Completed March 30, 1527.
To the pious noble Wilhelm von Zell, his godfather, Huldrich Zwingli conveys grace and peace from God.
Dearest godfather, when you sent me Luther's sermon against the enthusiasts, I did not think it necessary to write to you what I thought of it, but I perceived what it would bring, and felt that many have fallen from his opinion through the (sermon), only because they say: Luther is no longer equal to himself. However, some of the weak and the first ones have come into disagreement because of it, which is why I have taken so much trouble that I have hurriedly put together this short responsibility, which I will send to you, because I am not writing anything in German now, but I am writing in Latin, to Luther. Serve God with all your heart, as you do, who may preserve your age, Amen. Given hastily at Zurich, on the eighth and twentieth day of March. 1527.
To all believers in Christ, Huldrich Zwingli offers grace and peace from God.
I do not doubt, Christian reader, that you will fall into some displeasure if you consider this denigration and rejection of mine, which is almost necessary about the excellent Martin Luther's sermon against the enthusiasts, done and written about the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, because you worry that discord will arise among those who also stand by the Gospel; You may be sure that I do not deal with this in any way, but only see to it that we do not perish with ignorance or lack of understanding, nor that anyone holds himself so high in the church of Christ that no one may persuade him, if he speaks without the word of God, or if he does him violence with misunderstanding. For it should be proper for even the least, if God has given him understanding, to speak in the church, 1 Cor. 14.
*This writing appeared in Zurich in 1527 (the letter to Wilhelm von Zell is dated March 28, 1527) under the title: "Verglimpfung und Ableinung über die Predigt des trefflichen Martini Luthers gegen die Schwärmer, zu Wittenberg gethan und beschrieben, zu Schirm des wesentlichen Leichnams und Bluts Christi im Sacrament. In good preservation of Huldrichen Zwingli hurriedly and briefly comprehended. Zürch 1527." It was translated into Latin by Rudolph Gualther: ?ia st amica, ack prasstantissimi viri Martini Imtüsri serinonsrn in VitsmdsrMnsi scclssia pro snvstantiaiis corporis st sanZuinis OUristi in Sacraments aässrtions contra Knsrmsros ant I'anaticos xndliss Uaditnm, apoloßia st responsio. This translation is recorded in 2ninZIii opsra, Dorn. II, p. 367. the.indication Hospinians, inst. Sacrament, part. II, p. 78, that this writing was printed only after Zwingli's death (1531) is wrong. At the end of this writing is March 30, Darnach our time determination. We reproduce the text according to Walch's old edition.
Now, if I am the smallest, I want to indicate clearly, without all mischievousness and anger, that the Almighty God did not open the secrecy of his mind to Martino Luther in this doctrine of the Sacrament. Let no one take this for a scolding or an insult, if I say that it is not so. For in this way one must resist the untruth and bring it to light, no matter whom it may be. Martin Luther is as high in my bad judgment as some, nor is God higher; the word shall neither I nor another, for Martin's sake or another's, let it be misunderstood. Therefore, recently, dear reader, have stronger faith, neither let yourself be drawn into any weakening or division, although Peter and Paul, and again Paul and Barnabas, quarreled among themselves; see that your heart is right with God, and your life is shaped according to His will, then you will meet the right measure of a Christian man. For to believe that flesh and blood are eaten here does not make one blessed, for God has not promised it. "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood," John 6, does not serve the bodily food of which those in the sacrament speak, but trusts in the Son of God, who gave his life for us in death, as all believers know well, to whom alone we are writing here, not to those who have not yet heard God's word. May God be with us that we do not teach anything that is not according to His will, nor accept anything that is contrary to the eternal truth, amen. I will also be more careful to be brief, so that those who are well-informed will have enough of little, and will be able to present what is necessary for this purpose.
First of all, I urge you, dear reader, to learn to read with judgment, and not to be so careless that, even though you have heard that Luther or Zwingel has written this, you leave yourself from that moment on to their words, regardless of the matter, but see whether they speak God's word and conform to the truth, or not. Questioning all men's doctrine by faith and by the written word. For some exalt faith, but teach contrary to the Scriptures, which are rightly understood according to faith. On the other hand, many are learned, but have not faith; neither do they belong to teach the Scriptures, for the Scriptures alone must be understood by faith, and faith alone must be proved to be righteous, with and in the Scriptures, which are rightly understood by faith. Equally as
1) "vorzämen" will probably be as much as: together. 2) i.e. unobserved.
