12

On the New and Old Testament

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

How Karlstadt Recants. 1525

(April 1525)

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

[A2r] Andreas Karlstadt, expelled without a hearing as a testimony of the gospel that I preach about Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified Son of God, to the earnest Christians, my beloved brethren in Rothenburg ob der Tauber: divine wisdom, knowledge, faith, love, strength, and peace from God through Christ.

Dear brothers, I have almost finished a complete answer to Dr. Luther’s unscriptural and unchristian writing, along with other works that I must write to the brothers, truly not a few, who have sought them from me.¹ But since this answer is too long, I have excerpted some articles from it that I am having published, each of them separately. Among them is this one, on the cup that scripture calls a new testament and that Dr. Luther calls a thunderbolt on Karlstadt’s head,² thinking he has the best reasons to prove that the Lord’s blood must be bodily in the cup of blessing. I am sending you this very article written in good Christian love, willingness, and service, since there are many among you who earnestly love God’s truth and judgments, who could doubtless show me if I err. I ask you to consider the basis of this teaching thoroughly and with diligence, and if you find that I have erred, you will explain my error to me. Then I will willingly yield to and serve divine truth. But in my conscience I am sure that what I have concluded in this matter of the sacrament is [true] and cannot be otherwise. I hope, too, that you will feel and note in this article that my teaching is divine, well founded, and [a2v] proves to confess God’s grace, Christ’s surpassing love, great praise, and true faith in Christ, and that I should not be considered in error or a heretic. I am willing to be heard by you and I ask for God’s sake that you allow me a public examination and hear an account of my faith. I have always been ready and prompt to answer friends and foes. I desire to come to you soon and ask for a hearing, which I hope to obtain. But if you refuse me, then I must complain not only to God, but also to his imperial majesty as the highest member of the Christian community, especially because I have been persecuted and expelled without a hearing, against the ordinance of his imperial majesty. But I do not doubt that you will so fear God, our almighty Lord, and give him honor, that you will hear me, who seeks direction, and let me learn what is better from you. I commend this to God. 16 March 1525.

[A3r] ON THESE WORDS: “THE CUP, THE NEW TESTAMENT”

Now concerning Christ’s saying about the blood, it should be noted that Matthew and Mark do not say of the cup that the cup is the new testament. Thus according to the opinion of the Nördlingen preacher,³ it must follow that it is not necessary to call the cup a new testament. But the above-mentioned two evangelists recount how Christ took the cup and gave it to his disciples and said, “Drink from this, all of you,” and how afterwards the Lord spoke these words, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins,” Matthew 26[:27–28], Mark 14[:23–24].

From this we learn that the disciples drank a pure, natural wine, for the priests say that their bread and their wine retain their nature up until one has spoken or read over them those words that they call the words of consecration. Now Christ told all of his disciples to drink from the cup (in which there was natural wine) before he spoke the words of consecration, and so they drank the wine before the wine was converted⁴ into blood. Thus one cannot conclude from these two evangelists that the disciples drank the Lord’s blood bodily in the first Supper, but instead the contrary, that they did not drink any blood of Christ bodily, as is now proclaimed.

That Christ commanded them all to drink from it is explained by the fact that Christ spoke of the cup that the Lord gave to his disciples. It doesn’t need to be proven that the disciples drank from the same cup; for this it is enough that you have eyes or ears, can understand the word, and see or hear what Christ said. We will let some priests [A3v] say that Christ said, “All of you drink from this blood,” and want to support this from Matthew and Mark, for they will argue at length that fire is not warm or hot, that calyx [chalice] means blood and sanguis [blood] means a drinking vessel, so that they can hold on to their Lord God and their benefices.

But it is appropriate for you laity to examine, read books or hear them read, and look yourself at that which is necessary for you to know, and if you do this yourself, you will soon get at the truth and realize that the disciples did not drink from the blood but from a drinking vessel. I’m amazed that the priests are so mad that they attempt to prove this from Matthew and Mark. Just look at what Matthew and Mark write. The pronoun touto [this] signifies the blood and not the cup or drinking vessel; I call on impartial judges of the Greek language, who are skilled in the art and manner of our New Testament in Greek.

Luther does not rely on Matthew and Mark but rather on Luke and Paul, Luke 22[:20], 1 Corinthians 10[:16]. But some Lutherans (which I’ve drawn, like Luther’s arrow, from a bad writing and from Luther himself⁵) grasp at this statement, “They all drank of it,” Mark 14[:23] and say, “They all drank from the blood of Christ.” One should ask whether they can prove this, for one should not believe anything they say without scripture. But if we had no evangelists other than Mark, it would all be up for the priests, for Mark explains that they all drank from the cup and that Christ afterwards spoke the words concerning the blood that they call the words of consecration. From this it follows that they drank pure wine. What is your wine, you priests, before your words concerning the blood? Isn’t it pure, natural wine? You must all say yes, so let the wine remain natural wine, about which Mark writes and declares that the Lord afterwards spoke the words concerning the blood.

[A4r] Luther calls forth these words, “The cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” Luke 22[:20], and thinks that this text is the proper scripture to prove that the blood is and must be in the cup; ⁶ yes, even that it is a proper thunderbolt on Karlstadt’s head. Now if this is the proper basis to prove that the blood of Christ must be in the cup of the priests, then I have a good day because the priests do not read this scripture when they consecrate. I call their mass books as witness to this.⁷ I know only that the new pope⁸ and his bishops in Zwickau⁹ and Nördlingen¹⁰ hold to the words of the old pope, which I must allow to be judged and stated on the basis of their books.

Since neither the old nor the new pope has convincing reasons, it is believable that they have never had Christ’s blood fully and truly in their cup, since they leave out the proper words. And so Karlstadt doesn’t belong to the devil just because he writes that the priests do not have any blood in their cup, and I think Luther’s thunderbolt is made of butter and his strongest servant is dead.

