I doubt not that there are in it many things that will greatly offend certain weaklings, but let these reflect that Paul sometimes spoke as a child [ef. I Cor. 13], and let them consider whether they may not themselves still be perhaps over weak. All that I have said, I have said to the glory of Godand for the benefit of the commonwealth of Christ and the good of the conscience.
Thanks be to God!
^ II
ai 1523 Zwingli published a Latin tract entitled, De Canone Misse Huldrychi Zuinglii Epichiresis, “An Essay on the (Canon of the Mass.” He speaks of it as “my confutation of the Canon of the Mass.” He wrote it in four days (August 25-29), though not without careful study and serious thought on the subject “for several years” before he began to write. Emser was sufficiently provoked by it to publish an answer with the title: Canonis Misse contra Huldricum Zuinglium Defensio (1524), “Defense of the Canon of the Mass against Huldreich Zwingli.” The author, contrary to custom, did not send a copy of this tract to Zwingli, who accordingly chides him for attacking him treacherously “from the rear” and without giving him “any warning.” “You did not, as a Christian especially ought, give any warning; you sent no herald with a demand for satisfaction; and you attacked suddenly, not in front but from the rear, one who suspected no such thing.”
Zwingli heard of Emser’s Defense through his friend George Vadian,t a merchant and “a man of marked piety and culture,” who had attended the Leipsie fair. Vadian was not a little amazed to find in Saxony a pamphlet written against a prominent Swiss citizen. He procured a copy! of it and sent it to Zwingli, who informs Emser that for “four months” he
[In the explanation of the twentieth of the Simty-seven Conclusions,]
[Zwingli announces his intention to write before long on the Canon.”—]
[Egli-Finsler, II, 213. tA nephew of Joachim von Watt (Vadian), the Reformer, of St. Gall. TA copy of this tract is preserved in the University of Basel.]
delayed answering the tract after he had read it, “waiting in the meantime to see whether you would say anything.” When he did not hear from Emser, he sent back his “Defense,” with a copy of his own “Reply,” which he professes to have written not with the bitterness of spirit of his opponent but “lovingly and benignly.” After reading Zwingli’s answer one wonders what he meant by these professions of affection. For, as we shall see, Zwingli left little, if anything, unwritten that would detract from the character of Emser.
The salient faets of Emser’s life will throw light on his controversy with Zwingli. Jerome Emser was born in the city Ems of Ulm in Swabia, either in the year 1477 or 1478. His father was of the nobility, and the son proudly exhibited the coat of arms of his family on the title page of his numerous books and pamphlets. Its most prominent feature was the figure of a wild goat with long horns and the inscription Arma Hieronymi Emser.” For this reason his opponents, Luther taking the lead, addressed him as the “Wild Goat Emser” or as the “Goat of Leipsic.” Nothing is known of his boyhood. He matriculated in the University of Tübingen, July 19, 1493. For unknown reasons he left ”übingen and entered the University of Basel, matriculating for the winter semester, 1497. In the same year he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts; in 1498, the degree of Master of Arts.
Zwingli charges Emser with having “once spewed out against the Swiss” certain “base charges” on account of which he was “compelled to change suddenly his place of residence.” He left Basel in 1502. This accusation is based upon an episode that happened while he was a student in the University. A Swiss fellow-student stirred up Emser’s wrath by writing a satirieal poem on the Swabians. Emser in retaliation wrote abusive verses in Latin on the Swiss in a notebook of a student who was dozing while both of them were attending a lecture on law.
[iThis copy, inscribed in Zwingli’s handwriting Emsero Ibici a]
[Zuinglio,” is now in the Prince Stolberg Library, at Wernigerode, in the]
[Harz Mountains. The notebook into which Emser wrote the verses belonged to Gre-]
[gorius Biinzli, one of Zwingli’s teachers at Basel.—Introduction to]
[Adversus Hieronymum, etc., Egli-Finsler, III, 231.]
