To all believers in Christ, Huldrich Zwingli begs grace and peace from God through Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord!
1. hath God, dearest brethren, the number of our little hairs in actual knowledge, which after all is our no...
ner has: so he has much more hummed the letters, 1) which are written now and then for and against his holy word.
1) i.e. summed, added up.
*) This writing appeared, as from von der Hardts uutoMupli. Imitier, Dom. Ill, p. 141, first appeared in 1526 in a single edition in quarto; then again in 1527 in Zurich by Lhristoffel Froschauer in octavo. It was translated into Latin by Rudolph Gualther and is included in Zwingli's complete Latin writings, Dom. II, x. We give the text according to Walch's old edition.
(2) Therefore, let no slothfulness overtake us, neither to write nor to read, which distorts us, until we are so well assured of the truth that we may look upon it with cheerful eyes, without all blinking. Nor shall we be sorry for any work, as were the pious Moses and Aaron, whom neither Pharaoh's oppression nor his terror wearied, because they did not accomplish God's work according to His promise and commandment.
(3) We too should not regard the worthlessness, (1) the high and low, the learned and the wicked, (2) of the Lord's supper, but without ceasing honestly bring forth the truth, and not fear error, no matter how high it rears its head, until assurance comes to us all from Him who is our rock and foundation. For that a man has hitherto allowed himself to be regarded as believing that he eats the flesh and blood of Christ, even bodily, as the popes have said, or bodily-spiritual, as is now being said, has been either an ignorant delusion, or a fictitious gilding, and not a faith; therefore, in the bodily eating of the flesh and blood of Christ, all the same are not yet sure.
(4) For this reason we should all ask God, first of all, to bring forth to them the truth that he has shut up for them in that place, for he is the prosperous householder who is pleased to do so. On the other hand, that He may give us, who must suffer many blows in the battle, patience; that the resistance may not leave us alone, but make us brave; not angry and blasphemous, as unfortunately some of the adversaries are too polite, but serious and moderate, so that an honorable request for truth may not turn into a wicked female quarrel and mischievousness. God grant it!
So now this trade, which has been requested so far, abundantly and clearly a while ago, only after so many overcome resistors, by D. Jacoben Straußen 3) (who has hitherto been unknown to me in all ways, unless [the one] who a few years ago let the very stirring final speeches about temporal property and interest go out in Jsennach 4)): I have first seen that the trade is not thoroughly known to him; and therefore I have gained the desire to report it amicably along with others who might be seduced by him with the appearance of words.
6) And so, from the bulwarks, 5)
1) i.e. the disdain.
2) whether we - with regard to our.
3) Zwingli writes: "Strussen" and "Struß",
4) i.e. Eisenach. Compare the introduction to the 19th volume of the St. Louis edition snd No. 132, p. 47 f.
5) i.e. words of shame.
6) I have judged what kind of a customer he is, which others can judge even less: I was well advised not to answer for these useless sayings; for God is the right judge and discerner of hearts; he knows well whether we have faith in him and his holy word, whether we speak out of high courage, or love of truth and neighbor, or not. For how would this not bring much annoyance to the Christian reader, should I once again answer for it: 7) that I am not repugnant to myself; that I did not invent a new name for myself, and if I did, I would not have done wrong, for the Savior of our souls is called Jehoshua in his, that is, Hebrew language, and by us Jesus; Peter Cephas; Paul Saul; and that he, the ostrich, undoubtedly thinks that Zwingli is a Greek name, and yet plays on the German by all means, and thus now quite merrily and happily; 8) that he excoriates us for the most harmful (he calls us the most harmful, can't get his mouth full enough to utter cruel words) preachers that have ever been, but we rely on the most salvific preacher, Christ Jesus, and on his and his apostles' word.
7. That he makes himself so proud in the midst of it, as if he wanted to bring our error to light in a short time, and sees that such learned men, to whom he may not offer the clogs, confess to it, and some of them confess their error, praise be to God; also makes it so difficult how hard it has been that he has undertaken writing, since it would be good if he had never written a letter in the church; and he will worry about it himself in time, if God shows him his arrogance. That he resents so much that some, who undoubtedly judge his inability 9) to write, have admonished him not to write; just as 10) they feared him so much; and many such things.
8) That he writes me a "Master" as a mockery, who (I) have crowned myself with no other title than Uly Zwinglin, according to the Aetti 11); and yet he does not let his "Doctor" be a "Master".
6) d. i. light.
7) The register of things that Zwingli wants to leave unaccountable still runs through the two following paragraphs.
8) d. i. moves up.
9) In the old edition: "incompetent attributions". But "incompetent" is "incompetence.
10) sam - as if.
11) i.e. father; in the old edition: "ätty".
back there. That he calls us subtle masters and sophists, who have despised sophistry from childhood. Yes, what would it be that one hemmed in such gossip and counter-gossip 1) long? What else would it plant among the Christian people, neither Schanz words? Therefore, we will soon 2) penetrate to its reasons, and dig them up with the bit of the divine word, so that only men will see that their bodily flesh is essentially eaten or present, or as they want to have the words, a cowardly pamphlet, that is, a word cloak and poem, which has no foundation in God's word, nor in the mind and spirit of the believer a certain nor clear understanding. God grant mercy!
9. First of all, Doctor Jacob Strauß does me an injustice that among all my writings that have gone out, he does not dare to contest any of them, neither those that I have written in great haste, I mean truly (in) one night, against the Popes Eggen (Eck) and Faber, greatest enemies of the Gospel and Christian tranquility; so he will have read out the further and crossed out ones 3) before, although he wants to be seen as if he had fallen about it at the market, and had never heard of the things before. However, he has also in the short so nothing at all entweget 4) that he has more fortress with his book carried, neither our taken. Therefore, it would have been kind of you to judge: to whom, against whom, at what time I have written, and according to it the more perfect writings were subject to contest.
10. I. Now that he speaks, "If the unkind deceivers shrink from us the pure body and blood of Christ of his miraculous and joyful presence in the Sacrament, 5) and give us only dry bread and sour wine." These are his words. From these words one realizes that Strauss himself is not sure that the body of Christ is present, for he says that the presence of Christ in the sacrament twitches him. If Christ's body is present, dear, who will twitch it? Therefore, by the form of his words, we see that he is afraid that the truth will come to light, against which he shields falsehood; for if he is sure in faith that the body of Christ is present here, then he will
1) d. i. Re-schelten.
2) In the old edition: "the neighbor".
3) "learned" here probably as much as: "received knowledge of it" or also: studied at leisure.
4) i.e., removed from the way; invalidated, refuted.
5) i.e. to undress, to snatch.
not fear that it will be taken away from some believers.
(11) The fact that he says, "We serve only dry bread and sour wine," indicates that he does not know otherwise, neither is the Lord's supper instituted for the sake of food; it is instituted for the sake of thanksgiving or remembrance, for he says, "Do this in remembrance of me. Therefore the ancients called it Eucharistian, that is, thanksgiving. And for a sign of Christian unity, Christ ordained an open friendly sign, which he called after his body and blood, to eat with one another in brotherhood; so that those who gave thanks to him with one another for his salvation, as they testified to one faith, might also give themselves the open sign of being one body with all the members; therefore it would be quite shameful not to walk in a Christian manner.
(12) St. Paul, seeing that he wished to draw the Corinthians away from the idolatrous church or congregation, thus says: "Is not the drink of thanksgiving, when we give thanks, the commonwealth of the blood of Christ? is not the bread which we break the commonwealth of the body of Christ? For we, the whole multitude, are One Bread and One Body, since we all share of One Bread." Now it is found that thanksgiving is the essential and noble thing for which we come together in the supper, and that the next thing is to make an open sign of duty to one's neighbor, so that the first two commandments of the love of God and of one's neighbor may shine forth in all the words of God; for in them hang all the statutes 6) and prophets.
13) If then we praise and give thanks to God in the supper of Christ, and teach brotherly love in the outward sign (without a doubt, neither a bouquet), how can he have us so pompous about dry bread and sour wine? 7) Does anyone also say that baptism is nothing but cold, unflavored water? Therefore, bouquet of such sacrilegious words should be justified, if he is the one he wants to be seen. We teach the great grace and love of God toward us, and for this we give thanks to Him; and as He has given us a visible sign of duty for the open manifestation of brotherly love and the display of the members and body of Christ, we also teach brotherly love. Therefore we come together, practicing this also; and do not come together to drink sour wine, as a bouquet rude, let alone uncivil.
6) d. i. Laws.
7) d. i. hang up.
(when he speaks of us from impis teuschet1) ). Therefore, it is found that Strauss has never learned the noble and essentials of Christ's supper, because he thinks that if the body of Christ, which they seal here, is taken away from him, then the sacrament or supper is over and forgiven.
14, II. According to this, he thinks that if we drop the mighty words of Christ, which he opened in the supper, then 2) the whole of Christ would soon be gone, and the outward word. As if the supper were only a part. How? is not the whole Christ eaten there? bodily, spiritual and mental? then we have already overcome. Now therefore I show that you, devout reader, learn to recognize the precious words which they lead, that they are only winged or dazzling tricks; and if one deceives the good, 3) then they are only spoken, that one may dazzle and frighten the simple with them. Otherwise, who will accept the words of Christ? Yea, ye, if ye now say with them, "This is my body," and therefore gladly, and for the advantage of strife, say, "Who is given for you," but in whom the ground of truth is found. We are so far from wanting to disregard the words of Christ that we first teach them to understand the right divine way, so that the words of God may be pleaded rightly even before the enemies; and this not from our heads, but from God's Word.
(15) When he says, We are high, seeming, and sweet words, he shows a little orator, though he has not, without doubt, made the rhetoric dirty; for [with that which] he does, he wants to appear that one does not take it from him, and lays it on us. And it is found in the case of anyone who knows how to speak that nothing makes him write or puts him off in a trade that he does not understand, neither that he trusts the color of his words so well; for I want to show him in this little book of his, since he uses the word "high" in six lines for the third time, by which one can see that he cannot grasp the mouth (I must also speak his language) full enough; is B on the other page. 4) And there is not much greater compophaceloremon to me, 5) who speaks one-and-a-half words more, neither he. Against this is all my writing,
1) "teuschet" - täuschet is mockingly said instead of: "teutschet". Strauß has translated the word impi" with "unmildiglich".
2) "accordingly" put by us instead of: nevertheless.
3) d. i. when you get to the bottom.
4) § 27 of the previous writing.
5) Probably formed from , to bring into bundles: someone who forms long vsrdu colnpositn.
in German, so simple and bad, that where I hoped to get over something with words besides ostriches, I would really have to sell the workshop and store. But we are founded in the simple truth, and even if we are incapable of speaking, we still have so much understanding of the truth that we thank God that it is all, be it little or much.
IV. But he says, "They abuse the precious languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, for this purpose. Dear, my ostrich, how can you know that? You don't know any languages, how do you know whether we abuse them or not? But if others have told you, why don't they write against us? But, dear Strauss, that we undertake in the languages, we want to prove with the languages themselves that we take it right in our hands. And do not judge more highly than you understand yourself, lest you be like the donkey who judged, 7) that the Gugger sings neither the nightingale nor the nightingale. And know herewith that the knowledge of the languages is the right pointer by which one is pointed to the right way in this trade. I will tell you a few things here, in the hope that you will accept the report of the truth.
(17) The kind of Hebrew language is so necessary also to the writings of the New Testament, which is written in Greek, that without it nothing can be understood. For those who wrote it in the Greek language were of Hebrew descent, as was also our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore they did not leave their own language in another language; just as when one puts Latin after the German way, or again German after the Latin way. Example: You have given the name to your book: Wider den unmilden Irrthum etc. Then you took impium from 8) the title of Pomsrarrus' childish epistle, and rewrote unmild in the German manner, because one of the blind leaders taught us that Pius was mild, impius unmild; because the words are sometimes also, though rarely, used in this way by the right Latinists; but Pomeranus did not take impium, but you rewrote it. That is why you have betrayed yourself in the title, that you do not know the kind of Latin language: you are therefore a good German schoolmaster, and should not take the writing so seriously.
