The Syngramma Suevicum; Or of the preachers assembled at Schwäbisch-Hall Scripture against Oecolampadius,

with D. Mart. Luther's preface. *)

October 21, 1525.

To the Christian reader I wish, Martinus Luther, grace and peace in Christo.

However, no one can resist the devil, because God alone does not always bring misfortune.

and do harm, because he, a desperate evil spirit, never rests, but, as St. Peter says, prowls around us as a fierce lion, seeking whom he may tempt.

we are still guilty, as much as we like, to be God's co-workers, and to resist him by the word. He has indeed devoured many through the new seducers and sacrament abusers, and does not yet stop devouring; he would also like to have me in; look at and want to adorn himself with our poor sack, and indeed the booklet I have written against D. Carlstadt should give me enough testimony to what I believe. Which he has also so far left unbitten and uneaten, and my reasons there still stand firm and unmoved. But they are far superior to us in one respect, that is that they are idle and embroider full of words, hurry the world with books and shower it. Now then, I hold, the proverb shall strike them too: Haste broke the neck, cito fit, cito perit. But we miserable worms also crawl out against the great talkers, and confess our

Faith against their error; let it help what and where God wills. Accordingly, I have the fine little book Syngramma, made by my dear lords and friends in Swabia, to spread among many, now for the second time helped to promote into German, and is the longer, the dearer to me, because I see how they commit crimes against it, and do nothing, but that they betray their spirit and bring it to light. It has remained before them and will remain before them, because it is the truth and puts lies to shame. Therefore I command every Christian to arm himself with it in conscience, and to beware of the devil, until God gives the truth the victory. It must and will be argued: he who lies there lies, let the word help him up again, and preserve those who are still standing; if I can do it, I will also do it, as much as God gives me. May God's grace be with us all, and soon wipe out these mobs. Amen.

Godly and learned treatise (syngramma) of the very famous men who met in Schwäbisch-Hall in 1525 1) about the words in the Lord's Supper.

To Johann Oekolampad, preacher in Basel.

Johann Lachmann of Heilbronn, Erhard Schnepf of Wimpfen, Bernhard Griebler of Gemmingen, Johann Geiling of Ulsfeld, Martin German of Fürfeld, Johann Gallus of Sulzfeld, Ulrich Schwiger of Weifsach, Johann Valtensis, Wolfgang Taurus of Orendelsal, Johann Herold, Johann Rudolphi of Oeringen, Johann Jsenmann, Michael Gretter, Johann Brenz and other preachers assembled at Schwäbisch-Hall [wish] to Johann Oekolampad preaching Christ at Basel: 1. Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen. In Christ, beloved Oecolampadius, love 2) (by which you have sacredly sworn to us, who preach Christ in a large part of Swabia, that we should rid ourselves of the most harmful poison, the quarrel in the church,

1) In our Latin original erroneously: 1526.

2) In our Latin copy the subject of the sentence is missing. According to the letter of Oecolampad to the preachers in Swabia, "Karitas is to be added. Therefore, xer is to be read immediately following.

The first thing we have to do is to respond in writing to your outgoing booklet on the interpretation of the words "this is my body. We are also urged by faith to speak what we believe. For since this booklet of yours on the Lord's Supper was read to us, what should we do? Should we remain silent? Not at all. Faith in Christ desires to burst forth even in the midst of temptation and to make itself known to the whole world; so far is it from it that it should be deterred from public confession either by embellished speech or human prestige. For us also, as the prophet says, the speech of the Lord has become a consuming fire, and having shut it up in our bones, we have passed away [Ps. 102:4] and could not endure it. Should we not rather have sent out a booklet into the world and testified that our faith is different from your opinion, which is based on reason and (as you will no doubt hear) quite miserable (qualibus-what kind)? But love hindered us, lest we, without having first admonished thee, should bring thee into the mouths of men. We, as many as are ours, have hitherto acknowledged thee as a father to be worshipped in Christ; why hast thou not treated us as thy sons? For behold, how fine it rhymes that thou didst first, without admonishing us, in our churches, which we did not by our own merit,

but by God's grace (munere), you stir up discord over Holy Communion, but then you counsel us with many reasons that we should not violate love (servemus). If you expect so much (tantopere) love from others, why did you first sow the seeds of discord? You, the father, lay dice and forbid the children to play. Hardly had we escaped Carlstadt's pernicious gruel, behold! you stir up the same mischief 1) again (albeit in a much more learned manner). But thanks be to God, who according to His mercy, which we have received in Christ Jesus, His Son and our Lord, has instructed us that we do not consider that which is foreign to the word of Christ to be better and truer for its own sake, because it is spoken in a better and more learned way. For even an unpalatable food is not palatable to us because it is presented to us in a silver vessel. We value the taste, not the vessel, and John prescribes that spirits should be tested to see if they are of God. Are we not prevented by this very fact from looking at the appearance of the speech, but rather [urged to look] at the truth of the word?

2 Therefore, dear Oecolampadius, we are fully convinced that, according to your own modesty, indeed, according to Christian integrity, you will easily tolerate that we differ from your opinion about the bread and the wine in Holy Communion until the Lord has granted both you and us to be of the same mind. But we wish this to happen shortly, for if we disagree longer, how great evil will we have to expect for our churches, which have hardly been snatched from the jaws of the Antichrist? If a private man errs, that brings little danger, if a neighbor quarrels with another, little harm, but if a prophet errs, if a bishop quarrels with another, what joy is that for Satan, what rejoicing! We sacredly affirm that in this matter we seek nothing else (though we are not justified in it) but the glory of the Word and the benefit of the churches. Now may Satan go and still greatly boast that strife is in the church, for he will boast to his detriment (rnalo); for we dare to promise ourselves a very great benefit from this friendly disagreement, by God's grace. Paul disagreed with Peter about the custom (onsrs) of the law, but in such a way that from this disagreement our

1) Carnerina is a large stinking swamp in Sicily.

harmony has come into being. Why should we not hope for the same thing in this matter, which is basically not so dissimilar to that one? But now let's move on to the matter itself.

First of all, the spirit, which is at odds with itself from the beginning, makes us very suspicious of your matter of the Sacrament of the Supper. For Carlstadt, the champion (xo/M^aio^) in this struggle, refers the pronoun "that" in this speech "that is my body" to the body, not to the bread; this is sufficiently attested by his outgoing books. But he has left the battlefield and someone else has the litter. Zwingli, however, refers "that" to the bread, but agonizes over the word "i st" in a marvelous way, until he makes "is" into "means" by a transformation, or, if he prefers, by a kind of transmigration of souls (^sT-s^^wa-sr). You come as the third one and give us also in a third way of speaking a sample of what you are able to do, and make "body" a sign of the body. There are three words, namely just the apple of discord, 2) about which we argue: "that", "is", "my body", and they have already produced three sects for us! It is not surprising that Isaiah says [Isa. 8, 14] that the Lord is "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense", since this word [that is my body] is a very small one according to the letter, but a very large one according to the matter, and it annoys so many and so great people. If one had to infer the father from the offspring, that is, from the sects, then we would certainly judge that the father was deformed. But we have learned to treat the word of the Lord with the greatest reverence, although it gives many a cause for ruin (ruinae), certainly not through his fault, but through the ignorance of those who read or hear it. And indeed you and Zwingli, you agree, but where is Carlstadt's "that"? For either he teaches evil by referring "that" to the body, not to the bread, or you err from the right aim (scopo) by referring "that" not to the body, but to the bread. See to it, dear Oecolampadius, lest a somewhat nosey man sing to you this saying: lies do not stand with themselves. But you say: Far be the quarrel about words, we want a fight about the matter. However much we may differ in words, we agree on the matter itself, namely, that the bread is not the body of Christ, and that the wine is not the blood. - Surely you will not consider your cause justified for that reason, because you agree on the main point?

2) Latin: ipsissiina seilieet Helena.

Is it not the case that the miser also makes a bargain in the gathering of goods, but in different ways? For the one increases his fortune by theft, the other by fraud, the latter by filthy frugality, the latter by shameful services. Are they not united in that they gather goods together? but they seek to accomplish this in different ways and in various ways. The truth, however, is not based on reasons that do not agree with each other, but on those that do agree with each other.

4 But this we leave aside, although it briygt your spirit quite strongly to the day. We must set about treating the reasons (rationes) of your booklet. For we cannot see our way to believing that you write seriously what you write right at the beginning: that we have drawn the error of the body of Christ from Peter Lombard and other writers of sentences. For the fact that we teach that the bread of Holy Communion, sanctified by the word of Christ, is the body of Christ given for us, we have not drawn from Peter Lombardus, for we do not do such great honor to a man, but from Christ's own words and from his holy mouth. Neither the famous Lombardus, nor even Damascenus, is so highly regarded by us that we should confess that we got our faith from them. We do not despise their work, for that would be spiteful and dishonest. But the fruit of the work in this matter (whatever they may have written in other matters, for we do not now intend either to excuse or to accuse them) we attach to GOtte. At least you should see with what intention you call us disciples of Lombardus, because perhaps you want to use this name to make our cause suspicious, if not yet reprehensible, among the godly. For the same reason, if we are not mistaken, in the further course of the booklet you conflate our doctrine with the condemnable mass of the papists. Is this because we approve of the impiety of the masses by claiming that the bread of the Lord's Supper is the body of Christ? Not at all, for we are sure that you do not even suspect such a thing of us, and even this is our greatest concern, that we, with the word of the Lord, drive away this so abominable and detestable idol from our churches, at least work towards it with all zeal; but the Lord gives prosperity to this undertaking. It remains, therefore, that you accuse us solely for this reason, that we are on the side of the

papist impiety, so that 1) we should lose faith in our doctrine, yes, not in ours, but in Christ's doctrine of Holy Communion, among the godly, to whom everything in the papist church is suspect, but not so much the word as the sacraments. However, venerable Oecolampadius, far be it from us that we should suspect this of your disposition (somnienius); your sincerity is too well proven to us that we should suspect anything of the sort from you. But, thou sayest, the greatest cause of superstition and hypocrisy is given, if we are to believe that the bread is the body of Christ. - Well then! no godly man can approve of the idolatry (we would more properly say superstition) with which the bread of the Lord's Supper has hitherto been treated. For Christ says [Matt. 20:28], "I am not come that we should serve, but that I should serve." Thus by the word he brings his body in bread (pani tradit), and has given it to us, not that he might be ministered to, but that he might minister to us, that we might eat and drink it, to fortify our conscience. For how the bread of the Lord's Supper fortifies the conscience will follow hereafter. Now however much the hypocrites abuse the bread of the Lord's Supper, should it not therefore be the body of Christ? Or, because it would give rise to superstition, should we deny that it is the body? On the same ground, surely Christ would not be Christ, nor the Son of God. For because he had made himself the Son of God [John 19:7], they cried out, Crucify, crucify. The abuse of a thing takes nothing away from the truth of it. Even the word of the Lord is abused by the wicked; shall we therefore deny that it is the word of the Lord? Everybody knows how ungodly the Jews treated Christ, with the strokes of the cheek, the scourging, and the death of the cross. Should Christ therefore not be Christ, because he gave rise to these ungodly acts by preaching that he was Christ or the Son of God, or should we declare that he acted unjustly? For if he had lived as a private man, without holding a public office, according to the ways of the world, he would have given no cause to rage against him. But since he preached and became famous for his miraculous works, do we now want to cast the Jews' anger on Christ? Let that be far from us. In the same way one can speak of the bread of the Lord's Supper. For

1) Instead of st, we have assumed ut.

We would be unjust judges if we were to cast the cause of superstition, ungodliness, hypocrisy, idolatry out of the bread, which is the body of Christ. As if the bread were not the body for its own sake, because the flesh is superstitious, which sometimes even makes an idol out of God, seeking from God not what is God's, but what is its own. Will it therefore be evil that GOt is GOt? Do not many hypocrites make an idol out of St. Valentine or any other saint? But for the sake of foreign hypocrisy, Valentine, if any of the saints is called by this name, is not expelled from the number of saints. Therefore, as far as this reason is concerned, it still remains firm that the bread of the Lord's Supper is the body of Christ, according to the word of Christ. For what you bring from Augustine concerning the [various] kinds of miracles, we take as if you had adduced it in passing, not that we should think that you had presented it with the intention of refuting our doctrine. For although Augustine calls the bread a form (speoiow) which will pass away after the completion of the sacred action (peracto Ministerio transituram), he does not deny that the bread is what it is, namely the body of Christ, which is evident from the foregoing. For since he calls the serpent raised in the wilderness a figure which will remain only for a short time, he naturally lets the serpent remain what it is. Furthermore, what the bread of the Lord's Supper is, should become quite clear to us from the comparison with the brazen serpent.

