Turicum
The Writings of Huldrych Zwingli

Two Sermons in Bern (January 18 and 19, 1528)

by Huldrych Zwingli

Context

Zwingli’s sermons in Bern in January 1528 were delivered at a decisive moment in the city’s religious and political history. They formed the theological heart of the Bern Disputation, the event through which Bern, the most powerful city-state in the Swiss Confederation, resolved its internal religious divisions and formally embraced the Reformation. These sermons were not ordinary acts of pastoral preaching but public, programmatic addresses intended to guide magistrates, clergy, and educated listeners toward a definitive settlement of doctrine and church order. By the late 1520s Bern stood at a crossroads. Reform-minded clergy and urban elites pressed for change, while many rural parishes and ecclesiastical institutions remained attached to traditional Catholic practice. The city council, anxious to avoid social disorder and wary of radical movements such as Anabaptism, sought a controlled and lawful resolution. It therefore convened a disputation, modeled on those held earlier in Zurich, in which religious truth would be judged publicly according to Scripture alone and enforced by the magistracy. This framework made clear that the outcome would not merely be theological but institutional and political.

Although the disputation was officially conducted by Berchtold Haller, Bern’s chief reforming preacher, Zwingli was invited as the leading theological authority of the Swiss Reformation. His presence signaled Bern’s alignment with the Zurich model of reform and lent decisive weight to the proceedings. The sermons he preached during the disputation articulated the theological foundations on which Bern’s reform would rest. They emphasized the absolute authority of Scripture over tradition, canon law, and ecclesiastical custom, insisting that practices lacking biblical warrant could not be maintained. In particular, Zwingli subjected the Mass to sustained criticism, rejecting its understanding as a repeated sacrifice and affirming instead the once-for-all character of Christ’s atoning work. This argument was central, since the abolition of the Mass would mark a fundamental break with the medieval church.

Zwingli also used the sermons to define a reformed understanding of ministry and church life. Preaching, rather than sacramental ritual, was presented as the heart of the church’s work, and the clergy were called to renewed discipline, education, and moral responsibility. At the same time, Zwingli framed reform as a matter of obedience to God carried out through legitimate civic authority. His preaching reassured Bern’s magistrates that reform need not entail chaos or rebellion but could proceed peacefully and lawfully under their governance. In doing so, he reinforced the principles of a magisterial Reformation in which church and civic order were closely intertwined. The consequences were immediate and far-reaching. In January 1528 Bern officially adopted the Reformation, abolished the Mass, removed images from churches, and reorganized ecclesiastical institutions under civic oversight. With this decision Bern emerged as the leading Reformed power alongside Zurich, reshaping the confessional landscape of the Swiss Confederation and strengthening the Reformed movement’s position in central Europe. Zwingli’s sermons in Bern thus stand as a moment when theological argument, political authority, and communal identity converged, enabling the transition from reforming aspiration to an established Reformed church.

Argument

In his Bern sermons of January 1528, Zwingli set out to demonstrate that the Reformation rested not on novelty or rebellion but on the heart of the Christian faith itself. He began by publicly confessing the Apostles’ Creed, insisting that true faith is not mere intellectual assent but trusting confidence in the one God, who alone is the highest good, the source of all life, wisdom, and power. From this flowed a robust doctrine of divine providence and almightiness: nothing exists, acts, or endures apart from God’s sustaining will, and human beings therefore have no ground for pride, self-reliance, or trust in creatures.

Christologically, Zwingli emphasized that salvation rests entirely on God’s gift of his only Son. Christ is true God and true man, whose once-for-all sacrifice satisfies divine justice and provides the sole foundation of human hope. This conviction shaped his rejection of the Mass as a repeated sacrifice and of any teaching that located saving power in bodily or material acts. Nowhere was this clearer than in his interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. Against the idea of Christ’s bodily presence in the bread and wine, Zwingli argued that Scripture consistently directs believers away from physical eating toward spiritual trust. The words “This is my body” must be understood sacramentally, as signifying and commemorating Christ’s body given on the cross. The Supper is therefore an act of remembrance and proclamation, not a transformation of substances, and its comfort lies in faith and the work of the Holy Spirit rather than in bodily consumption.

Ecclesiologically, Zwingli stressed that there is one holy, universal church, consisting of all believers united by faith in Christ, not a hierarchy that stands over them. Clergy and magistrates alike belong within this one body and are accountable to God’s Word. He rejected both papal claims and sectarian separatism, insisting that reform must take place within the public church under lawful authority. His final exhortation urged perseverance: Bern had acted rightly in abolishing images, altars, and the Mass, but true reform required steadfastness, courage, and patience in the face of opposition. Only by clinging to God’s Word and the freedom of conscience given in Christ could the city hope to endure and to serve as an example to others.

Source

Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, vol. 6.1 (Zürich: Berichthaus, 1961) (Corpus Reformatorum 93.1)

Two Sermons in Bern

January 18 and 19, 1528

Contents

Text

The sermon was delivered by Huldrych Zwingli.

Since I, dear Christians, have been publicly denounced by my enemies as a deceiver and heretic, I wish now, before this assembly, to give an account of my faith. Let me first say that in all the matters contained in the commonly confessed faith, I am in full agreement with all true and understanding believers.

So then, I confess my faith as follows:

I believe in one God, the almighty Father, Creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy, catholic (i.e., universal) Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Now I wish to explain the meaning of this confessed faith.

When I say at the beginning: “I believe,” I understand “believe” here to mean trust, even though in some later parts of the creed “believe” refers to “holding something to be true.” But here, it means trust. For if a person believed only that there is a God, yet did not entrust themselves to Him with unwavering confidence, then that belief would be no more than the kind of belief someone might have in knowing that the Turks worship Muhammad, without worshiping him themselves. Such belief is harmless, since it carries no commitment or trust.

In the same way, if we merely believed that there is a God but did not trust that He is our God and Father, that belief would be neither fruitful nor saving. The devils too believe, as James says (James 2:19), and tremble. They know that God exists, but do not trust Him, expect nothing good from Him, and do not love Him.

“In one God.”

The word “one” is rightly added in German, even if the Latin text does not explicitly include it. For in the explanation of the second creed, where we speak of “the Father,” it is fittingly and correctly included.

“God.”

We Germans derive the word “God” from “good,” applying it to the highest good. The Hebrews, on the other hand, formed the supreme name of God, YHWH, entirely from breath-like consonants, to indicate that God is the very source of all life, breath, and being (cf. Acts 17:28). Since breath is the most unmistakable sign of life, the Hebrews gave to the One who is life itself this ineffable, breath-like name, “Jehovah.” But out of reverence, they would not pronounce it aloud, believing that the holy name of God should not be spoken with human lips.

The Greeks derived their word for God “theos” from theein, meaning “to run or to come quickly to help.” For they recognized, as Plato also acknowledged, that God is the one who is present everywhere, passing through all things, lacking nowhere, and always ready to come to our aid. The Latin deus shares this root with the Greek. From all this we are to understand that our faith, trust, and confidence rest solely in the One who is the true and highest Good, the source, life, and power of all things. We place no trust in any good apart from Him, for all good that is truly useful flows from Him.

