Letter to Matthew Alber Concerning the

Letter to Matthew Alber Concerning the

LETTER TO MATTHEW ALBER

CONCERNING THE LORD'S SUPPER

November 1524 (Z HI:

335-354) Translated by Henry Preble Revised and edited by H. Wayne Pipkin

? cic vid aget . oo "wy 4i dd tod M be ble

DELI tars d B Lul E

Introduction The Letter to Matthew Alber represents an important stage in the development of Zwingli's eucharistic thinking.

It is in the form of an open letter to the Reutlingen Reformer.

Dated originally November 16, 1524, it was not apparently published in printed form by Froschower until March 1525.

It apparently circulated widely in handwritten form and it is not clear that it was in fact sent originally to its addressee, though it may have been. [1] The impetus for the writing of the letter lay in the 1524 publication by Andrew Karlstadt in Basel of five treatises on the eucharist.

The views of Karlstadt were sufficiently close to those of Zwingli, thereby all but forcing Zwingli to put forward his own position.

The letter is not, however, merely a polemic.

It puts forth many of the characteristic Zwinglian reflections on the eucharist.

The main features of Zwingli's Lord Supper doctrine are depicted, especially in the light of John chapter six from which he seeks to infer the sum of the whole matter.

In addition, under the influence of the letter of Cornelius Hoen, Zwingli had come to understand the word "is" in "This is my body" to mean "signifies". [2] This interpretation freed him to come to a symbolical interpretation. of the words of Institution, an essential feature in Zwingli's memorial understanding of the eucharist.

This letter reveals for the first time Zwingli's symbolical understanding.

It contains as well Zwingli's understanding of the sacrament as a symbol of community within the body of Christ and his view of the sacrament as oath of allegiance, indeed as confession of faith, which binds the believer to the Christian life.

In this letter Zwingli clearly has departed from the form and content of the Roman Catholic position. He likewise considers the Lutheran view as unacceptable. Although Luther is not directly mentioned, it is apparent that Zwingli was rejecting Lutheran views in his treatment of John 6. The letter is then an important

statement of the maturing Zwinglian view and is an opening salvo in the dispute with Luther.

An all out doctrinal conflict between the two great reformers was to follow.

The letter circulated widely in both handwritten and printed form.

It was translated by Georg Binder into German in

and was published in J. G. Walch's eighteenth century collection of Luther's works in a translation by Augustus Tittel.

HWP NOTES 1. lt has been generally assumed that the "open letter" did not go directly to Alber.

For reflections on the question, see Martin Brecht, "Hat Zwingli seinen Brief an Matthaus Alber über das Abendmahl abgesandt?" Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte

58 (1967):100-2.

See also the arguments for a positive conclusion in Locher, p. 297 n. 127.

The letter of Cornelius Hoen was published in Zurich in 1525.

See

Z |V:512-518.

It is not clear when Zwingli first encountered the ideas in it, but certainly by the time of the present epistle.

An English translation is found in Heiko A.

Obermann, Forerunners of the Reformation, New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966, pp. 268-278.

Grace and Peace from the Lord.

A rumor has reached me of a contest you are to have with a certain brother who, as they say, is honestly devoted to Christ, and known to me by sight, though unknown to me by name.[1] You, on the other hand, are very well known to me by name and for your fame in Gospel matters, though your face is not known to me. My friend

Michael has heard that the contest is peri tes eucharistias in regard to the Eucharist, a matter in which I am afraid many people are tremendously in error, unless I am more in error than all people. Unless I am ignorant of the proper signification and sense of all Scripture, nay, I should say, of piety itself, we have thus far shot wide of the mark.

Now is not the time for me to say in a letter which must be brief who is responsible for this wrong.

I may not be silent concerning Carlstadt, who seasonably or unseasonably dragged the matter suddenly before the attention of the public and published a pamphlet of three pages on it, entitled

"On the Detestable Abuse of the Eucharist". [2] I read this after the brethren, especially my dear Leo, not disapproving of it, begged me to read it. I liked many things in it, and disliked some because either from its longwindedness or from my slowness, it did not seem equal to this most difficult subject.

I see that the truth is told in this pamphlet but in such a way that it offends rather than edifies--not those brethren who have their perceptions trained, but those who [336] are offended by everything said without due circumspection, on account of those who are offended by the whole Gospel.

I approve the view of Carlstadt, if I rightly understand his pamphlet, but his language itself does not attain what the subject demands.

Just as I am saying this, other brethren appear saying that a much harsher dialogue has been put together by the same author in which he overpowers with immoderate taunts what is hideous enough in itself, and makes more hateful, as if on purpose, a thing in itself unpleasantly strange to the ears of the simple or impious. [3] I have not read that dialogue; indeed,

I have never read anything by Carlstadt except the aforesaid three quarto sheets.

The pamphlets of Carlstadt, then, offend many among us, and especially for the reason that they avoid somewhat the path we had entered upon--of which later.

What one ought to hold in regard to the matter itself, decide after you have read what I have to say. For I offer it for comparison-not as authoritative.

The matter is so difficult that unless the Lord gives understanding [2 Tim. 2:7] I shall have spoken in vain whatever I say.

Now I come to the subject.

The gist of this matter can easily be gathered from the sixth chapter of John.

Do not listen to those who at once cry out, "Christ is not dealing there with this sacrament at all."

I hold the same view, but he treats there something by which our unsound views about him are most certainly confuted.

I began with this chapter when at last, after much deliberation, I was at the point of taking up this by far most dangerous theme. Whence by the gift of God it has come to pass that there are few among us who do not know what this bread and cup are.

The faithful among us take part absolutely in no mass, and I had at least decided to abolish the old ritual of the mass with something new, but here again it has happened by the gift of God that things turned out differently.

If I had had my way, I would simply have [337] driven out one nail with another. [4] A newly accepted ritual might have been harder to abolish than one that came down from antiquity. You have, then, as I promised a little while ago, the order in which I attacked the matter, namely, sending forward the sixth chapter of John as the bravest and best equipped line of troops.

In that passage Christ, according to his habit of passing from the things of sense to the inner and spiritual things, very graciously admonished them who sought him in the hope of food to honor and seek before all things that food which never perishes nor passes away. Thus he discovers a way of passing over to spiritual things and the truth that just as bodily food, for example, nourishes and revives the limbs, so does spiritual food renew the soul. Hence from the eating of the food which fills the belly he passes most opportunely to the eating of the word he calls heavenly food which enlivens humankind and may likewise enliven whoever eats it so that they shall never afterwards hunger.

In accordance with the Hebrew custom of calling any food bread, he calls this food sometimes bread and sometimes food.

When they, hearing this, had a vision of some bodily food before their eyes, and brought up the manna which had been given them when Moses led them, he disclosed what this food was of which he spoke, saying, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall never hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." [Jn.

6:35] By these words he means simply those who come to him, that is, believe in Christ, as he himself presently adds, saying, "whoever believes in me" will never feel the hunger of despair:

"For as many as have faith in him are certain they are the children of God." [Jn.

1:12] Nor shall they wander anymore like hungry dogs through the whole city in search of food, for they have within them the pledge of the Spirit by which they know themselves to have returned into grace with God through God. Christ urges this view with many words. The Jews, not understanding the matter at all, murmured because Christ had represented himself as the bread or food of life [cf. Jn. 6:41], and they took refuge in the usual reproach with which we express contempt for those born

among ourselves, saying, "Is not this the son of Joseph?" [Jn.

6:42] They marveled on two accounts, both because he had called himself the food of life and because he boasted of his descent from heaven. Then the Lord a second time tries to prevent them from getting into worse sin and reviling of him, and admonishes them not to murmur, for this thing is not a matter of human comprehension, but of the inspiration and teaching of the spirit, as the Lord foretold by the mouth of the prophet, saying, "They shall be all taught of the Lord."

[338] [Isa. 54:13, cf. Jn. 6:45] Therefore it comes to pass that no one believes that Christ came down from heaven and is the food of the soul unless the Father had drawn him to himself. [Jn.

6:41-44] Then he proceeds to teach clearly wherein he himself is the food of the soul, and finally how we ought to eat this food.

The first point he approaches thus:

"Verily, I say unto you, whoever believes in me has eternal life." [Jn. 6:47] "I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If, then, anyone eats that, he will certainly attain heavenly, that is, eternal life.

But, not to keep you too long, this bread which I proclaim to you now is nothing else than my flesh which you see before you, and which is to be given for the making alive of the world.

This surrendering and killing of me for the enemy will reconcile the world to the Father, which is nothing else than restoration to life. Therefore what these many things I have said to you at length now mean is that while I am delivered up and die for the world I shall be the food of the soul by which its hope is fed and it is made sure of the mercy of God. For how can he refuse anything to unhappy mortals when he has given his Son for them?

Thus the bread, that is, the food of the soul which I have promised you, is my flesh, not as you think, living and associating with you, but given for the life of the world, that is, savagely slain for the dead that they may be made alive.

This finally is the meaning of the words 'the bread which I will give is my flesh, given for the life of the world'. [Jn. 6:51] My flesh, therefore, insofar as it is cast down by death, is food, that is, the hope of the soul." From these words we learn clearly that the flesh of Christ is the food and hope of the human heart, simply in that he was slain for us. For what is produced of flesh is flesh.

[Jn. 3:6] The flesh of Christ, therefore, being eaten, cannot produce anything but flesh.

Yet the flesh of Christ in dying for us makes that person spiritual, that is, truly a child of God, who rests upon his death.

I conclude, therefore, that this bread of which Christ speaks is simply this: that Christ was delivered up to death for our life.

The Jews, not understanding this, and like certain theologians, becoming more and more obtuse, strove among themselves, and indignantly objected, saying [Jn.

6:52], "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" See how they were astonished because their minds took in only what the senses suggested to them. The meaning of Christ's words was, "No one will live except he believes that I have been delivered up to death for his salvation," even though he clothes this meaning in civil

and metaphorical words:

"I am the bread of life," that is, living food.

"He, therefore, that eats me shall never hunger or thirst."

[Jn. 6:35].

The Jews, inasmuch as they are ignorant of the spirit, failed to comprehend [339] that Christ meant "eats me" to be understood as "believes in me", so they answered, not only in boorish but in insulting fashion, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" [Jn.

6:52] The heavenly wisdom, after its usual habit, threatens them more heavily and closely, reproaches their unbelief, and urges them, saying, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you will have no life in you."

[Jn. 6:53] What, O good God, no one lives unless he devour you with his teeth and drink you with bloodthirsty, open mouth? How do the unbelieving live, and not only not eat you, but even know not that you are God or that you even exist? Someone will say, "there is double sin here, for they that eat do not eat physically, and what is eaten is not perceived as physical body. Quite right, to be sure. Why, then, do we wander longer than the king of Ithaca? [5] Is there any other physical body than that which is perceived?

Yet what is perceived is an object of the senses.

Since the senses perceive nothing here, and whatever is done takes place inwardly, what need is there of talking of the body insofar as it is body, since it is not this way that Christ is the food of the soul--otherwise the Jews would not have shrunk írom this so. He is the food of the soul in that he was slain according to the body. Whoever, therefore, trusts in Christ as having died for him, is this person not refreshed within by Christ's body and blood, and if he does not have faith what will it mean to eat Christ physically but only to feed the body? For it is forever true: what is born of flesh is flesh, and on the other hand, what is born of spirit is spirit.

Christ, therefore, means here a spiritual eating, but of what nature? Such that we are to say that Christ is eaten here physically?

Are to eat spiritually and to eat physically one and the same thing then? Even the logician knows that is absurd.

If it is spiritual eating why do you call it physical? If it is physical, what else can it do but comfort the body? Christ means, therefore, that unless we eat his flesh, that is, unless we believe that he underwent death and poured out his blood for us, we shall not attain life.

Again, that if we eat his flesh, that is, believe he died for us, and drink his blood, that is, firmly believe that his blood was poured out for us, then Christ is in us and we in him.

But is Christ in anybody physically?

By no means.

Why, then, are we asking about eating the body?

His body is eaten when it is believed that it was slain for us.

It is faith, therefore, not eating, about which Christ is speaking here.

But you say, "You explain it thus, and force the Scripture to serve your error." By no means.

I learned from the following notes that Christ [340] spoke here of faith, not of the sacrament

of the Eucharist. The first is that in the beginning of this discourse Christ said, "Labor not for the food which perishes, but for that which lasts unto eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."

[Jn. 6:27] Christ has held out to us no other food to secure our happiness than the Gospel, that is, he suffered death freely for us. The second note is, "For him has God the Father sealed." [Jn.

6:27] How has He sealed him?

With the seal that is a sign by which we are delivered from the bite of the serpent. [Cf. Gen.

3:15.] How are we delivered?

Through eating his body. Not that his body is really eaten, for that is impossible. Although we are at sometime to know Christ according to the flesh, we do not yet, but he is believed in as having died for us. The third note is, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." [Jn.

6:29] Here you see the work through which we can obtain the food that does not perish, namely, faith in him whom the Father sent.

Faith, therefore, is the work that blesses, not physical eating of the body. If the body thus eaten could bless, there would be two means or paths by which we could obtain happiness, namely, the work of God, that faith already spoken of, and the physical eating of his body. How absurd this is it is easy to say. The fourth note is, "For the true bread is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." [Jn.

6:33] The body of Christ did not come down from heaven, but was born in the womb of the perpetual virgin. Moreover, Christ gives life to the world not because he is flesh, but because he is God and the Son of God. Again, therefore, it appears that he is life insofar as he is believed to be the Son of God and to have died according to the flesh he had taken on from the virgin, and that he gives life to those who have believed in this way, not those who have eaten physically.

There are also many other notes by which you can clearly detect that this meaning which I have given is the genuine one.

But let us come to that one Christ, the truth itself [Jn.

14:6], has shown us, from which it would be faithlessness to have been of a different opinion. In truth it is as follows: the Jews, failing utterly to take in the sweet, figurative language of Christ, did what is characteristic of all stiffnecked people. They shrank away from him altogether.

[Cf.

Jn.

6:66.] Now Christ perceived that this came from his constantly declaring, "Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood, you will not live." [Jn.

6:53] In fact, the Jews could not turn the mind's eye away from the body which they saw before their eyes. Since they had not even the slightest inclination of trust in his death, he thus addressed them in the most unequivocal words [Jn. 6:61-63], "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?

It is the Spirit who makes alive; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are Spirit and life." What, pray, could be said more plainly, clearly, transparently, or briefly than "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh [341] profits nothing"? [Jn. 6:63] Does

not this passage sufficiently answer all those questions by which, with greater curiosity than piety, they now declare that the substance of the bread is transformed into that of the flesh? They laugh at this view, yet assert that the flesh is eaten in essential and bodily form and, when they reject others most of all, fail to see that they are wrong by the whole width of heaven. [6] So mighty is philautia, self-esteem, that when it has detected anyone's error and found out, as it imagines, how it comes about, nothing can make it budge. What could be brought forward more powerful to make us scorn all the theories devised about the physical and essential body of Christ in this sacrament?

