them upon some common ground, Philip, the Landgrave of Hesse, was most conspicuous. The most memorable attempt of this sort was the Conference at Marburg in 1529, where the Swiss theologians met Luther and Melancthon. The former accommodated themselves to the views of the Lutherans on the subject of original sin, and on some other points respecting which their orthodoxy had been questioned. The only point of difference was the Eucharist; but here the difference proved irreconcilable. The Landgrave arranged that private conferences should first be held between Ecolampadius and Luther, and between Melancthon and Zwingle; Zwingle and Luther being thus kept apart, and each put by the side of a theologian of mild and conciliatory temper. But the experiment was fruitless. No more could an agreement be reached when all were assembled with the Landgrave and a select company of spectators. The theologians sat by a table, the Saxons on one side and the Swiss opposite them. Luther wrote upon the table with chalk his text, "hoc est meum corpus and refused to budge an iota from the literal sense. But his opponents would not admit the actual presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament, or that his body is received by unbelievers. Finally, when it was evident that no common ground could be reached, Zwingle, with tears in his eyes, offered the hand of fraternal fellowship to Luther. But this Luther refused to take, not willing, says Ranke, to recognize them as of the same communion. But more was meant by this refusal; Luther would regard the Swiss as friends, but such was the influence of his dogmatic system over his feelings, that he could not bring himself to regard them as Christian brethren. Luther and Melancthon at this time appear to have supposed that an agreement in every article of belief is the necessary condition of Christian fellowship. Both parties engaged to be friendly to one another, and to abstain from irritating

THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY.

153

language. They signed in common fourteen articles of faith relating to the great points of Christian doctrine, and promised to exercise toward one another all the charity which is consistent with a good conscience. There was a considerable time during which the sentiments and language of Luther in relation to the Sacramentarians, were greatly softened. In particular was this the case while he was at Coburg, during the sessions of the Diet of Augsburg. The imperial cities of Southern Germany, by the agency of the indefatigable Bucer, although they sympathized with the Zwinglian doctrine, were adınitted to the league of Smalcald. In 1536 the most distinguished theologians of Upper Germany joined Luther and his followers in subscribing to the Wittenberg Concord, which expressed, with slight reservations, the Lutheran view. But the Swiss adherents of Zwingle refused to sanction this creed.1 In 1543, the publication of Zwingle's writings by his son-in-law, Gualter, with an apologetic essay from his pen, once more roused the ire of Luther, and he began again to denounce the Zwinglians and their doctrine in the former vituperative strain.2

1 It is asserted that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and offered in the sacrament, and are received even by the "unworthy." Bucer distinguished between the "unworthy" and "godless." On this agreement see the article "Wittenberger Concordie," in Herzog's Real-Encycl., and Gieseler, III. iv. 1, § 7.

2 The story that Luther, shortly before his death, acknowledged to Melancthon that he had gone too far in the sacramental controversy, is given, for example, by Christoffel, i. 331. It is a fiction: see Galle, Versuch einer Character- ` istik Melancthons als Theologen, etc., p. 433. Luther and Melancthon depended very much for their information on Swiss affairs upon travellers and students, and had an imperfect conception of the real character of Zwingle's services to reform. Neither of the disputants at Marburg fully grasped the opinion of the other. The Zwinglians often understood Luther to hold to a local presence, whereas the Lutheran doctrine rests upon the idea of a spiritualizing of the human nature of Christ, of an effect wrought upon it by its relation to Divinity, so that it no longer fills space or is fettered by spatial relations. The state of Luther's health, and the particular circumstances under which he wrote, affected his tone respecting Zwingle. There was a certain bluntness in Zwingle which was offensive to Luther, and was interpreted by him as personal disrespect. Zwingle's letter to Luther (April, 1527; Zwing. Opera, viii, 39),

war.