6) i.e. something.
7) In the old edition: untheilete, probably a misprint. - Gugger - cuckoo.
8) d. i. from.
(18) Now the Hebrew language has a way of using a lot of tropos, that is, speech used or otherwise understood; therefore Christ used it so much. He says of John [the] Baptist, Matt. 11, "He is Helias." And was John not Helias; therefore it is a "metaphora," that is, a taking away. For John was like Helias in spirit and power, Luc. 1. indeed, so great a prophet that no greater has ever been. Item, Luc. 16. Christ speaks: "There was a rich man" etc., and has not been one, but it is only "parabola", a likeness, not a history; nor does he speak: "There was" etc. after the Hebrew manner. Paul speaks Gal. 4th, "Abraham had two sons," etc., "which are the two testaments." And the sons of Abraham are not the two testaments, but it is an "allegoria" (let no one make a mistake about the xxxxx, I urge to the simple, clear sense), that is, a different speech. And Paul wants to say: We may well understand the two testaments through the two sons. Again he says Gal. 3: "Christ became the curse for us", but he is the blessing and salvation that took away the curse from us. Therefore it is a transformation of names (metonymia), since one also gives to the good the name of the evil, which it accepts; as, in the Old Testament the word "sin" is taken quite often for "the sacrifice for sin". And here Christ is called the curse according to the words written in the 5th book of Moses 21, who is the blessing against the curse.
(19) Now thou hast two witnesses, and of each two tidings, whereunto thou shalt learn, as also in the New Testament the manner of the Hebrew language is used. And hear me 1) of these; for in former writings I have shown many more things. Now I will show you such figurative or other understandable speeches in the Old Testament, and before that the metonymias, that is, after-naming, by which you see that Christ spoke in these words according to his anterior manner, and yet had another meaning, neither of which we suppose at first sight. In Exodus 29: "Burn the flesh of the bull and its dung in the fire outside the camp; it is sin." Or according to the 70 [interpretations]: "It is sin." Here the sacrifice is called "sin," though it is not sin, but the sacrifice for sin; nor is it an
that is. Re-naming, and confusing the name).
1) i.e. content myself with it.
2) Marginal gloss: Aletou^mia stlana est uomiuum commutatio.
20) So here the friendly brotherly measure 3) in the supper of Christ is called the corpse of Christ, because it is used in the remembrance of the corpse, that is, death of Christ, from some likeness or taking away. 4) But if someone were to say that the example of Exodus 29 does not serve this purpose, 5) on the one hand, that it says nothing either significant or essential about the body of Christ; on the other hand, that it may well be interpreted, "It is for sin," that is, it is a sacrifice for sin. Answer: First, the sacrifices in the Old Testament, which are often called sins (but for atonements), have all been meanings of the perfect sacrifice of Christ JEsu. Secondly, Hebrews indicates that hatath, sin, is not a genitivus, as is learned in Leviticus 4 and elsewhere in many places. Therefore this interpretation "it is sin" is by no means obscured by us 6); for the meaning is well brought out, yet the words are different. But if it befits the 70 [interpreters] to actually bring out the meaning by changing the words, and since (in their and our language it is incomprehensible that the sacrifice is sin) thus speak: "It is the sacrifice for sin"; why should it not befit us to act on these words "this is my corpse", which are not comprehensible to us, with comprehensible ones, and to actually bring out and speak the meaning: This is the memorial of the body, that is, death of Christ? or a meaning?
(21) It was proper for St. Jerome to bring out the meaning, and he departed from the Hebrew way; why should it not be proper for us also? For 4th book Most 19, where Moses speaks of the red cyt-cow, "She is sin"; Jerome says, "For the cow is burned for sin;" and does him justice, for the cow was not sin, but burned for atonement, and the ashes cast into the water etc. Now why should we be told in the words:. Why should it not be proper for us to say in the words: "This is my body, which is given for you": "This is a meaning, a feast of thanksgiving, that the body of Christ is given for us"? If we see so publicly that in the words there is the Hebrew way, which is not understandable to us, we bring them forth with another way of the Greeks, Latins and Germans. As St. Jerome himself does, who speaks of the words of Matthew 26 thus:
3) Measure" ---- meal.
4) Randglosse: 8ie aäpsllavit Oseolamxsäius üune tropum metapvorML, nä usum seiüest spsotavs.
5) d. i. firstly.
6) i.e. rejected, spurned.
that he, Christ, signifies the truth of his body and blood etc., with other more words, with which Jerome publicly gives to understand that he has understood these words "this is my body" etc. also only that they are meaningfully spoken. But to say much about it here would be superfluous, since enough has been said and written about it by many before.
In the other book of Mosiah at the 12th we will actually learn this kind and characteristic of the Hebrew language for all sciences, because there is the same form of the words. And since Christ used the paschal lamb and his memory [in] the night when he substituted his memory for the old one, it becomes clear that he also used the same form of words. Now God speaks there of the paschal lamb or of the feast: "This is the transgression". And if the lamb was not the overtaking, because the overtaking happened only afterwards in the night; the feast, which the children of Israel practiced in the following time, was also not the overtaking: still so the lamb, and the feast, me- tonymicds, that is, by an after-naming or alternation, is called "the overtaking". So here the thanksgiving and the bread that is broken in thanksgiving is called by a Hebrew me- tonymiam, that is, surname, "the body of Christ"; not that it is the bodily body of Christ, but a memorial and thanksgiving that he gave his body in death for us.
(23) But when some say, Let no figurative or falsified or used speech be made unto me here, for the commerce is too great; and if Christ had willed that his words should be otherwise understood, he would well have signified it: such combatants show that they have heads, but little sense in them; for the most solemn things in the holy scriptures are all now and then falsified with figurative speeches. As that all things are in God's power, that he is the Almighty, according to the content of the first article of faith, the Psalmist speaks thus: "Lord, in your hand are all the ends of the earth. Now God has no material hand. But if a ruffian wanted to argue about it: The scripture gives him hands, so he also has hands, he would miss, because the scripture needs here "hand" for "force". Jesaiä at the 66th chapter: "The sky is my chair, and the earth the footstool of my feet" etc. We speak here only of the Godhead, which we do not know how it is measured, and do not speak of the humanity of Jesus Christ.
24 Item, the whole sum of the Gospel Christ says with figurative words, John on the
Chapter 6: "My Flesh is the Right Food" etc. With which words he wants to tell us that his death is the payment for our sin, and whoever accepts it, 1) is assured of blessedness. Item "He sits with the righteousness of God, Father Almighty" is a figurative speech, by which it is understood that Christ Jesus is equally powerful with the Father. And the whole Scripture is full of such speeches, even in the most serious matters of faith, in which tropical, that is, figurative and used speeches are used. For, as Fabius and Cicero teach, every trade becomes higher and more beautiful because of the speeches used, neither without them; 2) therefore God needs them even in the most serious things. Therefore, we should refrain from justifying Christ as if he did not speak tropically in a great commerce; for he speaks as befits commerce, but we are unintelligent. As if the king said to his son, "I give you my crown," and the son understood only the golden crown and not the whole kingdom. So we fall on the flesh of Christ, and he called the thanksgiving of it, that he gave the flesh for us for a sacrifice, "his body.
(25) So much, dear Ostrich, about the filth, since you scold us that we abuse the languages, that you may see that we do not abuse them, but take them in hand as the right tools, and with them dig to the truth. And there is no need for your blustering and scolding; the faithful and the learned know well what we say. And take care that some of you have not yet reached the measure in which you think you are. No thing is too great for God that he does not often speak and do it tropically. In the beginning he says: "And the Spirit of God held upon the waters, or weaved etc. Say whether it is a tropus or not? Therefore open thou thine eyes, and thine ears, and shut thy mouth, and put forth thy pen; and learn beforehand, before thou hast taken thy stand (for there are other men in the matter more despondent than thou), and give glory to God, and to the truth; and we shall know that thou hast faith, and that thou hast the Spirit. For because the clergy see that you now want to lean on faith and spirit out of ignorance, they will not give way to your rumbling, and we will not let you continue with untruth, if God wills.
26. v. He also tells us "to give one another titles that are proper to Christ alone". This he devises; and has not enough that he unwittingly-
1) i.e. rely on it.
2) In the original "dron" i.e. "their without", or "without the same".
lich 1) writes, he must first lie to it. For I do not recognize any high title, whether it would be attributed to me; do not attribute it to anyone. But it could be that Strauß, like Faber, Egg, and the wild animals, would not yet know what the titles are called. As when one writes episcopum, a bishop, that is, a guardian, describes that he be admonished of his office by the name.
VI "We have separated ourselves from those who persist in preaching the gospel", he also puts on us in a feminine way, those who, not being able to answer with the truth, rebuke it. For where, according to our measure, have we lacked in the diligence of the gospel 2)? Consider our work in the Gospel, whether it be stöpflin, 3) heuin or hölzin. Therefore, dear Ostrich, notice that they have separated themselves from the steadfast Christians who, against all custom and order of the church, do not allow all doctrine to occur, and therefore do not leave the church alone free to judge, as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Thessalonians 5. This you do, Ostrich, and others more, introduces a new tyranny and violence; for you want to be seen as having held with the Christian infidel princes of Baden that our writings have been banned. Then I require you to show me the scripture or the proven spirit, so that this may be appropriate for you. What else has the pope done, neither commanded: Do not touch this! Do not read this! This is heretical? etc. If you now, in the same way, deny to your churches the truth that you see inwardly but are ashamed to confess inwardly, because you have immersed yourselves in it, what are you but new popes who take away the judgment of the church, and the pious lords, just as the pope also did, are moved to protect your error? This is to renounce God's word, and to make distinctions and discords. This, however, is the only way of unity, in that the church is left free to express an opinion for and against, and thus the church is left free to judge; for God is not a God of discord, but of unity, who will not let His own, who are gathered in His Spirit, err; and thus there will be peace, atonement, and unity among all churches. But where one lord, city, people or commune lets the teaching of God's Word go freely, and not the other, there must ever be discord.
28 Now watch, which of God's
1) i.e. in an ignorant way.
2) "ienen" - any. In all editions erroneously "those".
3) stöpflin - from stubble.
Word and His Church, but you or we? We let your, the pope's, and all antichrists' writings be read freely, and put down the errors with the sword of God's word; so you want to do it with prohibition. Now I will choose you, you ostrich, to be a judge. Tell me, which seem to you to have the more suspicious cause? those who let their adversaries' writings come freely before their churches without any violence, and fight against them before the church; or those who bark against their adversaries before their simple-minded, and write against them publicly, also recommend their writings to their sheep to read, and often lie to them in their writings, 4) than you do here, and Faber and Egg do in all their writings? And if the opponents apologize or explain themselves, they cry out: Let them not be heard; more pernicious heresy never arose etc. Yes, therefore, judge, know which are the more suspicious!
(29) For it is of no avail to say, "Evil conversation offends good morals," 1 Corinthians 15:15. For to pretend that in this sacrament one eats flesh and blood bodily, or that Christ is present bodily, does not make good morals. Proved: The Christians have never been more angry, neither since one has held the erroneous opinions.
(30) In addition, it is publicly found that we have never taught anything shameful, 5) sacrilegious, evil, or wicked; indeed, we have taught with more virtue and baseness 6) than some of the pillars 7) that are respected; therefore, our doctrine, for the sake of annoyance, shall not be justly reproached 8). If, however, we were to teach falsely or angrily, our writings should sooner be let before the church, for men would see their falsity from the beginning and accept the miracle, for the teachers would soon turn them back if there were such open falsity in them. That is why they are colors and fictitious requests of the tyrants of the Scriptures.
Accordingly Strauss says: "The holy apostles also did not falsify the truth for the sake of the weak, but only allowed something of the old holy ceremonies, 9) and did not teach 10) besides that, so that they would not be necessary for salvation.
4) In the old edition: anliegen.
5) In the original: schampers.
6) d. i. Demuth.
7) In the original: Sül.
8) In the old edition "happened", which is probably a printing error.
9) Randgloffe: Ancient sacred ceremonies! Have thanks.
