sammt einer kurzen Antwort auf das Syngramma der Prediger in Schwaben. *)
About August 1526.
Johannes Oecolampadius to the famous Doctor Martin Luther. Grace and peace from Christ, our one and only Lord and Master.
Dear Martine! If you praise and command some Swabian preachers' books, written by the words of the Lord's Supper, with serious judgment in a preceding epistle, but unbrotherly attack, slander and condemn me and others besides; that you have also cursed yourself in several other of your epistles, namely, to those at Reutlingen 1) and others; however, praise be to God, without all my fault; and God would that such had happened without your and many others' injury: I do not want to keep quiet about it and leave the matter completely, because it is not mine, but the Lord's, affecting the truth and purity of our faith. I would also not like to be considered such a one, and even less to be the one for whom you are blowing me out, 3) God forgive you.
2) How I would like to be relieved of your unpleasant letter! For I do not like to lie against you, whom I recognize as a well-deserved and dear servant of the Gospel, through whom God has opened the eyes of many to discern the true way of truth, and yet now makes it known to us that you too, like a man, may fail and fall. I did not like to turn it around. You were kindly asked and welcomed. But you threw all admonitions to the wind, despising them not only as foolish but also as blasphemous.
1) This letter to the Christians of Reutlingen from
4 January 1526 is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1913.
2) In the original: but.
3) In the original: "ausspläsenierest."
(3) It is the same with thee as with many others, that I would gladly say with Jeremiah, Alas, my mother, why hast thou born me a man of strife and discord in all the earth? I have neither given nor taken usury, and they all speak evil of me. I would gladly bring forth the complaint of David and of our Lord Jesus Christ: With them I walk in the house of the Lord with one accord, and they lift up their feet to overthrow me.
4 This is commanded by God, who tries and proves us in many ways, and perhaps you yourself, with such an occasion, seek a favor and a trial, whether Christ will speak through me or not. And perhaps you are waiting to see if this truth will also suffer a puff (as you speak). That is why I say this, because I would like to interpret your matter in the best way,
5) Now, my Martine, in my opinion, such unequal understanding is a kind sending and warning from God, to me and to everyone, that we should open our eyes and learn, each one of us, to be of small and insignificant fortune, how it will soon be over with man, when the Lord removes his hand. Let no man become infatuated with men, 4) who all lie with one another. Look to the one Master in heaven and to the truth itself, with a gentle and teachable heart, there will be the way to peace and unity.
6 For your sake, I am still confident that you will be kinder and more cautious in this matter than before, remembering that others are also allowed to speak in the church of Christ; and if you are a co-worker, you will be ashamed to tyrannize among us. The Lord
4) "Larre" will probably be "teaching"; this form is chosen because of the rhyme.
*This writing appeared in German in 1526 at Basel under the title: Billige Antwort Joh. Martin Luther's report of the Sacrament, together with a short concept of several preachers in Swabia writing about the words of the Lord's Supper. I ask for interrogation." We reproduce the same according to Walch's old edition. The approximate time determination results from the following: In § 1 of the second section of this writing, Oecolampad says: "Therefore, at the end of the year [i.e., about a year ago], I have presented my mind to the Sacrament of the Altar" etc. This was said with reference to his book: De genuina vordorum Domini ote. expositione, which gave rise to the Syngramma Suevicum. Luther, however, mentions this writing of ours already on September 13, 1526, in a letter to Nicolaus Hausmann, Walch, old edition, Vol. XVII, 1919.
The Lord's authority is ever. On the other hand, I request that you kindly put an end to this displeasure that has fallen upon me 1) (which I cannot avoid), and in doing so, do not forget Christ's command to give disgrace word after disgrace word. It is enough for me, if I reject your incompetent judgment and admit that in the discernment of spirits you are at this time shooting far beyond the mark.
(7) What the speech is about, you yourself may well accept. It looks to me as if you wanted to make me and others false prophets in the matter of the sacrament, and call us seductive and rebellious enthusiasts and devilish, and with other dubious names, that you prepare a pit for yourself and your followers. And in 'the points touching the sacraments (for I will not speak of others), I do not know how you may escape being considered [as] an unhappy dreamer yourself, who complies with the instructions of the flesh and the counsel of the erroneous spirit, and who subsequently, among the understanding, does not burn a small measure 2) to your wholesome previous teachings, that you almost pity me. Nevertheless, I must reply to your writing, which I will do in the shortest and truest way.
1. 1) Initially, you call me and others with me, who do not follow your opinion, new hordes, raising new dreams and confusing the world.
2) This is your friendly greeting, which we should not thank you for, we are not known for such things, either, 3) Here is neither innovation, nor redirection, nor dreaming, nor confusion of the world. All our things are based on the fact that one remains with the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and as they were initially believed and accepted by the church. Now the apostles' teachings are not dreams; they do not bring redirection, but love and peace and agreement in Christ; they do not confuse conscience, but resolve what was confused by the teachings of men. That [it] is so, 4) shall be found in the scriptures hereafter, whether you or we introduce more of our own jealousy into the scriptures here.
3. 2) You say further that you like the syngram so much that you yourself were willing to translate it, although this is superior to you because of business.
1) rayed - carried, brought, weighed down.
2) "Measure" here is probably - blemish, spot. The word "unbemaßget" occurs in Zwingli in the meaning: unblemished.
3) Perhaps confessed.
4) In the old edition: "That therefore be."
4) It might have been good, because you might have been warned not to touch me so unkindly; but few would have thought that you would praise it so, much less that you would interpret it yourself; although it is easy to think that their kind will might not have displeased you. 5) I suppose that you still consider this booklet to be a man's writing, and will not count it among the rules or books of holy scripture, to which alone you have so far earnestly directed us.
5. 3) You also say, "At the time when you wrote Against the Heavenly Prophets, you foresaw that there would come some who would excel in this, especially such learned men, because it is such a childish, inept reason that has no example in Scripture.
(6) It is no wonder that this has been before you, for it is the truth, and has not remained behind; indeed, this interpretation has not been behind, but has always been seen by those of understanding on the way, even though the devil and Antichrist have fought hard against it and still will. Hasn't it also been discussed in school for a long time? And does not the interpretation also stand with the master of high senses? and he meets it quite badly, yes, rather confirms it, because he overturns it. Does one not read [in the] 1st book of Moses at the 40th chapter: Three baskets are three days? of which St. Augustine says in the first book of the discourses: "This way of speaking is to be noted, that some important things are called by the name of the things they signify, and therefore the apostle says: But the rock was Christ. He does not say: the rock signifies Christ." Up to this point Augustine speaks. And he also introduces the reason to Bonifacio, so it should not be made herbaceous. Is it not also the custom of the church to call the bread of the Lord the sacrament, the body of Christ, because it is a sign of the body of Christ and signifies the body of Christ, or else there would be no sacrament?
(7) Not much speech is needed. In these words of the Lord: This is my body, there is an interpretation of the ceremonies, then especially used, from which the matter requires that one should interpret such speech after the manner of the interpretations of the parables, parables and other hidden speeches. But if it is against thee, it must be a childish, unprofitable, and unfounded thing; but if it were with thee in it, perhaps it would be glorious.
5) In the old edition: their friendly will you not have etc.
and delicious; which I do not dislike where it wants to be with God.
8. 4) To this you say: Let it never be taught that one may accept such an interpretation here, and that one should call it so. I would have to agree with you, if it were true to be haderic and quarrelsome and not to judge the Scriptures according to the instruction of faith and comparison of other Scriptures. For even so would a man fight, that it should never be brought to pass, that it should be a figurative saying, when the Lord saith, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. Now the scripture shall not suffer it to be thus compelled upon the dry letter, as thou knowest in the place.
9. 5) You also write: Although examples may be presented, it still does not want to be proven that also in the words: this is my body, the little word "is" should or must be taken thus, we will never prove that. It might be, Martine, if one did not want to hear the counter-answer, that one did not create, 1) and before that, because you state our case thus. What do you say? We do not speak of it in this way, as you say: The speech may be used in one place or two, therefore, it must be accepted in this way in all places. But we say, "Speech may be interpreted figuratively, and may not be interpreted figuratively, and speech that is not figurative may not suffer the words, therefore it must and should be interpreted figuratively.
(10) Therefore it will not follow that on this understanding of ours conscience will remain without consolation, and in your understanding it will find consolation. But the contradiction will be there. Even though, if it were to be understood in principle, the consolation of the soul does not lie in how the word "is" is interpreted in that place, it is very important that the promise in the words that the body is offered for us be obtained. The art of interpretation in the Scriptures commonly inflates rather than comforts; but in the promises there is comfort; indeed, if the promise is obtained by faith, the soul is comforted, although the ceremonial custom of the supper would be set entirely in one place. Such a custom is also instituted beforehand for the sake of the neighbor-man, that he may be united with others in love in proclaiming the good deed of Christ.
11. 6) You continue in your writing and think that your book against Carlstadt stands firm.
1) "nicht schüf" - did not accomplish anything.
2) "conscience" - the conscience.
12 But it is not surprising that your opinion is lacking, because in your writings Against Carlstadt, your old Adam is too prominent, and the evil words beat the wholesome doctrine back and forth, understood therein. At that time, when I read it, I might well have suffered that it had been better kept, so that [it], if I or another had wanted to receive your opinion from the common man, might have stood. I still say it, if you like the same writing, if you would not write differently, you would not create anything. For the sake of the word tuto (ôïàôï), you have argued something against Carlstadt in the matter. Otherwise, in the resolution of some arguments, you are not equal to yourself, because they are not sufficiently resolved.
13. 7) Item the four reasons from Scripture do not help you to maintain your opinion, because you apply them in a misunderstanding, as Zwinglius and partly also I have indicated, and with short; afterwards I will give it further to understand.
14. for these four sayings thou layest to a foundation. First, from the three evangelists and Paul: "This is my body" etc. Secondly: Is not the bread which we break communion of the body of Christ?" Thirdly, "He that eateth of the bread, and drinketh of the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Fourth: "But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, if he distinguish not the body of the Lord." But the sayings are about, and soon will be even more, answered to all.
(15) But here, that you reproach us with words, that we think, if we only wave, it is completely done, you do that here yourself, and it is not well believable to me that you have read our scripture with half diligence, because you thus scornfully make us hateful with scornful words in this and other epistles. But the scolding and contempt and other pompous words shall not frighten us for a long time, if God wills it. If it seems to you to be a beckoning, if your argument is dissolved and overturned, you do not accept it, and thus you want to silence us with words. It would have been cheaper and less suspicious if you had attacked us with writings earlier, after they had answered your letter in your honor by concealing your name.
16. 8) But what is this, if we are waiting for scripture and doctrine from you, so you testify to the matter?
With your faith, as it were, to build on your faith or another man's faith, which we do not know whether it is a righteous faith. Now I consider your opinion to be a delusion, not a faith, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the word of God. Yes, truly it is a conceit and a dream, yes, a seduction it is considered more reasonable, in which we know well that you have spent a long time, whether you would not have let such and such a protestation and judgment go out. If this were true, the papists would also cry out: they believe in transubstantiation. And if you were to go for the faith of man, the large number of bishops, universities and monasteries would also do something about it. But here they do not respect your faith, because we would be building on a rotten foundation. Nor do I think that you can expect us to do so, for you also bring the reason for your faith.
17. 9) We must be false prophets and blasphemers to you, and bring some causes. Namely, that we call your God the baked and fried God, and you: God-flesh-eaters and God-blood-drinkers. My Martine, how I would like the matter to be presented as it is in itself. It says: Outside the matter of the Sacrament, we praise you as faithful co-workers and preachers of the ineffable majesty and praise of God. But here in this matter you are going out of the way. Therefore, if we denounce your misunderstanding, even such unseemly clumsiness follows, 1) who then bring such words with them; otherwise we are not comfortable with mockery. Therefore, the disgrace does not fall on the high and true God, whom we usually confess with one another, but on those who turn divine honor into lies through their carnal mind.
(18) Well, my dear Martine, if it is the truth as you speak of it, you should not let the words err, but take them for your great honor. But if thou wilt be ashamed of the names, thou shalt make thy doctrine suspicious; for if thy doctrine be suspicious, how shalt thou escape the names?
