Luther, and a little more Christian charity and liberality in Zwingli. This difference is characteristic
of the Reformers and of the denominations which they represent.
Luther had a sense of superiority, and claimed the credit of having begun the work of the
Reformation. He supposed that the Swiss were indebted to him for what little knowledge they had
of the gospel; while, in fact, they were as independent of him as the Swiss Republic was of the
German Empire, and knew the gospel as well as he.^906
But it would be great injustice to attribute his conduct to obstinacy and pride, or any selfish
motive. It proceeded from his inmost conviction. He regarded the real presence as a fundamental
article of faith, inseparably connected with the incarnation, the union of the two natures of Christ,
and the mystical union of believers with his divine-human personality. He feared that the denial of
this article would consistently lead to the rejection of all mysteries, and of Christianity itself. He
deemed it, moreover, most dangerous and horrible to depart from what had been the consensus of
the Christian Church for so many centuries. His piety was deeply rooted in the historic Catholic
faith, and it cost him a great struggle to break loose from popery. In the progress of the eucharistic
controversy, all his Catholic instincts and abhorrence of heresy were aroused and intensified. In
his zeal he could not do justice to his opponents, or appreciate their position. His sentiments are
shared by millions of pious and devout Lutherans to this day, whose conscience forbids them to
commune with Christians of Reformed churches.^907 We may lament their narrowness, but
must.respect their conviction, as we do the conviction of the far larger number of Roman Catholics,
who devoutly believe in the miracle of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass.
In addition to Luther’s dogmatic standpoint we must take into account his ignorance of the
true character of the Swiss, and their real doctrine. He had hardly heard of the Swiss Reformation
when the controversy began. He did not even spell Zwingli’s name correctly (he always calls him
"Zwingel"), and could not easily understand his Swiss dialect.^908 He made a radical mistake by
confounding him with Carlstadt and the fanatics. He charged him with reducing the Lord’s Supper
to a common meal, and bread and wine to empty signs; and, although he found out his mistake at
Marburg, he returned to it again in his last book, adding the additional charge of hypocrisy or
apostasy. He treated him as a heathen, yea, worse than a heathen, as he treated Erasmus.
(^906) In his book, "Dass die Worte Christi," etc. (1527, Erl. ed. XXX. 11), he calls the Sacramentarians "his tender children, his dear
brethren, his golden friends" ("meine zarte Kinder, meine Brüderlein, meine gülden Freundlein "), who would have known nothing of
Christ and the gospel if Luther had not previously written ("wo der Luther nicht zuvor hätte geschrieben"). He compared Carlstadt to
Absalom and to Judas the traitor. He treated the Swiss not much better, in a letter to his blind admirer Amsdorf, April 14, 1545 (De Wette,
V. 728), where he says that they kept silence, while he alone was sustaining the fury of popery (cum solus sudarem in sustinenda furia
Papae), and that after the peril was over, they claimed the victory, and reaped the fruit of his labors (tum erampebant triumphatores
gloriosi. Sic, sic alius laborat, alius fruitur). Dr. Döllinger (Luther, 1851, p. 29 sq.) derives the bitterness of Luther’s polemics against
the Swiss largely from "jealousy and wounded pride," and calls his refutation of their arguments "very weak," and even "dis-honest"
("seine Polemik war, wie immer und gegen jedermann, in hohem Grade unehrlich," p. 31). The charge of dishonesty we cannot admit.
(^907) The philosopher Steffens, who was far from uncharitable bigotry, always went from Berlin to Breslau to commune with the orthodox
Old Lutherans. Bishop Martensen, one of the profoundest Lutheran divines of the nineteenth century, thought that only in cases of necessity
could a Lutheran commune with a Calvinist, who denies what Luther affirms, or evades the mystery of the real presence. Briefwechsel
zwischen Martensen und Dorner, Berlin, 1888, vol. I. 262 sq. He changed his view afterwards. I could name eminent living Lutheran
divines who would hardly allow even this exception. In America the Lutheran theory had largely given way to the Zwinglian until it was
revived by the German Missouri Synod, and found a learned advocate in Dr. Krauth, who went so far as to propose to the General Lutheran
Council the so-called "Galesburg rule" (1875): "Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran ministers only, Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants
only."
(^908) Zwingli’s Latin is better than his Züridütsch, in which his answers to Luther’s German attacks were written.