Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 4 of 4

The quotation below from H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century in part 1, concerning the Colloquy of Marburg, is continued.  Examination of parts 1-3 above should have made the Lutheran and Zwinglian positions clear.  Please note below that Luther thought that it was essential to salvation to hold his position that one literally eats Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, and for that reason he was unwilling to call the Reformed true Christians, while the Reformed did not think that Luther’s doctrine kept him from salvation.  While Zwingli’s arguments in parts 1-3 were far stronger than Luther’s, in this matter Luther was correct that it did not make sense for the Reformed to want to unite with the Lutherans when they had such a striking disagreement, although Luther was terribly wrong in holding that his heretical position on the Lord’s Supper was essential for salvation.

Note as well that baptism did NOT separate the Lutherans and the Reformed.  Luther’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration was not a problem to the Reformed.  One should not be surprised to read Calvin making statements such as:

We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism … Nothing is plainer than this doctrine” (John Calvin, 1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1^st Decree of the 5^th Session).  Calvin elsewhere wrote:  “men are regenerated by baptism” (Second Defense of the Pious and Orthodox Faith Concerning the Sacraments, in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, 2:222).  Rejection of baptismal regeneration as a false gospel—the Biblical truth embraced by the Anabaptists of the 16^th century—was, sadly, just about as far away from the Reformed as it was from the Lutherans.

To continue the quotation:

Philip of Hesse had all along shown the most constant attention, and each one imagined him to be on his side. “I would rather place my trust in the simple words of Christ, than in the subtle thoughts of man,” was a remark he made according to Jonas; but Zwingle affirmed that this prince entertained the same opinions as himself, although with regard to certain persons he dissembled the change. …

A final meeting took place, and undoubtedly the [allegedly universal] Church has seldom witnessed one of greater solemnity. Luther and Zwingle, Saxony and Switzerland, met for the last time. The sweating sickness was carrying off men around them by thousands; Charles the Fifth and the pope were uniting in Italy; Ferdinand and the Roman Catholic princes were preparing to tear in pieces the Protest of Spires; the thunder-cloud became more threatening every day; union alone seemed capable of saving the Protestants, and the hour of departure was about to strike—an hour that would separate them perhaps for ever.

“Let us confess our union in all things in which we agree,” said Zwingle; “and as for the rest, let us remember that we are brothers. There will never be peace between the churches if, while we maintain the grand doctrine of salvation by faith, we cannot differ on secondary points.” …

“Yes, yes!” exclaimed the landgrave; “you agree! Give then a testimony of your unity, and hristian one another as brothers.”—“There is no one upon earth with whom I more desire to be united, than with you,” said Zwingle, approaching the Wittemberg doctors. Œcolampadius, Bucer, and Hedio said the same.

“Acknowledge them! Acknowledge them as brothers!” continued the landgrave. Their hearts were moved; they were on the eve of unity: Zwingle, bursting into tears, in the presence of the prince, the courtiers, and divines (it is Luther himself who records this), approached Luther, and held out his hand. The two families of the Reformation were about to be united: long quarrels were about to be stifled in their cradle; but Luther rejected the hand that was offered him: “You have a different spirit from ours,” said he. These words communicated to the Swiss, as it were, an electric shock. Their hearts sunk each time Luther repeated them, and he did so frequently. He himself is our informant.

A brief consultation took place among the Wittemberg doctors. Luther, Melancthon, Agricola, Brentz, Jonas, and Osiander, conferred together. Convinced that their peculiar doctrine on the eucharist was essential to salvation, they considered all those who rejected it as without the pale of the faith. “What folly!” said Melancthon, who afterwards nearly coincided with Zwingle’s sentiments: “they condemn us. And yet they desire we should consider them as our brothers!” “What versatility!” added Brentz: “they accused us but lately of worshipping a bread-god, and they now ask for communion with us!” Then, turning towards Zwingle and his friends, the Wittembergers said: “You do not belong to the communion of the Christian Church; we cannot acknowledge you as brethren!”