19 Christ's body, to which the Godhead is agreed, was crucified. Now no Christian is ashamed to confess this; indeed, he considers it his honor to preach Christ crucified, even though the Jew resents it and the pagan mocks him for it. Now if the body of Christ is essentially bread, and the Godhead is not separate from the body, let us be honest in confessing a crucified God as well as a crucified God.
1) Clumsy - inconsistencies.
God, although the Godhead is neither crucified nor blasphemed. But if it is not so, the blasphemy does not come from our mouth, but from yours. We have to complain, and not you. For your opinion puts the body of Christ, which after the ascension is to be found in glory and in the most honest place, also in such a small breadbasket, and in the hands and power of sinful priests. We are to say yes big Gramersi 2) to it! or against it may not turn up our noses. 3)
20. 10) Here you sneer further and say: "And yet these are patient, gentle people who suffer great persecution and know Christ rightly. But beware of the patience and gentleness that overthrows our faith. But I hope that such abominable blasphemy will soon put an end to them, although we have well deserved such miserable creatures and sects by our ingratitude and persecution of the gospel, and deserve even more trouble." These are your words, in which little spirit of Paul or meekness of Christ is felt. In my opinion, you answer with these words some brothers who have approached you in a friendly manner, and have desired to act in matters so that one might report to another in peace, and that much trouble among the people might be stopped; perhaps you have also been told that we are not so bad people as they make us out to be, that we do not write so harshly, that we would allow ourselves to be reported. You might have thought that we would also be proven by the cross, that we would know Christ.
(21) This has so spurred your arrogant spirit, (4) that it gumbles and beats, and may praise neither the rough nor the litter in us, and when one discovers his insanity, he speaks with piteous words: one overthrows the faith, and it is atrociously blasphemed, that God may not tolerate it, and speaks that it is a miserable being and punishment of the persecution of the Gospel. But the Christian reader may well assume that these are the words of an enraged man who cannot help himself; if he has escaped from him, he thinks that there is no greater sin and evil on earth than that he has been touched. There then is a wretched being, and heaven and earth fall down, that it is said to him that he also may err as a man, and that those who rely on him may also fall short. Thus the whole faith is overthrown. Oh not so, my brethren, let us not think that the Holy Spirit is bound.
2) Gramersi - grand msroi, beautiful thanks.
3) to ruffle - to balk.
4) "gesport" --- spurred. - gumpet" -- jumps.
To Jerusalem, Rome, Wittenberg or Basel, to your person or to another. In Christ alone is the fullness of grace and truth, of which now to one, now to another is imparted; as you yourself bear all this well knowing.
22 It is no less, spurning the truth awakens the wrath of God. But do not follow, who does not follow Luther, that he hates the truth. If God wills it, it shall not happen that I set myself against the truth; I may never be served more than with teaching and spiritual food, which is why you have been so dear to me until now. But the fact that I do not follow everyone now makes it clear that they do not want to pay me. I and Zwinglin have not yet acted unkindly toward you, but we have taught and written against insanity; perhaps you will shake your coat. If some of your followers, who cried out so horribly, had given and received a friendly report, things might be better. But what is to become of them, if they continue with us, as the papists did with them, in banning of books, in expulsion, in raging vituperations? just as if greater heresy had never arisen in Christendom. God grant that they may yet remember; it is not yet proven that we are false prophets or seditious, as they may cry out and write.
23. 11) After that, you introduce three tests by which you certainly judge our spirit as seductive and command others to judge, which we will see with what reason they are brought forth.
(24) First, since those who are not subject to your error do not compare themselves in the interpretation of the words, "This is my body," and one interprets it thus, another takes it for "means," and another seeks another way, you compare them to the seven-headed and one-bodied beast in Apocalypsi, which sets up seven heads of interpretation against solitary Christian truth, and consider this probation a great warning of the Holy Spirit.
(25) Well, you should come with such strikes, that you yourself may be struck; for then you will not strike me, nor others, as I hope, not depending on your madness.
Twenty-six: You would like to turn us into robbers, and we know nothing about it. You are struggling to fulfill the number of seven, and yet you do not exist, and you know that the number of seven is a number of perfection and of the whole multitude. We are, if God wills, not in the dragon's body, but in the body of the sorrowful woman.
How can you ascribe many heads to us for the sake of such an interpretation? As far as I know, the reason for all of us is one, that Christ has gone to heaven with a true body, from which he will judge in the future. This reason and the head of our cause is an article of faith, taught by apostles and founded in the Scriptures.
28 But you and yours, and with you the popes, want to keep such articles besides the article of faith; and if one were to look at your division, one would find almost seven and seventy changes, not only in the interpretation of Scripture, but also in some fantasies. The popes have their transubstantiation, but you have the supposition; for both places you need the Scriptures, as is fitting for everyone.
(29) To him Christ is glorified; to him he serves; to him he is given; to him bread is a sign; to him it is not. The one should not remember Christ's presence; the other also wants him to be worshipped. The other wants badly, one should say it is the body, and not decide whether it is essentially there or not; and there are almost as many senses as many heads, and one puts this now to us.
(30) But our case is this: Our foundation of faith is one with Christian truth. But the weapons to fight against the sentence that is contrary to this foundation are not equal, and one hits better, the other worse. But how is one to do it? We are not all equally trained and equipped to resist the enemy. It is, I think, the same among you; your disciples do not all find themselves so skilled in writing as you.
31 Therefore, one has not yet completely missed the faith, if one does not even meet the est, or hoc, or corpus, in the interpretation; if he alone truly recognizes the promise of the merit of the suffering of Jesus, and does not deny the use of the sacraments besides.
32) Dear, if I Christianly confess with other Christians that we are not able to do anything by our works 1) and I have for myself the saying of the Lord: "Without me you are not able to do anything", and by this saying I contradict the Pelagians who claim the power of free will. I suppose that my reason is firm with all Christians, but a Palagian, who admits to his powers the effect of good, leads the saying from the 5th book of Moses at the 30th chapter: The word is almost near you in your mouth, and in your heart that you do it; there the Pelagian rejoices.
1) "nothing" set by us instead of not.
The heretics of the world look at these words as if he were able to penetrate heaven with his own strength, and say that they are clear words. Then he is contradicted by the faithful, that this and other sayings should not be understood in this way; and one Christian interprets the saying of Moses to mean the incarnation of Christ. Another says: Moses did not say that the power is in us, although the knowledge is given to us by God. The third comes, and also brings an interpretation, and yet all three do not meet in the same way. Would the Pelagian do well, therefore, to accuse the Christians and call them degenerates and seducers and false prophets, since every Christian has the next ground of Scripture on which he builds? So it is here also. Our reason is that the body of Christ is in heaven, which is now certain and not lacking. But that the saying, "This is my body," is brought forth contrary to it, it is to be rightly understood; and if not every one obtains it, yet love requires that it be instructed brotherly. For although it is said, "This is my body," it is not therefore said, "This is essentially my body," and every anointed priest, by preaching the word, serves that the body may come into the bread.
(33) Oh, it would be mighty evil in the Christian faith that no one would believe rightly except those who might interpret all the Scriptures in the most artificial way. If one did not keep a side ceremony in the church like the other, there would have to be divisions, and God would have nothing to do with it.
34 Therefore I like the saying of Saint Augustine: "Have faith and love, and walk fearlessly in the Scriptures, for all the law is satisfied in love, and faith in Christ is the fulfillment of the law. And further Augustine says in the book of Christian doctrine: "Whoever takes such a meaning from the Scriptures, which is useful for the edification of love, and yet does not say evenly as he of whom it is written supposed, does not therefore lie altogether, and is not great harm in it, though he already misses." Here it is to be checked that one can bring up about many interpretations at once from one place without any harm. Therefore, the seventy interpreters are not always the same as Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Jerome and others. And yet they are not seditious, or masters of the mob.
35 Therefore, Doctor Martin, you forget about us, brotherly love, that you may compare us to the evil animal for such a reason.
The head, the tail from the sky, also throws the stars from the sky and the apparent saints, and the sorrowful woman 1) is smothered. As if we were outlawing the Christian truth. Now the simple faith and truth of Christian unity does not stand in that the body of Christ is essential in bread. But Christian truth is that the body of Christ is in heaven with honor and glory; but here on earth he rules his church with his spirit and with his grace, to whom he bequeathed the memorial and sacrament of his body, that it may remain united in love.
My Luther, you do not want to speak to us more harshly. Well, do you ever want nothing else, but that your careless zeal becomes a poisonous, envious anger, and you become a carnal from a clergyman, if we are already patiently silent, then the spiritually intelligent will well see who throws down the stars from heaven. They will see who the red and blood-colored beast is, and which heads have two little horns.
37. 12) I would have let the speech fall, if you had not brought it on the way. And you present them with such splendid words that whoever does not believe them is worthy that in the sacrament there is not only bread and wine, but that there are chanterelles and morels.
(38) What do you mean by these words? You leave the common man in the opinion, as if I taught no difference between common bread and the Lord's bread, which I never taught. I have often excused myself of this, and here without need to deny it; 2) but now I say: Because and as long as bread is a sacrament, that is, as long as it is used in the act, it is in substance only bread; but because of thanksgiving, and because of the institution of Christ, which is a sanctification, for the contemplation of the passion of Christ and of our holy covenant of love, it is much more than bad bread, has its worthiness, and should not be called morchen or Rübschnitz. Therefore your test is useless. But where it makes me guilty, I would gladly let myself be instructed and myself warn everyone of the doctrine; besides, I am of good hope that where Christian love counts for something, people will not be embittered by your words and let themselves be prevented from knowing the truth.
1) "Durchächtet" put by us instead of: "durchächet". "Durchächten" as much as pursue. Cf. Revelation 12, 13. In Scripture No. 23 of this volume, § 9, the form "durächten" is found.
2) d. i. repeat.
39. 13) Likewise, the other test is also incompetent; not in itself, but against us, if you say: the Holy Spirit lays down constant reasons, so that the longer one fights against them, the firmer they become and increase, especially if they are to go up anew, he has never left them. It is all true; but that you say in addition that it happens differently in the animal, and understand us thereby, therefore, that Carlstadts could not keep a whorehouse, which we ourselves confess; and according to your legend, Zwinglin's, or also my Significat hang the head and die freely there:
(40) If thou wert true to our one reason here, thou wouldst not speak thus. The fact that Christ is in heaven is an enduring reason, and may suffer all blows. But if we had based our reason on the words, "This is my body," then your test would be in part, and you and yours would not yet have become beautiful. For a long time, your opinion has also had its head hung by papal authority, and is the process of transubstantiation.
Item, what we teach is not a new original, 1) but was taught and kept by the apostles; therefore, it does not arise first of all. But whether the Significat dies from the power of Lutheran challenge, I cannot yet feel. But if everyone were free to say what he believed, and had heard both reasons, things would soon be different than they are now.
Some of your people may suffer the popes to be sold in public, but forbid us to answer your reproaches in the matter of the sacraments, in which there is not so much invective as in their booklets. It would not depend on whether my booklets are also put up; but I do not see how it is right to condemn and not to interrogate, to hear complaint and not to hear answer, as the popes have also long dealt with you and yours. But it is not a wonder if it is dark where they shut the stores. Therefore it does not seem what the test creates; and yet you make a great warning of God from it to all who fear him and want to believe rightly. As if you said: He who does not believe, does not fear God, has no right faith.
(43) Then every ignorant man will say that he believes before he wants to be in the suspicion that he does not fear God, and does not believe rightly. And he would do just as the king who had given money to an ignorant painter, to
1) Urhab" - to begin. Cf. Col. 492, where the word is used in different meanings.
When he had spent the money and painted nothing, he said to the king: He who could not see the painting was not born in wedlock; then the king said he saw such a painting as the painter stated. Not everyone will allow himself to be overawed by the words 2).
44. teach beforehand that we have brought a new doctrine, and prove that it must be taken substantially; and if thou mayest make it an article of faith, say then, he that believeth it not, is not godly.
45.14) It is also true that you write afterwards that the devil cannot be known better anywhere than by the truth; and that the world wants to be deceived and must be deceived, just as in Arius' time.
