23. oil. 1525.
Translated from Latin by M. Aug. Tittel.
Johanni Bugenhagen, the Pomeranian, Huldrich Zwingel withdrew his greeting!
Grace and peace from God! If I had ever wanted to make a name for myself and to quarrel, I would have had a very nice opportunity through your letter from the holy supper, through which I could have gained the approval of the common man, as if I had atoned for both desires. But since this, namely to write out of quarrels or vain honor, is supposed to be as far removed from a Christian mind as it is, unfortunately, common at the present time, I have resolved to answer all your things freely and heartily, but also modestly and kindly; you, however, will listen and pay attention, because I do not want to make any further lengthy preface.
The title of your letter is: "Against the new error. On account of this title, you cannot unwind that you did not put it forward, either out of ignorance or by force. For if you do not know that the ancients were of this opinion of ours concerning the supper, your ignorance will be overlooked; provided, however, that you do not at another time so quickly come out with "new error," namely, to call that what Christ, the apostles, and the earliest Christians held. Read the book of Oecolampadii, 1) and if it is not contemptible to you, our "contribution". 2) But if you are not ignorant in the old opinion about it, it is something violent and wanton that you nevertheless took this title to it.
1) "Oecolampadii book" is the book that Oekolampad sent to the Swabian preachers: ^oauuis Occolumpackii äs Senninn vcrftorum Domini, Doc 68t Corpus lneuin, juxtn V6tu8ti88imo8 nutores 6Xpositions over. It is reprinted in ^etn ct scripts pudlicn ecclssine hosts mdcrSicac; sä. DtnL DudinMC 1719, p. 41- p. 150.
2) This refers to the book that Zwingli wrote in August 1525 to strengthen his oonunentsrius äs vern st kaisa rcIiZionc. It appeared under the title: Lubsiäiurn äs sucknristin.
3) In the letter itself, you think, I have found this loophole, that is so much should apply as, it means; because I saw that it does not go well with Carlstadt's interpretation. Dear! Why do you do this, since you see that our letter went straight to one from Reutlingen (since Carlstadt's books only came out) 3) and was copied afterwards, and soon came to more than 500 brothers before it was publicly printed, although no one knew yet how Carlstadt's books would be received. What you attribute to me here, you have rather, in my opinion, attributed to Carlstadten. For when he saw that you had long decided that the i st here should not apply as much as it means; likewise, that one should worship the Lord's Supper, he considered the argument too hard if he attacked the matter on this side; for he chose another, which any other judge would have attributed to fairness and gentleness rather than bitterness. For he has seen that it would be a foolish thing to say that a memory is to be worshipped. Since he could not tolerate such ungodliness, and since he was worried about quarrels, he attacked it in order to help himself out of such distress. But how can you accuse us of a finding, since I attacked the matter where you had long thought it was impossible to grasp?
4 But that you say: No dream or parable is interpreted here, is inconsiderate. For, as will become clear, here is the figurative speech that is in the words: The seed is the word of God. Now that we have proved that it is just such a figurative speech, what is the difference whether it is put differently in the interpretation of a dream or parable, or in a complete and definite speech? since the interpretation of a dream or parable must also be a complete and correct speech? But that you may have enough, see here complete (or bad) speeches: this is the Pesah [Passover]; He is the Elijah; these are the
3) These brackets are set by us.
*This writing appeared in October 1525 in Zurich in Latin under the title: Rcsponsio aä DuMnünSii spistolnin; in the same year there also in German under the title: "Eine Antwort Huldrichs Zwinglii auf die Epistel Joh. Bugenhagen aus Pommern, das Nachtmal Christi betreffend". We give this writing after the old edition of Walch.