For so it is written in the fourth book of Moses, Cap. 21:8: "The Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a serpent of brass, and set it up for a sign: whosoever is bitten, and beholdeth it, he shall live. So what is the serpent? Is it only a snake or only a sign? Not at all, but it is a healing serpent, or a healing sign. Where does it get this from? Because it is a snake, or because it is brazen? No, but because it has this word: "Whoever is bitten and looks at it shall live." This is how the Spirit interprets it in the 107th Psalm [v. 19. f.], "They cried," he says, "unto the Lord in their trouble, and he helped them out of their distresses; he sent his word, and made them whole." He does not say: he sent the serpent, but "the word." What kind of word? Certainly this: "He that is bitten, and beholdeth it, the same shall live." Therefore, by adding this word to the serpent, it becomes a serpent of such a nature as the word

It is a serpent, but it is also a sign, but it is also healing (sanativus). This is how one must speak of the bread in Holy Communion. For this bread, even though it is baked in the oven, even though it nourishes the body, is nevertheless of such a nature as the word which is added to the bread that we say so. But the word is, "u." Now as the word of the serpent brought the gift of sanation to the serpent, why should not the word of the Lord's Supper bring the body to the bread, since, as the word of the serpent possessed in itself the power of sanation, so also the word of the Lord's Supper has the body of Christ with it as its possession (secum possideat)? For that it is not a figurative speech (tropum), neither in the expression "is" nor in the word "body", we will show convincingly hereafter.

But you see, excellent man, that we present our opinion in a very rough way (pinguissima Minerva). Therefore, you will gladly put up with it if we have not been gentle in our words at times. So, since Augustine calls bread a form that will pass away, he does not deny that the bread is the body, just as he does not deny that the serpent has healing power (not insofar as it is a serpent, but insofar as it has the word), although he calls it [the bread] a form that will remain only for a short time. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that from this it is now quite clear how it is with the sacrament or the bread of the Lord's Supper. For many find fault with the fact that in such bread we seek fortification of faith, consolation of conscience, forgiveness of sins. For they say that outward signs cannot be a strengthening of conscience and a fortification of faith, but only proofs (protestationes) of faith, since carnal things are not efficacious in spiritual matters: "Trust! the cautious people, who thirst most for our salvation, fear that we would build our hope and confidence on the sand. But we have the right doctrine (recte sentimus), but those do not understand our opinion correctly. For who denies that the Sacrament is a sign (symbolum) and a public manifestation (testatioutzln) of communion? We agree with the Fathers, who called it both a communion and a gathering, as well as a love feast, so that in this very supper Christ speaks more of love, more of

of the fellowship of the brethren than anywhere else. But because Holy Communion has not only bread as a sign of communion, but also the Word, we do not wrongly seek consolation of conscience, forgiveness of sins, and strengthening of faith in the Lord's Supper. For all these things are found in the Word, if one seeks them only in true faith, for the Word comforts the afflicted, raises up the downhearted, strengthens the faith, in short, it brings us all the goods of God- Now since the bread of the Lord's Supper has this word: "This is my body, which is given for you," by which the conscience is fortified and sins are forgiven (for it is the word of the Son of God), what should prevent our not seeking these things in the bread? Since the bread of the Lord's Supper is not bread alone, but has the word: "This is my body" etc. And we also seek the strengthening of faith in bread, not insofar as it is bread, but insofar as it has the word. Just as every civil meal is a sign of civil friendship; but it is also a strengthening of the same, not in so far as it is a meal, but in so far as it has friendly promises, or, if nothing else, friendly conversation.

(7) Moreover, there is a great difference between the sacraments given to Gideon and Hezekiah and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For the old word is confirmed by miracles, just as Christ's word was confirmed by miracles. The bread of the Lord's Supper, however, does not confirm the word, but is confirmed by the word. In addition, other miracles, which are miracles of action, not of the word, confirm faith for the sake of action, not for the sake of the word. But the sign of the Lord's Supper confirms faith, not for the sake of a deed, but for the sake of the word. As every word of God is a miracle, so is the word of the Lord's Supper, for no one can deny that the word of the Lord's Supper is the gospel.

8. listen, then, to what Paul says in Romans 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God, which saves everyone who believes in it. Will we hear your new interpretation also in this passage: the gospel (which also has letters and syllables and bodily [oarualss] ways of speaking) is not the power of God, but signifies it? Would not all the glory (laus) of the Gospel be destroyed by such interpretations? And that you may fully understand what miracles we see in the bread and cup of the Lord's Supper.

we want to indicate this more clearly and coarsely. You believe without a doubt that Christ is not only true, but also the truth itself. For he says, "I am the way, the life, and the truth," and has also strongly declared that he is the truth, through signs and wonders and the resurrection and the sending of the Holy Spirit: for all these things are the confirmation (xxxxxxx) and seal of the truth of Christ. Since Christ spoke to the gout-broken man [Matth. 9, 2] or to the sinner [Luc. 7, 48]: "Your sins are forgiven you", is not the forgiveness of all sins included in this very short word and brought to the gout-ridden man and the sinner? Moreover, when he commanded the apostles 1) to wish peace to the house into which they were entering, saying [Luc. 10:5], "Peace be in this house," did he not include in this word, "Peace be in this house," and in a sense give peace captive to the word (for we speak roughly that we may be understood), which, included in the word, the apostles brought to the inhabitants of the house? What man of understanding would deny this? Further, since he says [John 11:25], "I am the resurrection and the life," is not life and resurrection brought by this very word to him who hears it, not an imaginary one, but a true one, yea, one 2) by which we shall rise and be resurrected if we accept the word? Thus, since he says [Ex. 20, 2.], "I am the Lord thy God," does not by this word "thy God" the Lord give himself to thee wholly, at the same time with all his goods? For he cannot be God without his goodness. Therefore, when he gives himself in word, he gives all that is his. In the same way, when Christ said: "my body is given for you" and "my blood is poured out for you", did he not conclude the body and the blood in this word? (Far be it from this word a spiteful declaration [invidia] even to such an extent that whoever takes hold of this word and believes and holds it in faith, he takes hold of, receives, has, and holds the true body and blood of Christ, namely, that which is shed for us, not a spiritual but the bodily (carnalem)? since it is not a spiritual blood that is shed for us but the bodily. Since the word alone has such a powerful effect that it brings the bodily body of Christ to us,

1) Instead of ^postolus is to be read ^postolos.

2) Instead of tali, read talis.

namely, that which is given for us, and the bodily blood which is shed for us: why should it not retain the same powerful effect when it is added to the bread and the cup? Or, does this word: the body is given for you, contain the body, and bring it itself to the hearer, but when to the bread is added "this is my body given for you," should it not retain the same as before? Should the bread take anything away from the word? Far be it from that, but it adds to the bread that which it contains. But it contains the true bodily body of Christ, therefore it also brings the body to the bread. [Here, then, is the miracle we confess to have taken place in the bread and cup of Holy Communion. For the whole miracle is a miracle of the word by which the body and blood are distributed by means of the bread and wine, not in so far as it is bread and wine, but in so far as it has this word: "this is [my] body, this is [my] blood." And it is no wonder that the apostles in the Lord's Supper did not wonder about it (however, who knows whether they wondered about it or not?), since Luc. 18, 32-34. voy is written to them, although Christ had said most clearly: "The Son of Man will be delivered to the Gentiles, and he will be mocked and reviled and spit upon, and they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise again," - [yet] it is added: "But they heard none of these things, and the speech was hid from them, and they knew not what these things were spoken." For if at that time the speech was hidden from them, what wonder would it be if in the Lord's Supper also almost the same word had been hidden from them?

(9) Moreover, who can deny that Satan has undertaken many juggleries in regard (oiroa) to bread and wine? But he has done this with a far different intention than you suspect. For he did not intend with his absurd specters 1) that we should believe that the bread is the body, especially since the word of Christ says so, not the devil, but that he might drive us from truth and godliness into hypocrisy, ungodliness, and even idolatry. For Christ instituted the Lord's Supper that we might eat and drink, that we might seek in the Lord's Supper all that we seek in the Word. From diösem exceedingly

1) For example, that drops of blood are seen on the hosts and the like. Several such things are mentioned in Oecolampad's writing De Zenuina vorkorum Domini eto. "x^ositiouo mentioned. Cf. et Koripts eoolesiae MirternderZioae, eä. Dtatk p. 52. sq.

The devil would have liked to dissuade us from the wholesome use of the Lord's Supper, and he has dissuaded many, so that as partakers of the Lord's Supper, both by food and by reputation, they believed, deceived by vain seduction, that they were doing, giving, and offering something to Christ rather than receiving something.

(10) Now that it is not read that the church of the ancients bowed the knee to the bread and to the cup, should not the bread be the body for this reason? But perhaps they also did not bow the knee to the Word, for the sake of which the Word is not the Son of God? And even nowadays we do not pay bodily homage to this word, "the body of Christ is given for you," but as often as we hear it, we receive it with a reverent heart and faith, because that is the right homage; should it not bring the body to us or contain it in itself? When Christ washed Peter's feet, Peter did not bow the knee; is Christ not the Word or the Son of God? We have already mentioned this matter, that Christ did not give his body in the Lord's Supper to be ministered to, but to minister to us. For the same reason he gave us the whole Gospel, so that through it not only the body and blood of Christ would be present to us, but the whole power of God, the whole God, with all his goods. If a godly person does not uncover his head before the Gospel, does not take off the head covering (capitium), would he sin by doing so? Or does he declare by this sign that salvation is not brought to him by the word of the Gospel? Not at all, but what is brought by the word, he accepts with reverence (adoratione) of the heart, that is, with faith.

(11) But, you say, I have the fathers on my side, who agree with my opinion, and hold that the bread is a sign (figuram) of the body of Christ, or that it signifies the body of Christ, but is not the true body. We do not want you to urge us with human prestige, however sacred it may be, nor do the holy fathers themselves want this, that we should accept their sayings (sensa) with greater faith than those of Scripture, but neither are we so enamored (^ίλαοτοι) of ourselves, nor such despisers, that we should reject the fathers. We receive them with the greatest respect and recognize in them very many excellent gifts of the Holy Spirit; their work and their care (sollicitudo) for the churches please us extra-

properly. But with all this, we do not prefer their interpretations to the very clear words of Christ. For although we admit that the Fathers, in a godly manner, called the bread and the cup signs (symbola) of the body and blood, likewise that the bread signifies the body, and the like, yet they will not be able to detract from the word of Christ (praejuckieadunt - they will not awaken any prejudice against it). For that otherwise they also call the holy supper a sacrifice, we interpret this to them for the best (oanckicke), not according to the sharpness of the word, but according to the word of Christ, who said, "Do these things," not for my sacrifice, but "in remembrance of me." Who will therefore prevent that we should not also interpret for the best, if they have sometimes called the bread and the cup signs, that the bread is not only a sign /and model, but a sign connected with the thing itself, since they call the bread sometimes the body, sometimes the sign of the body, 1) so that you must refer the sign from the bread, if it is bread, because in such a way the bread signified the body of Christ, before Christ was revealed to the world, as Tertullian quotes from Jeremiah [Jer. 11, 19. according to the Vulgate], "Come, let us devise a plot Against him: let us cast wood into his bread, that is, let us cast the cross upon his body." But a more correct reading is thus, "Come, let us cast poison into his food." For the citizens of Anathoth went about killing Jeremiah with poison. But this we will credit to Tertullian, since he has no ungodly opinion. Now as bread, inasmuch as it is, bread, is a sign of the body, so, inasmuch as it has the word "this is my body," it is not only a sign, but also the body itself. For it is much cheaper (justius) that we interpret the fathers by Christ's word, than Christ's word by the fathers. Let us listen to Chrysostom, who in the 83rd Homily on Matthew writes as follows: "Christ also drinks from the cup, lest they, hearing the words, should say: What, then, shall we drink blood and eat flesh? and be troubled. For even when he spake of these things before, many were troubled for the words only. So that this might not also happen at that time, he himself did it first, to cause them to participate in the hidden things (mysteriorum) with a calm mind." So far Chrysostom. Behold, he says, the apostles have eaten the flesh and have eaten the blood.

1) Instead of appellat, read appellant (so. patres).

and Christ had done this first (for neither from what precedes, nor from what follows, will this be understood of a spiritual drinking [manducatione], but of the bodily); therefore, if he elsewhere calls the bread a sign, we shall meanwhile accept it in a godly and right way (candide), but in such a way that it does not contradict his former opinion, according to which he testifies that the apostles had drunk the blood.

