translated into German by three unnamed persons. *)
April 1525.
To the reader grace and peace from God.
Dear in God brother. We have hurriedly translated the opinion of the table or supper of Christ, which we call the remembrance or thanksgiving, because one or two could not have prepared it in time enough from the Latin Commentary, which Huldrich Zwingli let go out in the middle of March, in the hope that our work will bring no small fruit to all faithful Christians. For we see that the devil is looking at us with stubborn heads, which, [as] one has supposed, stand by the Gospel; but when the truth comes forth, and not through it, they begin to storm, throb and rebuke, that it may not well be deepened in nonsense 1). For this now this well-founded and diligent piece from Zwingli's Commentario will be well. The main and right burden of faith and Christianity are: Faith, piety and mercy. Everyone should keep these, and not let the quarrels of the scholars interfere with them. For in that they quarrel, there is no salvation; but in that we have a right trust in God, in that we trust in him.
1) In the old edition "verließt"; "Verliesen" here seems to mean as much as dulden, leiden.
To live praise and service truly and piously from the heart, to have mercy on our neighbor, yes, to love as ourselves. Ueppjge honor is an evil herb, and not everyone knows it. Therefore one should keep only the main things, as stated in Matt. 23, and let them shout and fight until they have had enough. Now men know well that before too many scriptures, neither too few, go forth; yet this one is so well established, and so conformable to the faith, that we have regretted that it should not long be kept in the Latin language. Understand it, dear reader, in the best way, and strive to learn the truth in the light of truth, not in fighting books; and may God, who gave His Son, grant that we may understand His word according to His will! Amen.
Of the night meal of Christ, commemoration or thanksgiving.
From Huldrich Zwingli's Commentario faithfully translated.
1. we have two years ago, among the 67 articles in the eighteenth, 2) of the Eucharistia,
2) On January 29, 1523, a solemn disputation was held at Zurich between Zwingli and papist opponents (in front of 600 people), to which Zwingli brought 67 the-.
*This "opinion" is compiled by three unnamed persons from two of Zwingli's writings, namely from Zwingli's Latin Commmtar äs vera et kalsa rsligioue, which went out in mid-March 1525, and from the Latin book "Antibulon" written against Emser. The full title is: "Von dem Nachtmahl Christi, Wiedergedächtniß oder Danksagung, Huldrichen Zwinglius Meinung, now described in Latin Commentario and hastily brought into German by three faithful brothers. Whether God wills for the good also of the German nation." This translation was done "hurriedly" in order to bring the book to the people at the Easter Fair in Frankfurt am Main. This Easter fair begins on Wednesday after Judica and lasts 21 days. In 1525, therefore, this fair took place from April 4 to April 25. We give the text after the old edition of Walch.
That is, of thanksgiving, written as we have written much, driving more of the time than of the matter. 1) For even Christ cannot praise enough the faithful conductor and minister of his word, who in due season put food before the Lord's servants, Matt. 24, saying in great amazement, "How great and excellent is the faithful and careful conductor, to whom the Lord has entrusted and commanded his servants to give him food in due season! For this reason 2) we have also resolved to distribute the word in this way for all time to come. [So that we may give and receive much fruit to our Lord.
(2) For who would not chase away such a servant, who in the cold wintertime would dare to plow the ground and throw seed into it? In the spring 4) such shall be done. So we also have abated much at the same time, admitting the stupidity and hardness 5) of those to whom we have written; but all for this cause, that we might build. And after the example of Christ we have now kept behind and hidden, now brought forth and opened. Who also, when he made this thanksgiving, said that he had yet many things to say unto the disciples, which they could not now understand: for which cause he counted it expedient 6) to hold his peace until the coming of the Holy Ghost.
(3) Wherefore, devout reader, if thou shalt find any things herein, which thou hast not seen in the former of our scriptures; or here some things perhaps clearer 7) and more pure, than elsewhere, even some things different from before, wonder not. For we do not want to present food at the wrong time, nor do we want to throw the pearls to the swine.
4 Also, we did not want to present such a thing at that time (although we could have done it without any danger), since no one could understand and grasp it. And therefore improve and as much as
The eighteenth article reads: "Christ, who was once offered on the cross, is eternally sufficient for the sins of all believers. The 18th article reads: "Christ, who once offered himself on the cross, is the sacrifice which is eternally sufficient for the sins of all believers. From this it follows that the Mass is not a sacrifice, but a memorial of the sacrifice offered on the cross, and, as it were, the seal of the redemption accomplished by Christ."
1) driving" - serving, as follows from § 4.
2) In the old edition: and.
3) "eeren" - arare, to till, to plow.
4) In the old edition: Glenz.
5) In the old edition: Zarti.
6) kommlich - fitting, befitting.
7) In the old edition: klärerer.
We revoke here in this place that which we have said before, not that it is false, but in such a way that this, which we are now writing in the 42nd year of our age 8), is far superior to that which we wrote in the 40th year. For at that time (as mentioned above) we wrote more to serve the time than the cause in itself; and that by command of the Lord, who calls us to build and establish in such a way that the dogs and pigs do not tear us apart when we first begin. It is to be feared that they may shamefully err in honoring and worshipping one true God, 9) that this may be done in the abuse of thanksgiving. If it had been used in the right way and according to Christ's order, such terrible vices would not have crept into God's people, the Church.
5. run, if we are all more excreted, be, 10) that we touch the sanctified things, have around us and with us, yes, made holy by our own power (publicly [aperte] I say it), which perhaps were not holy (for who does not know how much cost is put on the bones of the saints, so that honor may be done to them?), for that we would become holy and pious, it has come to that, that we wood, stone, earth, ground, shoes, clothes, rings, helmet, swords, belts, leg, teeth, hair, milk, bread, plate, table, wine, knife, jug, and what the pious people ever only touched, honored, adored, embraced and kissed; Yes, even more foolishly, we thought we would be blessed if we only looked at these things; then we were promised the remission of sins, yes, happiness and salvation would meet us everywhere.
(6) But the true mercy of God, which is nothing else but innocence, flowing from love and filial fear of God, we have so departed from; that even common righteousness, that is, human righteousness, is held worse by the heathen than by Christians. We thought we were doing great things when we spoke highly of holy things, which we had made holy, even when we could speak politely of them; and in between we were so full of the filth of all vices that we passed over, like the consecrated 11) graves, trusting in God, living piously and innocently, that is, being a Christian.
7 Therefore no one, if he will hear us speak of the thanksgiving and supper of Christ 12),
8) "Hulderich Zwingel" (that's how he used to write himself) was born on January 1, 1484 at Wildhaus in the county of Toggenburg.
9) "geirret" - to err.
10) have looked his" - have had our attention from the fact that this happens that etc.
11) In the old edition: geweißgeten.
12) In the old edition: talking.
that he must therefore accept that Zwingli has spoken and keep it that way; whether perhaps some have sworn in a man's word that way, of which we think there are few or none.
(8) On the other hand, let no one reject what he will see brought forth from the well of God's secrets, for the sole reason that he who brings it forth is small and inconsiderable, for we see that one falls into both of these. Therefore let each withhold his judgment until the matter is decided, and we may actually see what is to be judged 1).
9 The night meal of the Lord was called thanksgiving by the Greeks, who in the right knowledge of God, in faith, and in right art, far surpassed the Latins (we say this without envy), as their books and writings clearly enough prove and testify. They gave it this name without doubt because they understood by faith and by the power of the words of Christ and the apostles that Christ intended nothing else with such a supper than that they should remember it with joy and rejoicing, publicly giving thanks for the good deed that he has poured out for us so abundantly and so mildly 2). For Eucharist is a thanksgiving, that he who would be present in the common and open thanksgiving, would show himself to the whole church, to be of that number who trusted and believed in Christ given for us; from which number to utter, to withdraw, and to alienate (it would be by falling away from the faith, or by impurity of life) is a high unbelief.
For this reason it is also called by Paul, 1 Cor. 10, a union or a common; from where then also the ban or exclusion and separation from this common comes, if one does not allow someone to go into such a common of believers for the sake of his life.
11) So now we understand from the name what Eucharistia is, what the Lord's Supper is; namely, nothing else but a thanksgiving, a common rejoicing and joy of those who proclaim the death of Christ, that is, proclaiming, praising, rejoicing, 4) and excelling.
12 Because the deep and difficult sermon of Christ, John 6, is not understood by many in the right way, although it is also drawn elsewhere by those who do not understand it, it has given us the right to know it.
1) In the old edition: to give.
2) ,.fürmild" - especially mild; Latin praelarZuZ.
3) Disgraceful - shamefulness.
4) verjährn - to say yes to something, to confess.
It seemed good to put before all things the right and natural sense and opinion of the same place, so that those who force all scripture, willingly or unwillingly, to serve their opinion, may not, from such a place, protect their insanity.
(13) Christ, when he saw that those who came to him were inclined only to the belly (to fill it), took occasion (as was his custom) to speak of the matter; now those who were recently satisfied by him with bread, he addresses with such speech: You come to me for this reason, that you may be satisfied with food and fed. But I did not come into this world to feed the body, but the soul. You have great work, and labor after me for the food of the belly. You clumsy ones! Work the food that may not spoil; for the food you seek until now spoils with the body.
014 But the food which I give you shall never perish, because it is spiritual; therefore it shall not perish, but abide forever. For my Father hath sealed me, that is, confirmed me, that I should be a sure salvation, and a sure pledge of life. 5)
015 The Jews therefore, not understanding what Christ meant by these words, when he commanded them to work a meat, that is, to seek that which should not spoil, say: What shall we work, that we may work the works of God? supposing that he spake of some outward work, which he would have them do, Jesus answered them, saying, This is the work of God, that ye believe and trust in him whom he hath sent. Here we see what the work is that God requires of us; none at all, but that which Christ here indicates, believing and trusting in the Son of God.
(16) Here also is seen what is the meat which he hath prepared above, saying, Work ye meat that perisheth not. So we find no other, but to trust in Christ. Therefore the food of which Christ speaks here is faith. Here you have the first sign by which we may understand that those who think that Christ speaks of sacramental food in this whole chapter are quite mistaken. For he means to seek food that does not perish, and this is nothing other than the work of God. But the work of God is to trust in the Son whom the Father has sent. And therefore the food that is called seeking Christ is nothing else than trusting in the Son. So faith must be the food of which Christ speaks so powerfully and bravely in this whole chapter. Therefore the Jews speak:
5) In the old edition: shall.
What sign do you do, that we may know to trust you and believe you? What do you do, in that we recognize you to be God, to whom alone God gives our law to adhere? It is not hidden from you how our fathers ate bread rained down from heaven in the wilderness; for this is also described in the Psalms by David: He gave them bread from heaven. Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, Moses did not give you bread from heaven, for even though it fell from above, it was not heavenly; but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven, for it is the bread of God which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. The bread of Moses contained the bodily life, but the bread that my Father gives, feeds and sustains the soul, is also so superfluous and powerful that it gives life to the whole world.
017 But because the Jews did not understand the words of Christ (which were nothing else than an interpretation and explanation of the gospel, for by eating bread he understands nothing else than to believe in the gospel), they said to him, "Lord, give us bread for all our needs. Then said Jesus unto them, I am the bread of life: whosoever cometh to me shall never hunger; and whosoever trusteth in me shall never thirst. When the Jews heard that Christ said, "The bread that comes down from heaven gives life to the world," they desired that such bread might be given to them always. But Jesus, perceiving that they did not understand the meaning of the Gospel, explained to them what the bread was that gives life, saying, "I am the bread of life; whoever then comes to me, whoever is implanted in me, whoever accepts me, will never hunger. But that "come" is used here for "accept" is clearly indicated by the following words, when he says, "He who trusts in me will not thirst. From this it follows that faith alone replaces and quenches all hunger and all thirst; but what hungers, or what thirsts? Of the soul. Only faith and trust in Christ satisfies and waters the soul, so that there is neither hunger nor thirst.
018 Christ saith further, But I have told you, that ye have seen me, and have not believed, neither have ye trusted. - But what is this saying, that ye marvel that I have said, Whosoever cometh to me shall neither hunger nor thirst any more, seeing ye are now present with me, and are no less subject to hunger and thirst? But this is because you have me well with the flesh.
But I speak not of seeing, nor of coming to me in the flesh, but of the light of faith. They that have the same shall want nothing henceforth; they shall not covet; they shall not seek by night whom they love, and to whom they shall confess their anguish and their distress; they shall not wander to and fro through all things, for they know that he whom they have embraced is a true sponsor and spouse of the soul; they shall thirst for that 1) one precious treasure, and for no other. You do not have this clear light of faith, because you do not trust in me. Therefore you may not understand in what way I am food, that is, a hope of the soul. But the cause of this blindness of yours, lest I speak a rougher word, is that my Father has not drawn you to know me, for otherwise you would accept me. For all that the Father gives me comes to me. What therefore comes to me, I do not cast out. For I am not come down from heaven to do my will, but the will of my Father which hath sent me.
You think that I have a will like other people. It is true, I am a true man, and according to human nature I also have a special will, but much more obedient than you; because your will is repugnant to the will of God for the thickest 2) time, my will is always pleasing to the divine will. So then I have not come to do my will, but the will of Him who sent me. But that ye may know what is the will of him that sent me, know that this is the will of my Father which sent me, that all things which he hath given me I should lose nothing of them, but raise them up at the last day. But in order that you may understand what I mean by this word "the Father gives me" and "the Father has given me," and what you are to realize, I will say it even more clearly: This is the will of him who sent me, that everyone who sees (that is, understands, recognizes, and trusts and believes in) the Son may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
20. See what food Christ is talking about here. God sent His Son into this world that we might live through Him. But who will live through him? Only those who put off my grace. But how will they put off His grace, since they know Him? Therefore Christ said: Everyone who sees the Son,
1) "your" put by us instead of: "the".