10) About this "not" compare the note to §11 of the previous scripture. Zwingli interprets this printing error in such a way that the following up to § 36 incl. has been written against it.
32 Behold, devout Christian, to the learned ostrich, how well he is reported to the Scriptures, so you will not be surprised that soon afterward he speaks so grandly and disconsolately:
33. VIII. ostrich: "But after this, in a short time, their foolishness (meaning us who do not want to eat Christ's flesh in the flesh) shall come to light more clearly through me (see, he puts himself first, so that he does not miss himself) and many others of even greater reputation with the help of God."
34 Answer: We, like the apostles, have not falsified the teaching for the sake of the weak. That the apostles yielded somewhat, we also did. We did not put the doctrine of the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament on the track, but we spared the weak until God put it on the track, and without doubt neither Paul nor other apostles attacked the circumcision. To this end, we have not wanted to attack commerce until one would be so well grounded in all things that nothing would want to deceive him any longer. In this Carolstadt breaks out and speaks the truth; but he has the defect, which the Father of Light has also left us, that he first of all did not bring the misunderstood words to light with the Tuto in the most skillful way. We could not let the truth lie there, because he did not really hit it with the words; for it should be proper for everyone to speak in the church. And so we did not teach the old error, because unfortunately it was now taught too strongly, but spared the weak in it, and still brought forth the truth in time enough. Therefore, the first part of this speech of yours is a calumnia, that is, fictitious calumny.
The other part, however, is an open lie, but I will call it ignorance; for the apostles not only taught that the ceremonies were not useful, but also that they were harmful, unpleasant, and to be done away with. Paul to Galatians, chapter 4: "Ye keep the day, and the new moon, and the feast, and the year: I fear I have labored among you in vain." Item Galatians at 5: "I Paul say unto you, that where ye are circumcised, Christ shall not be profitable unto you." Item Hebrews, chapter 9, which is a different understanding 1) of the same time in which gifts and sacrifices were offered, which things did not make him perfect who did them. For who would be perfect in food and drink, in various washings 2) and carnal ceremonies (that is, in outward din-
1) Marginal gloss: Paradola pro alteZoria, üsdraieo Wors.
2) d. i. Washings.
Who alone were appointed until the time of the abdication) will be saved or perfected? Item, Peter Acts at the 15th chapter: "Why do you tempt God to put a yoke on the believers, which neither we nor our forefathers could never have borne? Christ our Savior Himself says in the 15th chapter of Matthew: "That which enters into the mouth does not defile the man. Item Marci 2: "The holiday is made for man's sake, and man not for the holiday's sake." Item John 4: "The time is coming when you will worship the Father neither in Jerusalem nor on the mountain, but the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth." These proclamations, to which an innumerable number might still be added, all extend to your seeing that Christ and his apostles have publicly taught against ceremonial things; and by this you learn not only your ignorance, but also iniquity.
36) Accordingly, I have long considered 3) why you have spoken these words, that the apostles did not say that the ceremonies were not necessary for salvation, and have not been able to find the cause from the argument or content of the matter, because it does not fit the place. 4) But after a long time I thought, 5) you have said it, as if we should not teach that the bodily flesh of Christ is not useful, and that nothing is promised to the bodily food, which not only you, but some who are much greater, also cry out. But why should we not teach that which our Captain Christ Jesus himself teaches? since he says, "The flesh is not profitable"; understand to eat, and not carnal mind, as ye mightily bend his word. Even though your mind is more carnal, neither the kind of flesh described by Paul and Isaiah; if you want to show up God's words 6) for his meaning, which comes only from your ignorance, and therefore only over-fleshy poems, which are also grasped by the children, will be word colors.
(37) Yea, saith Christ, "The flesh is not profitable," and understandeth, to eat. For he said of him, killed long before, that it is the true bread that makes the world alive; that is, that his humanity is the lamb and sacrifice that takes away the sin of the world-not because he is a man, but because he is God and man;
3) i.e. minded.
4) d. i. fits.
5) Compare the note to §11 of the previous scripture.
6) i.e. impose.
but according to mankind he might suffer, and according to the Godhead he maketh alive. Therefore the disciples said: "We believe that you are the Son of the living God"; and not: "We believe that you must be eaten in the flesh; or: We believe that you are true man; or: We believe that the carnal mind is not useful. For this Christ would not have been misled by the Jews, who wanted to understand his words even after the urge of the words to eat of the flesh bodily, if he had spoken these words "the flesh is not useful" of the carnal mind. And lastly, Christ does not speak so lukewarmly as if he had said: "The flesh is not useful", for: the carnal mind is not useful; as before it was more abundantly brought forth: if you now also read it, and let it be reported to you. Therefore we say for and for: The flesh of Christ is not useful to eat, and again give up trying to prove from God's Word that His flesh, eaten in the flesh, is useful.
38, IX. Soon as Strauss does not want to mention Harrow's name in his book, he strongly suggests how little it matters, from whom the truth is spoken, and yet he does not need palate 1); for he undoubtedly does not spare mine. Then he knows that he will not be seen standing with the priests. And does he, as well as the popes, protect that which is against God's word, yet with greater clumsiness, he and his associates, neither do the popes. For so the popes cry out: Let the words of Christ remain with the simple mind, and thou therefore sayest unto them, It is written, Who is given for you; and therefore must he be eaten bodily sensibly: they seem to yield to this, and say: Yea, he is eaten tenderly, as he hung upon the cross, etc., as the recantation of Berengarii signifieth.
39 But Strauss and his associates, if they shout with the popes: One should let the words of Christ remain with the simple mind; we have the words clearly, it says "Is", so it must be, and one answers them about it: Well then, let the words have their simple meaning, and see what may be understood of them; and the meaning will be found: The bread is my body, which is given for you. If therefore the bread is the body which is given for us, then the bread must be crucified for us; for his body is given for us.
40. as one also speaks: let the words
1) In the old edition: Goumens, which probably stands for "Gaumens", i.e. "Meidens".
Christ's body to the simple mind, then the pope must be right, and we must eat Christ's body not only sensibly, but also visibly; for he is visibly and sensibly crucified. Thus they say, Behold! these are new sophists. And if they say: How can this be sophistry? if you urge us to the simple unused mind; then we take him in our hands, he does not add 2). For so they say: This is the simple mind: This is my body invisible, which is given for you visible. Here we give answer: Does corpus actually and unused mean an invisible corpse? or traditgur: is visibly given up?
This is how they want to do it with shouting: We believe the simple words of God. It is right. Who is a believer who does not do this? But you are the first who do not let the words of Christ remain in the unused mind, when you say, Let it be the invisible body etc. For Christ has never said: This is my invisible body, which is visibly given up for you.
So it turns out, dear ostrich, that those of your party who speak like this, as first reported, are the first who have taken the natural meaning of Christ's words, and yet have not met them. Therefore it has become better for you, and the unused sense has wanted to be too strong for you, and you have said that this is the simple sense of the words "this is my body": "in the bread is my body. But then, whether you interpret it or not? Is it not now a synecdoche, when you say: In the bread is my corpse, for: This is my corpse? Is this not a trope, when we say: The feast is a memorial that my body is given for you? which is a metonymy; for the supper, thanksgiving, or feast, is named after the body of Christ. So they argue and shout: One may not suffer the tropum! and lead them in the midst of the tropum, and lay it out by the tropum. I often find out that they do not yet know what a trope is, so they fight against it and make do with it.
42) And at last Ostrich comes, and sees that they may not receive it: "In the bread is my body," and says: "3) The body of Christ is present in the sign incomprehensible to all the senses, likewise his holy blood," but nothing corporeal is due to the eater. Behold, this is a new handle! Because can I ostriches right
2) i.e. fits.
3) These words will probably refer to § 67 of the previous scripture.
He wants to say that the body of Christ is in this sacrament, but it is not eaten in the flesh. Why then does he fight? Our dispute is not primarily whether the body of Christ is in the sacrament, but whether it is eaten bodily in it. Although he is not there, he may not be in it with the permission of God's word. And if we prove with God's word that he may not be in it, then our opinion follows that he is not eaten bodily in it. So they say against God's word that he is in it, but may not receive that with God's word.
(43) Now therefore, Ostrich, behold what this is: the body of Christ is in bread, and nothing corporeal is eaten. What then is he doing? How do you answer the pretextual excuses, since you have all spoken: He is essentially eaten bodily, but invisibly? But this has brought thee hence, that thou canst not answer for "he that is given for you"; for he ever ought to be sensitive there, because he hath suffered sensitively. Thus thou sayest mightily, Yea, he is there, but nothing corporeal is eaten there. Do you know what it is to say about the red pants? What one says, so says another: It is not called that. And that is the most beautiful thing about you, you first tell me how I am an Aristotelian sophist, even if you have also read something in Aristotle; but you are open sophists. For sophist (as it is used at this time) comes from sophizein, 1) that is, to wit and seek cunning without reason of truth. But this is what you do, if you now come with the invisible corpse, and say: it will be eaten bodily, without reason of truth, that is, without God's word. For God's word, "This is my body, which is given for you," unless it is to be a used speech (as you argue but do not hold in exposition), may not suffer him to be there invisibly and insensibly, for he did not hang invisibly nor insensibly on the cross. Soon you say: he is there, but nothing corporeal is eaten; also without any reason of God's word. Now stand before the mirror, and examine thyself, and thou shalt find thyself a more open sophist than any Gryllus ever was.
44 Again, we may not be blamed for being sophists with any semblance of truth. For to truly introduce and conclude from God's word is not sophistry, but the truth itself; or else our Lord Jesus Christ would have to be suspected of sophistry, because he is always smiling on God's word. As he says, Luc. 16: "If they do not follow Mosi and the prophets, then
1) xxxxxxx.
Nor will they believe, though one rise from the dead," is losus ab autoritaty, or a majore ack minus. Marc. 3, Luc. 11. collects Christ, and thus concludes: "Every kingdom that is ambiguous in itself is destroyed; if Satan is ambiguous in himself, his kingdom may not exist. What kind of syllogism is this? I will not give any more examples here; I have given enough elsewhere.
45 Therefore we rightly conclude from God's word: If the body of Christ is the bread, or in the bread, then he must also be visibly sensitive in it; for he speaks (if one must understand the words according to your violence): "Who is given for you. Now he is visibly, sensibly, essentially bodily, also mortally given for us; so he also ought to be there, and so to be eaten, as he is crucified. So we also conclude: If the bread is the body of Christ, then the bread is crucified for us; and is no sophistry nor deceit; for introducing, following, closing is needed before all artists are ever born.
(46) Neither are we sophists, for that which we have ever taught is so firmly established in the Word of God that no one has ever liked it, nor will ever like it. And do not be concerned about what the sophists preach against us in imperial congresses and elsewhere; we have another day, neither the blind may see, nor at this time, in which we may well walk.
47. X. When Strauss now begins to reverse my reasons, he first attacks the word of Christ, John on the sixth chapter: "The flesh is of no use." And comes forth with the old little piece that Christ meant to say: The carnal mind is not useful. Enough has been said about this before, and often before, as about everything that is found in it. But how often they see that Christ here speaks of his fleshly flesh, not of the carnal mind; yet they do not object to it, and cannot answer for it; for their conscience tells them that Christ spoke in the error of the Jews, saying that his flesh was of no more use to eat than they supposed it to be. Still they fight, and they think they can get through with it, that they deceive 2) and lie, what they want, and cry out thereby: God's word, God's word! and call us: False prophets, false prophets! But when their error is brought to light, they let no one read it. How honorable this is, Christians do not need to judge, but Turks and unbelievers may recognize it.
