Started July 1, completed end of August 1528.
Before the pious Christian princes Johansen, Duke of Saxony, and Philippe, Landgrave of Hesse, Huldrich Zwingli, a simple preacher of the Gospel of Christ, has received grace and peace from God through Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord and Savior!
1) Therefore, I will first of all indicate the reason why I, writing to Your Grace, do not hold the titles: "Highborn,
Sublime" etc. Namely, that it seems to me that there are many who are "highborn" according to the world and the respect of the flesh, but, measured against God and righteousness, are very far away here; and transparency, which is also inherent in the stained-glass windows, 6) has only in new times been applied to the princes by the flatterers.
6) Luther commemorates this hopeful letter in his Tischreden, Cap. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 676.
*) This writing appeared in German in 1528, but was later translated into Latin by Rudolph Gualther and added to Zwingli's Werke, lom. II, p. 416, inserted. Zwingli also included in his answer the answer of Johann Oecolampad to the confession of Mart. Luther's confession of the Lord's Supper". At the end of the letter is
(2) But of the pious Christian princes [find] so little that God's judgment justly decrees that few bear the title; but rather take pleasure in the obscure shininess that is said of them, neither that they would be clear [clarl], that is, highly renowned of faithfulness and piety. But so herewith one commonly
where you are recognized, praised as pious, God-fearing men and princes 1) of the Gospel of Christ, I have no doubt that you will receive no displeasure because, according to the custom of the apostles, I call you "pious" and "Christians" for "Highborn" and "Illustrious"; for when the apostles called the Christians, they did not want to understand anything else, neither "pious", by the word.
3) You pious princes know well what Spanes holds, the night feast of Christ's heaps, between the excellent man Martin Luther and us, in which so many books and letters were written, until it finally came to the point that also the book, called "Martin Luther's Confession", had to come out; which, with what breeding or fugues, yes, with truth and Christian spirit, it is written, we command God and all believers. Now without God's order, without which our hair does not turn black or gray, the book is not brought to the world. So he also wants to do good with it, which is why we have become quite comforting [fiducialiter] and bold about the Scriptures; so that we see publicly not only by the words that he has no reason to save himself, if he subjects himself to reproach, snorting and scolding 2); but also by the senses and powers of the Scriptures (for he brings forth many such impotent senses, and also wants to rely on the fact that, if he were so, all knowledge of God would be obscured) all Scriptures would be put in doubt, and he would have to throw himself back in all his teaching; But we lead our testimony against him, which will surely be incumbent upon him and will be victorious, for his book is like a scattered, discordant heap, where one group wants to go out here, the other there, which thereby emits much shouting and dread.
4 You will see, pious princes, if God wills it! that when the day is bright, how Luther, with the book, not only contradicted his before opened
1) i.e., headmaster.
2) i.e. to snap at.
books, but against himself in the book. Therefore, I cannot pay any attention to it other than that it is like someone who leases some money or stuff in the night (as in
and must search for it again without a light; for just as he reaches around and gropes where he would like to find something, so Luther reaches around for what he would like to find that would help him. And soon he has forgotten himself, and sets that which he denied before, or denies that which he set before; not only does he make his very first doctrine suspicious, but also gives the popes cause to reproach it most highly, if he is called in the present matter (in which, however, he is forced by divinity and humanity to deal) to go only over the books which he wrote in four or five years. For who will not say: If one remains five years, he will also be suspicious of the books he has written in the next five years? Which we verily care for 3) neither all dishonor and reproach, done unto us. Not that one should not recant if he errs; but that it is a laborious. It is a pity that he comes to this out of quarreling, that he will not let the things he has taught before fall, nor give way; though no one may overthrow them, where they are founded in God's word.
(5) Therefore, pious princes, we are compelled by reason to order and form our Scriptures to you, knowing well to what ridicule this may be measured to us; for we note well in Luther's writing that our Scriptures are not read in your lands, if he puts upon us that which we have not taught; and in turn denies that which we have truly taught; so that the truth may suffer great harm. The apostle Paul teaches that one should prove all things and accept what is right [1 Thess. 5, 21]: so Luther denies that our doctrine (which is not ours, but God's, as will be found out here and on the last day) is not read, but maligned before it is heard.
(6) Now it hath been found from everlasting, not only among the faithful, but also among the Gentiles, that they which knew the truth, and were faithful in it, suffered not that their spirits should be changed.
3) i.e. worse (rvorss). In § 220 of this writing it is written "wirß".
4) So put by us instead of: "the right".
Oecolampad had begun writing on June 24, Zwingli on July 1, 1528, and that they had to hurry to finish the writings "for the autumn fair in Frankfurt. In 1528, the fair took place from August 26 to September 15. The writing was completed "at the end of August 1528", as we can see from Zwingli's own dating. We give the text according to Walch's old edition.
Why then, pious princes, should we let your pious people, who are dear to us with all our hearts, as those who cheerfully accept God's word, yes, who are One People and One Church with us, our and we their members in One Body, proceed in error? How could we ever more justify this against God, that for the sake of Luther's not peeling us so inhumanly, we would give way to him in the matter of truth? provided we know that we may overcome him with all understanding, if they consider the matter with an open heart and faith. Why should we let the dirt [insult] turn away from us, since everyone can speak: You prove yourselves right, Luther speaks otherwise; yet we see daily that (if Luther's opinion is read in cities and places alone, and our writings are not tolerated) the truth that stands with us nevertheless increases? and again, since his books are accepted with great pomp and splendor, ahead of the papists, and read freely without any prohibition, nevertheless the truth does not weaken, 2) but increases, neither before? so we see that Christian peace and unity become much greater, since the truth in the article may be freely sought and accepted without danger, neither since it is resisted? Christ, our Saviour, directs us to such pre-fighting, as he says: "He who trusts in me, from him shall flow living rivers." [John 7:38?
(7) It matters not what the adversary says; we must see that we do not put down truth with falsehood. It shall be eternally enough for us, if we please him among whom we are enrolled; he knows us well, he also knows our conscience well, whether it fights for our name's sake or for his, against a truly not childish hero: for if we traveled for honor's sake, we would have to fight in other articles, neither in that, since we now do not fall the papists, but also have to have Luther and all, who have been taught nowhere else, neither in his books, as opponents. Who, after all, can extinguish the light of truth? or shall we put the light under the measure? Let all our adversaries be so fresh, and let our writings walk beside theirs, and see to it that their doctrine is the first to be accepted by all who understand the law! Or are we so weak in faith that we think, even if our doctrine were false, that God would therefore accept his own?
1) d. i. light.
2) weakens - becomes weak.
Or, if it is just, that one may reject it? It is not such an unjust, incomprehensible judge on earth, if one were to tell him of two parties, one of which sought no advantage at all, nor suppressed the writings of its opponents, but the other did so; he would at least put the advantageous party at fault.
We, pious princes, do not want to act against Luther as he did against us, but have now freely forgiven him before God all fancy words, 3) lying, cursing, condemning and banishing, and have not burdened him with any convicio, scolding and reviling: he shall have the same freely before; even though he does not consider us to be Christians alone, but also not human beings. But here no one can say, if we are compelled to speak: Luther does us violence, he speaks the untruth, he speaks against himself, he falsifies the Scriptures, or himself; that we blaspheme him with such words, if we bring this to light publicly; for without such words no one can carry out a cause against his adversary. Such a good invective in loco, as I say: Luther does the same as the weak fencers; if they are overcome, they say: the adversary cannot; or, the conquered one seeks a quarrel, 4) and the like, we also hope that no one will blame us; for there is a great difference between jocos, risus et maledicta, between invective and reviling. Therefore, we do not want to make fun of them, we are serious. But let us temper infernal, angry, quarrelsome, inhuman words, and thus cheerfully and kindly carry out the bargain with God.
9. Since Luther has written in such a mixed way, and has put it together neatly for us in previous writings, he has divided it according to his meaning, and has, however, added something erroneous in all places, we want to answer first about his book, how great it is, in the shortest way; and then, what is not sufficiently explained in the refutation of his errors, in the other part we will explain and strengthen; and lastly, what he has poured out wrongfully in his faith, we will indicate brightly; all from God's word, for his honor alone, and good to his neighbor.
(10) But if you, pious princes, cannot be expected to read this scripture to the end for the sake of the great business with which you are burdened: Is it not our humble request that you will
3) i.e. words of shame.
4) Marginal gloss: lasso rixa Huasritur.
1234II Writings against Zwingli and his followers re. W. xx, 1543-1545. 1235
Let them be read by unquestioned, impartial, God-fearing scholars and advise them to 1) record and send to us everything they think they do not have reason to know from God's Word; we will always give good information. And is also much weger, 2) the things are discussed and erduret among the scholars, neither with unkind open writing. In the hope that the almighty God will hear our knocks and pleas and make all of us, who desire nothing more earnestly than to have peace with one another in truth (as far as we all speak), united; for as far as we face the truth in these articles, so far will we be able to speak the truth in truth: For as far as we look the truth right in the face in these articles, then all quarrels are over, half because of outward things, and the papacy is only more panned 3) and corrupted.
11) That Eeolampadius' writing and mine are printed together is due to brevity and convenience; no one should take it otherwise.
May the living true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, preserve you, pious princes, together with your lands, and grant the common Christianity the unity of His Spirit! Amen.
Dear reader, know that both of us missed business because Ecolampadius only started writing [on] the day of St. John the Baptist, and I on the first day of the month of July 4); nevertheless, in addition to the administration of our daily texts 5) and sermons, we had to hurry to the autumn fair in Frankfurt, which is why the numbers are not actually recorded everywhere; but scholars will see what is written. Given on the first day of July at Zurich etc.
The book is called Confession and is the answer of Huldrich Zwinglius.
When now Luther renounced for the first, 6) he did not want to write anything more, so that Satan would not become even more foolish: is it unequal, since he defies long afterwards, why he should not call the devil his enemy, as thick 7) he wanted? Here he wants to spare, there he wants to rush. But not so! but where we see that the untruth grows,
1) i.e. command.
2) i.e. a better way, more profitable.
3) weakened (?).
4) d. i. July.
5) Lections (?).
6) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's book, in the arc a at the 2nd plate (or leaf). (No. 21, § 3.)
7) d. i. so often.
We are to stand up against them always undaunted, according to the saying of Paul, 2 Cor. 4: "We are afflicted, but not imprisoned; sorrowful, but not desolate; thirsty, but not forsaken nor falling away; cast down, but not destroyed." But it seems from these words that he would be in the right place with joy; which joy we want to leave him so faithfully that we do not want to give him a word for further strife; for he does not want to let himself be led astray in the open errors that he introduces here.
2. that he had said 8) before: No master heretic can be converted, is answerable enough. We are not heretics, but stand on the insurmountable rock of Christ. Whoever allows himself to be led astray 9) by them goes astray and becomes a heretic by persisting.
(3) Since he asks, "What kind of supper is this, which has no certain text or word? etc., 10) he often asks such a question and makes such an impression, as if we were to present him with another text, which we have never accepted. Yes, we consider it an abomination that someone should dare to put his word instead of God's word. But our work is to speak from the right sense, not to make other words. So it was also proper for Luthern to speak of the sense and understanding of the words: "You are a rock, and on the rock I will build my church," against the pope; but not to completely dislocate the words in their order, form and essence. Therefore, it would be spared to grimace so often in this piece, as if we were going to innovate the words. If you look at our actions, you can see whether we have changed the words or not. Even our churches, when they hear the words read aloud, will not understand the opinion that Luther and the Pope hold; but will hear that the bread is a signification of the body of Christ, who was given in death for us. Yes, if other words were made of it, they would be hurt. But they know whom they trust; not man, not food, but the one God who has their heart in his hands; and they have him 11) in present consolation and assurance of conscience, which is not brought into man by any bodily food or exercise; but he gives himself after
8) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's (book, in the bow) u at the third plate. (In the writing No. 20, "that these words of Christ etc. still stand firm" etc., § 16. In No. 21, § 3.)
9) i.e. from then on.
10) Marginal gloss: (Luther in the bow) a on the 4th panel. (No. 21, § 6.)
11) Marginal gloss: So the body of Christ is in our supper.
his free will, as abundantly as he pleases, into the hearts of men. 1 Cor. 12.
4) "But we (says 1) Luther) have a certain text, and are not divided about it. Luther is complaining to the King of England that he calls clear that which is not clear in the minds of the faithful. So it is true: only men know what this word "that", what "is", what "my", what "body" means. But that bread is the body of Christ is never clear; for even Luther says that one must not let reason loose here. Without doubt that reason may not understand it. How then can the text be clear? But if it points us to faith, it cannot prove that God has ever recommended to us that we should believe that this bread is his corpse, or that his corpse is in the bread, or that it is with the bread, or that it is eaten with the bread. And if this is nowhere recommended to our faith, why does Luther point us to faith? are we also guilty of believing what God has not recommended? If he himself recognizes against the king of England that it is not an article of faith, as the king of England speaks of it, then it is also not an article of faith, as he speaks of it.
005 And when he saith, Christ hath commanded us to do this in remembrance: now let all his words be obeyed, and believed. Answer: These words are called eating bread and drink in remembrance, not making his body or eating in remembrance of his body, which shall come abundantly afterward. But if we ever hear our faith, he believes all the words of God alike, so that he recognizes each one as true as the other. And if two words of the first standing are contrary to each other, faith guards that one should not therefore think God false; 2) and says: "All men are false, but only God is true. Therefore the fault is in you, not in God's word; in your mind, not in the divine intention. And if faith then remembers rightly with the fear of God, God gives the light of His Spirit, which teaches that either the word must have a different meaning than we had intended. And thus it is found that the words are not contrary to each other, but unanimous.
6) So then, in addition to the words, this is my body, faith also considers these: "The flesh is of no use at all"; "For the time being I will no longer
1) Marginal gloss: Is fin Luther's Confession, in the bow u at the 4th panel. fNo. 21, § ß. End.)
2) Marginal gloss: With what harnesses one becomes recognizable in God's word.
3) d. i. nothing.
I will leave the world and go to the Father"; "You will not have me forever"; "If we have known Christ according to the flesh, we no longer know him according to the flesh"; "This is my body, which is given up for you"; and others like these: so he finds that they cannot stand with one another. For thus he also sees that the words, "This is my body," may not have the sense which is also contrary to faith. For having promised before that "he shall be no more in the world," which must be understood of his corpse alone, may never suffer that the words "this is my corpse" be understood according to the sound of the letter. For therefore we have no promise, but insurmountable resistance of God's own word. How can they be understandable or clear to the sense of our opponents? What is it that one cries out so much: The words are clear; since not only is not clarity, but God's words are an insufferable sense?
We do not disagree about the words, but they are more disagreeable, [1] The Popes (who would have gladly dug themselves out of the book, if they had not been so quickly restrained, and they themselves wanted to think that the inhuman scolding would not be followed) say: the bread is changed into the substance of the corpse of Christ. [Luther says: Bread is essentially bread and essentially the body of Christ with each other, and calls it a carnal bread (would that we had such a word!), which is quite against the Popes. He also says that the body of Christ is eaten with the bread. [3] The fourteen Swabian pastors say: he is in the bread, or under the bread; to which Luther contradicts so publicly, he never taught "in the bread", he probably let him like their opinion. 5)
(8) Although I do not want to tell you, Christian reader, in any way that Luther taught it, but in a little sermon that did not go out four or five years ago, but within three years. Now consider the opinions next to each other: no longer bread, but bread changed into corpse; still bread and corpse with each other, yes, one flesh-bread; bread and corpse with each other, corpse under the bread, corpse in the bread; whether there are not three opinions here, 6) which Luther himself counts as three? He does not hold with the popes; so he does not hold with the [Swabian] priests; for they do not hold that the bread of the corpse is the same as the bread of the body.
4) d. i. more discordant.
5) For this statement by Zwingli, compare No. 21, §§ 11 and 12.
6) Side note: Luther's crowd is not of one mind.
Christ's name, but in the bread. And has a special opinion, as first reported.
9) These three opinions are also not to be made one with any words nor Schweytzen 1). The popes leave no bread there; Luther leaves bread there; Luther makes the bread itself the corpse of Christ, and still remains bread; the priests also leave bread, but not that it is the corpse of Christ essential, but the corpse of Christ is eaten under or inside. I reckon, well like the pillule 2) in an egg. Let the man come forth who can say that these opinions may be agreed upon some way! Where do you fine grommets fall here? 3) Luther truly does not hold it with them.
(10) But he puts it to us that we are not one, since no understanding has ever been born that can say that our words do not have one meaning. For that Ecolampadius speaks: This is a meaning of my corpse, following Tertulliano; and I: This means my corpse, repeating Ambrosio; cannot give more than one sense: This means my corpse; and: This is a meaning of my corpse. Who is the one who understands two things here?
But we want to hear Luther himself from both of us! who speaks in the capital E at the first tablet thus: 4)
Luther. "Where Ecolampad makes signs, Zwingli makes interpretations, and is one opinion without other words" etc. So it goes, if one deals with God's word out of quarrel, and it goes right for us; for this is nothing else at all, but to seek the honor of man, not God, nor the truth.
How well is it now, in the beginning of the book, to make such a long and broad one, as we are in disagreement? (for he speaks of me, I do not leave Ecolampadius' speech, but deny it; which he cannot indicate with one letter) and at the end himself recognize that we are of one opinion? And this describes him not only in this place, but so often that we (if God wills!) want to reverse all his errors from his own words without need. But the fact that Carlstadt's opinion of] the words acted differently stands with ours does not indicate disagreement; Carlstadt himself is also not in dispute about the words. But the opinion is unanimous. In substance and essence, it is nothing but bread and wine; in sacrament, it is glorious bread, a
1) Perhaps: chatter. (Walch.)
2) Maybe: yolk.
3) Marginal gloss: xxxxxxxxx
4) No. 21, § 485.
honest bread, which is to be eaten with cultivation and remembrance of conscience. But they [Luther and his followers] are not one even in the present, as has been heard before.
Luther has evil 5) for good, that we teach how a dina may be taught with various meanings, words and parables, as if it did not serve the cause. But behold, godly princes, if this serve not, if he reproach us, that we are divided into many opinions; but we say no every way. For other words and other words do not need to be proven to be a conflict of opinion; it is ever necessary that we indicate where an opinion is spoken of and described with various words.
He teaches how not to use different words in the night meal, but outside of it. Do we teach differently? Or where have we ever meant by one word that the words should be changed? Why does he put it on us? It is a fact that our books are not read in Saxony; he may freely say what he wants to us; we hope that our books will not answer for it.
15) "Zwingli and Eeolampad (he says) 7) have never made it certain with one letter that 'is' is so much as 'interprets', or 'body' so much as 'body sign'." Read our writings! Yes, pious princes, we again humbly request, for the sake of God and truth, that you recommend to your scholars to read our previous writings diligently: then men will see whether our meaning has been made certain or not.
However, we want to give a short introduction here. We prove by opposing scripture that the words may not be understood as they naturally read. There is no doubt that their opinion is broken. According to this, there is no thing either in heaven or on earth, if it may not be in the place where it is shown, but is shown in another thing, it must be signified by that other thing alone. So, the elect mother of God and all the elect may not come down, Luke 16, until the last day. Now if Mary is shown at Cloret, 8) Einsiedlen, Nach, Oettingen, since she may not be essential: then her sign, meaning or image alone is shown, and not Mary or the elect. So now Luther
5) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's [book, in the arc] a at the 6th plate. [No. 21, § 9 and 10.]
6) Marginal gloss: [In Luther's book, in the arc] b on the first panel. [No. 21, § 12.]
7) Marginal gloss: [Luther in the arc] b in the 2nd panel. (No. 21, § 15 at the end.)
8) Perhaps St. Loretto. (Walch.)
shows the body of Christ in the bread or at the bread, which may no longer be on earth, except for the judgment, which is not yet here; so it follows that everything that is called his body is not his body, but means him alone.
(17) For this reason his defiling of our minds is valid as much as it may be, since he says: 1) "If our minds were right, we would not only deprive our adversaries of their minds, but we would also prove ours. To which words I am completely offended, so that I think that he writes what he wants, but his conscience sees that their sense is overturned. But be that as it may; would it be useful, 2) if we alone had reversed their reasons? But this is not alone; but we have fortified our minds thereby with grave proofs of the Scriptures.
18 But his speech serves strongly against himself. For he then teaches how "to break" in the words of Christ may be taken for offering and breaking forth, "to be poured out" for pouring out, and says, after much shaking and trying, that he does not want to indicate anything certain in it; although he, forgetting himself in three leaves, builds on it, as will come afterward. How, that he does not teach the sense certainly? or, if he is uncertain, that he teaches it? Accordingly, he thinks he has stated the matter correctly when he says: he knows that the body of Christ is there, but he does not know how? Yes, in previous books he 3) wickedly says: he lets him take care of it, how it is there. Why does Luther not teach this clearly? Or is the spirit false, which does not teach this; how is it about his? although we have fastened our doctrine without deception. To this all theologians have always said: We may well know what God is not, as that he is not a plant, stone 4) or animal; but what he is, we may not know. genus est, non essentialis distinctio, sive differentia, qua species constituitur et cognoscitur Why then is he angry with us, that not we, but he himself does variously?
19) When he therefore begins to go to the matter, 5) he relents that John is not Elijah; but denies that we have ever proved that "is" may be taken for "means." For
1) Marginal gloss: ^Luther's book, in arc b on the third panel. sNo. 21, Z18.s
2) i. e. nothing. It will probably read "nützid". Cf. A 6 of this paper.
3) Probably as much as: to speak nefariously.
4) In the old autotvpo sOrigmals stands: a planting stone; probably a misprint. (Walch.)
5) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's book, in the arc d on the 4th panel. sNo. 21, § 2S.s
It is a rule that one should not easily step away from the old interpretations and accept new ones: "unless the text and the understanding compel, or are proven from other places of Scripture. 6) Although Luther sets many rules in this book that overthrow his own presuppositions, as will come later, we gladly leave them to him, because we have kept them intact in all parts. We accept new interpretations alone, because the text and the understanding compel us; not our understanding, or the dead letter, but the understanding which we feel in true faith, which also the spirit that makes alive teaches. We accept new interpretations alone, since other places of the Scripture force us to it. As also in this trade insurmountable words force us to understand "This is my body" not according to the first appearance of human reason.
20) But that he confesses that John is not Elijah, this is right in conflict with the rule which he subsequently sets [in the arc] o 7) in the 4th tablet with the words: Luther: 8) "For this is a certain rule in all languages: Where the little word 'is' is used in a speech, one certainly speaks of the essence of the same thing, and not of its interpretation."
How does Luther keep his rule when he confesses that John is not Elijah? Is this taught with earnestness and truth? Yes, he says, John is not Elijah, but he is like Elijah. This is also what we say, that "is" in Scripture is not taken all essential. Which we show by the words: Elias meant John; or: John "means", that is, is like Elias. As when we call a counterfactual a meaning etc. However, we see for once that Luther's rule, placed in the [bow] o, may not stand, and he separates himself, if he confesses that John is not Elijah.
22) But there he uses 9) a nice little trick, where he teaches how the words are changed, so that the same words become many words. And he takes the innocent Horatium to his aid, and speaks thus: Luther: 10) "From this it is seen that one word becomes two or four words, when it gets another new interpretation over its common interpretation. As 'flower' is another word when it is called Christ; and another when it is called the natural rose.
6) No. 21, § 36.
7) No. 21, § 240. A similar passage is found in the same § 28.
8) Marginal gloss: Lx guo penn prolats. est Iiaeo rsgüls? sFrom what secret place is this rule produced?
9) d. i. cleans. "Hüberlein" perhaps: Püppchen?
10) Marginal gloss: [In bend b on the 7th panel. [No. 21, § 30.]
1242II. Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. xx, issg-nrss. 1243
and the like; item another if it is called a golden, silver, or wooden rose."
23. Watch here for God's sake, pious princes, where it comes to us poor people, if we do not want to be overcome! Who has thus spoken: One word becomes four words? It is true that they have said this: One word may be called four; but that the word should become more than one is not so.
Example 24. I want to take Luther's "rose" right away. Rose means actually, essentially and naturally the flower, which is recognized to us all. If I then also call a wooden or paper rose a rose, Luther says that it has become a different word. Here I would like to ask him to spell the new word for me; then it would undoubtedly be, even from his own mouth, just the previous word: "rose. Why does he then speak, of which words are many? Oh God, so that he can argue how the formed rose is a true rose, and yet the natural rose is also a true rose. So also here, if the bread is called the body of Christ, he may say: It is the right corpse of Christ, and the natural corpse of Christ is also the right corpse. For if he did not want this, it did not serve his new seal, nor did he make so many words of it.
(25) But how well it is, we will show with childish examples. When the children in our country flake 1) or doll, the pennies are florins to them; the pails are bread to them, and the water in the little barrel is wine to them. Here also the sensible take it after them, and say: This is their bread, wine and gold. So lead the children over Luther's purse, take away his florins, and put their florins in his place (so that he does not have so many of them to talk the Carlstadt out of; 2) that is a well-salted insult, pious princes, not disgrace), and if he complains about it, say: The pennies are real florins, because it is written in your rule: 3) "where 'is' stands in a speech, one certainly speaks of the essence of the same thing.
(26) It is also written in your other rule that the word is a new word, and you want to make with the word also the thing that is called the word. Yes, you say that the wooden rose is also an essential rose, because it has the name rose.
1) i.e. to play godfather.
2) This refers to the gold florin that Luther gave to Carlstadt at Jena as a sign that he would allow him to write against him.
3) Marginal gloss: Is [in the Luther, in the bow] o on [the] 4th panel. [No. 21, § 240.j
has come. Eia! so also the penny is a real guilder. So one would also like to give them [the playing children] bread to eat and their wine to drink.
(27) But all mockery aside, this is the matter in this transaction: Every word is but one word, as also the logicians speak of univocis, aequivocis, and denominativis, and are called but many things; which many things may not make, that therefore the one word be many words. Thus one speaks; and not that one word becomes many words, but that [it] remains one word, and yet many things are named with the same one word. And if Luther indicates the lovely horatium, as he speaks of innovation, I will say with leave that he does not understand horatium; for the word that is used differently does not become new; but it is used anew, and remains the old word. 4) And thus Horatius gives ÷á^* ýðá,ëëáãçí [i.e. according to the ver.
changel the word that [which] is of the custom alone etc. As, if I called Luther Cato (ut esset tertius Cato), I would not call him a new name, but the old one; I would not make a new word, but to a new man I would give the old name, which would be more suitable to me than the sow's fur.
But in this there are so many differences, why one word or name is given to many things, that it would be too long to talk about it here. But Luther speaks of it neatly, just like that physician who could not do more than one recapitulation, and speaks [in his book, in the arc] d in the eighth tablet: 5) Luther: "And so henceforth the Scripture is full of such speech, and is called tropus or metaphora in the Grammatica, when one gives two different things the same name, for the sake that there is a likeness in both."
29 Behold, is this not artificially spoken? It is all tropi metaphorae to him. Now it is no wonder that the feast-day preacher in Caesarea, who carries the silver dagger tied on his buttocks, says: he is now fully informed by Luther's book that there must be flesh and blood; or else we are Nestorians.
But we want to hear Luther further. Luther just there: "And then the same name according to the letter is one word, but potestate ac significatione plura, according to the power, custom, interpretation two words, an old and a new one, as Horatius says, and the children know well.
novo ino<1o utimur.
5) No. 21, § 31.
(31) First of all, consider the one word; for he may not speak one word, but must do so, lest he mistake "one word" and make it seem as if it were a new word. Therefore let me understand that he first says that the one name is one word according to the letter, but according to the ability, use and interpretation it is two words. Then he should say, "But according to ability, need, and interpretation, it is able, or needed, and interprets two things;" then he comes with such words, "One word becomes two or four words," since he should say, "One word is used variously and yet remains only one word (quorum nomen est idem), but means, or interprets, many things that are not one (res autem diversae).
32) On the explanation (note, you pious princes!) we speak thus: John is Elias. Here "is" is not taken essentially, because John is not Elias, as also Luther recognizes. So also the rule becomes false, since he says: "is" means the "essence"; for here it does not mean the essence, but only the likeness, as Luther himself recognizes: John is like Elijah. If one says, "He is a right dog," one does not mean anything else, neither that he is as selfish and unfaithful as a dog. So by all the examples he drives out with many words.
Christ is a right vine. Here Luther says: 1) "Zwingel does not look at the word vera; Christ is the right vine. For no language nor reason suffers it to be said that Christ signifies the right vine." But we well see that Luther can well disguise the word vera, or "right," into an unright place; for since he should thus say, Christ truly or rightly signifies a vine, or according to his language, Christ is like a true or right vine; he does not rightly reverse the [i.e., confusion], and say, Christ signifies a right vine; therefore, that in his language it does not read. But there is little in this; we argue with the two proclamations: John is Elijah, and Christ is a true vine, not exactly that "is" must mean "means," but that "is" must not be taken essentially; but that here Luther wants to have both and not have them, as is indicated enough.
34: "The seed is God's word, the field is the world, the reapers are the angels" etc. Here Luther speaks: "Acker is the world", and must not speak: The field is the world; for he sees that, so "is" should be taken essentially, the kem
1) No. 21, § 35.
Farmer believes that a field is the world; so I will desire no more of him than that he make the words "field means the world" Latin to me. Have I no doubt, he will have to say: ager significat mundum, the field indicates the world.
world. For there is not a metaphora, actually to speak, in interpreting. Well, before that, in the presentation of the likeness, I let [a metaphoram] be taken from the sowing, to mean the word of God; but after that, in the presentation, Christ will not say that the word of God is like a seed, for he had already spoken of such an opinion in the presentation, but the disciples had not understood it; therefore he puts to them what he meant by the words: field, seed, reaper, and says: "The field is the world" for: The field means the world etc., and is this an insurmountable place, since "is" is taken for "means"; God grant how ill Luther lies with word fever.
(35) Seven oxen and seven years are called one thing, saith Luther. But [times] he says: "heißen," hoc est, significant, and should prove that they would be one thing; for we have attracted the same clientele, that "fine" or "are" stands in it, and is taken for "means. But if Luther wants that where "is, are, his" and the like stand, [such word] should be taken essentially; so he would have to speak: Seven oxen are essentially seven years; 2) but he speaks: They are metaphorae. What metaphors? What likeness have seven dreamed ears to seven years? But not so, dear pious princes! do not be blinded by words! the seven ears mean seven years, and were alone appeared 3) by God, that they should mean; were essentially nothing at all, ne ó÷éáò 8vap, but a pure dream, And also Luther may not deny this place, that "essence" is not taken for "mean".
(36) That he now often speaks thus: it is not possible for us to prove from Scripture that "is" may be taken for "means"; has as much force and glimpses as other speeches more. As when he says: we have never yet brought forth Scripture, which forces that these words may not have his and the popes' understanding; and may put down none of those of all that we have brought forth, as will come. So here, too, if we had no other evidence, neither the two next indicated, [it] would be enough. For that he
2) Marginal gloss: vn Koni! yuaeiANorantiavonarurn litterarum.
3) i.e. shown in a face, apparere taetae.
Nay speaketh, and grappeth therein: Yea, the seven ears "are" seven years; soon, the seven ears "are called" seven years; which hath no force, because he thus denieth: but all the faithful must open their eyes, whether it be so unto him that seven ears are seven years. And if there is no one who does not see that it is not so, then he must see whether seven ears are seven years. And if he finds that here the ears do not "mean" years, but "signify" (for God appeared this dream because he wanted to signify seven years with seven ears), then he finds that Luther wants to drown, and does not know where he should swim to or from.
37 Therefore it is to be noted that these Hebrew words "the, the, the", and their like, are taken by the Hebrews for "the is, the is, the is" etc. Accordingly, that they use the same words so commonly for "that means, that means, that means", that it is a wonder that Luther does not see this from himself without indications; for it is not good to walk in the Scriptures without such a decision. Jesaiä at the 9. chapter stands thus: "The HErr will from Israel head and tail ausreuten, stick and Binz. 2) The old and honorable 3) is the head, and the prophet who teaches lies is the tail." But here we see that the prophet wants to say: That I have spoken, head and tail shall thus be understood by me: The head "signifies" the ancient and honorable superior, but the tail "signifies" the flattering prophet. In the same prophet one finds innumerably that "is" is taken for "means", ahead in the visions or revelations, since he says what the visions meant; as in the 22nd chapter he speaks: "This is the day of the Lord"; and does not want to say differently, however, than: The visions, which appeared to him, would be a meaning of the day of the Lord.
38. the same in Jeremiah. In Ezekiel still much more. When, in the 5th chapter, he says: "This is Jerusalem", for: The thing that I have appeared unto thee is Jerusalem: that it shall be so unto her. At the 17th chapter it says: "Do you not know what these things are?" here the Hebrew has the xxx, the Greek the xxxx is, but Jerome finely turns the "is" into "means" and says: nsgoitis, quid ista significent? Do you not know what the things mean? for: Know ye not what these things are? Ezech. 24: "Do you not tell us what these things are, which you
1) d. i. also.
2) Binz -Stump.
3) Isa. 9, 15.: "The old honest people are the head."
do?" So the Greeks have it; but Jerome speaks clearly thus: Why do you not show us what the things mean that you do? Oh God, how should one do to Luthern? If you look at the texts, you will see that we are telling the truth. If he does not know this, as I am concerned, he would do well in many things; if he knows it, why does he not deviate from the truth? Shall not the spirits of the prophets be obedient to the prophets, and loose even the lowest in the church?
(39) This we have not shown (as we all do), that we should mean that "if" something is taken for "signified" in one place, it must also be taken for "signified" in that place, but that it might be seen how mean it is for the Hebrews to speak thus. Thus it is also irrefutable that Exodus 12, "This is passover!" is spoken as much as, "This signifies," or is a signification of the passage; 4) and therefore let Luther point the little word "This" to the lamb, to the protection, to the shoeing, to the staff in the hands, to the hurried eating, to the thanksgiving, all with one another; then he does him justice. For per synecdocham, that is, by the assembly or comprehension, the word may well; or, if it does not please him, let it point to the lamb alone; but so then the paschal lamb may point to all commerce and thanksgiving, but ÷áôá συνεχδοχην. Same
when we call the supper of Christ, only of one part of the outward sacrament, the breaking of bread, Apost. 2" and yet understand by this the whole supper of the Lord, the gathering of the faithful, the giving of thanks, the breaking of bread, and the drinking of drink etc. Therefore, there is no need to argue whether the word "this" in the supper refers to the bread or to the whole action; for even if it refers to the present bread, by the bread we understand the whole action, that is, the whole act of thanksgiving, as is first proved in Acts 2 and as we have sufficiently proved in previous writings and books.
40 When Luther thus takes the word of Christ "who is given for you" in hand, 5) and so boldly and surely proceeds that he also "gives praise and thanks to God that he could see us so masterfully in our own words," there is no doubt that it is not without God's order that it comes to light, first of all, that Luther, in this
4) Marginal gloss: xxxxxxxxx, soraprsüsnsio st ool-.
Isstio.
5) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's [book, in sheet] c [at the] 5th and 6th plate and thereafter. [No. 21, § 43 ff.]
The second is that he misuses them more mockingly and unwisely than the Sophists did before.
41. first he says: this word which is given for you, or which is given for you, look at the substance or essence, and not at an accidens, that is, not at the importance; as, to be seen is an importance 1) etc. Here I ask him: whether the body of Christ, when he spoke the words, was undeemable 2) and invisible or not? He cannot deny that it was deadly and visible. Secondly, I ask him: whether the deadly body was given to the disciples of the same time, or the non-deathly one? Let him gladly admit that Christ's body was on the cross, and that he was resurrected as one body according to the substance, so that he could not complain. If he says that the deadly body has been given to them, it certainly follows that it has also been given to them in a sensitive and visible way, because it is not deadly in an insensitive and invisible way. But if the unkillable body is given to the disciples, it was then killable and unkillable together, which is contrary to each other; for the body of Christ became unkillable only after the primitive state.
42 John 7 says: "Jesus was not yet declared. 3) But I have to put a stop to this, so that Luther does not break out; John 13 says: "After Judas had gone away, Jesus said: Now the Son of Man has been declared. Here Luther would cry out: He has already been declared, therefore the corpse was undead. But we say no to this: for Christ there mentions as having happened that which has not yet happened, but was near to happen, of which more will come hereafter; which, however, the words following make clear, as he says: "God will declare him in himself, and will declare him soon. Dear sons, I am still with you for a little while" etc. After that he says, John 17: "Father, the hour is here, declare your Son" etc. And soon after: "And now, Father, declare me with the clarity that I had before the world was created by you" etc. These sayings I have therefore set all, that wheresoever a man striketh from, he should always meet with armor.
(43) If anyone would say, "He speaks here of explaining, when the disciples have preached him in the world, and have named him, and have made him famous, and have made him clear," it is contrary to this, "God will explain him in himself.
1) Importance - ueeiätzos.
2) unkillable ----- who cannot be killed. - mortalis, mortal; but mortal, istalis. (Walch.)
3) d. i. transfigured.
That is, with him, with himself. From this it can be seen that he does not speak of preaching. But if any man should say, He speaketh of the Godhead, which he desires to be declared; it is not fitting, for he was declared according to that, as he saith there, before the creation of the world. From this it can be seen that he desires to be explained according to humanity, which was not yet explained, but was only explained through death. As Paul also says to the Hebrews in the other chapter: "We see Jesus, who was a little humbled among the angels, crowned with glory and clarity through the suffering of death. And Philippians, chapter 2: "Christ emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and becoming like men, being in all likeness a man. 4) He humbled himself; he was obedient unto death, and the death of the cross; and therefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name" etc. Luther should have looked at such statements, and not have let himself be taken in by the old 5) tidbits, then he would have seen that the corpse of Christ was not once 6) declared and deadly, God gives what he says of substance and 7) importance.
44) It does not help to say about the miraculous explanation that happened to the disciples Petro, John and Jacobean, because this explanation was not the explanation that he gave after the first rites 8) nor a lasting one, but happened more because of the disciples, to give them a gustum or Bitz [bite] of his and our future glory and joy. The same explanation has no contradictory scripture, but that Christ's body may be mortal or immortal in the sacrament does not leave his own word, as it follows.
45) Although it would not be necessary to continue to deal with Luther's philosophy, because it is not only childish, but also badly Christian, to leave it at that. 9) But that the weak, who do not count his word higher than God's word, do not think that he is speaking God's word here; so note, pious princes and all 10) Christians! Luther overlooks here ampliationem and restrictionem, that is, the time hanging and explaining, and that makes him wrong. The speech, according to
4) marginal glosses: been, L^Li-kts, Ksdruwo mors, pro fuit
5) d. i. Patchwork.
6) d. i. at the same time.
7) d. i. Accidens.
8) d. i. assumed.
9) i.e. to rely on it.
10) In the old edition: elle.
The following is the form of the ampliatio: It often happens that we speak of a thing that is no longer so, or that is not yet so, and yet is present in our understanding, whether it is no longer, or not yet. As when one says: Adam is as well a man as Christ. Now Adam is 1) not a man, but Christ is, for Adam's body and soul are not together; now man is of 2) body and soul. Let no one be mistaken here that the dead are called men! It is known that the body sleeps and the soul lives, and for the sake of life and nobility 3) the soul is called man, as all philosophers say. Still, if one says in a speech: Adam is a man, we understand that one wants to say of the being that he once was, but now is not; still, he is in our memory or understanding so that we can think that he was composed of body and soul, just like us. And while he was still alive, it was as true: Adam is a man, as now Luther is a man, although he is a great, great man. While Adam was still alive, it was proper to say: Adam is a deadly man. But now it is not proper; for though we speak thus, yet now we understand: Once, when he lived, he was deadly, as we are now; but now he is no longer deadly.
46. of the future. "I have commanded you to eat and drink at my table" etc. Luc. 22. Here the disciples are ordered to be fellow measures 4) of Christ in the kingdom of God, and at the same time each of the disciples could rejoice that he was already a meal companion of Christ. But how was he a companion in heaven, who was scourged, beaten and beheaded daily? He was a fellow-measurer only in mind, spirit and faith, but not yet in the essential work and ingestion. Yes, it is not possible that he may be present, because man is in this time [Zeitkauf, saeculo]. "For man shall not see my face, neither shall he live," understand bodily, Exodus 33. Here we see that man is indeed presently a table-sitter of God, according to his substance and nature, but that he essentially sits at table with God in the Kingdom of Heaven, that is not at all. Now Luther would like to say: They are essential and substantial.
1) So put by us instead of: "is", which, as we assume, is a misprint instead of "itzt".
2) d. i. consisting of.
3) d. i. because it is the most distinguished.
4) i.e. table companions.
5) i.e., the one who sits at table.
Table-sitters of God, and may well speak: This is Peter, who will become a meal partner of God in heaven; for the very Peter who is still alive will also sit at table with the body in its time. I would say: Thank you! But tell me, whether Peter (whom we write here in life) is now [yamjam] in heaven above,
and have the heavenly joy or not? He will have to say: No. So also, if I show and say: This is Peter, the table-sitter of God, who is in heaven (for we speak for and only of Peter, who is still on earth), it follows that I speak falsely and wrongly.
(47) So also when Christ says, "This is my body, which is given up for you," it is necessary to leave the meaning of Christ's body: Who also is risen from the dead in substance and essence; nor does it follow that his body is already there, as it was after the resurrection; nor does it follow that Peter, who is here, is above, though he will come up in his own time, body and soul, and have joy with God. And therefore the word is: To be given up for you is to die for you. That "to die", therefore [that] it is an importance of his accidens, which attaches to the substance at one time, and not at another; for ever Christ may not die after the manner of the body declared, Rom. 6."After Christ is risen from the dead, he dieth no more": so the word "die" bears with him, that (since he was deadly when he spake this, and spake not in time to come, [or else the disciples would not have eaten him, as mine], but in time present: "This is my corpse, which is spent for you"; 6) and being deadly does not befit the future declaration), 7) - that the deadly [mortality] must be attached to the corpse, so that they must have eaten the deadly corpse, and we still today; and if he were deadly, he would also be sensitive, not only with seeing, but [also] with grasping, hearing etc.
This becomes even clearer if we also add the past time to the declared corpse, thus: This is the corpse of Christ, which is given for you. It was probably appropriate to speak according to the original: This is the corpse of Christ, which is slain for you? for it may then no longer be slain, and what is then spoken in the present time must befit the same declared corpse, or it is not present, but
6) Marginal gloss: 8ic moliluur Participium
7) These round brackets are set by us; the parenthesis in square brackets comes from Zwingli.
The only thing that is understood of the corpse is the way it was before. Thus, what is spoken of the body of Christ presently, because it is still deadly, which does not befit the body that is declared, must also be understood according to the manner of the deadly; and what is spoken of him presently, because of the body that is declared, but because it is still deadly, must not be the body that is declared presently, but must be considered in the mind alone.
Now it comes into a summa. As I understand [the words] "Adam is a man" in no other way, than that Adam, when he was here on earth, was a man, and is no longer a deadly Adam, so I understand, when Paul says: "Christ does not die for the time being"; that the words are true only according to the original state, and not before; because he died. And again, "This is the body which is given for you," must be understood of the body alone, which was deadly, and because it was deadly; for the risen body is not deadly for us. Now if the deadly body of Christ had been given to the disciples to eat at the time when it was still deadly and could not be declared, it would also have been given to us to eat; and if we ate it in this way, it would not yet have been declared. Such a pretty thing comes from Luther's Zürlimürli [parrot language].
50 But if the mangy sophists (so that their humps are also itched) want to say: Hoc est corpus meum, quod est vel erit clarificatum, that is: this is my corpse, which is already clarified "is", or is clarified "will", here the substance and essence remains, and may nevertheless be understood by the corpse, which takes on the importance of the clarification [transfiguration] only after time. Answer: Well, the little vixen comes before March, brings the bellow itself again. But if the restriction or explanation of the declared corpse does not stand here, but the explanation of the deadly one, which rightly disputes the explanation: Dear! then say, do you want to be pious about your art, whether you do not have to amplify: This is the deadly corpse, which is declared or will be declared? Must say yes. But now he was not declared, you also say yes, and was presently deadly? But [times] Yes: so the disciples must have eaten the deadly corpse, and not the declared one.
(51) Secondly, you know well that the one part of the amplification, that is, the hanging in time, does not have to be true at one time, but only understood. As: "Adam is a man," let [me] not be mistaken that the Sophists say: Adam fuit horno (for they do not know themselves,
Where the amplification belongs in the Rhetorica) one must therefore put to right: Adam is now a man, or: has been a man. Here it must not be asked; for that, according to the present, "Adam is a man," is false; but in the mind, "that he has been a man at some time, and is not now," is the other part, and is true. So here I ask on the bare words, and will also venture with Luther, "this is my corpse." Is this, as it is shown here, the declared corpse? If he says, "Yes," I ask, "Was it presently declared or was it declared afterwards? If it was declared at the present time, then it was undead, for it was not declared until after death; it may not die even if it is declared, and all the preceding declarations from God's word must be over. If it was only declared afterwards, then the disciples ate it only dings [conditionally] or on Borg declared, and we eat it baar declared; so we eat it ever not immediately with the disciples; But if they should have eaten him declared, present or future, and he was not declared present, it follows that the declaration was only in the understanding, not present; so the deadly presentness was the other part of the amplification; and if they ate the deadly body of Christ, one follows the other: If it is eaten deadly, it is also eaten sensitive etc.
(52) That Luther says: 1) "The Jews also ought to be round about, as they were in Christ's death": he is almost justified in this; for from this one sees how piously and honestly he acts, when he speaks of things that are outside the substantial body of Christ, which no sophist, so evil 2) has ever been, has ever attached to the substance, as their own attributes. For to be deadly is such a quality that there is no man in this time who is not deadly; and though it is an importance, yet it is not an importance as to be wise, to be foolish, to be white, to be black etc., and yet these are in and of the substance itself; but an importance, as being reasonable; as we have been taught in the Isagoge Porphyrii: de differentiis essentialibus, speciem constituentibus; imo in antiquis exemplaribus arbores vidimus, in quibus animal priore divisione secabatur in animal mortale et immortale; secunda dein, animal mortale dividebatur in rationale et irrationale. Sub immortali ergo continebantur homines ex mortuis aliquando resurrecturi; sub mortali, hi, qui adhuc in humanis agunt. [Of the essential differences, which distinguish the
1) No. 31, § 46 inaccurately stated.
2) eßtächt - ass-like (?).
Indeed, in ancient specimens we have seen trees (in the manner of a family tree) in which, by the first division, a living being was divided into a mortal being and an immortal one; then, by the second division, the mortal being was divided into a rational and an unreasonable one. To the immortal (being) were now counted those who will one day rise from the dead; to the mortal those who still live in this world].
53) And to be deadly is not a coincidence, but such a peculiar thing, that the man before the departure from this time may be as little deadly, as little he may not be a man. And again, if he is declared after the last day, it is impossible for him to be deadly, as it is impossible for him not to be; but the appearance 1) of the Jews who were around the cross does not serve this purpose, because they are not of the body of Christ, so that they are also not an importance belonging to the substance. 2) Now if the body of Christ was mortal at the time of the supper, the disciples would have had to eat it mortally, as Luther also suggests; or if the disciples had eaten it declared, which may not be, for it was not yet declared in the supper, as has been heard: then it must have been mortal and declared at one time, and must have died before it died; for declaration certainly comes only after death. If he was now declared in the night meal, then he had been dead before his death. These and other nonsensical Marcionian ravings all come from the fact that one wants to fight against God's simple word with man's reason.
(54) If Luther no longer speaks, because we are mad enthusiasts, devil spirits etc., and can do nothing at all; but he is everything, and also wants to teach us Peter in Spain 3), they think it must be so, and therefore do not allow themselves to be paid, 4) but forbid them to read the books of his opponents. On the other hand, 5) he half-bribes them of their scholars; for if he hangs the horse, they are put on their butts, that they may not say "kauw" 6) against open error. For I have no doubt that there are still some in Saxony who see that we do not argue a substantia ad accidens, but they are not allowed to say so.
1) Perhaps: the joining.
2) Marginal gloss: Oireumstantia non est ejus, tMoä eireurnstat.
3) In the old edition: chips. - For Petrus Hispanus, see Col. 1010 and 1016, § 306.
4) i.e. report, teach.
5) "to coat" probably: to give strokes.
6) "kauw" probably as much as "gack".
Thanks are still due to the honorable authorities of my lords in Zurich (although we do not stand well together, there is human weakness), who do not hold us all in town and region otherwise than that we must give each one an account of our faith and doctrine; yes, I alone am represented twenty times, but in those more to the Anabaptists than to others; and if God's honor has triumphed always, praise be to Him!
55 Now let us speak of restriction, that is, purification. Purification is a word that distinguishes one thing from all other things. As when I say, "Bring me the skirt that is first bleached 7). Here "which is first bled" is a purification before all other skirts. Luther speaks of this on the other tablet, 8) and makes the words "my body" a purification, which may not be suffered according to the Logica, and calls it explanation, and "which is given for you" is a purification in all Logicis.
So also here is the explanation, "who is given for you", that is, is killed, which takes the name of the declared corpse. And call the deadly and explanation accidentia, important things, although they are essential and indispensable qualities, each in its own time; nor is the deadly introduced by us, but Christ himself had expressed it, and thus explained his words. And still remains the substance, eadem numero, One, but of a new form. Now if "he that is slain for you" be a restrictio or purification, that where he gave his body to be eaten, he would have given it, being slain; and yet he is not slain eaten, according to their saying; for if he were slain eaten, he would also be visibly eaten, and sensibly etc.: so it follows that he is neither slain eaten, nor declared bodily eaten. For the word "who is slain for you" purifies, that the words "this is my body" alone must be understood of the body of Christ, when he was dead (for he speaks them when he was dead), where the words are to be understood according to the first appearance. For if I say, This is the hand that was burned 9) to me, will I ever say that [it] was burned, but is recovered. And if I say, This is the hand that was burned to me, I will ever say, It was burned to me, and is burned again. So, "This is my body, which is given for you," indicates that the body is deadly, and is given for us with death, not with death or death.
7) embroidered.
8) No. 21, § 72.
9) In the old edition: verbrunnen.
Explanation; because first he did not accomplish the work of salvation, but with dying.
57 Here the holy or pious man who wrote against me in Latin also has his foolish argument dissolved, since he says: I argue from the substance, essence, to the accidens, to the importance, and make a syllogism; as the students are taught to forgive false eloquence, 1) thus:
1) Everything you bought yesterday, you ate today;
2) Yesterday you bought raw [rouw] meat: 3) So today you ate meat raw.
So I am told he is acting against me: for truly I have never had time to read his book of one. Leo 2) has shown me on the walk this account; that only besiege, devout Christian. This account adds in the other speech that is not understood in the first; that is the word raw [rouw]; for in the first one understands that one speaks only of the substance of what is bought, God gives how it is boiled or roasted, but that it is eaten. In the other, however, one introduces an importance, the crudeness [Röuwe], which one does not provide for in the first; for where one provides for it, one would not have let it linger, but would have had to form the [former] thus for us: Everything that you bought yesterday, you ate today, just as it was when you bought it; for in this way no one would let up on it.
58 Now let us also set our syllogism or account, and see whether we also secretly conceal something in the first, about which we introduce an importance in the other:
1) Christ's body is given for us;
2) The bread is the body of Christ:
3) So also the bread is given for us.
But as "to be given for us" and "to be killed for us" are one thing in the matter, I will now make the other, which has one [that is just the same] form with the foregoing, but is clearer for us, and urges the adversaries to more ridicule:
1) Christ's body died for us;
2) The bread is the body of Christ:
3) So also the bread died for us.
59) Here I ask the Holy Father, 3) whether the first one is true? [He cannot deny it, for it is the first and foremost in the Christian faith,
1) i.e. to beware of etc.
2) Leo Jude.
3) Here Zwingli addresses Luther with these words, as can be seen by comparing this paragraph with No. 21, § 44, and calls him a pope.
that Christ died for us. Therefore I ask him: where in the other is an importance introduced that did not appear in the first? For I do not want to introduce anything in the first one but Christ's body and death; so in the second one there is no accidens or importance at all, but bread and Christ's body. Where then do I argue a substantia ad accidens? I mean, we are half possessed with fools. And shall such fools 4) seduce a pious simple-minded people with vain lies. Who will tell the simple what syllogism demonstrativus is? What is major extremitas, minor and medium? and how in the holy man's other proposition an importance is introduced that is not introduced in our other? Then they stand and argue, 5) as we are buffaloes, they cannot understand it; so every trickster wants to be subtle, and understand well.
Summa, we do not argue a substantia ad accidens, but we freely say first of all: not simply "is this the corpse of Christ", but "is this the corpse of Christ who dies for us", and point in the first supper to the corpse of Christ who sat with the disciples. Must Luther himself say yes. So we ask Luther: whether the bread in the first supper is also the body of Christ? Without a doubt he cries out loud: Yes. So it follows that the bread must also be given for us in death. We ask further: Is the body of Christ, which sits with the disciples in the supper, bodily and sensibly given in death? But if you answer [times]: Yes. Further, is the bread (which was eaten in the supper after the words "this is my body" etc.) the body of Christ sitting with the disciples? But [times] Luther says: Yes. Now it follows that the bread is the deadly sensitive body of Christ.
61. These syllogismos, or accounts, all our adversaries set up with rogues, heretics, knaves, fools, asses' heads, and such like thunder-axes; 6) but with a thorough saying, or even with substantial philosophy, they do not indicate where he is not right; for they say we argue a substantia ad accidens, which is not at all; but we recognize the unbetrayed words of JESUS CHRIST our SAVIOUR to be framed with such prudence: "this is my body, which is given for you", that we see that the words "given for you" are a purification, that he
4) i.e. fools.
5) d. i. bleating.
6) "aufthun" here -resolve, cancel; otherwise in the meaning: to explain, to make geltmd.
Then speaketh he of his body as it was dead; and if the disciples did not eat it so, neither did they eat it declared; for he was not declared then, neither hath he two bodies; it follows that the thanksgiving with the bread signifieth or signifieth the body of Christ which is dead to us.
But Luther argues a substantia ad accidens, because he says: 1) "I point with my hand to heaven and say these words: There sits for the righteousness of God the body that was given for us. He must indeed sit there visibly, or there is nothing there at all" etc. Behold, pious princes, whether here Luther does not deal in humbug? As he shows me into heaven, so he should tell me: This is the body of Christ; so he says to me: There is the body of Christ. Is not the ubi, the place, or where, an accidens? Why then does he put it in my place instead of the substance? But it is Brendli Murer's work; what they use in one place, they break open in another.
Here I ask you, pious princes and all Christians, that you forgive me for the sake of God, that I have brought so much gossip from the poor meager philosophy. It had to be, so that Luther and his servants would see that they are keeping their blind casts in vain. For the time being, I will train myself briefly in such things.
64. but this is sweet, because he speaks: 2) "When Jesus hid himself, John on the 8th Cap., and went out of the temple, I would say: There goes the body, which is given for us" etc. And comes but with the ubi, and may not say, this is the body of Christ, for he may not show it with his finger, it is invisible. Nor does he want to show it, and he will be missing it as soon as he shows it in the bread. For this reason we do not speak here of the effects of Christ, but of our eating his body. But we have talked enough about the accidens.
That we know that the disciples of Christ ate his body in the night meal; 3) is not at all, is not invented even with a letter, God grant! how many words Luther sheds on it. For that we have spoken: If Christ had given his body in the night meal and made it with the words, "This is my body," he would not have given us authority to make his body. This does not let up that he gave it. As I do not slacken,
1) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's book, in the arc] c at the 6th plate. [No. 21, § 45.]
2) No. 21, § 45.
3) Marginal gloss: [Luther's book, in the arc] d on the first panel, [No. 21, §§ 49 and 50.]
that Luther is a child, if I therefore say: If Luther had wiped his noses on the Ermel, then he would be a child. But he says, I have let them be words of fact; therefore I have let them eat the body of Christ. Yes, of course I have let it be words of fact; but not of fact that Christ's body was eaten in the flesh, but that new thanksgiving was done, accomplished, and instituted; and it is all an open calumnia, intercourse.
(66) Luther calls it a "Büberei" (4) that we divide words into "Thätelworte" [verba] and "Heißelworte" [verba mandati]. I drop here that he understands my words badly, also gives them a strange form. Even if he does not reverse them for me, I should still be lucky that they are understood. I have called words of action, which comprehend a simple action; hot words or words of command, which command something. If I now say that the words, "Take, eat, this is my body," are words of action, and the words, "Do this in remembrance of me," are words of heat, is this wrong? If he says, "These words are near one another," I ask him, "How far are they from one another?" Luke, in the 10th chapter, says, "I mean that he who was kind to him was his neighbor. Then Jesus said, "You have decided rightly, go and do likewise. Are there not also words of action before, and hot words after?
Luther does not like to be taught, but he is so often wrong in this matter that he is also wrong in other places; 5) for the words of Matthew, chapter 21: "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what happened to the fig tree, but if you say to the mountain, 'Lift yourself up and throw yourself into the sea,' it will happen: Lift yourself up and throw yourself into the sea, it will be done." Yes, Luther calls the words Heißelworte, 6) and does not see that they are words of promise. It is enough for us to see how a man's face is lost when he is in great terror, as Luther is standing here. He sees that their opinion is gone, and argues sicut desperati, like the esteemed. For when he says, "We should prove the words of the Bible with Scripture," he does not see that there is not one word without Scripture.
68 He may also not attack any, neither the certain: "Do this in remembrance of me!" because he cannot skip the same glimpfs half; and
4) No. 21, § 57.
5) inverted(?).
6) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther, in the arc) d fan the) third panel. [No. 21, § 55.)
Lift it up, will make it into commanding and promising words with each other: Do it in memory of me! Make my body, and give thanks both together! If he proves that Christ's body was made with words, he proves that Christ also made it with words. And in the midst of this he contends against him, that Christ himself did not give his body bodily to be eaten; and may he not touch a hair of our head. Is not this petitio principii? idem probare per idem, ignotum per ignotum? that is said of the red pants! 1) We argue about the understanding of the words "this is my corpse," and thus indicate what the understanding of the words "do this in memory of me" is; which, from Paul's explanation [restrictione], teaches us that the words "this is my corpse" do not have the lack of understanding that our opponent shields. Thus Luther goes on, and wants to take from them the understanding that Paul gives them, with the understanding that he has never yet proved. As if someone said, "Why do you eat? He answered, "That I may live. Why do you live? That I eat. Why do you eat? That I live. Why do [you] live? That I eat etc. So let one do this until [the] last day, and yet not want to be broken 2).