I’ll go one better than him and say that the cup was not a new testament at the time of the first Lord’s Supper—how do you like that? I say Christ taught in his first Supper what his blood would be in the future and what the cup of remembrance would be through the blood.

TESTAMENT

You all know that a testament is not a testament before the death of the testator. For a testament is a last will concluded or confirmed with a death. Where there is no death, there is no testament, Hebrews 9[:16]. Death puts the testament into effect and makes it complete; the life of the testator makes the testament without effect and incomplete, Hebrews 9[:17]. [A4v] A testament is confirmed by death; otherwise it is not established if he who made it still lives, Hebrews 9[:16–17]. This is the nature of a testament, that the one who made it dies and is dead. A testament is the last will; where the one who establishes his will remains alive, it cannot be a last will. What then should I say, since it is written, “Where a testament is, there must be the death of the one who makes the testament,” Hebrews 9[:16–17].

Christ was still living (at that time) when he instituted his Supper, which is so obvious that no one needs to prove it. Thus his blood at that time was not the blood of the testament, much less the blood of the new testament, at the time when Christ said, “Father, take this cup of martyrdom from me,” Mark 26 [Matt. 26:39], at which time the angel comforted Christ and the Lord sweated blood, Luke 22[:44]. If Christ’s blood at that time was not the blood of the new testament, then the cup was much less a testament, which only belongs to the testament through blood or in the blood of the new testament. Accordingly, I say that in the Supper Christ touched on the secret and hidden article of the law and spoke to the disciples about his spiritual priesthood, sacrifice, and blood through which Christ would enter, although the disciples did not understand until Pentecost.

Christ taught his disciples that his blood must become a blood of the new testament in the future, and the cup through the blood, at that time when his blood would be shed for us for forgiveness of sins. Thus Christ says, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out” [Matt. 26:26]. In the same way, the blood of rams and calves became a blood of the old testament, for the rams and calves died and the blood was sprinkled over the people for their corporeal cleansing, Hebrews 9[:13]. The new testament must correspond to and surpass the old.

[B1r] Concerning this article of faith, Christ said and taught that his own blood would become a blood of the new testament and that the old testament (which was full of sins) would soon have an end, for whoever speaks of a new says that the old must pass away, Hebrews 9 [8:13].

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The old consisted in the external revelation of God’s will, and what belonged to the old law was all external and corporeal. Moses read and explained God’s commands to the people, he slaughtered calves and rams, he collected the blood, he had corporeal things with which he caught the blood and sprinkled it over the people, i.e., he took hyssop water and purple wool (as a sprinkling wand) and cast the blood over the people bodily. He sprinkled the book, the tabernacle, and all the vessels for the worship of God, and all that Moses did was external and corporeal [Heb. 9:18–22; Exod. 24:6–8]. His preaching was external and his sprinkling was external and corporeal. For Moses sprinkled the people externally and corporeally with blood, and this same blood was a blood of the testament for which innocent animals had to die (and in this it is not similar to a testament of a man who confirms his last will with his own death). This same blood cleansed nothing more than those things it touched. It touched the external body and not the conscience. Thus the consciousness of sin remained, but the external and corporeal uncleanness passed away [so that one could] serve God outwardly by approaching the tabernacle, entering it to go before God, and standing in his service bodily.

NEW TESTAMENT

But the new testament is a true testament, since the one who made it died, namely, the Messiah who is Jesus of Nazareth. It also has death and blood, like the old, and the death of the one who was a mediator or preparer of the new testament, and in this [B1v] the new testament surpasses the old. But in this especially it surpasses the old, that the priest of the new testament does not sprinkle us bodily with his blood but spiritually; that is, Christ does not cast his blood bodily or by drops over the people, but spiritually. Christ also does not take an external sprinkling wand the way Moses took hyssop, etc. Instead, Christ sprinkles his people with his blood through the Holy Spirit, Hebrews 9[:14], and through his divine power Christ penetrates all that is corporeal and enters into the conscience and the heart of his people and washes their consciences of evil desires and works, to serve God in truth and in spirit, Hebrews 9[:14], John 6[:63], 1 Peter 1[:3–4], 1 John 1[:7] and 4[:2], Ephesians 1[:7–8], Colossians 1[:22–23], Romans 3[:24–25], 2 Corinthians 6 [7:1].

THE SHED BLOOD ON THE CROSS OF THE TESTAMENT

For this reason, the blood of Christ shed on the cross is a blood of the new testament and it had to be shed if it was to become a blood of the testament, as the blood of rams and calves was shed for the old testament. And the blood of Christ had to be a blood of spiritual sprinkling and forgiveness of sins if it was to be a blood of the new testament, because Christ says, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many in forgiveness of sins,” Matthew 26[:28], Mark 14[:24]. And all that belongs to the new testament, like the cup, etc., must become a new testament through the blood or through the death of Christ. The cup, the new testament, which is a new testament through the blood, that is, because we drink from it in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, 1 Corinthians 11[:25].

SPRINKLING

In this way the author of Hebrews writes that the [B2r] Lord’s blood is a blood of the new testament; namely, because the Lord’s blood shed on the cross is a blood of spiritual sprinkling that touches and purifies our consciences, Revelation 5[:9], Acts 20[:28], Hebrews 9[:19–22], 10[:11–14], 12[:24], and 13[:11–12], and washes away sins, figured in Leviticus 4[:5–7], 14[:10–20], and 16[:11–16]. For God promised that he would give his new testament in our hearts and be gracious to sinners and no longer remember their sins, Jeremiah 31[:31–34], Hebrews 8[:8–12].

There are two characteristics of the new testament. First, that God wants to write his law in our hearts. Second, that the forgiveness of sins will follow this inscription in our hearts so surely that God will no longer remember our sins, Jeremiah 31[:31–34], Isaiah 43[:25].