12 You see the same thing in Augustine, who says: "He carried his body in his hands. Well, if he added afterwards: "to some extent," he does this only to soften and correct his expression (sermonis), not to say that the bread is not the body; if he calls it a sign, or a model, or an antitype (áíôßôõðïí), as Basil does, this will not detract from his earlier interpretation of the words of Christ. Thus, elsewhere, in reply to the inquiries (inquisitiones) of Januarius, book 1. cap. 6. he writes: "It is clearly evident that the disciples, when they first received the body and blood of the Lord, did not receive it soberly (jejunos)"; he does not say that the disciples received the sign of the body, but the body itself. Furthermore, that Tertullian explains "body" by "sign of the body" in the fourth book against Marcion, this does not show that for Christ's sake he understood it that way. For even if we admit that Tertullian strengthened his argument against Marcion by this interpretation, we will not admit that he compelled by his reputation to understand the word of Christ in this way. There are other fathers, probably of greater faith, who write something quite different. For thus, according to your interpretation, dearest Oecolampad, we read in Theophylact about the 26th chapter of Matthew: "Furthermore, when he says: 'This is my body,' it is shown that the body of the Lord is itself the bread which is sanctified on the altar, and not a corresponding sign. For he did not say: this is a sign, but: 'this is my body'. For by ineffable effect the bread is changed, although this is not seen." Likewise about Marcus, Cap. 14: "When he had blessed, he gave thanks and broke the bread (fo do we also, adding prayers) [and said]: this is my body. This, I say, which ye take; for the bread is not merely a token and a type of the body of the HErrn, but into the same is changed the body of Christ" (oonvsrtitur) etc. Behold, how evil thy work succeedeth unto thee, so that it may be used against thee. But do you say.

that Theophylact belongs to a later time than Tertullian? However, time does not take anything away from godliness. The dispute is not about stories or events, in which one must perhaps believe the older and earlier living more, but about the mind (ingenio) and spirit of the words of Christ. Now if it pleases you to compare Theophylact with Tertullian, Theophylact has left stronger traces of the true faith behind him, for the whole world knows what Tertullian taught of the double marriage (digamia) Against the Scriptures, and what he taught of the Comforter (paracleto) after the manner of Montanus. This is what we say about Tertullian, whom we venerate and hold in the highest esteem, not because we want to put something on him, nor do we perurtheize him for the sake of it, not to the fire or to hell, as the pope is wont to do, but to show that in this matter his reputation is not to be held in such high esteem that one should not deviate from it, although we do not deviate from him in this matter either, for we confess that the bread is a sign and image (exemplar) of the body of Christ. For as bread nourishes the body, so the body of Christ animates and nourishes the soul. But we affirm that the bread of Holy Communion is not only a sign, but also the true bodily body of Christ. On what ground? with what proof? Our reason is not taken from reason (dialectica), not a conjecture, but contains the proof in itself ("áðïäåß÷ôáüò). It is the word of Christ who says: 'Mehmet hin und esset, das ist mein Leib' etc.

(13) They say that it is an obscure speech (tropum), notice, either in the word "is" or in the expression "body," so that you must take either "is" for "means" or "body" for "sign of the body. It is to be wondered at that not also in the word bread, or broke, or take, or eat, a faded manner of speaking is devised, since with so great arbitrariness of mind a faded speech in "is" and "body" has become popular to them. Well then, let us consider your reasons, by which you assign the faded speech to the word "is": For also in other places of the Scriptures one finds "is" for "means", as in the 1st Book of Moses, Cap. 41, 26.: "The seven beautiful cows are seven fruitful years." Matth. 13, 38.: "The field is the world," and elsewhere: "The adversary is the devil"; "The seed is the Word." If you do not take "is" for "means" in these speeches, you no longer have an adequate speech. Truly! a beautiful conclusion art and a lovely proof: The raven is black,

therefore also the swan must be black; Absalom is beautiful, therefore also that Thersites 1) must be beautiful in Homer. Or is this not of the same kind: "Is" is taken for "means" in some places of the scriptures, so also in this speech "this is my body" must be taken for "means"? Far be it from us, when we hear such things, to learn to tear up the Scriptures in such a manner according to our liking; the anointing [of the Holy Spirit] teaches us far otherwise. For in the former discourses "is" may be taken for "signifies," which requires the interpretation of the dreams and the parable, and the peculiar nature (proprietary), for where either a dream or a parable is interpreted, only then will it be lawful to interpret "is" with "signifies," but not likewise in other discourses. For in the Lord's Supper Christ interprets neither a dream nor a similitude with the words "this is my body". But if we had any desire at all (which is far from us) to spin out the argument further, we should like to find the faded speech in these sayings: "the field is the world"; "the word is the seed", not in the word "is", but rather to transfer it to the words "field" and "seed", so that in the simile the expressions would be taken in their original meaning, but in the interpretation would be changed from the original to the faded (tropicum) way of speaking. And this is also according to the holy scripture, since in the first letter of Peter Cap. 1, 23, the word is called a seed, not a perishable one, but an immortal and imperishable one; if one were to take the word seed in its original meaning, one would not attain the right understanding of Peter's speech.

14 But, they say, even where there is no likeness and no dream, "is" can be found in Paul for "means," saying, "the rock was Christ." We acknowledge Paul's words; who better than Paul himself could interpret them? For that we might interpret "was" by "meant" in this passage, the foregoing does not admit of it under any condition, for he says thus [1 Cor. 10:4]: "all drank of one spiritual drink; but they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed with them." Which was the spiritual rock? (For nothing is said there about the bodily rock.) It follows: "That rock," namely, the one of which it was said, the spiritual one that accompanied the fathers, "was Christ."

1) About Thersites compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 1899, note 4.

Now, if in this saying "the spiritual rock was Christ," "is" were to be explained by "signifies," what inconsistency would that be? It is quite understandable to us that a physical rock signifies Christ, just as we also confess that the bread here and there shadows him. For as a bodily rock is a strength to him that is founded thereon, so also is Christ a strength to him that believeth; and as bread feedeth the body, so also Christ feedeth the soul. But in the Lord's Supper it becomes another bread, which has been sanctified by the word of the Lord. For if the bread in the Lord's Supper is nothing but a sign of the body, what need is there of sanctifying the bread, or of setting it apart from common use, since it was the same before sanctification? And since Paul speaks of the rock among the Corinthians, he understands this not of the bodily but of the spiritual, which no one can deny who carefully compares this passage with the preceding. It is true that the fathers drank from the physical rock, but in this passage Paul is speaking of the spiritual drinker, for he says: "they drank from the spiritual rock that followed with them". Here also belongs 2 Sam. 22, 2.: "The Lord is my rock, the Lord is my fortress". And in Zechariah [Cap. 2, 5.], "I will be to them a fiery wall round about." Will you then take "is" for "means" in these passages also? No, for the nature of the speech demands that we look for the figurative (tropum) in the words "rock" and "wall." For in these speeches the words "rock" and "wall" have passed from their original to a transferred meaning (translatitiam); but this cannot happen in such a way in this speech: "This is my body", because indeed "body" remains in its original meaning.

15 Let us go through the Scriptures and investigate the meanings of "body". For soon the Holy Spirit uses it for the physical body, as Isa. 50, 6 [according to the Vulgate]: "I presented my body to those who struck it" etc., and Luc. 24, 23: "They did not find the body of the Lord in the grave." But soon [it stands] for the figurative (metaphprico), for the spiritual body, or for the church; 1 Cor. 15, 44.: "A natural body is sown, and a spiritual body is raised"; Eph. 4, 4.: "We are One Body"; Col. 1, 24.: "for His body, which is the church." But for "signs of the body" we find it nowhere. Now in this speech: "This is my body" the word "body" can be taken neither for the spiritual body, nor for the church, because soon follows: "who was given for you

becomes." Because neither a spiritual body nor the church are given for us, therefore "body" remains in its original meaning.

16) Furthermore, what is brought forward from the 12th chapter of the second book of Moses [v. 11]: "It is the Lord's Passover" rather confirms our doctrine than that it should overthrow it, because in this speech neither "is" may be interpreted by human presumption with means, nor "Passover" with sign of the Passover. For indeed the Spirit has reserved to Himself the interpretation of His words, and does not give this honor to the flesh. And as Paul says [1 Cor. 2:11], "No man knoweth what is in man, except the spirit of man which is in him," so who should know better what is to be understood by the words of the Spirit than the Spirit himself? Therefore, most learned Oecolampadius, allow us to obtain this from you, that we may interpret "Passover" not according to a dream, but according to the opinion of the Spirit, who interprets it not as a sign, but by "Passover sacrifice." For thus it is written in the same second book of Moses, Cap. 12, 26. f.: "And when your children shall say unto you, What manner of service have ye? ye shall say, It is the Lord'S Passover sacrifice." You see that the Spirit, the best interpreter of His words, explains "Passover" not by "sign," but by "Passover sacrifice," so that the sense is, "For it is the Lord's Passover," that is, it is the Lord's Passover sacrifice. For neither can sacrifice and sign be said to be the same thing, unless thou wilt understand that Christ is a sign, when the Spirit says Christ is a sacrifice. For that Zwingli says that these words, "It is the Lord's Passover," are the reason for what immediately precedes, "and ye shall eat it as they hasten away"; does he not by such speech bring it about that he says nothing? Does the haste of eating have a reason, but the preceding has none? What then is it: "It shall be a lamb without blemish; in one house shall ye eat it; the posts shall ye put blood upon; about your loins shall ye be girded; ye shall have shoes upon your feet" etc.? Shall there be no reason for this? But more correctly and beautifully Moses interprets himself, who refers "Passover" to the whole service (religionem - service, according to Ex. 12, 26.) of the lamb, not to a part. 2) We want to ask you, highly learned Oecolampad, that you carefully consider and

1) In the original erroneous: 22.

2) Instead of pairem is to be read pariern. - It seems to us that right after that instead of: arnakimus - orakirnns should be read.

consider with you whom we follow by deviating from your opinion. For you see most clearly that "was" in the statement: "The rock was Christ" and "Passover" cannot exist at all according to your way. Now, when the iron and brass reasons fall away, will you not fast the suspicion that the whole thing is a fraud?

Some seem to be able to strengthen their opinion somewhat from the first book of Moses, chapter 17, where it is thus written [v. 13]: "So shall my covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." Circumcision, they say, is called a covenant or a covenant, although it is nothing but the sign of the covenant. For thus it is written [v. 10. f.], "Every male among you shall be circumcised. But ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh. The same shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you." We thank thee, Holy Spirit, that thou hast freely made known what thou understandest by covenant, for since circumcision was before called a covenant, it is now called a sign of the covenant. Does he also give such a declaration (dis[s]ertat) of the body of Christ? For since Christ had said, "This is my body," is it added afterwards, that it is a sign of my body? But that would have been superfluous in such a great matter. But even Paul does not dare to make the body a sign of the body, for he says [1 Cor. 11:29], "that he might not distinguish the body of the Lord"; he does not say, "that he might not distinguish the image or the sign of the body". Furthermore, the whole manner (ratio) of circumcision makes our, indeed Christ's, opinion of the bread of the Lord's Supper most clear, for circumcision is both a covenant and a sign of the covenant, since it is not only a cutting off of the foreskin from the flesh, but also has a word added to it; which therefore is the word, such also is circumcision. Listen, God has spoken it. [Deut. 17, 1. f.], "I am [Almighty God], I will make my covenant with you." What is a covenant but a promise, an agreement (conventio), an alliance (foedus)? Now what promise happened to Abraham? It follows soon after [v. 4.]: "Thou shalt become a father of many nations"; [v. 6. f.]: "I will make thee almost very fruitful, and will make nations of thee, and kings also shall come of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee," etc., "that I may be thy God, and of thy seed after thee. And I will give thee and thy seed

give after you" etc. Behold, there thou hast the covenant; now is added, even the seal of the covenant [v. 10. f.], "All that is male among you shall be circumcised. But ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh. The same shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. "etc. Behold, there you have the sign of the covenant. Therefore circumcision is the seal of the real covenant, but it is also called the covenant itself, or the covenant; why? Because the word of the covenant is attached to it. For where circumcision is called a covenant, it is not to be interpreted that it is a sign of the covenant, but because the Holy Spirit has the word in mind, he rightly calls circumcision the covenant itself. For that it is a covenant, it has from the word; that it is a sign, it has from the outward sign of circumcision] (specie). Thus the bread of the Lord's Supper has the word, "This is my body, which is given for you." From this word it has that it is the body of Christ; but that it thereby also shadows Christ, this it has from its nature (natura). For as bread nourishes the body, filling the stomach, so Christ nourishes the soul's food; just as a rock, because it does not waver by nature and is firm, therefore most correctly represents Christ, who is a strength, a fortress, a stronghold (fortalitium) to all those who trust in him.