two testaments. And since you say: Neither an evangelist nor Paul has indicated with only a few words that this is to be taken meaningfully here, this is a futile evasion; just as if the scribes, when they needed disguised words, always added a book of interpretation to interpret such disguise (or blurring). One must know how to find the disguises with the light of faith; for otherwise we have many passages in Scripture with such undoubted markings that nevertheless one will not be able to force a quarrelsome or unbelieving person to admit a disguise there; e.g.: I am a right vine, and: my flesh is truly food. Behold, truer (right) and also true! And yet, one must allow a blunt speech there, or commit blasphemy. How much more must we admit a blunder where no mark stands in the way, and the truth of faith requires it? And that I open my opinion to you in this, because I see that you do not consider the flowery things so very carefully: so hear, with permission to speak, what is also clearly felt in Psalms. I have seen that in these words there is a blurring long before Carlstadt comes forth with his "this" (or "that"); but by what word I should explain the blurring I have not seen. For it is not enough to say: this is a tropus (or efflorescence), if one does not give the efflorescence at the same time with other words. For example, when Christ says, I must be baptized with a baptism; likewise: I have food to eat; the hearer is not helped if I merely say, It is a vague speech; but I must also give the vague with other clear words; namely, to be baptized with a baptism, by this: to bear the cross, or to die, or to suffer; likewise also the other speech (scil. of food). But who will be so foolish as to say that because I here explain "to be baptized" by "to suffer," then everywhere where baptism is written, suffering must also be implied? This is perhaps none of your business, but is only incidentally taken along for some ill-minded people who spread themselves with such conclusions among the simple-minded. For, they say, if is means so much as it means; so when the heavenly Father says of the Son, This is my Son, we shall have to interpret it thus: This means my son; just as if we had given a law that is must be taken nowhere else but for means. Whose impudence any blind man may see. So we have, since the care for the simple ones makes us
I learned [taught] how to take the word "is" for "means," but I did not see that the words "this is my body" were spoken in a figurative way. I saw that the words, "This is my body," were spoken in a faded manner; but in which word the faded manner actually was, I did not see. Then it happened, by the grace of God, that two pious and learned men, whose names I will not mention, came to our Leo [Jude] and me to discuss this matter, and when they heard our opinion in the matter, they thanked God for it. For they concealed theirs, because at that time it was not safe for everyone to reveal what he believed in this matter, and they only took out of their bundle the letter of a learned and pious Dutchman, 1) which is now printed without a name, and showed it to us. There I found the beautiful pearl that is to be explained by means here. And since we had to necessarily explain this word in our interpretation (Commentario), it seemed best to open the word, in which the flowering stood, with this its key, than merely to say: It is something flowered, we have thus taught that the is is put here instead of this: It is a sign or figure; it means. And I am not at all sorry for this interpretation. For if one says a thousand times, It is a flowering, and does not explain it, one gives the child a hard (unopened) nut. As if I had not said it yet, so that the author (or authorizer) of the sweetbread would not be exposed to some unintended danger by our way of writing, if the letter, as I said, had not already been printed.
5 Soon after, you say, "We imagined that the word of Christ, which is flesh, is of no use, would have special power to prove that the "is" here means as much as it means. It is true that we imagine such things, or, as you say, dream them. For those who do not see this certainly sleep very deeply, and are all the more unhappy than we are, because even in sleep they do not see a single image of truth. But let us see which of us dreams best: you, since you say, even with testimonies of Scripture, which are somewhat distorted, that Christ in these words, the flesh is no
1) A jurist, Cornelius van Hon or Honius, had written a letter to Luther in the summer of 1522, in which he presented the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which Zwingli later appropriated. This letter is probably meant, which Zwingli published (without a name) under the following title: Npistvla oliristiann ndmodurn, ab annis guatuor ad ^uendarn, npud guerv vmne judioiuiu saorne soriptnrne tult, ex Latavis missa, "ed kpreta; lonM aliier traotans ooeuana dominioam, ttaetenus traotata est.
not speaking of his flesh and blood, of which he only spoke before, but condemning the carnal mind of the disciples, and falling from his purpose to a common [doctrine], or 1) we, who hold that he speaks of his very flesh and blood, about which the disciples murmured with the Jews, and before which they bore an abhorrence, as they [flesh and blood] were bodily? 2) Especially since one sees that Cyril, Augustine, Chrysostom, although the latter is somewhat darker, among the ancients; among the moderns who are still alive, Erasmus and almost all scholars in the heap are of the opinion that Christ here takes the flesh as those took it to whom he answered; but who took it in such a way that they believed that he spoke of his bodily flesh. If one, I say, sees this, why will you say that we are only dreaming? Does he who diligently reads the old authors dream? It seems to me that those are rather dreaming who rather bring their things thoughtlessly to the table than read the old ones. For 3) it is over with the saying of Comici: Nothing is said that was not said before? Since we now bring the opinion of the ancients to light again, as we have sufficiently indicated in our "commentario," why are we blamed for concocting a new error?