What God writes in our hearts is the revelation of his Son, a knowledge or understanding of his sacrifice and his shed blood, an understanding that the Father alone gives, John 6[:44], Matthew 11[:25]. This is faith, or a hearty and living knowledge of the death and shed blood of Christ. So Christ as a spiritual priest (through the Holy Spirit) casts his blood in our hearts, souls, and consciences, and purifies our hearts and consciences through faith, Acts 15[:8–9], Romans 3[:22]. The forgiveness of sins immediately follows this revelation or new law so sufficiently and in such clear proclamation and certainty that one genuinely feels that God no longer remembers his sins, that God has purified him through faith from the shed blood of Christ, Acts 15[:9], Romans 3[:24–25].

Thus we must approach with full faith and with our feet, Hebrews 10[:22]. We must draw from the blood of the cross of Christ with our hearts and not draw from the blood in the body of Christ or in the cup with the mouth if we otherwise want to consider it as a blood of the new testament and as a blood of the true, divine new testament.

[B2v] The new pope devastates this faith and this manner of the new testament, making for us out of the blood of spiritual drinking and of spiritual sprinkling a blood of bodily drinking and of bodily sprinkling and, in short, a blood of the old testament, against all of God’s scripture that speaks of the blood of the new testament and especially this: “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins,” because Christ through this statement (“which is shed for the forgiveness of sins”) publicly showed that his blood was a blood of spirits, of souls, of hearts, and of consciences, and not a blood of the body, Revelation 5[:9] and 7[:14], Hebrews 9[:14] and 10[:22].

For the new pope writes against this and says that we should drink the Lord’s blood bodily as a new testament, which is against the manner, against the nature, and against the characteristic of the blood of the new testament. And the pope also uses external things, such as an external cup, and gives his apes the blood of Christ bodily in the mouth and belly, and this is like Moses in two ways, namely, in that he uses external and corporeal things for the blood of Christ as Moses [did].

Moses took hyssop water and purple wool and dunked or dipped it in the shed blood and sprinkled the people. But the new pope takes a cup of water and wine and gives to his people the blood of Christ bodily in their mouths and says as he does so that this is the blood of the new testament. Isn’t this a great scorning and mockery of the blood of the new testament? Doesn’t Luther say with such words that Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament, but [says] differently with his mind and heart that it is a blood of the old testament? It is the knowledge and power of Christ’s blood in the cup (if it is drunk bodily, as Luther writes about the bodily drinking of Christ’s blood) and of the blood of Moses. For it doesn’t help these sacramentarians to say that [B3r] they give the blood hidden under an alien form, since Moses sprinkled the book and tents, the altars and other vessels with his blood, for the blood of Moses was as unrecognized by the people as the blood of Christ in the cup is unrecognized by the people. You should remember this.

If you know that Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament, then you also know this, that only the shed blood of Christ on the cross is a blood of the testament if it is at all a blood of the testament and corresponds to the figure of the old testament. And you also know that you should drink the Lord’s blood not bodily but only spiritually, that you should receive it in your hearts, in your consciences, and in the ground of your souls, for it belongs to the new testament which abolishes the old that was received bodily.

Thus you’ll now note that Luther is a Mosaic preacher and teacher and not a Christian one, and this you can understand from Christ’s words, who in his Supper said, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for the forgiveness of sins” [Matt. 26:28]. Notice here these words, “of the new testament” and “forgiveness of sins,” etc.

Anyone who receives Christ’s blood other than for the forgiveness of sins receives Christ’s blood in unbelief and does violence to Christ’s blood, for he takes from the blood the honor of the new testament and the power of forgiveness. But anyone who receives the shed blood of Christ as a blood of the new testament receives it spiritually on the cross with his heart and not bodily from the cup with his mouth. Anyone who receives the blood of Christ bodily receives it not for the forgiveness of sins and not as a new testament, but as a corporeal drink. Thus he will be guilty of Christ’s blood as often as he drinks from the cup of the Lord in the belief that he [B3v] is drinking Christ’s blood bodily, for he contradicts this word, that the Lord’s blood is a blood of the new testament shed on the cross for the forgiveness of sins.

The new papists lead us into such unbelief, and Theobald Billican is especially filthy and ready to make such foolishness and worthlessness of Christ’s body and blood. But whoever wishes to be saved prays to God, for you all truly need great prayer and the help of God since we see that the devil stands in a new cassock and attempts to blind those who can see.

Our new popes aren’t satisfied with this evil, that they make the Lord’s blood into common blood, the blood of the new testament into a blood of the old testament and the blood of spiritual sprinkling and spiritual cleansing into a blood of bodily sprinkling and bodily cleansing. No, for they want to continue with their error and not only give us Christ’s blood bodily to drink, but in addition they want to set poor, wretched, lousy, sinful, and unbelieving priests as mediators of the new testament and of the blood of the new testament so that they sin sufficiently against Christ’s blood. For they write, preach, and sing that through the power of Christ’s words (which they are not able to show), a poor, dejected, and unbelieving priest can give Christ’s blood in their cup or sacrament to God’s people as a blood of the new testament. For this reason I must show their unbelief and I say it this way: If Christ’s blood, which a priest gives to himself or anyone else to drink bodily, is not a drink to righteousness, then the precious blood of Christ in the priest’s cup is not the blood of the new testament, for it cannot slake the thirst for righteousness, that is, it is not the blood that forgives sins, Romans 3[:25]. Furthermore, it cannot make the cup of the new papists a new testament, for such blood is itself not the blood of the new testament, nor may it be a blood of the new [B4r] testament. For this reason I would have nothing to do with them, and for their part they cannot convince with their blood that the cup is a new testament through their fictitious blood that is supposedly in their cup.

