# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1850 05 28_S156
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

156

when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear: that is better than the sacrifice of fools, who consider not that they do evil. Sacrifice is surely a good work; yet it is called evil when the fools who will not hear (that is, the godless or heretics) do it. But much more sharply will the saying, Psalm 50, 16, one day judge and cut them: But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Let that be enough about this; whoever will not hear, let him go his way.

In closing I must add this also. I hear it said that some are moved by this to think that we are one with the fanatics, because in our churches we have let the Elevation*) fall and be omitted, so that we should thereby confess that Christ's body and blood are not in the Sacrament, nor received orally. But the matter stands thus: It happened twenty or twenty-two years ago, when I began to condemn the Mass, and wrote sharply against the papists, that it was not a sacrifice nor our work, but a gift and present or testament of God, which we could not offer to God, but should and must receive from God: just as baptism is not a sacrifice, but a gracious gift of God, etc., I was at that time quite inclined to abolish the Elevation, for the sake of the papists, who held it to be a sacrifice and work, offered by us to God, as they still do, and have done for over six hundred years.

*) The lifting up of the host.

But because at that time our doctrine was new and exceedingly offensive in the whole world, I had to proceed gently, and for the sake of the weak yield much, which I afterward no longer did; so I let the Elevation remain, since it could yet have a good interpretation, as I wrote in the little book de captiuitate babylonica, namely, that it was an old custom, taken from Moses, and continued among the first Christians ever after. For what Moses writes of the Tnupha and Thruma, especially Ex. 35 and 25, every layman can now read in the German Bible, that they were not sacrifices to propitiate God for sin, as the papists held and sold their sacrifices of the Mass in the most shameful manner, etc., but nothing but thank-offerings or thanksgiving for the goods of the land received, etc.

It would also be a fine interpretation that the priest, in lifting up the Sacrament, did nothing else than to make clear the words (this is my body), as if he would say by the deed: Behold, dear Christians, this is the body which is given for you. So that the lifting up would not be a sign of sacrifice toward God (as the papists play the fool), but an admonition toward men, to stir them up to faith, especially since he lifts it up just so, soon after the words (this is my body, given for you), and yet says not one letter about sacrifice therewith. Such a thing you find in the book de captiuitate babylonica.

While I was thus thinking and remaining so, there comes blustering and rumbling against me Hans Unreason, Dr. Carlstadt, with his heavenly prophets, and sends out against us a little book, in which he scolded us Wittenberg Christ-murderers, Christ-crucifiers, new papists, etc., and made it very coarse and unmannerly. He had no other cause than that we lifted up the Sacrament. Such lifting up he interprets as sacrificed. Further, he interprets sacrificed as much as Christ crucified, murdered, slaughtered, and treated far worse than the Jews ever did. Now he knew very well and exceedingly well that we of Wittenberg did not hold the Sacrament to be a sacrifice, but had now for almost three years fought against the papists, that it could neither be nor be called a sacrifice, but a gracious gift and testament of God (as said above), and that we had not to thank him for the doctrine that the Sacrament is no sacrifice: for we had not learned it from him so long before, but he had us to thank, from whom he had learned it: otherwise it would perhaps never have entered his head.

Now when I saw such a mad spirit raging against us, without cause, in that he wanted to make sin for us, and so dreadful a sin, where there was no sin nor could be, I stepped in, and kept the Elevation, in sheer opposition and spite to that same devil, though I was inclined to let it fall, against the papists. For I would not suffer it, and also would not now, that the devil should teach me anything to order or establish in our churches. Especially also for this reason, that a hideous conscience should not be made for me, as if I had murdered, crucified, desecrated Christ, etc., if I kept the Elevation and did not abolish it; as the mad spirit pretended, and that for the sake of such an evil conscience I must and would be compelled to abolish the Elevation. No, no, of such a conscience I was innocent, that I knew for a certainty, and could not take it upon myself, and he knew it well also. For before I would take such a conscience upon me, or load it on myself, that I must for that reason let the Elevation fall, that through it I should count myself a Christ-murderer, crucifier, hangman, I would to this very day not only keep the Elevation, but, where one were not enough, help to set up three, seven, ten elevations. Therefore I wanted to have it free (as indeed it is a free thing, and must be), wherein no sin could be committed, whether one kept it or let it fall.

For this reason the Elevation has remained with us. For what is free, namely neither commanded nor forbidden, wherein one can neither sin nor merit, that shall stand in our power, as subject to our reason, that we may, without any sin and peril of conscience, use or not use, keep and let go, according to our pleasure or necessity; and in a word we would be here free lords, and not servants, who may do with it how, what, where and when they will, and not be compelled to abolish it, under such heavy, great, terrible sin, as Carlstadt's spirit would have it, nor yet to keep it at the loss of the soul's salvation, as the pope's devil wills; but it shall be said: If thou wilt not lift it up, then let it lie; if thou wilt not let it lie, then lift it up. What does God ask about it? what does my conscience ask about it? just as little as the altar asks about it, whether thou liftest it up upon it or layest it down, it is all one to him.

Therefore the enemies of the Sacrament have no cause to boast, as if we did it for their will and service, that we let the Elevation fall. And let no one think that we thereby would incline to their blasphemous error, much less give ourselves over to it; but we would hold them steadfastly and firmly for God's and our own damned enemies, and not deny, defame and pervert Christ's Word along with them, as if we must learn from them to eat bread and drink wine, which we can well do without Christ's Supper, and the whole world daily does without God only too much.

But this is the one cause, that we let the lifting up stand omitted, because almost the greater part of the churches long before had let the lifting up go; so we would conform ourselves to them, and not practise something peculiar in such a matter, which in itself could stand or lie free and without peril of conscience. Especially since I was inclined to it from the beginning, and certainly would have done it at that time, had not Carlstadt made such a dreadful sin of it, as has been said. For where it can otherwise be done without sin and peril, or without offence, it is quite fine that the churches, also in outward matters which are yet free, agree with one another, as they agree in spirit, faith, word, sacrament, etc. For such a thing is seemly, and pleases everyone well.

Also for this reason, that such inequality, because it is unnecessary, looks very like a schism,*) disunion or separation of hearts. For from the beginning of the churches the ceremonies have caused much ill will in the churches; as, the feast of Easter caused such a stir that few churches were of one mind about it with one another. And the bishop at Rome, Victor, put under the ban all the churches in Greece and toward the East, because they did not keep Easter on the same day with the Roman church. But he was rebuked by the bishop at Lyons, Irenaeus, so that he had to desist, and leave to each church its manner and day for the Easter feast, since it could not be made to agree without peril and offence, and there was no peril in it whether Rome kept Easter on one day, and the Greeks also on another.

*) Division.

Of such things there are many more, wherein the Greeks have not agreed with the Romans, and do not agree yet. And the bishopric of Milan does so to this day, which yet