# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1847 03 09_S76
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

to eat crab apples or pick up a straw." When Zwingli nevertheless maintained that it was absurd that so great a miracle as the holy Lord's Supper should be worked through wicked priests, Luther gave a clear answer: "This does not happen through the merit of the priest, but through Christ's institution; because Christ has commanded it, therefore it happens. So too it should be held concerning the power of the Word and of all the Sacraments: that they are efficacious and work not from the merit or holiness of the priest or preacher, but from the power of the divine institution and the divine command. It is a Donatist error to hold that the Sacraments are not efficacious when administered by wicked priests." To this "good answer of Luther's" Zwingli made no reply.

Thus they moved on to the third ground of the Reformed, which Oecolampadius set forth. "The Sacraments," he said, "are signs; therefore it must be understood that they signify something; hence it should here too be understood that the body of Christ in the holy Lord's Supper is only signified, and not actually present." — Luther had from the beginning written before him on the table the words of our Lord Jesus, "This is my body," as his sure and firm foundation. He conceded: "It is true that Sacraments are signs; but we are not to interpret them otherwise than as Christ has interpreted them. That Sacraments are signs is to be understood chiefly in this way: that they signify the promises attached to them. Thus circumcision signifies chiefly the word which God attaches to it, that He will be gracious. And should anyone wish to seek another interpretation, such as that circumcision signifies the mortification of the body, this would be a useless interpretation, since it disregards the other interpretation of the promise, which is the principal one. Therefore one ought not to act presumptuously in interpretation, but see how God's Word interprets itself."

Finally many sayings from the Fathers were read, with which Zwingli and Oecolampadius sought to defend their view. But these were rambling passages, some of which did not deal with the Sacrament at all. Brenz and Osiander, on the other hand, afterward handed the landgrave a paper in which far clearer sayings from the Fathers were gathered, teaching that the true body and blood of Christ are present in the holy Lord's Supper.

When Luther saw that the adversaries were insisting on their opinions ever more stubbornly, he for his part closed the discussion and thanked Oecolampadius and Zwingli for having handled the matter so amicably. At the same time, however, he added that, since they were by no means willing to abandon their opinion, he would have to commit them to the divine judgment and ask the Lord to enlighten them and lead them back onto the path of truth.

The landgrave listened very attentively to the entire discussion, and, convinced by the proofs for the truth, said publicly:

76

"I would now rather believe the simple words of Christ than the sharp reasonings of men." Oecolampadius too felt pangs of conscience on account of his false doctrine, as Selnecker relates. For when the landgrave addressed him, "My dear Doctor! Those from Wittenberg stand, after all, on a definite text; you have only glosses and interpretations. Now one of these certainly has more ground than the other — why then do you resist?" he answered with a sigh: "Gracious prince and lord! Would that this fist of mine had been cut off before I ever wrote a single letter on this matter."

After the meeting had thus been adjourned, the landgrave, on the following day, urged that they should not part without having concluded a friendly agreement. Zwingli came forward and declared with tearful eyes: "Now God knows that there is no man in this world with whom I would rather be at one than with you, Luther, and your Wittenbergers." He and the rest of his party offered that they would gladly teach along with ours that the body of Christ is truly present in the Supper, only in a spiritual manner, if the others would in turn acknowledge them as brothers. Luther replied: "I too desire to be at odds with no one; but I must nevertheless hold God's Word and truth dearer than the friendship of the whole world." He further said to them: "You have a different spirit than we do," and confronted them sharply: how could they consider him and his friends to be brothers, when they held that they were in error? It was a sign that they did not think much of their own cause. "We too," writes Brenz, "expressed our astonishment at the fickleness of our adversaries, who shortly before had branded us in their writings as worshipers of a breaded god, but who now sought fellowship and brotherhood with us; nevertheless we did not yield a single step from the resolve we had once formed." Thus was fulfilled the prophecy of Osiander, who two years earlier had foretold to Zwingli — who defiantly boasted of hope in a future victory and continually condemned the Lutherans as idolaters, flesh-eaters, and worshipers of an eating-god — "He would be put to shame within three years, or he would not have spoken in the Lord." For although Zwingli and his party had humbled themselves before the Lutherans enough, indeed more than enough, to win their brotherhood, they nevertheless had, as Luther writes, to depart as heretics without obtaining it, because they did not give honor to the truth.

That no unchristian resistance prevailed on the part of the Lutherans, however, was shown by the fact that they gave the adversaries "the hand of peace and love," so that in the meantime harsh writings and words were to be discontinued, and each was to pursue his own teaching without abuse, yet not without refutation and accountability. (Luther's letter to Jo. Agricola.)

In any case, it was in the highest degree gratifying that the opponents, on several points named above, took back their errors. It was now desired that this by no means insignificant result be set down in writing, in order to give an authenticated account of the outcome of the colloquy and at the same time to have a public testimony against any who should depart from the peace. Melanchthon expressly testifies that this was done in order to forestall further error and disunity, and so that the proceeding itself might not be fruitless. This task was entrusted to Luther. He set forth in the first fourteen articles those doctrines on which agreement had been reached. Concerning the holy Lord's Supper, too, as much as possible was jointly established: "Fifteenth, we all believe and hold, concerning the Supper of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, that both kinds should be used according to Christ's institution; that the Mass (the Supper) is likewise not a work by which one obtains grace for another, whether dead or living; that the Sacrament of the Altar is also a Sacrament of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that the spiritual partaking of that same body and blood is especially necessary for every Christian; likewise the use of the Sacrament, as the Word has been given and ordained by God Almighty, in order to move weak consciences to believe through the Holy Spirit." That on which they remained divided was set down by Luther with all forbearance and gentleness: "And although we have not, at this time, come to agreement as to whether the true body and blood of Christ are bodily present in the bread and wine, nevertheless each side shall show Christian love toward the other, so far as each conscience can ever bear it, and both sides shall diligently entreat God Almighty that He would, through His Spirit, confirm in us the right understanding. Amen." This document was acknowledged as valid by both parties; even the Reformed all signed it without reservation, although they had previously taught otherwise — at which the Lutherans could not sufficiently marvel.

Thus was the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, and likewise the victory of the truth, on the side of our own. They rejoiced over the success of the colloquy. "We would scarcely have thought," writes Luther, "that we would still accomplish so much. Would that God might also fully remove, through Christ, the remaining scruple (doubt)." So too Melanchthon expresses himself to the preachers at Reutlingen: "In all other points we are of one mind; only concerning the holy Lord's Supper do we hold differing opinions. This one scruple still clings to the Church. My firm conviction is that Zwingli's opinion cannot be defended against the sense of the words of Scripture and the authority of so many ancient teachers. I therefore admonish you not to accept any doctrine that goes against the authority of holy Scripture. I too am not without the difficult—