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 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] To 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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].

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 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 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 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].

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 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 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.

“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 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 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 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.

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].