69) Luther 3) does not yet see that the words: "Lift yourself up and we will throw you into the sea" are an exuberant speech for such words: If you have faith, there is nothing so great that you will not do it. Luther thinks that this is speaking of throwing mountains back and forth; for when he looks at the tropos, he cannot let up on the tropos in this, but fears, as that child said: I will not a hurry [say], otherwise I would have to hurry b also; if he let tropos slacken in one place, in another also be forced. But it seems to me that Luther understood the word "command" in our previous scripture to mean "to promise," and we need it to mean "to promise," but there is not much to it.
70) Now when he speaks of words of action, which he calls "words of the word" (he likes to use "words of the word"), 5) he says: "And if Peter or Paul were to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,'" he says.
1) Compare No. 21, § 88 and § 275.
2) manufactures).
3) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's book, in the arc] d on the 4th plate. [No. 21, § 59.]
4) By this Zwingli means all kinds of self-educated words.
5) Marginal gloss: [In Luther's book, in Bogens ä at the third panel. [No. 21, § 55.]
As Christ said to Mary Magdalene, "Well then, this is a mere word; nevertheless, sins are forgiven" etc. Behold, pious princes, how Luther is still in two great darknesses! One, that he does not see that the words: "Your sins are forgiven!" are promising words; for we call these promising words, which give lybrung (sic), security and instruction to the conscience with certain promise. But since here Christ makes safe, man cannot make safe; for he does not promise us that where we speak the words, sins will be forgiven. Therefore the words are words of action to us, but to Christ they are words of promise, that is, words of assurance and comfort.
The other darkness, so far from being serious that he does not see the word of John 20: "Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them", that the words are not a power to forgive sin; for no creature can forgive sin, if sin alone is against God, Ps. 50 [51, 6]; but they are a recommendation to preach the gospel; and Marcus expresses the same opinion in other and clearer words: "Go, preach the gospel to every creature! He that believeth (that is, believes the gospel he hath heard) shall be healed.
[salvus] etc. From which words (for they both write one opinion, which is also done and recommended for one time) we learn that the meaning of the words is: To whom you preach the gospel, which is the forgiven [gratuita] 7) remission of sin, ut remissio peccatorum sit periphrasis evangelii, their sins are remitted; understand, if the gospel is preached to their hearts; which, however, neither the apostle nor man may do, but the one Father, John. 6: "No man cometh unto me, but my Father hath drawn him." The apostle preaches into the ears, but God alone into the heart. "He is nothing at all who plants; and he nothing at all who waters; he alone who makes to grow is all." And if all the apostles were to say: Your sins are forgiven you! and the man himself is not assured in his heart without doubt by firm faith, he does not know that his sins are forgiven him until he has the spirit of God's Son, in which he cries out: O my Father! that is, recognizes that God is his Father, so faithfully and actually that he provides for him in all his life and concerns. Therefore, if Peter said, "Your sins are forgiven you," he would not say anything else, neither would he say, "Do you believe in the heavenly kingdom?
6) d. i. Command.
7) i.e. free of charge, by grace.
1262II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. xx, is78-iWo. 1263
The Father, through the act of giving his Son for you, that he might be your Father; so your sins are forgiven you etc. I have written about this in the first articles 1); I would also like Luther to have read them, as he does not want to be taught by us.
When he says: 2) "Christ calls us to speak these words," he does, as in all things, just as the person in Plauto: pactum non pactum; non pactum pactum est, speaks of the rich: that which is promised must not be promised; that which is not promised must be promised. Here he rages: "Christ has spoken the words. Where? Dear, show that! "Do this in remembrance of me!" Let Paul therefore hear what is to be done in memory of his body, that is, death, suffered for us in the body: praise and thanksgiving in the friendly and brotherly meal, as we drink with one another the bread of the church 3) and the drink of love. Although we have no way of knowing that the whole words of the Lord's commitment are not to be read, we ourselves should proclaim them in our churches.
(73) But this is why Luther wanted to say that the words of Christ were commanded to be spoken, so that he might color the foolish enthusiasm in some way, since they say, "The word brings it with it," but there is not a single letter in the whole Bible that God has promised us anything about certain words that are spoken. And as He wants us to speak the words, He does not give us a word, nor a proof, because "He would like to see who would say that they should not be spoken. 4)
(74) So he spake unto us in another place, 5) Saying, We hope that no man will gainsay it. But since we do not speak the same thing to beg to be believed, but when we have proved our mind with the evidence of the Scriptures, we speak accordingly as one speaks before a judge: We hope etc. For the judge of our doctrine is the whole church.
1) In the 67 articles of the disputation held on January 29, 1523. In the 51st thesis, he declares it idolatry if a man forgives sin, and also denies the office of the keys, that is, that sins can be forgiven in the place of and by the command of Jesus Christ.
2) No. 21, § 58.
3) d. i. Community.
4) Regarding this statement by Zwingli, compare No. 21, §§ 60 and 66.
5) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's [book, in the bow] d at the 2nd tablet. [No. 21, § 52 towards the end.]
75 Summa: The difference between Luther and us is in the place that we do not slacken that the words must be spoken at the evening meal so that they do something; for to do something is not to take the evening meal, but to come here with a believing heart 6) and give thanks. But that they are spoken, announced, or read aloud, as a statute, according to which one [will] do something, is read aloud; or as one read in the Old Testament to the paschal lamb, which, as it is written of in Genesis 12, as the Hebrews confess, and is also easily noted in the same place, so we forbear [that] the words should be read aloud. For even if Luther had an open word about reading, it does not follow that "speaking" or "reading" would make the body of Christ; it would be used of Christ in this way, and promised to us, that if we spoke the words as he did, we would also make his body as he did. The tweders 7) may never be invented.
(76) If he had said that we should make the sun and the moon, we would have done it"; he tells us that we are teaching rightly. But where did he tell us to make his flesh and blood? If Luther indicates this, then take the wreath. For what the words "Do this in remembrance of me" are able to do, Paul declares, and nowhere remembers the making. As it is said before and after.
77. "Moses," he says, 9) "did not bring the water from the rock by beating," we leave that; "but the power of God." "Thus," he continues, "his body is not because of our speaking or our words, but because of his hotness." Here Luther very finely (I don't know whether with malice or with deceit) skips over the whole promise, and areas he shows in. So it is written in Exodus 17: "Go before the people, and take with thee the ancients or counsellors of Israel; and the rod, that thou hast smitten the river with, take in thine hand, and go. (These are all commanding words.) And I will stand before thee there upon the rock; and if thou shalt smite the rock, water shall come out of it." (Behold, these are words of promise.) Now when Luther brings forth to the words, "Take, eat," etc. also those: Here I will presently
6) Marginal gloss: So we have the body of Christ in the night meal.
7) i.e. neither of the two.
8) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's [book, in the arc] d [at the] 4th plate. [No. 21, § 56.]
9) Randgloffe: Is sim Luther, in the arc d an [ders 5ten Tafel. [No. 21, § 59 inaccurately quoted.]
And if ye shall say, This is my body; it shall be there, we shall see it without doubt etc. But if this be not possible, it shall be with chicken's milk.
78 For the words "Do it in remembrance of me" (which we have eternally said) do not mean that we are to make the body of Christ; that [i.e., because], on the one hand, he himself did not give his body to be eaten, as is heard before and after; on the other hand, we are to make this thanksgiving with expressed words in remembrance of him, and not to make his body. Still so Luther in Mosi's words so freely omitted the promising words, I must ask him whether this was done with or without danger 1). If it is without danger, then look up, and do not teach another time, because he has well seen through the whole sum. If it is with danger, then he sins the highest sin, for which there is no need to ask, of which it says in Matt. 12 and John 5. For this is the sin in Holy Spirit certain daughter, falsify the recognized truth.
When he says: 2) "We must take the bread and bless it," he looks behind him and wants to be seen as having his hand on the fork; 3) that is why he makes crooked furrows in the field of God. "Blessing" is what the Pontiffs say; Luther borrows it from them, but Matthew, Lucas and Paul have åõ÷áñßóôçóáí, which is "to give thanks", or to praise God. Alone Marcus has which word however we have indicated before enough "danksagen" heißen, not "segnen", as the old women the Ungenamten 4) segnen, and the Pfaffen the patties. But "blessing" serves the purpose; it is supposed to be able to give power to a matter with the words, and to give Luther the ability to bring the body of Christ into the bread.
Soon after this he says: 5) We say that his body is there when we say: "This is my body. Here is, of the first, our one grace to Luther (let stand as he will, the difference of the words etc., though he does not like it), 6) that he gives us the words report from God's word, when we say, "This is my body!" that [it] is the body of Christ; for we have never yet been told that Christ Himself gave His body bodily to be eaten: then it is not possible that the words "Thut's zu Gedommniß" ("Do it in remembrance") should be used.
1) Dangerous Intent. In § 83 it says "ohn Gefährd" - approx.
2) Marginal gloss: Is (in Luther's Confession, in the arc) <1 at [the] 8th panel. sNo. 21, § 67.)
3)Plow(y.
4) i.e. the devil.
5) No. 21, § 68.
6) These brackets are set by us.
my!" recommend us to bring the body of Christ with the words. 7) Luther should prove as the first that Christ had given his body bodily to eat, and therefore prove the conception 8). That is said enough here!
81) On the other hand, for God's sake, see with what ghost of words Luther walks! Here he says: If we say the words: "This is my corpse!" then his corpse is there, 9) and Christ does not say: There is my corpse; but: "This is my corpse" etc. If this has not fallen from the substance to the accidens, I never see the Gugger 10). Yes, he says, because Christ does not say to us: This is my body! or: There make my body! but: This is my body. Then I ask him for God's sake to tell us, "Is the body of Christ in all the bread? Says he, Yea, but the words shall not be in the supper, nor in any thing, if it be before.' Says he: No; but when the words are said, "This is," etc. he is there, as he first spoke: so it ever follows that he who was not there before is there now; so he is only anew "come thither," which we take for become; though Luther supposes we look for him by the word "become," for he says, "We say, his body, which was made and became long ago," etc. And will press him, [in] no way, with the word "become." But this we say that Luther himself does not stay with the word "is," since he immediately means to keep to it. For he denies that Christ is in the bread, as has been said.
82) Secondly, he says: 11) The bread is the body of Christ, and both are bread together. But here he says, there is the body of Christ. So I ask him, what 12) he shows us, if he says: there; does he point to the bread or to the supper? If he points to the bread, then he wants to say that the bread is not the corpse of Christ, if he makes "that" into "there"; then every "is" is therefore taken from the essence, that the bread is not the corpse. If he points to the supper with "there"? then it is as before; then the bread is not that to which the word "that" points, much less may the whole supper be that; for Luther himself strongly disputes the Valete drink, which was not the blood of Christ. But the laborious word-fighting, indeed real sorcery,
7) For this, see No. 21, § 68.
8) d. i. Command.
9) The words of Luther No. 21, § 68 completely twisted.
10) d. i. Cuckoo.
11) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's book, in the arc] t [at the] 8th plate. [No. 21, § 339.]
12) d. i. whereupon.
must help the matter, otherwise it is completely over. 1) Keep in mind that Luther negated "in bread" before; here he negates "that" and makes "there" out of it; and afterwards he again makes "that" out of [the same], so that it is sufficient for bread.
Luther, however, tastes like the garlic and onions in Egypt, so he says: 2) "Therefore, those who eat this supper do not need to have faith" etc. Thus the pope must speak, if he were to pretend that the body of Christ was eaten here in the flesh; and if Luther also wants it, he must also speak in this way against his previous writings, since he wrote against the pope: where there is no faith, the body of Christ is not eaten; only the body of Christ is eaten by the faithful, but the unbelievers eat only a condemnation for themselves, not the body of Christ. These are without danger the words that he needs, I am quite aware.
But be it as it may. Watch, pious princes! When Luther speaks against the difference between the words of truth and the words that are called, he says: there are some with which faith is bound, as in the miraculous signs etc., and some with which faith is not bound, as the words in the supper. 3) Here I [first] ask Luther whether the believer should not believe all the words of God, rightly understood? if he says yes without doubt. How then can the servant be sent to the ministry of preaching if he does not have faith, or to bring the body of Christ? Yea, if he prove with the false prophets, and with them that did eat his body unworthily at Corintho, I say, Why speak of the error, that it may be with the minister, and faithfulness may not be with him? Is not this an open way of seduction? Shall I say: A prince must not be faithful, a councilor must not be wise, because there are many unfaithful princes and many unwise councilors? Shall one not speak thus: He who is not faithful to his people is not a prince; and: Whoever is not wise cannot be a councilor, and the like? Which prince is not faithful, he is a tyrant and not a prince; which is not wise, he is not a councilor, but a ruler? 4) Where I have found Luther not to have really understood the Scriptures, I have admitted to him that he has not understood the Scriptures.
1) d. i. there.
2) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's Confession, in the arc] e [at the] first panel. [No. 21, § 70.]
3) No. 21, §§ 69 and 70.
4) Gauch - a stupid person.
still prefer it to the good of the consciences, but now I truly can't say it anymore.
(85) Secondly, I ask whether it is a miracle that Christ is eaten in the supper? There is no doubt that it is, for they perform not only one, but many miracles; and Luther must perform one, which neither can be nor will be in heaven or on earth, that is, that God is and does contrary to his own word; that is never possible. Now if the servant or magistrate did such a wonderful work here, how would it be for him to do it without faith? Now Luther himself says that faith is required in moving mountains; and Marci 16: "But to those who believe, these signs will follow" etc. And it does not help here to drag in the one who did not follow Christ, and yet cast out devils; for privilegia paucorum non faciunt legem publicam, special exempted deeds do not make a law; but we are to remain with the common law of Christ: that where miraculous works of God are done by men, man must believe.
Thirdly, see, pious princes, how Luther's scripture stands here, where he says: faith is not bound up in preaching and supper. How does he prove it? He has not one scripture for this. But we have open Scripture against Luther's error. 1 Cor. 4: "This is especially 5) required of the servants of the household, that one be faithful." But why is one faithful to God his Lord? Without doubt, because he loves him and trusts in him. Thus the ministry of preaching requires faith. And whoever does not have it is not a servant of God, does not carry the word of God, but of the devil. So also in the supper: He who does not have faith would much sooner bring the devil there, neither the body of Christ. Yes, says Luther, that is described by God's power and word. Just as if casting out the devil, making the blind see, does not also insult with God's power and word. Rather, listen to the words of Peter, Apost. 3: "In the name of the Lord Jesus, arise and walk!" Did not the lame man stand up by the power of God? Did not Peter call the name of Jesus upon him?
Now, good princes, I will show you that Luther writes more dishonestly about things than the popes themselves. The popes have led a question: Whether the priest, when he speaks the words, this is my body etc., must have will to "consecriren," "walk," or "bless," as Luther speaks, and have about this
5) Marginal gloss: x 62 liokraioo pro oxiruio er praooipuo.
given this notice that: Yes. Et si quando non esset actualis intentio; that is: and if it were the case that one would not have a present will or intention for something, then there must still be a common habitual will; that is: that the priest has always been accustomed to put the will and mind there, he wants to walk in the body of Christ the bread etc. Now whoever has ever had a will must ever believe that the words make this so. Behold in one proceeding, 1) what a butcher of conscience the mass is! See also how badly Luther falls when he writes that is not based on God's Word; namely, that faith is not required here! But this has pushed him to the point that we have indicated that no one can be sure whether the body of Christ is there or not. For if it should "come to pass" according to the words spoken, and the miraculous works require faith, and we ever know not whether the minister believes or not, neither would we know whether the body of Christ were there or not. Yes, this forced him to speak "with" the popes without Scripture, yes, against Scripture this final speech:
88.2) Preaching the gospel and performing the supper does not require the faith of the servant. 3) This concluding speech I carry to all creatures, that they prove the first part, that faith is not required in the minister of the word, from God's word. Let us see, who wants to take our reason away from them! But as I see it now and then, the final speech comes from the quiver of the pabst, so one must make use of it who does not have right arrows; for "no one speaks, the Lord Jesus, without in the Holy Spirit." 1 Cor. 12.
I had shown Luther with my finger where he found in Paul that bread is and remains bread, and that the body of Christ is called, not is. He takes this from me so impatiently, and makes so many words, 4) that whoever wanted to answer them would have to write a book as great as [the] New and Old Testament. And therefore let us prove lately that the words of Paul, "For as often as ye shall eat the bread, and drink the drink," etc., have the sense of
1) "Procedure" Well as much as: Example. - "welch" put by us instead of "wol". - "Metzg" actually "slaughter"; here as much as "plague". In g 443 of this writing it says: "er metzget sich" - he plagues himself.
L) marginal gloss: Ann Riffen fGalgen; Riffen -- Stricks with the closing speech!
3) No. 21, § 70.
4) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's Confession, in the arch s at the first panel. sNo. 21, § 716
and explain what it is that was called corpse and blood before.
xxxxx, i. [e.] resumtio, that is, the taking up again, is such a form of speech, since one takes up again what was previously spoken darkly or inadequately, and makes oneself understood more clearly or sufficiently. As I say: Luther's pen is a bear's paw, no matter how far away; for as he wrote angrily and furiously against all men before, so he still writes, and cleans his writing nothing at all of invective. Here, the first words are quite tropical and dark: feather, hay as far, and bear's paw. Therefore, I take what I mean by this to hand again, and say that I understand his writing and his speech by the pen; by the bear's paw, the insolent peeling and the careless hammering, since he often sneers at himself, just as the bear himself hits the paw on the spit; hay and far here means, for and for, that he also does not measure up against kings (but who are far from him) and brothers. And here the little word ([vox] causalis) is a sure sign of the taking again; this indicates that one wants to purify afterwards what one meant with the dark words, and why one called another with different words; as is now heard. I have given another example from Rom. 4 in the sermon 6) at Bern.
90 When Paul therefore wrote the epistle to the Corinthians, and saw that the words, "This is my body," etc. were well and truly written by the other evangelists, but might easily be taken into another sense, he and Lucas therefore made these words so clear and plain, saying, Jesus took bread, praising God, and broke it, and said: Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, The cup, the new testament, is in my blood: This do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat the bread, and drink the cup, proclaim, praise, or magnify the death of the Lord, until he come.
In the words we see the epanalepsy, that is, the resumption, which follows after the word "for. And just as in the previous example of Luther's pen and bear's paws, after the little word "for" follows the explanation, what
5) According to § 91 "Tradel" is - uncleanliness. Compare § 361 of this writing: Tradtstücklein. - Schälken - to do mischievousness.
6) In the old edition: Predge.
with pen and bear's paw: for as he was of unclean speech and writing before, so is he now.So here, too, after the word "for" follows the explanation of the three words, "corpse, blood, memorial"; in which one sees what Paul understood by them, namely, that he understands that which is served, not "flesh" but bread; not "blood" but wine; not "lightly remembering" (as one also remembers what he ate at night), but "with thankfulness praising, extolling, proclaiming, pronouncing". And speaks as if he spoke thus: "For as often as you eat the bread, which I first called the body of Christ, and drink the drink, which I first called the blood of Christ or the new testament, you shall praise God for the death of the Lord. etc.
Here Luther will cry out for proof, so he has it: proof: Where the little word enim, denn, stands, there surely follows a cause or purification of the prior opinion, as the children learn in the Donat: da causales. But let us prove this with a few examples, of which the whole of Scripture is so full that there is not a leaf in the Bible where many such examples are not found. Rom. 7: "But I am carnal, and sold under sin: for that which I do I like not: for I do not that which I would gladly do, but that which I hate, that do I."
Here, pious princes, look at the two, and you will find that they are signs that give cause and purification to the previous dark speeches. "Carnal" and "being sold under sin" are both dark, half of the word "sold". Thus he shows from the beginning what he means by the tropum "to be sold"; namely, "to be owned by sin," just as a bought servant must do not what he but his master wills. So we also find prest-1) and sinful; and if we have God's knowledge, faith and love, everything that is against God displeases us; nor is the weak flesh so weak that something that is against God displeases us every day. And therefore he says, "For that which I do, it is not pleasing to me." And so from that time on, it would be spoken against: Why then doest thou it? but he answereth, xxx xxxxxxxxxxx, 2) and saith, "Because
I do not do what I would like to do, but" etc.
94. 1 Cor. 1: "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wise speech, lest the cross of Christ should be emptied. For the trade or preaching of the cross is to them that perish a
1) prestigious -- frail.
2) i.e., in response to an objection.
foolishness; but to those who keep it is the power of God" etc. Here we see the little word "for," and understand by it that a causal explanation of the preceding words follows, which is to empty the cross of Christ, and for what purpose God intended the simplicity of preaching.
Accordingly, it is evident that if anyone wants to explain himself, he must speak clearly in the explanation, without doubt, and everything that was previously spoken darkly and with used words, must be presented simply with unused and unaltered words. But then Luther will cry out: Prove it, you wretched devil! So I will answer him: Not, "the devil!" Take the whole Bible, together with all the writings that are in the world; then do not invent a speech that is an epanalepsis, that is, a rehearsal, since it is not so. Gal. 3. says thus, "But since faith is come, we are no more under the schoolmaster." But here it is obscure what the schoolmaster is. And when we hear that he calls the law so, he expounds why we are no longer under the law, saying, "For ye are all the sons of God by faith in the Lord Jesus." Behold! how bright; behold! how all tropes are omitted, and nothing dark is spoken here.
96] To the Philippians Paul speaks thus: "Much more in my absence, accomplish your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who accomplishes in you the will and the work" etc. Here we have, however, after the little word "for" an explanation that is without any tropos, and again takes up the little word "working"; for the same brings something dark with it, namely, how man may work his own salvation, and speaks as if he thus spoke: "Understand me rightly with the working! Whether I call thee work, yet all the work of God is etc., ut etiam sit ìåôÜíïéá, correctio, that is, an infraction.
The first is the improvement and a right naming and explaining of the work. So it is also here; 4) yes much brighter and stronger, because even close all epanalepses, i. [e.] Resumption, are in all Scripture. For as "corpse", "blood" and "memory" are written before dark, he collects them all three in the explanation, which is written after the little word "for", and thus explains himself: "For as often (see here, pious princes, as he also takes up the words "as often" again, so that one can see that he wants to explain himself about the previous darkness!
3) d. i. tropical.
4) Marginal gloss: Ita epanakepsr's est, ut, si examoMnL V0668, HON P66668.
I called it a corpse, but it is only bread in substance, which you will eat etc. as indicated above.
(97) This is now sufficiently evident to you, pious princes, that the manner of speaking of the words of the Greek language is wholly capable of this and no other; but that which follows after the words is also wholly conducive to this understanding, and thereby teaches us how Paul calls the bread and drink alone the body and blood of Christ, not that they are. And Paul continues on these words thus: L-rs, that is, "and therefore whoever shall be he that eateth the bread, or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Here [you] shall see for God's sake, pious princes, that Paul, according to the explanation with which he set out, 1) has never put the body and blood to eating and drinking; but whenever he speaks of eating or drinking, he puts bread and cup alone to it, and that with such loud articles and pointers: 2) ôüí Üñôïí ôïýôïí, that is, The bread .Of the supper of the night; or the bread of which we speak; or that, the bread which is only bread. That a wonder is that the world ever got behind the error we so actually see in the Greek language may not be suffered. And let this be said to all students who have not eaten more than half a quart of salt in the same language.
98 But here we must say, how is one guilty of the body and blood of Christ, if, according to the substance, he eats nothing but bread and drinks wine? This is what our adversaries say against us. As if the daily custom of all languages were not full of such speeches. The watchman falls asleep on guard; the reuter at the halt misses something, so that the prince suffers a great loss, or [the enemy takes him] the cord 3) even. Do not say now manly: The dissolute man is guilty at the pious prince. How? He did not kill him after all. True; but he did not watch when he should have. So one is guilty of criminis laesae majestatis against the prince, if one lewdly touches his legate or embassy; and yet does not touch the prince. So every superior is blasphemed if his coat of arms is reviled, and he does not feel this. Here Luther will cry out: Scripture here! Take care of it; everything is coming.
99. Matth. 25. Christ speaks in the person of the
1) d. i. has declared.
2) Marginal gloss: Vis Artieuli et demonstrative!.
3) "String" perhaps as much as: Rein, regiment. In the old edition: "damit der Fürst ein große Verlurst, oder die Schnur gar nimmt".
King, saying, "Amen I say unto you, that as often as ye have not done it unto one little of mine, ye have not done it unto me." Can we not here also speak thus: How can a man be guilty of not having fed, clothed, comforted, and taken into his house the Lord Jesus, when he is not 4) there? When our adversaries so splendidly throb in: How can one be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, if you say you do not eat them? So you see, pious princes, that those leave the Lord hungry and thirsty, who do not help his poor here with such deficiencies, 5) and he suffers neither hunger, frost, nor thirst anymore. And again, three will be equally guilty of the body and blood of Christ, who do not celebrate the supper of Christ with such faith, love, and discipline as befits the whole church, and each one should be especially consulted and reminded by Himself, which will soon come. And as little as the body of Christ may be clothed, and yet be guilty of it, whoever does not clothe it, as surely as he who does not go to the supper in a proper manner, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, not which he has eaten, but whose sign, sacrament, and meaning he has misused. Such are: "He that receiveth you receiveth me"; "what ye do unto the least of mine is done unto me"; "he that despiseth you despiseth me." In all of these proclamations one becomes guilty of the Lord JEsu himself, or serves him himself, even though he is not physically present, nor is he bodily served. And so he becomes guilty of the hungry Lord, who may not suffer hunger, who does not feed him the bodily hungry, and becomes guilty of the corpse and blood of the Lord, which may not be eaten or drunk, who does not rightly commit the supper to him, in it highly praising and giving thanks for the death he has suffered.
100 "Worthy" or "unworthy" is not to be understood in the papal way for "without sin" or "sinful": for thus no creature would want to give thanks if we sin daily and say daily, "Forgive us our trespasses," even though there is nothing damnable attached to those who are in Christ Jesus, Romans chapter 8. We are indeed burdened with the daily burden, but it is not condemnable to us, if we are trusting in God. Now if "being worthy" is not "being unworthy," we must look at other places where "worthy" and "unworthy" are taken in Scripture. Matth. 10. Christ teaches the disciples, "if they came into a city, he would not be worthy.
4) i. e. nowhere.
5) "bützen" actually: to clean; here: to remedy the defect.
to search who is worthy in it". But it is certain that Christ did not draw or direct his disciples, to whom he recommended nothing higher than love and lowliness [i.e. humility], to high-mindedness, nor did he say after the manner of the Pharisees: "Do not touch me" etc. Therefore here "worthy" means skillful, decent, honorable, chaste. So also here "worthy" means rightly skillful, as it belongs to the supper, faithful, thankful, chaste and faithful, so that no one appears in it with unbelief, that no one does intemperance in eating or drinking, that no one despises his neighbor and does not wait from his poverty because of him etc., as Paul shows them the presbyters. Luke 3 John says, "Do worthy fruits of correction." But there "worthy" is taken for rightly made, due, and proper. Bring forth fruits that belong and befit correction.
101 Now Paul continues: "But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh vengeance for himself, if he choose not the body of the Lord." But here we see how he puts eating and bread, drinking and cup together, not corpse and blood. Secondly, that after the word "prove" he calls it bread and drink. Therefore we may take it without doubt that Paul here supposes nothing of substance to be eaten, neither bread; for otherwise he would have said thus: "But let a man prove himself beforehand, that there be no doubt in his mind that here the flesh and blood of Christ are substantially partaken of, and therefore let him eat the bread again. But this is not so, but after he has said "prove" enough, he indicates that one should prove himself to oem bread and drink; not of substance, but for the sake of faith and discipline. Therefore, for the third time, we want to indicate to the ancients about this place that Luther cannot say everywhere: we speak, which has never been heard, even against the old teachers; but see that "prove" is not spoken of for the sake of the corpse's food, but certainly for the sake of faith, and for the sake of the church, which is the corpse of Christ; that in it no fornication be committed, nor the neighbor despised.
102 Ambrose speaks "about the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians", Cap. 59, thus about the present words: "Paul says that he is unworthy of the Lord who performs this mysterium or sacrament 1) differently, neither is it instituted by him. For he may not be devout who performs it otherwise, for
terpretÄti sunt.
It is given by the author. And therefore Paul warns beforehand, so that the mind of the one who goes, according to the order given, may be godly for the thanksgiving of the Lord. For it is the judgment henceforth, that every man on the day of the Lord Jesus Christ take account how he goeth, so that they who go without the order of the use and discipline of the walk are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. For what else is it to be guilty, neither to be punished for the death of the Lord, if he died for them that count his goodness void?"
These are all the words of Ambrosius, in which you, pious princes, see: I. That the devotion should be to give thanks to God for the good deed that he has shown us in the death of his Son. Now no one gives thanks for this, neither he who feels in his mind and soul the fruit and joy of his death, therefore faith is required above all things.
104 (II) You see that he requires the order and discipline of the offering, and whoever does not keep them is guilty of the body and blood; not whoever has eaten them unworthily in the flesh. But if Ambrose is with us, we recognize that one becomes guilty of Christ himself if he does not eat him, but does not eat properly that which is eaten in thanksgiving for his good deeds. But what order is, one learns from the disorder, which Paul punishes here.
The messes in the night meal.
The first disorder: When they came together, they became worse. So the first order is: That we should come together in thanksgiving for improvement.
The other disorder is that there was discord, division, and separation of doctrine and minds among them. Thus, the other order is that we be in one accord, which must be, provided we have One Faith and One Spirit.
The third disorder: That such divisions and discord were so hantlich 2) kept that it came to sects and gangs; but the orthodox remained with the discipline and use of God, and served the naughty outrages to the probation. This is the third order: that no one should become a sect, but that he should leave. There shall also be no one who will not give and take account of his doctrine or opinion in the church,' but, alas! do those who let themselves be deceived in this matter by a few, so that they do not know the truth,
2) Perhaps: sothanlich? -sothanish.
which one still presents for and for under the Christian people, as under the church, do not let interrogate. God does not allow to err where his spirit is. If the spirit of God is in a church, it may not be deceived into reading Luther's writings, which are nevertheless erroneous in this matter. And again, if our teaching were erroneous, it would not be accepted in the churches now and then. But not interrogating and not considering with godliness and faith is a cause of discord. For it shall befit the least 1) in the church to prophesy in his order.
The fourth disorder is that they came together, not as to the banquet of the Lord's thanksgiving, but carelessly, recklessly, and wantonly, as one comes together to another banquet. Thus the fourth order is: That we come hither devoutly, with thankfulness and fear of God, giving thanks to God for the great counsel, that he took upon himself to make his Son ours, that we might be his [i.e. God's] through him; that he made him, according to human birth, our brother in the flesh, that we might be heirs of the eternal kingdoms. O delight and depth of divine wisdom and goodness, when thanks are given to him! not only [because of] the incarnation and fruitful life and teaching, with which he instructed and educated us as a schoolmaster, but first of all gave himself in death as a sacrifice for our sin; in it he mocked, spat upon, crowned, scourged, struck in the cheek, insulted, reviled and cursed us etc. Whoever, then, comes to these and their like actions with a mature mind, will go with earnestness, and not with foolish pleasure, as the Corinthians, and will eat the Lord's supper, not a filling supper.
109) The fifth disorder: That they did not eat with each other, but each one ate and filled himself as soon as his judgments [dishes, feroula] were presented to him. Thus the fifth order is: That one should eat with another, that is, for thanksgiving 2) of unfaithfulness and contempt; wherefore now we do him no injustice, that we take the meal, which is to put up with hunger and thirst, according to the apostle's teaching, at home.
(110) The sixth disorder, that the whole church should be despised, every man eating as he pleased, and not looking to the church to eat chastely with one another. Thus the sixth order is: That we should eat the body of Christ, that is, the
1) i.e. the least.
2) d. i. against the suspicion...
Church, decide, 3) and do not respect it, as if one fell down and ate at a tavern. From this we see that to decide the body of the Lord is nothing different, neither to decide the church with its head from other assemblies, higher and more special.
111) The seventh order: That the poor were despised, and therefore stood there ashamed, if they did not have delicious food; indeed, some of them had nothing at all, and the insolent, wanton rich dined and drank with splendor. 4) So the seventh order will be: Recognize that all who appear with us here are indicated to us by God as our members, whom we are to provide with food and clothing as ourselves. This is not to despise the body of the Lord, but to esteem it highly and rightly, for we, the multitude, are His body. Therefore, we want the order and discipline of which Ambrose speaks to be proven from Paul, that it is nothing else at all, but 5) right faith and love of neighbor, in which man should prove himself.
112. III. Now we come again to Ambrosium. Thirdly, Ambrose specifies the discipline of the vows: "and whoever does not keep them will be guilty of the corpse and blood of Christ. And he does not say at all: of the corpse which he has eaten, but that he despises the dead corpse, if he joins those who give thanks, and is taken from fornication, not believing; therefore he despises the death of Christ. For Ambrose says: "The immoral person is punished for the death of the Lord, not for the eaten body; so the immoral eater counts the suffering of Christ as wrong 6). And everyone who does not go with a right mind and seriousness counts him wrong. Go now, Luther, and war with Ambrosio, not with us.
113 Augustine speaks ad Januarium, epistola 118, thus: "This food alone does not want to be despised, just as the manna did not want to be despised. Then also the apostle says that this sacrament is unworthily received by those who do not separate it from other foods, with their own or more solid worship, which belongs to him. For from the time that he said: He eateth and drinketh judgment or punishment unto himself; he addeth, and saith: 'Not decisively the body^" etc. These are all words of Augustine. This is the epistle from which Luther in the
3) d. i. distinguish.
4) jossen und tosten-schlemmen und demmen.
5) Side note: Faith and love become the highest requirement in this sacrament.
6) i.e. for nothing.
front book so much; 1) but now he acts as if he had never seen it.
But you, dear princes, see that Augustine understands "prove", "unworthy to see" and "to decide the body of the Lord" with us!
(115) First, "prove," when he says, "Let the food be unworthy of consideration," and does not say, "Prove," whether we believe that there is flesh and blood here.
(116) Therefore, "That they are unworthy who count it no other meat" than the Corinthians did? It is not that they did not judge the food rightly, if they did not recognize that flesh and blood were eaten; for if this were so, Paul would have had to say of it above all things, and would have considered it the highest cause that they did not esteem the presence of the body of Christ highly enough. Moreover, if the Corinthians had ever been told that the body of Christ was bodily present, 2) they would never have fallen into such recklessness. Here we also see that we do not want to repress this sacrament because the body of Christ is not eaten in the flesh, but we indicate the actual worship and discipline, as heard above from Paul, so that the foolish horror, which we have received here from our writing, is accepted, and more proper devotion is adopted.
117) Lastly, Augustine says that those who eat vengeance for themselves do so because they do not decide the body of the Lord, and not because they do not believe it to be eaten. Now it is sufficiently proven from Paul that the body of the Lord is not to be decided upon, on the one hand, so that one does not come to this meal in any other way, neither to a filling meal. On the other hand, to despise the church, and the poor of the church. These two things are comprehended in the one word "body". For the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the head. Now the head and the members are one body, therefore "to decide the body of the Lord" is to recognize Christ as the head, and the church as the members.
118 But Augustine says, tract. 62. in Joannem, thus: Be mindful why it is written: "Anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be condemned to death.
1) i.e. used superfluously much.
2) Marginal gloss: sarAUlEntums a oonjsetura irrefragabili.
3) Instead of "the" should have been put "of which".
The body and blood of the Lord. For when the apostle speaks this, he speaks of those who took the body of the Lord as other food, without distinction and lightly." All this serves to show that "deciding on the body" is not to be understood as believing that the body is there; but that one held himself lightly in the meal, as in some other meat or company. But that Augustine here calls the sacrament the body of Christ should not grieve you, pious princes; for the ancients called it by the name by which Christ himself called it. But they also understood by the name what Christ understood. And as the Italians still today call this Sacrament corpus Domini, so it is called for and for, and yet only understood the Sacrament, that is, sign and special measure, which is carried around in thanksgiving.
(119) Now if Luther perverted all the order of our previous scholars, so that he cooked something that no one knew, and we are here at the place where we indicated to him that open places were also found in Scripture, in which it was learned that according to the substance there is nothing different here, neither bread nor wine, but according to the meaning and custom to be highly revered and feared, (2c) let us also compare the words of Luke about the cup before the supper with the words of Matthew and Marci.
120, Therefore hear, pious princes: The Hebrew way is to understand in the title of the matter the end and summa; as when we speak: When we slew the Duke Charles of Burgundy, we went against Nanze [Nancy], half of the forest etc. Here the summa stands first, that the duke was slain, and the procession afterwards, which was before. As then in the biblical books daily is indicated, and the annotationes, with us excellently, testify, so is him also here. Matthew and Marcus 4) speak the opinion after the supper: "But I say unto you, that I will not drink of the vine 5) henceforth" etc. With what words Christ Jesus has preserved for us the divine wisdom, that we may well see what it is according to substance, which he only before called his blood.
121 First of all, the Lord Jesus did not speak simply: I will not drink wine again; but by a periphrasis: "no more of the generation of the vine", periphrasis is as a
4) Marginal gloss: comparison of the evangelists of the vine.
5) Marginal gloss: grape juice, idiocy MrmLuieu.
much as a circumlocution, as when we say: The bold sword, but want to understand a bold man; the man's child, for: the man. But these circumlocutions should have the power that with them they actually bring forth the essence or quality of the thing of which they are. For it is much more glorious to say: There the bold sword appeared, neither: There the prince appeared; for the previous speech indicates that the prince was isin [iron] and bold of mind and hand. So also the "human child" indicates to me either the human unfaithfulness and deception, or the human stupidity, which I do not understand in the word human, unless xxxxxxxxxxxx. Similarly, here "vine sex" is periphrasis, a circumlocution of wine. But the description or circumlocution brings with it that herewith Christ speaks of the essence and substance of the cup; and is not of the wine, as much as it is a sacrament, as if he thus said: That I have called my blood is according to the substance right natural wine, but is well a sacrament of my blood. Luther did not see this, and treats the vine like a sow treats an organ; and if he sows long enough, he strikes it so that the claves leap to heaven.
Yes, he says, before and before he acts this place: 1) If Christ had wanted something tropical to be understood in these words, he would have indicated it. As if it were the custom, when one speaks tropically, that he also always puts on the tropum; or if the tropus is a putting on, as periphrasis is, that he then first puts on what he wants to do with it. As when I said: Luther is a lynx; that I would add: That is as much as saying that Luther is as cunning as a lynx. And should Christ speak to him here thus: "that is", that is, "that means" my corpse. No one says, "Luther is a rude man," that is, he is crude and inhuman; but if someone wanted to rebuke him in this way, he would let it remain with the ruffian. But so that he lacks nothing at all, there are so many signs in the words, so many words; from this you can see that [it] is a tropical, used speech.
The word "that" forces Luther himself not to say that the substance of the bread is the substance of the body of Christ. For he immediately proves his praedicationsur icksutioaru, that is, that the bread is bread and the body of Christ with each other, 2) and says: Yes,
1) Marginal gloss: Is in Luther's [Bek. im Bog.] y at the 5th tablet. [No. 21, § 384.]
2) Perhaps: softened, d. r. mitigated.
sacramental. For the bread is the body of Christ, as the scepter is the king.
The little word "is" must also force him not to understand it essentially; for if the bread is essentially the body of Christ, then the bread must have been crucified and risen, yes, born of Mary, suffered hunger with him in the desert, etc., and no counter-argument does not help, for if it is essentially the body of Christ, then it must ever be encountered by that which is also encountered by Christ. Therefore, even if Luther complains, he still lets the word "is" be understood sacramentally 3), which is nothing else at all, neither "significant".
The word "my corpse" must also force him, because he who spoke it may not lie. If he has not spoken tropically or used, then it must certainly be his corpse; but if his corpse is taken from the lineage of Abraham, then also the bodily bread must come from the lineage of Abraham. His body also is taken in unity of the person of the Son of God, and the bread is his body: so also the bread must be taken in unity of the person of the Son of God. Dear! Release us, Luther, from the syllogismum, we do not know the Logica!
(126) "Who is given for you" is sufficiently indicated before also in other books, that they compel to understand the words otherwise. Not to mention the dissimilarity of the words in other and other evangelists, other and other articles, which will come hereafter; all of which compel to recognize the words of Christ as being tropical or used.
Now when Luther sees that Matthew and Marcus 4) are so unanimous in putting the words of Christ after the given drink of the supper: it is grapevine; he starts, like the false intercessors, 5) who can talk a hole through one's letter with a bit of eau de vie, and says: it cannot be, the evangelists must all three be unanimous, and speaks right; for they are unanimous, but not the way [that] he supposes. Accordingly, the number presses him, that those who put the words of the vine after the Lord's Supper are two, and Lucas, who puts them before, is one. Why does Luther not give an answer about our explanation, which we have therefore let go out before? Yes, after much distress that he suffers,
3) Marginal gloss: Sacramental is as much, as significant.
4) Marginal gloss: union of the evangelists of the vine.
5) d. i. Advocaten.
He says: 1) that the words of the two should also be understood before the use of the supper, because it is a valetetrunk of the Old Testament. Is right: I thought of an old Bohemian astant. 2) And therefore does not present any proof, thinks it is enough avT-oc e->", i. [e.] Burckart has called it; therefore we must give him a tvenig hinters Fäl. 3)
Behold, pious princes, in Luther's book, in the arc of the eighth tablet, 4) how honestly he holds himself in the words of Luke, which read thus: "I have desired with great desire to eat this paschal lamb with you before I suffer; for I tell you that I will eat no more of it until the kingdom of God is fulfilled. And when he took the cup, praising God, he said" etc. Here Luther leaves with great diligence 5) eü/aj0t<r?-7'<r "c, GOtt gelobet, dahinten: God thanks him! But why does he leave it back there? He has it before verdeutschet "blessed", so that he nevertheless strokes the simple ones something over the mouth. Should he now also interpret here that he has blessed the cup, it would become too loud among the simple, because they would think: Luther says what he wants, he needs "bless" in the opinion that one should understand that the words make the body of Christ bodily. Now if the cup is blessed here, and it follows that it is made of grapes, then Luther's blessed cup must also be wine according to the substance, and not blood, as Christ himself calls it after blessing. But should he interpret: He praised God or gave thanks, he would miss the blessing, which he made out of the xxxxxxxx.
7) [so] that they may prove all the glorious words: The word brings it with itself, so that they may anoint the simple, niener with [nowhere with]; for where do they want to bring about in the whole Bible, that some 8) words are determined, where they are spoken, that then it will certainly follow, which they read ?
129 The words: "In my name they will cast out devils" etc., do not mean that, where the syllables "Jesus" are mentioned, that the devil is there.
1) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's writing, in the arc) y on the 2nd panel. [No. 21, §§ 376 and 377.)
2) Perhaps: Säufer? because this word is directed against Luther's expression "Valetetrunk", which Zwingli calls an "old Bachantenwort" in § 131.
3) This word "Fäl" is used by Zwingli to be our modern "Fehl", but here it seems to mean "fur".
4) No. 21, § 392,
5) Marginal gloss: Ln eauäorsna!
6) maybe: out loud, sure!
7) "therefore" - in relation to it.
8) i. e. any.
But "name" here means power, authority and majesty, and so Peter drives the lame from the meager before the temple in the power of Jesus. (Apost. 3, 6.) Yes, they speak gloriously: The words bring with them that they read. This is true; they bring into the mind of man the opinion which they declare; as when Christ says, "Unto clean!" we are made to understand by the words, that the leper was cleansed by his divine power, that he had done nothing else to him, but only said, "Unto clean!" But that the closed] words bring with them, that they read, that is a foolish seal; or else 9) that poor farmer, who had no more than one cow, and heard that God would give him back a hundredfold here in time, would have done him right, since he gave her up; wanted to buy a hundred from God with one. Yes, since Luther saw that he would like to come right with the word "God is praised", he leaves it out nicely, and is, however, beautifully conceited, so that he frightens us that we may not punish it.
130] So hear, godly princes, the right reason and opinion of the evangelist Luke: All Greek books, which I have seen, have a great beginning at the words: "And when he took the cup" etc. From this we see that the previous words are well and rightly understood, that he would never eat the old paschal lamb, but that he would then begin to count how Christ instituted the new thanksgiving; and therefore says of the cup alone, first of all, that where one has in Scripture of this sacrament, and at once is said only of the one part, the other is also understood. In the Acts of the Apostles, the breaking of bread is mentioned, but the cup is also understood. Here only the cup is mentioned, and what is understood of the cup is also understood of the bread. Now if the cup is the birth of the vine, the bread is also the birth of the ear or the mill. Secondly, Lucas sets the words for a title, so that the insert that follows may stand all the more gloriously after the Hebrew manner, as has been heard, and to prevent the words that follow from being understood by anyone that bread and wine are different in substance, neither really bread nor wine. And therefore begin to tell the use.
(131) That the first words of Luke are the title of the supper, and a forewarning, is proved by the words of Christ, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for these are the very words which Matthew has, Drink ye all of it.
9) Marginal gloss: Stands in "the souls spice garden".
10) twedern - neither of them.
out"; and Marcus thus, "And they all drank dgraus." Both of which speak of the cup of thanksgiving. Therefore also Lucas speaks of the cup of thanksgiving. Cause: that neither in the New nor in the Old Testament nothing at all is invented, that s>s] had been a use in the old thanksgiving, to offer the drink around. But probably in Luther's "the new blasphemy", 1) that is, in the book against which we write here, the old bacchanal word is written: "Valetetrunk". Heben an ^zr/ smell garlic and Bollen 2) in Egypt. It is not enough that Luther, to prove his error, again runs to the old sophistic pieces behind him, he must also bring forth poor words that would be agreeable to the old priests 3). Oh God, oh God! How true it is: Who wants well, may easily be able; who wants badly, no art helps. When Luther wanted good, everything went well with his hand; but when he now goes the wrong way, what he takes in hand is lame. For when he is pained that Matthew says, "Drink, all of you, from it"; and Marcus, "They have all drunk from it," it all comes [from this] that he does not know the trvxvs and figures. There are two figures, one is called Prothysteron, the
other hysterone proterone, that is, the anterior
after that, and the one behind before that; since one says that which only happened after that, before that. As here, when Marcus says, "they all drank from it," but which happened only after the offering, thanksgiving, and after the words "that is," etc. As soon as one says, "When we came to the Lord, he was kind to us; and when we rode into the castle, he met us. Here the kindness happened afterwards, but it is said beforehand. But when one says a summa beforehand, which one actually expounds afterward, that is prothysteron. So the speech is Lucian; [he] puts the summa beforehand etc. as is heard.
Luther is also at ease in the aforementioned place that he refers to Augustine and says that he has almost worked his way through it. But why does he not say that Augustine is not of his opinion? Because the simple-minded should think that it is his turn, if he has only named him; they do not come over Augustinum. But Augustine speaks of the unification of the place thus, de cons. evang. III. at the beginning: "That Lucas says twice 4) of the cup; once, 4) before Christ gave the bread, afterwards, when he gave the bread, [with this it is so/ that he said in the upper place, has
1) Mocking for: Testament.
2) d. i. Onions.
3) Hiemit is aimed at § 422 of Luther's writing.
4) In the old edition: "zwürend" and "einest".
he took before (vocat autem praeoccupationem Augustinus indubie áíèõðïöïñÜí, quam Fabius anteoccupationem, cum tamen anthypophora sit sententiae figura, non orationis; praestat ergo prothysteron vocare), as is his (the evangelist's) custom. But that which he has set in his own place he has not wished to count in the upper place."
See, pious princes, that Augustine does not remember the last drink of the Old Testament, but that he speaks first: Lucas speaks twice of the cup. Which cup? Of Luther's. Valetetrunk? No: for he had spoken of the same only once, when Luther also confesses. Thus he speaks of the cup of the Lord's supper; thus Augustine holds it with us when he says: he speaks twice of the cup of the supper.
134. secondly, Augustine speaks: that [it] is the custom of the evangelist; this is spoken of Hebrew kind and custom, which language Augustine did not know; nevertheless, he has grasped its kind more than some who know it, as in doctrina. christiana probably happened with him 5).
135 Thirdly, he also calls it a forewarning or foreshadowing, but not in the sense that the evangelist wants to count the matter, but only to name and preface it. As if one forewarned and said, I will bring forth much fire; but you shall not understand it otherwise, neither that I take "fire" for punishment and repugnance.
136) To the third [fourth] he says: that, since Lucas said the other time about the cup, the feie commemorirt, 6) that is, counted, and the upper not; and takes "count" here for "actually tell the essential trade". Vorsetzen, however, he takes for naming, titling and forewarning.
It is also clear that in previous books, also in this one, when Luther wants the words: "This is my body" to be dry, he can say, "Matthew and Marcus have the words dry"; and if there must be loud unanimity among the evangelists, then it follows that Lucas and Paul want nothing else at all, but that Matthew and Marcus. And from this argument he cannot find that he, half of all words, in turn also says: So also Matthew and Marcus must have the same opinion with Lucas and Paul. And here he also cannot say: Lucas must be of the opinion of which Matthew and Marcus are. Thus, Matthew and Marcus are on our side,
5) Instead of "happen", perhaps it should read "to see".
6) Marginal gloss: I^stlus usus est ^u^uktinus 00m-nenro-'a-rÄr vsrbo.
and have two witnesses; so without doubt Lucas must be one with them, and Luther must have his teaching in the place of the spirit of disunity.
138. That he says: 1) "Before he would hold it with us, that there should be nothing but wine and bread (but we understand this only in substance, for we have already explained faith, love, discipline, and meaning), before he would hold it with the papists, that it should be vain blood," is well for him to say, yes, if he does not want to do anything right: For, as indicated immediately before, it is contrary to all Scripture that the bread should be changed into the body of Christ, as the papists say. Neither did he accept the angels, but only the seed of Abraham, not the bread seed. It is said (although I have never believed it) that Luther boasted that "he wants to direct the Pabstthum Wohl again, if he wants to". Where he is therefore, it would be in his hands to raise up and to break. If he has set something up, it is good to break it; the pope is stronger than he is; but if God has set it up, how would Luther break it? I want to look at, the calf with the gugel, 2) born in Saxony some years ago, is not yet laid out right. But what unfaithfulness each one has in him, God will well open. If Luther now speaks from the heart that he would rather have it with the popes; why then does he say of sacramental unity or presence of the body? 3) Which is more with us hellet [sonat, consonat], neither with the popes, because they have not let Berengarium remain with them; and yet Luther praises his recantation. And therefore God will bring it all to light. Chrysostom and Origen also understand these words "grapevine" from the wine, which is called the blood of Christ in the night banquet of the Lord. Chrysostom in Matthaeum, homel. 83rd; Origen, homel. Now these are the irrefutable places of Scripture, from which we learn that God with His own Word tells us that the substance of the sacramental signs is wine and bread, and not the body and blood of Christ.
139) Now when Luther says, 4) we conclude thus:
1) Marginal gloss: Is (in Luther's book, in the arc] z [at the] 1st tablet. [No. 21, § 364 at the end.]
2) i.e. monk's cap. - With this Zwingli means the "interpretation of the monk calf in Freiberg" by Luther, Walch, St. Louiser Ausgabe, Vol. XIX, 1940 ff. - About the "Freiberg monk calf", which was born at the end of 1522 at Waltersdorf near Freiberg, compare Seidemann, Reformationszeit in Sachsen, p. 200 ff.
3) Marginal gloss: Luther but against himself.
4) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's Confession, in the arc] e an [derl 4.'Tafel. [No. 21, § 77.]
"With eating the sins are not forgiven; so also the body of Christ is not eaten," [he] publicly misleads us, so that we rightly conclude: If with eating the sins were forgiven, then there would be two ways of forgiving sins; one of bodily eating, the other of bodily dying. If this is not the case, then Luther is wrong in saying that sins are forgiven with eating; he wants to make him wrong; but if he cannot solve it, he writes such stamps, 5) and this throughout the whole book.
(140) He also teaches an unchristian doctrine without Scripture, without any foundation in Scripture, since he teaches us 6) about the merit of Christ and about the distribution of the merit, and says: "The death of Christ merited the remission of sin; but in the supper the merit is distributed. Answer: If it were so (which it is not, for the teaching comes from Luther's port, not from God's word), then the merit of Christ's suffering would have been given to the disciples through the supper before it was, for he never suffered in the supper; but if the merit of the suffering was given out in it, it was given out before it was.
141) Luther says: "God may well have made that which came after already present. 7) Answer: From the ability of God will come afterwards. But if the reason were to be believed, then we would even empty Christ out with him, and thus say: God might have redeemed and graced the world without the death of His Son; thus His Son did not become man. And to this blasphemous error there is one [the first] undoubted stage, saying: in the supper the merit of the suffering is distributed; for the next stage follows: so must the merit be distributed to the disciples in the supper; and after that the third: If he has not yet suffered, then the merit and forgiveness of sins was before and without the suffering of Christ; the fifth: so man would be blessed with the eating of the sacrament; the sixth: so it would not ever need death, if it could be accomplished with eating. Such a pretty thing follows from Luther's fictitious teaching, if he has turned to teach besides God's word.
In addition to this, "distribution" 8) is properly defined in Scripture. The outward distribution is the outward preaching, which Paul,
5) i.e. useless talk.
6) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's book] in the arc § at the 5th plate. [No. 21, § 78.]
7) Cf. No. 21, § 119 f., § 141.
8) Marginal note: How the suffering of Christ is distributed.
Peter and all the apostles do, 1 Cor. 4: "So let men esteem us ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the things of God, which before were secret. The inward dividing is the drawing of the Father: "For no man cometh to the Son, but the Father hath drawn him," John 6; does not say, "He hath eaten my body bodily in the supper. Other disbursement is a false poem; for "as the rain and snow, when they fall from heaven upon the earth," Isaiah 55, "make the earth fruitful" without a disburser; thus, where God drops this dew of his grace and Spirit [cadäsrs kaot], there is already light, truth, redemption, joy, and security of conscience. For [-der] that 1) the grain comes into the earth, it grows without our work. So, where faith is, there [gernünant incls] heavenly fruits get; and the sacraments may not give faith, nor the flesh and blood of Christ, or else the pope would be believing; for he ever, according to Luther's opinion, eats the body of Christ. Therefore, let the poem please whomever it pleases, for it is an open blasphemy and may not stand by God's word.
(143) It is indeed unchristian that he speaks, 2) as if preaching forgives and accepts sins, [likewise] baptism, reading, eating the evening meal; for he does everything without Scripture, not considering that "neither the planter nor the waterer is anything, but he alone who gives the increase is everything. But Luther does as he always does, bringing the knife with him and speaking:
144 Luther [in his Confession, in the bow] e at the 7th tablet: 3) "We know well that Christ has not redeemed us through our eating, nor has anyone ever heard it otherwise from us."
Praise be to God! Be Luther of the words only well remembered! How then is the corpse and blood, eaten in the flesh, the testament, if the testament is the remission of sin? For if Christ did not redeem us by our eating, neither is sin forgiven, much less pardon dispensed, by our eating. How then are the sins of the disciples forgiven in the supper, or pardon given, if pardon is not in the meal? But the more he goes astray, the more he errs. So it goes with Luther; the more he writes new doctrines, the more he becomes a disgrace; for in the end, he always remembers what he has learned.
1) Instead of "that" should probably read "there".
2) Marginal gloss: [In the bow] e on the 6th panel. [No. 21, § 79, completely distorted by Zwingli).
3) No. 21, § 82.
He taught that in the one death of Christ there is forgiveness of sin, and that only through the Spirit does a person become aware of this in his heart, if God's Spirit gives our mind a message and testifies that we are children of God, Romans 8. And therefore, the truth compels him to speak, which he vowed against 4) before. And this describes him throughout the whole book, and in all the books he writes in this error.
Luther says: 5) "Now one and the same being can be visible here and invisible there. Behold, pious princes, how insolently Luther speaks, and yet does not present a scripture, but right on top of it he rumbles, and says: "Oh, it is fool's work! they do not want to answer us, but they only want to plaudit and boast uselessly. Behold, this is his proving of so difficult a speech, that a thing may be visible in one place, and invisible in another at one time. Why? If he indicates the same thing, then he must indicate either the one Godhead, or else an eng rationis, i.[e.] a thing of reason. God is visible with the elect in heaven, and invisible with us here. But this alone befits the Godhead, Ps. 112, Isaiah 66. But we are speaking here of the body of Christ, which, while it lay in the pure body of Mary, was not visible in heaven and invisible here, but invisible in heaven and earth. Then he should indicate to us with Scripture that he was at one time in two places, invisible in one and visible in the other. It is not possible for him to do this; so he gives us a hard time about it, so that he does not do nothing at all.
But if he indicates a thing of reason, as: that I, bodily and visibly to Zurich, am nevertheless in Luther's sense; but as value, as the dog in the kitchen. But that I am with Luther is only an image, thought and mirror form. If he now wants to say that Christ's body is invisible in the sacrament here, we want to say more than he: that he is essentially present in our hearts according to God and humanity, and not in the bread. For the bread has no mind; it does not think, does not form, does not strive; but our mind strives, recognizes and sees his true humanity, his death, his glory; there he is right at home, there he is known. What shall he do in bread? shall bread strengthen the soul? The soul does not eat bread. Should it bring the knowledge of Christ into the soul? What may
4) "vowed" - made a vow that he would not depart from it.
5) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's writing, in the arc) f on the 1st panel. [No. 21, § 85.)
6) Marginal gloss: So Christ is in the supper.
Is it then the preaching and fructifying of the spirit? May one overcome faith with food; how then that one may not overcome all the graces of God with food? since faith is the summa. Why then do Luther and I not become wise, learned, chaste etc. ? There are his sheriff's red pants 1) in the cooling bath with the blue ducks.
We have indicated to Luther and to all believers in Christ: that God's word itself may not suffer the body of Christ to be in the supper. And by other words, especially those indicated, which must be understood publicly of the absence of his body; for according to the Godhead it is not possible that he should not be everywhere. Luther now argues against this in two ways: One, that it is possible for God to find a way that is unknowable to us, which way he may be bodily with us; for all things are possible to God. Luther disputes the other way against the counterchange of the two natures in Christ.
