Roman-catholicism, which possesses in the papacy a means of continually establishing new doctrines, appears at first sight, indeed, to contain a principle eminently favourable to variations. It has in truth largely availed itself of it, and from age to age we see Rome bringing forward or ratifying new doctrines. But its system once complete, Roman-catholicism has declared itself the champion of immobility. In this its safety lies; it resembles those buildings which tremble at the least motion, and from which nothing can be taken without bringing them wholly to the ground. Permit the Romish priests to marry, or aim a blow at the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the whole system is shaken, the whole edifice crumbles into dust.

It is not thus with evangelical Christianity. Its principle is much less favourable to variations, and much more so to progression and to life. In fact, on the one hand it recognises Scripture only as the source of truth, one and always the same, from the beginning of the Church to the end: how then should it vary as Popery has done? But, on the other hand, each Christian is to go and draw for himself from this fountain; and hence proceed action and liberty. Accordingly, evangelical Christianity, while it is the same in the nineteenth as in the sixteenth century, and as in the first, is in every age full of spontaneity and motion, and is now filling the world with its researches, its labours, bibles, missionaries, light, salvation, and life.

It is a great error to cla.s.sify together and almost to confound evangelical Christianity with mysticism and rationalism, and to impute their irregularities to it. Motion is in the very nature of Christian Protestantism; it is directly opposed to immobility and lethargy; but it is the motion of health and life that characterizes it, and not the aberrations of man deprived of reason, or the convulsions of disease.

We shall see this characteristic manifested in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

[Sidenote: ZWINGLE AND LUTHER.]

Such a result might have been expected. This doctrine had been understood in very different manners in the former ages of the Church, and this diversity existed until the time when the doctrine of transubstantiation and the scholastic theology began simultaneously to rule over the middle ages. But when this dominion was shaken, the old diversities were destined to reappear.

Zwingle and Luther, who had each been developed separately, the one in Switzerland and the other in Saxony, were however one day to meet face to face. The same spirit, and in many respects the same character, animated both. Both alike were filled with love for the truth and hatred of injustice; both were naturally violent; and this violence was moderated in each by a sincere piety. But there was one feature in Zwingle's character destined to carry him farther than Luther. It was not only as a man that he loved liberty, but also as a republican and fellow-countryman of Tell. Accustomed to the decision of a free state, he did not permit himself to be stopped by those considerations before which Luther recoiled. He had moreover studied less profoundly the scholastic theology, and thus found his motions less fettered. Both were ardently attached to their own convictions; both resolved to defend them; and, little habituated to yield to the convictions of another, they were now to meet, like two proud war-horses, which, rushing through the contending ranks, suddenly encounter each other in the hottest of the strife.

A practical tendency predominated in the character of Zwingle and in the Reformation of which he was the author, and this tendency was directed to two great objects, simplicity of worship and sanctification of life. To harmonize the worship with the necessities of the mind, that seeks not external pomp but invisible things--this was Zwingle's first aim. The idea of the corporeal presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, the origin of so many ceremonies and superst.i.tions of the Church, must therefore be abolished. But another desire of the Swiss reformer led to the same results. He found that the Roman doctrine of the eucharist, and even that of Luther, presupposed a certain magical influence prejudicial to sanctification; he feared lest Christians, imagining they received Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread, should henceforward less earnestly seek to be united to him by faith in the heart. "Faith," said he, "is not knowledge, opinion, imagination; it is a reality.[610] It leads to a real union with Divine things." Thus, whatever Zwingle's adversaries may have a.s.serted, it was not a leaning to rationalism, but a profoundly religious view, that led him to his peculiar doctrines.

[610] Fidem rem esse, non scientiam, non opinionem vel imaginationem.

Comment. de vera relig. Zw. Opp. iii. 230.

But there was another element in Zwingle's convictions: he was subject to those historical influences which we must everywhere recognise in the annals of the Church as in that of the world. It has been long supposed that he was acquainted with the sentiments of Ratram, Wickliffe, and Peter Waldo; but we possess a much safer historical clue to the convictions of the Swiss reformer.

[Sidenote: THE NETHERLANDERS AT ZURICH.]

