Letter oF HurpREICH ZWINGLI TO THE Most ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCES OF GERMANY ASSEMBLED AT AUGSBURG, REGARD-ING THE INsuLTs or Eck.
(August 27, 1530)
[AD ILLUSTRIS- SIMOS GERMANICAE PRIN- cipes Augustae congregatos, De Conui- tiis Eccij, epistola Huldr. Zwinglij. TIGVRI APVD CHRISTOPHORUM FROSCHOVER, ANNO M.D. XXX. 32 unnumbered quarto pages, signed on p. 31, Tiguri XXVII. die Augusti. Anno M.D. XXX, 4. e., “Zurich, on the 27th of August 1530.” Printed in Opera Zwinglii, Tom. II. fol. 5452-5502; Schuler and Schulthess ed., Vol. IV. pp. 19-41. Finsler, Zwingli Bibliographie, Nos. 96-97. At the same time a German edition appeared entitled: “An die durchlüchtigen Fürsten Tütscher nation zu Oug- sburg versammlot eim sendbrieff Huldrych Zwinglis, die schelck- wort Eggens so er wider die warheyt vssgossen- betreffendt, i. e., “A Letter of Huldreich Zwingli to the illustrious Princes of the German nation, assembled at Augsburg, regarding the calumnies of Eck, which he poured out against the truth.” 40 unnumbered quarto pages. A copy of this edition is in the library of Union Theological Seminary, New York City. The following English translation, based on one by Henry Preble, was revised throughout by the editor.
While Zwingli refused to dignify the scurrillous attack of Eck with an answer, he felt that he owed it to his position to defend more at length the two prineipal points to which Eck had taken exception, that no grace was eonferred by the sacraments and that Christ was not bodily present at the Lord’s Supper. These two points he elaborated in a letter addressed to the princes of Germany. Vadian, who was at Augsburg during the sessions of the Diet, and who was in continual correspondence with Zwingli, notified Zwingli of the appearance of Eck’s answer of the 16th of August. Shortly afterwards Zwingli wrote his reply, which was signed on August 27, 1530.] D JFoN the Most Illustrious Princes of Germany, assembled at the Diet of Augsburg, Huldreich Zwingli implores grace and peace from God the Father and His Son, our Redeemer
105
Jesus Christ. As far as 1 am concerned, Most Illustrious Princes, I might have passed by Eck’s insults without any sorrow, both because our Saviour comforts us with the words “Blessed are ye when men revile you,” and because wise men teach that no insult exists except where the recipient so takes it. For if he so strengthens his soul as to make himself invulnerable from such missiles, they will have no more effect upon him than upon a rock. But since Eck sets to work to overturn piety with impunity by lies and to strike down the ancient city of Zurich, I should fail in piety itself if I did not use sling and stone to attack that alien in his proud trampling upon the truth. Furthermore he is certainly either cracked or hide-bound. For whether he brought all those loud insults out of his own mind (a mind stretched so violently to such a monstrous spouting of abuse must be bursting or breaking up mentally) or whether he did not of himself indulge in the debauch, so that no danger threatens him from such an uncommon birth of revilings, each reason is sufficient for my not writing anything to him. For if he is mad, he would tear up and not read the letter, and if he is not mad, but thundering so mightily from hypocrisy, he would, after his fashion, not weigh what I say, but distort my sane words with insane slanders and accusations.
Hence it is that 1 let him go and address myself to Your Highnesses, depending on nothing else than my confidence in your wise fair-mindedness, through which I hope that with true German steadfastness and faithfulness you will lend your ears just as attentively to one setting forth his view and case in sincerity as to the slanderers, however they try to overwhelm you with their din or insinuate themselves into your good graces. For though in themselves, perhaps, the matters in question do not present so very much difficulty, yet through eagerness of contention, they have grown to such proportions that unless you show yourselves to the contentious as unapproachable and just judges who do not pronounce an opinion until the whole case has been examined on all sides, some uproar is likely to be caused by a disagreement of no small extent, though it sprang from small beginnings. And since among all the things in the exposition of my faith which Eck not so much criticises as tramples under foot, running amuck like a wild boar, nothing, please the gods, is so obnoxious to the Romanists as these two:
“That the sacraments do not bestow or dispense grace,” and, “That in the holy supper of our Lord Christ’s natural body is not eaten”—nay, not only to the Romanists but also to some of those who seem to be upon the side of the Gospel—it has seemed to me worth while to send forth a few words upon these points as a sort of reinforcement, in the hope that if anything seems to any one to have been said somewhat obscurely it may become more transparent. I will, therefore, do this, with God’s help, on the understanding that I am not to make answer to the adversary’s raving nor add a spur to it, but to show my view in these matters more and more clearly to Your Highnesses. Thus: —
In sacraments two factors in general are to be considered, the thing and the sacrament or sign of the thing. The thing is that for the sake of which the sign is instituted which we call a sacrament. In circumcision the thing is belonging to the people of God, the sign of this sacred thing is the cutting of the foreskin. In the feast of the passover the thing is giving thanks for liberation from the Egyptian bondage, the sign of this sacred thing is the roasted lamb with the other things that were customary in that thanksgiving. So in baptism the thing is belonging to the Church of Christ, the sacrament is dipping into water with holy words. In the eucharist the thing is giving thanks in accordance with faith for Christ delivered to us by God and crucified for our sins, the sacrament is the giving of bread and wine with the holy words of the Lord.
