Skip to the text
Ember
PT

Book IV. From the year 1530 to 1537

A brief summary — The Protestant Leagues, and the resolution of taking up arms warranted by Luther. — Melancthon's embarrassment upon these new projects so contrary to the first plans. — Bucer displays his Equivocations, in order to unite the whole Protestant party and the Sacramentarians with the Lutherans. — They are equally rejected by Zuinglius and Luther. — Bucer at length deceives Luther, by acknowledging that the unworthy do receive the Truth of the Body. — The Agreement of Wittemburg concluded on that foundation. — Whilst they are returning to the opinion of Luther, Melancthon begins to doubt of it, however subscribes every thing required by Luther. — The Articles of Smalkald, and Luther's new explication of the Real Presence. — Melancthon's limitation of the Article which regards the Pope.

  1. — The Leagues of the Protestants after the Decree of the Diet of Augsburg, and the resolution of taking up arms approved by Luther.

Rigorous was the decree of the Diet of Augsburg against Protestants. As the Emperor then set up a kind of defensive league with all the Catholic states against the new religion, the Protestants, on their part, resolved more than ever to unite among themselves. But the division regarding the Lord's Supper, which had broken out so openly at the Diet, was a perpetual obstacle to the reunion of the whole party. The Landgrave, in no way scrupulous, made his treaty with those of Basil, Zurich, and Strasburg. But Luther would not hear it mentioned; and the Elector, John Frederick persisted in the resolution of making no league with them : in order, therefore, to settle this matter, the Landgrave dispatched Bucer, the great negotiator of those times in matters of religion, who, by his orders, had an interview with Zuinglius and Luther1.

At this time a little pamphlet of Luther's put all Germany in a ferment. We have seen the great success of his doctrine had made him believe that the Church of Rome was going to fall of itself ; and he then maintained strongly that arms ought not to be employed in the cause of the Gospel, not even to defend themselves against oppression2. The Lutherans agree, that nothing was more inculcated in his writings than this maxim. He was desirous of giving his new church this beautiful character of primitive Christianity ; but he could not adhere to it long. Immediately after the Dietf, and while Protestants were labouring to form the league of Smalkald, Luther declared, that although he had constantly taught hitherto, "it was not allowable to resist lawful powers, at present he referred to the lawyers, to whose maxims he was a stranger when he wrote his first works : moreover, that the Gospel was not contrary to political laws ; and in such bad times one might be brought to extremity, when not only the civil law, but conscience also, would oblige the Faithful to take up arms, and associate themselves against all those who should make war upon them, even against the Emperor J." The letter, which Luther had written against George Duke of Saxony §, had already given a full evidence that the evangelical patience, so boasted of in their first writings, was considered by them as at an end ; but that was a letter written to a private individual only. Here, however, is a public writing, by which Luther authorised those who took up arms against their prince.

  1. — Melancthori' 's concern at these new resolutions of war.

If we credit Melancthon, Luther had not been consulted particularly about the leagues ; the affair was somewhat palliated to him, and this writing came forth without his knowledge. But either Melancthon spoke not all he knew, or all was not discovered to Melancthon. It is certain, from Sleidan, that Luther was expressly consulted ; nor is it found that his writing was published by any but himself, and truly who would have dared to do it without his orders || ? This writing set all Germany in a flame. Melancthon complained of it, but in vain. u To what purpose," says he, " was the circulation of this writing throughout all Germany ? Ought the alarm to have thus been sounded to excite all the towns to make confederacies^! ?" It was with difficulty he

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 139 was brought to renounce that beautiful Idea of reformation Luther had instilled into him, and which he had so well maintained, when he wrote to the Landgrave, " That it was better to suffer every thing than to take up arms in the cause of the Gospel3." He had said as much about the leagues the Protestants were treating about, and which he had endeavoured to prevent, as far as he was able, at the time of the Diet of Spire, to which he had been conducted by his Prince, the Elector of Saxony. " It is my opinion," said he, " that all good men ought to oppose these leagues f :" but in such a party these fine sentiments could not be supported. When it was seen that prophecies went on too slowly, and Luther's blast was too weak to cast down this so much detested Papacy, instead of entering into themselves, they permitted themselves to be carried away by the most violent measures. At length Melancthon hesitated, but not without extreme reluctance : nay, the agitation he showed while these confederacies were forming excites compassion : he writes to his friend Camerarius, " We are no longer consulted about the question — whether or not it be lawful to defend ourselves by making war : there may be just reasons for it. So great is the malice of some, that should they find us defenceless, they would be capable of any enterprise. Strange are the aberrations of men, and their ignorance extreme ! None are touched with this saying — ' Be not solicitous, for your heavenly Father knoweth what is needful for you.1 Man believes not himself secure unless he has good and secure supports. In this weakness of minds our theological maxims could never make themselves be heard J." Then he ought to have opened his eyes, and seen that the new Reformation, incapable of maintaining the maxims of the Gospel, was not what he imagined it to be until then. But let us attend to the following part of the letter : " I will not,"' says he, ci condemn any person ; neither do I believe the precautions of our people ought to be blamed, provided that they do nothing that is criminal, which we shall well know how to provide against." No doubt these Doctors know perfectly well how to withhold armed soldiers, how to set bounds to the ambition of princes, after they have engaged them in a civil war. Alas ! if this war itself was a crime, according to the maxims he had always maintained, could he hope to prevent crimes during the course of this war ? But he durst not admit his party to be in the wrong ; and after he was unable to frus-4 trate their resolutions to a war, he found himself under the obligation of supporting them by arguments. This caused him to sigh. " Oh !" says he, " how well did I foresee, at Augsburg, all these commotions !" It was then he so bitterly lamented the transports of his friends, who pushed all to extremities, and were, said he, " concerned at nothing." For this he wept incessantly ; nor could Luther, with all the letters he wrote, give him relief. His grief increased when he saw so many projects of leagues warranted by Luther himself. But, " in conclusion, my dear Camerarius," thus he finishes his letter, " this thesis is wholly singular, and may be considered several ways, for which reason we must pray to God5."

His friend Camerarius, in his heart, approved no more than he of these warlike preparations ; and Melancthon did always what he could to support him. Above all, Luther was to be excused. A few days after the above letter, he acquaints the same Camerarius, " That Luther had written extremely moderately, and it was with great difficulty they had extorted his determination from him. I believe," says he, " you see completely we are not in error. In my opinion, we ought to give ourselves no more concern about these same leagues ; and, truly, such is the present conjuncture, that, in my opinion, we ought not to condemn them. So let us again pray to Godf."

Very right ; but God holds in derision prayers made to him in deprecation of public calamities, when we do not oppose such proceedings as bring them on us. What do I say ? When we approve, when we subscribe to them, though with reluctance. Melancthon was sensible of this ; and troubled, as well for what he himself, as what others did, intreats his friend to comfort and support him. " Write to me often," thus he speaks ; iC I have no ease but from your letters."

  1. — Bucer's negotiations — The death of Zuinglius in battle.