If one wants to carry a load and lead it, if he takes the animal alone, without ropes and without cords, he cannot do it; on the other hand, if he takes the harness alone, without the animal, he also cannot do anything. In short, the animal and the harness must be led to the burden and girded together. So here the animal is the living faith; the rope and the ropes are the Scriptures. If I now want to teach what is not in God's word, or what is contrary to it, then I neither take nor move anything in the church; for it cannot be moved against God's word, or without it. But if I come with God's word alone, without faith and right understanding, I likewise receive nothing; for the church hears that I do not understand God's word, nor have faith. Example: Christ says Matth. 5, 25. 26.: "Unite yourself with your adversary, while you are on the way with him, so that he does not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the weaver, and be thrown into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt not come out of this until thou hast paid the last oertle." This place was taken by the pope and interpreted without faith that it was a purgatory, from which no one would come until he had paid all debts. But faith says: If we had to pay for our sins ourselves, what would Christ have died for? how? that after Christ comes, we must first suffer purgatory, and before him there never was any? And so faith may not suffer purgatory. For so he finds that Christ in this place does not mean to speak of purgatory at all, but of the danger that often befalls one before the judge; that often one does not want to get along amicably with his adversary, and so he himself comes to be wronged; then he must pay all the debt without mercy. You see, one must have faith and the Scriptures together. This way from the Scriptures I teach not from myself, but from Christ JEsu, who saith Jn. 5:39: "Sin the Scriptures, in whom ye also think ye have eternal life; and they are they which make known of me." Behold, as Christ Himself let Himself in to the Jews into the bounds of the Scriptures, and will let Himself be protected and solicited by the Scriptures. So we also are to bring our doctrine from the Scriptures, and from the Scriptures rightly understood through faith; for Christ also proved his doctrine in every way by the Scriptures.
2 Luther says right after the beginning: "But whoever wants to go right and not to-
3) i. e. to get out of the way.
Beware of pointed thoughts", so you, dear brother, must not run straight ahead and blame us, Against whom Luther writes, so 1) we dealt with pointedness; but consider, first of all, how far it is fitting to be perceptive in contemplating God's Word, and to consider the words that forbid sharpening the mind, against those who call it pointed; as Paul says: "You shall not be wise among yourselves". And, "Ye shall know no more, neither need ye know"; and again, "Ye shall not be ignorant, but knowing and understanding what is the will of God." And Christ, Matt. 10, says, "Ye shall be wise as serpents, and simple as doves." Secondly, you shall then measure Luther's opinion of the Sacrament and ours against each other, which is pointed and which is not; for in this way you will find which reproach or revile the other. So we say that the words "this is my body which is given for you" cannot be understood without a tropum, that is, use. And therefore we indicate innumerable causes, the greater part of which will follow. Here we will now indicate the one that is taken in the words themselves, and is this: If the words were to be understood according to the simple form, then it would follow that we would have to eat the body of Christ visibly and sensibly; for he says: "Let it be the body that is given for us. Now there is no invisible, insensitive corpse given for us, but the visible and sensitive one, so we also have to eat it, because he says: "it is the one who is given for us". Furthermore, we also consult other scriptures together with faith (as will follow), so that we may obtain that these words are differently understood or used, that is, tropica. For this purpose, we present sufficient Scriptures that teach us to recognize the tropum and usage. If you want to find out by the word "is", 2) you have innumerable examples in the Bible, where "is" and all words of the essence are taken differently. In Gen. 41, 26: The seven fat cows are seven fruitful years; the seven empty ears are the seven years of hunger, in both places and still in many "is" is taken for "means". Christ says Matth. 11, 14: "He is Elias"; he means John; and John was not Elias, but he was like him. Gal. 4, 24: "These are the two testaments" for: they mean the two testaments. And the like innumerable. But if thou wilt call it by the word corpse-
1) "to suspect, so" - to have in suspicion, as if.
2) "aufthun" - to explain, to open up the opinion.