The part of the poem that was particularly offensive to the Swiss was as follows:
Switzer, thou art a tyrant, an enemy of our faith and God,
Good-for-nothing; nursest thyself with milk, milkest lazily the cow.
Hereafter the gods can no more tolerate the spoils taken by force,
Son of the Woods, which thou lovest after the manner of robbers.
The time is coming, when thou, who hopest for golden booty,
Wilt flee, when the Gallie prince will send his sharp weapons. This raillery of students leaked out and the people of Basel felt insulted by the words of the Swabian Emser. He was arrested, imprisoned, and brought before the tribunal for trial, where he proved, to the satisfaction of the court and of the people, that the matter charged against him was a mere student jest. But the Council, inclined to be hostile toward Swabia, turned him out of the city, in spite of the friendly interposition of the Bishop, Christoph von Utenheim. Since Zwingli matriculated for the summer semester of 1502 at Basel and. Emser was tried on May 25 of that year, he must have known of Emser’s misfortune through personal observation.
Emser served for two years as private secretary and chaplain to the Cardinal Legate Raymund Peraudi, which implies that about this time he was ordained to the priesthood. After he left the service of the Cardinal, he lectured as a Master of the Liberal Arts at Erfurt, 1504. One of his hearers was Martin Luther, who was preparing for his examination for the Master’s degree. A few months later, at the beginning of the winter semester, Emser turned up in the University of Leipsie, where he won the degree of Bachelor of Theology. But, contrary to expectations, he did not become a teacher of theology. He was chosen Secretary of Duke George of Saxony, whose court was at Dresden. His “Wanderjahre” were over.
Beside the routine work of his office, he was a prolific writer of prose and poetry, and appears to have been a restless, ever.active, controversial spirit with more than ordinary ability. One of the first products of his pen was a Latin dialogue on The Custom of Drinking Toasts. A more pretentious work was his Life of Bishop Benno: in Latin, 1512; in German, 1517. He read widely in the Latin classics, had knowledge of the Greek, wrote Latin poetry that called forth favorable comment from Erasmus. Luther called him “a versifex” and “a wild
poet.” He was acquainted with the sources of medisval history and read the new editions of the Church Fathers, among them Reuchlin’s Athanasius, Erasmus’ Jerome, and Faber Stapu-lensis! Dionysius the Areopagite.
When Luther turned Protestant and independent reformer, Emser took up the cudgels against him. He opened the controversy (which continued until 1527, when Luther ceased to take further notice of his foe) with a letter, dated August 13, 1519, to the Viear of the Archbishop of Prague. In this epistle he did not condemn Luther outright, but spoke of him as “a restless head, entangled in many contradictions,” and yet “not so obstinate as not to yield to reason.”
The letter was brought to Luther’s attention, who wrote in reply a tract with the title: Zusatzbemerkungen Luthers zu dem Emserchen Steinbock, “Added Observations to the Emseric Wild Goat.” Not to be outdone, Emser wrote a pamphlet with the superseription: An den Stier zu Wittenberg, “To the Bull at Wittenberg.” It does not come within the scope of this introduction to describe in detail the blasts and counter-blasts of these two men from 1521 to 1527. The reader will find a thorough discussion of the controversy between them in Hieronymus Emser. Ein Lebensbild aus der Reformationsge-schichte, by Gustav Kawerau. Suffice it to say that when Luther published his Formula Misse et Communionis (1523), Emser issued his “Defense of the Mass of Christians against Luther’s Formula of the Mass.” In this tract the questions were discussed that were raised also by Zwingli’s Epichiresis, which Emser answered with his Defensio. Through his frequent combats with Luther, Emser sharpened his weapons and became skilled in their use to meet the Swiss Reformer.
Let us briefly consider Zwingli’s Essay om the Canon of the Mass, to which Emser wrote a rejoinder, and which, accordingly, prepared the way for the “Reply to Emser.”