This, then, was a point determined in the new Reformation, that it was lawful to take up arms, and necessary to join in leagues. At this period Bucer entered upon his negotiations with Luther ; and whether it was that he found him inclined to peace with the Zuinglians, from a desire to form a strong league, or that by some other means he was able to meet him in good humour, he obtained from him fair words. He sets

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 141 off immediately to obtain the adhesion of Zuinglius ; but the negotiation wasinterrupted by the war that intervened between the Catholic and Protestant cantons. The latter, though stronger, were vanquished ; Zuinglius was killed in battle, and manifested, that however warm a disputant, he was no less bold a combatant. The party found it difficult to defend, in a pastor of souls, this unbecoming bravery, and the excuse was, that he followed the Protestant army in the capacity of a minister, rather than that of a soldier6 ; but, after all, it was certain that he had advanced far into the hottest of the engagement, and died sword in hand. His death was followed by that of CEcolampadius. Luther says he was beaten to death by the Devil, whose assault he was unable to resistf ; and others, that he died of grief, being unable to support the anguish which so many troubles brought upon him. In Germany, the peace of Nuremberg moderated tlie rigours of the decree of the Diet of Augsburg ; but the Zuinglians were not included in this agreement, either by Catholics or Lutherans ; and the Elector, John Frederick, obstinately refused to admit them into the league until they should have agreed with Luther in the article of the Real Presence. Bucer, not desponding, pursued his object, and, by all possible ways, laboured to surmount this only obstacle to the reunion of the party. To persuade either party was deemed impossible, and already fruitlessly attempted at Marpurg. A mutual toleration, each one retaining his own sentiments, had been rejected there by Luther with contempt, who persisted to say, with Melancthon, that this would be injurious to the truth, which he defended. No other method was left for Bucer, but to have recourse to equivocation, and to acknowledge the substantial presence so as to leave himself a way of escaping.

  1. — The grounds of Bucer' s equivocations, in order to reconcile parties.

The plan he adopted to effect so considerable a concession is surprising. It was an ordinary discourse with the Sacramentarians, that they ought to be cautious not to place simple signs in the sacraments. Zuinglius himself had made no difficulty of acknowledging something more in them ; and, to verify his words, some promise of grace annexed to the sacraments was sufficient. The example of baptism sufficiently proved this. But, whereas the Eucharist was not only instituted as a sign of grace, but, moreover, was called the body and blood, — not to be a simple sign, it was necessary the body and blood should be received in it. It was said, therefore, they were received by faith : the true body was therefore received, for Jesus Christ had not two. When they had come so far as to say the true body of Jesus Christ was received by faith, they acknowledged the proper substance was received. To receive it, without it being present, was a thing incomprehensible. Behold, then, said Bucer, Jesus Christ substantially present. There was no further occasion for speaking of faith ; it was sufficient to understand it. Thus did Bucer, absolutely and without restriction, acknowledge the real and substantial presence of our Lord's body and blood in the Eucharist, although they were only in heaven ; which, however, was afterwards softened by him. In this manner, without admitting anything new, he changed his whole language ; and, by habituating himself to speak like Luther, began at length to say, they never had understood each other, and that this long discussion, which had caused so much excitation, was nothing but a dispute on words.

  1. — The agreement Bucer proposes is only in words.

He had spoken more justly, had he said their agreement was in words only ; since, after all, this substance, which was said to be present, was as distant from the Eucharist as heaven is from earth, and was no more received by the faithful than the substance of the sun is received by the eye. It is what Luther and Melancthon said. The first called the Sacramentarians a double-tongued faction7, on account of their equivocations; and said, "They made a devilish game with the words of our Lordf." " The presence, which Bucer admits," says the latter, " is but a presence in word, and a presence of virtue. But it is the presence of the body and blood, and not that of their virtue, which we require. If this body of Jesus Christ be nowhere else but in heaven, and is not with the bread, nor in the bread, — if, finally, it is not to be found in the Eucharist but by the contemplation of faith, it is nothing but an imaginary presence."

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 143

  1. — Equivocation on spiritual presence and real presence.

Bucer and his companions were displeased that what was done by faith was here called imaginary, as if faith were nothing but a simple imagination. " Is it not enough (said Bucer) that Jesus Christ is present to the pure spirit and to the soul elevated on high8 ?" There was much equivocation in these words. The Luthei'ans agreed that the presence of the body and blood, in the Eucharist, was above the senses, and of a nature not to be perceived but by the mind and by faith ; but required, however, that Jesus Christ should be present, in the sacrament, in his proper substance. Whereas Bucer would not have him present, indeed, elsewhere than in heaven, where the mind, by faith, sought him ; which had nothing in it that was real, nothing that answered to the idea given by these sacred words, — ft This is my body, this is my blood."

  1. — The presence of the body, how spiritual.

But that which is spiritual, is it not real also ? and is there nothing real in baptism, because there is nothing in it that is corporeal ? Another equivocation. — Spiritual things, such as Grace and the Holy Ghost, are as present as they can be, when they are spiritually present. But what is a body present in spirit only, if not a body absent in reality, and present only in thought ? a presence which cannot, without fallacy, be called real and substantial. But would you, then, said Bucer, have Jesus Christ corporeally present, and do not yourselves acknowledge the presence of his body in the Eucharist to be spiritual ? Neither Luther, with his companions, no more than the Catholics, denied that the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was spiritual as to the manner, provided it were granted to them, that it was corporeal as to the substance ; that is, in more plain words, the body of Jesus Christ was present, but in a divine, supernatural, incomprehensible manner, which the senses could not reach ; spiritual, inasmuch as the mind alone, subject to faith, could know it, and that its end was entirely celestial. St. Paul had justly called the human body, raised from the dead, "a spiritual bodyf," on account of the qualities with which it was invested, divine, supernatural, and above the reach of the senses : with much more reason, the body of our Saviour, placed after so incomprehensible a manner in the Eucharist, might be so called.

  1. — If the 'presence of the body be only spiritual, the words of the institution are nugatory.

Again, all they said of the mind being elevated on high, to seek Jesus Christ at the right hand of his Father, was no more than a metaphor, not at all capable of representing a substantial reception of the body and blood, since this body and blood remained only in heaven, as the soul, united to its body, remained only on earth ; nor was there any more a true and substantial union between the faithful and the body of the Lord, than if there never had been an Eucharist, and Jesus Christ had never said, et This is my body." Let us suppose these words had never been uttered by him at all ; the presence, by the mind and by faith, would still subsist in a manner entirely similar, and never mortal man have dreamt of calling it substantial. Now, if the words of Jesus Christ oblige us to more strong expressions, it is because they grant us what would not have been given without them, namely, the proper body and the proper blood, whose immolation and effusion have saved us on the cross.

  1. — Whether a local presence were to be admitted.

Two fruitful sources of cavilling and equivocation remained for Bucer ; one in the word local, and the other in the word sacrament or mystery. Luther and the defenders of the real presence never had pretended that the body of our Lord was contained in the Eucharist as in a place to which it was commensurate, and in which it was comprehended after the ordinary manner of bodies ; on the contrary, they believed nothing to be in the flesh of our Lord which was distributed to them at the holy table, but the simple and pure substance, together with the grace and life with which it abounded ; nay, more than this, divested of all sensible qualities and modes of existence with which we are acquainted. Accordingly, Luther easily granted to Bucer that the presence under debate was not local, provided it were granted to him it was substantial ; and Bucer strongly insisted on the exclusion of local presence, believing he had weakened as much by this as he had been forced to allow of the substantial presence. He even made use of this artifice to exclude the oral manducation of our Lord's body. He conceived it to be not only useless, but even gross, carnal, and little worthy of the spirit of Christianity ; as if this sacred pledge of the flesh and

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 145 blood, offered on the cross, which our Saviour still gave us in the Eucharist, to certify to us that the victim and immolation of it were wholly ours, had been a thing unworthy of a Christian ; or that this presence ceased to be true, under pretext that, in a mystery of faith, God had not designed to make it sensible ; or, lastly, that a Christian was not touched with this inestimable token of divine love, because it was not known to him otherwise than by the word alone of Jesus Christ : things so far distant from the spirit of Christianity, that the grossness of their minds is inconceivable who, not able to relish them, look on others, that do, as gross minded.