My dear Martine, where did you find me, still in a lie concerning faith, or elsewhere, that you write thus? Now I desire no less that the truth should come to light than you do. Is this not rashness on your part, that you speak such shameful words to me 3)? I mean, if you wanted to say it even more roughly, it would have to come out. The truth shall testify that I do not speak from the devil, and Arii Rumor is not raised by me. Arius took the honor of Christ; that I desire to admit; Arium punishes the Scripture of his insanity; that will not be thrown at me. Punish me of the lie and destruction of the peace in my doctrine, and then need your angry words, as long as you want, you may answer it differently with God.
47. 15) The third sample you give thus: "This spirit is especially a fleeting or floating spirit, which does not remain on any piece, as I have tried them both in writings and words. If one demands of them that [they say this: This is my body', or the like, to prove that it is to be understood in their opinion, and differently from natural words, 4) they looked at another little song, according to which they are full of words and thoughts. Therefore they say from the 6th chapter of John, how there are two kinds of food, spiritual and bodily, as if no one knew it before; or they praise themselves once, how they are pious and suffer much; or they deny what it is good for, that Christ's body and blood must be there; or they tear into something else, so that they do not have to stay on the words, otherwise they will be caught; so they fill their ears and leaves with vain words, so that one must grasp, as Satan is afraid, and in all the flesh they will be caught.
2) "overthädigen" well - to dupe.
3) "wichest" - bürdest. Cf. Col. 584, § 6.
4) So put by us instead of: "shall" according to ? 9 of the previous scripture, which is repeated here completely.
He is not to be caught in his lies. I say then: such circumlocutions and evasions do nothing 1) to the matter, they should only stay on the words, and there, in the place, prove their opinion from the text. Yes, then I have the eel by the tail. There they lead me again to the 6th chapter of John, or else to a monkey's tail, that one only gets away from the matter by a lot of chatter, and yet accomplishes nothing. That is a right Satanic art to hover, as the night fires drive in the evening on the field." These are your kind words.
Here, first of all, I do not know who the two are of whom you say; whether you mean Zwingli and Carlstadt, or Zwingli and me. Well, as you have recognized others, I leave it, I answer for myself. I first kindly requested you and other Wittenbergers with writings, but invented bad report. Accordingly, I have publicly said in a congregation how the words according to your interpretation are not founded, but your spared; and do not yet know any fleeing, your sword in this not so sharp. But to set one place of Scripture against another is unreasonably called a flight, or a going round like the night fires. The Scriptures must not be set against one another, but compared with one another, according to the manner and instruction of faith. But where this is not permitted in the Scriptures, no insanity would be so great, it would find its handholds, and would want to be shielded with tenacity. It is well known that where the spirit is fleeting, where we desire to compare Scripture with Scripture, and say how the body of Christ is in heaven, we are answered that it may be in many places, and that in the bread it is an insensible body, and that God has recommended this to the priests in words. And if we ask for the Scriptures, we will see where we are told and how we are told.
48 To ask: what is the use of bodily presence in bread? is not out of the way, the teaching should be different. Our God teaches us useful things, as Isaiah says. Now, if there is to be great benefit here, we should reasonably know it too. But I am sure that neither you nor yours can teach such things on the basis of divine Scripture. For by faith we already have what we need, and it is not in the rote custom. But this benefits 2) the
1) "nothing" put by us instead of: "not"; according to the preceding Scripture, 10.
2) So put by us instead of: to good.
Next [turned], will have to be memorized and comprehensible; but the body is not there like that.
49) For the last, that they may exalt their own holiness and persecution to thee, 3) I hold to have been done, as reported above, by some for the sake of peace. And would it be so wrong for us to be called devilish and rebellious, and to confess, as Christ also says, that we have no devil, and are peaceable, or the like? For my own part, I know well that I am a sinner, but I would like to help proclaim the praises of the Lord, who forgives my sin, without offending all men. That I must say, because you attack me so harshly, and desire to make me hateful to all men; and not only a sinner, yes, also a devil, or in the least, that our doctrine is devilish; and thus we are considered the devil's instrument. Knowest thou the devils as well as thou wilt, thou knowest none in me for the matter of things, and in the trial thou hast failed one thing.
50. 16) According to your judgment, you bring two reasons for our error, as you say. One, that it is almost clumsy in reason; the other, that it is not necessary to be Christ in bread and wine. And you say that the two pieces have seized us, and have thus passed through Satan's temptation, as oil passes through the bones, so that we cannot get rid of them. After that, when we have such painted spectacles before our eyes, we come rolling to the Scriptures, and draw in our mind, and draw them to our opinion.
(51) Here it must be assumed where you are going, and that you do not want to be told our reason; for we do not put here the reasons that you present, but the articles of faith according to the content of Scripture, and the glory of God, whose goodness is not felt where no benefit follows; and if no benefit follows, and Scripture does not urge us to it, we should not put wonderful things that are contrary to reason, nor should we make them base. And so unruly things are set forth against reason, that in the Trinity itself such incomprehensible things are not used. Well then, if one is diligent about these things, and takes note of the glory of God, and does not allow himself to be persuaded by inadequate 5) Scripture, it is called giving the devil his due. Yes, if I were to think otherwise, you would have reason to think that
3) to lift up - to reproach. This refers to § 4 of the previous scripture: "and yet are patient, gentle people who suffer great persecution" etc.
4) but one - again.
5) "undemanding" put by us instead of "undemanding".
to complain to me. Other writings of mine will show whether I have put my mind into writing or not.
52.17) In conclusion, you tell us about sects. Now we are not satisfied with the dispute over words. Where we signed (your doctrines) to you, it would be pardonable to us if something inconsistent were already going on in writings. But must we therefore be robbers, so that we do not give our minds captive to you? Yes, it is captive to Christ and his words. In that way, you and those who follow you would also be sectarians to the pope. We are no more fond of sects than you are, and also desire to remain in the faith preached by the apostles in all the world, and what is imposed on us against the article of faith we do not like and do not want to bear.
53. 18) And that you exhort that one remain with the pure words of Christ is thus exalted by you, 1) as if we would like against the word of God, and we contaminate it or bend it, and also do not have clear words of God for us.
Dear D. Martine, it would have been unkind, it is more said to you earlier that you do not only wield the sword of the word of God, we have such clear and serene 2) sayings of our reason that you cannot deny them. But that your saying is dark is evident; and no darker incomprehensible one would be accepted than the understanding you bring, which 3) never compares with preceding and following, yes, even contrary Scripture and articles of faith. You put forward the pure word, and thus lead to unlearning 4) and word controversy. If it is to be so, then each one will receive his own error. Oh how there will then be sects with heaps!
55. 19) My answer to (the) syngramma does not apply to you. Now it wants to be too long in German, therefore I will draw it into a Summarien to the shortest; perhaps others will also see in it whether I have written in vain, and whether it is enough with your book against Carlstadt, and the Syngramma.
56. 20) But if you were willing to write, I would suffer that you had already written; indeed, you would have done it long ago, since we are harmful people to the Christian community. Why did you let the fire get out of hand? Why hast thou alone with reproaches, words of reproach, and words of oppression brought many to unhappiness?
1) d. i. held.
2) serene - bright.
3) Set by us instead of: them.
4) d. i. what cannot be assumed.
and you watch with a laugh. So that a legend goes out from you: you want to let us run riot, and afterwards you will make it up to us in one fell swoop. Ah! you see us going astray, why don't you lead us home again? you would owe it to your enemy's donkey according to the law of God. If the right true spirit of God had not left you at this time, and if you knew something that would benefit us, you would not do it. Well then, I still wish you from the bottom of my heart that the princely, slain and joyful spirit of Christ may return to you. And if thou hast any good thing to do for the glory of God and the benefit of thy neighbor, teach with all meekness, according to the commandment of the apostle. That I do not speak, that I doubt in the main matter of our doctrine, as you probably blaspheme about the ears, as if they were devil's lies. God forgive you.
Dear one, if you want to teach, then leave your scandalous words at Wittenberg. They do not improve your cause, nor do we need them; nor do I know how you will answer for them to God. May He grant you and me to continue in the knowledge of His Son. Amen. To Basel.
Answer of Johannis Oecolampadii to the Syngramma of the 14 Predicants in Swabia, about the Lord's Supper.
To Christian readers.
Grace and peace from God the Father through Christ. Beloved in Christ! If it were possible to joke with divine truth, as with temporal possessions, I would have kept my writing with good Christian conscience last year and also now. But you know that the truth is the greatest treasure of Christians, for which they should leave all their possessions in order to possess it; and it must be known by us, if we want to know anything else about Christ. Christ, who is the truth himself, if we are not to be rejected as unknowns at the last day. Therefore I have presented my understanding of the sacrament of the altar and the words of the Lord's Supper at the end of the year, as it is learned from the oldest teachers; in good hope that no one will be offended by it, but that many will be improved by it.
Now my writing has been received more unkindly than I had hoped, and some have written against it most bitterly. Among others, a number of preachers in Swabia have
The first booklet of this kind was published in the year 2000.
D. Martin praises it as if it were the thorough truth, but in many places it is erroneous, and scolds me and others who do not agree with him in the matter of the sacrament as seductive. Therefore, the love of truth causes me to continue to give account of given doctrine, and to answer for such counter-accusations. In this, my opinion is no different than that the light of truth should shine forth more brightly; and I would not like to see D. Martin and other preachers reported as being ungrateful to others for their Christian teachings 1) or that they should suffer any harm from it. They think of me what they will; about my request is to them and all readers, want to hear the Scriptures with impartial minds, and be most favorable to the truth itself, it will let itself be seen, I am undoubted. The Lord grant mercy.
But so that my and the opponent's matter is presented in the clearest and shortest way, it is unnecessary to answer the whole syngramma, as I did in Latin. For such a thing is too much for the common reader; but in a short term, and that in four main articles, they shall be answered.
4. first, I will tell reason and cause why the bread is not essentially the body 'of Christ, with rejection of the counter-accusations.
(5) Secondly, I will set against it the adversary's cause, and show that he is unfit.
6) Thirdly, I will answer for other counter-accusations and features, conceived in their book.
7) Fourthly, I want to decide in which way we want to be or become one.
The first part.
Our reason and understanding is based on the fact that the Word of God became flesh, born of the virgin Mary, and wanted to serve us here on earth, in his body, which he also gave in the most shameful death of the cross. To whom the Father also gave the highest honor and clarity when he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. For Christ, according to his soul and body, is entitled to the best and highest goods. Therefore it is said of him that he sits at the right hand of his Father, and let every tongue confess that he is the glory of God the Father, according to Philippians, chapter 2. In heaven he has his throne, from thenceforth to judge the living and the dead.
1) "verschupft" - disregarded. Cf. Col. 489, § 26.
These are articles of the ancient undoubted faith; this is what the apostles preached, this is what the prophets prophesied, this is what the Scriptures record in heaps.
(3) This reason is firm, and may not fail us; and what is contrary to this reason we may not accept in any way. For we have a rule for interpreting the Scriptures, in which we are commanded not to accept anything that is contrary to the articles, or that is not according to them. For these are the secondary doctrines which are forbidden, Rom. 16, Gal. 1, 2 Pet. 2. Let not the articles of our faith be obscured with the superstitious secondary doctrines, as, confessing the articles of faith, yet speaking of those things which break in beside them, let them also be believed; as the Popes do in their doctrines. As when they say: Marriage is not forbidden to anyone by God; but marriage is still forbidden to the priest. Christ is a single mediator, but the saints who have died are also mediators. Christ has suffered and done enough for our sin; but we must also do enough here or in purgatory. These are secondary and superstitions. Therefore, in the main matters of faith, one must be firm, constant, and not let oneself be rejected anywhere. We have an article that Christ was born of the virgin Mary. Although it does not speak of the eternal virgin, 2) the believer may not hear that Mary had other children than Christ. And if anyone, together with the heretic Nestorio or others, should want to make a statement that Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth to her firstborn son, Matt. 1, or that Christ was said to have had brothers, he should be rejected as a heretic, for he takes the Scriptures against the article of faith, and does not help him anywhere by saying that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, and therefore her opinion is not contrary to faith. No, we cannot accept this. Item, we have in the faith an article, resurrection of the flesh. Now if someone wanted to introduce here the saying of Paul: The flesh and the blood will not possess the kingdom of God; or from the first Psalms: The wicked will not rise in judgment; and wanted to introduce a gloss next to it: They rise with the body to the judgment, as the article of faith holds, and the same body remains invisible in other places than in the grave and in the same way.
