But now two more formidable opponents appeared on the field, who, by independent study,
had arrived at a far more sensible interpretation of the words of institution than that of Carlstadt,
and supported it with strong exegetical and rational arguments. Zwingli, the Luther of Switzerland,
and Oecolampadius, its Melanchthon, gave the controversy a new and more serious turn.
Zwingli received the first suggestion of a figurative interpretation (est = significat) from
Erasmus and Wessel through Honius; as Luther derived his first idea of a corporal presence in the
unchanged elements from Pierre d’Ailly.^829 He communicated his view, in a confidential Latin
letter, Nov. 16, 1524, to the Lutheran preacher, Matthaeus Alber in Reutlingen, an opponent of
Carlstadt, and based it on Christ’s word, John 6:63, as excluding a carnal or material manducation
of his body and blood.^830
A few months later (March, 1525) he openly expressed his view with the same arguments
in the "Commentary on the True and False Religion."^831 This was three months after Luther had
published his book against Carlstadt. He does not men-tion Luther in either of these two writings,
but evidently aimed at him, and speaks of his view almost as contemptuously as Luther had spoken
of Carlstadt’s view.
In the same year Oecolampadius, one of the most learned and pious men of his age, appeared
with a very able work in defense of the same theory, except that he put the figure in the predicate,
and explained the words of institution (like Tertullian): "hoc est figura corporis mei." He lays,
how-ever, no stress on this difference, as the sense is the same. He wrote with as much modesty
and moderation as learning and acuteness. He first made use of testimonies of the church fathers,
especially Augustin, who favors a spiritual fruition of Christ by faith. Erasmus judged the arguments
of Oecolampadius to be strong enough to seduce the very elect.^832
The Lutherans were not slow to reply to the Swiss.
Bugenhagen, a good pastor, but poor theologian, published a letter to Hess of Breslau against
Zwingli.^833 He argues, that, if the substantive verb in the words of institution is figurative, it must
always be figurative; e.g., "Peter is a man," would mean, "Peter signifies a man."^834 He also appeals
(^829) The assertion of some biographers of Zwingli, that he already at Glarus became acquainted with the writings of Ratramnus and
Wiclif, is without proof. He first intimates his view in a letter to his teacher Wyttenbach, June 15, 1523, but as a secret. (Opera, VII., 1.
297.) He published the letter of Honius, which explains the est to be equivalent to significat, at Zürich in March, 1525, but had received
it in 1521 from two learned visitors, Rhodius and Sagarus. See Gieseler, III. 1, 192 sq., note 27 (Germ. ed.); and especially Ullmann, l.c.,
II. 569 sq.
(^830) Opera, III. 589. Walch gives a German translation, XVII. 1881. Planck (II. 261 sqq.) quotes all the important points of this letter.
(^831) Opera, III. 145. The section on the Lord’s Supper appeared also in a German translation. Planck, II. 265 sqq.
(^832) Ep. ad Budam Episc. Lingonensem, Oct. 2, 1525 (Op., III. 1, 892): "Exortum est novum dogma, in Eucharistia nihil esse praeter
panem et vinum. Id ut sit difficillimum refellere, fecit Io. Oecolampadius qui tot testimoniis, tot argumentis eam opinionem communiit,
ut seduci posse videantur etiam electi." Planck (II. 274): "Dass Oecolampad in dieser Schrift die ausgebreitetste Gelehrsamkeit und den
blendendsten oder treffendsten Scharfsinn zeigte, dies haben selbst seine parteyischsten Gegner niemals geläugnet; aber sie hätten wohl
auch gestehen dürfen, dass er die anständigste Bescheidenheit, die würdigste Mässigung und gewiss auch die redlichste Wahrheitsliebe
darin gezeigt habe." Dr. Baur also, in his Kirchengesch. IV. 90, speaks very highly of the book of Oecolampadius, and gives a summary
of it. Baur and Gieseler, among modern church historians, clearly betray their Swiss sympathy in this controversy, as well as Planck,
although all of them are Germans of Lutheran descent.
(^833) In German translation, Walch, XX. 641.
(^834) Luther had used the same weak argument before, in his Address to the Bohemians (1523), where he says (Erl. ed., XXVIII. 393 sq.):
"Wo man Solchen Frevel an einem Ort zuliesse, dass man ohn Grund der Schrift möcht sagen, das Wörtlin ’Ist’ heisst so viel als das
Wörtlin ’Bedeut,’ so könnt mans auch an keinem andern Ort wehren, und würde die ganze Schrift zunichte; sintemal keine Ursach wäre,
warum solcher Frevel an einem Ort gülte, und nicht an alten Oertern. So möcht man denn sagen, dass Maria ist Jungfrau und Mutter
Gottes, sei so viel gesagt, Maria bedeut eine Jungfrau und Gottes Mutter. Item, Christus ist Gott und Mensch, das ist, Christus bedeut