If you do this, you will have enough information, which we have amply shown in many books, especially against Strauss and Luther, and now finally in Latin. Here we want to show only the most distinguished ones; in Exodus 12:11 God speaks of the paschal lamb, or feast: "This is the transgression. Now the lamb may not be a leap over or a step over, but is only a memorial of the step over. So Christ used the same words in the 3) Abthun of the old memories and essays of the new ones, and also spoke thus: "The bread", or feast, "is my body", that is, means or reproduces my body, which is given for you; and referring to the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 2, 42, where it says: "They strongly adhered to the apostles' teaching and to the church, and to the breaking of bread," which the apostles alone considered a sign used in the thanksgiving and renunciation of the church, and therefore called the breaking of bread alone. The same is noted in Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 16, where he calls it bread, and then in chapter 11, v. 23. 4) and in the last place he tells us with such brightness of mind that the Lord Christ Jesus, in the night when he was given up, took bread, and in the morning, when he was suffering a salvific death, instituted a memorial instead of the old memorial of passing over and carrying out, and said: Take, effet, the bread broken with one another, or the feast is a signification of my body, which is given to death for you etc. So we also understand it of the drink, and recognize according to the words of Paul that it is nothing else, neither a proclamation, that is, thanksgiving to the Lord that his only Son suffered death for us. And the one who appears in thanksgiving 5) pretends to be one who trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ to be reconciled through his death. From this it follows that he follows Christ with his life, doing and suffering all things for God's sake and for the sake of others; and if he does not do this, he becomes guilty of the body of Christ and of his blood, not which he has eaten, but which he has testified to himself that they were given for him, and thus he escapes death and hell; and denies this with an unchristian life. Yes, this is according to the brevity of our simple mind; not
3) "im" put by us instead of "a" in the old edition.
4) was enough.
5) "who appears in thanksgiving" - who goes to the Lord's Supper.
6) These intercalations seem necessary to us in order to give meaning.
The Bible is not a book written by us, but drawn from the Scriptures and invented with the highest understanding of faith.
3 Luther again says that the words: "This is my corpse" etc. must be taken simply, as they read, unused. And if we say [this], it must follow that bread, which must be signified by the little word "that," is the body of Christ; and then the pope would be right who says: The bread is substantially changed into the body of Christ. The bread would also have to be crucified for us if it were the body that was crucified for us. Luther answers that it is nothing less than bread, but that it is the body of Christ, as you, dear brethren, read in this booklet without any consideration. And even if we cry out, "Scripture, Scripture," Luther tells us that Paul called it bread, 1 Cor. 10 and 11. We know that, Lord God! We call it bread and consider it to be bread according to its substance, but no scripture comes forth to prove that it is bread and flesh together. Christ, indicating the bread, even offering it with his hand, says, "This is my body." And now nowhere is it mentioned, neither by apostles, evangelists, nor any scholars who have ever been, that he ever said: "This is bread, and is my flesh with one another. So far is it from Luther's mind that this opinion should be maintained with God's word, that there is also no human word that imposes such a meaning on God's word. But this is how he wants to embellish it with such a speech: 1) "The words are clear. Who would not know what I said if I offered a simml 2) and said: Take and eat, this is a simml"? Thus Luther speaks. But see, dear Christian, how an impossible example this is. If a man brings me a seed, and says, Eat, this is a seed; how can I not understand that it is a seed? if he says that it is just what it is, and that I know that it is. But here it is not so; we take bread and say that it is the bodily corpse of Christ; as if one said, Take away, the simmlen is a cabbage head. 3) But even if Luther had not failed to make a comparison in the example, it is still of no use to deal with such paintings. Examples of previous education teach well, but they do not prove. But here no thing is valid, because it is essentially based on God's word. Soon Luther says, bread remains bread, and in the bread one eats
1) Col. 737, § 6 in this volume.
2) i.e. a roll.
3) Calf's head (?).
the body of Christ. Behold, this is now another; first he said: the bread is bread and the body of Christ with each other; now he says: he is in the bread, these are two different speeches, and all without God's word, in addition he lets the words remain simple in either 4) speech. For thus speak: The bread is bread and the corpse of Christ, gives the words a different sense, as they, simply presented, can bear, so also: in the bread is the corpse of Christ, but gives a different sense. For "this is my body" ever carries the sense that the bread is the body of Christ; but then it cannot be bread in addition; and if the pope were right, it is not, for we see and feel that it is bread and not flesh. It also has the speech: This is bread, and is in addition my corpse, has no umbrella at all, neither in God's word, nor in philosophy, for it may not be two substances One thing. But the other speech: In the bread etc., would like to be glossed by the synecdocham; but then it is a trope, that is, usage, and the words do not remain in their simple sense, as but Luther argues. Now, if he interprets it with the tropo, and falsifies it before the simple reader, he does not want to suffer the tropum, use, at all; item, if he also says without God's word: it is bread and flesh, since we feel the bread well, but no one is aware of the flesh, which is also contrary to all understanding; item, if Christ says: it is the corpse, which is given for us, but which is given for us visibly, sensitively, sufferingly: so now behold, those who deal in subtlety, 5) we who say, that it is only a sign of the body of Christ carried about and eaten in the meal of thanksgiving, and all this with Scripture; or Luther, who wants to eat the bodily body there, but cannot eat it, for he would have to eat it as it is dead. Therefore, dear reader, you see that you read with little judgment if you allow yourself to doubt Luther's sermon. But it happens to you because you want to be so wise and well-instructed, and you do not yet know what doctrine is. I speak only to some simple-minded people, for I am well aware that this sermon has set them on the right track; thus it is without any reason, and cries out very loudly, but no one hears it, for it is not God's voice. See also in this, which is panned, speak of the corpse of Christ,
4) i.e. each of the two.