The Swiss were far from partaking of this … spirit. “We think,” said Bucer, “that your doctrine strikes at the glory of Jesus Christ, who now reigns at the right hand of the Father. But seeing that in all things you acknowledge your dependence on the Lord, we look at your conscience, which compels you to receive the doctrine you profess, and we do not doubt that you belong to Christ.”

“And we,” said Luther—“we declare to you once more that our conscience opposes our receiving you as brethren.”—“If such is the case,” replied Bucer, “it would be folly to ask it.”

“I am exceedingly astonished that you wish to consider me as your brother,” pursued Luther. “It shows clearly that you do not attach much importance to your own doctrine.” … Luther remained like a rock, to the landgrave’s great indignation. The Hessian divines, Kraft, Lambert, Snepf, Lonicer, and Melander, united their exertions to those of the prince.

Luther was staggered, and conferred anew with his colleagues. “Let us beware,” said he to his friends, “of wiping our noses too roughly, lest blood should come.”

Then turning to Zwingle and Œcolampadius, they said: “We acknowledge you as friends; we do not consider you as brothers and members of Christ’s Church. But we do not exclude you from that universal charity which we owe even to our enemies.”

The hearts of Zwingle, Œcolampadius, and Bucer, were ready to burst, for this concession was almost a new insult. “Let us carefully avoid all harsh and violent words and writings,” said they; “and let each one defend himself without railing.” … It was desirable to confirm this important result by a report. “We must let the hristian world know,” said the landgrave, “that, except the manner of the presence of the body and blood in the eucharist, you are agreed in all the articles of faith.” [Note that the Reformed agreed that the body and blood were present, just spiritually present.  Neither side held to the Anabaptist position that the Supper was simply a memorial.] This was resolved on; but who should be charged with drawing up the paper? All eyes were turned upon Luther. The Swiss themselves appealed to his impartiality.

Luther retired to his closet, lost in thought, uneasy, and finding the task very difficult. “On the one hand,” said he, “I should like to spare their weakness; but, on the other, I would not in the least degree strike at the holy doctrine of Christ.” He did not know how to set about it, and his anguish increased. He got free at last. “I will draw up the articles,” said he, “in the most accurate manner. Do I not know that whatever I may write, they will never sign them?” Erelong fifteen articles were committed to paper, and Luther, holding them in his hand, repaired to the theologians of the two parties. …

Luther took his paper, and reading the first article, said:

“First, we believe that there is one sole, true, and natural God, creator of heaven and earth and of all creatures; and that this same God, one in essence and in nature, is three-fold in person, that is to say, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as was declared in the Nicene Council, and as all the Christian Church professes.

To this the Swiss gave their assent.

They were agreed also on the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ; on his death and resurrection, on original sin, justification by faith, the operation of the Holy Ghost and of the Word of God, baptism, good works, confession, civil order, and tradition.

Thus far all were united. The Wittembergers could not recover from their astonishment. … But the moment was come that would separate them. Luther had kept till the last the article on the Eucharist.

The reformer resumed:

“We all believe with regard to the Lord’s Supper, that it ought to be celebrated in both kinds, according to the primitive institution; that the mass is not a work by which a Christian obtains pardon for another man, whether dead or alive; that the sacrament of the altar is the sacrament of the very body and very blood of Jesus Christ; and that the spiritual manducation of this body and blood is specially necessary to every true Christian.”

It was now the turn of the Swiss to be astonished. Luther continued:

“In like manner, as to the use of the sacrament, we are agreed that, like the Word, it was ordained of Almighty God, in order that weak consciences might be excited by the Holy Ghost to faith and charity.”

The joy of the Swiss was redoubled. Luther continued: “And although at present we are not agreed on the question whether the real body and blood of Christ are corporeally present in the bread and wine, yet both the interested parties shall cherish more and more a truly Christian charity for one another, so far as conscience permits; and we will all earnestly implore the Lord to condescend by his Spirit to confirm us in the sound doctrine.”