2) "for a thicker time" - usually.
that is, understands why he was sent into the world, and trusts in him, putting his trust in him, he will have eternal life.
(21) Here the flesh (the Jews) thinks that Christ is taking on too much, when he says, I am the bread of life. For immediately before this he said: The bread of God comes from heaven and gives life to the world; from which it must follow that he is the bread that came from heaven.
022 Against these things murmureth the flesh, saying, Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he: I am come down from heaven? Therefore Jesus answered them, saying: Do not murmur among yourselves; have you not heard that I have now said: All that my Father giveth me cometh to me? Your unbelief, which is the source of your lack of understanding, forces you to say the same thing many times. So it has a form: No one may come to me, that is, no one comes to me as a special pledge of salvation, except my Father who sent me. But whom he will draw to me, that is, whom he will agree with me by a right faith and trust, him will I raise again at the last day. It is a wonder that my words always seem so strange and foreign to you, when I say nothing or little that is not written in your own prophets or in the law. Now this also is written in the prophets: They are all taught by God, Isaiah 54 and Jeremiah 31. Why then does it seem so strange to you when I say: The Father will not lead you into my knowledge (of your unbelief), when your own prophets write that such things must be taught by the Father?
(23) But more plain and undisguised things cannot be said, except what I am about to say. And this I will say unto you, that ye may not justly complain, that I spake it before in these words: What the Father has given me will come to me; or in these words, Let no one come to me, let my Father draw him. Now I will speak this in other words that are even clearer. Understand it thus: He who has heard from the Father and learned from him, he comes to me as the certain salvation. Not that anyone has seen the Father; lest perhaps you think that "hearing" and "learning" are here given to the outward senses and to the bodily things 1) that are present: No, no! hearing and learning
1) In § 40 of this pen, the term "sensitivities" is explained by: "face, taste" etc.
Here, the inner enlightenment of the mind and intellect is encountered. No one has ever seen the Father (although he works within; and that he wills, we hear and learn), for he alone, who is of God, has seen the Father.
024 Therefore I say unto you, as truly, truly, so also plainly, plainly, that whosoever will trust in me hath everlasting life. Now you have the whole sum of this doctrine of mine, yea, the sum of all the doctrine which is commended unto me, that whosoever trusteth in me hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life, whose power, virtue and nature I have declared to you from the beginning of this discourse. No one denies that our forefathers ate the bread of heaven in the wilderness, but they died. Whoever eats this bread, me (I say), that is, whoever trusts in me, has eternal life. This is the bread which came down from heaven, that whosoever eateth thereof should not die.
(25) Here it must be seen and perceived in one process that Christ has two natures, divine and human. But only because of the divine nature, which comes down from heaven, Christ is salvific for us; not because of the nature, which he took from the immaculate virgin Mary, and was born man; although he had to suffer and die according to the human nature. Nevertheless, if he had not been the Son of God who died, he would not have been able to save the whole world. Therefore this is the other sign, that in this chapter Christ understands by the bread and meal nothing else but gospel and faith, so that everyone who believes that he was sacrificed for us, and is confident of it, has eternal life; and that he does not speak here at all of the sacramental meal. For that he might the more clearly signify and understand this opinion, he saith again, I am the living bread which came down from heaven: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
(26) But lest I tease you any longer, I will explain to you in a few words what is the cause of my salvation to the whole world, or how it comes about: The bread, of which I have spoken so much, and which I will give you, is my flesh, which I will offer for the world. Now this is the third infallible sign, that Christ does not speak here of the sacramental meal; for as much as he died, so he is salvific to us. Now he alone may be killed according to the flesh, and be healed according to the Godhead alone. So then Christ is
2) "at a process" - first of all.
the soul's food, if the soul sees that God did not spare His only begotten Son, but gave Him into the most terrible death, so that He made us alive again: then it will be sure and certain of God's grace and its salvation. Let no one here be subtle in his reasoning: Yes, Christ said that his flesh was given for the world; so Christ alone must be salvific for all men after mankind; for he said that his flesh was given for the life of the world; so it must make the flesh alive. This sophistical objection must therefore be countered: As the one Christ is God and man, so also, if he is killed according to the flesh (for who would want to kill God?), and his death has become a life for us, it happens that, for the sake of the union and unity of the two natures, to the one is given at times that which belongs to the whole Christ.
27 Now after this saying, when he spake: The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will lay up for the life of the world, the Jews were not taught, and that because of their unbelief and hardened hatred; for they did not understand the mind and meaning of Christ's words, namely, that Christ would not be salvific to us if we ate him, but if he were killed for us. For the human mind does not become certain of the grace and mercy of God until it understands and believes that God has not spared His only Son etc. So the Jews murmured in displeasure, 1) and as much as they were unrepented of, so much more sacrilegiously and challenged 2) they murmured, saying, How can he give us his flesh to eat? For they still clung to the flesh that was before their eyes; therefore it was not unreasonable for them to shun and be afraid, even though our theologians do not shun the flesh of Christ.
028 When Christ therefore saw that he had subdued and tried in vain all that he would have them know, he dealt with them as Isaias said before in the sixth chapter, where thus saith God the Lord: Go, and say to the people, Hear, and understand not; and see the visions, and know them not. Blind the heart of this people, and afflict their ears, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand in their heart, and be converted; and I heal them, and make them whole. So, I say, when Christ saw that he had made nothing with them, he made their ignorance to be a thing of the past.
1) "in Unwürß" - gruff.
2) In the old edition: grumbling.
He said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed: understand, the flesh of Christ, as much as it was given in death for our redemption, and his blood, as much as it was shed for the washing away of our sins, as is clear from the above.
29 For since they did not want to understand the hidden secret speech, but which he so clearly revealed. For since they did not want to understand the hidden secret speech that he had so clearly revealed to them that they should no longer have desired it, he struck them even harder, made them even more blind (for they were well worth it, and these are the judgments of God); and on top of all this he added: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. This is spoken to harden the unbelievers, but to instruct the believers. And this is the fourth sign, by which it may be perceived that Christ is not speaking here of the sacramental meal, but of the meal of faith. (For there are unfortunately many who eat the body of Christ sacramentally and drink the blood sacramentally, who are neither in God, nor God in them, for as He is in an elephant or in a flea).
(30) Therefore, whoever believes himself redeemed by the gift of the body of Christ, and washed away by the blood of Christ, remains without doubt in God, for he surely and without doubt places all his trust in the Son of God, and does not direct his hope elsewhere; for whoever sneezes at the highest good may not thirst for another good. (But here I call noshing as much as a mortal man 3) takes it here in time; not as the theologians speak of needing and noshing; for the rejecters of God also noshe God in this time; although this is hidden from all those whose inward mind [does not] burn in divine love).
(31) God also abides in him, for no one can come to Christ except the one whom the Father begets, as was evident from the words of Christ above. Whoever therefore learns from the Father (who teaches inwardly), in him without doubt is God; so that whoever abides in Christ, in him also abides Christ. For to abide in Christ is nothing else, but through love (that Christ has given himself for
3) "a mortal man" put by us instead of: "a mortal man."
has stretched out to us) stiffly cling to God. But love is God Himself, 1 John 4: Whoever therefore abides in the love of God, in him is God, and he in God. But love (as much as human reason may understand) follows after faith; from which it follows that faith (by which we trust in the grace of Christ) is that by which we abide in God, and he in us.
But that this is the meaning and the opinion is clearly indicated by the words of Christ, which immediately follow, when he says: "In like manner as my living Father has sent me, and I live for the Father's sake: so also, without doubt, those who eat me, that is, those who trust in me, will also fashion themselves after my example. In vain would be your apes, that is, in vain shall it be, that ye should be like one another, 1) as believing; unless it be that thereby ye also change the life. I came not only to redeem the world, but also to change it. Those who now trust in me will also be formed according to me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, and it is evident from its effect. For he that eateth this bread shall live for ever: but he that eateth the bread of the flesh shall not live for ever. And this you may understand from the fact that your fathers ate the bread which came down from heaven, and died; from which it is clear enough that no bodily food can keep a man in everlasting and eternal life.
(33) This speech offended not only the enemies of Christ, but also some of his disciples, who said (lest they speak more rudely): This is a rough, hard speech; who may hear it? For they were still in the visible flesh, as were the enemies of Christ. When Jesus therefore perceived that some of his disciples also murmured of it, he said unto them: Are you angry about this? What would you say or mean if you saw the Son of Man going up to the place where he was before? You do not understand my speech, for you do not believe that I am the Son of God. But what will you say then, if you see me going up to heaven by my own power? Will not such a deed force you to confess that I am a son of God? Therefore, you do not trust me, because you do not believe that I am a son of God. The cause of your unbelief is that you do not understand all that I say. I have commanded you by parables, by lovely lovely strange sayings, 2) to bring to your understanding the heavenly things that I have said.
1) gleichsnet - gleißnerisch stellet.
2) "Agreements" - figurative, figurative speeches.
But you will always be dragged along by the heavy burden of unbelief.
(34) This I speak of is spiritual, not in bodily things, but the Spirit instructs the spirit; yes, the Spirit of God draws the poor spirit of man to Him, so that it may unite, unite and change in itself as much as in itself completely; this feeds the soul, makes it joyful and certain of salvation. This making the soul sure and joyful, what is it but food? or by what equation can it be expressed and understood more comely 3) and skillfully than by food? For in the same way as the hungry stomach becomes cheerful by receiving food, and the consumed spirits, heat and strength are renewed, strengthened and replaced, so also the hungry soul becomes cheerful and courageous when God opens up to it; yes, not only does it become cheerful, but from day to day it increases more and more, becomes stronger and stronger, and is formed according to God, until it grows into a perfect man. And therefore the food of which I speak is spiritual; for the Spirit alone gives it, if he alone draws and feeds the mind of man to him.
35 Your thoughts are unwise, if you think that I am talking about the flesh, which is made up of veins and nerves, or wood wax, 4) and is put together and intertwined; the same flesh is not useful. How long will you be without understanding? I tell you this in plain words: I do not speak of my essential flesh and body in such a way that I will publicly testify to you that my flesh is not useful at all.
(36) And this is the fifth and most expressive sign, by which we may understand that Christ did not speak here of the supper and sacramental food at all. Yes, not only do we learn the same, but also that Christ, as much as by a law, willed to occur and prevent us from niendert 5) thinking of any flesh. For if Christ says that the flesh is of no use at all, let no man's iniquity be so presumptuous as to dispute or quarrel about the flesh as it is eaten. And if you say that there must be a different meaning and opinion, for even if the flesh of Christ is of some use, since we are redeemed from death by it, we reply, "The flesh of Christ is almost, indeed, unspeakable.
3) d. i. more appropriate.
4) The word "Waldenwachs" is used to describe the sinews. In German: "Haarwachs".
5) niendert - nowhere.
1) But not when it is eaten, but when it is killed and slaughtered for us. Then it has been useful to us, because it has delivered us from eternal death and saved us. But if one wanted to eat it, it would be of no use. This has spoken the truth, otherwise it may not be. For the Jews also disputed how one should eat his flesh, and not how it should be killed and sacrificed: so the speech of Christ, being present to them, must also be to this effect.
(37) However much and almost the theologians may dispute and quarrel about the essential body of Christ, or about the flesh of Christ, they may gain and conquer nothing from it, except that they thereby show themselves to be much more incomprehensible and sacrilegious than the Jews have ever been, and that against all diligence and friendly instruction of Christ, our Sustainer and Savior. For the Jews, being always in the visible flesh, would forsake Christ before they would understand the kindly Teacher; though he (as befits a loving Teacher) openly shows them their error, lest they perish therein, saying, The flesh which ye look upon is of no use.
(38) But the theologians do likewise, as if they said, O Jesus, thou must not give us such explanation and declaration; we understand the opinion well, for we perceive well that thou speakest of a flesh which is touched with the hands; the same flesh must we eat, if we would be saved otherwise. Thou, who knowest the hearts and minds of men, art in vain careful, when thou sayest, Thy flesh is of no use: for we, who are mightier than thou in our kingdom, will easily conquer, that every man with words uttered shall be barred, they eat thy flesh. Yea, we will bring it to pass, when they eat it, that they must speak, they feel sensitive, that they eat thy flesh, and drink thy blood. And therefore, Jesus, repress and refrain from speaking your words (the flesh is not useful) until we surpass the Jews (who wanted to depart from him who knew the hearts of all men, before they wanted to flatter them into thinking that they understood the words correctly, as Christ meant them, but which they did not understand) 2) in ignorance, so that we conquer them, that they must commonly understand, believe and feel, which they have never understood, believed nor felt.
39. and do you see, JEsu, the berengarium, the
1) In the old edition: geseyn.
2) Here we have erased the word "we" which is too much.
We have forced to confess and publicly confess (as in spiritual rights in the Decret de consecratione, distinet. 2. cap. Ego Berengarius), that as soon as the priest speaks the words about the bread, the true bodily and substantial body and blood of Christ are present, and that the same body and blood are not a sacrament and sign, but the fleshly body of Christ truly and sensibly handled in the hands of the priests, broken, and ground with the teeth of the faithful etc. So let us also compel others all who may now speak against it. But wilt thou, JESUS, ever stand stiffly upon this word: The flesh is of no use, and if ever thou hast said it, we will depart from thee: for ever it is more grievous to us, 3) We depart from thee, lest any of our profit and gain should fail us.
40 You do not want to be hurt here, Christian reader, with this rude 4) and pointed mockery; because soon after you will realize why one must act in such a way with such incomprehensible sticks, which have also forced the external and internal senses and feelings (as the face, taste etc.) to rejuvenate, which they have not found.