All confidence in created things must fall away. As soon as we place our trust in a creature, we mistrust God. And no created being, however holy, should ever become the object of our trust. If it were, it would not be holy. The trust a friend has in another friend is not the same as the firm and unwavering trust of faith. That’s why we often warn against putting too much confidence even in a faithful friend. God may indeed bless us through other people, but this is according to His own ordering. Since He commands us to love our neighbor for His sake, He considers it no true love for Him unless we also love others (1 John 4:20). Thus we love God as the source of all good, and love others as the means by which He channels His blessings to us.

God, in whom we trust, is the only Good that never deceives. Everything that He is, and that comes from Him, is secure and without error. Now this Good cannot be without wisdom. If it is wise, then it must be a wisdom that sees all things perfectly, without doubt, without darkness, without ignorance, for God is perfectly good, and therefore perfectly wise. As we are not good except insofar as He gives, so we are not wise except insofar as He gives. This wisdom cannot be idle or static. We sometimes call people “wise” who think deeply but act foolishly, but true wisdom is never inert. As Socrates said, a wise person is not his own possession but belongs to the common good. So, wisdom without goodness is not wisdom at all, but a deceitful cunning. Therefore, God’s wisdom, being perfectly good, must also be active and purposeful.

This leads us to what we call providence:

God’s wisdom is not merely contemplative but active ordering, creating, advancing, restraining all things according to His will, which is always good. This, theologians say, is distinct from His governing power (His operative wisdom), which makes all things according to His purposes. And to this wisdom must be joined omnipotence, for it is not enough to know what is good unless one can also bring it about. But on this, when we come to God’s almighty power, we will speak more later.

The providence of God governs and directs all things so surely that it is astonishing we do not recognize it more clearly. Just as a man who builds a house arranges all the rooms and corners for particular purposes and uses, so must we think of God, that He created all things for useful purposes, none of which He has failed to foresee in an orderly way. And just as a craftsman knows all his tools, uses them, puts them aside, and brings them out again according to his will, and forgets none, if he is perfect, so too does God know all His creatures, uses, employs, and benefits from them as He wills, and forgets none of them. For He cannot forget, for forgetting is a flaw, and God, being the highest good, is free of all deficiency.

Therefore, we should regard God’s providence quite differently from how it is usually considered. If we receive honor or success, we must always remember this happens according to God’s ordering. Do not forget yourself and act against God or exalt yourself because of what God has given you. See, He may have removed that honor or success from someone else, choosing to set them aside like a tool that is worn out or perhaps unfit or unuseful. You should only strive not to deserve to be cast aside yourself.

And if adversity or illness comes, remember always: “God is treating you like a locksmith does a file that he sets aside.” Perhaps He will use you again at the right time. If not, then you cannot return to use, you must submit patiently to His will. If we rightly understood the wisdom of God’s providence, our moderation, patience, joy, and peace of mind would be far greater. There would be less conflict, division, and misery in the world. We would also learn from the great rulers of this world to recognize God’s ordering and providence. They arm for war with all their resources, money, food, weapons, armor, artillery, horses, servants, commanders, and spies, and gain such widespread favor that not only the simple but also worldly people say: “It’s impossible for this or that man not to be victorious.” And yet, soon enough, we hear how they were defeated and routed, in such a complete and humiliating way that even their boasting is silenced. In this, we clearly see that victory does not belong to the one who plans or strives, but to the God who orders and grants success (cf. Romans 9:16).

So much, then, briefly, about belief in one God, about His goodness, wisdom, and providence, topics too vast to cover here fully from Scripture. But it is enough if we learn here that no reasonable, let alone faithful, person could ever reject our faith.

Even if all the philosophers and sages of the world were gathered, and we made this confession of our faith: “We trust in the one God, who is the highest good, who alone is perfectly good, wise, understanding, powerful, unchanging, and, in fact, is God alone,” they would have to say that our faith is the surest, most correct, and most straightforward of all religions on earth. For they too know how to speak of one perfect being. And if we cling to that one being, then even unbelievers cannot fault our faith. Here we also see how un-Christian it is for people to slander us before all others, when we teach and confess that we trust in the one God, exactly as the very first article of our faith demands and all Christians confess.

“In God the Father, almighty”

I confess that there is one God in essence, but that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons, not three gods, but one God; not that one person is one essence, or that there are three names only, but truly three distinct persons. Just as God made human beings with understanding, memory, and will, three distinct functions, yet all one soul, so theologians understand the three persons of the Trinity to be one God, not in exact equivalence, but by analogy. This is the common example given by the learned.

If that seems too abstract, take a simpler image: imagine a fountain built in a triangular shape. It is one fountain, one water, one refreshing and thirst-quenching force, yet we call it a three-cornered fountain because each side is distinct, though it remains one fountain. These and all such examples are only given for instruction, not because the Godhead can be truly compared to any created thing (God far surpasses all created forms and beauty), but so that simple people may have some image, as we give pictures to children to teach them.

“Almighty”

By “almighty,” I do not only mean that God is able to do all things, but also that no power or strength exists apart from Him. Not just that He could do something if He wanted, like a human who sometimes wills and sometimes does not, but that He is the source of all power: no creature has any power without Him. He is the power of all things. So everything that has power and being, has it only because He gave it. The power it has is, in fact, His power. From this follows, briefly, the rejection of free will. For what are we? Where do we come from? Where do we exist? Are we from ourselves? Why then are we not stronger, wiser, more beautiful?

If we come from our fathers and mothers, why are we not more blessed, richer, nobler, greater? Surely, if we were from ourselves or our parents, we would be supreme in wisdom, strength, and beauty, we would reach to heaven and surpass God! But what are we really? Are we creators or creatures? Without a doubt, we are created, and not by ourselves, as I’ve already said. Why then do we attribute anything to ourselves, when we know that our Creator is the one who made all things? And where do we exist? Are we self-sustaining? If so, why do we age, weaken, and die?

We can see plainly: if sun, moon, air, warmth, fruit, or cold cannot make us persist forever, nor can we or our friends give ourselves even a single breath without God’s power, which alone enables our breathing and in which our breath itself participates, why then does humanity hold itself in such high regard? Christ says we cannot add a single cubit to our height (Matt. 6:27), nor exalt ourselves (Matt. 23:12), much less can we think, plan, act, know, or will anything apart from the power that gives our soul being, life, understanding, and motion. This might be called philosophical reasoning or a work of human reason, but it is not. Rather, it arises from knowledge of the highest good and of created things. Paul also says in Romans 1 [cf. Rom. 1:20] that the eternal power and Godhead are perceived, at least in some measure, through reflection and observation of the things that have been made. So if we consider all created things, we find in them the clear sign that they are not self-originating, not self-sustaining, nor possess any independent power, just as we earlier saw in humanity.