(6) But there is something that may be offensive to the simple reader in the reading of the above authors, which may also have caused you to stumble. For since they also use the words of the spiritual and carnal mind, and you have just the same in your mouth, your mind is not directed to what they mean by it. For when they here reject carnal mind, they mean by it that which the rude disciples and Jews had, when they thought that Christ spoke of his flesh, but they do not mean a common doctrine of the carnal mind; which may be seen from a certain discourse of Augustine, Tract. 27: "The flesh was the vessel; mark what it had, not what it was." And soon after, "The flesh helps nothing." As they understand the flesh, so I do not give my flesh to eat. But they do not call the spiritual mind here in general, but actually that, by which was believed what Christ taught under the parable of eating and drinking, namely, that those who believed that they were redeemed by his death, and by his blood
1) So put by us instead of: the.
2) "would have been" put by us instead of: were.
3) "for" put by us instead of: the.
would be reconciled to eternal life, as Peter understood it when he said: "We believe and have known that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God"; since we clearly see that the spiritual mind of Peter was nothing else than trusting in the death of Christ. But you take the carnal and spiritual mind in general for the carnal and spiritual mind, and believe that Christ falls from the former speech of the flesh and blood, given for us, to the common mind of the flesh and spirit, as a common doctrine, in which you are quite mistaken. Which is clear for this single reason: Dear one, tell me whether Christ, from the place where he thus began to speak, "Does this offend you? How, then, when ye shall see the Son of man depart thither," etc., do you better their error and rebuke them, or not? Where you deny it, many things will hinder you, which follow, e.g., "There are some among you who do not believe." Which is a word belonging to the former matter, since he had said, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." And this, "Therefore I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given him of my Father," which is also taken again from former matter; likewise all the rest that follow, from which every one sees that Christ fall not from the intended doctrine to something common. If then you admit that he meets their error, you must also further admit that he understands flesh as they understood it; but they believed that bodily flesh was presented to them; therefore Christ also said that bodily flesh was of no use. For if these words of Christ do not set us free from the understanding of the flesh, we shall still today have to understand the words: My flesh is truly meat, according to the will of the Roman pope, from the flesh. But who has ever doubted that what is written in John 6 must be opened with the axe "the flesh is of no use" and shown that he is not speaking of the flesh? Do you not yourselves also make it evident with this single key that the eating of the flesh is not taught here? But how is it that we deprive ourselves of our best defense? For if this word be taken away, we have none further by which the antitype may be so valiantly repulsed.
(7) But if Christ here proceeds from a special doctrine to a common one, I ask, whether he intended to cause error by the common doctrine of the Jews and disciples, or not? If he did, then the common teaching has become a special teaching.
has been. He then meant nothing more than this: As the carnal mind is harmful, so this also hinders you in the understanding of the gospel, that you think I speak of the flesh; one must put the carnal mind entirely away, so that you think of nothing carnal at all, and so may also know that I speak of no flesh. But if in these words he has not wished to remedy their error, he has allowed them to err freely. And how can we also know whether they have erred or not, since such an obvious sign, which you demand of us, is with them, which also the Roman Catholics have now used for so long a time, namely: "My flesh is truly meat" ? What shall be a sure sign, if it is none? Go then, and leave off this: "The flesh is of no use"; on what grounds then do you want to enforce that this word: "My flesh is truly meat" is not to be understood of the flesh? Finally, if the words, "The flesh is of no use," do not refer to the foregoing, tell me whether you think that the flesh of Christ, eaten (or devoured) in the flesh, is of any use? If you say yes, you will not be able to prove it by any other word than this: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." Two ways of attaining salvation are thus presented to us: one is by trusting in Christ; the other is by eating his flesh in the flesh. By such an answer, however, we fall into a double error; the first, namely, that we falsify the said words, "He that eateth my flesh," etc.; the other, that we promise life to those who eat bodily. But if the eaten flesh of Christ avails nothing, why do we dispute so much? why do we dwell so on such words?
