An Exposition Of The Faith

An Exposition Of The Faith

An Exposition of the Faith PND ROLL C RTON

WHE "'EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH'' WAS A DIRECT

product of the political developments and policies of the closing period of Zwingli's life. In 1529 the Protestant cantons of Zurich and Berne had been involved in a short struggle with the Five Forest Cantons, which rigorously maintained the traditional position.! The "war" had ended in an apparent victory for the evangelical party, but the fundamental hostility was resolved. neither by conquest nor conciliation.?

Furthermore, the edict of the Diet of Speier which had preceded the First Peace of Cappel,3 and the temporary pacification of Europe which immediately succeeded it,4 created a situation most unfavourable both to the Protestant cause as a whole and to the Reformed party in particular.

It was against this threatening background that Zwingli not merely accepted the invitation to try to reach agreement with the Lutherans at Marburg, but took active steps to create a wider anti-imperial alliance. He began by seeking a closer union with Hesse and Venice in the autumn of 1529,° and in 1530 he not only made a successful approach to Strassburg but made the first overtures for a far more advantageous alliance with France.'

The idea of a French alliance was in basic contradiction with Zwingli's earlier teaching, for in 1522 and again in 1524 he had inveighed bitterly against the Swiss engaging in mercenary service on behalf of the French.* At this juncture, however,

1 Strickler, Aktensammlung, II, No. 46 f.

2 Cf. Opera, VIII, p. 296; Bullinger, II, p. 314.

3 D.C.R. 105.

4 Ibid., 108.

5 Opera, VIII, p. 286, 662.

6 Ibid., p. 665.

7 [bid., p. 397.

8 Zwingli-Hauptschriften, VII, pp. 1 f., 105 f.

ZWINGLI Zwingli's racial prejudices had to yield to political necessities, and the presence of evangelical communities in France encouraged him to hope that first Francis and ultimately the whole country might be won for the Reformed faith. Already in 1525 Zwingli had dedicated his Commentarius to Francis, and although the latter had continued his sporadic persecution at home, his rivalry with the Emperor gave him good cause to look more favourably on the Protestant states and municipalities abroad.

Yet Francis had no wish to alienate the papacy by incurring the suspicion of flirtation with dangerous heresy. Accordingly, in pursuance of the suggested understanding, he dispatched

Lambert Maigret to Switzerland to conduct preliminary investigations, especially in relation to the faith of the Civic

Alliance. When in Zurich Maigret informed Zwingli that Francis had serious doubts concerning the evangelical movement not only from the theological but also from the political and social standpoint. He advised Zwingli to submit to the French Court a clear statement of his beliefs in order to clear away any suspicions or misunderstandings.!° In the meantime the situation abroad had been steadily deteriorating, for the Diet of Augsburg had enhanced the dominance of Charles, and the eucharistic controversy separated the Swiss from the main Protestant body, even the four cities of the Tetrapolitan

Confession preferring to enter into the League of Schmalkald.11

Faced with the prospect of complete isolation, Zwingli adopted the suggestion of Maigret, and in the early summer of 153112 he composed his Exposition of the Faith and despatched it to the French Court by the hand of Rudolf Collin, the then professor of Greek at the Minster school and a close friend of Zwingli!3 Whether Francis ever read the work or not is not known,!4 but it certainly had no influence on the course of events, for persecution continued in France and Zurich was unable to stave off the disaster of the Second War of Cappel and the resultant death of Zwingli himself. Indeed, the only result of the Exposition was to increase the bitterness already existing between the Lutheran and Zwinglian parties, for Luther was incensed by the inclusion of pious heathen in the 9 Ibid., XI, p. 297.

10 Loc, cit.

11D.C.R, 124.

12 The exact date of composition is not known.

13 Zwingli-Hauptschriften, XI, p. 297.

14 The MS. is still preserved in the National Library at Paris.

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

number of the elect and regarded it as yet another sign of the basic infidelity of his Swiss rival.

The Exposition was never published by Zwingli himself, partly perhaps because of the circumstances of its origin, but more particularly because of the supervention of Zwingli's death. The publication was eventually undertaken by Bullinger in February, 1536. The work appeared at the same time at the First Helvetic Confession, and Bullinger no doubt issued it at that time in order to demonstrate his own loyalty to Zwingli's teaching especially in relation to the Lord's Supper.!5 In a preface which he himself contributed he described the £xposition as Zwingli's ripest and finest theological study, a kind of "'swan-song" before his approaching death. He also appended a further note on the Lord's Supper and the Mass, together with the form of liturgy used by the churches of the Civic Alliance. These are not part of the original and therefore are not included in the present translation.

In form and content the Exposition is not unlike the Fide: ratio, the apology presented by Zwingli at the Diet of Augsburg.!6 It has the character both of a confession of faith and also of a defence against the slanders and misunderstandings to which he was subjected. The Exposition is built up upon the Apostles' Creed, which Zwingli no doubt adopted as a basis in order to demonstrate his essential orthodoxy. He did not touch on all the articles of the Creed, however, but only on those which were particularly apposite to his purpose. Thus he did not say anything at all about the Holy Spirit. On the other hand he devoted a good deal of attention and space to the much controverted topic of the Holy Communion. The arguments used are substantially the same as those presented in greater detail in the treatise on the Supper, but while there is nothing new they are summarized in a convenient and forceful way. Zwingli also introduced a comparatively long section on the question of civil government and a concluding attack upon the Anabaptists. He did this in order to make it quite clear that he did not share either the perverse doctrines or the revolutionary social and political programme which made the Anabaptists an object of fear and suspicion to all governments.

An interesting characteristic of the Exposition is its very pronounced humanistic colouring. We see this at once in the opening paragraph upon the doctrine of God, in which Zwingli draws as much from classical philosophy as he does from 15 Lwingli-Hauptschriften, XI, p. 298.

16 Opera, IV, pp. 1 f.

Z.B.—16

ZWINGLI specifically biblical and Christian sources. Again, in the section on civil government he bases his teaching upon the analyses made by Aristotle and adduces examples from Scripture only to prove the duties and responsibilities of rulers. The humanistic emphasis reaches its climax in the discussion of eternal life, for not only does Zwingli use a classical argument to rebut

Anabaptist teaching concerning the sleep of the soul, but he asserts the salvation of such heroes of antiquity as Hercules,

Theseus, Socrates and Aristides.

It can hardly be questioned that the greater humanistic colouring of his work was largely due to Zwingli's desire to win the interest and approval of the French king who was renowned as a patron of the Renaissance. At the same time, it was not entirely a matter of policy, for in all his writings Zwingli gives evidence of the same humanistic influences and interests, and to that extent the Exposition reflects a fundamental element in his thinking. The fact is that although Zwingli adopted a more radically Reformed position in sacramental teaching and also in ecclesiastical practice, he did not break so decisively with the scholastic synthesis as did the in some respects more conservative Luther. In the specifically Christian doctrines he made an exclusive appeal to Scripture, but in those matters which are the concern of philosophy as well as theology he was ready to be instructed by reason no less than by revelation.

In other words Zwingli was never the consistent theologian of the Word of God that Luther aimed to be, and if it is true that the most vital and interesting aspects in his teaching derive from evangelical sources, it is also the case that his thinking always included a persistent, and fundamentally perhaps an alien, humanistic element.

Yet the point must not be pressed too far, for even in his assertion of the salvation of the pious heathen Zwingli was not departing from his evangelical presuppositions. It is not merely that on occasion Luther too had hinted at a similar possibility, although that is a valid consideration. The real point is that Zwingli could make the assertion because it was congruent with his whole conception of the divine sovereignty and the election of grace. The redemptive purpose and activity of God was not limited by the chronology or the geography of the incarnation and the atonement. The decree of election upon which all salvation depends was a decree from all eternity, enclosing men of all generations within its embrace. Chronologically the patriarchs and pious Israelites preceded the

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH

coming of the Saviour, but this did not prevent their salvation by anticipatory faith. Similarly the pious heathen might well be the recipients of divine grace and redemption even though they remained outside the temporal reach of the Gospel. They were not saved because of their piety, but because of the eternal activity of God in election and atonement. The temporality of the Redeemer's life and death did not set any limit to the possibilities of God's eternal grace. In outward form, no doubt, the assertion was determined by Zwingli's humanistic predilections, but its theological foundation was uncompromisingly

Reformed.

The case is much the same in relation to Zwingli's doctrine of God. It is true that Zwingli uses concepts and arguments which he had found in classical philosophy, but it is also true that the God to whom he applies them is the living Trinitarian

God of the Bible, and that he derives all his faith from belief in that God and the acceptance of his revelation and work. It is upon this that the certainty of Zwingli's faith rests: if truth were simply a matter of human reason then there would be room for endless diversity and error, but when it is something given by God himself, a full assurance is possible. Rational arguments may be used at this or that point either to substantiate the truth or to repudiate error, but in the last analysis reason is employed as the handmaid of truth and not as its mistress.

In his handling of such controverted themes as justification, purgatory and the Church Zwingli does not differ substantially from the other Protestant leaders. He teaches justification by faith, but is careful to point out that the man of true faith will fulfil the works of the law by an inward compulsion.

