THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY. 147 seriously attacked. As late as 1523 he received a complimentary letter from Pope Adrian VI. Zwingle from the beginning was treated with the utmost forbearance, from the concern of the papal court for its political and selfish interests. These circumstances involve nothing discreditable to Zwingle, when the whole history of his relations to the Papacy is understood. But they demon strate that the distinction of sounding the trumpet of revolt against the Roman see belongs to the Saxon reformer. Luther's voice, which was heard in every country of Europe, reached the valleys of Switzerland. It was then that Zwingle was charged by his enemies with being a follower of Luther. This he denied, at the same time that he avowed his agreement with Luther in the great points of doctrine, and courageously spoke of him in terms of warm praise. But it was the noise of the battle which Luther was waging that opened the eyes of men to the real drift of Zwingle's teaching. An unhappy event for the cause of the Reformation was the outbreaking of the great controversy between the Lutherans and the Swiss, upon the Eucharist. In 1524, at the very time when the division of Germany into two hostile parties, Protestant and Catholic, was taking place, the evangelical forces were weakened by this intestine conflict. The doctrine of transubstantiation is not a doctrine of the ancient Church. The view of Augustine, which was that a spiritual power is imparted to the bread and wine, analogous to the virtue supposed to inhere in the baptismal water, long prevailed in the Latin Church, even after the more extreme opinion had been broached by John of Damascus and the Greek theologians. This, is evident from the effect that was produced when literal transubstantiation, or the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, was advocated in the ninth century by Radbert, the Abbot of Corvey. 1 Ranke, Deutsch. Gsch. ii. 59. This theory was opposed by his contemporaries, Rabanus Maurus and by Ratramnus, who adhered to the views of Augustine. The bread and wine nourish the body, but the spiritual power imparted to them - the spiritual body of Christ, of which they are the sign-is received by faith and nourishes the soul to an immortal life. In the eleventh century, the view of Radbert had so far gained the ascendency that Berengar, who defended the more ancient theory, was condemned, although it was claimed that his opinion was favored by Hildebrand. Transubstantiation, the change of substance, was defended by the leading schoolmen of the thirteenth century, and was made an article of faith by the fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, under Innocent III. The Reformers, with one accord, denied this dogma, together with the associated doctrine of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. But in other respects they were not agreed among themselves. Luther affirmed the actual, objective presence of the glorified body and blood of Christ, in connection with the bread and wine, so that the body and blood, in some mysterious way, are received by the communicant whether he be a believer or not. It is the doctrine of two substances in the sacrament, or consubstantiation. His doctrine included a belief in the ubiquity of the human nature of the ascended Christ. Zwingle, on the contrary, had come to consider the Lord's, Supper as having principally a mnemonic significance; as a symbol of the atoning death of Christ and a token or pledge as a ring would be a pledge of its continual efficacy.1 A middle view, which was that of Calvin, though suggested by others before him, was that of a real but spiritual reception of Christ, by the believer alone, whereby there is implanted in the soul the germ of a glorified body or form of being like that of Christ. In this view the elements are the symbol, the pledge, or authentica1 This idea of a token or pledge, however, he soon dropped. Merikofer, ii. 197. LUTHER'S HOSTILITY TO THE SACRAMENTARIANS. 149 tion of the grace of God through the death of Christ; and at the same time to the believer, though to no other, Christ is himself mysteriously and spiritually imparted, as the power of a new life-the power of resurrection. From the human nature of Christ, which is now exalted to heaven, or from his flesh, there enters into the soul of the believer a life-giving influence, so that he is united in the most intimate union to the Saviour.1 The vehemence of Luther's hostility to the Zwinglian doctrine is manifest in his correspondence for a considerable period after the rise of the controversy. There were no terms of opprobrium too violent for him to apply to the tenet and the persons of the Sacramentarians. There were times when for special reasons-chiefly from the hope that they were coming over to his opinion — his hostility was sensibly abated. But his abhorrence of the Zwinglian doctrine never left him. The reasons that misled him into an intolerant and uncharitable course 1 Luther did not hold that the heavenly body of Christ, which is offered and received in the sacrament, occupies space. Yet it is received by all who partake of the bread and wine - not a portion of the body, but the entire Christ by each communicant. It is received, in some proper sense, with the mouth. Sometimes he uses crass expressions on this point. See, for example, the instructions to Melancthon for the conference with Bucer at Cassel: "Und ist summa das unser Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem Brod der Leib Christi gessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brod wirket und leidet, der Leib Christi wirke und leide, das er ausgetheilt, gessen, und