want to respond to their mockery. But I want them to teach me with clear, transparent, and certain scripture that, how, and why Christ is in the sacrament. If they did this, I would gladly be instructed, so gladly that one should see that I wanted to follow without insulting them. But what should I do? I, who have been attacked by the above-mentioned work as with a thunderbolt and handed over to the devil, I who have shown that this scripture, “the cup, the new testament,” etc., brings the blood out of the cup and who have given it an understanding that no pope can accept. What should I do? I know of no one but God to whom I can complain. But I will show in two ways that this text, “the cup, the new testament,” etc., does not put the blood in the cup. [C4r] I will twist and turn the text a third time: “The cup is your blood, the new testament.” What follows from this? That the blood is your cup? No? For it must also follow that Christ’s blood is in the cup a new testament, or that through the cup the blood is a new testament. That would sound good, to slander Christ’s new testament, although it conflicts with Luther’s view if it is right. For so the understanding would remain, the cup is in the blood, understood corporeally, for the popes want to have Christ’s blood corporeally in the cup, but since the popes will not accept this, we are even less willing to accept this dream. I fear the popes will lose their place, as they get angry, insist and scream, curse and condemn. Concerning this article, I must let Christians know that the blood of Christ is a true drink, John 6[:55]. But no Christian should drink this same drink bodily, that is, with mouth and belly, for then the blood of Christ would not be a true drink, but instead [it should be drunk] with the heart in faith. Anyone who knows well the blood of Christ shed on the cross drinks well and his thirst is quenched. As Christ says, “The one who believes in me will never thirst into eternity,” John

On the New and Old Testament 6[:54]. I’d like to know what the God-fearing thirst for, if they do not thirst for righteousness? What is the righteousness of the God-fearing? Isn’t it faith and the knowledge of him who washes away many sins, Isaiah 53[:11], 1 John 1[:7]? Isn’t forgiveness of sins the salvation of believers? Let Paul answer, Romans 3[:24–25] and Romans 8[:1]. Thus, the reason for their thirst for righteousness is that some feel their sins and thirst for sure forgiveness, for God has revealed to them that one who through his shed blood would [C4v] give them sure forgiveness of sins, richly, completely, and sufficiently, with full assurance and eternal peace, Romans 5[:1]. This one is the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth, for God has sealed and sent him, John 6[:27], 9[:4]. Whoever knows Jesus Christ will find in him that his blood is the true blood of the new testament that has been shed for all sins. Then his thirst will be eternally satisfied, for he knows through faith that Christ Jesus of Nazareth is God’s son, who shed his blood through the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins, and he will be satisfied with this. He considers no other redemption and it pains him that some seek their redemption in other things or by other means, as those do who want to be saved through the blood in the sacrament rather than through the shedding on Christ’s cross, that is, through that which Christ says, “The one who believes in me will no longer thirst into eternity,” John 6[:35]. Therefore we must recognize the blood of Christ shed on the cross or truly believe, if the blood is to be our drink, for Christ lifted up his blood on the cross and poured it out as a spiritual drink, just as he raised up his flesh, given on the cross for the life of the world as a true food, John 3[:14–15], John 6[:51], John 12[:32]. If we should recognize the blood of Christ shed on the cross as our spiritual drink, then we must draw near with faith and in our hearts, Hebrews 10[:21–22], Romans 3[:24–25]. Then the inner and not the outer man must approach it. Is this true? Yes, and if it is true, then it is a false dream and a lie that the blood of Christ is our bodily drink, as Luther teaches. Here the pope rebukes Christ. Christ says we should drink in our hearts and in faith, but the pope says you should drink with your mouth. Christ says, “You should listen to and learn from the Father and so come to me.” Luther says, “You should listen to me and come to the blood in the cup.” [D1r] Christ says that his blood is a true drink, that is, a drink of eternal salvation and of eternal life before God, for it is a spiritual drink, but Luther says, “The blood in the cup is not a true drink and is not a drink of salvation and of life before God, but instead you should drink Christ’s blood bodily from our cup.” The blood in the cup is a blood of a new testament, although it does not forgive sins or give birth to a spiritual life. It is, it is a common blood that Judas the betrayer, Pilate, Herod, and the murdering priests drink. What comes from this? What? Not that? That Christ said wrongly that his blood is a true drink of life? And that the Truth lied, who says, “Whoever drinks the blood remains in me” [John 6:56] and, “Whoever drinks has eternal life” [John 6:54]? And that Jesus did not know what he was saying when he said, “No one comes to me but only

251

252

Chapter 12 those whom my father draws” [John 6:44]? But Luther writes against Christ and not against me, and especially he writes against the blood of Christ when he writes that the blood of Christ is a corporeal or false or Iscariotic13 drink, for this little stream bubbles from this spring, the blood of Christ (in the priests’ cup); it is a corporeal drink in which Judas the betrayer of Christ had fellowship. But Luther has found this spring and dug it up, and so it is his poisonous water that tries to wash away the ground of the cross of Christ, but he will be dashed on the hard rock. Believe me, we do not have sand or gravel or stones but instead a pure, hard, and true rock, as he knows and will come to realize. If Luther does no other harm to Christendom, it would still be truly great and horrifying that he makes of the true drink a false drink, and from a spiritual drink a corporeal one, from a drink of life a drink of death, from a drink [D1v] of the elect a drink of the condemned. And he rejects Christ, who says publicly that his blood is a true drink, John 6[:55] and 1 John 1[:6], who says that those who have fellowship in Christ’s blood have no fellowship with sins, but that those who have fellowship with sins do not drink Christ’s blood. In addition I would boast of something from John 12[:35], if it were necessary. Christ’s teaching has one end, and St. John says enough at this place to shut Luther’s mouth, as it is now shut before God and will soon be stopped up more powerfully or fiercely. Luther has now been revealed as writing something other than the truth about Christ’s blood, and he wants to make Christ’s blood into a corporeal, unspiritual, powerless, and spiritless drink, to dishonor Christ and to disgrace his blood. So beware of his teaching, see that his rhetoric doesn’t lead you astray, don’t concede that Christ (John 6[:53–56]) did not write sufficiently about drinking his blood. Beware and do not make the blood in the priests’ cup into a blood of the old testament as Luther does, who gives it bodily to drink, who lets it seem like the blood of the new testament in name but at root and at base he robs of all worthiness the dear, noble, precious blood shed for us. He takes from the blood the spirit, the power, the might, the perfection, the use, and the name of new testament, and [he does this] to his own harm and to the condemnation of all who sit on the beast that he rides. I write as I understand it, without wishing that anyone fall under God’s wrath, and I don’t know anything different. And I ask God daily for his grace, that he will not let me write anything except his truth and that he will reveal it to me if I err. But the more I consider, reflect, and think about it, and the more firmly and constantly I hold to it with prayer and supplication, the more [D2r] I get around the desires of the devil, who has made Christians think that they receive assistance from the sacramental essence of Christ when they receive the body and the blood of Christ bodily through the sacrament. May the Father of all mercy enlighten us, teach the right foundation, and maintain us in his firm peace, Amen. 13

From Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ.

On the New and Old Testament Luther has faith in Christ against him and has departed from all scripture. What should I do? What will you do, dear Christian? We must pray for wisdom and strength. From what is said above, it’s easy to see that these words, “The cup, the new testament in my blood which is shed,” Luke 22[:20], or these, “This is my blood, which is the new testament that is shed for many for forgiveness of sins,” Matthew 26[:28], are necessary, that Christ spoke from necessity, for many reasons. First, because before his end Christ publicly had to proclaim that he was the Messiah, that all the writings of Moses [and] the prophets who prophesied anything about a new testament and the blood of the new testament should be fulfilled and achieve their end in the Lord and in his blood. Moreover, this was a joyful and a necessary sermon and promise. It was also an office above the office of all prophets and above the office of John the Baptist, for the Baptist pointed to a stranger, but Christ pointed to himself and to his own blood and said, “This is my blood of the new testament, and so that you know that the blood of the new testament is blood, so I say that [it] is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. Hear this new testament, namely the forgiveness of sins. [D2v] So note as well that my blood is the blood that shall be shed for forgiveness of sins. Because right, true, and complete forgiveness will take place through my blood, so my blood of the new testament is blood in which all sins will be forgiven, the consciousness of sin will pass away, and God will no longer consider sins.” But in its shedding, it is a blood of the testament, for all blood that becomes a blood of the testament must be poured out and sprinkled on the people of the testament. Since a testament without a death is not a testament, so must the blood of the testament be a blood of death, as the blood of Christ on the cross was. For this reason the apostles wrote sometimes about Christ’s death and sometimes about the shedding of blood. This is a strong and sufficient reason that Christ before his end said of his shed blood that it would be the blood of the mediator of the new testament that would be shed for the full and eternal forgiveness of sins and so become a blood of the new testament. From this argument follows another, that Christ spoke these words about his blood so that we would know how the cup of the Supper would become a new testament; namely, at the time when Christ had shed his blood for forgiveness of sins and his church came together and drank from his cup in true remembrance of the shed blood. As Paul writes to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 11[:23–26], with clear words, “You should do this (as often as you drink it) in remembrance of me.” Paul says shortly before this that the cup is a testament in the blood of Christ. For Paul, this means the same thing as a new testament in my blood, as if another clause were added that says, “that will be shed for the forgiveness of sins” (which the other evangelists stated expressly for our greater and more sure understanding), for we all see what Paul [E1r] calls a new testament, Hebrews 9[:15], 10[:9], 12[:24], 13[:20], why the blood of Christ is a blood of the new testament, namely,

253

254

Chapter 12 because of the forgiveness. He writes about this at length, that the blood of Christ is a blood of the new testament, and he says much about how the blood of Christ must be shed for full forgiveness of the sins of the people of Christ and of God. Everyone sees this in Hebrews 8[:1–7], 9[:15–28], and 10[:11–15], and so the name of Christ corresponds with the death of Christ, Matthew 3[1:21], Philippians 2[:9–10], Luke 24[:26]. Thus the cup is a new testament through the blood or in the blood of the new testament, and we drink from the cup in remembrance of the Christ who died, who shed his blood for us. Luther cannot accuse me of writing that one should omit such glorious and necessary words about the blood. This is far from my [intention], but it might serve Luther if we shove such words under a bench. It would serve me and the believers in Christ to examine well such words of the Lord and grasp their content. For we grasp that the cup of the Lord is a cup of the new testament through the blood of the cross, which flowed from the body of Christ that hung on the cross. If this same blood is the blood of the new testament, then the cup is a new testament through the blood of the cross and the cup is not a new testament through the blood that is supposedly in it, for even if the blood of Christ were in the cup at the time of the Supper as it was in the body of Christ, the cup would still not have been a new testament because the blood was not yet shed, since the art and character of the blood of the new testament requires that it be shed, as Christ would shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins. If the blood (which is supposedly in the cup corporeally) makes the cup into a new testament through its corporeal substance, then surely the instruments of Christ’s passion [E1v] such as the whip, the crown [of thorns], the spear, the cross, the earth, and the nails, which Christ’s blood corporeally and visibly adhered to or touched, became a new testament. But who says all these things are a new testament? And if someone did say so, he would have to defend it with scripture if we were to believe him. Since these things aren’t called the new testament, who can confirm, when he wants to call the cup of the Lord a new testament, that it contains the Lord’s blood corporeally? We call holy scripture the New Testament because it testifies to the new testament, that is, to the death and shed blood and contains the remembrance of death, and not because the death and the shed blood or Christ himself is corporeally contained in it; why not also the Lord’s cup, which the Lord established for us to drink from in his remembrance? The shed blood on the cross is a blood of the new testament, because Christ shed and offered his blood through the Holy Spirit for us and our sins on the cross, Hebrews 9[:14]. We must direct our remembrance to this. Whoever thinks deeply but doesn’t consider the power of the cross doesn’t think of what he should think about, nor does he think as he should. For Christ clearly said, “that will be shed for you.” Thus someone is guilty of the blood of Christ as often as he drinks from

On the New and Old Testament the Lord’s cup without remembrance of Christ’s shed blood, and all other thoughts that you have are in vain if you do not have such remembrance. From this saying of Christ it also follows that they are fools who call the Lord’s Supper a new testament, especially those who call it a new testament because in this fictitious sacrament Christ supposedly forgives sins or that the power of forgiveness is in the sacrament. For this reason it is a falsehood and a lie even if an angel were to say it. Forgiveness of sins is on the cross. Christ bore our sins, washed them away, and paid for them on the wood [of the cross], 1 Peter 2:[:24], [E2r] Isaiah 53[:4], Colossians 1[:22]. Thus they deny the crucified Christ who call the Lord’s Supper a new testament for the sake of the forgiveness of sins, and they crush the power of Christ’s cross from which alone there is sufficient forgiveness of all sins. But Luther is a master of this error, which harms many people and makes half of the passion or death of Christ fruitless. But Luther paints his teaching in lovely colors and doesn’t see that he does this or what he does, saying the cup is a new testament for the sake of forgiveness of sins because forgiveness is distributed in it.14 This is a painted lid without scripture. But isn’t it a lovely color? Isn’t it hypocrisy? If Luther could give us scripture for this, who wouldn’t believe him? Must Luther always lead fools on an ape’s leash? Or is this a profanation of the blood, of the cross, of all men, and even of God? If we didn’t have the Lord’s statement about the blood of the new testament, what could we set against this? What good does Luther have? What must I hear? But praise God, we have the Lord’s word that is clear and light and powerful to remove this lid and to reveal publicly this nullifier of Christ’s cross. For Christ says, “the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for many,” etc. Don’t both your ears ring with this? Oh, see how they run! I think that this saying crushes what Luther has made up. No? How then? Why didn’t Christ say, “The cup, the new testament in my blood, in which forgiveness of sins is distributed”? Can you answer me? If it is enough that the cup is a new testament because forgiveness is distributed in it (which is still unproven), why then did Christ say, “the blood that is shed,” and not in vain, but shed for us for the forgiveness of sins? [E2v] But if it is true that the cup is a new testament in the blood that was shed for us for forgiveness, then the other is a lie, that the cup is a new testament for the sake of the distribution of [the forgiveness of] sins. For the distribution is powerless and no testament, but the shedding is powerful, testamentary, and confirmatory. If Luther wants to stand by his book and hold that Christ obtained forgiveness of sins through his shed blood, then he must also confess that the cup is a new testament in obtaining forgiveness of sins. For Christ said that his blood was a blood of the new testament that would be shed for the forgiveness of sins. But then the other [meaning] is rejected, where Luther says “the cup is a new testament” because Christ has distributed [forgiveness of] sins in it. Do you see now, Luther, 14

WA 18:203–4; LW 40:213–14.