"The flesh profits nothing." [Jn.

6:63] Are we to say, then, that Christ gave us that which profits nothing?

Heaven forbid!

For marvelous and magnificent are the works of the Lord [Ps. 139:14], wrought out according to His will.

These words, then, are, as I said in the beginning, a barrier to shut out all the attempts of those who talk of the essential, body of Christ.

We shall ever hold these words before us as a shield, saying, "Be silent, pray, with your wisdom of the flesh.

The flesh profits nothing." [Jn. 6:63] What does profit, then?

What follows:

"The words I speak unto you are spirit and life." [John 6:63] What words?

"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." [Jn. 6:54] What flesh and what blood? Not that one which has fluids nor that one that has weight, but that which we know in our heart is a pledge of our salvation because it suffered death on the cross for us. These _ words, I say, believed by us and sunk into the depths of our souls win eternal life, for by faith alone are we justified. [Rom.

5:1] Therefore, the faith which is certain is that Christ crucified is our redemption and salvation.

It is itself these words which Christ spoke which are spirit and life.

Therefore teach above all things, dear Matthew, what Christ means here by "eat", namely, "believe".

This I, too, have done so successfully that there is almost no one among us who does not recoil from those insane questions.

All darts are turned aside by this one shield.

Someone will say, "Do you not believe the body of Christ is eaten here?" Reply:

"The flesh profits nothing. Why should I then discuss it?" Teach that these words are to be clung to especially. They are the [342] words of the Gospel; they are faith itself.

What else is it to be a Christian than to believe that Christ, the Son of God, suffered for one?

Another will say, "And faith blesses me here, too, for I believe I eat in that bread the real and essential and corporeal body of Christ."

You could answer, "You say this out of your own head, but there is need of the writing of the Word of God here to enable the faith to save you that you believe Christ is eaten here in bodily shape, and since you have no such Scripture, you undoubtedly see that this whole notion is at the same time dead and the most damnable invention of idolatry.

For who has not worshipped this sacrament? And why have we not worshipped baptism in the same way, since the rationale of the sacraments as such is the same?"

By far the most difficult thing in this matter now remains, namely how we are to interpret the words of Christ, the so-called words of consecration.

For since Christ said, "This is my body which is given for you," [Luke 22:19] the words cannot be made to mean anything else than that this bread which Christ held out was his body--not his mystical body, the Church, for that was not given for us, but the real body of Christ itself which was slain for us upon the cross.

The words are clear and intelligible, and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or tittle of them. [Lk.

16:17] Here, truly, all the powers of faith must be exerted, and the throne of heavenly grace must be approached with the petition that what is hidden here may be revealed. For if those words have not been rightly understood thus far, we have sinned more here than in anything, and I know not whether it was a greater abomination to have worshipped the golden calf in Dan [cf.

1 K.

12:28-30; 2 K.

10:29; 2 Ch.

11:15] than to have worshipped this consecrated bread, if indeed it is nothing but bread. I say "if", for although the opinion

I am going to mention greatly appeals to me, I lay down nothing categorically. I put forth what I think. If it please the Lord, others also may be taught to think the same, but taught by the Spirit, who teaches us everything. [Jn.

16:13] If the Spirit forbids this interpretation all my words will be vain.

I pray the most High God, therefore to direct my ways.

If, after the manner of Balaam [Nu.

22:24] I obstinately resist the truth, may He station His angel in the way to frighten my ass with his sword--I mean my ignorance and overboldness, if at least I do anything here from overboldness and a desire for glory--and so drive him against the wall so a broken leg results, that is, have my impure and unclean carnalmindedness enfeebled, and go to blaspheme no more the name of the Lord my God.

There are, therefore, people who have learned from faith-for it is from it that solid truth is learned--that it is healing for us if we believe that Christ suffered for us, that this is the one path to the stars, [7] this the word [343] which we all preach.

[Jn.

1:1-3] From this they then easily infer that salvation can come in no other way than through Christ, and therefore not through the sacramental eating of bread and wine.

When they look at the words of Christ which we call the words of consecration, they perceive that some figure of speech is involved in them, though they cannot easily explain what it is or of what nature.

Carlstadt, in the pamphlet which I have read, wants the demonstrative pronoun to be changed so that when it said, "Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body which is given for you," makes the pronoun "this" refer not to the bread, but to Christ himself, in the sense, "Take, eat; for I am going to give this, my body, for you." [8]

I will frankly say that I praise the man's diligent effort, but I congratulate him much more on the faith by which he has learned

that salvation cannot be delivered in any other way than through this faith by which we believe that Christ suffered for us. Even if he never quite got at the meaning of the words, the man realized in his piety that another meaning must underlie them than appeared on their face, but he did not see clearly enough to explain it-unless I see less clearly than he does. This is said without boasting.

He adds that the pronoun "this" refers in rhetorical emphasis to the crucifying of Christ's body which also the prophets foretold.

So the meaning is:

"Now the prophets proclaimed that I should put on flesh and in it atone for the sorrows of mortals.

Look:

This is my body itself which the prophets promised to you; it is the very body that is given for many." If this were the meaning, those two things might have been added, the already threatening danger of arrest and death, and what he said in John 6:51, "the bread that I will give is my flesh; it is for the life of the world."

Thus he would say here, "Behold, this is my body which is given for the life of the world, as I have promised you in earlier years.

Nay, when we came up here a few days ago from Galilee, I told you what was about to happen to me. [Mk. 8:31f.; Lk. 9:22] Now is that moment at hand." [344] They say that also in that "Dialogue," [9] which I have not read, and by which many are offended, that something is brought forward about the characteristics of the Greek language by which the change of the demonstrative is clearly approved, namely that artos, bread, is masculine, and soma, body, is neuter.

If I may be permitted to say so, I think there are not a few places of this kind in Greek as well as in Latin in which a preceding masculine or feminine is referred to by a neuter demonstrative.

I have no time to look up examples, for I am obliged to write in a great hurry.

If anyone approves this view of Carlstadt's, he will not offend me in the least, but I beg him also to consider mine.

I [345] think the hinge of the matter is to be found in a very short syllable, namely, in the word "is", the meaning of which is not always given by "is" but sometimes by "signifies".

In the meantime I would warn you, my very dear brother, not to put any faith in me unless I prove what I maintain by the clearest words of Holy Scripture. Joseph answered with regard to Pharaoh's dream [Gen. 41:26], "The seven fat cows are seven fruitful years," and yet seven cattle cannot be seven years.

It is therefore clear that this word "are" is used for "signifies" or "portends".

Thus the meaning is, "The seven fat cows you saw in sleep portend or signify seven fruitful years, etc."

Christ says, John 15:1, "I am the vine" and yet he was not a vine but showed the character of a vine.

It is therefore evident that this word "am" cannot be taken for "being" at all, but for "I signify" or "I represent" so that the meaning is, "I signify or represent the vine, or show its character."

Again he says [Lk.

8:11], "The seed is the Word of God," but yet the Word of God was not a seed.

Hence this "is" cannot be taken for "being" either.

It is clear that it is used for "signifies", for Christ is disclosing to the apostles by these words the parable he had put forth about

the sowing of the seed, saying, "The seed of which I speak is," that is, signifies, "the word of God".

Such and similar forms of expression may be seen throughout the sacred writings, whence it is not necessary for me to trouble you with more here.

Now take up Christ's words in Matthew 26:26, "Jesus took bread, etc., saying, 'Take, eat; this is my body,' [Lk. 22:19]:

'which is given for you."

Put "signifies" for "is" here and you have, "Take, eat; this signifies, my body which is given for you."

Then the meaning will certainly be, "Take, eat, for this which I bid you do will signify to you or remind you of my body which presently is to be given for you." For he adds immediately [Lk.

22:19], "This do in remembrance of me." Behold the end for which he bids them eat, namely, the commemoration of him.

This Paul expresses thus [1 Cor.

11:26], "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death." What else does Paul command here but to commemorate the Lord's death publicly?

Since, therefore, this Lord's Feast, or in Paul's words, Lord's Supper, was instituted that we might call to remembrance the death of Christ, which he suffered for us, it is clear that it is the sign itself by which those who rely upon the death and blood of Christ mutually prove to their brethren that they have this faith.

The meaning of Christ's words becomes perfectly plain to this effect:

"This feast signifies or is the symbol [346] by which you will recall that my body, mine, the Son of God, your

Lord and Master, was given for you."

So these words of Christ's were understood by Tertullian, a man of marvelous piety, remarkable knowledge of language, and wonderful eloquence.

In his Book I Against Marcion, after many other things, he says, "Nor did he disdain bread as a representative of his body." [10] He means that Christ did not repudiate his sacraments nor even reject bread (behold, he calls it bread) by which he represents his body.

He did not say "which bread is his body," but "which represents his body."

How does bread represent a body?

Certainly in that when thus eaten it recalls to remembrance that Christ presented his body to his murderers for us.

I make a transition to Paul's words in which the idea is rendered more clear which Luke expresses thus:

"This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." [Lk. 22:20] Behold, what the two others expressed thus, "This is my blood,"

Luke calls "the new testament."

He did not say, "this new testament is my blood," but "this cup is the new testament in my blood."

Now what therefore is in another thing is not that thing itself in which it is. The new testament has its force and basis in the blood of Christ shed for us, and this cup is the cup of the new testament.

It is apparent, therefore, that the cup is not the blood but the testament, that is, the commemoration of that making alive by the shedding of Christ's blood. These words of Luke furnish the key for opening the words of Matthew and Mark.

For since

he says that this cup has the power of the new testament in Christ's blood, I infer that they used a figure of speech rather unusual to us in saying for it, "This is my body," which is, "This eating is a symbol of the new testament, the strength of which consists in this, that I give myself for you and for the whole world." They say "this is my blood" instead of "This cup is a symbol or will signify to you that this, my blood, has been shed for you." [346 n. 2] Thus Augustine understands the matter in his Introduction to the Third Psalm, where he says that the Lord Jesus summoned even Judas to the feast at [347] which he commended to the disciples the figure of his body and blood. [11] What does he understand here by "figure"? A likeness giving his expression and features?

Or a figure by which some future thing is foreshadowed, such as were the figures that appeared to the minds of the fathers?

By no means. A figure here is a form by which we commemorate his body given for us and the shedding of his blood for our atonement.

I would remind you here, my very dear brother, that I do not make the authority of Augustine or of anyone else of sufficient moment to venture to found any doctrine upon it, but bring forward the opinion of the fathers: so you may see that it is no recently sprung-up notion that I am offering concerning these words and the sacrament.

That Augustine seriously held this view of the sacrament will be made plain at greater length a little later, after I have quoted Paul's opinion.

Paul, writing to the Corinthians in | Corinthians 10:14-22 and desiring to draw them away from all commerce of idols (for there were some who, boasting their knowledge that an idol was a thing of no account, yet were in the habit of eating of the meat sacrificed to idols all the same), desiring, I say, to keep them away from commerce of idols, reproaches them with the use of the Eucharist which he represents as of such character and import that the man is guilty of idolatry who shares both the table of the Lord and of demons. There can be no doubt that in reproaching them thus with the use of the Eucharist he sets it before them in its real and essential nature.

Now he says [1 Cor.

10:16], "The cup of blessing which we bless or praise, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communication of the body of Christ?"

Here they that teach that Christ is eaten in a bodily sense suddenly jump up with "What need have we of further testimony?"

[348] We have ourselves heard it is the communication of the blood and the body of Christ. For Paul did not say, "It is the partaking of bread or wine, but of the blood and body." Be patient, if you please, until the last act of the drama is finished. Otherwise you will find nothing but strife, brawls and uproar.

Carefully note,

therefore, what immediately follows -these words, and you will see what it is that Paul calls the communion of the body and blood here.

After he said [1 Cor.

10:16], "The bread which we break, is it not the sharing of the body of Christ?" he explains what the nature of this sharing is by saying [1 Cor. 10:17], "since we, being many are one bread and one body, truly we all partake of one bread and one cup." Paul seems to proclaim plainly there that those who eat this bread and drink this cup unite in one body with the rest of the brethren, which indeed is the body of Christ because that is the body of Christ which believes that the flesh of its author has been slain and his blood shed for it.

He means, therefore, that they become partakers in the body and blood of Christ when they confess that they with the rest of the brethren trust in the death of Christ and the shedding of his blood.

So they may bear witness to the brethren that they believe this with faithful hearts and because they abhor all worship of idols and foreign gods, they should take the bread and cup of commemoration together with the brethren in the Lord's Supper, that brother may see that brother unites with him through this oath of allegiance as it were (whence it is called a sacrament) into one body, one bread, one profession. He says [1 Cor.

10:17], "For we, being many, are one bread and one body." Therefore we eat this bread that we may finally become one bread.

But what is this bread into which we pass? It is a strange thing, this great play upon words [cf.

| Cor.

10:17]: we eat bread so that we are made into one bread. We do not know what Paul is saying here.

Festive and full of heavenly eloquence are these words of Paul, my good sir, whoever you are.

He calls bread what we eat and he calls bread what we become by eating such. But what we become by this eating, provided we have first digested by faith in our closets the suffering of Christ for us, not his flesh, and sinews, and bones--what we become, I say, is the body of Christ.

And who are the body of Christ?

They of whom he is the head, while they are his members.

Of whom is he the head?

Those who follow him and trust in him.

Who are the members?

These whom I have mentioned. The members, though so numerous, are made yet one body, not then only when they eat this bread and drink this cup, but as soon as they believe that Christ Jesus, the instituter of this feast, was crowned with death and disgrace for our salvation.

What, then, does this eating do? Nothing but make it plain to your brother that you are a member of Christ, and one of these who trust in Christ.

[349] Again, it binds you to the Christian life, so that if by chance you live shamelessly and do not repent, you may be shut out from the other members-hence excommunication and avoidance with the fathers.

It is clear, then, that in these words of Paul's [1 Cor.

10:16], "Is it not the sharing of the blood of Christ?" and "is it not the sharing of the body of the Lord?", sharing is not used for the eating--as the theologians have thus far taken it to be--but for the sharing of the Church, that is, to show that everyone in this way recom-

mends himself to the Church and associates himself with it just as with an oath of allegiance. For Paul himself says [1 Cor. 10:17],

"For we, being many, are one bread and one body: truly we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup." Behold, the reason why we become one bread is because we are partakers of one bread and of one cup. See now the grace of Paul's words. Christ gave us bread that by eating it together we might unite into one body of his own, provided we had first eaten the heavenly bread, as he teaches in John 6[51], and this body is the Church of Christ.