  1. — Equivocation on the word Sacrament and Mystery.

The other source of equivocation was in the words Sacrament and Mystery. Sacrament, in the ordinary acceptation, means a sacred sign : but in the Latin language, from which this word is taken, sacrament often signifies a high, secret, and impenetrable thing. This also is the signification of the word mystery. The Greeks have no other word to express sacrament than that of mystery ; and the Latin fathers frequently call the mystery of the Incarnation the sacrament of the Incarnation, and so of the rest.

Bucer and his followers thought they had gained their point, when they said the Eucharist was a mystery, or a sacrament of the body and blood : or, that the presence acknowledged in it, and the union then effected with Jesus Christ, was a sacramental presence and union; and, on the contrary, the defenders of the Real Presence, both Catholics and Lutherans, understood it to be a presence and union, real, substantial, and properly so called ; but hidden, secret, mysterious, supernatural in its manner, and spiritual in its end, proper, in a word, to this sacrament ; and it was for all these reasons that they called it sacramental.

Far, therefore, were they from denying that the Eucharist was a mystery in the same sense as the Trinity and Incarnation ; namely, a thing high as well as secret, and altogether incomprehensible to the mind of man.

1 1 . — The Eucharist is a sign, and hoio ?

Nor did they even deny that it was a sacred sign of the body and blood of our Lord ; for they knew that the sign does not always exclude the presence ; on the contrary, there are signs of such a nature as denote the thing present. When it is said, a sick person has given signs of life, the

VOL. I. L

146 THE HISTOEY OP [BOOK meaning is, from these signs it is seen that the soul is still present in its proper and true substance. The external acts of religion are intended to manifest, that truly we have religion in our hearts ; and when the angels appeared in human shape, under this appearance, which represented them to us, they were in person present. Thus, the defenders of the literal sense spoke nothing incredible, when they taught that the sacred symbols of the Eucharist, accompanied with these words, " This is my body, this is my blood," denote to us Jesus Christ present, and that the sign is most closely and inseparably united to the thing.

  1. — All the Mysteries of Jesus Christ are signs in certain respects.

It must be acknowledged still further, that what is most true in the Christian religion, if I may so speak, is both together a mystery, and a sacred sign. The incarnation of Jesus Christ figures to us that perfect union we ought to have with the Divinity in grace and glory. His birth and death are the figure of our spiritual birth and death. If, in the mystery of the Eucharist, he condescends to approach our bodies in his own proper flesh and blood, thereby he invites us to the union of minds, and figures it unto us. In a word, until we have arrived to the full and manifest truth, which will render us for ever happy, every truth will be to us the figure of a truth more intimate : we shall not taste Jesus Christ all pure and in his proper form, and entirely disengaged from figure, until we shall see him, in the fulness of his glory, at the right hand of his Father : for which reason, if in the Eucharist he is given to us in substance and in truth, it is under a foreign species. This is a great Sacrament and great Mystery, in which, under the form of bread, is hidden from us a true body ; in which, in the body of a man, the majesty and power of a God are hidden from us ; in which such great things are performed after a manner impenetrable to human senses.

  1. — Bucer plays with words.

What latitude for the equivocations of Bucer, in these several significations of the words Sacrament and Mystery ! And how many evasions might not be prepared from terms, which each one wrested to serve his own purpose ! If he granted a real and substantial presence and union, though he did not always express that he understood it by faith, he believed he saved all, by adding to expressions the word Sacramental ;

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 147 this done, he exclaimed, the)' disputed only on words, and how strange it was they should disturb the Church, and prevent the progress of the Reformation, for so frivolous a dispute.

  1. — (Ecolampadius had warned Bucer of the fallacy there was in his equivocations.

No person would credit him in this. Not only Luther and the Lutherans laughed at his pretence, that the whole Eucharistic dispute was only a dispute on words, — even those of his own party told him plainly he imposed on the world by his substantial presence, which, after all, was only a presence by faith. QEcolampadius had observed how much he had confused the subject by this his substantial presence of the body and blood, and a little before he died, had written to him, that, in the Eucharist, there was only for those " Who believed, an effectual promise of the remission of sins, by the body given, and the blood shed ; that our souls were nourished therewith, and our bodies associated to the resurrection by the Holy Ghost : that we thus received the true body, and not bread only, nor a simple figure/' (he took good care not to say that we received it substantially) ; " that in truth the wicked received but a figure ; but that Jesus Christ was present to those who were his, as God, who strengthens and who governs us #.

This was all the presence QEcolampadius would allow, who concluded in these words : " This is all, my dear Bucer, we can grant the Lutherans. — Obscurity is dangerous to our Churches. Act after such a manner, my dear brother, as not to deceive our hopes."

  1. — The sentiments of those of Zurich.

Those of Zurich declared to him with still greater freedom, that it was an illusion to say, as he did, that this dispute was only verbal, and warned him that his expressions led him to the doctrine of Luther, to which he arrived at length, but not so soon. Then they raised loud complaints of Luther, who would not treat them like brethren ; yet, however, acknowledged him " for an excellent servant of God f ; " but it was observed by the party, this suavity served only to make him " more inhuman and more insolent j."

1G. — The Confession of Faith of those of Basil.

Those of Basil showed themselves far removed both from the sentiments of Luther and the equivocations of Bucer. In the Confession of Faith, which is placed in the collection of Geneva in the year 1532, and in Hospinian's history in the year 1534, because, perhaps, it was published for the first time in the one of these two years, and renewed in the other, they say, that *' as water remains in Baptism, where the forgiveness of sins is offered to us ; so the bread and wine remain in the Supper, where, with the bread and wine, the true body and true blood of Jesus Christ are figured to us, and offered by the minister9." To explain this more plainly they add, "Our souls are nourished with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, by a true faith," and by way of elucidation put in the margin, il That Jesus Christ is present in the Supper, but sacramentally, and by the remembrance of faith, which raises man up to heaven, and does not take Jesus Christ from thence."" — Finally, they conclude by saying, " That they confine not the natural, true and substantial body of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine, nor adore Jesus Christ in the signs of bread and wine, commonly called the Sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ ; but in heaven at the right hand of God his Father, whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead." This is what Bucer would neither say, nor explain clearly ; that Jesus Christ, as man, was nowhere than in heaven, although, as far as a judgment can be formed, he was then of that opinion. But he plunged still more deeply into notions so metaphysical, that neither Scotus, nor the most refined Scotists, came near to him ; and all his equivocations turned on these abstracted ideas.

  1. — Luther's Conference with the Devil.

At this time Luther published his book against private mass, where that famous conference is to be found, which he formerly had with the angel of darkness, and where, convinced by his reasons, he abolishes, like an impious wretch, that mass he had said for so many years with so much devotion, if we may believe him *f". It is surprising to see how seriously and lively he describes his awakening, as in a surprise, in the dead of the night ; the manifest apparition of

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 149 the devil to dispute against him. " The terror with which he was seized, his sweat, his trembling, and the horrible palpitation of his heart in this dispute ; the strong arguments of the demon, who leaves no repose to the mind; the sound of his thundering voice ; his oppressive ways of arguing, when he makes both question and answer perceptible at once. I then was sensible," says he, " how it so often happens that men die suddenly towards the dawn of day : it is by means of the devil, who can kill and strangle them, and without all that, by his disputes reduce them to such difficulties, that it is enough to cause death, as I have many times experienced." He informs us in passing, that the devil frequently attacked him in this manner, and to judge of the other attacks by this, it is to be believed he had learned many things from him besides the condemnation of the mass. It is here he attributes to the evil spirit the sudden death of QEcolampadius, as well as that of Emzer, formerly so great an enemy to Lutheranism in its birth. T mean not to enlarge on so trite a subject : I am satisfied with having observed, that God, for the confusion, or rather for the conversion of the enemies of the Church, has permitted Luther to fall into so great a blindness, as to acknowledge, I do not say, that he was frequently tormented by the devil, which might be common to him with many saints ; but what is peculiar to him, that he was converted by his industry, and that the spirit of falsehood had been his tutor in one of the principal points of his reformation.

