The letter of June 20, 1527.
Huldrich Zwingli wishes the most noble Prince John, Duke of Saxony, his gracious lord, grace and peace from God through Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord.
Most gracious Prince and Lord! My rude, incompetent 3) writing shall not offend your F. G., to one, 4) that I think, all of you princes have long been very annoyed, that one makes even close 5) all speeches and writings with such words: Ew. gnädigste Gnad, Churfürstl., Fürstl. Durchleuchtigkeit etc. more than incomprehensible, to the
3) i.e., the wealthless.
4) to one - one part.
5) In the old edition: "garnach", i. e. almost.
others, that I do not doubt, such titles, descending from the flattering Xind 6) of writers and orators, displeases all Christian princes higher, neither simple correct speeches. So now your F. Grace for the sake of Christian faith, which in your country is so bravely preached by Martin Luther and others, even among the most noble princes, noble and illustrious: I have no doubt that they hear my foolish simplicity best of all. For me, to write to princes now and then, truly no addiction of honors penetrates, which [as] I can well judge, would be more obscured, where one does not write to me for the best my
6) i.e. servants. In the old edition: "Lind der Schreiberen und Rederen".
*The complete title of this writing, which is directed against Luther's "That these words of Christ: this is my body etc., still stand firm against the swarming spirits", is as follows: "That these words, this is my body, which is given for you, will eternally have the old unified meaning, and M. Luther with his last book has not at all proven his and Pabst's meaning. Huldrich Zwingli christliche Antwort, Zürch 1527." This writing, like the previous one, has been translated into Latin by Rudolph Gualther and given to the op "r. 2uinM, lom. II, p. 374 inserted. The date of the letter to Duke John of Saxony, June 20, 1527, will probably indicate the day on which Zwingli began this "reply." We give the text according to Walch's old edition.
The same is true for the other parts of the country. If, however, the matter requires in part that it be unconcealed even to the princes, and if, on the other hand, they are found to have such Christian and friendly hearts and opinions that they do not take offense at anything, we wicked ones are ever compelled and comforted to present our concern in writing. Now if Doctor Martinus Luther, in the business of Christ's supper, not only hammers over the cord of the Christian spirit and love, but also tries to penetrate and see the Scriptures with the splendor of his name in an improper sense, this should not be concealed by the smallest one who sits in the congregation, if he understands it, but should be contradicted; regardless of how great the name is that is contradicted: how much more shall it not be unheard by the nobles of this world, whether they be put to the sword of vengeance, or to the sword of the word of God? But if here, too, there is an artifice that would soon make the teachers' tyranny and violence no less strong than the papacy has been, which is an artifice, 2) the doctrine, against which we cannot, with God's word, cry out so cruelly: it is heretical, raving, superstition, seditious, red spiritualist, and the like; so that the ordinary powers are introduced to forbid it unheard and unjustified: It is all the more necessary, then, to stand up against such authorities and to prevent special scholars from taking the judgment of the Christian people and making it their own; from this it would follow that they would keep God's word in prison according to their misguided understanding, no less than the popes did before; as Luther does publicly in this book. Against all truth, he wants to force the word of Christ: "The flesh is of no use at all" into the mind: carnal mind is of no use; and to this end he falsifies the word, uses the Greek articul dennen, 3) is "that," in which the sense takes much light. Therefore, may your grace read and judge this answer of mine, which is not mine but God's (for it is taken from His one word), for God's sake, in which Christian truth and modesty stand, and as far as the Almighty (as I do not doubt that He will graciously guide you from now on, as before) will give you the truth.
1) "Unwürdsche" is probably formed from "unwirsch" and will mean "displeasure, anger". The form "Unwirsse" also occurs.
2) i.e. whose [the Pabst's] art is to shout against the teaching etc.
3) dennen - from then on, away.
4) and follow them gladly, and in the meantime do not be displeased with the quarreling, since it has come to a quarrel; but be on both sides of it that one fights with the friendly, peaceful word of God, not with such improper scolding. For if Luther supposes that the church is not injured by his lewd words, and supposes that he has delivered the gospel to it again, he must ever be sure of himself that he has drawn a church that has been used to such scolding; 5) which, after all, is not at all befitting a Christian people, among whom all things are to be done with discipline and the fear of God. Truly it is not that we have such a pale rind that we cannot suffer such evil 6) but that it is ever unseemly to educate even the most wicked tongues rather than brave hearts. It is also more formal with those who are of Luther's opinion, and more skillful to find the truth, to seek and judge without anger, neither with such nonsense. Although the good comes from the angry speech, that all enemies of the Gospel, especially the popes, now see that there is no conspiracy between today's preachers, no cakes, 7) or superior, but free teaching. May the Almighty guide and protect your grace together with all its territory with all believers in Christ in the right knowledge of the truth! Amen. Given in Zurich on the 20th day of June 1527.
Martino Luther's wishes for Huldrich Zwingli
Grace and peace from God through Jesus Christ, the living Son of God, who for our salvation suffered death, and therefore left the world in the flesh and ascended to heaven, where he sits until he comes again on the last day according to his own word, so that you may know that he dwells in our hearts through faith, Eph. 3, not through the fleshly eating of the mouth, as you want to teach without God's word. This we wish you from the bottom of our hearts, dear Luther, for many reasons. In which we hope to be raised much more Christian, neither if one raises it with the devil, 8) than you have raised this great book.
4) d. i. listen.
5) In the old edition: Schelkens. To resolve it with "Schelten" is prevented by the previous sentence; perhaps it is: Schalkheit treiben; the contrast is: Zucht und Gottesfurcht Cf. § 29 of this writing.
6) i.e. shocks, blows.
7) cement cake - cook together (?).
8) By this Zwingli means Luther's writing "that these words of Christ: this is my body, still stand firm" etc. (No. 20 in this volume.)-The writing of Zwingli, which is mentioned by him immediately following, is probably his "xsI68I8, j<I "st, "xpositio "novaristias nsgotii, aä Llsrtiuum I,utv "rnm. Zürch 1527.
lived. God has arranged that both of our writings have gone out at one time: ours in Latin, in which we have done everything that you complain about being unaccountable until now; but in a foreign language, so that you would not complain that I had been thirsty to 1) make you look bad in front of all the German country: but yours in German, so that it would not do harm in foreign lands; but, since Germany has the best possible account of God's word in the church, the effortful battle would be waged in the language, which might be stained with it in the least. The gracious Father takes such good care of us, that he can order the things that we think are clumsy (when I also thought that you should have done this battle in Latin, so that all things might first be well considered among the scholars before they are poured out among the people): yes, he can order things well. Now that everything you write here in German is sufficiently explained in our Latin, but only the Latins read it, I am also compelled to bring in German what serves the matter, so that both opinions may come before the church, and the truth may increase. In which of our opposition you shall have the advantage, that we do not want to insult you at all with such intemperate words, as you are accusing us of; but do not reckon us here under malicious words, when we will say: Here you pervert our words, here you reproach us without need, here you make gifts according to your own will, here you lie to us, here you falsify the Scriptures, here you do not understand them, here you are against yourself, and the like, for we want to explain all these things clearly. And yet we are still so rich in words that we have enough of the litter, nor (praise be to God) are we so angry that we cannot beware of them. But since you so strongly expose the untruth with such impudent, immodest words, they must also be forcefully drawn out according to the word of Paul, and point with the finger where the prest 3) lies; also put something before your eyes, so that you also learn to recognize yourself from your own words, for we truly, truly see that those falsely boast of the spirit, who write so very carnally, and speak with such great diligence, to injure the neighbor and to go out. 4) Be patient also, that we may answer thee according to the length of all thy writing, which thou wilt not, as at the end of thy
1) In the old edition: gehebt.
2) "Schenzelst" probably as much as: disgrace, revile. Therefore (soon to follow) "Schenzelworte" - Sckmähworte.
3) "Prest"-break; "to paint something"-etlichemal.
4) i.e. to bring down.
Book stands. Let us not forget the two points: "He sitteth on the right hand"; and, "the flesh is of no use at all." But, if we come to them, we will establish them abundantly on the basis of the Scriptures, for ever this is not to be suffered, that you, in order to redeem the matter, make us out to be such shameful lying people, that, if it were so in truth, not only our writings, but also our names, should be accepted and interpreted by all men. But the matter will be different (with God), neither you will muck it up. Here, God's word will prevail; not gushers, devils, mischief-mongers, heretics, murderers, rebels, gilders, or hypocrites; defiance, botz, blotz, Blitz, Donder, Po, pu, pa, plump, and the like. Dishonor, dirty words, and dirty tricks. Therefore, dear Luther, notice how we want to keep order. Go from one point to the other in general, and resolve it in short or long, according to the requirements of the matter, and if it comes to the two points mentioned, indicate and fix them clearly, as has been said. But that we do not follow thee, since thou dost urge us to let all the rest of thy speech fall, and to the two points alone: "He is seated at the right hand" and "Flesh is not useful," so that we do not go astray, happens for the following reasons: First, since you obscure the truth with so much useless talk, and then think that we should overlook it, we cannot honor you, for we would dishonor the truth, or else my service, they say. On the other hand, you would have your reasons of the two points: "He is seated at the right hand," and "the flesh is of no use at all," you would have brought them to two sheets, and made nine and a half of them: what is the rest, then, that is not necessary, which you also allow us to leave unaccounted for? Is it in your opinion? why; do you then permit us not to answer about it? since you so often cry murder, that one has not answered, which you wrote against Carlstadt, how would [you] only do so here? But if it does not fit your opinion, why did you put the useless many? Therefore, we will do enough for you, and not give you cause for further unrest, we will leave nothing unaccounted for, even though we would like to advise the work to be good, and lend it to more useful things, so that you cannot "say" that we have not accounted for this or that. Thirdly, it was also right and proper among the Athenians, as Demosthenes indicates per Ctesipüonte, that the answering party should not be imprisoned 5), that he only had to answer as his adversary wished. How much
5) d. i. restricted.
Less should you dictate to us that we do not answer for the things that you have sown in the hearts of men with such impious words? But we will gladly do so, in God's name, and consume the words more with the seriousness of the matter, neither with long prefaces. You, devout reader, do not judge out of temptation or lack of understanding, but see what befits the true divinity and humanity of Christ, which are both real and natural in him, not from my but from his own words. May the Almighty of His grace give light to this, 1) so that no one may err, but may look upon the bright truth unblinkingly 2). Amen!
(1) Now that you, dear Luther, have told how the devil ran away the bridge, that is, the Scriptures, from the first Christians, you should have weighed yourself against us from the beginning; then you would have seen that it is our only work to stick to the Scriptures that are well and rightly understood; and herewith you would have found yourself wanting to force us away from the Scriptures in this matter and give us your word for it. As thou teachest now in the book only new error: the body of Christ eaten, even with the mouth, put away sin, establish faith, fill all things, and also be present in all things, even as well as the Godhead; preserve the body of man unto the primal state,3) and such like things as shall come after; which thou teachest all the word of God; but wilt in short that men should believe thee, if therefore thou hast not the word of God, but it disputes against it: then see thou now, wedre 4) Part of the other want to run off the Scripture. But I hope that there are now so many 5) richer in the church in all speeches and understanding, that they may well know, not the speech of the puffed up, but the power, 1 Cor. 4.
(2) But that thou showest how the statutes of men are brought in by the concilia, is found to be really against thee, neither against us. For you make laws how the Scriptures are to be understood, which you do not like to shield in your way; as where "flesh" stands without "my" consent, it is called carnal wickedness, etc. as will come afterward. Thus thou art more like unto them that bring in human statutes, neither we; for thou givest statutes which God's word doth not signify, neither doth he suffer.
(3) And when thou shalt show thereafter that out of the
1) "give" put by us instead of: lift.
2) i.e. unblinded.
3) i. Resurrection.
4) i.e. which of the two.
5) d. i. already.
Fathers' statutes the quarrel in God's word is accepted, which is a divine quarrel; but it does not affect us, because we alone have God's word for our reason. If, however, someone wants to fight with us, we want to protect ourselves with the sword of God's word alone. If this is a divine quarrel, as you say, then we will do justice to the matter. But not so. In the word of God one should not quarrel, but open it earnestly to one another, and if the truth is heard and seen, yield. All this is to be done with the kindling of the believing heart, as happened to the disciples who went to Emmaus. Our controversy is not only with the devil, but also with the flesh, which is always against the Spirit. Therefore, really know what these speeches are, as Ephesians 6 says. In short, we do not want to fight with you in any other boundaries, neither in the 7) New Testament nor in the Old Testament. But that the teachers are attracted by Oecolampadio and me is not because we want to base ourselves on them, as we have often enough indicated, but because we want to bring word from everywhere.
(4) Accordingly, you show yourself worthy, as you have brought forth the Scriptures under the bench; in my opinion, unreasonably. For if you ever consider those who have brought the Scriptures to us through the means and instrument of languages, you must recognize Erasmum in our time, and Vallam a few years ago in one, 8) and the pious Reuchlin and Pellicanum in the other, without whose help neither you nor others would be nothing 9) if only man, and not God, were to be recognized as the author. But what need is there of praising? Is it no longer he who makes everything grow 10) together? Does Paul no longer count for anything? 1 Cor. 3: "Who is Paul? Who is Apollus? I planted, Apollos watered; but God made it grow: therefore he that planted is nothing, nor he that watered, but he that made it grow, God. And not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name shalt thou give the glory." I will spare you here, dear Luther, publicly, because you have boasted of yourself in many writings, by epistles and otherwise much more proudly, so that you should probably be astonished; 11) but we will, if God wills, be moderate, and let you remain a man. For in truth you know well,
6) nevertheless" put by us instead of: accordingly.
7) In the old edition: innert.
8) to one - on the one hand.
9) In the old edition: nützid. With regard to this word, compare § 4 towards the end.
10) In the old edition: "as seed"; immediately following: "useful" instead of: nothing.
11) d. i. stäupen.
that at the time when you stood out, there was a great multitude of those who were much more skilled in reading and languages than you, although they did not stand out to protect Israel and to fight against the great Goliath of Rome because of fear, because God did not raise them up and make them male. (I also follow your praise.) But you were called by God in all this, no different from David; you faced the enemy so comfortingly that all who were afraid of how the shameful Antichrist would be taken, were strengthened, jumped to you, so that the gospel came to a successful conclusion; Therefore we should thank God that he raised you up, since no one dared to do so, and hold you in honor as a useful piece of crockery, as we also gladly do, even though you turn the same into many ways. But anger is a bond of reason, and an enemy of love, nothing less, neither also nonsense confuses reason. But who is so unwise as to be angry with a good man who rages, if he rages more and more? No one; but the more he rages, the more one feels compassion for him. So we can truly see to this day how you have stormed the papacy, even though you have brought the powerless, hopeful flesh out into the light, how much God has given you power to speak. And even though you now rage out of anger, we would like to overlook [the same] for the sake of your former service, you do not want to recognize it. But that you are now raging out of anger, you cannot deny, if God wills, if you only read your own book, for the multitude of evil words and wrong opinions, as we will make clear, cannot come out of love and good consideration. For look at all those who have ever written out of bitterness, where no one has ever escaped himself as much as you have escaped yourself in the book. And shall you ever be able to reckon it to a spirit? or not speak against you? or give way to error? Saul was at first gentle, and dear to God, and skilful; but when he became haughty and tyrannical, God made him daily deaf; [he] did dishonorable things to him: shall it therefore have been right, because he was not skilful? The great Alexander also kept himself more free in the end of his life, neither in youth. Marcus Manlius, by his glorious deeds, came to know that he sought the empire, and was killed for the sake of tyranny. Pythagoras, the most noble philosopher, became the greatest tyrant; should it therefore be all right what they do? Much less should anyone in the Christian community, for the sake of a noble deed, carry himself in such a way that he should not be persuaded, or
believe what he wants. Therefore, I urge you by God, who created you and me, to go into yourself and let other people sing about you and say that you may be worthy. For "what do you have that you have not received from God? But if thou hast received it, why dost thou boast?" 1 Cor. 4. And if all this does not help, I will make thee know thyself more truly in all goodness. Thou wilt ever be seen, if thou alone hast judged the course of the gospel, wherein I almost admit much to thee. But I will make thee see that thou hast not known the wide and glorious light of the gospel, because thou hast forgotten it again. You have taught that Christ Jesus, the Son of the living God, is our only salvation, that faith comes from the uniting Father and Spirit, and the like. For you have therefore brought forth Scripture, both new and old. But if, in addition, you have strongly taught that absolution must be given to anyone who is to be sure that his sins are forgiven, and that this absolution is the key, you have not really recognized either the key or the gospel. For from the gospel comes the assurance of faith, since we know that the Son of God paid for our sins with his death. If there is faith, then there is also absolution or redemption, so there is no need for man to be made sure, for he must become sure in faith alone, and no one gives faith, not God. And even if a man were to say ten thousand times, "Your sins are forgiven you," no one is certain of this, not even one who is assured of God in his heart; for if one were to say, "Your sins are forgiven you through the death of Christ Jesus, and you are also made a son of God through Him," these words are the gospel. But no one accepts Christ JEsum, because the Father has drawn him. Therefore it follows that as soon as he is drawn, he believes; and if he believes, he is already sure; for because assurance is not there, perfect faith is not there either; but if faith is there, assurance is there also. What is the need for man's assurance, or absolution, or deliverance? Doesn't Paul say in Romans 8: "The spirit itself makes known to our spirit that we are children of God"? Do you not see who makes our spirit secure? and Gal. 4: "But that you should be sons, God has sent into your hearts the Spirit of His Son, who cries out, Father!" From this comes the certainty of our spirit, that we are sons of God, not from the saying of the armpit. 1) By this you yourself
1) Mockingly put instead of: Absolvirer.
Pre-painting. Item, in the matter 1) of images you decide the matter thus: that from the law of Moses only that which is measured by the law of love of neighbor applies to us; now the images are not counted there, therefore one may have them or not; as also Paul is of opinion, since he 1 Cor 8. thus speaks: "We know that the idol is nothing 2) in the world." In which of thy decision [thou] therefore errest, first, that it may be
1) d. i. dispute.
2) In the old edition: nüt.
not to suffer, because your canon or cord is contrary to God's word. For Christ says Matt. 22: "In the two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." So we must measure everything that is written in the Old Testament according to the two laws, namely according to the honor and love of God, and according to the love of our neighbor. If we now measure the images according to the first law of the honor and love of God, then they are completely against God. For the images are erected for worship, after we have taken those to whom they are depicted for helpers and gods. In short, faith should not and may not suffer images to be worshipped, or to stand in such a suit and danger of worship as they are presented in the temples, as Exodus 20 is well understood. If any man say, But if it be taught hereafter so strongly and truly that they should not be worshipped, it is not because they are left standing in the temples, or not: he speaketh out of his own conceit; and considereth not that God, who is eternal wisdom and prudence, hath well known what would come of the presenting of idols, although his word hath written, Thou shalt not worship them, nor serve them, or command discipline; and hath forbidden it. Therefore let us not be wise, neither let us say to God, We will or may have them, if we worship them not etc. For if we leave them, we give hope to all the ungodly to bring back unbelief, and cause that the youth and descendants for and for may, where a little time the word would be omitted, be led again into idolatry with the present idols. We are certainly told that in some temples in Saxony and other neighboring countries the idols in the temples are placed unequally, one is placed behind, the other on the head, and thus one wants to prove the indifferentiam, that is, one may have it or not. This is called being good foolish. If one may have them, let them stand; if one should not have them, what is one doing with them? We speak only of the images that may come into veneration. For we, too, through the bank, have put away only the images that were there to be worshipped. Secondly, you are mistaken in the understanding of Paul's words in 1 Cor. 8: "We know that the idol is of no use in the world: For you think: 3) Paul understands by the word idol the carved or made image, which however is not Paul's opinion, but he wants to say: One knows well, that the gods, of which the
3) In the old edition: ifest.
Idols are nothing 1) as often in the holy scriptures idols are called idols, in derision, metonymice, even devils, because they answered out of images. And Paul wills the foolish, who thought that it was nothing that they were in the idols or idolatrous sacrifices, 2) they knew well that the god of the idol that stood there and was worshipped was nothing, therefore they cared little whether they ate with it or not. Yes, Paul wants to reproach the foolish in such a way: We know that idolatry is nothing; or: We know that all idolatry in the whole world is nothing. But that this is the meaning of Paul's words, we can judge from the words that follow from this point on: "and that there is no other God, neither the only one" etc., by which and by the following words it is clearly seen that Paul did not take this word, idol, for the carved stick, but for the idols to which the images are presented. For no one has the idol for a God, therefore incomprehensibly opposed to it, "and that there is no other God, neither the only one" etc. And in the same place Paul argues thoroughly against the compassions, that, 3) although they knew well when they boasted that idols were nothing, yet they should not give offense to the simple. Which is right against you, dear Luther, because since the simple and weak are hurt with idols, we should never have an idol in eternity. For to have idols is far more hurtful than to eat meat sacrificed to idols, of which Paul says: "Before he would hurt the weak with it, before he would eat no meat at all," not only to be without meat sacrificed to idols.
5 I have placed this place before your eyes, esteemed Martin Luther, so that you may see that you are not lost in one place, but in many, and that you may hereafter restrain yourself from the high praise among Christians, because you alone have done everything, which we would very much like to grant you, if it were so. But you alone are an honest Ajax or Diomedes among many Nestors, Ulysses, Menelaus. Thu gemach, lassen dich das kleine Llied, von dem Jacobi am dritten Kapititel geschrieben steht, nicht übereilen. We know the fame of Pauli and Demosthenis among the Athenians, also Ciceronis among the Romans, but
1) In the old edition: nützid.
2) In the old edition: "mitmassen". This word is a noun "mitmaß," which means: table companion. Compare the same word toward the end of this paragraph and in No. 24, § 46.
3) In the old edition meaningless: "against those, with masses that, whether they" etc.
We need to think about this in every way: First of all, who are those who praise us, and then to see whether we are as they praise us. For we truly saw in your beginning where you were lacking, yet we kept silent about it amicably, for your name's sake, but we faithfully practiced the teaching, in which you did not walk rightly, without ceasing, so that there would be very little injury.
(6) If then thou canst not renounce in the good things 4) neither that thou hast failed in them: dear, do not argue thus, because thou seest that thou hast also failed in other places, and say: thou hast also often argued before, and therefore 5) hast not been right; but therefore thou mayest fail 6). So much of your boast, which you lead hiev nevertheless ettvas more moderately, neither in other places. For my part, I say that I have always been grateful to those who have taught me, how much more should I be grateful to such an excellent man, whose honor, I know well, will never attain, what should it press me then? But I have my little knowledge from that, as I indicated to you in Latin; and little from you; neither, 7) that I am grateful to God and to you, that you stood out for the first time so graciously.
(7) Therefore, when you make us suspect that we have fallen backward into you, because you brought forth the Scriptures, you do us wrong. For many excellent men have kindly warned thee, saying that thou shouldest bear thyself well, 8) and do nothing out of temptation. I have suffered for myself, since you have given me the fourth time over with unkind writings, when, God willing, I will not let one go out against you, nor have I substituted myself, 9) never again to write against you by name, until you have let secret epistles go out everywhere, and open writings so much that I am forced to jump to the truth.
8) But since you make ten heads 10) of us, you do as through the whole book, which has long since been honestly answered for, you cry out for unk for, as if it had never been thought of. Notice, then, that Christ Jesus, who is the Truth Himself, taught some of the truth of the Gospel in one place by the similitude of drinking water, John 4; in another, John 6, by eating and drinking His flesh and blood; in the third, by an act of the Holy Spirit.
4) i.e. acquit.
5) therefore - in relation to it.
6) but - again.
7) neither, - only.
8) to explore --- to make observations, to investigate.
9) "I had replaced myself" - I had firmly resolved.
10) No. 20 in this volume, § 9.
The likeness of a householder who ordered laborers into his vineyard. On the fourth by the parable of the king who would have prepared a wedding for his son. On the fifth with the likeness of the prodigal son. On the sixth with the likeness of the murderous feudatories who slew the son of their lord. On the seventh with the likeness of water and wine, John 3. On the eighth with the likeness of the vine and the shoot. 1) On the ninth with the likeness of the keys, binding and unbinding. On the tenth with bright words: "God so loved the world that He gave His own Son that we might live", that is good German. And "go ye, preach the gospel," etc. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." Behold, in how many ways Christ has taught a preaching, and we do not punish him for it. Yea, he hath taught this preeminence in many more ways, and it behooveth us not to preach his discourse in many ways unto the simple, 2) or to cut it, that they may learn the right understanding? How much you yourself have taught by others and others precutting, so that the sum of the sense remains intact, and the words may suffer the tropos welfare. Who will reproach you for taking up these words of Paul 2 Corinthians 11: "I have mated to you a pure daughter to give to Christ" in many ways? in the word: pure daughter; in the word: mated; in the word: to give, or to bring; and for this reason no one is reproached for many doubts. Thus, if one person records these words of Christ in the word "that"; another in "is"; the third in "my corpse," so that one meaning remains, and the truth is not only intact, but is only brought forth clearly in this and other places, then there is never any discord.
9) But that you say that we are united in ostracizing Christ, 3) we want to order the right judge, who knows whether it is so for him. It is also well learned in our answer who is most likely to ostracize Christ.