Since then all sacraments agree in this respect, it happens that the names of the things of which they are the signs are given to the sacraments. Hence circumcision is called a covenant, when the covenant was that the nation, born of Abraham, should be the peculiar people of God, and circumcision was the sign and, as it were, external seal of this covenant. The lamb is called the passover, since the passing was the passing over by which the smiting angel passed over Israel when he slew the Egyptians, and the lamb was the external sign of that passing over. Andthe names of the things are rightly given to the signs on account of analogy of meaning. For when the sign of circumcision was given to those who were of the people of God, that sign signified the thing, namely, that he who had been cireumceilsed was of the people of Israel. For this is common to
all rites and ceremonies that the signs and ceremonies receive the names of the things of which they are signs. The written instrument is called a testament, but the thing itself which is bequeathed and assigned by the testament, namely, money, gold, silver, raiment, furniture, houses, lands, the whole inheritance, whether undivided or in parts, that, I say, is the thing of the testament. The writing is the sign and assurance of these things. For the bequeathing preceded and was completed in the mind of the testator when he declared and solemnized his purpose to bequeath the things. And the sign of this solemn declaration by which the wish of the testator is disclosed to others is the writing, in which the things bequeathed are contained in name but not in fact. Yet the writing is called the testament though this is really the thing bequeathed according to the wish of the testator. When the keys are presented to a prince or emperor upon his ascending the throne, they are the sign of delivering into his power, though the delivering itself is the offering and handing over of the things. But though the keys are not the things, when it is said, “Such and such a city or fortress presented the keys to the prince,” we understand that a surrender to or a reception of the monarch is made, which was determined upon before the sign of the surrender or reception was given.
In contracts and agreements the terms are the things of the contract or agreement. The sign of these terms is the clasping of hands, whence we say that a thing has been agreed upon by clasping hands to show that it cannot be repudiated after that sign. When, therefore, we call the clasping of hands a contraet or agreement we give the name of the thing to the sign. For the clasping of hands cannot be a contract, but a contract is a thing in accordance with certain terms previously made. The clasping of hands is only the sign of the contract. But this sign, though it is not the thing, yet strengthens the thing when added as a sort of witness and confession that it may not be invalidated. For the rest, if breach of faith did not have to be feared, the mere settlement of the terms of the contract between two parties would be enough.
In this way also we ought to regard the sacraments. In baptism the thing is belonging to the church and the people of Christ. Baptism is a sacrament, indieating this thing, namely
that the recipient belongs to the Church. Not that baptism bestows the thing, but that it bears witness to the multitude of the previous bestowal of the thing. In the Eucharist the thing is giving thanks according to faith to the Lord for the benefits that He has bestowed in redeeming us through His Son. The partaking of bread and wine, sacred symbols sanctified by God’s word, is the sacrament of this thing. Neither, therefore, the giving of thanks nor the remission of sins, nor the bread and wine is the natural body of Christ, but they only symbolize the thing and as it were bring it into actual presence by representing it and offering it to the contemplation of faith. For if they bestowed the thing or were the thing, they would be things and not a sacrament or sign. But every sacrament is a sign, as also the Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard has it. If they are only the sign of a thing, they are not the thing itself. Nor, when we give signs, do the names of the things thereby pass over into things nor things into signs. But the use of signs or sacraments for the things themselves is combined with much grace in speech. And in this figurative use the apostles also followed after Christ. How often does Paul call his nation “the cireumeision,” because that nation was God’s nation! How often by the same right does he call the unbelievers “the foreskin,” though the retention of the foreskin was no sacrament! But since circumcision was a sacrament, which is taken sometimes in the sense of the circumcised, sometimes in that of the covenant itself, and retention of the foreskin is the opposite of circumcision, the power of using words freely with grace is so great that “foreskin” is put for the uncircumcised, though the retention of it is not a sacrament. Not that circumcision is the same thing as circumcised or foreskin the same as uncircumcised, but it is correct to use the names of the sacraments for the names of the things.
Paul likewise speaks thus to Titus, “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour” [Titus 3: 4-6]. Who does
[See Sentences Bk. IV, dist. 1, 2: “A sacrament is the sign of a sacred]
[thing.”]
not see that there is attributed here to the washing of regeneration that which really and truly belongs only to the divine Spirit? For though Paul said first that we were renewed by the washing of regeneration, yet, that he might be the more clearly understood, he immediately added an explanatory “and,” meaning “and by the washing of the renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Or does not the regeneration belong really and truly to the Holy Ghost? When, therefore, baptism is called the washing of regeneration, does not the sacrament receive truly the name of the regeneration of the Spirit? But how graceful it is when not the symbol is called the washing, but the internal working and renewing of the divine Spirit which is indicated by the sacrament is called the washing! Thus the names of the things and their symbols are in turn borrowed from each other. Paul brought out the same meaning in the epistle to the Ephesians but in a less transparent and more involved figure, “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” [Eph. 5:26]. Not to mention here that the Hebrews use “word” for “thing” and put “in” for “with,” is the Church washed with anything but the blood of Christ? What, then, is the baptismal washing but the sacrament of this original and real washing? But besides this, who can imitate this grace of speech by which he put the sacrament for the thing itself of which it is the sacred sign? Nay, who would not embrace the sacraments as sacred, joyful and venerable things, since they not only indicate such high things to us, but even in a sense present them to our eyes and senses? For when a child or a catechumen is taught or asked to confess belief in these divine things, are not the divine mysteries proclaimed and represented even through the words? When he is dipped, are not the death and burial of Christ placed before his eyes? When he comes out, the resurrection? When in the Lord’s Supper His death is proclaimed not only by the words of the officiating priest but in the glad thanksgiving of the faithful soul, is not the divine bounty set forth and brought to mind with the giving of thanks? And when the bread and wine, consecrated by the very words of the Lord, are distributed among the brethren, is not the whole Christ presented as it were in visible
[The Hebrew for cum verbo is bidebharo, but this cannot mean in this]
[connection “with the thing,” as Zwingli seems to think.]
form to the senses? (I say more, if words are demanded, than is commonly said). But how? Is the natural body itself to be handled and masticated? Certainly not. It is presented to the mind for contemplation, and the sacrament is the part that appeals in visible form to the senses. For the mind works most freely and quickly when it is not distracted by the senses. When, therefore, the senses have presented to them what is most like that on which the mind is working, the assistance of the senses is by no means slight..