48. when now ostrich long from the spiritual meal
2) i.e., to bring up debris.
much said, as if it had never been heard before, he says: we will preach a spiritual Christ. Dear Strauss, are you preaching a carnal one? I thought that if we had known Christ immediately according to the flesh, we would no longer know him according to the flesh, 2 Cor. 5. I say this only to drive you, for you do not know what you are saying. For you are those who do not let the true humanity of Christ, according to the Marcionite way, remain truly human, if you say that his body is eaten bodily and essentially, and say that it is eaten spiritually. So the body, of which you say, must be a spirit and not a corpse. For I ask you, Ostrich, whether in this sacrament the body eats or the soul? If the body eats, how can the body eat spiritually? But if the soul eats, how can it be a corpse? Does the soul also eat bodily food? If it is a spirit, then you make Christ's humanity a spirit, not us. Yes, it is a little wooden pigeon of which you say. You write words, which neither you nor any angel understands, as you weave the words together, 1) and in the midst of it you reproach so badly, that whoever of you does not want to be reproached to the highest, has to say that he understands it; and it is nothing but sophistry and word poetry. So notice this.
(49) Thou sayest, Ye speak of eating the flesh of Christ, not as the Jews, but that it is spiritual meat, eat it also spiritually. We have recently confessed that to eat Christ is to trust in him. Now you are looking for the sophistic rank: Yes, this is the spiritual food, but the sacramental. Eating has another form. Tell me, do you eat the sacraments too? You do not know yet whether sacrament is a custom and practice or an essential thing. You say that the body of Christ is eaten sacramentally. Dear, what is sacramental eating (sacramentaliter edere)? For it seems to me that you want to give the simple one over the eye with the word. Is it essentially eating the body of Christ himself? or, is it trusting in him? Now you come, offer us the little wooden scaffold, and say: One eats him essentially bodily, but spiritually, and only the clergy understand it; and to this you make with God's omnipotence, and to this you pity with sacrilegious words: whoever does not believe this, let him revile Christ etc. Dear, not so! Let go! Tell me, how many are the spiritual meals of Christ? If ye say one, we will speak unto you straightway. If you say: two; God be with you! So you are the ones who bring innovation; for you cannot say a word of God about your spiritual food.
1) "wättend" probably as much as: connects. Cf. § 50.
Nor do I indicate any old, stately teacher, for they all understood spiritual food as we all commonly understand it. But I should spare you here; for you still speak anew, that one eats here nothing corporeal, [because] the body of Christ is still there.
50 Therefore sacramental eating, devout Christian, is not something fraudulent or sorcerous, as these dyers paint it, but it is nothing else than eating the sign, but in the supper of the remembrance of Christ. And no creature can deny this. The pope also understands sacramental eating, as we speak of it in the often mentioned Canon: Ego Berengarius. In turn
"Eating spiritually" means nothing else, neither trusting in Christ Jesus, the true Son of God; and eating together spiritually is a poem of those who do not want to let themselves be rejected. And as little as thou knowest what a wooden poker is, though thou understandest the compound words, yet, if it be wood, it cannot ever be iron. So little do these fighters know more of the bodily body, spiritually eaten, or of the spiritual bodily eaten body, neither that they have the words together, but which have no acceptance nor home 2) unbelieving mind. In the same way, as if we spoke of a black snow, and said: it would be black; but we would not see it. Finally, a spiritual eating of Christ is trusting in him; and a bodily eating is praise or thanksgiving. And to eat the body of Christ bodily, as the popes say, is a gross misunderstanding of the words of Christ, which, after the manner of Hebrews, mean the commemoration and praise of the death of Christ with the words of the body of Christ. But to eat the corpse of Christ bodily, yet spiritually, and not according to the pure spiritual meal, is a sacrilegious sophistical poem of those who do not want to be told the truth.
51 Therefore, Ostrich, the words of Christ, "The flesh is of no use at all," are true for and for, and are not spoken of the carnal mind, but of the fleshly carnal eating; which is of no use. Still thus you rage before the simple-minded: If the flesh be of no profit, for what is the death of Christ? And now we have shown in seven or eight stories with bright words that we speak only of the bodily eating of the flesh of Christ, that it is not useful. See now whether ye be not open calumniatores, protectors, and trafficers, when ye, as often as it is accounted for and rightly presented, draw it out harshly before the ignorant, and so introduce them, yea, seduce them.
2) d. i. Heimath.
3) talame - already.
as if we deny Christ; and forget 1) in the midst, that the truth be not read.
We must not, dear Strauss, make a special aphorismum, that is, a separate piece, out of the words.
53 Strauss: "So Christ gives His body and blood above inward eating in outward, visible, and sensible signs, which are also bodily eaten and drunk."
(54) For thou wilt say nothing else, but that the signs shall be eaten. But if you also want the body of Christ to be eaten, but invisibly, we require you only for this reason, that you prove with God's word that the body of Christ is eaten invisibly here. For these words, "This is my body, which is given for you," may not be understood of any invisible body.
55. we also require you for the sake of the words which you all say, but you with this form: 2) "But only for comfort and spreading of faith" etc. And soon after, "Therefore it is a sign only to fruitfulness to the faithful." There you all speak from a harbor of sophistry, without God's word. For the supper is not to spread the faith or to increase it, nor does the sacramental meal bring any benefit; or else you would set up again not only the papacy, but also the old ceremonies, should external things increase or bring forth fruit in the inner man; but it is a thanksgiving of the death of Christ. Therefore you all speak the words without reason. Examine on thy iij [third leaf] these thy words; let see how much findest thou the tidings of God's word?
56. xi. ostrich: 3) "Therefore man eats not here the flesh of Christ carnally, but according to the content of the almighty mighty words, so Christ says: This is my body, this is my blood."
57. Answer: Behold! so shall ye rumble and conjure before the simple. If you eat not the flesh of Christ carnally, what is your warfare? Now are we not one, that whosoever eateth it spiritually shall be healed? Say: I speak carnally. Say, How can you eat the flesh of Christ otherwise, either spiritually, or carnally,' or bodily? Behold, now you must bring forth your little wooden dish, of which enough was said before. Accordingly, you give the simple, like-
1) "To forget" means to beware, to be careful; hence "to forget" here probably means to prevent.
2) In the previous paper, § 31.
3) In the previous paper, § 33.
(Dear ones, always leave out the words "which is given for you", so it will be seen what kind of customers you are) were spoken by Christ in such a way, as if he had used the words to force his body into the bread or supper bodily, and if his body was there by the power of the words, because he had said: "Do this in remembrance of me", also that he was almighty.
58 And Christ did not mean to say, "Do this in remembrance of me, that by words you should commit my body to death; but thanksgiving is remembrance, as we understand it publicly in the words of Paul, 1 Corinthians 11: "As often as you eat the bread and drink the drink, you will praise and glorify the death of the Lord, and therefore give thanks," that is, proclaim it. Thus, while the church stands until the last day, we are to remember the good deeds of Christ and give thanks with one another. This is what Christ means to us; not to make his body to be there and to be eaten bodily, for the words are tropical.
(59) Forasmuch then as ye cry, He is almighty; prove not therefore that there is flesh and blood. For it does not follow, You are an ostrich, and God may make you a goose, but you are a goose. Just as it does not behoove us to teach: Christ is almighty, therefore if you eat him sacramentally, he may drive out your bump; so it is driven out of you. But if you ever do this, and if you ever do this, say: What are the words: "The flesh 4) is not useful" to eat; "again I leave the world"; "you will not have me forever" rc? Are they not Christ's? Yes. Is he not as well omnipotent to keep the words, as that you say against his presumption, that by his omnipotence he makes himself bodily in the bread or supper? Are not our words, as being good, as which ye have spoken, 5) yet not understood? For understood they are common to us all that believe.
60. XII. Strauss also says: 6) "They teach that nothing more should be accepted or admitted here than what human reason is able to comprehend" etc., with many other lying words, which are unpleasant for a lover of truth. For we speak here not of the reason of the flesh, but of the reason of the inner man, that is, of the believer, as Paul also speaks to the Romans in the seventh chapter. There it is also evident from their own experience that it is not possible for the mind of the
4) In the old edition: "Fälsch".
5) "vorwelbet" (to be translated as "to bulge").
6) In the previous writing § 36.
It is incomprehensible to believers that flesh and blood are eaten here in the flesh, or in the flesh-spiritually, as they say; for they therefore fall short of the omnipotence of God, that they themselves cannot remain on their flesh-spiritually.
61 But Strauß did not want to 1) revile Oecolampadium, who, however, does not count his, but Augustini's opinion. He wants that in the night meal no new miracle is to be pretended. How? Is it comprehensible to the human mind that Christ is the Son of God and payment for our sins? No. To whom then? To the one whom God has drawn. But is this not a miracle? Yes. From this you see, dear Ostrich, that Augustine does not want to speak of the high secrecy of Christ, for which reason he is a comfort to the soul; for this is the miracle that God has done for us, according to the prophet's legend and Ps. 117, but that in the night meal it is to be expected that the body of Christ will be miraculously eaten in the flesh. On the other hand, he does not speak of carnal reason, but of the faithful, which knows that "eating Christ" is entrusted to him, and does not ask for any other food, Jn 6: "Whoever comes to me will not hunger" etc. And has the pious man well seen that these words of Christ are a used tropical speech, which calls with the corpse the memorial or meaning of the corpse of Christ; just as we still today call the memorial of the Ascension also the Ascension, as he indicates ad Bonifacium.
When Strauss speaks to us of not knowing faith, he always makes it sound as if this is faith, if one believes that flesh and blood are eaten or present here; and with this he wants to blind the simple; for he has said enough about spiritual food, how the same is trust in Christ; and now he makes it sound as if we believe that flesh and blood are here etc. We know faith well and truly, thanks be to God! of which Christ thus speaks, John 6: "Verily I say unto you, he that trusteth in me hath everlasting life," and of which we say in faith, "I believe in Jesus Christ." But in this they must all strangle, that they shall not bring forth that Christ hath spoken: Verily I say unto you, He that believeth that my flesh and blood be eaten there hath eternal life, or is feasted in faith etc.
63 Yes, they say, "Which is not to each one of them?
1) Perhaps it is to be read: "hiemit". Should "hie not" be correct, it is to be taken ironically.
2) In the original: zwarten.
If any man believe the words which Christ spake, he is damned. Here I would like to give another answer, but for the sake of the simple I will not do so; for this following is the firmer, and better for the simple.
64 Answer: You speak rightly, but you lie, first of all, that he who believes the words of Christ has the right understanding; for to misunderstand the words of Christ, and to believe them, is not to believe the words of Christ, but your own misunderstanding. For example: "On the rock I will build my church", Matth. 16, the pope shouts at himself and also says: "God is able to do all things, he has done it for man's benefit, that he has given me such power in Petro; God may not be deceived. Yes, let it be! But now the right-minded one comes and says: You do not understand the meaning; he does not mean Petrum, because he was not the rock, but a "rocker", called by the true rock. Now Christ builds his church on the rock, of which Peter is called a "rocker". Behold, therefore, one must not rely on God's word, erroneously understood, for that is not God's word; for he may not err, but our error.
In the saying or words, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," the ostrich holds himself out, so that it may be seen that he is not a juggler, 3) as he calls me, but a gossamer ostrich; for he pretends that Christ is speaking there, John 3.So well trained are the journeymen in the languages that they do not yet see what similia, parables, are, and how one teaches the simple by them; which Christ has had in use without intermission, and here especially uses in the most beautiful similia, parables, of the birth of the flesh and spirit. Thus, after Nicodemus did not understand Christ's teaching about the rebirth or innovation of the spirit, Christ held up to him the summa of salvation with the words: "Whoever is not born again with the water (that is, the right divine wisdom, and does not speak here of the water of baptism; read John 4) and the spirit (for without the spirit man does not accept the divine), may not enter the kingdom of God." Now he explains to him what the spiritual birth is, and takes the likeness of the right fleshly birth; but he omits, according to the Hebrew way, the word of likeness in the beginning, 4).
3) In the original "gougler" and "gouchfarber". "Gauch" is "fool", therefore "gauchfarben" will mean: dressed in fool's colors.
4) Marginal gloss: lets, notam sirnilituäinis srebra ornittunt Ilsdrasl.
thus: You see that everything that is born of the flesh is flesh; therefore everything that is born of the spirit must also be spirit.