But if Christ’s blood in their cup is a blood of the new testament (as Luther once claimed but another time denied, at times this, at times that, as his book says one thing at the beginning and another at the end)—if Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament in the priest’s cup and it were true that our lovely, new, verbose, foppish priests could give Christ’s blood to drink, then wouldn’t it follow that the Lord’s blood shed on the cross was not a blood of the new testament and that the poor donkey drivers and pleasure-seekers and godless priests, those whitewashed tombs, were mediators and preparers of the new testament? This would be a lovely figure, and then Isaiah must be lying, who wrote about Christ that he was exalted and lifted up, Isaiah 52[:13], 11[:2–5], 9[:6–7], and Paul must have also lied in giving to Christ the precedence over all things, Colossians 1[:15–20].

One finds in the Epistle to the Hebrews 9[:1–10] and 10[:1–4, 11], and also in other books, that the people, that the sinful clergy, would be priests and mediators of the new testament if they could give Christ’s blood as a blood of the new testament. I maintain only that it is at base the same thing when I say Christ sprinkles believers with his blood or that Christ gives believers his blood to drink; this you find in Hebrews 9[:12–14] and 10[:12–14], John 6[:54]. Open your eyes and you will find or see that Christ’s blood is a blood of the new testament or a blood of our redemption, Ephesians 1[:7]. That is first. Second, the one who can give the blood or sprinkle us with it is a mediator of the new testament.

I should prove this last point and I do it gladly for these are clear words, that Christ Jesus through his own blood entered once into his tabernacle [B4v] that was made by God and not with human hands, which is in heaven, Hebrews 9[:24]. And he is seated at God’s right hand and waits until his enemies have been laid as a stool for his feet, Hebrews 2[:7–8] and 10[:12–13]. Likewise, through his own blood the high priest Christ Jesus has entered into the holy place, Hebrews 9[:12]. Grasp this, for there you hear that through his own blood Christ has entered into his holy and divine tabernacle, that through his shed blood Christ has become a mediator and preparer of the new testament, which is in Hebrews 9[:15].

You will find in Hebrews 9[:14] that it is fitting for Christ as the most high priest to sprinkle his people with his own blood. It was necessary that the heavenly things were sprinkled and cleansed through the sacrifice and shed blood. Likewise, that Christ’s blood has cleansed our conscience, Hebrews 9[:14]. It sprinkles our hearts, Hebrews 10[:22], and in Hebrews 12[:24]. You have both the mediator Jesus and the sprinkling of Christ’s blood, Hebrews 13[:12]. Christ sanctifies his people through his blood. From these passages it follows that it is the same thing and belongs to one office to give Christ’s blood and to cleanse through Christ’s blood the one to whom he gives that blood. For in its manner and by God’s power, Christ’s blood is a blood of spiritual sprinkling and holiness, but it is impossible for any priest to sanctify in the least bit through Christ’s blood, for if the priests could do this, they would be like Christ and our saviors.

But the new pope establishes mediators of the new testament and testators when he says that the priests give the Lord’s blood in their cup to the laity. Isn’t this a great insult and scorning of Christ’s blood? Since Luther considers Christ’s blood to be so little that a priest can give it to someone to drink, isn’t it a wretched thing that we must hear that Luther compares such worthless and lowly priests to the most high priest and places them at his side? And the entrance (which happened once and for all as an [C1r] eternal and complete redemption through Christ’s blood) may be renewed so often each day? This actually means to promise the blood of the new testament and then tread on it with your feet, Hebrews 10[:26–31].

Luther writes big books against the sacrifice of priests, charging that they have gone astray in the mass by saying, “We sacrifice Christ,” and he writes how they blaspheme against God and negate the passion and the sacrifice of Christ. But he will not see that he retains the root of the priestly error, and then he writes in such a way that he nullifies, despises, and blasphemes the blood of the new testament just as horribly as the old papists nullify Christ’s sacrifice.¹¹

Is it nothing that Luther makes poor sinners into priests of Christ’s blood? Or that he writes in one place that Christ’s blood drunk from the cup cleanses the sinner and says that the priests offer and give this same blood? Isn’t this to blaspheme Christ’s priesthood? Isn’t this to nullify the blood of the cross, as if it weren’t powerful and rich enough for an eternal redemption? What would follow from this? That Christ is not the sole mediator of the new testament, that we have many mediators, namely the mangy, godless priests, and that the Lord’s blood on the cross is not the blood of our sprinkling, our righteousness, and our life. For if the blood in the priests’ cup is the blood of our sprinkling or our righteousness or the blood of our forgiveness of sins, then Christ shed and offered his blood on the cross (shed and offered through the Holy Spirit) in vain, Galatians 3[:1–5].

This and similar ways of scorning the blood (shed on the cross) are so evil, harmful, and shameful as the follies of the old papists who sacrifice the body and blood of Christ as a remembrance, against which Billican cries and writes so ferociously.

[C1v] ON OUR PRIESTHOOD

It doesn’t help either the old or the new popes that we have all become priests through Christ. As it is written, “You have made us priests before God,” Revelation 5[:19], 1 Peter 2[:9]. This isn’t intended to say that we may sacrifice the flesh and the blood anew or that we have power to make the body and the blood of Christ as they do who offer and give the Lord’s body and blood through the sacrament to their people, for this power belongs only to our highest priest Jesus Christ and to no one else. If we claimed such power for ourselves, we would fall away from our priesthood, that is, from Christ, through our unbelief, since we would sin against the priest, against his sacrifice, and against his blood, since he would have to die again. Then his office would be no better than that of Aaron, Hebrews 9[:25–26]. [This would be] against the sacrifice of Christ, which would not be perfect once and for all to give eternal salvation, [and] against his blood, whose shedding would not avail eternally for redemption.