255

256

Chapter 12 how I don’t separate these words at all? How your building falls in a heap? How your buttress is wrecked and crushed? How they take the blood out of your cup? This is one of Luther’s strongest soldiers, who is not only struck down with his own sword but also robbed of all his goods. I advise you, dear brethren, that you open your eyes, ask God for wisdom, consider well the scriptures, for you will see how at first the scripture seems to support the popes’ errors and only for that reason was it used by one of them whom you consider as a prophet, but when you look rightly in the scripture, won’t you find the pure rock, a sharp sword, and a heavy hammer that simply strikes the sophistry of the new pope to the ground and crushes it? Anyone who calls the Lord’s Supper a new testament for the sake of the forgiveness of sins that it supposedly contains so powerfully does violence to Christ’s new testament and is an enemy of Christ’s cross; this is shown for the reasons cited above. [E3r] Now note what results from this fiction, that the cup is a new testament in the blood that it supposedly contains. First, that the blood in the cup is shed for us, and as often as it is shed, so often Christ’s blood makes the cup a new testament? For scripture grants this, that where the blood of the new testament is corporeally, there is the shedding of blood, Hebrews 9[:22]. It follows from this that the priests give the blood of Christ for us when they give us Christ’s blood to drink, for it is administered and [becomes] blood for us and for our sins and for the life of the world, and so whoever gives it must give what goes along with it. Second, that Christ’s blood must forgive sins anew. They would deny this with their mouths, but they say yes with the root of their error. From this flows the third [error], that the priests offer Christ’s blood so often as they give it to the people to drink, and thus the new popes are as wicked and evil as the old papists; here I cite as my foundation Hebrews 9[:25] and 10[:11]. Fourth, it follows that they want to be mediators of the new testament. Fifth, that Christ must often die, for where the testament is renewed, there is a renewal of the death, Hebrews 9[:16–17]. Sixth, that the death and the shed blood of Christ was never a death and never the blood of the new testament, Hebrews 9[:25–26]. Seventh, that Christ’s death, sacrifice, and blood is incomplete. All of this flows from the error of the popes who are equally pious, and all of this a reasonable person can nullify on the basis of Christ’s words (explained above), especially through these words, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins”; “the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Dear brothers, let’s not amuse ourselves [E3v] with scripture against the new testament, for whoever scorns the sacrifice and the blood and testament of Christ or does not heed it, does not have redemption. I taught before I wrote this pamphlet that every will and promise or assurance from God may be called a testament, such as the promise made to Abraham,

On the New and Old Testament Galatians 3[:6], and the Jews as children of the testament, Acts 3[:25].15 And this promise, “the body will be given for you,” can be a testament. Therefore I do not want to explain this further.

15

Recipients, fol. b3v (p. 30 above).

257

13

A Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching about the Venerable Sacrament et cetera and Wants It to Be Regarded (September 1525) As a condition for being allowed to return to Saxony, Karlstadt wrote two pamphlets. In the first, Entschuldigung D. Andres Carlstats des falschen namens der auffrür / so jm ist mit vnrecht auffgelegt, he defended himself against charges that he had been involved in the Peasants’ War.1 The second pamphlet, Erklerung wie Carlstat sein ler von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament vnd andere achtet vnd geachtet haben will, for which Luther provided a preface, was published in Wittenberg by Johann Rhau in the second half of September 1525 (VD16, B6163; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 148). This pamphlet was reprinted five more times over the course of 1525: in Augsburg by Simprecht Ruff (VD16, B6151; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 147), in Erfurt by Johann Loersfeld (VD16, B6159; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 152), in Nuremberg by Friedrich Peypus (VD16, B6160; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 150), and in Strasbourg by both Johann Knobloch (VD16, B6162; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 149) and Johann Prüss (VD16, B6162; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 151).2 It was also printed together with Karlstadt’s Entschuldigung… des falschen names der auffrür in Augsburg by Simprecht Ruff (VD16, B6158; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 147). There is a critical edition of the pamphlet, with Luther’s preface, in WA 18:453–66, which I have used for this translation; the pamphlet is also edited in Laube, Flugschriften von Bauernkrieg, 1:87–101.

258

1 This pamphlet was published with a preface by Luther in the summer of 1525. It is reprinted in WA 18:436–45, as well as in Hertzsch, Schriften, 2:105–18. There is an English translation in Furcha, Essential Carlstadt, 378–86, with Luther’s preface, 395–98. 2 In addition to Luther’s preface, the Prüss imprint also contained an anonymous foreword and Frolockung eins christlichen bruders von wegen der vereynigung Zwischen D. M. Luther vnd D. Andres Carlostat sich begeben. The latter, attributed to Wolfgang Capito, was also published separately in 1526; Kaufmann, “Zwei unerkannte Schriften Bucers.” There is a modern edition of this pamphlet in Laube, Flugschriften von Bauernkrieg, 1:102–15.

Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching

259

Martin Luther to all dear Christians: [453] Grace and peace in Christ, our Savior r. Karlstadt has written another pamphlet for me in which he explains himself and his writings, especially those he has published about the venerable sacrament.3 I rejoice greatly that he testifies freely and openly that he does not want this teaching of his to be considered as certain and proven truth, as he also himself does not and cannot consider it to be, but instead he made public his view and understanding as a form of questioning, so that he could hear and learn how one might solidly and firmly prove and confirm it. And indeed, when I think back and consider, I am myself very aware that almost all of his pamphlets have titles or headings that sound like and are proposed to show that he is presenting an idea and disputation and is not concluding anything finally as an article of faith, for his titles generally state, “whether one can prove this or that from scripture.” In addition, his prefaces also testify that he is asking and searching, and inciting others to ask and search with him. [454] But because he treated the matter with such weighty, strident words in his writings and I saw that so many people accepted and adhered to them, I forgot his titles and prefaces, and I myself thought no differently than that this was his earnest understanding. This perhaps happened to others as well, and so it is truly necessary for him to publish this explanation and he is himself obligated to do so. And although it is dangerous to waver, doubt, or especially to dispute in matters and articles of faith when someone persists in his own views, we who are certain are nevertheless obliged to help these same wavering and questioning hearts and to extend a hand to them in their danger, to listen to their questions and inquiries, arguments and movements in a friendly way, and to lay the scripture before them and help them out of their uncertainty. For one should never despair of those who waver and who request and ask for firm ground, as those who are not yet obstinate and sunk but who are still open and swimming and gladly want to reach the shore. For everyone should be told that whatever the Holy Spirit teaches or causes to be understood has these two virtues. First, that it makes the one who has it certain and sure, as John says, 1 John 2[:27], “As the anointing teaches you, so it is true and no lie.” Second, that it makes one courageous, at peace, and comforted to confess this against death and the devil. Thus he is also called spiritus veritatis, a spirit of truth: spirit because he makes courageous and consoled; truth because he makes sure and certain that it is not and cannot be otherwise. Now because Karlstadt, Zwingli, and all others who discuss this article speak from their imagination and questions, as they themselves confess,4 it is certain that they do not yet have the

D

3

The first pamphlet written for Luther was Entschuldigung D. Andres Carlstats des falschen namens der auffrür; see note 1 above. 4 In Zwingli’s two earliest works rejecting Christ’s corporeal presence in the Lord’s Supper, the Letter to Matthew Alber and the Commentary on True and False Religion, he used both scripture and the church fathers to defend his position. In his third published work, Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia,

260

Chapter 13 spirit in this article, and that they speak from human darkness and not from the spirit. Therefore everyone should guard themselves against their understanding and act in such a way that they do not accept it and adhere to it. But if he doubts and imagines with them, he should persist and put off making up his mind until he is also certain and sure, or he will endanger his soul. For what we should believe must not be imagination and darkness but instead certain truth that will stand against a thousand hells. God’s grace be with us all. Amen.

[455] Because I, Andreas Bodenstein von K arlstadt, realize that some people consider my books that I’ve written about the venerable sacrament as if they were proven, divine teaching and now consider it as certain that the body of Christ cannot be bodily in the sacrament, I must explain myself better and make known how everyone should consider my writings. I had thought that no one would draw from my books such a grave understanding that he would regard as a sure, divine foundation, because I wrote with clear words that I wanted to accept Christian instruction, so that I would present myself as still obligated [to consider it] a private matter and confess that I myself am still unsure. Likewise, and as I also wrote, I have no scripture that compels me to [accept] the old understanding or another view, and I published my writings (as I thought) so that one should understand from them that no scripture held or subjected me to obedience so that I would have to say that the body of Christ must be bodily in the Lord’s bread, etc. I speak and write out of my own head and my own ability and with the grace given me, and not out of the understanding and grace given to all men. For in all these writings or statements it says that everything is unresolved and that there are many thousands who have received much more capable eyes and ears from God than I have, who can take from God’s word a more solid position than I can, who find the one divine understanding in that place where I am unable to find it. For I know well that through my natural abilities I am not able to fathom and dig out the meaning of holy scripture. The readers of my books should keep this in mind and consider nothing as proven and divine before they are assured from God’s holy scripture. But because this has not happened and does not happen very often now, those disciples who look only at who the writer is should know this: I did indeed [456] desire to give a divine and proven teaching, but not before and no further than what we have sufficiently examined and considered from scripture, so that we he described a dream in which he realized that Exodus 12:11 (“It is the Lord’s Passover”) could be used to defend his figurative interpretation of “This is my body”; Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke, 4:483–84; and Zwingli, Writings, 2:209–10. The preface to Subsidium is dated 17 August, and it was available at the Frankfurt book fair, which ran from mid-August to mid-September. Karlstadt’s pamphlet was not yet printed on 12 September, when Luther wrote to the Elector on Karlstadt’s behalf; WA Br 3:572. It is likely that Luther received a copy of Zwingli’s Subsidium via Frankfurt just before he wrote this preface.

Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching actually know and don’t just think that we are certain and no longer doubt. Before this happens—and it has not yet happened—my teaching should be considered as no better than as something imagined and thought about. And these people should examine and recognize the time, and not draw any complete or conclusive judgment from my writings but should suspend judgment. As Paul teaches, “One or two should speak and the others judge or recognize. But when one of them has a revelation, then the speaker should be silent” [1 Cor. 14:29–30]. My readers should do the same, namely, recognize and not conclude or be sure before the revelation has come, or before they are conquered and taken captive by God’s word and driven into obedience to the divine truth. But the majority depart from holy scripture and few regard what is founded in scripture, but many boast about the person and have no other comfort or reason than this sandy ground, “This or that person has written it; he teaches this and so I believe it with him.” They seek out not the fountain of living and undeceiving water but instead the cistern from which naturally nothing good and no truth can flow, but only folly, deception, etc. Namely, they abandon God and look to men, about whom it is written, “What goes out of their hearts defiles them,” Matthew 15[:18]; and “All men are liars,” Psalm 17[116:11]; “No one regards God,” Psalm 20[:8], 3[:2]. Don’t you know what scripture says? Doesn’t God say, “Cursed is the one who trusts in men” [Jer. 17:5]? And, “Everything that flesh and blood reveals is satanic and not divine, seductive and not true, despicable and not praiseworthy” [Wis. 17:30]? Isn’t it horrible that human wisdom is enmity against God? And that our wisdom cannot please God? Therefore you should all be wise and sure that what Karlstadt’s flesh and blood have discovered, understood, presented, or learned is not good, nor can it be divine. Now if this is neither good nor harmless, then you should rightly fear that you will seize upon something in Karlstadt’s book as divine that comes from Karlstadt, or might understand something as good that is actually bad. Open your eyes and minds and ask God that he preserve you from false teaching as often as you read the books of men. Truly, it has always seemed wrong to me that some regard and cling to the person. If you want to boast that you regard the person, whether Zwingli or Karlstadt, you’ll win nothing, as I have said, and will endanger yourself, as I have now warned you. But you know very well [457] that there have been and still are many holy persons who consider it to be divine teaching that the body of Christ is bodily in the sacrament and is eaten bodily. How many martyrs have died in this faith and how many other saints? Do you want to speak of the most learned? Who is more learned than Augustine? Do Cyprian and Jerome mean nothing to you? What about Ambrose or Bernard? If you want to boast of the crowd, then the other side is far better, although it is forbidden, but some still blather about this new understanding and can speak on no other basis than regard for a poor person. I confess before God, without insult but from my heart, that all that I have written, said, or taught from my own understanding or have found within myself is

