The actions of the disputation in Bern.
19. plot or acta of the disputation held at Bern in the Uchtland. January 6-26, 1528.
This writing was written by Franciscus Kolb and Berchtold Haller, preachers at Bern, who had also put forward the ten theses for the disputation, in 1528, and printed in quarto at Strasbourg. According to this first edition, Walch has reproduced it exactly, only he has "departed from the old orthography in some pieces". Still in the same year D. Eck let go out a "Verlegung der Disputation zu Bern mit Grund göttlicher Schrift" etc. The complete title is found in von der Hardts nutoA. Imtk., tora. II, p. 148.
Rathschlag and announcement of this disputation.
We, the Schultheiss, the small and large council, together with the two hundred of the city of Bern, offer our sincerest condolences to all and sundry, clergy and secular, prelates, elders, provosts, deans, canons, priests, pastors, ministers, caplains, vicars, helpers, "proclaimers" of the Word of God, and to all other priests, lay and religious people-, as well as to our mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, governors, free men, bailiffs, women and other officials, and also to our dear faithful, inhabitants of our cities, lands and territories, and to those who belong to our administration, no one excluded, to whom this letter is addressed, our favorable greeting, and all good things beforehand!
And hereby admit you to know: Although we have previously issued many and various mandates on account of the division of faith, the hope and confidence that such should and would serve peace, tranquility and Christian unity, this has not yet brought so much fruit, because for and for discord, dissension, repugnant opinions and unequal understanding have broken out, and unequal understanding have broken out, flowing from the fact that the preachers everywhere in our cities, countries and territories use unequal interpretation and teaching in the proclamation of the Word of God, so that one party adheres to this, and the other to the other, and each one, what is agreeable to him, is disobedient and disliked by the other.
The fact that the Church is due to protect, handle and protect, unmeasured and unweighed divine truth and the simple opinion of the true Christian faith, gives birth to the disruption of brotherly love and Christian unity, so that from it arise pernicious harm to body, soul, honor and good, and apostasy to the common good, pious nature and status, and also tyrannical government.
To approach all this with the help and grace of the Almighty, and to penetrate the foundation of divine truth, Christian understanding and faith, and to live up to it, to plant and practice righteous worship, founded in divine Scripture, and to purify the statutes of men (so that one honors God in vain): With well-considered unanimous council, we have decided on a common discussion and disputation to be held here in our city of Berne, 1) and have therefore set a rescheduled 2) time: namely, next Sunday after the New Year's Day, next coming [5. Jan. 1528], everyone is to be at the inn at night, [in] the following days to carry out the disputation. To which we have first described the four bishops, named those of Constance, Basel, Wallis and Lausanne, whose bishoprics extend into our cities and country, that they, in their own persons, by reason of their office, as chief pastors and shepherds, They are to appear here in their own persons, as chief pastors and shepherds, whom they wish to be respected and held, and to bring their scholars with them in the word of God, and to urge them to debate, and by no means to refrain from doing so, forfeiting all that they, for the sake of episcopal office and dignity, have left behind.
Accordingly, written notice is sent to all and every one of our dear faithful confederates and allies, of cities and countries, to order their scholars, ecclesiastical and secular, to which party they are nevertheless attached, for the sake of faith, to the disputation and to settle it: whether with divine help and grace the common confederation, as before with oath duties (as far as
1) "angesechen" - set.
2) "curved" - mentioned.
The following is agreed upon: (1) to bring the true Christian faith and righteous worship into unity, so that the glory of God may be promoted and preserved, and thus the welfare of the common Christianity may be promoted and preserved; In spite of the disputation held at Baden in the Ergeüw [Aargau], not enough has happened to us and to you for this reason, so that we 2) may not have obtained the Acts of the same, as they have been spoken of in the pens, on manifold subsequent advertisements, nor is there any less perseverance in the disputation of faith. However, we do not want to presume or understand to force our dear oath-takers and confederates in general or in particular to adhere to what is decided at this disputation, nor to urge them from their actions.
So then we have actually eloquently and finally decided that in this discussion no other scripture, but both New and Old Testament, so biblically genamet and is God's word. Instead, the pure, clear, and clear Word of God should be used in this discussion, and that it should not be overpowered or explained by teachers' understanding and interpretation, whichever they are; only biblical Scripture should be explained, interpreted, and compared with biblical Scripture, and the dark should be illuminated with the light; Nor is anyone to judge about it but the divine Scriptures themselves alone, which are the guide, cord, foundation, and certain judge of the true Christian faith, upon which and according to which every Christian man should direct, place, and build his faith and trust, putting all men's trumpery, cleverness, subtlety, own discretion, and opinion behind it.
And in order that this dispute may be carried out all the more effectively, we want all of you and everyone else in particular to receive, hold and leave all males who wish to come here in a friendly manner, and not to allow any insult, neither to body nor to goods, neither with words nor with deeds. For we have promised everyone, strangers and locals, free, safe conduct, peace and perfect security here to us, and again here to his custody (as far as our territory and dominions extend), and want to keep it firmly.
And sintemal present conversation mainly us and you to good, also to inform,
1) "seedlike" - altogether, wholly, absolutely.
2) "we" put by us instead of: "us", and immediately following: "obtain" instead of: "demand".
Decision and agreement: we want all pastors, ministers, those who undertake preaching, and all others, spiritual or secular, who are responsible for the pastoral care and shepherding of Christ's sheep, and who live in our cities, countries and territories, regardless of which party they belong to, to dispose of the scheduled disputation and hold a discussion, upon forfeiture of their benefices. And so that only the final speeches, which will be discussed, may be remembered, and so that they may be discussed in good time, we send them to you herewith. At the same time, we leave free access to all other priests and laymen who wish to debate, so that they may do so.
Furthermore, we have provided for the formal introduction and fruitful discussion of this debate: that no one, spiritual or secular, whoever or whence he may be, shall submit to this disputation, nor to noble fornication, sedition, strife or quarreling, nor to any violence, dishonor or blasphemy, either in word or deed, but that everyone shall show himself virtuous, friendly and kind, and hold himself as dear to him as he is to avoid our disgrace and severe punishment, both to body and goods. That everyone who speaks may speak the truth freely, unconcealed, unobstructed, without any concern, and that no one should fear or despise it. However, that all scandalous and schmitz words, also useless, haderic gossip (so that the truth is obscured and suppressed, and time is lost) be avoided. And what is then proven, proved, preserved, agreed upon, accepted, and decided to be kept, with divine biblical scripture (as above) at such disputation, that shall have strength and eternity without all means and contradiction, and we and you shall also comply with it strictly and live, handling each other with all means (as much as God gives grace), and not allow anyone among us and you to speak, practice, do or act against it, secretly or publicly, that might serve to undermine and invalidate it, but to keep it for us and our eternal descendants always, firmly, unbreakably and faithfully. All sin, guile, danger, evasion, shield, help, and what might be contrary thereto, excluded.
In witness whereof, for perpetuity and perpetual continuance, it is sealed with our imprinted seal of secrecy. Done Sunday, the 17th day of the winter month [November]. After the incarnation of Christ Jesus our Savior, counted 1527 years.
[Theses for disputation.]
About these following final speeches we, Franciscus Kolb and Berchtoldus Haller, both preachers at Bern, together with others, who are passing away the Gospel, 1) want to give each one, with God, answer and report, from holy biblical scriptures Old and New Testament, on the set day at Bern, Sunday after Oireurueisiouis s5. Jan.j, in the year 1528.
I. The holy Christian Church, whose one Head is Christ, is born from the Word of God; in the same she abides, and does not hear the voice of a stranger.
The Church of Christ does not make laws and commandments without the Word of God. Therefore all statutes of men, if they imitate the commandments of the church, bind us no further than they are founded and commanded in the divine word.
III. Christ is our only wisdom, righteousness, redemption and payment for all the sin of the world. Therefore, to confess another merit of salvation and satisfaction for sin is to deny Christ.
IV. That the body and blood of Christ are received substantially and bodily in the bread of thanksgiving may not be taught by Scripture.
V. The custom of offering Christ to God the Father for the sin of the living and the dead is contrary to Scripture; to the most holy sacrifice, suffering and death of Christ, it is blasphemy, and for the sake of abuses, an abomination before God.
VI. As Christ died for us alone, so he is to be called a unique mediator and intercessor 3) between God the Father and us believers. Therefore, all other mediators and intercessors, called outside of this time, 4) are raised by us without reason of Scripture.
VII That after this time no purgatory is found in Scripture. Therefore, all services for the dead, such as vigils, masses, Seelgeräth, Siebent, Tryßgost, 5) Jahrzeit, traffic lights, candles and the like, are in vain.
1) "lapse" - affirm, confess.
2) In the old edition erroneously: "one" instead of "one", as results from the following disputation about this thesis. Merit is used here masculinely.
3) In the old edition: "Fürsprach" and immediately following: "Fürsprachen". For our change, compare St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 1117 and 1528, § 90, where Zwingli explains the word "Fürsprechen" by Advocaten.
4) "outside this time", that is, who are no longer in this temporality.
5) "Tryßgost" will be the same as "Thirtieth", Trigesimä, thirty masses for the dead.
VIII. Making images for worship is against God's Word, New and Old Testament. Therefore, where they are presented in danger of worship, they are to be discarded.
IX. Holy matrimony is not forbidden to any estate in Scripture, but, to avoid fornication and unchastity, is commanded to all estates.
X. Since, according to the Scriptures, a public fornicator is under a real ban, it follows that fornication and whoredom, for the sake of offense, are not more harmful to any state than to the priestly.
All in honor of God and His holy word.
Preface.
Let it be known and evident to all and every devout Christian that we, the mayor, councilors and citizens of the city of Bern in the Uchtland, have been moved by many and various causes to hold this present discussion, which are now more or less included in the preceding mandate of the announcement, asking the Christian reader and listener not to take offense at this transaction, nor to regard it with suspicion. God knows that for our sake and ours the unavoidable need has called for this, we are silent about the others. And therefore we have let such a deal, drawn from the four original books of the notaries who received the acts in pen, go out in print; so that no one will be able to force or deceive anyone into accepting our advice, for only as much as the grace of God shows and admonishes each one. We have also made a reformation on this, which we and ours will live by, only asking and exhorting men to observe these acts with a Christian mind and heart, and not to touch any form or way shamefully or contemptuously. We also do not want to let up on any matter, nor do we want to allow them to be printed in a language other than German, without our favor, knowledge and will. Let only Christian opinion (as it is done) take this from us. Hereby be the peace and grace of God with us all!
Order of this disputation, and what has happened in the meantime.
Is to be noted of the first: When the appointed day of this conversation, namely, Monday the 6. 6) Januarii, Anno etc. 28 appeared, the same day the first call and meeting in the Barfüßer-
6) In Walch's old edition erroneously: "4.", because in 1528 Monday was January 6. The correction also results from the second following caption.
The meeting was held in the church before a male audience, after noon. And at the beginning, all the men who were present were received with friendly greetings and fraternally. The above-mentioned mandate is publicly read out; accordingly, the order of this meeting. First of all, the presidents' orders, who have sworn in good faith to be obedient to the order indicated to them.
Accordingly, to curb and quell all wanton quarrels and strife, and not to permit all lavish gossip and what has no basis in the Word of God.
Item, the things, so once been on the track, and been answered for, no longer without necessity to seize 1) nor [to] let [bring] forward, to avoid wanton prolongation.
However, not to judge, judge nor recognize anything about the final speeches, their content, argument and scripture, which would be presented against or for them, but to keep in all action according to the mandate sent out. Let the holy biblical scripture judge itself by name, and let the dark one explain itself with the light one.
And these are the presidents, the high and well learned, venerable, ecclesiastics: Mr. Joachim von Watt, Mayor of Sanct Gallen, Doctor. Provost of Inderlappen. Master Niclaus Brieffer, Dean of St. Peter in Basel. And after several sessions, when Mr. Provost of Jnderlappen resigned due to illness, two others were appointed in his place, namely Mr. Abbot of Gottstatt, and Master Cunrad Schmid, Commenthür at Küßnacht in the Zurich area. The four have, until the end of the conversation, decayed the presidency.
The four appointed clerks, namely both city clerks of Bern and Solothurn, court clerk of Bern, and city clerk of Thun, have also sworn on oath in Mr. Schultheiss of Bern's hand that they will faithfully record, regardless of party, sect, favor, enmity, love, etc. everything that is spoken into the pen, also put into writing, without danger; also to administer what they are ordered to do.
They also marked each disputant by name, and after each session they collated everything that was ever recorded, held it against each other and read it out.
To this, what the disputants of both sides, from' the president's estate, put in writing, the
1) that is, repeat.
The scribes have written in the acts, with the exception of two protests, namely Fridli Brunner of Glaris, and Melchior Thilman of Lucerne, whose report is described soon after etc. Likewise, several speeches that came into the pen, but were deleted by consent of both parties. Also omitted are the several protestations that did not come into the pen. Likewise, the signatures of both parties are not included here, so that the acts would be the more embellished, and the reader, as well as the listener, would not be annoyed; also the things that are not at all useful to the matter to be read and heard, and in the acts only those things that serve the business are included. What the four clerks did further, can be found in the presidential agreement, so far as described at the end of these acts.
In addition, everyone is permitted and allowed to record what has been discussed, but with the understanding that all those who wrote for themselves would give their names to the appointed notaries, and at the same time vow that they will not print anything they record, before which the Acts also went out. Also not to write anything against the acts. If, however, there was an error in the acts, then they should report it amicably to the authorities in Bern. Item, that they are not rented nor underhanded, or some way maliciously introduced, but only want to write for the good of the truth.
The Disputirenden Order.
That those who are left to argue speak tamely, sittig, and basically 2) so that the four notaries may write the words in the same way.
That no one should speak without the permission of the presidents, or, if they asked around in the original question and allowed to speak.
Also, for the good and promotion of truth, it has not been denied to anyone to speak with order, and thus, for the handling of truth, it has only been permitted to jump to the aid of each respondent and opponent.
In addition, it is permitted (as stated in the Act) for both parties that each may be helpful and advisable to the other, to give written or oral support. Also that each party may appoint one, two, three, or more of the most learned and skillful to debate, answer, speak, and counter-speak on their behalf. And have therefore been admonished to do so at all sessions, and have been called especially at the beginning of each article.
2) sentence by sentence?
to give themselves to the appointed scribes, before those who would be willing to oppose the conclusions. However, no one was forced to sign for this or that party, but only his free will was left.
It is also proclaimed for and for in the resolution of each article morden, whether someone more available, who wants to speak further to it or -against etc.
And so, on both sides (as first stated), those who wanted to refute the articles, all or some, and also those who recognized them to be just and Christian, signed each to his own liking. For brevity's sake (as mentioned above), it is not necessary to name each one by name; God knows who trusts His word, for He alone knows the hearts of men.
It is also to be known that at the beginning of the discussion a public summoning took place of all those who had been described and kindly invited to this discussion, according to the invitation. First, the four bishops of Constance, Basel, Wallis and Losan [Lausanne] were summoned one after the other, whether they, or someone of theirs, would be present: no one answered, but all four excused themselves in writing for their absence; about this, in due time, an answer should be given, and especially to Losan's manifold letter, because the same, also his scholars, have been asked and requested several times by an authority in Bern to submit to this disputation. And although some of his doctors were there, they did not let themselves be noticed in any form, but left more silent than fish; so that one can see how little such shepherds of the Christian herd care for their flocks. God be lamented!
According to the order, the places of the Confederation and their relatives from cities and countries are called. And were present: From Zurich an honorable council and many of their scholars, pastors and preachers, from their city and country. From Lucerne no one (although they were especially requested by an honorable council of Bern etc. to bring their pastor, Doctor Thoman Murrnar, to this disputation, with attribution of a sufficient escort. That however nothing has shot, over its high praise and Erbieten). From Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug nobody. From Glaris some, with name Fridli Brunner, priest at Matt (has publicly confessed, how he would be present from estate of his masters in his expenses, and would have preached at Glaris, the mass to be an abomination before God etc. Therefore he also confessed of it. And when he was
He said that he wanted to come to this disputation, that he had appeared before his masters earlier, and that he had demanded the pastor of Glaris together with his co-adherents 1) to come here, and to give account to his teaching. Now if they are not present, he wants to listen whether someone may overturn the articles with biblical scripture or not etc., and recognize the first closing speech as Christian, and founded in the word of God). From Basel a respectable council message, and many learned men, preachers and pastors etc. From Freiburg the Provincial; what he spoke is found in Actis. From Schafhausen Heinricus Lincky etc. From Appenzell those who are named in Actis. From St. Gallen a councilor, and other scholars etc. From Viel several. Of Mühlhausen two Predicants. From Rotweil no one. And Georg Nüwdorffer, prior to the preachers of Rotweil, has been required, because he sent a booklet against the ten final speeches to an authority in Bern before this disputation, which should also be answered in due time, when it would be printed; and although a written request was sent to his lords, the mayor and council of Rotweil, that he be allowed to pay costs in the city of Bern, he still failed to appear etc. Of the three Grey League members. 2) Melchior Thilman of Lucern, preacher and head of the parish of Yenatz in Brätigouw, has come here at the behest of his church; he has publicly offered to give a manly answer to his doctrine and preaching, and especially to those who have scolded him and his doctrine, to some of whom he has denied his tradition 2c, protesting to preserve his doctrine with holy scripture etc. Accordingly, those from outer cities were summoned, and were present: from Constance a council and two preachers; from Strasbourg, who are named in Actis; from Augsburg several special persons; from Ulm, from Memmingen, from Lindau, from Jßnach several. After all this, a common proclamation was made, if someone from other cities and countries were present, he would step forward and be given place. Finally, the prelates, pastors, and all their clergy, according to order, are required of the city and country of Bern. They must all be present and remain until the end of the disputation.
It is also to be known that in the beginning of each session a common prayer is made that God will
1) "Mithasten" == Colleagues.
2) Something seems to be missing here; perhaps "nobody".
3) "Kilchöry" == Kirchspiel. == Zwingli speaks: "Kirchhöre".
the Almighty wanted to bestow the right, true understanding of his holy word etc.
Then it is to be noted that this disputation has suffered a lot of confrontation, and that it has been subjected by many to prevent it; as by some places of the Confederation, which then have let a missive go out against it, but about it has been answered sufficiently. Furthermore, Doctor Johannes Eck has attacked this disputation with a disgraceful letter, in which he has made his envious heart known, and has stuck out his viper's tongue much more than he has shown Christian love and warning, and has burdened the honor of the Christian authorities of the city of Bern with untruth, and has acted in such an inhumane way that it is not worthy of responsibility. God grant him knowledge of himself! Then Cocleus has also invented several writings to hinder this conversation, which shall be answered in due time. The terrible heroes have done well, but they have not succeeded, for the splendor of the word of God has blinded them, and worldly honor has clogged them. Avarice has surrounded them, and the endchristian statutes have completely engulfed them. Every devout Christian may well think about what they have done.
About which everything, and what might still be written, spoken and pronounced against this disputation, in order to reduce these acts, will (if God wills!) be answered with glimpses and fugues everywhere, beforehand for the handling of the honor of God and His holy word, and the destruction of present Christian trade, also the salvation and preservation of the honor of the pious Christian authorities at Bern.
Furthermore, it is to be known that when the Welsche Disputation was coming to an end, a Welsch doctor appeared, and several Welsch priests conceded to him, who disputed the ten final speeches, and Guilielmus Pharellus, predicant at Elenn, answered him about them. Will also go out in print in Latin in time. This is a brief summary of the order of this disputation and what has happened in the meantime. The rest is explicitly stated in Actis. Everything is ordered to the Christian readers and listeners!
At the beginning of this disputation, and in the first session held on Tuesday in the morning, the seventh day of the month of Jenner, after the birth of Christ our Savior, counted fifteen hundred twenty and eight years, the learned Doctor Joachim von Watt, Mayor of Sant Gallen, made the following speech in the name of the presidents:
Venerable, high and well-souled, strict, noble, sestet, pious, prudent, wise, gracious and
Favorable gentlemen, dear and good friends! Since we are assembled today, at the entrance of the laudable and Christian disputation, which my gracious lords, sheriff and councilors of this laudable city of Bern, have announced, to begin in the name of God: My lords, the co-presidents, especially, kindly request that all foreigners and natives, for the sake of God's honor and love of His word (to which all good-natured hearts should be inclined), do and send themselves peacefully, kindly and with earnest note, to see that the trade is not shameful, but great and concerns the salvation of our souls. In particular, however, my lords, the presidents, request that all those who are willing and composed to debate, 1) first of all, faithfully observe with diligence and care the mandate that has gone out and all the rules that have been read out for the benefit of the discussion from yesterday's meeting by the town clerk, out of respect for the gentlemen. For if this did not happen, they would (that they would like to refrain from) speak into it, and instruct and admonish the transgressors, in the good hope that no one would proceed otherwise, than would be convenient and in accordance with the business of this laudable disputation and my gracious lords of Bern's mandates, orders and decrees (as they compared themselves with the Scriptures). In this way, you, my lords, the preachers, may take the first final speech in the Lord's name into your own hands, according to your commandment, and fix it with scripture, so that the lords, ecclesiastical or secular, who think to oppose it, may be given cause to dispute:
Meister Franzen Kolben, Prädicanten zu Bern, Preface.
Grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, amen! Ye elect men and brethren in Christ! Although it can be seen in many ways in all the world that God is almost angry with us, He nevertheless shows us special great grace, for which we cannot be grateful enough to Him, in that He is now moving all the world to ask about the truth and to take care of errors. Therefore, without any doubt, not without a special effect of the Holy Spirit, our prudent, wise and gracious lords, councils and citizens of this laudable city of Bern are moved,
1) "themselves" set by us instead of: "they".
2) "Uebertretenden" put by us instead of: "über Irrenden".
to kindly describe you, honorable, highly learned, Christian gentlemen and brothers, to find out certain truth from you, so that men everywhere may come to rest in their consciences toward God, and to good peace among themselves. Now, to comply with this, we unworthy ministers and preachers of the holy Gospel, my brother Berchtold and I, are required to give account of our faith and preaching, that we, together with all those who confess the Gospel, are obligated to answer and to prove with mighty writing, according to the order of excellent articles, also all speeches that might follow from it. St. Paul also bids us not to be quarrelsome, but perfectly of one mind, of one opinion, and that every one of the gift or art which God has given him not despise anyone proudly and puffed up (quia scientia inflat [for knowledge puffs up]), but in Christian love (quae sola aedificat [which alone edifies]) bear one another's burdens, one serving the other. We are also comforted by our dear Lord Jesus Christ, who says in Matthew 7:7: "Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." Of this I exhort you, all the elect, God's friends, to humble your hearts before God, and confess with me, saying: I poor sinful man etc. Our Father etc. Hail Mary etc. We also testify herewith that we do not want to act against any article of our old Christian faith, which reads: "I believe in God the Father" etc. We have also taken nothing before us against the simple use of the night meal of our Lord Jesus Christ, which until now has been called the mass. Oixi.
The first closing speech, and of the same reasons, has opened Berchtoldus Haller, Predicant at Bern.
The holy Christian Church, whose one head is Christ, is born from the Word of God; it remains in the same, and does not listen to the voice of a stranger.
Grace and peace from God, our heavenly Father, who may send us His light and truth into our hearts, so that we may all be introduced into true knowledge of our most noble Lord Jesus Christ, crucified! Amen.
Beloved devout Christians! Of the concluding speeches, so reported and accounted for by us in the present biennium, we are required to give before such a laudable assembly, is the first: The Holy Christian Church etc. Such then
To present your love has caused us: First, that the common people do not understand to a greater extent what the name [church] carries on them. Secondly, that all the ignorance of the people is not properly used, which is divided into various churches, now representing and referring to a general one, then to an assembly (indicating the church), and has led to special persons, the cardinals, bishops and popes.
Thirdly, that through such pretensions much error, commandment and prohibition, and also false worship, have taken hold, and this to the great detriment of divine truth, Christian faith and love.
Fourthly, that not only under the pretense of the title and name of the church], 2) do they acquire temporal good, even the best [goods], (which would be tolerated), but also presume to rule over the souls and consciences of men.
Fifth, that many have protected themselves under the appearance, title and name of the church, against the bright word of God, opposing the posse and vesture of the churches. These and the like, which are in common speech every day, have moved us to understand with this final speech all that the Lord has given us to teach from the treasure of divine Scripture. So that I now understand what the name "church" carries on it, all scholars know that the word xxxxxxxx Ecclesia, Greek,
in German means an assembly. As we have 4 Mos. 20, 4: "Why did [you] carry out the congregation of the Lord into the wilderness?" Here you see that not particular persons, but a whole congregation of the children of Israel, is called a church. Therefore the Scripture calls the assembly of good and bad, few and many, one church. As Paul writes to the church that is in Corinth, 1 Cor. 1, and gives Christ to present to the church the sinner who twice admonishes and does not amend. Thus he compares it to the field of good seed and tares, both of which he calls to grow until the time of harvest; likewise to the net that sows evil and good fish. So also the Scripture uses the name of the church for the common assembly of all believers in Christ, who are provided for life; which church Christ promises to build, strengthen and establish on the rock, which He Himself is, Matth. 16. This church the Scripture calls a dove, Hohel. 2,
1) "sämlicher" - such, put by us instead of: "sömlicher". Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 644 and 679, § 74.
2) Added by us according to the analogy of the next paragraph.
a Gespons, John 3, a body of Christ, Ephesians 4, and in our ancient faith "a communion of saints," which explains the preceding words; since all devout Christians understand that the communion of believers is the church. Now every community has something in common, as a common citizenry has in common its rights, liberties, and the like. So also the holy Christian church has its community, as Paul says to the Ephesians on the 4th [v. 4. ff.]: "One body and one Spirit, One Lord, One faith, One baptism, One God and Father of us all." Sb many therefore, being scattered abroad, having fellowship in this, make one Church of God." The head of this church is Christ, Eph. 5, 22. f.: "Ye wives ought to obey your husbands, as unto the Lord: for the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of his church, and he is the Saviour of his body." As therefore the husband is a prince and leader, a ruler, a governor and shepherd of his wife, and has all goods in common with her; tolerating her also in all weakness, as the wicked creatures: so Christ is a prince and leader and ruler, Isa. 55. Ezek. 37, a governor and protector of his sponsors, the church, and thus of all who hope in him, and may have compassion on us in all our weakness, Heb. 4. For since God presented his one and only Son for us, how could he not have given us all things with him? Rom. 8: And as the salvation of the body is in the administration of the head, so also the salvation and life of all believers is in Christ, for he is the Savior of his body. And as the members are powerless, and can do nothing without the administration of the head, so also the members of the body of Christ, the church, can do nothing without Christ. For just as the vine bears no fruit unless it remains united to the vine, so also we, if we are not united to the headship of Christ, will bear no fruit, for without him we can do nothing. John 15: Therefore let every man understand that no creature can be such a head of the church, pouring into our hearts the goods and gifts of God, strengthening us, comforting us, guiding us, governing us, and being a Savior of the body of Christ.
This church was born from the Word of God, even though God created it from eternity before the world was created; however, it was born from the inward Word of God, from the Word of faith, Romans 10, which makes God alive and active and speaks into our hearts, which is also in truth no different from that which is preached outwardly or written in Scripture. This
Calling, enlightenment and renewal of hearts I call [the] birth of the church, 1 Pet. 1: "Love one another fervently from a pure heart, as those who have been born again, not of a mortal seed, but of an immortal, through the words of the living God, who abides forever." For the spiritual birth of the Church must also be of a seed: which is not flesh and blood, nor the will of man, John 1, nor corruptible, but the eternal and living Word of God, whereby our souls live, are renewed, and are born again, if the Spirit of God plants it in our hearts; for they are ever the words of eternal life, John 6. 6 And as it is enlightened, renewed and born again from the word of God, so it abides in Him, cleaves to Him alone, and heeds not the voice of the stranger. This is what Christ testifies with the likeness of the shepherd and the sheep, John 10:10. The sheep follow him, because they recognize, let them like his voice, because they are assured by the Holy Spirit, 2 Cor. 1:21, 22. and 5:5. They will also not follow the voice of the stranger, because they do not recognize his voice. And again, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give them eternal life; they shall not perish for ever; neither shall any pluck them out of my hand."
Thus it is evident what the Scriptures call the church, namely the assembly, not of cardinals, bishops, and spiritual courtiers, but of those who trust and believe in God through Christ. Item: that neither the pope, nor any creature, may be the head of the church, but Christ alone, from whose word it was born, by which it remains, and does not admit the voice of a stranger. These are some of the reasons for the church, for its headship, doctrine and conduct, shown from the word of God. Whichever of them will or may tell us otherwise, from the word of God, we will hear. And if anyone considers this present assembly, which was held by the council of our gracious lords of Bern, in the name of God, for the advancement of the glory of God in Bern and all the present brethren, to be unchristian or of an unjust nature, we are also prepared to answer for this. Now may his God prevail!
According to this, all scholars and unscholars, spiritual and secular, have been called. Locals and foreigners, according to the order as the preface expresses it etc. Here, for the sake of brevity, it is omitted to enroll those who stood up, and the first closing speech was considered good and Christian, also those who dared to fight back etc.
Doctor Johans Hußschyn, 1) from the estate of the Presidents.
Since there are many who attract us as apostates from the holy Christian commonwealth, which we consider to be the most abominable vice that can be inflicted on a Christian, therefore, with a short time I wish to answer for it. Every Christian is entitled to conduct his life in such a way as he dares to answer for it on the last day, and to have greater regard for the judgment of God than of men. For if we want to please men, we will not be Christ's servants. Now there is another judgment of God, and another judgment of men; therefore it behooveth us all to take heed, that we be in the church which is called of Christ, and not evil in the mixed churches; as we find by all the prophets and scriptures that the city of God is called Jerusalem a holy city, because of the inhabitants thereof; and again, spiritually Sodoma and Aegyptus. Now these have not been apostates from Jerusalem, the holy city of God, who have not given themselves up to idolatry or been defiled with unrighteousness. So also now they shall not be counted as apostates from the Christian community, who in faith persevere in Christ, and for Christ's sake bear love toward the male; it is impossible that such should not be citizens in the Christian community. I do not call this faith knowledge of all the particular things in Scripture, but trust in God and in Jesus Christ, His messenger, by which faith one is ready to hear the word of God, and so with such eagerness that one desires to leave the whole world before this faith in Christ. If we then desire to confess and spread such faith, and give credence to the word of God in all places, we are sure that no banishment of men shall cut us off from the book of the living, or count us as apostates from Christian commonwealth, first of all because we are eager to adhere to all the members of Christ with true love.
Alexius Grat, Order of Preachers, confessor in the Isel at Bern.
The holy common Christian Church, whose one head is Christ, is born from the Word of God, in which it abides, and hears no stranger's voice.
1) "Hußschyn" - house certificate, the actual name of Oecolampadius. About him, see St. Louis edition, vol. XX, inset, p. 306.
This final speech comprehends four articles. The first is: Christ is the head of the holy common church. If this article is understood from the inner influence of grace and of the life full of grace, then it needs no disputing; for just as the head flows into the whole body, the life and the movement, so also from Christ, the head of the church, flows into all the united members the grace, which is the life of the soul, Eph. 1, 22. 23.: "God gave Christ a head over all the churches, which is his body, and the perfection of him that filleth all things in all." Item, there in the 4th chapter, v. 15.16.: "We are to do the truth, and so grow in him through all things, who is the head, out of whom the whole body is knit together, and bound together by every one according to the distribution, according to the effect, in the measure of every member, and so make the increase of the body, to edification of himself in love." Item, there in the 5th chapter, v. 23: "Christ is the head of the church, and he is the healer of its body." These sayings and the like indicate that Christ is the head of the church. Of the influence of the Head in the body of the church John Baptist says, John 1:16, 17: "From his fullness we have all received grace for grace: for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were given by Jesus Christ." And Paul Eph. 4:7: "To every one of us grace is given, according to the measure of the gift of Christ." From Proverbs and the like it is clear that Christ is the head of the church, and that from him the life of grace flows to every member. But if the word unioum, united, is nowhere to be found either in the Proverbs or in the like, the simple-minded will not unreasonably doubt that there may not be some unfaithfulness hidden there. In the first place, for the sake of the other proper functions which the head has over the members of the body, so that he instructs and governs the other members in the outward works. Secondly, that the divine Scriptures indicate that Christ has also appointed a governor of the common church here on earth, whose authority has power also in heaven. Of this we have John in the first chapter, that Andrew brought his brother Simon to the Lord Jesus, saying, "We have found Messiah. When the Lord Jesus looked at Simonem, he said, "You are Simon, a son of John; you will be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter." Cephas is Greek, and means a head. Item, Matthäi at the 16th chapter: "You are Peter, and on the rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell will not be able to resist you. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And all that thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens."
Berchtoldus.
Dear beloved Christians! In the beginning of his speech, the confessor confirmed our final speech in good part with four sayings of the Scriptures, that I am very grateful to him, how Christ is the head of the Christian congregation because of his influence; however, he lacks that we say: he is one head, because in no saying, attracted by him, of the head of the church, the word "one" is reported. I answer him that, according to the Scriptures and the nature of the head, it is clear to every believer that Christ is the one head. For Paul says to the Ephesians in chapter 5, v. 23, that Christ himself is the Savior of his body; therefore this cannot be attributed to any creature. Peter is not our Savior, the pope etc., but Christ alone; and although the little word "one" is not explained in words, the apostle explains that Christ is therefore a head, that he gives salvation to his body. Therefore, dear Father, give glory to Christ, and let him remain the head; unless you teach by Scripture that some creatures may be given such a quality.
Confessor.
Mr. Berchtold has given me an answer, which he himself gave before, so much too well that he gives thanks. I am not entirely opposed to Christ being the influence and the gracious life of the church, from which all grace flows in. The head does not stand on the human body alone, so that life alone should flow into it; it also has the quality of governing the body in its outward works and exercises. Therefore, if Christ wanted to take up his visible, bodily presence into heaven, it seemed good to him (and he did it) that he should give his one body (that is, the holy Christian church) here on earth one through which he would rule, as through his ordained head and governor, and instruct it 1) to live a virtuous Christian life. That he did this
1) That is, "that he should guide to a virtuous life."
2) the promise or preaching that is written in the first chapter of John, when Christ said to Peter: "You are Simon John, you are called Cephas.
Berchtoldus.
Dear Christians! The confessor has indicated that the head not only gives life to the body, but also has other qualities to govern the body in its outward works and exercises; therefore, when Christ has taken up his visible bodily presence, he has left his own body on the earth a set head to govern his church to a youthful life. So I say to the first: The quality of the head of Christ is also that he rules his body, as a prince and ruler, Ezekielis at the 37th chapter. The fact that he rules, protects and guides his body is full of scripture, for God says through the prophet: "There will be one king who commands everyone. Even the body of Christ, and all the members, can do nothing without the administration of the Head, for the Lord says: "Without me you may do nothing." Therefore, the glory is to be given to God alone, that he governs his Church and leads it to a virtuous life. He is also our wisdom, in the first epistle to Corinthians in the first chapter, v. 30. Therefore, we will lack nothing if we follow him. It is obvious to what Christian life the pope has led us, if he gives his mercenaries indulgence to shed Christian blood. The Scriptures show us sufficiently who the governor of Christ is after his bodily absence. He says to John in the 16th chapter, v. 7: "I tell you the truth, it is profitable for you that I should depart from you: for if I depart not from you, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart from you, I will send him unto you." Behold, dear devout Christians! that the Spirit of God administers the kingdom of Christ in His Church, and leads her to a virtuous, righteous, Christian life. It appears in St. Paul to the Galatians in chapter 5, v. 22, which are the fruits of the Spirit that no creature can give us. The saying of John in the first chapter, drawn in, reads thus: "You are Simon, a son of Jonah, you are called Cephas, which is interpreted: a rock." This does not mean that
2) In the old edition, the preceding reads: "and point him to a virtuous Christian life, that he has done this. It indicates the first" etc.
Peter is a head. Peter is also a stone, not of the foundation or cornerstone, but who will build on the foundation, which is Christ; as he himself testifies in his first epistle in chapter 2: "that we all should be built into one house of God, as living stones. From this it is sufficiently understood that Peter is called a stone, a rock, because he confesses the true rock, but not a head. In addition, the word Cephas is not Greek, but Syriac, in the language Christ spoke, but it is another word, called in Greek, which is called a head.
Confessor.
You have brought much scripture and given reasons that need not be told, all of which prove that Christ himself teaches and governs the holy Christian church, which also leads to a virtuous life. And what he has said, let him therefore follow. But he has not yet proved that Christ, as the inflowing head, does not govern the holy Christian church through his appointed governor. None of these sayings prove that Christ does not rule the church through his governor, whom he has set in a virtuous life.
Berchtoldus.
We have proved at length that Christ is the one head, who teaches, governs, leads, and brings his church to a virtuous life that is not possible for any creature. But that he should claim that he has a set governor who is able to do this, let him try it with the Scriptures, for this is a reproach to Christ.
Martinus Bucerus.
Gracious sirs, dear brothers in the Lord! According to the order of my gracious lords, whoever intends to advance something to clarify the truth should be heard, so I cried to say a little to the now introduced counter-speech of the confessor. Namely, that he renounces that which my gracious lords of Bern are able to prescribe, that only Scripture is to be used. He wants to prove that Christ is not the only head of the church, for although he alone is the head of the church according to the gracious influence in its members, there are also other attributes of the head, to which 1) according to Saint Peter and his descendants may
1) Walch: "their"...
are also called heads of the church, as there is, wise and teach. But this is a plea, as if one wanted to prove that whoever has a kingly quality is therefore a king; as if a king should know the laws and statutes, so are his councilors and doctors; but they may not be called kings for this reason, but only he who has full authority to rule. Thus, to teach and to be wise is a quality of the head, but not such that whoever has it may therefore be called the head. Paul therefore calls Christ the head of the church, that he makes it alive and blessed by his Spirit, as my brother Berchtold has said; now no one can do this but Christ alone; and all that Saint Peter or some of the apostles have ever been able to do is nothing more than outward preaching of the gospel, which is ineffective unless the one Master, Christ, makes it alive and powerful in the heart. Therefore, Mr. Confessor, you must bring Scripture, so that Saint Peter's office, command and work may extend so far that he may be called head of the church, to speak according to Scripture. Scripture allows it to be a ministry, 1 Corinth. 4, and therefore recognizes Peter as a servant of the church, but does not make him a head; for, according to Paul, to be the head of the church is to be its savior, as drawn from Paul to Ephesians in the fifth chapter.
Confessor.
2) Mr. Martin Butzer gave a long speech, without writing, and gave an example of a king who has power to rule powerfully in his kingdom; he also has the knowledge of the laws, statutes, and ordinances, as he called it; his doctors or councilors also have this same knowledge or understanding of the statutes and laws, but may not be called kings for this reason. Now let it also be so, that one remains with Saint Peter, may some preach or teach, which Saint Peter has taught, but may not therefore be called a head, because of the fact that he does not have the power to rule. If I were to state in writing that Saint Peter has received authority from Christ here on earth over the Christian church, and that not only for himself, but for eternity, for himself and his descendants: if I do this, then I hope to do so, be it for a small thing, be it also no blasphemy, whether or not I should grant the name of a head to such a governor of Christ.
2) Here we have deleted "that" because it is too much. ,
Bucerus.
That you Scriptures should show that the government, which Peter himself might have done, might have made him a head of the Christian community; for to be head of the church, according to Paul, is to make the church spiritually alive; and may Saint Peter and all his descendants, who alone are those who are of his spirit and faith, stretch themselves no further than to preach the gospel outwardly; which is without all power, the Lord Jesus, the one Head, make such preaching strong in the heart; for God gives the growth.
Confessor.
Mr. Martin Butzer requests me to prove in writing that St. Peter has such power, or that the government, commanded to him, extends so far that it 1) may make him or his descendants a head of the Church. He hopes, as much as God gives him grace, to prove it. In the fifth chapter of Lucas, Christ said to Petro: "Lead the ship into the deep, and spread out your nets to see." If the interpretation of Chrysostom should be considered as reasonable etc.
Thereupon the confessor was refused by the presidents and refused, according to the order of the lords of Bern, not to attract a teacher. Therefore, the same confessor continued to speak in such a manner:
Confessor.
Christ clearly indicated that Peter should have authority. Resolving the depth of the disputation, Luke in chapter 22, Christ said to Peter [v. 32]: "I have asked for you, and [if] you are converted, confirm your brethren." Matthew 16: "Thou art Peter, and upon the rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against thee: and unto thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And all that thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens; and that thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens." John 21, v. 15: "Then said the Lord unto Petro, Simon John, lovest thou me?" Twice was he answered, "Yea, and thou knowest that I love thee." And twice he was told, "Feed my lambs or my sheep." This scripture I hold fast and be sufficient that Peter and others
1) "she" put by us instead of: "he", according to what was said in the previous paragraph.
Successive governors of Christ have received the power on earth to bind and to release, to instruct and to teach, that belongs to the pasture, to offer and to forbid. For (I have said before) the Scripture grants to other, inferior rulers the name of head; is clear from the first book of Kings [1 Samuelis] in the 15th chapter, Samuel pronounced or in the word of God to Saul: "When you were small in your eyes, you became a head in the families of Israel." Amos at the 6th chapter: "The noblest heads of the nations" etc.
Butzer.
The scripture that has been drawn up, so that the holy word of God may be acted upon seriously, will be answered by my brothers according to order. The confessor should prove that Saint Peter's command may make him a head of the church. For this purpose, he referred to the fifteenth chapter of the first book of Samuel, where it is reported that God made Saul the head of the people. But there he should notice that Saul was an external ruler set by God, and could prove the nature of the head in such an external rule. But if, according to Paul, one speaks of the Christian congregation, which is all those who, born anew in the spirit, lead a divine life, which no one but the Lord alone can bestow, and all the work of Saint Peter and all the apostles is called only an outward service by Paul, then it is not yet proven that (according to Scripture) Peter or some other apostle of God may be called a head of the church. And should the confessor answer for Paul's saying in the 4th chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, since Paul writes of him and his like that they should be considered servants of Christ and ministers, that is, preachers of the mysteries of God, namely the holy gospel. It is still written that he should write what he has done, so that it may make him the head. Christ alone is the spiritual Lord; he can change them so that they are strong. The teachings of Saint Paul and Peter are of no avail, but Christ leads them. No one can change hearts but He; and so giving glory to Christ, let them be bound, that is, recognize bound those who do not believe; for these find the children of Abraha doing the works of Abraha. Therefore I require Scripture that Peter may be called a head of his ministry.
Confessor.
Mr. Martin Butzer asks me to prove that the name of a head may be given to Sanct Peter and his descendants; says to
The saying in the first book of the Kings [Samuelis] in the 15th chapter, which I have brought in from King Saul, and in the same to cast him out, he says to 1) all Scripture, that the name "a head" belonged more properly to Saul the king, and may be assigned to him, than to Saint Peter, or to one or all of his descendants. He alone described the cause of his external government and his power, as if the temporal power, which is also from God, were something greater and more worthy of such a name than the Vicariate, or governorship of Christ. Let this be enough to say that St. Peter or his descendants may not be called heads, although every Christian is well aware that the spiritual government in both laws is higher in dignity and power than the secular one. Consider the saying of Paul to Corinthians, how he recognizes himself and the others as servants; which no doubt every righteous king also does, are also servants of God. Also states that no one belongs to the church except those who are newborn in God; among these I understand those who are without sin; those who are spiritually and well created; Martin Butzer counts them as true Christians, and says that they are the Christian church, excluding sinners; says that no one can give them patience, love, and other virtues (I do not know how he told all the virtues in the church); I confess all this. But is it not sufficiently answered about the saying of Matthew in the 16th chapter: "What you bind on earth is bound in heaven; and what you loose" etc. If this is sufficiently answered, that the saying does not give so much power, that not enough power is given to Petro and his descendants for a head, and that they may be called heads, then we will look further how we will do to him.
Bucerus.
I have said before that the attracted sayings of bind and deliver, also pasture, shall be sufficiently accounted for; and have now demanded Scripture that the command of Peter make him head of the church; the same Scripture the confessor has not yet brought forth, and yet mists to me, I admit without Scripture that Sau! was a head in Israel; and Peter, however, nor of some apostles, may not be a head of the church (to speak according to Scripture).
1) "an" = without.
But the scripture is drawn from me, that Peter called himself a servant, and not a head; but Saul a head. And thereby confess that the spiritual power is incomparably more than the temporal. But spiritual power is over the spirits, over the minds, which Christ alone has; and the preachers of the gospel, which was the highest office of all the apostles, serve for such power, but are always ineffective, if the spiritual Lord has not displayed and exercised his power in the hearts. Therefore, if the confessor will prove that Saint Peter or some of the apostles have or had power to change hearts and make them devout, he will also have proved that he is the head of the church. Christ is the head; for no one else can make devout and blessed but Christ. And therefore desire Scripture, that Peter's command may make him the head.
Confessor.
Martin Butzer asked me for a long speech, but less would have been enough. The sensible judge those who are circumlocutory! I spoke of the regiment and Petro (who understood me correctly), of the external government of the church at the beginning; so Martin Butzer comes from the internal regiment. Therefore I have admitted before at the beginning, and also want to have admitted, that Christ is therefore the one head of the church. But for the sake of the outward government, I hope to have enough Scripture in these two sayings, or three: "To you I will give the keys of the heavens," etc., and: "Feed my sheep," also the one that Christ our Savior said to all his disciples after his resurrection, John at the last chapter [20,22.^: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: for whom ye forgive sin, they are forgiven; for whom ye retain, they are retained." With the sayings I hope to have decided that such a governor of Christ is gifted with so much power, which not only comprehends or imbues in himself the external government, which then is nothing else than over the external works, but also over the internal, when the same is opened to the same governors or negators by confession or external forfeiture. He also does not want to justify or be responsible for one or two reported abuses. But it is clear that sin, forgiven or not forgiven, affects the conscience of the soul. Therefore, I hope I do not need anything that may further prove St. Peter's inner government over any man or authority. Stay with Proverbs etc.
On the eighth day of Jenner, Berchtoldus opened further than follows.
Dear dear Christians! Yesterday the deal was brought so far that the confessor was supposed to testify that everything that Christ commanded Petro [had] made him a head. Our brother Butzer stated that Peter, Paul and all the apostles were servants alone, not heads, not lords, and proved this in the [first] epistle to the Corinthians in the 4th chapter: "So let man regard us as servants of God, and dispensers of the mysteries." Item, in his first epistle at the 3rd chapter: "Who is Paul, who is Apollo, but servants of God, through whom you have believed? So, he who plants is nothing; he who begets is nothing; but God gives the growing up." This does not make all of Petrum a head. As Peter himself speaks in his first epistle at the 5th chapter: "Feed the flock of Christ which is among you, and sow it, not being compelled, but willing yourselves; not seeking shameful gain, but of an inclined mind; not lording it over the people of God, but becoming examples of the flock."
Here you see, devout Christians, that the service and ministry of the apostles may not make them heads nor lords, but servants; for if Peter's authority made him a head, it followed that all the apostles were heads, for they all had the command and ministry alike. Second, Paul was more of a head than others, because he labored more; in the first epistle to Corinthians, chapter 15. Third, because teaching makes one head, it follows that Peter alone was a head when he taught, and the other apostles also alone when they taught. Fourth, because neither the pope, nor any man, may teach a nation, much less the whole world, it follows that one may not be a head. Fifth, if Peter taught at Rome, he alone would be a shepherd and minister of the same church; if he wrote an epistle to us, for our instruction, he would be our minister also. Accordingly, Butzer has sufficiently indicated that the head of the church gives such things that are not possible to any creature, but to make alive, devout, righteous, and blessed, and to renew souls, as Paul clearly indicates to the Ephesians in the 5th chapter, to make Christ the head of the churches, because he has been the Savior of his body. And if the head is taken away, then all life and work of the body will stand still. And so no flesh, no mortal creature, can be the head of the church.
be]. And the confessor has confirmed all this himself. All the writings that the Father brought forth give nothing else to Saint Peter, except service, [as] such will appear from this answering of ours.
The first saying from the first chapter of John: "Thou shalt be called Cephas", that is what the confessor translates: A head; and if he had seen the evangelist, he would have found that he himself interprets that it is called Peter, that is, a rock, built up and fortified in faith and word; for which reason Peter is neither a cornerstone, nor a foundation stone, nor a rock, but he with other living stones is a building up of the living stones to Christ; in his first epistle in the other chapter.
The other saying from Matthew in the 17th chapter, about the didrachma, does not admit Petro to be a head, but with this deed Christ has made himself and the church, indicated in Petro, submissive to the worldly authority in outward things, so far as body and goods are concerned. There you make Petrum a head, since Christ subjected him and us in external things to the authorities. When he says from the 5th chapter of Luke: "Lead the ship into the deep," he himself knows that it is a miraculous sign; and if he insists on the allegory, this alone is a sign that he is diligent in his office. This is the purpose of fishing, of casting his net, of leading his ship into the deep, as Jeremiah indicates in chapter 16.
But after this he brings out of Luke in chapter 22: "Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith cease not." This we confess with you. But this follows: "Strengthen thy brethren," who is so blind as not to see that this is for the service? Now it is sufficiently shown that the servitude does not make a head of the church.
So also, when he introduces from John at the 21st chapter: "Peter, feed my sheep", it is clear 1) that it belongs to the servitude of the word, which is the feeding of the sheep; because if feeding made a head, all servants of the word of God would be heads. That he brings from John in the 20th chapter: "To whom ye forgive sin" etc., and Matthew in the 16th chapter: "What ye bind upon the earth" etc., in which the confessor sets his greatest firmness, and has no stronger reason, I say that Christ teaches one thing in both Scriptures; for to bind and to loose, to forgive sin and to refrain from it, is one thing. So you confess with us that Matthew at the 16th chapter of Petro
1) "serene" - bright.
The keys were promised to John in the 20th chapter, and therefore all power and strength hang here, which binds and loosens Petro. Now it does not admit that he is a head, because all apostles have the same ministry to bind and loose. Therefore I say, Christian brethren, that to bind and loose, to pardon and to restrain, is nothing else than to teach the word of God, and to preach the gospel of Christ. These are the keys, this is the supreme authority given to Petro and all the apostles; all of which does not make him, nor any apostle, a head; only God, who by his own authority and deed forgives sin. Isa. 43. chapter: "It is I, it is I, who blot out your wickedness, and your sins I will remember no more, for my sake." Now Peter and the apostles forgive sin by the ministration of the word, and by the preaching of the gospel, which they promised to the faithful, that through Christ their sins were forgiven, and the sins of unbelievers bound. But as Christ admits to Petro and the apostles, to forgive, to bind, to loose sin, as if they were doing it, is like that which is written to Jeremiah in the first chapter, where God says: "Perceive, I have put my words in thy mouth, that thou shouldest spread abroad, and destroy, and break in pieces, and build, and plant." Here God admits to the prophet that He alone does; and in what way the prophet does this is noted from this, when God says: "I have put my words in your mouth"; means that the prophet should teach and punish, but God will give emphasis to the word. So also here, when Christ says that the apostles forgive, bind, and loose sin, it also refers to the teaching and ministry of the word; which discretion is noted from the circumstances of the transaction, shown in Matth. 16 and Joh. 20. chapter. For in Matt. 16 the Lord said: "You are Peter, a rock, established, founded in faith and word; therefore, because you, Peter, are established in word and faith, I will give you the keys. He has given these keys to John 20, not only to Peter, but to all the apostles, when he says: "Whom you forgive sins" etc. That forgiveness of sins belongs to the ministry of the word is clear from what precedes it in John: "Receive the Holy Spirit," which Lucas explains as follows: "He opened their minds so that they might understand. And Jn. 20 Cap. after Christ had wished peace to his disciples, he said, "As the living Father hath sent me, even so send I you." Marcus he
Thus it declares: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Lucas: "Repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached in his name," and that is the gospel. Which Marcus thus presents, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." As it is evident from the circumstances of the transaction which the evangelists write, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are the preaching of the gospel; to dissolve and pardon sin is to proclaim to believers that their sins are forgiven them through Christ; to bind and reserve sin is to proclaim to unbelievers that their sins are unforgiven and reserved to them. Therefore it is here, confessors, that you prove by other Scriptures that Christ is not one head; for though you introduce a thousand sayings concerning the teaching or ministry of the word, yet you will not prove that Peter or any other is a head; so all the sayings introduced are accounted for.
Confessor.
In your name, sweet Lord JEsu! Venerable, favorable, wise gentlemen! Yesterday, I sufficiently accounted for the first thing that Mr. Berchtold has now reported, for the sake of servitude or servants, as they call themselves servants; a king also does that, is nevertheless a king. Nothing unseemly or impossible is brought about, although one is and is called a superior, and cannot be compared to a subject 1) [is]. A duke in a kingdom may be called a subject; he is also a superior. To be compared to the king, he is a subject; to be compared against his subjects, he is a superior, and is called a chief. That is one.
To answer the other, I testify, is not possible for me, also believe that few possible, fallest properly in the head to grasp, [in order to answer it]. Now the reasons and causes that follow are so many that I cannot well keep them, but I request that Mr. Berchtold open them to me again, but I will answer afterwards.
Berchtoldus.
Devout Christians! It has short notice. The likeness, so he brings forth, that one is a
1) The given text is faulty here in any case: "a superior, and subjects to compare, not against one". By the conversion we have tried to improve something. But even so it does not satisfy us completely.
Let a duke and a servant be with one another in one kingdom; and if the likeness be held against our commerce, he will prove thereby that Peter is a servant and a head. The confessor will not deny that he is a servant, because it is now sufficiently proved by Scripture, and in all his sayings nothing else has been found. But why Peter is a head, we ask for scripture. That is where his imprisonment lies, and you must prove it. On the other hand, that he complains that he cannot grasp our responsibility seems unreasonable to us; for we must grasp and answer for his long speech, which was given yesterday.
Confessor.
That Saint Peter may be called a head is clear enough. Yesterday Martin Butzer conceded to me that Saul may rightly be called a head, in the Scriptures, of government and authority because of his kingdom. That now Saint Peter has received the authority to exercise such government over the sheep of Christ may be proven from clear texts, namely, Matt. 10, chapter 10, Christ has given his disciples authority over the evil unclean spirits, that they may cast them out, and over the diseases, that they may heal all of them. Peter practiced this more especially than we read of our Savior himself. Apost. 5: "The sick were laid in the streets in their little beds, that, when Peter came, he might shade any of them with his hand, and they might be delivered from their sickness." Apost. 1 Peter stood up among the others and presented the lack of the number of apostles, proving by Scripture that it was necessary to choose one in Judas' place. Item, in the first Concilio, Apost. 15, when it was asked whether the commandments and burdens of the old law should be laid upon those who were converted from heathenism, he was the one who gave the first sentence. Item, in the 5th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, when Ananias and Sapphira had sold a field, and hid or kept back some of the money, Saint Peter punished them with sudden death etc. Item, for the sake of internal government and order, he, together with the other apostles, may well say with St. Paul: "I have given you birth in Christ Jesus, through the gospel". Item, Apost, in the 2nd chapter, he also proved the same ministry, saying, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost." All the scriptures, and the like, of which there are many to be found, prove that
St. Peter has received authority and also used it for the government of the holy church, therefore he and the others have been set up as rulers over all the earth, as is prophesied in the 45th Psalm, where David says: "Sons have been born to you for the fathers, and you will set them up as rulers over all the earth. Now if Peter has exercised and used the rule, and received authority as proved, then the office and the work bears the name with him.
Butzer.
May the Lord teach us to seek His will and truth with a pure heart! From all the above-mentioned sayings, the confessor has proved nothing more than that Saint Peter was an excellent servant of the Gospel, and not a head at all. Therefore, even today, we desire Scripture that makes Peter the head. To teach the church (no apostle has ever been able to do more) is to be the servant of the church and not the head.
Confessor.
Mr. Martin Butzer has attracted at the first, I have attracted the saying of the first book Regurn [Samuelis] in the 15th chapter, yesterday answered, today again. To this I say that I have not attracted the same saying, but reported yesterday's allowing, through him, to give an answer. Now, on the other hand, that he desires and urges me to present a cheerful text to prove that Peter is the head of the church: I think that enough has happened to him, since I have proved that St. Peter has done the government of the holy Christian church by the command of Christ. But if he wants me to bring a sentence that has the word "head", he should also bring a sentence that has the word unicum, that is, "united".
Butzer.
We do not desire Scripture, which expresses the word "head"; the word is not involved; but we desire Scripture, which gives Petro, which makes him a head of the church, namely to be a savior of the church. But we give him Scripture also the little word "one", so that we have in the 4th chapter to Ephesians, "One Lord".And in the first epistle to Timothy in the 2nd chapter [v. 5.]: "One Mediator between God and men." Christ alone has immortality and life, therefore He alone will be one head of those who are called to life and immortality.
1).. "cheerful" - clear.
Confessor.
I have desired a text that indicated the word "unique"; only texts that say "one" are needed. Every German knows that there is a big difference between "Ein" and "einzig". "Einzig" casts out all others; "Ein" lets another stay with him; and is truly said when there are two: One is; but it is not truly said: One is.
Bucerus.
Since there is no one anywhere who has that which belongs to the head of the church, namely, to make it blessed, except Christ alone, it clearly follows that one must say the only head. Since no one can mediate between God and man, but Christ alone, the word "one mediator" is considered to be "only". So: I believe in One God. But there is "One", and not "only", and nevertheless the little word "One" is considered much as "only"; for no one will confess a second God to him. So there is no one here besides Christ who can do this. Therefore he is called a head by Paul, therefore he is a single head. To investigate further into the literal scripture is to publicly introduce a verbal spat against our gracious lords of Bern Mandate; I give this to our worthy lords, the presidents, and to the whole congregation of God, assembled here.
Confessor.
Mr. Martin says to the last, I fight with words. To this I say: It is another to fight with words, and another to fight with the Word of God. All the texts that Mr. Martin has brought say about a mediator. I am not talking about a mediator, the conclusio is not about that either; it is about a head between the body, not a mediator. Yesterday I admitted, and still admit, that Christ our Savior is a head of all Christendom; but for the sake of government has set a governor, with the strong words, "Feed my sheep." I said next, I would have it decided; for with all the sayings that are brought, for the sake of the servitude, Petro is not broken off the authority given him by Christ over the sheep. For the servitude made it so that one might not be called a ruler, governor, or head: as would happen to the saying to the Romans in the fifteenth chapter, where Paul says that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the sake of the truth of God.
to confirm the promises of the fathers? I do not accept the glosses and interpretations, and will thus have decided that no Scripture has been brought forth, so that the office of the ministry has been abolished; but beware that others will continue to speak about it.
Butzer.
Mr. Confessor brings out again the saying: "Feed my sheep". He is responsible enough that he admits a servitude to Petro, and not a dominion. As well as the others, attracted by him. But that he thereby uses the saying to Romans in: Chapter 15, where Christ is called a minister of the circumcision, in the opinion that just as Christ is also the head of the church, so Peter may also be both a minister and the head of the church. This, more than too much, has now long been his responsibility. Because all Scripture gives the experience of faith that Christ Jesus our Lord alone can give the Holy Spirit, and thus teach and lead his church rightly, therefore he alone must be known as the head of the church by all who have ever received even a speck of Christian faith. But that the confessor does not think to accept the written responsibility for the places he has been summoned to, it is his duty, according to my lords' mandate, to explain in writing why they should not be accepted. However, since he may want to give others room to do so, and has decided to do so: We also hereby resolve, and according to the teaching of Paul, have commanded the judgment to the audience, and to those who will read the Acta, in the undoubted hope that all those who are Christ's and have his Spirit, who alone may understand divine things, will recognize them, that our article is founded in divine Scripture and is the eternal truth, and that the confessor's opinion, from the secondary head and governor, is a dangerous finding of men, by which God the Almighty and His anointed, our Lord Jesus, are blasphemed in all (who understand otherwise): This has been proven, and shall be proven still, with bright divine Scripture, before all who know God.
Confessor.
I will, as before, have decided herewith, and command the Scripture etc.
Theobaldus Hüter, pastor at Appenzell.
JEsu, a container of the world, by your divine grace and mercy grant us true knowledge and clear understanding of your divine Word, Amen!
Since our most gracious lords of Berne have posted about a disputation in which several articles were included, namely the first: "The holy Christian church, whose one head is Christ, was born from the word of God" etc. On the first point, that Christ is one head of Christianity, I admit that Christ is one head of the Christian church; but that he has not ordained for us Christian believers a power here in this time, I say that he has ordained for us a power to bind and to loose, and that by grace of his divine mercy. But that this is so, I prove it by the divine word of Christ Matthew in the 16th chapter. In which words the Lord Jesus Himself, by His own divine mouth, has declared to us, saying to His apostle Peter: "I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose shall be loosed in heaven. In which words we are clearly shown a power that has been left behind. For nothing is more certain than the word of our only God and Savior, which stands firm, which cannot be reversed; for to bind and to loose or to release requires a power. If then God has spoken this, it follows that he has recommended the power of his divine word to his dear disciple Petro, and has thus made him the chief author of his divine word and command.
Berchtoldus.
Dear beloved Christians! The plea of the priest has a short answer. He concedes, first, that Christ is a single head; so he has no need of a governor, for all authority in heaven and earth has been given to him in the last chapter of Matthew, which authority no creature can administer. He has also obtained the keys to bind and loose, which Christ gave to Matthew 16, Cap. I say no to this. He promised them to him; it is written Dabo, not Do, and John 20 Cap. to all disciples, when he says: "Whom you forgive" etc. Therefore there will not be one head to bind and to loose, but as many heads as Christ commanded, John 20 chapter, to bind and to loose. For this there is no need of an answer, because the priest himself has given a good explanation, that Christ has commanded Petro the power of the Word of God, and has set him as the chief ruler of His
divine word. We gladly allow him to do so; for with the word of God, the faithful, if it is proclaimed to them, are assured that God has forgiven their sin through Christ. Therefore, it is God alone who forgives sin; the apostles proclaim the forgiveness of sin and the arrest of sin as servants. Therefore no special authority of Christ's administration is commanded here; therefore it is necessary to bring other Scriptures.
Pastor.
When Mr. Berchtold, the preceptor of my gracious lords of Bern, accused me, I had just slackened much, in that I confess Christ as one head; in which I have not done evil, but have acted well, according to the Scriptures; for in the power there are two things to be noted. First, of his great power, his omnipotence, his free unconditional power; for he alone is the one who gives grace and glory, and he will give it to no one else. Secondly, there is to be noted his posthumous power of his divine ordinance, and as Mr. Berchtold said that he had recommended his divine word to them by his posthumous power, so he also had to bind and release them according to the form of his divine word.
Berchtoldus.
A short answer: We confess the omnipotence of God with the priest; and the saying that he introduces, that God gives grace and glory, is for us; for this is his grace, that he forgives our sin, and proclaims his grace to us through his apostles, who are servants of his word, as is heard today from Paul in the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians in chapter 3. Chapter 3: "Who is Paul, who is Apollo, but only the servant of him whom you believed? He who plants, he who fructifies, is nothing; but God gives the growing up." For although the priest says: I absolve or absolve you from your sins! not enough is done for me, unless I am assured of it in my heart through faith. God is the one who opens, and no one will decide; he decides, and no one opens, Isaiah 22. chapter. Therefore, the power to forgive sin is God's alone. But to proclaim the forgiveness of sins to believers, to proclaim the remission of sins to unbelievers, is the office of the ministry and command of the apostles, and proclamation of the word.
Pastor.
When my Lord Berchtold, in the painting which I have divided, first comes to me that God alone gives honor and glory, but has commanded the apostles the ministry of his divine word; and that absolving from sins alone is to proclaim absolution of sin to the faithful. Now no one has ever heard that neither the apostles, nor our most holy father the pope, [nor] all priests ever had a recommendation to absolve one who did not have faith, but recommended to him to bind into the power of God, and to absolve those who sent themselves in faith, and hope, and faithfulness to the divine word of Christ, which recommended to bind and to absolve; as has been said before.
But for a better confirmation of the power I draw this from St. Paul, 1 Tim. 1. chapter, where he spoke of those who were shipwrecked in the faith, of whom were Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I gave to the devil, so that they might learn not to blaspheme God. Now Paul, as the chosen vessel of Christ, has used and had the power here in this time; and is not without that the eternal God, Christ Jesus, has clearly revealed to us the power that he gave to Paul. The text is clear, the words bright and loud.
Berchtoldus.
The Lord commanded to proclaim his divine word to the apostles as his servants; whoever believed them, they promised forgiveness of sin, and did not give the forgiveness of sin itself. The saying from Timothy indicates the command of Christ, given to every church, that he who walks disorderly in impudent offense is to be banished and excluded, Match, chapter 18, which Paul also did at Corinth, when you read in the first epistle, chapter 5. He says: "I, who am not in the body, but am present in the spirit, have already decided these things in the spirit concerning him who did these things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in your assembly with my spirit, and in the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver him up to the devil for the corruption of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Here you see that Paul did not banish the public fornicator by his own authority, but in the name, even in the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, gathered together with one another; from this again the pastor may not receive a special authority of his own, Petro, the pope and bishops commanded.
Pastor.
That Mr. Berchtold has also spoken before how Christ Jesus commanded his apostles to proclaim the word of God, for the remission of sin. And there he has given a likeness of a parish or kilchhöry, as he speaks of the authority, to any church, in which he almost pleases me, if he admits the authority, as Paul used, which I have indicated, to the church; for Paul used the same great authority. I am not without 1) that Christ has recommended such authority to him; I also hope that it will not be preserved that the authority recommended to bind and unbind will be abolished by the church.
So then he indicates in the first epistle to the Corinthians in the 5th chapter, in which words he falls to me (as I hope): for why, when Paul spoke, since he was not present with his body, but in the spirit, that he should be punished who thus lived in dishonesty as the Gentiles, that he also gave him to the enemy or devil. Which text explains and clarifies the previous text, and is not found repugnant to him, as I hope.
Berchtoldus.
Pastor, you are due to us; not to us, but to the Scriptures, which teach us that Christ has given a command to every church or parish to banish the impudent sinner. What exclusion brings with it a cross and bitterness, so that the body's lust and will may be subdued, and the sinner brought to the knowledge of his sin, and his spirit be saved. Therefore, you have not yet tried to use any authority that the church has according to its pleasure, but a command to deal with the mangy sheep; and I ask you to write, that you may show that there is another head than Christ, who also has authority to govern the churches.
Pastor.
When my lord predicant says, I have it with him; not only with him, but with the word of God; I say: With one thing I am well with him, namely with the word of God, where that would have a right mind not to be against it. For, whether God wills it, there is none that is contrary to the clear word of God, which may not be judged; for it is judged by the eternal word; but
1) That is to say, I don't find it unfounded.
the misunderstanding of the Scriptures, which explores the same 1) a divine interpretation. And if Mr. Berchtold takes my sayings, which I have taken from the holy Gospel, also from Paul, and calls it a power, which God has recommended to His disciples, he says that it was only a command, that those who give offense and sin in the church, as it is, banish them. Which I have gladly heard from the prelate of Bern, that he admits to the Christian church that it has a recommendation to banish; for until now the poor, good, pious Christian has had a great complaint (as they meant) about [because of] the banishment of the church, since now it has been clearly heard about the ban, a force must follow from necessity. Therefore I firmly stand, and do not deviate from the authority of the Christian church.
Berchtoldus.
Pious Christians! For the benefit of all listeners and to shorten the matter, the pastor should note from the Gospel of Matthew on the 18th, how there is a figure around the ban. It is commanded by Christ to the church; not only to the general Christian church, for it does not meet at this time; nor to the church, if popes and bishops meet, for that would be at great expense to banish the open sinner; nor to the prelate or bishop alone, for he is a single person, but to the church, if it testifies to Christ in hearing his word and following it, in which the open sinner dwells and sins. Thus the Roman church, that is, the assembly of believers there, has a command to banish the pope if he were an impudent sinner. The same order has been given by the church of Bern, Appenzell, and other places where Christ is confessed. We are also to judge why the ban is ordered by Christ. Not to collect money debts, or for the sake of other temporal actions, as it has been dangerously abused up to now; but solely for the sake of open sin and offense. Now it is evident that all those who have hitherto used the ban, all drunkards, gamblers, fornicators, bloodshedders, sit in open outrageous sins; and to a disgrace of this noble divine ban, commanded by God for the sake of sins, they banish [these not; the ban] 2) they need to protect monetary debts, or their freedom and authority. [To banish the public sinners,] 2) that is
1) Instead of "explored" should probably be read: requires.
2) Added by us.
the command of God given to every church and parish. Therefore, the pastor has not yet brought anything against the first final speech.
Master Ulrich Zwingli, Predicant at Zurich.
