So much on baptism. Now as to the baptism of infants, which some men today so persistently refuse to them that if they as steadfastly held aloof from contentiousness, faction, strife, evil speaking, arrogance, and impatience, no one could praise them enough. You ask whether baptized infants are damned or not, and they reply that they are not damned; and, on the other hand, if you ask whether infants are damned if not baptized, they reply that they are not damned. So you infer that infants are not included under the law, “He that believeth” (when, of course, he has heard the gospel preached) “and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned” [Mk. 16:16]; for this, you urge, was said to adults and not to those who are incapable of listening, and therefore infants cannot be cast out of the general salvation, especially those born of believing parents, for otherwise their condition would be worse than that of carnal Israel. If, then, the children of Christians are not less God’s than those of the Israelites, who would forbid their being baptized according to the words of Peter, Acts 10: 47? Yet, after all this, they do not abate their obstinacy one whit. “Therefore when I have finished these Commentaries, I shall, God willing, treat of the Baptism of Infants in a separate book.
[The preface of Zwingli’s Von den Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und]
[von der Kinderiaufe was dated May 27, 1525.]
[18]. The Eucharist
Two years ago I wrote among sixty-seven articles one, the eighteenth, on the Eucharist, in which I wrote many things with a view rather to the times than to the thing itself. For not even Christ could praise enough the faithful steward of His word who in due season sets meat before the household of his Lord; of whom He speaks with admiration in Matt. 24: 45: “Who,” that is, how great, “18 the faithful and wise steward to whom his lord hath entrusted his household to give them food in due season?” I determined, therefore, unceasingly so to dispense the word as to reap the largest harvest for my Lord. For who would not cast off a servant who should proceed to plough the ground in the dead of winter and to sow seed in it? These things are to be done in the spring time. So I made many concessions at that time to the tender minds of those for whom I wrote, but all for their edification. After the example of Christ I distributed and kept in store as well; for after He had instituted the Eucharist, He said [Jn. 16: 12-13] that He had yet many things which must be told to the disciples, but they could not bear them then; therefore He determined to keep them until the coming of the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, kind reader, you come upon some things here which you have not seen in my earlier writings, or some things said more plainly here than elsewhere, and some things said differently, do not be astonished. I did not wish to give food when the time was unseasonable, or to cast pearls before swine [Mt. 7: 6]. Indeed, even if I could have done it without any danger, I did not wish to put things forth at a time when no one would receive them. I repeat here, therefore, what I said there, with the understanding that what I offer here, in the forty-second year of my age, shall outweigh what I offered in the fortieth, when, as I said, I wrote rather with a view to the times than to the thing itself, according to the Lord’s command that we shall do our edifying in such fashion as not to be torn to pieces by the dogs and swine at the start [cf. Mt. 7:6]. For I fear that if there is anywhere pernicious error in the adoration and wor- Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden.
1Zwingli was born January 1, 1484,
ship of the one true God, it is in the abuse of the Eucharist. If this had retained its proper use, according to the institution of Christ, there would not have crept in such atrocious sins against God’s people, the Church. Now we are all bent upon handling holy things, or upon having them about us—yea, I will say it plainly, upon making holy by our own merit, forsooth, things that perhaps are not holy (for everybody knows how much has been expended on the bones of the pious to provide for their worship) —rather than upon making ourselves holy. The result is that we worship with embraces and kisses wood, stones, earth, dust, shoes, vestments, rings, hats, swords, belts, bones, teeth, hair, milk, bread, quadras, tablets, wine, knives, jars, and anything that pious men have ever handled. And (most foolish thing of all) we think ourselves distinctly blessed if we have got just a look at any such thing; we promise ourselves the remission of our sins, prosperous fortune, and the whole world. But true piety, which is nothing else than blamelessness preserved through love and fear of God, we have abandoned so completely that not even among infidels do we see ordinary, that is, human, righteousness so utterly prostrate as among Christians. We have fancied that we do something worth while if we have high sentiments about holy things, though holiness has been ascribed to them by ourselves, or if we talk about them in most polished terms, and yet ourselves teem the while with all uncleanness, just like whited sepulchres [cf. Mt. 23: 27]. To be one who trusts in God and is holy—this it was to be a Christian. Let no one, then, when he hears me talking of the Eucharist, form such a judgment about me as to think that because Zwingli has said a thing it must be accepted—if, perchance, there are any who have sworn such allegiance to the man, though I fancy there are few or none. On the other hand, let no man cast aside what he sees brought from the fountainsources of the hidden things of God because he who brings them is a humble writer. I see sins committed in both these directions. In every instance judgment is to be suspended until the cause has been heard to the end and we see clearly what verdict should be pronounced.
The Greeks gave the name Εὐχαριστία to the Lord’s Supper, having always, if I may be permitted to say so, been more
pious and more learned men than the Latins, as their written works bear witness clearer than day. And they undoubtedly gave it this name for the reason that they understood, both from faith and from the meaning of the words of Christ and the Apostle, that Christ wished to have a joyful commemoration of Himself made by this supper and thanks given publicly for the blessing which He has bountifully bestowed upon us. For the Eucharist is a thanksgiving. He, therefore, that would take part in this public thanksgiving should prove to the whole Church that he is of the number of those who trust in the Christ who died for us: to remove, to withdraw, or to estrange one’s self from that number, whether by desertion or by uncleanness of life, would be the height of faithlessness. Hence, also, the Eucharist is called Communion or Communication by Paul, I Cor. 10:16. From this comes excommunication, too, or denying someone access to this communication of the faithful on account of impurity of life. We therefore now understand from the very name what the Eucharist, that is, the Lord’s Supper, is: namely, the thanksgiving and common rejoicing of those who declare the death of Christ, that is, trumpet, praise, confess, and exalt His name above all others. But since that most significant discourse of Christ’s which is ” embraced in the sixth chapter of John is not correctly understood by the great majority, though they boldly distort it into other meanings, I have determined above all things to declare the primary sense of this passage, that they who force all Seripture willy-nilly to serve their own view may not be able to get here weapons to defend their error.
When Christ saw that those who were coming to Him were given over to their bellies and came to Him on that account [Jn. 6: 26], aecording to His eustom He took occasion to teach a lesson from the situation. Therefore, soon after they were filled He thus addressed them: “Ye come to me for the sake of being filled with food; but I came into this world not to act as a steward of bodily food, but to feed the mind. Ye work and sweat, following me for the food of the belly. Ye slothful ones, work for the food that surely will not perish; for that which thus far ye seek perisheth with the belly; but the food that I will give you is spiritual, and hence cannot perish but abideth
forever. For my Father, God, hath sealed me, that is, confirmed me to be the sure salvation and pledge of life.” The Jews, therefore, not understanding what Christ meant when He bade them work for—that is, seek—the food that could not perish, said: “What must we do, that we may work the works of God?” For they thought that He was speaking of some outward work which He required of them. Jesus, therefore, answered and said unto them [Jn. 6: 29]: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” See what the work is that God requires of us. Christ here mentions nothing at all save to believe on the Son of God, that is, Himself. See also what the food is which He had just before bidden them acquire, saying [Jn. 6: 27]: “Work for the food that perisheth not.” We shall find it to be no other than that we believe on Christ. This food, then, of which Christ speaks here is faith. Therefore here is placed the first mark by which we discover that they are utterly wrong who think that Christ in this whole chapter is saying something about sacramental food.
[I.]. Christ bids us seek the food that perisheth not, and this is nothing else than to work the work of God. Furthermore, the work of God is that wherewith we believe on the Son whom the Father hath sent [Jn. 6: 29]. The food He bids us seek is, therefore, belief on the Son. Faith, therefore, is the food of which He talks so impressively all through this chapter. The Jews say, therefore: “What sign doest thou then, that we may know” (namely, that we must trust in Thee) “and believe? “What dost thou work, by which we can recognize that Thou art God, to whom alone the Law commands us to cling? Thou knowest that our fathers in the desert did eat bread that rained from heaven [Jn. 6:31], as is sung in the Psalms [78:24]: He gave them bread from heaven.” Jesus answered [Jn. 6:32]: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; for even if it fell from above, it was not of heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world. The bread of Moses supported bodily life, but the bread which the Father gives refreshes the soul; and it is so abundant and efficacious that it gives life to the entire world.” The Jews,
therefore, not comprehending the words of Christ, which were nothing else than the explanation of the gospel (for by ‘“eating bread” He means believing the word of the gospel), say to Him [Jn. 6: 34]: Lord, evermore give us this bread.” Jesus, therefore, said unto them [John 6:35]: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall in no wise hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” Hearing Christ say that the bread which eame down out of heaven gives life to the world, the Jews desired that this bread be evermore given to them. Jesus, understanding that they did not comprehend the meaning of the gospel, explains what this bread is, so lifegiving that it can make the whole world live, and says [Jn. 6:35]: “I am the bread of life. He, therefore, that cometh to me, that is, who is grafted upon me, who receiveth me, shall in no wise feel hunger.” And that “cometh to” is here used for “receiveth,” the following words indicate: “He that believeth on me shall not thirst.” It is faith, therefore, that allays all hunger and thirst. But what hunger, and what thirst? Those of the soul, of course. Faith in Christ is, therefore, the only thing that can give such food and drink to the heart that it shall want nothing further. Christ continues: “But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not.” What else is this than, “Ye wonder that I said that he that cometh to me shall neither hunger nor thirst,” when yet ye are here. present with me and subject to hunger and thirst. This comes from the fact that ye have looked upon me and even still look upon me with the eyes of the flesh. But I am not speaking of this kind of sight or nearness, but of the light of faith. If any man has that, he shall want nothing. He will not seek by night for some one whom he may love and to whom he may lament his burnings [ef. Jn. 3:2], nor will he wander distractedly about. For he is sure that He whom he holdeth is the true spouse and only treasure of the soul, and he will thirst for no other. Ye have not this light of faith, for ye do not trust in me. Hence ye do not understand how I am the food, that is, the hope, of the soul. And the reason for your blindness is, to say nothing harder, that the Father hath not drawn you into knowledge of me. Otherwise ye would receive me [cf. Jn. 6:44]. For [Jn. 6:37-38] all that which the Father giveth
me shall come unto me. And I for my part cast out none that cometh to me. For I am come down from heaven not to do my will, the will that you attribute to me just as to other men (I am, indeed, true man, and according to that nature also have a will of my own, but one much more obedient than yours; for your will often resists the will of God, but mine always obeys)—I am come down from heaven, then, to do the will of him that sent me. And that you may know what is the will of him that sent me, I say; This is the will of my Father, who sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. But that ye may know this also, what ye ought to understand by the words, “The Father giveth me and The Father hath given me,’ I will speak more plainly: This is the will of him that sent me, that every one that seeth, that is, knoweth, the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day” [Jn. 6:40]. Behold the food of which he is speaking! God has sent His Son into this world that we may. have life through Him. Who, then, are to have life through Him? Those who rely upon His grace. But how will they rely upon Him unless they recognize Him? He said, therefore: “Every one that seeth the Son,” that is, who understands why the Son was sent into the world, “and believeth on him, shall have eternal life.” Here it seemed to the flesh that Christ was taking to Himself too much when He said [Jn. 6:48]: “I am the bread of life.” For He had shortly before said [Jn. 6:33]: “For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world”; from which it followed that He is Himself that bread which came down from heaven. Therefore the flesh, that is, the Jews, murmurs, and says [Jn. 6: 42-43]: “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it, then, that he saith, I came down from heaven?” Jesus therefore answered and said unto them: “Murmur not among yourselves. Have ye not heard me say already, All that which the Father giveth me shall come to me? Your unbelief, from which follows slowness of understanding, compels me to say the same thing over and over again. This is the fact: No man can come to me, that is, no man approaches me as the one
pledge of salvation, except the Father that sent me draw him: and him whom He draweth to me, that is, uniteth with me in faith, I will raise up at the last day [cf. Jn. 6: 44]. It is strange that ye constantly think my words are such peculiar utterances, when I say nothing or very little that is not written in your own law or prophets. And this also is written in the prophets, Isa. 54:13 and Jer. 31:34: ‘And they shall be all taught of God.” Why, then, do ye wonder at my saying that on account of your unbelief knowledge of me is denied you by the Father, when even your prophets teach that this knowledge must be given by the Father? But what can be said more simply and plainly than what I am now going to say? And I am going to say it, that ye may not have left any cause for just complaint. What I expressed before by the words, “What the Father giveth me cometh to me,’ or by the words No man can come to me, except my Father draw him, hear now in other, clearer terms, thus [Jn. 6: 45]: “Whoever hath heard the Father and learned from him, cometh to me as to the one and only anchor of salvation. Not that any man hath seen the Father [cf. Jn. 6:46], lest perchance ye should refer these words hear and learn to the senses rather than to the mind, that is, to inward illumination. No man hath ever seen the Father—although he works within us so that we may hear and learn what he wills—save he is that is from God: he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you [Jn. 6:47], He that believeth on me hath eternal life. Now ye have the essence of this teaching of mine, aye, of the whole mission entrusted to me, namely, that he that believeth on me hath eternal life. I am that bread of life, the nature of which I explained in the beginning of this discourse. No one denies that your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and they died [Jn. 6:49]; but he that eateth of this bread, me to wit, that is, that believeth on me, hath eternal life. This is that bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die” [Jn. 6:50].