261

262

Chapter 13 human, false, unpraiseworthy, seductive, satanic, to be feared and fled from. I must confess this to honor the truth and to praise God in divine matters or teaching. Do Karlstadt’s writings or books boast of divine truth without understanding? Can you trumpet the teaching of a poor man and raise yourself up with him? I want this said and believed about my teachings not only in this article concerning the venerable sacrament, but in all of the material that I have written concerning the mass, idols, and other articles. Namely, I desire this: no one should think that my teaching is good, right, true, divine, or salutary unless he has become certain of this from the salutary word of God, for I want my writings to be judged according to God and from God’s word. The reader should praise or criticize my teaching on the basis of holy scripture. But many fall over their consciences and base themselves on my books like hungry sows in the filth, and as is the manner of pigs, they root around in the manure and tread the noble pearl, God’s word, underfoot into the manure [Matt. 7:6] and bend God’s word according to my teaching, doing all things backwards, twisted, and against my will. What is the reason? This is the reason: that the majority seek not a foundation and truth but curiosities and novelty. When I think that not a few have accepted my imaginings or thoughts as pure novelty and rarity and have no other intention than that they want to speak about something new in front of others in the taverns and inns, aren’t these genuine graves of craving,5 poor, and foolish people? Wouldn’t all pleasure in writing be extinguished in the face of such ambitious hypocrites? Aren’t they morally loose, rough, and unbelieving people who seek only honor and praise? These dishonor and insult God’s word the most when they carry around and spread God’s word for their own fame. Truly, with these people the outside is painted, but the inside is only corpses and bones [Matt. 23:27]. They build on and comfort themselves by relying only on the reed or the soft breeze of a person. These are the sows before which one should not cast pearls [Matt. 7:6]. [458] But I do not want to rebuke all people with this or to frighten away or deter pious Christians from reading Christian writers, for Paul writes, “You should test all things and hold to what is good,” 1 Thessalonians 5[:21]. Nor do I want to draw anyone away from the use of prophecy or to hinder the least person from hearing and judging, since I know well that Paul writes, “I wish that you all might prophesy and recognize or judge,” 1 Corinthians 14[:5]. I do not want to speak to anyone about his divine revelation, because I know what is written in Matthew 11[:25] and John 5[:32], or to dampen or extinguish God’s spirit, for scripture says “You should not extinguish the spirit,” 1 Thessalonians 5[:19], “but test to see if it is from God.” Whatever is good and divine is salutary and true and should be accepted from whomever one finds, whether he is old or young, man or child, high or low. What5

Lustgreber, a reference to Numbers 11:34–35.

Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching ever is divine in my books I do not reject, nor can anyone pressure me to contradict divine truth, believe me. But I cannot allow sows to root about in my teaching—those who want to be Christians and who gobble up only what they esteem as human. Towards God’s teaching they act as dogs running about and do not seek God and their blessedness. Note what I say: I reject what is not divine and want everyone to reject it as freely. But if you are still uncertain about something, you should not on any account become certain on the basis of my writing. The truth, God’s truth, is recognized through God’s grace, and only this can and should free you from all error and failings and make you sure and certain, John 8[:32]. You must seek for it in the place where it lies or stands in the streets and cries, “Come to me,” etc. [Prov. 1:20; Matt. 11:28]. I had to allow my books to be printed; I meant this in no other way, and I thought only that my thoughts were well supported, good, right, divine, and salutary, nor do I think differently today. But I am not certain, and so no one can make me greater than I am or place me higher than I allow. My books cannot cause any harm or mislead anyone if they are read and regarded as I wanted them to be read and regarded, as I have written above. For indeed they cause so little harm that some have become more firm and certain in their faith than before. For this reason I have also not merited great ingratitude. [459] I would gladly have desired that nothing in the world was written, on account of those fellows who do not seek divine truth at all or who consider something to be certain and sure for which they have no other support than the name of a poor person. And truly, if I had been concerned about these dangerous times, no one would have gotten any of my books out of me with an axe. For I have had to wander in misery for this reason and had to have all my enemies in those places where they wished or placed me. This is also one of the reasons that I have come under suspicion of rebellion among those precious Christians who condemn before they know anything. And truly, I did not spread my teaching on the sacrament, etc. any further or to more persons than to those who heard me speaking, and if one person could have heard me, then these books would still be in ink and pen. A good friend asked me to set forth and present my understanding in writing for his own person, and he brought such teaching about the sacrament from me with many friendly words and continuous requests.6 After that my pamphlets were printed and through printing entered the wide world, and so I, poor man, have become poor and an object of loathing and a horror to many who should have held me not as an enemy but 6 Hermann Barge assumed that this “good friend” was Karlstadt’s brother-in-law Gerhard Westerburg, who took Karlstadt’s pamphlets to Basel to be printed in the fall of 1524; “Zur Chronologie und Drucklegung der Abendmahlsschriften Karlstadts,” esp. 329. It is equally possible that the instigator was Martin Reinhart, the Jena pastor who was responsible for publishing Abuse and Dialogue in Nuremberg and Bamberg, respectively.

263

264

Chapter 13 sought, with sighs and from Christian love, to bring me back as an erring person, since I have always desired the light and offered myself before the law and for questioning and wanted to be taught a better view wherever I was. From this many should understand how to judge and consider my writings, and that I myself cannot swear that [what I have written] must be so. I have introduced, used, and presented the scripture on which I have based and established my teaching. If I have misused and twisted this same scripture—which truly would happen from ignorance and I would be sorry for—then certainly my teaching is neither good nor godly, nor should it be accepted. I hear also that Dr. Zwingli supposedly wrote in a pamphlet that my teaching is correct but that it does not follow from the holy scripture that I cited. If that is true, this good man has given a hard shove to himself and to me, [460] for I also used this verse, “The flesh is of no use” [John 6:63], as one of my justifications. But Zwingli regards this same verse as the best and the strongest justification, as I also hear.7 Therefore I do not know what he himself means and how he wants to be understood, or how certain he is in his heart or whether he has spoken this judgment on account of my person. But I desire this from all of my readers, that all those who know that my grounds are unserviceable or unfitting or poorly presented should also consider the building that I have built on them to be wrong. For this concerns more than fields and substance, body or death; it concerns eternal life or eternal fire. Therefore each person should look to God’s right foundation, should know and not imagine, and also not conclude anything until he is certain, for we should not go about with a fictitious belief that does not know the word of God. But no one should consider me an enemy or persecute me when so much rests on this. If he is a Christian, then I have earned his gratitude, for it cannot be doubted that concerning this and other articles many thousands have nothing more certain than to speak about bare, old custom, which truly knows not even a letter of the word of faith, from which faith comes, and they are now moved to examine the scripture and God’s word themselves with diligence, which will serve to their great salvation. For we should not boast of any other wisdom or divine mystery, as it is written in Deuteronomy 4[:5–6] and 39[:29] and in many epistles of Paul [1 Cor. 1:31]. Why is this? They should not think that they have a correct faith or blessed eyes (as the apostles of the Lord had and as we all must have if we want to be righteous and blameless before God) if they have not been taught by God and do not know how to testify to the word of faith but only to this old refrain, “I have always heard, my parents also believed this.” For Christ says, “Whoever is from God [461] 7 Zwingli discussed Karlstadt’s ideas and used John 6:63 to justify his understanding of “This is my body” in the Letter to Matthew Alber Concerning the Lord’s Supper, written in November 1524 but not published until the following March, at which time it appeared in both the original Latin and in German translation; Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke, 3:335–36, 340–41, 343–45; Zwingli, Writings, 2:131, 135–38.

Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching hears God’s word,” John 8[:47]. “My sheep hear my voice; they do not hear the voice of a stranger,” John 10[:4–5]. “Beware of false prophets; they speak the tales of their hearts,” Jeremiah 23[:16]. Likewise, “Your mother is a Hittite, your father an Amorite. As the mother is, so is the daughter, and the son is like the father,” Ezekiel 10 [16:44–45]. Therefore that boast and consolation is false and should be feared, in which the world has lain for so long and has known nothing other than the faith of their parents and the cry of the wolves who wear sheep’s clothing. I rejoice before God that in all of my writings I have sought, intended, and presented this foundation, that through his obedience and death on the cross Christ became our righteousness before God and our perfect and eternal savior, and that we have complete forgiveness of all our sins through his passion, as Paul wrote a hundred times, and as Isaiah and Christ taught before him. Likewise, that we have this forgiveness of our sins not from pure grace but from righteousness; that is, we have a true and proper payment for our sins; that is, Christ suffered so much and more, for we have all sinned, and he redeemed the handwritten [decree] of our guilt with his passion [Col. 2:14] and paid for everything that was written on that manuscript, and he posted our manuscript on the cross. The manuscript of our guilt is the law of Moses, which Moses wrote as a testimony of our sins, guilt, evilness, and folly, as Moses himself says, or God through Moses, Deuteronomy 31[:24–26]. This same law of God reveals our sins, Romans 6 [5:20], 7[:7], and as often as we look on it, so often we find our guilt, and the deeper we go into it, the more we perceive our sins, and in addition our cursedness and God’s wrath against us. But Christ took away this same law or manuscript, as I’ve said, and posted it on the cross, Ephesians 2 [Col. 2:14], and has abolished it so completely that there is no more consciousness of it, but instead the consciousness and law of sins has been abolished, Hebrews 9 [8:12–13]. And so we need no longer fear accusation or guilt or God’s wrath or the devil—to whom we were given on account of our guilt—and may joyfully ask and respond, “Who will lay a charge against us on account of our sins? It is God who justifies us; who will condemn us? Christ is here who died for us. What? God is on our side, and so if God is now for us, who can be against us? God did not spare his own son but gave him for us; how can it be that he will not forgive us all our sins?” Romans 8[:31–34]. Accordingly we have righteousness, and we are rightly made clear and our debt is paid and given to us for free, for God has given his son for our guilt, and the Son gave himself as the redemption money for us, 1 Timothy 2[:6], and he paid for our injury with what was more precious than silver and gold, for he [462] redeemed us with his flesh and blood, body and life [1 Pet. 1:18–19], and abolished all the guilt of all the world, richly, wholly, and completely, and beyond that paid it all at one time, and he did not leave any little bit to pay. Therefore we rightly have come away from the devil through Christ and not from pure grace. It is true that if we hold up and compare God and Christ’s righteousness to ourselves, then we have nothing but pure grace. But when we compare Christ’s redemption to our guilt, then we have more than grace, for Christ has

265

266

Chapter 13 given us his passion; that is, Christ has given us the money and made it our own, so that we could pay all our debts. If someone gives me ten gulden with which I pay my creditor, this gift would be pure favor or grace, but the redemption consists in righteousness. When he also gives me the money himself and so clears me of it, then I would afterwards have grace and righteousness, and I would be sure and certain of redemption. So I have taught about the forgiveness of our sins, and I have set forth these grounds and called believers to them, so that they would learn how Christ has become our righteousness as he was promised by the prophets, Jeremiah 23[:5–6], Isaiah 53[:1–12], Luke 2[:30–32], and how Christ justifies us through his passion, and in what way we have obtained forgiveness of sins in the shed blood of Christ, so that they do not seek forgiveness of their sins or understand it in the way that a priest forgives sins or as Christ spoke on earth, “Stand up, your sins are forgiven you” [Mark 2:5–11], but instead they know how to speak about the righteousness of our redemption and understand the righteousness of our faith and how God justifies our hearts through faith in Christ. But this is always the right foundation, namely, Jesus Christ the crucified, and no one may lay any other foundation, and I rejoice in this [1 Cor. 3:11]. If from ignorance I have built on this foundation with hay or stubble, then I have done it from lack of understanding and I am wholly unaware of it. But if, as I have just said, I have a zeal for God and no skill and have built on that foundation something that will be destroyed by fire, I hope that for myself I have suffered enough fire and overcome the damage [1 Cor. 3:12–15]. But if anyone was deceived through such hay, wood, or stubble, he should blame himself and not me. First, I never commanded or coerced anyone to accept my teaching. Second, I have pointed people away from me to the truth and to Christ. Third, every Christian should know from Christ’s teaching that he should be simple as a dove and shrewd as a serpent [Matt. 10:16] and should test the spirits to see whether they are from God or not [1 John 4:1], as I have said above. Thus the fault belongs to the foolish reader (if anyone has been led astray, which I am not aware of), [463] about whom I spoke and complained above, that they lap up human nonsense and do not base themselves on God’s word. Therefore I hope submissively in all Christian princes and lords, and entrust myself cordially to all other Christians, that they will not accuse me too much after [reading] this explanation, and that they will not consider me guilty when some hold one view and others a different view concerning the venerable sacrament or understand it differently than is commonly preached. What God has planted will withstand wind and water. What God does not plant will be rooted out and will perish; nothing can prevent it and no power can do anything about it. In all due submission, I ask all Christian princes and lords and all who love God that they will consider this explanation in grace and friendship and not turn away from me because I have not written with such flowery words as I like to write

Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching when I can. [I ask that] I not be further oppressed or persecuted without being examined, or allowed to be oppressed or persecuted before I am convicted. And if anyone does not want to spare me, they should spare their own salvation, for God will measure all men with the yardstick and measure with which they measure. “Whoever injures the least of those who belong to God has injured the apple of God’s eye,” Zechariah 2[:8]. God will punish not only acts of persecution but also those using the mouth, as it is written, “Whoever says to his brother, ‘fool’ is deserving of the fire; whoever becomes angry at his brother is guilty of judgment,” Matthew 5[:22]. “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer,” 1 John 3[:15]. These are terrible words to be considered in the heart by all those who fear God’s punishment or who know that God will make his punishment, which he has delayed due to his divine patience, the same as that for great and serious [sins], Romans 2[:1–3]. Anyone who does not want to spare me should spare himself, for nothing will remain unavenged; the God who never lies has said so. I have always been a member with all Christians, for I know and confess that Christ redeemed me through his death, led me into the kingdom of his father, and has made me partake of the heavenly inheritance. Because the faith that I have in the complete righteousness of Christ and our redemption has caused this teaching, I ask that you do not consider me to be a stranger and do not destroy me, because Christ redeemed me and died for me. [464] But if some do not want to consider me as a Christian, then they must consider me as a stranger and judge me according to God’s law, as God’s command says. If now princes and lords, citizens and peasants still do not want to spare me, they should spare themselves of God’s judgment. Judgment has always belonged to God, Deuteronomy 1[:17], and not to people, and it forbids anyone to condemn someone on the basis of one person’s testimony [Deut. 19:15]. It also says publicly what will happen to the person who brings false testimony or who purposefully judges falsely, such as those whom they weaken or whom they accuse or injure wrongfully [Deut. 19:16–19]. Now I have not been convicted by two, or even by one witness, and am still accused by everyone as if I were the worst of all. One person does not want to look at me, the other lays traps in order to capture and kill me. The third forbids me to buy food and drink, the fourth floats around in such a way and is so full of threats that I think things would go better in Turkey. Christ commanded the rulers that they should seek the erring in mercy and bring them back, and leave the ninety-nine sheep to go off until they have brought back the one that errs [Luke 15:4]. It is deplorable to hear how this is now followed in Christendom and it is not a great honor, but he will receive his wages when the just judge holds his court and at that time will judge and punish the merciless without mercy. Dear Christians, believe evil within measure; consider this one thing, that this evil, this envy and hatred can neither imagine nor speak of anything good. I have incurred envy and hatred through my teaching about the sacrament, so that I

267

268

Chapter 13 have been subject to insurmountable harm. But even if you assume that such envy and hatred was divine in some, there are still many more who know nothing more of God than the miller’s donkey, who understand and love nothing more of my or of Christ’s suffering than did Caiaphas,8 who have persecuted me from poisonous envy and hatred and would have slain me if I had not been protected and summoned by God. These hate me without rhyme and reason, have thought up and spread all kinds of lies about me, and have drawn others into their hatred against me. Should all of these things be true, that such evil tongues lie about me? But how can I defend myself against them? I am supposed to have been the leader or inciter of the peasants, although I had little rest and suffered much danger, great mockery, and violence from the peasants. I can prove the violence I have suffered, but they cannot prove their lies. I cannot do anything [about the fact] that they defame me out of hatred for such teaching, although God has led me to such teaching, whom I cannot resist, nor can I see his way before me, through which he has now led me. [465] In short, I ask that those who want to do violence to me spare themselves and hold to God’s ordinance. Those who gladly bear about new tidings, I say to them that they should not be comforted by either my books or my teaching. As for the others, though, who desire a true understanding of holy scripture, I advise them to rely on God’s word and ask God for understanding and wisdom, who freely bestows to all who seek in truth. Anyone who wants to evaluate people as we truly should evaluate and praise people for the sake of their work (as Paul teaches, 1 Thessalonians 5[:13]) will find some who are more suitable than I am, who are of a higher spirit than I am, who are more skilled than I am, whose tongues are more experienced and sure than I. I write this from truth and duty, for each of us should consider others more than ourselves, Philippians 2[:4]. My soul lives for God and justifies his ways, no matter what God does, whether he casts me down or raises me up, so far as he gives and instills in me his good peace, divine will, and strength to obey him, and may he remain my Lord and my God eternally, Amen. Dated Jacobi [25 July], 1525. There is someone, not unknown to me, who is inserting his own [ideas] into my books, so that I am afraid that now more may happen to me than before, and that this person or other idlers may distribute not only some words and sentences but entire pamphlets behind my back, in which under my name and in imitation of my language such evildoers might attack and insult me or other people.9 8

The high priest who condemned Christ. The editors of WA suggest that Karlstadt may have been worried that readers would confuse his pamphlets with those of Johannes Draconites von Karlstadt. Alternatively, Karlstadt may have intended with this paragraph to forestall the unauthorized (re)printing of his works by his friends Martin Reinhart or Gerhard Westerburg. Karlstadt’s warning seems to have prevented the immediate reprinting of any pamphlets attributed to him, but Alejandro Zorzin has argued that Karlstadt’s

9

Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching Therefore everyone is hereby informed, faithfully warned, and cordially requested not to buy any new books with my titles or to consider them to be mine, whatever their contents, if they are not printed in Wittenberg and do not have these initials, H.G.V.B.M., that is, helff God vnd bewar mich10 on the first page.

dialogue on baptism, which could not be printed in Basel in 1525, was published anonymously two years later as Dialog vom fremden Glauben, Glauben der Kirche, Taufe der Kinder; “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte einer Schrift aus Karlstadts Orlamünder Tätigkeit.” 10 “Help, God, and preserve me.”

269

BLANK

Bibliography Works by Andreas K arlstadt Abuse

Adoration Dialogue Exegesis

Explanation Forms

Masses Priesthood Prove Recipients Sermon Teaching Testament

Von dem widerchristlichen mißbrauch des hern brodt vnd kelch. Ob der glaub in das sacrament / sünde vergäbe / vnd ob das sacrament eyn arrabo / oder pfand sey der sünde vergäbung. Außlegung deß xj. Capit. In der .j. Epistel Pauli zuo den Corinthiern von des hern abentmal. Basel: Bebel, 1524. Von anbettung und ererbietung der tzeychen des newen Testaments. Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1521. Dialogus oder ein gesprechbüchlin Von dem grewlichen vnnd abgöttischen mißbrauch / des hochwirdigsten sacraments Jesu Christi. Basel: Bebel, 1524. Auszlegung dieser wort Christi. Das ist meyn leyb / welcher für euch gegeben würt. Das ist mein bluoth / welches für euch vergossen würt. Luce am 22. Basel: Bebel, 1524. Erklerung des x. Capitels Cor I. Das brot das wir brechen: Ist es nitt ein gemeinschaft des Leybs Christi. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525. Von beiden gestaldten der heylige Messze. Von Czeichen in gemein was sie wirken vnd dewten. Sie seind nit Behemen oder ketzer, die beide gestaldt nhemen sonder Ewangelische Christen. Wittenberg: Shirlentz, 1521 Wider die alte vnd newe Papistische Messen. Basel: Wolf, 1524. Von dem Priesterthum vnd opffer Christi. Jena: Buchführer, 1523. Ob man mit heyliger schrifft erweysen müge / das Christus mit leyb / bluot vnd sele im Sacrament sey. Basel: Wolff, 1524. Von den Empfahern / Zeychen / vnd zusag des heyligenn Sacraments fleysch vnd bluts Christi. Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1521. Predig zu Wittenberg von Empfahung des Hailigen Sacraments. Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1522. Erklerung wie Carlstat sein lere von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament vnd andere achtet vnd geacht haben wil. Wittenberg: Rhau-Grunenberg, 1525. Von dem Newen vnd Alten Testament. Antwurt auff disen spruch: Der kelch das New Testament in meinem blut etc. Luce xxij .I. Corin. xj. wie Carolstat widerrieft. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525.

Primary Sources and Reference Works Barge, Hermann, and E. Freys. “Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften des Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 21 (1904): 153–79, 209–43, 305–23. Baylor, Michael G., ed. The Radical Reformation. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

271

272

Bibliography Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria. Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strasbourg 1480 /81. Edited by Karlfried Froelich and Margaret T. Gibson. Brepols: Turnhout, 1992. Biblia sacra cum glossis, interlineari et ordinaria, Nicolai Lyrani Postilla et moralitatibus, Burgensis, additionibus et Thoringi replicis. Lyon, 1545. Bullinger, Heinrich. Werke. Pt. 2, Briefwechsel. 13 vols. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1973-. Friedberg, Emil, ed. Corpus Iuris Canonici. 2 vols. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879–81. Furcha, Edward J., ed. The Essential Carlstadt: Fifteen Tracts by Andreas Bodenstein (Carlstadt) from Karlstadt. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1995. Grimm, Jacob, et al. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854–1960. Hendrix, Scott, ed. Early Protestant Spirituality. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 2009. Hertzsch, Erich, ed. Karlstadts Schriften aus den Jahren 1523–25. 2 vols. Neudrucke deutscher Literaturewerke des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts 325. Halle: Niemeyer, 1956–57. Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von, et al. A Reformation Debate: Karlstadt, Emser and Eck on Sacred Images. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 1991. Köhler, Hans-Joachim, ed. Flugschriften des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts. 1956 microfiches. Zug: Inter Documentation Co., 1978–87. [Cited as Köhler, Flugschriften.] Laube, Adolf, et al., eds. Flugschriften der frühen Reformationsbewegung (1518–1524). 2 vols. Vaduz: Topos, 1983. [Cited as Laube, Flugschriften.] ———. Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg zum Täuferreich (1526–1535). 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992. [Cited as Laube, Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg.] Lindberg, Canter. “Karlstadt’s Dialogue on the Lord’s Supper.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 53 (1979): 35–77. Luther, Martin. Dr. Martin Luthers Sämtliche Schriften. Edited by Johann Georg Walch. St. Louis: Concordia, 1881–1910. [Cited as Luther, Sämtliche Schriften.] ———. Luther’s Works. St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–86. [Cited as LW.] ———. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar: Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–1986. [Cited as WA.] McKeon, Richard, ed. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House, 1941. Melanchthon, Philipp. Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe. Texte. 11 vols. Edited by Heinz Scheible et al. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: FrommannHolzboog, 1991–. [Cited as Melanchthon, Briefwechsel…Texte.] ———. Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae Supersunt Omnia. 28 vols. Corpus Reformatorum 1–28. Halle, 1834–60. Reprint, New York: Johnson, 1963. [Cited as Melanchthon, Opera.] Migne, Jacques-Paul, ed. Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina. Paris, 1844–64. [Cited as PL.] Müller, Nicolaus. “Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521 und 1522: Die Vorgänge in und um Wittenberg während Luthers Wartburgaufenthalt.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 6 (1909): 161–226, 261–325, 385–469; 7 (1909): 185–224, 233–93, 353–412; 8 (1910): 1–43. Nicholas of Lyra. Postilla super totam Bibliam. 4 vols. Strassburg: J. Mentelin, 1492. Facsimile reprint, Frankfurt: Minerva, 1971.

Bibliography

273

Oberman, Heiko A., ed. Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought Illustrated by Key Documents. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Ad Pyrckhaimerum de re eucharistiae responsio. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. ———. De Genvina Verborum Domini, Hoc est corpus meum, iuxta uetutissimos authores expositione Liber. Strasbourg: Knoblauch, 1525. Pirckheimer, Willibald. De vera Christi carne et vero eius sanguine ad Ioan. Oecolampadium responsio. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1526. ———. De vera Christi carne & uero eius sanguine, aduersus conuicia Ioannis, qui sibi Oecolampadij nomen indidit, responsio posterior. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1527. Pope, R. Martin, trans. The Hymns of Prudentius. Project Gutenberg, accessed 5 Dec. 2009: http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Poetry/hymn_for_the_epiphany.htm Reuchlin, Johann. Principivm Libri II Ioannis Revchlin...de Rvdimentis hebraicis. Pforzheim: Anshelm, 1506. Reyss zu Ofen, Conrad. Antwort dem Hochgeleerten Doctor Johann Bugenhagen…das Sacrament betreffend. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525. Rummel, Erika, and Milton Kooistra, eds. The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005–. Sehling, Ernst, ed. Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1902–. Sider, Ronald J., ed. Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther: Documents in a Liberal-Radical Debate. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae: Latin Text and English Translation, Introductions, Notes, Appendices, and Glossaries. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964–1981. Thompson, Bard, ed. Liturgies of the Western Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961. Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts. Available online at http://www.vd16.de (accessed 30 April 2010). [Cited as VD16, with item number.] Westphal, Joachim. Farrago confusanearum et inter se dissidentium opinionum De Coena Domini. Magdeburg: Rodius, 1552. Zwingli, Ulrich. Commentary on True and False Religion. Edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1981. ———. Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke. Edited by Emil Egli. 14 vols. Corpus Reformatorum 88–101. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1905–91. [Cited as Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke.] ———. Huldrych Zwingli: Writings. Vol. 1, The Defense of the Reformed Faith, trans. by E. J. Furcha. Vol. 2, In Search of True Religion, trans. by H. Wayne Pipkin. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1984. [Cited as Zwingli, Writings.]

Secondary Sources Barclay, Alexander. The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. A Study in the Eucharistic Teaching of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. Glasgow: Jackson, Wylie, 1927. Barge, Hermann. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. 2nd ed., 2 vols. Niewkoop: B. de Graff, 1968.