And besides, a point of no small importance, these signs were so instituted by Christ Himself, that by their very analogy they might be especially effective for bringing one to the consciousness of the actual thing through faith and contemplation. Hence, since the sacraments were instituted to give teaching, suggestion, delight through the senses just as much as the external word, it happens that, when given the names of the things of which they are the signs and which are themselves the real refreshment of the mind, they kindle the mind more effectively than any one can do by contemplating the divine goodness, however faithfully it may be, without the signs. And sinee this is so, the most learned and holy men have rightly made frequent use of the sacraments for the things of which they are the sacraments and signs, being well aware how much must be attributed to each.
This is evident from the example above from Paul about cleansing with the washing of water by the word. For it is the blood of Christ alone, which, offered on the altar of the cross and sprinkled upon the four quarters of the globe and poured out upon the foundations of the whole earth, purified the world. But when these things are contemplated the sacraments not only set them before our eyes, but even enable them to penetrate to the mind. But what leads the way? “The Spirit. For when we baptize a catechumen, unless faith shall have previously taken possession of his heart, so viewing the things that it has them actually present before it as it were, neither external declaration nor visible representation is of any avail.
In the baptism of infants the faith of the parents is enough, or, if that fails, the faith of the Church. But I do not believe that this contemplation by faith is great enough unless it grasps the thing itself as surely and undoubtingly as if it were
shown to the natural eye. Hence the ancient writers said that Christ’s body was really present in the Supper, and this in view of two things, first, because of this clear contemplation by faith I have spoken of, which sees Christ dying for us on the eross as vividly as Stephen with his fleshly eye saw Him reigning at the right hand of the Father. (And I dare assert that this revelation to the senses was made to Stephen as an illustration to us that He would ever be thus present to the faithful who suffered for Him, not indeed to the eye of sense, but in the contemplation and consolation of faith. For are there not many endowed with such unshaken faith that, when dragged to punishment, they see the presence of Christ so vividly, that, though no visible manifestation appears to them from above, they have no need of any such?).
Secondly, in view of the human nature truly assumed by the Son of God. For Marcion worried the ancients on this point, since the general mass of Christians did not know how to distinguish clearly between the attributes and works of the two natures in Christ, and yet could see there were some things among these that did not at all harmonize with a real body. These, Marcion either could not or would not refer to the divine nature. Therefore he found it easier to argue among the ignorant that Christ’s body was not real and natural but spiritual and imaginary. To meet this error successfully the Fathers offered the supper in which Christ had instituted the sacrament of His body—His real and natural body—to represent not a spiritual or imaginary body, but a real one. For this reason, therefore, they said that Christ’s body was really present in the Supper, but only sacramentally. And I have never denied that Christ’s body is present in the Supper sacramentally and mysteriously, both with a view to the contemplation of faith and to the whole working of the symbol, as I have said. And this assertion and exposition of mine can be found in Tertullian
[Zwingli stated above that the ancient writers said that Christ’s body]
[was present in the Supper for two reasons. He has given the first reason]
[in the preceding paragraph. He adds the second reason now. tZwingli was probably thinking of the following passages in Tertullian’s]
[treatise “Against Marcion.” In Book I, chap. 14, he writes: “Indeed up to]
[the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made]
[wherewith He washes His people; nor the oil wherewith He anoints them;]
without trouble.
Since, therefore, this presence amounts to nothing without the contemplation of faith, it belongs to faith that the things are or become present, and not to the sacraments. For, however much they lay hold on the senses and lead to reverence for the things that are done, these handmaidens can yet effect nothing unless their mistress, faith, first rules and commands on the throne of the heart. Hence it is apparent that the sacraments cannot justify nor give grace, for we know no other justification than that of faith. It follows also that grace is not bound up with the sacraments. This, in fact, needs no proof. For if it were bound up with the sacraments, they would profit and renew wherever they were celebrated. Since, however, that is at variance with the truth (for there are those who in consequence of lack of faith eat and drink judgment upon themselves), it is apparent that grace is not bound up with the sacraments, and consequently they do not justify or dispense justification, but, acting as a sort of a stimulant, call into action the faith or promise which is already there and bear witness to the other members of the Church. All this will become clearer when we have heard two confirmatory passages from St. Augustine.