Faithful, dear lords and brothers in Christ JEsu! Since the pastor of Appenzell has brought the matter under the power of the ban, I will say something briefly about the ban. First of all, it is necessary here that, just as in all matters that are doubtful, one runs to the laws and rights, so here we also run to the laws of the ban; which Christ gave in the 18th chapter of Matthew in this form: "But if your brother sins against you, go and punish him between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have won your brother. But if he does not hear you, take one or two to yourself, so that each thing may be confirmed with two or three. And if he overhear them, tell the church. But if he overhear the church, count him as a heathen or a publican." Here we learn, first, that it behooves no one to banish, but only to warn, for which reason the popes and bishops have abused the ban, warning them publicly before the whole congregation; for the warning is to be given secretly and kindly. Secondly, that not two or three should banish, but warn alone, and give the most ready information, if the matter requires it. Thirdly, the warning of the church follows first; so kind and merciful is God. And if the impudent one does not refuse the vice, 3) then he shall first be considered a pagan and a publican. It is obvious that no one should or may banish him, except the whole parish, including the priest or bishop. On all this we have no other reason to think, neither that Paul used the ban after this use, as we actually see in 1 Corinthians, chapter 5. Chapter 5, where he says: "If ye come together, even my spirit (that is, my mind, opinion, and judgment, which I speak in the illumination of the divine Spirit, as your church apostle), by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver him that hath such a vice upon him unto the devil, to the corruption of the flesh; that the soul may be refreshed in the day of our Lord Jesus." Here we actually hear that Paul did not banish alone, 'but the church, and he with the church. I will also indicate to you here, dear pastor of
3) "does not refuse" - does not abstain.
Appenzell, why the apostle Paul calls the ban the corruption of the flesh. He calls flesh, which we call external; as to Hebrews in the 9th chapter, where he speaks: "with justification of the flesh", for which we speak, external justifications, or external services. For example, when a child-worshipper, according to the law of Moses, offers up the two turtur or other doves after they have gone out, the sacrifice does not make her internally righteous or clean. From this it follows that such a sacrifice alone was an outward justification, and did so much that it sent the women to come again into the church; from which we well notice that Paul calls carnal justifications for outward justifications. So he also does to him here, when he says, "Pray him to the devil for the corruption of the flesh," for outward corruption. For the ban is nothing other than a leprosy and exclusion of the evil member, which is already rejected before God and realized with sins; therefore the priest does not justly reject the speech of our dear brother Oecolampadii, in which he said from the prophet Osea: "Your. Perdition, or perishing, is of thyself, O Israel!" For just as the priests in the Old Testament did not make the leper, but only recognized and inspected him who was leprous before: so the church condemns and excludes no one, neither the one who has given himself up to an ungodly 1) life before, so that it can be seen that he is not a friend of God; but he was left with the community or church until the leprosy, so that he was counted as a member of the church according to outward appearance, as the most pious; But with God he was not pious, for he had real true repentance and faith in his heart, which may not be good next to such an impudent behavior; although the one at Corinth has improved and repented splendidly from the time of the ban is a sign that divine grace, which let him fall, has raised him up again; therefore the taking back happened before from God, neither from the church. But from this it follows that those are set apart who have been taken away from God before, and those are taken in again who have been graced by God before. For this reason Paul calls the setting apart of the whole church an outward corruption, so that he who was formerly with the church is separated from all the brethren.
1) In the old edition:, "fräffnem" - sacrilegious.
2) "verschupfen" - to push aside, to cast aside.
is recognized as a disobedient child and member of the people of God; and therefore the ban is an opening of the evil one, who may anger the whole church, so that the church may perish 3) and the evil one be chastised. But that the priest of Appenzell insists for and for that the ban is a power that God has given to men, and thereby (as I well realize) supposes to introduce another head of power, is an error; for to banish power is the power of Christ, as Paul clearly indicates when he says: "By the power of our Lord Jesus Christ." Therefore, all who banish will banish according to the Spirit of Christ, or else it is a violence and an outrage. If the priest finds that a churchman is utterly ungodly, and does not know the Lord Jesus Christ, and goes to the same church and says, "You have idols and idolatry, you are idols," or the like, then he who has spoken the truth will be banished. Why? Because the same church does not have the Spirit of Christ and is not governed by Him. From this it is easy to see that the power to banish is not the power of man, but the effect of the one God. For where God does not exorcise with His Spirit, it is a tyranny and a command, 4) and not a correction or discipline. But that according to this he also observes the saying of Paul 1 Timothy. 1: "Which Hymenaume and Alexandrum I have given to the devil, that they might be chastened not to blaspheme," and thus supposes to prove that Paul alone has banned the churches, but this is an error and an ignorance of the custom of Scripture, which everywhere uses many synecdoches, that is, a way of calling either members for the multitude, or again the multitude for the members (as when one calls a council messenger of the honorable of Bern "the of Bern"; and again speaks: those of Bern spoke, or gave answer, and did not speak all of Bern, but the one messenger). So Paul also says here: "I have given them to the devil"; not that he alone has banished them, but this is what he wants to say: They have been banished from the church, to which I have presented their apostasy, because of their apostasy. This much, dear brethren, I have said of the ban by way of explanation, so that the pastor may see, along with others, that they may not prove any special or other authority or head from this place, 1 Timothy 1 Cap. etc.
3) "vergaumen" - to beware, to be careful.
4) "Geböch" - throbbing (?) Cf. St. Louis edition vol. XX, 1540, z 118.
On the ninth day Jenner's.
According to this, as the disputation was considered by some to be somewhat biased, due to the fact that many learned people were sitting at the table of the preachers, and no one at all at the other one, and therefore desolate, the presidents, out of order and respectability, opened the doors to the sheriff and the council of Bern and said, that those who want to dispute against the first article should join the choir and choose a skilled and well-advised person to speak for them, and that the best people should sit with them, help them and advise them, so that the matter will be furthered. The same is also permitted to the predicators, and those who want to argue on both sides should summarily speak the necessary in the pen and omit the other, and that is also used in other articles; in addition, they may guide each other, advise, and send notes. And if someone wants to speak further on this himself, no one is denied this.
After this opening by the presidents, the venerable, highly learned Doctor Cunradus Treiger, of Freiburg, Uechtland, Provincial of the Augustinian Order, was summoned, if he was not present there, because he had been attracted by the preachers of Strasbourg, that he would come up to the bridge 1) and have free space and place to discuss.
When this was presented by the presidents, as mentioned above, and those who were to contest the closing speeches joined together, and some ordered to do so on behalf of all of them, the named Doctor Cunradus Treiger, Provincial of St. Augustine's Order, came up to the disputants and began to protest with a long speech. Augustine's order, came up to the disputants, and at first protested with a long speech: when he heard that both preachers of Strasbourg had attracted him, and that he had been especially described for this reason, he was present, not sent here by his superior, the mayor and council of the city of Freiburg, nor by the bishops of Losan, to debate for their sake, but for himself and for no one else, and that alone in honor of my gracious lord of Bern, and of this debate; against the 10 final speeches ready to fence, and to present something; protesting and testifying, what he would dispute, and allda unformal act, such he wanted to have] duly submitted to the supremacy, Christian church and common Concilio, and to have the same directed to him.
Doctor Cunrad Treiger, Provincial.
And so I say, for the sake of the first of the two final speeches, which concern and relate to the holy Christian church, etc., that they are not unchristian in sound and form, and according to the letter; but their understanding, which is carried out by them, is erroneous and untrue. Therefore, in order to explain the final statement, I will set these two final statements against it, and this is the first one:
. The holy Christian church, which is eternally preserved and governed by the spirit of its spouse and sponsor, as it does not hear the voice of the stranger, so it and its spouse and sponsor are strangers to Christ who does not hear their voice.
1) "Brüge" - bridge (?), catheder.
The other: For this reason, it separates from the Christian herd all disruptors of Christian unity and heretics, and with it, which is a pillar and foundation of truth, the highest authority is found to act in matters of faith. And since both of the final speeches now mentioned deny this, and only the one Word of God wants to be the judge in matters of faith, I will recently explain this against such final speeches, in order to strengthen mine.
As thick and much as there is division and discord in our true undefiled faith, it is necessary that a judge be found, who by his power drives away the twitching wolf, and separates it from the Lord's flock, and shows which is a shepherd or a twitching wolf. This is the Christian church, as it is written in Matthew, chapter 18: "Whosoever heareth not the church shall be unto thee as a heathen, and an open sinner."
Doctor Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, Predicant at Strasbourg.
Dear dear Christians! At length, Doctor Cunrad Treiger, Provincial, has indicated the content and opinion of his undertaking, and in it he has taken the name of the church in two columns, and from worldly opinion he has indicated the reason why the external common assembly should speak in two-column articles of faith; for ever a judge must be. In order that the most favorable course of action may be taken, let us point out and explain the first thing, the holy Christian church, of which Christ is the one head, namely, that it is the assembly in the Spirit of all believers, as members of one body, which is made alive and ruled by its head, Christ our Lord, alone. Wherefore Paul saith, "The spiritual man is judged of no man, but he judgeth all things." Therefore, since the Scriptures are certainly of the Spirit of God, no more proper outward means of putting away error can be used and performed than this, since the Spirit of God cannot be against Himself; which also shows the fruits of the Spirit, whereby the twitching wolves are discerned, which then casts out the church, without all authority, but the authority of Christ. However, so that the trade is not obscured, we ask Doctor Cunrad Treiger to take one of the many moving points before him and, according to the occasion, to understand it in the shortest possible way; let us meet him in the same way.
2) "twitching" - tearing.
Doctor Cuyrad Treiger, Provincial.
Dear dear Christians! To my objection, introduced in unison against the two first concluding speeches of the opposing party, Doctor Fabricius Capito answers, and he interjects how there is a two-columned Christian church, namely a spiritual one, which is in the Spirit, that is, the body of Christ the Lord, which is also governed by the Lord alone; such a church has no one to judge nor to pass judgment, except the Lord. As Paul indicates when he says, "No one judges the righteous, but he judges all things." Should my Lord Doctor have concluded from this that the righteous, if he may judge all things, would also have to judge the Scriptures, which have hitherto been denied by them, namely, that the Scriptures suffer no judge? But Paul wants to say here that the righteous is not judged, which is undoubtedly true. As he says in another place, "No law is laid down for the righteous." And here Paul speaks nothing of the Christian church, which is the spiritual body of the Lord. But I let that drop; if my doctor admonishes me to take a point kindly before the hand, it is [dear] to me, I have done it: namely, of the authority of the Christian church, and that the same has to speak and judge in division and discord, concerning our faith; this has ever been said by Christ, when he said, "Whosoever heareth not the holy Christian church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and an open sinner." This is not spoken of a secret, hidden Christian church, for it cannot speak and judge in matters of faith, nor separate the breaker of Christian unity from the host of the Lord; therefore I ask you, Doctor, to answer again my argument and the words of the Lord.
Doctor Capito.
Dear pious Christians! To avoid overkill, I want to take responsibility for two points from this speech. First, Paul says to the Corinthians in the first epistle of the 2nd chapter: "The spiritual man judges all things, and will not be judged by anyone. Which is said of every Christian. For every Christian is spiritual, because he has received the firstfruits of the Spirit, whereas 1) the natural or physical man cannot understand the things which are of the Spirit of God. Therefore this is a bright saying, that the church (that is, the congregation of believers) cannot be judged by anyone. And that further
1) "dawider" - against, put by us instead of: "Da wieder".
is indicated: if the spiritual man judges all things, he would also judge the Scriptures; let us give this answer, that the Scriptures are spiritual, as Paul says, for "the law is spiritual. And the spiritual man judges all things according to love, from One faith, that is, he distinguishes what is according to faith and what is according to love. Finally, "he who does not hear the church" etc., we say that this saying speaks of the special church of God, which has chosen to live in the way of death; and is called an outward church because it is led by the Spirit to love one's neighbor and believe in God, which does nothing except that Christ works in it beforehand, and thus acts as members according to the influence of the one Head, and leaves it standing, as is also reported, as no law is given to the righteous, for Paul in our place does not speak of the righteous in such a way, but actually of the spiritual, that is, of the Christian.
Doctor Cunrad Treiger, Provincial.
Honorable pious Christians! My doctor argues that this saying of Paul, when he says: "No one judges the minister, but he judges all things," should be understood by every Christian who has received the Spirit of the Lord; therefore it is understood by a common Christian assembly, which I do not contradict in any way, but it follows, as was indicated before, that such a common assembly, gathered in the Spirit of the Lord, also has to judge the Scriptures and to pass judgment, as it is ever written: "The spiritual judges all things"; here the Scripture omits nothing.' But that my Lord Doctor continues to refer to the words of the Lord, when he says, "Whosoever heareth not the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen," etc., as that this is to be understood of the inward, spiritual man, who judges all things unto faith and love: I say this because here the Lord has willed to show us an outward, visible judge, that we may come to peace and to the unity of our right undefiled faith, in cleavage and two-splitness. For the Lord ever said, "If he will not hear thee, take one or two unto thee; and if he will not hear them, tell the church," must ever be an outward, visible church: for ever it would be shameful to hear that the Lord had set us a judge, invisible and unseen. Therefore it follows, even today, that the same visible church, assembled in one true faith and in the name of the Lord, must judge and speak in matters of faith.
Doctor Capito.
As my doctor claims that he understands and accepts this saying, "the clergyman judges all things," as it is interpreted before, we accept; but that it should follow from this that he would also judge the Scriptures, because he judges all things, may not follow. For the manner of speaking is that he judges all things that are to be judged. Now the Scripture, as it is certainly of the Spirit of God, may not be judged. As for the church, that is, the congregation of God, which is to be excluded, we say that it is every special assembly of believers, here or elsewhere; which is called a congregation of God because it is in the flesh, and does not live according to the flesh; and is indeed an outward assembly, but nevertheless one that judges by the Spirit of God alone, which judgment alone extends to sinners, for the Lord says, "If thy brother sin against thee," etc. In cases concerning faith, however, it is not to judge, but to indicate according to Scripture what is wrong or not, and that according to the measure of faith.
Doctor Cunrad Treiger, Provincial.
In the name of the Lord, Amen! Honorable, pious dear Christians! On my lecture, which I gave today, concerning two points: the first, how the spiritual man has to judge all things, and I then decided that he also has to judge the Scriptures, my doctor met me with the answer that such a text is to be understood in such a way that what is to be judged there, that may be judged by the spiritual man; Scriptures, however, are not to be judged, because they are from the Spirit of God, therefore he may not judge them. But to my mind, they, the opposing party, must necessarily let up, so that the Scriptures may and should be judged by the spiritual man; for to judge the Scriptures does not mean to reject the Scriptures, which have been announced to us by the Christian Church as holy and coming from the Spirit of God, but it is to recognize the spirit of the Scriptures and whether they have been written by the Spirit of God; which the opposing party not only cannot or may not deny to the holy Christian church, since they themselves have laid such things to their charge and undertaken them; for they praise, honor and extol certain books of the holy Scriptures as being wholly full of the Spirit and Gospel, as the Epistle to the Romans, the Gospel of John etc., and other Scriptures, though they have been kept by the church for a thousand years.
The Holy Scriptures, which have been considered sacred, are to be reduced and judged as the Epistle of Jacob, Apocalypsin, and the like. Why then should not the whole common holy Christian church have the right and power to judge the spirit of the Scriptures, and to indicate by whom they were written? as the reverend John says: "Test the spirit, whether it be of God. Therefore my doctor cannot deny that the Scripture may be judged (as heard). Secondly, to the saying of Matthew, "He who does not hear the church," etc., my doctor answered that such a saying is to be understood from sinning, namely, when one brother sins in another, and not from faith, for in this the Scriptures are to be the judge. And although these alone are the bare words of my Lord Doctor, and are not indicated by any Scripture, therefore it would be sufficient to say no to this, but if the text is clear and does not exclude anything, therefore it is also not to be drawn and pressed into any other sense: nevertheless I accept the Doctor's understanding for the first part, namely, that it is to be understood when one sins in his brother, and from sin. But I ask, my doctor, who sins more highly in his neighbor, in a Christian congregation, than he who causes discord and disunity in our undefiled faith, and who sifts against the right understanding of the Word of God, and creates new factions and sects? Furthermore, the text here clearly indicates that the Lord is speaking of trouble. Therefore the Lord says: "If a member causes you trouble, cut it off and throw it from you" etc. This is undoubtedly to be understood of the Lord's spiritual members, when one person causes trouble to another, or to a whole congregation of Christians. For there is no greater trouble than division in our undefiled faith. Therefore it follows that this text is to be understood before and before in this case. Thirdly, my doctor has given an answer as to how this text should be understood, not by the common Christian church, but by each church for itself, so that each church may act and speak in pieces of faith, and not expect a common sentence from the common Christian church. Against this mind of his, I argue thus: Any one church may go astray in matters of faith, therefore none may judge in matters of faith; for ever the judge we shall have in matters of faith shall be irreproachable, and may not err.
Martinus Butzer.
Dear devout Christians! We have a deal, concerning the word of God, against my Lord Doctor; therefore I will give an answer now. And in order that the matter may be shortened, I will leave the restitution of the doctor's speech pending; and give answer first of all on account of the saying: "The clergyman judges everything" etc. Since we know that our opponent wants to draw the conclusion that a common council has the power to accept something apart from Scripture, has also first of all given Scripture the appearance, it has been answered that the clergyman does not have to judge Scripture, that is, to accept or reject Scripture at his own discretion, but he must accept it 1) alone, because he has his knowledge precisely through the Spirit, through whom the Bible is given to us. But if my doctor wants to understand judgment, as Paul himself needs to, in order to recognize that the Scriptures present the Word of God, then we gladly confess that the minister must also judge, that is, recognize, the Scriptures and everything, including God Himself. But I wish my doctor would consider that Paul says here that "the clergyman", not the assembly of clergymen in the Concilio, "has to judge everything". For as every righteous man must live by his own faith, so he must also judge and recognize the Scriptures and Word of God for himself; otherwise he would not be a believer in God, of whose speech he would not know. From this it follows that all Christians have to judge all doctrines in common and separately, as the Christian church of Bern has done this time; for all Christians, that is, those who are Christ's, are also spiritual, because they have the Spirit of Christ; to Romans, chapter 8. But that my lord Doctor has drawn upon us, as if we made an unreasonable distinction of the books which are written in the New Testament, as it is called, I say, that more than a thousand years ago the same distinction and judgment was made by those who have just had the Spirit of God, which all believers still have today. For Eusebius, who wrote before the time of Constantine the Great, reports in the book called Historia Ecclesiastica, in the third book in the 26th chapter, that even the ancients did not hold the other epistle of Peter, the epistle of Jacob, the epistle of John, of the same value as the others, as the four Gospels, and 14 epistles of Paul, the first of Peter, and John. Because no one is Christ, but he has his Spirit, to the Romans in the 8th chapter,
1) has -has.
and we are Christ's, therefore have his Spirit, we may know and judge the truth, as the ancients did, by the same one Spirit. In which judgment, if my Lord Doctor had error, is contrary to the divine Scripture, which teaches all good things; in the other epistle of Paul to Timothy, in the 3rd chapter, he says, "I am a man. From this he may well show whether we judge humanly or spiritually in the case. Concerning the other saying, that my brother Capito said that he spoke of the judgment of sin, he did not speak without Scripture, that it might be answered with a bad "no," as my Lord the Doctor has put it; for it precedes: "But if your brother sins," etc. But that my Lord Doctor wants to admit this in part, as the Scriptures require, and at the same time thinks that what more serious harm can befall the neighbor than if he breaks away from the unity of our unmeasured 2) faith? I gladly admit this to him, but I ask him and all the congregations to be careful who they are that cause division in the faith (as they say). As the life of the faithful is faith, so may they not be hurt more grievously than if they go astray in the faith. But we point to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ alone; therefore true love must follow, so that all Christians may be like one body. But our opponent also wants to point us to the pope, to the Conciliar Churches (which have always decided against each other), to the fathers (of whom there is no one who has not also changed his own teaching in some places). In our doctrine there is neither servant nor master, neither woman nor man, but all in Christ JEsu. So on our counterpart, spiritual and secular, religious and other priests, the orders, also innumerable differences, and all full of sects and parties, which are also deadly hostile to each other, as that alone between preacher and barefoot 3) is known to all the world. Therefore, dear Christians, do not let empty words put on your glasses, and consider Paul's saying to the Romans in chapter 16: "But I admonish" etc. Thirdly, with regard to the trouble, I readily admit that trouble cannot be more serious than rejecting people from the right united faith; this, however, should never happen with us, but with the opposing party in many ways. Now to the last, on which also the whole business stands, what is to be understood by the church, to which, after
2) "unbemaßget" - undefiled. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 634. This is Zwingli's spelling, which we have retained. In this writing, "unbemaßgot" is written almost throughout.
3) That is, between Dominicans and Franciscans.
The church is a congregation and assembly of Christians that lives outwardly in the flesh, but not according to the flesh, because it has the Spirit of Christ. The brother who, in spite of the special and attested warning of his error, did not want to desist from it, so that the church might also punish and warn him, and if he also despises it, consider him a Gentile and a stranger to the church of God, just as the publicani of the Romans were considered among the Jews. But that my Lord Doctor has argued against it, that such a special church can err, therefore this place is not to be understood by other people: In that, dear Christians, where my Lord Doctor did not want to believe, yet you notice that this place must be understood by such a congregation, according to the words of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, to which every Christian may come immediately, and indicate the one, if he sees him sinning, after previous warning; for clearly the text reads, before being read: "But your brother sins" etc. But because of the error I confess, there is no church on earth, if it were possible that all Christians on the whole earth would come together, that it might not err in many things. There will never be any of them, it will be his due to pray, "Lord, forgive us our trespasses!" Now where sin [is], there [is] also error; wherefore I have said before, according to the doctrine of Paul: as the just man liveth in his own faith, so must he also have his own judgment and understanding of the divine word. How could I say I believe my Lord Doctor, if I had not yet recognized what his speech would be? Therefore it has this form: Every Christian must know for himself with Paul whom 1) he has believed. But if one Christian has more spirit than the other, then the more gifted one may serve with his judgment the less gifted one to come to the knowledge of the truth. And yet the matter of all Christians (in this pitiful valley, since our knowledge is fragmentary, 1 Corinthians 13) will be that they do not err in the main point of faith, "namely, that the Almighty through Jesus Christ will be their gracious Father, making them eternally pious and blessed. In addition, however, they may be without right understanding in many things, even in the oertern of the divine Scriptures. How then I respect that also my Lord Doctor,
1) "to whom" put by us instead of: "if".
who is a renowned scholar of the Scriptures, does not claim that he has attained natural right understanding of all the biblical texts: yet if he believes that Christ Jesus is the only Savior, he would, according to the word of the Lord, have eternal life, and the sin and error with which he and other Christians would be afflicted would not harm him at all, according to Romans 8. Now summa, that the truth may be faithfully sought, and from the power of the church (that is, of the orthodox) the whole business of the present disputation, let my Lord Doctor plead the next of the same, and that with the Scriptures.
Doctor Cunrad Treiger, Provincial.
Honorable, pious, dear Christians! To my plea, which was made today by me, to the answer of Doctor Wölfen Capito, the well-learned Martin Butzer, Predicant of Strasbourg, has answered. And first, because I have vigorously tried and shown from the Scriptures, against said Doct. Wolfen, that the Scriptures may be judged as the holy Christian church has judged them up to now, which has been denied by them all and considered as foreign; and to disguise this, Martin Butzer says, as our understanding has been up to now, that the Christian church and the Concilio may take something away from the Scriptures and do so. But I would like to ask him where he found such a thing, that the Christian church and Concilio, once accepted and written as holy by the Spirit of the Lord, would again throw away and disown the Scriptures; which I respect no teacher ever dreamed, let alone that he had undertaken and written such a thing for himself. He also claims, and not unjustly, that the church may judge all things by the Spirit of the Lord, by which Spirit the Scriptures were written. But since every Christian who is ever a Christian also has this Spirit, namely the Spirit of the Lord, let every Christian also judge the Scriptures, and understand the Scriptures by the Spirit of the Lord; and let no one believe on account of any indication, for then he believes not the Lord, but him who has indicated it to him. But I am puzzled, if no one should believe from another's report, why they, the opposing party, he and others, who always endeavor to preach the new faith that has just come into being, should imagine it to the common man. I think he will say, "Because they are given faith. And that he will further say,
How that every one who has the Spirit of the Lord may and should know the Scriptures himself: I will inquire of him whence it is, seeing that he is not a little, but well exercised in the Scriptures, and has great understanding of the Scriptures, that he is so well at variance in the highest matters of faith with his brethren, whom he has so highly praised and exalted before, namely, with Luther, and with the church of Wittenberg. One of them must be wrong in this case, that they both boast of the Scriptures, as well as of the spirit of the Scriptures. Now Luther says he is certain of the matter, and knows that his opponents are deceivers and destroyers of Christian unity, and knows that there is no spirit of the Lord with them; and what spirit he attributes to them, namely Master Ulrich Zwingli, along with the others, I refrain from reporting, on account of the Christian assembly here, to whom the trade is not ignorant. On the other hand, Master Ulrich Zwingli says that he is certain of the matter and has the right true understanding of the right true faith in such articles. Now consider, pious, dear Christians, because such high scholars are so vehemently divided in the faith, which has only grown up in ten years, and one says, namely, Luther, who does not give him faith, may not be saved; Master Ulrich Zwingli says nothing less, namely, in the piece of the reverend Sacrament. Where then is the spirit of which they boast, by which they think they understand the Scriptures? or, what should a pious simple Christian do in this business? Do they mean to say that he should go to the Scriptures, and search therein what he ought to believe? How can he have knowledge of it, when such highly learned men, and those who are well versed in the Scriptures, and who boast of the Scriptures and the Spirit, are thus of two minds? Therefore, without a doubt, every Christian may well judge that there is nothing more useful, and in addition nothing more certain, than to remain in the unity of the holy Christian church. For the Spirit of God is not a spirit of division and discord; it is the spirit of unity. Furthermore, since the opposing party has ever denied 1) that the Scriptures are to be judged, Martin Butzer says that my Doctor Wolfgang Capito has not spoken today without Scripture, that the text of Matthew in the 18th chapter speaks of sin. But I did not say that the doctor spoke without Scripture because the text speaks of sin; but that is why I said that the doctor spoke without Scripture because he excluded faith,
1) "verjachzet" -- affirmed, known.
and says: this text should not be understood by faith. Although his brother now, Martin Butzer, has also quite disbelieved this and has let it go. For it does not follow that he speaks of sins, therefore he does not speak of faith or misbelief; for misbelief is called the highest or only sin among them. Martin Butzer exhorted this Christian congregation so highly and excellently to take notice of who they were who were making rifts, divisions, and sects in Christendom, pointing out that such things were not found among them, for they alone preach Christ Jesus, and that among them there was neither woman nor man, neither lord nor servant, but that they were all one in the Lord; again, in our church, there are found many divisions, namely clerical and secular, priests and laymen, various orders, barefooted, preachers and Augustinians, who also hate each other mortally: he said that he knew it by himself. But what friendship and love are between them is shown by their writings, when they write against each other, the like of which no order has ever written against the other. He would also like to impute to us that there are already divided orders in Christendom, that they do not confess one Christ, do not preach one Christ, do not believe in one Christ, which is far from the truth. We do not yield to him at all, although we are all one in the Lord, as divine truth is, and therefore are not spiritual or secular, not religious and other persons: for such ranks and places in Christendom by no means separate us from the unity of the Lord, nor do we by any means separate ourselves from the Lord on account of such difference of Christianity, nor do we by any means divide in matters of faith. But I exhort you, devout Christians, to take a high view of the right sects, and of the right dividers of Christian unity, and of those who begin to separate in the highest parts of the faith. You have ever heard in ten years that one is called Lutheran, the other Zwinglian, the third Carolostadian, the fourth Oecolampadian, the fifth Anabaptist, and such strange names, or are called least of all; which not only differ in dress (for the same difference may bring no harm or damage to anyone), but separate themselves in excellent points of our undefiled faith. And there is the greatest harm, and the highest sensation to be had.
It shows us also at Martin Butzer, how that
all Coneilia have hitherto been against themselves, and acted against each other, which, if he wants to understand in matters of faith, I am against him, and will by no means confess; nor will he ever again offer it. It is true that in other points, in the case of long periods of time, own persons, time, etc., a concilium may have been set aside that the other has set aside, that they also have good reason and right; for in laws that do not affect the faith, other times and other characteristics of men require other rights. On the third point, where today my doctor has argued how such a text, Matthew chapter 18, should be understood by any one church and Christian community, Martin Butzer has corrected this, saying: "The text urges us that it should never be understood by any other church, for the Lord says: "If he does not hear you, take one or two to yourself; and if he does not want to hear them, tell the church. From this Martin Butzer concludes that this is, or may be, a single church, and not a common concilium, for it is not possible to expect, if one sins in his neighbor, a common concilium that might last about a hundred years. But I say that such a sentence shall be understood by a church and by a common council. It is not necessary, however, that wherever a man offends his neighbor, even if he does not want to hear him or anyone else with him, a common council should be assembled and held. For this reason, in small matters that do not violently affect the faith, or otherwise, no other church is needed. But in high matters of faith, and where stiff-necked dividers of Christian unity are divided and do not want to hear a unified church, it is necessary for the common Christian church to act in such matters and difficult runs, so that the unity of the Christian church is not divided and divided into many sects and many groups, as we now unfortunately see before us. Martin Luther has now persuaded his Wittenberg church that he has the right true faith and understanding of the Scriptures; likewise, all his followers give him strong support and faith. Master Ulrich Zwingli has persuaded our faithful dear Confederates of Zurich that he has the right understanding of Scripture, and yet he has no understanding of Scripture at all. And because both [the] one church are thus divided and divided in faith, and both parts claim that they have the understanding of Scripture; and how highly learned and how skilful they both are, it is impressive that they have the understanding of Scripture.
and manifest to all. If such a division and disunity in our true faith is to be suffered for and for, then we will not only have one faith, but four or five faiths in our Christianity; as also happened in the unfortunate country of Bohemia, which turned away and separated from the unity of the Christian church, and now, at the end of a hundred years, have been divided into 1) several shameful sects. Therefore I again urge and exhort you, a respectable congregation of this noble city of Bern, to take to heart how harmful, how detrimental it is to separate from the unity of the whole Christian congregation, and what harm and damage may come to them from this in the course of time: do not want to be moved by nimble, sharp, cunning talk; for it is not enough, as Martin Butzer has recently indicated, that whoever alone believes that Christ our Lord has made us blessed and redeemed us, even if he goes astray in other things, that he alone will be blessed; For it is not enough for one to give credence and faith to one point or one article of faith, but it is necessary for him to believe the others also, as has been believed by the whole Christian church up to now; for he who does not give credence to the Lord in one thing does not consider the Lord true in all things. There would also be many dissenters and heretics of Christian unity, who are also condemned according to the judgment of the opposing party, who would nevertheless have been blessed, because they also believed this article. But I do not want to say here that every devout Christian, no matter how learned he may be, is obliged and obligated to understand and believe all the articles and all the pieces and all the Scriptures explicitly. But it is enough for the simple to believe with the common Christian church, to which the Lord has promised his Spirit until the end of the world.
On the tenth day Jenners.
Martinus Bucerus.
The grace of the Lord be with us all, Amen! Since yesterday I thanked God the Lord for a decision that our opponents were heard without writing, and exhorted them to come back now to hear our answer, and the doctor complained about it, I will submit this speech, written in writing, to the notaries according to my gracious lord's order;
1) "in" put by us instead of: "at".
thus reads etc.: Praise and thanks be to Almighty God, devout Christians, that he has so gloriously protected and given his truth to us, that this so highly learned doctor, in his so long speech against us, has not brought forward some Scripture, but only from errors and deficiencies of men, against my gracious lords' mandate, desires to make us suspicious to the simple-minded listener, so that Scripture should be acted upon here by the authority of the church. Dear pious Christians, do not let yourselves be misled and distressed to hear our answer to this again; you will hear how scripture- and truthless the papal crowd is. And also ask the doctor most diligently not to resign, for his speech is written as if he wants to leave us the fishing rod.
Accordingly, to answer the Provincial's plea, I testify this time; I want to answer his unwritten reproaches, so that the simple church of God will not be hurt, and after that never again, no matter how sharply he will attack us, because my Lord's mandate has seriously forbidden such. Now, first of all, the Provincial has just made a serious fame for himself, as if he had forced my brother Capito with scripture that the scripture should also be judged by clergymen, which I would have wanted to disguise there. Please, dear devout Christians, be aware of such little grips; if you seek the truth, you need nothing of them. Nor is it here to hear what we are willing or able to learn, but what the Scripture admits or does not admit. That the Scriptures are to be judged by males of the faithful, that is, to be known to be true, we have long since written and preached, as our books, and especially I, who went out to answer the provincial in the fourth and twentieth year, superfluously testify, namely about the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth and twentieth propositions or miracle speeches; he called it paradoxa. But that no Christian congregation has to judge the Scriptures in such a way that it is above accepting or rejecting something: we have always denied this. But that the Provincial asked me who had ever admitted such a judgment of the church, I say that we have unfortunately found this in many; the pious Christian judges, whether the Provincial is not of such an opinion, according to the content of his miraculous speeches, including the 29th, which I will read out here for your love. The notaries now note the number, that they may bring f>s] afterwards from his own printed booklet into the Acta. And so the 25th reads:
The XXV Miracle Speech.
Therefore we consider that by divine counsel the church has rejected many gospels (some of which were held, and that the apostles, as Thomas, Matthias, Bartholomew, should have written them), and has given us to believe as Marcus and Lucas, who were not apostles, wrote.
The XXVI Miracle Speech.
So that it may be publicly known to everyone how the super-holy church surpasses all, that therefore also with her would be the judgment of all doctrines, even the apostolic ones, so that what she did not prove should be neither strength nor respect.
The XXIX Miracle Speech.
Therefore, apart from divine rights, it is not less necessary to accept what she (the common church) has believed belonging to faith, and to believe the same (at least by accepting it), than to believe that she has taught us from divine Scripture etc.
In this last concluding speech, the Provincial clearly indicates that we are to accept, even without Scripture, what the Christian church has accepted; and understands here, through the church, the common concilium and the common multitude of the baptized, who have often acted contrary to the word of God, accepted grave errors and idolatries, as this is to be explained in the following article of this disputation with the bright word of God. Thus the Concilium recently held at Constance condemned as heretical that the Christian community is only those who are ordained to eternal life, when St. Paul wrote with clear scripture to the Romans in the 8th chapter: "Those whom the Lord has ordained, He has also called, made godly and holy. It is now clear that the provincial church has presumed to dismiss the bright words of God. Therefore, there is no need to masculinely dismiss such a verdict. But I will never give an answer to such pleas of conciliation; bring in what you will, unless Scripture, which would be respected, protects such error.
On the other hand: Dear Christians! Because the Provincial is very earnestly urging the insurmountable saying: "The spiritual judges all things", in the first epistle to Corinthians at the 2nd chapter, which must be understood by every Christian, because no one is of Christ who does not have his Spirit, to Romans at the 8th chapter. There the Provincial without Scripture has subjected himself to such a glorious saying.
and that with two questions. The first: if the Spirit must teach all Christians, and without the Spirit of the Lord and our own understanding of the divine Word, no faith can be had: why then do we so diligently preach the new-grown faith? What question, devout Christians, whether it is not an open calumnia and empty drifting, you should all judge. It is also known to all Christians that where God does not teach, all preaching is in vain; yet God the Lord has chosen this order, so that there might be all the more love and unity among Christians, that they should instruct and teach one another without ceasing. Which order of God is clearly described by Paul in the 3rd chapter to Corinthians in the first epistle. I will read you the place: "Who then is Paul? Who is Apollo?" There you have, dear Christians, clear Scripture, that God teaches by His Spirit alone that faith arises in the heart; and nevertheless wants us to serve Him with diligent preaching of the outward word. And so I answered him in writing to his unscripted question. However, we have to suffer from the fact that he has scolded our old undefiled faith for a new ten-year-old faith, just like his other forgiven Schmitz speeches. But he who knows God knows well that from the beginning of the world there has never been any other faith among all the children of God than the one we preach, namely, that man is confident in the goodness of God through Jesus Christ, certain and certain that God will finally make him eternally pious and blessed, and that he is therefore willing and inclined to do love and good to all the world. Faith, in which all the righteous have ever lived, is an inexhaustible fountain of all true good works. This is the faith we preach, and we commit ourselves to death if our doctrine were otherwise. We want to remain with certain divine Scriptures, which are the eternal divine Word, and are here now for this very reason, out of the entire Christian order of our gracious lords of Bern, that such an old faith be brought to light in a divine congregation here in Bern, and that the new human fiefdoms, which in the past six hundred years have been torn down and imposed on the simple people, in part through human arrogance, be driven away.
The other question with which the Provincial exhales a smoke from the bright shine of the glorious saying: "The spiritual judges all things", is this: if the Spirit teaches the Christians (that is, the clergy) all truth, and I diligently search the Scriptures with others, and still not
I especially do not agree with Luther about the sacrament, which I have praised highly. This question has been answered enough above and in writing that our knowledge here, of all Christians and clergy, is still piecemeal. As Paul writes to Corinthians 1 Ep. Cap. 13, that the Christians, as long as they live here, still have much lack and error. But because the Spirit of God bears witness to their spirit that they are children of God, therefore they trust in God as their Father (Romans, Chapter 8), they have eternal life, John, Chapter 6. Therefore, it does not matter if they do not understand all the passages of Scripture, or if they are in error, but they do not overthrow their childlike trust in God. Now I gladly confess, dear devout Christians, that God Almighty has explained me further from day to day. For a while, out of ignorance, I also praised Thomam de Aquino; but since God has made it known to me through His Word that He is leading me away from God, I have bid him farewell. I praised Luther highly, and still praise him today, yes, rather, I praise God the Lord in him for pointing us from man to God. But that he now, especially by God's decree (lest perhaps the honor due to God alone should be given to him), should insist that the spiritual words of Christ should be understood carnally against the unity of faith, and teaches to seek consolation in the sacraments; item, mixes the true humanity of Jesus Christ with the divinity, which will be discussed hereafter: the glory of God compels me, and other pious Christians with me, that we must stand apart from Luther, just as we are to be believers in God, and not in Luther. Besides, as long as he preaches that Christ Jesus is our only Savior, we want to consider him our brother and tolerate this error, because God alone, and not we, can get rid of it. But if he and his crowd want to reject us altogether, we rejoice that the Father has delivered the final judgment to His Son Christ, and not to Luther, nor to the pope. For our dear brethren it is enough to be at one with us in the sum of faith, namely, that we are all nothing, and that God wants to make us pious and blessed through Christ alone. The old holy teachers have advocated more serious errors about free will and other things in their writings; for this reason, however, no one rightly rejects them, 1) because their final opinion was that the glory of God is not to be gained through faith.
1) that is: not a right-minded person.
tes. We are also heartily sorry that anyone separates from us, makes sects and parties. My dear brothers, Master Ulrich Zwingli and Oecolampadius have certainly never thanked anyone who named himself after them; this is also true of Luther. That is why the opponents think of such names, Oecolampadian, Zwinglian, and the like. We point to the one Christ. And look, dear devout Christians, because we are to be respected according to what we teach, and not according to what foolish and wicked people mistreat, which happens to us quite unkindly if we are accused of making sects and cults. We preach that one should believe in only One God, recognize only One Head, Jesus Christ, live only according to the Holy Scriptures and according to the twelve articles of the old Christian faith, putting aside all later teachings, articles and customs.
But now our counterpart wants to have a secondary head, the pope; secondary and new teachings, secondary mediators and satisfaction. And that I give a short answer to such a scriptural objection, to recognize who causes division: so all papists admit that the mass is the best good work, and no layman can accomplish such a thing. But we teach, according to the Scriptures, that woman and man, young and old, may have all true good works alike, pointing them to the one brotherly love, [which] is a master in all good works, making all things one. One also knows well how highly they have praised their indelebilem characterem ordinis, that is, an unrelated 1) character of soul, which they think to have before the laity, and therefore to be more spiritual and more worthy than the laity. What can one say? dear Christians! Which order has not had a god but an idol? (I myself have been persuaded of this, and have spent some time with it in the Order of Preachers) that they pretend. St. Dominic has obtained from our dear Lady that no preacher monk be eternally damned. Thus one finds in printed books that St. Franciscus annually takes all barefooters out of purgatory. Are these not great benefits and separation from common believers, and true Christian faith? For the sake of brevity, I will drop such pieces as Menges, also well known to the Provincial. We make God and all that is good, [according to] true Scripture, entirely common to all believers. Now let us see who are the ones who cause the mobs or sects, for we are not responsible for what others, thieves, do.
1) "Unchanged" -.unchangeable, indelible. - In the old edition: "Selverzeichung".
or evil people. But that the provincial (from the fact that nowadays, when the truth of the Gospel has come back on the scene, many sects rise up) would gladly suspect the holy Gospel, which teaches nothing but true unity and righteous love: I exhort you, devout Christians, to consider the word of the Lord: "I have not come to send peace, but a sword; that the Son may be against the Father, and the Father against the Son, also the word of Paul to Corinthians in the first epistle in the 9th chapter, "There must come divisions, that the tried may be made manifest." For if the strong-armed prince of the world has kept his host in error, it is a harmful peace, and he lies, so that the errors become stronger, and no separation comes; But as soon as the Lord Jesus lets his truth, which is unpleasant to him, shine forth, the prince of the world moves his unbelievers, over whom he rules, so that the one devises and imposes one thing and the other another, so that the simple people may go astray and be led by the Scriptures. This is what happened when the apostles themselves were still preaching, as their epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, Tertullianus, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and all the ancient teachers testify. But since the anti-Christianity of the Orientalists, through Mahomet, and of the Occidentals, through the papal regiment, has gained the upper hand, it is no wonder that it has kept the peoples in unity of error. And as soon as the divine word broke forth in our country through the pious Hussein in Bohemia, the old enemy brought forth his old pieces again, and caused many sects and divisions, namely, since there was freedom of the word. In other places he has subdued the word with secular power. Nowadays, after the end of the Gospel, he acts in the same way with us Germans. Where he cannot bring the worldly authority to forbid the ministry of preaching, he otherwise moves erroneous and confused people who cause unjust division; this is what God wants, so that His own learn to look to no man, but to the assurance of the Holy Spirit inwardly in the heart. Everyone must be taught by God and be assured in his heart that if not only a concilium, not only the whole world, but also the angels from heaven pretend otherwise with signs and wonders, he may curse them with Paul.
This is what I, dear devout Christians, want to say in response to the provincial's objections, [which he] has the good sense to dismiss:
"The clergyman (that is, every Christian) should judge everything". Witness me, however, that I do not want to answer for such any more. If he brings scripture, he finds an answer; if he brings his own speech, he finds silence. But in order that your love, after the struggle of human speeches, may again refresh its hearts in the light of divine truth, I will read to your love the reported place of Paul 1 Cor. 2 chapter; but hear it with diligence, because the arrest of it lies, and overthrow once, not only the plea of the provincial, but all supposed power of the pope and the conciliar, in prescribing the articles of faith, which they have forced the Christian people to believe besides the Scriptures. The place we want to start here: "That no eye has seen" etc.
(And such place is read out.)
Now the judgment of truth in this matter is clear to all ecclesiastics, that is, Christians (mark well! for he who does not have the spirit of Christ is not his), and to no concilio, no pope. If they are spiritual, they will judge for themselves, and also let us judge for ourselves. For this reason, the present disputation has been conducted in an entirely Christian manner. For even if all the conciliarities were with one another and judged Christianly, neither I nor you would be helped, for we would each have learned our own judgment and knowledge of the truth in our hearts through the Spirit of truth, of whom the Lord says, "He, the Spirit of truth, will guide you (not the pope, not the conciliarities) into all truth," John 16. 16 Therefore be faithfully warned, devout dear Christians, against the teaching of the Provinciai, who desires you to expect decision in matters of faith only from a Concilio, which (as he describes it) has never been on earth, and never will be, according to his 66th miraculous speech, which reads: "For if this does not happen, etc. Now note here that the Provincial holds the common church: all baptized. Where has now ever been held a Sonctlium ex assensu et auctoritate (from Gehell 1) and command, or authority, as he himself wants to translate auctoritnL) of all baptized? What have those in India Gehell.oder Gewalt given to the Concilio at Constance, since there are admittedly not many who know whether Constance is a Sradt or a Thier? Therefore, devout Christians, to the Scripture! to the Scripture! which makes wise.
1) "Gehell" - consent (asssusus). In the old edition: "Gehäl".
(says Paul) to salvation, and teach all good things, 2 Tim. at the 3rd chapter. For the understanding of the Scriptures all children of God, wise and simple, must ask the Father, who cannot deny his good spirit to anyone who asks him for it. This answers the provincial's question: where should the simple seek right understanding, since the learned are in disagreement about many things? But, as I said, those who are children of God, never in the essentials of faith.
Now to the last, the word of Matthew at the 18. Concerning the word of Matthew in chapter 18, where Christ commands to tell the church about the maltreatment of the brother who does not mend his ways after having been warned, your love heard yesterday clearly from the words of the Lord himself, that the church of the place of need must mean to us every Christian assembly, here or elsewhere, where he who injures his brothers (whether with false doctrine or other evil works) may be put; therefore let the words of the Lord himself be heard once more, they are words of eternal life. The Lord has spoken of the forgiveness of the transgression and injury of the brethren, and continues to speak hereafter. But now consider with diligence, as much as I will now read: "But if thy brother sin in thee," etc. From this text it is clear as daylight that the Lord Jesus speaks of every assembly of believers, even if they are only two or three. Who teaches the truth? Who teaches and leads other than the Lord? Now if there are only two or three gathered together in his name, what is the need for a common council? For there is no scripture that says that if the crowd is larger, the Lord will be with them the more. So every believer must feel, and not think, that the Lord is with him, that he may speak with Paul: I do not live, I do not judge, I do not speak, but Jesus Christ, who does it all in me.
In the responsibility of yesterday's plea of the Provincial, I have left it at that place today, where he, against the bright words of our Lord Jesus (when he said to denounce to the church the brother who does not want to mend his ways over the attested warning), has stated that the church should not only be called a special assembly, but the whole common church, assembled in the Concilio; and stated that in common sins it is not necessary to expect a common concilii, but that each congregation of God may punish such. But if it concerns the faith, the matter is not to be settled by each congregation, but by a common council, so that this church does not accept one opinion and the other the other.
The church in Wittenberg and Zurich, which are in disagreement because of the sacrament, are exemplarily attracted by him. To this my answer is: first, that his plea is without Scripture, and therefore not answerable in this place. The text is clear that it speaks of the congregation, to which the sinful brother may be referred by each one. Thus, the provincial himself wants to have understood heresy and false teaching under the name "sin" of this place. From this it follows that he must admit such a judgment to every Christian; for according to Christ's commandment, every one should punish his sinning brother; this he cannot now do justly, for he has rightly judged him to be a sinner and an errorist. Secondly, because his human plea might appear to the simple-minded as if more unity in the faith could be hoped for if the matters of faith were decided by a common concilium, I exhort you, dear Christians! I exhort you, dear Christians, to be mindful of what I have presented to you today from divine Scripture, namely, that right understanding of the Word of God and unity of faith cannot be promoted by any group of men who are themselves liars, but we must be assured by the Spirit of God in our hearts, each for himself. This is finally encountered by all whom God has ordained to eternal life, for He calls such, makes them devout and blessed, to Romans in the 8th chapter. In addition, as has been said today, one church may understand some parts of Scripture differently from another, as is the case with this saying, "This is my body," not only between the church at Wittenberg and that at Zurich, but also many others. But where trust is placed in the one Savior Jesus, there one has eternal life, John 6:6. And such disputes may not hurt at last. Trust in God, which is the life of the elect, will continue, and through God's Spirit will still be perfected, and will never come to an end. Against this, which is the written truth, according to the word: "He who believes in me has eternal life," the provincial, but without all Scripture, has raised an objection: it is not enough for a person to believe that Christ has saved him, he must also believe everything that the common Christian church, which he understands to mean all the baptized, among whom are many who have been rejected and have never tasted faith, has believed and accepted. Let it be proved that we ourselves confess that some heretics are damned who have believed such things.
To this we say no. Whoever has believed once that our Lord Jesus Christ has redeemed him has received the seal of the Holy Spirit to eternal life. For those who believe in Jesus are children of God, John 1. chapter. "And may no man say in truth, the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost"; in the first epistle to Corinthians at the 12th Cap. Therefore I have erred, however hard it may be: whoever has attained so much from God that he has recognized and believed in our Lord Jesus for his Savior, is born of God, may never sin unto death, and has eternal life. But that the Provincial has further subjected his Concilia in matters of faith (as they understand faith) to prove unanimously: I will say no more about it this time, except that the contradiction has been found, and in the next Roman Concilio has recognized that for a pernicious heresy, hold that a common Concilium is about the pope. Which both Concilia, held at Constance and Basel, have recognized as a salutary truth.
Now to the decision, the Provincial has admonished with very serious words a congregation of God of Bern not to separate from the common Christian church. The same, dear pious Christians of Bern, we also admonish you, but to a right mind, through the Lord, and your own welfare. But note that this is the holy Christian church, whose one head is Christ, not the pope; which was born from the word of God, not from the decision of the councils; which remains in the same and lives by it, regardless of what the rest of the world does. You will have to give account before the judgment seat of Christ JEsu for yourselves, and not for other churches, and not before the conciliar or papal churches. Therefore, dear Christians, if you want to come to divine and only lasting unity, do not let any sharp, cunning gossip of men be directed at the exceedingly ugly and sullied congregation of the popes, but give room and place to the word of Him who created you and bought you with the blood of His Son. Do not listen to the voice of the strangers who seek themselves, as you must take hold of it, but listen to the life-giving voice of the only shepherd of your souls, Jesus Christ, who says: "Come to me (not to my governor or conciliar, but to me), all you who are burdened, and I will give you rest. Your faithful servants in God, our dear brothers, Franciscus Kolb and Berchtold Haller, have undertaken to lead you to this, which they and we have manfully demonstrated by means of clear scripture and
are gathered here to prove. Since the teaching of the Provincial (written in his hundred miracle speeches, or perhaps better translated, unbelievable sayings) is directly contrary to the two first reported brothers' final speeches, and indeed also to the others, I ask and admonish, for the sake of truth and his, the Provincial's, office, that he act with Scripture against them, and drop human pleas without Scripture. But what he thinks he has done to them without writing, against us in general, or against us preachers in Strasbourg: he wants to write them, if he is still here, or if he comes from there, in writing; he should therefore be answered adequately, and we ourselves should put them into print. Since, however, the word of God alone is to be acted upon here, according to the mandate of my gracious lords of Bern, let him produce the same, and let him receive a sufficient answer from my dear brothers. Dear Christians want to understand this in the best way and judge according to the truth.
Master Ulrich Zwingli, Predicant at Zurich.
If my lords of Zurich (the so old honest city, which has always kept itself so pious, wise and faithful, be it in times of peace or war) are particularly attracted, as if they were seduced by me, although such would be spared, it is not proper to leave such a praiseworthy place, and that first of all of a confederation, unaccountable. I say that the aforementioned gentlemen have not been seduced by me, nor have they believed me, but, having rejected my teaching, which is not mine but God's (like the Israelites in Berea, Apost. 17), held against the divine word and found it to be true and divine, they accepted not my, but God's word and opinion, adhered to it earnestly (praise be to God!), and reformed and shaped themselves, as much as God would give, according to the initial church customs and order, regardless of all human teaching. But that I am attracted by him, as if I am famous for the Spirit, the Scriptures, is truly unkind to me, and I refer this to all my writings, and to those who have heard my sermons. Here I ask my Lord Provincial to refrain from sacrilegious untrue speeches, and to keep only to the divine word, so that the time is not uselessly consumed. Oecolampadii and my doctrine will be given male account, if God wills, with seriousness and discipline, in continuing disputation, provided that one will execute it with love of God and truth etc.
On such speech, when the provincial began to speak: Honorable, pious, dear Christians! Today Martin Butzer introduced many strange speeches and preached a long sermon etc. And when the presidents wanted to think that the reported Mr. Provincial wanted to further attack the preachers of Strasbourg, because of their trade, which they have against each other, and need long speeches, not serving anything for the present disputation: my lords, the presidents, lords councillors and citizens of Bern, have opened order, considered for the abolition of prolix and unnecessary speeches:
Namely, that one should stick to the Scriptures and debate according to the content of my lords' mandate, and completely refrain from all conciliatory words and touching of persons. And what the Provincial and the Predicants of Strasbourg have to do with each other, should be set at this time, and ask each other for it after the appropriate time. But where the] Mr. Provincial would be willing to contest the final speeches, he shall be allowed to dispute against the predecessors with holy scripture, and to act peacefully without further ado.
To this the provincial protested (as above) and thereby indicated that he explained his writings with subsequent appendices, necessary to the matter of his understanding. And as far as he may not be granted perfect space to speak, which serves the cause, than at a free disputation, because such is permitted to Butzer today, he does not want to disputate, because the Acta may go out in print; and if he is not granted to speak according to necessity, it may be considered that he would not have known to do so, if a law had been made for him, and the mouth had been closed.
After this, the presidents spoke, as follows:
Master Cunrad Schmid, Comentür zu Küßnacht, President, on behalf of all Presidents.
The opinion of my lords the presidents is that they do not want to allow the deal which my lord provincial, and Doctor Wolf Capito and Martinus Butzer, preachers at Strasbourg, have had against each other for some time now, and which they have drawn up and answered here, to be carried out and executed before the congregation at Bern, in a respected disputation; for we are decreed by our lords of Bern to be presidents over their articles, and by no means over any foreign actions and shenanigans which anyone might have against the other. Therefore, we have undertaken to serve the same office alone; but we permit my Lord Provincial to speak and dispute freely with the preachers of Bern, against their articles, from the divine word, according to the order and reputation of my gracious lords of Bern, so that no church or congregation, no person, here present or elsewhere, is touched, what everyone believes or does not believe. We also ask him diligently to undertake this further in order to clarify the trade, and to defend the span that he has with the preachers of Strasbourg at other times, either in writing or orally.
The Comentür's protestation in particular.
I protest here that my lords, the presidents, have not imposed silence on the provincial, or refused to speak and dispute, but have allowed him to speak and dispute freely with the preachers against their articles; have also asked him to do so, for the sake of more explanation, so that divine truth may be opened the more and more cheerfully; not to refuse him any more to speak, because the trade and chip he has with the preachers of Strasbourg, about which we do not find presidents.
Master Niclaus Brieffer's Protestation.
You have, Mr. Provincial, (as you have spoken), indicated two Locos Scripturae; but in doing so, you have brought in many things, quae non fuerunt Scripturae, sed facti; namely, the trade, which has gone astray with the Predicants of Strasbourg. Similarly, the preachers, Doctor Capito and Martinus Butzer, have also brought forth. And such a trade a respectable council and president does not want to allow to enter further into this disputation and mix, but shall only be dealt with what serves for or against the final speeches of the preachers; as reported before.
Further, Mr. Provincial, so that you do not misunderstand an honorable council and the presidents' opinion: your dignity is allowed to dispute with the Scriptures; and not only with the Scriptures, which are with cheerful and expressed words against the final speeches of the preachers, but also with Scriptures, from which Scriptures you may show and indicate that from the same Scriptures it truly follows that this is against the final speeches of the preachers.
Capitonis and Buceri protestation and testimony.
The provincial complains that he has no place to answer our speech, which is unchristian and against the truth. Now we have nothing to do with him, because as far as he has written and acted against the first two final speeches, on which the whole Christian trade stands, in our churches; for this reason we had asked our gracious lords of Bern to describe him: from this alone we have desired to act with him. But if he has introduced the common objections against the common Christian doctrine, according to his old custom, without writing, it has been necessary to answer the same; and this we have done with writing, and officially the first two final speeches. Now he has free space to act with writing against the first two final speeches. May he do that
If he will not do it, then do it, and he will be victorious, as in the main subject, so in everything I have said against him. If he will not do it, as he is not able to do it, everyone sees clearly that his faith, doctrine, and everything he does is without Scripture. But if the Scriptures contain all good things, let men know what his doings and teachings are, which he does not know how to maintain with divine Scripture, and how divine ours, which he has not been able to refute with divine Scripture. Christians, consider this and judge it! But we ask him to bring forth what he loves (truth is never unequal to itself), we want to give him a sufficient answer. But in this place, where only writing is to be used, other things do not belong to him, if he writes, he shall be answered superfluously. We have also diligently asked the venerable presidents to grant him to answer this time, as he pleases, [so] we do not want to answer anywhere, but only if from the Scriptures he would bring up against the first two final speeches, and let all other speech go away. If, however, this is not the case (because of our gracious lords of Bern's mandate), we have asked him to do what he may with Scripture, so that all Christians may see that we seek the glory of God.
Master Ulrich Zwinglin's protestation, after Doctor Cunraden Treiger's protestation.
So I protest in advance that the Provincial had the address; but since only men know that it is always the defendant's duty to answer.
Since he protests that it does not seem right for him to speak freely, I protest or testify before the whole congregation that it does seem right for him to speak, but out of God's word, refraining from shameful and disgraceful speech, as my presidents' proclamation has now been heard from the honorable council's recommendation. Since he says that it is especially not appropriate for him to speak against me, I refer to the Acta, since Oecolampadius and I have just commanded us to give account of our doctrine from God's Word, but to act with discipline and fear of God.
But that he testifies that he would gladly show our greatest deception and lack to the simple Christian people, so entrap him: I testify that we would gladly hear such things, to be done with God's word, which may well be without all blasphemy and shame, as was used of him yesterday.
Has further opened the pastor of Appenzell.
In your name, Lord Jesus Christ, amen! When Mr. Berchtold, Predicant of my lords of Bern, used a long rambling speech about the ban, in which long speech he confessed to be a ban, be it a priest or a parish, which I gladly understood from him; because the ban is an exclusion of the Christian community, which cannot happen without force. So then he points out some abuses that have been kept with the ban, or not. I am not here to promise the abuses of the churches, but I praise praiseworthy Christian punishments given to a Christian regiment; and that they are to be praised is attested to in the Holy Scriptures, Apostles, in the 20th chapter. Chapter 20, which reads: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole host (that is, the Christian assembly), in which the Holy Spirit has set you bishops to govern the Church of God, which he has delivered with his rose-colored blood! Paul also told the Ephesians in chapter 3, "that Christ has appointed some twelve messengers, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors, and also teachers, for the edification of his divine service and of the body of Christ" etc. In which words it is clearly indicated to all people who believe in Christ, who should govern the church of God. He did not say that each one alone should rule according to his own pleasure. And that in short, and so that I live up to the command given by our gracious lords of Berne to both parties, they should also take care to refrain from rambling speeches that do not serve the cause.
Berchtoldus.
From the power one shall understand in writing a command, and make no more a head than the servitude of the word. The scripture, which the priest has extracted from the stories of the twelve messengers in the 20th chapter, is not to be understood as a command. Chapter, how the Holy Spirit has appointed bishops to govern the church of God, he should actually understand what the Scripture calls a bishop; For the word actually means a watchman, who presides over the sheep, and governs them as a shepherd, and not as a lord of the flock, but as the shepherd presides over the sheep to feed them, so Christ ordained apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors, and teachers, for the edification of the body of Christ, into the ministry of service, as Paul himself speaks to the Ephesians in the 4th chapter. chapter itself. Therefore, the pastor does not conclude otherwise, neither that in front of enough him responsible
tet is. He brings forth other scriptures that serve as "heads". For if his mind were to stand, there would be as many heads as there are bishops in a church, for Paul spoke this word to the shepherds in Ephesus, of whom there were many.
Pastor at Appenzell.
Pious Christians! When Mr. Berchtold stated that there is no other power than Christ's or God's, I gave him sufficient notice yesterday in the first speech of the decision, if a more 1) just notice will help; in which I gave him sufficient clear notice of the power of the almighty God, His power, His mercy, His glory and honor, given to no one on earth nor in heaven. Nor shall any man speak (whether God wills it) that there is none in this party, and I have never spoken it for this. After that I told him about the authority that he had given to his chosen disciples, and when he has confirmed the authority that was sufficiently shown before, he will give me a command. But that it had a power, and' has a difference, note the holy evangelist: "As my heavenly Father hath sent me, even so send I you also." Item, from the declaration which I have set forth before, how he has set to govern his divine church. As indicated by the preceding saying, "some shepherds, some teachers," etc., in which a recommended authority is clearly indicated, and that another thing is "shepherds" and "teachers.
Berchtoldus.
I asked the pastor a question: whether he wanted to introduce from the two sayings that report the office and ministry that Christ has left to his church: whether he wanted to introduce that whoever has such an office in the church, he is a teacher, an evangelist, a shepherd and guardian, that he is therefore a head of the church; answer to that!
Theobaldus, pastor of Appenzell.
Pious dear Christians! I have lodged a complaint against Mr. Berchtold concerning my request, and thought that he should give me an answer: so he asks me to give him an answer. That one should dissolve before, I have heard all along, whether [before] one should ask; so Mr. Berchtold asks me, and does not answer me to my question, in that I have desired a difference between the shepherd and teaching. But in that no delay to have, but to give an answer to his
1) "ächter" - different.
Question: If he has left it after that a power is given to his dear twelve messengers, must it ever follow, so a teacher, a shepherd, command one, or have to command one, the same head be he, or superior. For we do not want to stand in words; that I nevertheless bring my thing to day, and that not with circumlocutory speeches, so I bring forth the holy word, which Mr. Berchtold sees and then gives me an answer.
The Lord Jesus said to his dear disciples: "You are the light of the world. Even though he is the true light, and this again is testified by the divine Scripture: "I am the light of the world"; nevertheless, the holy twelve messengers of Jesus Christ do not mistake the word, when he said to them: "I am the light of the world", because they are also lights of the world. For the divine word may never be lacking. In the same way, as one is called a shepherd, there is no error in that, though others are also called so, etc. yet there is one Shepherd, Jesus Christ, for ever and ever.
Berchtoldus.
Listen, dear Christians, to the command of God concerning the offices of His church, from the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 12: "There are many gifts, but there is One Spirit from whom the gifts flow; and there are many offices, but there is One Lord; and there are many powers, but there is One God who works all things in everyone. Then understand more clearly that all offices, even if they are called powers, are nothing but servitudes and not rulers. For St. Peter says in the first epistle of the 5th chapter, "Feed the flock of Christ which is among you, and feed them; not being compelled, but willing yourselves; not for the desire of shameful gain, but of an inclined mind; not as ruling over the hereditary people of God." And though they command, they do it by the word of God; rather, God does it in them, and through them: "For ye are not they which speak, saith the Lord, but the Spirit of my heavenly Father." For this reason nothing is raised against us, that Christ calls himself a light of the world; this he essentially is, and no one else; but the apostles are called lights of the world by participation, because they are enlightened by the true light of Christ. Now as Christ is one head, one light, so no other head, no other light can be essential but He alone. In short, everything that the priest has brought in shows us no other head than Christ.
Pastor.
Pious Christians! As Mr. Berchtold indicates the first epistle to the Corinthians in the 12th chapter, how God Almighty has given many gifts to His dear disciples: that no one is beyond Him. All people who believe in Christ are well aware that God Almighty has gifted people with various gifts, and yet every Christian owes praise and thanksgiving for whatever gifts He has given him. But in that, when he asked me, he asked me, that it was One Lord, therefore there should be no other Lord; and he put forward the text, which I put before him, how the Lord Jesus said, "I am the light of the world"; likewise also to his disciples, "Ye are the light of the world" etc., but One Lord and many offices are indeed: God is one Lord essentially, and one light essentially, but his disciples are one light participatively, that is, partially, or receptively, from him. If he has now left off, Mr. Berchtold, that the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ have the received authority, it follows that they may also be participative heads, not excluding the true one Head Jesus Christ. Therefore, if Mr. Berchtold has made the two certifications, he should consider them well, for they will not be against me.
Berchtoldus.
There is one head, which is a savior of the church of God. Paul tells Ephesians in chapter 5: "There are many offices", or ministers, "who are members of the body of Christ"; but they are not the head, of which the Scripture speaks, who gives life to the members, and is a savior of the body. From this, however, the priest cannot prove against our conclusion that the apostles are lights of the world, not essentially, but are enlightened by the headship of Christ, just as all believers, all Christians, are. But it does not follow that all Christians are therefore heads of the church. Bring clear Scripture, that there is another head of the church, which makes it alive, and is its Savior.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
I would like to speak a little about the explanation of how Christ is the light and how the apostles are the light. Christ is the true essential light (John in the first chapter), and all the light that the apostles have, he gives them. Take, dear reverend, an example: the sun gives the day in through the window, and is but the day or light nothing for itself, but as soon as
If the sun does not shine, there is no day. So also the apostles have as much light as the sun of righteousness, Christel, gives them; and where the sun does not shine, there is no light. And so Christ alone is the light, the life, and the power that enlightens, makes alive, and keeps all men; and the apostles are enlightened, made alive members of the church, and not chiefs. I say, dear reverend, for your instruction and the simple.
Pastor.
When Mr. Berchtold introduced how the twelve messengers were not essential lights of the world, it should have been nothing. Nobody was against it. But that he also introduced how Mr. Berchtold says that Christ alone is the essential light and the twelve messengers are not; everyone believes this. But the example and exemplification, as Master Ulrich Zwingli spoke, of the light, given to me by the sun through the window, I actually recognize well, without any means, that this is the true light, and the beginning of light. But the light that penetrates the window, I hope, will also let it be a light for me. So also, at the beginning of my resolution, I acknowledge God, the Lord Jesus Christ, my Sustainer, to be the head of all the world. But that no ordained head should be left behind from his divine word, [I hope,] no one will prove against me; and so I commend myself to the divine words, which I have drawn from the holy Scriptures, to every Christian reader for my person.
Zwingli.
I did not use the example to base the divine word on it, but to give the simple an introduction to understand the divine word all the more clearly by means of well-recognized things, as St. Paul also liked to do in the first chapter of Romans. Accordingly, the priest recognizes God, the Lord Jesus Christ, his vessel and all the world, to be also one head. These are all the words of the priest, as they stand here. Here I praise God, who promised that if one asked him, he would hear; that he has heard to this day the devout Christians of Bern, who have so often anxiously asked him in these days to enlighten the dark hearts, that our dear pastor and brother of Appenzell recognizes that Christ the Lord is his container, and also that he is the container of all the world; for as far as such a thing is from
1) "them" put by us instead of: "him".
If the priest has spoken in true faith, he will never again inquire of any head, any vessel, any light, any other father or comforter; for he who comes to the well never again thirsts (John 4:4) for any other salvation, for any other light, for any other consolation. I may well note that with him all creatures' consolations are vain; yes, in sum, therefore I give praise and thanks to God.
On the eleventh day Jenners.
Pastor.
In your name, Lord Jesus Christ! Amen. Pious Christians! When I asked Master Ulrich Zwingli about his example of the window with the two lights, he answered that he had not put it on, that he wanted to base it on the divine word. After that, there was a great hue and cry, as if I had fallen for his opinion: I believe that such a thing will not be found in the acts. If I recognize God, my Redeemer, and the world, as all devout Christians should do, I have done and taught this before I ever recognized Master Ulrich Zwingli. Nevertheless, I have left a spiritual authority on earth, as I have clearly indicated with divine Scripture. I protest here before a whole honorable congregation that I do not want to adhere to Master Ulrich Zwingli's faith, nor to his teachings, nor do I want to be, but rather to remain in the unity of the Christian church and in commendable traditions, and, if necessity would require it, to die doing so.
Zwingli.
Pious Christians! That the priest testifies that he is not of my faith, and yet yesterday he publicly testified that he recognizes God, the Lord Jesus Christ, his vessel, and the whole world: I testify that I also have faith; and thereby I leave it to every Christian to judge how the priest's speech compares to the truth and yesterday's testimony, and I rely on his words, which are written by the scribes in the Acta etc.
Master Niclaus Christen, singer from Zofingen.
In the name of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, may God, the heavenly Father, by the grace of God the Holy Spirit, grant us a true Christian knowledge of His holy Word, and a true Christian understanding of His Holy Spirit.
divine Scripture! Venerable, great, noble, firm, prudent, wise, dear gracious lords and good friends, also pious, pious Christians, as you are gathered here, for the knowledge of divine truth! However, I do not dare to give decision and purification for this heavy matter, here present, because it wants to be superior to my art, which is small, because twelve hundred years ago and more so many holy learned men also acted in it. They have given decisions and purification, but now the matter has come back into play. But because it is difficult for me to stand from such a long practiced faith of ours, which we have had in such a long time, 1) and possession, it is necessary for me, according to the teaching of St. Peter in the first epistle in the 3rd chapter, to give an account of it. Chapter 3, that I also give account for my hope and faith, if I am required to do so, and will do so kindly and amicably, for further instruction to myself and others, as St. Paul says to the Galatians in Chapter 6: "Instruct one another in the spirit of meekness." But I ask all of you, gentlemen and devout Christians, as you are gathered here, by God's will, whatever each one's opinion may be, not to be angry with me if I speak something that does not please everyone according to his faith; For I protest and testify here publicly before God and the pious Christians that I do not want or desire to do anything with knowledge and will, or with anger and iniquity, contrary to the true right Christian faith, contrary to the right understanding of the holy Word of God; and if this should happen to me (since God is before me!), I will do it now against God.), I now want it revoked. Further, I also protest that for the sake of my disputing, no harm shall come to the common Christian faith. I also do not want to dispute for anyone else, except for my person, for myself alone.