In vain do they pretend here, that the devil disputed against Luther, only to overwhelm him with despair, by convincing him of his crime ; for the dispute had not that tendency. When Luther appears convinced, and unable to answer anything more, the devil presses no farther, and Luther rests satisfied he had learned a truth of which he was before ignorant. If this be true, how horrible to be tutored by such a master ! If Luther fancied it, what illusions, what dismal thoughts occupied his mind ! If he invented it, how sad a story had he to boast of !

  1. — The Swiss are incensed against Luther.

The Swiss were scandalized at the conference of Luther, not so much because the devil appeared there in the capacity of a doctor : they were embarrassed enough to defend themselves against a similar vision, of which Zuinglius boasted10,

150 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK as we have already seen ; but they could not endure the manner in which he there treated GEcolampadius. Most severe libels came out on this subject : but Bucer went on negotiating ; and through his mediation a conference was held at Constance, for the reunion of both parties. There, those of Zurich declared they would compromise with Luther, provided, on his side, he would grant them three points : one, that the flesh of Jesus Christ was not eaten but by faith ; another, that Jesus Christ, as man, was only in a particular place of heaven ; the third, that he was present in the Eucharist, by faith, in a manner proper to the sacraments. These words were plain and void of equivocation. The other Swiss, and in particular those of Basil, gave their joint approbation to so clear a proposal. And, indeed, it was wholly conformable to the Basil Confession of Faith : but, although this confession gave a perfect idea of the doctrine of the figurative sense, those of Basil, who had drawn it up, failed not to draw up another, two years after, on the occasion we are going to relate.

  1. — Another Basil Confession of Faith, and the former modified.

In 1536, Bucer and Capito came from Strasburg. These two celebrated architects of the most refined equivocations, taking occasion from the Confessions of faith, which the churches separated from Rome prepared to send to the council which the Pope had just convened, solicited the Swiss to make one, i( which might be so framed as to assist the agreement they had considerable hopes of effecting11 ;" that is, it was proper to select such terms as the Lutherans, ardent defenders of the Real Presence, might take in good part. With this view, a new Confession of Faith was drawn up, which is the second of Basil ; the expressions we have related in the first, which specified, too precisely, that Jesus Christ was not present, except in Heaven, and that nothing but a Sacramental Presence, and by remembrance only, was to be acknowledged in the Sacrament, are here retrenched. In reality, the Swiss appeared strongly intent on asserting, as they had done in the first Basil Confession, " that the body of Jesus Christ is not contained in the bread." Had they used these terms without some modification, the Lutherans would easily have perceived their object was directly to oppose the Real Presence ; but Bucer had expedients for every thing. By his insinuations, those of Basil were determined to say, " That the Body and

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 151

Blood are not naturally united to the Bread and Wine ; but that the Bread and Wine are symbols, by which Jesus Christ himself gave us a true communication of his Body and Blood, not to serve as a perishable nourishment to the stomach, but to be a food of life eternal *." The remainder is nothing but a somewhat long application of the fruits of the Eucharist, which all the world receives.

  1. — Equivocation on this Confession of Faith.

There was not here so much as one word to which the Lutherans might not agree ; for they do not pretend the body of Jesus Christ is a food for our stomachs, but teach that Jesus Christ is united to the bread and wine, in an incomprehensible, celestial, and supernatural manner ; so as, it may well be said, without offending them, that he is not li naturally united " to them. The Swiss proceeded no farther ; so that, by means of this expression, the article passed in terms a Lutheran might admit, and wherein nothing else, at most, could be desired, but more precise and less general expressions. Of the substantial Presence, a thing discussed at that time, they would say neither good nor evil ; this was all Bucer could gain of them. Afterwards, they neither adhered to the first nor the second Confession of Faith, which they had published by mutual agreement ; and in due time we shall see a third make its appearance, with quite new expressions.

  1. — Each one followed the Impressio?is of his Guide.

Those of Zurich, taught by Zuinglius, and full of his spirit, made no compromise with Bucer ; and instead of drawing up, like those of Basil, a new Confession of Faith, to manifest how they persevered in the doctrine of their master, they published that which he had sent to Francis I., which has been mentioned already ; and in which he will admit of no other presence in the Eucharist, than that which is made " by the contemplation" of Faith, clearly excluding the substantial presence. Thus they continued to speak naturally. They alone did so among all the defenders of the figurative sense 5 and it may be seen at this time, how, in the new Reformation, every Church acted according to the impression received from their respective masters. Luther and Zuin-

152 T1IK HISTORY OF [BOOK glius, ardent, and in extremes, inspired the Lutherans and those of Zurich with similar dispositions, and rejected all temperate measures : if CEcolampadius were more gentle, those of Basil were on that account more pliant ; and the people of Strasburg entered into all the mitigations, or rather all the equivocations and fallacies of Bucer.

  1. — Buccr acknowledges that the uuworthy really receive the Body.

He carried the thing so far, that, after granting all that could be desired, on the real, essential, and substantial, even natural presence, that is, the presence of Jesus Christ according to his nature, he found out expedients to make the faithful, unworthily communicating, receive him really. He required only that the impious and infidels, for whom this holy mystery was not instituted, should be excepted : yet, however, said he was resolved, even in that point, to have no difference with any person12.

  1. With all these explications, it is not surprising he appeased Luther, until then implacable. Luther believed the Sacramentarians truly came over to the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession and Apology. Melancthon, M'ith whom Bucer was negotiating, acquainted him that he found Luther more tractable, and that he began to speak more amicably of him and his companions. At last the assembly of Wittemberg, in Saxony, was held, at which the deputies of the German churches, on both sides, were present f. Luther at first spoke in a lofty tone. He would have Bucer and his companions declare that they retracted, and entirely rejected all they said to him of the thing itself, as being not so much the subject of discussion as the manner. But at. length, after much discussion, in which Bucer displayed all his pliancy, Luther took those articles, which this minister and his companions granted him, for a retractation.

  2. — The Agreement of JVittcmberg, and its Six Articles.

  3. tf That, according to the words of St. Irenreus, the Eucharist consists of two things — the one terrestrial, and the other celestial ; and, by consequence, the body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly and substantially present, given, and received with the bread and wine."

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 153

  1. " That, although they had rejected Transubstantiation, and did not believe that the body of Jesus Christ was contained locally in the bread, or had with "the bread any union of long continuance out of the use of the sacrament, it ought, however, to be acknowledged that the bread was the body of Jesus Christ, by a sacramental union ; that is, that the bread being present, the body of Jesus Christ was at the same time present, and truly given."

  2. They add, however, " That out of the use of the sacrament, whilst it is kept in the ciborium, or shewn in processions, they believe it is not the body of Jesus Christ."

  3. They concluded by saying " That this institution of the sacrament has its force in the church, and depends not on the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister, nor of him who receives."

  4. " That as for the unworthy, who, according to St. Paul, truly eat the sacrament, the body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly presented to them, and they truly receive them, when the words of Christ's institution are observed13."