The service of the Mass in the Roman Catholic Church consists of the Offertory, the Preface, and the Canon. “All this,
[In the discussion of the Mass in his Defensio, Emser refers Zwingli]
[to his Vindication, written against Luther, 1524.]
from Offertory to Communion, forms the Sacrifice, so called.” In the form for the Mass of today there is an “introductory service which equals in length the Sacrifice properly so called.” This preparatory service consists “of chants, prayers, and lessons or readings from Holy Secripture—the Introit, Kyrie Eleison, Collect, Epistle or Lesson, and the Gospel. On certain days the Gloria in Excelsis and the Nicene Creed are added.” The first part is known as the Mass of the Catechumens; the second part is called the Mass of the Faithful. Zwingli in his Epichiresis confined himself to a critical examination and a confutation of the third part of the Mass of the Faithful, namely, the Canon.
In the Preface (August 29, 1523), which is addressed to Diebold of Geroldseck, warden of the chapter at Einsiedlen and friend and patron of Zwingli, the author informs the reader that in this tract he has cast his customary caution to the wind, and that henceforth he will openly and boldly attack the citadel of the medizval faith and worship, ὁ. e., the Sacrifice of the Mass. “The time has come when it will not do to be concerned about giving offence, but much more to have consideration for those who have accepted Christ’s doctrine but are in danger of lapsing again into error, if they do not see those things refuted that are contrary to Christ.” At this time, also, Leo Jude, Zwingli’s colleague, introduced a baptismal service in the German language, to which he added prayers in German. This was the beginning of the Zurich liturgy.
Notwithstanding his declaration of open warfare, indications are not wanting that Zwingli at this stage was still ready to make concessions in reference to ecclesiastical ceremonies, provided that, at this price, his hope of a reform of the whole Church might be realized. He was willing to tolerate such things as the sign of the cross in praying, the vestments of the priest in the celebration of the Mass, as far as they symbolize the passion of Christ, and choir singing. For the sake of the weaker brethren he would yield at least part use of the Latin language in the service; the Scriptures, however, were to be read in the German. He who compromises at this point com-
[Cabrol, The Roman Missal in Latin and English, Students’ edition,]
[“General Introduction,” p. iii.]
mits sin, for this is the word of life, and whoever casts a shadow upon it takes life away.”
About a month after Zwingli finished his Essay on the Canon of the Mass, he added an appendix, probably to guard against misunderstanding of his concessions on ceremonies, for which he was criticised by certain zealots. In this section he insists that anything that leads to superstition is to be abolished. On the other hand, he positively opposes the narrow biblical literalism of those who refuse to use the prayers of the Church and are willing to keep only the Lord’s Prayer on the ground that it was revealed of God. “The order of worship,” he says, “is left to the choice of the congregation and is not bound to this or that form by the word of God.” Again: “We beseech all brethren, that they do not acknowledge our name as having authority, but that they prove everything by the word of God and reject what is contrary to it.”
In the Epichiresis, the Letter to Wyttenbach, June 15, 1523, and the explanation of the eighteenth article of the Sizty-seven Conclusions (July 14, 1523), one will find the original material for a study of the early views of Zwingli on the Lord’s Supper. In the first part of the “De Canone Miss” the author criticises the prayers of “oblation,” “consecration,” and “the elevation”; in the second part he submits an evangelical form for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
In quoting passages from the Canon he uses the Missale Constantiense, Erhardus Ratold, 1504. He refutes, primarily, the idea of the Mass as a sacrifice to God—the doctrine that is reiterated in the prayers. This conception of the Mass directly contradicts his evangelical idea of salvation, which rests wholly and solely upon the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. From the Gospel it is known “that the Mass is not a sacrifice, but a memorial of the sacrifice and an assurance of the redemption which Christ has shown us.” He reminds the reader that Christ did not say: “Go and sacrifice me”; but, “Eat and drink ye.” The following are quotations from some of the prayers which he criticizes and refutes in the first part of the tract:
[De Canone Misse Libelli Apologia, October 9, 1523. fThese prayers were declared by the Council of Trent to have been]
[“brought together without error according to the words of Christ, the]
[traditions of the apostles, and the directions of the popes.”]
