Debating The Sacraments: Print and Authority in The Early Reformation

i
Debating the Sacraments
ii
iii
Debating
the Sacraments
Print and Authority in
the Early Reformation
zz
AMY NELSON BURNETT
1
iv
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2019
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Burnett, Amy Nelson, 1957– author.
Title: Debating the sacraments : print and authority in the
early Reformation / Amy Nelson Burnett.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2019] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018016554 (print) | LCCN 2018038613 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780190921187 (cloth) | ISBN 978019092194 (UPDF) |
ISBN 9780190921200 (EPUB) | ISBN 9780190921217 (Online Content)
Subjects: LCSH: Reformation. | Printing—Europe—History—16th century. |
Christian literature—Publishing—Europe—History—16th century. |
Book industries and trade—Europe—History—16th century. |
Lord’s Supper—History of doctrines. | Baptism—History of doctrines.
Classification: LCC BR307 (ebook) | LCC BR307 .B87 2019 (print) |
DDC 234/.1609031—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018016554
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
v
In memoriam
Mabel Beardsley Peterson
Phyllis Peterson Nelson
Marlowe E. Nelson
vi
vi
Contents
List of Figures ix
List of Illustrations xi
Preface xiii
Abbreviations and Common Shortened References xvii
1. Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 1
PART I. Overview, Background, and Beginnings
2. Contours of the Printed Debate 25
3. Heresy and Hermeneutics: The Background to the Controversy 50
4. Karlstadt’s Challenge to Luther 77
5. The Early Debate in Switzerland 98
PART II. Exchanges, 1526–1529
6. Martin Bucer and Bugenhagen’s Psalms Commentary 121
7. Oecolampadius Against the Wittenbergers 139
8. Undermining Oecolampadius: The Debate with Pirckheimer 158
9. The Contributions of Zurich and Strasbourg 178

vi
viii Contents
10. Print, Polemics, and Popular Response in Southern Germany 204
11. The Debate Matures, 1527–1529 222
PART III. Gradual Developments
12. The Lord’s Supper in Catechetical Literature 249
13. Sacramentarian Diversity 269
14. Reconstituting Authority 282
Conclusion 298
Notes 315
Bibliography 437
Index 495
Index of Scripture 523
ix
Figures
1.1. Number of Publications in German-Speaking Lands 8

1.2. Percentage of Publications on the Lord’s Supper/Mass 10
2.1. Imprints Concerning the Lord’s Supper 27
2.2. Proportion of Imprints by Party, 1525–1529 28
2.3. Number of Imprints by Party 28
2.4. Number of New Titles by Party 29
2.5. Pro-Wittenberg Authors 30
2.6. Pro-Wittenberg Publications Concerning the
Lord’s Supper 30
2.7. Luther Imprints Concerning the Lord’s Supper,
1525–1529 31
2.8. Sacramentarian Authors 34
2.9. Catholic Authors 36
2.10. Printing Locations, 1525–1529 39
2.11. Proportion of Imprints on the Lord’s Supper by
City, 1525–1529 40
2 .12. Genre of Imprints by Party 44
4.1. Published Contributions to the Controversy,
1524–1525 91
7.1. Oecolampadius’s Contributions to the Controversy,
1525–June 1527 141
9.1. Zurich/Swiss Contributions to the Controversy,
1526–June 1527 180
9.2. Other Contributions to the Controversy,
1526–March 1527 195
x
xi
Illustrations
5.1 Title page of Action oder Bruch des Nachtmals

(Zurich: Froschauer, 1525) 114
6.1 Title page of Bugenhagen/Bucer Psalter wol verteutscht
(Basel: Petri, 1526) 126
9.1. Title page of Zwingli, Ejn klare vnderrichtung vom
nachtmal Christi (Zurich: Hager, 1526) 181
14.1. Woodcut from Urbanus Rhegius, Vom hochwirdigen
Sacrament des altars (Leipzig: Thanner, 1525) 284
xi
xi
Preface
Ideas are clean. They soar in the serene supernal. I can take
them out and look at them, they fit in a book, they lead me
down that narrow way. And in the morning they are there.
Ideas are straight. But the world is round, and a messy mortal
is my friend. Come walk with me in the mud.
—Hugh Prather, Notes to Myself
People have occasionally asked me why on earth I would want to study such a
convoluted topic as the Eucharistic controversy. I tell them that my first job after
graduating from college was as a policy analyst for a group of legislators in my
home state, and one of my responsibilities was to explain the intricacies of prop
erty tax relief and school-aid formulas. I discovered that I enjoyed puzzling out
the details of extremely complex but important legislation and explaining how it
worked to those who made public policy. There are more than a few similarities
between that task and my efforts to understand and explain the Reformation de-
bate over the Lord’s Supper.
I began work on this book with a few simple questions: How would our un-
derstanding of the Eucharistic controversy change if we read every contribution
to it, rather than just the works of Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli? What can
these publications tell us about how the ideas of the major reformers were under-
stood and further disseminated through the writings of others? What happens to
the standard narrative if we go beyond the traditional concentration on theology
and look at other factors? The answers to these questions led me to go beyond
the Lord’s Supper to provide a different view of the early Reformation than the
accounts one finds in most standard history textbooks.
My work on this book has benefited from the input of many individuals
and the support provided by a number of sources. I began my research in the
congenial surroundings of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study during a
Faculty Development Leave funded in part by a Sabbatical Fellowship from the
xvi
xiv Preface
American Philosophical Society in 2009–10. As a Fulbright Senior Scholar in

2012, I benefited from the resources and researchers at the Leibniz-Institut für
Europäische Geschichte in Mainz. While co-directing an NEH Summer Seminar
at Calvin College in 2013, I could make use of the holdings of Hekman Library
and the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies. Six months at the Herzog-
August-Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel while on sabbatical in 2016 and another two
months in the summer of 2017 as a senior fellow gave me direct access to my
sources and enabled stimulating conversation with the many scholars who flock
to this Mecca of early modern scholarship. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Peter
Burschel, Dr. Jill Bepler, and the entire staff of the library for all the support they
provided. UNL’s Research Council provided two grants-in-aid to support my re-
search, and as always, the staff of Love Library’s Interlibrary Loan department has
been wonderfully efficient and helpful.
The best books are not written in splendid isolation but instead grow out of
discussion with others. My husband Steve has been my chief sounding board,
encourager, and critic over the many years I have worked on this topic. I have
benefited in particular from conversations and correspondence with Irene
Dingel, Robert Kolb, and Timothy Wengert on the Wittenberg theologians,
from Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz and their colleagues at the Institut für
Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte in Zurich on the Swiss reformers,
Christine Christ-von Wedel and James Estes on Erasmus, and Geoffrey Dipple
and James Stayer on the radicals. I am particularly grateful to Bob, Tim, Emidio,
and Geoff for reading and providing feedback on all or part of the manuscript.
I have also received helpful comments from the audiences at several meetings
of the Sixteenth Century Society and Conference, as well as at colloquia at the
Leibniz-Institut für Europäische Geschichte in Mainz, the Reformation Studies
Institute at the University of St. Andrews, the Religious Studies Department
of Stanford University, and the Herzog-August-Bibliothek, where I presented
earlier versions of the book’s argument.
So many individuals have stimulated my thinking on this book that I hesi-
tate to list names for fear of omission, but a few individuals stand out for their
encouragement, support, observations, and insights provided at critical phases
in my work: Tom Brady, Bruce Gordon, Helmut Graser, Susan Karant-Nunn,
Tony Lane, Karin Maag, Ray Mentzer, Andrew Pettegree, Barbara Pitkin, Beth
Plummer, Ron Rittgers, and Ann Tlusty. Here at UNL I have benefited from reg-
ular conversations with Sidnie Crawford, Stephen Lahey, and Alison Stewart. My
students have also helped me clarify my ideas through their questions.
Some of the most important contributions to the Eucharistic controversy
are available in two or more critical editions. I have cited the most recent edi-
tion of any given work, which can be consulted for information about earlier
xv
Preface xv
printed versions. Where they exist, I have also cited English translations for
those who are not comfortable with the original language. Quotations from
the Bible are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) unless oth-
erwise specified. Early modern spelling of names was not standard, and so
I have used the modern German form (thus Konrad Pellikan rather than
Conrad Pellican), with the exception of those rulers whose titles are translated
into English, such as Elector Frederick the Wise. Although it has become
customary, especially in German publications, to use the sixteenth century
spelling of the Zurich reformer’s name, I have retained the modern form of
Ulrich Zwingli, which is more familiar to an English-language audience.
This book is dedicated to the memory of my parents and my maternal grand-
mother. All three of them encouraged my love of learning in different ways, and
the older I grow the more I perceive their long-lasting influence. I especially wish
that my father could have read this book. The epigram that heads this preface
is a bit of “New Age wisdom” from the 1970s. It was given to me while I held
that first job by a friend and co-worker who thought that I was too interested in
abstract questions and speculative debates. While I cannot claim that the wrong-
headedness of the quote played a role in my decision to quit that job and start
graduate school in history, it has stayed in my mind all these years. This book is
my refutation of Prather’s misguided belief that “ideas are clean.” They do not
“soar in the serene supernal” but can be as messy and covered with mud as every
other aspect of human existence.
xvi
xvi
Abbreviations and Common

Shortened References
A b b r ev i at i o n s
ABR Dürr, Emil, and Paul Roth. Aktensammlung zur
Geschichte der Basler Reformation in den Jahren 1519 bis
Anfang 1534. 6 vols. Basel: Historische und antiquarische
Gesellschaft, 1921–50.
ASD Erasmus, Desiderius. Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi
Roterodami. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1969–.
BCorr Bucer, Martin. Correspondance de Martin Bucer. Martini
Buceri Opera Omnia Series 3. Leiden: Brill, 1979–.
BDS Bucer, Martin. Deutsche Schriften. Opera Omnia
Series 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn,
1960–2016.
BOL Bucer, Martin. Martini Buceri Opera Latina. Martini
BWSA Brenz, Johannes. Werke. Eine Studienausgabe.
Tübingen: Mohr, 1970–86.
CR Melanchthon, Philipp. Philippi Melanthonis Opera
quae Supersunt Omnia. Corpus Reformatorum 1–28.
Halle: Schwetschke, 1834–60.
CS Schwenckfeld, Kaspar. Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum.
Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1907–61.
CWC Rummel, Erika, and Milton Kooistra, eds. The
Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 2005–.
CWE Erasmus, Desiderius. Collected Works of Erasmus.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974–.
EPK Burnett, Amy Nelson, ed. and trans. The Eucharistic
Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.
Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2011.
xvi
xviii Abbreviations and Common Shortened References
FSBT Laube, Adolph, et al., eds. Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg

zum Täuferreich (1526–1535). 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1992.
FSGR Laube, Adolph, ed. Flugschriften gegen die Reformation
(1525–30). Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2000.
HBBW Bullinger, Heinrich. Briefwechsel. Werke. Zweite
Abteilung 2. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1973–.
HBTS Bullinger, Heinrich. Theologische Schriften. Werke.
Dritte Abteilung. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1983–.
HZW Furcha, Edward J., and H. Wayne Pipkin, eds. Huldrych
Zwingli: Writings. 2 vols. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick
Publications, 1984.
KGK Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von. Kritische
Gesamtausgabe der Schriften und Briefe Andreas
Bodensteins von Karlstadt, edited by Thomas Kaufmann
et al. Güterlsoh: Gütersloher Varlagshaus, 2017–.
LB Erasmus, Desiderius. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami
Opera Omnia emendatiora et auctiora, edited by Jean
LeClerc. 10 vols. Hildesheim: Olms, 1961–1978. [Orig:
Leiden, 1703–1706].
LW Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO:
Concordia, 1955–.
MBW Scheible, Heinz et al., eds. Melanchthons Briefwechsel:
Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe. Stuttgart-
Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1977–.
MelStA Melanchthon, Philipp. Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl,
edited by Robert Stupperich. 7 vols. in 9. Gütersloh:
Bertelsmann, 1951–83.
MPL Migne, J.-P., ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series
Latina. 221 vols. Paris: Garnieri Fratres, 1844–64.
OBA Staehelin, Ernst, ed. Briefe und Akten zum Leben
Oekolampads, zum vierhundertjährigen Jubiläum
der Basler Reformation. Quellen und Forschungen
zur Reformationsgeschichte 10, 19. 2 vols. Leipzig:
Heinsius, 1927–34.
OGA Osiander, Andreas. Gesamtausgabe. 10 vols. Gütersloh:
Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1975–97.
QGT Hubmaier, Balthasar. Schriften, edited by Gunnar
Westin and Torsten Bergsten. Quellen zur Geschichte
der Täufer 9. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1962.
QGTS Muralt, Leonhard von, and Walter Schmid, eds. Quellen
zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz. Vol. 1: Zürich.
Zurich: Hirzel, 1952.
xi
Abbreviations and Common Shortened References xix
TMA Müntzer, Thomas. Thomas-Müntzer-Ausgabe. Kritische

Gesamtausgabe. Quellen und Forschungen zur
sächsischen Geschichte. Leipzig: Verlag der Sächsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004–.
VBS Arbenz, Emil, and Hermann Wartmann, eds. Die
Vadianische Briefsammlung der Stadtbibliothek St.
Gallen. Mitteilungen zur Vaterländischen Geschichte
24–30a. St. Gallen: Fehr, 1884–1913.
VD16 Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen
Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts. www.vd16.de.
W2 Walch, Johann Georg, ed. Dr. Martin Luthers
Sämmtliche Schriften. 23 vols. St. Louis, MO:
Concordia, 1881–1910.
WA Luther, Martin. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe.
1. Abteilung: Schriften. 73 vols. Weimar: Böhlaus
Nachfolger, 1883–2009.
WA Br Luther, Martin. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 4.
Abteilung: Briefe. 18 vols. Weimar: Böhlaus Nachfolger,
1883–2009.
WA DB Luther, Martin. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 3.
Abteilung: Die Deutsche Bibel. 15 vols. Weimar: Böhlaus
WA TR Luther, Martin Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe.
2. Abteilung: Tischreden. 6 vols. Weimar: Böhlaus
WB Müller, Nicolaus. Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521
und 1522. Die Vorgänge in und um Wittenberg während
Luthers Wartburgaufenthalt. Leipzig : Heinsius, 1911.
WPBW Reicke, Emil et al., eds. Willibald Pirckheimers
Briefwechsel. 7 vols. Munich: Beck, 1940–2009.
Z Zwingli, Ulrich. Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke.
Leipzig/Zurich: Heinsius/T VZ, 1905–91.
Z&B Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed. and trams. Zwingli and
Bullinger: Selected Translations with Introductions and
Notes. Library of Christian Classics 24. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1953.
Z&L Köhler, Walther. Zwingli und Luther: Ihre Streit über das
Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen.
2 vols. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte
6–7. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924–53. [Reprint, 2017]
ZSW Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ed. Selected Works of
Huldreich Zwingli (1484– 1531), The Reformer of
German Switzerland. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania, 1901.
x
xx Abbreviations and Common Shortened References
S h o rt en ed R ef er en c e s
Allen Erasmus, Desiderius. Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi
Roterdami, edited by P. S. Allen et al. 12 vols.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1906–1958.
Burnett, Karlstadt Burnett, Amy Nelson. Karlstadt and the Origins of the
Eucharistic Controversy: A Study in the Circulation
of Ideas. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Erasmus, “Ratio” Erasmus, Desiderius. “Ratio— Theologische Methoden
lehre.” In Erasmus von Rotterdam, Ausgewählte Schriften,
Vol. 3, edited by Gerhard B. Winkler. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967.
Herminjard Herminjard, A.-L., ed. Correspondance des Réformateurs
dans les pays de langue Française. 9 vols. Geneva: H.
Georg, 1866–97. [Reprint, Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1966]
Kaufmann, Kaufmann, Thomas. Die Abendmahlstheologie der
Abendmahlstheologie Strassburger Reformatoren bis 1528. Beiträge zur
historischen Theologie 81. Tübingen: Mohr, 1992.
Schiess Schiess, Traugott, ed. Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius
und Thomas Blaurer 1509–1548. 3 vols. Freiburg im
Brreisgau: Fehsenfeld, 1908–1912.
Sehling, Sehling, Ernst et al., eds. Die evangelischen
Kirchenordnungen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts. 24 vols.
Leipzig/Tübingen: Reisland/Mohr, 1902–2016.
Spruyt, Hoen Spruyt, Bart Jan. Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius) and
His Epistle on the Eucharist (1525). Studies in Medieval
and Reformation Traditions 119. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Staehelin, Staehelin, Ernst. Das theologische Lebenswerk
Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads. Quellen und Forschungen zur
Reformationsgeschichte 21. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1939.
Zwingli, Zwingli, Ulrich. Commentary on True and False Religion.
Commentary Translated by Samuel Macauley Jackson and Clarence
Nevin Heller. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1981.
1
Print and the Reformation Crisis

of Authority
In October of 1524, two Basel printers published several pamphlets by

Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt that argued against the presence of Christ’s
body in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. These pamphlets touched off
an acrimonious debate in print within the evangelical movement that would
continue through the end of the decade. Catholic authors would participate
in the debate as well, both by defending the doctrine of transubstantiation and
by pointing to the disagreement among the reformers as proof that all of them
were wrong. Just as rejection of the authority of the papal see divided Roman
Catholics from those who would later be called Protestants, so the rejection of
Christ’s bodily presence in the elements of bread and wine began the process of
dividing Protestants into the Lutheran and Reformed confessional churches.
A few months after the publication of Karlstadt’s pamphlets, a small group
meeting in a private home in Zurich watched a layman named Conrad Grebel
baptize the priest Georg Blaurock. This was the first known case of believer’s bap-
tism within the evangelical movement. Whether or not the earliest advocates of
believer’s baptism intended to create a separate church in January 1525, over the
next few years those called Anabaptists would separate from the magisterially
backed reformers to establish their own churches independent of state control.
These two events—one involving printing, the other a religious rite—have
long stood at the center of confessional histories of the German Reformation.
They have also been treated as two completely separate and unrelated events.
Already in the sixteenth century, Reformed churchmen wrote histories of the
Eucharistic controversy focusing on Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli in order
to demonstrate the truth of their own understanding of the Lord’s Supper, and
their lead was followed by later historians. This narrative functioned as a “myth
of origin” for both Lutherans and Reformed that explained the beginning of their
2
2 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts
own confessional tradition, or as a “place of memory” that shaped confessional

identity.1 In the twentieth century, Mennonite and Baptist church historians
created their own “myth of origin” by examining the lives of Grebel, Blaurock,
and other early Zurich Anabaptists. This compartmentalized approach to
the fragmentation of the evangelical movement is so embedded in our under-
standing of the early Reformation that it is still accepted without question by
post-confessional and secular historians. To counter the older Luther-centered
narrative and to recognize the role of dissenters within the broad evangelical
movement, historians have moved away from discussing the Reformation and
now talk about the many different reformations. With its focus on distinct and
fully formed confessional groups and sects, however, this approach is only a
secularized form of the older “myth of origins” narrative.
The greatest anomaly overlooked by the separate accounts of the origins
of confessional and dissenting Protestantism is that both emerged at the same
time, in the same places, and among the same individuals. Not only did Andreas
Karlstadt attack Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper; he also wrote
a pamphlet criticizing infant baptism, although he was not able to publish it
in 1524. Zwingli is the best known of Luther’s opponents, but the first Swiss
Anabaptists were among Zwingli’s most zealous followers. Although the docu-
mentary evidence is sparse, there were contacts between Karlstadt and the Zurich
proto-Anabaptists, and Karlstadt visited the Swiss city after being expelled from
Saxony in the fall of 1524.2 The relationship between Saxon and Swiss radicalism
has long been obscured, however, by the firewall between the Eucharistic contro-
versy and early Anabaptism that was first erected by Zwingli’s successor, Heinrich
Bullinger. Bullinger wrote histories of both developments, doing his utmost to
prove Zwingli’s orthodoxy regarding the Lord’s Supper while distancing him
from the “heretical” Anabaptists.3 Over the last two generations, scholars have
abandoned Bullinger’s distorted narrative of Anabaptist history and produced a
host of new studies that look at the origins of the radical reformation, paying as
much attention to socioeconomic as to theological factors.4 The chief criterion in
identifying these radicals remains their rejection of infant baptism, however, and
their understanding of the Lord’s Supper is discussed only on the margins.
There has been no corresponding development from the side of those
studying the magisterial or state-supported reformation, and the Eucharistic con-
troversy continues to be largely the preserve of church historians and theologians.
Although their interests are now more often ecumenical than confessional and
polemical, their approach still tends to have an eye on the implications of the
sixteenth-century debate for contemporary theological concerns.5 When social
and cultural historians have examined the sacrament that Protestants called the
Lord’s Supper, their focus has been on the rituals and practices developed over the
course of the sixteenth century, rather than on the theological debate at its origin.
3
Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 3
When the theology of the Lord’s Supper is addressed, it is limited to that of a few
key figures, especially Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and Jean Calvin.6
This confessionalized and compartmentalized approach to the debate con-
cerning the two evangelical sacraments has distorted our understanding of the
broader questions of sacramental theology and authority in the early Reformation.
The controversies concerning infant baptism and Christ’s bodily presence in the
bread and wine were only the tip of the iceberg, the most visible aspects of a more
fundamental and far-reaching disagreement concerning the definition and pur-
pose of the sacraments more generally and the understanding of the relationship
between the visible material world and the invisible spiritual reality that underlay
any discussion of the sacraments. The contrasting positions were developed by
Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam in the early 1520s, and they reflected
differences not only in their broad presuppositions about the nature of reality
and God’s interaction with human beings through the sacraments but also in
their response to specific questions of biblical hermeneutics and scriptural exe-
gesis. The depth of these disagreements became evident with the beginning of
the Eucharistic controversy at the end of 1524, for both parties to the debate cited
scripture to uphold their own understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Over the next
five years, those who rejected Luther’s understanding of the sacrament fought to
establish the legitimacy of their own position. They faced dissent within their
own ranks, however, as some of their followers developed an understanding of the
sacraments in a way that led to the rejection of infant baptism. The Eucharistic
controversy caused a crisis of authority within the evangelical movement that
deepened throughout the second half of the 1520s. For this reason, those years
belong not with the movement toward institutionalization and stabilization of
reforms that characterized developments from 1530 on but, instead, with the fer-
ment of ideas that characterized the early Reformation.
While accounts of the Reformation up to 1525 focus on the enthusiastic recep-
tion and rapid expansion of evangelical teachings, the second half of the 1520s is
usually described as a period of bitter infighting and evangelical fragmentation.
Indeed, the Peasants’ War of 1525 and the division of the evangelical movement
into Lutheran, Zwinglian, and radical factions have often been seen as marking
the end of the Reformation as a popular movement. With the significant excep-
tion of research on the radical reformation, the second half of the decade has
been neglected by scholars. If they are discussed at all, the later 1520s are asso-
ciated with the longer-term developments of a “prince’s reformation” imposed
from above and with the process of confession-building and confessionalization
that created the major Protestant denominations. This approach, however,
reads into the second half of the 1520s developments that more properly began
in the early 1530s. In many places the process of reform stalled throughout the
second half of the 1520s, and it did not resume until the end of the decade. Only
4
a handful of cities and territories, most of them in the Swiss Confederation and
so not subject to the Catholic emperor, dared to abolish the mass and issue their
own church ordinances, thereby officially breaking with the Roman church,
before the 1530s.7 Only after membership in the Schmalkaldic League offered
German states some protection did they begin the process of institutionalizing
religious reforms in earnest. Likewise, the process of confession-building could
not begin until the first official confessions were written in 1529–30. Those
confessions were shaped not only by conflicts with Catholic opponents but also
by the bitter published debate over the sacraments. They would become a new
form of authority for the evangelical churches, providing guidance for the cor-
rect interpretation of scripture.
This book presents a new way of looking at the early Reformation by
examining the printed debate over the sacraments in the second half of the
1520s as a symptom of the crisis of authority within the evangelical move-
ment. At its core is the controversy concerning the Lord’s Supper carried out
between 1525 and 1529. Baptism initially played no role in this controversy, for
in contrast to the many published works addressing the Lord’s Supper, there
was virtually no published debate over baptism. Those who opposed infant
baptism did not have access to and could not make use of the printing press to
the same extent that opponents of Christ’s bodily presence had. Censorship
was also a factor in preventing publication of pamphlets critical of infant bap-
tism. The rejection of infant baptism was strongest among the lower classes,
who were unable to read or were literate only in the vernacular. Clandestine
preaching rather than print was the primary means of spreading Anabaptist
views, and published works on baptism were largely limited to defenses of
infant baptism and to mandates that required parents to have their babies
baptized and that decreed the punishment of those who were baptized as
believers. Over the second half of the 1520s, though, an increasing number of
publications on the Lord’s Supper also addressed baptism or the sacraments
more generally, and by the end of the 1520s there was a significant secondary
debate concerning these topics, waged primarily within works on the Lord’s
Supper. Almost two-thirds of the works published in 1529 on that topic also
contained some discussion of baptism or the sacraments. The shift from the
presence of Christ’s body to broader questions of sacramental theology is a
crucial development that has largely been overlooked in discussions of the
Eucharistic controversy, and it demands consideration as a major aspect of
the evangelical crisis of authority.8
Zwingli and Luther?

The issue of authority has been obscured by the conventional use of the terms
“Lutheran” and “Zwinglian” to describe the two sides of the Eucharistic
5
controversy. These names originated not as labels describing a distinct set of the-
ological positions held by a well-defined party but, rather, as insults implying
that one’s opponents were followers of a particular heretical teacher rather than
members of the orthodox and catholic church. In response to charges that they
were “Lutherans,” Reformation pamphleteers insisted that they were evangel-
ical Christians, not followers of Luther, Zwingli, or anyone else.9 More signifi-
cantly, the names “Zwinglian” and “Lutheran” imply that the positions of each
side were identical to that of the two reformers, and that the views of those two
men were both stable and fully developed. This was indeed the way both terms
would be used in histories of the early Eucharistic controversy written in the
second half of the sixteenth century. Those claims of consistency had a polemical
purpose, however. Luther’s supporters pointed to the varying positions of their
opponents while citing the Wittenberg reformer as their theological lodestone.
Zurich theologians claimed in response that Luther’s position had changed over
time, while Zwingli had consistently held to the same position.10 Neither party
accurately depicted the situation of the later 1520s, for as will become clear over
the course of this study, the views of both Luther and Zwingli developed during
these years.
The naming of the two sides as Lutheran and Zwinglian has also reinforced
the perception of the Eucharistic controversy as a clash between two theological
titans, each with his own loyal following. Ironically, this view was perpetuated by
Walther Köhler’s magisterial Zwingli and Luther: Their Conflict over the Supper
According to its Political and Religious Connections. Köhler’s long years of experi-
ence as editor of Zwingli’s correspondence, his ready access to the rich holdings
of Zurich’s Central Library, and his sensitivity to the historical context in which
doctrinal formulations were expressed combined to produce a classic work that
is still the standard guide to the controversy, as indicated by its reprinting in
2017, almost a century after the first volume was published.11 Köhler devoted
substantial attention to the background and early debate over the Lord’s Supper,
including a discussion of the many pamphlets written by other figures—“the
smaller and smallest satellites,” as he called them. The preface and introduction
of the work’s first volume make clear, however, that the book is not simply a nar-
rative of developments or an encyclopedic summary of the various contributions
to the Eucharistic controversy. Instead, Köhler’s goal was to examine the conflict
between the two reformers named in the title, and he regarded everything before
the first direct exchange between Zwingli and Luther as preliminary skirmishes.
Despite his careful attention to the broader debate, in the end Köhler was most
concerned with these two giants, for as he put it, “the satellites all revolve around
the two suns.”12
Over the last fifty years there has been growing interest in the role of other
reformers in the Eucharistic controversy, resulting in studies of Johannes Brenz,
Heinrich Bullinger, Urbanus Rhegius, and the Strasbourgers Martin Bucer and
6
Wolfgang Capito, among others. This research has deepened our understanding
of the development of Eucharistic theology in the sixteenth century, but with
only a few exceptions the chief concern has continued to be the thought of in-
dividual reformers rather than the larger public discourse concerning the Lord’s
Supper.13 These studies are like fence posts standing isolated around a field; they
do not consider the wires that bind the posts together and create an enclosed
space.14 To change analogies, just as it is hard to assess the originality and signif-
icance of one person’s contribution to a telephone conference call when none of
the other voices are heard, so it is difficult to evaluate the contribution of indi-
vidual reformers without taking into account how they fit into the broader public
discussion of the Lord’s Supper and of the sacraments more generally. It is neces-
sary to listen to the conversation as a whole.
The chapters that follow examine the development of that broader discourse
concerning the sacraments, focusing especially on the published debate con-
cerning the Lord’s Supper that took place over the second half of the 1520s. Like
Walther Köhler’s study, it is based on an analysis of the printed works not only of
the major figures but also of “the smaller and smallest satellites.” Unlike Köhler,
however, it takes these individuals seriously as contributors to the debate and as
indicators of how the ideas set forth in the most influential publications were
received, adapted, and passed on to a different audience. My analysis of these
printed works has two related goals: to evaluate the role of printing in the dis-
semination of evangelical ideas by looking specifically at the debate over the
sacraments, and to describe how the printed debate shaped the development of
sacramental theology and so contributed to the ultimate division of the evangel-
ical movement, not simply into the forerunners of the confessional churches but
also into various dissenting groups. Luther and Zwingli were of course important
for the development of the controversy, but other figures were also major players.
Particularly important for this process were the exchanges that took place from
the beginning of 1526 to the spring of 1527, before Zwingli and Luther attacked
each other head-on. Through this early printed debate, authors first worked out
the understanding of the Lord’s Supper and of the sacraments in general that
were incorporated into the better-known exchange between Luther and the
Swiss reformers in 1527–28 and then enshrined in the confessions that began to
be written at the end of the decade.
The trend especially in cultural studies of the Reformation has been to down-
play theological fine points to focus on more general beliefs, attitudes, and feelings
characteristic of a society over a long period of time. This approach cannot work
in discussing the early years of the Reformation. Beginnings are by their very na-
ture unstable and involve significant change within a short time, and the early
Reformation is no exception. To understand the way sacramental theology would
7
divide Protestantism in the wake of the Reformation, it is necessary to examine

closely the alternatives present at the Reformation’s very beginning. As Luther
and his supporters would argue, the devil was quite literally in the details, and
studying those details reveals why and how disagreements over the sacraments di-
vided the evangelical movement. The theological positions concerning the Lord’s
Supper and the sacraments more generally that developed over the second half
of the 1520s would inform the confessions, liturgies, and catechisms that were
introduced in Protestant cities and territories in the 1530s and beyond, and so
they were crucial for shaping the religious experiences and devotional practices
of Protestant Christians in Germany and Switzerland. If we do not understand
the foundation of these practices, we will misinterpret the practices themselves.
At the same time, my approach to the debate over the Lord’s Supper differs
considerably from that of the theologians and church historians who shaped
the familiar narrative. It is concerned not only with the theological arguments
contained in printed contributions to the debate but also with the way authors
used print to refute their opponents and persuade readers to adopt the author’s
own position, and it draws attention to how those positions were elaborated and
developed over the course of a public exchange. It considers not only authors
but also the role of translators, editors, and printers in expanding the contro-
versy. By looking at how lesser-known individuals reacted and responded to the
publications of major contributors to the debate, it offers insight into the re-
ception and further transmission of evangelical ideas more generally, shedding
light on the diffusion of evangelical beliefs, the social location of the audiences,
and the conceptual frameworks within which the evangelical message was
interpreted.
Print and Literacy