149 Let us therefore now both hedge them up, and keep them, that he break no more through. Since we have these words: "You will not have me forever," Matth. 26, "I am leaving the world," Joh. 16, "For now I am not in the world," Joh. 17, etc., he strikes them all with one stroke and says:
Luther: 2) "And what is more of the sayings, since Christ is preached to be in heaven. We also believe and say this, and there would have been no need to teach us. But it would be necessary to teach that because Christ is in heaven, His body cannot be in the Lord's Supper."
150 Answer: Although we would like to say that he is no longer in the world in the flesh, but only through faith, which recognizes him as true man and God, he has been here and died, and is now sitting at the right hand of God. Therefore, our adversary needs to prove that he is here. Nor do they do so on other grounds, either [the words], "This is my body"; or, "Do this in remembrance of me." And is heard six hundred times from Paul, that the words, "Put this in remembrance of me," etc. do not mean, Neither to make nor to eat his body; but: Give thanks that he is given in death for us; this we ought to do. So then, if the words do not mean that we have called the corpse
1) This refers to No. 21, §§ 88 and 275.
2) Marginal gloss: [Luther in the bow] f on the first panel. [No. 21, § 86.)
3) i.e. hurriedly, immediately.
But with the word of God, it follows that, although Christ made his body with words, we have no power to make it, since it is nowhere recommended to us to make it.
151) Here serves, pious princes, that we admit to the adversary, if Christ had made his body like with the words "this is my body", that therefore it does not follow, we may make it, because we have no word about it. Not that we truly admit that Christ gave his body to be eaten with the words, but we admit to the adversary alone: if it were equal to him, but is not, yet they would not prove that it was recommended to us, as little as it is recommended to us, to transfigure him, although he is transfigured before Peter, James, John. Although we would like to have this entrance, which they truly cannot answer for: nevertheless we want to let it stand amicably, not overestimate it, 4) so that we may come to an end, and so we say:
If Luther can account for all the words: "no longer have"; "no longer be in the world"; "leave the world"; "I will take you to myself"; "one should not believe if one shows him here or there"; "he will visibly come again as he visibly went"; with the words:
Luther: 5) "So also, you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me with you. What is meant by "with you" is given by the text itself, and is well to be reckoned, namely, as the poor are with us, so he is not with us. And so on, what they bring forward of the sayings more, is soon said: Christ is not with us, like the poor, mortal and worldly. Therefore, they cannot yet bring it up that our understanding is contrary to the Scriptures." So much Luther.
153. If Luther may offset with the answer all the writings that publicly speak of the absence of the body of Christ, then the two preachers, the one with the silver dagger, the other with the iron rings on his fingers, are not yet wrong [with that] which they practice in their cities; for with Scripture they cannot bring it about that one believes that flesh and blood are here: Only watch, pious princes, how Luther resolves all the words: "no longer have"; "no longer be in the world"; "leave the world" etc. with such strong writings! "It is well known that just as the poor are with us, so Christ is not with us to die.
4) misjudge - to go there.
5) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther in the bow] f on the 2nd panel. [No. 21, §87f)
6) Compare § 29 of this paper.
and worldly." Is not this a beautiful thing, that the whole world again should eat flesh and blood in the supper? I think Luther should bring out where "have" would be taken for "die"; and "have no more" for "die no more" etc., so he brings on the Scripture: "And so on." Is not this strong thing? Well, good preachers of silver daggers and iron wrestlers! I must also present an experiment, that is, a request. When I say: Christ must have given us his body, as he was deadly; if you want to argue: he gave us his body, because he says: "This is my body, which was given for you" etc. Have you not thus spoken to this irrefutable truth: You arguirst a substantia ad accidens, a quod ad qualiter, from substance to importance? Yes, we have done it; but have you also understood that you do not know what you are saying, if I do not introduce anything in the subsequent speeches, but what is opened and understood in the first with bright words? I think so, too. But what do you think of Luther's opinion here, when he says that his should be understood as "being deadly, being worldly", ab esse simpliciter ad esse secundum quid?
"No longer have" should be understood: no longer have mortal, no longer have worldly. Although I cannot say what Luther meant by the word "worldly"; whether Christ was also "worldly", "like us sinners", which I do not hope [that it] will be said by Luther; or whether Luther meant "worldly" as "human", habitu inventus ut homo, that he was human in manner and measure, visible, sensitive, suffering. Where, then, does he need the word "worldly" for this, by which the simple-minded is hurt? But he wanted to make the clouds and smoke [fumos] thick, so that no one would see anything.
154. on this I must put the noble evangelists, pious princes, their dung before the noses, that they may be recognized by other people, for they do not know themselves; want to indulge and forgive me so much. We have shown before enough how honestly we in our syllogismo, 1. [e.] account, in the first [of the majors nothing at all but God's expressed word dargethan; in the other of our enemies verjähene1) speech; and in the third nothing at all decided, than that is conceived in the previous two, so:
1) Christ's body is who died for us.2)
2) The bread is the body of Christ.3)
3) So the bread died for us.
1) i.e. pronounced.
2) Marginal gloss: Are words of Christ.
3) Marginal gloss: Are words of our adversaries.
Now let us also set Luther's account with the deadly poor, and give him first of all much merit in it.
(1) You will have the poor everywhere, but you will not have me everywhere. 4)
(2) The poor are deadly and worldly, so we will not have Christ deadly and worldly. 5)
Here open your eyes and see if Luther does not argue a substantia ad accidens, i. [e.] from substance to importance? as in the sophistical account:
(1) Everything you bought yesterday, you ate today;
(2) Raw [rouw] meat you bought yesterday:
(3) So you ate raw meat today.
For Luther introduces (obmittam [omittam] enim, Huoä non rsots inäuoit minorsw oatbaZorieam 6) ack rnajorsm b^potbsticram) in the other one (the minor] an importance, which is not indicated in the first one, that is "tödemlich". Just as in the sophist's talk in the other one the importance "raw" [rouw] is introduced, which is not thought of in the first one. And that is to conclude from the substance to the importance.
But if Luther wanted to act formally, he would have to indicate the importance in the first [number] with the little word "like," thus:
1) You will not have me like the poor. 7)
2) The poor are deadly and worldly. 8)
3) So you will not have me deadly and worldly.
Then he lacks the first: for there are no more words of Christ, for Christ said simply: "But you will not have me forever", and does not remember the word "like the poor" anywhere. For the speech, when the disciples murmured about the poor, did not arise from the importance of how the poor were in the world, but badly from the substance of the poor,
quod essent futuri; non, qualiter essent futuri in mundo; thus Christ also speaks of the essence of his substance.
157 Notice also, dear brethren (for I want you to be brethren, but you do not like yourselves so well; you are young roosters, or else your comb will be bitten), that in our first [proposition] Christ is the body that dies for us; the dying (which we call an important
4) Marginal gloss: Are words of Christ.
5) Marginal gloss: Is Luther's castle.
6) Is probably a misprint for eatsKorieaw. (Walch.)
7) Marginal gloss: Is Luther's castle.
8) Marginal gloss: Is mean, but strange in this.
However, it is a property, proprium aut differentia constitutiva speciei, hoc est, descriptiva, which is not abivesen (abesse, absent [one] may be at his time), yes, dying is publicly emphasized in our first one. But this does not describe in Luther's gloss.
(158) Notice also further that we rightly exclude under the word "killed" when we say: but he is sensitively and painfully killed; for we assume under the importance another importance, without which [the] first may not be; for what is killed must be painful: so Luther excludes under the substance importance, under the substance of the poor "deadly" [mortality], and therefore it behooves us to conclude:
(1) Christ's dead body is in the night banquet. 1)
(2) Now he is sensitively killed. 2)
(3) Thus, he is sensitive in the night meal.
See how we exclude under "killed", and yet "killed" is publicly emphasized in the first [proposition].
I, pious princes, have to indicate that we poor people should learn to recognize with what muck we are dealing, if we do not want to look at the light of truth. You, simple reader, do not worry about it; for Luther was right and concluded that Christ would not be deadly with us and worldly, which is otherwise also true, because he would be invisible with us? that is why they are blinds. You must still have patience, so that the "perverse" (I have misunderstood) the "scholars" of this world can have their confusion removed; but you see here, where we want to explain the matter with simple scripture in such a way that you will grasp the truth and Luther's dishonesty with one hand.
God is the highest good, so that nothing is good at all, except that he is, and that is in him; yes, there is 3) nothing at all, without in him. He is wise, just, true, strong etc., all to the highest. Now if he is also true to the highest, it is not possible that he should speak or promise anything that is not also certain to the highest; 4) so certain, indeed, that when he speaks words that are contrary to one another, according to our liking, from the first (if we look at them with faith, that is, the fear of God and the love of the truth) we feel that he is true and righteous, and that we had not rightly considered the truth. He is also so true,
1) Marginal gloss: Are words of Christ.
2) Marginal gloss: Are words of scripture, per -roör's cket.
3) In the old edition: "he".
4) Randglosfe: That it is a dishonor to God to say he may do against his own word.
that everything which is a lie, or includes a lie, may not be of him, nor with him; but "the devil is the father of lies," John 8.
Now it is evident that "to be" and "not to be" may not exist with each other; so neither does God like that a thing be and not be with each other, for that is the lie and of the devil. Adam was created by God. Now if I wanted to say: God would be able to make Adam never be created, then I will make God the devil. For to be created by GOtt and not to be created is ever not truth; so GOtt does not like it; for it is a powerlessness, not a power. If the princes of this world deny that which they have promised, is it not dishonor? But why do they deny? Either that they may not perform what they have promised, it is ever a powerlessness; or that they repent of what they have promised; this comes from imperfection of wisdom, and both times become lying. Now if God were to pretend that it had not happened, but it did happen, it would be a powerlessness, not a power; for to pretend to oneself 5) is a powerlessness, and God would be found false. And if he spoke, and did another, neither he spoke, he would ever be lying.
162. probation of all things. Christ says, "I will be with you until the end of the world." And saith, "I will be henceforth no more in the world." If the words are meant to be true, that he is in the world, and is not in the world, according to one nature and essence, it is not possible that they are God's word. But they are God's word: so it follows that they must be based on other natures. For if they be not true of one nature, neither may God do them; for he may not do wrong, untrue, and lying altogether. "All that proceedeth out of my mouth shall not be turned back," Ps. 88.
So then we sit with faith and love between the words, 6) and faith says: If he has spoken it, then it must be so, it may not be the contradiction. But love says, "O Lord, I would gladly know the truth, that my flesh might be satisfied, that it might leave faith unchallenged; make known to me how these two contrary meanings are to be decided, and whither they are to be understood and drawn. So then God teaches by His Spirit and by the letter, which is written by His Spirit and order, saying, "Learn the Scriptures." So then we look at the Gospel of John in
5) represent as unjust.
6) Marginal gloss: Thus one comes to the knowledge of the truth.
of the teaching after the supper, and publicly invent that he wants to say that he will no longer be in the world in the flesh; of this afterward. Thus we are delivered of the one word-shale, "I shall be no more in the world."
The knowledge of faith also says: Christ is God as well as man; and if it is not possible that God is not everywhere, then there must be no doubt that Christ is with us in eternity with his divine power and protection. And may both sayings of any nature in particular not be understood at all. It is not possible to speak of the divine, that we will not have it present all the time; so also "not have it all the time" must be understood to refer only to the human. So it is also not possible that the human one is on earth; for God does not like to lie, but says: "I will no longer be in the world"; so heaven and earth must break before we force him into the earth with our calculating, chattering and chattering. Luther does not want to accept this, and wants to force against God's word that Christ is bodily in the sacrament; which is nothing else at all, neither does it make him a liar. For that bread is his body, and that he is no longer in the world, may stand together as little as if I said, God created the world, and did not create it; or, God, who created the world, is well able to say that he did not create it. Which is not only nonsensical to think, but also foolish to speak.
Here Luther would like to say: I do not say that he is bodily here, and not here; but I only say that he is here, and is bodily everywhere, but that the words (which do not let him be here, even with faith and love decides) teach us that he is now deadly and sensitive no longer here etc., as is heard. On which words we might well say that Luther himself does him wrong; for he speaks publicly: how we might know by what means and skill the corpse might be here; and cites many examples (which, however, are all with us), whether he might find a way to teach us how Christ might be here bodily. And to what end does the praedicatio identica serve otherwise, neither that God should be made false? since he says: "One thing is possible for God to make, that it be two things with one another; namely: that the bread be once 1) bread and the body of Christ. For so it behooves me also to say, All men are flowers of the field and hay. Isaiah 40: God may make man once 4) grass and man. Soon the prophets make un-
1) i.e. at the same time.
sensible animals, wind, harbors, firs, cedar trees, and others from the people. Are they the same also to that, that they are men? It must be according to Luther's praedicationem identicam, that is, speech, that one thing is at once two or many things: so the foolish speech, which even the Sophists reject, quod omnia entia sint unum ens, 2) that all things are one thing, must be true. And if so, it followed: If a man had killed a man, he would have killed only a blade of grass, and if he had let the poor die of hunger, he would have let a flower perish. Thus all truth, justice and godliness would be accepted. It would also not be true that God made all creatures with difference, as the creation shows; and would make God false.
This followed from Luther's praedicatione identica, since many things are one thing to him; but that is not possible for God Himself, if it is not possible for Him to do contrary to His own word. Now he says brightly that he alone took the seed of Abraham to himself; so the seed of wheat may not be "him"; and if Luther puts it to him, he makes him a liar. But that man is one thing, made up of two, that is, body and soul, you must not therefore understand that one thing is two, as we speak of it here; but the two things make a third, the man; and the body is not body and soul together, and the soul not soul and body together; but each is its own special substance, and when they come together it is one man. Thus in Christ God and mankind are One Christ, One Person. And no creature may be itself essential, and the other also; or else all creatures would be One Creature without distinction, and God would be irritus, inverted; for since he has made distinctive works, we would say: they would not be distinctive.
But ever so! Luther means it with the same error as he wants, so let us now make it clear that the words of the deviation may by no means be defended with "deadly" and "worldly". First of all, let us take Matthew 26: "But you will not have me all the way," and say thus: that in the days of the fables and the harrows 4) we would have been well provided with such a gloss: "Not to have" is: not to have deadly, not sensitive, not suffering; but not to Luther. For Luther cries out so often and loudly: We shall force the sense; since we have it
2) Marginal gloss: tzuoälikst e quoälikst.
3) Maybe: "it"?
4) d. i. D. Eck.
He is forced from one corner to the other, that he doubts his own writings and therefore recants; that he speaks publicly against himself, and must soon escape from the circle. And does he not add a word from Scripture to such an unheard gloss? Why should he? He has not, otherwise he would not have spared it; for who has ever heard it interpreted with Scripture, "Me ye shall have no more": I shall die no more, nor be sensitive, nor suffer? He says, "Me," and not "I"; "ye shall," not "I will"; "have no more," not "be no more suffering." For if he were unsuffering with the disciples, yet they would have him; for they would have him with them after the primitive state, and was not deadly; but Christ casts off the "have," and saith, "They shall not have him for ever." And so this place remains firm and unchanged by Luther.
168 That is, look at pious princes, as Luther does here. Couples many proclamations together, and says: "and so on, what proverbs they bring more, is soon said: Christ is not mortal with us" etc. It is true, it is soon said, but it is not yet valid. But one should make such an unheard gloss firm with many scriptures, and force it to be just.
The places, Matth. 24. and Marci 13.: "that we should not believe those who show us Christ here or there, because they are false prophets", still remain stiff. For from Luke 17 we learn publicly that Christ speaks of his bodily presence; not of external things, as Luther says. Now if he says him to be "in the bread, with the bread, with the bread," or as he wills, he ever shows him to us in the supper. So now see how he will reject that the evangelists call him a false prophet!
170 John 16: "Again I leave the world," etc., Luther may also not be satisfied; for he must not glaze the word "leave" with "not mortal" or "to be worldly. Now it is certain that he may not leave the world according to divine nature; so only the human one must leave.
171 Marci 16: The Lord, having spoken with them, is taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. If he is taken up, he is not here after mankind; for Luther, not yet a creature, has never proved that the humanity of Jesus Christ is more than in one place. But what Luther subjected himself to in destroying the Word of God will come later.
172 And that Luther could not say, He is well received in heaven, but yet he was with them; so hear Lucam, Apost. 1: "He went, 1) that they might have seen, and the cloud received him out of their sight." So he went away from their eyes. And if Luther would say, "He came out of their sight," 2) Lucas rivets it with a bass, and soon after says, "The Jesus who was received up from you into heaven." Behold, pious princes! as he speaks, "Up in heaven," "from you" that are on earth, "he is taken and received." He does not say that he is here on earth, but invisible; that he is with the disciples, but immortal; but that he is of them, and not near; but that he is in heaven above, and the disciples here.
173 "He is risen, and is not here", Marci 16. Here we have "he is not here". We do not take this place to mean that he is no longer in the world, but that you, pious princes, may see how Luther does not speak at all according to God's word when he says: Christ is everywhere according to mankind, as well as according to the Godhead; also when he says: one should understand the words "no longer be in the world": "no longer be deadly and worldly" (that is, sensitive, visible, suffering). Which comment or poem is thrown to the ground with the some saying. For, to speak according to the Godhead, Christ is ever everywhere; so this saying must be for mankind alone. If then Christ was not there, then mankind is not everywhere where the Godhead is; for the Godhead was there, not only according to the omnipotent presence, but according to the gracious illumination of the Spirit, who set the hearts of the seekers on fire, so that they fervently sought him.
If now Luther would also dispute this place: "He is not here" should be as much as: he is not deadly nor suffering, or prestigious 3) here: so the angel would give the answer from Luther's opinion: Christ dies no more, and is no more worldly. I have no doubt, the pious women would report him: Dear angel, we do not inquire of the same, we inquire essentially of his body, and have prepared ourselves with ointments to anoint him. Therefore he gives them an answer from the substance of his body, that he is not there. Or did Luther mean to say: he would not be worldly,
1) Marginal gloss: rn-H/iöy, mors liedraioo "A.
2) The Gesichte is called visio, quas vel oeulis vsl Wsnts üt; but the face is called kacüss by Zwingli. (Walch.)
3) i.e. frail.
If the man had been there in a sensitive or passionate way, the women might have said, "We can see for ourselves that he is not there. We ask about the substance, we ask about him, we do not ask about the importance.
175 Behold, pious princes, how Luther seeks all excuses from substance to importance. But all this put aside, even though we would like to answer Luther with a few no's, because he, as is indicated, brings nothing at all but his deeds, not Scripture: so [we] want to give the simple Christian people, who [are] ourselves, into the hand (because the servants threaten us daily, as it will soon be over for us), that God's servants can defend themselves against the poem itself.
In Luke, the angel decides the whole mess that Luther makes, because it says: "And he", the angel, "spoke to them", the women: What seek ye? seek ye him that liveth among 1) the dead? He is not here, but is risen" etc. There is no doubt that the angel is speaking of the resurrected body of Christ, when he says: "You are looking for him who is alive among other dead", who are alive according to the soul, but the corpse lies dead, as Isaiah 26. says; but this corpse lives for other dead, and is already resurrected. Accordingly, he says that the resurrected, transfigured corpse is not there. Now what mouth on earth has ever been allowed to say among old and new scholars that the declared body of Christ is also everywhere? Only because they see here publicly that it is said of the declared body that it is not there, it is never everywhere. Except the one Luther may speak against everything that has understanding in heaven and earth, that he is everywhere. And the Word of God is clear and open; and to prove this, nothing at all brings his laborious argument: he is not sensitive, or visible, or deadly there. And if we want to rumble with him and say: "is, is, is" there; as he is wont to do: "He is not there", let the words of God stand in God's name! He will not find a word for this, since "is" is understood for "to be deadly": for this, where he would find it, he speaks here of the body, which was already deadly, that it is not there. The women did not need the angel to tell them that he was not in the world and that he was deadly, because they saw it.
177 Therefore, you, simple Christian, may safely place yourself behind the two reasons, "He is not here" and "He who lives among the dead is not here," against Luther's confusing teaching, since he pretends,
1) Marginal gloss:xxxx xxxx xxxxxx.
Let the corpse of Christ be everywhere, and let him therefore shoot at you with all the thunders of words, let him cast the fire of his anger and rage against you, and with the blasts of his evil words let him hurt you, and he will not move a hair of your head. Until these reasons also be remembered; for we shall hereafter speak further of the declared body of Christ, whether it be everywhere.
178. John 17, Christ thus speaks: "I will no longer be in the world, but they will be in the world". The saying is an antithesis, a counter-setting, by which one sees what Christ meant by "being no longer in the world". As, so I speak: Dear friend, I cannot be with you, but my children will be with you. Quia ÷áú αντί δέ 2) ponitur Hebraeorum more. Here I must ever be understood thus, that my children will remain essentially with the friend for the time [ea vice]; and so we see now well in contrast that I speak of the presence of their body, that I speak also of presence of my body; and want to say that I want to be half of the body completely not there. But do not deny that I want to be there with the thought; but my thought and care will be there more than if I were there bodily.
So this is an antithesis, a contrast: "I will no longer be in the world, but they will be in the world. But if Luther were to come with his "worldly" and say: Christ would not be worldly or deadly in the world, but the disciples would be deadly in the world, it is not enough; but he must express the contrast in the disciples as well 3) as in Christ, and thus speak: Christ would not be deadly or worldly in the world, yet essentially; but the disciples would be deadly and alive in the world, and not essentially. Since it is seen that according to the power of speech it is found that Christ speaks of human nature, that therefore he will not be essential in the world at all, but according to the Godhead with his care and grace.
180 But all this notwithstanding, the whole of the seventeenth chapter of this book is so open with us that no one can contradict that Christ goes out on the opinion that he has been with the disciples until now, and that he has cared for them so faithfully that, without Judas, no one has perished: but now he goes away from them, so that he commends them to the Father. For he saith afterward, But now I go unto thee, and speak these things.
2) Edge gloss: per
tionls; 68t snim oxpositiVÄ propositio.
in the world, that they may have perfect joy" etc. Then he will say, "I speak these things to them so that they may be comforted and undaunted, even though I am no longer with them; for you will keep them as if I were with them.
And the whole seventeenth chapter is an antithesis, a contrast, to all its previous physical presence. Until now I have been with them; but now I will not only not be with them, but no longer in the world. I would also like to hear how Luther glossed it: "But now I am coming to you. For it is knowable that, according to divine nature, he never came from him; and the words, "I came forth from the Father," and the like, are all xxxirocear, that is, an imputation of human morals etc. For how will "I shall henceforth be no more in the world, for I go to the Father" rhyme with Luther's opinion: he shall be invisible in the world, if he speaks plainly: "No more to be"? I think: where "to be, is, being, are" etc. would stand, should the words be understood allways essentially according to Luther's rule? But it is heard enough that also the invisibly declared body is not everywhere, so it is also not in heaven and in the world at once.
182. On the 14th of John, Christ says: "I will ask the Father, and he will send you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever. Here Christ does not say: I will send you another Comforter; but: "another Comforter, the Spirit of truth. By which words we well see [that] all the consolations which Luther sets forth in the bodily meal are set down, for the Spirit of truth will comfort, not the flesh eaten bodily. One may also put down with all theologis Luther with the word "other"; for the Holy Spirit is nothing else at all, neither the Father nor the Son; but he is indeed another, namely another person neither the Father nor the Son. Now if another Person is indicated here, and Christ is One Person, of divine and human nature; then the consolation is ever withdrawn from human presence, if it is placed on the Person of the Spirit; for humanity is [i.e. belongs to] not the Person of the Spirit. Knowing well that all the effects of God are against the creatures of all three persons, because of the one essence. What concerns the personal qualities, however, remains unchanged and unmixed in each one, as becoming man, suffering, dying is the personal property of the Son, and is not added to the person of the Spirit. More about this in the sermon given at Bern.
183 Luther does not understand Paul's saying, 2 Cor. 5, 1) he should not be angry. For short of that, he still does not see the argument or opinion on which Paul there goes out. He says just before that [vv. 11-16]: He is in hope that he is well thought of in the Corinthian consciences, so that he may not boast before them, nor may anyone write and recommend for him, as the false apostles boasted and wrote for one another. For he is well known to God; but all that he boasts of before them is for their sake, that his name be not taken away from them 2). And if he does anything above measure, it is for the glory of God; or if he boasts so highly that it seems childish to someone, it is for their benefit. For the common love that all Christians rightly have for God also compels him to gladly risk his life for God's sake, 3) since Christ gave himself for all of us, it is right that we also give ourselves for him without looking back. Therefore he does not think that his name will not be reviled, because he seeks no comfort or help in all creatures, that he seeks no other comfort in the flesh of Christ than he has already received, that is, that through the means of the flesh he has suffered death and redeemed us with death; he seeks no further comfort in the flesh of Christ.
Now Luther thinks that Paul teaches us in this place how we are to be a new creature. This is not so; but Paul argues from the common sense, Ý÷ ôçò ÷ñåßáò, 4) since all Christians know and understand that we should all be prepared to suffer death for the sake of the Lord, if he has borne it for our sake; that he, too, is completely of this mind, and does not pride himself on protecting himself or his name; for there is neither comfort nor compunction in his heart [cordi sit], neither the one God; that he also does not seek in the flesh of Christ any other 5) comfort than that which he has already received and felt. Otherwise he knows that Paul often teaches how we are to be a new creature. Let the scholars see what I say!
185 But in the words of Paul, Luther's consolation falls to one whom he promises in the bodily meal on his sock, not on God's word. It
1) Marginal gloss: In lLuthers Buche, Bogens 1 an der 6ten Tafel. sNo. 21, § 99 ff).
2) "upbeat" - cause to accusations against them.
3) o. i. to that effect.
4) Marginal gloss: 8oe est, qnoä omnidus in ors est Ltqnk in eoinlnuni omnium eonsensn.
5) In the old edition: foreren.
teaches us also, for another time, that Luther's rejection of the AllŒh, since he does not yet know the name, as follows, is a futile sacrilege, when he sees that Paul may also especially call the flesh of Christ, and say: "he no longer recognizes it according to the flesh". Now here "to know" is taken for suspicere, to hope, but the
He is always exempt from comforting sufferings, but even Paul rejects other consolations in the flesh. And yet holds the inseparable unity of the person of the Son of God, and hopes in him, has all comfort in him, and yet rejects the flesh for other comfort.
Luther says: this saying would be better for us than for him. Yes cr says it, but does not indicate it with any sound, neither with his rich verbiage. But he is able to do two things, of which Luther may reverse tweders [neutrum, neither of them]. The first: If Paul recognizes nothing more in the flesh than his death, resurrection, ascension, etc., so that the flesh of Christ, which sits at the right hand, brings him no more help nor comfort than he already has, then the saying is able to do as much as: The flesh is not profitable to eat. The other thing that Luther cannot reverse is that eating the flesh of Christ does not forgive sin; or else Paul would have taught daily comfort in it, not realizing that he sought no further comfort in it.
Now, pious princes, Luther would easily protect this mind, 1) and cry out over me: I reject the humanity of Christ, but this is not at all, as he himself also confesses, since he speaks. 2) I make Christ a mere man; how then could I reject humanity? But I recognize the true deity of Christ, and so recognize it, that for this reason one should not ascribe to it what is not due to it. I also recognize the true humanity of Christ, and so recognize that it should not be given what is not due to it. And do all this knowledgeably with the Scriptures and enlightenment of the old orthodoxorum, the right theologians and teachers.
For Augustine speaks thus of this place Pauli, 2 Cor. 5, 11b. I. äs clootrina 6Üri8tiäna, vap. 34.: "Behold how the apostle (though the truth and the word by which all things were made had already become man or flesh, so that it dwelt among us) still speaks nothing the less: 'If we have Christ after the flesh
1) i.e. to throw dirt at.
2) Marginal gloss: Is (in Luther's Confession] in (arc] k on (the) 8th panel. (No. 21, § 177.1
we do not recognize him now.' Now he who not only gives a home to those who come to him, but has also willed to give the way to those who go to him, namely himself, who is a beginning of ways, and has willed to take the flesh to himself. This is also the purpose of it: The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways, that they which would come might receive them. Therefore the apostle, even though he was still walking on the way and following the reward of the heavenly calling, namely, the calling Lord, still forgets the things he left behind him and reaches out to those who are before him. He who had already gone before the beginning of the ways, that is, he did not lack that at which all must start and compete who desire to come to the truth and to abide in eternal life. For he speaks thus: I am the way, the truth and the life', that is: through me one comes, to me one comes, in me one remains. For if a man comes to him, he comes also to the Father; for by the like he is known who is like him, by binding and sticking to us, through the Holy Spirit, that we may abide in the supreme and immutable good. From which we understand, NB. that no thing shall keep us in the way, if the Lord Himself, according to the manner, and He hath graced Himself to be our way, hath not willed to keep us; but that we go forward, that we may not cleave weakly unto temporal things (though the same be accepted and applied for our salvation's sake), but rather walk fruitfully through the same things, that we may come unto Himself, who hath loosed our nature from temporal things, and set it at the right hand of the Father."
These are all the words of Augustine, by which we actually learn that he understands the words of Paul according to our sense; namely, that he wants to say that we should not cling to the humanity of Christ in some measure, but rather go through or proceed in this way: human nature is assumed, so that we come to God through it; and when we have grasped this, we should not cling to humanity any longer, but cling to Him alone, to whom we have come through it, until we are drawn to Him in heaven. This does not reject the humanity of Christ, but teaches us to think rightly of it, and not to pretend, as Luther does, that we do not have God's word: if one eats the flesh of Christ in the flesh, sins are forgiven; it brings with it (thus they speak) God with all his goods. Yes, Luther says: "If I give you bread, I give you God with all His goods.
To be master over the goods of God, like the pope. Christ's body has all authority in heaven and earth, as no theologian has ever said, but Christ has all authority. Christ's body is everywhere, like the Godhead; which also no td6olo§u8 ortüoäoxus has never spoken. But it will follow hereafter how one should hold and speak in things.
190. So now, pious princes, we have the expressed bright words of Christ, which may not deceive nor be drawn elsewhere, neither to the humanity of Christ: "Not having all ways"; "not showing here nor there"; "leaving the world"; "being taken up to heaven"; "taken from them in their regard"; "taken from you"; "he is not here"; "even the declared risen body was not there when the women sought him"; "I shall be no more in the world"; "he shall send another Comforter"; "for else know not Christ according to the flesh." Eleven irrefutable places in which Christ indicates his body's absence; which completely overturn Luther's reasons as to how it is possible for God to do so; for it is not possible for God to do contrary to his word; for that is not a power, but a powerlessness.
191 Although Luther himself now recognizes against the King of England thata posse ad [es]se, from the ability of God to "thus be", does not befit [to] conclude: nor must he now make use of that which he has thrown down before. If he is not ashamed to speak against his own knowledge of the truth; yes, even to put the same writings in suspicion, in that he leans on the books that he has written in four or five years: then I must take off his guest-hat 1) a lot, so that one can see him right in the face.
192. 1) The highest blasphemies of God are when He is blasphemed at His essence and nature;
2) Luther blasphemes him by his nature and essence:
3) Thus Luther also commits the highest blasphemy against God.
This is an account that is known to every Christian. For all blasphemy that reaches to the things that come to pass [aooicksntik] is not as great as that in which the substance itself is blasphemed, just as all contumely to the accidents are small, until man himself is attacked, as Job 1. stands. It is also the sin in the Holy Spirit, which is not venial, only for this reason so heavy, that
1) "Gasthut" probably means the same as "Hehlkäpplein" in "Luthers Schrift Wider die Türken", No. 53 in this volume, § 7.
it is essentially contrary to God's spirit and truth, Matth. 12., because, that truly by the power of God beschach, the godless admitted to the lying devil. Therefore, the first [i.e. the upper sentence] is irrefutable.
Now it is up to the other one [the subordinate clause]: that Luther blasphemes God in his essence and nature. So we prove these. To the first, of the essence. Christ says: every kingdom divided against itself becomes nothing or united. Yes, even if the devil, who is the kingdom of lies, were against himself, his kingdom and nature would not exist. Now Luther accuses God of doing contrary to his own word, and of making repugnant things true together, which must confuse and break the devil: thus Luther breaks the kingdom, power and essence of God with blasphemy. For his objection is now sufficiently justified that the words must not be understood according to Luther's gloss, but that they all indicate the bodily absence. But Luther wants to falsify this, if he wants to have him in the sacrament. For to be in the sacrament is ever to be in the world. Now "to be in the world," as Luther speaks, and "not to be in the world," as Christ speaks, are contrary to each other, as being God and not being God. And Luther wants to show up both Gods; 2) so he wants to overthrow God with the reversal of the power of God into the powerlessness of God and to turn back.
194 Secondly, that Luther blasphemes God by his nature. The nature and manner of God is that He is true, for Christ JC is not Yes and No, but Yes is Yes with Him and Amen; that is, everything that God speaks is fixed and unchangeable. Whoever then admits that God acts contrary to His own word blasphemes Him in His truth, for He is true by nature. If then Luther reviles God in truth under the appearance of omnipotence, he confuses himself and blasphemes him in his omnipotence, for he cannot do against himself; and it is a powerlessness where someone does against himself. He also blasphemes him in his truth, when he says: May God, besides the words, be a way in the flesh in the sacrament, which is unknown to us. Just as if God had said the words that we well understand and are clear: "I will no longer be in the world", are spoken to us, and in contrast, another is acting. This is blaspheming God in His honor, power and truth. As when I say of a man, "He speaks to you clearly and loudly, but he does another thing.
2) i.e. impose.
3) Here we have omitted the word "him" which is too much.
But Luther pushes in against this with a strong trick and says: 4) Christ speaks: "I am not in the world; but was in the world", Joh. 17. Now "Christ speaks the words, while he was still in the world. How then can the Spirit speak that the text is against the Lord's Supper?" Response. There is no text in Scripture that is against the Lord's Supper; but there are countless others that are against Luther's opinion. But these words: "I am not in the world" are Greek: "For now I am not in the world." 2) And Luther also conceals here that the Hebrew language has the custom to put praesens pro futuro, present time for future. So when the Hebrew says: xxxxx, 3) I come
the, or I come, he wants as much as: I will come. In the same way here: "I am not in the world for the time being", is taken for "I will no longer be in the world". But it may be little of that; for there is an xxx, that is, "for the time being"; which little word probably indicates that he does not speak of the present time. In addition, the words themselves prove what kind they are, namely, as one is wont to speak in all languages. One says, I am nothing; 4) another, I am dead. And the one cannot be nothing, or else he could not speak. Nor this one be dead. But each one thinks that he is close to becoming nothing or dead.
196) The words of Luc. 24 are to be understood in the same way: "These are the sayings or speeches that I told you while I was still with you. Now he was still with them; but he speaks of the former time in which he was with them and walked in the flesh. And thus he will speak: When I dwelt with you before I died, I told you all the things which are now fulfilled. But if, as Luther also does not deny, he uses the word "to be with" or "to dwell with" to refer to the bodily dwelling that took place before death, it is evident that he was no longer with them after the ascension. To this, in all languages, it is customary to name that which is so near, as if it were there. So Christ speaks, he says: no longer in the world at the time of the ascension. But putting all this behind, he says in the future: You will not have me all the way; nihil enim refert, quod Graeci å÷åôå habent. From which future time will well be seen that also other words, which are
1) Marginal gloss: Is [in the Luther, in the sheet] § at the 3rd plate. [No. 21, § 109 inaccurately stated].
2) Oü/c ert ei//! ev i-H
3) In the old edition: xxx xxx, which we have not been able to figure out, because N2is no longer a verbal form, but a noun.
4) Nullus sum, looutio 68t.
The words should be based on the opinion, should reach to the time of ascension. So much for Luther's one way, since he wants to introduce the omnipotence of God, that he is impotent and acts against his own word. Now we want to look at him from the opposite point of view.
From the counterchange or alloeosi.
197 I want to explain myself, pious princes, first around the name, what I mean by the word "counterchange". Luther asked me why I, speaking of the two natures, did not use the old tropum synecdocham? About this
I will answer him, and with that the NaMe of the Allöoses becomes terminable. I do not worry about the words half, as far as one rightly understands what is meant by the words. Synecdocha is called collective or comprehensio by Cicero, and is a figure or tropus, since one word comprehends many things, and the speaker needs a part of the same thing for the whole or the whole for a part. As, the word, "city" comprehends all houses, buildings, towers, people and possessions. Accordingly one says: "the city of Strasbourg, Costenz, Ulm, Augsburg, Nuremberg etc. are at Esslingen on the day"; and are no more, however, than the messengers of the cities, there. Again, Matt. 3: "There went out to John Jerusalem and all the Jewish country." How could Jerusalem, the city, go? But the people who were in it went out; and yet not all, but a part. For this tropus can be bent so meng 5) way, that even one out of the whole assembly is named with the name of the assembly, as is first heard from the messengers. If I speak: The whole Rhine speaks Greek, there is the synecdocha in the word Rhine; because I want to say: all residents of the Rhine. And so I say: all the residents, is but [times) a trvxn8; because not all who live on the Rhine. Greek can, but some; also not at all ends, but at some.
198. alloeosis but is such a trvpu8, as the due property is confused, but in things inherited or closely joined together; as, since in the Grammatica numerus per numero, persona per persona is ge
etc. Example that is known to us: When I say: Man is nothing but dung; then I speak of the whole man, half of the word. But I do not understand more than a part of man, namely the corpse, because the soul.
5) i.e. various.
is a noble spiritual substance, and is ever not filth. Again, if I say that man is a noble thing that can be understood, I speak of man everywhere, but I understand only the soul, for it alone has understanding.
If the synecdocha can be extended to such an extent that it is also suitable for things that have no characteristic, no unity, nor similarity with one another, except the most distant, the occasion: then it has not seemed to me to be skillful as alloeosis, counterchange, because it is only suitable for things that are completely similar to one another. And as in the Lord Jesus Christ the divine nature and the human nature are thus united, that also Athanasius speaks in the Symbolo: "As the rational soul and the flesh, or the body, are One man; so God and man are One Christ: so alloeosis is more common 1) than synecdocha; because
synecdocha, is much too mean.
But if Luther recognizes synecdocham 2) to be used by the ancients, why is he angry with us that we need a more proper name? Why does he rebuke us as if worse heresy had never been? and yet he himself recognizes [that] the ancients used synecdocham. Shall we therefore rage for the sake of the name alone, which all scholars recognize to be neater and more proper than synecdocham?
In the Latin Exegesis 3) I have spoken of the counterchange thus: "Alloeosis, i.[e.] counterchange, is the leap or passage or, if you like, the change, since we, speaking of the one nature in Christ, need the other name. As when Christ says, 'My flesh is the true food,' there is ever the flesh of the human nature in him, nor is it taken in that place by the change for the divine. For after that 4) he is the Son of God, he is the food of the soul, for he saith: 'The Spirit is he that quickeneth.' Again, when he says, as the legitimate right son is slain by the feudatories, he takes the right son, though it is the name of the Godhead, for the human nature; for after that he may die, and after the divine not at all. If indeed one nature is said to be that of the other, that is alloeosis, i.[e.] counterchange or common of properties and change."
This is not only to be understood from Luthern.
1) d. i. more appropriate.
2) Marginal gloss: Is in [Luther's Confession, in the arc] h on the 3rd panel. (No. 21, § 127.]
3) that is, in the amica exegesis etc.. Compare the introduction.
4) "that" of us immune instead of: and.
But these poor people do not see, first, that I teach nothing at all different from what their theology itself has always recognized, even though they have not spoken of it most skillfully; for communicatio idio-matum, i.e. commonality of attributes, is called alloeosis, counterchange. Secondly, they do not see that Luther speaks and does violence and injustice to me, even against himself; for he accuses me of this "place: "My flesh is the true food," that I have said that the flesh is taken in that place for the divine nature; and in so doing does not leave me without infidelity the cause that I put to it. Now that I have done this, and have also signified the cause with scripture, how then shall I make a purified man of Christ, if I also say that the flesh shall be taken for the divine nature?
But I will further interpret to you, pious princes, what I have written about it in Exegesi 5): "This alloeosis, i.[e.] counterchange, is so necessary that one sees that whoever despises it or does not know it, not only devastates the gospel of John, but curses the others, with unheard errors. And this is the cause why all teachers have so inclined to use this common of attributes or antitypes. That he who is the Son of God from eternity (beloved, notice here, pious princes, whether I deny humanity or divinity!) has also become the Son of man with the assumption of human nature. Not that he who was the Son of God left the essence and state of the Godhead or changed it into human weakness or diminishment, nor that he changed human nature into divine nature; but that God and man were one Christ, who therefore, being the Son of God, was the life of all men, for all things were also created by Him, and therefore, being man, was a sacrifice, that eternal righteousness, which is also His righteousness, might be atoned for." Behold, pious princes, this is the cause which has compelled all orthodoxos, that is, right-minded teachers, to recognize the antitype, and not from human reason, as Luther mockingly interprets to me; but that God's own Word urges us to it. For Christ calls himself "the Son of God"; he also calls himself "the Son of Man".
204. further I have spoken there thus: "But God has the two natures thus consisted into One.
5) Marginal gloss: In sxsMsi nostra, tsdula 112. <k 113.
Person joined together and agreed, that nevertheless each retains its quality or kind all the way; the some except that the inclination to sin has been farthest from his humanity, because he was not born of the prestigious 1) seed, but of the Holy Spirit, who made his mother, a maid, fertile. But the innocent burdens [onera], sufferings, punishments or afflictions he has borne on him until death, as there are hunger, thirst, heat, frost, sleeping, waking and the like sufferings" [passibilitates].
This opinion we have there, pious princes, fortified with unbreakable testimonies, and much of them. For He who is One Christ of divine and human nature, One Person of the Godhead, has made the blind see, awakened the dead, known the inward parts of the heart, foreknown all things that are to come, even those things which are called things without danger, made the consciences free, cleared the prison of the captives, and risen up mightily from the dead. These are all open effects by which we recognize him, the true God, and that he has not lost the divine power, because he has taken the human stupidity to himself. He also bore hunger, thirst etc., and all bodily defects, except the sinful one, in Him. He grew and increased in age and knowledge; he did not know the day of the Lord; he timidly went to death; he desired to have the cup taken from him; he cried out in pain, "O my God, how hast thou forsaken me?" he died. But all this according to human nature alone. From which it is now evident that the effects, attributes, or types of both natures remained in Him, and yet He is One Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, One Person of the Son of God, an unsaved Savior.
Accordingly, I have further spoken in the aforementioned book: "What unification (understanding of the two natures in One Christ) image and language the holy men of God have sought much, so that they taught it clearly. Some have brought forth the likeness of man, which consists of soul and body (which strikes me as the most equal), teaching that God and man are one Christ. Some have brought forth a sword or iron glowing with fire. For if one cuts wood or other matter with it, a wound is made and a fire with it. And have with the likeness of any nature power, life, nature, kind and effect want to indicate." Here you see,
1) prestigious - frail, deficient.
Pious princes, that I was never of the opinion that I wanted to make two persons out of Christ, as little as man is two persons, although he has two natures of body and soul, as little as I make two things out of the fired sword. If then man is one person, who alone is a creature, how much more is Christ, who is the Creator and creature, only one person!
After that, in the proof and explanation, I have also treated the words "the Word became man" thus: "The Word became man, and God became man, is also spoken in terms of the opposite, so that He who took man to Himself is eternal God, also an eternal man after He took him to Himself. For God did not thus become man, that he who was God should be changed into man; but that he who was not man before should take man to himself. And therefore we say: God became man, who also made man, whom He took unto Himself; and thus speak [there] for: the human nature is assumed by the Son of God, As Athanasius also recognizes: 'Not that the Godhead is turned into the flesh, but that humanity is assumed in God?' Still in this way no one is hurt, if one speaks of the community because of the characteristics: God became man, for: man became God, or, adopted to the person of the Son of God. Behold an inviolable unity, but see also how one should not mix the attributes in the mind, even if one transforms the words or names."
Here you have, pious princes, the summa of our doctrine, although it is dealt with there according to length with many proclamations. But Luther sees how strong the truth is, and does not turn back a message that it is not so; but has enough that he speaks freely that greater seduction has never been heard. And all the ancients whom I have seen have spoken of it in this way; though it does not compel us, yet it glimmers. And I would like to hear from Luther which of the ancients he can point out to me who does not speak in this way. But that Christ speaks thus with his own word, that we must keep the difference in his words, is touched upon before and abundantly set forth in Exegesis; yet let us act an example or two, and accordingly interrogate Luther's own words; for he is of the opinion in this book and elsewhere, as will be clearly found.
209. Christ speaks John 14: "The Father is greater than I." Now he must speak true; so
He also says: "I and the Father are one thing", John 10, and: "Father, everything that is yours is also mine; and everything that is mine is also yours", John 17. How can one be greater than the other, if they are one thing, if they have equal power? If true faith answers, as Athanasius did, "He is equal with the Father according to the Godhead, and less than the Father according to humanity." Matth. 20. he says: "Sitting on my right or left is not my power to give you." And Luke 22 says: "I prepare the kingdom for you, as my Father has prepared it for me; that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom." The two sayings are also publicly opposed to each other, and must be decided solely on the basis that what he himself admits extends to mankind alone; and what he himself admits must be understood as referring to the Godhead alone. And is nothing the less such an inseparable unity of the two natures, that, if either is spoken of, that of the other, yet alone iu vouersto or personal, uou iu abstraeto, is essential (non, non enim licet dicere: deitas est humanitas, aut, deitas est crucifixa; sic neque humanitas est aeternus DEI filius, etc.). ). In this way, no one is hurt, nor do they speak untruthfully, but always so that they speak personally.
When one says, "God is man," it is a personal speech. Here it is certain that the Godhead is not mankind. But it is equally certain that he who is God is also man. And again, "man is God," pointing to Christ, it is certain that mankind is not the Godhead; or else we must say that the Godhead would be turned into mankind. Nor is it true that Christ, who is man, is God also. But the naturally separate some being may not be said of another. One may not speak Christianly: The Godhead is mankind; for here the being is named separately from the person. The separate being may also not stand with the personal one. One may not say: The Godhead is man; also not: Mankind is God.
So we have speeches about man. "Man is a celestial animal" is said of the soul, but it applies to the whole man. "Man is a sow" is said of the whole man, but it is appropriate for him only half of the body. Nor is it proper to speak: The soul is the body; nor: The body is the soul; for here soul and body are taken essentially, pro animei- tate et corporeitate, ut Sophistae olim verba fingebant, quae in- lingua latina et germanica non competunt. But this befits well: He is
an unfaithful soul; he is an evil corpse; for there soul and corpse are taken personally for the whole man, and not for the essence. Luther also omits the piece from the Sophists' Theologia and defiles the mouths of the simple-minded and speaks:
Luther. 1) "When one says: God is man, or: man is God; here can be no alloeosis, yes, also no synecdoche, or some tropus; for there God must be taken for God, man for man."
Here I ask Luther, if there is to be no allososis, whether he understands the Godhead in the word "God"? If he says: Yes; then it follows that the Godhead is humanity; this is unchristian. For the Deity is an eternal, uninherited, unsuffering good; so mankind is a created, light [labilis], suffering thing. Says he: No; then the tropus is already there; namely, the pious alloeosis, which teaches us that GOtt must be understood personally in concreto, not in abstracto. That is: God must be taken here not only for the separate (does not mean the divine essence from the persons, but this separation is described in the human mind, solely so that essence and person are recognized before each other) essence, but also for the person, and is undeniably called the person of the Son. Of him it is rightly said: God is man. Does Luther not see here that it is an alloeosis? since "God" is taken not only for God, that is, deity, but also for the one person of the deity. And there the alloeosis is also indicated to him, since the essence is taken for the person, and the person for the essence, and yet it is not understood differently in personal speech, neither that the person is predominant, that is, that he who is God is man; and not that the Godhead, which is also the person of whom we say,
human being.
I will make it quite clear to you, pious princes, if the matter requires it. Twenty years ago, there was an excellent Scotist, Antonius Beck, at Freiburg in Breisgau. He finally claimed that he wanted to maintain that there were three Gods; and that for the following reason: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are essentially One God; they are also personally three, so there are also personally three Gods; for it is said of each one that he is God: The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. And if one speaks in this way, one does not understand personally alone (he would have
1) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's Confession] in the h at the 5th tablet. [M. 21, § 133.j
but also essential, that every person is essential to God. The erroneous sophist came to this, that he did not recognize the word "God", [that it can be taken] per alloeosim, by the counterchange, sthan, separately, for the Godhead, but sthan for the person together with the essence.
Example. When one speaks: There is only One God; here the word "God" has the personal form, as if one wanted to say that there is only One Being and Person; but one does not want that, or else we deny the most holy three Persons, but the concretum, i. The personal word "God" is taken separately and essentially alone, and not personally; and the speech is as much as if I were to say, "There is only one Godhead"; and the personal word is taken per alloeosim, by the counterchange, for the separate, essential one.
Here Antonius Braß is defeated; 1) for since he wants to say that it is appropriate for him to speak that there are three Gods; for there are three persons who are essentially God: so there are also three Gods, he does not see that the little word "God" may not exist; for even if it has a personal form, it is not understood personally at all; but everyone who hears it understands it as if there were three persons and three deities; and to all of this alloeosis comes to the rescue.
Now you understand, pious princes, how Luther is missing, when he says: "God is man" etc., there is no alloeosis; for if one should take God separately, essentially for the Godhead alone, then it is unchristianly spoken: "The Godhead is mankind. But if one understands "God" by the counterchange, the one who is essentially and personally God: for so it is: "God is man," that is: the person, the Son of God, who is essential God, who is man, you see, how we must depend on the person, and not on the essence; and is nevertheless as true essential God, who is man, as true Son of God personally he is, who is man. It is not yet proper to say: "God is mankind", but: "God is man".
Now we want to interrogate Luther about the two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ, and see if he confesses "that each nature has its own effect and nature, and that nevertheless one is often taken for the other", for the two pieces are the most common cause of imprisonment. Please, pious princes, take good care of Luther's innumerable words, which he needs in this matter in the present book;
1) In the previous paragraph: Beck.
for he often fights against himself in four or five lines; it is even true that "anger is a nonsense that lasts for a while"; 2) for Luther certainly does not know what he is saying in places because of anger. And even though he insists that he should be punished for a lie, the whole book is nothing but a deceptive lie; 3) for since he speaks right in one place, he turns it wrong from the beginning, so that I wonder if there is only human understanding in those who allow themselves to be led by the Scriptures. And even if we put his own words before him, he will still find good evidence from his part that he has not lied; for he is angry and speaks in anger, and if anger is temporaria insania, a temporary nonsense, then he has spoken out of nonsense, not out of a lying mind. Now let us hear Luther himself.
In his postilion on the epistle on the [third] day of Christ in the high mass, Luther speaks about the words "through his Son" thus: 4) "Here we are to learn to recognize Christ properly, how he is in both natures, divine and human, in which many err and partly make fables out of his words, which they give to the divine nature, which nevertheless belong to the human nature, blinding themselves in the Scriptures. For in Christ's words is the greatest authority, which are due to the divine nature, which are due to the human nature, so they are all easy and clear."
Here you see, pious princes, that Luther himself recognizes that it is a mistake to attribute to the divine nature what is human. Now, hear him further!
Luther 5) on the first panel: 6) "But you, dear brother, should keep this instead of the alloeosi: because Jesus Christ is truly God and man in One Person, then in no place of the Scriptures is one nature taken for the other; for that is what he ([Luther] means me) alloeosim, when something is said of the deity of Christ, which nevertheless belongs to mankind, or again; as, Lucae ultimo: Did not Christ have to suffer, and thus go into His glory?' Here he gules that Christ is taken for human nature. Beware, beware!"
These are Luther's words. Luther was not supposed to prove his point by yelling at people:
2) Marginal gloss: Ira temporarin insanm.
3) Marginal gloss: [Ichl does not talk this down, but wants to keep it as it is right.
4) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 154, § 8.
5) Marginal gloss: Is called "the confession" in Luther's book, against which we write here.
6) No. 21, § 122.
II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx. i64s-i65i. 1319
"Beware, beware!" but he should prove: that these words, "Christ therefore had to die," must be understood by both natures, that is, that the divine also had to suffer; or he must confess, [that,] that Christ suffers, is sufficient for mankind alone. Therefore I do not want to say anywhere that Christ is not God and man. Nor do I want to say that He is more than One Person, and I want to have testified to this once enough and completely. It does not appear in a single word that I have gone thereon, or have held thereon; although Luther charges me with it. 1) But why does he do it? Therefore: With the property of the alternation of both natures one obviously learns that human nature in Christ always retains its property; before death the property of the deadly body, and after the original state the property of the declared body; and whichever way one measures the matter, it is not found, except that the body of Christ, whether it was deadly or is now declared, may not be 2) fit to be more than in one place. Then, however, it may not be in the supper, or else, it would have to be in our church in Zurich alone often in a thousand mouths once, but that may not be. Therefore, Luther says, if human nature were not commonly reported in this way, the simple would not reckon human nature differently from divine nature. Now the divine is omnipresent; therefore the simple should think that the human is also omnipresent, and thus it would be thought that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Last Supper. And if the pious alloeosis clearly brings this to light, then he speaks to her effectively 4) as to an old witch. But if she is interrogated against Luther, he will not bring anything against her, but will stand at her footsteps. Now if Luther says: "that those are mistaken who admit that the divine nature is that of the human nature," and here he cannot say that the divine nature suffers, but only the one nature, the human nature; then Luther is mistaken when he thinks that one should beware of the decision.
Luther speaks further in the postillum shown above on the third day of Christ: 5) "Now that we come again to Christ, it is to be firmly believed that Christ is true God and true God.
1) Marginal gloss: Why Luther scolded the alloeoses, which he himself teaches and needs?
2) nienen - nowhere, "nienen" put by us instead of "those" - anything that does not fit into the context.
3) d. i. light.
4) d. j. worse.
5) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 155, § 11.
Man. And sometimes the scripture, and he himself, speaks as a pure 6) man; sometimes as a pure 6) God; as when he says Joh. 8: 'Before Abraham was, I am', this is said of the Godhead. But when he says Matth. 20. to Jacob and John: 'It is not mine to give you to sit on the right hand or on the left hand'; that is spoken of the pure 6) humanity." So much Luther.
But now we want to set against it his own words from the Confession. Luther at the sixth tablet: 7) "Thou shalt not believe nor suppose that the tropus alloeosis is in such sayings, or that one nature is taken for another in Christ." So much Luther.
(223) Now I ask Luther whether this saying, "Before Abraham was, I am," is spoken of mankind in the same way as it is spoken of the Godhead? He says: No; so the alloeosis, i.[e.] counterchange, is saved. And if the divine nature alone is understood, and if Christ himself speaks, then the speech, which must actually be understood of the One nature alone, is taken for the whole of Christ, and therefore one nature for the other. And if the God is man, then the divine must be taken without the human. Luther would say that [they] are not one person. Not that we want to say that the humanity was also before Abraham, which is the same as the divinity One Christ; but that we see how it is appropriate to speak differently of both natures. The humanity of Christ was nowhere when Abraham was; nor does Christ the man speak that he, who is also God, was before him; which was of the Godhead alone. And yet the whole Christ speaks, that is, the whole person, God and man.
But if Luther says: Yes, that humanity is understood in the same way, then it follows that he was not born of Mary of virgins, because the same had never been born. It follows further: if he had been man, that he would have had two human natures in him: one, which was born before Abraham, and the other, which was born of Mary, and the like innumerable errors and blasphemies. I did not say so much here, because Luther wants to say as if Christ's body had also been in heaven, since he was assumed in the unity of the person of the Son of God, and only began to grow in the body of Mary according to the nature of humanity; for he speaks thus after many lamentations:
6) "Pur," "Purer," and "puren" is put in by Zwingli.
7) No. 21, § 115.
Luther at [Arc] I at the 2nd tablet, 1) from the words: "The Son of Man, who is in heaven": "A devout Christian tell me, whether it is not higher and greater that mankind is in God, yes, with God One Person, than that it is in heaven? Is not God higher and more glorious than Heaven? Now Christ humanity has been higher and lower in God and before God from the womb than any angel, so of course it has also been higher in heaven than any angel. For what is in and before God is in heaven, just as the angels are when they are on earth, as is said in Matth. 18" These are all Luther's words.
Here are, pious princes, so many errors, so many words. But briefly! so Luther falls with the argument, 3) since he thus wants to conclude: To be one person with God is greater, neither to be in heaven; now his humanity was one person with the Son of God: so it was also in heaven. This is called beautiful a a substantia ad accidens, to conclude from substance to importance by the deception of likeness. As I said: It is greater that Christ is a Lord of lords and has the kingdom of consciences, neither that he has the fleshly kingdom of David. So he is also an earthly king in the kingdom of David. Yes, of course it is a wonderful thing that he, who is one person with the Son of the eternal God without suffering, started here in time and has been suffering until the declaration after his death. For if he had been bodily in heaven, he would never have hungered or thirsted in heaven, nor would he have been scourged or crucified in heaven, as little as the Godhead was crucified. For mankind suffered so unitedly that it cried out, "O my God, how hast thou forsaken me?" as Luther himself confesses here, "that it might not have helped itself on the cross. But against the blasphemy of all is the saying of John 7: "Jesus was not yet declared.
The other argument: "The humanity of Christ is higher than any angel: so it is also higher in heaven than any angel. But Luther put 4) an importance, the ubi, into it. And that now it is true that he is bodily exalted above all angels, but that was not true then; for he was here on earth, and not in heaven. Therefore it follows as little that Christ was bodily present in heaven, as in a place, as little.
1) No. 21, § 182.
2) "im" put by us instead of: "am".
3) 4,06ns a rnajors tallit, onrn in Zoners praostantias poooatnr. Hon seHnitnr: Rsx potsst nnivorknrn reZnnrn vonäsro, orZo potest privatnrn ynsrnHne innooontsin vonäsrs, ant stiain trnoiäaro.
4) Maybe: smuggles.
this conclusion follows: Christ's humanity was higher, nobler and more precious than any angel. God never had an angel crucified, so Christ was not crucified either. So we let up that mankind was not more noble than the angels, which is not the case by nature, Ps. 8: "You have made him less than the angels", but according to dignity and sanctification he is the firstborn, that is, the most noble of all creatures, Col. 1. Thus all the escapes that Luther seeks are enough to blaspheme God's Son and man.