Augustine on the Trinity, Book 15, Chap. 26: “Nor did any one of His disciples give the Holy Ghost, since they prayed that it might come upon those upon whom they laid their hands, they did not give it themselves. And the Church preserves this custom even now in the case of her rulers. Finally, when Simon the Sorcerer offered money to the apostles, he does not say, “Give me also this power that I may give the Holy Ghost,” but that “Upon whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost” [Acts 8:19]. For the Scripture had not said before, “And when Simon saw that the apostles gave the Holy Ghost,” but it had said, “And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given” [v. 18]. Therefore also the Lord Jesus Himself not
[nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal He gives them the nourish-]
[ment of children; nor the bread by which He represents His own proper]
[body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the beggarly elements’ of the]
[Creator.” Again he writes in Bk. IV, chap. 40: “He made the bread, which]
[He took and distributed to His disciples, His own body, by saying, This]
[is my body, that is, a figure of my body.”]
only gave the Holy Ghost as God, but also received it as man, and was therefore said to be full of grace [John 1:14]. And it is written even more plainly of this in the Acts of the Apostles: “Since God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost” [Acts 10:38]. Certainly not with visible oil, but with the gift of grace, which is symbolized by the visible ointment with which the Church anoints the baptized. Nor was Christ anointed with the Holy Ghost at the time when He descended upon Him as a dove, after He had been baptized. For at that time He deigned to prefigure His body, that is, His church, in which preeminently the baptized receive the Holy Ghost,” ete
In this passage of Augustine we have to consider three things. First, since he says that the Holy Ghost was not given by the disciples, that they only prayed for it, much less is it true that the bestowal of the Holy Ghost is bound up with the sacraments administered by the clergy. Secondly, that the bestowal of the Holy Ghost was not bound up with the laying on of hands, which I do not deny is a sacrament. For since they only prayed that the Holy Ghost might be given to those upon whom they laid hands, they had no power to promise this by laying on of hands. Finally, when Augustine says, “In which preeminently the baptized receive the Holy Ghost,” he is speaking symbolically (for he does not use the word “preeminently” to indicate a certainty that they who receive baptism necessarily also receive the Holy Ghost, but in a sense like that of “to wit,” “namely,” etc.,—in the sense, “the church, namely the one in which the baptized receive the Holy Ghost”). Thus receiving the Holy Ghost is not the effect of baptism, but baptism is the effect of having received the Holy Ghost. And Francis Marot was looking to this in his annotations to the arguments when he said, “The second argument is that if the sacraments themselves by their own efficiency produced grace, then the ministers who administer them would give the Holy Ghost.” Hence it is plain that under whatever scheme or figure of speech any working of the Holy Ghost is attributed to the symbols or sacraments, a metonymy appears, by which the name of the original thing is transferred to the symbol. For Augustine’s remark that Christ
[See Schaff, Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p 224. +A scholar of the order of Friars Minor writing about 1320 A large]
[collection of his theological works was published at Basel in 1498.]
received the Holy Ghost before His baptism, and that the apostles do not give the Holy Ghost, shows that there is no intimate connection of the Holy Ghost with the minister or the sacrament. From this it follows at once that the language 15 used symbolically and not in its simple sense when that which belongs to the Spirit is attributed to the sacraments. And this will be made plainer by the second quotation.
Augustine in the third book of the Questions, Quest. 84, sayst, “We must notice how often He says, ‘I, the Lord, who sanctify him,’ speaking of the priest, and having also said to Moses, And thou shalt sanctify him [Ex. 29:24]. How then does Moses sanctify and the Lord? For Moses does not act instead of the Lord, but he sanctifies with the visible sacraments through his ministry, while the Lord sanctifies with invisible grace through the Holy Ghost, in which is all the efficacy of the visible sacraments. For what do the visible sacraments profit without this sanctification of invisible grace? And it is also fair to ask whether this invisible sanctification without the visible sacraments with which a man is visibly sanctified, is equally ineffectual? This is absolutely absurd. For it would be more sensible to say that the sanctification does not exist without the sacraments than to say that though existing it profits nothing, for all the efficacy of the sacraments depends on this sanctification. But we must also consider whether there is any ground for saying that it cannot exist without the sacraments. Certainly visible baptism profited Simon the Sorcerer nothing, since he lacked the invisible sanctification.
“But those whom the invisible sanctification, being present, profited, had received also the visible sacraments and had been similarly baptized. Nor is it shown where Moses, who visibly
[Augustine, “On the Trinity,” Bk. XV, chap. 26, $46, writes: “And]
[Christ was certainly not then anointed with the Holy Spirit, when He]
[stood to have been then anointed with the mystical and invisible unction,]
[believe Him to have received the Holy Spirit when He was near thirty years]
[old; for at that time He was baptized by John; but that He came to baptism]
[as without sin at all, so not without the Holy Spirit.” See Schaff, Nicene]
[Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 224. tAugustine, “Questions on Leviticus,” Bk. III, Question 84, cf. Migne,]
[Patrologia Latina, XXXIV, 712.]
sanctified the priests, was himself sanctified through sacrifices or oil. Yet who would venture to deny that he was invisibly sanctified whose grace excelled all others. The same can be said of John the Baptist. For he appeared as a baptizer before being baptized [Matth. 3:11-14]. Hence we cannot possibly deny that he was sanctified. Yet we do not find that done visibly to him before he came to the ministry of baptizing. Also of the thief to whom, when crucified with Him, the Lord said, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” [Lk. 23:43]. For he was not given this great blessing without invisible sanctification. Accordingly it is argued that invisible sanctification has been bestowed upon certain men and profited them without the visible sacraments, which are changed to suit the varying conditions of different ages and were different in the olden days from what they are now, but the visible sanctification which 15 conferred by visible sacraments can be present without the invisible, but cannot profit. Not, however, is the visible sacrament to be despised on that account. For he who despises that cannot possibly be invisibly sanctified. Hence Cornelius and his people, though evidently already sanctified by the Holy Ghost, were yet baptized [Acts 10: 44-48], and the visible sanctification was not considered superfluous, though the invisible had preceded it.” Thus Augustine.