  5. " That, however, they take it to their judgment," as says the same St. Paul, " because they abuse the sacrament, by taking it without repentance, and without faith."

  6. — Bucer deceives Luther, and evades the Urms of agreement.

Luther, it seems, had nothing more to desire. When they grant him that the Eucharist consists of two things — the one heavenly and the other terrestrial, and from this conclude, that the body of Jesus Christ is substantially present with the bread, they manifest sufficiently that he is not present only to the mind, and by faith. But Luther, who was not unacquainted with the subtilties of the Sacramentarians, urges them on still further, and induces them to say, that those even " who have not faith, do, however, truly receive the body of our Lordf."

One would not have suspected they believed the body of Jesus Christ was not present to us but by faith, since they acknowledged that it was present and truly received by those who were without repentance, and without faith. After this avowal of the Sacramentarians, Luther easily believed that he had nothing more to demand, and judged they said all that was necessary to confess the reality : but he had not as yet sufficiently understood that these Doctors had particular

154 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK secrets to explain every thing. However lucid the words of agreement appeared to him, Bucer had reserved a way of escaping. He has published several writings, where he acquaints his friends in what sense he understood each word of the agreement: he there declares, that " Those who, according to St. Paul, are guilty of the body and blood, receive not only the sacrament, but the thing itself indeed, and are not without faith ; although," says he, " they have not that lively faith which saves us, nor a true devotion of heart14."

Who would ever have believed that the defenders of the figurative sense could have acknowledged a true reception of the body and blood of our Lord in the Supper, without having the faith which saves us? What! is a faith, which is unable to justify us, sufficient, according to their principles, to communicate Jesus Christ truly to us? Their whole doctrine contradicts this sentiment of Bucer. Nor can this minister, however subtle, possibly reconcile what he says here with his other maxims. But it is not my object, in this place, to examine the subtilties by which Bucer extricates himself from the agreement of Wittemberg : I am content with remarking this undoubted fact — that all the churches of Germany, which defended the figurative sense, assembled in a body, by their deputies agreed, in an authentic act, " That the body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly and substantially present, given, and received in the Supper, with the bread and wine; and that the unworthy, who are without faith, do, however, receive this body and this blood, provided they adhere to the words of the institution."

If these expressions can accord with the figurative presence, henceforth it is no longer known what is the meaning of words, and all things may be discovered in anything. Men, who have accustomed themselves to wrest in this manner human language, will make the Scripture and Fathers speak what they please ; nor must we be surprised at so many violent interpretations they give to the most plain passages.

  1. — Calvin's Sentiments on Equivocations in matters of

Faith.

Whether Bucer had a settled design of amusing the world with these affected equivocations, or whether some confused idea of the reality induced him to believe he might safely subscribe these expressions, so evidently contrary to the figu-

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 155 rative sense, I leave the Protestants to determine. Certain it is, Calvin, his friend, and, in some manner, his disciple also, when he wished to express a reprehensible obscurity in a profession of faith, said, " There was nothing so embarrassed, so ambiguous, so intricate in Bucer himself15."

These artificial ambiguities were so congenial to the spirit of the new reformation, that Melancthon himself, naturally the most sincere of men, who had most condemned equivocations in matters of faith, permitted himself to be drawn into them contrary to his inclinations. We find a letter of his in 1541, where he writes that nothing is more unworthy of the church, " than to use equivocations in Confessions of Faith, and to draw up articles which required other articles to explain them ; that it was establishing peace in appearance, and in fact exciting war ;" and, in short, that it was " similar to the false council of Sirmium and the Arians, mingling truth with error f.'1 His judgment was certainly correct ; and, at the same time, however, when the first assembly of Ratisbon was held, to reconcile the Catholic religion with the Protestant, '16 Melancthon and Bucer (it is not Catholics that write it, but Calvin, who was present, and the intimate friend of both) composed, on transubstantiation, equivocal and deceitful forms of faith, in order to satisfy, if possible, their adversaries in conceding nothing to themt." Calvin, was the first to condemn these affected obscurities and shameful dissimulations : " With reason,"" says he, " you blame the obscurities of Bucer §." et It must be spoken freely," says he in another place, " it is not lawful to embarrass that with obscure and equivocal words which requires light ; those who would hold a medium, forsake the defence of truth ||." And with regard to those snares just mentioned, which Bucer and Melancthon, by their ambiguous discourses, laid for the Catholics nominated to confer with them at Ratisbon, this is what the same Calvin says of them : " As to myself, I do not approve of their design, although they have their reasons ; for they hope the points of discussion will emit light, and be elucidated of themselves. For this reason the}' pass over many things, and fear not these ambiguities : they do it with a good design, but yield too much to the times ^[." Thus did the authors of the new Reformation, with very bad reasons, either practise or excuse the most criminal of all dissimulations — that is, affected equivocations in points of faith. We shall learn from what follows, if Calvin, who seems as much op-17 posed to the practice himself, as he is indulgent to it in others, will always continue of the same opinion ; and we must return to the artifices of Bucer.

  1. — Whether the Presence be j)ermanent in the Eucharist.

In the midst of the advantages he conceded to the Lutherans in the Agreement of Wittemberg, he gained at least one thing which Luther let pass, — that the body and blood of Jesus Christ had no permanent union, out of the sacramental use, with the bread and wine ; and that the body was not present, when shown, or carried in procession . This was not the sentiment of Luther ; till then he had always taught that the body of Jesus Christ was present from the time the words were said, and remained present till the species was altered-); so that, according to him, " he was present even when carried in procession," although he would not approve that custom. And truly, if the body was present in virtue of the words of institution, and these words be understood according to the letter, as Luther maintained it, it is clear the body of Jesus Christ ought to be present at the instant he says, " This is my body,1' since he does not say, " This will be," but " This is." It was suitable to the power and majesty of Jesus Christ, that his words should have a present effect, and the effect subsist as long as things should remain in the same state. Nor was it ever doubted, from the earliest times of Christianity, that the portion of the Eucharist reserved for the communion of the sick, and for that which the faithful practised daily in their houses, was as much the true body of our Saviour as that distributed to them at church. Luther had always understood it thus ; and yet he was induced, I know not how, to tolerate the contrary opinions which Bucer proposed at the time of the agreement.

  1. — Sequel — Conclusion of the Agreement.

He would not, however, permit him to say that the body was not in the Eucharist, except precisely at the time of using it, that is, in the reception ; but only "that, out of the sacramental use, there was no permanent union between the bread and the body J." This union subsisted, therefore, out of the use, that is, out of communion ; and Luther, who made the holv sacrament be elevated, and adored, even at the time the

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 157

Agreement was framing, would not permit it should be denied him, that Jesus Christ was there present during these ceremonies ; but in order to take away the presence of the body of our Lord in the tabernacles and procession of Catholics, which was the object of Bucer, it was sufficient to permit him to say, that the presence of the body and blood in the bread and wine was not of long duration.

Now, had it been asked of these doctors how long, therefore, this presence was to remain, and to what time they limited the effect of the words of our Lord, they would have been strangely embarrassed. It will appear from what follows, and we shall see, when they abandoned the natural sense of the words of our Saviour, as they had no longer any certain rule, so they no longer had precise terms, nor certain faith.