Hence we, too, who are his body, are called bread, for by this bread we show to our brethren that we are members of the body of Christ.

These verbal transitions and juxtapositions brought it about that there were not wanting in early times men who applied these words of Christ, "This is my body," to the Church--as may be seen in Thomas and Scotus, [12] if I remember rightly-- [350] and thought that Christ pointed to those to whom he had handed the bread, saying that they were his body, in the sense "You who are present at this feast are my body," and since the words that followed did not square with this, they explained "which is given for you" as "for whom I am given." I have more admiration for their faith than for the learning of all the theologians.

I do not suppose there ever was anybody who believed that he ate Christ in bodily and essential form in the sacrament, although they all strenuously taught or pretended it. Such is that bold evil, hypocrisy.

I would not have you shudder here, most excellent sir, and cry out with the hypocrites, "I have believed," and "what right have you to judge my conscience?"

You, like me, either have not believed, or have turned your mind away from the subject, that it might not cry out in protest, or have been terribly troubled as to how the truth was to come out freely at last. I say I admire the faith of those who shrank from this senseless tradition, and who, seeing the words so terribly unyielding, sought to discover how this body was to be understood, and coming upon this passage of Paul, had the courage to use it as a sort of two-edged axe with which to undo the knot.

They were firmly persuaded, as I said of Carlstadt above, that faith had no need of the kind of eating which the theologians teach, and that there must be in these words of Christ some other meaning, whatever it might be.

I say I praise their faith.

They lacked clearness of vision, but they had no need of that while faith was theirs.

See what it is to be taught of Scripture and of the Spirit.

I said a little while ago that this opinion of the theologians in general was senseless. I beg you not to be offended by this. I should have preferred to call it not only stupid, but even impious. For have not these distinguished theologians outdone the Jews in impiety? When they supposed that the whole discourse was about bodily eating, they shrank away [cf. Jn. 6:41], but Christ came to their rescue with kindly teaching.

He freed them from their foolish understanding with the words, "It is the Spirit that makes alive; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are spirit and life." [Jn. 6:63]

Then they, understanding no better than before, abandoned Christ altogether, but our theologians have shown themselves a thousand times more stupid.

They assert shamelessly this very thing that the Jews could not understand, and, casting aside Christ's [351] directions through which they might see the whole thing clearly, they do not run away from him but stay by him, asserting, even in spite of himself, that his body is eaten here in the way that drove the Jews from him--they are more horrible than all the Scythians. Their own words plainly show this. One of them begins to eat him in the manger, another as he hangs trembling on the cross.

For instance, they declare, "For we eat the body of Christ truly and physically, as he lay in the manger, and as he hung upon the cross."

It is not possible to say anything more senseless.

But now let me take in my sails [13]--you will want me, no doubt, to give you a brief resume of what has been said, an epilogue, as it were. Here you have it.

Christ, now near his death, feasted most pleasantly with his disciples. He said, "with desire I have desired to eat this passover with you." [Lk. 22:15] And he refreshed them not only with the material dinner, but with the delicious pemmasi, that is, sweetmeats, of the heavenly word.

Wishing to leave us a ceremony of commemoration of his having been savagely slain for us, he took bread and commanded them all to eat, for this was a symbol to his faithful followers of the death of his body who was himself

God and their lord and master.

Therefore, we, too, should eat together in memory of him, and commend his grace.

This is to be understood of the cup also.

Therefore the disciples of Christ had all who confessed that they were brethren eat and drink thus with the rest of the brethren as Christ had instituted, and in this way they were received into the communion of the brethren who believed that they had been redeemed by the body and blood of Christ.

But they are in vain as far as conscience is concerned unless they were previously sure of faith concerning salvation through Christ.

Hence we see, in passing, this also: the eating of the Eucharist does not take away sins but is the symbol of those who firmly believe that sin was exhausted and destroyed by the death of Christ and give thanks therefore. Look at Augustine,

Homily 26 on John 6, and you will see plainly [352] how he separates sacramental from spiritual eating. [14] See also Origen on Matthew, Homily 235.[15] These are the only ones that occur to me now.

Most of the fathers hold the pious view about this sacrament.

This, most fairminded brother, is what I wanted to suggest to you by letter now, for I am afraid that certain people are too much sworn to the word of their teachers. [*352 n. 2] If you say to me, "I have begun to celebrate the mass in German, and if I now teach otherwise, many will be most offended," take this as a remedy: teach your people that you are not going to do

away with the communion of the table of the Lord, but are going to extend its natural use more and more all the time, and frequently drive this home that if people eat the bread of the communion and are not sound in faith nor sincere in love of neighbor, [353] they eat and drink judgement to themselves.

Many will give it up, believe me.

And when Easter comes, do the whole thing as Christ instituted it, as I also am going to do.

Take this in good part, and cling to the word of God alone.

Pray to the Lord to direct your ways. [354] Do not contend against that brother--I have now learned his name--Conrad Hermann in this matter unless he is greatly in error, but if the opportunity offers, let him read this letter.

Farewell in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Zurich, November 16, 1524.

To Matthew Alber, Preacher at Reutlingen.

Your devoted servant, Huldrych Zwingli.

I charge you by Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, to show this letter to no person unless there is reason to believe that he has sincere faith in our same Lord.

I will do likewise, and if the situation demands sometime that the letter be printed, I will attend to the matter.

I have written the whole letter most hurriedly, so that it has hardly been once read over in a cursory fashion.

NOTES 1.

Zwingli identifies the person as Conrad Hermann, a follower of Carlstadt's eucharistic doctrine, at the end of the treatise. See p. 144.

The treatise which appeared in 1524 in Basel is:

Von dem widerchristlichen missbrauch des hern brodt und kelch.

See E. Freys and H. Barge, Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften des Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Nieuwkoop:

B. De Graaf, 1965, Nrs. 135-137.

The late 1524 treatise was entitled Dialogus oder ein gesprechbuchlin Von dem grewlichen unnd abgottischen missbrauch des hochwirdigsten sacraments Jesu Christi, Karlstadt, Schriften 1[:5-49,

For the expression clavum clavo pellere see Erasmus, Adagia, l.ll:4

(Op. Omnia ll, col. 70).

The King of Ithaca was Odysseus.

For the expression toto coelo errare see Erasmus, Adagia, 1.1:49

(Op. Omnia Il, col. 48).

For the expression sic itur ad astra see Otto, 45.

The exegesis mentioned here is the distinctive contribution of Carlstadt to the eucharistic debates.

See Hermann Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 2 vols., Leipzig:

Brandstetter, 1905, II:169ff.

See Karlstadt, Schriften Il:13:25-15:7.

10.

Tertullian, Against Marcion, l.xiv (MPL 2:26lf., tr. ANF Ill:281).

Tite

(MEE 6:75.

12.

Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in quartum librum sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, Vill. Il. i. v. IV.

Duns Scotus, Quaestiones in librum quartum sententiarum, VIII.

13.

For the expression vela colligere see Otto, 363.

14.

Cf. MPL 35:1613-1615.

15.

MGL 13:1734f.

ow ^15 = xr mi.

Ce m es. let e qe "".

«ff co?

«eat pde quercu "

tower.

Gee es nw ic sme Ae) es fu Eu Gare) et ] a -

i ^9 qe 2 Cu PDC AL oS

we P qiis-aes ue ian > oo ao cao eee "amu eee!

— Dna dud LE uo cho e o RD JS Cas "ue @& eee i a A" die

THE PREACHING OFFICE

June 1525

(Z IV: 382-433)

Translated and edited by Edward J. Furcha

—— E qd tatite be tetitews? ^ -< - =< ES i i

Introduction Zwingli's reform of the church in Zurich was moving along a pace when in 1524-25 several opponents to his work were stirring up trouble.

If the relatively harmonious development of the Evangelical cause in Zurich was to triumph, order would have to be maintained in the state of the Zurich churches.

Certain "inspired" converts to his cause were insisting in recent months on the fullness of Christian liberty. They assumed the right--possibly considered it their Christian duty even--to preach and read the word of God though they were not trained for that task.

Conscious of the full authority of his own training and authorization to preach, Zwingli rejects their demands and undertakes to harness the spirit to which they appeal.

The booklet Vom Predigtamt, published by Christoph Froschower on June 30, 1525, makes a forceful case on relatively slim biblical foundations.

Little is known of the effect this publication had; the Anabaptist cause was not greatly affected it would seem, though a "reasonable" argument for decency and order had been advanced here.

Rudolf Gwalter, Zwingli's son-in-law, provided a Latin. translation and R. Christoffel, a High German translation in the mid 19th century.

The present translation is, to the best of our knowledge, the first into English.

BIF

ON THE PREACHING OFFICE

THROUGH WHICH ONE MAY LEARN HOW

SELF-APPOINTED

RABBLE

ROUSERS-—NOT

'APOSTLES' AS THEY WISH TO BE CALLED—

ACT CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD WHEN

THEY IMPOSE THEMSELVES UPON A FAITH-

FUL GUARDIAN OR PREACHER OF THE GOSPEL WHEN

THEY PREACH AMONG

HIS FLOCK

UNNECESSARILY

AND WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF EITHER THE PEOPLE

OR THE GUARDIAN

[1] To the honorable, wise town council and the entire community of the county of Toggenburg and to the specially dear lords and citizens, Zwingli extends grace and peace from God. [2]

I thank God, the heavenly Father, for illumining you through the light of his word and for leading you in apprehending the truth, in which you now stand so firmly, as you confess.

All this, of course, is because of his grace and mercy and not because of your wisdom.

To him be praise and honor forever. May he keep you so that you might increase daily in everything good. Amen.

Dear gentlemen and brothers.

The moderation with which you remove by legitimate means idol worship and all priests who resist the gospel, shows that you are increasing in all divine knowledge and in valor. [3] Nonetheless, I should hereby like to admonish you to take heed lest the [383] devil place some obstacle in your path which somehow or other may cause you to fall into error that could prove more harmful to you than any former one [cf.

Mt.

12:55], such as if we were all to affirm, "I am a Christian," yet failed to maintain a Christian and peaceful manner of living.

I hear this might soon happen to you because of those people who, without any permission whatever from the congregation to which they have come, begin to preach and rebaptize on their own initiative. The former act serves to confound the truth, while

the latter leads to disorder; for rebaptism is initiated for no other reason than to provide a pretext for rebellious gatherings and insurrection against the authorities (when I speak of authorities I do not mean the papacy). It ought not govern in temporal matters,

Mt.

20:25-27.

Yet both these [i.e. indiscriminate preaching and rebaptism] are wholly against Christ.

Firstly, no one should teach unless he has been sent; secondly, rebaptism is utterly against God.

It is not instituted either by word or example and cannot be found in either the Old or New Testament.

Circumcision was introduced only for bygone days.

It was the sign among the ancients which baptism is for us. Neither Christ nor the holy apostles repeated it, nor did they leave instruction that it should be repeated. We published a book on this matter, longer and more cumbersome than I wanted it to be, shortly before the current one [cf. VON DER TAUFE, 27 May 1525 in Z IV:188ff.]

Since these rebellious spirits who elevate themselves to the rank of apostle and preacher cause great dissention by their preaching,

I wish to write on the preaching office, too, so that everyone might avoid these obstinate, arrogant babblers.

It shall all be backed by the clear word of God. For if [384] one does not guard against them, new errors arise daily--as everyone can clearly see.

If every Christian were permitted to say whatever he wanted and if the church failed to judge him in the matter and did not reject his error, cunning people would daily hatch eggs to display their wisdom and craft.

Things are much the same in our day as they were at the time of the apostles. Then, too, certain people came from Jerusalem to Antioch, Corinth, Philippi, Crete and to the Galatians and undertook to teach; but all their diligence was focused on outward things, primarily on circumcision.

They were highly respected for having come from Jerusalem and for being Israelites.

In order to have greater credibility, they claimed to have learned Christian teaching from those who in turn had it directly from Christ.

Indeed, some might even have seen Christ Jesus in person, but they said all this primarily to discredit Paul's name and bring him into disrepute (for he strongly resisted their devious ways, so strongly, in fact, that he always overcame them with the truth through his epistles), and secondly, to create their own following.

Christendom was rent asunder by this.

Now they did all this, thinking they might make themselves important with their new teaching and secure their livelihood by it.

But when Paul recognized their unfaithfulness, he brought them into the clear light everywhere, but most clearly in Philippians 3:2, "Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for the mutilation."

(Paul used these words deliberately.

They introduced circumcision; he calls it mutilation, for they split believing people with their circumcision-talk; just as if someone in our day were to call the Anabaptists "drowners" because they therewith cause

a great deal of disunity to arise among believing people and as a consequence much harm and suppression of the gospel.) "Yes,"

Paul says, "look out for the mutilation; for we are the true circumcision, who serve in the spirit of God and trust in Christ Jesus, not putting our trust in the flesh," etc. After that he says, [385]

"Brothers, follow me and look to those who walk, as you have an example in us.

For there are many (I have warned you before and now repeat it with tears) who walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. For those who look to earthly things only end in destruction; their belly is their god and they glory in their shame." [Phil.

Stl? alo] Let us now compare our mutilators to these. [4] Firstly, they started out of Zurich, and mingled with pious folk and fooled them, by quick action, into accepting rebaptism.

Let every good Christian note how easily and faithfully they did this.

First of all, they had been publicly and privately overcome so that they should not even have taken their teaching on baptism to other congregations and stain them with error. [5] For if someone who has been convicted of untruth, nonetheless continues to stain other congregations as well, the result is greater dissention among Christians than among unbelievers; yet we have been baptized by one spirit, into one body, that we might preserve unity, 1 Cor.

12:

Secondly, they did not spell out to the simple people, in their preaching on baptism, the reasons for infant baptism which had been given them at Zurich. [6] Thereafter--since it is well enough known that we practice infant baptism and resist rebaptism here at Zurich (the magistrate by counsel and deed and we, by preaching God's word)--they proceeded mercilessly to speak of this honorable council in so derogatory a manner that it got to be too much; they berated so abominably the preachers--myself, above all--that they must have readily displeased all God-fearing people with their inhuman derision.

All this happens because they esteem themselves too highly [386] while denying, at the same time, any insight and faith to those who oppose them. They alone are to have God's Spirit; for they despise everyone who does not accept their baptism or who stands against them.

And why do they despise these?

They despise them perhaps because they have not been baptized; from this then follows that they esteem themselves the more highly the more they despise the unbaptized.

Or else they despise other Christians because they assume them to be unbelievers.

Then it would follow that in the last analysis they have convinced themselves that no one but they themselves have the spirit of God or faith.

This perverted view of theirs is demonstrated by the fact that they have rejected the knowledge and advice of so many highly learned, wise men and so many God-fearing, pious people. They have introduced rebaptism against all evidence from God's words; they set themselves up as apostles

and introduced rebaptism in every parish without permission or the support of the community and that even when the bishop and his flock are believers.