To what purpose should we now treat in detail this opinion of Augustine, clearer than light as it is? It must be clear to every one that Augustine in the early days held the same view that I hold today, namely that the sanctification of the Spirit is the real sanctification, which is by itself sufficient for justification without the external, provided this be not despised, as may be seen in the case of the thief, and indeed that the external is nothing without the internal. Furthermore, that no one ought to despise and neglect the external justification of the sacraments. Nay, he who has faith cannot neglect or despise the external when occasion offers. For who can disdain the things of love? And is not the love of God and of one’s neighbor eager to call to mind the goodness of God and to praise and magnify Him with thanksgiving? Is it not eager to be united to its neighbor by the bond of the Spirit, and to bear witness thereto openly? Does it not desire to have its faith propped up and restored, when it sees it wavering? And where in the world can
he hope to find that better than in the celebration of the sacraments, as far as visible things are concerned? For grant that all created things invite us to the contemplation of the deity, yet this invitation is an altogether dumb one. In the sacraments we have a living and speaking invitation. For the Lord Himself speaks, the elements speak, and they speak and suggest to the senses the same thing that speech and the Spirit do to the mind. But all these visible things are nothing unless the invisible sanctification of the Spirit go before them.
Thus, not to be too lengthy, I will suffer myself to be thrown back with all my opponents upon Augustine as umpire and mediator in this controversy over the sacraments and their efficacy. For nothing can be said about the sacraments so grandly eloquent as to offend me, provided we take as symbolical what is said symbolically and give the glory to God, and not to the holiness of the ministers nor to the efficacy of the elements or sacraments. For since, as is incontrovertible in baptism and the eucharist, that which is symbolized by the sacraments is at hand before we use the sacraments, what in the world is the reason why we should attribute to the sacraments what we had before, when the sacraments simply make confession of, bear witness to, and call into use what we have before? How far shall we tempt the Spirit of God in so evident a matter? Or is not he at length admitted to baptism who through faith or promise of it has been previously counted in the Church? Is not the man who has not proved his faith before offering himself at the table of the Lord’s Supper refused by the apostle?
Are the sacraments, then, in vain? By no means, as has been said. For they proclaim salvation from God, turn the senses to it and thus exercise the faith which they also promise to the neighbor, drawing us to brotherly love. And one and the same Spirit worketh all these things, sometimes without, sometimes with, the external instrument, inspiring whom it will and drawing him whither and as it will.
I spoke above of the sanctified and consecrated bread, and this I do not wish in any way understood in the sense of the Papists, as if the bread were converted into the real and natural body of Christ. It is converted into His sacramental body. Grant that daily bread is blessed by the word and by prayer, then much more is that bread which before was common bread
but now is changed so as to be the sacramental body of Christ, made divine and sacred by blessing and consecration, exactly as the ancients said it was changed and blessed, not so that the susbstance of bread passed over into the substance of Christ’s body, but so that the bread became Christ’s sacramental body. And what Christ’s sacramental body is, there is no need for me to tell you who know. Only let us not impose upon the ignorant in the very name of the sacrament, but let signs be signs. But if any one says to me, “If you subscribe to the opinion of Augustine in regard to the efficacy of the sacraments, what reason is there why you should not return to harmony with the Papists?” I answer, “The bulk of the controversy remains.” For they attribute to the sacraments the power of working wherever they are administered, as if divine efficacy were bound up with them. For this increases their wealth, as they have all the gifts of God for sale, nay they sell God Himself at a far higher price than Judas did. I, however, say that the sacraments do not bestow grace, but call it into activity and testify to it when already bestowed—these sacraments which are bought for a price in proportion to the grace possessed. But that which is already possessed is not bought, and the active manifestation of it cannot be acquired from any body except as an external thing which without the internal grace of faith is without value. “Let a man prove himself,” says Paul [I Cor. 11: 28], not, “Let every one prove somebody else,” or, “let one sanctify another.” So much for the efficacy of the sacraments.
Now I will treat of the Eucharist in shorter compass. For these are the two pillars, as it were, upon which the greed of Rome rests.
The strife about the Eucharist Eck himself would have brought to an end, if one could trust what he said when he spoke of the body of Christ being eaten in the Supper mysteriously. For I say the same thing. And then he said that the body is eaten indeed in the Supper but not physically. I again say the same thing. But when he says “mysteriously,” he lays a snare with this word mysteriously;” he does the same with the word “physically.” He does not understand that a mystery was to the Greeks about the same thing as a sacrament to the
Romans. Thus when the people of old said that the body of Christ was eaten they understood this in the same way as if one said “mysteriously” or “sacramentally.” If Eck understood it so, harmony would have been completely established between us. All controversy would have been equally brought to an end, if he took “physically” in the sense of “materially” or. “substantially.” But since they have invented some third thing between the real and material body of Christ and His sacramental body, not that spiritual body which we eat, but a kind of thing that does not exist, being neither material nor sacramental, that is symbolical and significative,—I see clearly enough what stand they would take if one should meet them a hundred times. They have two retreats into which to flee. One is that the man who does not understand that body they have invented is a blockhead. The other is that words are able to effect the thing they say. To this last 1 simply oppose (for I will attack their first retreat afterwards), “Let Eck, then, say to me or to that devil by whom he maintains I am possessed, Be still and come out of him,” ” and he will see how still I become while he lies so shamelessly and rends the truth so godlessly. For there is no reason why he should refuse me this request. I am among the living, I am still awaiting the bridegroom, my hope of pardon is still secure, hence this is due me in charity. He cannot plead inability, for words are able to effect the thing they say, and these are Christ’s words. But let us put this aside and come to the examination of the body of Christ, with suppliant prayer to Him that He will disclose himself to us.