But we have become priests through Christ. We had no access to God, we were under God’s wrath, we were punishable before God, we were hateful, we stank from sins, etc., we were not able to go before God. Then Christ our priest came and offered his body and shed blood through the Holy Spirit on the cross and sprinkled our consciences and cleansed us from evil works to serve before God, Hebrews 9[:14]. And he gave us access to God, took away God’s wrath and placed us in God’s love, made us unspotted and blameless, so that through him we who confess God could offer to him a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips, Hebrews 10[:22], so that we can offer to God our bodies, suffering, lives, and spirits, Romans 12[:1]. We who could do nothing before are now priests through Christ.

This priesthood we have through faith and [C2r] from the glorious knowledge of the priesthood, sacrifice, and blood of Christ. Without faith and outside the knowledge of Christ, we would have none of this. But through our faith are we able, against the sacrifice of Christ, to sacrifice [him] again or to give his body as a food, against the blood of Christ to shed it anew or to give it to someone as a drink? For this reason our priests should not undertake the great things of Christ’s priesthood. They should leave the sacrifice and Christ’s body and blood as they were sacrificed.

And so we have Luther, who through his teaching (for he writes that he can give Christ’s blood to drink bodily in his cup) sets himself and his followers alongside Christ, and they want to make themselves mediators of the new testament equal to the highest priest, having the same office and authority to distribute the body and blood of Christ, to make from the blood of the new testament a blood of the old testament, and from the blood of our spiritual sprinkling a blood of corporeal sprinkling, which is a great, horrible sin, namely an anti-Christian teaching against the blood of the cross and a rebuke to or contempt of the new testament.

Luther isn’t excused if he seems to write something different, since the evil root of his teaching remains, that he boasts so much about the word and says, “The word does it, and we do it in the word.”¹² The devil could also boast that he does this, so that it is clear as day that Luther boasts of the word of God, which he does not have and cannot produce. Luther does not have a syllable in scripture that shows that the blood of Christ in the cup is a blood of the new testament. He has even less from scripture that the cup is a new testament through Christ’s blood that is in the cup as he says, and he has even less from scripture that a priest brings Christ’s blood down from heaven into the cup and can then give it as a blood of the testament.

[C2v] Through this ground (of faith) it is well proven that the cup is not a new testament through the blood that is supposedly in it. Instead, it is through the blood of the cross, through the blood that Christ the priest shed. To say that the cup is a new testament in the blood is to say the same as the cup is a new testament in this death, for the death of Christ belongs to the new testament just as Christ’s shed blood does. The ninth chapter of Hebrews [9:15–28] makes this clear, as do the other apostles who write about the death and shed blood. And this would not follow, that Christ’s death must be in the cup, even if it were written as openly as it is written in a secret but powerful way, “The cup, the new testament in my death.”

From this you cannot conclude, as Luther wants, that the blood must be corporeally in the cup, if the cup is a new testament in the blood or through the blood. See, we are God’s people and a people of the new testament through the blood or in the blood of Christ. But does it follow from this that Christ’s blood must be in us bodily? No, we have faith, and the cup is used as a drinking vessel by us in remembrance of Christ’s shed blood and so the cup is a new testament through the blood.

Now let’s see whether Luther can make use of this text, “The cup, the new testament in my blood” [Luke 22:20]. Let’s unfold the text this way and that, putting the last first and turning it inside out, and see whether Luther has any justification for the teaching that he has built on this foundation.

Let the text stand as it is and affirm, “The cup, the new testament in my blood.” What follows from this? That the Lord’s blood is bodily in the cup? Where do you have scripture? If you answer “here,” how does it say that? Doesn’t it say “in the blood, in the blood.” No? You can read from this only that the [C3r] cup is in the blood, and doesn’t that sound foolish to you and against our minds, reason, and faith? You should know that your unleashed reason sounds much more foolish, bare, wretched, and without scriptural foundation.

For it has all the [same] faults as the belief that the cup is bodily in the blood, and beyond these faults it crumbles before scripture or scriptural assumptions. If you should read “the cup in the blood,” your reading is absurd and against scripture [to say that] the blood is in the cup bodily. To you, I am absurd for saying the cup is bodily in Christ’s blood and therefore it is a new testament, but your understanding is even more absurd to us when you say the cup is a new testament in the blood that is bodily in the cup, for you have abandoned [the wording of] scripture and add to the literal sense another understanding that no one will accept.

If you read the text in this way, “The new testament in the blood is the cup,” won’t that result in a meaning and understanding that no person and no church has ever accepted, namely this: “The cup is in the blood”? This you will note well if you arrange the words, “The new testament is in Christ’s blood.” The cup is the new testament, thus the cup is in Christ’s blood.

If you turn the same statement in this way, “in the blood, the new testament, the cup,” what can you draw from this? This, that the new testament is in the blood, the cup is in the blood, for the cup is a new testament in the blood? Doesn’t this follow? No? Follow? So do you see that this clear scripture overthrows your foundation and takes the blood out of the cup. Where now is the clear sun? Has it paled? Has it gone dark? Where is the thunderbolt? I think that it has fallen into pure nothingness and dreams, and it has caused building and foundation to collapse into a heap, and he should be careful that it doesn’t fall on his head. God sends such weather to those who are ungrateful! Billican will carve out new blood and dream up a blood that he brings into his cup from a new Bible [C3v] that is against the blood of the new testament, against a blood that is useful for something. For he cannot bear that anyone concludes from this and other scripture that blood is not in the cup, and so it is not in it, although he can present no scripture [that says] that the Lord’s blood is in the cup.

I originally preached the cross of grace, and some of the laity have accepted it so well that they conclude that Christ is no longer any use to them in the sacrament. Nor did they ask this nonsense (that the sun shines in all places and Christ is useful in all places), for they know how to speak of the use of Christ’s passion. Then our papists say what Christ’s body and blood do in the sacrament and what use they are to recipients, but they do this so inconsistently that everyone must begin to doubt whether Christ is in the sacrament. Our new papists should also prove that Christ is in their sacrament. But what they do is apparent from our writings that we now discuss. If by insults, slander, swearing, curses, banning, and giving over to the devil they could accomplish anything, they would have won their case, for I don’t want to respond to their mockery.