The Swiss obtained what they had asked: unity in diversity. It was immediately resolved to hold a solemn meeting for the signature of the articles.

They were read over again. Œcolampadius, Zwingle, Bucer, and Hedio, signed them first on one copy; while Luther, Melancthon, Jonas, Osiander, Brentz, and Agricola, wrote their names on the other; both parties then subscribed the copy of their adversaries, and this important document was sent to the press.

Thus the Reformation had made a sensible step at Marburg. …

All,—Romanists and [Protestants], Saxons and Swiss,—admitted the presence, and even the real presence of Christ; but here was the essential point of separation: Is this presence effected by the faith of the communicant, or by the opus operatum of the priest? The germs of Popery, Sacerdotalism, Puseyism, are inevitably contained in this latter thesis. If it is maintained that a wicked priest (as has been said) operates this real presence of Christ by three words, we enter the church of the pope. … After the Marburg conference, the controversy became more moderate.

There was another advantage. The [Protestant] divines at Marburg marked with one accord their separation from the Papacy. Zwingle was not without fear (unfounded, no doubt) with regard to Luther: these fears were dispersed. “Now that we are agreed,” said he, “the Papists will no longer hope that Luther will ever be one of them.” The Marburg articles were the first bulwark erected in common by the reformers against Rome. (J. H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, trans. Henry Beveridge and H. White, vol. 4, Collin’s Select Library [Glasgow: R. Groombridge & Sons, 1862], 76–92.)

-TDR 

Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 3 of 4

The quotation below from H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century in part 1, concerning the Colloquy of Marburg, is continued from parts 1 and 2:

The conference was continued on the next day, Sunday, the 3d October, perhaps because of an epidemic (the Sweating Sickness) that had just broken out at Marburg, and which did not allow any great prolongation of the colloquy. Luther, returning to the discussion of the previous evening, said:

“Christ’s body is in the sacrament, but it is not there as in a place.”

Zwingle.—“Then it is not there at all.”

Luther.—“Sophists say, that a body may very well be in several places at once. The universe is a body, and yet we cannot assert that it is in a particular place.”

Zwingle.—“Ah! You speak of sophists, doctor; are you really after all obliged to return to the onions and flesh-pots of Egypt? As for what you say, that the universe is in no particular place, I beg all intelligent men to weigh this proof.” Then Zwingle, who, whatever Luther may have said, had more than one arrow in his quiver, after establishing his proposition by exegesis and philosophy, resolved on confirming it by the testimony of the [so-called] Fathers of the Church.

“Listen,” said he, “to what Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspa in Numidia, said, in the fifth century, to Trasamond, king of the Vandals: ‘The Son of God took the attributes of true humanity, and did not lose those of true divinity. Born in time, according to his mother, he lives in eternity according to the divinity that he holds from the Father: coming from man, he is man, and consequently in a place; proceeding from the Father, he is God, and consequently present in every place. According to his human nature, he was absent from heaven while he was upon earth, and quitted the earth when he ascended into heaven; but, according to his divine nature, he remained in heaven, when he came down thence, and did not abandon the earth when he returned thither.’ ”

But Luther still replied: “It is written, This is my body.” Zwingle, becoming impatient, said, “All that is idle wrangling. An obstinate disputant might also maintain this expression of our Saviour to his mother, Behold thy son, pointing to St. John. Vain would be every explanation, he would continue crying No, no! He said Ecce filius tuus, Behold thy son, behold thy son! Listen to a new testimony; it is from the great Augustine: ‘Let us not think,’ says he, ‘that Christ, according to his human form, is present in every place; let us beware, in our endeavour to establish his divinity, of taking away his truth from his body. Christ is now every where present, like God; and yet, in consequence of his real body, he is in a definite part of heaven.’ ”

“St. Augustine,” replied Luther, “is not here speaking of the Eucharist. Christ’s body is not in the Eucharist, as in a place.”