It has happened in some answers of those who have disputed the saying of Matth. in the 16th chapter, where Christ spoke to Petro: "I will give you the keys; what you bind on earth, that will be bound in heaven" etc. There I understood two points in the answer, which I cannot accept yet. The first, that the keys and power were promised to St. Peter, but not given specifically, but given with others to all of St. John in the 20th chapter. Mine according to the teaching of St. Peter in the other epistle in the third chapter: "God is faithful, he does not forsake his promise", as he gave Petro the keys and the power.
1) "Gewärd" - guarantee, possession.
He promised him the power of the keys, so he also gave them to him, either from the beginning or on John 21, when Christ recognized him as a shepherd, and he was to feed his sheep. For Matth. 18. chapter, there Christ also gave to all 2) his disciples before his suffering the power to bind and to loose: "What you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven." But Matth. 16, there he promised to bind Petro in many heavens.
Berchtoldus.
I will drop the long preface, and with reference to the words of Matthew in chapter 16, I will answer: Peter answered the Lord in the name of all the apostles, and thus received the promise of the keys in the names of all of them. In the 21st chapter of St. John, Christ admonished him of his ministry to feed the sheep. Now that which is written of binding and loosing in Matthew 18 chapter is sufficiently explained this day that it is told to the church etc.
(Berchtoldus then read the text).
Singer.
I think that this text should not suffer the interpretation that Christ asked them all, and Peter alone answered for them all, therefore he gave them all the keys. For if this had been the opinion of Christ, he would have said: I give you the keys to all, as Peter answered for all. But the text is evident that after all the question he said to Petro, "I will give you the keys!" Now to give to you and to give to all are unequal. The text is cheerful and clear. If one brings me, according to my gracious lords of Bern's mandate, an open saying from the Gospel or Scripture, which indicates that this was Christ's opinion, to give the keys to all, then I want to refrain from the point. For we find the like also more in the Gospel, that Christ asked the disciples, saying, "Where shall we buy bread, that we may feed the many?" John 6 Cap. There Philip answers, and not Peter. It is also a good figure that Peter, who was more heated among all the twelve messengers, answered for himself out of faithfulness and heat and generosity. Although it is true that the other disciples and twelve messengers also accepted Peter's answer and let it remain.
2) "all" set by us instead of: "alone".
Berchtoldus.
Christ promised Petro the keys because he was firm in faith and a rock. That he answered in the name of all the disciples is clearly indicated by the text in the question of the Lord: "Whom do you say that I am? Peter answered in the names of all of them, just as John did in chapter 6. There you have Scripture, which you then demand. The Lord Jesus said to the twelve apostles: "Do you also want to leave?" Peter answered: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe, and have known that thou art Christ, a Son of the living God." On the other hand, you have a cheerful scripture, since the Lord has given the keys to all, John. Chapter 20: "Receive the Holy Spirit" etc. From all of which nothing is yet introduced against our conclusion, but more is found in the Scriptures, which was promised to a few, and given to many; as Matthew in the 4th chapter, the Lord said to Petro and Andrea, "Follow me; I will make of you fishers of men." Now through the prophet Jeremiah, Chapter 16, all the apostles are called fishermen because they were to see men with the net of the Word of God, and therefore the authority that Matthew speaks of in Chapter 4 is commanded to all. Bring Scripture against the final speech, for those you have introduced prove nothing.
Singer.
It has been my intention to show that Petro has been given the special power of the key to bind and release in heaven. If I can show what I think I have shown in part, it will be right against your conclusion. And that you indicate many things with Scripture, as Peter answered for them all, does not serve this cause. Concerning the saying of John in chapter 20, when you say that Christ has given the keys to Peter and to all the other disciples, I say that it cannot be used in connection with the strange promise of Peter to Matthew in chapter 16, because the words and sayings are not the same. The saying now called, Matthew 16 chapter, thus says: "I will give you the keys: what you bind on earth, that will be bound in heaven." But this saying of John, in the twentieth chapter, thus saith: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: Whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." And still to this day I hold to it, although Peter for all answered Christ's question.
According to all this, Christ promised him especially the power of the keys. And when my lord Berchtold admits that Christ promised something more in particular, which he later also gave to others, he does not bring testimony from open Scripture that Christ also did this here, that he promised the keys to all. For it does not follow that Christ did this in another place, therefore he did it here also. For the text here is clear, that he has done and spoken it especially.
Berchtoldus.
Master Nicolaus says that the keys are especially promised and given to Petro. If he understands it specifically, that is, only promised and given, then he has the clear words of Christ John against him in the 20th chapter. For the words are so clear in the 16th chapter of Matthew that the promise is indicated there, but the performance is given to all in the 20th chapter of John. So the promise extends to all of them. Therefore, if I have shown him a similar speech from the Scriptures, since the Lord promises to a few, but performs to many, this does not have to be the case in all Scriptures, but I have only given a similarity, according to the Scriptures, and would not have needed it, since the present words are clear enough for themselves.
Singer.
I say nothing against it, that Christ gave the power of the keys to all the twelve messengers in Matthew chapter 18, or John chapter 20. But I say something against it, that Petro was not given a special promise also there. I believe before that Christ made a special promise to Petro from the beginning; or John 21, when he commanded him to feed the flock of sheep, for the third time etc.
Berchtoldus.
It is important that Master Nicolaus proves his first speech, since he thinks that Petro alone is promised the keys. The text cannot do this. For it does not say: Tibi shall 6ado! but free. Nor is it given to him, to him alone, in the words of John in the last chapter: "Feed my sheep! For all proclaimers of the Word of God are commanded to feed their sheep. And still today, because the performance of the keys is given to all apostles, the promise also reaches out to them all.
Zwingli.
I desire, dear brethren, to speak very little in explanation of the word of John in the 21st chapter: "Feed my sheep"; and first of all I testify that I do not want to attract the sayings of the teachers in order to prove the power or authority of the Scriptures, but that also the opponents of the Pope find understanding in their doctrine, which they compare with the Gospel, against which they are fencing here. You know, my dear Master Nicolaus, that St. Augustine speaks about this threefold question and recommendation of Peter in one summary: Because Peter denied Christ three times, God again asked him the third time if he loved him, and the third time recommended him to feed the sheep. From which words we note that Christ wanted to correct and remove Peter's evil name and reputation before the disciples, that he had denied God, so that Peter would not be despised by the disciples because he had denied him the third time; as if he was not worthy of the ministry because he had denied orally and out of fear, not from the heart, because he was not faithful 1) to the word of Christ. From this it is learned, dear Master Niclaus, that here Peter is now restored to the honors and glory of the apostolate, and not made a head; which is the apostolate or pasture of all disciples, as belonging to enough.
Singer.
Master Ulrich Zwingli thinks that this text of John 21: "Feed my sheep!" according to the opinion of Augustine, is meant for when Peter denied three times, he was three times expired again, and not for when Christ gave him the keys, which Christ promised him, to Petro. But I say that the texts of the holy scripture have little reason and sense; therefore I do not contradict Augustine here. Since Christ here publicly recognizes Peter as a shepherd, it is to be understood that he has also given him here the authority of a shepherd to feed, to punish, to bind and to release; for a shepherd has a shepherd's staff, that is, authority over the sheep.
Zwingli.
The shepherd, is to feed God's sheep, not to rule. He does not say: Feed your sheep, but mine. The sheep and the shepherd are God's.
1) "brest-like" - frail, deficient.
Master Jakob Edlebach.
May God Almighty grant us grace and knowledge of His Word, Amen! Learned, venerable, wise, favorable, dear sirs, and pious Christians! As indicated, I have not yet reported that the keys are promised to all disciples, but only to Petro, and the answer, also the receipt of the scriptures, if Mr. Berchtold wants to prove, are not promised to Petro alone, but to all, as John shows in the 6th chapter, so that he wants to prove that, as Christ said to all disciples: "Will you also depart from me? etc., may not prove it; although Peter there answered in all names, that therefore he also promised Petro here the keys in all names. For Peter Joh. in the 6th chapter speaks in all names: "To whom should we go?" But here Christ speaks to him alone, "To you I will give the keys." That he admits in Matthew, chapter 4, that he said to only two, "I will make you fishers of men," and yet later did so to others, serves no purpose. For we recognize the Christian church, that Christ has given them all power to forgive sin, since he says [John 20]: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whom ye forgive sin," etc. since no one denies that it was spoken to all the disciples. But that for this reason he promised the keys to the others, the Scripture does not indicate this cheerfully, but rather indicates that (John in the last chapter) the keys were given to Peter in particular, when he said the third time, "Feed my sheep. That it was given to him in particular and not to the others indicates that Christ took Peter from the others. Therefore it is clear that he promised Matthew in the 18th chapter, and especially John in the last chapter. But that Christ gave to Matthew in the 18th chapter the power to bind and to loose, he gave to them in the 20th chapter, when he said: "Receive the Holy Spirit" etc.
Berchtoldus.
If Master Jacob saw the reason why Christ promised the keys to Peter, he would understand that the same promise applies to all the apostles. For just as Peter believed and confessed that Christ was the Son of the living God, so the others also confessed and believed, John 6; therefore they also received the performance of the keys. According to this, what he brings in is all responsible in many ways. But that he thinks that Petro is in-
The words, "Feed my sheep," in which he says, "Feed my sheep," may not stand. For to feed the sheep, to be a shepherd, is due to all preachers, for Christ appointed shepherds, and not one shepherd alone, but many, in Ephesians chapter 4, in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 20, in the first epistle of Peter chapter 5. Therefore, if you have a scripture against our conclusion, bring it!
Master Jakob Edlebach.
As Mr. Berchtold admits to have promised Christ not only to Petro, but to all the keys, and that in such a way that [he] promised Petro for such a reason, and to the others to all, that Peter had promised him to be the son of the living God, which the others have now all believed; John wants to prove this in the 6th chapter, when Peter said in their name: "To whom shall we go? you have the words of life. Which place John on the 6th may not prove nor prove that in this place they all had such a firm faith, since Judas had no faith, when Christ indicates John on the 6th chapter, also in the same place, "One of you is a devil!" And even if it were so, as Mr. Berchtold says, Scripture stands upright. He said: "You are Peter! To you I will give the keys of the kingdom." Christ could well have said: I will give it to you all! But because he says, They have long since answered my reproach with Scripture, I say, No. Especially the Scripture have I put on clear and cheerful, liking not heaven and earth against it. But that you say that if he alone had the keys, he alone would have to be a shepherd, the Scripture does not allow this; I will show this in the 16th chapter of Matthew. Because Christ promised the keys to Petro in particular, this signifies to us a special authority and power among shepherds. In chapter 18 he promised them all, not the keys, but to bind and to release. Therefore he must not be a shepherd only because he is a nobleman, but because he is a chief captain in a war, it is not mistaken that other captains are also. As in the Gospel Centurion was a captain under another captain, he was nevertheless a captain. Therefore, it is sufficiently evident from the Scriptures that Petro, as a nobleman, is especially promised the keys, and the other is nevertheless promised the power to bind and release.
Berchtoldus.
Master Jacob, your speech is so unanswerable, 1) that it needs no answer. Scripture stands upright, our final speech stands upright;' and if all this is answered, I will let myself be referred to the acta here above.
Master Jakob Edlebach.
Mr. Berchtold, I am just of the same opinion that I hold and let myself to the Acta. Namely, I have sufficiently demonstrated, as I hope from the Scriptures, that a supreme shepherd of the church will be necessary and will be, as now granted for the fifteen hundred years, or about the same, from Petro, from one to the other, which confirms my speech; and as my lord singer has testified, so do I also, and thus want to have testified.
Berchtoldus.
I am at one with Master James that now fifteen hundred years ago one united perfectly sufficient head of the church fei, that is Christ, and not the pope, according to the content of our final speech.
Edlebach.
I say, Mr. Berchtold recognizes himself with me of one mind, so I recognize a supreme shepherd and of the church, and Christ as a true indwelling head of the church.
Singer.
In the name of our dear Lord Jesus Christ! As my lords, the preachers, in their closing speeches have undertaken to be a united head of the Christian church, I leave it at that; first of all Christ Jesus, as the supreme head of the church, that is, of all people who believe in Christ. But I think the Scripture admits that, by his order and command of his God's word and his twelve messengers, other rulers, prelates, regents and heads should also be in the church. For I do not want to have a quarrel about the word "head", as equal one as the other head, prelate or superior; as there the holy twelve messenger says to Romans at the 13th Cap.: "What is from God, that is ordered." Now the holy Christian church is from Christ JEsu, therefore there must also be an order in it. We find through the prophet Job at the 10th Cap. [Job 10, 22.], "In the assembly of the church of hell, there is all disorder." But in the church of JEsu Christ I do not consider that it is more imperfect than the synagogue of the
1) "unsupported" - insufficient.
Jews; who had chiefs, superiors, judges, 5 Mos. at the 17th and 28th Cap. What there has been dark and erroneous, that one has had to come to a decision there, as before the superiors. So I think it is also fair with our Christian church.
Berchtoldus.
Master Niclaus says that Christ is the indwelling head of the church. This is an error, because the church is not before Christ, but Christ is before the church from eternity, and the church is anointed to him. Secondly, those whom he calls prelates, heads and superiors of the church are not heads, according to the Scriptures, because they are not the Savior of the church; and the Scriptures know nothing of spiritual prelates who rule as rulers, but only of shepherds, preachers and ministers of the Word of God. Thirdly, the church of Christ lacks no order, for he has sufficiently indicated it through the apostle Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians on the 12th, 1) to the Ephesians on the 4th chapter, yesterday sufficiently interrogated. Fourthly, the scripture from the 5th book of Moses at the 17th chapter does not contradict the final speech, because Christ is the chief priest, which the Aaronic priesthood signified. In addition, the same priests of the Old Testament did not have the power to decide according to their own pleasure, but to teach according to the law of God. Therefore, bring other Scriptures than those which our final speech upholds.
Singer.
When my lord the preacher said, I have erred in calling Christ an incarnate head of the church, for Christ was before the church. I say that after the Godhead Christ was eternal, but after humanity he redeemed us with his bitter suffering and death, and so made us blessed and incorporated us into him: I mean, if a body is implanted in the head, the head in turn is also implanted in it, then I understand from my prelate that this is a right head called in the church, which may make us blessed and be our Savior; this may not be a prelate, nor a bishop etc. If Mr. Berchtold brings this with cheerful scripture, that otherwise a head may not be called of the church, I must expect. But St. Paul in Ephesians 5 gives me another understanding of the head, thus saying: "Women should be subject to their husbands, as to a lord; for a man is a head of women; even as Christ is a head.
1) See Col. 1689.
of the church, and he is a vessel of his body" etc. According to this, however, that I am in favor of it, or that [the] Christian church should have a lord who weighs it down, overpowers it, needs tyrannical power: I am also of the opinion of my lord the prelate. But nevertheless, I think that superiors and prelates in the church, who teach, defend and punish, should also take other precautions for the temporal needs of their sheep, wherever they may be. As a reminder, Paul says in the first epistle to the Corinthians in the 4th chapter: "What do you desire? I will come to you with a rod." But in the other epistle to the Corinthians, in the last chapter, Paul says to him, "I have come to you three times; if I come more, I will not fail you." Let every Christian think well, where the ordinances were not, and let every man do as he would, how it would be done. Paul continues in 1 Cor. 12: "In the church there are gubernationes. Now where there are governments, there must be a ruler, and he is ruled. Item, to the Hebrews in the last chapter St. Paul says: "Be mindful of your superiors, if you respect the end of their life, follow also their faith. Be obedient to your prelates and superiors, and be submissive to them, for they watch for you, and must give account to God for you."
Berchtoldus.
In what Master Niclaus says about being incorporated, one sees publicly that he confesses that Christ is the one head, life and power; and yet he does not want to deny that Christ is our head, life and power; but calls it an incorporation, when no apostle speaks in this way: Christ is incorporated into us, but rather, "we are incorporated into Christ" etc. Secondly, he himself has resolved the saying of Ephesians 5 with the following words, even though he wanted to omit them. Third, because he wants to have prelates in the church and superiors, he brings out from the Scriptures what the names of such prelates are. Fourth, he brings in the saying from the first epistle to the Corinthians in a confirming way, since it is a question of the apostle Paul: "Which do you want, shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a gentle spirit? What the rod is, he explains in the 5th chapter, namely, that it is the ban on the public fornicator, who was with the Corinthians, of which enough has been said. 2) To the
2) See Col. 1653.
Fifth, he brings a saying from the other epistle to the Corinthians in chapter 13: "When I come again," says Paul, "I will not fail you. This is due to him and to every shepherd, that in open vices he should not translate anyone to punish, but should cry out and denounce their sin to the people. Sixth, the sayings he brings from the first epistle of Corinthians 12, concerning governments, concern worldly rule and authority: for that the same is necessary for the sake of those who, as false Christians, are superior in deed to the pious. Further, he brings a saying from Hebrews chapter 13: "Obey those who preside over you, for they watch for present souls, as they shall give account." But this is only 1) a reference to the service of the temporal authorities, because they will also give an account of their Christian command. But in the saying which precedes it, also in Hebrews 13, thus reads: "Be mindful of those who preside over you." What the "foremost" is, follows from the beginning: "those who have proclaimed the word of God to you". Out of all this, no writing has yet come forth from heads, superiors, prelates, confirming it, and our final speech overturns
Singer.
Mr. Berchtold attracted me for the very first time, speaking: Pious, dear Christians, youth who seek the glory of God, for the reason that I confess that Jesus Christ is our head, and yet do not want to know that he is our life and salvation, that I apologize first of all before all ordinary Christians here, for I know of no savior, no redeemer, but Jesus Christ, my Lord and container.
Oecolampadius.
For your instruction, I think that M. Nicolas wants to have another head under the one head. Not that he wants to give the dignity of Christ to a creature, or otherwise a regiment in a servile way to a single person, as Petro, or his descendants, a pope. But now let him judge that it is proper for a head to serve all the members. Now the kingdom of Christ is wide, going from the going out of the sun to the going down of the sun, and there is no creature which alone has ever administered such servitude, or may administer it. As we humans are stupid, it would also follow that Christ would not have been truthful if he had commanded one person, and we nowhere find that one person has administered such a service.
1) "einest"'-one, alone.
God has also chosen many apostles. And so also in this way, as he wants to speak of it, which the Scripture does not know, it is not appropriate that we introduce another spiritual monarchy, or a subordinate single head, next to our one head Christ.
Singer.
The other article of the first conclusion reads: The church was born from the word of God. There I ask, since various forms of the Word of God are found in Scripture, first of all, the eternal Word, John 1, Cap. Item, secondly, the written word, as my Lord of Bern's mandate indicates, which is found in the Bible; Paul also says in Romans, chapter 15: "Everything that is written is written for our instruction and teaching. Item, the spoken word, which one preaches, and instructs and teaches another, as the apostles and preachers speak too thickly, for the sake of instruction and teaching, which is not written. Further, one finds in Scripture a secretly proclaimed word of God, spoken and taught by God, Ps. 84 [85, 9]: "I will listen loosely to what God speaks in me." Item, Revelation 3: "I stand at your door and knock," says God, "if you let me in, I will come in and eat the supper with you." Paul also speaks of this in the other epistle to the Corinthians in the last chapter: "You will seek an experience of the one who speaks in me, Christ. Now I ask gentlemen, the preachers, what is their opinion in their reported articles', whether the church is born from the words of God all together, or from one in particular?
Berchtoldus.
Master Niclaus has introduced a long speech. To this a short answer: The church of God is born from the word of God, which God makes alive, yes, he speaks into our hearts, which in truth is no other than that which is preached outwardly, or the Scriptures understand in it; Jacobi at the first chapter, and Peter in the first epistle 1st chapter.
Singer.
Further, I am moved by the Scriptures that a Christian man is to be held and believed somewhat more than is cheerfully expressed in the biblical Scriptures; as then the twelve messengers indicate in the other epistle to Timothy 2 Cap. and to Tito at the first chapter. They taught and preached sth. by speech, by customs, at-
They have proclaimed it to others, as they have heard it from others, and have not shown all the Scriptures because of it. I also think that the holy church was before the gospel and the twelve messengers were written, and will remain forever, if there is no more writing. Item, in the other epistle to Timothy in the 3rd chapter Paul says: "Every scripture which is spoken of God is profitable to teach and to instruct. Now many things are written according to the biblical Scriptures by the dear saints, for the purification and knowledge of biblical Scriptures, I also think that God the Holy Spirit may have spoken them, especially the Scriptures that are accepted by the common Christian church. It is also written in the Acts of the Apostles in the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, "Ye shall keep the commandments of the twelve messengers, and the customs of the elders." Says Paul also in the first epistle to the Corinthians in the 11th chapter: "I commend you, my brethren, that in all things ye were mindful of me, when I gave you my commandments." Promising them, "The other things also will I ordain for you, when I come unto you." Nowhere is it written where he has commanded this, but he has undoubtedly kept to them what he has commanded. Also says in the same chapter: "I say this to you, and not the Lord"; says there of marriage matters etc. Of such customs one finds also written to Thessalonians in the other epistle at the other chapter, which are not all written, as I mean.
Zwingli.
Master Niclaus, what are you trying to introduce to everyone with these words?
Singer.
That is my opinion, for the sake of the suits. Since your final speech is based on the Word of God, written and spoken, and my lords, for the sake of their discussion, have decided not to introduce anything here in this discussion, except what is contained in biblical scripture, I thought that we should also try and testify something from the customs in the holy Christian church and practices, which are not written and have not come down to us.
Zwingli.
This word in the 2nd Epist. to Timothy 3rd Cap.: "Any scripture", as Master Niclaus reported it, is not properly translated. He has thus translated it: "Any scripture can be used for teaching. Which, however, is not Paul's meaning at all; for with the mind one would like to introduce.
that every scripture would be usable for teaching, which nevertheless (in) no way can be suffered; but the sense of Paul is this: Every scripture that is blown in by God; so the text also says: it is also useful for teaching. Here, devout Christians, notice your love, that the mind of our brothers, the preachers, still stands upright, that what they have spoken is from the divinely inspired Scripture; and again, everything that is inspired by God, that they have for divine Scripture; but with the inclusion that in the Lord Christ JEsu all prophecies have been heard, even up to John, Luke in the 16th chapter. Therefore they do not accept new boasters of revelations, which bring forth something worthy of that which was written before Christ, until him, even that which comprehends the action of Christ; for nothing can be brought forth which is not opened in the Lord Christ Jesus, as in the light of the law and the Spirit.
On the twelfth day of Jenner, was Sunday before the 20th day. 1)
Master Niclaus Singer.
Dear pious Christians! When you heard yesterday late, that is, on Saturday evening, how Mr. Berchtold just answered my suits shamefully, and was too late to speak in the feathers, I will put my answer here in writing. First, when Mr. Berchtold said: "Dear devout Christians, notice here which of us seeks the glory of God more, in that I recognize Jesus Christ as a unified head of the Christian church; and M. Niclaus also wants to give such glory to another man. To this M. Niclaus answers: "You do me too short here; I do not wish to diminish the honor of Christ in any way, but to increase it; for I, with Paulo zun Colossern, in the 1st chapter, recognize Christ for the supreme head of the Christian Church. I recognize Christ as the supreme head of the holy church, because He is the supreme head in everything. And whether I already confess another head under him, or other heads from the introduced Scriptures (for your party, as Zwingli, has publicly confessed yesterday and has expired that Master Franz and Berchtoldus Haller may well be called here at Bern for two bishops); because Christ is also called a head, his honor is not diminished, although Master Franz and Berchtoldus are called bishops; so, I think, also for the sake of the heads, according to my understanding, so be it.
1) "20th day" we know to explain only by the "20th day after the birth of JEsu". The 13th of January is the day of the baptism of Christ, which will be called the 20th day.
Berchtoldus.
It has often been said that to be the head of the church is to make it alive and whole. If Christ alone is able to do this, and no creature, and yet our opponents try everything, so that they give another head to the church besides Christ, and yet want to be seen as those who also seek the glory of God, I have called upon the judgment of the Christians, not for the shame of the singer, but for the good of the truth.
Singer.
Because of the sayings that I have drawn from the Scriptures, because of the authorities, Mr. Berchtold has answered me: they serve only the worldly authorities. I mean: No! because Paul speaks to Hebrews in the last chapter quite cheerfully of the superiors who proclaim the word of God; also the saying in the stories of the 12 messengers, in the 20th chapter, drawn by me. Therefore, I leave myself to the Christian reader.
Berchtoldus.
All the introduced Scriptures say only about servants of the church of God, as is now often proven from many Scriptures, as then also bishops, that is, guardians, who are to govern the church with the word of God, that is, to shepherd, for in the history of the 12 messengers in the 20th chapter it is written
um does not follow, Christ is called a bishop, and also servant of the church: therefore they may also be called heads. To be a head demands more than to be a watchman or a shepherd. The church is one body, therefore it has only one head, Christ; who also is not badly called a bishop, but a bishop of our souls, so that the inward care and provision of souls, which is through the Spirit and belongs to Christ alone, is noted. The episcopal ministry of men is also good for its own sake; but if it is in the external word, it does nothing for the soul, for the Spirit of Christ works.
Singer.
Mr. Berchtold said further: "If I say that Christ is an indwelling head of the church, I say that no apostle has spoken, and since Christ was before the church, how could he be an indwelling head of the church? Answer: I forbear because of the divinity of Christ, that he was before the church and from eternity; but since the Scripture also speaks of Christ as the head of our living church, it also comprehends and concerns his humanity, his suffering,
Bloodshed and death; and so Christ was not before the church. For when Christ, John 19:19, said on the cross, "All is finished," and gave forth his Spirit, and out of his side flowed water and blood, there was formed for the old sinful Eve a pure unmeasured spiritual Eve, that is, the living Christian Church (to Ephesians 5:5), through Christ our Lord, by his shedding of blood and death, as is shown to us by John 12:12, Christ says: "If the grain of wheat, when it falls into the ground, is dead, it will not bear fruit. The grain is Christ, and if the grain is dead, it will bear much fruit, which is the life of all believers in Christ. Item, I testify in the stories of the apostles in the 20th chapter: "He overcame the church with his blood." Item, to Colossians in the 2nd chapter: "God, who raised Jesus from death, made you alive with Him. Item, to Ephesians, chapter 1: "We have our redemption in Christ through his blood." Item, in the first epistle of Peter, chapter 1: "Christ hath redeemed us in his blood." Hereby, I think, it is sufficiently indicated that our living Christian church is formed and established not only according to the Godhead, but also according to mankind, and through his bitter suffering, bloodshed and death. For the church that was before Christ's coming was not so alive; for all the members of that church were still in the wrath of God, and not yet pardoned to salvation, but those who died all went into the dungeon of limbo.
Berchtoldus.
Master Ulrich gave the other saying, to Hebrews at the 13th chapter, only to the worldly authority, but to the Christians the service of divine word. So it is found even in Proverbs. About the saying in the stories of the apostles in the 20th chapter is first said.
Singer.
Item, when Mr. Berchtold thinks that this saying to the Ephesians in the 5th chapter, which I have used to prove spiritual authority, is against me, since it says that Christ is the head of the church, and I have omitted this, and have used only this: "The women should obey their husbands, and be subject as to a lord, because the man is the head of the women; so also is Christ the head of the church": I answer that by this saying alone I have wanted to prove spiritual authority.
To show that to be head, to be superior, and to be lord, one may be taken for the other: not wishing to break off Christ from being a vessel of the church; for I will confess this in eternity.
Berchtoldus.
Now we have often said that Christ is the head of the church: but Christ is not only man, but also God. Therefore beuylet 1) has told us that Master Niclaus said that Christ was incarnated into the church; as if the church had been before Christ, who is the incarnated Son of all creatures, first of all Colossians. But it is inconsistent that the singer says that Christ was not before the church after mankind and his suffering; and also says that it was formed an unmeasured Eve when Christ filled all things on the cross, and gave up the spirit, and from his side flowed blood and water etc. Now if Christ overcame the church by his death and bloodshed, how was it before him? These words indicate a great lack of understanding of these divine things, which should justly prevent him from contesting our, even more divine truth. It is true, Christ was only raised after mankind, after he humbled himself in death, to Philippians in the 2nd chapter. But all things that are to come are present to God; and just as he has mentioned all his own before the foundation of the world was laid, to the Ephesians in chapter 1, so also the death of his Son was always present to him; therefore he forgave Adam, Eve, Abel, and all the saints who were from the beginning their sin, and gave them his good Spirit, and made them alive through faith (as he has done to us), even though he had not yet revealed to them the secrets of his goodness, to Ephesians, chapter 3. Therefore the singer without Scripture says that the Church of God, before the future of Christ, was not made alive as before, and that its members were in the wrath of God and went into limbo. The righteous lives in faith, which all the saints have had from the beginning of the world, and that through the merit of Christ; and after this life they rested with Lazaro in the bosom of Abraha, and did not lie in the dungeon of the imaginary limbo. But (as said) the revelation of divine goodness went out brighter after Christ, therefore he said to his disciples: "Blessed are you who see" etc. The Parable of the Grain of Wheat, St. John, Chapter 12,
1) Probably as much as "alienated".
has indicated that after the death of Christ the gospel of the kingdom should really begin, as it did. Thus it is found that our Lord Jesus Christ was in all ways before the church, and she was not. And he is not incarnated by the drawing of the Father.
Singer.
Herewith, dear pious Christians, I will refrain from disputing this final speech, as well as other subsequent ones, and give way to others who are more skilful than I. For if one may not introduce in this disputation any scripture of the holy teachers, but only biblical scripture, and also not seek the understanding of biblical scripture from the holy teachers, I know nothing to do here. Therefore, for the sake of these concluding speeches, I entrust my introduced opinion to God Almighty, as well as to the common holy Christian church; what it believes, holds and accepts, I also commit myself to live by it. For it is promised and given the spirit of truth; it is also (in the first epistle to Timothy in the 3rd chapter) a pillar and foundation of truth. Christ also promised Matthew at the last that he himself would be with the church until the end of the world; therefore he would not let her go astray. Hereby I desire grace from God and enlightenment of His divine truth. May God grant this to all of us! Amen.
Berchtoldus.
Master Niclaus thinks that the husband is called the head of the wife because he is her superior, even if he does not make her alive; therefore all the superiors of the church should be called heads. Answer: We will gladly grant him, where he teaches with Scripture, that a man has such right and authority over the Christian church as a man has over his wife, that he calls such a man her head. But the highest apostles, as Peter and Paul, together with the whole world, are ours, and we not theirs, but Christ's (in the first epistle to Corinthians at the third chapter). They are "servants of the church," as they boast, and not spouses; otherwise the church would not be pious if it had more than one spouse. And therefore it still remains that the church has only one head, Christ, as well as only one spouse, the very same Christ, who helps her spiritually and bodily in all things according to his power, as every pious spouse helps his wife according to his ability. Thus it is not yet proven that anyone besides Christ may be called neither spouse nor head. Of the Na-
men Superior 1) half is also said enough, servant, not superior, are all saints. Praise be to God that he has opened his truth so powerfully to us poor sinners that my Lord Singer must confess that he may not create anything against us, so that only divine Scripture should be used. Now it is evident, as Paul writes in the other epistle to the Corinthians in the third chapter, that it makes wise to salvation, and makes the man of God fit for all good works; therefore all that must not be good which it does not teach superfluously. And so, if the singer confesses that the teachers and their interpretation are not valid, he knows nothing to do with them: he freely confesses that our final speeches are founded in divine Scripture; therefore they are also true divine truth. Praise be to the Lord that he has brought him to such a confession! But that he commands this action of God and of the common Christian church, and commits himself to live that the latter believes and holds to it; that God would have him understand his own words! For the common holy Christian church alone is the orthodox of God, born again of the word of God; by it they abide. Therefore such a church is called a pillar and foundation of truth by Paul, that the divine truth remains steadfast and firm with it, and it with the truth; that Christ is with it, and his Spirit teaches it, for which reason it now believes and holds the good. But everything that is good, the Scripture holds superfluous; therefore it accepts nothing that is not in the Scripture. If he himself confesses that he can do nothing against us with the Scriptures, so that he confesses all our concluding words according to the Scriptures and founded in them, he should also live by them; for the true Christian church believes and holds them; just as the Spirit of truth may teach them nothing else than the Scriptures contain.
Mr. Daniel Schatt, lieutenant priest at Gundißwyl.
Now then, if three things are recorded or understood in Christ, that is, the Godhead alone, and mankind alone, and the Godhead and mankind united with each other in Christ: now I ask: whether Christ is assumed to be the head of the Christian church according to the Godhead alone, or according to mankind alone, or as the Godhead and mankind united in one person? etc.
Zwingli.
Christ Jesus, true God and man, therefore he is also called Christ Jesus, is according to both
1) See Col. 1643 f. and 1700.
He is the head of the Christian church. With the explanation that after the Godhead he is primarily and actually the essence of all things, and after the humanity the paid, killed sacrifice, which the divine justice has reconciled with us; does not need scripture, call over it to the audience the whole gospel of John and the epistle to Hebrews, primarily for other scripture.
Daniel Schatt.
That Christ is a true God and man, a head of the Christian church, is right. But the little word "one" may not suffer the speech. For according to the Godhead, he is one with God the Father and the Holy Spirit; these are now three persons, that is, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. The three are the very essential head of the Christian Church, who govern it, make it alive, keep it alive, and give salvation. Therefore, it may not be said that Christ is the only Head, but the Head of the Christian Church, with God the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Zwingli.
The good Lord does not yet recognize that, although there are three Persons in the Godhead, the three Persons are nevertheless one God; and that if the Father is spoken of, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, nevertheless under each of His Persons the one God is understood, since it is not necessary to say any longer, for it would be mockery to let such suspicious arguments be made in the laudable disputation, which would make the one unity of the one God too many or much, therefore that there are three Persons etc.
In this way his argument is invalid, because he does not show us one who is true God and man; so for and for the one Christ remains the one head of the church; although we would never have proven this word "one" from the Scriptures, which is nevertheless fully passed in the Actis 2).
Daniel Schatt.
The learned master Ulrich Zwingli said at the beginning of this present speech that I do not yet recognize the unity of the divine Trinity. So I say that I have for it that he does me wrong; because I have prayed the faith so long that I know it well. But if he now says, and has said before, that the Son of God is the head of the Christian Church, who is in eternity-
2) See Col. 1649.
I also concede that Christ is the only head, and that the word "Christ" is a temporal word. But that therefore Christ is the one head, this I do not yet concede; and the cause that the word "Christ" is a temporal word, and Christ was born in time, as Lucas testifies, likewise Isaias: Ecce virgo concipiet etc.. And from the same I say that Christ cannot be called one head of the Christian church after mankind.
Zwingli.
This argument must not be answered. Is in our foregoing 1) speech clearly answered that Christ is taken here [from] us for Him who is true God from eternity, and also became man in time etc.
Daniel Schatt.
Master Ulrich Zwingli, who desires me to show another head than Christ; that same other head I find in the first epistle to Corinthians in the 11th chapter, where he [Paul] says thus: "The head of women is the man, but the head of Christ that is God. There you have another head over Christ, and therefore Christ is not one head of the church.
Zwingli.
From the word of Christ: "The Father is my greater, or, greater neither I", one knows well how God is a head of Christ. For as the Father is called the greater of Christ, for the sake of Christ's humanity alone, so also, for the sake of humanity alone, He is called His head: Nisi velit hic inducere prioritatem originis, de qua apud Theologos; but this does not serve here. This is the purpose of the words that I first used for Timothy 1 Epist. 6 Cap: that Christ alone is called the Holy One, alone the Mighty One or Prince (for which we need the word "head" here).
Daniel.
Now all things considered, methinks I have understood from the present words of Master Ulrich Zwingli that the princes are taken for heads. And with that, I am done.
Mr. Gilg Murer, pastor at Rapfenschwil. 2)
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all! Amen. That Christ may be our one head, who makes us alive, his grace and his mercy.
1) See Col. 1711.
2) "Rapfenschwil" will be "Rapperswyl" or "Rapperschweil" in the Canton of St. Gallen.
Mercy communicates to us is true. But that there should not be a spiritual power or government, cannot be shown by the Scriptures; for Paul says to the Romans in the 13th chapter that all power is from God. The spiritual power has been a power that Christianity has granted, therefore no one should contradict it, unless he has clear Scripture against it.
Berchtoldus.
Mr. Gilgen's argument is yesterday sufficiently explained 3). But I ask him to consider St. Paul well, to Romans at the 13th chapter: "Let everyone be subject to authority" etc.
(And such text was read out.)
Gilg Murer.
Paul to Romans does not exclude anything. He says: "All authority is from God. And that he did not mean only the temporal power, I testify from the previous words of Paul, when he says: "Let every soul be obedient to the high powers. If only one power is to be the temporal one, then Paul should not have said anything.
Berchtoldus.
Dear pious Christians! For the sake of the answer, I refer to Actis, 4) and to the clear text of Paul on the 13th, now read out properly. For this you do violence to the Scripture, because Paul here speaks of the worldly authority.
Gilg.
It is obvious enough that Paul did not only speak of the temporal power to the Romans in chapter 13. But I testify further from the 2nd epistle to the Corinthians in the 10th chapter, where he says: "For if I should seek a little more honor from our authority. Here Paul speaks of their [the apostles'] authority. This is what has ever been said about spiritual authority; therefore, it should not be contradicted, since there is a clear scripture that expresses the same thing.
Berchtoldus.
That there is a power in the church, we have never denied, according to the understanding of the Scriptures; which power therefore makes no other head, but is rather a servitude. And the saying, which Mr. Gilg brings forth, explains the same thing, as Paul speaks: "And if I touch anything further
3) See Col. 1700,1701 f.
4) See col. 1640,1642.
from the power that God the Lord has given us for correction, and not for destruction". Which Paul, as a faithful apostle of God, did by preaching and proclaiming the Word. And there is nothing at all contrary to our concluding speeches; of which I refer to Actis in all cases. 1)
Gilg Murer.
When Mr. Berchtold says: "There is a spiritual power given by God for edification, through which we are to proclaim the word of God, I assume. If then there is a spiritual authority, there must also be a ruler to govern. I will prove this from the Old Testament, thus: Every figure is to be fulfilled in the New Testament; as, the synagogue of the Jews has meant the Christian church, the same has also had superiors. Now, if the figure is to be fulfilled, it is necessary that we also have a ruler, for the sake of the clergy, in the Christian church. Not only did the synagogue have a chief priest for everything, but two, namely Moses and Aaron; they must each have something in the New Testament that is considered equal to the figure. That is Christ and Peter. I prove this by the text, Exodus 4, where God says to Moses: "Aaron will speak for you to the people, and he will be your mouth; but you will be his mouth in the things that belong to God." This figure is fulfilled in Christ and Petro. I will prove this from the holy evangelist Luke in the 22nd chapter, where God the Lord said: "Simon, Simon! perceive that Satan has required you, that he may repent you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not, and [if] you are converted" etc. Here we have evidently, as Moses was a ruler of the synagogue against God Almighty; so also Christ is the supreme head of the whole Christianity, in the things that are being negotiated against God, namely, since he spoke that he would pray for him, that his faith should not fail. Peter is compared and understood by the priest Aaronem, because as the Israelite people were recommended to him, while Moses went to Mount Sinai, to speak with God Almighty: so Christ also recommended to Saint Peter beforehand, that he should be a steward of the people, and spend the office of God the Lord, when he said: "Confirm thy brethren.
1) See Col. 1641,1648 f. 1650.
Berchtoldus.
Moses and Aaron both have been a figure of the one Christ, to Hebrews at the 3rd, 5th and 6th chapter. Then the saying from Luca is answered three days ago. I leave myself to the Acta. 2)
Gilg Murer.
Not enough has happened to me yet, and I want to leave it at that. I command my part of the Scriptures.
Master Jakob Edlebach.
When Mr. Berchtold said in the answer to Master Niclaus of Zofingen: Calling Christ an indwelling head of the church is an error; which I have now also said, so that I am responsible for it, I say: Calling Christ an indwelling head is not an error, if it is not interpreted out of hatred, but Christian. That is why I call him our indentured head, because he himself indentured the church to him, and not the church to him. Then I still recognize him to be an indwelling head of the church, from which head of the church flow grace, wisdom, salvation and all perfection and goodness. So I do not call the pope an incarnate head, but a superior head of the church, who is commanded to act the office primarily, as Petro was commanded to act the keys primarily, also he recommended the sheep to him in particular, to feed them before others; which no one has yet done with the Scriptures. Therefore it is clear in what form Christ, also in what form Peter or his descendants are called heads of the church. The error falls away when it is said that if Peter is our head, then he is also our redeemer and blessedness, etc. as is said by Martin Butzer and other of his brothers. He also says, "where two or three are gathered together in his name," that they, the church, may act according to the divine word, which also applies to the whole church; which is nothing. For if Paul and Barnabas had not been sent to Jerusalem for some business that the church was involved in, they might have done it in the Antioch assembly, but Paul (who was a chosen vessel, and also believed himself to have the Spirit of God, and to have received the gospel not from men but from God) might have done it with his brethren in Antioch, the church. Reason enough is that no one should do anything by his own authority, but leave long to the authority of the
2) See Col. 1643.
Church, or the superiors, ordained for this. You have now sufficiently understood how Christ is an instituted head, into which grace I commend myself; and in what way the church has an instituted head, to which I make myself subject, and remain with the common understanding of the Christian church.
Martinus Bucerus.
We accept the transfiguration of Master Jacob, how he wants to understand that Christ is incorporated into the church. That he again says that Peter is the head of the church, because he is primarily commanded to feed the sheep of Christ, is sufficiently accounted for. 1) He was an apostle, who did not feed all the sheep of Christ alone, as was not possible, but with others; and Paul did more than he. Therefore he cannot be called head over the others. But that against my answer, given to the Provincial (because Christ is also among two or three, gathered in his name, each church of God may decide what to believe), he reproaches that no particular church should decide what concerns a whole church, and that therefore those in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabam to Jerusalem, in the histories of the apostles in the 15th chapter. To this I reply that here Master Jacob is setting a criminal example for us to follow. If those in Antioch had acted rightly, they would have understood and accepted the word of God, which Paul and Barnabas had presented to them concerning Christian liberties, in themselves, without regard to other people. But since there had been an uproar, without doubt by the malicious, who always reproached the reputation of Peter, Jacob, and others in Jerusalem, against Paul, Paul and Barnabas gladly gave themselves up to come before them; but he would much rather have had them believe his simple word of God without further question. Thus it would have been much better if a church of Bern had accepted the certain word of God from its preachers, as many have done without doubt, without further questioning; but if there were some of them who also desired to hear other people about it, this disputation was considered 2). Not that any more of us (and if ours were four thousand, and all of them more learned and pious than Saint Paul) should have been in divine knowledge.
1) See Col. 1698.
2) "angesehen" as previously Col. 1617 and 1618 "angesechen" - set.
The same is true for the teaching of the things that may be taught by the preachers (for in external teaching one is like the other, in the 1st Epist. to Corinth, in the 10th chapter), but we alone may testify to the same. It is said 3) from Paul: "The minister judges all things", be he who he will, and be how much or how little they will. It also does not have the opinion in matters of faith, as in external commandments. God has given just one thing for all the elect to believe; therefore, when he reveals it to a shepherd, it must be decided in his heart that all princes and lords must believe, if they are to be saved otherwise. The Church of Bern must believe for itself and be certain of the word of God, which is also held by others; if it were to find the will of God in this, then all the world would be obliged to accept it; the Church of Bern therefore commands no one, but God. But because our adversary does not want to believe the word of God, presented by us, if there were any Peter or James, a true apostle of Christ, we would like our adversaries to hear such testimony, to come to such; but where are they? That Daniel says that the pope is mentioned for this purpose is not enough; he must also have St. Peter's spirit; for "the natural man understands nothing of divine things," according to Corinth, in the first epistle of the other chapter.
The other closing speech, and of the same reasons, was opened by Master Franz Kolb, Predicant at Bern.
The Church of Christ does not make laws and commandments without the Word of God. Therefore, all the statutes of men, called the commandments of the air, do not bind us further than they are founded and commanded in the divine word.
Master Franz Kolb.
Grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen! Chosen friends of God! After my brother Berchtold, in the first of our final speeches, has sufficiently explained what the Christian congregation is, of which the one head is Christ Jesus, according to the other article of our ancient Christian faith, which reads thus: "I believe in Jesus, His only begotten Son, our Lord, manly, our Lord, our Head, our Savior, our Life-Giver, our Sustainer,
3) See Col. 1660 s.
our one and only bishop and teacher. This and no other, neither in heaven nor on earth, we confess; in this we abide, we hear no other voice, as this article is sufficiently explained with mighty Scripture, and completely undoubted by those who are taught by God. From which now follows the other article, which reads thus: The church of Christ makes neither law nor commandment without the word of God. This is to be understood, first, in the things that pertain to the salvation of our souls. Secondly, we do not speak here of city charters, land laws, or ordinances that affect body and goods, if such are not against God. Thirdly, we speak here of statutes that reveal to us the divine will and the divine pleasure, which no mere natural man can know (1 Corinthians 2), but such thoughts are as far from the mind of God as heaven and earth, Isaiah 55. Therefore the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:1), has to reveal to us the one to whom the voice from the cloud gave witness, Matt. 17: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; him you shall hear." Which Son forbade His own not to be called Master on earth, nor to confess any other Master but Him alone, Matt. 23. He also commanded His own not to preach or teach anything else than what He commanded them, Matt. 11. Therefore, in the following part of this article, we hold that all the statutes of men, which are called the commandments of the church, bind us no further than they are founded and commanded in the divine Word. Yes, such statutes, without the word of God, are forbidden to us by Christ, Matth. 15, and also by God. Isaiah 29th, the Lord says: "Because the people draw near to me to praise me with their mouths and lips, and yet turn away their hearts far from me, fearing me only with men's commandments and doctrines, behold, I will do more wonders to this people, marvelous and strange', that the wisdom of their prudent shall perish, and the understanding of their understanding shall fall to the ground." These are the words of the Lord, which in the present time are shown before our eyes, how those who would gladly abstain from the ordinances of men, so misunderstand the word of God. Since God the Lord does not want us to serve Him according to our own will (Deut. 12), and since what we esteem is an abomination in the sight of God (Luc. 16), every devout Christian can and may judge from which church or congregation he will be served.
They are the ones who want to be respected and called fathers in the spirituality, masters and judges of the divine word by all the world; they are the ones who have taken it upon themselves to command and forbid the people of God with the threat of eternal damnation the things that God has neither commanded nor forbidden us; they are the ones who want their statutes to be held more rigidly than God's commandment, yes, that they are feared in all things more evil than God. Who else can this be, with his crowd, but the abomination who has sat down in the place of God, that is, in the hearts of the believers in Christ (Matt. 24 and Daniel 8), and who scatters them with ceremonies, so that they may perceive less what the eternal Word has spoken to them inwardly? It would take a long time to tell the harmful abuses, and cruel idolatries, so all the world is filled everywhere by human statutes. And therefore I exhort and beg you, all Christian brethren who are subject to this article, to fight against it, that each one may inquire in his heart whether he is inclined to learn the truth and to report it to us in Christian love, so that no one may fall into the cruel, vain sins and resist the known truth, since God protects us all from it.
Johannes Buchstab, schoolmaster [at] Zofingen.
In the name of the Holy Trinity and all the heavenly host, amen! Because I am not reported nor used in high-sounding smooth words (against which St. Paul warned us to the Colossians on the 2nd, so that we should not be deceived), I will recently attack the Scriptures; and that we are also guilty of keeping other Scriptures than biblical, is to be believed, as St. John speaks on the 20th and on the 21st, that Christ did many things which are not comprehended in this book etc. Therefore I will indicate in the shortest possible way some places and chapters in which some words and sayings of Christ are not described, [which are nevertheless] indicated, as Matthew on the 9th, Marci on the 4th and 6th, Luke on the 2nd, on the 4th, on the 5th, on the 13th and on the 19th, John on the 4th. Which places I will therefore indicate. Christ also showed Himself after His resurrection to His disciples in many speeches during the forty days when He appeared to them, Acts 1, and spoke to them of the kingdom of God and of other divine things; but what He said to them and how He said it is not indicated in any particular words.
Martinus Butzer.
There are many places in the evangelical writings where some teachings and works of our Lord Jesus are mentioned, which are not written in the Scriptures; we readily admit this, but we say that these teachings and speeches, together with the works of the Lord, which are not written, contain and teach nothing else than what is read in the Scriptures. For St. Paul writes of the Scriptures that were before the time of the apostles: "And since you have known [the] Scriptures from childhood," etc., 2 Tim. 3. From this saying it is clear that nothing more is to be believed than what is contained in the Scriptures; and neither the Lord nor all the apostles taught anything else.
Johannes Buchstab.
That Timothy knew the scriptures from his youth, I leave aside. But that other teachings were taught by St. Paul, which are also not described, is shown in many places, as to the Romans on the 5th, to the Galatians on the 1st, to the Apostles on the 11th, on the 13th, and definitely in the stories of the twelve messengers. He also told some things by message and mouth, when he wrote to the Ephesians on the 6th: "But that you may know what things are with me, or how things are with me, Tychicus will make known to you. The same also to Colossians on the 4th: "Tychicus and Onesimus shall make all things known unto you." In the other to Timothy in the 2nd chapter: "The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, commend the same things unto faithful men."
Martinus Butzer.
Yesterday, Master Ulrich Zwinglin gave an answer 1) to all such objections. The law and the prophets, together with all that has ever been divinely taught, or may ever be taught, are all written in this short speech: "Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself! This has been taught, and taught by God, by all who have taught rightly from the beginning of the world, so it is not necessary for it all to be described; we have no need of that which the biblical books contain.
Johannes Buchstab.
The suit that we should love our neighbor as ourselves etc. does not serve against this, that one is not guilty of keeping other things as well, as
1) See Col. 1704 f.
is said before. And that one should also keep other things which are not written in words, I request that you show me three sayings of the holy Christian faith in words, as we pray them, namely: "He has descended to the hells. Item: "I believe in the holy Christian church." And, "I believe [a] common of saints."
Martinus Butzer.
The schoolmaster asks: Because we think to believe only the biblical scripture, where we want to establish and prove with expressed scripture, three articles of the holy Christian faith? The first: "The Lord descended to the hells", we prove the same with the one that St. Peter put on, Apost. 2: "For his soul is not left in hell" etc. Item, in the first epistle of St. Peter in the 3rd chapter: "In the same he also went, and preached to the spirits in prison." Accordingly, he divides one article of faith into two: "I believe in a Christian community, in the communion of saints. But it is surprising why he asks for this article in Scripture, since Scripture indicates it everywhere, as Matthew in the 16th chapter: "On the rock I will build my church" etc. Matthew at the last: "I will be with you until the end of the world"; Ephesians 1.4.5, where the church is described as the body of the Lord. Thus it is sufficiently indicated in the previous answers that the Christian church is the common Christians, that is, saints; as Paul everywhere takes Christians and saints for one. They now have fellowship in One God, One Christ, One Spirit etc., as my brother Berchtold, in the beginning of the disputation, 2) superfluously indicated.
Johannes Buchstab.
I do not deny the two articles, but he has not yet indicated to me where they are commanded to be believed. Further, if the holy Christian church is holy, and has granted the reverend sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, the sacrifice of the mass, the prayer for the dead and the living (as proved by sufficient evidence) for five and a half hundred years, and that should be wrong: it would follow that now the holy Christian church, contrary to the indicated point and article of faith, would not have been holy. For as Christ says John 8: "Falsehood and error are of the devil, who is deceitful and the father of them." But the truth is from
2) See Col. 1629 f.
Christ, John 14, "who is the way, the truth, and the life. And that Mr. Martin Butzer has spoken and put on the words of Christ: "I will remain with you until the end of the world", is for me; in which truth we have lived until now; as he also spoke in another place: "I will send you the Spirit of truth, who will teach you all truth", Joh. 16. If Christ had so far deprived his people of the light of his divine truth, and had thus for a long time put them under a harness that was contrary to his word, Luke 8, it would follow that he had not so far been a faithful shepherd to his sheep, as he says John 10: "I am a good shepherd; a good shepherd sets his soul apart for his sheep" etc.
Martinus Butzer.
This objection is partly against subsequent concluding speeches, since it is set against the fictitious sacrifice of the Mass, and carnal error of bodily presence of Christ; so it is also indicated in previous answers 1) how far the Church of God may err. It has been the time of blindness, now many years, out of God's right order. But that is why God has not abandoned His own at last. For it was not possible for the elect to remain in error, Matt. 24. Therefore, some members of the church have often not known that others have known well; and thus the truth has remained with the church in all ways, but not equally with all members of the church. And I beseech you to keep on the way. And I testify that I will not answer any more about the digression.
Johannes Buchstab.
Mr. Martin Butzer, I say thus: The Church admits to God and His worthy Mother many words that are not comprehended in biblical writings; nevertheless, believe our opposite party does not reject the same; as: Pater ingenitus, Patri coaequalis, Spiritus Sanctus ab utroque procedens, Beata virgo Maria, Dei genitrix, intelligendo de virginitate ipsius; likewise one celebrates Sunday, also other apostles and holy days, nevertheless the Bible puts nothing of it.
Martinus Bucerus.
Dear friends! This only indicates a battle of words. For if we have it in the Scriptures that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten, then it is clear from this that the
1) See Col. 1666. 1674 f.
Father is innate. If Christ indicates that the Father sends the Holy Spirit, and that he sends him from the Father, John 15, it is clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Item, if the Lord says: "I and the Father are one thing", then it is sufficiently indicated that the Father and the Son are the same. Likewise, if we have Matthew 10, that Mary is a mother of the Lord Jesus, and at the same time a virgin, we have no further need to inquire about this, nor does it affect our salvation, although it is without doubt with all who would bring the dignity of the mother of the Lord, that she remained a virgin for and for. For the sake of Sunday, it is not considered proper for Christians to celebrate it; but since love, which is constantly considered for the building up of the church, has to order everything that may be useful for it, the believing church has freely accepted to celebrate a day of bodily works in addition to the week, so that the whole church may be at leisure to hear the word of God, as God the Lord has also considered in the commandment of the Sabbath. Such a custom already existed in Paul's time, as we read on the 16th of the first to the Corinthians, where he writes: "On the Sabbath teach by himself every one of you. For the sake of the apostles' days, however, the ancients had in mind just such a thing, that the people might come together and be reminded of the faith of the apostles, along with the divine graces, through the Word; but it has never been the case that such celebrations were considered by the orthodox to be a necessary commandment that should bind the conscience. The sum of our answer, however, is also shown before what necessarily flows from the commandment of God: "Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. Item, what is necessarily decided from the law of Scripture, as: Patrem esse ingenitum, the Father being unborn; the Son being like the Father, and the like; these we recognize as founded in divine Scripture. The papal church, however, has imposed upon us that which not only does not flow from the Word of God, written in Scripture, but is obviously invented contrary to it.
Zwingli.
Here I desire, dear brethren, to speak a little further of the eternal purity of Mary, for the reason that the popes pretend to us that we diminish the honor of Mary, when they bring the greatest dishonor and suspicion of her virginity upon the way, and say that it is not found in Scripture that she is the end of the world, but that she is the end of the world.
And do not consider that Isaiah says in the 7th chapter: "Therefore God will give you a miraculous sign. Behold, she shall conceive and bear a daughter, and her name shall be Emmanuel. What miraculous sign would it be for a daughter to conceive and give birth, when all who conceive and give birth have also been virgins? But this is a miracle, that a virgin conceives and remains a virgin, that she gives birth and remains a virgin. So then, it follows that she was a virgin before and after she gave birth, for this is a miracle. Now if we have nothing against this in Scripture, why should it be said that her perpetual virginity is not proved in Scripture, since it is proved that she conceived and gave birth in virginity intact, and not that she was weakened? For this purpose it serves that Luke speaks at the first: "How will this happen, if I do not recognize a man?
Letter.
When Mr. Martin Butzer admitted that the Sunday and the Twelfth Day had been imposed by the church, I was pleased. For everything that the church holds, and does not look straight against the word of God, is not to be rejected. For St. Paul wrote to the Philippians on the 3rd: "If you think of anything else, God will reveal it to you. So I understand: if the Christian church sets something in honor and praise of God Almighty and orders that such may exist in power of these words Christianly. Also from the fact that in the 4th chapter of the same epistle he also writes thus: "Dear brothers, what is true, what is shameful, what is righteous, what is holy or pure, what is cheap, what is of good conduct; is somewhat a virtue" etc. By virtue of these two sayings of Paul, all good Christian ordinances exist, as the observance of fasting days, feast days, singing, and also praiseworthy cloisters, in which earnest prayers, desires, and thanksgivings are made for all men, 1 Timothy 2:2.
Martinus Butzer.
What is true according to the two sayings mentioned, namely, that which is revealed by God is true and honorable etc. But that he exemplifies fast days, feast days and cloisters: we say that such, as they have been used up to now, have been commanded in mortal sin; that they have arisen not from God the Lord, but from the Antichrist; cause [that] the people thereby have been led from
God the Lord are led away to the futile elements and worldly statutes; they have kept one day more holy than the other. This is what Paul said to the Galatians on the 4th: "But now, if you have known God," etc.
(And has read such text with it).
We do not confess, however, that he claimed that the church had done such things to praise and honor God, but that God was reviled by them, because it was pretended as if one could earn something from Him with such things; Christ Himself was also made an imperfect master with them, as if He had not taught us enough of what is pleasing to the Father. But if one voluntarily came together for several days to listen to God's word, and to do certain things, earnest prayers, with sincerity, as we read that the apostles did in Acts 12 and other places, we would know that this was revealed by God, truly, honorably.
On Jenner's 13th day.
Letter.
The words of St. Paul to Galatians on the 4th of days, months etc. do not apply to us Christians, but only to those who still practice the customs and habits of the law. But that cloisters, fast days etc. at the time of the ban have been commanded so far is not unreasonable, against the disobedient, and those who are prone to give offense. But that the anti-Christian should have done this, I do not understand, who should be understood here as the anti-Christian, whether it is the pope or others?
Martinus Butzer.
We leave it at the judgment of the believers, because the place of Galatians applies to all Christians. We have the same to the Colossians on the 2nd: "Therefore no one charges you with making consciences" etc. Because the Christian doctrine forbids to bind the consciences of the believers on special days, it is because of the day that the anti-Christian authority has now subjected itself to such a thing, and we call anyone who has ever undertaken such a thing an anti-Christian.
Johannes Buchstab.
Since yesterday you admitted that Sunday and the Twelfth Day may have been set aside by the church, these pieces may also exist. But that I asked whether the pope would be the Antichrist, I wanted to answer with biblical scripture.
have spoken against it. But to take the matter further, that we may also hold other writings, not comprehended in the Bible (serving Christian order and doctrine), I find in St. Paul, to the Corinthians Epist. 1, Cap. 15, that he accuses the poet Terentium of saying: "Evil talk corrupts good morals." Likewise to the Ephesians on the 5th, he cries out, as if it were truly written elsewhere, "Arise, you who sleep!" Item, to Timothy on the 2nd, on the 3rd, he shows how Jannes and Jambres had withstood Mosi. Item, to Tito at the first: Cretenses were all liars. Likewise Apost.-Gesch. on the 17th and on the 20th also writings are introduced as if they were found elsewhere in biblical writings.
Martinus Butzer.
For the sake of Sunday, it was not said that the church had commanded it, but it was voluntarily accepted for the benefit of the congregation. The same is true of the days of the apostles, although they have never been accepted and observed in the same way. Therefore, whoever gives anything in this and binds the conscience is an antichrist. The other places all together bring nothing against our conclusion. We ourselves also speak much in preaching that is not written word for word in the Bible, but it is founded in the Bible.
Johannes Buchstab.
Lucas the Evangelist, in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, points to Paul's wandering through many regions to proclaim the Kingdom of God, and thus says: "Paul wandered through Syriam and Ciliciam, confirmed the churches, and commanded to keep the commandments of the apostles and the elders. Now there is nothing else called the commandments of the apostles and of the elders, but the statutes of the apostles, which are to be kept without the other doctrines written in the Gospel, and are ordered for the government of the Christian Church. Which is further indicated in the following chapter, as Lucas, forewarned, thus speaks, in the Acts of the Apostles. [But when the apostles passed through the cities, they gave them to keep the doctrines and statutes which were established and ordained by the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem; and the churches were confirmed in the faith."
Butzer.
Nothing has yet been brought against our final speech; for the statute of the apostles, of which is read on the 5th and 16th of the Acts of the Apostles, has not been made to be the conscience of the apostles.
Therefore, the Gentiles did not continue to keep them, because as much as such a [statute] required free love, to serve the weak in faith for a while, it was also based on the commandment of God.
Letter.
Mr. Butzer, you would like to overthrow my entry, but without perfect Scripture. For while St. Paul at the 2. to the Thessal. 2, likewise at the 3. also declared to keep these statutes, and praised them for keeping them; and such statutes were not declared with expressed words in biblical Scripture; but those who lived in the time of the apostles, and soon afterward, give evidence and declaration that these are the statutes of the apostles, viz: Praying against the going forth of the sun; of infant baptism, how to ask and answer in it; not keeping Sunday on the Sabbath after the Jewish manner; the forty-day fast; also the prayers for the dead, and the like.
Butzer.
Our bright scripture against all that is drawn in is zun Colossern 2: "Let no man therefore" etc.
(And has hereby read out such text.)
Item: "The end of the law is love". We accept what is born of love, and what is not, we let it go.
Letter.
Since I have indicated that one is obligated to keep the statutes of the apostles, and it is not brought to me in writing, what these statutes are, and namely 1) points, attracted by me, have come from the statutes of the apostles, described twelve hundred years ago and more, 2) I refer to the highly learned Oecolampadium, which proves this before others, in Jgnatio, a disciple of John the Evangelist, in Origene and others. I hereby order my entry to the impartial reader.
Martinus Butzer.
Whether you have Scripture or not Scripture against us, I refer us to the acts.
Theobaldus Hüter, pastor at Appenzell.
On the opinion of my saying, so I have introduced here: Audiam, quid loquatur in me Dominus, Psalm. 138 [?]: I will loosely listen],
1) "sensual" (sömlich) - sämmtlich.
2) "witness" - relate.
what the Lord will speak in me. In which words the prophet indicates to take notice of the Spirit of God. As was said yesterday after the length of it, which Spirit of God is and remains with the husband and spouse of JEsu Christ. And so statutes and ordinances are used and taught in the Christian church, and taught not to be unseemly. For as we have seen in the 2nd epistle and 2nd chapter to Timothy, where he says thus, "Commend these things to the Christian believers, who shall be sent to teach others," or command them. But that they have a command, I try this by the story of the twelve messengers on the 20th: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the host, in which the Holy Spirit has set you bishops or shepherds, to govern the churches of God, which he has delivered with his blood" etc., in which the governing of the church is clearly indicated.
Martinus Butzer.
Of the revelation of God, which He speaks to all believers in the heart, has been indicated above 1) superfluously by Master Ulrich Zwinglin and myself; the same also of the ordinances 2) of the orthodox church; also of the governing, 3) which is called pasturing, Acts 20, 28, of the bishops 4) etc. All this I refer to the Acta.
Theobaldus Keeper.
And after no further reference has been made so far, Acts 20. In the aforementioned chapter he thus speaks [v. 32.]: "And now I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, who is mighty to establish, and to give the inheritance in all sanctified ones." From which text clearly follows the inheritance to teach, in all His elect clearly noted, what God commanded His Gespans and Gemahl, the Christian Church etc.
Martinus Butzer.
I refer to acts, 5) of this attracted saying itself, in the Apost.-Gesch. at the 20th chapter.
Theobaldus Keeper.
It is well done to me, and I give this to a gentle reader, whether the statutes of the church were not out of the spirit. With this I will conclude, from brevity and request because of my lords, the Pre-
1) See Col. 1674 ff. 1678 ff.
2) See,Col. 1700. 1712 ff. 1724 f. 1726 ff.
3) See Col. 1706.
4) "of the bishops" Put by us instead of: "their bishop". 5) Col. 1706.
sident. But yesterday, at length, an example was given of the virgin Mary, as if dishonor had been attributed to her. Since I also understand, I therefore say that I, together with my disputants, recognize Mary as the Mother of God, that she is a virgin, before birth, after birth, and in birth pure and undefiled.
Zwingli.
Dear Reverend! In order to shorten the matter, understand us thus: The other concluding speech has two points, and the following one explains the previous one, and you alone lie on the first one. Note, then, that there is no objection to each ecclesiastical body 6) agreeing in incidental matters, according to opportunity, to pray, fast, give alms, and other divine works. Example: Where hunger, death, war (God forbid!) occur, the church of Bälp and Bollingen, and each of them, may come together and agree: We will listen to God's word on that day, pray with one another in community, give alms, fast etc. But that another church is bound with the commandment and reputation, or another church binds this one, that is not. But this church does not bind any conscience, neither it binds itself out of love and spirit, 7) to do such things for a time: for otherwise no church may command these things, because they are commanded by God. But time and place are not commanded by God, but are free; so it follows that such commandment is only external. And if the church slackens externals or no longer requires love, the commandment no longer binds conscience. This is evident, first, from the fast days in the Old Testament, which alone were commanded at certain times, and which were again slackened. Secondly, we see this before in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, in the commandment of the church and apostles, in which two prohibitions are perpetual and unalterable, but two are to be tolerated only for a time, out of love, for the sake of the weak. The first two are founded in God's word: "Thou shalt not have strange gods," and "Thou shalt not unchaste." The other two, that one should not eat blood or strangled food, are not essentially commanded, because they have never been observed, not even by the pope himself; for one eats blood and strangled food at all times, without complaint of conscience, even today. From this it can be seen that, since the apostles never complained to the consciences, they only did so from the weak.
6) "Kirchhöre" -- Kilchön, parish.
7) This should mean: only that it binds itself out of love and spirit etc.
for a time, or have commanded it. Therefore, dear pastor, I ask you not to burden us and the complainants with unnecessary arguments, because you may not gain anything.
Order of my masters.
Our gracious lords, the mayor and councilors of this noble city of Bern, in order to avoid all unrest and complaints from all parties, have once again advised and decreed that all their pastors, ministers and preachers, in the city and country, also those who are specially described at the present disputation; likewise all others who are to be heard at this disputation, join the choir, and let themselves be signed there by one or the other party. And since there are many learned men on the preaching party, the opposing party may consult, and choose two, three, four or more, who will debate the final speeches on their behalf. In addition, each of the two parties may also support his own, advise and assist them in writing or orally, and bring forth what is useful for ascertaining divine truth. All according to the written mandate of the disputation. All priests, preachers, pastors and pastoral caretakers, from city and country, are to remain here until the end of this disputation and not to move.
Accordingly, Niclaus Manuel, Vogt zu Erlach, made the following speech.
Venerable scholars! Let no one think that our gracious lords are only eager that the articles presented be preserved by their preachers, together with the doctrine that flows from them, but their sole purpose is to investigate the truth of the divine word, whether the articles exist in divine Scripture or contradict it. You also see how those who profess the articles to be good hold themselves together so faithfully: Therefore I ask and exhort you again for God's sake, you, the opponents, should also unite, be comforting to one another with help, advice, letters and speeches; our gracious lords will accept this for the highest good and as a gracious good pleasure with great gratitude. But that this be done in all cases according to the order, content and instructions of the Christian mandate.
Alexius Grad, confessor in the island, Order of Preachers.
In your name, Lord Jesus Christ! Honorable, wise, favorable, dear gentlemen! The other final speech, which has been discussed for some time now, has two parts according to my understanding. The first: The Church of Christ does not make law nor statutes without the Word of God. This part I hold to be true. The other part, which reads that it follows and comes to pass that all human
Statutes, which are called commandments of the church by us, do not bind our conscience other than as much as they are founded or commanded in God's word; the same I also admit, in right common sense. To seek the right understanding, we should go to the Scriptures. Now John 16 says: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now: but when the Spirit of truth shall come, he shall teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but he shall speak all things that he shall hear; and shall declare unto you things to come." This Spirit and Teacher Christ our Lord has given to His Church not ten or twenty years, but forever. John 14: "I will pray my Father, and he shall give you' another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever." From these sayings and the like, as they are given in the 14th, 15th and 16th chapters of John, St. Paul assures all devout Christians that they will not lack the Christian church; and this in the first epistle to Timothy on the 3rd, where he says: "These things I write to you, my son Timothy, in the hope of coming to you soon. But whether I prolong, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest or mustest walk in the house of God the living, which is the common church of the living God, a pillar and stronghold of the truth." From this every Christian understands that the holy Christian church has been taught and governed by the Holy Spirit until now, and will be for eternity. Now if the same Spirit and Teacher is the Spirit of truth, he teaches the church the truth; therefore the sayings of the church are to be accepted by us as the truth. St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Thessalonians, writes in the second chapter: "Since you have received from me the word of God, you have not received it as the word of men, but as it truly is, the word of God. If the Thessalonians are commended by Paul for accepting his words, which he told them from God, not as the word of men, but as the word of God; and he also is only a member of Christendom: so also all other Christians ought to accept the word of common Christendom, which is called the Christian Church, not as the word of men, but as the word of the Holy Spirit.
Berchtoldus.
Pious Christians! The 14th and 16th chapters of St. John the Evangelist are described as follows
On the 12th, it is found that as we have One God, One Savior, so also one Teacher and Doctrine, so that the Holy Spirit has not taught another doctrine than Christ, to the Church of God, that I rely on the sayings of the evangelist himself.