But I want them to teach me with clear, transparent, and certain scripture that, how, and why Christ is in the sacrament. If they did this, I would gladly be instructed, so gladly that one should see that I wanted to follow without insulting them.

But what should I do? I, who have been attacked by the above-mentioned work as with a thunderbolt and handed over to the devil, I who have shown that this scripture, “the cup, the new testament,” etc., brings the blood out of the cup and who have given it an understanding that no pope can accept. What should I do? I know of no one but God to whom I can complain.

But I will show in two ways that this text, “the cup, the new testament,” etc., does not put the blood in the cup. [C4r] I will twist and turn the text a third time: “The cup is your blood, the new testament.” What follows from this? That the blood is your cup? No? For it must also follow that Christ’s blood is in the cup a new testament, or that through the cup the blood is a new testament. That would sound good, to slander Christ’s new testament, although it conflicts with Luther’s view if it is right. For so the understanding would remain, the cup is in the blood, understood corporeally, for the popes want to have Christ’s blood corporeally in the cup, but since the popes will not accept this, we are even less willing to accept this dream. I fear the popes will lose their place, as they get angry, insist and scream, curse and condemn.

Concerning this article, I must let Christians know that the blood of Christ is a true drink, John 6[:55]. But no Christian should drink this same drink bodily, that is, with mouth and belly, for then the blood of Christ would not be a true drink, but instead [it should be drunk] with the heart in faith. Anyone who knows well the blood of Christ shed on the cross drinks well and his thirst is quenched. As Christ says, “The one who believes in me will never thirst into eternity,” John 6[:54]. I’d like to know what the God-fearing thirst for, if they do not thirst for righteousness? What is the righteousness of the God-fearing? Isn’t it faith and the knowledge of him who washes away many sins, Isaiah 53[:11], 1 John 1[:7]?

Isn’t forgiveness of sins the salvation of believers? Let Paul answer, Romans 3[:24–25] and Romans 8[:1]. Thus, the reason for their thirst for righteousness is that some feel their sins and thirst for sure forgiveness, for God has revealed to them that one who through his shed blood would [C4v] give them sure forgiveness of sins, richly, completely, and sufficiently, with full assurance and eternal peace, Romans 5[:1]. This one is the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth, for God has sealed and sent him, John 6[:27], 9[:4]. Whoever knows Jesus Christ will find in him that his blood is the true blood of the new testament that has been shed for all sins. Then his thirst will be eternally satisfied, for he knows through faith that Christ Jesus of Nazareth is God’s son, who shed his blood through the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins, and he will be satisfied with this. He considers no other redemption and it pains him that some seek their redemption in other things or by other means, as those do who want to be saved through the blood in the sacrament rather than through the shedding on Christ’s cross, that is, through that which Christ says, “The one who believes in me will no longer thirst into eternity,” John 6[:35].

Therefore we must recognize the blood of Christ shed on the cross or truly believe, if the blood is to be our drink, for Christ lifted up his blood on the cross and poured it out as a spiritual drink, just as he raised up his flesh, given on the cross for the life of the world as a true food, John 3[:14–15], John 6[:51], John 12[:32]. If we should recognize the blood of Christ shed on the cross as our spiritual drink, then we must draw near with faith and in our hearts, Hebrews 10[:21–22], Romans 3[:24–25]. Then the inner and not the outer man must approach it. Is this true? Yes, and if it is true, then it is a false dream and a lie that the blood of Christ is our bodily drink, as Luther teaches.

Here the pope rebukes Christ. Christ says we should drink in our hearts and in faith, but the pope says you should drink with your mouth. Christ says, “You should listen to and learn from the Father and so come to me.” Luther says, “You should listen to me and come to the blood in the cup.” [D1r] Christ says that his blood is a true drink, that is, a drink of eternal salvation and of eternal life before God, for it is a spiritual drink, but Luther says, “The blood in the cup is not a true drink and is not a drink of salvation and of life before God, but instead you should drink Christ’s blood bodily from our cup.”

The blood in the cup is a blood of a new testament, although it does not forgive sins or give birth to a spiritual life. It is, it is a common blood that Judas the betrayer, Pilate, Herod, and the murdering priests drink. What comes from this? What? Not that? That Christ said wrongly that his blood is a true drink of life? And that the Truth lied, who says, “Whoever drinks the blood remains in me” [John 6:56] and, “Whoever drinks has eternal life” [John 6:54]? And that Jesus did not know what he was saying when he said, “No one comes to me but only those whom my father draws” [John 6:44]? But Luther writes against Christ and not against me, and especially he writes against the blood of Christ when he writes that the blood of Christ is a corporeal or false or Iscariotic¹³ drink, for this little stream bubbles from this spring, the blood of Christ (in the priests’ cup); it is a corporeal drink in which Judas the betrayer of Christ had fellowship. But Luther has found this spring and dug it up, and so it is his poisonous water that tries to wash away the ground of the cross of Christ, but he will be dashed on the hard rock. Believe me, we do not have sand or gravel or stones but instead a pure, hard, and true rock, as he knows and will come to realize.

If Luther does no other harm to Christendom, it would still be truly great and horrifying that he makes of the true drink a false drink, and from a spiritual drink a corporeal one, from a drink of life a drink of death, from a drink [D1v] of the elect a drink of the condemned. And he rejects Christ, who says publicly that his blood is a true drink, John 6[:55] and 1 John 1[:6], who says that those who have fellowship in Christ’s blood have no fellowship with sins, but that those who have fellowship with sins do not drink Christ’s blood. In addition I would boast of something from John 12[:35], if it were necessary. Christ’s teaching has one end, and St. John says enough at this place to shut Luther’s mouth, as it is now shut before God and will soon be stopped up more powerfully or fiercely.