Are not such people dissemblers, as Paul calls them?

Can there be greater enemies of the cross of Christ than they are, even though they hide behind a cloak of great humility?

Who ever started sects or groups without such hypocritical humility?

Who ever appeared to be humbler than the Carthusians?

Yet they did not wish to say much about their losses in the Ittingen uprising and why they were claiming 12,000 guilders. [7] Note, there they did not lose a single acre, meadow, vineyard, fish pond, field, wooded area, court or district.

How much more of the rest must there still be. All this was acquired in such a short time that almost everyone can recall the day when there were no Carthusians at [387] Ittingen.

I simply cite this by way of illustration to indicate how false humility in the end breaks forth in an ugly manner. Paul warns us to guard against it, Col.

2:18; for verily, their belly is their God. [Phil.

3:19] I know well what was ailing some of them.

Zurich is no longer granted any privileges, except for the clergy.

And yet some of them would have dearly loved to "buy in" and become a millstone around the necks of the poor, to be maintained by them, teaching all the while (but falsely) that no one who holds a benefice ought to preach. They were hoping that all parish priests might be expelled; they would then have seen to it that they were made parish priests in their place.

Publicly they declared, "we need no benefice." But who knows (the way the barefooted friars abscond with money) if someone had passed it to them on the sly and shoved it up their sleeve!

Thus they served their bellies no less than certain people did in the days of St. Paul. A few of them have actually come to me to ask for a recommendation to a benefice, which they cannot truthfully deny. [388] [8]

All their boasting is only carnal, for to be rebaptized is nothing other than an external matter--just as those others made a great deal of the fact that their shame was circumcised.

These Anabaptists foist themselves on others just as those people had done.

They undertake to boast so excessively in the matter of God and present themselves in such dire straits as if they had just been rescued from a shipwreck. Then simple people just stand there amazed and frightened.

In the end, however, it all boils down to rebaptism, infant baptism, that one should not have a magistrate, that one ought to hold all things in common and that one owes neither rent nor tithes, of which two things we have issued a Christian admonition in another context [cf. Z III:388ff.,

WER URSACH GEBE ZU AUFRUHR

and Z IV, p. 25ff., RATH-

SCHLAG BETREFFEND AUSSCHLIESSUNG ].

And in all this they are sly. Publicly they moan greatly, saying, "Woe, woe to anyone who collects rent and tithes." Nonetheless, you must pay it.

But later they whisper:

"After you have

paid rent for twenty years, you no longer owe anything to the creditor."

Now then look good, faithful lords and friends, what follows from all of this, namely, that even those who do not concern themselves with the gospel appear to be more eager than others in wanting to carry it out. They see to it, should it come to that, that no one owes anything to anyone.

To this end the teaching of the Anabaptists and self-styled apostles is aimed.

Although many goods are abused, chief among them the spiritual ones, the matter must, nonetheless, be decided by a judge, i.e. the magistrate.

Those who by willful force withhold or take away from another that which belongs to him, are robbers and not Christians.

In case [389] the magistrate is unwilling to do anything, God will in the end set it all aright. Therefore we must have a magistrate and everyone must stand by their commitment and duty.

For to start removing the magistrate which acts in a Christian manner is just like pushing the sheep out into the wilderness without a shepherd.

On this point, faithful and dear gentlemen and brothers, I worried on your account, lest your simple, pious people be led into error by wanton, rebellious teachers.

For you are always close to me as my lords and brothers.

I shall always consider myself one of you. For you shall see that whenever temporal and excessive honor alone are considered, renewal has no room.

But where there is the knowledge and fear of God and one seeks to attain to God's honor, no one could possibly be victorious over you or anyone else.

I have dedicated this booklet to you that you may learn how to safeguard against these babblers and troublemakers who run to and fro, who never go anywhere other than where pure teaching has already taken place. There they dare overturn through external things that which has previously been built up.

God bless you. May he confirm that which he has begun among you.

Given at Zurich.

Should I be able to serve you in anything whatever, command; I shall always be obedient to you.

On the Preaching Office I shall not state, beyond this, what has caused me to write this booklet.

I have amply demonstrated above that it came about because several people have been so bold as to go, without

approval by a bishop or parish [council], [9] to neighboring parishes, running, ringing bells, preaching what they pleased, and rebaptizing, thereby causing great unrest and rebellion. On top of it all, they claim to do the right thing and to have been sent by God. To them I want to show in like coinage that they have not been sent by God and that such conduct must not be tolerated in any parish, unless it be permitted by the unanimous decision of the entire parish. [390] Thus, though the booklet is entitled ON THE PREACHING OFFICE, I shall, God willing, also speak to the teaching that was current at the time of the apostles.

To this end, let us consider, first of all, Paul's words in Ephesians 4:11-14, where he says, "And he (Christ), has called some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers, that they might serve God's work unto the perfecting of the saints and the edification of the body of Christ, until all of us reach the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the son of God, that we may attain to full humanity, after the measure of the age and perfection of Christ; henceforth to be children no longer, tossed to and fro by the wind of every doctrine, duped by human craftiness and wicked deceitfulness toward the introduction of error."

These words of Paul mean that Christ incorporated specific offices (of which we shall speak in some detail later) into his body, i.e., the church, in order to build up and perfect his body in the unity of the faith and in the knowledge of the son of God, to become such a perfect, strong and well-matured body as Christ had become in his human nature and age--a perfect physical man.

But at the height of his physical prowess he was killed that we may no longer allow ourselves to be tossed to and fro by every wind of puffed-up teaching which stems from evil design and cunning and leads us into sectarianism and error.

Note well, godly Christians, if these offices have been instituted by God to prevent certain teachings, it cannot ever be fitting then for just anyone to set himself up as a public teacher--for as many heads, so many different minds, and a rogue may well go unnoticed.

For no one handles himself so poorly that he can't be shown in a good light. The pope managed thus to create his entire mob of learned people.

Indeed, they made quite sure that no error arose.

Nonetheless, in our day and age they fought openly so that truth might not break through. But is that enough cause for anyone to set himself up as apostle, teacher or evangelist? No. I shall speak on this more clearly later on. [391]

Let us now, first of all, speak of the office of apostle, for each office has certain distinct characteristics.

"Apostle"

is another term for "messenger".

Accordingly, we Germans are right when we say there are twelve "messengers".

But then we cannot say "Peter, the messenger" or "James, the messenger".

Christ instituted the particular name and office. Luke 6:13 writes as follows, "Jesus called his disciples, selecting from among them twelve whom he also called 'messengers'."

Let this suffice on the name.

Their office, however, is to preach the gospel, i.e. to teach the world to know God and itself. Now when a person knows himself he must needs come to be displeased with himself.

Out of this, remorse and improvement must follow inasmuch as one knows God.

Only after that, a new despair sets in. Although a person may find himself so sinful that he can recognize the need for correction and though he then works on it daily, he, nonetheless, finds such weakness, shortcomings and imperfections that he despairs of ever coming to God.

At that point, the salvation which God has graciously given us through his son is opened up for him. This is the task of the messengers; and it is the highest of all such tasks.

The apostles had to travel a great deal since they were messengers and they were the first who set out to carry the matter of salvation into all the world. Christ entrusted this office to them for the first time when he sent them to preach to Israel only, saying, "Do not go to the gentiles [Mt.

10:5-16] (for initially he wanted to reveal himself to his own people) and do not visit the towns of the Samaritans, but go first of all to the sheep that have strayed away from the house of Israel.

And when you get there, preach, saying that the kingdom of heaven has come.

Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, waken the dead, cast out devils. You have received it without cost, give also without cost.

Do not prepare or get ready for your journey any gold or silver or any money in your belts or bags. Do not take two coats, shoes or a walking stick, for a worker deserves his food.

And when you reach a city' or market place, enquire where there is a worthy [392] or honorable person.

Stay there until you are ready to move on. And when you enter a home, extend a greeting.

And if the house or its occupants are worthy, your peace will be with them.

But if it is unworthy, your peace will return to you.

If someone does not receive you, nor hears your word, leave that house and dwelling place and shake its dust from your feet.

Truly, I say to you, on the day of judgement it will be easier for Sodom and Gomorrah than for such a place. Behold, I am sending you forth like sheep amidst the wolves" etc.

We see here that the apostles had a common commission concerning the mandate and subject matter they were to preach.

That all those were to preach who had been appointed leaders for the purpose of teaching.

Consequently, all those who preach have no other office than the one the apostles had.

But in this one thing the apostles are above prophets, evangelists and teachers:

they made the first attempt to go to an alien, unbelieving world and spread God's word through far-ranging dangerous journeys, as we noted clearly in the case of St. Paul. God did not permit them any comfort or support through temporal aid and succor which later on, however, was deemed fitting for everyone who was appointed a leader in the church in their place, as we shall show below.

Secondly, Christ gave them the very same commission, but with somewhat extended boundaries, when he said to them on the day of the resurrection, John 20:21-23, "'As my father has sent me, so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed upon them and said:

'Receive the Holy Spirit. The sins of those whom you forgive will be forgiven; and those from whom you withhold forgiveness will not be forgiven.'"

Mark 16:15-16 expressed the substance of this in these words, "Preach the gospel to all creatures.

Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.

And whoever does not believe shall be damned." This is what is meant by binding and loosing. Whoever believes is set free; whoever does not believe [393] is bound.

This is amply demonstrated in other writings. [Cf. Zwingli's EXPOSITION, articles

50-52; ARCHETELES,

Z 1:295ff.; DE VERA ET

FALSA RELIGIONE, Z III:723.]

Luke presents the commission in chapter 24[45-47] as follows:

"He then opened their minds so that they might understand Scripture, saying to them that it was written thus and that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead on the. third day and that repentance or conversion and forgiveness of sin had to be preached in his name among all nations, beginning with Jerusalem," etc.

This commission is like the previous one where he bids them go into all the world, but first of all to the land of the Jews, as Matthew 28:19, 20 actually says:

"Go then and teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all things which I have commanded you."

In other words, among servants of the word there is no distinction between apostles and others, except that the apostles were bid to go into the world without preparation or provisions for the road. For this reason I have always maintained that those Christians who boast of being apostles, such as the mighty bishops and prelates, should similarly not carry bag or baggage.

[Cf.

1:231, FRIENDLY ADMONITION

and Z XlI:439,

EXPOSITION,

Article

61; Z III::412, WER URSACH GEBE ZU AU-

FRUHR and Z 111:45, DER HIRT.] Right now these people live in a manner that would put the devil to shame.

They do not preach at all, yet want to be called apostles.

They appear with a pomp which exceeds that of the tyrants of this world. It is impossible for them to be apostles

or messengers, for not only do they not follow the word, they do not even concern themselves with it.

For this reason, those are not apostles either who preach the word, yet remain permanently in their parishes. More on this later.

Now let us turn to the phrase in Paul [Ephesians 4:11], "and some to be prophets".

The term "prophet" is not Hebrew but Greek.

It is derived from "to recite"; its actual meaning is "one who predicts, who speaks of coming events before they take place". [394] Now in the Old Testament this was the task of prophets; with us it has come to be the task of evangelists, bishops or ministers of religion. They look to human vices, either to prevent them or--where they have grown up--to pull them out.

As God spoke to Jeremiah in chapter 1:9, 10, "Note, I have placed my words in your mouth; I have set you to be a guardian over nations and kingdoms that you might pluck up, break, despoil and destroy, but also build up and plant." In short, it is the primary task of a prophet that he pluck up, tear down and destroy whatever is set up against God and that he build and plant, on the other hand, what God desires.

Further, at the time of the apostles those also were called prophets who made known the meaning of Scripture to the entire church, for in those days there were no New Testament writings.

The apostles taught orally.

Though the evangelists wrote soon after, their writings were taught, understood and believed before they were written.

The epistles, too, were written in order to strengthen the faith which they had earlier acquired without writings, through proclamation, and which by divine nurture they believed.

From this we learn that those, too, were called prophets at the time of the apostles who expounded the writings of the Old Testament for the entire congregation.

| Corinthians 14:26-33 notes this well where Paul says, "When you meet, each one of you has a Psalm, some teaching, the ability to speak in tongues, revelation and interpretation.

Let all these serve unto edification.

If someone is able to speak in tongues, let it be that two or three, at the most, speak in turn, with one being the interpreter.

But if there is no interpreter, be silent in the church and speak with yourself and God.

But if there are prophets, two or three may speak and the others judge. But when one of those present receives a revelation, let the first one be silent. For all of you may prophesy, one after the other, or speak of the meaning of Scripture so that all may learn, be comforted or admonished; for the prophetic spirits obey [395] the prophets.

For God is not a God of disorder and conflict, but of peace."

Now this is the meaning of Paul's words: when you come together to hear the psalms or Scripture, some of you are learned, some know languages (he means Hebrew, above all else), to some God has given a special revelation, some are capable interpreters, translating Hebrew into Greek or some such.

You are to undertake everything in a way that will enable you to upbuild therewith.

Those who know Hebrew (to cite an example, for many of them emigrated from the land of the Jews as soon as they became Christians, to live among gentiles who had been converted) speak or read in an orderly fashion, one after the other, those passages of Scripture of which the prophets spoke.

Thereafter let someone translate the same words into the common language.

And anyone who is not an interpreter or knowledgeable in the language should not speak before the prophets have been interpreted. Rather, let such a one be silent and meanwhile commune with himself and God.

For although Scripture may be read in two languages, it is often not commonly understood.

Therefore the prophets begin with interpretation of Scripture and from it they unveil God's will. Prophets then must have been well versed in languages, for all other gifts served to the end of attaining to the highest, i.e. to prophesy, which means to interpret, | Cor.

14:1:

"Seek after spiritual gifts, above all, to prophesy, which is to be able to interpret the writings of God's word." Now whenever prophets interpret, the entire community, i.e. everyone else, judges whether or not the prophet does justice to the word. Note, by what measure is the congregation to judge and on what grounds, if it hears something it has not heard before? Answer: from the very God who dwells within them. A person in whom God dwells understands readily whatever serves to promote God's honor and the neighbor's peace. By this we learn, by the way, that the pope and all his adherents ought to be [396] judged by the church, in other words, by those to whom he preaches; and he cannot violate the word since they judge his interpretation. Observe how far astray the papacy has gone. They do not teach, but do violence to the word. Woe, woe. How is one to deal with those blind people who forever protect an erring papacy?

Now if prophets do speak orderly, one after the other, and if someone who sits in the congregation is given the meaning of the text by God, it is appropriate for such person to speak of the understanding of Scripture he has. But this is to take place in such order and discipline that, if a new one were to begin speaking, the former would be silent and no one else should start to talk as long as the former is still talking.

It is fitting that one should follow another when interpreting Scripture to the gathered congregation.

