[612] Qui cum ejus sententiam audivissent dissimulantes suam, gratias egerunt Deo, quod a tanto errore liberati essent atque Honii Batavi epistolam protulerunt. Ibid. This letter had an incalculable influence on the destinies of the Reformation. Hoen, resting his arguments on Christ's words in the sixth chapter of Saint John, said: "Christ gives himself to us by means of the bread:[613] but let us distinguish between the bread we receive by the mouth, and Christ whom we receive by faith. Whoever thinks that he receives only what he takes into his mouth, does not discern the body of the Lord, and eats and drinks his own condemnation, because by eating and drinking he bears testimony to the presence of Christ, whilst by his unbelief he remains far from Him."--At the same time the Netherlanders laid Wessel's theses before Zwingle.[614] These writings made a deep impression on the reformer's mind. [613] Dominus per panem se ipsum tradit nobis. Epist. Christiana per Honnium Batavum Hist. Ev. i. 231-260. [614] Propositiones ex evangelio de corpore et sanguine Christi sumendo, &c. It is uncertain whether Zwingle had, at this time, received Wessel's treatise _de Eucharistia_. The result of Zwingle's inquiries corresponded with his tendencies. By studying Scripture as a whole, which was his custom, and not in detached passages, and by having recourse to classical antiquity for the solution of the difficulties of language, he arrived at the conviction that the word is, employed in the formula of the institution of the Lord's Supper, ought to be taken (as Hoen said) in the meaning of _signifies_, and as early as 1523 he wrote to his friend Wittembach that the bread and wine are in the Eucharist what the water is in baptism. "It would be in vain," added he, "for us to plunge a man a thousand times in water, if he does not believe. Faith is the one thing needful."[615] [615] Haud aliter hic panem et vinum esse puto quam aqua est in baptismo. Ad Wittenbachium Ep. 15th June 1523. It would appear, besides, that Zwingle had been prepared,[616] indirectly at least, for these views by Erasmus. Melancthon says: "Zwingle confessed to me (at Marburg) that it was originally from the writings of Erasmus that he had derived his opinions on the Lord's Supper." In fact Erasmus wrote in 1526: "The sentiments of Œcolampadius would not displease me if the testimony of the Church were not against them. I do not see what an insensible body can do, or what utility would be derived from it, even if we could feel it; it is enough that spiritual grace be found in the symbols."[617] [616] Zwinglius mihi confessus est, se ex Erasmi scriptis primum hausisso opinionem suam de cœna Domini. Corp. Ref. iv. 970. [617] Nec enim video quid agat corpus insensibile, nec utilitatem allaturum si sentiretur, modo adsit in Symbolis gratia spiritualis. Er. Opp. iii. 941. [Sidenote: LUTHER'S RETURN TO SCHOLASTICISM.]