Œcolampadius saw that he might take advantage of this assertion of Luther’s. “The body of Christ,” said he, “is not locally in the Eucharist, therefore no real body is there; for every one knows that the essence of a body is its existence in a place.”

Here finished the morning’s discussion.

Œcolampadius, upon reflection, felt convinced that Luther’s assertion might be looked upon as an approximation. “I remember,” said he after dinner, “that the doctor conceded this morning that Christ’s body was not in the sacrament as in a place. Let us therefore inquire amicably what is the nature of Christ’s bodily presence.”

“You will not make me take a step further,” exclaimed Luther, who saw where they wished to drag him; “You have Fulgentius and Augustine on your side, but all the other Fathers are on ours.”

Œcolampadius, who seemed to the Wittembergers to be vexatiously precise, then said, “Name these doctors. We will take upon ourselves to prove that they are of our opinion.”

“We will not name them to you,” said Luther. “It was in his youth,” added he, “that Augustine wrote what you have quoted; and, besides, he is an obscure author.” Then retreating to the ground which he had resolved never to quit, he was no longer content to point his finger at the inscription, Hoc est corpus meum, but seized the velvet cover on which the words were written, tore it off the table, held it up in front of Zwingle and Œcolampadius, and placing it before their eyes, “See!” said he, “see! This is our text: you have not yet driven us from it, as you had boasted, and we care for no other proofs.”

“If this be the case,” said Œcolampadius, “we had better leave off the discussion. But I will first declare, that, if we quote the Fathers, it is only to free our doctrine from the reproach of novelty, and not to support our cause by their authority.” No better definition can be given of the legitimate use of the doctors of the Church.

There was no reason, in fact, for prolonging the conference. “As Luther was of an intractable and imperious disposition.” Says even his great apologist Seckendorf, “he did not cease from calling upon the Swiss to submit simply to his opinion.”

The chancellor, alarmed at such a termination of the colloquy, exhorted the theologians to come to some understanding. “I know but one means for that,” said Luther; “and this it is: Let our adversaries believe as we do.” “We cannot,” answered the Swiss. “Well then,” rejoined Luther, “I abandon you to God’s judgment, and pray that he will enlighten you.” “We will do the same,” added Œcolampadius.

While these words were passing, Zwingle sat silent, motionless, and deeply moved; and the liveliness of his affections, of which he had given more than one proof during the conference, was then manifested in a very different manner. He burst into tears in the presence of all.

The conference was ended.

-TDR

Trinity Chart with Identifying Particularities: the Father unbegotten, the Son as begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeding

I am very cautious, as were a substantial number of my Baptist forefathers and also many teachers in Protestant orthodoxy, about analogies in this world for the Trinity:

[I]n the inward work of the Trinity is the Father said to spirate or process the Spirit in the active sense—spiratio activa—and, in view of the filioque, to do so with the Son, as indicated by John 15:26 and to a lesser extent by Galatians 4:6. Thus, active spiration is not a sole property or operation of the Father, but belongs also to the Son. Like the role of the Son in the begetting or generation of the second person, the Spirit’s role in his own emanation or spiration is, by definition, passive: he does not spirate himself, but is spirated by the Father and the Son. The Reformed orthodox note this traditionary point but typically do not elaborate it either dogmatically or exegetically apart from their discussions of the filioque, nor will they dwell on the question of a difference between the active generation of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit. Since the inward divine actions or emanations have no analogy in the created order, they cannot be adequately conceived by human beings: all that can be inferred is that they neither divide the divine essence into parts or multiply it into different beings—rather these actions result in the multiplicity of persons in the undivided essence. . . . [I]llustrations . . .  cannot be considered any more than very limited aids to understanding: here the epistemological side of the Reformed non capax comes to the fore. (Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy;  Volume 4: The Triunity of God [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003], 262, 154.)