(66) See, dear Ostrich, that these two gno- mae, that is, two unbetrayed senses or conclusions, are understood everywhere by all flesh and by all spirit; for gnomae or sententiae must be true everywhere, or else they would not befit to go out for certain. You see also that Christ uses the words: What is born of the Spirit must likewise be the Spirit, from the former, "What is born of flesh is flesh." So then I have indicated your error in the way of conduct halh ab effectu aut sequela with such a conclusion: Everything that is born of flesh is flesh; if then something is born of the flesh of Christ, it must be flesh. You all may not break this calculation, Syllogismum, and immediately become nonsensical. But you German schoolmasters lack much; you are not so reported that you can go over the wells yourselves; learn from the German books, and then put on a different coat as if you had born it, and want to make a name for yourselves with it, and if one looks for you behind the shield, you are not at home.
67 I realize thoroughly that you have never clearly understood the piece in the Gospel of John 3; nor is my conclusion, which I draw from it, certain. If something is born from the eaten flesh of Christ, it must be flesh. This I have silently wanted to show to the greater ones, neither you are, against their false pretenses, since they speak: The flesh of Christ, eaten, makes faith firm, yea, also gives the gospel present; and such nonsensical speeches as turn back all the birth of the gospel, which alone comes from the drawing Father, with the words. And we have a sure word of God, which is born of the flesh, and ye cannot signify one, that ye may prove that faith is established thereby.
68. xv. That I therefore say these writings: "But you will not have me forever" and: "Again I leave the world and go to the Father", and the like, must be understood only from the human nature of Christ; that alenfanzt Strauß so freventlich with so open disgrace of the truth, I want to be silent, that I almost want to think that it is not an ostrich, but a Gugger. 1) Dear ostrich, why don't you also cry out here: A little book of God's words may not fall? Now he has said that he will leave the world; so he must
1) d. i. Cuckoo.
ever leave them. But he may not leave them with his grace to us Godhead, for with it he sustains and permeates all things: so this must be spoken of human nature alone. For this you know that the believing mind indicates this, and all who have ever interpreted these words. You may still rumble; but it is evident that you have not read, indeed, without doubt, you may not read the right old theologians, in which you have learned to walk a little bit in the Scriptures.
69 Thus you account for everything with the single word "invisible. The bodily presence of the body of Christ is not taken away from us, but only the face and the emotion; and the same is now your deed. When will you hear it? Present a scripture for it, or else you are the most sacrilegious sophists I have ever seen. You want to talk out of your heads and not present a word of God for it; this you have in common with other sophists. But that you first speak about the same thing bodily, yet invisibly, from the body of Christ, you do not only against all reason (in this you are more evil than the Sophists), but you speak against God's word. Yea, and ye reproach the humanity of Christ, because ye say that he is invisible and insensible in the sacrament, when he saith, This is his body which is given up for us. If then he is visibly and sensibly given up for us, and you say that we eat him by the power of words, and yet deny the sight and sensibility; you deny that he suffered visibly and sensibly. Still you hump and sound hard and firm, and do no writing, but may not escape. If you want to understand it literally, when you cry out that the words are clear: "This is my body!" then you must stand down with the Marcionites, that he has not suffered; this is an open reproach of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we do not reproach him.
70 Therefore, as soon as you say that the invisible corpse is there, you now take the word corpus tropice, that is, the corpse for the invisible corpse, and still scream against the tropos, as if he wanted to oppress you, as is indicated above.
71 Thirdly, learn also from God's word, that if Christ were with us bodily, yet invisibly, he would not have spoken the words, "Again I leave the world. For he alone who deprives the face is not therefore called absent. Once, when you were a preaching monk, at night in your cell, you were invisible, nor were you
2) "small" here seems to stand for "little".
3) "Murder" As much as: to murder. The meaning of the phrase: as if someone wanted to murder you.
present, and could not be said that you were not there. I alone show you, that you seek such poor escapes, and think to blind the simple. When Christ was a little while of the disciples, he said not, "I leave the world;" but, "Ye shall not see me a little while." In short, not to be seen alone may not suffer the strong words, "I leave the world"; for if he were bodily with us, he would not have left the world, for he would be divinely and bodily with us. The angel proves this when he says, "He is not here," and does not say, "He is here, but invisible. Say: But he is in the sacrament. Answer: To be in the Sacrament would mean that he would have to be in a hundred times a hundred thousand places, which is not possible for mankind, not even for a corpse. And to be at so many ends is not fitting for anyone, except for that which is incomprehensible; that alone is the Godhead. Therefore, neither in the Sacrament nor elsewhere can the body of Christ be more than in one place. And the angel's saying, "He is not here," proves well and truly that he is bodily in only one place. As also Augustine de consecratione, dist. 2. cap. prima.
Here you need a fine piece. You lead us with your sophistry to say: it may be that a corpse is more than once in one place. And when we break your lies, you say: You are sophists. Say, What is the word: "He is risen, and is not here"? And this: "Me you will not have all away"? If it is mine, it is sophistry; but it is his who is the truth. But if we had him bodily, this word would not be true, for we would have him all the way.
73) Fourthly, you may not reverse this, Apost. I.: "Jesus, who was conceived by you in heaven, will come again as you have seen him go to heaven. Here we indicate to you that when he comes bodily, he will come visibly. Thus you indicate to us from God's word that he will come invisibly into the sacrament; you are not able to do so, for it is nothing but your blue trumpery: when he comes, he will come visibly; and you adorn and pamper yourselves as you wish. He might well have said, I will be with you invisibly; and should not have said, I leave the world; and, It is for you that I depart from you. etc.
74 Finally, Strauss reveals himself to be a German schoolmaster, that is, that he has learned his reasons solely from German books. For he speaks the words, Matth. 24, Marci 13: "If someone were to say to you: Here or there is
Christ; so do not believe it," that should be understood only for the sects. There I am told that an excellent man 1) drew the word neißwa in a booklet; but Strauß from the beginning thinks it is the natural meaning of the words, and does not go over the well himself, because he has no creator. 2)
So Christ wants to say that the tribulations will be so great that even the unbelieving Jews will cry out for the Mosiah, the container or Christ; then the false prophets will show them the container here or there; they should not go there, because he will not be there; understand bodily, when they will look for him. So the disciples ask him, "Where will he be?" He gives them two parables: one, that he will come as bright and clear as lightning, filling the whole circle of our faces in a moment. The other is that they do not assume the place, because as the eagles gather to the carrion, so with him, the heavenly eagle, the train of the elect will be gathered.
(76) First of all, if Christ does not want to be shown here or there, why do you show him in the supper? Understand me only for the sake of mankind. Secondly, you see whether he comes visibly or invisibly. Third, the elect will be with him. He also wants his servants to be with him where he is. If he is in the sacrament, the great Christ must also be with him. See whether the clergy serve us or not. But that of the sects is only an included one, and not the noble or principal one.
Here I must give an answer to some preachers, who also stood there in a very deceived city and cried out like this: Behold, devout Christians! These new teachers are the false prophets who show Christ: Behold, he is here! Behold, he is there! for they say, Behold, he sitteth with the righteousness of God the Father! Do they not show him in one place? Yes, they say, God has no hand, therefore to sit with the righteous as much as to have equal power with him etc., with much other wisdom. Behold, devil, how thou art bowed down! Shall we not show him above, as Marci 16. thus saith, "He is conceived in heaven, and hath sat down with the righteous of God"? And Stephen says, "I see heaven open, and the Son of man standing by the righteousness of God." Is Marcus a false prophet? like St. Stephen? Now they are talking just like us.
1) In the original: "Träffenlicher", by which Luther will be meant.
2) d. i. bailer.
78. O you mockers, Isa. 28. and Ps. 1, notice! does sitting with the righteous mean having equal power with God? Yes, so it is a trope, a used speech. Do we not now also rumble and shout? We keep the simple words, we do not make "sitting with the righteous" into "ruling with". Therefore, notice (as indicated before) that God speaks tropically even in the highest things. Therefore, dear brethren, did Christ come recently to the righteousness of God, or has he been there forever? Will you answer without doubt, and also rightly, that he is eternally seated, that is, equal, and reigning, according to divine nature?
I ask: What has gone up there? Without a doubt mankind. Without doubt, it was not there before. If it has not been up before, then the humanity of Christ is never more than in one place; or else, if it had been everywhere, as the Godhead says, it would also have been everywhere up, and would not have needed to go up. Thus you learn by going up that it is now in one place; for otherwise it would have been above all things with God, and would not have been allowed to go up. Learn also that the ascent and "sitting with the righteous" here reaches only to the humanity of Christ. And take the communicationem idiomatum, that is, the common features of both natures, right in hand, and all things will become clear to you. And see this: If he ascended (when he is undoubted), he is not here bodily; for if he had wished to be here bodily, and in heaven, he would not have said of mankind, "Again I leave" etc.
80 Will you not call this also the work of the sophists? Yes, yours is not only sophistical, but genosphistical; that is unfaithful to God's word. For we speak with the holy apostles, Acts 2, that he of the righteous, that is. Power, God has exalted; not according to the Godhead, according to which he was not allowed to exalt, because he has the same clarity from eternity, Joh. 17. And again with Petro, 1 Petr. 3: "He sits with the righteousness of God. He has gone up to heaven, and there the angels are subject to him." And with Paul, Rom. 8: "Since Christ is seated with the righteous of God." And again Heb. 10: "Who sitteth for ever unto the righteousness of God." And well we know that he reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit; still thus we know that his humanity is now in one place, as even 1) the holiest form of the face of God. We
1) d. i. yes also.
but do not show him, 2) because he shows himself. But you show him in the bread, in the supper; also, as one should not show salvation or comfort in any outward things, you show in his food the fortress of faith, also the presence of the preached gospel; yes, everything that comes to your mind, so that you hope to talk your way out of it, but everything out of your heads, without God's word. Therefore, mend and change, or else you will move the wrath of God where you will not yield to the open truth.
After a long pondering, however, Strauß comes back and says: "It is obvious that the body of Christ is not bread, or that bread is the body of Christ; but bread remains bread, and the body of Christ also remains unchanged. If Strauß were to leave it at that, he would have spoken rightly and according to God's word. For Christ says Matt. 26: "For this cause ye shall see the Son of man sitting upright in the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven." In which words we well perceive that he will not change his seat or dwelling or abiding until the last day; as we also prophesy in faith, "He sitteth unto the righteousness of God the Father Almighty, [from] whom he is to judge henceforth. "etc. So we do not read that he then 3) will not be in any other place in the flesh in the future, nor for any other work, neither to judge.
82 But Strauß does not stop at words, but speaks immediately afterwards:
Ostrich: "Therefore the Lord Christ said of that which was hidden under the bread, that the bread is an outward sign. And so the body of Christ is truly present with the bread" etc.
Eriväge, dear reader, these words of Strauß well, so you invent that Strauß does not believe that in the bread the body of Christ is eaten, as Pomeranus and the part holds. For I also noticed and understood beforehand actually everywhere on his word that he now wants to say that the corpse of Christ is present, but is not eaten. But whatever he may say, it is evident that he is leading nothing but an impotent, unfounded pretense; for when he says that the body of Christ is hidden under the bread, he leaves it hidden. If he says that the body of Christ is hidden under the bread, he does not leave the words of Christ "this is my body" simple, but makes it tropically, otherwise understandable: under the bread is the body of Christ; but this may not be suffered. For if he had been under the bread, he would have been invisible under it; then it follows
2) i.e. nowhere.
3) dadannen - away from there.
but that he suffered invisibly, for it is written, "Who is given for you."
83 XVII That he murmurs about St. John's blessing is a calumnia, a transgression. I have wanted to give the simple-minded in this matter an example of metonymy, that is, of calling by names, and have sought one for them that is known to all men. But if he wants to have biblical examples, he will find them everywhere in our writings, which have written about it, also here, as is indicated above.
84. XVIII. Since he therefore presents himself with an example or simile, with the external and internal word: the external word is only a human voice; but that which is signified by it is the eternal word of God, neither he nor those who have made the foolish 1) (I must ever give it the right name) little book in Swabia against the pious Oecolampadium, do more than the Sophists do when they ask: Termini an res veniant in praedicamentum? of which it is not proper to say here, because they are looking for a button where there is none.