5) d. i. bypass.
6) d. i. More practiced.
of which all who have ever spoken of it have only 1) spoken and not understood nor believed; or have versed the truth 2) and proved the words with Scripture, that they have the meaning. Luther must still have this against us before that we do not want to reproach and disgrace him before the simple as he does us. But in Latin I have addressed him more freely, yet without scolding.
(4) According to this he says: we have gone astray because we have followed our thoughts. Where, then, would this chip 3) have come on the track before 4) we were born? for there have never been any thoughts that are not challenged with it, as Luther also confesses about himself.
(5) And teaches how one must cleave to the words with faith alone. In this, however, the simple-minded are struck over the eye, because you think that this word, "to believe in the words with faith," is spoken in common of the faith that we have in and on God's word; but Luther verbally refers to faith, that flesh and blood are eaten here. Therefore, notice that it is indeed right to teach that one should believe all the words of God without any hindrance; 5) but in doing so, one must also understand the word of God correctly before one places faith in it, or we would deceive ourselves if we did not understand it and thought to preserve our misunderstanding by crying out that one should believe God's word. For example, the pope based his actions on God's word in all ways, but not on the rightly understood word, namely: "And on the rock I will build my church. But he misunderstood it, and said that the church was built on Peter, and extended 6) the word "rock" to Peter, and therefore, according to Peter, he was also the rock on which the church stood. And Christ applies the word "rock" to himself, in the sense: "Upon the rock, which you have sewn, and of which I have given you the name Rocker, because you have recognized it, together with the others (for he speaks in all their names, as is also found in John 6), yes, upon the rock, which I am, I will build my church. See now, dear brother, that it is not enough to cry out:
1) "only" put by us instead of "now".
2) rejuvenate - assert, confess.
3) Span - Discord.
4) "denn" put by us instead of "und". Zwingli almost constantly uses "before and" instead of "before then," so we will no longer give an account of this change.
5) d. i. Reservation.
6) d. i. goals.
I have God's word? but one must understand God's word rightly, and therefore rely on the right understanding of God's word. But if the pope did not do this, he fell into the pit and took with him everything that God, with His grace, did not remove from the pit 7). So it must also happen to him here, or else we miss.
6 Secondly, notice that with faith there is also a rope laid before you. Our faith, which we have in God through and in Christ Jesus, makes us whole. This is true; however, it does not come from the fact that faith can actually do this, since it originated from us; rather, the one who believes was chosen and drawn by God before and before, Jn. 6. Now faith is nothing else, neither being left to God; for thus God made the covenant with all the elect, that they should worship him alone, adore him alone (as one God), adhere to him alone; as also the Lord Christ Jesus, Matth. 4, [10.] poked the devil in the nose. But now the covenant may not be changed (we are not speaking here of the outward ceremonies, but only of the inward ground of faith; for the ceremonies must have 8) been changed), so it follows that also trusting in the Lord Christ Jesus is based on his divinity alone; therefore that he is the true God, as he himself clearly states John 12: "He that trusteth in me, trusteth not in me, but in him that sent me." Behold, as he saith, trust not in him, understand, as he is man, but in him that sent him, with whom he is One God; so it follows that we put our faith in Christ Jesus alone, because he is true God. What then is mankind? A certain pledge of grace; for which is given in death, that the divine justice might be heard, 9) and be reconciled to us, that we might run in trust to the grace and mercy of God, through the precious pledge of His own Son, whom He has given to us. For what can he refuse us, if he has given his own Son for us, Romans 8, of which enough has been said elsewhere and thoroughly? Now if those who want to eat the body of Christ in the flesh draw faith to the conclusion that we should believe that we are eating flesh and blood, or else we would not be saved, they teach very harmfully. For our faith is thoroughly in the Godhead alone,
7) d. i. held by the jacket.
