§ 131. The Sacramentarian Controversy,A.D.1525-1529.368Luther in his “Babylonish Captivity of the Church,” ofA.D.1520, had, in opposition to prevailing views, which made the efficacy of the sacraments dependent on the objective receiving without regard to the faith of the receiver,opus operatum, pressed forward the subjective side in a somewhat extreme manner. During the earlier period of his career as a reformer, and indeed even at a later period, as his letter to the men of Strassburg shows, he was in danger of going to the extreme of overlooking or denying the real objective and Divine contents of the sacrament. But decided as the opposition was to the scholastic theory of transubstantiation, and convinced as he was that the bread and wine were to be regarded as mere symbols, the text of Scripture seemed clearly to say to him that he must recognise there the presence of the true body and blood of Christ. His anxiety to avoid the errors of the fanatics, and his simple acceptance of the word of Scripture, led him to that conviction which inspired him to the end, thatIN,WITH, andUNDERthe bread and wine the true body and blood of the Lord are received, by believers unto salvation, by unbelievers unto condemnation.Carlstadt(§124, 3) had denied utterly the presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the sacrament. He sought to set aside the force of the words of institution by giving to τοῦτο an absurd meaning: Christ had pointed to His own present body, and said, “This here is My body, which in death I will give for you, and in memory thereof eat this bread.” When Carlstadt, expelled from Saxony, came to Strassburg, he sought to interest the preachers there, Bucer and Capito, in himself and his sacramental view. But Luther was not moved by their attempts at conciliation.Zwingli, too, took the side of Carlstadt. In essential agreement with Carlstadt, but putting the matter on another basis, Zwingli interpreted the words of institution, “This is,” by “This signifies,” and reduced the significance of the sacrament to a symbolical memorial of Christ’s suffering and death. In an epistle to the Lutheran Matthew Alber at Reutlingen inA.D.1524 he set forth this theory, and sided with Carlstadt against Luther. He developed his views more fully in his dogmatic treatise,Commentarius de vera et falsa relig.,A.D.1525, where he characterizes Luther’s doctrine as anopinio non solum rustica sed etiam impia et frivola.Œcolampadius, too, took part in the controversy as supporter of his friend Zwingli when attacked by Bugenhagen, and wrote inA.D.1525 hisDe genuina verborum Domini, Hoc est corpus meum, expositione. He wished to understand the σῶμα of the words of institution as equivalent to “sign of the body.” Œcolampadius laid his treatise before the Swabian reformers Brenz and Schnepf; but these, in concert with twelve other preachers, answered in theSyngramma SuevicumofA.D.1525 quite in accordance with Luther’s doctrine. The controversy continued to spread.Luther first openly appeared against the Swiss inA.D.1526 in his “Sermon on the Sacrament against the Fanatics,” and to this Zwingli replied. Luther answered again in his tract, “That the words, This is My body, stand firm;” and inA.D.1528 he issued his great manifesto, “Confession in regard to the Lord’s Supper” (§144, 2, note). Notwithstanding the endeavours of the Strassburgers at conciliation the controversy still continued. Zwingli’s statement was the shibboleth of the Swiss Reformation, and was adopted also in many of the upland cities. Strassburg, Lindau, Meiningen, and Constance accepted it; even in Ulm, Augsburg, Reutlingen, etc., it had its supporters.—Continuation, §132, 4.
Luther in his “Babylonish Captivity of the Church,” ofA.D.1520, had, in opposition to prevailing views, which made the efficacy of the sacraments dependent on the objective receiving without regard to the faith of the receiver,opus operatum, pressed forward the subjective side in a somewhat extreme manner. During the earlier period of his career as a reformer, and indeed even at a later period, as his letter to the men of Strassburg shows, he was in danger of going to the extreme of overlooking or denying the real objective and Divine contents of the sacrament. But decided as the opposition was to the scholastic theory of transubstantiation, and convinced as he was that the bread and wine were to be regarded as mere symbols, the text of Scripture seemed clearly to say to him that he must recognise there the presence of the true body and blood of Christ. His anxiety to avoid the errors of the fanatics, and his simple acceptance of the word of Scripture, led him to that conviction which inspired him to the end, thatIN,WITH, andUNDERthe bread and wine the true body and blood of the Lord are received, by believers unto salvation, by unbelievers unto condemnation.
Carlstadt(§124, 3) had denied utterly the presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the sacrament. He sought to set aside the force of the words of institution by giving to τοῦτο an absurd meaning: Christ had pointed to His own present body, and said, “This here is My body, which in death I will give for you, and in memory thereof eat this bread.” When Carlstadt, expelled from Saxony, came to Strassburg, he sought to interest the preachers there, Bucer and Capito, in himself and his sacramental view. But Luther was not moved by their attempts at conciliation.Zwingli, too, took the side of Carlstadt. In essential agreement with Carlstadt, but putting the matter on another basis, Zwingli interpreted the words of institution, “This is,” by “This signifies,” and reduced the significance of the sacrament to a symbolical memorial of Christ’s suffering and death. In an epistle to the Lutheran Matthew Alber at Reutlingen inA.D.1524 he set forth this theory, and sided with Carlstadt against Luther. He developed his views more fully in his dogmatic treatise,Commentarius de vera et falsa relig.,A.D.1525, where he characterizes Luther’s doctrine as anopinio non solum rustica sed etiam impia et frivola.Œcolampadius, too, took part in the controversy as supporter of his friend Zwingli when attacked by Bugenhagen, and wrote inA.D.1525 hisDe genuina verborum Domini, Hoc est corpus meum, expositione. He wished to understand the σῶμα of the words of institution as equivalent to “sign of the body.” Œcolampadius laid his treatise before the Swabian reformers Brenz and Schnepf; but these, in concert with twelve other preachers, answered in theSyngramma SuevicumofA.D.1525 quite in accordance with Luther’s doctrine. The controversy continued to spread.Luther first openly appeared against the Swiss inA.D.1526 in his “Sermon on the Sacrament against the Fanatics,” and to this Zwingli replied. Luther answered again in his tract, “That the words, This is My body, stand firm;” and inA.D.1528 he issued his great manifesto, “Confession in regard to the Lord’s Supper” (§144, 2, note). Notwithstanding the endeavours of the Strassburgers at conciliation the controversy still continued. Zwingli’s statement was the shibboleth of the Swiss Reformation, and was adopted also in many of the upland cities. Strassburg, Lindau, Meiningen, and Constance accepted it; even in Ulm, Augsburg, Reutlingen, etc., it had its supporters.—Continuation, §132, 4.