Luther has now been revealed as writing something other than the truth about Christ’s blood, and he wants to make Christ’s blood into a corporeal, unspiritual, powerless, and spiritless drink, to dishonor Christ and to disgrace his blood. So beware of his teaching, see that his rhetoric doesn’t lead you astray, don’t concede that Christ (John 6[:53–56]) did not write sufficiently about drinking his blood.

Beware and do not make the blood in the priests’ cup into a blood of the old testament as Luther does, who gives it bodily to drink, who lets it seem like the blood of the new testament in name but at root and at base he robs of all worthiness the dear, noble, precious blood shed for us. He takes from the blood the spirit, the power, the might, the perfection, the use, and the name of new testament, and [he does this] to his own harm and to the condemnation of all who sit on the beast that he rides. I write as I understand it, without wishing that anyone fall under God’s wrath, and I don’t know anything different. And I ask God daily for his grace, that he will not let me write anything except his truth and that he will reveal it to me if I err. But the more I consider, reflect, and think about it, and the more firmly and constantly I hold to it with prayer and supplication, the more [D2r] I get around the desires of the devil, who has made Christians think that they receive assistance from the sacramental essence of Christ when they receive the body and the blood of Christ bodily through the sacrament.

May the Father of all mercy enlighten us, teach the right foundation, and maintain us in his firm peace, Amen.

LUTHER HAS FAITH in Christ against him and has departed from all scripture. What should I do? What will you do, dear Christian? We must pray for wisdom and strength.

From what is said above, it’s easy to see that these words, “The cup, the new testament in my blood which is shed,” Luke 22[:20], or these, “This is my blood, which is the new testament that is shed for many for forgiveness of sins,” Matthew 26[:28], are necessary, that Christ spoke from necessity, for many reasons. First, because before his end Christ publicly had to proclaim that he was the Messiah, that all the writings of Moses [and] the prophets who prophesied anything about a new testament and the blood of the new testament should be fulfilled and achieve their end in the Lord and in his blood.

Moreover, this was a joyful and a necessary sermon and promise. It was also an office above the office of all prophets and above the office of John the Baptist, for the Baptist pointed to a stranger, but Christ pointed to himself and to his own blood and said, “This is my blood of the new testament, and so that you know that the blood of the new testament is blood, so I say that [it] is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. Hear this new testament, namely the forgiveness of sins. [D2v] So note as well that my blood is the blood that shall be shed for forgiveness of sins. Because right, true, and complete forgiveness will take place through my blood, so my blood of the new testament is blood in which all sins will be forgiven, the consciousness of sin will pass away, and God will no longer consider sins.”

But in its shedding, it is a blood of the testament, for all blood that becomes a blood of the testament must be poured out and sprinkled on the people of the testament. Since a testament without a death is not a testament, so must the blood of the testament be a blood of death, as the blood of Christ on the cross was. For this reason the apostles wrote sometimes about Christ’s death and sometimes about the shedding of blood. This is a strong and sufficient reason that Christ before his end said of his shed blood that it would be the blood of the mediator of the new testament that would be shed for the full and eternal forgiveness of sins and so become a blood of the new testament.

From this argument follows another, that Christ spoke these words about his blood so that we would know how the cup of the Supper would become a new testament; namely, at the time when Christ had shed his blood for forgiveness of sins and his church came together and drank from his cup in true remembrance of the shed blood. As Paul writes to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 11[:23–26], with clear words, “You should do this (as often as you drink it) in remembrance of me.” Paul says shortly before this that the cup is a testament in the blood of Christ. For Paul, this means the same thing as a new testament in my blood, as if another clause were added that says, “that will be shed for the forgiveness of sins” (which the other evangelists stated expressly for our greater and more sure understanding), for we all see what Paul [E1r] calls a new testament, Hebrews 9[:15], 10[:9], 12[:24], 13[:20], why the blood of Christ is a blood of the new testament, namely, because of the forgiveness. He writes about this at length, that the blood of Christ is a blood of the new testament, and he says much about how the blood of Christ must be shed for full forgiveness of the sins of the people of Christ and of God. Everyone sees this in Hebrews 8[:1–7], 9[:15–28], and 10[:11–15], and so the name of Christ corresponds with the death of Christ, Matthew 3[1:21], Philippians 2[:9–10], Luke 24[:26].

Thus the cup is a new testament through the blood or in the blood of the new testament, and we drink from the cup in remembrance of the Christ who died, who shed his blood for us.

Luther cannot accuse me of writing that one should omit such glorious and necessary words about the blood. This is far from my [intention], but it might serve Luther if we shove such words under a bench. It would serve me and the believers in Christ to examine well such words of the Lord and grasp their content. For we grasp that the cup of the Lord is a cup of the new testament through the blood of the cross, which flowed from the body of Christ that hung on the cross. If this same blood is the blood of the new testament, then the cup is a new testament through the blood of the cross and the cup is not a new testament through the blood that is supposedly in it, for even if the blood of Christ were in the cup at the time of the Supper as it was in the body of Christ, the cup would still not have been a new testament because the blood was not yet shed, since the art and character of the blood of the new testament requires that it be shed, as Christ would shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins.

If the blood (which is supposedly in the cup corporeally) makes the cup into a new testament through its corporeal substance, then surely the instruments of Christ’s passion [E1v] such as the whip, the crown [of thorns], the spear, the cross, the earth, and the nails, which Christ’s blood corporeally and visibly adhered to or touched, became a new testament. But who says all these things are a new testament? And if someone did say so, he would have to defend it with scripture if we were to believe him. Since these things aren’t called the new testament, who can confirm, when he wants to call the cup of the Lord a new testament, that it contains the Lord’s blood corporeally?

We call holy scripture the New Testament because it testifies to the new testament, that is, to the death and shed blood and contains the remembrance of death, and not because the death and the shed blood or Christ himself is corporeally contained in it; why not also the Lord’s cup, which the Lord established for us to drink from in his remembrance?