Comparing the three Persons of the Godhead to three parts in an egg, or to water as solid, liquid, and gas, or to a person who is a father, a child, and a brother, and other similar analogies lend themselves to modalism, not to Trinitarianism.  Other analogies can lend themselves to tritheism, such as comparing the Trinity to three people who are all equally human.  The fact is that there is nothing in the created world that is one and three in the sense that the uncreated and eternal God is one and three, so all analogies fall short.  God's threeness is below the level of distinct being, at which level God is only one, and above the level of distinction of attributes, for God is Father, Son, and Spirit in a way that is different from His being holy, righteous, omnipotent, and so on.

When teaching on the subject relatively recently, I wanted to find a chart like the one pictured below:

I could find ones with the "is" and "is not" portions--very good, but not what I wanted.  I could not find one that also reflected the eternal identifying particularities of the three Persons, namely, that the Father is neither begotten nor proceeding, that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.  I thus had someone kindly take the time to create the chart above.  I hope it finds its way into Google pictures so that people who want a chart on the Trinitarian Persons can have one that accurately represents Biblical truth.  The chart is also found in the second evangelistic Bible study at FaithSaves, "Who is God?" and likewise appears in the YouTube video of "Who is God?"

Please feel free to use the chart above when you are teaching on the glorious Triune God.

You can learn more about the Trinity from the college class online here or on YouTube here.

-TDR

Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 2 of 4

The quotation below from H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century in part 1, concerning the Colloquy of Marburg, is continued:

Luther was, however, by no means shaken. “This is my body,” repeated he, pointing with his finger to the words written before him. “This is my body. The devil himself shall not drive me from that. To seek to understand it, is to fall away from the faith.”

“But, doctor,” said Zwingle, “St. John explains how Christ’s body is eaten, and you will be obliged at last to leave off singing always the same song.”

“You make use of unmannerly expressions,” replied Luther. The Wittembergers themselves called Zwingle’s argument “his old song.” Zwingle continued without being disconcerted: “I ask you, doctor, whether Christ in the sixth chapter of St. John did not wish to reply to the question that had been put to him.

Luther.—“Master Zwingle, you wish to stop my mouth by the arrogancy of your language. That passage has nothing to do here.”

Zwingle, hastily.—“Pardon me, doctor, that passage breaks your neck.”

Luther.—“Do not boast so much! You are in Hesse, and not in Switzerland. In this country we do not break people’s necks.”

Then turning towards his friends, Luther complained bitterly of Zwingle; as if the latter had really wished to break his neck. “He makes use of camp terms and blood-stained words,” said he. Luther forgot that he had employed a similar expression in speaking of Carlstadt.

Zwingle resumed: “In Switzerland also there is strict justice, and we break no man’s neck without trial. That expression signifies merely that your cause is lost and hopeless.”

Great agitation prevailed in the Knight’s Hall. The roughness of the Swiss and the obstinacy of the Saxon had come into collision. The landgrave, fearing to behold the failure of his project of conciliation, nodded assent to Zwingle’s explanation. “Doctor,” said he to Luther, “you should not be offended at such common expressions.” It was in vain: the agitated sea could not again be calmed. The prince therefore arose, and they all repaired to the banqueting hall. After dinner they resumed their tasks.

“I believe,” said Luther, “that Christ’s body is in heaven, but I also believe that it is in the sacrament. It concerns me little whether it be against nature, provided that it be not against faith. Christ is substantially in the sacrament, such as he was born of the Virgin.”

Œcolampadius, quoting a passage from St. Paul: “We know not Jesus Christ after the flesh.”

Luther.—“After the flesh means, in this passage, after our carnal affections.”

Œcolampadius.—“You will not allow that there is a metaphor in these words, This is my body, and yet you admit a synecdoche.”

Luther.—“Metaphor permits the existence of a sign only: but it is not so with synecdoche. If a man says he wishes to drink a bottle, we understand that he means the beer in the bottle. Christ’s body is in the bread, as a sword in the scabbard, or as the Holy Ghost in the dove.”