Such was the issue of the Concord of Wittemberg. The articles are reported in the same manner by both parties of the new reformation, and were signed at the end of May in 1536 *. It was agreed that it should not have force until it had received the approbation of the churches. Bucer and his companions so little doubted of the approbation of their party, that immediately after the Agreement was signed, they celebrated the Supper with Luther in token of perpetual concord. The Lutherans have always praised this agreement. The Sacramentarians refer to it as an authentic treaty, which had reunited all Protestants. Hospinian pretends that the Swiss — a part, at least, of that body — and Calvin himself, gave it their approbation f. An express approval of it, in fact, is found among the letters of Calvin J : so that this Agreement ought to have place among the public acts of the new reformation, since it contains the sentiments of all Protestant Germany, and of almost all the reformation.

  1. — Those of Zurich laugh at the equivocations of Bucer.

Bucer was solicitous to have it approved by those of Zurich. He went to their assembly, and harangued them in words lofty and indefinite ; then presented them a long writing §. In such verbosity equivocations lie concealed, and a few words are sufficient to speak the faith plainly. In vain did he display his subtilties ; he could not make the Swiss digest his substantial presence, nor his communion of the f Ann. 1536, 1537, 1538. | Calv. Ep. p. 324.18192021

unworthy; they wished always to express their thoughts just as they were, in plain terms, and to say, as Zuinglius did, that there was no physical or natural presence here, nor a substantial one, but a presence by faith, a presence by the Holy Ghost, reserving to themselves the liberty of speaking of this mystery as they should find most suitable, and always in the most plain and intelligible manner that is possible. This is what, they wrote to Luther; and Luther, scarcely recovered from a dangerous illness, and fatigued, perhaps, with so many disputes, sought repose, and referred the affair to Bucer, with whom he imagined that he perfectly agreed22.

  1. — The Zuinglians will not hear Miracles mentioned, nor Omnipotence in the Eucharist.

But having mentioned in his letter, that, agreeing about the Presence, they were to leave the manner to the Divine Omnipotence ; those of Zurich, astonished that he should speak to them of Omnipotence in an action, where they conceived nothing that was miraculous, no more than their master Zuinglius, complained of it to Bucer, who took great pains to satisfy them ; but the more he insisted with them that there was something incomprehensible in the manner Jesus Christ gave himself to us in the Supper, the more the Swiss, on their part, repeated to him that there was nothing more easy. A figure in these words, "This is my body;" the meditation on the death of our Lord, and the operation of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of the faithful, were attended with no difficulty, and they were determined to admit no other miracles in it. So, indeed, should the Sacramentarians speak, would they speak naturally. The Fathers, it is true, did not speak so ; they found no example too elevated to raise up the minds of men to the belief of this mystery ; but employed for the purpose the creation, the incarnation of our Lord, his miraculous birth, all the miracles of the Old and New Testament, the wonderful change of water into blood, and of water into wine ; persuaded as they were, that the miracle, which they acknowledged in the Eucharist, was not less the work of Omnipotence, and yielded in nothing to the most incomprehensible miracles of the hand of God. Thus it was proper to speak in the doctrine of the Real Presence, and Luther had, with this faith, retained the same expressions. From a contrary

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 159 reason, the Swiss found all easy, and chose rather to turn the words of our Lord into a figure, than to call upon his Omnipotence to verify them; as if the most simple manner of explaining the Holy Scriptures were always that in which reason encounters the least difficulty ; or miracles cost the Son of God anything, where he wished to give us a pledge of his love.

  1. — Doctrine of Bucer, and return of the Towns from his belief to that of the Real Presence.

Although Bucer could not prevail on those of Zurich, during two years continually treating with them, after the Agreement of Wittemberg, and foresaw very well that Luther would not always be so peaceable as at that time, he used every expedient in order to retain him in this quiet disposition. As for his part, he adhered so closely to the Agreement, that, ever after, he was considered by those of the Augsburg Confession as a member of their churches, and in every thingacted conjointly with them.

Whilst he treated with the Swiss, and endeavoured to make them comprehend something in the Supper more high and impenetrable than they imagined, among other things he told them, that although there was no doubt of Jesus Christ being in Heaven, they did not well understand where this Heaven was, nor what it was, and that " Heaven was even in the Supper; *" which carried with it so clear an idea of the Real Presence, that the Swiss could not bear to hear him.

The comparisons he employed tended rather to enforce than weaken the reality. He often instanced that ordinary action of shaking one another by the handf; a very plain example to show that the same hand used to execute treaties may be a pledge of the will to fulfil them ; and that a transitory contract, yet real and substantial, may become, by the institution and usage of men, the most effectual sign they can give to each other of perpetual union.

Since he had commenced to treat about the Agreement, he was not fond of saying with Zuinglius, that the Eucharist was the Body, as the Rock was Christ, and as the Lamb was the Passover. He chose rather to say it was so, as the Dove is called the Holy Ghost, which shews a Real Presence ; there being none that doubt that the Holy Ghost was present, in a particular manner, under the form of the dove. He adduced vlso the example of Jesus Christ breathing on the Apostles,

1G0 THE HISTORY OF [BOOK and at the same'time giving them the Holy Ghost * : which still proved that the body of Jesus Christ is not less communicated, nor less present, than the Holy Ghost was to the Apostles.

With all this, however, he approved of the doctrine of Calvin, replete with sacramentarian notions f ; and was not afraid to subscribe a confession of faith, where the same Calvin said, that the manner in which the body and blood of Jesus Christ were received in the Supper consisted in the Holy Ghost uniting therein what was separated in place. This, it seems, was clearly acknowledging Jesus Christ to be absent. But Bucer explained everything, and had surprising solutions for all kinds of difficulties. But what is here most remarkable, the disciples of Bucer, and as we have before observed, whole towns, that under his guidance had so far removed from the Real Presence, came now again insensibly into this belief. The words of Jesus Christ were so well deliberated on, and so often repeated, that at last they produced their effect, and men naturally returned to the literal sense.

  1. — Melancthon begins to doubt the doctrine of Luther. — The Weakness of his Theology.

While Bucer and his disciples, the declared opponents of the doctrine of Luther on the real presence, drew near to him, Melancthon, the dear disciple of the same Luther, the author of the Augsburg Confession, and of the Apology, in which he had maintained the reality, to such a length as to appear inclined to transubstantiation, began to waver.

In 1535, or about that time, this doubt came into his mind J ; before that time, it may be seen how very steady he had been. He had even composed a book of the sentiments of the holy Fathers on the Supper, in which he had collected many passages most express for the real presence.

As the criticism of those days was not very accurate, he perceived, at length, that some of them were spurious, and that the transcribers, through ignorance or carelessness, had attributed to the ancients some works of which they were not the authors. This troubled him, although he had cited a sufficient number of passages which were incontestable. But he was more embarrassed to find many places in the ancients where they called the Eucharist a figure ||. He collected

£ Hosp. an. 1535. 137, et seq. § Lib.iii, Epist. 114, ad Juan. Brent.

II Ibid.

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. IG1 these passages, and was astonished, said he, " to see in them so great a diversity." Weak divine ! not to understand that neither the condition of faith, nor of this present life, could permit us to enjoy Jesus Christ face to face, for which reason he gave himself unto us under a borrowed form, necessarily joining truth with the figure, and the Real Presence with an exterior sign that concealed it from us. From this proceeds that apparent diversity of the fathers which surprised Melancthon. The same difficulty would have appeared to him, had he closely investigated the mystery of the Incarnation, and the divinity of the Son of God, before the disputes of heretics had induced the fathers to speak of these matters with more precision. In general, where two truths that appear contrary are to be reconciled, as in the mystery of the Trinity, and that of the Incarnation, to be equal and to be inferior ; and in the Eucharist, to be present and to be in figure ; naturally, a sort of language is used that appears confused, unless we have the key of the church, as we may say, and the full comprehension of the entire mystery : besides the other reasons which obliged the fathers to conceal the mysteries in some places, affording in others the certain means by which to understand them. Melancthon did not know so much. Dazzled with the name of reformation, and the exterior of Luther then somewhat specious, he immediately enlisted in the party. As yet but young and a great humanist, and only a humanist, newly called by the Elector Frederick to teach the Greek language in the university of Wittemberg, he could have made but little progress in the investigation of ecclesiastical antiquity with his master Luther, and was strangely shocked at the contrarieties he supposed he found in the fathers.

