Fidei Ratio (1531)
Editor’s note
Insert editor’s note
FIDEI RATIO
1531
Contents
To Charles, Emperor of the Romans, celebrating the German Diet in Augsburg, the account of Huldrych Zwingli’s faith
We anxiously awaited, Charles, the sacred Caesar of justice, who we preach the Gospel to in the cities of the Christian realm, when the account of our own faith, which we both hold and confess, would be demanded of us. And as we stand in this manner, it is reported more by rumor than by certain announcement that many have already adorned their presentation of religion and their utmost belief to offer to you. Here we are caught between the sacred and the rock: from here, the love of truth and the pursuit of public peace urge us to do more of what we see others doing; from there, fleeting opportunity terrifies us, as everything must be done more quickly and as if hastily for the sake of your haste (for even the rumor proclaims the same), and also because we, the preachers of the divine Word in the cities and fields of the aforementioned realm, are scattered and dispersed, too distant to gather and, above all, to deliberate on what is most fitting to write to your highness within such a short time.
Therefore, since we have seen the confession of others, and even the refutation of the same opponents, which, however, seem to have been prepared before anything was demanded of them, I did not believe it would be inappropriate if I immediately presented the account of my faith without prejudice to my people. For if there is ever a time to act slowly, here it was certainly necessary to act quickly, lest by neglecting the matter due to indifference, we fall into the danger of suspected silence or arrogant negligence. Behold, therefore, to you, Caesar, according to the rule of my faith, the summary, so that I may testify not only to these articles, but to all that I have ever written or am, by God’s goodness, going to write, I submit the judgment not to any individual or a few, but to the whole Church of Christ, insofar as it is believed and allowed to declare and proclaim by the authority and inspiration of the Word and Spirit of God. Firstly, I believe and know that there is only one God, and He is by nature good, true, powerful, just, wise, the Creator and Sustainer of all visible and invisible things. He is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, indeed three persons, but their essence is one and simple. And in accordance with the exposition of both the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, I hold the same beliefs regarding each aspect of the divine nature and the names or persons. I believe and understand that the Son assumed flesh, namely human nature, indeed the entire human being consisting of body and soul, truly from the immaculate and perpetual virgin Mary. However, in this manner, that the whole human being, in the unity of hypostasis or person, of the Son of God, is assumed in such a way that the human does not constitute a distinct person but is assumed into the inseparable, indivisible, and indissoluble person of the Son of God. However, although each nature, namely the divine and the human, preserves its own character and properties in such a way that both are truly and naturally found in Christ, still the distinct properties and works of the natures do not dissociate the unity of the person. Just as in a human being, the soul and the flesh do not constitute two persons (for as these natures are most different, they also possess different properties and operations; however, the human being, consisting of these, is not two persons but one).
Thus, God and man are one in Christ, the Son of God from eternity and the Son of man from the dispensation of time to eternity. One person, one Christ; perfect God, perfect man. Not that one nature is transformed into the other or that they are confused with each other, but that each remains proper, and yet the unity of the person is not separated by this distinction. Hence, one and the same Christ, according to the nature of human nature, cries, grows, advances in wisdom, feels hunger, thirsts, eats, drinks, feels heat, cold, pain, sweat, is wounded, killed, fears, is saddened, and experiences other things related to the punishment and suffering of sin; for He is most alien to sin itself. But according to the property of the divine nature, He governs and controls all things with the Father, permeates everything, sustains and nurtures, enlightens the blind, restores the lame, calls forth the dead, strikes down enemies with a word, Himself resurrects from death, ascends to heaven, and sends the Holy Spirit from Himself. And all these things are done by one and the same Christ, even though He accomplishes them with different natures and characteristics, while remaining one person of the Son of God, in such a way that even the divine attributes are sometimes attributed to the human nature, and the human attributes are sometimes attributed to the divine nature, because of the unity and perfection of the person.
He said that the Son of Man is in heaven [cf. John 3:13], even though He had not yet ascended to heaven with His body; Peter affirms that Christ suffered for us [cf. 1 Peter 2:21], when only humanity is capable of suffering. But because of the unity of the person, it is truly said: “And the Son of God suffered,” and “the Son of Man forgives sins.” For He who is the Son of God and the Son of Man in one person suffered according to the property of human nature, and He who is the Son of God and the Son of Man in one person forgives sins according to the property of divine nature.
How do we say that a human being is wise when, in fact, the body, no less than the mind, constitutes the person, and the body is most alien to wisdom, indeed a poison and hindrance to knowledge and understanding? And likewise, we say that the same person is torn by wounds, even though only the body is susceptible to wounds, not the soul. No one says that two persons are made from one human being when each part is attributed to its respective nature. And likewise, no one says that the natures are confused when what is predicated of the whole person is attributed to the entire human being by reason of the unity of the person, but only to the property of one part.
Paul says, “When I am weak, then I am strong” [2 Corinthians 12:10]. But who is it that is weak? Paul. Who is it that is truly strong at the same time? Paul. But is this not disparate, inconsistent, and intolerable? No! For Paul is not one nature, although he is one person. Therefore, when he says, “I am weak,” he certainly speaks as that person who is Paul; but what is said is neither predicated nor understood of both natures, but only of the weakness of the flesh. And when he says, “I am strong and saved,” certainly the person of Paul speaks, but only the mind is understood. Thus, the Son of God dies, certainly He who is both God and man by reason of the unity and simplicity of the person, but He dies only in terms of His humanity.