Purgatory is rejected out of hand as inconsistent both with the text of Scripture and also with the scriptural doctrine of justification and forgiveness. The usual evangelical distinction is drawn between the so-called invisible Church, the company of the elect, and the Church visible, which is the outward assembly of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. There is nothing particularly original or striking in these sections, but the presentation has all the vigour and clarity which characterize Zwingli's writings. It is worth noting, too, that Zwingli makes constant appeal to the texts of Scripture in support of 17 Since the above was written, G. W. Locher has argued the same point in the first volume of his work Die Theologie Huldrych Kwinglis im Lichte seiner Christologie, Zurich, 1952.

ZWINGLI his teaching. His handling of Scripture is keen and logical, but at times he seems to miss that larger insight into the biblical message which is so characteristic of Luther.

To sum up: the Exposition admirably fulfils the purpose for which it was written. It is a clear and reasonably concise statement of the main doctrinal positions of its author, and it reflects faithfully his interests and methods. Little or nothing is said which had not been said before, but as an epitome of Zwingli's theological teaching it could hardly be bettered.

Editions The Exposition of the Faith was written in Latin, and the original may be found in the Schuler and Schultess edition. There is a German version in the Volksausgabe (X1). An English rendering is included in the three-volume translation of selected Latin works of Zwingli published in America (1912-1929). The present version is an independent one based upon the original Latin and German texts.

An Exposition of the Faith (1) ae BE ee ose PREFACE Of all the things produced by this tempestuous epoch, there is nothing more useful, most pious king, than dangerous falsehood! For one thing, it is only the good seed of the harvest which the author of evil, the devil, is always attempting to choke (Matt. 13:24 f.); for another, the divine husbandman of souls uses wickedness and unbelief to nurture and increase faith and virtue, like the Spartans, who when they had captured a town with much sweat and blood, forbade its utter destruction in order that they might have somewhere to exercise their soldiers in close combat.(2) In the same way, the Lord God allows us too to be threatened in unexpected ways in order that we may be proved usable before him. For how can we learn bravery or temperance except where there is the stress of danger or ample scope for self-indulgence? And so too, now that the truth has begun to raise its head, it shines all the more brightly and boldly by reason of falsehood. For as falsehood attacks her on every side, shooting out its poison upon her, she is forced to rouse herself and to wipe away the poisonous stains and to protect her members. In this way the mask of falsehood and the dear face of truth are the more clearly revealed and illuminated. But I must bring this preface to a close.

I am afraid that by their more than empty and lying insinuations certain faithless persons will attempt to win your clemency.(3) For I know in truth that it can never be exhausted.

The more deceitful they are, the more they not only do not reveal but actively defame the truth. And on every possible pretext they charge us with treading religion under foot and despising the holy office and the dignity of kings and magistrates.(4) How little truth there is in all their actions I request

ZWINGLI your justice to decide when you have heard me expound as best I can the principles of our faith,(5) the laws and customs of our churches, and the respect which we offer to princes.

And nothing is of more concern to a man than to give an account of his faith. For if faith, as the apostle describes it, is the strength and assurance and certainty whereby the soul trusts inflexibly in the unseen God (Hebrews 11: 1), what man is there so foolish or dullwitted that he cannot explain whether he believes a thing or not? Especially when faith is the daughter of truth: for everyone trusts in what he confesses to be the absolute truth. And since God alone is true, if a man has attained to a knowledge of this in his own experience, how shall he not be able briefly to describe that trust?

Concerning God and the things of God this is what we hold:

Or Gop AND THE WorsHIP oF Gop All being is either created or uncreated. God alone is uncreated, for only one thing can be uncreated. For if there were many uncreated things there would be many eternal: for uncreated and eternal are closely interrelated, so that the one is also the other. And if there were many eternal things there would be many infinite, for these too are very similar and interrelated, so that if a thing is eternal it is also infinite, and if it is infinite it is also eternal. But only one thing can be infinite, for once we allow that there are two infinite substances, the one is immediately limited by the other. Hence it is certain that God alone is uncreated. And this is the origin and source and basis of the first article of the Creed: when we say, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth," we state emphatically that ours is an infallible faith because it rests upon the one and only God. Pagans and unbelievers and all those who trust in what is created have to admit that they may be deceived in their belief or opinion because they trust in what is created. But those who build upon the Creator and beginning of all things, who never began to be but caused all other things to exist, can never fall into error.(6) Certainly no creature can be the object and basis of the inflexible and never-wavering power which is faith. For that which has a beginning at one time did not exist. And when it did not exist, how could anyone trust in what was not?

That which has a beginning cannot therefore be the natural

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH

object or basis of faith. Only the eternal and infinite and uncreated God is the basis of faith.

Hence the collapse of all that foolish confidence with which some rely upon most sacred things or the most holy sacraments.(7) For it is in God that we must put our firm and sure trust. If we were to trust in the creature, the creature would have to be the Creator. If we were to trust in the sacraments, the sacraments would have to be God. Not the Eucharist only, but baptism and the laying on of hands would be God. And how absurd that is may be judged not merely by scholars but by all intelligent people. To help divines to the truth we gladly hold out to them this ray of light. When they maintain that we are to employ creation but to enjoy (8) only God, they say exactly the same as we do except in so far as they unwittingly disregard their own words. For if we are to enjoy only God, we must trust only in God: we must trust in what we are to enjoy and not in what we are to employ.

By this, most gracious king, you will see plainly that we do not disregard or set aside either the saints or the sacraments, as some falsely allege, but rather that we maintain and keep them in their proper place and dignity, thus preventing abuse.

We do not dishonour the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, simply because we do not allow her to be worshipped (g) in the same way as God: for if we tried to attribute to her the dignity and power of the Creator, she herself would not allow such worship. For true piety is the same everywhere and in all men, having its source in one and the self-same Spirit. Hence it is quite unthinkable that any creature should be truly pious and yet allow the worship which is due to God to be paid to it. The more highly the Mother of God, the Virgin, is exalted above all other creatures and the more reverently she is devoted to God, her Son, the less will she accept that worship which is due to God alone. For it is the delusion of godless men and demons to allow divine honours to be accorded to them. This is demonstrated by the images of demons and the pride of Herod. The first led the world into error by teaching that they ought to be worshipped. The second did not refuse the divine honours paid to him and was stricken by phthiriasis,(10) that he might learn to recognize the helplessness of man

(Acts 12).

The sacraments we esteem and honour as signs and symbols of holy things, but not as though they themselves were the things of which they are the signs. For who is so ignorant as to

ZWINGLI try to maintain that the sign is the thing which it signifies? If that were the case I would need only to write the word "ape"' and your majesty would have before him a real ape. But the sacraments are signs of real things: things which once took place really, literally (11) and naturally they now (as I say) represent and recall and set before our eyes. Please do not misunderstand me, O king. Christ atoned for our sins by his death: and the Lord's Supper (12) is a commemoration of this fact, as he himself said, ""This do in remembrance of me." By this commemoration all the benefits which God has displayed in his Son are called to mind. And by the signs themselves, the bread and wine, Christ himself is as it were set before our eyes, so that not merely with the ear, but with eye and palate we see and taste that Christ whom the soul bears within itself and in whom it rejoices.

_ As the true reverence for the saints and sacraments we transmit and teach that which Christ himself transmitted and taught.

"If ye are the children of Abraham,"' he said (John 8:39), "do the works of Abraham." This is the example which we should follow in respect of all the saints and all holy men. For instance, if as the mouthpiece (13) of God some prophet or saint has communicated to us divine warnings, we must receive that which is set before us by the Holy Spirit with the same honour as they themselves when they received and imparted it. And if they have adorned their religion with holiness of life, we must follow in their steps and attain the same piety and holiness and purity as they did.

Concerning baptism, he says: ""Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Concerning the Supper, he says: '""This do in remembrance of me": and by the mouth of Paul: "We are one bread and one body, the whole multitude of believers."' Neither in regard to the reverence of the saints nor the institution of the sacraments is it maintained that they have the power and grace which belong to God alone. But if God himself did not give to created things the power which we ascribe to them, it is clearly frivolous to teach that the saints or the sacraments can remit sins or confer blessings. For who can forgive sins save God alone? Or from whom cometh every perfect gift, as St. James confesses, except from the Father of lights and of every good thing?

We teach therefore that the sacraments should be reverenced as holy things because they signify most holy things, both those which have already happened and those which we ourselves

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

are to produce and do. Thus baptism signifies that Christ has washed us with his blood and also that we are to put on Christ, that is, to follow his example as Paul teaches. Similarly the Supper signifies all the divine favour bestowed upon us in Christ, and also that in thankfulness we are to embrace our brethren with the same love with which Christ has received and redeemed and saved us. The question whether we eat

Christ's natural body in the Supper is one which I will discuss more fully later.

To sum up: the source of our religion is to confess that God is the uncreated Creator of all things, and that he alone has power over all things and freely bestows all things. This chief principle of the faith is destroyed by those who ascribe to the creature that which belongs only to the Creator. For in the Creed (14) we confess that we believe in the Creator. Therefore it cannot be the creature in whom we are to believe.

Moreover, we think of God as follows: Since we know that God is the source and Creator of all things, we cannot conceive of anything before or beside him which is not also of him. For if anything could exist which was not of God, God would not be infinite: he would not extend to where that other is, seeing that it exists apart from him. In the Scriptures, as we see,

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all described as God, but they are not creatures or different gods, but the three are all one, one essence, one ousia or existence, one power and might, one knowledge and providence, one goodness and _ lovingkindness. There are three names or persons, but each and all are one and the self-same God.

