of the words of institution.^820 In his book on the "Adoration of the Sacrament" (1523), addressed
to the Waldensian Brethren in Bohemia, he rejects their symbolical theory, as well as the Romish
transub-stantiation, and insists on the real and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood in
the eucharistic elements; but treats them very kindly, notwithstanding their supposed error, and
commends them for their piety and discipline, in which they excelled the Germans.^821
In his conviction of the real presence, he was greatly strengthened by the personal attacks
and perverse exegesis of Carlstadt. Henceforth he advocated the point of agreement with the
Catholics more strenuously than he had formerly opposed the points in which he differed from
them. He changed the tone of moderation which he had shown in his address to the Bohemians,
and treated his Protestant opponents with as great severity as the Papists. His peculiar view of the
eucharist became the most, almost the only, serious doctrinal difference between the two wings of
the Reformation, and has kept them apart ever since.
§ 105. Luther and Carlstadt.
The first outward impulse to the eucharistic controversy came from Holland in the summer of
1522, when Henry Rhodius brought from Utrecht a collection of the writings of John Wessel to
Wittenberg, which he had received from a distinguished Dutch jurist, Cornelius Honius (Hoen).
Wessel, one of the chief forerunners of the Reformation (d. 1489), proposed, in a tract "De Coena,"
a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, which seems to have influenced the opinions
of Erasmus, Carlstadt, and Zwingli on this subject.^822
But Luther was so much pleased with the agreement on other points that he overlooked the
difference, and lauded Wessel as a theologian truly taught of God, and endowed with a high mind
and wonderful gifts; yea, so fully in harmony with him, that the Papists might charge Luther with
having derived all his doctrines from Wessel, had he known his writings before.^823
The controversy was opened in earnest by Carlstadt, Luther’s older colleague and former
friend, who gave him infinite trouble, and forced him into self-defense and into the development
(^820) "Das bekenne ich," he wrote, Dec. 15, 1524, to the Christians in Strassburg (De Wette, II. 577), "wo D. Carlstadt oder jemand anders
vor fünf Jahren mich hätte mögen berichten, dass im Sacrament nichts denn Brot und Wein wäre, der hätte mir einen grossen Dienst
gethan. Ich habe wohl so harte Anfechtungen da erlitten und mich gerungen und gewunden, dass ich gern heraus gewesen wäre, weil ich
wohl sah, dass ich damit dem Papstthum hätte den grössten Puff können geben. Ich hab auch zween gehabt, die geschickter davon zu mir
geschrieben haben denn D. Carlstadt, und nicht also die Worte gemartert nach eigenem Dünken. Aber ich bin gefangen, kann nicht
heraus: der Text ist zu gewaltig da, und will sich mit Worten nicht lassen ans dem Sinn reissen." The two persons alluded to are probably,
as Ullmann conjectures, Wessel or Rhodius and Honius, who sent a letter to Luther with Wessel’s books.
(^821) In Walch, XIX. 1593 sqq.; Erl. ed., XXVIII. 389 sqq. He says in the beginning: "We Germans believe that Christ is verily with his
flesh and blood in the sacrament, as he was born of Mary, and hung on the holy cross." He rejects the figurative interpretation because it
might deprive other passages of their force.
(^822) Ullmann, Reformatoren vor der Reformation (1842), vol. II. 560-583. Melanchthon derived the controversy from Erasmus. "Tota
illa tragoedia περὶ δείπνου κυριακου̑ab ipso [Erasmo] nata videri potest." Letter to Camerarius, July 26, 1529 ("Corpus Ref.," I. 1083).
He was informed by Zwingli in Marburg: "se ex Erasmi scriptis primum hausisse opinionem suam de coena Domini." Letter to Acquila,
Oct. 12, 1529 (IV. 970). Erasmus spoke very highly of the book of Oecolampadius on the Lord’s Supper, and would have accepted his
view if it were not for the consensus of the church: "Mihi non displiceret Oecolampadii sententia, nisi obstaret consensus ecclesiae."
Letter to Pirkheimer, June 6, 1526.
(^823) Preface to "Farrago rerum, theolog., Wesselo autore," published at Wittenberg, 1521 or 1522. Op., VII. 493 sqq. See Ullmann, l.c.
p. 564 sq. This edition, however, excludes the tract De coena,—a proof that Luther did not altogether like it.