I have no quarrel with any man as to the words of the Supper, as if 1 would have them changed as some falsely charge, or absolutely done away with, as others slanderously assert. For when the words are, “This is my body,” they give the sacrament a more impressive character than if we said, “This symbolizes my body.” So I would not have them changed at all. And how can I want words utterly done away with, which I do not even wish changed? My opponents have these words, therefore, and I have them. Let the words stay unaltered with them, for they shall stay unchanged with me: —“This is my
[So Tertullian uses sacrament in the sense of the Greek word “mystery.”]
[See Rogers, Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System, New York, 1917,]
[p 10]
body which is given for you,” and “this is my blood” and so forth. My opponents say that the body of Christ is offered here. I also say the same thing. Where then is the difference? It is here. My opponents say the material and substantial body of Christ is offered, I say the sacramental. Hence the strife. Let them answer, therefore, whether they desire to understand physically or spiritually the words, “This is my body,” that is,, whether He offered His body to be eaten physically or spiritually. For between material or physical and spiritual there is no middle term. Though you put together everything there is, both creator and created things, you will have either spirit or body. To this combat, therefore, I challenge them, Did Christ offer His body to be eaten materially and physically or spiritually? If they say, “spiritually,” they withdraw from their opinion and come over to mine. If they say, “physically,” they deny their own postulates. For they say body is eaten but not physically, which is a difference of words and not of things. For if Christ’s body is physically and materially body and they eat His material body, they eat it physically. To talk about eating it otherwise is mere trifling. For I have no use for that notion (of which Eck declares me ignorant) of a real and true body that does not exist physically, definitely and distinetly in some place, and that sort of nonsense got up by word triflers.
I go to the root of things when I say, “If the body of Christ is finite, —indeed, if it is a clarified body, such as ours shall also be, it exists physically and truly after the manner of clarified bodies. It is, therefore, eaten, as it exists, if it is eaten in a material sense. For the manner or quality cannot be taken away from a material body. If you take it away, the body is no longer material but spiritual.” And again we conquer. You can in the mind abstract the quality from the thing, but in actual fact it cannot be separated from it. For everything that is has the qualities peculiar to its kind and inseparable therefrom, and without them the thing never does exist or can exist as long as the kind endures, whatever our minds take away or add, put together or put asunder. This, perhaps, Eck, led astray by sophistry, fails to understand. But I understand and know that I say what is true and sound, for I am supported both by the testimony of Holy Seripture and by the opinion of St.
Augustine, who assigns the body of Christ to some particular place in heaven according to the fashion of real body. If the real body of Christ has the character of body so that it occupies some particular place in heaven, Augustine attributes to it its appropriate and inseparable characteristic. I shall, therefore, compel those who wish to eat the material, substantial, or real body of Christ, materially, substantially and really, to eat it also physically in accordance with all the necessary properties of body. For without those properties it would not be real body, as I am constantly proclaiming and constantly in vain.
The passion of hatred, ignorance, and vainglory, having overpowered a man, holds his eyes fast as the tyrant does the free man. As he dares not speak out what is true, so the eye bewitched by such passions fails to see what is true and sound, so that you should not trust, most wise princes of Germany, any of the scholars who in this day have fallen into this controversy. But we must pray the Lord to make firm the wavering. For you see clearly what trivial explanations, what distortions of language they concoct, appealing now from the sacred Scriptures to the Fathers, and again from the Fathers to the naked Word, as they say, in their efforts not to seem beaten. Question your faith and your mind and your heart and they will tell you that what satisfies here is simply the spiritual. If you admit this, what quarrel have we? I, too, believe and confess the same. Furthermore, that the sacrament not only should be called body, but be its representative and symbol to the senses, to suggest to our senses and hold them bound, gives me no offense,
[Augustine refers to this thought repeatedly. Thus he says in Sermon]
[361 $87: “According to the presence of His glory and divinity He is always]
[with the Father; according to His bodily presence, He is now above the]
[heavens at the right hand of the Father; but according to the presence of]
[faith, He is in all Christians.” Again in his Letter 187, to Dardanus, he]
[writes: “Doubt not that Christ is wholly present everywhere as God, and]
[is in the same temple of God as indwelling God, and in some one place of]
[heaven on account of the measure (or limit) of a true body.” (c. XIII, or]
[41). In the same letter, c. III, or 10, he writes: As respects this form]
[He is not supposed to be spread abroad everywhere. For we must take heed,]
[that we do not so maintain the divinity of the man as to take away the]
[truth of the body… For God and man is one person, and both make]
[one Christ Jesus; He is everywhere by that which is God, but He is in]
[heaven by that which is man.” See also his Commentary on John, Tract]
[XXX, 1, quoted p. 54, note.]
nor shall I be angry even if all that the Spirit works be attributed to the external sacrament, provided we understand such language symbolically, as the Fathers used it. It is silly to wrangle about words when we do not differ about the thing. 1 have long been saying that the body of Christ is in the Supper to the eye of faith. Now whichever way my adversaries turn they will find no way of dragging it into the Supper otherwise. What unfairness it is, to be dragged into side issues by noisy contentious fellows! But to end this complaint I will give a short illustration in which my view about the Eucharist shall be outlined as it were.