The early printed debate over the Lord’s Supper engaged the attention of the lit-
erate public throughout the second half of the 1520s and played a vital role in
the development of what would become the two major Protestant confessions.
The scope of this debate, however, has not been sufficiently recognized either
in studies of the Eucharistic controversy or in those of early modern printing
more generally. A consideration of book production overall during the first three
decades of the sixteenth century provides some context for understanding the
significance of print for the Eucharistic controversy.
It is well known that the Reformation caused a significant rise in book pro-
duction in German-speaking Europe.15 In the first decade of the sixteenth cen-
tury, German printers produced only between three hundred and four hundred
imprints each year (figure 1.1).16 Production rose to an average of almost five
8
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
All Imprints
. Number of Publications in German-Speaking Lands
hundred imprints each year between 1511 and 1517, but with the beginning of the
Reformation, the pace of publication increased rapidly, reaching a peak of 1,460
works printed in 1524 alone. Over the next few years publications declined to
about half that number in 1527, but then began to increase again, reaching almost
1,200 titles in 1530.
A significant proportion of these publications were Flugschriften, or
pamphlets. Hans-Joachim Köhler, one of the first scholars to undertake a quan-
titative examination of pamphlet publication, defined a pamphlet as “an inde-
pendent printed work consisting of more than one page, unbound and not part
of a series, that was addressed to the general public with the goal of agitation (i.e.,
to influence action) and/or propaganda (i.e., to influence opinion).” Pamphlets
were of varying length and were usually in the vernacular, although they could
also be in Latin. They covered a range of current topics, but they were particularly
concerned with political, religious, and/or social questions. While the author
might address a specific audience or social group in the original text, publication
spread its contents to a heterogeneous public that was unknown to the author.17
Because pamphlets were intended to persuade to belief or action, the author’s
rhetorical strategies were as important as the information or ideas contained in
the pamphlet.
Pamphlets were first used to influence public opinion during the controversy
that broke out in 1511 over Johannes Reuchlin’s defense of Hebrew books, but
with the Reformation they came into their own as a contribution to the public
exchange of ideas. Half of the almost 21,000 works printed between 1501 and 1530
were pamphlets. As with printing overall, the number of pamphlets printed each
year increased exponentially with the outbreak of the Reformation. Pamphlet
9
production rose 530 percent between 1517 and 1518 alone, and this rapid rate of
growth continued through 1524, at which point pamphlet publication was fifty-
five times higher than in the period before 1518. Indeed, almost three-quarters of
all pamphlets produced in the first three decades of the sixteenth century were
printed between 1520 and 1526.18
Scholars have examined these early reformation pamphlets extensively, con-
sidering them from the perspective of topic, genre, illustration, author, and
place of publication.19 Most of these studies focus on pamphlets published
through 1525, and there is a consensus that the decline in pamphlet produc-
tion after 1524 reflects the end of the Reformation as a popular movement. This
ignores the significance of the printed debate over the Lord’s Supper, however.
At a time when the overall number of printed titles was declining, the sacra-
ment became one of the most frequently discussed topics in works published in
German-speaking  lands.
The importance of the Lord’s Supper as a controversial topic is revealed by the
proportion of works concerning the sacrament published throughout the 1520s.
Printed discussion of the mass began in 1520, with the publication of two major
works by Martin Luther: his vernacular Sermon on the New Testament and his
Latin treatise On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Both works rejected the
sacrifice of the mass and proposed a new way of understanding the sacrament as
Christ’s testament—the promise of forgiveness guaranteed by the signs or seals of
bread and wine. The sacrament was discussed in roughly 7 percent of all works
published in German-speaking lands between 1520 and 1523. It thus drew some
attention, but it was by no means the most controversial of all topics.20 Although
the overall number of publications fell between 1524 and 1527, the outbreak of
the Eucharistic controversy led to a boom in publications concerning the Lord’s
Supper. As a result, the proportion of works on the sacrament rose from roughly
9 percent of all works published in 1524 to a high of 22 percent of all imprints in
1527. All told, about 19 percent of the imprints produced between 1525 and 1529
addressed the Lord’s Supper in one form or another (see figure 1.2).21
If we look more specifically at pamphlet literature, the figures are even more
striking. Pamphlets were crucial for the diffusion of evangelical teachings in the
first half of the 1520s, but they were also important for the debate over the Lord’s
Supper throughout the second half of the decade. Between 1520 and 1524, only
about 10 percent of the pamphlets included in Hans-Joachim Köhler’s bibliog-
raphy of pamphlets addressed the Lord’s Supper—not much more than their pro-
portion of printed works overall.22 In 1525, though, the proportion of pamphlets
discussing the Lord’s Supper rose to 25 percent, and it peaked at 35 percent of the
pamphlets printed the following year before falling to about 20 percent in 1529.23
These statistics make evident the broad public interest in the debate over the
10
40
35
30
25
Percentage
20
15
10
5
0
1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529
All Imprints Pamphlets
. Percentage of Publications on the Lord’s Supper/Mass
Lord’s Supper. Printers produced their works in anticipation of and in response

to public demand, and there was clearly a significant demand for discussions of
the sacrament. This fact alone makes it necessary to study the broad range of
publications on the Lord’s Supper rather than focusing only on works by Luther
and Zwingli.
A study of these printed books on the Lord’s Supper helps us understand
the circulation of ideas within the communication networks that took shape
during the early years of the Reformation.24 Because rejection of Christ’s corpo-
real presence in the elements was condemned as a heresy throughout the Middle
Ages, arguments against that presence did not circulate broadly in print before
the end of 1524. It is therefore relatively easy to identify when and by whom
specific arguments against that presence were introduced into the public debate.
One can also see how rapidly and how widely those arguments were incorpo-
rated into the works of others, and so can evaluate their relative impact and sig-
nificance. This approach to the circulation of ideas is something different from
discussing who read the works of specific individuals. I do not assume, for in-
stance, that those who used arguments introduced into the debate by Andreas
Karlstadt had necessarily read Karlstadt’s pamphlets, but the appearance of
those arguments attests to Karlstadt’s more general impact on the development
of the debate. What is important in this regard is not those arguments that later
theologians and historians have found most compelling but, rather, those re-
peated most often in the later 1520s and so were presumably most persuasive to
the contemporary audience. It may be difficult to determine what the average
illiterate peasant—the person at the end of a long chain of transmission—made
of the debate over the Lord’s Supper, but by examining the central links in that
chain—the printed works that publicized ideas and arguments beyond a local
1
level—we can learn much about how the literate public, both clergy and laity,
responded to that debate.
This study can refer only in passing to the lively debate concerning the
sacraments in preaching, private correspondence, and conversations that
occurred in marketplaces, workshops, and homes and whose traces can be found
in archival records. Print was not the only way of communicating in the early six-
teenth century, and other forms of discussion were certainly important.25 Printing
was the first step in the process of broad public diffusion, however, and it was
foundational for these other forms of communication. Its role in the Eucharistic
controversy needs to be better understood before we can look at more locally
circumscribed discussions.
A study of printed pamphlets and books inevitably raises the question of lit-
eracy in the early sixteenth century: Who was able to read the many publications
on the Lord’s Supper? Most research on early modern readers has focused on
basic literacy—the ability to read a simple sentence and understand what it
says—and the commonly accepted view is that at the time of the Reformation,
only 5 percent of the German population as a whole could read. Urban literacy
rates were much higher, however, reaching perhaps as much as 30 percent of a
city’s inhabitants, and it is likely that most households had at least one person
who was able to read.26 This fact is significant for understanding the role of pas-
sive or aural literacy. Strictly speaking, this is not literacy at all but, rather, fa-
miliarity with and the ability to comprehend a written text that is read aloud.
Michael Clancy has given examples from the thirteenth century of churchmen
who preferred to have documents read aloud to them rather than reading the
documents themselves, while Joyce Coleman has argued for the importance even
among the literate of what she calls “public reading” throughout the later Middle
Ages.27 Texts were read aloud in monasteries, in universities, and in courts, but in
the early Reformation they were also read aloud in homes, workplaces, inns and
taverns, and public squares.28 Even as late as the eighteenth century, a community
of people unable to read might be considered to have “functional social literacy”
if one member could read aloud to the others.29 Reformation pamphleteers
recognized the importance of reading aloud and directly addressed both readers
and hearers in their works.
To understand the transmission of more complicated ideas and the social his-
tory of reading more generally, it is also necessary to consider the significance
of higher levels of literacy. In the early sixteenth century, basic literacy could be
obtained in any number of ways and at various ages: at home as a small child,
during an apprenticeship, in a German school, or in the first level of a Latin school,
whether private or supported by the city or the church.30 Higher levels of lit-
eracy, however, came chiefly through schooling. The relationship between formal
12
education and literacy was complicated, and even more so in a culture where
there was a variety of types of schools and literacy could be acquired not only in
one’s mother tongue but also in Latin.31 Schools imparted content literacy—the
knowledge acquired as one read the works in the standard curriculum and devel-
oped certain skills in a school setting.32 Analytic or critical literacy—the ability to
analyze and evaluate a text and to place it in relation to other texts one has read—
was taught especially within Latin schools. It began when a student learned Latin,
which meant exposure to grammar and syntax. Translation of texts from one
language to another expanded vocabulary and increased the student’s appreci-
ation for word meaning and context. Rhetoric and dialectic at the highest levels
of Latin school and in the university curriculum fostered persuasive and logical
argumentation. Somewhere in this process, students made the shift from con-
crete to more abstract thought, from language rich with imagery and reflecting
personal experience to intellectual reasoning and more objective concepts. This,
too, made a difference in a reader’s ability to comprehend a complex argument.
One final consideration is the relationship between vernacular and Latin
schooling. There is a tendency in the literature to separate the two, but in the
early sixteenth century the overlap was greater than is generally assumed. Before
the Reformation, mixed German and Latin schools were common especially in
smaller cities.33 Latin schools were the first step for boys preparing for legal, ad-
ministrative, or ecclesiastical careers, but many who went to Latin schools never
learned the language well enough to go on to a university. In a 1535 report of
his visit to one of Basel’s Latin schools, Wolfgang Capito said that out of all the
students, only three were “suitable to continue their studies, and perhaps only one
capable of proceeding to theology.”34 Many boys left Latin school after a few years
with only passive familiarity with the language rather than an actual ability to
use it—but they had developed both the content and critical literacy that shaped
their reading of German texts. Hans Sachs, the Meistersinger of Nuremberg,
attended Latin school in his home city for eight years before beginning his ap-
prenticeship as a cobbler. Sachs wrote in German rather than in Latin, and he
used as his sources German translations of works originally written in Latin, but
his exposure to Latin benefited his German writing.35 Only artisan families who
were relatively secure financially could afford to send their sons to Latin school
for any period of time before they began an apprenticeship, but even within the
artisan class there were individuals with some passive knowledge of Latin and ad-
vanced reading skills in the vernacular.
This approach to literacy has implications for the way gender, class, and social
location shaped the reception of evangelical ideas in general and the debate con-
cerning the Lord’s Supper in particular. If they learned to read at all, women, peas-
ants, and the lowest stratum of the urban population probably never progressed
13
beyond basic literacy, while the higher levels of literacy were associated espe-
cially with men from the professional and upper classes in the cities. Writers and
preachers chose language and rhetorical strategies appropriate for their imme-
diate audience, and translators adapted their texts to suit their intended audience.
As we shall see, an awareness of these differing levels of literacy would shape the
work of contributors to the public debate over the sacraments.
From the beginning of the Reformation, the printing press subverted central
authority by disseminating ideas to a broad audience and encouraging individuals
to think for themselves. In his study of early Reformation pamphlets, Mark
Edwards has argued that Luther’s numerous pamphlets helped to establish his
personal authority in the early 1520s, but the evangelical disagreement over the
Lord’s Supper eventually undermined that authority, contributing to Luther’s
decline in prominence from a national to a regional figure.36 As I will argue
throughout the course of this book, Luther’s authority was challenged but not
significantly diminished as a result of the Eucharistic controversy, but the debate
over the sacraments did raise the question of religious authority more generally.
The Problem of Authority

The beginning of the Eucharistic controversy should be seen not as a confes-
sional battle between “Lutherans” and “Zwinglians” but, rather, as a struggle to
define evangelical orthodoxy within a late medieval framework that sharply dis-
tinguished between legitimate disagreement and heresy. Ironically, those who
rejected Wittenberg’s authority to define the Lord’s Supper were almost imme-
diately confronted by those who rejected their own authority to define baptism.
The challenge faced by all the reformers was how to defend their legitimate right
to dissent while denying that right to others.
The Latin church in the fifteenth century was by no means a monolithic in-
stitution, and over the last generation, historians have stressed the diversity of
beliefs and practices within late medieval Christianity. This was true not only
of popular piety but of academic theology as well. Late medieval scholasticism
was divided by the philosophical approaches of nominalism and realism, and its
practitioners belonged to rival schools of thought associated with the major men-
dicant orders: Thomism for the Dominicans, Scotism for the Franciscans, and a
broad Augustinianism for the Order of Augustinian Hermits to which Luther
belonged. Although a good deal of disagreement could be tolerated, there were
also limits to what was seen as challenging the authority of the church—when
disagreement was perceived to cross the line and become heresy.
Heresy by definition requires an authority to determine what is orthodox,
and from the twelfth century on, canon lawyers distinguished heresy from simple
14
error by the heretic’s pertinacity, or refusal to abandon error when instructed

by those in authority.37 In the thirteenth century, theology faculties developed
a process of academic condemnation to keep theological discussion within
proper bounds, while the church’s adoption of inquisitorial procedure supported
by the coercive power of the state aided the suppression of heresy outside the
universities.38 Eucharistic theology was one area where dissent was not allowed.
By the thirteenth century, deviation from the church’s teaching concerning the
sacraments was condemned as heretical. Late medieval preachers taught that the
consecrated bread and wine were transubstantiated, or converted into Christ’s
body and blood, and they inculcated devotional practices that reflected that be-
lief. Those who rejected transubstantiation were burned at the stake as heretics.
Despite this, challenges to transubstantiation emerged in England in the late
fourteenth century and spread to Bohemia in the early fifteenth century. The
Reformation debate over the Lord’s Supper would be shaped as much by the fur-
ther development of John Wyclif ’s Eucharistic theology by Hussite theologians
as it was by the scholastic theology taught in the university theology faculties of
Western Europe.
According to the definition in canon law, Luther might be said to have
crossed the line from legitimate disagreement to heretical dissent at his meeting
with Cardinal Cajetan in Augsburg, in October 1518. Cajetan objected to two
of Luther’s 95 theses—those concerning papal authority over indulgences and
the relationship between the sacraments and faith—and he ordered Luther to
recant. Luther refused to do so, citing his conscience and asking that his position
be proven wrong on the basis of scripture, the church fathers, and the decrees
of the church.39 At the Leipzig Disputation with Johannes Eck the following
summer, Luther was pushed to the conclusion that church councils could err.40
Scripture alone became the basis for religious authority within the nascent evan-
gelical movement. The consequences of this principle would become apparent
in Luther’s attack on the mass and his redefinition of the sacraments in his 1520
treatise On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church.
Following Luther, other reformers also rejected the magisterium of the
Roman church and insisted on the foundational authority of scripture in reli-
gious matters. It is an oversimplification, though, to claim that Luther initially
argued that Christians had the right to interpret scripture for themselves. In his
1520 pamphlet To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, Luther asserted
that every Christian, whether priest or layperson, had the same status before God;
he criticized the assertion that only the pope could interpret scripture, and he
argued that Christians had the duty to oppose the pope when he acted contrary
to scripture.41 Strictly speaking, he did not give the laity the right to interpret
scripture directly, but instead defended their right to judge between competing
15
interpretations of scripture. This is a small but significant difference, for even the
illiterate can decide between two arguments, but exegesis requires both access to
a text and the ability to read the language in which the text is written. Luther’s
colleague Andreas Karlstadt also initially expressed cautious concern about bib-
lical interpretation. In a pamphlet pitting the authority of scripture against the
papacy and canon law written in the fall of 1520, he stated that “the pope and all
Christians, whether religious or secular, can exegete, explain, and illuminate holy
Scripture,” but he added the significant proviso, “if they are capable and able to
do so.”42 Both men were members of an educated elite, and they were well aware
of the importance of linguistic and philological expertise, sound hermeneutical
principles, and practical exegetical guidelines for analyzing texts, especially those
in a foreign language. At the time they wrote, however, even those who could
read German did not have ready access to a vernacular Bible, and even fewer had
the linguistic and analytical skills needed to interpret the biblical text directly.
Nevertheless, all Christians, whether literate or not, could hear and judge be-
tween the clear text of scripture and the laws and teachings of the papal church.
This stance would have enormous implications when disagreement broke out
among the reformers concerning the understanding of the sacraments. The ap-
peal to scripture was attractive in theory, but it proved impossible to carry out
in practice, since texts always need to be interpreted. The Eucharistic contro-
versy brought this problem to a head because reformers disagreed about how to
interpret the relevant scriptural texts. The first task of those on each side was,
therefore, to persuade their audience that their exegesis of scripture was the cor-
rect one. This required them either to establish their own exegetical authority
or to appeal to others whose exegetical authority was unquestioned. In the early
1520s, reformers outside of Wittenberg acknowledged the exegetical authority
of two individuals, Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam. In their exegesis
of passages concerning the Lord’s Supper, however, Luther and Erasmus did not
agree. Secondary textual authorities, such as the writings of the church fathers,
could be cited to support one’s position, but these too needed to be interpreted.43
In cases of serious disagreement where there is no individual or group able to
impose resolution, opposing parties have few options to resolve their difference.
The most obvious approach is to use a combination of logical argumentation
and persuasive rhetoric to defeat one’s opponents and win over their followers.
Andrew Pettegree has described how reformers used preaching, song, drama,
and images, as well as print, to gain adherents to their message.44 Irene Dingel
has drawn attention to the “culture of conflict” of the later sixteenth century,
marked by sharp public controversies in which authors used a wide variety of
literary genres to persuade their audience of the truth of their own position and
to condemn their opponents.45 These controversies owed much to the arguments
16
advanced and strategies pioneered during the early years of the Eucharistic
controversy.
The traditional method of determining truth within the medieval univer-
sity system was the disputation, in which respondents defended a set of theses
against their opponents. The customs and procedures governing late medieval
disputations would influence the exchanges concerning the Lord’s Supper, as
participants used syllogistic reasoning and pointed to their opponents’ logical
fallacies to prove the truth of their own position. Contributors to the debate also
used all the techniques of persuasion available to them, especially the tool kit
provided by training in classical rhetoric. Their treatises were often structured
as forensic orations, those best suited to sway an audience. Because Luther’s
opponents argued that “this is my body” must be understood figuratively, there
was considerable discussion of figurative language, including which word was to
be understood figuratively and what kind of trope or figure of speech was in-
volved. Over the course of the first few years of the controversy, each side artic-
ulated a set of arguments concerning the presence or absence of Christ’s body,
as individual contributors tried to persuade their readers to accept their own
understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Only gradually did pamphleteers begin to
formulate what might be identified as party positions. The earliest contributions
to the published debate must therefore be considered not as propaganda, which
assumes the existence of a system of beliefs, but instead as argumentation in
which the two positions were gradually developed.
A related strategy used by many contributors to the debate was to undermine
the personal authority and credibility of their opponents. Luther was the first
to take this approach in his polemic against Andreas Karlstadt. When the Basel
reformer Johannes Oecolampadius, one of the most respected patristics scholars
of the day, openly rejected Christ’s corporeal presence, Luther’s supporters scram-
bled to counter his personal authority, as well as his knowledge of the church
fathers. Both sides used polemical exaggeration, deliberate misrepresentation,
and character assassination where this was deemed necessary to defeat their
opponents. They also accused them of heresy, whether directly or indirectly, and
the debate would be complicated as each side made false claims about what the
other side taught. Both sides would be embittered by their opponents’ polem-
ical attacks; Luther and his colleagues were particularly offended by their per-
ception that their opponents used the Wittenbergers’ authority to spread their
own views.
Another response to disagreement, especially when neither side could gain a
clear victory, was to downgrade its seriousness and to argue for some measure of
tolerance on both sides. Those who took this approach implicitly acknowledged
that agreement on the Lord’s Supper could not be restored, and so in order to
17
maintain evangelical unity, they removed belief in Christ’s bodily presence from
the doctrines considered an essential part of the Christian faith. This alternative
was rejected by many on both sides of the debate, however, for they believed that
their understanding of the Lord’s Supper was based on clear scripture. Because
their opponents misinterpreted or even perverted scripture, they were heretics
who had placed themselves outside the bounds of Christian fellowship. As a
consequence, throughout most of the 1520s the option of toleration found few
supporters. Even as political pressure on the evangelicals increased, observers
continued to hope that the two sides would reach agreement or find some form
of compromise rather than simply agreeing to tolerate disagreement.
Complicating the situation was the fact that the debate over the Lord’s Supper
was not limited to the issue of Christ’s corporeal presence. Both sides claimed
that scripture supported their position, but this brought to light their disagree-
ment on both fundamental hermeneutical principles and the exegesis of specific
scriptural passages. The controversy generated discussion about whether and how
the believer’s spiritual communion with Christ was related to the physical recep-
tion of the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. It also raised questions about
the nature and purpose of the sacraments, which in turn had implications for the
understanding of baptism and eventually for the practice of private confession
and absolution. What made the debate over the Lord’s Supper so intractable in
the 1520s was that there was no agreement on the nature of the sacraments, and
no authority who could definitively settle the disagreement.
Terms Defined
In order to avoid reading later developments into the discussions of the
second half of the 1520s, I have deliberately used nonstandard terms for the
two sides of the debate that would eventually divide into two confessional
groupings. The Eucharistic controversy began with a negative assertion—the
rejection of belief in Christ’s bodily presence in the bread and wine—and it
was only over the course of debate that those who rejected that presence de-
veloped an effective and coherent alternative to Luther’s position. Walther
Köhler’s metaphor of Zwingli and Luther as the two suns around whom all
the others orbited is charming but mistaken. There were indeed two suns, but
the second sun was Erasmus of Rotterdam, and Zwingli was only one of the
many satellites in Switzerland and South Germany who orbited around the
great humanist. Erasmus did his utmost, however, to dissociate himself from
his former colleagues and disciples who claimed his authority to support their
understanding of the Lord’s Supper. This left Luther’s opponents without a
central figure who could counter Luther, and the position that would emerge
18
as “Zwinglian” in the later 1520s coalesced from arguments introduced into

the debate from a variety of sources. Cornelis Hoen and Andreas Karlstadt
were the first to turn Hussite arguments against transubstantiation into
an attack on Luther’s understanding of the sacrament. The Basel reformer
Johannes Oecolampadius would be one of the most important figures in the
early debate with Luther and his supporters, and his treatises contributed
significantly to the expansion of the controversy. The Strasbourg reformers
Wolfgang Capito and Martin Bucer would support their Swiss colleagues
through both their publications and their correspondence, while the Silesians
Kaspar Schwenckfeld and Valentin Crautwald developed their own arguments
against Christ’s corporeal presence in the bread and wine of the sacrament.
Karlstadt’s arguments would be taken up by lay authors from the artisan class
who highlighted their anticlerical implications. The magisterial reformers of
Zurich, Basel, and Strasbourg could be called “proto-Reformed,” but this term
is not broad enough to include the Silesians, let alone other contributors to
the debate who ran afoul of the established clergy. To highlight the disparate
origins of Luther’s opponents, I therefore refer to them as “sacramentarians,”
a name given them by their opponents because they all emphasized that the
sacrament was only a sign.46 The term is polemical, and it would be vigorously
rejected by those who later identified themselves as Reformed, but there is no
other way to avoid identifying Luther’s opponents too closely with a single
individual.
The term “Anabaptist” has historically been used in a polemical way for all
who rejected the practice of infant baptism, although there was significant dis-
agreement within this group concerning how baptism should be understood.
More recently, scholars of the radical reformation have distinguished between
Anabaptists and spiritualists, with the latter term applied to those with a more
individualistic interpretation of the evangelical message, especially with regard
to extra-scriptural revelation.47 I have used both terms in a more specific way,
first placing both Anabaptists and spiritualists within the broader sacramentarian
movement that rejected Luther’s understanding of the sacraments, and then dis-
tinguishing them from the magisterial sacramentarians or proto-Reformed on the
issue of baptism. While the Anabaptists argued for the necessity of believer’s bap-
tism as constituting membership in the true church, the spiritualists downgraded
the value of the external rite. My use of these terms thus focuses specifically on
their interpretation of the outward ceremony of baptism and leaves aside other
teachings associated with or imputed to both groups.
On the other side of the debate, those who defended Christ’s bodily presence
were not as uniform a party as the term “Lutheran” implies. The debate over the
Lord’s Supper forced Luther to develop and more fully articulate his position,
19
and over the second half of the 1520s he moved away from the terminology of
his earlier publications and introduced new formulations to explain his under-
standing of the Lord’s Supper. The differences between Luther’s earlier and later
discussions of the sacrament would be significant for inner-Lutheran debates in
the third quarter of the sixteenth century, but they had an important effect on
the opening phase of the Eucharistic controversy as well. Luther’s pre-1525 works
continued to circulate, and his supporters did not necessarily have access to the
later treatises in which Luther spelled out his position in more detail. Luther’s
Wittenberg colleagues Johannes Bugenhagen and Philipp Melanchthon were
also closely associated with him, and those outside of Saxony who defended
Christ’s bodily presence all looked to Wittenberg as the ultimate authority for
establishing “orthodoxy.” For that reason, I have used “Wittenbergers” or “pro-
Wittenberg party” for those who defended Christ’s corporeal presence.
Use of nonstandard terms allows this study to focus on the understanding of
the Lord’s Supper and the movement from dissent to division. In other words,
it does not examine how members of different confessional groupings under-
stood a particular doctrine; it looks at how disagreements about a particular
doctrine contributed to the formation of different confessional groups. The
nonstandard terms also make more evident the porous boundary between rad-
ical sacramentarianism, spiritualism, and Anabaptism in the mid-1520s. This in
turn helps explain not only the stridency of the Wittenberg response to all those
who rejected Christ’s corporeal presence but also the harsh attitude of the Swiss
reformers toward those who disagreed with them over infant baptism. Last but
not least, it highlights the development of the evangelical movement throughout
the decade of the 1520s and places the birth of the magisterial confessional
churches where it belongs—with the first official confessional documents written
at the end of the decade.
Modern accounts of the Eucharistic controversy have long been bedeviled by
a failure to pay close attention to the precise language of the debate and by the
ambiguity of the words used in it. The debate in the 1520s concerned not Christ’s
presence in the sacrament more generally but, rather, the presence of Christ’s body
in the bread and wine, and how that presence was to be described.48 At the onset
of the controversy, contributors argued specifically about whether Christ’s body
and blood were present substantially or corporeally in the consecrated elements
of the Supper. This distinguished the sixteenth-century debate from earlier
discussions of the sacrament, when writers used a variety of terms to describe
the relationship between Christ’s body and blood and the elements of bread and
wine. Through Christian antiquity and the early Middle Ages, the Eucharist was
referred to as Christ’s mystical body and understood as a spiritual food. Over the
course of the Berengarian controversy in the later eleventh century, the adverbs
20
spiritually and bodily came to be seen as opposed, and a new emphasis was placed
on the presence of Christ’s true body and blood. In the wake of that controversy,
the Aristotelian concept of substance would be applied to the Eucharist, and it
was central to scholastic discussions of the sacrament by the thirteenth century.49
Sixteenth-century theologians thought in Aristotelian terms, and they therefore
understood bodily or corporeal presence as synonymous with substantial presence.
In contrast to substantial, the adjective real was rarely used, and when it did occur
it was often clarified by combining it with another term, whether “real and sub-
stantial,” which upheld the late medieval understanding, or “real and true,” which
could be used in opposition to “substantial.” The phrase “real presence” did not
become common until debates surrounding the Oxford Movement in England in
the 1840s.50 While “real presence” might be appropriate for contemporary ecu-
menical debate, it is anachronistic and too ambiguous to describe the arguments
used during the opening phase of the sixteenth-century controversy.
The name of the sacrament was also in flux in the early sixteenth century. As
those reformers influenced by Erasmus liked to point out, the term “Eucharist”
was Greek and originally meant “thanksgiving.” In the second century, it was
used for the Christian ritual that commemorated Christ’s last meal with his disci-
ples. By the early Middle Ages, however, it was replaced by the term “mass,”51 and
“Eucharist” came to refer particularly to the consecrated elements. While Luther
and his supporters could speak of an “evangelical mass” or “the sacrament of the
altar,” Karlstadt and others equated “mass” with “sacrifice,” and they rejected both
terms. They argued that the sacrament should instead be called “the (Lord’s)
Supper.”52 As will become apparent, the term “sacrament” was also ambiguous. It
could be used broadly for the religious ritual or restricted to the elements of bread
and wine, used as the equivalent of the Greek mysterion or simply as a synonym
for “sign.” In order to understand the debate, then, it is necessary to note care-
fully how each word was used. For the sake of clarity, I have used each author’s
term for the sacrament when describing his position, and in discussing the sacra-
ment myself I have used the terms for it that were common in the sixteenth cen-
tury: “mass” for the Catholic rite that emphasized the repetition, re-presentation,
or representation of Christ’s sacrifice;53 “Lord’s Supper” for the rite introduced by
those who rejected the sacrifice of the mass and emphasized instead the reception
of bread and wine as the essence of the sacrament; “Eucharist” for the ritual as a
whole and not just the consecrated elements; and “communion” for the laity’s
act of receiving the consecrated host (for Catholics) or both bread and wine (for
Protestants).
The chapters that follow describe the published exchanges regarding the
sacraments that illustrate the evangelical debate over authority. Part I provides an
overview and the background necessary for understanding the debate that broke
21
out in late 1524 and then describes its early development through 1525. Chapter 2
presents a quantitative analysis of the many publications on the Lord’s Supper
printed between 1525 and 1529, highlighting the large number of participants, the
variety of genres used, and the differing approaches taken by each side. It there-
fore draws attention to many of the themes that will be discussed in subsequent
chapters. Chapter 3 summarizes the development of late medieval Eucharistic
theology, both orthodox and heretical; contrasts the differing approaches to
scripture and the sacraments advocated by Erasmus and Luther in the early
1520s; and describes the spread of Hussite ideas into Germany and Switzerland.
Chapter 4 examines the emergence of disagreements concerning the sacraments
in Wittenberg in the early 1520s and then describes the impact of and reaction to
the vernacular pamphlets of Andreas Karlstadt that initiated the debate over the
Lord’s Supper at the end of 1524. Chapter 5 continues the narrative by focusing
on developments in Switzerland and South Germany through 1525, contrasting
the public and private discussion and considering the role of translations in
promoting the controversy.
Trying to summarize the many contributions to the debate published from
the beginning of 1526 through the end of 1529 in strictly chronological fashion
would result in cacophony. The chapters in part II, therefore, focus instead
on individual “conversations” that took place during this time, most of which
have been ignored or misinterpreted in studies of the Eucharistic controversy
that center on Zwingli and Luther. Chapter 6 compares the Psalms com-
mentary of Johannes Bugenhagen with its “translation” by Martin Bucer. It
highlights the role played by printers in provoking controversy and reveals how
an Erasmian view of spiritual communion became problematic after the out-
break of that controversy. Chapter 7 describes the published debate between
Johannes Oecolampadius and those who supported Luther’s understanding
of the Lord’s Supper, showing how that debate broadened over time and how
its audience expanded as works were translated from Latin to the vernacular.
Chapter 8 looks more closely at one specific exchange: the printed debate be-
tween Oecolampadius and the Nuremberg humanist Willibald Pirckheimer.
Extending over two years and consisting of seven treatises, this exchange
pitted two respected humanists against each other. Their pamphlets demon-
strate how each used his skill in rhetoric, as well as theological argumentation
and patristic authority, to win readers to his side. Chapter 9 highlights the
roles played by Zwingli and Bucer in the further development of the debate
between early 1526 and the spring of 1527. Both reformers adopted Erasmus’s
hermeneutical and exegetical approach, and for quite different reasons their
publications would make it more difficult to find any kind of agreement with
Luther’s supporters. Chapter 10 describes the uproar provoked by a pamphlet
2
falsely attributed to the Ulm preacher Conrad Sam. The pamphlets written as
part of this exchange show how ideas expressed in the writings of Karlstadt,
Oecolampadius, and Zwingli were picked up by more radical authors and
propagated through their own pamphlets; and it contrasts the understanding
of authority held by artisan authors with that of trained theologians. Chapter 11
looks at the exchange of pamphlets from the spring of 1527 through 1529, and
especially that between Martin Luther and his opponents in Switzerland and
Strasbourg. It reveals that the Eucharistic controversy was evolving into a dif-
ferent debate—one that would continue through the rest of the century and
indeed into the present.
The chapters in part III look at more gradual developments over the
second half of the 1520s and sum up the state of the debate at the end of the
decade. Chapter 12 examines discussions of the Lord’s Supper in catechetical
literature, a genre crucial for transmitting positions formulated by trained
theologians to the largely illiterate common people. Whereas earlier chapters
demonstrate the variety within the sacramentarian party, this chapter reveals
that the reception and further transmission of Luther’s ideas were also not as
straightforward as is commonly assumed. Chapter 13 describes the division
of the sacramentarian party into Anabaptists, spiritualists, and magisterial
sacramentarians or proto-Reformed on the basis of their understanding of
infant baptism. Chapter 14 describes efforts made by both sides to establish
their own interpretation of the Lord’s Supper in liturgies and church orders,
and then evaluates the Marburg Colloquy, often described as the provisional
end of this first stage of the Eucharistic controversy. The book’s conclusion
summarizes the developments of the preceding chapters, looking at the role of
printing in the debate, the development of evangelical sacramental theology,
and the broader problem of authority in the early Reformation.
23
PART I
Overview, Background,
and Beginnings
24
25
Contours of the Printed Debate
No contemporary observer was aware of the full scope of the printed