Therefore, I not only perceive this, but all the orthodox, both the ancient and the modern, have perceived it in the same way, concerning the divine nature, the persons, and the assumed nature. Those who still acknowledge the truth hold this view. Secondly, I know that this highest divinity, which is my God, freely determines all things, so that His counsel does not depend on any occasion of creation; for this is a characteristic of His divine wisdom, not to establish it based on any preceding argument or example. However, God, who from eternity to eternity surveys all things with a single and simple intuition, has no need for any reasoning or expectation of events. Rather, being equally wise, prudent, good, etc., He freely determines and arranges all things, for all things belong to Him. Hence, even though knowing and wise, He formed man in the beginning, who was to fall, yet He also determined to clothe His Son with human nature, who would restore the fallen. For in this way, His goodness is fully manifested. For in it, mercy and justice are contained. He exercised justice when He expelled the transgressor from the blessed abode of paradise, when He bound him with the millstone of human misery and the fetters of afflictions, and when He bound him by a law that he would never be able to fulfill, however holy it was. For in this way, He learned twice the misery, realizing that not only had the flesh fallen into torment, but the mind as well had been disemboweled by the fear of transgressing the law. For when He saw the law according to the spirit, He perceived it as holy, just, and the expression of the divine mind, commanding nothing other than what equity dictated. Yet at the same time, He saw that the mind of the law was not fulfilled in His actions. Condemned by His own judgment, abandoning all hope of attaining happiness, and departing from the sight of God in despair, He contemplated nothing but the eternal torment of crucifixion that He was about to endure. Thus, the justice of God was made manifest.
Furthermore, when the time came to reveal His goodness, which He had determined to show no less from eternity than His justice, God sent His Son so that He might assume our nature in every respect, inclining towards sin, in order to become our brother and equal, capable of being a mediator who would intercede for us before the divine justice, which must remain as sacred and inviolable as His goodness. In this way, the world could be assured of both appeased justice and the present benevolence of God. For when He gave His Son to us and for us, how could He not also give us all things with Him and because of Him? [Romans 8:32]. What is it that we should not expect from Him who descended to us so that He might not only be equal to us but also completely belong to us? Who can marvel enough at the riches and grace of divine goodness, by which He loved the world, that is, the human race, to the extent of offering His Son for its life? [John 3:16].
I consider these to be the sources and veins of the Gospel, the one and only remedy for the languishing soul, by which it is restored both to God and to itself. For nothing can make us certain of God’s grace except God Himself. And He has poured out Himself so generously, so abundantly, and so wisely upon us that there is nothing left for us to desire, except that someone would dare to seek above the highest and most overflowing abundance.
Thirdly, I know that there is no other sacrifice for expiating sins than Christ (for not even Paul was crucified for us [1 Corinthians 1:13]). There is no other pledge of divine goodness and mercy that is more certain and indubitable (for nothing is as firm as God Himself). And there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved than that of Jesus Christ [Acts 4:12]. Therefore, here we have the justification and satisfaction of our works, as well as the expiation and intercession of all the saints, whether they dwell on earth or in heaven, concerning the goodness and mercy of God. For here is the one and only mediator between God and humans, the God-man Christ Jesus [1 Timothy 2:5]. Moreover, the election of God remains certain and steadfast. For those whom He chose before the constitution of the world [Ephesians 1:4], He chose in such a way that He would unite them to Himself through His Son. For just as He is kind and merciful, He is also holy and just. Therefore, all His works receive His mercy and justice. Thus, by right, election embraces both. It is an act of goodness to choose whom He wills, but it is an act of justice to adopt and unite the chosen to Himself through His Son, who offered Himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice on our behalf.
Fourthly, I know that our remote ancestor, Adam, driven by self-love, which is φιλαυτία, and prompted by pernicious counsel through envy by the devil, desired to become equal to God [Genesis 3:5]. When he committed this crime, he violated the forbidden and destructive fruit, thereby incurring guilt and the sentence of capital punishment, becoming a traitor and enemy of God [James 4:4]. Although God could have destroyed him in justice, He chose a better punishment and turned it into a condition of servitude, making him a slave whom He could punish. Neither Adam himself nor anyone born from him could escape this condition (for a slave can only beget a slave), and thus the entire posterity was cast into servitude through the fatal act of eating the fruit.
Regarding original sin, I understand it as follows: Sin is truly called sin when it is a transgression of the law. “For where there is no law, there is no transgression” [Romans 4:15]. And where there is no transgression, there is no sin properly understood, in the sense of sin as a crime, offense, wicked deed, or guilt. Therefore, I admit that our father sinned with a sin that is truly sin, namely, a wicked and criminal act. But those who are descended from him did not sin in the same manner. For which one of us in paradise devoured the forbidden fruit with our teeth? Whether we like it or not, we are compelled to admit original sin as it exists in the children of Adam, but it is not sin in the proper sense as explained above, for it is not an offense against the law. Therefore, it is properly a disease and a condition. It is a disease because, just as Adam fell through self-love, so we also stumble; and it is a condition because, just as he became a slave and subject to death, so we are born as slaves and children of wrath [Ephesians 2:3], subject to death.
Although I do not hesitate to call this disease and condition “sin” according to the example of Paul [Romans 7:8], it is indeed such a sin that whoever is born in it becomes an enemy and adversary of God [James 4:4]. This condition of birth draws them to this state, not the perpetration of wickedness, except to the extent that the first parent committed it. Therefore, the true cause of rebellion and death is the crime and wickedness committed by Adam, and this is truly sin. But this sin, which adheres to us [Hebrews 12:1], is truly a disease and condition, or rather a necessity of dying. However, this would never have come to pass through birth if the crime had not corrupted birth. Therefore, human calamity is the result of the crime as a cause, not of birth, and birth is like its consequence and effect. The confirmation of this opinion relies on authority and example.