Prayer of oblation for the Church: “Wherefore, O most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech thee… that thou wouldst vouchsafe to receive and bless these gifts, these offerings, this holy and unblemished sacrifice which in the first place we offer thee for thy holy Catholic Church,” ete.
Prayer of consecration and the elevation: “Which oblation do thou, O God, vouchsafe in all things to bless, sanction, approve, ratify, and make acceptable: that it may become for us the body and blood of thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The prayer after one of the portions of the Host is put into the chalice: “May this mingling and hallowing of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail us that receive it unto life everlasting.”
Zwingli writes with reserve on the belief in the corporal presence of Christ. He does not “reject as god-less” the prayer of consecration, namely, “That it [the oblation] may become for us the body and blood of thy most beloved Son, οἷο.” but he interprets it in his own way. He concedes that “the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ to those who partake of them in faith, in which way alone this should be done.” He adds, also, that Paul’s account of the Supper clearly proves that the whole celebration is nothing more than a remembrance of the suffering of the Lord.t
The Canon, as a whole, he declares to be “full of God-lessness.” He says: “One hopes to find in it incitation to god-liness but finds instead a dragon. It contains as much god-lessness as prayers.”
The Reply to Emser’s Defense of the Canon of the Mass contains an introduction and five sections headed as follows: The Church; Intercession of Saints; Merit; The Mass; Purgatory. He gives his reason for selecting these five subjects for discussion in the following words: “I shall treat these points,
[The English translation of these passages is taken from The Roman]
[Missal of Cabrol, pp. liii, lv, lix. +See Rudolf Stehelin, Huldreich Zwingli. Sein Leben und Wirken,]
[I, 308-315.]
which you have passed by, that it may be manifest to all who have the slightest acquaintance with Holy Writ that you skipped them on purpose, either because you could not comprehend them or because you despaired of rebutting them.”
Each of these sections, excepting the section on the Mass, was copied by Zwingli into his larger work, True and False Religion, which is published in this volume. The autograph copy of this tract is a pamphlet of forty unnumbered pages and is preserved in the city library of Zurich. The author’s numerous corrections, of more or less consequence, in the manuseript show the care with which he prepared the text.
He begs Emser, whenever he finds Zwingli in error, not to indulge in vain exclamations, such as O Heaven, O Earth, O Horror!” but “to have recourse to the armory of Holy Writ.” The Word of God alone is for him the test of truth. He allows no room for the opinions of the Fathers, however ancient they may be, nor for the reasonings of men at present, however wise they may be: these have value only when they are in agreement with the Word of God. Only once in this tract does he
appeal to tradition, when, in opposition to Emser’s conception of merit, he says: “Read Augustine’s book, On Free Will and Grace.”
He concludes the Introduction with a petition: “God grant that wherever I am in error I may be taught better; and God grant that you may know what is error and what is truth. Amen!”
The author distinguishes between the visible universal church (multitudo Christianorum), which is “not the spouse of Christ” and is not “mentioned in the Creed,” and the holy church that is without spot or wrinkle and “is unknown to men.” ‘The former is composed of all persons who outwardly profess faith in Christ, some sincerely and others deceitfully. Both the Old and the New Testaments recognize it. The Greek term “ecclesia” is the equivalent of the Hebrew ‘“kahal” and “edah,” and “is used not only for the pious, holy, and faithful, but also for the impious, wicked, and unfaithful, provided only they were of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh and were intermingled with the pious.” In the New Testament, also, the word ‘eeclesia is used for all those who have named the name of Christ and who walk and live within the company of the Christians, even though in reality they were not faithful.” This church is not “undefiled”; it has “many blemishes.” The latter, that is, “the holy church,” is the church “for which Christ gave Himself, to the end that He might sanctify it to Himself”; it is “without any spot or wrinkles.” The members of it are “those who believe that Christ so loved us that He gave Himself up for our sanctification.” It is spotless because “Christ has washed it with His blood”; it is “the communion of saints which we confess in the creed.” The true church “is not some few pontiffs, holy, spotless, pious, though they be, but all who firmly believe themselves redeemed by the blood of Christ.”