41 Since Christ has clearly taught that this food is eaten with the spirit, not with the mouth, therefore the flesh is not useful, he continues: "The words that I speak to you are spirit and life. Here this little word (verbum in Latin, Hebrew dabar, in German word) is taken after Hebrew manner for the whole trade, for the whole history. This is common in the holy scripture everywhere, as namely Lucae at the 1st: All these words have sounded through the whole mountain of the Jewish country. Here "all words" means the whole trade, how the angel appeared to Zachariah, how he became mute, how Elizabeth gave birth etc.
(42) Therefore Christ is to be understood here as saying, "This thing and this transaction, which I have explained to you and told you in many words, is nothing but a heavenly spirit, and brings life to those who believe and hold to it. But that so few of you understand and accept it is because the greater part of you do not believe. This is as much as a conclusion of the whole discourse. I preach the gospel to you, the good news, but you do not believe it. But the gospel
3) "wegerer" - more profitable, a better WW; this is a double comparative, instead of "weger". Cf. § 45 of this writing on "weger" and § 3 "klarerer".
4) ratchet- hard.
And the glad tidings are nothing else, but I myself; though I have made myself known modestly from the beginning, and with hidden words, lest I should be suspected of pride or iniquity: yet thus must I speak that which my Father hath commended unto me, and which he willeth. I have therefore told you that I am he whom my Father promised to the fathers, a food for the soul, a sure salvation, and an unfeigned pledge of hope. Whosoever therefore trusteth in me, comforting and keeping me, is now and ever saved and blessed: for he perceiveth in himself, as soon as he putteth all his trust in me, that his conscience is made joyful and sure, as his mind is lifted up from despair into a certain possession of salvation.
(43) We have gone a little further, for the contents of this sixth chapter (as far as thanksgiving is concerned) have been drawn out; yet, as we think, not without fruit. For (as we hope) [it] will become clear from this, that all that the theologians and of spiritual law reported 1) hitherto from this chapter to the supper of the Lord, or to thanksgiving, was forced and bent, either from iniquity or from ignorance; 2) therefore their reputation is to count for little, where their word is not founded in truth. And whether thou reproach for and against their doctrine and writings, as a shield that may not be broken, I say not otherwise than that faith itself must declare and say that this is the right understanding of the place; unless I am almost mistaken in faith, if I stubbornly believe that there is only one way to heaven; if I firmly believe that the Son of God is an infallible, untrustworthy pledge of our salvation, and trust in him to such an extent that I do not admit any bodily, sensitive thing to obtain salvation.
(44) But whether anyone would ask me impertinently, why I have interpreted and explained this part of John so diligently and anxiously, I answer, For the sole purpose of bringing the truth to light. But if we have lacked any part of the truth, it must be proved by the testimony of the Scriptures, not by any man's accusation. It was easy to accuse Christ before the judge with false and fabricated lies; but when the judge asked, "What evil has he done?" they produced no testimony, but acted with murmuring and shouting. So now we are to look at the pab-
1) So put by us instead of: "report".
2) So put by us instead of: "gethan hqben".
We must not rage against the harmless truth (which is Christ Himself), for we would be like the godless enemies of Christ.
45 If this is the right natural meaning of this place, let no man (be he what he may) prevail in reputation or authority, let no flesh ever again prevail to make any man's reputation or authority prevail over the truth and be held in higher esteem; yea, let no man's wisdom prevail over divine truth. All that is now taken from this chapter, whether in papal laws, or in the teachers of the holy Scriptures, or which is sung in temples and in the streets, which in another mind than that which the Lord has given to understand through us, is otherwise bent and forced, shall therefore count for nothing; that we should all think it had been much better, and otherwise, 3) that those who did such things had never acted and touched the righteous truth, but that they had thus defiled it with their iniquity.
046 What then can their power and renown do, how great and high they are? for higher and more excellent is the truth. To the others, who thus break forth: Methinks thine opinion is, that the flesh of Christ, and the blood, are not in the sacrament; we answer them, saying, Speakest thou this of thyself, or hast others told thee? If you are a believer, you know where salvation lies, and then the word of God has so much power over you that you do not inquire about the flesh. But if others have told you that we are of the same opinion, I say to them that in this I mean the same thing that the church of Christ means. The same allows this question niendert 4): whether the essential body of Christ is bodily and essential in the sacrament of thanksgiving? For if you bring and introduce these elements to the world, it will reproach you with this buckler or shield: The flesh is not useful. If then the flesh is not useful, what dost thou dispute about the flesh? And though thou shalt cry, O heavens and earth, yea, even stars and waters, I will not speak otherwise than this: The flesh is of no use at all. Why then art thou (actually to speak) thus more forward than careful? This is supposed to be a brazen 5) wall: The flesh is of no use at all. Go now, and bring in all the weapons, 6) banker's rooks, counterbloods, cats and all kinds of projectiles! Still so it is so impossible that you
3) Compare the note to § 39.
4) i. e. nowhere.
5) In the old edition: ehrine.
6) "Gewerf" - projectiles; the following words are provincial names of various kinds of guns.
458II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. xx, sss-sW. 459
the wall umwerfest that you do not like them now bidmen 1).
(47) Therefore, this sacrament must be spoken of or held differently, neither theologians have yet recognized, whose opinion has been contradicted by all sensibility, reason, and understanding, as well as by faith itself. For one should not dissolve here 2) those who hear speak: I have always firmly believed that in the sacrament I eat the essential body, or the bodily and sensitive flesh of Christ. As if by such speech they might persuade someone to think that he feels what he has never felt. But when they speak: All things must be done with faith; therefore it may not be denied, but firmly believed, that we feel the flesh of the body. To this we give this answer: We know well what faith is, and what feeling is: but if thou knowest not this, or thinkest that we know not, thou dost not bring darkness to our light. Faith is made in our hearts by God's Spirit, so that we feel in it; 3) for it is not a dark thing, namely, that it is a relative of the mind: although we do not feel it with the sensibilities 4).
48 But now they come, and if they think that faith is a free turning of our minds to every impossible thing, they pretend that we believe with unmoved faith that here is the sensitive flesh, but they are mistaken in two ways. First, they think that faith comes from the judgment and election of man. 5) Here they are thus deceived, that though faith is a hope and confidence, and reaches things 6) which are altogether far from the sensibilities, yet it does not come from our judgment or election, but the things to which we put our hope, which make us have all our hope in them. For if we would believe by our choice or counsel, all men by their own power, even the unbelieving and ungodly, would believe. But if faith does not come from emotions or reason, nor is it based on
1) i.e. to make quivering.
2) "one should not dissolve them" - one should not listen to them.
3) Marginal gloss: Here, to feel is not taken to mean to comprehend, but to become aware of.
4) Marginal gloss: Sensations are taken for the five senses.
5) Side note: Theologians do not know what faith is.
6) "Things" put by us instead of: "a thing".
If a person is not sure how to do something, he can easily learn how to do it the other way around. 7)
(49) Secondly, they err in drawing faith even to sensible things, saying that it brings certainty through them, which is not at all necessary. For things that are felt with the senses owe nothing to faith; for how can anyone hope or believe that which he sees? Now these are sensible things, which, if they are added to the sensibilities, are felt. Let us now see how these two opinions may stand with each other. We believe by faith that here is the bodily and sensitive flesh of Christ. And by faith one trusts in things that are far from all sensibilities. Now all bodily things are so sensitive that where they are not felt, they are not bodily. Therefore it must follow that believing and feeling strive against each other to the highest 8).
(50) Therefore, notice how clumsy it is to say, "I believe that I eat the sensible and corporeal flesh. For if it is corporeal, there is no need of faith, for it is felt; and the things that are felt have no need of faith, because they will certainly know it by feeling. But again, if you believe that you are eating flesh, what you believe may not be flesh or sensible. Therefore you speak nothing else but a miraculous speech. Here theologians pretended that the sensibilities do not feel, namely, that the bread was flesh; for if it were, it would have to be with sensibility, not with faith; for faith is not of the things or in the things that belong to the sensibilities.
(51) We also think that those should not be heard who understand that this opinion is not only gross, but also contrary to God and without reason, and yet recognize or judge in this way: We eat the bodily and true flesh of Christ, but spiritually. For they do not yet understand that they cannot be one body, uno, eaten spiritually. For flesh and spirit stand thus contrary to one another, that [if] thou takest [one of them] 9) for thyself, the other may not be. If that which is spoken of is a spirit, it must certainly follow that it is not* a body. But if it is a body, he who hears the speech is sure that it is not a spirit. Dannenher
7) In the old edition: erring.
8) In the issues: ströben.
9) Thus put by us instead of: "neither thou takest for thyself"; neither - which of the two.
Eating the flesh spiritually is no different than saying firmly that what is one body is also one spirit.
52 I have introduced this bouquet from the philosophers' art or fountain against those who have made philosophiam (which should be avoided, as Paul warns in Col. 2) a master and teacher of the divine word, so that they may see clearly how well they consider their judgments. In short, faith does not force sensibility to miss, to feel what it does not feel; rather, it draws to invisible things and imprisons all its hopes in them. For faith does not walk or graze in sensible things, nor does it have anything in common with them. Dearly beloved, observe what blessed or happy thing may come of it, if thou thinkest that thou eatest here the bodily and sensible flesh of Christ; or, as others say, thou eatest the bodily flesh spiritually, thou shalt no doubt understand that nothing else comes of it, neither entanglement, awe, and (that I may speak freely) suspicion, which therefore also begins to doubt of the other certain and most holy things of faith. Although the clever fellows also say that this miraculously incomprehensible eating of the sensitive and bodily flesh would be a fortification of faith, and they also put it forward as a miraculous sign, which no one felt. Dear, who has ever thought up such a mockery? and that before the eyes of those who adhere with their minds to the highest and true God? who also, as soon as they remembered their faith, saw that there was no need for such unbelievable things. For what did God ever promise to those who believed that they would eat flesh here? Did not all those who truly believed understand that salvation lay in this, if they relied on the mercy of God, of whom we have an undoubted sign and pledge, the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ? What do you think now, that this subtle poem (yes, behind itself!), which is spoken with words alone (for no mind can understand it, nor does faith indicate it, as has been heard), has any power with the faithful? Nothing with God.
(53) Then it followed that all who were truly godly either did not believe such things here, or, when they were urged to believe, they fled with their minds, even though they were lapsed with their mouths; indeed, they believed that it was so, as the ungodly prescribe; for who (whom one thus introduces into unbelievable things) has not given flight thus: I will not search it 1) (expendam), but [will] the fathers.
1) Instead of the words: "I do not want to explore it" in the old edition, "I do not want to weigh the thing."
and so often the nudges 2) of truth spoke thus: This is ever a miracle! How is it always that you are forced to believe that you see well, [that it] may not be so; that even Christ himself taught, [that the words] should be understood spiritually, since the Jews also could not understand it?
54 But now the theologians pretend that it happens bodily and sensitively, which I neither feel nor realize. Has not every one thus spoken to himself? It is not proper for you to look anxiously at things? But the theologians did thus learn [i.e. teach] to flee, that the truth might the less 3) come forth and be understood. But those who have been godless have not left themselves to Christ; much less have they given thanks to him for the salvation he has given us. What else have the theologians done but to cast us out with their iniquity, so that it is impossible for them to have believed it themselves, even though they say it a thousand times? For faith is a gift of God. If God has never given such a gift, he has not caused it to be believed. But that he did not prescribe such things is evident, for the flesh is not useful at all.
(55) This is also the very brightest and firmest thing, that we have all admonished our minds in regard to this bodily-spiritual (that is, I must speak, whether I want to or not) food, mostly for the reason that truth conquers all; and the cold, fearful mind would not resist, because it saw another commanded by the pope. Where then did this call or exhortation come from, since no other thing can so exhilarate our minds as the chewing of the divine word? As David also testifies in the 118th [Vulgate, or 119th according to the Hebrew] Psalm: "O Lord, how sweet are your words to my throat? they are honey to my mouth. And again: The word or commandment of God is bright and enlightens the eyes. And: O Lord, thy word is a candle unto my feet, and a light unto my footsteps.
(56) If the curtain, which diminishes the splendor of the face of Moses, has been accepted, what was the reason why we all fled in contemplation of this meal? For if it has reason in the power of the divine word, it should also have the common way with other words of God,
2) "The nudges of truth" will probably mean: those who shut up the truth.
3) Here we have erased the words "the truth" because they are too much.
that the more it was acted upon, the more it became clear and pleasant. Thus it is found that, since faith is a perfectly sweet and joyful thing of the soul, and this bodily sensible food either weighs down the mind, or makes it sad, it is brought forth neither from the opinion of unrighteous men, nor from the word of God. However, so that we do not do anyone too short, some might want to feign ignorance of their guilt, for the sake of Christ's words, which we call consecrationis, that is, of consecration, because they publicly speak thus, pointing to the bread: This is my body etc. Of which we will now speak.
Now we have (as we hope to God) conversely the unflavored opinions of the bodily flesh. In this alone we want to have conquered that the opinion [which] is given that one eats in this remembrance or thanksgiving the bodily and sensitive or touchable flesh of Christ is not only ungodly, but also foolish and cruel. Unless you dwell with the anthropophagi, that is, with man-eaters. Let each one be free to choose the way in which he understands spiritual food; but that this may not be in our favor, but in Christ's, until such time as one shall consider the opinion which we shall bring forth. Then it will be proper for each one of us to know what the Lord will give him, for we neither like nor want to prescribe the law to anyone.
58) So I testify to the one Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who knows all hearts, that the things we will soon bring forth will be done solely for the sake of truth experience, 1) We well know the insatiable thirst for honor of the old Adam. 2) Which days of suffering (if we ever had them) 3) we could have satisfied long ago with the favor of the greatest princes of Christendom; which we nevertheless want to conceal so stiffly that we do not proclaim (as some do) with silent rejection. We also know how difficult it is to stand up against an opinion that is outdated in all people. For we are Christians for the most part, that we want to be seen how we have done such a great thing, when we have not accepted the outward things.
1) The translator has lost the construction. He wants to say: The following things we want to bring forward only for the sake of the investigation of the truth.