228. the third. "What is in and before God, that is in heaven." I ask Luthern whether Mary, according to the as 5) she had said to herself: ecce, ancilla domini, nun Wohlhin, ich will eine Dienerin des HErrn sein! had been in and before GOtt? Now he must ever affirm that she is in God; "for in Him we are, in Him we live and strive." He must also affirm that she was before God; for all things lie bare and manifest before Him, Heb. 4. But was she therefore in heaven? I think not; or else she would not have suffered the hearty death stings on earth. Thus it is false that what is in and before God is in heaven. Dear, which theologian has ever spoken in this way?
But here Luther will mercifully cry out 6): Help God, the great people (whether he called us people, because he almost calls us devils, he has such a friendly spirit), and thus say: Now I have given a good explanation, how Christ is mankind in heaven; since I said so afterwards:
Luther: 7) "Yes, how? if I were to say that not only Christ was in heaven when he walked on earth, but also the apostles, and we all, if we are mortal on earth, as far as we believe in Christ" etc. Here you can see how I mean it. 8)
230 Answer. Luther says that Christ was bodily in heaven at that time, just as we are still in heaven today. We then want to become one with him, not only about this saying, but also about the whole main point; thus: We are now in heaven with body, soul and mind (for I do not mean that Luther wants to understand "in heaven" cosmographically, as all bodies are in heaven), in God's knowledge, cognition, election, prudence. 2c,
5) "as" put by us instead of: "and".
6) i.e. to have mercy.
7) Marginal gloss: Is in sBogen] 1 on the third panel. sNo. 21, § 183.Z
8) The last sentence is added by Zwingli. Luther, on the other hand, continues: "First of all, there should be a rumbling in Zwingli's bag" etc.
but the bodies 1) are not themselves naturally essential in it. So also Christ was there in heaven, when he lived here, and in addition so much more, that he is one person with the Son of God; still he was not himself naturally essential with the body in heaven.
But what does this see against us? Yes, but it is the ointment to defile the mouths of the simple. Well then, if Luther means it, we will soon be one. We gladly recognize that Christ's body is in the supper, as our bodies are now in heaven, that is, in the knowledge, choice and prudence of God. For whoever does not recognize Christ in the Last Supper, does not trust in Him, does not carry Him in his heart with all certainty, that He has accepted true human prestige, and with it has accepted our prestige, has made us certain children and fellow heirs of God, and therefore does not give Him thanks, emits a judgment to Himself. So we have him in the supper; 3) but naturally, essentially, and bodily, that is as little possible as having the moon in the bowl when it shines in. And it is to be taken care of, who thus say, undoubtedly believe themselves to have him in the supper, neither milk nor moon, as [the] proverb reads, in the bowl.
232 But that Luther wants to be understood as "being in heaven" is indicated by the messages he sends in after much reproach, in which "being in heaven" is taken in Hebrew for "heavenly" or "divinely minded," as one is in heaven, and as we pray: "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. As also Isa. 27. xxxxxx, in war, is taken for warlike or fyenklich. 4) Equally as one also speaks: we were yesterday in paradise, for: We were in friendly yet great joy with lovely company, song, instrument etc. Paul speaks of such an opinion in Eph. 1: "God has gifted us 5) (Luther, however, makes "bless" out of it) with all kinds of spiritual gifts in the heavenly places in Christ." Here "in the heavens" is taken for "with heavenly gifts," and that with Christ, as the following words indicate. Thus Luther also misconstrues the other sayings. So Luther does not want to have Christ in heaven any other way, neither we are up there, except for
1) Marginal gloss: bodies for: the people who are still in the
2) i.e. weakness, frailty.
3) Marginal gloss: How Christ is body and blood in the night meal.
4) hostile (?).
5) Marginal gloss:
the personal union, in the word: "The Son of Man who is in heaven"; so it must not be necessary; we are one. But then he must recognize that in the word "the Son of man who is in heaven" the word "is" is not taken essentially; namely, not for "being essential," but only in recognition of etc. being. And then the word in the supper, "This is my body," may also mean that in thanksgiving the body of Christ is in the mind 6) and that the signs signify this. But if he does not want to let this go, he must confess that the alloeosis is here, and that "the Son of Man" is taken for "the Son of God. And so this, it follows that the humanity in Christ is not alloeosis, since the Godhead is. Summa, taking the "is" as he will, he lies in the word, "The Son of man, which is in heaven."
Lastly, he says: 7) "Just as the angels are in heaven and on earth, as he proved in Matthew 18," meaning the saying: "Their angels always see the face of my Father who is in the heavens. Here I ask him if he wants to say that the angels were once 8) essential on earth and in heaven? He says yes; therefore write. He says: Matth. 18. There Christ does not say that they are at one time 8) in heaven and on earth, but he speaks thus from word to word: "For I say to you that their angels see in the heavens all the way" etc. Hie is "in the heavens," Ýí ïàñáíïÀò, sine articulo, non enim dicitur o[ Ýí ïýñáíïÀò, from which something would like to be zeiset. Now it is not new to see from one place to another, but not to be there; for Luther needs it also in this matter, that I am surprised that he did not think of it here. The glorious word of Stephen is a witness: "I see the heavens open, and Jesus sitting at the right hand of the power of God. Now Stephen was not in heaven; but the eyes of the soul look up; yes, according to Luther, just so that we do not quarrel, the bodily eyes also saw the appearance that God opened to him etc. Much less must the angels be in both places, and still see the Father above, and work their Empfelch [command] here.
Now we come again to Luther's word from the Postil, since he said for the other: "To sit on the right or on the left is not mine,
6) Marginal gloss: How the body of Christ is in the night meal.
7) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's Confession, in the Arc.
1 on [the] first panel. [No. 21, § 180.)
8) d. i. at the same time.
to give you* etc., be spoken of pure humanity." Then I must ask him: If I thus spoke: This is spoken of mere humanity; whether he does not reasonably suspect me of separating the one person? Yes, of course he does, although it has never occurred to me, and yet I have never used the "pure" that I know of. But Luther is right: It is spoken of the pure humanity. And if, nevertheless, Christ is uncertified, and if, nevertheless, Christ has spoken, then the whole Christ alone is taken for the one nature; or else, if he is uncertifiable, one nature for the other; then the innocent alloeo- sis is saved. And stand fast, that every nature in one person keeps its quality eternally.
Luther continues in the same postilion: Luther: 1) "Just as the same could not help her on the cross. However, some here want to prove great art with their sinister interpretation that they meet the heretics.
Luther speaks against this: 2) "Thus says the Holy Spirit, John 3: God so loves the world that he gives his own Son to it. Rom. 8: "He did not spare His own Son, but gave Him for us all. And so from then on, all works, words, sufferings, and what Christ does, does, works, speaks, suffers, the true Son of God" etc.
237 See here, pious princes, whether Luther does not deal with anything but dyeing and dazzling. In the previous speech from the postilion, he publicly recognizes that mankind could not have helped itself on the cross, and speaks here that everything that Christ suffers, the Son of God suffers, and does not want to let up on the alloeosim, the counterchange; so it followed that the person of the Son of God had died, that it could not have helped itself.
238 But I hope you, pious princes, see that he, blinded by anger, refutes what he himself holds. For in the previous speech it is said that mankind did not like to help itself on the cross. But when he speaks in this book: The true Son of God suffers etc., he ever wants to blind as if he also suffered according to divine nature. And he does this with the word "truly". It is true that he who has suffered is the true Son of God; but he has not suffered, indeed, he does not like to suffer, because of his divine nature. He still goes about it in such a way that the simple are confused and can distinguish between the two.
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 155, 8II.
2) Marginal gloss: Is sim Bekenntniß, Bogens ü an [ders I. Tafel. sNo. 21, § 123.)
The people of the world do not quite decide, and like to leave them in the misconception that God's Son also suffered according to the divinity itself; only that next to him, they assume that mankind is also, as it were, the divinity everywhere. Should not one explain, when he says: The true Son of God suffers, that he truly did not turn to suffering, but to the Son, so that he, who is the true Son of God, has suffered; but not according to the nature which is named here, but according to the other, which is with this One Christ? Thus, when it is said, Man is dead, all men understand that the body alone is dead, for the soul may not die; nor is it said of the whole man, and yet the superior part may not die. That is ever sought with violence darkness, and the darkening, which is before cheerful rejuvenation.
But since someone would say here: Luther explains himself 4) soon afterwards thus:
Luther: "Because you have to say that. The person 5) (shows Christ) suffers, dies. Now the person is truly God; therefore it is rightly said: God's Son suffers. For although one part (that I speak thus), as the Godhead, does not suffer; nevertheless 6) the person, who is God, suffers in the other part, as in mankind. Just as one says, "The king's son is sore; yet all his leg is sore" etc.
240 As much as Luther. Here, behold, pious princes, I well recognize that Luther speaks rightly and Christianly; insofar as by the word "person" he understands "Christ", not that which is most prominent in the person, "the Son of God" etc. For otherwise one is not wont to say: The person suffers; and I would not wish the words themselves otherwise. For they are entirely of our opinion, namely, that when one speaks thus: God's Son suffers, dies; that there God's Son is taken for mankind in Christ. As when one says: Man is wounded, and yet only the body is wounded; so "man" stands for "body" here. What can be said more clearly in this matter? If we are now completely one in this place, why are we not one everywhere? Because Luther does not stay with it, and now speaks one thing, and soon another. And there are many more simple-minded people who are thus confused by his words, 7) so that they now do not have any up-
3) d. i. clearly asserted.
4) Marginal gloss: Is sim Bogen ü on the 2nd panel. sNo. 21, § 124 f.)
5) Viä6, Hurn varist In
6) nevertheless" put by us instead of: "accordingly".
7) Perhaps: to adhere, to look at bullishly, to stare, to be blinded; like the English: to slLrs. The expression is repeated in § 472 of this writing.
1326II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx. isss-issi. 1327
whether he is equal to himself and exists, but rather they 1) just want to come forth and maintain with Luthern: The humanity of Christ is everywhere; it was bodily in heaven before the ascension; it is bodily essential in the supper; the Godhead is also sufferable; and the like. And if one looks at Luthern thoroughly, his own words are able to do otherwise. But he speaks no less clumsy words, so that those who believe him fall into error. Isn't that a workaholism? If he is long and insistent, then the truth forces him to be time-barred against himself. Look at the words:
241. Luther [in the bow] h in the first panel: 2) "For if I believe this, that human nature alone has suffered for me; then Christ is a poor Savior to me; so He probably needs a Savior Himself" etc.
242 Behold here, pious princes, the words against the forerunner, which please us so well! There he says publicly that although the Godhead does not suffer, humanity does suffer etc. Here he speaks with such a form of words that it cannot be defended; for he speaks exclusively that where he believed that human nature alone suffered for him, he must not be his savior. What can be said more blasphemously? If God may also suffer, then he has also died; for suffering is here taken for dying. Is he no longer the only undying God? 1 Tim. 6.
243 By these words one sees that Luther wants to darken by force, and to swim away in the fog, that is, to speak such words, which are understood differently before the simple, neither he wanted to have spoken them, if one asked him for it. Is this honest? Are we speaking two different things from one mouth? If we build up again that which we have broken, we open ourselves up to be derogators or transgressors 3). Gal. 2.
244 So now Luther says white, soon black, he undoubtedly wants to think that it is to act with God's word as ringferig (frivolously) as one plays in the Brennter 4). And that is a wonder that in the unfortunate speech (for I am sorry from the bottom of my heart that he gets into such error) he has not been so careful that he would have thought so: Well then, if your adversary were to say, "If my God were to be a suffering God in some way," then he would have to say
1) d. i. hatch.
2) No. 21, § 122.
3) Marginal gloss:
4) with fire (?).
he will not be my God. And I say for myself: If Christ Jesus would be suffering according to the Godhead, he would not be God, he would not have to be my God either. Abel 5) Let it be far from us that we come to the point with quarrels 6) that we, to the screen of error, also blaspheme God! Augustinum's quarrel also involved that he spoke something about co-suffering of the Godhead, contra Felicianum. He explains himself in such a way that he only understands the soul of Christ, which would have suffered sorrow in the dying of the body according to the word: "My soul is sorrowful until death". But where will Luther turn here, if the popes will accuse him of having spoken: The divinity of Christ has also suffered death; and if this is spread to him with writings, will this not be recognized in eternity for the most blasphemous, foolish error? For even the philosophi have recognized ôä θεϊο* Ü>ßÜíáôïí, numen esse immortale, which is God, that must be ohntödemlich. Now when it is said, Christ suffered for us, by "suffer" is understood to suffer death; for with his death we are made alive.
If Luther says of the suffering of the Godhead, as if without it Christ should not be his Savior, he must understand that it also died; for if he would have understood that it suffered in hunger, thirst, scourging, crowning, and not in death, it would not have suffered, since the most powerful sum of the suffering was: "with his death we are made alive," not with hunger etc. The same things he hath well borne for common remedy and consolation of our temptations, but the payment is death, as is invented in the 2nd [Epistle to the] Corinthians Cap. 5. and throughout the Epistle to Hebrews. I should not scold in such a cruel matter; but I may well say to Verschupfung 7) des IrrsalL: If Luther insists that the Godhead has suffered, and therefore must have died, then the pope is still right that he wants to be his governor. For Paul also says in Hebrews 7 that the chief priests of the Old Testament were many because death did not leave them. If now the eternal Son of God has died to us according to the Godhead, then the pope is justly his governor. And in the darkness, Luther has lost himself badly on a stick. We still want to question him further, so that he may not complain.
5) Marginal gloss: L-c ^d. h. gehWm hangman).
6) i.e. any, "ienen" put by us instead of "jenen"'.
7) "Verschupfen" - to avoid, to spurn. Verschupfung - avoidance.
Luther in the previous postilion: 1) "So is the man Christ, when he says, 'The Father is greater than I.' John 14: The Father is greater than I," John 14, Matthew 23: "How often have I gathered thy children together like a mother hen under her wings? Item, Marci 13: No one knows about that day, neither the angels nor the Son, but only the Father. Is it not necessary here to use the phrase: The Son does not know', that is, he does not want to say it. What does the gloss do?"
247. so much Luther. Behold, pious princes, whether Luther neißwas 2) say otherwise, neither we have ever talked or taught with the pious alloeosi? Nor do we want to hear him further.
Luther in the aforementioned postilion: 3) "The humanity of Christ, just like another holy natural man, has not always thought, spoken, willed, noticed all things, as some make an omnipotent man out of him. The two natures and their work in each other are not evident. As he has not seen, heard, felt all things at all times, so he has not looked at all things with his heart at all times, but as God has led him and brought them before him."
249 So much Luther. Look here, pious princes, at each piece in particular, so that the speech we want to set afterwards will be all the clearer to us.
I. The humanity of Christ has not always thought all things etc., like another holy man.
II. That some do wrong without a doubt, who make an all-powerful man out of him.
III. That they also do wrong who mix the two natures and their works together.
IV. That he did not look at all things with his heart at all times:
V. But as God has guided and directed him.
In this, however, we are one, even though there are some words that we have not presented in such an uncouth way; Luther is still right in his opinion. For all the differences that we have with one another, of two natures and effects, are known here again by Luther. If the humanity of Christ has not at all times thought, perceived, spoken, and willed all things as another human being, then it is distinguished from the divinity according to human nature and effect. Just as man consists of soul and body, so each is of one essence, nature and effect, but with a difference,
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 155, § II.
2) i.e. something.
3) Walch, l. c., § 12.
that, although the body has its own nature and essence, it does not have the continuance of its essence without the soul; for as soon as the soul is from it, it has fallen away; and as soon as the soul is added to it, it is again raised into existentiam, into a state 4) as will happen in the last judgment. Now the two natures, body and soul, are nevertheless one man and one person, although the person is composed of two beings and natures, but not of two beings, each of which has its own special permanent existence, but only the one, the soul. So in Christ the essential natural Godhead is also the essential natural humanity One Person; and the one nature, namely the human, is not of its own continuance and abstinence in the person; but as the common man's body has its continuance and abstinence in the soul, so the whole humanity of Christ, body and soul, has continuance and abstinence in his other nature of the Godhead.
251 But Luther did not say that this was taken from the juggler's bag, for this is how Scotus and John Picus Mirandola write on the measures, and all theologians de ente et essentia, et de essentia et existentia; so we now bring the proof. Christ says John 10: "I have power to take my soul from me (I know that soul means life to the Hebrews, but the soul gives life) and to take it to me again. Now Christ's soul cannot be any other soul than an essential natural soul. But in these words we see that it has its continuance, abode, and retention in the Godhead, when he says: "He has power to add the soul and to take it again. For the human soul, which is like the sustainer of the body, has no power to put the body down and take it away again. Therefore in Christ there is a stronger sustainer and sustainer of neither the soul, who also can put away and take again the soul, who is the Son of God. Item, Col. 2: "In him dwelleth all Godhead bodily." I do not want to say here at length whether "bodily" means "essential" or whether "bodily" means xar xxxxxxxxx.
The word "human" is taken to mean that the full Godhead dwells in humanity, for Luther does not like to hear it. But as the soul is said to dwell in the body, yet the body dwells in the strength and preservation of the soul; so also here the Godhead is said to dwell in the humanity of Christ, 6) since the humanity, in its
4) Marginal gloss: Lsss st sxistsrs.
5) "Also" here stands for "and".
6) Marginal gloss: xaö'
The first thing is that the divine nature and person is taken up, remains in it, exists and is preserved. And this is personae constitutio, 1. that which makes a person, through all creation, when two natures come over one and into one stock. (rationalis creaturae individua substantia.)
Now it is heard enough that the body comes to the soul, it has its own being and nature, but not a retaining power, but the soul is its retaining power. Unde et philosophi2 ) actum vocarunt aut potius actionem. Therefore the name "person" is assigned by us to the holy three names, not that the holy scripture calls them "persons," but that, as a person consists in the soul, since the corpse is also a part of the person, therefore the three, which otherwise have not special beings, but special qualities, are Father, Son, Spirit, One Being. Therefore, the three who are One God are called persons; not according to the quality of Scripture, 3) as also Augustine äs oivit. Ub. 7. oap. 4. but according to the comparison of the God-fearing mind, which desires to show us the divine unity of the three in One Being. Have I ever had to indicate, pious princes, for it helps to reject Luther's error; he speaks of things not only darkly, but also unjustly and very seductively, as will come. And now speak Luther.
Luther in the Confession [in the Arc] h at [the] 4th tablet: 4) "For where the works are divided and separated, there also the person must be divided, because all works or sufferings are not assigned to the natures, but to the persons; for it is the person who does and suffers everything, one according to this nature, the other according to that nature; as all this is well known to the learned."
Here I urge that Luther's word be measured carefully, neither the silver nor the golden predicates; for one will see that he is not only not one with the superior words from the postilion, but also speaks publicly against himself in the words themselves that are there. First, he says here: where the works are divided and separated, the person must also be divided. Here I ask Luther: which theologian has ever taught that the difference of works separates the person? or whether he does mean in his heart,
1) Marginal gloss: vn-ä[T-am?.
2) Marginal gloss:
3) Marginal gloss: ^s^so-r" pistatis vosakulum, Hon seripturas.
4) No. 21, § 130.
that it is thus? No, he does not mean it seriously; for he says immediately in four lines the contradiction, as will come. Or whether he means, that neißwa [anyhow] is such a confused mind, which believes this? For what man does not recognize that the corpse eats, and drinks, and wakes, and swallows, and heals, etc., and does not describe any of these in the soul; and yet they are only One Person. The soul, however, understands, calculates, thinks, judges, etc., none of which the corpse is capable of, and yet they are only One Person. And all theologians have always recognized that not only the effects but also the natures do not separate a person. For if this were the case, then man would be two persons, one the body, the other the soul; and Christ would be three persons, one the Son of God, the other his soul, which is created, the third the corpse, which grew out of the lineage of Abraham. For this reason, too, theologians judge from God's Word that His humanity, that is, true body and soul, is included in the continuance and preservation of the person of the Son of God; that His divinity and humanity are not two persons, or else there would be four persons in the divinity. But Luther speaks immediately as if he had never known what the difference is between singulare, suppositum, individuum et personam. If he now says in the postilion: The humanity of Christ, just like another holy natural man, has not always thought, spoken, noticed all things, etc., then I ask Luther: whether the divinity of Christ also, like a holy natural man, does not always think, will and notice all things? Will he undoubtedly say: the Godhead is knowledge, light, clarity, wisdom, power itself; how could light not be light, knowledge not be knowledge? etc. It also follows that the human will of Christ, the human mind of Christ, has had its own human natural kind, just as our body and soul have their own kind, which is different from the kind of spirit that God knew in us, Rom. 7.
255 Probation. Christ says: Not my will, but yours be done, 6) and nevertheless remains only one person, although he has his own will, according to mankind. But this alone, because mortality is attached to his body; after the declaration of the original state, the weakness and contradiction is accepted. 1 Cor. 15: "If the fragile attaches to the unbreakable, and the mortal attaches to the undead.
5) In prepared edition: "the".
6) Marginal gloss: How the declared bodies will be obedient.
Then the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up," etc. For the weakness and fear of Christ was because of death; but if the fear of death or of going into mischief is accepted, not only does the will of Christ not resist his divine will, but our bodies will not resist the soul either; for since there is no fear of mischief, only then is the body helped to peace and rest. Therefore Paul also cries out: "I wretched man, who will deliver me from the deadly body? The grace of God through Christ" etc. Now if Luther so publicly indicates in the postilion that the works of the two natures are so different that the divine cannot be given that which is human, and says here that the works separate the person, it follows that he separates the person, not we. In short! Luther has stretched out his neck, he does not care what he says, how he speaks against himself, how he speaks against God's word. May God pardon him!
This becomes even more obvious when we consider the next words of the confession in relation to each other. To the last he thus insinuates: "For it is the person who does and suffers everything, one according to this nature, the other according to that nature, as the scholars well know. Behold, pious princes, how this rhymes so well! In the beginning he says: he who separates the works separates the person. And in the end he separates the works with such proper words, that I let them stand out in the face with large letters 1). And says: the person does and suffers all things, but one according to this nature, the other according to that nature. Oh God! What do we teach and speak differently, because the last words are! Do we not say that God and man are One Christ, only One Person? But the natures are distinct, each with its own quality and nature, and the difference cannot separate the person. And is herewith our woe, lamentation, and cry; "for who shall be vexed, that it may not burn us ?" 2 Cor. 11. Yes, our woe is that Luther just speaks in four lines against himself, and urges him 2) God to speak against his presumption, and to ever confess the truth. And the solemn deceivers (I should have said teachers) do not want to see that Luther in no place throughout this whole book argues so hostilely nowhere against us, God forces him to recognize the undefiled truth with us, thus,
1) Zwingli thus refers to what is printed locked in § 253.
2) "him" put by us instead of: "in".
that the whole of Scripture is nothing else at all, neither a message that Luther has been overcome, nor that he does not like the truth. Says someone: Why do you write with so much work against him? Answer: Only so that the quackery, that is, the dishonesty, the dishonest and confused way of being in the matter, and the false teaching, may be well recognized and henceforth be forgiven. 3) For all the brethren must know this. For all the brethren must inform me that I have been blasphemed by Luther for the fourth time with open words, and yet I have tried to write against him, 4) all in the good hope that God would open the light for him to see the truth; but he sees it, yes, he forgets it, 5) and does not want to see it or to understand it. As Isaiah, Cap. 6, Christ, Matth. 13, indicate.
257. II. This becomes still more clear when the words in the postilion are considered more truly, since he speaks thus: 6) that some do wrong who make an omnipotent man out of him; and if the humanity of Christ were extended according to the Godhead, as Luther says, then the humanity of Christ would ever be omnipotent; for omnipotence is from the infinite. And may nothing be omnipotent at all, but the united infinite good, and what is essentially infinite, that is also omnipotent. Now if the body of Christ is everywhere where the Godhead is, it is essentially infinite; if it is essentially infinite, it is also omnipotent. I will prove all these disorders with Luther's own words.
Luther [in the arc] i [at the] 2nd tablet: 7) "So it must follow that he also be and may be according to the third, supernatural way everywhere where God is, and everything be full of Christ through and through according to mankind; not according to the first, bodily comprehensible way, but according to the supernatural divine way" etc.
Watch! This is a wonderful theologian! Who then mixes the natures? All theologians say that "being everywhere" is the inner nature of the divine being, and they are right. For the word Jer. 23: "I fill the heavens and the earth," may suit no one but the one divine being. Now he admits it to mankind, regardless of all the Scriptures that contradict it: so he must ever mix the natures and make an omnipotent man out of him. 2, from the prophet David:
3) to forget - to beware of.
4) i.e. abstain.
5) i.e. he confesses it.
6) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 155, § 12.
7) No. 21, § 143.
"You will not let my soul go to hell." Now the Godhead is essential and powerful everywhere, also in hell, so also the soul of Christ, and therefore the whole mankind, would have to be in hell; contrary to the proclamation of David and Peter. For this is the way of the declared bodies, to have eternal joy in heaven or eternal sorrow in hell with the soul. And if Christ were humanity in hell, but since the Godhead is unsuffering, Christ would have to suffer humanity in hell: such a glorious thing followed from Luther's teaching.
Luther speaks the same: 1) "And where you would show a place where God would be and not man, then the person would already be separated" etc. Answer: yes, we have shown it now. In hell is God, Ps. 118. And is the man Jesus Christ not in hell, as is now heard. And the person is no longer separated at all, because the soul went out of him when he let the spirit (that is, the soul and the life) out of him or gave it out, Matth. 27, and the soul went out of him, Joh. 10. The soul of Christ was separated from the body, but the person was not separated, because it was always One Person. So also the person is not separated, since mankind is not everywhere, where the Godhead is.
But on this he brings a still greater error, and Luther speaks in the same place: "Because then I could say with the truth: here is God, who is not man, and has never been man! Not to me of God" etc.
262 Here you see, pious, wise princes, well 2) a beautiful sophistical little pellet Luther tears! how he concludes from the accidens (importance) to the substance (or essence), and chases the mayor with the red pants 3) around in the bath. He first spoke thus: Where you would show a place, where God would be, and man would not be, the etc. dissected, there is in every place the ubi, that is, the "where", or place; so here he omits the udi finely and puts the substance instead, and says: Here is God, who is not man! See how he has put a "the" for the "there", which points to the substance! but there he should also have put the "there" for mankind and thus have spoken: Here is God, since man is not! and not: who is not man. For since God is in hell, since mankind is not, God is nevertheless man. The Emperor's mind is in Milan, and he is in Hispania and not in Milan;
1) No. 21, 144.
2) Maybe: which?
3) This refers to No. 21, § 88.
It does not follow that he is a man. The sun is in its celestial circle; and there is no sunshine nor day in the whole world, it is from the one sun, and is also called the sun; nor is the corpus, the body of the sun, here. And so the power, the shine and the brilliance of the sun can be everywhere; and the body of the sun is not everywhere, but only in one place. So the divine being is everywhere, and where one can say: There is God, there one can say: There is God, who is man. Behold, how I now add "the" to God and to man! But you cannot say: Where God is, there is man.
263 Here Luther leads 4) a long Stempei 5) from the Sophists armory, as a thing in looo, that is, in one place is, understandable, incomprehensible and supernatural. Now I leave it that he has not quite verteutschet 6) ciroumsoriptive, definitive, impletive, and will alone indicate 7) that he has also not quite read the Sophisten Güsel. [To the first: Circumscriptive, that is, "to be comprehensible (will also use his words) in one place" is, if a body is whole and with all its parts in one place, that it and its parts may not be in another place or exterior. This description alone befits the corpse of Christ, and Luther alone excludes it [I] do not allow myself to be mistaken by his wild examples, which he now brings forth, and thus proves the "being comprehensibly in one place" of the corpse of Christ. But "comprehensible" must not be understood that I and everyone comprehend the body, but that the body is of such a kind that it is in one place alone, with all its members, although no one ever grasps it. An eagle bends all its days in the air, that no one seizes it; nor is it circumscriptive, that is, comprehensible in one place.
264. andexn, so the whole description of the comprehensible place befits the declared corpse of Christ. Well, if we wanted to loosen Luther 8), he is not in a place so grossly corporeal, as his straw bag, and the sheriff with the red pants in the bath. But circumscriptive, that is, 9) um-
4) Marginal gloss: Is fim sheet) 6 on [the] 7th panel. No. 21, § 135 ff.)
5) "Stempei" - useless talk, put by us instead of "Stempny", according to Col. 1287, § 139, and § 107 in No. 26 m this volume.
6) i.e. Germanized. In the old edition "verteuschet," a printing error, as can be seen from the following paragraph.
7) Marginal gloss: Oirournsoriptivo esse in looo.
8) d. i. listen.
9) Randglosse: So one should oirourn^rixtivs teutschen^
1) he should not thus understand bodily, oorporalitor, nor verteutfchen bodily. But he teutschet and gropes around in all things, like the young dog in the child bath. I leave to 2) all who are reported to sophistry or philosophy, whether circumscriptive should be verteutschet: corporaliter.
Thirdly, the declared bodies of men are contained, circumscribed, and prized in one place only; not otherwise do all believers know. Proof: We are beautifully introduced by Paul, 1 Cor. 15, into the knowledge of the transfigured bodies through the heavenly bodies of the sun and stars, which are also bodies, and are circumscriptive, that is, encompassed, circumscribed and prized in one place, and yet are not as coarse bodies as the coarse sheriff in red pants in Luther's stable (Forgive me, all believing hearts! I can't help it, I have to speak shamefully about things, when I see Luther's laborious intercourse, since he becomes so gouty 3) that he doesn't know how wildly he should speak). So also the declared bodies of all men are prizes in one place. And if the corpse of Christ is according to the original state, as ours will be, then it is also only in one place.
266 If this proof also serves for the article "seated at the right hand," then we want to set up two works with one proof. One, that Christ's body is embraced; the other, that he is at the right hand of God. Although the right hand, that is, the majesty and power of God, is everywhere at work, his body is not everywhere bodily present.
That Christ's body is embraced.
267 Gal. 4.: "God sent His Son, who was born of a woman (see here at a pretense, God's Son, per alloeosim, by the counterchange, actually called only humanity; though it is true that he who is born is God; and Mary gave birth to God; but not according to the Godhead, but the man whom she bore is also God; and [she] is God's child-bearer, therefore that her child is God's natural son; as the princess of Bavaria is said to have said, she gave birth to princes, not counts or lords) is made." Now if the humanity of Christ is made by a woman, it is encompassed, umzielt, umprisen.
1) "Prisen", "geprisen", "umprisen" - restricted, circumscribed. Compare "zupreisen" - to ascribe, Col. 323, note 5 in this volume.
2) "to leave on" - to refer to.
3) Maybe: toxic?
4) Perhaps: Example. Cf. § 87 of this paper.
268. Philippenses 2: "He emptied himself (emptied himself, that is, forgave his divine glory, as all believers have ever understood) and took the form 5) of a servant, and became like men, half a man in nature and walk, like another man"; â÷Þìáôé εύρε&εϊς ώς άνθρωπος. Annota primum verbum inventus hebraice poni pro fuisse; secundo ut homo, hominem poni sine articulo, unde naturam potius et speciem significat, quam individuum. Transtulimus ergo: homo sicut alius homo. De forma ó÷-Þ- ματι non est monendum, quod nonnunquam ponitur pro forma, quae dat esse rei, nonnunquam pro persona; ideo tam late exposuimus: "of the being and change half" etc. Now if Christ is fully human like us, except for the sinful, as will follow, and we are umzielt Und umprisen, then he is also so, or else he would not be true man like us.
Hebr. 2. chapter: "He has to be compared to the brothers in all things" etc. Behold! in all things, except the sinful. Now we are included, so is he.
270 There: "If therefore the children of all are of flesh and blood, he is also partaker of them. Behold! He is partaker of them as we are, and we are included, so is he included.
Hebr. 4: "We do not have a chief priest who may not have compassion on our infirmities, but one who is skilled in all things, as it were, like us, except sin" etc. Behold, pious princes, if Christ's body had been in heaven and on the cross at one time, as Luther raves, he would not have been trained in all things as we are; for ever in heaven the stapling of the nails, the painful lifting up, would not have hurt him etc. So it follows publicly that he was embraced, embraced and embraced, as also every man is.
But Luther wanted to say: Before death Christ was included, but not after death. Answer: It is sufficiently evident about the word John 3: "the Son of Man who is in heaven" that Luther says: he was then also in heaven bodily; that it is a seductive error.
Here, pious reader, is the nonsensical blasphemous speech that Luther leads. Item [Bogen] k7) on the seventh and eighth tablets, and what he also
sr'nrrH, par, ant KöAEUs.
6) Randglosfe: xeEv<üvr?/ce ryx <7a/)^öx "at "t/rarox.
7) In the old edition, L is missing. It is No. 21, § 175.
says, he brings no other scripture, because: Luther: In gelte in dieser Sache gleich so viel, als über, außer, durch und wieder herdurch und allenthalben etc. Behold, how so finely köppisch 1) and gauklerisch Luther can speak of it! And that the simple are blinded, so that they do not inquire about anything; so he sighs 2) deeply on it, and cries, "Oh, what am I talking about such high things!" Here he should have added, if I can do nothing at all with it. We still want to show him the fullness of it, and, according to the original state, to prove that we have embraced the body of Christ.
(274) Luke 24 says himself: "Behold my hands and my feet, that I myself am"; or "that I am the one"; understand "one" for "actually". With which words he wants to say, he is the one actually himself, who was before with them, and is again with them. Now, if he is umprisen before death, he is umprisen also after death, or else he would not be the actually himself Christ.
There he speaks further: "Attack me, and look at me; for a spirit has neither flesh nor bone, as you see that I have. If the body of Christ has allowed itself to be attacked, it has certainly been embraced; for that which is not embraced cannot be attacked. In addition, "having the flesh and the bones" is a definite description of the body that is embraced. For what has parts is targeted; even more so what has limbs. For the legs need not be as large as the whole body; likewise the flesh alone need not be as large as flesh and leg, veins, nerves, and all the members with one another. I know well that the declared body of Christ is not to be understood so roughly as flesh and blood and bones, like Luther's proud body in red pants; but I understand that Christ with the miraculous attack wanted to make them understand his whole true humanity; and that he would bring back his true body, which he brought into the world from the handmaid Mary, even from the dead, yet declared; not made infinite or all-embracing; or else they would not have been able to reach over a finger, a hole of the nails. And not I alone have the understanding, but [also] Ambrose and Augustine, yes, all believers; yes, Luther himself. For I firmly believe that all his life he never intended that the body of Christ should be everywhere, until the quarrel brought him to the point where 4)
1) i.e. after his head.
2) Marginal gloss: Oroeoäili laerimae.
3) Marginal gloss: avT-öx.
4) Marginal gloss: Is only an insult; but paints Luther's despair well.
he stands there so miserable and sweats like one who is beating the last shell of his father's inheritance.
276. Paul speaks 1 Cor. 15. thus: "The first man is of the earth, kätin (of dung, earthly] or stöybin (stäubin, of dust: The other man (see! "Man" and "the other man," that by the contrast thou mayest know that he is true man, as Abraham was; wherefore he is called the other Adam here in this chapter) is the HEART from heaven. Now as the celestial is, so must the celestial be: And as the celestial is, so must the celestial be. And as we have borne the likeness of the cothine; so shall we bear the likeness of the celestial." Here you see, pious princes, through all the burden and weight of the words, that Paul makes Christ our firstfruits, and us the offspring; so that as he rose from the dead, so he presented to us an image, that we also may become the offspring. If then Christ's declared corpse would be everywhere, our declared bodies would also have to be everywhere. It follows also, per conversionem simplicem: we shall have declared bodies, as Christ has; so also Christ has a declared body, as we shall have. Now ours will be encompassed and circumscribed; so also Christ's body will have to be. Know ye also how ÷á>^' αλληγορίαν
Paul's words may be understood as an exhortation that we should live heavenly, but the fundamental meaning is that of which we speak here. So Luther misses the point about the body of Christ, as he takes it to mean that he wants to either send or extend it to all ends and everywhere, according to humanity as well as according to divinity. Now it is at the right hand.
From the right hand of God in heaven.
Luther speaks of the right hand thus (is [in the arc] h in the 5th tablet): 5) "Item, because they do not prove that God's right hand is a special place in heaven: so my indicated way also still remains firm that Christ's body is everywhere, because he is at the right hand of God, which is everywhere; although we do not know how this happens, because we also do not know how it happens that God's right hand is everywhere."
278 Answer. Since Luther claims that he does not know how the right hand of God is everywhere, we want to tell him the same thing first. The right hand of God is taken everywhere in Scripture for the majesty of God.
5) No. 21, § 132.
The authority, power and might of God. So Isaiah 48 speaks in the person of God: "I am the beginning and the end; my hand has made the earth firm, and my right hand has measured the heavens. I called unto them, and they stood with one another." Ps. 43. (44,4.]: "Their strength hath not cut them off, 1) but thy right hand." And 87th Psalm: "Lord, make thy right hand known," that is, show thy power etc. Matth. 20: "Promise me that my two sons will sit next to you, one at your right hand and the other" etc. Here also rights is taken for glory or majesty. Now if Luther knows how the power of God is everywhere, he knows how the right of God is everywhere; why then does he say that he does not know? He wants to blind without doubt.
279 Therefore look up, pious princes, when he says: as we must prove that God's right hand is a special place in heaven, or that Christ must be everywhere; so either with the right hand or with the body of Christ he must give us one over the eye; and therefore let us put his syllogism in order, if we may see wherewith he blinded us.
1) God's rights are universal;
2) Christ's body is at the right hand of God:
3) Thus Christ's body is everywhere.
(280) Here the first (major) cannot be deficient; for the right hand, that is, the power or authority of God, is universal. So we must see what deficiency the other has. Thus we find 1 Thes. 4: "And so we shall be with the Lord always." Here "to be with the Lord" means to be with Him in another way, neither is He halfway; or else we would have to say that our bodies also are halfway. And therefore sq "the creature being with God" is not to be spread out according to the infinite of the Godhead; for if so, the creature would not be a creature, but God Himself. For the one God is infinite and immeasurable. Job. 9: "He alone hath stretched out the heavens." 2) And (Cap.) 23: "He alone is, and none can turn aside his counsels." Now "to be omnipotent" is the vein and origin of omnipotence; now if the creature were omnipotent, it would be the Almighty, and therefore the Creator, and not the created.
Behold, pious princes! all this would come from our saying, The right is universal; so is the humanity of Christ universal. Therefore the defect is, that if we say, Christ is at the right hand of God, (we) should not be able to
1) unburden - redeem.
2) i.e. extended.
To one [i.e., to the first] of human nature half reckon. For Christ having in him two natures, according to the divine, it may well be said, Christ is at the right hand, and the right is universal; so Christ is universal; all is right, yea, according to the divine nature.
282 Luther says: They are one person, which is inseparable. This is also true; but does it follow that each is a quality of the other? Says Luther: Yes; for it is said: God has suffered, God has died, God has risen. Answer: We have spoken enough of the saying, namely, that the speeches have force for the reason that he who has suffered, died, and been scourged is also God; not that therefore the Godhead has suffered, etc., as Luther himself confesses when he says: One says: Solomon is sore, if only one of Solomon's fingers is sore. But here we speak of the "also-at-himself-being of the distinct nature"; as, when one speaks: God suffers; whether the divine nature itself suffers, or whether the speech must be understood only personally? that is, well spoken of the person of the two natures, but pertaining only to the One Nature.
Luther says: such speeches are appropriate for both natures, separately. So I say: Christ is undeemable, 1 Tim. 6, according to the Godhead; so 3) if he is also undeemable according to humanity, he would not have suffered. Yes, it will not be otherwise than, 4) as we have proved enough, that each nature remains its characteristic, and yet Christ is undivided. Thus "to be all things" must befit the divine nature alone; and "to die" etc. must befit the human nature alone.
On the other hand, we are half ashamed of human nature that we do not recognize it as a creature. And this does not serve to disgrace Christ, but it is the marvelous thing of which David says that the Son of God, through whom all things were created, has also taken to himself the creatures which he made. Now if the humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not possible that it is always 5) not a creature. If then "being all" is only of the one Godhead and Creator, it follows that the humanity of Christ is with God as a creature, although the highest creature that is in heaven and earth; and that it never leaves the kind of creature. Hominem, quem adsumpsit, from amigit the ancients have spoken; and we before with the word: "He is risen, and is not here", and in this place, have sufficiently indicated, that
3) This "so" seems too much.
4) "for" put by us instead of: "to whom".
5) evermore - ever.
he had true humanity in him in all ways, and was not everywhere when the angel spoke this etc.
285 Let us make the matter still more pure. Christ says John 14: "We," that is, I and the Father, "will come to him who loves me and have our abode with him. From this we will now see an account that will not suffer the other saying: Christ's body is at the right hand of God, to be understood differently, neither that it is at the right hand of God, as a creature is with God. Thus.
1) God is everywhere;
2) Whoever loves Christ, with him is God:
3) So is he who loves Christ everywhere.
Here you see well, pious princes, where the defect is, namely, that of being with God, or, God being with man. For if God is with man, he remains everywhere; and the creature nevertheless remains in one place, and is also with God. Thus the humanity of Christ remains with God as one creature, and remains in one place; but the Godhead is everywhere.
287 Another calculation made on the life in heaven alone:
1) We will be with the Lord all the way; 1)
2) The Lord is everywhere:
3) We will also be like this everywhere.
It is equally as false as the previous one. For "to be with the Lord" carries with it the secret connotation or touching, as the creature is with God. But it does not follow that the creature is with God, as he is everywhere. All this teaches us even more clearly that Christ speaks John 17: "I will, Father, that where I am, there My servant may be also. Here is a loud "where"; so I will now bring it out unconcealed:
1) We will be servants of Christ where Christ is. 2)
2) Christ is everywhere after mankind. 3)
3) We will be like this everywhere.
Behold, pious princes, how Christ himself instructs us that he is not everywhere after mankind, but in one place, when he says, "We shall be with him. Now it is certain that we will not be everywhere where the Godhead is; so it must follow that we and he are in one place after the body.
So here with the humanity of Christ. Paul speaks Phil. 2: "For this reason God has given him to be.
1) Marginal gloss: 1 Thess. 4 [v. 17.]
2) Marginal gloss: Are words of Christ.
3) Marginal gloss: Are Luther's words.
hear." Understand therefore that he suffered for us. If then suffering is a cause of exaltation, he is never exalted, so that his humanity is universal, as Luther says, before death. But if after death he is all things to all men, as he is to the Godhead, what need has he to go to heaven if he had been before all things?
But saith Luther, How may these things be? Answer: Are you a master in Israel and do not know that one should not know more than the true fear of God teaches? Or can you not take from the visible things a figurative knowledge of the eternal invisible* things? Consider for me 4) the sun! It is a body, a body that is surrounded, surrounded, surrounded, which is not at all in two places; but at the same time it illuminates and shines through the whole world, so that there is neither an end nor a place of air, whether in it, under it, around it, since its light is not. The Indian sees the sun, which the Hispanic sees; the Muscovite is in the sunshine, in which the Moor is, but the body of the sun is in none of the places. It is also none of the places or people with the body of the sun.
Thus the Sun of Righteousness, Christ Jesus, true God and man, is everywhere with the appearance and splendor of His divine power and being. But the body of mankind is alone in one place and is recognized and seen throughout the world with the eyes of the soul and faith. It is enough for us, if he is bodily only in one, his place. We do not wish him to come down, as we do not wish the sun to come down; it is enough for us in its place. There would come a Phaeton or a Luther, who would want to confuse, mix and confound it all. Let Christ sit there and let the light of his grace shine down to us; let him give light, joy, delight and pleasure to those who are above and around him, and yet be in only one place, and be seen and worshipped by all creatures. For after that he is one creature etc. which cannot be separated 5). So it is with all the parables that Luther brings in.
The voice or sound is heard 6) a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand people, or as much as Luther wants. Still, the man or bell is only in one place, whose voice or sound is heard so far. So Christ is word and knowledge in the whole world, and he remains in one place.
4) Marginal gloss: A pious example.
5) It should probably be read "ausgetennt", that is, extended.
6) In the old edition: include.
The eye sees far; but the eye is in One place alone, and comes [not], 1) whither it sees. So Christ is in one place according to the eye, that is, according to humanity; but with the face, that is, according to the Godhead, he is everywhere. Since Luther says of the opalo, he shows himself that he klininm, lib: 37, oap. 6, either has not read or has not understood. Let it be, however, that the gold migeln 2) appears through the whole stone, and yet is only on one oertlet; but that is how it is for us.
294 "That Christ's body passed through the sealed tombstone," says Luther, not the Schrist. "The angel has taken away the tombstone," says the evangelist. Then the declared corpse did not have to penetrate through the tombstone. Luther's sheriff in red pants, the coarse knob, would like to come out. But that is the miracle in the original state, that he himself has risen. And shall we not make miracles, since they are not; or else the blind Jew may mock us, that we seal up the penetration for a miracle, and be it not in our Scripture. But be it so, nor prove it, that therefore the body of Christ is more than in one place. So, that his body went in to determined doors, that it penetrated through the substance of the door, the Scripture also does not say. And we must not help the power of God with our lying; for there are many other ways by which one may understand the declared body of Christ to have entered. There is not a place in the world where there is not air, God gives, how well one may refrain from preserving and obstructing anything; nor does air come into all places and ends. Therefore, if the declared corpse's ring-ready 3) and obedient ones are more flexible than the air, and if we are not aware of the purity of the air, then the body of Christ, like the air, would like to come to a place. But be it as it may, if it has passed through the door, it is not yet proved that it is everywhere, or that it is no more than in one place, since it has ever been.
So now the account "the right hand of God is everywhere" etc. The reason for this is the deception that mankind is at the right hand of God, like the Godhead; but this is not so; but it is at the right hand of God, like a creature (Luther compares
1) The inclusion of the "not" seems to us commanded by the context.
2) Luther, No. 21, § 160: "a little spark, flame or bubble in the crystal". "Migeln" perhaps formed from rnica, a little bite.
3) i.e. ease.
even the humanity of Christ to another holy natural man, as is heard), but it must be in One Place. Just as God, who is everywhere, is in us, and yet we are no more than in one place; and we also will be with God, who is everywhere, but we will be in only one place. For he must be like us, his brethren, in all things, Heb. 2, except the sinful, Heb. 4. But we also want to have proved herewith that the transfigured bodies are circumscriptive, that is, encompassed, circumscribed, and circumscribed in one place, ex parte locati not of the air or other circumstance half, non ex parte locantis in circumfuso aere; for we are well provided that in heaven it may not be of the air, but God it is all in all. Still the bodies will be in eternity, that they will be one, and in one place, and no more. So also the body of Christ etc.
Now we come again onto the track, and we have insurmountably proven that the body of Christ is encompassed for eternity, and we care neither for sophists nor for Luther's refutation; for we have proven that we are encompassed with God's Word, not with philosophy, even though philosophy is also with us.
297. Now follows further in Luther's art: 4) "On the other hand, let a thing be definite in one place," [the^
he translates "incomprehensible". So Christ is in the gravestone and wooden door (it is good that he does not make it isin [iron], or else we would first not come anywhere through with him), there he makes him 5) definite, that is, 6) final and certain in one place; for that is definite, final, certain to be in one place; as when an angel, soul, or spirit is in a cloud or in a body, there the angel is certainly present; but he is final, so that therefore he is not everywhere. And the soul holds the body, and is nowhere substantial outside the body, and the body does not comprehend or embrace the soul, but the soul leads and holds the body. And since the body loses a thigh or arm, the soul loses no part of it, for it has no lying parts or limbs. It is still so endowed that it is in only one place, whether it is in the body or outside the body.
298. on this explanation, which Luther cannot deny, we ask him thus: whether Christ, since he penetrated through the gravestone and door, as they say, would have taken the declared body to himself.
4) Marginal gloss: Is sim Luthers im Mögend ü lan ders 7ten Tafel. [No. 21, § 136.]
5) "him" put by us instead of: "him".
6) Randglosse: So much vermag dsünitiv".
or not? He says: Not; then he was circum-scriptive, corporaliter, localiter, that is, encompassed with bodily manner, of body and air half, in one place, and not like a spirit, soul or angel. And Luther is wrong in saying that he was definite, that is, final, like a soul. He says: Yes; he has already taken the declared body to himself. Why then does he say afterwards: 1) he is repletive or impletive, that is, supernatural, as he tollretschet, 2) all over? Did Christ also have two declared bodies, one that was only in one place, like a soul or angel, the other that was everywhere, like the Godhead? Behold, Luther's doctrine is as good as if one put an oxen's handle into a dog's pen. Should the unclean woman Chätinen [Käthen], the Sophisterei, be led into the holy scripture, and should she therefore not really be needed? Is that honest? But for the sake of it:
Know, your dear, pious princes, that no declared corpse, much less the corpse of Christ, can be definite, that is, terminal (understand, like the spirits), in one place! Cause: to be final in one place is only of the louder spirits, which are creatures, and lead and govern something body. What does now the transfigured corpse of Christ lead? Yes, he is led by the Godhead through the means of the soul: So it is not so final, definite, in one place, as the spirits, as Luther speaks of it; so it is not supernatural all over, as is heard, or else we should also be all over; for as the declared bodies are in one place, we do not call supernatural; for we have not otherwise from Scripture, than that the declared bodies shall all have one kind, though one clearer than another; even as men have all a common form, but one is more beautiful than another: but Christ hath ascended to heaven with his declared body, and sitteth at the right hand of God according to the nature and kind of all declared bodies. For if this were not the case, we would be deprived of the hope of the first rites, the transfiguration and the ascension. Now if his body were everywhere, as Luther says, and we well know that our bodies will not be everywhere, for Christ says, "In my Father's house are many mansions" (many mansions receive the infinite), then our security would ever be weakened, for we could never think that we would be declared to heaven, like Christ, when
1) Marginal gloss: [Luther in the arc] h on [the] 8th plate. [No. 21, § 138.]
2) tollretschet - toll schwatzt. The word is formed by Zwingli to say "dolmetscht" mockingly. Cf. § 111 of Scripture No. 23 in this volume.
He would not come to heaven in any other way, nor would we. But if he be the firstfruits of all them that die in faith, 1 Cor. 15 Cap. it is certain that he is now as we shall be, and we shall be as he now is.
After all this, we return to the words of the postilion in which he said that some do wrong who want to make an omnipotent man out of the humanity of Christ. And give him his words to consider carefully, which he sets forth in the Confession:
Luther. 3) "But now he is such a man, who is supernaturally with God One Person, and apart from this man is no God" etc., which follows, serves for the impletive or repletive esse in loco.
Here I ask Luther what he wants with the other part of the words (for we are one with the first), since he speaks: "and 4) apart from this man there is no God"? So I ask him: whether God was also before Christ became man? I mean, yes: God was God without human nature at that time. But if he wants to say: he is talking about the form when he took man to himself, then I ask him what he wants with the word "except"? If he wants to say: that the Godhead does not extend further, neither mankind (therefore words must ever be used in things), then it follows that Christ had to know, to order, [to] like all things etc., but against this are his words, which we have heard. For if God is everywhere, and according to Luther mankind is also everywhere, then it follows that he sees, may, order all things etc. It also follows that he suffered no more than on the cross, and had joy elsewhere etc.
If by the word "apart" Luther means that God is nowhere, since he is not man, then we are one; for God is in no place, since he is not man. If, however, by "apart from" he means that God is nowhere, humanity is also there, he is mistaken, as has been sufficiently shown. It cannot be reversed in the dialectica either: God is man where he is; so mankind is where he is. It is not proper: Louis is king where he is: so is the kingdom or queen where he is; for if he lies captive, the kingdom is not where he is.
I alone indicate that the wretched fools who carry Luther's book so high see that they are much more foolish, neither he is evil. For he speaks that everyone may grasp that he only seeks colors to talk himself out of. For who has ever so-
3) No. 21, § 143.
4) Marginal gloss: Vüw, HUÄ6 verdorum praesti^ia!
speaks: "Apart from this man there is no God"? He wants to go away with his hand in the air, God give! was 1) he would come; the gaechs do not want to see that. And so this speech: "outside this man is no God", is not only childish, but falsely blasphemous.
But if our answer would turn out to be too much, if we should answer all errors according to necessity, then after such a clear explanation we will let everyone open his own eyes in this matter. And we do not want to add anything more here than some more repugnant words of Luther, and thus conclude the matter.
Luther: 2) "And it should remain for me a bad Christ, who would be no more, than in a single place, at the same time a divine and human person" etc. Behold, pious princes, what strange birth of new senses and words! First of all, who says that Christ is a person only in one place? Do we not say that God is a person everywhere? And where God is, there He is 3) man? Only this we exclude, that the 3) man is not bodily everywhere, where God is; because he was not bodily in heaven, when he died on the cross, and this does not break nor weaken the person.
Take an example from the rapture of Paul. This was the person of Paul, when the mind was immediately raptured in the third heaven. The other example of us: We will be with God, who will fill us [with] all joy and gladness, delight us, and satisfy us; and he will be everywhere, and we not; but we will see him who is everywhere, and how he is. 1 John 3: "Beloved brethren, we are already the sons of God: but that which we shall become is not yet opened: but this we know, when the same shall be opened, that we shall be like him, and shall see him as he is." The third example: that we see the sun shining over the whole world, and yet the sun is not of one country or man, but of all, and does them all good. The fourth: that each one of us sees the whole sun, which is greater than the whole earth; and though none of us be with the sun in all places, yet each one sees it enough.
307. so if he is with us, let us go up to the humanity of Christ and see how he is God, pervades all things, and the man who is supreme at the right hand of God sees all things through the divinity that is personal to him.
1) d. i. whereupon. Cf. § 82 of this paper.
2) Marginal gloss: Is in [arc] i [at the] 2nd panel. [No. 21, § 144.]
3) Marginal gloss: He and The.
is united, himself, God and man, and man in the Godhead, so that nothing at all is hidden from him according to the declaration; for according to it he said, "All authority is given to me in heaven and earth," all through the Godhead. Before he did not know some things; but as he [as] man sees all things, so therefore he is not all things according to mankind, as is heard; and this separates the person [as little] as it separates the man, that with knowledge he sees the whole world', and yet his body is no more than in One Little Oert of the world etc.
308 Secondly, first of all, who has ever said that Christ is both a divine person and a human person? Christ is at the same time a divine person and a human person? 4) He who says this makes two persons. We say, then, that two essentially distinct natures are One Person; and "essentially" here is distinguished from 5) "existing" and "preserved. For just as the human body is essentially a part of the human being, but does not maintain and exist on itself, but in the power of the soul: so human nature is essentially a part (so Luther also speaks, and there is no power in words, if we can only grasp the understanding rightly) of the person of Christ; but not that it has its own continuance, äðüáôáóéí, but its continuance and resounding is the divine person; therefore the divine and human natures are only One Person, as has been sufficiently heard. Now what does Luther want of the quackery? Yes, I also want to think that he has seen how much he wants in Scripture, so he is not yet sufficiently reported to speak of the person of Christ. But if he is reported, and brings such hurtful speeches, then he is a etc.
Luther (Is in the [arc] h on the 5th panel): 6) "For if the alloeosis existed (then see, pious princes, how he raises [to] fear their strength!), that one nature would be taken for the other; such would nevertheless concern only the works or transactions of the natures, and not the essence of the natures."
Behold, pious princes! what does he bring us here! Luther does not yet see that where the theologians say "two natures," they do not mean that each nature is not its own essential thing; rather, they only shun the word "essence," and put nature for it, so that one does not fall into it, as if human nature had its own existence and its own preservation; and then there would have to be two persons.
4) Luther did not speak like this. Compare No. 21, § 144.
6) No. 21, § 133.
But actually to speak, if you understand "essence" as we have purified, for "true nature and quality," for a thing that can be received and is its own, but does not have its own continuance; so mankind is essential in Christ, and suffers essentially, that is, rightly as a man who is man alone. And suffers, as the corpse of the pure man suffers essentially, which nevertheless has continuance and preservation in the soul, that the soul therefore does not suffer. Now I do not want to teach that therefore someone should say "two natures" for "two natures", because the word xxx<rra "r-5, being, as also Jerome recognizes, is dangerous; for not everyone knows what difference there is between "being", if it is able as much as "being"; and if it is able as much as having its own being and existence. Example. To be wise is also a "being"; yet it has no existence of its own, neither in the mind of man etc., and therefore I leave it enough with two natures.
312 But if one nature is taken for the other, this concerns only the works and transactions of the natures, not the essence, as Luther says. This is nothing but an obscuring. For if he means to say that the nature taken for the other is not the essence of the other at all, that is, it is not the other nature at all, then he is speaking Christianly and rightly, and we are once again one, for we should not mix the natures. But why then does he make two things of essence and nature? But if he does not mean the work and business of natures, but that each has its own work and business, but if he means to say that each work is essential to the other, he means to deceive us either by the word "essence"; for if it be taken for "subsist" and "maintain," it is true and certain that everything which the humanity of Christ suffers, suffers therefore, that it has its continuance in the Godhead. And therefore Scotus, I mean super tertium, is forced to recognize that everything, so Christ suffered, is wonderful, as if 1) it also is. Ps. 117. [118, 23.] But it is nevertheless a nature of its own, like the body of the pure man. But if he does not seek escape under the word "nature," but thus says: If one nature is taken for another, then that which is said of the hidden nature is not actually said of it, he is mistaken; for there is John 3: "The Son of man which is in heaven"; if the "name" is taken for the "divine nature," and the divine nature was truly and essentially in heaven.
However, such obscurations are nothing else, neither blindings of the bad,
1) "Whether" seems to be too much.
and spy out how one might escape. And therefore we want to set the words here and those before [in the arc] k on the 4th panel 2) against each other. Luther: "Because all works or sufferings are not assigned to natures, but to persons." Luther [in the arc] L on the 5th panel: 3) "If it existed that one nature was taken for the other; such would nevertheless concern only the works or transactions of the natures" etc.
Behold, pious princes! whether the two speeches do not look together like the devil and the seven-pointed star, like a proverb? But it shall happen to one: he who does not remain on the chariot must walk in the mud afterwards.
Accordingly, we will continue to hear him from word to word in those places where he was not ashamed of the truth. Luther, in the foregoing place of the postilion: 4) "He was full of grace and wisdom, so that everything that occurred to him he was able to judge and teach; therefore, the Godhead, who alone sees and knows all things, was personal and present in him. And finally, what has been said of Christ's abasement and exaltation is to be added to man; for divine nature can neither be abased nor exalted."