Someone may object that “such a church can no more exist than does Plato’s Republic, because no one lives without fault, because all have sinned.” His answer to this argument is that the holiness and purity of the church are not in its members, but in “Christ, Who gave Himself up for it that He might sanctify it,” and this we can know only through faith. This church “cannot err.” But it has not the infallibility “which the
pontiffs arrogate to themselves with as much falseness as impudence.” Its inerrancy “rests upon the word of God alone,” while “the church of the pontiffs rests upon its own word.” He is careful to define what he means by the word of God—“not that word which Emser supposes that I merely look at, which consists of letters and sentences, but that which shines in the heart and recognizes every word by whomsoever spoken, whether it is the Father’s and Shepherd’s or not.”
This communion of believers as a whole is divided into “individual churches” (peculiares ecclesiae). These congregations together constitute the church universal (ecclesia universalis, ἐκκλησία καθολική), which, however, is not a gathering merely of all the bishops representing the congregations but a “communion of all the saints.”
The Reformers, generally, were compelled to define the rights and powers of the local congregation, which was no longer under the authority and supervision of the priest, bishop, and pope. At this point, Luther, Zwingli, and the Anabaptists had to face a common issue. Zwingli vested in the congregation the right to discipline disobedient members and the authority to judge the teacher and the doctrine taught in the congregation.
In reference to discipline he says: “The office of these churches is to reject one who is shamelessly delinquent, and to admit him again when he comes to his senses and submits to the rule of Christ.” This prerogative has been exercised generally by Protestant congregations, either through the voice of the congregation as a whole or through officers in judicatories appointed by the congregation. What was formerly in the power of the clergy is now the right of all believers. They have authority to admit believers into their fellowship, to exclude the disorderly, and to receive again the penitent who seeks restoration.
In reference to the teacher and his doctrine, the congregation also is the arbiter. He says: “It is theirs to judge of a
[On Easter, 1523, Luther advanced the thesis, That a Christian]
[assembly or congregation has right and power to judge all doctrines and]
[to call, install, and to depose the teacher: ground and cause taken from]
[the Scriptures.”]
shepherd and of doctrine.” In support of this position he quotes a favorite text of the Anabaptists, who, also, in their way insisted upon the prerogatives of the assembly of believers, namely: “And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern” (I Cor. 14: 29). Clearly, in the Corinthian congregation, “the people sitting on the benches were permitted to speak in the church concerning the word which the Spirit had revealed.” This privilege the members of the congregation could rightfully exercise, not because they were formally counted as believers, but because they had the Spirit of Christ. To use his own words: “However, the faithful judges not by his own judgment, but by that of the Divine Spirit.” Or, in Scripture phrase, “only the spiritual judges all things” (I Cor. 2:15). The objection raised against his idea of the right of a congregation, that “in this way the church, or any church at all, is made the judge of the word,” Zwingli meets thus: “Only he who hears the Scripture of the celestial word explained in the church judges that which he hears.” He is careful to define the true hearer of the word. Not everyone that hears the word with the ear comprehends it in the heart. “We observe that many both hear and see, yet have not faith.” We become “faithful only by that word which the Heavenly Father proclaims in our hearts.” Those who are thus illumined by the divine word judge the word that is preached and taught in the congregation.