debate over the Lord’s Supper that took place during the second half of the
1520s. The reformers of Wittenberg, Zurich, Basel, and Strasbourg kept abreast
of their opponents’ publications, but even they could not be familiar with all the
imprints produced as part of the controversy. Print runs of from 1,000 to 1,500
copies limited the number of individual works available, and with the excep-
tion of the semi-annual Frankfurt book fair, distribution networks were often
informal and uncertain. Books produced in the printing centers of southern
Germany could spread along the major trade routes that linked those cities, but
those printed elsewhere might not spread much beyond the local or regional
network.
Until fairly recently, historians of the Eucharistic controversy were
not in a much better position than sixteenth-century observers when they
described the printed debate. Specialized bibliographies helped them lo-
cate rare imprints, and critical editions made some of the major works
available, but many of the contributions remained hard to find, let alone
read. Only with the creation of VD16, the on-line bibliography of books
printed in German-speaking lands in the sixteenth century, has it become
possible to identify the wide range of publications that contributed to the
debate over the Lord’s Supper.1 Although incomplete in a number of ways,
the bibliography of pamphlets printed between 1501 and 1530 produced by
Hans-Joachim Köhler also provides information on this major subset of
publications that played an important role in furthering the public debate.2
Last but certainly not least, the ongoing digitization of imprints from the
sixteenth century sponsored by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft has
made many of these publications readily available to scholars.
As a result, it is possible to move away from a concentration on a small
group of individuals to look at the big picture of the first stage of the Eucharistic
26
26 Overview, Backgroun d, an d Begin n ings
controversy. A quantitative analysis of the many imprints dealing with the Lord’s
Supper printed between 1525 and 1529 allows us to trace the timing and devel-
opment of the public debate and to identify the major participants, as well as
their targeted audiences. It also brings to our attention developments that will be
examined in more depth in the following chapters.
A Quantitative Overview
I have identified 372 titles, in 905 imprints, published between 1525 and 1529 that
discussed the Lord’s Supper/mass or that that contributed to the debate over the sac-
rament in some way. This definition includes works that did not make any express
statement of doctrine but instead attacked or defended others who participated in
that debate. Works published in both Latin and German have been counted as sepa-
rate titles.3 Although many of these publications meet modern criteria for an accurate
translation and so could be seen as the same work, the Latin and German texts could
also differ substantially, in accordance with early modern attitudes toward translation.
As the following chapters will demonstrate, Latin and German works were aimed at
different audiences that overlapped only to some degree. Acknowledging this fact,
from the beginning of the Reformation Luther published related but distinct versions
of his pamphlets in Latin and German.4 Individuals who translated from one lan-
guage to another took account of their audiences’ different needs and could render
the text so freely that the connection between the two versions was fairly loose.
I do not claim to have found every work concerning the sacrament: VD16
does not contain a complete listing of all sixteenth-century imprints published
in German-speaking lands, and it includes variant imprints of the same work that
I have counted as two separate printings.5 But I have identified the great majority
of these works, and my database is large enough to justify a quantitative analysis
that sheds light on the scope of the opening phase of the Eucharistic controversy.
Figure 2.1 shows the relationship between the number of titles that addressed the
Lord’s Supper and the number of imprints, which includes all reprints of each title.6
It demonstrates that the greatest public interest in the controversy came in the first
two years after its outbreak, and before the exchange between Luther and Zwingli in
1527–28 that is the most familiar part of the early Eucharistic controversy. The largest
number of imprints was produced in the year following the publication of Karlstadt’s
pamphlets. In 1525 there were over twice as many reprints as there were titles, but the
ratio fell to about one reprint for every title in subsequent years. In fact, the great ma-
jority of works published during these years were printed only once. A small number
of works, almost all of them by Luther, were reprinted multiple times, but only a
handful of titles by other authors had more than two reprints. A striking proportion
of the 1525 imprints were works written before the outbreak of the controversy, as
printers scrambled to produce pamphlets that would address the controversy. The
27
Contours of the Printed Debate 27
300
250
200
Number of Imprints
150
100
50
0
1525 1526 1527 1528 1529
Titles Reprints
. Imprints Concerning the Lord’s Supper
number of imprints declined steadily over the next few years, although the number
of titles rose in 1526, and then in 1527 returned to roughly the same level as in 1525. By
1529 both the number of imprints and the number of titles had fallen to about half
of what they were in 1525.
The publications on the Lord’s Supper were not evenly divided among the
parties, nor was there any genuine effort to present the contrasting positions
in an impartial way. A small number of imprints contained works by both
sides, but the authors or editors made their positions clear by printing mar-
ginal glosses critical of the opposing views or providing longer refutations of it.
The only exceptions to this lack of impartiality were a pamphlet summarizing
arguments for and against the sacrifice of the mass that reflected the con-
troversy in Basel in 1527 and the multiple imprints of the Marburg Articles
published in 1529.7
Figure 2.2 shows that pro-Wittenberg works amounted to well over half the
total imprints published between 1525 and 1529, with Luther himself responsible
for 21 percent of all imprints. This is about the same percentage of all pamphlets
published between 1500 and 1530 that were written by Luther, which suggests
that assumptions about Luther’s declining influence after 1525 are mistaken.8
In comparison, sacramentarian pamphlets constituted only 27 percent of all
imprints, while Catholic authors contributed 17 percent.
28
Catholic Luther
17% 21%
Sacramentarian
27%
Pro-Wittenberg
36%
. Proportion of Imprints by Party, 1525–1529
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1525 1526 1527 1528 1529
Wittenberger Sacramentarian Catholic
. Number of Imprints by Party
Figure 2.3 breaks the imprints down by party across this five-year pe-
riod. In 1525 publications by the Wittenberg party far outnumbered those by
their opponents: there were roughly three pro-Wittenberg imprints for every
sacramentarian publication. The number of sacramentarian publications rose the
next year, while those of the Wittenbergers fell, but at no time did the number of
sacramentarian imprints reach the same number as the pro-Wittenberg imprints,
and in both 1527 and 1529 there were two to three times as many pro-Wittenberg
imprints as there were sacramentarian ones. In fact, in both years there were more
Catholic imprints than there were sacramentarian ones. After 1525, the number
29
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
1525 1526 1527 1528 1529
Wittenberger Sacramentarian Catholic
. Number of New Titles by Party
of Catholic imprints rose to a high of forty-one works a year in 1527 before falling
back to twenty-seven imprints in 1529.
In order to judge the development of the debate over Christ’s bodily pres-
ence, it is useful to set aside reprints of works originally published before 1525 and
look only at the 335 titles written after the publication of Karlstadt’s pamphlets.
Figure 2.4 highlights the large number of new titles printed in the first two
years of the controversy, and it gives a better sense of how members of the three
groups responded to each other’s publications. Throughout most of this period,
sacramentarian authors produced more new titles than did adherents of the
Wittenbergers, with the latter taking the lead only in 1529.9 The number of new
Catholic titles almost doubled between 1525 and 1526 and peaked in 1528 before
falling back to less than half of that number in 1529.
Participants in the Debate
A consideration of individual authors tells us more about the key figures in the
debate and demonstrates the breadth of the discussion.10 The importance of
reprints is evident yet again when looking at the forty-six pro-Wittenberg authors
who contributed to the controversy between 1525 and 1529 (figure 2.5).
Martin Luther was by far the most significant author on the pro-Wittenberg
side, writing or contributing to more imprints than the next five most published
pro-Wittenberg authors combined. As figure 2.6 shows, Luther’s works were
30
. Pro-Wittenberg Authors
200
180
160
140
Number of Imprints
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1525 1526 1527 1528 1529
Luther Titles Luther Reprints Other Pro-Wittenberg Imprints
. Pro-Wittenberg Publications Concerning the Lord’s Supper
also frequently reprinted, so that they made up a significant proportion of the

Wittenberger imprints. This was particularly the case in 1525, when thirteen
works bearing his name were published in sixty-four imprints. Over the next few
years, only from eight to a dozen titles bearing Luther’s name were printed each
year. The number of reprints declined as well, although they were still a signif-
icant percentage of overall publications by the Wittenberg party. The number
of reprints rose again in 1529 owing largely to the multiple imprints of Luther’s
Large and Small Catechisms.
The imprints associated with Luther’s name can be further differentiated on
the basis of their content, purpose, and extent of their discussion of the sacrament.
Four of the categories shown in figure 2.7, comprising together not quite 60 per-
cent of Luther’s imprints on the Lord’s Supper, do not pertain directly to the
31
Published by Pre-1525
Others 5% 7%
Endorsements
7%
Postils
18%
Direct
Contribution
28%
Liturgy/
instruction
21%
anti-Catholic
14%
. Luther Imprints Concerning the Lord’s Supper, 1525–1529
Eucharistic controversy. The smallest proportion of this group consists of works

written before the outbreak of that controversy but reprinted after 1524. These
included Luther’s Holy Week sermons on the sacrament from 1519, 1522, 1523,
and 1524; his sermon on John 6 from 1523; and his 1523 treatise, The Adoration
of the Sacrament.11 The reprints of Luther’s Personal Prayer Book that contained
his 1524 Holy Week Sermon on Confession and the Sacrament also fall into this
category.12 The largest number of these earlier works were reprinted in 1525, when
printers saw a market for anything by Luther that was relevant to the new debate
over the Lord’s Supper.
A significant number of Luther’s works first published after 1524 also did not
directly address the Eucharistic controversy. The thirty-nine pre-1530 imprints
of Luther’s postil in its various forms played only an indirect role in the public
debate over the Lord’s Supper, although they were important for disseminating
Luther’s view. First published in 1525, the Lenten postil contained Luther’s 1524
Holy Week sermon, as well as a sermon for Septuagesima Sunday on 1 Corinthians
9:24–10:5 written soon after the beginning of the controversy.13 The summer
postil compiled by Stephan Roth and published in 1526 included Luther’s 1523
Maundy Thursday sermon. In response to the debate over the sacrament, Roth
also included a number of Luther’s early sermons on the Lord’s Supper, as well as
the reformer’s 1526 Sermon on the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood Against
the Fanatics in the winter postil he produced in 1528.14
Between the reprints of his early pamphlets and the multiple imprints of his
postils, Luther’s early sermons on the Lord’s Supper would therefore continue
32
to be readily available through the second half of the 1520s. In fact, his most fre-
quently printed works on the sacrament during this period were the 1523 Holy
Week sermon, printed under various titles, and his 1524 Sermon on Confession
and the Sacrament.15 These would keep an earlier stage of Luther’s Eucharistic
theology before the public even after the reformer began to emphasize Christ’s
bodily presence more strongly in his publications from 1525 on.
Moving to the other two groups of publications not directly related to the
controversy, we find a number of Luther’s liturgical works and instructional
tracts, both new and reprinted, were published during the second half of the
1520s. The complete German mass was printed ten times in 1526, and the com-
munion admonition from the mass was printed several times as a separate pam-
phlet.16 The Large and Small Catechisms of 1529 also belong in this category.17
Although the catechisms included sections concerning the Lord’s Supper, they
were not written primarily as contributions to the debate over the sacrament but,
rather, were intended to teach the essentials of the Christian faith more generally.
Last but not least, Luther continued to write pamphlets attacking the Catholic
mass. Prominent among these are his two pamphlets against private masses from
1525 and his criticism of communion in one kind, in which the laity were given
only the bread, addressed to the Christians in Halle in 1527.18
Luther’s direct contributions to the public debate over the Lord’s Supper can be
divided into three groups. The most important works were those that the reformer
wrote as direct rejoinders to those he called Schwärmer and sacramentarians. The
first pamphlets were published at the very beginning of the Eucharistic contro-
versy, in late 1524 and early 1525. Luther’s Letter to the Christians in Strasbourg
was printed twice in December 1524 and appeared in six more reprints in 1525.19
The two parts of Against the Heavenly Prophets were even more popular: there
were twelve imprints of Part One and ten of Part Two.20 Luther would not di-
rectly address the sacramentarians again until early 1527, when he published That
These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics.21
He wrote his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper a year later.22 These two
treatises were not as frequently reprinted as Against the Heavenly Prophets: there
were seven imprints of That These Words Still Stand Firm, and only three of his
Confession, although there were also six imprints before 1530 of the confession of
faith that constituted the final section of that treatise.
A second group consists of treatises on the Lord’s Supper written by others
but for which Luther provided a preface. The most important prefaces of this
type were published with Andreas Karlstadt’s 1525 Declaration of How Karlstadt
Regards His Teaching, which appeared in six different imprints, and with the two
different Wittenberg translations of Johannes Brenz’s Syngramma Concerning
the Lord’s Supper.23 Philipp Melanchthon’s Instruction for the Visitors of Electoral
3
Saxony also contained a preface by Luther; it went through ten imprints in 1528.24
Luther’s public endorsement of these works made their discussions of the Lord’s
Supper even more authoritative than might otherwise have been the case.
The final category contains works by Luther concerning the Eucharistic con-
troversy that were not originally intended for publication but that were seen into
print by others. The most important imprint in this group was Luther’s Sermon
on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ Against the Fanatics, a reworking
of his three Holy Week sermons from 1526 that was published in the fall of that
year. This category also includes Luther’s letter to the Strasbourg pastors from
late 1525, in which he rejected their attempt to end the controversy, and a letter
to the Christians in Reutlingen from early 1526 warning them against sectarians
who attacked the Lord’s Supper.25 While in most cases the publications in this
last category accurately reflected Luther’s position, the fact that many of them
were first published outside of Wittenberg, and so without Luther’s supervision,
made it possible for Luther’s opponents to propagate their own views under the
Wittenberger’s name, as happened with Martin Bucer’s translation of Luther’s
postils into Latin, the fourth volume of which contained two additions by Bucer
explaining his disagreements with Luther on the sacrament.
Johannes Bugenhagen’s role in the public debate is generally overlooked, but
Luther’s colleague contributed more imprints to the controversy than the most
prolific of the sacramentarian authors. His brief Letter Against the New Error on
the Sacrament was the first Wittenberg work to attack Zwingli; it was published
eleven times, in both the original Latin and German translation.26 In addition to
this and other polemical works, Bugenhagen penned several pamphlets to help
both pastors and the laity prepare to receive the sacrament worthily and to an-
swer questions about whether evangelicals should receive communion under one
kind. Philipp Melanchthon also contributed to Wittenberg’s impact through the
German translation of his Loci Communes, reprinted eight times in 1525 and 1526,
and the fourteen imprints of his Instruction for the Saxon visitation in 1527 and
1528.27 Finally, his 1521 Latin Propositions on the Mass was translated into German
and printed both alone and with a short work by Bugenhagen after the outbreak
of the Eucharistic controversy.28 These imprints demonstrate the collective dom-
inance of Wittenberg in the public debate.
Although he was located in Swabia, Johannes Brenz was also closely asso-
ciated with Wittenberg. The Wittenbergers gave his Latin Syngramma on the
Lord’s Supper their official stamp of approval not only by reprinting it there
but also by sponsoring two different translations into German with prefaces by
Luther. Brenz’s catechism was also printed together with Luther’s short cate-
chism in 1529. Somewhat farther afield but still identifying with Wittenberg were
Urbanus Rhegius and Andreas Osiander. As the most prominent pro-Wittenberg
34
preacher in Augsburg, Rhegius wrote pastoral, catechetical, and polemical works

on the Lord’s Supper that opposed both Catholic and sacramentarian teachings.
Osiander’s impact was due almost entirely to his 1524 Reasons and Causes from
Holy Scripture, a defense of the reforms introduced in Nuremberg, including the
changes to the mass.29 The entire treatise was reprinted eleven times in 1525, and
excerpts concerning the mass continued to be published over the next few years.
Finally, it is worth noting that there were nineteen anonymous publications,
in sixty-eight imprints, that either endorsed Luther’s position or were reprints
of works first published before the outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy and
so were generically evangelical. Many of these works were catechetical in nature,
such as the Booklet for the Laity and Children, printed twenty-three times, and
the Comforting Disputation Posed in Question and Answer, first published in
1524 but reprinted eighteen times in 1525–26. The catechism of the Bohemian
Brethren, first printed in 1521, would continue to be reprinted after the outbreak
of the Eucharistic controversy. Its discussion of the Lord’s Supper was printed in
three different versions, and it would be used both to support and to oppose the
Wittenberg position.
Of the forty-six sacramentarian authors, Ulrich Zwingli was the most active,
writing or contributing to twenty-eight titles in forty-nine imprints (figure 2.8).
Zwingli made public his rejection of Christ’s corporeal presence in three Latin
works published in the spring and summer of 1525: his Letter to Matthaeus Alber,
the Commentary on True and False Religion, and his Subsidium on the Eucharist.30
All were translated into German, but none of these titles was reprinted more
than twice. His Clear Instruction on Christ’s Supper, first printed in early 1526,
proved more popular, going through four imprints.31 Of Zwingli’s remaining
titles, ten were directed against Catholic opponents, most of them in the context
of the disputation of Baden. The most significant of these proved to be the First
Short Answer to Eck’s Seven Theses, which was printed five times and included
in accounts of the disputation published in both German and Latin.32 Andreas
. Sacramentarian Authors
35
Osiander published Zwingli’s letter to him with a polemical response.33 The re-
maining titles were addressed to Luther’s supporters. While Zwingli’s responses to
attacks by Theobald Billican and Urbanus Rhegius, Jakob Strauss, and Johannes
Bugenhagen went through one or two reprints, his pamphlets written against
Luther were not reprinted.
The Basel reformer Johannes Oecolampadius published nineteen works
in both Latin and German versions, but few of these were reprinted. Unlike
the Zurich reformer, Oecolampadius aimed his treatises primarily against
supporters of the Wittenberg position, especially Willibald Pirckheimer,
Brenz, and Luther himself, but conflict with Catholics in Basel also prompted
him to publish four works attacking the mass in 1527–28. Martin Bucer
produced a dozen titles in sixteen imprints, and when one adds to them
the contributions of his colleague Wolfgang Capito, the centrality of the
Zurich–Basel–Strasbourg axis for the sacramentarian cause becomes clear. The
Nurember patrician Willibald Pirckheimer labeled the three cities “the Satanic
triad” because their pastors led the attack on the corporeal presence of Christ’s
body and blood.34
Karlstadt withdrew from the public debate in the fall of 1525, when he wrote
a quasi-retraction of his position that was published with a preface by Luther,35
but four of his Eucharistic pamphlets from 1524 were reprinted in 1525, and
Karlstadt addressed the sacraments in three pamphlets published in the spring
of 1525. His only other contribution came in 1529, when together with Melchior
Hoffman he published an account of the disputation held in Flensburg between
Hoffman and Bugenhagen.36 The other center of sacramentarian thought is
represented by the Silesian nobleman Kaspar Schwenckfeld. He and the Liegnitz
canon Valentin Crautwald wrote works on the Lord’s Supper beginning in 1525
that circulated only in manuscript, but several of these would be published in
1529, after Schwenckfeld had moved to Strasbourg. In contrast to the Wittenberg
pamphlets, only five sacramentarian works were published anonymously, al-
though several were printed under pseudonyms.
Twenty-seven Catholics discussed the sacrament in print (figure 2.9). The
most frequently printed Catholic work was Johannes Eck’s Enchiridion of
Common Places. The first edition of the Enchiridion did not discuss the sacra-
ment, but at the end of 1525 Eck added several chapters that discussed whether
the Eucharist was the body of Christ and defended transubstantiation, the Latin
mass, and private masses. This “Auctorium” was included in eighteen imprints of
the Enchiridion produced through 1529.37 In 1526 Eck also published a defense of
the sacrifice of the mass that was printed four times.38 His remaining publications
during these years were aimed at the Swiss reformers in the context of the Baden
Disputation of 1526.
36
. Catholic Authors
As vicar-general for the bishop of Constance, Johannes Fabri had opposed

Zwingli from the beginning of the Reformation, and after moving to Vienna he
became aware of developments in Silesia and Bohemia as well. Accordingly, most
of his works were directed against the Swiss and Silesian reformers, and one of
them compared Luther with Jan Hus and the Bohemians. Less well known is the
Dominican preacher Johannes Mensing, who served as court preacher in Dessau.
Most of Mensing’s works were defenses of the mass written in German against
Lutheran opponents. Two early works against Luther by John Fisher, the bishop
of Rochester, were reprinted in Germany after 1524,39 and in 1527 there were five
different imprints—in folio, quarto, and octavo—of Fisher’s Five Books on the
Truth of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, a lengthy refutation of
Oecolampadius’s first sacramentarian treatise.40 There was also a German trans-
lation by Johannes Cochlaeus of the five prefaces to Fisher’s work.41 Cochlaeus
translated a portion of Fisher’s response to Luther’s Babylonian Captivity, as well,
and printed it together with his own response to Luther’s letter to the Christians
of Halle. Cochlaeus was an important contributor to the debate in his own right,
and his publications were chiefly concerned with showing Luther’s errors and
inconsistencies. The Franciscan Kaspar Schatzgeyer also published several works
defending the mass before his death in 1527.
This book is chiefly concerned with the intra-evangelical debate over the ques-
tion of Christ’s bodily presence, but Catholic publications formed an important
backdrop to that debate. A number of Catholic authors published works that
defended Christ’s substantial presence, whether or not they addressed the doctrine
of transubstantiation. Oecolampadius’s learned treatise, The Genuine Exposition of
the Lord’s Words, “This Is my Body,” According to the Oldest Authorities,42 attracted
the condemnation of Catholic theologians soon after its publication, and Zwingli
faced far more printed opposition from Catholics, especially in conjunction with
the Baden Disputation, than he did from the Wittenberg party. In the aftermath
of the disputations of Baden (1526) and Bern (1528), Catholic authors upheld
37
the verdict of the former and rejected the legitimacy of the latter.43 The Zofingen
schoolmaster Johannes Buchstab, a convinced Catholic, also published several
pamphlets attacking Oecolampadius and Zwingli and defending both transub-
stantiation and the mass more generally.44
Throughout the second half of the 1520s, debates with Catholic authors also
continued over a number of issues concerning the mass. Over the course of 1525–
26 Kaspar Schatzgeyer defended the sacrifice of the mass against the Nuremberg
reformer Andreas Osiander and attacked the Bamberg humanist Johann von
Schwarzenberg for supporting communion in both kinds.45 Likewise Johannes
Mensing engaged in an extended polemical exchange over the mass with
two evangelical preachers in Magdeburg—Johannes Fritzhans and Eberhard
Weidensee—that began in early 1526 and lasted into mid-1527.46 At the begin-
ning of 1528, Johannes Cochlaeus and his patron, Duke George of Saxony, both
attacked Luther’s defense of communion in both kinds written to the Christians
in Halle a few months earlier.47
Another lengthy polemical exchange took place in Basel, where conflicts
over the mass escalated through the first half of 1527. In May the city council
demanded that each party present a written justification of its position—whether
the mass was a sacrifice established from the church’s beginnings, as the Catholic
preachers Augustinus Marius and Ambrosius Pelargus maintained, or an abomi-
nation newly invented, as Oecolampadius and his colleagues claimed. The focus
was to be entirely on the mass, and both sides were explicitly forbidden to dis-
cuss the question of Christ’s bodily presence in the elements. The memoranda of
each side were submitted in manuscript to the city council, but they were soon
printed, leading to a further exchange of pamphlets between Oecolampadius and
the Catholic preachers in both Latin and German that continued until the final
victory of Basel’s evangelical party in February 1529.48
These printed polemical exchanges were atypical, however. In general, Catholic
publications on the mass followed the more general pattern during these years of
a gradually increasing number of works written by Catholic controversialists.49
Because they were not writing for a popular audience, Catholic authors paid
little heed to the timing of the Frankfurt book fair. The majority of their treatises
continued to address those issues that were disputed before the outbreak of the
Eucharistic controversy, especially the sacrifice of the mass and the administra-
tion of communion in one kind, in addition to defending transubstantiation.
These works could be devoted specifically to the mass, such as Johannes Eck’s
1526 Sacrifice of the Mass,50 or they might be compendia of doctrine that covered
several disputed topics in addition to those related to the mass, such as Eck’s ex-
tremely influential Enchiridion. Nikolaus Ferber’s Enchiridion of Common Places
Against the Heresies of These Times would also prove popular, with six imprints
38
in 1528–29.51 Ferber’s title was one of several that expressly referred to heresy or
compared the evangelicals to earlier heretics.52
Pro-Wittenberg authors, too, continued to address questions related to the
mass, although not with the same frequency with which they discussed the ques-
tion of Christ’s corporeal presence. Some of the works on the mass published
in 1525 were contributions to discussions that predated the outbreak of the
Eucharistic controversy, while those closer to the end of the decade grew out
of specific local circumstances. The pamphlets by the Eisleben preacher Kaspar
Güttel and the Erfurt preacher Justus Menius both began as sermons preached
against local Catholics.53 Luther’s Instruction to a Good Friend Concerning Both
Forms of the Sacrament was prompted by the bishop of Meissen’s decree that the
laity were to receive communion in one kind only.54
Urbanus Rhegius was the evangelical author most engaged in debate with
Catholics concerning the mass. His New Teachings combined the format of a lay
catechism with an anti-Catholic polemic. Against charges that the evangelicals
were doctrinal innovators, Rhegius laid out first the “new teachings” of the
scholastics and then explained the “old teachings” of the Bible and the early
church, now restored to their pristine form by the evangelicals. Along with
discussions of the sacraments in general, repentance, confession, satisfaction,
free will, faith and works, and other topics, he included a section on the Lord’s
Supper that criticized the sacrifice of the mass, as well as communion in one kind
and the doctrine of concomitance developed to justify it. The pamphlet was pop-
ular enough to be reprinted twice in Latin; there were also two different German
translations and one in Low German.55 Rhegius was outraged that Eck had
published a book on the sacrifice of the mass in Augsburg; this led him to write a
Response to Eck’s Books One and Three on the Mass, although it was not published
until 1529.56 Rhegius’s Material for Considering the Entire Business of the Mass was
the fruit of his reading of the church fathers concerning the sacrament, perhaps
in conjunction with writing his book against Eck.57 The impression given by both
evangelical and Catholic writers, however, is that they were writing for their own
supporters and not engaging with their opponents.
There is one final observation to be made concerning authors, and that is the
contribution of laymen to the discussion. Before 1525, the discussion of the sacra-
ment was limited almost entirely to clergy. The only exception was the Strasbourg
gardener Clemens Ziegler, whose contribution was decidedly heterodox but so
theologically unclear that its problematic aspects may have escaped notice.58 This
changed with the outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy. Each of the three parties
had its lay defenders. Joachim am Grüdt was the assistant city secretary in Zurich
who unsuccessfully opposed Zwingli’s efforts to abolish the mass in April 1525. His
39
1526 Christian Demonstration that Christ’s Flesh and Blood Are Truly in the Sacrament
of the Altar drew from patristic works as well as Cardinal Cajetan’s response to
Zwingli.59 The Nuremberg patrician-humanist Willibald Pirckheimer exchanged
a series of polemical treatises with Oecolampadius. Perhaps not surprisingly, the
largest number of pamphlets by lay authors were sacramentarian in orientation,
and many tended toward the radical end of the spectrum. Eitelhans Langenmantel,
for instance, was an Augsburg patrician whose pamphlets repeated many of the
arguments first made by Karlstadt; he would be executed as an Anabaptist in 1528.
Printers and Censorship

The large number of reprinted works suggests that printers played a major role
in fanning the controversy over the Lord’s Supper, since it was they and not the
authors who made the decision to reprint a work. Contributions to the debate were
published throughout German-speaking lands, but the cities of southern Germany,
Switzerland, and Saxony dominated. Figure 2.10 shows that the most important
printing centers were Augsburg (141 imprints) and Wittenberg (137 imprints),
followed at a slight distance by Strasbourg (90 imprints) and Nuremberg (80
imprints). Basel, Erfurt, Leipzig, and Zurich each produced between 43 and 57
Augsburg
Others 16%
21%
Magdeburg Wittenberg
3% 15%
Cologne
4%
Basel
5%
Erfurt Strasbourg
5% 10%
Leipzig
6% Zurich Nuremberg
6% 9%
. Printing Locations, 1525–1529

40
titles. Cologne was the most important production center for Catholic books (36
imprints); of the other Catholic cities, only Dresden and Vienna printed more than
a handful of works discussing the sacrament. Magdeburg would be important for
turning out Low German translations of works originally printed in either Latin or
German; half of its twenty-four imprints were in Low German. Thirty-three other
German cities from Altenburg to Zwickau contributed to the printed debate. None
of them produced as many as twenty imprints during this five-year period, and most
printed only a few works, many of them either by Luther and his supporters or by
local proponents or opponents of the reform movement. These presses were there-
fore important for disseminating and amplifying the debate at the local or regional
level, ensuring that the Eucharistic controversy would spread throughout Germany.
There was a strong correlation between printing location and party affiliation.
The printers of Wittenberg and Zurich were the quasi-official publishers of works
by the Wittenberg party and the sacramentarians, respectively. This was hardly
a pairing of equals. During the second half of the 1520s, Wittenberg printers
produced three times as many books as those in Zurich did.60 This was simply
a reflection of the number of presses in each city. Thanks to Luther, Wittenberg
had developed into a major printing center, with eleven printers working together
or separately to produce works by Luther and his supporters.61 These printers
published forty-nine different titles concerning the Lord’s Supper between
1525 and 1529, with the largest share being works by Luther and his university
colleagues. Their productions amounted to about 30 percent of all Wittenberg
imprints produced during these years (figure 2.11). All the city’s printers produced
40
35
Percentage of All Imprints
30
25
20
15
10
0
g
rg
rg
rg
rt
ne
g
se
r
ur
ric
rfu
pz
bu
be
ou
be
og
Ba
eb
Zu
ei
en
sb
E
gs
ol
d
L
e
Au
ra
C
itt
ag
ur
St
W
M
N
. Proportion of Imprints on the Lord’s Supper by City, 1525–1529

41
works on the Lord’s Supper, with the largest number of imprints coming from
the workshops of Georg Rhau and Josef Klug. Nickel Schirlenz, Hans Lufft, and
Melchior Lotter all vied for second place. Rhau produced mostly catechisms and
postils, while the others printed a higher number of direct contributions to the
controversy, although they, too, produced Luther’s postils, as well as catechisms
by Luther and others in response to high market demand.62
Zurich would eventually become an important printing center, but in the
second half of the 1520s it stood far behind Wittenberg. The city had only
two printers, with Christoph Froschauer producing most of the publications
during these five years.63 Almost 38 percent of all Zurich imprints concerned
the Lord’s Supper, with over half of them written by Zwingli and his col-
league Leo Jud.64 Leipzig printers were able to print a number of works by
evangelical authors that were general enough to support a Catholic under-
standing of communion in 1525, but from 1526 with a few exceptions the
city’s printers published only Catholic works. Nuremberg, Erfurt, and
Magdeburg printers churned out works supporting the Wittenberg party,
while Basel and Strasbourg produced sacramentarian works. Unlike the
cities in Wittenberg’s sphere of influence, however, printers in Basel and
Strasbourg also produced works by Catholics and the pro-Wittenberg party,
especially those by Luther.
Augsburg was unusual in that its printers produced works by Wittenbergers
and sacramentarians in roughly equal numbers; they also published a number
of Catholic works. Many of the works published elsewhere were reprinted
in the city, and Augsburg printers produced new contributions to the contro-
versy as well. Five Augsburg printers stand out for their role in printing new
contributions to the debate or reprinting those first published elsewhere.65 By far
the most important was Philip Ulhart, who published fifty-eight works dealing
with the Lord’s Supper. In 1526 alone, the peak year of the published debate,
Ulhart produced twenty-one imprints that included German versions of works
by some of the most significant and controversial sacramentarian authors.66 He
also printed Basel’s first liturgical agenda, as well as the Reformation ordinances
of both Bern and Basel.67 Ulhart’s only imprint opposing the sacramentarians was
Luther’s Open Letter to the Christians in Reutlingen, but he did reprint Luther’s
1525 sermon attacking the canon of the mass, a pre-1525 work by Bugenhagen con-
cerning confession and communion in both kinds, and catechisms by Johannes
Agricola and Johannes Brenz.68 He also printed works by local sacramentarian
authors.69 The city’s crackdown on radicals over the course of 1527 put an end to
these radical publications, but they were important as indications of lay involve-
ment in the debate over Christ’s substantial presence, and they will be discussed
in more detail in chapter 10.
42
Melchior Steiner’s religious loyalties were more ambiguous, for his thirty-three
imprints covered both sides of the debate.70 His reprints of Luther’s German mass
and church postil reflected high demand for those two works, but he reprinted
Luther’s Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper as well.71 He published Osiander’s
justification of the Nuremberg reformation and four works by Urbanus Rhegius
with an anti-Catholic edge,72 but he also published Kaspar Schatzgeyer’s defense
of the mass. His imprints of more polemical and topical sacramentarian works,
such as Johann Schnewyl’s response to Jakob Strauss, Zwingli’s first letter to
Esslingen, and a report of a sermon attributed to the Ulm preacher Conrad Sam,
may have been seen as opportunities for a quick profit;73 the same may apply to
his printing of two anonymous pro-Wittenberg pamphlets that were probably
written by the same author.74
Simprecht Ruff printed fifteen contributions to the debate, while Melchior
Ramminger and Silvan Otmar each printed fourteen contributions. Ruff ’s output
was reliably pro-Wittenberg. It included works by Amsdorf, Billican, Brenz,
Bugenhagen, Luther, and Rhegius, as well as works by the Catholics Leopold
Dick and Johannes Eck. His only imprint by a sacramentarian author was a pam-
phlet combining Karlstadt’s two works dissociating himself from the rebellious
peasants and from his earlier publications on the Lord’s Supper.75 Ramminger
seems to have favored the sacramentarians, but he had made a name for him-
self by reprinting many of Luther’s early works, and he recognized the profita-
bility of that market.76 In 1525 he printed a catechism by Balthasar Hubmaier,
Karlstadt’s Against the Old and New Papists, and a defense of Karlstadt by Valentin
Ickelshamer, but his publications in 1526 favored the Wittenberg party.77 His
only role in the debate over the next few years was to reprint the catechism of the
Bohemian Brethren as modified for the church of St. Gallen.78 Otmar’s produc-
tion also tended toward the sacramentarian side. In the first year of the contro-
versy he published a pre-1525 work by Bugenhagen, both parts of Luther’s Against
the Heavenly Prophets, and Luther’s sermon on John 6,79 but he also printed
Kaspar Turnauer’s rejection of Christ’s corporeal presence.80 His later imprints,
all from 1528–29, were pastoral works by Augsburg’s ministers, an open letter by
Oecolampadius, a liturgy by Ambrosius Blarer, an imprint of the Marburg arti-
cles, and a treatise by Kaspar Schwenckfeld.
One reason for Augsburg’s prominent role in the dissemination of works
on the Lord’s Supper was an almost complete lack of censorship in the city.81
In this respect Augsburg was unusual, for other cities and territories took steps
to prevent the spread of sacramentarian works. A prominent theme in the cor-
respondence of the Swiss and Strasbourg reformers, and a frequent complaint
in their published works, was the censorship of their works in many parts of
the Holy Roman Empire.82 Pre-publication censorship was used in Wittenberg
43
already in 1522 to prevent Karlstadt from publishing a work that might be seen
as directed against Luther.83 Duke George of Saxony forbade the printing of all
evangelical works, and the publication of sacramentarian works in his lands was
never an option.84 When the Nuremberg council became aware of the printing of
Karlstadt’s pamphlets in November of 1524, it forbade their sale and confiscated
the pages of a work then in press. The following year, the sale of Zwingli’s books
was prohibited in the city, and the ban was soon extended to include the works
of Oecolampadius.85 In Baden, Jakob Strauss persuaded the margrave to prohibit
the sale of works by the two Swiss reformers as well.86
Perhaps most striking of all was the prohibition of sacramentarian works in
Basel. At the end of 1524, the city council arrested the printers who had produced
Karlstadt’s Eucharistic pamphlets in that city and prohibited the printing of any
works, whether “in Latin, Hebrew, Greek, or German,” unless they were first
approved by censors it had appointed. Reflecting the advice of a panel of censors,
including Erasmus and the law professor Bonifacius Amerbach, it did not allow
Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition to be sold in the city.87 As a consequence,
Oecolampadius’s earliest contributions to the debate were printed in Strasbourg
and Zurich, and he was not allowed to have his Eucharistic treatises published in
his own city until mid-1526.88 All these measures contributed to the significantly
lower number of works on the Lord’s Supper printed in Leipzig, Nuremberg, and
Basel, especially in comparison to Augsburg. The tremendous success of early
evangelical works, especially those by Luther, gave printers confidence that the
Wittenberg reformer’s writings on the Lord’s Supper would actually sell. Printing
sacramentarian works was more risky because of both official censorship meas-
ures and uncertain market demand.
Of course it is one thing for a territorial ruler or city council to prohibit the
printing and sale of books considered dangerous; it is quite another to enforce such
edicts, particularly when works printed elsewhere could be spread by itinerant
book peddlers. In his pamphlet attacking Zwingli, Jakob Strauss reported that
he found Zwingli’s book for sale at the local market despite the prohibition.89 In
November of 1526 Capito told Zwingli that both Oecolampadius’s and Zwingli’s
books were being sold in Wittenberg.90 Individuals might also obtain copies of
prohibited books from friends in other territories. The Nuremberg city secretary
Lazarus Spengler received a copy of one of Zwingli’s works from his counterpart
in Strasbourg, Peter Butz.91 Still, such censorship forced discussions of the sac-
rament underground and made it much more difficult for sacramentarian ideas
to spread where there was not already a party inclined to adopt them. Zwingli
tried to counter this by writing directly to the Nuremberg council in July 1526 to
complain about the prohibition of his works.92 Not surprisingly, his letter had no
effect. The Zurich reformer might believe that unfettered discussion would allow
4
the truth to prevail, but to Nuremberg’s city fathers, his position seemed like a
recipe for promoting dissent and discord in their city.
Genre and Audience

