§ 106. LUTHER AND ZWINGLI. 621
A few months later (March, 1525) he openly expressed his view with the same arguments in the “Commentary on the True and False Religion.” This was three months after Luther had published his book against Carlstadt. He does not mention Luther in either of these two writings, but evidently aimed at him, and speaks of his view almost as contemptuously as Luther had spoken of Carlstadt’s view.
In the same year Cicolampadius, one of the most learned and pious men of his age, appeared with a very able work in defense of the same theory, except that he put the figure in the predicate, and explained the words of institution (like Tertullian) : “hoc est FIGURA corporis met.” He lays, however, no stress on this difference, as the sense is the same. He wrote with as much modesty and moderation as learning and acuteness. He first made use of testimonies of the church fathers, especially Augustin, who favors a spiritual fruition of Christ by faith. Erasmus judged the arguments of (Ecolampadius to be strong enough to seduce the very elect.’
The Lutherans were not slow to reply to the Swiss.
Bugenhagen, a good pastor, but poor theologian, published a letter to Hess of Breslau against Zwingli.2 He argues, that, if the substantive verb in the words of institution is
1 Opera, III. 145. The section on the Lord’s Supper appeared also in a German translation. Planck, II. 265 sqq.
2 Ep. ad Budam Epise. Lingonensem, Oct. 2, 1525 (Op., III. 1, 892): “ἐ Hxortum est novum dogma, in Eucharistia nihil esse preter panem et vinum. Id ut sit difficillimum refellere, fecit Io. Gcolampadius qui tot testimoniis, tot argumentis eam opinionem communiit, ut seduci posse videantur etiam electi.’”’ Planck (II. 274): ‘‘ Dass Gicolampad in dieser Schrift die ausgebreitetste Gelehrsamkeit und den blendendsten oder treffendsten Scharfsinn zeigte, dies haben selbst seine parteyischsten Gegner niemals geldugnet ; aber sie hatten wohl auch gestehen diirfen, dass er die anstindigste Bescheidenheit, die wiirdigste Mdssigung und gewiss auch die redlichste Wahrheitsliebe darin gezeigt habe.” Dr. Baur also, in his Kirchengesch. IV. 90, speaks very highly of the book of Gicolampadius, and gives a summary of it. Baur and Gieseler, among modern church historians, clearly betray their Swiss sympathy in this controversy, as well as Planck, although all of them are Germans of Lutheran descent.
3 In German translation, Walch, XX. 641.
622 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 1530.
figurative, it must always be figurative; e.g., “ Peter is a man,” would mean, “ Peter signifies a man.’’! He also appeals to 1 Cor. 11: 27, where Paul says that unworthy communicants are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, not of bread and wine. Zwingli had easy work to dispose of such an opponent.”
Several Swabian preachers, under the lead of Brentius of Hall, replied to CGicolampadius, who (himself a Swabian by birth) had dedicated his book to them with the request to examine and review it. Their Syngramma Suevicum is much more important than Bugenhagen’s epistle. They put forth the peculiar view that the word of Christ puts into bread and wine the very body and blood of Christ; as the word of Moses imparted a healing power to the brazen serpent; as the word of Christ, “Peace be unto you,” imparts peace; and the word, “Thy sins be forgiven,” imparts pardon. But, by denying that the body of Christ is broken by the hands, and chewed with the teeth, they unwittingly approached the Swiss idea of a purely spiritual manducation. Cicolampadius clearly demonstrated this inconsistency in his Anti-syngramma (1526).2 Pirkheimer of Nirnberg, and Billicum of Nordlingen, likewise wrote against Cicolampadius, but without adding any thing new. ~
1 Luther had used the same weak argument before, in his Address to the Bohemians (1523), where he says (Erl. ed., XX VIII. 393 sq.): *‘ Wo man solchen Frevel an einem Ort zuliesse, dass man ohn Grund der Schrift mocht sagen, das Wortlin ‘Ist’ heisst so viel als das Wortlin ‘ Bedeut,’ so konnt mans auch an keinem andern Ort wehren, und wiirde die ganze Schrift zunichte ; sintemal keine Ursach ware, warum solcher Frevel an einem Ort giilte, und nicht an allen Oertern. So mécht man denn sagen, dass Maria ist Jungfrau und Mutter Gottes, sei so viel gesagt, Maria bedeut eine Jungfrau und Gottes Mutter. Item, Christus ist Gott und Mensch, das ist, Christus bedeut Gott und Mensch. Item, Rom. 1: 16, Das Evangelium ist Gottes Kraft, das ist, das Evangelium bedeut Gottes Kraft. Siehe, welch ein greulich Wesen wollt hieraus werden.”’
2 In his Responsio ad Bugenhagii Epistolam, 1525. Opera, III. 604-614. In German, Walch, XX. 648.
8 Walch, XX. 667; Planck, II. 281-311. K0éstlin and Dorner say that the Syngramma is more Calvinistic than Lutheran. ;