18 Now let us also consider the other things that are quoted from Paul and Lucas about the cup. "This cup", he says [Luc. 22, 20. 1 Cor. 11, 25.], "is the new testament in my blood" or "through my blood" (for this is the same). But we must wonder how any one can presume to interpret, almost to say desecrate, in this passage "the new testament" by signs of the new testament. For it is added: "in my blood," as a declaration of the cup or wine. For whence is it called "the cup of the new testament"? because it is a sign of the new testament? Not at all; but because it contains the blood of the New Testament. Give glory to the Holy Spirit, and let Him interpret His own through Himself, which He does most carefully, both in Matthew and in Marcus. For what Paul calls "the new testament" is not called a sign in Matthew, but "the blood of the new testament". For so it is said [Matth. 26, 27. f.], "Drink ye all of it: it is my blood of the new testament. "etc. Do you want to have a clearer interpreter? We are still afraid to contradict the interpretation of the

Evangelists to make of the New Testament not the blood of the New Testament, but a sign? In addition, what is written in the second book of Moses Cap. 24, 8: "Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said: Behold, this is the blood of the covenant" etc., he does not say: this is the sign of the covenant etc. In like manner, when Christ sprinkled among his people by the word the blood, not of the old testament, but of the new, he took the cup, and said, "Drink ye all of it; for this is the blood of the new testament, which is shed for you." By this word, which was spoken at the cup, he sprinkled his blood, not the sign of it, into the cup of the new testament etc. Unless someone wants the blood fei a sign of the testament, not the testament itself, no one will disagree. For the new testament is the forgiveness of sins, eternal blessedness, and, as Jeremiah says [Cap. 31, 33.], "I will put my law in their heart, and I will be their GOOD" etc. The seal of this testament, yes, the attainment of it is the blood, but because the blood is the seal of the testament, shall it not be blood for its sake? Let this be far from it; for because the blood is the blood of Christ, therefore it seals and confirms the new testament. So also the wine in the cup of the Lord's Supper, because it is the blood of Christ, is the sealing and confirming of the new testament.

(19) But let us pass from the blood to the manner of baptism. For baptism is a burial with Christ and a bath of rebirth. How, then, are we to make of the bath and the being buried with Christ again a sign of the bath and of regeneration? We would rather that the Scriptures be treated according to their spirit, not according to our reason or invention, lest the ungodly, instructed by our sacrilege, subsequently become accustomed to trample the sanctuary underfoot. The words of God must be treated with fear and trembling, lest we be regarded as desecrators of them. Therefore, who can better interpret that baptism is the bath of regeneration than he who said this? For thus Paul writes to Titus [Cap. 3, 5.], "he made us blessed by the bath of regeneration." Why he calls baptism the bath of regeneration, he explains in Eph. 5,1) 25. f. Is it because it is supposed to be a sign? But in this way it does not wash the soul. Perhaps because it has water? but in this way it only cleanses the body. Wes-

1) In the original erroneously Eph. 6.

So why is it called a bath? Listen to Pau; lum: "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, and purify it by the bath of water in the word." Here you have quite clearly that baptism is called and is a bath of regeneration, not for the sake of the sign, but for the sake of the word. And what do we say differently of the bread of the Lord's Supper? For we do not say that the bread, inasmuch as it is a sign, is the body, but for the sake of the word, "This is my body. "etc. For that there is no obscure speech in the expression "body", we think, is already somewhat clear, after we have overturned your reasons of the rock, of the Passover, and of the New Testament. For it has been shown how forcible and completely contrary to the mind (ingenium) of the Holy Spirit your interpretations are.

20 Now let us move on to the other things. Matth. 11, 14. Christ says of Johanne: "He is Elijah." But how? Does he call John Elijah for his own sake, because he is similar to Elijah (refert) or because he is supposed to signify Elijah (signet)? Why is added: "he who is to be in the future"? Is the Elijah to be future who had to do with Ahab (^dabita) ? We have in mind in a much more certain way what the scripture intends (soopcm). For there are two people who are called Elijah. One is Elijah the Thisbite, contemporary of the king of Israel, Ahab. The other is the Elijah of whom the prophet Malachi proclaims in the third and fourth chapters that he will come. This Elijah is John, as also Christ's words testify, who says: "This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my angel." And afterwards [v. 14.], "If ye will receive it: He is the Elias that is to be future," not the Thisbite, but 8of whom Malachi says, "I say unto you, Elias is come already, and they have not known him." It is true that John went before Christ in the spirit and power of Elias, as Lucas testifies. But on this occasion one must not make "is" into "means" (rslsrt), because John does not mean that Elijah, the Thisbiter, but "he himself is Elijah, 8who is to be hereafter", that is, the one of whom Malachi proclaimed long before that he' would be before Christ.

21. furthermore, with what [good] judgment you have cited to confirm your opinion from the first book of Moses the tree of knowledge good and evil, furthermore from John: "Behold, your son" [Joh. 19, 26. according to the vulg.

we do not recognize yet. For if you compare the word in the first book of Moses with the word of the Last Supper, they will be very far (xxx ûéÜ ðáóþí) from each other, because it says: XXX XXXX XXXX from the tree of knowledge.

Good and evil, not: from the tree, which is the knowledge of good and evil. For you know better than we that n in the article is in the genitive. In the Lord's Supper you will hear nothing of the kind, for Christ does not say, "Take and eat, this is the bread of my body," but, "This is my body." And since John is called the Son of Mary, you cannot take "is" for means, nor "Son" for sign of the Son; for who ever heard such interpreters?

22 We demand firmer ground. And to confess the truth, your sect becomes much weaker and more despicable by these testimonies begged together, because you do according to the habit of the orators, who, where solid proofs are lacking, justify theirs by suppositions, and persuade themselves that they have carried out the speech excellently, if only they have not brought the speech to an end without [beautiful] paint (coloribus), the thing may be proven, however it may want. Almost right from the beginning of your booklet, you gather everything from everywhere that could give even a semblance to your cause. But we demand solid [proofs], against which even the devil can't be afraid, especially in divine matters. Human affairs are guided and supported by conjecture, which, though it may fail from time to time, fails with less harm. For it is not a tremendous harm if we lose our bodily goods. Divine things are based on solid evidence, so that our faith may be sure, so that we do not run in vain, so that we do not fall into temptations.

23 For suppose that we also believed that the bread of the Lord's Supper was only a sign of the body, convinced by this reason that in the first book of Moses the tree of knowledge is called good and evil, and because of the passage in John, "Behold thy Son." But what will we then answer the devil, if he should reproach us against it, that "son" is not taken for the sign of a son in this passage, and that also in the Lord's Supper it is not said, as in the first book of Moses, "This is the bread of my body"? Now, even if you could take "Son" for a sign of the Son (which the right nature of the speech by no means allows), who could make it certain that "body" must also be taken in this way? since you are not easily in the

You will find in Scripture that "body" is taken for "sign of the body".

If it were free to tear the Scriptures apart in this way, who could prevent another from doing the same in the statement found in Matth. 3, 17: "This is my beloved Son", so that the meaning would be: This is the sign of my beloved Son, since he would also have his reasons, which would be obvious to the flesh, and is still reproached by the Jews today, how a man could be the Son of God? And if our suspicions do not deceive us, then this spirit of the sacramentarians deals with it and works towards snatching away from us the outward Christ, the outward word. For he gives us a very beautiful sample of this matter by asking: What then is the outward word of God? Is it not the letter? does it not have syllables? Should letters and syllables make us blessed? It is obvious that he also wants to say: What is the outward Christ? Is he not a man? is he not flesh? But flesh is of no use, and cursed be he that trusteth in man.

(25) We are frightened as often as we think of this trick of Satan, for we know what he is up to, and it is certain that he is now preparing (coquere) such things in his house, but he does not yet come forth in open battle; but if one allows him to make signs of the body out of "body", what blasphemies should he not subject himself to? For the devil has the nature (naturam) to bring forth from his lair something far different than he initially pretended, for he knows how to easily transform himself into an angel of light. Have we not experienced this wickedness abundantly in our time in the peasants' revolt? In the beginning, he acted as if he wanted to assist the Gospel, relieve the poor of their heavy burdens and help them to freedom, but in the meantime he was intent on perjury, robbery, murder and all kinds of evil.

This spirit tears apart the word of God and pretends to teach the right use of the sacrament, as he is a cloak-holder (versipellis), but secretly he works for something else. It grieves him that the word of the Gospel has been revealed, he feels the decline of his kingdom and therefore pulls out all the stops so that he remains the prince of the world. For that would not be the smallest part of his victory, if he could impute the sign of the body for the "body". See, how great a gift he would have deprived us of!

For since God's Word makes the gifts of God present to us, which we will speak about later in the appropriate place, then through this word: "This is my body" the body of Christ becomes present to us and is presented to us.

(27) Now if the devil should be permitted so much as to make a sign of the body out of the body, will he not impute a ghost for the truth, an empty mirage for the cause? And he, when he has accomplished this, will not be satisfied with it and confine himself to it, but will proceed further and try to make also of peace a sign of peace, of the forgiveness of sins a sign of forgiveness. For since Christ commanded the apostles to wish peace to the house into which they entered, and sent them forth to forgive sins, a malicious man might say that the apostles were not able to offer peace and forgiveness of sins to their hearers, since Christ alone was the peace and forgiveness of sins, and no one ever saw Christ carried on the shoulders of the apostles from city to city and from house to house; but of these things afterward.

Now we return to what we have digressed from. You say: To Mary it is said in relation to John: "Behold, your son", of course he takes care of her etc. There you could have answered yourself, because in this saying "son" is not taken in the original but in a figurative meaning, because there is a son by nature, a son after care, a son by adoption (adoptione), a son [begotten] by teaching. But since John is not a true and natural son of Mary, he will be her son by care [for her] and obedience [to her].

29. But that in this speech, "This is my body," such a figurative meaning is not, is indicated by the following words, where it is said, "Who is given for you." In this way, even if in this speech: "Behold, your son" were added: who is born of you, what is added: he is born of you, would undoubtedly force that "son" should be taken not for a son of concern, but for a natural son. Nothing like this can be said of the word of the Lord's Supper, which is fully protected by what follows against taking "body" figuratively (metaphorice) or figuratively (translatitie). Furthermore, since you are so astute in asserting figurative speech, you should have been careful not to make an

figurative speech, where this is by no means permissible. For you say that there is a trope in these sayings [Matth. 11, 11.]: "He who is least is greater than he," and [Matth. 13, 12.]: "He who does not have, from him will also be taken what he has." See thou do not, by asserting a figurative speech, not only deal unjustly against the Scriptures, but also sin against Christ. For if he only appeared smaller, but was not in fact smaller, then the eighth Psalm lies, which says [v. 6. according to the Vulg. cf. Heb. 2, 7. 9.], "Thou hast made him for a little while less than the angels"; so he himself lies [Matth. 27, 46.], "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" so Paul also lies, Eph. 4, 9.: "He is gone down into the lowest parts of the earth." What more is needed? If Christ was not in truth smaller, but only signified a lesser, it follows that he was also not in truth greater, nor did he ascend in truth, but only signified a greater, and that his ascension was not a true fact, but only a shadow, since he ascended only because he descended; was only exalted because he was in truth humbled to death on the cross, Phil. 2:8, and Eph. 4:10: "He that descended is the same that ascended above all heavens, that he might fill all things." This is what we said before, that the devil deals with making a ghost, a mirage and a sign out of Christ. Moreover, if you maintain that Christ is not speaking of the humiliation on the cross and of the abandonment of the Father, but of the opinion of men, according to which John was considered greater, but Christ smaller, you are speaking rightly in our opinion. For in the kingdom of heaven, that is, in the matter of the gospel, two people were held up by the people at that time, John and Christ. John was considered greater because of the severity of his life, but Christ was considered lesser because of the friendly intercourse [with sinners], so that he also ate with sinners. Therefore, if you look at the opinion of the people, he was indeed smaller, that is, in the hearts of the people; but if you compare him with John, he was the greatest.

30. you see again that no trope can be admitted here, and in Matthew [Cap. 13, 2.] ["He who has not"] is called a not having, not because he does not have the sign (figuram) [but because he does not have the thing] 1) namely, faith; for the sense is: because

1) The sense requires such an intercalation.

If he does not have faith, what he has (that is, the gifts of either nature or others) is taken from him; for to him who does not have faith, the gifts and presents of God never prosper. A bishopric is a gift and a gift. Whoever administers the bishopric without faith will be taken away from him, that is, it will not benefit him, it will not promote his salvation. For the gifts are of no use, but do more harm, if one possesses them without faith. Will someone, because he possesses the wisdom 1) of the flesh, without the spirit of faith, not really be wise according to the flesh? Certainly he is not wise according to the spirit, but in truth he is wise according to the flesh. Whoever possesses riches without faith, will he have only the appearance (figuram) of a possessor? Then it would be well with the thieves, who could protect themselves with this excuse against the death penalty, if they answered the judge according to your tropes, they had not taken the money from real owners, but only from those who seemed to possess. But who would not like to excuse his shameful deeds by these tropes also before the world and before God? For imagine that a citizen accuses another of the crime of a robber; if now the slanderer were brought before the court, could he not then easily excuse himself with the trope and interpret "robber" with signs (figura) of the robber? And we could object to being accused of being sinners before God's court by pleading the trope and saying, "Why do you condemn us? We are not sinners, but only have the form (formam) of sinners. Therefore, O Christ, why hast thou come down from heaven? Why did you not teach us, through some angel, the trope with which we could excuse ourselves? Certainly, the trope would have freed you from your suffering and death; we excuse ourselves from sins by your exceedingly bitter death, but surely it would have been more sweet (dulcius) for you to do so, that we might have saved ourselves from the judgment of God by the trope.