274

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt ———. “Zur Chronologie und Drucklegung der Abendmahlsschriften Karlstadts.” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 21 (1904): 323–31. Beinert, Richard A. “Another Look at Luther’s Battle with Karlstadt.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009): 155–70. Brecht, Martin. “Luther und Karlstadt: Der Beginn des Abendmahlsstreites 1524/25 und seine Bedeutung für Luthers Theologie.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 101, kanonistische Abteilung 70 (1984): 196–216. Bubenheimer, Ulrich. Consonantia Theologiae et Iurisprudentiae: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt als Theologe und Jurist zwischen Scholastik und Reformation. Jus Ecclesiasticum: Beiträge zum evangelischen Kirchenrecht und zum Staatskirchenrecht 24. Tübingen: Mohr, 1977. ———. “Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Andreas.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, 1:178–80. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. ———. “Gelassenheit und Ablösung: Eine psychohistorische Studie über Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt und seinen Konflikt mit Martin Luther.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 92 (1981): 250–68. ———. “Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolff Bodenstein von (1486-1541).” In Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 17:649–57. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. ———. “Luthers Stellung zum Aufruhr in Wittenberg 1520–1522 und die frühreformatorischen Wurzeln des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments,” Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 102, kanonistische Abteilung 71 (1985): 147–214. ———. “Scandalum et ius divinum: Theologische und rechtstheologische Probleme der ersten reformatorischen Innovationen in Wittenberg 1521/1522.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 90, kanonistische Abteilung 59 (1973): 263–342. Bubenheimer, Ulrich, and Stefan Oehmig, eds. Querdenker der Reformation: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt und seine frühe Wirkung. Würzburg: Religion und Kultur Verlag, 2001. Buckwalter, Stephen E. Die Priesterehe in Flugschriften der frühen Reformation. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 68. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998. Burnett, Amy Nelson. Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy: A Study in the Circulation of Ideas. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. ———. “‘Kilchen ist uff dem Radthus’? Conflicting Views of Magistrate and Ministry in Early Reformation Basel.” In Debatten über die Legitimation von Herrschaft: Politische Sprachen in der Frühen Neuzeit, edited by Luise Schorn-Schütte and Sven Tode, 49–65. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006. ———. “The Social History of Communion and the Reformation of the Eucharist,” Past and Present (forthcoming). Cameron, Euan. The European Reformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Dumitriu, Anton. History of Logic. Turnbridge Wells, UK: Abacus Press, 1977. Edwards, Mark U. Luther and the False Brethren. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975. Fast, Heinold. “The Dependence of the First Anabaptists on Luther, Erasmus, and Zwingli.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 30 (1956): 104–19.

Bibliography Furcha, Edward J. “Zwingli and the Radicals: Zwingli and Carlstadt.” Fides et Historia 25 (1993): 3–11. Goertz, Hans-Jürgen. “Karlstadt, Müntzer and the Reformation of the Commoners, 1521– 1525.” In A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700, edited by John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, 1–44. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Greengrass, Mark. The Longman Companion to the European Reformation, c. 1500–1618. New York: Longman, 1998. Haimerl, Xaver. Das Prozessionswesen des Bistums Bamberg im Mittelalter. Münchener Studien zur historischen Theologie 14. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg: 1973. Hasse, Hans-Peter. Karlstadt und Tauler: Untersuchungen zur Kreuzestheologie. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 58. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1993. ———. “Zum Aufenthalt Karlstadts in Zürich (1530–34).” Zwingliana 18 (1990/91): 366–89. Heron, Alasdair I. C. Table and Tradition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. Hillerbrand, Hans J. “Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt: Prodigal Reformer.” Church History 35 (1966): 379–98. ———. The Division of Christendom: Christianity in the Sixteenth Century. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Hoyer, Siegfried. “Martin Reinhart und der erste Druck hussitischer Artikel in Deutschland.” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 18 (1970): 1597–1615. Hughes, Andrew. Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to Their Organization and Terminology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Joestel, Volkmar. Ostthüringen und Karlstadt: Soziale Bewegung und Reformation im mittleren Saaletal am Vorabend des Bauernkrieges (1522–1524). Berlin: Schelzky and Jeep, 1996. Kaufmann, Thomas. Die Abendmahlstheologie der Strassburger Reformatoren bis 1528. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 81. Tübingen: Mohr, 1992. ———. “Zwei unerkannte Schriften Bucers und Capitos zur Abendmahlsfrage aus dem Herbst 1525.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 81 (1990): 158–88. Köhler, Walther. Zwingli und Luther: Ihre Streit über das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen. 2 vols. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 6–7. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924–1953. Kriechbaum, Friedel. Grundzüge der Theologie Karlstadts: Eine systematische Studie zur Erhellung der Theologie Andreas von Karlstadts (eigentlich Andreas Bodenstein 1480– 1541) aus seinen eigenen Schriften entwickelt. Theologische Forschungen 43. Hamburg: Reich, 1967. Kruse, Jens-Martin. “Karlstadt als Wittenberger Theologe: Überlegungen zu einer pluralen Darstellungsweise der frühen Reformation.” Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 57 (2000): 7–30. ———. Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform: Die Anfänge der Reformation in Wittenberg, 1516–1522. Munich: Philipp von Zabern, 2002. Leppin, Volker. “Mystisches Erbe auf getrennten Wegen: Überlegungen zu Karlstadt und Luther.” In Luther und das monastische Erbe, edited by Christoph Bultmann et al., 153–69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Leroux, Neil R. “‘In the Christian City of Wittenberg’: Karlstadt’s Tract on Images and Begging.” Sixteenth Century Journal 34 (2003): 73–105.

275

276

Bibliography ———. “Karlstadt’s ‘Christag Predig’: Prophetic Rhetoric in an ‘Evangelical’ Mass.” Church History 72 (2003): 102–137. Lindberg, Carter. “The Conception of the Eucharist According to Erasmus and Karlstadt.” In Les Dissidents du XVIe siècle entre l’Humanisme et le Catholicisme, edited by Marc Lienhard, 79–94. Baden-Baden: Valentin Koerner, 1983. ———. “Conflicting Models of Ministry: Luther, Karlstadt, und Muentzer.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 41 (1977): 35–50. ———. The European Reformations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996. Looß, Sigrid. “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541) in der modernen Forschung.” In Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, edited by Sigrid Looß and Markus Matthias, 9–23. Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 1998. ———. “Die Wirksamkeit von Flugschriften des Andreas Bodenstein aus Karlstadt.” In Flugschriften der Reformationszeit: Colloquium im Erfurter Augustinerkloster 1999, edited by Ulman Weiss, 125–35. Tübingen: Bibliotheca Academica, 2001. ———. “Karlstadt und der Bann: Stationen in Thüringen, Zürich, und Altstätten zwischen 1522 und 1531.” Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 56 (1999): 7–17. ———. “Radical Views of the Early Andreas Karlstadt (1520–1525).” In Radical Tendencies in the Reformation: Divergent Perspectives, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, 43–53. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Publishers, 1988. Looß, Sigrid, and Markus Matthias, eds. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation. Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 1998. Matheson, Peter. The Rhetoric of the Reformation. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998. McNiel, Bill. “Andreas von Karlstadt as a Humanist Theologian.” In Radical Reformation Studies: Essays Presented to James M. Stayer, edited by Werner O. Packull and Geoffrey L. Dipple, 106–19. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1999. Müsing, Hans-Werner. “Karlstadt und die Strasbourger Täufergemeinde.” In Origins and Characteristics of Anabaptism, edited by Marc Lienhard, 169–95. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977. Otto, Henrik. Vor- und frühreformatorische Tauler-Rezeption. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 75. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003. Pater, Calvin. Karlstadt as Father of the Baptist Movements: The Emergence of Lay Protestantism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Preus, James S. Carlstadt’s “Ordinaciones” and Luther’s Liberty: A Study of the Wittenberg Movement 1521–22. Harvard Theological Studies 27. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974. Rüger, Hans Peter. “Karlstadt als Hebraist an der Universität Wittenberg.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 75 (1984): 297–308. Rupp, E. Gordon. Patterns of Reformation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. Sasse, Hermann. This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1959. Schmidt, Martin Anton. “Karlstadt als Theologe und Prediger in Basel.” Theologische Zeitschrift 35 (1979): 155–68.

Bibliography Sider, Ronald J. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of His Thought, 1517– 1525. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 11. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974. Simon, Wolfgang. “Karlstadt neben Luther: Ihre theologische Differenz im Kontext der ‘Wittenberger Unruhen’ 1521/22.” In Frömmigkeit, Theologie, Frömmigkeitstheologie: Contributions to European Church History: Festschrift für Berndt Hamm zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Gudrun Litz et al., 317–34. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Smith, William Bradford. Reformation and the German Territorial State: Upper Franconia, 1300–1630. Changing Perspectives on Early Modern Europe. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2008. Spruyt, Bart Jan. Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius) and His Epistle on the Eucharist (1525). Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 119. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Staehelin, Ernst. Das theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 21. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1939. Stayer, James M. “Saxon Radicalism and Swiss Anabaptism: The Return of the Repressed.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 67 (1993): 5–30. ——— et al. “From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 49 (1975): 83–121. Steinmetz, David C. Reformers in the Wings: From Geiler von Kaysersberg to Theodore Beza. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Trappe, Wolfgang. “Zwischen Reformation und Revolution: Karlstadt 1523/24.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 32 (1983): 101–10. Vice, Roy L. “Ehrenfried Kumpf, Karlstadt’s Patron and Peasants’ War Rebel.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 85 (1996): 153–74. ———. “Valentin Ickelsamer’s Odyssey from Rebellion to Quietism.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 69 (1995): 75–92. Wengert, Timothy J. “Higher Education and Vocation: The University of Wittenberg (1517–1533) between Renaissance and Reform.” In The Lutheran Doctrine of Vocation, edited by John A. Maxfield, 1–21. St. Louis: Concordia Historical Institute, 2008. Wieck, Roger S. “The Book of Hours.” In The Liturgy of the Medieval Church, edited by Thomas J. Heffernan and E. Ann Matter, 473–513. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 1991. Zorzin, Alejandro. “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.” In The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern Period, edited by Carter Lindberg, 327–37. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. ———. Karlstadt als Flugschriftenautor. Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 48. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. ———. “Karlstadts ‘Dialogus vom Tauff der Kinder’ in einem anonymen Wormser Druck aus dem Jahr 1527: Ein Beitrag zur Karlstadtbibliographie.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (1988): 27–58. ———. “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte einer Schrift aus Karlstadts Orlamünder Tätigkeit: Der 1527 in Worms gedruckte ‘Dialog vom fremden Glauben, Glauben der Kirche, Taufe der Kinder.’ Fortsetzung einer Diskussion.” In Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, edited by Sigrid Looß and Markus Matthias, 143–58. Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 1998.

277

BLANK

About the Author

A

my Nelson Burnett is professor of history at the University of Nebraska– Lincoln. She specializes in the Swiss/South German Reformation and is the author of The Yoke of Christ: Martin Bucer and Christian Discipline and Teaching the Reformation: Ministers and Their Message in Basel, 1529–1629, which won the Gerald Strauss Prize, and Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy: A Study in the Circulation of Ideas.

279

BLANK

Index of Scripture Genesis 1:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 1:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 1:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 2:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 3:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 3:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 6:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109n 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9:8–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9:9–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 9:11–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9:12–13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 53 9:12–16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 9:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 15:1–5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 15:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 77 15:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 15:9–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 17:4–8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 17:5–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 17:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 17:10–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 22:1–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 22:17–18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 22:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 26:3–5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 28:13–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 32:9–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 77 32:24–29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 33:1–3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 33:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 49:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Exodus 3:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3:7–10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 12:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259n

12:46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 13:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 14:11–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 14:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 14:13–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 83 17:1–7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 19:7–8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 24:3–8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 24:5–8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 24:6–8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62, 242 29:22–28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112n 30:32–33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Leviticus 4:5–7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 4:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 193 4:13–21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62, 66, 77 4:21–26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4:27–35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 7:28–36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112n 8:27–29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 9:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 10:14–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 14:6–7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 14:10–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 14:21–24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 16:11–16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 16:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92n 16:14–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 22:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 23:12–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 26:41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Numbers 8:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 11:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 11:34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232n 11:34–35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262n

281

282

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt Numbers, continued 12:1–6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 13:31–32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 13:32–33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190n 14:11–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 82 15:22–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 15:39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 16:1–16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 20:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 20:23–28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 20:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 87 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 21:6–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 21:8–9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 66, 214 21:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31 22–24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Deuteronomy 1:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 2:28–29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4:1–2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 217 4:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64, 145, 194 4:5–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 4:10–13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 6:89. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 12:29–31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 12:32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 18:10–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 18:18–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 18:20–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 19:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 19:16–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 21:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96, 155 27:15–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68, 110 27:26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 28:1–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 28:1–35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 31:24–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 39:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Joshua 4:6–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 16:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 23:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Judges 2–3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6:17–21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6:23–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6:36–40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 65

7:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 13:2–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 16:17–21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 1 Samuel 17:50–51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 1 Kings 8:18–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 2 Kings 18:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63, 165 20:8–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 20:9–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 1 Chronicles 29:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2 Chronicles 14:8–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 20:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Job

9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13:15–16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29n 13:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Psalms 1:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 3:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 20:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 21:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183n 32:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 32:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 158 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 40:7–8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 41:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 50:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 40, 200 51:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 52:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 94. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 95:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 101:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Index 104:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 111:4–5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154–55 111:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155n 116:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 140. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 140:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81n 141:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Proverbs 1:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 3:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 30:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Ecclesiastes 5:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Song of Solomon 2:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Isaiah 1:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 40 1:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7:10–13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 8:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224, 228 9:6–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 11:2–5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224, 246 12:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224, 227 29:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 207 38:5–8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 43:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 243 51:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 52:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224, 246 52:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 53:1–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 53:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 53:3–5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 53:3–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 53:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137, 255 53:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 53:8–10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 53:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 156, 231, 251 53:11–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 53:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 55:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 55:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 46 58:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 64:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

283 Jeremiah 5:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 6:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 7:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 17:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 23:2–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 23:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 23:5–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 23:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 23:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 23:16–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 31:31–34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 31:33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Ezekiel 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 13:6–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 68 13:19–23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 14:9–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 16:44–45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 20:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 34:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 34:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 80 Daniel 9:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Hosea 2:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4:1–2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 61, 92 13:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Joel 2:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Jonah 4:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 85 Habakkuk 2:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Haggai 2:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Malachi 1:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 2:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Zechariah 2:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 9:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

284

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt 2 Esdras 16:40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Matthew 1:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 83, 92, 254 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 3:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 4:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5:21–22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 5:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 6:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 6:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 227, 262 7:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 8:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 8:8–10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 9:2–7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 9:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 83 10:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 10:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 10:37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 11:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 11:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109n 11:21–22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 11:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 243, 262 11:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 263 13:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 15:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 15:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 15:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114, 158 15:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 15:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 15:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 15:36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 16:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 16:11–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 16:16–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 16:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 16:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 16:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 16:22–23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 16:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 114 16:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 17:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 18:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 87n 18:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

18:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 20:17–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 20:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 20:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 21:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 21:32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 22:1–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 22:11–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 22:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 23:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 24:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 24:23–27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 26:14–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 26:17–18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 26:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 26:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136, 137, 212 26:26. . . . . . 30, 53, 54, 55, 171, 192, 242 26:26–27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 26:26–28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 63, 113 26:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 26:27–28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127, 239 26:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 129, 132, 244 26:39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 26:65–67. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 28:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 28:18–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 28:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 217 Mark 2:5–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 5:41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122, 123 6:41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 7:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 7:6–7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 7:34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 9:17–23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 9:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 10:38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 11:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 14:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134, 171 14:22–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63, 113 14:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67, 134, 240 14:23–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 14:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 127, 129, 132 16:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Luke 1:18–20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Index 1:45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 1:70. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 2:19–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 2:30–32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 2:34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 46 5:31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7:6–9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7:37–50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7:47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9:1–2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 9:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135, 225 9:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 10:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 10:38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 15:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 267 15:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 17:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 17:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63, 83 17:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 18:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 19:1–10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 19:5–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 19:5–10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 19:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 22:14–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 22:19. . . . . . . . . . . 26, 53, 134, 136n, 147, 171, 177–78, 192, 219, 231 22:19–20 . . . . . . . . 32, 97, 113, 156, 208 22:20. . . . . . . 69, 126, 220, 240, 249, 253 22:21–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 22:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97, 136 22:37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 22:44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 22:63. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 23:14–16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 24:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 24:6–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 24:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 24:26–27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 24:30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 John 1:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 1:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 1:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 1:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138, 152 1:29–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

285 2:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 3:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 143, 154 3:14–15 . . . 30, 31, 45, 154, 182, 200, 209 3:14–16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 3:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85–86, 172 3:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 63, 84–85 3:18–21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 4:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165, 224 4:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4:34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 5:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 5:32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 5:46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154, 222, 236 6:9–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 6:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119, 135 6:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 6:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 6:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 6:32–33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6:32–40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6:32–58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 6:33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 6:33–35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 6:35. . . . . . . . . . . 145, 223, 227, 235, 251 6:35–57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 6:38–40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 6:40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63, 94 6:44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 243, 251–52 6:47–51. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 6:47–58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 6:48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 6:49–51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 6:51. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 55, 139, 145, 147, 149, 154, 156, 251 6:52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183, 223 6:52–56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 6:53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 132, 182 6:53–56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154, 213, 252 6:53–58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 237 6:54. . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 156, 246, 250–51 6:54–56. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 6:55. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 55, 223, 250, 252 6:56. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 6:60–66. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 6:61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 6:63. . . . . . . . . . 32, 61, 73, 140, 182, 209, 220, 222, 227, 236, 237, 243, 264

286

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt John, continued 7:34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 7:37–38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 7:39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 8:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 8:32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 8:37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 8:44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 8:47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 8:51. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 84 8:58. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 9:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 9:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 9:6–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 9:41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 10:4–5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 10:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 10:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 54, 170 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 11:41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134, 135 11:49–52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 12:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 224 12:32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 154 12:35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 12:44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 12:45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 12:48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 13:13–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 13:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 13:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 13:31–32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 14:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 52 14:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136, 196 14:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 15:1–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 15:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 88 15:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 15:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 15:16–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 15:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 15:26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176–77 16:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182, 222 17:1–26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 17:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 17:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 17:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 86, 226 17:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 18:4–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

18:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 18:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 18:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96n 18:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 20:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 141 Acts 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 1:10–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 2:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 2:23–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 2:38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 233 2:42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125, 186 2:46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 3:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 3:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 4:29–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 10:47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 13:28–39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 13:32–33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 15:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 15:9–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 17:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 170n 19:11–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 20:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113, 186 20:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 27:35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113, 225 Romans 1:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 2:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 3:22–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74, 231, 243 3:24–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228, 243, 251 3:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 3:26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4:10–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4:18–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4:22–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 5:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215, 251 5:6–8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5:15–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 5:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 5:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 265

Index 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 6:3–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 231, 233 6:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 6:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 8:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 8:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 114 8:14–16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 8:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 8:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 8:31–34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 8:32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 10:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207, 208 10:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 10:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 64, 206 12:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92, 107, 248 12:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 12:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 1 Corinthians 1:6–7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 1:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 1:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 76 1:23–29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 1:31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 1:31–2:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 212 2:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 161, 209 2:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 2:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 3:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 3:12–13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 3:12–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 3:18–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 87n 5:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 6:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 136 6:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134, 226 9:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 9:24–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221, 222 10:1–4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 225, 227, 234 10:1–5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 10:3–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 222, 223, 234, 236 10:6–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

287 10:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . 117, 118, 124n, 126, 134, 221, 225, 225n, 226, 228, 230, 240 10:16–17. . . . . . . . . 13, 42, 116, 124, 168, 229, 232 10:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 228, 230, 234 10:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 10:20–22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 10:21. . . . . . . . . . 122, 125, 225, 232, 233 10:3–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241n 11:18–22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 11:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 120 11:20–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 11:21–22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136, 233 11:23–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 136, 190 11:23–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113, 208 11:23–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136, 158 11:23ff.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 11:24. . . . . . . . . . . 26, 32, 63, 134, 136n, 172, 175, 219, 220, 231 11:24–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 156, 184 11:24–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 11:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132, 194, 220, 243 11:26. . . . . . . 26, 64, 118, 129, 130, 134, 151, 184, 185, 186, 189, 212, 235 11:26–29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204n, 207 11:27–29. . . . . . . . . 42, 69, 157, 178, 220 11:29. . . . . . 118, 139, 156, 157, 179, 212 12–13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 12:2–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 12:12–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 12:12–27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 13:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 138 14:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110, 262 14:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 14:29–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 15:54–55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 15:56. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 2 Corinthians 1:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 1:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 7:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 9:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 10:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 11:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 157

288

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt Galatians 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 1:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 1:8–9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 2:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 2:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 2:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161, 235 2:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 3:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 3:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 3:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 96 3:13–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 3:17–18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 3:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 5:10–21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 6:4–5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 6:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 161 Ephesians 1:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153, 228, 246 1:7–8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210, 243 1:13–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207, 217 1:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 1:22–23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 2:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97, 228 2:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153, 231 3:4–5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 3:14–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 3:16–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 3:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 3:18–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 4:4–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 4:4–7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 4:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 4:15–16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 5:25–27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226, 228 5:30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 5:32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167n Philippians 2:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 2:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202, 203 2:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96, 151, 154 2:9–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 3:10–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Colossians 1:15–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

1:21–22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 1:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210, 255 1:22–23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 2:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 2:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 3:1–2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 3:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1 Thessalonians 5:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 5:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214, 262 1 Timothy 1:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118, 119 4:4–5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134–35, 193 Titus 1:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 2:13–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Hebrews 1:1–2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 2:7–8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 2:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 2:14–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 4:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 85 4:2–3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4:14–16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5:1–6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 5:5–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 5:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 6:19–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 8:1–7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111, 254 8:8–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 8:12–13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 8:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228, 242, 265 9:1–10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 9:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93, 102 9:11–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154, 228 9:11–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 9:11–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 9:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 9:12–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 9:13–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118, 228 9:14. . . . . . . . . . . 98, 216, 228, 242, 243, 244, 248 9:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246, 253

Index

289

9:15–28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248, 254 9:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 9:16–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 9:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 9:18–22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 9:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 256 9:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 9:25–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247, 256 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 10:1–4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 10:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 10:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 10:10–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 10:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 10:11–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111, 243 10:11–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 10:12–14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 10:19–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 10:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 10:21–22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 10:22. . . . . . . . . 228, 243, 244, 246, 248 10:26–31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 11:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 169 12:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228, 243, 246, 253 13:11–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228, 243 13:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228, 246 13:12–13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 13:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 13:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 13:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 James 1:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:7–8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75 76 88 76

1 Peter 1:3–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 1:10–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137, 141 1:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137, 138, 140 1:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 1:18–21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 1:19–21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 1:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 2:6–8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 2:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 235 2:24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151–52, 255 3:3–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 3:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 2 Peter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 1:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 1 John 1:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232, 236 1:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 1:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231, 243, 251 2:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 3:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 3:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214, 266 4:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 5:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Revelation 1:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 5:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243, 244 5:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 5:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 7:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 13:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 22:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 22:18–19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Index Aaron, 42, 80–81, 84, 87, 102, 247 Abraham Canaan promised to, 62 centurion as son of, 23 Christ as seed of, 108, 222 faith of, 143 and Isaac, 97 signs of promise to, 31, 35–36, 45, 61–63, 66, 256–57 A Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching … (1525), 15, 258–69 affirmation vs. promise, 142–43 Against the Old and New Papistic Masses (1524), 110–15 Albrecht von Brandenburg (cardinal), 47 Ambrose (church father), 104 Anabaptists, 15, 18 angels, 140 animals, 91–92, 101–2, 242. See also sacrifices Annas, 42, 96, 106, 156 anointing oil, 91 anxiety. See doubt/despair apostles on Christ’s passion, 129–30, 142–43, 146–47, 150, 153 did not go to confession, 87 led by the Holy Spirit, 176–77 on Old Testament prophecies, 137 powers given to by Christ, 196–97 Aquinas, Thomas, 4, 156 Aristotle, 57, 167n arrabo/arra, defined, 215n assurance and the Eucharist, 70–72, 75 and prayer, 40 and promise, 6–7, 32, 37 of salvation, 74–75, 83–86, 156, 171, 175–76 through the Holy Spirit, 176–77, 206, 215–17 Augustine (church father), 104, 140–41

290

baptism of Christ, 153 as a fellowship, 231–32

Karlstadt’s view, 11 as ordinance, 158, 168 Barge, Hermann, 1, 18–19 Basel, 12, 17–18 believers freedom of, 83, 228 as one body in Christ, 46, 124–25 priesthood of, 94, 247–57 as sheep, 80–81, 170, 265 benediction, eulogia as, 134 Bible. See allusions; scripture; Scripture Index [281–89] biblical characters mentioned Aaron (See individual entry) Abraham (See individual entry) Adam, 168 Ahaz, 58 Anakim, 190 Annas (See individual entry) Balaam, 50 Belshazzar, 44 Bereans/Thessalonians, 170 Caiaphas (See individual entry) centurion, 23, 43 Corinthians, 158–59 Cornelius, 177 David, 154–56 Esau, 77 Gideon, 63, 65–66, 77 Haggai, 188 Herod, 137, 156 Hezekiah, 62–63 Isaac, 97 Isaiah (See individual entry) Jacob, 35–37, 77 Jehosaphat, 84 John the Baptist (See individual entry) Jonah, 85 Judas Iscariot (See individual entry) Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, 42 Lazarus, 135 Luke, 129 Mark, 129, 132 Martha, 42 Mary Magdalene, 26 Matthew, 129, 132

Index Melchizedek, 94 Miriam, 42 Moses (See individual entry) Nadab and Abihu, 157 Nehemiah, 168 Noah (See individual entry) Paul (See individual entry) Peter, 87, 104 Pharisees, 106 Pilate, 96–97, 137, 156 recognized by signs, 58 Scaeva’s sons, 198 Simeon, 45–46 Solomon, 77, 179 Thomas, 43 women who ministered to Christ, 41 Zacchaeus, 13, 42–43 Zechariah, 58 biblical concepts/events/sayings athletes, 221 burnt offerings, 93, 101–2 cornerstone, 45 dogs and holy things, 86 Egyptians as metaphor for sin, 37 feeding of the multitudes, 119, 135, 196 fellowship of believers, 125 fleece of Gideon, 35 food offerings as figure of Christ, 93 Get behind me, Satan, 104 the Good Shepherd, 25 graves of craving, 232n healing of demoniac, 121 healthy do not need a physician, 25 heavenly tabernacle, 102 horse/mule, without understanding, 101 keys for binding/loosing, 87 leaven of the Pharisees, 170 Lost Coin, 25 man born blind, 122 manna, 156 menstrual cloth, 95 pearls before swine, 86, 227, 262 the promised land, 100 rainbow, 31, 34, 45, 59–62, 66 raising of dead girl, 122–23 sacrificial lamb, 103 scribes and Pharisees, 165n shadow reversed, 63 snake in the wilderness, 30–31, 45–46, 66, 98 spies sent to Canaan, 100 sprinkling of blood, 92, 242–43

291 thieves on the cross, 213 water from the rock, 81 wedding clothes parable, 83 where sins abound, grace overflows, 26 wisdom of the flesh, 114 Billican, Theobald, 15, 239n, 245, 249–50 bishops. See papists/priests blasphemy, of daily masses, 99–101 blessing as consecration, 119–20, 199–200 eulogia as, 134 blood of animals, 92, 128, 228 blood of Christ. See also Christ distinguished from the sacrament, 131–32, 228 as the new testament, 243, 249–57 and salvation, 76, 97–98, 132–33, 248–49 shed on the cross, not in the cup, 127–29, 241–42 spiritual sprinkling of, 242–47 bodily presence, 3, 6, 10, 10n, 23 body of Christ. See also Christ; discernment bread as, 41–43, 46, 53–54 church as, 226, 228–29, 234 corporeal, 127, 137–38, 140 natural and spiritual, 226, 228–29 and promise/assurance, 32, 84 prophecies of, 10, 91, 98–100, 137–38, 141, 146–47, 149, 156, 209 as spiritual food, 222, 227 touto as, 173–75 wine as, 43 Bohemian Brethren (Picards), 46, 146n bread to be honored, not worshiped, 41–42, 44–46, 119, 188, 191 blessing of, 119 and bread of life; living bread, 44–45, 55–56, 236 breaking and distributing of, 225, 234–35 characterized as: the body of Christ, 41–43, 46, 53–54, 226; a fellowship, 226–27, 232–34; a host in a ciborium, 198–99; sign of promise, 30, 45–46, 51–52, 62–63, 66, 159; sign of resurrection, 70–71, 74, 84–85 Christ not “in” or “under,” 145, 193–94 vs. “form of bread,” 53, 169, 202