Let us now consider the earth itself. Is the earth from itself? Where was it before it made itself? Was it a spirit before becoming matter? And how could it have contemplated making itself before it even was? But if it could make itself, why did it not make itself into water, air, fire, or some higher being, rather than becoming the lowest of all created things? And if it were of its own essence, why does it deteriorate when left uncultivated? Why does it not always produce fruit abundantly of its own accord? Is it capable of reason? Or does it have its own being from itself? Clearly not, for it has no reason or understanding by which it could shape or create itself. Even today, it still lacks both reason and understanding. Thus it is absurd to suppose it once had reason and then lost it after creating itself, for what kind of reason could destroy itself? And if it is, by its nature, irrational but nevertheless of its own essence, it would have to be eternal, for if it neither made itself nor was made by another, and yet exists, it must be eternal. But if it were eternal, without beginning or end, it would have to be infinite, and therefore the only thing that exists.

Beware here of what the sophist philosophers say about the “infinite in quantity” (de infinito quanto), but do not let them mislead you. For if the earth were without beginning and end and of its own nature, then it must be infinite, and it is made of matter, indeed the coarsest matter. But if it is not infinite, and yet is material, then it must be created and not of its own essence. And from that it follows: this home, this dwelling in which we live during this time, was created by another. And this “other” [i.e., the one who causes all things to be] can be neither sun, moon, nor any of the elements, stars, or creatures, but must be a good, a highest good, that has created all these things. And that is the Good: God and Lord, who has created all things and is the very being of all things.

That the earth does not subsist by its own power is clear from earthquakes, since it cannot move itself. Why? Because it has neither reason nor sensation by which it could will to move itself or turn away from harm. Therefore, it must be moved by another. That “other,” though some name it the air that is enclosed within it, also does not move itself, because it has no reason. If it had reason, it would not imprison itself, nor remain trapped without knowing how to escape. Therefore, there must be something that creates, orders, moves, and sustains all things.

And just as we said of the earth, so we should think also of the air, water, fire, the stars, lights, and heavens, for we find in all of them, just as in the earth, that they do not originate from themselves, nor exist in themselves, but from another. And that “other” cannot itself be a creature, for then it too would require a creator, and so on, until we come to the One who is from none but from whom all things come. That is the Almighty God, whom the philosophers call the primum movens, the first mover.

God’s almightiness does not mean only that He is capable of all things, but also that He continuously orders and sustains all things without pause. This follows necessarily from His perfection, His goodness, and His wisdom. Just as the highest good is without any lack, so also must it be fully powerful. And this is what is meant by almightiness. So much for the word “almighty,” by which we understand that God, in whom we believe, is so fully all power and strength that there is no power apart from Him, no being, no activity, unless it is from Him.

“The Creator”

That almightiness is especially ascribed to the Father is why we also attribute creation to Him, not because the Son and the Holy Spirit are not also almighty (they are, together with Him), but because each person is often attributed certain properties or roles. What belongs to the divine essence belongs to all three persons equally, but what is personal property is distinct. For example: the Father is unbegotten; the Son is begotten; the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. These are personal properties and belong to each one alone. The Son is not unbegotten but begotten; the Father is not begotten but unbegotten; and the Spirit is neither begotten nor unbegotten but proceeds. However, we must note even though personal properties cannot be exchanged, yet what belongs to the divine essence can be said of all three. So, we can say: God is unbegotten. God is born (i.e., the Son became man). God comes from God, etc. This is because each of the three persons is the one essence of the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Now, the things that belong to the divine essence but are attributed to one person especially, for example, creation and almightiness to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and comfort and love to the Spirit, are still properties shared by all three persons. Scripture is full of this truth, both Old and New Testaments. Therefore, we do not have three creators, but one Creator, who is God of heaven and earth. By “heaven and earth” we mean all creatures that exist within them.

“And in Jesus Christ”

“Jesus” is the name of salvation, meaning healer, physician, protector, or deliverer. “Christ” is the name of His glory, for “Christ” means “the Anointed One.” Among the Hebrews, “the anointed” referred to the king or ruler, because their kings were anointed. And since the Son of God is the almighty one, who rules with the Father over all things, and is our Savior and King, He is called “the Anointed One.” All the good fragrance of knowledge and virtue is in Him.

“His only begotten Son…”

Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, in such a way that God has no other son like Him. For although we are also called sons or children of God [cf. Matthew 5:9, 45; Luke 6:35], we are adopted children, not naturally born. But Jesus Christ is God’s only begotten Son. From this we understand that He is not a son like we are, or else He would not be unique, and all the children of God would be sons in the same sense. But because He is called the only begotten, it is clear that He is God’s Son by nature.

This, however, should strike us poor sinners deeply, that God has given His own, only begotten Son to become human, to be with us and for us. For such a wonder did not happen hidden from our eyes. Had God given anything else for us, anything except His only Son, our human hearts would find it too small to place our full comfort in it. Indeed, we see how many people seek comfort elsewhere. Had God clothed even the highest angel in human flesh, as He did His Son, His fatherly love would still not have been revealed to us in its fullness. For we see even among humans that we more readily believe someone loves us when they hurt themselves for us than when they only do good while remaining untouched.

In giving His Son, God showed He loves us as much as He loves Himself , for He gave Himself for us. Oh, the deep and unsearchable grace of God! We are sinners and His enemies, and yet He gives Himself for us! This teaches us about God’s goodness and perfection: His goodness in the grace and mercy shown to us, and His perfection in fully satisfying His justice, so that our faith is founded not on a mere creature, but on God Himself. The fact that God’s justice could not be satisfied by any mere creature shows us how high, great, unwavering, and unchangeable that justice is, and we must never despise it. That God Himself took on human frailty teaches us not to put our trust in any creature. For if a creature had been able to bear such a burden, we might have put our trust in it. But since only God is the one in whom we can securely trust, and since the one who became the offering for our sins had to be God, we are confident and unshaken in our hope.

Yet, because divinity cannot suffer, and the one who was to atone for God’s justice had to become a sacrifice, neither nature alone was sufficient. It had to be someone who could die and be offered, which the divine nature cannot do, so the human nature was necessary. But to make full satisfaction for divine justice and give secure hope to humankind, that person also had to be God. Therefore, divine wisdom saw fit to unite both natures, divine and human, in one person, so that He, taking on the priestly task, might heal by dying, since He is essentially life itself and, therefore, our eternal and unshakable hope.

The two natures are united in Christ in one person, yet each retains its own properties. Just as the ancients said: glowing iron is one thing but has two distinct natures: fire and iron. Strike something with the glowing sword and you see both effects: the iron cuts, and the fire burns. So, in Christ, both natures perform their works and retain their properties, yet there is still only one Christ, one Son of God, one person. In His divine nature, He works miracles , gives sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, life to the dead [cf. Matthew 11:5]. In His human nature, He hungers, thirsts, grows cold, grieves, fears, wishes not to die, and suffers pain. Yet He is what He is: one person, the Son of God.