(And were read such sayings).
And again Matthew at the last: "Teach them to keep the things which I have commanded." To the other saying introduced in Timothy, that the church of God is a pillar and foundation of the truth, no one can deny, for it is confirmed, founded, and established on the truth of the divine word, and not on the statutes of men. And whoever brings us any other doctrine than that of Christ, let us not hear him, in the 2nd chapter of the first epistle of John. Lastly, the Thessalonians received the preaching of Paul, not as the teaching of man, but as the Word of God Himself, and the Holy Spirit testified and sealed it to the Thessalonians. Where another member comes, or even a church that brings us the same word of God, we will gladly listen to it.
Confessor.
Mr. Berchtold, in response to my speech, admits (as is true) that the Holy Spirit teaches nothing else, neither that Christ teaches: but has not yet sufficiently proved that the Holy Spirit has not proclaimed or spoken to the descendants in the holy Christian church, something that is not comprehended in express words in the Gospel, or in the epistles, or in the other biblical writings, in particular, when the Lord Jesus Himself says: "I still have many things to tell you" etc. If the Holy Spirit had not taught them more than is understood in the Scriptures and the Gospel, it would follow that Christ had spoken this preface, "I have yet many things to say to you," etc., in vain; for it would have been sufficiently written and said, and would have been enough to have been written, and the teacher would have been superfluous. But the fact that he continues to confirm this with the Scripture, Matt. at the last: "Teach them all things whatsoever I have commanded you!" these words do not confirm his gloss, for this still remains: "I have yet many things to say unto you.
Berchtoldus.
The confessor did not enjoy the answer about John's saying on the 16th: "I still have much to tell you", but thinks
from the fact that the Holy Spirit has taught the church many things through the fathers, which are already not founded in Scripture. Again I say, Christ saith, "I have many things to say unto you," but none other [than that which is founded in scripture]; for the scripture hath all good, and is sufficient and perfect to instruct men unto salvation, 2 Timothy on the 3rd cap. Therefore may not be good, and so not be taught by the Spirit of truth, what is not grounded in the Scriptures. Prove that the Spirit of God has taught other things than those written in the Scriptures, and that according to the mandate.
Confessor.
Berchtold, on objections to my answer or our answer, says and concedes that the Holy Spirit as a governor of the church has proclaimed or spoken something through the holy Christian church, but says that he has said or taught nothing except that which is founded in the biblical Scriptures. I gladly concede this. But that what the holy Christian church has set or ordained for Christians does not come from the Holy Spirit, or is not founded in Scripture: this is yet to be proven to him; I also hope that the authority, or the sentence in 2 Timothy in chapter 3, inserted by him, will not help him to prove this.
Berchtoldus.
The church of Christ has never accepted anything except what is founded in the word of God, according to the sound and fable of the first known final discourse; but the church that is not of Christ has accepted much apart from the word of God. The saying of Paul in 2 Timothy 3 indicates that the Scriptures are sufficient to make one wise unto salvation.
Confessor.
In Mr. Berchtold's answer, when he says that the church has not accepted anything except that which is founded in the Word of God, and thereby wants to answer that which I say, that the Christian church has established something that is not founded in the Word of God, that is not proven by him with the Scriptures, I say: I have not said that the Christian church has not accepted anything 1) that is not founded in the Word of God, but I have said that it should prove that it has established or ordained something that is not founded in the Word of God.
1) Instead of "nothing" should read "ichts" (something).
Berchtoldus.
The confessor wants to reproach me for 1) saying that the church of Christ has imposed something that is not in the word of God. Therefore, that the church of Christ does not make statutes outside the word of God, can be seen clearly from the saying of Isaiah on the 29th: "In vain do they honor me, teaching the doctrine and commandment of men", as indicated in the beginning 2); also Matthew on the 15th.
Confessor.
Mr. Berchtold incites me to ask him to teach me what is due to me. I think that he has enough to teach from his answer today, since he has conceded that the holy Christian church, as St. Paul says, is a pillar and consolidation of the truth, and at the same time said that the Christian church is founded on the word of God, which I also speak. Therefore, I think that it is not necessary for me to further prove the constitution of the holy Christian church, which is founded on the truth and God's word, since it has the Holy Spirit, from whom it is governed, which cannot be lacking. But that it follows from this that the statutes of the Christian church are not to be accepted by Christian people unless they are founded or understood in the Scriptures with serene and equal words, the same will not be found, since Christ our Savior has given her the Holy Spirit to unify her in all truth. From this it follows that the statutes of holy Christianity should no more be called the commandments of men, or the commandments of men, than the words of the prophets, or the evangelists, or the messengers of the twelve, or, if I am to be rightly understood, the words which God has spoken through them; yet all of them, or each one in particular, may be no more than all common Christianity.
Martinus Butzer.
So that we do not endure the matter 3), the confessor tells us what the Christian church means to him? We have long since declared that the church is all orthodox believers.
Confessor.
If Mr. Martin Butzer also asks that I say what I understand by the church? cried, be it sufficiently explained to me that the opposing party has the
1) "Auftrechen" - to impose.
2) See Col. 1718 f.
3) "thing" put by us instead of: "church".
righteous Christians or believers for the church. To this I answer that I and my party understand] all those who are born in the holy Christian church by the Holy Spirit, and by water, and by the word of life in God. Now, so you yielded that all those who believe and are baptized, make the holy Christian Church and is no more, for One Church (as we have in the Hoheüliede on the 6th: "Unified is my dove, unified is my immaculate" etc., and John 10: "It shall be One sheepfold, and One shepherd"), it further follows that if the same makes some statutes, as governed by the Holy Spirit, it does not err and does not fail, and its statutes are to be accepted, even if they are not understood in the same words in Scripture, yet the Spirit of God is promised that he will proclaim to holy Christendom what is to come. Item, for further confirmation, 2 Peter, Chapter 1, where it is written: "This you should understand first, that all Scripture is inspired by God, and does not come about by its own interpretation, but is inspired, or inspired, by the Holy Spirit, spoken by the holy men of God.
Martinus Butzer.
It has long been said, 4) if the church is taken for the believers, it makes no commandment, [unless] it has a bright ground in Scripture; and the place of Peter, in the 2nd at the first chapter, does not want anything else either.
Confessor.
Mr. Martin Butzer says that the church, as I call it, makes no other statute, unless it is publicly founded in the Word of God. Desire [to know] what other church I have? For the saying in 2. St. Peter says nothing different, neither of the church we have in common with each other. I put on the place, "I have much to say to you." He takes the church as he wills, for a common assembly of believers, it may be in the world where it wills, or, as has been indicated many times before, in every but one congregation: yet from none of the answers is it shown that the word and promise of Christ could not have been fulfilled from so many times as Christendom has stood, but only by that which is publicly understood in the Scriptures before. Although there are laws, some times, that one should fast, not eat meat, abstain from marriages and such things that punish sinners, etc.
4) See Col. 1628 f. 1720 s. 1724 f. 1732.
but all of them are founded in the Scriptures. But I think that he will not say that the holy Christian church, for the sake of order, and for the sake of sacrilegious transgressors, has not set such things in the councils which indicate common Christianity, by their own ordained messages or ordained elected authorities: yet it is the duty of the authorities, and especially of the council, to urge their subjects, not only with love, but also by fear and punishment, to an orderly life. And this I prove by Paulum in the first to Timotheo at the 5th chapter: Peccantem coram omnibus argue, "those who sin (that is, those who live disorderly), punish them before men, that the others may have fear." The same has also been referred to by Paulum, in the epistle to Corinth: "Do 1) ye think that I come unto you in the rod, or in the spirit of kindness?" Matt. 18: "He that heareth not the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen, and as an open sinner or publican." From this it follows that the holy Christian church, or every Christian man, is bound to keep the church's statutes and commandments.
Martinus Butzer.
Because of the saying of John on the 16th: "I still have many things to tell you" etc., was answered earlier 2); refer me to the Acta etc. Now because of the statutes which he brings in as a church statute, from the difference of days and meals, we say that such are the devil's statutes, according to the bright saying, 1st Timothy at the 4th chapter. But now, that he has continued to refer to the saying in the 5th chapter of 1 Timothy: "Those who sin, punish before everyone", this is also explained in the preceding answers 3) superfluous, namely, that according to the order of Christ, Matth. in the 18th chapter, the punishment of the Christian congregation is to be kept serious. From all this, however, it is not yet proven that the words "Christian congregation" can make a single commandment that is to bind the consciences, and yet has no clear foundation in the divine Word. This has been answered several times today and yesterday, 4) according to the Acta.
Confessor.
That the saying of John in chapter 16, "I have yet many things to say unto you," etc., is sufficiently clear.
1) It seems to us that "Wähnet" is a wrong resolution of "Wend" - Wollet.
2) See Col. 1733 f.
3) See Col. 1652 f.
4) See Col. 1720. 1722 ff. 1729.
I do not confess that this is the answer. And if one says that the differences of the days and meals were the devil's statute, and brings to it Paul's saying to Timothy on the 3rd, to which I answer that the same saying does not say of the Christian church, as the text clearly indicates, which says: "But the Spirit says publicly" etc. This is far from the holy Christian church! For it is governed by the Holy Spirit.
Butzer.
Therefore it follows that this may not be the Christian church, which has commanded such things; and will set you a clear syllogism from the words of Paul. Those who forbid marriage and food have departed from the faith, and bring doctrines of devils; the concilia and prelates, whom you count for the Christian church, have forbidden food and marriage; therefore they have departed from the faith, and have not been a Christian church.
Confessor.
If one desires in the brevity of the speech in the so heavy matter, then I will give recently to the speech Martini Butzer thus answer: that the statutes of the holy Christian church (which are there of abortion of the food, the marriage, the feasts and other such, from the holy Christian church set) are not statutes of the unbelievers, nor of the devils, but in the Scripture generally held for good, and by the Christian church for times, persons reasonably and lawfully ordered. It would take too long to prove this in particular about all things. I will, however, specify some of them, and indicate the places where they are considered good, in the hope that every devout, obedient Christian will not complain about such an order of Christianity, trusting that the governor, the Holy Spirit, will not guide or direct the holy Christian church to any burdensome or unjust statute. For the eating of flesh, the Scriptures have a reason in the epistle to Romans 14: "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any other thing in which thy brother is offended." For the sake of fasting and some other practices, although there is much in Scripture, I think it is enough, for the sake of brevity, to quote Paul's words in the 2nd epistle to Corinthians 6.He says: "In all things we should show ourselves to be the servants of God, in much patience, in affliction, in trouble, in distress, in striving, in imprisonment, in watchfulness, in fasting, in chastity, in holiness, in longsuffering". etc. Item, Johelis 2. says God the Lord: "Convert
turn to me in all your heart, in fasting, in weeping, in lamentation" etc. Of chastity, we have 1 Corinth. 7, where half the chapter is about keeping chastity. From these few of many texts it is well to notice that the statutes of holy Christianity (half of the pieces, which are told in the 1st Epist. to Timothy on the 4th, that some, who depart from the faith etc.) are not to be regarded as devilish statutes, although the works and practices mentioned are called good in Scripture, although they have already been reasonably established by the holy Christian church for the sake of order, not to the complaint of the obedient and the good, but (to be regarded as good) for the benefit and promotion of the good; for it knows well that the righteous, according to the opinion of Paul, is not under the law.
Martinus Nutzet.
Because St. Paul will have it true that devilish teachings forbid food and marriage, no Christian congregation will ever do this. But it is said before 1) that Christians voluntarily fast, in general and in particular; Paul exhorts to this in the place mentioned. But that the confessor has retracted from meat-eating will not prove for a long time that the church may forbid meat-eating. But God the Lord has forbidden it, as well as drinking wine, where the neighbor is annoyed by it, that is, prevented from faith and love. Otherwise, whoever holds that one may eat all kinds of food is considered by Paul to be strong in faith, and whom God has accepted, according to the 14th chapter to the Romans. The matter is this: to forbid for oneself the use of some creatures is the work of the devil, and will remain so as long as Paul's words remain true; but voluntarily the Christian should use all things for correction. The same is true of marriage, which is discussed below.
Letter.
Because I have also said today about the fasting, and Mr. Butzer says that the prohibition of food, according to the words of Paul, are the devil's statutes and commandments, I say no. For from the fact that Moses, 2nd book of Moses 24, and Helias, 1 Kings 19, and Christ Jesus, Matt. 4, each fasted forty days, the Holy Church has taken it as 2) the basis of this, and considered the words of Paul, when he spoke to the Philippians at
1) See Col. 1724 f. 1729.
2) "sömlichs" - such.
Chapter 1: "It is given unto you not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him, having the same fight as ye have seen in me. Item, 1 Peter 2: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his footsteps." Item, in 1 John, in the 2nd chapter, where he says, "He that walked as Christ walked." How late shall we Christians suffer anything for Christ's sake, or accept his fight, if for his sake we may not be forty days without eating meat, and fasting!
Martinus Bucerus.
From all this it is not proved that the church makes commandments which have no foundation in the word of God, and yet are to bind the consciences; therefore nothing is against us. But that which was drawn from the forty-day fast of Moses, Helia and Christ does not serve here; they were not with people, therefore God the Lord had to sustain them without human food. The saying that we should suffer something for the sake of Christ is to be understood from the suffering that God sends us, and not that we choose ourselves. Like Christ, one should walk in all discipline and love, but not be without food for forty days and nights. The schoolmaster will also leave it alone; otherwise we would also have to raise the dead and perform other miracles that the Lord has worked.
Confessor.
Martin Putzer has begun to answer that the Church does not forbid eating meat or anything else, but God, because of the annoyance. Now he says that St. Paul means the quoted saying in Romans 14 on the weak, and takes those for strong in faith, who eat everything that God has created. But has not yet proved with that which I have indicated. He should have proved that these things were not good. For I have not yet said anything more in the introductions to these sayings, except that abstinence from or cessation of the things which are ordained therein is good, and therefore for the order of the church, which has the Holy Spirit, and also the word of God, it may well be ordered at times. But as he says that it is proved to me that the Christian church, a pillar and ground of truth, has to forbid such things, I say that this has long been proved, as it is proved that the assembly of believers has the Holy Spirit, so powerfully that Christ says, Luc. 10: "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that spurneth you spurneth me." Item, Matth.
on the 23rd: "On the chair of Moses sat the Pharisees and the scribes, who bind together heavy and infallible burdens, lay them on the shoulders of men; but with their least finger they do not move them. That which they say, keep and do; but after their works do ye not." Let every devout Christian know that Christ our Lord spoke these words to his disciples, which he took from the old law for the edification of the church in the new law, and yet he says to them, "The burdens are heavy and unbreakable, and those who put them on say so and do not do it. But he would not absolve them from obedience for this reason, but said, "Keep it and do it." This is, as I think, a clear, cheerful text, that the statutes and ordinances of the Christian church are to be accepted with humility and kept as far as possible. I also hope that the presence of Christ in the holy Christian church will make it possible to hear the church as him. But if the text prescribed in Timothy is applied to the church by Martin Butzer, and does not speak of the church, but of those who have left the church through unbelief and error, I hope that my argument will stand firm and be firmly established.
Butzer.
The confessor says that the saying in 1 Timothy 3 does not speak of the Christian church, but of those who have left the faith. We say the same. Therefore, if his confessions and prelates forbid marriage and food, it is evident that they are nothing less than the Christian church. On this saying we have set the matter; also on this, "Take heed lest a robber befall you," cf. 2 [V. 8.]. Let the Christian read from this place to the end of the chapter, and he will see clearly enough that no Christian can impose such commandments as the confessor speaks of on his brethren, much less the whole Christian community. It is a sponsor of Christ, and cannot do anything contrary to the clear word of God. But since he also said, "He who hears you hears me also," Luc. 10, we readily admit whoever preaches what the apostles of this place were commanded to preach, namely, the holy gospel, that if anyone hears Christ, he may be heard. But who shall say that one hears Christ when he accepts the doctrine of devils, such as the prohibition of food, of marriage, of the separation of days, etc., in order that the consciences may be bound? So it is evident, when Christ made the scribes hear on the throne of Moses, that
he did not mean that they should accept everything they taught; otherwise he would not have warned them against their teaching, Matt. 16, but spoke of what they taught from the law of Moses; these were such burdens that St. Peter himself says that neither they, nor their fathers, could have borne them, Apost, 15. Lastly, that the confessor so often reproaches me that the Lord does not leave his church, the Holy Spirit also teaches it: let us admit everything, with the addition that the church is called to us the faithful, not those who have departed from the faith, adhering to erroneous consciences and doctrines of devils, like those who forbid food and marriage. This is what St. Paul says, not us. But how nearly the Christian church may err is said before. 1) Hereupon the confessor says no, as often as he will; the Scripture lies in the day, which the sheep of Christ will follow, whatever he and his party lie. 2)
On the fourteenth day Jenners. Confessor.
In the name of Jesus, amen! Honorable, venerable, wise, and all of you gathered pious Christians! Yesterday I had held up some sayings to prove that Christians are obliged to listen to the commandments of the holy common Christian church, namely, Luke in the 10th chapter: "He who listens to you listens to me" etc., was answered to me with a retracting speech, as if it were only said to preachers. I did not accept this interpretation. For I was concerned that if one should hear the preachers, then one should also, as a matter of course and more reasonably, be obliged to listen to the superior rulers, since it is written in Hebrews 12: "Be obedient to your superiors" etc. Secondly, I was given an answer to the saying of Matthew 23: "On the throne of Moses" etc., that the same should be understood from the burden of the old law; I think it should also be understood from that which is taken from the Scriptures of the Old or New Testament, whether it alone has a meaning, and not the same words, if the Lord said this to his disciples, that they should keep it and do it. A syllogism was also made to me, how that every one who contradicts the saying of Paul in Timothy. [in the first epistle] on the 4th, forbids food that God created to be eaten and to be married, that person has the doctrine of the devils etc. To the same I answer thus, to
1) See Col. 1674 ff. 1680 ff.
2) "to lie" - to be good, to be useful. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 1210.
Explanation of what was said yesterday: When it is said, that every one that committeth the same hath the doctrine of devils, I admit it in my right mind. Who then are in the opinion of introducing error, as St. Paul indicates of the heresies that would arise in the future time; as there were the Manichaei, who forbade food, thinking that there was a part of God in it, and the like; as one reads of it etc. He who teaches such things does not teach rightly. Further, when one says that your church, thereby indicating the Christian congregation, together with its leaders, which has now so long been taken for the Christian church, it is not true (whether God wills it!).); if this same Christian church, whether for several days or for the time of penitence or wedding feasts, consumes such food, this is also done in a divine opinion, to keep the Christian believers in the old, accepted good practices; this is a good indication that it does not consume such food all the time, but for some time. For the sake of marriage, I say this, that the Christian church does not forbid it; but it might be considered something, if it does not accept those who are to be consecrated, if they have the will to become married, and urges those who have vowed to do so, to keep it etc.
Martinus Butzer.
Because of Proverbs, 10 Luke, also Matth. 10, item Matth. 23, referred to by the confessor, I refer to the given answer, 1) and the same place itself. But that he has introduced a new gloss for the sake of Timothy without Scripture, that he is to be understood by those who forbid food and marriage, in the opinion of introducing error, we will also gladly accept. However, he lets us stay with the words of Paul (who forbade marriage and food, a devilish doctrine), which also completely departs from Christ, according to Colossians, chapter 2. Because his supposed church, as he himself confesses, forbids food, it may be at some time, so it is obvious that it pretends to devilish doctrine. How can this happen in good opinion? Who would give poison to a man to drink, thinking to help him? In order to end the matter, we will refer to the sayings mentioned above. Nor will he excuse his church from such a thing on account of marriage, because it does not immediately betroth it, but demands that it be betrothed. For St. Paul calls devilish 1) See Col. 1740 f.
Doctrine, rejecting the custom of some creatures as unholy; shows the cause he presents: "For all God's creatures are good, and nothing is abominable. But of this hereafter further in its place.
Confessor.
Mr. Martin Butzer tells you that I have produced a new gloss on the chapter of Timothy. To this I say, as he said, I say: No, this is the mind from of old of the holy Christian church, as well founded in this text, as its interpretation. And as they did not confess to my understanding, so I do not confess to their understanding either; refer also to the same text, and to the Scriptures. With this I will now have decided for the time being, and command [it] to the Scripture. Protest me that I subject all that I have said here to the punishment and correction of the common Christian church, where it is assembled according to order; if I am instructed to correct and improve, I am willing to do so.
[The third final speech, and of the same reasons, opened Berchtoldus Haller, Predicant at Bern].
Berchtoldus Haller.
The almighty eternal God, who by His grace has opened to us the truth of the first two concluding speeches; may He lead us by His Spirit to true understanding and light of the third, which thus reads:
Christ is our only wisdom, righteousness, redemption, and payment for all the sin of the world: therefore, to confess any other merit of salvation and satisfaction for sin is to deny Christ.
Although this conclusion is so clear and based on divine Scripture that it may be wondered at how it can be doubted by some, because so many trust in their own righteousness and works, or teach that their merit is so high that it is according to eternal salvation, we are caused to make this conclusion. But since so many trust in their own righteousness and works, or teach to trust in them, or esteem their merit so highly that it is according to eternal blessedness, we are caused to make this final statement, which Paul affirms in 1 Corinthians 1: "Christ Jesus became to us the wisdom of God, the righteousness, the making whole, and the redemption, that he who boasts may boast in the Lord. Hereby Paul understands the whole sum of our life, which stands in knowledge [and] works; and if [it] is omitted, atone for and pay for the same. Christ is our wisdom, sent from God to teach us with
Word and deed the heavenly wisdom, and what he teaches, that this is our wisdom. For (to Colossians 2.) "In Him are all the treasures of the wisdom of God," that is, everything that is useful and necessary for us to know for the salvation of our souls, we find in Christ, so that everything that is outside the wisdom of Christ (however seemingly and sacredly it may be considered), 1) cannot make us wise or godly; and all those who would force upon the sheep of Christ a different wisdom to promote them to God, are called thieves and murderers by Christ. Cap. Therefore also the Father commanded him to be heard, Matthew, chapter 17. He is also our righteousness. For since we cannot do anything righteous because of our depraved nature, nor keep what God demands of us (which each one learns from himself), it follows that the sharpness of God's justice and judgment will frighten and condemn us. That now enough of God's justice may be done. God the Father sent His Son out of the depths of His grace to be the righteousness, ransom, and redemption of those who trust in God's mercy; Christ is the pledge of such grace. In Romans 8: "If God is with us, who will oppose us?" But that God is with us we learn from the fact that "He did not spare His own Son, but gave Him for us all. How could it be that he would not give us all things with him? Who will accuse the elect of God? God is here who justifies. Who wants to condemn? Christ is here, who died; rather, he who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, representing us. Here you hear, devout Christians, that God testifies to His gracious promise and love toward us with His own Son, who was given in death for us. Secondly: "Who will accuse the elect", if God is the one who justifies them for the sake of Christ? In him God the Father is well pleased. "There is no name under heaven in which salvation can come to us, except the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," Acts 3. For "he gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all wickedness," to Tito 2. He also speaks by name "from all wickedness," for "he is the pardon for our sin, and not for our sin alone, but for the whole world," in the first epistle of John 2. Such and such words of God have moved us to confess with this final speech that Christ alone is our wisdom, righteousness, redemption and blessing.
1) "us" put by us instead of: "and".
for all the sin of the world. It follows that to confess another merit of salvation, or another satisfaction for sin, is to deny Christ. For he speaks through the prophet Isaiah, chapter 63: "I have looked about me, and there was none to help me; I have sought, and there was none to help me." What is this but that Christ alone has accomplished the work of our redemption? Therefore there is no merit, nor any merit that is according to the work of redemption and eternal blessedness. Let all devout Christians understand that the Word of God admonishes us everywhere to the works and fruits of the Spirit, which testify to our faith and love, according to Romans 1:1. But from trust and self-seeking acceptance of works all Scripture warns and admonishes us, in Deut. 5 on the 9th, Isaiah on the 10th, to Tito 2 and 3 Cap, and the Lord with a likeness of the Pharisee, who was not an adulterer, or not a robber, but therefore praised God, fasted, burned up all his goods, now righteous and pious in his sight; and of the publican, who, beating his breast, appealed to the grace of God as a sinner, and went out of the temple justified before the Pharisee. So Paul forgave himself of all his righteousness, and took it for dung, that he might win Christ, according to Philippians. 3 Cap. On the other hand, all works are to be judged rightly for the glory of God (Matt. 5, in the first epistle to Corinth, 10, and 2 Corinth, 5) and love, and also the improvement of our neighbor. For by this men will know that we are disciples of Christ, if we love one another. And all works that fall short of this are vain in the sight of God. But since in many places of Scripture the reward is promised to works, as in Matthew chapter 5, in Genesis chapter 15, in Jeremiah chapter 31, in Isaiah chapter 40, and in other innumerable places, we should not think that our work is equal to the reward and deserves it, but because God has promised it by grace, believers will receive it. A father promises his child a little skirt as a reward if he learns honestly in school; nevertheless, the child owes obedience to the father and does not deserve the little skirt. Nor is it called a reward; not that it is earned, but promised and given by grace of the father. Hereby let no one be mistaken where he finds the reward of our works, which are not ours but God's promise. With this I ask all devout Christians, if someone could or would like to teach us, not to refrain from doing so.
Letter.
In the name of the Holy Trinity, Amen! The various sayings, collected by Mr. Berchtolden, we do not contest: because, however, Mr. Butzer, on Thursday, next to several others, answered the highly learned Doctor of Freiburg, and said: if he believed that Christ was his only Savior, then he would have eternal life according to the word, and his sins would not harm him. According to my understanding, this 1) is contrary to the words of Christ, as He says in Matthew, chapter 12: "Of every useless word that men speak, they will give account of it." 1 Peter, Cap. 4: "If the righteous is hardly kept, where will the wicked and sinners remain or appear?" Therefore, since we must give an account of every wicked word, and the righteous will hardly keep it, how will the sinner fare? Thus Saint Paul speaks in the first to the Corinthians on the 6th: "You shall not err! Neither fornicators nor other public sinners etc. shall possess the kingdom of heaven." It is true that if a person who has lived in unbelief until now were to receive faith together with baptism, his previous sins would not harm him; but if after baptism a person falls into original sin, he must atone for it with God by confession, repentance, penance, or good works; otherwise he will be given according to his works, and the death of Christ will no longer be useful to him, because he remains in original sin.
Martinus Butzer.
That he may have eternal life, and therefore no sin may finally (I said) harm him, Christ himself has spoken. Nevertheless, an account must be given for every useless word and what is unjust. But in the reckoning Christ will represent the sinners, 2) as Paul clearly says to the Romans on the 8th, and by his Spirit will finally make them completely pious and like himself; so that according to their good works (which will be the Lord's, and not their own) eternal life will be fully delivered to them.
Letter.
That our works, done by faith after receiving baptism, are meritorious is only found in the Old and New Testaments; as Christ says in Matthew 7: "He that doeth the will of my heavenly Father, the same shall be forgiven.
1) Sömlichs - such.
2) "Sinner" put by us instead of r "sin".
go into the kingdom of the heavens." Apost. 10 Tabitha deserved to be mercifully rescued from death by St. Peter for the good works she had done 3).
Martinus Bucerus.
The answer to the first one is given in the explanation of 4) Mr. Berchtolden; the other one does not bring that Tabitha deserved her resurrection.
Letter.
For explanation and confirmation of my writings mentioned above, I say that it is written that she was full of good works and almsgiving as she did. It follows in the tenth chapter that the angel said to Cornelio: "Your prayer and almsgiving have ascended into the memory before the face of God. The same is found in the blessed man Toby, when he says: "With almsgiving and faith sins are purged away.
Martinus Butzer.
For Tabitha's sake, the text is clear; I'll leave it at that. Cornelius' prayer and alms were accepted by God. But it does not say that he earned anything from God, that his works compared to divine grace. Nor is it badly said by Tobiah (although the same story is not biblical) that sins are cleansed with faith and alms: for the more one believes in God and proves faith with works of love, the more the love of God increases in us; the more we win God, the more [the] desire to sin is diminished in us. The schoolmaster should diligently take note of Mr. Berchtolden's statement: Good works must be done without ceasing; but if one had already done all that is commanded him (which no one has ever liked), he would still be a useless servant, and all his good works would not yet compare with the grace of God. In addition, all good works are not ours, but of the Spirit of God working in us: therefore it is found (as St. Augustine rightly wrote) that God rewards His own works in us.
Letter.
No foreign gloss I accept. I help myself to the scripture, by me before attracted, and which I will lead in now. Book 2 of Moses
3) "erquicket" - made alive, 4) See Col. 1744 f.
In the first place it is written that God considered the merit of the Hebrew midwives who did not want to kill the children according to Pharaoh's commandment; the text there says, "that God built houses for the midwives because of such good deeds. Danielis on the 4th he has spoken to the king: "Discharge your sin with the alms." In the 119th Psalm, King David says: "I have inclined my heart to do thy righteousness for the sake of reward." By these three sayings and the ones above, it is sufficiently shown that good works are meritorious.
Martinus Butzer.
On the place Exodi, although it is not against us (for enough is said how our works are rewarded by God), yet the Hebrew letter there also wants to give the opinion: "It happened that the midwives feared God, that houses were made for them (understand the children of Israel)", that is, their generations increased. For it is written xxx ad ipsos; and not, xxx ad ipsas. The other place, Danielis, is also not against us. For it is only right that he who has received mercy from God should also show mercy to his neighbor. But this does not yet prove that the same works can compare with divine mercy, but everything remains grace. As is clearly indicated in Romans 3 and 4, "that all things are grace, and not reward; otherwise they would not be grace," which we also have in Romans 11. However, the following statement in Romans 3 would be sufficient: "Therefore we hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, but only by faith. But that which is taken from the 119th Psalms is not in the Hebrew as it is taken, but thus, "I have inclined my heart to do thy statutes for ever," finally, that is, for ever and ever. This is the only answer we have given to explain the verses we have consulted, otherwise no answer would have been necessary; for they do not mean that we deserve salvation from ourselves, or that our works compare with God's gifts, which merit alone we deny, according to Scripture.
Letter.
I am not forced to accept the explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures; so it is not my opinion that one can be saved by some works, outside of the Christian faith. But I say that faith is also a work. In the 6th chapter of St. John
The disciples said to Christ, "What shall we do to do the works of God? Jesus answered, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. Which faith must be followed by works. In the 8th chapter of John, Christ said: "If you are sons of Abraha, do the works of Abraha". In sum, Christ told Matthew on the 25th how he would speak to God's elect at the last judgment: "Come, you sons of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world. I was hungry and you fed me" etc.
Martinus Butzer.
The place of John in the 6th chapter: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent", is an imitative 1) speech, called in Greek xxxxxxx, Iatina irnitatio; as: if some would come together and speak: Shall we not carouse with one another? And another said, This will be our revel, we must write, or do something like that. Writing would not be carousing, but it would be called carousing in imitative speech. In the same way the Lord also did. The Jews asked about works; from these he wanted to draw them to faith, and, according to their speech, calls faith a work of God, that is, a work that would be valid with God. As if he had said: You ask for works in order to please God; if you believe in me, this would be a truly divine work and would please my heavenly Father. The rest is all superfluously explained in Mr. Berchtolden's statement.
Letter.
At times you bring me glosses without perfect Scripture, as also yesterday in the other closing discourse, when I introduced three sayings, now also serving in this closing discourse, to the Philippians on the 1st: "It is given to you to do" etc.; 1 Peter on the 2nd: "Christ suffered for us" etc.; in the first epistle of John on the 2nd: "Whosoever saith that he abideth in Christ, even as Christ walked, so shall he walk." By such scriptures it is also sufficiently evident that mere single faith is not sufficient for the salvation of the soul. [You answer me to these three sayings, introduced yesterday, that Christ's suffering is to be understood from the suffering which God sends to us, and does not choose for itself, but without Scripture; I say here that believing in Christ in him keeps all that is written in the New Testament,
1) "mimic" - to imitate.
to accomplish and to accept. As Christ says John 6: "Unless ye shall eat" etc. Item, Matt. 16: "If any man will come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross, and so follow me." To Romans 12: "If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink" etc.
Martinus Butzer.
For the answer to three sayings, which I received yesterday, I refer to the Acta, 1) which have my answer differently, as he has now answered 2). The other sayings are all the same, because they do not prove that there is any other merit of salvation and satisfaction than Christ, so they do not need an answer; they are sufficiently explained in the proof of this article, which Mr. Berchtold gave earlier, But that we should not choose our own suffering, but patiently accept what God sends us, is also sufficiently proven by the saying, drawn from Himself, in the 16th chapter of Matthew, that we should deny ourselves. Now we cannot act according to our own will. The chosen mortifications are rejected by Paulo, Colossians at the other chapter.
Letter.
The Scripture I have introduced so far, I will leave it at that; do not deny Christ, a perfect atonement for all the sin of the world; but with the thought that we also make ourselves partakers of the same atonement of Christ, as I have partly indicated.
Butzer.
Praise be to God that the schoolmaster confesses Christ Jesus as our perfect satisfaction! For if he is a perfect satisfaction, we can do nothing further with our works. But that he adds the thought that we must make ourselves partakers of his atonement, we say that this is in God, and not in our hands. If we believe in our Lord, he is our very own, and we share in his satisfaction; but faith must be given by God, who draws us to the Son, John 6; our works can do nothing here.
Letter.
Because Christ should have absolved us so completely, it would have been in vain for him to have called us to pray and say, Matthew 6: "Forgive us our trespasses" etc.
1) See Col. 1738 f.
2) "äfern" - repeat.
Martinus Butzer.
It is answered in the declaration Mr. Berchtolden. 3) Praying for forgiveness is not enough. I leave myself to the Acta.
Pelagius am Stein, Walther Klarer, Matthias Keßler, all three from
Appenzell.
As far as the third article is concerned, our pastor of Appenzell has drawn Christ with his merit, our Savior, on original sin, so that the people have much merit decreed and given in many ways, in many places.
Theobaldus Hüter, pastor at Appenzell.
In your name, Lord Jesus Christ, amen! In which, when they put me on, the three who stand against me, from my lords of Appenzell, namely etc.: I have taught and preached that Christ alone suffered for original sin, and must we also do something else for our sin; I know of no one who has ever suffered for us for original sin, except JEsum Christum alone. But if they know of any other who has suffered for original sin, let them point him out to me, so that it may not be denied that he has suffered for original sin and all other sin, and has redeemed us. But that we also must do something, so that we do not appear empty: he admonishes us to be obedient to his commandments, to work and do good, as Ps. 36 [37, 27.]: Declina a malo, et tue bonum, "Incline from evil, and do good". Although I know and recognize from Paul to have all our hope in God, thus saying: "Such a hope we have in God through Christ; not that we are sufficient to seek 4) anything of ourselves, but from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God." In which words Paul teaches us to the Corinthians in the other epistle on the 3rd, that we should know that all sufficiency comes from God, and not from us as from ourselves. The same text, if it is considered clear, when one calls and advises a man to do good, to live according to the will of his Creator, that is, to give it promotion, to make him skillful toward our Savior: this we have clearly indicated by our works, in the other epistle and in the first chapter of Peter: "Wherefore, brethren, be diligent, that by good works ye may make your calling and election sure." From which
3) See Col. 1744 f.
4) "to strive" == to think (2 Cor. 3, 5.).
If our good words and works, with the grace of God, are helpful to us, we will follow them, if we do not attribute them to ourselves.
The priests of Appenzell, and on their behalf Mr. Poley.
The answer, Christ suffered for original sin and real sin, has been heard by my pastor, so I am well at peace. Praise be to God! have not heard the same in our country, nor noted it. After that the long circle, used in the speech to be obedient to the messengers, to work repentance, is nicely spoken before. 1) Merit we discount, but not good works. What is spoken from the letter or from the spirit, Paul teaches in the speech of my lord the pastor; with it we put off our ability, and (how cheaply) give it to Christ our Savior. And as Peter said in the first epistle about faith, then in the other epistle about works of faith, good works are beautifully indicated, but to be meritorious is not proven, and not described. That he put on the psalms, all Scripture says, love, fear, and the like, as if he put it into our powers, if it were not in us (as answered 2), work, but he that liveth in us, Christ Jesus. 3) The works are done to prove faith 4) to our fellow believers.
Theobaldus Keeper.
When Mr. Poley spoke of my confession that Christ had suffered for all sin, as if I had preached against it, I do not know what: he shows that I have ever withdrawn this from the Lord Jesus, nor preached that the Lord has not redeemed us from all sins, that I have excluded this. And if someone has already said, as I did before, that Christ alone has taken away original sin, and no one else, I think it is Christian speech. When he then jumped over it with all haste in response to my statement, I would have thought that he should also let us merit our works, those who come from faith. It would be a poor thing if a sinner prayed, fasted and gave alms for the sake of his courage and his evil life, that this should not be meritorious to God, and that therefore from his graces. Of this I have an example from the king Ezechia in the other
1) Siebe Col. 1739 f.
2) See Col. 1748.
3) In this sentence, the text will not be in order; it is incomprehensible to us.
4) See Col. 1747,1749.
In the 20th chapter of the book of Kings, when he was sick, the prophet Isaiah came to him and said, "You will die and not live. Then he turned his face against the wall, and besought the Lord, saying: I beseech thee, remember how I have walked before thee in truth in a perfect heart, which I have done before thee." From this clearly follows the merit that Ezekiel did, with what the text indicates: "Ezekiel meant with great weeping. Before Isaiah left him in the midst of the court, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying, "Turn again, and tell Ezechias, the leader of my people, that I have heard your prayer, and have seen your tears, and have healed you, and will add to your days fifteen years. Item, from the Holy Gospel of Luke 14. The Lord Christ speaks of Mary Magdalene: "She has done a good work for me" etc. In which words it is clearly indicated that God the Lord has vowed the work which some of the disciples rejected, and which was called good, also pleasing to Him. As we have also in the Scripture, as Matth. on the 20th: "Call the laborers, and give them wages." Now no one is called a laborer who walks idly; neither did the Lord order anyone in His vineyard to walk idly but to work. We also have a clear saying in 1 Corinth, 3, how the Lord wants to reward each one according to his work; and clearly insinuates: "We are God's helpers." So Mr. Poley and his fellow party should consider what the apostle meant by the clause: "We are fellow helpers of God."
Mr. Poley.
If Mr. Pastor does not deny Christ, 5) we understand with all his mind after the manner of speaking the Scriptures will be helpful to us and ours. It is true, our works are not meritorious of us, but of the Spirit of Christ; and so many sayings, as before, as now have been accounted for. "If it be of grace, it is not now of works"; to Romans on the 11th; is no wonder that my lord pastor does not notice the matter: "For those ignorant of the righteousness of God, seeking their own [righteousness], are not subject to the righteousness of God", to Romans on the 10th, 3. And with this we refer to the Scripture 6) of the Notaries.
5) See Col. 1744 f.
6) The whole of Berchtold's explanation in the beginning of this final speech Col. 1743 ff.
Theobaldus Keeper.
When Pelagius said to the Romans in chapter 11: "If it is by grace" etc., we know that all our works are by grace of God. But he speaks further to Romans in the 2nd chapter: "Not those who hear the law are righteous before God, but those who are righteous are made righteous." In which words he may well feel that we are to send ourselves to the grace of God for works: for as Jacobi says, "that faith without works is dead," which is also a grace, and an infused gift etc.
Mr. Poley.
Everything that the priest has said has all been resolved and explained by the preacher's and other answers; therefore we refer to it ad acta. 1)
Theobaldus Keeper.
I hope, Mr. Poley, if he accuses me of not having sufficiently explained my statements, against his objection: I hope to sufficiently resist the same objection, and refer myself to Actis. 2)
Mr. Josephus Forrer, pastor at Herißouw. 3)
Scholars, wise men and dear ones! The suit, so my gentlemen present, also good and dear brothers and compatriots of Appenzell, has been talked about today for a long time with a lot of tightened writing, therefore it is not necessary to talk much more about it. But so that you will recognize my opinion of the final speech that is now available, I will speak a short opinion about it. I confess well, as Saint Paul speaks to the Romans, that there are not sufficient sufferings of this time for the future glory that will be revealed to us. Therefore we shall not obtain sufficiency of salvation from our works, as my Lord Berchtold also said today in the closing speech. For if there were righteousness from the works of the law, God would have suffered in vain. Therefore the sufficient half of our works are not contrary to us 4) for salvation. For Christ our Lord bore the sufficiency of our sins on his back, and on the cross he was sufficient for us. Nevertheless, it does not follow that God will not reward us for the works we do out of His grace,
1) See Col. 1746 ff.
2) See Col. 1752 f.
3) This is Herisau in the Canton of Appenzell.
4) That is, they are not a counter-service to bliss.
as this has been indicated today 5) by Martin Butzer, from the saying of Augustine that he will reward the works that he does in us. Therefore, I will now continue to command the closing speech of the Scripture.
Berchtoldus.
Pastor, preach at home, as you confess here with truth, so you do nothing against the Word of God, nor our final speech, nor these our brothers. And of your confession you have a rich testimony in St. Paul and Ephesians: Deus, qui dives est in misericordia etc., "God, who is rich in mercy" etc.
Resolution of the third closing speech.''
The trade of our merit is well explained by Paul to the Ephesians on the 2nd verse.God, who is rich in mercy through his great love, so that when we were dead in sins he loved us, he made us alive with Christ (for by grace you were saved), and raised us up with him and seated us in the heavenly realm through Christ, so that in the ages to come he might show the abundant riches of his grace with his kindness toward us through Jesus Christ. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves. It is God's gift; not of works, lest any man should boast. For ye are his workmanship, created by JESUS Christ unto good works, for which God hath prepared us beforehand, that we should walk therein." Here you see clearly that God has saved us with His love and grace while we were still sinners; where then is our merit? By grace, with Christ and through Christ, He makes us alive, blessed, and raises us into the heavenly realm through faith, and not by works. On the other hand, God does not want us to walk idly and refrain from doing all good, but if we believe and sincerely trust in God, God's works will not be left out. Therefore, devout Christians, take comfort in the grace of God alone, in the righteousness and perfect redemption of our Lord Jesus Christ, and recognize that all that you have been taught to do for sin and to merit the kingdom of God (indulgences, holy water, burning of candles, yes, in one sum, whatever such things may be) is vain and blasphemous to the treasure of Christ's suffering. Hereby be praise and honor to God forever, Amen!
5) See Col. 1747.
Master Franz Kolb has opened the fourth final speech and reasons of the same, as follows.
I earnestly beg you, dear friends of God, for the sake of God, not to be annoyed by the following closing speech, or to feel shy, or to regard us as having a desire to bring forth something unheard of, but the great unskillful abuses that have grown up in the Christian community against the right, true understanding of the divine Word, compelling and urging us to confess this closing speech as it reads, namely:
That the body and blood of Christ is received substantially and bodily in the bread of thanksgiving may not be taught by biblical Scripture.
I prove this with pure Scripture, especially John 6: "The flesh is of no use at all" (understand, eaten). That is why Christ has never willed, as we have hitherto commonly understood, that we essentially eat flesh and blood in this sacrament. Further, in the chapter indicated above, John 6: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Item: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him." Item: "He who eats me lives also because of me." Here is a necessary meal, which is never harmful, but always useful and good. And the food in the Lord's supper is free, not compulsory, not always useful, but somewhat harmful. It is also contrary to our ancient learned faith, which says, "He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and is hereafter to judge the quick and the dead." As we have it clearly in the stories of the apostles at the first chapter: Viri Galilaei etc., and Matthäi at the 24th and 25th chapter. From all this it follows that these words, "Receive, and eat, this is my body," as also of the drinking vessel, must have another meaning than we have hitherto given them; but that such is nothing else but a praise and thanksgiving of the death and redemption of Christ, as is cheerfully maintained by Paul in the first epistle to Corinthians in the 10th and 11th chapters.
Benedictus Burgouwer, parish priest at St. Gallen.
May God have mercy on us, and bless us, and kindle in us His divine light, so that we may be able to
know his way, amen! So then the fourth conclusion is: that the body and blood of Christ is received substantially and bodily in the bread of thanksgiving, may not be taught with biblical Scripture, whereas I and my fellow-parties 1) hold that such is not contrary to Scripture, but may well be taught with a sound understanding of Scripture. Forasmuch then as our Saviour Christ hath taught and done the things which he did in the earthly realm, to which the heavenly Father bare witness, Matt. 17, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."When he was about to abolish the old testament and start a new one, he sent his apostles to preach the things they had heard and seen, John in the first epistle of the first chapter, not accepting any other preachers than those Christ had ordained. "For no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom he has opened it," no one has opened it except his apostles, whom he sent out to preach what he opened to them through the Spirit. But that which he opened to them is written in the Scriptures, namely, "Christ Jesus crucified, an offense to the Jews, a foolishness to the Gentiles, but the power of God to those who are called. Now if we believe two things about Christ Jesus, namely omnipotence and truth. For the words of the Lord are truth, John 17 chapter. Forasmuch then as he promised us, that now [one] scripture should explain another scripture, he said, "The bread that I shall give you is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." All these things he gave in the supper, that is, when he took the bread in his hands, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this is my body:" likewise he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of it; this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." This our faith undoubtedly holds, since Christ has commanded that such things be done in his memory. Now all this, so impossible to man, is certainly possible with God, Matth. at the 19th chapter, and Paul to Romans at the 4th chapter, and Lucas at the first chapter.
Master Ulrich Zwingli, Predicant at Zurich.
The first saying: "The bread that I will give you is my flesh, which I will give for life.
1) "Co-liability" --- co-fellows.
The words of John in the sixth chapter, "I will give myself to the world," have their actual meaning on their backs. Namely, by the word "bread" and by the word "my flesh" he does not give us to understand that in the bread he wants to give us his flesh bodily to eat, but he understands by the bread the comfort and security that God gives us in him, to be assured with his death. This is noted when he says, "What flesh I will give for the life of the world." His flesh, given in death, has made the world alive; eaten in the flesh, God has never said that it makes alive.
On the other hand, we recognize that God keeps what he has promised. But that he has promised to give us the flesh of his Son to eat in the flesh cannot be taught by Scripture; therefore the argument ceases. We also recognize him to be the Almighty, but it does not follow that God is able to do this. For he would turn the stone pillars into helias and preaching johns, but they are not therefore the preaching helias and johns. God does not do this against his own word. Doing against His own word is not called a power, but a powerlessness. We should also note that, as we admit God's omnipotence and truth, he also sticks to the truth, which is against eating flesh and blood here.
Parish priest of Sanct Gallen.
When, after a long time, my dear master Ulrich Zwingli had read the 6th Cap. Joh. (his mind's content), namely that he did not understand the word or promise that Cap. Johannis of the outward bodily consumption should not be understood, I do not confess this to him. For if "to eat" were to be understood in this place for "to believe," it would be presenting an imperfect understanding; the saying, "He shall eat of this bread," may not be understood there as "to eat" for "to believe. But that the promise of Christ's supper is not understood, the words are bright and clear, that the things which he would have instituted at the supper, he promised, saying, "The bread which I shall give you is my flesh." In this saying, "The bread that I will give," this is understood: namely, of the first promise to Christ's supper; the other word, dabo pro mundi vita, fanned 1) and shed in him, his body to be given for us for redemption.
1) "championed" == contains.
Therefore the evangelist indicates the word dabo zwier in the saying, because he ever (according to the first) promised his flesh to eat bodily. Secondly, he confesses the omnipotence; but therefore do not follow, God is able to do this, therefore it is; I do not deny him. For the prophet says, "All things that he has willed (and disliked) he has done in heaven and on earth. But because his word is clear, and (if God wills!) the Christian mind has always been so, he will not introduce anyone to understand otherwise from the words expressed. He has also promised, and that which he has promised, he has delivered in the night feast; so that now one scripture may interpret the other.
Zwingli.
This saying of John in the 6th chapter: "The bread" etc., shall by no means be divided. In his division of the words, the priest has also omitted the little word "which", which nevertheless brings the whole meaning. The words are thus: "The bread that I will give you is my flesh, which flesh I will give for the life of the world. Here it is seen that in the other points above the flesh is spoken of, which is also spoken of in the first. Now, if the following point is also recognized by the priest as being about the flesh of Christ, given up in death; and if the little word "which flesh" stands between them indicates the flesh that stands in the previous part: then it follows, as the other point is about the dead body of Christ, that the first also has the understanding that the food that he will give us is his flesh, dead. It is also not thorough, but against the priest, that here zwier stehet dabo, that is, "I will give it", because it is a natural epanaphora 2).
On Jenner's 15th day.
Parish priest of Sanct Gallen.
My lord and fellow brother, Master Ulrich, according to the nightly lecture, does not want to have spoken into omnipotence, because God certainly does not do all that he is able to do. But why his word is spoken, and what he has written, he fulfills, as the promise here, John, in the 6th chapter, the promise of God. Although we do not understand this with our reason, as we do not know which is the way of the spirit, also in which form the legs are put together in the body of the mother, such things are not known.
2) 6pÄNÄpüora is a figure of speech in which one refers back to a previous word by repeating it.
If we do not know the works of God, Ecclesiastes, chapter 11, my Lord says that Christ remains with the Scriptures as His words; this is true. But if we do not understand it, we should put all our faith in the service of Christ, in Corinth, in the 2nd Epistle, in the 10th chapter. For much, if we would not believe, we shall not understand, Isaiah, 7 Cap. "For as heaven and earth are divided, so are our thoughts and the ways of the Lord," Isaiah, 55th cap. Now the saying of John, in chapter 6, "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," is nightly applied; but I think this is right, because the little word dabo, that is, "I will give," is there twice. I therefore will that the bread, which he gave for us unto death for the life of the world, the same he hath appointed for us to eat, and commanded, according to the word of Luc. 22, "This is my body which is given for you." And not, as the other point in this saying is, of the dead body, which is to be given for the life of the world. For my understanding is, that the word, "Bread, which I will give," is to be understood more truly, which he commanded us to eat, and would appoint to be his flesh; for he never else gave bread, of which he made his body, but in the supper of the night, when he took the bread in his hands, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." For he saith not, The bread which I will give is a signification of my flesh; but, The bread which I will give is my flesh." And afterwards the other thing which he promised, "To be given for us," tries the consolation, if he would give his life for us by death, as the Scripture abundantly testifies to Romans in the 5th chapter, to Corinthians in the first epistle in the 15th chapter. For he ever made of bread his body, and commanded it to his disciples at the last supper, which afterward should be given for us.
Zwingli.
So that the words may be avoided, let him note that immediately before the words it is written: "I am the bread, the living bread, which came down from heaven; he that eateth of the bread shall live for ever. Now that it may be understood here what Christ intended by the word "bread," he explains himself with the following words: xxx x xxxxx xx xx xxx xxxxx,
"And the bread which I will give you" etc. In which little word one notes brightly that he has per epanaphoram, that is, a repeating
want to give an understanding of what he means by the word "bread". For when he says, "And the bread," it is evident that he goes up again to the bread of which he spoke before, and has the sense as if Christ were saying, "But that you may know what the bread is of which I tell you, it is that I will give my flesh to death for the life of the world. It may also not be a syntheton 1) here, xx xxx xxxx,
but this whole pericopa, 2) or sense, is not
a promise, but an interpretation of what Christ understood by calling Himself the living bread.
Parish priest of Sanct Gallen.
My master Ulrich wants these words, "the bread" etc., to be understood according to the preceding words: "I am the living bread" etc. But my understanding is that in this place the word "bread" is promised, which he then expressly performed and inserted in the supper. Which explains the disbelief of the quarreling Jews, when they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" the Lord Himself explained it with earnest words, saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except it be that ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you." And afterward, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." And as my Lord thinks that this pericopa is only an interpretation of what Christ understands, I think that the following words give it to the Christian reader and listener sufficiently to understand, because the word dabo understands the promise, which is "that I will give".
Zwingli.
That my dear brother thinks that here the flesh is promised to be eaten in the bread, in the supper, and explains it with the words, or murmuring of the Jews, serves us more, neither his opinion. For before the same words, when the Jews murmured, Christ presented Himself in many words, that He was the living bread which came down from heaven, which is much different bread from that which Moses gave. Since the Jews did not understand how he meant this, that is, how he was bread or meat, he arose with the words, saying, "But this is the will of the Father who sent me, that I should be the living bread.
1) [ntütztoL - something compound.
All that he gives me, I lose nothing of it, but keep it with life in the last time. Now Christ makes it clearer what he means by "giving what the Father gives him" etc. And thus he says: "This is the will of him who sent me, that everyone who knows the Son and trusts in him may have eternal life, and that I may keep him alive in the last time. Now when Christ, in the preceding words, admitted so much to Himself, that He makes Himself a dear bread, which Moses would not have given, and makes Him so dear, that whosoever believeth in Him shall have everlasting life, the Jews murmured, not only that He makes Himself a bread, but also that He makes Himself a consolation. This is found in the following words, where it says: "Then the Jews murmured because of him, that he had spoken: I am the bread that came down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" In which words we understand that the Jews were afraid to trust in him, if they alone would bring forth his humanity; for it is evident that they did not recognize him to be a God. From which it follows that the Jews also understood, or rather neither do we, that Christ meant faith or trust by the word "bread. And therefore they say, as follows: "How then saith he that he should come down from heaven? Jesus answered them, and said unto them: Do not quarrel with one another. Let no man come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." In which words we notice that Christ understands the word "food" or "bread" to mean trust alone. Here he does not think of the word "bread" at all, but he thinks of the trust in himself in an explanatory speech. For "to come to him" is nothing else, neither to be committed to him nor to trust in him, but this is noticed in his following word, where he says: "And I will keep him alive (the one who comes to him) to the last time. It is written (he says) in the prophets: They shall all be taught of God. Every one therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me"; that is, every one to whom the Father hath given me to understand, he trusteth in me. "Not (saith he) that any man hath seen the Father, save he that is of God, who hath seen the Father." That therefore men may know that the former understanding of the words of Christ is true 1)
1) "eelich" - right.
We learn this from the bright words that follow, when he says: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that trusteth in me hath everlasting life. Here every one sees that Christ opens the whole sum of the foregoing discourse, and goes on to say, "I am the bread of life." In which we hear that he does not speak of an external or sacramental bread, for it is not the bread of life. And in order that he may still more clearly 2) discharge the reproach which they had made against him, because of the bread which was given them in the wilderness, he declares himself still more manifestly, saying, "It is true that your fathers did eat the manna, or bread of heaven, in the wilderness, but they died; but this is bread which is from heaven; that whosoever eateth of it should never die". Here it is evident that Christ called Himself bread or meat only because He is the only food, comfort, and security of the soul; for to eat the bread of the Sacrament is not to keep one alive forever. "I am the bread of life which came down from heaven." Here we know that Christ came down from heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was conceived and born in the virgin body of Mary. However, because of the corpse alone, he is not the only consolation of the soul. Since Christ, both God and man, is the consolation of souls, primarily according to the divinity, we note, although we have no words to follow, that here "bread" and "food" are taken solely for faith and trust in God, through Christ our brother, which alone is a spiritual food. But that Christ made this clear to us in His own words, He says above: "And the bread which I will give you is My flesh; the flesh which I will give for the life of the world." Here we note (for the priest has offered the following words for explanation) that the Jews were led into even greater doubt by the words, "his flesh" and "will give", because they had previously understood what he meant by "bread". But now, when he calls this same bread his flesh, they become more impatient, and murmur, "How can he give us his flesh to eat? Jesus therefore saith unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you." Here I am amazed that our brother should have
2) "kommlich" (also commensal) - appropriate.
We understand the words of the flesh and blood eaten in the sacrament, yet so brightly afterward: "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life; him will I keep in the life of the last time. For we actually know that Christ, not eaten in the flesh, gives eternal life, but believing in Him, the true Son of God, and having suffered death for us, gives eternal life. Or else, the salvation of men would again depend on external bodily things, and not on the pure grace of God alone. There would also be two ways to salvation: one through the death of Christ, the other through the bodily eating of his flesh and blood in the sacrament. Thirdly, the apostles, together with the church, who ate the supper with him, would already have attained the acquisition of eternal life in the sacramental meal, and the death of Christ would have been superfluous for them. But that it follows in the words of Christ: "My flesh truly is meat, and my blood truly is drink", is to be taken immediately as little from the sacramental meal, as well as the preceding words, because from hour after follows: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him." Here we see, in fact, that by eating his flesh he gives nothing else to be understood, neither to be trusted in and assured of, but who suffered death in the flesh for us. Nor does it matter if we are in God, and God is in us, neither the one Spirit of God, of whom St. John speaks thus: "God is love (understand love for the perfect state and fulfillment of man's mind in God). Whoever therefore abides in love abides in God, and God in him." Here we see that the whole sum of the conduct of the human mind toward God is nothing else, neither a union of the divine spirit with ours, through the firm faith we have in God, and so we abide in God, and God in us. It also follows: "As My living Father has sent Me, so I also live for the Father's sake. Here it is knowable that Christ did not eat His body Himself. But if he compares our eating and obedience to his eating and obedience, then I understand publicly that he does not pretend to us here a bodily eating, by which I remain in him and he in us, but he speaks here only of the union of the divine spirit with our minds, just as his humanity is also united with God, et hoc per comparationem, non per aequiparationem. Now and further follows: "So also he who eats me, for my sake
for the sake of life." But here we see publicly what is first indicated, namely, that spiritual food makes us walk in God, and bodily food does not; from which, however, it is proven that bread and food in this 6th chapter are not taken at all for an external or sacramental bread, nor for the bodily food of the body and blood of Christ. Therefore, as the priest indicates, this little word dabo, that is, "I will give," is a word of promise, we readily admit. But it promises nothing else, neither that Christ will give his humanity (which he calls per alleosin 1) ab inferiore parte carnem, that is, flesh) for the life of the world in death. And in sum, we hope to be proven now, that here in the indicated saying: "And the bread, which I will give" etc., no sacramental bread is promised, also the flesh of Christ is not promised to be eaten bodily, but to be killed essentially and bodily, for our life etc.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
A long explanation, introduced by Master Ulrich Zwingli, which I have heard partly Christian and with pleasure; namely, that our hearts may be initiated to heartfelt trust in Christ, is sweetly, and to my mind Christian, told. But that my master Ulrich does not want to leave any promise in this 6th chapter of the bodily meal, which is completed in the evening meal, I rely on the many sayings and his explanation. That he has thereby attracted, from murmur of the Jews, no Christian understanding may deny the expressed text. When he received the living bread from heaven, the Jews were quite annoyed, because they thought of him no differently than of another pure human being; therefore they also called him Joseph's son. But that throughout the whole chapter, where it says "eat," it should be understood to mean believe and trust in Christ, I again refer to the Scriptures. But concerning the other murmurings, when he reports the eating of his flesh, it is public that the Jews supposed that they should eat him in the rough way, as if one would otherwise eat flesh; they supposed that if his flesh were eaten (because he bound salvation and blessedness to them), it would be difficult for them; for to eat his flesh according to their carnal mind would soon be done. Furthermore, my lord Ulrich thinks that with the word "bread" he has faith and forgiveness.
1) alloeosis == change in the use of words.
If you think you have faith in him, I will leave it at the words that indicate loud and clear: "This is the true bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world. That such words, together with others that follow, are interpreted by him in a Christian way (as he also indicates the saying: "He who believes in me has eternal life"), I cannot deny, but in such a way that [in] everything that his word is able to do in trust, also in the temptations and attitudes of his will, 1) thus with the word "believe" a surrender of our heart to all his words is required; for Peter Matt. 16 chapter, when he said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On this the Lord highly praised him and called him blessed. But when Christ told of his future suffering, which he would pay for us, [and Peter] wanted to reject the Lord, he called him a Satan. From which fact, believing in Christ, 2) believing the gospel; but believing the gospel, infused in it [first^ command of faith; secondly. Fruit or works of faith; also thirdly, with signs attached. These things we have for confirmation in the stories of the twelve messengers in the 16th chapter, when the guardian asked Paul and Barnabam, "Sirs, what is needful for me to do, that I may be saved?" they answered him, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy household." On this he was baptized. The same Marci in the last chapter: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. From which I will conclude that faith in him, St. John, in the 6th chapter, is multiplied, as indicated above, in the teaching of the Gospel. Accordingly, my lord and brother is surprised that I understand the words of the bodily meal; causes me to such the indicated expressed words, with understanding and explanation of the scholars, in the gift of prophecy, of the oriental and occidental church, with which I do not particularly intend to try, according to my lords mandate. Such things, bodily eaten Christ, do not give eternal life. With a sound mind I do not know how to fight against it now. But that Master Ulrich has introduced an argument that salvation is based on external things and not on grace. God, all the world knows, that elementa are elements; but if they have divine words and promise, they are comforting to us, not from it.
1) "be" put by us instead of: "they". - "Trüwungen" perhaps exorcisms, exercises.
2) "multiplied" - includes.
The apostles in the sacramental meal have already received eternal life. When he then also reports that the apostles in the sacramental meal have already obtained eternal life, I understand thus: When the Lord indicates this in the presentation, which he called "his body", he added: "which is given for you". Likewise, as my dear Lord and brother indicates the saying, "He that eateth my flesh," etc., let it be understood, that we trust in him; so I understand: The eating of this flesh testifies to a special desire, that we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, and that if the natural food and drink is to our flesh, the same is his body and blood, through faith and spirit, to our soul. But that the one Spirit makes us to be in him is by no means to be denied, for all that the outward man does is in vain, but he does it with the desire and will of the Spirit working in him. For there is no one who has ever practiced anything in Scripture who gives good use of the flesh or of the outward parts, if the spirit does not lead the man to it. But of the word dabo I command it of the Scriptures.
Zwingli.
I require of our dear brother for and for that he confesses that the word: "And the bread which I will give" etc. does not promise us a bodily bread or bodily flesh of Christ to eat, so for and for other things are drawn in, which nevertheless will all come in its time to [the] course. And now admonish him lately, that he may know with expressed words, whether the said words promise us the death of Christ alone, or the sacramental meal and death? and so far that he may bring such things with open scripture. For we have taught with God's own word that he promises death alone in the words, and from the "eat" for "trust in himself" etc.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
Pious Christians! So that all prolix speech may be avoided, and that which alone serves commerce may be brought forth, I have been required by my lord and confrere, Master Ulrich, to answer in plain words: whether the saying of John in the 6th chapter, "The bread which I will give," etc., includes the death of Christ alone, or also the bodily eating of the flesh of Christ? Answer: The bread which is mentioned is the promise of that which Christ, through the other three evangelists and St. Paul, describing the supper, has given in
and made his body, which we take to be a probation of the first. After that the other point: "which I will give for the life of the world" is explained in the words of Luke: "which is given for you". For John, inasmuch as the other evangelists have omitted to fulfill this in his writing, experienced and commanding the learned of the Scriptures, for the advancement of the cause, such entries are made in the 6th chapter half of John, to the Scriptures and to all Christian readers.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
Our brother's answer alienates us, because he wants to prove with the three evangelists that in this place the sacramental bread is promised, and that in the places where they describe the supper. For this is nothing else, neither prove each by itself (idem per seipsum probare). Our chip is whether the words: "This is my body", must be understood essentially and substantially? And if our opponents cannot stand by the same words (as I well think), they look for a word of promise, but since there is no promise of the sacrament, of which is the span. And if they should prove the same place to be a promise, then they want to prove it with the words, to which they had taken these to help; and is equal to a speech, as if one speaks: Why does one ring? And they answer: Because they are going to preach. And when they say, Why do they go to the sermon? They say again, Because they have rung the bell. And if one raises the question again, and says, Why did one ring the bell? the previous answer follows again and again, and there is no end to it. So also here, when one speaks of the words of Christ in the supper, he casts in words of promise, so he casts in words, which he then wants to 1) confirm with those, for which the chip is. Accordingly, our dear brother has said today: that the true bread which comes down from heaven is that which gives life to the world; that such words, together with others, are interpreted in a Christian way; but we have understood the bread there, Christ Jesus, enjoyed in spirit and faith. We have also indicated all the chapters with all the particulars, therefore serving that these words promise nothing of bodily or sacramental food, but promise us the death of Christ, the security of our life. And if our dear brother should ask the same reasons of our probation-
1) "dannethin" - furthermore.
return with the reason of the scripture, ahead in the place; because also the open letter: "And the bread, which I will give you", serves us. For everyone notices by the two little words "and" and "but" that it is an interpretative speech, and not a promising of the bodily food. But if our dear brother will let this word remain, that it is not a promising word of the bodily food, we will be well satisfied. If not, it will not be left to him to say that it is a promising place of the bodily meal, and not to prove it with Scripture. As for the other point, that John has chosen to replace what other evangelists have omitted, we say that this has been done in many excellent ways. But if John here does not speak of the sacramental meal, as we have thoroughly shown from the text, there is no need to say that John here explained it. For John describes in this place the preaching of Jesus Christ our Savior, which is the gospel, and does not describe the sacrament of thanksgiving of Christ, as has been sufficiently heard.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
So that all lengthening may be avoided, for the sake of example, introduced by my lord and brother, from the ringing, and going to the sermon, along with other narration, I leave in its dignity. That which I have said to him today to confirm his explanation is well written. And other proof, outside of what has been brought in, I now consider unnecessary, and therefore let it remain with my presented explanation, with implied previous command. So that we may now come to the right words of the use of the Lord's Supper, I command it and submit it as before.
Zwingli.
Our brother's delay pleases us very much that he does not allow himself to prove the often-thought words for promising words of physical food; we will also gladly allow him such a timely departure.
Johannes Buchstab.
I am told that in certain places it is said of three kinds of bread. First, of the bread of heaven, of which the Jews are famous for having been given to them, saying: "Our fathers ate bread of heaven in the desert" etc. The other bread is the word of God, when Christ testifies Himself, of God, His heavenly Father, the
The third bread is the true bread that God has promised to give to all believers, if he thus speaks: "Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven; for this is the true bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world" etc. The third bread is the true flesh of God, which He has promised to give to all believers, saying thus, "The bread which I will give is My flesh." So here it is said first of all of that which is given, as in the past; of that which he gives, as in the present; and of that which he will give, as in the future, as having happened after the supper. Because these words of John in chapter 6 and the words of the Last Supper are so nearly similar, we must not use a gloss according to the content of the mandate, because the word of God is the most clear. If we had to use a gloss here, it would be much easier to accept the glosses of Origen, Cyprian, Hilari, Hieronym, Ambrosii, Cyrilli, Chrysostomi, Theophylacti, which all agree that the words of John in the 6th chapter serve the sacrament of Eucharist, together with the whole Christian Church. This is my opinion about the words of John in chapter 6. Chapter 6.
Oecolampadius.
Dear schoolmaster! In the words of John about the bread that gives us life, you bring nothing at all against what is so powerfully indicated today from the words of John. It has not been said how variously the name of bread may be taken; otherwise we would also tell you of the loaves that have been made various, of which it is also written in the chapter. In sum, the Lord alone wants to be sought by us, as the living bread that feeds us powerfully, if we recognize how he gave his body in death for us. Of the sacramental bread you still have to prove yourselves with divine Scripture. You know well that we are not gathered here because of the teachers.
Letter.
The words of John in the 6th chapter, which indicate the future; the words of Christ Luke in the 22nd, which indicate the present history; the words of Paul in the 1st Epist. to Corinth. 11th chapter sufficiently indicate the past history. Now the future, the present, and the past, as will be shown further on, are conformed to each other, so there is no need for a special gloss. But that my doctor says that
I have brought in the Doctores: I have not brought in a sentence from them. But as Mr. Butzer has brought in the past days 1) Eusebium and Augustinum, I will leave it at that for now about the Johannis at the 6th chapter.
Oecolampadius.
Among other things, the schoolmaster has reported some false glosses that we have made; we are waiting to see how he overturns them with Scripture. His other speeches have been cleared up by Master Ulrich.
Letter.
Doctor! This I will now and save to answer for, until the decision of this article of the Sacrament. What I have let go out in my booklet, I will present with the truth.
Parish priest of Appenzell.
Pious Christians! My priest of St. Gall has taken the clear and bright scripture of John in the 6th chapter, which reads: "The bread which I will give you" etc. In contrast, Master Ulrich, with much circumlocution, added something to such a text; now that we have transferred it, from the Hieronymo, namely the little word under, translated: "but". Now that I understand that it is not interpreted in Latin by us from the hieronym, I do not accept it, but recommend it to those who are skilled in the Greek language. And among the others it was also spoken of the blood and flesh of Christ, which I then essentially confess in the form of wine and bread, according to the text.
Zwingli.
I leave my under on all exemplaria graeca of the evangelist Johannis etc.
Parish priest of Appenzell.
And I look forward to the translation Hieronymi.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
God grant us once again knowledge of the truth, amen! As has been presented, conducive to a sound mind, some sayings and explanations from the 6th Cap. John, serving our understanding to the words of the institution of the Lord's supper, as written in the Acts. So now this concluding speech (of my lords and brothers)
1) See Col. 1747.
the fourth), the body and blood of Christ may not be received substantially and bodily in the bread of thanksgiving, whereas I believe, as before, that this may well be taught by the biblical Scriptures of both Testaments. And this, first of all, to prove it, I take for myself the words of Matthew in the 26th chapter, which read thus: "When they had taken supper, Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and also broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat; this is my body: likewise also he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink ye all of it; this is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins." St. Paul agrees with this in the 11th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians: "That the Lord Jesus, in the night when he was betrayed, had thus taken bread, and given thanks, and broken it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup, after he had eaten that night, he said, This is the cup, the new testament in my blood; this ye shall do, as often as ye shall drink, in my remembrance". From which introduced scriptures we suppose that the body and blood of Christ is received bodily and substantially in the bread of thanksgiving.