In Romans 5, Paul speaks as follows: “For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more” [Romans 5:17]. Here we see sin taken in the proper sense. Adam alone is the one whose guilt brings death upon our heads. In chapter 3, he says: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory” [Romans 3:23], that is, the goodness and generosity of God. Here sin is understood as a disease, condition, and birth, so that we are said to have sinned even before we are immersed in the light, that is, to be in the condition of sin and death even before we actually sin. This statement is irrefutably confirmed by the same author’s words in Romans 5: “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam” [Romans 5:14]. Behold, death reigns over us, even if we have not sinned like Adam! Why is that? Because he sinned. But when we have not sinned in the same manner, why does death ravage us? Because he died on account of sin, and being dead, that is, condemned to death, he begot us. Therefore, we also die, but through his guilt, our own condition and disease, or if you prefer, through sin understood improperly. An example of this is when a captive, through treachery and enmity, merits to be held as a slave. Those who are born from him are called “οἰκέται,” which means household slaves, or they become slaves under a master, not through guilt, accusation, or crime, but through the condition that followed the guilt. For the parent from whom they are born had merited this punishment through his crime. The offspring do not have the crime, but the punishment and penalty of the crime, namely, the condition of servitude and the workshop. If one wants to call this crime, it is only because they are inflicted as a punishment for the crime, but I do not forbid it. I acknowledge that this original sin is recognized in everyone who is born of the union of man and woman through condition and contamination. Et nos esse natura filios irae [Ephesians 2:3], I know, but I have no doubt that by the grace that restores through the second Adam, Christ [1 Corinthians 15:45ff.], we are received among the children of God. But in the following manner:
From this it is evident that if we are restored to life in Christ, the second Adam [1 Corinthians 15:45ff.], just as we were delivered to death in the first Adam, it is rash to condemn children born to Christian parents, and even children of the Gentiles. For if Adam, through sin, was able to condemn the entire human race, and Christ, through his death, did not bring life and redemption to the entire human race, then salvation was not equally granted through Christ, and likewise (God forbid) it is not true that “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” [1 Corinthians 15:22]. However, regardless of how the state of Gentile infants is to be determined, we certainly assert, in addition to what has been pronounced concerning the power of salvation accomplished through Christ, that those who consign them to eternal damnation are speaking without reason. This is because of the aforementioned cause of restoration, as well as the free election of God, which does not follow faith, but rather faith follows election. This will be discussed in the following article. For those who are elected from eternity are undoubtedly elected before faith. Therefore, those who do not yet have faith should not be rashly condemned by us, for although they do not yet possess it, the election of God is hidden from us. If they are elected by Him, we pass hasty judgment on matters unknown to us.
Nevertheless, we make a different judgment regarding the infants of Christians; namely, that the infants of Christians, as many as there are, belong to the church of the people of God and are parts and members of that church. We confirm this in the following manner: It is testified by the statements of almost all the prophets that the church is to be gathered from the Gentiles into the church of the people of God. And Christ Himself said, “They will come from the east and the west and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” [Matthew 8:11], and “Go into all the world” [Mark 16:15]. Infants of the Jews also belonged to the church of the Jews. Therefore, our infants pertain no less to the Church of Christ than the children of the Jews did in the past. For if it were otherwise, the promise would no longer hold true, as we would not sit down with God like Abraham did. He was considered a member of the Church along with those who were born from him according to the flesh. But if our infants are not counted as belonging to their parents in the same way, then Christ would be unjust and envious towards us, denying us what He bestowed upon the ancients. It is impious to say so, for otherwise, all prophecies concerning the calling of the Gentiles would become void. Therefore, it is evident that the infants of Christians, being no less part of the visible Church of Christ than adults, are no less counted among those whom we consider to be the elect than their parents. Hence, it is impious and presumptuous to condemn Christian infants to damnation when so many clear testimonies of Scripture cry out, proclaiming that the Church from the Gentiles will not only be equal to but even surpass the Church of the Jews. All these matters will become clearer when we explain our faith concerning the Church.
Therefore, in the sixth place, we hold this view concerning the Church: the term “Church” is understood in Scripture in various ways. It refers to the elect, those who are destined by God’s will for eternal life. This is what Paul speaks of when he says that the Church has neither wrinkle nor blemish [Ephesians 5:27]. This is known only to God, for according to Solomon, only He knows the hearts of the children of men [1 Kings 8:39]. Nevertheless, those who are members of this Church, when they have faith, know themselves to be elected and members of the first Church. But they are ignorant of others who are also members. For it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, “And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” [Acts 13:48]. Therefore, those who believe are appointed to eternal life. But no one knows who truly believes except the one who believes. Thus, that person is certain that they are elect of God. For they have the Spirit as a pledge, according to the words of the Apostle [2 Corinthians 1:22], by which they know themselves to be truly free and adopted as sons into the family, not slaves. That Spirit cannot deceive. If that Spirit dictates to us that God is our Father, and we confidently and fearlessly address Him as such, knowing that we will inherit eternal life, then it is certain that the Spirit of the Son of God has been poured into our hearts [Titus 3:5-6]. Therefore, it is certain that the one who is so secure and safe is elected. For those who believe are appointed to eternal life [Acts 13:48]. However, since many are elected who do not yet have faith, were not the blessed Theotokos, John, and Paul elected while they were still infants and young children, even before the constitution of the world?
But they did not know this by faith or revelation. Were Matthew, Zacchaeus, the thief on the cross, and Mary Magdalene not elected before the constitution of the world? Yet they did not know this until they were enlightened by the Spirit and drawn to Christ by the Father [John 6:44]. From this, it can be concluded that only God knew this first Church, and only those who have firm and unwavering faith know themselves to be members of this Church.