The neglect of this original prerogative of the believers gave rise to many serious errors in the church at large. “If this custom had never died out, so many errors would not have been introduced into the church of Christ, for there are always persons who through the Heavenly Spirit detect deceitful pretence on the part of one who is teaching, and where this is once exposed the word is freed from violent distortion.” The church is usually purified from abuses in doctrine and life not through the common sense of the members, but through the common possession of the spirit of truth by the members. Zwingli had confidence in the Christian people to correct errors even of theologians and officers. The expert and final arbiter of Christian truth is the common man who has the spirit of Christ.
Neither Zwingli nor Luther at this stage of reform (1523-1524) was disturbed by the thought that the Spirit might bear diverse testimonies in the believers. It was assumed that His witness was the same in all the faithful. “Wherever the Heavenly Spirit is, there everybody knows is zeal for unity and peace” (cf. Gal. 5:22). Confusion in the church is prevented by the presence of God in the midst; and therefore “all who are faithful strive for unity and peace.”
Zwingli, however, was disillusioned as to the unity of the Spirit’s testimony in the believers and His guidance of the faithful to commonly accepted interpretations of the Scriptures, when the Anabaptists arose and disputed his own and Luther’s doctrines. They, too, claimed to have the Spirit of God, and yet their teachings at many points were in direct conflict with those of the more moderate Reformers in Zurich and Wittenberg. It became evident in the light of later controversy that more definite tests and guarantees of truth had to be established. In Zwingli’s theory of the right of the congregation there was involved still another problem, one which he did not consider and which probably he did not think of when he wrote the Reply to Emser. It was the relation of the local congregation to the whole multitude of Christians (universa multitudo Christianorum). “This question became all the more urgent when the Anabaptists actually established separate conventieles of believers which submitted neither to the authority of the Catholie Church nor to that of the Protestant state churches.
The argument against the necessity of the intercession of saints is based upon the character of God and is summarized in eight paragraphs. The major premise is that “God is good.” From Him, therefore, all good is to be derived. “The faithful depend upon “the One and Only Good, cling to Him alone, resort to Him alone.” “The unfaithful, on the contrary, turn from the Creator to creatures, depend upon them and hope for aid from them.” The faithful do not even “name any father except the Almighty Father.”
In the Old Testament we are assured that “we may flee without hesitation to Him for safety.” The New Testament is “a solid confirmation of God’s grace.” Christ descended
from heaven to reveal unto us that there is free access to God. The classic passage against the need of intercessors other than Christ is found in I Timothy 2:5: “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The author asks: “If you dignify any other by that name, do you not cast contumely upon God?” If, according to popular belief, there are mediating angels and saints, then Christ died in vain. If God spared not his own Son, will he not freely give us all things?
In view of the clear teaching of the Scriptures, “there is no reason for lack of faith to make for itself this excuse: Of course I know that all my hope rests in God; but yet I have need of advocates to commend me to the Most High God.” Such speech does not proceed from faith but from lack of it, and has no warrant in the Word of God. Nothing could be “plainer” and more authoritative than the words of Jesus: “No one cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14: 6).
The “arguments commonly adduced” in favor of intercession of saints “are either frivolous or have been twisted out of shape by the audacity of carnal wisdom.” Such frivolous vociferations as Emser presents when he says, “East and West testify that the saints intercede for me,” and, “There is no nation under heaven that does not credit its safe condition in great measure to the prayers of the saints, next after God,” have no weight before the clear testimony of the Word of God. When he asserts that “many have experienced the aid of St. Nicholas in storms at sea, therefore Nicholas should be invoked as a son of Jupiter and a tutelary God,” he does not see that, if he were logical, he ought also to invoke “Castor and Pollux as Jupiter’s helping gods, who have saved many more from shipwreck than has any Nicholas.” For further light on this subject he refers Emser to his Conclusions and his Confutation of the Canon.
The sections on Merit and Purgatory were transferred — verbatim into the True and False Religion. An analysis and digest of them is made in the Introduction to that work. See pp. 33, 34-35.