The master of the house on the point of starting upon a long journey and handing to his wife a splendid ring with his image cut upon it, and saying, “Here am I, your husband, for you to keep and delight in my absence,” typifies our Lord Jesus Christ. For He, when going away, left to His spouse, the Church, His own image in the sacrament of the Supper. As He is the strong foundation of our hope, so does the bread strengthen mankind, and as wine refreshes the heart of man, so does He raise up the despairing soul. He gave us His image with the words, “This is my body,” sacramentally and symbolically, like the ring of the master of the house. “Do this in remembrance of me, giving thanks and offerings and pouring out prayer and praise because I, the spouse of your souls, have redeemed you.” In saying “Here am I myself,” the master of the house gave much more than if he had said, Here is my ring,” even though he did not actually and physically give himself, being now on the point of going away. By these words, he gave himself wholly—all that he represented of conjugal faithfulness and love—as though he would say, “I want you to be sure not only of my faithfulness and love towards you, but that I am wholly yours, and for this I give you this ring, the one chief thing I own, as a sign and symbol, that as often as you look upon it you may have me as it were present before you and call to mind my face and faithfulness.” So in the Eucharist that noble man, when going away to a distant country, gave Himself to us in the bread and wine far more vividly and intimately when He said, “This is my body,” than if He had said, “This is a symbol of my body,” though He was going to take away His material body and place it in heaven. Yet by these words He gave Him-
self just as entirely, as far as faith and grace are concerned, as if He had said, “Now I am going to death for you, and a little later I shall go away from here again, but I do not want you to doubt of my love and care for you. I am wholly yours in all that I am. In witness of this I entrust to you a symbol of this my surrender and testament, to awaken in you the remembrance of me and of my goodness to you, that when you see this bread and this cup, held forth in this memorial Supper, you may remember me as delivered up for you, just as if you saw me before you as you see me now, eating with you and presently to be taken away from you to suffer for you,” etc.
Thus, I say, we have the Lord’s Supper distinguished by the presence of Christ. But in all this is not the presence of the body of Christ sacramentally to the eye of faith, as I have always said, the gist of the whole matter? For as her husband’s ring is no common gold to the wife but more than all the gems of the Indies, so to us is this sacrament, the food and drink of the Lord’s Supper, sweeter than the flavor of the finest viands. And as the ring, though not itself the husband, has a touch of the husband’s value because it was given by him as a sign of undying love, and because it recalls his form whenever it is looked upon, so the repast of the Supper, though not Christ’s material body, rises to high value because it was given and instituted as an everlasting sign of the love of Christ, and because as often as it is celebrated it brings Him who so loves us before us so vividly that we gaze upon Him with the eye of the mind and adore and worship Him. And as this contemplation by faith is far more precious than even the touch of that body (for many touched it in the flesh to their own destruction, while none ever contemplated it thus by faith, as I have said, without salvation), so is this contemplation or partaking the one thing needful in the Supper. Paul bids us prove our faith, not our credulity or opinion, to see whether we doubt about physical eating.
This, too, should be by no means passed by here, that the wife will value her husband’s ring in proportion to her love for him. So in the Supper the body of Christ is the more vividly present to the eye of faith, the greater is one’s faith and love - towards Christ. Hence arise such expressions as, ^He was taken up by their hands,” just as the husband offered himself to his
wife— He was at once fellow banqueter and banquet,” for He presented himself to them sacramentally, and also sat and ate with them in the flesh. Thus, I say, do I understand the highly figurative and hyperbolic language regarding the Eucharist. And, as I have often borne witness, I can easily put up with all expressions of this kind, provided we do not go on to understand physically the thing said of spiritual partaking, and understand symbolically what is said symbolically in the way that Augustine also was in the habit of speaking.
Furthermore as to Eck himself, his refutation is so weak and feeble that my confession of faith needs no defense against it. And where his followers had a right to expect something, he is utterly dull, namely, where he tries to draw out from me ancient and exploded arguments. Who is not minded to laugh when he gives to Augustine’s words, “For the Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body,” when He offered a symbol of His body,” the explanation, “The properties without the substance are tlre symbol of Christs body.” I say, “Then the properties are the sacrament,” for symbol is used here for sacrament. Therefore Augustine said that Christ gave llis disciples properties, for he adds, “when He offered a symbol.” Then when they say, Christ’s body is in the sacrament of the altar,” they really say, “Christ is in the properties.” Therefore it is false what they teach, that Christ’s body is identical with the sacrament and is the substance of the sacrament, since the properties are the sacrament, or else Christ’s body is to them only a property. But who could count the silly and ridiculous things that would follow from Eck’s utterances and explanations? This, too, is charming, when he brings forward about two hands ruled by one soul,—and he a philosopher, please the gods! As if he would admit that Christ had two bodies at once, just as there are two hands. For as to the soul of Christ and the number of members it rules at once, we have never had any dispute. Or as if, when he will have it that Christ’s soul ruled two bodies at once, which is irreverent, Eck would allow that these two bodies were equal and like unto each other, as one’s two hands are alike, when I had said that if Christ had two bodies at once, they must have been unlike, and one subject to death, the other immortal! But I will not discuss these absurdities further.
Furthermore as to his slanders and lies, I say they are so
many and so extensive that if you take them out of the book there will not be enough left to throw into the fire, where alone the book belongs, even if there were any truth in it, that such wholesale madness may not go unpunished and sometime become a precedent.