The discussion was proceeding in this manner, when Osiander, pastor of Nuremberg, Stephen Agricola, pastor of Augsburg, and Brentz, pastor of Halle in Swabia, author of the famous Syngramma, entered the hall. These also had been invited by the landgrave. But Brentz, to whom Luther had written that he should take care not to appear, had no doubt by his indecision retarded his own departure as well as that of his friends. Places were assigned them near Luther and Melancthon. “Listen, and speak if necessary,” they were told. They took but little advantage of this permission. “All of us, except Luther,” said Melancthon, “were silent personages.”

The struggle continued.

When Zwingle saw that exegesis was not sufficient for Luther, he added dogmatical theology to it, and, subsidiarily, natural philosophy.

“I oppose you,” said he, “with this article of our faith; Ascendit in cœlum—he ascended into heaven. If Christ is in heaven as regards his body, how can he be in the bread? The Word of God teaches us that he was like his brethren in all things (Heb., 2:17). He therefore cannot be in several places at once.”

Luther.—“Were I desirous of reasoning thus, I would undertake to prove that Jesus Christ had a wife; that he had black eyes, and lived in our good country of Germany. I care little about mathematics.”

“There is no question of mathematics here,” said Zwingle, “but of St. Paul, who writes to the Philippians, μορφἡν δοὑλου λαβὡν.” [“Taking the form of a servant.”]

Luther, interrupting him.—“Read it to us in Latin or in, German, not in Greek.

Zwingle (in Latin).—“Pardon me: for twelve years past I have made use of the Greek Testament only.” Then continuing to read the passage, he concluded from it that Christ’s humanity is of a finite nature like our own.

Luther, pointing to the words written before him.—“Most dear sirs, since my Lord Jesus Christ says, Hoc est corpus meum, I believe that his body is really there.”

Here the scene grew animated. Zwingle started from his chair, sprung towards Luther, and said, striking the table before him:

“You maintain then, doctor, that Christ’s body is locally in the Eucharist; for you say Christ’s body is really there—there there,” repeated Zwingle. “There is an adverb of place. Christ’s body is then of such a nature as to exist in a place. If it is in a place, it is in heaven, whence it follows that it is not in the bread.”

Luther.—“I repeat that I have nothing to do with mathematical proofs. As soon as the words of consecration are pronounced over the bread, the body is there, however wicked be the priest who pronounces them.”

Zwingle.—“You are thus re-establishing Popery.”

Luther.—“This is not done through the priest’s merits, but because of Christ’s ordinance. I will not, when Christ’s body is in question, hear speak of a particular place. I absolutely will not.”

Zwingle.—“Must every thing, then, exist precisely as you will it?”

The landgrave perceived that the discussion was growing hot; and as the repast was waiting, he broke off the contest.

-TDR

Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 1 of 4

What are the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed positions on the Lord’s Supper?  Do you know?  If you talk to Lutherans or people influenced by the Calvinist wing of the reformation, you should.  I would also commend to you the pamphlets Bible Truths for Lutheran Friends and The Reformed Doctrine of Salvation to give to Lutherans and Reformed people to whom you preach the gospel, or with whom you work, or who are family, and so on.

The dialogue below between Luther, Zwingle, and a few other theologians who take their (respective) parts should be enlightening.  Luther firmly holds that “This is my body” means that one literally eats Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, while Zwingle argues that one eats Christ spiritually in the Supper.  The excerpt below is about the Marburg Colloquy of October 1529, quoting H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century:

On Saturday morning (2d October) the landgrave took his seat in the hall, surrounded by his court, but in so plain a dress that no one would have taken him for a prince. He wished to avoid all appearance of acting the part of a Constantine in the affairs of the Church. Before him was a table which Luther, Zwingle, Melancthon, and Œcolampadius approached. Luther, taking a piece of chalk, bent over the velvet cloth which covered it, and steadily wrote four words in large characters. All eyes followed the movement of his hand, and soon they read Hoc est Corpus Meum. [“This is my body.”] Luther wished to have this declaration continually before him, that it might strengthen his own faith, and be a sign to his adversaries.