  1. — A dispute in the time of Ratramnus, that confounds Melancthon.

To embarrass himself completely, he must also read the book of Bertram or Ratramnus, which then began to appear ; an ambiguous book, where certainly the author did not always understand himself23': the Zuinglians support their cause much by it. The Lutherans cite it for themselves, and find nothing in it to condemn, but that it sowed the seeds of Transubstantiation. There is, indeed, sufficient to content, or rather to embarrass both sides. Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist, is so much a human body by his substance, and so

162 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK unlike a human body by his qualities, that it may be said he is one, and is not one, in different respects ; that in one sense, considering his substance only, it is the same body of Jesus Christ, which was born of Mary ; but that in another sense, considering the manner alone, it is a different one, which he has made himself by his own word, which he conceals under shadows and figures, whose truth reaches not the senses, but discovers itself to faith alone.

This is what raised a dispute amongst the faithful in the time of Ratramnus. Some, with respect to the substance, said, the body of Jesus Christ was the same in the womb of the Virgin and the Eucharist : others, with respect to the qualities, or, rather, manner of existence, would have it another. Thus we see St. Paul, speaking of a body risen again, makes, as it were, another body of it, far different from what we have in this mortal life, though, in reality it be the same24 : but, on account of the different qualities with which this body is vested, St. Paul makes of it as it were two bodies, one of which he calls '25 the animal body," and the other " the spiritual bodyf." In this same sense, and with much more reason, one might say, that the body received in the Eucharist was not that which came from the blessed womb of the Virgin. But though this might be said in a certain sense, others feared, by saying it, they should destroy the truth of the body. Thus did Catholic Doctors, agreeing in substance, dispute about the manner ; some following the expressions of Paschasius Rathbert, who would have the Eucharist to contain the same body which came from the Virgin ; others adhering to those of Ratramnus, who maintained it was not the same. With this another difficulty was connected, inasmuch as a strong persuasion of the real presence, which obtained over the whole Church, both in the East and West, had induced many Doctors no longer to permit in the Eucharist the term " figure," which they believed was contrary to the truth of the body ; and others, who considered that Jesus Christ does not give himself in the Eucharist in his proper form, but under a foreign one, and in a manner so full of mysterious significations, acknowledged, indeed, that the body of our Saviour was really in the Eucharist, but under figures, under veils, and in mysteries : which to them appeared the more necessary, as, in other respects, it was most certain that, to possess Jesus Christ in his manifest truth, under the cover of no figure, was a privilege reserved for the next life. All this was true * 1 Cor. xv. 37, et seq. t Ibid. 42, 43, 44 46.

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 163 in the main ; but, before it could be well explained, there was room for long disputes. Ratramnus, who followed the last party, had not sufficiently investigated this matter, and, without differing in substance from other Catholics, sometimes fell into obscure expressions, which it was difficult to reconcile : the very cause that all his readers, Protestants as well as Catholics, have understood him in so many different senses. Melancthon found that this author left his reader to guess at his meaning, instead of explaining it with clearness, and, with him, lost himself in a subject which neither he nor his master Luther had ever well comprehended.

  1. — Melancthon wishes for a new decision — Luther 's tyranny.

By this reading, and these reflections, he fell into a deplorable uncertainty ; but whatever might be his opinion, of which we shall hereafter speak, he began to dissent from his master, and wished most ardently that an assembly might be held to treat anew on this subject, "without passion, without sophistry, and without tyranny26." This last word visibly regarded Luther, for in all the assemblies, till then, held in the party, as soon as Luther appeared, and declared his opinion, Melancthon himself assures us the others had no alternative but silence, and all was terminated. But whilst, disgusted with such proceedings, he demanded new deliberations, and receded from Luther, yet he rejoiced that Bucer, with his companions, drew near to him. We have but just seen him approve the agreement in which the real presence was fixed more than ever to the external symbols j- ; because it was there established that it subsists in the communion of the unworthy, " although there be neither faith nor repentance." It is necessary to cast our eyes only for a moment on the Agreement of Wittemberg, not only subscribed but also obtained by Melancthon, to be convinced how positively he there assents to a thing of which he had conceived so great a doubt.

  1. — Luther makes a new declaration of his Faith, in the Articles of Smalkald.

The reason was, Luther always pushed forward, and was so resolute upon this point, that he knew not how to contradict him. The year after the Agreement, that is, in 1537, while Bucer

M 2 continued negotiating with the Swiss, the Lutherans met at Smalkald, the ordinary place of their assemblies, and where all their leagues were formed. The Council summoned by Paul the Third gave occasion to this assembly. Luther could not be well satisfied with the Confession of Augsburg, nor the Apology, nor the manner in which his doctrine was there explained, since he himself draws up new articles, " in order (says he) that it may be known what are the points from which he is resolved never to depart27 ;" and for this reason he procured this assembly. There Bucer declared himself so explicitly on the Real Presence, " that he satisfied (says Melancthon, who mentions it with joy) even those of our people who were the most difficult to be pleasedf." Consequently, he satisfied Luther ; and here, again, Melancthon is delighted that the sentiments of Luther are followed, whilst he himself abandons them ; that is, he was delighted to see all the Protestants of Germany re-united. Bucer had given his assent; the town of Strasburg, with their Doctor, declared for the Confession of Augsburg ; human policy, their most important object, had attained its end ; and, as for doctrine, they were afterwards to provide for that.

  1. — A new way of explaining the Words of the Institution.

It must be acknowledged, however, that Luther proceeded in this with more sincerity. He was determined to speak plainly on the subject of the Eucharist, and thus explained the sixth article of the Sacrament of the Altar : — " As to the Sacrament of the Altar (says he), we believe that the bread and wine are the true body and true blood of our Lord ; and are not only given and received by pious Christians, but also by the impiousj." These last words are the same we have seen in the Concord of Wittemberg, except that, instead of the word "unworthy," he uses the word " impious," which is stronger, and removes the idea of faith to a still greater distance. It is also to be observed that, in this article, Luther says nothing against the presence out of the use of the sacrament, nor against the permanent union ; but only " that the bread was the true body ;" not determining when it was, nor for how long a time.

  1. — Whether Bread can be the Body.

Yet this expression, "that the bread was the true body," before that time had never been inserted by Luther in any

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 165 public act. The terms which he generally used were, that the body and blood were given " under the bread11 and " under the wine28 :" thus he explains himself in his little Catechism. He adds a word in the large one, and says, " that the body is given to us in the bread and under the breadf." I cannot discover exactly at what time these two Catechisms were written, but it is certain the Lutherans acknowledge them both for authentic acts of their religion. To the two particles, " in," and " under," the Confession of Augsburg adds " with" ; and it is the ordinary phrase of the true Lutherans, " that the body and blood are received in, under, and with the bread and wine:" but, hitherto, it had never been said in any public act of the whole party, that the bread and wine were the true body and true blood of our Lord. Luther here decides the point, and necessary it was for Melancthon, how great soever his repugnance might be, to unite the bread with the body, — to subscribe even that the bread was the true body.