The two Netherlanders, Rhodius and Sagarus, whom we have seen arrive at Wittemberg, and there occasion the first difference between Luther and Carlstadt, had turned their steps towards Switzerland, carrying with them Wessel's ma.n.u.scripts, and reached Basle, where Luther himself had commended them to colampadius. The latter person, who was of timid character, finding that Luther did not approve of the opinions which these brethren from Holland were endeavouring to propagate, did not venture to declare his sentiments, and sent them to Zwingle. They arrived at Zurich in 1521, and having waited on the reformer, immediately turned the conversation on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.[611]

[611] Factum est ut Johannes Rhodius et Georgius Sagarus, pii et docti viri, Tigurum venirent, ut de Eucharistia c.u.m Zwinglio conferrent.

Lavateri Hist. de origine controv. sacram. Tiguri, 1564, p. 1.

[Sidenote: RESULT OF ZWINGLE'S INQUIRIES.]

Rhodius and his friend did not at first make known their opinions, but after listening to Zwingle, they gave thanks to G.o.d for having delivered them from so great an error.[612] They then presented the letter from Cornelius Hoen, which Zwingle read, and published shortly after.

[612] Qui c.u.m 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 n.o.bis. 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 pa.s.sages, and by having recourse to cla.s.sical antiquity for the solution of the difficulties of language, he arrived at the conviction that the word is, employed in the formula of the inst.i.tution 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 colampadius 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 cna 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.]

Luther at first set out, in appearance at least, from principles very similar to those of the Zurich doctor. "It is not the sacrament that sanctifieth," said he, "but faith in the sacrament." But the extravagances of those whose mysticism spiritualized everything, led to a great change in his views. When he saw enthusiasts who pretended to a particular inspiration, breaking images, rejecting baptism,[618]

and denying the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, he was alarmed; he had a sort of prophetic presentiment of the dangers that would threaten the Church if this ultra-spiritual tendency should get the upperhand, and he accordingly threw himself into the very opposite course; like a pilot who, seeing his boat lean too much on one side and near foundering, throws himself on the other to restore the equilibrium.

[618] Vol. I. p. 145 bot.

From that time Luther attached a higher importance to the sacraments.

He maintained that they were not only signs, by means of which Christians were outwardly distinguished, as Zwingle said, but testimonials of the Divine will, calculated to strengthen our faith.

More than this, Christ, in his view, had determined to give believers a full a.s.surance of their salvation, and in order to seal this promise in the most effectual manner, he had added his real body to the bread and wine. "Just as iron and fire," continued he, "which are nevertheless two distinct substances, are confounded together in a heated ma.s.s of iron so that in each of its parts there is at once iron and fire; in like manner, and with much greater reason, the glorified body of Christ is found in all the parts of the bread."

[Sidenote: RESPECT FOR TRADITION.]

Thus at this period there seems to have been some return on the part of Luther towards the scholastic theology. In his doctrine of justification by faith he had entirely renounced it; but in that of the sacrament he abandoned one point only, transubstantiation, and preserved the other, the corporeal presence. He even went so far as to say, that he would rather receive the blood only with the pope, than the wine only with Zwingle.

Luther's great principle was never to depart from the doctrine and customs of the Church, except when the language of Scripture rendered it absolutely necessary. "Where has Christ commanded us to elevate the host and exhibit it to the people?" Carlstadt had demanded.--"And where has Christ forbidden it?" was Luther's reply. In this answer lies the principle of the two Reformations. Ecclesiastical traditions were dear to the Saxon reformer. If he separated from them on several points, it was not until after terrible struggles, and because, above all, it was necessary to obey the Scriptures. But when the letter of the Word of G.o.d appeared in harmony with the tradition and usages of the Church, he adhered to it with immovable firmness. Now this was what happened in the question of the eucharist. He did not deny that the word _is_ might be taken in the sense indicated by Zwingle. He acknowledged, for instance, that in the words, _That rock was Christ_,[619] it must be so understood; but he denied that this word must have the same meaning in the inst.i.tution of the Lord's Supper.

[619] 1 Cor. x. 4.

He found in one of the later schoolmen, Occam,[620] whom he preferred to all others, an opinion which he embraced. Like Occam, he gave up the continually repeated miracle, by virtue of which, according to the Roman Church, the body and blood of Christ took the place of the bread and wine after every consecration by the priest; and with this doctor, he subst.i.tuted a universal miracle, worked once for all,--that of the ubiquity and omnipresence of the body of Jesus Christ. "Christ," said he, "is present in the bread and wine, because he is present everywhere, and above all, wherever he wills to be."[621]

[620] Diu multumque legit scripta Occami cujus ac.u.men anteferebat Thomae et Scoto. Melancth. Vita Luth.