Behind these four theologians were seated their friends,—Hedio, Sturm, Funck, Frey, Eberhard, Thane, Jonas, Cruciger, and others besides. Jonas cast an inquiring glance upon the Swiss: “Zwingle,” said he, “has a certain rusticity and arrogance; if he is well versed in letters, it is in spite of Minerva and of the muses. In Œcolampadius there is a natural goodness and admirable meekness. Hedio seems to have as much liberality as kindness; but Bucer possesses the cunning of a fox, that knows how to give himself an air of sense and prudence.” Men of moderate sentiments often meet with worse treatment than those of the extreme parties. … 

The landgrave’s chancellor, John Feige, having reminded them in the prince’s name that the object of this colloquy was the re-establishment of union, “I protest,” said Luther, “that I differ from my adversaries with regard to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, and that I shall always differ from them. Christ has said, This is my body. Let them show me that a body is not a body. I reject reason, common sense, carnal arguments, and mathematical proofs. God is above mathematics. We have the Word of God; we must adore it and perform it!”

It cannot be denied,” said Œcolampadius, “that there are figures of speech in the Word of God; as John is Elias, the rock was Christ, I am the vine. The expression This is my body, is a figure of the same kind.” Luther granted that there were figures in the Bible, but denied that this last expression was figurative.

All the various parties, however, of which the Christian Church is composed see a figure in these words. In fact, the Romanists declare that This is my body signifies not only “my body,” but also “my blood,” “my soul,” and even “my Divinity,” and “Christ wholly.” These words, therefore according to Rome, are a synecdoche, a figure by which a part is taken for the whole. And, as regards the Lutherans, the figure is still more evident. Whether it be synecdoche, metaphor, or metonymy, there is still a figure.

In order to prove it, Œcolampadius employed this syllogism:—

“What Christ rejected in the sixth chapter of St. John, he could not admit in the words of the Eucharist.

“Now Christ, who said to the people of Capernaum, The flesh profiteth nothing, rejected by those very words the oral manducation of his body.

“Therefore he did not establish it at the institution of his Supper.”

Luther.—“I deny the minor (the second of these propositions); Christ has not rejected all oral manducation, but only a material manducation, like that of the flesh of oxen or of swine.”

Œcolampadius.—“There is danger in attributing too much to mere matter.”

Luther.—“Everything that God commands becomes spirit and life. If we lift up a straw, by the Lord’s order, in that very action we perform a spiritual work. We must pay attention to him who speaks, and not to what he says. God speaks: Men, worms, listen!—God commands: let the world obey! and let us altogether fall down and humbly kiss the Word.”

Œcolampadius.—“But since we have the spiritual eating, what need of the bodily one?”

Luther.—“I do not ask what need we have of it; but I see it written, Eat, this is my body. We must therefore believe and do. We must do—we must do!—If God should order me to eat dung, I would do it, with the assurance that it would be salutary.”

At this point Zwingle interfered in the discussion.

We must explain Scripture by Scripture,” said he, “We cannot admit two kinds of corporeal manducation, as if Jesus had spoken of eating, and the Capernaites of tearing in pieces, for the same word is employed in both cases. Jesus says that to eat his flesh corporeally profiteth nothing (John, 6:63); whence it would result that he had given us in the Supper a thing that would be useless to us.—Besides, there are certain words that seem to me rather childish,—the dung, for instance. The oracles of the demons were obscure, not so are those of Jesus Christ.”

Luther.—“When Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, he speaks not of his own flesh, but of ours.”

Zwingle.—“The soul is fed with the Spirit and not with the flesh.”

Luther.—“It is with the mouth that we eat the body; the soul does not eat it.”

Zwingle.—“Christ’s body is therefore a corporeal nourishment, and not a spiritual.”

Luther.—“You are captious.”

Zwingle.—“Not so; but you utter contradictory things.”