[II.]. We must note in passing that Christ is our salvation by virtue of that part of His nature by which He came down from heaven, not of that by which He was born of an immaculate virgin, though He had to suffer and die by this part; but
unless He who died had also been God He could not have been salvation for the whole world. This, then, is the second mark that in this chapter Christ means by “bread” and “eat” nothing else than “the gospel” and “believe,” because he who believes He was slain for us and who relies on Him has eternal life; and that He absolutely is not speaking of sacramental eating. For to make this idea still clearer He says again [Jn. 6:51]: “I am the living bread which eame down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. But, that I may not.keep you longer in suspense, 1 will explain briefly what the reason is why I am salvation unto the whole world, or how it comes about. Listen! The bread of which I am saying so much, and which I am going to give you, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
[Iii.]. This, then, is the third sure mark that Christ is not speaking here of sacramental eating; for He is only in so far salvation unto us as He was slain for us; but He could be slain only according to the flesh and could be salvation bringing only according to His divinity. In this way, then, is Christ the food of the soul, because the soul, seeing that God spared not His only begotten Son but delivered Him to an ignominious death in order to restore us to life, becomes sure of the grace of God and of salvation. And let no man try to be subtle here because He said His flesh was given for the life of the world, and so venture to argue that Christ is a means of salvation to all according to His human nature only, since He says Himself that His flesh was given for the life of the world: therefore His flesh quickens. For as Christ is God and man in one, it comes about that, albeit He was slain in the flesh (for who could kill God?) and His death was made life for us, yet on account of the unity and community of His natures that is sometimes attributed to one of the natures which belongs to the whole Christ. After these words, then, “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” the Jews were none the wiser, because of their unbelief and obstinate hatred. For they did not grasp the meaning of Christ’s words, that He is a means of salvation to us not by being eaten but by being slain; for the human mind is made sure of the mercy of God when it sees that He spared not His Son, etc. [cf. Rom.
8:32]. They murmured, therefore, the more recklessly and wildly the more ignorant they were, indignantly saying [Jn. 6:52]: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” For they still thought only of the flesh which stood before their eyes. Hence they very properly shuddered, though our theologians shudder not. Christ, therefore, seeing that all His efforts to draw them into knowledge of Himself were vain, treated them as Isaiah was once ordered to treat the people, Ch. 6:9-10, where the Lord says: “Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and I heal them.” Christ, I say, seeing that He was accomplishing nothing, made their ignorance yet the more crass, as He shows by His own words, Matt. 13:13-17. Therefore, when they spoke of Him so hatefully, He said [Jn. 6: 53-55]: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”’—Christ’s flesh, I say, in so far as it was delivered to death for our deliverance; and His blood, in that it was shed for our cleansing; as is made very plain in what has been said. For when they would not take in His mystieal language, which He had yet so perfectly explained that they ought not to have wanted anything more, He smote them harder and made them blinder, for that was what they deserved, and such is the judgment of God.
[IV.]. Hence after all this He adds [Jn. 6:56]: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.” “This is said for the hardening of unbelievers, but for the enlightening of the pious. And it is the fourth mark by which we perceive that Christ is speaking here not of sacramental eating (for there are numberless persons, alas! who eat and drink the body and blood of Christ sacramentally, and yet are not in God nor God in them, except in the same way He is in the elephant and the flea), but of the eating of faith; for he that believeth himself set free by the delivering up of
Christ and washed clean by the shedding of His blood surely abideth in God. For he casts all his confidence securely upon the Son of God, and directs his hopes nowhere else; for he cannot thirst for any other good who already enjoys the highest good (I mean as far as is meet for wayfarers to enjoy, and not use or enjoyment to the extent the theologians talk about; for the pious enjoy God while they are here, although this is unknown to all whose hearts burn not with love of God). And, on the other hand, God abideth in them, for (as is plain from Christ’s very words [Jn. 6:44]) no one approaches Christ unless the Father draw him. He, therefore, who learns by inward teaching from the Father surely has God in him; and, at the same time, whoso abideth in Christ, in him abideth Christ also. For to abide in Christ is to cling firmly to God through the love with which He gave Himself for us; but “God Himself is Love,” I John 4:8. “Whoso, therefore, abideth in the love of God, God is in him and he in God” [I John 4:16]. But love follows faith in the order of the understanding. It is, therefore, through the faith with which we rely upon the grace of Christ that we abide in God, and He in us. That this is the meaning is proved by Christ’s following words [Jn. 6:57]: “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.” “The Father sent me,” He says, “hence also I obey his will in all things; for I am the Son of the Father. So, surely, they also that eat me, that is, believe on me, will fashion themselves to my pattern. Ye will eat in vain, that is, ye will in vain pretend that ye believe, unless ye also change your life. I came not only to redeem but also to change the world. “They, therefore, that believe on me will transform themselves into my pattern. This is the bread which came down from heaven, as is shown by its results; for he that eateth of this bread shall live forever; not so he that eateth bodily bread. This ye can see from the fact that your fathers did eat the manna that eame down from above, and died. No bodily food, therefore, can make any one last forever.” This language offended not only those who hated Christ, but also some of His own disciples; and they, not to do anything too rudely, said [Jn. 6:60]: “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” They still clung to
the visible flesh just as tenaciously as His enemies did. Jesus, therefore, knowing that even some of His disciples were murmuring at this, said unto them [Jn. 6:61-62]: “Doth this cause you to stumble? What, then” (supply “will ye say,” or “will ye think,” or some such phrase) “if ye should behold the Son of Man ascending where he was before? Ye do not take in my words because ye do not believe that I am the Son of God. But what will ye say when ye shall see me ascending to heaven by my own might? Will not the fact itself then force you to confess that I am the Son of God? Ye do not trust in me because ye do not believe that I am the Son of God, and your not believing is the reason why ye do not understand what Isay. I try to lift you to the things above by comparisons and pleasant allegories, but ye are always sinking to the depths by the weight of your unbelief. The thing of which I am speaking is a spiritual thing, and has nothing to do with bodily things. The Spirit teaches spirit. The Spirit of God, I say, deigns to draw the wretched spirit of man to itself, to unite and to bind it to itself, and wholly to transform it into itself. This thing feeds and rejoices the heart and assures it of salvation. What else is this than the food of the soul? By what comparison can it be more fitly expressed than by that of food? For as the starving stomach rejoices when food comes into it, wherewith the used-up breath and heat and strength are replenished, so the starving soul, when God discloses Himself to it, leaps for joy, and daily grows and increases in strength more and more, being transformed into the likeness of God until it develops into the perfect man. It is, therefore, spiritual food of which I am speaking, for only the Spirit gives it, since the Spirit alone draws the heart to itself and refreshes it. Ye are very thoughtless when ye imagine that I am speaking of the flesh that is built up with veins and sinews. “That profiteth nothing. How long will ye be without understanding [ef. Mt. 15:16]? I tell you plainly, so far am I from speaking of bodily flesh or essential body, that I bear open witness that my flesh profiteth absolutely nothing.”
[V.]. And this is the fifth and most distinet mark by which we discover that Christ is in no wise speaking here of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; and not only this, but in
these words He is providing by law, as it were, against our ever indulging in dreams about bodily flesh. For since Christ says that it profiteth nothing, human rashness ought never to dispute about eating it. But if you say in objection that the sense must be different (for the flesh of Christ does profit something, since by it we have been redeemed from death), I reply: The flesh of Christ profiteth very greatly, aye, immeasurably, in every way, but, as I have said, by being slain, not eaten. Slain it has saved us from slaughter, but devoured it profiteth absolutely nothing. The Truth has said so, and the fact cannot be otherwise. For the Jews were disputing about eating the flesh, not about offering it as a sacrifice, hence Christ’s words must refer to that. However much, therefore, the theologians dispute about the essential body of Christ or bodily flesh, they will never accomplish anything, except to show themselves more stupid and more reckless than the Jews towards all the painstaking kindness of the Savior. For the Jews, clinging ever to the visible flesh, deserted Christ rather than let themselves understand His benign teaching, although, as becomes a loving Master, He plainly points out their error so that they may not perish in it, and says that the flesh they were looking at profiteth absolutely nothing. But our theologians by their actions virtually say: “Ὁ Jesus, there is no need of this explanation; we understand the idea correctly. We know that you are speaking of visible and tangible flesh. We must eat that if we desire to be saved. You, who know the hearts and the thoughts of men [I Chron. 28:9], were prudent to no purpose when you said that the flesh is absolutely without profit to us; for we, who in our realm are mightier than you, shall easily succeed in compelling all men to confess even in express words that they eat your flesh, and that as they eat it they also perceive by sense that they are eating flesh and drinking blood. “Therefore withdraw that statement, “The flesh profiteth nothing, until you see that we, outdoing the stupidity of the Jews (who turned away from Him who knoweth the hearts of all, rather than flatter Him by pretending to understand that whieh they were ignorant of), have prevailed upon the mass of men to confess that they understand, believe, or perceive by sense that which they never have understood, believed, or
perceived by sense. For instance, there is our friend Berengarius, whom we compelled (as appears in Section 2 of the De Consecratione, beginning ‘I Berengarius) to confess that after consecration the true, that is, the corporeal and essential, body and blood of Christ are present, and that the sacrament is not only as a matter of sense but in reality handled by the hands of the priest, broken and torn by the teeth of the faithful, ete. So also will we drive to this all who venture to utter a syllable to the contrary. If you insist altogether upon the statement, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” we will turn from you; for it is better for us to withdraw from you than to have our revenues and gains vanish.” Do not be scandalized, kind reader, by this sharp irony of mine. You will see presently why one has to deal in this way with so stupid a class of men, who have even compelled the senses to confess something other than what they have experienced. When, therefore, Christ had taught clearly that it was spiritual and not oral manducation of which He was speaking—for, He said, the flesh profiteth absolutely nothing—He added [Jn. 6:63]: “The words that I speak unto you are spirit, and are life.” That “word” is used by the Hebrews for the whole matter, the whole event and case, is everywhere evident in Holy Writ. Luke 1:65: “And all these words were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.” Hence in this passage Christ is to be understood as having said: “This case that I have been setting forth to you is one of the heavenly Spirit, and begets life in those who intrust themselves to it. And the reason few of you understand it or receive it is that the great part of you do not believe.”
[VI.]. This is the crown as it were of the whole discourse: “I announce the gospel to you, but ye do not believe it. Now the gospel is nothing else than myself, though in the beginning I expressed myself modestly and darkly, in order not to give an
[Berengar of Tours, 9987-1088. He was twice (in 1059 and again in]
[1079) forced to recant his denial of the Real Presence. The former recan-]
[tation was in these words: Ego Berengarius… et ore et corde profiteor,]
[de sacramentis dominicae mensae,.. panem et vinum, quae in altari]
[ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum]
[corpus et sanguinem domini nostri Iesu Christi esse, et sensualiter non]
[solum saeramentum, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi]
[et fidelium dentibus atteri.]
impression of arrogance or temerity; but what the Father wills has to be said. Therefore I said that I am He whom the Father promised to your fathers, the true food of the soul, sure salvation, and the infallible pledge of hope. He, therefore, who trusts in me is already saved; for he felt within himself, as soon as he set all his trust on me, how glad his conscience became, how his soul was raised from despair to the sure possession of salvation.”