Oecolampadius.
My dear brother has again turned to the words of John in the 6th chapter. That they serve him, I am not sure (would God! [that] they would be well understood by males, undoubtedly, they would serve to accept many errors). But he does not find the promise of the sacramental bread in the same place. But if he now comes to the institution of the Lord's Supper, so that we may speak the more skillfully and intelligibly, I promise myself first that my dear brother will not deny that the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ has been instituted here. So it will be good and useful (whoever wants to know the content of these words) that he keeps himself as he should keep himself. Where there are sacraments, we will find a common rule: to speak of sacraments sacramentally. So that in every sacrament two things are understood: something that is signified, and something that is signified: as, in baptism the water signifies to us the grace of the Holy Spirit and regeneration. This is what we have in all sacraments, that some of them are special.
The sacraments are presented to us with outward signs, so that we may be led up from outward things into the knowledge of the hidden, secret doctrine etc. If, then, the nature of the sacraments is taken into consideration, it will not be concluded, here from the words given, that it must be interpreted that the bread is essentially the body of Christ. And if we lift the other evangelists, as Lucam and Paulum, against Matthäum and Marcum, then we will be able to recognize from the clear sayings the sayings, which are somewhat darker. So now I want to hear from my brother, on which words he wants to stick firmly? and then answer him further.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
On my doctor's answer about the words of Matthew and Paul, he requests that this (indicated in the 6th chapter) be understood correctly. I am of the same mind and spirit, as indicated above. But that my doctor does not bring forward any other scripture about the words of the Last Supper to obscure them, pleases me not a little. That he has taken up the explanation of the word sacramentum, is a male, practiced in the Scriptures, and it is evident that we have no commandment that the word of the Lord's Supper should be called a sacrament (as they hold it); we are also free to call such a thing a testament of Christ, the Lord's Supper, and the like. On the introduction of baptism, the same, according to the promise of God, has its 1) explicit use; again, the Lord's Supper, with bright, strong, expressed words. Although I will not get involved with the word sacrament, the word mystery, the word sacra, the word sacrament, the word sacrament, the word sacrament, the word sacrament, the word sacrament, the word sacrament, the word sacrament.
mentum, which is Christ, to Colofsensern at the first chapter. My doctor manifoldly baß knows the difference of the sacraments in the new and old testament, which in the old testament figures and meaning, but now in the new, as much Moses and Christ differ, are to be respected. On the entry of the old sacraments it is not to be concluded that the body of Christ is composed in words of the Last Supper; for in the same way as my Lord Doctor relies on Lucam, in the same way we base ourselves on the bright
1) "dieselbige" - "ihre" put by us instead of: "derselbige" - "seine". In the old copy there will have been "dem Tauf", which Walch changed to "der Taufe", but left the words referring to it unchanged.
Sayings and description Matthäi and Marci, which all disparate minds with their clarity strong enough to line.
Oecolampadius.
It is strange to me why my pastor has an abhorrence of the word sacrament, which serves for a clear understanding of these matters. But we do not use them unwillingly, for we do not want to be those who desire to dishonor the sacraments, but would almost gladly have the natural, divine understanding kept in their use; and we do not reject the names "the testament of Christ" or "the Lord's Supper," for they also serve us for the revelation of such truth. Indeed, when Lucas calls the cup "the new testament," we have a powerful indication that such a drink is a memorial sign of Christ's testament, even though it is called the new testament. For from the epistle to the Hebrews, and also from the prophet Jeremiah in chapter 31, we find that the testament and covenant is in the forgiveness of sins; and such a testament, or covenant, has been assured and sealed only in the death and dying of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as the hearts of the faithful alone are thus fully assured. At the same time we cannot deny that the sacraments in the new law do not also mean and are figures. We must say that baptism, which is a sacrament, is a figure in the new law for the regeneration of man out of the Spirit, but this does not deny our Lord Christ, as if he had not yet come. Just as the ancients looked forward to the future Christ, so we give thanks in our sacraments that Christ has already come. There is another difference between comparing the figure with Christ, or the ceremonies of the old law, such as circumcision and the paschal lamb, with the ceremonies and sacraments of the new law, such as baptism and the Lord's supper. Where Moses is compared to Christ, the figure is as far from that which is signified, as far as the switch and the light. But when one ceremony is compared with another, the meaning is the same. The circumcision meant to them an inward circumcision in the spirit, to the Romans in the 2nd chapter. So the outward baptism means to us the baptism in the spirit. Now see to it, according to the understanding, that the two are not far apart, being circumcised in the Spirit, and baptized in the Spirit. So also that the ancients ate the paschal lamb, and waited for the lamb that was to be baptized in the Spirit.
Blood has taken away the sin of the world. And if we feast on the Lord's Supper with thanksgiving that this little lamb has been sacrificed for us, we shall be found in the same faith. In conclusion, I thought that my pastor would rather be found with Matthew than with Luke, and I thought that he would much rather have a clearer saying in hand. Matthew speaks with few words, "This is my body." But who does not see that with clearer words is spoken in Luke: "This is my body, which is given for you"? The addition in the evangelist gives a clear understanding to everyone who wants to receive a report, and leads to the fact that we must recognize the bread as a sacrament of the body of Christ, given in death for us. But I want to hear on which word, Matthaei or Lucäi, my pastor wants to stick and rely on?
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
In response to the first lecture of my doctor, why I am afraid of the word "sacrament", all Christian scholars recognize that the word sacrament does not make the words of the supper clearer or darker. But the proper name, as St. Paul also calls it, is Communio, that is, communion; as the ancients also called it. But as to the words, how it shall be called, I will not enter into a controversy of words, only that the words may bring with them the understanding and sense as they are called. For I well recognize that my Lord Doctor and all those of his like understanding do not want to dishonor the sacraments; which supreme honor and reverence I have read several times in his outgoing books, as he gives them. But that my Lord Doctor relies on the words of Luke 22, where the cup is called a new testament, the evangelist does not say that it is a memorial of the testament, but calls it "the testament in the blood. I understand, who does not like to engage in a battle of words, have sufficient explanation in Matthew and Marco, who say: "This is my blood. Furthermore, my doctor says that the testament in the forgiveness of sins is assured only in the death and dying of Christ. No one will contradict him. For if the words are actually understood, they read: "This is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins," in which words the word "is" indicates the essence. The argument of baptism is understandable to men, as Paul uses it in Romans, chapter 6. The same baptism is to be taken to Ephesians 5 chapter, in the 1st epistle of Peter 3, and
I ask my doctor, for Christian instruction, with what words of Scripture these words, "This is my body, this is my blood," are to be taken figuratively? But in the comparison of Moses and Christ it is certain that we now have light and truth, and grace, John 1 Cap. Of the ceremonies against one another, as circumcision against baptism, I do not enter into; but I desire scripture therefore, which assures me to understand such in a ceremonial way, because the text of the supper stands so brightly, the words: "This is my body, this is my blood", that it is not so, if he has spoken it, who is the power and truth of God, I desire to receive instruction. On the entry of the little lamb, I understand: as the same has been essentially (Ex. 12) and bodily consumed, in the same way we should also essentially and bodily eat the lamb of Christ, which is unblemished (in the 1. Epist. Petri 1. Cap., also Johannis 1. Cap.), so that Christ Jesus, the true lamb, may be equal to the foregone shadow. In conclusion: I would rather be found with Matthaeo; is true. But I want to have Lucam in the words: "which is given for you", equally gladly for explanation, as also Paulum, 1 Corinth. 11. So I want to stay with Matthäo and Paulo, which explain the supper sufficiently.
Oecolampadius.
The issue is almost whether the word "is" should be interpreted essentially, as my pastor has confessed. I contradict him. I have good reason to do so, for if the word "is" in Scripture can be interpreted in various ways, it is necessary that it be interpreted according to what it is and not contrary to faith. For as Paul teaches to the Romans, "He that knoweth, let him prophesy," secundum analogiam fidei, that is, "so that the interpretation be according to faith." If we now accept such an interpretation of the priest or others, because that such sacramental bread means the body of Christ to us, then such would be contrary to faith. For our faith holds that the Son of God took human nature from the seed of Abraha, nor angels, nor any other creature. But if the body of Christ will essentially be bread, by the power of the word essentially, then this will also follow from the fact that Christ, and therefore God, would have taken the bread into his nature, which Christian ears are afraid to hear. And so this interpretation of his would not be in accordance with
his Christian faith. But if he wanted to introduce another trope or figure of speech into these words, he would also have to confirm them, and will nevertheless also find that other figurative speeches are set against the simplicity of faith, namely (as is said by my lords, the preachers) against the articles: "He has ascended to heaven", and "is to judge the living and the dead in the future".
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
That my dear Doctor thinks that the word Is should not be interpreted substantially, because 1) it is contrary to the anaIogia of faith, should not be admitted by my understanding. For although it is quite contrary to our understanding, as to reason, yet if we look at the comparison of the Old Testament, in the feeding of the lamb, before indicated, and now in its words: it shall not grieve the believer to any other interpretation, for he who speaks it is given authority in heaven and on earth, Matthew in the 28th chapter, to Ephesians in the first chapter. For here to accept a trope or significant interpretation is to reassure the conscience with dry bright scripture. From the human nature no one will be absent, that it happened from the seed of Abraha, and how he was naturally true man. For the sake of the united Godhead and the mixture of the two natures, he did many unnatural things, as there is the explanation 2) on the mountain, Matthäi at the 17th chapter. Item also, that he escaped his enemies in the midst of their hands, Luc. at 3. cap. On the suit of my Lord Doctor, of taking bread in his. Nature, I do not say that the bread is united to divine essence, but that in the bread the body of Christ is distributed to us, and under the wine the blood of Christ, from divine power, according to the words.
Oecolampadius.
Father, I am glad to hear that you have dropped the idea that the word "is" is not to be taken essentially, so that the bread is to be understood as divine essence. But you take a figurative speech, that Is should mean so much: under the bread is the body; under the wine is the blood. It follows, therefore, from your saying that the bread is not the body, and the wine is not the blood, but under them (as you say) is the
1) "because" put by us instead of: "when".
2) "Explanation" - Transfiguration.
Body and blood. Now you teach such figurative speech with writings, for the saying will never be as clear to you as you have given it.
On Jenner's 16th day.
Parish priest of Sanct Gallen.
To the nightly question of my doctor Oecolampadii, not necessary to answer with words again, causes me to this answer, given to him, the saying of Paul 1 Corinth, at the 10th Cap.: "And the bread, which we break, is this not the distribution of the body of Christ?"For the way with the other accidentiis or accidentibus causes us to do this; whereupon we ask (but we always submit our understanding to a Christian explanation): Are the above words able, that in the bread the body of Christ is communicated to us, and that with such understanding as there is John in the 20th chapter? the Lord blew on his disciples and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit" etc. Not that the blast 1) was the Holy Spirit, but that it was given to them by such means. Just as fire is in iron, and yet the substance of iron remains: [so] also God in man, and both natures of their being uninjured. Even if one says with a cup, "This is Ryff wine," the cup is not the nature of Ryff wine. Therefore we still, against the fourth conclusion, remain on the words: "This is my body. We do not want to quarrel about the words; only that the meaning remains, that it is not a figurative or significant bread that we eat in the Lord's Supper, but the body and blood of Christ. So much for now.
Oecolampadius.
We also do not seek word contention, but desire the natural understanding of the words, so that no error may occur, and Christ may retain his glory. For this reason the way of speaking, as Mr. Benedict uses, that in the words: "This is my body", is as much as: in the bread is my body, we have desired the same kind of language from divine Scripture; but it has not yet appeared. And it turns out that it is a strange way of speaking, saying that a buzz 2) is the water; if one wants to understand by it that in the buzz is the water. So too, they are strange ways of speaking, when one says: The cup is ryff wine. Thus it becomes clear that the cup is silver in its essence, or of some other matter, and not wine, even though it holds wine. But
1) "Blast" - the blowing, the breath.
2) "Schwumm" probably - sponge.
Where one needs such speech, one must accept a trope, of which Mr. Benedict and his followers are so disgusted. The example he uses: the iron is fire, is also an unusual speech. One might well say: Iron is fire. Therefore it is a bad auxiliary, and outside of the Scriptures. But when he comes to the Scriptures, and he refers to the words of Paul's epistle in the epistle to Corinth in the 10th chapter, and Paul says, "The bread that we break is a portion of the body of Christ" (thus he translated it), he brings out the words of Paul differently than they are in the text. The content of the text is this: "The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? It does not say "distribution"; nor does it say: "in the bread that we break. And it will be just as necessary for him to give his interpretation here as before. And here we are spoken of more artfully, as it is proper to speak of sacraments, so that we may well understand from the following words what follows: "For we many are one bread, and one body, inasmuch as we are all partakers of one bread." Item, we do not deny in any way that we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood; but this we do spiritually by faith, believing that through the suffering of Christ we are reconciled to God the heavenly Father; not by believing that under the bread is essentially the body of Christ, or bodily etc. But since Mr. Benedict further introduces the saying of John in the 20th chapter, that the Lord breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," we do not admit that the outward breath of Christ was so breathed on the apostles that the breath was essentially the Holy Spirit. Nor do we think that in the breath the Holy Spirit is essentially and bodily infused into the apostles; for if the Spirit of God is in all places, then such a Holy Spirit must not be infused. But the Lord Christ, with the outward sign, has given to understand how he gives them the Spirit out of his divine power into their hearts. Therefore the likenesses do not serve you in any way to protect your way of speaking. We are still waiting for such proof from you.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
To the answer: they seek the glory of God, and the natural understanding, our answer is: that no better understanding can be put forward than to explain Scripture with Scripture; in which the holy evangelists unanimously with one accord
Paulo describe the words of the supper, and no significant speech niendert 1) remember. The supreme glory of God is when he communicates himself to us according to his word, and is not dishonest to him (of our understanding) when his body is taken in bread and his blood is drunk in wine, yet he lets us transgress his commandments daily out of kindness. Of the manner of speaking, my Lord Doctor has again brought forth no such likeness of speech from Scripture as we have of the blast, and of the united Godhead to mankind. He may also be accused, for further explanation, of the fiery tongues, in the stories of the 12 messengers in the 2nd chapter. Also the dove, Matth. at the 3rd Cap. No one says of the cup, according to common usage, "This is wine, or wine;" and everyone understands that wood or silver [the wine] is not. But that we of our understanding again assume no tropum, that is, figurative speech, in the words of the supper, causes us the brightness and clarity of the words and unanimity of the description of Paul and the evangelists. But that my Lord Doctor wills that the body and blood of Christ be partaken of by faith, we unanimously confess that all partaking, which we do outwardly in the flesh, is useless unless it is done in spirit and faith. This is what St. Luke says in chapter 8: The woman who touched the bast of the Lord in spirit and faith brought benefit from it, but the other group of people who pressed and touched it brought nothing fruitful from it, because they did not do it in faith and spirit. Certainly, if we no longer engage our hearts in the words and promises of God, we would not bear much fruit from that which is given or shared with us. Of the blast, John 20:20, we say the same as before, not that the blast was the Holy Spirit, but that it was communicated to the disciples by such means, according to the sound and content of the word, "Receive the Holy Spirit." And even though the Spirit of God is in all places, it is nevertheless imparted through the Word, as the Scriptures testify in the stories of the 12 messengers in the 10th chapter: "When Peter spoke the words of Jesus Nazarene, and faith in him, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the words. For from the hearing of the words of faith the Holy Spirit is communicated, to Galatians at the 3rd Cap. From the saying of Paul out of ignorance mean, against
1) "niendert" - nowhere.
2) "Bast" - hem of the dress.
the Greek language, in the word "Ausheilung", my confrere will answer here, so the language 3) baß reported.
Andreas Althamer of Nuremberg.
It will be unfair to us 4) from my Lord Doctor Oecolampadio, we do not formally apply the words of Paul in the first epistle to Corinth, at the 10th chapter, as they read. I say: if we had no other Scripture but this one saying, it would be powerful enough to prove the distribution of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. I am also sure that all the world will not pass this sentence. It stands for us, and reads thus: "The cup, or the drink of consecration, which we consecrate, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" All who have a little understanding of the Greek know what xxxxxxxx means, namely a fellowship, a distribution. When Paul uses the word in the same form in Romans 15, he says: "It was considered good for the people of Macedonia and Achaia to have fellowship with the poor saints who were found in Jerusalem. What is fellowship but a distribution, that they might be helpful to the poor? And in the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, in the 8th chapter, it is again taken for a distribution. So also here: "The cup of thanksgiving or benediction is a communion, that is, a distribution of the blood; and the bread which we break is a distribution of the body of Christ. If my doctor can compel me another mind with scriptures, let us hear it.
Oecolampadius.
In order to stay on track, I will save some objections until his time; I would like the opponent to do the same. Mr. Benedict still wants to deny that no trope is used by him. I ask him whether synecdoche 5) is also a trope?
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
To the question of Doctor Oecolampadii, I do not know now how to reject (my mind) synecdoches, according to our previous explanation, but such should not take away from us the body and blood of Christ (according to the Conclusion), bodily and substantially.
3) "Language" (of the Greek) put by us instead of: "saying".
4) that is, imposed.
5) syneckoche, a part for the whole.
Oecolampadius.
So now it turns out that Mr. Benedict is now disputing and admitting to be a tropum here in the words that he yesterday, and to some extent also today, clearly denied. And so his speech is not consistent, and yet has not proved that either. And ask him to add that it is a synecdoche; namely, that under the bread, or in the bread, is the body, with uniform speech or writing.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
To this I answer, as before, from the words of Paul in the 1st Epist. to Corinth, at the 10th Cap.: "And the bread which we break or divide, is it not the dispensation of the body of Christ?" So I think that I have not given the words of the Last Supper a narrowing, but for a sound understanding of them (so that one does not, in the manner of a sophist, fight in words) I have explained such words of the Last Supper with Paulo. But for the sake of the trope, that there (as is indicated yesterday) should be the interpretive trope to accept the words figuratively in the supper (as spoken and written of it), I will by no means let up, until further report.
Oecolampadius.
It is not sophistry to pay close and diligent attention to words. But it would be a sophistry, where one would put other words for others, or even another mind, from the scriptures unproven. The words used by Mr. Benedict (as stated above) do not mean that we should understand by the bread a common body of Christ. Here the word is, and it is not: under the bread is. It is also clear enough to everyone that we, who are Christians, are not understood under the sacramental bread.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
At the lecture of Doctors Oecolampadii, I do not wish to present any words for the others, or to advance another understanding without Scripture. For as I have explained the words of the supper with the saying of Paul in the first epistle to Corinth, at the 10th chapter, it cannot be unscriptural. The like of his meaning or interpretation of him did not happen again. For the words: "This is my body" carry the body of Christ with it. And we do not want to enter into a battle of words here, as there is a lot of quarreling among the disciples; only that the meaning of the words may remain.
For it should ever be proved, "This is my body," as much as: This means my body; or: This is my body's sign; so that the conscience may be well assured by the word of God.
Oecolampadius.
We will give our interpretation hereafter sufficiently. Mr. Benedict shows Pauli his synecdoche in these attracted words: that is what we expect from him.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
To the question: I show a synecdoche, I rely completely on the explanations given; and I want to have my understandings explained from Paulo. But half of his interpretation we must expect again.
Oecolampadius.
That which is dark should be taught by something clearer; that is not described here. And we expect how he wants to explain this from Paul's words.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
To this I answer, so that now all quarrels about the words of the supper may be settled: "This is my body", I have answered sufficiently today; therefore I rely on the Acta, what the meaning of the words should be. It would be a prolonged repetition. Therefore, for the advancement of the cause, ask my doctor to write further: why the words: "This is my body", and-: "This is my blood", should not be understood as they clearly and strongly read?
Zwingli.
From our mind we have often enough promised, want to perform it also (whether God wants!). But the thing is not yet there, but at the end, that they prove their synecdoche. For Paul's place in the first epistle to Corinth in the 10th chapter does not imply that it must be a synecdoche; whether it be called common or common by dividing, nor does it follow that it must be a synecdoche. For if the bread were essentially and substantially the body of Christ, as the papal opinion holds, yet the body of Christ would be distributed, and therefore would not be a synecdoche; for the very bread, which would also be the body of Christ, would be distributed, and therefore the sense, "under the bread," may not be enforced here. And therefore seek other Scriptures.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
As I have been drawn and answered for many times, I stand by the saying of Paul and will not enter into any other battle of words; only that the body and blood of Christ may be distributed to us (according to his words) in the supper of the Lord.
Zwingli.
With the words their synecdoche is always not proven, that I also rely on the Acta. And [they] have given us 1) a tropum, which they may not receive with writing, they bring other writings.
Parish priest of St.-Gallen.
I let remain, as answered before, and expect further writing.
Oecolampadius.
Now I come to some sayings, introduced earlier by Mr. Benedict, which are also not useful. And first of all the saying of John in the 20th chapter, which also seems to be something powerful; there the text says: "He blew into them, and spoke to them: Take the Holy Spirit!" But such things are not spoken in the words of the Lord's supper, where it is said, "He took bread," and it is not said, "He took his body;" which is to be set against that which is written in John, chapter 20, "He blew into them." And if it is written in the 20th chapter of John, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," it is not written in the words of the Lord's supper, "Receive ye my body. And if it is written in the Lord's supper, "This is my body," it is not written in John chapter 20, "The breath is the Holy Spirit. Therefore also the words are not equal, and will not force his tropum from it.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
I answer briefly: Christ has several times indicated the divine, spiritual things with external things, as when he opened the gospel, according to his divine promise, Christ was a means of his divine Father for it; the same also the apostles. From the saying of John in the 20th chapter I do not want to make these words equal to the words of the Lord's supper in the same dignity, but to make the understanding of the words of the supper all the more comprehensible and explain it in the same way, and there-
1) See Col. 1778 f.
with the words of John not of the same essence, next to this word of the supper. So let us hope that in the words: "Take and eat, this is my body", and: "Drink from it, this is my blood", we will be informed [of the body and blood of Christ].
Zwingli.
Our brother confesses that the words of John in chapter 20: "Jesus has blessed them" etc., are not the same as the words: "This is my body", and wants to prove that the words should be understood: "Under the bread is my body, so it would serve him very well, that the water is put into the jars and made into wine, 2) neither this place. We do not want to make a special mention of the blowing and the spirit of Christ, because it does not serve the purpose.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
In response to today's manifold lectures of my dear lords and confreres, we order all this to the Actis. Is it not our desire to dispute whether the bread, or in the bread, or such disputes (as reason might produce), is the body of Christ? But we want: the body of Christ (according to the words: "Take and eat, this is my body") is given to us. Hereupon we expect (according to the final speeches) that they teach us with Scripture to have a different understanding of the words of the supper. Up to now, the Sententiarii have been much concerned about the birth and conception of Christ, how he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary? how he was born with unopened womb? and how a mother is a virgin? In order to avoid all the tearing subtlety, we are again not reported differently to the presented sayings, but to understand the simple words simple.
Oecolampadius.
The resolution speech has been somewhat explained by my gentlemen, the responders, for themselves, that may well be contested. And it is not, as may be understood from Mr. Benedict's objection, that we are relying on our reason and are making use of subtlety. For the sake of the objection from the 10th chapter of Corinthians in the 1st epistle, where we have said that it should be translated "common" or "fellowship," our brother Althamer insists that it should be understood as a healing; he wants to make do.
2) John in chapter 2.
of the Greek word χοινωνία. Now we will leave ourselves also on all understanders of the languages, that, as it stands in Latin and Greek, on it a community and society carries, and not a distribution. If we look at the little word from the well, there is no one who has not now begun to learn, who knows that xxx^ö? or xxx^ is as much as common, or xxxä? a fellow journeyman, who has fellowship with him. The sayings, however, collected by Althamer from the little word xxxa, also have a community on it, and end 1) more on being common than on sharing out. One may have fellowship in two ways in a thing that is less than we are, or is above us: thus, if we may have fellowship in taking the graces, we may also have fellowship in dispensing them. The graces we Christians receive all together with one another; and so we are fellows. And so the present place is to be understood, that we, all Christians, have fellowship in the body of Christ, for he is all of us (if we are true Christians) with all his merits. We may not give Christ to men, but, as John says in the 6th chapter, the Son of Man, that is Christ, gives us the bread that endures to eternal life. And one thing more: The Father gives us the bread from heaven, but we cannot distribute it, because we alone are servants and proclaimers. So also the name xxxwi"^ is used in many places; in the first epistle of John in the 1st chapter, where the name appears for the fourth time etc., which place serves strongly to confirm our interpretation. But that in the 2nd epistle to the Corinthians in the 8th chapter, and to the Romans in the 15th chapter, it is said: This is a fellowship of things, which we have to share, as almsgiving, and serving one another in the word. Here it is found that there is nevertheless a fellowship, and that more attention is paid to the common giving than to the giving itself. But if we were to conclude from this that such fellowship would always be a distribution, how would we then come to the saying in the 2nd epistle to the Corinthians in the 1st chapter: "As we are xxxxvoe", that is, "companions of suffering, so also of comfort"? then we would also be distributors of suffering and temptations. But this would rather serve the henchmen than the Christians. Therefore, in this place at the 10th chapter of Corinthians, we have a fellowship and a society, and are
1) "lenden" - to steer.
also a society in our Head Christ JEsu. Besides, he does not want the ministers of the churches to distribute the sacraments together or in particular. But this is written to all, and the following words which he declares, "For we many are One Bread and One Body; inasmuch as we are all partakers of One Bread." For we are partakers, first with one another, of the heavenly bread of Christ Jesus, and afterwards we truly testify to one another in the sacraments, through the sacramental bread.
Althamer.
My doctor claims that the Greek word xxxxxx means a society. I do not deny him that [it] has the same meaning in many places. But from this it will not follow that it must also have it here. For in the other epistle to the Corinthians in the 13th chapter, when Paul says: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all," there is also the little word xxxx-'a, and is taken for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, as he also uses it in Galatians in the 6th chapter; for which reason it is also taken here in the 1st epistle to Corinthians, 10th chapter. For what does the cup have in common with the blood of Christ? We say that the cup of thanksgiving is a distribution of the blood of Christ. And since the body and the blood stand together, it cannot be understood in any other way than as a dispensation of both. The following text: "For we many are One Bread and One Body, therefore that we partake of One Bread and of One Cup" does not take anything away from that understanding. We confess the same text to be understood by the spiritual body, which is the church of God. But Paul does not say that we are the bread that is broken or that we break; otherwise the church would break and eat itself. Therefore the first saying must be understood of the body of Christ divided in bread, the other of the spiritual.
Oecolampadius.
Althamer has not interrupted our answer, because we have clearly stated that here a community is to be understood; and he wants to state it even more clearly. Read no more than the text itself, for and for; and will not follow it: in another place, or two, the community serves for distribution; ergo it must be understood here also. The places we have referred to, and in particular from the
The words of St. John clearly indicate our fellowship; but his fellowship with the Dispensation serves nothing here, and still less the resolution of the other epistle to Corinthians 13, where it says: "The fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all! The distribution is not ours, but we have a company in the reception of such a spirit. This is also found in Philippians, in the 2nd chapter: "Is any fellowship or company of the Spirit" etc. To explain this text, it should be noted that throughout the epistle Paul desires to bring the Corinthians, who are divided for many reasons, into unity; And because some of them still had fellowship with the idolaters, which also led to disunity, he leads them to Christian unity, shows them how they have fellowship in the body and blood of Christ, for which reason they should rightly be undivided, and reproaches them how they themselves testify to such fellowship in the sacraments, saying: "I speak to you as to those of understanding," that is, as to those who well understand what the Sacraments mean. "Is not the cup of consecration, which we consecrate, a communion of the blood of Christ?" That is, it means that we are commonly redeemed by the blood of Christ. And again, "The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?" that is, it testifies to us that we are those who have life in common through the body of Christ, and are members of Christ. Then he declares himself, and tells the cause, "For we the many are one bread, one body." Is it ever certain that we are not essentially the sacramental bread. So we are not under or with the bread, but therefore we are spiritually in the bread, that we are all partakers and have fellowship of the heavenly bread, and are here also counted as One Bread, because we are partakers of One Sacramental Bread. And after this comes another example, saying, "Behold Israel after the flesh! Is it not true that those who eat the sacrifice are the commoners of the altar?" that is, they all have fellowship in one altar, where they pray to God, and do not divide the altar among themselves; therefore the little word χοινωνοί is there. And after that it follows: "I do not want you to be common to the devils", that is, that you do not have fellowship in idolatry. But is it clear that it is not called: "sharing of the devils", and it says χοινωνούς? And follow, "Ye may not drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the devil." Now as in the place of the cup of devils does not mean that in the cup or drink the devils are essential.
So it is also with the cup of the Lord, that it therefore does not essentially and bodily contain the blood of Christ. And again he says: "You may not have a part at the table of the Lord, and at the table of the devils. It is evident from these words that they have not partaken of the devils, but that they have had fellowship in the service of the idols, that is, the devils. So also we Christians, who are fed at the Lord's table, testify that we are the true servants of Christ, who henceforth fed us through Himself. And so it is evident that the word here is not called distribution, and that this place of Paul is not entitled to and does not prove anything to our adversaries.
Althamer.
I submit my interpretation and his to the Christian reader.
Zwingli.
As the mandate of my lords is that no one should let the truth be defeated, I will also speak to the matter by virtue of the same points, against the misunderstanding of our opponents, and thus say first of all: In so far as they do not suppose to have proved their synecdoche with the place of the sick woman, Luc. at chapter 8, and with the place of the sending of the Holy Spirit, where there were fiery tongues, in the stories of the apostles at chapter 2, then I will speak further to their presentation.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
I have answered my dear brother's lecture several times today, and therefore it is written in the pen, so I will leave it at that. I understand the saying about the faith of the lady, Lucä on the 8th chapter, as a surrender of our heart with heartfelt trust in Christ and all his words.
Master Ulrich Zwingli,
As far as he understands the confidence of all words of Christ in this way, that all words of Christ JEsu are believed to be true by the believers, according to true understanding, which is forced from his true words, I let this go. But insofar as he meant by the words that one must believe that here the flesh and blood of Christ must be eaten essentially, bodily in the sacrament, I require him to indicate words of Christ which mean or suggest to us that we should or must believe that here his flesh and blood are eaten bodily and essentially.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
At the request of Master Ulrich, I insist that all the words of God be believed, and that with a correct interpretation and comparison of the Scriptures, for many a word in the Scriptures reads in such a way that if it is not explained with another word, it would have an awkward meaning with it. But that I should bring Scripture, in which we are commanded and believe that the body of Christ is eaten substantially and bodily, and this believed, I bring no other than that often mentioned: "He has taken the bread into his hands" etc.
Zwingli.
Since our brother does not bring forth any bright word that would instruct us to believe that [the] flesh and blood of Christ must be eaten bodily in the Sacrament; but since we have otherwise well expressed words that we must eat them spiritually, that is, in faith, John 6, I hope we are discharged of the speeches, since we are burdened with believing every word of God, as if we did not believe these words. And now attack the third scripture, which was referred to in the stories of the twelve messengers in chapter 2, that the Holy Spirit was not the fiery tongues, but in the fiery tongues, or with the fiery tongues. Of which speech the one part, in the fiery tongues, has ever weighed me down today; for such speech is likened to the fact that we enclose the Spirit of God in visible things. Then nowhere does it say that the fiery tongues are the Holy Spirit, whether or not one might take the words of Christ, "This is my body," as an example: "Under the bread is my body.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
On the denial of today's confiscated sayings, and present explanation of the faith, I do not bring any scripture that would lead to believe that flesh and blood are eaten bodily; I resort to the introduction of the feeding of the lamb, in the 12th chapter of the 2nd book of Moses, and the evangelists' statements, which are called: "Take and eat, this is my body. In which words the body of Christ eaten or eaten, of my mind, is commanded. Of the words of spiritual partaking I confess that all things done by rote are unfruitful etc. If we no longer eat the words: "Which body is given for you", and: "Which blood is shed for you", in faith, because they are presented to us, it would be of little comfort. On that, which he supposedly unloaded
[For the sake of the faith of every word, I have confessed before that with comparison of the Scriptures and Christian understanding on the saying Apost. It is certain that the fiery tongues were not the Spirit of God Himself; and I have introduced this in parables for the introduction of a clear understanding; for the parables are not always exactly the same as those which are compared. And let all this be dropped, and say, as several times today, that in the words of the supper I will not enter into the struggle, with what form and shape the body will be communicated to us, in the visible or gross way, as a hand may be in the glove; only that the words remain: "Take and eat, this is my body," that it may be communicated to us, according to the words.
Zwingli.
If our brother indicates that if we no longer believe what is presented to us in the supper, it is not enough, we will let up, as far as he means that one must bring right, true faith to the supper, which faith is put off to Christ. But as far as he wanted to understand by the dark speech that one must also believe that the flesh and blood of Christ is essentially there, or that it is essentially eaten in the flesh, we do not let up, because an eye would be covered for us with the hidden speech. But that he, to prove this, for and for casts in the words: "This is my body", but of which the chip is, he does nothing else, quam quod petit principium. If there is so much that he should prove, he proves it with what is in the chip. As if someone said, "Why did you take the idol out of the church? and he would give no other answer than: Because I have done it. As for the other place in the 2nd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where he says that he brought it in for the sake of equality, we will content ourselves with an introduction. But at that time we did not require introductions, but clear words of Scripture, from which we would learn that the words should be understood: In the bread is my body. The rest, from the hand in the glove, I leave. However, this is how they have now come to believe, first of all, that the bread is not essentially the corpse of Christ. Accordingly they have spoken with their own mouth, 1) The words are to be understood thus, in or under the bread is the body of Christ. And now speak to the third, they do not want to let themselves into the battle,
1) See Col. 1778.
how the body of Christ is in or under the bread. How steadfastly and thoroughly this is spoken from the ground of Scripture, I commend to all who hear and read. Now I return to the course of Paul's words to Corinth in the first epistle on the 10th chapter, which my brother Oecolampadius has explained Christianly and well. But in order that our adversaries and the common church may be the brighter for it, I also want to act on them, not as prefaced, but as bastardly explained. And for the first is Paul's undertaking: [that he] would have those who were fellow-masses 1) or fellows in the idolatries (that is, that they also ate with the idolaters, who ate the sacrifices of their idols with one another), to draw from the church, that is, church, society, and agreement; on such erroneous opinion, since the presumptuous thought that they might, without injury to conscience and neighbor, eat of the idolatrous sacrifice, Paul takes the church before him, and speaks as if thus speaking: How can one be a member of two abominable churches? If one is a member of Christ and His church, how can he be a member of the church of the devil? This is now the summa. This is followed by the words: "Therefore, beloved, flee from idolatry. I will speak to you as to those who have understanding, and you will know that I speak to you. The drink of thanksgiving, that we may give thanks, is it not the church of the blood of Christ ?" Here shall xxxxxxxx, that is, congregation, communion ver
and not communicatio, distribution. I prove this with the article of faith: Sanctorum communionem, that is, "congregation of the saints. There, communio is used for the Latin, the Greek, and the Greek for the Christian. It follows in words: "The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Here we see that Paul alludes to the meaning of the signs, that those who use the same sacrament with one another are one church with one another, and thus calls those who eat the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ with one another the congregation or common of the body and blood of Christ. That this be so, there follows a xxxxxxx
xxxxx (that is, caussae redditio, that is, a cause why he called the Christians who need the same sacrament the congregation of the body and blood of Christ), and thus says: "For one loaf" (here we have this little word
"for"), an open sign he wants to tell; reason why he called Christians the congregation of the body and blood of Christ. Yes, he says, "One loaf and one body are we, the multitude." Notice here, first of all, that he here calls the multitude τους πολλούς, id est, multos, the
he formerly called the church, saying that the multitude is One Bread and One Body. Not that they ate one body of Christ, but, as follows, that they are partakers of one bread (and not of one body) with one another. Here we have a special word, the partaking, or partition, xxxxxxxxx, and have never
the word xxxxxxx. From which statement I
It should be obvious to every Christian that Paul does not want to say that we become one body of Christ by eating a corpse, because this is contrary to faith and truth; because we become one in one Spirit alone, and in one faith, which comes from the Spirit. But that the bodily eating of the body of Christ makes the unity of the church cannot be taught by any Scripture. From this it is thoroughly judged that St. Paul is proved by his own words, and also by the power of the truth of the Spirit, to say that those who use the same sign with one another are one church, etc. as is evident, and therefore they are neither to join nor to be joined to the congregation and church of idolaters. And here the sharing of the bodily death of Christ among the church is called nienen 2).
Andreas Althamer of Nuremberg.
Paul in these sayings in the first epistle to the Corinthians in the 10th chapter speaks of two kinds of bread, of a spiritual bread, which is the Christian congregation, built up in Christ, the living Word, which lives in peace and unity, and is partaker of all the goods of Christ; and of the bread of the Lord's supper, which we break and divide among the brethren. This is not the church or congregation; of such he says, "The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship or distribution of the body of Christ?" The other bread, which is Christianity, we do not break or eat. Is therefore one bread, that they eat of One Bread of the Supper and Testament of Christ, as Paul says: "Therefore we are One Bread, that we are partakers of One Bread, or eat of One Bread" etc.
2) "nienen"-nowhere; put by us instead of: "nie nan". Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 670 and 1174.
Zwingli.
The fact that our dear brother indicates two loaves here is enough to prove that it is only one. For in the first place, when he says that the bread which we break is the church of the body of Christ, he indicates enough to us by the causal speech which follows from this, that he speaks of the bread "which we break. But that he then says, that we who break the same bread with one another are the congregation of the body of Christ, is a sweetness of the tropes. That he then says, "One bread and one body are we, the multitude," in which words I recognize that he calls the church the bread; but he alludes to the fact that it is because of the external sacramental bread that the church shares with one another. One bread and one body, as he speaks from the beginning and gives the reason why he also called the church One bread and one body: "For we are all partakers of One bread. But here is another prosapodosis, that is, a cause in the little word where he says, "For," which gives a cause why he called it One Bread and One Corpse. However, the body of Christ is not thought of here bodily; but it is thought of in a sum, that we, the multitude, that is, the Christian congregation, are one congregation of the body and blood of Christ, One Bread and One Corpse.
Althamer.
Once again, I command his and my explanation to the Christian reader.
Zwingli.
And we also etc.
On the seventeenth day of Jenner.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
After parting with our beginning against the fourth conclusion, that (according to the words of Christ's supper, unanimously described by the evangelists and Paul) we received the body of Christ substantially and bodily, like his blood, we are first prompted to speak of the body by the figure in Genesis 12, Cap, which Paul explains to our understanding in the first chapter of Corinthians 5, when he contrasts Christ with these words: "Our paschal lamb, Christ, is sacrificed. As they have substantially and bodily partaken of the paschal lamb, and have been called such, for a perpetual memorial of the good deed of God, performed for them in Egypt, with the preservation of the temporal death; the same
In the same way, we Christians should eat the Lamb of Christ, according to the words: "Take and eat, this is my body," etc., thereby remembering the redemption from the power of the infernal Pharaoh and preservation from eternal death, so that the switch may unite with the light, that is, the truth, and again the truth with the figure.
Oecolampadius.
Mr. Benedict always lets such words lull along: According to the words of the Lord's supper, but has not yet declared that they may serve him; therefore we must let them pass as vain words. But to the saying in the first epistle to Corinth in the 5th chapter, and from the 12th chapter of the other book of Moses, I give such an answer: that this proves nothing, because it does not point to the sacramental bread. Because Paul here wanted to instruct the people, who in faith should always eat Christ, the true paschal lamb, sacrificed on the cross for us, and not only at the time of receiving the sacraments. He wants such a people to be pure throughout, and to separate from him the open sinners, who are likened to leaven or leavened bread. For as the ancients ate their bodily paschal lamb with unleavened bread, so he wants us to keep company with those who are unleavened bread in our faith in Christ. But that Mr. Benedict says that the figure and that which is figured should be uniform, pleases me well, if he wants to compare ceremony with ceremony; so the ancients ate the paschal lamb bodily with thanksgiving for their redemption; so we also hold our ceremonies and our services, in breaking the sacramental bread, with thanksgiving for our redemption. The figure that redemption is foreshadowed by the little lamb was fulfilled in Christ himself on the cross and through our faith.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
To Doctor Oecolampadii's answer, to account for all the entry, with explanation of the thanksgiving that is to be used at the Lord's Supper, I do not know much against it. But this I desire, for the assurance of our faith, to be better explained with Scripture, that to believe is to eat. If then (as he takes it) the sacramental bread reminds us of Christ's suffering and death, how much more should the very being remind us, so that all his love may be the more fully declared in us. For the ancients under the
Moses had signs of the promise, which are truly given to us with being and deed. And how that is signified surpasses his figure, so also the body of Christ, prefigured and shown to us by the Lamb.
Oecolampadius.
That faith is spiritual eating has been sufficiently proven 1) from the 6th chapter of St. John. John, now unnecessary to introduce more probation. But that Mr. Benedict says: "Since the sacramental bread introduces us to remembrance, the presence of the body of Christ itself should remind us much more: so it should be noted what the word "remember" has on it, and how man may be remembered. Thus it is found that external things, serving for remembrance, must be comprehended with the senses, rather than by hearing or sight. But if the body of Christ is no longer to be visibly presented to us, and is to be invisible and insensible according to his speech, then it will not give any memory. But if we want to see how man is remembered inwardly, and if this would be worthwhile, 2) then this should be given to our one Master, who is in heaven, Christ himself, who works this with his spirit. And I would also like to hear another way of remembrance from our opponents.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
I answer briefly: that remembrance comes about through external things, I cannot deny; but in doing so, I should actually note the words of the Spirit, so supporting, or bringing, that they read; therefore I cannot again separate the essence in the external remembrance. But that my Lord Doctor has taught in this sacramental bread (as he calls it), [that we] should remember the benefit of Christ, I understand, to be done to all believers in Christ, not only in this bread (according to its naming), but uninterruptedly, as we daily and uninterruptedly enjoy the benefit of Christ. For in all eating thanks are to be given to God, and all things are to be done for the glory of God, in the first epistle to the Corinthians in the 10th chapter: "You eat or drink, you should do it all for the glory of God"; and to the Colossians in the third chapter: "In our words and works thanks are to be given to God." From the speeches, invisible and insensible, we want to forgive until their further explanation.
1) See Col. 1761 ff.
2) Perhaps: and who it works.
Zwingli.
In order that we may briefly get to the point, I will indicate from Paul and the very words of Christ our Savior, the figure, and the remembrance or usefulness of the flesh of Christ to eat bodily. For the sake of the figure or meaning, I indicate that Paul writes to Hebrews in the 10th chapter: "The law had the shadow of the goods to come, and not an actual image of things." In Paul's words we note that the things which signified in the Old Testament did not signify such things as they were; for they were in the shadow. Therefore, what was bodily there must be spiritual here, since Christ is the light, the life, and the truth. The fact that the lamb was killed and eaten in the flesh shows us that the Lord Christ Jesus, having been killed, must be eaten by us spiritually, that is, that we trust in him. For if the bodily had to be answered bodily, many unskilful things would have to be left in Christ Jesus, of which there is nothing to be said here. For the sake of Christ's words, I will first show how he says in the 6th chapter of John: "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger. Here it is evident that by the word "come unto me" Christ means to trust and believe in me. From that which follows from this time forth, when he saith, Whosoever trusteth in me shall never thirst." Is here xxxxxxxx, 3) i.[e.] commixtio. In the words we note that all who come to Christ JEsu, that is, trust in him (as the words themselves publicly read), have no more hunger, nor thirst for other comforts or feedings, therefore the comfort of the bodily food of the body of Christ falls away. He says the same thing in the same chapter: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh is of no use at all. Here we hear openly that it must be the Spirit alone who gives life, and his flesh (for he speaks there of his flesh) is of no use at all, if one would eat it. For we speak here of the fruitfulness of his death, which he suffered in the flesh to make the soul alive. For this it requires Scripture, that the body of Christ, eaten in the flesh, should comfort the soul; for all comfort in Scripture is ascribed to the divine Spirit alone, as is variously indicated by John from the 14th to the 18th chapter. But that which is put on for gratitude in all foods does not serve the purpose. We say without doubt that
3) Such a word there is nothing
Not only should we be thankful for food and all the good things that God shows us, at all times, but also that we should be thankful to Him when He inflicts adversity on us, and in the same way hold ourselves in high esteem, that is, recognize that we are the noble children of God, according to Romans, chapter 5. The thanksgiving spoken of here is not only that which every Christian praises God to himself at all times and gives thanks for the death of his Son, but that the Christians come together in the congregation and publicly testify to the other members in the evening meal what they secretly carry in their hearts.
Pastor of St. Gallen.'
On the responsibility of Master Ulrich, the Lamb under Moses, and so is meant with us, in the New Testament in Christ, to prevent prolongation, we command the Actis and Christian reader. But that we have a word, which in outward use assures us, as John says in the 6th chapter, before drawn, we give such an answer, as is also in the words of the supper: "which is given for you", and: "which blood is shed for you". In such his words we understand the promise to be thus with the words of Christ, and with the outward grows and becomes (if it is enjoyed in the right spirit and faith) the consolation of souls. From the introduction of John in the 6th chapter: "Flesh is not useful", we want to leave unanswered until his time. For if consolation should not come to us in the dispensation of the body of Christ, what consolation would we have in the sacramental bread (as they call it)? But the other things that are mentioned, for the sake of brevity, we command the Christian reader.
Zwingli.
The indicated words: "which is given for you", and: "which is poured out for you", do not prove therefore completely that here is promised to the bodily meal consolation or admonition, that they are also against it. For they indicate that the body of Christ and his blood are given in death for our sin. Now his death does not take away anyone's sin, because if we trust in him. Now trust is a spiritual effect, which also comes from the Spirit alone, therefore they [mals] hie principium petunt. But that he says they understand it in this way may not comfort us. That we pretend to them that faith thus assures, that one does not ask for any other bodily assurance, we show them with Scripture. But that the bodily food comforts the soul, they show with their verse.
was on the agenda. The word, "the flesh is of no use," we have not only used as an introduction, but also as a proof. Since it is therefore said: If there is no consolation in the distribution of the body of Christ, what consolation would we then have in the sacramental bread? we give the answer that they, however, principium petunt, that is, that they reckon that which we have not left for them, and may not conquer with Scripture, to have been presented. Yesterday we publicly stated that 1) the body of Christ would not be distributed in the supper, and they have given their opinion against it to the Scriptures and the reader, and today they again want to insist on the same bodily distribution, which is so publicly contested. But nevertheless we say that we have no word of God that promises us special comfort, be it in the bodily meal or in the sacramental.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
We rely on the aforementioned explanation, which was given by us; for Christ in the Lord's Supper put both things together, word and body, spiritually with the heart and bodily through the mouth should be enjoyed; for whoever receives such, should trust in Him (we do, if God wills! all), for whoever goes to God (or His word, or sign), should believe and trust in God, according to Hebrews in the 11th chapter. That the body is not divided, as Master Ulrich is said to have reported, we rely on the Acta.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
We also pause on the explanation, from the open word of God, brought forth by us, as well as the Acta. The other statement, that Christ's body is eaten with the mouth in the supper, we recognize to be a misguided statement. For if our mouths are bodily, and may eat nothing but bodily, and sensitive, it would follow that we must eat the body of Christ sensitively. "The Spirit is that maketh alive" etc.. Recommend this also to everyone who has a believing mind.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
So we have commanded the action of the figure to the actis, and they have entered other explanation, and namely now in the last speech: we command all who are to be taught by God what the public word of Scripture is able to do, and its understanding.
1) See Col. 1792 f. 1794 f.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
We also recommend it to those who are taught by God.
Oecolampadius.
Among other things, it was said yesterday, and also today, how the outward words carry with them not only what they mean, but also what they promise. This is also to be accounted for, and I say as much, that one should consider the nature and manner of the words, how much is given to them by God. For the outward words, as elements, are not given more than the inward words, which are in the heart of man. And where more is given to the external words than such meaning and remembrance, it may be regarded as sorcery. For what else is sorcery, but that a man thinks he can do with the power of words, which the words themselves are not able to do? Thus the wise man says: "The words of the wise (in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes), these are all stimuli or nails." The human nature of the first birth is almost darkened and eclipsed in the image when he is created against God, so that he hears the right teacher Christ slowly and does not soon accept the splendor of divine truth. Through the motive and hindrance of the flesh, some help has been given to the foolish man, namely the outward words, by which man, as through stimulos and nails, is reminded of himself, and thus learns to recognize his inner master, and becomes capable of the truth. There must ever be some knowledge before in man, if he is to be taught. If one were to teach unknown words to a man for a thousand years, he would not become any the more learned if he understood the words. And if the words are understood, man is taught within, that he may know that which is spoken. The words have been ordained for this purpose, and they have not been given any special power to accomplish anything further than what has been said. But the Spirit of God, who enlightens, gives such knowledge. It would ever be out of the way that we give more credit to the outward word than to the person who speaks such outward words. Saint Paul says he is not Apollo, nor is he anything: how then should the outward word have such great power? and should the words make or bring that which they sound, the apostles and all preachers would make all their hearers believe; for they speak the words of faith, and faith would be added to them; which is all out of the way. So the
Effect of the Lord, as we have it Marci at the last Capit. But the words and sacraments carry only the meaning.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
On the entry, so the words promised, or mean etc., we say thus: God the Lord, the same has ever and always, in the old and new testament, so he promised or commanded, that refunded, so they have read. For when he spoke a word, and all things were done, in the 33rd Psalm [v. 6]; the same also in the first book of Moses in the 18th chapter, with the barren Sarah, brought the promise with the promised Isaac. For God is nothing difficult. Also Isaiah in chapter 55: "My word that goes out from my mouth will not come to me empty, but it will do and repay what I want it to do, what I have sent it out to do." For Saul was also commanded to slay the Amalechites; according to the promise, the victory was returned to him. We do not deny other statements that the Spirit must work everything in us, but we believe that the Spirit's cooperating power is added to the words, otherwise the external voice or word would be of little use. From the magic I let the entry remain in its dignity. Should the words not bring this, so they read, the apostles and preachers would have etc. Let us answer that the Lord sent forth his apostles, saying, "Go and preach the gospel to every creature. For ever "the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of every one that believeth," Romans 1 Chronicles 1:1. It is certain that our planting and watering is nothing, but God who gives the growing and the power. Now, through the preaching and proclamation of the Word not all hearers will be saved, but those to whom the Word is sent (Isaiah, chapter 55), with them it will bear fruit, as the text explains in more words. For only those who were ordained to eternal life believed the word of God, in the stories of the apostles in the 13th chapter. I will leave other entries for now.
Zwingli.
That God keeps all that He promises does not require any explanation from us. Nor is it because of this, but because they have said that the outward word brings with it that which it signifies or promises, but since the contradiction will be found. God says to Abraham himself, "Offer up your son to me on the mountain that I will show you." So the external word of God is.
If, then, in the outward word, that which it signifies should have come to pass, the son of Abraham would have been sacrificed from the time the words were spoken, but this is not so. Our Lord Christ Jesus desires to be released from suffering, but at the outward word the deed was not done, otherwise he would not have suffered. But because of the promise they recognize that those alone have accepted the gospel, who were called by God to eternal life. In which words they answer them themselves; for not only those who believed after their preaching had heard their word, but also the unbelievers. Now if the outward word would bring with it that which it promises, it would also bring salvation to those who do not accept it, as is sufficiently shown by Oecolampadium, for it is said to them as well as with the outward word: Whoever trusts in the living Son of God, Christ Jesus, becomes holy, as do believers. But when they confess that only those who have been called by God accept faith, or the word of God, they admit that the external word does not do this. For the external word is not God, but only an external word, and a meaning or opening of the divine will. For the sake of brevity, I will leave the writings that have been brought in unattended, because they serve us and not them. That which is written in Romans: "The gospel is the power of God for salvation to every believer," also the one mentioned in Isaiah, Chapter 55, serves us, because the external word of the gospel is not the power of God, but the external word alone declares to us the power that God has wrought through His Son for our salvation.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
The first, that in our words the contradiction is invented, we command it to the hearers and readers. The text in Genesis chapter 22, introduced by Abraham, says that he should take his son and go into the earth etc. In which Abraham wanted to give the command, but God forbade him not to stretch out his hand etc. as history can show. Of the suffering of Jesus Christ, only men know that he surrendered his will to the will of his Father etc. Of the promise it is well known that the seed of the Word of God falls many times into the barren earth, and only in the fourth brings forth manifold fruit. For everything that the apostles did, they did not do on their own, but in the name (that is, in the power) of God. It is certain that the external words are means and instruments of what God wills, as He says through
the prophets and Moses: "I am your God". Such a promise in short words leads and brings along God with all his goods, if one believes him humbly. The rest I leave to the Christian reader.
Zwingli.
All the words of our adversaries serve to ensure that everything that happens is done by God's will and not by the power or company of the external word. Therefore, when the external words are called means or instruments of what God wills, we do not understand that they are instruments of accomplishment, but that the words, be they of voices or letters, indicate only the divine will. We have in the histories of the apostles in the 19th chapter thus: "There were some sons of Sceve, a Jew, a chief priest, of whom there were seven; who undertook to adjure by the name of the Lord JEsu those who were possessed with evil spirits, saying: We adjure you by JEsu, whom Paul preacheth. So the evil spirit from one possessed answered them, I know JEsum, I know Paulum, but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was fell upon them, and possessed them, and became stronger than they, so that they came out of the house naked and wounded. Here you see, devout Christians, how much the outer word is able to do when the inner word is not. That therefore it is stated how God said to Abraham, "I am your God," since the words brought Abraham to God with all his goods, we say that this is a request. The fact that God was kind to Abraham and made him a father was due to the goodness and blessing of his grace before he ever spoke an external word to him, for it is by grace and not by merit; a large part of the epistle to the Romans is written on this. But that it is said that God lets Himself in, or comes to the inn with all His goods (if one believes Him), we know that God dwells with faith and is at the inn, John 14, and that the outward word brings nothing but what was said before. 1) And since our opponent relies on their understanding and explanation on the Acta, we also want to be based on the Acta in our explanation 2).
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
To the answer of Master Ulrich: All words etc., as they are spoken by us, we rely on the Acta. On the saying in the stories of the twelve-
1) See Col. 1801 f.
2) See Col. 1761 ff.
The words of the messengers in the 19th chapter, as the same is introduced, do not need to be repeated. But it is certain from your appendix of words that they did not act out of faith, as the words testify: "I know Jesus and I know Paul, but you, who are you? From this the misbelief of them is sufficiently understood by those who hear and read. For he who does not act by faith, acts evil with the word of God. The words of the Lord, Matt. 7, testify to this; they also said, "Lord, Lord, we have prophesied in your name and cast out devils in your name," but if they did not do it out of true faith, they were called wicked servants. For the disciples of Christ themselves did not cast out devils from the possessed, because of unbelief, as the words of Matthew 17 clearly indicate. In the same way, St. John also says in the 14th chapter: "Verily, verily, I say unto you: He that believeth in me, the works that I do, the same shall he do, and greater works"; by the faith of all the saints, as we also have testimony of, Luke 9, who cast out devils by the faith of Christ. From Abraham, we command the Scriptures; for that God enters into our hearts by faith, we have taught the Ephesians in the 3rd chapter. And, like our Lord and brother, we rely on the Acta.
Zwingli.
Our brethren draw in no other scripture than that which proves our opinion, namely, that the effects or fruit are not of the outward word, but of faith, if they themselves perceive that the sons of Sceve therefore have not cast out devils, that they have not had faith, because (which is for us) they have used the words of casting out, "I command thee in the name of JEsu!" which is a word of commandment from the mouth of Christ, "In my name shall they cast out devils," Marci 16. cap. Now if they have used the outward word, and nothing more has followed the casting out: but it follows, that their speech is not grounded, when they speak, the outward word bringeth with it, which it saith and promised.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
On the entry and responsibility of our brethren, it is masculine knowing that (if God wills!) we are Christ's, and desire to be His, and therefore speak of His word. If we were pagans or unbelievers, we would speak of Machameto or Jove. For I confess them to be Christians who believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess the same with the mouth etc. And command it for the sake of brevity to the Actis.
Zwingli.
To this answer we say, then, that no one would know in this way whether he did or did not eat the body of Christ. For we simple ones cannot know whether he who speaks such words has true faith from the heart in Christ or not. For I will ask my dear brother thus: Do you have true undoubted faith in the living Son of God, Christ Jesus?
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
Whether God wills it! Yes.
Zwingli.
Bring us a blind man or a lame man, and tell me to the same blind man: Now respice, see! This is the word of Christ, and it is promised that the apostles and preachers will perform such and such miraculous signs. So now he has faith and the outward word together. Perform for me that which is called the outward word, or promised. If then I do not say this to temptation, and do not doubt that he will not submit to it; for he may well know that with the outward word, even with his faith, he is thus unable to do anything, unless it pleases God to work such things: I hope that no one is of such little understanding, as to note that the outward words are unable to bring anything forward or forward, although faith is there. And so their reason falls away: the word brings with it that which it signifies or promises.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
He who does not act from the word and command of God is to be judged as not having the Spirit of Christ; if he does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his, according to Romans 8:8. To the question of the blind man I answer thus: That the gift of faith is distributed in various forms, and God communicates to each one as he pleases. Although Master Ulrich preaches Christ Jesus as well, and the crucified, as Peter and Paul (whether God wills it!), also with good faith: nevertheless, I have not heard that he made the lame straight, and that his switching healed the sick. In the same way we have Matthew in the 21st chapter in the fig tree, and change of the mountain. For all the things that we shall desire, praying and believing, we shall receive. And command such again to the Actis.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
That the gift of faith is given to many differently, more or less, we recognize
well. But this argument or counter-accusation would be sufficient only for the greatness of faith, and not for the ability of the external word. For if it is faith that is able to do this, and not the external word, then we are right, and they are persuaded from their saying that the external word has such ability, as they indicate miraculous signs wrought by Petro, and not wrought by me believers. I say that the speech confirms our previous opinion, because the miraculous works are neither in my faith nor in the external word. But therefore their opinion lies behind, because the power of the miraculous works does not stand at our faith, but at the choice of God; of which here is not place to speak according to necessity, and the places, which Christ speaks of strong faith, are not contrary to it.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
We know well that the word of man, as a man, is not able to do anything; but if we act from the command and word of God, it does not only natural things, but supernatural ones. This is revealed in the word that Peter answered the Lord: "Lord, by working all night we have caught nothing; but in your word I will let out the net. When they had done this, they had caught a great number of fish. So the saying in the first Epist. Peter at the first chapter, and to Romans at the 10th chapter, also the first conclusion, therefore (if God wills!) Christian speech has been held.
Zwingli.
When Peter said, "In your word I will spread the net," I ask our brother what outward word Peter spoke to the net's admission?
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
As it is written in the text, with all its contents, I will do nothing to it, nor take anything from it, and leave him the words of the chapter to answer.
Zwingli.
I wear the person of the simple one, and I am. Tell me, Father, what does "word" mean here, when he says: "In your word I will spread the net"?
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
The Word is the command of the Lord.
Zwingli.
They cannot take it for granted that Peter gathered the multitude of fish with an outward word, for they can do nothing else but as if Peter said, "Lord, if you tell me to do it, I will do it. But where is the outward word here? Therefore the words, "This is my body," by which and other reasons have never been proved to be able to bring the body of Christ substantially into the bread. And testify me this on every Christian reader's mind.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
Such things, if we speak and answer by the power of the Word of God, will (if God wills!) be well recognized by the listening church and Christian readers. May God's grace continue to be with us! Amen. As much as we have been led by comparison from the Old Testament, to the words of the Last Supper, about the Body of Christ and His presence, is commanded by Scripture. On this we will indicate the words of the cup, thus reading: "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink ye of it, all of you: this is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins." In which words we believe to be poured out, as the words indicate, and to be substantially as the Lord said. For as the blood of Christ was poured out for the remission of sins, and that which they drank was called the blood of the new testament: likewise to compare Moses and Christ, we have in the second book of Moses, in the 24th chapter, He took the book of the covenant, and read it to the people, saying, All these things which the Lord hath spoken will we do, and be obedient. So he took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant God made with you concerning all these words. Of which all, that the figure might be like unto that which signified it, as there was essentially blood: so in light and in truth Christ said, "This is my blood." Therefore (as the words read, from omnipotence and truth of Christ) we understand such (according to the word) to be essential.
Oecolampadius.
From the answer given about the words: "This is my body", so also figures of the old law have been confiscated, one would like to have received also answer here. And would be fair, so
One is not founded before in the new law with a rich saying, so that one does not underwhelm himself to prove with figures. However, since he introduces this figure in the other book of Moses in chapter 24, how the blood was sprinkled on the people, saying: "This is the blood of the covenant made with you", this figure does not apply to the supper. The Jews also did not drink any blood from it, so that one would want to take into account that such a figure therefore serves. But our covenant was assured on the cross alone, according to the eternal counsel of God, who gave the chosen ones to His only begotten Son for the sake of His unspeakable obedience even unto death. And in time such a dispensation and sprinkling has been given to each one, and will be given if he is moved and sanctified with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Just as Peter's greeting in his epistle is understood: Aspersio sanguinis; and in the epistle
To Hebrews at the 8th chapter abundantly of it is said. That is why such a figure, attracted by Mr. Benedict, does not rhyme here. But that is true, such grace of God and distribution is proclaimed to us here, that is why one also gives thanks to God. I also think that Mr. Benedict should not deny to me that no one should receive such a sacrament if he has faith that his sins are forgiven through the suffering of Christ; for this is part of man's proving himself, trying, in the first chapter of Corinthians 11. If then a man knows that the blood has already been given to him, his speech will not be as if it were to be given to him first. Thus his assurance that the wine, or in the wine, is essentially blood, will not stand.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
If my doctor thinks that the words of the cup are not to be understood in this way, I would like to humbly ask one of him, too, to decide, since the Lord said, "Drink from it, all of you!" saying, "This is my blood!" what the Lord gave to his disciples? or what they drank?
Oecolampadius.
If you are willing to forgive yourselves for the confiscated figures, I will answer your question from this moment on; if not, we will arrange the preceding.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
I will answer my doctor about the retracted figure. I have the same
into the Acta, and if I am rightly minded, explained the same. Therefore not necessary to recover further in further decision. And desire further, as before, answer: the figure however I let stand in its dignity.
Oecolampadius.
Mr. Benedict asks what the Lord gave to the disciples? I answer him: the cup or the wine; but not in a bad way, but that he might command his suffering to them with it, and introduce them to a thanksgiving.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
That our covenant was sealed on the cross, no one will deny, according to the words themselves, when they say, "This is my blood," that it was shed on the cross; in which words, when the Lord said, "Drink of it, all of you; it is my blood," he gave them that which he offered them and commanded them to drink. Therefore, since these words may not have meaning and understanding, we request written instruction against them, which may assure us of such understanding in our consciences. For with these words, "Drink," the Lord distributed that which he then shed on the cross. No one can deny that the words "This is my blood" were not the blood of Christ, because of the distribution from Petro and the epistle to the Hebrews. That no one without faith (as they call it) [etc.] this sacrament. 1) Without doubt, he who is not implanted in Christ through faith would not accept "either faith or the works that flow from the faith of Christ, nor baptism or the supper of Christ. For as my Lord Doctor goes on to say, that which the Lord has called His blood will be a special consolation to our conscience, drunk together with that which is poured out in the same way (according to the words) for the forgiveness of our sin. Hereupon, my Lord Doctor, decide for us with the Scripture that the words are not to be carried along, or not to be offered, as they read.
Oecolampadius.
To answer his question further, and to confirm my answer, since I said that the Lord gave them the cup, I find it clear from the evangelists, because it says: "He took the cup (it does not say that he took his blood) and he gave it to them.
1) This refers to the third last speech of Oecolampad, towards the end.
and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. The "out of it" can never be referred to in any other way than to the previous word, that the Lord took the cup. I also believe completely that Mr. Benedict does not trample on transubstantiation, with the papists who say: the Lord did not present the substance of the wine. But the following words of the Lord explain to the hearing of the apostles what was meant to them a little more obscurely before. Regarding the bestowal of the merit of the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ, it was said before, 1) that we receive this not only in the reception of the sacraments, but also, as John explains in the 6th chapter, when we have confidence in Christ through the Spirit of Christ. Otherwise it would be bad for many who would be deprived of such comfort. It should also be noted here that our sins are forgiven us, as the blood of Christ was shed on the cross, and our faith should turn to this. We know that the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is worthy, even when Christ was a child and was circumcised. But the shedding of Christ's blood in his infancy, in circumcision, was not ordained to assure our conscience at all. So also in the supper, although the blood was essential (which I do not speak of), it was not ordained for that purpose by God, but on the cross. For in the third chapter of John, when the Lord speaks of faith to Nicodemus, he introduces the figure of the exalted serpent in the wilderness, revealing to us the secret counsel of God, how through the word of the cross we attain life and salvation. For this purpose, many Scriptures have been written, as in Colossians 2, that our sins are pinned to the cross, and other places. And because the testament is fulfilled in death alone, as it is clearly stated in Hebrews, true faith gives us the natural interpretation, as it says: "This is the cup of the new testament"; or also: "This is my blood of the new testament", that we learn so much that we have here a proclamation through the cup of thanksgiving, what consolation we are to receive from the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ. And it is no new thing that the covenant or testament is called a sign of the covenant or testament; as it seems to be in the first book of Moses in the 17th chapter: "And I will set my covenant between me" etc. There testament or covenant is called a sign of the covenant.
1) See Col. 1786. 1807 f.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
From the explanation of my Lord Doctor concerning the words of the cup, I answer the first: that the word "of it" should be referred to the preceding word, I do not confess; for the words thus stand, "Drink ye all of it, it is my blood." So he did not tell them to drink the linen or wooden cup, but what he had said, and offered them, "Drink from it, all of you." What else did he command them to drink? What else did he offer them, but to multiply the words: 2) "This is my blood"?
Oecolampadius.
It is known that one should direct the relativa, that is, the repugnant little words, to the preceding; therefore the little word "from it" would be an incomprehensible word, if it did not go to the preceding word, namely, the cup. For it does not say: He has taken the blood. It is well known that there was wine in the cup, and it is not important that the evangelist already calls it the cup. One does not say: Drink the cup, or: Drink the cup, but: Drink from the cup. Is well to be understood per syecdoches, if one
also speaks of the cup already, that one may understand with it, which is understood by it. As Paul says: "The cup is the new testament" etc. Therefore his words are not urgent. And that he says, "What else has he given them but to offer the words? iterum petit principium; desire to prove with that which is in the cup. For we do not confess to him that the words are of the content and meaning as he speaks of them.
On Jenner's 18th day.
Parish priest of Sanct Gallen.
To the explanation of the cup, done by me, in which I asked my Lord Doctor such things to explain his understanding, and answered me, as in the Actis versasset, which I now lack from his introduced speech, I will have given such answer summarie: All that Christ ever did, if it is to be fruitful and useful to us, is to be understood and accepted by us in faith and spirit. But that the outward things should not be set apart, as, "Eat, this is my body;" and, "Drink, this is my blood;" otherwise Christ would have taken the bread in his hands, and given thanks, and said: Take and eat, this is to remember me.
2) "multiply" - contain.
The word "this is my body" is not needed. Such to the cup, he would have given thanks, and given them, saying: Drink from it, all of you! Whenever you drink such things, do it in remembrance of me! and the words, "This is my blood," would not need to be there; for the other words, to keep remembrance and show gratitude, would be enough. For ever in the words of Christ there is not Yes and No, but Yes [is] Jk, and No [is] No, 2. Epist. to Corinth, at the 1st Cap. By which alone every believer in Christ should understand word, faith, and outward things put together; that we should be thankful [for] the cup, that the blood of Christ might be given us, and proclaim his death. As for the other point, if it is called the blood of the New Testament, let it be understood that it is written in the first book of Moses, in the seventeenth place, in these words: "Circumcise all the males, and circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Here notice every listener and also reader that the text of the covenant half interprets itself, it is only a sign If it stood here in the words of the supper: It is a sign of the testament or blood, then I would be assured in this place. But it is written clearly, without any interpretation: "This is my blood, of the new testament", and not one meaning. Doctor, our conscience is not yet assured to admit any other understanding. From the place, iterum petit principia, on the conclusion that there is not essentially and bodily the flesh and blood of Christ, we have contrasted Matthaeum and Paulum with their words, for ever God is almighty and true. So the word enim is added to the word of the cup, which is a fortification and explanation, in which explanation of the word enim it is to be understood what one drinks.
Oecolampadius.