We know that this God is good by nature, for whatever he is he is by nature. But goodness is both mercy and justice.(15)

Deprive mercy of justice, and it is no longer mercy, but indifference or timidity. But fail to temper justice by kindness and forbearance and at once it becomes the greatest injustice and violence. Therefore when we confess that God is good by nature, we confess that he is both loving, kind and gracious, and also holy, just and impassible. But if he is just and righteous, necessarily he must abhor all contact with evil. Hence it follows that we mortals cannot have any hope of fellowship or friendship with him, since we are not only guilty of sin, but actually participate in it. On the other hand, if he is good, he must necessarily temper every resolve and act with equity and grace.

It was for this reason that he clothed his only Son with flesh,

ZWINGLI not merely to reveal to, but actually to bestow upon, the whole earth both salvation and renewal. For inasmuch as his goodness, that is, his justice and mercy, is impassible, that is, steadfast and immutable, his justice required atonement, but his mercy forgiveness, and forgiveness newness of life. Clothed therefore with flesh, for according to his divine nature he cannot die, the Son of the Most High King offered up himself as a sacrifice to placate irrevocable justice and to reconcile it with those who because of their consciousness of sin dared not enter the presence of God on the ground of their own righteousness.

He did this because he is kind and merciful, and these virtues can as little permit the rejection of his work as his justice can allow escape from punishment. Justice and mercy were conjoined, the one furnishing the sacrifice, the other accepting it as a sacrifice for all sin.

From what class of creatures could such a sacrifice be chosen?

From angels? But how did man's transgression concern them?

Or from men? But all men were guilty before God, so that if any man had been selected to make the sacrifice, he would have been unable to do so because of original sin. For the lamb which typified this sacrifice had to be without blemish, that is, absolutely sound and pure and spotless. Therefore the divine goodness took of itself what it would give to us: for God clothed his Son in the frailty of our flesh in order that we might see that his grace and mercy are no less supreme than his holiness and justice. For he who has given us himself, what has he not given us, as St. Paul declares (Rom. 8:32)? Had he made an angel or man the sacrifice for sin, the gift would have been outside himself. There would always have been something greater that he could have given but had not given, that is, himself. (16) Therefore when supreme Goodness willed to give the supreme gift, it gave the most costly of all its treasures, namely itself, so that the soul of man which is always seeking that which is greater should not be able to wonder how it is that the sacrifice of angel or man can have sufficient value to avail for all, or how it is possible to put undisputed trust in any creature.

Thus the Son of God is given to us as a confirmation of mercy, a pledge of grace, a requital of justice and an example of life, to assure us of the grace of God and to give us the law of true conduct. Who can sufficiently estimate the magnanimity of the divine goodness and mercy? We had merited rejection, and he adopts us as heirs. We had destroyed the way of life, and he

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

has restored it. The divine goodness has so redeemed and restored us that we are full of thanks for his mercy and just and blameless by reason of his atoning sacrifice.

Or THE Lorp CHRIST We believe and teach that this Son of God, who is of God, so took to himself the nature of man that his divine nature was not destroyed or changed into that of man: but that each nature is present truly, properly and naturally: his divine nature has not in any way been diminished so as not to be truly, properly and naturally God. Nor has his human nature passed into the divine so that he is not truly, properly and naturally man, except in so far as he is without the propensity to sin.

According to his divine nature, in every respect he is God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, not forfeiting any of the divine attributes by the assumption of human weakness. And according to his human nature he is in every way man, having all the properties which belong to the true and proper nature of man save only the propensity of sin, and not lacking any of them by reason of union with the divine nature.

Hence the attitudes and properties of both natures are reflected in all his words and works, so that the pious mind is able to see without difficulty which is to be accredited to each,(17) although everything is rightly ascribed to the one

Christ. It is quite correct to say that Christ hungered, for he is both God and man: yet he did not hunger according to his divine nature. It is quite correct to say that Christ healed all manner of sickness and all manner of disease: yet if you consider it more closely, this is something which concerns the divine power and not the human. But the difference of natures does not involve a division of the person any more than when we say that a man thinks and yet also sleeps. For although the power of thought belongs only to the mind and the need of sleep to the body, yet the man does not consist of two persons, but one. For the unity of the person continues in spite of the diversity of the natures. (18) And everywhere we confess that God and Man are one

Christ, just as man subsists of a reasonable soul and an earthly body, as St. Athanasius taught.(19) But Christ assumed the nature of man into the hypostasis (20) or person of the Son of God. It is not as though the humanity taken by him was one person and his eternal deity another, but the person of the

ZWINGLI eternal Son of God assumed humanity in and by its own power, as holy men of God have truly and clearly shown.

We believe that this human nature was received when the Holy Spirit quickened the Virgin, being manifested without any violation of her virginity,(21) that the redeemer and healer of souls might be born into the world of a virgin-mother, he who from all eternity was Lord and God begotten of the Father without mother, to be a holy and spotless sacrifice, to whom the smoke of beast-laden altars ascended in vain.

And on his account men should cease from offering up beasts and be moved to offer spiritual sacrifices, seeing that God has himself prepared and offered up for them the sacrifice of his own Son.

We believe that Christ suffered, being nailed to the cross under Pilate the governor. But it was only the man who felt the pangs of suffering, and not God, for God is invisible,(22) and therefore is not subject to any pain, that is, suffering or passion.

The cry of pain(23) is this: ""My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"' But, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do," that is the voice of inviolable deity. To make atonement for our sins he suffered the most ignominious form of execution, so that there is no humiliation which he has not experienced and borne.

If he had not died and been buried, who would believe that he is very Man? And for the same reason the apostolic Fathers added to the Creed the words, '"'He descended into hell."

They used this expression periphrastically, to signify the reality of his death—for to be numbered amongst those who have descended into hell means to have died—and also to make it clear that the power of his atonement penetrates even to the underworld.(24) This is confirmed by St. Peter when he says that the Gospel was preached to the dead, that is, to those in Hades who from the beginning of the world had believed the divine warnings, like Noah, even when the wicked had despised them. On the other hand, if he had not risen again to newness of life, who would have believed that he is very God, having been put to death and being without life or power?

Therefore we believe that according to his human nature the very Son of God truly died to give us assurance of the expiation of our sins. But we also believe that he truly rose again from the dead, to give us the assurance of eternal life. For all that Christ is is ours and all that he does is ours. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that he might

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

give us life. If he rose again, he rose again for us, thereby initiating our resurrection. Hence Paul describes him as the first-fruits of them that slept, that is, of the dead. For if he lives who was dead, he makes it plain that we shall live though we die. In Hebrew the word '"'to rise again" strictly means '"'to remain'', "'continue"' or "'endure''. Therefore Paul's argument has a double bearing. Even when he was thought to be dead

Christ rose again, that is, he lived, and again assumed his body.

And if that is the case, then undoubtedly there is a resurrection of the dead.

Notice, most courteous sovereign, that the force of the affirmation is in the fact that Christ and all his work is ours.

Otherwise it would no more follow to say: Christ rose again, therefore we shall rise, than it would to say: The king has power to pardon the sentenced, therefore everyone has the same power. But the converse is that if Christ is not risen, we shall not rise. For Christ can live and rise of his own power, which we cannot do. There cannot then be any doubt that he allows us and all men to participate in the power of his resurrection. That is what the holy Fathers had in view when they said that the body of Christ nourishes us to the resurrection. (25)

They simply wanted to show that if Christ is altogether ours (26) and he rose again, we are assured that when we die in the body we too shall live on in the spirit and that one day we shall live again with the same body. And inasmuch as this

Christ of ours ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father (as we firmly believe) we have the promise that we too who ascend up thither the moment we die shall one day enjoy there eternal felicity in the body. And as he is seated there until he comes again to judge the whole earth, so our souls and the souls of all the blessed are with him apart from the body until the judgment. And when the judgment begins we shall again put on the garment of the body which we had laid aside, and with it we shall go either to the eternal marriage-feast of our bridegroom or to the everlasting torment of the enemy, the devil.

At this point, most gracious king, I will give my opinion on two further questions:

Or PuRGATORY The first is that since Christ did not suffer the pains of hell, as St. Peter teaches in Acts 2, but after his death ascended up

ZWINGLI into heaven, so we when we are freed from the body shall go up thither without any delay, postponement or renewed affliction if only we have maintained our faith inviolable.

Hence those who have held the threat of purgatorial torment over men who are already quite wretched enough without it have been far more concerned to satisfy their own greed than to feed the souls of the faithful.

For first, they utterly invalidate and reject the work of Christ.

If Christ died for our sins (as he himself taught, and so too did apostles imbued with his Spirit, and as the doctrine of our religion obliges us to confess, since it tells us that salvation is by the grace and goodness of God), then how can we allow any man to force us to make satisfaction for ourselves? According to the judgment of Paul, those who trust in works know nothing of Christ. How much more is Christ compromised and injured by those who teach that sin must be atoned by our own sufferings. For if good works could not merit salvation, but suffering does, the goodness of God is called in question, as if God took pleasure in affliction and distress and refused to know anything of gentleness and pity.