2) Marginal gloss: Ueppige Ehre thut den Gelehrten viel zu Leid.
3) So put by us instead of: "if we ever loved him". Zwingli wants to say: If I had ever had this disease of ambition, I would have been able to satisfy it through the favor of the greatest princes.
We have protected the things we call sacraments, although we never, or even seldom, seek our life in them, and strengthen what is dilapidated in them; 4) although we should take care of them above all things, so that we come closest to the model Christ, whose name we have. Therefore it is a dangerous thing to enter into such a controversy, since you must have so many enemies, and they are quite cruel and ungracious.
59 For he who is able to rage here in the most imprudent way wants to be considered the most godly. But what is to be done for him? The law says that if you find an erring ox that is your enemy's, you must send it home to him. And if any man see that the whole world erreth, shall he not warn? And if one sees that in our time so many Hercules come forth fearlessly, and bring out everything that has been taught harmfully so far? The heavenly king has recommended many pounds to many, so that some of them may diligently advertise, but some of them may fill up. 5) So he has also given us a penny, whose care burns us all the way, warning us for and for that we should not let him be put off. 6) And as others sail fearlessly through the great sea of the holy scriptures, because all their harness is strong and firm, the sail boom, the sail pole, the rope, the nail, the oar, the fore and aft shoals, 7) the sides also; so they bring forth great goods everywhere.
But our boat, 8) so badly fastened as it is, forces us to navigate carefully by the land and safely guide the small, undecorated ones. Therefore, we will also take care that everything we produce in this is so strong and firm that it cannot easily be torn or broken. We also hereby ask all who dispute under Christ not to judge before they have 9) heard the whole transaction. Accordingly, we want to bear amicably, God grant! whatever judgment they make 10); for if they keep with us, there is no doubt that we will be honorable; but if they in turn spank us, condemn us, curse us, they will do it (if they are in their right mind) by the power of the Scriptures.
4) In the old edition: vestnen.
5) Who - are lazy.
6) Instead of "put off", perhaps "rust" would like to be read.
7) In the old edition: "in front and behind horror". From the context one recognizes that front and rear part of the ship must be meant.
8) Weidling - weak vehicle. - Who" is probably as much as barge.
9) So put by us instead of: "and".
10) In the old edition: joch.
Therefore, we owe them no small thanks, namely, if they will lead us from the wrong to the right path.
(61) For we are of a mind to be exceedingly willing to loosen 1) and obey him who warns us rightly with heavenly teaching. But those who try the matter with cries will do it no less in vain, because Hercules Hylam 2) prepares. For we are hardened by the cries: This is heretical, erroneous, injurious to the ears of Christians. For the cries have so often blown up our ears that they have made a drive. Therefore let no one speak here: Who would suffer this? the whole world is of a different opinion etc. But let each one consider for himself: It hath often happened, that a whole nation hath erred, even to a few; as it was in the days of Noah. Elijah also thought he was of one mind; but Micah stood of one mind against all the company of the wicked prophets.
(62) The most truthful things have always been known least of all; so perhaps even those who do not keep the remembrance or thanksgiving in the common way do not do so unjustly. Therefore, as Moses counsels, I will see what this fire will do.
63) But I faithfully forget 3) before my God and Lord Jesus Christ, and before all creatures, 4) that I am more inclined to the meaning of Christ's words, which we will bring forth, than to the other one, which we have held until now. Although I freely speak nothing, but I wonder if [someone] would bring forth something clearer and more conformable to the faith, that I will embrace it with great thanks. '
(64) So we have said that the ignorance of Christ's words, "This is my body," led us astray, because we thought we were eating the flesh in the flesh and in the flesh. And if we had considered the meaning of the words more from the holy Scriptures, neither from the most ambitious of men's decrees or judgments, we would never have fallen into so many clumsy questions. Nor should these words, that is my body, have been so handled with unwashed hands, that we had not beforehand searched all the nooks and crannies of the scriptures, and seen what sense they
1) i.e. listen.
2) Hylas, a companion of Hercules on the Argonauts' voyage, was robbed by the nymphs in Mysia, where he wanted to draw water, therefore Hercules' calling and searching for him was in vain.
3) "to forget" - to confess, to pray.
4) i.e. creature.
5) "Abweg" set by us instead of: "Allweg".
which they would not bear; as we have seen in other things.
(65) For example, if at this time some admit to works, but that is by the grace of God alone, they do not do so without Scripture. For there are no fewer places in Scripture that ascribe to works, but that which is of God's grace alone, than those who ascribe it all to God's grace. But which sense or opinion shall overcome here? The one that faith states. Thus faith says: We are a work of God; we breathe or live from Him, we are moved in Him, and are in Him; we walk or walk according to Him; so also all things are His, and we are useless servants who are not sufficient for any thing; but all our sufficiency is from God. Now those who hold this meaning or opinion, easily dissolve themselves where they fall into the span 6) or trade of works in Scripture; for they see that it is of God's grace and kindness that He imputes to us works which yet He forfeits, yea, that the work is His, not ours; and therefore safely proceeds through all Scripture.
66) So also in this place it should have been done. Now after 7) Christ has said to the Jews, "The flesh is not useful at all" (for the Greek "ö-- oüS^" is able to do this much), no mouth should be allowed 8) to speak any more about the flesh. [to] speak of the flesh, especially when it is seen clearly that the Jews also offended against the flesh, and Christ met their offense with the words: the flesh is of no use at all; so that no one may now pretend to be unequal in this matter. For nothing else offended the Jews, but that they thought that one must eat the bodily and delicate flesh. So Christ comes to the rescue of their error and says: the flesh is of no use at all, the spirit makes the mind alive; he has spoken salutary words, namely, that whoever relies on him or on him, that is, that we speak, believes that he 9) will give his body and blood for us, and he will have eternal life. The words are short, but from them breathe the heavenly spirit and life.
Why then have we so unawares fallen into such a hard mind and opinion, when we would have such a strong blessing or power, that all sorcery of human gall 10) might be seen? Is not the word of Christ
6) Chip - Dispute.
7) "now" put by us instead of: and.
8) gedüren - to dare, to submit.
9) So set by us instead: The but.
10) Galstrung - spoilage; galstrig - rancid.
such a barrier, 1) that a believing mind neither should nor may jump over? Is it not a cord by which one levels everything that is rough and uneven, where one is of righteous faith in God? For he who has grasped the head and sum of the matter, namely, that all those who have trusted in Christ have been given power to become sons of God; yes, they now recognize themselves to be sons of God and heirs through the same unifying Spirit; yes, those of them who are thus accomplished in faith 2) will shun, just as the Jews do, when he hears the words: This is my body, when he hears Christ speak so publicly next to it: The flesh is of no use at all?
68. Thus, O just and merciful God, you let us fall into darkness after we have ceased to trust in you, so that we are blind in the midst of light, and grope like the blind! For if our faith had been right, it would have dispelled the darknesses in the same way as the visible sun dispels the night. O how inexperienced are thy judgments? For as it hath befitted thy righteousness to smite us unbelievers with such blindness; so also it hath befitted thy gentleness to open our eyes again, and to lift them up unto the light, as it is said of eagles, [that] they do unto their young. That after we feel that we may suffer the light, we also recognize the good deed, that we could not have opened our eyes against the light out of our strength; unless you, who also call things that are not yet, had called us into your wonderful light.
69. therefore the said words of Christ,.the flesh is of no use at all, compel all understanding into the obedience of God; so that henceforth thou shalt not understand the words, that is my body, any way, neither mayest thou understand them from the flesh or sensitive body; as it is opened. For this reason it is now necessary to see what or what meaning they must have. For (so that we do not leave this behind) this clumsy counterstatement: Why do we not force as more these words: the flesh is not useful at all, according to the prescription of those: this is my corpse? So, that we recognize those before being understood according to these, neither force these according to that force. Yes, the counter-accusation is not valid. First, because the words that Christ speaks there: the flesh is not useful.
1) In the old edition: "such a cabinet that the" etc.
2) performed - reported; also in the opposite sense: brought out of the right direction, reversed. Here it will probably be taken in the former sense.
is not useful at all, are exceedingly clear, that no one may conquer that there is another or significant sense in them. Secondly, that faith admits that this is the true meaning which the words bear. For who would believe that Christ would have thrust us into darkness, in which he did not let the Jews remain? Christ is the light, the gospel is a light. Who then can think that we are forced into those things from which Christ led the Jews away, so that they would not be afraid? Lastly, that the sensibilities 3) here be not so much repugnant and unwilling, as that the false faith may boast that it believes that bodily flesh is eaten. For the sensibilities may not be persuaded to rejoice, they feel that they feel no way; for they poorly yield to faith, believing the things which they do not feel and experience; though nothing is expected of them that is above their law and nature. But if this fictitious faith, which thus judges the sensitive flesh, forcibly strikes the sensibilities, so that they are forced against their nature, they feel what they do not feel, they never become obedient. And if you force them with violence and rage, so that they are forced against their will [to] rejoice, which they do not feel, then they also cry out eternally against it.
Now we come back to the track. We must see what is the right natural sense of these words of Christ, because they may not have the gross and physical sense.
In this time of ours, there have come forth those who have said that the symbolic, that is, other-meaningful sense of this little word "that" must be explored. 4) Whose faith I boast, if it is not fictitious. (For God knows the hearts; we poor people must now judge from what we see. Yes, I praise their faith highly; not because they may act these words unwise enough, but because they have seen that it may not exist that we understand a bodily flesh here. But which charybden fear forced them to approach the Scyllam, I will not say here, because it does not belong here.
Seventy-two: Now when they read in three evangelists and in Paul, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, saying: Take, eat, this is my body!" they argue.
3) Marginal gloss: Sensations are seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, tasting.
4) Here Zwingli comes to Carlstadt's interpretation. Compare the next following marginal gloss.
They, the meaning or pointing is changed here so that this pronoun or pointing word does not show 1) the bread, which he took, broke, and offered; but the body of Christ, which he himself received. And no doubt their meaning or opinion (for we have not read anything of their writings, except a very small booklet) is that Christ wanted to show the disciples that his body was the true one, 2) of which the prophets said much before how it should be used. Their opinion may well help that Christ John thus said on the sixth: The bread that I will give you is my body, which is given for the life of the world. For they would like to present here: "Behold, the body, which I told you long ago must be killed, is now accepted for slaughter; but let all fear and delay be removed; here I am; I myself present myself. And lest you fall into error, and think that because I am the Son of God, I will not thus put this body to death, but will quickly blow out and present another, as has often been seen to be done by the angels; yea, lest ye think (for human invention is sacrilegious) that I will present another body for him: I tell you publicly and clearly that I will give the body, which you see before you, for the redemption of the world.
I want to say with kind leave that I think of the words that we will also see very clearly to be the right thing. If we want to forcefully bend this little word "this" to Christ, then all the action, which is so fearfully described by all, will grow cold and perish; that it must be against God, who meant that it was so diligently expressed in vain: Jesus took the bread, passed it on, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take and eat, that my body may be given for you. For what need was there of so great a proclamation, which the evangelists have so actually presented, that even to this day, as often as we hear the words, we think we see Christ Himself acting and speaking all things? Yes, why did Christ need so much armament, if he did not want to speak anything else, neither that his body now stands between the guest 4) and the enemy? Does he make them eat according to the custom of hospitable people (now had
1) Marginal gloss: Insxts odtsnäitur variatio äernonatrutionis.
2) Maybe: would be?
3) In the old edition: den.
4) "Gäche" perhaps: a steep slope.
5) as if he wanted to say: Be happy and eat? To what does it belong: He has spoken good things over, he has given thanks, he has broken, he has given? Did they not eat, Christ put before them or offered? 6) Therefore we are forced here to leave all action and speech (which is ungodly and ungodly), or else to understand badly that what Christ gave with such diligence and splendor was a sign of his corpse.
74) Nor does it prevent that panis, that is, bread, is masculini generis to the Latins and Greeks, and corpus, that is, corpse, neutrius; for such speech you will find without number very near in all tongues; with which speeches one reaches from art 7) to matter. Example: Take the cup, for this is the best gold, which is among all the king's crockery. See how here cup, man's craft, 8) signifies the art, and the gold the matter; for the cup is made of art, but the gold is of which the cup is made. So one goes from the art or handicraft to the matter, so that one recognizes by the things deliciousness. Therefore one would give to the old opinion with this argument before weapons, neither would break from the hands. Yes, if we fell into the disease of word-fighting; then 9) the meat-eaters would say: Behold, in this speech one goes from bread to matter, from art to body; and the meaning is: The bread is to matter half the same body of Christ.
(75) Although here, too, there would be deceit (which we must say, however, so that no one takes it in hand), for it happens in common speech that one goes from the art to the matter, which the laborers have seized, 10) to work in it. Therefore, one should go from the bread to the flour 11) and speak: Bread is flour. 11) But we have not said these things, which are more subtle, nor firm, because we put one power into them; but learn that such speeches are found in all tongues. From this, then, it follows that that argument, which was taken from change of gender (generis), is stupid.
The third. If Christ adds: Do this in remembrance of me! Dear, what are the disciples told to do in remembrance of him? If you say, "Eat," we will answer in the affirmative: Where will
5) The brackets are set by us.
6) "bote" probably as much as: nöthigte.
7) Art here is in the meaning: that which is made by art.
8) i.e. cup, which is of masculine gender.
9) After "then" we have deleted "it".
10) Here we have deleted the word "has".
11) In the old edition: "meal".
Do we then throw down the words "this is my body", which stand between them? Does it not seem to you to be wonderfully sacrilegious, since all the actions and speeches that precede and follow these words make it clear that what is served to be eaten here is the body of Christ, even though it is a sign, and what is said to be done in remembrance, expresses the whole cause of the meal? Does it not seem sacrilegious to you [that] the words which are between them are pressed elsewhere? It seems to me that one should not do such violence to words, even though faith does not doubt the other meaning.