8 Let us not, my dear friend, seek such hiding places and evasions, which not only obscure the truth but also betray it to the enemies.
Now I come back to your letter. Isn't this a strong conclusion: If the flesh is not useful, then there must be an obfuscation in the words "this is my blood", or "this is" means as much as "means"? But you, since you cannot outline this fortress, reverse the order of the conclusion for me. For I do not thus proceed: Is is put for means. I prove it, because the flesh is no good, as you put it. But in this way: The flesh is of no use, therefore the words of Christ: This is my body, are spoken in a vague way. Which order you may not break by any art or violence. Then
we do not explain the dumb speech according to our wit or delusion, but with the help of the Scriptures. You also mock me, as a great theologian, who never arrogated to myself the name of a divine scholar, but often read with annoyance the titles Doctor or Professor Theologian in the writings of such people, who are perhaps theologians. For how should the Roman pope deny me the title of Doctor, which Zurich offered me, 1) but which some hardly attain when they travel to Rome with all danger and great expense? You do not know that I recognize more than too well that everything about me is poor and insignificant, otherwise you would have omitted this insult. But what you mockingly laugh at will one day make you weep. For woe to you who laugh, for you will weep. I should be pitied rather than mocked and laughed at if I were in this error.
(10) You call Carlstadt mine; why, or for what purpose, you will know. For I think to myself: If Carlstadt is an evil man, why does he make him mine? The disgrace must necessarily fall on you if he makes you a companion of someone of whom he does not think much good, even if you do not know him. But if he is a good man, as in truth many think, why do you belittle him so? And so I may turn where I will, but I cannot absolve you of insolence, which I have long since forgiven you.
(11) Ye have also added this very untimely: Shall you say that this is not profitable, whereof the world hath life? For in order that we might bear clear and glorious witness to the fact that Christ's flesh is not only useful but also life, we have used the same words at the end: Christ's flesh is very useful, coesa, non ambesa, as it is bruised (or sacrificed), not as it is chewed or eaten. But you, since you do not hear these so bright things, I must almost believe that you are dreaming.
(12) The testimonies which you bring from the Scriptures are certainly taken from them, in the places where the common doctrine of the carnal mind (or understanding) is practiced by godly men. But what use is this in the way you conclude here? You should have brought testimonies, since the place: The flesh...
1) Marginal gloss: One has Hadriani of the Pabst's letter to Zwingli, so still to be found with me. (On January 23, 1523, Pope Hadrian had issued a flattering letter to Zwingli, so that he would use his influence to keep the powerful Canton on the papal side in political matters).
is of no use, would be drawn to your mind. But since this is not possible for you, you do as much as you can, and cite some that come closest to him, and in words are quite related and have the same meaning, but in substance they differ by leaps and bounds. Therefore, for their sake, I leave nothing of our opinion, for they are not at all suitable here, but are spurious. But your opinion or statement, which goes like this: "But that you call us eaters and carnivores is blasphemous," I am very glad to hear, although I recognize only a little blasphemy in it, that I call the carnivores who do not eat meat even where they think it. Since you notice this about yourselves, you have called me 1) a blasphemer, [therefore] that I attribute something to you, which you neither eat nor feel. But before I hear anything from you of the art of teaching language, we pray, dear Master, remember the words which you finely presuppose in due season: "We do not rend (or bite) the body of Christ, but eat the bread, and in the bread the true body of Christ." For here you must teach us the art of language in a masterly way, in order to bring out that the words of Christ, "This is my body," have been changed into the following: in this bread my body is eaten. You must undoubtedly be a true teacher of the art of language if you deny that the bread is the body or the flesh, and yet believe that you eat flesh in the bread; for Christ by no means said, Eat this bread, for in it you will eat my body; but, This, which he gave, is my body. Dear Master, show us more such passages in holy scripture. But lest I jest at an inopportune time in a serious matter, I appeal to you, Mr. Pommer, to make the pronouncement which explanation of Christ's words is more compulsory: whether yours, since you say: bread is bread, but in the bread the body of Christ is eaten; or ours, since we say these words are blurred, "this is my body," and explain the blurring thus: "this is," that is, it is a sign, figure, or antitype of my body, which 2) is given for you.