Indeed everyone in his own congregation and appropriately one after another, so that everyone might be comforted and learn the truth.

Note, though it is proper for everyone in the congregation to speak on Scripture, it is right to do so only after the prophets and then only when the prophet has failed to understand or explain the meaning.

Accordingly, those who claim to be apostles or prophets do not, in interpreting Scripture, act according to the custom of the apostles.

They do not stay in their own congregations, but run to other congregations and there they speak without the prophets.

Though they substantiate their right to interpret Scripture with Paul's writings, they do

not, in turn, allow others to speak. Though they may grant others permission to speak, they do not allow anyone to teach them.

I would have plenty of examples of well instructed prophets who attended their sermons when they read from the New Testament.

When the prophets asked for permission to speak to the text they were told that they were free to do so. When they pointed out the actual meaning, the rebaptizers refused to accept it, though the rest of the congregation did. Hence they do not come to the church to learn, but to teach, and to be taught by no one, although they declare themselves willing, in so many words, to be taught. Further, Paul says here [1 Cor. 14:30-33] that prophets eagerly listen to one another in peace and to those also who are [397] hearers, as long as they bring truth to light, for the spirit of the prophets is subject to them.

In other words, if they are true prophets of God, they would gladly hear those who are able to reveal the hidden meaning of Scripture.

And all this takes place in peace, for God is not a God of disorder and conflict, but a God of peace. Note, how evident it is at this point what kind of spirit the Anabaptists have, however humble they pretend to be. Their spirits do not submit to the prophets, for they begin the first disagreement with them.

Let me give an example: an honorable, pious prophet interpreted to his congregation the meaning of Paul's

1 Corinthians 3:13-15, which at one time was understood to refer to purgatory. However one of the rebaptizers who attacked him did not understand the passage. As soon as the sermon had ended, the rebaptizer went about saying that he had lied.

Note how amiably the prophetic spirit begins to speak.

If they had the God who reveals his gospel to us in our day, they would have a God of peace, not of discord.

If they cause discord they do not have the God of peace who in the beginning revealed to us the gospel through his prophets or evangelists.

There was no discord among believers then.

We speak, of course, only of the prophets and churches in which the gospel is preached. They disturb those very churches but they do not go among the churches of unbelievers.

If they now bring confusion into believing churches in which at one time there was a great and strong peace in God and if they do so merely for temporal, outward things, it is evident that they do not have the God of peace, but instead have the God of disorder and discord. This is like those who came to Antioch saying, "Unless you are circumcised you cannot be saved,"

Acts 15:5.

With this they confused Christian people.

In like manner these people say, "Unless you are rebaptized you cannot be saved."

They, too, confuse the people.

Thus we have two distinct functions of the prophetic office: the one is like that of the prophets of the Old Testament who fended off evil and implanted the good; in like manner, the

guardians or pastors in [398] the New Testament ought to act.

Here the prophetic, episcopal or pastoral office and the office of evangelist are one and the same.

The second office of prophet in the large churches is to interpret the meaning of Scripture, foremost the Old Testament, whenever people gather to study Scripture.

This calling is not too common as yet, but should, God willing, begin with us here in Zurich in the not too distant future. [10] The execution of that task has already begun, as it was promised at one time when the reorganization of the Great Minster was announced [see Council action of Sept.

29, 1523] Thus, to speak precisely, one can't be a prophet in this second sense of office, unless he is able to interpret the languages.

Thereafter Paul speaks of evangelists [Eph.

4:11], "and some as evangelists." This office of evangelist is none other than [399] the prophetic office, as long as "prophet" is understood to be one who plucks up and plants.

He is really none other than a bishop or pastor, as may be clearly seen from 2 Timothy 4:5, where Paul writes to Timothy as follows, "do as befits an evangelist, and carry out all the duties of your office." Now Timothy was a bishop.

It follows, therefore, that evangelist and bishop is the same office. One may also see from Paul's word, just prior to this passage, that he considers evangelist and bishop to be one and the same when he says in 2 Tim.

4:2, "preach the word, persevere, be mild, be severe, rebuke, exhort, comfort with all patience, and teach," etc.

What is this other than the office of a bishop, prophet or pastor.

In terms of teaching, this office is no different than that of apostle.

There is a difference: while the apostles were wanderers and travelers every bishop resides in the place in which he is bishop or pastor.

While the apostles were not permitted to have possessions, it is fitting for a pastor to do so.

This must be quite clear, though jealous, rebellious sectarians teach: simple folk something different.

Paul writes, Titus ]:5-9; "For that I left you behind in Crete, so that you might set up the things that are still lacking and install in all places priests or elders (priest here is taken to mean bishop or pastor), as I directed you: a person who is blameless, has only one wife, whose children are believers and do not have the reputation of being profligate or disobedient; for a bishop (note how he calls the one bishop whom earlier he called priest) ought to be blameless as is fitting for one of God's stewards; not stubborn, quick tempered or a drunkard, not violent or of vile tongue, not greedy for gain but hospitable; a good person, sober, just, righteous, holy, disciplined, firm in the teaching of the faith, that [400] he may be able to comfort and admonish in sound, wholesome doctrine and to confute and punish those who disagree." Of these words of Paul which now, at long last, are known to every Christian, I will mention those only which serve our purpose here.

At the outset there must well have been Christians in Crete who proclaimed the faith; but these were not as yet priests, bishops, guardians, evangelists, pastors or prophets; for he says, "for this reason I left you behind in Crete, that you might institute those things which are lacking as yet."

Hence the office of apostle has to be broader than or different from that of evangelist.

Secondly, for his words regarding the faith and good training of a bishop's children one may clearly note that he speaks of a householder who is well suited and honorable.

Where in all this are those trouble makers who disturb the simple by saying, "Your pastor should not have his own house; he ought to be lodged with other people and (adding a bit later), if he has his own house, he is unable to speak the truth."

Yet Paul says again in | Tim.

3:4, when speaking of the office of bishop, "A bishop ought to manage or master his house well and honorably."

And shortly after, "but if a person cannot govern his own, how can he care for God's church?" Note how the difference between apostle and bishop becomes clearly apparent so that one may learn to discern the spirit of those who rebel against God. I should like to point out here that in such an election fewer of those who are extremely poor and forsaken will be elected bishop than of those who are well-to-do.

The extremely impoverished generally govern their households poorly. For where one governs well, one also becomes wellto-do. But I shan't pursue this any further, lest I provide someone with excuses for hiding his avarice.

And finally we hear in this text that a bishop may also be chosen because of his ability to govern his household well.

Hence he must have his own household.

Indeed, he means that one who has an immoral, quarrelsome, careless and neglected family is not [401] suited to take care of an entire congregation.

What would you say, you squabblers, had Titus, along with the Cretes, chosen a well-to-do, rich person for the office of bishop?

Look to Scripture more carefully and leave aside your quarreling.

That Paul indicates neither poor nor rich here, but rather one who is a good householder, is not to be taken that by managing he means "gathering up riches"; for he says that the bishop should not desire unworthy gain.

From this the entire church learned well that it was not to elect bishops from among extravagant, unscrupulous seekers of gain, usurers or greedy persons. One perceives readily from the seriousness with which he concerns himself with bishops and how they are to be aided, that not only the rich were chosen.

For it is hard for a rich person to enter heaven, as Christ says in Luke 18. Nonetheless, they had to choose those who managed their households well.

And that cannot easily be achieved by beggars, for beggars have neither houses nor families.

Rather, Paul understood by householder a disciplined man who could govern his family in such a way that no one would be harmed.

He was to be honorable, obedient and in pursuit of righteous deeds.

Where there is such a family and householder one is always concerned with having an adequate livelihood without burdening or having to trouble the neighbor.

All this merely serves to show that bishops or evangelists are not against Christ or popish if they possess their own houses and property, as long as they do not unduly desire to possess temporal goods. When Paul indicates, further on, that a bishop ought to be hospitable, in other words, to lodge and feed the poor, it points up, even more strongly, that he must have a house in order to be hospitable and that he ought to have some property if he is to feed everyone who comes to him. [402] At this point we must refute the impudent allegations which are made against evangelists by these squabblers when they say that anyone who has a prebend cannot speak the truth and insist that he ought not be considered a pastor. Christ says in Luke 10:7, "A worker is worthy of his hire." In the same context he speaks openly with the apostles not to be troubled in their consciences when they eat without labor with those to whom they preach.

Someone might readily object at this point that Christ spoke to his disciples only. Remember, however, that St.

Paul intends these words to refer to evangelists, too, i.e. to prophets, ministers, guardians, bishops, or whatever you might call them.

For he says in | Cor.

9:7-15, "Who has ever waged war at his own expense or planted a vineyard without enjoying its yield?

Who keeps cattle and does not drink the milk? Do you think that I speak merely as a human being, off the top of my head? Does not the law also state it thus?

For it is written in the law of Moses (as found in Deut. 25:4), 'You shall not muzzle the ox when it thrashes corn.'

Does God have concern for the oxen or does he speak this for our benefit, as he surely does? For it is written for our sake. And whoever tills the soil shall do so in hope, and whoever thrashes in hope shall have a share of that which he hopes for.

And if we have sowed spiritual things does it seem too much to you when we share your temporal goods?

If others become recipients of your goods, how much more appropriate is it for us? Nonetheless, we have never made use of such power, but we endured everything in order not to erect a stumbling block for the gospel of Christ.

Do you not know (among the ancients and the gentiles as well) that those who prepared and executed sacrifices ate of them and that those who served at the altar became partakers of the altar?

In like manner, the Lord bids those who proclaim the gospel (note who instituted this order regarding food) to live by the gospel.

Yet I have made use of [403] none of these. Neither did I write this that I might use it in this manner; for I'd rather die than have someone destroy my reputation" etc.

These words of Paul are so clear they require no further clarification.

He drives to the point with full force that those who proclaim God's word ought to be fed, though he himself accepted nothing from the Corinthians and little in other places.

For he says in Acts 20:34, "These hands (with that he showed his hands) have received what I and those who were with me needed."

Nonetheless, he points up that those who serve the gospel ought to be maintained by the people to whom they proclaim the gospel, as he states in 1 Thess.

5:12, 13, "We implore you, dear brethren, to look up to those who labor among you and who have been appointed your superiors in the Lord.

We advise you to value them highly in love, for the sake of their labors, and maintain peace with them."

Similarly, Hebrews 13:7, "Be mindful of those who are your superiors and who have proclaimed God's word to you." We do not intend to speak here of those useless bellies who wish to be "the Reverend gentleman" whether or not this pleases God.

Rather, we speak of those only who preach the gospel.

But later Paul says, l1 Tim.

5:17, 18, "Priests who are superiors and who administer well are to be held worthy of twofold gifts or honor; foremost among these, the people who work in word and teaching.

For Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle the ox when it is thrashing.'

And again, 'A worker is worthy of his hire.

These words of Paul make clear that he understands Christ's words "A worker is worthy of his hire" as referring to every office which serves the teaching of God, for he says, "foremost, those who work in word and teaching."

On doctors and teachers I shall speak later.

Now, since we may note quite clearly at this point that those who teach and lead us by their good example are to be maintained by us, why then do these rebellious babblers go among simple [404] Christians, saying, "Whoever holds a prebend cannot preach the gospel and that it is popish to have a prebend when it is of God"?

Can you prove to me that there are two kinds of gifts, honor or prebend and not just one?

What does it matter whether or not you call the support of a superior a wage (note how spiritual we are:

Christ himself calls it a wage), a twofold gift, honor, or a prebend, if it is the income of a teacher who is appointed. to be a superior? "Yes," they say, "a prebend is not to be endowed, but from whatever is given willingly one ought to live."

Answer: the ordering of external matters is in the hands of the Christian congregation, "so that everything may result in peace and unity", as is written in Phil. 3:16, and as Paul did with the Lord's Supper, or memorial of Christ. There it was customary to eat the entire Lord's Supper together, as Christ had done.

But when abuse began to grow in

the matter, Paul removed the meal in [ Cor.

11:22, "Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink?"

And finally, "If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home." Similarly with benefices, we may readily deduce that benefices were established only when begging got to be too heavy and extensive. Now whenever benefices, i.e. specified sustenance, were established, it happened so that begging might not become established, though poor ministers, in the end, had to start begging once again because of their poverty.

For the manorial lords gathered in the grain for themselves, leaving them the stubble.

Let me cite an example. I have often been asked to give up my benefice for which an honorable city council would then give me one hundred guilders at least.

This would have meant much more than before.

(God grant me as much as these confounding liars set aside for me.) In addition, several citizens made me magnanimous offers.

Friends, tell me what I should have done.

I saw well that--had I given up my prebend--I would [405] have had to start begging.

I know very well, indeed, what those devout preaching monks and master readers have amassed through begging.

Further, specific private citizens assured me of far in excess of one hundred guilders per year.

Add to that the one hundred from my lords and my falling back on begging, how much more profitable than a prebend would all this have been. But what would have come of it? All my successors would have had to go a-begging as I had to, and bold teaching would have turned into fawning. Now, since no one is wise enough or strong to resist greed (just as with other temptations), and God tests us in manifold ways, I contented myself with a modest canonry, since I could see it to be by far the best method to give a minister each year reasonable, steady sustenance.

Then it is not necessary for anyone to supply extras on the sly. For one who is accustomed to begging always appears to have nothing at all and as a result grabs anything he can possibly get.

But when he has an assured benefice, no one needs to feel sorry for him; for everyone knows well that he has an acceptable income.

In this way harmful begging is eliminated.

Nor should the sectarian preachers laugh, as they might, when I point up this opinion.

For I ought to know well when I say to them that in the mission they gave to themselves they robbed poor and simple people of their food and drink, though they themselves carried silver and gold in their bags. By contrast,

I shall show to them how I always conducted myself whenever I preached in the country, and I am not half as holy as they.

I paid for my food with my own money. And whenever I was offered money or other gifts, I refused them, though these were frequently offered to me.

In short then, "If your eye is single, your whole body is light." Christ says so in Mt.

6:22 [406] with express reference to the danger of riches. Now if you are a faithful servant of God, you will use your benefice to God's honor.

If you are not a servant of God, as will soon become apparent, you

will seek after base gain and alms.

When that happens, you are like salt which has lost its savor, fit for nothing other than to be discarded.

But greater fortitude is to be expected of one who is assured of a benefice, as long as he teaches rightly, than of a person who fears constantly that he might be expelled.

I do not put any store by babblers who come along pretending not to be looking to any goods, when, in fact, they look solely to such goods. One may readily see this from their fawning manner and artful tricks. Unfortunately I learned to recognize them somewhat late.

With the simple, I believed them to have spirit when it turned out to be greed [wordplay on Geist-Geiz].

In the same vein I also dislike greatly those spirituals to whom one has to give large sums of money before they will preach at all.