Turning from printers to the printed works, we note that the genre of a pub-
lication can indicate both its purpose and its intended audience. Figure 2.12
illustrates the major role played by treatises and responses.
I have defined a treatise as a presentation of the author’s understanding of
the sacrament for a general audience. It often initiated an exchange, provoking
a response written as a direct answer to it—for example, John Fisher’s refutation
of Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition, Oecolampadius’s self-defense against
Luther’s That These Words of Christ Still Stand Firm, or Luther’s Against the
Heavenly Prophets, which addressed Karlstadt’s pamphlets of 1524.
The three parties produced treatises and responses in roughly equal numbers,
but the proportion of works devoted to these two genres differed significantly.
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Catholic Sacramentarian Pro-Wittenberg
Other Liturgy Letter

Dialogue Catechetical Response
Sermon Ordinance/Edict Treatise
. Genre of Imprints by Party

45
Roughly three-quarters of all Catholic works were either treatises (54 percent)

or responses (25 percent). The only other genres used by Catholic authors to
any extent were open letters, most of which were written in the context of the
disputations of Baden and Bern, and official edicts against sacramentarian and
Anabaptist heretics. Other publications include a few volumes of sermons, a dia-
logue, and other works related to the Swiss disputations.
In contrast, both the Wittenberg party and their opponents used a wide
range of genres to present their views. Roughly one-third of the sacramentarian
publications were treatises, and another 21 percent were responses. Sacramentarians
also made use of open letters to individuals and groups to defend their position.
Liturgies and church ordinances were important for publicizing the adoption
of a new communion rite. Unlike either Catholics or the Wittenberg party,
sacramentarians defended their position using the genre of dialogue, in which
two or more parties discussed a topic in conversational form. Finally, they em-
ployed catechisms, sermons, and biblical commentaries to disseminate their
position, although none of these constituted more than 7 percent of their total
publications.
The pro-Wittenberg party also used a wide range of genres, but in differing
proportions to those of the sacramentarians. Only 15 percent of their works were
treatises and another 11 percent were responses, chiefly addressing publications
by sacramentarians but in a few cases answering Catholic works. It is striking
that the genres preferred by the Wittenberg party were those most important
for instructing the illiterate or those with a low level of literacy. By far the most
frequently used genre was catechetical material, comprising 31 percent of the pro-
Wittenberg imprints. These included not only catechisms strictly speaking but
also catechetical dialogues on basic elements of the Christian faith,93 guides to
help people prepare for communion, and questions for pastors to use during the
pre-communion examination, to make sure their parishioners understood both
the content and the purpose of the sacrament. Sermons (14 percent), including
Luther’s postils, and letters (11 percent) were other genres used to disseminate
the Wittenberg position. As parallels to the sacramentarian liturgies and church
ordinances, Luther’s German mass and Melanchthon’s visitation instructions
were two of the most frequently reprinted works. All these publication had
both a pedagogical and a defensive purpose. They were intended not only to
combat ignorance and establish correct practice but also to prevent the spread of
sacramentarian errors.
Finally, the language of publication is important as a rough indication of
the intended audience: Latin for the learned elite both within and outside
of German-speaking lands, and the vernacular for the literate laity. Not sur-
prisingly, the great majority of publications by both evangelical parties was in
46
German. The proportion of vernacular works was highest for sacramentarian

authors: 84 percent of all imprints were in German. The Wittenberg party
also published primarily in the vernacular: 77 percent of all imprints, and
87 percent of Luther’s imprints were in the vernacular. Roughly 12 percent
of the pro-Wittenberg vernacular imprints were in Low German. Virtually
all of these were translations of works first printed in High German, but they
also included works by Bugenhagen written to or for readers in Braunschweig,
Bremen, and Holstein, and a set of letters sent to the dukes of Braunschweig-
Lüneburg concerning a dispute over the mass between Celle’s evangel-
ical preachers and members of the city’s Franciscan convent.94 Against the
common view that Catholics wrote only in Latin, half of their publications
were in German. Catholic authors were clearly concerned with reaching an
audience literate in the vernacular.
There was also a confessional difference with regard to what was translated.
The sacramentarians were the only group consistently concerned with making
the same work available in both Latin and the vernacular. Several of the treatises
of both Zwingli and Oecolampadius were written in Latin and then published in
German translation. In contrast, both Catholics and the Wittenberg party wrote
different works for Latin-reading and vernacular audiences. With the impor-
tant exceptions of Bugenhagen’s Open Letter Against the New Error Concerning
the Sacrament and Brenz’s Syngramma, both published at the beginning of the
controversy, few of the Latin works by Luther’s supporters were translated into
German. Most of the pro-Wittenberg works that did exist in both languages were
originally written in German, and their translations into Latin were intended for
students; prime examples of this are Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms.
The differences in genre and language suggest that goals and target audiences
differed between confessions. Catholic authors chiefly wrote lengthy Latin
treatises for the clergy and Latin-reading elite, although they also addressed ver-
nacular pamphlets to the literate laity and to clergy uncomfortable with reading
Latin. They also made some attempt to combine both forms. The Latin version
of Cochlaeus’s Seven-Headed Luther pointed to Luther’s inconsistency in several
areas, but that pamphlet was also broken into three different short pamphlets in
German, including one on the sacrament of the altar.95 Cochlaeus’s 25 Reasons
for Giving the Laity Only One Kind in the Sacrament was published in German,
as well as in a Latin translation that included the section on the sacrament from
the Seven-Headed Luther.96 Catholic authors made no effort to teach or speak
directly to the illiterate and uneducated; this was the responsibility of the clergy
who read their publications.
In contrast, pro-Wittenberg authors published works with the illiterate and
children in mind, especially to ensure that they understood the purpose and
47
content of the Lord’s Supper and so could receive it worthily. Based on their in-
terpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:29 (“those who eat and drink without discerning
the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves”), Luther and his
supporters held that belief in Christ’s corporeal presence in the elements was a
necessary precondition for worthy reception of the sacrament. The number of
instructions for communion preparation demonstrates the Wittenberg party’s
pastoral concern that communicants acknowledge the presence of Christ’s body
and blood under the bread and wine. In comparison to the Catholics and the
sacramentarians, pro-Wittenberg writers paid relatively little attention to an in-
ternational Latin-reading audience. When they did write in Latin, it was often
in response to the Latin treatises of the sacramentarians, and especially to refute
the sacramentarians’ claims that they taught no differently from the fathers of the
church regarding the Lord’s Supper.
If the dominant concern of the Wittenberg party was pastoral, the main
thrust of the sacramentarians was pedagogical: to inform and persuade readers.
Sacramentarian authors addressed the learned elite and the literate laity alike by
publishing the same work in both Latin and in German versions. Although there
were a handful of sacramentarian catechisms published during this early period,
only a few contained any discussion of the Lord’s Supper, and sacramentarian
efforts to influence the illiterate were channeled as much through liturgical re-
form as through catechization. Their works on the Lord’s Supper were directed
at a literate audience considered capable of judging the theological debate them-
selves. In contrast to the Wittenberg party, sacramentarian authors did not pub-
lish works devoted solely to aid individuals in preparing for communion. Having
rejected the belief that worthy reception of the sacrament required belief in
Christ’s bodily presence, they did not have to ensure that communicants believed
in that presence before receiving the sacrament.
A New View of the Early Eucharistic Controversy

This analysis of publications on the Lord’s Supper during the first stage of the
Eucharistic controversy puts the relative status of the two evangelical factions in
a new light. From a purely intellectual perspective, it may be legitimate to present
them as two equal and opposing viewpoints. The real world is more complicated,
though, and the equal pairing of two sets of ideas gives a false picture of the ac-
tual position of the sacramentarian party in the second half of the 1520s. In fact,
the sacramentarians were regarded by both Catholics and Luther’s supporters
as beyond the bounds of what the church had taught from its origin, and they
were condemned as heretics. The sacramentarians were an assertive minority
who fought hard to challenge the status quo, to defend their orthodoxy, and to
48
persuade the literate laity to adopt their position. The Wittenberg party fought
just as tenaciously to stop the spread of what they regarded as heresy among their
pastoral charges, especially the “simple” and uneducated.
The sacramentarians were vigorous propagandists, churning out defenses of
their position, but they had a hard time being heard. They faced a number of
disadvantages in disseminating their views. From a purely quantitative perspec-
tive, their works were clearly outnumbered by their opponents. For every four
pamphlets published concerning the Lord’s Supper, three of them rejected the
sacramentarian position. Not only were fewer sacramentarian works printed, but
access to those works was hindered by censorship provisions. Again, this does
not mean that censorship measures were always effective or that sacramentarian
works did not circulate, but they did limit access and distort normal channels
of distribution, and to some extent they must have deterred printers from
reprinting what might not sell. Linguistic differences may also have had an im-
pact on the diffusion of the positions of each party. Those who preferred Low
German could read a number of pro-Wittenberg works, but they had little ac-
cess to sacramentarian publications in Low German. Zwingli was at a distinct
disadvantage in spreading his views outside Switzerland, for his vernacular tracts
were written in a Swiss German that was more difficult for readers in the north
to understand.
The printing statistics also reveal that the sacramentarians had no individual
whose reputation and authority could approach that of Luther. The most highly
respected figure on the sacramentarian side was Oecolampadius, whose reputa-
tion for both scholarship and piety was well established before the outbreak of
the controversy. But Oecolampadius was no Luther. The sacramentarians may
have identified with David facing the Wittenberg Goliath, and they certainly
believed that God was on their side, as he was with David. But to a modern-
day observer, the more apt literary comparison is that of the tiny Lilliputians
attacking the giant Gulliver. Their often-repeated assertion that one should look
to scripture and not to the reputation or authority of an individual could not
counteract Luther’s prominence.
Luther’s dominant place in the publications concerning the Lord’s Supper
during the second half of the 1520s suggests the chronological framework that
subsequent chapters will follow in describing the published debate. The de-
bate fell into three parts, largely shaped by Luther’s publications on the Lord’s
Supper. The first phase was sparked by the publication of Karlstadt’s Eucharistic
pamphlets and extended through the end of 1525, after Karlstadt published a
quasi-retraction of his views and the earliest Latin sacramentarian works had
been published in German translation. Luther’s Against the Heavenly Prophets,
published in two parts at the turn of 1524–25, was the most influential response
49
to Karlstadt’s arguments against Christ’s corporeal presence published during

this first phase. It would have a significant impact on the public debate.
Luther regarded Against the Heavenly Prophets as a sufficient defense of
Christ’s bodily presence in the elements, and through the second phase of the
debate, from the beginning of 1526 into the spring of 1527, he left the defense
of Christ’s bodily presence to others. His influence during this time was only
indirect, consisting largely of the repetition of his own understanding of the
Lord’s Supper and endorsement of the arguments advanced by others against
the sacramentarians. His refusal to engage directly with the sacramentarians was
problematic for his followers, for with the publication of new sacramentarian
treatises in the summer of 1525, the public controversy over the Lord’s Supper
moved beyond the positions staked out by Karlstadt, and Against the Heavenly
Prophets was quickly dated. The greatest challenge to Christ’s corporeal pres-
ence was posed by Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition. Since Luther had not
addressed Oecolampadius’s arguments in his earlier works and gave no indica-
tion that he would write against the Basler, others stepped into the breach. The
most important defenders of the Wittenberg position were Bugenhagen and
Brenz, but Pirckheimer would also make a substantial contribution through his
exchanges with Oecolampadius.
Luther finally reentered the public debate in the spring of 1527, with That
These Words of Christ Still Stand Firm, initiating the third phase of this first
stage of the debate. Responses to That These Words Still Stand Firm by the Swiss
reformers caused Luther to publish his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper in
1528. These two treatises both synthesized and elaborated on arguments that had
been introduced during the earlier years of the controversy. They also summed
up the arguments of Luther’s opponents under a few major headings that would
dominate future discussion of the Lord’s Supper. Luther’s two treatises from 1527
and 1528 would therefore be of central importance for the further development
of the Eucharistic controversy.
The next several chapters will examine each of these three phases in more de-
tail. First, however, it is necessary to describe the origin of the controversy in both
late medieval discussions of the sacrament and in early Reformation approaches
to scripture.
50
Heresy and Hermeneutics

The Background to the Controversy
See how much judgment our enemies have: they love him
[sc. Erasmus] who sowed the seeds of many most pernicious
doctrines in his books, which indeed would have eventually
aroused a much graver tumult if Luther had not arisen and
drawn the studies of men in a different direction. The entire
tragedy concerning the Lord’s Supper arose from him.1
Philipp Melanchthon placed all the blame for the Eucharistic con-
troversy on Erasmus. In the days after the Marburg Colloquy, he told his friend
Caspar Aquila, “Zwingli confessed to me that he first drew his view of the
Lord’s Supper from the writing of Erasmus.”2 Modern historians have not shared
Melanchthon’s negative judgment of the Dutch humanist, but they too have
recognized Erasmus’s significant influence on the Zurich reformer.3
The debate that broke out among evangelicals in the fall of 1524 went beyond
the corporeal presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper to raise deeper
questions about the definition and significance of the sacraments more gener-
ally, and it brought to the fore previously unacknowledged differences among the
evangelicals in how they interpreted scripture. Two contrasting understandings
of the sacraments, derived from differing hermeneutical approaches to the Bible,
developed in Wittenberg and Basel. The traditional concentration on Zwingli as
Luther’s chief opponent has drawn attention away from Erasmus’s influence on
the other major contributors to the public debate, all of whom were as much if
not more influenced by Erasmus than Zwingli was.4 Johannes Oecolampadius,
Wolfgang Capito, and Konrad Pellikan were active members of the circle around
Erasmus in Basel, while Martin Bucer, Leo Jud, and Valentin Crautwald, like
Zwingli, belonged to the broader group of Erasmus’s admirers outside Basel.
Andreas Karlstadt began his reforming career as a member of Wittenberg’s the-
ology faculty and was initially influenced by Luther’s developing theology of sin
and grace, but by the mid-1520s his interpretation of key Scripture texts on the
51
Heresy and Hermeneutics 51
Lord’s Supper echoed that of Erasmus rather than Luther. If one were to label
the sacramentarians with the name of the thinker who most influenced them,
“radical Erasmians” would be more appropriate than “Zwinglians.” This in part
explains why Erasmus worked so hard to distance himself from his former friends
and admirers.5
Focus on Zwingli has distorted the background to the Eucharistic contro-
versy in another way—that of downplaying the role of medieval Eucharistic
heresy in shaping the early sacramentarian position. Zwingli had little
knowledge of the arguments used against transubstantiation developed by
Waldensian and Hussite thinkers. But those arguments had a substantial in-
fluence on Cornelis Hoen and Johannes Oecolampadius, and through them
on Andreas Karlstadt and Martin Bucer, while Kaspar Schwenckfeld had more
direct contact with the Bohemian Brethren in Silesia. Eventually Zwingli, too,
would use some of these Hussite arguments, although he did not recognize
their ultimate source.
In fact, the two most important factors that would shape the sacramentarian
challenge to Wittenberg’s sacramental theology were Erasmian exegesis and late
medieval Eucharistic heresy. The differences between Erasmus and Luther con-
cerning the sacraments reflected a fundamentally different approach to biblical
hermeneutics, the principles by which scripture was to be understood. Their
views were expressed openly in publications from the later 1510s and early 1520s.
At the same time, objections to Christ’s substantial presence developed by earlier
Taborite theologians were circulating underground, and the confessions of the
Bohemian Brethren first appeared in print. Both of these would influence the
ideas of several future sacramentarian reformers. This chapter sketches the devel-
opment of objections to scholastic sacramental theology and then highlights the
importance of medieval heresy and evangelical hermeneutics as background to
the controversy that broke out at the end of 1524.
The Starting Point: Scholastic Eucharistic Theology

and its Critics
Both the formation of schools of thought and the growth of canon law
contributed to scholastic Eucharistic theology. The starting point for later me-
dieval developments was the confession of faith adopted by the Fourth Lateran
Council in 1215 and aimed against Cathar and Waldensian heretics. It began
by asserting that “[Christ’s] body and blood are truly contained in the sacra-
ment of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine—the bread being
transubstantiated into his body and the wine into his blood by divine power.”6
This confession would be incorporated into canon law and so became the subject
52
of further definition by both theologians and canonists.7 The Decretum also in-
cluded passages from the works of earlier theologians who had contributed to
the debates concerning the Eucharist, although the statements were attributed to
patristic writers. In addition, it contained the confession forced on Berengar of
Tours in 1059, asserting that the body of Christ was broken by the hands of the
priest and crushed by the teeth of the faithful.8 Later theologians would do their
utmost to modify the confession’s meaning by distinguishing between the sign,
which was broken and chewed, and Christ’s impassible body.9
Central to the scholastic discussion of the Eucharist was the Aristotelian dis-
tinction between “substance,” or the inner essence that made something what it
was, and the “accidents,” which constituted the outward, perceptible, and tran-
sitory appearance of that thing. In the early thirteenth century, all theologians
understood “transubstantiation” to mean that the substances of Christ’s body and
blood were present, but they suggested various explanations for what happened to
the substances of bread and wine.10 Those substances might no longer exist, either
because they were converted into the substances of Christ’s body and blood or
were annihilated and replaced with the substances of body and blood. Or it was
possible that the substances of bread and wine remained, while the substances of
Christ’s body and blood were added to them when the words of institution were
repeated. This third position, called “remanence,” raised a further question about
how the substances of bread and body could coexist.11
Although remanence was criticized by earlier theologians, Thomas Aquinas
was the first to condemn that view as not only philosophically impossible but
also heretical. There continued to be philosophic objections to the understanding
of transubstantiation as substantial conversion, however. John Duns Scotus held
remanence to be more plausible philosophically, but he ultimately endorsed con-
version as the position of the Church expressed by the Fourth Lateran Council
and incorporated into canon law.12 Scotus’s contemporary, the Dominican
John Quidort of Paris, also defended remanence, but to avoid potential charges
of heresy he stated his willingness to withdraw his teaching if conversion were
indeed affirmed “in a sacred canon or by the Church either through a general
council or by the pope.”13 He proposed an understanding of remanence by which
the substance of bread was drawn into the “suppositum” or person of Christ, so
that there was one subject with two natures. Although John did not use the term
in this context, this was a theory of impanation, in which the relation between the
substances of bread and body was thought of as analogous to that of Christ’s di-
vine and human natures in one person.14 John’s position was quickly condemned,
and although John appealed the decision, he died soon after and the matter was
dropped. William of Ockham, like Scotus, would describe remanence as the most
reasonable explanation, but he too endorsed conversion as the decision of the
53
Church.15 By the mid-fourteenth century, then, transubstantiation had come to

mean the substantial conversion of the substances of bread and wine into Christ’s
body and blood, and remanence had been discredited.
Remanence and impanation would reenter the university debate over the sac-
rament in the early 1380s, however, when John Wyclif defended the former in his
treatise De Eucharistia.16 Wyclif rejected transubstantiation as substantial con-
version and asserted that “this is my body” should be understood figuratively, as
a trope. This did not mean that he rejected Christ’s presence in the consecrated
host, however. Christ was present in the consecrated host as a sign, but he was
also present really and truly (realiter et vere) according to his humanity. Wyclif
introduced new terms to describe how Christ could be present in ways other
than substantially: in power like a king throughout his kingdom, in intention
with the saints in heaven, supernaturally with the faithful, and sacramentally
in the consecrated host.17 In his Trialogus, a more popular presentation of his
theology, he upheld the substantial remanence of bread and wine on the basis
that it was philosophically impossible for accidents to exist without a subject,
although he dismissed the doctrine of impanation as heretical. Rather than
discussing how two substances could coexist, he considered Christ’s words, “this
is my body,” as a proposition to be considered logically. The referent of “this” was
clearly the bread, but that raised the question of how to understand the predi-
cate, “my body.” Citing Christ’s statement that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matt.
11:14), Wyclif said that both statements should be understood figuratively, not
personally. They were examples of habitudinal predication—logical propositions
that were true but that did not express identity.18 Underlying this discussion was
Wyclif ’s philosophy of language, which saw linguistic propositions as expressions
of ontological truth.
At Oxford in 1381, and again at the Blackfriars Council of 1382, Wyclif ’s long-
time opponents condemned several propositions drawn from his works. Three
of the condemned theses concerned his Eucharistic theology. The first upheld
the remanence of the substance of bread, the second stated that accidents could
not exist without substance, and the third asserted that Christ’s body and blood
did not exist “in identical nature, truly, and really in his proper corporeal pres-
ence” in the sacrament.19 These propositions would be included in the forty-five
errors condemned by the Council of Constance in 1415 and so would become the
positions most closely associated with Wyclif.
By this time, however, Wyclif ’s ideas had made their way to Bohemia, where
they combined with a preexisting reform movement critical of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy and emphasizing frequent lay communion as an element of both per-
sonal spirituality and societal reform.20 Jan Hus, who emerged as the leader of
that reform movement in the early fifteenth century, was conventional in his
54
Eucharistic theology and did not deny transubstantiation.21 More important

for the development of Hussite teachings on the Eucharist were Hus’s associate
Jakoubek of Stříbro, who was the first to insist that the laity should receive com-
munion in both kinds, and Peter Payne, an English disciple of Wyclif, who arrived
in Bohemia in 1415 and was instrumental in shaping Taborite thought.22
In debates with both Utraquist and Catholic theologians, Payne and other
Taborite theologians developed the ramifications of Wyclif ’s Eucharistic
thought.23 They argued that based on Christ’s words, the bread and wine were
Christ’s body and blood, not identically but instead sacramentally and figur-
atively, and they cited other examples of such language in scripture, not only
Christ’s statement that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matt. 11:14) and “the rock
was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4) but also the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream, which
identified thin cows and empty ears of wheat as years of famine (Gen. 41:27).
They proposed various ways to describe Christ’s presence in the elements: sacra-
mentally, spiritually, in power (virtualiter), really, and truly. All these terms re-
flected the underlying effort to describe the presence of Christ’s body in some
way other than the Aristotelian notion of substance. Also characteristic of these
treatises was a discussion of the different modes of Christ’s presence with the
saints, with the church, and in the sacrament, combined with an insistence that
his glorified body was seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Because
Christ’s body was located in heaven, the Taborites were also uneasy about venera-
tion of the consecrated host, although they did not reject it entirely.24
The radical Taborites were defeated in the battle of Lipany in 1434, but a
small number of those who rejected transubstantiation continued to exist. They
resurfaced in 1467, when the Unitas Fratrum, or Bohemian Brethren, broke with
the Utraquists to form their own sect. Lukas of Prague, leader of the Bohemian
Brethren at the turn of the century, composed several confessions defending the
Brethren’s beliefs.25 He was also responsible for a catechism that was written in
Czech but translated into German and printed in 1521.26 It thus became known
to the German-speaking world at the very time when evangelical reformers were
spreading a new understanding of the sacraments. Evangelical discussion of the
sacraments in general would form the backdrop to discussions of the sacrament
that came to be called the Lord’s Supper.
One final aspect of the scholastic background to the Eucharistic contro-
versy was the decentralized and contested nature of theology education within
the German-speaking lands. In the early sixteenth century, there were seventeen
German universities with faculties of theology, although most of these were very
small.27 Their philosophy and theology faculties were further divided between the
via antiqua, or realism, and the via moderna, or nominalism. The Christianized
Aristotelianism developed by Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and others in
5
the thirteenth century held that concepts reflected an underlying reality. This
position was supplanted in the fourteenth century by a “modern” approach as-
sociated with William of Ockham, Marsilius of Inghen, and John Buridan, who
argued that concepts were merely names for mental constructs. While this de-
bate concerned logic and metaphysics, it also had theological implications, for
nominalists argued that the Christianized Aristotelianism of the realists limited
divine freedom. They therefore distinguished between God’s absolute power,
which acknowledged God’s freedom to create whatever method of human salva-
tion he chose, and his ordained power, which described the method he actually
had chosen at the creation of the world. As a realist who advocated the absolute
freedom of the divine will, John Duns Scotus was a transitional figure between
the two approaches.28
Throughout the first half of the fifteenth century, nominalism dominated the
German universities, and it was the philosophical school within which Luther and
many of his future Wittenberg associates were trained at the University of Erfurt.
Throughout the later fifteenth century, however, the Roman curia supported a
renewed Thomism, and under its influence the newer German universities es-
pecially in the south introduced the via antiqua, so that both approaches were
taught there. Cologne became a center of Thomism, while Scotism was partic-
ularly prominent at Freiburg at the end of the century.29 The teaching of nomi-
nalism was forbidden in Paris in 1474, and when Erasmus studied there in the later
1490s, he was exposed to the realism of John Duns Scotus. His later works reflect
his disdain for scholasticism, especially in its Scotist form.30 Many of Erasmus’s
younger associates and supporters in Switzerland and southern Germany were
also trained in the realist tradition, especially from a Scotist perspective. This is
most clearly documented for Zwingli, but it can be inferred from the educational
background of those in the Erasmian circle. Oecolampadius received most of his
theological education within the via antiqua in Heidelberg.31 Capito studied in
Heidelberg and received much of his theology education at Freiburg, and he told
Ulrich von Hutten that he had finally left Freiburg because of the “nauseating
writings of Scotus,” which he had been hired to teach.32 As a Franciscan, Konrad
Pellikan would have been trained as a Scotist, while Martin Bucer studied the
Thomism of the Dominican order to which he belonged.
At the same time an important supplement to realist philosophy reached
Germany through a new interest in Platonic philosophy, whether directly
through Plato’s works or through the writings of Italian Platonists who blended
it with more familiar Neoplatonic ideas.33 Renaissance Platonism could be seen
as another form of philosophical realism that challenged the dominance of
nominalism in the German universities in the early sixteenth century. Northern
humanists were less interested in Platonism as a technical philosophy than as a
56
popularized metaphysics that perceived the world through a series of asymmet-

rical oppositions, such as material/spiritual, flesh/spirit, external/internal, and
old/new.34 Conrad Celtis, Conrad Mutian, Willibald Pirckheimer, and Johannes
Reuchlin were among the German humanists most influenced by Renaissance
Platonism, and the works of Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,
and the latter’s nephew Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola were popular in
Germany.35 As the marginalia in his copies of works by the two Picos attest, Zwingli
was a diligent student of these attempts to Christianize Renaissance Platonism.36
In Wittenberg, Andreas Karlstadt lectured on the thirteen condemned theses of
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola in the summer of 1516, soon after his return from
Rome.37
James Farge has argued against the perception that late medieval theology
was doctrinally pluralistic. Using the example of the University of Paris in the
early sixteenth century, he has emphasized the broad consensus that existed
regarding doctrinal matters and the authority of the theology faculty to deter-
mine what lay outside the bounds of orthodoxy.38 This was in fact the case in
France, where the theology faculty at Paris held unique authority. In Germany,
however, there was no university with comparable authority. The academic
territorialization of the Holy Roman Empire, which both reflected and was
due to its political territorialization, would make the policing of academic or-
thodoxy more difficult, and the many competing ideas within the universities,
including not only the interaction of various types of scholasticism with
humanism but also the impact of mysticism and developments in popular
piety, would be fertile ground for new ideas, including those concerning the
sacraments.
Evangelical Alternatives
The evangelical understanding of the sacraments developed along two different
paths established, respectively, by Luther and Erasmus, although there was also
a good deal of cross-fertilization, as views were diffused through the printing
press. Lest this seem to attribute too much influence to either man, it should be
remembered that each author had an enormous and unprecedented impact on
Germany’s literate elite during the early 1520s. In 1520, the 423 imprints produced
by printers in German-speaking Europe and containing works by either Erasmus
or Luther were greater than the number of imprints produced during any year of
the first decade of the sixteenth century. From 1519 on, imprints of works by the
two men made up over 30 percent of all publications each year, reaching a high
of 39 percent in 1524. Erasmus’s works were intended for a relatively small group
57
of Latin readers spread throughout Europe, while Luther’s works reached a larger
audience literate in the vernacular but geographically restricted to German-
speaking areas. Their ideas would have the most fruitful and far-reaching impact
in the cities of southern Germany and Switzerland, where readers had ready ac-
cess to the works of both authors.
Erasmus laid the foundation that allowed his more radical disciples to de-
velop an understanding of the sacraments that differed from those of the me-
dieval church and the Wittenberg reformers. His pedagogical and exegetical
works propagated a specific form of Bible humanism that applied the skills of
philology and rhetoric to the text of scripture; linked theology with classical
education ideals; focused on Christ as both model and mediator; and criticized
superstition, ecclesiastical abuses, and an overemphasis on externalized religion.
His ideas would reach a broader German-reading public through the translation
of both his exegetical works and his writings on the Christian life in the late 1510s
and early 1520s.39
Erasmus did not explicitly reject scholastic discourse concerning the
sacraments, but he marginalized it by proposing another way of looking at the
sacraments that could be either superimposed on the medieval system or, as some
of his followers would do, completely detached from and used to replace it. This
view of the sacraments was disseminated in one of his most widely read works,
the Enchiridion of a Christian Soldier.40 Erasmus wrote the work in 1503, at a
time when he was most strongly influenced by Renaissance Platonism and he
was just beginning his career as a patristic and biblical scholar. The Enchiridion
was not a theological work but, rather, a moral exhortation to the Christian life.
Nevertheless, because it was an extended metaphor on the implications of bap-
tism for how a Christian should live, it drew new attention to that sacrament.
Erasmus’s discussion of the relationship between external rites and internal piety
provided a mental framework that shaped how many of the intellectual elite in
German-speaking Europe would understand Luther’s sacramental theology.
The Enchiridion blended classical, biblical, and patristic references and was
full of paired oppositions, with the most important being those of flesh/spirit
and outward/inward. Its opening chapters reinforced the metaphor of the title by
characterizing the Christian life as one of spiritual warfare. In line with his con-
cern for living a Christian life, Erasmus drew on the etymological origin of the
word sacramentum as a sacred oath, especially one that involved military service,
to assert that Christians were enrolled in Christ’s army and dedicated to his cause
through baptism. They had made a pledge to their leader and were to “enter into
an unending struggle with vice.” Erasmus acknowledged in passing the traditional
view that in baptism God restored life to the soul, but he used baptism chiefly as
58
the basis for ethical conduct, emphasizing the obedience that Christians owed to
Christ as a consequence of their baptism.41
The second part of the Enchiridion described several general rules for living
the Christian life. The most significant of these for later developments was the
fifth rule, which urged Christians to turn away from the visible and toward the in-
visible. What was seen with one’s physical eyes was a mere shadow of reality, and
perfect piety entailed progressing from imperfect visible things to the incompa-
rably better spiritual and invisible reality. Socrates and the Platonic philosophers
understood this deeper spiritual reality, and not only St. Paul but also Christ him-
self had taught the superiority of spirit over flesh.42
This led Erasmus to a criticism of popular piety. Far too many people counted
how many times they attended mass without being concerned for their neighbors,
fellow members of the body of Christ. The ceremony of baptism did not of itself
make one a Christian if one was preoccupied with worldly things; the sprinkling
with holy water had to be accompanied by a wiping clean of “the inner defile-
ment of the soul.” Christ himself “despised . . . the eating of his own flesh and the
drinking of his own blood if they were not eaten and drunk spiritually as well,”
and he warned his followers, “The flesh is of no profit; it is the spirit that gives
life” ( John 6:63).43
Erasmus did not at any point challenge the scholastic understanding of the
sacraments in the Enchiridion, and his discussion of baptism and sacramental
communion was not necessarily at odds with it. Nevertheless, his approach to
the sacraments could be seen as not simply a supplement to traditional sacra-
mental discourse but instead as an alternative to it. He did not reject external
ceremonies, but he minimized their importance and highlighted the inner
spiritual disposition they were intended to foster.44 The vows made at baptism
obligated Christians to a certain way of life, but Erasmus said virtually nothing
about the sacraments of confirmation, penance, marriage, and unction as aids to
the Christian life. He discussed communion, but not the sacrifice of the mass,
and he criticized those who thought attendance at mass or veneration of the host
was meritorious. Although he described visible and external things as means that
could lead to higher invisible and spiritual things in his fifth rule, the frequent du-
alistic contrasts that Erasmus set forth in the opening chapters of the book could
lead one to see external rites and practices as opposed to invisible spiritual goods,
rather than as an aid to attaining them.
The Enchiridion was a modest success in the decade immediately after its pub-
lication in a collection of short works. But Erasmus’s fame as a biblical scholar,
cemented by the publication of his edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516,
would create new interest in the work: it was printed eight times in Leipzig and
Strasbourg, either individually or with other works, between 1515 and 1517.45 Both
59
Andreas Karlstadt and Ulrich Zwingli owned one of these early imprints, and
their marginal glosses demonstrate that they read it closely.46 In 1518, Erasmus
provided his Basel printer, Johannes Froben, with a slightly revised version of
the text and a preface to Paul Volz advocating what he now called “the philos-
ophy of Christ.” Froben published it in a collection with several other works, and
the Enchiridion gained new life. Including Froben’s 1518 edition, the work was
printed twenty-seven times over the next seven years.47 In 1520, Johannes Adelphi,
the city physician of Schaffhausen, translated the Enchiridion into German and
published it in nearby Basel. That translation was revised and reprinted a year
later by Leo Jud, Zwingli’s successor as pastor in Einsiedeln and his future col-
league in Zurich.48
By this time the “Luther affair” had become inextricably associated, whether
rightly or wrongly, with Erasmus’s humanist reform program, and Luther was
working out a more radical alternative to scholastic sacramental theology. While
Erasmus’s approach to the sacraments started with baptism, Luther’s new under-
standing of the sacraments grew out of his lectures on the Bible in the context of
the debate over indulgences. This forced a rethinking of the sacrament of pen-
ance, which in turn led to a reconceptualization of the sacraments in general and
of the mass in particular.49
Luther explained his understanding of baptism, penance, and the sacra-
ment of the altar in three related vernacular pamphlets published at the end of
1519. All three works went through multiple editions: through the end of 1524
there were seventeen imprints of his works on The Holy Sacrament of Baptism,
sixteen of The Sacrament of Penance, and fifteen of The Blessed Sacrament of the
Holy and True Body of Christ and the Brotherhoods.50 In comparison to his later
works, these were still fairly traditional in their discussion of the sacraments
Luther considered most important to the Christian life. Six months later,
however, he published a Treatise on the New Testament, that is, on the Holy
Mass in which he condemned the sacrifice of the mass and presented a new
understanding of the Lord’s Supper as Christ’s testament; this also went
through fifteen imprints.51 These works were steppingstones to Luther’s full
presentation of his understanding of the sacraments in his Latin treatise On
the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, published in the late fall of 1520. That
work made clear Luther’s rejection of scholastic sacramental theology and his
replacement for it.
Luther opened the treatise with a discussion of the mass, which he claimed
suffered from “three captivities.” The first captivity was the prohibition of the
lay chalice. Luther’s defense of communion in both kinds was also a rejection of
the church’s authority to withhold the cup from the laity.52 The third captivity,
to which he devoted the greatest attention, was turning the mass into a good
60
work and a sacrifice, to the neglect of sacramental communion. Luther argued