8) dennen - from then on, away.
9) d. i. satisfied.
and the true Son of God, Jesus Christ, has never pretended that anything is given to us through bodily eating. For, as it is said before, [in that] which Joh. 6. stands of his flesh eating and blood drinking, eating is to be taken for trusting. When then the disciples immediately in the same place pass away, we know and trust that thou art the Son of the living God. See how they speak and rejoice in the Godhead, but do not speak: We believe that your flesh and blood, eaten, forgive sin etc. Now therefore take heed lest these men deceive us with the courtship, or the circumlocution, 1) which they have need of for and for. [They speak of the faith and do it justice, but they will then speak and lead it secretly, that one should understand by faith, believing that flesh and blood are eaten here; and they do this almost unjustly. God enlighten them and forgive them, for they teach this without the reason of God's word and faith.
7 Third, notice that there is a great difference between the words that promise and those that do not. For those who promise are undoubted by the believer that what they promise will come to pass; but those who do not promise, but tell or teach, they do and do not come to pass. For example, Christ's promise that if we give no more than a drink of water to one in his name, he will repay us, is quite undoubted by believers, and will certainly come to pass; but that he says, Whatever you want men to do to you, do to them; or, If you are smitten on one cheek, offer the other also; is an undoubted word of God, which we believe. But how? Do we also believe that all who believe him do so? No; for we have many who believe, but do not offer their cheeks. But this we believe, that it is godly and right to do unto our neighbor as we would be done unto us, and to overcome the enemy with virtue and goodness. Therefore, note that we trust in the words that promise something (if we are believers). But the words that teach or are called we believe; and so there is a difference between trusting in God's word, and believing God's word; for God's words are also distinguished. And does "trust in God's word" serve the word that promises something; and "believe God's word" serves on the words that mean or forbid something, ver-
1) "Balz" will probably be the same as "Falz", "Umlitz" the folded over, so that the sense will be: by crooked ways and twists.
mean nothing. And the difference is also in faith; for he who relies on God's word must first believe that it is God's word, so that he is only certain that he will receive what God, in whom he trusts, has promised him. So now take the words: "This is my body" etc. and the: "You will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son," against each other, and you will see how Luther deceives himself. We are to believe the words: "This is my body". How? That they were spoken by Christ, and in remembrance of his death. But shall we also trust in them? No, because nothing is promised to us with them; therefore we cannot rightly and actually say 2) German of them that one should trust in them or rely on them. For if we should speak according to Luther's saw: we should rely on the fact that with the eating of the corpse, bodily, sin will be forgiven us, then we have no promise about it; but if we should rely on the fact that, where we speak the words, the bodily corpse of Christ will be there from the hour (as Luther says), then we have no promise about it. For the word, "Do this in remembrance of me," is not a promise. On the other hand, Christ did not call his body to be eaten in remembrance of his body, but he calls the words praise and thanksgiving to be done in remembrance that he gave his body to death for us. This is not what I say, but what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11, when he interprets these words, "Do this in remembrance of me: As often as you eat the bread and drink the drink, you should proclaim the death of the Lord," that is, praise and glorify God. But that Mary was told: "You will receive" etc., is a word of promise, because after that she was also promised the way and measure, as it would go: "The Holy Spirit will come down into you from above" etc. This does not happen here at all, because it is not spoken 4): So it shall come to pass, when you speak the words, that the body of Christ shall be there, or the like. And therefore Luther gives us one thing above reproach, when he speaks of these words in the same way, as if they were words of promise, and places them next to the word of promise, since the birth of the Son of God is promised to Mary the Virgin, and says: "Let thyself trust in it"; which "let thyself trust in it" does not serve for the simple telling and command, but is enough for the simple telling or command in faith, since we believe that he is the Son of God.
2) "actually" put by us instead of: "actually".
3) "his" put by us instead of: one.
4) i. e. nowhere.
He has thus instituted his memorial, and we should do the same to him. But that his bodily body is given to us for the washing away of sin, we are not to believe that at all, because we have a word of promise about it, or else we are not Christians, but Luthrists. This is indeed a promise that his death will take away our sin, John 1, 3 and 12. But to eat his body bodily has as little promise as it is promised to me that I will become emperor. If any one desires to see more of this reason, let him read what I have written against the ostrich. 1) Behold then, how well it is, when we thus cry, Let words bring thee not, let not words bring thee; and yet secretly is the opinion, Let words that are not understood, which have no promise. Do not let the words you do not yet understand bring you. Sam 2) One would say: Do not let the mind tell you, rely only on the words, God give how they stand against other words, do not inquire into the meaning.