In his discussion of the Mass in the Defense against Zwingli’s Epichiresis, Emser directs Zwingli to his Vindication
written against Luther (Missa Christianorum contra Luther-anam missandi formulam assertio, 1524). Zwingli says that he does not know the content “of your Vindication” for the reason that “your books never reach us.” For this reason he will not attempt to answer Emser’s arguments for the Mass in detail but presents a series of statements, “drawn from the storehouse of Holy Scripture” and so unassailable” that “the Roman pontiff with all his adherents would accomplish nothing if he would move up all his engines of knowledge and eloquence.” Following the New Testament, which is “eternal,” he lays down the following propositions against the Mass: “In the first place:
1. “The blood of Christ alone takes away our sins:… for he has reconciled all things through his blood (Col. 1:20)
2. “The blood of Christ was offered once only; for it is the eternal blood of God’s eternal Son (Heb. 9:12)
3. “The blood of Christ, offered once for all, endures forever to remove the sins of all men
“In the second place:
1. “Christ is offered only where he suffers, sheds his blood, dies (Heb. 9:25)
2. “Christ can no more die, suffer, shed his blood (Rom. 6:9)
3. “Therefore Christ can no more be offered up, for he cannot die.”
Thus, by unanswerable arguments from the New Testament, he denies the doctrine that in the Mass the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ is repeated and has appeasing value before God. “I now admonish you,” he says to Emser, “not to skip over any one of these propositions, but to examine each carefully. If you do the latter, you will never make the sacrament of the Eucharist into an oblation.” Zwingli concludes the whole discussion with the positive
affirmation that “the Eucharist is spiritual food, by which those who believe that Christ’s death is for them a means of life cement, join, unite, themselves together into the one body of Christ” (I Cor. 10:17).
In his concluding paragraph Zwingli bids adieu to Emser in words that are far from complimentary, and exhorts him: “Transfer your attention from matters of divinity to medicine, that you may at least cure your gout.” He offers this advice on the ground that Emser “is naturally less fitted for sacred letters “Farewell, and may God grant you a good mind.” than for anything else.” Lancaster, Pa. February 17, 1929.
Literature
[ZwiNGLI, ULRICH. Sümtliche Werke, ed. Egli and Finsler (Leipzig). 1. “De Canone Miss Epichiresis,” in vol. 2 (1908), pp. 617-625. 2. “De Canone Missze Apologia,” in vol. 22, pp. 620-625. 3. “Auslegen und Griinde der Schlussreden,” in vol. 2, pp. 1-457. 4. “Adversus Hieronymum Emserum Antibolon,” in vol. 3, pp. 241-287. 5. “Zwingli an Thomas Wyttenbach,” in vol. 8, pp. 84-89.]
[ZwiNGLI, ULricH. “Die 67 Artikel Zwinglis,” Ulrich Zwingli, Eine Auswahl aus seinen Schriften, ed. Finsler, Kóhler, and Rüegg (Zürich, 1918), pp. 135-142. A translation into modern German by Arnold Rüegg. English translation by Lawrence A. McLouth in Samuel Macauley Jackson, Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli (Philadelphia, 1901), pp. 111-117.]
[SruHELIN, Ruporr. “Zwinglis Schriften… über den Masskanon,” Huldreich Zwingli. Sein Leben und Wirken, vol. 1 (Basel, 1895), pp. 309-314.]
[JACKSON, SAMUEL MACAULEY. Huldreich Zwingli, the Reformer of German Switzerland. New York, 1901.]
[KAWERAU, GUSTAV. Hieronymus Emser. Ein Lebensbild aus der Reforma-tiongeschichte. Halle, 1898.]
[CaBROL, FERNAND, tr. The Roman Missal in Latin and English. Students edition. New York, P. J. Kennedy & Sons [1921].]
[FORTESCUE, ADRIAN. The Mass; A Study of the Roman Liturgy. London, 1917.]
← 63. Commentary on True and False Religion · Contents · 65. Reply to Emser Address to Emser →