We are not playing a game, dear Oecolampadius, but we are only giving a small foretaste of future interpretations in Scripture, when we admit that "body" is made into the sign of the body. But you say: It is not uncommon that the signs of things are expressed by the words of things. Whether this is quite true, we cannot say in this place. At least what you teach about the fiery tongues and the dove and the blowing proves that

1) Instead of sapisntia, read sapientiarn.

not your sentence, because also the Holy Spirit is neither called a fiery tongue in the flesh, nor a dove, unless a little word (particula), which denotes a likeness, is added, as in Jeremiah [Cap. 23, 29.] the word of the Lord is called as it were (quasi) a fire, and as it were a hammer that breaketh rocks, for so it is written: -ow Ðï ê'6ð :/?? ö'( ιτΒΜί nin, and Matt. 3:16: ôü πνεύμα του -&εοΰ χαταβαΐνον ώςεί περιστεράν,The.

Scripture says the Spirit of God descended like a dove, it does not say the Spirit of God is a dove, and John 1:32: 2) xxxxxxxxx xx

you see that it is said: "like a dove", but not that he is the dove.

32 Since this whole speech must be understood according to the way (rationem) of faith, there is a much different sense in the whole report (sermone) than is indicated by the words. Was not the Spirit in Christ before? Did Christ not have the Spirit before baptism? Far be it that we should say this of Christ, who is by nature the Son of God. What is it, then, that you say, "I saw the Spirit of God descend from heaven in the form of a dove, and remain upon him? Did the Spirit descend if he is bodily (quod corporis est)? Did the dove remain on Christ? Did he carry it around on his shoulders or on his head wherever he went? Therefore, when it is said that the Spirit of God descended, the Scripture expresses that the Spirit did not come upon Christ only recently, or that He fell upon Him from heaven, but that He made known His presence, with which He was always fully present with Christ (praesentissimus), through the outward form of the dove. Therefore to "dove" the circumstantial word ^like] is added, which is not added to the word of the Lord's Supper. It is not said: This is as it were my body; it is also not said: My body is as it were bread, but simply: This bread is my body. We also read in Genesis 19:18 that God descended, but what is that but that the Lord, who is present everywhere, made His presence known through the trembling, the smoke and the fire? The same is written in the 1st book of Moses in the 11th cap. [V. 5: "Then the Lord came down to see the city and the tower. Was he not present before? Does he not accomplish all things? "Of him," says Paul [Rom.

2) In the original Latin: "äxe".

11, 36.], "and through him, and in him, 1) all things take place"; so what is: "he descended"? The Lord is everywhere present, but his presence is not everywhere manifest. Therefore, according to our way of speaking, he is said to descend from heaven when he makes himself known as present through some outward form. Now when he had confused the languages at Babylon, he made his presence known by the act itself, that is, by the confusion of the languages, but this does not mean that the confusion of the languages is the Lord. And in the Acts of the Apostles [Cap. 2, 3] there were seen by the apostles cloven tongues like fire, and the fire or the fiery tongue sat upon every one of them; yet it is not yet said that the fiery tongues are the Holy Spirit. Likewise, John 20:22, "he breathed on the apostles, and saith unto them: Take ye the Holy Ghost," but does not say, Take ye, this breath is the Holy Ghost, as it is said in the Lord's Supper, "Take ye (even the bread), which is my body."

(33) Now see how your disputation may stand, for since Christ says, "Do these things in remembrance of me," you presume to conclude that the body of Christ is not present for its sake, because Christ commanded that its remembrance should take place; but a remembrance takes place in absent things, not in present things. For this is your reasoning (ratiocinatio). But how is it that now, for the confirmation of your reason, you summon signs of things that are not absent to something present, as it were, as auxiliaries? Have you forgotten that, according to your doctrine, the signs are signs of things that are absent, not of things that are present? The dove, the breath, the fiery tongues are signs of the spirit, but also the spirit is present, not absent. Do you also want to affirm that the body of Christ is present in the Lord's Supper, even though according to you the bread is only a sign?

(34) We do not suppose that anyone has such an ungodly opinion that he should deny that faith drinks the blood of Christ and eats his flesh. For so it is said in John 6:55: "My flesh is meat, and my blood is drink." Whose? Of faith, for faith eats the flesh of Christ and drinks His blood by believing. If then faith eats the flesh and drinks the blood, it follows that the flesh and blood are present to faith, since, if they were not present, they would not have been eaten or drunk, or, if they were not present, they would not have been consumed.

1) üunt seems to be intentionally set instead of suut.

Since, of course, no one can eat God himself, that is, believe, except the one to whom God is present. For the wicked and unbelievers, He is absent, therefore they also do not eat God, that is, they do not believe in God. In short, as faith has God present when it believes in God, so when it eats the body 2) and drinks the blood, that is, when it believes, it must have the body and the blood present.

35) But who makes God present for faith (for we are not speaking of the presence according to which God fulfills everything, but according to which He is with the godly) but only the Word? For as He is revealed through the Word, so He is also given out as a present ^GOtH through the Word. Joh. 1, 18.: "No one has ever seen God. The only begotten Son (who is the Word), he hath declared it unto us." And elsewhere [Joh. 14, 9.]: "He who sees me, sees also my Father", that is, he who has the word, receives, believes: he who has, receives, believes God. And so it is entirely ordered (comparatum) in such a way that faith cannot be directed to God in any other way than through the Word, which is the Son of God, and that also God does not meet faith in any other way than through the Word, because indeed God dwells in the cloud in the dark and, as that one [Paul 1 Tim. 6, 16], in a light where no one can come; and since no one goes in, no one goes out, except only the Son, who is the Word, who goes out and comes in, ascends and descends, and no one else. John 3:13: "No man goeth up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven." The godly also ascend, but in Christ and through Christ, in the Word and through the Word. Furthermore, since the Word offers God with all His goods to faith as a present one, why should the Word not do the same with the body and blood of Christ? since these are our gifts (dona) and through them we are snatched out of the jaws of death, sin, hell, yes, even the devil. John says in the first epistle, Cap. 1, 7. "The blood of JEsu Christ makes us clean from all sin." So if the blood makes us clean, the blood must be present to us, since an absent thing does not make clean. But the blood of Christ may be trampled underfoot, or sucked out of the earth, and it is not possible for us to be clean.

2) Instead of crsäat here must be read säat, and the comma after the following orsäat is to be deleted.

3) Instead of üäs, üäsi will probably read sem.

lich that it should have lasted until us. Nevertheless, if we want to be cleansed in the meantime, we must be cleansed by [this] blood. But we do not see what could bring this blood to us, except the word. Faith, you say, offers us the blood. But whence does faith take the blood, if not from the word? For faith is not faith unless it is directed to the word. The Word is the object of faith, the Word offers to faith all that it receives or believes. And even wherever the gifts of God may be placed, be they either taken from us, or hidden and far from our eyes, they are brought back (restituuntur), revealed, and set before us by the Word. Let us look recently at some of the kinds of gifts which are brought to us through the Word, and it will soon be revealed how we receive through the bread, to which the Word is added, the body and blood of Christ, the excellent gifts which can never be praised highly enough. Food and clothing are gifts from God, but who brings us these gifts? who makes these gifts from God our own? You have the word Matth. 6, 30. 26.: "The Father clothes", "the Father feeds"; through this word God pours himself into our bowels, through this word food and clothing are brought to us. It seems as if the cooks filled us with food (farcire), and as if the tailors clothed us with garments, but the eye of faith, which turns its attention to this word, easily recognizes from where both food and clothing have been provided-. The wicked also have food and clothing, but not as a gift from God, because they have no word, or even if they have the word in abundance, they do not take it in faith. For the benefits of God are judged by the word, not by the appearance (specie), just as among men the benefits are judged by the attitude of the giver, not by the appearance of the gift. For even to Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians, a drink of water, which was given to him in both hands by a man of labor, 1) a common soldier, because he had no other vessel, was a delicious drink of rennet (nsotar), in that he measured the service of love according to the good will of the giver, not according to the usefulness of what was given.

due, but then also tremendously great, if they have the word and are received in faith. Therefore, the land of Canaan, the kingdom of Israel, was praised above all other countries and kingdoms, not because Canaan was more productive through the fertility of the soil, or because the kingdom of Israel, as far as outward appearances are concerned, surpassed other kingdoms in glory and power, for both the Babylonian and the Greek and the Roman empires were greater, but because it had the Word. Therefore, if you compare the land and the kingdom of Israel with others, it is by far the smallest of all, according to its prestige. What was the extent of the land of Canaan, what was the importance of the kingdom of David, when compared with Babylon and Rome? But if you compare it by word with others, it is by far the greatest of all. For the Word, from whose gift the Jews received the land and the kingdom, made known the benevolent and kindly disposition of God the Giver. But the value of the gift depends on the attitude, not on the prestige of the gift. What is the purpose of this? So that you may see that the gifts of God become true gifts for us when the Word is added to them. Now also the peace of God is a gift that is acquired for us through Christ, for since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ [Rom. 5:1]. But how is this gift set before us, how does it become present? Is it not through the word? Which one? "Peace to this house," or, "Peace be with you," or, "My peace I give unto you." When someone takes hold of this word in faith, he takes hold of peace. To this is added another gift, the forgiveness of sins, which is obtained from the Father through JEsum Christ. But what is it that makes this gift present to us and holds it up to faith? Is it not the word of the apostles? It is also said in Matth. 16, 19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." For this is not said to Peter alone, but to the whole company of the apostles, to whose confession Peter lent his mouth. But the meaning is: I will deliver (oommittam) the word of the gospel to you who confess me, Christ, the Son of God, which, confirmed by the Spirit, is the key of the kingdom of heaven, so that you may distribute (spargatis) forgiveness of sins throughout the whole world. He fulfills this promise later, Joh. 20, 22. f.: "Receive the Holy One.

Spirit; whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." As before he said, "I will give," now he says, "Receive;" as before he said, "the keys," now he says, "the Holy Ghost." For the Holy Ghost is the seal and pledge of the word; by which word sins are both remitted and retained, for what is called in this passage "remitting sins," is called in Lucas [Cap. 24:47.], "having repentance and remission of sins preached in Christ's name," and in Marcus [16:15.], "preaching the gospel to every creature." Therefore (spargebant.) the apostles by their word brought forgiveness among the people and remitted the sins of the true believers. By what? By their power? Let that be far away, for Christ alone forgives sins, but by the word of Christ they spread among the people that which was Christ's, in the meantime keeping Christ seated at the right hand of the Father and neither depriving Him of anything nor taking anything away from Him. What then should hinder (vetarst) why the same should not be done with the body and blood of Christ, which [is done] with the forgiveness of sins? For as the forgiveness of sins is Christ's alone, who sits at the right hand of the Father, but is nevertheless committed (commendata) to the word, so that it might be distributed in the world through the apostles by means of the oral external voice, so the body and blood are Christ's alone, who sits at the right hand of the Father, but meanwhile is committed to the word: "This is my body; this is my blood," so that they might be distributed through bread and wine, external things. For if the forgiveness of sins is our gift, why should not the body and blood, by which forgiveness is effected (oontinKit), be gifts also? Now if they are gifts, it follows that they are dispensed according to the manner of gifts; but they are to be dispensed by the word, which is evident from what has been said before. Therefore, if the word presents us with the body and blood, what is to prevent it from bringing to the bread what it contains? since the word "this is my body" is directed to the bread.

Perhaps you fear that there will be two bodies in one and the same place. Let go of this fear and get away from fleshly imagination; give the word the honor. For if it was not inconsistent for the body to be borne by the word (Zsstarl), how should it be inconsistent for it to be borne by the word in the bread? We do not hear Aristotle here, nor the speeches of reason (praedicationes logicas); let Aristotle on his battlefield.

of two bodies; in the word of God we recognize another teacher. Does not Chrysostom also say, as you do, that in the Lord's Supper many things are inconsistent for our understanding, and which exceed our thinking? Well, you may be mindful of the fact that faith endures many inconsistencies not only in this sacrament but also in many other things. Why? Because faith is free to imagine anything as it pleases? Not at all, but because it has the word.

037 For give faith the word, and it shall take hold of far other things than the whole nature of things can bear. Does he not bear it that sins are not sins? that shame is not shame, death is not death? Why? Because he imagines it so? Far be it from him; but because he has the word [John 1:29]. "Behold, this is the Lamb of God, which bareth the sin of the world," likewise [Hos. 13:14], "Death, I will be death unto thee." Preach this to Aristotle; see if thou canst persuade him that death is not a death? For he will hold common sense (sensum) against thee, he will hold the nature of things against thee, he will hold reason against thee. What do you want to answer? Do you not believe because Aristotle does not believe?