Behold here, pious princes! [First, how Luther admits to the Godhead alone, since it sees and knows all things. Second, that he admits to humanity that it "can" judge and teach all things from the Godhead for the sake of personal union; but he has withdrawn from it the foreknowledge beforehand, and not unjustly. Thus it follows that the humanity of Christ did not know all things before the Declaration, although it took all judgment, doctrine, and truth from the Godhead. From this we can see that the Godhead thereby reserved for it the foreknowledge in several things and made it known that Christ was true man, who therefore was not made infinite. etc. Thirdly, Luther recognizes, just as we do, that everything that is said about the lowering and raising of Christ is to be attributed to human nature alone. For this is the reason why people quarrel here when he sometimes says: "God suffers"; as if the simple should understand: the divine nature in him suffers. Yes, he himself says it publicly, as has been heard.
317. read what follows in the often-mentioned postilion after the words: "Which He set
2) No. 21, § 130. So that the reader is not misled, we advise him to read Luther's writing himself!
3) No. 21, § 133.
4) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 155 f., § 12.
has to an heir of all things"; 1) so he finds even clearer that we say of Luther that he holds of the two natures that are One Christ wholly as we do.
318 If we, pious princes, have saved our doctrine of the allosis or counterchange against Luther from God's Word, and if there is much disputation and sparring, in which something dark might easily be spoken, which we nevertheless do not mean to be dark or erroneous, then I will explain myself in a summa [i.e., exponam], as I hold it of both natures in Christ; thus:
I know that the eternal, almighty etc. Son of God true, whole, prestigious, without the sinfulness, deadly humanity, which is a created sea! from heaven, and a natural body, created by the' pure handmaid Mary, and born of the conception of the Holy Spirit, thus joined to Himself and to Himself in the unity of the Person of the Son of God, that they are One Christ, One inseparable Person, and yet each nature of the unified Person retains its nature and characteristic; only that His humanity does not have its own existsexistentiamrwiam, that is, existence for itself, but in the Person of the Son of God; just as in us humans the flesh has its own nature and existence, but does not exist for itself, but is maintained in existence by the soul. I also recognize 2) that the two natures in Christ can never be separated from each other, that they are not one person. And although the humanity is taken up into the unity of the person through the means of the soul, as through the suitable part (for God is also a spirit), and therefore the soul is separated from the corpse in death, so that his holy corpse lay there, like another body that had been disembodied, or (as we speak) made lifeless, truly dead, truly lonely, truly powerless: still so is the person as little separated in the separation of the body and the soul, when soul and body were with each other. Cause, the soul of Christ is not the sustainer xxxxxxxxxx, of the continuance, of the human
Nature, but the Godhead is the sustainer of the existence and permanence of the body and the soul, both parts of the whole mankind. And therefore the person of the natural man is in that place an inadequate example of the person of Christ. For when the soul of the natural man is separated from the body, then the man is no longer a person. Cause, that the soul, which is an inheritance
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 156.
2) recognize - confess. Cf. § 368 of this writing, where Erkenntniß - Bekenntniß stands.
is the sustainer of the human person, is no longer with the body; and is therefore no other nature that keeps it in unity with the person. But in Christ the Godhead is the "sustaining nature", which also surpasses his soul, as holy as it is, with power and holiness, as far as God and the Creator surpass all creatures; therefore in it not only the soul, and through the soul the body, but body and soul are sustained. Since his body and soul were separated from each other, the person was not separated, since the parts of the one nature were separated; because the whole mankind consisted in the Godhead with body and soul. I see also from these reasons that the humanity of Christ must eternally be the assumed nature, before and after the original state; for otherwise there would have to be two assumptions of human nature; one, that humanity would have been embraced before death and would have been assumed sufferingly; the other, after the original state, that would have made humanity infinite; but there is only One humanity, and only one is [once] assumed, which also exists in the Godhead, and not in it itself. Therefore the Godhead, which is infinite in all ends, is to her, mankind, all sufficiency, all light, all knowledge, that mankind may be to no work nor deed everywhere; but, as the elect in their place, where God delights them, have all sufficiency and delight in God, who is equally everywhere, and they are only in One place: so also the mankind of Christ is with them, and is satiated so much higher in all power, knowledge, being, joy and delight, as much more there is. Being a person with God, neither being only a creature of God. I also recognize that it is impossible for human nature to be all-essential; it is impossible for there to be more than One God. For God's intrinsic quality is that He alone is omnipresent; and if the creature were omnipresent, then God Himself would be; and then there would be many Gods. Again, I perceive that, although the humanity is not omnipresent, as the Godhead, yet the person is not divided, yea, less divided, neither if it were omnipresent: for if it were omnipresent, it would now be perverted into the Godhead, and would no longer be Christ; for Christ is eternal God and man, that is, the person of whom we speak. Where now the received nature would be reversed into the receiving nature, the person would be gone; for the person Christ must have two natures, one "receiving" and one "received". Now if Christ were to be humanity everywhere, this would have to come solely from the fact that it would be inverted into the Godhead.
it would no longer be the "preserved" nature; and therefore the person of the Son of God alone would be the divine nature, and not the human one, and Christ would not be a true man for us in eternity. I also recognize that, for the sake of personal inseparable unity, the natures are taken for each other and exchanged, and nevertheless remains to each nature its characteristic, and only One Person. God remove all error from all living hearts! Amen.
This is, pious princes, the sum of my explanation, which has been sufficiently proven with writings before, also so irrefutable that no theologians may bring anything against it. For even among the ancients the difference between the two natures was so well investigated and founded in Tertulliano, Hilario, Ambrosio, Augustino, that in many hundreds of years it has not come onto the track. track has come. So far at this time, Luther makes humanity a deity, and needs for this the absurda, that is, the clumsy arguments of the Arrian heretics; as is invented in Tertulliano ad Praxeam, and in Ambrosio, de sacramento dominicae incarnationis. Has indicated to me Heymrich [Hcinrich] Bullinger: but the Anabaptists say he is a prophet, and not the natural Son of God. But be unconcerned, pious princes! they must all break and lie down. I have no doubt that Luther will seek something so that he will not give up the war so easily; but it will not help.
From the place: the meat is not useful at all.
Now when Luther wants to take this in hand: "the flesh is not useful", he rumbles before, and says: 1) Luther: "Therefore be an analem", and curses, where it is said that Christ is born of flesh" etc. As if one of us said that the humanity of Christ was born of sinful flesh, and did not realize that it was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the pure body of the virgin Mary, and there became flesh or man. And thus rumbles between the two names of the flesh, since "flesh" means the sinful conception and kind, and is also called the immaculate beautiful human nature and image of God, as Adam was a man before the fall, and as Christ is man, who brings back the fall.
322. for this he does with many words, like
1) Marginal gloss: Is [in the arc] l on the 7th panel. [No. 21, § 192.)
as if "the flesh of Christ", whose seed is the spirit, did not take its bodily origin and growth from the pure field of the virgin body, but was only a spirit (as he 2) speaks); all this, however, is enough to diminish the divine goodness. For the more truly God is recognized as having taken on human nature for our sake, the more surely we see that we are dear to Him as our Aeti [i.e. Father].
But we recognize that it is a Marcionian heresy, as Luther says: that the flesh of Christ is a spirit; for how can it be a spirit, which with such pains is united to the cross, 3) that it cries out: "O my God! how hast thou forsaken me"? But the fact that Christ's whole action leads us and brings us to spiritual life does not mean that he is a spiritual substance according to the nature of mankind, but a bodily man. Summa! These are all arrows of the mocking Arian heretics, as indicated before.
But you, simple, pious Christian, will be able to beware of the wagging dog, which beats with its tail now on one side and soon on the other. You know well what we think of the true humanity of Christ; you also know well what we think of our desert flesh, that we do not suspect the holiness of Christ's humanity anywhere.
(325) Yes, says Luther, even the Holy Spirit is pure poison where it is received without faith. 4) As if the Holy Spirit were a thing enjoyed or received by unbelievers. Lift up the magic of thick words, through which the simple may not see.
326 And therefore, putting all circumstances aside, we will now depart safe and sound, and give you, pious princes, to hear thus. We have honestly scolded Luther for omitting a few words of "that" from the words: "The flesh is of no use at all. But he is responsible for this in such a way that we would now like to scold him even more. For as the Greek language has articles and pointers, like the German, the Latin does not; so Luther needs speed: he interprets 5) the Greek words: x "üx xxxxxx xxxxx, first into the Latin: Caro non prodest quicquam, so that he can interpret from the Latin words:
2) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther, in Arc] 1 at the 7th plate. [No. 21, § 194 deceptively listed].
3) i.e. extended.
4) Compare No. 21, §197 to this statement by Zwingli.
5) Marginal gloss: Is [with Luther in the bow] m [at the] first panel. [No. 21, § 199.]
"Flesh is not useful": so he should also translate from the Latin: "the flesh is not useful." 1) For to the word "spirit" he thus says, "The spirit"; and not, "Spirit is he who makes alive." Thus he should also, virtute antitheseos, by force of contrast, have made from the Latin oa.ro "the flesh", and not "flesh".
327) Notice further, pious princes, that Luther does not yet recognize the articles, which I have misinterpreted, that they show all the way. 2) For although they do not always show demonstratively, that is, grossly presently (as, if I say, with a long "The 3) woman has denied the rebirth; and point with the finger at her), they do always show the actual thing that is spoken of before; or they bring forth a thing well, of person or being; therefore I have rendered them "pointers", not "pointers". When I say that a woman should be obedient, I am not pointing to any particular woman, for this is short; but I am pointing to the nature and status of women, and the little pointer means that it belongs to every woman that she be obedient. Here the article separates the essence from the person; for one does not speak of this or that particular woman, but of the whole sex. But when I say, Marc. 6: "Is he not the carpenter?" Here, the more obvious one indicates the person, namely, the person of Christ, whom they all knew well, according to his handiwork. And the little pointer is able to do so much that we see that he was personally known to all men.
Before I go any further, I must nevertheless indicate that it seems to me that Luther may not have understood me there; for when I made a virgule 5) over the other one, accentum gravem, the printer took it for an ä, and made "där"; I also never noticed this until Luther did so desolately; then I also looked at the print, and thus find: Där Zimmermann; but it should thus say: Is he not the carpenter? etc. But that the little pointers also point to the thing, of which spoken before
1) Randglosse: Viäe, xarnrn aoyue a^ant Uutireranl, ynurn aäeo maligne turaultuontur!
a-r^eoec/e-rs, esse-rör'anr.
3) In this doubled the Zwingel has used in the autot^po in the middle to both times a Greek iota with a Cirkumflex (x) to make the emphasis of theprononrinis sierLonstrativi quite clear. (Walch.)
4) Here Zwingel has characterized his, in order to distinguish it from the preceding with a circumflex, m in the middle with an iota and accent (x) to indicate the article par excellence. (Walch.)
5) virAula - a small stroke.
and yet not be relativa, or subjectivi articuli, is thus evident that no leaf in the Greek language is ever written on which that is not publicly invented, that distorts me to indicate example therefore; but let us train ourselves with little.
329. John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God". Here, the little pointer in the first place is a pointer of the person, namely, of the Son of God, whom he calls "the Word", or "thing", of which he wants to speak. In the other place, however, it not only points to the person, but also 7) äfert, as if it thus speaks: The same word; that one sees that it does not speak of another word, but means the very word, of which is also said before, and is nevertheless not relative to.
330. there: rd öùò τό Üëçà&üí,, "the
Light was the true light. Here the first pointer can do so much as a demonstrative, a finger pointer, and is not a finger pointer with the Greeks, but only a small pointer. But it can do as much as the light, of which I said, or, just the same light. And the other pointer is able to bring forth the essence that the light of which it says is the right true light.
331. Joh. 6. this observation, that is, with diligence noted piece, becomes quite obvious. When Christ began to say to the Jews and disciples, "What is the true bread from heaven?" he said to the last: "I am the bread of life. Here a short "that" is only a pointer; nor can it do more than this: I am the bread of life, of which I have said unto you.
332 But after this he says: "Truly I say to you: He that trusteth in me hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life." But here is a little pointer, "that", nor is it able to point and point to the bread, 7) which is spoken of.
333 Soon after, it says: "I am the living bread that comes down from heaven. Here, the first "that" can be seen as pointing to and referring to the bread of which the speech began. The other "that" is a striking out of the essence, namely, that he came from heaven.
334 So it is also with the flesh. Luther says: In the words "the flesh 8) is not useful at all" the little pointer "the" points to the
6) Here and in the following places Zwingel has designated his d as with an aeeentu Zravi. (Walch.)
7) d. i. repeated.
8) Marginal gloss:
evil way of the flesh. 1) And seeth not that it yieldeth to the flesh for and for, whereof it was spoken before. So Christ spoke before: "And the bread, which I will give you, is the flesh mine, which I will give for the world. Here the little pointer stands in the "the flesh mine" to indicate the being actually.
335 Soon after this the Jews said, "How can he give us the flesh 2) to eat? Behold! Here, pious princes! the little pointer "the" stands so dear and strong, and points to the flesh, of which Christ spoke (although his opinion was not that it should be eaten bodily, as the Jews assumed), that the Latin interpreter has made a being out of the Greek that, and thus interprets: How may he give us his flesh to eat? According to this, the pointers for and for stand at the "flesh", so that one can see that all speech is of One flesh; although the Jews understood otherwise, [that] it would be said of it, neither Christ carried out. And therefore he also gives an answer to accept their error, and says:.
336. "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh (x -a^E) is of no use at all." Here the little pointer "that" runs along all the way, and misleads Luther (just as a pious servant keeps her wife, that one may not do anything rude with her), that he does not like to deal with the words, as lust teaches him, and points hard to the flesh, to which it has pointed before for and for, and points to the flesh, and says: "The flesh", of which you only want to understand, as if it must be eaten, that is not a thing that is useful to eat. For the eating, that is, to be put off, of which I say, the one spirit must do. And that in this place the little pointer "that" should and must be put forward, we want to prove first with Christ, and then with Luther's words.
337 Christ thus saith, The Spirit is he that quickeneth. Then I ask Luthern: whether here the little hands "the" and "the" may well be omitted, as with the flesh, as he says? he will have to say: that they may not be omitted; for the Latins have a Latinis in relativum translatum, ne putet nos temere loqui de vi articulorum, ôï πνεΰμα έστί τό æùïðïéïýí. But why do the little hands not like
1) Luther did not say that. Cf. No. 21, 88 210 and 227.
2) Marginal gloss: rHv
3) In the old autotypo stands praepositium, a print
error. (Walch.)
be omitted? Therefore, that they actually and personally point out what is understood by the Spirit here. "The Spirit is that which quickeneth," or "the Spirit is that which quickeneth. If one were to omit the "he" and say: Spirit is that which gives life, then the word "Spirit" would stand in the common, and it would not be clear that it alone would be taken for the divine Spirit essentially and personally. But if the double "the" is there, one sees that he speaks essentially of the particular Holy Spirit, and not in the common of spirit, that is, of spiritual being, life, or discipline. For the latter does not make us alive, but if we are already alive in the Holy Spirit, we live spiritually.
338 If then the little pointer is not to be omitted from the Spirit, because it speaks of the special Holy Spirit of God, then the little pointer is also not to be omitted from the flesh, because it points to the special flesh of Christ, which is of absolutely no use to eat bodily, because it is an antithesis, a contrast.
339] As if one of Paul, 1 Cor. 3, said to the bishops, "Behold, all your buildings are nothing but pure gold! and the stingy bishops wanted to understand: they should see that all their dishes and housings were golden (as they unfortunately have done!), and say: Who would bring about so much gold? They would be answered: The clear, undeceived truth is that which is to be built by you; gold is of no use at all. Here you can see that this word "gold" means, first, that it should be built, but not according to the mind of the stingy. Secondly, gold is rejected, which is also named before, but not according to the mind of the miser, and is rejected according to its meaning, that it should be of no use at all for the building. 4)
340 Now Luther's proof follows. He speaks of the urge, 5) since we had written: as far as Christ spoke of the evil kind of the flesh, he would not have answered the disciples to their error, since they thought that he had spoken of bodily food, and therefore did not murmur against the mind of the fleshly kind; for nothing at all was spoken of it.
Luther [in the arc] m at the 8th panel: 6) "Ah! it is indeed vexatious Dina, with such boys in God's word act. We say that the disciples grumbled both against the mind of the
4) i.e. to serve, to do.
5) i.e. the distress [into which he had got].
6) No. 21, § 214 f.
Spirit, and against the bodily eating of the flesh of Christ; for they understood none rightly. "etc.
342 Here I will enforce from Luther, if it must ever be enforced, that Christ speaks of his own flesh, that he is not useful to eat; thus: Luther confesses that the disciples murmured against the mind of the spirit, and against the bodily eating. Now spiritual understanding and bodily eating are not of one sex, unius generis, so that they may be understood together. And therefore I ask Luthern: is neither 1) the right understanding? For the Scriptures, as he himself confesses, must have a proper sense. If he says: this is the understanding of murmuring, that they murmured against the spiritual food, then we say. How could they murmur against it, if they had not yet understood it? For he has never named the word "spirit," therefore they murmured only out of lack of understanding. Secondly, they grumbled against the spiritual mind; why then does Luther add that they also grumbled against the bodily food? Because the Scripture must have only one meaning. If they murmured against the spiritual mind and against the bodily food, it would be publicly against each other; for if they murmured against the spiritual mind, they would never eat the bodily food.
343 But putting all the requests aside, Luther recognizes that they have grumbled against the physical food; so this is the most prominent cause of their grumbling. For Luther would not have put it where he could have escaped it by some way; but he did not like to do so, for the words were on his neck, which are thus, "But the Jews murmured on his account," ðåñú αύτοΰ, "that he had said: I am the bread which came down from heaven; and said: Is he not the Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how then does he say: I am come down from heaven?" These words are so bright that no better would be set for us, that the Jews grumbled, "How can he who eats his flesh have eternal life, if he were a natural man, well known to them by his parents? Behold, they speak not against the manner of the spirit, nor against the manner of the flesh, but against the bodily eating, which they supposed to be false.
344 If Luther recognizes that they also murmured against the fleshly food, then it is undoubtedly the right thing to do; for he would not have denied it where he might have done so. 2)
1) i.e. which of the two.
2) i.e. to resist it.
If, then, the Scripture must have a proper natural meaning, it follows that it is the one that Luther also recognizes; namely, that the Jews grumbled against the bodily food (although not rightly understood) and not against the common doctrine of the spirit and flesh, which is not dealt with here. est enim favorabile dicere: plurimum prodesse, si spiritu vivas; esse contra exitiale, si secundum carnem, juxta verbum apostoli, Galat...
345 Since it has been established that the Jews did not grumble on account of spiritual or carnal understanding, but on account of the fact that they mistakenly thought that Christ wanted to give them his body bodily to eat, it is also evident that Christ's responsibility extends to removing their mistaken opinion, so that they see that he did not speak of a bodily meal at all when he said, "The flesh is of no use at all," that is, to eat, because he wants to exclude the bodily meal from them. And if this is of no use at all, they see that he did not tell them about the bodily eating of his flesh. Therefore the disciples also said, "Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we know it, and believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Behold, pious princes, the faith, and the falling away of the erroneous opinion! and [they] do not remember with a word, that they said, but the unclean flesh hath the poison of death, or the like.
346 Summa, we have previously indicated this place with many strong causes, which prove [that it] must be understood according to the sense which is now indicated, not to be elicited again here. In addition, no Christian has ever been of whom I have heard or read that he understood the words "the flesh is not useful at all": the carnal evil kind is not useful. For it is 4) too easy to all disorder and contradiction that Christ should say: It is not useful; but he had spoken much stronger, as Paul Rom. 8: "The prudence or wisdom and manner of the flesh is death"; so also Luther has in all his previous books our, that is, the right sense known; therefore we are in all ways stronger neither he.
347. but that he presents me as if I had done violence to the Greek articles or pointers half to the teachers, he does as truly as he says on me: I have the words "that is my
3) Marginal gloss: Lutcla I,utücri [that is, a rank of Luther^.
4) Marginal gloss: Intellcctus I^utüeri est contra äccornin xcrsonas Owristi.
corpse" poor miserable words. I may well have scolded the poor miserable people, who dare to keep the dead letter so idiosyncratically, which they do not understand; but that I have thus scolded the words, that is an open denseness. But half of the pointers read Luther O^riUum, lib. 1, cap. 4. But there is little in this; we have presented open examples of Scripture for this reason. And herewith let fall the denunciatory gloss, foreign to Christian teachers, which he says about the words: My words are spirit and life, and says, it is so much: I must have spiritual disciples. That is where we come to, that we say what we want, it rhymes or glues itself, when we become so great that one believes us what we say. I also let him put the rule in sackcloth with others, since he explains to himself: Where flesh and spirit stand in opposition to one another in Scripture, "flesh is not taken for the flesh of Christ; for where does he prove it? or where does he find in Scripture a place that is like it, so that he has learned from many places to cast this rule? It is the children's game, if they want to lose the nut, they say: It does not apply so. Show me Luther a place of the Scriptures or a teacher, from which this rule is measured or taken! it is all aörör id est, Burkhart has called it.
348. the value is that he writes in the [arc] n on the seventh panel thus: 1)
Luther: "But Christ does not speak here of His own Spirit, which He has personally; but, as the text reads, of the Spirit that quickeneth, that is, of the common Spirit, which is in all believers; though Christ giveth the same, and Christ is Spirit" etc.
Behold, pious princes, how beautifully this is spoken! Yes, if the words were the words of a dissolute prankster, who thus wanted to sweet-talk with old women. Tell us, Luther, who is the Spirit that Christ has personally, and that the same is his own Spirit? and who is the other Spirit that he does not have personally, that is not his own Spirit? and thirdly, who is the Spirit that gives life, that Christ gives, and is not his personal Spirit?
In short, they are famous 2) caps. The Holy Spirit is who goes from the Father and the Son, and sends him the Father and the Son. He is the third divine person, and is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, indeed, the bond of them both. He is the Spirit who is in all believers; and
1) No. 21, § 228.
2) i.e. dressed up.
The son is not personally called the spirit, nor is a personal spirit, which, differently, is his, admitted to him. But it is the death sting of one who wrestles with Luther. He sees in the little pointer: "The Spirit is that which gives life" that Christ says of the personal Spirit, who is God; and presses him on, [that] the flesh also must be taken personally; and therefore he convicts it with a cake lump, that one does not know it rightly.
351. Since he tells us to show the analogy of the bread to the body of Christ, if it means him, I do not say anything else, neither that he reads the sixth chapter of John; and if he has read over that, he does not find the analogy, that as the bread strengthens the body, so the only strength, comfort and food of the soul is Christ, so let us fill an egg in water for him, if he wants to eat something; read also Lactantium Firmianum lib. 4. de vera sapientia cap. 18; Augustinum in loannem, tractatu 26. et tractatu 13.; and afterwards Oecolampadium.
But the similarity of the chalice, he means, 4) we may not indicate. So let us see! In Jeremiah's 26th vision, God gives the prophet a cup or goblet to give to all the nations to drink with; and Jeremiah takes it and waters all the nations with it. And the watering is nothing else, neither the punishment nor the sorrow that would come upon them, 5) as it is shown afterward to every nation in particular. Each cup is taken for suffering.
353. ezek. 23, 31. "You will," O Haoliba [Ahaliba], that is, Jerusalem, "drink the cup of your sister." But there[times] cup is taken for suffering. For he means to say that the kingdom of Judah must suffer what the kingdom of Samaria also suffered, being destroyed and carried away captive etc.
354. Isaiah 51: "Arise, arise, Jerusalem! you who have drunk the cup from the hand of the Lord" etc. But [times] cup is taken for suffering and punishment; for he wants to say that Jerusalem is punished by God etc. In the prophets are innumerable messages. But [times] in the New Testament.
355. Matth. 20: "May you drink the cup that I will drink?" that is, through such a body.
3) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther] in [arc] q on the 2nd panel. [No. 21, § 255 ff.]
4) Marginal gloss: Is in [Luther's] q [not B] on [the] 7th plate. [No. 21, § 266.)
5) In the old autot^po it says "gon ward", i. 6. iturus ernt; in the eonjuZatione xerixkrastiea. (Walch.)
Who will come to such honors of the right that you desire, since I alone will come? Soon after: "You will drink my cup", that is, be killed and suffer etc. Here he calls their suffering his "cup"; for that which is of the members he makes his.
356. John 18: "Wouldest thou that I should not drink the cup which the Father hath given me?" saith Christ to Petro. Did you want me not to suffer death according to the will of my Father?
357 And Luke 22: "Father, if it is possible, take this cup from me; not my will, but yours be done. This is the most open place, since cup is taken for death and suffering. So the cup in the supper is a symbol, sign, form and figure of the suffering and death of Christ, which he himself called the cup. And I am surprised that Luther looks at it with such a poor request.
The fact that he uses "to break" in the words "which is broken for you" and "to give" in the words "which is given for you" on bread, which is broken and presented, and not on the body of Christ, and says: even though he does not say so, yet let someone keep to the interpretation, is just like other things, in which he introduces a fictitious sense in addition to the natural sense. But I wonder very much what kind of Christian people these are, who see and read such an inverted book, which has so many confused teachings, that they do not see from themselves to what dishonor and diminishment of the suffering of Christ it reaches? As if all the prophets were not full, since "to perish" is taken to mean to suffer and to perish? Isaiah 24, 19: Confractione confringetur 1) terra etc., "the earth, which is utterly destroyed", that is, glorified 2) and punished. Ezech, 5, 11.: "So will I also commit crime 3) and will not communicate mercy." And not only the xxx is there, but all the words that are called to them are called to be broken. So here "broken" is taken for killed and perished. If Luther does not know this, it is too impudent that he speaks so strongly of an unconscious thing.
359. "Surrender." Rom. 4: "Christ was given for our sins and rose again. John 3: "God so loved the world that He gave His own Son that we might live." Why then is the word "to be given" so strange to Luther that he uses it for the presentation of the bread? Why does he not show a
1) Marginal gloss:
2) i.e. devastated.
3) Marginal gloss:
What is the reason for the predecessor, if he brings anything that serves to diminish the honor of Christ's great suffering?
Luther hides behind the stove in the corner of the jack's box.
Luther 6) condemns 7) some who say that faith must have a spiritual aspect; but he takes one of his pieces 8) and says: How then would we believe that the world was created by God? without doubt, that the world is a bodily thing. As if Luther did not understand what they (I think it was the pious Silesians) understood by "believe"; namely: trust, that is, that the treasure and sight of human trust must be "spirit". And is the faith that I believe heaven and earth to be created by God, not the faith that is the "firm trust" in the highest good, but only a "lesson" from faith, because those who called the Historiam, have also spoken something. But Paul Heb. 11: "By faith we know that the world was created by the command of God." There we see that this knowledge is a fruit of faith; and not faith, since we trust in God: therefore Luther's struggle is kürbsin. 9)
362. But I would like to ask him: whether his finite [ultima] and thorough confidence stands in another thing, neither spirit? So we are confident in Him who says, "God is a Spirit," John 4; and if we recognize Him, we see that all things are not only created by Him, but are also sustained and nourished. Yes, faith cannot suffer that it does not settle on a mere creature; therefore also the theologians have halfway spoken of Christ as distinguishing human nature from divine nature.
4) "Besehind" is in the old autot^po, i.e. vickeunt, Which indicates emen optutivum. (Walch.)
5) "for" nota ^aese-r^rcre/ "before" denotat ^ron(Walch.)
6) Marginal gloss: Is sim Luther in the bow) t at [the) 5th panel. sNo. 21, § 33 l.)
7) huppen - to scold meanly. Compare the note to Col. 1205.
8) i.e. unclean piece. Compare § 89 and § 91 of this paper.
9) i.e. like the gourd of the prophet Jonah. -
it should not be worshipped. To be worshipped is only of the good in which the soul unquestioningly entrusts itself. Thus one relies on Christ, God and man; therefore we recognize by faith, not only that we have trusted in Jesus Christ, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born etc., but we say beforehand that he is the only begotten Son of God, and is our Lord and God. For this reason he also proves his divinity everywhere through the gospel of John, so that people may see that they can trust in him without doubt.
Luther: "Here it is said of the one Godhead that it is threefold, as three persons" etc. In which his words, as in all of them, throughout the whole book, are erroneous; for the Godhead is not threefold at all, but only one; and the holy three Persons may never suffer themselves to be threefold; but they are called trias or trinitas, Dreiling or Trinity. But no orthodox, that is, jurist, has ever called them threefold; for they are thus one being, that they are three pure ones, neither mind, memory, and will being one soul.
I completely understand that Luther has entered so many oddities in this note that one may be forgiven for all uncleanliness. For to what purpose do the unchristian sayings serve, that the Godhead is threefold? shall not the simple learn that there are three natures of the holy three persons? and if there are three natures, then there are also three Gods. How can he let such words go out of his mouth? Are the scholars in Saxony blind? or are they such sleepy dogs that they do not bark at the foreign words? or, if Luther speaks unchristian, may they not speak against it? In this book I feel as if I were looking at a sow in the flower garden; so unclean, untheological, so inauthentic is his talk about God and all holy things.
And you theologians (I will name you all across Germany) keep silent, just for the sake of quarreling? Can you not think that even if Luther were right, it would still be better 2) to hang millstones on our necks and sink us, neither that we let such aggravation proceed unchallenged? Yes, I know those who say: Oecolampadius and Zwingli will not leave it unanswered. Is therefore the trade not yours? or are they the ones in whom you have believed? Have not also the apostles all for
1) Marginal gloss: Is [with Luther] in the [bow] u an [the] 2ten Tafel. [No. 21, § 342.]
2) d. i. better.
themselves, yet One Opinion and from One Spirit, preached?
366 I must also indicate here that Luthern's quarreling brings him to the point that soon afterward he himself recognizes everything that he has fought about before of the two natures, and here of the three persons half; and thereby indicates that he is dealing with quackery. But interrogate him yourself!
Luther in the [Arc] u at the 2nd panel: 3) "Who makes here, 4) that two different natures become one being, and one is spoken the other? Without doubt not the essential unity of natures (for there are two different natures and beings), but the personal unity; for although it is not one being according to the natures, it is nevertheless one being according to the person. And so from this arises two kinds of unity and two kinds of being (as, a natural unity and personal unity), and so on. From the personal unity arises such speech that God is man, and man is God; just as from the natural unity in the Godhead arises this speech that God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit; and again, the Father is God, the Son is God" etc.
Behold, pious princes! these words have slipped my mind above, although I had distinguished them. But Luther never made such an acknowledgment 5) above, but put it here behind that, as it would go, he could still saw: I have spoken thus; and this has also been the cause of our forgetting.
Here Luther gives reason why the sayings: God is man, and man is God, are true; and says no other, neither of which we have shown anywhere; therefore that two natures are one person. But above he did not decide between the two natures; 6) but mixed them up so that he said: The divine has suffered, and the human has gone out into all infinity, where the infinite Godhead is; yes, all speech was carried out so, as if he wanted to make mankind omnipotent and the Godhead. He also recognizes that there are two distinct natures and two distinct beings of natures.
I have thanks, Luther! Wohl knows that Luther does not want to understand this word "essence" for "to exist" or "to be a person of one's own" and stasis 7); but for a real, essential, and essential nature.
3) No. 21, § 343.
4) Marginal gloss: This is quite a Christian summa, in which we are completely one.
5) i. Confession.
6) d. i. distinguished.
7) Zwingli writes:
For he saith, Though they be not of the same nature, yet they are of the same nature according to the person. There we have two 1) natures: The first is called the quality of the essential natures; the other is called the hypostasis, the self-existent person; thus the two distinct natures are One Person. But when he says, "Two kinds of unity arise here," he understands the one, since the holy three persons are One God, and calls it natural unity; what then may he do with the word "three kinds" above? The other unity he understands the unification of the two essential natures in One Person of Christ. He calls the two different natures two beings; as his examples themselves indicate.
Behold, pious princes! if not Luther's verse in this place at a letter with us helle [consonet, agree], in the long explanation of the Allöosen or Gegenwechsels matter droben gethan.
If only the human nature of a human being, or quality (I take care to put quality, especially, actually, or "nature" for "essence," so that I may not be suspected of making two persons); then the human nature must not be spread out according to the divinity; it must not be everywhere, but be in one place; as this befits the essence or quality of human nature. And Luther is at one with us; and only the seductive, arrogant guests who want to be of an opinion from Luther's book, of which Luther is not at all, last me. However, the fact that Luther waffles now and then should be brought out and corrected, for the divine spirit does not teach that one should give way to the truth with quarrels and bickering, but with discipline and fear.
Accordingly, Luther comes even closer to us when he admits that 2) "the bread is the body of Christ, just as the fiery flame or cloud is the angel, or the dove is the Holy Spirit. And in sum, 3) "so between the bread of the supper and the body of Christ there is a sacramental being". Now the cloud or flame is not the angel; nor the dove the Holy Spirit; so it follows that even according to Luther's position or opinion the bread is not the body of Christ.
374. But that he comes with praedicatione identica is not masterly even in sophistry, as he needs it: 4) Nam sub identitate com-.
1) d. i. twice.
2) Marginal gloss: In [Luther's Confession, in the arc v an l^der] 5th panel. (Ro. 21, § 3474
3) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's writing, in the arc x on the first panel. sNo. 21, § 357.^
prehenderet identitatem corporis et panis reali, essentiali sive formali; personali, an rationali? Non reali, nam ea est, ubi res est eadem; formae autem, hoc est, virtutes, sunt diversae; ut: intellectus, voluntas et memoria sunt eaedem res, distinguuntur tamen virtute; alia enim est vis intelligendi, alia propendendi, alia memorandi; attamen istae vires omnes sunt una eademque anima rationalis. Non formali aut essentiali; sic enim conjunctiora essent corpus et panis, quam humanitas et divinitas; eadem enim formaliter et essentialiter sunt, quae definiuntur per eandem formalem et essentialem differentiam. Non personali; nam alio- qui Christi persona constituta esset ex filio Dei, filio hominis, et (ut sic dicam) filio tritici; atque ut, quicquid est creatum in Christo, passum est in cruce, ita oportuisset panem quoque crucifigi
375 Sequitur ergo, quod solum rationalis est identitas inter panem et corpus Christi; qualis est omnis denominativa: synecdochica, translativa, sive metaphorica, transsumtiva, sive metaleptica identitas. Sic vir canus est canities; sic belligerat Gallia, cum rex belligerat ; sic lapis et Christus sunt eadem res; sic calix est testamentum; sic pati est mori Christum etc.. En! ut omnia ista non vere sint ea, quae esse dicimus? Attamen ratio invenit, aut cognationem, aut viciniam aliquam, qua, quae non sunt eadem, aliquo modo faciat eadem; quumque vere nunquam sint eadem, eisdem tamen nominibus adpellentur. Nam quod alii dicunt, quaedam esse eadem genere, specie et numero, in hac divisione ampliter comprehenduntur. Unde nihil imperitius potuit a Luthero arripi, quam ut per praedicationem identicam tentaret, panem esse corpus Christi contendere. Sed jamdudum donavimus ei ista, modo non gravius peccaret...
376 And therefore we leave the same to the Scoto, Brulifer and Capreolo. And let us say recently of the sacramental unification; for that is also touched upon above. Sacrament 5) is made by the Latins several times from mysterio, 6) a Greek word, which means something secret, something external form, figure, or being, but which means a great secret, divine, or serious dina. And so in the New Testament we find sacramentum for the secrecy of the divine council, since he has before him to redeem man with his Son. But when we need it here, for a sign, form or
5) Marginal gloss: Kaerarusuturu.
6) Marginal gloss: //ve^/nov.
Figure by which we form and signify a great thing, we do not find the name Sacrament in the New Testament; for that Eph. 5. stands is called per allegoriam sacramentum. And sacrament, thus taken, is described in two ways. Sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing; or: Sacrament is a visible form or image of an invisible grace. The first description is the most general, although the other does not mean anything different from the first, namely, that it is a visible sign or form of divine grace, which is not visible. Thus is the divine grace that gave us Christ. The grace is invisible to us; but to the grace we practice a visible symbol or sign, the supper, to praise and extol the grace (proved to us). And is but as much, as a sign of a holy thing.
If the bread and the body of Christ are only sacramentally one, they are no longer one, because each sign is one with the signified. But the image of the honest Coclitis, who is called Cocles himself, is not; therefore the image for the sake of his honest deed is put on the market for him; so the image after his death is called after him, since he has never been in many hundred years. So now the signs of the emperor and the French in Neapolis are the emperor and the king; for when one sees the emperor's and the king's eagle and gilts 1) one says: This is the emperor, this is the king; but they are only their witnesses with their signs. Thus the royal scepter is the king; thus the keys are the power. For if one gives the scepter or the key to someone, he signs that he is the king, or the magistrate and the authority. And the scepter and the keys are neither king nor authority. So the morning redness is a redness, that it means a future redness; and the evening redness is a beauty. So the paschal is the passover, and can be nothing but a sign of the passover. And the bread is the body of Christ, that it may be a sign to us that Christ suffered death for us etc.
378 In sum, to be sacramental is nothing else at all, neither to bear an image of a sacred thing, since the sign is not the sacred thing; but because it signifies the sacred, it takes the name of that which it signifies. It does not follow, however, that the body of Christ is where the sacrament of his body is; for baptism is also a sacrament of the sacred.
1) "Glichen" is unknown to us; but one recognizes that it must mean a sign or standard.
Death of Christ. 2) Therefore, if Christ had to die wherever one baptizes, it would not now be a sign of a thing that has happened, but a sign of a thing that is happening in the midst. But the bread and wine in the supper are signs of the dead body and blood of Christ, therefore the body and blood are not there; for if they were, they must be killed and sacrificed, or else they would be there for nothing; unless our adversary relents, that they are only there in remembrance, and in the hearts of the faithful; then we are one.
379 Probation. If the sign and the signified are together, as our opponent says, then the suffering must also be present; for the sign, the sacrament, is a sign of Christ's death, as they also recognize. But if they confess that the sign is indeed there, and the sign is also essentially there, but that the sign is presently suffering, that is not so. So I ask them: Why is this supper instituted? Must they ever admit to me: to commemorate the death of Christ. For thus speak Christ and Paul; and not: of the body of Christ, especially [separately] without the suffering. Now if the suffering is the chief thing, wherefore this remembrance is signified, and the thing signified should be there at the sign: then Christ should ever suffer there, and be offered; or else that which is chiefly signified, that is not there. This account, founded in God's Word, we have to indicate, so that the simple may be well paid to the sacramental unity or presence; for it seems to me [mihi videtur] that they are blinded by the word "sacramental", so that they do not know what sacramental presence is.
380 But from these explanations it will now be seen that it is nothing else at all, neither' a divinely chaste gathering of the people or Church of God to the body of Christ, that is, to the thanksgiving of the death of Christ, which is therefore called his body, that one remembers and gives thanks for his death and torture in it; in which thanksgiving one carries around the signs of his body and blood, as an external sign of his and our love.
381 Now we see that the body of Christ is sacramentally there. Just as the emperor or king is in Neapolis, because his signs are in it, and the one is in Hispania, the other in Gaul: so Christ is here in the hearts of the faithful with great joy and gratitude that he has taken on true human nature.
2) Marginal gloss: Rom. 6. [V. 3. 4.)
He became our brother and with his death redeemed us and made us his co-heirs. But essentially his body sits at the right hand of God. And the bread and the wine, which are partaken of together in this memorial, are called the body and blood of Christ, according to the noble thing that is done here, which is the thanksgiving of the death that he suffered in the body. Neither are wine and bread any more one thing with the body and blood of Christ, for the signs of kings are kings because they show the authority of kings.
382. nor has there ever been a sacrament that made present what it signifies, but 1) it has indicated and testified that what it signifies is present. So circumcision did not make God's children, but those who were God's children before, according to the promise, took circumcision as a sign and testimony of the covenant in which they were. So the paschal lamb did not bring the transgression with it, for the same had only happened once, but those who gave eternal thanks for it testified to it and brought their believing, thankful hearts to the lamb; and in their hearts they carried the transgression. So baptism does not make children of God, but those who are children of God before take the sign and testimony of the children of God.
So the supper of Christ, or the bread and wine in it, does not bring the body or death of Christ present, but those who recognize the death of Christ, which was suffered at first, make it their life, 2) bring it into the supper in their thankful hearts, and thereby take from their members the sign which Christ appointed to be taken from them, and testify that they have seen his death. But that in this theologians 3) err, cannot be accounted for; for they do not recognize the saying Eph. 5. and Titum 3. of the cleansing of the washing away with the word, and of the bath of regeneration xxxxxxxxx 4) being; that the signs are admitted to signify only, as is now sufficiently indicated. For ever that is without doubt, that purification is of the soul of the united spirit. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." For this purpose also the remission of sin is admitted to the apostles, that they may
1) Marginal gloss: The sacrainente show and witness; make not present.
2) That is, those who recognize that the death of Christ is their life.
3) Marginal gloss: Lrror LkeoloZorum, quoä saerarnsnta ali^ulä eonksrant.
4) Marginal gloss: LvaX/la?al, i. ss.) Lnarnutatlonss vsl oorurnutationss munsrum.
preached the word of salvation and indulgence; for otherwise all believers well know whether no one else 5) gives them rest of conscience, neither the comfort in God.
384, But that Luther says: 6) "The bread is like the body of Christ, as the dove is the Holy Ghost, and the flame the angel" etc., and says of a new being, et quomodo quidam fallantur,7 ) quod de unitate totali per unitates partiales, et econtra syllogizant, we leave in its value! that is, that it is not worth a light one, except that he recognizes there that the bread is the corpse of Christ not otherwise, neither the dove the Holy Spirit. Now the dove was not the Holy Spirit at all; for it was not a natural dove either, but only a spectrum, an appearing figure, which was wonderfully created for the present action, 8) and after the action it left again. Therefore, the dove and the flame are not like the bread, which is a sacrament in the night meal, and an essentially natural bread; not miraculously created, like the dove. Neither is the dove, flame, and cloud a sacrament; for sacramenta are things half used of signs, 10) common, known, which are manifest to all men: so such miracles are unused, strange, unknowable things; therefore the arguing of miraculous signs to sacramental signs is an error, quia non sunt ejusdem speciei for they are not of one form nor kind. We have said enough in previous writings that miraculous signs are not of one kind with sacramental signs, but Luther and his followers do not want to see this. Oh God! Behold, how the good man would like to help himself! but it must be. 11) Either he must break, or we will chase him from this book, as we chased him from the previous one. And do not admit this to ourselves, but we will do it with the iron rod of God's word, with the sword that pierces limb and limb 12).
5) d. i. no other, "neißwer" put by us instead of "neißwar", because "war" means "whereupon". Cf. § 303 and A 82 of this writing.
6) Marginal gloss: Is in the fLuther, in the bow) u at [the] 5th panel. [No. 21, § 347.)
8) d. i. created.
9) i.e. tough, hurried.
10) used - common, frequent.
11) Marginal gloss: kia 68t kasc sonüdentia.
12) In the old edition: equal. But it seems to us that "equal" must be a noun, in the meaning of "joint".
385 Consider also, pious princes, that he says: 1) "Even if their text were uncertain, it would still be safer if one were deceived by God 2) neither by a man" etc. Here we see how the devil climbs up. Since Luther errs in the understanding of the words, then God shall understand him. And if he dazzles and seduces with brights and bounces 3) as [, as] I well realize, his own conscience tells him; so he makes him a secret exit here, through which he may flee. Namely this: 4) If I am deceived, then God has deceived me, because I have insisted on His word; but do not think that the pope 5) and all heretics could say thus: If I err in my power or opinion, God has deceived me, for it is written plainly: "What you bind" or discharge etc., "that is bound" or discharged. Or it is clearly written: 6) "The Father is greater than I." For this reason, however, no one is excused; for the truth is presented to us enough, but we do not want to accept it. But if God rejects us altogether, and lets us fall into reprobum sensum, that is, into a wrong opinion, we must nevertheless point out. May the God of peace grant that we recognize and accept the truth so unanimously that we all give glory to God with one mouth and heart, amen!
386. so much, pious princes, from the first part, in which we have let many impractical teachings and speeches run through the hand, and seen from that alone, that the most noble pieces would be thoroughly fortified, as: The absence of the body of Christ; to be priestly about the body of Christ; to be at the right hand, and yet remain true man; that God is not able to do contrary to His own word; how the body of Christ is in the supper; that the places of Scripture, which we have for our shield, have not been rejected by Luther 7). If we should now reject Luther's erroneous understanding, let us first put Oecolampadius' short, but quite virtuous Christian answer; and then put the other part of our understanding of the words, with rejecting Luther's understanding; and lastly speak of his faith. And therefore go [listen], pious princes, while Oecolampadio is listening, so may I with the other two
1) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's Confession, in the arc) x at the 4th panel. sNo. 21, § 362 inaccurately stated).
2) Marginal gloss: Viäs, quam impiurn prasstiZiuiü!
3) Probably, "to show off and to boast" is meant. "Prächten" - to let splendor be seen, also occurs elsewhere in Zwingli.
4) Marginal gloss: ImtBsri prastsxtns.
5)- Marginal gloss: kontiüois xrastsxtus.
6) Marginal gloss: ^.rril prastsxtus.
7) i.e., dismissed from the way.
The more you come, the better. He lets himself be looked at childishly and badly, but you will find a man behind him, if you prove his veins and legs, that is, the sense of the words and spirit right. 8)
[Johann Oecolampad's response to Martin Luther's Confession of the Supper of Christ.]
Johannes Oecolampadius Huldricho Zwinglio Grace and peace from Christ our Lord.
Here I send you, faithful brother and fellow servant in the word of the Lord, my distortion, which I have placed on Luther's confession of the Lord's Supper. You may append this to your responsibility, if it seems good to you, so that men may see 9) that there is no repugnant spirit in us, as Luther pretends, and yet the one in his most audible proof 10) is one, so that he may make our doctrine suspicious; although it is denounceable and he himself gives evidence that it is one opinion and only other words. Search in his book, in the letter s [at] the first [leaf]. 11) Now I have never contradicted you, nor have you opposed me; indeed, I have used your words myself, just as you are not ashamed of mine. Our listeners are also not so deaf that they would raise a chipping and splitting because of us in this.
Now that the little books are here, and our unanimity is sufficiently denounceable, I will not answer for the same, as well as for many other disgraceful words and mockery words; for whoever is well with these, he does not yet want the truth. I do not know how to edify anyone with this; if the truth is recognized, it is all accounted for with honor. In the meantime we are no better than our Master Christ was. It should be a small thing to us that he wants to teach us the puerile logicam, yes, it should be dear to us, because his companions have long reproached us, we need too much of them.
(3) That he scolds us fools, and is foolish in his language, is a responsibility of his, that others attribute so much malice to us. That his best words are: "Fools, boys, devils," and the like, should be a reminder to us of how silly it is for a person,
8) proven" - tests.
9) Marginal gloss: Conordia inter Zwinglium et
Oecolampadlium.
10) Probation - Evidence.
11) No. 21, § 285.
12) gach - abrupt, hurried.
whom wrath overcomes; are we yet the better nor the more wicked.
(4) But because many are angry and offended by this, we have no other way to turn it around than to excuse ourselves in the most chastening way for the sake of doctrine. The Lord wants to test how dear the truth is to everyone. I know of no trade that has so freely opened the secrecy of men's hearts, some of them glib, and some of them confessors of the truth, as the matter of the Sacrament.
5) God will not be angered by the blasphemy that he is committing against us, and against you in particular, the alloeosi. 1) I have not yet found anything different in you, except that you are confessing a one God and man. I have not yet found anything different in you, except that you confess one Christ, true God and man. One has soon forced words back and forth to turn one's doctrine upside down.
(6) But that we are called enemies of the sacraments, strikers or desecrators, we have hardly been accused of anything more unreasonable. For all our writing and teaching is directed toward keeping the sacraments, 2) what is proper to be kept of them, and that their proper honor be proven to them. Even if we do not act so carnally, so crudely, so capernaitically about sacraments, we are not sacrament strikers for that reason. Some scold us, who do not know what we believe or teach; even if it would mean life to them, they would not say: what sacrament? why it is used? and how it should be used? Should we therefore be sacrament strikers, that we do not confess that the bread is essentially the body of Christ, then all popes must be sacrament strikers, yes, even the Lutherans themselves now fall away from it, and say: Under or in the bread is the body of Christ.
(7) If we are enemies of the sacraments because we say that the matter of the bread remains in its essence, then all Lutherans are also sacrament strikers. If we are sacrament abusers because we do not accept miraculous, unspeakable miraculous signs in the sacraments, St. Augustine was an arch enemy of the sacraments who wrote so publicly. If we have desecrated the sacraments by not administering them with great pomp, with much ceremony, and according to the commandment of useless human statutes, then Christ and his apostles are guilty of this, who was pleased with simplicity, if we believe and preach the word of faith, of which it is written in Romans 10, by which the sacraments are sanctified, and sacraments, if we teach them, are made invisible by visible things.
1) i.e. to move up, to impose.
2) Marginal gloss: ^nisintsnerainSnroi'ninvsriliostDs.
Things; not to put hope in the elements, to make the likeness of faith in everything, to take the mind captive to the obedience of Christ, that the truth may be known when we compare spiritual things with spiritual.
8) How may we be sacramental strikers? If we took the promise from the words of the supper, and would not allow the bread to be a sacrament of the true body and blood of Christ, poured out for us, as some do, we would be suspicious. If we denied that Christ, the Son of God, did not have his power to work with the sacraments as with words, and did not also work miraculously, it would be no wonder that we were opposed.
9 But it does not have the opinion. We proclaim the mystery of faith with the sacraments. That which is given for revelation shall not be obscured to us: so also our adversaries must admit the sacramental union, and even put a figurative speech in words which they do not like to circumvent, though they stiffly deny it, and yet one grasps around and around them that they accept it.
(10) Also, if they say that the body of Christ is not as a body in the bread circumscriptively or locally, but otherwise incomprehensibly, but which may be admitted to the body as little 3) as to the spirit flesh and bone: one should well think whether divine zeal, or brotherly love, or Christian discipline move them to let other insanity creep in, whether already some miss their grosser and proclaim us as the most harmful enemies of God. Being an Anabaptist is not so harmful to them; seven times it would be better to listen to Popes. Pope Nicolaus in his condemned verdict has held his own, but Zwingli and Oecolampad have eaten their livers; they should be shouted out like this. And yet, in all that those who write against us dab at us, they have not understood us in one thing, which is so very unpleasant.
O! if it were done as right, as it is not; and if it were well with our hearts, as good fug we had in many places: how would we thus pay them off with abundant measure, and be again for them? But to whom would it be useful? to ours? No; for they desire the truth. The opponents? No; they would be the more embittered. To matter itself? No; it would be the more obscured. Our desire for revenge? No, that shall not be; God is judge.
3) In the old edition: "may admit".
The best thing will be to answer in humility and bear the shame for a while. It has come to this in the world that one does not know who will be scolded or praised. For dishonorable men are set on high by flatterers, and innocent hearts are burdened with all manner of mischief; but the day of the Lord shall open it, and the children of light shall know who is in the truth, and shall not think less of us. What do we care about the judgment of the children of darkness? We know well in whom we have trusted; if he be with us, what can all flesh do against us? The truth is strong, it shall avenge itself on our enemies. Why should we lose our patience? Enough is enough, simple and true, to answer the shortest to the matter. God grant His grace that it may be done with fruit! Amen.
Here you have my list, but I order you to do what you think is useful in it. I know well that you alone will refute it all. But I have done my part, because I am now also so completely in the game. With that, God be commanded. From Basel, on the 10th day of July, Anno 1528.
Johannis Oekolampadii's Answer to the Confession of Mart. Luther, on the Lord's Supper.
1 Paul, the holy apostle, when he reproaches us with the controversy of words, which some suppose to be carried on by us, does not want us to be completely silent about it, or either not to explain the words of Scripture correctly or, if they are presented badly, not to punish them. Without doubt, however, he wants us, if we want to attain the truth, not to be divided about the words, even if they are not produced with the same wisdom, so that we do not puff ourselves up harmfully with art, but rather create piety in the love of our neighbor. This is what God wanted my adversaries to do in the matter of the Sacrament. For I would like to think that in many things we could be compared in one mind, if one wanted to take note of each other properly. Unfortunately, it has not been possible so far. Well then, I pray to the Lord that nothing will happen to me, and that their angry defiance may be stopped with a gentle answer.
2) First, so that I may be understood, 1) I insist on using the words of the evangelists "the
1) d. i. confirm.
is my body": this is a sign or meaning of my body, just in the sense in which it is commonly said: "The bread is a sacrament, or a holy sign of the body of Christ. From which speech no one who has had an understanding has yet been offended: for nothing has been taken away from the true body of Jesus Christ, that it is the true body; but it has been added to it, that it is signified and signified by the bread. And so the bread is a sign, but the true body of Christ is a signified thing. And as the bread is truly bread and a sign, so the true body of Christ is truly the true body together, and also signified.
3. this now takes D. Mart. Luthern, as if I were rhyming, and it rhymed as little, as if I were saying: Christ would be Belial; says: it could not and should not be, and is quite a wrong trope, in all languages uncommon etc. To this I shall now answer these three pieces; [I] first, that the trope is customary; [II] afterwards, that it should and must be used in the interpretation of the words "this is my body"; [III] lastly, however, rejecting some of Luther's counter-accusations in the words of the Lord. Well, dear reader, you must not let yourself be misled by his mocking words and scolding words; they do not serve here. You will see that this interpretation of mine is not a matter of courage; it can and may well be without any distortion. But so that you may understand the matter, notice that the words we call figurative or "abominable words" he calls "renewed words" and "of a new interpretation," for the sake that they take on new interpretations. And those we call "natural" and "non-figurative" he calls "words of the old, or first, interpretation. There he sets such a division and rule: 2) "The words of the old or first interpretation show the thing that is the new likeness; and according to the new interpretation they show the new right thing, or being itself, as in this saying: 'I am the right vine.' Here the word 'vine' has become a trope or new word, which cannot interpret back the old vine, which is of the new likeness, but interprets for itself the right new vine itself, which is not a likeness. For Christ is not a likeness of a vine, but again the vine is a likeness of Christ" etc. We want to examine this explanation and revelation of his, as much as it is useful here, whether it is thoroughly appropriate and sufficient in all figurative speeches in which figurative words are invented, or whether it is repugnant to us.
2) No. 21, § 29 ff.
/Signa trifariam dicuntur [i.e. that which is signified is spoken in a threefold manner].
The words are to be divided into two parts. He divides them into two parts. But we will divide them into three parts.
(5) First of all, the words of the signs, when spoken proprie, that is, actually and ohnfigürlich, indicate the things for themselves, as they are in their nature, without all attention, that they may be likeness. As when I say: The lamb has four feet, the hare has two long ears, I understand only the natural hare or lamb. These are words as Luther calls them, namely of the first and old interpretation.
(6) Secondly, words that signify their nature by themselves also carry with them the meaning and likeness of other things. They indicate themselves together with their meaning, thus: if I point to a lamb, and say, The lamb is the patient Christ, the natural lamb is not excluded, for I point to it; but with it I also show how it bears the likeness of the true Christ. Thus, when Christ took the bread and said, "This," he pointed to the bread, leaving bread in its nature, but with it he also wanted to show the likeness of the bread, how the bread had a likeness of his body. I call these words sacramental here for the sake of two interpretations, a new and an old interpretation.
7) Thirdly, words that drop the interpretation of the natural essence, and show a new essence, the likeness of which is invented in the old meaning of nature. As when one says: Christ is the Lamb of God. There one points to no lamb of the flock, but to the new essential, which is Christ Himself, who is figured and signified by the lamb of the flock. Luther calls this word renewed words, and the other interpretation; but we call them figurative words. This distinction will be necessary and useful.
Signata trifariam dicuntur [i.e. that which is signified is spoken in a threefold manner].
8. again, you may speak in three ways of that which may be figured or signified by another.
9. first, as it is in its essence, without any appearance of any likeness, there is no likeness or figure, and are words of the first meaning, as: The body of Christ is born of Mary.
(10) Secondly, something is called as it is in its nature, and as it is figured, as: The body of Christ is the paschal lamb; that is, the body is a body, but is figured or signified by the paschal lamb.
11) Thirdly, without interpretation to the natural, but to the new essence, taken from the likeness; as, so the teachers call the body of Christ at times the sacrament of the body, and for the sign, and not just the true body, as Augustine indicates in epistola ad Bonifacium.
If Luther omits the other part, et peccat in divisione insufiiciente, that is, divides up what is to be divided, it is no wonder that he lacks his rule, when he says: All tropi in Scripture interpret the right new essence, and not the likeness of the same new essence. The reason why it is lacking is that when one points to things that bear likeness to them, that is, to sacramental ones, they are not excluded with their natural essence for the sake of interpretation, and the likeness to it is accepted; this I will clearly show and prove to you.
You speak of St. Peter's picture: St. Peter is colored yellow. There I gladly allow that the new and figurative word stands in a new essence, only for the painted St. Peter. But where you say: St. Peter is the St. Peter who preached the Gospel; then understand by St. Peter in subjecto, in the first word, not only in its new essence, as a painting, but also with its likeness, that it resembles the true St. Peter; and but the word St. Peter in praedicato, since it is mentioned for the second time, understands us the living St. Peter and not the painted one. But if this were not the case, it would be said that the painted St. Peter had preached; and one does not therefore drip back, as Luther mockingly says; but he took little notice of this, indeed, he omitted it altogether.
(14) Luther did not quite understand the opinion of my interpretation, or did not want to understand it. For he pretends that I say "body" should mean "sign of the body" in the saying "this is my body," when, if I had wanted to follow Scripture, I should rather negate the word "body" so that it means the true new body, to which the natural body of Christ would be a likeness. And as he says after many words, "Let this be said: 1) This is bread; as if here the body meant the bread, and not bread the body. With this he goes around, garnahe through his whole book. And his helpers have also done it, and have failed me against the world. Now it is not so for him; for I say, and have said it, that here the "bread" is a "body.
1) Marginal gloss: RtzZuIa in 6xpon6N(ii8 relative^.
Sign of the Body. For by "the body" I understand the true body of Christ, the Son of God, born of Mary of virgins; although it is true that the word "sign" in (the) interpretation falls on the body, as it happens in the relativis; but this does not make the true body of Christ a sign.