I have amplified at somewhat greater length than before the substance of this sixth chapter [of John], as far as it pertains to the Eucharist, but I hope not fruitlessly. For I think we can clearly see from this that the theologians and experts in Pontifical Law, in distorting to the abuse of the Eucharist everything they have drawn from this passage, have acted recklessly or ignorantly, and, therefore, their authority ought to have no value where it is not based on the truth. But if you absolutely insist upon forever thrusting it in my face as an invincible shield, I will simply say that faith itself dictates this meaning for this passage, unless I am very greatly wrong in my faith when I unwaveringly believe that there is one and only one way to heaven, firmly believe that the Son of God is the infallible pledge of our salvation, and trust in Him so completely that for the gaining of salvation I attribute no power to any elements of this world, that is, to things of sense. And if now anyone asks pertly for what purpose I have explained this section of John with such pains, I answer: That the truth may come into the light. And if in any part I have fallen short, this ought to be made manifest by Seripture testimony, and not by somebody’s accusations. It was easy to accuse Christ before His judge with false and made-up slanders. Yet when the latter asked [Mt. 27: 23]: “What evil hath he done?” no witnesses were brought forward, but all was threats and outer. Unless, therefore, we wish to become like the impious enemies of Christ, we ought not in deference to papal authority to rage against the innocent truth, which is Christ Himself. If, then, this is the genuine meaning of this passage, no man’s authority ought to outweigh it, the flesh ought not to be guilty of preferring any man’s authority to the truth. Human wisdom ought not to prevail over divine truth. Whatever, there-
fore, has been plucked from this chapter and distorted into any other meaning than this native one which the Lord has explained through me, whether it be read in decrees of Popes or works of theologians, or heralded in churches or pulpits, ought to have so little effect that we should all declare it would have been more pious for those who have done this thing never to have touched the undefiled truth than in their presumption so to have defiled it.
What, therefore, will their authority avail, however great and excellent they are? The truth is more excellent. To the others, who break out with, “You seem to me to hold that the bodily flesh and also the blood of Christ are not present in the Eucharist,” I answer: Do you say this of yourself or have others said it to you? If you are a believer, you are aware how salvation comes; and then the word of God has such power with you that you raise no question about bodily flesh. But if others have told you that this is my view, I say to them that in this matter 1 hold as the Church of Christ holds. She will not even brook the question whether the body of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in actual, physical, or essential form. For when you bring up these elements of the world, she will thrust this buckler in your face: “The flesh profiteth nothing [Jn. 6:65]; why, then, do you dispute about the flesh? Even if you now cry out, “Ὁ heaven! O earth!” nay, even “Stars and seas!” I shall simply say, “The flesh profiteth nothing”; why, then, is it better for you to be curious rather than anxious about it? Be this, then, a wall of bronze, “The flesh profiteth nothing.” Go now, and bring up all your engines of war, catapults, battering-rams, sheds, and every kind of weapon; far from shattering this wall, you will be able not even to shake it. We must, then, hold a different view of the flesh and blood of this sacrament from that which the theologians have thus far laid down, whose opinion is opposed by all sense and reason and understanding and by faith itself. For I do not think we have to listen to those who are so bold as to say, I have always firmly believed that in this sacrament I eat the essential body, or the bodily and sensible flesh, of Christ.” As if in saying this they could persuade any one to believe that his senses perceive what they do not perceive! When, therefore, thy say that the
whole thing is established by faith and therefore cannot be denied, for we must firmly believe that we have a sense perception of the bodily flesh, I reply: “I know what faith is and I know also what sense is; but you, either not having this knowledge or supposing that I have it not, are trying to cast darkness upon my light. Faith exists in our hearts through the Spirit of God, and we are sensible of it. In fact, that there is an inward change of heart is not an obscure matter, but we do not perceive it by means of the senses.” But now these persons come and, because they fancy that faith is a violent and deliberate turning of our hearts towards some even quite incongruous thing, they therefore aver that here the belief that the bodily and sensible flesh is present is held with unwavering faith. Yet in this they make two mistakes: First, in thinking that faith has its origin in man’s decision and election. They make a mistake here because, although faith is hope and trust in things quite remote from sense, nevertheless it does not rest upon our decision or election. The things upon which we set our hopes themselves cause us to put all our hopes upon them; for if we were made believers by our own election or determination, all men could become believers by their own strength, even the impious. Since, therefore, faith has not its origin in sense or reason and looks not to the things of sense, it is easy to discover how they err in the second place. They err in the second place, then, in applying faith to things of sense, and in saying that through these it brings us certainty. But of that there is no need, for what is perceived by sense owes nothing to faith. Why should any one hope for that which he already sees? For things which are perceived when presented to the senses are things of sense. Let us see now how finely these things fit together: By faith we believe that the bodily and sensible flesh of Christ is here present. By faith things quite remote from sense are believed. But all bodily things are so entirely things of sense that unless they are perceived by sense they are not bodily. Therefore, to believe and to perceive by sense are essentially different. Observe, therefore, what a monstrosity of speech this is: I believe that I eat the sensible and bodily flesh. For if it is bodily, there is no need of faith, for it is perceived by sense; and things perceived by
sense have no need of faith, for by sense they are perceived to be perfectly sure. On the other hand, if your eating is a matter of belief, the thing you believe cannot be sensible or bodily. Therefore what you say is simply a monstrosity. Observe, too, that the theologians asserted here another thing, which even the senses knew not, namely, that bread is flesh; for if this had been so, it would have been established by the verdict of sense, not by faith. For faith springs not from things accessible to sense nor are they objects of faith. Nor do I think we have to listen to those who, seeing that the view mentioned is not only crude but even frivolous and impious, make this pronouncement: “We eat, to be sure, the true and bodily flesh of Christ, but spiritually”; for they do not yet see that the two statements cannot stand, “It is body” and “It is eaten spiritually.” For body and spirit are such essentially different things that whichever one you take it cannot be the other. If spirit is the one that has come into question, it follows by the law of contraries that body is not; if body is the one, the hearer is sure that spirit is not. Hence, to eat bodily flesh spiritually is simply to assert that to be body which is spirit. I have adduced these things from the philosophers against those men who, in spite of Paul’s warning to be on our guard against philosophy, Col. 2:8, have made it the mistress and instructress of the word of God, that they may see clearly how nicely they sometimes weigh their decisions and pronouncements. In short, faith does not compel sense to confess that it perceives what it does not perceive, but it draws us to the invisible and fixes all our hopes on that [cf. Heb. 11:1]. For it dwelleth not amidst the sensible and bodily, and hath nothing in common therewith. Come now, understand what happiness is born in you if you believe that you eat the bodily and sensible flesh of Christ, or, as others say, eat His bodily flesh spiritually! You will undoubtedly admit that nothing arises therefrom but perplexity, dulness, and, to speak freely, suspicion in regard to other things of faith which are most certain and most sacred. Yet these fine fellows were all the while saying that this monstrous eating of sensible and bodily flesh is a prop to faith, and sometimes they brought it forward as a miracle, which yet no man perceived. Who, pray, ever
made up such nonsense, and that before the eyes of those who clung in their hearts to the true and most high God, and who, as soon as they examined their faith, saw that there was no need of paradoxes of this sort? For what did God ever promise to those who believed that bodily flesh is eaten here? Did not those who were truly faithful know for certain that salvation is found in relying upon the mercy of God, of which we have the sure sign or pledge in Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God? What, then, do you imagine this invention—subtle forsooth, since it consists of words only (for no mind can take it in, and neither does faith teach it, as we have seen) —effected with the pious? Nothing, by heaven. Hence it undoubtedly eame about that those who were truly pious either believed nothing of the kind, or when pressed to believe took to flight in their hearts, even though with their lips they confessed that they believed it was as the impious declared. For who, when eonfronted with anything so monstrous, did not flee, saying: “Do not examine this thing; believe the Fathers.” And whenever the goading voice of the Truth said: “It is a strange thing. How ean it be that you should be compelled to believe that which you cannot see to be possible? When the Jews did not eomprehend it, Christ showed that it was to be understood spiritually, but now these persons say it is done in a bodily and material sense, which yet you do not perceive nor experience,” did not everyone say to himself: “It is not for you to take anxious thought about these things”? But these fellows had taught men thus to run away that the truth might not shine forth and be understood. And as to the impious, they did not trust even in Christ, so far were they from giving Him thanks for the redemption given to us. What, then, did they do but tyrannically thrust upon us what it is impossible that they themselves believed, even though they said so a thousand times? For faith is the gift of God; and since God never taught this thing, He surely has not drawn men to believe it. That He did not teach it is clear, because the flesh profiteth absolutely nothing. And much the strongest and clearest proof is, that we all, as has been said, when we consider this spiritual-bodily manducation (for I am forced to speak thus against my will), always turn away in heart, chiefly for the reason that truth is
always victorious; but the indifferent or fearful heart would not resist, because it saw something different enjoined by the Pope. What, then, is the reason of this, when nothing so delights the soul as partaking of the word of God?—as David bears witness, Ps. 119: 103: “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” And again [Ps. 19:9]: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes”; and [Ps. 119: 105]: “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and light unto my path.” Since, I say, the veil that softened the brightness of the light for Moses’ gaze has been taken away, what is the reason why we all fight shy of considering this manducation? If it rested upon the authority of the word of God, it no doubt would have, in common with the rest of God’s words, the quality of becoming clearer and more acceptable the more it was considered. We discover, therefore, since faith is the sweetest and pleasantest thing known to the soul, while this bodily and sensible manducation oppresses or saddens the heart, that it has proceeded from the notion of reckless men rather than from the word of God; though, not to be unfair to anyone, some men can plead ignorance as an excuse for their fault because of the words of Christ which we call the words of consecration. For, as we show the bread we say plainly: “This is my body.” Of these words I am now going to speak.
I have now refuted, I hope, this senseless notion about bodily flesh. In doing that my only object was to prove that to teach that the bodily and sensible flesh of Christ is eaten when we give thanks to God is not only impious but also foolish and monstrous, unless perhaps one is living among the Anthropophagi. Meanwhile I leave everyone free to hold what view he will of spiritual mandueation, provided he rests on Christ’s diet and not his own, until he has weighed what I am going to bring forward about the words of Christ. Then he may choose what the Lord will give him to choose, for I impose no law upon any man.
I bear witness, therefore, by the one only God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who knoweth the hearts of all, that what I am presently going to put forth, I shall put forth for no other cause than that of finding out the truth. I know
[In this connection see Zwingli, De canone missae epichiresis.]
the insatiable thirst of the old Adam for glory, and, if I had ever striven overstrenuously for it, opportunity for satisfying my ambitions had been offered me in earlier days by the greatest princes of the Christian world, though about this I shall maintain a steadfast silence, and not tell of it even deprecatingly as some persons do. I know also how hard it is to combat an idea implanted in all men’s minds, for as a rule we are the sort of worshippers of Christ that pose as having done something worth while if they have stoutly defended those external signs which we call sacraments, even if they never or very seldom review their lives and prop up what is in a tottering condition; although it ought to be our especial care to come as near as possible to the pattern of Christ, whose name we bear. It is a perilous thing, therefore, to venture into such danger, where you are bound to meet so many savage enemies, and where everyone wishes to seem tremendously pious through raging tremendously. What are you to do, then? The law bids us to restore to its master the straying ox of even an enemy [ef. Exod. 23:4]; and if you see the whole world straying, shall you not give warning, especially when in these days of ours you see Hercules after Hercules unhesitatingly going forth to proclaim every kind of pernicious doctrine? The King of Heaven has entrusted various talents to various people, and some make diligent use of them, while some are slothful [cf. Mt. 25:14-30]. To me also He has given a mite, concern for whieh ever burns within me, constantly reminding me not to let it be consumed by rust [ef. Mt. 6:19]. Hence, while others sail undaunted over the boundless sea of Scripture, because all their equipment is strong—masts, topsails, rigging, poles, oars, prow, beam, stern—and bring back vast stores of merchandise from every quarter, my little skiff, roughly put together, has cautiously to hug the shore, and still more cautiously to bear its slender load. I will do my best, therefore, to have everything that I bring forward on this subject so strong and solid that it cannot easily be torn to pieces. And I pray all who have given themselves to Christ, not to judge until they have heard the whole case. Then I shall take it calmly whatever verdict they render. If they agree with me, I shall certainly be grateful; if, on the other hand, they reject, condemn, and
execrate my effort, they will do it, if they are wise, by the force of the Scriptures. Then I shall be not a little obliged to them, for they will bring me back from error to the right way. For I am thoroughly determined to listen most gladly to any one who duly admonishes me according to the heavenly teachings. But if anybody goes to work with clamorings, he will shout as vainly as Hercules did for Hylas. I am deaf to such words as, “It is heretical, erroneous, an offence to pious ears.” They have so often smitten upon these ears that they have made them callous. Therefore let no man say, “Who will put up with this? The whole world thinks differently.” Let him rather reflect that often an entire nation, except a few persons, has been in error, as happened in Noah’s time [Gen. 6:17-18]. Elijah [I Kings 18:32] thought himself entirely alone, and Mieaiah [I Kings 22:9-28] stood a true prophet against the entire crowd of reckless prophets. The truest is always known by the fewest. So perhaps those who think otherwise than the majority about the bread of the Eucharist do so not without reason. Following the example of Moses, 1 will see what this fire means [cf. Exod. 3:3]. Now, I frankly confess, before my God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the whole creation, that I am more inclined to this sense for Christ’s words which I am going to put forth than to that other sense which we have thus far given them, though I make no rash declaration; but if anyone will put forth something clearer and more consonant with faith, I promise to receive it with open arms in great thankfulness.