8) And therefore, when Luther says: 3) "He who draws faith from the words believes that God gives, Christ creeps into the bread or cup, or whatever he wants. When I have the words, I will see no further nor think" etc., do you first see that he turns it around? One does not learn faith from the words, but God teaches it to us, 4) and then we see faith also in the words, that is, if we believe, we also find the word for it. Example: I find in the Turk Alkoran well the knowledge of their faith, I give him however therefore no faith; because it is larger fool way never of a faith invented, neither they have. So there are many who hear what the faith is, they also know the pieces of the faith, but they do not believe because of it; for no one believes, neither whom the Father has drawn. Therefore you see how all his words are to the effect that he does not want to let them be seen for what they are, nor does he want to set them against other Scriptures. Yes, he wants to keep his words and not ask any further questions. So tell me, dear Luther, What will you do? Eat the body of Christ in the flesh for the forgiveness of sins? Then you are wrong, for he was not given to eat for the remission of sins, but he was given in death for sins. So your cry is no more than a cry, until you bring forth an open declaration in which we see,
1) No. 26 in this volume.
2) d. i. as if.
3) Col. 736, § 5 in this volume.
4) From these words of Zwingli we see that according to his teaching faith is not attained through the word of God, but through an inner enlightenment.
that he, having eaten, also accepts the sin; or do you want to hold to the truth, so that you believe that he has instituted a memorial and thanksgiving of his death? then we are one; for we also believe the same understandably. Remain now with it, God has well for good, you must not believe further in this word, because God gives there no more to believe; but if you continue, then you want to know more, neither is necessary. But that thou shouldest then draw the words, that they should be words of promise, is violence: for he hath nowhere promised that we should eat his flesh, nor that sin should be forgiven thereby, nor that faith should be strengthened, nor that the gospel should be substantially brought with it, as this preaching signifieth.
Accordingly, Luther speaks of us enthusiasts: 6) "Now they have two things in particular which they bring up against us. First, they say that it is not fitting that Christ should be body and blood in bread and wine. Secondly, eat not of necessity." Behold, devout reader, how we poor enthusiasts are so badly supplied with intercession 7). First of all, he says that we say it is not fitting; as if we tempered "not fitting" according to human reason, that it is not fitting according to it; for that is where his images reach, which he then gives, that he would like to persuade us, Lord God, with images that are quite childish, and that do not rhyme with what will come afterward. But we give nothing for the likenesses, except on the basis of the Scriptures beforehand; then we let the likeness serve as an explanation, and no further. Therefore, notice, dear reader, our opinion, when we say, "it is not fitting," we are not speaking at all to carnal reason, but to the absurditatem, that is. 8) of faith and Scripture. In the first, Christ says, "He that trusteth in me hath everlasting life." If eternal life comes because we trust in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, then the eating of flesh goes away. 9) But Christ says, John 6: "He that cometh to me" (here "cometh to him" is also taken for "trusting in him," as it is also learned there), "shall not hunger; and he that trusteth in me, the same shall not hunger.
5) 'sam - as if.
6) Col. 737, § 8 in this volume.
7) Advocate - Advocat.
8) i.e. inconsistency.
9) "So the meat eating goes off" will mean here: so the meat eating falls away. At the end of § 16 of this scripture, "loose" is written in the meaning of: lapsed, unfounded.