2) "of the everlasting virginity" = of the everlasting virginity.
he does not possess the kingdom of God. Such glosses may not be suffered in any way. For all other sayings must give way, and their interpretation must be such that they are not contrary to the articles in any way. For that thus creeps beside it, all is suspicious. Therefore, that we certainly believed, the summa of our faith is in little, and if we did not let ourselves penetrate further, one would remain satisfied. What are all heretical doctrines [other] than secondary doctrines in the Articles? So here, too, we have three main articles, in which we are told about the honesty and glory of Christ, and also about his body. Therefore, if one wants to introduce something next to it, and make an aberration, 1) we cannot hear it; but if one says: Christ with his body is in heaven, this is our faith, because by this our hope is strengthened that we may also go to heaven through him. Therefore, the gloss may not be accepted: His body is essentially in the bread, or is therein insensible; or any other gloss.
4. it is also a mighty thing that God has taken only mankind out of all creatures to His divine nature, yes, He has not even dignified the angels in this way, as it is written in Hebrews, chapter 2: "He does not accept angels, but the seed of Abraha". Now, if the bread is essentially the body of Christ, as the opponents say: then the bread is also accepted by God, and will be more worthy than the body of the Virgin Mary, or the body of a man, yes, more holy, than the hands, which present the bread to us.
5 It should have such holiness. For though bread has no understanding by its nature, yet it has such honor, according to the co-existent soul of Christ, which is to be highly praised above all that is. Therefore, whoever wants to be sure, let him keep the old undoubted faith, which we began to confess at baptism.
Now let us see whether the strongholds 2) may also stand against the adversaries.
The preachers, almost at the end of their book, introduce such an answer to this: "Dear one, what do we hear now, if Christ has thus departed from us, that He has left nothing of His own behind, then the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sin, and all righteousness and the word of God are accepted.
1) Aberle - an objection.
2) Forts - fortresses.
Response.
(7) This is an inadequate, even pitiful, comparison. Are spiritual things to be likened to bodily things? It is not said that Christ left nothing behind him. That which he left behind him he confesses to be his peace. Item, the Holy Spirit he sent. Spiritual things, by their nature, without any harm, may be divided into many parts, and remain unchanged in their essence. The nature of the body is to be in one place. The body does not want to be considered a true body, which may be in many places at once. A body has one place, or let the Scriptures teach it otherwise.
8 And that it is further said that it is not so with the insensible body, which is invisible in many places. Yes, where it is said that the body is so, it is not a natural, essential body, which has this in its nature, to be in one place. Would it also follow that no natural body would have suffered for us, and would be our gift, not a body according to our body, for which sake we may call it our brother, a bone out of our bones; or it would give us the insensible, and as it is sensible and truly a body, and in which it is our brother, it would retain it. Therefore they have not that they say to it. Above that, to receive the spiritual gifts, we may not at all receive the bodily presence of the Lord; indeed, the Lord says the contradiction, and says: "Unless I go away, the Comforter will not come"; that is what he speaks of his body, and not of the Spirit or his divinity. Doctor Martin Wider den Carlstadt shows the next way, and says: "We are not commanded to inquire how it comes about that our bread is or becomes Christ's body. But it does not apply, where something besides faith leads along, that it is not proper to ask. Then they want to pay us with other empty words, and say: God's word is there, and we abide by it and believe it. And on the speech all that they write in many little books, and is their reason the words, "This is my body," they will do it; and is quite another mind: either they must come entirely to our opinion, or it is a trumpery that they speak. Not that the words of God are despised, but that they interpret and expound them unfaithfully.
(9) For this reason I have taught in the booklet which has just gone out, that it is impossible that the sentence should be interpreted according to their mind; therefore our foundation shall remain firm and immovable, but they have nothing on their side.
10. there are three excellent pieces in the way, such as
I have said in my first booklet, so that their interpretation may not stand. First, the articles of faith, and other Scriptures compared against them; as is also now said. For the words must be interpreted according to the instruction of faith, and not again, faith according to the words; as it is written in Romans, Cap. 12: "He that hath prophecy, let him have it according to the instruction of faith"; as Tertullianus de praescriptionibus clearly states.
11) Secondly, the preceding and following words of the evangelists do not allow this to happen, as: if one hears the custom of the paschal lamb, the bodily departure of the Lord, the order of the evangelists does not really insist on the same words; and other pieces more, which I have written at length to the well-learned Billican, prebendary of Nördlingen, that I have not brought my own sense into the Scriptures, but the Scriptures have given it to me, if I consider one and the other.
Thirdly, there are many clumsy ones on the path that cannot be admitted, and therefore their opinion does nothing against us. However, there are a few particular clumsy ones that follow from their opinion.
The clumsy, so follow when the essential body of Christ is in the Sacrament.
(13) First, they give greater and more incomprehensible miracles, such as the creation of heaven and earth, or the incarnation of Christ; yet the Scriptures do not tell us of such miracles. Neither did the apostles follow them when the supper was instituted and the words were spoken. It is not the custom in Scripture to invent miraculous signs. I have referred to Saint Augustine, who clearly indicates that there is no miraculous thing that happens when something changes or a person appears in another creature, as one should say here. And St. Augustine spoke this with seriousness; he did not write it without reason. For in the bread, outside of the meaning and sacrament, he does not want anything essentially new to be invented there. And since this is the case, Luther's excuse, and that of other people, is soon answered, who want to have everything answered. One should not ask, it happens miraculously and unspeakably; and is but that of the first, that one does not pass it. 2) They shall bring it. Item, that the word:
1) Clumsy - unrhymed things.
2) exists - confirms, proves.
"This is my body", is spoken to the bread, therefore will not make the miraculous work, as they have wanted to answer for it.
14 Secondly, it has been said that the bread of the Lord is a sacrament, that is, a holy sign; therefore it signifies something. Now it is abominable in all understanding that the sign should be one thing essential with that which is signified thereby. This they can with no justification contradict; for even in the holy trinity one must not entirely exclude the two ways of speaking, of substance and relation. For it may not be said that the Son, who is the antitype of the Father, is the Father, though he has all the substance of the Father. Item, if the Scripture and the faith say: "The Word became flesh", we may not say that the divine nature is the human nature essentially, although they are agreed in one person. Nevertheless, this way of speaking must not be excluded here. Do we then speak Calecutically, that one may not compare it against the other?
(15) Thirdly, I have brought forth an awkwardness to them from Chrysostom: there would be much Christ; this no Christian can endure. For there is not one loaf on many altars; and if each is said to be essentially the body of Christ, it must have another form than that it is One Christ, and have such an example:
(16) If the divinity and the soul of Christ were also united in another body, not conceived by the Virgin Mary, then it would be said, for the sake of the matter, that there were many Christ's; and if then the body with the soul and divinity were united in many divided loaves, and that essentially, then it will give many persons, for the sake of the multiplicity of the loaves. They never say that the body has the bread on it, like a clinging garment, because they cry out: essential, essential!
17 And if one of their hands is caught in the bosom, they should say, "The Lord's bread is not a sacrament;" as I know preachers in a large city, and they give me nothing in response but, "I give too much to the woman Hulda, human reason, and all things happen miraculously; that is so much, one wants to persuade people by force, that it is not proven.
18) Fourthly, there is another unfortunate thing that would follow: that the sacraments of the old and new law would not be of the same content for every law minister, and we would be more blessed than the sacraments for the sake of the sacraments.
3) "themselves" set by us instead of: "they".
Abraham or Moses, or other ministers; for there is no other difference between the sacraments of the old and new law, except that those in the old mean that 1) Christ is coming, and those in the new teach us that Christ has already come. Therefore, as little as it was necessary for those under the old law to eat Christ bodily in the paschal lamb, so little is it necessary for us now to have Christ essentially in the bread and thus eat him. The ancients ever had one faith with us; they are also of one worthiness with the saints in the new law; they were also saved by faith, just as well as we are; their ministers ate the body of Christ, which was not yet there, just as well spiritually as we do. For spiritual enjoyment may also enjoy what is not yet there, let alone not enjoy what is not present in the place. And if our sacrament were so superior to theirs, certainly Christ would not have withdrawn it from his own, he would rather have been born in Abel's time.
Your answer.
(19) Here they have not answered, but with unrighteous reproaches, and they draw it hard, with such words: If you proceed in this way, Christ will not be Christ afterwards; for who would prevent the wicked from making such arguments as these, to prove that Christ did not become man, and thus say, "The holy fathers were saved by faith alone; therefore neither St. Peter nor St. John saw Christ, nor was he ever bodily with them. For what need is there of Christ becoming man, if we are saved by faith alone? But if he was ever bodily present, his bodily presence was of no use.
Rebuttal.
(20) Lords have no need to worry; they soon know how to answer the ungodly and others. For, they say, the ancients were saved by faith; if they be asked, Whether they also in their faith were not assured of Christ, they must answer, Yea. Well then, it follows that Christ had to come to save them. But if it be asked, Did the fathers also wait for our Lord's supper? they may not say: Yes. Neither do we desire that the custom of the paschal lamb should be kept again. There is a great difference between Christ and the ceremonies.
1) Thus set by us instead of: significant.
In Christ we have in common, but not in the ceremonies. Christ was promised to them, therefore they waited, therefore they hoped: otherwise what kind of hope would it have been? So it is evident that this likeness is nothing, 2) for they waited not for Christ in bread, but for him as a Savior.
Another counterclaim.
021 Behold, they say, we also are better than the ancients; we have the gospel, which must now also be preached unto us, because they lacked it: shall we not therefore have Christ for meat in bread, because the ancients lacked him?
Response.
(22) But it is not fitting, for the ministers of the law were never without the gospel, and Christ dwelt in their hearts; for because they prophesied all these things before, they were not altogether ignorant. Of course, they also understood themselves, and that which they believed they spoke. They also recognized something further, because the predicants say that they saw with the spiritual eyes, the same could have been admitted to their children still underage, but that would have been too little for Abraham and his kind. Unless I do not understand the words of the preachers, this is not appropriate. The old fathers also waited for the gospel to be proclaimed in all the world; therefore it had to happen, and they had their part as well as St. Peter and St. Paul. But in the bodily supper they had no part, neither did they wait for it; but in the change of ceremonies with Christ they might well have considered that One Faith, One Church, One Lord and One Spiritual Food. With that, however, they have not escaped the clumsiness.
Fifthly, it is a great misfortune that no benefit comes from such a wonderful work; for through spiritual enjoyment, without bodily presence, one has no less than if there were bodily presence, and I suppose that, according to our stupidity, there is also more.
(24) Here they turn to and fro, and know not how to raise anything, and have for evil that it should be desired of them to know; but God wills it,
2) "shall" here stands in the meaning of "aligns, serves"; compare § 14 of the following scripture.
That we may recognize his good deed, proved to us by him, and therefore give him his praise.
(25) Here they murmur, saying, "If the sacraments are discontinued altogether, they are of no use. Answer: Who says that the sacraments, instituted by Christ, are of no use? It is another thing to say that bodily presence in the sacrament is of no use, or the sacrament is of no use. We know many benefits of the sacraments, in edification of love, in purification of the churches, in exercise of faith, in joy of thanksgiving. But all this happens as perfectly with the bodily absence as with the presence.
26 To this they add: O the world has become negligent, since it has believed that the body of Christ is present, it will become even more negligent if it does not believe this. To this I answer: God does not need our lies to increase His praise. What the memory and faith in the suffering of Christ do not accomplish, it will accomplish even less that I remember and want to think that the body is in the bread. Can anyone have greater love than to die for someone? What is this kind of love in the burning? One feels what brings improvement, for believing that the body is in the bread, or not believing that it is in the bread, does not bring improvement; but discernment of the body of Christ, believing that such a divine body is given for us, and practicing all Christian good works out of the impulse of the Spirit and love: therein it is, and not in superstitious dreams.