292

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt bread, continued gospel explanation of, 41, 43–44, 50–54 misuse of, 72–73, 100–101, 157–58, 180 mystery of, 70 remains bread, 43, 53, 119–20, 148– 49, 156 as temple for Christ, 198–99 withheld from laity, 67, 113 Bubenheimer, Ulrich, 19 Bucer, Martin, 16, 18 Bugenhagen, Johannes, 15 Caiaphas, 42, 50, 96, 106, 156, 268 Capito, Wolfgang, 16 Cathars, 1 censorship, 8–10, 17, 238 Christ. See also blood of Christ; body of Christ; words of Christ ascension of, 102–3, 197, 237 characterized as: cursed, in the mass, 107–8; fulfillment of prophecy, 34, 85, 92–93, 142–43, 154–56, 209, 222–23; high priest, 93–97, 152, 247–48; model, 131; murdered in the mass, 106–9, 148, 178; obedient to God, 93, 96–103, 108–9, 118, 126–27, 154, 203, 224–25; Passover lamb, 203; perfect sacrifice, 93–97, 106; priest of righteousness, 94; rock of refuge, 26; sign of promise, 30, 34, 45–46; spiritual rock, 221; superior to councils, 52; tereph, 154–56; true/living bread, 44–45, 55, 154–59 despised/rejected, 224–25 did nothing in secret, 137, 141–42, 197 distinguished from bread, 41, 43–45, 50–55, 101 foreknowledge of passion, 152 in heaven, 142 humanity of, 56, 148, 169 language of, 152–53 at Last Supper, 1, 3, 12, 127–29, 151– 52, 192–93, 241 new testament of, 129, 239–42 once-for-all sacrifice of, 96–111, 116– 33, 143, 147, 155, 201, 265 oral testament of, 126–27 passion of, 26, 86, 103–5, 142, 152–53, 187–88, 200–201, 213–14

prophecies about (See under body of Christ) resurrection of, 70–71 sufficiency of, 98–100, 146–47, 237 on Supper in both kinds, 67–69, 73 ubiquity of, 198 visible return of, 197–98, 237 wisdom of, 114 and words of institution, 26, 30, 53–55, 67, 103, 113, 127–30 (See also words of Christ) church, as body of Christ, 226, 228–29 church councils, 52–53 church fathers, on Christ’s eternal sacrifice, 104–5, 261 circumcision, as sign of faith, 31 clerical marriage, 47–48 cloisters, misuse the sacrament, 99, 106 communion. See Eucharist; Lord’s Supper confession auricular, 8, 62, 86–87 as prayer, 29 unnecessary before communion, 80, 83, 86 of Zacchaeus, 23 conscience, 228–29, 242–43 consecration of elements as blessing, 19–120 vs. “forms,” 7, 43, 53–54, 56, 202 by priests, 169, 239 Scholastic understanding of, 45n should be vernacular, 6 corporeal presence criticized, in Dialogue (1524), 12 Exegesis pamphlet on, 1, 10–16 Luther’s view of, 1, 119, 227, 236–37 Paul’s view of, 116–17, 233–34 covenant. See promise Crucifixion. See passion of Christ cup. See wine/cup custom/tradition, 50–52, 72, 105 David, prophecy about Christ, 154–56 death of Aaron and Moses, 82 bodily vs. eternal, 70–71, 74, 84 as confirming a testament, 126, 241–42 destroyed by Christ’s death, 74, 84–85 and resurrection, 93 Demuth, Nicolaus, 21, 23n devil, 87, 89, 99 Dialogue, or a Discussion Booklet on the Horrible and Idolatrous Misuse of

Index the Most Holy Sacrament…, 1–2, 11–12, 163–204 discernment Paul’s view of, 24, 42, 44, 46, 69, 117, 158, 208–18 and personal experience, 214 Peter’s view of, 147, 212 and remembrance, 211 required, for Lord’s Supper, 69, 117– 33, 181, 189–90 as right knowledge, 212–13 doubt/despair. See also unbelief vs. assurance, 74, 86 quieted by Lord’s Supper, 26, 34, 45, 61, 64 as sin, 60–61, 76, 87 drunkenness, 118 Duns Scotus, John, 4 Dürer, Albrecht, 39 Eck, Johannes, 5 Egyptians, metaphor for sin, 37 elevation of the host. See under host Erasmianism, 14 Erasmus, Desiderius, 10 essence of Christ, 128 distinguished from form, 57 sacramental, 211 eternal life. See also salvation from Christ, the living bread, 55–56, 154 communion as reminder of, 61, 182–83 faith and, 31, 45–46, 84–85 through Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, 55–56, 96, 98–109, 111, 116– 33, 143, 147, 155 Eucharist. See also Lord’s Supper bread/wine to be honored, not worshiped, 41–44, 118 concomitance doctrine, 67n consecrated elements of, 46, 118–21, 239 desecration of, by papists, 67–69, 120–21 foreshadowed in Old Testament, 9, 13, 127–30 “forms” as papistic, 44, 121, 169–70, 202 not a sacrament, 116 not salvific, 69, 131–32, 150, 206–8 perversion of, 51, 67, 99–101, 120–21 as promise and sign, 6, 23, 32

293 and righteousness, 34 sin as no bar to, 24–25, 28, 37, 236 as symbolic, 12, 16, 46 terms used for, 30 as thanksgiving, 191 transubstantiation denied, 120–21, 163–204 worthy reception of, 178–84, 189, 212–16 eucharistisas (thanksgiving), 133–43 eulogia (blessing/benediction), 134 evangelical movement, 8–10, 50–52, 77–78 in Strasbourg, 12 exegesis, rules for, 64–65, 80–81 Exegesis of This Word of Christ…, 1, 10, 144–62 experience, and salvation, 214–15, 223–24 Explanation of 1 Corinthians 10 (1525), 13, 219–37 faith and assurance, 29, 32, 59–60, 83, 85–86 based in scripture, 146 in Christ alone, 44, 89, 207 vs. fear/unbelief, 75, 82–83 and fellowship with Christ, 199, 231, 234–35 and freedom of the believer, 83, 228 necessity of, 40, 83, 221–22 as new birth, 88, 243–47 as righteousness, 70, 98, 209, 236, 250–51 fasting, 80, 83 fear abolished by Christ’s blood, 74–75, 83, 224 of papal lies, 68–69 fellowship baptism as, 231–32 bread is not, 226–27 with Christ, 199, 231 between container and content, 123– 24, 199, 226–27, 231, 250 koinonia as, 226 as “society,” 124, 226 two kinds of, 235–36 with the devil, 232–33 forgiveness on the cross, not in the cup, 255–57 as salvation, 74, 83–84, 97–98, 101–9, 116–33, 228

294

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt forgiveness, continued wine/cup as sign of, 46, 62–63, 69–70, 74–75, 87, 245 forms, of bread/wine distinguished from essence, 51–54, 56–57, 211 papistic term, 44, 54, 139, 169–70, 176, 202 as technical term, 49n Frau Hulda (natural reason), 13, 220 Furcha, Edward J., 20, 39 Gemser, in Dialog, 166–204 Gerlacher, Diebolt, 239n gestures. See also host; sign of the cross of Christ, at Last Supper, 1, 3, 12, 127, 178 gluttony, 118 God the Father accessed through Christ, 44 contradicted by the devil and priests, 98–101 draws/binds sinners to Christ, 94 as faithful, 34 sacrifice of Christ, 96, 106 good works, 41–42. See also works righteousness gospel, 41, 43–44, 50–54, 73, 85 grace of God, 26, 52, 83, 232–33, 263 Greek language, 167 eucharistia/eucharistien, 119, 133–43, 195 future tense of, 146–47, 150, 153; koinonia, 226n of the New Testament, 127, 137 tuto as “my body,” 173–75 Haden-Roy, Patrick, 20 Hausmann, Nicolaus, 112 heave offerings, 112n, 213n Hebrew language, 167 Hertzsch, Erich, 19 history/historiography, of Karlstadt’s views, 18–19 Hoen, Cornelis, 10–11, 16 Holy Spirit, 175–77, 182, 206, 215–16, 259 host. See also bread; wine/cup adoration of, as idolatry, 6–7, 14 in a ciborium, 198 consecration of, 169 elevation of, 8, 51n, 112 not Christ’s body, 171 Hussites, 6n, 11, 14, 146n hypocrisy, 29, 50–52, 72

idolatry, of the Eucharist, 6, 160–61, 225, 232 images, 11, 19–20, 201 indulgences, 187 Isaiah, 24, 29–30, 46, 71, 128, 156, 209, 224–25 Jerome (saint), 167 Jews awaiting promised messiah, 142, 147 and Christ’s passion, 109 definition of “sacrament,” 167 as metaphor for Christians, 47, 81 and Old Testament priesthood, 52, 62, 76 sayings of, about God, 65 wilderness sojourn of, 82 John the Baptist, 138, 146–47, 152, 189, 253 Judas Iscariot, 9, 96, 106, 152, 156, 236, 252 justification, by faith alone, 29, 182, 187–89, 225, 266 Karlstadt ambivalence about his own writings, 239, 260, 262–63 on baptism, 11 censorship of, 8–10, 17, 238 denies involvement in Peasants’ War, 258 disputations, 5, 7, 11 eucharistic theology of, 8–14, 206 explanation of writings, 260–69 invokes Golden Rule, 267 persecution of, 267–68 responds to Luther’s Against the Heavenly Prophets, 219–37 sermons at castle church, 6–8 and Thomas Müntzer, 11n, 18 resides in/visits: Basel, 12, 17–18; Orlamünde, 9n, 11; Rothenburg, 12, 238; Saxony, 12, 17–18; Strasbourg, 12, 18; Zurich, 17 laity accept the cross of grace, 250 as binding/absolving sins, 87 compelled to pay for masses, 107, 120, 171 disdained/misled by priests, 67–68, 73, 173–75, 187, 194, 201 prayers of, during mass, 111n

Index warned against priests’ masses, 103, 164–203 language of Christ, 153 Christ’s words in future tense, 146–47, 150, 153 Greek, 127, 133–40, 146, 150, 153 Karlstadt’s apology for, 55 Latin, 138, 146, 167, 172 misconstrual of Christ’s words, 144–62 punctuation and, 177 superfluous, 57 translation difficulties of, 174–75 usage of “sacraments,” 166–68 vernacular: for laity, 110–11, 167, 172–73; for liturgy, 6–7, 110–11 Last Supper, and Christ’s last will and testament, 128–29, 151–52, 192– 93, 241–42 Laube, Adolph, 19 law of God Christ as fulfillment of, 34, 85, 92–93 teaches what sin is, 80, 265 law of men, and priesthood, 90–91 Link, Wenceslaus, 39n Lindberg, Carter, 163 liturgy of consecration, 240–41 errors in, 113 reform of, 110–15 vernacular demanded, 6–7, 110–11 Lord’s Supper. See also Eucharist in both kinds, 6–8, 67–69 characterized as: an ordinance, 114– 15, 130, 136, 157; proclamation, 26, 28, 64, 103, 212, 235; sacramental, 23n; sanctified, 120; spiritual, 23n; symbolic, 12, 16, 46, 63–64, 103–4, 113– 14, 124–33, 136–37 discernment required, 69, 117–33, 178–84, 189–90 instituted by Christ, 167 is not: essential for salvation, 69, 131– 32, 150, 256; a pledge, or God’s Penny, 215–18; a sacrament, 116 Paul’s instructions for, 207–8 perverted in the mass, 99–109, 111 preparation for, 5–8, 69, 83, 180–82, 186, 195, 209–10 prerequisite for, 73–74, 83–84, 211–18

295 as spiritual, not corporeal, 221–23, 227–28, 236–37 words of institution initiated, 127 worthy reception of, 178–84, 189, 212–16 Luther, Martin ambivalence of, 245 Against the Heavenly Prophets, 3, 13, 219–37 challenged by Karlstadt, 221, 223, 228–29, 234, 238–57 on corporeal presence, 1, 112, 187, 221, 238–57 on external means of God, 175n Formula for Mass and Communion, 9–10 glosses Paul’s words, 229–30 as hypocrite, 255 and Karlstadt, 1, 3–5, 9, 11, 13–14, 162n, 165, 258–60 Leipzig disputation with Eck, 5 on liturgical reforms, 8, 10 misuse of scripture by, 248 as Mosaic preacher, 244 Open Letter to the Christians in Strasbourg…, 13 as papist, 11, 144–45 preface to Teaching, 14, 258–60 mass/masses Christ not a sacrifice in, 99–101 daily, condemned, 99–109 endowed by laity, 99, 105, 107 etymology of, 107, 111 evangelical, 8–10, 66–67, 78–88 as human invention, 104 liturgical reform of, 7–10, 110–15 as mockery and murder of Christ, 106–9, 148, 178, 215–16 perversion of, 51, 99–109 private, condemned, 6–7 recitation of, 51n as sacrilege, 111–12, 140 scriptural basis for, 50–51 as shaped by papists, 99–100, 110–15 and simony, 99, 105 Melanchthon, Philipp, 5, 7, 39n miracles, to be public, 122 mortification of the flesh, 93 Moses and blood sacrifices, 92–94, 98–99, 126–27, 130, 242, 244 on ignorance of the law, 158 as leader/protector, 42, 108, 143, 157