(38) The same must be said of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For although reason cannot bear that the bread is the body, yet faith bears it for its sake, because it has the word, "This is my body," in which, as is evident from your collatis above, faith also cannot recognize a trope. Does not this word: "I am your GOtt" bring GOtt to us with all His goods? How, then, if reason could not grasp in what way in such a small speech, consisting of letters, syllables and expressions, such a great incomprehensible treasure is brought? And if anyone relies on this word, will he put up with a sophistical disputer and a sophist who says, "You trust in letters and syllables? We know and have learned from Paul [Rom. 1:16] that the gospel is the power of God that makes blessed all who believe in it. We reject the sophistic antics, namely: the gospel is a dead letter and consists of syllables, so how could it be a power of God?

39 But what is this? If the bread is the body of Christ, then the body of Christ must be crucified again. Truly! a beautiful demonstration. As if Christ would rise again

because the word: "I am the resurrection" brings to us the resurrection of Christ, which is also ours, and this: "the Word became flesh" makes Christ's incarnation present to us. Wouldn't it be absurd to claim now that Christ had to become man again for the sake of this? Christ, by this word: "Peace be with you," "My peace I give unto you," has left peace behind Himself: will He, for the sake of it, again be obliged to eat with the disciples, and to converse, or to go through closed doors to those who are afraid (consternatos)? For because we confess that for the word's sake the bread is the body of Christ, nothing should have been imagined of any future (adventu), either in lowliness or in glory. For Christ came in lowliness in the flesh, but in glory he will come on that day which the Father knows; but by the word of God the distribution of Christ's gift m bread and wine takes place. Just as the forgiveness of sins, which is by far the best and greatest gift, is revealed and distributed to us through the Word, but no one, no matter how grossly minded, imagines a future in lowliness or glory, so when the body of Christ, through which the forgiveness of sins has taken place, is distributed in the bread through the Word, the distribution and administration of the gift takes place, but not a kind of new future of Christ, as it is said in 1 Cor. 10:16: "The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?"

40 Pay attention to the Hebrew way of speaking. What is "the fellowship of the body" but the body that is shared and given? So also Rom. 1, 4. according to the Vulgate] is "the spirit of sanctification," that is, the spirit that sanctifies, which we call the Holy Spirit. So the bread that we break is the body of Christ divided, administered, and made common (communicatum). This is what Augustine has in mind in the 9th book of the "Confessions", Cap. 13, where he writes of his mother and says: "She did not ask us this (that her body be embalmed in a precious way), but only desired that she be remembered at your altar, at which she had served every day without ceasing, so that she could know that the holy sacrifice would be administered (dispensari, by which the handwriting is erased, which was against us 2c). What is "that the holy sacrifice be administered" but that the body of Christ be distributed, which was given for us? But as peace and the forgiveness of sins, so the body and the blood are distributed through the word in the bread and in the offering.

Wine, since the word is added to bread and wine. The matter becomes clearer by an example. Any teacher who wants to communicate his will and his attitude to about a thousand students, does he not do it together in teaching by the word of doctrine and distribute it? For by including his will, so to speak, in the word, he distributes it among all of them, as many as there are who receive the word. In the meantime, he keeps his mind to himself, but still distributes it to others through the word. For here we shall not pretend, with Aristotle, that the words (vooss) are only the signs of the things that are in the soul; but to speak more correctly: the voice or the word offers us the things that are in the soul (res animae), brings them with it and presents them, while it [the soul] itself loses nothing in the process, but keeps its own for itself. Therefore, when according to the common custom the words of an author have been stated in a loud voice, we immediately add: This is the meaning of that author, this is the opinion of that writer. Who could tolerate that interpretation: This is the sign of that opinion?

(41) If a man is free to put his mind and opinion into the word, and to communicate it to the hearer, losing nothing of his opinion in the meantime, why should not Christ, who is God, be free to distribute and communicate his body and blood, enclosed in the word, through bread and wine? Furthermore, since the bread is the body of Christ, there is no need to fear that the same thing will happen to the body as to the bread; for the bread is baked, it is white, round or square, it goes into the stomach, is digested, and is thrown out by the natural process. For this reason should the body of Christ be baked, white, round or square, enter the belly, be digested, and the like? Let this be far off! For as the word of the Lord abideth for ever, being neither limited by place, nor by time, nor by accidental properties, nor can it ever be digested or destroyed (perdi), so the body is and remains put into the word (verbo commendatum). Now we maintain that the bread is the body, not insofar as it is bread, for otherwise what happens to the bread would also happen to the body, but insofar as it has the word. Therefore, the bread of the Lord's Supper, inasmuch as it is the body through the word, has nothing like fleshly accidental properties, for then 1) it is neither round nor square,

1) tiiQ6 i.e. if the bread is the body.

neither white nor black; but this it has and retains, provided it is bread.

We thank thee, Oecolampad, that thou, by thy own similitude, which thou adduceest of the key and of the royal scepter, assistest our opinion, and makest clear the meaning of the words of Christ. For whoever gives the key to a steward (oustoäi) and entrusts to him the power over the house, does he not make the key, the instrument of the house, the power over the house? Yes, [the power] not over the key, provided the key is only a tool, but add this word: I give you the power over the house, or: Behold, here you have the power over the house. Now the key no longer remains a mere tool, but also becomes the power over the house, not in so far as it is a key, but in so far as it has the word: I give you the power, or: Take away the power etc. Why should we not be granted the same by you, that we hold such things of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, that the bread, inasmuch as it has the word, is the body of the Lord?

But far be it, you say, that the spiritually minded, who were under the law and awaited the Messiah in faith, should have been poorer than we, to whom he [the Messiah] is revealed; to them the sacraments are only darker, to us they are brighter. We wonder, most learned Oecolampadius, why you constantly hold that conclusion against us: The fathers were saved by faith and did not have the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, therefore the bread of the Lord's Supper is not the body of Christ, nor the wine his blood; for this is the brief epitome of your proof, which is taken from the patriarchs and from their faith.

44 But if you continue to draw conclusions in this way, Christ will also become a non-Christ. For who can shut the mouth of an ungodly man, and prevent him, that he should not, after your manner of disputing, bring up his reasons, which deny that Christ had flesh? The fathers were saved by faith, and did not have the bodily presence of Christ, so Christ was not bodily present to Peter, John, or James; for what need is there of Christ's presence, if we are saved by faith, and the fathers were saved by it; or if he is present, he is idle. Who could suffer these ungodly things? And yet they would have an example (analogiam) in your way of proving. Well then, let us indicate, however crudely (crassa Minerva), a

How great a difference there is between the godly: of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

It is a very different way in the spiritual world than in this carnal world, and in a different way the eye of God sees than the eye of the flesh, because in the spiritual world nothing is past, nothing is future; there are not years, not hours, not time, but everything is One Perpetual, a completely present moment: "One day before the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as One day," because the eye of God sees everything as One moment. Therefore, in that the prophets use the past time for the future, as in Isaiah [Cap. 21, 9Z; "Babylon is fallen," they have not used the speech of man, but have spoken by the Spirit of God; but the eye of the flesh sees this as future, that as present, that as past.

46 Since everything, whether past or future, is seen by God in a completely present moment, it follows that the incarnation of Christ, His suffering, death and resurrection began, was completed and fully executed (consummata.) at the time when the Lord decided with Himself to declare and make known this to the world once, according to the manner of the time of this world. Therefore John says in the Revelation, Cap. 13, 8: "The Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world." How? The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world? Was Christ then, or had Christ then already become man? Certainly; for if Christ had not already assumed humanity, suffered and been glorified in the eyes of God at the time of Adam and Abraham, the patriarchs would never have been freed from sins nor attained to righteousness. In the eyes of God, we say, this was presently and quite truly accomplished and perfected; not in the eyes of the world, for in the eyes of the world the Incarnation of Christ [did not happen until under the emperor Augustus. But it did] 1) not happen at that time first, but in the eyes of God it is accomplished and fully executed beforehand, but it sang to be revealed and made known under the emperor Augustus, under the priest Simeon.

47. similarly, the Passion of Christ did not happen at that time first under Pontio Pilato, but...

1) The text seems to us to need an addition here, approximately in the way it was done in the bracketed words.

Under this governor, that which had previously been fully accomplished in the eyes of God was revealed and made known to the world. For the fact that Christ hung on the cross under the high priest Caiphas was not new in the eyes of God, as he had hung there from the beginning of the world, but now it was new in the eyes of the world, which see much coarser and more carnal than the eyes of God. Since neither the Incarnation, nor the Passion, nor the Death, nor the Resurrection of Christ had been revealed in the time of the former patriarchs, although they were already present to the divine vision, the Spirit did not want to reveal such a great mystery to the weak world, which was still under the disciplinarian, until the fullness of time came, for then God sent His Son, born of a woman and under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law. Therefore, under the law and in the time of the patriarchs, the things that were to be revealed were hidden under the coverings of sacrifices and other shadows, lest, if by the outward word that which had not yet been revealed before the eyes of the world by the outward deed were revealed, the world should not be able to grasp it, or rather should be offended. Therefore, everything that is Christ was presented to the world through shadows, signs and images. All sacrifices are directed to Christ and have their aim on him, as it is said in the 40th Psalm [v. 7. ff.]: "Sacrifice and meal offering are not pleasing to thee, but thou hast opened mine ears. Then said I, Behold, I come, in the book is written of me; thy will, O my God, do I gladly." For Christ is not the Passover Lamb, but He is shadowed by the Passover Lamb, and the Lamb alone had His purpose in Christ. Nevertheless, the faith of the godly, as it is more sharp-sighted than a lynx, has had, received, and believed in the present Christ under the Lamb. Christ was, at the time of the Passover lamb, far from the ears and eyes of the flesh, but he was still completely present to faith, which flew on its wings (motis alis) from this world into the spiritual world and, according to the way of God's seeing, saw what Christ is. For thus God sees everything, even that which is to come, present before Him. In this way, faith makes what is very distant in the world's mind completely present to itself and sees it in this way. Was not the gospel also hidden from the fathers until it was revealed under Christ and the apostles? Nevertheless, the faith of the fathers had the gospel, even though it was still hidden.

very hidden and covered with strange shadows. But for us, who live according to Christ and are born again, the veil has been removed from our eyes and the gospel has been clearly presented, which was previously covered with veils.

(48) Now behold, what a good reason he would have who would say that this gospel, which is with us, has not been there in any other way than covered under a shadow. Therefore it is also not true, evident and clear with us. What could be more inconsistent than this conclusion? 1) And with your case it is just so, since you say that with the fathers the body of Christ was only shadowed and prefigured by signs, so also with us it is not signified in any other way than by signs; as if there were no difference between the shadows and the things that are shadowed, between signs and the true essence [veritas] of the signs. If then there is no difference between the fathers and us, why then does Christ say [Matth. 13, 16. f.], "Blessed are your eyes, that they see, and your ears, that they hear. Verily I say unto you, Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see that ye see, and have not seen it; and to hear that ye hear, and have not heard it"? No one will more easily explain how great an advantage we have over the fathers than this word of Christ. For he does not say: the prophets desired to believe and did not believe, but: they desired to see and hear what they did not hear and see.

(49) The fathers were not less than we in faith, for our faith and that of the fathers is the same, but they had much less than we in word and deed, that is, in revelation of Christ and manifestation of the word. By one example our opinion becomes clearer. Paul was called from his mother's womb to preach the gospel, as Gal. 1:15 says. But the calling was revealed from heaven long after he had become a man, Acts 9. 9 Did not Paul in the beginning, when the calling was still hidden, become less than he was before, but afterwards, when the calling was made known, he became greater than he was before (se ipso)? Or do you, because he was set apart from his mother's womb, deny that he received greater things after the revelation of the setting apart had taken place?

50 To this is added the condition of the apostles. For the apostles also had the Holy Spirit before the death of Christ and His resurrection, for how else could they have been born but from the Holy Spirit?

1) i.e. a conclusion from the opposite.

The apostles can confess Christ through the Holy Spirit, Matth. 16, 16. f., where Christ also testifies that the Father revealed this; but the Father reveals and draws through the Holy Spirit. So the apostles must have had the Holy Spirit before the death of Christ, but in what way? Did they reveal it, or did they announce it? No, but still hidden and concealed. For it is written, Joh. 7,39.: "The Holy Spirit was not yet there, because Jesus was not yet glorified. But after Christ was glorified, he sent the Holy Spirit into their hearts to preach the gospel of the forgiveness of sins to the whole world. But what is this sending but to reveal and make known Him who was before hidden? Will you then say that the sending of the Spirit was in vain because they had it before? Let that be far off, for who could tolerate that? Were not the apostles more blessed by the revelation of the Spirit than before, when the Spirit was still hidden? They were more blessed, not through the Spirit, which they had received in the beginning through faith in Christ, but through His presence and revelation, since they had possessed Him before without noticing (tacitissime).