I am not sure whether they are worthy to be called preachers at all.

Of that kind I don't know too many around here; hence, I shan't concern myself with them. The reason why we are accused here at Zurich of having large benefices stems from the fact that I wouldn't have made it to sixty guilders last year [in 1524] had not the provost and chapter granted me sixteen measures by way of a supplement. The others have little more, though they might have a bit more.

Yes, that accounts for the three hundred guilders of which my lying enemies speak.

That's how much of a benefice I have. I speak in the name of the one God who creates and sustains me so that I am satisfied with it. If I regret anything, it is only because of those poor people whom I was unable to help as freely as if I had had more.

I should rather, were I to follow my carnal desires at all, do without any benefice, if that would get me out of having to preach; but circumstances and the talent which God has entrusted to me do not allow for this.

All this the quarrelsome [407] preachers force me to say against my will.

Concerning my wife, Anna Reinhart, [11] they always announce how rich she is; yet, she does not have a nickle's worth more than four hundred guilders, not counting jewelry and clothes.

Of those, she has not worn either silks or rings since she married me; rather, she goes about like the wives of other ordinary tradesmen. Her inheritance, which her children, the Meyers, conceded to her, she needs for her sustenance. She is in her forties

[born 1484] and her children approach her daily for help; for which reason also I married her. Here they babble of her excessive goods and clothes; yet everyone knows that they do her an injustice.

But at a distance it is easy enough to lie; the slandered [408] person is not likely to be there. Her children have sufficient property. May God grant that they use it well. But of all that property she does not get a single nickle, except for her clothes and jewelry and her inheritance which is thirty guilders.

I agreed to have her add her dowry to this and I do not touch her property for even a nickle.

Paul frequently. shook off the lies heaped upon him, for he saw these to cause the gospel a marked disadvantage. Similarly,

I would gladly forego making excuses, provided the slander does not disadvantage the gospel of Christ.

Let us now go on with providing proofs that there were at the time of the apostles resident, benefited pastor evangelists, prophets or bishops.

In the twentieth chapter of Acts we note clearly that Paul addresses, from Miletus, the priests in Ephesus who are bishops, guardians, evangelists and pastors of the church.

There he calls all believers at Ephesus "church"; and it is good to remember that there was more than one bishop; for he does not say, "[I am sending] for the bishop" but "for the bishops and priests". [12] By this we see either that there was more than one minister in Ephesus or that there were many guardians, prophets and teachers in the church who were all concerned with oversight and teaching.

And after a long speech he says in conclusion [Acts 20:28], "therefore watch over yourselves and the entire flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you bishop (note that those whom he earlier called priests he now calls bishops), to feed the church of God which he has obtained by his own blood." Note here, you pious Christians, what took place at the time of the apostles.

Apostles went through the unbelieving world and preached the gospel and wherever they planted the faith they set up guardians who confirmed by teaching again and again what they had planted.

These they took [409] from among resident believers or (where there were no such), from among those who were with them, and appointed them bishops. After that they traveled on. Therefore

Paul says, Tit.

1:5, "I have left you behind in Crete that you might establish. those things that are still wanting."

Note how he left his disciples behind.

Here then he appoints bishops who were installed after he had planted the faith, namely those who had been set aside by the entire church, on the bidding of the Holy Spirit, to feed the Christian people.

In this one may clearly see the difference between messengers and evangelists.

One may also note that the order of pastor, bishop or guardian is instituted by God; for he says, "among which flock the Holy Spirit has set you," etc. Read the entire speech of Paul and you will find for yourself what I have just told you.

Again it is written in Acts 21:8, 9, "We came to Caesarea; and when we entered the house of Philip, the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Now this Philip had four daughters who prophesied."

Firstly, we hear quite clearly from this that this Philip who was evangelist, guardian or bishop in Caesarea is not called an apostle, though he was one of the seven who had earlier in

Acts 6:5 been appointed servant.

It should further be noted here that the name of the holy apostles or messengers was changed as soon as they settled down in a place when, for the sake of order or by reason of age, they no longer traveled.

They were then called bishop. For example, James, whom we call the younger (one should not call him "the lesser" since minor in this context means younger), [13] was bishop in Jerusalem.

Jerome and all other fathers call him thus, since he was resident there; for the apostles who traveled to other countries left him--who at one time had also traveled about preaching--behind in Jerusalem to [410] be a guardian and proclaimer of the word of God.

Similarly, John the evangelist suffered greatly, time and again, on account of his apostolic office.

In the end he died a bishop, i.e. a guardian, in Ephesus in the sixty-eighth year after the ascension of Christ [cf. Jerome, de viris illustribus, cap.

IX, Migne, P.L. XXIII, p. 635].

Such is the difference between apostles and evangelists; though it is not a distinction because of teaching but because of office.

Secondly, we hear regarding this Philip, that he had his own house, for Paul visited him with a large contingent.

This is wholly contrary to those unworthy preachers who--wherever they go--undermine confidence in the bishops or ministers, who up to then had faithfully preached the gospel, and confuse their sheep. This is how they do it: they read out loud the tenth chapter of Matthew 6:42 and proceed to say, "Do you see here how they are to be guests without having anything of their own? Therefore peoples' priests or pulpit preachers (as they call them), are incapable of speaking the truth; for they have benefices."

But their error lies in the fact that they fail to distinguish between apostles and evangelists or bishops.

Such evil is gross ignorance.

And as soon as you hold up to them--what is nothing other than the clear word of God--that the office of messenger and bishop is not one and the same office, they clamor that God said in Mt. 11:25 that he has hidden the secret things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to the simple.

Therefore one should not turn to people of learning.

God has given his spirit equally to the Germans and to the Latins and Greeks. Yes, they shout, we have it in hand, honorable people; make sure that no one can take it from us.

I would love to give such people an apt reply, simply to unmask their pious spirit. However one must answer them as is appropriate for oneself and not as they deserve, [411] "Yes, indeed, God has revealed it to the simple and single-minded."

But what does simple and single-minded mean in this context?

Does it mean foolish in understanding 'or singular and righteous in heart--not fraudulent, selfish or underhanded?

If, then, you are so learned as to always quote Scripture, yet have been taught solely through reading and learning, why then do you count yourselves among the simple?

Is it right to speak thus when I have begun something wantonly, for which I could find no basis in God's word, and the opposite of which has been pointed out to me, to thus cover up my error? "You are learned, but you ought to believe me; I am not learned, even though I know all of Holy Scripture."

For I could then speak as I fancied and if someone objected I could reply to my objector that he is learned and incapable of knowing the truth; but I know it, for I am not learned.

Now tell me, I implore you, is one to believe Holy Scripture in all things or just as you will?

I hope that you will concede with a sense of shame that one would have to believe in Scripture not only when it serves to one's advantage, but always.

Now if one is to believe it always, then it is right out of God's word, too, that evangelists must be well learned and not just beginners, skilled to teach others.

They are to have their own houses and livelihood and, like the apostles, they are to undertake journeys without baggage and provisions [cf. Mt.

10:6ff.]. Why do you discredit godly evangelists?

For I speak not of popish ministers, but of honest, faithful servants of the gospel. If you did not know the difference between messengers and evangelists, you left the nest prematurely and your spirit has not left you with sufficient food in your breadbasket.

In that case your discrediting may be nothing other than ignorant presumption.

If, however, you knew the difference but kept quiet in the matter, it is not without evil intent, and you were sent not by God but by a goddess called

Eris which means quarrelsomeness.

Note, therefore, righteous Christian, that Christ, when speaking of the little ones and the simple people in Mt.

11, does not mean those who are ignorant [412], otherwise I would have to be a great doctor--but rather, of the singular people who are not children of this age [Luke 16:8]. Their eyes of faith are singular. They are not wise because they are great in this world, but rather because they despise the greatness of humankind and are able to open their hearts before God.

He has made the most learned into disciples:

Nicodemus, Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Gamaliel, Ananias, Apollos, Agabus, Timothy, Titus and many others.

Now all of these had to become small in their knowledge, deny themselves and become like little children, etc., not to rely on their knowledge, not to twist God's word according to their own ideas nor to elevate the carnal meaning above the spiritual and not to be great in themselves but to be humble and obedient vessels of God.

Now Christ's meaning is that the worldly-wise do not understand the business of salvation; rather, the farther they are from human wisdom, which is sheer deceit, the more clearly they know God's will.

It does not follow from this, of course, that therefore everything is true which is spoken by any fool and that such a one is called by God.

I should very much like to hear from you why you praise your doctors so highly who are involved with you in the issue of infant and rebaptism.

They, too, are preachers and beneficed.

How then can these speak the truth? You cannot excuse your perfidy by claiming ignorance.

To some God gives ten talents and it is so far from him to reject a person because of the extent of his knowledge that he gives him power over ten cities, in addition, provided he has acted faithfully.

In all of this you may clearly see that the evangelists managed households and lodged people, as Paul indicates to Titus and Timothy.

And there is no substance to what those confusing fault finders and hate mongers say: if they were of God, they could expound everything on their own quite clearly, though it may have weak support, and they would [413] be all things to all people solely to win them for Christ[cf1:Cor:« 9319-22].

If they are so pure that no one can touch them and what they say is spirit, I can readily see that their boasting must come under the same critique as the pope.

I would certainly never want to protect these greedy and proud preachers of whom they seem to have more in these lands than elsewhere, as shall become apparent when they come forward with their baptism of which they boast.

Secondly, it is written in Acts 21, "Philip had four daughters who prophesied." These words further confirm that this Philip managed his house and raised his children after the manner of bishops, as is laid down in the appointing of bishops. Now I hear how some of these self-appointed apostles, in order to turn everything upside down, set out to say that it were better if priests had no wives.

And these are the very same people who, a short while ago, demanded the marriage of priests. What do you think of that?

Is it not high time to walk on one's head? Aren't you annoyed that everyone walks on his feet, you wise censors and fault finders, i.e. judges and critics. When are you going to concede that all your fighting is no more than quarrelsome, envious bitterness and not at all spiritual? You obnoxious wind bags. I do not doubt that it might be easier for an apostle or messenger to travel on behalf of the gospel without a wife. But if he is not continent, he ought to have a wife and take her around with him, as Peter and others have done, according to | Cor. 9. But bishops are not to be without wives so that suspicions may be avoided; plenty has been said on this. For suspicion is so dangerous and the flesh is so little to be trusted that the apostles demanded, nonetheless, that bishops have wives, though one may have grown children and hence be of advanced [414] years.

Now I should like to hear from these well-learned, confused

messengers what it was that these four daughters prophesied, since it is not appropriate for a woman to speak in church, | Cor.

14:34, 35.

It must be noted, therefore, that in Scripture the term "prophesy" means on occasion as much as to hear a sermon or attend to the exposition of Scripture in church, as 1 Cor.

11:5 expressly states, where Paul speaks as follows:

"Any woman who prays or prophesies without covering her head dishonors her head."

One notes expressly from Paul's words, prior to and immediately following this, that he intends to say simply that a woman who prays in church ought to be veiled; similarly, if she sits to hear God's word she should be covered as well. On occasion, "prophesy" in Scripture stands for "to present the meaning of Scriptures", as is written in 1 Cor. 14:31, "You ought to prophesy one after another."

This means: when the prophets who spoke first of the meaning of Scripture failed to bring out the right sense, and if God had opened the meaning of Scripture to someone among the listeners, it was appropriate for the same to prophesy, which was to speak of the meaning of the passage that had been read.

Now we have sufficiently shown earlier which Scripture was interpreted in church in those days, namely, the writings of the Old Testament, as is well noted in | Cor. 14:34, 35. "Everyone has a psalm", etc.; for at that time the Scriptures of the New Testament were written in the hearts rather than in books.

We learn from all this that the four daughters did not prophesy like prophets, neither as common people in the congregation; for women were not allowed to speak in church.

Further, we do not find that they prophesied just anything.

It would have to be then that Luke wants to say the following:

Philip had four daughters who were learned in the Holy Scriptures and praised God in its words through psalms and other songs (these the women and their household were allowed to use).

It is furthermore an ancient custom among Jews for [415] their women to learn to understand the Scriptures and therewith to praise God primarily in psalms.

Thus I have demonstrated well enough that these rebellious self-appointed apostles do violence to godly bishops and act against God when they say of them that they cannot have their own homes and assured livelihood and that when they have these, they do not speak the truth.

Now I don't do all this for my sake; for, as I have indicated, my flesh desired to be free of the office of preaching and would undoubtedly be sustained, since he who created me would also sustain me; however, the very same does not allow me to leave my office.

For years I have sought to be free of it; yet the longer the more he gives me work to do in his word. Praise be to him. Therefore let no one sour you on the support or benefices of evangelists, though one should work as much as possible toward removing other endowments, but peacefully and with due concern for those who hold them. [14]

For if clerical benefices were discontinued today, our daily necessities would

force us to set them up once again. Let these disquieting people lead no one into ill-considered decisions.

Whatever they dream up they proclaim, saying that the spirit of God [416] had led them to say it. I might well respond with St. Paul, 1 Cor.

14:37, "If anyone thinks himself a prophet or spiritual person, consider what I write here and you will become aware that I write nothing other than God's commandments."

Thereafter Paul speaks further in Eph.

4:11, "some he appointed to be pastors and teachers". Regarding pastors, everyone knows that he means those who are guardians.

Now this same office is connected, almost everywhere, with that of the evangelist.

They are the true bishops and guardians to whom Christ speaks in Mt. 24:42, "be watchful, for you do not know when the householder returns."

And to Peter in John 21:15-17, "If you love me, tend my sheep." He also speaks constantly of the pastor's office in John 10; and everyone knows well that the bishop's office is meant there. Similarly, in 1 Peter, chapter 2:25, he draws together

"pastor" and "bishop" when he says, "You have now been converted to the pastor and guardian or bishop of your souls--meaning Jesus

Christ, our Lord." Enough has been said of this.

It may happen, of course, that in large churches or parishes the care of preaching and looking out for every danger to the sheep is too much for one person.

In such a case one might well assign to one person the concern for the growing dangers and open misdeeds and to another the task of preaching. As for example in our church, one person or even two or three would have more than enough in guarding [pastoral care].

And although the three of us are sharing the preaching, we have, nonetheless, plenty of it to do.

By doctors and teachers one should not understand those who run about in red caps, sporting gold rings, silken clothes and gilded shirts.

Rather, one should either think of those who teach and who, in the other sense of that word, are prophets (as we have shown above), who teach everyone and of those who are being prepared to teach others in the languages or else, of all who are teachers, prophets and evangelists. Thus we note that Paul calls himself in 1 Tim.

2:7 doctor or teacher of [417] the gentiles, which is an apostle of the gentiles, as he says in Gal.

2:2.