Second, if Christ does not bear the punishment and penalty incurred by our sins, why did he become man and to what purpose did he suffer? The distinction made by some theologians, that we are redeemed only from guilt and not from punishment, is a frivolous invention, and indeed insulting to God. For no human judge will inflict a penalty where there is no guilt. Once the guilt is pardoned by God, the penalty is also remitted.

Third, inasmuch as Christ himself taught that those who believe in him have eternal life, and that those who believe in him that sent him will not come into condemnation but have already passed from death to life, it is manifest that the period of purgatorial torment laid by the papists upon the souls of those who depart this life is a figment of their own invention.

THE PRESENCE OF THE Bopy OF CHRIST IN THE SUPPER

The second thing which I have undertaken to expound at this point is this, that in the Lord's Supper the natural and essential body of Christ in which he suffered and is now seated in heaven at the right hand of God is not eaten naturally and literally but only spiritually, and that the papist teaching that the body of Christ is eaten in the same form and with the

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

same properties and nature as when he was born and suffered and died is not only presumptuous and foolish but impious and blasphemous.

First, it is quite certain that Christ became a true man consisting of body and soul and in all points like as we are except for the propensity to sin.(27) Hence it follows that all the endowments and properties which belong to our physical nature were most truly present in his body. For what he assumed for our sake derives from what is ours, so that he is altogether ours, as we have explained already. But if this is the case it follows indisputably, first, that the properties of our bodies belong also to his body, and second, that the properties of Christ's body are also peculiar to our bodies. For if his body possessed something physical which is lacking to ours, it would at once give rise to the impression that he had not assumed it for our sake. But why then did he assume it? for in the whole realm of the physical only man is capable of eternal blessedness.

That is why we mentioned earlier that Paul proves our own resurrection by Christ's and Christ's by ours. For when he says: "If the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised,' how else can his argument be valid? For since Christ is both God and man, it might be objected at once: You are beside yourself, (28) theologian. For Christ's body can and must rise again, being conjoined with his divinity. But our bodies are not able to rise again, because they are not united with God. But Paul's argument is valid for this reason, that whatever nature and endowments and properties the body of Christ may have, it has as an archetype for us. Hence it follows: Christ's body rose again, therefore our bodies shall rise. We rise again, therefore Christ is risen.

It was from these sources that that pillar of theologians, Augustine, drew when he said that the body of Christ has to be in some particular place in heaven by reason of its character as a true body. And again: Seeing that the body of Christ rose from the dead, it is necessarily in one place. The body of Christ is not in several places at one and the same time any more than our bodies are.(29) This is not our view, but that of the apostles and Augustine and the faith in general: for even if we had no witnesses to it, it would be proved by the fact that Christ became in all points like as we are. For for our sake he took to himself human frailty and was found in fashion as a man, that is, in endowments, attributes and properties. In this way, most excellent king, I believe that incidentally I will have

ZWINGLI made it plain to you with what injustice we are branded as heretics in respect of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, although we never taught a single word that we have not taken from Holy Scripture or the Fathers.

But I return to my main theme. On the basis of Holy Scripture it is established that the body of Christ must truly, naturally and properly be in one place (unless, of course, we hazard the foolish and impious assertion that our bodies too are in several places). But if this is the case, our adversaries (30) must allow that according to its proper essence the body of Christ is truly and naturally seated at the right hand of the Father.

'It cannot therefore be present in this way in the Supper: if anyone teaches the contrary, he drags Christ down from heaven and from his Father's throne. For all scholars have condemned as untenable and impious the view which some have ventured to assert, that the body of Christ is no less omnipresent than his divinity. For only that which is infinite can be omnipresent, and that which is infinite is eternal. The humanity of Christ is not eternal, therefore it is not infinite. If it is not infinite, it is necessarily finite. And if it is finite, it is not omnipresent. But leaving these matters, which I have introduced only to meet the requirements of such philosophical reflection as may happen to engage you, O king, I will now turn to the unassailable testimonies of Scripture.

I have already made it sufficiently plain that in Holy Scripture all the references to Christ relate to the whole and undivided Christ, even when it can easily be seen to which nature the saying applies. Christ is never divided into two natures, although that which is proper to each nature is ascribed to it.

For the possession of two natures does not destroy the unity of the person, as is shown in the case of man. And conversely, even though that which is proper to his divinity is ascribed to his humanity, and that which is proper to his humanity is ascribed to his divinity, yet the two natures are not confused, as though the divinity had deteriorated and degenerated into humanity or the humanity had been transformed into divinity.

We must now make this clearer by the testimonies of Scripture.

"And she brought forth her first-born son and laid him in a manger." The unity of the person has never been used as an argument against the fact that Christ became very man and was born of the Virgin. That is why in my judgment it is right that the Virgin should be called the Mother of God, @edroxos.(31) Yet the Father alone begat his divine nature,

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

just as in the case of man the mother bears the body but God alone begets the soul.(32) Yet a man is said to be born of his parents. Again, the fact that the one who controls both heaven and earth was laid in a manger also applies to his humanity.

But it does not give rise to any difficulty if his being born and laid in a manger are referred to the whole Christ, on account of the agreement and conjunction of the two natures in the one person.

"He ascended into heaven." This relates primarily to his humanity, although the humanity was not borne up thither without the divinity: it was the latter which bore and the former which was borne. As we have already said, the humanity continues finite, otherwise it would cease to be true humanity.

But the divinity is always infinite and unfettered: therefore it does not move about from place to place but remains eternally the same.

"Lo, I am with you even unto the end of the world." This refers primarily to his divinity, for his humanity has gone up into heaven.

"Again, I leave the world and go to the Father." Truth itself compels us to refer this saying primarily and quite literally to Christ's humanity. For it is God who says it, and what he says must be true. Which nature is it that leaves the world? Not the divine, for the divine nature is not confined to one place and therefore does not leave it. Consequently it is the human nature which leaves the world. You will see then, O king, that as regards a natural, essential and localized presence the humanity is not here, for it has left the world. Hence the body of Christ is not eaten by us naturally or literally, much less quantitatively, but sacramentally (33) and spiritually.

"Henceforth I shall not be in the world." This is the true signification of the phrase, Kal ovK éTt etl ev TO KOOLW, "now I am no more in the world." And it completely dispels any mists of uncertainty. Inasmuch as he is man, Christ is not to be expected in the world with a natural, essential and corporal presence, but only with a spiritual and sacramental.

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?

This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." This passage shows us clearly that he was taken up from the disciples into heaven. He has gone away, therefore, and is not here. But how did he go away? Corporally and naturally, and according to the essence of his humanity. Therefore when

Z.B.—17

ZWINGLI they say, "He shall so come in like manner," it means corporally, naturally and essentially. But when shall he so come?

Not when the Church celebrates the Supper, but when she is judged by him at the last day. Therefore the view is irreligious which maintains that the body of Christ is eaten in the Supper physically, naturally, essentially, and even quantitatively, for it is not in agreement with the truth, and that which is opposed to the truth is impious and irreligious.

Your nimble wit is quick to seize a matter, and I believe that these few brief remarks will be sufficient to show you that by the Lord's own words we are forced to enquire in what sense the body of Christ is present in the Supper. I have frequently treated of the same theme in innumerable writings addressed to various persons, indeed Oecolampadius and I have been engaged in lengthy disputes which it would be tedious to recount. (34) But the truth emerges victorious and is daily advancing. I will simply show what it is to eat spiritually and sacramentally, and then I will leave the matter.

To eat the body of Christ spiritually is equivalent to trusting with heart and soul upon the mercy and goodness of God through Christ, that is, to have the assurance of an unbroken faith that God will give us the forgiveness of sins and the joy of eternal salvation for the sake of his Son, who gave himself for us and reconciled the divine righteousness to us. For what can he withhold from us when he delivered up his only begotten

Son?

If I may put it more precisely, to eat the body of Christ sacramentally is to eat the body of Christ with the heart and the mind in conjunction with the sacrament. I will make everything clear to your highness, O king. You eat the body of Christ spiritually, but not sacramentally, every time your soul puts the anxious question: "How are you to be saved?

We sin every day, and every day we draw nearer to death.

After this life there is another, for if we have a soul and it is concerned about the future, how can it be destroyed with this present life? How can so much light and knowledge be turned into darkness and oblivion? Therefore if the soul has eternal life, what sort of life will be the portion of my poor soul? A life of joy or a life of anguish? I will examine my life and consider whether it deserves joy or anguish."

But when you think of all the things which we men habitually do either in passion or desire, you will be terrified, and so far as your own righteousness is concerned, in your own judg-

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

ment you will declare yourself undeserving of eternal salvation and will completely despair of it. But then you assure your anxious spirit: '"God is good: and he who is good must necessarily be righteous and merciful and kind. For justice without kindness or mercy is the height of injustice, and mercy without justice is indifference and caprice and the end of all order. If God is just, his justice demands atonement for my sins. But because he is merciful I cannot despair of pardon. Of both these things I have an infallible pledge, his only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, whom of his own mercy God has given to us that he might be ours. On our behalf he has sacrificed himself to the Father to reconcile his eternal justice, that we might have assurance both of the mercy of God and of the atonement made to his justice for our sins by none other than his only begotten Son, whom of his love he gave to us."" When your soul is troubled by anxiety and despair, confirm it with this confidence: "Why are you cast down, O my soul? The God who alone gives salvation is yours, and you are his. You were his handiwork and creation, and you fell and perished.