27 They come again to their inconsistent similitude, and ask: why should the bodily hearing of the gospel, which the ancients did not have? But I answer as before, that the gospel was preached to the ancients also, to some also quite clearly. I think that Isaiah and David emphasized the glory of Christ to us. But what the preaching was good for, I will tell you later. Since I also do not let them down in any way, that in the outward word the inward or eternal, or God's word stands essentially, and in a different, but clearer way; as in the same they have mischievously 1) mishandled it. Have no more than patience, and read on.
28) And if one presses them further, and tells them that no benefit of bodily presence, to eat in bread, may be shown, for he would otherwise have to lie, who says John on the 6th, The meat is nowhere useful: so they shake themselves from it with a loose solution, and is but the saying with the true-believers sufficient, their opi-
1) "desert" put by us instead of: "would know".
nion. It does not help that they say that the flesh, that is, the carnal mind, is of no use; for the very thing they teach is of a crude kind of mind. What is that they say: Yes, the body is not broken, or bitten, as Pope Nicolaus speaks of it? There is no escape. Rather, if one were to say: The king has not been murdered, but otherwise he is hidden in a basket, without his body being put under the swords; would he not still be in dishonor? So it is according to the common sense in this matter, one does not eat the body with the teeth; but now, if it is essential in the bread, it is under the teeth. Is this supposed to be a high Christian understanding? That is why St. Augustine still says: "What hast thou prepared the teeth, and the belly? believe, thus hast thou eaten." It is the natural understanding of the whole chapter: that to eat the flesh of Christ bodily, whether in bread or out of bread, sensible or insensible, is of no use; but to have such faith in the merit of Christ's death and bloodshed, makes the soul fed and fattened with the flesh of Christ, for he is dear and acceptable to it, and comforts and refreshes it. Now if it be considered that the body is in heaven, that our place also may be prepared for us; for thus the soul is made drunk with joy; then reigneth Christ with his Spirit with power, which is shewed us by the evangelist, saying, How then shall ye see the Son of man ascending into the place where he was before? But it is even a deviation to turn faith to incarnation; which all true ministers feel to be true.
29 These are the adversities before which the Lord's words may not serve their purpose; but they must give way to the article of Christian faith, and take a pure mind. Several more mishaps could be counted; they have to be resolved in those.
Many examples show that Christ's speech: "This is my body" should and may be a figurative speech.
(30) If our foundation is firm, and their weapons, according to their reckoning, do no mighty thing, it is strange and odd to some that the Scripture should be thus interpreted, "This is my body," that it should be said, this is a figure or signification of my body; or, that it is just so much, it signifies my body. And because it is thus unfamiliar to the untrained, I have gathered many examples in which figurative speeches are invented, and are not drunge, 2) or un-
2) drunge - clumsy.
but dainty and intelligible speeches, and amusing to the readers; and if I did not put them all on, that they should serve just for that reason, the preachers have picked them all up quite closely, and with many speeches have left none unshortened, and have tapped me with many little key words. Now that I have looked into them, I find that they all serve to some extent for the figurative kind of speech: "This is my body", to interpret it: this is a meaning of my body, or means my body. Now because they are so strange about it, I have to take them in hand again.
First of all, the saying in 1 Corinthians 10, where it says: "The rock was Christ", must be suffered; and I have interpreted: the rock, indeed, the very mountain of the rock, means Christ. There they want, and before that D. Martin on Sunday Septuagesimä 1): that the spiritual rock is essentially Christ. But his interpretation may not stand. For Paul says before: "They all drank from the spiritual rock, which was their companion." In that place is not called the spiritual rock, which the Spirit drinks with faith, or which is understood by the Spirit.
32. but therefore it is a spiritual rock, that he gave the water obedient to the commandment of God, which is a spirit, or to the working of angels. As also that an angel is called bread, that it is prepared of the angels in lust. From it all have drunk, young and old, good and bad, all who had passed through the sea. If the rock were to be understood as Christ Himself, then even the unbelievers would have had Christ. But Paul says immediately afterwards that many perish in the wilderness because of their unbelief. And the rock is called a companion, because the water of the rock followed the people in the wilderness. Now when Paul tells a hidden story, he interprets it as follows: "The rock was Christ, as if he said, "Do you want to know what the rock means? And this rhymes exceedingly well with the words, "This is my body." For after Christ had taken the bread, had broken it, had given it to the disciples, and had hot them to eat, [so] he expounds to them what he signifies by the ceremony, saying, "This is my body"; that is, this bread, broken, signifies that this, my body, shall be offered and broken for your salvation and feeding. What is unskilful in all this? And the Lord himself commands us the interpretation, when he says on it, "This do in remembrance of me."
33. after which they have undertaken to prove in another speech, not useful here,
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XII, 406, § 19 ff.
namely, which I brought from the 2nd Book of Moses in the 12th Cap. [V. 11.], where it says of the paschal lamb, it is the phase, 2) that is, it is a remembrance or meaning of the phase, or leaping over and passing over. And the paschal lamb is called the phase, or the passing, or the passing over, or the passing over, because the angel of God passed in Egypt before all the houses at which door the blood of the paschal lamb was found, without harm and strangulation of the firstborn, or, according to the Hebrew, passed by. Here they say, "We do not accept your interpretation; the Holy Spirit interpreted it afterwards, and we will listen to him, who says that it is a slaughtered sacrifice of the Lord's phase; and they make a feast out of the lamb, as if he wanted to say, "Yes, it is a sacrifice for the Lord's paschal feast.
34 I will not argue much about this, although it is better to call it the paschal lamb than the paschal feast, since it is not the feast that is slaughtered, and the evangelists subsequently call the paschal lamb Pascha, that is, the transgression, as it is also called in many places in the old law. Be it as it may, so also in the other saying a figurative speech must be assumed, that this sacrifice is a remembrance of the paschal lamb, or the Easter, which took place when the children of Israel were redeemed and remained unharmed by the angel. And if one wants to draw it to the day, then the festivals have their figurative meaning, because if I say: Today is the day of the Ascension, I cannot deny that on today Christ goes to heaven again, but today is the commemoration of the Ascension of Christ; but then a figurative speech is invented. But so the speech of the paschal lamb is much more clever to understand the figurative speech. For as the lamb was called a lamb of the transfiguration, and was not the same lamb: so also the bread of the Lord signifies to us the body of Christ, though it is not essentially the body. So there is another thing that this figurative speech serves our purpose.
35) The example of circumcision, which is called a covenant in the seventeenth chapter of the first book of Moses, is also unimpeachable, and yet it is a sign of the covenant, as it is also called in the same place; although they suppose that the Scripture should have interpreted itself here.
(36) It would be enough to explain where to accept it, for the Lord says, "Do this in remembrance," so that it will ever be a memorial sign. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit interprets a ceremony, we should be able to interpret other ceremonies from it. The
2) i.e. Passover; Hebrew: xxx.
61216. Oecolampad's reply to L.'s preface to the Syngramma. jW. XX. 761-766. 613
The way would be prepared for whoever wanted to walk in it. So they let the wine be a sign of the testament, and interpreted the hidden scripture with a clearer one; the testament will not be fulfilled in the blood as in the cup, but when it is poured out on the cross; only the death and the shedding of the blood are seals of the covenant and testament with God; but how we will be made a part of it, I will save until the end.
The Scripture also instructs us with the other ceremonial sign of baptism how we are to conduct ourselves in this sacrament, as it says in the epistle to the Romans and Colossians: "that in baptism we are buried with Christ. What is being buried with Christ other than that we have received such a meaning? And for this very reason external baptism is a bath of rebirth, that it means that we are born inwardly and washed away from the filth of sins. But they do not want to let this remain, and everything must be spoken to them without figure. The word must give it to baptism that it is essentially rewashing, but the word alone gives it the power to signify. Neither the Holy Spirit, nor the grace by which we are inwardly born, is bound to water, let alone that it is essential to baptism. It is quite a lot of talk to be essentially a thing. And so, what wonder is it that the Lord's bread is a signification of the Lord's body in the Lord's speech, when he says, "This is my body"?
(38) Neither have I yet repented that I have used the saying of Matthew concerning John the Baptist, "He is the Elias that was before. For the name Elijah is spoken in a figurative way by the evangelist and Malachia.
39 And therefore, John 1, John himself says that he is not Elijah, that is, in a natural sense, because for the sake of figurative speech he was Elijah, and the soul and body of Elijah was not John. So here, for the sake of figure and memory, the bread is the body, not that the bread is essentially the body.
(40) Likewise, the saying that John is a son of Mary is that he represents a natural son, and therefore he is not the natural son; and Mary proves maternal fidelity to him, even though she is not a natural mother, and yet for the sake of fidelity she is called a mother. Therefore, it should not be so strange to one, although in others similar speech was also encountered. In the words: "Take note, he is your son," a disputant would also take an argument, and not let himself be wise, and speak: Christ would be the essential
natural son of Mary, who died on the cross, and yet by a miraculous change would also have become John. It would hardly be a great miracle to say that the bread is essentially the body of Christ; and it would also be a gloss that the body may be in two places, in one place deadly and dying, in the other place sensitive and alive; but what would that be but to will to go astray, and to lead other people astray?
(41) Nor is it right for them anywhere that I should introduce the saying of Matthew 11, where Christ says of himself, "He that is less in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he"; and likewise 1) they take exception to the saying of Matthew 25, "From him that hath not shall be taken away, even that he hath." If I say that the speeches are figurative, they interpret them to me strangely and lastly, 2) and they leave the first saying behind, if they have spoken many words, that Christ, who is less than John according to the mind of men at the same time, is truly greater in the kingdom of heaven. Now is not he actually called the inferior, who is considered inferior according to the conceit of men, and who bears the figure of an inferior? so it is ever found that the name is diverted from the natural understanding. But the other saying is interpreted by the evangelist Lucas in the 8th chapter: "From him who does not have, even that [he] thought he had, is taken away from him", one sees how it is clearly interpreted, that one thinks one has, is called in Matthew, one has. They are each indications of a strange 3) speech. So then, what evil and unheard of thing is it to call the figure and sacrament by the name of the thing that is signified, and to take the meaning there?
(42) In the end, I am also well aware that I said: The Holy Spirit was called a fiery tongue, a breath, and a dove; but he is not a dove, nor a breath, nor a fiery tongue, but he was signified by them, as a sign. But they suppose that it does not take place here, because the little word of the parables stands with it, namely [he] says: as a dove, and divided tongues as fire. But it is not in the word of the Lord: as a body, but badly "body". This is ever exactly sought, if it would help. St. Augustine interpreted the example of the dove in this way in the epistle to Evodio; for I not from my own mind thus
1) "to be resisted by" - to be resisted against.
2) letz - wrong.
3) strange - dark, unusual.
The face is called by two names, as if it were the image of a dove, and signifies the Holy Spirit in Christ. For the vision is called by two names, as if it were one name, namely, the image of a dove, and signifies the Holy Spirit in Christ, just as if a living dove were a signification of the Spirit. Likewise Apost. 10 we read, "The Holy Spirit fell upon them," since without doubt the fiery tongues, the signs of the Spirit, are called the Holy Spirit. Behold then, if the Scripture should say, The graven image is the Holy Ghost, would it not be like saying, The graven image signifieth the Holy Ghost? or, The fiery tongue is the Holy Ghost; so much would it be said, The fiery tongues are signifiers of the Holy Ghost; and therefore follow not that they are essentially the Holy Ghost, which would be right blasphemy, to say that God is essentially a creature.
Item: In vain is their going forth 1) In the breath of the Lord, because the Lord hath not said: Take ye, that is the Holy Ghost. Now this is spoken more strongly, "Receive the Holy Ghost," and he speaks of his breath, wherewith he offered them; wherefore it was no less, than if he had said, Receive, this is the Holy Ghost. Where now the Lord would have said in the supper: Take, eat my body, their speech would have even more credit than if he had said, "Take, eat, this is my body." Therefore the examples are all still of good value, not only to show that Scripture is accustomed to speak figuratively, but also that one may thereby be nicely introduced into the understanding of the nature of this Scripture, what it speaks, for it is not so strange as those who say of it, yes, even well to hear that the ancients, according to such understanding in the words of the Lord, afterwards had in common usage to call the sacrament the body of Christ. But some naughty people do not want to understand this, and from the time they read no more than Corpus Christi with the old teachers, they must have spoken of the essential body, and want to shout over everyone with the great pile of books: the church has kept it almost fifteen hundred years, as Eck and Faber at Baden 2) also cried out. But you, Christian reader, may well have heard what my, indeed the Christian reason; how weak all counter-accusations of the adversaries, how completely not strange [I] am found in the speech. Prepare now to hear the reason of the adversaries also; and is he then
1) Extract - Evade.