The fact that Mr. Benedict often indicates that God is true would be unnecessary here. No one can deny him this. It is a question of the meaning of the words; he has a presumption that the wine should be the blood of Christ, because Christ has such words: "This is my blood! Otherwise he would have omitted the words and would have said badly: Do this in remembrance of me! But it proves not to be so, for knowing that the word is to go to the element, it is to become a sacrament, and would it be necessary to indicate why remembrance should be kept, and why thanksgiving should be given? Such is
but declares in the words, "This is my body, which is given for you." And therefore it is not declared therein that the bread is essentially the body, or the wine blood; as he also confessed this before, and besides this he did not add his synecdoche, that the words, "This is my body," should mean as much as: under this, or in this, is my body, therefore it still hangs at the beginning. Nor does the little word enim help him, but is rather against him, because it has in its nature to indicate the cause of the preceding speech or action; and serves well for interpretation. I give him an example in the first epistle to the Corinthians in the 11th chapter, where Paul said: "Do this in my memory as often as you drink. When he explains this further and says the reason, he says: Quotiescunque enim, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, proclaim the death of the Lord. And this is also indicated in the 10th chapter of the reported epistle. As to that which he supposes, the place taken from the 17th chapter of the first book of Moses does not serve them in the matter; there it is written first thus, "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and your seed after you." It is true that the text interprets itself, as it says: "that it may be a sign of the covenant between me" etc. But every man of understanding, who has practiced eyes of mind, should learn from one place of Scripture the others in like cases. And therefore, when ceremonies are compared here with ceremonies, and Lucas and Paul, who speak more clearly, expressly say that the cup is the New Testament, and at the same time say, "This do in my memory," they give the interpretation into our hands in other words. Or, my lord priest, tell us what he calls the New Testament? so that the conscience may be assured. For if he thus obscures the clear saying with his unproven interpretation, he will not assure his conscience, nor any. But it will be found that the saying is clear to us, and that the apostles understood it according to our understanding.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
On responsibility of my Lord Doctor, about my registered speech, much so brought forward by him, I leave the listeners and readers to recognize such. From the little word enim, with comparison of Paul's saying, I understand by the word enim, so translated "for", be a sufficient explanation of the words, so in one sense and mind about a same thing.
is to be understood by the figure, in the first book of Moses at the 17th chapter. Where there would be such, as indicated before in my first speech, I let it remain. On the saying of Luke, the cup is the new testament in my blood, it is to be understood to everyone that he does not speak in my wine. Certainly also the cup, the new testament of Christ, may and should be confirmed by the word: "This do in my remembrance"; if it is called a remembrance, the essence is not cut off, for the remembrance not only of absent things, but also of present things, are many times, as that various indents of Scripture may be brought in, as, in the 2nd book of Genesis at the 12th chapter, the word "in my remembrance" is used. Book of Moses at the 12th chapter the lamb was the lamb, and nevertheless the memory was kept of that, so God the Lord showed them in the benefit. The rest is found in the first given answer.
Zwingli.
To settle the matter, I ask our dear brothers to let us know recently what the New Testament is? And if St. Paul calls it to the Hebrews in the 8th chapter, that it is that he will be merciful to our iniquities and our sins, and will never remember our transgressions, as also Jeremiah is in the 31st chapter, will they forbear?
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
To the question I answer that the New Testament is pardon and remission of sins in the blood of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the first chapter of the first John: "The blood of Jesus cleanses us from our sins".
Zwingli.
Now if the testament is the free remission of sin, it is already established, and our brethren made sure, that if it is said, The drink is the new testament, the drink is not the testament; from which then they learn that the word "testament" is in the place as much as a sign of the testament.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
That the drink is not the new testament is to be understood and added: "in my blood". For such understanding Matthew gives very brightly and clearly when he says: "This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for the forgiveness of sin. Therefore, once again, the trade is not conquered, or the saying of Matthew is not sufficiently explained, as our Lord and brother would have us believe.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
Our question is whether the drink is the testament, and not how the testament was obtained. We do not deny that the remission of sin was purchased for us by the shed blood of Christ, but such words as these establish our ground that the blood of Christ itself is not the testament, but the value by which the testament (which is the remission of sin) was purchased for us. The letter reads: the drink is the testament, so the remission of sin is the testament; so the word testament does not actually have to be taken here.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
For the interpretation of the words presented by Master Ulrich, Matthew and Marcus explain that the testament, which the Lord called the testament, was presented to the disciples, which he then completed on the cross with the shedding of his blood.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
This is not an answer to what we are exploring. We know well what Matthew and Marcus say. We ask them if they realize that the futile indulgence of sin is the testament?
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
My mind is answered before enough that the New Testament is forgiveness of sin.
Zwingli.
Now I ask them: whether there are two new wills, or only one?
Pastor.
I answer: It is a new testament alone.
Zwingli.
Thus it follows that no potion may be the New Testament.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
Answer I: No drink can be the new testament, but the blood of Christ; as he spoke through Matthew, "This is my blood of the new testament," and Lucas also says, "in my blood. "etc.
Zwingli.
These are their own words: no potion may be the new testament; the blood of Christ is a potion (as they speak): so the blood of Christ must not be the new testament.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
Ne fiat processus in infinitum, et ex Theologo Aristotelicus, I command the reader to recognize such in the Actis.
Zwingli.
It follows, then, that the words, the drink is the new testament, must not be understood badly nor essentially, but that by metonymiam, 1) that is, by a taking, the drink of the supper is called a testament, and yet is not a testament; but only receives the name from him that it is a sign. But that the blood of Christ is not the testament is taught by the words of Paul himself, when he speaks of it from hours later: "in my blood". Which sense Matthew and Marcus express by the words, "Which blood is shed for the multitude, for the remission of sins." Hope, then, our brethren perceive that we do not mean by the saying (Gen. 17, where circumcision is called a testament) to enforce that therefore these words also must be understood a sign of the testament; but, as we have here enforced in the words themselves, and with the thorough promise of the testament, that the drink is not essentially the testament, we then draw in like places of Scripture, where one learns the manner of speaking the divine word.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
We will leave it at our previous answer.
Zwingli.
And therefore we leave it with our explanation. But that half of the paschal lamb is indicated, the paschal lamb was present, and meant nevertheless the Egyptian redemption, also meant the little lamb, we say that the lamb could not mean itself. Also the annual feast was not instituted in memory of a lamb, but in memory of the Egyptian redemption, 2 Mos. 12, from which we may well note that as the lamb did not signify itself, but the Egyptian redemption, so the corpse of Christ is not a memorial of the corpse of Christ, but as the lamb, an outward sign in the remembrance and thanksgiving of the Egyptian redemption, was an important sign in which the church, that is, the people of Israel, publicly stood up to one another, so also in the church of Christ, so the thanksgiving of the Egyptian redemption.
1) metonymia == interchange of one word with another.
If we have committed to the Holy Spirit our salvation, the bread and wine carried therein will signify outwardly our inward agreement of faith, by which we have relied on the death of Christ Jesus. And so it is still certain that a present thing may not be a memorial or signification of itself.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
That the bread and wine alone are such, we do not confess again, so we rely on our registered explanation, so we will perhaps decide further, in indication of their reasons, with the grace of God.
Zwingli.
We also refer to the reasons and explanation given by us from the clear Word of God.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
Further explanation from the bright word of God against the fourth conclusion we take before us the words of Paul in 1 Corinth. 11, which read thus: "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Here Paul opens: "Not he that keepeth unworthy remembrance, but he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood: for in no bad bread and wine, under which is no essence of the body or blood of Christ, shall we eat death. The like Paul in the following words: "Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, in that he distinguisheth not the body of the Lord." Here Paul speaks publicly, and nowhere reports the meaning of the body and blood of the Lord.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
The first words of Paul: "Who then shall eat and drink the bread and drink of the Lord unworthily" etc., signify to us their understanding before themselves, when he thus speaks: "Who then shall eat the bread. There we hear that he calls it bread. And if he meant us guilty of the eaten corpse, he should have said, "He who now eats the corpse unworthily," and not, "He who eats the bread unworthily. Then follows: "Even to drink the drink of the Lord is unworthy. But call it drink, and not blood. But this little word "worthy" means as much in Paul and Luca 3 as skilful, appropriate or belonging. From this it can be seen that here "unworthy" is not to be understood that the man
neywan 1) would be worthy enough of the smallest gifts of God. In addition, those who spiritually sneeze the body of Christ, which is much different food, neither that which is bodily, of which they say that God has made him worthy. From this it follows that "worthy eating" is nothing else, neither to come here with the right faith; "unworthy eating", however, nothing else, neither to come here without faith. But since faith is unitedly required, not to believe that flesh and blood are eaten bodily (for that is sufficiently established that we therefore have no promise of God's word), but to believe that the living Son of God has redeemed us with his death. It follows further in the words of Paul: "he becomes guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," seeing that he has eaten unworthily, but to which he has falsely given himself up; That is, he does not mean to say that one is guilty in the body eaten, but that whoever does not believe that he redeemed and cleansed us with his body and blood, does not trust in the Son of God, but goes to the church that renounces such trust and faith, 2) and he is not a believer nor a confidant. As if one bears an outer sign of his lords of Bern, but inwardly does not keep faith with a people of Bern, he will be guilty of those of Bern, even though he may not have killed them. Or, if one of the lords of Berne has wronged, beaten or stabbed, he has not beaten or stabbed the lords of Berne, but is nevertheless guilty of having beaten and wronged the lords of Berne. The last words of Pauli: "But whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment or condemnation unto himself, if he choose not the body of the Lord," have the meaning that whosoever goeth to the supper of unworthy thanksgiving, and is not rightly confident in the Lord Jesus Christ, he esteemeth the supper nothing else, neither any other common meal; He does not value the death of Christ anywhere, which death is given to us to understand by the word "corpse", as we have indicated enough before, 3) that when one speaks of the death of Christ, the prophets, evangelists and apostles speak of it by the word "corpse". It is also found in Christ's own words: "This is my body. Do this in remembrance of me," we are not told.
1) "neywan" will be the same as "neißwen" (neißwa) - about, any. See St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 676. 678. 702 and 1331.
2) "to forget" - to confess.
3) See Col. 1791 ff.
are called thanksgiving to the corpse, but to the death suffered in the corpse. So he who does not appear here in the supper with right faith does not judge the corpse, that is, the death of Christ; that is, he does not appreciate it anywhere. It also strikes me as natural sense that he touches the Corinthians here because they (as previously heard4) ) also appeared in the idolatrous banquets; and thus wants to say: Whoever does not come to the supper with right faith, ever disparages and despises the church of Christ. (For the church is also called the body of Christ.) And therefore I will say to them, Whosoever shall appear in the feast of idols, let him remember nothing for the sake of conscience. Now if there be any of you that charge the supper of Christ with anything unskilful, 5) it is evident that he cometh to the supper without conscience, and without remembrance, even as he appeared in the idolatrous feasts, and despiseth the death and the church of Christ. And so they have proved nothing with the words.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
A long explanation that Master Ulrich has given about our introduced sayings. As indicated before, we let the mind, according to his words, know the reader, that every man may be sure of his own mind, Rom. 14. But that he thinks that Paul calls it bread, therefore it is bread: it is certain that it is a custom of Scripture, that several times a thing keeps the name out of which it is made; as man is called earth, because he is formed of earth, Gen. 2. 2 Also the serpent of Moses kept the name of Ruth, so the text says: "The rod of Aaron swallowed up the rods of the sorcerers. Therefore the name, introduced by Master Ulrich, is not especially tried. Similarly we have Jeremiah 11: "We will let the wood in his bread" etc., where by the word bread is understood body. I would have thought that if it were the mind of Paul in this place, as he calls it, bread, he would also have reported the word wine. Introduced by the sign, we, as arguments rationis, let the hearer and reader therefore recognize.
Zwingli.
We can see that often a thing takes the name of what it is made of, but this does not serve here. For if the body of Christ were made of the bread, here would be the relation of the bread to the body of Christ.
4) See Col. 1792.
5) "Unskilled" - inconsistency. St. Louis Edition, Vol. XX, 1401.
They do not recognize the substance of the bread in the substance of the body of Christ, which substance they do not recognize with us, and they do so justly and Christianly; for if it were otherwise, not only would the lineage or seed of Abraham be accepted, but also the lineage or seed of the grain, as has been sufficiently explained above. 1) The saying of Jeremiah 11, which has a different meaning, which is not commonly mentioned, does not need to be answered for, according to its meaning, it does not argue against us. The fact that Paul calls it drinking utensils or drink for and for, and not wine, may not help. For such enough is signified by the expressed words "bread"; for aequi-pollentia, that is, equivalent speeches, maintain one another in the same mind. We also recommend this to all people who believe in Christ, according to the Scriptures.
Zwingli continued.
Upon request to present our reasons, we give this answer in the name of God, asking Him in advance that He, by divine grace, grant us not to think against His holy word, so that neither those who teach nor those who hear may do anything of their own counsel. First of all, that Christ our Savior Himself spoke thus in the 6th chapter of John: "The bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." From these words we know that Christ calls Himself the Life-Giver, according to the divine nature and power. Now if that alone makes alive, it follows that his flesh, eaten in the flesh, does not make alive, but by the effect of the divine Spirit alone, believed in us, suffered death for us, which is no different, neither being assured of God's mercy by his death; for if God gave his own Son for us, that he might reconcile us to himself, what would be denied us by him? Secondly, that there he says: "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me (that is, knows me and trusts in me, as follows thereafter) will never hunger, and whoever trusts in me will never thirst." In which words we see publicly that trust is the prize, the highest and the right, and whoever feels this, asks no further for other means to comfort or assure him. The same as in human dealings; 3) who of a thing itself with sight, hearing, and
1) See Col. 1776 f.
2) "nienen" - nowhere.
3) "Handeling" put by us instead of: "hands".
Experienced is reported, he does not need that another tells him of that which he himself knows for certain: so also faith is a certain and undoubted thing, that a man relies on God, and knows whom he believes, and does not need that one directs him for assurance neither to food, nor to drink. For where there is assurance in the Spirit (which assurance is living faith), there is no hunger or thirst for further assurance or comfort; or else those who have begun in the Spirit must first seek comfort in the flesh, even in the flesh eaten, and be perfected, which Paul reproaches to the Galatians on the 3rd verse. For this reason we see from faith and the assurance of God that food does not profit us, but faith; for we take food for faith. Other pieces, with which is indicated, also John 6, is not necessary to mention further. Thirdly, that Christ (after the Jews, by the word "eat," by which he meant "trust," fell to crying that his flesh must be eaten bodily) gives them the answer, "The Spirit is that maketh alive; the flesh is of no use at all." Now we know without a doubt that the flesh of Christ brought much benefit, but killed, and as much as God has modeled a Christian life in it for us in His life and walk, but to eat it bodily is of no use, for it must be the Spirit alone that makes the soul alive. Thus we are not fed in the sacrament with bodily flesh and blood, so they are of no use. Fourth, that the articles of faith, "He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and [from] thenceforth is to judge the quick and the dead," may not suffer Him to be eaten here bodily, let us say, on His account. For we know from Luca 2 that he grew after mankind, and increased in age and wisdom etc. From this we can see that his humanity was not infinite and immeasurable according to the Godhead, but was drawn in and measurable according to the human substance. From this alone it follows that his humanity cannot be orderly in more than one place, although the power of God is everywhere. Therefore, he may not be ordained bodily with us, according to Marci's word on the 16th and Lucas Apost. 1, until the day when he will sit in judgment etc., according to the articles of faith. Fifthly, Paul speaks to the Hebrews on the 2nd: "He did not take the angelic nature (in which the nature of all the highest and lowest creatures will be).
understood), but the seed of Abraham he took unto himself, that he might be like unto the brethren whom he should redeem for ever" etc. In which words we can see that he did not say the words: "This is my body", so that the bread and wine is his body and blood, or else the bread and wine must have been accepted by him as well as the humanity, and so that, he must also have submitted himself to the redemption of bread and wine, of which enough has been said. 1) In the sixth place Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5: "Therefore we know no man after the flesh: and though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet know we him no more after the flesh" etc. In which words we also see that Paul does not seek anything in the outward flesh of Christ concerning salvation. In the seventh place, we also want to show the place of Matthew 24, where Christ denounces those false prophets who would show Christ here or there. For they that shew him in the bread shew him more confoundedly, neither they that say, He is in the house; or, He is in the field. Therefore, if we are forced by the light of such mighty places of Scripture not to understand these words, "This is my body," of the bodily, essential body of Christ, we recognize that these words must have another sense neither "essential." And if the paschal lamb in the Old Testament was a foreshadowing of the true Lamb of Christ, who not only led the Israelites out of Egypt, but also redeemed the whole world from the power of the devil and damnation, then we recognize that the Holy Spirit, through whom the Scriptures are written (2 Pet. 1), used the words in the mouth of Christ Jesus, which he also used before in the pre-signifying thanksgiving, so that he would be found breathing in all his words. Now it is written in Genesis 12: "And you shall eat the paschal lamb thus: Your loins shall be girded, your shoes on your feet, and staves in your hands; ye shall also eat it with haste: this is the Lord's transgression." Here we see that the paschal lamb was not the overleaping or the overleaping, but that the feast or wedding day, on which again one gives thanks to God for the overleaping, since he overleapt them, and slew the Egyptian firstborns; that the lamb is called the overleaping because it is a common measure, 2) or external, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental, or sacramental.
1) See Col. 1776 f.
2) "measure" - meal; put by us instead of: "maß". Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 1140.
The word hebraice xxx (Hu) was a common food used with one another in the same thanksgiving. And this word, hebraice xxx (Hu), in this place means as much as: It is a memory, it is a figure, it is a meaning. From this we see that the present words, "This is my body", do not mean anything else, neither the feast nor the bread that was carried on the feast of thanksgiving, are not called the body of Christ in such a way that they are essential and bodily, or that it is eaten bodily and essential among them, but that they are the common sign that is carried around in the supper, which signifies and is a figure or reincarnation of the body of Christ, killed for us. Here our opponents are offended, and think that it is sacrilege to interpret the word "is" by "signifies"; whereas we say, "If they violate this word signify, let not the word "in remembrance of me" be violated. For though we say "signifies" or "is a figure," we mean nothing else by it, neither that it is a remembrance, and our words "signifies" or "is a figure" do not mean anything more, 3) than the word of Christ: "Thuts meinen zu gedenken," is able to do. In addition, Ambrose used the word "signify," Jerome the same for the word repraesentandi, Tertullianus figura existendi. All of which we will leave aside for now, and only indicate that we are neither bringing new opinions nor new words onto the track etc. Lastly, the apostles, in their histories in chapter 2, did not keep the custom of the supper any differently than we indicate. There it says: "But they were wholly attached to the apostles' doctrine, and to the church, and to the breaking of bread, and to prayer." Here we see the simplicity of Luca's description, that he does not call it the sharing of the body and blood of Christ, but the breaking of bread (and is alloeosis, ubi e duobus comparibus alterum nomenclaturam obtinet). This we indicate for the reasons and divisions 4) of the Scriptures, which have forced us to the understanding, because we also believe every word of God. And if the words are publicly found to be contrary to each other (according to the first appearance), then we call to judgment the similarity of faith, 5) with the instrument or letter of Scripture. There are many more reasons that we would like to give, but for the sake of brevity we will spare them.
3) "To eradicate" here cannot mean anything else than: to express.
4) "Trenng" (Trang) - urge, compulsion.
5) XualoAia ückei.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
On the probation inserted for a perfect explanation of the fourth conclusion, some sayings from the 6th chapter of St. John's have been introduced. John, previously explained; we order as before. Among which is one, namely, "The flesh is of no use, it is the Spirit that makes us alive." From all of which we understand, not to multiply or to be contrary to the bodily use of Christ's body, but from the carnal judgment or understanding; for carnal was to doubt him to be a son of Joseph, how he might give them his flesh to eat, who in other many things opened many other supernatural deeds, in the passing of the Red Sea, in the feeding of the bread of heaven, and in other miraculous works, written by Moses. Now, if the figure or meaning of Christ's body is useful or good, how much more the essence, which is to be signified by it, in Himself? For Christ, not only taken bodily, without spirit and faith, but also crucified, paying for our sin, is unfruitful. There is also a similar explanation of this saying, which may be found in the Scriptures, by which bodily touching, with the Spirit present, the lepers are cleansed. Now should the body or flesh be useless, which is received of the Holy Spirit, in whom all the perfections of the Godhead are habituated? zun Colossians 2. Bear on him this understanding: If a man does it spiritually, that is, if he does it in his heart, it is good and useful. For as the art makes puffed up for itself, but with love it is useful: so also the body of Christ, not only crucified, but also bodily, enjoyed with the Spirit, may not be useless. So much is our understanding in this saying; for where the little word "my flesh is of no use" would be found, we would be well resolved.
Oecolampadius.
In answer to Mr. Benedict's first objection, I say that in all interpretations of Scripture we should be well aware of what precedes and follows, and thus remain on track with the interpretation. Now it is evident that this chapter speaks of the eating of the flesh of Christ. Therefore it is proper to interpret these words in the same way; and if Christ speaks of his flesh, his flesh is not excluded in these words. However, let us look at the text. There was a disquiet among many of the disciples of the Lord because of the words that were spoken, and yet some of them were not disquieted because of them, after that they had heard the
received from Christ. So Christ explained his word further, and said in an interrogative way, "Does this offend you?" meaning that he had spoken of his flesh that it should be eaten. And he put a short interrupted question: "Well, if you see the Son of Man ascending when he was before, and do not fulfill the speech, but will say to them, "If I go to heaven, will you also be angry? As if to say, Certainly not; but if ye receive the Holy Ghost, ye shall know abundantly, ye shall teach others also, how all sufficiency, how all comfort and satisfaction, and true life, is in trusting in Christ, the true bread of heaven. And then teach them further how such saturation and feeding is done, namely, when the Spirit is given to them. "For the Spirit is he that quickeneth." While they still saw the person of Christ in the flesh, they were much hindered from the knowledge and consolation of the Spirit, as the Lord himself says to them in this evangelist Cap. 16: "Unless I go away, the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, does not come." Now the Spirit who gives life is the Spirit sent by Christ; and here it says "give life," it does not say "give understanding," although it is the work of One Spirit. And then follows: "The flesh is of no use"; and there is another Greek word, xxxxx, which confirms the denial. As if he wanted to say: Yes, not at all useful. This then is to be understood according to the present matter of which we are now speaking. It is far from us to call the worthy divine flesh useless! But thus, as the Lord Himself has said, we say that it is useless, because it is not ordained for that purpose; and thus we are assured of the will of God, that He did not ordain the noble flesh for such bodily eating. Therefore, his probation here does nothing against the order of God. Nor is there anything wrong with the fact that the word "my" is not included; if a Greek article is included, it has the power to imply something further, as we also have in the beginning of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word, xai 0 xxxxx
xx xxxx xxx xxxx." There is an article, <5, which does so much for us that we recognize that the word was with God. And as it is not written with the name "spirit": my spirit, and yet it is the spirit of Christ that gives life, so it is also not necessary that it be written with the word "flesh": my flesh. Therefore his interpretation, when he says that the carnal mind is not useful, is a forced gloss. And the Lord speaks one more word, and brings the chapter into a summa,
saying, "The words I speak to you are the spirit and the life," that is, as I have said to you. So believing and trusting makes us alive, and shows the Spirit of God in us; which if a Christian is assured in his heart, he will gladly be content with the comfort.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
Firstly, our introduced explanation about the attracted words, with given answer, for the sake of brevity we command it to the Actis and the Christian reader.
Oecolampadius. '
We also command the Church of Christ, and all Christian readers.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
Of the three articles of faith, namely, that he ascended into heaven, let all Christian hearts know that since Christ instituted the supper with the words, "Take, eat; this is my body," he was still on earth with his disciples, and did not yet ascend into heaven; therefore, that he ascended into heaven by divine power, as he had spoken before in mortal life, he cannot be present. Because Christ, according to our common faith, as we confess him to be one with the Father, John 10, and to have been given all authority in heaven and on earth, should he not know the ways and means of communicating his body by the power of the words he has often spoken? For when he was born naturally and lived, as stated by Master Ulrich Luke in chapter 2, he did many supernatural things in the body out of divine power and might, such as the story of the distribution of the five loaves to the five thousand people, without what remained. For as we by order of God and nature may see with our eyes the many of men, and there be but one eye, or two, and one word heard in many ears, so we consider him that speaketh these things. And because it happened before the ascension, the word "he ascended" should not be contrary to it.
Martinus Butzer.
That we put on the articles of faith, told before, to prove that the body of Christ may not be eaten bodily in bread, Paul also gave us cause in 1 Cor. 11, when he speaks of the supper, and says that we proclaim His death until He comes; and knew there nevertheless how He can be everywhere, even as He is present in the supper.
But in a short time the matter has the meaning: through heaven we understand the spiritual glorious essence of the Godhead, as when we pray: "Our Father in heaven!" not that the visible heavens may understand God the Lord. If then the Scriptures reproach us with the fact that our Lord has ascended into heaven, we understand that he has been taken from us according to humanity into the invisible glory of God, in which he will remain at the right hand of the Father, that is, in the highest power, until the last judgment, when he will first return in the flesh. From this I obviously conclude that if the order of God holds that Christ Jesus should not be with us bodily after His ascension, then He may even less be eaten bodily in bread. The time for him to be with us bodily and to be acted upon by us has long since ended; through his Spirit and power to make us blessed, he will be with us until the end of the world. And with this argument it is proved that Christ cannot be bodily in the sacrament since he ascended to heaven. But that he was not bodily in the bread of the sacrament in the supper, the disciples have seen enough. He ever remained bodily and visibly seated with them; so he did not have two bodies, that one had been in the bread, and the other had served the bread; so the truth of man's body did not suffer him to have been a human body and also bread; moreover, this reproach indicates as if our brethren thought that we eat something else in the supper than the disciples ate. That it is further alleged that Christ is one with the Father, therefore he may well, by virtue of the words of the supper, bodily distribute his body to us in the bread; this does not conclude. For although according to the Godhead Christ is one with the Father, yet his humanity remains a true humanity, unmixed with the Godhead, and his body a true human body. Therefore, after the manner of the human body, he may be in only one place. His body is indeed [as they say caro Verbi, a flesh taken from the Word, but still a true flesh. And our hope is that our flesh also will be like his flesh in immortality and blessedness, because he has taken our flesh, our true nature, and brought it to such glory. He has done many supernatural things here on earth, but not that he did not let his body be a true human body. However, he has not been present everywhere in this way. It is a characteristic of the divine nature. The parables, introduced, rhyme
neither is it. It is very far from one another that one eye should take the form of many, and one word be received by many ears, for that a true natural body, which is to have its own greatness and lydmaß 1), is in many places. And in that we thus confess that our Lord has a true natural human body, yet nowunder clarified, we do not diminish His glory at all, but make it great; namely, that we praise Him so well and graciously above us, that He has become our brother, and will become like us in all things (sin alone excepted), that through Him we may become children of God.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
That which has been introduced at length, about our understanding of the first article of faith, has been written down by us, will be more superfluously brought forward in the explanation of the other two articles; therefore we recently decide on the answer which has been introduced, and command the reader. For only because we believe in Christ Jesus, according to the article of faith, as being supernaturally conceived, supernaturally born of the mother; therefore all these things, so to be accounted for, we commit to the omnipotence of God, against which there is nothing to be said nor done, as we have testified several times. On the article of faith, which reads: "He sits at the right hand of his heavenly Father," we cannot understand this in any other way, because he was and remains, according to the Godhead, of the same nature, power and glory all along, it is to be understood, sitting at the right hand according to mankind, because everything is subject to him according to the Godhead, Psalm 8. 8. for it is written John 17: "I have glorified you, Father, on the earth; I have done the work which you gave me to do. Now glorify thou me with thyself with the clarity which I had with thee before the world was." In the same way also to the Hebrews on the 2nd: "Thou hast diminished him a little among the angels." The same also, when he came in at the closed doors, and out of the grave, showed all things, and tasted the ineffable union of the divine nature with the human being. As it was introduced earlier by my Lord Butzer that he was taken from us according to humanity into the invisible glory of God, which glory of God fills heaven and earth, the right hand of God is not a special place. From this all, where the body of Christ would have to be in a special place,
1) "Lydmaß" probably - limbs.
he would be called Theophorus, that is, having God in him through grace alone. Is therefore finally our mind (but reserved all the way, where we did not believe or hold right, Christian report), from which now Christ bodily in the bread of thanksgiving to be enjoyed, against the other article is not to be understood.
Butzer.
To the first we say: Our Lord was born miraculously and supernaturally, but still a true man, who had a human body, and still, after the manner of human nature, can only be in one place; thus we do not deny the omnipotence of God. God likes all things, but acts according to what he indicates by his own word. Therefore, if he says that our Lord is a true man, he proves his power over him, so that he remains such. For the other article we are so much one that we confess with them that Christ is exalted to the right hand of the Father according to the human race. But that they go on to say that the right hand of God is everywhere, therefore the humanity of Christ may also be everywhere, or in many places at once, we say that this does not follow at all. Our Lord Jesus, according to humanity, is exalted to the right hand of God, that is, he has been given the greatest authority and is exalted above all creatures, but all this, as he himself confesses, according to humanity, that he nevertheless remained a true man. Therefore, even though the glory and power of God are everywhere, the man Christ does not have to be everywhere, because mankind has not become deity. We also wait to come to such glory according to our measure, but nevertheless we will be in one place according to the body. But since it is further understood that the body of Christ must be in one place, it would follow that he should properly be called Theophorus, that is, a God-bearer, as not being God himself; we say no to that. He is a true God, and according to the Godhead everywhere; but he is also a true man; according to the same he is everywhere in only one place. For the divine Scripture does not describe man in any other way. And truly, such an accusation smacks of a grave error, of which we by no means want to reproach our dear brothers, as if mankind in Christ were mixed with the Godhead, or if Christ had not been a true man. Nor does it serve them at all that they have brought forth that the Lord came out of the grave, and after that to the disciples,
When the doors were closed, he left. It is not written that he went to the tomb that had been decided upon, or that he came out through the stone, or that he went to the disciples through the door that had been decided upon, but in the evening, when the doors had been decided upon. But, take this as you will, it is of no avail that the true body of Christ should be bodily in many places at once. Therefore, the words of the Lord spoken in the supper, as has been proven elsewhere, do not indicate this.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
About my explanation of the other article, so that all action without further entry may be finished with the help of God on today's day, I order my speech and answer against it, for the promotion of the trade, likewise my co-liabilities, again to the Christian reader.
Butzer.
We do that, too.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
On the third article of faith: "From then on he is to judge the living and the dead" etc., as the saying of Paul 1 Corinthians at the 11th chapter is referred to before, that we are to keep the remembrance of the Lord until he comes, and thus proclaim his death, from which it is to be understood that we are not to refrain from keeping such his benefit of suffering with the Christian attitude of the supper until the end of the world. For Christ himself did not cut off the earth invisibly, but the words in this place, as also in the apostles' history at the 1st Cap. of a glorious mighty future and visible opening, are to be understood as a judge of the living and the dead. As he says in the last chapter of Matthew: "I am with you to the end of the world." On the other hand, the Scripture reports: The poor ye have with you always, but me ye shall not have always." This is to be understood as Paul decides in 2 Corinthians 5: "And if we know Jesus, we do not do it according to the flesh," which is to be understood only in terms of outward, visible attendance. For we have ever known Christ suster 1) according to common faith, our brother in the flesh. Our brother in the flesh, and confess ourselves redeemed. So he will no longer attend us in contempt, but will come (that is, reveal himself) in the glory of his Father,
1) "suster" - else.
with his angels, Matthäi at the 26th Cap. Is therefore the birth 2) and ascension of Christ finally to be understood as a confirmation of all the words and works of Christ, which Moses and the prophets and all the Scriptures have testified about him. From this I finally conclude, all the way to a Christian conclusion: if he has spoken the words of the supper before his ascension, the ascension is not contrary to the words.
Bucerus.
My pastor, who thinks that the third article, "from then on he is to be judged in the future," etc. with other scriptures, which indicate that the Lord has gone from us bodily to the Father, and will not be judged again until the judgment, does not bring more than that the Lord is no longer visibly, bodily with us, and does not suggest that he may be with us bodily, but still invisibly. Then we say, we remain with the simple, bright and dry Scripture, which tells us that he has gone from us to the Father in the flesh, and has left the world. The Scriptures do not teach us of the middle way, that he is with us bodily, and yet invisibly. Otherwise, Paul would have made something of his words; namely, when he speaks of the bread of the supper, in which our antitype thinks he has Christ bodily. Christians should take heed of Paul's words: "For as often as ye eat of this bread," etc. That we are reproached, but once, that the words of the supper were spoken before he ascended into heaven, that is before accountable. 3) The last thing, that the Lord promised to be with us until the end of the world, is also pre-accounted for. 3) Through his Spirit, the Comforter, he will never leave his own, and is neither useful nor necessary, according to his own words, to be with us in body. So also is answered, and perhaps will be further explained, which is drawn from 2 Cor. 5.
To the 19th day of Jenner.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
Highly learned, prudent, wise, gracious gentlemen, and Christian brothers, as you are gathered here! The resolution, which I offered to tell you about yesterday, with a short report about the fourth conclusion, I therefore present: So my conscience stands now, therefore my desire is that no one should harm me (God may always give His grace!):
2) "Urstände" - resurrection.
3) See Col. 1826 f.
namely, that I confess to have been so informed by the counter-writings and explanations of my beloved lords and brothers, Zwingli, Oecolampadii, and Buceri, that, when I have come to my senses at this time and am willing neither to engage in nor to contest this final speech, as has been done, I am in good hope that the grace of God, by which the light of truth has so seemingly opened up for some years, will also discover to me and others in the present transaction what is to be assumed of it without doubt, and thus I want to have reserved for myself at all times further report with God's word, and herewith have neither imposed nor taken anything from my co-liabilities who sat at this table. Commands such all in sum of divine enlightenment and the Christian reader.
Dominicus Zilli, Predicant at St. Gall.
Honorable, fursichtige, favorable gentlemen, Christian dear brothers! As we have been dispatched here by our lords, an honorable small and large council of the city of St. Gallen, to this discussion, in the opinion of the Lord's Supper repugnant, Mr. Benedict, the pastor there, has offered himself here present, also before an honorable council, to give and take a report, in the hope that he will also find a report; as then has happened. (Praise be to God the Lord!) Since he partly recognizes himself as having been reported, I ask God the Lord to give him and everyone else to understand the rest, and to have a heart to persevere in the same. Testify to me here before this honorable assembly, on behalf of our congregation in St. Gallen, that we have now been in this state for a long time. Gallen, that we have saved nothing for a long time now, and have put all our diligence into preaching the truth of Christ and His Word with one accord; we have also held many discussions with one another, according to the command of our lords, in which the pastor has not been able to answer anything, that I command everything to God the Lord, who may enlighten him in this article, and blind me according to his wonderful works, a terrible God, to whom be power and kingdom and thanksgiving forever and ever! Amen.
Parish priest of St. Gallen.
I leave [it] as I answered before.
Theobaldus Hüter, pastor of Appenzell.
"Take and eat, this is my body!" is often said this day, many times, many times.
Scripture there indicated, with speech and answer dargethan. However, Master Ulrich Zwingli, and others with him, want to use the word "is" to mean "to interpret", as if one should speak: This interprets my body etc., on the same something inserted with his declaration, to prove the little word Is on interpreting. Which declaration I do not accept, and that, I hope, with good cause. Namely, if the three evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Lucas make the declaration, and among all three of them none interpreted [the Is] to mean; likewise the chosen cask Paul also agrees with them; since it is well to be understood by every Christian man, if the opinion of the Lord had been on interpretation, it would have been cheerfully declared; some among them would have indicated or interpreted it to mean. For if the little word "is" were to be interpreted here, as they say, we might well suffer damage to our undoubted faith in other places, even if they wanted to call it that, namely John 1: "The Word became flesh. Item, Luc. 2: "Today the vessel of the world is born to us." Now, if in these two places the little word "is" is taken to mean, what will come of it in the future? Item, from the saying Joh. 6: "Flesh is of no use", yesterday presented at length by Benedictum, pastor of St. Gallen, Master Ulrich wants to draw with his declaration and understanding on the flesh of Christ, which I do not accept his understanding; for the Lord Jesus Christ badly says: "Flesh is of no use. Let out my flesh, which he spoke of before all things, and the more part where he speaks of his flesh: My flesh etc., where it is to be understood that the Lord did not speak of his flesh, but of the carnal mind. As the Lord also tells Petro Matth. 16: "Flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." Likewise also Paul in the first epistle to Corinth, in the 15th chapter, where he says: "Flesh and blood may not possess the kingdom of God" etc.; to Romans in the 8th chapter: "The wisdom of the flesh is ugly to God." Item, when they then always for and for all things draw on faith and trust, we also say that one should do it, but at the same time not forget love, so that we do not at times admit to faith what we ought to admit to the love of God, as Paul says: "If I had all faith, and not love, it would be of no use to me." For if we eat the precious treasure, true flesh and blood, we should always do so with faith, love and hope, as Paul exhorts us, that we may
We are told, as he wrote to the Corinthians, that "whoever does not eat this worthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. It follows that the flesh and blood of Christ are true. For if it were not there, but bad bread, the apostle Paul would probably have said: becomes guilty of the bread; and not: of the body of the Lord. I do not accept the gloss presented by Master Ulrich Zwingli on the little word "unworthy," because it is not sufficiently proven from biblical Scripture, as I hope. Item, from the sayings: "He has ascended to heaven; sit at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty", thereby supposing that he may no longer be with us bodily on earth, argues, therefore he may not be in the sacrament. So Mr. Martin Butzer cheerfully said that Christ may not be bodily in two places at the same time: I answer him that he has not well considered the omnipotence of God, as indicated by the holy evangelist Lucam, as the angel said to Mary: "It will not be impossible with God all word. When he was introduced, as he sits at the right hand of God, we also say. But that he may not now be with us bodily, we do not forbear, for we have expressed Scripture. In the 9th chapter of the Apostles: As Paul was going from Jerusalem to Damascum, and as he drew near Damascus, a glass 1) from heaven surrounded him. And as he fell to the ground, he heard a voice speaking to him: Pillar, pillar, why do you 2) punish me? Which said, Lord, who art thou? But he answered: I am Jesus, whom thou hast punished. Behold, Christians, how the Lord Jesus was with Paul before Damascus, and yet sat at the right hand of God his Father. Item, 1 Corinth. 15 Paul also indicates. Item, the saying of Marci in the 13th chapter: "If anyone should say to you, 'Here is Christ, there is he', you should not believe it. These words are not to be understood of our Sacrament, when we say that Christ is in the Sacrament in the form of wine and bread, as we undoubtedly believe to be His flesh and blood, but refer to the last time, in which the Lord warns: "There shall arise grievous sorrows and afflictions, which have never been since the foundation of the world. As the text before and after clearly indicates, this saying is not to be understood as referring to this sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.
1) "Glast" gloss.
2) "to pursue" - to persecute.
3) "etwer" - anyone. In the old edition: "etwar".
Zwingli.
Everything that is mentioned here has been sufficiently explained before, with very few exceptions. First, when he says, as I have said, that one should change "is" into "means," this is not what is meant, but "is" is taken for "means," or is used for "remembrance. Therefore it is not necessary in all places to take "is" for "means," but because Scripture and similarity of faith compel us to do so. That the apostles and evangelists wrote nowhere means is no wonder. We have shown sufficiently from the nature of their language, 4) that in such speech they use "is" for "means," so that no error can arise from it for the church. That he confessed against the saying, "The flesh is of no use," is explained and accounted for. 5) That he retracted, "The flesh and the blood have not revealed it to you," and the like places of Scripture, is not in dispute with us. That he thinks it is to be feared that we give too much to faith, because Paul destroys faith without love, he does not yet understand that Paul takes "believe," as St. James does in his epistle, for the sense or opinion of that which is believed; which sense and opinion many have with their mouths, but which they do not have in their hearts with confidence. It is certain that such faith is of no use. For it is not the faith that is said to make one blessed, for this same faith is an undoubted act and fervor of the human heart against God. "So he becomes guilty of the body and blood of Christ" is also answered for. Nor do we say that there is nothing in the Sacrament, but we recognize that in the Sacrament, apart from the bread and wine, the announcement of Christ's death takes place, not only in words, but in our hearts. This belongs to the Sacrament of the Supper. We do not confess that our Lord Jesus appeared to Paul in the 9th chapter of the Apostles and was nevertheless at the right hand of God. For if he had been in heaven, the appearance to Paul was ordained by the English ministry. As we have in the Acts at the 7th chapter, that God gave the law, with decree of the angels, and have but in the books of Moses, that God gave the law. Now if anyone would dispute, it would be contrary to each other, that in one place it would say, God spoke to Moses and gave the law, and in another place, He gave it by angels: He gave it through the angels, then we ever understand that such we-
4) See Col. 1821 f.
5) See Col. 1825.
The glory of God, which He works through His angels, is rightly attributed to Him as the first author and principal subject. But if it is said of the angels, it is nevertheless the glory of God, and only the substance of the angels appeared in a form that pleased God. This is also the case with the appearance of God to Abraham, to whom three angels appeared, according to the form. But if Christ appeared on earth in the person of his own body, his body is personal, because he was not at the right hand of God. For as little as our bodies are more than in one place according to the original state 1), so also the body of Christ, which is like ours in all respects, is only in one place (confutandi gratia dictum). From this it follows that the appearance that happened to Paul is not to be measured by us as if Christ had descended and left the rights of God, but we want to hear the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12. 12 itself, by which we shall know that the apparition was a marvelous convulsion of Paul, is also a marvelous revelation of the secrecy of God, and thus says: "I know that the same man has been convulsed even to the third heaven; and yet I do not know whether it happened to the man in the body, or outside the body." In which words we see that Paul himself does not mean the heavenly light and joy that God has given him, as if Christ had come down to him bodily. And he continues: "I also know that he is raptured into paradise." Now it is knowable that no one comes into the bodily paradise anymore, because God has closed it and prevented that people do not come into it, Gen. 3, therefore "paradise" is taken in this place for joy and delight. All this alone proves that the appearance of Jesus Christ to Paul is not to be measured, that Christ's body is therefore more than in one place. For Paul himself recognizes that he was lifted up, but he does not actually know whether it happened with his body or without his body. So the apparition happened only spiritually. The place Matth. 24: "Here or there is Christ", is not to be understood of the sacrament, but of the last times: Mr. Pastor is to know that the last time of Christ and his apostles is called all the time that is from the time of Christ until the end of the world. The omnipotence of God we well recognize that the
1) That is: resurrection.
2) "Rights" set by us instead of: "righteous".
All things are possible; but it should be considered that the same omnipotence makes true with its power that which is opposed to them by the rightly understood Scriptures or God's word, as well as that which they think they can protect with omnipotence alone; for God Himself is not repugnant to Him. And as he said: "I will never be in the world again", John 17, so he is also powerful that no one can force him bodily into the world, contrary to his word. He is also so true that he does not counterfeit himself.
Parish priest of Appenzell.
Thus I refer to the act as I have presented it, and thus I want to have concluded with my presented writing. And where I have not been conformed to the word of God, I will submit myself to the common Christian church, to be reported according to their pleasure. Item, from the transformation of the bread, is to be noted well in that, so the Lord Matth. 26, where the Lord took the bread in his hands etc., and then said, "This is my body," and called it the first bread, and then said, "This is my body," that by the omnipotence and power of his word the bread was changed; not in form, but in nature, by omnipotence, it became flesh; so also his blood, as is to be understood that the Christian church rightly understands the Scriptures. And for a better understanding we have John 6, a clear interpretation of Christ, when he says, "The bread which I shall give you," the Lord gives us an understanding and interpretation of what it is, saying, "This is my flesh." As if he said: that which was bread before is now my flesh. What could the Lord Jesus Christ have said to us that is brighter, more cheerful and clearer?
Waltherus Klarer of Appenzell, pastor at Hundwyl.
Since for a long time there has been a great discord in Appenzell, as in many other places, and still, because of the fourth Conclusion and other many articles, which Conclusion speaks of the Sacrament, our lords and superiors have sent us here for peace and unity; knowing full well that such peace comes from God's Word alone. So I will first ask Mr. Thiebold Hüter, pastor of Appenzell: whether he is of the will and mind, here in this Christian conversation, what would be received and taught with the divine word, that he would let himself be found with the same and submit to it? For the cause of this question is,
that he recently, even after he had received the answer from my lords that he had been invited to this disputation, that he had let himself be noted and expressly said that he wanted to come here, according to his lords' command; however, he did not want to accept anything, because what was disputed in Baden and accepted from many places, and also the holy Christian church (which he always understood to be the papacy) has now taken many hundred years. Now, at this hour, he has once again submitted to the same church alone, not thinking of the divine word. So I ask him, so that all effort and work will not be in vain, and admonish him that he still now and leave out, whether he wants to submit to the word of God, and leave the pope and the abuses, which are contrary to it, and grace the same? If he forgets to do so, 1) namely to act with the divine word alone, then he will act after my gracious lords of Bern, also a Christian authority in Appenzell, have given the order.
Parish priest of Appenzell.
That our lords of Appenzell have sent us here, no one is against it. If he then says of 12 places of the Confederation, of the disputation half, so commendably held by my high territorial lords of Bern and the other eleven places: I have kept myself according to order and statute of the common Christian church so far for a long time; am of the mind, as far as I am not further reported with the word of God, not to stand of the reported Christian church. But if he interprets the church to me, calls it the papal church etc., I ask him where it was forty, fifty or a hundred years ago? if his doctrine and opinion, as he has had it in use for a long time, is not held by the common Christian church?
Waltherus Klarer.
Since the priest of Appenzell has always claimed, and now also claims, the understanding of Christ's words, "this is my body," that by the power of these words the bread is changed into the body and the wine into the blood of Christ, it is clear that he shows this for the reason that Christ spoke such words and left them without power. So, whoever speaks about the bread must keep the number of the words and the mind of Christ at hand, otherwise he, the priest, would not show the reason of such power that he wants to give to the words. At
1) "renounce" - confess.
If he is of this mind, I ask him whether he understands the above words, "this is my body" (if he speaks them about the Offles 2) or about the bread), to mean the mortal or deadly body, or the non-deadly clarified body of Christ.
Parish priest of Appenzell.
Does he know what body he gave them, who commended it to them, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me?" The body that suffered, the body that went to heaven.
Waltherus Klarer.
If we eat the corpse that suffered for us, we must also eat it sensibly, because it suffered sensibly; but which eating is not.
Parish priest of Appenzell.
That he gave them his essential body, blood and flesh, under the form of bread and wine to eat, is found in my inserted scripture. What do we want to look for the order of nature in him who was born supernaturally? as our faith clearly indicates: "born of the Virgin Mary" etc., and so let it remain with the inserted copy.
Waltherus Klarer.
It is not because of your writing. You have forbidden that we eat the dead or crucified body. Now that he has suffered grievously, we must also eat him grievously.
Parish priest of Appenzell.
I ask him if Christ has another body than the one in which he suffered, died, or ascended to heaven? or if he has more than one body?
Waltherus Klarer.
You must not ask me! Prayer Answer to my syllogism, whether the body of Christ is eaten bodily and sensitively?
Parish priest of Appenzell.
If he asks me whether the body of Christ is eaten bodily and sensibly, I say, No, but the form in which it is essentially with flesh and blood. And this I have sufficiently explained. Refer me again to the Scripture I have expounded.
2) "Offleten" wafers.
Waltherus Klarer.
If it is not eaten sensitively, it is not a sacrament.
Parish priest of Appenzell.
Reserire me ad Acta; as I have decided before, so also here.
Waltherus Klarer.
Me too.
Pelagius am Steyn, predicant at Trogen; Waltherus Klarer, pastor at
Hundwyl, all from Appenzell.
Venerable, highly learned, prudent, wise gentlemen, pious Christians! Because the pastor of Appenzell, our fellow congregant, has up to now taken a stand against all the final speeches and has undertaken to refute them: to personally resist the said pastor in all articles of the final speeches would have been of our great will, and to refute or overthrow his supposed refutations with the clear words of God. However, since our dear lords and brothers, predeans of this laudable city of Bern, along with other scholars, have so far done this more sufficiently and skillfully than we could have, we gladly give them the honor, and thus gladly leave it at that. With such an appendix that we wish to have publicly testified and protested here that we consider the ten final speeches to be Christian and founded in Scripture, believing and preaching them; also that we will continue to do so with the help of God, diligently and seriously. In which confession likewise stands Mr. Matthias Keßler, pastor at Geyß in Appenzell, our brother, who is present here for his own sake, out of the approval of his church, and would be willing to give an account of his faith and preaching, if anyone desired such from him. We would also like to suffer commonly, if the pastor would leave his unscripted bad behavior standing, and let go, 1) and submit to the bright word of God, in which we should agree, which is also the sole command and request of our lords and superiors of Appenzell, and the sole cause, why we are sent here. May the Lord grant grace to proclaim His holy, eternal and irrefutable Word, our one salvation and consolation, faithfully and bravely, so that the name of God may be praised, from now and forever, Amen.
1) "solved" - listened.
Zwingli.
Of the transubstantiation, that is, transformation of the bread into the body of Christ, it is sufficiently indicated 2) that it cannot exist apart from God's word. Christ took Abraham's lineage and not the lineage of the bread. The word of John 6: "The bread that I will give you" etc., is also sufficiently acted upon, as indicated before.
Letter.
For the sake of transubstantiation, the words of John 6: "The bread that I will give you is my flesh" etc. serve us well, because according to my understanding, this would not serve, according to the interpretation of the Lutheran way, which has been disputed so far. Similarly, the words of the supper, if one is to keep the same without all gloss, the bread is no longer seen, but the form etc.
Zwingli.
The place of John in the 6th chapter is explained enough above, 3) that Christ, when he said: "I am the living bread", wanted to interpret how they were to be understood, and said thus: "And the bread which I will give you is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world". Now he did not give his body to be eaten for the life of the world, but in death. From this it follows that he does not speak of the flesh to be eaten, but of the dying or crucified one, of which enough has been said. We also do not give a gloss to the words, but we teach to understand the words of God from God's words.
Letter.
Since we have explained the 6th chapter of John on Thursday, variously, on both parties against each other, I leave it at my answer, given there. Further, at the conclusion of this final speech, I say: Since the mandate of this disputation is that one should interpret the dark words with light scriptures and declare: Since the four evangelists and Paul write so unanimously, I will make myself submissive to them.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
All our teaching and speech is also of the same alone, therefore we let all believers in Christ know.
2) See Col. 1776 f.
3) See Col. 1761 ff.
Mr. Matthis, pastor of Söngen, at the request of the Comenthür of Küßnacht, as collator and feudal lord of the aforementioned parish of Söngen, for an account of his teachings, the same Mr. Matthis has publicly confessed that he has preached the Gospel, and has stopped all ceremonies as much as he can. But for the sake of the sacrament, he did not understand the letter of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul in any other way, and preached in the same way as the priest of St. Gall; and as he reported, so he was also reported by Master Ulrich and others. And as he was firm on the first one before, so he wants to be firm and firm on this one now, as much as God gives him his help etc.
Conradus Som von Rotenäcker, Predicant at Ulm.
Pious, Christian, dear gentlemen and brothers! I am not of the opinion here that I want to contest the final sermon, but consider it to be Christian, and so well founded in divine Scripture that neither devils nor men can do anything against it. To this end, I have preached the same to a Christian congregation in Ulm, and in particular have taught the fourth final sermon, concerning the Lord's Supper, namely, that the body and blood of Christ are not substantially received in the bread and wine. Doctor Hans Eck of Ingolstadt, the widely known enemy of all those who faithfully proclaim the gospel of Christ, has most shamefully attacked me on this teaching of mine, and has had a blasphemy booklet printed against me, in which he chides me, half for this teaching, as a blasphemer and heretic; Indeed, he showers me before the whole world with so many untruthful words of shame that I fear his letter could have been understood on two sheets of paper, where he would have let out the blasphemous words. Because of this, I attributed to him, demanded of him in the highest way, and in Christian duty, that he dispose of himself here, where I would give him an account and answer to my doctrine. I had also hoped that he would appear, since the place is safe and common, and no honest man can say otherwise than that the disputation (according to my gracious lords of Bern) will be held completely impartially. But his own handwriting has been sent to me here, in which he refuses to come here; it sounds as if the time is too short for him, he cannot fly; and now almost three weeks have passed that my letter has been delivered to him, so he might well have come here without flying. But my dear lord and brother, Master Ulrich, required him to attend the disputation long before, so he cannot complain about the time. After that, in his letter, he disgraces the Christian disputation, heresies it, and
suggests many judges to me before whom he wants to dispute with me. So he wants to turn the judgment of Scripture from the Christian community to other judges, which is quite contrary to Scripture, as has been heard enough in past days. To this end, he himself formerly disputed without judges at Baden, but now he wants to have judges without refusing us, for which reason he has neither Scripture nor examples of Scripture. Since he is not here, and I can do nothing against him, I publicly testify before this congregation of God that I am willing to give an answer to the corner and male of my doctrine, and also know how to receive it with divine Scripture, where a free, safe place is determined for me. I therefore hope that all pious, understanding Christians will recognize that the matter has not been lost on me, but that I have done more than I would have owed.
This is the fifth closing speech:
The Mass, now in use, in which Christ is offered up to God the Father for the sin of the living and the dead, is contrary to Scripture; blasphemous to the Most Holy Sacrifice, Passion and Death of Christ; and for the sake of abuses, an abomination before God.
Berchtoldus Haller.
This is our reason, in the I. Epist. John 4: He who knows Christ knows that he, God and man, is the Savior of the world, and that no one can come to the Father except through Christ alone, John 6. For he is so dear to the Father that he pardons us for his sake. He also accomplished the work of redemption perfectly without any helpers, Isaiah 63. He paid for us in every way, in the most frugal way, and did enough on the cross, where we trust in him otherwise. Whoever then denies that Christ has redeemed us, or supposes that he has not redeemed us all at once, or that he has not redeemed us in all the ways in which we ought to be redeemed, makes Christ an imperfect priest and redeemer, and thus denies his Redeemer. This is now described by all who want to offer Christ anew, for they deny that we are saved by trusting in the perfect direction of our Lord Jesus Christ, and give salvation to works, especially to the mass, contrary to the clear Scriptures; they also place the mass among the best works, as it is now used, even though the priests are the most wicked. They also want to be co-priests, co-helpers and co-redemptors, so that the glory of God, the unchanging God, may be brought to light.
The first use of the Lord's Supper, which they call the mass, will show us whether Christ sacrificed it or commanded it to be sacrificed. This we shall now see and learn from the first use of the Lord's supper, which they call the mass, whether Christ offered it, or commanded it to be offered? For if we measure all things from word to word, it is found that Christ commanded a common remembrance to all Christians of the sacrifice once made on the cross in his supper. He says: "Take, eat!" that does not mean sacrifice. To give thanks is not to sacrifice; to give to the disciples to eat is not to sacrifice; to do this in remembrance and proclaim the death of the Lord is not to sacrifice; to believe that Christ gave his body in death for us and shed his blood for the remission of sins (not in the supper, but on the cross) is not to sacrifice. We come to the Lord's supper by testifying to our faith and offering ourselves in brotherly love as members of the body of Christ, but this is not sacrifice. Thus it is evident from the words and deeds of Christ in the supper that he did not sacrifice, nor did he command us to sacrifice. On the other hand, he who sacrifices shall be more worthy than he who sacrifices, for the sacrifice is acceptable in the sight of God for the sake of the sacrificer. God looked upon Abel and his offerings. Because the priests want to offer Christ to God the Father for the living and the dead, they must be better than Christ, even if they were the most wicked, to the Hebrews in the 10th chapter: "We are sanctified all at once through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ. And every priest is appointed to worship every day, and to offer the same sacrifice from time to time, 2) which cannot take away sin. But this man, having offered one sacrifice for sin, which is eternal, is seated at the right hand of God, and waits for his enemies to be made the footstool of his feet. For with One Sacrifice He has perfected forever those who are sanctified." And soon after, "Where there is forgiveness of sin, there is no more sacrifice for sin." Chapter 7: "Christ, because he abideth forever, hath an everlasting priesthood, wherefore he is able also to save forever them that come unto God by him, and liveth for ever to represent us." Cap. 9: "He entered the sanctuary once by his own blood, and found eternal redemption." From the Scriptures everyone understands that Christ is not to be sacrificed. To the first:
1) "verschupfen" - to push aside, spurn, reject, disregard.
2) "lie" -thue.
He is sacrificed once, and the priests want to sacrifice him every day. Secondly: He sacrificed Himself, Heb. 5, not the church, not the priests. Thirdly, he has an eternal priesthood, therefore he has no need of substitution. Fourth: He appears before the face of God and represents us, therefore you will not repreesent him, that is, sacrifice him in a repetitive way. Fifth: He has completed and perfected it: what is the sacrifice of the present priests but a reviling of the sacrifice of Christ? Sixth: He has invented an eternal redemption: what kind of souls do the priests want to redeem with the masses? To the seventh: There is no longer any sacrifice for sin; who does not see that the mass, now in the custom, since one misses to offer Christ to God the Father, is contrary to Scripture, and to the priesthood, sacrifice, suffering, and death (of Christ) a blasphemy? But that it is an abomination before God because of abuses is found thus: Everything that is found outside the use of Christ in the Mass, now used, that is detrimental to the honor of God, contrary to faith and love, is an abomination before God: First, that the priest receives the Sacraments alone, and those to whom he should communicate it, put it over his shoulders, contrary to the deed of Christ. Secondly, that Christian liberty is broken with the ointment, garments, crosses, ceremonies, persons and times, to the priests according to the dedications and contents of their benefices. Thirdly, that without faith and love (as much as can be recognized by rote fruits), the mass is held every day by priests who find an annoying life. Is this not blaspheming the sacraments instituted by God? Fourthly, that the sacraments are forbidden annually to the laity, if they live in trouble, and the priests, even if they are the most wicked, perform the sacraments every day. Fifthly, that the Mass, God willing, as the priest is always good, is beneficial to the living and the dead, yet the judgment of God does not come upon the institution of Christ, but upon him who uses it unworthily. Sixth, the splendor and cost of the vestments of the Mass, in gold, silver, silk, and velvet, which are contrary to faith, because merit is sought therein, and love, because the poor are deprived of it. Seventh, that the priests with the mass serve neither God nor the world in vain, 3) but rather for the sake of presents and sinecures, also out of avarice. I do not mention the many benefices, so that the
3) "in vain" - for free, without payment.
Widows' houses are fretted 1). Now avarice is a true idolatry; no example may be brought from Scripture in this matter either. Eighth, that the word of God is hindered when the epistles and gospels are sung and read in a foreign language, from which the church of God is not edified, which is rightly contrary to the saying of Paul to Romans 15 and Corinth, 1 Epist. 14. Ninth, that thanksgiving, prayer, proclamation and hearing of the word of God are also hindered with many ceremonies and the mind is scattered. Tenth, that the people receive the sacrament under one form (as they say), and the chalice is cut off, contrary to the institution of Christ. Eleventh, that the bread and the cup be taken up and worshipped as if they were true God. To the twelfth, that Christ has instituted in remembrance and gratitude of his death, with which they want to master happiness. Whether it be death, marriage, joy, or sorrow, grief, affliction, sickness: they want to fix all this with the mass. Such and such abuses, who cannot see that they are terrible abominations in the sight of God? and that what Christ says in Luke 16 is fulfilled: "What is high in the sight of men is an abomination in the sight of God.
We therefore believe that this concluding speech has been sufficiently proven and explained. And in order that the truth may be brought out more clearly, and useless speech may be avoided, let all those who wish to dispute this final speech know that we will not accept any figure, for you confess with us that it proves nothing. Nor will we accept that which you would bring forth from the sacrifices of the Old Testament, for they are already completed and fulfilled in Christ, as you have now heard from the Hebrews, Cap. 10, for we confess only One Sacrifice, One Sacrificer, and One Altar, which is Christ. You will also in vain introduce the sayings from the prophets Isaiah 19. 56. 66, Zeph. 3, Mal. 1 and 3, which speak of the sacrifices common to all Christians, for they are our bodies, Rom. 12, sacrifices of praise, Ps. 50, and the service of brotherly love, Heb. 13. Nor will we hear any more about the power of the church, for enough has been said about it in the first and other final discourses. In addition, Paul teaches that the evening meal, which is common to all Christians, should be held in the church. Therefore, whoever wants to refute this final speech, bring clear scripture, so that the church of God will not be burdened with useless words.
1) "fretzen" - to eat.
Johannes Buchstab.
In the name of the Holy Trinity, and all the heavenly host.' Amen. We find in the prophet David, Ps. 109, likewise in Hebrews 7, that Christ is a priest for eternity after the order of Melchizedech. The same Melchizedech, king of Salem, brought bread and wine to Abraham, gave him gifts, and said: Blessed be Abraham to the most high God, who created the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of the earth; in Genesis 14. Because the bread and wine brought forth was a figure of Christ, as indicated above, it must also follow that Christ also used something that was conformed to Melchizedech. And like Melchizedech, Abraha brought forth bread and wine as a sacrifice: so the body of Christ, in the form of bread, has been offered up until now.
Berchtoldus Haller.
As Melchizedech is a figure of Christ and Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedech, Paul teaches in Hebrews 7, but that Melchizedech brought forth bread and wine to Abraha for a sacrifice, the text does not allow in Genesis 14. Abraham would also not have allowed the highest priest of God to sacrifice to him as a creature. Therefore, the scripture states that Melchizedech brought forth bread and wine for a sacrifice, and such an argument does not serve against the final speech.
Letter.
Since Melchizedech, a chief priest, brought forth bread and wine, and (as Paul testifies to the Hebrews) that there is no priest who does not offer, it must follow that Melchizedech also offered something. It is also not proved by any scripture that Melchizedech did not offer bread and wine before and that he brought them forth to Abraha; for the text cheerfully says: "He was a priest of the most high God", who also belonged to sacrifice.
Berchtoldus.
We confess with the Scriptures that Melchizedech was a priest of the most high God, but that he offered bread and wine to Abraham, or earlier to God the Lord, is not found in the text, attracted by the schoolmaster. Moses was content to indicate that Melchizedech was a priest of the Most High God. From this it is well noted, from St. Paul, where such figure points to
and end. 1) You have put on your saying to prove the sacrifice of the mass, so now it behooves you to try where Melchizedech offered wine and bread?
Letter.
Since you do not find what he offered after his priesthood, and since it is stated here that he brought forth bread and wine, and since Christ was a priest after him, who was also offered in the form of bread and wine, it must follow that the bread and wine brought forth are also offered in the New Testament. For no other sacrifice of his is found anywhere else. Herewith I will command this writing, the figure of Melchizedech, to the reader.
Berchtoldus Haller.
It is not yet recorded that Melchizedech offered wine and bread, for the clear words of the text are not able to do so. Bring another scripture!
Johannes Buchstab.
You have not yet taught me that Melchizedech offered anything else.
Gilg Murer.
In this text it is cheerfully indicated that Melchizedech offered wine and bread, because it is written: he brought forth wine and bread, because he was a priest of the Most High. This little word, He was a priest of the Most High, is not in vain. For if he had not offered the same, Moses would have omitted it. Further: Since the order of Melchizedech is nothing else and can be found, except that he offered wine and bread, it must follow (since Christ is called a priest according to his order for eternity), he must also have something to offer (as Paul writes). May not otherwise be brought forth with biblical scripture, that the figure, and that which is signified, may be compared.
Berchtoldus Haller.
In order that we may come out of the chip, and that everyone may understand how Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedech, St. Paul explains it in Hebrews 7. First, Melchizedech is called a king of righteousness, so Christ is a king of righteousness; indeed, he himself is our king of righteousness.
1) "lends" - directs.
Second, Melchizedech is a king of peace, so is Christ, in Eph. 2. Third, Melchizedech was a priest of the Most High God, so is Christ. Fourth, Melchizedech offered, but not to Abraham, wine and bread; but Christ offered Himself, which we also ought to do, as Paul teaches in Romans 12. Fifth, the lineage of Melchizedech is not known in Scripture, nor is His death hidden; therefore Christ's divine birth is not to be measured, Isaiah 53, from which the eternity of Christ's priesthood is measured according to the order of Melchizedech. And if ye lie long upon the text, ye shall not find that Melchizedech offered wine and bread unto Abraham. Therefore you will not teach that the mass is a sacrifice.
Gilg Murer.
After and answer has given me Mr. Berchtold how Melchizedech was a figure of Christ. To the first he had been a king of righteousness etc. This order, introduced by Mr. Berchtolden, we do not deny. But that he spoke, we do not find in the text, that Melchizedech offered wine and bread to Abraha, that we did not assume before, but he offered it to God the Almighty to praise and honor, because of the little word, which stands there: He was a priest of the Most High. Now it belongs to a priest to sacrifice; if he has brought forth wine and bread because he was a priest, he must also have sacrificed it; for the little word enim gives reason why he brought it forth.
Berchtoldus.
All your speech concludes nothing against us.
To Jenner's 20th day.
Gilg Murer.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all! Amen. Since yesterday it was explained how Melchizedech brought forth wine and bread and sacrificed them, because of the addition that he said, "For he was a priest of God Most High," it is evident that Melchizedech must be compared to Christ because of the sacrifice. For it is not enough that some comparison has been made between Christ and Melchizedech, but he must be compared to Christ with the sacrifice. Nothing else can be presented from the Scriptures, except wine.
and bread, and in the sacrifice they must be compared. For it may not be said of death; for though Christ was offered with death, it may not be said of Melchizedech. Therefore they must be compared in the sacrifice, as has been said.
Zwingli.
It is enough to say that they do for and to God's words that it does not have. It only says that he brought forth wine and bread; so they always do: and sacrificed. But that this little word enim, that is, "for," stands here, it is not; neque Graeci neque Hebraei habent. And even if it would be with the Hebrews, it is still nothing else, but an exit to describe the persons, as in the 1. book Mos. 14. Cap. is actually invented. Since it is indicated that he offered nothing but wine and bread, we speak thus: If they want to understand about whom and bread, which he brought here to Abraham, then we say that he did not offer [it], and is now petitio principii. But if they want to understand about other offerings, where do they want to prove that at other times he did not offer wine and bread to the most high God? For they may not prove the negative. But this does not contradict us, whether he offered wine and bread or not; for, as they themselves confess, Melchizedech never offered himself in death, and is a minister of Christ; from this it follows that as Melchizedech offered, so be it, that he thereby signified the sacrifice, since Christ offered himself. Melchizedech is not a figure of our priests, but a figure of Christ; therefore the figure proves nothing that our priests sacrifice anything, and the final speech in summa says that the mass is not a sacrifice etc., since they have not yet been able to introduce this with any resolution.
Gilg Murer.
That Master Ulrich said that the word enim is not in Greek, nor in Hebrew, we who have experienced this language are responsible for. It is enough for us that we remain with the light Latin text. But that he says, we have not proved that Melchizedech sacrificed here, we answer, even though it does not stand according to the letter, so the words, 1) nevertheless, go, formerly put on, for he is a priest etc. And if he has admitted that he may have offered wine and bread at other times, it is for us, since (as was also indicated yesterday) that
1) "gends" - give it.
Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedech. So I ask him to show us with what sacrifice they have sacrificed, as it were? then we urge him as before, that he may not bring forth any other with the Scriptures. But that it should and must be the comparison, I will further prove with the scripture from the book of Proverbs; in the 9th Solomon speaks thus: Wisdom has built her a house, has hewn out seven pillars, has offered her sacrifices, and has mixed the wine. And after other words further: Come, and eat my bread, and drink the wine, which I have mixed for you. Now the sacrifice with the mingling of the wine does not take place in any other sacrifice than in the mass; therefore it follows that the mass is a sacrifice.
Zwingli.
Half of the words in the first book of Moses on the 14th we rely on the text. Enough has been said yesterday and today about the question, how Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedech: 2) that, as Melchizedech, the priest of the highest God, offered sacrifices externally, so Christ Jesus offered himself to the highest God. For Christ is not called like Melchizedech because he offered wine and bread, or because Christ alone offered wine and bread, or external sacrifices, just as Melchizedech offered them alone, and not himself. But it is enough said that Christ fulfilled with his own offering what Melchizedech meant by external sacrifice. The sacrifice of the place mentioned in Proverbs 9 does not serve them at all, but is more for us. And therefore leave us to the text.
Gilg Murer.
It is necessary that another sacrifice be shown with Melchizedech and Christ than the death of Christ, and since they cannot produce it with the Scriptures, we remain as before stated, and command it to the writings of the notaries, and to every Christian reader.
Zwingli.
They say that it is necessary for us to show another sacrifice in Christ, not his death, and we require them to bring scripture for it.
Gilg Murer.
Therefore it is necessary that Melchizedech cannot be compared with the death of Christ. And since Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedech, and it may not be death: so
2) See Col. 1847 ff.
Do we ask my lords of the opposing party to tell us from the Scriptures what sacrifice Melchizedech offered, which shall endure forever?
Zwingli.
It has been said enough that the prefiguration of the Old Testament must not be expressed externally in all measure in the New, or else it would not be umbrus, that is, designs and meanings, but the deed itself. Which we see in Melchizedech, if he was a priest of the most high God, and offered up outward sacrifices; for therefore he was a priest, by offering, is signified that Christ offered up himself, Hebrews at the 7th chapter. For if Melchizedech had to be like Christ in all respects, he would have to be born of a virgin, be a son of God, be crucified etc. If this is not the case, we see publicly that his nature was only a model in outward things, which Christ fulfilled with Himself.