10) Do you also want to say that the devil will attack more articles: baptism, original sin, yes, Christ, that they are nothing. 4) I don't care much about baptism, that Christ is nothing, to overcome the opponents. If they come, we must receive them with the sword of God, just as the ancients did. Now keep thyself before God
1) i.e. shoots.
2) miglen---lump.
3) durächten -- to pursue. These words are said with reference to No. 2V in this volume, § 9.
4) No. 20 in this volume, § 9.
well, because of baptism (say those who read your books) you have no other reasons, neither those of the Anabaptists ring 5) may be overthrown. For the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, his true humanity may not be put into conflict any way before, neither with the doctrine that you lead in this book, as we want to convince publicly afterwards. The original sin says no one, nothing to be; but that it is a prest and disease, not a forfeited guilt of ours, but of the first Aettis 6) Adam etc. when we wrote about it in Latin. Read it, and what is wrong in it, indicate, will I kindly report or give way. It has probably an old mutton against it in German something brögt, 7) but is not worth that one deß take.
11) The human statutes 8) half that one will have to come to the aid of the disputes, until without worry, as far as you do to him, as we do. We do not forbid any doctrine to be brought to the churches, be it pontifical, pure, 9) turbid or impure; but then we stand over it with the flail 10) of God's word, also lead the treading ox over it and astonish it quite well; then as much falls from some as when evil years are and there is no grain in the chaff. Thy two books, of images and of Christ's supper against the scribblers, have been freely read among us, and therefore threshed out with earnestness, there is nothing left but inanes paleae, empty straw, so much as meets the opinion, that is, nothing else, neither appearance of wise words, and is the fig tree, which alone has leaves.
12) Thust well up, 11) if one wants to be of the devil, he will leave us half of the scripture well quiet. Answer: Of course, we would much rather argue with him 12) and you forever in the insurmountable weapons, neither be his. Here we are on the plan. It will not end with a year, when you say that you want to fight with the enthusiasts this year. One year may not be enough. For even though you will give way in this, as I hope to God, even greater heresies will arise only when you yourself are threatening, against which we, with God, will argue more honestly than now with you.
5) d. i. light.
6) d. i. Father.
7) "brögt" - bleated.
8)No. 20, §10.
9) Here is a play on Luther's name.
10) In the old edition: Pfleget. That "flails" are meant follows from the following.
11) I.e., you claim welfare. Cf. in this volume No. 20, § 10.
12) with him and you --- against him and you.
13th Schreiest: Alas! and alas! 1) About our teaching and writers, that they do not look at a thought ten times, whether it is right before God, before they spew it out. To this I say, like Christ to the weeping women: Weep over yourself, my Luther. If you had considered all things as good, not only ten, but a hundred times more than we have done in all dogmatics, that is, 2) opinions, then your doctrine would now also stand everywhere unconquered, as, by God's grace, ours stands. Go over them and break a dogma for us.
14 Now I must once put your own words, Luther, [Bog.] a. am 4 [Bl.] other Theil [hes Bl.] 2): It is precisely the same devil, who in the end attacks us through the enthusiasts with blasphemy of the holy reverend Sacrament of our Lord Jesus Christ, from which they want to make vain bread and wine into marks or symbols of the Christians, as they dream and like it" etc. Do not be angry, my dear Luther, I must indeed be astonished at these words, and I must also be surprised at them; 4) only as a test, so that you may see how the whole book would fare if it were to be disheveled properly. 5) First of all, how is it that the poor devil must have done everything to you now, like nobody in my house? I thought, 6) the devil had already been overcome and judged. If then the devil is a mighty lord of the world, as thou hast spoken just before, where is it that all things are done by God's prudence? Say [thou], But he worketh by the devil in you, say ye, may we be against it or not? I mean, no. What kind of Christian are you that you have no mercy on us, seeing that God has given the devil so much power over us? Think about it and ask the devil, is he like that to you? Well known, what does it matter, he will tell you that all false doctrine will only come to nothing when all the hope that you and others have without God's word is accepted; then we will only go without learning anything. Moreover, we may well know whether the contestation of honor stings us in the heart or the love of truth and of our neighbor exhorts us to such a dispute. If, on the other hand, we see the motive for your crying and writing, we will not devil so much,
1) No. 20, § 11.
2) "verricht" will probably mean: brought out of the direction, wrong.
3) No. 20 in this volume, § 12.
4) tubs - swing in the feed pan to clean it from dust.
5) In the old edition: zerzaysen.
6) wond-mentioned.
7) d. i. Gear belts.
but we are sorry that Luther and many others do the same, as if they were full of "God who protects us. "Weep with those who weep; seek good from all men," Rom. 12. You call us enthusiasts, and I do not really know what enthusiasts mean. If it is more than a deaf man, a fool, or a foolish wise man, I cannot help but recognize something in myself; so mean and kind is my gracious wife Stultitia (Thorheit) to all men, and to me especially. Oh, I think, Luther, not that you therefore call us enthusiasts; or else you peel us alone with that which is common to all men. Or is it as much, as praestigiator, fanaticus, Latin, which we might well call in German a deceiver, sorcerer, fantasist or fool: See, in fact, who are the foolish ones; those who recognize that no other eating of the body of Christ can be, neither the spiritual, which may be unanimous in Scripture everywhere; or those who want to eat him bodily and extend his corpse against all ability of his own word according to the Godhead, want to eat him completely in the mouth of man, and whoever does not desist from this, is a fool, a foolish man, 9) yes, a devil, a murderer and soul destroyer with blasphemy of the holy reverend Sacrament of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Dear Luther, you have outdone yourself. Long before that, you said that no more shameful heresy had not been seen. Everything is too dear. You may not make a thing greater with fine words than it is in itself; but with fine words you may deceive people into thinking that a thing is greater or better than it is; that find verborum praestigia, as the merchants and horse-deceivers and traders do. But if thou wilt do well, make the words correspond to the thing. So you will find that much greater heresies are found, neither would this be, if it were an error. You put too much in your mouth. But they blaspheme the holy sacraments, admitting to them that they have not, and admitting to the sacraments, which are nothing else, neither signs of holy things, that they are the holy thing itself; making the creature equal to the Creator, which is not only a blasphemy of the sacraments, but of God Himself, as is well judged from Rom. 1. "Out of these they will make vain bread and wine (you say) the mark or sign of thanksgiving of Christians." In the words thou makest thyself, dear Luther, so suspicious, yea, in all the book, that [it is] a wonder. For thou likewise complainest, as the popes do, of things that are
8) "full" put by us instead of: full.
9) d. i. Boobies.
you do not have, and have never been promised to you. For what are we promised if we eat the body of Christ in the flesh? But if you preach to us in a good papal way, how sins are forgiven by bodily eating, how faith is strengthened, and how the corpse is preserved in its original state, all without God's word, what do you do differently than the pope? He also says that the blessed oil made holy, took away sin and consecrated. And when you reversed his books, did he not also cry out: "They want to take away the holy sacraments! What do they take away from you, dear Luther, if they teach to keep the sacraments as Christ and the apostles kept them? Nothing else, neither that one does not accept your word for God's word. In this you do us wages and injustice, because we want to make vain wine and bread out of the sacrament. For inasmuch as thou speakest of the whole thanksgiving, we hold that this gathering is to be arranged in such a way that all who see the Lord Christ Jesus 1) to be their Savior give thanks here for the death which he suffered for us, and eat with one another the true sign, so that Paul teaches us that we are] to become one body and one bread. By this you see that we do not make it a vain common bread by custom. For it is a signifying bread and measure 2) than not we, but Paul teacheth 1 Cor. 10. Why then reproachest thou these words, tokens of thanksgiving, tokens (if tokens be taken for good), and emblems? Do you not hear that he says: "One loaf and one body are we the multitude; therefore we eat of one loaf"? But if thou wilt speak of substance or matter alone, whether it be bread, or the flesh of Christ, answer thyself. For you have taught that it is bread, and not the body of Christ, and that in so many places that it is not necessary to tell; but in the bread the body of Christ is eaten. So you have made vain bread and wine of it, not we; for if you look at the custom, you will hear that we do not use it and keep it as simple bread in the evening meal, but for a sign of truth and duty or unification. But if you look at the matter or substance, you have taught that it is nothing but bread. The other thing, when thou sayest: but in the bread is eaten the body of Christ, thou bringest from thine own, not from God; for he saith: "This is my body"; not: in the bread is my body. Why then dost thou lay upon us that which thou hast done? or dost thou measure us in the midst of evil, which thou hast done?
1) i.e. confess.
2) Measures meal. Cf. § 4 of this paper.
as they dream (you continue to speak) and like, they are called "dreamers" by the prophets, Jer. 23, "who speak the poem of their heart: which God does not commend to them, 3) that is what they speak". See now, who dreams more, you or us. You teach so many things without Scripture, and we cry out that you nevertheless teach a thing that we do not teach with honestly understood Scripture. That you teach without Scripture you cannot deny; for you may not present what you teach. See then, dear Luther, I have intended these mean words of yours to endure you to good, 4) only that you may see how all your veins in the book are only shameful and perverse words, and that you speak against yourself publicly. For that which you taught before, you now reproach others for. And saith Paul, Gal 2: "If I build again that which I brake before, I make myself a transgressor."
16 When you therefore pretend that we acted with such a stupid, despondent conscience that you think we want the beer to be back in the barrel, 5) you are speaking from a wrong mind. For our submission, which we have always made free to all Christians to consider and, where we were wrong, to inform ourselves, you have dragged us along in Carlstadt's recantation, as if it came from wavering: but in this (praise be to God) we have done much more Christian, neither you. For we wanted to leave all churches and every man free in his judgment, not to do violence to anyone's judgment with our iniquity; but you have taken a stand with such words: if it were a matter of your standing from your opinion, one should not be moved by it, but think that you have fallen from the truth. How then will it be possible for you to be told what you have already told? Shall it be so that a prophet does not let himself be instructed by another prophet, as Paul teaches in 1 Cor. [Chapter 14, then each one will say what he wants, and conspire to depart, which will be right in the church of the devil, but not in the church of Christ, in which also the prophets give and loose to those who sit and flare up, 6) if God has opened something to them. Instead of giving and loosing 7). Neither do we have repentance of the wine poured out. 8) We truly like it
3) emfiehlt - commands.
4) i.e. to accept, to receive.
5) No. 20, § 13.
6) Resolvers - listeners; put by us instead of: "Resolvers".
7) d. i. listen.
8) i.e. we do not want the beer back in the keg.
for the good of the whole community. For we have enough of this, praise be to God, that is, we have enough of all kinds of advice, enough of weapons, and enough of heart. We do not want to take away anyone's judgment with our power.
17 You admit to the Germans, 1) "that they fall for new things like fools, whoever resists them, they only become more mad about it: but if no one resists them, they themselves become full and tired. That rhymes well, if they are such careless people, yes, fools, as you say, and fall so easily, then do not hinder them, so they themselves become full and fall from it. But I hear well, if thou knowest their ways, and warnest them, and knowest that they do nothing that thou wouldst like to see them do. Dear, how does this speech rhyme with your intentions, neither that you want to eat everything that comes into your mouth? What have the pious, simple-minded Germans done to you?
18) You hope that no teacher of heresy will be converted. 2) Yes, you say that it is not heard that no one has ever been converted. Why do you speak such words, knowing that you speak falsehood? What greater heresy is it than to teach that we are saved by our own works? For heresy sheds Christ. Now you have taught and kept the same heresy, for you have been a monk for a long time because of it; but now God has pardoned you, and you recognize your error. How many are they? Or are you lacking in this example; then take Carlstadten, who first (when you were speaking) brought this error onto the path. He has openly recanted, and has turned back from the error. Probo; for you gave him an open declaration of this in an open print. If he has done so, why do you say that no one has ever been converted? If he has not, why do you give out an open lie about him?
19. Christ has not converted any high priests, but their disciples have; more are enough against you, but not against us. For you, compared to him, are the high priest who does it all, and we poor, unlearned, foolish, devilish little enthusiasts. For this reason God has given us foolish ones and small ones 3) to know and accept the truth, and has darkened you wise ones, "so that you see with seeing eyes and do not know, hear and do not understand," Isa. 6.
20. that you count us among the false apostles, recognize God; but that you have rejected the word of Paul:
1) No. 20, § 14.
2) No. 20, § 16.
3) Kleinfügen --- Geringen.
"If you have warned a heretical, self-centered person the other time, you should avoid him," you should also know that it points to you. For you have testified that you will not deviate from your opinion, so we have always promised to take report as soon as we are instructed with God's word. In turn, you are sufficiently rebutted, but you do not want to give way; this is what Paul calls pushing. 4) But I realize very well what you want to reckon here for a heretical perseverance: anyone whom you warn, but do not desist; but that is too much. For he is heretical who is overcome, and nevertheless adheres to him, and does not want to take warning. Where have you overcome us? May we not say that you are heretical? because you do not want to be rebuked, you have also testified to this. But not so. Let us bring forth the Scriptures without deceit and wrath, and then let the church of Christians judge; it will well meet it, provided it has the united breath of the church.
21) The example you give with the painted glass 5) belongs to you. For thou hast the painted glass, that is, thy own design before thine eyes, out of which thou speakest what thou wilt, even that which is contrary to faith and scripture. But we have the Scripture, the unpainted glass, and what that pretends to be, that is as it pretends to be. But here we must see that our eye is not strained; 6) for if it is, it does not help that the glass is clear. For if the eye is dark, how great will the darkness become?
(22) Saying, if you do not convert any of the rebels, you will have washed your hands and done what you have done. You are right. Be calm now. I will surely assure you that God will not reproach you for it. Only let it be that you can give good account for the resistance.
23) Our writings (you say) made you strong and full of joys. 7) I believe that, yes, the truth is dearer to you than it should be, because we bring it forth strong with God. But if this is not the case, then you are as happy as that priest, whom the maidservant had roughed up, that he grinned, and when the neighbors came, he said: he laughed at the sausage, [which] the cat had stolen from the grate. I know well the joys who speak such kind, honorable, chaste words as you do in this book. I have read it with the Anabaptists...
4) i.e. avoid.
5) No. 20, § 16.
6) i.e. defective, damaged.
7) No. 20, § 17. This is said by Luther in a completely different sense.
They're as happy as if they were at a wedding in hell.
You also put on us how we boast how holy martyrs 1) we are, how much we suffer, how patient we are etc. and you go on with so many Alfanzian, mocking words that it is an effort 2) among Christian people to let go of such a dishonorable, lewd speech, which may offend so badly on all people's tongues. I am silent that you speak the untruth, that we ever make such fame of ourselves. Read all my writings, and if you find one of the boasts now counted, then I have spoken the truth. Much less Oecolampadius. And drive this hard and strong throughout the whole book, so that it may be seen that [the] proverb is true, since it is said: He who wants to speak and does not have the truth, must lie; for everything that you complain about, how you were scolded, [you] wrote. Neither my word nor pen hath ever reproached thee an idolater or denier of Christ. Say that you are not what some may say about you, and let God rule accordingly. But if any man say such things against thee, and do thee wrong, see now that thou do not that to any man which thou hast so disliked; so shalt thou not lie against us one lie upon another.
(25) Some have said, for the sake of peace, that this thing is not so great that it should be broken up. But they have spoken rightly for the sake of disruption; for not only the matter, but none in the church of God, shall cause disruption, but one shall loosen the other, and if the truth be heard, the erring man shall depart. As we hard indicate from 1 Cor. chapter 14: "Let the elder also," according to Christ's teaching, "be as the younger," and "the forerunner as the servant." But where this is not done, the children of the flesh begin [to] quarrel, not wanting to be overcome. Saying, "Who hath written Zwinglin and Oecolampadium called?" 5) He who has preached to us. I hear well, we should not have written without your leave? Who has allowed us to write before? And since we have [to] write, we touched you ienen 6) unkindly? Yes, how long have we been silent to your secret and public scolding? You have an angry unfounded epistle to the von Rütlingen
1) No. so, § 18.
2) In the old edition: "a Müy", probably a print".
3) In the old edition: "bygen".
4) No. 20, § 23.
5) No. 20, § 22.
6) d. i. any.
written. A proud one, yes, so haughty to those at Strasbourg that they spared yours in it, that they did not let it go out. After that, Carlstadt's recantation, in which you singled me out by name. Fourth, the Swabian booklet with our great disgrace. To all of which I kept silent, but against others showed the reasons all the way, or vice versa, which you lacked, or forgave, and did not touch your name, so that you, first, may find no cause for quarrel. Second, that thy other doctrine, which thou hast well and rightly led, be not cast into suspicion or doubt. Have yet, so that the error does not break in, since you wrote for the fifth time the shameful epistle in Latin to the chariot 8), not in German, but also in Latin, written with quite a different discipline to you, neither you now break out in German. See now who is the wolf that has wanted to have peace by force, and who are the sheep that have sought nothing else but peace. For since we had known the truth, and opened [the same], who would have told us that Luther would neither report nor make peace with the divine truth, nor with the friendship of those who were so secret to him with writings? Helias does not make discord, but Ahab. For that one leads God's word, and this one gave nothing for it, 3 [1] Kings 18.
(26) Our work is not to learn to say wine and bread, but to learn to know that wine and bread are not God, as you yourself profess; otherwise they would become Ceres and Bacchus; and to see that they are not to be worshipped, as you have taught without any reason of truth in the book of the worship of the Sacrament. Also, when you complain that we do not consider anyone spiritual or learned who does not hold to our opinion, you look at me as if it grieves you that you are not considered as learned as you are. So long, erudite Luther, we considered you much more learned than you are, but God does not want to give us that, but thrusts our foolish rights 9) into our eyes etc.
You put a curse on our love and say: 10) It should be a Lutheran warning. I mean, since you have stretched out your neck, no gentle thing should come out of your mouth, but
7) i. e. nowhere.
8) Herwagen, printer in Strasbourg. Luther's letter to him is found with the correct date, September 13, 1526, Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1962. In De Wette, vol. III. p. 201, erroneously placed in the year 1527. However, this error has been improved by Seidemann, vol. VI, p. 510.
9) i.e. foolishness.
10) No. 20, § 24.
1146H- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. xx, 1434-1137. 1147
the open grave should give such breath. But that you are so merciful to us immediately after that that you also want to lay the blame on the devil, you do this out of false presumption, because you have been pressing on us from the beginning, as we have a counsel: we are desperate about the matter, therefore we say that it is not a big matter whether it comes to danger, that it is only 1) a small matter etc., with many fictitious words. He who calls this matter small does it for your sake, for since you have no promise of bodily food, you cannot complain that they want to counterfeit or take away the divine promises from you. And to make small is no other than to say, What do you complain of? What is going on with you? etc. I do not estimate it small with myself, to pretend without Scripture, or to build on Scripture, wrongly understood. It will also be ring 2) for us to preserve our doctrine through all writing. For if the thirsty man 3) wants to hear God's word, we have overcome; if he does not want to hear it in this piece, he will not hear it in other pieces either; for, in short, no excerpt will help. He who does not want to hear God's word in this matter as much as in others, wants to use God's word only for his own benefit or pleasure. If it is true in one thing, it is also true in another. Yes, it alone shall decide everything.
28) And when you therefore dismissed the matter, that either they or we blasphemed God, you said: 4) "Now let every devout Christian see whether this matter is small, as they say. There you have the blasphemers and their spirit." Speak also to us, how we count God's word small: and do us violence in all things. For that which we teach in this, we do out of faithfulness to and magnifying of God's word; for Christ Jesus immediately said, "Again I leave the world, and go to the Father," John 16, and: I shall be no more in the world," John 17, etc., -when he had said: "This is my body," etc. Should we now leave the word: "I shall henceforth be no more in the world", and not consider what it wants and is able to do, because Luther is on the contrary? I mean, no! It is to be taken into consideration immediately as well as: "This is my corpse", and this immediately as well as that. So you note that we do not magnify God's word in one place and deny it in another, but you do. For what we say against you, you shout hard like a
1) "only" put by us instead of: well.
2) ring - light.
3) d. i. Pursuer.
4) No. 20, § 27.
Tauber: I remain on the meager words of Christ; just as if we indicated next to them, which are not also precious and Christ's. Is this a clean, Christian judgment? Is this a clean, chaste, Christian judgment? and although the saying of Jacob 2, "He who lacks in one is guilty of the whole transgression," does not reach where you draw it, nor is it that he who lacks in one place is therefore guilty of the whole faith. So Assa did not remove the altars 5) in the high places, was nothing less a friend of God, 3 [1] Kings 15 [v. 14] The Christians initially thought that Peter should not preach the gospel to the Gentiles. See if this is a small error, and were nothing less Christians, Apost. 11. etc. The Scriptures are full of these things. So you speak into (the) air what the wrath states, but which is not according to the truth. Now this must not be; we firmly believe that the words of Christ, "This is my body," are his. But this we do not believe, that these words, spoken or thought, or, which way thou wilt, practiced, make the body of Christ a bodily food to us, as thou speakest openly; yea, let it be eaten with the mouth. For this reason we have no promise, but we have a bright word against it, "I leave the world," and "I will no longer be in the world. And so the chip is from the understanding of the words; not whether the words are God's words or not.
29 Therefore, when you speak of nothing, neither of a fanatic, nor of a reprobate, nor of a blasphemer, nor of a liar, nor of a devil, nor of a seducer, after your own manner, you do so only to stir up the fire with cruel words, and to incite the simple to reject, more out of temptation of wrath, the gathering together of Scripture, nor to discipline the invention of truth. You also say that with this error we bring many souls into the hellish fire. You must have a word of God about this, or else you will not bring us further into hell with your word, nor the pope with his. Now then, let him who does not eat the body of Christ bodily with his mouth be damned. Do you see now how you stand? Like the pope, you speak out of temptation, and if you are asked, you have no reason. Yes, God has said, "This is my body." Surely he has spoken it, who doubts it? But where did he say that we should make him for and for and eat him with our mouths? Where did he promise us salvation for the sake of oral and bodily eating? or, if we did not eat it in this way, condemnation? So your un-Christian
5) In the old edition: "Aelter" and "Höhinen".
1) and reviling alone on the ground of your poem, since you also promise life with food and deny it with non-eating; behold, who swarms the most ?
30. Accordingly, [you] come forth with such weak disorderly stuff that, while you bring forth God's word, you may not quickly say: Thus, or thus, shall the words be understood; but thou dost beforehand all along a long insult, that the simple may be introduced with thy authority or name, to which he gives much credence, to astonish thine adversaries, and with such contestation thereafter not baptize thine unfounded opinion, but with thy insult, as with a forest water, be accepted, and with thee also rage and cry: Flesh and blood, words are dry. Dear, why do you do this? If you have a good thing, why don't you do it stiffly and 2) in a triumphant way? Thou hast read in Tullio and Fabio that those who have good things should present them thoroughly and earnestly, and need no blasphemy or suspicion; but those who have not good things are apt to puff themselves up with blasphemy and suspicion. As you do here, you say: 3) "Now that we come to the meeting, let us take before us the saying of Christ." And you do not take it before you, until you have made your adversary more objectionable (than you think) with much disgrace and blasphemy, which is all an indication that you do not hope to gain anything for the cause, but you may well want to make the person hateful, you think. So the popes do to him, call the gospel Lutheran, and then reproach Luther for the greatest heretic that ever was, so that the simple church has an abhorrence of the matter, as if it could be nothing good, if it were handled by such a wicked man. And so you tell us how we are uncertain, how we boast, how we cry for peace, must also cry for peace and write unjustly; and you do this throughout the whole book, but everywhere with alfalfa or untruth. For how certain we are, you can well see from our words and reasons, for you yourself say that we swear that we are certain, which is also untruth. But that we do not want to infringe on anyone, nor do we want to distort the church's judgment with our name, 1) you turn that back on us.
1) Perhaps: Schalkheit treiben? In the old edition: Schelten. Compare in the next §: "Beschelkung" and "Schelkung".
2) In § 34 of this writing, "drungen" - close.
3) No. 20, § 33.
4) i.e. to tear.
per caIlumuiLm to Argem. Half of the boasting [you] have heard before, that you deny us sacrilegiously. So it is also a sacrilegious traffic, that we cry out for peace for fear alone. For, my dear Luther, what matter or doctrine is there in the whole voice of faith to which we do not speak with peace? Thus thou pressest the prophetic word upon us, "They speak peace against their neighbor, but evil in their hearts." And if you look at our work in the Lord, you will find by God's grace gold, silver, precious stones, and a goodly building, if only the tree can be recognized by its fruit. Why dost thou reproach us with strife, when our church is in great peace, as much as it should be peace, when perhaps not all churches are? But see thou what peace thou seekest. For an epistle is carried about under your name to a prince, in which it is written among 5) others: . Now it is time to strike. Dear, what else shall the word teach us, neither that thou wilt defend thy cause with the word, that is, that princes shall smite? Now see how you seek peace, and how we! Do you write such secret writings to the princes, and yet you write publicly that you want to fight with us only with the one word, my dear, how does this fit together? Have we not all taught from the beginning that one should not teach the papacy with one's fist 6) but with the Scriptures? And that is why I will henceforth generally transgress your invectives, falsehoods, falsifications, lies, and all such things, for they all come from impotence of mind and mistrust of the matter, and mostly rely on the thick, solid Scriptures, and in the well-founded 7) arguments. Until you, simple reader, also a simple dissolver and judge.