The external word that comes from our mouths is also the very word of God that is with God and in our believing hearts, as long as we call it the word of meaning and truth. But if they understand by the external word the breath, the voice, the speech, the sound that falls from the lips, without the understanding: ah, God, what do [they] want to gain by this? Is there not a difference between any word of breath and sense? But if the bodily word is to make the inner word, then we take it in hand: Ostrich preaches the gospel outwardly; so be it that he preaches it rightly, and the man who hears him will be told inwardly just what Ostrich has told inwardly. For here I only give an example of their deed, otherwise all believers know that no one accepts the word, neither he whom the Father teaches. But I will teach only this, that when they give parables of the outward and inward word, they quite foolishly call the blast 2) and voice of the word the outward word, which is very bad for such highly learned people. The outer word that Paul preached (now I call "word" the sense and mind) is the sense and mind that God has; and the inner word of Paul was also of one mind and sense with the outer. And then the same word, if God planted it in the hearts of men, was just the word that God wants, and Paul has inside.
Therefore, we Christians are One Body.
1) In the original: "narrachten".
2) Blast bubbles, breath.
of which Christ and the apostles taught much, for we conduct One Spirit, sense, mind, opinion, speech within and without. For which reason Paul says: "No one speaks: the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit." How? teach an agolstren 3) or parakeet to speak: Lord Jesus; as those rabbits could 4) speak, whose emperor says they have 5) much at home; do they also speak in the Holy Spirit? So now you see, devout Christian, what the outward word means to the apostles; not the voice, as these blind men speak, 6) or the tules would speak in the Holy Spirit; but the very opinion, which they have in their hearts, spoken out. So now the Zurich limites want to say: The external word "this is my body" not only gives birth to the mind, but also essentially makes the body of Christ to be there through its power. Now 7) God is pleased with me, pope and popes, you pillars of all darkness. So the pope will say: When Christ said to the bedridden 8) "Son, your sins are forgiven you", then the almighty word spoke, and it was so in himself; and therefore when I speak by the power of my keys: Your sins are forgiven you, then not only the teaching follows, but by the power of the words man's sins are forgiven; I have the almighty word. Grace-pastors, then go, not to the sinners 9) (for you blind men are not to be sent to men, you deceive them), but to the mangy dog Ulysses, and say to him: Until pure, Matth. 8. Let see, may you drive him away with it!
Forgive me, Christian reader, for speaking thus to the peacocks! I know what God does through His believers. But these blinders have to be attacked, or else they thought they had it right, since they have so many boasters, and yet in many years the foolish book has never gone out. Yes, they say: 10) verbum caro factum
3) Agolster - magpie; parakeet --- parrot.
4) "Rappen" will probably be "Raben".
5) "they", namely the Spaniards, "they" put by us instead of: themselves.
6) In the old edition: "Zürlimürlend"; zürlimürlen" --- talk like parrots. - Tulen --- jackdaws.
7) are - are.
8) Bettriß --- the gout-broken., In the old edition: "Bettrisen".
9) "Sündersiechen" Well as much as: "who are sick in sin. The expression seems to be chosen in order to remind of "Sondersieche", that is, lepers, as the reference to the "mangy dog" indicates. Cf. Col. 1439, § 390.
10) This is the so-called St. John's blessing of which Zwingli speaks so often, which was used to avert all kinds of misfortune, namely the striking of thunderstorms. Cf. Col. 1488, § 58.
est (even as we children, when we were afraid), the Word became man. Behold, the Word became flesh! So it also happens here, when these words "this is my body" are spoken. Answer: When Christ became man in the pure body of Mary, who spoke the word "the word became man" with his breath, and then the word or command became man? No one. So you understand, how your Zürlimürlen has reason. But suppose it were recommended that an angel should say to Mary, "The Word is made man"; would it therefore have been made man by the power of the external word, or even by the mind of the angel? No, they would say, but by the power and effect of God. So it is right for him. Why then do you cry out: We have the almighty Word; as also Ostrich often does here? If the word has no power either in man or out of man, why do you preach to the simple, you tenebriones? Suppose also that these words "this is my body" and "the Word became man" are of the same power (as you say): so it follows that as often as one says: the Word became man, so often will Christ become man. Just as you say, by virtue of the words "this is my body" the body of Christ will become.
88) Therefore, summon the quarrelsome devil from you, 1) dearest brothers, and also teach you! you walk on walls. You have to get out of
see in the words of God which are words of narration or history; and on the other hand, also see which are words of promise. By the words of the story understand also the words of the external things, which are called or forbidden. Words of promise are: "Whosoever trusteth in me hath everlasting life"; "whatsoever ye do unto one of the least of mine, [that] shall be done unto me." "The signs shall follow them that trust in me" etc. The Scriptures are full of these, and yet they are distinguished. Some are general, as, "Thy faith hath made thee blessed," and, "He that giveth a drink of cold water," etc. But some are particular, as, "He will give me a choice barrel or crockery." Words of the story that forbid are: "But ye (understand the apostles and ministers of the word) shall not so rule." "Pray not evil for evil" etc. Words of history commanding, "Go ye, preach the gospel"; "Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; "Make thanksgiving unto my death"; "Wish peace to the house whither ye go" etc. Words of history or narrative alone are: The Word became man: "She gave birth to her first and only Son", and laid him in the manger; "Her daughter was healed at the same hour" etc.
Now take a figure of it, whether you would like to be reported after all 2).
Words
(1) Of promise, promissionis verba. Are:
general, univsrsalia, and special, privatza.
(2) the fact, facti verba. These are:
(a) Words telling the simple-minded story.
(b) Words that forbid: This shall not be done. Are also:
general: Ye shall not be angry. And
special: You shall not rule, concerns only the apostles, and those we call ministers.
(e) Words that command: This shall be done. Are with difference:
Words that are ceremonial alone.
Words that encounter life or customs.
90 Now, I hope, you have noted the difference, for I am cutting you off roughly. If you now want to fall from one gender of words into the other, and prove one by the other, which, however, is of a different gender, you err nothing less, because the advocates or intercessors do not correctly represent the action or naming. As when God speaks: "Him-
1) In the old edition: "beschwer":.
Heaven and earth may pass away, neither a letter of my words"; it is a word that is understood under the promise. Now if you would speak, "Christ became man," it is written, "The Word became man," and therefore, where the Word is spoken, there Christ will be from that time forth; for heaven and earth (behold, now you lift up [to] perish).
2) "those" - any, put by us instead of: those.
(1) into another generation of words) must pass away, neither one of his words, then thou art mistaken. For the word "the Word became man" is a simple story told, and may not be counted among the words of promise, nor proved with them, nor drawn into a misunderstanding.
91 Now take an example in one generation, as in the promise, but in other members. "I remain with you until the end of the world" is a word of general promise; and, "He becomes my chosen cask or harness" is a word of promise, but to a particular [man], namely Paulo. Now if you were to say to any one, He is a chosen vessel of God, he is Paul (as the Anabaptists did), you would be mistaken in supposing it to be a word of promise; for it is not of the promise common to all believers, but of the particular promise.
Now we want to go into the other gender of the words of action, and there also show that the words, which are like one gender of action, but not one member, also do not like to prove each other. Christ speaks to the mute, Marci 7: "Hiphathah, is 2) opened." This is a word of special promise, because he spoke it (for I understand the present command of Christ's miracles also under the promise), but when it is held out to us, it is a louder story, what Christ spoke and did. And the word: "You received it in vain, you give it in vain" is a word that tells us what to do. If then I should say to the teaching evangelist, Speak the word Hiphathah over the dumb man, and make him speak; for Christ also spake it, and the dumb man was made to speak: You are mistaken, for you may well think that he is telling you the doctrine without reward, for Christ said it; but with the word "is opened," he cannot make a mute speak, for it is only the simple story described in this way, not that the words have this or that power.
Now take two examples in one generation of the deed, but in other members. One: "Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is a word of the act, but still a ceremonial word. (I say this now only so that I do not delay, because I otherwise know well that the apostles also had baptism for a ceremony, 3).
1) "perish" - to go astray.
2) will" - become.
3) In the old edition: "gehebt", which is: kept.
they did not consider these words to be the definite words, without which baptism is not, because they also baptized in the name of Jesus). Nevertheless, there is nothing new in this case, for those who baptize in Jesus also baptize in the Father and the Holy Spirit, and those who baptize in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit also baptize in Jesus. These words are not to be omitted in baptizing. But do not understand by the words the breath, but the meaning and the opinion, namely: that the baptizer should incorporate the baptized into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to whom he also is incorporated according to God's opinion.
(94) Take therefore a word of commandment, which is not a ceremony, but which teaches the manners. As, "Into which house ye enter, there eat that which they have." If then you will take the foregoing words of the ceremonies of baptism to mean that nothing is to be omitted in the mind of God, and therefore, just as baptism is given as a ceremony for those who are introduced into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so also the word, "Eat that they have," is to be fulfilled, you will become a remaining householder. For who would let you eat all his possessions?
95. Now take an example from the line of words not to do, and first a general one: "You shall not give evil for evil. Applies to all believers. "What you do not want done to you, no one does to you," the like. 4) Again, "You shall not carry sackcloth or coats of mail with you," and "You shall not rule," apply only to the apostles or messengers; or else whoever had sackcloth and coats of mail, or whoever was a ruler so as to rule, would be condemned (as the Anabaptists would say). Therefore, it does not follow that one should prove the one with the other in that place: Yes, God has commanded this, and it applies to all men; and if this also has been commanded, it also applies to all men; for the one he has forbidden to all, but the other only to some, not to all.
Now let us come down to our business. Now if someone wants to say: Christ has said "this is my body", and he may not lie, so it follows that the body of Christ is there, then you see clearly now, devout Christian, that he deceives himself, because he wants to prove his error from the words that are not of one gender. It is true, Christ does not like to lie. Therefore, when he said, "This is my body," for: This is the memorial of my body; was
4) "the like" - this applies equally to all believers. ,
So to him: for he instituted the ceremoniam of thanksgiving for his suffering. And they that this very day make thanksgiving acknowledge him truly to have suffered for us, and praise God for it; and they that do this outwardly, but have not the truth of Christ in their hearts, are guilty of the blood and flesh of Christ.
97 But that here, because Christ thus spake, it should be pretended, where the words are spoken, or the supper of Christ is eaten, that the body of Christ should be bodily eaten, or be present; this shall not be, and may not be; for therefore "is" is not a word of promise. For Christ does not say, "Speak the words, and my flesh will be darkened," or anything like that, but there is no word of promise here, neither that the body will be there, nor that in the eating of the supper there will be a stronghold of faith. So also "the Word became man" is not a promise that the Son of God would become man; but it is a simple historical account that he became man. And if one puts the two words together, either 1) may explain the other, for they are not of one gender, the one is a described history, the other an insertion of the memorial of the death of Christ, without any promise.
But if you, simple one, ever want to profit from this diligence and learn to compare the spiritual with the spiritual 2) for clarification, as Paul says in 1 Corinth, chapter 2, first consider the nature of the words, whether they are words of promise or of action. If they are words of promise, see whether they are general or particular, and then contrast the words that are of one gender and one member, and you will find clarity. But if they are words that mean or forbid a deed, see among the words that mean deeds whether they mean deeds that are eeremonious or that affect morals. If they are ceremonial, take other words of commandments or deeds that are also ceremonial (and not of a different gender), and put the ceremonial deeds together.
99. example. We have no more than three ceremonies in the New Testament: [1] the baptism
(which is a common sign of all the members of the Church, as was circumcision), the supper (which is a fraternal measure 3), so that one may give thanks and praise to the surpassing goodness of God in giving His Son to die for us), and the be-
1) "eitheres," neither of the two, used by us instead of: either. Cf. Col. 709. twederes also occurs.
2) "lift" - hold, compare.
3) d. i. meal.
Only those who can remember in faith, as Paul teaches; and the laying on or offering of hands, which is done only to those who are ordained to the ministry of preaching. From these, let us take the two most common ones, and then contrast them with the two ceremonies of the Old Testament, and we will see how the erring people willfully deceive themselves.