Gilg Murer.
We do not say that Christ and Melchizedech should be alike in all respects, as one would like to ascribe to us, but if death cannot be compared with Melchizedech, we have desired to know another sacrifice from the Scriptures, which has not happened. And thus we command it from the Scriptures.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
We leave ourselves to the explanation, heard before, and reasons of the Scripture, indicated.
Gilg Murer.
That Master Ulrich has answered us to the saying in the Proverbs on the 9th, that it is not for us; and gives an interpretation without Scripture, we will not believe him. For it is written, understood one after the other: Wisdom has offered up her sacrifices, and has mixed the wine etc. In no other sacrifice is the mingling of the wine described, except in the mass; therefore the mass must be a sacrifice.
Zwingli,
We have no other understanding, indicated in the proverbs at the 9th, than how the letter itself reads, and the sense is able. And although the same place should be understood as they offer (which is not), so it is written, Wisdom offered her sacrifices; and not, Wisdom offered wine and bread. Let it remain with right understanding of the scripture!
Gilg Murer.
I stick to my advanced understanding, as answered; which is also confirmed by St. Cyprianum. And I will leave it at that.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
You are doing Cypriano an injustice.
Letter.
To the beginning of Mr. Berchtolden, raised yesterday, I will answer in the shortest, without all repetition, 1). Thus I say: The sayings, reported at the beginning, are a part in the third, and a part in the sixth final speech, therefore I omit to answer them now. That the mass is considered a good work, however, is described in the same way as with other sacraments. I also do not want to answer for the evil priests. But that the priests are helpers is not contrary to Scripture, just as all men are obliged to pray for one another, Jacoby 5, and everywhere. Nor do I think that any Christian man should weaken his honor to Christ, but rather be inclined to open it. If everything that is done for the use of the supper is not evil, but good and praiseworthy, and everything that God decides for praise and honor is not contrary to His word, one should let it remain, by virtue of the sayings of St. Paul to Philippians on the 3rd and 4th, sufficiently indicated and explained in the other final speech 2).
Butzer.
We should pray for one another, but this does not prove that the mass (in which, through the supposed re-sacrifice, God is blasphemed) is a good work. Also the additions to the evening meal, done by the papists, are evil and contrary to the honor of God, as our brother Berchtold has sufficiently shown in the explanation of this final speech. The other is also sufficiently explained in the action of the other final speech 3).
Letter.
Of the additions I have said before, because they are not overturned with open writing, I leave it. [Further, in answer to Mr. Berchtold's statement that Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me" is not "sacrifice," I find that some of the Hebrew language reports that facere also means to sacrifice something. But I attribute this to Hebrew experience, because I am ignorant of the same language.
1) "Wiederäfern" -Repeat.
2) See Col. 1724.
3) See Col. 1724 s.
Butzer.
When the Lord says: "Do this in remembrance of me!" it is clear that "do" does not mean "sacrifice". This is also sufficiently explained by Paul in 1 Cor. 11, where he says: "As often as you eat of the bread" etc. And although in Scripture sth. is taken for sacrifice, yet it is said, what is sacrificed, as, a sheep or the like. But here it is clear that "to do" means to eat. The additions half is said before that they are overturned with light writing, according to Mr. Berchtolden Declaration on this final speech.
Letter.
Because you admitted that facere also means to sacrifice something, we are also admitted here.
Butzer.
What kind of consequence is this: facere means to sacrifice something in a place, because of an added little word, therefore it must also be called sacrifice here? since the contradiction is clearly expressed.
Johannes Buchstab.
To the reproaches from Paul to the Hebrews I answer recently thus: Paul wrote to the Hebrews (as those who are not yet fully informed of the Christian faith): that this sacrifice, Christ, is sufficient for us Christians, because we do not need to sacrifice goats, calves etc. any further, but that we have Christ, the supreme sacrifice, instead of the old sacrifices, who was visibly, in a deadly suffering body, once sacrificed on the cross for all the human race. Of this to the Hebrews on the 9th and on the 10th: Christ entered once by his own blood into the sanctuary etc., he was sacrificed once, he completed the sanctified with one sacrifice into eternity. But these words do not detract from the form of the sacrifice now heard, which is described daily in the mass. For Paul writes here how Christ died once for our sins, and shed His blood on the cross, offering Himself to His heavenly Father, as in Romans chapter 6: "Christ died once for sin" etc. That it is also said that Christ has done enough for all the sin of the world is not enough that we should do nothing, or even be free; otherwise no one would be condemned. The suffering of Christ is perfect enough for all the sins of the world; yes, to him who makes himself a part of it, as is sufficiently indicated in the third final discourse 1). The an-
1) See Col. 1750.
But the other sacrifice is spiritual; for as Christ, according to the order of Melchizedech, is a priest for ever, so it is necessary that he also have a sacrifice for ever, of which much has been said today and yesterday. Therefore, as there is one Christ, and one eternal priest, so there is one eternal priesthood, and one eternal sacrifice of the New Testament. Christ is the priest and the sacrifice. Once he offered himself mortally; but daily he is sacrificed in secret, for a memorial of his dying. And as his death is an eternal redemption, so it is an eternal sacrifice; no longer on the cross, but according to the order of Melchizedech, under the form of bread and wine. In sum: as the lamb sacrificed in the course of the Jews, just once a year (in the other book of Moses on the 29th), meant the sacrificing of Christ on the cross once, so also the lambs sacrificed every day (in the other book of Moses on the 12th and in the fourth book of Moses on the 28th), also meant the daily sacrificing, so described in the mass. For any figure of the law meant something in the New Testament, so Paul speaks to Hebrews on the 10th: "The law has the shadow of things to come" etc.
Butzer.
That the schoolmaster has accused the Hebrews of being still evil in the faith, he does them an injustice, according to the testimony of Paul in the 10th chapter: "But remember the day before, in which you were enlightened" etc., until the end of the chapter. On the other hand, that he thinks that Paul now wants to declare the sacrifices of the old law invalid, and that he will not also reject his sacrifices of the Mass, if he rejects other sacrifices, he should note this syllogism: Christ has perfected with One Sacrifice those who are sanctified, that is, chosen by God, for eternity; these are the words of the apostle. If they are now completed, all other sacrifices will be in vain; and if one thinks (as the offerers of the Mass pretend) that it helps the Christians, then it must clearly follow that it has not completed Christ's sacrifice; so it is also with the satisfaction, as is superfluously indicated. 2) Therefore, through this place of Paul, all sacrifice, and therefore also the sacrifice of the Mass, is rejected. But that he has introduced us from this: if Christ has done enough for us, it follows that we must do nothing, is sufficiently explained in the third final speech 3). Further he has indicated that we must
2) Siebe Col. 1749 ff.
3) See Col. 1755.
have an eternal sacrificer and sacrifice; Christ died once, therefore the same death would not be the eternal sacrifice, but one must first sacrifice daily in the mass. To this we give the answer: Our sacrifice, that is, the death of Christ JEsu, was only made once on the cross, but it is valid before God for all time, until all the sins of the elect are taken away, and Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father, so that there is now no need for mediation, but God is all in all; of this Paul writes on the 15th to the Corinthians in the first epistle. And this, the Lord's sacrifice, his death, is also practiced daily in all the elect until the very death of sins. To which sacrifice Paul exhorts us in Romans on the 12th, he also remembers in Colossians on the first. The answer to the figure of the paschal lamb and the daily sacrifice in the law is the same: Christ died once, our true paschal lamb, and represents us daily before the Father; so we also should offer up our own bodies and thanksgiving daily, all of which is worked in us by the Spirit of Christ Jesus, our one and eternal sacrifice. From all this it does not follow at all that his body and blood must be offered daily in the mass. You have no command to do this, and in Christ without this the figure of Melchizedech and all others will be sufficiently fulfilled; as is indicated above.
Johannes Buchstab.
That Paul wrote to the Hebrews is clear enough that he gave them the difference. The sacrifice of the mass is further indicated by the prophets and also the New Testament. It is not yet brought out in the speech of Mr. Martin Butzer, on my before given answer, that the body of Christ may not be sacrificed. The counter-accusations he has given, we want to answer afterwards.
Martinus Butzer.
Everything that is completed through Christ in eternity, no man can add to it. Christ has completed the sanctified with his death in eternity, therefore no man can add anything with his sacrifice. Therefore, the sacrifice of the mass must be in vain, and (if one thinks to help the saints with it) a blasphemy of the death of Christ.
Gilg Murer.
Although Christ has done enough for eternity in full, as has been introduced through Mr. Mary, the Lord, the Son of God.
tin Butzer, we are nevertheless commanded by Christ to partake of the daily sacrifice of thanksgiving and the remembrance of the mass; not because we want to diminish Christ's suffering, but the committing and remembrance of the sacrifice made once before, I want to prove with the saying and the words that Christ spoke: "Do this in my memory! For Paul to the Corinthians [in the first epistle in the 11th chapter] interpreted to us the remembrance, which stands in the proclamation of the death of Christ. This, however, is notorious, for the evangelists clearly indicate how the paschal lamb of the old law was terminated and the paschal lamb of the church instituted; for it was necessary, says the text, that the paschal lamb should be put to death. Now the scripture stops (in the other book of Moses at the 12th) that the paschal lamb was sacrificed and eaten. Therefore Christ, who is the true paschal lamb (says Paul), after the old has instituted the new, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me!" What did he command them but that which the ancients had done, that is, to sacrifice and to eat? just as according to the order of Melchizedech, without doubt, Christ fulfilled this in his supper.
Butzer.
To remember the death of Christ and to give thanks to him does not mean to offer him up again, and we do not yet have an answer to our syllogism. How one must participate in Christ's suffering through faith, and not through the mass, is sufficiently explained in the third article. 1)
Gilg Murer.
The remembrance of Christ, his suffering and death, may be called a daily sacrifice according to the Scriptures; for although it is not written in explicit words in the holy Gospel, or in other writings: You shall offer Christ in the mass, yet we have good testimony of this; in the Acts of the Apostles, in the 13th chapter, it is thus written: "There were some in the church at Antioch, etc., and when they offered sacrifice to God the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Set apart for me Barnabam and Saulum in the work to which I have called them. Here nothing else may be offered formally according to the Scriptures (as we hope), but only the sacrifice of the mass.
1) See Col. 1750.
Butzer.
The syllogism still stands that nothing can be sacrificed. Therefore, even though Scripture may be written that calls the remembrance a sacrifice, which it is not, one would not want to say (actually speak of it) that the ministers sacrificed. The place in the 13th chapter of the apostles' history, which reads thus: "But when they served the Lord and fasted", does not say: sacrificed. Because graece we have xxx
xxxxxxxxxxx, that does not mean when they sacrificed. We have to Hebrews 10: "Are they not all servile spirits?" There we have graece xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx; it would rhyme badly if one wanted to interpret it, sacrificial spirits. We have the same in Romans about the temporal power, that it is a servant of the Lord; in Romans 13, we also have
Gilg Murer.
Since he says that the syllogism is not resolved, I say that it is sufficiently resolved if the matter is understood correctly. But for more knowledge, we say that the Scriptures speak of two kinds of sacrifice of Christ. First, the sacrifice made by Christ on the wood of the holy cross. This sacrifice is not sacramental, as we say, and only happened once, made perfect for eternity. And so it is true that Christ can be offered up no more miserably than to die again. The other sacrifice is spiritual, since God is again held up to the Father the first sacrifice, or represented with the reverend sacrament, in the office of the holy mass. And that this is true, I testify with this now mentioned saying from the Apostolic History 13. Mr. Martinus Butzer gave me the answer that it does not say sacrifice but service. I answer that it stands here, sacrificing, and is interpreted by the highly and well respected Erasmum Roterodamum, who without a doubt has inspected the matter well, is still alive at this time, and is well versed in the Greek language; of which we have his copy for a testimony, here present. But that Mr. Martinus Butzer speaks, it stands serve, as the old translation has, we want to know gladly, what thatelbige for a diligent service would have been? to more Erkenntniß of the truth.
Butzer.
In order to stay on track, let us respond to what has now been introduced hereafter; and
ask the good gentlemen whether or not they think they are helping the elect with their sacrifice of the Mass.
Gilg Murer;
We answer that we do not think that we want to fulfill or help Christ's suffering, but we think that we alone share in his suffering. As if I would like to give an example: God the Lord created the noble creature of the sun to illuminate the whole world; but if one were shut up in a house of darkness, the sun would not be guilty, but would have fulfilled the function for which it was created; but man would be guilty, that he should not go out to be illuminated. So here we also think that Christ has done enough, completely; but we are to make ourselves partakers [of his satisfaction] with the considerable sacrifice of the mass.
Butzer.
Christ says: "No one comes to me, the Father draws him", John 6, therefore the makers of the Mass will not make anyone a part of the suffering of Christ and thus lead him to the light of grace. Our syllogism still stands: If Christ has done and accomplished everything, do nothing.
Gilg Murer.
We are not opposed to his saying that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws him. But we ask God the Lord in the office of the holy mass, and hold up to Him the suffering of His Son, that the Father may graciously draw us to Him, and will not do this by our own power or nature, but with the help of God's grace.
Martinus Butzer.
All Christians do this. He further asked what the service was, of which Lucas reports in the history of the apostles 13? I say: It was an earnest prayer; for praying is always put in common with fasting in the Scriptures. But in this way the practice of doctrine also went along. Therefore Lucas reports prophets and teachers, but not sacerdotes, that is, sacrificers. That he reproached Erasmum Roterodamum, however, is to be wondered at, because so far they have wanted to remain with the old interpretation, which they ascribe to Hieronymo. We have indicated two bright places, where one sees that a service is to be understood here. Paul calls the secular rulers xxxxxxxxxx that is, servants of God;
If it should be called sacrificer, then every mayor and bailiff would also be a sacrificer.
Gilg Murer.
That he answered that the service was the prayer may not be, because no one is to be separated from all services. But he says here in the text: "Separate me from the previous service Barnabam and Saulum. With this I have commanded the Scripture.
Butzer.
Paul and Barnabas were separated for the preaching ministry. Prayer to God the Lord almost served this purpose.
Gilg Murer.
But that further the daily sacrifice of the mass may be offered, I take for me Malachiam the prophet in the 1st chapter, when he says: "My will is not in you, says the Lord of Lords; I will not take sacrifices or offerings from your hands; for from the going forth of the suns to the going down of the earth my name is great among the nations, and in every city a pure sacrifice is offered to my name; for why? My name is great among the nations. Here nothing else can be understood according to the interpretation of the divine teachers, but the pure sacrifice, the tender Corpus Christi of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the office of the holy mass.
Butzer.
By clear scripture our adversary is insurmountably proven that the mass may not be a sacrifice. Therefore, this place of Malachi, which speaks of a pure and acceptable sacrifice of God, will not be understood in any way.
Gilg Murer.
Malachiah the prophet does not speak here of inward sacrifice, for why? He spoke before of the outward sacrifice of the Jews. Then he 1) sets a sacrifice that is to take the place of the sacrifice of the Jews. This was nothing else (as up to now this prophet has been interpreted) than the pure sacrifice, as it was said before.
Butzer.
It is said that 2) since the Mass cannot be a sacrifice, as is proved superfluously from Paul, this place may not be understood by the Mass, let it be understood by whoever wishes to do so.
1) "Dannethin" - further, put by us instead of: "Dannathin". - Immediately following: "of the victim of the Jews" instead of: "the victim of the Jews".
2) See Col. 1844 f.
Gilg Murer.
We have proven it with our distinction.
Butzer.
The same distinction is without scripture, on account of the other part, namely, the supposed sacrifice of the Mass, which they take spiritually, and yet is bodily.
Gilg Murer.
We ask here, for greater knowledge, what is the pure sacrifice of which Malachi writes?
Butzer.
Answer: It is the believing hearts, their prayer, and whole surrender into the will of God; which are prepared unto the Lord by the preachers of the gospel, of which Paul Rom. 15: "I am a minister of Christ unto the Gentiles, presenting unto them the gospel of God, that the sacrifice of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
Gilg Murer.
That we have been told that the pure sacrifice is the believers with their prayer, and the like, may not be understood here. For all our righteousness is unclean in the sight of God, as they themselves have said, 3) and Isaiah also testifies there. Therefore it is necessary that another pure sacrifice be given, which is like this text.
Martinus Bucerus.
Therefore Paul says: "sanctified by the Holy Spirit", in the words given before; so the hearts, unclean from themselves, become clean through faith. Acts 15, Romans 12.
Gilg Murer.
It may not be understood from the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. For the same sacrifice, namely of the word of God, should have been proclaimed long ago, as also happened to Abraham, Isaac and the dear other fathers. And therefore it is necessary to give another pure sacrifice, which never existed before in the Old Testament, but only began 5) in the New Testament.
Butzer.
It does not follow that the pure sacrifice of which the prophet speaks here must therefore have never been before.
3) "To be anred" - to confess. The opposite is: "abred sein", to deny.
4) "neywa ein" - any one. Compare Col. 1818.
5) In the old edition: "anfahen".
be. The prophet reports here of a pure sacrifice among the Gentiles; such as was seen in the time of the apostles 1) has never been before.
Gilg Murer.
I leave this writing and interpretation as it was before and order it to the Actis.
.user.
So, let us leave it at the certain words of God and command the righteous Christians.
Gilg Murer.
Further after my before given distinction another scripture may be brought forth, namely Danielis 12: "And the wicked shall do wickedly, and all the wicked shall not understand: but the learned shall understand. And from the time that the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, 2) and the abomination of desolation shall be set, [there shall be] a thousand days, two hundred and ninety," which is as much as four and a half years. Here the prophet Daniel spoke of the last days of the last Christ, which saying is also taken up by Christ, Matth. 24. And since he speaks that there is a continual sacrifice 2) and that it will be taken away in the last days, according to the rightly understood Scriptures 3) one cannot and may not indicate another sacrifice than I hope, but only the sacrifice of the mass.
Zwingli.
If it is sufficiently heard that there is no other sacrifice than Christ, nor did Christ or the apostles ever think of the word or thing "sacrifice," or that the evening meal is a sacrifice, it is certain that all the evidence drawn from the Old Testament cannot prove that there is any other sacrifice than Christ, or that Christ can be offered up more than once. In Daniel 12 we show you that the same sacrifice was the bodily sacrifice of the Jews in the Old Testament; this is first found in Daniel 9 and 11. Matthew 24 and Luke 21 should be read.
Gilg Murer.
Christ has put on this scripture in the holy gospel, and may not be understood according to the letter alone of the cessation of the sacrifices of the Jews, but it must also be understood according to the spiritual
1) "seen" put by us instead of: "happened".
2) "Steady sacrifice" put by us according to the Vulgate: juxe ssoriüoiurn, instead of: "Stättopfer".
3) "Communal" - appropriate.
The last time is to be understood in this sense. I will prove this by the aforementioned Daniel chapter 9, where he says: "The sacrifice will cease, and the abomination of desolation will last or be in the temple, and will last until the end. Here Daniel spoke cheerfully of the last days of the last Christ; and then the temple shall be destroyed; from this God forbid that we begin it not in our days!
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
The appointed time in Daniel, if it is calculated correctly, indicates well when the abominable destruction will come, because the prophecy of the time when Christ should come, or the abominable destruction, is not in any prophet. But that the abomination of destruction is indicated because of its persistence is contrary to it. For the prophet saith, The cruel destruction shall be in the temple; which is so much as said, The temple shall remain so cruelly destroyed. It is a xxxxxxxxxx and wants to say that the temple will be
so cruelly destroyed until the end of the world. But what shall this help them, that the mass is a sacrifice? For the sake of admonition, we must take care, without a doubt, that we do not anger God as much as the Jewish people did against Christ. But this would happen to us, not when we break off that which is set up against God, but when we seek other consolations, saviors and gods, neither the living God.
Gilg Murer.
This sacrifice, of which Daniel writes, cannot be the sacrifice of the Jews, because it is still continuing with them; but there must be another sacrifice, which will cease at the end of the world, four and a half years.
Zwingli.
Although the Jews still sacrificed, the power of the external sacrifice is accepted. Even though the Jews generally recognize themselves throughout the world that they no longer have their priesthood 4). Now if their priesthood is gone, as it is in the act, it is certain that the order of the sacrifice is also accepted, Heb. 7. Therefore it still exists for and for that Daniel speaks of the Jewish sacrifice.
Gilg Murer.
It may not be understood of the sacrifice of the Jews. For though the same had ceased according to their order, it may not follow that the same is spoken of here in this place.
4) "have" put by us instead of: "recognize".
will be. For Daniel writes that it alone will cease four and a half years. Here I will have it certified to the Scriptures and to the Christian reader.
Oecolampadius.
Daniel writes of the cessation of sacrifices in two ways. Once for four and a half years, as in the seventh chapter; this was fulfilled under Antiocho, before the time of Christ. Secondly, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; this cessation of sacrifice continues for ever, as Master Ulrich said.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
Therefore, the places of Daniel do not prove that the mass is a sacrifice, because in both places the time has long been fulfilled. We also need to make sure that the believers have the right mind.
Johannes Buchstab.
Since Scripture is to be interpreted with Scripture, and most of the Scriptures of the Old Testament are to be explained with the Scriptures of the New Testament, we find in three places that the prophecies of Daniel serve us. Namely, Daniel 11 is written in such a way that the final Christ is understood to be raised up and made great against all that God is; yes, he will also speak wonderfully against the God of all gods. Therefore he will succeed until the wrath is over; for the end is already made, the God of his fathers he will not respect. The words of St. Paul 2 Thessal. 2 fully serve this purpose and give meaning to these words, when he says: "Let no man deceive you into any way, except it be that the dissension come first, and that the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is honored; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, and sheweth himself as though he were God" etc. Now these words of Daniel and Paul are not found to be contrary to each other, but almost identical. Follow further, Dan. 12, of one time, and two times, and half a time. Also immediately after of a thousand two hundred and ninety days. We have the same in the Revelation of John, that the church fled into the wilderness for a time (shown under an example of a woman), being nourished one time, two times, and half a time, before the face of the serpent, that is, the last Christ. Therefore it follows in the 13th chapter of the said revelation that this shall last forty and two months. Now the two places mentioned from Daniele compare again, also
the two scriptures from Revelation, almost together. Daniel also continues, Chapter 12: "Blessed is he who waits" etc. The same is found in Matth. 24: "He who endures to the end will be blessed. Since Daniel now says of the destruction of the eternal sacrifice four and a half years, and the words of the New Testament compare well with the preceding and following words of Daniel, it will follow that the sacrifice, which is to cease four and a half years, serves for the mass. This also may be witnessed from this, as Christ spoke in the same place: "So you shall see the abomination of destruction (said by Daniel the prophet) standing in the holy place; and he that ran, let him understand." Since Christ said such words to his disciples when they asked him when his future would be, he said these words to them as an indication; I want to understand here in part that the abomination of destruction is the destruction and observance of the mass and all ceremonies; for we find in the biblical writings, as in Acts 13, as reported before, also outside of the Holy Place, that the abomination of destruction is the destruction and observance of the mass and all ceremonies. 13, as reported before, also outside of the same biblical writings, that the apostles sacrificed, that is, said mass; therefore ask our opponent to show us a year or a time, since the time of the apostles, that the reverend sacrament of the body of Christ was not held for a sacrifice? say further to this, in my mind, that it will cease only for the sake of sin.
Doctor Johannes Oecolampadius.
The prophecies from Daniel, how they are to be fulfilled according to the history in the four and a half years, and with the destruction of the temple, is already clearly enough answered. But the fact that the schoolmaster Buchstab is introduced to explain the prophecies from the Revelation of John is not without disgrace, as he also did in his booklet with lack of understanding (he is young, we will forgive him): as it were, where a Christian congregation would keep to the very nearest at the institution of our Lord Jesus Christ in the supper, that such should be final Christian, as by the grace of God the Lord has done in many places. Remain well untouched by him. We also do not see such a perfect spirit of revelation in him. But so that the sayings from the revelation of John are not despised, they do not only extend to four and a half years, but from the time of the cession to the future of the Lord. By the final Christ we do not understand a special person. It is
It is well explained who for some time has taken the place of God, and on whom the apostle Paul said to the Thessalonians. Now notice what some people object to, who want to put another head of the Christian church than Christ! See what blasphemous teaching has been used for several hundred years, and still is. For the sake of the sacraments and other things, it is evident how one has departed from the faith. Our doctrine is directed to faith, and does not reject faith, as it is written in the apostle's book, where he speaks of separation, that is, defectio, cession of faith. The apostle himself recognized in Acts 20 how harmful wolves would soon come into the church. Item, John in his epistle indicates that already in his time there were end Christians. Therefore also the woman who fled into the wilderness signifies a common Christian church. For all who desire to live godly suffer punishment for Christ's sake, 2 Tim. 3. It would be well to see in good measure those who today desire to drive out and kill others. Our gospel teaches patience, therefore this does not serve them. Although John in his revelation in the places, as in others more, shows his revelation on the past histories. But where did the schoolmaster read in the Revelation of John that the sacrifice of the Mass should cease? that is what we would like to hear from him. We are not yet afraid of the prophets. With such proclamations he proves nothing less than that the mass is a sacrifice.
Letter.
I am pleased with my doctor that he wants to spare my youth; I am very grateful for that. For the sake of useless doctrines, grown up for several hundred years, I do not accept anything; no one has ever heard of me that I have never vowed any abuses. Nor have I said that John wrote in Revelation about the sacrifice of the mass. But I have only introduced the twofold reckoning of the four and a half years, so that it could be announced that John in his revelation partly compares himself to Daniel, the time half of the four and a half years. I have also not yet sufficiently understood that my Lord Doctor has spoken, so that one might well see who today desires to expel and kill the others, of which I am not at all willing. The explanation of Daniel's words, which I gave earlier, I will stick to the same.
Doctor Johannes Oecolampadius.
I also leave it at my explanation, done before. And as far as he has something lacking, I will explain to him still further.
Theobaldus Keeper.
The Scriptures, through Mr. Gilg and Mr. Johann Buchstab, as concerning the sacrifice of the Mass, today and yesterday according to the length of much Scripture presented, namely Melchizedech, Malachiam, Danielem and others etc., if they are rightly understood, sufficiently brought to day, the sacrifice of the Mass to be according to the word of God, as I trust and submit to common Christian church, where I would not have been conformed to the word of God.
Zwingli.
We have heard all our days, whoever presents himself as a witness should not be trusted with testimony. But if my lord priest even makes himself a judge, [he] will lie who has ordered him, or [whether one] will confess his verdict to him. Therefore it would have remained with the common signature. We testify to those who have a faithful understanding of the Scriptures.
Theobaldus Keeper.
I set my cause as I have spoken; I hope that I have not embellished 1) [anything] with it.
On Jenner's 21st day.
Master Johannes Mannberg.
In nomine Domini! Amen. Esteemed, venerable gentlemen! Because this matter, concerning the mass, whether it is a sacrifice or not? although it has been sufficiently discussed, I come across a saying of Paul, in my opinion, serving this matter; which Paul writes to the Hebrews on the 5th, reads thus: "Every bishop or high priest, taken from among men, is ordained for men against God, because he offers gifts and sacrifices for sin. Which scripture is also indicated by the preceding history of the Old Testament, namely Deut. 16: "Aaron stood between the living and the dead, and prayed, and the plague ceased. In which two histories, Paul's and the fourth book of Moses, it is meant and proved that the mass is a sacrifice.
1) "frowned upon" probably as much as: missed.
Berchtoldus Haller.
Paul to the Hebrews on the 5th compares the priesthood of the Old Testament with the priesthood of Christ JEsu, namely: As the priests of the Old Testament offered gifts and sacrifices for sin, so Christ Jesus, the supreme priest, offered himself for our sin, and with the one sacrifice perfected and made perfect all those who are sanctified. And of this I bear witness to the text.
Mannberger.
I have understood this answer, as Mr. Berchtold says, that the text is drawn to Christ the Lord; and the words of Paul Heb. 5 are spoken long after Christ; for in human sight Paul never saw Christ before his death.
Butzer.
Paul received his gospel, that is, all his Scriptures, through the revelation of Jesus Christ, Gal. 1. Therefore, it does not follow that the Mass is a sacrifice; nor does it follow that Paul's Scriptures are doubtful.
Mannberger.
Paul the holy apostle says that the high and highest priest will pray for the sins of men. The Old Testament also testifies to this, Deut. 16, because Aaron was a priest of the Old Testament, who stood between the living and the dead, and asked etc.
Berchtoldus Haller.
The N, Hans indicates from the prayer of Aaron, is all fulfilled in Christ, as follows in this 5th chapter: "And he hath in the day of his flesh" etc.
(And the text was read out.)
Mannberger.
I'll stick with the text.
Berchtoldus.
Me too.
Letter.
The beginning of this final speech, introduced by Mr. Berchtolden, I have not yet answered for. Thus I say: The counter-accusation that the sacrificer must be better than that which is sacrificed is without scripture. For nowhere does it say in words that Abel was better than he sacrificed. For in such a form
No sinning priest may baptize; yet baptism is better than the baptizer. Mary, the mother, offered Christ in the temple, but she was not better than Christ.
Berchtoldus.
The schoolmaster has well advised such an objection, because it is not able to counter the final speech. I ask him what Abel sacrificed?
Johannes Buchstab.
Abel sacrificed from the firstborn of his sheep.
Berchtoldus Haller.
The schoolmaster answered that Abel sacrificed etc., but I think Abel is better than his sheep. The fact that he then refers to baptism as being better than the Baptist is not found in Scripture, because baptism is an external element. According to this, Mary did not sacrifice Christ, but delivered him into the temple according to the law, and they sacrificed a pair of doves, but not Christ, as is said here.
Johannes Buchstab.
Although Abel has been better than the sacrifice, the same will therefore not have to be everywhere. Further to the beginning, introduced by Mr. Berchtolden, that the mass is an abomination before God, because of the addition, ceremonies, crosses, garments, persons etc., I am not yet sufficiently informed by him in writing. For the sake of the precious vestments of the Mass, we have the same prefix in the law, as in Deuteronomy 28 and 35, 39. And as Mary Magdalene confirmed faith in Christ with visible external works, Luke 7, so may every Christian, according to his will, serve God with external things, gifts and ceremonies, although great abuses are sometimes practiced in this regard. Because of the sins and abuses, which are further introduced by him, I do not desire to protect, but I say that we have much mischief from it, when Jeremiah 5 is written: "Our sins have prevented the good things from us." Likewise Oseä 3: "There is no truth, no mercy, no knowledge of God in the earth. The curse, the lies, the death, the adultery, the theft have flowed in, and one blood has reached the other; and because of this the earth will weep, and every one who dwells in it will be afflicted." From this it is clear that we have troubles because of sins and abuses.
Berchtoldus Haller.
Paul to the Galatians on the 5th exhorts us to remain steadfast in freedom, so that Christ may set us free. Since ceremonies, apart from the word of God, have imprisoned and bound our consciences, we should rightly renounce them, for we are no longer imprisoned under the bondage of the law. Magdalena has testified to her faith with the work of love towards Christ Jesus; we should do the same towards our neighbor. In the rest of the speech, the schoolmaster confirms our closing speech.
Johannes Buchstab.
Your speech, now introduced, will be easier to answer for in the final speech about Purgatory, where one will also deal with the ceremonies. Further to my opinion that it is an abuse to worship the bread of thanksgiving, I do not know that the bread should be worshipped, but that which is under the form of the bread, which does not pray any Scripture. I do not say anything about the use of both forms of the sacrament, because what the common Christian church accepts, I will also keep.
Berchtoldus.
It is written: "You shall worship God your Lord and serve Him alone. Now, since no scripture has been found to contradict the fourth clause, that the body and blood of Christ are essentially in the bread of thanksgiving, it should never be worshipped, for otherwise nothing would be worshipped but the sacramental bread. We do not mean to despise or dishonor the sacraments, but to keep and act according to Christ's command.
Letter.
Because I keep the body of Christ under the form of bread, and not in the bread, and worship the same, I have not acted contrary to the first commandment, but have done that which is commanded me therein. Furthermore, I do not confess that the mass is an abomination in the sight of God, because it is held in high esteem; for in the same way the night meal of Christ according to its custom, as well as the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, might be called an abomination, which is also held in high esteem before men, and willingly, but which is not an abomination, and never will be.
Berchtoldus.
Therefore, that the Mass has been esteemed the best work before men, and yet defiled with so many anti-Christian abuses as
and the schoolmaster himself partly confesses: how could it not be an abomination before God? If the Lord's Supper, the death of Christ, is highly esteemed by the faithful, they have testimony of the Holy Spirit; which Spirit does not give testimony to the diminution of Christ's suffering in the Mass.
Mannberger.
Because the supper of Christ is called coena and thanksgiving, it is also called a testament of Christ, Matth. 26. Because it is called a testament, every testament has an executor. But that the apostles executed and performed the sacrament of Christ, I prove by the holy Scripture, John 19, when Christ on the cross fulfilled his testament, and commanded his mother Mariam John, saying: Ecce, mater tua! Take hold of your mother, says the text in the same place, and from this hour he took her into his keeping. It is clearly evident that by Christ's command John is to be an admitted guardian of Mary.
Zwingli.
It is clear enough that the testament that God made for us is gracious forgiveness of our sin. And as every testament comes into force and essence when the one who made the testament dies, so Christ Jesus the Son of God died, and the testament is confirmed with his death. It is also publicly found that not only the flesh of Christ, eaten in the flesh, is not the testament, but also his own blood, with which the testament is established; as first and formerly heard. 1) But the testators or executors are the apostles. This is well said. They distribute the testament, that is, the forgiveness of sins; as Luke 24, Matthew 28, Mark 16, that the remission of sins should be preached throughout the whole world. We gladly believe that the mother of Christ had besought John and Mary, and that he had waited for them with discipline and faithfulness.
Master Johannes Mannberger.
Mr. Berchtold! Against your final speech I argue that it is contrary to Scripture to offer up Christ the Lord to the Father for the sin of the living and the dead; but I think it is unanimous with Scripture, from the substantial words of Christ our Lord Luke 22, which he says:
1) See Col. 1815 f.
"This is the cup that is poured out for your and many men's sins!" Say also after it, "As thickly as ye do this, do it in my remembrance!" Is cheerful that the mass is unanimous with the Scripture, and against the final speech.
Is all answered for earlier.
End of the fifth closing speech.
The sixth closing speech.
As Christ died for us alone, so he is to be called a unique mediator and intercessor between God the Father and us believers. Therefore, all other mediators and intercessors, outside of this time, called upon, 1) are raised by us without reason of Scripture.
Explanation of the sixth final speech.
Master Franz Kolb.
In the first epistle of Peter at the 2nd chapter: "Christ is he who never committed sin, and in his mouth was never found deceit. Therefore he says Joh. 14 in the supper: "the prince of this world would have come, but he had nothing in him", no cause of death. Of which no saint has ever been able to boast, Ephes. 2: "For by nature we were all the children of wrath." They have all had to confess and say, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Therefore Christ alone, and no one else, died for us; therefore he alone is a mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus, God and man, 1 Timoth. 2, through whom alone we may come to the Father, John 14, Ephesians 2. 2 Therefore in all our temptations and complaints we should run, call and cry out to Him alone, as He admonishes us, Matt. 11, for He is the only One, in that God the heavenly Father is pleased with Him, Matt. 17. Therefore no other should be called to be an advocate for us believers, but He alone. Because now, contrary to so many clear Scriptures, our unique 2) Mediator and Beatificator Jesus Christ has long been placed next to them [the intercessors], and without any Scriptural reason has not thought up fourteen emergency helpers alone,
1) "called" put by us instead of: "to call". See Col. 1620 - "outside this time", that is, who are not in this temporality.
2) "some" put by us instead of: "own". - Immediately following: "they" instead of: "themselves".
Yes, in every wretched shrine people have sought comfort and help, and the whole world has become full of idolatry, which bishops and priests have little respected, and have even erected and confirmed. Therefore we are caused to preach this final speech as you have heard it.
Hans Wächter von Schenkenberg, Purßmann.
Venerable, pious Christians! The churchman of Brugk 3) has publicly preached against this article; which I have then contradicted, according to the mandate of my gracious lords, which has also reached them at last. Therefore, I require and request him, if he is still of such opinion, to indicate his reasons and causes, then I will give him a friendly answer. So the content of his sermons urged on the intercession and invocation of the blessed; initially from the 1st book of the Machabees, 4th chapter, with the words, as that Judas Machabee spoke to the people: "Let us call to the heavens, and God will have mercy on us." And gave to understand, how Judas had not spoken: Let us cry unto God; but: Into the heavens, and God will have mercy on us. He admitted that it was not wrong to cry out to God, but he exhorted the people to cry out to the heavens. But what the heavens are, he proves from Ps. 18 [19]: "The heavens declare your praise." From which he assumes that these are the blessed or saints in heaven. Therefore I want to know if he is still of this opinion?
Mr. Johann Lottstetter, churchman at Brugk.
Because I am required by the petitioner to give an answer to my sermon, which was preached to the Christian people on All Saints' Day in Brugk, concerning the most blessed Virgin Mary and all God's holy intercession, whether or not I will bar it again? I answer: As I have taught before, so I will bar it again. At that time I relied on the holy common Christian churches, also on the mandate of my gracious lords; and I believe that I acted in a Christian and obedient manner. I hereby order it to be discussed by the more learned than I am, to whom I have subscribed.
Hans Wächter.
Now, on this, when he then admits how my gracious lord's mandate points to the seven sacraments and other ceremonies, I say
3) "Bruck" in the Canton of Aargau.
No to this. The last mandate of my gracious lords, which is Christian and divine, does not keep this inside, therefore I do not confess it to him. Only that is to be preached which may be presented with divine, true and biblical scripture; from this he may prove his sermon. Even if the book of the Machabees were biblical scripture, Judas wants nothing else than that one should call to God who dwells in heaven. Just as the prophet David does in the 122nd [123rd] Psalm, where he says: "To you, O Lord, I lift up my eyes, you who dwell in the heavens," Christ also teaches us to pray Matt. 6: "Our Father, who art in the heavens. Therefore, as he has commanded the scholars of his company, so may I and will I do to my Christian brothers and gentlemen here.
Mr. Johannes Lottstetter.
As I have behaved, I will also leave it alone. For I have not provided myself to dispute with him, much less with the scholars present there, but always to publicly sow my faith, for instruction in better things.
Johannes Wächter.
My gracious lords have required me to do this. If it is not necessary for you to know, my lords know it well.
Gilg Murer.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all! Amen. Since a whole Christian congregation has always held the intercession of the highly praised virgins of Mary and the dear chosen saints, we are not a little surprised that my preachers have let such a closing speech go out with theirs, when Christ, our very best schoolmaster, has well given us to understand that many doctrines are used, since not everyone can know whether they are from God or from men, namely Matth. 15: "Every doctrine or planting that does not come from God, my heavenly Father, is rejected. This doctrine or opinion of the sixth Conclusion was awakened by the Vigilantium some baptismal years ago, but it has been rejected for a long time, and the honor of the highly praised Mother of Christ and of the dear saints has been accepted again, for which reason we should all be advised to stick to it. But that the conclusion of the first holds that Christ died for us, we all believe. But if it be further argued, that there should be some mediator and intercessor
between God etc., requires a distinction, namely, that in Scripture two kinds of mediators are invented. To the first there is one Mediator, who has redeemed us, and no one else, neither St. Paul nor St. Peter. And so it is true that there is one mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, because he has redeemed us. Another time a mediator is found in the Scriptures, not that he has redeemed us, but that he may ask God for us. This is evident in all the epistles of Paul, the holy messenger of the Twelve, that he has come to ask at the very first *for the people to whom he writes. In the same way, he asks for the means of intercession from other men, 2 Thess. 3: "Brothers, ask God for us." But that the living here on earth may ask God for us, therefore also those in heaven may ask God for us. I prove this: Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 that we are all seeds, members in Christ. Now the quality of the members is that one should be helpful to the other. The elect saints in heaven are not excluded from this, for they remain members of Christ the Lord forever.
Guardian.
Dear Lord! Since you have indicated the intercession of the saints or the blessed at the time of the apostles, we request that you indicate them to us from divine Scripture.
Gilg Murer.
We are all limbs as I have dressed before.
Zwingli.
That the intercession of the saints, of their mind, has ever been, cannot be proven by biblical scripture. For that the Mother of God and the blessed who are with God were ever called upon in the times of the apostles cannot be invented at all. We also gladly let up that all planting, which the heavenly Father has not planted, is extinguished. If the intercession and invocation of the saints, as they understand it, is not found in the divine Scriptures, then it shall be put to rest. For the sake of the mediator, we do not take up their division, for we speak here, as the final speech does, only of the mediator, who is a certain, undoubted intercessor and peacemaker between God and us, that is Christ Jesus alone; and the final speech itself reads thus: As Christ alone died for us, so shall he be a mediator between God the Father and us. Because of the members and the whole body everyone sees that Paul 1 Cor. 12
describes the members and the body of Christ alone, which is still in this time; leaving us to the text.
(The was read.)
Therefore this argument proves that we should intercede for one another while we are in this time; but the calling and intercession of those who are out of this time is not proved.
Gilg Murer.
I ask in answer to this plea: whether the elect saints in heaven are not all our members?
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
Answer: They are our members because of the one God, whom they now possess, partake of and take. Because of the deficiencies we bear at this time, they are no longer our members, for the saints of God are no longer touched by heat, labor, or pain, as Isaiah 1) says; therefore they are not the members Paul speaks of in the above-mentioned place.
Gilg Murer.
If the dear saints are members of Christ, they must also be our members, for it is as One Body, so they may also pray for us. I prove this in abundance from the Book of Revelation of John, Chapter 5: "And when the Lamb had taken the book, the four beasts, and four and twenty elders, played before the Lamb, having every man harps, and golden vials full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." Here St. John describes the prayer of the chosen saints in heaven.
Zwingli.
Enough has been said about how the elect of God in the blessedness of Christ are members and our members. And that they are our members of the body that is still here, Paul's words cannot, 1 Cor. 12, because the deficiencies that are admitted to the church here do not befit them. From the Revelation of John we do not accept any information, because it is not a biblical book; although everything that they would like to draw into it, serves us and not them.
Gilg Murer.
Master Ulrich says and says that the elect saints in heaven are members of Christ, but not as we are called members of Christ.
1) Isaiah 25. cap.
Holy God for us; for we have written 1 John. 2: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate before God the Father, Jesus Christ." If then the dear saints in heaven are members of Christ, and the head, Christ, prays for us, why then would not his members conform themselves to him in prayer? But that he says that the book of the Revelation of John is not a biblical book, we think not; for wherever biblical books are printed in the Christian Church, the book of the Revelation of John is always included, for St. John the Evangelist wrote it.
Zwingli.
. It does not follow from his syllogism: Christ is our mediator, intercessor or advocate, 1 John 2, so also the saints are intercessors, mediators and advocates. For as he alone, who is the Son of God, suffered death for us, so he alone may be our mediator. If the blessed ones are not gods by nature and essence, they have not suffered death for us; neither are they our mediators, to the extent that we speak of mediators. When he says, Why should they not be conformed to him? Answer: Because He is God, and they are not; and God, by His word and command, has promised us Christ as a mediator, and none of the blessed. The Book of Revelation, which is the Gospel of John, is not explained by any scripture or history.
Murer.
The fact that Ulrich finally said that the book of the Revelation of John should not be proven with biblical scripture will not help him. For I wanted to speak to him in the same way and ask him: where he wanted to prove with biblical scripture that the Gospel of John is John? and the same with other books. But that he said that although the elect saints in heaven are members of Christ, it does not follow that they ask God for us, I will prove that this is to be believed. For that a man here on earth asks for another is done out of brotherly love, which love is never taken away from the saints in heaven, 1 Corinthians 13, cap.
Zwingli.
The name and superscription, Apocalypsis, indicates to us enough that it is not St. John the Evangelist, which thus reads: Apocalypsis of St. John the Theologian. I let alone the teacher. But the Blessed Intercession from 1 Cor. 13, therefore that
The argument that they are in love, which is not taken away from the saints, is more controversial than the argument about the body and the limbs. For here is not described the love that the blessed have in heaven, which is eternal delight and joy without all suffering and sorrow, but here is described the love that we men have in this time. And the word "love is not taken away from them" is not used by Paul, but "love does not fall away," and we are reminded of the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 13.
Gilg Murer.
We stay with that, and hope the book Apocalypsis should be biblical, while commanding it to a Christian community.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
So we also command the Christian community, and those who understand the title.
Gilg Murer.
But that Master Ulrich said that Paul does not speak of the love of the saints here in Corinthians 13 is without doubt. For he says, "Love will never cease. Nor do I think that he can say that the elect saints in heaven should not have divine love, even more superfluously than any man can have it here at this time.
Zwingli.
We confess that the love of the elect blessed is much different, more unbrest-like 1) and greater than the love of the dying. But this does not argue against us, for we see that Paul speaks of the love we have in this time; we do not want to ascribe the same brotherly love to the blessed of God, as is indicated in the words of Paul.
Gilg Murer.
My argument is still present, in part, that if Christ prays for us in heaven, and our opponents admit the intercession of men here on earth, then let it also be required of those in heaven. For why? Either the saints in heaven do not pray for us, as here the living on earth do, because it is not fitting for them, then it would not be assigned to Christ either; or it is such a thing that belongs to Christ alone, namely, praying in heaven, then it should not be assigned to those here on earth either, but that may not be.
1) That is, less frail.
Zwingli.
All this is answered for. And as this is a consequence: Christ stands up there for us, therefore we have God's word; and we are to pray here for one another, therefore we also have God's word: so now let it follow that the blessed above pray for us, therefore we do not have God's word; I command all believers who allow themselves to be assured of God's word alone.
Gilg Murer.
This answer will not be enough. For if Christ pray for us in heaven, it may not be denied the saints in heaven by any writing. I prove this from the holy evangelist. In the 17th chapter of John Christ says: "Father, the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one thing, even as we also are one thing; I in them, and thou in me." If then they are one thing with Christ, there is no doubt that prayer will not be denied them, with biblical scripture.
Zwingli.
The word of Christ John 17 is not about the blessed who are outside this time. I rely on the words of Christ.
Gilg Murer.
Christ asked that the disciples here on earth be one thing with him, because of his grace and Spirit: much more are the elect saints in heaven one thing with the grace and Spirit in Christ; and so they may ask more abundantly for us in heaven than those who are here on earth. For the prophet David writes Ps. 31 [32] of the remission of sins, and after that [v. 6]: "Before thee shall every saint pray in time to come, if it be sent or come to pass."
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
But Christ does not speak of unity here, but of the one that is aimed at men here in this time. The psalm is not against us. For Sanctus means a saint, that is, a believer, or God-fearer, who will ask God in their time.
Gilg Murer.
I will prove the intercession of the chosen saints in heaven from the prophet Jeremiah 15, where he says: "If Moses and Samuel stood before me, my soul would not be against the people". Here it is obvious that the prophet Jeremiah spoke of the dead in heaven, because at that time they had long since died.
Zwingli.
I ask you: whether Moses and Samuel were in heaven before the future of Christ, or not?
Gilg Murer.
Speak: No.
Zwingli.
So your argument is nothing.
Gilg Murer.
God has indicated in this saying that the dead may well pray for us. For what did he want to say: If Moses and Samuel stood before me, if it had not been incumbent upon them to ask? It would be a clumsy speech to say, "If the sun and the moon ask the Lord for the people, they will not be heard; for these two creatures can never understand such things.
Guardian.
Dear Lord! What will you conclude from this saying? Isaiah on the 63rd says to God: "Look down now from heaven, and behold your holy habitation and glory! Where is your zeal and power, the multitude of your glory, and your mercy, which is also shown toward me? Thou art our Father, and Abraham knoweth not of us, and Israel knew us not."
Gilg Murer.
What will you conclude from this, that our father Abraham did not confess us, and Israel? This is to be understood of the person. And even if we admit that the old fathers did not know all things about us men on earth, in limbo, they may know it in heaven. For as John writes in the holy Gospel: "This is eternal life, that they may know thee one God"; if then they know God in heaven, how would they not know some other things in Christ?
Zwingli.
The word of John has the meaning that this leads to eternal life, to know God and Jesus Christ. But what does this serve for the final speech?
Gilg Murer.
Because the rich man asked Luke 16 in hell for those on earth, rather we should believe that the elect in heaven may ask God for us.
Zwingli.
the rich the children of this world, and will signify that they who trust in God, from the time they depart from this age, shall enter into the bosom and joy of God; but they who live according to their lusts in this age shall be eternally damned; and here Abraham is not put on for his person, but, as it is said, he signifies the person of God.
(There was no dispute on the 22nd day.)
To the 23rd day of Jenner.
I therefore leave the saying Lucä 16, presented by Mr. Gilgen. Further, in the same chapter Christ said: "Make friends of the good of wickedness, so that if you fail, they will take you into the eternal tabernacles. Now none of them may take us by their own power into the eternal tabernacles, for only with intercession for what we have shown them on earth, with alms and mercy.
Berchtoldus.
Christ speaks of the living saints who suffer poverty and affliction, to whom we should share our temporal possessions, so that when we are cast off by death from the administration of temporal goods, they may receive us into the eternal tabernacles; not they, but God, for the sake of what we have done to them in His name; For they will bear witness to our faith, which we have exercised in them through works of love, and just as all that we prove to the poor has been done for Christ Jesus, so also the reward will be given to them, which God alone does, Matth. 25.
Johannes Buchstab.
For the sake of brevity, I will stick to what I have presented. Say further: The apostles have
1) I,Ä2uriaIi. So the old edition. - This word should designate the name "Lazarus" in Hebrew language. How Zwingli thought of the punctuation of the above word is hidden from us. It seems to us (after the translation given by him) that he formed the word from *?, and rv.
I have prayed for people on earth, healed some by the will of God, and brought some to life. I ask in writing that they are no longer able to do this in heaven, or where such power has been taken from them? since the prophet David says in the 138th Psalm: "God, how your friends have almost been honored, and their glory has been firmly strengthened. Where then would the glory of the apostles be strengthened, if they were less able in eternal life than on earth?
Berchtoldus.
The apostles, while practicing the command of Christ during this time, prayed, preached, healed, believed, and loved. But after they were called out of this time by God, God gave them something better, so that they might miss eternal joy. Therefore, if one wants to argue about the ministry and deeds of the living, do not follow them to the dead. Secondly, when he introduces the saying from the Psalms, it does not prove the calling of the saints at all, but how God has given them his Spirit, with the variety of his gifts and graces, to perform signs, to preach the word of God, to convert the Gentiles to the faith, against all power of the world, of the devil and of death. This is their honor, which is why they are called princes, or the nobles of the church of God.
Johannes Buchstab.
You have not yet proven that they may not ask for us.
Berchtoldus.
It is shown 1) sufficiently that we have one mediator, 1 Timoth. 2 and 1 John 2, and prayer, because it is to be done by faith and hope, but if the elect saints are above this, it follows that they do not pray.
Letter.
Your introduced sayings would immediately preserve us as well, that we would not want to ask the living, as the dead. But that the saints pray, we have the evidence of Daniel on the 4th, where it is written: "Perceive that the watcher and the holy one have descended from heaven. This is followed by: "It is set or placed in the judgment of the watchmen, and the speech of the saints, and the supplication. Here it is cheerfully indicated that the saints pray in heaven.
1) See Col. 1872.
Berch toldus.
The first does not mean that the blessed do not ask for us, or that Christ is one mediator: therefore we should not ask for one another. Scripture shows that Christ is a mediator, and teaches us to pray for one another, but rather to pray with one another. But to call upon the blessed, there is no scripture yet. The fact that he refers to the Daniele serves no purpose at all, since it is spoken of the living, who were tormented by the tyrant. One must notice how the word Sanctus, Holy, is applied to all Christians in Scripture, as it is found in the Epist. of St. Paul, in the 1st of Corinth, in the 1st chapter, and in the 2nd of Corinth, in the 1st chapter.
Declaration D. Johannis Oecolampadii of the place Danielis on 4.
But if the Scriptures are searched thoroughly, it is understood: "This was spoken in the provision of the watchmen, and asked in the conversation of the saints. Here it is evident that no report of the prayer was made. And this argument does not serve them here in the reason, because the prophet only wants to say that the judgment had already been passed on the king Nabuchodonosor.
Letter.
That Christ is our only mediator, and teaches us living ones to pray for one another, this is not denied to the dead, even though you have no cheerful scripture about it. The saying of Daniel shows us that he descended from heaven; he cannot well minister to a living person. St. Peter also said, 2 Pet. 1 [v. 16]: "But I will be diligent to have you diligent after my death, that ye may have remembrance of all these things." Here St. Peter went to do something with them after his death.
Berchtoldus.
I ask: do you confess that Christ is a sufficient mediator?
Letter.
Yes, I confess.
Berchtoldus.
It is sufficiently shown that Christ is our only mediator, therefore we do not need any other mediator. Because of the saying of Daniel, there was a vision and a vision and an appearance; not that the saints first came from heaven.
but by the angels, who as well as other visions caused. Peter's saying does not serve his purpose at all, because it reads: "But I will be diligent that you always remember this after my departure, for we did not follow clever fables when we made known to you the power and future of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Johannes Buchstab.
As I have explained it, so I remain. I find written in the book of Job 33, 23. f., that Heliu [+Elihu], a friend of Job, gives Job a counsel, so that Job would be relieved of his repugnance, and says: "If there will be an angel, who speaks one thing for him out of the like, and proclaims the piety of man, [he] will have mercy on him, and say: Execute him, so that he does not descend into destruction" etc. Here we have evidence that the angels may pray for us. How much more the saints, so St. Paul speaks 1 Corinth. 6: "Know ye not that we shall judge the angels?" If the angels have such power, how much more do those who judge them have power?
Oecolampadius.
The saying, drawn from Job, does not refer to the angels being given a request or intercession, but rather to the angel admonishing or proclaiming something, and instructing and teaching so powerfully that the man then asks God the Lord because he has been moved by the angel, and thus obtains God's mercy. Therefore the saying serves you nothing at all; for further also follows: that God will indulge man, and command the angel to deliver him with his service. As we also have in the Psalms: Angelis Angelis suis mandavit de te etc., "He has commanded his angels from you." And it is written, For I have found him merciful, that is, when the sinner is converted.
Johannes Buchstab.
That the sentence of Job may stand according to my precept, I will bring in another for it. Zechariah 1 is written thus: that the angel of God be kindled, and saith, O Lord of hosts, how long hast thou not had mercy on Jerusalem, and on the city of Judah, against which thou art wroth, which is now the seventieth year? And the Lord answered the angel that spake in me good and comforting words." But here we have a message that the angels may pray for us.
Oecolampadius.
This saying of Zachariah is also not understood by the schoolmaster. It does not say that the angel asked. Nor does it say that God heard his prayer. But it is a schematism; that is, in the vision, by pretending such words of the angel, the prophet is taught that the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem is already present. One would like to take from this as soon grumbling words, as pleading words.
Letter.
The writing, introduced by me, I leave with the bare text, without all gloss.
Oecolampadius.
So we ask every Christian reader to read the Scriptures with understanding, and to perceive what the prophets speak of.
Letter.
We would still like to have customers from Tobias, Baruch, the Machabees and the Revelation of John, but we are not allowed to have them.
Oecolampadius.
The schoolmaster should know that the books that are put together in the Bible have a difference and are not of the same weight. Some books are appointed to speak of the faith, to bear witness against the adversaries; they are called canonici, because they are to be a rule or guide for us in matters of faith, and none of the books is denied them. Other books are read because they are either good examples or exhortations, but they are not of such standing, where one wants to deal with faith, that one should take information from such books.
And therefore the schoolmaster has nothing to complain about.
Letter.
Because we are Christians, we should make use of what the Christian church needs. And if we were to leave the same, we would not know which Gospels to keep, since it is found that ten Gospels have been written. And those who say that Apocalypsis is not John the Evangelist, say also that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not Paul's; from which Epistle our opponents, according to their reason, have every reason against the Meffe, that it is not a sacrifice.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
We like to need that the Christian church needs, but each in its value. There are books in the Old Testament which the children of Israel in the sum and number of the Holy Scriptures have never accepted. There are books in the Old Testament which the children of Israel, in the sum and number of the Holy Scriptures, have never assumed to prove anything, as is spoken of before by Oecolampadium; so also in the New Testament. The probation of the Church is not the probation of the bishops meeting together, but the probation of all orthodox believers. We do not reject the books whose testimony we do not take in proving the serious matters of faith, just as women are not rejected in the church, but if one is to testify to serious matters, one does not accept their testimony. Since this disputation has such a great reputation, we, according to the custom of all scholars and godly men, only accept the testimony that no one can reject. Not that there is anything in the writings of which they complain that would weaken the preachers' conclusion, but that certain order is kept, as stated above. For the sake of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we say that we leave it to each one to judge who wrote it. For my own part, I do not know otherwise than that it is Paul's, and that because of some Hebraisms, also because of the spirit and the feasts which St. Paul has in other epistles. However, it is known by all orthodox believers through the Spirit that it is worthy of proving the difficult things of faith from its teachings. And although there is great reason in the epistle to reject the sacrifice of the mass, there is sufficient reason in other epistles of Paul and the Gospels to reject it, as has been sufficiently explained. Of many written Gospels, it is true that many names of those who wrote the Gospels are given, but the same Scripture has been so denunciatory, and so unlike the true Word of God, that the disciples of Christ cannot be suspected of such unfounded teaching, therefore it has never been accepted by the Christian people.
Letter.
For the sake of brevity, I will leave it at my previous speech, saying thus: Christ commanded us to honor our father and mother, Marci 7, and it follows that he also did so. Therefore we Christians should also honor the highly praised chaste and eternal virgin Mary, that she may make us partakers of her grace, of which she is full, Luc. 1. Went to her
Solomon's son to ask something from him, Solomon answered her and said: "Ask, my mother, because it is fair that I turn my face [not] from you", in the first book of the Kings at the 2nd chapter. Yes, perfectly the Virgin Mary will say to her Son: O King! if I have found grace in your eyes, and if it pleases you, give me the soul for which I ask, and my people for whom I earnestly ask! This figure is shown to Esther on the 7th day. Hereby I will have concluded the final speech of intercession of the saints.
Zwingli.
The fact that Christ honored his mother according to the law does not prove that she was therefore made God or given divine power, for it is written in Isaiah 42: "I will not give my glory to another. We see Jn. 2, when the Virgin Mary asks Christ to help her lack at the wedding, Christ says to her: "Woman, why do you take care of me? my time is not yet here. In which words he tells her that she should not command him in things that are under the authority of the Godhead. In the same way, we also have Luke 2. We do not let the figure of Bersabe and Solomon be a figure of that which they indicate, but it is an anagogy; 1) for they no longer prove anything, neither taste nor smoke from the meal they have eaten. For that, for which the anagogues are used, shall have beforehand in bright words God's reason, and then they are an ornament, and not the reasons. We do not want to diminish the honor of the blessed eternal handmaid of Mary in any way.
Theobaldus Keeper.
The will of our Savior is that we turn from sins etc., have this through the prophet Ezekiel on the 18th: "I do not want the death of the sinner, but that he repent and live." If it is the will of God that we be delivered from sins, the blessed are not contrary to the will of God, but confirmed in His will. Why then did the members not want to compare themselves to the head, with asking? As we have Luke in the 20th chapter: "They neither man nor woman, neither do they die; they are like the angels, and are the sons of God. And if then the angel is servile, and asks, then ask
1) "An anagogia" put by us instead of: "an anagoga". About "anagogia" see Tischreden, Cap. 32, ? 5th St, Louiser Ausg., Vol. XXII, 1341. - Immediately following we have put "ab" [of] instead of: "ob".
even the blessed, if they are like the angels. Item, if we go to the saints, and visit the churches, there to lead astray our prayer, is not without cause, for we have a testimony of it in the first book of Moses on the 28th, when Jacob astonished himself from his camp, and said, "O how fearful is this place! here is nothing else, but the house of God, and gate of heaven." Christ also came into the temple etc., and the holy apostles Peter and John went into the temple at the ninth hour of prayer etc. And Christ worked more miracles in one place than in another. Item, in the first book of Kings, chapter 8, we have Solomon standing before the altar of the Lord, with his hands stretched out or tightened, saying: "O Lord, my God, behold the prayer of thy servant, and hear the praise and prayer which thy servant prayeth here before thee, that thine eyes may be open upon this house day and night." Item, in the following text he asks the Lord, saying: "And if a stranger come from far, not of thy people Israel, for thy name's sake; and if he come, and ask in this place, thou shalt hear him in heaven, in the firmament of thy habitation, and shalt do all that the stranger shall ask." Here it is to be noted that when pious people make pilgrimages, they do good to God in praise and honor, and in memory of the saints. Item, we have also in the 2nd Book of Kings at the 13th chapter God did a great miraculous sign in the Old Testament, through the dead Helisee (who was not yet blessed, as our saints are blessed in the New Testament), since one threw a dead body 1) into the grave of Helisee, and by touching the legs it came to life again; thereby one may well notice that God does signs through the dead. Hereby I submit myself to the common Christian church, to show me, where I would not have been conformed to the divine word.
Zwingli.
That the chosen blessed are obedient and unanimous in the will of God we recognize, for we ask that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. There is no doubt that in heaven no one sits down against God's will. But it is not right that they also ask for us. For though we have hitherto spoken of Christ's intercession, it is not right.
1) "a dead man's body" - the body of a dead man, 2 Kings 13:21.
But the same is done for the sake of good understanding alone, not that it should be otherwise, as we shall now hear in the words of 1 John 2, where it says: "My children, I write these things unto you, that ye sin not: and if any man sin, we have an advocate or a propitiator with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sin. Here we notice that Christ does not plead for us with fearful supplication or falling down, as we want to understand "pray", but that his prayer, once heard (as it is written in Hebrews 5: "He was heard in the time of his flesh", that is, death, "was heard"), is eternally enough, for the same is nothing else, neither the payment for our sin. But if such prayer, that is, payment for our sin, no one can do, neither the only Christ (for no one is God and man, no one is a mediator of God and men, neither he), then do not follow: Christ has the power or authority, therefore the elect also have it; or else that Christ is God must follow, then the blessed are also God, which is not at all appropriate. That the blessed ask for us, like sam 2) also the angels for us, we do not let up, because it is arguiren ex non concessis. We do not let the angels pray for us in this way, if they mean it. We well recognize that they are ministering spirits, but may not be a certain, undoubted intercessor, neither Christ. The place in the first book of Moses at the 28th, and that Christ worked more miracles in one place, neither in others; and that Solomon (in the first book of Kings at the 8th chapter) asked who would come into the temple etc., is all denied, since Christ John at the 4th says: "The time is coming when the true worshippers will worship neither on the mountain nor at Jerusalem"; and Matthew at the 24th: "When they say to you: Christ is in the field, do not go out" etc. The dead corpse of Helisei has therefore no power to make alive, which he, even alive, had not; but all miraculous works are of divine, not of human power; for Christ also saith, "The Father which is in me doeth the works."
Paulus Beck, Predicant at Gißlingen. 3)
Esteemed, wise, prudent gentlemen and pious Christians! My opinion is not to fight against these final speeches, because I have preached them myself in part. But I am from a
2) "like sam" - like.
3) This is "Geißlingen" in Würtemberg.
I have been ordered by the honorable and wise council of the city of Ulm and placed in the city of Gißlingen, their dominion, and have been earnestly commanded by them to present and proclaim the holy divine word there, unmixed with human teaching, purely and loudly to the people. I have done this, to the best of my ability, with the utmost diligence. Now, however, there is a pastor in the reported town of Gißlingen, named Doctor Jörg Oßwald, who, for the first time, reviles me, the least of these, together with other pious Christian preachers, heresies, proclaims seductive teachers before the simple people, and attacks them with many other blasphemies; has also attacked these ten articles many times, and has publicly offered to give account of his teachings before the high schools and all scholars, either in person or in writing. Because now an assembly of many excellent, learned men is gathered here, I have, at his high request, demanded in writing that he dispose of this free place here, that I give him an account and answer of my teachings before the scholars and before this Christian congregation, and that I in turn also show and teach him of his error with holy scripture. I was completely hopeful that he would appear according to his high command; therefore I waited until today, but I do not see him yet. If he, or someone on his behalf, were here with his writing, who wanted to attract me on account of my teaching, I am ready to give him an answer before this congregation of God. I also want to have protested and testified publicly here, and I hope that I have acted as a Christian preacher should in front of all pious Christians.
(End of the sixth final speech.)
This is the seventh closing speech.
That after this time no purgatory is invented in the Scriptures. Therefore, all death services, such as the vigil, the soul-measure, the soul-meal, the seventh, the thirtieth, the yearly time, lights, candles, and the like, are in vain.
Berchtoldus Haller.
This concluding speech is partly proved enough in the third, where we confess Christ as our only 1) wisdom, righteousness, redemption, and payment for all the sin of the world, so that it is ever necessary that no other satisfaction and payment for sin should follow the dead.
1) "some" of us put instead of: "own".
than the suffering of Christ. Secondly, John 3 says the Lord: "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life; for God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not judged, but he that believeth not is judged already." Here it is evident that eternal life follows the believers after their departure from this time. But life would not be eternal if the poor soul had to spend a long time in purgatory burning and roasting. "And he that believeth not is condemned already. This means that we either die believing or unbelieving, the believers into eternal joy, the unbelievers into damnation. The Lord confirms this in the 5th chapter of John: "Verily I say unto you: He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." Here Christ does not exclude from the last judgment, but indicates that here, through certain, undoubted faith, they begin to be saved; and will not fall into any judgment, revenge or condemnation at this death, but will pass from death into life, even through death into life, and possess what they hoped for. From this we understand that the death of believers is an entrance into life, and not a roll in purgatory after this time, from which we may help them. We have a clear testimony of Lucä in the 23rd chapter of the thief on the cross, to whom Christ said: "Today you will be with me in paradise!" With what will this thief be celebrated? Who wants to snatch him away from Christ and drive him into purgatory? Such and other scriptures convince that faith and trust in Christ Jesus, the door of his suffering and death, cannot suffer purgatory, for "there is nothing damnable in those who are in Christ Jesus. If "there is nothing condemnable in them, there will also be nothing punishable or worthy of punishment in them, according to Romans, chapter 8. Nor is it found in any scripture that there was a purgatory before the incarnation of Christ, much less when he redeemed us with his death. It is also repugnant to Christian love, because all services for the dead, be they masses of the soul, vigils, candles, or lights, are done unequally, with respect to the persons, much more abundantly and superfluously to the rich, and neither to the poor. It also follows that the poor
would have an obstacle to enter the kingdom of God through such death services, for the sake of their poverty. In addition, purgatory makes it suspicious that the works that are to extinguish it must all be bought with money, namely by the priests, so that many a poor man's bread is cut off before his mouth. But we do not want to deny that if a Christian is called from this time, he will be buried in a Christian and proper way, just as Abraham buried his wives Saram, Joseph his father Jacob, and the like, but without all pomp and expense. Thus we have taught in this concluding discourse that the believers will be well after their death, but the unbelievers will be ill. Therefore we should make every effort to live this present life in innocence, and be no more careful about the life to come than the Word of God teaches us. "Therefore all our efforts to extinguish purgatory are in vain.
Johann Mannberger.
Esteemed, venerable gentlemen! Because the conclusion is present, encountering purgatory, I think it is more an attraction of iniquity than of reason. Considering that it is written in the Apost. 1, the apostles said to the Lord, "Lord, will you give the kingdom to your people Israel again in this time? He answered them, "It is not in your knowledge the time or moment which my Father hath set in his power." Likewise Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2: "No ear has ever heard, nor eye seen" etc. So Christ speaks in the Gospel of John 14:2: "In my Father's house are many mansions." The Father's house is twofold: one, of reward, is the kingdom of the heavens, the nine choirs of angels. The other house is the house of punishment; of which Paul speaks in Ephesians: "He descended to the lower parts of the earth." We find an upper part of hell, a middle part, and the lowest part. Of the upper part we have in the 1st Book of Samuel 2: "The Lord that killeth, and quickeneth; he leadeth into hell, and bringeth out again." Of the middle part of the covers, the prophet David writes Ps. 85: "Lord, you have delivered my soul from the lower hell." Item, we also find a place of hell. Thus it is written in Zechariah 9: "O Lord, thou hast brought forth thy prisoners in the blood of thy testament out of the pit wherein was no water." Of the lowest place of hell, wherein is no salvation, Job 10 is written:
"I will go, and will not return to the darkness of the earth, which is covered with the darkness of death" etc. From this I will prove that just as there are many places of reward, so there are also many places of punishment. For no one may come to heaven defiled or reproached. The prophet David testifies: "Lord, who will enter your tabernacle?" and answers him himself, saying: "He who enters without masen, 1) and works righteousness", Ps. 14 [15, 1. 2.].
Zwingli.