So the whole burden does not lie on this little pointer "that", but on another, which is nothing greater after the letter number, namely on the little word "is", which is taken in the holy scripture not in few places for "means". Here I hear (so that I say this for the first time) that the Wiklef before times, and the Waldenses still today hold the opinion that this word "is" is taken here for "means" 2); whose reason of the scripture I have not seen, however. For it may well be that they are right in the opinion, but that they mean or understand right, they do not prove right. Which may have been a cause that their opinion was rejected as erroneous. For we too have experienced, by the grace of God, in many struggles that we have had with some of the meaning of the holy Scriptures, that some have allowed themselves to be forced into some things, and have given way to others to answer for, solely because they could not rightly understand nor prove [the] righteous opinion 3).
78 Therefore, I have ignored these cries: He is Viking, Waldensian, heretical, want to draw out the places from the Scriptures, 4) where no one may deny, this word "is" badly be put for "means". Accordingly, we want to prove brightly that also in this place "is" must be taken for "means".
In the first book of Moses, in the 41st chapter, Joseph, the interpreter of Pharaoh's dream, says: "The seven beautiful cows, and the seven full ears of corn, are seven fruitful years, and have a power of dream. Dear! how? are seven fat cows seven years? No. But the cows he saw "mean" seven fruitful years. What power of words denied before no one
1) "zreichlich" - to a character.
2) Marginal gloss: Behold, how great things are often attached to small things!
3) In the old edition: preserve.
4) So put by us instead of: "will".
He may become, he is not right-minded. So it is without contradiction that "are" is taken here for "mean". Soon after the words followed Also the seven dry and lean cows, which went up after those, and the seven thin ears of corn, which were spoiled by burning 5) are the seven years of the future famine etc. See again "are" taken for "mean".
80 Now let us come to the New Testament. When Christ, in Luke 8, by the likeness of the seed falling into the earth, signified the manifold difference of those who received the word, and the disciples did not understand it, but asked what he meant by the likeness, he spoke to the last: The seed (of which they had heard much), yes, the seed is the word of God. Now no seed is the word of God; but by this word he signified the word of God: but here "is" is put for "signifies." Soon after: But he that fell into the thorns are the etc. That is, but whom I have spoken falling into the thorns, signifies the etc. Soon after: But he that fell into the good ground is the etc., that is, the seed which I said would fall into the good ground is the etc. So Matth. 13. is put in the same simile "is" for "means", although the speech is a little stranger.
In the same place, when he opens the likeness of the wheel sown 6) between them, he says: The field is the world. Now the field is not the world, but means in this likeness the world. There: the good seed are the sons of the kingdom, that is, the good seed means the children of the kingdom. There: the weeds are the children of the evil one; that is, they mean the children of the evil one. There: but the enemy who sowed them is the devil; that is, he signifies the evil enemy. There: the harvest is the end of the world, but the reapers are the angels; in which both places "is" and "are" are taken for "means" and "signify".
82) I mean, it is enough brought forth, so that we prove, "is" and its kind for "means" to be put. But some of them break out in such an ineffable way 7): If we want to force every word to mean every thing in such a way, nothing will remain whole in the holy scriptures; for it is forfeited that the wicked will press or force some sense into any words; so it is necessary that mau
5) So put by us instead of: "Brenner" after Gen. 41, 23: .wersenget".
6) Rade - weed.
7) inhospitable - inhospitable.
answer them a little sweeter, neither throw them. Who is ignorant that no word is not, it is sometimes 1) (like a plant) taken out of its own soil and put in a foreign one, since it is much more delicious, neither if you left it in its own soil, that is, in its proper custom? Which custom 2) is common to the Hebrews above all others, as being publicly invented by all the speech of Christ, even though it is described in a foreign (namely Greek) tongue.
83 Take a most rejected word, which is beloved to you: dung. Now Christ, Luc. 13, introduces the arborist, who prefigures the idle barren tree, and promises to put dung around it: how could he more sweetly signify a mild minister of the word? Which ministry is undoubtedly to nourish some idiots with all artistry and to commend them to the Lord with fervent prayer that he will not judge them according to their merit.
Take another word: stone. Is this word not in a more honest place, if it means the stone of Christ, or if it means a useless stone standing upright in a field or in a wall?
So also the effects are drawn into another sense. Did not Paul use this effect "to walk" wisely when he says to the Galatians: "You walked well" for: you lived or walked well and with good conscience? Also when Christ our Savior says, "I am the door," was he a door? Now he must be a door according to the impatience of those who do not want to tolerate the words and effects of other borrowings. So tell what kind of door he is, a wooden, stone, ivory or horned door, as one reads in Plinio and Homero? I am the way. I am a vine. I am a light etc. The words conquer, it pleases us or not, that we are forced to give them another meaning. For is he a vine? No; but he holds himself like a vine.
Therefore, one should not cry out so clumsily: Behold, dear brethren, the thing befalls you, they want to deprive you of your language. If only we could not conduct our daily speeches in an orderly manner 4) without needing to borrow words from somewhere else and borrowing them from somewhere else. But faith must teach us to see in what meaning we should take any speech or word. But
1) i.e. sometimes.
2) Marginal gloss: To carry elsewhere, to take elsewhere from where or for each other.
3) So put by us instead of: run.
4) commensurate.
We would be unfair to Christ and to ourselves if we understood him to be a lamb or a ram (John 1 and 21) and a fatted calf (Luke 15). Now when he says, "I am a vine," he says nothing else but: I bear or hold myself against mine own as a vine. Who now will stir up this understanding? Who can complain that they are doing what is not right?
So also in this place one should interrogate the faith. If he states in this speech, that is my body, that one should let this word "is" remain in its natural meaning, then one should badly follow the faith, and fear nothing at all those who [as] we see, out of ungodliness may subject [themselves] to all things; for they may not snatch the truth out of the hands of the godly, God grant as they wish. But may the. But if faith cannot bear the meaning that is found in some of the ways above, and is especially firmly opened with the single word: the flesh is not useful at all, then in this place the little word "is" (short of it) must have another meaning, God grant what the unlearned and unbelievers cry out.
Therefore, according to our understanding, this word "is" is here taken to mean, although the understanding is not ours, but of the eternal God. For we cannot boast of any thing that Christ has not wrought in us, Romans 15.For we cannot boast of any thing that Christ has not wrought in us, Romans 15, as has been sufficiently proved above; that since faith is from the invisible God and reaches to the invisible God, it is a thing that must be prior to all of the five sensibilities, therefore everything that is a body, and that is sensible or touchable, has no way of belonging to faith: Now it follows that if we say that according to our understanding the word must be taken in that place, we do it only for the sake of some idiots; and not that this understanding may be truly reversed with some scriptures. For either the word "the flesh is not useful" must be rejected, which is spoken ungodly; for it is possible that heaven and earth perish not one letter from the word of God; or else this must be the single and simple sense.
89) Therefore let us see before all things how all things will turn out, if we take "is" for "means. And all things will turn out well, if we are also proved in the midst of 6) that also in this place "is" must be taken for "means"; which we had taken upon us to prove for the other. So it stands
5) In the old edition: in.
6) "mittenzu" - meanwhile.
in Lucas, that 1) we will be satisfied from the evangelists: And when he had taken the bread, he gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it unto them, saying, This is my body given for you: do this in remembrance of me. Stand here, O faithful believing soul, which [thou] art caught with unskilful opinion; would well 2) all things be fitting, as one here takes nothing freely from them, nor does to them, and yet all things remain well fitting; that thou art astonished that thou hast not seen this meaning all along; yea, much more thou art astonished that the 2) beautiful whole body of this speech is so freely torn asunder by some: He took the bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying etc.
90. See how [this passage] here gives nothing [but]: This (indeed, that I give you to eat) is a sign or emblem of my body, which is given for you; and this you shall do for the memorial of me. Does not this saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," publicly indicate that this bread is to be eaten in remembrance of him? Therefore the supper of Christ, as Paul calls it, is a remembrance of the death of Christ, not a remission of sins; for that alone is of the death of Christ. For he says: That I now command you to eat and drink shall be unto you an eminent sign, which ye shall all use, as ye eat and drink together, keeping my remembrance. Which remembrance Paul 1 Cor. 11 (so that nothing would break the proper sense and understanding, after he has put to both wine and bread: Do this in remembrance of me!) thus declares: "Therefore, as often as you eat the bread (which is a meaning, for none of them calls it meat) and drink the drink, proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
91 But what is proclaiming the death of the Lord? Nothing else, neither to proclaim, to proclaim, to give thanks for, to praise; as also Peter 1 [Epist.] Cap. 2: That ye may declare the virtue of him that called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. And therefore Paul teaches us that until the end of the world, when Christ shall come again and deal justly with the human race, we are to accomplish the remembrance of the death of Christ by proclaiming his death, that is, by proclaiming the virtue of Christ.
1) So put by us instead of: that.
2) In the old edition "they".
3) So put by us instead of: "the pretty whole body ... be torn".
4) So set by us instead: Word mark.
The Greeks also called the remembrance a thanksgiving.
Now we want to come to the words of the drink, in which this sense is found even brighter. But we want to indicate before that here [the] drinking vessel is taken for the drink; that which is kept, for that which is kept. So the words are: This drinking vessel the new testament, in my blood, which is poured out for you etc.
Here we want to request each one in particular. 5) Drinking utensil (is said before that it is taken for drink). The New Testament (that is, privates 6) or covenant). We know well that the article x in the place as much [the-]may, as "is". Same as also in Hebrews Hif and Hu. For Paul in 1 Cor. 11. put them both, the article and the word "is": x SeaS^ xxxxx that is, the drink is the new testament; that nothing may break us. I have yet to speak "this" (without the little word "is"), lest any man should accuse me of iniquity; how is he now? Is the drink or the dishes the new testament? Yes, it is; the truth speaks thus. But the new testament has no power neither in the death nor in the blood of Christ. Yes, actually the death and blood of Christ are the testament or covenant itself. But if the drink also is the testament, then it follows that this drink is the true and sensitive blood of Christ; for the same, poured out for us, has sanctified the covenant, made it firm and solid.
(94) Here we have to step down from good people, even though we do not have a different mind from them, but the thing itself is different; think what would be the point, even though we are far from them, and the thing itself is different?
95 Therefore in this place the word testament or covenant is used elsewhere for the sign or emblem of the testament. Just as the letters are also called messages, although they neither breathe nor speak, but find them signs of the speeches and deeds of those who lived and spoke sth.
Another and clearer example. Letters are often taken for wills or legacies, as is often seen in Cicero. The will is opened and read etc. Now the letters were not the will, but the goods that were made to one.
5) "request" - to inquire, to investigate.
6) "Made" - Legacy.
7) "nierinnen" - in nothing, nowhere in.
[For what good would it have been to have made a letter? But in the letters was understood, 1) what was made [bequeathed] to each one and had to be given.
97) So also in this place the testament is the death and blood of Christ; but the testamentary letter, in which the order and sum of the testament is comprehended, 1) is this sacrament, for in it we commemorate the death of Christ and the shedding of his blood, which good things they have brought us. And when we partake of the same good, we give thanks to God for the will or testament that He has made for us by grace. Then the testament (that is, the testamentary letter) is opened and read when the death of Christ is recognized, proclaimed, praised and thanked. But then the testament is divided and torn up, when every man trusts in the death of Christ; for so he misses the inheritance that is made to him.
98. But that this potion, or vessel, is thus taken for a sign of the true testament, is indicated by the words themselves, when he says, The potion a new testament (that is, the sign of the testament and the letter of privation) is in my blood. He does not say: The potion which is the new testament is my blood; but: The drink a new testament is in my blood. Now where one thing is in another, there is a difference between them, as between two things; which the sophists call realiter, that is, as distinct things. But those things that are divided from one another as distinct things can never come together to be one thing. For the thing that is in another is not the thing in which it is.
99) Now what was the cause, that after the other evangelists, Matthew and Marcus, had spoken? This is my blood of the new testament, that therefore Lucas and Paul speak: The drink of a new testament is in my blood? There would seem to be a great difference, for those call it a blood of the testament, but these a testament of the blood, that is, a letter of privity and a sign of the testament, which has power in the blood of Christ. All things were done with diligence; for Lucas and Paul, who wrote after those two, have impressed something light upon their words. For when they saw the words: The drink is my blood, enough to be dry or arid to some understanding, although they were understood clearly enough by the ancients (as one may notice in Tertulliano, which will come after). But when they (Lucas and Paul) judged that
1) In the old edition: out of print.
in the future not everyone would understand this speech thus: The potion is a sign of my blood, which blood is a blood of the new testament (for so much can the article xx), they have formed the speech differently: This drink is the new testament, that is, this is the new testament's drink, which new testament has power in my blood. For Matthew and Marcus said: of the new testament; but which Lucas and Paul called: the new testament. Then it may be seen that they spoke "the new testament" for "it is a sign of the new testament".
100) Just as the letter is called a testament, in which the things bequeathed 2) are understood, and the emperor is called the images of the emperor; from this it follows that it is a sign of the new testament. This sense becomes brighter, if we will actually consider the articles in all four 3) etc.
101) So then the words of the drink stand thus: The drink is a new testament in my blood; since "in my blood" can have no other sense than: which testament has power in my blood: so it is evident that the words of the bread are also to be taken and understood in the same way. This (which I tell you to eat) is a sign, or means my body, which is given up for you. But here we desire that no man be vexed in the fearful inquiries of the words; for we put our ground not therein, but in the one word, The flesh is not at all profitable; which word alone is strong enough to compel that "is" be put in the place of signifying, or signifying, or "is a sign," although otherwise the speech would not have the sense to be understood at all.
