sequently became the author of the first Basel Confession of Faith, in twelve articles. LEO JUDA. To Leo Juda, however, more than to any other of his early friends, Zwingli was indebted for substantial help. Their acquaintance began at Basel, where both studied at the same time under Wyttenbach. He became Zwingli's successor at Einsiedeln in 1519. Their friendship ripened until their relationship was so intimate that it could be compared to that between Luther and Melanchthon. Indeed, in other respects the parallel holds good, for Juda was ripe in scholarship and prudent in advice, although in scholarship he was as much inferior to Melanchthon as Zwingli was inferior to Luther in the vigor of his reformatory work. At the second Zurich disputation he ably assisted Zwingli, and was his colleague at St. Peter's in Zurich. The Swiss translation of the Bible was largely due to his labors. He was very poor, but also very benevolent, giving largely out of his meager salary to relieve the necessities of others. Henry Bullinger also deserves mention here, although so much younger than Zwingli, whose successor he became at the great minster in Zurich-as some have supposed, by Zwingli's HENRY BUL advice. In disposition he was greatly in contrast with LINGER. Zwingli, the latter being decided, fiery, incisive, witty, and terse; the former quiet, gentle, thorough, and copious. But the very contrast enabled him to carry on to better advantage the work of reformation, which Zwingli's early death left incomplete.' 1 Such is the language of Pestalozzi, the German of which follows: "Zwingli und Bullinger! welche Verschiedenheit! Zwinglis rasches, feuriges Temperament, Bullingers Ruhe und Gelassenheit; Zwinglis schneidender, stechender Witz, Bullingers einlässliche Gründlichkeit; daher auch Zwinglis Kürze, Bullingers Ausführlichkeit in den Meisten seiner Arbeiten. Wie geeignet zur gegenseitigen Ergänzung!" See his Bullinger, p. 25. Comp. also Schaff, vii, 205-214. CHAPTER XXII. BEGINNINGS OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY. SOME idea of the nature of the changes in practice wrought by the reformers has already been given. Images, and even organs and songs, had been banished from the churches and public worship. At Zurich the iconoclast, Klaus Hottinger, who with others had overthrown the wooden image in Stadelhofen, had been visited with banishment. ICONOCLASTIC The work of purifying the churches of "idols" was taken in hand by the authorities. Bullinger says, "Within thirteen days all the churches in the city were cleared. Costly works of painting and sculpture, especially a beautiful table in the Water Church, were destroyed. The superstitious lamented, but the true believers rejoiced in it as a great and joyous worship of God." In the place of altars, candles, crucifixes, relics, pictures, and frescoes, the town architect, together with a number of artisans, under the supervision of a deputation of twelve councilors and three ministers, left bare whitewashed walls. The vandalism was only less marked than that practiced by self-appointed agents, but it had the appearance of respectability on account of the legal authority under which it proceeded. We must not, however, judge too severely the extremes to which they went. The disease was deep seated and demanded a radical cure. The abolition of the mass and the substitution therefor of simple services commemorative of the dying love of Christ, together with the reformation of the rites of baptism and confirmation, have been described. The emptying of the nunneries and the granting of the right of marriage to the clergy produced such results as to elicit the witticism of Erasmus, that however much of tragedy might reside in the Reformation apparently, it always turned into a comedy at last, since it uniformly ended with a wedding.' Zwingli had married in 1522, but secretly, and his act was not made public until 1524. But while the satire which Erasmus had so long directed against the Roman Catholic abuses was now pointed at the Reformation, these marriages were honorably contracted, and resulted in the purification of the clergy and the establishment of a 1 Comp. Drummond, Erasmus, ii, 319; Schaff, vi, 479, n. 4. beautiful and simple pastoral home life, which reacted for good on the entire population. RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE. Into the details of church government and the relation of Church and State we cannot go. The congregations called their pastors, but the council was the final authority for both municipal and ecclesiastical affairs. They represented the people, who from the beginning had been the determining factor in the introduction or rejection of reformatory measures. As a consequence of this theocratic conception of the relation of Church and State there could be no tolerance of dissent, although the Christlike spirit of the reformers pervaded to some extent the civil authorities and reduced the severity of the penalties, giving a milder tone to the treatment of the dissenters than that which characterized Roman Catholicism. At the beginning the magistracy, not knowing what to do, maintained a certain appearance of neutrality, and hence the tolerance of diverse opinions. But by the time the Reformation in Switzerland had reached the zenith of its influence the Church had been subjected, without recourse, to the State. The delineation of the doctrinal development of the Swiss Reformation must be postponed until the comparison can be made between it and the German Reformation; but there is one point of doctrine which must be now considered, because it was the point at which the Swiss and German Reformations, which had hitherto seemed to move on side by side, met and clashed, and separated forever. The reference is to the pitiable and deplorable eucharistic controversy. Our first effort will be to trace the independent development of the doctrine of the eucharist in the theology of Zwingli and of Luther respectively, and then to describe the course of the controversy and its results. Zwingli, like Luther, early came to reject the Roman Catholic mass, with its idolatrous and superstitious concomitants, and to insist upon giving the cup, as well as the bread, to the laity. So far then both Reformations agreed. As in so many of his other ideas, Zwingli was indebted to Erasmus for his conception of the eucharist. To both it was a 2 ZWINGLI'S DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST. 1 For a satisfactory statement see Christoffel, Zwingli, pp. 151-166. 