But he sent his Son and made him like yourself, except only for sin, that resting on all the rights and privileges of so great a brother and companion you might have boldness to lay claim to eternal salvation. What devil can frighten or terrify me when this helper stands by me to assist? Who can rob me of that which God himself has given, sending his own Son as pledge and surety'? When you comfort yourself in Christ in this way, then you spiritually eat his body, that is, trusting in the humanity which he assumed for your sake, you stand unafraid in God against all the onslaughts of despair.

So then, when you come to the Lord's Supper to feed spiritually upon Christ, and when you thank the Lord for his great favour, for the redemption whereby you are delivered from despair, and for the pledge whereby you are assured of eternal salvation, when you join with your brethren in partaking of the bread and wine which are the tokens of the body of Christ, then in the true sense of the word you eat him sacramentally. You do inwardly that which you represent outwardly, your soul being strengthened by the faith which you attest in the tokens.

But of those who publicly partake of the visible sacraments or signs, yet without faith, it cannot properly (35) be said that they eat sacramentally. By partaking they call down judgment upon themselves, that is, divine punishment, for they

ZWINGLI do not honour the body of Christ, that is, the whole mystery of the incarnation and passion, and indeed the Church of Christ, as the faithful have always done, and rightly so.

For we ought to examine ourselves before we partake, that is, we ought to search our hearts and ask ourselves whether we have confessed and received Christ as the Son of God our Redeemer and Saviour, so that we trust only in him as the infallible author and giver of salvation; and whether we rejoice in the fact that we are members of that Church of which Christ is the head.

For if we join with the Church in the Lord's Supper as though we held this faith, but falsely, are we not guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? Not as eaten naturally and corporally, but because we have falsely testified to the church that we have partaken spiritually when there has been no spiritual partaking.

Those who make use of the signs of thanksgiving, but without faith, receive as it were sacramentally. But they are judged more severely than other unbelievers because they act as though they do receive the Lord's Supper while the rest ignore it. For those who celebrate the Supper feignedly are guilty of the twofold sin of unbelief and presumption, while unbelievers perish like fools simply because of their unbelief.

Now for some time there has been bitter contention amongst us as to what the sacraments or signs themselves either do or can do in the Supper. Our adversaries (36) allege that the sacraments give faith, mediate the natural body of Christ, and enable us to eat it as substantially present. But we have good cause to think otherwise.

First, because no external things but only the Holy Spirit can give that faith which is trust in God. The sacraments do give faith, but only historical faith.(37) All celebrations, monuments and statues give historical faith, that is, they remind us of some event, refreshing the memory like the feast of the passover amongst the Hebrews or the remission of debts at Athens, (38) or it may be that they commemorate some victory like the stone at Ebenezer.

Now the Lord's Supper, too, does create faith in this way, that is, it bears sure witness to the birth and passion of Christ.

But to whom does it bear witness? To believers and unbelievers alike. For whether they receive it or not, it testifies to all that which is of the power of the sacrament, the fact that Christ suffered. But only to the faithful and pious does it testify that he suffered for us. For it is only those who have been taught inwardly by the Spirit to know the mystery of the divine e O N oe i e re a el b

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

goodness who can know and believe that Christ suffered for us: it is they alone who receive Christ.

For no one comes to Christ except the Father draw him. And Paul settles the whole dispute with a single word when he says: ""Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." Therefore if we are to examine ourselves before we come, it is quite impossible that the Supper should give faith: for faith must be present already before we come.

Second, we oppose the erroneous teaching of our adversaries when they argue that the natural body of Christ is presented to us in the symbols because that is the force and effect of the words: "This is my body." The argument is met by the words of Christ already adduced, which deny the continued presence of his body in the world. And if that was the force of the words, the body presented would be his passible body. For when he spoke the words he still had a mortal body: hence the disciples partook of his mortal body. For he did not possess two bodies, the one immortal and impassible, the other mortal. And if the apostles ate his mortal body, which do we eat? Naturally, the mortal body. But the body which once was mortal is now immortal and incorruptible. Therefore it follows that if we eat his mortal body he necessarily has a body which is both mortal and immortal. But this is impossible: for the body cannot at one and the same time be both mortal and immortal. Therefore he must have two bodies, the one mortal, which both we and the apostles eat, and the other immortal, which remains at the right hand of God. Otherwise we are forced to say that the apostles ate the mortal body but we the immortal. And that is plainly ridiculous.

Finally, we oppose our adversaries when they assert that it is the present, natural and essential body of Christ which is eaten: an assertion which is clean contrary to all religion.

At the miraculous draught of fishes, when Peter became aware of the presence of Christ in divine power, he said, ''Depart from me, for ] am a sinful man, O Lord," for he was astonished. And do we desire to feed on his natural body like cannibals? As if anyone loved his children in such a way that he wished to devour and eat them. Or as if cannibals were not regarded as the most bestial of men. The centurion said: "I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof." But Christ himself testified concerning him that he had not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. The greater and holier faith is, the more it is content to feed spiritually. And the more content it is with

ZWINGLI spiritual feeding, the more does the pious heart recoil from physical feeding. Ministering women used to honour the body of the Lord by washing and anointing it, not by feeding upon it. The noble councillor, Joseph of Arim, and the pious secret disciple, Nicodemus, wrapped it in spices and linen clothes and laid it in the sepulchre: they did not partake of it naturally and physically.

OF THE VIRTUE OF THE SACRAMENTS

These difficulties make it evident, O king, that even under the guise of piety we ought not to ascribe either to the Supper or to baptism anything that might jeopardize religion and truth.

But does that mean that the sacraments have no virtue or power at all?

The first virtue: they are sacred and venerable things instituted and received by the great High Priest Christ himself.

For not only did he institute baptism, but he himself received it. And he not only commanded us to celebrate the Supper, but he himself celebrated it first.

The second virtue: they testify to historical facts. Of all laws, customs and institutions it may be said that they proclaim their authors and origins. Therefore if baptism proclaims symbolically the death and resurrection of Christ, it follows that these events did actually take place.

The third virtue: they take the place, and name, of that which they signify. The passover or sparing in which God spared the children of Israel cannot itself be exhibited to us, but the lamb takes its place as a sign of the passover. Similarly, the body of Christ and all that happened in relation to it cannot be exhibited to us, but its place is taken by the bread and wine which we consume instead.

Fourth: they represent high things. The value of all signs increases according to the value of that which they signify.

If it is something great and precious and sublime, the sign is all the more highly valued. The ring (39) with which your majesty was betrothed to the queen your consort is not valued by her merely according to the value of the gold: it is gold, but it is also beyond price, because it is the symbol of her royal husband. For that reason she regards it as the king of all her rings, and if ever she is naming and valuing her jewels she will say: This is my king, that is, the ring with which my royal husband was betrothed to me. It is the sign of an indissoluble

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH

union and fidelity. In the same way the bread and wine are the symbols of that friendship by which God is reconciled to the human race in and through his Son. We do not value them according to their intrinsic worth, but according to the greatness of that which they represent. The bread is no longer common, but consecrated. It is called bread, but it is also called the body of Christ. Indeed, it is in fact the body of Christ, but only in name and signification, or, as we now Say, sacramentally.

The fifth virtue is the analogy (40) between the signs and the things signified. In the Supper there is a twofold analogy. The first is to Christ. For as the bread supports and sustains human life, and wine makes glad the heart of man, so Christ alone sustain and supports and rejoices the soul when it has no other hope. For who is the man who can yield to despair when he sees that the Son of God is his, and he guards him in his soul like a treasure, and for his sake he can ask anything of the Father? The second analogy is to ourselves. For as bread is made up of many grains and wine of many grapes, so by a common trust in Christ which proceeds from the one Spirit the body of the Church is constituted and built up out of many members a single body, to be the true temple and body of the indwelling Spirit.

The sixth: the sacraments augment faith and are an aid to it. This is particularly true of the Supper. You know, O king, how continually our faith is tested and tempted, for the devil sifts us like wheat, as he did the apostles. And how does he attack us? By treachery within: for he sets up the scaling-ladders of passion against our senses, and then he tries to overthrow us by way of the body as by an ancient and crumbling part of the wall. But when the senses are called away elsewhere so that they do not give ear to the tempter his attack is less successful. Now in the sacraments the senses are not only turned aside from the enticements of the devil, but they are pledged to faith, so that like handmaidens they do nothing but what is commanded and done by their master faith. Hence they support and strengthen faith. I will speak openly and freely.

In the Supper the four most important senses, indeed all the senses, are at once released and redeemed from the desires of the flesh and placed under the obedience of faith.

With the hearing it is no longer the music of strings and the harmony of varied sounds that we hear, but the heavenly voice: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten

ZWINGLI Son for its life." And we are present there as brothers to give thanks for this benefit towards us. For we rightly do this at the command of the Son himself who when he approached his death instituted this thanksgiving as a perpetual memory and pledge of his love for us. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, uttering from his most holy lips the sacred words: ""This is my body." "Likewise after Supper he took the cup," etc. I say, when the hearing receives things of this nature, is it not completely dumbfounded, and in its astonishment does it not pay heed to the one thing which is proclaimed: hearing as it does of God and of God's love, that the Son was delivered up to death for us. And when it pays heed in this way, does it not do what faith does? For faith rests upon God through Christ. Therefore if hearing looks in the same direction, it is the servant of faith, and it no longer hinders it by its own frivolous imaginings and exertions.

