THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
Denne eee ee een
hands of the tireless Butzer was making notable progress, save as it was somewhat neutralized by the severe judgment of Luther on Zwingli’s death. This catastrophe in Switzerland left Butzer a freer hand, and his influence, as of the foremost South German theologian and churchman, after the death of (Ecolampadius, was materially increasing. A forward step was the subscription of the Augsburg Confession at the Diet of Schweinfurt (1532), on the part of the representatives of Upper Germany. Melanchthon, gradually relinquishing his distrust toward Butzer, was warming more and more toward his project as shown by his communications from Apr., 1531, and his expressed desire for a meeting, Oct., 1533. A fruit of this meeting was Butzer’s projection of a new general conference to give formal and public statement to the reconciliation that seemed now to have been practically accomplished. Soon better results were promising by a stronger inclination toward harmony in Switzerland; the agreement of the South German Ambrosius Blaurer (q.v.) at Stuttgart to a formula stating the real presence according to substance; and by the adoption, by the much-contested Augsburg, of the Confession and Apology, through Butzer’s exertions. In view of the exclusion of the “sacramentarians”’ by the Peace of Kadan, Philip of Hesse invited Butzer and Melanchthon to a consultation Dec. 27, 1534. Butzer obtained the consensus of the South German preachers assembled quietly at Constance (Dec. 15), which, however, to his disappointment, Zurich and other Swiss towns avoided, after handing in a communion confession previously agreed to. Melanchthon’s own view as expressed to Philip, was that the body and blood of
3. Meeting Christ were truly not figuratively presat Cassel. ent with the bread and wine, and the thoughts dictated by reason were to be
disregarded, but Luther’s instructions were stated in as strict and crass forms as in the Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl (1528) itself. He made secure against Butzer’s favorite plea of a misunderstanding of words by defining the sharp antithesis as existing between the real body to which he and his colleagues adhered and the bread as a mere sign or token, as he alleged was held by the opponents; and he maintained that to make a compromise was against conscience. Moreover, the proffering, the eating, and the chewing with the teeth of the real body, he affirmed as his absolutely unalterable position. A reconciliation was out of the question. Against Luther’s strictures Butzer protested formally; namely: that his plea of mutual misunderstanding was sincere, and that he meant no compromise but to set forth the points held in common by both parties; and for the rest, he extended the discussion skilfully in terms of Luther’s larger Bekenntniss, acceding that he could even assume Luther’s statement of the chewing of the Lord’s body. Rather as the profession of the South Germans he announced that the body is essentially and truly received; that bread and wine are only signs (signa exhibitiva), with which the body and blood are simultaneously offered and received; and that bread and body are not united by a mixture of substance but by a “sacramental conjunction.” :
In the course of time there developed at Wittenberg an earnest desire for peace. Luther came to find himself satisfied with Butzer’s views. Melanchthon, himself burning with longing for unity, held consultations with the theologians, and special-
ly importuned Landgrave Philip, the
4. Confer- father of the idea, to spare no endeavor. ence at Rumors of the prospective understand- Wittenberg. ing began to stir Roman Catholic and political circles. The outcome of the
Cassel conference as well as the unconditioned statements in the new edition of Luther’s larger Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl (1535) aroused much soreness among the Swiss. The closer relations which Augsburg, hitherto indecisive, now assumed toward Wittenberg inspired Luther the more in the hope for the speedy consummation of the concord, and he dispatched five letters to South German cities for a voluntary assembly in Hesse or Coburg. Signs of a more conciliatory spirit appeared in Switzerland. At a meeting of theologians at Aarau, where Basel and Zurich were represented, a formula was adopted in favor of the true eating of the body in the ‘‘mysterious communion,” for the salvation of the soul and the spiritual life. At a diet at Basel, to which Butzer gained admission only after long resistance, an unpublished provisional formula was drawn up not strictly Zwinglian. When at the Diet of Schmalkald (Dec., 1535) Wiirttemberg, Augsburg, Frankfort, and Kempten had been received into the League, the way seemed to have been paved for the successful agreement with the Saxon theologians. The meeting was called for May 14, 1536, at