The term “Church” is again taken universally for all those who are counted under the name of Christ, that is, those who have given themselves the name of Christ, among whom a good portion acknowledges Christ tangibly through confession or participation in the sacraments, but in their hearts either abhor or are ignorant of Him. We believe that this Church includes all who profess the name of Christ. Thus, Judas was counted among the Church of Christ, and so were all those who turned away from Christ. Judas was believed by the apostles to be no less a member of the Church of Christ than Peter or John, even though he was anything but. However, Christ knew who were His and who belonged to the devil [John 13:11]. Therefore, this visible Church includes all who confess Christ, even though among them there may be many reprobates. For Christ depicted the ten virgins, of whom some were wise and some were foolish, as an allegory [Matthew 25:1-13]. This Church is sometimes also called the elect, although it is not the same as the first Church, which is without blemish. But just as it is called the Church of God by the judgment of men because of its tangible confession, it is also called the elect for the same reason. For we consider ourselves both faithful and elect when we give ourselves the name of Christ. Thus, Peter spoke, saying, “To the elect, who are sojourners of the Dispersion” etc. [1 Peter 1:1]. Here he understands by the name of the elect all those who belonged to the churches he was writing to, not only those who were specifically chosen by the Lord. For as they were unknown to Peter, he could not have written to them.
Lastly, the term “Church” is understood to refer to any particular assembly of this universal and visible Church, such as the Roman Church, the Augsburg Church, or the Church of Lyon. There are indeed other senses of the Church, which it is not necessary to enumerate here. Here, I believe there is one Church consisting of those who possess the same Spirit that assures them with certainty that they are true children of the family of God. This is the firstfruits of the churches. I believe that this Church does not err in truth, especially in those foundational articles of faith on which everything hinges. I also believe in the universal visible Church, as long as it holds to that true confession mentioned earlier.
I also believe that anyone who gives themselves to this Church according to the prescription and promise of the Word of God is part of it. I believe that infant Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and all those who were descendants of Abraham, as well as the infants whose parents, during the early days of the Church, surrendered them to the preaching apostles and entrusted them to the parts of Christ, belong to this Church. For Isaac and the other ancients would not have received the token of the Church if they had not been part of it. Therefore, if they were part of the Church, they were also infants and young children of the early Church. Therefore, I believe and know that infants who are sealed by the sacrament of baptism are part of the Church. For even infants confess when they are offered to the Church by their parents, and more importantly, when the promise is offered to them, which is not lesser but much greater and more frequent than the promises made to the infants of the ancient Hebrews. These are the foundations concerning the baptism and commendation of infants to the Church, against which all the attacks and schemes of the Anabaptists are futile. For it is not only those who believe that should be baptized, but also those who confess and are part of the Church based on the promises of the Word of God. Otherwise, none of the apostles would have baptized anyone, as none of the apostles were certain about the faith and confession of those receiving baptism. Simon the magician, Ananias, and even Judas (and who not?) were baptized when they gave their names but did not have faith. On the other hand, infant Isaac was circumcised even though he did not give his name or believe, but the promise gave the name. And since our infants are in the same position as the Hebrews, the promise of our Church gives them the name and acknowledges them. Therefore, baptism is truly nothing other than circumcision (speaking of the sacrament of baptism) and requires either confession or the giving of a name or the covenant or promise. All these things will become a little clearer from what follows.
Seventhly, I believe, or rather I know, that all the sacraments not only do not possess or dispense grace, but they are completely absent from it. In this matter, I may perhaps appear more audacious to you, most powerful Caesar, but this is my conviction. For just as grace, which is done or given by the divine Spirit (and I speak in Latin, using the word “grace” to mean pardon, indulgence, and free gift), reaches only the Spirit alone. However, a leader or vehicle is not necessary for the Spirit; He Himself is the power and the force by which all things are carried, and He does not need to be carried Himself. We never read in the sacred Scriptures that visible things, such as sacraments, carry the Spirit within them. But if visible things have ever been carried along with the Spirit, it was because the Spirit Himself was there carrying them, not the other way around.
Just as when a strong wind blows, tongues of wind are simultaneously present by virtue of it [cf. Acts 2:1-4]; the wind is not carried by the power of the tongues. In the same way, the wind brought quails and carried away locusts [cf. Numbers 11:31-32], but no quails or locusts have ever been so swift as to carry the wind. When the mighty wind passed by, capable of moving mountains, Elijah was not carried by the wind [cf. 1 Kings 19:11]. In short, the Spirit breathes where He wills, that is, the wind blows as the temperament carries it, and you certainly hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. This is true of everyone who is born of the Spirit [cf. John 3:8], that is, they are illuminated and drawn invisibly and imperceptibly [cf. John 6:44]. The truth has spoken [cf. John 14:6]. Therefore, the Spirit does not bring grace through immersion, drinking, or anointing. For if it were so, we would already know how, where, to whom, and in what manner the Spirit is carried. For if the presence and efficacy of grace are bound to the sacraments, they would operate wherever they are applied and cease to be effective where they are not
Nor is it the case, as theologians argue, that the material or subject is caused by what precedes its disposition, that is, that the grace of baptism or the Eucharist (as they speak) is conferred upon someone who is previously adorned for it. For according to them, the one who receives this grace through the sacraments either prepares himself for it or is prepared by the Spirit. If he prepares himself, then we can do something on our own, and prevenient grace is nothing. If he is prepared by the Spirit for the reception of grace, I ask whether this is done through the guidance of the sacrament or outside the sacrament. If it is done through the sacrament, then a person is prepared by the sacrament for the sacrament; and thus, the process will go on infinitely, for a sacrament will always be required for the preparation for the sacrament. But if we are prepared for the reception of sacramental grace without the sacrament, then the Spirit is present by His kindness before the sacrament, and thus grace exists and is present before the sacrament is administered. From this, it is concluded (which I willingly and gladly admit in sacramental matters) that the sacraments are given as a public testimony of that grace which is already present in each individual privately.