66 * "Cinglius mihi confessus est, se ex Erasmi scriptis primum hausisse opinionem suam de cœna Domini." Zwingli confessed to me that from Erasmus he first derived his idea of the Lord's Supper."-Melanchthon, Corpus Reformatorum, iv, 970. memorial of the death of Christ, and that only; but it was from Cornelius Honius, a Dutch jurist, that Erasmus originally received the idea of the symbolic interpretation of the copulative "is" in the words of institution. Zwingli first put his own views into writing in a letter to Wyttenbach as early as June 15, 1523, but, in accordance with his natural secretiveness, privately. In November, 1524, incited by the dawning controversy of Luther with Carlstadt, he again secretly communicated his interpretation to Matthæus Alber, a Lutheran preacher in Reutlingen.' In this letter he argued from John vi, 63, that the words of institution must be spiritually, not physically understood, thus really taking sides against Luther with one of Luther's own friends. In his Commentary on the True and False Religion, published in March, 1525, but a few months after his letter to Alber, he openly advocated his view of the eucharist. This is, in brief, all there is of the history of the development of Zwingli's views. He elaborated them, and was willing, for the sake of peace, to modify his language, but he never changed them. Luther states his opinion on the eucharist, together with the source from which the suggestion came, in his Babylonian Captivity as early as 1520. He says that while reading the works of Pierre d'Ailly,' cardinal of Cambray, he observed that that scholastic argued that if the Church had not determined to the contrary it would necessitate fewer miracles, and appear more probable to suppose that the real bread and wine were upon the altar in the sacrament, and not merely their accidents. LUTHER'S CONSUBSTAN From this Luther afterward produced the doctrine that instead of the transubstantiation of the Roman Catholic Church, according to which the bread and wine are transformed into the DOCTRINE OF Substance of the body and blood of Christ, preserving TIATION. only the accidents of bread and wine, the bread and wine remained, and with them was present also the real body and blood of Christ. The difference between this view and that of the Roman Catholics is not great. It turns on the question whether the bread and wine disappear, leaving in their place the body and 'A German translation of this letter is found in Walch's ed. of Luther's Works. 'D'Ailly's discussion of the subject is to be seen in his Quæstiones super libros Sententiarum, bk. iv, Ques. vi (1490). For the exact language of Luther see his Babylonian Captivity in First Principles of the Reformation, by Wace and Buchheim. blood of Christ, with the accidents of taste and appearance of bread and wine, or whether the bread and wine remain in substance as well as in their accidents. Luther's doctrine is technically designated as consubstantiation. In both theories it is held that the communicant literally partakes of the body and blood of Christ. This view Luther clearly taught in 1523 in his work on The Adoration of the Sacrament, addressed to the Waldenses of Bohemia, in which he combated both their figurative theory and the transubstantiation of Roman Catholicism. Throughout the controversy Luther continued to hold this view unchanged, though he supported it by a greater variety of arguments and with increasing strenuousness as time advanced. CARLSTADT'S THE CONTRO- In order to get a clear understanding of the controversy it will be necessary to trace the agency of Carlstadt, the former friend of Luther, but since the Peasant War and the excitement preceding it Luther's bitter foe. In 1524 Carlstadt published his peculiar interpretation of the words, "This is my body; this is my blood," making the words prophetic as used by our Lord, thereby leaving entirely out of consideration the question of the presence of the bread and wine, and placing all the stress on the symbolism of the words.' As early as November, 1524, Urban Rhegius replied, and about the same time it was that Zwingli wrote his private letter to Alber. As Carlstadt occasioned the opening of the controversy, so Strasburg was the place of its origin. Among the reformers who resided there in 1524 were a number of French refugees, as Lambert of Avignon and William Farel. These, together with Bucer and Capito, were much impressed with the modicum of truth in Carlstadt's views; but reverence for Luther prompted them to send him a request for his opinion as to the situation. At the same time they appealed to Zwingli, whose answer in a letter of December 16, 1524, arrived much earlier than Luther's, because of his close proximity to Strasburg. Zwingli's letter completely confirmed the Strasburgers in their symbolic view of the words of institution. Luther's letter was directed rather against Carlstadt than against his opinions, and was followed about the same time, December, 1524, by his work entitled, Against the Heavenly Prophets, in which he rejected the right of reason to enter into the decision of theological 1See his many brief writings on the eucharist in Walch's edition of Luther's Works. |