2) At the disputation in Baden in May 1526.
firmer than ours, according to impartial judgment, fall to them and not to me, indeed neither to them nor to me, but to the truth.
The other part.
44 The reason for the opinion of our opponents is not based on an article of faith, but they boast fiercely of the Word of God, which would truly be on their side. In spite of some creatures that they opposed it. Primarily they base themselves on the words: "This is my body", as they are found in the three evangelists Matthew, Marco and Luca, and also in the apostle Paul. Otherwise they still have three sayings from the tenth and eleventh chapters of the first epistle to the Corinthians; but where they lack the first reported saying, they are already shot with the other three. Therefore, let us look further at what the first one can do.
(45) They show the power of the saying very subtly, and it is no wonder if someone's eye is covered by many words. As far as I understand them, they hold it thus: They hold that bread is bread, as indeed it is, although the papal church has always believed that it is not bread, but only the things pertaining to bread, in which we are with one another against the papists, and among ourselves not against one another. But further they speak: Let the bread be as the word is that is spoken to the bread; and if the word is, "This is my body," which is given for you, let it follow that the bread is essentially the body, for the strengthening of consciences.
(46) They also say that in such words the body is wonderfully made up, so that whoever accepts the word and believes has and essentially holds the true body of Christ. For the word has power to carry the bodily body of Christ to us, and so it also has power to carry the body into the bread, and so the word holds the body in it, and brings it into the bread, and also brings it to us who hear it.
(47) They mitigate it thus: the body is distributed by the bread, not as it is bread, but as it has the word, "This is my body"; and as it is bread, it is the sign, but as it has the word, it is also the body. They prove this with many examples, namely, how the Word brings clothing and food, peace and forgiveness of sin, resurrection and God Himself. With these words they fill their whole book very close 2). The
3) i.e. almost, "even close" put by us instead of: "even yet".
Words have an appearance and favor, and a color is to be painted on them. For the divine word has cheaply a great favor. God is omnipotent. By the Word he created all things; by the Word he governs all things, and by the same we must be saved. Therefore also the marvelous things are to be admitted to them cheaply, and is much of the splendid speaking. But now listen to my answer to this, and you will see how firm their foundation is, and how it disappears like the wind, or they will also have to compare themselves to my faith.
Opposite answer.
(48) Let it be said beforehand that I do not speak against the omnipotence of God, for no one who knows that God exists denies it. Neither shall I speak of the eternal word that is with God, as John speaks. I also do not mean that one wanted to drive here with it, because it should not 1) ever. But of the power of the temporal spoken word, how far it extends, shall be spoken, because it admits to the same so much, even too much.
(49) First of all, I would like to hear from them, from what Scripture they would prove that Christ has given such power to the outward words, that they should have his body, and bring it 2) essentially to us. Did he ever sit and say, "Where you speak these words, they will have my body and offer it to you or to others who believe? I do not believe that there is a letter of this in all the Scriptures. Therefore the next way, as the words are spoken without probation, so let them go. Nor is it otherwise in the nature of words that they are able to do this, but they have the nature of bearing the meaning of those things which before in man's mind were an inward concept, or an inward word; for what the outward words have over the sound, they have from the inward mind and from the inward word. In the same way, in the inward words in the soul of man there is essentially the body, which inward words are nobler than the outward ones. But I have not yet heard this from them. Dear, to what or from where should the external word have such worthiness? We men have fellowship in the body and blood of Christ through faith, that man may be brought to heavenly worthiness through Christ. Will the
1) should - served.
2) "him" put by us instead of: in.
Words and bread finally also blessed? Who believes for them? We believe for ourselves, not for the words, nor for the bread or wine.
How? if ten Christian mutes were gathered together, who had the inward word and not the outward word, would they not think that they would be equally and perhaps more grateful for the signs?
(51) Here they would like to say: Well, it happens out of the divine order, because as God once said: "Let the earth bring forth grass and seed"; thus, according to His order it happens, and therefore it should be understood here, because it is the order of God, but as long as the words, that is my body, are spoken. Therefore, one does not have to be aware that the words are spoken by a man, but on divine order.
52 But with the answer a good part of their speech will already come off; and although some of them seek such intrigues, they will not be satisfied with it, and without Scripture will not believe them that this is God's order. They must not run to the words "this is my body", in which the order is not proclaimed, for they have taught the command 3) before. But where to take?
(53) But let us see what the words themselves can do, for we do not like to make a jugglery out of words.
(54) The words, "This is my body," are not bad historical words; for so it would not concern us, as little as that Christ went to the mountain of oil, in that he does not now go for it. But if there is to be a commandment and order of God in the words, show the word of the commandment. One does not say here: Bread, become my body! as of the creation of light the Lord says: "Let there be light!" and to the leper: "Be cleansed." And where there would already be a semblance of a commanding word, where would be the order for the future time, so that it should happen, as it is said in prophecies? Therefore, turn and interpret the words as you will, and they will not show themselves otherwise than that they are interpretative words of the ceremonies, then instituted by the Lord. Learn what the bread and wine mean, and the promise will be found in the sign and in the word, and the sign itself will be a visible word, that is, by its meaning it will proclaim the very thing that the word proclaims. For there is a promise that Christ's body will die for us,
3) Geheiß - command, commandment, as can be seen from § 54. In Zwingli, the word "command" means promise.
to bring us life, and his blood is shed for our sin. But because such words signify the signs, and are as it were a voice of the words, so also by the signs it is learned: for bread is broken, it shall eat; and wine is emptied, it shall drink; so to bring us into life, Christ's body should die; and still so must some have been led to believe in the Scriptures.
55 The promise is not given to bread or wine, but to us, but the signs are capable of words, that they may interpret and admonish. Therefore the Lord said: "This is to remember me. So it will not be a miraculous word, but a badly sanctified word, which after its institution has the same power as when it was spoken by Christ, to signify, admonish and remind. They also go on with Paul's saying to the Romans: "The gospel is the power of God, which saves all who believe in it. There the "is" must be interpreted essentially, that is, that they want to unite the power of God with the external word.
(56) And the preaching of the Gospel is no more than an instrument of God through which His mercy is revealed, as Paul's following words also testify, when he says: "In it is revealed the faith that is valid before God. How can we attribute this to the outward words, that the divine word has been inwrought into the outward? Since the apostles themselves want to be considered as nothing, confessing that they plant and water, and that they are nothing 1) but God, who gives the flourishing; he is the one. In the Scriptures the word is not known at all, and what is it that God works in all things all things? He is not therefore essentially the same things, or his instruments are not God. Nor does the example of a master serve this purpose, whom six hundred hear, and take his mind from his words, so ever sees his mind in words. I say that in words alone stand the signs and meaning of the things that are signified, and the mind is not essential in words.
If you want to know how it is, listen, and you may understand it differently. The inner man is created according to the image of God in his being, has a mind that inwardly gives birth to intelligibility, which is compared to the eternal words of God, through which inner speeches are made, which also have no more than images, so far as the mind now lets intelligible power work. Where now the will consents, so
1) "nothing" put by us instead of: not.
The external word also has this meaning, as do images. Now the outward words are nothing but signs of the inward ones, and are therefore called the mind. Even if this were true, it is still a false comparison to compare physical things with spiritual things. A word may be used to describe a thing that has never been, but should the body also be sent to such a place? Oh, it is not a directory!
So also that they say with much talk: In words be and be distributed peace, forgiveness of sin, yes, God Himself. I am glad that they are attacking it highly, perhaps it will be more detrimental to unity. I know well that the apostles proclaim all things in their words. But that the things in words drive here to the believers, I will not permit yet, because the honor is God. We also read of Jeremiah that he would plow up kingdoms and also plant them; but God works this, not in the words of the prophet, but by the power of the kings. He needs the prophets to proclaim such things; thus also the apostles exhorted. But the Spirit of God teaches those who mend their ways inwardly.
59 They still wanted to preserve the rotten ground with pleasure. But he may not resist. They say: "Faith is of the hearing", as Paul says Romans 10, and the word is a counter-throw of faith. Here, however, one wants to be the tool master. No one denies that preaching should not proceed from divine order. But why? So that man may hear the true teacher Christ inwardly, who teaches with the Word or long after it. For neither the outward word, nor any creature, nor painting, nor ceremony, nor sacrament, can actually teach; but to exhort one to go within himself and hear the inward teacher, who will show the goodness of God and his truth with the inward word, and thus give and increase faith. Many hear the outward voice, but they do not believe. To believe is to be taught by God and drawn by the Father. "No one will speak: Jesus Christ, but in the Holy Spirit"; who does it, to speak with the inward according to his will.
(60) But they think that the spirit is involved in the words and is not separated from them. If this were so, no teaching would be in vain, the spirit would not be idle. But the inward consistent word and the outward are as far apart as the law and grace. Now grace is not included in the law, and as it is spoken of outward words,
The word may also be used for ceremonies, paintings and sacraments. Although the word is more powerful, because it is closer to the inner word. However, all together 1) they may not teach the least, let alone do anything greater. Only to mean, to admonish and to remind is their office. Here you can see where the devil lies, who gives the sorcerers and superstitious people such insanity, that there are secret hidden forces in characters, signs and words. The suffragan bishops, priests and monks have helped a lot in the sorceries, yes, they themselves have been involved in them. Now at the opinion they would reach a good hand. Babylon must always have magicians, so that she will not recognize God. Jerusalem will put her hope in God, her Lord.
But one would like to cry out: "Do you see now where the devil is? he would like to stop all preaching, because if he pretends that the external word does not teach, then no book, no scripture, no ceremony, no priest, no teacher, no preacher is needed. This I contradict, for it will nevertheless be exceedingly necessary the preaching of the outward word of God and ceremonies, instituted by Christ, and their faithful ministers. Adam, our first father, was created in the image of God, in marvelous illumination of truth and sincerity; so that he was little less than the angels. But through sin the light in him and us has corroded, and we with him have fallen into deep mire, and become quite animal-like, in contempt and ignorance of divine things. Now, that we may be renewed again in the spirit of our minds, and be driven out of the mire, we have great need of spurs, goads and arrows; these are the trials of the cross, and the fervent preaching of the word. They make a man lively, so that he goes into himself, seeks the inner light of truth, by which man is enlightened. Where there is contempt for the Word and a cowardly life of lust without any cross, as is commonly the case with the rich and belly servants, and those who presume they know everything beforehand, God is not to blame, they want to be stuck in the cesspool and in the thick darkness. In particular, the word has a way of exhorting. Elijah's words burned as a torch. The words of the wise are as a sting. And there is no one on [the] earth too wise and prudent for him who does not need admonition and remembrance. For though the words do not teach us to speak of them, yet they find exhorting signs, which provoke us to seek in ourselves the things which are signified by the words;
1) with one - together, with each other.
Not that we learn them through them, but that we seek the truth in ourselves, and are thus taught. From words we may not ever understand further, because the sound and the voice, if we did not know before, inwardly in us, what external words meant. Inwardly, inwardly it must be accepted by faith.
(62) Therefore the outward word does not give faith, but Christ does; it does not comfort, Christ comforts; it does not honor, it does not enlighten; but our inward, secret, heavenly teacher is Christ; as Augustine famously established in the book of Magistro, and there put down all contradiction. So then it is certain that the outward word has no other power than to exhort and remind through meaning: how then will one admit to it higher effects and the marvelous thing? That is why all talk falls: that something is essentially included in words and brought about. And even less will it exist that the body or blood of Christ is given to the words and is brought by them into the bread and wine; so also their interpretation, which they desire to apply to the words of the Lord, will disappear.
Short rejection of three sayings of the adversaries.