In this way, baptism is administered before the Church to someone who, before receiving it, has either professed the Christian faith or possesses the word of promise by which it is known that he belongs to the Church. Hence, when we baptize an adult, we ask if he believes. If he responds, “Yes,” then he finally receives baptism. Therefore, faith was present before he received baptism. Therefore, faith is not given by baptism. But if
Therefore, I believe, O Caesar, that a sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing, that is, of grace given. I believe that there is an invisible grace, which is made and given by the gift of God, and a visible figure or form, that is, a visible example, which, nevertheless, bears before it a certain analogy to the thing accomplished by the Spirit. I believe it is a public testimony. When we are baptized, our bodies are washed with the most pure element, but this signifies that we are drawn by the divine goodness into the assembly of the Church and the people of God, in which we must live candidly and purely. Thus, Paul explains the mystery in Romans 6 [cf. Rom. 6:1-11]. Therefore, the one who receives baptism testifies that he belongs to the Church of God, which worships its Lord with integrity of faith and sincerity of life. And for this reason, the sacraments, which are sacred ceremonies (“for the word is added to the element, and a sacrament is made”), should be religiously celebrated, that is, they should be held in high esteem and treated with honor. Although they cannot confer grace, they visibly unite us to the Church, into which we have previously been received invisibly. When the divine promises are pronounced and proclaimed together with their action, it must be regarded with the utmost reverence.
For if we were to think otherwise about the sacraments, for example, that they externally cleanse what is within, then Judaism would have returned, which believed that sins could be expiated and grace could be obtained through various anointings, ointments, offerings, sacrifices, and feasts. However, the prophets, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah, always strongly emphasized that the promises and benefits of God are given by His liberality, not with regard to merits or external ceremonies. I also believe that the Anabaptists, by denying baptism to the infants of believers, are completely in error, not only in this matter but also in many others, which cannot be discussed here.
And when they respond through witnesses that they want him to be baptized, then the infant is finally baptized. And here, the promise of God precedes, acknowledging our infants as belonging to the Church no less than the Hebrew children. For when those who belong to the Church offer the infant, the infant is baptized under the condition that, since he is born of Christians, he is considered within the Church by divine promise. Therefore, the Church publicly receives through baptism the one who has already been received by grace. Therefore, baptism does not bring grace, but it testifies to the grace that has been given to the one to whom it is administered. And to guard against their folly or malice, relying on the help of God, I have both taught and written against them, not without danger, so that now, by His goodness, that plague has greatly subsided among us. Far from receiving, teaching, or defending anything from their seditious faction, I firmly believe the following:
Eighthly, I believe that in the sacred Eucharist (that is, the Thanksgiving meal) the true body of Christ is present through the contemplation of faith. This means that those who give thanks to the Lord for the benefit conferred upon us in His Son acknowledge that He truly assumed flesh, truly suffered in it, truly washed away our sins with His own blood, and thus, through the contemplation of faith, make all that He accomplished present to them. However, I deny and firmly assert that it is an error contradicting the Word of God to claim that Christ’s body is present in essence and reality, that is, His very natural body, either in the Eucharist or is eaten with our mouths and teeth, as the papists and some who look to the pots of Egypt [cf. Exodus 16:3] contend. With the help of God, O Caesar, I will make this as clear to Your Majesty in a few words as the sun: firstly, by presenting the divine oracles; secondly, by advancing arguments derived from them like battering rams against our opponents; and finally, by demonstrating that the ancient theologians were of the same opinion as ours. Meanwhile, O Creator Spirit, be present and illumine the minds of Your people, fill them with the grace and light that You have created within their hearts!
Christ, Himself the mouth and wisdom of the divine, says the following: “You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me” [Matthew 26:11; John 12:8]. Here, the presence of His body alone is denied, for according to His divinity, He is always present because He is always everywhere, as indicated by His other statement: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” [Matthew 28:20], namely, according to His divinity, power, and goodness. Augustine agrees with us on this point. There is no reason for our opponents to argue that the humanity of Christ, wherever His divinity is, would otherwise divide His person; for that would undermine the true humanity of Christ. To be everywhere is nothing other than divine power. And for the humanity to be in one place and the divinity everywhere does not divide the person, just as the assumption of humanity by the Son does not divide the unity of essence. In fact, it would be more powerful to separate the unity of essence by assuming one creature to Himself and not others than it would be to separate the person by having the humanity in one place and the divinity everywhere, especially since we see in creatures that bodies are bound to one place, while power and virtue wander extensively. The sun serves as an example, as its body is in one place, but its power pervades everything. The human soul surpasses the stars and penetrates the depths, yet the body is in one place. Furthermore, He says, “I am leaving the world and going to the Father” [John 16:28]. Here the word “leaving” is used, just as “having” was used earlier, so that our opponents cannot say, “We do not have Him visibly.” For when He speaks of the visible removal of His body, He says, “A little while, and you will not see me” [John 14:19], etc. And it would only be an illusion if we were to contend that His natural body is present but invisible. For why would He avoid being seen, when He was here and repeatedly showed Himself to the disciples after His resurrection? “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away” [John 16:7]. But if He were here, it would not be advantageous for us to not see Him. Indeed, every time the disciples were granted a glimpse of Him, He openly revealed Himself to them so as not to endure any doubts or misconceptions in their senses or thoughts. He says, “Touch me and see” [Luke 24:39], and “Do not be afraid, I am,” and “Mary, do not touch me” [Matthew 14:27] [John 20:17]. When He was already about to commend His disciples to the Father, He said, “I will no longer be in the world, καὶ οὐκ ἔτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ” [John 17:11]. Here the substantive verb is used: “I will no longer be in the world,” just as in the words, “This is my body” [Matthew 26:26], so that our opponents cannot claim that it is a figure of speech, since they deny that substantives can receive figures of speech. But this matter does not require such figures. It follows: “But they are in the world” [John 17:11]. This antithesis clearly teaches that He is not in the world according to His human nature, especially when the disciples were present. And to know when He departed, not as they imagine rather than explain, when He made Himself invisible, Luke says: “And it came to pass, while He blessed them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven” [Luke 24:51]. He does not say, “He vanished,” etc., or “He made His body invisible.” On this matter, Mark says: “So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God” [Mark 16:19]. He does not say, “He remained here, but made His body invisible.” Furthermore, Luke in Acts says: “And when He had said these things, as they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight” [Acts 1:9]. A cloud covered Him, which would not have been necessary if He had only removed His appearance and remained present in another way. There would have been no need for lifting up or ascending. In the same passage: “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven” [Acts 1:11]. What could be clearer than this? “He was taken up from you,” he says, so He was not among them, neither visibly nor invisibly according to His human nature. Therefore, when we see Him return in the same way He departed, then we will know that He is present. Otherwise, according to His human nature, He sits at the right hand of the Father until He returns to judge the living and the dead [2 Timothy 4:1].