31 When you now, dear Luther, thus state that you alone want to take the precious words: "This is my body" and overcome us, you need an evil advantage under the guise of honesty 8) and security. For throughout the whole book you should never act on these words alone, but always add the words, "He who is given for you," as Lucas and Paul have. For two reasons. [One is that the two wrote after Matthew and Mark, and no doubt omitted words of theirs, which were more diligently kept together, that the thing might be the more truly judged what sin is.
5) So put by us instead of and".
6) In the old edition: Funst.
7) d. i. founded.
8) In the old edition: Redliche.
nes would have them. The other is that these words are as precious and bright as those: "This is my body. Therefore we may brightly judge that, if we should understand the words, "This is my body," to mean that the body of Christ would be there: so we should also by the: "Who is given for you," which are alike as light and barren as those, we should understand that we must ever eat the body of Christ as he hung on the cross, for he is visibly and sufferably given up for us; so we should eat him also. Yes, you say, just as 1) you want to benefit us, I do not want to take before me more than the words "this is my body", as Matthew and Marcus have them. How? Do Paul and Lucas count for nothing with you? Do you not know that even the scholars of the law have a rule, where they have two laws, and in the younger one something further, brighter or more narrow (sic) is understood, neither in the older one, that therefore the old one is not reviled, if one looks only at the younger and brighter one? but so it is to be considered that the time in which the old law was made, the customs and piety were still so simple, that it was enough for the pious with few words. But as the world becomes more and more cunning, and everyone takes the liberty of circumventing the law, it is necessary to explain for and against. The two holy evangelists Matthew and Mark did the same, presenting the words in a simple way, so that such words were understood by the Hebrews as "this is my body", for: "this is the memory of my body". But in the times of Paul and Luke it was seen that the gospel would also come to the Gentiles, and for them they took care that the words would not remain unrecognized to them, or be misunderstood, and they carefully added the word of Christ, which the others both omitted. Now see if you are not caught in an open alfanza; 3) for throughout the whole book you take the words: "who is given for you" no more than in three places (unless I have overcounted), and yet in the same places, nor throughout the whole book, you do not speak a word of it, but exceed it in all places, and hear that we cry out like a bugle that the words "who is given for you" are the sign or handle by which one learns the meaning of the previous words, "this is my body.
32 So now, dear Luther, I want to ask you whether
1) i.e. as if.
2) ring -light.
3) In the old edition: erwütsche.
Do you want to leave us the words: "Who is given for you", and let the sign of Lucas and Paul be considered as good as Matthäi and Marci, or not? If you say yes, then we must not do any more work; but the few words as reported before indicate to us enough that the previous words, "this is my body," must be taken meaningfully; for if they were to be taken according to the dry understanding, then it must also follow according to the dry understanding that we must eat him as he hung on the cross for us and was given up. Here you all cry out (but you especially) that the believer should not ask afterwards how he is to be eaten. Thank you! But we sing after him. For he said at once, "He that is given for you," or he said, "This is my body. So I do not have to jump over the words, but I want to understand them as right and true, because they are the words of my God, as well as the previous ones. But they teach me that if it is the body of Christ that is given for us, and we know very well that it is given painfully and sensitively, then there must be two things: either that the body of Christ must be eaten visibly and sensitively, or else that the preceding words may not be taken in the sense that they are supposed to have in the first place. Yes, these words are capable of so much (that will first hurt you) that they force us to understand the previous ones in the sense used 4), and yet they remain in their natural sense: This is the memorial or meaning of my body, which is given for you. Behold, how our (yea, yours also) words also remain in their natural form and understanding in your proper sense. And have already overcome you, that you must understand them in a right sense, but the same in another form of words. And do not help shouting: Let not the anterior words, "This is my body," be changed; but let not the posterior ones be so grossly understood, that we eat him as he was hanged upon the cross, visible and sensible; for the posterior ones are very unwilling to suffer understanding, that we should say, He is there who suffered death, but unsufferingly; for he did not suffer death unsufferingly; or, He is there as he was after the original 5). For he saith, "He that is given up for you," not, He that is risen from the dead. For when he is risen from the dead, he neither dies nor suffers, and always says, "He who is given up for you.
4) d. i. tropical.
5) i. Resurrection.
will give you". For he is not given in death without suffering, and yet is without suffering after the original state.
If you say no, you do not want to have the words with you, then we could sing the song to you right away as a good thing and with the truth: Enthusiasts, Enthusiasts! as you do us. But we do not doubt that you will not deny them, but will gladly have them with you. For if not, We would compel thee with other places of Scripture, unless thou wouldest deny all Scripture. And the same work we will gladly have here for the sake of the simple, who thus note: Of considering the Scriptures against each other.
34 The word of God is therefore a perfect thing, not deceived, so that in it there is nothing inconsistent, nothing unintelligent, nor repugnant. For where we do not understand it, the lack is not of the word, but of the conceit and gloom of our minds. Now where words are not joined together, but have a form that is thought to be repugnant in the first sight to some other words spoken or written elsewhere, they should be set off against each other, and the sense of one place should not be taken according to the first sight, so that it may also suffer the other; but it should be understood and interpreted in all respects in view of what is opposed to it. Everything is made clear with examples. Arrius, a pernicious heretic, took the words of John 14, "The Father is greater, neither I," as a screen of his error, for he said that Christ was not truly the Son of God, and co-equal and mighty with the Father, that he himself had said, "The Father is greater, neither I." Then Arrius should have measured besides the words, John 3: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that every one" etc. in which he calls himself the only begotten Son of God. For the Father and the Son must be of one nature. He should also have judged the same: "I and the Father are one thing", Joh. 10. Also: "All that the Father has is also mine", Joh. 16. Also: "He was well aware that the Father had given all things into his power", Joh. 13.If Arrius had looked at the places without number in the Gospel of John and elsewhere, besides those "the Father is greater than I," he would have found that he must have understood the words to refer only to human nature, that according to it he is less than the Father, not according to divine nature. Now this is an example of the places in Scripture that do not stand 1) next to each other,
1) d. i. near.
But they must be set off against each other. How much more should words not be divided from one another, which are opposed to one another, and if one part is separated from the other, the meaning is broken, made imperfect or obscure? Example: Christ says to John, John 13: "He it is to whom I offer the bread I have put in the oven." If we omit the word "to whom I offer the dunked bread" here, there is no more, because: "it is he"; then Christ would have shown him with his finger, and did not follow, which afterwards is written: "and when he dunked the bread, 3) he gave it to Judah" etc. Item Matth. Cap. 1. the angel says: "Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mariam, your spouse, to yourself; for that which was in her is of the Holy Spirit." If we omit the following word, "for that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit," the meaning remains imperfect, and Joseph is not made calm, although the birth is spoken to him, "Fear not to take Mariam thy spouse unto thee"; but if the following is added, all doubt is accepted: "for that which is born is of the Holy Spirit. Notice here, my dear Luther, that I am only telling you about the relative or demonstrative manifestations. Item John on the third: "No one ascends to heaven without the Son of Man, who is in heaven." If one should omit the word "without the Son of man," nothing would remain, for "no one goes up to heaven." Therefore it is necessary not only to speak of this, but also to understand what belongs to it. Item John in the 4th chapter, the Samarian woman says: "Come and see a man who has told me everything I do. If I want to omit the following part, "He who has told me everything that I do," then nothing more remains than: "Come and see a man. But what miracle would it have been to see a man? Item John in the 6th chapter Christ says: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he that is of God hath seen the Father." If then "without him who is of God, he has seen the Father," nothing remains but that no one has seen the Father. From this it follows that Christ has not seen him either. But if you leave the words together, they will become clear, and the part that follows will give light to the part that goes before, so that it may be well recognized and understood.
35 So it is also with the words of Christ, "This is my body"; if you cut the one "who is for you," you will have the same thing.
2) d. r. near.
3) In the old edition: dünket.
1154II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. xx, 1444-1446. 1155
If you leave them at that, then you see the natural, actual meaning that is in them, as the sweet kernel in the hard, unsweet shell, namely, that this feast or bread is a meaning or memorial of the corpse of Christ, which corpse is given up for us. Now consider, dear Luther, your insolent, uncouth words, überhinschnaußen, waschen, flatter (which I do not actually understand all of) and see who jumps over. You skip this word, which is so clear throughout the whole book, that you do not say a word about the understanding that is gauged from it, but you do not overlook a dirty word. If the same is called wash, flutter, snort over, 1) then see, wedre Part das more thue. Now you have, I hope, bright before the eyes, that one understands that you stand out from Alfanz, not, from joyful confidence in the thing. Yes, I alone will take the dry words, and will pass them. 2) For the heretic Arrius also took the thin words, "The Father is greater than I." And yet there is such unity in these words that they cannot be divided. Mark, thou simple one, when I say to my companion, "Saw! he does not know whether I am paying him for a new meal, or where he should eat it in my name, or why I am giving it to him; but as soon as "you lent me" is added, he is already told that it is the six kreuzers that he lent me before for a night meal. So here the words "which is given for you" may not be left behind without our willful misunderstanding; for although they are the more subsequent ones, they nevertheless give the foremost understanding and light.
36) Accordingly you attack us, 4) I say, "is" is taken for "means", and Ecolampadius says: "My body" means as much as "my body's sign". And you devil and defy that, where we are not armed against the words of God. Grace, [we] would cheaply flee. But we do nothing from the dust; we have been accustomed to break down idols and altars, which you teach that one should have, so that one may learn to kneel with both knees: teaching that one should not worship idols, and teaching in the midst that one should not worship the idols.
1) The expression used by Luther No. 20, § 48, is: vorrüberrauschen, likewise § 58; "überhinschnaußen" ----- to drive over with the muzzle.
2) insist fix.
3) The sense demands such an intervention.
4) No. 20, § 36.
that we have just worshipped. What else can it be, neither can it be kept, if it comes to being worshipped again? Do not be angry, I must also agree with you in the middle, because you are so happy, but not so that it is to your shame, but to teach you, along with all those who do not yet recognize the wretched idolatry, blinded by you. Yes, if you attack the matter with many obscene words, this is the sum that you lead there: we wrote such things from distant heads, and then it should be enough. [You] also give such a pitiful example,5) that I am surprised that such sloppy work comes out of your workshop. Namely, this pretending of ours is the same as if one did not want to believe that the world was created by God, and if one reproached him: God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, he would say: "God" means a guggler, 6) "created" means eaten etc. And the rest you say with many loose words. Look here, dear Luther, how much you forget yourself; since you think you are giving an example or a similarity, you are giving a dissimilar and inconsistent one. For perceive, we stand and bring many writings, in which "is" is taken for "means," so you stand alike as a drunken peasant, who also takes up the bagpipe, and lüderlet, 7) but which no measure sees alike. For where does the word "God" appear in the Scriptures, so that it is taken for a "Gugger"? So if you wanted to bring in a crooked thing, you should have indicated that the word "God" is also taken for a gugger in the Scriptures, and thus have first made such a crooked thing in another place, since it did not rhyme; but if you cannot do this, then you come in with such a reel. It seems to me that you can neither come out of the matter with equals nor with inequals, for all your parables are inequals. But you come to the last and say: 8) you do not mean to touch Zwingli with examples, nor Ecolampadium, to whom God has given so many gifts, but the mocking devil, who has deceived us. Dear, then write out the devil's unedited parables, with which you do not want to offend us, from this book, and send it to St. Bernard's Mountain, or to hell, so that they do not go around in the world under your name.
37. you also cry out, you want to cling to the simple words (for I will give you all the
5) No. 20, § 37.
6) d. i. Cuckoo.
7) "lüderlet" will probably mean: Songs whistles.
read your clumsy 1) in the piece zemen, and accordingly give clear answer about it). And as soon as we speak: Now therefore, let him say: "Take, eat, this is my body"; here this little word "this" points to the bread, so the pope is right with the transformation of the substance; for if [that] which he shows is the body of Christ, and he shows the bread, then the bread should be the body of Christ: then thou and thy multitude answer, This is not the sense of the words, but bread remains bread, and in the bread one eats the corpse of Christ; as Mr. Johann Pomeran, your pastor, speaks to you. Do you see that you are the first who does not remain with the simple words? For Christ did not speak: My body is in the bread, or, is eaten in it, or, This is bread and my body, when in some places you also speak out brightly. Behold, how thou dost dwell so prettily on the simple words! Again, if we say, "If it is necessary to keep to the simple words, do not take away from us the word "which is given for you," for it must follow that we eat in all manner and measure the body of Christ which is given for us," then you say, "We are fools, asses' heads, and foolish, and cannot understand that the words should not be so roughly understood. As if the words "which is given for you" in the natural dry way (as you speak) meant anything else, neither the very body that is slain for us. So we must also eat him as he was when he was killed. For when you say that we asses' heads do not understand, we, Lord God, well understand that you would like to understand it in a metaphysical way; but it may not suffer your pretence, since you say that we would like to remain with the simple words; for they bear the simple meaning that the body of Christ is given to be eaten, just as it was given for us in death. But this you deny, yes, all men, because we would have to feel him thus etc. But here (as I hope) thou feelest a fault in thyself, that thou art unwise in declaring thyself to be willing to abide in the simple words, and abidest not in one thing, according to the simple sense. You cry out that we are mad and do not know it; dear, yes, teach us to know turnips. See how it would be with you now, if we had intended to hail you with evil words, as you do. Yes, you cry out, who does not believe the simple words, God punishes him
1) d, i. your inconsistencies. In the old edition: "one", probably just a misprint. - "zemen" == together.
2) i.e. sophistry.
3) Maybe: "want"?
of falsehood, he is an antichrist, a hypocrite, a murderer, a heretic, a mischievous man, a swindler, a show-off etc. And do thou never speak of letting them remain in the simple mind, for if they remain in the simple mind throughout the bank, the pope has taught most rightly, eat the body of Christ here, how great and long he was in the manger and on the cross suffering etc. For the pope can also cry out for it: Do not ask afterwards how it happened, you certainly eat him, even if you do not feel it. Is not everything possible for God? In short, you bring no other reason that the pope did not bring to shield his error. As you have so often told us that we asked God for His omnipotence, because it is well possible for Him; and in the midst of this you say that it does not apply to conclude a possibili ad necessarium, that is, from God's ability to be.
38 Therefore, simple Christian, for Luther may not learn from us that this word "is" in Scripture is taken for "means", we have drawn in many undoubted places, which Luther childishly taunts 4) and tickles some, but may not substantially affect them. For since Gen. 41. says: "The seven fat cows are seven fruitful years; and the seven withered ears are seven hungry years"; and since in both places "are" is taken for "means", they cannot say otherwise, neither it stands there in the interpretation of a dream or face. As if they wanted to take something away from Joseph's speech, because he interprets a dream; nor is the interpretation a perfectly true speech, and now all the more precious that it is an interpretation, which has become so true; nor is "are" taken for "means", they cannot deny, therefore they want to say a lame word about it: It is in an interpretation of a dream. Immediately as that one, to whom one raised, 5) he had eaten thirteen large pieces of fish, he said: Yes, only 6) carps. So their answer is, not that they could deny that "are" here is taken for "mean", but it is written in an interpretation of a dream. It was only carps. Nor did he eat the fish; nor is "are" taken for "mean" here. But with it Gal. 4. stands: "These are the two testaments", for: The things, or sons of Abraham, "signify" the two testaments. They have not yet practiced this. 7) Item, Matth. 11. stands: "He is Elijah", Christ speaks of John, for: That is written of Elijah,
4) In the old edition: pfätzt und kützlet.
5) i.e. interpreted, reproached.
6) In the old edition: well.
7) i.e. believed, split.
"means" John. We would like to hear here how the opponents would do to us if we would say: we would stay with the simple words, because Christ has said: "If you want to believe it, he is Elijah, who is hereafter. Therefore he must be the right Elijah, Christ has spoken it, therefore he must be it. For God is well pleased that Elijah should be born again of Elizabeth. Want to say something of the ðáëéããåíåóßá or ìåôåìøõ÷þóåé of the philosophers.
They would undoubtedly cry out: "Behold, what ignorant fools, swarmers, gushers! you know nothing in the Scriptures. In the first chapter of Luke it says: "He shall come before him with the spirit and power of Elias. Here you see that he is called Elijah by the spirit and power with which he was like Elijah, but not essentially Elijah. Answer: But God thanks you for bringing the truth yourself, not willingly, but out of unawareness, namely, that one should not be foolish about the simple letter 1) where there is something in another place that is contrary to it, much less where there are words that may be used to illuminate those that come before it. Still, here the word "is" is not taken for "being," but for "being like" Elijah, or that John is signified by Elijah's name, as Malach. 4. and Matth. 17. is more likely.
39 Item, that we have indicated from 1 Cor. 10: The rock was Christ," Luther storms with such arrogant words that, if he had anything to do with it, no one would think it unreasonable that he thus rages; but if they have no power, he creates as much as if one wanted to storm a strong castle with words. First of all, he makes interpretation into interpretation (I mean, he thinks of the song that God speaks in his mouth as one speaks); if it is done by turning right words into mocking ones, Luther has won far ahead of us, for he knows the art so well that no one will undoubtedly do it to him. But this may not make the matter different in itself, nor change the truth. For the great man does not become small, whether he is called little Hans, or the small man great, if he is called Hans. [Such a theologian should be far from such wanton: superfluous spittle. On the other hand, he charges with an open lug and speaks: 2) Since I should indicate to Mr. Johann Pomeran that "is" in Scripture would be taken for "means", I pretty to sing a song about my suffering. For in the whole booklet there is not one word neither about my suffering nor work. In addition stand in the same
1) perhaps: to quarrel?
2) No. 20, § 48.
Book three places on each other, since "is" is taken for "means". Ex. 12, Matth. 11 and Gal. 4 are drawn beyond the lists 3). Then I get into a delusion that Luther wrote this book solely on the opponents 4) since our books are forbidden to be read, he may lie about us as he pleases. For we are not released from our responsibility, just as a grocer among ignorant people sold goats for lorbs 5) lied a lot about what virtue they had etc. Thirdly, he twisted my words, as if I had said that Paul said, "The rock means Christ," which is not so, but he said: The rock was Christ, and [now] I have spoken no other word than Paul's, "The rock was Christ," but much more than, "The rock is Christ. For if I had spoken that, it would not have served my purpose; but such things are written, that one might find cause for many words and enchantments, and that the book might grow large, that one might despair of answering it. Now these are the reasons for Luther to turn us around, so that here "to be" is not taken for "to mean. And then he adds: Christ was the real true rock, he was the spiritual rock, and the like; but all this is nothing, because the laborious and weak word fight is as Paul speaks. Therefore, notice that even if we deny all our lives that there is no tropus in the words "the rock was Christ," we get nothing else, neither that Christ was a natural stone 7) or rock; for in short, petra actually means a rock. Just as if one Luc. 15. made Christ out of the fattened calf (because he meant himself by it), he wanted to say: Yes, he is the right calf, which is killed for us; and did not want to give way by the word "right calf", but should not mean anything else to him, neither that Christ is meant by the calf there. Wouldn't that be a peculiar 8) boor? For even though Christ says, "My flesh is truly meat," or, the right certain food; still his flesh and the word food are taken tropically or otherwise, namely, his flesh for his death, and food for the nourishment of the soul. So here, Christ is the right calf, taken for, Christ is the right slain sacrifice, signified by that calf. And there:
3) Lists --- Edge.
4) Geginnen --- areas.
5) d. i. Goat droppings for laurels.
6) i.e. desecrate.
7) Rugged ----- steep slope.
8) i.e. more opinionated.
"Christ was the right rock", which was signified by the physical rock. For as soon as we recognize that Christ is not a substantial rock, the trope, that is, the other mind, is there from the beginning. But Luther says: "It is well known how Christ is a rock; he is the spiritual rock, for it says before it: "They all drank from the spiritual rock"; so you can see that he is only called a spiritual rock. But for this reason I give him thanks that he brings back the brat like the fox. So, I hear, the tropical words, "But the rock was Christ," must again be opened up and made intelligible by the words that precede them, and it does not behoove me to make a rock out of Christ, but to loose what precedes it. So also go in God's name, dear Luther, and learn to understand the words "this is my body" through the words that come after; for it is not a matter of whether the words come before or after, through which we see the meaning, so also through all Scripture we must lift up the senses against each other, which are not at the same time with each other. If one says, "John is Elijah," [Aas] is a trope; but if one says, "He is like Elijah," or means or names under the name Elijah, the speech used is uncovered and made clear. And when Paul says, "But the rock was Christ," it is a used speech; and when he says before, "They all drank of the spiritual rock," the used speech is made right. So, when we say alone: "this is my body", it is a trope which we learn to open with the following words: "which is given for you". And so we speak: This is a meaning of my corpse, the speech used is uncovered, and still stands stiffly with Augustine: "the rock was Christ" for: the rock signifies, shows, or means Christ; so that Luther does not think that we want to let ourselves be fooled with the word "signifies. 1) But this is the most beautiful thing, that Luther forgets himself in the forefathers of his writing, and speaks these words, [in the arc D. 3. at the foremost part, at the 20th line: 2) "We know almost well that the physical rock signifies Christ, and Christ is therefore a spiritual rock and is called; this they must not teach us: but whether interpretation would be in Paul's words, as Zwingel dreams." See, dear Luther, what a poor man you are. In eighteen words you have placed the word "means" before it yourself and said: you know well that the physical rock means Christ; and after that you charge me to prove that meanings (that I understand by your alphabets) are the same.
1) to corner == to drive into a corner.
2) No. 20, § 58.
The words of Paul are an interpretation. Are you nonsensical, or how has it always been with you that you are not aware of what you are saying in the midst of it?
40 From Genesis 12 we have the words: "It is the Lord's transgression. Which words mean: The feast, or the lamb that was eaten at the feast, means the Lord's transgression. Luther beats out this meaning with a very well-meaning interpretation, and speaks after a whole sum of useless words thus: 3) "For one soon answered, thus: Eat quickly, 4) it is the Lord's Passover. As we say in German: Eat meat, for it is Sunday; drink water, for it is Friday" etc. Here I ask you, dear Luther, how you please yourself with this likeness? Have you then proved with this simile that "is" does not mean "means"? I think one should present some writing about it, so you present a loose simile, which is just not in use by anyone, and leave all the plots, which is why it is called the Ueberschritt, and mouth over (as you speak), when there are so many excellent places in the aforementioned chapter, which you should not exceed, which all serve the cause. Thirdly, if you call this remembrance by the Hebrew name, and do not translate it to the last, you give it an unpleasant German: "da der HErr in Egypten ging" ("when the Lord went into Egypt"), and if you had never seen the same place all your life, you could not speak of it more contemptuously, that is, more neglectfully. And yet you have translated the word Passover before: to go before you, which I understood according to our German: fürgehen für euch. But here in this book you say, "It is the day when the Lord went into Egypt." Yes, dear Luther, how do you please yourself, that you introduce such a cunning blindness? But we want to show you the reasons of the same chapter, so that you yourself may be ignorant of it, and the simple may know the truth through your fog and darkness.
41) After God had appointed the time, order and skill of the memorial lamb, He commanded the measure 6) and exercise thus: "And ye shall eat it thus: Your loins shall be girded or shackled, your shoes on your feet, and your staves in your hands; and eat it hastily: It is the transgression of the Lord. For I will walk in the land of Egypt by night, and will slay all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of men and cattle; and I will avenge myself on all the gods of Egypt: I the Lord. But
3) No. 20, § 55.
4) In the old edition: "Esset, eilet" etc.
5) unelich == unrecht.
6) d. i. meal.
the blood shall be a sign unto you in the houses wherein ye are, and [I] shall see the blood, and shall pass over you," or leap over you, "and there shall be no spoiling smiting among you, when I smite Egypt."
(42) Here you see by all the ability of the speech that it is not much talk that you should have translated this feast, Pässah, in Our language as the Ueberschritt; when in fact the cause comes afterward, in which God Himself says that He calls it the Ueberschritt because in the plague of Egypt He will leap over or pass over the Israelites, so that no harm will come to them. So you come and tell us that it is a sinful cause, just as if one said, "Eat meat, because it is Sunday. Who speaks thus? Why do you omit the cause that God Himself speaks? Why do you conceal it? Is this done honestly? Should I, as I am also in [the] pope's right hand, say to the Christians, Eat meat tomorrow, for it is the resurrectio; and not say to it what resurrectio means, namely, the primal states, and that one eats meat for this reason among all men, that Christ rose again on that day; would I not be a great obscurantist? And since I have come to this place, I will also tell you the other things that serve this cause,
43 Thus follows: "And this will be a memorial to you," Tell us, dear Luther, what does this little word "this" mean to us here? Does it mean the feast or the lamb? Yes, it means both together, or each one in particular, Weber's 1) you want, as will come afterward; and it applies immediately that you will put it to us, we juggle, as we want, with the Scriptures. But see that he now says, "And the feast, or lamb, shall be to you for a memorial"; so you learn that it is a memorial of the living transgression that has taken place, and not a transgression, but is called after the essential transgression because it is remembered in this feast or thanksgiving. It is still written: "it is the overcoming", and neither the feast nor the lamb is the overcoming; but a remembrance or meaning of the overcoming; so also our remembrance is called the corpse of Christ, not that it, the feast or bread broken at it, is the corpse of Christ, but that one remembers the corpse of Christ or death at it.
44 Then it continues, "And you will celebrate it as a feast of the Lord. What does it mean? The feast together with the whole act of lambing.
1) weders ---- which of the two.