The shed blood on the cross is a blood of the new testament, because Christ shed and offered his blood through the Holy Spirit for us and our sins on the cross, Hebrews 9[:14]. We must direct our remembrance to this. Whoever thinks deeply but doesn’t consider the power of the cross doesn’t think of what he should think about, nor does he think as he should. For Christ clearly said, “that will be shed for you.” Thus someone is guilty of the blood of Christ as often as he drinks from the Lord’s cup without remembrance of Christ’s shed blood, and all other thoughts that you have are in vain if you do not have such remembrance.

From this saying of Christ it also follows that they are fools who call the Lord’s Supper a new testament, especially those who call it a new testament because in this fictitious sacrament Christ supposedly forgives sins or that the power of forgiveness is in the sacrament. For this reason it is a falsehood and a lie even if an angel were to say it. Forgiveness of sins is on the cross. Christ bore our sins, washed them away, and paid for them on the wood [of the cross], 1 Peter 2:[:24], [E2r] Isaiah 53[:4], Colossians 1[:22]. Thus they deny the crucified Christ who call the Lord’s Supper a new testament for the sake of the forgiveness of sins, and they crush the power of Christ’s cross from which alone there is sufficient forgiveness of all sins. But Luther is a master of this error, which harms many people and makes half of the passion or death of Christ fruitless.

But Luther paints his teaching in lovely colors and doesn’t see that he does this or what he does, saying the cup is a new testament for the sake of forgiveness of sins because forgiveness is distributed in it.¹⁴ This is a painted lid without scripture. But isn’t it a lovely color? Isn’t it hypocrisy? If Luther could give us scripture for this, who wouldn’t believe him? Must Luther always lead fools on an ape’s leash? Or is this a profanation of the blood, of the cross, of all men, and even of God? If we didn’t have the Lord’s statement about the blood of the new testament, what could we set against this? What good does Luther have? What must I hear?

But praise God, we have the Lord’s word that is clear and light and powerful to remove this lid and to reveal publicly this nullifier of Christ’s cross. For Christ says, “the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for many,” etc. Don’t both your ears ring with this? Oh, see how they run! I think that this saying crushes what Luther has made up. No? How then? Why didn’t Christ say, “The cup, the new testament in my blood, in which forgiveness of sins is distributed”? Can you answer me? If it is enough that the cup is a new testament because forgiveness is distributed in it (which is still unproven), why then did Christ say, “the blood that is shed,” and not in vain, but shed for us for the forgiveness of sins?

[E2v] But if it is true that the cup is a new testament in the blood that was shed for us for forgiveness, then the other is a lie, that the cup is a new testament for the sake of the distribution of [the forgiveness of] sins. For the distribution is powerless and no testament, but the shedding is powerful, testamentary, and confirmatory. If Luther wants to stand by his book and hold that Christ obtained forgiveness of sins through his shed blood, then he must also confess that the cup is a new testament in obtaining forgiveness of sins. For Christ said that his blood was a blood of the new testament that would be shed for the forgiveness of sins. But then the other [meaning] is rejected, where Luther says “the cup is a new testament” because Christ has distributed [forgiveness of] sins in it. Do you see now, Luther, how I don’t separate these words at all? How your building falls in a heap? How your buttress is wrecked and crushed? How they take the blood out of your cup?

This is one of Luther’s strongest soldiers, who is not only struck down with his own sword but also robbed of all his goods.

I advise you, dear brethren, that you open your eyes, ask God for wisdom, consider well the scriptures, for you will see how at first the scripture seems to support the popes’ errors and only for that reason was it used by one of them whom you consider as a prophet, but when you look rightly in the scripture, won’t you find the pure rock, a sharp sword, and a heavy hammer that simply strikes the sophistry of the new pope to the ground and crushes it?

Anyone who calls the Lord’s Supper a new testament for the sake of the forgiveness of sins that it supposedly contains so powerfully does violence to Christ’s new testament and is an enemy of Christ’s cross; this is shown for the reasons cited above.

[E3r] Now note what results from this fiction, that the cup is a new testament in the blood that it supposedly contains. First, that the blood in the cup is shed for us, and as often as it is shed, so often Christ’s blood makes the cup a new testament? For scripture grants this, that where the blood of the new testament is corporeally, there is the shedding of blood, Hebrews 9[:22]. It follows from this that the priests give the blood of Christ for us when they give us Christ’s blood to drink, for it is administered and [becomes] blood for us and for our sins and for the life of the world, and so whoever gives it must give what goes along with it.

Second, that Christ’s blood must forgive sins anew. They would deny this with their mouths, but they say yes with the root of their error. From this flows the third [error], that the priests offer Christ’s blood so often as they give it to the people to drink, and thus the new popes are as wicked and evil as the old papists; here I cite as my foundation Hebrews 9[:25] and 10[:11].

Fourth, it follows that they want to be mediators of the new testament.

Fifth, that Christ must often die, for where the testament is renewed, there is a renewal of the death, Hebrews 9[:16–17].

Sixth, that the death and the shed blood of Christ was never a death and never the blood of the new testament, Hebrews 9[:25–26].

Seventh, that Christ’s death, sacrifice, and blood is incomplete.

All of this flows from the error of the popes who are equally pious, and all of this a reasonable person can nullify on the basis of Christ’s words (explained above), especially through these words, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins”; “the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Dear brothers, let’s not amuse ourselves [E3v] with scripture against the new testament, for whoever scorns the sacrifice and the blood and testament of Christ or does not heed it, does not have redemption.

I taught before I wrote this pamphlet that every will and promise or assurance from God may be called a testament, such as the promise made to Abraham, Galatians 3[:6], and the Jews as children of the testament, Acts 3[:25].¹⁵ And this promise, “the body will be given for you,” can be a testament. Therefore I do not want to explain this further.