However, those who abolish the presence of Christ’s body in a specific location and claim that it is not in a place should see how openly they go against the truth, even though their eyes are closed. He was in the manger, on the cross, in Jerusalem when His parents were on a journey, in the tomb, outside the tomb. For the angel said, “He has risen; He is not here. See the place where they laid Him” [Mark 16:6]. And so that they cannot say that His body is everywhere, let them hear: Jesus came with closed doors and stood in the midst of them [John 20:19]. What would be the point of coming if His body is everywhere but invisibly? It would have been sufficient for Him not to come but to show Himself alone, since He was present. But farewell to such malicious nonsense that deny us the truth of both the humanity of Christ and the sacred Scriptures! These testimonies affirm the presence of Christ’s body everywhere other than in heaven, speaking canonically, that is, as far as the Scriptures inform us about the nature and property of the assumed body. And as much as the antinomies force us, whatever we propose about the power of God, we should never twist it so as to believe that God acts contrary to His own word. For that would be impotence, not power, and so on. Regarding the fact that Christ’s natural body is not eaten with our mouths, He Himself shows this when He said to the Jews who were disputing about the eating of His flesh: “The flesh profits nothing” [John 6:63], meaning that it does not profit naturally to eat it, but it profits greatly to eat it spiritually, for it gives life. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” [John 3:6]. Therefore, if Christ’s natural body is eaten with our mouths, what else will flesh become but flesh when it is naturally consumed? And so that the argument may not seem trivial to anyone, let them hear the other part: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Therefore, what is spirit is born of the Spirit. If, therefore, the salvific flesh of Christ is eaten by the soul, it should be eaten spiritually, not carnally. This also pertains to the matter of the sacraments, that spirit is generated by the Spirit, not by a corporeal thing, as we mentioned earlier. Paul advises that if anyone has known Christ according to the flesh, now they should no longer know Him according to the flesh [2 Corinthians 5:16]. In these passages, we are compelled to acknowledge that these words, “This is my body” [Matthew 26:26], should be understood not in a natural sense but symbolically, just as we understand these words, “This is the Passover” [Exodus 12:11]. For the lamb that was eaten annually during the celebration of the feast did not signify a passage but rather a passing over and a leap that had happened in the past. To this is added succession, for the supper succeeded the lamb, which indicates that Christ used similar words; for succession preserves resemblance. Also, the same composition of words adds to the argument. The time comes when in the same supper the old Passover is presented and a new act of thanksgiving is instituted. The peculiarities of all the commemorations come into play, which claim the name of the one they mention and commemorate. Thus, the Athenians called it “Seisachtheia,” not as if they were relieving their debts annually, but because they perpetually celebrate what Solon had done in the past and they honor this celebration with the name of the thing itself. Similarly, the body and blood of Christ are called, which are symbols of the true body. Now let us consider the arguments. Just as the body cannot be nourished by a spiritual thing, so the soul cannot be nourished by a corporeal thing. But if the natural body of Christ is eaten, I ask, does it nourish the body or the soul? Not the body, therefore the soul; if the soul, then the soul feeds on flesh, and it would not be true that the spirit is born only from the Spirit. According to this, I ask, what does the natural body of Christ accomplish? If it brings forgiveness of sins, as one party asserts, then the disciples obtained forgiveness of sins in the supper; therefore, Christ’s death was in vain [Galatians 2:21]. If it dispenses the power of Christ’s passion, as another party asserts, then the power of passion and redemption was dispensed before it was born. If it nourishes the body for resurrection, as another somewhat ignorant person asserts, then it should heal our bodies much more and relieve them from illness. But Irenaeus wants it to be understood differently when he speaks of our bodies being handed over to resurrection through the body of Christ. For he wants to show that the hope of our resurrection is confirmed by the resurrection of Christ. What a clever trope! Thirdly, if the natural body of Christ is given to the disciples in the supper, it necessarily follows that they ate it as it was at that time. But at that time it was passible; therefore, they ate a vulnerable body; for it had not yet been glorified. When they say, “They ate the same body, but not as it was passible, but the same as it was after the resurrection,” we object: then either He had two bodies, one that was not yet glorified and another that was; or one and the same body was both passible and impassible at the same time. And thus, since He so strongly avoided death, He evidently did not want to suffer, but to use the qualities of His body, by which He was without pain. Therefore, He did not truly suffer, but only pretended to, as the way of Marcion nicely leads us back to those Andabatists. Six hundred arguments could be presented, O Caesar, but we will be content with these for now.
Now, as for the fact that the ancient writers, which will be the latter part of this article, share our opinion, I will confirm it with two witnesses, and they are the first ones: Ambrose, who in his first letter to the Corinthians on these words: “Announce the death of the Lord,” etc. [1 Corinthians 11:26], says: “For since we have been set free by the death of the Lord, being mindful of this, in eating and drinking the flesh and blood that were offered for us, we signify,” etc. Ambrose speaks of the food and drink of the supper and asserts that we signify those things that were offered for us.