And here we may clearly see from the context that Paul understands by doctor primarily those who are learned, who taught in such a way that those were taught by them who thereafter taught others, as we may clearly see in Acts 13:1, "There were in the church at Antioch those who were prophets and teachers:

Barnabas and Simeon who is called Niger, Lucius and Cyrene and Manaen, a sibling of Herod the Tetrarch and Saul." In these words we clearly note that there were, even at that time of the apostles,

many learned persons in large churches who were thoroughly instructed in the Scriptures and who taught the same to others as well, so that the Scriptures might not be misunderstood, as Paul indicates in 1 Cor.

14:5, "I wish or desire that you might be well informed in all the languages, but above all that you prophesy", etc. Paul desires here that Christians should be knowledgeable in all tongues for the purpose of prophesying.

He knows well, of course, that not everyone is well versed in tongues; but he shows how useful a thing it is for Christians to know the languages in which God's word is written, when he desires such knowledge for everyone.

He desires this for the purpose of turning it to the aid of prophesying, i.e. the exposition of Scripture or preaching. Here the Anabaptists act rather wrongly when they denigrade languages, saying, "One need not have languages.

We understand Scripture just as well as those who know many languages.

It depends on the spirit and not on one's skill."

Yet Paul does not desire in vain that everyone ought to understand the languages. Therefore the following ought to be noted: it is true and quite certain that human hearts are not turned toward God by anything other than God who draws them, so help me God, however learned a person might be; nonetheless, one must have knowledge of Scripture because of those [418] who do violence to it. For hypocrisy stops short of nothing.

It dares present itself as if it were the spirit.

But when one discovers afterwards that their speaking does not conform to God's word, one knows which is hypocrisy. For among the simple one soon reaches the point at which violence is done to God's word; they don't know what it is all about. Nonetheless, one has to probe for meaning, to find out whether it is thus.

In this way a believer is well informed on whether or not the right meaning has been found.

And there is no better way to do that than through languages. For just as in German nothing remains unknown to us when it is written out because we all know German, so--if we knew Hebrew as well as German--we should be able to fathom the Old Testament.

Similarly, if we knew Greek as well as German, nothing in the New Testament should be hidden from us either. Therefore all commentaries and teachers are nothing when compared to the knowledge of languages.

This may be clearly learned from Paul's word who does not say, "I wish you knew the rabbis or commentaries", but rather, "that all of you were versed in languages", meaning primarily the Hebrew tongue; but in our country that cannot be learned by ordinary people.

Therefore it is essential that we have teachers in several places who are able to instruct others in the language. And this is not a new idea. We note that it began in Antioch in the days of the apostles and it is used in our country, too.

Therefore you and other territories should--when the occasion arises--allow useless ministers to die off, with God's help, and apply a portion of their possessions to poor parishes and the other portion toward training

a few scholars in the languages for the good and benefit of your area. Otherwise there [419] is grave danger when reading (which in our day has become so popular), that--as may be clearly seen--a goodly number of those who read become merely more informed and eloquent than pious and god-fearing.

Those very people burst forth with every nonsense which has no basis at all in the original language and context.

These might possibly be convinced by the right understanding.

Not all of us ought to be preachers, as Paul indicates in 1 Cor.

12:29, "Are all of us apostles?

Are all prophets?

Are all teachers?" etc., as if to say, "No." Therefore it is gross arrogance of these self-appointed preachers to appropriate all offices to themselves and despise whatever they themselves can't do.

Let me cite but two examples by which everyone may see how badly they would be misled, should the knowledge of languages ever be despised.

I could cite more, but why? Everyone who hears them can see what presumption it is. There were several thousand believers in Jerusalem, but no more than twelve messengers.

Here all of them are messengers. Whoever has gone to a German school and has learned how to spell gets up in front of the congregation and spells it out. I don't report common gossip; I know places

[420] where they were unable to read Scripture.

They stuttered over it so that it became apparent that they were just learning 1t.

The one story is as follows: a weaver in a certain place (I shall be gentle and not name it; perhaps they will recognize themselves) which has a godly, competent evangelist and bishop, boldly occupied the pulpit one Sunday. When the preacher arrived, the weaver announced that he himself would preach. The preacher agreed so as to avoid a disturbance. The weaver then began reading in ] Tim. 4:2 which the good people had often heard before from their legitimate pastor; hence they complained because of the boldness of the weaver.

Soon he came to the passage "their conscience is branded".

He then said, "I do not understand this."

Whereupon the minister retorted, "Stop then and I shall expound it for you."

When this happened the good people shouted, "Bid him come down."

The minister replied, "Had I ordered him down on my account I would have aroused suspicion, therefore, you bid him come down."

Thus he finally came down.

Now let all Christians discern the spirit.

First of all, he elevates himself without any regard for the whole church.

Secondly, he claims to be a divine spirit, yet fails to understand, though he is able to read.

But the divine spirit instructs even the ignorant of his meaning and intention.

Therefore it is evident that it is not a divine mission but something that is rhymed together and a skill that puffs up.

The second story is as follows:

Whenever they teach

rebaptism they claim Mt.

3:7-12 in support. There, among other things, is a summary of John's preaching in which he allegedly called the Pharisees and Sadducees "you brood of serpents," etc.

Now some of them explain this to the simple as follows: note the harsh manner with which John scolds the Pharisees for their refusal to be baptized. The simple then stand in amazement [421], not knowing what it is all about. Yet this is not at all the meaning of Matthew's words. Rather, he intends to summarize John's sharp sermons of admonition, showing him to have discerned the inward thoughts of the Pharisees who did not come to baptism in the right spirit. He therefore scolded them severely, albeit with additional teaching and words.

For who can describe all the teaching which John ever undertook?

Now if we have to fear such from people who know nothing but the letter, it is necessary, even more than ever before, to have some who can discern the actual meaning from the letter, too.

Otherwise what might it be like some time hence when there are already so many different opinions at the very outset? Now if everyone can see how they deviously fail to understand the letter, yet pawn off their opinion as spiritual, we will know what sort of spirit it is: the kind of spirit that refuses to hear whatever is opposed to it, and which, with the majority of the rebaptized, seeks to shirk all obedience and responsibility.

I speak the truth.

It becomes apparent in much of their speaking and writing, but God, the true judge, shall reveal everything in his own good time. No good Christian would ever appropriate any of these offices to himself except he were either sent by God, chosen by the church or the apostles (which is nothing other than a calling and commission).

We shall make this clear with the aid of Christ Jesus the Lord, with John and the apostles and their writings and the Old Testament, too.

From the Old Testament we shan't cite more than one incident in Numbers 16. This choice will make it quite clear that no one in the Old Testament aspired to be a prophet without being called by God through wondrous signs or prophecies which coincided with the truth (as, e.g., Deut.

13:1), or to be priest; to this latter task the tribe of Levi alone was called.

The gist of the story is this: when Moses, on God's bidding, made Aaron, his brother, High Priest, Korah, Dathan, Abiram and On from the tribe of Reuben rose up against both of them, saying, "Leave off; for the entire [422] congregation is holy and God is among them. Why do you set yourselves above the people of God?" When

Moses heard this, he replied to Korah and the entire crowd, "Tomorrow the Lord will reveal those who belong to him; he shall bind to himself the saints, and those whom he shall choose shall come near to him.

Therefore do as follows: let all of those who also desire to be High Priest take a censer, you Korah, and the entire crowd.

Make a fire and place incense upon it." Now there were

two hundred and fifty of them.

Aaron, too, had his censer. "When God had shown his glory, he ordered the multitude to separate itself from the rebels; he then opened the earth and consumed their tents and all their possessions.

Thus they went to hell and the ground covered them."

In this manner God punished all those in the Old Testament who rebelliously set themselves up on their own authority as the sacrificing priestcraft, outside God's order and that of Moses, in which there was much less danger than in their teaching.

Our savior Christ Jesus was proclaimed from heaven by the Father to be the true redeemer whom he sent to us, whom we are to hear when he said, "This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased; hear him."

Mt.

3:17 and 17:5.

Later on, John proclaimed this to all the people when he showed to them that our Lord Christ Jesus was sent by God, the heavenly Father, John 1:32-34, "And John proclaimed, saying, 'l saw the spirit like a dove descend from heaven and hover over him. And l did not know him.

But the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, "he upon whom you shall see the spirit descending and resting, is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit."

And I have seen it and testify to it that he is the son of God.'" Note how expressly St.

John affirms the sending of Jesus Christ, our redeemer.

And that these words refer firmly to the election and sending of Christ is shown by St.

Paul in Hebrews 5, "No one assumes this honor for himself, but [423] the one alone who is called by God, as Aaron was. Thus not even Christ himself assumed this honor of being a high priest. Rather, the one called him to that task who said to him, 'You are my son; I gave birth to you today,'" etc.

Our Lord Christ Jesus himself proves to the Jews in a lengthy speech that he was sent by the Father, John 8:12-58.

In John 6:57 he says, "As the Father has sent me into the world, so have I sent them."

In John 20:21, "As the Father has sent me, so I send you." Gal.

4:4, "God sent his son into the world," etc.

From all these texts we may see that the sending is essential before anyone may publicly assume the task of preacher, that Christ Jesus himself makes frequently known the authority of his own calling by what he says and through other means.

The sending of John the Baptist God indicated through the prophet Malachi in chapter 3:1, as you will find in Mk.

1:2.

The evangelist John, also, indicates it openly in John 1:33, "A person is sent by God whose name is John."

John the Baptist himself, as we have just heard in John 1, "The one who sent me, etc., spoke to me", points to his calling in John 3:27, "A person cannot assume anything for himself, unless it be given him from

heaven."

And again, there are words of John by which he seeks to indicate that no one is able to undertake anything with the word of salvation, except one to whom God has given it. In John

3[28] he says again, "You yourselves must testify that I said to you, 'I am not Christ, but have been sent as his forerunner.'"

This again points to the sending.

Concerning the sending of the apostles we have just cited two texts from John 17:18 and 20:21 in which Christ says, "As my Father has sent me, so I send you." In Matthew

10:16 he says, "Behold, I send you as sheep amidst the wolves." In Matthew 28:19,

20 he says, "Go, and teach all nations."

In Mark 16:15, "Go into all the world and preach, etc." All [424] these are words of commissioning. And he further substantiated the commissioning in Matthew

25:14-30 in the distribution of talents and in Luke 19:12-28. Here commissioning and mandate are the same thing. To this they clung so firmly ever after that they allowed no one to set himself up on his own authority.

When Judas removed himself out of this life by hanging himself and broke the fellowship of the apostles, no one dared elevate himself to his place; instead, the entire congregation chose in Acts 1:15-26.

Likewise, when there was a shortage of ministers, no one asserted himself by elevating himself to be a minister which might possibly have been to his advantage.

Rather, the entire congregation chose the seven ministers according to Acts 6:1-6; all this was merely to look after temporal matters.

Later, when the apostles learned that Samaria had accepted the word of God because of Philip's preaching, not everyone ran off to assist them; rather, they sent two, Peter and John in Acts 8[154] When self-appointed servants came to Antioch and confused the believing community on the matter of circumcision (just as the rebaptizers do now), no one ran off to Jerusalem on his own account, but they delegated Paul and Barnabas, along with others, to go to Jerusalem, Acts 15:1-21.

Similarly, when they were sent a second time, only those went with them who were delegated to do so.

Paul so clearly delineated his own commissioning that one can readily see that he had been maligned on account of the commissioning, as if he had set himself up, Gal.

1:1, "I, Paul, an apostle or messenger, not on account of people or through them, but through Jesus Christ, etc." By this he wants to show his calling to be from heaven, which is recorded in Acts 9:3-31 and is recounted again later in Acts 22:1-21 and 26:9-18. Likewise in 1 Cor. 1:17, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel" indicates his commissioning.

In like manner, he says in 1 Cor. 9:1, 2, "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Did I not see Christ Jesus, our Lord?

[425] Are not you my labor in the Lord?

If I am not an apostle like others, I am, nonetheless, your apostle; for you are the seal of my apostolic office."

In all these texts we clearly see that the ceremonial preachers attacked him

as if he were not an apostle; for he had not been sent as others who were physically present with Christ and had been sent by him.

He indicates this in 2 Cor.

12:11 where he says, "I have done no less than the foremost of the apostles." And in | Cor.

15:10, "I worked harder than any of them." Likewise to the Galatians, again in the first and second chapters, he does nothing but point to his commissioning, that he is not self-appointed, though he was not one of the apostles who had been physically present with Christ.

Nonetheless, he joined himself to them for the sake of those he had instructed, though that yielded him little benefit; for as soon as these realized that God had entrusted him with preaching the gospel among the gentiles, they extended their hands to him and Barnabas, as to their companions.

All this serves to show that he wanted to verify his calling in this way: although his adversaries contended that he had not been sent, he sought to stress with the apostles that he was sent, etc.

This same Paul speaks generally of all servants of the word in Romans 10:15, "How are they to preach unless they have been sent?"

By these words we clearly see that no one should undertake to preach unless he is sent.

Not even at the time of the apostles did anyone set himself up to that.

Those who set themselves up have always been looked upon as heretics, i.e. sectarians.

In other places Paul speaks of those who have been called to the word, such as | Thess.

5:12, 13 and Hebrews 13:17 and | Tim. 5:17 where he says, "the priests and bishops who manage the office of leader well, ought to be considered worthy of twofold honor," as has been shown above.

From all these references it becomes clearer than the light of day that no one must aspire to the bishop's office except one who has been sent and chosen for it. [426] Therefore we must now speak of being commissioned or chosen.

This may be readily learned from the above-quoted texts.

It is certain from Christ's word [John 20:21], "As my father has sent me, so I send you", that all who presume to preach ought to have been sent by God, or else they are those wicked laborers of whom Paul speaks in Phil.

3:2. Furthermore, the one who is sent by God is, in addition, marked by external signs such as miracles or a clear election.

For example:

God chose Paul as his messenger, not only in his heart, but he marked him also by a wondrous conversion, while Mathias was chosen through election by lot by the entire congregation of Christians,

Acts 1:26. Thus, without exception, from the time of the apostles to our own day, no one has elevated himself to the office of bishop until and unless he was chosen.

I speak solely of genuine bishops or ministers who preach. Of the other tyrants, some of whom have instigated great bloodshed, I do not speak.

That kind would undertake to wage war for the election to an episcopate.

Now again, election took place in three ways: on occasion, by the entire congregation, as we showed earlier in the case of Mathias; on occasion, by the apostles and not the entire congregation, as in Acts 8:14 when Peter and John were sent to Samaria by the apostles; and thirdly, by one single apostle, as Paul appointed and chose Titus in Crete, Titus 1:5.

In this connection it should be noted that with almost all Christians, election by papal authority has been perverted into violence and tyranny.