Now let us look at your artificial things from the linguistic doctrine, namely the other part of your letter. Pommer (says): The blessed drink, which we bless (that is, according to the common way of speaking, consecrate), is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? that is, the communion, since the blood of Christ is communicated and distributed to you, to me, to others, so that such treasure is distributed and made common to us etc.
1) "me" put by us instead of: the.
2) "the" put by us instead of: that.
(14) First of all, my dear Pomeranian, see how you have not yet done anything about this, if this is already the meaning of Paul's words that you have given. For you would see that the drink and the bread are called the body and the blood, because they are signs of these things; just as in Genesis 17 circumcision is called a testament and a covenant, which was only a sign of the covenant; as you can see in our "Subsidio".
15 But now let us look at your grammatical things, so that it is obvious how you do not understand things from the art of language, as they are necessary here. 1) Since you explain this "which we bless" thus: which we generally consecrate. Dear, let us look at your: vulgo quem consecramus3) a little bit right. Who is the vulgus (or rabble)? This is not how Ambrose, or Athanasius, or some of the ancients interpret it. Erasmus gives it thus: Does not the holy cup, which we take and consecrate (sanctify) with thanksgiving in remembrance of the death of Christ, indicate the communion, that we are at the same time redeemed by the blood of Christ? You see here that Erasmus, in the first part of this interpretation, takes "bless" for "give thanks," as his Theophylactus and all the ancients do, but not for conseeriren or einsegnen, where he does not take it for [it] is so much as to grow together into one; although he has added the word "consecriren," but so carelessly and after the fact that one can well see that he was not concerned about it. Which rabble or common people then explains the place in this way? For you can easily see which interpretation is according to Erasmi. Namely, the rabble, which we had already left in Egypt with the onions and garlic, we seek out again, I say, and turn, as the proverb says, again to the acorns. Remember also the other piece of Erasmi's interpretation, where he speaks: [It] indicates a fellowship, that we are all redeemed by the blood of Christ.
Now we want to show clearly where you get stuck in these words. Community is not taken passively in these words (because we also want to speak from a master tone once, since we see that you not only need their [the grammar's] words out of your own power, but also defy them), as you explain it, namely for the healing of the body and for the healing of the soul.
3) These words of Bugenhagen are completely twisted by Zwingli. Compare § 10 of the previous scripture. Bugenhagen says: "The cup, which we bless (commonly one says: which we consecrate)," Zwingli makes out of it: "which we consecrate in common (vulgo - to the rabble)."
blood of Christ himself, which is the sole cause of your error, but for us who are Christ's body, namely his church, people, assembly, congregation, or, as Erasmus gives it, community. Therefore perhaps xxxxxxxx dear community
Communication (Mittheilung) may have given rise to the error that Paul was thought to have understood Christ's bestowal by it. Therefore the words: xx xxxxxxxx (the cup of blessing we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ) would be better translated thus: the cup of thanksgiving, that we may give thanks, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? that the understanding would be this: the cup of thanksgiving, that we may give thanks, what is it but ourselves? For we, what are we but the fellowship and the company, people, congregation, and society of the blood of Christ? that is, the people washed away by Christ's blood' and he calls those the blood of Christ who trust in his blood. As elsewhere he calls those the circumcision who serve God in the Spirit, Phil. 3, so also here are those the fellowship of the blood of Christ who rejoice and are glad in the very glorious church, that they are set at liberty by the blood of Christ. That this is the right mind of Paul, we will prove, both from his words and from the ancient mind. If we look at the matter Paul is dealing with, we will have to admit that this is Paul's opinion. For he admonishes against idolatry. Which is done much more emphatically when he says: "You are a different and more glorious people than to mix with the idolatrous crowd," than when he says: "You have fellowship with the flesh and blood of Christ, therefore you should not have fellowship with the idols in their idolatry. For all that Paul says is not only very emphatic, but also well-timed and quite proper. But who does not see that this is much stronger and more excellent when he says, If ye desire remembrance or thanksgiving, 1) are ye not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? Christ's people and church? than if he only said: When you eat the blessed bread like this, do you not share out Christ's body? The last mind would not keep so much from idolatry. For there are still men who think they have power to limp on both sides; but the former, as a torrent, sweeps away all falsehood, when he says, Ye are the communion of the blood of Christ. So much of the opinion and content.