One should also visit Paul in other places; 4) so that we may understand more clearly which way the faithful used this sacrament in the times of the apostles. In the first Corinthians, on the 10th, he writes: "The drink of grace (that is, of the free gift and honor of God), which we bless (that is, which we must also give thanks to Him), 5) is it not the common of the blood of Christ? This is so much said: If we drink with one another of the drink that Christ has given us as a sign of His free
2) In the old edition: "made" and immediately after "out of print".
3) Marginal gloss: Here is something lim Latin original that can not be well translated; meets dre language.
4) d. i. examine.
5) Marginal gloss: dsueäiotio, a free gift, vsnoäwsrs, give thanks, is the right kind in the writing of words.
Is he not whom we alone drink, who have the blood of the testament in common? He therefore that drinketh here openeth himself to all the brethren, that he is of their number that trust in the blood of Christ: and that this is the certain natural sense of these words, some certain signs do prove, which follow soon after.
103. The bread that we break (understand, among one another), is it not the sharing of the body of Christ? That is, if we break bread among ourselves, is it not that we all, who are the body of Christ, open ourselves to one another and open ourselves up, that we may be of the number who let themselves be joined to Christ? Now follows a sign, by which it is understood that this is the right meaning, and that this word "body" is here taken differently 1) neither for the sign of the body of Christ, namely for the church, when he says: "For we are one loaf, one body, the whole multitude; for we all share with one another of one loaf.
We see here in the 11th chapter that the custom of this sacrament in Paul's time was like this. The disciples of Christ came together and initially ate the whole supper with each other. Then some of them had them carried to the table, splendidly and deliciously, after which shame was born for those who did not have such things. Some ate in time, some delayed it, from which it happened that some of them were already full and waiting for the festive bread or the bread of thanksgiving, but some had not yet eaten when the bread and drink of remembrance were carried around. For the sake of abuse, Paul taught them to eat at home and not to despise the church of God, that is, the congregation, and not to eat the bread of remembrance at home, but the daily supper.
But when they were gathered together to give thanks and praise to the Lord, they were admonished that they should not eat without a show, for then he says, "Man proves himself. etc. For whoever eats of the sign shows himself to be a member of the church of Christ; therefore it is not fitting for him to eat of the sacrifices of the idols, nor to sit at the table, who has sat in the great supper of Christ (for Paul reaches here in this place, 1 Cor. 10). For those who eat here become One Body and One Bread; that is, all those who come together here (for the reason of proclaiming the death of the Lord, that is, to give thanks and praise) and eat this Meaningful or Significant Bread,
1) Marginal gloss: The body is taken differently and differently.
2) i. furthermore.
to present themselves as the body of Christ, that is, members of his church and community; which church, having one faith and eating one substantial bread, is one body and one bread.
From this it is evident that Christ has fed and watered us for the reason that, as each of these priceless berries and sticks of flour come together in one body, we are also joined together in one faith and one body. Therefore also the Greeks called this feast and supper 3), that is, the joining together, because with this sign or supper they were joined together into one body, just as they were otherwise joined together bodily.
The places in the stories of the messengers, which are about the breaking of the bread, serve almost well to this sense and understanding, if one is to understand them, as many think of them, from the common of the important bread. And truly, no one can contradict, it must be understood Acts 2 the first opinion of the breaking of bread of this significant bread, because it says: And they all firmly adhered to the teaching of the apostles, and the common, and the breaking of bread and praying. For soon after this he speaks of the bread, that is, of the bodily food, as they needed it in every house.
From this it appears publicly that the apostles used this bread of remembrance, as is now shown, as you may well judge from the things that go before and after. Then also, as bright as the sun shines, it is evident that circumcision and the paschal lamb, both of which could not be used without blood, were turned into the two things acceptable to man by Christ, who with his blood represents all blood; by which we see that the roughness of the law was turned into the goodness of grace. To the law, which was sanctified with the blood of cattle, was committed the blood of circumcision. To the Lord Christ, who sanctified the eternal testament with his own blood, we are committed or attached with the superfusion of water; by this we learn that the sacrificial fire is extinguished with the blood of Christ.
The paschal feast was a great wedding and memorial, in which they thanked God for having redeemed them from the Egyptian power. But so that no footprint of the bloody law remained, he (Christ) wanted his feast or remembrance to be celebrated with the emblem of wine and bread, which are two things for all people.
3) In the old edition: genämet.
are friendly and useful to people. And according to such an understanding, baptism is our circumcision, and thanksgiving our Easter, that is, the feast, wedding and remembrance of our redemption.
(110) From this it follows that this was a false faith, which taught that the use of this important bread cancels sin, because the one Christ cancels sin when he dies. Now he died only once, as is learned by the whole epistle to the Hebrews and Romans on the sixth. From this it follows that he, having died once, is able to go on into eternity and is strong enough to put away all the sin of the world. It has also been a false faith or doctrine that has pretended that this bread is a work or sacrifice that, offered daily, pays for our sin, as we have proven in other places with much labor. But in no place shorter neither against Hieronymum Emser Steinbocken; in which booklet1) we have closed the whole sum in two bad short accounts, which we also want to put here. But we want to speak here before, which we have also spoken there before.
From the book Antibulon, that is, Widerwehr, which Zwingli wrote in Latin Wider den Emser.
1. the new testament is eternal, as Isaiah 9. and Jeremiah 31. is learned: so also the blood, in which the new testament is founded and sprinkled, must be eternal; for the blood is the blood of the eternal Son of God, 1 Peter 1. Hebr. 9.
Now follow the two accounts. 1) The one blood of Christ takes away our sins; for he alone takes away the sin of the world, and hath reconciled all things with his blood, Col. 1. For if our sins had been put away any other way, Christ died in vain; and they that did eat him were yet hungry, and they that drank him were none the less thirsty; but which be far from all believers, that they should remember such things! For when he (Christ) was lifted up from the earth, he drew all things to him. Nor is sin accepted without blood, Heb. 9. 2) Now the blood of Christ is not offered up more than once2) , for it is the eternal blood of the eternal Son of God, Heb. 9. He is offered up once with His own blood.
1) What follows is from the cited book against Emser. The book ^ntidulon is therefore according to the time the earlier.
2) In the old edition: einest.
entered into the holy places. 3) It follows that the blood of Christ, once offered, endures forever to pay for all the sins of all men.
3) On the other hand, notice: 1) Christ is sacrificed only when he suffers, sheds his blood, dies, for all things are equally valid; which I prove: Paul speaks to Hebrews 9. thus: Not that he sacrificed himself thickly3) , for if that were the case, then he must have suffered often from the beginning of the world. From this it is clear that sacrificing Christ is nothing else than suffering and dying for Christ. For Paul, when he says that there must be only one sacrifice, proves it for the reason that Christ died only once. From all of which it follows that Christ alone is sacrificed when he dies. For sacrifice follows death and occurs after death, for the sacrifice is not accomplished until that which is sacrificed is killed. 2) Christ may henceforth die no more, suffer no more, shed no more blood, Rom. 6, 9. f. Christ, who has risen from the dead, dies no more; death has no more power over him. For when he died once, he died for sin, and that only once; but when he lives, he lives. 3) Thus it follows that Christ may henceforth no longer be sacrificed, for he may no longer die.
(4) Hereby it is revealed how the Roman bishop, and all his followers, have so flagrantly deceived the Christian race. For what good have they not done by keeping the mass4) ? They were given whole kingdoms or territories to eat the Lord's supper for us, even though they did not eat it, but they pretended to sacrifice Christ for our sins; which way, if it had come from the apostles or most distinguished brothers of Christ, would have given it a form and a prestige. But since there is no reason at all for this custom of measuring 5) either from the institution of Christ or the apostles, why do we suffer in the temple, that is, in the congregation of God, such an impertinent crudity, 6) which so obviously breaks out to the dishonor of Christ? Why then do we not call all ministers of the Mass to desist from such a frightful dishonor of Christ? For if it is necessary that Christ be offered up daily, it must then be done and followed, that
3) d. i. often.
4) In the old edition: Mißhälten.
5) Marginal gloss: vox äudiss siAnitwLtioni" ^i.e. this word has two meanings].
Christ, once sacrificed on the cross, is not enough for eternity. What greater thing can be called against such dishonor?
(5) Therefore all masses are to be laid down with care, and the Lord's Supper is to be used after the exposition of Christ; and yet no injustice is to be done to the sacristans, who were chosen for this office, but they are to be nourished with peace until they die. And therefore, in the place of the deceased, one should not take others, but use their goods for the use of the poor.
(6) But the things which are here opposed from the fathers, and from the councils, and from the papal laws, are so unfounded, that it is not necessary to refute them: for as no man before the birth of Christ could make us blessed by any sacrifice, so no man hath reconciled us to God, since Christ once suffered death on the cross. No assembly, no council, no fathers have been able to make him sacrificed again.
7 For as he hath blotted out all the sins of the world from everlasting1) : so is he also unto the end of the world salvific unto all them that trust in him. For he is eternal God; through him we are created and redeemed. And if anything contrary to this should come out of the holy Scriptures, let it not move thee: but hasten quickly to the place of the Scriptures, whence it is plain; and then thou shalt quickly know that it is a theft, or a necessity of the Scriptures. Take the same: Many are they that have dealt variously of the priesthood of Christ; yea, that they have made themselves such priests; and for a remedy of such error have they brought in that which is written to the Hebrews in the fifth, Every priest taken from among men is set apart for men; and many other places out of this epistle. But if you look at the matter more closely, you will see that there is no other colbe to make you crush all these objections than this epistle to the Hebrews, which I almost advise you to read.
(8) Now when you come to the aforementioned place to the Hebrews, you will find publicly that Paul, by the parables of the old chief priest, wanted to give an understanding of the priesthood of Christ, which was not administered in such a way that one priest after another was appointed to it, or another was put in the place of the one who died. For how would Christ be a priest for eternity, according to prophecy?
1) i.e. from the beginning of the world.
of the prophet, if another were to take his place? Is Christ then dead? or is he deprived of his office, that another should be put in his place? But because he sitteth in eternity at the right hand 2) of the Father, and taketh away our sins for ever with the sacrifice once made on the cross, there is no need that any man should sit in his stead: for only he that dieth as the just for the unjust may take his place. But since no one can be such a one, and no one can do such a thing, except the Son of God, it is an ungodly thing to speak of the sacrificial priesthood.
(9) I am not speaking here of the ministers of the word and the church of God. For such are the keepers of the secrets of God, that is, the secrets of God; and are not the priesthood of Christ. For no one can be such a one, except Christ, who is sufficient for us in eternity with the Father. And if anyone would object that in the new translation of the New Testament in3) the book of the stories of the messengers it is written Cap. 13, 8.: But when they sacrificed to the Lord etc., you should know that among the Greeks it is called liturgunton [xxxxxxxx-
xxxxxxx]; which word is no less with them, that we speak: the serving, than: [the] sacrificing. And also with the Greeks in no place by the whole New Testament, if one deals with the table of God, is drawn in. Then it is evident that this little word sacrificari is not taken in this place for offering or slaughtering a sacrifice, but for serving. For it is a common thing in the epistles of Paul that this little word ëåéôïõñãüò [liturgos! is taken for servant.
when to the Hebrews on the 1st day the little word
ëåéôïõñãßá [liturgia] is taken for the word service; the same also Phil. 2. But more cheerfully4) he expresses it Rom. 15. since he calls the ministers of the word by an agreement 5) immediately as sacrificial apostles, liturgus [Λεί-π^/ούς-] or hierurgus ñýò]. For as the ancient priests slaughtered cattle for a sweet savor unto the Lord; so also the ministers of the Word are to convert the vicious people to a true sacrifice unto God. For thus saith he: I have written to you more boldly, brethren, in part as one who warns you by the grace given me of God, that I may be liturgos, that is, a minister of JEsu Christ among the Gentiles, handing the hierurgon, that is, the
2) In the old edition: Just.
3) "in" here and otherwise in the same case put by us instead of: an.
4) d. i. clearer.
5) i. e. transferred speech.
Gospel of God, that it may become a pleasing sacrifice to the Gentiles, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. From these words of Paul it is clear what we are to understand by the little word liturgian also in the stories of the messengers Cap. 13. For the men who are called ministers of the word with great concern, with much sobriety, 1) for otherwise the ministering of the word is not thought of here, which is unusual in the custom of the apostles who preach the word unitedly.
(10) Therefore, the thanksgiving or communion or supper of the Lord is nothing else but a remembrance with which those who firmly believe that they have been reconciled to God the Father through the death of Christ proclaim the life-giving death, that is, praise, rejoice in, and proclaim it.
11) Now it follows that those who come together for such a ceremony or wedding, bringing the death of the Lord to remembrance, that is, proclaiming his death, testify to themselves by the act that they are members of one body, and one bread; for all those who trust in Christ are one body; which Paul testifies in many places, namely, in the above-mentioned place, 1 Corinthians 1:10. 10 Therefore whosoever eateth with the Christians when they proclaim the death of the Lord, whosoever eateth with them the meat of the flesh, the same shall live afterward without doubt according to the ordained rule of Christ: for he hath made others to understand that he trusteth in Christ. Therefore they that trust in him shall walk even as he walked, 1 John 2. Then cometh it to pass, that they which had agreed in this bread cast themselves out of this common place one from another; 2) If any man did any unruly whoring, or drinking, or profiteering, or worshipping idols, or speaking after them, or robbing them. What custom, if it had never departed from the congregation of Christ, would not the life and attendance of Christians have been better?
(12) Look, O godly heart, how vain we become when we pursue our sins! We have all wanted to attain our salvation through masses, even though the Lord's supper (performed according to Christ's custom) does not forgive sin (for this belongs to Christ alone), but it was an obligatory sign that testifies to us of God's community, as warmly devoted to Christ. What a testimony, if we did not keep it faithfully, that we had been excluded from the company of the
1) i.e. fasting.
2) Marginal gloss: It is the right custom of thanksgiving of the congregation of God.