63 Hereafter, since their first sentence may not stand according to the reported meaning, the other three may not stand either, to which we answer in the shortest way. The first sentence is found in 1 Cor. 10 and reads thus:
64. "The bread that we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" The saying is called by them a thunderbolt and a medicine; but let them boast and go forth with high words, a lump of wool beats harder. May one not have the fellowship of an absent thing in a sign: must therefore the corporeal and essential be in the sign? If ten heirs had a letter of testament before the judge and said: This letter which we hold behind us, is it not a community of the abandoned inheritance and treasure of our father? But should the letter be taken to mean that the field and the mats 3) are essential? should it be taken to mean that it says: "It is"? Will one strengthen the conscience with it? If we speak in this way, it will follow that we are essentially one body, my body your body and yours my body.
2) Shouldn't "teaches" be read?
3) Mats - meadows. In the old edition: painting.
For it follows: "We many are One Bread and One Body, inasmuch as we are partakers of One Bread?" Would one not also like to cry out: are, are, are? But it would not be right to cry out, for when one deals with sacraments, one should take the interpretation that serves the sacraments, otherwise one will not lose the truth. Item, when he says hereafter: "Behold Israel according to the flesh, which eat sacrifices, are they not commoners of the altar?" Shall we then make the food of the altar also essentially an altar? According to the sacraments we testify that we have fellowship in the body of Christ, and if we do not lie, we have part in the body, for he is our own, he was born to us, he suffered for us; yes, he is also ours in heaven. Need of the essential inbroden 1) not at all. But if it is the case that we are in the church according to the sacraments, but without faith, we are still not in it, and have no true fellowship of the body of Christ; as John says of the anti-Christians, "They went out from us, and were not of us," therefore they have not truly had a part in the body of Christ. Judas may have received the sacrament, that is, the sign, but he may not have eaten the body of Christ, otherwise he would not have been a Judas, nor would he have died in eternity, John 6: "He that eateth of the bread shall live forever."
(65) It is also easy to answer the other saying. It is found in 1 Corinthians 11, and reads thus: "Whosoever eateth unworthily of this bread, or drinketh of the cup of the Lord, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But there is a splendid glorification and boasting: one may not pass over before the saying. One should be surprised that the matter is so certain that one goes along with such defiant words. But it should be no wonder; where equity is not enough, one must resort to great clamor, so that it may be seen that one can speak powerfully, even tyrannically; for they speak: there no one can muster up some semblance against it. Oh, not only appearance against it, there is no true appearance that can be obscured. Look no further than the words. Paul says, "eat of the bread," "become guilty of the body"; he does not say, eat the body, for he who eats the body cannot become guilty of the body. Christ says John 6: "He that eateth of my flesh, and drinketh of my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. He who eats of my flesh and drinks of my blood has eternal life.
1) So set by us instead: Inbrodes.
Blood, he abideth in me, and I in him." Now the Scripture does not indicate any other eating of the flesh and the blood. If the eating of the bread is not accompanied by the eating of the flesh, then there will be no eating, and the flesh will not be in the bread. Why should it be in the bread, if it is not there for the sake of eating? But if it is to be eaten, it cannot be otherwise than as the Scripture speaks of it.
(66) They say that the manner of speaking is a great constraint, that he who eats unworthily is guilty of that which he eats; therefore the body must be in the bread. Answer: Where sacraments and sanctified signs are spoken of, it does not compel speech: he who eats unworthily of the bread is unworthy beforehand. Therefore it is said afterwards: "Man proves himself, and so he eats of the bread. But how is he to prove himself? "He distinguishes the body of the Lord," that is, he eats the body of the Lord spiritually beforehand, and believes that the body, which died for him and suffered for him, is united to the Godhead, and tests himself whether this draws him to love his neighbor. If he finds such faith in himself, he may eat of the bread and be included in the number of the elect. But if he holds the body of Christ in such low esteem that he has less trust and love toward God, does less or leaves less on account of Christ, neither if any bad man had delivered him from temporal danger, he is ever unworthy to eat this bread; not for the sake of the bread, but for the sake of his inward unworthiness. So the punishment is not for eating, but for being unworthy, and yet he is like Judah, as if he were also a faithful disciple, and loved the Lord above others, but is nothing behind it; he is ever guilty of the body and blood, because it was shed for him in vain; such a one, if he had been there when Christ was killed, would also have helped to crucify him.
67 This is as far as the speech will go, for a sign may be dishonored, and the Lord will not let it go unpunished. For example, one who breaks a prince's messenger box, whose son has suffered much for the fatherland, and has painted such a good deed in the box. But the wronged man commits sacrilege by breaking the box. The prince takes the disgrace so much more highly, so much and greater the good deed proved to the country, and the offender becomes guilty of that which he has suffered. But it is not because it does not say here that he is guilty of suffering. For it is more explicit what is meant by the signs, namely, body and blood. One finds such speeches in Zech. 1:
"He that offendeth you offendeth the apple of mine eye." And to the disciples, "He that despiseth you despiseth me also." Item 1 Cor. 11: "The man who covers his head defiles his head," that is, Christ. Should Christ therefore be essentially in the head? Therefore they have not yet brought forth from the Scriptures and other writings. Well then, you may now yourself set both reasons and causes against each other. For myself, I see no solid reason on their side. So on our side is the article of the Christian faith, beside which one should not let anything break in.
The third part.
68 There are some traits in the preachers' booklet (which I would rather leave unanswered than let them proceed much, because I do not like to quarrel), which I will now also answer for in the truest way.
69. First, they make me [a] beginner of quarreling. I say: teaching the truth, apologizing, pointing to love in those who are eager for truth, there is no suspicion of quarreling. Now I have, and still desire, to be diligent about it; that some take offense at it, I cannot help, for I would even be silent.
70 Secondly, they say that I am again raising Carlstadt's, the hypocrite's, matter. I say: If Carlstadt is a hypocrite, I will let him answer to God, his writings have seemed too noisy to me; however, where he adheres to the truth, I will not leave it for his sake.
Third, they complain that they are counted among the popes. Answer: I wanted them both to keep right from the Sacrament. They 2) are therefore not popes.
The fourth: Because of idolatry and other abuses, they themselves confess that one has hardly sinned in this; why then should I not have done it? 3) Because of worship, they are not one with the thing itself. Pirkheimer wants to have the worship.
Fifthly, they accuse me of overthrowing the Scriptures, and the devil's wicked cunning is seen, who desires to make a sign and figure out of the body. And so it is brought to some people, as if I said that Christ had no true body at all.
74 You may well see, my Christian reader, whether it is not necessary for me to be responsible when I
1) go ahead - go there.
2) "You" put by us instead: Hie.
3) d. i. repeated.
with knowledge I have never spoken dishonestly of sacraments, and still less of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. And is not the Scripture overthrown, though I say that the bread of the Lord is a figure or signification of the body of Christ. Neither does it follow that the body of the Lord is not a true body, but a fanciful one. And that from this it may be drawn that sin is a figure of sin, hell is a figure of hell, and all things are nothing but figures, as they most grievously attract. They do not need the worries at all, they have more interpretation in the Scriptures, so here also is an interpretative speech. How is it then that they are so almost afraid here, and have done it nowhere else?
You say: Yes, it is nowhere written that the body should be called the figure of the body; I say: It is true, the body is not taken for a fantastic body, I do not say that either. But the way to interpret it in this place is not clumsy. Likewise Christ is nowhere called a figurative Christ, and yet nothing less, so in the interpretation, when Paul says, "The rock was Christ," it is interpreted that the rock was a figure of Christ; not that the name "figure" is attached to Christ, although in the interpretation it falls on the very word Christ. For the rock is the figure, and therefore Christ is not. So that in another example one may hear: If I point to a king's figure, and say that the painting is the king. It is not the opinion that the true king is therefore not a true king, but in the interpretation of the words, so it happens: The painting is a figure of the king; and is the king a king, and the painting a figure. That is ever clear. And as I also said: the painting is the king who won the battle; is not the opinion that a figure of a king won the battle; but the king who painted there won the battle. So also it is to be interpreted here, "This is the body which is given for you," that the true body, signified by the bread, is given in death for us, and therefore it does not follow that the bread is a figure given, or a figurative body. Behold, whence cometh a lamentation and a reproach?
The old teachers were not ignorant of the interpretation, although they commonly called this sacrament the body of the Lord, by which name I would also like to call it. 4) For the ancients, by the name of the sign, wanted to point from the sign to its meaning, and make a spiritual people, and still want to free the people.
4) In the old edition take; näme - name.
No true Christian should be considered to have testified to himself by the bread alone, but also to be famous in that which is signified by the bread. It would be a great and unpleasant dishonor to be accused 1) of having received the bread or sacrament alone, for then he would also have fellowship with Judah. Therefore every believer wants to be famous for having received the body of Christ, even as Christians received it, through faith, that is, he wants to consider himself a believer. Therefore, it is not surprising that this sacrament, even because of its name, is so highly praised among the faithful. Indeed, all my writings and teachings should have made me free from suspicion. And because they speak of the devil's wiles, I must also report that the devil would gladly make something out of nothing, even a corpse out of a sign, and give words strange power. My opponents are watching, and they should know that in their opposition the gospel and the truth are also opposed 2). May God bring it to a good end. No authority may be disposed of by our preaching, for we teach obedience, patience, peace, love and voluntary service. Neither shall the true preachers dispose themselves, for we teach and point to Christ crucified, and lead away from the elements of this world to heavenly things.
Sixth, I am also accused of having attracted the old teachers in the same way. 3) I thereby desired to be superior to the evangelical preachers with their authority and reputation, and should give preference to human doctrine over divine doctrine. Thus, one can interpret all things in the most evil way; and this is done in a friendly humble opinion. If I had produced an opinion of my own, how would I have been scolded? And if I had not followed my head in interpreting the Scriptures, and had actually looked to the teacher's opinion, I would have been judged to have acted with malicious speed. What will become of the world afterwards? They say that one should interpret the words of the teachers by the words of Christ, and not again. It is a good opinion, where the. It is a good opinion, where the words of Christ would be brighter; but if a darkness is found in them, because of our stupidity and foolishness, and the gift of prophecy and interpretation is given to some of the fathers: why would I not perceive what they would have held in it? Now is
1) aufrupfte - moved up.
2) So put by us instead: Refuting.
3) equal sam - as if.
but the chip 4) almost completely in it, we bring something new; but that should not invent itself. Therefore I say that Christ's words and those of the old teachers agree, where they are rightly understood. However, some of the old ones, where they are read above, are more in line with the opinion of the adversaries, but basically not. Therefore St. Augustine and Chrysostom, attracted by them, are in good sense not contrary to me, as is found where they are also read in other places.
The Theophylactus, which is almost entirely Papal in the matter, is said to have unconnected me, although I brought it in Latin for the first time, as far as I know.
79] In the seventh, they urge that Paulum and Lucam be interpreted by Marcum and Matthäum. But this is a wrong order, to interpret the clearer by the darker. Paul and Lucas are much more understandable in many places.
80] Eighthly, they ask for stiff arguments and only the word of God, against which the gates of hell are not able to do anything, with the disregard of proven speech. Answer: If only proven speeches had been used, this complaint would have been justified. But with the articles of faith we should be sure enough, if we only believed it. Here I exhort them to look at Paul. Has he not also, together with the word of God, often used proven speech, and in himself not so mightily used blessedly? They also want to consider whether they do not sometimes let go with the word of God in their sermons some proven speech that does not go against the word of God? About this, the common proofs, also indicated above, are not so much zedauzen. 5) Doesn't it concern them to leave so many miracles in vain? Does it not concern them that the old fathers of our times did not know custom and insanity? Don't you think that in the physical presence no usefulness has been shown? Shall we not hear natural causes, where no miracle can be set? and therefore regard them as pagan? as that one body in two places, and two bodies in one place?
(81) Ninthly, they 6) hide the question whether the body of Christ is in humble or bodily form in the bread, and confess none of these; but they say that it is therein given and bestowed. But there my question still remains: whether he glorifies us or in a humble form there is a gift.
4) Span - dispute, discord.
5) "zedauzen" probably as much as: geringachten, verwerfen.
6) i.e., to hold in low esteem, to shun, to spurn, to reject.
The body of Christ is a gift, or both. They should also remember that the body of Christ is no less a gift and offering to believers absent than present.