Food and unleavened 2) bread. Now you see that the whole feast is called memorial (are all synecdochae), that this feast is the feast of the Lord. And why do you make so much talk about a church consecration in the last part of your book, because I called it panegryrim, as it is?
that is, a coming together feast. I worry you don't actually know yet what panegyris means,
and think that it is only called a day of stuff. If you now tell us about and spit out the nonsense that goes on at church consecrations, do you know that it is a happy gathering of the entire congregation for the glory and thanksgiving of God, or of noble lords, or peoples, or special but great people? Yes, if you know what it means, and thus speak to us, you are well worthy to have the name made greater for you: from Theologo Mataeologus; for it is a courageous intercourse. So we have called it from the words of Paul, not a day of stuff, but panegryrim, that is, community meeting day, which speaks, 1 Cor. 11: "You do not come together for betterment, but for trouble" etc. and the words more there; and from this place actually and well, yes, to a hundred times in all three languages, seen, and have not gone beyond, although I read of the transgression. Even those who do not yet actually see the thorough custom 3) in Christ's Supper will undoubtedly see that we are not dealing with fools.
45 Thus it follows, "Ye shall eat seven days of unleavened tents," or cakes, or bread etc. Behold, of the. Bread, which was not heblet, was called afterwards the feast also) as afterwards will come.
46. follows "And on the first day there shall be a holy convocation", that is, a general one, at which no one else shall do anything proper, neither to come there; as the feriae, or sacrae epulae, have also been among the Gentiles, by which you see that it has been a holy feast. So also our holy gathering of the saints, that is, believers, should be holy, not become holy with the meal.
047 And it follows, And ye shall keep the unleavened cakes: for I will bring your train out of Egypt at the hour of the day. If you look at the words here, you will see that he calls the feast the unleavened bread or cakes, which he had called Zichron, that is, the remembrance, and Pässah, that is, the passing over. You will also see that all this is done through the synecdocham,
2) i.e. without yeast, unleavened.
3) In the old edition: "after".
So that from one part the whole feast is called, namely, here from the unleavened cakes, which one needs at it, as the apostles also called, Matth. 26: "On the first day of the unleavened bread", which is as much as, on the first day, or on the memorial first day. You will also see that we do not teach out of imprudence that when it says, "and this will be a memorial to you," this little word "this" may indicate the lamb or the whole feast, together with all the action that you speak of here, that the whole sum is also named with one part, namely with the unleavened cakes.
48. Neither shall any man remember, Yea, the commandment is here given of the unleavened bread, and not the feast so called; for the commandment is sufficiently before and after, and so it is here at the feast of the unleavened bread: "For I will bring thy dukes out of Egypt at the hour of the day"; from which we see that the remembrance gives thanks not only because of the transgression, but also because of the performance; wherefore thou, dear Luther, wilt not be surprised that in the words: "This is my body," teach that the little word "this" may extend to the whole feast of remembrance to the sense: This is the remembrance of my body, or meaning; for: The feast or thanksgiving you shall do because I have given my body to death for you. For he says above, "Do this in remembrance of me." Or that this little word "this" refers to the bread or wine, as to the one part and sign of the feast, as is also indicated above (per synecdoche on the meaning: The bread or wine is the memorial or meaning of my body, which is given for you. Or (lest you say we did not remain on one): The bread signifies my body, which is given up for you. Likewise also, the lamb signifies the transgression, which is the very least 1) and most open sense, and to the simple the most intelligible.
49) But soon after this follows: "And the Lord will see the blood on the overdoor, and the two will be provided, 2) and will go over or for" etc. But by this thou seest how loose is thy dissolute word, "Eat meat, for it is Sunday." For even if this were a cause why one should eat meat, there must still be a special event that happened on Sunday, for the sake of which we admonished to eat meat; and this would also be a remembrance. But if there were no other cause or story behind it, then this speech would give:
1) i.e. the lightest.
2) d. i. post.
Eat flesh, for it is Sunday, no more cause why I should eat flesh, neither if I say, Eat flesh, for the ass hath eaten the figs. I don't know what your language means by foul language, but if I understand it to mean foul, loose, dissolute, unfruitful, unfounded words, then these words of yours are not only foul language, but also utterly scurrilous.
50 Therefore it follows, And when ye shall come into the land which the Lord shall give you, as he hath spoken, then ye shall keep this service or feast. And if your children shall say unto you: What feast is this unto you? then ye shall say unto them, It is the sacrifice of the transgression unto the Lord, which transgressed the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote Egypt, and redeemed our houses." Behold, what brighter thing can be said than this? When your children shall ask, What feast is this? Says not Moses, Eat the lamb, for it is the day of reckoning; but, "It is the sacrifice of the transgression unto the Lord, which passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt. "etc. Why do you, dear Luther, disregard God's word, and do your thoughtless, loose thing? What may you say is such a speech, as if we said: Eat meat, for it is Sunday; if Moses himself teaches here what speech, feast, trade or ceremonial it is?
(51) You deceive throughout the whole book, as we taught without God's word, and do us wrong; for we allow you to show an opinion that we 4) taught without God's word; and not only do you teach here without God's word, but you omit God's word and present your impotent false word. If we were to draw the arrow to you according to your ways, what would we not have the right to say against you? So here we have that the lamb is called a sacrifice, but it was not really a sacrifice, for nothing was offered of it, but it was eaten; for the legs that remained of it and the impurities were burned, but not as a sacrifice; nor is the whole feast called a sacrifice from the beating or killing of the ram, lamb or goat. But from this you first learn, dear Luther, that the whole feast is called a sacrifice or slaughter, only of the one part of the feast; after this we all [learn] against the papists that sacrifice is also called, which is not a sacrifice, as here the feast or lamb; and whether Christ is his
3) "deaf" - to make deaf (by much talking). In the altey edition: trübest.
4) i.e. crooked, upside down.
If he had called the remembrance a sacrifice, which he by no means did, he would not have wanted more with it, because here, too, sacrifice is taken for remembrance.
52 Thus you, dear Luther, have places enough by which you are overcome that this word "is" is taken for "means," or "is a sign. But if I know that you will cry out aloud, "You see, this is what the enthusiasts do to him; they say they have proved a thing that is not so to him; it is not compulsory that here "is" be taken for "means" or the like, then I say thus: I doubt not that thou wilt be forced, though the truth be in the day: for thou wilt indeed take comfort in another sword, neither in the word of God, but the same shall no longer cut deeper, neither shall he that smiteth above, who also called Abraham kings 1) and delivered Ahab's hand, that he could no more bring it to him. For the sake of the simple, however, I will put everything that is said here about the paschal lamb into a small sum, and show how "is" is taken for "means," and how we take meaning here; thus:
The paschal lamb is first called the "crossing over"; therefore, the crossing over followed after it, and one gives thanks to this lamb for the crossing over that once happened. After that, the feast is called a "memorial", because there one remembered the good deed of God, proven to the children of Israel with their crossing over and carrying it out. Now the lamb could not be mindful, but means that, therefore they should be mindful. Thus "signify" or "be a sign" is not taken by us as you, dear Luther, present to us (per synecdoche): What does the bread signify? etc., as if we want to say: It signifies something only in the future; but, the supper signifies the death of Christ, which happened before, just as the lamb signifies in the following time the passing over, which had happened before. And when once at the Ascension the idols were taken off, we children asked what this meant? we were told: It meant that Christ had thus gone to heaven; and the nuts, pears, apples, wafers, which were thrown down, meant gifts, of which it is written: "He has given gifts to men. See that "signify" also reaches behind, for: to be a sign, for: to be a memorial; as also tropaea, that is, erected stones, signify about a victory, about a death blow, about an
1) So put by us instead of: "hear beat", according to Gen. 14, 17.-"erdarret" -- makes wither.
2) i.e. wooden.
great kind man. Lug now, devout Christian, whether Luther is overcome, and forced that "is" in the speech "it is the transgression" is taken for "means", or "is a sign", or "memory of the transgression", if the text calls it a memory or meaning?
Third, this thanksgiving is also called a "feast" or "gathering" of the whole congregation. And yet it is also called the crossing. From this it can be seen that the words: "It is the passing over" mean: the feast is a memorial of the passing over; or the lamb, which was the most distinguished among the visible things, is a signification or memorial of the passing over. So also the gathering in the supper of Christ is a memorial of the body of Christ; or the bread, which is chiefly carried about therein, signifies and points to the body of Christ which is given for us. Fourth, it is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread; but this comes from a part of this feast, namely, from the unleavened bread used at it. Fifthly, it is called a sacrifice, because the lamb was slain, and yet not sacrificed.
55 Now put the names together: Passover, Feast or Gathering of the Whole Congregation, Remembrance, Feast of Unleavened Bread, and Sacrifice of the Passover; so we see that the Lamb's Supper was nothing else, neither that it signified to the whole congregation gathered together, nor that it represented and showed the Passover that God had shown to their fathers; therefore they gave thanks to God. Now you see whether "It is the transgression" means so much as: "It means the transgression", or so much as: Eat meat, for it is Sunday; and so be wise to whom God pleases. Read, dear devout Christian, the 12th chapter of the 2nd book of Moses yourself with diligence, so you will see whether we do the matter right or not.
(56) There are still some more proofs, which we have not brought up, that therefore "being" is taken for "meaning," but only that we indicated that there are several places, in which the words of the being must not be taken essentially. As: "I am the true vine", there "am" and "vine" are not taken essentially, but: I am like it. "I am the door" can be taken as much: I am like a door or a gate. But if you want to open the tropum in the grapevine or door, take for the grapevine the cloth, ground and fructification, the words of Christ will be thus: I am the right cloth and power, in which all things have power etc. "I am the door", that is, the true entrance etc.
Luther lacks childishness when he argues: He is a true right grapevine etc., and is here no interpretation (as he holtzelg 1) speaks). For although there is no interpretation, there is nevertheless the taking away [metaphora] or being the same, so that the words of the essence may not be taken essentially, but for "being the same". This is also not to be omitted, that Luther counts [Oecolampadius'] interpretation of the words, and mine allways for two different errors, as C. 3. and C. 4. and but C. 4. he speaks thus: 2) "First of all, it is certain that Zwingel and Oecolampad are united in understanding." So I hope, be proven, that this word "is" and others, which are called senses and beings, are taken meaningfully in many places in the Scriptures; but I have only indicated the old places.
Here Luther raises two objections; one is that we are the most confused inference-makers he has ever seen; and the other is that we are more unreported than the children, so if we conclude that "is" is taken for "signifies" in one place in Scripture, it is also taken that way here. And even if we find that "is" is taken for "signifies," we must first prove and make certain that it must be taken in the words "this is my body. The other objection is that it is a devilish thing for us to say that these words cannot be understood in this way because they do not rhyme.
(58) To the first, let us give this answer: That we have shown by all our writings in every way that our opinion is not at all that in these words we want to interpret "is" as "means," that "is" in some place is taken for "means," but since faith and Scripture are against it, that it is taken naturally, these words may not have the meaning. For, as we have said before enough, the Scriptures must be held up against one another, and that which is regarded as repugnant to one another must be unanimously understood by the light of faith and Scripture. If this is done, it is found that even these words may not have the meaning that they present at first sight. And we do not speak at all of the impossibility 3) or clumsiness of the purely human understanding, but rather of the
1) holdselig (?). (Walch.) Should perhaps read "hutzelig"? Hutzel is a dried apple or pear. That the word contains a rebuke of Luther's mode of expression is clear. Carlstadt calls Luther and his followers "Hutzelprediger". Cf. No. 5 in this volume, Col. 258, § 148.
2) No. 20, R 46. 47.
3) Ungebe perhaps: incapacity? - Unskillful - inconsistency.
but from the clear understanding of faith; therefore we have also always spoken with bright words: absurdum esse hunc sensum, etiam fideli intellectui; that is, it does not want to rhyme or fit even to the faithful understanding. That is why you, dear Luther, use so many useless words, when you so often reproach us, as if we alone had said, "It does not rhyme"; and we have always said that it is contrary to faith and the Scriptures, therefore it does not rhyme. Now if the first reproach hangs in the other, I will save it until we answer the other.
59) And say here first, that we have never argued a particulari ad universale; 5) but ye have put it to us all ways, not only without shame, but also without all reason. For who has ever said among us, "is" is taken for "means" in one place, so is it taken so in all places? But you have thus spoken upon us, though lyingly, and thus screwed: 6) Behold, they make such concluding speeches, "is" is taken for "signifies" something in one place, so it must be taken for "signifies" everywhere; so the word of the heavenly Father, this "is" my beloved Son, must mean: this signifies my Son; with other many examples. 7) As you, dear Luther, also do without measure in this book, truly, not without great suspicion, yet manly knows that we have not concluded so foolishly.
60 But now you realize well from where we are forced to this interpretation. But again you conclude, because you ever want to protect all words in which "is" is written, that it is essential that this word says; but this may not be, as enough is heard; for John is not Elijah etc. But this follows well from the Scriptures, that where a word is taken in a strange sense 8) in one place, and the same word in another place must also have a strange sense; that one may be interpreted by another, even like the other, so that the occasion of faith and unanimity of Scripture may be indicated.
Example: This word "stone" is used in many ways in Scripture; some for material stones; some for hard people, as Ezek. 11 and 36; sth. for the excellent and noble, Klagl. 4; sth. for Christ alone,
4) So put by us instead of: "half".
5) i.e. from the particular to the general.
6) For these statements of Zwingli, compare No. 20, § 47- § 57.
7) d. i. gespieen.
8) Marginal gloss: How to consider the other senses.
1 Pet 2. Which place I now take from the first three. And if I want to interpret the place of Peter, which is Christ alone, I am lacking. Why? The opportunity of faith is not right for this. But if I find one, since stone also means Christ alone, then one becomes clear through the other, and both are equal to each other. As it is written in the 117th [in Hebrew the 118th] Psalm: "The stone, which the builders rejected (understand by the doctrine of men, as the piety did), became a chief stone in the corner"; that teaches us Christ himself, Matth. 21, to be spoken of him. Now if we take these words, which are of one mind, together, and consider the occasion or similitude of faith, they all three become clear through one another, and therefore no one disputes that where stone is written it means Christ. Now consider the occasion and similarity of the two sayings, "This is the transgression" and "This is the body of Christ.
Another example: "water" is also taken in many other ways neither for the material water in the Scriptures. Nor do any see to the meaning of John 3: "Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit," neither that since water is also taken for the grace of God, or the heavenly enlightenment, as Ezek. 36, Jn. 4, 1 Jn. 5, and many other such things. But now the baptizers, that is, those who give too much credit to baptism in the flesh, dispute this and say: John 3 is about water and does not belong to it, because it is about the bodily water of baptism. If we now compare the Scriptures, we find Matth. 3: "He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire. If now "water" is to read John 3 of the bodily water of baptism, then here also fire must be understood of the bodily fire; and do the Indians right (which is not) that they let themselves be drawn with the fire; which also comes from the error that they did not understand what John meant by the fire. Now the place of fire chases us to the place of water, and forces us to make water as well understood differently than fire. 1) Thus we see that water is often taken for the illumination and indulgence of God's grace. And if we consider the words of Christ John 3 correctly, we find that Christ speaks to us through water and wind, so that we must be born again, so that he can make us understand through the bodily 2) spiritual elements that the grace of God is not only in the water but also in the wind.
1) Marginal gloss: So the Scripture compels with open sense, not with the prasmisso.
2) "bodily" put by us instead of: "läblichen".
God or the heavenly knowledge, which alone refreshes the soul, no one accepts, neither to whom the Spirit gives, that he may be sure of the graces etc. As 3) John, Ep. 1, Cap. 5, says: "There are three that make manifest: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are one", or with each other.
From this we may learn, dear Luther, that from one place to another it is right to go, and both of their minds are kept in mind, and he who is most conformable to the faith and unity of Scripture is to be chosen. And therefore it is not necessary to say, "This" is called this in the place, yes, it is called this everywhere; as is now indicated by the water and the stone. And he who does not hold this, errs much in the Scriptures. I will also show that this word "a fleshly heart" is not taken to mean anything good in Scripture, neither in Ezek. 2 and 36: "I will take out of your flesh a heart of stone, and will give you a heart of flesh." How do we do it here, since we have no place in which a heart of flesh can be taken for good? Behold, the heart of flesh alone must be measured out by a sincere believing mind, and be taken for good. So it is here also: Although we have no place in which "is" is taken for "means," of which we have no need; but from all Scripture, (the) faith, and the words themselves, it is found that these words, "This is my body, which is given for you," may not be taken essentially; so we have enough of the pointing light of faith, of other Scripture that resists, and of the words themselves.
64) To the other counter accusation, when Luther claims that we denied the bodily corpse of Christ here because it does not rhyme with reason, we give this answer, as we have heard: that we have always said that it does not exist for the believing mind, but rather is contrary to faith and Scripture. If God wills, we will bring this to light here, and speak of faith first, and then of the opposition of Scripture.
(65) To eat the body of Christ in the flesh resists faith. Cause: As man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from God's mouth; so also the soul may not eat anything or make anything sure, neither God's word. But this makes no one secure, neither whom God has drawn with his Spirit (now it must not be written, it is all
3) So set by us instead: Alsdann.
4) i. e. nowhere.
Believers in the pieces well recognized). But whom God's word makes sure, he now has faith, and that is, God's word lived. Now comes the error. If now I want to introduce under the name of faith and say: God's word teaches to believe that which it does not teach, then I miss nothing less, neither those [who] have sold man's teachings for God's teachings, because as soon as I attribute to God's word that it does not hold, then I have overlooked the commandment of Deut. 4 and 12.
Therefore, in order to believe the Word of God, we must have a proper understanding, or else we would believe, even think, that we do not know. Romans 10: "How will they believe him whom they have not heard? how will they hear without a teacher? So it must be that the teacher does not teach otherwise, neither does he know the word of God; or he teaches the doctrine of men, and is numbered among those of whom Paul says in Titus 1: "There are many unskilful men, vain talkers, deceivers of the mind, mostly of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped; for they pervert whole sinners, and teach things that ought not to be taught, for the sake of shameful gain." Here we see that Paul indicates that one must have teachers, but we see that the teachers are missing because of the temptation of profit or other temptations of wisdom. Now if those who are taught are not to be presumptuous, 1) they must have so much light as to see which is of God and which is of men. For Christ says, "The sheep know the voice of the shepherd, and go after him: but they go not after a stranger, but flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." So there must be a great light in the minds of the hearing sheep, if they are to judge the word of the teacher; as Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 14. The light, however, is nothing other than faith. As Isaiah says, "Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand." Thus it is sufficiently explained that neither the teacher should do more to God's word, neither should he keep it, nor the learner understand more; or else they do not go by faith and spirit, but by their temptations.
67. example: In Hebrews at the eleventh chapter it says: "By faith we understand that the world was made by God's word. Here is enough understood and believed, when I realize that the world is made by God, and believe that. Item, Gen. 1. says: "God has further spoken: There shall be lights in the firmament of the
1) i.e. injured, contaminated.
and divide the day and the night. But it is enough that I realize and believe that the sun and moon were created by God. If now I would go to God's word and say, "I will also make the sun and the moon with the word of God, which he himself has spoken; for his word is almighty, he is able to do it," etc., and say, "Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven," etc., then let 2) see how much I would like to make the sun and the moon. I should probably want to make light, and would darkness. Why? God has nowhere commanded us to make the sun and the moon, although he has spoken the life-giving word, "Let there be lights," and the lights have been made; yet he has nowhere recommended or promised us that, if we speak the words, there will also be nothing 3). And therefore these are words of a simple history; and are not words, wherein we are commanded to do any thing; or wherein it is promised us, if we speak them, that we also shall make heaven and earth, or sun and moon. And it is equally wrong to speak God's words, 4) which it does not hold, as to withdraw from Him what it is able to do.
68. example in the New Testament. Christ said, "Go ye, preach the gospel," which is a significant word. Again, he made water into wine. If I then shall say the words, The water hath Jesus made into wine; and think that it shall be made wine, the words are able, it is also possible for God: then let no wine be given me, but water, and let me myself be made wine. And Christ saith, When ye are presented, seek not what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. Is a promising word. Now if I would fall from this on a word of command, and say, I will not work, I will not love my neighbor, I will not feed, I will not water the poor etc. Cause, God has said, he will well instruct what I should say, so he will also well move me to work and other good things; he may well, he has promised etc., so I have ever erred unchristianly; so I must ever keep difference in faith among the words that are not of one kind. In the words that indicate a true story to me, it is enough to believe that [it] happened that way; and I should by no means believe that I was commanded or promised that I should or might also do that way. In the
2) In the old edition: let.
3) i.e. something.
4) i.e., to impose, to burden.
5) "not" is missing here in the old edition.
In the words of the commandment it is enough to believe that God has spoken it, and that we should do it, and that we know that it is right, if God has commanded it. In the words of the promise, however, we must believe that the promise is from God, that it is good and just, and that it will certainly be fulfilled, as it reads; of which I have written much more against D. Jacob Struß, now only show a brief sample.
69 If you now, dear Luther, take the words: "Take, eat, this is my corpse!" (I do not now want to overestimate you with those: "who is given up for you," which you hold so worthless that you do not speak even one kind word to them throughout the whole book), you see first that the two words "take, eat" are meaning words. Secondly, "This is my body," are words of history or action, and may as little make the body of Christ with your faith or speech, as you may make light, because he said, "Let there be light. And yet this has a better form, "Let there be light"; for this calls to light, but here it is not spoken, "Let my body be made" or "in bread." And if he had spoken in the same way, he would not have promised 1) that when we speak that, the body of Christ would be there. For if God also calls us to offer the other cheeks, we do not do it for that reason. Why? Because he never promised us that we would be so perfect that we would do it. But if we suffer thirst 2) because of righteousness, the kingdom of heaven will be ours; there is a promise about. So we have not yet found that we are 3) promised to make the body of Christ in bread, or of bread; let alone that we are promised that when we speak the words, he will be there; as little as we are promised that we shall make light, and fish, and fowl, and yet God also made them with his word, that is, power.
(70) Hitherto I hope not that any man can say that in the words of the Lord there is neither meaning nor promise, from which we may reasonably believe that the body of Christ is here eaten or made. "Take, eat" are words of good cheer, but they mean no more than they do. "Take" and "eat" may not be taken to mean make the body of Christ. "This is my corpse" are only words of indication and history, when
1) i.e. nowhere.
2) d. i. Pursuit.
3) ienen - any; "ienen" put by us instead of: "those".
like Christ would have given his body. Nowhere does it say that we make him, or that he is promised to us. So now follow 4) the words: "who is given for you", let us omit for the sake of clarity; for above enough is said of them, that they are strong enough to sustain the whole mind, which we assume. And let us turn to the words: "do this in remembrance of me," and see where the two little words "do this" reach.
The pope with his doings has always taught that these two words: "do this", mean and point to the body of Christ, to the meaning: "do this", that is, make the body of Christ with the words etc., but this is wrong for two reasons. The first is, that Christ did not signify or signify before to make his body, as is heard; from which it follows, that even the words "do this" may not be sufficient for "make my body," or else the words would come to such a loose sense: Do that which I first commanded you; and if one saw behind him, he would have commanded nothing at all but, "Take, eat"; so we shall ever command nothing else but to eat, and not to make the body of Christ, nor have any word of promise saying that he will come to it by the power of these words, or by God's doing. But you see, dear Luther, that the lack of the promise does not allow us to believe that the body of Christ is there, and so, as you say, 5) we also want to overcome unanimously in the words, even though we have no other Scripture against or beside them.
The other reason is the holy Word of God. The other reason is the holy word of God, which leads us the finger where we should point with the words "do this" 6). 1 Cor. 11 says: "Do this in remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat the bread, and drink the drink, ye shall glorify the death of the Lord," or proclaim, "till he come." Lift up thy finger, dear Luther, and see whither "this" reacheth, and whither "thou" doest; and till not unbelieving, but believing. You know well that Paul wants to express here and make clear what these words are capable of: "Do this in remembrance of me!" If thou sayest, "No," then look only at the causal xxx, enim, that is, at the little word "for"; then thou seest well that the words that follow, "for as often as ye have
4) i.e. the words which now follow, "who is given up for you", we want etc.
5) Perhaps: "as you suspected"? because Luther did not want to use any other words than the words of institution against his opponents.
6) Marginal gloss: This is the essential reason for understanding the words: Do this.
eat the bread" etc. so that the foregoing may be remembered; so that cause and clarity may be given as to why 1) the memory is, and what it is.
Now lift up your finger (do not be angry that I am teaching you so childishly; we must become as children, or else remain out of heaven) and put it on the words: "For as often as you eat the bread and drink the drink. Well, you got it on? Dear, what does the little word "the" in the words mean? Does it mean upon the body of Christ, to bring or make [him] therefore? or does it mean to eat the bread and drink the drink? Can you not deny that it means eating and drinking the bread and drink, when the words publicly read: eia, then only see in God's name that this word "do this" does not extend to "eat my corpse", but to: eat the festive and obligatory bread and drink in remembrance of me. See also, dear Luther, that we learn from Paul's words, in which he points with the little word "this" to the whole feast or to the noble signs, that also in the words: "this is my body" this little word "this" does not point to the bodily body of Christ, but to the feast, which is called the body of Christ; just as we call the birth of Christ and the ascension, but Christ stands and does not ascend; but the feast and remembrance is thus called of that which once happened; or it points to the noble symbols, festive and obligatory signs of wine and bread, that these indicate his body, which was given up for us. For Paul calls it so here, as it is most precious. For it must ever be most precious, since he wants to explain the words: "Do this in remembrance of me", what they are able to do. But there he says, "For as often as ye shall eat the bread," and not, "As often as ye shall eat the body of Christ," etc.