I have said, then, that this hard view of the bodily and sensible flesh of Christ was occasioned by ignorance of Christ’s words, “This is my body, ete.” If their meaning had been decided from the Holy Scriptures rather than according to the dicta of avaricious men, we never should have stumbled unawares upon so many absurd questions. Now, these words, “This is my body,” should not have been so handled with unwashen hands, but we should first have examined every corner of Scripture to see what meaning they could bear and what not, as, for example, we see done in other cases. Some men today attribute to works what belongs solely to the grace of God, but they do it not without Scripture authority, for there is found just as much Seripture tes-
timony attributing to works what belong to the grace of God as there is testimony attributing it to the grace of God alone. What opinion, then, in these circumstances ought properly to prevail? That which faith dictates. And faith dictates this: We are the work of God, of Him we breathe, in Him we move and have our being [Acts 17: 28], to Him we tend; therefore all things are His, and we are unprofitable servants who are not sufficient for anything [Lk. 17:10], but all our sufficiency is from God [II Cor. 3:5]. Those who hold this view easily free themselves from diffieulty when they come upon mention of works in the Seriptures. For they see it belongs to God’s grace and friendliness to ascribe to our works that which yet He Himself works; nay, that it is His work and not ours; and so they sail safely all through Scripture. And this is what ought to have been done in this passage. After Christ had said to the Jews, “The flesh profiteth absolutely nothing” (for so emphatic is the Greek expression οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν), no lips should have ventured to talk further about bodily flesh, especially when it is clearly seen that the Jews took offence at this same bodily flesh, and that Christ met their offence with these words, so that no one can fairly even dream that there can be any disagreement on this point. For nothing else offended the Jews than the thought that bodily and visible flesh must be eaten; but Christ met their error by saying that the flesh profiteth absolutely nothing; that it is the Spirit that quickeneth the soul; that He spoke words of salvationnamely, that he who trusted in Him who was to give His body and blood for us should have everlasting life; that these words were brief, but life and the heavenly Spirit breathed from them. Why, then, did we fall so incautiously into such a hard view, when we had a charm potent enough easily to lay bare all the tricks of human viciousness? Isnotthissaying of Christ’s a barrier which the pious heart neither can nor would leap over? Is it not a ruler with which he who has wholehearted faith in God smooths and straightens everything that otherwise would be hard and rough? Who that understands the central point, namely, that those who trust in Christ have thereby the power of becoming sons of God, nay, recognize that through one and the same Spirit they are already sons and heirs of God [cf.
Rom. 8:14-17],—who of these, I say, will be stupefied, as the Jews were, at these words, “This is my body,” when he hears Christ so plainly say, “The flesh profiteth nothing”? Into such darkness, most merciful and righteous God, when we fail to trust in ‘Thee, Thou dost suffer us to fall that even at midday we grope blindly like those who have lost their sight. For if there had been sound faith, it would have driven off this darkness, just as the sun at its appearing dissipates the night. O inserutable are Thy judgments [cf. Rom. 11:33]! For as it was proper for Thy justice to smite our faithless selves with blindness, so it was proper for Thy mercy to open our eyes again and to raise us to the bright light, as they say eagles do their young, that we, finding we can bear the light, may also recognize this blessing, because of our own power we never eould have opened our eyes to the light hadst not ‘Thou, who callest even the things that are not yet [cf. Rom. 4: 17], led us into Thine admirable light.
Therefore the words of Christ, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” force every thought into the obedience of God [II Cor. 10:5], so that by no reasoning either can you or should you now understand the words, “This is my body,” of bodily flesh or sensible body, as has been made plain. We shall have to see, therefore, what sense the words must have; for (not to pass this point by) there is no weight in the foolish objection, Why do we not force the words, “The flesh profiteth nothing,’ into conformity with the words, “This is my body,’ and say the former must be squared with the latter, rather than make the latter fit the meaning of the former?” First, the things Christ is there discussing are so perfectly clear that no one can base any purely allegorical or symbolical meaning upon what either precedes or follows. Second, faith sees that the true meaning is the one which the words bear upon their face. For who will believe that Christ thrust His own into a darkness in which He did not allow the Jews to remain? Christ is light, the Gospel is light. Who can believe that we should be driven into a thing from which the Jews, lest they should feel abhorrence, were led away? Finally, the senses do not here make such protest and rebellion as when faith has the daring to say that it believes that bodily flesh is eaten. For the senses can-
not be persuaded to say that they perceive what they do not perceive at all. For in other matters they hardly allow faith to believe things that they do not themselves experience, even when nothing is demanded of them beyond their nature and laws. And now, when this counterfeit faith, which has reached this decision about sensible flesh, imposes it upon the senses in spite of themselves, so that contrary to all their own laws they are forced to confess that they perceive what they do not perceive, they constantly refuse to submit; even if you tyrannically force them to confess in spite of themselves what they do not perceive, they constantly remonstrate. But now I come back to the point itself. We must see, I say, what the native meaning of these words of Christ is, for they cannot have this crude material one. There have come forward in our day those who have said that a symbolical meaning is to be found in the word “This.” I commend their faith, if only it is not counterfeit. For God seeth the heart, we poor wretches judge from the face [I Sam. 16:7]. I greatly commend, therefore, not the faith which makes them venture thoughtlessly to treat these words, but that through which they see that it is untenable for us to understand bodily flesh here. I will not, however, speak now of the Charybdis the fear of which drove them upon this Seylla, for it has no bearing upon this matter. When, therefore, in three Evangelists as well as in the Apostle Paul they read: “Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body,” they maintain that there is here a change of reference, so that the pronoun “this” does not refer to the bread which he had taken, broken, and handed to the disciples, but to the sensible body itself of Christ. Their view undoubtedly is (for except one pamphlet and that a small one I have read nothing of theirs) that Christ wished to show His disciples that this body of His was the one of which the prophets had said much as to the treatment it would suffer. This view would get very strong
[e. g., Carlstadt. Cf. Zwingli, Ad Matthaeum Alberum de coena dom-]
[inica epistola, (1524). ὙΠῸ is evident from Zwingli’s Ad Matthaeum Alberum de coena dom-]
[inica epistola that he had read Carlstadt’s Von dem widerchristlichen]
[Missbrauch des Hern Brodt und Kelch.]
support from Christ’s declaration in John 6:51: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” For this is equivalent to saying: “Behold this very body, which I very recently declared must be sacrificed for the life of the world! It will presently be hurried to the altar. But have no fear or anxiety. I am here, and show myself. And, that you may not fall into any error, for instance, the error of believing that because I am the Son of God I am not going to give this body to be slain, but am going suddenly to produce another, as angels have often been seen to do—that you may not, I say, with the recklessness characteristic of human imaginings, fancy that I am going to give another instead of this body, I say to you plainly and clearly that I am going to deliver up for the redemption of the world this body which you see before you.”
With their kind permission, then, I will say what I think, and what, we shall very clearly see, is the real fact of the matter. If in this fashion we twist the word “this” so as to make it refer to Christ, the whole incident loses its point; and yet it has been set down with such painstaking care by all the writers that it is impious to suppose that it has been so carefully portrayed for no good reason: “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you.” What was the need of all this circumstance, which the Evangelists have set forth so vividly that even to this very day whenever we hear these words we seem to see Christ Himself acting and speaking? What need, I say, had Christ of all this cireumstance, 1f all He wished to say was simply that this body of His was already between the hammer and the anvil, as the saying is? Or is He, like a generous host, inviting the disciples to eat, although they have already dined, so that the meaning is, “Be of good cheer, and eat in joy”? To what purpose, then, the words, “blessed,” gave thanks,” “brake,” ‘gave to”? Would they not have eaten unless Christ had divided the bread and given it to them? We are forced here either to let go all the actions and sayings—perish the impious thought!—or to confess plainly that this body of His which Christ gave with such careful distinctness and majestic solemnity was a sym-
bolical one. Nor is it an obstacle that the word for bread in both Greek and Latin is masculine, while that for body is neuter, for you will hear in almost any language countless like forms of expression by which one passes from the finished product to the material, as, “Take this bowl; it is the purest gold among all the royal vessels.” See how “crater” [bowl, a masculine] signifies the finished product, while “aurum” [gold, a neuter] signifies the material; for the bowl is made with artistic skill, and gold is the material of which it is made. We pass, therefore, from the finished product to the material, that the value of each may be recognized. Hence by this argument weapons would rather be supplied to the old view than wrested from it, if we rushed into a sickening battle of words. For our flesh-eaters will say: “See, here there is a transition, from the produet, namely, the bread, to the material, namely, the body, so that the sense is: “This bread, as far as its material is concerned, is the very body of Christ.” “This would be a quibble, however, which I speak of only for fear someone may perhaps try the thing in the way I have mentioned. For in ordinary parlance we go from the product to the material which the hand of the maker had taken up to work with. Hence here we ought to go from the bread to the flour, and say, “This bread is flour.” But these things are petty subtleties and accordingly not very solid, and I have mentioned them not to attribute any force to them, but merely to show that expressions of this kind are found in quite all languages. Thus it becomes apparent that the argument drawn from the change of gender is unsound. In the third place, when Christ subjoins, “This do in remembrance of me” [Lk. 22: 19; I Cor. 11: 24], what, pray, are they bidden to do in remembrance of Him? If you say, “To eat,” I shall object; “What, then, shall we make of the words, “This is my body,’ which come between?” Does it not seem exceedingly violent, when all the actions and all the sayings that precede and all that follow these words clearly lead to the conclusion that what is offered the disciples to eat is the body of Christ, albeit a symbolical one, and when the command to do this in remembrance of Him sets forth the whole reason for this eating—does it not, I say, seem violent to twist these intervening words into a reference to something else? It
does, indeed. We must not do violence to words in this way even when faith does not contend that the sense is different.
The entire difficulty, then, lies not in the pronoun “this,” but in a word no larger as far as number of letters is concerned, namely, in the verb “4s.” For this is used in more than one passage in the Holy Scriptures for “signifies.” I hear (to mention this point first) that Wyecliffe earlier held and the Waldensianst today hold this view, that “is” was put here for “signifies,” but I have not seen their Scripture basis for it. It is possible for persons to hold right views and not rightly support the right views they hold. Perhaps that was the reason why their view was condemned as impious. For I, having through the grace of God often joined battle with many adversarles in regard to the meaning of Seripture passages, have often found that persons, even when they held right views, were sometimes forced to abandon their cause and to surrender it to others because they could not strongly support their right views. Hence I shall without fear of these words, “He is a Wycliffian,” “He is a Waldensian,” “He is a heretic,” bring forward the passages of Scripture in which it cannot be denied that this word “is” certainly is used for “signifies.” Afterwards I shall prove clearly that in this passage also “is” must be taken in the sense of “signifies.” This will be plain from the testimony following. In Gen. 41:26 Joseph, interpreting Pharaoh’s dream, says: “The seven beautiful kine, and the seven full ears, are seven years of plenty: and both contain the same meaning of the dream.” What is this, pray? Are the seven fat kine seven years? Certainly not, but the kine he had
[John Wycliffe (13247-1384) opposed the doctrine of transubstantia-]
[tion. Although he denied that after consecration the bread and wine are]
[changed into the body and blood of Christ, he held that by concomitance]
[the bread is in a figurative and sacramental sense the body of Christ,]
[which the believer receives spiritually. He was condemned by the Council]
[of Constance, 1415 A. D. tFor a long time the Waldensian doctrine of the Eucharist scarcely]
[differed from the Roman. Under the influence of Wycliffe and Huss, the]
[Waldenses first turned against the doctrine of the real presence. As Luther]
[often designated the Bohemian Brethren as Waldenses, it is possible that]
[Zwingli is doing the same here. They had been violently persecuted in the]
[early years of the sixteenth century.]