that the mass was not something people offered to God; it was instead God’s offer
of forgiveness distributed with the bread and wine. Citing Hebrews 9, he called
it Christ’s testament, the promise of forgiveness sealed by his death and received
through faith alone. Christ’s promise of forgiveness was confirmed by the sign of
Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine.53
In comparison to his discussion of the sacrifice of the mass, Luther devoted
little space to the second captivity: making transubstantiation into an article of
faith. Luther pointed out that Christians had believed rightly about the sacrament
for 1200 years before the word transubstantiation was dreamed up. Criticizing
Thomas Aquinas’s use of substance and accidents to describe what happened to
the bread and wine, he said that it was wrong to condemn as heretics those who
believed that true bread and wine remained on the altar.54 There was no need to
posit a miraculous conversion, since both the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul
called the element “bread” after it was blessed. Luther’s own explanation of what
happened at consecration was proposed in the form of a question: Why wasn’t
it possible for Christ’s body to be contained within the substance of the bread
under the accidents? Just as the two elements of fire and iron were joined but
remained as separate substances within glowing iron, could not Christ’s glorified
body be within every part of the substance of bread? Ultimately, however, Luther
did not think the precise definition of how Christ was present was necessary. It
was enough simply to believe Christ’s words, “this is my body”: not only was the
body in the bread but also the bread was Christ’s body. Luther thus advocated
the position condemned as remanence, but his way of describing Christ’s pres-
ence differed from that proposed by Wyclif, since the Wittenberger believed that
the incarnation, which joined Christ’s two natures in one person, was a possible
analogy for explaining Christ’s presence in the consecrated elements. Luther did
not insist that his view must be accepted, however. In fact, although he was crit-
ical of transubstantiation, he expressly stated that both views should be allowed,
so that those who had doubts about the substantial conversion of bread into
Christ’s body did not need to fear the charge of heresy.55
In the next section of the treatise, a discussion of baptism, Luther elaborated
on his understanding of a sacrament as God’s promise confirmed by a sign and
accepted by faith. Just as God had given the sign of the rainbow to Noah and
the fleece to Gideon to confirm his promises in the Old Testament, so God
gave signs to confirm his promise of forgiveness in the New Testament, and
the efficacy of those signs rested on faith in the word of promise. The sign that
confirmed God’s promise of forgiveness in baptism was immersion in water.
Luther also acknowledged the biblical imagery of baptism as the washing
61
away of sin, but he preferred the stronger parallel of baptism by immersion

with death and resurrection. Like Erasmus, Luther emphasized the signifi-
cance of baptism throughout the Christian’s life. But where Erasmus stressed
the Christian’s promise of obedience to God that would shape future con-
duct, Luther highlighted God’s promise of forgiveness in baptism that held
throughout the Christian’s life. Rather than relying on a separate sacrament of
penance for the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism, repentant sinners
were to remember and rely on the forgiveness promised to them at their bap-
tism, so that penance itself became subsumed under baptism. Faith was essen-
tial for baptism’s benefits to be grasped, but infants were aided by the faith
of the church, and particularly of the godparents who brought them to the
baptismal font. Through the prayers of believers, the infant was changed by an
infused faith.56
Luther’s discussion of the mass and of baptism entailed a rejection of the
medieval sacramental system and a complete reorientation of the sacraments.
His definition of a sacrament as God’s promise joined with an external sign and
appropriated by faith enabled a new way of understanding the scholastic defini-
tion, found in Peter Lombard’s Sentences and derived from Augustine, of a sacra-
ment as a sign of a sacred thing and as a visible sign of an invisible grace. Luther
also limited the evangelical sacraments to baptism and the Lord’s Supper—the
two rites he traced to Christ’s direct institution. Although Luther included pen-
ance among the sacraments at the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity, by the
end he no longer called it a sacrament because it lacked a visible sign, and he
rejected the sacramental status of confirmation, marriage, holy orders, and ex-
treme unction.57 Luther’s attack on the sacrifice of the mass destroyed the ra-
tionale for the celebration of private masses, and his challenge to substantial
conversion undermined, though it did not oppose, the veneration of the host and
other forms of Eucharistic devotion.
Luther wrote On the Babylonian Captivity in Latin for a learned audi-
ence, but it still went through six printings in 1520. Thomas Murner translated
it into German as a means of publicizing Luther’s heresies, but his translation,
which was printed five times in 1520, only helped to spread Luther’s ideas more
broadly.58 Over the next few years others would also reject the doctrine of tran-
substantiation, and Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper as Christ’s testa-
ment would be repeated in works by other reformers, multiplying its impact.59 At
the same time, the differences between Erasmus and Luther would be developed
in another area—that of hermeneutics and scriptural exegesis. This difference
was not as visible, but it was just as significant as their differing approach to the
sacraments.
62
Exegetical Divergence
A significant body of exegetical material appeared in print in the decade that
followed the publication of Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New Testament in
1516. These included annotations, paraphrases, and commentaries that provided
interpretations for passages of the New Testament foundational for the develop-
ment of evangelical sacramental theology. The earliest publications in this group
stemmed from Erasmus, but by the early 1520s these were joined by works written
in Wittenberg. The exegetical aids published through the mid-1520s further de-
veloped the understanding of the sacraments proposed by Erasmus and Luther,
supporting them with differing interpretations of the relevant biblical texts, al-
though those differences were not necessarily obvious or seen as contradictory.
Erasmus’s publications became an essential guide for the philological and
text-critical analysis of scripture. The Dutch humanist published a second edition
of the text of and annotations on the Greek New Testament in the spring of 1519,
and a third edition of both appeared three years later. Each of the new editions
incorporated not only the fruit of Erasmus’s continued patristic scholarship but
also his response to attacks by conservative Catholic opponents.60 Between the
end of 1517 and early 1521, Erasmus also produced paraphrases of each of the New
Testament epistles. These were followed between 1522 and 1524 by paraphrases of
all four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.61 The paraphrases were an imme-
diate success, with multiple editions published not only by Froben but also by
other printers throughout Germany, and with translations into German, French,
and English.
Just as important as these exegetical works was Erasmus’s 1518 Plan or
Method of Studying Theology, an expansion of one of the forewords to his 1516
Greek New Testament. The Plan or Method was a tremendously influential dis-
cussion of how to approach the interpretation of scripture. Like the Enchiridion,
the Plan or Method reflected an asymmetric dualism that subordinated the ex-
ternal, material world to a higher spiritual reality, which had implications for
Erasmus’s exegesis of the Bible. In the Enchiridion he had urged readers to go
beyond the literal meaning of a text to seek its deeper spiritual truths, especially
those concerning the Christian’s moral life.62 The Plan or Method showed the
same tendency to subordinate the literal to the spiritual and moral meaning of
the text. Although Erasmus acknowledged that the literal or historic sense of a
text was foundational, it was less important than the spiritual teaching derived
from it. Scripture was full of metaphorical language and imagery intended to
draw one away from the physical and material and toward these deeper spiritual
truths. Much in scripture that seemed absurd when taken literally could be made
acceptable when one understood the use of tropes or figures of speech. In the
63
Plan or Method, Erasmus cited several examples where both Christ and Paul
used parables and imagery in order to impress spiritual truths more deeply in
people’s hearts.63
At the same time that Erasmus was producing his gospel paraphrases, a
somewhat different approach to the exegesis of scripture was emanating from
Wittenberg. Luther played a central role in the development of Wittenberg
theology, but his colleagues in the theology faculty also contributed substan-
tially to it in both their teaching and their publications. After his return from
the Wartburg in March 1522, Luther worked with Philipp Melanchthon to pol
ish his translation of the New Testament into German and provide it with mar-
ginal glosses and introductions to individual books.64 That translation was an
immediate success when it was published in September of 1522. Between 1522
and 1524, Wittenberg theologians also published a series of commentaries on
the New Testament that in some ways functioned as an alternative to Erasmus’s
works. These included Melanchthon’s annotations on the Gospels according to
Matthew and John and on the Epistles to the Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians,
the second edition of Luther’s first commentary on Galatians (1523), Johannes
Bugenhagen’s commentary on the remaining Pauline epistles, and commentaries
on the Gospel according to Luke by the French Franciscan François Lambert,
who was teaching in Wittenberg at the time, and on the Acts of the Apostles by
Justus Jonas.65 The centrality of the Psalms for Christian worship and devotion
means that Bugenhagen’s 1524 Psalms commentary also could be added to this
group, as could Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, the first attempt to systematize
Wittenberg theology based on the epistle to the Romans.
The Wittenberg theologians gladly made use of Erasmus’s philological insights
and employed rhetoric and dialectic to understand the message of the Scripture
text, and for this reason they can be called humanists, but their humanism differed
from that of Erasmus, with its opposition to perceived abuses and concern for the
Christian moral life. Luther’s hermeneutical approach to scripture began from
a completely different set of epistemological presuppositions.66 The Wittenberg
reformer was shaped by a late medieval nominalism that understood the connec-
tion between God and nature not as one of necessity that limited God’s freedom
but, rather, as one of divine will. The created order rested on God’s pact or cov-
enant, instead of on any inherent structure of reality.67 Important, too, was the
influence of late medieval Augustinianism and German mysticism.68 Luther
was no epistemological skeptic, but his understanding of the depths of human
sinfulness caused him to limit severely the ability of humankind to know God.
Human beings could not simply move beyond and away from the physical world
and toward a higher spiritual reality; instead, God worked through material real
ity to reach downward toward humankind. God was revealed through Christ’s
64
incarnation and through God’s word and sacraments—all of them material, phys-
ical things. Through the external means of word and sacrament God conveyed
and performed his will, and without these externals one had no sure knowledge
of or access to God.69
Luther expressed his disagreement with Erasmus’s understanding of right-
eousness and original sin already in the fall of 1516.70 Although the Wittenberger
used Erasmus’s annotations to explain the meaning of words and phrases when
writing his Galatians commentary published in 1519, his interpretation of the text
stressed the opposition of law and gospel in a way quite different from Erasmus’s
paraphrase of the epistle.71 There were important theological disagreements be-
tween the two men, but there were differences of approach as well. As Christine
Christ-von Wedel put it: “For Erasmus, Paul the historical figure stands in the
foreground, and the bible humanist remains close to the text of the epistle; for
Luther, dogmatic issues are in the foreground that go far beyond the verse being
discussed and touch on his interpretation of the entire Bible.”72
The distinction between law, which convicted of sin, and gospel, which
proclaimed God’s promise of salvation through faith, was fundamental to
Luther’s biblical hermeneutics. So, too, was the theology of the cross, whereby
what was “weak and foolish” to the world actually revealed God’s power and
strength. Scripture as a whole and its individual parts all pointed to Christ.73 The
counterpart to Erasmus’s Plan or Method was Luther’s foreword to the epistle to
the Romans, printed with his translation of the New Testament in 1522. There,
Luther defined key terms found in the epistle, including the pairing of flesh and
spirit. Flesh was not just what was physical or outward but instead “the whole
person, with body, and soul, reason and all senses”—everything that longed for
the flesh. Similarly, the spirit was not restricted to what was internal or in the
heart. Flesh and spirit each involved both inward and outward things; what
differentiated them was whether they served this temporal life or the future
eternal one. Luther’s warning against those who taught a different understanding
of these terms was implicitly aimed at Erasmus.74 Melanchthon, too, valued
Erasmus’s philological work, but Melanchthon’s own approach to the biblical
text differed in important ways—most significantly by using loci, or “common
places,” as theological categories for organizing doctrine rather than as moral
categories for guiding conduct.75 Chief among those doctrines was justification
by faith, the lens through which all the Wittenbergers approached other topics,
including the sacraments.
The differences between Erasmus and the Wittenbergers can be seen by a
comparison of Erasmus’s paraphrases with Melanchthon’s annotations on three
lengthy passages that would be central for the later debate over the Lord’s Supper
and the sacraments more generally: St. Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper in
65
1 Corinthians 10–11, the institution account in Matthew 26, and Christ’s dis-
course on the eating of his flesh in John 6.76 The two men produced their works at
roughly the same time. Erasmus published his paraphrase on 1 and 2 Corinthians
in February 1519. The paraphrase on Matthew followed in March 1522 and on
John a year later. Melanchthon lectured on Matthew during the winter semester
of 1519–20 and on 1 and 2 Corinthians between May and October 1521, during
which time he published the first edition of his Loci Communes.77 Student notes
of those lectures, along with notes on Romans, were printed at Luther’s instiga-
tion and without Melanchthon’s consent in the fall of 1522. Over the course of that
year Melanchthon lectured on the Gospel according to John. His annotations on
both Matthew and John would be published in May 1523, a few months after pub-
lication of Erasmus’s paraphrase of John. None of these works were concerned
with philological or text-critical problems. Instead, as Luther said in his foreword
to Melanchthon’s annotations on Romans and the Corinthian epistles, they were
“an index for the reading of Scripture and the knowledge of Christ.”78
Three passages of St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians would be cited re-
peatedly in the later debate over the sacraments: 1 Corinthians 10:1–5, on the
baptism and spiritual feeding of the Israelites; 10:16–17, on partaking of the
bread and cup as the communion of Christ’s body and blood; and 11:17–29, on
Christ’s institution of the sacrament during his Last Supper with his disciples,
along with a discussion of unworthy reception. Erasmus’s paraphrase of these
passages reflected elements of the patristic and medieval exegetical tradition, but
more important, it highlighted their implications for moral conduct.79 He saw
the Israelites’ passage through the Red Sea described in 1 Corinthians 10:1–5 as
foreshadowing baptism, and he identified the spiritual food eaten by the Israelites
with the Eucharist. Those who had been cleansed through baptism also fed “on
the food of the most blessed body” and all drank “from the mystical cup.” He
emphasized that the punishment of the Israelites was a warning to Christians not
to rely on their baptism or to lead a life unworthy of it.80 His paraphrase of 10:16–
17 brought out the unity that should exist among Christians: drinking from the
cup demonstrated fellowship among believers, while distributing the “sacred
bread” demonstrated “a covenant and perfect partnership among ourselves as
initiates into the same mysteries of Christ.”81
In allusion to the Greek mysterion, the words mystic and mystery recurred in
Erasmus’s paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 11:17ff, as did the importance of Christian
unity. In this, Erasmus was strongly influenced by patristic and early medieval ter-
minology.82 He called the sacrament “the mystery of Christian unanimity” and
said that divisions among the Corinthians dishonored this “mystical feast.” To
Christ’s words, “take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you,” he added
the phrase, “and is to be shared by all.” This feast was composed of the “mystical
6
bread” and “a most holy cup” provided to “represent a hidden matter.” By coming
together to eat and drink, Christians mystically represented the death of Christ,
so that his memory would keep them faithful in their duty. Reflecting traditional
advice on how to prepare to receive communion, Erasmus stated that only those
whose consciences were clear should partake of the sacrament.83
In his paraphrase of Matthew 26:26–29, Erasmus emphasized Christ’s insti-
tution of this “most holy symbol of his death,” whose purpose was “to renew the
remembrance” of Christ’s love among his followers. This “hidden symbol” was
the meal comprising the two signs: eating from the same bread and drinking from
the same cup. The rite signified the new covenant established by Christ’s death,
which expiated for sin and did not need to be repeated. Instead, by frequent com-
munion, Christians remembered that death and showed that they were Christ’s
soldiers.84
Erasmus’s paraphrase of John 6 repeated the idea that was so central to Rule
Five of the Enchiridion: the need to move from external actions to inner piety.85
Christ’s discourse was presented as a rhetorically effective appeal to strive for
higher spiritual things, culminating in mystical union with Christ and other
Christians. Following the exegetical tradition, Erasmus associated this pas-
sage with the sacrament he called the Eucharist, although only in a general way.
He emphasized the distinction between perishable physical bread eaten by the
body and Christ as the eternal spiritual bread eaten by believing souls. Echoing
Augustine’s homilies on the chapter, he equated spiritual eating with faith. Christ
himself was portrayed as a patient, divine teacher superior to Moses whose words
attracted the spiritually minded. Downplaying the statement, “no one comes
to me unless the Father draws him” ( John 6:44), Erasmus emphasized that the
Father gave faith to all willing and eager people and drew all who “show them-
selves fit for this inspiration.”86 The “mystical eating and drinking” of Christ’s
body and blood united souls to Christ and made them all members of his body.
Christ told his hearers that he would leave them his flesh and blood “as a mystical
symbol” of this union, “although it will do no good to have received that unless
you receive it in spirit.”87
Melanchthon’s discussion of the sacraments in his annotations and his Loci
had a much different character. Although Melanchthon also drew from the exeget-
ical tradition, his discussion was equally shaped by Luther, and those annotations
written after Luther’s Babylonian Captivity reinforced and defended ideas prom-
inent in that work. Justification by faith was the central theme linking all his
discussions, and the sacraments were the signs by which Christians were assured
of God’s promise of forgiveness. In his annotations on Matthew 26, Melanchthon
stated that testament, covenant, and pact were all terms used for divine promises.
Faith began with God’s promises, but because humans were too weak to grasp
67
these without external, visible signs, God provided sacramental signs to reassure
them. Melanchthon described three sacramental signs, “washing, absolution, and
eating the Eucharist,” each corresponding to a specific promise of forgiveness in
scripture.88
By the time of his lectures on 1 Corinthians, Melanchthon no longer in-
cluded absolution among the sacramental signs, but the emphasis on justification
remained: 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 showed that the fathers in the Old Testament
were justified by faith in Christ in the same way Christians were. The Israelites’
passage through the Red Sea and their eating manna and drinking from the rock
were not only figures that foreshadowed the Christian sacraments but also signs
that strengthened faith. Baptism was the passing through death into life, while
spiritual manducation was faith. Melanchthon linked the spiritual food of this
passage to Christ’s discourse in John 6 to make the point that “spiritual manduca-
tion was to believe that in Christ’s flesh our sin has died.”89
Melanchthon said nothing about 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, but 1 Corinthians
11:17ff led him to discuss the two “sacramental signs” at more length. Baptism was
a sign of being put to death and being made alive; it was also a sign of absolution,
and so it was consolation for the repentant. The Eucharist was also a sign of vivifi-
cation, used for despairing consciences. It was received unworthily by those who
did not truly repent of their sins. In contrast to Erasmus, Melanchthon asserted
that those who thought themselves purified by confession and other external acts
also received it unworthily. True worthiness instead meant feeling the burden of
one’s sins and believing they were forgiven.90 The Eucharist itself was a sign of
God’s promise to be with his people and to remind them of his beneficent will
toward them. Christ’s body was the sacrifice for sin, and his blood cleansed one
from sin. At Christ’s command, Christians ate and drank in remembrance of this
victim and cleansing.91
Melanchthon repeated and elaborated on several of these ideas in his Loci
Communes. Like Luther, he stressed the similarity between the signs of the Old
and New Testaments: Abraham was given circumcision, Gideon the miraculous
fleece, and Hezekiah the retrograde shadow to seal and confirm God’s promises.
It was faith that justified the sinner, and not the signs themselves. The purpose of
signs was instead to confirm and strengthen faith, and Melanchthon called them
seals (sphragidas) or pledges (pignora) that God would fulfill his promises. It was
possible to be justified without such pledges, but they were given out of regard
for human weakness, so that Christians could know that God’s promises applied
to them in particular.92
Melanchthon recognized only two sacramental signs instituted by Christ: im-
mersion in water for baptism and participation in the Lord’s Table. The signs
were thus the procedures themselves and not physical objects, the ritual actions
68
rather than the elements of water, bread, and wine. Reflecting the contents of
the epistle to the Romans, Melanchthon devoted much more space to baptism
than he did to the mass. Although both John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism were
signs, they differed in that the former was a sign of repentance and of being put
to death, while Christ’s baptism signified forgiveness and a bringing back to life.
Melanchthon rejected the sacrifice of the mass and emphasized the consoling
power of communion whenever one doubted God’s favor, and especially at the
point of death.93
Melanchthon shared Luther’s rejection of John 6 as pertaining to the sacra-
ment, and so he made no mention of it in his discussion of the passage.94 He
began by contrasting justification of the law with justification by faith. The law
could not justify; Christians could stand before God only through faith, not
through their works. Melanchthon used Christ’s statement about the Father’s
drawing to argue against free will, but he emphasized the consolation derived
from predestination. Those with troubled consciences burdened by sin could be
assured that they were in God’s hand and that all who believed were saved. To eat
Christ was to believe in him, but this faith was neither intellectual assent nor a
general sense of trust. It was instead the belief that Christ crucified had made sat-
isfaction for our sins and that we could therefore stand before God’s judgment.
This, Melanchthon concluded, was the summary of the entire chapter: “to eat the
flesh of Christ is to believe in Christ crucified, to be put to death at the same time
and to trust that in that death he will live.”95
This lengthy comparison lays bare the differing theological presuppositions
and emphases that distinguished Erasmus from the Wittenbergers with regard
to the sacraments. Both urged a deep affective piety, but for Erasmus this was a
generalized devotion that shaped moral conduct, while for Melanchthon it in-
volved awareness of one’s sinfulness, justification by faith alone, and assurance of
forgiveness. Where Erasmus spoke of “mysteries,” Melanchthon preferred “sacra-
mental signs.” For Erasmus, baptism was only the beginning of the Christian life,
and as an external rite it could not be relied on for salvation; for Melanchthon,
baptism was a seal and pledge of resurrection. In comparison to the prominent
place of the Eucharist in Erasmus’s paraphrases, Melanchthon was reticent about
discussing the sacrament. Although both emphasized the centrality of the spir-
itual eating that was faith, Erasmus discussed communion as symbolizing hidden
realities and what is above human reason, while Melanchthon presented it as a
clear and concrete assurance that allayed doubts about one’s standing before God.
With the advantage of hindsight, it is perhaps too easy to spot the differences,
however, and so it is necessary to point out that readers in the first half of the
1520s were far more likely to see a common approach to the Scripture texts that
opposed the Catholic mass than any disagreements over interpretation. The
69
ambiguity and similarity of the terms sign, symbol, and seal obscured the impor-
tant difference between that which merely signified and that which gave assur-
ance. There was also no explicit recognition that the sacramental signs might be
actions rather than objects, or that there might be differences concerning what
precisely the elements of bread and wine might signify: fellowship with Christ
and other believers, God’s promise of forgiveness to the sinner, or Christ’s body
and blood.
These differences were not necessarily mutually exclusive, and to many
observers, especially those outside of Wittenberg, the concerns of the two exe-
getical approaches could be seen as overlapping or complementary rather than
opposing. Erasmus did not explicitly attack any elements of scholastic doc-
trine, but his paraphrases could be read as supporting the Wittenberg position.
His comments on Christ’s death as a sufficient sacrifice could be interpreted as
rejecting the sacrifice of the mass—something Melanchthon did more explicitly.
Both men saw participation in the ritual meal—what Erasmus called the Lord’s
Supper and Melanchthon termed “participation in the Lord’s Table”—as the es-
sence of the sacrament; for both, this eating and drinking was a symbol (Erasmus)
or a seal or pledge (Melanchthon) of Christ’s death, which had obtained for-
giveness. Both emphasized the importance of faith, even if they used the word
in quite different ways. Those sensitive to Erasmus’s language of covenant and
remembrance would find those terms in Melanchthon, although not so prom-
inently discussed. Although Erasmus did not use the metaphors of washing or
rebirth for baptism that the Wittenbergers emphasized, he did refer to baptism as
engrafting individuals into Christ and incorporating them into his household—
metaphors taken from other parts of scripture that demonstrate he did not con-
sider baptism as merely an external act.96
The multiple reprintings of these exegetical works made possible the broad
diffusion of these differing interpretations among Bible humanists. There were
nine imprints of Melanchthon’s commentary on Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians
in 1522 and 1523; the commentary was also published in German translation.97
The Loci Communes was even more popular: it was printed fifteen times before
the end of 1524, and there were four imprints of the German translation done
by Georg Spalatin.98 Froben printed three separate editions of Erasmus’s para-
phrase on John in 1523, and it was printed in Antwerp and Paris as well. Froben
produced a two-volume set of the complete New Testament paraphrases in 1523–
24.99 Finally, Melanchthon’s annotations on John were printed eleven times in
1523–24, in three different forms.100
Erasmus’s deepest influence, however, was on his personal circle of associates
in Basel and on the members of the humanist network that connected them to the
cities of Switzerland and southern Germany. These individuals were also the most
70
strongly influenced by the dissemination of an understanding of the Eucharist

condemned as heresy by the medieval church. Their underground discussions
prepared the way for the controversy that would break out in the fall of 1524.
The Dissemination of Medieval Heresy