We turn now to the catastrophe of the Swiss Reformation. There was a growing hostility between the five mountain cantons that remained Catholic and the cities in which Protestantism had been established. The Catholic cantons entered into a league with Ferdinand of Austria. Protestant preachers who fell into the hands of the Catholics were put to death. The new doctrine was suppressed within their limits. The districts that belonged in common to the several cantons furnished the occasion for bitter controversy. At length Zurich took up arms, and without bloodshed forced the five cantons to tear up the compact with Austria, to concede that each government should be free to decide for itself upon the religious question, and to pay the costs of the projected The behavior of the five cantons, however, was not improved. Their threatening attitude led Zurich to form alliances with the city of Strasburg and the Landgrave of Hesse. The force of the Protestants, apart from foreign help, was greater than that of their adversaries. Zwingle recommended bold measures. He thought that the constitution of the Swiss Confederacy should be changed, so that the preponderance might be given to the cities where it justly belonged, and taken from the mountain districts which had so shamefully misused their power. The chief demands that were really made, were that the Protestant doctrine, which was prohowever it may have been provoked, was adapted to irritate the Saxon reformer. Referring to it, Luther speaks of the "Helvetica ferocia" of his opponent (to Spalatin, May 31, 1527; De Wette, iii. 182). In a letter to Bullinger (May 14, 1538; De Wette, v. 3), he speaks kindly of Zwingle: "Libere enim dicam: Zwinglium, postquam Marpurgi mihi visus et auditus est, virum optimum esse judicavi, sicut et Ecolampadium," etc. He speaks of the grief he had experienced at Zwingle's death. But when his displeasure was excited, he wrote in a different spirit. See, for example, a letter to Wenc. I ink (January 3, 1532, De Wette, iv. 331). But Zwingle, in the Fidei Ratio -the creed which he presented at Augsburg - had described Luther's opinion as the tenet of those "who look back to the flesh-pots of Egypt: "Qui adollas Egyptiacas respectant "an aspersion as unjust as it was irritating (Rit. Fid., 8). Luther's latest ebullition, occasioned by the intelligence that the Swiss were denouncing him, is in a letter to Jac. Probst (January 17, 1546; De Wette, v. 777).

DEATH OF ZWINGLE.

155

fessed in the lower cantons, should be tolerated in the upper, and that persecution should cease there. But the question was whether even these demands would be enforced. Zwingle was in favor of overpowering the enemy by a direct attack, and of extorting from them just concessions. But he was overruled, and half measures were resorted to. The attempt was made to coerce the Catholic cantons by non-intercourse, by thus cutting off their supplies. The effect was that the Catholics were enabled to collect their strength, while the Protestant cities were divided by jealousies and by disagreement as to what might be the best policy to adopt. Zurich was left without help, to confront, with hasty and inadequate preparation, the combined strength of the Catholic party. The Zurich force was defeated at Cappel, on the 11th of October, 1531, and Zwingle, who had gone forth as a chaplain with his people to battle, fell. He had anticipated defeat from the time when his counsels were disregarded, and he had found it impossible to bring the magistrates of Berne to a resolution to act with decision. In the thick of the fight, he raised his voice to encourage his companions, but made no use of his weapons. As he received his mortal wound, he exclaimed: "What evil is this? they can kill the body, but not the soul!"2 As he lay, still breathing, on the field, with his hands folded and his eyes directed to heaven, one or more brutaļ soldiers asked him to confess to a priest, or to call on Mary and the saints. He shook his head in token of refusal. They knew not to whom they were speaking, but only that he was a heretic, and with a single sword-thrust put an end to his life. Notwithstanding this defeat, the party of the reformed might have retrieved their cause. But they lacked union and energy. Zurich and Berne

1 Mörikofer, ii. 417.

2 Myconius, xii.

8 The death of Zwingle is described with touching simplicity by his successor at Zurich, Bullinger, Reformationsgeschichte (Zurich ed., 1838), iii. 136.

concluded a humiliating peace, the effect of which was to inflict a serious check upon the Protestant interest and to enable the Catholics to repossess themselves of portions of the ground which they had lost.

The menace addressed by the Catholic majority at the Diet of Augsburg to the Protestants, led to the formation of the Protestant Defensive League of Smalcald, to which the four imperial cities of South Germany that held the Zwinglian opinions, but were now disconnected from the confederacy of their Swiss brethren, were admitted in 1531. The Imperial Chamber had been purged by the exclusion of all who were supposed to sympathize with the new opinions. This tribunal was to be made the instrument of a legal persecution. The Emperor procured the election of his brother as Roman King, in a manner which involved a violation of the rights of the Electors, and was adapted to excite the apprehensions of the Protestants.1 The Wittenberg theologians waived their opposition to the project of withstanding the Emperor. Luther took the ground that, while as Christians, they ought not to resort to force, yet the rights and duties of the princes in reference to the Emperor were a political question for jurists to determine, and that Christians, as members of the state, were bound to take up arms in defense of their princes, when these are unlawfully assaulted. The political situation for ten years after the Diet of Augsburg was such as not only to disable Charles from the forcible execution of its decree, but also such as to favor the progress of the Reformation. The League of Smalcald, strengthened by a temporary alliance with the Dukes of Bavaria and by treaties with France and Denmark, was too formidable to be attacked. The irrup

1 Ranke, iii. 220 seq. The "King of the Romans" was the title of the successor of the Emperor during the lifetime of the latter, and of the latter prior to his coronation at Rome. See Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, p. 404.