3) so that Christian innocence would be kept all the more skillfully. But what happened after we changed this rule of our life and the discipline of Christian morals into another custom? That is, we have all seen with our own eyes that we have become more impudent than Turks and Jews (as far as life is concerned); for with them there is not so much common adultery, not so much sneaking and sneaking, not so much dog-like stuffing, not so much unlawful robbery; not to mention the arrogance and grandeur of princes and the common people, eternal wars, so many impure blasphemies, shameless words, lies, deceit and falsehoods. Do we not want to exhaust this swamp of vices all together with measuring, listening, creating and reading?
13. This I believe, no one will deny, that we have all fled to the Mass as the last refuge; indeed, we have come to the folly of thinking, when we had seen the bread, that it would serve us for salvation; Nor have we been pleased with such things, but have worshipped those things which we have seen, forgetting also our own statutes and articles (as they are called), in which the New and the Old, who have written, speak alike in this matter, namely, that the righteous humanity of Christ should not be worshipped. God alone is to be worshipped, and no one has ever seen God: why then do we worship that which we see, since God alone is to be worshipped, whom we have never seen? Where do those go who teach that one should worship the Eucharist, that is, thanksgiving? Who has ever worshipped thanksgiving? What is thanksgiving? or where is it? or how is it? Is it not then alone, if one gives thanks? So what is the common? indeed nothing else, but a gathering, a wedding gathering. But who has ever worshipped such? It is the effect and a custom, which then has its essence, if it happens.
(14) The supper of the Lord is not to be regarded differently; then it is a supper and a thanksgiving, when one eats with the proclamation of the death of Christ. Does one also read that the apostle worshipped this supper, since Christ has set up his remembrance of it? 5) Woe to our souls, who are thus bound to error, that I fear, when we already see the truth placed before our eyes, that we will not be able to understand it.
3) So put by us instead of: and.
4) i.e. shameful, shameless.
5) So put by us instead of: which.
accept! Where then does our faith reach out? or in what things does our faith hang? Is it not in God? Why do we refuse to turn our minds away from the outward show? Why do we put our hope in things that Christ has not shown us? Is not our salvation therein, who is a beatifier of all nations? Why then do we seek our salvation in the bread of remembrance? Although I am of the opinion that the bread and the drinking vessels of remembrance should not be handled without all discipline and shame in the congregation of God, in which congregation all things should be done with discipline and respectability, 1 Cor. 14. But in the discussion we will speak more about this.
(15) Now let us bring forth some of the ancients, who, as we shall clearly understand from their words, understood no flesh, indeed no flesh at all, in this sacrament or significant bread. For what is the use of calling the spiritual flesh, which is much the same as calling water fire and wood iron? But afterward they that have kept silence of the flesh, yet so that it may appear openly, [that] they also have been in the mind in which we are; but keep not silence of this, that they may say where[-to] 1) this supper is set up. Then it becomes known that with them there has been a different custom of the supper than the Roman bishops have indicated to us.
16 Tertullianus in the first book Wider Mareionem writes thus, namely: Christ has not rejected the bread, with which he wanted to signify his body. Luge, how cheerfully 2) he speaks that by the bread the body of Christ is signified! not that by the appearance of any bread the body of Christ is signified; but with the significant bread, which the faithful used in the proclamation of the death of the Lord. Then we call it a significant bread, which signifies and signifies. 3)
17 Augustine, although he speaks of this bread differently in another place, can be seen in two places what he wanted to understand through the body. The first place does much for the understanding of Tertullian, which is in the preface of the third Psalm, where he speaks of Christ and Judah thus: "And in the history of the New Testament of our Lord, such great and marvelous patience, that he called Judam one of his own.
1) ,,wozu" put by us instead of: wo.
2) serene -clear. Compare § 9 middle and § 32 end.
3) In the old edition: listed.
Good 4) as long as his thoughts were not hidden from him, because he called him to the supper, in which he recommended and presented the figure of his body and blood to his disciples". How clear is this, as Augustine speaks here, namely, that Christ gave the figure of his body and blood to the disciples? but how the figure? No doubt the custom of this significant or figurative bread, in which bread is signified and indicated, with an outward sign and glory, the remembrance of the death of Christ the Lord; or as the man in the Old Testament indicates and signifies the future bread of souls, Christ, that this bread also brings to our remembrance the slain body of Christ for us and his shed blood.
18 Augustine also, writing in John in the 72nd treatise, clearly rejects the flesh of Christ. As to the first: "But he hath laid out the manner of his gift, as he gave his flesh to be eaten, saying, Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. The sign that someone has eaten and drunk him is this: If he dwells and abides in God, and God in him; if man cleaves to him, and is not forsaken by God. This he exhorted and taught us with hidden words, that we should be in his inheritance, and under the head he is in his members, [who there] eat 5) his flesh, and not forsake his unity. But many of them that were there understood not the Lord, and were vexed: for hearing these things, they thought nothing but meat, which they also were. But the apostle says: "Verily, to understand after the flesh is death. The Lord gives us his flesh to eat, and to understand after the flesh is death, if he says of his flesh, for there is eternal life.
19 "Therefore we should not understand the flesh according to the flesh, as in these words: Therefore many, when they heard, not of his enemies, but of his disciples, said: This is hard speech, who may hear it? If the disciples thought this speech hard, what did the enemies do? And so it must have been that Christ spoke that which was not understood by all; the secrecy of God should have made them cautious, not contumacious" etc.
With these words of Augustine we see clearly that he has also been of understanding, namely,
4) as a good one," that is, as if he were good.
5) In the old edition: "eating" and "leaving".
that one should not pay attention to the flesh of Christ. Soon after, in the same treatise, he explained more clearly, saying:
21. Has Christ been of much use to us through his flesh? How, then, is not the flesh profitable? But the Spirit has dealt through the flesh for our salvation's sake. The flesh hath been the crockery; therefore lye what it hath held in it, and not what it hath been in itself."
22' Notice that he says again that one should not pay attention to the flesh, whatever it is. Why then do we look at the flesh alone here, since it is of no use?
Now we want to step to those, 1) who have laid out the custom of this food so that we can see completely how this sacrament was held by the ancients (not only the thing itself, but also the custom). Then we can easily see how Augustine, a man before others of a sharp and prudent mind, was not allowed to speak the truth in his time, which at that time was to a large extent lost. The godly man saw completely what this sacrament was and in which custom it was used.
24 But the opinion of the flesh was too far torn. For the first we carry out Origen to this saying in two places, which also of the custom and the thing half at it itself with us hellet. 2) The first place is in the homily on the 23rd chapter of Matthew, at these words: You tithe mint, dill and caraway etc., saying thus:
25. "But if in these words of the gospel a moral mind is also to be taken in hand, it is to be known that, just as mint, dill, and caraway give flavor to food, and are not in themselves a principal food: That there are also in our walk some things of this kind which are more excellent and necessary for the justification of souls, than these are the principal things of the law, namely, judgment, mercy, and faith; but the other things are like unto those things which 3) give savor to our works, and make them more acceptable and sweet, as, breaking off of laughter, fasting, kneeling, perseverance in the assemblies, going often to the sacrament, and other things of this kind, which are not righteousnesses in themselves.
1) Marginal gloss: Come forth, you theologians, and scold your Augustinum a heretic!
2) d. i. agrees.
3) "the" put by us instead of: is.
are, but are respected as a serving taste of the same righteousnesses."
26 Lye, how Origen disguises the common works that we call going to the sacrament (which was done more often by the ancients than in our times) as the lesser and external works of the tongue! 4) Which he would not have done if he had understood the matter of the flesh, as we do, and had made himself famous.
The other place is also about this evangelist in the 35th homily, about these words: This is my body etc., in which place he soon speaks this way:
28. "This bread, which God the Word professes to be His body, is a nourishing or feeding word of souls; yea, the word that proceedeth from the word which is God; and the bread from the heavenly bread, which bread is laid upon the table. Of which table it is written: Thou hast prepared in my presence a table against them that trouble me. And the drink, which the Word, God, calls His blood, and passeth away, is the Word that watereth, and filleth abundantly the hearts of them that drink. Which drink is in the vessel, of which it is written, And thy watering drink, how glorious is it? And this drink is a sprout of the true vine, which saith, I am the true vine. And is the blood of this vine, which cast into the troughs 5) of suffering, [which] hath brought forth for us this drink.
29] "So the bread is the word of Christ, made from the wheat, which, falling into the good ground, brought forth much fruit. But why did he not speak thus? This is the bread of the new testament; when then he said: This is the blood of the new testament? For the bread is the word of righteousness, with which bread souls, if they eat it, are fed and led. But the drink is the word of the knowledge of Christ according to the secrecy of his birth and passion. Forasmuch then as the covenant or testament of God is set forth and given unto us in the blood of Christ, that we, believing the Son of God to be born and to die according to the flesh, should be saved; not in righteousness, wherein, without the faith of the passion of Christ, there can be no salvation. For this reason alone is here from the
4) "Tongues" perhaps as much as: appendage. - "verschupsen" --- to disregard, to reject. Instead of "verschnupft" m the old edition must be read "verschupft". Cf. § 2 in No. 15 of this volume in Oecolampad's answer to the Syngramma. Likewise § 81 in No. 16 of this volume.
5) "Trotten" (from Treten) - winepress.
Drinking vessel spoken of: This is the cup of the New Testament."
30 It is too long to put all the trade here. In these words of Origen, we recognize that he also believed that the true principal of this sacrament is faith, in which we believe that Christ offered himself to the Father for us, for this is the food of souls.
(31) But the custom of this sacrament he interprets, saying immediately afterward in the same place, "And Jesus, therefore, with them that keep the marriage feast with him, taketh bread of the Father, and giveth thanks, and breaketh it, and giveth it to the disciples, according as every man is able. He gives it, saying, "Take and eat." Notice how he calls the wedding feast, that is, a glorious gathering of the congregation, or running together. But that he says: Christ gave, after each one is able, it is clear that he speaks here of the faith of thanksgiving (which God does not give in equal measure to all).
32 Thus Origen here cannot be understood of the flesh, for such flesh is like one with all those who perceived it, as they speak according to their opinion. But what follows here in Origen is for the first time seen by a stupid reader as if he were speaking of the flesh; yet it is no less 1) found in him, as is well known to one who sees him closely. Yes, also the things, which he puts afterwards, show cheerfully, what thanksgiving or Eucharistia is with him, and what his custom is, since he speaks thus:
33) "After teaching the disciples, who had celebrated the wedding feast with their master (lug, the wedding feast), and had taken the bread of dedication, and eaten the body of the word (see if he meant a sensitive body here), and had drunk from the drinking vessel of dedication" etc.
34. perceive the thanksgiving, 2) the common of glory, or proclamation of the death of the Lord.
35 Hilarius, in the 9th Canon, speaking of the fasting of the disciples of John and Christ, says thus: "But that Christ answered the disciples not to fast in the presence of the Bridegroom; he teaches and gives to understand the joy of his presence, and his presence in the presence of the Bridegroom, and his presence in the presence of the Bridegroom, and his presence in the presence of the Bridegroom.
1) "minders" - in the least.
2) Marginal gloss: The paschal lamb is reversed into a thanksgiving.
3) No one needs food in his presence, that is, because Christ is preserved in the image of our minds. But when he cometh from us, saith he, they shall fast: for all they that believe not that Christ is risen shall not have the meat of life. For in the faith of the primitive 4) shall receive the sacrament of heavenly bread; and he that is without Christ shall be left in fasting of the food of life."
Here Hilarius understands the secrecy of Christ to be the food of souls, which food, if it is present, is not fasting for anyone. But if the food is taken from them, fasting will also come. But those to whom Christ is risen, that is, those who admit that Christ is risen from the dead, they alone eat the sacramental bread, which is the meaning of the heavenly bread. On the other hand, those who are outside of Christ are left at the fasting of the food of life. Therefore he thinks that the Lord's supper is a sign of those who trust in Christ, in whose hearts he is risen; that is, those who firmly believe that he is risen; for those who believe him risen must believe him to be a true God. Now those who believe him to be a true God may not be, but they must trust in him. Therefore the brave man says: In the faith of the risen ones the sacrament of the heavenly bread is taken.
But in the 30th canon, of Judah, he speaks thus: He would not drink well with God, who would not drink with him in the kingdom etc. Which speech also (as I am concerned) has something, then it is learned that Hilarius did not understand that in the bread of the Lord the body of Christ is eaten, who hung on the cross, or wept in the manger, as they speak. For he says: to drink with God, and not: to drink the blood. But to think this of Hilario, 5) also that he speaks nothing of the Lord's supper, but these few words.
38 Hieronymum about the prophet Sophoniam 6) in the 3rd chapter I bring in for the reason, not that he serves much in this matter, but that he has much different opinion about thanksgiving than the pope. Therefore he says: "Also the priests, who serve thanksgiving and
3) "which" put by us instead of: which".
4) "Urstände" - resurrection. Compare the following paragraph.
5) "wehrt" put by us instead of: mehrt.
6) i.e. Zephaniah.
distribute the blood of the Lord to their people, act ungodly in the law of Christ, thinking that thanksgiving is in the words of the sacrificer and not in life, and that only the glorious commandment 1) and not the merit of the priests is necessary" etc.
39 He says to the first, "And they share the blood of the Lord with their people. In which words it is not obscured that even in the times of Jerome the priests not only ate, but also served the whole congregation, not only with bread, but also with drinking vessels.
40 Accordingly, he says: "Thinking that the words of the sacrificial priests make thanksgiving, 2) and not life. With these words she 3) cheerfully opposes the teaching of the popes, [who] do not deny any boy to make thanksgiving, but Jerome means the opposite, although neither Jerome (lest I anger those who think much of him) nor the pope speak rightly of thanksgiving.