If it is to be said that Christ has said, "This is my body," and therefore the body of Christ is there, it will also be true: Christ has said, "Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," so also under the water must be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and herewith the essential humanity of Christ, which he will never do from him. Say [you]: God is everywhere, and therefore he is also in the water. Answer: Therefore he is also outside the water. From this nothing else follows, neither that he is no longer in the baptism, nor in the whole sea. Therefore, since it is impossible to compare them with each other, let us take 4) them into our own hands:
(101) Just as one who is counted as a member of the Church of God is recorded in baptism, so also in the supper of Christ appears one who trusts in Christ Jesus, the Son of God and our Redeemer. Here it must not be said that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are in the water by virtue of the words and do this or that, nor in the supper of Christ, how his body is eaten there. For baptism is not given to work anything 5) in a man, but that the crosses may be baptized on him who comes to the church, 6) that is, that he may be marked with the common sign of the people of God. So also the supper of Christ is not celebrated to eat the body of Christ, but that those who give thanks with one another for the death that has made us alive also eat this friendly meal or measure with one another, so that each one also has given open evidence of himself that he trusts in Christ; and also then 7) lives Christianly toward the other members.
102 Now lift it up against the ceremonies of the Old Testament, against the circumcision and supper of the paschal lamb. It does not follow: God has commanded circumcision at a high price, therefore something is given in circumcision, or it has some power; for it is only a sign of the covenant, Gen. 17.
4) let" put by us instead of: let.
5) i.e. something.
6) i.e. marked, applied.
7) i. furthermore.
are essential in the covenant. But it follows that just as circumcision is prescribed at great cost, yet it does not make a man righteous; so also baptism does not make a man righteous, but is a sign of one who has either believed or otherwise been a member of the church.
103 So it does not follow: Christ has said: "This is my body", so it is also there and is eaten etc. Also, since in the Old Testament it is written, Exodus 12."This is the transgression", it does not follow that the lamb is essentially the power or angel of God that transgressed; but it does follow (that is, it illuminates each other well, so that Strauß does not think that I mean it is a consequentia); so it says: "This (understand the lamb or the feast) is the transgression", and was only a commemoration, thanksgiving or praise of the transgression. And therefore the words of Christ "this is my corpse" are not to be understood that he wanted to give his corpse to eat, but a memorial of his death (which he had to carry only on the corpse, because the Godhead may not die), provided that he has done such use just of the night feast, by taking away the old paschal lamb, which has only meant on him, and has represented himself now, now to death.
(104) Yes, so much I have had to show the simple-minded about a common form, against which they can lift all the speeches of the resisters, and see how even and straight they need the comparisons of the sayings from the Scriptures. For such things must not be attributed to the learned; for either it must not be so, or else it does not help them; they are so high up that they badly do not want to be taught; and, in turn, they are so self-centered that, even if they do not hold to the doctrine, they turn back everything that is said to them.
Mark a pretty piece, if one says, the words of Christ "this is my corpse" may well be understood in the Hebrew way: This is a meaning or memory of my corpse; for "this is the transgression" also stands for "this is a meaning or memory of the transgression"; so they cry out: Behold, they want to conclude from one to the general! Yes, the word "is" is taken meaningfully in one place, therefore it shall be taken thus everywhere; for thus the word "this is my beloved Son" would also now be able to mean "this means my beloved Son": Behold, what deaf heretics these are! And if we answer against it (as I alone now do talame 1) for the fourth time): No, that is not our opinion, that we want to force the mind with it,
1) d. i. already.
but in other words, "The flesh is not useful at all"; and "He has ascended to heaven; sit down with the righteous" etc. That the body of Christ may not be bodily present nor eaten, and therefore, if the simple cannot extricate himself from the words "this is my body," we indicate the nature of the language; not in other words than they, but in one way, so that one may learn that the defect does not come from God's word, but from our lack of understanding, and that such words have more such understanding etc. So they do the same as the desperate Jews, who did not want to hear Stephanum, lift up 2) their ears. O of beautiful holiness! O of faith! and flirt 3) around the corpse of Christ, they want to take away our salvation. But not so, devout Christian, one must ever speak peaceably with one another in the right understanding of the Scriptures, without self-contradiction; and therefore look at the analogiam, that is, the like kind (as has been said enough) alone, without grief, or else we miss altogether.
I must give one more example. Christ says: "Inasmuch as ye do it unto one of the least of these which are mine, ye have done it unto me. About this word the popes rage, and say: "Behold, whatever one does to St. Peter, Wendelin, and the Gertrude, that is God's doing. Therefore I pray to St. Peter so much pater noster. St. Wendelin so much sheep sacrifice. St. Gertrauten so many candles burn etc., so I have done it to Christ. Now you see how they miss; for the word of Christ has two parts: the first is to be done admonitively, and belongs under the words of the deed to be done, under the member of morals; and the other part, namely, that he will count it done for himself, is the word of promise. In this way, the popes put it under the words of the commanded deeds, which are ceremonies. In short, Christ speaks of helping and doing good to the needy, so they speak of ceremonies, therefore they miss; for even number praying is a ceremony. To worship otherwise, neither the one God, is idolatry. The elect, however, suppose [when the saints] are honored with the Pater noster or other prayer, is not only idolatry, but also foolishness.
Thus, the magic example that Strauss and his crowd 5) have written about the external and internal word is, I hope, well drawn out. For the outward word preaches Christ the pledge of the
2) i.e. clog.
3) Perhaps: to flutter back and forth (to üirt).
4) d. i. hatch.
5) In the original: Hoof.
It is the same in the mind; it is the same in himself after the fact. And if one now expresses the opinion that Christ is the salvation of the soul with the words, as he himself does in John chapter 6: "The flesh of Christ is truly the food of the soul," then the works may be different, but the inner word is nothing else but: Christ is the salvation of the soul. But according to these people 1) it should be so: First, one would have to speak of the outward word, as it is here tuned with letters or by a mouth; then of the understanding; and third, Christ would not only have to be the salvation of the soul, but his flesh would also have to be essentially in the soul, or be eaten, or, as Strauss says, be present. Now if Christ did not intend anything else with the words "this is my body," etc., neither commit the memorial of the good deed that I have given my body for you, with thanksgiving and praise, etc., then not first must his body also be essentially or presently there, as little as when he says: "My flesh is truly food." But let us again take Straussen's words in hand.
108. xix. ostrich: 2) "Therefore, according to the content of the word here, it is to be believed without all error that Christ truly presents bread and wine to His own in the sacrament. But the true invisible body hidden under the bread, and the true blood of Christ under the natural wine 3) is that of which the eternal word reads: This is my body, this is my blood."
First, it is shown enough in talame 4) that they speak for and for the invisible body of Christ without God's word, when Christ did not speak at all of an invisible body, as far as one should understand the words according to their meaning; for he says: "This is my body, which is given up for you. Secondly, it can be seen that Strauss does not keep his part with the commoners; for he does not want to say that Christ's flesh is eaten there, but that it is there to be watched; 5) or I do not know how he means it. Lastly, if this were true of them, the priests of Jerusalem must not only have taken away the houses of the widows with their legerdemain, but they must also have eaten them substantially; for Christ says, "You eat the houses of the widows.
1) i.e. useless talk.
2) In the previous paper, § 61.
3) Randglosse: Hölzern Schüreiselein.
4) d. i. already.
5) It seems that one "too" is too much and that should be read: "to see". - "now" here, as often, for: only.
Widows." Would also like to speak: It is "the eternal word". But not so! but if one understands the eternal word rightly, then one should first say: So it is certain. If one understands that Christ understands by eating at houses, 6) then one sees that he meant "to be undeceived," namely, that they thus beguiled the widows with goodies. 7) And may not follow: Yes, they also have to eat the houses substantially. So also here, if Christ wanted to institute the thanksgiving of his corpse (as is clearly found in his and Paul's words), one does not have to argue that the corpse is also essentially there by virtue of the words; for with the power of the words he did not want to institute anything else, neither the memory.
110. XX. Ostrich: 8) "In such an opinion, the true eternal Word of God is proclaimed by human and sensitive word, and is thus united with the same, that where the word is uttered, there is God's word present without expression."
Behold, with what the dark ones and the deceivers deal, how they can no longer speak! They can no longer say: The word that Paul preaches is the word of God, when Paul himself says that he cannot boast of any thing of himself that Christ did not work in him. But they try to lead in a madness, as if the truth, which is taught with the words, were introduced under the word as under a cloak: so that when the words "this is my body, which is given for you" are spoken, they may penetrate to it, that then the body of Christ is introduced through them, or under them. But not thus, but that which is thus in itself, which the word thus shows to be; not that the word first makes something or therefore brings something, but as it is beforehand in itself (namely, a ceremonia and memorial of the death of Christ), thus the word shows.
(112) Therefore Paul says: "You have not received the word as if it were the word of man, but as if it were the word of God, which it truly is. Behold then, where is your difference between the outward word, as if it were man's, and the inward word, as if they have not One Being? The external word is not the word of which they want to say, unless it is God's word; now if it is God's, they will not say how the internal one is under the external one of man.
6) deprive of something by fraud.
7) "To beguile" will probably be as much as: To do wrong, to deceive.
8) In the previous paper, § 66.
because the external things that Paul preached would not be his, but God's opinion and word. But if you look long at the tired things, they are nothing else than respectus rationis and work of the idle word fighters; and take nothing from them now, devout Christian, or else you would have to learn formalitates Scoti first, but you speak thus: When God speaks through an angel or Paul, he speaks as the truth is in itself; not that the speaking makes or brings ützid [anything], but the speech is an opening, as it is in himself. And if they say, Therefore is this the body of Christ, answer, If Christ had willed by words to give his body, it would be there; but he willed not this, because it would not stand by other his words. Therefore one must understand his word rightly, then one becomes aware and sure that he is as he means it.
113. example. When he says: "I have decreed that you eat at my table and drink in my kingdom", he speaks a word of promise; nor does he want to say that it will happen in the kingdom of heaven with eating and drinking, but he wants to understand with this tropical speech that they will have eternal delight and joy with him. But to the quarrelsome one would have to speak thus: The word, which here Christ speaks bodily, leads also in him the essential eating and drinking; and should be pressed also in heaven above, and that so much more, that this is a word of promise, but the "this is my body" is not a word of promise. But not so; but we must first hear what he means by eating and drinking, and not falsify the sense by the seductive introduction by the outward word, or by putting together the outward and inward word. With the words "this is my body, which is given for you" and "do this in remembrance of me," Christ wants to introduce the thanksgiving of his redemption. So it is also in Himself that He has redeemed us; therefore we give Him praise and thanks.
114. XXI John's description of how Christ entered the closed doors, Strauss shows, as if his invisible presence (as they speak) in the sacrament or supper should be proven, for the reason that it is more possible that one corpse is invisible in many places, than that two corpses are in one place. And although this is nothing else, neither philosophized, it still occurs to Strauss, and scolds us, we have learned our reasons from the Aristotle, also our wise Latin from the Aristotle and pagan fables; so he speaks. See,
Pious Christian, how should you deal with crickets? The captain of this matter (when he himself is deprived of it) should first tell how to learn Latin in Aristotle and the Fables? That is why so few of the right Latinists have never gone to the right well, namely to Aristotle and the Fables; that is where Strauss has spied us out. But you, pious Christian, let the pure boy dance around in his Guggelfedern 1) (he has it for Straußfedern) and you notice so:
That it is not possible for the mankind of Jesus Christ to be more than in one place (not by his power, but by his word). For he said, "For the time being ye shall see the Son of man sitting for the righteousness of God." "He ascended up to heaven; sit" etc. "As ye have seen him ascend into heaven, so shall he come again", and other sayings. For this it is gnug indicated that it does not follow: God is able, so it is; or else, our beautiful ostrich would be a hoopoe; for he may well make it so. Secondly, neither ostrich nor I should say that, since Christ came in through the closed doors, there were two bodies in one place; for coming in to the disciples, that the doors were closed, has also, of course, to speak of it (as ostrich and his part do, and put it on other people), well other ways, neither that two bodies must be in one place. When he was born of Mary, unharmed of her virginity, there is also no need to know of two bodies in one place, nor was he born of her without her injury; which way, however, is well known to him. Much less is it necessary to bring in here, how he came in through the decided [doors] after the original state.