74 Now it is about the words: "In memory of me". There you say, dear Luther, together with your crowd, that one eats the corpse of Christ here in remembrance of his corpse; but this may not be, as is now well understood from Paul. For he interprets the words "in remembrance of me" with those, "you will praise the death of the Lord," or proclaim, "until he comes." From this we can see that in this festive meal the prize is not "to eat the body of Christ," which should be the noblest thing to do when one eats it in the flesh; but it is primarily indicated here that we should thus celebrate the memorial of the Lord with praising and proclaiming, that is, giving thanks for the death of the Lord. And saith not Paul, As often as ye commit this memorial, so
1) i.e. in relation to what.
effet the body of the Lord; but, "as often as ye shall eat the bread, and drink the drink, proclaim the death of the Lord." Now there thou seest publicly [ that] the proclaiming, that is, the thanksgiving, is the noble thing that is acted upon. The words "until he shall come" are not necessary to be acted upon; they are indicated beforehand enough that they extend to the future of the last judgment.
(75) So you, dear Luther, have not proven with tandmears: first, that we are not to impose God's words 2) that do not contain them; for that is just as good as being pious, as not hearing God's word at all. It must also be that he who wants to draw from God's word, which it may not suffer, puts his word in the place of God's word, as he who represents his own invented word for God's word; for each is the word of man.
76) Then it is proved to you that these words, "Take, eat, this is my body; do this in remembrance of me," are not words of some promise, but only words of commandment, or words of explanation, and words of narration. And if we look at them actually with those: "who is given for you," and with those: "As often as you eat the bread and drink the drink, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord," etc., then we see actually that the dry [words] "this is my body" may not have the meaning that you are hoping for at all. And therefore hear that it is contrary to faith that the flesh and blood of Christ are pretended to be eaten here; for God's word does not contain it, nor does it promise anything about it, which is why human, even believing, conscience will never calm down, God granting what is promised to it with precious words: the highly praised tender Corpus Christi will be eaten etc.; if God's word does not have this, then it is contrary and unpleasant to faith.
And therefore, dear Luther, consider your words, how well they stand, since you thus cry out: "We have God's word, which neither devil nor hell, heretic nor heretic can take from us; there they stand! etc. Of course we have them, who will take them from you? God's word is almighty, and brings with it that which it pretends. Who will take it away? We have still hard a faith. "And as the words are spoken, the body of Christ is there." Now you are missing. Now we say to it: Dear, so speak: let there be a light! For God has not spoken this word less than that. Say: Yes, he did not say that. Rather, say to the dead: Arise! or to the blind: "See, and make him see; this is what God has commanded. Do this, dear Luther,
2) i.e. impose.
1) this button; for you also have God's promise for the words, which you do not have here at all, Marci 16. And when you will speak: I am not commanded to make light, or heaven and earth; but here I am commanded to eat the body of Christ; thou hast already answered from the word of Paul, that "Do this in remembrance of me" is sufficient: "as often as ye shall eat the bread, and drink the drink, ye shall" etc. So much of the resistance of faith, which comes from the lack of being able to believe, [that] being in God's word it does not contain.
Now let us prove that it is contrary to the summa of the nature and manner of the Christian faith. "No man cometh unto Christ, except the Father draw him: he therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto him. Whosoever therefore trusteth in him (for this is coming unto him) hath everlasting life," yea, is a son of God: "For unto them that receive him hath he given to become the children of God." Now if trust in Him is the summa of salvation, faith does not inquire after bodily food, for what does it serve for conscience? "God is a spirit, and those who wish to worship Him must worship Him in spirit and [in] truth." So whoever wants to serve Him should serve Him by faith, not with bodily eating of His flesh. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth," so it must be the Spirit alone that secures our spirit to life. For that we may be sure "that we are sons of God, God has sent His Son's Spirit into our hearts, in whom Spirit we cry out to Him, Father!" It is by the Spirit that we are made sure that we are children of God, which God has put into our hearts; and it is not because we eat His flesh and blood bodily. Christ says, "If I am lifted up from the earth (that is, taken to the cross), I will draw all men to myself." If then faith looks to the death of Christ, and not to the bodily eating, to which nothing is promised, faith does not look to this, but is repulsed by everything that is given to it, because it does not have God's word.
79. Christ has satisfied all things in heaven and earth with the shedding of his blood, not with the eating of his body and blood bodily; for his flesh is only food for the soul, provided it is crucified, John 6: "The food that I will give you is my flesh, for the life of the world," understand killed, not eaten. "The grain, if it die (saith he), it yieldeth much fruit." Killed he is our life, not eaten.
1) d. i. first.
"With his own blood he entered into the holy place and gained eternal salvation," Heb. 9. "For that he died to sin was done once," Rom. 6:10. "He became a curse for us, for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on the tree: Cursed be every one that hangeth on the wood," Gal. 3. Thus he ever put to death the curse that belongs to sin, to which all the testimonies of the New Testament extend. From this it follows, 2) that believing conscience does not find remission of sin in bodily eating, as you, dear Luther, teach from yourself. So also the benefit that you indicate is nothing at all in the bodily meal, since you say that sins are forgiven with it; and faith alone points us to his death, not to the bodily meal and forgiveness of sins.
80. Hebr. 9. Paul says: "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Now if the blood of Christ is not shed here, neither is remission of sin made in the bodily drinking of His blood. It is shed only once, and offered up only once, and has put up with sin, shed and offered up alone; so it follows (de primo ad ultimum): if in the bodily eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ sin is forgiven, that this eating is crucifying and offering up Christ again. 3) Unbutton the button, dear Luther; not with murmuring, as you speak, but show the lack, that it does not have reason in God's word.
81 Peter speaks epistle 1. cap. 2: "Christ bore our sin with his body on the cross," which I hope no Christian doubts. Now if the bodily eating takes away sin, then the bodily eating of his flesh must be a crucifixion of Christ and a sacrifice; for in this way the one sacrifice did not suffice. Resolve this also. In short, faith finds no remission of sin either in the shed blood of Christ. "So he must die, and so come into his glory," Luc. 24.
82. he who gives faith also increases it, Luc. 17: "Lord, increase our faith"; Rom. 5: "The love of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. [Here] you see the love of God being given through God's Spirit, not through bodily eating. Now faith and love are one kind and origin, yes, they are also one thing,
2) Marginal gloss: I. The bodily food does not forgive sin.
3) Marginal gloss: If the bodily meal accepts the "sin", it is a sacrifice: for sin is not accepted without sacrifice.
if you take faith to be the whole transaction of the human heart with God, as we do here. Item 1 John 4: "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." All suffice 1) that thou mayest see, give faith, increase, or be firm in the indwelling Spirit alone; not in the bodily eaten corpse, as thou pretendest without God's word.
But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and make you remember all things that I have said to you," John 14. Here you see, dear Luther, that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, not the bodily food. For where have we ever been more disconsolate, neither when we thought we were eating the body of Christ? The Comforter, the Spirit, will teach us all things, and bring again to remembrance what we are taught of Christ. From this you see that it is your poem, where you promise that these words: "this is my body", bring the body of Christ with them, and make present that which we believed before alone, as you speak in the sermon Against the Saints 2). For that which we believe and hope here is not given to us bodily here. "We see here only through a mirror and through a blind man, but we shall see face to face. Here alone we prepare the lamps and torches to go to the wedding feast of the Lord, on which we shall eat him, that is, we shall eat him eternally and have joy. Here [that] which we hope for is never given to us in any other way, neither with rest of conscience; which rest is nothing else, neither firm faith; which faith alone is of the drawing and enlightening God, who sends his Spirit into our hearts, through whom we see, to be sure of that which God has promised us. This is the purpose of Heb, the 11th chapter. But the essential joy and delight, which is separate from all sorrow and anxiety, 3) which is written in Romans 8, will only be there. For this reason 4) you are badly lost; for the bodily food does not bring the presence of eternal joy, nor does it bring the joy and security of the conscience that is of faith, as heard before.
84. Rom. 6. Paul thus says: "If we are implanted in the likeness of the death of Christ, then
1) Marginal gloss: II. and III. The bodily food does not give nor increase the faith.
2) In the paper No. 19 in this volume, § 19,
3) "Bangen" put by us instead of: Blangen",
4) Marginal gloss: IV. The bodily food does not make present that which we believe or that which we are taught.
we will also be implanted in the original state." Do you see, dear Luther, that eating the body of Christ bodily does not plant us in the original state, as you teach without the Word of God, nor do you understand the Irish era correctly, but that we have died with Christ. Item, Rom. 8: "If therefore the Spirit that raised up Jesus dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your deadly bodies by the Spirit that dwelleth in you." Here I know well what Paul means, namely: "If we have true faith, we also have the divine Spirit, who makes us alive, even though we are dead because of the deeds of our body: nor does it serve our purpose, since we want you to understand that everything that you add to the bodily food is added to the grace or Spirit of God alone by the word of God, so is also the state of the body. But other messages here. Paul says in Phil. 3: "Our dwelling is in heaven, from whence (notice the "from whence") we wait for the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our vile body, that he may look like the corpse of his glory, by virtue of power, that he himself may subdue all things to him. You see, 6) with what our bodies are made alive again? With the eating of the body of Christ? No; but with the power of Christ, whereby he may subdue all things unto him. Neither do our dead bodies rise from the hour of our death on the third day, like Christ, but remain dead and rotten until the last day. How then are they kept alive by bodily food? Will not Abraham's body also rise? Where Hai he ate the body of Christ bodily? See, what about your poem?
(85) So now, after the brevity that is also contrary to the nature of faith and nature, you have to believe that here the flesh and blood of Christ are eaten. For in short, trusting in Christ brings eternal blessedness; that is God's word. Eating Christ in the flesh takes away sin; increases faith; makes it essential that we believe; fixes the body for the original state, is Luther's word, and may make no conscience sure; for the Spirit of God, who gives faith into our hearts, yes, who is present in our hearts when we believe, as first heard from Romans 8, knows the voice of man well before his voice. But that there be many of them that are true believers, and yet believe that here flesh and blood are made...
5) i.e., first and foremost. Cf. § 77 of this document.
6) Marginal gloss: V. The bodily food does not come to an end.
1182II Writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx, 1479-1431. 1183
and therefore may not err, 1) if faith be just 2) is not; for there is still a lack of many things in faith, first of all of knowledge, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13: "We know but in part, yea, we prophets 3) also in part." But what is "in part" is not perfect; and here Paul does not speak of the knowledge of this world, as against that world, as Luther made a gloss; but "in part" means imperfectly, 4) but as one increases daily. Even the early Christians, who had the first fruits of the Spirit, often lacked knowledge. God gives us credit for this, so that the height of revelation does not elevate us too much. But essentially, all our good and rightly done 5) faith stands alone in the things that God's word indicates to us; for if we are right sheep of God, we accept no other voice than that of our Shepherd.
You also see, my dear Luther, how unreasonably you have accused me 6) of saying that no one has ever believed that flesh and blood are eaten here. I myself have never believed it all my life, because I have shown a difference between opinionem et fidem, that is, between imagining and believing. Believing comes only from human appearance and error, but faith comes only from God. We all believed that flesh and blood would be eaten here; this is of human origin, he taught us this out of his lack of understanding; we gave him faith. Do you see now that this faith is only a delusion? For we have left ourselves to the word of man, who has not understood the word of God. Therefore we are also deceived with the delusion, as you are doing today. You let yourself be deceived by your delusion, and you put cowardly leaves in front of it, which grew in paradise, Genesis 3, that is, they are in God's words, but they do not serve that purpose. Yes, God is almighty, his flesh is a holy thing, etc., is all true; nor does it prove that the corpse of Christ is neither eaten, nor eaten bring the fruits that you seal. And all this is but a delusion. For if the hungry soul wants to feed itself rightly with God's word, it will find here
1) Marginal gloss: True faith still errs much in knowledge.
2) d. i. recht.
3) i.e. prophesy.
4) Marginal gloss: In Greek: xx xxxxxx.
5) Here, "verrichten" means to bring into the right direction, while it is otherwise often used for the opposite, e.g. in § 51 of this writing.
6) Marginal gloss: Steht m Luthers Buche, fim Bogens F. am ersten Blatt. [No. 20, § 86.]
nothing. Another cause I have indicated we learn that it is only a delusion.
We have always fled from this sacrament as often as we have thought of it. And it is not a piece of faith, if one wakes up about it in God's word, 7) that one does not desire to find the truth ever clearer and clearer in it. All of you are still called today by the words: "This is my body"; that one should not seek how the body of Christ is eaten here. 8) Why? Now it was proper for the most holy Mary to ask: "How will it be, because I do not recognize a man? Does God's word have anything in him that cannot be seen without suspicion? No, no. You speak in this way, because out of ignorance you impose a meaning on God's words, 9) which they do not have, and are afraid that if they were actually seen, they would invent your error and iniquity, and therefore you flee behind the word of Paul: "One should not know more, neither belongs to know," and the same word is spoken to you. You write subtle things, yes, real ravings: how Christ is bodily in heaven, and is eaten here with our mouths; and you want to show this with subtlety. Our doctrine is conformed to simple faith and scripture, and yours is the presumption of which Paul testifies.
(88) And now you have the one cause that compelled us not to understand these words, "This is my body," according to the first appearance of the form, namely, faith, which is neither of the heart nor of the doctrine, that is, neither directed by God's Spirit nor by the letter elsewhere, neither on trust in Jesus Christ, true Son of God, which is the whole summa, and perfection of faith. As Paul says in Romans 10: "This is the word (that is, the summa or ground in Hebrew) of faith, which we preach, that if thou shalt with thy mouth confess the Lord Jesus, and be assured in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Note here lately that by the original states the whole sum of the life, suffering, death and original states of Jesus Christ 10) is understood.
The other cause is the reproach or resistance of the Scriptures. As enough is indicated, that no scripture should be freely and without sufficient discretion of the opposing scripture
7) awakened -- to make observations, to explore.
8) Marginal gloss: Against those who say: You shall not seek him.
9) i.e. imposes.
10) Marginal gloss: Synecdocha est.
are laid down. The first [scripture] is the words themselves, "This is my body which is given for you." For we may not stand together to eat the body of Christ here, and eat it as it is given up for us; and no sealing of words helps. The words are dry and light: "This is my body"; for these are still drier and lighter: "Who is given up for you. But here ye may say much, "Yea, it is not necessary to understand so grossly as to eat him as he is hanged on the cross: ye will make beef of it, and 1) of desolate words without number." Response. I understand that it is now called "desolate"; but if, on the other hand, it is said, "It is not the human custom (for only among anthropophagi, that is, people-eaters) for men to eat one another; much less shall we eat the Son of God: so you may boast and extol how good it is to eat the body of Christ, and what a comfort it is to the soul. And draw all things, if they speak of spiritual meat only in the Scriptures, to bodily meat; thus hear the simple, who are not quick to choose between the meat of the Spirit and the meat of the flesh. And if our doctrine, which is not ours but God's word, extends to this, that one must not seek whether the body of Christ is eaten in the flesh, let alone whether it is eaten as beef, then you come and say: we wanted to make beef out of it; and your error gives place to such desolate words and thoughts. Now you say it is not desolate; and as soon as we also insist on the words, "Who is given for you," then we are desolate etc. But in short: If it is true that the words are barren, as has been sufficiently indicated, then these are barren for you; if you can find a tropum here in the words: "who is given up for you", 2) which has never been indicated, nor may it be; then let it also remain in the previous words "this is my body".
90. the other scripture is the words of Paul 1 Cor. 11. about the words of Christ: "Do this in remembrance of me! For as often as ye eat the bread, and drink the drink, proclaim or glorify the death of the Lord." In which we see that this little word "this" does not extend to eating flesh and blood, but to the significant and obligatory signs, wine and bread, which are in the supper when he himself speaks, and we have only indicated enough above. After that, the little word "this" here in Paul's words refers to the signs of the supper; so it is already established that it also refers to them in the words "this is my body",
1) In the old edition: um.
2) Marginal gloss: In the words given for you, no tropus is contested.
or to the whole feast, in the sense: "These signs," or "the feast," "signifies," or "is a memorial of my body."
91. the third scripture is, "the spirit is he that quickeneth; the flesh is not profitable at all," understand, to eat; of which shall come after, according to the length.
The fourth: "For the time being you will see the Son of Man sitting with the righteousness of God and coming with great power.
The fifth: "The Lord Jesus, after he had spoken with them, was received up into heaven, and sitteth with the righteous of God. Of which also shall come afterward, Joh. 16.
The sixth: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world, and go unto the Father."
95. the seventh, John 17: "For now I will not be in the world, but they are in the world" etc.
(96) I mean, we have enough of the seven testimonies, although we have to refute a perjury. These places, yes, and others more, which are so publicly written, have been the other cause and resistance, which has prevented us from understanding the words "this is my body" according to your sense, and we have looked at the Scriptures everywhere, whether they do not often interpret something else with such a form as the words have. Which you reckon to us as a falsehood, that we have invented a meaning, and accordingly searched in the Scriptures, in order to shield our poem; which we have not done, have also read before; yes, even before you, in Hilario, that such is a falsehood; but we have judged the opposing places equally well, as well as those, because they are nothing less than God's word. And if we look at them from all the grounds of Christian faith, they urge us to believe the Scriptures, 3) not our thought or thought, but that we believe the words as much as those. And it is a work of faith to have diligence to see and understand the Scriptures well, so that the unanimity that is in them, but often does not seem to us because of ignorance, may be well known to us.
97. and after all this, God has sent us the epistle Honii 4) of which you know well [that] it has not brought us into understanding of the matter, as the dear brethren who brought it to us know well, for they had special joy when they heard our sense in the hands; but has given us entrance, to the simple, the words
3) i.e. accept, receive. Cf. Col. 633, § 104, and § 15 of this paper toward the end.
4) The Dutch jurist Cornelius van Hon (Hoen) or Honius.
1) to the right. And though we find many such sayings and words in Scripture, where "is" is taken for "signifies," or the sign is called by the name of which it is the sign, yet there is no place nor example in Scripture that gives us the same 2) understanding of the words of Christ, neither which are spoken in a like feast, having a like form. And on this we also want to prove, by similar occasion and likeness, that we have seen and heard Christ. 3)
First, he says, Luc. 22: "I have desired with great eagerness to eat this paschal lamb with you" etc. From this we see that he ate the old paschal lamb with them in the last4) and memorial meal, also for an eternal laying and last. From this it follows that, since the old feast or memorial was a figure of the new, and He laid down the old and instituted the new, He also used the same words, and spoke the same opinion and form. And this we do not say from an empty harbor; even if it were spoken without any ground of Scripture, nevertheless the analogy, that is, the uniformity of the thing and uniformity of the words, would lead us to understand "this is my body" by the words "this is the transgression.
But Paul, who in 1 Cor. 6. publicly alludes to the Lamb, which signifies Christ, and the unleavened bread, which indicates a Christian life, gives us to understand brightly that we should run to them with the words "this is my body": "this is the passover", that is, the overtaking, since he thus speaks: "Empty out the old lever, 5) that you may be a new dough or natzung, as you are the unleavened bread (but see here in the midst a tropum: We are not unleavened bread; but the unleavened bread signifies that we are to live innocently), "for our passover", that is, overtaking, 6) "Christ, is slain for us." Examine the words actually, dear Luther, so you see by all Pauli's suit, 7) whether we have you to the words of the lamb.
1) i.e. puffing.
2) d. i. right.
3) Meaning: We want to prove by similar occasion and likeness (likeness - just the same) that Christ saw and spoke about it (saus the Passover). - "Similar occasion" put by us instead of: "Similar, occasion".
4) d. i. Farewell.
5) d. i. leaven, harvest. - Natzung - sweet dough.
6) Marginal gloss: Christ is our transgression. MetapkorL 68t, ab SILO, yiü Olim knessati tuit.
7) Suit Pauli - what Paul indicates.
or of the apostles; they are allowed little interpretation.
100 Now follows there: "Therefore let us celebrate the festive" or wedding "supper; not in the old lever (that is, not in impudent unchaste pagan life, against which Paul there contends, and 1 Peter 4 also stands), nor in the lever of wickedness and mischievousness, but with the unsearchable bread of wholeness and truth. Here we see only by Paul's words that we understand the trade of our supper and thanksgiving, in contrast to the supper and thanksgiving of the Old Testament, 8) to be reasonable.
And so [I have] strongly proven to you, dear Luther, that neither faith nor Scripture allows us to have the understanding that you have; and that, in turn, yours is inadequate to the truth, and therefore comes either from denseness and gluttony of the flesh, or from self-correct 9) ignorance.
102) That you want to argue with lapps, 10) that Sarah is as well a virgin as Mary, and Pilate as well an apostle as Peter; as if we thus argue: "is" is taken for "means" in the words of Christ, for it is taken etc. as well as the cow's doublet; 11) for where does the word "apostle" stand with Pilate in Scripture? But let us see if apostle means anything else, neither a messenger of Christ, nor a reeve in Jerusalem or Syria. Also show where the word virgin is found in Sarah, after she gave birth to Isaac; so let us see if virgin means something else, neither a pure maid. If this is not so, why do you give such examples? For we do not say, "is" is here taken for "means," because "means" is often found in Scripture; but we show that "is" is taken for "means" in other places also. But you do not indicate that the word virgin is used for Sarah in childbirth, just as it is used for Mary. If you now shield so blindly, 12) I am completely persuaded that you are writing this book only to a people who have no other judgment nor attention than what you say, do not ask it further, and who do not see our books; as you are honest Xellen 13) because of this and because they do not let our books be read,
8) "lift", i.e. hold, compare, put by us instead of: have".
9) i.e. self-righteous, opinionated.
10) Marginal gloss: Stands in Luther's (Buche, im Bogm )D, [Blatt] 3. [No. 20, § 51.)
11) In the old edition: Wambist.
12) i.e. to make fencing strokes.
13) d. i. Journeymen.
and then overcome, yes, where your adversaries may not come. Does the truth, then, run behind the stove? I think it may run to the bare flesh. And would come to light, John 3.
103] Accordingly, [you] also throw a gusher, but scold with the truth; you would also not have been allowed the poem with the word meum, my. [I mean, let the whole book be an example;' for greater enthusiasm has since Marcion's time, to confuse the two natures in Christ, never come on [the] track, neither thou leadest in this book. Do [you] yet think yourself to have raved so formally, that now you have done it too much good. Thou hast rewarded as good of thyself, 1) that thou shouldst not be silenced or acquired, neither with thyself. But if thou hast done too well, I know no other reward, neither that God give thee the kingdom of heaven.
You also ask Oecolampadium as a huric with the words: Where there, my beautiful love? 2) that I wonder from which old Thaide or Phryne 3) you have learned the chaste little word. Haeccine est viri, nedum theologorum omnium suo judicio principis, gravitas? Sunt pleraque tua, non salibus sed scurrilibus dicteriis respersa, at istud, eum nobis refert, qui digito scalpit caput uno [in German: Is this the seriousness of a man, let alone one who considers himself the most distinguished of all theologians? . Most of your things are not mixed with witty but with farcical sayings, but this shows you as one who scratches his head with one finger]. But this word suits you very well, neither Oecolampadio. You will speak for and for what you want, but will not find in him; that no pious scolds, is a righteous.
(105) Therefore, you have long been using a great deal of Alfenzian words, but with cleverer speech, as if we were asking out of impudence: what is the use of physical food? if we ask that you base your tandems on God's word. Since we know well that you do not like it, we want to attack you peacefully and amicably. So, you come in: 4) "I wanted to do just such a spearing and coking (don't know what a menester 5) is) against it." "I want to say about God: What is the use of him being a man?" and others.
1) "vergüt" - missed (known). Cf. 'No. 20, § 68.
2) No. 20, § 70.
3) Thais and Phryne two notorious beautiful wooers at Athens.
4) No. 20, § 88.
5) i.e. soup. The word comes from the Italian.
Pieces more you bring, and with it you coke out and out through the whole book. Notice, then, that we have everywhere what it is good for us poor sinners that God is man. And whichever part of you or others is shown to be able to do this or that, we will believe it when we hear the Scriptures about it. There is no need where there is Scripture, but where there is none, we cannot be satisfied. But you must make such a miserable noise to your ignorant ones, to whom you write, as if we did not care at all about all things that have reasons in the Word of God, but tempered only with our reason.
106. and when you therefore begin to speak of the article: "He sits with the righteousness of God, Father Almighty"; but you accuse us of imagining the sitting of God, that he sits in a choir cap 6) etc. Thank you for forgiving us of childish harmless thoughts! I thought you would have brought one from the ganea 7) or from the Hüppen 8) Butten; but it has come to a choir cap, of which we have never seen one for so long that we have forgotten its form; they are still in use with you, that makes them presentable to you. You will find many who think that you still have a monk's cap on; and they are surprised that you do not have one of these in this example 9) , since the whole book is unflattened by it. Your lying poetry must also strike you a little. The image of Isaiah 6 has not yet slipped our minds: "I saw the Lord sitting on an elevated chair, and the whole house was filled with his majesty, and that which was under him filled the temple. Seraphim stood on it, each of which had six wings: with two wings they covered his face, and with two his feet, and with two they flew"; nor which Ezekiel saw, Cap. 1., and which are depicted or appeared in Apocalypsi and elsewhere, that we may not be allowed to your Hunz-, yes, Chorkappe (would have mier mißgeredet), God have praise! Now take it home again, and remember it to yourself.