Augustine also, who in his treatise on John, in the 30th tractate, affirms that the body of Christ, which rose from the dead, must be in one place. Where the printed copies have “can” instead of “must,” but wrongly so; for even in the Sentences of the Master and in the canonical decrees, into which Augustine’s statement was translated, it is read: “must.” From this, we clearly see that the ancient writers did not understand it at all as referring to the natural eating of the body of Christ, but to the spiritual eating, whatever they may have grandly spoken about the supper. For when they knew that the body of Christ must be in one place and that He is at the right hand of God, they did not diminish it so as to submit it to the foul teeth of men for chewing.
The same Augustine, in his book Against Adimantus, chapter 12, teaches that these three sayings, “The blood is the soul,” “This is my body,” and “The rock was Christ,” are symbolic, that is, as he himself says, spoken in sign and significance. And among many other things, he finally comes to these words: “I can also interpret that command as being given in sign. For the Lord did not hesitate to say, ‘This is my body,’ when He gave a sign of His body.” Thus, Augustine. Here we have the key by which we can unlock all the ancient discourses on the Eucharist! That which is only a sign of the body, he says is called the body. Let those who wish now condemn us of heresy; as long as they know that in doing so, they are condemning the same teachings of the theologians contrary to the decrees of the pontiffs.
From these things, it becomes most evident that the ancients always spoke symbolically when they attributed the eating of the body of Christ in the supper. For example, not that the sacramental eating could cleanse the soul, but that faith in God through Jesus Christ, which is a spiritual eating, of which these external symbols are a representation and shadow. And just as bread sustains the body, wine invigorates and exhilarates it, so it strengthens the soul and makes it certain of God’s mercy in giving His Son to us - thus, it refreshes the mind with the blood of Him whose sins it was burning with, knowing that they have been extinguished. We will be content with these arguments for now, although one could compile entire books to explain and confirm that the ancients are in agreement with our opinion. And let no one be moved by the recently published booklet about the opinion of the ancients, which he promises to clearly cover. For shortly, we will see the refutation by our learned brother Oecolampadius, whose province from the beginning was to assert the opinion of the ancients. What could be required for a clearer exposition or the refutation of adversaries in this matter, I believe we have amply provided in many books and various writings, as we hold to this opinion.
Ninth, I believe that ceremonies that are neither contrary to the superstition of faith nor to the Word of God (although I am unaware of what may be found in this regard) may be tolerated out of charity until the light shines even brighter. But at the same time, I believe with that same charity as a guide that when it can be done without great offense, these said ceremonies should be abolished, no matter how much those with a faithless spirit protest. For Christ did not prohibit Mary Magdalene from pouring out the ointment, even though the avarice and perfidy of the Jews tumultuously opposed it. As for images that are used for worship, I do not consider them among the ceremonies, but rather as belonging to the category of things that are diametrically opposed to the Word of God. However, those images that do not stand for worship or where there is no danger of future worship, I am far from condemning them; in fact, I acknowledge them as gifts of painting and sculpture.
Tenth, I believe that the ministry of prophecy or preaching is sacred, as it is the foremost duty and supremely necessary. For canonically or regular speaking, we see that among all nations, external preaching of the apostles, evangelists, or bishops preceded faith, which, however, we attribute solely to the Holy Spirit. For unfortunately, we see quite a few who hear the external preaching of the Gospel but do not believe, for they lack the presence of the Spirit. Therefore, wherever prophets or preachers of the Word are sent, it is a sign of God’s grace, as He desires to manifest knowledge of Himself to His elect. And where they are denied, it is a sign of impending wrath. As we can gather from the prophets and even from the example of Paul, who was forbidden to go to certain places [cf. Acts 16:6] but was later called [cf. Acts 16:9]. Even laws and magistrates themselves cannot be more effectively aided in preserving public justice than by prophecy. For it is in vain to command what is just if those to whom it is commanded do not possess a sense of justice and equity. Prophets, as ministers, prepare hearts, both as authors and recipients of the Spirit’s teaching. We recognize this kind of ministers, who teach, console, admonish, care for, and oversee the people of Christ, based on faith. Moreover, the one who baptizes, who carries around the body and blood of the Lord in the supper (for we also metaphorically call the sacred bread and wine of the supper by this name), who visits the sick, who feeds the needy with the resources and name of the Church. Finally, the one who reads, interprets, proclaims, and trains oneself or others for the purpose of eventually leading the churches. But we consider that adorned and elaborate type, which is a burden consuming the fruits of the earth, born for gluttony and luxury, as illegitimate. We firmly believe that it has no place in the body of the Church, just as hunchbacks and cripples have no place among humans.
Eleventh, I know that duly inaugurated authority holds a place of God, no less than prophecy. Just as a prophet is a minister of heavenly wisdom and goodness, teaching from faith and exposing errors to the light, so a magistrate is a minister of goodness and justice [cf. Romans 13:4]. Goodness, in that they conduct their affairs with faith and modesty, resembling God; justice, in that they crush the audacity of the wicked and protect the innocent. If a ruler possesses these virtues, I believe there is nothing to fear in their conscience. If they lack them, however, they should present themselves as fearsome and dreadful, and I believe there is no reason to absolve their conscience simply because they have been duly inaugurated. Yet, I also believe that a Christian should obey such a tyrant until the point mentioned by Paul: “If you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity” [1 Corinthians 7:21]. However, I believe that this should be shown by God alone, not by man, and not obscurely but as clearly as when Saul was rejected and David received as his successor [cf. 1 Samuel 15 and 16]. And as for the payment of tribute and taxes for the sake of protection, I agree with Paul in Romans 13 [cf. Romans 13:7].