seen portended seven fruitful years, and nobody but a fool can deny that this is the force of the words. “Are” is used here, therefore, beyond controversy for “signify.” A little later there follows [Gen. 41: 27], “And the seven lean and thin kine that came up after them, and the seven thin ears that were blasted with the burning wind, are seven years of famine to come, etc.” Here again we have “are” used for “signify.” Now I come to the New Covenant. In Luke 8: 11, when Christ had signified by the parable of the seed falling upon the ground the varied attitudes of people in receiving the word of God, and the disciples failed to understand and asked what He meant by this parable, He discoursed thus: “The seed,” of which they had heard so much—“The seed is the word of God.” But no seed is the word of God—the word of God was signified by this term. Here, then “is” is again used for “signifies.” A little later [Lk. 8:14] we have: “And that which fell among the thorns, these are, ete.,” that is, “and that which I said fell among the thorns signifies those, etc.” And a little later [Lk. 8: 15]: “But that in the good ground, these are, etc.”; that is, “but the seed which I said fell in the good ground signifies those, ete.” So in Matt. 13:1-23, in the same parable, “is” is used for “signifies,” although the language is a little less direct. In the same passage, when explaining the parable of the tares sown after the wheat, He says [Mt. 13: 38]: “The field is the world.” But the field is not the world; but it signified the world in this parable. In the same verse: “The good seed are the sons of the kingdom”; that is, the good seed signifies and denotes the sons of the kingdom. Again, “But the tares are the sons of the evil one”; that is, are the symbol of the impious or the evil. Again [13:39]: “The enemy that sowed them is the devil”; that is, signifies the evil spirit. Again: “The harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are angels”; here “is” and “are” are used for “signifies” and “signify” respectively. I think testimony enough has now been adduced to prove that “is” and its cognate forms can be used to mean “signify.” But since I hear some persons blurt out indignantly, “If we are to force any word we please thus to signify anything we please, nothing in the Holy Scriptures will retain its integrity, for license will be given the impious to twist everything into anything you like,”
it is worth while to give them an answer rather more polite than their objection. Who does not know, then, that there is absolutely no word that is not sometimes taken out of its native soil and planted in a foreign one, where it has a far higher value than if you had left it in the home ground, that is, in its literal meaning? This was specially customary with the Hebrews beyond other peoples, as is most plainly apparent all through Christ’s discourse, even when translated into a foreign tongue. Take the despised term “dung.” When Christ, in Luke 13: 8, makes the husbandman intercede for the barren tree, undertaking to put dung about it, how could He more delightfully have signified a kindly minister of the word, whose duty it certainly is to encourage the backward in every way, and to commend them to the Lord in constant prayers, lest He judge them according to their deserts? Take another term, “stone.” Does not this term occupy a more honorable position when if signifies Christ [Mt. 21: 42] the stone, than when it means an inert rock projecting in the field, or even one used in the construction of a building? So also with verbs. Does not Paul use with great effect the verb “run” when he says to the Galatians [5:7]: “Ye were running well,” for ye were walking uprightly in all diligence”? And when our Saviour says, I am the door” [Jn. 10:9], was he a door? Yet, according to the intolerance of those who refuse to admit any extension of the meaning of verbs and nouns, He must be a door. Of wood, then, or of stone, or of ivory or horn, as in Pliny and Homer? “I am the way” [Jn. 14:6], “I am the vine” [Jn. 15:5], “I am the light” [Jn. 8:12], ete., force us in spite of ourselves to allow them a signifieation other than the literal one. Is He a vine? No, but He is like a vine. “There is, therefore, no need of this senseless wail: “Look out, fellow citizens, your interests are in jeopardy, you are going to lose your language”; for we cannot conveniently use even every-day speech without metaphors and metalepses. With faith as teacher, then, we shall see in what sense we ought to take each expression; for otherwise we should be doing a thing absolutely unworthy both of Christ and of ourselves in regarding him as actually a lamb or a ram in John [1:36; 21:15-17], and as a fatted calf in Luke [15:23].
[Namely, Greek.]
When, therefore, He says [Jn. 15:5], “I am the vine,” He is saying nothing else than, “I am like a vine to my disciples.” Who will make an uproar here? Who complain that an outrage is done? So, also, in our passage we must consult faith, and if she says that in the expression, “This is my body,” this verb “is” must not be taken in its literal meaning, we must by all means obey faith and have no fear whatever of those whom we see daring everything in their impiety, for they cannot, however much they rave, wrest the truth out of the hands of the pious. If, however, faith cannot endure this meaning, then the signification of this word in this passage—as was made plain above by many arguments and is made singularly and solidly plain by the expression, “The flesh profiteth nothing” — will be an altogether different one, whatever outcry is made by the ignorant and impious. This verb “is,” then, is in my judgment used here for “signifies.” Yet this is not my judgment, but that of eternal God; for we cannot boast of anything which Christ wrought not in us, Rom. 15: 18; and it has been abundantly shown above that since faith is from the unseen God, it points to the unseen God and is a thing absolutely independent of all sense. For whatever is body, whatever is an object of sense, can in no way be a matter of faith. Hence, when 1 say that in my judgment this word is used in this way in this passage, I speak thus for the sake of certain weak persons, and not because this view can truthfully be shattered by means of any passage of Scripture. For either we must reject “The flesh profiteth nothing,” which yet it were impious to do (for “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than one tittle of the word of God” [Lk. 16:17]), or this alone must be the one simple meaning.
We must, then, now first of all see how everything squares if we use “is” for “signifies” in this fashion. And as everything. will square beautifully, it will be proved at the same time that “is” in this passage as well as in others must be taken for “signifies,” which was the second thing I undertook to prove. Thus, then, Luke [22: 19] has it, and we shall content ourselves with him from among the Evangelists: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This signifies my body which is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me.” See, faithful soul but captive of absurd notions, how everything squares here. how nothing is violently taken away or added, but everything squares so perfectly that you wonder you have not always seen this meaning, and wonder all the more that the beautiful harmony of the discourse in question has been so recklessly mangled by certain persons. “He took bread, gave thanks, brake it, and gave to them, saying.” Behold how there is no missing link here! “This (that I offer you to eat, namely) is the symbol of my body which is given for you, and this which I now do, ye shall do hereafter in remembrance of me.” Does not the saying, “Do this in remembrance of me,” plainly indicate that this bread should be eaten in remembrance of Him? The Lord’s Supper, then, as Paul calls it [I Cor. 11: 25-26], is a commemoration of Christ’s death, not a remitting of sins, for that is the province of Christ’s death alone. For He says: “This which I now bid you eat and drink shall be a symbol unto you which ye shall all use in eating and drinking when ye shall make commemoration of me.” And that nothing needful for the true understanding of this commemoration may be lacking, Paul, in I Cor. 11:26, after having said with regard to the bread as well as with regard to the wine, “This do in remembrance of me,” explains as follows: “For as often as ye eat this bread” (symbolical bread, namely, for no one of them all calls it flesh), “and drink this eup, proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” But what is it to “proclaim the Lord’s death”? To preach, surely, to give thanks and praise, as Peter says, I Pet. 2:9: “That ye should shew forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” Paul, therefore, reminds us that even unto the end of the world, when Christ will return and contend in judgment with the human race, this commemora- - tion of Christ’s death should be so made that we proclaim the death of the Lord, that is, preach, praise, and give thanks. For this reason the Greeks called it Eucharist.”
Now we will come to the words of the cup, in which our view is found more clearly expressed. But first I will remind
[Annunciate: Gk. καταγγέλλετε: Luther, also, and the margin of the]
[King James Version represent the Greek verb as imperative. The Latin]
[Vulgate has annunciabitis.]
you that “cup” here is used for “drink,” the container for the thing contained. Thus, then, it reads [Lk. 22:20]: “This cup, the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, etc.” We will examine the individual words here. The cup is called the new testament. We know the article 3 in this place has the same force as “is,” as also in Hebrew “hif” and “hu” [ww and xy]; for Paul in I Cor. 11: 25 used both the article and the verb “is”: ἡ καινὴ διαϑήκη ἐστίν, ilud novum testamentum est. Yet, lest some detail should be wanting, I have preferred to say “illud,” [the], that there may be no point open to eaptious criticism in what I say. Well, then, is the eup this new testament? Certainly it is. Truth says so. But this new testament has its foree nowhere but in the death and blood of Christ; nay, the death and blood are the testament itself. But if the cup is the testament, it is argued that this eup is the true and sensible blood of Christ; for this, shed for us, sanctified the testament, ratified and confirmed it. Here also I shall disagree with great men, though it is not I that disagree but the fact itself. For what would it matter if I disagreed ever so widely, if the fact yet were otherwise? ‘“Testament,” then, is used here in an unusual sense for the “sign” or “symbol of the testament,” just as a document is said to bear witness, though it does not breathe or speak, but is the sign of something said or done by somebody who did once breathe. Another even clearer illustration: The document is sometimes spoken of as the testament, as is often the case in Cicero: “The testament was opened, read, ete.”; yet not the writing but the goods bequeathed were the testament. For what would it have profited to have had the writing bequeathed? But the writing merely contained what legacy should be given to each heir. So also in this passage the testament is the death and blood of Christ, and the document, in which are contained the subject and description of the testament, is the sacrament in question; for in this we commemorate the blessings that Christ’s death and the shedding of His blood have brought us, and enjoying these blessings we are grateful unto the Lord God for the testament which He has freely bestowed upon us. The testament, therefore, is opened and read when Christ’s death is proclaimed; the testament is distributed when each man trusts in the death
of Christ, for then he enjoys the heritage. And that this cup is used thus as the symbol of the true testament the words themselves indicate, when He says, “This cup, the new testament,” that is, the sign and instrument of the testament, “is in my blood.” He does not say, “This cup, which is the new testament, is my blood,” but, “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” And these things, of which one is in the other, are distinet from each other, as thing and thing, in their real nature, as the philosophers say. Furthermore, things which in their real nature are distinct cannot possibly so coincide as to be the same thing. For what is in something else is not that very thing in which it is. What reason, then, was there, when the other Evangelists, Matthew [26:28] and Mark [14: 24], had said, “This is my blood of the new testament,” for Luke [22:20] and Paul [I Cor. 11:25] to say, “This cup is the new testament in my blood”? “There seems to be a strange discrepancy here, for the former call it the “blood of the testament,” the latter “the testament of the blood,” that is, “the instrument and sign of the testament which has its force in the blood of Christ.” “This was all done designedly. For Luke and Paul, writing after the others, introduced new clearness into their words. They saw that the words, “This cup is my blood,” were too bold for the comprehension of some persons, although (as we see in Tertullian, of whom later) clear enough to the men of an earlier time, and therefore they thought that not every one would be sure to understand the expression as meaning, “This cup is the symbol of my blood, which is the blood of the new testament” (for that is the force of the article τὸ ). Consequently, they shaped the expression differently: “This cup is the new testament,” that is, “This is the cup of the new testament, which new testament has its force in my blood”; for both Matthew and Mark said in the genitive case, “Novi testamenti,” what Luke and Paul said in the nominative, “Novum testamentum.” Hence also they used “18 the new testament,” in an unusual sense, for “18 the symbol of the new testament,” just as we call the document in which bequests
[In Mt. 26: 28 the Greek text used by Zwingli had: τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν]
[rà αἷμά pov τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης. The second,, is referred to in his]
[comment,]
are contained a testament, and name the statue of Caesar “Caesar.” It is, then, the symbol of the new testament. This idea will be made more clear if we consider carefully the articles in all four writers. For these, namely,; and ró, are by no means relative, but point out something as distinet and solid. When, therefore, the words of the cup run: “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” where “in my blood” ean have no other meaning than that the testament “has force in my blood,” it is plain that the words of the bread must in like fashion be taken in the sense: “This (that I bid you eat, namely) is a symbol of, or signifies, my body which is given for you.” Now I want no one to suffer himself to be offended by this painstaking examination of words; for it is not upon them that I rely, but upon the one expression, “The flesh profiteth nothing” [Jn. 6:63]. This expression is strong enough to prove that “is” in this passage is used for “signifies” or “is a symbol of,” even if the discourse itself contained absolutely nothing by which the meaning here could be detected.
Paul must be consulted in another passage also, that we may see more clearly how Christ’s disciples used this sacrament in the time of the Apostles. In I Cor. 10: 16 we have: “The cup of blessing,” i. e., of the bounty and munificence of God, “which we bless,” i. e., with which we give thanks, “is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” That is, when we drink together from this eup which Christ has given us as a symbol of His bounty, do not we alone drink who share in the blood of the testament? He, therefore, who drinks here, shows himself to all the brethren as one of the number of those who trust in the blood of Christ. For that this is the only natural meaning of these words is clearly proved by certain marks which presently follow. “The bread which we break,” with one another, namely, “is it not the partaking of the body of Christ?” [I Cor. 10: 16]. That is, when we break the bread with each other, do we not all, as many as are the body of Christ, mutually disclose and show to one another that we are of the number of those who trust in Christ? Now follows a mark by which it is seen that this is the sense here, and that “body” is here used otherwise than “symbol of the body,” namely, for “the
[With διαθήκη and αἱμα respectively.]