will never thirst." In short, faith or anointing feels in itself that God secures us with His Spirit within, and that all the outward things that come into us from without may do nothing to make us right. Therefore, God promises through the prophet Jeremiah on the 31st that He will write His law in our hearts; and Paul calls all the things that are done to us from without 1) the justification of the flesh, and also says that these things were only granted for a time, and are terminated by Christ, Heb. 9. 9) Also the description of faith, Heb. 11, against the bodily eating of the body of Christ, of which it is not now proper to say, since some think they want to put it on their part, 2) but in vain. 3) In short, the firm, righteous, sincere faith trusts in Christ's divinity, and recognizes his death to be our life; but he knows nothing of the bodily meal, for it is of no use to him, since God has not promised anything to the bodily meal, nor has he instituted it. On the other hand, it is not appropriate because of faith, for the articles of faith are: "He ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; then he is to be judged in the future" etc. We believe that he ascended bodily, so he cannot be here; because his body is not more than in one place, even after the primal state 4). This is indicated first of all by all his appearances, with which he appeared to his own after the original state, none of which happened in such a way that he was once 5) in two places, let alone in many. Also in this way we have a bright word of the angel, Marc. 16. who thus speaks: "He is risen and is not here." If he was not there, then his body is not everywhere, but Luther wants to say that Paul's word Eph. 4: "Christ ascended above all heavens to fill all things" means that Christ's body fills all things, just as grain fills a sack. Now Paul does not want to say of such filling, but of the filling of the Christ, that he ascended into heaven, because he fulfilled all things that were spoken of him beforehand through the prophets; for Paul there draws forth information from the 67th [68th] Psalm, of which I have written enough to Luther in Latin. Much more information will come afterwards in the clumsy 6) Scriptures, which, however, also serve here.
1) "her" put by us instead of: "for".
2) "stoop" probably as much as: bend.
3) So put by us instead of: vergenlich.
4) i. Resurrection.
5) i.e. at one, at the same time.
6) i.e. inconsistency.
16 And now therefore take heed to the awkwardness of the Scripture. The scripture may not suffer us to eat Christ's flesh or body bodily. As he says in John 6, "The flesh is of no use at all" (understand, to eat, as Luther himself also recognized in the sermon on the Gospel of John 6, although he now says something else), it also follows that he did not give us this to eat, for he says just before it, "The Spirit who makes alive. And Christ himself contrasts it, saying, "It must be spirit," not flesh, "that quickeneth the soul:" so ever the flesh is of no use, understand all, to eat. Jn. 16, Christ says: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world, and go unto the Father." Now he may not ever leave the world according to the Godhead, for according to it he is by nature everywhere, pervading "all things: wherefore he must ever have left the world according to mankind. For that the opposing party says that he is invisible in the sacrament is true; yes, just as he is invisible in the lintmag, 7) or in the hearts of the faithful, but not bodily there; for if he himself were bodily in the sacrament, he would have to be there, as he hung on the cross, that is, visible, sensitive, painful. But that Luther fights a lot, as it is well possible for God to do, he does against himself; for in the book against the King of England he states quite theorously, 8) that it is not proper to conclude from God's ability to be. It does not follow that God is able, so it is. It does not follow that God may make harrows 9) into a snow goose, so he is.
11 John 16: "It is good for you that I go, for where I do not go, the Comforter will not come. If it is good for us that he should go, why do we say that he is here? Yes, if we say that he is here invisibly, we are always inferring the divinity, but by no means the humanity; for there is no evidence from the Scriptures, and even here it is heard that he has gone. He does not say, "I will be with you invisibly," which would have been a proper response to their mourning, which they had received from his absence, but he persists in his going. Now "to be here invisibly" would not suffer the word "to give up," nor the word "I leave the world," [least of all] which is John 17: "Henceforth I shall not be in the world, but they shall be in it." Behold, as they stand together, evil will he not alone after mankind.
7) "Lintmag" perhaps synonymous with heart?
8) In the old edition: darbringst.
9) Corners (?) d. i. D. Eck.
be in the world; for the disciples, even we, are, bodily in the world, so he will not be in the world; for he sets them over against each other, his being in the world, and ours being in the world. There: "when I was with them" etc. Behold, all this must be understood of his humanity alone, and may not be accounted for by invisible being here; for he saith, "I will not henceforth be in the world." Much more writings are, so may not suffer that the words of Christ: "This is my body", are understood unused 1), which I have indicated in Latin to Luther, as well as everything more abundantly. This is the clumsy one of which we say. For otherwise we know well, that the well, which is called or promised by God, and we understand it rightly. No one has any doubt about the virginity and birth of Mary, for this is promised and foretold with bright words, but here there is none.