“Our Lord”

Those who claim that Paul never or rarely called Christ “God” reveal their ignorance, especially of the Hebrew and Greek of the Old Testament. Had they studied properly, they would have learned that the highest name of God in Hebrew, YHWH, is rendered in Greek as Kyrios. True, Kyrios simply means “Lord,” but the Hebrew name YHWH means not just “Lord” but also the being and life of God Himself. When Paul calls Jesus Kyrios, he is assigning to Him the divine name YHWH, the highest and most sacred name, not merely calling Him “lord” as in “master.” This shows that Paul did not mean to deny Christ’s divinity by calling Him “Lord”; rather, he ascribes to Him the highest name of God. Thus, when Paul calls Jesus “our Lord,” he is calling Him truly God, our living and supreme ruler.

“Conceived by the Holy Spirit.”

The one who was to take away the sin of the world had also to be conceived without any entanglement of the flesh or sin. Just as He was born in heaven from the Father without a mother, so He was born on earth from a pure virgin without a human father , as Augustine says, and Paul also partly affirms in Hebrews 7:3. Thus the pure virgin became the bride and spouse of God, for she received from God the one whom she, as true God, was to bear in human nature.

“Born of the Virgin Mary.”

Dear brothers, if anyone says I try to diminish the honor of the Virgin Mary, I answer plainly: all the things people have said about me, such as claiming that Mary bore other children besides Jesus Christ, or other such unchristian, ungodly, and childish fantasies, have been falsely attributed to me. I refer all such accusations to the faithful church in Zurich and to all my published writings. I acknowledge and confess that Mary remained an eternal, pure virgin, not as Faber claims, without scriptural basis, but in agreement with the prophets’ writings, which there is no time to expound here.

“Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.”

These articles, along with His conception and birth, are so well described by the evangelists Matthew and Luke and so well known among all believers [see Matthew 26–27; Luke 22–23] that there is no need to explain them further here.

“He descended into hell.”

We should understand that the Latin word inferi refers not only to the painful hell or the place of punishment, but more broadly to the realm beyond this world , the place of the dead. The German word “hell,” the Hebrew Sheol, and the Greek Hades all carry this meaning. So I understand this article to mean that Christ did not deliver those in eternal, punitive hell, but only those who, having died in true faith during this earthly life, had entrusted themselves to the promised Savior. God had kept them, in a place and manner pleasing to Him, without pain (except perhaps the sorrow of being deprived of the divine presence). Christ revealed to them the joy of His coming and led those capable of receiving salvation into heaven with Him. You learn this from Luke 16:19–26 and 1 Peter 3:18–22; 4:6.

“On the third day He rose again from the dead.”

The resurrection of Christ is the promise and foundation of our own resurrection. Because He rose from the dead, we are assured that we, too, shall rise. He is the firstfruits of those who have died [1 Corinthians 15:20]. His death is our life; His resurrection is our exaltation. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:16: “If the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.” At first glance, this might seem like faulty reasoning, for it doesn’t logically follow that if we don’t rise, then Christ didn’t rise. God could have raised Christ, His own natural Son, of His own divine power, regardless of whether we rise or not. But if we read the argument correctly, we see Paul is making a deeply comforting point: namely, that Christ is truly ours and we are His. We are His members, and together with Him as our Head, we form one body [cf. Colossians 1:18]. Let us now hear the testimony of Scripture on this matter. Christ says in John 17:22–23: “Father, the glory you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, as we are one. I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one.” Here we see that although Christ is ours and is in us, that does not mean we are where He is , not according to His divine nature, and certainly not according to His human nature , and yet He is still in us.

And John says in his first letter (1 John 4:16): “God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” So we have two teachings: one, that God is in us; the other, that we are in God. These expressions would seem, more than the claim that Christ’s flesh is “at the right hand,” to imply omnipresence, for being in something is more intimate than being with it.

Yet it does not follow that because God is in us and we are in Him, we are therefore everywhere. And yet, even though we are not everywhere, we still have enough of God in us, so long as we live according to His measure. And when we are with Him, we will have Him fully, according to that same measure, yet not in a way that makes us infinite or omnipresent. So too with the humanity of Christ: it is with God at the right hand of His glory. It is in God, and God is in it , yet that does not make His humanity omnipresent.

Example: The air is in us, and we are in it. But we are not everywhere the air is, even though we are nowhere that air is not, for we need it to live. But setting that all aside for now, let us briefly state the reasons by which we have come to recognize that the body and blood of Christ are not essentially or bodily eaten in the Supper. This will also help us understand better how Christ sits at the right hand, and we will do so by setting Scripture against Scripture, which alone can resolve error. This is true not only in theology but in all doctrine, writing, and regulation: one must interpret Scripture by other, like or unlike, Scriptures. This is why the Athenians had a rule of antinomies (opposing texts).

And I must say: no one ever showed me the truth more clearly than faith itself. Let each boast as he will, but ultimately, I found (as it says in John 6:35): “Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst,” that the whole assurance of the soul lies in trust in God alone. I could not find any bodily thing that could feed the soul , only the gracious and gentle Spirit could do that. Even the death of Christ , our very life , is of no benefit to anyone unless the Father draws that person, as Christ says [John 6:44]: “No one can come to me unless the Father draws him.” We see this every day: although we all hear the message of grace through Jesus Christ proclaimed, none truly receives it unless God has enlightened their hearts, softened them with love, and drawn them.

Therefore, I found that Christ often, especially in the Gospel of John, draws us away from focusing on His physical presence. And He never promises any benefit to those who eat His body physically. Rather, He clearly tells us that it is to our advantage that He go away from us. But He does not leave us comfortless. Rather, He promises to send us the Spirit, the Comforter: “I will send you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who will remain with you forever” [cf. John 14:16–17].

What could be clearer? He withdraws His bodily presence, yet does not leave us alone. And what brings comfort? Not bodily eating and drinking of His flesh and blood, but the pure Spirit, the Spirit of truth who remains with us. Therefore, we need no “childish comforters” who claim that the physical eating of Christ’s flesh consoles the soul and removes sin. Such chatter is unfounded and lacks scriptural support.

Third, one of the most decisive words that turned me from the idea of bodily eating Christ’s flesh is what He says in John 6:63: “The Spirit is the one who gives life; the flesh is of no use at all.” Some try to wriggle out of this by claiming that Christ here speaks of “the nature of flesh and spirit,” not of His own flesh. They twist it to say merely “flesh is of no use”, dropping the word “this” (as in “this flesh”) on purpose. But they refuse to see that Christ was responding to the Jews’ grumbling, who thought He meant they must eat His body literally. He replies: “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh (as you understand it) is of no use.”

Just a few verses before, we read [John 6:61] that Jesus, knowing that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them… So the grumbling was not because He had said something about the corrupt nature of flesh (He hadn’t), but because they thought He meant His flesh must be literally eaten as they said [John 6:52]: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” That was their objection, and that is what Christ addressed when He said: “The flesh is of no use at all.” Thus it is undeniable that Jesus meant His own physical flesh when He said this. He teaches that His body is not to be eaten physically. We have shown this in many other writings, and though many opponents try to counter it, they all miss the mark. They are forced to concede that the flesh of Christ, when eaten, is of no use.