Church.” For He says [I Cor. 10: 17]: “Seeing that we, who are a multitude, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.” We see here and in Chapter 11: 17-34 most clearly that the use of this sacrament in Paul’s time was as follows: The disciples of Christ came together and ate their whole supper together from the beginning, and some made rather pretentious and sumptuous provision for themselves. Hence arose shame and scorn unto those who had little. Some hurried, while others were slow; and so it came about that some had finished and were waiting for the symbolical bread, while others were still without supper when the bread and cup began to be carried round. So Paul bids them eat at home, and not contemn the church, that is, the congregation of God. However, he bids them eat at home not the symbolieal bread and blood, but their ordinary supper. When, therefore, they were gathered together in this way to give thanks and praise unto the Lord, they were warned not to eat without judgment; whence he says [I Cor. 11: 28-34]: “But let a man prove himself, ete.” For whosoever eats of this symbol shows himself to be a member of the Church of Christ. Therefore he may not thereafter eat of the things offered to idols [ef. I Cor. 8: 1-13], nor sit at such meals [ef. I Cor. 10: 17], who has sat at the symbolieal board of Christ (for that is Paul’s trend in this passage). For those that eat and drink at that board become one body and one bread; that is, all who assemble there for the purpose of proclaiming the Lord’s death and eating the symbolical bread certainly show that they are the body of Christ, that is, members of His Church, which, as it has one faith and eats the same symbolical bread, so is one body and one bread. Thus it becomes clear that Christ wished to give us bread and wine as food and drink, because as these two are combined each into one body from numberless grains or atoms of flour or drops of the juice of the vine respectively, so we come together into one faith and one body. Hence also the Greeks called the Supper by the other name, σύναξις» [gathering], because by this symbol all who had thus assembled were gathered together
[cf. Stephanus, Thesaurus linguae Graecae, vii, 1219: σύναξις peculia-]
[rite dictus est a quibusdam theologis conventus, qui fiebat ad celebrandam]
[coenam domini, item celebratio ipsius coenae.]
into one body.
But the passages in Acts which speak of the breaking of bread especially make for this view, if, as some think, they are to be understood of the communication of the symbolical bread. And it plainly cannot be denied that the first mention of the breaking of bread, in Acts 2:42, must be understood of this symbolical bread, since it reads: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” For, a little later [Acts 2: 46] mention is made of bread, that is, bodily food, and of their habit of breaking it from house to house. It is, therefore, plainly apparent that this bread was in use with the Apostles in the way I have said, as you can easily deduce from what precedes and what follows. Hence also it is clearer than day that circumecision and the Passover, which could not take place without blood, were through Christ, who puts an end to all blood with His blood, changed to these elements so kindly to man, so that we see the savagery of the Law transformed into the blessing of Grace. The Law was consecrated with the blood of beasts, and initiation into its service was by the blood of circumeision. Into the service of Christ, who with His own blood consecrated an eternal testament, we are initiated by the outpouring of water, so that we may see that the fire of burnt offerings was put out by the blood of Christ. The Passover was a commemoration and festival celebration by which thanks were rendered unto the Lord for the deliverance from the slavery of Egypt. But, that no trace of the bloody Law might remain, He wished His festival or commemoration to be celebrated with the symbol of things most kindly to man, namely, bread and wine, and in this fashion baptism is our circumeision, the Eucharist our Passover, that is, the commemoration, festival, or celebration of our redemption. It is, therefore, false religion which taught that the use of this symbolical bread destroys sins; for Christ alone destroys sins by His death. But He died once only, as we see in Rom. 6: 10 and in the whole Epistle to the Hebrews [cf. Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26]. Having, therefore, died once, He forever has power to blot out all the sins of all. It is false religion which taught that this bread is a work or an offering which, offered daily, expiates our sins,
as I have showed elsewhere by many proofs, but most briefly of all against Jerome Emser the Ibex, where I reduced the whole matter to two very short syllogisms, which I shall not be sorry to insert here. But first I must make here the introduetory remarks that I made there.
From the “reply to Emser”{
The New Testament is eternal, as is clear from Isaiah 9: 2 and Jeremiah 31:31. Therefore the blood also on which the New Testament rests and with which it is sprinkled must be eternal; for it is the blood of the eternal Son of God, I Peter 1:19; Heb. 9: 14.
1. The blood of Christ alone takes away our sins; for He is the only one who takes away the sins of the world and who has reconciled all things through His blood, Col. 1: 20. For if sins could have been expiated in any other way, Christ would have died for nought, and those who eat Him would still hunger, those who drink Him would none the less thirst. Far be this from the minds of believers. He Himself, lifted up from the earth, has drawn all things to Himself [ef. Jn. 12: 32]. But sin also is not removed without blood, Heb. 9: 22.
II. But the blood of Christ was offered once only; for it is the eternal blood of God’s eternal Son. Heb. 9: 12: “Through his own blood he entered in once for all into the holy place.” III. Therefore the blood of Christ, offered once for all, endures forever to remove the sins of all men.
In the second place, observe the following:
I. Christ is offered only when He suffers, sheds His blood, dies. In fact, these are equivalent. Proof: Paul says, Heb. 9: 25-26: “Nor yet that he should offer himself often… else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world.” Therefore “to offer Christ” is for Christ to suffer; for Paul proves that the offering of Christ must be the only offering of the kind, from the fact that He was slain only once. “Therefore there is offering only when there is death; for offering follows
[An epithet suggested by the figure of this animal on Emser’s coat]
[of arms. See p. 345. tef. pp. 392-393.]
death. For the offering is accomplished only when that which is offered has been slain.
II. Christ can no more die, suffer, shed His blood, Rom. 6: 9-10: “Christ, who rose from the dead, dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died unto sin, and that once; but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.”
III. Therefore Christ can no more be offered up; for He cannot die.
From this it is clearly manifest how recklessly the Pope of Rome and all his minions have imposed upon the simplemindedness of Christians. For what have they not acquired by celebrating the Mass? Whole kingdoms have been given them that they might eat the Lord’s Supper for us, and yet they did not eat it at all, but pretended that they were offering Christ for our transgressions. If this custom had come down from the Apostles or from those first brethren of Christ, it would have had something to show for itself; but, as it is, since this ritual of the Mass has absolutely no basis in any institution of Christ or of the Apostles, why, in the Temple, that is, in the Church of God, do we endure this shameless traffic, which breaks out so openly to the dishonoring of Christ? Why do we not bid all these mass-mongers to cease this atrocious insult to Christ? For if Christ has to be offered up daily, it must be because His being offered once on the cross is not sufficient for all time. What greater insult can be named than this? All masses should be immediately abolished,t and the Lord’s Supper used according to its institution by Christ. Yet no wrong should be inflicted upon the mass-reciters who have been chosen for this office, but they should be supported in peace as long as they live; but afterwards none should be put in the places of the dead, and their goods should be devoted to benefiting the poor. The objections that are raised to this from the Fathers so-called, from the Councils and Pontifical laws, are so trivial that it is not worth while to refute them. For as, before
[Here ends the quotation from the Reply to Emser. 1On April 12, 1525, the Council at Zurich decided that the Mass should]
[be done away with, and on the following day for the first time the Lord’s]
[Supper was celebrated in Zurich according to Zwingli’s directions.]
Christ was born, no one could effect that any offering should save us, so, now that He has reconciled us to God by having once suffered death on the cross, no congegation, no Council, no Fathers, can effect that He be offered up again. For as He has atoned for the sins of all from the founding of the world, so is He even unto the end of the world the bearer of salvation to all who trust in Him; for He is everlasting God; through Him we were created and redeemed. If, therefore, you find anything from Holy Writ distorted into the contrary, do not be troubled, but hasten to the passage thus twisted, and you will immediately discover theft or violence. For example, many men have argued a great deal about the priesthood of Christ, with the object of making themselves out His priesthood; and to support this error they have brought forward the statement in Hebrews 5:1: “Every high priest, being taken from among men, is ordained for men,” and many other passages from the same epistle. Yet, when you examine the case more closely, you will see that there is not a better club with which to destroy all their arguments than this epistle; and I advise you to study it carefully. When, therefore, you come to the aforesaid passage, Heb. 5:1, you will find plainly that — Paul is explaining the priesthood of Christ by comparison with the high priest of old. It is not a series of sacrificing priests ordained in succession, with new men substituted for the dead. For how could Christ be “a priest for ever” according to the utterance of the prophet [cf. Ps. 110: 4], if any one were to sueceed to His place? Is He dead or deprived of His office, that any one has to be substituted for Him? Nay, since He sits forever at the right hand of the Father [Mk. 16:19], and forever destroys our sins by the one offering made upon the cross, He does not need that any one should supply His place. And no one can supply His place, save a righteous being who dies for the unrighteous [cf. I Pet. 3: 18]; and since none can be or do that save the Son of God, it is impious to talk of an offering priesthood at all. I am not speaking of the ministers of the word and the Church. They are the dispensers of the mysteries, that is, the hidden things of God [cf. I Cor. 4:1], and are not the priesthood of Christ; for that can be nothing else than Christ Himself making satisfaction with the Father
for us forever. So priceless is He. And if any one raises also as an objection what is found in Acts 13: 2 in the new translation of the New Testament, “And as they were sacrificing? unto the Lord,” let him know that the Greek is λειτουργούντων; and this word means “ministering” as well as “sacrificing,” nor is it used in the Greek anywhere in the whole New Testament where the Lord’s Supper is spoken of. Hence it becomes manifest that in this passage “sacrifice” is used not for “offering” or “slaying a vietim,” but for administering the word; for frequently, all through Paul’s Epistles, λειτουργοί is used for “ministers,” as in Heb. 1: 14; and λειτουργία for “the ministry of the word,” as in Phil. 2: 17. But he explains most clearly in Rom. 15: 16 that by a metaphor he is calling the ministers of the word λειτουργοί OF ἱερουργοί because they make offerings, as it were. For as the ancient priests of the mysteries slew animals for a sweet savor unto the Lord [cf. Lev. 1:9], so shall the ministers of the word turn beastlike men into real offerings to God. For he says [Rom. 15:15-16]: “But I write the more boldly unto you in some measure, brethren, as one who is reminding you, because of the grace that was given me of God, unto the Gentiles, ministering, iepovpyGv, the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” By these words of Paul it is made abundantly clear what we ought to understand by “liturgia” in Acts 13:2 also. For the men enumerated there were ministering the word with painstaking and great soberness, and except for this no mention would be made there of the ministry of the word, which would be foreign to the usage of the Apostles, whose one occupation was preaching the word [ef. Acts 6: 4].
The “Eucharist,” then, or “Synaxis,” or Lord’s Supper, is —— nothing but the eommemoration by which those who firmly believe that by Christ’s death and blood they have become reconciled with the Father proclaim this life-bringing death, that is, preach it with praise and thanksgiving.
[By Erasmus; i. e. his second edition, 1519. 7Cum autem illi sacrifiearent. The Vulgate has, Ministrantibus autem]
[ills The Greek is, Acirovpyobrrwr δὲ αὐτῶν]
It follows, therefore, forthwith that those who come together for this practice or festival, to commemorate, that is, to proclaim the Lord’s death, bear witness by this very fact that they are members of one body, are one bread; for all who trust in Christ are one body, as Paul bears witness in more than one place, and especially in the above mentioned I Cor. 10:17. He, therefore, who joins with Christians when they proclaim the Lord’s death, who eats with them the symbolical bread or flesh, certainly ought afterwards to live according to Christ’s directions; for he has given evidence to others that he trusts in Christ. They, therefore, that trust in Him “ought to walk even as he walked,” I John 2: 6. Hence it came about that those who shared in the communion of this bread expelled from their fellowship by the institution of excommunication any one who too shamelessly went a-whoring or a-drinking, or practiced usury, or worshipped idols, or was a reviler or an extortioner [cf. I Cor. 5: 11]. And if this usage had never died out of the church of Christ, the life and conversation of Christians could not help being very good. See, pious heart, how we become feeble and frail when we follow after our own devices. We all wanted to attain salvation by masses, when yet the Lord’s Supper, even if celebrated according to Christ’s institution of it, would not expiate sin; for that belongs to Christ alone. But it was a sacrament which wit- j nessed before the church that we had sworn allegiance to Christ; and if we did not faithfully live up to this witness we should have been removed from the fellowship of the brethren, that Christian integrity might the better be maintained. What, then, has happened since we have turned this rule of life and discipline of Christian morals to another use? That which we all see with our own eyes: we have become more shameless in our lives than even the Turks and Jews. For you do not find among them such frequent adultery, so many unscrupulous forms of extortion, such beastly drunkenness, such bold robbery, to say nothing of the arrogance of high and low, of the continual wars, vile blasphemy, obscene talk, lying, cheating, and overreaching. Have we not all had our hands full with trying by hearing or hiring or reading masses to drain this universal swamp of evil? “This, I believe, no one will deny,
that we have all fled for refuge to the mass, as to a sacred anchor [cf. Heb. 6:9]. Nay, we have gone even to such a pitch of madness as to fancy that we saw a bread that brings salvation. Nor have we been content with this; but what we saw we also worshipped, forgetting our own articles so-called, according to which it is agreed among all who have written on the subject, whether of the new school or of the old, that not even the pure humanity of Christ is to be worshipped. “Only God is to be worshipped” [cf. Mt. 4:10], and “No man hath seen God at any time” [Jn. 1:18]. Why, then, do we worship a thing we see, when only God is to be worshipped and we have never seen Him? Whither will they now turn who teach that the Eucharist, so-called, is to be worshipped? Who ever worshipped a thanksgiving? For what is a thanksgiving, or where is it, or how is it? Does it not exist only when thanks are given? So, what is a Synaxis? Nothing, by thunder, but a gathering together, an assembling, a concourse, But who will ever be able to worship that? It is an action, a usage, and exists only at the time when it takes place. The same view is to be taken of the Lord’s Supper. It is a supper and a thanksgiving, when it is eaten in conjunction with the proclaiming of the death of Christ. Do we read that any one of the Apostles worshipped the supper when Christ was instituting this commemoration of Himself? Alas for our souls, which are so given to error that, I fear, even though we see the truth itself set before our eyes we yet do not receive it! Whither, then, does our faith tend, or upon what is it based? Does it not tend to God? Why, then, do we still delay to tear our hearts away from ceremonies? Why do we set our hopes upon things upon which the Lord has not commanded us to? Is not our salvation based upon Him who is the Savior of all nations? Why, then, do we seek it in the bread of commemoration? I may add, however, that it is my conviction that this bread and chalice of commemoration are to be treated with all reverence in the church, in which all things should be “done decently and in order,” I. Cor. 14:40. But more in my concluding paragraphs.