296

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt Moses, continued and miracles of God, 81–82, 84 promise to, 143 prophesies of Christ, 91–92, 97–98, 128, 137–38, 146, 208–9, 253 signs given to, 30–31, 45–46, 61–62, 130 unbelief of, 81 Müntzer, Thomas, 11 mysticism, 8–9, 183n natural reason (Frau Hulda), 13, 220 new birth, as faith in the word of God, 88 new testament. See under testament Noah, 31, 34, 45, 59–62, 66 Nuremberg, 15 obedience of Christ, 93, 108 Oecolampadius, Johann, 13–14, 16 Oeglin, Erhard, 21 offerings. See also sacrifices Christ as perfect, 95–96, 213–14 as gift, 91 by God the Father, 96 heave/wave, 112n, 213n of Judas, Pilate, and priests, 96 mass as, 111 New Testament, 93–94 Old Tesament sacrifices, 91–93 righteous and unrighteous, 96–97 through priesthood of Christ, 95 varieties of, 91–92, 96–97 oil of anointing, 91 Old Testament compared with new, 242 sacrificial system of, as figure of Christ, 9 old testament. See under testament On Both Forms in the Holy Mass (1521), 7, 49–77 On the Adoration and Veneration of the Signs of the New Testment (1521), 7, 39–48, 57 On the Anti-Christian Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup (1524), 12, 205–18 On the New and Old Testament (1525), 13, 238–57 On the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ (1523), 9, 89–109, 111 On the Recipients, Signs, and Promise of the Holy Sacrament (1521), 5–6, 21–38 Orlamünde, 9n, 11, 89 Otmar, Silvan, 21

pamphlets of Karlstadt and evangelical movement, 3–4 and Luther’s pamphlets, 5 reactions to, 15 translations of, 19–20 papists/priests attack Karlstadt’s teaching, 250 on binding and absolution, 87 characterized as: Antichrist, 148, 162, 180, 205–18; blasphemers, 98–109, 154, 161–62, 201, 217– 18, 244, 247; blind leaders, 215; faithless, 121–22, 139; heretics, 54, 71–72, 87; idolators, 225; intoxicated, 201; jugglers, 201; lacking wisdom, 158; mediators of the new testament, 245, 250; murderers of Christ, 106–9, 148, 178, 215–16; as pipes, 171; powerless, 121–23; scarecrows, 195; sophists, 121, 144–45, 148–49, 157, 161–62, 192; unholy, 101, 122 and clerical marriage, 47–48 and custom/tradition, 50, 172 on “form,” 41, 44, 54, 87 misconstrue Christ’s words, 138–39, 144–46, 152–54, 157, 190–91 receives money for masses, 99–100, 173, 187 on scripture reading, 170 secret rituals of, 122 summoning/dismissing Christ in the bread, 235 temporal power of, 47, 87 and transubstantiation, 120–21, 139 use of “in” and “under,” 145, 193–94 withholding of cup, 67–68 Parisians (Sorbonne faculty), 56–57, 62 passion of Christ, 26, 86, 103–5, 142, 152–53, 187–88, 200–201, 213–14 Paul (apostle) admonishes the Corinthians, 136, 219–37 on Christ’s words, 29, 32, 87, 129, 189–90, 207–8, 253–54 on circumcision, 31, 61 on corporeal presence, 116–17, 221–22 on cup of blessing, 118–19 on death, 74 on discernment, 24, 42, 44, 46, 69, 117, 178–79, 262–63 on eternal life, 149

Index on eucharistia/eucharistien, 135, 193 on faith, 46, 64, 209 on fellowship, 124 on the grace of God, 80, 103, 161–62 on the Lord’s Supper, 26, 28–29, 116– 30, 151, 232 on misuse of bread, 157–58 rebukes Peter, 105 on sacrifices, 93 on signs and promises, 46, 63, 130 on suspended judgment, 261 on vernacular language, 110–11 words of, glossed by Luther, 229–30 on words of institution, 136 Peasants’ War, 13–14, 18, 258 penance, as unnecessary, 76 Pentecost, 208, 242 perseverance, 36–37, 69, 126 Peter (apostle), 61 on discernment, 147, 151–52, 212 on eternal life, 149 as holy vs. fleshly, 104–5, 114, 198 and the keys, 87 rebuked by: Christ, 104–5, 198; Paul, 105 as the rock, 162 Peter (layman), in Dialogue, 166, 174–204 Picards (Bohemian Brethren), 46 pipes, as metaphor for priests, 171 Pirckheimer, Willibald, 15 pope. See papists/priests prayer cannot transform bread/wine, 119 as confession, 29 faith necessary for, 40 of the hypocrite condemned, 29 Qui Pridie, 54n and repentance, 28–29, 83 predestination, 224 prerequisite, for Lord’s Supper, 73–74, 83–84, 211–18 priesthood of believers, 94, 247–57 of Christ, 89–109, 111 of Melchizedek, 94 priests. See also papists/priests: defined, 90 Old Testament, 62, 91–94, 97 proclamation and the Eucharist, 32, 158–59 and the Lord’s Supper, 26, 28, 64, 103 preaching as, 185–86 and remembrance, 211

297 promise and assurance, 32, 36, 59–60, 83–85 distinguished from affirmation, 142–43 Eucharist as, 6, 23, 32 grasped by Jacob, 77 lost, because of unbelief, 82–83 signs of, 31–32, 34, 59, 63 specificity of, 143 synonyms used for, 30 prophets/prophecies of Christ, 91–92, 97–98, 137–38, 146–49, 154–56, 209 cited by the apostles, 137, 225 Prove (1524), 10, 116–43 Prüss, Johann, 21 punctuation, of Christ’s words, 177–78 purgatory, and the sacrament, 141–42 rainbow. See also signs: as sign of promise, 34, 45, 59–62 reconciliation and offering, 91 through Christ’s sacrifice, 97–98, 108–9, 152–53 redemption completed in Christ’s passion, 97–98, 107–9, 126, 143, 150 foundation of, 130–31 not through mass, 107 Reich, Jorg, 41, 50 Reinhart, Martin (pastor), 11, 263n, 268n remembrance. See also discernment defined, 208–18 righteousness and, 63–64, 103–4, 113–14, 208–18 repentance and discernment, 118 necessity of, 28–29, 38 vs. works righteousness, 25, 28 resurrection and ascension of Christ, 102 signified by bread, 70–71, 74, 84–85 Reuchlin, Johann, 155n Reyss, Conrad, Answer to the Highly Learned Doctor…, 16 Rhegius, Urbanus, Warning against the New Error…, 15, 240n righteousness. See also works righteousness faith as, 29 not in the cup, 245 and remembrance, 63–64, 103–4, 113–14, 185–86, 208–18

298

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt righteousness, continued spiritual, not fleshly, 61 through faith in Christ, 32, 71, 95–96, 98, 103, 109, 189, 208 and understanding divine wisdom, 92 Rode, Hinne, 43n Rupp, E. Gordon, 18 sacrament/s. See also Eucharist; Lord’s Supper defined/questioned in Dialog, 166–204 sacrifices. See also offerings of animals, 91–92, 101–2, 242 Christ’s: as once for all, 76, 92, 98–109, 116–33, 153–54, 201; as redemptive, 97–98 daily mass, as heretical, 99–109, 112–13 defined, 92–93 of Gentiles, 114 imperfect, in Old Testament, 31, 62, 91–92 and priesthood, 93 salvation assurance of, 75–76, 83–85, 94 certainty of, 224 and discernment, 212–14 forgiveness as, 74, 97–98, 101–9, 116–33, 251 and grace of God, 26 is not in: the sacrament, 69–70, 73, 131–32, 144–62, 187, 215–18; signs, 61, 63 necessity of blood sacrifice, 76, 132–33 as personal experience, 214–15 as prerequisite for the sacrament, 73–74, 83–84, 211–18 sanctification consecration as, 119–20 through the gospel, 85–86 Schürer, Matthias, 12 Schwenckfeld, Kaspar, 16 scripture. See Scripture Index, [281–89] as basis of faith, 146, 250 fulfilled in Christ, 34, 85, 92–93, 142–43 Greek future tense usage, 146–47, 150–51, 153 as measure of exegesis, 65, 80–81, 261–68 as the new testament, 254 proper exegesis of, 64–65 right use of, 194–95 superior to councils, 52–53

used by Christ, 151 scripture/s, and new birth, 88 seals, signs as, 61–62 self-examination. See discernment senses (human), and signs, 31 Sermon …Given in Wittenberg on the Reception of the Holy Sacrament (1522), 8, 78–88 sheep, believers as, 80–81 sign of the cross, rejected by Karlstadt, 8 signs allegories for, 64–65 apprehension of, by sinners, 31 are not salvation, 61, 63 and assurance, 34, 61, 64, 70, 75 bread/wine as, 30–31, 43, 45–46, 60–62 characteristics of, 62–63 Christ as, 30, 45–46 established by God, 58, 76 Eucharist as, 6–7, 45 Gideon’s fleece, 63 ineffective if not used, 30 misuse of, 71–73 natural and artificial, 58, 77 of the New Testament, 66–67 particularity of, 65 and promise, 23, 32, 34, 45, 59, 65 purposes of, 58–60 and sensation/perception, 31 significance of, 64–65 snake in the wilderness, 30–31, 45–46, 66, 98–99 (See also Moses) sought by patriarchs, 58 simony, 99, 105 sin/s. See also salvation and death, 74 enumerated by Paul, 233 forgiven once for all, in Christ, 74, 97–98, 101–9, 116–33 as no bar to communion, 24–25, 28, 37–38, 83, 86–87, 236 and salvation, 75, 86 as sickness of spirit, 24–26 unbelief as, 7–8, 86 spirituality distinguished from Christianity, 40 faith necessary for, 40 sprinkling, of blood, 92, 128, 228, 242–47 Strasbourg, 12 sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, 98–100, 146–47, 237 Supper of Christ. See Lord’s Supper swords, metaphor for truth, 191–92

Index testament and Christ’s blood, 128–29 confirmed at death, 241–43 old vs. new, 126–27, 242–43 oral, of Christ, 126, 129 as promise, 30 wine/cup as, 128 words used to describe, 30, 128–29 thanksgiving and Eucharist, 191, 195–96 Thomas Aquinas, 4, 156 toad, epithet for opponent, 42–43 touto, Greek pronoun, 173–75 tradition. See custom/tradition transubstantiation, 49n, 54n, 121, 239n denied, 142–43 not commanded, and not possible, 121–22 technical term for, 202n truth vs. cunning, 179 vs. custom/tradition, 50–52 and Holy Spirit, 259 as swords, 191–92 ubiquity, of Christ, 198 unbelief. See also doubt/despair of Ahaz and Zechariah, 58 as bar to the sacrament, 83, 88 as grievous sin, 82–84 makes God a liar, 60 of Moses and Aaron, 81 punishment for, 34, 81–82 as work of the devil, 89 vernacular language for the Bible, 171 for liturgy, 6 vestments as fool’s cloak, 101 outward and inward, 90–91 rejected by Karlstadt, 8–9 Victus, in Dialogue, 166–204 Walch, Johann Georg, 19 Waldensian Brethren, 146n Waldensians, 1, 146, 232 wave offerings, 112n, 213n Westerburg, Gerhard, 12, 263n, 268n Whether One Can Prove from Holy Scripture That Christ Is in the Sacrament … (1524). See Prove (1524) wine/cup accidentally spilling drop of, 67, 69 apostles’ use of, 239–40

299 to be honored, not worshiped, 41–42, 44, 118 blessing of, 118–19 of blessing/thanksgiving, 118–20 and body of Christ, 43, 228 consecration of, 239 distinguished from corporeal blood of Christ, 128–30 distribution of, 255–56 exegesis on, 128–29, 238–57 fellowship argument, 123–24 instituted by Christ, 73, 168 misuse of, 72–73, 100–101, 157–58, 180 as mockery of blood of Christ, 244, 250–57 as new testament, 126–27, 194 new testament properties of, 249 as sign of forgiveness of sins, 46, 62–63, 69–70, 74–75, 87, 245 as special cup, 117 St. John’s cup, 119n as a testament, 132–33 withheld from laity, 67, 113 wisdom, worldly vs. divine, 114, 260–69 Wittenberg Christmas sermon, 78–88 Wittenberg Troubles, and reformation of the mass, 5–8 women, praised by Christ, 41–42 words condemned by Karlstadt “form of …”, 41, 44, 55 “mass,” 10, 110–15 “sacraments,” 166–68 words of Christ as affirmation, not promise, 34–35, 142–43, 147 “baptism,” 168 confirmed in the Eucharist, 35–36 discernment of, 158–59 exegesis of, 10, 12, 30, 84, 97–98, 128– 33, 144–62, 196, 208–18 at feeding of the multitude, 196 in future tense, 146–47, 150, 153 at Last Supper, 26, 30, 83, 130–31, 168, 175 omitted from verba consecrationis, 202 and prayer, 40 summary of, 160–62 “you are my friends,” 235 works righteousness, 5–6, 25, 28–29 Luther’s arguments on, 13 worship, as fruit of faith, 40–41 wrath of God, and repentance, 28–29 Wyclif, John, 11, 114

300

The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt Zeytlof, Andreas, 23 Zorzin, Alejandro, 268n Zwilling, Gabriel, 6–8, 43n, 50n Zwingli, Ulrich, 16 on Anabaptists, 15 Exposition of the Sixty-Seven Articles, 9 on Karlstadt’s exegesis, 3 mentioned, 14, 259n, 261, 264