That in the stories in the 1st Cap. is attracted, serves on no purgatory, but have the mind: When Christ has told the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until the future of the Holy Spirit, they ask: whether the same future would bring back the kingdom of Israel (which was then at2) under the power of the Romans)? To this he answers them: "It is not for you to know the time and cases or moments which the Father has kept in his own power." Christ accepts with the words that we should not burden ourselves with strange things to come, but leave it to his word and promise, and says above it: "You will receive the power of the coming spirit" etc. As if he said: "Let go what I tell you! I promise you the Spirit, and you ask me for the temporal kingdom; let that go, and prepare yourselves for the future of the Spirit. And so Christ did not allow the disciples alone, but also his own mother, to be proactive. We have heard about the mother today. Of the disciples we have that he cut off Petro from knowing the end and death of John, John 21 Cap. And with this place no purgatory is proven, because we know that all who die in Christ Jesus live with Christ Jesus, and also reign with him, in Romans 8 and in 2 Corinthians 1,
or Dei, translated "to give again"; we translate: "to raise up again". In which place, however, it is noted that they spoke of the restoration of the earthly kingdom. Concerning Paul in 1 Corinthians 2: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," etc., Paul speaks of the divine mysteries of His Son, whom He made man, and of the marvelous enlightenment, which is shown to us through Christ, that such light was never in the world, but was opened through Christ, and that the light of the world was never in the world.
1) "Masen" - blemish.
2) "because at that time" - at that time.
These are the words of Isaiah chapter 64, and Paul does not mean to say that it is not known where man will go after this time. Since he refers to John 14, we recognize that there are many dwellings in the house of God. But of the other house, which he points to purgatory, we know nothing, for the Scripture of Ephes. 4 does not refer to it. There he understands this world, that Christ came down and ascended again to heaven. In this connection it should also be known that inferi is translated by us as hells; and hell is not only called the place of the eternally damned, but also the state of the souls after this time, in the common. This is proved by the article of faith: Descendit ad inferos, he departed to the hells. Now it is certain that Christ neither visited nor redeemed the unbelievers who were in hell, that is, in eternal damnation, but he only took out of desire those who were deprived of the divine sight, but who had been God-fearing and faithful with Abraham; these he visited and redeemed; as 1 Pet. 3 Cap. in the first book of Moses at 44: Deducetis canos meos [capillos] ad inferos,
that is, into the grave. That from the Psalms is drawn; there we see that: "to lead to the hells, and again to lead from the hells," is nothing else, neither to kill nor to make alive. But since he says: "Thou hast redeemed my soul from the deep or lower hell", in the 85th Psalms s^Ps. 86, 13.], the Hebraism has no comparative.
D. Oecolampadius.
From the 9th chapter of the prophet Zechariah a saying has been drawn with these words: "And you also, in the blood of your testament, have let out your prisoners from the cisterns in which there is no water. This saying shows us how we are delivered through Christ from a heavy prison of sins; which prison is likened to a cistern, or sour pool, where there is no water or consolation in it: and does not actually refer to the absent punishment after life, although we are also delivered from eternal hell through the death of Christ. For since the merciful God has taken from us such present labor blessedness, and we are implanted in Christ through faith, we find from the worthiness of the merit, the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, that after life the believer still has 1) judgment nor punishment. There is also another saying, Job 10, which is not against us, but much more against us.
1) "nor - nor" - neither - nor.
more for us, since Job asks: "Let me weep over my sorrows before I go away, and not return to the dark earth. For St. Job does not want to save his repentance for the life to come, and indicates that there is an eternal abomination for those who are unrepentant here; that is, not purgatory.
Master Hans Mannberger.
I leave it as I have introduced it and command it to the Scriptures.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
That no man should go to heaven, except he that is without blemish, we forbear; but purity is not of our life or suffering, but God is he that justifieth, according to Romans 8:8.
Letter.
To the beginning, introduced by Mr. Berchtolden today, I answer recently thus: How Christ is our one satisfaction is sufficiently explained in the third final speech. Saint Paul speaks in the first epistle to Corinth on the 6th, likewise to Galatians on the 5th, that those who are attached to the sins of the flesh (as they are: fornication, covetousness, dishonesty, envy, strife, hatred etc.), that such will not possess the kingdom of heaven. Thus Christ speaks in Matthew 12, that one must give account of every useless word. Now not every useless word is a capital sin, therefore also some useless words, which are not capital sins, must be purged. For Isaiah says in the 35th chapter, "The way is called holy, the defiled shall not pass through it." We also know that man may believe, and yet not perfectly, for Christ did not find complete faith in Petro on the 14th of Matthew, when he said to him, "O thou of little faith! why didst thou doubt?" Man may believe as well as he does, but not so strongly as to be perfect in faith. For it is said in Matt. 19 of the young man who kept all the commandments, yet Christ said to him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor." Here it is to be believed that if the young man had thus died without all primary sin, he would not have been condemned, and yet would not have been perfect; and even if he had not been condemned, he would still have been cleansed for the rest, and would have kept it. This we may judge from the 65th Psalms, when he says: "We have passed through
the water, and the fire, and thou hast led us into rest." Likewise Jeremiah on the 31st: "They shall come in weeping, and I will lead them again in mercy, and will bring them through the turbulence of the waters into the right way, which leadeth unto eternal life." Nowhere do I find that anyone is led into rest and eternal life through torment, whether water or fire, except through purgatory.
Zwingli.
As far as we understand, the whole sum of his argument or plea is that some faith is imperfect, therefore their imperfection needs to be perfected or improved by purgatory. Let us say, then, for the sake of faith, that this is the right perfect faith, since one believes (like the apostles John in the 7th, Matthew in the 16th chapter) that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, and is ours. But in faith, God gives greater works to one than to another. He also gives greater glory and honor according to the measure of works and faith that He has given before. But where there is no such faith, we do not recognize it as faith; therefore blessedness comes to the first faith, although one is the least in it. Again, in unbelief, though he have great works, and greater, in speciem, neither he that hath faith, he is condemned; for all that is not of faith is sin, or unrighteousness, according to Romans 14. When Peter doubted in the sea, he doubted not that Christ Jesus was the Son of God, but whether that which he saw was Christ, and reacheth not unto the perfection of the essential faith. Faith. According to the account of every useless word, we believe the words of Christ; but the blood of Christ washes away all that we have behind in the account. The fact that Christ said to the young man, "If you want to be perfect," etc. serves us well for our teaching. For this young man came to Christ without faith, and yet he has many works, but only works that do not attack him in his mischievousness or avarice. When the discerning of hearts saw that he was one of those who had put all their comfort and trust in their riches, he touched him with his inner sickness, which he thought was hidden from all men, and said, "Will you be perfect," theologice; not that anything could make him perfect, neither the one God, but that the young man should think himself to be in the way of perfection from his works, which, after all, he is not.
was only a glitter. As if Christ said: You count your goodness according to your works, but only do works that do not violate your love of the kingdom 1): If then thou wilt be perfect according to thine own mind, sell all that thou hast. Here we see that the young man did not have faith, but trust in his works, and those works he valued as he wanted, and if God tells him what right faith requires, he goes away. Jeremiah, 31, is a comparative speech, and does not refer to purgatory, but to the punishments, toils and works that God inflicts on us humans. Isaiah 35 speaks of the way of the gospel, that all who dwell therein shall not be defiled. So also in the Psalms fire and water are taken for anguish and affliction, with which God attacks us in this time; not for any 2) purgatory; otherwise it must also be a purging water. Therefore, these places all prove no purgatory.
Johannes Buchstab.
If Peter's faith was sufficient in that he believed in Jesus Christ that he was the Son of God, all sinners would be saved who also believe this. That the blood of Christ washes away all that we have done in the account is not proven by any Scripture, for Paul speaks to the Romans on the 2nd verse that God will give to each one according to his works. The words of the prophet David and also Jeremiah, as long as they are not contradicted by open Scripture, I will let them stand according to my precepts.
Zwingli.
That faith in Jesus Christ makes all sinners whole, as also the faith of Peter, is the word of God, John 6: "He who trusts in me has eternal life. Enough has been said about 3) how believers are sinners and how unbelievers are sinners. The believers with shame and pain, but with undoubted hope in God; the unbelievers without shame and pain, but with despair in God. "The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin," says John 1 Ep. 1 Cap. God will also give to each one according to his works, but according to whether they are done in faith or unbelief, and God will reward his own gift; of which enough has been said. 4) And these places do not prove purgatory.
1) "Reichtage" - riches.
2) "of one kind" - of some kind.
3) See Col. 1674 f. 1678 ff.
4) See Col. 1745,1747 f.
Johannes Buchstab.
For the sake of faith, I leave it as it was said before in the third final speech. To confirm the previous sayings, introduced by me, I find interpreted by the prophet Isaiah in the 43rd chapter secundum septuaginta, he says thus: "You shall not be afraid, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by your name: Thou art mine. And if thou pass through the waters, I am with thee, and the waters shall not cover thee; and if thou pass through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; the heat shall not scorch thee, for I the Lord thy Holy One, God Israel, thy Savior" etc. Likewise 47th Isaiah speaks of the Chaldeans thus: The embers of the fire, you would sit over them, they will be a help to you. 1) Now there is neither the earthly fire nor the hellish fire by which man may be purified, but only purgatory.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
This is all accounted for. One knows well what fire and water mean in the places.
Letter.
Confirming this scripture, with a saying from the New Testament, Sanct Paul says 1 Corinth. 3: "The work of each one will be revealed. For the day of the Lord will declare it, when it is declared in the fire. And the work of each one, as it is, will prove the fire. If any work remains that he has built upon it, he will receive the reward. Whether any work burns, it suffers loss or desolation; but he is saved, even so as by the fire. Paul does not speak here of the fire of this world, for it is not salvific, nor of the fire of hell, for it is eternal.
Berchtoldus Haller.
St. Paul speaks here of the probation of doctrine, and not of purgatory. This is not our gloss, but the truth of Paul's words themselves. He tells the Corinthians about the sects, that one calls himself Cephae, the other Pauli, the third Apollo. "Who is Paul? (he says) who is Apollo? Servants they are, by whom ye believed; and the same as the Lord hath given to every one. I planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the growing up. So now neither is he who plants,
1) It will be meant Is. 47, 14. but even according to the Vulgate almost unrecognizable.
nor the one who fructifies anything, but God, who gives the growth. But he who plants and he who fructifies are one and the same. But each shall receive his reward according to his work. For we are God's helpers. You are God's work and building. I, by the grace of God, who am given to me, have laid the foundation as a wise master builder; another builds upon it. But let every man see how he builds upon it. For as for the foundation, no man can lay it otherwise than that which is laid, even Christ Jesus. Now if any of the teachers thus founds the hearers on Christ, since, when the fire of persecution comes, it can do as little against them as the elemental fire in gold, silver and precious stone, it is evident how faithfully the teacher has built up the people with the word of God, because they would leave life before the word of God. But if someone is so negligent in keeping the word of God that the listeners fall away because of accidental persecution, no different from how wood, hay and stubble are consumed by fire, this is the day of the unfaithfulness of the teacher or the builder. But the day of the Lord, that is, if it pleases the Lord, will reveal such things. But if any man's doctrine abide, and they that have received it leave not, then shall it be seen how he hath built up gold, and silver, and precious stones, and shall receive the reward of his building. But if anyone's work is burned up, they have been wood, hay and stubble. And even though the preacher suffers loss because of what he has taught, he will be saved if he perseveres in faith through the fire of all temptation. Therefore, "to build" here means to teach and preach; the foundation is Jesus Christ; the work that is built is those who hear and accept the word (1 Corinthians 9: "Are you not my work in God the Lord?"); the fire is temptation, persecution and persecution, which is salvific to all believers (Zechariah 13:13).I will lead the third part through the fire, and I will burn them as silver is burned; I will try them as gold is tried"); but the gold, silver and precious stones are those who have accepted the word of God, and suffer death before they stand; wood, hay and stubble are those who believe for a time, but when the temptation comes, and the fire of tribulation and persecution arises, they fall as wood and stubble from the fire. So it is clear from Paul's own text that he is not talking about purgatory, but about the fire of persecution for the sake of doctrine.
On Jenner's 24th day.
Letter.
I do not accept the gloss on Paul's saying, introduced yesterday, when Paul cheerfully says: "The day of the Lord will explain this. Now the day of the Lord is nothing else than the departure from this time, of which Paul also says 1 Thessalon. 5 that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night etc. Therefore I remain here with the bare text. But if a gloss would be necessary for me, I would stay with the one that has been used in three parts of the world, as in Asia, in Africa and Europe, during the thousand years 1).
Berchtoldus.
The schoolmaster complains of a gloss, introduced over the saying of Paul, when nothing else, neither the actual words of Paul, with their natural sense, are brought forth according to all scriptures; every Christian reader will recognize this. That he brings forth from the Day of the Lord, that it is the death of every one, and tries it with Paul in 1 Thessalonians on the 5th, he is mistaken himself, because Paul speaks of the last day there. But by the day of the Lord we understand the day in which God proves us, brings us home, and reveals how we have been built up. For in the departure of every man it is not made manifest to every man how he is the work of God. But when the Lord visits us with the cross, the thoughts of our hearts are opened. Hereby the saying serves nothing at all for purgatory.
Letter.
I'll stick with the light text.
Berchto ldus.
So do we.
Letter.
For the sake of the Shepherd, I say this: If we suffer punishment for our sins, or suffer punishment for them, as he suffered for his own, with a perfect faith, we will undoubtedly receive the same reward as he did, as well as everyone who believes completely. But this depends on it, as before also reported, who wants to believe in Christ JEsum, must accomplish all that he has taught, whose (to provide) is little. But that the rich celebrate the annual season, and so-
1) That is: more than a thousand years.
I do not confess that this does not benefit the poor who are not able to do so, because no vigil or Mass is said unless all the faithful souls are prayed for in the collections.
Berchtoldus.
There is no need for an answer to the half of the sexton; also what is drawn in by faith, because there is no purgatory tried, and explained nightly according to the length by Master Ulrichen. But that we say that all services of death are contrary to love, because they are done more needlessly for the rich than for the poor, is evident. For if the rich man did not hope that such services of death would be more beneficial to him than to the poor, he would soon refrain from them, even if ten fidelia had already been pronounced. It will be necessary that you first try that there is a purgatory; and if this happens, let us then see how the souls can be helped out of it.
Letter.
That the rich do more out of their goods than the poor, and the poor give their will to it, if they were able to do so. We can take an example from the Gospel of Marci 12, where Christ saw the rich putting much into the money box, and a poor widow came and put in two pieces of silver. This pleased God very much, because those who put in money out of superfluity did so. I hope that I have proved that there is a purgatory, but I have not yet heard a serene scripture that such is not the case. To confirm this further, I take before me the words of Christ, Matt. 5, when the Lord says: "Make an agreement with your enemy soon, while you are still on the way, lest your adversary give you to the judge, and the judge to his servants, and put you in prison! Forsooth, I say unto thee, thou shalt not go forth until thou hast paid the least quadrant. By this dungeon here must be understood a middle stay between heaven and hell, which is purgatory; for if he will not go out until he has paid, he will go out after that, if he has paid.
Berchtoldus Haller.
That there may be no purgatory is sufficiently explained in clear scripture in the final speech, and still remains constant and unchanged. But the saying of Matthew 5, which the schoolmaster wants to apply to purgatory, has the same meaning as the preceding words of Christ. He spoke about how to get along with the brother.
before the sacrifices are placed on the altar according to the custom of the law. In these words the Lord gives an example, so that he drives us to reconcile with our neighbor. And this is the opinion: If your law 1) called you to court, and you were now under way with him, to the judge; how would you act wrongly, but to be on good terms with him; for if you wanted to expect the severity of justice, but would not deny the guilt: what else followed from this, neither that the judge should throw you into prison, until you had paid the debt, to the least oert? Now this is the example, so that Christ teaches us: If someone offends his brother, he is indebted to him. Therefore he should be diligent to reconcile with him, lest the offense be brought before the supreme judge, God, and he say, "Thou wicked servant, I have forgiven thee all thy trespasses, because thou hast besought me; shouldest thou not also have mercy on thy fellow servant, as I have had mercy on thee?" and therefore the judge cast thee into eternal dungeon. So with the likeness of the right, where the debtor must procure eternal imprisonment, the Lord admonishes us to agree with our neighbor, lest we fall into eternal wrath and punishment. And nothing is said here about purgatory, but rather against it.
Letter.
How enough it is explained that there is no purgatory, I command the reader. Ask Mr. Berchtolden here: whether this saying of Matthew on the 5th speaks only of the living or of the dead?
Berchtoldus.
Of the living alone, as is clearly judged by Lucae in the 12th chapter: "But if you go with your adversary before the rulers" etc. "You hypocrites" etc.
(And the text was read out.)
Johannes Buchstab.
These words of Christ are a likeness, therefore they apply not only to the living, but also to the dead; for as he says here of the punishment, so shall it be there also. And the punishment of the prison is not eternal, but hell. As we have Isaiah 24 chapter, "They shall be shut up in the dungeon, and after many days shall they be visited." And nowhere is it found that the word dungeon means an eternal stay.
1) "Apply" probably so much as a creditor.
Oecolampadius.
This saying, in the prophet Isaiah, does not serve the schoolmaster either. For in this place "to visit" is not a consoling visitation, but a criminal one, and this saying rather applies to the despairing and those who deserve eternal damnation, than to the faithful, where one would accept the allegory. For the text says: "And in that day the Lord will visit judgment on the knights of heaven on high, and on the kings of the earth. On the earth realm, he ever wants to say that God will punish the enemies of the children of Israel and the faithful; now is well aware that such enemies of salvation are not waiting. And he says that they will be punished in this way: "And they will be gathered together like a cluster in the pit, and they will be sentenced to the dungeon"; and thus after many days, when the children of God have suffered at their hands, they too will be visited and punished. And if the judgment of God is pronounced on His house, the wicked will be punished with a severe punishment. Therefore, in no way may the place serve as purgatory.
Letter.
This gloss is nothing against me, because it holds nothing written in it, that the little word carcer is an eternal prison. We find the same in Ps. 141 [142, 8.]: "Lead out my soul from the dungeon." And because no perfect scripture is brought forth that the little word "prison" is an eternal prison, this text, according to my precept, will remain firm.
Oecolampadius.
If one looks at the prophet Isaiah, what goes before and after, then it will be found out whether this gloss of mine is a foreign one or not. In the 141st [142nd] Psalms, one may well notice from the title of the same Psalm what David understood by the dungeon, for the same Psalm has such a superscription: "A mind of David, when he was in the cave." From which it may be noted that David desired to be done with Saul and with his temptation, which temptation he calls a dungeon. So also, when we pray these psalms, we desire to be delivered from our spiritual enemies and temptations. If the schoolmaster would not let the dungeon of the damned be eternal, he would fall into the Origenic insanity. We have Matthew on the 22nd of him who has not the wedding garment, that the king has cast him hot
With bound hands and feet, into the utter darkness. Where there is such darkness, and such binding, together with weeping and gnashing of teeth, [such] may fairly be called a dungeon.
Letter.
I do not know the title of the Psalms shown. I make do with the Psalms and Isaiah. If David desired to be led away from Saul and called his challenge a prison, it is not against me. But that I would say that a prison should be taken for condemnation, according to the original way, is not my will, because I also believe according to the content of all Scripture that condemnation is eternal. For that alone is my intention and opinion that the little word "prison" is a stay that is not eternal, and as this was introduced by me, I stand by it. That the external darkness may also be called a dungeon, I do not reject; but the little word "dungeon" is not included.
D. Oecolampadius.
The mind of the scripture is presented, so we let it stay.
Theobaldus Hüter, pastor at Appenzell.
We have in the 2nd Book of Samuel at the 12th, how the king David sinned. When Nathan the prophet told him, etc., he repented of his sin and was forgiven by God, for he said, "I have sinned against the Lord," etc., and recognized his sin. Nevertheless, his sin had to be paid for and punished, for his son had to die for the sin of the father. When the prophet said, "The Lord has laid your sin on another," you see that God is lenient on the guilt, and yet a punishment follows etc. Although Christ has done enough for us, for the sin of the whole world, still some are condemned etc. He has also taken away original sin, yet children must be baptized, or they would not be saved if they did not receive baptism. He has put up with all sickness and pain, nevertheless we get sick and have to suffer death. And though he has done enough by his mercy, yet his justice requires that we do as much as is in us. Testifies the prophet Joel, chapter 2: "Return unto me in all your heart, in fasting, in weeping, in mourning." From this it follows clearly that in penitence there must be something criminal, and if we are not sufficiently purified here, it must be there. For as we have in
of the first epistle of John, chapter 5: "Whoever knows his brother to sin, a sin not unto death, let him desire, and it shall be given him life. It is a sin unto death for which I speak not to pray." Here one hears that St. John [teaches] to ask for one, and not for the others. This is not done for the living. For while man liveth, let no man despair of him. Therefore it is spoken of the dead. For no one should ask for those in hell; it follows that one should ask for those in purgatory, as we have an indication of this in Matthew 12: "Whoever speaks a word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the one to come. Now if the text says that a sin will not be remitted in the world to come, there is a clear indication that it is to be understood that in the world to come, that is, after this life, sins will also be remitted. Now it may not be in hell, it may not be in heaven; so it must be in the means we call purgatory, for two pardons are reported here. Command and submit me to common Christian church, where I would have erred. I also protest not to have mocked anyone here, for I recognize myself to have a small mind in such great matters, concerning our united faith.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
The whole sum of the priest's argument wants that we must do enough for our sin, and therefore prove purgatory, and it has been indicated before enough that Christ alone is our redeemer, payment, mediator, reconciler, as has been sufficiently indicated in previous concluding speeches. But the fact that David was punished, and the child born died, does not prove purgatory, because such punishment occurred here in time; it is also not a payment for sin, nor an acquisition of God's grace, because no bodies are equally important to the future glory that God will open up to us. But tribulation is inflicted on us by God as His harness, so that He may prove us and keep us in obedience. To Romans 5: "We glory in tribulations, for we know that tribulations bring patience, and patience brings probation, and probation brings hope, and hope brings us [not] to shame" etc. That some will be damned is true, but the unbelievers, enough has been said about that. But what proves that there is a purgatory? That infants cannot be saved without baptism is nothing, but will not be disputed here. That we are redeemed by Christ, and yet die also.
If the priest does not want to say that the redemption of Christ is not complete if bodily death is not also accepted, it is as if he wants to say that the redemption of Christ is not complete. But if he does not want to say this, what does this serve to prove his purgatory? That there must be something penitent in the penitence is enough to make our penitence accept something that is not; for even if we do everything that is called God, we are still useless servants. That the righteousness of God, along with mercy, teaches us to do what is ours, we say that all works done to satisfy divine righteousness empty Christ; but the righteousness of faith alone is valid, which Paul testifies most strongly to Romans and Galatians. The place 1 John 5 does not prove purgatory; but so here too long. To speak of its meaning, we say recently that it does not follow i: it is a sin for which one should not ask, so it is a purgatory. The place of Matthew 12, that sin in the Holy Spirit is not remitted here or there, does not mean that some sins are remitted in that world, for it is locus a sufficienti divisione; as much as, is never remitted. And this is also recently the sin of which John speaks in the foregoing place. Just as if one says, "He has neither day nor night rest, do not follow, he will have rest;" but day and night are the whole division of time, for all time is either day or night. So also here Christ takes for: "shall never be abated," the whole division of the world here and there, and says, It shall neither be abated here nor there, for "never," and is periphrasis ipsius nunquam. Recommend our doctrine and understanding also to all believers in Christ, and not to the Papal Church, to judge.
Letter.
The offices, which follow the dead, have also partly reasons in the books of Moses, by Mr. Berchtolden a little reported. In the first book of Moses at the 49th is indicated, how Joseph committed the burial of his father in the Canaanite earth with large lamentation seven days; therefore it is not contrary to the scripture to hold the dead after also seventh. Since Moses and Aaron died, each of them was mourned by the children of Israel for thirty days, in the 4th book of Moses on the 20th and in the 5th book on the 34th chapter. It is not surprising that the holy apostles did not celebrate the year, because they had to go out into all the world to preach the gospel, so that it would be fulfilled.
the prophecy, so the prophet David spoke: "Into all the earth their sound went out", Ps. 18 [19, 5]. But such things began soon after their times; I omit the same report, because it is not valid now, because Lucas could not describe what happened in a hundred or two hundred years after him.
Berchtoldus.
Everything that the schoolmaster brings forth does not prove purgatory. The testimonies 1) and lamentations, which he brings forth from the Old Testament, are not intended to redeem the souls from purgatory (as our death ministries are said to do), but they are buried honestly, so that their descendants may remember the promise made to the fathers, and are done much more for the sake of the living than for the sake of the dead. But our death ministries are nothing else but complaints of the poor, and testimonies of unbelief. But we do not herewith deny that every Christian man should be buried in a Christian and proper manner, without all pomp. That he brings forth from the apostles that they did not celebrate a season, because they went about the whole world preaching the gospel, we say to this: If there were a purgatory, and the souls would be helped out of it by us, no doubt the apostles would have taught and preached it, even if they could not have kept it themselves. The contradiction is found in St. Paul in the first Thessalonians on the 4th: "I will not keep you, brethren, from them that sleep, lest ye sorrow, as others have no hope: for if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, God also will bring them which are asleep with him through Jesus." Here Paul is actually speaking of those who have died, and he says that we should not be careful for them, as if they had no hope of the life to come. If there had been a purgatory, Paul would undoubtedly have taught us to mourn for the dead and to be careful; but he was content to recognize Christ crucified. Nor do the examples of Scripture compel where there are no preordained laws and doctrines; therefore the seven days and the thirty days, attracted by the schoolmaster, will make no law for us to observe the seventieth and the thirtieth.
Letter.
The next introduced sayings of mine I have not conscripted on the purgatory to prove,
1) "Bestäten" - to bury, to bury.
but only from the seventh and thirtieth; for I hope, in the foregoing speeches, to have presented sufficient Scripture. But that our death services are complaints of the poor, will not be, where one has right remembrance and anniversaries of the deceased; for we find that in recent times after the apostles the funerals of the dead were such that the clergy were called together with the priests, and accordingly the poor, the needy, the orphans and widows were fed, in remembrance of the rest of the departed souls. So and the like one has had twelve hundred years ago yearly time; such yearly time is not a complaint of the poor. It may well be recognized that for and for, not only in this article, but also in many others, great abuses have grown up. But that the apostles did not teach this, that it should be indicated by means of expressed writings, understood in biblical books: it is well known that Thomas, Andrew, Matthias, and the other apostles, as well as the two and seventy mentioned by Christ to them, Luke 10, also taught it, for which reason there is nothing. So I have also introduced in the other closing speech, how the statutes of the apostles are to be kept, in which is also the prayer for the dead and the living. But that Paul speaks to the Thessalonians that one should not mourn for the dead, would be according to the introduced understanding against the Scriptures of Abraham, of Jacob, of Joseph etc., as then the women and others had a compassion for the Lord Jesus. But these are the words of Paul: "Brethren, let us direct you from them that are dead, that ye mourn not" etc. Paul here lays down the original conditions, 1) that we should not mourn for the dead in the same way as the Gentiles did, who did not believe the original conditions of the body, and does not forbid that one should not pray for the dead.
Berchtoldus.
A long speech, introduced without scripture, needs no answer. Paul reproaches the Thessalonians for the unbelieving mourning of those who have no hope of the life to come. But because we believe that Christ is risen from death, and that we shall rise again in Christ, and so be with the Lord always, we ought to comfort one another with these words, as Christian love demands, so far as we do not fall into unbelief.
1) "Urstände" - resurrection.
Letter.
The hope of which Paul says here is not denied to those who are in purgatory; and the speech introduced by Mr. Berchtolden is nothing against me; for we have hope, therefore we pray for them, that they may be the elect.
Berchtoldus Haller.
It is sufficiently explained in the beginning 2) of this final speech that whoever believes in Christ Jesus will not come into judgment, but will pass from death to life, John 5. We will leave it at Paul's clear words.
Letter.
As I have answered for it before, so I remain, and command the Scriptures.
Berchtoldus.
This is how we refer to the Acta.
(End of the seventh final speech.)
The eighth closing speech:
Making images for worship is contrary to God's Word, New and Old Testament; therefore, where they are presented in danger of worship, they are to be dismissed.
Franciscus Kolb.
In the other book of Moses, 20: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; worship them not, neither serve them. In the fifth book of Moses, chapter 4: "Keep your souls: ye saw no likeness in the day that God the Lord spake unto you in mount Oreb." 1 Corinth. 6: "Those who serve idols will not possess the kingdom of God." In 1 Corinth. 10: "Flee from. the service of idols." Christ also taught us what good we should do to Him, that we should do it to our neighbor, Matt. 25. The humanity of Christ is to be seen and honored in our neighbor, Matthew 25, soon to be added. And Paul also admonishes us in Romans 12: "that we show reverence for one another. Because idols have been set up everywhere at great cost, contrary to the clear word of God and contrary to the teachings of Christ and the apostles,
2) See Col. 1891.
Before whom God and the dead saints were revered, because the living saints here on earth were disregarded, we preached the final sermon.
Letter.
Because of the images, that [they] are to be worshipped, or to be honored with divine honor, no Christian will be of that opinion, if God wills. We have in the Old Testament in the other book of Moses on the 25th, that Moses had two cherub made on the ark; the same in the first book of Kings on the 7th Cap. These alone were considered images and not idols, therefore they were not forbidden. Likewise the bronze serpent, because it was a figure and a sign, it remained; but after it was worshipped, Ezekiel king of Judah broke it, in the other book of Kings, chapter 18. Therefore, we Christian people, since we have the knowledge of God and His saints, but have not seen them, even though we have their image, Paul says to the Romans in 1: "The invisible nature of God is seen, if it is perceived in the stories of the creation of the world. So, as we have not seen the Creator, but see the creatures: in the same way, if we do not see the things signified by the images, we may have their images in memory.
Zwingli.
That the cherub was a meaning of the grace, which is Christ Jesus, Paul testifies to the Hebrews in the 9th chapter. If then the true grace has come, then the meaning ceases. The reason of the brazen serpent is for us, because we alone speak against the images that are worshipped, as the final speech says. Nor is it necessary to see the saints in the flesh, for the form of a Christian life is prefigured in the Word of God and not in any image. For it is fitting for a man to see the outward form, but he cannot see the inward form of the heart and faith in a living man, let alone in a dead image, even though this would not be responsible. The visible things of which Paul speaks to Romans 1 are not the images made by the hands of men, but the images made by the hand of God. I will leave it at that for now.
Johannes Buchstab.
I do not know what else to say about them from the Scriptures, except that they were initially erected for the instruction of the unskilled.
The images were shown to them as books, because there are now many of them, and they are not needed anywhere else. Since there are now many of them, and they are not needed to be known anywhere else, but to be had for signs, and since everyone is now so informed that it is well known that the images are not to be worshipped nor held with divine honor, but to be had for signs, I advise to avoid giving trouble by leaving them alone. Herewith I will have concluded this article.
Zwingli.
We know well that the resistances that shield the images must soon cease, if one is to speak from God's word. But the images, because they have come into use, and one knows that they are not to be venerated, one may well keep them to avoid annoyance: we recognize them to be a speech of human discretion. For God, who knows all things before they come to pass, has well known that if images were set up in proper places, they would be venerated after a time; therefore he has also forbidden it. If we now want to say out of presumption, we may well keep them if they are not honored, and thus want to keep them in the named places, we do the same as he who lets his daughter go to all unrighteousness, and says in addition, She knows well that she should do right. He that loveth danger perisheth in danger, Sirach 3. Therefore we know well where the images belong. In no place, where they give worship half a suit. In addition, the clarity of God's word has appeared in all places, so that little more is offended by their absence.
Theobaldus Keeper.
The advice of the Christian church to abolish the images has often been present in past times, but always remained common Christian church. The saying that Master Francis introduced today against the image is: "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, nor any likeness that is in heaven" etc. When one considers the conclusion of this speech, he resolves himself not to go to our image, saying, "Thou shalt not worship them! He must have been a foolish man, who would have had wood or stone for his God, and thus have shown them divine honor, for worship belongs to God alone. It is to be noted with the images, if one worships an image, as the pagans have done, who have had that for their gods, counsel and help from him required, as if the wood or stone would help them, or creatures that there-
are meant by, as Jupiter and Hercules: therefore one should have none, because it would be idolatry. Also no Christian, as I hope, has never had the images so etc. The saying, introduced today, from the 5th book of Moses at the 4th: "You shall diligently guard your souls. Now you did not see some likenesses in the day when the Lord spoke to you in Oreb, in the midst of the fire" etc., because it is clear to notice that God did not speak of the figure of Christ, as we have now, but only of His Godhead, which is not to be depicted, in that, when He spoke: "You did not see any likeness", nevertheless the fire and the smoke were there, to give clear understanding of His Godhead.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
Although this teaching was brought from Faber's, not biblical, scripture, therefore it should neither be indicated nor answered for, we leave it at the answer that an honorable council of Zurich gave [to the] bishops of Constance in the matter. The place from the 5th book of Moses at the 4th serves us, because God wants to speak thus: You have never seen my image; therefore you should not form me. Much less should some creatures be formed for worship. Hic valet locus a majore; for if one should not form him who alone is God and to be worshipped, much less should one form those who are not to be worshipped as God. It should also be certain here that we have erected images only after we have erected those for gods and helpers to whom we have made images. The Tarmhaspel Erasmi 1) was made only after Erasmum was raised to accept the days of woe of the inner body. So we want to be content with such reproaches, which happen from the scriptures.
Theobaldus Keeper.
I command and submit myself to the common Christian church, where I would have been wrong to let myself be instructed and to follow.
Zwingli.
He who submits to the common Christian church submits to God's words. If then the priest of Appenzell shields the images without God's word, it follows that the priest of Appenzell does not submit to the church that keeps to God's word.
Theobaldus Keeper.
I will leave it as it was presented before.
1) "Erasmus" here is not "Roterodamus", but St. Erasmus, who helps against abdominal pain through the "intestinal reel".
The ninth closing speech.
Holy matrimony is not forbidden to any estate in Scripture, but, to avoid fornication and unchastity, is commanded to all estates.
Berchtoldus Haller.
This final speech is so serene and clear in God's Word that it does not need much and long speech. All Christians should know that the marital status is established by God (in the first book of Moses, chapters 1 and 2), and that no one is exempt from it, except those whom Christ exempts in Matthew 19, namely, those who are unfit for marriage, that is, those born of the womb, some who have been cut by men, and some who have cut themselves for the sake of God's kingdom. It follows that no one may be forbidden to marry. For the word "to be chaste," and to live without marriage, is not for everyone, but for those to whom it is given. Then also Paul speaks in First Corinthians 7: "Of virgins I have no commandment from the Lord." Who then would command to live without marriage? So also Paul 1 Timothy 3: "Let a bishop be blameless. A wife's husband etc., who presides well over his own house, having obedient children, with all probity." So also ad Titum 1. Cap. Since the Scripture does not forbid marital status to anyone, does not exclude anyone except those who exclude Christ, as stated above, and St. Paul, among other attributes of a bishop or a priest, reports marriage in explicit words, it follows, as St. Paul himself says in 1 Timothy 4, that marriage is to be forbidden. 4, that to forbid marriage is the doctrine of the devil and of erroneous spirits. This shows the terrible error of the papal regime, that no one is admitted to the episcopal office except he who lives without marriage, regardless of what wicked life he would otherwise lead. St. Paul also states in 1 Corinthians 7, "that to avoid fornication, every man should have his wife, and every woman her husband. And again, "Those who do not abstain should marry; for less than 2) is to marry, than to suffer heat." As if he said: "Necessity will drive to marriage. For if God does not give the gift of purity, but lets the body remain in its first creation and kind, every godly person is well urged to marry, if he truly wants to live 3) with a good conscience. With this, the concluding speech is sufficiently explained and fixed; "I also hope that all Christians will be inclined to accept such an aeurysm".
2) "weger" - a better way.
3) "ächt" - different.
niß, thereby blaspheming God, angering an entire Christian community, and weakening the Word of God in many ways.
Jacobus Würben, Predicant zu Bieln. 1)
Honorable, dear Christians! I publicly confess here, before this laudable assembly, that the ten articles or final speeches are Christian, founded in divine and biblical Scripture, and preserved and proven with the same; to which I willingly and gladly subscribe. Herewith I also want to protest that I have appeared before this Christian assembly to report my doctrine, which is in accordance with and conforms to the ten articles reported above, to a male cause, and especially to give an answer to those who scolded me in my lordly city of Bieln as a false preacher and vow-breaker, as I have publicly surrendered to them in Bieln in the pulpit, Sunday after Circumcisionis, and invited them here to this present disputation. Therefore, if there is anyone here from Bieln, or elsewhere, who wants to accuse and punish me for my teachings and actions, and especially for the sake of this present closing speech, I will answer him here.
Letter.
In the name of the Holy Trinity! Amen. Holy matrimony is not forbidden to any state, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament, but only to the one who commits it himself. And that he who bequeaths it to himself should remain forbidden to him, I will give a short example from the divine Scriptures. In the 5th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles it is written that Ananias and Sapphira had temporal goods, which they could take wherever they wanted before handing them over to the apostles. But after they had given it and betrothed it to the apostles, they kept part of it secretly against their vows, and Ananias died suddenly. So every one to whom a thing is proper before the vows, makes it improper for himself by the vows, for Christ says in the Gospel, "Let your speech be Yes Yes, No No." I answer Paul's saying to Timothy thus: that it was not his opinion that every bishop must have a wife; for in this way Christ the chief priest, John the Evangelist, Timothy and Titus must also have wooers. But it was Paul's opinion that Timothy and Titus should choose bishops, priests, and deacons from honorable, blameless men; for there were among the-
1) "Viel" in the Canton of Bern, on the Vieler Lake.
The same time, there were no young people who were not learned in the Scriptures, who knew the Scriptures from their youth, which served the true Christian faith, as Timothy knew and knew them from his youth, 2 Timothy 3. 3, that the same young ones had been ordained for this purpose. For this reason the old married men were appointed, so that the words of Christ, as he says Matth. 5: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works" etc. might be fulfilled the sooner. Then follow, "He that teacheth a thing, and doeth it, shall be esteemed in the kingdom of heaven." This is seldom found in the young, who are much more inclined to live according to the flesh than according to the spirit; for it is written in Ecclesiastes, chapter 12: "Youth and the will are vain." Therefore it was necessary that those who proclaimed such an outrageous true evangelical faith should show themselves according to their teachings. But that it has been introduced that the prohibition of marriage is the devil's doctrine, I admit, in the way that the erring Martiani and Tatiani did; but this does not happen in our times, as reported before; for I for my own part cannot complain that marriage was forbidden to me; but I could have forbidden it to myself by vows.
Master Ulrich Zwingli.
Ananiä und Sapphirä Verschlagen 2) was not a breach of vow, but a forgery; therefore God punished them. For Peter says, "Was not the field in your power, and if you sold it, was the money in your power?" In which words we find that he did not vow anything, nor did the apostles take vows; but this was the fault of Ananias, that the Christians freely gave their goods to the church. Ananias wanted to be seen as if he had also given his goods to the church, but this was not the case. Because of the ungodly and false he was punished by God, for Peter thus says: "Who forced you to lie to the Holy Spirit?" By which words we understand that they were killed abruptly for the sake of deceit, and for the sake of no vow. Therefore, if keeping purity is a gift of God alone (for no one has it except those to whom God gives it), then purity is praised as if one were tithing on another's coffin; therefore, such a vow of purity was more a presumption than a service to God. Here we do not want to deprive the quiet holy virginity of anything. But St. Paul says: "But if anyone does not
2) "Verschlagen" - Misappropriated.
If a man may keep himself pure, let him marry himself; for it is better to be married than to be burned. This is a common vacation of all those who have taken the same vow of purity, but at the same time feel unmitigated 1) heat, for which no vow is able. Secondly, no one has said that a bishop must have a wife; but if the bishop does not live purely, he should have a wife, or else not be a bishop. That the ancients were chastened by a chaste life, who had wives, we leave the age enough, provided that age is understood [as] the seriousness, faithfulness and maturity of godliness and morals; otherwise the bishopric is not bound to age. 2) have a sinful youth. The fact that there were no learned disciples at that time indicates that the schoolmaster thinks that young people should be made bishops, as has been done with the priests. At the same time, however, as is found in all histories, there was greater learning and knowledge among young and old bishops, neither since then. That the light of the bishops should shine before men, we recognize. That the young ring of light) misses neither the old, but we let up. This does not mean that the bishop should not have a wife, but that he may be young or old, if he has the episcopal manners or gifts, he may be chosen for it. In this, however, the bishop, young or old, is protected from all suspicion of having his own wife. So let us not be wittier, neither God, and if he permits marriage to bishops, do not bind them. To forbid marriage is from the power of the devils, but only as the Marcionites and Tacionites have forbidden it, contradicts the saying of Paul 1 Timothy 4, for Paul there expressly says: "There will be some who will step out of the faith in times to come, and they will forbid marriage and food." Therefore if those who forbid marriage depart from the faith, it follows that all who forbid it are of the devil. But that it is said here, we forbid ourselves to marry, is signified before enough, that we should not promise God, which he will not give us; and where this is done, that it is (as before said) presumption, not obedience or faith. For where faith is, there is the highest duty; otherwise, where one makes vows, it is a sure sign that faith is not there.
1) "ungemasse" - unclean. - "kommliche" - in a befitting manner.
2) "fürmündet" - spoken in favor.
3) "ringer" - lighter. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 1137, note 5.
Letter.
It is clear that Ananias did not keep, otherwise he would not have died young. For the sake of chastity, no one is denied, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10: "God is faithful, who will not let you be tempted above your ability, for he also makes provision for temptation, so that you may suffer it" etc. But that Paul says it is better to be married than to be burned, let every man know this before he takes the priesthood. For the sake of the bishop, I say that nowhere in the New Testament can it be found that a priest may take a wife, and if Paul is bent down to the very last point and pressed, it will not be found otherwise than that those who already have wives, who live honestly and well, may be ordered to do so, which custom the Graeci still have today. Neither will anyone bring forth with revealed Scripture that no apostle, after recognizing Christ, nor any priest, has taken a wife with the consent of the church. Nor is it my opinion that only young men should be ordained bishops, as is partly indicated in the speech I have just given. As for the others, I remain as I introduced it before.
Zwingli.
Ananias cheated and did not break a vow, because he did not make a vow. That purity is not denied to anyone is denied by Christ Himself, when He says Matth. 19: "Not everyone is capable of it", that is, of purity. That God will not let us be tempted or challenged above what we are able, 1 Corinthians 10, serves us; for God does not want to force us to do things that are not given to us, but always shows us a way out through which we can bear it; therefore he has given marriage so that no one will be tempted too much in the heat. That one should remember himself beforehand, we forbear in the business of the gospel, and in all things pertinent. But that this remembrance should therefore shut up the liberty of marriage is not so, for we have heard before, 1 Cor. 7, that they which are burned are lawful to marry or to be married; and here no sex of men is excepted. Now every law that is written in the church is to be understood in the church. Therefore, we are very surprised that it is suggested that it is not proven in the New Testament that a priest may take a wife, when St. Paul, 1 Tim. 3, Titum 1, so clearly says this, and in Ge-
The second chapter of the We read in the second chapter of Philippo that he had four daughters who were learned, since we certainly see that the daughters were not born of fornication, but were born in wedlock. But if it is fitting for one who has a wife to be a bishop, it is also fitting for one who has a wife to become a bishop; and if it is fitting for one who has a wife to be a bishop, it is also fitting for the bishop who has no wife to take a wife. That it is shown how none of the apostles took a wife after he knew Christ does not concern us; but they had wives, from which we learn that to have a wife is not before that one may be a bishop. Nor may the schoolmaster prove the negative that none of the apostles took a wife after the apostolate, for such negatives or negatives are impossible to prove. Neither can the no prevent marriage, if the yes is already proven; namely, that it is proper for the bishop to have a wife; and although no example has ever followed, so that no bishop has ever had no wife: nevertheless, it is proper according to divine law. But how marriage has been customary for the bishops, it is not necessary to tell here.
Letter.
I do not deny that Philip the apostle had a wife, for some of the apostles consecrated themselves under the law before they were called by Christ. The scriptures which I have introduced before, I abide by the same; and it is my greatest purpose that they who have taken vows to themselves should perform them. For Paul also says 1 Timoth. 5: "You shall avoid the young widows who have betrothed themselves against God"; thus he says: "If they have lived unchastely, they will marry in Christ, and have condemnation, because they have made the first faith or vows useless." Much less is this left to the priests who have come to their age, and who may or may not have done so, as Christ says in Luke 9: "He that putteth his hand to the plow, and looketh behind him, is not fit for the kingdom of God." Now "to look behind him," as Christ here supposes, is nothing else than to stand before that which one has taken from him.
Zwingli.
Paul does not write of the bishops or priests of the Old Testament, but of the bishops of the Christian church, 1 Timothy 3. 3, to the Titum 1. Half of the vows we say that the
The vows of the Old Testament were in part external, substantial offerings. Now as the substantial or bodily sacrifices have ceased, so have the vows, for the end of the law is Christ. According to this, the vow of the Nazarenes was also a signification of Christ, and yet their vow was not such an eternal vow, as with us of the meant clergymen, but it was temporal, and one after his time may have left the same order, in the fourth book of Moses at the 6th chapter. Therefore it is certain: As we are never under the law, but under grace, that the Christian man shall not make any other vow, nor may he make any other vow, neither the vow of faith, that is, since man is mated to God by faith. Where faith is, a man will not forfeit any other profession or order, neither that in which he believes, for he knows whom he has believed. Nor will he make any vows to God that he does not require of Him, for these vows cannot be from God; they are from the evil one, Matt. 5, and if one honors God in vain by honoring Him with the law and commandments of men, Matt. 15. chapter. Therefore all the vows made by men fall away as soon as faith comes. Here it is not to be understood that we mean to break some fidelities, promises, pledges, and oaths of the secular hand, but we are speaking only of the vows that are called vows of the clergy, which should meet with conscience. The 1. to the Timothy at the 5. is attracted by the widow, who would have broken the first faith, has the sense, that at the churches, where only old, completely abandoned widows were contained, as those were over sixty years etc., young widows were also found to be under pasture; and when they came into the abstinence of the church, some of the young ones were found unchastising or spilling the abstinence with some fornication; and when this happened, they sought escape: Eia! it is gone, I take a man! When Paul saw this for the first time, he warned the church, saying that they should not be admitted into the conversation of the church, because they had a custom, as it was first said, of committing adultery, and then wanting to marry, but having broken the first faith, that is, they had committed adultery or lived dishonestly before asking for marriage. They also came to the church looking as if they were completely abandoned widows, which they were not, and so they committed fraud. This is therefore Paulo "breaking the first faith", and will be
Here the vow is not thought of. For in the reception of widows all occasions are mentioned which serve for the same order; but Paul does not teach that some vows should be made to them; therefore this place does not serve to prove human vows. From the hand at the plow, Luke 9, Christ speaks of those who preach the gospel, that they who continue should not look behind them, and does not speak of the vows made by men, for to continue in them is to "look behind them.
On Jenner's 25th day.
Letter.
To yesterday's speech of Master Ulrichen I answer recently thus: My opinion is not that Paul speaks here of the priests of the Old Testament. Further, that the vows of the Old Testament, as well as the sacrifices, have departed, I do not admit. For that the sacrifices of the law were taken away is testified in the 49th [50th] Psalms; but nowhere is it said that all the vows were taken away. But it is written in Ecclesiastes, chapter 5: "If you have pledged something to God, you must not prevent yourself from fulfilling it, for God is displeased with an unfaithful and foolish promise. Likewise Psalm 49 [50, 14.]: "Make your vow to the Most High"; and Psalm 55 [56, 13. (?) 66, 13.]: Vow and perform to the Lord your God. Furthermore, I deny that we Christians in grace should no longer make any vows, except those of faith. For St. Paul, who also had faith, yes, a perfect faith, shaved his head in Cenchrea, because he had a vow, says the text in the stories of the apostles in the 18th chapter. Without a doubt, it was not against God. I leave the saying 1 Tim. 5 at my default.
Zwingli.
We have yesterday enough indicated that the vows of the old testament, if they were the more part external gifts, and therefore with other sacrifices verschienen, as zun Hebräern 9 is invented. Because of the Nazarene it is also heard that they were a model of Christ, because Matthew 2 says of Christ: "He will be called a Nazarene", etiam dicitur Naza- raeus a civitate Nazareth, therefore the same vow also ceased in Christ. We are still of the mind that we are no longer under the law, but under grace, for the law is
only been a schoolmaster to Christ. Now that Christ has come, we have no need of the schoolmaster, but are content with the one grace of God, of which we are assured through faith. And if faith alone comes from God's Spirit (John 6:6), and where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3): it follows that their spirit and conscience is free, who are in Christ Jesus. We want to be understood here that we do not speak of the vows and fidelity that a man owes to his neighbor; we speak only of the vows that one has made irreligiously, 1) outside of faith, to help conscience, or to attain salvation. This is what is written to the Galatians in 3. The preacher Solomon in the 5th chapter is more for us, neither for him, because there he rebukes the foolish promises. Now our vows or promises, which we have made outside of faith, are more foolish than the vows of which Solomon speaks. That which is drawn from the Psalms served with the ancients for their vows; but with us, if we have no other vow, neither the one faith; for we are free, as we have heard; so the prophet admonishes us nothing else, neither are we truly Christians in faith, so we also ought to live Christianly. For even our Lord Jesus Christ does not expect anything else of us, as he says to St. John on the 6th: "As my Father has sent me, and I live according to the will of the Father, so also he who eats me, that is, trusts in me, shall also live according to me." Paul's vow does not contradict us, for Paul made himself clear for the sake of the weak, 2) to have a vow or pilgrimage to Jerusalem, so that the weak would not have a great abhorrence of him, as is actually noted in the apostles' stories on the 21st. The saying 1 Timoth. 5 we also leave to the judgment of reasonable believers.
Letter.
I do not say that we are still under the old law. Do not conclude, therefore, that we should not or may not make vows and keep them. For the two sayings of the prophet David, in the places indicated, also apply to us. That we have knowledge from the prophet Isaiah in the 19th chapter, when he says, "The Lord shall be known out of Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know him in that day, and shall honor him in spiritual sacrifices and in offerings, and shall pay homage to the Lord.
1) "irlichen" perhaps: "any".
2) "to clear" - to bring to it.
Vow and perform the same" etc. That this prophecy refers to our Lord Jesus Christ, we have the evidence of Oseä on the 11th and Matth. on the 2nd, where it is written: "Out of Egypt I have called my Son. Further, that we owe it to our neighbor to keep vows, it will follow that we owe it more to God, as Peter said in Acts 5: "One must obey God more than man." That the saying in Ecclesiastes Solomon on the 5th is against us, I do not admit, because it cheerfully indicates that God dislikes an unfaithful promise, which is why he immediately says: "All that you betroth, perform!" I do not accept John 6, that eating and trusting are one thing. But that Paul made his vow for the sake of the weak or others I do not know; but the text indicates that he made a vow.
Zwingli.
We do not indicate the renunciation of the vows of the Old Testament in order to reverse our vows, but we reverse our vows with the reason of faith, and at the same time indicate the renunciation of the vows, so that it may be seen that the testimonies brought forth from the Old Testament may prove and enforce as little as if one wanted to force us with the letter to sacrifice cattle. The saying of Isaiah on the 19th is self-explanatory, because it says: "The Egyptians will worship him with sacrifices and offerings, and they will praise God. Since it is certain that the Christians (whom we like to recognize here as Egyptians) did not slaughter and sacrifice cattle, but offered themselves up to God, as Romans 12 says, it also follows that Isaiah speaks just as little of vows that are outside of faith as he does of cattle sacrifices. But these are figurative speeches, since with the words that were used in the Old Testament for the external sacrifices, one speaks in the New Testament of the internal ones, as Paul is even in use, before Hebrews in the 10th verse. The argument, a minori ad majus: if one should keep vows to man, then one should also keep them to God, is not valid here. For otherwise it would follow: no one should trust in any man, so one should not trust in God either. Therefore, if the faith that stands in the one God empties the vows of which we speak here, and if the same faith strengthens the vows that we make to our neighbor (for this is what faith says, that man should not trust in God), then it is not valid.
be faithful and true toward his neighbor), then do not follow to argue as above. For the rest, we rely on the scriptures themselves and recommend them to the Christian reader.
Johannes Buchstab.
The saying in the apostles' story on the 5th, that one owes more to God than to men, may not suffer the consequence. And for the sake of brevity, I order [it] in part also to the Actis, and Christian readers. Say then: Paul spoke three times in 1 Corinth, 7: "As God has called each one, so let him walk."
Oecolampadius.
The schoolmaster cannot prove anything by the saying from the apostle's story on the 5th verse. For in the same case, if someone promises something to a person that serves to noticeably harm the person, he should not keep it. So also, if in the vow made to God something is found that is detrimental to the glory of God, it is also unreasonable to keep it. Further to the saying of Paul, from 1 Epist. to Corinth, at 7, where he says: "Let every man abide in the calling in which he is called." There Paul speaks of the outward state of those who were called to the faith, as servants and the circumcised. Now the Christian faith is not bound to such ranks. For if the schoolmaster were to argue that each one should remain in the state in which he was called, he would deny marriage to all Christians who are called to the faith. Therefore, the argument does not resolve anything.
Letter.
I command the Scriptures concerning all that has been done.
Berchtoldus Haller.
And so do we.
Master Ambrosius Blarer, Predicant at Constance.
Dear pious Christians! Our gracious lords of Bern have written to an honorable councilor of Constance, asking him to assign some of their preachers to this laudable Christian disputation of theirs, which is now in progress and has almost come to a happy end (praise God!).), which my lords of Constance did them a friendly favor, and thus dispatched an honorable council message, and me to come here with the same, with no special order to act against anyone here, because only where Doctor Johann Eck, so then
of Master Huldrichen Zwinglin and Cunraden Som, Predicants at Ulm, my dear brothers, or Jörg Nüwdorffer, Order of Preachers at Rodtwyl, who is seriously and sincerely 1) demanded by my gracious Lords of Bern to join me, had I been willing to reject both their disgraceful writings (in which they have in part attacked my Lords of Constance, and in part also my person in particular, with sacrilege and untruth) orally and in the most abbreviated manner, which otherwise are truly not worthy to be answered in writing, and my lords or I with writing, and others with reading are therefore troubled. Nevertheless, if anyone else, and especially someone 2) from Constance, were present here, who thought that I, or the others of my beloved brothers and co-workers in the Word, had taught or preached something at Constance, which, due to the articles now being disputed here, would be unchristian and contrary to the Word of God (as I am then confronted with the strange, unjust speeches that some here are pouring out): I ask him or her, for the sake of God's honor and brotherly love, to bring this forth here, in the hearing of the learned and highly knowledgeable. Therefore, with God's help and approval of the venerable presidents, I will give a friendly, brotherly and in all ways Christian answer. That I also want to have testified and protested before all men here present, so that no one may later grudge 3) that he appeared here to justify me, and that there was a lack of me. For I, of my faith and doctrine, am ready and willing to give account to everyone.
The tenth closing speech.
Because a public fornicator, according to the Scriptures, is under a real ban, it follows that unchastity and fornication, for the sake of offense, are not more harmful to any state than to the priestly.
Franciscus Kolb.
In the other book of Moses at 20: "Thou shalt not be unchaste." [Paul, with his spirit, together with the Corinthians, puts the unchaste under ban, 1 Corinth chapter 5, and continues 1 Corinth chapter 6: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? If then I take the members of Christ and make them members of harlots, be far from it! Know
1) "trungenlich" - urgent. According to this, St. Louiser Ausg., Vol. XX, 671, Note 7 is to be improved.
2) "sth" - anyone.
3) "güden" probably as much as: to talk oneself out of it, to embellish, to adorn.
Do you not know that he who clings to the harlot becomes one body with her? as it is written, "There shall be two in one flesh. Flee unchastity!" Since in the Old Testament the carnal priesthood is forbidden, in Genesis 21, not to take a harlot in marriage, but a virgin, how much less can it be suffered that in the New Testament the spiritual priesthood commits fornication. Therefore nothing is so contrary to our Christian faith as the fornication of the priests.
(Nobody wanted to argue against this closing speech).
Johannes Buchstab.
To the conclusion. Herewith we want to conclude all our speeches, and admonish the Christian reader to consider how there are many highly learned people on our opposing side, and how there is not a particularly learned man among us, so that all things, serving us, would be presented in the most skilful way. So we have never used nor practiced this before. 4) Therefore we ask all Christians to consider our simplicity as good, and to forgive us if we have not answered in the strongest possible way. For anyone who is not well versed in such matters can hardly answer any reproach in a hurry. May God make it all work out for the best! Fiat, fiat.
Theobaldus Keeper.
I submit myself to the common Christian church, and I also want to have commanded the common Christian church in all the final speeches that have been given so far. St. Paul speaks to Ephes. 4: One Lord, One God, One Baptism and One Faith be etc., so also a common Christian assembly is governed by the Holy Spirit, which is not repugnant to Himself, to abide in the same; and if I have erred in the true word of God, to let myself be reported and followed as an obedient one. That I have thus publicly protested, Theobaldus Hüter, pastor of Appenzell, amen.
Berchtoldus Haller.
Pastor, I ask you to stay with the holy Christian Church, which Christ governs by His Spirit and Word, so you will no doubt not contradict any of our final speeches.
On Jenner's 26th day.
Resolution of Mr. Berchtolden Haller.
Honorable, pious Christians! As we are required by our gracious lords of a city of Berne, account all-male here in open dis-.
4) "vornacher" - before.
The first thing is to give the reader the opportunity to hear the Scriptures and, with the help and grace of God, to find out whether we have preached the same (for it is from God, and the divine truth alone) in accordance with and with clarity. Which has now been done by the ten final speeches presented, according to all length and need of the trade, in the hope that all Christian hearts, eager for the truth with a calm mind, will find that we have not, out of pompous arrogance, as if we had taught before others, something new, contrary to the honor of God, and contrary to the divine word, for our benefit and our own honor, but only to promote the honor of God and the salvation of all pious believers, especially of a laudable city and countryside of Bern; also appreciate the grave perilous office for which we are required by God of a great account: we are compelled, therefore, diligently 2) and earnestly, with fugues and unfelicities, with roughness and meekness, to bring forth the Gospel of JEsu Christ, according to which we have been graced by God. And to the first, that out of God's great mercy and grace we have invented Christian religion, discipline, faith and life much differently according to the word of God, than it has been taught and preached in the church by the Roman church, papal authority and government, by all related spiritual 3) state, to such an extent that we have not only fallen away from true Christian piety and godliness into all vices, but have been so entangled, confused, burdened, and brought into a miserable, outmoded habit, with the commandments, statutes, and discretion of men, as well as with strange services, ceremonies, and merits that can be bought with money, for the living and the dead, that the living, eternal, true Word of God has been regarded by many among us Christians as strange and unknown, even erroneous and seductive in the beginning; and thus all fear of God and true innocence of life, according to the commandments and prohibitions of God, are not respected at all by young and old. For this reason, we are worthy of God's favorable judgment, great and terrible punishment. But since God has sent light in all our blindness, truth in the midst of our grave error, grace in the midst of our wickedness and apostasy, as a faithful, long-suffering, merciful God and Father, it behooves us not to reject such grace with ingratitude, but to accept it with great earnestness.
1) "einhell" - unanimous.
2) "trungenlich" - urgent.
3) "referred to" - supposed.
Not only with the reformation of the wicked services, which is due to you favorable, wise lords, according to the example of Ezekiel, Jehu and Josiah, and the command of God, according to Romans 15, but with the improvement and renewal of our lives, so that the same may be accomplished by us righteously and with God, as is due to God's people and true Christians. For no one will excuse us before God if we do not live and act according to known truth. For if we listened to the precious Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and did not live, do and act according to it, it alone would be proclaimed to us as a testimony of our just condemnation. Therefore, beloved brethren, pastors, ministers and preachers, and all who undertake to preach the Word of God in our gracious Lord's country and territory: I beseech and exhort you, for the sake of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to consider your office and calling, and to take heed to yourselves and to all the host, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, that is, as faithful watchmen and ministers in the word of God, to feed the congregation of God, which he has purchased by his own blood, and to teach and guide them faithfully in the way of God, and to prepare a ready people for the Lord; And to preach with the fear of God that Christ commanded his disciples to preach, bearing witness that Christ Jesus, our one Head and Saviour, died for us and was offered up on the cross to his heavenly Father, conquering eternal life for all who trust in him and keep, fear and love him alone; and that we may thereby be known as Christ's disciples, loving one another as Christ loved us; in this is the law and the prophets, the right true worship and honor. If you do not want to burden the people of God with the selfish burdens of human statutes, but go on faithfully in the Word of God, and be an example to the host with a blameless life, according to the teachings of Peter, then you will receive the imperishable crown when the Arch Shepherd appears. Fast to your heart that God speaks Ezekielis 3: "O son of man! I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel, and what you hear from my mouth you shall warn them with on my account. If I say unto the wicked, Thou must surely die; and thou warnest him not, that thou mayest tell him, and warn him of his wickedness, that thou mayest keep him alive: then shall the wicked die in his own iniquity, but his blood will I require at thine hand." These are precious words of God, of which you may
remember much, and not carelessly, dissolutely or wickedly cultivate your office; also not addicted to wine, hateful, desirous of shameful gain, but be godly, disciplined and teachable, early and late, committing yourselves to divine Scripture with earnest prayer, asking and expecting the true wisdom and understanding of divine Word from God, so that you may be found faithful laborers in the vineyard of the Lord. For the Lord says Luke 12: "What a great thing is a faithful and careful steward, whom his lord sets over his servants, to give them their food in due season! Blessed is the servant whom his lord finds doing so when he comes. Verily, I say, he will set him over all his goods. But if the same servant will say in his heart: My lord desires to come, and begins to smite the servants and ministries, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken: then shall the lord of that servant come in the day that he knoweth not, and in the hour that he knoweth not, and shall smite him, and shall give him his reward with the unbelievers." Here hear ye, brethren and pastors: Ye are whom the Lord hath set over his servants, to bring forth unto him the true meat, the divine word, the treasure new and old, in his time. Blessed shall ye be, if the Lord find you so doing; yea, he shall set you over all his goods. But if you are unfaithful to the servants of God, and if you shear and afflict the sheep of God whom you should feed, and are drunk with the drunkards, and run with the harlots, and thus are unfaithful to the servants of God, then be sure that the Lord, if you are at all aware of him, will come, and judge you to the ground, and crush you, and give you your reward with the unbelievers. Take this to heart, for God does not warn you so faithfully for nothing. In sum, seek the glory of God and the salvation of your sheep, and do this out of love, which comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and untainted faith, and you will experience a gracious God. Hereby we ask all those who have disputed, and have brought forth the Scriptures on the contrary, not to be angry with us in any way, if we had met them with harsh words, because, such having been done without all bitterness, we testify to God, the righteous Judge, and admonish them, and all devout Christians, to give glory to God, "the King of eternity, the incorruptible, invisible, and only wise," forever, and to submit to Christ JEsu, our united head, comfort, and Savior, with serene humility and true faith; to his
We must be obedient and conformed in doctrine and life to the words of His Holy Spirit and Church alone, so that His name may not be blasphemed in us, but may be sanctified, praised and glorified for eternity. Hereby be the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit with us all, Amen!
Master Huldrichen Zwingli's, Doctor Johannis Oecolampadii, Doctor Wolfgang Fabricii Capitonis, and Martin
Butzer's resolution and inheritance.
Pious, wise, gracious, dear lords and brothers! After you have noted through all the articles and concluding speeches that we have not in all places brought out all the Scriptures that serve the present matter, but have enjoyed answering the opponents to their counter-accusations; although herewith right, full, unwavering reason from Berchtold and Franzen, your preachers, is sufficiently indicated, everything has been done for the collection and reduction of the cost, which is hard enough for some, and for the profit of time. If, however, anyone, either together or separately, should attempt to refute your disputation with a written outburst, we offer to stand forth with the help of God, and to refute such refuters, and to handle with God's word the truth that has been so clearly brought forth in the honest divine disputation. Nor should your honorable wisdom be distressed that few of the highly-named doctors who contend against the papacy were present; for although they were not present in person, they were present with their doctrine, arguments and reasons, which all those who are literate in their writings confess. We hereby indicate to your honorable wisdom that otherwise other words of shame and disgrace (as Eggen's lewd diminution) are not to be answered for in our opinion; we shall gladly suffer when we are reviled for God's sake, as long as the truth is not reviled with it, but is strengthened. For what else shall they do who are overcome in their own consciences, but not cast out their sorrows with womanish reproaches? And, again, who is so unwise as not to perceive that such unseemly speeches come not from a familiar but from a desperate heart? Therefore, pious, wise lords and brethren, may the God of all peace and comfort grant you true, firm faith, steadfastness in all good things, increase in a Christian life, together with your subjects and commanded, that you may thus manage your sovereignty according to God's will, so that you, together with your own and all believers, may happily experience the peace of God.
shine on the day that will be comforting and joyful to all God's friends, but miserable and fearful to all the wicked. With this we commend you to Almighty God! And to your wisdom we commend all those who have erred out of simplicity, and yet have sinned themselves to the highest against God and time, to deal with them according to common kindness and wisdom, and to understand and receive our precepts for the best. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always! Amen.
Deed Doctor Joachim von Watt, Mayor of St. Gallen, on behalf of the Presidents, to a
Decision.
Venerable, highly learned, strict, noble, firm, pious, prudent, wise gentlemen, dear and good friends! Since this Christian disputation has drawn to a close, and my lords, the presidents, have been ordered by my gracious lords, mayors and councilors of this noble city of Bern, for the reason of presiding over this disputation, to be divorced for the sake of the parties, and to take the utmost care to ensure that the speeches and rebuttals, together with all the arguments in support of the cause, are recorded and brought together in the Acts by the City Clerk and the other appointed clerks, in accordance with the vows they have made: Order me, my lords, to declare that they have taken all possible care in this matter, and that they have taken care that the parties, who have stood against each other, are actually written down according to the content of the words that have been used, and thereupon the scribes are earnestly required to indicate whether there is any defect in the matter, in whom nothing else has been discovered and found, except a common understanding and unanimous comprehension (as they have then collated and countered from one session to the other without delay). Accordingly, my lords the presidents have given all the acts, as they are presented at length, into the hands of the pious, prudent and wise, my gracious lords the mayor and council of this city of Bern, and have entrusted them to them to continue to deal with as they see fit. And so have decided and completed this laudable dispute, but with the appendix, if there are any of the number who have disputed, who do not think that their speeches or arguments, as they have spoken them, are sufficiently in the pens, and want to be deficient in that, that the same still
The priests should be allowed to report their deficiencies to these presidents, so that men will be satisfied and no one will complain later. Further, favorable, dear gentlemen and good friends! before you, gentlemen of the priesthood! To all and everyone of my presidents is a particularly Christian, friendly request and desire: Since it has become apparent that in this dispute those who have spoken have been addressed several times and, perhaps with somewhat serious words, have been instructed or told to raise the matter (so that the mandate issued by my lords from Bern may be carried out), that everyone should not receive such speeches in any other way than they have been given, and should not draw them into any evil; For their will and conduct have borne nothing else before them than to promote the truth, and to help each one to present his arguments with diligence. Therefore, they are once again obliged to always prove good to all those who have argued with an inclined will.
Acknowledgement of Mr. Berchtolden holder, from command Mr. Schultheißen and
Council of the City of Bern.
Venerable, highly learned, noble, honorable, wise gentlemen and pious Christians! You are from our faithful dear Confederates of Zurich, Glaris, Basel, Schaffhausen, Appenzell, Bieln, St. Gallen, Mühlhausen, ecclesiastical and secular, fellow citizens, or from other cities and countries, who have come to this disputation (in praise of God, for the good of our gracious lords), for the promotion of truth! Our gracious lords, sheriff, small and great council, so called the two hundred of this laudable city of Bern, command me, clumsy one, to thank your honors most highly that you, with your honest presence, great expense, effort and work, have attended their illustrious 1) disputation, and in all ways have helped with all your efforts to carry out their divine undertaking in a Christian manner. They hereby offer to all and every sovereignty and person never to forget this in a grateful manner, but to owe and deserve it with great diligence and willingness at all times, as far as they are able. Therefore, when a large number of people appeared here, since someone had perhaps encountered some fornication, of which my gracious lords had no knowledge, and were especially sorry: they ask manfully that their graces not be denied such, for as far as it is within their means, they will never forget it.
1) "angesechne" - set.
they would not let this go unpunished. Herewith such your honest presence, disputes, answers, preaching and attendance, of which a laudable city of Bern is most pleased, shall never again be forgotten for good. Entrust all men to the grace and peace of God! Understand it all very well, neither I small-footed orator may have presented.
(Herewith this conversation is decided and completed, Sunday, 26. Januarii 1528.)
Pious Christian readers and listeners, for the honor of God and for the sake of your piety, and that of your neighbor, want to trade this conversation with Christian
We must consider and thoroughly judge with a clear mind, without all anger and without touching anyone's honor, and thereby perceive which party has brought forth the Scriptures most faithfully, and also interpreted and explained them in the most uniform manner according to the Spirit of God; therefore, we must judge whether a Christian, honorable authority of the noble city of Bern has not, on the basis of such a discussion, interpreted the supposed services and ceremonies in a just manner, and acted in a Christian manner according to the common Reformation. May God Almighty give us all His Spirit, so that we may be able to understand His holy Word and live our lives according to it, amen.