Now I will cite those of the ancients who, as we shall see clearly from their own words, did not understand that there
was in this sacrament or this symbolical bread any bodily flesh or indeed any flesh whatever (for what is the use of calling flesh spiritual, when that would be the same thing as calling fire watery or iron wooden?). Next I will cite those who are silent about the flesh, evidently because they hold the same view as myself, but are by no means silent as to the object for which the Supper was instituted. Thus it will be established that the use of the Eucharist among them was far different from the tradition the Roman Pontiffs have given us. Tertullian in his first book against Marcion says, “Nor did He, God namely, disdain the bread by which He represents His own body.” See how plainly he says that the body of Christ is represented by the bread, not that Christ’s body is represented by any visible bread whatsoever, but by the symbolical bread which was used in proclaiming the Lord’s death. Hence also I have called it symbolical, because it is at once both sign and seal.,
Augustine, though speaking differently in different passages on this subject, yet seems in two places to express clearly what he understands by “body.” The first makes for the view of Tertullian. It is in the introduction to the third Psalm, where he speaks of Christ and Judas thus: “And in the New Testament narrative itself our Lord’s patient endurance is so great and so marvellous that He bore so long with him, namely Judas, as if he were good, though He knew his thoughts when He admitted him to the feast at which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His body and blood.” How clear this is which Augustine says here! He tells us that Christ bequeathed to His disciples a figure of His body and blood. But in what way did He bequeath to them a figure? By bequeathing, of course, the use of this symbolical bread, by which the Lord’s death was represented and figured in a commemorative act by a sensible sign and observance. Or, as manna in the Old Testament foretold and prefigured Christ as the bread to come of the soul, so this bread
[Against Marcion, I: 14. See Robertson and Donaldson, eds., The]
[Ante-Nicene Fathers, III: 281. tEcpositions on the book of Psalms; Psalm 3: 1. See Schaff, ed., The]
[Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First series; VIII: 4-5.]
should call to mind the body of Christ that was slain and His blood that was shed for us.
The same writer in Tractate 27 on John manifestly rejects bodily flesh. First he says: “And He set forth the manner of the gift He was bestowing upon them, the way in which He was giving them His flesh to eat, saying [Jn. 6: 25]: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. The sign that one has eaten and drunk is, namely, this: if one abides in Him and is His abode, if one dwells and is dwelt in, if one clings and is not abandoned. This, therefore, He has taught and in mystic language has reminded us of, that we may be in His body, in His members under Himself as head, eating His body and not giving up unity with Him. But of those who were there most from lack of understanding were offended; for on hearing these words they thought only of flesh such as they were themselves. But the Apostle says, and says truly: To understand according to the flesh is death [Rom. 8;6]. The Lord givesus His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death.” Yet He says of His own flesh, that it is life eternal. Therefore not even the flesh ought we to understand according to the flesh, as is shown in the words: Many therefore —not of His enemies but—of his disciples, when they heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? [Jn. 6:60]. If His disciples found this saying hard, what of His enemies? And yet it behooved that to be said so as not to be understood by everybody. The secret things of God ought to make men earnestly attentive, not hostile, etc.” From these words of Augustine we see plainly that he held the view that the flesh of Christ is not even to be considered, as a little later in the same tractatet he declares more openly, saying: “If Christ has profited us much through His flesh, how is it that the flesh profiteth nothing? But through the flesh the Spirit wrought for our salvation. The flesh was a vessel. Note what it held, not what it was.” Lo, again he says that we are not to trouble about what the flesh is! Why, then, do we look only at the
[Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, 1-2. See Schaft, ed.,]
[The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First series; VII: 174. 185.]
flesh here, which profiteth nothing?
Now I will come to those who have explained the use of this food in such fashion that we see plainly that not only as vy regards the thing, but as regards its use this sacrament was an altogether different thing to the men of old. Hence I am easily induced to believe that Augustine, an exceptionally keen and clear-sighted man, did not venture to proclaim the truth explicitly in his day, because it had already largely fallen into disrepute. An altogether pious man saw what the sacrament was, and for what purpose it had been instituted, but the notion of bodily flesh had grown very strong.
First, therefore, I quote Origen in two passages for the reason that he seems both in regard to the thing and in regard to the purpose to agree with me. The first passage is in the Homily on Matt. 23: 23, upon the words: “Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, ete.” He says: “But if we are to adopt a moral interpretation for such words in the gospel, we. must know that as mint and anise and cummin are seasonings for foods, not themselves chief articles of food, so in our behavior some things are of prime and necessary importance to the justifying of our souls, such as these weighty points of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith; while there are other things that season our aets, as it were, commend them, and make them sweeter, as, for instance, abstinence, laughter, fasting, genuflexion, remaining for the collects, assiduity in the communion, and the like, which are not themselves righteousness but are looked upon as adding savor to righteousness.” See how he relegates the communion, which in old times was partaken of more frequently than in our day, to a place among unimportant things and ceremonial acts, which he surely never would have done if he had felt and boasted about bodily flesh, as we do. The other passage is in Homily 351 upon the same Evangelist, on these words: “This is my body, ete.” Here he immediately adds: “This bread, which God the Word acknowledges to be His body, is the word that nourishes the soul, the word proceeding from God the Word and the bread from the bread
[Series veteris interpretationis commentariorum in Matthaeum.]
[Homilia 20. Ibid. $85, on Matt. 26: 26. (Sometimes cited as Tractate 35.)]
of heaven which was placed upon the table, of which it is written, “Thou has prepared a table before me in the presence of those who afflict me.” [Ps. 23:5]. And this drink, which God the Word acknowledges to be His blood, is the word that gives to drink and in goodly fashion exhilarates the hearts of the drinkers; and it is in the cup of which it is written, And thy cup which exhilarateth me, how goodly it is” And this drink is the product of the true vine which saith [Jn. 15: 1]: ‘I am the true vine.” And it is the blood of those grapes that, cast into the winepress of the Passion, brought forth this drink. So also the bread is the word of Christ made of that wheat which falling into good ground brought forth much fruit” “[ef. Mt. 13: 8]. But why did He not say, This is the bread of the new testament,” as He said, This is the blood of the new testament’? Because the bread is the Word of Righteousness, by eating which the soul is nourished; while the drink is the. Word of the Knowledge of Christ according to the mystery of His birth and passion. Since, therefore, the testament of God was made for us in the blood of the passion of Christ, that we, believing that the Son of God had been born and had suffered according to the flesh, might be saved, and not in righteousness, in which by itself there could be no salvation without faith in the passion of Christ, on. this account it was of the cup only that He said: “This is the cup of the testament, etc.” It would take too much space to transcribe the whole passage here. We see by these words that Origen held the view that the essential thing in this sacrament is the faith by which we believe that Christ made sacrifice for us; for He is the food of the soul. And afterwards in the same passage he explains the procedure, saying: “And Jesus always, taking the bread from the Father for those who are keeping this festival with Him, gives thanks, and breaks, and gives to the disciples according as each is capable of receiving; and gives, saying [Mt. 26: 26]: “Take and eat.” Lo, he calls it a festival, that is, a celebrating assemblage or gathering of the church! Further, he says that Christ gives according to the capacity of each, which cannot possibly be understood of bodily flesh, for, according to our friends, this is the same in the case of all to whom it is given; but since He gives faith and thanksgiving not in the same
measure to all, it is apparent that these are what is spoken of. What follows here in Origen will at first sight seem to his inexperienced reader to have somewhat the appearance of being said of bodily flesh, though nothing is less true, as readily becomes plain if one looks more closely. But what he adds at the end shows with perfect clearness what the Eucharist is to him and what its purpose, when he says: “Then he taught the disciples, who had celebrated the festival with their master” (observe ‘“festival”’) “and had received the bread of blessing, and had eaten the body of the word” (see whether he thought there was sensible body here) “and had drunk the cup of thanksgiving, etc.” Behold the Eucharist, a commemoration, celebration, or proclamation of the death of the Lord! Hilary in Canon 9, treating of the fasting of John’s disciples and Christ’s, says: “But in answering that while the bridegroom is present the disciples have no need of fasting, He is teaching the joy of his own presence and the sacrament of the holy food of which none shall be in want while He is present, that is, while he keeps Christ before his heart; but when He is taken away, He says they will fast, because none who believeth not that Christ has risen shall have the food of life. For the sacrament of the bread of heaven is received in faith in the resurrection, and whosoever is without Christ shall be left fasting as far as the food of life is concerned.” Hilary means here that the mystery of Christ is the food of the soul, and that as long as He is at hand none need fast, but that when He has been taken away, then shall men fast. They, therefore, for whom Christ has risen, that is, they that attribute to Christ resurrection from the dead, alone properly eat the sacramental bread which is the symbol of the heavenly, while they that are without Christ are left fasting as far as the food of life is concerned. He thinks, therefore, that the Lord’s Supper is the symbol of those that trust in Christ, in whose hearts He has risen again, that is, who firmly believe He has risen. For those who believe He has risen must believe that He is true God; and those who believe He is true God cannot help trusting in Him. “Therefore, this great authority says: “The sacrament of the bread of heaven is received in faith in the resur-
[Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 9, $8.]
rection.”
And in the thirtieth Canon he says of Judas: “Nor, indeed, could he drink with God who was not to drink in the kingdom,. ete.” [ef. Mt. 26:29]. This language also seems to contain something from which we may learn that Hilary did not have the idea that in the Lord’s bread is eaten the body of Christ whieh hung upon the eross, or wailed in the manger, as our friends say; for he says “drink with God,” “not “drink the blood.” This view about Hilary is strengthened by the fact that he says nothing else at all about the Lord’s Supper than these few words. I quote Jerome upon Sophonias, Chapter 3, not because it contributes much to the subject but because it shows a far different view of the Eucharist from that of the Pope. He says, then: “Even the priests who minister in the Eucharist, and distribute the Lord’s blood to His people, are guilty of impiety against the law of Christ, thinking that the words, not the life, of the officiating priest are the essential thing for εὐχαριστία, the Eucharist, and that only the solemn prayer is necessary, not the worthiness of the priest, ete.” First he says: “And distribute the Lord’s blood to His people”; from which it becomes clear that in Jerome’s time the priests did not eat alone, but still administered the Eucharist to the whole eongregation, and that they used not only the bread but also the cup. Next he says: “Thinking that the words, not the life, of the officiating priest were the essential thing for εὐχαριστία: the Eucharist.” In this statement he is evidently opposing the teaching of the Popes, who do not deny to the worst of priests the right to officiate at the Eucharist; but Jerome holds the contrary. Yet neither Jerome—begging the pardon of all who are his sworn adherents—nor the Pope speaks rightly about officiating at the Eucharist. Finally, if by “the worthiness of the priest” he means the works of the Law, he is just as much in the wrong as is the Pope, though it is not to the worthiness of the priest but to the solemn prayer that the Pope attributes all efficacy. But if by “worthiness” he understands a Christian life modeled on faith, and holds that this is the essential thing for the Eucharist, he is right; for the Eucharist is the giving of thanks to the Author of their being
[Commentary on Zephaniah, 111: 1-7.]
by men, assembled together, who have been renewed through faith and life in Christ.