107. But after that you put us as if we force the righteous hand [of God] into one place, which we do not do at all. For we recognize God's power to be everywhere; God's essence to be the essence of all things; God's presence to preserve and to be for all things. 10) Recognize also the
6) See No. 20, § 94 and § 95.
7) i.e. a place of drinking and whoring.
8) Probably: waste, garbage. Cf. § 149 of this paper.
9) Marginal gloss: So one needs "buzzing" in our language, if one models and drives something in a rampage.
10) i.e. preservation, protection.
Word Arati, which Paul, Acts 17, indicates: "We are of his generation; we live in him, we move or stir in him" etc. well. We [know also well that where Christ is, that God is there; and where God is, that also Christ (yes, after the Godhead; there you give the simple one over the eye) is there. But we can see that you are either an evil theologian, if you cannot speak differently 1) of the two natures in Christ JEsu, of the divine and human, according to his own words; or if thou canst, but deceivest the simple with the mixture, that thou spreadest out and makest broad the human [nature] after the divine, and compassest in the divine after the circumscription or delay of the human; then art thou a greater deceiver and denier of Christ than Marcion ever was. I do not want to persuade you too much, but what I say must be superfluous with the true living word of God; but I would rather let it be an ignorance, neither make it a mischievousness. And then nothing else follows, neither that you have boasted lavishly: yes, your teaching must stand all. But if thou wilt persist, and say for and for, that where the Godhead is, there also is the humanity of Jesus Christ essentially and bodily: then we will either bring thee, with God, to deny the whole Scripture of the New Testament, or to fall into the heresy of Marcion; this we actually admit to thee. But we hope better; namely, that you will recognize yourself, and renounce that which you have done out of the heat of contention, and have spoken so clumsily of the humanity of Jesus Christ; for from your teaching it would follow that Christ would be put to death; and such may not follow from our teaching, which speaks with bright distinction of natures.
For (will now give two examples), if this word of Christ John 3: "No one comes to heaven, except he who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven," is to be understood as meaning that Christ would be in heaven bodily after humanity, since he speaks this as you teach: then it must correctly follow that Marcion was right) that he did not have a real body, but only a fictitious one. It follows, then, that he was unpainful; for how could the corpse suffer, which in the bosom of the Father, to the righteousness of the Father, would be a delight and joy to all angels? Where then would be the painful
1) Marginal gloss: Luther wants to fence in divine nature with human nature, and spread out human nature according to divine nature.
Words: "I thirst!" "My father, my father, how have you forsaken me!"? Shouldn't all this be a loud poem? Or what would Mary have given birth to? What miracle would it be that she would have given birth without human help, and without violation of her virginity, one who would not have had a human corpse, but one who would have been with God in all places, yes, in heaven and hell?
109] Item: Again, the word John 14: "Philip, who sees me, sees also the Father," etc.., 2) the Father must have the face and formation of a man; for Christ not only has the image of a man, but was truly a man; from this it follows, secondly, that the Father also was essentially a man, just as Christ also took on a human nature according to the personal quality; and thirdly, that as the Father is from eternity and into eternity, so also the humanity of Christ must have been from eternity.
And where then would be: "The Word became man"? Joh. Cap. 1. Where is: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, which was of a woman, which was under the law" etc., Gal. 4? How could he have been of a woman, if he was from eternity (according to your saying), 3) even according to human nature? How could the eternal God be under the law, if the law was not yet? Yes, you will talk with your bunch: 4) The humanity of Christ has been present with God from eternity; for all things are present to Him from eternity; or something of this kind, so that you blind the simple ones, whom you now want to make highly educated, and pretend subtle things to them, like the body of Christ was also essential in heaven, when he was in Mary's body, or like we eat him now, but who is sitting in the righteousness of God; and whoever does not want to understand it, you quickly say that he is a foolish donkey's head.
111 Soon, when one wants to compare the Scriptures and see how they agree with each other, you cry out that one should not be wise, but believe the words (which are not understood) simple-mindedly; and there is so much spit and alfalfa, that I am surprised that anyone (except for the
2) to one - to the first.
3) Zwingli first brings this by false inference to Luther (in the previous paragraph) and then claims (here): Luther says this.
4) Marginal gloss: Cunning bifurcation and apostasy from one nature to another.
The priest) is so poor and lowly in mind that he does not grasp where woe be unto thee; for he that hath good reason may not of the reproach 1). It is true that the humanity of Jesus Christ has been with God from eternity, yes, by decree and knowledge, taking upon itself the Son of God, but in its own being it has not been until it was conceived and begotten by the Holy Spirit in the eternally pure body of Mary; just as the world and man have been in the knowledge and decree of God from eternity, yet have not been essential to themselves until they are created.
Therefore, dear Luther, or if it is too much for you to learn from us, notice how we teach the simple clearly from God's Word about the two natures in Christ Jesus. And where we teach wrongly, describe us openly.
Of the two natures in Christo and their counterchange (de alloeosibus).
The Almighty God, who sent His Son into this world to take on Himself the whole true human, yet sinless nature, has joined the two natures, human and divine, so that each retains its own characteristic and works and suffers according to its own nature. This is what John 2 Cap. 1 teaches us: "And the Word (that is, He who is the eternal Word and Wisdom, spoken of from the beginning) became flesh (that is, man) and lived among us: but we have seen His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," or faithfulness. And Paul Phil. 2: "Let not every man seek his own profit among you, but every man his own: and let that be minded among you, which is in Christ JEsu. Who, being in the "form" or likeness "of God, neither committing iniquity or robbery, esteeming himself equal with God; having emptied himself, and taking upon him the form of a servant, became like unto men, and in walk" or likeness "was found to be a man; having humbled himself, was subject unto death, even the death of the cross." Behold, thou simple one, thus hast thou that he who according to the Godhead is like unto the Father, is also truly man, and was so, that for this cause he suffered death.
114. the two natures are in Christ, so actually that God also retains for them both their nature and characteristic, so that [it] can be seen in the works and bodies of each publicly em-
1) i.e. chatting.
2) In the old edition: Jeremias.
finds. And this is the miracle that God works before our eyes, according to the prophet's legend, Psalm 117 [Hebrew 118]. According to the divine one he has all things in his power, Matth. 28. and Joh. 13. According to the human one he is under the emperor, Luc. 2. According to the divine one he knows all things, Joh. 17. [16.]: "Now we know that you know all things." According to the human he speaks, Marc. 13: "But of the day, time, or hour, no one knows, not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." After the divine one he performs miraculous signs, John 5: "The works that I do testify that the Father has sent me." Item John 10: "The works that I do in the name (that is, in the power: hebraismus est, nomen pro auctore).
of my Father, which bear witness of me." There: "If you will not believe me, believe the works. All this is to make him understand that the works and miracles he does are of divine power. But according to the human nature, he says John 5: "I can do nothing of myself." According to the divine nature he teaches the words of the one life, Joh. 6. According to the human nature he speaks, Joh. 7: "My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me." And Joh. 5: "If I give an account of myself, my account is not true." According to the divine nature he is with the Father in heaven from eternity to eternity unchallenged and immortal, Joh. 3. According to the human nature he thirsts, hungers, fears, is scourged, put on the cross, dies. And are the two natures, both essential and actual in him, only one Christ Jesus, true God and Mary's Son, born from eternity, with his heavenly Father, without a mother; and in time from the bodily mother, without a bodily father.
The godly teachers have sought examples and parables of these two natures in him. Many of the Greeks drew a red-hot sword 3) there, as also Damascenus; for the same, when it strikes, also burns with it; thus in Christ Jesus also every nature's quality and effect was actually seen; which example you, dear Luther, recognize, that it was taken from them amicably; recognize it, that it was not stolen; and you have used it for an opinion, for which it was not used by the ancients, nor does it actually serve that purpose. Namely, that the bread is also bread and the body of Christ. Here you had to see that in the glowing sword there were two effects.
3) Marginal gloss: k'errum Huiäurn non intelliZunt pro Zlaäio aeoixi.
burn and hew, and then you would have to indicate the same two effects in the bread that you speak, including the 1) corpse of Christ, with God's word. You indicate many effects, but all without God's word, which are also so that they resist God's word. But this comparison fits well: the glowing 2) means the divine power in Christ; the cutting 2) the human nature.
116. Others have given man as an example of the two natures; as he is composed of body and soul, two disgusting substances, and yet is one man, so God and man are One Christ, that is, Christ is true God and man, and yet the two natures are only One Christ, that is, One Person of the Son of God and Savior of men, and are thus agreed that the Godhead is not turned into mankind, nor mankind into Godhead, but both natures remain completely; just as in man the corpse always remains a corpse, and the soul a soul, not mixed or confused; but the humanity is accepted in unity of the person of the Son of God, just as our corpse, joined to the soul, is one man.
117 Thus Athanasius speaks of it in the Symbola, but it is all learned in the words of Christ: "My soul is sorrowful unto death." Indicates that he had a soul that retained its own nature; for if his Godhead had been a soul to him instead of the soul, as some heretics have wanted to talk about, how could the Godhead have grieved? But if the soul had been turned into the Godhead, how could the soul have mourned? But the soul has kept its own nature and essence (de essentia animae loquor, non de existentia; ne et Neoterici possint offendi), and therefore he says: "I have power to put away my soul from me, and to take it again to myself", Joh. 10. And are therefore not two, but God and man are One Christ.
After all this, when we have learned the unity of two natures in Christ through Scripture and example, we should now also learn from God's Word how to speak of the whole Christ, or of the two natures in Him. Know, therefore, that the figure called alloeosis (may be fairly rendered counterchange) is used innumerably by Christ himself; and is the figure, so far as it serves, an interchange, or
1) "The" put by us instead of "the"; for the meaning will be: You should indicate such two effects in the bread, of which you say it is the body of Christ.
2) Glowing --- the glowing; hewing --- the hewing.
The two natures, which are in one perlon, as one calls the one and understands the other, or calls that, which they both are, and yet only the one understands.
119. example from the human being. When we speak: Man is nothing but dung, and becomes nothing but dung. Here man, who is called body and soul, is taken for the body alone; he becomes dung and is already dung, for the soul does not become dung, but is an end-sleodis, 3) which lives forever. Item, when one says: Man is like the angels; by the word man alone one understands the soul. Item, with the Hebrews "soul" is often taken for a living body of the cattle, as Gen. 2.
120 Thus, in the Gospel, Christ, who is one God and man, is often taken for the One Nature alone. As when he says, Luc. 24: "Was not Christ therefore to suffer, and so to enter into his glory?" Here Christ is taken for the human nature alone, which might suffer and die, but not the divine. In Gal. 2 Paul says: "Now I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." Here Christ reaches more to the divine nature, because according to it he is in all creatures, is also according to it the life.
121 Secondly, any nature is often taken for itself. As, Matth. 26: "And the Son of Man is betrayed," or given, "that he may be crucified. And Matthew 20: "And the Son of Man is given to the priests and scribes" etc. Here the Son of Man is actually taken for the human nature, for the same might be given and killed, but the divine by no means not. The divine [nature] in Him is also taken for Himself without a counterchange, as John 1: "And God was the Word!" Here "Word" is taken for the living Son of God, and not for Christ, who was God and man; for John describes Him there from the divine nature. Item, 1 John 1: "We proclaim unto you eternal life, which was with the Father, and hath appeared unto us." Here the word "eternal life" is taken for the living Son of God, who was with the Father before the Incarnation, and thus appeared to us in human nature, as in a harness.
Thirdly, each nature is taken for the other; the divine for the human, and the human for the divine, all through the
3) According to Aristotle, entelechia is a fifth element, from which the soul is said to have originated, the constant activity, striving power, as a form of the human soul. The spelling: endelechia is incorrect.
The opposite, that he who is true God is also true man, and again that he who is true man is also true God; not that therefore the divine nature is the human, nor again that the human is the divine; and nothing less will the natures be confused, nor our ears injured, if we hear such an opposite.
Example John 1: "The Word became man" or: "God became man" is to be understood correctly by the reciprocal, thus: Since God may no longer become anything at all, or else He would be imperfect; then this word may not be understood according to the first appearance, but must have the meaning: Man has become God; thus, that which is said of the Godhead, that it has become man, must be understood of mankind by substitution: Man has become God. Now again, as each nature is turned into the other, as has been heard before, this word: Man has become God, is not to be understood in such a way that human nature is turned into divine nature, but each remains in its own natural essence. As Athanasius also says in the Symbolo: "But Christ is One, not that the divinity should be turned into humanity, but that humanity should be accepted as God." So we well notice that these words: man 1) has become God. Again (per metalepsim2 ), ab adoptionibus transsumta; qui enim cooptatur, filius fit) no longer want neither, man is adopted to the unity of the person of the Son of God. And now we come again to the first, that this word: God became man, or: The Word (that is, the divine wisdom, the Son of God) became man, cannot mean anything else, neither, God's Son has taken human nature.
Do you see, dear Luther, how the most profound words concerning the eternal Godhead and true humanity of Jesus Christ must be sent through figures and tropos into the right sense, which is inviolable to faith? Why then will you not allow the tropos, or figurative speeches? Well, argue once: verbum caro factum est, "the Word became man"; the words are dry, it must be: God became man. Thus, ever who was God [before] must now be man. The water has become wine; so without doubt, that was before water, was now man.
1) In the old edition: "The Father", which seems impossible to us (even with Zwingli's metalepsis).
2) Metalepsis is a trope, as the following stands for the preceding.
Being, now wine, and not water; so also he would have to be man now, who was before God, and in addition no longer be God. Yes, if one should rage as you do.
But, devout Christian, do not let yourself be seduced by such folly. 3) They are fighters of words. They are word fighters, whose arrogance is easily broken, if one gets to the bottom of truth, and looks at the right meaning, and keeps the art of figurative speeches and tropes well. As here, I think, are probably more theurere words: "The Word became man," nor "Eat, this is my body"; nor must they be understood by figurative explanation alone, or else we would get into the greatest heresies that have ever been. And do not therefore the sayings hurt us: God became man; or: Man became God; but we must not understand them at first sight, but add the figures of the sayings as a measure, and thus understand them: God became man; God took human nature; man became God (nam et hic sermo saepe apud veteres theologos invenitur), human nature was assumed by God.
But before I leave this place, God became man, I must do one more thing with you, dear Luther. With your lack of understanding you lead yourself to the point that you cannot speak according to the theology of Christ as he himself used it, that you want to prove by force that the body of Christ is everywhere, as well as his divinity; and therefore you do violence to all the sayings that you bring in, which will come afterward. But here I ask thee thus: Is Christ's body everywhere, because he is made anew infinite; or because he is changed into the divine nature, which is infinite, immeasurable, and incomprehensible? For you must deny one of the two, since everything that exists must either be made anew, or be made of another. Only God can make from scratch without matter; the shoemaker can also make from matter. If Christ mankind is made anew infinitely; Dear! then say, if two infinite things may be? For, if two may be, the first must not have been infinite, or else, it might not have permitted the following; for that which is full before may not permit any more, and that which fills all things may not permit another, which also fills all things, for they are full before.
3) In the old edition: "Täuberey. That we have resolved this word correctly is evident from the preceding "Toben", then also from the marginal gloss to § 106 of this writing, where "Taubucht" stood for "Tobsucht".
From this it follows that not more than one thing can be infinite, immeasurable; that is the one Godhead. It also follows that the same infinite good must be eternal; for who would have given it the beginning? If there were another, then it would have to be the immeasurable good and the beginning of all things, and would not be what follows or what is made; but 1) from this it follows that everything that is made may not be infinite, that is, unmeasured, incomprehensible, infinitum, 2). Therefore infinite, incomprehensible, unmeasured, as also the theologi say, intrinsecus modus divinitatis, is the right inner quality of the Godhead. From this it follows that only One can be infinite good, and that is the only God. It also follows that Christ mankind may not be made infinite anew, for there must be only One infinite, which must also be from eternity to eternity.
But if you say, Now Christ is God Himself, why should He not be everywhere? as you do, but you are deceiving the simple. 3) God's right hand is everywhere; Christ is at the right hand of God: so also is the body of Christ everywhere. See how beautifully you close! 4) Who has taught thee so beautifully to discern between the two natures of Christr? that thou wilt, with so false a semblance, in the sight of the simple, introduce into the human nature that which is also of the divine, yea, of the divine alone? When you say: God's right hand, power, majesty and authority are everywhere, you are right, even though you think that we foolish heads have never known this. Ah! who is so childish in the holy scriptures that does not know this? Are these not the first beginnings, so one (ôä θειον, numen) wants to learn to know God? Dear! examine our Commentary before you, and see whether we knew it or not. But it is one of your pieces. You have written the book only for the sake of the foolishness, otherwise you would have made it in Latin, in which language we used to have eight or even more writings (so that it would be inviolable). You would have to dazzle them, your foolish ones, along with the popes; just as the tile people, who can't quite stand the name-calling, submit to the village church consecrations and markets, their insignificant antics do enough for the simple-minded.
1) but - again. - In the old edition: "gemachet" instead of: Gemachte.
2) Marginal gloss: Lt she üeret proesssus in inünitum.
3) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's [book in the arc] G. [No. 20, § 116.]
4) Marginal gloss: xsraloKism ^Fallacy).
5) d. i. Boobies.
We are returning to the first thing. You speak rightly, God's right hand is everywhere. But when you say that Christ is at the right hand of God, you speak rightly; for he is at the right hand according to divine and human nature, but not uniformly. For according to divine nature he is at the right hand from eternity to eternity, so that he is everywhere where God is, for he is God himself, and is not only at the right hand by nature, but is the right hand itself. As well as the theologians from the right hand of God, well and rightly, make the Son of God in many places of Scripture per allegoriam. But mankind is not at the right hand of God, because it is not the divine nature, it is also not the right hand itself.
(130) Now behold how you so subtly deceive the simple! If you say, "Christ is at the right hand of God," you do not make a distinction, 6) as to how he is at the right hand according to divine nature and how he is at the right hand according to human nature; but you draw your conclusion on humanity alone, and place on it that in the saying, "Christ is at the right hand," it may be understood to refer to the Godhead alone. For if thou sayest, Is not Christ at the right hand of God? I will say: Yes, he is there; but he is not there equally to both natures; for to the divine half he is there, as the equal, eternal, unstruck God, who is everywhere, sustains all things, is and gives life to all things; but according to humanity he is there, as with the recently assumed nature, which may not be from eternity; or else there would be two infinita, that is, two natures, which would be uncaptured, but that may not be, because they are not three divine ones, of which it is unity to be everywhere.
(131) If then you must understand the inner capacity of the speech "Christ is at the right hand of God," why do you refer in the resolution to mankind alone, but which in the previous speech is understood only of the Godhead? For "Christ is thus at the right hand, that he may be everywhere" must be understood of the divine nature alone. Or what art teaches thee to speak in the conclusion: So is the body of Christ everywhere? If Christ understands the two natures, you should not have said thus: So is Christ everywhere, and not: So is mankind or corpse everywhere. Do you see how you are not ashamed to make false shllogismos? That's where you get it from, you can make jokes, but not subtly, and that's why [you] show off at the village church consecration, beseflest 7) those who listen. Here-
6) Marginal gloss: slsuekus puruIoZisrui.
7) i.e. defile. - In the old edition: "beseflest die Horchen".
if you would tell me about the noble question: Whether Christ was made infinite anew? Yes, he is infinite; as you also do, but more untruthfully than any theologian has ever done: so you speak falsely, and should judge in the words that I ask only on human nature, if I even call Christ, and speak: Is Christ made infinite? For it is not necessary to ask about the Godhead, since we all know that he is incomprehensible, immeasurable, infinite and unbegotten from eternity to eternity. Nevertheless, it must be shown to you, otherwise you would think that they are all roses, on which you tread, and could walk in lusts.
Now let us return to our question. If now it turns out that Christ mankind may not be made infinita, that is, infinite or immeasurable, and you say that it is immeasurable: then it would have to be that it would be transformed into the infinite Godhead; but that may not be. To one that God is an immutable good, therefore it may not be turned into other things, nor other things into it. 4 Mos. cap. 23: "God is not like man, that he should lie; nor like the son of man, that he should be changed." Malach. 3: "I am the Lord, which am not changed." And if the human nature be changed into the divine, [would] ever be change and innovation. On the other hand, it may not be; for if the humanity of JEsu Christ [had been] turned into the divine nature, he would not have suffered, for the divine nature may not suffer, Apost. 2 Therefore it stubbornly remains with the old right theology, that the two natures are not mixed in Christ, so that the divine becomes the human, or again the human the divine, but that each nature remains in its essence and nature, and yet both are only One Christ, Son of God and Son of Mary. So now your error falls away, since you teach anew that the humanity of Jesus Christ or his corpse is everywhere, like the divinity.
133) Now you have an answer to your words, 1) Luther: "It is our faith, as Scripture teaches us, that our Lord Jesus Christ is an essential, natural, true God, and that the Godhead dwells in him completely bodily, as St. Paul says in Col. 2, so that apart from Christ there is no God or Godhead"; 2) this is what your words are. But with these you assume three dishonest, false things: the first, that you
1) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's sBuche, im Bogens G. [No. 20, § 110.]
2) Marginal gloss: In the completely lies the deception, as if the divinity is closed into the humanity.
You speak in the same way, jumping from one nature in Christ to the other, like a monkey that jumps into the kensserlein and onto the pole, as it pleases; as if one should not notice which of the divine nature and which of the human nature is to be understood. And you do not need the counterchange, like Christ, who, while he calls one nature and wants the other to be understood, does not want to say anything about the human nature that is only divine, nor about the divine nature that is only human; 3) as bright will come later. The other is, that thou wilt by words comprehend and end the Godhead according to mankind, 4) when thou sayest, Outside of Christ there is badly no God nor Godhead; for by words thou speakest rightly, when thou wilt by Christ alone understand the divine nature per heterosim or alloeosim, that is, by the counterchange. For Christ Himself, true God, can be nothing at all outside of Himself, nor can anything be outside of His God; but you want to be understood by Alfanz as if the Godhead according to its nature were contained in Christ, that is, in His humanity. From this then the third error may follow, namely, that you want to extend the humanity of Christ, 5) in which the Godhead is whole, so that it is as wide and infinite as the Godhead.
And so you do two very dishonorable, falsifying, harmful things of the whole holy scripture, that for the sake of your quarrel you want to circumscribe the divine nature with the humanity of Jesus Christ, and say: Outside of Christ there is neither God nor Godhead; yet you secretly want to understand His humanity through Christ; and God, even outside of the humanity of Christ, is in all creatures and was so before Christ became man. And secondly, you hope, when you have thus comprehended and aimed the Godhead in the humanity of Christ, that after this, according to the infinity of the Godhead, you will drive out and extend the humanity, so that it will be the same everywhere.
Dear, don't you know what it means to swarm, to swarm, to swarm? This is what I have to do with you, that you learn to speak without measure of the two natures in Christ; for if you can do it right, and lead such a raving, then not only is the devil, as you speak to us, but also the she-devil is with you. But, as reported before, I would rather make it an ignorance for you.
3) Marginal gloss: äoiu8 [deception).
4) Marginal gloss: Luther fences the Godhead with the humanity, and the humanity he expands after the Godhead.
5) Here lies the pus.
6) i.e. unharmed, not contaminated.
But be wise, and let yourself be taught, and know the error of your ways.
Now we return again to the mosses, or alternate speeches. First we heard how we must understand the word: "The Word", or God's Son, "became man. Now he speaks John 5: "I may do nothing of myself." Here "I" and "of myself" do not apply to both natures in Christ, but only to the human nature; to which he says that it does nothing at all for itself, nor can it do anything, but "what the Father is called" (here the Father is also taken for the Godhead by the counterchange), that he does. Behold, so much Christ's mouth itself extracts from his humanity; and thou, dear Luther, goest to it, and puttest it in all rule, power, to be, to be able, and to do, which after all is of the Godhead alone?
137 John 7 says: "My doctrine is not mine. How could his teaching not be his? It was his, as the Son of God; not his, as man's. The Jews regarded him as a mere man, and therefore rejected his teaching; so he says: his teaching is not his; understand, it would not be his humanity. Behold, he hath taken away the power of his mankind, and here the doctrine; and thou givest it all to them, against his own word.
John 12: "If I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself. Here "if I be lifted up" is spoken of human nature alone, for he alone may die according to it. And "I will draw all men unto me" is understood of the Godhead alone, for according to it he draws the hearts into knowledge and gives them faith. So "I" stands in both places, as if it were to be understood of both natures, but each extends to the one nature by the counterchange; and it does not hurt us that he says, "If I am exalted," as if the Godhead were crucified, but we see in all his words from the beginning which extends to the divine nature and which to the human nature.
139. John 3 says: "No one comes to heaven except the one who came from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up," that is, crucified etc. Here we have the Son of Man: in either 1) place for the two natures in Christ,
1) "zwürent" - twice; "twederem" - neither.
but in one for the divine, in the other for the human. When he says, "Without the Son of man, who is in heaven," the Son of man is taken for the divine nature in him, for he was not then in heaven bodily after the human. But when he says, "So must the Son of man be exalted," the Son of man alone is taken for the human nature. Which, dear Luther, if you do not realize, you will fall into two great [openly] bearish errors, through which you, not we, would forcibly introduce the Marcionian heresy, if it were left to you.