(41) Lastly, if by the merits of the priests he understands the works of the law, he also errs with the pope; although the pope does not ascribe anything to the merits of the priests, but to the glorious commandment. But if by the merits he [understands] the Christian life, which is fashioned according to a righteous faith, that the same make thanksgiving; he meant it rightly. For thanksgiving is when the new people, gathered together by faith and life in Christ, give thanks to their original 4) body.
42. Augustine on Johannem, Tract. 84, on these words: No one has greater love than this, that he lay down his life for his friends, he speaks soon after thus: "Without doubt it is that which is read in the Proverbs of Solomon, Cap. 23: When thou sittest at supper at the table of the mighty, consider and understand what is set before thee; and so knowingly put thine hand to it, for such things thou must prepare. For what is the table of the mighty but this alone? From thence is taken his body and blood, who hath set his soul for us. And what is sitting at the table, but going there with humility? And what is to take heed, and to understand the things that are set forth, but to have sufficient grace?
1) "Commandment" placed by us instead of "prayer" according to § 41.
2) "make" put by us instead of: mache. How this sentence is to be understood follows from § 38.
3) "they," namely, Jerome's opinion of thanksgiving.
4) "Urhab" here will probably mean "originator" or "creator". Walch explains it by "intention". Otherwise it also stands in the meaning: beginning, beginning.
think? And what is to put the hand so that you know you must prepare such things, other than what I have now said: That as Christ laid down his life for us, so shall we lay down our lives for the brethren?
43 "Thus also saith the apostle Peter, Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow in his footsteps." Notice to what custom Augustine tells us to eat the body and blood of Christ; namely, in the custom that we give life for the brethren no other way than as Christ did for us.
But lest anyone think that Augustine understands these bodily things through the body and blood, let us also bring in what he said above in the 26th treatise in this way: "He now goes on to explain how the things he says are done, and what it is to eat the body and drink the blood. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. Therefore to eat this food and drink this drink is to abide in Christ, and to have him abide in him. Of him that abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, neither eateth he his flesh spiritually, neither drinketh he his blood, though he carnally and visibly presseth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ with his teeth; but rather eateth and drinketh the sacrament of such a high thing unto him for a judgment."
What could be spoken more clearly than these words? What could be said that is more pure and gentle? For while he has spoken, though he presses it carnally and visibly with his teeth, yet soon after, lest anyone should think that it should be understood of the flesh of Christ, he puts the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, supposing that this is called eating carnally, when it is eaten sacramentally. But sacramentally eating may be nothing else, [but] eating the sign or meaning. Again, so that no one disparages what he has said, eat sacramentally, as if such eating weakened the words of Paul 1 Cor. 11: Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself etc., for one might say: If I eat it sacramentally alone, how can I be guilty of the body and blood of Christ? Therefore Augustine drives such an outrageous reproach, which has grown up from there, behind him, when he says: "But rather he eats and drinks the sacrament of such a high thing for his judgment. Luge, as he does not say: of such a high thing; but: that which is high.
5) Here we have omitted "that" because it is too much.
Sacrament of such a thing. But what thing? That we are in Christ through faith, and he is in us. Therefore (when he then speaks more carefully) he speaks and indicates that everyone who eats the sacrament of faith in Christ alone eats and drinks the meal, thinking that this sacrament should not be eaten by anyone but those who trust in Christ.
46 This Augustine also, in the third book of the unanimity of the evangelists, in the first chapter, when he showed the reason why John was silent about the body and blood, when he described the supper and the washing of the feet, says: "But John said nothing here in this place about the body and blood of the Lord, but testified that in another place the Lord had spoken of it much more superfluously. Therefore Augustine thinks that the meal is necessary (as much as belongs to the matter), which is dealt with in the 6th chapter of St. John. But that same eating is to give faith to the words of the Gospel. Therefore, according to him, we do not eat Christ other than by faith, if we trust in him as the undoubted pledge of our salvation.
These things we have brought forth from the bravest of the fathers, not that we wanted to support the cause, in itself clear and confirmed with the word of God, with human prestige, but that it be opened to the weakest, 1) that We are not the first to bring forth this opinion without doubt not to the weakest. For I testify with God that I made this deal in silence with many scholars some years ago for the sake of His honor alone, for the custom that I would not unwisely scatter something unprovoked among the common people, which might at some point cause a great commotion; and as I have discussed the matter with many, 2) so I have found many more who have indulged me in this opinion of mine.
(48) Therefore, I have asked God for the 3rd time to show us a way by which commerce, which is almost difficult according to the judgment of the simple, may come to the knowledge of many people. Which trade, on the one hand, is not so difficult as we all would have thought; and, on the other hand, nothing more convenient and nothing more useful to the community of God would be. For what has given further occasion to all vices, but that we, if we have sinned brazenly, have not withdrawn ourselves from this fellowship? Or
1) In the old edition: become.
2) spoken about - discussed.
3) d. i. more often.
What could have provoked us more to love and favor, than if Christ, who died voluntarily for us poor and enemies, had been brought before our ears without interruption? Or in what way might the danger of shame have compelled us from adultery, usury, lavishness, grandeur, arrogance, avarice, and other vices, but that we were often and thickly at such a supper, from which some would be driven away with great shame, since daily punishments were inflicted on the vices?
Therefore, because I saw that the natural right custom of this sacrament would be so useful, I (when I spoke) earnestly asked God to show us a way by which we could take such a dangerous matter in hand prudently 4) and with good consideration. So God heard me, since I prayed earnestly; 5) therefore we consulted at last that this custom might come forth if the Mass were overthrown; which, if it were overthrown, we hoped that thanksgiving also might be restored,
50) But here I saw nothing more vehemently opposed than the sixth chapter of John, where this immovable and stiff adamant, the flesh is not useful, is so set in its colors and all hard metal that it stands indestructible, whatever you stick in it, and also it wants 6) all things to be broken in it, unless you do a little damage to it.
51) After this place, this seemed to me the most skillful: God has never seen anyone, John 1. There he forbade to worship anything that is seen and felt. Lastly, it was necessary to explain the natural and right custom (of this thanksgiving I mean), which, after it is understood, the forgiven hopes and abominable opinions will fall away from themselves.
I have spoken this advice to many. But before the matter has come to light, some little books come forth, I do not know what urgent words they utter, nor are they strong and loud enough; 7) they do not attack the matter in the place where victory may be achieved. So the divine power holds itself in human dealings, against which we are forced with unwillingness 8) to bring forth this opinion of ours; and also many brethren everywhere require such from us as much as with unwillingness.
4) i.e. mindful.
5) "since I prayed earnestly" put by us instead of: earnestly praying.
6) Maybe..rather" ?
7) louder - clear.
8) In the old edition: vanquished.
(53) We have also written an epistle to the preacher of the gospel at Reutlingen, 1) as to one who is unknown to us face to face, which we have presented with such high admonition that no one would let it go forth, 2) which I have not seen go forth from the graces of God, although many devout brethren in the Lord have seen it. But since we started these commentaries afterwards, how could we have expressed our opinion differently than we did in the above-mentioned epistle? Since it was necessary to write commentaries, for we had promised such to not a few pious and learned men from France.
54. Therefore, we ask God, before whom we stand today and lift up our hands without stain of diligence to riot or honor, that this be the will of His establishment, which we have declared (as there is no doubt in our minds), that through the favor by which He has had mercy on all the human race, He may open the eyes of all men, so that they may all recognize the abomination that has placed itself in God's stead, and cease to worship. For this must be a great abomination, so that which is a creature is taken for God.
How can the worship of bread not be the highest ungodliness, since God alone is to be worshipped, and no creature at all, that even the theologians think that the righteous humanity of Christ may not be worshipped without the danger of idolatry? But what is that they say: They worship not the bread, but the body of Christ? Do they not now also worship a creature? Where then are their decrees, in which they forbade to worship mankind? But again they say: We worship, and eat also the spiritual body of Christ. Oh God! What is the spiritual body of Christ? Has anyone in Scripture found any other spiritual body of Christ than the church? as Eph. 4, Col. 1 is written. Or our faith, by which we believe, have paid our debt to him on the cross, and are assured of salvation through him? Why do we trouble the godly ears with the voices, 3) which no mind [has] been able to grasp? The spiritual body is understood by man in the same way as if you said: a bodily mind or carnal reason. Or do we not then eat the body of Christ, especially spiritually, when we believe it to be slain for us, and
1) The letter to Matthäus Alber, preacher at Reutlingen, dated November 16, 1524; found Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1880.
2) "let" put by us instead of: let.
3) i.e. words, expressions.
Is not the spirit and the life in us now? What do we tie together words that do not rhyme, just because we bicker without ceasing? Let us speak more brightly! We eat spiritually, if we come to Christ through the favor of God. What else can "eating the body of Christ spiritually" be but trusting in Christ? What do we devise new foes that cannot stand up to any reason?
(56) I am the light of the world, says Christ. Since he is the light, who would believe that he would have thrust us into such darkness, by which faith is much more likely to be weakened than strengthened? True and experienced things we speak. For if the human heart is now assured in faith toward God through Christ, has it not grasped the summa of its salvation? Without a doubt, yes.
57 What do you think grows in him when he is driven to such unruliness, which horrifies all understanding? Truly nothing but a wavering. But you would say: Faith is able to do all things; which if thou hast not, thou canst not be saved. Let us answer: In this way everyone has been deceived, for those who receive this crude opinion strictly demand faith, to which they otherwise do not admit much.
(58) Thus those who, out of the temptation of the flesh, as Paul says in Ephesians 4 and Colossians 2, do what they will, present it as stiff. Because you urge them to such an extent that they have to surrender, or are rushed, they flee 4) to faith; which if they had had faith, they would never have been able to produce such things as stiffnecked. For those who trust in Christ have no hunger nor thirst for anything else, for now they have the food with which the souls are refreshed. Therefore they put into faith that which it does not have, nor does it allow to be put into it, 5) as has been sufficiently proved above.
(59) Therefore they put not a bad dishonor upon him, that the flesh of Christ might endure through him, and that twofold:
First of all, that they may beautify this flesh with faith, for faith opposes it; then it will be necessary to have such a thing of itself, and not by faith; for faith extends itself into the things that are, before 6) you trust them. Therefore our faith may not make this flesh, which indeed I had not said,
4) they flee - this is how they escape.
5) "lässet" put by us instead of: lässest.
6) "before then" put by us instead of: before and.
if it were not for some who bring forth such a lukewarm expedient of faith that they may speak: The flesh exists through faith. What could be said that is more clumsy? Can faith bring it about that bread is flesh? One should have stiffly proved this with the word of God, through which faith takes place, and not thus imposed on faith by force. 1)
60] To the other: Do they so dishonor the faith, that they say: Faith makes blessed; which is true in itself. But in this place it is as far from the truth as light is from darkness. For they pretend 2) that faith makes blessed him who believes in the bread, or that the same bread is bodily flesh.
(61) But these things are spoken without all valor of the word, because nowhere is it read: Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever believeth that he eateth my flesh in this bread shall be saved. Yes, much another error will follow, namely, that two ways to salvation are useful. One, if we trust in Christ; the other, if we believe that this bread is flesh. For thus they say, Except thou believe it to be so, thou mayest not be saved.
62. Lug, how human reason, willing and knowing, found darkness in the midst of light, in which darkness it groped, and thus in the grasping and requesting of its subtlety found glory with the simple.
What is the sharp diligence of Scoti and Thomae, in the investigation of the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood, other than a quest for the fame of subtlety? They have become like physicians who are not well versed in the art, who, in order that they may be regarded as experienced, bring about with their medicines that at the same time that they come to you, you become aware of a new disease; which new disease, if they take away the 3) disease, is considered good. See if the thing of which we are here speaking is not like them?
64) These have spoken first: Christ's bodily flesh shall be eaten, as he wept in the manger, as he hung bloody on the cross; they speak no more, 4) for as he passed through closed doors to the disciples, so shall he be eaten.
1) So put by us instead of: "aufgetrochen" - imposed.
2) "arch before" -^"turn before.
3) "the" put by us instead of: "it". The meaning of this sentence: If they eliminate this new disease, they will be considered good doctors.
4) "speak" put by us instead of: speak.
They were happy to go after the rulers. And so that they would not be held as unjust masters, they devised marvelous intrigues, so that they would present the matter in such a way, and their foolish minds, which truly never believed, or yet rejected, what was true, would see it, and led them as in an erroneous course, now showing this, then that, so long that they no longer had any regard for the outcome. Which, when they had conquered most of it, they used a tyranny against those who wanted to look at the matter more closely; they called those who wanted to bring forth the truth heretics. What can there be much talk about?
(65) When they were about to sell this bread to the common people as a merchandise, they must have made something of it, which greatly astonished all men, that they might increase the reward. Therefore they started to make the bread into meat, [have] put the word: The meat is not useful.
(66) Therefore, all those who read this opinion of ours, we pray by faith, through which we are all saved, not to hastily reject or condemn what they hear, even if it seems to them to be completely unheard, but to ask God to give them the light of a true understanding, by which light they may look at what is true, right and firm.
Truth is cheerful to look at, has no arrogance, and cannot be won with flattery. Then it comes about that those who know something bad about them must not look at such truth stiffly and without fear at first sight; but if they have tried it now and often, they will not let it go any longer.5)
68. May the Almighty God grant us in the end that we may recognize this [as] the right glory of God, by which the mind alone adheres to the one God, alone follows, alone desires to please and to live His will!
69. Again, may He grant us to realize that the outward things of this world do not make us better, but if we give them much, they will take us away from the true adornment of God. This happens in such a way that we turn the things that we have so far offered to the adornment of God Maozim (whom we have honored according to the saying of Dan. 11. as being in the holy place, even though we did not know what he was, with gold, silver, precious stones and other precious things) to the poor, and so our minds (which have so far been wandering with false hopes) are attached to the one God through the eternal pledge, his Son. Amen.
5) i.e. refresh.