Twelfth, I believe that the notion of purgatory by fire is a fabrication as derogatory to the freely given redemption through Christ as it was profitable to its authors. For if it is necessary to expiate the guilt of our sins through torments and tortures, then Christ’s death was in vain [cf. Galatians 2:21], and grace is emptied [cf. 1 Corinthians 1:17]. What could be more wicked in the Christian faith? And what kind of Christ do those who call themselves Christians have if they fear not only fire but smoke? As for the infernal regions where the faithless, rebellious, and treacherous are perpetually punished, I not only believe but know them to exist, just as Ixion and Tantalus are punished. For when the Truth [cf. John 14:6] speaks of the universal judgment, it affirms that after that judgment, some will go into eternal fire [cf. Matthew 25:41]. Therefore, after the universal judgment, there will be eternal fire. The Anabaptists can hardly use their argument of perpetuity, claiming that it does not extend beyond the general judgment, to cover up their error. Here [cf. Matthew 25:41], Christ speaks of eternal fire that will consume and torment the devil with his angels, along with the impious who despise God, the wicked who suppress the truth with lies, and those who neglect to assist their neighbor’s needs from their own resources and faith.
Therefore, I firmly believe, teach, and defend these things, not based on my own opinions, but on the divine oracles of the Word. I promise to do so according to the will of God, as long as the Spirit governs these limbs. Unless someone can clearly and simply explain and affirm something different from the rightly understood decrees of sacred Scripture, as we have done, we are ready to submit ourselves to the judgments of both the sacred Scriptures and the Church, which judges according to them, and it is no less delightful and pleasing to us than it is fair and just.
We could have explained everything more extensively and abundantly, but since there was no opportunity, we have been content with what we consider to be such things that anyone can easily challenge what is so commonly accepted today but no one can overthrow. However, if anyone attempts to do so, they will not do it with impunity. At that time, perhaps, we will bring forth what remains of our weapons. For now, let it be enough for the present.
Therefore, most excellent Caesar and all other princes, rulers, ambassadors of public affairs, and heads of state, I beseech and implore you through Jesus Christ, our Lord and brother, through His goodness and justice, and through His judgment by which He will render to all according to their worth, a judgment known to no one, who confounds the impious deliberations and propositions of rulers, who lifts up the humble and casts down the proud [cf. Luke 1:52]. I pray and request that you pay attention to the humility of the one who advises. For even fools often speak appropriately, and truth itself has chosen the weak and lowly to spread its message [cf. 1 Corinthians 1:27].
Furthermore, remember that you yourselves are human beings who can be deceived both by yourselves and by others, for every person is a liar [cf. Romans 3:4], and unless taught otherwise by the breath of the divine, which it neither knows nor desires, nothing can be expected from it except that it will precipitate itself by its own skills and plans. For Jeremiah the prophet truly said: “Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord, so what wisdom is left to them?” [Jeremiah 8:9]. Therefore, as guardians of justice yourselves, it is equally necessary for you to have a clear understanding of the will of the divine. And from where else can it be sought if not from the oracles of God? Therefore, do not be averse to the opinions of those who rely on the Word of God! For we often see that the more opponents resist, the more the truth shines and falsehood is eliminated.
But if, as I am aware, there are those who vigorously attack our ignorance and, if it pleases the gods, even our malice, consider this as well: first, whether those of us who follow this gospel and the sacrament of the Eucharist have ever conducted our lives in such a way that we would be considered as good men; would any good person ever doubt it? Secondly, whether we have been so averse to natural ability and learning from our very infancy that all hope of education should be cast aside? Certainly, we do not boast in either of these, for even Paul himself was, by the grace of God, what he was [cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10]. Nevertheless, even if life, if it has been cheerful at all, has never fallen into luxury and shamelessness, nor degenerated into cruelty, arrogance, or obstinacy, so much so that the plans of adversaries have often been amazed and forced to retreat by the testimony of our lives.
Although our learning may be greater than our enemies can bear or disregard without conscience, it is far inferior to what those who oppose us may think. Therefore, in order to reach the goal we aim for, we have spent many years rendering service in divine and human literature, so that what we teach may not be without careful consideration. However, let us praise the grace and generosity of God that has been generously bestowed upon our churches. Truly, the churches that hear the word of the Lord through us have received it in such a way that falsehood and deceit diminish, while arrogance, luxury, contempt, and frivolity are shattered and cast aside. If these are not the true fruits of divine inspiration, then what are they? Consider, therefore, you, Caesar, and all you princes and leaders, what good human learning has brought forth in us! The indulgences sold, both to the desires and insolence of the ruling class and the common people, have only increased the luxury and gluttony of the clergy and the minions of the papacy. Indeed, they have not only increased them, but ignited them. For who will dissipate the wealth that has been accumulated through indulgences unless it is choked and strangled at its source? May God, far better than all of you whom we gladly call the best and in whom we believe, bring about the cutting off and abandonment of the roots of these and all errors in the Church, and may Rome with all its debris, which it has thrust upon the Christian world and especially upon Germany, be left deserted and forsaken. May you oppose the wicked endeavors of the impious papists, and may you direct whatever strength you have exerted against the purity of the Gospel, so that justice, which is exiled due to your negligence, and innocence, which has been obscured by false and deceptive coverings, may be restored to us. It is enough to rage, unless I also commend, condemn, or rather, slaughter, kill, plunder, or proscribe. It is not cruel or savage to do so. Therefore, if this way does not succeed, another certainly must be pursued. If the counsel is from the Lord, do not oppose it; if it is from elsewhere, it will perish by its own recklessness. Therefore, allow the Word of God to be freely spread and flourish, O sons of men, whoever you are, for you cannot even prevent grass from growing. You can clearly see that this fruit is watered by heavenly rain and cannot be restrained by the heat of men, lest it wither. Consider not what you desire most, but what the world demands in the cause of the Gospel! Act wisely, and through your endeavors, demonstrate that you are children of God! Zurich, July 3, 1530. Devoted to Your Majesty and all the faithful, Huldrych Zwingli.