(116) Nor is it found that he was ever bodily, neither in birth, nor in appearance after the primal state, but in one place. And even if the same would be proved, nevertheless it did not follow that he would be eaten bodily in this sacrament: because he therefore neither named nor promised anything. For "do this in remembrance of me" does not refer to "making or eating his flesh," but to thanksgiving, as has been sufficiently demonstrated before. Notice here, too, pious reader, how Strauss [sometimes] perverts our doctrine. If we say that it is not possible for the body of Christ to be eaten, nor, moreover, to be in one place, we suppose that, according to God's word, God's word, spoken in other places (for it must ever be set against each other), does not permit such things. Thus
1) "Guggel" will probably stand for "Gugger" (cuckoo).
they state that we speak according to the course of nature, and then also come and want to prove that it is natural for two corpses to be in one place, and call us "naturalists" with fakers, harrows and such animals. And we do not want such a way, but only indicate that it is not possible according to God's word that his flesh may be eaten; for it may be nowhere else, neither in heaven above until the last judgment.
117. XXII. When I indicated for a conjecturam, that is, a factual assessment, that Thomas did not want to believe the primal states, it is equal to the matter that he did not understand the words of Christ "this is my body", that one eats the body of Christ there bodily. This is so pitifully done by Strauss, that it would have been quite obvious to him that the disciples would not have believed it either, 1) because he lets up that Thomas did not believe that flesh and blood would be eaten; that I am surprised that he cries out so mercifully to me.
Ostrich: 2) "Oh God, of the deceived teaching!" And speaks but from hour on these words on it:
Strauss: "If Thomas had believed the word of God unwaveringly, he would not have doubted the resurrection either."
118) So you, dear ostrich, let it pass that we here say that he did not believe unwaveringly. So also it followed after your commandment, 3) that Thomas at the same time had been a heretic, a false prophet, a most pernicious disciple-also condemned; or else you must also forbear us, that we therefore are not heretics, nor condemned, if we believe not bodily flesh of Christ eaten here. Behold, thus thou goest about in the scriptures, as a blind mariner on the sea. But mark this, Christ saith, "He hath not lost any of them which the Father gave him, neither the prodigal son of Judas." But if Thomas should be condemned according to your judgment (because he did not believe in flesh and blood), then more than one would have been lost. He says Luc. 22: "You are the ones who stayed with me in my temptations; therefore I decree it to you" etc. Is all spoken of the elves, among whom Thomas was; for Judas had already gone to his merchants. But this is learned from the fact that Thomas, as well as the other apostles, well understood the Lord Christ in his words "this is my body"; but not that they understood his
1) d. i. held.
2) In the previous paper, § 91.
3) Throbbing (?).
The devil did not eat the corpse in the flesh, but that he called the thanksgiving of his corpse that died for us 4) "his corpse". Therefore, dear ostrich, do not give Thoman to the devil in time. But if ever the devil must have one, give yourself to him, that you write so ignorantly from Thomä Wider the truth.
119 Strauß speaks further in this point. Strauß: 5) "It is also undoubted that the disciples have not yet kept the night meal of Christ.
Where do these words go, dear ostrich? Did they not have the supper with Christ? Now it says: "He gave it to the disciples" etc. Or do you mean that they never kept it for themselves after Christ's supper at that time? Yes, that is what you want to say. But what else do you mean by this, neither that you present yourself with ignorant speech, as if you wanted to say, "Yes, I cannot say about the other disciples either, whether they have believed to eat and drink flesh and blood, because they have not yet celebrated the supper. But I am sure they did not believe any more than Thomas, whom you have already rejected, did. And immediately before these words you speak thus of Thomas:
Strauss: 6) "Therefore it is far wrong that he should have been content with the hidden and invisible presence in the Sacrament."
With which words you want to indicate publicly that if Thomas had understood how the body of Christ is eaten invisibly, he could have well believed the originals. But what do we say differently? But if this had not been the case with Thomas, then he would not have been able to believe the original. If you also herewith present the other disciples (but with a dark speech) as if they were apostates from Christ because they never received by faith (see how you, dark one, have cut your words so that neither you nor those who read you may know what you are dealing with), which Christ often told them about the original state. So I cannot consider otherwise, 7) neither that you want to say of all disciples that they also did not receive faith from your invisible flesh-Christ's food; for if that, then they would also have received the original with faith (so you speak) and would not have been grieved without doubt in the prison of Christ.
4) "us" we have put instead of "the", which seems to us to be a typographical error.
5) In the previous writing § 93.
6) In the previous writing § 92.
7) d. i. hold for it.
ivorden (for they had already eaten him bodily before), nor fallen away. But you give your words a gloss, as you will, so that you will ever know with us that Thomas and the disciples did not hold that the body of Christ was eaten bodily. Why then do you rage against me? You are like the evil barnacles, who bark at all people, even at their friends, but may nothing be done to them. So you bark against what I have gathered from Thomae, only that you leave nothing unaccounted for; and you are of the same mind with me, except that I say that the disciples did not understand Christ to give his flesh to eat, but that he instituted a memorial of his death, and have done right by him, thus understanding. So you say that the disciples did not do right to him, or that they were mistaken, but you are more mistaken about this than about the churches. For as you say that he who in the sacrament does not believe that he is eating flesh and blood is himself eating damnation, Thomas and all the disciples must have eaten damnation in the Lord's Supper.
120 How is this then? Christ said: I was well pleased to eat the passover with you," but would he have longed to be damned? which is far from the Savior of the whole world etc. On the other hand, it turns out that your false argument, in which you say that faith is fixed with the meal, is not true. If it were so, the disciples would undoubtedly (after Christ told them of their future apostasy) have also fortified themselves anew with it. But they committed the thanksgiving the very first, and not with ignorance and unbelief, as bouquet is put to them, but according to the opinion and pretence of Christ; and from that time on they fell more mockingly, neither before nor since they had not yet committed this thanksgiving. Behold, if we speak from ourselves and not from God's word, we deceive ourselves, so that even when we think we are with God, we are publicly against Him.
(121) Other vain and loose words of reproach and revelry, such as: whether I will not allow Christ to stand up? whether he must sit down all the time? and such things as these I will now leave in their value, and have admonished you, Ostrich, along with other resisters, for God's sake, that you stand from the pursuit of high words, even from your own treasure. For with your own treasure you deceive yourselves and the simple; yourselves, because you think that where you are soft, this harms your name. For that you have your honor
you can by no means deny that you do not love well, for your open and secret writings show this; and you could not gain greater honor than that it could be said of you forever how you had the truth reported to you. For that some of you lay upon us, as if we had set the matter on [the] course, that we might also have some new creature, is as truly conceived as it is strongly spoken. And if you have perhaps made something useful in the gospel of Christ (although I truly say that it will be found out in fact that those who think they have done much will have to unravel a great deal again; let each one take it where he will), then it is not without, there are always such simple-minded people who allow themselves to be led by a pretense to think that what this or that one says is the light, since it is thick darkness. Therefore forgive 1) yourselves, so that you do not fall under the umbrella of your name to these simple-minded people.
If we seek honor from men (as Christ says to the Jewish priests in John 5), how will we believe? If we want to protect our name, how will we stand, if the truth appears so clear that only men see how we have missed? We then raise such chicanery 2) we reproach the servants of truth, and press and urge the scripture that it may falsify 3) and look for theure words, under which we must bring forth the foul untruth; as Strauss does out through his whole little book. How often does he say: The tender body of Christ, or the tender presence etc. and similar words! How often does he diminish our doctrine (which has its foundation in God's Word) so magnificently that even if he were learned and capable of doing something in God, he should not speak against the most wicked, the most contumacious, in such a lowly and arrogant manner! But where the matter is not good, and we do not want to be found wrong, the flesh does the same to him. This can be seen publicly in the case of the Anabaptists and those who protect flesh and blood here. What is too much for them to say?
But the costume of high words. How can he not be too quick for the simple? We all speak of the gospel; we read it; but many of them have truly not grasped it in their hearts and lives, because, alas, they only cling to the high and noble words of men. Yes, there are some friends and brothers who are dearer to me than I am, who also have no faith in the gospel and all doctrine.
1) i.e. shepherds.
2) "Chic" probably as much as: skillful way.
3) Maybe: sigh?
The people who have been blinded by the high speeches of the Logo-Dae- dalon, i.e. wordsmiths, have valued some doctrines (even after warning) so highly that they were nothing but polished words. And thus the seriousness to live piously and innocently was abandoned. And innumerable word-fighters have become, and a small number are those who do or suffer for the sake of righteousness (which is God); but for the sake of quarrels or gain, whether of good or name, we are prepared to do and suffer much. That is why we are so full of cruel deeds: for our speeches are now great and cruel, and in deed little brave. But bravery (as Seneca also teaches) is not doing cruel things, but holy, pious goodness for common peace and life. The feminine way, however, has come to us only from the poem of high words, and all talk highly and beautifully; and if one wants to see how brave we are with the deed Christians, we lie in the muck. We may not expect any danger, even harm, for the sake of God and our neighbor, but he has absolved us of his death with a board of directors. 2) In short, if we should become angels with life in the gospel, we become devils with quarrels and disputes.
124. And to this harm hardly a thing serves (I speak to God without contestation!), neither flesh and blood in the night meal and thanksgiving of Christ protect. For most of those who (after the manner of the prophets) should go to the highest princes and report their vices to them (with which some of them are so surrounded that it is seen that their home is with them), have not yet procured anything else from them, except that they are more ungracious toward the poor, more splendid with themselves, and stand forth, wanting to protect the flesh and blood; Let them then be said to be Christian princes, if they have brought the seducing teachers to forsake the true services of God, mercy, righteousness, and faith, and to protect the delusion, which no man ever believed, by killing the pious.
Therefore also here, pious princes, be admonished for God's sake, do not let yourselves be stirred up against the truth. Truly, truly, your scholars should not forbid you to hear or read this or that opinion, if it is still in the beginning of the unchallenged things; but since Carolstat first broke forth, they have graciously said to you: Do not argue and do not hurry,
1) i.e. something.
2) i.e. redeemed.
learn the truth; it behooves even a sitter in church to speak where a thing is dark.
Now the whole of Germany sees what is at stake, and the lords (who are like the gospel otherwise) are regarded as if they were gilders. It all comes from the fact that we think Christ is worshipped by eating his flesh, because of the seduction of those who teach such things out of the fear of lavish honor and the fear of harm. And Christ Joh. 17. thus says: "Father, I ask you for their sake, I will not now be in the world, but they are in the world" etc. What else is this said, neither that he will no longer be here in the flesh? For what would have been the point of the visions, if he had only taken them away from us? would he therefore not have been bodily in the world?
If one reads the aforementioned chapter more closely, one will learn where it lies; and one should strive to be God-fearing, not God-talking; to put on Christ, not to eat; to bear the fruits of heavenly righteousness and innocence from within, not to make something internal by eating the flesh of Christ. May God give us poor people the sweet clarity of His Word and refreshment of our souls, that we may desire to live according to God! Amen.
In order that the simple-minded, who do not soon see what is in high gossip, may be less deceived, I will show three points in which Strauss and his part proceed, 3) because they do not have God's word.
I. The body of Christ is eaten here bodily, but invisibly, and Christ is here bodily, but invisibly, they speak not only without, but against God's word and against the article of faith.
II. the body of Christ, eaten in the flesh, fortifies the faith, gives the essential that one preaches and believes, they speak without God's word.
III Jacob teaches how to anoint the sick and to pray for them. Now where the apostles of Fortress would have believed in the bodily eating of the body of Christ, as they pretend, Jacob would have said before all things: Bring him the bread of the supper. For one needs the fortress of faith most of all in danger of death. God grant mercy! 4)
3) i.e., have taken the wrong path.
4) Walch: Printed at Zurich by Christoffel Froschover in the Weingarten, in the year as you count M. D. and XXVII. 8vo 6 sheets.
6. Zwingli's Augsburg Confession.