1) Perhaps: "commits". Cf. § 17.
(17) But the words themselves are so strong and well put that we have no reason to suspect some obscurity in them. For since, after the words, "Is not this the communion of the blood of Christ?" he immediately adds, "Because we many are One Bread and One Body, in that we are all partakers of One Bread," he gives the reason that those who repeat such thanksgiving are the communion of the blood of Christ; indeed, he declares it, saying, as it were, "No one is surprised that those who celebrate this assembly have been called by me the communion of the blood of Christ; for we are all One Bread and One Body. Behold! One loaf, One Body, not Christ's flesh, but His Church. Now he explains how it comes about that we are all One Body, One Church, and One Bread; namely, because we (he says) all enjoy One Bread. But if Paul, the incomparable speaker of Christ, had thought that by eating the fleshly body of Christ we became One Body, he would not have said, in concluding the speech and explaining the cause, For we all partake of One Bread, but: Of One Body. But since he says: We would therefore be One Body, Bread and Church, because we would be partakers of One Bread, does he not clearly show that it is a spiritual Bread? But when some of the mob make a noise and cry out: If Christ had not wanted his flesh to be eaten here, he would not have used a fancy speech in such important matters, but would have spoken in a bad way: nothing is clear from this but a restless and deceitful head; as if Christ had not also spoken in a fancy way in the main work of Christianity, when he says: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Item: "I will make you fishers of men." Item: "You shall carry neither bags nor bundles." Item: "My flesh is truly meat." For are not such doctrines of the highest importance? and yet he has spoken in them in a vague way. And the jurists say that it is a title of handing over the keys; but if a person in authority, that is, of worldly rank, held the same in low esteem, and, handing them over to the emperor, said, This handing over of the keys signifies our handing over, and the handing over of all things; would he not thereby become a laughing-stock? Thus there are innumerable things, both in things and actions, and even in speeches, which neither happen nor are said without a sign and a blurred understanding.
18) As far as the authors are concerned, it is well known to you that the ancients wanted to indicate by the single word "synaxin" that in this assembly the whole body of Christ, that is, its
Church, not by the presence of the body, for how could its remembrance take place where it itself was present? but by the presentation of the symbolic (meaningful) bread, that is, by the fellowship. For the ancients considered that they sacrificed and served God when they ate together. Otherwise, enough has been said about the name Eucharistia. Augustine is also of this opinion, Tract. 26. in John, when he says: "Believers know the body of Christ when they do not fail to be Christ's body." And soon after: "By this food and drink he wants to understand the fellowship of the body and its members, which is the holy church" etc. Read the whole of this tract and the following, and you will find that what we defend is not a new error, but a common doctrine with the ancients. I also ask that you read in the papal decrees de Consecr. dist. 2, the chapter: Quia passus est, and another soon after, Prima, of which Battus Effinger, a councilor with us, of whom much is to be hoped, recently reminded us, who was very surprised that many made such a clamor, since precisely what is taught publicly is also in the papal decrees. So much of the place 1 Cor. 10.
19 You will, however, consider what Oecolampadius wrote about the old opinion. For since you say that it cannot otherwise be possible that One Bread is eaten at Breslau and Wittenberg, this is as much as nothing; for it is also not One Bread that you eat with your wife. But in the mind of faith we eat One Bread, that is, of the same sign, because the same is one; though the bread is distinct, yet that is one, for whose sake all believers eat it.
(20) What you say about the testament, namely, that it is the forgiveness of sins given by grace; that 1) is rightly said. But you soon lose your way again, because you make the cup a testament, since even the blood of Christ is not the testament, or the blood by which the testament was confirmed. Therefore, it is a vague speech when the blood of Christ, or the cup of thanksgiving, is called a testament. More about this in our "contribution".