Although the confessions of the Bohemian Brethren would be printed in the
early 1520s, print played only a minor role in the spread of positions clearly
stigmatized as heretical, such as the rejection of Christ’s bodily presence in the
Eucharist. Far more important were personal contacts and private discussions.
Because they left no printed record, these early discussions are difficult to
trace, but there is evidence of them scattered throughout correspondence
and in works that were later printed. Konrad Pellikan reported discussing the
question of Christ’s bodily presence with Wolfgang Capito as early as 1512.101
It is possible that Capito had seen a copy of Wyclif ’s Trialogus, which was
circulating in southern Germany during this time. After the outbreak of the
Eucharistic controversy, Melanchthon told a correspondent that he had seen
a copy of that work “long ago.” Melanchthon dismissed Wyclif ’s ideas as both
obscure and dated in their use of scholastic terminology,102 but at the end of
1524, Capito told Zwingli that he approved of Wyclif ’s arguments.103 The
Trialogus would be printed in the spring of 1525, probably at the incentive of
Otto Brunfels, a former Carthusian and schoolmaster in Strasbourg who was
one of Karlstadt’s early supporters.104
The circulation of letters and unpublished manuscripts also continued to be
an important means of exchanging ideas among the educated elite throughout
Europe. This long-established scholarly model of communication within man-
uscript culture remained strong in the early sixteenth century, well after the in-
vention of printing. The circulation of Latin manuscripts within a small circle
of interested readers was one way to promote discussion especially of sensitive,
controversial, and possibly dangerous topics without drawing undue attention
from hostile authorities. The difference between letters and manuscript treatises
was not necessarily very large. Letters might expand to become short tracts on a
specific topic, while lengthier manuscripts might be accompanied by a letter in
which the correspondent summarized the position laid out in the manuscript.
Similarly, written communication between scholars fell into a gray area between
private and public communication. Letters were not only read by their recipients
but also shared with friends and so could circulate fairly widely within a restricted
circle. Although they date from the period 1525–27, the best examples of this type
of vigorous underground discussion are the numerous letters and treatises by
Kaspar Schwenckfeld and Valentin Crautwald that circulated within Silesia and
71
were not published until several years, or in some cases decades, after they were
written.
Most letters were therefore not private in the modern sense, and the fact
that they could be printed in collections meant that their writers always had to
factor in the possibility that what they said could easily reach a much broader
public.105 The more famous the letter writer, the larger the number of people who
were likely to see the letter in manuscript, and the greater the likelihood that it
would be published without the writer’s authorization or knowledge. Publication
increased exponentially the number of readers. It also brought what had been
a restricted conversation within an audience known to the author to the atten-
tion of a broader and more heterogeneous public.106 A letter writer could ask
that his communication be kept confidential or even destroyed if the material
was sensitive, but his directives might be ignored, with potentially embarrassing
consequences. Johannes Eck’s critical annotations to Luther’s 95 theses circulated
in manuscript, but Karlstadt’s printed attack on Eck’s views brought an escalation
to the indulgence controversy that neither Eck nor Luther had wanted.107 When
Hartmut von Cronberg expanded an insult by adding the name of Duke George
of Saxony to the printed version of a letter from Luther, he provoked a diplomatic
incident.108
Letter writers therefore had an incentive not to discuss sensitive topics openly
or at length. Luther was particularly reticent in describing the teachings of evan-
gelical dissidents, referring to them only as “monstrous things.”109 Others were
more willing to discuss heretical ideas at length, however. The most influential
example of a Latin manuscript on a controversial topic was Cornelis Hoen’s
Christian Letter on the Lord’s Supper. Hoen was a Dutch jurist and member of
a humanist circle in The Hague that favored Erasmian reform and was attracted
to Luther’s teachings. Hoen himself came to the attention of the inquisition
in Brussels in 1522. After a lengthy trial that pitted the jurisdictional claims of
Charles V against those of the province of Holland, Hoen was forbidden to leave
The Hague, and he apparently died in that city during the winter of 1524–25.110
Hoen’s Christian Letter was a compilation of arguments against Christ’s
corporeal presence in the Eucharist. It reflected the influence of both Erasmus
and Luther, but even more important were arguments against Christ’s bodily
presence taken from medieval heresy extending from Berengar of Tours to the
Hussites.111 It is striking how many of Hoen’s arguments can be found in Wyclif ’s
Trialogus, the Latin treatises of Taborite theologians, or the confessions of the
Bohemian Brethren. The appearance of these arguments in a variety of Hussite
works suggests that they were fairly widespread, whether or not Hoen actually
read any of these specific texts. Hoen pointed out that the apostles broke bread
and called it “bread,” not Christ’s body.112 Even if Christ had brought his body
72
into the bread in his Last Supper with his disciples, there was no basis to argue
that mere priests had this power. Indeed, if the repetition of the words “this is my
body” had such power, it would be more logical to say that the priest brought
his own body, not that of Christ, into the bread.113 Transubstantiation was not
an article of faith as set forth in the Apostles’ Creed.114 Hoen’s assertion that
Christ’s words should be understood as “this signifies my body” was an adapta-
tion of Wyclif ’s argument that Christ’s words should be understood figurative
and tropice, and Hoen cited several of the verses used by Wyclif and his Hussite
followers to argue for a figurative understanding of the text.115 He cited Christ’s
warning not to believe those who claimed he was “here or there” (Matt. 24:23/
Mark 13:21) and that it was necessary for him to go away ( John 16:7), verses used
by the Taborites to argue that Christ’s body remained in heaven.116
Hoen also made a number of other arguments against Christ’s bodily pres-
ence that would be repeated by later sacramentarian authors. Most prominent
among them was his interpretation of Christ’s words, “this is my body,” as “this
signifies my body,” a position that Zwingli would later endorse. Hoen asserted
that there was no mention of Christ’s body becoming bread either in the New
Testament or in the prophecies of the Old Testament. Christ’s miracles were all
public, and he had never asked his followers to believe in a miracle that was con-
trary to sense experience.117 It was unworthy of God to be included in such a
humble dwelling as bread. When Christ said “this is my body,” he did not want
to be transubstantiated into the bread but, rather, to give himself with the bread.
To illustrate this giving, Hoen used the analogy of giving someone possession of
a house along with the keys, or a groom giving his bride a ring.118
Hoen’s letter circulated outside of Holland in manuscript through the first
half of the 1520s. The Dutch school rector Hinne Rode apparently carried a
copy with him as he traveled through Germany and Switzerland in order to fur-
ther the publication of several works by Wessel Gansfort.119 There were close
connections between printers in Zwolle, Wittenberg, and Basel, as attested
by the publication of Gansfort’s Farrago in 1522 in all three cities. The title of
the published version of Hoen’s letter suggested that Luther had rejected its
arguments four years earlier, and it is possible that Rode was in Wittenberg
sometime in 1521 or 1522.120
The bearer of Wessel’s writings was not the only foreign visitor to Wittenberg
in the months after Luther’s return from the Wartburg. The Bohemian Brethren
also sought to establish a common front against Rome, and two Brethren visited
Luther in May 1522.121 While there they discussed with him a list of “Picard” ar-
ticles sent by Paul Speratus, at that time the pastor of Iglau, in Moravia.122 Luther
told Speratus that the Brethren did not believe that the bread and wine only signi-
fied Christ’s body and blood; instead, they believed that the body and blood were
73
“truly and actually” Christ’s body and blood, although the latter were present in
another form than they were in heaven or “in the spirits.” This, Luther concluded,
was “not far from the truth,” but he would prefer that people did not spend
their time asking how or in what form the body and blood were present, since
Christ had said nothing about it.123 A few months later the Bohemians returned
to Wittenberg, this time bringing a copy of the Apologia Sacrae Scripturae, their
confession of faith published anonymously in 1511. Luther judged its teaching as
“generally sound, although it used obscure and barbaric phrasing rather than the
phrasing of Scripture.” He said nothing more about the Brethren’s understanding
of the Eucharist, but he criticized their practice of baptizing babies even though
they did not believe that infants had faith.124
Luther responded at greater length to the Bohemian Brethren in the first
part of 1523 with his pamphlet On the Adoration of the Sacrament. He was
prompted to do so not only by the arrival of yet another legation from Bohemia
but also by the request of Markgraf Georg von Brandenburg-Ansbach that
he say something about host veneration. Luther did indeed devote a portion
of the tract to a discussion of veneration, but he was more concerned with
refuting what he called errors concerning the sacrament. The first error he
refuted was Hoen’s claim that the bread and wine in the sacrament merely sig-
nified Christ’s body and blood. If one allowed Christ’s clear statement, “this
is my body,” to be interpreted as “this signifies” my body, then the certainty
of other scriptural assertions was also undermined. One could not cite verses
such as 1 Corinthians 10:4 (“the rock was Christ”) in support of a figurative in-
terpretation, for the context made it clear that St. Paul was referring to Christ
as the “spiritual rock,” not that “was” could be understood as “signified.”125
Luther also criticized those who interpreted “this is my body” to mean “this is
the participation or incorporation into my spiritual body.” Such an interpreta-
tion seemed attractive, but it rested on a misinterpretation of the communion
of bread and cup mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17. In those verses, Christ
spoke of the use of the sacrament, and not about what was instituted in the
sacrament—that is, his body and blood.126 Although Luther did not associate
names with these “errors,” his criticism of the term “signifies” suggests that he
had read Hoen’s letter, while his comments concerning 1 Corinthians 10:16–17
were directed at Erasmus’s understanding of that passage.
It is likely that Karlstadt read Hoen’s letter at about the same time Luther did.
Karlstadt’s later understanding of “this is my body” differed from that of Hoen,
but his 1524 Dialogue on the Misuse of the Most Worthy Sacrament would echo so
many of Hoen’s arguments that Karlstadt must have had a copy of the Christian
Letter when he wrote it. Karlstadt would also follow Erasmus’s paraphrase of 1
Corinthians 10:16–17. Luther made no mention of Karlstadt in On the Adoration
74
of the Sacrament, but it is at least conceivable that Luther wrote his pamphlet as
much for his Wittenberg colleague as for the Bohemians.
Rode’s travels in Switzerland are much better documented. He visited Basel in
January 1523, and it is possible that at that time he showed Oecolampadius a copy
of Hoen’s letter, or at least discussed its contents with him.127 Oecolampadius
would later write that he had begun to discuss the Eucharist privately with friends
before Karlstadt published his pamphlets in the fall of 1524.128 Those friends
may well have included Capito and Pellikan, for all three men were members
of the Erasmian inner circle in Basel from 1515.129 Again, there is no indication
that any of them questioned Christ’s substantial presence during the early years
of the Reformation. More important, however, they shared Erasmus’s criticism
of an exaggerated emphasis on externals, and Capito was strongly influenced
by Luther’s early writings on the mass.130 Oecolampadius’s 1521 Sermon on the
Sacrament of the Eucharist, his earliest discussion of the sacrament, had a strong
Erasmian orientation and betrays little awareness of Luther’s position as outlined
in the Babylonian Captivity. Its first section drew attention away from Christ’s
bodily presence to the centrality of faith, while its final section described incor-
poration into Christ’s mystical body.131 This orientation prepared him to go be-
yond Erasmus to break entirely with the scholastic emphasis on the sacrament’s
objective working.
The decisive impetus to Oecolampadius’s thought was his encounter
with the confessions of the Bohemian Brethren. In the spring of 1523,
Oecolampadius was living with the Basel printer Andreas Cratander while he
supervised the printing of his translation of several of Chrysostom’s sermons.
Cratander was at that time also printing a collection of texts that were loosely
connected to the Council of Basel. The title of this collection highlighted the
history of the council written by Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, later Pope Pius
II, but the volume contained several other works that indirectly criticized the
Roman church.132 These ranged from biographies of the chief actors in the
Investiture Controversy, Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV, through
a list of Wyclif ’s articles condemned at Constance along with refutations
written by his contemporary Franciscan opponent William Woodford, to a list
of theses drawn from the works of Johann Rucherat von Wesel condemned by
the inquisition. The volume also included three confessions by the Bohemian
Brethren: a 1503 Oratio excusatoria written to King Ladislaus, a confession
of faith sent to the king in 1507, and a response to the Moravian humanist
Augustin Käsenbrod written in 1508. It is likely that further conversations
concerning the sacrament took place among those involved with printing this
volume. Oecolampadius’s biographer Ernst Staehelin notes that after early
1523 Oecolampadius no longer spoke of Christ’s “real presence.”133
75
Zwingli, too, later referred to discussions with others concerning the sacra-
ment, particularly Hinne Rode and his traveling companion Georg Saganus, but
it is uncertain whether this discussion occurred already in 1523 or (more likely)
during Rode’s later visit to the Upper Rhine in the fall of 1524.134 Based on the as-
sumption that Hoen’s letter was essential to Zwingli’s rejection of Christ’s bodily
presence, Walther Köhler argued that Zwingli came to his new understanding
sometime between May and November 1524.135 In his earliest description of his
meeting with these men, however, Zwingli stated that he and Leo Jud already
held a figurative understanding of “this is my body,” and Hoen’s letter had simply
shown them in which word the trope could be found.136 Zwingli’s statement that
he had already rejected Christ’s corporeal presence before reading Hoen’s letter is
supported by the fact that his earliest contributions to the public debate show no
use of Hoen’s many arguments other than “this signifies my body.”137
We must therefore look elsewhere to understand the roots of Zwingli’s sac-
ramental theology. The two most important influences were Erasmus and
Augustine, and their impact can be seen in Zwingli’s evolving understanding of
the sacraments as signs.138 Zwingli owned the 1519 edition of Erasmus’s Greek
New Testament, as well as a separate printing of the Plan or Method, Erasmus’s
paraphrase of 1 and 2 Corinthians, and two copies of the Enchiridion, the earlier
version in a collection of Erasmus’s writings printed in 1515, the second a 1518
Froben imprint. Both copies of the Enchiridion contain marginalia in Zwingli’s
hand that testify to his careful reading of the text.139
The impact of the Enchiridion is apparent in Zwingli’s Explanation of the 67
Theses, a defense of the articles debated at the first Zurich disputation that was
published in the summer of 1523.140 Like Erasmus, the Zurich reformer pointed
out that in classical Latin, sacramentum meant an oath, and he criticized the
scholastic definition of a sacrament as “a sign of a sacred thing.” Zwingli noted
that Christ had not used the word and Germans did not understand what it
meant, since it was used not only for what Christ had instituted but also for those
practices instituted by humans. It would therefore be better simply to refer to the
individual ceremonies than to speak of “sacraments.”141
Zwingli’s discussion of the mass agreed broadly with Luther, but it was
filtered through an Erasmian lens. He referred to the sacrament as “the holy body
(fronlychnam) and blood of Christ,” which he distinguished from “the mass as
we practice it.”142 The Zurich reformer rejected the sacrifice of the mass, but he
did so using an argument that differed from Luther. The epistle to the Hebrews
said that Christ was sacrificed once for all, and so the mass could only be a re-
membrance, not a repetition or reenactment of that sacrifice.143 To support his
position, Zwingli included German versions of the institution accounts from the
Gospels and 1 Corinthians, highlighting the meaning of words and phrases.144
76
Zwingli acknowledged Luther’s understanding of the mass as Christ’s testament

or last will, but he also pointed out the meaning of testament as a covenant, pact,
or alliance.145 He endorsed Luther’s understanding of communion as a pledge
or assurance of forgiveness, but his own discussion was closer to Erasmus’s in
emphasizing the spiritual eating described in John 6 and the remembrance of
Christ’s sacrificial death.146
In the Short Christian Introduction written in November 1523, Zwingli again
contrasted the purpose of the mass, which was a sacrifice, with the eating of “the
holy body and blood of Christ,” which was food for the soul.147 In a proposal for
the Zurich city council concerning the mass and images written a few weeks later,
Zwingli differentiated the mass, which had no basis in scripture, from Christ’s
“holy body and blood,” which was founded on God’s word.148
Five months later, Zwingli’s language had changed. Throughout the spring
and early summer he preached on the Gospel according to John, and he there-
fore had an incentive for close study of Augustine’s homilies on that gospel.149
Their impact is evident in his terminology. Although he had earlier criticized
the definition of sacrament as “a sign of a sacred thing,” Zwingli now endorsed
this scholastic—and Augustinian—definition and used sacrament as a syn-
onym for sign. In a second proposal for the abolition of the mass submitted
to the council in May 1524, he spoke repeatedly not of “the holy body
(Fronlychnam) and blood of Christ” but, rather, of “the sacrament of the body
(Lychnam) and blood of Christ.”150 In other words, the elements were only
signs, not themselves Christ’s body and blood. At a time when other reformers
were beginning to reject the word mass in favor of “the Lord’s Supper” or used
the more traditional “sacrament of the altar,” Zwingli’s terminology was both
distinctive and deliberately ambiguous.151 The phrase “sacrament of Christ’s
body and blood” allowed him to conceal his rejection of Christ’s bodily pres-
ence from the general public.152 Franz Kolb, a preacher in Wertheim, was
in Zurich in May or June, and he apparently discussed the sacrament with
Zwingli and Jud.153 Kolb in turn would tell Luther at the end of August that
he agreed with the Zurichers that “this is my body” could not be understood
literally.154
By this time, though, Luther’s attention was focused elsewhere. Only a few
days before Kolb wrote his letter to Luther, the Wittenberg reformer had met
with his erstwhile colleague Andreas Karlstadt in Jena and given Karlstadt per-
mission to publish his views on the Lord’s Supper. The public debate was about
to begin.
7
Karlstadt’s Challenge to Luther

I, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, confess publicly, pro-
claim, and make known to everyone that because it is an abom-
inable error and for the sake of poor, deceived Christendom,
I can no longer conceal the fact that many Christians receive
the Lord’s bread and cup to their great harm. . . . I must also
speak out and criticize my own earlier writings on the sacra-
ment and tell the truth. I must go to it and confess God’s truth
and the high righteousness of Christ, whether it cost me life or
death.1
The opening paragraph of Karlstadt’s pamphlet On the Anti-Christian

Abuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup can be seen as the equivalent to Luther’s much
more famous (and probably apocryphal) statement at the Diet of Worms, “Here
I stand, I can do no other.” It signaled publicly and in print Karlstadt’s rejection
of belief in Christ’s corporeal presence in the consecrated bread and wine of the
sacrament he called the Lord’s Supper. Karlstadt was well aware of the danger he
faced in publicly rejecting Christ’s bodily presence in the Lord’s Supper, a posi-
tion condemned as heretical and therefore that entailed the very real possibility
of being burned at the stake. Nevertheless, in the fall of 1524 he published not
only the Anti-Christian Abuse but three additional pamphlets in which he argued
against Christ’s corporeal presence and presented his own understanding of the
purpose and value of the sacrament. Another pamphlet arguing against infant
baptism was suppressed but would be published anonymously in 1527.
Karlstadt’s pamphlets made clear his challenge to the authority of his
former Wittenberg colleagues, for in them he set forth his own exegesis of the
New Testament passages that were the basis for understanding the sacraments.
Karlstadt claimed the same right as Luther to explain the meaning of scripture,
but his exegetical choices often echoed those of Erasmus. His understanding of
the sacrament also reflected a more strongly dualist Renaissance Platonism and
the continued influence of the German mysticism that Luther gradually aban-
doned after his return from the Wartburg.
78
The pamphlets published in the fall of 1524 initiated a flurry of vernacular

publications defending Christ’s bodily presence. Karlstadt’s views were attacked
by Luther and several of his supporters, but a few pamphleteers defended
Karlstadt or were inspired by his example to publish their own tracts on the
Lord’s Supper. The debate begun by Karlstadt’s pamphlets prepared the way for
the better known publications of the Swiss reformers and introduced a number of
arguments that would become standard over the next few years.
Early Dissent Within Wittenberg

Karlstadt’s published attacks on Luther concerned the Lord’s Supper, but the
starting point for his disagreement with Luther was the sacrament of bap-
tism. Luther’s new definition of a sacrament as God’s word confirmed by a
sign and received by faith raised logical questions about infant baptism. Since
infants were incapable of reason, why should they be baptized? Could infants
have faith, and if so, how? In On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church,
Luther had addressed the issue of infant baptism only briefly, stating that
infants were supported by the faith of those who brought them to baptism.
Through the prayers of their godparents and the church, God infused faith in
these infants.2 Luther thus combined the older understanding of infant bap-
tism as based on the faith of others (fides aliena) with the infant’s own faith
(fides propria). Throughout the early 1520s Luther would develop his under-
standing of alien faith and an infant’s faith as he was challenged by others,
including Karlstadt.3
Karlstadt was an integral member of the Wittenberg reform movement in the
second decade of the sixteenth century, but his education and interests differed
from those of Luther in ways that would lead to serious disagreement in the early
1520s. Unlike Luther, who was trained in nominalism and exposed to humanism
in Erfurt, Karlstadt studied in Cologne, a stronghold of realist philosophy where
there was little interest in humanism, and he taught philosophy according to the
via antiqua in Wittenberg.4 As a secular priest, his career ambitions within the
All Saints foundation in Wittenberg led him to obtain a doctorate in canon and
civil law in addition to his doctorate in theology. Karlstadt did not undergo the
same monastic spiritual formation as had Luther, and his exposure to the mo-
nastic Augustinian tradition and to mystical theology came through his teacher
and later colleague on the Wittenberg theology faculty, Johann von Staupitz.
At the same time, he was more open than Luther to the currents of Renaissance
Platonism, whose asymmetric dualism made a sharper distinction between matter
and spirit, externals and internals, than the older Christianized Neoplatonism
that went back to Augustine.5
79
Karlstadt’s Challenge to Luther 79
Karlstadt became a champion of the Wittenberg approach to theology in

1516, when his reading of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works persuaded him to ac-
cept Luther’s developing theology of grace. During the crucial years leading up to
Luther’s appearance at the Diet of Worms, Karlstadt was one of the most prolific
pamphlet authors advocating this reform of theology, and he was closely linked
with Luther.6 Their association would change while Luther was in hiding at the
Wartburg, as Karlstadt gradually assumed leadership of the movement pressing
for evangelical reforms in Wittenberg.7 After Luther returned to Wittenberg, in-
fant baptism would become the catalyst for disagreement between the two men
concerning the sacraments more generally.
The earliest questions concerning infant baptism emerged not in Wittenberg
but in Zwickau, and they grew out of a fusion of late medieval religious currents
and new evangelical preaching.8 Direct connections between Hussite ideas and
developments in Zwickau in 1521 are difficult to prove, but the Waldensian/
Hussite heresy had certainly existed in the area in the fifteenth century, and the
city’s proximity to Bohemia and the mobility of weavers and mine workers across
political and linguistic borders made likely the circulation of heretical ideas,
even without the existence of heretical groups.9 Evangelical ideas were spread by
Thomas Müntzer, who obtained a temporary post in Zwickau in May of 1520 and
then was appointed preacher at the church of St. Katherine. There he came into
contact with a lay brotherhood comprised chiefly of weavers in which Nikolaus
Storch played a prominent role. Müntzer was expelled from Zwickau in April 1521,
but the brotherhood continued to function until December, when the Zwickau
city council arrested and interrogated several of its members. Questioning re-
vealed that some doubted whether the faith of godparents benefited infants at
baptism or whether baptism was even necessary for salvation. They also rejected
the value of prayers for the dead, questioned the authority of scripture, and
stressed direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit.10
Storch escaped arrest by leaving Zwickau, and at the end of December he
arrived in Wittenberg with Marcus Thomae, called Stübner, and an unnamed
third companion.11 Stübner had matriculated at Wittenberg in May of 1518,
and his closest ties among the Wittenberg professors were with Melanchthon,
who had held a disputation with him in the late spring of 1521.12 Although
Storch and his Zwickau comrade left Wittenberg within a few days, Stübner
remained in the city and, according to another student’s report, never left
Melanchthon’s side.13 Melanchthon was unsettled enough by these visitors
that he asked Elector Frederick to recall Luther to Wittenberg in order to
assess their claims.14 In a meeting with the elector’s advisers in early January,
Melanchthon summarized his concerns, which centered on the two issues
of infant baptism and divine revelation.15 Like the radical circle in Zwickau,
80
Stübner in particular questioned whether the faith of another could substitute

for the infant’s own faith, and he apparently increased Melanchthon’s own
questions about the practice.16 Melanchthon was not satisfied with Augustine’s
justification for infant baptism, which he characterized as an appeal to “old
custom,” and he looked to Luther to judge the credibility of the Zwickau
visitors and respond effectively to their arguments against infant baptism.17
Elector Frederick had little sympathy for Melanchthon’s uncertainty, however.
He acknowledged that he was a layman untrained in scripture, but he had no
reservations about infant baptism: since Augustine had endorsed the common
position and the church father was held in great esteem by the Wittenberg
theologians, there was no reason to depart from his understanding of infant
baptism. The elector’s decision effectively set the boundaries for theological
discussion in Wittenberg. Melanchthon agreed that there would be no public
questioning of infant baptism, although he acknowledged that other topics
such as predestination could still be discussed.18
Two weeks later Luther provided Melanchthon with a more theologically so-
phisticated response to the questions of authority and infant baptism. Although
the reformer did not reject the prophets’ claims to divine revelations outright, he
was exceedingly skeptical about them, and he advised Melanchthon to “test their
spirits” to see if they accorded with biblical examples of such revelation. With
regard to infant baptism, Luther suggested that babies might indeed have their
own faith. Moreover, there was no way to be sure that even adults had faith when
they were baptized. He therefore supported the baptism of babies on the basis
of others’ faith. In defense of fides aliena, Luther cited examples from scripture
where individuals had prayed for or acted on behalf of others.19
Melanchthon later asserted that Karlstadt embraced “the fanatic teaching of
the Anabaptists” when Storch began spreading it, and he had harsh words con-
cerning Karlstadt’s character and the legalism that arose from not properly un-
derstanding Christian freedom.20 Melanchthon’s vehement criticism of Karlstadt
reflected the bitterness left by later developments, but it may also be seen as an
effort to clear his own name in light of his earlier association with Stübner, who
continued to board with him throughout the spring of 1521. Another boarder
that spring was Martin Cellarius, whom Melanchthon had known since their
student days together in Tübingen. Cellarius had earned a bachelor’s degree in
theology under Johannes Eck at Ingolstadt, but he broke his ties with Eck and
moved to Wittenberg in 1521. Melanchthon helped Cellarius set up a private
school with Stübner as his assistant. Melanchthon’s close friend and biographer,
Joachim Camerarius, claimed that Cellarius became one of Stübner’s most ardent
defenders, and he associated both men with Karlstadt’s reform efforts: they were
apparently vocal in their demands for the reform of the liturgy and the removal of
81
images from churches.21 Sometime in the next few months they would be joined
by Gerhard Westerburg, member of a wealthy Cologne family who, according to
Luther’s later report to Spalatin, came to Wittenberg “out of desire for the truth”
and had fallen under the influence of the Zwickau prophets.22 Westerburg had
much in common with Karlstadt. Roughly the same age, he too had studied in
Cologne and then received his doctorate in both laws in Italy. He would marry a
sister of Karlstadt’s wife, Anna von Mochau, and would become one of Karlstadt’s
staunchest supporters.23 Both Cellarius and Westerburg would serve as links be-
tween Saxony and Switzerland in 1524.
By the end of January 1522, the divide between reformers and conservatives in
Wittenberg was becoming more obvious, and the elector was under political pres-
sure to forbid any religious innovations. These developments prompted Luther to
return to Wittenberg in early March, and he quickly asserted his control over the
reformatory movement. Karlstadt was prohibited from preaching and prevented
from publishing a pamphlet on the mass then in press.24 His ability to spread his
views to a broader public both in and outside of Wittenberg was thus sharply
restricted.
In the first part of April Luther also met privately with Stübner and Cellarius,
perhaps at Melanchthon’s urging. Although Luther had not been overly con-
cerned about the men he described as “prophets” in letters to Melanchthon
and Amsdorf in January, his attitude changed after this meeting. In a letter to
Spalatin, he described the “spirit” of these prophets as “proud and impatient,”
even pertinacious in refusing to accept admonition. Cellarius had begun to
rage when Luther asked them about miracles that would support their claim to
divine authority.25 Luther judged that the spirit moving these self-proclaimed
prophets was Satan, not God.26 He only felt confirmed in this judgment when
he met with Storch, Westerburg, and a third person in September to discuss
baptism. Ten years later, Luther recalled that Storch had mocked the idea that “a
handful of water” could save anyone, despite Luther’s argument that water could
effect salvation because it was joined with God’s word.27
In addition to settling the situation in Wittenberg, Luther was concerned
with the unrest that had spread outside of Wittenberg, and at the end of April he
made a preaching tour through eastern Saxony that included a stop in Zwickau.28
There he gave four sermons over the course of four days to the huge crowd that
came to the city to hear him.29 In the last of these Luther addressed the topics as-
sociated with the Zwickau brotherhood. He told the Zwickauers that predestina-
tion and prayers for the dead were not questions Christians should be concerned
with. Infant baptism was another matter. As justification for the practice, he
discussed Christ’s healing of the paralytic in response to the prayers of his friends,
which demonstrated the power of the same fides aliena that benefited baptized
82
infants. Baptism was necessary and not to be despised, as happened when those
who could be baptized did not receive this external sign.30
Luther’s new awareness of the situation in Zwickau sobered him, and in a letter
to Spalatin written on his journey home he blamed the situation on Müntzer,
who had “planted monstrous things” there, although he also criticized Johannes
Egranus, Zwickau’s other preacher.31 A few weeks later, Luther summarized for
Spalatin the arguments he was using to counter objections to infant baptism,
which he again associated with Müntzer. First, one could not assume that infants
did not have faith, since if faith required consciousness, then it did not exist when
we slept. Second, Luther distinguished between the baptism of John, which was
only a sign, and that of Christ, whereby the grace of the Holy Spirit was present
through the teaching of the gospel. Third, Christ had said of children, “of such is
the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14), but God’s kingdom belonged only to those
with faith; implicit was the conclusion that children had faith. Finally, Luther
compared baptism to circumcision, which was a sign of faith in Christ’s coming.
Luther endorsed the power of alien faith by emphasizing that the prayer and faith
of the church brought sanctification.32
The issues raised by the Zwickau prophets had caused debate among faculty
and students during Luther’s absence in the spring of 1522 as well, and they may
have laid the groundwork for the development of factions within the university.
Melanchthon and Karlstadt would disagree especially on the issues of images and
liturgical reform. Melanchthon justified the retention of existing rites in order
to spare the weak through a comparison to the apostles, who had accepted the
continuation of Jewish ceremonies for thirty years after Christ’s resurrection.33
In conversations with his students, Karlstadt rejected this argument. It was a false
interpretation of Paul’s words, “I could wish that I myself were accursed . . . for the
sake of my own people” (Rom. 9:3), to argue that it was better to spare the weak
than to obey God.34 A disputation concerning whether God was the cause of evil
held in February or March provoked lively discussion between Karlstadt and sev-
eral students afterwards.35 Purgatory, prayers for the dead, and the fate of souls
after death were also addressed in disputations.36 These topics had ramifications
for infant baptism, for rejection of that practice raised the issue of whether and
how unbaptized babies could be saved, a question that Karlstadt would address in
a sermon on purgatory in November 1522.37 In a letter to a former student written
perhaps at the end of May 1522, Luther listed predestination, the perseverance
of the saints, and infant baptism and fides aliena as questions first raised by the
“prophets from Zwickau,” and he stated that Karlstadt “had not resisted them
as strongly as he should, whether due to his kindness or to his good nature.”38
Luther’s criticism of his colleague was mild, but it suggests some friction within
the theology faculty and the potential for factionalism.
83
Further evidence of Luther’s attitude toward critics within the Wittenberg

movement can be found in his use of the term Schwärmer. The earliest known
appearance of the term was in a poem from Zwickau criticizing Thomas Müntzer
written in 1521, and it is possible that Luther heard it while visiting that city. He
first used the term in print in his German Response to Henry VIII, written in July
1522. In that work he condemned those “who boast of our name and introduce
shameful things, step forth and preach only something new, so that others will
speak about them.” Such people boasted about holding mass in the evening,
disregarding the command to fast beforehand, and in brief, “just as the papists
fall all too much to the left side, the devil leads these too far to the right side.”39
Luther spoke only in general, but his criticism suggests a continuing debate that
led the reformer to accuse some of legalism and spiritual arrogance.40
Luther did not yet see the Schwärmer as dangerous opponents, how-
ever. More important for his defense of infant baptism was his exchange with
Johannes Cochlaeus, who published On the Grace of the Sacraments at the end
of 1522. The treatise was aimed against Luther’s proposition that it was heret-
ical to claim that the sacraments of the new law gave grace to those who did not
place an obstacle to it, but Cochlaeus’s discussion centered on the grace given in
baptism.41 Luther responded with a satirical pamphlet Against the Armed Man
Cochlaeus, published in February 1523.42 The work emphasized justification by
faith alone, but Luther also defended his view that one could not be justified
by baptism without faith. Infants had faith through the power of the word by
which they were exorcised and through the faith of the church, which offered
and prayed for them at baptism. If this were not the case, it would be an “intoler-
able lie” to ask in the baptismal rite whether they believed.43 Only a few months
later Luther would publish his German translation of the baptism liturgy. In the
conclusion he justified the need for the rite to be performed in the vernacular by
saying that godparents and bystanders should understand what was said and done
and should earnestly join with the prayers of the priest. Their faith was far more
important than the external actions that had been added to the ceremony, such
as the priest’s blowing in the infant’s mouth, applying spittle to the ears and nose,
and anointing with the chrism.44
Luther’s defense of infant baptism in the spring of 1523 may well have
helped push Karlstadt to break with his Wittenberg colleagues.45 Most studies
have presented Karlstadt as being marginalized by the Wittenberg reformers
immediately after Luther’s return, but this marginalization developed only
gradually.46 Karlstadt’s contact with students was not limited in the summer
of 1522, and during the winter semester 1522–23 he lectured on Zachariah and
served as dean of the theology faculty. By the end of 1522, however, Karlstadt
was clearly at odds with other faculty members.47 In early January 1523,
84
Melanchthon expressed to Camerarius his fear that in taking revenge for a

private insult Karlstadt would cause new scandal harming the gospel.48 Over
the next few months Karlstadt’s disagreements with the theological currents
in Wittenberg became visible, first in his refusal to participate in further doc-
toral promotions, and then in two pamphlets strongly influenced by mys-
tical ideas.49 He also took legal steps to assume the post of parish pastor in
Orlamünde, a benefice whose income supported his position as archdeacon
in Wittenberg.50 Sometime during the summer of 1523 Karlstadt moved to the
Thuringian town, while Westerburg moved to Jena, located about fifteen miles
north of Orlamünde.
Karlstadt on Infant Baptism and Christ’s