(51) Thus the fathers are not inferior to us in faith, but they are far behind in revelation. For what was present to them in faith, but nevertheless hidden in a dark 1) word and in deed and far from their eyes, is presented to us in deed and word. The fact, that is, the bodily offering (traditio) and the shedding of blood took place before the eyes of the world under Pontius Pilate. But because it had already lasted in the eyes of God from the beginning of the world, that we may say so, and had now been revealed to the world, therefore Christ, wishing to have this also present and made known before the world, put it into the word of the Lord's Supper, saying, "Receive and eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood," etc., which could not have happened before Christ, because Christ had not yet been revealed. But after the revelation happened, he gave the revelation and presence to the Word 2) for preservation, because thus the forgiveness of sins, which was obtained under Pontius Pilate (that is, revealed, because it was brought about in the eyes of God from the foundation of the world), is preserved by the Word. Why should the same not be said of the body

1) Instead of aesrto, which does not seem to us to puff here, we have assumed oxerto.

2) Instead of verdi will read verdo.

and blood of Christ, by which forgiveness of sins was obtained, and without which forgiveness is not? The fathers saw Christ under the Passover Lamb, under the manna, under the rock of the wilderness, but in very hidden faith, and which was known to the spirit alone, since nothing of these things was yet revealed to the world. But we receive the body of Christ in the bread and his blood in the cup by the word, not hidden, not absent, but distinct (for distinct is the word, "This is my body"), but present, since the revelation has taken place and is preserved by the word. Therefore all that is based on these grounds falls away: we are saved by faith, and the fathers, who are not less than we, did not have the bodily body of Christ, so neither do we, either present or idle. For on this ground also the gospel would be idle, idle also would Christ himself be, preaching in Jerusalem, and manifesting himself by miracles throughout all Judea, since the fathers had neither the outward gospel, nor such an outward Christ as our forefathers saw under Pilate the governor.

Because Abraham did not see Christ hanging on the cross with the eyes of his body (for in faith he saw the day of Christ), did neither Peter nor John see him? The evangelist John and Abraham were completely equal with regard to faith, but unequal with regard to Christ. For Abraham saw Christ by faith and spiritual knowledge (Kpiritus tione), but John not only by faith, but also by clear revelation and bodily sight. In this way the fathers also ate the body of Christ and drank his blood in the spirit, but we eat his body and drink his blood not only in the spirit but also in the flesh. For the bread we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ. And Christ says, "Eat, this is my body, which is broken for you," just as we hear the gospel not only in the spirit, which also the fathers did, but also according to the flesh, with bodily ears. Will we then say that the bodily (carnal) gospel is idle with us, or does not save, because the fathers did not have it bodily and were saved without it? There is no one who could deny that the body of Christ was present in the spirit to the fathers, because through the word 'of the promises the whole Christ became present to them, but with us it is quite different. For we are

not only in the spirit, but also by the letter, not by him who kills, but by the present delivery (sxtübiticms) of the word, the body and blood of Christ presented.

Let us explain the matter by means of an example. In the first book of Moses, Cap. 3, v. 15, there is the word: "The same shall bruise thy head." Gen. 23, 18: "By thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." 2 Sam. 7, 12. 14.: "I will raise up thy seed after thee. I will be his father" etc. Jer. 23, 5: "I will raise up a righteous seed for David, and he shall be a king" etc. The spirit of the word of these promises offered the present Christ to the godly fathers, but the letter of the word does not offer him presently, but is directed to the future (which is quite obvious, since it says: he shall tread down, it shall be blessed, I will raise up, not: he shall tread down, I will raise up), since the spirit, to whom everything future is present, comes to meet faith, but the letter is according to the capacity of the world. For since elsewhere, Isa. 9:6, he says, "A child is born to us," the letter assumes the manner of speaking common to the spirit, to whom future things are as certain as if they had passed away. Now that Christ is revealed, not only the Spirit of the Word, but also the letter (far be it from a spiteful interpretation of this word) offers Christ's body and blood to us as present, bringing them with it and showing them, saying, "This is my body, this is my blood. "etc. Further, if you would continue to ask what use is the eating of the bodily body, since the fathers did not have it and were none the less saved? we may also ask what use is the hearing of the revealed bodily gospel, which the fathers likewise did not have. Or, since the Gospel consists of letters and syllables, shall we not say for the sake of it that it is a power of God for salvation to all who believe it? And if we believe the gospel, will you then reproach us? You believe in a spelled or spoken God, as we have been harshly told by some others: Do you also believe in a spelled God?

(54) Therefore, since we affirm that we eat the body of Christ bodily (eus), meanwhile we will be able to obtain this from your kindness, that you do not receive this other than in an interpretation that is for our good (candida). For we eat the body and drink the blood bodily (oarus), not that we rend and break the body of Christ. As it is written in the recantation Beren

gars is called, but we treat the bread itself (ipsum) as bread, we break it, eat it and bite it with the teeth, but take the body, as we take the word: "this is my body", so that someone has said very beautifully: What we eat goes into the belly, what we believe goes into the mind (mentem). But, what is it that we are afraid to speak and teach (sentire) here according to the word of Christ? For he said, "Eat, this is my body, which is broken for you," that is, to be distributed. For this word be broken, ÷ëÜåóàáé, comes not to the body, but to the bread, Isa. 58:7, "Break thy bread to the hungry." For now Christ says his body is broken because the bread is broken. Who should take it amiss of us to say that the body of Christ is attacked with the hands and bitten with the teeth, not that this is to the body of Christ, but that it is to the bread, which is the body of Christ. For since the bread is the body of Christ through the Word, why should not that which is due to the body of Christ be due to the bread, inasmuch as it is the body of Christ? And since the body of Christ is added to the bread by the word, what prevents that which belongs to the bread from not belonging to the body? Hence it is that the body is broken, because the bread is broken, while at the same time the body remains in its entirety (integritate); and the bread is life-giving, because the flesh of Christ, now added to the bread by the word, is life-giving, giving life to the world, while meanwhile the bread remains in the same essence (substantia) which it had before.

(55) And there is no reason to fear, best Oecolampadius, that at the time of the Lord's Supper someone would occupy himself in a trivial way with contemplating the miracle, namely, in which way the body would be united with the bread, because even by us this could not be approved if it happened, but we will admit that this happens by those who are too superstitious. How now? Would we deny for the sake of it that the bread is the body? With this reason we could certainly force the eaters to have their teeth pulled out and their lips cut off and thrown away, lest, preoccupied with the taste of the bread, they forget to eat it. We could also deny that Christ is a man, since the sophists have spent long years in futile, not to say ungodly, disputations and even quarrels about the unity of the different natures in Christ. How

But would it be proper for us to deny the truth because of the vanity of others? Therefore, according to the teaching of the Spirit, who says: "the Word became flesh", we confess that the Son of God is man, and even here we do not stand still, but continue to ask what use the Incarnation is to us? how we are to use the man who is the Son of God? So also, after Christ's word, "This is my body," we confess that the bread is the body, and even here we do not stand still, but go on, asking and teaching what is the use of this bread, which is the body of Christ?

(56) Finally, let us also answer the scriptural passages held against us (contrarias). One of these is the passage quoted from John, Cap. 6, 63: "the flesh is of no use," to which you all run, as to a sacred anchor, as many of you deny that the bread is the body of Christ, and with which your opponents, as you urge them, should struggle. Because the interpretations of the godly of our time about this passage are not up to you, since they understand "flesh" not for Christ's flesh, but generally of what Paul speaks of [1 Cor. 15, 50.]: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" and Christ [Hoh. 3, 6.]: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," well then, let us consent to Augustine's interpretation, according to which he understands the flesh as Christ's flesh; but so much is lacking in it that he should confirm your opinion, that he almost nowhere overturns it more violently.

57 For thus he writes to the sixth chapter of John, What is it that he adds: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh is of no use?" We want to speak to him, because he carries (patitur) us, since we do not contradict, but wish to know: O Lord, dearest Master, how is your flesh of no use, since you said, John 6:53: "Whoever does not eat my flesh and drink my blood has no life in him"? Is life of no use? and why are we what we are, but that we might have eternal life, which thou promisedst through thy flesh? what is it then: it is of no use; "the flesh is of no use"? But how did they understand "the flesh"? Certainly they understood it as it is mangled on a corpse or sold in a meat market, not as it is made alive by the Spirit. Therefore it is said, "The flesh is of no use," as it is said, "Knowledge alone puffeth up" without love, therefore it is added: "but love mendeth." Therefore, add love to the

Knowledge added and the knowledge will be useful, not by itself, but by love. So it is here also: "The flesh is of no use," that is, the flesh alone; but let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as love is added to knowledge, and it is of much use. For if the flesh were of no use, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell in us. So far Augustine. What thanks, blessed Augustine, we owe you for teaching so clearly and so Christianly, inasmuch as it is of no use, for we shall be able to say the same of the body of Christ, which is made bread by the Word. For the body of Christ alone is of no use if it has been eaten without faith and, as Paul says, unworthily, for then it will do more harm. "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily," he says, "eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, because he distinguisheth not the body of the Lord." Add therefore the faith of the eater to the body, and it profiteth much. For if the body were of no use, why would it be given for us? why condemned to death? Likewise, the body of Christ alone profits nothing, but because it is given for us, but because it is the life of the world. So the blood of Christ alone is of no use, but it is of great use because it is poured out for us for cleansing, and this is even the only reason why we eat the body and drink his blood in the Lord's Supper. For if his body were not given for us and his blood shed for us, we would eat and drink in vain. Furthermore, that in faith the body must be eaten and the blood drunk does not take away from the bread that it is not the body. For as Christ was not without flesh for that reason, because Peter or another apostle ate him spiritually, so it must not be denied of Christ's body for that reason that it is in the bread, because it must be eaten spiritually. By touching the feet of Jesus, Mary touched the feet of the Son of God, who cannot be touched bodily (carnaliter).

(58) How then should it be inconsistent for us to confess that we eat the body of Christ, which cannot be eaten, bodily, by eating the bread of the Lord's Supper? For no one has denied that the body which he eats in the bread by the word must be eaten spiritually, just as no one is so limited that he should deny that the word of the gospel must be received spiritually, that is, in faith, however much one may receive it with the bodily. And just as faith takes the word that is received with the ears, according to its own nature, so it must be taken in spiritually.

In the same way, the body that is received through the bread is received according to the way of faith. Just as a sulfurized cask that receives tasty wine does not receive it according to the manner of the wine, for the wine is tasty, but according to the manner of its sulfur, so the bodily body of Christ is received by the heart, the mind, the faith, only according to the manner of faith, which is spiritual, however bodily it [the body] may be.

59.. From this it is easy to see with what accuracy you cite the passage John 3:6: "Everything that is of the flesh is flesh," as if faith really receives the body of Christ in a fleshly way. But we want to see in a more reliable way what the opinion of this passage is, so that one can see in how forced a way it serves your opinion. Nicodemus disputes with Christ about righteousness, because he thought that the righteousness of the law was the true one, but meanwhile he heard that another righteousness was preached by Christ, namely that of faith and repentance or regeneration; therefore he goes to Christ to inquire about the true righteousness. Therefore, two kinds of birth are presented to Nicodemus by referring to some elements of the world (mundi elementis). One is from the flesh, that is, from the earth (for the flesh is earthly), a coarser element, as it is said in the first book of Moses, Cap. 3, v. 19. is said, "Thou art taken from the earth"; 1 Cor. 15, 47. "The first man is of the earth and earthy." The other is of water and spirit (aere), and, as it is elsewhere said, of fire, the finer (subtilioribus) elements. This, therefore, is the correct interpretation of this passage and Christ's opinion. Before that Adam, created from the earth, became earthly, coarse and carnal, and all who are reproduced from him are born earthly, coarse and carnal, so that this procreation is not very good. For all become flesh and earth from the carnal and earthly Adam, grasping and understanding (sapientes) nothing but flesh and earth. For since they are cast down into the workhouse (ergastulum - penitentiary) of the flesh, they cannot grasp true, high, heavenly and spiritual righteousness. For this is not the true righteousness which is enforced by the law or the tumult of the law, nor is it the righteousness which is enforced by the hypocrisy of the flesh, for if it were the true righteousness, the first birth, fleshly and earthly, would not have gone forth to evil. Since now

the true righteousness comes from heaven, so the other birth and the rebirth will be necessary, but from finer and higher elements than the earth, that is, from water and spirit (aere). For Christ uses absolutely carnal words at this point, in that he understands something far different by the image (metaphora). For the fact that he says, you must be born from above, has not yet from the outset (prima facie) its intention on the heavenly rebirth, but on the rebirth from the so-called higher elements, that is, what is born from the earth and the flesh, that is not suitable (male cessit), therefore another birth must be sought, which happens from higher elements than the earth, namely from water and spirit. But what should he understand by this fleshly speech but the true rebirth, which is from on high, from heaven, which consists of the water, that is, mortificatione, and the wind, the spirit, or the air, which is the life of the athmians, that is, the quickening of the spirit? This is otherwise expressed by the one word repentance (resipiscentiae).