  1. — Luther cannot evade the equivocations of the Sacramentarians who elude all.

The Lutherans in their Book of Concord assure us, that Luther was forced to this expression by the subtil ties of the Sacramentarians %, who invented evasions to accommodate to their moral presence Luther's strongest and most precise expressions, for the real and substantial presence : from this we may again, as we go on, observe, that it is not a matter of surprise, if the defenders of the figurative sense invent expedients to call in the support of the fathers; since Luther himself living and speaking, who knew their subtilties, and who undertook to oppose them, found it difficult to prevent them from wresting his words to their own sense by their interpretations : fatigued with their subtilties, he directed his mind to the discovery of such expressions as they might no longer wrest, and drew out the article of Smalkald in the above form.

And, indeed, as Ave have before observed §, if the true body of Jesus Christ, according to the opinion of the Sacramentarians, be not received except by means of a lively faith, it cannot be said with Luther, that " thi± impious receive it ;" and as long as they shall maintain, that the bread is not the body of Jesus Christ, except in figure, without doubt they will never say with the Article of Smalkald, "That the bread is the true body of Jesus Christ ;" thus Luther, by this ex- pression, excluded the figurative sense, and all the Sacramentarian interpretations. But he was not aware he no less excluded his own doctrine, since we have shewn that the bread cannot be the true body, unless it become so by a true and substantia] change, which Luther would not admit.

Thus when Luther, and the Lutherans, after turning the Article of the Real Presence so many different ways, endeavour at last to explain it so precisely, as that the Sacramentarian equivocations might remain entirely excluded, we see them fall insensibly into expressions, which, according to their principles, have no sense, and cannot be maintained except in the Catholic doctrine.

  1. — The violence of Luther against the Pope in the Articles of Smalkald.

At Smalkald Luther expresses himself with great asperity against the Pope, who, as we have seen, was not even named in the Articles of the Augsburg Confession, nor in the Apology ; and lays down, among the articles from which he resolved never to depart, "That the Pope is not of divine right ; that the power he has usurped is full of .arrogance and blasphemy ; that all he has done or now does, in virtue of this power, is diabolical ; that the Church can and ought to subsist, without a head ; that although the Pope should acknowledge he is not of divine right, but was made purely to maintain, more conveniently, the unity of Christians among sectaries, yet no good could ever come from such authority ; and that the best way to govern and preserve the church, is for all the bishops, though unequal in their gifts, to remain equal in their ministry, under the one only head Christ Jesus : lastly, that the Pope is antichrist29.1'

  1. — Melancthon wishes that the authority of the Pope should be acknowledged.

expressly mention, at length, these decisions of Luther, because Melancthon gave them a limitation which cannot be sufficiently considered.

At the conclusion of the Articles are seen two lists of subscriptions, in which appear the names of all the Ministers and Doctors of the Confession of Augsburg-}-. Melancthon signed with all the others : but because he refused to agree

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 167 to what Luther had said of the Pope, he made his subscription in these terms, "I, Philip Melancthon, approve the foregoing articles as pious and Christian. As for the Pope, mv opinion is, if he would receive the Gospel, that for the peace and tranquillity of those who are already under him, or shall be hereafter, we may grant to him that superiority over the bishops, which he enjoys already by human right *."

This superiority of the Pope, however established, was the object of Luther's aversion. Ever since the time the Popes condemned him, he became irreconcileable to this power, and induced even Melancthon to sign an act, by which the whole new reformation declared in a body, u We never will approve of the Pope's having power over the rest of the bishops f." At Smalkald Melancthon retracts it. It was the first and only time he ever, by a public act, opposed his master ; and because his complaisance, or submission, or some similar motive, whatever it might be, induced him to pass over, in spite of all his doubts, the much more difficult point of the Eucharist, we must believe that powerful reasons influenced him to resist in this. These reasons merit investigation the more, as by this examination we shall discover the true state of the new reformation; the particular dispositions of Melancthon ; the cause of all the troubles which constantly agitated him, even to his death ; how a man engages on the side of error with general good intentions ; and how he there remains in the midst of the most violent anxieties that can be felt in this life. The thing merits to be deeply understood, and Melancthon himself, by his own writings, will discover it to us.30

Footnotes

  1. Kecess, Arg. SJeid, Lib, vii, 3. ↩

  2. Lib. i. a. 3. ii. 9. f Sleid. Lib. vii. vii'i. J Sleid. Lib. vii. 117. ↩

  3. Sleid. Lib. ii. n. 42. |J Lib. Iv. Ep.3. Lib. vii. 117. % Lib. iv. Ep. 3. ↩

  4. Lib.iii. Ep.16. j- Lib. iv. Ep.85.3. Ib.Ep.85. J Lib. iv. Ep. 110. ↩

  5. Lib. jr. Ep.iii. f Ibid. ↩

  6. Hosp.ad an. 1521. f Tr. de abrog. Miss. (. vii. p. 230. ↩

  7. Luth. Ep. ad Sen. Francof. Hosp. ad 1533, 128. f Ep. Mel. apud Hosp. 1530, 110. ↩

  8. Ep. Mel, p. 3.i t 1 Cor, xv. 44, 46, ↩

  9. Conf. Bas. 1532. Art. ii. Synt. i. Part 72. f De abrog. Miss. priv. t. \ii. p. 22C. ↩

  10. Hosp. ad an. 1533. 131. ↩

  11. Synt. Conf. Gen. de Helv.Conf. Hosp. Partii. 141. ↩

  12. Conf. Bas. 1536. Art. xxii. Synt. p. 1, 70. ↩

  13. Hosp. Part ii. fol. 135. f Hosp. an. 1535, 1536. ↩

  14. Hosp. p, ii. an. 1535. f. 145. in Lib. Cone. 72(J. f Art. i. Art. v. ct vi, ↩

  15. Buc. Declar. Cone. Vit, Td, ap. Hosp. an, 1536. 148, et seq. ↩

  16. Ep. Cal. p. 50. f Lib. i, Ep. 25. 1541. lb. Ep. 76. J Ep. Cal. p. 38. ↩

  17. Ep. p. 50. || Ibid. H Ep. p. 38. ↩

  18. Art. ii. 3. t Luth. Ser. cont. Lucr. et Ep. ad quench Hosp. ii. p. 14, 44, 132. ↩

  19. Form. Miss. b. ii, Hosp, an. 1536. p. 148. ↩

  20. Cone. p. 729. Hosp. part ii. fol. 145. Chytr. Hist. Confess. Aug. ↩

  21. Hosp. p. ii. f, 150, et seq. ↩

  22. Hosp. p. ii. f. 157. ↩

  23. Hosp. 162. f Ep. ad Ital, int. Calv, Ep. p. 44. ↩

  24. Ep. ad Ital. int. Calv. Ep. p. 44. f Int. Ep. Caly. p. 378. ↩

  25. Lib. iii. Ep. 188, ad Vit. Thcoil. VOL. I. M ↩

  26. Lib. ii. Ep. 40. iii. Ep. 188, 189. f Lib. iii. Ep. 114. ad Breut. ↩

  27. Art. Smal. Prcef. in lib. Cone, t Ap. Hosp. an. 1537, p. 155. Mel.iv. Ep. 19(3. j Cone. p. 330. ↩

  28. Cone, p.330, flbiJ. p. 533. .-J: Ibid. p. 720. § Lib. ii. N. 3. p. 3 ↩

  29. Art. iv.p. 312. f Cone. p. 336. ↩

  30. Cone. p. 338. t Mel. Lib. x. Ep. 76. ↩

Chapter 6 of 18