Eisenach. The Swiss, who had decided at Aarau (Apr. 30) not to attend and to stand by their Basel agreement, excused themselves by the brevity of time and long distance. A large representation of South Germans, among whom were Butzer and Capito, arrived at Wittenberg May 21. Meanwhile, Melanchthon was beset with great fear lest the chasm should be widened and sought till the last moment to frustrate the plan. Notice of a republication of Zwingli’s Expositio fide, with a eulogistic estimate of the author by H. Bullinger in the introduction, and of the correspondence of Gicolampadius and Zwingli, with a preface by Butzer, caused Luther likewise to despair; so that upon the arrival of the delegates he, more suspicious and inflexible than ever, took the attitude first of demanding proof of their sincere intentions. When Luther met Butzer and Capito next day, in the presence of a number of his own colleagues, and Butzer proposed modes of proceeding and recounted his strong efforts at concord in doctrine and order, Luther replied abruptly and emphatically that until unity was reached on the Sacrament, he would not treat on any other article. He stated further that the introductions (ut sup.) by Butzer and Bullinger had killed his hopes, since with men who taught one way here and another there no agreement was possible or desirable. Luther now demanded of Butzer that he renounce his former doctrine (“We hold that there is nothing in the elements but bread and wine’’); and to acknowledge that the body is eaten both by the wicked and the pious. Then Luther would be willing to acknowledge that he had been too harsh in his writings
against Zwingli and @icolampadius. Butzer taken by surprise protested his innocence with respect to those publications, made appeal to his utterances and writings on every occasion in defense of his sincerity, and insisted that he and his associates could not take back that which Luther charged, which they never taught, but recall was limited to such a too gross representation as they might have entertained through misunderstanding of Luther’s views. The faith of the churches in the free imperial cities with respect to eating with the mouth was in accord with Luther’s teaching (“the true body and blood were set forth by the visible signs of bread and wine’’), and as to the impious these were not in question, since any recognized as such were not admissible at all to the communion. Their idea, moreover, was that the godless received only the elements, whereas those gifted with faith in general, but “not that vital faith due to the grace of God,” received the body for their judgment. After protracted discussions in which Luther laid stress on the reality of the gift of grace, independent of faith and in dependence upon the institution of Christ, the session adjourned on account of Luther’s feebleness. The next day, in the presence of all the representatives, including for the first time Melanchthon, Butzer reported progress, so as to be able to recall what was previously taught amiss, and revised his former profession, but declined the partaking of the body by the ungodly, although conceding the same by the unworthy, and Luther’s plea that the presence of the body depended, regardless of belief or unbelief, simply on God’s Word and ordinance. After so much progress, and after Luther had questioned Butzer’s associates seriatim and had satisfied himself of their complete accord, and ascertained that in their home churches they had not tolerated the doctrine of mere bread and wine, and had even punished the same, in some places, as blasphemy, he seemed to think that he ought to be satisfied. He was joined in a private conference by his colleagues who felt likewise; only that the other party should be required to affirm once more that the body was present also for the unworthy. But Luther deemed this unnecessary and, returning, pronounced the brotherly conciliation accomplished. Melanchthon was assigned to draft a formula. Agreement on the other points of difference quickly followed. Butzer represented the scruples of the South Germans against the actual faith of infants held by Luther, but he, unwilling also to discuss such a faith, was content with an affirmation that baptism was essential to salvation, and was the medium of regeneration; and on absolution and private confession Luther’s argument prevailed. Melanchthon, still doubting the outcome, presented his formula, May 26; and after Luther had called attention to the fact that such could not be binding until submitted to wider circles as well as to the sovereigns for confirmation, it was read by K. Cruciger, teaching, in substance, that there was a sacramental union of the bread and body; that the real body was taken as set forth by the bread; and that the unworthy, because they abused the sacrament availing in the Church, when they used it without penitence and faith, received it to their judgment. There