Now, let me be clear: we are not saying that Christ’s body is of no value at all. Who would be so foolish as to say that His humanity was taken on for no good or benefit? But to eat it physically, that is what is of no use. And it is not for that purpose that He came into the world. This verse, therefore, most forcefully opposes the idea of Christ’s bodily presence in the Supper. If it is “of no use” to eat His flesh, then we cannot interpret “This is my body, given for you” [Luke 22:19] to mean that He gave it to be eaten physically.

Then, according to his divinity, he cannot leave it [the world]. And when the opponents say: “We have the word of God: ‘This is my body’, the word cannot lie,” then we ask: Can the other word lie, where he says [John 16:28]: “Therefore I leave the world”? As if all the words spoken and those yet to come were not the word of God! So we become indignant when it is shown that we have erred. Therefore, we bring forth these words because they are the word of God, straightforward and clear, without any twisting, and we set them against the words “This is my body,” so that unity may be achieved in our understanding, since both are undoubtedly the word of God. Now, if he has indeed left the world, then he is not here, but only bodily is he not here. For these words have no trope, no figure of speech. They do not shift the words or meaning away from his human nature; rather, they must be understood simply: that he left the world in this nature and ascended into heaven to the Father.

He also does not say: “You will no longer see me in the world,” as the papists like to take from this passage. They say: “Yes, he only left in bodily appearance, so that we no longer see him.” But that does not suffice. For the passage continues: “And I go to the Father.” That follows the statement about leaving, showing us where he went after departing from us. But it hardly matters how they gloss and interpret it, for we clearly see they are lambs that cannot defend themselves with the word of God. No gloss should be accepted that does not have its foundation in the word of God.

Now we have two unambiguous sayings [Matt. 26:11]: “You will not always have me.” There he says: “You will not have,” not: “You will not see.” And [John 16:28]: “I leave the world,” not: “I will no longer be seen in the world.” The eighth statement is another word spoken by the mouth of the Son of God himself, in John 17:11: “I am no longer in the world, but they (the disciples) are in the world.” Now then, what will the opposing party say to this? Here we have the word “to be” as firmly as they have “is.” If the word of God is to count only when they want it to, then we stand on firmer ground than they. For we have words here that allow no figure of speech. It follows [John 17:13]: “And I come to you.” They, on the other hand, have words which cannot be taken literally: “This is my body.” For it follows: “which is given for you”, yet we cannot eat the body as it was given for us. Thus we now have, apart from the words “to go” or “to depart,” which Christ himself often uses, three undeniable sayings: “You will not always have me,” “I leave the world,” and “I am no longer in the world” [Matt. 26:11; John 16:28; John 17:11], which stand so firmly that no gloss can be invented which easily refutes them.

The ninth point answers the fabricated gloss: “Yes, we eat the body of Christ as he is risen from the dead,” as they say. But not only do we have the words: “Which is given for you” [Luke 22:19], which teach us that he gave us his body to eat not as risen, but as crucified, if we were to follow their view, but we also have Acts 1:11, where the angels say to the disciples: “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This same Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” Here we first have: “who has been taken up from you.” So, he is now above, and sits at the right hand of the Father [Mark 16:19]. Secondly, he will return in the same visible, substantial way as he departed. That clearly refers to the return for judgment, but nothing is said about his coming in bread or being present therein.

The tenth point comes from Paul, 2 Corinthians 5:16: “Henceforth we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.” Paul here intends to show in this chapter that he is entirely released from all external consolation, looking only to the one thing: that he lives for God, and does not care whether he is reviled or praised. He no longer seeks Christ’s bodily presence for comfort, even though he may have once known Christ in the flesh when he dwelt in the world. He now no longer knows him that way, meaning, he does not place any trust in Christ’s bodily presence for comfort. For what God intended to accomplish through Christ’s body, namely, redemption through death, has already been completed. Paul could not have said this if we were supposed to eat Christ’s body bodily in the Supper. For then he could not have renounced bodily consolation. But the Spirit who speaks through Paul is one and the same as the Spirit who earlier spoke through the mouth of Christ [John 6:63]: “The flesh is of no avail.” And now says that Christ is no longer recognized by believers in a bodily or external way, that is, no comfort is to be sought in his flesh. Not that we do not recognize him as having died and risen in the flesh, who through his bodily resurrection nourishes and assures us that we too shall rise. Rather, this has already been accomplished, and we have already recognized it and stand firm upon it. But we no longer seek further comfort in Christ’s flesh.

All of this leads us to see that God has willed to comfort us after Christ’s departure by his one Spirit, not through bodily eating of Christ’s flesh. We humans are not accustomed to eating human flesh. Nor are we of a nature to desire to eat that which we love most, like some animals do. Thus we are deceived when told that our souls hunger for the bodily eating of Christ’s flesh. For if we ask a believer whether he wants to eat it, he will say: “I have known Christ sufficiently in his teaching, life, death, and resurrection. I no longer know him according to the flesh.”

The eleventh point addresses the words of the Supper themselves, which bear witness to their own correct meaning. Here, dear Christian, do not be misled when our opponents shout: “We only want the words of Matthew and Mark, which say, ‘This is my body; this is my blood’” [Matt. 26:26,28; Mark 14:22,24]. For we also want to keep those words, just as much as they do, but also the words of Luke and Paul [Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24]. If they want those too, why do they insist so strongly on the first ones alone, as if there were something wrong with the others? Should we be biased when we seek the truth?

Setting all this aside, the matter is this: Matthew and Mark wrote before Luke and Paul described the Supper. From this, we learn that the two later writers carefully brought all the words together, lest misunderstanding follow, which, alas, it has. The earlier two remained content with the brief words commonly understood by all Hebrews. “This is the Passover” was clearly understood by all Hebrews to mean: “This is the memorial of the Passover.” When Christ, after fulfilling the old Passover and its remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt, instituted the remembrance of his death, he spoke in the same way, as true God always had, so the disciples could understand his words well: “This is my body,” meaning, “This is a memorial of my body,” or “This signifies my body, given for you.” That is why the first two evangelists recorded so few words. But when Luke and Paul saw that the words were not clearly understood by the Gentiles, they preserved all the words carefully, so that Christ’s intention would be understood.

And Luke speaks thus in chapter 22 [Luke 22:15–18]: “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took the cup, gave thanks, and said: “Take this and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” Here Luke gives a preface so that the words that follow will not be misunderstood, as if the food and drink were anything else in substance than bread and wine, even though because of the practice it is not just common bread, but the bread of the Supper and thanksgiving for the death of Christ. Just as a flower is more glorious when worn in the bride’s wreath than outside of it, though in substance it remains the same, so too the bread used in the Supper is, in substance, like other bread. But the practice and significance of the Supper gives it a higher dignity, it is not just ordinary bread. For this reason, the malicious words of our opponents, accusing us of calling it “baker’s bread,” should have been spared. They accuse us unjustly. I had never even heard that term until a man ranted in Baden.

Now the clarification Luke gives beforehand, Paul also offers after the words of institution kata epéxēgēsin, that is, by way of explanation, which will follow shortly. But now let us recount briefly Paul’s words concerning the Supper. In 1 Corinthians 11 [1 Cor. 11:23ff.], he speaks thus: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was betrayed, took bread, gave thanks, and said: ‘Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you.’” From these words it is immediately evident that the phrase “which is broken for you” is a clear sign that Christ did not intend to give them his body to be eaten. For his body, which was given and broken for us, was physically and visibly broken. But if it was not in that way eaten, then it was not given to them in that form.