Bodily Presence
Karlstadt’s divergence from the Wittenberg understanding of the sacraments
can be traced in his pamphlets written during this period and printed outside
of Wittenberg.51 Although in his Eucharistic pamphlets of 1521 he had endorsed
Luther’s understanding of a sacrament as God’s promise confirmed by a sign, by
1523 Karlstadt no longer wrote of signs and divine promises. Instead, he preferred
the Augustinian and Neoplatonic pairings of sign/signified, letter/spirit, and ex-
ternal/internal. His treatise On the Manifold, Singular Will of God, published
in early 1523, distinguished between external acts and God’s internal working.
External signs such as baptism or circumcision could not unite one with God
or make one righteous. They were, instead, signs of an inner righteousness, and
adults could not derive comfort from their baptism if they did not have a changed
life. This was a fundamental challenge to Luther’s view that the sacraments were
seals of God’s promise and gave assurance of forgiveness. Just as significantly,
Karlstadt asserted that the Spirit was not bound to externals, nor did the spiritual
person need to receive those externals.52
Karlstadt’s interpretation of scripture also differed from Luther, reflecting his
own reading of the text in the original languages and the close study of the exe-
getical works of others. According to Thomas Kaufmann, Karlstadt was among
the earliest to endorse Erasmus’s form of Bible humanism in Wittenberg, which
would ultimately contribute to his disagreements with Luther.53 Many of the
elements of Karlstadt’s exegetical practice can be seen already in his 1521 pam-
phlet, Instruction on this Statement, “The Kingdom of God Suffers Violence.” There
he first summarized the positions of Chrysostom, Jerome, and Bernard and then
gave his own interpretation, based on his study of the verse’s context and of other
passages of scripture, especially the Psalms.54 His pamphlet On the Priesthood
and Sacrifice of Christ, published at the turn of 1523–24, reveals the influence of
85
Erasmus’s paraphrase of the epistle to the Hebrews, as well as of Zwingli’s Defense

of the 67 Theses from the first Zurich disputation.55
Karlstadt’s theological and exegetical independence comes to the fore in his
Dialogue on Alien Faith, on the Faith of the Church, and the Baptism of Infants.
The pamphlet was published anonymously in Worms in 1527, but Alejandro
Zorzin has convincingly identified it as the dialogue on infant baptism that
Karlstadt sent to Basel in 1524.56 The pamphlet’s arguments reflect the discussion
of infant baptism in Wittenberg at this time, and especially the concern with
alien faith. The dialogue opened with Prosper revealing to Felix his doubts that
infants were saved by the faith of another, whether parents, godparents, or the
church. Fundamental for his argument was his frequent reference to “the knowl
edge of Christ,” which emphasized the cognitive aspect of faith.57 Prosper there-
fore asserted that no child should be baptized before it was old enough to “hear,
understand, and believe.”58 Children who died without their own faith were not
necessarily condemned, however, for no one could be damned before Christ was
preached to them, and 1 Peter [4:6] spoke of the gospel being preached even to
the dead.59
Prosper based his arguments against infant baptism on his understanding of
key Scripture texts, sometimes using Erasmus’s annotations against Luther’s posi-
tion. When Felix cited the repeated statement in scripture, “your faith has saved
you,” Prosper first argued that “your faith” meant individuals were saved by their
own faith, not by the faith of others, then he highlighted the ambiguity of the
original Greek: Luther himself had translated the phrase as “your faith has helped
you” or “made you well,” and so referred to physical health or temporal well-being
rather than eternal salvation.60 Prosper was also critical of what he regarded as
Luther’s inconsistency in citing Matthew 19:14 (“The kingdom of heaven belongs
to such as these.”) against Cochlaeus to justify the baptism of unreasoning
infants, but also to urge that children be sent to school where they could learn the
three sacred languages; the “little children” in the latter case could not be infants.
Moreover, the phrase “such as these” referred to the faith of children, not to the
children themselves.61 When Felix cited Matthew 11:25 (“Jesus said, ‘I praise you,
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from
the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.’ ”) to argue that God
gave faith even to infants, Prosper followed Erasmus’s annotation on that verse
to argue that the Greek word translated as “little children” was better translated
as “the foolish,” as a contrast to the “wise and learned.”62 Building on Erasmus’s
annotation that the word used as “infant” in Matthew 18:2 was better translated
as “young boy,” Prosper argued that when Christ said his followers should be-
come like little children, the child he used as an illustration must have been old
enough to hear Christ’s words. Like Erasmus, Prosper emphasized that Christ
86
was referring to the humility of a child, although he understood that humility not
as a moral quality, as Erasmus did, but as a mystical descent to the greatest depths
that had to precede ascent to the kingdom of God.63 Prosper also argued that the
apostles required a profession of faith from all they baptized and that they did
not baptize children.64 It would therefore be best to delay baptism until children
were old enough to use their reason.65
Karlstadt’s position might loosely be called “believer’s baptism,” but it was
a different understanding of baptism than that advocated by Thomas Müntzer.
Although Karlstadt opposed infant baptism, he did not condemn it as the cause
for the decay of the church, as Müntzer did in his 1524 Protest or Offering,66 nor
did he explicitly link baptism with suffering and Anfechtungen, like Müntzer’s
Allstedt colleague Simon Haferitz, in his Sermon for the Feast of the Three Kings,
also published in early 1524.67
Karlstadt’s position also differed from that adopted by the Zurich Anabaptists
in early 1525. The German mysticism that played an important role in the de-
velopment of early Wittenberg theology was foreign to the reform movement
as it was developing in Switzerland, and there was no discussion of alien faith
in Zurich. Karlstadt also did not discuss external baptism as a sign of entrance
into a purified congregation of committed believers but argued only for its post-
ponement until children were old enough to understand their faith. His linkage
of baptism with a cognitive understanding of faith meshed, however, with the
Erasmian understanding of baptism being taught in Zurich. In the preface to his
paraphrase of Matthew, the Dutch humanist had suggested that baptized chil-
dren should be instructed in their faith and then, when they reached the age of
puberty, examined concerning their knowledge before publicly renewing their
baptismal promise.68 For those who attributed no spiritual effect to the external
sacrament, it was a logical next step to suggest that baptism be delayed until after
children had received such religious instruction. In the early years of the Zurich
reformation, Zwingli apparently did just that, publicly advocating the postpone-
ment of baptism until children were old enough to be instructed in their faith.69
By the summer of 1523, though, he had backed away from this position and in-
stead, like Erasmus, advocated the religious instruction of those baptized as chil-
dren.70 The proto-Anabaptist circle in Zurich therefore had to look elsewhere for
support. This led them to make contact with both Karlstadt and Müntzer, with
the Zurich printer Andreas Castelburger serving as the intermediary.71 It is also
possible that Martin Cellarius contributed to these contacts, for he was in Zurich
by the end of 1524.72
In September or early October of that year, Karlstadt sent Gerhard Westerburg
to Zurich with eight pamphlets that he hoped would be published in Switzerland.
One of these was the dialogue on infant baptism, and five of them concerned the
87
Lord’s Supper and were written over the course of 1524. All but the dialogue on
infant baptism would be published in Basel by the end of October.73 Karlstadt’s
confidence in his ability to interpret scripture independently of Luther underlay
his discussion of the Lord’s Supper in these pamphlets.
As he had done in his dialogue on baptism, Karlstadt upheld his rejection of
Christ’s bodily presence on the basis of key scriptural passages concerning the sac-
rament. First and foremost was his novel understanding of “this is my body.” He
did not accept Hoen’s understanding of “is” as “signifies” but instead argued that
when Christ said, “this is my body given for you,” the antecedent to which “this”
referred was Christ’s physical body, not the bread. Karlstadt asserted that Christ
told his followers to take and eat the bread in remembrance of his passion and
death.74 His explanation of other Scripture passages was strongly influenced by
Erasmus’s annotations on and paraphrases of those texts. Like Erasmus, Karlstadt
stated that the koinonia of 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 referred to fellowship among
Christians rather than to the communication or participation of Christ’s actual
body. He also emphasized that the purpose of the Lord’s Supper was remem-
brance of Christ’s passion and death. With other passages, he took ideas found in
Erasmus to what he saw as their logical conclusion. For instance, the Greek words
translated as “to bless” did not mean “to consecrate,” for they occurred elsewhere
in the New Testament without regard to any conversion of the elements. Christ
spoke his words about the cup only after the disciples had drunk from it; if such
words had consecratory power, the wine must have turned into Christ’s blood
in the disciples’ stomachs. Perhaps more fundamentally, Karlstadt deepened
Erasmus’s flesh/spirit dualism. Where Erasmus had used John 6:63 to argue that
Christ scorned the physical eating of his body if it was not also eaten spiritu-
ally, Karlstadt saw physical and spiritual eating as polar opposites and argued on
the basis of John 6:63 that the physical eating of Christ’s body was of no use.
Erasmus’s paraphrase of Hebrews, with its striking contrast between the repeated
physical sacrifices of the Old Testament and the spiritual benefits of Christ’s one
sacrifice on the cross, was also reflected in Karlstadt’s rejection of the sacrifice of
the mass and his contrast between the Old and New Testaments.75
Karlstadt also based his rejection of Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament
on commonsense reasoning, and he used a number of arguments associated with
the Hussites, some of which were found in Hoen’s pamphlet.76 Karlstadt asserted,
for instance, that the prophets did not foretell nor did the apostles preach that
Christ’s body would be found in bread.77 He rejected the claim that Christ had
given priests the power to turn the bread into his body; at best, the words “this
is my body” meant they brought their own body, not that of Christ, into the
bread.78 Like Hoen, he asserted that Christ’s miracles were public and percep-
tible, and he cited some of the proof texts used by the Hussites to argue that
8
Christ’s body was no longer on earth, including three that would be taken up by
later authors: Matthew 24:23 (“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the
Messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.”), John 16:7 (“It is to your advan-
tage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you;
but if I go, I will send him to you.”), and Acts 1:11 (“This Jesus, who has been
taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go
into heaven.”).79 Where Hoen and the Hussites had used these arguments against
transubstantiation, Karlstadt now turned them against Luther and his followers.
On a deeper level, Karlstadt explained more fully his rejection of Luther’s
understanding of a sacrament as God’s promise joined with a sign. There was a
difference between words that promised something in the future and those that
simply affirmed, such as the phrase, “this is my body.” Faith in the promise, “which
is given for you,” did not have the power to bring Christ’s body into the bread, any
more than Abraham’s faith in God’s promise that Sarah would bear a son itself
gave birth to Isaac. Christ’s words merely meant that his body would be given for
his disciples and for many, so that they would remember his suffering. This suf-
fering, and not faith in a promise that had already been fulfilled, was what should
be preached.80 Reception of the bread and wine therefore did not forgive sins, nor
could it give assurance of forgiveness. Instead, the Lord’s Supper was instituted to
remember Christ’s body and blood given for the forgiveness of sins.81
Reflecting the deep influence of German mysticism, Karlstadt’s view of the
purpose and significance of the Lord’s Supper was both individual and strongly
affective. Rather than understanding faith as trust, Karlstadt emphasized the
“knowledge of Christ” (Erkenntnis Christi), but this was not just an intellectual
head knowledge. Instead, it was linked with the believer’s ardent desire and in-
ternal experience and the heartfelt remembrance of Christ’s passion and death.82
The Lord’s Supper also offered an opportunity for the profession of faith, but
Karlstadt said little about the outward and especially the communal value of the
Lord’s Supper; this would distinguish his view from that of the Swiss reformers
articulated over the course of 1525.
Karlstadt was an independent thinker whose understanding of the sacraments
developed in the context of the Wittenberg theology he had helped shape in the
opening years of the Reformation, and he saw himself first and foremost as an
expositor of scripture.83 His name is often linked with Müntzer in discussions
of Saxon radicalism, but his pamphlets on the sacraments show a fundamental
difference from Müntzer. Karlstadt believed that the Spirit enlightened one to
understand scripture, but scripture itself, studied in the original languages and
taking account of context, was the basis for determining how one understood
the sacraments. He was not an Erasmian Bible humanist in the same way that
many of the Swiss and southern German reformers were, but he did draw from
89
Erasmus’s philological and exegetical work, and on a number of key Scripture

passages he agreed with Erasmus rather than with Luther. As his idiosyncratic
exegesis of “this is my body” shows, however, he was confident in his ability to
propose his own understanding.
Karlstadt was also one of the first to challenge publicly Luther’s presumed
authority to explain scripture and draw consequences from it for the Christian
life. During their meeting at Jena in August, Karlstadt asked for a public dispu-
tation in which he could present and defend his teaching about the sacraments
against Luther. His request was denied, and after his expulsion from Saxony he
complained that he had been banished “unheard and undefeated.”84 In his short
pamphlet Against the Old and New Papistic Masses, he criticized Luther for
calling the Lord’s Supper a “mass” and retaining the elevation of the host, both
of which encouraged belief that the sacrament was a sacrifice, and he appealed to
his readers to judge between the two positions.85 He linked the Wittenbergers
even more explicitly to the papists in the subtitle of his Exegesis of Christ’s Words,
which referred to “the single-and two-fold papists, who use these words [sc. Luke
22:19–20] to the destruction of Christ’s cross.”86 His comment, in the introduc-
tion to his Dialogue on the Horrible and Idolatrous Misuse of the Most Worthy
Sacrament, that the common people ran after and danced to whatever tune they
heard from the “learned scribes” (Schrifftgelerten) was aimed as much or more at
the authority attributed to Luther and his Wittenberg colleagues as it was at that
of the scholastic theologians.87 Karlstadt attacked Luther’s presumed authority
most directly in Several Main Points of Christian Teaching, which he wrote in re-
sponse to Against the Heavenly Prophets.88 There he charged Luther with resorting
to defamation, slander, and sophistry because he could not refute Karlstadt’s in-
terpretation of scripture.89
Because Karlstadt’s dialogue on infant baptism was suppressed, only his re-
jection of Christ’s bodily presence would become widely known at the end of
1524. His prediction of the personal danger he would face if he made his posi-
tion public was abundantly fulfilled over the next several months. Exiled from
Saxony in September, he traveled to Basel to oversee the printing of the last of
his pamphlets, making visits as well to Zurich and Strasbourg, where he found
supporters for his views. He hoped to settle in Rothenburg ob der Tauber, but he
was ordered to leave that city at the end of January. He moved to the area around
Nördlingen and met with that city’s reformer, Theobald Billican, whom he failed
to win over to his view. Returning to Rothenburg, he lived in hiding until the
outbreak of the Peasants’ War in Franconia in April of 1525.90
Karlstadt fled Rothenburg after the defeat of the peasant armies, but as he
would later explain in a pamphlet concerning his involvement in the Peasants’
War, he and his wife were several times threatened by groups of peasants.91 He
90
was unable to find refuge either in his hometown of Karlstadt or in Frankfurt,

and he was reduced to asking Luther to intervene with the new elector on his
behalf so that he could return to Saxony. Luther sheltered Karlstadt until that
permission was granted,92 on the condition that Karlstadt refrain from any public
statements beyond publishing pamphlets dissociating himself from the rebellious
peasants and retracting his views on the Lord’s Supper. The latter treatise, How
Karlstadt Regards his Teaching, was less a retraction than an admission that his ex-
egesis might be faulty, and Karlstadt urged readers to examine scripture for them-
selves. He also described the opprobrium into which he had fallen on account of
his pamphlets: he had been judged as no longer a Christian, shunned, threatened,
and persecuted on account of his teaching concerning the sacrament.93 True to
his promise, he published nothing further in his own name and made no fur-
ther contribution to the public debate concerning the Lord’s Supper that he had
initiated until after his flight from Saxony in early 1529.
The Response to Karlstadt’s Pamphlets

This does not mean that Karlstadt’s impact on the debate was negligible. The
publication of his Eucharistic pamphlets in 1524 provoked responses from Luther
and his followers, and the number of participants in the debate increased over
the first half of 1525. Figure 4.1 shows how the public debate developed over the
course of 1525, revealing the response to Karlstadt’s publications and highlighting
the most important contributions.
Wolfgang Capito wrote his brief tract, What One Should Think . . . About the
Disagreement Between Martin Luther and Andreas Karlstadt, almost immediately
after learning of Karlstadt’s break with Luther. His plea for unity on the basis of
common faith in Christ, which downplayed the importance of the Lord’s Supper,
was reprinted three times but had no discernable impact on the controversy.94
Likewise, Billican’s condemnation of what he called “Karlstadt’s blasphemy” did
not become widely known because it was embedded within his Renovation of the
Nördlingen Church, a Latin defense of the liturgical reforms introduced in that
city.95 Urbanus Rhegius’s Warning Against the New Error of Dr. Andreas Karlstadt
had a greater impact, both in its condemnation of Karlstadt’s position and in its
dissemination in four separate imprints.96 By far the most important author to
respond to Karlstadt, however, was Martin Luther. His Letter Against the Fanatic
Spirits, written immediately upon receiving copies of Karlstadt’s pamphlets from
the Strasbourg pastors, was printed eight times.97 The first part of his full response
to Karlstadt, Against the Heavenly Prophets, was printed a dozen times, and the
second part of that work was published in ten imprints.98
91
L = published in Latin; G = published in German; (?) = publication date is estimate
Capito, 5 pamphlets G
Disagreement G
Luther, Letter G
Rhegius, Warning G
Bucer, Basis G Luther, Prophets G
Billican Renovation L
Wyclif, Trialogus L Ickelshamer Complaint G 1 Cor. 10 G Alber, L&G
Hubmaier, Instruction G Commentary, L&G
Testament G Action,G
Keller, Sermons G
Hubmaier, Summary G Amsdorf, Answer G
Hoen, Letter L&G Bugenhagen, Error L Subsidium, L
Oecolampadius, Cyclops, Supper G Teaching G Bugenhagen, Error G
Exposition L
*Capito, Rejoicing G Bugenhagen, L
Ryss, Answer G Amsdorf, Reply G Subsidium, G

Turnauer, Words (?) G
Oecolampadius, Cyclops, Answer (?) G Bugenhagen, G
Exposition G
* = preface to Strasbourg edition of Karlstadt’s Teaching

. Published Contributions to the Controversy, 1524–1525
92
As Johannes Oecolampadius reported to Guillaume Farel, Luther “discussed

nothing against us” in Part I of Against the Heavenly Prophets.99 The treatise,
published at the end of 1524, was concerned chiefly with the relationship between
the law and Christian freedom, particularly as it related to the use of images, the
term “mass,” and the elevation of the host at consecration. Oecolampadius’s re-
lief was short-lived, however, for Part II, published in early 1525, was concerned
almost entirely with Karlstadt’s arguments against Christ’s bodily presence, es-
pecially as they were expressed in his Dialogue.100 Luther’s goal was not simply
to counter Karlstadt’s exegesis and his rational arguments but also to undermine
Karlstadt’s authority by attacking his motives and his character. For this purpose,
the polemical aspect of the treatise was as important as its theological content.
Fundamental to Luther’s position was his understanding that God worked
inwardly through the external means of word and sacraments. Karlstadt reversed
this order by saying that the Spirit came first and by turning the Lord’s Supper
into a mere remembrance and so a human work.101 Luther addressed a host of
arguments Karlstadt had made against Christ’s substantial presence, starting
with the claim that when Christ said, “this is my body,” the demonstrative pro-
noun this referred to Christ’s actual body, and not to the bread. Luther destroyed
Karlstadt’s credibility as an exegete of scripture through his harsh mockery of
Karlstadt’s exegesis. It was contrived and foolish, and Christ’s words should be
taken as they stood. “This is my body” could not be separated from the preceding
and subsequent commands to “take and eat” and “do in remembrance of me.” The
Lord’s Supper thus involved the eating of Christ’s body and was not simply a meal
of remembrance.102
Luther cited several other Scripture verses to uphold Christ’s substantial
presence. Although their wording differed, the institution accounts all agreed
in saying that the cup contained Christ’s blood. The koinonia described in 1
Corinthians 10:16 should be understood as the communication or breaking
and distributing of Christ’s body, not as fellowship among believers. Paul’s dis-
cussion of unworthy eating and not discerning Christ’s body (1 Cor. 11:27–29)
was explained as not acknowledging that one ate Christ’s physical body in the
bread.103 The phrase “my body, which is broken for you” in 1 Corinthians 11:24
meant that Christ’s body was distributed to believers when the bread was broken
and distributed.104 It was faulty logic to state that “the flesh is of no avail” ( John
6:63), and therefore Christ’s body could not be in the sacrament. Christ was
speaking here not of his own flesh but of “the flesh” more generally, which
throughout the New Testament was used for the carnal nature, as opposed to
“the spirit.”105
Luther also attacked what he saw as Karlstadt’s sophistry and rationalism.
Decrying reliance on “Frau Hulda, Dr. Karlstadt’s shrewd reason,” Luther
93
argued that the simple literal meaning of the Scripture text should be preferred,
even if the result seemed counter to reason. One must let God’s word remain
true, even if one did not understand how that could be possible.106 Luther took
up several other arguments that he attributed to “clever reason.” It was wrong
to attribute the abuses of popular Eucharistic piety to papal teaching about the
sacrament; one had to distinguish between doctrine and custom. Luther did
not teach that the form of bread was to be worshiped but, rather, that Christ’s
body and blood were to be honored in the bread in order to show that it was
not mere bread.107 Luther rejected the accusation that he taught that the sacra-
ment forgave sins. Christ obtained forgiveness through his death on the cross,
but that forgiveness was distributed through the word and the sacraments. The
Lord’s Supper thus offered comfort and assurance of forgiveness to those who
partook of it.108
Luther also addressed the question of how Christ was present in the bread
and wine. Karlstadt had objected to the Aristotelian notion that the substance
of Christ’s body was in or under the form of bread. In the Babylonian Captivity,
Luther had rejected this terminology as well, and he had used a Christological
analogy to explain Christ’s presence: just as Christ’s divine and human natures
were both present in their entirety within the person of Christ, so both bread
and body were present in the sacrament, and there was no need to ask further.109
In Against the Heavenly Prophets Luther developed both ideas. Rather than
using metaphysical categories to explain how Christ was present, though, Luther
suggested a rhetorical term: “this is my body” should be understood as synec-
doche, the use of a part to explain the whole. He also repeated the analogy of
glowing iron, which combined the natures of both fire and metal, to illustrate
how bread could be Christ’s body.110 Luther’s rather tentative discussion of how
to explain Christ’s presence thus employed two approaches—rhetorical and
Christological—that would become more significant over time.
Karlstadt’s pamphlets, and Luther’s response to them, were of fundamental
importance for the development of the Eucharistic controversy. Luther’s
arguments and his polemic would be taken up by others, and they caused those
who rejected Christ’s corporeal presence to distance themselves from Luther’s
erstwhile colleague, even as they adopted many of Karlstadt’s other arguments.
Karlstadt’s goal was essentially negative—to discredit belief in Christ’s bodily
presence in the bread and wine—and he had no interest in discussing any
other way Christ might be present.111 As a consequence, subsequent discus-
sion of the sacrament focused on whether or not Christ’s body was present in
the elements. Karlstadt also disagreed fundamentally with Luther regarding
the purpose and benefit of the Lord’s Supper. The sacrament was not a pledge
or assurance of forgiveness; instead, it was the individual’s remembrance and
94
proclamation of Christ’s death.112 This Erasmian understanding would be

elaborated by the Swiss and Strasbourg reformers as the controversy devel-
oped, but they would also emphasize the importance of the Lord’s Supper for
establishing a congregation’s public and collective identity as Christians. What
became most apparent from the exchange between Karlstadt and Luther was
their disagreement concerning the relationship between external, visible, and
physical matter and internal, invisible, and spiritual reality. The exchange also
presented two alternative explanations of a group of key Scripture passages
concerning the Lord’s Supper. On both of these issues, Karlstadt agreed with
Erasmus rather than with Luther. Luther may have discredited Karlstadt as
an exegete, but educated readers would have recognized Erasmus’s influence
on Karlstadt’s interpretation of scripture. The question they faced, then, was
whether they would adopt a position associated with Wittenberg or with
Erasmus, and efforts either to synthesize these two approaches or to offer a
third alternative were rejected in the early years of the controversy.
Luther might have hoped that Karlstadt’s ideas would be drowned in the
printed deluge of refutations, but if he did, his expectations were disappointed.
Karlstadt wrote two angry pamphlets in response to Against the Heavenly
Prophets—his Explanation of 1 Cor. 10 and On the New and Old Testament—
and threatened to write more.113 One of his followers in Rothenburg, Valentin
Ickelshamer, also published a Complaint . . . Concerning the Injustice and Tyranny
that is Done to Karlstadt by Luther.114 Ickelshamer did not address the issue of
Christ’s bodily presence in the elements, an indication that to do so in print was
dangerous, but instead castigated Luther for condemning Karlstadt without
giving his views a fair hearing.115 In the summer of 1525, the Augsburg preacher
Michael Keller published Several Sermons on the Lord’s Supper based on what he
had preached at Easter time. He, too, chose not to reject Christ’s bodily presence
in print but emphasized instead the Erasmian idea of the fellowship established
among Christians during communion.116
Strasbourg would prove to be particularly important for offering muted sup-
port for Karlstadt. Martin Bucer published a defense of the liturgical innovations
introduced to the city’s church at the turn of 1524–25, Basis and Reasons from
Divine Scripture for the Innovations Concerning the Supper. As Capito had done
at the very beginning of the controversy, Bucer presented the question of Christ’s
presence in the elements as a conflict over externals and emphasized the spiritual
eating of Christ in faith. Although Bucer did not go so far as Karlstadt to re-
ject explicitly Christ’s bodily presence, his discussion of the Lord’s Supper as a
remembrance bore more similarities to Erasmus and Karlstadt than to Luther.117
The Strasbourg imprint of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching published at the
end of October 1525 included an introduction that asserted that quarrels about
95
Christ’s bodily presence were fruitless, but that also pointed out that scripture did
not allow anyone to conclude that Christ was present bodily. This introduction
would be printed the following year as an independent pamphlet, The Rejoicing of
a Christian Brother Because of the Agreement Between Martin Luther and Andreas
Karlstadt.118
One further exchange in 1525 illustrates the spread of the controversy into
northern Germany. In late summer, Nicolaus von Amsdorf published an
Admonition to the Magdeburgers Against the Sectarian Spirit Dr. Cyclops. In this
short pamphlet, Amsdorf accused the physician Wolfgang Cyclops of publicly
preaching that the sacrament contained only simple bread and wine. According
to Amsdorf, Cyclops claimed that “is” should be understood as “signifies” and
argued that Christians should believe only what is grounded in the Old Testament.
In response, Amsdorf stressed the literal understanding of “this is my body.” He
saw the devil behind Cyclops’s teaching, which appealed to the common people
because it was so easy to believe.119
Cyclops answered with a pamphlet On the Most Venerable Supper of Jesus
Christ. Rather than describing his understanding of the sacrament, however,
Cyclops defended the right of laypeople to give a public defense of their faith, and
he criticized the preachers for their refusal to accept reproof. Refuting Amsdorf ’s
charge that he had taught secretly and blasphemed the sacrament, he defended
his own character as a good citizen of Magdeburg. He said little about the Lord’s
Supper itself, other than calling it “a true and reliable seal and symbol of vivifying
faith and of active love” that recalled and proclaimed Christ’s passion until his
return.120
In his Reply to Cyclops’s Answer, Amsdorf pointed out this evasion, and he
stated that he had criticized only Cyclops’s teaching, not his conduct or reputa-
tion.121 Cyclops would publish his own Answer to Amsdorf ’s Reply in early 1526,
in which he angrily attacked Amsdorf as a liar, a hypocrite, and a sophist. To
clear his name, Cyclops explained his understanding of the words instituting the
Lord’s Supper: “I do not want to accept and have not accepted the words ‘is’ or
‘this’ in any other sense or understanding than that which lucid and clear, irref-
utable statement of true holy scripture press and compel me to accept and to
hold steadfastly.”122 Cyclops’s phrasing shows that he was aware of the varying
interpretations of Christ’s words, but its ambiguity leaves open the question of
which interpretation he endorsed.
Cyclops’s reluctance to deny the substantial presence of Christ’s body and
blood in print is typical of most sacramentarian pamphlets published in 1525.
Ulrich Zwingli and Balthasar Hubmaier would be the only individuals to follow
Karlstadt in rejecting that presence in print throughout the first half of 1525.
They would be joined by Johannes Oecolampadius in the summer of 1525, and by
96
Conrad Ryss and Kaspar Turnauer at the end of the year. Their pamphlets will be
discussed in the following chapter.
One final feature of the campaign against Karlstadt also needs to be
mentioned: the publication of pamphlets by Luther on the Lord’s Supper that
did not directly concern the question of Christ’s bodily presence. In November
1524, Luther had preached against the private masses still being said by the canons
of the All Saints foundation, and he repeated the essence of that sermon in The
Abomination of the Secret Mass, which was published in early 1525 and reprinted
nine more times over the course of the year.123 There was also an unauthorized
publication in Augsburg of the sermon on which the treatise was based; this
pamphlet was reprinted six times.124 The frequent reprinting of these two works
demonstrates that the evangelical campaign against private masses was still a hot
topic at the time the Eucharistic controversy began.
Somewhat more relevant to the debate over the Lord’s Supper were reprints,
especially in the region most strongly influenced by Wittenberg, of older
sermons and treatises in which Luther had presented his understanding of the
sacrament. His 1519 Sermon on the Venerable Sacrament and on Brotherhoods was
printed in Zwickau, while his Maundy Thursday sermon from 1522 was printed
in Magdeburg.125 The Wittenberg printer Melchior Lotter reprinted Luther’s
1523 treatise On the Adoration of the Sacrament, and he reprinted Luther’s 1523
sermon on communion preparation along with two other sermons that had been
preached at Eastertime that year; the communion sermon would be reprinted
twice in Erfurt.126 Luther’s 1524 Sermon on Confession and the Sacrament was not
only reprinted four times in 1525 but was also included in a 1525 imprint of the
Little Prayer Book, as well as in Luther’s Lenten postil.127 As part of these two
frequently reprinted works, this sermon would be tremendously influential in
disseminating Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper as the reformer had
formulated it before the outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy. More ambig-
uous in its message was Luther’s 1523 Sermon on John 6, which was reprinted in
Augsburg.128 This sermon would be cited by several sacramentarian authors to
argue that Luther agreed with them in their understanding of this crucial pas-
sage.. Bugenhagen’s other discussions of the Lord’s Supper would also circulate
broadly. A short pamphlet from 1524 that combined his pastoral advice On
the Evangelical Mass with a portion of Kaspar Kantz’s vernacular liturgy was
reprinted twice in 1525.129
Karlstadt’s bold proclamation of what he saw as “God’s truth” con-
cerning the sacrament caused division within the evangelical movement. His
pamphlets provoked an immediate and unequivocal rebuttal from Luther
and his supporters. The overwhelming impact of these German publications
was to reinforce Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper as an external
97
sign linked with God’s promise of forgiveness that gave assurance and com-
fort to communicants. The frequent reprinting of Against the Heavenly
Prophets meant that readers were far more likely to encounter Karlstadt’s ideas
through Luther’s refutation of them than through reading any of Karlstadt’s
pamphlets directly. Few authors were willing to defend Karlstadt, even if they
sympathized with his arguments.
This does not mean that they did not discuss those ideas, but throughout
1525 much of the debate concerning Christ’s bodily presence was in Latin and
carried out through private discussion and correspondence rather than in print.
As the next chapter will demonstrate, its locus was among those most strongly
influenced by Erasmus in Switzerland and South Germany.
98
The Early Debate in Switzerland

I may not be silent concerning Carlstadt, who seasonably or
unseasonably dragged the matter suddenly before the atten-
tion of the public. . . . I see that the truth is told in this pam-
phlet but in such a way that it offends rather than edifies. . . .
I approve the view of Carlstadt, if I rightly understand his
pamphlet, but his language itself does not attain what the
subject demands. . . . What one ought to hold in regard to the
matter itself, decide after you have read what I have to say. For
I offer it for comparison—not as authoritative.1
Ulrich Zwingli entered the debate over the Lord’s Supper in

November of 1524 with a letter to a fellow reformer defending Karlstadt’s
chief argument, although not his manner of argumentation. It is no wonder
that at the beginning of the controversy the Zurich reformer was seen as a
follower of Karlstadt rather than as an independent contributor to the
controversy.
There were, however, important differences between Karlstadt’s cam-
paign against Christ’s bodily presence and that of the Swiss reformers. When
Karlstadt opened his attack on Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper,
he wrote in German for a broad audience, and those who responded to him
did so in the same language. The Swiss reformers took another tack when
they entered the public debate, writing in Latin for an educated elite whose
members were spread throughout Europe. This Latin debate occurred almost
entirely through the private exchange of letters and manuscript treatises.
Only a few of these treatises—all but one of them by sacramentarian
authors—would be published over the course of 1525. Those pamphlets that
were published, however, were all quickly translated into German, thereby
considerably expanding the audience for the debate, and they would provoke
the publication of several responses by pro-Wittenberg authors at the begin-
ning of 1526.
9
The Early Debate in Switzerland 99
Zwingli and Oecolampadius