(60) Now let any man come and make great words (glorietur) that Christians become carnal because they eat the flesh of Christ, for in this passage, "that which is of the flesh is flesh," he will find no protection for his opinion. For it is different to be born of the flesh of Adam than of the flesh of Christ; those who are of the flesh of Adam are flesh and earth. But those who are of the flesh of Christ, that is, who not only eat the flesh of Christ in the bread of the Lord's Supper, but also believe, are of the Spirit. For eating the body of the Lord will do little good, and much more harm, if one does not eat in faith; just as the gospel: what good will it do if you do not also hear it in the spirit? But will not the outward gospel be gospel for its own sake, because it must be heard in the spirit? In this way, who would presume to conclude that the bread of the Lord's Supper is not the body, because the body of Christ must be eaten in faith?

(61) Now, what is said in Matthew [Cap. 15, v. 11], "What enters into the mouth does not defile a man," overturns yours rather than ours. For if the bread, according to you, were not the body of the Lord, the food cannot defile. Why then does Paul say [1 Cor. 11:27], "Whosoever eateth of this bread unworthily, or drinketh of the cup of the Lord, he is guilty.

in the body and blood of the Lord"? And afterwards [v. 29.st. "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, lest he should distinguish the body (he does not say the sign of the body) of the Lord." Do you want to say to Paul: Why do you make a great clamor about unworthy food, since what enters a man's mouth does not defile him? Watch, dear Oecolampad, lest we learn through you as predecessors (autoribrm) what it means to make sophistries (ôà σο- φιστεύειν). But the eating of the bread of the Lord's Supper is to be understood thus: inasmuch as it is bread, it does not defile, nor does it sanctify; but inasmuch as it is the body of Christ through the Word, it defiles the unworthy eater, and sanctifies the worthy and believing eater, since indeed Christ says [John 15:3.], "Ye are now clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you." And afterwards [John 17:17.], "Sanctify them in thy truth," that is, by the speech which is truth; but the loan is taken for the word's sake in the bread of the Lord's Supper. Therefore, as the word sanctifies the believer, so also the body; and as the word defiles the ungodly, so the body defiles the ungodly eater.

62 For the fact that you also add to your auxiliary forces what is written in Matth. 24, 23: "Behold, here is Christ, or there," will not help you; you will be defeated by this army, according to all judgment about foreign auxiliary forces, because it has an entirely different weapon than is appropriate for your battle. For there it speaks of the false prophets, who take captive the kingdom of Christ in the conscience, which otherwise is free, bound to no place, to no time, to no person, and, as Paul says, has brand in the conscience. Otherwise, if it were to be understood of the outward Christ, or of his fleshly body, no one could have said of Christ as he sat at the supper: Behold, here is Christ, or of his body as he hung on the cross: Behold, this is the body of Christ. Even after the transfiguration Stephen should not have said, "I see heaven open and JEsum standing at the right hand of God." But it is well that Christ Himself freed His own from this misgiving (soiupulo), saying in Lucas [Cap. 17, 20.], "The kingdom of God cometh not with outward gifts"; for the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of freedom; we are dealing here with the body, not with the kingdom. Something else is the kingdom of Christ, something else the body, of which that great and admirable (èáõìáóôüò) evangelist of Christ, Luther, speaks enough in the second chapter.

Book against the false prophets 1). But, you say, Christ has departed and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and has sent the Holy Spirit m the hearts of the disciples. For he says [John 16:7], "If I go not away, the Comforter cometh not unto you." Listen! Has he then departed in such a way that he has left us nothing of what is his? Has then also the forgiveness of sins departed? Has sanctification and even all righteousness departed? Has the Holy Spirit also departed? for all this is Christ's. Then we are still sinners, still condemned. We wretched people, who will deliver us from the devil's jaws? But we thank thee, O Lord Jesus Christ, that thou hast not withdrawn thyself from us in such a way as to leave us nothing of thine. You are seated at the right hand of the Father, but in the meantime you do not deny us your gifts and do not hide them from us as an envious person. Is not the Holy Spirit most closely related to Christ (LKuatisÄmus - the closest relative) and completely inseparable from him? For he says in the prophet [Isa. 61, 1.]: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore he hath anointed me"; and elsewhere [Ps. 45, 8.]: "Thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, more than thy fellows." Christ, however, shares his Spirit with the godly and sends it into their hearts, and meanwhile remains seated at the right hand of the Father, in no respect separated (disjunctus). But how does he communicate it? Through the Word. Thus you read Apost. 10:44: "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all who were listening to the word." By what did it fall or through what vehicle (vedloulo) was it brought? By the word of the gospel; for the word is the vehicle of the Spirit. Why then is not the Holy Spirit given to all who hear the Word? The reason is obvious (in promptu est). For the Word is scattered among all nations, but the revelation of the Spirit of the Word the Lord has reserved to himself alone, that he may open it to whom and when he will, for he says [Ex. 33:19. according to the Vulgate], "I have mercy on whom I will." Since the Holy Spirit is brought to us through the Word, as a vehicle, while at the same time He remains intimately united with Christ, who sits at the right hand of the Father, why should not the Body and Blood of Christ be given to us through the same vehicle, the Word?

1) This refers to the second part of Luther's writing "Wider die himmlischen Propheten" (No. 5 in this volume).

Since we speak in this way, the Holy Spirit is much more closely connected with Christ than His body and blood? Do you still have imaginations of a kind of future (adventu) in lowliness and glory, as if this were a new future of Christ, when either the Holy Spirit, or forgiveness of sins, or righteousness, or his body and blood are sent to us through the Word? For this is not a kind of Christ's future, as he came in the flesh in the beginning and will come in glory on the last day, but a sharing and dispensing of the gift, since the Word preserves and dispenses to us that which was brought to us and acquired through Christ's first future. Acquired is the forgiveness [of sins], which is preserved by the word; brought is the body, brought is the blood, not such things as Adam has, but life-giving and sanctifying things. These are preserved by the Word, while meanwhile the chief bishop and priest, Christ, remains at the right hand of the Father, and is not divided into many Christs; for Christ is One, so also is One Body of Christ. And as by the great number of those who believe in Christ there are not many Christs, so by the [great] number of those who eat there are not many bodies. Is not the word, which is heard from the mouth of a man, one, which nevertheless remains with the speaker, and is thereby distributed among many hearers, while its unity also remains? In the same way, the One Body of Christ is distributed to many eaters through the word in the bread, while it remains with Christ, who sits at the right hand of the Father, and the unity of the body also remains.

By the way, what is quoted from the second letter to the Corinthians, Cap. 5, 16, is quite insignificant and not at all relevant: "We know no one according to the flesh; and though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him no longer. How now? Does Christ therefore not have flesh, because we no longer know him according to the flesh? Let that be far from it. For if he were not in the flesh, he would not have been truly resurrected, nor would he come to judgment in the same form in which he was taken away from our sight. Therefore Paul's opinion is: now we must not seek carnal things; the old has passed away, everything has become new, one must seek spiritual things. For in this passage, "to have known Christ in the flesh" does not mean to have seen and known Him face to face, but to have sought carnal things in Christ, such as worldly dominion,

The apostles did before Christ's suffering, which is evident from their argument, Matth. 20, 20. ff. Is not Christ still man today? but we do not know him in a human way (secundum hominem), that is, we must not look for human things in him. Thus the bread of the Lord's Supper is the body of Christ through the Word, but we do not seek in it bodily or carnal things, for we do not eat to fill the belly but to nourish the spirit (mutiny).

64) Do you still dare to claim that these are the sayings: I am the true vine; I am the living fountain; I am the living bread, like that which happened at the Last Supper: 1) "Take and eat, this is my body"? Have you not yet lost the conceit of a vain speech (tropi)? We appeal, dear Oecolampad, to your own conscience, whether you can constantly cherish the opinion with yourself that these speeches are the same? But what do the secondary circumstances in the words of the Lord's Supper prove, which do not take place in the speeches mentioned before? For the fact that it is written, "Jesus took bread, and brake it, and said, Take, eat," all this clearly proves that the bread is not to be understood figuratively. That now it is added, "which is given for you," is a secondary circumstance, because it is understood that "body" is not taken figuratively, but in its original meaning 2); in the other speeches you will find nothing of these secondary circumstances. For he did not take a vine in his hand and say: I am this vine, nor the fountain, that he said: I am this spring, nor elsewhere the bread [since he said], "I am the living bread." But supposing the speeches were the same, is the body then taken as a vine, as a fountain? But the vine and the spring now already do not mean a natural vine or a spring of water, but have been taken away from this original meaning. Therefore also "body" in this speech: "This is my body" according to your opinion would no longer be taken for the natural body, but for a spiritual one, as Christ is called a spiritual vine, source and rock; but what could be conceived more inconsistent? Is there then a spiritual body given for us, and not the bodily? What news do we have to hear? What will finally become of Christ's body? Furthermore, since one

1) Instead of 8unt, read 6st.

2) Instead of WQotiüeatloük, read kiMiüeatioQk.

that which is heavenly (supsrna), not earthly things, moreover, in the holy action we are called: "Lift up your hearts", not: "Set your hearts on the bread", should not the bread be the body of Christ? A strange art of conclusion! For in this way one would never have to hear the gospel, nor even seek that which is the brother's, since we are to seek that which is above. Or do we not seek in the Lord's Supper that which is above? We seek the body that was given for our sins, we seek the blood that was shed for our cleansing. Are not then the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing and our sanctification heavenly things? Here we hear with our ears the Gospel, in which is life, blessedness and the power of God, but because we pay attention to what is said, what gifts are brought to us through the Word, do we seek earthly things? So we seek in the bread of the Lord's Supper, for the sake of the Word, don't you hear? for the sake of the Word, peace, joy, life, forgiveness of sins. Who will slander us now that we seek carnal things and not spiritual things?

Therefore, human reason, away with the carnal quibbles, away with the spiritual forces (al øõ÷é÷áÀ virss), yes, with the evasions, which are even more dishonest! Having carefully contrasted the reasons, we are forced by the spirit of the Word to confess that the bread of the Lord's Supper is the true body of Christ, neither a tropical nor a hydropic one, 1) but the very one given for us, in the meantime not tearing Christ from the right hand of the Father, but receiving with the greatest gratitude of mind the gift of the body and blood, which is entrusted to and preserved by the Word, and is added to the bread through the Word.

66 For not to pass over this either, although it is a small thing that in Marcus, Cap. 14, v. 24, these words: "This is my blood of the new testament" are read as if (were)

1) hydropicum, i.e. a water addict. The out

print is chosen because of the pun with tropioum.

they] spoke after they had drunk from the cup: of this the other evangelists testify that it is the figure of speech of protk^stsron 2 ); this is quite frequent in Scripture (non infrequens). So also Joh. 18, 24: "Annas sent him bound to Caiphas", what is said later should have followed immediately after these words [v. 13]: "They led him first to Annas? It follows: "Annas sent him bound to Caiphas", because the denials of Peter, which are inserted between these two sentences (clausulas), happened according to the testimony of the other evangelists in the house of Caiphas, so that the interpreter should have said here [Joh. 18, 24.] in a clearer way: he had sent [him]. So also in the other place in Marcus [14, 24.] it would have been clearer: he had spoken [to them], than: "he spoke," for and ÜçÝóôåéëåí are aorists, to which the meaning of the plusquamperfectum 3) is not remote.

Now, beloved brother in Christ, Oecolampadius, what we have gathered about this matter of the Lord's Supper has been moved by the booklet you have published; it is not eloquent, but strong, not learned, but godly; if you receive it according to love, we will give thanks to God. But if thou shouldest reject it, or despise us, far be it from us that we should make provision for it to thee, we will nevertheless beseech the Lord to make his grace shine, and to bestow that which is for peace. For what conflagration will the devil cause in the church, if in this different view 4) we should lack the [helping] hand of the Lord? Therefore, by the consolation that is in Christ, by the leniency (solatium) of love, by the fellowship of the Spirit, we beseech thee, on this occasion, to give no offence to the gospel that is just arising. Let the truth be too holy, let the word of the Lord be too sacred, to be stained by fleshly adinvention. The Lord be with you; pray for us. Farewell. From our assembly, Schwäbisch-Hall, October 21, in the year of the Lord 1525.

2) xxxxxxxx a figure in grammar, according to

which the last is said first.

be

4) oollattons 86" rationum.