For one thing, you say: 2) Now, according to the divine nature, he may neither ascend nor descend; therefore, this place will be understood by his humanity. And in doing so, you are describing Oecolampadium, whom you, nor all those who act against him, are not half like in Christian discipline and doctrine; and you are worthy of the highest help, because you do not understand the ethopoeia 3) of Christ's words, and you rage in front of the ignorant in such a harmful way that not enough can be said.
Therefore notice, you pious simpleton: It is a kind of speech, called çèïðïéßá, ethopoeia, that is, common morality poetry: and is used when one imputes a morality to someone, which he does not have by nature; but the same morality is common among those, before whom one presents the same morality poetry, for the sake of understanding. And there is a great deal of this in the Scriptures, for in them we impute customs to God that are customary and known to us, but are not so customary with him, but give us some understanding of his clarity, majesty, or action.
142. example. We have indicated before how the prophets have seen visions and appearances of God sitting in heaven, as Luther suspected us of Mr. Tillman's 4) chorus cap, which is a morality poem, for otherwise neither God nor His chair has never been seen by anyone etc. Joh. 1.
143 Another. In the first book of Kings, at 22, a custom that kings and lords have of sending and acting in the counsel of messengers is attributed to God, as he counseled with his angels to disturb Ahab; but God has no need of the counsel of angels, but all things are eternally present to his knowledge, all things are obedient to his power and ability.
2) Compare No. 20, U122 and 123.
3) 'U-Son-otta, depiction of customs and character.
4) Till Eulenspiegel (?).
Still such pre-paintings of the sealing of the customs benefit our small mind.
144 Another. In Genesis, in the first chapter, God devises to create man with such words: "Let us make man in our likeness and image", but God does not need long deliberation nor consideration; nor does he devise in the Scriptures, as it were, a great bountiful good Lord.
So also this is a moral poetry, since he says: "The Son of Man came from heaven", for: The Son of God came from heaven; and John 16: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world" etc. Not to press the words to the effect that the Son of God has left the Father, or has diminished Himself; for He is the eternal God, who must be everywhere, and cannot be diminished; but that, speaking after our manner, He has made His action clear and well known to us. And again thus: "He came from heaven", and: "I came forth from the Father", spoken according to human manners, for: He took on Himself human nature on earth etc.
146 Which moral seal Paul needs even more crudely from Christ, Phil. 2: "He poured Himself out", or emptied Himself. How can God empty himself? But he imputed to him the manners of pious kings and lords who put their majesty aside and come to the aid of the needy. When the great Alexander departed from the fire in a great frost, and put an old honest man of war in his place, that was emptying himself. So here "empty" is taken for "graciously come to the aid" of the poor meager race of men; for He may not ours.
147 Behold, how it shall befall you by and by, that ye know not the figures and the tropos, and then with such ignorance ye preach, and deceive the simple.
148) For the other, you say immediately this word) Luther: "So that" (by the words, the Son of Man, who is in heaven) "he shows that his body is in heaven and on earth at the same time, yes, already ready at all ends. So you want to show that his body was here on earth and also in heaven; so he is also everywhere.
I ask you this: What was the condition of Christ's body here on earth when he spoke these words? Did he not suffer thirst? Yes. John, chapter 4. Tell me, my dear, whether he also thirsted, hungered, and was glad in heaven? etc. And since he feared death, did he also fear it in heaven?
1) No. 20, § I22.
and when he wept over Jerusalem on earth, did he also weep in heaven? You cry out: "Enthusiast, enthusiast! It is not answered for, as soon as thou art lost, that thou canst not answer, that thou wilt do it all with the reproach of the swarms; for if that were so, then would a scapegoat 2) now have one foot in the bucket, and overcome thee and all the swarms with all the Scriptures. Answer: whether the body of Christ is in heaven as it is here? Are you silent? Stop! Add this also: Was not the body born of Mary of flesh, bone, veins, skin, marrow, nerves, nails, hair, teeth? etc. I mean: Yes. So tell, dear Luther, whether he would be the same in heaven? If he was, who gave him food up there, or who trimmed his nails and hair? And only when he was crucified. Who crucified him in the heavens? And when he rose from the dead with his body clarified, did he also rise from the dead? And when he went with the disciples to Emmaus and interpreted the Scriptures. Tell me, did he also go to Emmaus and teach the two disciples?
150 Here, I know, you will say: O you shameful mockers! O you miserable mocking devil! And our intention is not at all to mock, but only to make you understand your error. Sayest thou: As he is in heaven, he has no need of the things that require bodily need, or that are wrought in the flesh. I answer, I know this well, now after the primal state and the ascension. But I am talking about the state when his body was not yet explained here 3) before death. You will have to say that you are also talking about the same; for you use the words: "The Son of Man, who is in heaven," to mean that he was also bodily in heaven before all explanation.
151) Do you say: Yes, just then he was in heaven, and had none of the defects or troubles 4) up there; then I cry out to you: Resist, resist! Luther, resist! Marcion wants you in the garden. For if his corpse in heaven has been unleavened, then he has also been unleavened here; and then Marcion is right: he has had a dense 5) unleavened corpse, Responde. Or
2) Holhüpper - Holhipler, a meanly scolding lotterbube. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 1253, note 5. "Holhüpper" are the people who fetch the "Huppen" [i.e., the excavated material]. Cf. § 106 of this writing. Zwingli also uses the word "huppen" for: meanly scold.
3) d. i. transfigured.
4) In the old edition "troubles" probably a misprint.
5) d. i. fictitious.
1206II- Writings against Zwingli and his followers re. W. isos-wii. 1207
If you want to say: The corpse, which was sufferable here, but not above, it must have had two corpses. For, in short, his corpse, which was only one, must have had only one kind. 1) If in heaven he is unpleasant, as you will undoubtedly speak, then he must also be unpleasant here; then welcome to God, Marcion and Marcionin! But if he is suffering here, as we say from God's word (hope you also), he must also be suffering in heaven. Or thirdly, [he must have] two bodies; one on earth, suffering, and the other in heaven, not suffering. Tell us, then, whether Mary also gave birth to the one above, or how he came to be here? What does it matter that we are impotent enthusiasts?
I have had to point out so many inconsistencies to you, dear Luther, which come from your misunderstanding, so that you can see where one comes to when he only wants to act against the evil enthusiasts with a polite little lie. Into which you would certainly not fall if you could walk in the Scriptures according to the custom of all scholars who have ever been. For even the papal doctors have never fallen into the grave error of putting Christ's body bodily up into heaven, since he had not yet risen from the dead and ascended to heaven; But they called this kind of speech, where one is called nature and the other is understood, communicationem idiomatum, that is, the communion of attributes, since that which is proper to one nature is also imparted to the other, which we have called, according to rhetoric, the antitype of natures. As here "Son of man" is taken for the divine nature in him, and has the sense: No one comes to heaven without him who came down from heaven; that is: without him who on earth took human nature to himself; that is, he whom one esteems a son of man alone (ut sit mimesis quoque in alloeosi [d. i. so that also in the alloeosis is a figurative expression]), but who is also a Son of God, who is in heaven above, and has never left him according to the divine nature. So understand this place Augustine, who speaks thus: He was here of the corpse or flesh half, and was in heaven according to the Godhead, yes, half of the Godhead everywhere, and Cyrillus, who speaks with many words equally of the two natures, as we have shown before also from God's word, and Chrysostom, and all who have ever diligently looked at the contrast of both natures.
1) Marginal gloss: 4.O6U8 u suMoievti äsvikione.
153 John 14 says: "The Father is more" or greater "neither I." Here "I" is referred to the human nature alone; according to this he is inferior, and according to the divine equal to the Father. Athanasius in verse 2) of the Faith: "He is equal to the Father according to the divinity; and inferior to the Father according to the humanity." I only indicate that Luther learns to know himself, that he speaks of the two natures in Christ in a new way, 3) against all fathers, even papal teachers, contrary to God's Word's ability; that is where the quarrel brings him. He may also learn here that he is mistaken, if he gives Christ's humanity equal authority with the Father; for according to that he is neither the Father, although we know that God and man are One Christ, and the speeches do not hurt us: "Christ is rich, 4) Christ is equal with the Father"; for they are divine and true, but only half of the divine nature; neither do they injure us because the two natures are joined together with the highest unity in Christ, and with the highest wonder each retains its quality and nature.
154. John 10 says: "That you may believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Here "in me" and "I" refer only to the divine nature in Him, according to which He is in the Father according to His inner being, and the Father in Him from eternity. Not that Christ's humanity is excluded from the Godhead, but that it is One Christ with and with Him; but by that Christ is in the Father according to the Godhead, and the Father in Him, the humanity is One Christ with the Godhead, thus that His Godhead is the essential thing by which His humanity has come to the Father.
155. Joh. 12. he says: "Father, deliver me from the hour". Here "me" is taken to mean human nature alone, for according to divine nature he was not allowed a redeemer. This indicates the weakness of human nature, which would not have been able to speak truly, even if it had been essential in heaven; or else, if he himself had been like him above and here, he would have had to be fearful there, as he was here, or else there would have had to have been two corpses. All this is not only heretical, but also foolish, as it is shown above.
Matth. 26. He says: "You will have the poor with you everywhere, but you will not have me everywhere. Here "you will not have me everywhere" refers only to human nature. Here you will no doubt cry out once:
2) i. Confession.
3) Marginal gloss: Luther's teaching is in the case against Christ and all who have ever taught right.
4) reichsnet - governed (?).
So you say that it should be understood in human terms alone, but not in this way; you must force it to be understood in this way. Well then, if you do not have peace because of friendly teaching, we also want to force you. Tell me, may God not be in one place? 1) I mean, no. I mean, no; but it is his inward attribute to be everywhere. Why then does Christ say, "we shall not have him everywhere"? If he is not God, we have good reason to believe that we shall not have him everywhere; but if he is true and undoubted God, it is not possible that he should not be with us everywhere. But set against this his true word, "Me ye shall not have universally"; and tell me, whether thou wilt understand the word to mean the whole one Christ, or the Godhead alone, or mankind alone? If you want to apply it half to the one Christ of both natures, then you are taking it from us according to divine and human nature. Who then will establish your faith, and feed your corpse to the original state, etc. which you attribute to bodily food? But wilt thou understand it in the divine, that we shall not have it? we enthusiasts 2) leave thee by no means; for we have his word of promise, saying, Perceive, I will be with you unto the end of the world.
157 So you are now, I hope, forced that these words extend to human nature, that we will not have them with us in the flesh all the time. But I doubt, you will say like Faber, Egg 3) and the miracle animals: one should understand the words now thus: You will not see me everywhere; I will be with you everywhere, but you will not see me. Answer: You want to put glasses on Oecolampadio, but you don't need them; but you need them very much, because you don't see that it says "have", not "see". You think it says, "You will not see me all the time"; so it says, "You will not have me all the time." Yes, we understand by "have" "see." Thank you, dear Luther! So I hear, the words no longer have to be dry, nor do they mean that their nature is? If you do not want to be forced, then he will force you who forced that [possessed] one to run in the caves and tear all things, Luc. 8.
158. in the 16th chapter of John he says: "I tell you the truth, it is useful for you that I go away (understand to the one who sent him), because if I would not go away, the
1) d. i. about.
2) Marginal gloss: Lareusruos est, gusher.
31 d. i. Eck.
Comforter will not come to you; but if I go away, I will send him." Here it cannot be good that he should leave us after the Godhead, or that he should go away from us; therefore the word, "It is profitable for you that I should go away," must be understood as referring only to the humanity of Christ. On the other hand, the Comforter would not be sent if he remained bodily. 4) So it must be that he is not here in the flesh, nor eaten, since we feel the divine consolation in our hearts; for the Spirit would not have come if he had remained in the flesh. But you see that the consolation comes from the spirit, not from bodily eating, indeed, the spirit does not come, because the corpse is bodily present. Dear Luther, remind yourself of this word: "If I do not go, the Comforter will not come," and boast of your faith accordingly, if you wish.
159. There he says: "Again I leave the world and go to the Father. He does not say, "Again I remain in the world, but invisibly;" but "I leave the world. Which is a word of the one who goes and leaves behind him; and may not be sufficient, neither to some mankind.
In the 24th chapter of St. Matthew, he says: "If anyone should say to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or, 'It is not so,' you must not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets shall arise, and shall shew great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, they shall deceive even the elect. Take heed, I say unto you." Here you speak: Christ does not speak here of the sects and the masters of the sects. Answer: Yes, you seek escape, you also give God's word the understanding it does not have by nature. Although I do not reproach [that] the sectarian error may also be denied here; but not that [such] is the noble sense. For the noble meaning is: it will come to such a misery for the Jewish people that they would like to have Christ only one day, as Luc. 17 is clearly understood; but he may not become theirs. Then 5) Some will be prophets of Christ, but where Christ is shown to them in the inner chamber, or in the field and wilderness, they shall not believe, nor go out. "For as the lightning ariseth from the going forth even unto the coming down, so shall the future of the Son of man be." Do you see that he speaks of the future
4) Marginal gloss: Syllogism: If you have faith, you have the Spirit. If you have the Spirit, Christ is not here in the flesh, for he has spoken etc.
5) Marginal gloss: Is again [from here on] Matth. 24.
See also that before this he speaks of himself, saying that where he is shown, let no man go, and there are false prophets who will show him here or there. Go now, take this rod, and measure thyself, whether thou be a false prophet or not, if thou show him not only bodily in the bread, but also admit that the body eaten bodily lie; 1) which is now proved manifold to be the work of the Spirit alone.
161. to this belongs that he speaks Matth. 26: "But I say to you: For the time being you will see the Son of Man seated with the righteous of God's power." (See here, dear Luther, that we are not allowed to have many foreign teachers who taught us the righteous hand of God to be His power; so Christ Himself gives us here an exposition of the righteous of the power of God; as if He said: "The righteous", understand "the power of God"). Behold, behold, dear Luther, where he is! Do [you] know where the word "forhin" reaches? Without doubt to the time that is after his death and ascension until the end of the world. Seek him bodily elsewhere, and show him not elsewhere, or else thou shalt come in the number of false prophets. Consider now how well it may behoove thee to say, Christ hath given himself bodily to be eaten in this sacrament, that we may know where to find him. Dear, why do you show him, since he does not show himself, and since he has shown himself, you say nothing about it? I can almost guess that his word is no more pleasing to you than it was yesterday. Dear, let us recognize (that is, see) that he is above! I do not believe that he deceives us: he himself showed us where he was, and Stephen also saw him there. For when you say, "He was not allowed to lift up his eyes, but he saw him in his mind," you are speaking out of a forgetfulness of Scripture: for it is written in the 7th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, "But Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, looked diligently up into heaven." We also know well what he saw in his heart before he appeared to him; nor did he see with his bodily eyes the vision that God opened to comfort him. Therefore I urge you to leave him up there, and show him there, when he has shown himself.
162. John [in the] 17th chapter he speaks thus: "For the time being I will not be in the world; 2) but they (understand, the disciples) are in the world." But here you see clearly that he does not say, "I will be with you invisibly for the time being, but still bodily;
1) i. e. good, useful.
2) marginal gloss: ianturn potest graze veritM: oüx
but: "I will be no more in the world for the time being". How can he speak more theologically, and how can it be understood differently, neither from his corpse? If we had no other word, neither this some, would you, dear Luther, oppose it? What castle can [thou] give him? Do you not see that he rejects his humanity, that he will not be here, in that he speaks above of [the] disciples, "but they are in the world." Now they were indeed bodily in it; so he must not be bodily in it nor according to human nature, because it is antithesis.
Soon after that he says: "Father, when I was with them, I kept them in your name" etc. "But now I come to you" etc. Dear Luther, when have you heard enough proclamations from Christ's own mouth alone? Or do you want to reject all of them with dross? If you see that neither faith nor Scripture can suffer that he is here in the flesh, let alone that one would want to eat him only if he were here? Yea, [thou] speakest much, how we ought to esteem it so delicious, that he hath given himself to us for meat. Yes, if we had to eat human flesh in the custom, as is said of Scythians and Anthropophagi (people eaters). Therefore also we are not Capernaites, if we will not eat him, but disciples of Christ, who said, 3) "We believe that thou art the Son of the living God." But you are like them, because you want to understand his words, which are only significant, carnally, as they counsel.
164 One more customer, and we will add up the total. Apost. 1: "As the disciples watched him diligently going up to heaven, behold, there stood by them two men clothed in white, which said also unto them: Ye Galilean men, what stand ye gazing into heaven? Jesus, which is received of you into heaven, 4) so shall he come, even as 5) ye have seen him go into heaven. "etc. Do you see that he is received from them into heaven? He is from them; he is received. Now the Godhead cannot comprehend or grasp heaven or earth, but if Christ is conceived in heaven, as also Marc. 16. says, then his humanity alone must be the comprehended one, for the Godhead cannot be comprehended. Do you also see that he will return visibly, as he went up? Do you say: But he cometh into bread, which is not spoken of here, but these words are for the future at the last day. It is true;
3) Marginal gloss: The sewing is salutary.
4) d. i. recorded.
5) Marginal gloss: üv T-^ön-or-.
He says only about the future on the last day: but if we have no other future of his body, you will not bring us there with any word of God, because you have none (but if you had, we would already be brought there), that we believe that he is 1) bodily, neither up in heaven, until he comes as visibly as the disciples have seen him go up. For, in short, your seal is from the coming of God, not God's promise; for you have no promise at all, of which enough is said above.
Now add up all the sums. Christ says: "Let him do nothing of himself; let not his doctrine be his doctrine; if he be lifted up from the earth, that is, be put to death; let the Father be greater than he; let him pray the Father, Deliver me out of this hour; ye shall not have me for ever; it is profitable for you that I should depart; again, I will leave the world, and go to the Father; if any man shall say unto you, Here is Christ, or there is he; ye shall not believe it: If any man shall say unto you, Here is Christ, or there; believe it not: but now therefore ye shall see the Son of man sitting in the righteousness of the power of God; for the time being I am not in the world." He speaks all these words to his humanity. From these it is evident to everyone that it is not possible, because of his word, that his humanity should always be bodily present in the world, for he has rejected it; nor does he go against his word.
It follows, then, that your conclusion that Christ's body is everywhere is not only untrue but also unchristian, for that must ever be unchristian which publicly disputes the word and teaching of Christ. So then you say: Christ's body is everywhere, even and coextensive and equal with the Godhead; and Christ says, "I leave the world," and, "Hereafter I will not be in the world," and other words, first counted, 2) which must apply to mankind alone (for the Godhead is everywhere): then your word in short is 3) false, and will never receive that the mankind of Jesus Christ is more than in one place. And even if I also devil here, and say: Against this neither devil nor hell is able! In spite of enthusiasts! Blast the hypocrites! etc., the truth is not greater because of it; and your error has brought nothing clearer to light, neither with counted proofs of proper reasoning from God's word and proclamations of God's own mouth.
167 And therefore the humanity of Christ is not
1) i.e. somewhere; "ienen" put by us instead of: "jenen".
2) d. i. narrated.
3) d. i. shortly. - "dennen" --- from then/ to, set by us instead of -, those.
everywhere, where the righteous hand of God is. But Christ is everywhere where the righteous hand of God is, not according to both natures, but only according to the divine. It does not yet hurt us to say that Christ is everywhere where God is; and when you say that outside of Christ there is no God, nor any divinity. Although we understand it by the contrast of the two natures only according to the divine, and not according to the human. And now we want to prove this even more clearly to you.
168) When the angel said to the women, who were looking for him on the 4) stands, "He is risen and is not here", I ask you, whether the righteous hand of God was there, when the angel was and the women? 5) You cannot say no: or else, this, media, 6) the righteous hand of God is everywhere, would not be true; God does not want that! But if it was there, and Christ was not there, which must be enough for his humanity alone, then it is insurmountable that Christ is not bodily everywhere, since the righteous hand of God is. Behold, we present thee with so many strong knobs, and thou shalt not undo any of them. Nor wilt thou be turned aside.
He says Marc. 13: "But of the day (understand, of the last judgment) or hour no one knows, not the angels in heaven, not the Son, but only the Father. See here, first, how the word "Son," which is, after all, a proper name of the divine person, is taken by the antitype for the pure humanity, for his divinity knows all things. On the other hand, see that Christ here, with one word, of foreknowledge, completely cuts off from his humanity everything that belongs to the divinity alone. For if he does not know, according to mankind, when the last day is, he is not all according to mankind, where the Godhead is; for the Godhead has the last day present. And if his humanity did not know it, it was not equal to the Godhead in knowledge, much less in being everywhere.
Here, devout Christian, do not let the cries of the people lead you to think that we want to destroy the humanity of Christ; not at all; but we proclaim by knowing faith that the living Son of God, true God and man, conceived and born of the pure handmaid Mary without sin, are only One Christ. And that the two natures in him are of such a quality that each of their properties
4) i.e. at the resurrection.
5) Marginal gloss: Determine whether we conclude correctly or not.
6) means here: the middle sentence of the conclusion.
The divine remains eternally equal to itself in all power, knowledge and holiness; likewise also the human. While the corpse was deadly, it retained its deadly nature; since it rose from the dead and was explained, 1) it retains the nature of the explained corpses into eternity, as you also recognize, dear Luther. 2) Now the declared corpses retain the re-designation or re-writing, according to the kind and quality of the person. Now, if his humanity before being declared is a finitely circumscribed person, it also remains so. But we carry out this doctrine so diligently from God's Word solely so that you may see, devout Christian, that the humanity of Jesus Christ may not be infinite; and that this may not be more actually established, neither with Christ's own Word. We also agree with all believers that no one should shy away from the words of the other, if Christ Himself has used them. But let no one by quarreling appropriate the other's nature, which is of the one alone; for Christ actually distinguished them, though he often spoke of both in common, which was of the one alone; as has now been sufficiently shown.
Now learn, O simple one, how the humanity of Christ is finite and circumscribed to the righteousness of God, when the righteousness is by no means circumscribed or circumscribed. The humanity of Christ is a true creature, therefore it may not be infinite, as has been heard enough before; and in addition it is a model of our origins, 1 Cor. 15, so that where it has come to, we will also come to. For he saith John 12, "Where I am, there shall My servant be also." And John 14: "I will take you to myself, that ye may feast where I am." Now his Godhead is at all ends, but since our souls are not, nor corpses declared; for the creature would then be like the Creator. So it must be, that the aim, which is proper for us, understands only his humanity, that such a measure is drawn in, that our souls and corpses will also be there. For he also says John 14: "In my Father's house are many mansions." Which he would not have said, if the company of the Son of God had not been included, but there would be only one dwelling place for all, as God is. For this purpose Christ teaches us to pray: "Our Father, who art in the heavens!" It is not that God is not universal outside and inside the heavens, but that he is
1) i.e. transfigured.
2) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's [book, in the bow] H. [on] 1st leaf. [No. SO, § 121.)
3) i.e. nowhere.
This is to indicate the measure and form that God holds, in opening up the joys and pleasures that he shows to his own who are fenced in, but he is not fenced in. Therefore it is evident that, as God is universal, and yet the elect are with Him, and yet are not universal, so also the humanity of Christ is not universal; and the humanity of Christ is nevertheless in unity of person, as we shall not be. Just as the queen alone is a consort and queen to the king, and the other virgins have joy with her, but are not queens. The queen herself is in the king's majesty, but she does not have the king's power and majesty. So-it is also about the queen, 4) the humanity of Christ, as is sung in the 44th [45th] Psalm. For Paul speaks 1 Cor.
13: "We shall see him face to face." And John Epist. 1. cap. 3: "We shall see him as he is." But if we are not infinite nor universal, how shall we see him who is universal as he is? So it must be that he who is universal 5) gives himself so abundantly to those who are not universal that they lack nothing at all. When Peter desired nothing more, when he [Christ] was fashioned otherwise before them, but said, "Lord, here is a good place to dwell!" So it will be for every man, where God shows Himself in such a way, whether on earth or in heaven; and therefore the one who sees does not have to be everywhere, since God is, according to the essence.
Here belongs the example 6) of the soul, which is whole in all the body, the hand has enough of it, the head and feet: and yet is only One soul. So also the humanity of Christ is not all-embracing, like the Godhead; nor is it One Christ with the Son of God, essentially having, possessing and eating the Godhead, as a sent creature, yet in unity with the Son of God: so we do not eat it, for he is the natural Son, we alone are cooptati, adopted children.
But that you also misuse the saying of Christ (7) John 4: "Philip, who sees me, sees also the Father," is good for a child to see and to answer for: for if this word were to apply to mankind, then the Father would have to have a human form, kind and nature. So it reads
4) "Queen" put by us instead: Queens.
5) Marginal gloss: He, who is everywhere, delights you in one place superfluously.
6) Marginal gloss: Luther childishly misused the example in the little sermon against the enthusiasts, which went out long before this book. [No. 19 in this volume].
7) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's sBuche, in the arc) G. [No. 20, § 110.)
not on mankind, but on the divine power; and Christ wants to say, "Whoever sees (that is, recognizes) the miraculous works that I do, recognizes the Father; for he says immediately afterwards, "If you do not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (hic potuisses ex personali proprietate non hallucinari [that is, here you could not have spoken from the personal quality), believe it for the sake of the works." Behold, as He willed nothing else, neither to show that He is like God, yea, according to the One nature, with the Father, which they may well know by the works.