82. tenthly, they make a mockery, when it is said to them that the remembrance of bodily presence is inferior to the remembrance of suffering, which is commanded us by God. And they mockingly answer, "Let someone break his teeth, so that he will not remember the bread. The mockery should not take place. Shall one compare the miraculous bread to the noblest body of Christ? Item, how honest would be the presence of Christ, which we should not remember? 1) How would the true believer refrain from doing this, whether they make a mockery of it or not!
83. eleventh: The sayings of Scripture do not have to apply to them, if they remain unresolved by them. The saying of John on the 5th still does something to them; 2) of which is said above. To the saying of John Cap. 3: "That which is of the flesh is flesh," they say that one should recognize the fleshly and spiritual rebirth. But with this they have not done justice to the saying, for it is a saying that extends in a common way. And it follows that bodily things feed the body, and spiritual things feed the soul. Now this is certain, that the body of Christ does not feed our body, but the soul is fed through faith into the body of Christ. Where then does the body of Christ go? When does it separate from the bread? does it separate before it enters the mouth or the body? ei, it is not eaten.
84 The saying in 2 Corinthians 5, "Though we know Christ, yet know we him not after the flesh," I know not that I have put it on for an argument; bring it to the natural sense. But nevertheless, if one has it for a common rule saying, it is also still against it. St. Augustine interprets it thus: "As soon as we have learned the work of salvation through the flesh of Christ, we should not hang on to the flesh, but we should rise to the higher things of the Godhead"; this is still against them.
85] Lastly, when it is said to them, how that one should seek heavenly things, they say, they seek not carnal things, though they desire to have the flesh in the bread essentially. But who will believe that one seeks a well and does not seek water?
86. these disgraceful words and clumsy have
1) "remember" put by us instead of: consider.
2) The meaning is good: the spell still gives them some trouble, gives them an opportunity to express themselves further.
Nevertheless, I would not like to leave them unanswered, even though they do not almost annoy me. If I knew something that would serve love and friendship, even unity, I would turn to my utmost diligence, so that complaint would not be on me, as far as that would be without harming the truth. Now, to come to a decision, I will look around to see if something would compare our two minds, so that peace could be achieved with the truth at some point, otherwise there would be enough crosses.
The fourth part.
I ask of God, through Christ, the Prince of Peace, if it is possible, that I may reach peaceful agreement on the matter of the Sacrament, not only with those who have written against me, but also with the popes; and, in my opinion, means may be found therein which will stand with Christ and the truth. But there would have to fall, first of all, a dispute of words, as soon as one would have taken the right opinion.
On the other hand, what are foolish fables and fictitious dreams should remain unchallenged.
Thirdly, it is not allowed to establish a new article of faith in it. Which would be superior to Christian freedom.
90 Fourthly, that the sacraments be considered sacraments. For where one remains on the way, I do not know how peace would be with us. Now I will see in my adversary's words what serves peace.
91 You have given me thanks, as I hope, without mockery, for two parables given by me, from which the sense of Christ's words may be taken: one, of keys; the other, of royal scepter; and are not at one stroke. The parables thus bring them forth.
92) If one gives someone the keys to the house, one also gives him the power to the house, and thus one makes the keys, which are an instrument to open the house, the 3) power of the house. Without doubt, however, not because the keys are an instrument, but because from them it is said to someone: See, here you have the power to the house. There the keys are not alone, and remain the authority of the house, not as the keys are, but as the word is said to them, and they have received the word. Why then would it not be permitted to speak thus of the bread and wine of the Lord's supper, that the bread, when it has the word, is the true body of Christ?
3) "the" put by us instead of: to the.
These words of theirs they carry out almost throughout the whole book, and so they say: That the multitude and multiplicity of miraculous signs cease; thus they say that the bread is the body, as it has the word, and therefore the bread of the supper, as it is the body of Christ, by virtue of the word, has nothing at all of the bodily incidental things, but retains the same incidental things in it and in it, as it is bread. Thus they also compare it to the brazen serpent; thus they say: that the body and the blood are written in the words; thus they 1) speak of baptism, and of other things more.
Now God wanted it to remain with the words, so the chip would have a whole end, and would be a beautiful explanation of the words of Christ and the sacraments. For it is ever true, as St. Augustine said: "If the word goes to the element, or to matter, it becomes a sacrament." Which is also the speech of the old bishop Irenaei, when he says: "Like the earthly bread, when it takes upon itself the invocation of God, it is not a badly common bread, but a Eucharistia; which consists of two things, namely, of the earthly and the heavenly." Here Sacrament is called Eucharistia, the matter or element the earthly; the Word and thanksgiving the heavenly. Therefore, from its most honest part, that is, from the Word and thanksgiving, it has the name that Sacrament is called Eucharistia.
95 But this is a hindrance to many who will not be content with what has been reported; for them the bread must be essentially the body, and completely, as if I were saying, "Christ is God"; that is, throwing the axe too far. They are not justified in adding the word essential to the words of the Lord: "This is my body. Well then, I hope that they will allow themselves to be invented with good will; for if not, this would help a great deal of evil, and a strange intrusion into the Scriptures would take place.
(96) The likeness of keys does not lead us to say that the key is essentially a power, but that through it, as a sign, the power given is recognized by the word spoken from the key, namely, that one says, "Here you have the power. There it should also exist that the words are not given more than is given to them in themselves. Now the outward word can do no more than signify, and in the meaning admonish, or remind, as said before. But that it is to be
1) "them" put by us instead of: him.
2) gang-comes.
It brings everything to the one to whom it is spoken. Now the word "body" is not the body, but signifies the body; and the speech, "This is my body," does not hold in it essentially, neither the bread, nor the body, nor their joining together essentially. But it holds the meaning in it; therefore, if it is said or added to the bread, and the bread and the speech become a sacrament, the sacrament has its meaning, as do the words.
(97) Now here will be the very power of the sacraments, which is that of words, namely, that they signify, and in signification exhort, that we seek in us that which they signify. For in the memory of man are the images of the things signified by word and sacraments, and if they are sought within, they are found; or they are brought to our knowledge, as we have known before. Therefore the Lord said, "It is good to remember"; and so the Lord wants the bread to be a memorial sign. It would not be so if it did not signify. Hence it is that the sacraments are called by scholars visible words, as well as the Scriptures. For as the word is to the hearing, so the sacraments are to the eyes; images which are carried by the senses into the mind, and there are recognized. This is not to say, however, that the signs or words are essentially that which they signify, but that they are meaning.
So, according to the essence of what sacraments are, we would be well satisfied. But now, for the sake of use and enjoyment, I have invented some words for them, but if we were to stay with them, we would come to one mind. For they speak: We eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, not so that we bite the body with our teeth and drink it with our hands. For they say, "We eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, not so that we bite the body with our teeth and break it with our hands, as it is written in the recantation of Berengarius; but we act upon the bread, as it is bread, by breaking it, eating it, and crushing it with our teeth; but we receive the body in virtue of these words: "This is my body. As one has spoken of it quite beautifully: That which we eat goes into the body, that which we believe goes into the soul. So they say. Oh, if one were to leave it at that, and understand the words, the matter would be simple.
(99) This is a Christian saying, for bread is indeed bread, and is meat for the belly; but the promise of the word, by which it becomes a sacrament, if one believes it; that is, if one believes that Christ died for our sins, and by the shedding of his blood was sufficient for us: this comes into the soul, and feeds it; for the promise of the word is a sacrament.
The bread, if it is believed, is the food of the soul. But the delusion that the bread is essentially the body of Christ is not the true food of the soul; it leaves man as he is and does not make him more foolish and evil. But to know and believe by the words and signs that God's love for us is so great that He gave His Son to die for us, that rejoices and feeds and keeps the soul in life. This is spiritual feeding and enjoyment, and through it people become better and more spiritual. And therefore Christ Himself is food or bread of life to our souls, which came down from heaven; if God would that we would teach in such a simple and careful way! The noble body of Christ, dwelling in the most honest place, will not ever enter our belly and maggot sack; but with his word and with his promise he will comfort and refresh the soul, which is just as much as feeding. For by such consolation, when it is found in us, man is strengthened, becomes fervent in love, and exercises himself in all kinds of good works.
In the end, if we were to understand one another about the giving of the testament of the forgiveness of sins and the acceptance of grace, the truth would be more peaceful. They say that the forgiveness of sins was obtained on the cross, but that it is distributed, offered, and given in the sacraments and words when the gospel is preached.
But I will rather speak thus, and hope more truly and clearly: From eternity, before the creation of heaven and earth, the testament was given out of divine mercy to the children of God, ordained for eternal salvation and inscribed in the book of life. No one with understanding can deny this.
In time, from Adam until the last righteous man, such a will of divine alliance 1) with the faithful has been proclaimed and inaugurated by the outward word; as also in the Lord's supper at this sacrament: so it is not presented otherwise, but by proclamation, what is decreed and ordained for all the faithful, by the true God, before all time.
103. further, the most sufficient assurance of such a will has been accomplished at one time through the shedding of Christ's blood and his fervent sacrifice on the cross on which our sins are hung, and the handwriting has been erased. But these things are accepted by us, and taken as our own, if we believe the assurance in the cross, which for death's sake is called cheap, to be true.
1) So set by us instead: Verbindniß.
becomes a testament, believe. We may not fix the faith from divine providence, which before the creation of the world chooses and decrees what belongs to each one. For divine secrets are ignorant to the flesh. And even though the Father's mercy is faithfully proclaimed through the Word or Sacrament, as a testamentary letter, the flesh is still so timid about the abomination of sin that it does not fully believe, and does not want to be assured of conscience until the attached seal and the testament, accomplished through the highly meritorious death of Christ, is recognized by it.
How is it then to be done to him? Thus: where I hear 2) not only the word of God's gracious will, considered from eternity, opened in time; but also sealed with the death of His only begotten Son. For if there is faith, the words of the promise will gladden and comfort the soul, which is nothing else than feeding. But this does not require the bodily presence of Christ, which the opposing party himself confesses that the soul receives, even as often as the word is proclaimed in the Gospel and accepted with faith. But that the promise is accepted is thus: in the outward sound of the words or outward appearance or matter of the sacraments, the promise is not essentially attached. For, as stated above, both words and sacraments are signs according to their nature, and from their office they admonish or remind us of divine mercy and promise. Which, if it is thus communicated to us through the outward gospel or sacrament, and we come within ourselves and listen to the enlightening word with which Christ teaches His own, and opens to them the goodness of the Father, there is the true effect of the Holy Spirit, who brings trust and faith in God, together with the subsequent joys, consolations, and fruits of faith. There then is the reception and acceptance of the graces and the testament and covenant with God. Those who have been taught about the anointing and have learned from the Scriptures will testify to this. 3) For this is the order of God, to deal beautifully with human stupidity.
105 Therefore it would be fine and good, without all danger, and I think, permitted by both parts, to send themselves to the reception of the sacrament, as to the hearing of the gospel; because, after
2) So put by us instead of: hear.
3) "erturen" probably as much as "erdauren" - to accept, to receive, to put up with.
According to the legend, the Gospel is the most important thing in the sacrament, and the only difference is that in the sacraments the neighbor is served. For the reception of the sacraments is to be done for the neighbor, for the testimony of the things that man possesses inwardly, by the effect of the divine word. O God, that they would be practiced in such a way, and remain unmeasured 1); as this happens in many ways through the anti-Christian Baalish Mass servants. Their ungodly ways are even more harmful, than if one had the Word of God faithfully, and no Sacrament any more; for with them neither faith nor love can be felt, which should be practiced especially and diligently, because we want to accept the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus in hearing the Word, through faith. So also
1) "unbemaßget" untainted, not contaminated.
The lamentation is silent, as if we were deprived of our body, our treasure and our food, because in this way alone our salvation is wrought and such goods are obtained. But I pray to our God that we may thus be able to receive the word, so that we may practice love diligently. For I know that the very things which Paul received from the Lord and taught us, or gave us, are just as many. Wherefore, how soon would it make us of one mind! Yes, if word controversy and superstition were a thing of the past! And would God that we were awakened by the rote admonitions of the holy words or signs, and thus truly learned to recognize Christ as a Master, so that all honor might be given to Him, and to no creature, at all times! For he is at the right hand of God the Father, ruling and upholding all that is. To Him be honor and glory forever and ever, Amen.
Here are to be looked up two letters against which the following writing of Oecolampad is directed, viz: