LUTHER AND THE SACRAMENTS

The following extracts of Luther’s response (1545) to the Thirty Two Articles of the Louvain Theologists are worth noting for what Luther reveals of his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper and what he thought of Zwingli and the Swiss.

Clause 15 – In the sacrament of the eucharist, which is deserving of honor and adoration, the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, proferred and received both by the worthy and by the unworthy.

Clause 27 – We earnestly believe that the Zwinglians and all sacramentarians who deny that the body and blood of Christ are taken with the bodily mouth in the venerable eucahrist are heretics and estranged (alienos) from the church of God.

(Lewis W. Spitz, ‘Luther’s Works’ volume 34 (Muhlenberg Press/Philadelphia 1960), pp355,356)

BULLINGER AND JUSTIFICATION

Peter Opitz’ Habilitationsschrift “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologe” has an important section on justification, sanctification and communion with Christ in Bullinger’s The Decades. Here is one quote from page 262.

“Die Rechtfertigungslehre wird in einen gesamtbiblisch-heilsgeschichtlichen-Horizont des göttlichen Heilshandelns eingezeichnet.”

DID ZWINGLI REALLY COMMEND LUTHER?!

At about the time of the coronation of Charles V which took place on 22 October 1520 there appeared an anonymous pamphlet entitled “Advice of one who with his whole heart that due consideration be paid both to the dignity of the pope and to the peaceful development of the Christian religion.” This pamphlet has an appendix: “A defence of Martin Luther by Christ our Lord addressed to the city of Rome.”

Samuel Macauley Jackson writes of this: “Although at first sight it seems highly improbably that Zwingli had anything to do with the pamphlet, as it is not at all in hi style, yet all doubt vanishes before the fact that the draft of it in Zwingli’s handwriting is to be seen today in the Zurich cantonal archives. It treats Luther in a kindly, condescending way, and advises that an impartial commission go through his books and examine him orally, and then pass final judgment on him” (Huldreich Zwingli: The Reformer of German Switzerland 1484-1531, p155).

Zwingli and the Kappel Wars

Despite what is commonly believed, Zwingli was actually reluctant to be part of the 2^nd Kappel War where he lost his life. It is misleading to say of him, “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword” as he was the chaplain on the battle field and not armed for battle.

The following are some extracts from Oswald Myconius written in 1532.

“He (Zwingli) therefore took part in the two civil wars, each of which is named the Cappel War from the monastery called the Chapel. To the first he went of his own motion, so that he might be present at the deliberations lest anything might occur contrary to what was true and right. Most happily things fell out and it was concluded without bloodshed. About it he often related to me that in it he had encountered more malice and perverse counsel that he had encountered in his whole life he had learned from experience of from books. In the second war he was elected chaplain, and although he told himself as well As others that he would not go, nevertheless he went. His divining mind saw what the future had in store. The cause of war never met his approval, ie the cutting off of provisions (from the Forest Cantons), for he knew what kind of counsel famine gives. Albeit, to speak frankly, after this plan (to cut off provisions) had been once accepted by the reluctant Zurichers (for others whom we know well had taken it up in no bad spirit since they thought by consultation and discussion a way would be found meanwhile for pacificatory measures even though the Zurichers had preferred a war), Zwingli was not pleased, since he feared that a change would only bring them into greater contempt with their adversaries, although he did not so strenuously oppose it.

Also within fourteen days before his departure he said from the pulpit in my hearing, amid the general excitement, ‘I know, I know what all this means. It means my death, everything is done to put me out of the way…..

As, then, I saw them going out in the morning, so at night I heard the news, - the fight had been sharp yet unsuccessful, and our Zwingli had perished. It was reported that three times he had in the shock of arms been prostrated, but each time he had struggled to his feet; a fourth time he was struck under the chin by a spear, and, fallen upon his knees, said, ‘What evil is there in this? They are able, it is true, to kill the body but not the soul.’ And having so spoken he fell asleep presently in the Lord. After the defeat, during the leisure given to the enemy (for our soldiers had retired into a well guarded place) the body of Zwingli was sought for (and who told them so quickly that he had been present in the battle or had fallen?), was found, tried and condemned, cut into four parts, thrown into the fire, reduced to ashes. The enemy having retired after the third day, friends of Zwingli went to see if they could perchance find any remains of him, and lo! (strange to say) his heart presented itself from the midst of the ashes whole and uninjured. The good men were astounded, recognising the miracle indeed, but not understanding it. Wherefore, attributing everything to God, they rejoiced because this supernatural fact had made more sure the sincerity of the heart. A man whom I knew very well, in fact very intimately, came to me shortly afterwards asking whether I desired to see a portion of Zwingli’s heart which he carried with him in a casket. Because a sort of horror on account of this sudden remark pervaded my whole body I declined. Otherwise, I could have been an eye-witness of this thing also.”

Samuel Macauley Jackson “Ulrich Zwingli: Early Writings” (1999),pp21-23

Zwingli and divine accommodation

Most are aware of what Calvin wrote about divine accommodation:

“For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, god is wont in a measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.” (Institutes I.13.1)

Where did Calvin get this idea from? Huijgen suggests from Erasmus – “Divine Accommodation” p123.

But what about this quote from Zwingli from his “Friendly Exegesis” sent to Luther in 1527? He is trying to get Luther to understand the use of tropes and other figures of speech in Scripture

“But before I undertake the explanation of the words of the Lord, I shall have to say a few words upon the collation of the Scriptures, namely, that after the human tongue began, by means of tropes and figures and varieties of expression, to season its speech with sweet smelling spices, or paint it with varying hues, as it were, then the divine Goodness (which everywhere babbles to us like parents to their infants, and uses our own language), condescended in talking with us, to use our own tropes and figures.” H Wayne Pipkin “Huldrych Zwingli Writings” Vol 2, p350

Antequam autem ad verborum domini expositionem accedamus, paucula nobis de scripturarum collatione praemittenda erunt; ista videlicet, quod posteaquam humanum os coepit tropis, figuris ac locutionibus orationem veluti odoribus aut pigmentis condere et variegare, divinam quoque bonitatem (quae ubique parentum instar nobiscum balbutit linguaque nostra loquitur) huc sese demisisse, ut et ipsa nobiscum loquens tropis ac schęmatismis nostris uteretur.

(Amica Exegesis, id est: expositio eucharistiae negocii ad Martinum Lutherum

8. Februar 1527
Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, vol. 5 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1934) (Corpus Reformatorum 92))

Zwingli’s Letter to Vadian (20 October 1529)

The following is a quotation from Zwingli’s letter to Vadian in which he recounts what happened at the Marburg Colloquy on 1529 (courtesy of Jim West’s blog). Note the alledged inconsistencies in Luther’s understanding:

The landgrave decided that there should be separate preliminary conferences in private, Oecolampadius with Luther and Melanchthon with Zwingli, to seek between themselves for any possible measure of agreement that could lead to peace. Here Luther’s reaction to Oecolampadius was such that he came to me and privately complained that once again he had come up against Eck! Don’t tell this to anyone you can’t trust.
Melanchthon I found uncommonly slippery; he kept changing his shape like another Proteus, forced me—in lieu of salt!—to use my pen as a weapon and keep my hand dry, so that I could hold him fast for all his chafings and wrigglings and dodgings.
I am sending you a copy of a few extracts from our very lengthy conversations on the understanding that you will only show it to those you can trust—I mean, to those who will not use it to stir up another crisis: remember that Philip [Melanchthon] has a copy too, for I drew it up in his presence and under his eye, and many of his own words he actually dictated. But the last thing we want is to bring on a new crisis. Philip and I spent six hours together, Luther and Oecolampadius three.
On the next day the four of us entered the arena in the presence of the landgrave and a few others—twenty-four at most; we fought it out in this and in three further sessions, thus making four in all in which, with witnesses, we fought our winning battle. Three times we threw at Luther the fact that he had at other times given a different exposition from the one he was now insisting on of those ridiculous ideas of his, that Christ suffered in his divine nature, that the body of Christ is everywhere, and that the flesh profits nothing; but the dear man had nothing to say in reply—except that on the matter of the flesh profiting nothing he said: “You know, Zwingli, that all the ancient writers have again and again changed their interpretations of passages of Scripture as time went on and their judgment matured.”
He said: “The body of Christ is eaten and received into our body in the bodily sense [corporaliter], but at the same time I reserve my judgment on whether the human spirit eats his body too”—when a little before he had said: “the body of Christ is eaten by the mouth in the bodily sense, but the human spirit does not eat him in the bodily sense.” He said: “[the bread and wine] are made into the body of Christ by the utterance of these words—‘This is my body’—however great a criminal one might be who pronounces them.” He conceded that the body of Christ is finite. He conceded that the Eucharist may be called a “sign” of the body of Christ. These and others are examples of the countless inconsistencies, absurdities and follies which he babbles out like water lapping on the shore; but we refuted him so successfully that the landgrave himself has now come down on our side, though he does not say so in the presence of some of the princes.
The Hessian entourage, almost to a man, has withdrawn from Luther’s position. The landgrave himself has given permission for our books to be read with impunity, and in future will not allow “bishops” who share our views to be ejected from their place. John, the Saxon prince, was not there, but [Ulrich of] Württemberg was.
We finally left [Marburg] with certain agreements which you will soon see in print. The truth prevailed so manifestly that if ever anyone was beaten it was the foolish and obstinate Luther. He was clearly defeated, as any wise and fair judge would agree, although he now makes out that he was not beaten. We have, however, achieved this much good, that our agreement on the rest of the doctrines of the Christian religion will prevent the papal party from hoping any longer that Luther will be on their side. … *