(15) Take an example: I say, Solomon is a son of David. The little word son refers to the little word David. Now therefore it is not thought that David is the son; but he is the father, and Solomon is the son. Otherwise, even in the Holy Trinity, one would mix the persons and make the Father the Son; and again. So also here I say: This is the sign of the body, so the word sign leans on the little word body; and therefore is not to be understood that the body is the sign, but it is the true body, which was given for us; but the bread is the sign.
(16) I would give you a thousand and a thousand examples, and all the languages that can do it. But let it be enough in one! Ezek, at the 4th it says: "O son of man, take a brick, lay it before thee, and set the city of Jerusalem thereon, and sausages 1) against her bulwark" etc. But 2) in the 5th chapter he says: "This is Jerusalem, which I have set among the Gentiles, and in her surrounding countries, and she has resisted 3) my judgments more than the Gentiles" etc. Here the thing can be seen. In the 4th chapter, Ezekiel wants the city of Jerusalem to be "torn down". Mark, the true city would not be torn down on a brick, and stand substantially on it; but the figure and likeness of a city, as the tropus in the third account is able. Afterwards in the 5th chapter he says: "This is Jerusalem (that is, the torn brick with the form and shape is Jerusalem), which I have set among the Gentiles." Then I wanted to hear how they interpreted this to me. Did they want to say: The cracked brick is essentially Jerusalem, which is the city of God: this is not; for it would not confess on any small brick. Or would they say: Jerusalem is the "renewed" word, as they call it; how would it then rhyme that the other Jerusalem, according to the renewed word, had angered God more, and had been set in the midst of the Gentiles; this would now be clumsy. Our interpretation, however, is the simplest and purest, that the Jerusalem of the brick is a meaning of the true Jerusalem;
1) i.e., storm bucks.
2) In the old edition: "Aller".
3) befzen - bark.
and therefore the true Jerusalem is not the figure, but the demolished Jerusalem on the stone, as such is achieved in the best possible way. 4)
17) Give examples from wherever you want 5), you will not lack them. So also the seed is a figure of the gospel; the lamb, the rock and Passover a figure of Christ; will be constant around and around; yes, also outside of Scripture, Sanct Peter, the painted one, is a figure and sign of the true one. Summa Summarum, Luther says what he wants, so it is clear that the first words in the speeches are the figure, but the epilogues are the figured ones, although in the interpretation they are based on what is figured. Therefore, they are vain and useless speeches, which he has poured out with great splendor: it is not possible.
18] The fact that Luther cites many examples is to be disregarded, because he turns them all unreasonably and without order, contrary to all logic. For it is to be interpreted in a far different way, if one puts the sign before it, and the renewed or figurative word after it; for if the sign is displaced, thus: If one says: Gospel is the seed, or: Christ is the rock; then it is proper to interpret it thus: The gospel is signified by the seed; Christ is signified by the rock. But if I preside over the rock, and say: The rock was Christ, I say rightly: The rock means Christ, the seed means the gospel. Here, 6) Luther's conversion or reversal in the ground is not meant. 7) Example: The ripe is a sign of the wine, that I wanted to burst on it, that the wine Hergegen is also a sign of the ripe. So Luther does to him; when we say: The rock is a sign or figure of Christ, he turns it around unfaithfully and says: Christ is a sign of the rock. It wants to suffer this reversal: The rock is a sign of Christ ergo the sign of Christ is the rock. This followed also: The lamb is a sign of Christ; reverse it, it reads: Christ is signified by the lamb. I may certainly not be surprised enough that the scholars dwell on such obvious things, and want to grieve and distress us with sophistry.
19) Luther also sets another rule: 8) "Where the little word 'is' is introduced in a speech, one is certainly speaking of the 'is' of the speech.
4) Maybe: eräuget?
5) We put it instead of "nümmen" (no longer) in the old edition, which does not fit here.
6) i. e. capable.
7) In the old edition: "im bodennichs".
8) Marginal gloss: vuplsx esse, vaturals st intslIsstuals.
essence of the same thing, and not from its interpretation." But how does he prove this rule? Exactly with the previous unhelpful rules, by way of example. However, it should not be completely rejected. For just as he can have two meanings in every word, he should also be able to invent them here in the little word "is," thus: some things have their nature and essence in themselves in nature, of each of which it is rightly and well said "is essential. Some have their essence in part according to the calculation of reason, whether they are already quite nothing in nature, so that it comes about that one may also ascribe the "is" to the void 1) and say: nothing is useful; and all important things have their "is" "in their value," 2) therefore also the little word xxxx xxxxx and xxxx xxxxx.
id est, "with us", or "that is", is so much said, [it] wants to serve to interpretation, and is "one means is" also "one is", has also its essence after its kind.
(20) Now, as it is said in the above-mentioned things, that some things bear with them, and are clothed with the interpretation; so the interpretation, as things multiplied and mingled, is also a being to them. Just as one may ask a thing what it is according to its nature, so one may also ask what it is according to its meaning. One may ask in a common way: What is image? and answer: It is a uniformity; so uniformity is in itself a being. Thus the common name "essence" extends far, and the word "is. Therefore it is not necessary to ask two questions, one about the essence, what it is, and the other, what it means, as Luther says. There should be no answering where the time is not thus uselessly entangled. It may be that, 3) when one desired to know the nature of a thing and then its meaning, one asked two questions for the sake of distinction. But if the natural essence is denounceable, and the meaning is inquired: what is it out of the way, if one already inquired the meaning of the significant essence by the "is"? Therefore, I also contradict him in that, it could not be equally valid: This is St. Peter; and: means St. Peter.
2l. Let us prove these things further with examples. One has made a triumphant fire; one asks: What is this? one answers him: It is a fire. With this he has not done enough for the questioner; for he knows this beforehand, and he will
1) In the old edition: "also dem void".
2) In the old edition: WERD.
tur ubi naturule esSs manitsstniL.
he hears something else, namely, what does it mean? he nevertheless asks: What is it? But if he is answered: It is a fire of joy; then he may well accept what it means. It is the same in the sacraments; one does not ask what bread is in substance, but in meaning. The disciples knew in the supper before that bread was bread, or even breaking bread; they were not to be taught that. But the significant essence was to be revealed to them, and [they] would not have known it either if it had not been interpreted to them by the words which give them such essence as it is ordained to be, that the bread is a sign of the body, and yet the body is understood to be the natural body of Christ. For the name "sign" is understood of the bread, although it is placed after the "is" to the "body".
(22) This would be a good answer to all the other gossip that Luther uses in the interpretation of Luke. For as I leave the blood in Matthew and Mark to be the true blood of Christ, so also in Luke and Paul; but that the word of interpretation stands before the word "new testament," namely, that the cup is a sign of the new testament: not that the new testament is the sign, but the cup; not the body the sign, but the bread. Therefore it must not be answered there, if he reproaches that 4) I am not confessed (confitens], although he gives me a suspicion that he has well recognized this interpretation and otherwise makes a good man out of me.
23 After this, whoever wants to see, may do so without complaint that I am not deceived in the saying of Tertulliani. He acts as if I understood Tertullianum de figura sermonis in Grammatica, which he has never guessed; even if I speak of figurative words back and forth, I do not say that Tertullianum points to it; for it is as much as "sign", as he himself gives to understand lib. 5. adversus Marcionem, where he calls a "sacrament" of bread and wine, which he called a "figure" before. Luther should also say at once: Sacramentum would be a figure in the Grammatica, so that one would see that it was mockery. He otherwise indicated enough, the "Zeichelei"; what would it need here the "essence"? Nor is it that Tertullianus has led me to speak thus of the Sacrament. But if I should thank a teacher on earth, for the sake of my understanding in this, then I would thank Augustino. But this does not serve here.
24 After this, Luther has other bad objections, which he brings forth with impudence and impudence, and would like to present them more graciously;
4) "deß" put by us instead of: that.
1386II- Schriften wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. xx, 1734-i7ss. 1387
but I think he thinks it suits him just fine. Let's put them after each other.
(25) The first: Where it is said that the Lord's bread and wine are set up for the remembrance of Christ's death alone, we have nothing of the text; we have enough in what we read: Take, eat, this do in remembrance of me! Or: what is the use of the text? May the death of the Lord be remembered (which is the main and some cause of the Lord's Supper) without such a text. 1) Answer. We say that in the supper there is not only remembrance and thanksgiving, but we should also praise and thank God in all places and at all times, as the Psalm says: "My soul, praise the Lord, and do not forget all His good deeds. In all the place of his glory praise the Lord." And again, "I will praise the Lord at all times." But this should also be a common thanksgiving, which is not commanded at all times, nor 2) with special ceremonies. For this reason a sacramental sign has been instituted for us, for the agreement of the people, in which it would be proclaimed to us in what and why we give thanks with one another, namely, we are thankful that we have been redeemed through the death of Christ, and that His merit is also granted to us. But this was to be commanded in an outward sign. But if the signs alone had been presented, and not interpreted, who would have told us wherein the thanksgiving was? Who would have told us what the bread meant, and what Christ meant by it? If Christ had not interpreted his action in words, how would we know that it was a sacrament? It is not valid to invent such necessary sacraments from one's own head; therefore such a text was necessary for us, since the sacrament was instituted and the command was given with a convenient interpretation.
26 Secondly, he asks: 3) Why Christ should teach the meaning (Luther mockingly calls it interpretation) just this once 4)? Answer: We do not say that Christ must do it, but that he should do it reasonably and wisely. For at that time the new ceremonies were to be instituted, since the old ones had now ceased; and since Christ was still here on earth in such a way that he would begin and end the new ceremonies.
1) Randglosse: Haars nesskkaria verba käse: Zoo "sr oorxms nrertnr.
2) This word not has come here probably by mistake in the autot^xuin, because it causes a quite adverse mind, because of the thanksgiving at the Sacrament is spoken. (Walch.) -By "ceremonies" is to be understood the distributing, eating and drinking of bread and wine, as follows.
3) Marginal gloss: Huars Mo tsnaxors sxposita vsr5a.
4) "dasmal" set by us instead of: deSmal.
than ours. And since they started, they should also be explained.
27 Thirdly, he asks: "What is the use of knowing that the bread means the body of the Lord? What good is such an allegory to faith, which even the wicked and devils could invent? What harm would it do if I never knew that the bread means Christ's body? We could have invented it from ourselves, especially since there is no analogia fidei. Answer: If Christ alone is the one whom God raised from the brethren [quem deus ex fratribus resuseitaturus erat) according to Genesis, 5) to renew the law, to change the ceremonies, it was also right for him to declare them. For even though others might have accepted such a likeness by his inspiration, one would not have been assured that this was his will and no other. But the allegories in the sacraments and in others have another form. The sacraments hold the secrecy, revealed by God alone to the true believers, the word of the cross, which is not recognized without benefit, not despised without harm. But if the devil already knew something, should Christ not teach it?
28) Now 6) Christ has included in this words of promise, as a core and heart of the sacraments. But who can give us promise in a sacrament but Christ alone? Here is the promise that Christ died for us and did enough for us, as it will follow afterwards, and has made this known to us as 7) well by signs than by words. Whoever then may say that the outward word is not useful, may also say that the interpretation of the sacraments is not useful. Whoever then may say that the words of promise do not lead to faith, and are unlike faith, may also say that the words of Christ fall short of the analogia fidei, and do not lead us to faith. Or, to recognize that Christ died for our sin and rose again is not the word of faith? One shall see, if God wills, who misses in the matter and words of the sacrament of faith. But Luther presents it worse and more bluntly, because 8) it is taught by us.
29. fourth: Why, after all, Christ did the
tui".
6) Marginal gloss: Lxpluuatio saerarnsuti "Ms.
7) "as" set by us instead of: all.
8) "for" put by us instead of: when.
acted with hidden 1) words with his apostles? I will drop the Lutheran pebbles. Answer. It was little hidden to the apostles than that they were led by the paschal lamb into the memory of the execution from Egypt. The way of speaking was not unfamiliar to them; they knew that bread was bread. But they were also to learn what bread meant. Therefore Christ explained to them what he meant by the special ceremonies, after he had already drunk the last with them. 2) And what a difficulty was it for them to learn the meaning of bread. And what was the difficulty or the hardness of it, if he had told them before often the suffering with words, and now proclaims it with a sign and accompanying explanatory word? The Lutheran mind, which some dream here, that the bread should essentially be the true body of Christ or that he should be bodily in or under the bread, could not come into their minds; otherwise they would have let themselves notice it with the least, since they left nothing else unasked.
(30) Fifthly: Where is such equality in bread and wine, so that the bread means his body given for us, and that the wine means his blood poured out for us? He asks the question with much circumlocution, which I would not have used to him, who so far has so faithfully and Christianly pointed to the promises. Well, he denies the equivocation. But we want to show that with the help of God.
31. answer. There is a serene 3) likeness in nature and in Scripture; for bread and wine are created for food and drink, for the sustenance of life, and for the knowledge 4) and joy of the heart, as the 104th Psalm says, "That thou shouldest bring forth bread out of the ground; and wine maketh glad the heart of man, and the form thereof gloweth with oil; and bread strengtheneth the heart of man." But how the bread is to be eaten, we have also. As long as it is decided 5) before the servants, it will not feed, but it must be eaten, as the wise woman, Proverbior. 31: "Sre has given the food to her household." And the bread is divided and broken, that it may be sneezed upon. The grain also is ground and broken, that it may become meat. It is the same with wine: as long as it is in a barrel or in a large jug, it is not eaten.
1) Marginal gloss: Verba ooenae axostolls elara.
2) and - as.
3) d. i. clear.
4) i.e. refreshment, revival. In Z105 of this writing: "the dead erkickt" d. i. awakened.
5) d. i- closed.
drunk, but when it is poured or poured into the cups. And initially, as long as it is in the grapes and skins, it is not a drink; but when it is pressed and trodden in the winepresses or troughs, then it is poured out. No one can deny the parables, they are evident in nature.
32 Now let us see if they are also added to Christ. No one can deny that the body of Christ was ordained for us spiritually as food, and his blood as drink, if he reads the sixth chapter of John, where he calls his flesh bread and food, and his blood drink. This bread was for a time as much as decided 6), and was a bread of angels, unknown to men. But when Christ gave himself for us in death, then he became food for us; then the bread was broken, so that it might be distributed to us for food, as it was provided by the Father for eternity. Of this giving, the Lord Christ himself says, John 6: "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Is not this clear enough compared? For it is ever certain in the words that He asked Himself to be given in death as a sacrifice for the life of the world. This has never been denied by Luther in his writing or by any Christian until now. How often does the Holy Scripture tell us this, Rom. 8. chapter: "God did not spare His own Son, but for us all He gave Him up." Gal. 1: "He gave Himself for our sin," and therefore He became our food in the first place. When the grain of wheat rotted, it first brought forth fruit; and when he was lifted up, he drew all things to himself. If one does not want to recognize the parables, one will certainly not recognize any.
(33) I say the same of his blood. We cool and refresh our hearts with joy that our sins are forgiven us through Christ, as with a spiritual drink. And for this purpose the blood of Christ Jesus is ordained, by which also the covenant is secured, and with it he, a supreme priest, entered the holy place once to make atonement for the Father. Now as long as the blood was not poured out, not enough was done for sin; but at the trough [winepress] of the cross, the blood was poured out and poured in for us to drink. Is not this also a likeness? How can something similar be said, how the bread becomes edible and the wine drinkable?
34. sixth: If the tropum is not set on the words: Effet, nehmen, brechenet, danket etc.,
6) i.e. closed.
"What does the likeness serve here? It must be likeness in bread and wine, as it was given and martyred for sin, or else the likeness shall 1) not?" Answer. In parables 2) not all works and qualities have to appear in all the same in the things that are compared. Some works and qualities are compared, work against work, quality against quality. As, in the seed, whose [grains] are small, inconsiderable, and bring forth much fruit. He, the natural seed, should not therefore be mocked by the Pharisees, and spread among many people, and convert them. Also the gospel is like unto it, and therefore must not be cast into the field by the husbandman, nor sowed, nor bear fruit. So here is a characteristic of the bread, to be edible, and to be given and broken beforehand. In the body of Christ, again, it is also "to be edible" and "to be given and broken" in its own way, namely, to be humbled to the uttermost. Oh, how this bread is cut before us with thorns, cheek strokes, rods, and scourges, nails and spurs, so completely humiliated, that it might be edible for us! But what is it that we do not put the tropum on the words? It is enough that by the tropum it be known which word has the likeness; then also the works may be freely compared. And is far more beautifully spoken, than if he had said: This is my body, which is martyred for you. From the shedding of blood that follows, it was well to note how the body was to be broken, so that it might be acceptable to us for food.
35) To the seventh: "If Christ would have instituted a supper in which not his body and blood, but only a likeness of his body and blood were in it, he would have left us the old supper of Moses with the paschal lamb, which from the measure and all around most delicately signified his body given for us and his blood shed for us for the remission of sins. And if ever the new testament be a light against the old, there is found the contradiction; and yet there is a living lamb and blood, which is far clearer than bread and wine."
36. answer. It is clear why 3) the old sacrifices and ceremonies should cease: because where they would still be pregnant (Christ would have set them up for a new one), Christ would still have to be sacrificed; the foreign innocent blood would still have to be shed. This shall now
1) i.e. serves, benefits.
2) Marginal gloss: Ratio similitnäinum.
3) Randglosse: Lsssatlo votsrurn saeriLolornva.
not be, now that the blood has already been shed, which [i.e. of which] we should hear: Christ is to be sacrificed. But 4) it is that there are signs, showing that we are now satisfied, and giving thanks that this has already been fulfilled, and that no other blood is required. Nor do we allow that the ceremonies 5) of the old law, which were done with blood and involved living animals, were clearer. It was known to very few of the Old Law how Christ was signified in the paschal lamb or in other sacrifices; for there were no such clear words that such sacrifices should point to Christ. How was the Old Testament clearer? Now, with the help of the interpretation, it is a thousand times clearer that Christ is sacrificed than it was before without the word. In addition, Christ himself is the light and the truth, but his ceremonies are not, which in themselves would be just as dark as those in the old law; but through the addition of the words of interpretation they are also clearer and point much more to Christ.
37) But should the breaking of bread and the cup be more valid than the paschal lamb, since there is no life in the bread and no blood in the cup? So let baptism also be blamed and punished, because circumcision takes away the flesh of the body, and baptism alone takes away the unclean things. Why is it not seen what power there is in bread to give life? Dear! according to the meaning. 7) Is that more noble, which loses its life and may not give it to another, or that loses its joy and may not give it to another, than that which may give life and joy to another? I think it is more noble that gives life or joy. Well then, the bread and the wine will be much more noble because of their meaning, for their quality is to feed for life and to keep alive, and to drink for joy, and thus to turn away displeasure. That is why they are so gloriously the heavenly bread of life.
(38) Shall this take away the likeness, because the bread is not alive, and the cup is not bloody? Thus the bronze serpent is a figure of Christ, or the grain of wheat that rots in the ground, or the grape that the scouts carried on a pole. For this reason, of course, one should not lead Christ to school. Enough light is there, yes, to him who has eyes to see.
4) d. i. better.
5) Marginal gloss: Osromonias vetsrss novis non "uiit elariores.
6) i.e. more indifferent, lower.
(39) Eighthly, Luther has an objection, how the breaking may not be compared to the death of Christ, or to crucifixion; for it is "teaching the unknowable through the unknowable. To this has already been answered. Because Christ 1) so clearly says that his blood is to be shed, it is good to know that breaking it in the body of Christ would cost life. It is also easy to understand how a body breaks' as we have a common saying: You must do this, and should you break or burst at it, that is, come to the last extremity; and therefore must not give pieces. But how can this be so strange to us, since we read in the 22nd Psalm: "I am poured out like water, my bones are broken, my heart is melted in my body like wax," and we also say: "The grain of wheat has decayed completely," and other such sayings.
40 The ninth: It is the same breaking, since he says: He took the bread and broke it, and: This is the body which is broken for you. Therefore crucifying may not be understood by this; for Christ did not catch himself, as he ought to have done, where breaking is so much as killing; for he took the bread himself, and broke it with his own hands.
41 Answer. That it is one word, no one may deny; but differently the bread breaks; and differently the body breaks, but still have their comparison among themselves, that they are broken to the benefit of 2) others, and in that it is the same. I still do not see that may prevent that the crucified may not be called "broken". If one let the broken body be only in the other number of the figured things, of which said above, then the force would be found fine, that the body has a breaking after tropical speech way; and we have not excluded the breaking of bread. I do not like to insist on my writing; but I have no doubt that the content of the word would not be unrecognized.
42) But that it is said: 4) "Christ broke the bread, but he did not catch himself and kill himself. Answer: How? if we open our eyes, do we not see that he gave himself up, sacrificed himself, and, being willing, gave up his spirit, humbled himself to the point of death, so that he might give himself to us, that we might receive him as food? That is why God the Father says in Zechariah [13:7]: "I
1) Marginal gloss: 6orpus Oüristi kranZt.
2) In the old edition: "to good".
3) In the old edition: "find".
4) Marginal gloss: Huomoäo Oürlstus suuru eorpus kreZIt.
I will smite the shepherd," and Christ says, "He is the good shepherd, which setteth his soul for the sheep. [So, of course, he himself broke our bread; indeed, he gives it to us as well, as the heavenly Father, because they are under his control. Of course, it is not necessary for Christ to kill himself, so that the likeness may exist.
43) The tenth: "How can it be a parable, if there is not the main part of the parable, namely, that for us the bread may be broken and the wine poured out for salvation? That must also be there." Answer. But this is a new right, that the comparison must be in the highest. So be it! 5) Is not the likeness quite abundant, if the bread contains life, and man lives in the bread, and the wine restores the heart from fear; as we also have found life through the death of Christ, and peace, joy, rest, and rejoicing of our conscience and soul through his shedding of blood? Is the salvation of consciences derived from any other source than the forgiveness of sin and the knowledge of the covenant with God the Father in the blood of Christ Jesus? What is lacking there? We have in the antitype life and joy as the highest pieces, and is well abconterfeiet.
44. eleventh: "They also liked to say, John writes [Cap. 19, 36:] 'Let no bone be broken in him, that the scripture may be fulfilled.' Therefore the Scripture does not read that breaking should be rhymed with Christ dying." Response. It is not said 6) that Christ's leg was broken, but his death is nevertheless called breaking, since soul and body were separated, and the whole was divided, so that it might be shared with us in its entirety. For one must not be concerned about the name "breaking", since he calls himself a worm, and is called Medyko (xxxx) in Isaiah in the 53rd chapter [v. 5], that is, a crumbler than in a mortar, and that for the sake of our sin. And so, this likeness exists in all free, unweakened and constant.
(45) The twelfth: "Neither is the cup like unto the blood, that it should be poured out for sin. This has been answered enough. 7) It is inherent in nature and scripture, and is quite common, since one reads in Genesis chapter 49: "He shall wash his robe in the blood of wine. So if the wine is washed
5) Marginal gloss: Keopus saeramsuti.
Arrr-rem siAnai.
not only because of the color, but also because of the expression, that the juice in the grape is expressed in the same way as the blood that dwells in the veins. So also the prophet Isaiah in chapter 63, where he speaks of the shedding of the blood of the wicked; God compares Himself to one who treads the winepress alone, and says: "I have treaded them in my wrath, and trodden them down in my fury; so their blood is sprinkled upon my garments, and has defiled all my vesture." There the prophet compares shed blood with wine that has dried up, which ever has its likeness with the blood. Why then may the likeness not exist here? But see, 1) in one place the wine and the blood defile, in another place the wine cleanses; but the blood of the wicked defiles and makes unclean, for it is dead and died. Therefore the blood of the goats in the law could not cleanse. But Christ's blood, which is pure and living, washes and cleanses, where it is no more than sprinkled. Therefore the saying in Genesis 49 is to be understood that Christ washed his garment (that is, his spiritual body and church) from the impurities of sins with his precious blood, when John says: "His blood has washed us from our sins. [Revelation 1:5.]
46 Therefore, believers are called "sprinkled with his blood for sanctification," as the epistle to the Hebrews, Cap. 9:13, 14, powerfully indicates. But what is the forgiveness of sin but the washing away of stains and blemishes? And if the wine has a washing and cleansing power, it also has in it the likeness of the forgiveness of sins. Let no one be surprised, the Samaritan pours wine into the wounds of the wounded man at Jericho to cleanse them etc. We also have baptism by fire; therefore in all things it is good to see that without all the mockery of Christ there are sufficient likenesses according to nature and Scripture.
47 And so the objections, however mockingly they are made, are sufficiently resolved. And now it is established that the tropus may persist here; so, too, God willing, the sacrament may well remain unchallenged.
The other part, that one must assume the tropus.
48. up to this point it has been shown that this way of interpreting ours is possible; Luther does not want to have enough of it, so it is also suggested to him.
1) Marginal gloss: l^r-rAnr lavat "t totzäat; sie et sa-r
shows that it must be so for him, which up to now has also acted against him and only tremendously; but what he imposes against it, we also want to consider, and it is to be found null and void, as that which is now heard.
(49) Three rules (2) have occurred by which it should be proven that our understanding is created right. The first one is also Luther's: One should stick to the dry, clear words of the text and let them be valid, what they interpret according to their kind; and give them other interpretations, unless a public article of faith compels. The other I have set: Sacraments should be spoken of sacramentally. The third, which is ours, is: one should not accept anything against the articles of faith. Here, Luther intends to make us defenseless in all three rules; but you will see that he does not succeed.
50 The first rule does not serve him at all: for I have taught him that the words, "this is my body, which is given for you," are dark and not clear according to his! For I have not said badly that the text is not clear, but if one gives him such an understanding, as Luther, namely, that the natural bread is essentially the naturally invisible body of Christ, which is visibly presented for us. But my interpretation is: 3) This natural bread is a sign of the natural body of Christ, which is given for us; and this is clearer, where one looks at the purpose of the text. You may well see this from the same example as that in Ezekiel: "This is Jerusalem, which I have set among the Gentiles." It is a clear saying, but to whom? to him who knows how the Jerusalem that was torn down was a figure of the other Jerusalem on a brick. But if someone would be so last-headed 4) that he would think that the painted Jerusalem would be essentially the real true Jerusalem, then the right mind would not be clear to him. So also, those who know that here is a sacrament of the true body of Christ, the text is clear to them, and my interpretation is quite certain. But those who do not know that here is a sacrament of the natural body of Christ, to them this and other sayings are obscure, not only in that they do not believe it as it is in itself, but also what the true content of the words is; and Luther must not consider me so simple-minded as if I did not know how to distinguish between difficultatem intelligendi ih re, et difficultatem in-
2) Marginal gloss: 1r6s rsZuIus sxxoukuäas soripturas.
3) Marginal gloss: Huidus vsrda eoenus Clara.
4) i. e. wrong opinion.
teIIigendi in vocabulis. For I say that also
This word will be incomprehensible to the best speakers and those who understand the language, because they take the bread as a sign of the body.
In the other part of his book, Luther argues: "If we had the choice, we would not want to make a clearer and 1) more comprehensible text, 2) and as one put it differently, one would want to break a hole in it in all ways. Response. Yes, of course, it is well put, and if I had the choice, I would not put it differently, because I would have to give some people an understanding. However, he does not fasten his mind on Luthern, but on ours. For two things may be understood if one asks: What is that? or if one says: That is that; either what it is according to its "essence" or what it is according to its "meaning. Now if the essence of a thing can be announced, and one asks further, then it is a sign that it carries a meaning in it, which one desires to know. Or if one answers: this is it; one says, what it "signifies": When St. Peter, Acts 10, saw the face with the harness, like a large linen cloth full of all kinds of animals, and he heard: Arise, butcher and eat etc. And when it was taken up again, he doubted with himself what it was. Here Peter had knowledge that the vision was a vision, as it seemed to him; but he was not ignorant of what it meant. There the Scripture says: He stumbled, or was troubled in it, what it would jochs 3) be? that is, what God meant by it. The same questions are also with Zachariah and other prophets, that they ask: "Who are ine?" They were well aware of what the visions were essentially; but they desired what was meant by them.
52 Now this also was in the supper. The disciples knew what bread was, or what the cup was, and what was in the cup; but what Christ meant by this they did not know until he gave them to understand, as he had done several times, when he took the children to him and put one in the midst of them; they knew that the child was a child, but by this he taught them something else. Now I do not say this to prove the tropum, but to show what diligence the Lord had in teaching his own. And the words are plainly spoken, and no man would speak them more plainly himself.
(53) If I gave a penny with my image on it and said, "Take it," I would give it to you.
1) So put by us instead of: ohnbegreiflichern.
2) Marginal gloss: ^xernpla: esse xro sr'Anr/koa/'e.
3) d. i. yes also.
have you my face; or: this is my face, keep it in my memory! if I already had a power to change my face into the coin, would one therefore also have to have a clear word that the coin was essentially my face, and not rather this be a clear word, 4) that it was an image and memorial sign? There would probably be other decent words spoken, which would not deny such presence.
But here one would like to say to me: Lug, drive 5) .beautiful, learn Luther's opinion baß! He does not want to say that bread is thus essentially the body, as the Father and the Son have a natural unity in the Godhead: Neither does he want 6) that a personal being should be understood here, as God and man are one person in Christ, since one says: Man is God.
55. answer. I am at it, and have fought against the opposition; for some have been so stiff-necked, and have been allowed to say: "Let there be dry words; let all reason depart; let all things be possible to God; if the priest speaks the words, the bread is like the body of Christ, as born of Mary; Mary bore Christ once, we bring him every day from heaven in the bread. I did not want to remain silent about this, because I am allowed to preach; for it is not similar to faith that the Son of God took another creature into a person than the seed of Abraha, therefore I am well satisfied in this. But if one wanted to insist on the dry words without distinction, then one would not want to silence such screamers for a long time. For the true and right essence 7) is that some things are either of one nature or one person. I cannot consider other unity to be self-consistent and quite essential. Whether the Spirit of Christ is already in the believers in Christ, yet they are not a natural Christ or God, notwithstanding that the Psalm says, "Ye are gods." But some may boast that bread is the natural body of Christ in such self-consistent essence. 7)
56. item: It is also not Luther's opinion that there is a real unity, as it is said of angels [Ps. 104, 4.]: "God makes his angels.
4) "be" put by us instead of: "be".
5) "Lug" - see to, notice. - In the old edition: "Lug fhar schon", which Walch explains by "d. i. siehe aufher". But we do not think it right to take "fhar" for "aufher". Cf. § 85 in this writing of Oecolampad, where the word "Fahr schön" is repeated.
6) Marginal gloss: Imtüerns of xonit nnionem natliralein vel personalem in saerarnento.
1398II Writings against Zwingli and his followers re. W. xx, 1749-1751. 1399
to wind, and its dimers to flames of fire." And it is said of fire: this is an angel. Nor is it a formal or spiritual unity, as is said by the evangelists, that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in the form of a dove; for the Holy Spirit wished to manifest himself in such a form. Nevertheless, he does not want to have said that there is such a unity here; and yet it is said of the dove that it is the Holy Spirit, and the fire is the angels.
57 Answer. Here we would almost come to agreement, especially because it is said that the dove or the fiery tongues are the Holy Spirit. For the creature is not taken in one nature or person with God, only it has meant the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit has been no more agreed upon than other 1) creatures. So if one were to come here, 2) and speak of the bread in such a way that it is the body of Christ, it would by no means be against me. For I have reported this in my first letter. But that the sacramental agreement, like the real revelation of the angels in the fire, is not yet proven to me; because the angels made and held the fire anew. The bread is made before, and yet Christ does not work the bread in the believers' hearts. But Luther does not say the same.
Furthermore, I do not dislike the fact that Luther sets up a sacramental unification, and for the sake of this one should say "this is my body" and thus the two come into one being. He also gives such a rule to be spoken in all languages: "Where two different beings come into one being, one also includes such two beings in one speech; and as one looks at both beings, one also speaks of both with one speech"; and gives examples of all the unities now reported, so they are to be kept; also here in the "this is my body". And when they come together, they are called one being, even though each has its own being.
59. answer. I would also be satisfied, 3) because there is no way against me where Luther, with his strict refutation, does not obscure the name "sacrament" for us; for we must fear that he understands something else by sacramental unity, or sacramental essence. Does he want to understand it that sacrament means a sign of a holy thing, i.e., that in the case of a visible
1) "others" put by us instead of: others.
2) Marginal gloss: Via ooneoräiso.
3) Marginal gloss: Viästur I,utkorus re ixsa oonsontiro, ob saerarnontalerQ unionem.
If matter is understood as something invisible next to it, it is not against us; then the being will be a significant being that takes on matter, because it carries a new meaning through the word. "For when the word becomes an element, it soon becomes a sacrament," as Augustine says. It is a "being" that receives the meaning, but not a self-perpetuating being, and are two different things. But if the thing has become a sacrament, it is a significant being in relation to the one part. So it is not wrong to say, "This is my body. And this is exactly what I said at the beginning in the first explanation. Why do we quarrel with such great harm to Christianity? Let us understand one another, for it is not a matter here of which one is considered the more learned; but that the miscarriages, of which there have been many in this sacrament, be stopped, is still a matter of daily concern.
60) But if Luther confesses the simple agreement, 4) then why did he fight so hard that the bread does not have the likeness of the body that is offered for us, and now says that it is a sacramental union? I cannot compare Luther in this, and must not accept him there, because he presents himself so ultimately before.
But now I want to have brought this by force, that the words, how dry they are, will not serve him from the essence, in their first interpretation without all tropes and figure in the speech. For he must assume synecdoche in the union; and where the same figure is, there is not exactly the dry letter. 5) He must nevertheless assume the synecdoche. He must nevertheless accept the synecdoches thus
He is the one who helps us to confirm our cause, no matter how much he fights against us with words. And so he helps us to confirm our cause, however hard he fights against us with words.
Luther thinks that his interpretation is all the more obscure if one must understand the invisible body in one place and the visible body in another. But I do not see that it makes him any clearer where one thing is, and one should understand two properties, and that without all explanation and proof.
63 Further, I am said to have missed him also in saying that it does not rhyme in the words of Luke or Paul, who add, "which is given or broken for you," for if the body, as Luther says, is invisible, it follows that when I say that it is also invisibly given and given, it is invisible.
would be broken. He considers a great insanity, quod pro qualiter, and compares this to the speech:
Christ is invisible in heaven, who suffered visibly.
64. answer. Where we thought, what we acted, one would measure the thing soon. A long time ago he asked, 1) "one should bring whether Christ's body is already food, 2) that we also bring a likeness, in which he would be given for us". And now, if we show the likeness, he would gladly reject it in qualiter. But it will not help him, if the bread is a sacrament of the body of Christ, and Luther admits this in the meantime; even if we now argue this, and he does not deny it, as if it were none of his business, if the sacramental agreement should be indicated, namely: wherein the body of Christ is a bread, as it is distributed. And if the union and the essence stands on the likeness, the likeness shall not be restrained. For the very visible body then (while it was broken) it was a food. Now the sacraments are like the concreta, and hold in them substantiam and accidens, I must say, like a corrupt dialectic. They have a likeness as accidens in nature as a substance, and one asks not only who? or what? but also: how?
When I say: A charcoal burner who is black is a Moor, I mean: in that he is like a Moor) that he is black. Blackness is, after all, an accidental thing or accidens; as here "to give" and "to be broken" indicate the primary likeness, and "corpus" is in the likeness as substantia, and the "to be broken" -as accidens; so the quid and qualiter are found, and must be the likeness of nature and accident in a visible body. What would I be saying if I said: an invisible charcoal burner is a Moor?
(66) If I say of baptism that it is a sacrament of the dead and risen with Christ, may I not draw a quality from it? Luther's list does not rhyme at all: The invisible body of Christ is in heaven, and the visible one has died. For the speech is not heaped against the sacrament, 3) and it is without likeness; nor does it indicate to us the power of the sacrament. So our trope should and must consist of a clear understanding of the words.
1) d. i. demanded.
2) Marginal gloss: In oonorstis etiam inäieat.
3) "gebept" - asserted, raised; otherwise also "gehebt".
The other rule I did not make up from my own head, but followed Augustine in it, and is this: That one speak of sacraments sacramentally. Luther does not like this rule either. Nevertheless, it is and remains certain and firm. But Luther has such an objection here.
68 To the first: "Dear, why are the other words not also taken figuratively, and does the trope alone go over the is, or body? Or where is the rule here that teaches us which words must not be taken figuratively? For on such words one would also like to take the words 'eat', 'such things do in remembrance of me'. Tropos watch, and say: Take' means: listen! Eat' means: believe! Such things do' means: to have in the heart" etc.
Answer: 4) All speeches are to be accepted according to the occasion of the matter; one sees what is spoken for the sake of meaning or not. But Luther is more concerned with conundrums here than with fathoming the truth. I will answer him with an example: Somebody wanted to make a living lion out of a painted one; and I said: You shall speak of the painting as it is proper to speak of the painting. And another would begin to speak, saying: The painter has painted the color with the brush on the wall and told his disciples to do the same to him; and then he would come who before wanted to make a living lion out of the painted one, and would say: You told me to speak of the painting as of the painting; so I say, The painter is a sign of a painter, the paint is a sign of the paint, painting is a sign of the painting, the disciples are signs of the disciples etc. Who would not see here that he was muthwilte and vexed the people? But if someone said that he did not know which was the true painter or the painted painter, or what was painted and what was not painted, who could be responsible for such a childish mind? Now every Christian knows well that bread is a sacrament, and is now interpreted that it is the body, that is, a memorial sign of the true body of Christ.
(70) In the same way a man would turn to it, if it were said to him, Believe the articles of faith, and put the mind into the obedience of Christ; in other things thou mayest keep thyself well without danger. Let him not speak such things: I do not know what the articles are, do I? Therefore, if we were not confessed [oovüttznt68 essinn"] that bread was a sacrament, then perhaps this counter-
4) Marginal gloss: InitiM äs snoralnsntis Ioqni "sinnt.
Throw a bill. But who says here: "to take" means: to hear? "Eat" means: believe? "Do such things" is: to have in the heart? "Dächtniß" is a crucifix; that he may draw such an interpretation? Now I have not spoken of all the surrounding words, but of sacramental ones, that is, "the bread"; although the word of the sign leans on the word body, as reported above.
On the other hand, he says: "God Himself should not be able to establish a sacrament in this way. For how can he speak of sacraments if all his words are to be understood differently than they are? If he speaks plainly of the manner of words, it is not a sacrament; for they are not tropi or figurative words. If he speaks figurative words, then one does not know what he says."
72 Answer: This two-horned dilemma does not sting or poke, and equally as little as if I were speaking: if one speaks only fragmented letters, then there is no meaning in them; for they are not whole words, but only letters. But if one speaks whole words, 1) one cannot understand them. So here 2) the words, when put together, give an indication of a sacrament. If I speak alone: "bread" or "body"; I do not come into the understanding of the sacrament. But if I link the different things together in speech, the figure soon carries itself. If I speak: I am buried; and say, Christ be my Lord; no one takes no figure from it. But if I join the simple words together, and say, I am buried with Christ, a figure is immediately found in the words. And if I say, Bread is of wheat; the body of Christ, born of Mary, is crucified, I have not yet the sacrament. But put the simple words together, bread is the body, and they bring a sacrament.
(73) Further, the other part of his argument is also of no use, when he says: But if God speaks figurative words, they are not understood. Answer: Yes, if figurative words were unrecognized words; but they are simple intelligible words, which by the addition take on something, by which they are figurative and are recognized; and are therefore simple in themselves, but have become figurative by the addition.
The third: "When Moses instituted the paschal lamb, which is a figure of Christ, he did not need a figurative word, but plain, simple words, as they were in common usage;
1) Which namely have a meaning in themselves, but are not yet put together per [ntaxin. (Walch.)
2) Marginal gloss: HnlokaeitooAKosorHMasaoranienta.
and all the figures of the Old Testament are spoken in dry, clear, simple words, and there is not one thing in them all that is spoken figuratively."
75 Answer: It is right, 3) that clear and simple words are taken as well, as composition of a word of good recognizable letters should happen. But in clear words also a figurative speech may arise. As in the word: It is the passover, the overtaking of the Lord. Whether this word contains nothing figurative, I will let Luther judge for himself. He will certainly say that it is a renewed word, and of the other meaning. Also, as stated above, such an interpretation has been taken from all words and invented in them. But that the paschal lamb is a figure of Christ, 4) was then not known to all the ancients, namely, if they were not further taught by the Spirit of God, as also other figures were hidden from them. For the common people, as the children, only the history and the letter was brought forward, from which they may not have learned so much. Just as the children, who already know how to read Latin, do not know what is said in German, so they read like beginners; the Christians who follow [read it] as it has been further interpreted. 5) For John says, "Take the history and the letter alone, from which they cannot read so much. For John says, "Behold, this is the Lamb of God!" Paul says, "Christ is our Passover!" Peter says, "We are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of an innocent and unspotted Lamb." Now if Moses had interpreted this to the ancients to Christ, and said, The lamb is Christ, which is without blemish, that is, without sin; this ye shall eat, that is, ye shall believe in him; there would be vain figure, the lamb a figure of Christ, the blemishes a figure of sin etc. What then is this contrary to my given rule, as Luther says? Whoever wants to, may well see whether I speak with difference or not.
The fourth concern is that "if Christ is also called a sacrament in Scripture, 1 Tim. 3, it may come to be read that Christ is God, that it may be said that Christ is a signification of God.
Answer: There is no need for concern, because 6) Christ (as he may be called a sacrament or mystery) and the sacraments are so far apart. In addition, the place 1 Tim. 3.
3) Marginal gloss: In elaris vereissient
in eoZnitis litteris
4) Marginal gloss: Laeralnentn nostra antiyuis non plsns oosnita.
5) "the" put by us instead of: "the".
6) Marginal gloss: 6ÜRI8DII8 sao^anre-röAnr.
has a different meaning, because that is why Christ is called a sacramental sign.
78 Luther says to the fifth: "The sacrament or story should be a sign or likeness of another thing. But the words should not be interpreted in any other way than they are.
79) Answer: This is Luther's legend; and he wants that one believes him, God gives! what he says. Where is it written that the words in the sacraments should not be interpreted differently, neither they run? If I say: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, does baptizing here mean nothing else, neither dipping in water in the name of the Father? so would baptism be with all physicians, stigners and salmoners, 1) who often dip something in wine or water and changed matter in the holy three names. But baptize here means nothing else, neither: I mark you, who are a member of the church of God Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the signs of his children and members of his church. If one says to a judge, when he is put to the sword, Take it, and put it to you; this is the authority, that you should punish all the disobedient. Behold! how the sword is so comely a sign of violence, yea, a sign of violence, because the sword is needed in violence. So Luther makes rules where he has no Scripture anywhere, and accordingly he builds and insists on them.
80) But what does Luther mean by allowing it to be a sacrament and saying: It is supposed to model something, namely the unity of the Christians in one spiritual body of Christ through one Spirit? etc. But why does he not confess here that it is a sign of the body of Christ given for us? If he does not confess it, how does it become a sacramental revelation, on which his praedi- eatio identica stands? This meaning is to precede, so that it may ground the other; the merit of the suffering of Jesus Christ is commanded to us more highly than that we should bear an abhorrence of it. This suffering, and the likeness of its fruit, are taught by the words and also by the signs; and there is no confusion among us.
Of the saying: "The rock was Christ", and of the circumcision, and of the paschal lamb, Luther must not give me anything. Read what I have written about them in my answers; they will probably remain unpunished for untruth.
The third rule is that no new doctrine should be accepted contrary to the similarity of faith. It
1) Perhaps: bird catchers and fishermen? "Stigner" perhaps formed by goldfinch?
oixua rations saerarnellti. .
should be enough for peace, that no one should condemn us, because the righteous Christians have never rejected our doctrine as contrary to some article of faith, yet their opinion is introduced alongside these articles of undoubted faith. How earnestly was the Concilio Niceno (which is the oldest and, in terms of doctrine, accepted by all Christians without contradiction) concerned that 3) all the necessary articles of our faith should be brought together, and that henceforth no other should be added to them! Therefore, since Nestorius then began to teach his heresy, and the churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Hierosolymitana became divided in one part, and Antioch and Constantinople in the other, they disputed with great hardening, so that even in the Concilio at Ephesus they parted without an end. 4) For both parties claimed (as will be noted from their epistles) that the other party wanted to impose something further on the Christians to believe than was understood at Nicaea in the Symbolo; and finally the unity of the world in faith was restored by the means alone, 5) by the ten- and hundred-year-old bishop Acacium of Berea, that both parts were content from the interpretation of Athanasii: as he, Athanasius, in his epistle to Epicteto, which still exists, explained what was done at Nicaea. And so Nestorius was found to have made an addition, and was expelled from the Church as a heretic, and became a good peace.
But if in the articles of faith these articles of the sacrament, that the bread is essentially the body of Christ (that is, that the essential should be contrary to the significant essence), are not mentioned in the articles of the old faith, how can we allow a new article to be imposed upon us, against which other articles of faith would have to bow down and resign from the simple mind? since this article of the sacrament does not want to refrain from the other articles 6)? With this, the peace of the church will never be planted. Now, if one were to remain with the rigid words and exclude figurative speech, then one would have to take issue with other articles. So initially, 7) that the Son of God is not
3) Marginal gloss: Ooneiliurn Meenum novog üsri srtwulos ^rodikuit.
4) i.e. without deciding anything, went from each other. I,66tio oaetvrnin 68t(Walch.)
5) Marginal gloss: ^.oaoius Lerosensis ynoinoäo xaearit 666168138.
6) 8ubrmtt6r6, make tolerable. (Walch.)
nationw.
He is not only clothed with humanity and receives the seed of Abraha, but is also clothed with the bread of wheat; where it is otherwise urged to set the word "essential" against the word "sacramental," the mind is not caught up in the servitude of Christ through the faith of the incarnation of the Son of God. And since all other interpretations are in conflict with some articles of faith, and this ours is least opposed to such true incarnation, not only is the trope possible, but it must and should be accepted. The two things are strictly contrary to each other: the Son of God alone has assumed humanity; and: he has not only assumed it, but also the bread.
Now, praise be to God! Luther confesses that it is still natural nor personal agreement, and thus falls from the dry ohnfigürlichen words, and confesses that it is there a Synecdoche, that is, one may say: "This is the body" is so much: "in which is the body"; or "under which", or "with [which] is the body of Christ. But who has read that the Scripture ever spoke thus? It does not say: The dove is the Holy Spirit, the fire is the angel, so that it, with the way of speaking, might be compared to our present words. 1) And D. M[artinus] also confesses this: That such real or formal unity is not found here in the Sacrament. If it is not found, they will not proclaim the words. Well then, he must produce a single example of his opinion to prove it, since we may have innumerable similar examples. But let it also be taught that the body of Christ is not "in," or "with," or "under the bread," in the sense commonly given.
Here one would like to warn me, however, and say: Drive nicely, and hear Luther's opinion thoroughly! Perhaps you will be of the same opinion if you do not agree with words at once.
First, Luther himself does not want the body of Christ in the sacrament to be circumscriptive, or localiter, that is, understandably, so that the place and the body therein rhyme with each other. Or circumscriptively, that he takes and gives according to his measure.
87. he also says at the sheet [or bow] s
1) So put by us instead of: "so that, it would like to be compared with the way of speaking, our present words".
ISite] 1:2) "As if we were saying that he is bodily or visibly in the sacrament". From which words I understand that he wants to speak 3) that the Body of Christ is not bodily in the Sacrament. Answer: We also say this. So far, however, it has not been explained to us in this way, but it has been argued as if the body of Christ were also in the bread, and it has been badly answered that one should not ask how or when. That is why I gladly accept it; I also know that it has been taught in this way in the schools up to now.
88. but this will also go far: for if Christ has a true body, where it is 4) bodily as one body, it will also have its space; and if one space is not more than one space, neither will the body be more than in one place, if it is otherwise a true body; and if it is thus in heaven, it is not on earth. For the space, although it is not a body in itself, is a remeasurement of the body in the body, or also of the other touching body, as, the wine in the jug may be added the remeasurement from the outside or the jug from the inside. Now this is such a quality that if a body did not have such respect, it would not be a true body. 5) And if God had the quality of a body, it would not be a true body. And if God took this property from a body, it would have to be a different creature than a body. For a body is not without its greatness, a greatness not without measure; and where the body is as a body, it has its greatness, whether in the subtlest or in the quickest way. For God created all things in number, measure and weight; the measure gives the physical things time, place, size.
From this I take: 6) although a body would be as subtle as the most subtle sun glass 7), nevertheless it has its measure, which will not be in many places, or one thing would have to be two. It has also here not one form, but with other qualities, that now and then the body is deadly, afterwards it is not deadly; that now it is not subtle nor flexible to the spirit, and afterwards it becomes so quick and flexible, and thus a spiritual body, which can penetrate all things. The fact that it is not clear now and becomes clear later does not take anything away from the truth of the body; it is still the true body. But to be a body without
2) No. 21, § 288.
4) Randglosse: Oorpu8 non 6886 8in6 looo.
5) "Respect" probably w much as: Property.
6) Randglosse: Dot68 eorporis xlorlüoatl non tollunt v6ritat "m oorporis, 86ä earontia äilQ6N8ionura.
7) d. i. Sun dusts.
If the body has no weight or measure in it, it will not be a true body. The fact that the body is without weight and conduct does not take anything away from the truth of the body, but that a body is without measure is not, as little as a white man is without whiteness.
Therefore also the bodies as bodies, where they are in a place, so they are not in a place like the angels or devils, have also another way to penetrate. The 1) Angels and devils must not be in a place, because they are not bodies, they may have been beings before the creation of the world as well as to this day. How much more is God not conceived in a place! But the bodies are not created with their quality. So also, where the bodies are as bodies, whether they are already not comprehended by us, thus follows that the lack in us; nevertheless they are there as comprehensible in themselves with their measure, their ubi and place touching.
91) Even if we say that Christ's body passed subtly through the stone or door, and therefore do not want to have it denied or denied, he still did not pass through the door like an angel or a devil, but as a body, which certainly had its measure, however small it may be thought to be. Nothing is pressed so tight and full, it may be firmer; if it is firmer, it still has something thin 3) or gap; if it has something thin, it may give space to subtle penetrating things. If now Luther wants to say that the body is in the bread and not bodily, then it is also not spiritually in it as a spirit; for it is not a spirit, neither 4) which has no flesh and leg; it follows then that it has its space.
Here I must also answer for the fact that Luther reproaches me for having said that there was another way that Christ entered through the closed door, but that he must have two bodies and that they were in one place. He mockingly asks how it happened, and whether the body in the bread might not also have subtlety.
Answer: However, 5) I would like to say: the text in the evangelist would not be able to; because it is badly written: "When the doors were closed because of fear of the Jews"; and it is not written: through the closed door. The little word by is not in the text; the one who gave his glass 6) to the disciples
1) Marginal gloss: ^nZeHs non opus loous.
2) In the old edition: verjatzget.
3) In the old edition: Thünne.
4) So put by us instead of: "then he is not a spirit, which is the" etc.
5) Marginal gloss: Huornoäo Odristus jnnulk olausis inArsssus sit.
6) Glast -gloss.
He would also like to join them through the door and in other ways. But I have gladly praised the glory of the body of Christ, and have spoken like St. Augustine, who writes in the book de agone Christiano, Cap. 24, thus: "Let it not grieve us that it is written, how, when the doors were opened, Christ suddenly appeared to the disciples, that we should therefore deny that the body was human, because we see that he entered through the opened doors contrary to the nature of that body. All things are possible to God; for it is evident that he also walked on the water against the nature of the body, and not only did he, the Lord, walk before the suffering, but he also made Peter walk on it. For if before the suffering he might have made the body appear as the sun-glass, why not also after the suffering at a momentary time he might have made it subtle, so that it might have entered by a determined door?"
These are St. Augustine's words, which indicate the subtlety that does not take away the space of the body, and does not make two bodies in one place. Now such subtlety truly lets the body be one body, 7) and shows how it is spiritual, that is, subject to the spirit. But to be without a place, without a space in the world, does not indicate a true body, but rather to be a man without a soul.
95 But if he asks whether Christ did not also know the way into the bread, he must not answer. If he were in the bread, he would have his place and place in it, and not outside; so he would not be in two places. Therefore to speak, if one remains on the speech. If Christ is conceivable or circumscriptive in heaven, then he is not in the bread, which some also want to have for the sake of such a given likeness, because the corpse has passed through the stone and through the grave.
Secondly, Luther admits that the body of Christ is definite, that is, incomprehensible and without fence in the Sacrament. Answer: The way to be in a bodily thing is measured out to the spirits, 8) not to the bodies. He will also not like to teach it, as much as he always brings parables to it. The angels, if they are not corporeal, are not to be measured to any body, but they show their presence. For if they have not an infinite power, because they are creatures, they are not in all places at all times, nor are they in all places at all times.
7) "his" is used by us instead of: be.
8) Marginal gloss: ^NMIU8 non in rnultis loois äsünltivs.
not in many places, for they are sent out. Unless God commanded and made it in their nature. Therefore, if they are in heaven, that is, in the highest place, they are not also in the lowest. Not seeing that they see the face of the Father in heaven; for two places are not thereby assigned to them.
But that our bodies will penetrate the bodies, as well as the angels, has a much different form; for the bodies will then be obedient to the Spirit, and also all the bodily creatures to man, so that with men, for their benefit, they will be renewed, Rom. 8. Therefore it does not serve, indeed, would freely bring us a Marcionian and fantastic body, which we do not accept. Christian faith holds that we will be resurrected in the body, but in a spiritual one, not that the body will become a spirit. 1) Oh no! for otherwise Christ would have risen in vain; but that the body should obey the Spirit. Now, a body without a bodily dimension, what difference has it from a spirit? Therefore, it is not reason that prevents us from following Luther, but faith that we will be resurrected in a true body.
Here, when I think about the parables 2) that Luther has set, they do not want to coincide with those that teach experience in the natural arts. He says: Of the vision, as it moves through air, light or water and is, and neither takes space nor gives it. But experience 3) teaches us otherwise than that something goes out of our eyes to the visible thing, but the visible image, which manifolds itself until it comes to our face, by convenient means; and the visible image is also no body, because it has no dimension. Similarly, 4) when a sound travels through water, board, and wind, 5) it is much different, because it serves that there is one body in many places. The sound is not called a body, the breath also, and the moving air from the mouth does not reach so far, but diversifies until it touches, receives one air from the other; just as a stone, thrown into a well, makes a whirl, so there is also a diversity; of this I let the physicos speak. So much is said now that all parables are worthless. For if we were to understand the through-
1) Marginal gloss: Corpus solurn esse Äs/?-rr7rvs in
weo, puAnat eurn "-rsrÄo ^sstt/vso-ron^s.
2) Marginal gloss: LirniHturio, Äs vrsA, I,ntkori of jnvut.
4) Marginal gloss:
5) Maybe "wall" ?
If we were to compare the course of a glorified body with such inconsistent things, we would find no consolation. If we ever fathom the thing, neither in the essence, nor in the manner of the effect, is there found a fair likeness; if we do not see the things that are before us and are earthly, what might we say of the things that are far off and heavenly?
99. Thirdly, Luther says: "If Christ is God and man, and the two natures are one person, so that the same person cannot be separated, it follows that he is and may be repletive, that is, in a supernatural way, everywhere, and that everything is fully Christ through and through, also according to humanity; not circumscriptive in the previous way, but according to the supernatural divine way; and if you pointed out a place where God would be and not man, then the person would already be separated; for I with truth could say: Here is God, who is not nor became man: then the person would already be separated; for I with the truth could say: Here is God, who is not man nor became man. 7)
Answer: That two natures are one person, which are inseparable, the Christian faith holds. But this is not separated because human nature does not have the measure of divine nature, or because divine nature takes the measure of human nature, although both are measured out to the single person. So we say: Christ was mortal; and: Christ suffered; the measure of the Godhead is: to be present around and around, and in no place enclosed or encompassed; the measure of the body is: to be and to be comprehended in One place. The measure of the Godhead is: to make all things alive; the measure of the body is: to have its life from God; and although the body is not incomprehensible to us in all places, yet it is God's own body, the incomprehensible and present in all places; this does not divide the unity of the person in any way. The measure of God's attribute is also to be above time and motion, yet from Him is time and all motion; but the measure of the body is to be found under time and motion; and though He is not apart from time, yet He is assumed to be God's own body, the unchangeable, and from eternity; and therefore there is no separation; and because He is God's own body. Where Christ is spoken of, after he is only 9)
6) In the old edition: "wüstest". Luther: show would".
7) No. 21, §143 f.
9) "he now" put by us instead of: "and he".
If the body is taken, it is not said that Christ is without a body. God, who has a body, works in hell, and yet is not included in it, so his body is not in it; for the place of the body is not there, although his divine power is really present. And does it not follow: Here is God, who is not man; for God is no less man, if he does not in such a supernatural way make the body permeate all things; and so the body in its measure has a stately place and is not comprehended. For this the supernatural way has to be in, with effect and presence in all places, 1) and in addition in none may be circumscribed with comprehensible way. But this is not at all in the measure of the body. If therefore I say, Christ is in the assembly of two or three, gathered together in his name, whether in the church, he is truly there; and if therefore he hath not left the body, which hath its place in heaven, he is undivided, and is indeed wholly there.
Luther says of me: I have written before that Christ is placed in heaven according to the Godhead, and on earth according to the body alone; and he adds: If Christ is One Person in the Godhead and humanity, then humanity must be on earth and in heaven at the same time; for to be One Person in God is more than in heaven. And further says: this is also not true that Christ was then in heaven; where was he after the Godhead, since he was in his mother's womb? Was he not personally and essentially also after the Godhead in the womb on earth?
102 Answer: My words might have been more faithfully applied, for I say thus: Then at that time she (the person I understand) alone was in heaven according to the Godhead, but the body was on earth. I did not deny that the Godhead was not also on earth, but that the body of Christ was not in heaven, which I also say, because it was on earth. This therefore takes nothing away from Christ, that he is inseparable in heaven and on earth, completely in heaven and completely on earth. And how did Luther mean that the Godhead was not in heaven? "Is not heaven the chair of God, and the earth his footstool?" Is not in heaven his chief activity? Does not Isaiah [Cap. 64, 1.] say, "Oh that thou wouldest break through the heavens"? In the acceptance of mankind, God descended, and yet did not leave His place. For he remained what he was. 2) That he also speaks:
üon kit udigue repletive.
2) Randglosse: veus in eaelo, st dssesndit äs saslo.