All of Luther's parables may, as has been reported, prove nothing; for they have no "back in God's word," nor are they unskillful to the all, not befitting his presumption. How the soul is after the whole body, taken from the [Tractat] de anima Aristotelis, does not befit. But if Luther could give an example of a corpse being in all souls or ends, that would be appropriate. Our question is not whether the divinity of Christ, or the fruitfulness of his suffering around and around, serves as an example of the soul, but whether his corpse is everywhere. So all examples are sufficient to show that Christ is in the hearts of all men, essentially according to the divinity, and also bodily according to the respect and memory; but essentially, bodily does not indicate a likeness, nor would it help if a likeness were equally well suited. That it is formed by the word is brought out in Strausen's answer. In short, it must not be Zürlemürlens: 2) "As it is with God in heaven, so he gives it into our heart; so the truly preaching mouth speaks, and does not the spoken word bring the thing with it, of which it speaks?" Or else, if we said, as the river of sin has passed over the world, we would drown the world, or as Sodoma is burned, we would burn the world, and thus be counted cheap for witches. That Luther writes on the measure, sam des Engels Wort die gegenwärtige Empfängniß Marien ein gebracht hat, ist gar eine ungeschickte Rede, und Gottes Worte
1) d. i. without tropus.
2) This word means (compare No. 24, § 49): parrot talk, useless talk. It seems to us that Zwingli aims at Col. 740, § 16.17 and Col. 743 f., § 25 by the following, but introduces Luther's words quite inaccurately and incomprehensibly....
who says: "Let the Holy Spirit come down from above and overshadow the power of the Most High" etc. Now the angel's word did not do this; for what else can the angel speak, neither that is called God? but God's power. 3) We would have liked to bring words that had also done something, so that we might prove that here the words, believed and spoken alone, would make the body of Christ present; but there is no reason for this.
Luther says: 4) "If we speak the words about the bread, then he is truly there. Oh, that God would have mercy on you, Luther, that you ever spoke the word, for it is an entirely papal word. Show scripture therefore.
14) "These words are given to us," Luther continues, "so that we know where to find him, namely in bread. Is false. For he has shown himself to us bodily at the right hand of the Father, there he will lie 6) until the last judgment, Matth. 26. But with grace he has shown himself in your closet, now go in and worship him in spirit and truth, you will surely find him. Further, he has shown himself: "what we shall desire in his name," though he has ascended to heaven, "he will give us"; so he is ever everywhere, and never comes from us, for he says: "I will be with you to the end of the world," must be understood of divinity and grace alone.
Since you, dear Luther, say that "the devil has possessed us; we have read that Christ is dead for us, 7) but we do not feel this in our hearts," we say nothing more evil than that: Why do you judge another man's own man? Rom. 14. If we tell you the sum of how we believe and what we teach, you either say, "We learned it from you; and yet if it is a miracle, we learned it from you, that you do not want to recognize your own teaching; or you say, "We did not believe anything that we understand. How then shall we do to him? Nothing else, but bear it cheerfully, and commend it to the right judge.
(16) Other words of shame and disgrace, dear reader, we also leave to the aforementioned judge, and show you that Luther, through all this matter, speaks the opinions listed below, without God's
3) Marginal gloss: Vas vietis! aut: Huiä viotis, nist ckolor?
4) Col. 741, § 19 in this volume.
5) Luther does not speak like this. This is also an inaccurate twisted citation, which is probably supposed to refer to Col. 744, 8 25 (to the end).
6) probably: stay.
7) Luther, Col. 745, § 27: "died" etc.
1122II Writings against Zwingli and his followers re. W. xx, i4os-i408. 1123
Word, it may also not receive, so that you know you bß 1) to forgive.
1) The body of Christ, eaten in the flesh, fortifies faith.
2) The body of Christ, eaten bodily or naturally, forgives sin.
3) The body of Christ is brought bodily into the Sacrament as soon as the words "This is my body" are spoken over it.
4) The Gospel is given to the recipient with the offering of the Sacrament, and the Body and Blood of Christ are given.
Are all open, errors and reasons, on which the whole papacy would like to be erected again, because they are loose without God's word.
17 Therefore you, dear reader, when I initially
1) In the old edition: wüstest. - vergaumen - to be on one's guard, to take care.
2) i.e. unfounded.
I have told you not to worry much about quarrels, but to look at the one thing that you love God above all things, and worship Him with pious innocence. Remember also that this point was never so important to the ancient Christians that they ever made an article of it in their faith. And keep God.
18) To the immodest, lying book, which Johannes Faber, after the right name Nebulo, or in German Heierli, has let go out, I will answer, if it will be necessary, when the disputation will come out, if I perhaps aligned two works with one; the same, the publicly lying preface, which Joakim has let go out in print at Grüt. And what someone would write in the matter repugnant, we want, whether God wills, with the time everything thoroughly answer. Until undoubtedly, the war will be judged, now storm no one. God with us all, amen. Given in Zurich on the 30th day of March. Anno 1527.