Secondly, it is not enough to argue, as some do, that although he had not yet died, he gave them his glorified body, as it would be after the resurrection. That would mean speaking of two bodies at once: one glorified, the other suffering, which is impossible. For John 7 [John 7:39] states: “The Holy Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” Therefore, we cannot attribute to him a glorified body before his death without violating the truth. The phrase “Do this in remembrance of me” follows afterward. Likewise, the cup after the meal, saying: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” That he here first calls the drink “the new covenant” happens by way of naming the thing by the sign, a common practice. Just as we call a coat of arms by the name of the noble house and say, “This is the Duke of Zähringen,” “This is Zurich,” “Bern,” “Augsburg,” “Nuremberg,” and so on, even though it is the sign of those cities or persons. Likewise, in Genesis 17 [Gen. 17:10], circumcision is called “the covenant,” even though it is the sign of the covenant. So here, too, the cup in the Lord’s Supper is called “the testament,” though it is the representation and sign of that testament.

We further confirm this: the new covenant is the forgiveness of sins (Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:12). Now, there are not two covenants, so what we are referring to must be that covenant. Therefore, the cup is not the covenant itself, or else there would have to be more than one. For Christ’s blood, which was shed on the cross, is not the covenant itself but the payment, the sacrifice by which the forgiveness of sins was obtained (Hebrews 10:12). And here Paul says that the new covenant is in Christ’s blood, not the covenant itself.

That he refers to the cup or vessel instead of the drink is a common figure of speech, a synecdoche, which we also use in German when we say: “He drank a cup of wine,” though he drank only the wine, not the cup itself. Yet the opponents come along and say we should not interpret Scripture through figures of speech or figuratively. “Do this, as often as you do it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” [1 Cor. 11:25–26]. This is a passage so clear that Paul here opens up what he meant by calling it the body and blood of Christ, and why, that it is a wonder we are unwilling to see it. For when he says “for as often,” we see the epanalepsis, that is, a repetition or epanaphora, because he had just said “as often” before. And when he picks the word back up again with the word “for,” it is an unmistakable indication that he is now explaining what he had previously said.

As when Paul says in Romans 8 [Rom. 8:24]: “Hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?” There, we first encounter a rather obscure phrase: “Hope that is seen is not hope.” A listener might say: “Why then do you call it hope? Isn’t it still hope if it is seen?” Therefore Paul picks up again the words “see” and “hope,” and says: “For who hopes for what he sees?” (the word “for” here being causal). That is, anything that is already visible, already in the hands, the heart, one’s power or possession, can no longer be called hope. Now we see that Paul has clarified his own meaning and wants to show that the word “hope” properly applies only to things not yet attained. So also here, when he says “for,” he shows that he is about to clarify what he meant when he called the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ, and when he said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” And when he says, “as often,” he picks up again the same phrase, so that one may see he intends to explain the earlier words. He says: “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup,” as if he were saying: “What I just said means this: it is not flesh (even if I called it that), it is not blood, but bread and drink.” “You are to proclaim the Lord’s death” (1 Corinthians 11:26).

Here the ignorant do not hear what these words really mean: “Do this in remembrance of me.” He does not say: “Eat my body in remembrance of me.” For why would we need to remember him if he were physically present, especially since he adds: “Until he comes.” So then, he is not present. Rather, he says: “As often as you eat this commemorative meal, when you eat and drink the symbolic bread and wine, you are to give thanks for the death which the Lord himself suffered for you.” And for that reason, we are not commanded to make flesh and blood. Otherwise Paul would have had to speak differently: “As often as you take this bread and drink in your hands, make it flesh and blood with these words,” etc. as the opponents falsely claim, bringing forth something dark and obscure to hide their error. But Paul does not speak in that way. Instead, he says: “As often as you eat this bread, you are to proclaim the death which the Lord suffered.” That is what the word “do” refers to not to making flesh and blood. For Paul explains both himself and the words of the Lord.

As for the two other expressions, “will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” and “not discerning the Lord’s body”, these are explained clearly elsewhere, so that one does not become guilty of the actual body, but of despising it. We fail to discern the Lord’s body when we come to the meal as we would to any other meal, without honoring the death of the Lord, which is signified to us by the word “body.” And when we do not recognize that in coming to the church of God, the body of Christ, we are joining ourselves to it and trusting in him, etc.

Twelfth, when the opponents say that the body of Christ is present wherever the divinity is, we have Matthew 28 and Mark 16, where the women are looking for Jesus, and the angel says to them: “You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth. He is risen and is not here.” These words teach us, truthfully and without deception, that Christ’s body is not everywhere. For the divinity, without a doubt, was present in the hearts of the women seeking him. But he was not physically there, only in contemplation or spiritual vision. Therefore, those are in error who say that Christ’s humanity is wherever his divinity is.

After so much study, and much more than I can recount, I have come to the recognition that Christ’s words, “This is my body,” simply cannot be understood to mean that the bread is or contains the body of Christ. And after looking into all the evidence, I have found that in this thanksgiving meal, Christ used the very same words that were also used in the old thanksgiving for the Passover lamb. For in Exodus 12:11, it says: “You shall eat it in haste, for it is the Passover”, that is, the passing over. Here, the lamb is called “the Passover,” though it was merely a sign of the passing over. So also, not only by analogy, but by the understanding given to us by the apostles, we should interpret these words in the same way as those earlier ones. For Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:7: “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” In those words, we clearly see that Paul also understood the Passover lamb as a sign of Christ, our lamb. Therefore, he shaped his words according to the old ceremony and sacrament. He also observed the same time and festival. These three things: the symbolism, the timing of the festival that Christ observed, and the time of his death during the Passover clearly show us that he transformed the words of the old feast into the new commemoration.

Another passage often brought up against us by our opponents is 1 Corinthians 10:16, but it is too long to treat here in full, and many learned men have already written about it. I only want to point out what has led me personally to the recognition of the truth. I did not arrive at this understanding arrogantly or by inventing anything myself, nor did I follow personal speculation. I have kept only Scripture and the truth before my eyes, and I have found that the ancient teachers of the Christian church did not understand the words in any other way than we now teach them.

After diligent study, I came to understand Christ’s words “This is my body” in the shortest and clearest form as: “This signifies my body.” For it is characteristic of Hebrew expression in countless places to use the word we translate as “is” in the sense of “signifies.” To list all the examples would take too long here. But in using the word “signifies,” I am supported by Ambrose and Jerome. One uses the word significamus (“we signify”), the other representamus (“we represent”), both of which mean: we signify the body of Christ. From this it also becomes clear that it makes no essential difference whether one says: “This signifies my body,” or “This is a symbol of my body,” or “This is a figure of my body,” or “This is a sign of my body,” or “This is the remembrance of my body,” and so on. The entire world will not be able to overturn this truth, God grant it, no matter how much one may rage against it.

In our own lands there are many further signs and testimonies to support this. All the old foundation documents from churches and monasteries, none of which are more than 300 years old, make no mention of the Mass, even though they do refer to singing and reading. Around 250 years ago, children who were baptized in our region received the sacrament in both kinds, that is, both bread and wine. No altar, not even the so-called “high altars,” dates back to the time when the old churches were originally built. The high altar in the Grossmünster of Zurich, for example, was first consecrated by Bishop Hartmann of Augsburg in the year 1278. When the altar in St. Peter’s Church in Zurich was torn down in 1527, they intended to place the baptismal font there. But when the space was opened up, they discovered that the same font had stood there before, along with a drainage pit for the water, as is still commonly practiced. It had simply been walled over beneath the altar. Across the world, no sacrament house is found to be older than 200 years. No sacristies were built along with the old church buildings. All of these are signs that the Mass was neither practiced nor was it believed that Christ’s body was physically and essentially eaten in the bread. Many more such matters could be mentioned, but I leave them aside for the sake of brevity.

“I believe in the Holy Spirit”, that is, in the third person of the Godhead, in whom we place our full trust, just as we do in the Father and the Son, for he is one God with them.

“One holy, catholic (that is, universal), Christian church.” This article of the Creed declares: “one holy, universal church.” When one speaks with certainty of the “Christian” church, it is appropriate to add that word explicitly. The word “one” is to be understood in light of the rest of the phrase: Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam, that is, “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” With this, the pious church fathers intended to indicate that the apostolic men, whose name the high bishops now zealously claim, did not consider themselves a separate or special church. Rather, they understood that the watchmen, apostles, and all those who held office in the church (see 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11) remained part of the one assembly with the common people.

Therefore, we do not believe “in the church,” as Faber and the papists allege. They attempt to prove that I place faith in a creature by wrongly interpreting what I wrote about the phrase “I believe in one God,” namely, that it means “I trust in one God.” But I never said that the word “believe” must be taken in that way in every article of the Creed. If that were so, we would also have to “trust in” the resurrection of the flesh, which is not the case. Rather, we believe that the resurrection of the flesh will take place. For this reason, we clarify here that there are not many churches, but one church. This church is not a tyranny of apostles, not a separate or exclusive body. Rather, the teachers, preachers, prophets, and apostles (as in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11) are all part of the one church. This is true whether we are speaking of specific local churches, such as those in Ulm, Basel, Constance, or Lindau, or of the universal church. In both cases, the church, with all its members and offices, is one.

Therefore, the Anabaptist group and the separatists who went out from us are not the church, for they are not of us (1 John 2:19). They are a cut-off, divided sect. The Nicene Creed, the second official creed, does not say, “I believe in one holy church,” but rather simply “one holy [church].” Similarly, the Apostles’ Creed does not say, “I believe in the holy Christian church,” which is how the papists falsely lead many astray. It says instead: “I believe [in] one holy Christian church,” and so forth.

“The communion of saints.” This article of the Creed was not part of the faith of the earliest Christians but was only added later, after certain groups had either separated themselves due to sectarianism or, in other cases, had elevated themselves above the church because of their spiritual pride. These words make clear that the one, universal church is the whole company of all believers. These are here called “saints,” just as Paul refers to the believers in Corinth, Rome, and other places as saints (cf. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2), for we are sanctified through the blood of Christ. The Latin word sanctus means the same as our word “pious” or “blameless.” But here the papists mislead us, as if the meaning of the article were that the saints are with God and intercede for us, which is not the case. That they are with God eternally is certainly true, and it is addressed in a separate article: “life everlasting.” But as for intercession, we do not see a single word about it here.

“The forgiveness of sins.” This article has been clearly and publicly affirmed because there were some who misunderstood the letter to the Hebrews (Heb. 6:4–6) and sought to deny people the possibility of forgiveness after one fall. We believe, however, that God forgives sins throughout the world for the sake of Jesus Christ, who is the eternal satisfaction and mercy (1 John 2:2; Heb. 9:12).

“The resurrection of the body.” That our bodies will also rise again, as Christ’s body rose, has already been sufficiently explained. But the Anabaptists say that body and soul sleep together until the Last Day, which is a manifest error. For Christ says to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43): “Today you will be with me in paradise”, that is, in joy and bliss. I ask, was the thief the only one to be with him in rest and joy? If one answers, “Not the only one,” then it is already conceded that the soul does not sleep. But if one says, “Yes, only he,” then one insults God, as if he were to deprive all his elect, even the mother who bore him, of his presence until the Last Day, taking only a single thief with him into heaven and keeping him alive there, while all the rest sleep. Paul, however, says (Phil. 1:23), “I desire to depart and be with Christ,” from which we clearly see that the elect, when they leave this life, are immediately with him. For we who believe come under no judgment, but pass from death into life (John 5:24).

The Anabaptists fall into error here because they are unlearned and unaware that in Hebrew, “sleep” is often used simply to mean “bodily death,” and that “resurrection” includes not only the rising of the body, but also the continued life and activity of the soul. I have proven this in my Latin treatise Elenchus, with many arguments. They should at least understand that the soul is a substance that does not require sleep or rest any more than the sun does. Rather, the soul belongs to the category of entelechy, that is, things which exist in constant motion and activity. Therefore, sleep does not pertain to its nature; rather, its true nature is eternal wakefulness and action. Though the body may sleep, that is not the nature of the soul. Even in sleep, the soul continues to function, as in the remembering of dreams, something no animal does. From this it follows that once the soul is separated from the body, it is even less fitting that it should sleep. Rather, it then enters a more vigorous and uninterrupted life and activity, like a lantern flame shining far more brightly once the lantern is removed, than when it is enclosed. In the same way, all the light of the soul, its life, power, activity, and wakefulness, exists more fully after it is separated from the body than when it is still joined to it. The soul is in constant motion and cannot sleep.

“Life everlasting. Amen.” Here we recognize that we will live eternally after this life, not in sleep. For the good that has no lack and cannot fail must bring everlasting comfort to all who, with true and complete trust, have placed their hope in it. May God grant us such trust and such life with him. Amen.

This sermon, dear Christian, I was obliged to write down in mid-June, although it was first delivered in January. Judge as best you can whether I have omitted anything that was said before the church in Bern or whether I have added anything new. In truth, very little of it was not spoken there; I have otherwise remembered it with care. And now, I commend you to God. You should also pray that he may not send his church the peace of the world (John 14:27).

Second Sermon

This is the final sermon in Bern by Huldrych Zwingli. Since your love for the surpassing truth has been shown in your rejection of images, altars, and other such things, I have found it fruitful to speak to you now about perseverance and constancy in what is good, especially before parting.

Know, then, beloved, that perseverance is such a virtue that without it nothing truly good can be begun or brought to completion. Without it, men are no better than women, and women cannot be devout or faithful. Indeed, no one can be faithful or devout without it. Without perseverance, no homeland or household can be preserved; in fact, everything noble falls into disgrace and mockery where it is lacking. But since all virtues without the fear of God and faith are mere pretenses, we must see that we do not learn perseverance from ourselves, but from God, in whom we desire to remain firm and unshaken.