174 Thus, dear Luther, all your enthusiasm is conceived in the fag, since you first wanted to fence God in with the humanity of Christ, with the saying of Paul, Col. 2: "The perfect Godhead dwells bodily in him"; since you also left "bodily" unexplained for the simple-minded, so that they might think that it is with the Godhead."The perfect Godhead dwells bodily in him"; since you also left "bodily" unexplained for the simple, so that they might think that the Godhead is enclosed with the corpse; yet you must not say this publicly; so "bodily" essentially means that the Godhead was, and still is, essential, but not enclosed in Christ. Accordingly, you wanted to extend the same humanity of Christ to the immeasurable breadth of the Godhead, so that the righteous hand would be all-embracing, but you did not realize that his humanity is not all-embracing, like his Godhead. Or if we will be with him, according to his promise, we should be equal to all, as well as his humanity, where it would be all, because he says: xxxx [that is] "just where I am, there will also my servant be." And so you have done nothing but useless talk, so that you have given to understand that you cannot yet understand or write about Christ, who is of two natures, and about each one in particular according to its quality. For if [you] could not and would not do it, nor forbear, when others speak rightly of it, [you] would be a great ... But I will not call you so. You are a human being, and so am I. God forgive and enlighten us all!
(175) That thou therefore also refuse me to understand the words of Christ, John 3: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," thus: if anything 1) is born of the flesh of Christ, eaten in the flesh, then nothing but flesh must be born; thou doest well to be unreasonable, as last 2) and arrogant thou hast set thyself. For thou turnest not back my reason, which is, that Christ hath here spoken one that is, common sense. This is invented with the other part of his-
1) i.e. something.
2) i.e. upside down.
n his speech, when he says: "And that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. How do you think that these words do not mean anything else, that what is born of the spirit is spirit? Do you want to deny it? Now, contrary to all truth, you also make the humanity of Christ to be spirit, because he was conceived of the spirit; 3) however nonsensical and Marcionic; for you should have considered that he, Christ, was conceived of the spirit alone, and was nourished and bodily born in the virgin corpse; and came into this world as a true bodily man, not as a spirit, and walked. And such birth and conception befit the one who was sent by God into the flesh (so that he might receive from the flesh the condemnation of the flesh, Rom. 8.), that he might be conceived by the spirit and born of the immaculate body of Mary. So let him not be a spirit, if the true human nature was in him, which is not a spirit at all, or else you are the true Marcion.
176. I have had to indicate this, so that the poor sheep led astray by you may see with what peas you are walking. And stand firm, "that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." Christ is not born of the spirit alone; if you make "to be born" mean to conceive, then he is not only spirit, but God and man together. But if this is so, then the other part, "that which is born of flesh is flesh," must also remain rigidly upright in the manner of a common sense: that [the] flesh, if it beget, begetteth nothing but flesh. And that thou bringest before thy village church, if I eat buns, I should also give birth to buns. Of this [yet] Christ nor we speak, but of birth of the spirit and flesh. And that is why your Badryberian spittle should not have been used at all; if the counter-accusations had been resolved with it, Egg 4) would have done it long ago. When Christ will tell us what will be born of buns, we also want to learn. But the mind is still unconquered by all flesh; for even Christ, in that case, does not take out his flesh, but speaks in the common: flesh gives birth to flesh, and spirit gives birth to spirit.
From the word, "The flesh is not useful at all."
177 After such a long time of loose talk, you, dear Luther, come to the place: "The flesh is not useful at all"; and you keep yourself so informal with it.
3) Marginal gloss: Luther makes being born: being conceived.
4) Corner...
and impious, that I regret to say. I would rather you had covered up the mischief, for you commit three quite dishonest acts. The first, that thou speakest against thyself without recantation. The other, that you falsify the words. (Behold, this grieves us so much that you cannot believe it enough; for it does not indicate to us a justifier, which we have never provided for you; but you are in God's hand). The third, that thou prescribeest false rules how "flesh" should be taken in Scripture. Now I will briefly state these things and hasten to the end.
That you speak against yourself is indicated by the sermon 1) you preached on the words: "My flesh is the true food" etc. in which you speak these words.
Luther: "For thus he himself says afterwards: The flesh is not useful. And again: My flesh gives life. How do we separate these things? The spirit separates it. Christ wants the bodily eating of the flesh to be of no use, but to believe that the flesh is the Son of God, come from heaven for my sake, and his blood shed for me" etc. Likewise you also understand this place; as is indicated to me in the postill, Sunday Septuagesimä about the epistle. 2) Behold, dear Luther, these are your own words, in which you publicly recognize the right meaning, that the flesh is of no use at all to eat. And you do wonders 3) in the book, how much it, eaten in the flesh, brings. Benefit bring; scream: It is a holy meat, which makes holy even by touching alone, how much more eaten? Fix it with the sick woman, 4) who touched the hem of her garment and got well. And it is of no account with thee that Christ saith, Thy faith hath made thee whole, and saith not, My flesh or my hem hath made thee whole. Neither seest thou that they which defiled him in Caiphas' house with strokes of the cheek were not made holy, nor Judas that kissed him; nor art thou ashamed to pretend such dishonest false things. We know well how holy he is, how much good he has done us poor people; but we know that he has not given himself bodily to us to eat; so that his flesh is not profitable to eat, as also thou hast confessed.
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XI, 2248 ff. The passage cited is found (in somewhat different words) in Col. 2253, § 8.
2) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XII, 403, § 13 ff.
3) d. i. aberwitzige; "aberweise" put by us instead of: "aber weifst".
4) No. 20, § 180.
180. that thou also shalt cry: Should he be born, scourged, crucified, and not be useful when eaten? are you like the priests who also cry out: Should this or that not be useful to me? Then we could give them a good answer: Every thing is useful as much as God's word indicates usefulness, and we taught that what God's word could do would be upright, what it could not do should not be given. But now you have turned the page, and do not doubt that your own conference is sufficiently stunted in this. So turn back, and learn that you can and have taught before, that such cries are not able to do anything; for they have no divine promise. For if they should be able to do anything, I would give the body of Christ to him that hath the tan in his mouth to eat; for thou sayest that he is eaten with the mouth bodily; and wouldst cry out, Should he that is so holy not receive the tan? and let it be seen whether it goeth or not. So to the lame, the blind, the leprous etc. Do you say: Yes, bodily health is not promised. It is right. Then say: Where is spiritual health promised? It is promised to a lesser extent, as it is shown above that all healing and comfort of the soul comes to our hearts from the spirit alone, and not from bodily food. For this we may indicate more similar things for the sake of bodily health, if here one eats the body of Christ bodily, as you, Paul says: "For this reason there are many sick among you.
181 Thus you speak against yourself, and lead yourself into loose impotent teachings, which we do not allow any. We do not allow any priest. You should justly put down the previous ones in the new writings, or answer for them; but it is not proper for him to speak: I have erred! who before so arrogantly pretended that everything he taught must be just; just as if it must be so for him, even though he taught without God's word; and now proves himself, if he would teach another, one should think that he had fallen from the faith. Behold, that thou trustest thyself so well, that thou shalt yet fall from it; but we shall abide in error.
182 Similarly, you have questioned the meaning of Paul's words, 1 Cor. Cap. 10: "The drink of thanksgiving, that we may give thanks; is not this the church of the blood of Christ?" Well and rightly preached and written some years ago, when [you] wrote in the sermon of the brotherhoods and sacrament 5). And in the other part, against the Carolstad, you immediately write that
5) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XIX, 426 ff.
Contradiction; as in exegesis 1) is well given to you to understand, along with other things that you teach against yourself. Is this a right spirit, to teach against oneself, and not to recognize the wrong part, nor to have erred?
Secondly, you falsify God's word when you take the article [that is] "THAT" from the flesh, just as the Marcionites and Arrians have scraped something out of the Scriptures, which was contradiction. Notice, you simple-minded one, what I mean. The Greek language has the custom that we Germans have of putting an article in front of every word where it is to be clarified, as: Das, der, die, dem, den, eins, ein, einer, eine etc., as, Marci 6: "Isn't he the carpenter?" Here the trailing "the" is a superior article, and may be used as much, as: The carpenter, who was known to all the people of the craft half well. And the speech is much different, neither if one would say: Is he not a carpenter? because if the Greek wanted to say so, he would say: Is he not a carpenter? without the article "the". These short superior articles (loquor enim de praepositivis articulis tantum [i.e., for I am speaking only of superior articles]) have so much force with the Greeks that they are capable of more in many places, neither the subzuncrtivi, that is, neither those placed in subsequent speech, as: which, which, which, which, which re.
184. example. Joh. Cap. 1: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God. Here the following little word "that", only an article, is able as much as: the same word, of which is first said: "THAT was with God." Now all Greek teachers have said much about this, especially Cyril, Chrysostom, and in our times Erasmus. The quality of the language is also able to do it. Since Luther should have interpreted from the words: óáñî ούχ ώφελεΐ ούδεν "the flesh is not at all useful", he left out the little word "THE"; so that it did not point to the certain flesh, of which Christ spoke before and still speaks of. And Luther says, "Flesh is not useful at all." [But the superior article "THAT" is able to do as much as if the words themselves were there: The very flesh of which it is first said. This I will make clear not only with the understandings of the Greek language, but with the self-words of Christ to one, and in addition with other places in Scripture. We will deal with the following first.
1) in 6X6^681, by which Zwingli means his writing: 6X6AS8i8 st". in which he also sought to refute Luther's writing against the heavenly prophets.
185 John 1: "In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 2) Here the little word "that" means as much as if he said: "The very life, of which it was first said that was in him, was the light of men. So there it says: "And the Word became man". 3) Here "that" can be interpreted as much as: The very Word, of whom so much was said before, became man.
Now see here, you learned preachers who praise this Lutheran book! If Luther is to do the article to them 4) in the discourse: "The flesh is of no use at all"; and say: "Flesh is not useful", and is to count for nothing that it is attached to the previous discourse: then Marcion will also no longer read: "The Word has become man"; but: "Word has become man"; and will say: John is not speaking here of the word, which was spoken of before, but of a common word of God, which made a man. And what you dare to say against this does not help, because in both places the preceding speech is thus appended to the succeeding speech; and the succeeding speech is preserved with the article, so that in one it is just as proper to do the article to them as in the other, that is, by no means without great falsification.
Item, Luther in his translation of the New Testament thus interpreted: "The flesh is not useful"; and now he speaks: "Flesh is not useful"; so that it may serve that Christ has spoken the mind, meaning and nature of the flesh. See, dear Luther, how you stand here! as an open criminal and falsifier of Scripture, which you cannot deny before any creature Yes, how do we stand, who have exalted you without measure, and experience this in you? But we cannot agree with God's judgment, but we want to ask Him that He, by His causeless mercy, will help you up again, who have fallen so badly through strife, and forgive us 5) and humble us so that we do not fall in such a way that we subject ourselves to anything without God's word to protect us.
188) Secondly, it is evident from the very words which Christ spoke before and after, that He also pointed to His own flesh with the words, "The flesh is not useful. [So before the words, when the disciples murmured, it is written, "When therefore Jesus perceived that his disciples murmured of it." Dear, of what did they murmur? Against
2) Marginal gloss: "al H
3) Marginal gloss: "at ö
4) d. i. away.
5) i.e. herding.
the mind of the spirit and flesh, or against the bodily food?
After that Jesus says: "Are you angry with this? Dear, where does this "this" point to? Does it annoy you that he had spoken of the chip 1) and the nature of the flesh and the spirit? Now he had not said anything about that. So they are angry that they thought he had spoken of his flesh, eating bodily; from which it follows that Christ speaks for and of his flesh, when he takes their speech from them and answers them.
190. thirdly, he says, "When ye therefore shall see the Son of man going up, then was he before." Dearly beloved, what rhymes this word with the carnal and spiritual? Therefore he will say to them, "I teach you to trust in me as the true Son of God, who will give my body for you, that is, eat my flesh; so you will not believe that I am the Son of God, and will grumble as if I had spoken too harshly or roughly; but when you see me go up to heaven, you will see that I am God, and that you did not have to eat me.
191. fourthly, he speaks a word that takes away all the mist that is before our eyes, saying, "The Spirit is that maketh alive." Behold, this is brief and good: that which makes us alive is the one Spirit. In this word all that you attribute to bodily food falls away. For bad: "The Spirit quickeneth." And if we love Christ, we rejoice that he goeth up to the Father, Joh. 14. Behold how he cuts off from us all the joy which thou promiseest us in the bodily meal, saying, 2) "If we loved him, we should rejoice that he goeth from us to the Father." So again it follows that those who want to have him here in the flesh do not love [him]. Do you see now where your seal stands? You want to give him to people to eat in the flesh, and you promise much sweetness if they eat him. Who has ever eaten his child because he loved him? Much less will we desire to eat the Son of God if we love him. But where one teaches untruth, one must bring such flowers as if it were true. Although all things that God does are proper, he has not ordained them, and therefore they are unseemly to him and to us. 3) The spirit alone makes alive; and the very flesh, of which you first murmured much, is not at all useful, [and] indeed to eat bodily, to which they thought they had spoken it.
1) d. i. dispute.
2) "Speaks" put by us instead of: "speak".
3) unzäm - unseemly.
192. After the words he says: "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Which words are spirit and life? Those: "My body is the true food"? Now he no longer speaks of the former opinion according to your mind; but has lifted up another from the nature of the flesh. Therefore it is evident from these words that he still remains in the former opinion of speaking of the gospel; from this it follows that with the word: "The flesh is not useful," he also answers to the opinion of the erring 4) ones.
193. sixth, he says, "But there are some among you who do not believe. For he knew from the beginning which believed not." Dear, where does this go? To understand that carnal mind is of no use at all? Then he would have spoken like this: There are some who understand nothing at all; for they all undoubtedly believed that the way of the flesh is not useful but harmful, even from the prophets. But from this it follows that here no new opinion is put on the way, but he teaches for and for the gospel; and if those do not understand the figurative words, he gives them an answer to their misunderstanding, and does not raise another.
194 To the seventh Peter says: "Lord, to whom would we go? you have the words of eternal life; this we believe and know, that you are Christ, the Son of the living God." Here Peter should have spoken: We understand you well that the carnal way is harmful. If not, it is clear that Christ remains for and for in the teaching of the Gospel and answering for their misunderstanding. And thus it becomes clear that the words "the flesh is not useful" have the meaning: the very flesh of which the hearers murmured is not useful to eat at all; and that you, dear Luther, so unjustly and dishonestly cut off the little word "dqs", because it does not serve you.
The third dishonest thing that you do 5) is that you prescribe the wrong rule: Where spirit and flesh are opposed to each other, flesh is called the old Adam, not Christ flesh. Short answer: So also spirit there is not called Christ spirit; or else they are not opposed to each other. 6) Therefore note, dear Luther: I freely indulge you, that where spirit and flesh are opposed to one another in Scripture, but which include our spirit and flesh, that there-
4) In the old edition: erring.
5) Randglosse: Ist in Luthers sBuche, im Bogens L. sNo. 20, § 191.1
6) Marginal gloss: LrZo uon "st kmMüksis.
even flesh is taken for the old Adam; but there spirit must not be taken for the spirit, which is God, but for our spirit, which has some enlightenment from God, as it is written in Galatians 5: "The spirit seeth against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit." Here flesh is taken for the sense and nature of the flesh, and spirit for the sense and nature of the spirit, even of man; although the same spirit is touched or enlightened by God's spirit, of which way it also says in Romans 8. And Paul has the meaning: The human spirit, which now recognizes God as being drawn by God, eternally contends with the flesh, as Rom. 7. Now, I hope, you understand the connotation, that is, the inclusion: where flesh stands against spirit, and the fleshly kind means, that also again spirit, which stands in opposition, means our spirit, but which is enlightened by God, as well, as flesh means our fleshly kind.
196. Then I ask you, what is the meaning of the spirit in the word: "It is the spirit that gives life"? Does it mean God's spirit, or man's spirit, which is enlightened with God? If you cannot deny that it means God's Spirit (for no matter how holy man is made by God, the human spirit cannot make him alive), then the spirit there must be called God's Spirit. If this is so, Christ does not speak of our flesh, but of his own spirit and flesh next to each other; or else it would not be antithesis. As he does not add the word "my" to the word spirit, and yet his spirit alone is understood; so also in the word "flesh" his flesh is understood, without adding the word "my," and has the meaning: I make alive according to the spirit; the flesh is not useful, indeed, eaten, to make alive. Against this, dear Luther, do not speak a word, or we will show you that you have never understood the eighth chapter of Romans.
197 Hear the message now. John 1: "The Word became flesh. Doesn't "Word" here mean "Son of God"? Isn't he a spirit? so the meaning should become: The Word became an old Adam, according to your rule. How do you treat the word 1 Peter 3: "Christ was killed in the flesh and made alive in the spirit"? Does "killed in the flesh" also mean that he was dead in the old sinful Adam? How then can he say, "Who will punish me for sin? Item, 1 John 5: "There are three things that make manifest, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are together," or find one. Is blood also taken here for the fleshly temptation?
Now it is a judgment of flesh and blood, Matt. 16: "Flesh and blood has not opened it for you"; item, 1 Tim. 3: "God has appeared in the flesh, has been justified in the Spirit. But here they are opposed to each other. Now, according to your rule, is "flesh" to be taken here for the sinfulness of the flesh? Where do we come to with your foolishness? When wilt thou see what it is, "They teach doctrines of men and commandments"? Now thou, as thou art contrary to thyself, as thou breakest and counterfeitest the scriptures, and as thou teachest false precepts. And remainest stiffnecked: the flesh is not at all profitable to eat. And didst thou burst thy head with it.
Accordingly, when you want to draw the teachers to your mind, 1) you commit nothing less dishonest; but I will let the same Oecolampadium answer, and show here a small sample, how you forge. When you indicate Augustinum ad Januarium, in the 118th epistle, you use the dishonest one, that you have not taken the words (which stand at the beginning and give well to note, that he alone calls the signs the body of Christ and blood by the after-naming, and does not consider that they are the things, but alone signify) [omitted]. And these are his words: "First of all, know that the most excellent thing in our business is that our Lord Jesus Christ has put us under a gentle yoke and light burden, as He Himself speaks in the Gospel; and for this reason He has bound together the company of the new people with a few sacraments, which are also to be kept ring 2) and in meaning 3) excellent; as 4) in baptism with the name of the Trinity is sanctified the church of His body and blood." See, devout Christian, the words of Augustine in fact, and you will see how it was in his time about the sacraments, and how he so publicly indicates that they only mean, but signify excellent things, namely, the great deed that God has forfeited in this world through His Son, and the unification of the Church, that is, of His people.
200) Accordingly, you falsify: for when you indicate from Augustine, 5) how with the ancients this sacrament is called a sacrifice, from the sacrifice that only happened once, 6) so that it is the post-nuptial, of which we say, you omit that he says the corpse of Christ, so also that it is called the sacrifice.
1) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's sBuche, in Bogens N. sNo. 20, § 215 ff).
2) d. i. light.
3) Marginal gloss: The sacraments mean. You see here, Luther, interpretation, as you speak.
4) So put by us instead of: alsdann.
5) No. 20, § 309.
6) i.e. only once; put by us instead of: "now Einist".
which is but a sacrament; and not otherwise the body of Christ, than as we call the primordial states of Christ, which is but a likeness or signification of the primordial states which have been. How may you do this? Indicate the one thing from Augustine, and omit the thing that stands just before, after, and beside it? Is this honest, since it all belongs to the matter?
Item 201: You bring yourself to this point by not understanding Augustine to call the sacramental signs the body and blood of Christ, 1) saying that Christ's body and blood are received bodily in the mouth, like other visible bodily food. So say to your erroneous opinion: If the body of Christ is everywhere, how will it be received into the mouth of man? If the mouth receives it at all, it is not universal; for the mouth is not universal. If it receives it in part, it is not Christ in body, soul, and blood, as he was born, died, and is in heaven. Behold, whither thou goest!
You torture Tertullianum, the dearest, half of both languages, of all Latin theologians, so miserably, because you want to reverse that he calls this sacrament a figure of the body of Christ, that you say: figura is taken there mathematice. Do not see that it is taken per imagine, simulacro, aut repraesentatione (that is, for an illusion, similitude, or representation); which way Lucretius, Catullus, Juvenalis, and Ovidius also take it.
It is also evident from your writing that you have wasted little time in Tertulliano; but you would have seen for what he uses this word figura, namely for a meaning; for he, lib. I. contra Marcionem, thus speaks: He also has not swallowed the bread, 2) so that he means his corpse. You see that he takes figure for a meaning and sign or unformation. Nevertheless, you say in your book: 3) it is truly the meaning of Tertullian; just as if Tertullianus was so well understood and known to you that one would believe you.
204 You treat Irenaeo in the same way; you do not see that he speaks only by allegories, in which he nevertheless touches the Marcionites. And speaks on such sense as also Tertullianus: that Christ had true human nature in him; for he suffered death in it, and redeemed us, and left us a thanksgiving of the same redemption. In which thanksgiving we are given-
1) "that he name" put by us instead of: "name".
2) i.e. spurned.
3) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's ^Buche, im Bogen) N [No. 20, §§ 227. 232.)
that our corpses will also be resurrected when he is resurrected. And all his teachings extend only to the inner eating, which he speaks of as the eating of the body and blood of Christ, as also Christ himself, John 6, which would take more time to explain in German, neither is it here; nor is it so important, even if they are not with us. For God is more than His apostles, John 13, let alone the teachers, even though they are truly with us; but it will be better to explain in Latin than in German, so that the simple will not be troubled with unnecessary things.
205) That you warn the pious of Strasbourg and Basel against the sacramentalists, you do him justice; for one should beware of mobs. 4) But insofar as you make their faithful teachers and preachers suspicious, as if they were stirring up, you are doing more dishonestly than is proper for any pious person, for only male nutalame 5) has learned whether they are rotterian or not.
206. 6) [You] dishonor the pious, well-learned man, neither to him nor to yourself; yet do [you] right to him after the manner in which you are now proceeding. Christ teaches that one should give good for evil: so also 7) the Antichrist teaches to give evil for good; this you do faithfully; for you unkindly thank users for diligent work, had in your books. And he has not done anything unkind or dishonorable to you or to Pomerano; for it has been the custom and freedom of all interpreters from time immemorial [ab omni saeculo] for your sake, where they have violated something in a teacher or book, they have added their warning to it. Since now user (wanted, he would have spared it, and the more I hear your writings, the more I wanted it; had warned him also, but it was too late) turned your books into Latin language, and found however, which was not according to the truth; should he not indicate such? In advance, if he has done so with such modesty that one can see which is yours, or which is his. Pomeranus half, he has given him the choice to increase and decrease in his book, yes, to make according to his sense. So now you rage without need. Behold, which act more Christian?
Here you also learn, devout Christian, what anger and rage are. Throughout Luther's book, I have thought: Oh God, where did you find
4) i.e. to guard, to take care of.
5) "nutalame" stands for: "nun talame" (compare Col. 1128, § 1), i.e. now already.
6) A game with Butzer's name. Use - clean.
7) mitding - against (?).
you, or Oecolampadius, boasted of holiness or suffering? Finally, Luther himself indicates that users of Strasbourg praised us in special letters that he sent to him for the sake of peace and unity; yet we did not have any knowledge of this, nor do we know it today, because we have only heard so much. Behold, it cometh to pass, that we lay upon innocent people things which they have not done, 1) If we hate them, and see them. 2)
And as this whole book is nothing else, neither an open disgrace and darkening of the undefiled evangelical truth and light, which, as I hope to God, is now strongly brought to light, we must not answer for all your intemperate scolding. Our innocence answers for it in part, in part it bears it patiently. And these are the errors that you turn in this book:
I. The body of Christ is, as it were, 3) of the divine nature, everywhere.
II Let Christ show Himself to us in this Sacrament, that we may know where to find Him.
III Christ's body, eaten in the flesh, put up with sin.
IV. Let Christ's flesh be an entirely spiritual flesh.
V. Christ flesh, eaten in the flesh, preserve our bodies for the primal state.
1) Marginal gloss: So blinded and perverted the hatred. 2) pursue (?).
3) i.e. "as if" he had divine nature.
VI Christ body, bodily eaten, give or increase faith. Is everything spoken by you Against God's word.
Therefore, my humble request to you, dear Luther, is that you do not rage in the matter as you have done so far; but if you are Christ's, then we are also his. Now it does not behoove us to act against each other, neither with the word of God. Therefore do the same with Christian discipline, [which] we also want to do; for we should not ever fight against God, nor shield our error with false trang 4) of God's word. God grant you the truth and your knowledge; and that you remain Luther, not become - "67-/) 5) Luther! But if you ever want to disobey, we carpenters will first cut good chips. The truth conquers. Amen!
God, praise be to you, who make us victorious in Christ and make the smell of your knowledge known to everyone through us. 2 Cor. 2.
4) i.e., urging, forcing. Otherwise also written "urge". Cf. § 340 of the following text.
the notes to the first book of Moses, which are brought together by Leo and Megander, somewhere "ein grobes Gebilde" is written for: "ein feines Gebilde" - will probably be a marginal gloss of Zwingli to this play with Luther's name. In the old edition these words are at the end of the writing without a mark.