For either the high bishops, abbots and manorial lords made ministers of their stable boys, cooks and pimps, contrary to the will of the congregation, or else, if the congregation had a choice, it intended to elect someone bishop as a favor rather than for the points and ornaments [of office] [427] which Paul lays down--all this without consulting with learned believers.

Therefore, in matters of an election, there is nothing more in keeping with God's will than for the entire congregation to elect a minister on the advice of several godly, knowledgeable bishops or Christians, as we well noted Titus to have done.

Though Paul says "that you keep order"

[Tit.

1:5], he, nonetheless, did not order on his own, as these tyrannical bishops wish to understand it. The reason: since the judgement in banning and teaching is always with the congregation, the choosing of a teacher [minister] even more so, ought not be in the hands of a proud bishop or abbot who is an outsider, but in the hands of the church which secures the advice of wise Christian prophets and evangelists. And ultimately it is not even the exclusive prerogative of an honorable single congregation, as may be clearly learned from Paul's teaching regarding the handling of the word in 1 Cor.

and from above examples.

There the teaching of Scripture is not entrusted to the ordinary congregation, but to the prophets, interpreters and to those versed in the languages, though the congregation is permitted to have its say.

I now wish to turn to all commissions and whether or not these self-appointed messengers can be said to have been sent by God. Let us first consider the inner call.

Christ says [John 20:21], "As my Father has sent me, so do I send you." Now if Christ stirred up unrest for the sake of temporal goods, it behooves them also to rebel on account of interest taking and tithes.

If this cannot be shown in any way whatever, it is apparent that they have not been sent by God either.

God's word bids us submit to the magistrate whether or not they are believers.

Yet they teach that no Christian may be a magistrate, though the opposite is to be found, | Tim.

6:2 ands lopPet.

2:13«18, .Eph.

6:5-9.

One may see by this that their

teaching and rebaptism runs contrary to God and Christian peace.

And though they should swear a thousand oaths in denying it, it would, nonetheless, become apparent.

As soon as the number of baptized people is large enough so that they might expect to save themselves by it, they would set themselves against all authority and refuse to render to Caesar (i.e. the higher authority) what they owe him. [428] The third test by which one may see from the manner of teaching that they have not been sent by God is, for simple persons, the most correct and apparent. Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:33,

"God is not a God of quarreling, but of peace," as may be noted in all Christian churches.

Now if their baptizing and preaching serves only to bring about quarreling, they do not have the God of peace. I indicated that earlier. Then they say that Christ stated,

"I have come not to bring peace but the sword" [Mt. 10:34]. Answer: the sword of which Christ speaks here is not to be between believers.

Rather, Christ means that the sword shall be between believers and unbelievers.

But they split believers for the sake of external matters, just as it was at the time of the apostles, as we heard above.

We shall now turn to outward signs; we might see in them whether or not they are sent by God.

If they are sent by God, God has revealed it to humankind through signs or through a clear election which no one may dispute.

And if there are neither signs nor a duly arranged election through a congregation, they lack the external sign of the office of messenger or bishop. Therefore it is certain that they have not been sent by God. All this has been made clear enough in above-quoted passages of Scripture.

Let us look then at the offices to see whether they are in line with the offices which they have chosen for themselves.

And again we find that they have not been sent by God.

If they are messengers, it is their office to travel among unbelievers again and again, to turn them to the faith, just as we heard above of the way the apostles and bishops had conducted their teaching.

But here is the difference between them: the apostle travels among unbelievers while the bishop remains stationary among those entrusted to him. But since they do not travel among unbelievers, but steal about among believers, confusing those who before were of one mind and peaceable, they are definitely not apostles.

Neither are they bishops; for they have not been chosen by any parish, as have all other excellent, well-spoken-of, believing bishops. [429] Much less are they prophets and teachers. Therefore it follows unmistakably that they are nothing but troublemakers.

At this point they raise two objections. The first is:

"Does not Paul say in | Cor.

14:31, 'You are all to prophesy, one after another'?

Which, in other words, is to speak on the meaning of Scripture before the gathered congregation." Answer: to prophesy is not customary in any of the churches nor will it now be begun with us here. Though a person may be able to speak in this manner, it does not follow, therefore, that he can elevate himself, on his own initiative, to the office of apostle or bishop.

Neither does it follow that he ought to begin speaking before the congregation on his own initiative.

Rather, he is permitted to speak only after the interpreters, prophets and those knowledgeable in languages have spoken.

For this reason Paul earnestly warns here that all things ought to be done decently and in order. Therefore, no one ought, under any condition, appropriate the office of evangelist to himself, except the one who has been appointed and marked by God inwardly and externally. Not everyone is a bishop instantly just because he has expounded Scripture in the congregation, or else Paul would not have needed to make the many distinctions of office which he indicated not only here in Ephesians 4:11, but also in 1 Cor. 12:28 and Romans 12:7, 8.

The second objection is this:

John says in John 3, "The one whom God has sent speaks the words of God." Hence, everyone who speaks God's words is sent by God.

Answer: by this one word of God, every Christian may discern that they are not born of the Spirit of God.

For these words refer, firstly, quite clearly to Christ.

Yet they apply them to themselves.

Though later on reference is made to those who have been sent, these words do not refer to anyone that has not been sent.

For it is not one and the same thing to speak of God and to be sent as an apostle or bishop.

More of this a little while later.

Secondly, to say "the one whom God has sent speaks God's words" does not lead to "whoever speaks God's word has been commissioned to the office of apostle or bishop".

In short, we are not boldly to set ourselves up as masters. [430] Yet every congregation ought to have a guardian or overseer so that the bold, reckless goats may be controlled by the authority of the church and not by that of the guardian.

For if the office of guardian, i.e. bishop or minister, is thus forsaken and has gone to the dogs, so that anyone can set himself up to be a bishop whenever he pleases, there would soon be great quarreling among those who now set themselves up to preach.

For just as they now set themselves up as teachers or apostles, so the day after tomorrow there might once again be a group that would dare teach in the same manner as today's sect, and after that yet another and there would be great dissention once again, for everyone would want to bend his sect to himself. Indeed, as many stubborn heads, so many sects and disorders. And I speak solely with regard to public teaching in the church.

I know well that it is quite fitting for everyone to talk to anyone about God and to discuss matters with them. To consider it fitting for just

anyone to start whatever he wishes in his own corner without the consent and directive of the church, which should evaluate him and his undertaking, or to consider it fitting for just anyone to set himself up as a teacher or minister, who may stand up on his own authority in a church of believers (I do not call all those "believers" who claim faith in Christ, but those only who believe the gospel faithfully and allow it to be freely preached), I consider not only to be bold and wicked, but anti-Christian.

For there would not be a little error if everyone in a city who is a citizen wanted to be mayor.

And it is not at all in order when they object here with | Pet.

2:5, 9, "We are all priests", for I do not speak here of being consecrated or not being consecrated, but of the office of teacher.

It is true enough, of course, to say that we are consecrated to the kind of priesthood which in the New Testament offers sacrifices, for that is none other than everyone offering up himself, Rom.

12:1.

Yet we are still not all apostles and bishops, [431] 1 Cor.

12:29.

Though one is a bishop, it is unfitting, nonetheless, for him to enter another's sheepfold or episcopate, just as he pleases.

In Romans 15:20 Paul says, "I have preached the gospel diligently wherever Christ is unknown in order not to build upon the foundation of another."

Thus it is never proper to go among another's sheep.

I speak always of only those pastors and evangelists who carry out their office in a godly and decent manner.

Even for them it is not fitting to run about in other churches without permission and to stir up trouble against one another.

For this reason I should like to admonish, for the sake of God and peace, all those who are so anxious to preach, to look seriously to the words of James 3:1 where it is written, "My brothers, not many of you should aspire to be teachers, since you know that those of us who are teachers shall be judged the more severely."

Note, this godly, saintly apostle warns us not to take being a teacher too lightly, lest we set ourselves up, ill-prepared and poorly equipped.

Yet there are many of those who, either from lust for honor or from hatred or from love of food, simply want to be considered as teachers when, in fact, it is clearly found that they sow nothing but discord and enmity.

God help us.

Do they think that their intention and undertaking is unknown to anybody, even though every believing, spiritual person knows and judges all things? We don't want to suggest that someone should be denied preaching because of consecration or for personal reasons, as long as he has been sent, i.e. duly installed as a bishop or sent as a messenger.

In such a case, though, one should hasten to unbelievers and not confuse believers.

This self-elevation and confusing of others, the setting up of new, external things without consent of the Christian congregation, will never yield anything good, for it is not of God. The God of peace takes things in hand quite differently.

He is not

as ungracious, bitter, quarrelsome as their own teaching often turns out to be now. It is found further that their work (i.e. those who heed their word) is to make contentious people who desire temporal things and become vindictive of those who before were remorseful, [432] god-fearing and peaceable.

One may see by this that it is all sensuous desire and not spirit. And the devil comes so secretively, in such a bright appearance that the simple take him to be a spirit: Then again, many begin to see that it is all self satisfaction.

May God remove all fog and deceit from our eyes that we might clearly learn to know and do his will.

I should like to have admonished as earnestly all workers in the gospel of Christ with the words of Paul in Col. 4:17, "Look to your office which you have received from the Lord, that you do justice to it. God has sent you to be guardians and pastors in the churches.

Be alert and take care that the wolves do not tear them apart nor that dissention arise among Christ's flock."

There ought to be no dissention among believers, though there is external warfare between believers and non-believers.

But do not worry now when in all this the troublemaking baptists and preachers call you, and all who do not go it their way, "unbelievers", for each of you knows well how you trust in God. Now if they accuse one of you who trusts in God--of which there is no doubt--of being godless, you may see clearly that their spirit is that of the father of lies.

Don't be scared off by the doctors whom they loudly acclaim to be on their side. We know well what the latter are capable of and whose spirit they have.

Rather, consider that rebaptism can never be anything other than sectarian.

Bold preaching will never lead to anything other than unrest, disorder and dissention.

For rebaptism will always displease the majority of godly, quiet Christians because rebaptizers are immediately known to work toward community of goods and the abolition of temporal authority.

Therefore it cannot become anything other than a sect which God tolerates until the elect and steadfast are revealed.

Take heed that your flock stays clean of and walks free of adultery, immodesty, drunkenness, pride, blasphemy and every excess.

Build up the faith, fear of God and love of neighbor.

Teach that there is no greater worship than to honor him in purity.

Teach [433] so that the eternal is not lost along with the temporal.

For this you have clear testimony in Scripture. Do not get weary in well doing, for we have learned how much work it takes when they have been given too much consideration, as we have done.

Yet they complain of harsh treatment.

Now if they had been rewarded in keeping with their bold, dishonest talk, which they have engaged in and still do, we would undoubtedly be free of all unrest by now.

Therefore, fight as worthy foot soldiers; do not leave your places and office.

The Lord comes soon; he is near.

May he not catch us sleeping.

Therefore be brave, be hopeful, and you shall, without doubt, overcome. God grant his grace. Amen.

In my work on baptism the entire sense has been distorted by one word.

In M, on the second leaf, first part, line thirteen should read:

"That the same had not been baptized with water earlier." [Z IV,

8] Because of lack of time I have not had a chance to reread the booklet; others pointed this out to me.

There may be many more mistakes; let everyone always look specifically to the context.

NOTES 1.

Wachter [guardian] as pastor of a parish is a term Zwingli uses widely.

However, he substitutes bishop or peoples' priest on other occasions.

Cf. a treatise addressed to U. Compar of Uri in Z 1V:150; Der Hirt (1523) in Z Ill:5ff. and Eine Freundliche Bitte (1522) in Z 1:250.

Zwingli, a native of Wildhaus, in the Toggenburg, is aware of the need there to understand the Zurich reformation and its aim of providing a community of faith, solidly based on Scripture and informed by the norms of the early Church.

Removal of "Catholic" practices was slow enough.

According to the Kronik of Bernard Wyss such removal did not come about until August 1528.

Cf. Wyss, p. 97f.

Notable among Zurich Ananbaptists were K.

Grebel, Felix Mantz, Georg Blaurock, W.

Roubli and Simon Stumpf.

After the initial adult baptism in Zollikon they spread rapidly to other areas of the Swiss confederacy.

Disputations of this kind were held on January 17, March

and again on November 6 and 8, 1525. Cf. Wyss, p. 79.

Some of the Anabaptists submitted to adult baptism since, they argued, that baptism in infancy could not be proved. Zwingli introduced baptismal registers to provide such proof for future generations of baptized infants.

Zwingli gives an assessment of the so-called Ittinger Uprising on July 17, 1524, in a Gutachten.

Cf.

Z Ill511ff.

The five inner cantons decided in December

to demand restitution for damage done to the amount of twelve thousand guilders. Cf. EA IV 1a, p. 534f.

Bullinger, Reformationsgeschichte, three volumes, edited by J.

Hottinger and H. H. Vogeli. See especially, | 237f.

Zwingli often uses the term Kilchhore by which he understands a community of Christians, related to one another in an ordered structure with social, political, and spiritual dimensions.

10.

On September 29, 1523, the counsel of Zurich issued an order for reform of the Grossminster.

The Prophezei was officially opened on June 19, 1525.

Lessons were given daily except for Fridays and Sundays and focused initially on the Old Testament only. Supplementary studies of the New Testament were offered by Myconius in the Frauminster across the river.

Details are supplied by Wyss, p. 66 and by Bullinger, 1:289ff.

11.

Reinhard, daughter of a Zurich innkeeper, was the widow of Hans Meyer von Knonau since 1517.

Zwingli "married" her secretly in the spring of 1522.

The actual marriage ceremony took place on April 2, 1524. There were three children from the first and four children from the second marriage.

Anna survived Zwingli by seven years; she died in December, 1538.

Cf. Wyss, p. 33 and O. Farner, "Anna Reinhard," Zwingliana III/7-8 (1916):197-211, 229-245.

12.

The R.S.V. translates v.

17, "... and called to him the elders of the church".

13.

In Swiss German minder often means "lesser"; hence the qualification here.

14.

A decree of September 29, 1525, stipulates what is to be done at the Grossminster.

Note especially paragraph 4. Cf.

E. Egli, Actensammlung Zur Geschichte Der Zurcher Reformation,

to 1533, Zurich:

Schabelitz, 1879.

In 1973 a reprint was published by Nieuwekop Netherlands.

—_ ed —-——— Gam ob m ——) n Be cd w^ Me d €. e» S A aa n LJ e-— $i PK mae "env owe'

EP Ww

Va, TRLZA

e ii eee Pn derat

= m 4QU © eee oe Wu" w& A Padi CH ere li Ed LAPSI 8, t ntm ó 2

pe ] wand LkdgcRme X! i. Cl tpi ^ a4. A.

T dh (Un n oe sient my d vw A, LI | ae u

* "me hd M = nés — | im » D n ua &

↑ Back to top