21 You say: Paul says: "Let him be guilty of the body and blood" etc., but not of the bread and wine. Answer: But you are somewhat foolish, which you will forgive me for understanding, to speak in a dumb way. For you may take the body and the blood for the bodily things, or you may take the bread and the wine for the bodily things.
1) In the old edition: "is that". - Soon after, we put "It is" instead of "Is it".
for the church; so Paul means nothing else than that he desecrates and betrays Christ's institution who does not go to it with a proper mind or willingness. For why should Paul say this of the carnal body, since his way of reasoning is entirely to keep from the company of idolaters those who are Christ's body? But Christ's institution or foundation is the thanksgiving and union of His body. For those who are in such thanksgiving testify that they are members of the one body of Christ. All this is betrayed (or destroyed) by those who either have only the appearance of giving thanks, since their faith in Christ is not correct, or who despise Christ's church, and are members of the harlot, that is, (the church) of idolaters. Ambrose agrees with us when he speaks of these words in 1 Cor. 11: "But what is to be punished but for the death of Christ? For there he is killed for those who yet make his death void." Read also Athanasii interpretation about this place, you will see if he believed that here the flesh is eaten. Here Myconius also reminded me at the appropriate time of your own things. Read therefore what you yourselves wrote about the 110th Psalm: Those do not distinguish the body of the Lord, who make no distinction between the church of Christ and a harlot devoted to idolatry; or who do not sit at table here other than in an idolatrous sacrifice. You ask: What will Zwinglius do here, since no 68t (is) present here? Answer: Exactly what I did before. I say that almost everything that Hebrews, Christ, Paul, the apostles speak is obscure. And if some of them do not notice this enough, they obscure everything by seeking great mysteries from it, yes, by writing poetry, because with them there is just as much lovely food (deliciae) of a manifold learning as with the most distinguished Greek scholars. That you think you have given Joh. Hesso, our common friend, matter (silvam) to hand, I understand from your words; but what kind of construction he will lead from it, he sees. Unless by "give wood" you understand as much as to dare something, or to challenge it to the battlefield, where your words draw it, but not I myself. For they make you Achilles, but me Hector, since perhaps both our persons would hardly be suitable for such a game; at least we hardly consider ourselves a common soldier. Let us, my dear John, not listen to such voices of parties and gangs. For this opinion of ours is provided with such firm grounds,
2) "the" put by us instead of: "the".
Not only a few Achilles, which you do not make, but also not a thousand Hercules will throw them over the heap.
Here you have my opinion on all your things that you have gathered in this letter above. If someone wants to indulge in quarreling, we do not have this way. So far we have kept these measures, that although we have seen that many do not teach too correctly about purgatory, about the intercession of the saints, about secret confession, about keys, about the images (statuis) in churches, and about the Lord's Supper, we have not touched anyone's error by name.
(23) If, however, you or anyone else wishes to quarrel with me, I diligently refuse to do so, as much as is possible; but where it is not possible or desirable, I will quarrel under the umbrella of truth, before the eyes of Christ and by his help, so that it may hopefully be seen that I am not blown to smithereens. But I exhort you as well as the others to refrain from the shameful custom of reviling and scolding, that they may not be taken for brawlers rather than investigators of the truth.
We have to settle the matter with Scripture and reasons based on faith and Scripture. We must settle the matter with Scripture and with reasons based on faith and Scripture; not with great bluster and market clamor. There will be no lack of enemies and shouters who will mock us, even if we remain moderate and silent. Will Rome be silent? likewise the princes, who have long since grown weary of the gospel they have received? Let us then act the truth in a pure and undefiled way, so that when the prince of this world, the devil, comes, he will find nothing in us. The Antichrist cannot be completely defeated unless this error is also destroyed and he completely falls down. Let us first of all look the truth right in the face, but not at the reputation of men and their high persons. For when the truth appears, everything must give way before it.
24 Be well, and interpret everything for the best. For we, too, are happy to forgive you, since you have called us masters of error in the words of Hieronymi, along with other abusive words. From Zurich, October 23, 1525.
b. How Oecolampadius joined the Zwinglian leadership and got into a dispute with the Swabian preachers, as well as with Luther himself.