With the sight we see the bread and wine which in Christ's stead signify his goodness and favourable disposition. Is it not therefore the handmaid of faith? For it sees Christ before it as it were, and the soul is enflamed by his beauty and loves him most dearly. With the sense of touch we take the bread into our hands and in signification it is no longer bread but Christ.

And there is also a place for taste and smell in order that we may taste and see how good the Lord is and how blessed is the man that trusts in him: for just as these senses take pleasure in. food and are stimulated by it, so the soul exults and rejoices when it tastes the sweet savour of heavenly hope.

Thus the sacraments assist the contemplation of faith and conjoin it with the strivings of the heart, which is something that could not happen to the same degree or with the same harmony apart from the use of the sacraments. In baptism sight and hearing and touch are all claimed for the work of faith. For whether the faith be that of the Church or of the person baptized, it perceives that Christ endured death for the sake of his Church and that he rose again victorious. And that is what we hear and see and feel in baptism. Hence the sacraments are like bridles which serve to check the senses when they are on the point of dashing off in pursuit of their own desires, and to recall them to the obedience of the heart and of faith.

The seventh virtue of the sacraments is that they act as an oath of allegiance. For in Latin the word sacramentum is used of an oath. And those who use the same oaths are made

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH

one race and alliance, coming together as one body and one people, to betray which is perjury. So, too, the people of Christ are brought together as one body by the sacramental partaking of his body. And if anyone presumes to intrude into that fellowship without faith, he betrays the body of Christ both in its head and also in its members, for he does not discern, that is, he does not rightly value the body of Christ either as he delivered it up to death for us or as it was redeemed by death.(41) For we are one body with him.

Therefore whether we like it or not, we are forced to concede that the words: "'This is my body," cannot be taken naturally or literally, but have to be construed symbolically, sacramentally, metaphorically or as a metonymy,(42) thus: ""This is my body," that is, ""This is the sacrament of my body," or, "This is my sacramental or mystical body," that is, the sacramental and representative symbol of the body which I really assumed and yielded over to death.

But it is now time to proceed lest by forgetting brevity I offend your majesty. However, what I have said so far is so sure, most noble king, that although many have attempted a refutation none has ever been able to shake it. Do not be disturbed, therefore, ifsome who are more ready with their tongues than they are with unassailable Scriptures proscribe this view as impious. They boast of the fact with bold but empty words, yet when the matter is investigated they have no more value than the sloughed off skin of a serpent.(43)

Tue CHURCH We also believe that there is one holy, catholic, that is, universal Church, and that this Church is either visible or invisible.

According to the teaching of Paul, the invisible Church is that which came down from heaven,(44) that is to say, the Church which knows and embraces God by the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. To this Church belong all who believe the whole world over.

It is not called invisible because believers are invisible, but because it is concealed from the eyes of men who they are: for believers are known only to God and to themselves.

And the visible Church is not the Roman pontiff and others who bear the mitre, but all who make profession of faith in Christ the whole world over.(45) In this number there are those who are called Christians falsely, seeing they have no inward faith. Within the visible Church, therefore, there are some who

ZWINGLI are not members of the Church elect and invisible. For in the Supper there are some who eat and drink to their own condemnation, although their brethren do not know who they are.

Consequently the visible Church contains within itself many who are insolent and hostile, thinking nothing of it if they are excommunicated a hundred times, seeing they have no faith.

Hence there arises the need of government for the punishment of flagrant sinners, whether it be the government of princes or that of the nobility.(46) For the higher powers do not bear the sword in vain. Seeing, then, that there are shepherds in the Church, and amongst these we may number princes, as may be seen from Jeremiah, it is evident that without civil government a Church is maimed and impotent. Far from undermining authority, most pious king, or advocating its dissolution, as we are accused of doing,(47) we teach that authority is necessary to the completeness of the body of the Church. But consider briefly our teaching on this subject.

GOVERNMENT

The Greeks reckon three kinds of government and their threefold corruption. The first is monarchy, in Latin kingship, in which the control of affairs is vested in one man according to the direction of piety and equity. The antithesis and corruption of this is tyranny, which the Romans describe rather less aptly as force or violence, or because there is no proper word in Latin they usually borrow the Greek word tyrannis. This arises when piety is despised, justice is trampled underfoot, all things are done by force, and the one who stands at the head rules by caprice.

Next, they recognize aristocracy—in Latin the rule of the best people—in which the best possible men are in charge of the state and maintain justice and piety amongst the people.

When this form is corrupted it becomes an oligarchy—which the Romans aptly describe as the rule of the few. In this case a small number of nobles rises up and seizes power, not with a view to the public good but to their own advantage, subjugating the state and using it to accomplish their own ends.

Finally they recognize democracy—which the Romans call "republic," although this word has a broader meaning than democracy—in which the state, that is, the direction of affairs is in the hands of the public or the whole people, and all administrative offices and honours and posts of responsibility are under

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH

the control of the whole people. When this form is corrupted the Greeks call it conspiracy or tumult,(48) that is, uproar, sedition and disturbance, in which all restraint is thrown off and obedience is given to the individual will rather than to the authority of the state, an authority which each individual claims for himself, seeing he is a member and part of the whole people. In this way there arise unlawful conspiracies and factions, which are followed by murder, plunder, injustice and all the evil results of treason and riot.

The distinctions made by the Greeks in respect of government we recognize and commend as follows: If the ruler is a king or prince, we teach that he must be obeyed and honoured according to the command of Christ: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are

God's."' For by Caesar we understand every ruler to whom authority has been given or transferred either by right of descent or by election and custom. But if the king or prince becomes a tyrant we set a limit to his pretension and censure it in season and out of season. For that is what the Lord says to Jeremiah: 'See, I have set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms." If he pays heed to the warning, we have gained a father for the whole kingdom and country: but if he resorts all the more to overweening violence we teach that although his acts are wicked he must still be obeyed until the Lord removes him from the seat of authority or a way is found whereby those whose duty it is may deprive him of his functions and restore order. In the same way we are alert and vigilant lest aristocracy or democracy should begin to degenerate into conspiracy and confusion.

We have examples in Scripture to illustrate what we teach and demand. Samuel bore with Saul until the Lord took away both his kingdom and his life. David returned to a right judgment when he was rebuked by Nathan, and in spite of many attacks he retained his throne. Ahab and his wife both forfeited their lives because they would not turn from their godless way at the rebuke of Elijah. Herod was boldly censured by John because he did not feel the least shame at his incestuous union. However, it would take too long to adduce all the examples from Scripture. Those who are learned and pious will know that what we say derives from this source.

To sum up: In the Church of Christ government and prophecy (49) are both necessary, although the latter takes precedence. For just as man is necessarily constituted of both

ZWINGLI body and soul, the body being the lesser and humbler part, (50) so there can be no Church without government, although government supervises and controls those more mundane circumstances which are far removed from the things of the Spirit.

Fe or that reason, if the two brightest luminaries of our faith, Jeremiah and Paul, both command us to pray the Lord for the powers that be, that we may be enabled to live a godly life, (51) how much more is it the duty of all men in the different kingdoms and peoples to attempt and accomplish all that they can to safeguard Christian quietness. We teach, therefore, that tributes, taxes, dues, tithes, pledges, loans and all kinds of obligations should all be paid and that the common laws should generally be obeyed in such matters.

THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS

We believe that by faith the forgiveness of sins is most assuredly granted to us when we pray to God through Christ.

For if Christ told Peter that we are to forgive unto seventy times seven, that is, without limit, necessarily he himself will always pardon our offences. But we said that it is by faith that sins are forgiven. By this we simply meant to affirm that it is faith alone which can give the assurance of forgiveness. For even if the Roman pontiff were to say six hundred times, Thy sins are forgiven thee, the soul can never be at rest or enjoy the certainty of reconciliation with God until it knows within itself and believes without doubt and indeed experiences the fact that it is pardoned and reconciled. For as it is only the Holy

Ghost that can give faith, so it is only the Holy Ghost that can give the forgiveness of sins.

Before God restitution, satisfaction and atonement for sin have been obtained once and for all by Christ who suffered for us.

He himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world, as his relative, the evangelist and apostle tells us.(52) Therefore if he has made satisfaction for sin, I ask who are the partakers of that satisfaction and reconciliation. Let us hear what he himself says.

"He that believeth on me, that is, trusteth in me or relieth on me, hath everlasting life." But none can attain to everlasting life except he whose sins are remitted. Therefore it follows that those who trust in Christ have the remission of sin.

—— _ Now since none of us knows who believes, none of us knows eg ag i e e

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

whose sins are remitted except the one who by the illumination and power of grace enjoys the assurance of faith,(53) knowing that through Christ God has forgiven him and having therefore the assurance of forgiveness. For he knows that God cannot deceive or lie and therefore he cannot doubt his grace to the sinner.

For God spoke from above: ''This is my well-beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, or, by whom I am reconciled."

And that means that all who believe in God by Christ the Son of God and our Lord and Brother, know for a certainty that the remission of sins is given to them. Hence it is futile to use words like, I absolve you, or, I assure you of the remission of sins. For the apostles preach everywhere the forgiveness of sins, but it is obtained only by the believing and elect. Therefore, seeing that the election and faith of others is always concealed from us, although the Spirit of the Lord gives us the certainty of our own faith and election, it is also concealed from us whether the sins of others are forgiven or not. How then can any man assure another of the forgiveness of his sins?