Augustine in Tractate 84 [1] upon John, on the words, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends,” [Jn. 15: 13], says a little further on: “This doubtless is the thought in the Proverbs of Solomon 23: 1-2: When thou sittest to eat at the table of a ruler, consider diligently what is set before thee, and put forth thy hand, knowing that thou must provide the like. For what is the table of a ruler but the table whence are taken the body and blood of Him who laid down His life for us? And what is sitting at it but approaching it in humility? And what is considering diligently what is set before thee but pondering worthily the great favor shown you? And what is it to put forth thy hand, knowing that thou must provide the like but what I have already said, that as Christ laid down His life for us, so we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren? For this the Apostle Peter also says [I Pet. 2: 21]: Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps, ete.” “See for what purpose Augustine says that we eat the body and blood of Christ: for the purpose, namely, of pouring out our life for the brethren just as Christ did for us.
However, lest anyone think that Augustine means by body and blood these bodily things, I will quote also what he had said just before in Tractate 26, after this fashion, “Finally, He sets forth how that is done of which He is speaking, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood: He that,eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him [Jn. 6:56]. This, then, is to partake of this food and drink this drink: to abide in Christ and to have Him abide in us; and consequently he that abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, beyond a doubt neither partakes (spiritually) of His flesh nor drinks His blood (though he physically and visibly crush with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ), but rather eateth and drinketh the sacrament of this great thing to his own judgment, ete.” What, pray, could be said more clearly and openly than this?
[The text of the Septuagint is followed in these verses.]
What at the same time could be said more carefully? For having said, “though he physically and visibly crush with his teeth,” he at once adds, “the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,” that you may not think this is to be understood of the bodily flesh of Christ. This, he means, is to eat carnally, when one eats sacramentally; but to eat sacramentally cannot be anything else than to eat the sign or symbol. Again, let no one think it a trivial thing that he spoke of “eating sacramentally,” as if such partaking detracted from Paul’s words in I Cor. 11: 27: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, etc.” For someone might say: “If I eat only sacramentally, how can I be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord?” “Augustine, therefore, blunts the point of this thoughtless objection by saying, “but rather eateth and drinketh the sacrament of this great thing to his own judgment.” See first how he says not “this great thing,” but “the sacrament of this great thing.” Of what thing? Of this, that through faith we are in Christ and He in us. Therefore, continuing to speak carefully, he declares that those who merely eat the sacrament of faith in Christ eat and drink judgment to themselves; meaning, besides, that this sacrament ought not to be eaten by anybody but one who trusts in Christ. Also in Book 3 of “The Agreement among the Evangelists,” Chapter 1, giving the reason why John said nothing about the body and blood when he was describing the supper and the washing of the feet, he says: “John says nothing in this passage about the body and blood of the Lord, but he plainly bears witness elsewhere much more fully as to the Lord’s having spoken upon this point.” Augustine, therefore, thinks the same kind of eating necesary here, as far as the thing itself is concerned, that is treated in the sixth chapter of John. And this is to have faith in the Gospel word. We do not, therefore, according to his opinion, in any other way eat Christ than through faith, trusting in Him as the sure pledge of salvation. I have quoted these things from the weightiest of the Fathers, not because I wish to support by human authority a thing plain in itself and confirmed by the Word of God, but that it might become manifest to the feebler brethren that I am not the first to put forth this view, and that it does not lack
very strong support. For I call God to witness that for the glory of Him alone I secretly considered this matter with various learned men for several years, for the reason that I was unwilling to spread among the crowd thoughtlessly and recklessly anything that might give rise to some great commotion. But the more persons I conferred with, the more I found who assented to this view. Therefore I prayed frequently that the Lord would show a way by which all should learn to know how much less difficult than we all thought is this thing which in the judgment of the simple is by far the most difficult; and a way, too, by which, as far as usefulness is concerned, it would be of more service and use in the church than anything else. For what has opened the door more widely to all sorts of vice than that when sinning shamelessly we have not kept away from this communion? Or what could have more persuasively invited to mutual love and favor than the frequent pouring into the ear and the heart that Christ of His own free will died for poor mortals and His enemies? Or how could any one have better defended himself against the risk of shame from adultery, usury, vanity, pride, arrogance, greed, and the other vices, than by sitting again and again at the table from which many had been turned away in dire disgrace, where daily examples were made? Seeing, therefore, that the original use of this sacrament would do so much good, I prayed earnestly to the Lord, as I have said, that He would show me the way to approach so delicate a matter wisely, and He answered my earnest prayers. Thus at length I came to the conclusion that it would be of advantage if the mass should be overturned; and I hoped that when that had been overturned the Eucharist could be restored in its purity. I saw no more effective armor for this conflict than the sixth chapter of John. There that indestructible adamant, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” is so firmly imbedded in its form and substance that it stands uninjured, however you beat upon it, and all opposing weapons are shattered without even making a dent in it. Next to this passage the best adapted to the purpose seemed to be John 1:18: “No man hath seen God at any time.” This forbids the worshipping of anything that is the object of sight or touch. Finally, it was necessary that the orig-
inal use of it, of the Eucharist, I mean, should be set forth. When this was once understood, those empty hopes and monstrous notions would fall to pieces of their own accord. I communicated this plan to many persons; but before the matter had come to anything, some pamphlets came out breathing threats; and then those who had not strength or light enough attacked the subject on a side where victory could not be won. Thus does divine power make a laughing-stock of human affairs. In these circumstances I was forced against my will to publish this view of mine, since many brethren everywhere demanded it, even to the point of harshness. And I sent to the Evangelist of Reutlingen, a man personally unknown to me, a letter,t which I hedged about with such a stringent oath that no one should publish it that by the gift of God I have not yet seen it published, though many sincere brethren in the Lord have seen it. But when afterwards I began these Commentaries, what other view was I to hold than that which I had held in the letter mentioned? For I was obliged to furnish the Commentaries: I had promised this to not a few of the best and most learned men in France. I pray the Lord, therefore, before whom I stand today and lift up hands clean of every desire to make trouble or win renown [cf. I Tim. 2:8], that, if this which I have set forth is the true purport of this institution of His, as in my own mind I am absolutely sure that it is, He will through that grace with which He has pitied the whole human race open the eyes of all, that each and every one may recognize and cease to worship the abomination (for it must be the greatest of all abominations when the creature is set up in God’s place) which has established itself in the place that is God’s. For since God alone is to be worshipped [cf. Mt. 4: 10], and absolutely no creature, so that even the theologians declare that Christ’s pure humanity cannot be worshipped without risk of idolatry, is it not the height of impiety to worship the bread? And what does it amount to when they say they worship not
[At the end of the year 1524 and in January, 1525, appeared, im two]
[parts, Luther’s pamphlet, Wider die himmlischen Propheten, von den]
[Bildern und Sakrament. TtAd Matthaeum Alberum de coena dominica epistola. (Dated Novem-]
[ber 16, 1524.)]
the bread, but the body of Christ? Do they not worship the creature? Where, then, are their decrees, by which, as I have said, they forbid the worship of the human? But, again, they say: “We worship and even eat the spiritual body of Christ.” What, by Almighty God, is the spiritual body of Christ? Do we find anywhere in the Seriptures any other spiritual body of Christ than either the Church, as in Eph. 4: 4 and Col. 1: 18, or our faith, which believes He paid the penalty for us upon the cross and is sure of salvation through Him? Why, pray, do we burden pious hearts with words of this kind, which no intellect can comprehend? Spiritual body” man comprehends as little as if you were to say “bodily mind” or “fleshy reason.” Do we not eat Christ’s body spiritually when we believe that He was slain for us and trust in Him? Are not spirit and life forthwith in us? Why do we continue to link together incongruous words simply to weave this long rope of contention? Let us speak plainly! We eat spiritually when through the grace of God we come to Christ. To eat the body of Christ spiritually, then, what is it but to trust in Christ? Why do we think up strange inventions which cannot possibly hold together? “IT am the light of the world,” says Christ [Jn. 8:12]. Since, then, He is the light, who will believe that He has thrust us into such darkness as this, in which faith is weakened rather than strengthened? What I say is true and found to be so. For when the human heart is safe through Christ by faith in God, does it not possess the crowning blessing of salvation? It certainly does. What, then, do you suppose happens to it when it is driven into things so disparate and so abhorrent to all understanding? It simply begins to waver, by Heaven. You will say: “Faith can do all things; and unless you have it, you cannot be saved.” I answer, that in this way everybody is imposed upon. Those who hold this hard doctrine demand faith tremendously in this instance, though at other times they do not attribute very much to it. That is about what those do who out of their fleshly minds, as Paul says, Eph. 4:14 and Col. 2:18, assert anything they please. When you press them so hard that they are forced either to give in or to turn and flee, they take refuge in faith; when if they really had faith they never could have made any such assertion. For those who trust
in Christ neither hunger nor thirst for anything else [ef. Jn. 4:14]; for they have already the food by which the soul is revived. Therefore they ascribe to faith what she does not recognize nor suffer to be attributed to her, as has been abundantly proved above. Hence they do her no small wrong when they give her credit for establishing the presence of the bodily flesh of Christ. And this for two reasons: [I.] First, because they say that this bodily flesh exists through our faith; for faith protests. And it will have to be admitted that this great thing, as they represent it, exists of itself rather than through our faith. For faith is directed to things that exist before you put faith in them. Our faith, therefore, cannot produce this flesh. This I should not have said if there were not certain persons who seek such poor shelter under faith as to venture to say that this flesh exists through faith. What more foolish than this ean be said? Can our faith cause bread to be flesh? This must be proved conclusively by the word of God, where faith has its abode, not thrust upon faith by force. [IL] Second, they do wrong to faith because they say it saves — us. This is, to be sure, true in itself, but in this instance it is as far from the truth as darkness is from light. For they are putting up a pretext, as if this faith saves which believes that bodily flesh is in the bread or is the bread itself. But this is said without the authority of the word; for nowhere do we read: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that he that believeth that in this bread he eateth my bodily flesh shall be blessed.” Nay, another very great error would follow, namely, that there are two faiths effective for salvation: one that by which we trust in Christ, the other that by which we believe that this bread is flesh. For they say: “Unless you believe that the thing is so, you cannot be saved.” See how human reason, willingly and knowingly, finds darkness in the midst of light, in order to grope in it and by groping and searching to gain a reputation for cleverness among the simple. For where in Scotus and Thomas is there such zeal and diligence in investigating the changing of the bread and wine into body and blood as there is display of cleverness? They imitated physicians See p. 199.
fDuns Scotus (12651-13087) and Thomas Aquinas (12257-1974).
unskilled in their profession, who, in order to seem learned, by means of drugs cause you at a period foretold by them to experience a more severe attack of some trifling ailment, that by their affording relief they may be regarded as gods. Do we not see that this is like the case we have under discussion? These men taught, in the first place, that the bodily flesh of Christ, as it wailed in the manger and as it hung upon the bloody cross (they might at least have said, as it entered into the disciples through closed doors after the resurrection), is eaten here. And, in order not to seem bad teachers, they got up a wonderful maze of argument to show that the thing was so, and they led about in a labyrinth, as it were, the stolid minds that never really believed the thing or at least refused to take a clear look at what is the truth, showing them one form after another until they took away all concern for the way out. After this was in great measure taken away, they proceeded to tyrannize over those who wanted to look into things a little more carefully. They called those heretics who strove to teach that which is true. Why go into detail? When they were going to sell this bread of communion like any other commodity, they needed to make it something that all should look upon with wondering admiration, so that they could increase the price. They began, therefore, to make the bread flesh, disregarding the saying, “The flesh profiteth nothing.” I beg all, therefore, who read these words of mine, by that faith by which we all are saved, not to condemn or reject forthwith what they hear, even if it seems to them perfectly absurd, but to pray the Lord to give them the true light of understanding, by which they shall be able to see what is true and right and holy. The face of Truth is glad and by no means arrogant, but she is also inaccessible to flattery. Hence they whose consciences are bad dare not at first sight gaze upon her steadily and fearlessly; but when they have again and again got a taste, as it were, of looking at her, she will begin not to disturb them. Almighty God grant that we may all learn that that only is true religion by which our hearts cling to Him solely and alone, imitate Him alone, desire to please Him alone, hang upon His will alone. And may He grant, on the other hand, that we may see that these elements of the world make us not a
← 50. Commentary on True and False Religion · Contents · 52. Commentary on True and False Religion →