3) Luther himself knows well that the kingdom of heaven is not always taken in one mind in Scripture. Where he does not admit Christ more than others, 4) who teach and live rightly and are in heaven, it is small, for the sake of the matter, that he says: He is in heaven. Why does he not say more than that he is a Lord of hosts and king of angels in heaven, but a good shepherd of Israel on earth? is one person.
In sum: God is called to be in heaven, since his primary work is shown; and that he descended from heaven, if he, regardless of all his divine power, thus deeply humbles himself and becomes man. But what is this consequence: It is much more to be agreed to be God than to be in heaven; therefore shall mankind be equal with God in heaven? Where I said: it is much more to be created in the image of God, than to receive no bodily food; therefore we are not allowed any bodily food: so I would be despised for such a consequence. For (as it is said), if Christ took mankind unto Himself, He did not take from it its measure; that it might be a true mankind, and that we might hold Him for our brother; to which also all faith urges. In whom Christ is given the name above all names, that he is God and man, and true God and man. Take away his omnipotence and supreme wisdom, and he is not true God. If you take away his limbs and his state, he is not a true man.
104) Item, if I have put to cheerful mind a likeness, which he rejects, and must be foolish to him. 5) Now it is not mine, but Augustini de agone christiano o. 25. says: "We should not hear those who deny, 6) that our Lord did not raise his body with him in heaven"; and thereby reports: "No one ascends in heaven, but he who descends from heaven; and say: the body did not descend from heaven, so it could not ascend. For they do not understand that the body could not have ascended into heaven, but the body did not ascend. But he was lifted up into heaven, when he that ascended lifted him up. And that I may give an example, if a man came down from the mountain, and when he came down, he clothed himself, and so clothed he went up again, would we ever say, No man ascends, but he that descended?
3) No. 21, § 301. Luther: "on earth".
4) "others" put by us instead of: "others".
5) No. 21, § 301.
6) Marginal gloss: Limüitndo ds vesFr'-tt, rsZs asesndsnts.
and took no account of the garment which he takes up with him; but we took account of him that is clothed, and say that he ascended clothed. These are St. Augustine's words; but if I speak them in his opinion, it must be a fool's land. Although Luther says: God does not depart from heaven like this. But he should talame 1) well know what likeness would be right; but he brings quite inconsistent likenesses, all the way from images to bodily things, or from spiritual to bodily things; and from God's power he falls in, and thus should be unpunishable, and not allowed to answer for anything else?
Among all of these, Luther insists: "One should prove that God has no other way possible for One Body to be in two parts, and that He has a clear saying.
Answer: But if it is not similar to faith, to take away from the body of Christ the measure of a true body, to introduce it into the world without space and place. If, then, it is necessary to prove that it is not possible for God, then every heretic would like to have a misunderstanding of a sentence, so that he should be taught that it is not possible for God. We should look at the simplicity of faith, and judge accordingly, stay with it, follow no path of reason here, but know moderately. 3)
107) It should also be said that 4) St. Stephen saw Christ in one face. The evangelist says [Apost. 7, 55]: "Since he was full of the Holy Spirit", therefore a good indication of how he saw Christ. In the 6th chapter [v. 15] it says how those who were sitting in the council saw him; therefore it can be assumed that he could not have seen the visible heaven in the council house with them; therefore it also says afterwards: "and they rushed at him with one accord" [Apost. 7, 56]. It seems that "where" he had seen the face. This and other things to confirm our case are in the book de cognitione beatae vitae, without needing to go into detail here. Here it is said enough that the body of Christ is at once in one place, like a body circumspective. The other two ways do not address the body, therefore also the places of the Scriptures, so attracted by us, as that Christ has left the world, still stand stiff and unchanged.
1) d. i. already.
non "ö E-rrxo^e-r^r"
3) In the old edition "moderately know", which will probably be understood according to Rom. 12, 3: moderately think of oneself.
8piritu.
108) A useless evasion is sought in Luke, since he says: "I said these things while I was still with you," and yet at the same time I was with them. As if Christ were with us, and not with us. And does not the evangelist say that at one time Christ was in two ways. For before he was with them visibly and passibly, but now, when he spoke, he was passively. Nor does it indicate that he was in two places at one time. This would perhaps have more credit, since he says: "Take note! I am with you until the end of the world" [Matth. 28, 20]; but I do not think that Luther would attribute this to bodily attendance. For Christ, who dwells with his church, is therefore separated from his body in heaven. Now let us continue!
109) Since Luther says in the previous letter against the enthusiasts in letter H [leaf] 2: 5) "Christ is there for you when he adds his word, and binds himself with it, and says, Here you shall find me, etc. which he does in the Lord's Supper, and says, This is my body. Against this I have given the two sayings, that Matt. 24 [v. 23] says, that Christ is yet to be sought here or there; and the other, John 4 [v. 21], that the time is coming that he will be worshipped in this place or in other places. These sayings are presented by me in another form, as they are now already put on by Luther; they penetrate harder than one assumes them; because according to their legend, when the words are spoken, he binds himself with them, yes, so is the body under the bread. This should now be a certainty, as if God had decreed it. And when Luther does this, he now throws it wide open and says: "Who binds Christ in special places? Aren't the enthusiasts themselves the ones who put Christ in heaven in a special place and force us to say, "Here is Christ"? Note Luthern on the bolt. 6) We also confess that Christ is around and about, but that he has taken his body to heaven, and we do not give it a special place outside of Scripture. What then does he impose on us?
110) But 7) when Christ says: "here and there", he points to the places on earth, as the halls and deserts; 8) and against this he emphasizes how Christ will come from heaven, where we also point.
5) No. 20, § 126.
6) i.e. the arrow he shoots.
7) Marginal gloss: Ar Ärcre/'r-r^ -roör's 7 Zoos /"e 6to. 6xx>onitur.
8) i.e. "chamber and desert" according to Matt. 24, 26. - "lifts" - holds, compares.
But Luther perhaps thinks that this text should not be understood from the future to the judgment. But now we will interpret according to faith: venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos, "From then on he is to judge the living and the dead. What is wrong there? Certainly nothing. It does not mean "to bind"; we do not need that word either. And even if we instruct the simple and the children, 1) that they should worship God, and say: Our Father, who art in the heavens! even if they do not understand the spiritual heavens, we do not therefore bind God to a place, if we desire the heart of man to be lifted up, and tell them that they should call upon Him, and be joined to Him with their hearts, who created the heavens and the earth, so that they may lift up their minds over the heavens and the earth; this, of course, does not mean binding to a place.
He further challenges us, saying, "How do they themselves direct people to the gospel and to the neighbor? Is not the neighbor and the gospel in separate places on earth? Is not Christ in the believers?"
112) Answer: Yes, we know that the gospel is the power of God, and the believer is a temple of Christ; but we do not bind Christ with it, nor do we point to it as being in the place of his body, as [those] who put Christ's body there essentially. 2) We do not know that the gospel is the power of God, and the believer is a temple of Christ.
It seems that Luther admits us one thing when he says: "just as if we were saying that he is bodily or visibly in the sacrament".
Answer: Praise be to God! We know well that they do not say that he is visible in the sacrament; but they have left me under the delusion that he is bodily present in the sacramental bread, and is taken with the mouth; as he so rightly gives to Pope Nicolao. Now I accept this: If the body is not bodily present, then it is also not present except in a sign; where its body is, there it must also be bodily. Ah! that one would have spoken like this at the beginning and would have persisted in it! So is he; why do we torment one another, and hinder other people?
Luther teaches us how to understand in two ways 3) "here and there", that is, loco et more loci, that is, first essentially; that he is to be found essentially, and presently. We must allow them that. Secondly, need-
1) Put by us instead of: know. Cf. § 99 of this writing: "wüssest". The interpunction of this whole passage was quite wrong and made the sentence meaningless.
2) modest - decree, set.
3) No. 21, § 304.
usualiter]; that is, that he keeps himself of the same place, as one who has citizenship in a place, and one who is otherwise there.
Answer: We know this well, and we also call God to honor "here and there", where He makes Himself known to us; but not "bindingly", that you should return to this or that place, but seek Him in heaven. And [it] does not want the place of Matthew [Cap. 24, 23. 26.] to indicate that the kingdom of God does not come with an outward gesture or visitation, as St. Lucas says in the 17th Cap. [v. 20, 21]; for he writes just at the 21st cap. [v. 8] also writes this saying, so that it may be known that he is speaking of a different future. Well then, if the body is held up in worship and not led up to heaven, then one misses the place and the custom of the place; one not only follows false prophets, but one also thinks that he has gone astray in elements 4).
The saying of John 4 [v. 21, 23] about worship is interpreted in the most inappropriate way by Luther, which I would never have thought. Now this is 5) my understanding, that Christ wants to say, that instead of the old law the law of the spirit should come. And we know that in the old law God chose special places where he wanted to be found. Now, however, he is again to be joined to this word and appointed in the sacrament, and to be sought in a special place here on earth, as you say; is it not judaized [judaizatum], and acted like the old law in worship? Certainly, if our hearts are now renewed in the truth by the Holy Spirit, we will undoubtedly know how to seek and find Him, yes, even without altars, images, elements, flesh, bread, wine, and without all creatures; nevertheless, has it ever been said of the worshippers even there. If God is humbled to find His body in one place: Ei! so [they] also lead to worship Him! Seeing no more than comparing new and old law, the interpretation of the saying becomes clear, and shall become even clearer in what follows, if God wills it!
118) We also have the saying of John 6: "Flesh is of no use," interpreted according to the instruction of faith; namely, that the flesh of Christ was not ordained by God to be eaten carnally, but rather spiritually through faith; so that we believe that God so loved the world that He did not spare His only begotten Son, but gave Him to death, so that if one believed in Him,
4) d. i. conceived.
5) Marginal gloss: Adorare OHIH in gpiritu.
life, which is enough here. Contradictory is it not, that the flesh of Christ is ordained to be eaten carnally, even with faith; and that it is not ordained to that end. 1) And because it is not ordained, it is not profitable therein. But whereunto it is ordained, the whole chapter sheweth us; and if the Scripture be explained according to all the circumstances of the proceeding and following, it ought to be deemed ohndienstlich to consult the true mind, as we have done?
But Luther splashes in, and 2) brings a rhyming gloss, as if the disciples were scolded for their lack of understanding, since he says: "Flesh is not useful" is spoken in such a way: Ah! coarse heads will not do it. One may well make a side argument, but this is the core and marrow of the whole interpretation. It says of "being of no use" (namely, to make alive), and also of "to make alive". So it may be understood from the word "to make alive" what kind of meaning there is.' The quality of bread is to make alive, which is the quality of God, who gives the true bread of heaven, and that we might eat it, he took the flesh to himself, and thus became our food when it was given to us. The common spirit or spiritual mind does not give life, but the Spirit of Christ gives life. If he would let it be a common rule, it would have a better form, and still nothing would be taken from the flesh of Christ. For though it be like unto the flesh of the first Adam before he sinned, yet is it not profitable to eat. That we have life is not because Christ is God and man, that is, because the living Spirit is in him, as he truly is, but because he is communicated to us. The communication takes place, as and when God wills, through the intercession of Christ and the paternal procession; but ordinarily and commonly through the Word and the means of writing. The reception of these sacraments 3) first of all shows that a person has attained life by faith in Christ, or that he will eat the bread without distinction.
120 Now I have explained the meaning of the words by a pretty simile Augustini, which disclaims
1) The text seems to be corrupted here. The sentence might have read something like this: "It is incontrovertible that it is not contrary to one another that the flesh of Christ is ordained to be eaten spiritually with faith, and that it is not ordained to be eaten carnally. And because," etc.
3) Maybe: requires?
Luther to me. I say no more about this, except that I ask that my likeness and his be read against each other with equal judgment; so let it be found as it may. It is not necessary to repeat them: He who has faith knows well that he obtains life from God through the Spirit who gives faith, and not from the carnal (as some say) supper; there is more thanksgiving for the graces obtained than for those not yet obtained, although God also often works miraculously at the same time through His Word.
(121) So then, the tropus which we have indicated is also according to Scripture, and is free in the text, and has no deficiency anywhere; it is clearer than others; it is around and around according to Scripture, allows the sacrament to remain sacrament, has for help the articles of faith, the sayings also, "that Christ has gone to heaven", and "the flesh is of no use". These all give us tremendous support, and refute all other interpretations; so now also the saying "this is my body" should and must be interpreted in such a way that we recognize that this bread is a sacrament of the body of Christ, given for us.
The third part. Rejection of several counterstatements.
If these pieces were understood correctly, there should not be much further response to the objection that Luther raises against us in the other part; for he does not want to understand us correctly anywhere, and he shields us from how we can accept their understanding, as if it were according to the words, and we should bring another, better text etc. Now they themselves will not be able to stay on the words, and must accept a synecdoche; and where it is seen in the light, it is not against us. We also find their words, as "essential," "invisible," "under," "with," and "in the bread," of no account in the word of the Lord. If they once deviate from mere words to figurative speeches, it is not that one should blame God afterwards, if one does not want to measure the matter accurately. But these and others, which are spoken according to the flesh and the course of the world, I leave aside. The cause to doubt, where they themselves want to, shall be put away from them; and so that I do not answer in a way of dispute, I will put it in question one after the other.
The first question: How is it that all evangelists are so unanimous? where some tropus would be in this, would have admittedly some with a
4) "their" put by us instead of: their.
What is the meaning of the first letter, that another text might have been, as they do in other things, where one puts what the other omits? Answer: So 1) Lucas and Paul add: "which is given or broken for you"; and so of the cup, and the testament beforehand, so it is said, that they allow the synecdoche in many ways: how is it then that they lay the blame on the evangelists? that shall be found afterwards.
The other. If Christ had drunk the last drink before, as it is written in Marco and Luca, it follows that there will be no more bad bread and wine. Answer. We do not deny this: for sacramental bread is not bad bread, and the worthy partaking is, according to the old law, kept after Easter, even after the body's need, but in gratitude to the highest goodness, feasting on heavenly food. We do not ignore the works, as we are wrongly reproached.
125 Thirdly. Why did the Lord say, "I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine," and not say, "I will not drink of the wine"? Because it is to be understood that one should look for something higher, and without doubt the drink in the Lord's Supper does not come from the vine. If then it is not the fruit of the vine, it is certainly the blood of Christ. Answer. Christ has given leave with the whole speech 2) of this bodily need, and now calls to another meal; and the wine is nevertheless wine, as Luther himself confesses. But when one does sacrament, one is not with one another for the sake of bodily need. We are not interested in the grapevine, where only the heavenly drink is palatable to us in our hearts; therefore the wine must not be essentially blood, nor the blood bodily present in the bread, as some say.
126 Fourthly. Why else do both Lucas and Paul put before the cup this word: "the same also the cup after supper", or: "after they had eaten at night", because that he would now speak of another drink? Answer. As reported above, it is not against us, it does not help the adversaries.
127 Fifthly. If the evangelists are not against each other, and Lucas says: "This cup is the New Testament in my blood", he does not want to say differently than Matthew and Marcus, that this is his blood; one should not understand it so roughly, as if the cup was in the blood.
1) Marginal gloss: LvanZelistas variantss inäwaiw tropuni.
Like a peasant in boots. Answer. Certainly the evangelists are one; but because St. Lucas, as Luther himself says, writes more neatly than the others, even more accurately: so one takes the clear understanding from Lucas more cheaply; and is not to be understood as if the cup stood in the wine like a peasant in boots. But neither is it to be understood as if the wine were essentially blood, and the cup were therefore the New Testament, that the blood of Christ was in it. It is too far-fetched to conclude that the cup is the blood of the New Testament and the New Testament is in the blood.
128 To the sixth. Lucas speaks of the blood of which Matthew and Marcus speak; and according to Oecolampad, body and blood are signs in the Lord's Supper, and are called body-signs and blood-signs; so in Lucas, blood must also be called blood-signs, and Lucas' text must therefore be held according to Oecolampad's opinion: This cup is a new testament in my blood-sign, namely in the bad wine. Thus the new testament becomes no more than a drink of wine; or a drink of wine is so strong that it makes this cup a new testament. Response. It is true that Lucas and other evangelists speak of the same blood, namely the true blood of Christ; but I do not say that body and blood are signs: but bread and wine, although, because it is a figurative speech, the tropus and the interpretation falls on the word "blood" in Matthew and Mark, as is said above. And Luther does not want to notice the logic. Whether one says that Christ is a son of Mary; one does not want to say that Mary is a son, but Christ. Alsp when I say: The wine is a sign of the blood, I do not want to say: The blood is a sign; but this is added to the wine, that it is a sign. Therefore, my interpretation will remain the same with Luke: The cup is a sign of the new testament in the true blood of Christ, and the other consequences and misfortunes are all of no concern to me.
129 To the seventh. If Oecolampad does not want to put the tropurn on the blood, but on the new testament, why does he not make it all a sign and a vain tropos and thus says: This sign of the cup is a sign of the new testament, in the sign of my blood? Who gives cause why one word, and not the other also, takes the tropus? Answer. If one speaks of signs, one should not make a sign out of the signs, and thus speak of the sign, so that it is recognized as a sign. So
3) Marginal gloss: HAando Msnäuin tropo.
II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx, 1779-1782. 1423
Nor shall I say here, a sign of the cup; for then the cup would not be the sign, but the sign. And if I say, The cup is a sign of the new testament; then the cup is the sign, and not the testament nor the blood, and they are not the less in their natural nature.
130 To the eighth. Why does Oecolampad not do the same in Matthew and Mark? Turn where you will; if blood is a tropus in Matthew and Mark, it is also in Luke; and if it is not in Luke, it is also not in Matthew and Mark. Response. Yes, it is so. I ever confess that in all the evangelists the blood is the true blood of Christ, and also the body; but in one place the tropus reaches the word "blood," in the other it does not. I could give many such examples. I say, "Christ is a Son of Mary." There the little word "son" stands on "Mary", and is otherwise attached to Christ. In another speech: "Christ is a son of the heavenly Father, who chose Mariam, Christo to be a mother." See, there the word "Son" does not reach "Mariam". Item, one says: "the seed rst a figure of the Word of God," or: "the seed is a figure of the preaching of the Word of God." There it is well to see that neither the word of God nor the preaching are the figure, but the seed. And the little word "figure" 1) refers to the "word" in one place, and not in the other.
131. to the ninth. So Oecolampad says: "This cup is a sign of the new testament in my blood; confesses [thatU Christ's right blood is in the cup, and creates no more, than that this cup is a sign of the new testament: so it would be no more, because: the cup is with Christ's blood a figure of the new testament; and therefore Christ's blood must not give a right new testament, and be no better than the paschal lamb." Response. I do not therefore confess that the blood is in the cup; but that by the blood the new testament is sealed, and is signified in this. Therefore the consequences and consequent are useless; for I do not pass 2) the antecedens or first speech. But if the blood were so, and the Scriptures were able, without doubt this and other things might follow. But Paul to the Hebrews clearly indicates what the blood sealed the testament.
132. to the tenth. Where is any example that the New Testament should be a tropu8? Answer. It does not need to be; for I
1) i.e. directs.
2) exist - concede.
but do not say that it is a tropus, although the word "sign" falls on it. 3) The wine is accepted as a sign, therefore we call it a sacrament. But testament stands here in its value; it is signified by the sign. Therefore, one may still speak of the new testament, and it still remains the gospel; it does not need the care of all, and neither blood nor testament will here be figurative for itself; although the word testament serves another, and carries the tropum on it.
133 Eleventh. One may point to the cup and say, "this is the New Testament," that is, Christ's blood; just as the bodily flame of fire is a spiritual thing, that is, the angel, and the dove is called the Holy Spirit. Therefore, whoever drinks of this cup truly drinks the true blood of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, or the Spirit of Christ, which are received in and with the cup; and will not receive here a living figure or sign of the New Testament, for that was due to the Jews in the Old Law. Response. That 4) I have confessed in my first writing out, that I like to understand, "this is my body," as the dove is said to be the Holy Ghost. For it was not essentially the Spirit, but a creature created, that it should mean that the Holy Spirit dwelt in Christ; for thus also this bread signifies to us the true body of Christ. Now he who saw the dove did not see the Holy Spirit, but by a figurative speech, because it signifies the Holy Spirit, because the sign and the signified are understood together. Such speech is called synecdoche, I call it sacramental in the place, and I would not like to have it cut off. It is also not the first chip in it. Therefore, it does not follow that the blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, is drunk from it, only as far as it signifies; and therefore it does not have to be bodily present or bodily received, as will follow from the interpretation of the blood.
134. to the twelfth. "Where already Oecolampad gladly sought a remedy and placed the text thus: This cup is a sign of the new testament in my blood; that not the blood should belong to the cup, but to the testament, on this opinion: The new testament is in the blood of Christ, and exists through it; and not thus, that the cup is a sign and figure through the blood of Christ, thus: This cup is a sign of the new testament;
3) Perhaps: "shall" - may serve.
4) Marginal gloss: stwutsisrüüoat
itap"?rrs
Zwingli's response to L.'s confession of the Lord's Supper. W. xx. 1782-1784. 1425
but the New Testament is in the blood of Christ. Where he thus says, he well knows that such a text cannot be here; for a Greek article should be here, but it is not there, but the text hangs together as if it were one inseparable word." Response. So Luther knows well that I put it thus, as he says; what has he frightened us so long? 1) Yes, it is not to be called a makeshift, but the quite full interpretation, and is therefore not needh of a new Greek article. 2) There is a word that goes with it, namely the little word "new"; for if it is a testament, and that is renewed, not with the blood of oxen, but with the blood of Christ. Erasmus interprets it in this way, although he otherwise does not agree with me on this and several other points. Namely, he says in annotationibus super Lucam: "As the Old Testament is confirmed and consecrated, since the people were sprinkled with the blood of oxen; so Christ by his blood has sanctified the New Testament for us, which the epistle gives to the Hebrews. Now he has enough understanding of the Greek language, and has seen that this article is not needed. Such speech, who would search there, he would find much; as, Marci at the 9th chapter: "until they see the kingdom of God come to be in power", åùò αν ßäùóé ôçí âáóéëåßáí ôïõ &åïà Ýëçëõ&õÀáí ßí äõíÜìåé. It also says
not ôçí ÝëçëõäõÀáí or ôçí Ýí äõíÜìåé. Around here
If it is completely a forgiven counterproposal, and if there is nevertheless the arrest, then he wants to direct it with omission of an article, and misses there as well as in other pieces.
135. to the thirteenth. Lucas with One Word beats the gushers all to heaps. Response. Yes, with 3) one word he certainly gives to understand that a tropus is to be assumed in the speech. For one may not deny that the testament is confirmed by death only in the death of the testator, and the highest priest goes with the blood into the sanctuary. Therefore here is not the confirmation of the testament; but at the cross, there is the forgiveness of sin. Here is the proclamation, in faith is the acceptance, the bestowal of the merit is of the Spirit of Christ. Now here is the preaching of the testament, this cup and the supper, and the covenant is not set in it; so it follows that the cup is a sign of the covenant or testament, and is not the testament itself. Yes, whoever wants to go worthily to the sacrament, shall
1) "frattened" perhaps: vexirt.
of inäieat, sa-rAM-renr "886 in xoeulo.
have already the faith that his sins are forgiven, and thus give thanks to the congregation with the sacrament. And so then, as it stands here with the testament, why does one object in the other similar places? and now also say like Luther: "As the cup is a sign of the testament, so also is the bread a sign of the body, and the wine a sign of the blood." For the evangelists must read the same.
136 To the fourteenth. What good would it do if their text could stand? With the sign and interpretation, they may not indicate a tittle of sameness. Answer. The parable of breaking and pouring is sufficiently indicated above, and if not, Luther gives it to us now.
137 To the fifteenth. May the pouring out in the evangelists and the breaking in Paul not give the same meaning, serving the body of Christ; but rather they find said about the administration of the sacrament. Answer: If one may see clearly 4) how Luther writhes, and how he would like to, where he only wants to; so one sees it there. Above he rejects the likeness where the blood is poured out; and here it is so clear that he cannot deny it; and if the shedding of the blood goes to him, the breaking goes to the body, although he wants the breaking of the body and the shedding of the blood over the table, which is much clearer on the cross. But here he can freely admit the synecdoche in public, and yet it is an eternal cry that the words are to be acted without all figure. Well then! Praise be to God! Here he confesses that because of sacramental unity (which is also of two things, if not bodily with each other) that may be said of one which is done in the other. Why then did he mock my rule above, that one should and may speak of sacraments sacramentally? So he says: "Because cup and blood and new testament are one sacramental being, for the sake of such unity the cup is poured out, but only the blood is poured out per synecdoche; and this is right and enough answered." But why should this not also apply to us when the bread is broken and distributed, the wine poured out and presented? Why not also, for the sake of sacramental unity, may their signs be added, whether they are not yet poured out and broken, but by the signs it be known that they are once broken and poured out for our benefit? And I do not see that we have any disadvantage, whether already the breaking of the bread and the giving of the wine in the supper; because their likeness will be attained at the cross of Christ.
II. Schriften Wider Zwingli und seine Anhanger etc. W. xx, 1784-1787. 1427
The words here are meant to serve this purpose. It is clearly stated, for the great comfort of the faithful, "who was given for you," that is, for your salvation, for your life. And it is a wonder that Luther 1) desires to put such a comforting saying there, as if it were much more than for your eyes, when Marcus and Matthew also say: "for you and for much"; admittedly before their eyes such did not happen. How then will such things turn out? Against Carlstadt, it might well be that Christ sat there with the body that was given for us; and it is still fitting that Christ in heaven, who died for us. Now he would like "to be given for us, and to be poured out to atone for our sins" to belong only to the supper; would to God that he would consider the sacraments properly for once!
138. to the sixteenth. But how, if the word "my" is placed after the word "that" in St. Paul, and not after the word "body"; for he says from word to word: 2) "This is my body"?
Response. This changes nothing at all in the mind. It does as much; 3) nor do I find any reason why it should serve to strengthen their opinion, since the word "my" would follow it, as in other evangelists. But this is the difference of the obliquus Ýìïà, retaining its accent, which is reckoned against another, which in other evangelists is not thus clearly held forth; so the opinion is that this bread is the sign of my body, and of no other. It is I who truly redeem you, and no other, therefore I also die for you, and even with my body itself. For at one time [i.e. in ancient times] there was a night feast, where it was signified and proclaimed by the paschal lamb, how the blood of the paschal lamb had protected the children of Israel from death, and it might also be said sacramentally in truth: This is the lamb that redeemed the children of Israel. But if Christ now gives this leave, he wills that one now wait for higher good from him. For notice, if the eaten paschal lamb did not have power in him to redeem those who follow; for they would be redeemed: so also our sins are already forgiven us through the suffering of Christ. But in order that no one should take offense at the great letter "my, mine", he should take another example against it. If God pointed to the seed of the field, as he did here to the bread, and said, "This is the seed of the field.
3) Marginal gloss: Huld Vtzlit 86rvatU8 U666ntu8 in e^ov.
is just my word; therefore the word would not be present among the seed or in the seed. But we would like to make a distinction between the word of Moses and the law, or the Pharisees, which may also be signified by a seed. But this seed is my word, means my word, and no other. And yet this is not detrimental to sacramental unity.
139) The seventeenth. Scripture does not suffer Christ's death to be signified by the breaking of bread; 4) therefore it is not a likeness; and though the bread has a likeness to that on the cross, yet it has no likeness to the body as in the supper.
Answer. The body is not so present in the evening meal that it must be distributed with the bread. It is enough for the sacramental distribution that the heavenly Father assigns to his elect the merit of Christ's suffering; and that the faithful recognize through the sacrament that such merit has been set before them and has already been imparted to them, for which reason they also give thanks. Luther and every orthodox believer should take pleasure in this.
140 To the eighteenth. St. Paul puts the word "is" after "blood," and says: "This cup, the new testament, is in my blood." This, then, is to be understood: This cup, being a new testament, is the same in Christ's blood.
Answer. We have been asked in what the likeness is, that the cup of blood and a testament is sacramental. We have indicated that the blood on the cross is hoped for us. This sufficient indication is also here, if the cup is called a new testament, precisely in that Christ's blood is poured out. For thus in his blood, and in no other, was it established, and the "is" truly serves on the little word "new," as said above in St. Lucas; wherefore also in Matthew and Marco it is called the blood of the testament; not the testament, which would be established there in the first place, but it is ordained that we might be redeemed by it on the cross.
141. on the nineteenth. It has never been read that "will" should mean "a sign of the will".
Answer. This is sufficiently answered before that we let "testament" remain testament. But bread and wine are signs.
142 To the twentieth. Because one calls the cup, the wine is understood by it, and one makes a new unity, if they are nevertheless two different natures; so one would also let cheaply be called the wine.
4) In the old edition "death".
The cup is called a testament because it is not only a cup, but also a sacramental being with the testament and blood of Christ.
Answer. Sacramental unity 1) we have never punished; but if we want to remain in it, we must be the most fearful the world has ever borne. But that we should take the signs for what they signify would be a pitiful servitude to our souls. By the grace of God, we are well aware of how we should keep our minds free in this. We see and perceive outward things, but remember ourselves that we recognize 2) the inward and invisible things, that is, the things that are signified, as sacramental unity requires; and no one has ever heard of us otherwise.
143. to the twenty-first. How might bad wine interpret such great things, as it could hardly denote all the figures of the Old Testament?
Answer. But this is still more wonderful, that a word of two, three, or four letters, as, On [xx], God, or Adonai, should signify and signify to us him whom all men's and angels' tongues cannot utter; and in him the likeness has none, but such alone is ordained for it. Now the wine is ordained for this, and a very good likeness, by which divine grace is commanded us, of which above said sufficiently.
144. twenty-second. It is a miraculous sign that Christ's body and blood are in the sacrament, and it is not visibly there; but it is enough for us that we feel it by word and faith.
Answer. 3) Our opponents say that there are many great miraculous signs. But St. Augustine, who has read and considered the evangelists and the words "this is my body" no less than they, contradicts them. For he makes a clear distinction: "For there is a great difference between the deeds of angels and those of men. The deeds of angels we are to wonder at and understand; but the deeds of men we alone are to understand"; and he speaks there of the sacraments; read him, whoever will, on the third de Trinitate, oap. 10 Some years ago he gave me cause to ponder this further. How then do they say that it should be felt with faith alone? But with what faith they feel such things, true believers know well how to distinguish. On such faith Christ has
1) Marginal gloss: servile est, srF-ra pro rsöns aeeipere.
2) In the old edition: "like".
3) Marginal gloss: Hn" Me saeraiEntn eapienän.
did not build his church. But this is the useful faith that Christ died, as such is signified and proclaimed in the Sacrament.
145 The twenty-third. Even though your sign is not visible, even though you see the cup, you do not see that it is a sign of the blood of Christ, but you must speak it with words and believe it in your hearts, because it is not painted on the cup. Why is it also not believed that the miraculous signs take place with the body of Christ? So, I think, they want to talk to us.
Answer. The cup and the bread are painted by the Word of Good, first of all, if they have the quality of the Word in themselves. But now that his body is without place [sine mansions locali], or in many places, and especially 4) visible and invisible: how can it be believed without God's word? But the words "this is my body" do not bring such things with them, and yet the sacrament, as far as it concerns outward admonition, is no less powerful if it does not have the concept as if it had it. The dove, meaning the Holy Spirit, the flame of fire in which the angel appeared, were without doubt outwardly miraculous works, even visible; Christ was also born miraculously. Now these things are signs of some invisible natures. But here it is not necessary to be something outwardly miraculous, for bread is natural through the Word; when it becomes significant, it has already become a sacrament. It is very different from the signs prepared by angels. "Angelic deeds have wonder, because they are unknown to us; but here," says St. Augustine, "things are known to us, and therefore without wonder; but the things which some pretend to us were less known than angelic things."
146. Twenty-fourth. Who can deny that in the Lord's Supper there is forgiveness of sin, since the New Testament is there, and not the sign of the New Testament, as Lucas and Paul say?
Answer: 5) The New Testament is accomplished on the cross. We have this covenant where we believe; it is not denied that there is forgiveness of sin outside the sacraments. Therefore it is not denied badly there. But that the cup is a sign of the testament, and not the testament itself, I take from the fact that it was once assured and fulfilled on the cross. But that it is given through the word, that is,
4) d. i. at the same time. .
5) Randglosse: klör rornissio poooatoruva.
I take care that no sane person contradicts it. And likewise, if one accepts with faith the proclamation of how Christ has done enough for us on the cross, who would deny that there is forgiveness of sin? But this we could not and may not ascribe to any element as working or bestowing. Oh no! for it belongs to God alone. But it is attributed to them as proclaiming. Otherwise the sacraments would be more powerful than the saints of God themselves, to whom such is not bestowed.
147 The twenty-fifth. Whosoever shall confess that he hath the signs of the new testament, confesseth that he hath not the new testament; he also hath denied Christ: for Christians shall have the new testament in them without figure or sign.
Answer. The Christian signs and ceremonies differ from the ceremonies of the old: the ceremonies of the old law meant that salvation was to come; but ours mean that it has already come. Therefore we may say with truth: Which Christian receives worthily the signs of the new testament, who testifies that he has the new testament, and that Christ has forgiven him his sin. But if in the reception of the sacraments we would receive the forgiveness of sins more than we would give thanks that they are forgiven us, it would be evident that we do not have the new testament, nor the forgiveness of sins.
148. To the twenty-sixth. Without the words, the cup would be nothing; without the bread and cup, the body of Christ would not be there; without the body and blood of Christ, the New Testament would not be there; without the New Testament, forgiveness of sin would not be there. Behold, all these things are 1) sufficient for us in the words of the Lord's Supper, and we grasp it with faith.
Answer. We understand well the heaped syllogismum 2); if we break it down, we find good sense. It is true that words make the bread and the cup signs of the body and blood of Christ; but words alone have in their power that they proclaim and signify; this they now give to the sacraments also, and no more than they have. But further, that they have given the presence of the body and blood to them, is not proved. Then sylIogism goes off the track, and becomes brittle; for the blood of Christ truly gives the new testament, and for ever pardon of sins and life; but the outward words do not give it, but they proclaim it. Therefore conclude
1) In the original: reichet.
2) Marginal gloss: Vis veokorum.
They have it in them no other way than that they show such great grace. The sacraments also do this; the faith that grasps such a gift, even as in the outward admonition the inward master instructs. And therefore, when we consider what is in the power of the words, we find how much is given to the sacraments, and will be more for us than against us.
149. twenty-seventh. May not the body in the bread be understood as Paul says: "As often as you eat the bread", as one understands by the cup the wine in the cup, as Paul says: "As often as you drink the cup"?
Answer. It was said before about the content; I gladly allow that this bread introduces us to the contemplation of that which is signified by it, and according to sacramental unity, which is there in meaning. But one looks for a reverse way. One does not drink cups, but wine from cups. Again, it is in sacraments: Bread is eaten; but this, if the bread contains sacramental meaning, is not eaten bodily at all, but is grasped with faith. Therefore they are quite different synecdochae, continens pro contento, and contentum pro continente. Rather, as Paul says so beautifully, we should consider how we are to know that which is sacramentally apprehended in the bread, namely, when he says, "proclaim the death of the Lord!" which proclamation flows from faith and gratitude; and this is the content of the sacraments, that through them one proclaims how grace is communicated to us. Paul put the sign and the signified together so that the interpretation would be clearer; but here Luther may well jump, however verbose he otherwise is.
150. to the twenty-eighth St. Paul does not say: if you drink of the sign of the body and blood. Response. He says it, because the bread and the cup are the signs, although he does not express it in words. And that he would have them for this, he adds, "Proclaim the death of the Lord."
151. twenty-ninth. If it should not apply to us, if we say: St. Paul does not say: As often as you eat of the sign of the body; because ex puris negativis nihil sequitur:: then you also have no reason, if you say: Paul calls this bread, and not the body of Christ, therefore it is bread alone. 3) Answer. We want to have from the words that it is true bread; and for what it is to be used, we show from the following and preceding words, which naturally explain the matter. And is nothing from negativis; although Luther knows well, if a thing is not in the
3) Marginal gloss: I^oous a neMti vis.
Scripture says that one may well argue a negaUvig. We are not to know more than God has given us to understand through His Word.
152. to the thirtieth. The words "this" and "this" are certain pointers that one should go back to the previous words, so it will be just as much: He that eateth of this body, and drinketh of this blood. Answer. Yes, the words are certain pointers that it is no longer a common bread, but the bread of the Lord, yes, the sacramental bread, which means the body for us; this is what the little words mean. Yes, where Luther had his mind, it would certainly have his opinion. But we have also seen the text, and our interpretation is in accordance with faith. Therefore he does not judge anything by the large letters; and indeed, since the natural interpretation is given here, we are right to consider how he understands each one, and now our interpretation is not ours, but Paul's own, where it is considered otherwise.
153 Thirty-first. Why does not St. Paul say: He is guilty of the bread or of the sign of the body of Christ who eats this bread unworthily? The text forces that this sin is the unworthy eating; and yet they pretend that it is vain bread which they eat; so he must be guilty of that which he eats. Answer. If the bread is a sign of the body of Christ, then he is guilty of the body who does not eat the sign. One would not sin against bread if it were not a sacrament of the body of Christ, because they have been drawn into one sacramental union; not that they are therefore with one another, but that here is the image of the body in the bread; although Luther denied this, it is nevertheless well established. Therefore Paul knows well how to distinguish between bread and body, he also knows how to reconcile them and put them together. He does not say "eat the body. For no one may eat the body unworthily, but unfortunately many eat the sacrament and sign of the body unworthily. But if the bread is not a sign of the true body of Christ, but of the spiritual body, then one is not guilty of the true body of Christ, but of that of which this bread is a sacrament. Now it is proved that the bread and the wine are signs of the body of Christ, and that with certain proofs; and not only is this proved, but also the counteropinion is rejected, and that mightily.
154. to the thirty-second. So Oecolampad hie in this place lets body be called the true right body, so they must also in the text of the Lord's Supper not be a tropus. Response. As here the
True body is meant to us, therefore also in the text of the supper, although the tropus of the word "bread" falls on the word "body", but this takes nothing away from the true body. Therefore one cannot make me his such conclusion]; He who dishonors the bread dishonors the sign of the body, that is, the bread; but both such^: He who dishonors the sign of the body, that is, the bread, dishonors the body. Much less will follow the contradictoria and other inconvenientia that Luther heaps.
155. thirty-third. St. Paul does not say, "Whoever eats this bread unworthily is guilty of Christ, as he is guilty of the king who mocks the king's image;" but St. Paul says, "That the guilt may be done in the pieces of Christ, to which the bread and wine should be like or a sign. Thus Oecolampad's similitude will be thus: He who dishonors the nose of the king's image dishonors the king's nose. Answer: 1) If those who crucified Christ in the flesh, as guilty of his body and blood, have sinned against the whole of Christ, it is not wrong to say that those who eat the bread unworthily sin in Christ. For those who reject the supreme goodness of the body and blood of Christ, and hold themselves against the bread as if it were common bread, and do not pass from the visible to the invisible things, must ever despise Christ. What honor has the king's nose against the image? It is more apparent that it is an image of a king than that it has such and such a nose. In the sacrament, however, the body and blood have also earned much against us, hence the interpretation.
156 To the thirty-fourth. Who will believe that to distinguish Christ's body is nothing, but to distinguish Christ Himself in His signs? Answer. I do not say that the body of Christ here is anything different from the true body; and I say in answer to the opinion: 2) He does not distinguish Christ's body who does not think more of Christ, who suffered for him, than of another man. And we say that if an unrecognized Heinz or Kunz dies, it is not the less or the more; but the death of the body of Christ should be so highly esteemed, that we should also hold in the highest esteem everything that belongs to Christ.
sa-rsttr-rrs, et non:
and fed his poor, performed his ceremonies with due fear of God. But if we do not love our neighbor, who is redeemed by the blood of Christ, the ceremonies are not in true thanksgiving. If we do not need faith and love toward our neighbor, there is certainly no distinction of the body of Christ, and without doubt one eats and drinks the judgment, because one may show that Christ has suffered for him, and one also wants to be grateful for the suffering of Christ; but one receives the sacraments not the less in contempt of the neighbor. Thus the Corinthians did not distinguish the sacrament, not in whether blood and flesh were essentially present, for St. Paul did not punish them for this. But if this had been their sin, Paul would not have left it undisclosed, in which they did not examine themselves and distinguish the body. The true test is that we believe that Christ has taken away our sin by the shedding of his blood, and so redeems us. But we invent in ourselves a thankful spirit, so that we not only are not ashamed to confess it, but are also ready to serve our neighbor and consider him a brother. But to believe that the body of Christ is bodily present in the bread is contrary to the likeness of faith. Christ did not put anything on the same faith, but on the faith that he has redeemed us and is the Son of God.
157 To the thirty-fifth. St. Paul alternates finely, one thing after another; now he calls it bread and a cup, and then body and blood; and then again bread and a cup, and then again body and blood; so that he may make us certain that this sacrament is not just bread and wine. Answer: Of course, there is a nice variation here, and it is easy to see how Paul speaks with such great modesty, so that he does not lead anyone astray. He gives the outward things to bread and wine, as eating and drinking, and leads us on with them, so that we do not forget the good deeds of Christ, which they mean, as: proclaiming death, not debasing it, appearing with ingratitude; examining ourselves beforehand, what confidence we have in Christ and our neighbor, and what higher things we think of the true body of Christ. And do not serve a little bit for the consecration, as one pretends; but around and around the worthiness of the sacrament is diligently commanded to us.
158. to the thirty-sixth. Where in the words, "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" there would be figurative speech, according to Oecolampad's [opinion.
the] text: The bread that we break is a communion of bread, which is a sign of the body of Christ; and would be so much: bread is a communion of bread. Answer: 1) Not so! O Luther! nowhere do you want to understand me rightly; for I leave the true body of Christ in the four sayings; although the little word "figure" falls on it in the interpretation, therefore this does not follow it. Likewise, as you show me, I also do not say that there is a figurative fellowship; but the breaking of bread bears 2) a figure on it, as the cup bears a figure of the testament; and would not have to speak thus, if the trope were to exist. Enough has been said about this to the intelligent. And this is the opinion: the very breaking of bread signifies to us how we have a true fellowship in the one common true body of Christ, who was given to us in common and shared with us all by divine grace, if he died for our sake. Therefore we are also an hereditary people of Christ; and none of the things that Luther pretends follow.
159 To the thirty-seventh. So the breaking of bread is a fellowship in which the wicked also have a part, and not only the good; for Judas also was in the supper (now the wicked may not have a spiritual fellowship, but they must have a bodily one): 4) then they must have a part in the body, which is distributed to them in the breaking of bread; for if it is distributed to them, it is also there. Answer: Yes, the breaking of bread is a sign of communion, not communion itself. How? if poor people bear a sign of the cross, that alms should be given to them as the needy, it is said: bearing the sign of the cross is not a fellowship of alms? and is the bearing not the fellowship for itself, but means that those who bear it 5) have a society and fellowship of alms. The sign should be accepted only by the needy, and not by the unworthy. Now at times among the multitude of not the least unworthy run, they also bear the sign, and when they come to the beggar, he tells them: Is not the sign of the cross a fellowship of almsgiving? and then punishes those who so insolently may bear the sign of the fellowship to which they do not belong. So Paul punishes
1) Marginal gloss: kanis, huein krunZimus, yuomoäo sit eoinmunwatio eorporis Lüristi.
2) In the old edition: "trage ick". We have deleted "ich" because it seems too much for us.
3) "but one" - again.
4) The brackets are set by us.
5) In the old edition: soß.
even then the false ones who received the sacraments, as if they also had fellowship in the true body of Christ; that through faith they had obtained forgiveness of sin and grace in his death, and thus had Christ as their own.
160 This fellowship is truly for the good alone. John describes such fellowship in the first epistle, saying, "Let our fellowship be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ;" and then, "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship among us, and his blood purifies us from all sin. There he indicates how we have fellowship. But of others he says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us"; they walk among us, and bear the signs, and also want to be believers, but they are true Judas. They received the sacraments, but the body in no way, neither spiritually, nor bodily; although they sin in [the] true body of Christ, whose sacrament they act with such unbelief and ingratitude in such unmercifulness. In this also the Corinthians might well be punished for their discord, and yet still have fellowship with the Gentiles. Dear, could not the societies have a sign among themselves, so that in one or the other they have true fellowship? unless their true bodily [being (?)] is in the sign of fellowship. Therefore it is a bodily fellowship, which has Christ and Christ's body as its own, beforehand, as he gave it in the cross. But do not therefore need the presence of the body of Christ bodily in the bread; for to speak of it sacramentally would not be against me. For the sake of signs and names the wicked are also called for a time, [that they] are in the kingdom of heaven, as also many evangelical parables and examples indicate.
Now the following words of Paul explain our matter sufficiently. He, Paul, says: "Look at Israel according to the flesh! Are not all those who eat the sacrifices a fellowship of the altar?" [1 Cor. 10, 18.] That is, a sign that they commonly have righteousness with one another to the altar in sacrifices and serve the altar, belong to priests and God's people. Neither should anyone mingle with them, for as they carried righteousness to the altar. 1) But if a hidden Gentile had eaten with the Jews, he would have been respected, he would have had fellowship, but he had none. So also the false Christians are respected, they have well fellowship in the blood, in the testament, in pardon.
1) i.e. had a right to the altar.
of sin outwardly; but they are nothing but pure glorifiers. 2) If then Luther would have it that the ungodly may also receive the true body, because it says, "This is my body," let us prove by the same consequence that they also have the new testament, and thus the unworthy and ungodly would have their sins forgiven if they received the sacraments. Yes, if you say, They are unbelievers, therefore it is not a new testament to them; let it also be said, They are unbelievers, therefore the bread is not the body to them; so it would be found that the consequence in the word is nothing at all.
162. thirty-eighth. If one wanted to speak of spiritual communion, it would not be necessary to call the two pieces the body and blood of Christ, but it would be enough to call them Christ. Why should he speak so differently of the body and the blood, and put two communions together, as two different communions, since neither is the other? And if the spiritual communion is not more than one, then the communion of the body of Christ is not the communion of the blood of Christ; again.
Answer: We, who are bodily, are a bodily company, having spiritual fellowship in spiritual goods. We are assured of this through the body and blood of Christ in his passion; and therefore, if we have received spiritual goods through the body and blood, the signs of the body and blood are convenient signs of such fellowship; and though Christ has instituted more signs than baptism, yet it would be no more than one fellowship. For in baptism it is also signified that we are purchased by the blood of Christ; and those who are baptized are already with us in fellowship, and alone is the fellowship thereafter accepted in other signs anew. Luther could well see that the devil's fellowship and the fellowship of the devil's table are one thing: he should also be able to recognize that one fellowship is the fellowship with Christ and the fellowship of the Lord's table, which holds in it both bread and wine, that is, signs of the body and blood, and proclaims that both good deeds are bestowed upon us. And is not the devil therefore definitely appointed to be at the table. What do you want to enforce here?
Now, praise be to God, we have seen Luther's reasons, and the longer we look at them, the more flawed they are; but he has not caught us untruthfully in one piece. But how he
2) Marginal gloss: Impii "on rnLnänenut earnem 6dri8th 8wut Q66 V6r6 in tsstnnreuto kunt.
A healthy heart can see well for itself. He does not want to allow a trope, and yet he allows it, because he does not like the synecdoche, but how he presents it does not want to be in accordance with the faith. If, however, he wants to speak of sacramental unity in a Christian way and has a desire for peace, there is no need at all for this quibbling; for thus we would soon become one in truth. The mere words are by no means worth the struggle, if one has attained the truth; may God, the gracious Father, from day to day, in this and all other things, abundantly impart and increase them to us, so that we may have full knowledge of Christ! Amen, Anno MDXXVIII.
The second part of Zwingli's answer.
387 Now that you, pious princes, have considered Oecolampadi's answer, which would truly be sufficient for every quiet, chaste, true Christian, who should not look at the many, but at the power of the words, I again humbly ask you to hear the remaining two parts with the same seriousness.
388. As in our first part Luther's contested comments, of which he would have done well to omit the major part, have been answered (indeed also with more words and action, neither of which we would like to have done- but have ever had to run the colored reasons over the face with a wet sponge, so that the ruddy beauty would be accepted, and the rather weak color would be seen, so that no one would take the sick opinion to marriage under the appearance of the healthy one), 1) so it is now up to us to present our opinion and understanding of the words of the Lord's Supper.
389. We thus point out, as often before, that the one faith and trust in God first forces us to notice that we should not understand the words of the supper bodily. For faith, which is trust in the only God, is the only rest of the soul, the certainty and firmness by which we see that there is no good, no truth, no righteousness, neither the only highest good, God; that there is nothing at all certain in which one can exist unconfidently, neither He; that the soul finds rest in no creature, but only in the Creator. If then the substance and essence of faith is such light, certainty and rest, and if faith does not come from any creature but from the one Holy Spirit, the Creator and Life of all things, then it is certain that our faith (I mean the right, essential, true, living faith, since man is the Creator of all things) is the only faith that is true.
1) These brackets are set by us.
knows that he is a child of God) does not come from any creature, does not consist in any mere creature, is in none undoubtedly calm and sure, is strengthened with no creature if he is weak; for even the miraculous signs may not make the right spiritual faith, but the spiritual faith makes one recognize the miraculous signs to be God's work; or else the children of Israel would have been supremely faithful in the desert and at the daily miraculous signs of Christ.
390 All of which is clearly learned from Paul Rom. 8, 24. and Hebr. 11, 1. where he says in one place: "With hope we are healed, but the hope that is seen is not a hope." By "see" he means to have everything bodily, and wants to say that the only hope and trust is the salvation of the soul; for if a man had the Lord Christ as his own, he would not be healed or calm in conscience, for faith alone must make him calm. Simon the special sieche 2) did not have Christ in the flesh, neither Magdalene, because he was his guest and ate his food; he was in his house etc. But Magdalene had him for salvation, because she recognized him to be the living Son of God and the animator of the soul. Now if the presence of the body created or made faith, Simon would have been more faithful neither the sinner. But the sinner has him alive in her heart through the light and certainty of faith; therefore he was salvific to her, and not because she understood him bodily, watered and dried him. Simon had it so much as his own, as a guest of the host or moderator 3) is, bodily in his food etc., but has it not in faith; therefore he had it not at all wholesome. Therefore the good of faith may not come from any bodily having or possession.
In another place [Hebr. 11, 1.] he says: Faith is a substance (here the word xxx<r-7-as-ec, which is interpreted in "person", of which enough was said above) of the things which one hopes for, and a certainty of the things which one does not see. A substance he calls faith, that is, the essential, certain, certain and constant confidence that man has in the things that we hope for but are invisible. These words are also misused by our opponents, who drag the description of faith as if we should believe things that are not visible, and want to make do with it in this matter. We
2) i.e. lepers.
3) Maßherrn ----- Tischherrn. Cf. Mitmaßen ----- Tischgenossen, Col. 1250, § 46.
Let us therefore believe that flesh and blood are here, if they be invisible; for faith is of invisible things. From what argument or reason we would be compelled to believe that neither rose nor flew, 1) as it is said, because the same will not happen.
392 But the error comes from the fact that they do not decide between faith, which is a slacking (listening), obeying and admitting or slacking, and faith, which is undoubted trust. For if they saw the difference clearly, they would know that here Paul does not say that the delusion, obeying or forbearing 2) is a substance of things hoped for. For so faith is taken for an indulgence of the things which we hear. As if we believe that the great Caliph of Waldach is more powerful than the Pope. Here faith is nothing else at all, neither with lightening nor slackening, so be it; but that in this something comforting, peace, or security of salvation is born for us in our sea, that is not. But faith 3) is taken here in the description for the essence, security and power of the soul, since it leaves itself undoubted in the invisible things, as in the things to which it is united, and which may give it united (unios) salvation. Thus the body of Christ is to be eaten bodily in the bread, not the opposite (obssotum) or goal to which faith looks; for it looks only to that which is the origin of all creatures, which cannot be seen with any bodily eye; therefore it must be attained only with the sure eye of conscience, and this is faith, the essential consolation, the substance of trust in God.
393 When they say, "Faith is the thing to be hoped for, and therefore it is necessary to hope and believe that the body of Christ is there, so it is there," you see, pious princes, that they go back and forth in the word faith; and since faith is described as confidence, they make out the faith that is abated or healed. For in our souls there is no comfort in believing that we shall be eaten bodily in the bread of Christ's body; for if that had been the case, Abraham could not have been saved, for he never believed that, but all his confidence was in the one Lord and Creator of all things; so also is the substance of our faith.
394 Secondly, they do not see what is called "invisible things" in Hebr. 11:1. Namely, the
1) Probably as much as: "went § dust excited still flew". 2) Marginal gloss: faith for lightening or slackening. 3) Marginal gloss: faith the essential confidence of the soul.
and visible things are taken in common for all created; 4) as Rom. 1: "His invisible things are learned by the creature of the world"; Baruch 3, 38: "He is therefore seen on earth", "to see" is taken for being sensitive, bodily. And "to feel" 5) is not taken for feeling of the flesh alone, but for "to become aware of all the sensations of the body", of seeing, hearing, grasping, tasting, smelling etc. So now faith is united in him who has not been perceived nor recognized with any bodily sensation, but the unified mind, the unified spirit, the unified soul perceives him with understanding and trust. Therefore, faith cannot stand in any creature, but in the one invisible God. Thus it is contrary to faith to be pointed to a visible thing, that is, to one creature as one creature. For that we are pointed to Christ signifies that he is God and man; but to his mere humanity no one is to be pointed, as he himself says, "He that trusteth in me, trusteth not in me," that is, he is not to trust in me as long as I am a man etc. So also is an open error which every believer feels in his essential substantial faith, in that they say, The bodily food of Christ put away sin, put away the soul etc.
This is now the first vein from which the well-grown faith speaks: 6) Well then! I find that my one food and comfort is the one God; and the God has taken my nature and weakness to Himself, that He might kill those in Himself; 7) so all my confidence is ever in Him alone. Now what would it be for me to eat the corpse in the flesh? The soul does not eat flesh, so the body does not like human flesh. If I now know God and the good deed that he has shown me, by which he made me his child, I have enough of it etc. In this you see, pious princes, that faith does not suffer to be directed to a creature, much less to be directed to eat something for the indulgence of sin. Of this the pious Silesians wrote more abundantly, whose writing I have read in the midst of 8), and found it more Christian and more thorough neither everything that Luther has ever written in this matter. Must also, whether God wills! come to the day, so that one can see,
4) i.e. creatures. - followed by: creation.
5) Marginal gloss: Ssnsus, sensibilities, not sense.
6) Marginal gloss: So the flesh of Christ is taken in faith.
7) In the old edition: todte.
8) d. i. meanwhile.
whether they speak as he said on them. In short, the faith that can go unhealed 1) (and is not otherwise not a faith), seeks in Christ Jesus after his death and resurrection nothing more in his flesh than is sufficiently indicated above from Paul and Augustine; or, if it were bodily in bread, we would also seek bodily health nothing less in bodily touching, neither even the sick woman [Matt. 9]. We would also like to argue in Luther's way: To make the soul healthy is greater than to make the body healthy. So then Christ cleanses the soul with the bodily food of his body; much more would he make the bodies healthy with it. But Summa Summarum: all the oath of Christ's humanity is gone, and [we] know nothing more of it; but our [nostratlum, ours] substantial faith stands in the one bodily crucified, not bodily eaten, God.
The other vein that brings us to realize that the words of the supper may not be understood bodily is the resistance of God's Word. For we must never be of the same mind as those who use to cry out: God has said: "This is my corpse", so it must be so for him. Yes, indeed, it is so', but not so, as our erroneous mind means, but so, as Christ means. Accordingly, they cry out as if all the words that are against them are not God's word. And if I cry out as loud: "The flesh is not useful at all", they are also God's word, and must be true as those: "This is my corpse," they do the same as that painter, who in all his works said most of all about Saint Christoffel; he could not paint anyone else so well. So they don't give notice of the words and senses that are against them, but say: "It says, 'This is my body: This is my body. Keep ye simple words, and if ye be deceived at once, [it is] wyer, 2) ye are deceived of God neither of men." Nice thing! If they do not like to keep the understanding, they teach that one should keep the misunderstood words; and if one is deceived by them with their misunderstanding, then one should put it on God. But we should be of such a mind that if untruth, even the devil himself, presents God's word to us in a false understanding, we should not accept it in this way, but should set the counter-scriptures against it, just as Christ himself did, and thus weigh out the right understanding.
1) Heblinge--Gängelbänder; hence "unheblingen"-- without gears.
2) "wyer" probably stands for "weger" i.e. better.
397. If then faith and Scripture, that is, the spirit and the letter, may not suffer the words to be understood bodily, of which Luther so cruelly cries: "We shall prove that the words may not be understood in this way; although we have done this before and now superfluously: Let us take the words of Luke, and with the words of the other evangelists, so that all believers may see that we spare Luther a great deal, that we are not as seriously responsible for the vain, inept chatter that he is carrying on as another Egg, Struß, 3) or Faber Wohl would be. For if his calumnias, alenfences and intercourse were to be honored, it would be bad for his name. May God give him back his face! Amen.
398 Lucas 32: "He took the bread, praising God, broke it and gave it to them, saying." With the words Lucä lighten Matthew, Marcus and Paul. It is said enough above of åõëïãçóáò and åý÷áñéóôÞóáò, that they speak for "GOtt.
praise" and "give thanks", not for "bless" hie stand.
This is my body, which is given for you. Before these words Matthew, Mark, Paul, "Take, eat!" Of which Luther also has much trouble; but we do not deny it, but know that one truly takes and eats what he gives. But what does he give? "His body" (says Luther); for he says on it, "This is my body." So we ask: whether they ate the body that sat there, or the body that was declared." If they ate the one that was sitting there, then the natural body was sitting there, which truly has flesh, blood and bones; so they had to eat it only spiritually: or if they ate it bodily, then they had to eat it naturally; but this is inhuman to hear, and even Luther does not indulge in it. But if they have eaten him only spiritually, that is, if they have been thankful that he has given up the body in death, then there must be no more quarreling; for we have now often enough shown that we have the body of Christ most precious in the supper, namely, that we consider his death and therefore give thanks; that is the noble thing to do here. If, then, he is also in our supper, then all the cleavage is gone; but if they have eaten the body that was declared, then Christ's body was declared at one time, and not declared, which is quite contrary to God's word. Joh. 7: "Jesus was not yet declared. This is also publicly Marcionic. Or else he has been declared at one time.