The popish inventions concerning this matter are all deceits and fables.

FAITH AND Works Since we have touched upon the subject of faith, we would like to give your majesty a short account of our teaching concerning faith and works. For there are those who unjustly slander us as though we prohibited good works, although in this as in all other matters we teach nothing but what is directed by the Word of God and suggested by common sense.(54) For who is so little versed in these matters as not to maintain: Good works must proceed from intention, and works without intention are not works but accidents. Now the place of faith in the human heart is the same as that of intention in conduct.

If the act is not preceded by intention, the result is unpremeditated and therefore worthless. If there is no faith to keep the city and direct all our actions, all that we undertake is irreligious and futile.(55) For even we men take more account of fidelity and faith in a work than of the work itself. If fidelity and faith are lacking the work depreciates in value. Supposing someone has performed a great service for your majesty, but not sincerely. Do you not say at once that you owe no debt of gratitude to the one who performed it because he did not do it from the heart? Indeed, do you not feel rather that in any service performed insincerely there lurks some concealed

ZWINGLI perfidy, and for that reason the one who performs a service insincerely will always be suspected of dishonesty and will appear to you to have acted only in his own interests and not in yours? The same norm and standard applies in relation to good works. The source of works must be faith. If faith is present, the work is acceptable to God. If not, then whatever we do is full of perfidy and not only not acceptable to God but an abomination to him. That is why St. Paul says in Romans 14: "'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin,' and there are some amongst us who have paradoxically (56) maintained that all our works are an abomination. By this they mean exactly the same as we do, that if a work is ascribed to us and not to faith, it is unbelief and therefore abominable to God.

Now faith comes only from the Spirit of God, as we have explained already. Therefore those who have faith look to the will of God as a standard for all their works. That means that they reject not only those works which are directed against the law of God, but also those which are done apart from the law of God. For the law is the eternal will of God. Therefore what is done apart from the law, that is, apart from the Word and will of God, is not of faith. What is not of faith is sin: and if it is sin it is abhorrent to God. Hence it is clear that even if a man does something which God has commanded, the giving of alms for instance, but not of faith, that work is not acceptable to God. For if we enquire what is the source of those alms which are not of faith we shall find that they proceed from vainglory or the desire to receive more in return or some other sinful motive. Who then can deny that such a work is displeasing to God?

It is quite evident that works done apart from the will of God are done without faith, and if they are done without faith then according to Paul's judgment they are sin, and because they are sin God abominates them. Therefore the things which without any warrant or witness of the Word of God the Romanists have declared to be holy and pious and acceptable to God, feigned indulgences, the extinguishing of purgatorial fire,(57) enforced chastity and the variety of orders and superstitious practices (which it would be tedious to relate): these things are all sin and abomination in the sight of God. As regards those works which are done according to the law of God, for example when we feed the hungry and clothe the naked and comfort the prisoners, it is difficult to say whether or not they are meritorious. In proof that they are our oppo-

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

peg nents quote the saying : ""Whosoever shall give anyone a cup of cold water in my name, he shall in no wise lose his reward."'

But the Word of God also testifies that they are not: ""When ye shall have done all these things, say, we are unprofitable servants." For if our works merit salvation, there would have been no need of the death of Christ to reconcile the divine justice. It would no longer be grace that sins are remitted, for we could all merit remission. St. Paul states the matter quite unanswerably in Romans and Galatians. For it is necessarily the case that none comes to the Father except by Christ.

Hence it follows that eternal salvation is only by the grace and favour of God as it is superabundantly poured out upon us in Christ.

But what are we to say then to the above and similar texts concerning the reward promised for a draught of cold water?

Obviously this: The election of God is free and gratuitous.

For he elected us before the foundation of the world, before ' ever we were born. Consequently God did not elect us because of works, for he executed our election before the foundation of the world. Hence works are not meritorious. If he promises a reward for works he is merely speaking after the manner of men. "For what dost thou recompense, O good God,"' says

Augustine, ''except only thine own work? For in that it is thou that makest us to will and to do, what remains that we may ascribe to ourselves?' (58) Now while there are some men who are incited to good works by promises, there are others who are so generous and good that when they do anyone a favour they say: I owed you that, you thoroughly deserved it, or something similar.

Thus the one who receives the gift is spared the humiliation of feeling that he is a suppliant (for if we love our neighbour, we shall be careful not to cause him discouragement). And that is how it is with God. Of his goodness he magnifies those whom he loves, so that they will not be despised but esteemed and honoured. And he attributes to us the things which he does through us, rewarding them as though they were our own works, although not merely our works but all our life and being are his. Again, God usually speaks to men in the language and fashion of men. Therefore, seeing that men give gifts to those who have merited them, and they call those gifts rewards, so too God calls his gifts a reward or recompense. There can be no doubt, then, that the words "merit" and "reward" appear in Holy Scripture, but they are used of the free gift of God.

ZWINGLI For how can a man merit anything when it is by grace that he lives and by grace that he receives all that he has?

But we must add at once that the pious will not cease from good works simply because it is impossible to gain any merit by them. Rather, the greater our faith, the more and greater our works, as Christ testifies in John 14: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I shall do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do."

And again: "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed hence and cast into the sea, and it shall obey you."

Therefore those who claim that we restrain from good works because we preach faith are not kindly disposed towards us.

And making mockery of the truth they misrepresent us: This is the doctrine for us, friends. We are saved by faith only.

We shall not fast or pray or help the needy. By calumnies of this sort they merely betray their own lack of faith. For if they only knew what a wonderful gift of God faith is, how effective is its power, how tireless its work, they would not despise that which they cannot have.(59) That confidence with which a man reposes upon God with all the powers of his soul can think and purpose only those things which are divine, indeed it cannot do anything but that which is pleasing to God. For since faith is inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can it be slothful or inactive when the Spirit himself is unceasing in his activity and operation? Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat. But where faith is lacking, works are not true works but only a futile imitation of works. Therefore those who arrogantly demand a reward for works, saying that they will cease from works if no reward is given, still have the mind and outlook of servants.

For it is the servant and idle person who works only for reward.

But those who stand in faith are tireless in the work of God like the son of the house. It is not by good works that the son merits his position as heir to the estate, nor does he toil and labour to become the heir: but the moment he was born he was heir to his father's property not by merit but by right of birth. And even when he is tireless in his labours, he does not demand a reward, for he knows that everything is his. Similarly the children of God who stand in faith know that by their divine birth, that is, the birth of the Spirit, and on the basis of free election, they are the sons of God and not servants. Therefore as children of the house they do not ask for a reward. For all

AN EXPOSITION

OF THE FAITH

things are ours as heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.

Therefore it is willingly and gladly and without grudging that they do their works: (60) indeed there is no work so great that they do not believe that it can be accomplished, not by our power, but by the power of the one in whom we trust.

In the Church, however, there are various sicknesses like unbelief and debility of faith. On the one hand there are some who absolutely do not believe, those who in the Supper eat and drink to themselves damnation, like Judas and Simon

Magus. On the other hand there are those whose faith is halfhearted, those who hesitate when danger threatens, those whose faith is choked by thorns, that is, by cares and worldly ambitions, with the result that they do not produce any fruit or work of piety. Therefore like Christ himself and Paul and James we warn them that they must show forth their faith by their acts, if they have faith. For faith without works is dead, the good tree brings forth good fruit, the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham, in Christ nothing avails but faith which works by love. Hence we preach the law (61) as well as grace. For from the law the faithful and elect learn the will of God and the wicked are also affrighted so that they either serve their neighbour through fear or reveal all their desperation and unbelief.

But at the same time we give warning that those works have no value which have simply been devised by human wisdom for the purpose of serving God. For they are no more pleasing to God, O king, than it would be to you if someone tried to serve you in a way of which you did not approve. Therefore if you must be served in the way in which you yourself will, how much more have we to be careful not to bring before God works which he neither commands nor desires. When we teach faith, then, we open up the source from which good works proceed. Conversely, when we insist on works, we require them as a debt which we all owe to God but are unable to pay without compulsion.

ETERNAL LIFE

Finally, we believe that after this existence, which is captivity and death rather than life, there is for saints and believers an everlasting life of joy and felicity, but for the wicked and unbelieving, of misery and wretchedness. In this regard we do not accept the view of the Anabaptists that the soul as well as the body sleeps until the resurrection. We maintain that the z.B.—18

ZWINGLI souls of angels and men can never sleep or rest. For their teaching is contrary to all reason. The soul is so vital a substance that not only does it have life in itself, but it gives life to the dwelling-place in which it resides. Whenever an angel assumes a body, whether it be of air or one specially created, he at once imparts to it life, so that it moves and works and acts and is acted upon. The moment a human soul enters a body, that body lives and grows and moves and performs all the other functions of life. But that being the case, how can the soul lie rigid and asleep when it is released from the body? Because its force and power are so alive and awake, that is, purposeful, philosophers (62) have described the soul as motion or activity. The Greeks have a more exact term for it. They call it entelechy, (63) that is, an inexhaustible power, operation, activity and purpose. The visible things in the world are so ordered by the divine providence that from them the spirit of man can rise to a knowledge of the invisible. Among the elements fire and air occupy the same place as the soul among bodies. Just as air is present throughout the whole body of the universe, so the soul permeates the whole body of man. Just as fire is always active, so the soul is always at work. This applies even in sleep, for we dream and we remember our dreams. Consequently sleep is something which concerns the body and not the soul. For during sleep the soul nourishes and quickens and restores the tired body, and so long as it is in the body it never ceases to act and work and move. As there is no fire without light, so the soul never grows old, it is never weak or confused, it never decays or sleeps. It is always alive, wakeful and strong.

