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] In 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 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.

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 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 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 sacrament. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 once-shed 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] 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 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 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 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.

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 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, 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 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]).

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 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 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?

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.