3) i.e. Eck, Strauß.
once had two bodies. All of which is contested before.
In previous writings, we have also sufficiently indicated how the word "this" is properly used to refer to the bread or to the entire feast of thanksgiving. 1) For if it points to the bread, then the bread is taken as a part of the sign or sacrament of the evening meal for the whole thanksgiving, as Acts 3, 42. 46. the breaking of bread is taken for bread, cup and thanksgiving. And this does not prevent the drink from being called the blood; for since it is a part of the sacrament, the sacrament is called something of both parts, but something of the one alone, as is proved above.
401 And so it is understood from the two points that nothing else is shown here, neither that this feast is his body, that is, a sign, a signification, a thanksgiving, a memorial, a renewal of the body of Christ; that is, that he has taken true body and soul to himself, suffered death, and thus redeemed us. For as it is certain that the apostles did not eat the natural body; neither did they eat the body declared, as has been heard enough; neither did they eat anything else, neither the true body in the spirit, that is, first of all, believing that the true Son of God became true man and flesh, or body, for our sake, and therefore would suffer death for us; and [thirdly] that with it he willed to institute the thanksgiving of good works. And so the bread and the wine are called the body and the blood, because the two measures 2) are carried around in thanksgiving for His whole incarnation and all that He suffered in it.
402. also the flesh of Christ is not taken only in one place 3) for his incarnation and deeds therein carried. John 1: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Behold! "Becoming flesh" for becoming man; and "walking among us in the flesh" for having been truly human among us and having been killed, as also Isaiah 53. said before. Item, Hebr. 5.: "Which in the time of his flesh offered up supplication and grace etc." But here flesh is taken for the change of his humanity.
403 Therefore thanksgiving 4) is called his body and blood, that we have eaten his flesh spiritually in our hearts.
1) Marginal gloss: kata synecdochen.
2) About "measure" - meal compare § 390.
4) Marginal gloss: So we eat the body of Christ.
If we have learned the divine mercy in his incarnation and death, and have surrendered ourselves to it with faith, and therefore, out of joy and delight in the rest we receive from faith, run to, praise and give thanks for the unrequited goodness and friendship. It is also not a matter of saying: The bread or supper means the body of Christ, it renews, it remembers; or it is said: It is a meaning, a renewal, a remembrance etc. as is indicated above enough.
404. "Who is given for you." Here Luther comes forth not only with foolish coarseness, but also with sacrilegious traffic and blasphemy, and says first that "for you" is as much as "before you"; which error is explained above. Then he says that "to give" is taken to mean to present, to present, to present. And when St. Paul presses him with the word "broken," when he says, "This is my body that is broken for you," Luther strikes it hard with a mallet, and says, "to break" means to break before, yes, also to break before. I worried for a while that he would also say to the full how great a mock 5) Christ had made. What does it seem to us, pious princes, that Luther takes the precious payment that the Son of God has set forth for us and makes bread out of it. He takes the precious crime and death of his humanity, and makes of it presenting bread, crumbs, morsels and clods; with what Scripture? With none; with what teachers, if there were any of the old ones, yes, even of the Papists? With áýôüò Burkart it was called.
405 What does sacrilege mean, if it is not a lavish sacrilege? must I ever say. Should one also deal with the holy words of God in this way? The high humility and mercy of God lies in the fact that He gave Himself in death for us, so Luther (regardless of God, His holy word, violation of all believers' consciences) may, without Scripture and predecessor, make "given for you" into "offered before you," regardless of the fact that Gal. 1 says, "He gave Himself for our sin." Must withding 6) also mean: has offered himself for our sins; and Titum 2: "Who gave himself for us," Rom. 4: "He is given for our sin," Rom. 8: "He gave him for us all," Eph. 5: "He gave himself for us a sacrifice and a host before God," now means "to give" to offer and to prepare; and
5) i.e. chunks, morsels.
6) i.e..
1446II. writings against Zwingli and his followers etc. W. xx. i8ii-i8is. 1447
is "to offer" oneself: so it follows that Luther's Vorbrocken or night meal was also a sacrifice.
406 But I must ask one thing here: If Luther says, "dargeben" is taken for darbieten and brocken, what do we think of in our supper? If he says, "The death of the Lord, mortem DOMINI adnunciabitis," then we say no; for according to his interpretation of the words, one must think of the preliminary bread, for there is nothing at all about death in Matthew and Mark, yes, also in Luke and Paul, before the words, "Do this in remembrance of me," if giving and breaking are to be taken for offering and preliminary bread, not for dying and paying. Such a beautiful thing follows from Luther's taapen, 1) where he finds a hole through which he can escape.
But someone might say that Luther only indicates it as a court right; 2) and says, "someone might interpret and preserve it in this way, even though he does not want to lie mightily about it. To this we say, [first:] that he [consider] what this word is, since one allows it to be well kept and preserved. [Secondly, that he should consider what Luther indicates with many useless words, that the breaking of bread or crumbs is one thing with the breaking of the cross; all of which we gladly, to spare, skip. But surely, if the breaking of the bread is one thing with the dying on the cross, and if the dying is a sacrifice, then the breaking of the bread is also a sacrifice. The bread must also be crucified, juxta vanitatem, quae Marcionem deceret apud Tertullianum, lib. 4. adversus Marcion..., and all the teaching of Luther falls back, so the supper becomes a sacrifice. Now I have reported this to him in the hope that he would consider it, but it has not helped.
408 Third, let us hear Luther himself, whether he relies on this explanation or not. Luther in the large B in the third panel: 3) "Who is broken for you. "We have said much about this above, that the Scriptures cannot suffer, that breaking should be called Christ's suffering. The enthusiasts may say it, as they say other things, but never prove it" etc.
Behold, pious princes, this is the fine court law that Luther has made above! If it belonged to the market of Zurzach, there it is valid: "Shit on whoever you like! Here he leaves it free, and does not want to think that "to give" should be interpreted as presenting bread. Here he says: "Let not the Scripture suffer that 'breaking' Christ's body should be interpreted as 'giving'.
1) "Taapen" probably stands for: Tapping.
2) i.e., of good opinion; he hopes that it is right. Cf. No. 21, § 427.
3) No. 21, § 436.
den hot". But the book is nothing at all different, because so pretty look and found.
But we know that this supper is a thanksgiving and praise of the body of Christ, who was given to us by the Father, who was given "for us" by the Father, who alone became for us in death the sacrifice that took away our sin. And this is: to be given for us, to be broken for us. It is also indicated above that "to break" is taken to mean to kill and to slay.
411, "Do these things in remembrance of me. What one should do in memory of Christ is indicated many times above.
412 "The like also the drink" etc. With these words, Luther acts as if matter were about to melt away from him, but he does not need it.
413. "This is the drink of a new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you. Here we first want to show what miserable fog Luther has raised, 4) so that he might bring darkness into the light, and then [we want to] chase away the error and bring the truth in again.
414 First, he teaches that the cup or chalice is often used for drinking; we admit this to him.
415. secondly, that the potion is the new testament; and if it is the new testament, it is the remission of sin; and makes this shake 5) arguihentum de primo ad ultimum:
416 Luther in capital C on the first tablet. 6) "Without bread and cup, the body and blood of Christ would not be there; without the body and blood of Christ, the New Testament would not be there; without the New Testament, forgiveness of sins would not be there; without forgiveness of sins, life and blessedness would not be there. Thus the words first of all comprehend the bread and the cup of the sacrament; the bread and the cup comprehend the body and blood of Christ; the body and blood of Christ comprehend the new testament; the new testament comprehends forgiveness of sins; forgiveness of sins comprehends eternal life and blessedness" etc.
417) Thirdly, he brings us a beautiful trick, an old priest taught him, 7) when he says that the word "which" does not refer to the blood, but to the drink, thus: "Which drink is poured out for you, that is, poured out before you; for fundere also means to pour out," he says.
418 These are the mists with which it billows.
4) d. i. sets on the way.
5) "Züttel" of the same stem as verzotteln", a derisive term for "final chain". Cf. § 428.
6) No. 21, H 451 mutilated.
7) Cf. No. 21, § 422 ff.
Now we want to go behind them with the wind that blows wherever it wants, and disperse the mists with the fair wind suäiüos borea over the Lombard 1) [Ge]birge, so that the bright beautiful truth may be seen again.
419: That the drink is not the will, but only a drink of the will, we want to prove 2).
First, we ask Luther how many New Testaments are. If I think well, he cannot say more than one thing. So I ask: What is the testament? But he must say, Jeremiah on the 31st and Hebrews on the 8th is determined, namely, the forgiven 3) remission of sin. How can the potion be the testament? Potion and remission of sin are two different things. Yes, the body and blood of Christ and the remission of sin are two different things. Luther may say that the drink is the remission of sin, but he cannot; or else he would have to let the drink be a sacrifice; for where there is remission of sin, there must be sacrifice, Heb. 5 and 8 and Ephes. 5. Now if the drink is the remission of sin and the testament, it must also be a sacrifice.
421 Secondly: If in the drink there is remission of sin, and in death also remission of sin; so in two unequal things there is remission of sin, in death and in drink; the one is altogether bitter, the other altogether light.
422 Thirdly, the remission of sin will be in a mere creature, and will not pardon the one divine grace.
423. probation. The drink is a louder creature than Luther himself recognizes, it is wine in substance; he wanted to say that wine and bread would also be united in the person of the Son of God: then he would have assumed people, seeds 4) and wine, and not only the lineage of Abraham. Now if it is a righteous creature, it is not the remission of sin; nor is it the testament; for even the natural body of Christ is not the remission of sin; or else God might have redeemed us with a creature, and might not have sent his Son. So then Christ himself, if he were only a pure man, would not be the remission of sin; much less might the drink, which is a pure creature, be the remission of sin. But where
1) In the original: Lampardian.
3) i.e. Zratis, free of charge.
4) "Kernels" here will probably stand for "grains" from which the bread is baked.
someone wanted to say: The bread and drink is Christ himself, therefore it is remission of sin; he knows not what he saith. For Christ's being may not include anything in it, neither God nor man; and not God, man, wine and bread. But if anyone should say that the drink is called a testament because the blood of Christ is in it, he recognizes that it is only "called" a testament, and not "is. Otherwise the bodily blood cannot be there either.
424. Now we want to indicate with scripture that [the] sign of the will is called testament.
425 First, in the Old Testament, in the first book of Moses at the 17th, the circumcision is called the covenant, and soon after that the covenant sign. Now the sign and the signified cannot be one thing, though they come to have one name. Thus it is also evident that circumcision alone was a sign of the covenant, since God bound Himself to be their God, and that they, His people, would possess the land of Canaan. So also the drink of the supper alone is a sign of the covenant that God has made anew with us, the remission of sin.
426 In the New Testament Matthew and Marcus have the words of the drink thus: "This is my blood, which is the blood of the new testament. Behold, pious princes, how the two also call the bodily blood of Christ, which they themselves shed, not the testament, but the blood of the testament; that is, the blood, that the testament, that is, the forgiven remission of sins, might be conquered, as Rom. 3. says: "We are forgiven [i.e., made free], being made righteous by His grace, through the redemption that was perfected in Christ JEsu, whom God ordained to be a propitiation, through faith, with His blood." And Col. 1: "God by the blood of His cross, 5) through Him hath perfected all things that are in heaven and on earth. "etc. Heb. 9.: "Christ entered once into the holy place with His own blood, and thereby obtained eternal redemption."
Watch, pious princes! Is not also in Luther's shake the redemption the testament? Yes. And if the blood is not the testament nor the redemption, but the value and cost, so that the redemption has come over: so also the drink is not the redemption or testament; for it is so far behind the blood, that by the drink redemption and remission of sin is not conquered, as has been heard enough, but has come about by the blood. Now the blood is not the testament, but
5) Marginal gloss: Hskraismos täte sxponimus.
That, so that the will is purchased; just as the twenty florins are not the horse, but that, so that the horse is purchased and made single-handed. Now nothing at all came over with the drink, or else the redemption would have been accomplished in the evening, and would have been accomplished with the drinking of the disciples, and not with the suffering of Christ, which has not yet happened, and therefore has not yet worked. Therefore, the longer it is, the more distant it is that the drink is the testament.
Thus Luther's chain or shackle falls to the ground. For the words do not grasp the bread and wine in such a way that they become anything other than a sacrament, that is, sign. Bread and wine do not contain the body and blood of Christ in any other way than as any sign contains the signified; this can be meant by the sign, since the sign is not present. Body and blood do not grasp the testament differently, neither every purchased thing is grasped by the money, so that it is purchased; that is: that with it the redemption is conquered, and that they are not the testament or indulgence of sin. For that which is conquered, and that which is conquered, are never the same thing. Now the indulgence of sin and redemption is that which is conquered, and the blood that which is conquered; the redemption is the testament; the blood [is that] that the testament may be conquered: so they may never be One etc.
But Luther would have to bring a new word "grasp", that he would show to the simple with "grasp", as if the words thus "grasped" would bring with them the body and blood of Christ, and speaks well: 2) "grasp the words to the sacrament", but the simple do not know that "grasp to the sacrament" alone is so much: to fast or make to a sign.
But that Luther would not want to say: we are even throwing him away, so we also want to hear his words, but since he, forgetting himself, publicly renounces, 3) that in the blood the testament consists; so it can never be the testament itself. Luther in the great B 4) at [the] 7th tablet: "For Christ's blood is not the figurative testament or the old testament blood, but the new, which consists in his blood" etc.
These are Luther's words. Now the existing and that in which a thing consists are not one, therefore the drink cannot be the testament, even if the drink would be the blood of Christ,
1) i.e. nowhere.
2) No. 21, § 451.
3) d. i. confesses.
4) In the old edition erroneous; G. The passage is found in No. 21, § 446.
for the testament consists in the blood; and if the blood is [that] in which the testament consists, the testament and the blood may not be One Thing; much less the drink, which is not shed for us; or else it would be included in the Unity of the Person of the Son of God, which is not at all as heard.
432 Now it is on the "which". The good pastor who taught Luther has not forgotten much of the tropes when he applies "which" to the cup or drink: "Which drink is poured out for you. For it is sufficiently shown that Luther's opinion, together with his crowd, is erroneous, since they suppose that pouring into cups or drinking takes away sin. For if this were so, then either the wine would be in the unity of the person, or else a more pure creature would take away the sin; of which there may be neither [i.e. neither of the two].
433 But the good old priest should learn that ôä ýðåñ ýìþí Ý÷÷õíüìåíïí exallage [enallage] est, nominativi pro dativo, Üíôú ôö ýðåñ ýìùí Ý÷÷õíïìÝíù. Id quod nullo negotio apud Matthaeum et Marcum videtur, qui ambo sic habent : τούτο Ýóôé ôä áßìÜ ìïõ, ôä ôçò ÷áýíçò äéá- ¢-Þ÷çò, ôä ðåñß ðïëëþí Ý÷÷õíüìåíïí. Hic videmus τούτο, hoc, demonstrare poculum,; sequentem vero articulum ,,τό" insignem reddere sanguinem; et sequentes omnes articulos eundem sanguinem demonstrare, non poculum. Atque hujusmodi exallagae celeberrimae sunt cum apud Paulum, tum apud LXX. 2 Cor. 6.; συνιστωντες Åáõôïýò ùò èåïý äéÜ÷ïíïé - Üíô'é: äéïô ÷Üíïõò. Ezechielis 23. caput apud LXX ne expedies quidem citra exallages beneficium ; hujus tropi ita omnia sunt referta, ut nusquam non inveniantur.
434 But I must again refer to Luther, who droned on about the words: "The flesh is not useful" as long as one might leave the articles out and say: "Flesh is not useful", since he nevertheless misleads. But now he speaks:
Luther in the capital C on [the] 4th panel: 5) "If they now followed such two pointers" etc.
Here, behold, pious princes! he instructs us that we should look at the articles, that is, pointers (we called them pointers before). Well then, let's bring out all of Matthes' and Marcus' pointers, so that he can see where the "which" goes. So they speak:
"This is the blood of mine, which is the 6) blood of the
5) No. 21, § 457.
6) Randglosse: Raee, virn unius artieuli graset in nostrats linzna dsrnonstrativnm eb artieulum rsHulrsrs!
new testament is, which blood (sn! vim po "trerui rü, of enirn potest intenäem in öeafür the crowd is shed."
436 Here Luther would like to learn by the power of the little pointers in Matthew and Marcus where the little word "which", or "that", or "so" pointed to in Lucas; namely, to the blood, not to the drink. "Which blood is shed for you."
437 We want to overturn all this with a few words against the erroneous calculation that Luther makes last and teaches how we should meet, and bring forth the unanimity of the evangelists. So Matthew and Marcus (ob- mittam enim ãÜñ apud Matth.) speak thus, "This is the blood of mine"; but so Lucas speaks, "In the blood of mine." Now no one is so unintelligent as not to perceive the difference 1) between "being himself" and "being in another." Soinan says: "The gentlemen of the council have given four jugs of wine to our dear citizens of Costenz, you can see that the jugs are called "the wine", but they are not, but they are what the wine is presented in. And even though it is called that, it is not understood by anyone that the jars are the wine. Now when Matthew and Marcus say, "This is the blood of me," they do not mean to say that the cup or the drink is the blood; but that it is the friendly brotherly cup, which is offered round about in the supper to commemorate the blood of Christ; as that to whom the pitcher is called. Therefore Lucas, who wrote after both of them, does the same to him as one who says, "They give you only the wine with the jugs, and do not give you the jugs;" and says, "The drink is a true sign of the new testament, which new testament is established and conquered in the blood of Christ;" as if he said, "The drink is not the blood, but a sign of the blood, in which the new testament is conquered. So it can be announced that Lucas with the word "in the blood of mine" wanted to make it obvious that this drink is not the blood, but a festive sign of the blood, in which the testament is won and conquered.
438) But here, Luther protectively 2) opposes the previous "which" and says: "Oh! what they would give to have the article there! But it is not there." So it seems that Lucas has from word to word: This 3) potion there, the New Testament, with the blood of me: and 4) the words might well be interpreted in this way:
1) Marginal gloss: blood and in blood has difference.
2) Pupil. Sagittarius - ABC student.
3) Marginal gloss: ^ovT-o 76.
4) In the original: "mögind".
Luther at [bow] 2 on the 6th panel. 5) "And so that we may avoid all confusion, I interpret the text of Luca in the clearest and shortest way: 'This cup is the New Testament in my blood.'"
439 Behold! how Luther makes himself clear. Just like everywhere else. Why does he not bring out what the "in my blood" serves? If he wants to say that the cup is in the blood of Christ, he is not speaking correctly; for according to his meaning, the blood must be in the cup, and not the cup in the blood. So he comes to the aid of the matter nicely, and rages once and for all and says:
Luther fnn sheet 2 on the 5th panel: 6) "From this it follows that coarse Hempel are, who want to conclude from the words Lucä: it must be the cup in the blood etc., as a farmer in boots, or meat in the pots is."
440 Behold, pious princes! what an unfaithful interpreter we have! how lycht he presents us, 7) because we know little. If we reproach them with the "in the blood of me," we do it only so that they may understand correctly that "in the blood of me" is as much possible as "through the blood of me," for the New Testament has been conquered. Thus Luther makes a long Perlament, 8) and finally arrives at the point that he speaks:
Luther there: 9) "This cup is the New Testament in the blood of Christ, that is, through the blood, or, for the sake of the blood" etc.
441 Thus Luther goes on, and yet rings the matter now and then, that he, ex instrumen- talibus locutionibus causales, makes "through the blood" as much as "for the sake of the blood. Thus, "The cup is the new testament because the blood is in it." Is not this an impotent babble, when one sounds for a long time and does not answer, but only at the last falls again into that which is thrown at him? We say, then, "The new testament is in my blood," by which we see that he means to say, K1V6 xa?' Errt'He^<"v, 81V6 xa?' ex^er^'i'-
[That the new testament is in his blood, that is, is conquered with and through his blood; and that the testament exists in the blood, and not the blood in the testament. Thus Luther says: the drink is the new testament, therefore the blood is in it. And it does not say that the blood is in the testament, that is, in the cup, as Luther speaks; but the testament is in the blood. Is it not a pity to speak with such frankness?
5) No. 21, § 406.
6) No. 21, § 403.
7) Maybe: how is he lying to us?
8) i. e. talk.
9) No. 21, § 405.
Verkehrniß and Alenfanz act? He would like to say, it would be a&áëëáãç, Testamentum in sanguine, pro, sanguis in testamento, hoc est, in poculo. Poculum enim apud eum et testamentum eaedem res sunt....
But to them [i.e. away] with the mists! we have publicly learned that the drink is not the testament, and that the blood is not the testament, but that in and with which the testament is conquered. And is such a speech: "The new testament in my blood", as, so Paul speaks, Rom. 4: "And he took the sign of circumcision, a seal 1) of the piety of faith" etc. Here Paul does not have the adjective "one", but simply: "He took the sign of circumcision, a seal of the piety of faith" etc. Still we see that this little word "one" is added in our language, yes, it requires it; and if we add it immediately, we may then explain it further, thus: Which circumcision is a seal etc. Ea enim vis est epitheti. And is of the speeches innumerable. Right there it says from word to word: "Where the law is not, nor transgression." Here, ÌÌðåé-, "there is," is lacking, and if one interprets it into German, one must speak thus: "Where the law is not, there is also no transgression."
443) So Luther butchers himself here for the sake of Homerus' lice, because the words "the New Testament in my blood" may not come right in our language to be clear, because thus: The New Testament, which is in my blood. We have also indicated above in the matter: "The flesh is not useful", that in the saying: "How can he give us his flesh to eat?" the word "his" is added, even though it is not written in John etc. But all this becomes even clearer when we reconcile the other words of the evangelists.
Matthew and Mark say, "This is the blood of mine, which is the blood of the new testament. But Lucas says, "This drink is the new testament." Now the evangelists are one, although one speaks in recto, the other in genitivo. And whoever wants to complain would like to say: The Holy Spirit is not the same, or forgetful. For as Matthew and Marcus speak that the blood is a blood of the New Testament, so Lucas is contrary to them at the first appearance, for he calls the drink the testa-.
1) Marginal gloss: Hie non clieiturkecl
per eelipsiin feUipsin) artwuli, guas vis est epiiüeti, enm tarnen rn ss-rstt artionlns ornnino aclsit.
2) i.e. suitable.
3) i. e. toils.
ment itself, cum articulo x. Now, as before "blood itself" and "in blood" are contrary to each other, if one did not want to let up the tropos, so here also "the testament itself to be" and "only the blood of the testament to be" contrary to each other, as far as the king himself and the captain of the king, through whom he overcomes the enemy and wins the victory. The testament itself, and that, so that the testament is overcome, are also against each other. But as we have seen enough before, by all the Scriptures, that the blood is that which gives the victory over sin, death and the devil: it is evident that it is not the testament, victory or fruit of suffering; but it is the captain who gives the victory to the heavenly Father; it is the tree from which we have gathered the fruit of the remission of sin. And in short! with his death and blood is born to us life and purity.
445. 4) It will now have to be argued that, as in the words: "This is my blood" (when Matthaus and Marcus speak) Lucas has performed the tropum, 5) that this potion is the new testament, that is, a sacrament of the new testament, which new testament is conquered with the blood of Christ: thus also again Matthaus and Marcus perform the tropum, which Lucas does, since he calls the potion the testament in the blood of Christ. i. exponant, in conjunctivo], thus; That this potion, which here barks Christ, is a sacrament of the blood of Christ; which blood of Christ is the blood, so that the testament is conquered.
446 And this comes from the causes: Since Lucas saw that Matthesen and Marxen's word "this is my blood" might be understood enthusiastically, he detached the tropum, and reversed blood itself into "being in the blood", that is, being won and conquered with the blood. 6) And again, since he saw that they both also called the blood not the testament, but the blood so that the testament is conquered. And again, since he saw that they both also did not call the blood itself the testament, but the blood, so that the testament is conquered, he was not afraid to also call the cup of the supper the testament tropical, since the clarity was well found in the previous two, since the blood itself was also not called the testament, but only the blood of the testament.
447. therefore also Oecolampadius ring has to answer, since Luther alenfanzet him with the words "in my blood" thus: 7) "it must be
4) d. i. light.
5) d. i. explained.
6) In the old edition: "him".
7) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's Confession) in [the arc 2 on the 8th panel; and on the (arc on (the) 4th panel. sNo. 21, A 411 and 419').
The drink is the new testament in the sign of my blood. And therefore he 1) sputters out at him, who may hear that the new testament is a drink of wine. And the angry man does not see that "in my blood" in Luke is not tropus, but open, a simple clear speech; but in Mattyesen and Marxen "this is my blood" is tropus; just as again "of the new testament" in Matthew and Marcus is not tropus, but "the new testament" in Lucas is tropus.
But here he speaks against it; Luther in the great D in the first tablet: 2) "For it will not suffer itself in any way that Paul should use one word over one thing or matter, and in one speech, differently and otherwise, as a two-faced and cunning deceiver" etc.
449. And after that he speaks thus: Luther in the large F at [the] second tablet: 3) "The words are to be understood as they read: 'This is my body, this is my blood', that I know for certain. For if they were tropus, they would have to be tropus in all places where the Lord's Supper is spoken of."
Behold, here, pious princes! but we have once: Burkart has called it. He prescribes a rule: "Where the same words are used in one thing, they are definitely tropus: and concludes from this that the words: "This is my body" etc. are to be understood as they are; and proves it strongly, and says: "This I know for certain. Is not this a thing to which the pious Saxons ought to be justified? how, if we also would know it? shall he alone know it? I will say it: He cannot protect the rule with any word of God, for the contradiction is found publicly; therefore he knows it the same as the violinist, who does one stroke above himself, the other with himself, and does not remain on one at all. So what Luther says in the book is thus, or not.
But we want to hear another. Joh. 3. is taken in One Matter, in One Speech and Teaching ðíåýìá, Spirit, for wind and the Holy Spirit. Joh. 4. Christ says to the Samaritan woman: "Give me to drink!" and afterwards need drink for believe. Joh. 6: "You seek me, because you have eaten of the bread", and after that he calls himself by the name "bread"; and by the word "eat" he understands to believe. John 8: "The servant does not always remain in the house, but the Son always 4) remains in the house." Here he speaks de conditione
1) d. i. speiet.
2) No. 21, § 466.
3) No. 21, § 507 is cited in a mutilated way, therefore what Zwingli concludes from it is completely useless.
4) In the old edition: allewe.
ÌÌðåé, from own people and servants, also from the free children. From that time he speaks, on top of it: "If then the Son shall redeem you, ye shall be free indeed." Here he speaks of the only free Son of God, of himself. In Romans 3, Paul takes circumcision for the whole Jewish people; soon after in chapter 4, in One Matter and One Speech, he takes it for the sign that is done to the body. Rom. 6: "We all that are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death." Here the first baptism is "visible sacramental baptism," but the other is "spiritual baptism," that is, dying to the world and living to God.
What shall I draw out many examples? The Scriptures are so full of such changes of words that, as often as one goes from a physical to a spiritual, or from a high 5) to a low, or from a low 6) to a high, or from used speech to simple, or from simple to tropical 7) and used, or from otherwise understood 8) to lightly understood, or from lightly understood to otherwise understood; and, in short! from figurative 9) speech to plain, or from plain to figurative: thus one needs all the same words, which, however, have different and different understanding. But Luther "knows it for certain.
453. So we have now, pious princes, that the bread, 10) which signifies Christ, is the sacramental body of Christ, that is, the sign of his body, the true essential one, which he gave in death for us; just as one speaks: This is the Cocles who held up the bridge of the Tiber to the enemies; but showing his image, this is only a carved or hewn Cocles; and but the true Cocles held up the bridge of the Tiber, not the carved one; and that the drink, the cup, is the sacramental blood of Christ, that is, a sign and signification of the true blood of Christ, with which blood the testament of the forgiven remission of sin is conquered; wherefore also this cup is called the testament, yet also only sacramental, that is, signifies and signifies the testament. I want to force this sense from Luther.
Luther at the capital C on the 2nd tablet: 11) "Since all these things are one sacramental being, one can well and truly speak of each and every one of them as a sacramental being.
5) Marginal gloss:
6) Marginal gloss:
7) Marginal gloss: Iroxü.
8) Marginal gloss: ^IIkZoria".
9) Marginal gloss: k'i^nrae.
10) Marginal gloss: A summary explanation.
11) No. 21, § 453.
piece than from the cup: 'This is my blood.'" etc.
455 A sacramental being is not the right being, but nothing else, neither a sign nor meaning of the other right being; enough has been said about this, and Luther does not like it either. Thus it follows that whoever calls a thing a sacrament wants to say that it is only a sign, and not the real thing that it signifies; for no one calls the real thing an image or sign. No one says: The right itself king is a sign of the king. But as soon as one says, This is a sign or image of the king, one understands that it is not the right king. So whoever says, This is a sacrament of the blood of Christ, says, This is only a sign of the true blood, and not the true blood. Now Luther calls it a sacrament, so he calls it differently only a sign of the true and not the true. Do you say, "Why does Luther act so cruelly? Do you call yourselves Tutists, Tuteleians, sign lyres etc.? [I answer: It is the hand of God; and it is to be feared that he has transgressed, that God will thus let him fall; for such an iniquitous figuring 1) and fiddling that he does is known even to the wicked; nor does he think that it is not seen, and therefore is not ashamed. God better it!
456 Now it is in the saying of Paul, 1 Cor. 10: "The cup of thanksgiving." Luther, however, makes blessing of it; and may not, however, offer it with One Word; but all Christians from the apostles have called it Eucharistian [efyapi- <ττίαν, that is, thanksgiving, instead of Eulogias [ευλογίας]. But Burkart must have his own way. In which saying Luther lets himself in so darkly that those who read it at once see very soon that it does not consist with himself. Therefore, let us make our meaning firm, and thus conclude the other part.
457 In the eighth chapter, Paul spoke much against those who ate things sacrificed to idols with the idolaters, and fought against them in love, that, though it was proper for them to eat things sacrificed to idols, yet they should refrain from doing so, if they saw that many brethren were angry because of it; for love also refrains from things that are proper. But Paul does not here refrain from saying that it is proper to eat things sacrificed to idols, as some have written, but he only says that even though it is proper, they should spare the weak brethren out of love. And therefore here again he comes to the same matter and wants to show that it is not proper to eat things sacrificed to idols, and he does this very strongly. All those who are in one sacrifice, in one
1) i.e. rub back and forth.
If the body appeared at a feast or ceremony, it would be one body, company, and congregation with all the members of the same feast, sacrifice, or ceremony.
When the brethren of Corinth appeared in the supper of thanksgiving, they undoubtedly became One Church, One Society, One Church, and One Body with the brethren of the Christian faith; therefore it should not befit them to eat with the idolaters in their sacrifices, for they would also become members of their Body, that is, of the Church and Society of devils. This should never be, that those who want to be seen [members] of the church of God with the company of His table, also become company of the devils. This is the summare argu- ment. We have already sufficiently fixed this place in other writings. Luther also did not like anything against it, 2) but he is fumbling around behind the bridge; therefore, we will now point out the reasons.
459. "The cup of thanksgiving, that we may give thanks, or, if we give thanks, is it not the company or congregation of the blood of Christ?" Here Luther makes fellowship and sharing out of the word, but without Scripture. But Andreas Althainer indicated at Bern at the disputation a xxxxxxxx, that is, community, in the second lEpistel to the] Corinthians, in the 8th chapter: "The Macedonians have exhorted us excellently that we take this gift and fellowship of serving the pious Christians" etc. Here the good man defied, the whole world would not want to contradict, because that ÷ïéíþíßá must mean fellowship and sharing: so it must also be taken here, 2 Cor. at the 10th chapter. Here we see that the good man did not know that this word stands in many other places even on our sense; and therefore 3) he fell silent, since Oecolampadius took ÷ïéíùíßáí from 1 John 1 for the fourth time, taken for fellowship, as also the Latin interpres has interpreted, and saw there that he could not stand with the account: fellowship is taken for sharing in one place, so it is also taken for sharing in 1 Cor. 10. And therefore we will first show some places in Scripture where it is taken publicly for community and society, and then show that 2 Corinthians 8 is also taken in this way.
460. 1 Cor. 1 thus says: "Faithful and true is God, by whom you were called into society (hic habet antiquus interpres societatem;
2) i. e. capable.
3) "verstummte" put by us instead of: "erhummet", which is probably a misprint, instead of: "erstummet .
Erasmus consortium) of his Son JEsu Christ our Lord." To Galatians on the other: "They offered me and Barnaban the right hands, to a sign of society", ÷ïéíùíßáò? Here the old interpreter and Erasmus: societatis, of society. Phil. 1: "I give thanks to God" etc., and that you have come into the church or society of the Gospel. Here Erasmus has communionem, not communicationem. And 1 John 1. says
÷ïéíþíßá for the fourth time for company. Acts 2. is also taken xocrEca thus: "They always clung to the apostles' teaching, to the church, and to the breaking of bread" etc. Accordingly, if one considers the saying 2 Cor. 8 [v. 4], it also has its meaning from the church, because the Macedonians recognized the Christians at Jerusalem as their fellow churches and fellows; therefore they shared with them what they had as common property. So Heb. 13 and Phil. 4.
But putting all this aside, Paul sets himself forth to speak of the church, that we are the church of the blood of Christ, and not the church of idols, saying, "For we the multitude find one bread and one body." Here you see, pious princes! abersmals] the causalem "for," which little word is a sign ßðåîçãç- óåùò, id est, expositionis, of interpreting and explaining what he understood before by the words church or company, and body and blood, and says, For we the multitude oiðïëëïß. 1) Behold! that which before he called the church or company, he now calls the multitude or the company, that it may be understood that he did not speak of dividing the blood of Christ, but of the church, that we, the Christian multitude, are church and company, the church of the blood and corpse of Christ; therefore it is not fitting for us, by the corpse, to be company and church of idols.
462 He also says that we are one bread and one body. Now who will not see that he does not say here of the dividing of the body of Christ, when he makes the bread of which he said "us", "we are the same bread"? If then we are the same bread, how can we be divided? or, do we also eat one another? Therefore the meaning is this: that the drink of thanksgiving is the congregation of the blood of Christ, that is, whoever shares in thanksgiving 2) with the cup is [a member of] the company of the blood of Christ. And if we break the bread, we are the church or congregation of the body of Christ. For we,
1) Marginal gloss: ot nuno 8unt, Hui xrius Evnvia aäpellabantur.
2) In the old edition: "mittheilet." - "theilet" - Theil hat.
we, the multitude, that is, the whole church are One Bread and One Body.
Behold! how he goes from the true corpse, also from the sacramental corpse, to the allegorical, that is, differently understood corpse, namely, to "us". And not only shows how we are the church of the blood and body of Christ, but also why we are: namely, "because we all 3) (Behold! now he calls the church and the multitude "all", who are companions or brethren in the supper) partake of one bread with one another." Now we have publicly that all the quackery about the sharing of the body of Christ is fog; for Paul says "that we" then, that we share of One Bread with one another, "are one church of the body of Christ," not that we share the body of Christ with one another, which he should have said in ðñïááðïäüóåé, that is, in indicating the cause.
464 And this he makes clear only when he subsequently teaches by example how Jews and Gentiles recognize that those who eat of a sacrifice are companions of the altar, of which they eat; ÷ïéíùíïß, companions, co-adherents, co-participants. 4) Now if anyone eats of the sacrifice of the altar of the idols, that is, of the devils, as the 5) is also a companion and joint-liability of the devils. Therefore he tells them out, "they may not drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the devils." Luther and the Old Testament should have learned from Paul's words: "I do not want you to be devils' fellows", that here are taken for fellows, companions and brothers, not for those who have eaten the devil. And if they had seen this peel^, they would also have seen that xm^ia, congregation or company, does not mean to divide out in the place; for the devil is not divided out to eat; so also ÷ïéíþíßá here is not called the dividing out of the body of Christ in the eating of the bread and drink, but those who here are fellow-measurers 6) in the sacrament and sign of the body and blood of Christ, are not to become fellow-measurers, fellows, fellows, nor fellow-servants of the heathen and idolaters in their obligatory and communal sacrifices or ceremonies.
465 But as Luther would say here: One knows well that one does not eat the devil, but the devil is taken here for the sacrifice of the devils. So learn also that here one does not eat the body of Christ, but the sacrament or zei-
3) Marginal gloss: Onrmes rnultituäo er eonrnr"?rr'o.
4) i.e. participants.
5) We have deleted "not" here because it did not seem to fit the context.
6) i.e. table companions.
of the body of Christ. And thereby the eater becomes a fellow member of the church of Christ, if he eats it with right faith; otherwise he appears only as a fellow member, but is not, but becomes guilty of the true body and blood of Christ, and of the mystical, that is, of the spiritual body and blood, etc. of which enough has been said above. So much for the other part.
The third part.
If I, pious princes, also speak something into Luther's faith, I will undoubtedly be scolded. For one may say: Why is Luther's freedom judged by your conscience? 1 Cor. 10, you attack Luther for the sake of something external. Now freedom is where the spirit of God is. 1) If Luther undoubtedly has God's Spirit, as you yourself confess, then you should leave him unjudged. Let him know that this and other sayings, which may thus be drawn out against us, are for us. For our freedom is judged by Luther, and not only that, but all our faith, mind, understanding, doctrine and life; yes, we are the most evil heretics in his book, therefore we are not at all willing to judge him with this, but to punish that which is not conformed to the truth, and to confront him where he teaches wrong while we live. To this end, no one can boast of the freedom of the spirit who wants to do or teach contrary to God's word. We also owe it to our conscience to warn where error wants to grow. Now Luther did not have enough to pour out the clumsy error with even clumsier writing: he first had to introduce more error and suspicion in his confession. And the greatest thing of all is to make a desperate protestation or testimony. Therefore, we should go out to meet him, and open the pus that lies at the bottom of the flesh. Nevertheless, we will keep Christian discipline, since he does not keep pagan or Turkish discipline against us.
467 When he indicates the unity of the divine essence and the unity of the persons, he should not have taken the Roman church as a witness, because as far as he has often exclaimed about it 2) it does not believe that there is neither one nor more gods, but is even godless [dei expers]. And I believe, whoever has a right true faith, sees that the Roman church never had true Christian faith, since the splendor of the papal
1) Marginal gloss: 2 Cor. 3:17.
2) written out (?).
primacy is to arise. I know well what the Roman Church, which has faith, holds; but it must not be attracted here. If he now presents the Milesians 3) as witnesses in such a glorious matter, it tastes like 4) something that I want to give you, pious princes, and all believers to consider.
468] On the other hand. Since he says: "He believes that Mary, the holy virgin, is a true mother, not only of the man Christ, but also of the Son of God," etc., 5) I also believe this; however, Luther should have explained himself greatly in the words, as he then also rightly recognizes against his will, as we indicated at the end of the first part, namely: "that Mary is called the mother of God because she gave birth to him who is God and man; but his divine nature cannot be born except from the one Father. I indicate, pious princes, for this reason alone, that in our kind 6) there are also some priests who say at the pulpits in the Papal churches: "Who would be God if Mary had not given birth? Therefore she is mighty over God Himself", thus inverting the honor of the Creator into the honor of the created. But Luther should still leave the little nail behind him, so that the simple ones would learn to recognize the difference of the two natures in Christ the less.
469 Thirdly. Since he speaks "as Christ ascended to heaven," etc., we also believe that under the name of Christ he lets the human nature remain in its characteristic; for it is fitting for Christ to be on earth, in heaven and under the earth, but only according to the One nature; as has been heard enough.
The fourth. We do not disagree about original sin, but Luther and his crowd do not want the words that we say, because Burkart did not speak them. And this is recently the summa, which we prove in the booklet de peccato originali: "that original sin is not a sin of its own nor a guilt, but a prest, 7) which attaches to us from Adam's sin." Are not against that someone calls the prest sin etc.
471 The fifth. Since he speaks of the orders ordinibus, the Christian stands, he needs words, which, if not properly judged, may mislead the simple-minded. Luther: "But what is in God's
3) Hlilesü occurs in the meaning: Muthwillige, unzüchtige people.
4) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's Confession, in the arc) F on [the] 4th plate. [No. 21, § 511, at the end). - We put "after" instead of "yet".
5) No. 21, § 514.
6) Maybe: in our places?
7) d. i. infirmity.
Word is fasted, that must be holy thing; for God's Word is holy, and sanctifies all that is in Him and in Him" 1) etc.
472 Here I ask Luthern what he understands by this speech: "What is contained in God's word"? If he means that everything of which God's bodily or written word speaks is holy, then Judas, Pilate, Caiphas and Lucifer are also holy; but if he understands what his eternal word, that is, his eternal, inexpressible wisdom, will and power, preserves, then it is not true; for even the devil is preserved in it and lives together with all the godless, but they are not holy. He then wants to take "holy" pro sacrosancto, for unchangeable; so the word "fast" is not allowed, but one is used to speak thus in the case: Everything that God calls, recognizes, speaks or wills, that must be; or what God orders, that must proceed. What God ordains, no one shall break. God orders the magistrate, therefore he may not depart; therefore he is holy, although the persons of the magistrate are ungodly. But Luther comes up with the word "fast" for and for, so that one may become obsessed with it 2) and learn that God's bodily or outwardly spoken word is able to sanctify something, God gives whoever speaks it; and then the pabstry is helped along with him. For the words "this is my body" bring the body of Christ from heaven, even if his drunken sheriff with the red pants spoke them at the beer soup etc. Should one also look for sinister words, since one wants to explain the faith clearly?
473. to the sixth. He now believes what he never believed before, nor in this book, namely: 3) "That those who pass and receive the Sacrament eat and drink the body of Christ in bread and wine orally, even though they do not have faith." For he has previously taught publicly, even within the four years, that only the faithful eat the body of Christ. But the insecurity of the rich oppresses him, so now he preaches another way. On the other hand, he also denied in this book that he had never taught that the body of Christ was in the bread. And here he says, "The body and blood of Christ in the bread." Thirdly, he recognized above "that oral eating must be understood sacramentally," that is, that the sign is eaten which for its meaning is called the body of Christ. But here he also says that the body
1) No. 21, § 523.
2) Perhaps: to adhere to, to look at bullishly, to stare at. Compare § 240 of this writing.
3) Marginal gloss: Is [in Luther's Confession] in the great
G on the first and second panels. [No. 21, § 531.]
is eaten "in bread"; so the sign is ever eaten with the drawn: Lift up, pope and popes! it is now no longer a sacrament. To the fourth: Eat the godless clergy, and receive the bodily body of Christ; why then do they not become holy, when he first said: "What God's word fasts, that is all holy" ? Now I ask him: Does the Word fast the body of Christ here? Without doubt he will soon say yes. Why does it not make the harrowers and workers holy?
474. to the seventh, he thus says, 4) Luther: "In the church is the gospel, baptism, the sacrament of the altar, 5) in which forgiveness of sins is offered, fetched and received" etc. Of the gospel we are one, that in the same forgiveness of sins is promised, and given to him who believes and trusts in it. But if Luther believes that forgiveness of sins is given in baptism or in the sacrament of the altar, I ask him: whether forgiveness of sins is also given in the sacrament of the altar to him who does not believe? Says he, Yea, then the word of Christ, "He that trusteth in me hath everlasting life," and, "He that believeth shall be preserved; and he that believeth not shall be damned," hath been emptied and vain, so that forgiveness of sin is also offered and given to them that believe not. Says he: No; sin is not forgiven by the sacrament to the unbeliever, but he himself eats a judgment and death at it, I ask him: whether the ungodly nevertheless eats the corpse? He must say yes, for he has expedited it before. 6) It also follows that in delivering the sacrament one does not receive remission of sins. For if faith must be present before remission of sins follows, it is still stiff that in faith the remission of sins is given and received. And here Luther's and all his notables' opinion falls to the ground, like barley 7) -bread in milk.
Here someone would like to say, pious princes: I think you want to keep Luthern friendly, so you show him the brush 8) so that the bacon will trust you. Response. No; this is the truth sought and brought forth; if Luther has violated it, then he knows this, then he has no shame, otherwise he may not be ashamed of himself.
4) No. 21, § 531.
5) Marginal gloss: Pucker up, altar! [Zwingli expresses his displeasure at the use of "altars" and not "tables.]
6) "verschnellet" probably as much as: verscherzt.
7) In the old edition: gerstin.
8) d. i. Bristles.
save. For this sacrament alone brings the believer remission of sin, so forgiveness is with the believer alone; for faith alone knows it, and [does] this sacrament nothing at all, understand, eaten bodily. But it is air.
476 Luther speaks of purgatory in the eighth place: "I know that there is a purgatory, but there is nothing to be taught about it in the church, nor is there anything to be done about it with writings or vigils. Haec ille. Here I would like to hear from Luther: why his purgatory is not to be taught in the church? If he knows anything, then do as the most unfaithful shipmen do, who, when they come ashore, warn those traveling from land that they should palate themselves 2) as Tullius says: Ah! Dear, show us the "Scyllam!" If he does not, I will not only say that he is doing like the wicked boys who tell their companions about birds' nests, but since they do not know any, only that they bring their conscious nests from the companions, but I will say: May God's spirit not suffer that one sees the harm of his neighbor and does not warn; and if the prophet knows that the sword is coming and does not warn, then the blood of the bystanders is sought from his hands.
477 But all disgrace put aside, so we want to extinguish Luther's purgatory with one word, whether it would go Nobis house 3) whether the ridge together. Joh. am 5,: "I tell you amen, amen, that whoever hears my word, and trusts in him who sent me, has eternal life, and comes into no judgment, punishment, nor court (judicium Dstfo hebraico idiotismo), but has already passed from death into life." If Luther does not believe the word, then luge what kind of faith he has. For I know that we who ^believe, Christ will keep us 4) in the last hour in life, that is fresh, whole, and healthy, Jn. 6, [v. 47.]. See the words feet baß.
478] The ninth. He rightly recognizes the intercession of the Holy Spirit, but has not done so before; only once he indicates a person, with injury, in the "Magnificat". But since he says: others have attacked the article, I ask him: who was the first to attack it at this time? If 5) he affirms the truth, he must attack Zwingli.
1) No. 21, § 537.
2) i.e. to take care of.
3) Nobis house perhaps the hell. Nodis perhaps the "Gottseibeiuns".
4) Marginal gloss: Lgo rssuseitado eum in novissirno äis.
5) d. i. confesses.
show (I say with reluctance); if I have now taught rightly in it, why does he say: "I have never taught a piece rightly" ?
479 To the tenth. Luther says: 6) "I keep images, bells, chasuble, church decorations, altars, lights and the like free. Whoever wants to, may leave it" etc. Behold, pious princes, how our adversary, the devil, deals with us! Images are forbidden and rejected in so many ways in the New and Old Testaments that no believer can despise God's word in such a way that he can count it free; and Luther puts them under bells and lights. What does he take God's word for? Yes, he says:
Luther there: "Although I consider images from Scripture and from good histories to be almost useful, they are free and arbitrary" etc. I ask Luther here, from which Scripture the images may be proven useful? From holy? so he says to God and all His servants in heaven and earth, which is not; for neither God nor they have never let up nor tolerated the images with a single word; but have always forbidden them to the highest and also stormed them. One knows well that we speak of the venerated images. Or from pagan history? He has not read them very much. I was very sorry. He can boast little from them. From Christian histories? that is, from the histories where the learned fantasists have expanded good and evil (Luther understands me well, which I mean), false and invented things into a harbor cheese 7)? So God forgive Luther! Does he have no other judgment in reading, than that he also does not see in the same, which of revered images reads, which does not; which would come from the mad head of the fantasist, which from an understanding loving mind of truth? For I will say it freely: Where have we a history writer since the apostles' times, whom we now present to a wise pagan?
Keeping the vestments and the altar is the same as if the children of Israel had left the altars of their idols standing, since they no longer sacrificed to them. He who teaches to keep the chasubles 8) and the gilded tables, teaches the pope to wait until his kingdom may arise again. I understand church adornment to be the delicious ornamentation of the sanctuary. Is of one value with the images, but so much more evil that they look more public on the Gutzel 9).
6) No. 21, § 543.
7) "welded" probably as much as: "welded", i.e. forged together.
8) Hudeln - rags, rags.
9) i.e. the unjust acquisition, fraud. In No. 26 of this volume tz109: the widows their houses "abgutzeln".
Whoever lets the stork nests stay, they will truly come back.
482 It is wicked to be rapacious and warlike: but it would be better, pious princes! you would do them all harm, 1) neither that they should provoke the enemy to rise up again. He that taketh his wife in whoredom with strange keys, garments, and jewels, and leaveth them unto her, teacheth her to go on whoring. Thus idolatry is made by the holy prophets an adulterous wife; and if one keeps the idols that have been set up for worship, one does likewise, as if we might not otherwise be drawn enough from God by the impotent power of the flesh, but we must also have a suit that draws us from God.
But that is all. Luther leaves a pretty sign, by which one sees that he does not speak out of spirit or faith, but out of quarrel, and says: "For I do not hold with the iconoclasts. Here we say that we truly do not keep it with them either. But since one may do so with order and with peace of mind, one should not regard Luther's word as chiding us iconoclasts. What does not give his deed is ghosts, enthusiasts, iconoclasts. We should put new wine into new wineskins, not into old ones, and we should guard ourselves against all evil. If we do not defend the venerated images, the vestments and altars, why do we want to keep them, if we, born again through the gospel, want to be a new people? Some churches have a hundred altars; if they no longer want to have mass, what are the sacrilegious piles of stones for? Yes, bells and lights, if they come in hope of a good work, as especially the lights are dangerous, should also be left alone etc.
484 To the eleventh. Enough has been said above about the danger he puts all his writings in, if he refers or testifies only to those that have gone out from him [for] four or five years. However, I would also like to turn back from these same Lutherans, if I were as distressed about him as he is about us, and not only that, but also indicate from this that he is against the greenhorns, who stand out so freshly, and yet know nothing at all, except that they, put off on Luther's teaching, insist and heresy. They also deal with practicalities, which I know well to write now and then through their town clerks. One understands well what Sprengler 2) Works them
1) i.e. from then on.
2) "Sprengler" probably as much as "Aussprenger". This seems to us to be a reference to Lazarus Spengler/who was city clerk in Nuremberg. Compare Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 2256 ff.
drive. The pious cities like to incite against their preachers, and they against each other. Ask the honorable councilors at V. [Ulm], A. [Augsburg] and M. [Memminger], what and who writes to them, without which I do not know. Now asking 3) [them] God almost, that he gives them right understanding, or else they become desolate to shame! For even Luther must be overcome, and that [i.e. if] he were equal to a hundred thousand; quia omnium potentissima veritas, for truth is above all power.
In the twelfth place, Luther testifies: 4) "if he would say something else out of the necessity of death, then he wants to have it known that it is wrong and inspired by the devil.
486 I will prove that this is an open despair. First, it is a despair of the thing. For if he trusted to maintain the matter with Scripture, he would defy the same, and [not] 5) take the matter upon himself so dear. Nevertheless, I must also draw us out. Where, then, has our one ever stood up, or thought so much of himself, as to defy? But this is the cause, that we stand on the firm living ground, which no one can take away from us, nor with any tempest can we win. But it also serves ad invidiam et odium to make us hateful, that we bring the stern, dear man to what we have truly thought him to be all along. But I hear well that we should spare his untruthfulness, and let our God with His Word be the hindrance 6) so that we do not make Luther restless in his sweet sleep. Let no one be sorry for us!
Accordingly, it is a despairing of himself. For, without one seeing from the words that he is afraid of him [i.e. himself] behind the matter, I will prove that it is a desperate presumption, thus: Paul writes 1 Cor. 13: x parte7 ) cognoscimus, et ex parte prophetamus, we increase in knowledge and prophecy. So Luther thinks that he may neither become more learned nor more enlightened, but that where he would otherwise have learned, the devil would have given it to him: so he does not see his way to God to teach him further; and that is despair. For
3) Asking is in the optative, orsnt! (Walch.)
4) Marginal gloss: He fears to give him [i.e. for himself; tinast kidil-
5) The context seems to us to require a "not" here.
6) "Hinderling" probably as much as: the rearmost, last place.
7) Marginal gloss: 'Lx ^/xn>c, sueesssivs; paullatina maZis 6t maßis.
1) Love alone is never lacking; but prophecy, that is, the revelation of truth, tongues and knowledge are lacking, that is, they never become so perfect that he who has them neither lacks nor lacks anything. So if there has never been a prophet who has not increased for and for, a man who understands tongues, a scholar: why did Luther dare to say that 2) he would not become more learned and knowledgeable in this matter? Is it because of God that he does not take care of him, that he does not greatly enlighten him, which I do not hope he would ever have despaired of. If it is because of him that he thinks himself to be nothing at all that he does not know most perfectly, it is an ungodly presumption, and therefore despair.
But if anyone should say: Now you also hold yourselves in such a way that you think you are sure of the matter, we say yes; but that we are going to be reported, that is not. But Luther now recognizes that it is the sacramental body of Christ, and has never been so close to it before. If he has now increased in knowledge, why does he reject it again? Because that is out. He recognizes, like Berengarius, that the body of Christ is sacramental. Now so wind and turn as he will, so it will go with him, like the jay in the glue, 3) the more he cries out, is weighed [i.e. moves] and wriggles, the more he sticks. So we have promised Luther that we will drive him more and more to the angle, so that he must deny himself God's right and sound knowledge; or else he must deny this error. I also reckon that he will forgive himself for writing more, so that he will see that we are victorious over him, however much he writes. But not we; he who makes himself victorious in us.
489 And this is the most blessed thing, that he confesses his faith, like that priest, who, after he had reproached the sheep, ends thus: "Behold! if you do not change, and I also, then we will become of the devil together; God help you and me Father, Son and Holy Spirit! So Luther also ends here, and says: 4) "Where I would say otherwise, I will herewith publicly confess.
that it is wrong and that the devil has introduced it.
1) Marginal gloss: lioeus 1. oorintli. 13.
2) i.e., boldly; also: given away.
3) i.e. on the glue line.
4) For this malicious citation by Zwingli, compare No. 21, Z545; Zwingli has omitted the prefix: "This is my faith".... "I beg of all pious hearts who would bear me witness and plead for me that I may stand firm in such faith and resolve my end; for (since God is for) whether I would say otherwise out of temptation and mortal need, it shall be nothing and I want to have it publicly confessed herewith" etc.
be given to me. For this help me my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! That book he began with the devil, this one he ends with him. So God decrees that if we want to be wise without His word, we will become fools.
490 Thus we who have enough of the twelve pieces of the Christian faith 5) and who also believe without doubt, have found twelve pieces in Luther's faith, some of which are incompetent, some of which are not faithfully presented from the essay, some of which are wrong, and some of which are even contrary to God's Word and the true Christian faith.
491 Still thus we recognize that commonly the very highest ingenia have fallen into something like quarrelsome correctness 6). How did Cicera attack Sallustium beyond measure? Hierony-
mus Augustinum enough rough angeschnerzt, 7) and,
which we should never forget, Paul Barnabam, Acts 15, 37-39, by John Marcus? Since truly the noblest harness and weapons. For why should John Marcus not have gone with them again in the business of the gospel? for he never denied himself of it, even though he had gone from Pamphylia to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13. 13, 13. Here Barnabas (even an uncontested, serious, but also mild, chaste Christian and apostle, that I often regret that we no longer have his writings and stories) was right about it, and Paul was wrong. Although God ordered it for more growth of the Gospel. Still, even though they were so quarrelsome that they departed from one another, they became one again; for Paul answered him quite honorably, 1 Corinthians 9, that it was laid to their charge that they led their wives with them, which Paul wrote long after the quarrel.
492 So then, our humble request to Luther, by the spirit in which we all live, in which he preached the gospel when we believed; by the same spirit in which we too will be found on the last day, have preached: let him remember that he is not above error, just as Paul in the heat was too much of a ruler 8) who nevertheless either compares or surpasses all the apostles in doctrine and holiness. We know the manly and chivalrous standing out that Luther did against the papacy, since no one was allowed to dare to do so. We know, however, that he, too, although
5) "The Twelve Pieces of the Christian Faith," i.e., the Apostles' Creed. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XIX, 797.
6) i. e. bossiness.
7) d. i. snubbed, ! 8) d. i. hard, brittle.
God will! recognize that his doctrine and knowledge exist to a fair degree; and will perceive that the devil does not seduce him with arrogance. God has given him spirit of power enough; only he does not turn the power to his glory; so we will surely become one in all things. May the true God grant us this! Amen.
493. Therefore, pious princes, let our writings be read in God's name by people whom your wisdom knows well how to humble, whose minds and aspirations are captive to the obedience of God; for all those who want to preserve flesh and blood here with their own sincerity are captives of the flesh and the letter, even though it alienates them; And want to put on us as if we were of natural account and nature of the flesh against the bodily-fleshly presence, which is truly not; for if so, we would not have come to hold the opposites before those who have had much higher reason before us, neither we; for the opinion against which we fight has always been contrary to human reason. But is this not only carnal, but something more wicked, to hold the misunderstood letter so ludicrously that one does not want to hear clearer Scripture? We do not mean to reject the letter, but to hold it in high esteem; but for the sake of right understanding, otherwise the letter is not only useless, but also harmful.
494 But on our side is the faith, the Scriptures, the custom of the first Christians, the custom of the earliest Christians, the mind of the
Elders teachers. Although in this the chattering parakeets 1) are so blind that they do not see that the ancients, in calling this sacrament the body of Christ and a sacrifice, always lead such a form with words and senses that one can see that they have talked and understood after Christ in the same way as we teach. Now, in a few days, an impatient job has defiled the booklet Päscasii, which is entirely with us, with his annotations. The good man does not understand what the old custom is, but where he sees that the pious Pascasius speaks of the bodily meal, that he only understands the visible supper and sacrament, and then speaks of the right spiritual meal again in such a way that one can see that he only lived for a sign 2); so this polite chancellor is here, and adds: Caute legas, one should read it carefully. For this they do not look at the time; for among the ancients it was often said: We eat the true body of Christ, for: We eat the sacrament of the true body; therefore the Marcionites attributed to him a spiritual, not a true body. Then Porphyrius also mocked them, saying that Christians eat their God, which was not the opinion of the ancients. We have all the similarities of the Easter lamb in type and words. Therefore, for God's sake, do not take anything for evil. May He preserve you together with your territories! Amen. Given in Zurich at the end of August, in the year 1528.
1) d. i. Parrots.
2) d. i. held.