Examples are, that I alienated certain cities from allegiance to the House of Austria; that I roused seditions at Rottweil, a place I never visited, and at Ittingen, for whose sake I have suffered and borne many hardships; that I drew Balthasar the Catabaptist into heresy by a letter, when I never wrote to the man except once, when I took him sharply to task for the heresy he had taken up, for both his character and his company were always suspicious to me. The first time he met me he told me how closely he was associated with Eck.t I had no doubt then that the viciousness of the man, who was overweening enough in himself, had quickly been increased by that companionship. Hence I never admitted him info close relationship, so that he finally expostulated with me and upbraided me for wrongfully snubbing such a man as himself.
[Huebmaier relates the following conversation with Zwingli about]
[baptism: “In 1523… I conferred with you in Graben street upon the]
[Scriptures relating baptism; then and there you said I was right in saying]
[that children should not be baptized before they were instructed in the]
[faith; this had been the custom previously, therefore such were called]
[catechumens. You promised to bring this out in your Exposition of the]
[Articles, as you did in Article XVIII, on Confirmation [See Zwingli’s]
[Werke, ed. of Egli and Finsler, II, 123]. Any one who reads it will find]
[therein your opinion clearly expressed… So you confessed in your]
[book on the Unruly Spirits,” that those who baptize infants could quote]
[no clear word of Scripture ordering them to baptize them [See Zwingli’s]
[Werke, ed. of Egli and Finsler, IIT, 409]. From this learn, friend Zwingli,]
[how your conversation, writing, and preaching agree.” Quoted by Prof.]
[Vedder, in his Balthasar Hübmaier, p. 126f. In the latter passage Zwingli]
[adds that, as there was no clear command to baptize children in the New]
[Testament, it was necessary to go back to the Old Testament custom of]
[eireumceision, of which baptism was the N. T. counterpart. iBalthasar Huebmaier was a pupil of Eck, who studied under him at]
[Freiburg, taking the master’s degree there probably in 1511, at which]
[occasion Eck delivered an oration. When Eck was called to Ingolstadt,]
[Huebmaier followed him and took the doctor’s degree there on September]
[29 1512, when Eck again delivered an oration, in which he gave a sketch of]
[the candidate’s scholastic life. See H. C. Vedder, Balthasar Hübmaier,]
[pp. 32-34.]
Moreover, that I was ever averse to infant baptism or was tinged with Catabaptism, no lover of the truth and right ever said of me. For I can bring forward witnesses of no ordinary sort who know how I suppressed the foolish gossip which some persons had started about not baptizing infants, two years after the Catabaptists came on the scene, doing it in a not unfriendly way and reminding them that the meaning of Scripture in this matter was at variance with their contention. If Balthasar had that writing of mine, no doubt his executioners found it upon him, or he left it to the Catabaptists. Let, therefore, those who have it show it, and convict me of treachery or high treason.
Of the same character is his statement that I thrust something into the mouths of the ancient orthodox writers, as if they had written that Christ’s body is everywhere. What I said as an absurdity in regard to the crosses in the mass, by way of refutation and with a view to dissuasion, he declares I said in sober argument. This I deny with the utmost possible emphasis. But who would be a greater fool than I, if I should continue to review all the lies of this lying person? So much for what pertains to teaching, for his other carpings of this sort show not a scholar but a purblind creature, and the leeches will protect us from harm from that source.
“The most ancient city of the Zurichers (early history and especially the Roman consul, Lucius Cassius, whom they slew, have borne witness to their character for all these ages) he not only refers to Charles the Great as founder, uninformed in history as he is, but attacks with such lying statements before the whole world that he could not be more shameless towards a city he had reason to hate utterly. And this though it is acknowledged that no city in these times or in ancient times ever devoted itself to the Roman Empire so faithfully—none, I say—and through the services of none has greater profit come to the House of Austria and to the Empire itself. Therefore, I call to witness next to the ancient historical records the annals of the emperors and of the dukes of Austria. I tell the truth when I say that this city has drained its treasury in the service of the Gospel, but has not diverted one of the monasteries to the uses of its own treasury. They all either remain for the support of those who had been destined for the monasteries or appointed to teach there, or are turned into funds for the poor. We have
no chest and have not learned to steal.
Therefore, Your Highnesses, notice what this champion of the Pope is aiming at. He shows with perfect clearness that the Romanists under the guise of a synod—general synod, doubtless—are going to control your assembly, he calls the Emperor openly to arms. How all this will turn out is for Your Highnesses to consider. Dangers threaten on all sides, but the Lord will dissipate them all, if you lay hold upon truth and righteousness. To take a stand against truth is destruction, to yield to her is the first essential of safety. God Almighty grant that we may reverence her and see her through a glass in this world, but see her face to face and embrace her in the world to come! Amen. Zurich, August 27th, 1530.
Reproduction from Memory of a Sermon on the
ProviDENCE or Gop, Depicatep To His HIGHNESS, PniriP or HESSE.
(August 20, 1530)
[AD ILLV- STRISSIMVM CATTORVM PRIN- cipem Philippum, sermonis De providentia Dei Anamnema. VENITE AD ME OMNES QUI LA- boratis et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos. Matth. XI. Tigvri apvd Christophorvm Froschouer, Anno M.D. XXX. 160 octavo pages, numbered by leaves (2-80). Signed on p. 159: Tiguri XX. Augusti M.D. XXX. Opera Zwinglii, Tom. I, fol. 352a-379b; Schuler and Schulthess ed. Vol. IV, pp. 79-144. A German edition, translated by Leo Juda and printed by Froschouer in 1531, has the following title:
← 23. III. Refutation of the Articles of · Contents · 25. V. Reproduction from Memory of a Sermon →