In Christ our Lord we find the perfect example, both in word and deed. He remained steadfast to the death on the cross, though in his humanity he felt weakness and did not desire to die (Mark 14:32ff). Yet he did not alter his message or soften it in the face of opposition, though at times he held back until the appointed hour. He taught us in Matthew 10:22, “Whoever endures to the end will be saved.” With these words he wanted to make it clear that those who seek to live according to his Word and will must endure rejection, be tested, and suffer hardship, but they will overcome all things through courageous patience. Even the pagans said, ferendo vincitur fortuna, misfortune is only overcome by endurance. God teaches us through the prophet Ezekiel (Ez. 3:20) that the righteousness of the righteous will not be remembered if he falls away. For it is more disgraceful and ridiculous to abandon one’s labor partway than never to have begun at all. Christ also teaches (Luke 14:28–30) that no wise man begins to build without first sitting down and counting the cost, lest he be mocked when he cannot finish. No king begins a war without first considering whether he has the strength to face the enemy. And whoever puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of God, that is, not fit for the office of preaching (Luke 9:62). From all this we see that God desires foresight and endurance.

Who was more steadfast than Moses, whom the children of Israel often despised and tried to overthrow (Numbers 16:1–3)? Yet he never gave up on doing good for the people. Even when God’s wrath was kindled against them, Moses pleaded that God would destroy him before he destroyed the people. That is why he is rightly called a faithful servant in God’s house (Hebrews 3:5), above all others. What a man of comfort he was, enduring forty years of labor without yielding or wavering. He never acted for his friends in ways that would go against God or the common good. He never despaired of God’s faithfulness. He never hesitated to turn to God in times of hunger or thirst. He never looked back. We, by contrast, live hardly forty years after coming of age, and he endured that whole span under trials, growing old and dying in it.

David too suffered greatly. Fourteen years passed after his first anointing by Samuel before he ruled, apart from some time at the end in Hebron (2 Samuel 2:1–4). Yet neither poverty nor hardship could make him doubt God or abandon his calling to kingship. He never took vengeance on Saul, even when he could have done so easily (1 Samuel 24, 26). Instead, he pursued peace and justice with faithfulness to the end, becoming a great example of steadfastness. The Roman general Cornelius Scipio was so young he could not yet serve on the council. But after the battle of Cannae was lost to Hannibal, and the Roman leaders who survived debated fleeing Italy by sea, Scipio stormed into their counsel uninvited, drew his sword, and forced them to swear that they would not abandon Italy or Rome, but defend it. And this same steadfastness marked him all his life. In short, no virtue is true unless it is crowned with perseverance.

So now that your honorable wisdom and love have acted against idol adornments, the Mass, and other such things, you need no better or stronger counsel than steadfastness. Some, to be sure, speak piously yet presumptuously, saying that idols should first be removed from the heart and only then from the eyes. In some ways this is correct, for surely no one outwardly forsakes what he has not first inwardly rejected. I leave this to the consciences of all who know how fond they once were of their little idols. Those who once could not bear to have them touched now watch them shattered without regret, that is a sign they are already rooted out of the heart. So that sort of overzealous talk comes only from those who want to appear unique.

But those who claim we should not remove idols until no one is offended by them, until they have vanished from everyone’s heart, are speaking as if Christ were wrong to overturn the tables of the moneychangers and drive them out with a whip (Matthew 21:12–13). Those men had not yet repented in their hearts, for they asked him (John 2:18), “What sign do you show us, that you do these things?” If Christ had waited until they were fully reformed, he would have let it all remain.

We also have to contend with another group, even more obstinate: those who refuse to hear or accept the Word of God. These two groups will cause you trouble, for they are rarely without tricks and are always stirring up new fears and suspicions. But do not be afraid of them, as Christ says, for he has overcome the world (John 16:33). We will see that they are under his power, for he will make us victorious at all times. This does not mean, of course, that we should not remain vigilant and alert. Christ commands us to keep watch always (Matthew 24:42). Yet I want to assure you that I do not doubt God will allow you to face such dangers that you will see for yourselves how powerfully he works with you and protects you. So when trials come, do not be afraid. God brings them to strengthen and prove you, that you may better recognize his certain help. When you are in distress and unable to help yourselves, and he delivers you, then you will see clearly that all things depend solely on him, and that he most certainly helps.

Some now say that things will go easily for you because you have forerunners. Do not be misled. I have never seen a work of God proceed so smoothly that it did not face some obstacle, where Deus ex machina, God from heaven, had to bring it to a proper end with his grace and power.

There lie the broken images and idols in the church. Let those who are afraid, not from conscience, but from cowardice, look now and ask whether we ever really honored these idols from the heart. They must be removed, so that the priceless devotion you once wasted on carved nonsense may now be directed to the living image of God. Only weak or stubborn souls lament the destruction of idols, when they now clearly see that these things never brought any holiness, only dumb wood and stone. Here lies one with its head off, another missing an arm. If the blessed saints, who are with God, were actually injured by this, and had the power we wrongly attributed to them, no one could have touched them, let alone dismembered them.

I must tell you that disputation does not benefit those who are stubborn or weak of spirit. In argument, there must always be one party in the wrong. If that party is as bold as those who speak the truth, it only encourages the stubborn and disheartens the weak. But when there is a sound, steadfast spirit, willing to receive the truth no matter where it comes from, he will immediately see what bears the mark of truth and what does not, and he will go forward joyfully.

Still, he cannot take as much comfort in the truth when it is uttered amid strife, as when it is declared by a single clear prophet. So if anyone feels wronged in this debate, let him not be offended. The dispute took place so that even those who do not have truth in their hearts would lose the power to speak against it and so that the Christian community and its leaders might be encouraged to deal with divine things nobly and without confusion. You have now been given godly, devout, and learned preachers and prophets. Listen to them earnestly when they set before you God’s promises and consolations, so that your minds may be assured in all their doing and leaving by the Word of God, and no misfortune will prevail over you.

Therefore, recognize the freedom Christ has given you, and stand firm in it, as Paul says in Galatians 5:1. Do not again let yourselves be burdened by the yoke of slavery or self-will. You know how much anguish we suffered in our consciences when we were led from one false comfort to another, from one human ordinance to the next. None of it relieved the conscience or brought freedom or comfort. But now you see what freedom and comfort you have in knowing and trusting in the one true God through Jesus Christ, his only Son. Do not ever let yourselves be robbed of this freedom and deliverance of conscience. In this matter, more courage is required than in anything else. Just as our ancestors, God be praised, always stood boldly and unwaveringly for bodily freedom, so you must stand all the more steadfastly for that freedom which makes us inwardly free in conscience and eternally joyful. Do not doubt that God, who has enlightened and drawn you (John 6:44), will in due time also draw our dear neighbors, the rest of the Confederation, so that we may be united more harmoniously in true friendship than ever before, a friendship which God himself can bless and sustain.

May the God who created and redeemed us all grant this to us and to them. Amen.

This has been written in short summary.