mit den Zähnen zubissen werde." De Wette, iv. 572. He asserts that the body of Christ is substantialiter but not localiter — as extended or occupying space-present. De Wette, iv. 573. Zwingle, on the contrary, denied that the body of Christ is present, in any sense, in the sacraThus he writes to Luther himself (April, 1527: Zwing. Opera, viii. 39): "Nunquam enim aliud obtinebis, quam quod Christi Corpus quum in cœna quum in mentibus piorum non aliter sit, quam sola contemplatione." Zwingle and his followers were more and more disposed to attach importance to a spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament. This Calvin emphasized and added the positive assertion of a, direct influence upon the believing communicant, which flows from Christ through the medium or instrumentality of his human nature. His flesh and blood, though locally separated, are really imparted to the soul of the believer, as an effect of his faith, by "the secret power of the Holy Spirit." Institutes, IV. xvii. 9, 10, 23. An able historical discussion by Julius Müller, entitled, Vergleichung der Lehren Luthers und Calvins über das h. Abendmahl is in Müller's Dogmatische Abhandlungen, pp. 404-467. ment. of conduct it is not impossible to discover. The obnoxious theory was first proposed by Carlstadt, an enthusiast and fanatic who had given Luther infinite trouble; and it was defended by him through a weak device of exegesis. It was associated in Luther's mind with the extreme spiritualism, or the subjective tendency, which undervalued and tended to sweep away the objective means of grace, the Word as well as the sacraments, and to substitute for them a special illumination or inspiration from the Spirit.1 The Word and the Sacraments Luther had made the criteria of the Church. On upholding them in their just place, everything that distinguished his reform from enthusiasm or rationalism depended. He had never thought of forsaking the dogmatic system of Latin Christianity in its earlier and purer days, and he looked with alarm on what struck him as a rationalistic innovation. Besides, over and above all these considerations, the real objective presence of Christ in his human nature, was a belief that had taken a deep hold of his imagination and feelings. He had been tempted to give to the text" this is my body "-a looser, more figurative. meaning; but the text, he declared, was too strong for him. He must take it just as it reads. The truth is that his religious feelings were intertwined with the literal interpretation. Being immovably and on such grounds established in his opinion, he would have no fellowship with such as rejected it. They denied, as he considered, 1 Luther was in the habit of stigmatizing the Zwinglians as This seems at first inapposite, even as a term of opprobrium. hold fast to the objective Word and the objective sacraments. in the Word when it entered the ear even of the unbeliever; as it was the Word of God, however it might be received; so was Christ in the sacramental elements, whatever the beliefs or feelings of the recipient might be. The sacrament was complete, independently of the character of the recipient, not less than of the character of the minister. It owed its completeness to the divine institution: just as the rays of the sun are the same, whether they fall upon the eye that can see or upon the blind. In a word, Luther felt strongly that the Zwinglians attributed too much to the subjective factor, to faith, and thus sacrificed the grand objective character of the means of grace-doing by the sacraments what the enthusiasts did by the Scriptures. "schwärmer." But Luther would THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY. 151 an article of the Christian faith, a precious fact of Christian experience. The union of the believer with Christ the unio mystica - is a theme on which he has written more impressively, perhaps, than upon any other topic of Christian doctrine.1 Philosophical objections counted for nothing with him against the intuitions of the ethical or religious nature. He was profoundly sensible that the truths of religion transcend the limits of the understanding. Difficulties raised by the mere understanding, in however plausible form they might be presented, he considered to be really superficial. Yet, in defending his own view he sometimes condescended to fight with weapons of philosophy which he had drawn in earlier days from the tomes of Occam. Of course the most urgent exertions would be made to heal a schism that threatened to breed great disasters to the Protestant cause. Not only was it a scandal of which the Roman Catholic party would only be too happy to make an abundant use, but it distracted the counsels and tended to paralyze the physical strength of the Protestant interest. The theologian who was most industrious in the work of bringing about a union, was Martin Bucer, who from his position at Strasburg was well situated with reference to both of the contending parties, and who was uncommonly ingenious at framing compromises, or at devising formulas sufficiently ambiguous to cover dissonant opinions. Rude and violent though Luther sometimes was, he was always utterly honest and outspoken, and for this reason proved on some occasions unmanageable; and Zwingle, earnest as was his desire for peace, was too sincere and self-respecting to hide his opinion under equivocal phraseology. At least, when it was openly attacked, he would as openly stand for its defense. Of the princes who were active in efforts to pacify the opposing schools and bring 1 Passages from Luther on this subject may be read in Dorner, Entwicklungs gsch. d. Lehre v. d. Person Christ., ii. 510 seq. |