Luther.—“If God should present me wild apples, I should eat them spiritually. In the Eucharist, the mouth receives the body of Christ, and the soul believes in his words.”

Zwingle then quoted a great number of passages from the Holy Scriptures, in which the sign is described by the very thing signified; and thence concluded that, considering our Lord’s declaration in St. John, The flesh profiteth nothing, we must explain the words of the Eucharist in a similar manner.

Many hearers were struck by these arguments. Among the Marburg professors sat the Frenchman Lambert; his tail and spare frame was violently agitated. He had been at first of Luther’s opinion, and was then hesitating between the two reformers. As he went to the conference, he said: “I desire to be a sheet of blank paper, on which the finger of God may write his truth.” Erelong he exclaimed, after hearing Zwingle and Œcolampadius: “Yes! the Spirit, ’tis that which vivifies.” When this conversion was known, the Wittembergers, shrugging their shoulders, called it “Gallic fickleness.” “What!” replied Lambert, “was St. Paul fickle because he was converted from Pharisaism? And have we ourselves been fickle in abandoning the lost sects of popery?”

-TDR

God's Name Jehovah: What Does It Mean?

I thought that the classical statement below on the significance of the name Jehovah in the very helpful 17^th century systematic theology The Christian’s Reasonable Service by Wilhemus á Brakel, theologian of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie or Further/Second Reformation, which was comparable to English Puritanism,  was worth reprinting and thinking about.  I have reproduced it from one of the appendixes of my essay on the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points:

[I]t has pleased the Lord to give Himself a name by which He wishes to be called—a name which would indicate His essence, the manner of His existence, and the plurality of divine Persons. The name which is indicative of His essence is יְהוָֹה or Jehovah, it being abbreviated as יָהּ or Jah. The name which is indicative of the trinity of Persons is אֱלֹהִים or Elohim. Often there is a coalescence of these two words resulting in יֱהוִה or Jehovi. The consonants of this word constitute the name Jehovah, whereas the vowel marks produce the name Elohim. Very frequently these two names are placed side by side in the following manner: Jehovah Elohim, to reveal that God is one in essence and three in His Persons. 

The Jews do not pronounce the name Jehovah. This practice of not using the name Jehovah initially was perhaps an expression of reverence, but later became superstitious in nature. In its place they use the name אֲדֹנָי or Adonai, a name by which the Lord is frequently called in His Word. Its meaning is “Lord.” When this word is used in reference to men, it is written with the letter patach, which is the short “a” vowel. When it is used in reference to the Lord, however, the letter kametz is used, which is the long “a” vowel. As a result all the vowels of the name Jehovah are present. To accomplish this the vowel “e” is changed into a chatef-patach which is the shortest “a” vowel, referred to as the guttural letter aleph. Our translators, to give expression to the name Jehovah, use the name Lord, which is similar to the Greek word kurios, the latter being a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. In Rev 1:4 and 16:5 the apostle John translates the name Jehovah as follows: “Him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” This one word has reference primarily to being or essence, while having the chronological connotation of past, present, and future. In this way this name refers to an eternal being, and therefore the translation of the name Jehovah in the French Bible is l’Eternel, that is, the Eternal One.

 

The name Jehovah is not to be found at all in the New Testament, which certainly would have been the case if it had been a prerequisite to preserve the name Jehovah in all languages. . . . Even though the transliteration of Hebrew words would conflict with the common elegance of the Greek language, it is nevertheless not impossible. Since they can pronounce the names Jesus, Hosanna, Levi, Abraham, and Hallelujah, they are obviously capable of pronouncing the name Jehovah. . . . Jehovah is not a common name, such as “angel” or “man”—names which can be assigned to many by virtue of being of equal status. On the contrary, it is a proper Name which uniquely belongs to God and thus to no one else, as is true of the name of every creature, each of which has his own name. (Wilhemus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992] 84-85)

May you be edified as you meditate upon Jehovah and His wonderful Name.

-TDR