Thus far I have spoken only in terms of philosophy. Now we will turn to the Scripture-texts which prove that the soul does not sleep. "He that believeth shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life."

If this is the case, then he who believes in this present life experiences already how good the Lord is and enjoys a foretaste of the life of heaven. But if the soul which now lives in God were to fall asleep the moment it left the body, the life of a Christian would be better in the world than when he has left the world, for then he would be asleep whereas now he is awake and has a conscious enjoyment of God. "'He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." But life would not be never-ending—which is what everlasting means here—if the life which the soul enjoys in this world were to be interrupted by sleep in the world to come.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH

"Father, I will that where I am, there shall also my servants be."' If the Blessed Virgin and Abraham and Paul are with God, what kind of a life is it in heaven, and what sort of a God, if they are all asleep there? Is God asleep too? But if he is asleep he is not God. For the one who sleeps is subject to change, and he does so to refresh his weariness. But if God grows weary, he is not God. For no toil or labour is too great for God.

On the other hand, if God does not sleep, then it is no more possible for the soul to sleep than for the air not to be clear and transparent when the sun arises on the earth. Hence this notion of the Anabaptists is foolish and presumptuous. For it does not satisfy them to delude men, but they must also pervert the sure and certain testimony of the living God. There are many other passages which we might quote: ""This is life eternal, that they might know thee," etc., and "I will receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also," and others too, but we must study to be brief.

We believe, then, that as soon as they depart the body the faithful fly away to God, joining themselves to God and enjoying eternal felicity. Therefore, most religious king, if you discharge the office entrusted to you, as David, Hezekiah and Josiah did, you may look forward first to seeing God himself in his very essence and majesty and with all his attributes and powers. And this you will enjoy, not sparingly, but in full measure, not with the satiety which always accompanies abundance, but with that agreeable fulfilment which no surfeit can destroy, like rivers which flowing unceasingly to the sea and returning through the heart of the earth never become displeasing to men but constantly bring them profit and gladness, watering and fertilizing and bringing forth the seeds of new life. The good which we shall enjoy is eternal: and the eternal can never be exhausted. For that reason surfeit is impossible, for it is always new and yet constantly the same.

After that you may expect to see the communion and fellowship of all the saints and sages and believers and the steadfast and the brave and the good who have ever lived since the world began. You will see the two Adams, the redeemed and the Redeemer, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah,

Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Phinehas, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah and the Virgin Mother of God of whom he prophesied,

David, Hezekiah, Josiah, the Baptist, Peter, Paul; Hercules too and Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios; (64) Louis the Pious and

ZWINGLI your predecessors the Louis, Philips, Pepins and all your ancestors who have departed this life in faith.(65) In short there has not lived a single good man, there has not been a single pious heart or believing soul from the beginning of the world to the end, which you will not see there in the presence of God. Can we conceive of any spectacle more joyful or agreeable or indeed sublime? Is it not right to direct all our soul's energies to the attainment of such a life? And let the dreaming

Anabaptists deservedly sleep in the nether regions that sleep from which they will never awake. The source of their error is their ignorance of the fact that in Hebrew the word to sleep is used as the equivalent of "'to die," as is often the case with Paul too when he has occasion to use the word.

OF THE ANABAPTISTS

Now that we have mentioned the Anabaptists, O king, we will briefly describe to you the life and conduct of that sect.

They consist for the most part of men of a decadent type, vagrants by necessity, whose trade is the enticement of old women by grandiose speeches on divine things, by which they procure for themselves both a livelihood and also considerable monetary gifts. In all respects they affect the same holiness of life as that which Irenaeus reports concerning the Valentinians (66) and Nazianzus concerning the Eunomians.(67)

Counting upon this they teach that it is unlawful for a Christian to execute the office of a magistrate, that he must not kill, not even according to the law or in the case of an evil-doer, that he must not participate in warfare, not even if tyrants or wicked and violent men or indeed brigands engage daily in robbery, slaughter and destruction, that he must not take an oath, that he must not exact tolls or taxes, that he is to have all things in common with his brethren, that on departing this life his soul will sleep with the body, that he may have several wives in the spirit and also enjoy carnal intercourse with them,(68) that he must not pay tithes and dues, and innumerable other things.

CO Indeed, not a day passes but that they scatter new errors like weeds amongst the good seed of God. And although they have gone out from us because they were not of us, there are still some who ascribe their heresies to us. For that reason we are their most bitter enemies and in all the matters mentioned we take the opposite view. Therefore, most excellent king, if

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH

it is ever reported to your majesty from any quarter that we aim to abolish the magistrates and forbid the oath and all the other things snarled out to the world by the Anabaptist rabble,

I implore and beseech you in the name of that truth to which you are said to be so attached not to believe any rumours of this type concerning us, that is, concerning preachers of the Gospel in the cities of the Christian Civic Alliance. (69)

We do not instigate tumult, nor do we undermine the dignity or laws of magistrates: we are against all failure to redeem promises or to pay debts. Yet we are still accused of these things in some circles, not merely in secret rumour but in public writings. We do not make any specific answer to the charges because the world is already full of inflammatory books, and every day the facts themselves reveal the duplicity of those who spread abroad such reports concerning us, not of course with any regard to the honour of Christ but only to their own honour and their own bellies. But the fact is that the Anabaptist pest has spread for the most part in those places where the clear doctrine of Christ had begun to gain a footing. And by this very fact you may see the more clearly, O king, that it is sent by the evil one in an attempt to root out the good seed from the harvest field. We have seen whole cities and townships which had begun to receive the Gospel well, but were then infected and hindered by this pest and could make no further headway, both spiritual and civic affairs being wholly neglected in the resultant confusion.

For that reason I warn your majesty—Do not misunderstand me, for I know that you are surrounded by the most excellent counsellors. Yet it is impossible to take precautions against that which is not foreseen.(70) I know that your advisers could easily provide against the danger if they were aware of it. But as they will not perhaps recognize the peril, I know that you will not take the warning amiss. Therefore seeing that some sparks of the reviving faith have been kindled in your realm,(71) I warn your majesty not to allow the good seed to be choked by the papists, whose power has increased beyond all measure. For in place of that good seed the tares of the Anabaptists will grow up without your being aware of it.

And the result will be such general confusion throughout the whole kingdom that it will be extremely difficult to find a remedy.

That is the sum of our faith and preaching as we execute them by the grace of God, and as we are always ready to give an

ZWINGLI account of them to any who ask. For we teach not a single jot which we have not learned from the sacred Scriptures. Nor do we make a single assertion for which we have not the authority of the first doctors of the Church—prophets, apostles, bishops, evangelists and expositors—those ancient Fathers who drew more purely from the fountainhead. All who have seen and examined our writings will testify to this fact.

Therefore, most holy king (and why should I not call the most Christian king (72) most holy), prepare yourself to receive with due honour the Christ who is arising again and returning to our midst. For perceive that it was by divine providence that the kings of France were called most Christian, seeing that the renewal of the Gospel of the Son of God was destined to come under your reign, whom friend and foe alike extol as generous and good by nature.(73) For it is necessary that a Christian king should be of a generous and affable disposition, of just and skilful judgment, of a wise and determined spirit. And as we have said, God has wonderfully provided you with these endowments that you might shine forth in this epoch and yourself rekindle the light of divine knowledge. Therefore go forth with these noble virtues, take shield and spear, and fall upon unbelief with all that high-hearted and dauntless courage and with that physical presence which astonishes everyone by its grace. Then when other kings see you, the most Christian, the first to defend the honour of Christ, they will follow your lead and example and drive out Antichrist.

Let the doctrine of salvation be purely preached in your kingdom. You are rich in wise and learned men, in resources, and in a people with a leaning to religion. You will not allow their souls to be seduced by superstition when they esteem so highly both God and yourself.

There is no cause whatever to be frightened because of the lying accusations made by slanderers in their opposition to the truth. Not your own subjects only but allied peoples abroad will participate in holy and righteous wars. Preachers as well as people will take the oath without hesitation, which the papists so far have refused to do. And so far are the preachers from teaching that tolls and taxes should not be paid that they will pay them themselves. They will not interfere with any privileges.

If faults are committed they will expose them, but not in such a way as to create disorder in temporal affairs. In these matters they always acknowledge the lawful magistrate, no matter how much they may seize on and criticize him when he is at fault.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH

Believe me, believe me, most noble hero, of all those evils threatened by the papists not one will come to pass. For the Lord protects his Church. Oh that you could only see for yourself the states of some of the princes who have received the Gospel in Germany and the cleanliness and cheerfulness and security of the cities. By reason of the fruits you might well say:

I do not doubt that what has come to pass is of God. Consider all these things according to your faith and wisdom, and pardon our temerity in disturbing your majesty after this boorish manner. The matter itself requires it.

Zurich Your majesty's most devoted servant, H. ZwIncui

BULLINGER

↑ Back to top