[621] Occam und Luther, _Studien und Kritiken_, 1839, p. 69.

[Sidenote: ZWINGLE'S TURN OF MIND.]

The turn of Zwingle's mind was very different from Luther's. He was less inclined to preserve a certain union with the universal Church and to maintain his connexion with the traditions of past ages. As a theologian, he looked at Scripture alone, and thence only would he receive his faith freely and immediately, without troubling himself about what others had thought before him. As a republican, he looked to his _commune_ of Zurich. It was the idea of the present Church that engrossed his thoughts, and not that of the Church of former times. He clung particularly to these words of St. Paul: _For we being many are one bread, and one body_; and he saw in the Lord's Supper the sign of a spiritual communion between Christ and all Christians. "Whoever acts unworthily," said he, "is guilty towards the body of Christ of which he is a member." This thought had a great practical influence over men's minds; and the effects it produced in the lives of many confirmed Zwingle in it.

Thus Luther and Zwingle had insensibly separated from each other. It is probable however that peace might have subsisted longer between them, if the turbulent Carlstadt, who kept pa.s.sing to and fro between Switzerland and Germany, had not inflamed these contrary opinions.

[Sidenote: BEGINNING OF THE CONTROVERSY.]

A step taken with a view to maintain peace led to the explosion. The council of Zurich, desirous of preventing all controversy, forbade the sale of Carlstadt's works. Zwingle, who disapproved of his violence, and blamed his mystical and obscure expressions,[622] thought himself now called upon to defend his doctrine, both in the pulpit and before the council; and shortly after wrote a letter to Albert, pastor of Reutlingen, in which he said: "Whether or not Christ speaks of the sacrament in the sixth chapter of St. John, it is very evident that he there inculcates a manner of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, in which there is nothing corporeal."[623] He then proceeded to prove that the Lord's Supper, by reminding the faithful, according to Christ's intention, of his body which was broken for them, procured for them that spiritual eating which alone is truly salutary.

[622] Quod morosior est (Carlstadius) in caeremoniis non ferendis, non admodum probo. Zw. Epp. p. 369.

[623] A manducatione cibi, qui ventrem implet, transiit ad verbi manducationem, quam cib.u.m vocat clestem, qui mundum vivificet. Zw.

Opp. iii. 573.

Yet Zwingle shrunk from a rupture with Luther; he trembled at the thought that these unhappy disputes might tear in pieces that new society which was then forming in the midst of fallen Christendom. But it was not so with Luther. He did not hesitate to cla.s.s Zwingle with those enthusiasts against whom he had already broken so many lances.

He did not reflect that if the images had been taken down at Zurich, it was done legally and by order of the public authority. Accustomed to the forms of the German princ.i.p.alities, he knew but little of the proceedings of the Swiss republics; and he inveighed against the grave divines of Helvetia, as he had done against the Munzers and Carlstadts.

Luther having published his _Treatise against the Celestial Prophets_, Zwingle no longer hesitated, and at nearly the same time he gave to the world his _Letter to Albert_, and his _Commentary on True and False Religion_, dedicated to Francis I. In this last he said: "Since Christ, in the sixth chapter of St. John, ascribes to faith the power of imparting eternal life, and of uniting the believer to Him in the closest union, what need have we of more? Why should He afterwards have ascribed this virtue to His flesh, whilst He himself declares that His flesh profiteth nothing? The flesh of Christ, so far as it suffered death for us, is of incalculable utility, for it saves us from perdition; so far as it is eaten by us, it is of no use whatever."

The struggle began. Pomera.n.u.s, Luther's friend, rushed into the conflict, and attacked the evangelist of Zurich somewhat too contemptuously. colampadius then began to blush at having so long combated his doubts, and at having preached doctrines that already began to waver in his mind. He took courage, and wrote from Basle to Zwingle: "The dogma of the real presence is the fortress and safeguard of their impiety. So long as they preserve this idol, no one can conquer them." He then entered into the lists, by publishing a book on the meaning of our Lord's words: _This is my body_.[624]

[624] He took the word is in its usual acceptation, but by _body_ he understood a symbol of the body.