Ulrich Zwingli’s first discussion of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper took the
form of a Latin letter to the Reutlingen pastor Matthaeus Alber that circulated
in manuscript. The letter was intended to distance the Zurich reformer from
Karlstadt’s polemical pamphlets, which Zwingli claimed he had not read, while
still upholding Karlstadt’s fundamental rejection of Christ’s corporeal pres-
ence. Zwingli’s exegetical argument was based on a lengthy paraphrase of John
6.2 Rejecting both the traditional interpretation that applied Christ’s discourse
about eating his flesh to the sacrament and Luther’s assertion that John 6 had
nothing to do with the sacrament, Zwingli argued that the crux of the passage
was John 6:63: “it is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless.” To eat Christ’s
flesh was simply to have faith, and there was therefore no need to eat his body
physically. Indeed, spiritual eating excluded physical eating, and to say that one
could be saved through bodily eating would be to postulate two paths to salva-
tion. “The flesh is useless” meant that Christ’s substantial body was not eaten in
the sacrament.3
This raised the question of how to understand Christ’s words, “this is my
body.” Zwingli rejected Karlstadt’s claim that the pronoun this referred to Christ’s
actual body rather than to the bread, and he proposed instead that is should be
understood as “signifies,” based on parallels with the interpretation of pharaoh’s
dream in Genesis 41:26 and the parable of the sower, where Christ stated, “the
seed is the word of God,” (Luke 8:11), as well as Christ’s statement, “I am the
vine” ( John 15:1).4 Christ instituted the sacrament so that Christians would re-
member his death for them; it was a sign by which Christians demonstrated their
faith in Christ to each other.5 Zwingli then turned to 1 Corinthians 10:16–17,
interpreting Paul’s words concerning the communion of Christ’s body and blood
as the fellowship established among believers.6
Zwingli’s letter was more than just an exegesis of scripture; it was a rhetorically
crafted treatise aimed at fellow humanists who appreciated style as much as con-
tent. The Zurich reformer began his letter by criticizing Karlstadt not so much
for the content of his pamphlets as for the harshness of his language.7 To set him-
self apart from Karlstadt, Zwingli used his most polished Latin, mixing classical
with biblical phrasing and using Erasmus’s Adages to illustrate his arguments.8
He cited Tertullian, Augustine, and Origen in support of his position,9 and even
Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus when the purpose suited, although he
also criticized the latter’s exegesis of scripture.10 At various points in the letter he
prayed for divine enlightenment, asked the reader to be patient and to withhold
judgment until he had read through the entire work, or gave other indications
that he knew his position would meet with strong criticism.11 He could also
10
assert, however, that no one had ever truly believed that one ate Christ’s sub-
stantial body and blood in the elements, and that those who taught this position
were hypocrites.12 Zwingli was well aware that it was dangerous to reject Christ’s
bodily presence, and he strictly charged Alber to share the letter only with those
who had “sincere faith in our same Lord.” He promised that he would print the
letter when “the situation demands.”13
It is unclear whether Zwingli actually sent the letter to Alber when he wrote
it in mid-November of 1524. He did send a copy to Strasbourg’s pastors a month
later, though, repeating the warning against sharing the letter.14 He would later
claim that the letter had been seen by over 500 people,15 and news of its contents
must have spread through the network of Swiss humanists, for the Winterthur
pastor Heinrich Lucius told Joachim Vadian that several people had asked him
for copies of it. When Lucius sent the Alber letter to Vadian in mid-January, he re-
peated Zwingli’s caution about sharing it only with those who were trustworthy.16
By March, however, Zwingli had decided to make his understanding of the
Lord’s Supper public. He did so not only by publishing the Letter to Alber but
also by including an attack on Christ’s corporeal presence in his Commentary on
True and False Religion, dedicated to the king of France. The fear that someone
might publish an unauthorized version of the Alber letter was certainly a factor
underlying Zwingli’s decision to address the topic in the Commentary; so too
was the fact many outside of Zurich were now aware that he rejected the tradi-
tional understanding of the Eucharist. To omit a discussion of the Lord’s Supper
from the Commentary or to dissemble concerning his views might be safer, but
it would also open him to charges of hypocrisy, dishonesty, or worse, and all the
more so if there were an unauthorized printing of his letter to Alber. Under the
circumstances, Zwingli had little choice but to make public his understanding
of the sacrament,17 and he had to preface his section on the Eucharist in the
Commentary by justifying its differences with his discussion of the Lord’s Supper
in his Explanation of the 67 Theses from the first Zurich disputation published
two years earlier.18
Zwingli’s discussion of the sacrament in the Commentary repeated the same
arguments found in the Letter to Alber, but it had a stronger polemical tone,
reflecting the fact that in the meantime Luther had published his defense of
Christ’s corporeal presence in Against the Heavenly Prophets.19 Only after Zwingli
had written the Letter to Alber did he discover that Luther had already rejected
the interpretation of Christ’s words as “this signifies my body” in his 1523 treatise
The Adoration of the Sacrament.20 In response Zwingli stated his own arguments
more forcefully. Beginning again with a paraphrase of John 6, he made a stronger
distinction between what is bodily and perceptible and that which is spiritual
and imperceptible. It was impossible to eat a physical body spiritually, and it was
10
a false understanding of faith to say one must believe something that could not be
perceived with the senses.21 Zwingli repeated his view that Christ’s words should
be understood as “this signifies my body,” and he now added a discussion of
how Christ’s words concerning the cup, “the new testament in my blood” (Luke
22:20/1 Cor. 11:25) should be understood figuratively.22 Again he interpreted 1
Corinthians 10:16–17 as describing the fellowship that existed among Christians
partaking of the Lord’s Supper rather than the sharing of Christ’s substantial
body, and he linked this fellowship to the breaking of bread described in Acts
2:42.23 Finally, he introduced passages from the church fathers to demonstrate
that his understanding of the Lord’s Supper was not new.24 Because the sacrament
contained only bread and wine, veneration of the consecrated host was idolatry
and impiety, adoring a created being rather than the Creator.25
Just as important for Zwingli’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper was his
discussion of the sacraments more generally. In this section of the Commentary
the Zurich reformer developed ideas first expressed in his 1523 Explanation of
the 67 Articles.26 In addition to citing the classical use of “sacrament” as an oath,
especially a military oath, Zwingli now referred to its use for a pledge laid on the
altar by litigants. On this basis Zwingli defined a sacrament as “an initiatory cer-
emony or a pledging.” Although he did not mention Luther by name, he explic-
itly rejected Luther’s view that the sacraments had the power to free consciences
and to assure recipients that God worked inwardly that which was signified ex-
ternally. Instead, Zwingli asserted, sacraments were signs by which Christians
confessed their faith before the whole church.27 This was a more public and com-
munal understanding than that of Karlstadt, who was chiefly concerned with the
individual’s remembrance of Christ.
The Commentary was finished in haste, barely making the printer’s deadline
for the Frankfurt book fair. Four months later Zwingli published his Subsidium
on the Lord’s Supper as a “postscript” to his earlier pamphlets.28 It contained fur-
ther arguments against Christ’s bodily presence that had occurred to him only
after he had finished writing the Commentary, based on a closer examination of
the institution accounts in the Gospels. Zwingli also addressed the more general
use of tropes or figurative language in scripture, and he gave 1 Corinthians 10:4
(“the rock was Christ”) and Exodus 12:11 (“it is the Passover of the Lord”) as fur-
ther examples of verses where “is” should be understood as “signifies.” The verse
from Exodus led him to discuss the parallel between the Jewish Passover and the
Lord’s Supper as commemorations of God’s deliverance, although his chief con-
cern was to highlight the figurative understanding of Exodus 12:11 as a parallel to
“this is my body.”29 Zwingli also recounted the events surrounding the abolition
of the mass in Zurich and its replacement with a reformed communion service
the previous Easter.30
102
Last but not least, Zwingli responded to eight specific objections that had
been raised against his earlier arguments, an indication that his understanding
of the Lord’s Supper had met with opposition as well as with approval. Three of
these pertained to his interpretation of specific Scripture verses: “flesh” in John
6:63 referred to Christ’s body and not to “carnal understanding” more gener-
ally; the “communion” referred to in 1 Corinthians 10:16 was the fellowship of
believers, and 1 Corinthians 11:25 (“this cup is the new testament in my blood”)
did not require Christ’s blood to be physically present. All these verses would be-
come central to the exegetical debate concerning the sacrament. The remaining
objections all concerned the nature of faith and its relation to reason in some
way. Christians certainly believed things that went beyond sense perception, but
that did not mean that it was necessary to believe in Christ’s corporeal presence.
Likewise, God was omnipotent and could cause Christ’s body and blood to be
present, but that did not mean that he actually did so. Christ had not needed
to use other words to explain his meaning, for the figurative sense of “this is my
body” was clear to the disciples.31
As we shall see, Zwingli’s pamphlets had the greatest impact on humanist
circles in Switzerland and southern Germany. Their influence was felt as far
away as Silesia, however, where they were circulating by early summer, causing
divisions within the evangelical party there.32 In a letter to Paul Speratus, the
nobleman Kaspar Schwenckfeld noted the similarity of Zwingli’s position to
that of the “Pickarts,” or Bohemian Brethren.33 Over the next several months,
Schwenckfeld and Valentin Crautwald would develop an understanding of the
Lord’s Supper that emphasized the inability of external things to convey spir-
itual benefits. Crautwald also offered an understanding of “this is my body”
that differed from those of Karlstadt and Zwingli. He suggested that Christ was
alluding to his earlier statement in John 6:55, “for my flesh is true food and my
blood is true drink,” and his words should be understood as “my body, which is
given for you, is this [spiritual bread].” In December, Schwenckfeld spent three
days in Wittenberg discussing the Lord’s Supper with Luther and his colleagues.
The only result was that both sides became more convinced than ever that their
own position was the correct one.
The spread of Zwingli’s views to Silesia was the immediate context for the
publication of the only Wittenberg response to the sacramentarians in Latin
published in 1525. Nicolaus Gerbel in Strasbourg had sent a manuscript copy of
Zwingli’s Letter to Alber to Wittenberg at the end of March, and it is possible that
the Wittenbergers also read Zwingli’s Commentary. In mid-July, both Luther and
Bugenhagen wrote to Johannes Hess, a pastor in Breslau, warning him against
the errors of Karlstadt and Zwingli. Within a short time Bugenhagen’s letter was
103
printed as a Letter Against the New Error on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood
of Our Lord Jesus Christ.34
Bugenhagen’s letter was the first to attack the arguments specific to Zwingli,
and it did so in close reliance upon Luther. Bugenhagen repeated Luther’s argu-
ment, found in The Adoration of the Sacrament, that even if one could argue that
“is” sometimes meant “signifies” elsewhere in scripture, it could not be proven that
the “is” in “this is my body” meant “signifies.” He then addressed the Scripture
passages used by Zwingli and Karlstadt to defend their views: not only John 6:63
and 1 Corinthians 10:16 but also Christ’s words concerning the bread broken and
the cup of the new testament in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 and Paul’s warning about
discerning the Lord’s body and worthy eating, 1 Corinthians 11: 27–29. In each
case, Bugenhagen repeated the explanation of those passages given by Luther in
Against the Heavenly Prophets. Bugenhagen consistently linked Karlstadt’s and
Zwingli’s names and mocked them both as poor theologians, even as he acknowl-
edged that Zwingli rejected Karlstadt’s understanding of “this is my body.”
Zwingli responded to the pamphlet soon after he received a copy of it: his
Response to the Letter of Johannes Bugenhagen was dated 23 October.35 He pointed
out that in his Letter to Alber he had already distanced himself from Karlstadt’s
interpretation of “this is my body” and defended his own understanding of the
words as “this signifies my body.” He then took up each of the Scripture verses
discussed by Bugenhagen and gave his own explanation of each.36 He explicitly
stated that Erasmus and many of the church fathers agreed with him in under-
standing John 6:63 as referring to “Christ’s flesh” rather than to “the flesh” in ge-
neral. He also cited Erasmus when he argued that the Greek terms for “to bless”
did not have the primary meaning of “to consecrate,” as well as when he explained
the understanding of koinonia, or “communion,” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 as “fel-
lowship” rather than as “distribution.”37
From a theological standpoint, Zwingli’s exchange with Bugenhagen was ex-
tremely important because it made crystal clear what was already evident from
Karlstadt’s pamphlets: there were two contrasting interpretations of several key
Scripture texts, the first associated with Wittenberg and the second with Luther’s
opponents and ultimately derived from Erasmus. From a publicistic stand-
point, however, Zwingli’s Response to Bugenhagen was not a success. Because it
was published a month after the end of the fall book fair, it could not be easily
disseminated through Germany. What is more important, it had already been
eclipsed by the publication in early September of Johannes Oecolampadius’s
Genuine Exposition of the Words of the Lord, “This Is My Body,” According to the
Oldest Authorities, in which the Basel reformer argued that Christ’s body and
blood could not be substantially present in the bread and wine.38
104
Oecolampadius’s rejection of Christ’s bodily presence would create much

more consternation than had Zwingli’s pamphlets, for the Basel reformer
was far better known outside of Switzerland.39 Oecolampadius had studied in
Heidelberg, Bologna, and Tübingen, where he was friend, teacher, and mentor
to several future reformers, including Capito, Melanchthon, Brenz, Billican,
and Martin Frecht, the later reformer of Ulm. Oecolampadius received his
doctorate in theology at the University of Basel and was trained in the realist
form of scholasticism, but he was best known as a humanist scholar of the
church fathers. He gained public attention through his participation in the
circle gathered around Erasmus in Basel, and in 1517 Willibald Pirckheimer in-
cluded him, like Luther, in his list of promising humanist biblical scholars in his
Epistola Apologetica defending Reuchlin.40 Oecolampadius’s “Afterword” was
printed in both the 1516 and 1519 editions of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament,
and he provided the index for Erasmus’s edition of Jerome. In 1518, through
Pirckheimer’s intervention, Oecolampadius was appointed as cathedral preacher
in Augsburg, another city with a significant circle of humanists. Through the
early 1520s he published translations into Latin of works by several Greek fathers,
including Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Chrysostom, and the Gospels commen-
tary of the eleventh-century Bulgarian bishop Theophylactus, which depended
heavily on Chrysostom. One of the earliest Christian scholars to learn Hebrew,
Oecolampadius was respected as master of the three sacred languages.41 As the
Luther affair developed, Oecolampadius published a number of frequently
reprinted pamphlets supporting the evangelical cause, making him one of the
most prolific pamphlet authors outside of Wittenberg for the period 1517–25.42
He broke definitively with Rome in early 1522, when he fled from the monastery
near Augsburg that he had entered eighteen months earlier. After returning to
Basel in November 1522, he began lecturing on the Bible at the university and
was appointed as vicar to the ailing parish priest of St. Martin’s church near the
cathedral. He also continued his scholarly work, publishing a highly acclaimed
commentary on Isaiah in the spring of 1525. He therefore had a well-established
reputation for learned piety at the time the Eucharistic controversy began.
Oecolampadius was directly connected to the controversy over Christ’s pres-
ence from its inception. As Basel’s censor, he had read and approved publication
of Karlstadt’s Eucharistic pamphlets, although to Zwingli he criticized Karlstadt’s
polemical tone.43 He also did what he could to forestall further public controversy
after their publication, refusing the request of François Lambert in Strasbourg that
he write against Karlstadt and urging his friend Conrad Adelmann in Augsburg
to persuade Urbanus Rhegius to remain silent.44 By mid-January it was known
in Wittenberg that both Oecolampadius and Konrad Pellikan agreed with
Karlstadt.45 Over the next several months Oecolampadius was pressed by friends
105
and correspondents to explain his own position.46 At the beginning of July he

sent a treatise written to satisfy these requests to Guillaume Farel in Strasbourg,
asking him to read it. Farel did more than simply read the manuscript; he had
the Genuine Exposition printed, including at the end Oecolampadius’s dedicatory
letter to the evangelical preachers of Swabia.47
The Genuine Exposition was a sophisticated and eloquent defense of a sym-
bolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper, far more significant than anything
Zwingli had written to date.48 Where Zwingli was concerned primarily with
proving that Christ’s body was not substantially present in the bread and wine,
Oecolampadius offered a richer and more positive interpretation of the sacra-
ment, discussing the nature of miracles, the relationship between sign and sig-
nified, and the connection between spiritual and sacramental communion. The
detail and depth with which Oecolampadius made his case reflects the fact that
he had rejected Christ’s corporeal presence in the bread long before Zwingli
began to publicize his own view.49
Oecolampadius’s debt to Erasmus was visible from the beginning of the trea-
tise, which discussed the sacraments as mysteries.50 The Basel reformer distin-
guished between those “sacraments and mysteries” that surpassed human reason,
such as the incarnation and the resurrection, and those that were performed
within the church for the exercise and confession of faith, “so that through them
we are either enlisted in one army or that we enlistees testify that we are worthy of
our profession.” They were called sacraments or mysteries because their meaning
was hidden to outsiders but understood by believers, who through them were led
from the visible to the invisible.51 The abuses and superstition associated with the
veneration of the host served to discredit belief in a miraculous conversion of the
substance.52
Oecolampadius then turned to a consideration of Christ’s words instituting
the Lord’s Supper. Like Erasmus, he pointed out that Christ often spoke in
parables and used visible signs to teach.53 This justified his claim that “this is my
body” had to contain a trope, which he explained as “this is a figure of my body.”54
Oecolampadius emphasized that this understanding did not differ essentially
from Zwingli’s “this signifies my body.”55 He pointed out that it was not unu-
sual for the sign of something to be called what it signified. So, for instance, one
might say, “I give you power over this house” when handing someone the house
keys, and when someone broke a royal scepter, this was understood as injuring
the ruler himself. Oecolampadius supported his figurative understanding of “this
is my body” by citing Matthew 11:14 (“[ John] is Elijah”) and 1 Corinthians 10:4
(“the rock was Christ”), which Augustine had also interpreted figuratively, but
his most important support was Tertullian’s use of the phrase “figure of my body.”
Oecolampadius’s discussion was informed by Basil the Great’s discussion of types
106
and Augustine’s distinction between sign and signified.56 The Basler also rejected
remanence as a way to uphold a literal understanding of “this is my body.” The
patristic analogy of fiery iron to illustrate the union of divinity and humanity in
Christ could not be used for two physical substances, bread and body, because
that would result in two bodies in one place, and a body within a body. This po-
sition, which Oecolampadius interchangeably called consubstantiation or impa-
nation, was no better than the papists’ transubstantiation.57
On the basis of the institution account in Luke 22, the Basler described the
parallels between Passover and the Lord’s Supper in a manner similar to Erasmus’s
paraphrase of the passage. Erasmus had emphasized that the Passover lamb was a
figure of Christ’s death, and that what had been shadowed was now being replaced
by “a spiritual and potent (efficax) Passover.” In Erasmus’s paraphrase, Christ told
his disciples to “renew often for yourselves the memory of this my love . . . for
this will be the holiest sign of the pact made between us.”58 Oecolampadius, too,
highlighted the ceremony instituted by Christ as the successor for the Jewish
Passover; the chief difference was that the former looked forward while the latter
looked back to Christ’s salvific death. Like Zwingli, Oecolampadius cited the
trope in Exodus 12:11, “this is the Passover,” but where the Zurich reformer drew
attention to the grammatical similarity with “this is my body,” Oecolampadius
emphasized the typological interpretation. Just as the lamb was called a Passover
because it recalled the angel’s passing over, so the bread that reminded of Christ’s
body given on the cross was called Christ’s body.59
In opposing Christ’s substantial presence in the elements, Oecolampadius
drew from a variety of sources. He cited more than eighty passages taken from
the writings of over a dozen different church fathers, both Latin and Greek, to
argue that the early church taught the spiritual rather than the corporeal eating
of Christ’s body and blood.60 He also drew from medieval Eucharistic heresy to
argue against Christ’s bodily presence. He repeated the Hussite assertion that
Christ’s body was limited to one place in heaven, seated at the right hand of God,
and so could not be at the same time in the bread. Christ promised he would be
with his followers, and he was indeed everywhere—but that did not mean that
his body was everywhere. To support this claim, he cited the proof texts used
by the Hussites, Hoen, and Karlstadt, such as Matthew 24:23.61 Oecolampadius
took some of his arguments from Hoen and Karlstadt, such as the claim that
miracles had to be unique and public, and that they were intended to strengthen
faith.62 He also cited several of the Scripture verses used in Hoen’s letter to de-
fend a figurative interpretation of “this is my body.”63 Oecolampadius repeated
Zwingli’s argument that to say belief in Christ’s corporeal presence strengthened
faith was equivalent to establishing a second way of salvation.64 Like Hoen and
Zwingli, Oecolampadius condemned the adoration of the consecrated host, a
107
practice that was not commanded in the New Testament. Belief in transubstanti-
ation had resulted in idolatry and superstition, drawing people’s minds away from
Christ in heaven and giving the honor due to the Creator to something created.65
The Basel reformer did not limit his discussion to the presence of Christ’s
substantial body but also addressed the positive meaning of the Lord’s Supper. He
compared receiving the sacrament to doing good works: neither was necessary
for salvation, but both served as an outward confession of faith and gratitude to
God, and they benefited one’s neighbor. He was also willing to see a connection
between the spiritual and sacramental eating of Christ’s body, stating that “the
Lord did not commend this rite in vain, that we eat his body under the sacra-
ment of bread.”66 But those who received communion without this mindset, “as
if they were eating a turnip,” were hypocrites who ate God’s judgment upon them-
selves.67 Beyond serving as a bond of love and a visible profession of faith, the sac-
rament also provided an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to work in believers. The
bread itself was sanctified, in that it was set apart from its common use. Although
God’s power was not bound to externals, human frailty and brotherly love both
required external signs to aid perseverance in the Christian life.68
Oecolampadius’s scholarly reputation demanded that his treatise be taken se-
riously. Luther and his followers might revile Karlstadt and mock Zwingli, but no
one insulted Oecolampadius. Because of this high regard, Oecolampadius’s trea-
tise was not immediately attacked in print, but it did prompt another round of
private discussions. From Strasbourg, Bucer sent copies of the Genuine Exposition,
along with letters endorsing its contents, to several of his correspondents.69 He
also criticized the arguments of Bugenhagen’s Against the New Error in a private
letter to Jacob Otter, the pastor of Neckarsteinach.70 Bucer’s efforts had only lim-
ited success, and in early October they provoked a sharp rebuttal from Johannes
Brenz, who set forth his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper in a lengthy
letter to the Strasbourger.71 By early December, Oecolampadius had heard that
Brenz’s letter was circulating in the margraviate of Baden.72
In his letter to Bucer, Brenz reported that he had recently met with several
colleagues to discuss how to respond to Oecolampadius’s treatise. He drafted
their response—given the title Syngramma on the Words of the Lord’s Supper
when it was published in early 1526—to Oecolampadius’s arguments, but he also
addressed some of the points made by Zwingli in the Subsidium. Brenz’s treatise
was approved at a meeting of fourteen Swabian pastors and sent to Oecolampadius
before the end of October; it was also circulated in manuscript to other interested
parties.73 Oecolampadius quickly responded with a section-by-section critique of
the Syngramma.74 In an effort to forestall further controversy, the Strasbourgers
proposed a meeting with the Swabian pastors, under the sponsorship of the three
brothers Dieter, Wolff, and Philipp von Gemmingen, from a noble family with
108
lands in the Kraichgau southeast of Heidelberg.75 Brenz and the Strasbourgers

again set forth their respective positions in letters in preparation for this meeting,
but in the end their plans to discuss the issue in person came to nothing.76
Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition also generated a good deal of debate in
Basel itself. The evangelical party there was already divided regarding the mass.77
Although most of Basel’s pastors agreed with Oecolampadius on the Lord’s
Supper, one of them, Wolfgang Wissenburg, continued to insist that Christ’s
body was substantially present, and both Pellikan and the Franciscan preacher
Johannes Lüthart continued to celebrate the mass, to the disgust of some of their
more zealous friends.78 It was quite possibly at this time that Heinrich Glarean
wrote an Oration on the Lord’s Supper that reflected a mix of ideas from Erasmus
and from Luther’s early works.79
Erasmus tried to stay out of the debate, despite pressure from his friends to
write against Oecolampadius. Asked by the Basel council to give his assessment
of Oecolampadius’s book, he could only say that it was pious, insofar as anything
that opposed the consensus of the church was pious. When Pellikan began to
claim that Erasmus agreed with the Swiss reformers regarding the Lord’s Supper,
the Dutch humanist wrote to him, emphatically rejecting the view that Christ’s
true body and blood were not present in the Lord’s Supper. He admitted that
among his “learned friends,” and especially when “the weaker brethren” were
not present, he might speak more freely in order to try out a new idea, but he
had never said that “there is nothing in the Eucharist except bread and wine.”80
Erasmus circulated this letter among his friends, and Oecolampadius sent a copy
to Zwingli, who responded with a letter to “a certain Basel citizen” defending his
own view of the Lord’s Supper.81
The Genuine Exposition also became a topic of discussion within the larger
network of South German and Swiss humanists. Even before he obtained a copy
of the book, Jakob Strauss, a preacher in Baden-Baden, was alarmed by rumors of
its contents. He wrote to Oecolampadius directly, offering to meet with him to
discuss the correct understanding of the Lord’s Supper. When Oecolampadius
did not reply, Strauss wrote again defending Christ’s corporeal presence in the
elements.82 In Nördlingen, Theobald Billican was particularly troubled by
Oecolampadius’s treatise, and he wrote a lengthy letter to Rhegius in Augsburg
comparing the various interpretations of “this is my body” proposed by Karlstadt,
Zwingli, and Oecolampadius. He also wrote directly to Oecolampadius,
summarizing his objections to the way not only Oecolampadius but also Zwingli,
Karlstadt, and Conrad Ryss understood “this is my body.”83 Jakob Edlibach, a
canon of the Zurich Grossmünster, met personally with Zwingli to discuss the
Eucharist; a few days later, Zwingli summed up his side of the discussion in a
letter to Edlibach.84
109
The reaction to the Swiss publications was not all negative, however. Others
responded more enthusiastically to the tracts of the Swiss reformers. From
Schwäbisch-Gmünd, the humanist Ludwig Sigwyn sent Zwingli a treatise in
which he contrasted the views of “the Lutherans and Karlstadtians,” perhaps with
the hope that the work would be published in Zurich.85 Heinrich Bullinger, at
that time schoolmaster at the monastery of Kappel in Zurich’s rural territory,
composed two treatises rejecting Christ’s substantial presence. The first, written
in German for Anna Suider, a citizen of Zug, is particularly significant as one of
the few indications that women as well as men were following the debate over the
Lord’s Supper.86 The second treatise was written at the end of the year in the form
of a letter to two reform-minded pastors in Zug.87 Simon Grynaeus, professor of
Greek in Heidelberg, explained his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper in
a lost letter to Oecolampadius, and in January 1526 he met with Brenz to discuss
the Lord’s Supper under the sponsorship of the lords of Gemmingen, but they
could not reach any agreement.88
It is striking that although the published treatises generated a lively de-
bate within these circles, which included strong opposition and some written
refutations, none of the individuals involved wanted to publish their works. In
their letters many of them deplored the disagreement that had developed con-
cerning the sacrament, but there was also a fear of adding more fuel to the fire.
Brenz directly addressed this in the introduction to the Syngramma: in his trea-
tise, Oecolampadius had asked for peace, but it was the sacramentarians who
had provoked the controversy by publishing their tracts. Both faith and love
compelled the Swabians to respond to Oecolampadius’s book, but before making
their opposition public they were admonishing the Basler privately, in the hope
of persuading him to abandon his position.89
It was the same fear of growing public discord that prompted the Strasbourg
pastors to take preemptive action. In early October they sent the young Hebrew
teacher Gregor Caselius to Wittenberg bearing letters to Luther and Bugenhagen
asking them to refrain from public debate over the sacrament.90 Their overtures
were rebuffed in no uncertain terms. Luther blamed Zwingli and Oecolampadius
for promoting discord with their books, and he rejected their understanding
of the Lord’s Supper as an error endangering souls.91 Luther’s anger with both
the Swiss and the Strasbourgers was fed by the name-calling he found in their
works: it was hypocritical that they could ask him to abstain from insults but
felt free to call their opponents cannibals and say they worshiped an edible or
impanated god.92 Luther stated that the two understandings of the Lord’s Supper
could not be reconciled: either the Swiss or the Wittenbergers were ministers
of Satan. Declaring that Christ had nothing to do with Belial, Luther in es-
sence declared his opponents to be heretics and said that since they had been
10
sufficiently admonished but would not repent, he would have nothing to do with
them. In a letter to the pastors of Reutlingen written at the beginning of 1526 he
was even more harsh in his denunciation of the sacramentarians, who could not
agree among themselves on the exegesis of “this is my body.”93
The Impact of Radical Dissent

Luther and the Swabians were justified in one of their criticisms of their
opponents: the sacramentarians had originated the public controversy, and they
continued to promote it with their publications, in both German pamphlets and
translations of Latin works into the vernacular. The polemical tone and offensive
language found in some of these translations would only deepen the divisions
between the two sides. The individuals responsible for these works were among
the most zealous opponents of traditional belief in Christ’s corporeal presence
in Strasbourg, Basel, and Zurich, and most of them had some contact with
Karlstadt. Their involvement illustrates the permeable boundary between mod-
erate and more radical evangelical reform that would harden over the issue of
infant baptism.
Karlstadt’s brief visit in Strasbourg in the fall of 1524 was the catalyst for the di-
vision of the evangelical party in that city.94 One of Karlstadt’s earliest supporters
was the schoolmaster and former Carthusian Otto Brunfels, who accompanied
Karlstadt from Strasbourg to Heidelberg and who probably published Karlstadt’s
response to his expulsion from Saxony.95 In the spring of 1525 Brunfels also
oversaw the publication of John Wyclif ’s Trialogus, which for the first time made
Wyclif ’s understanding of the Eucharist broadly available.96 He may also have
been responsible for the publication of Hoen’s Most Christian Letter in the late
summer of 1525.97
In Basel, some of Karlstadt’s most ardent supporters were French. The knight
Anémond de Coct wrote to Farel from Basel in December 1524 that “whoever is
the most pious and learned, including my Martin Cellarius, support Karlstadt.”98
Coct’s positive reference to Cellarius, who had left Wittenberg in April 1522 after
his hefty disagreement with Luther over the internal illumination of the Spirit,
places the Frenchman on the radical side of the evangelical spectrum. His support
for Karlstadt also suggests that a Latin translation of one or more of Karlstadt’s
pamphlets was circulating in manuscript in Basel.99
Guillaume Farel was an important link between the French in Basel and in
Strasbourg. A member of the reform circle gathered around Guillaume Briçonnet
in Meaux, Farel was forced out of that city in 1523 and ended up in Basel. Even
before the outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy he had a reputation for a lack
of moderation and tact that offended others, and his quarrel with Erasmus led to
1
his expulsion from Basel in July 1524. He went to Montbéliard, where his attacks
on the Catholic clergy led to unrest, and Oecolampadius had to admonish him to
greater restraint in his preaching.100 Although Farel was only in minor orders, in
November Oecolampadius reported to Zwingli that he was celebrating the Lord’s
Supper;101 in exercising this priestly prerogative he did not differ from the proto-
Anabaptist circle in Zurich at this time. Farel was expelled from Montbéliard
in March 1525. After a short stay with Oecolampadius in Basel, he moved on to
Strasbourg, where he lived with Wolfgang Capito for the next year and a half.
He became associated with the circle of French evangelicals in that city as well.
This group was divided in its response to the Lord’s Supper, because the former
Franciscan François Lambert held to Christ’s substantial presence.102 Farel’s own
position on the Lord’s Supper is clear from his less than diplomatic letter to
Bugenhagen sent to Wittenberg with Caselius in October: “Can this edible God
save us, who cannot even protect himself with walls and often becomes food for
worms?”103
As mentioned, Farel oversaw the publication of Oecolampadius’s Genuine
Exposition and so was probably responsible for the marginal glosses.104 These
summarized the idea or central argument of the associated text and drew atten-
tion to citations from the church fathers.105 The glosses could be informative,
but they could also be tendentious, as when pointing to “the ridiculous inter-
pretation of Augustine’s words” in Peter Lombard’s Sentences and the idea of the
“impanated body.”106 They would offend Luther and his supporters and so exac-
erbate the early conflict.
In Zurich, the development of radical dissent was also a major factor under-
lying Zwingli’s decision to make public his rejection of Christ’s bodily presence in
March of 1525.107 As we have seen, there were contacts between Karlstadt and the
proto-Anabaptists from the summer of 1524 at the latest, and Karlstadt visited
Zurich after his expulsion from Saxony in September. According to Zwingli, these
proto-Anabaptists were responsible for spreading Karlstadt’s pamphlets through
the countryside, and Zwingli expressly acknowledged the need to distinguish
his own position from that of Karlstadt. This was not as easy a task as Zwingli
envisioned. Although there were important differences in the details, there were
also noteworthy similarities between the positions of the two men. Both were
influenced by Erasmus’s exegesis of the key passages of the New Testament, while
Karlstadt’s rejection of the sacrifice of the mass and his equation of a sacrament
with a military oath were a repetition of ideas contained in Zwingli’s Explanation
of the 67 Theses.108 And on the one question that mattered—whether Christ’s
body and blood were bodily present in the elements—the two men agreed. The
bread and wine remained bread and wine, to be eaten in remembrance of Christ’s
death on the cross.109
12
This was also the view of the proto-Anabaptists, as is clear from Conrad
Grebel’s letter to Thomas Müntzer written in September 1524. Grebel asserted
that the bread was nothing but bread, but “in faith it was the body of Christ and
an incorporation with Christ and the brothers.” The purpose of the Lord’s Supper
was to demonstrate the fellowship among Christians, and it was received unwor-
thily by those who did not eat “in a brotherly way” or who did not distinguish
this meal from other meals. Grebel took a literalist view of the Bible, arguing that
only the words taken from the institution accounts in the New Testament should
be used during the Lord’s Supper. He also opposed the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper in churches if this led to false devotion, and he seemed to prefer that it be
held in the evening, since Christ had celebrated a supper, although he acknowl-
edged that the Bible did not prescribe a specific time. The rite itself was to be
radically simplified, administered without vestments or singing, and it was to use
ordinary bread served in ordinary utensils to discourage the wrongful practice of
adoration.110
Balthasar Hubmaier’s Instruction on the Mass, written in the spring of 1525,
was also strongly influenced by Zwingli in its description of the Lord’s Supper
as a remembrance of Christ’s passion and proclamation of his death. Hubmaier
focused on the actions of breaking the bread and drinking the wine as external
signs instituted by Christ to signify the giving of his body and the shedding
of his blood—something Christians should also to be prepared to do for their
neighbors. In any case, it was more important to consider the thing signified than
the sign. Zwingli was not the only influence, however. Hubmaier’s assertion that
the bread was “in significance and in remembrance the fellowship of Christ’s
body” repeated the scholastic understanding of what was signified by the sac-
rament.111 Luther’s continued importance can be seen in Hubmaier’s view that
the Spirit, coming with the word, reassured Christians of eternal life. Hubmaier
also endorsed Erasmus’s understanding of 1 Corinthians 10:16 as the fellowship
among Christians rather than as the distribution of Christ’s body in the bread.112
Hubmaier would repeat the same ideas in A Summary of the Whole Christian
Life, printed a few months later, but this time he would tie the Lord’s Supper
more closely to believer’s baptism. Both baptism and the Lord’s Supper were out-
ward professions and oaths: the former testified to one’s inward faith and inten-
tion to live according to Christ’s word, while the latter was a willing submission
to Christ’s will and intention to give oneself for one’s neighbors. Bread and wine
remained bread and wine, but they reminded of Christ’s body given and blood
shed.113
Zurich’s pastors responded to the Anabaptist threat by holding a series of
disputations with them in early 1525, while the city council required the bap-
tism of all babies at birth and banished those advocates of believer’s baptism who
13
were not Zurich citizens.114 To counter objections to infant baptism, Zwingli

developed the functional equivalent of circumcision, which marked an infant’s
membership among God’s people in the Old Testament, and baptism, which
marked the children of Christians.115 In his treatise On Baptism, On Rebaptism
and On Infant Baptism, published in May 1525, Zwingli described the sacraments
as external ceremonies that signified holy things: for baptism, the obligation to
follow Christ, for the Lord’s Supper the remembrance (Widergedächtnus) of and
thanksgiving for Christ’s death.116 He explicitly rejected Luther’s understanding
of sacraments as miraculous signs given to affirm a divine promise and argued
instead that they were signs of obligation (Pflichtzeichen). Neither baptism nor
the Lord’s Supper had the power to confirm faith, nor was there any connection
between outward baptism with water and inward baptism with the spirit. Water
baptism was an initiatory sign that created an obligation toward God, but be-
cause God granted faith and drew individuals to him, it was not necessary either
for faith to precede baptism or for baptism to remove original sin.117
In the spring of 1525, then, Zwingli and the Anabaptists agreed in their def-
inition of the sacraments as external signs, in their understanding of the Lord’s
Supper as a meal of remembrance and confession of faith, and even in their con-
ception of the church as those united through the obligating outward sign of
baptism. The dividing issue was instead whether the obligation associated with
baptism could only follow faith or if it could also be imposed upon infants
without explicit faith. As small groups of Anabaptists began holding the Lord’s
Supper together in private houses in early 1525, their celebration also conformed
more closely to Zwingli’s view of the sacrament than did the Catholic mass still
being celebrated in Zurich’s churches.118 It therefore became even more urgent
that the mass be replaced in Zurich with a reformed Lord’s Supper. Accordingly,
Zwingli and his colleagues appeared before Zurich’s Council of 200 at the be-
ginning of Holy Week to press for the abolition of the mass and its replacement
by a reformed Lord’s Supper. After two days of discussion, the Council agreed to
abolish the mass in the city, and the new form of the Lord’s Supper was celebrated
in the services held on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter itself.119 The
liturgy used for the rite was printed as the Action or Use of the Lord’s Supper, with
a title page woodcut depicting Christ’s last supper with his disciples.120 The im-
agery was significant: where medieval images of the mass focused on the priest’s
elevation of the host, images of the Last Supper occurred primarily within se-
ries depicting Christ’s passion. The agenda’s title page thus visually reinforced
Zwingli’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper as the remembrance of Christ’s suf-
fering and death (illustration 5.1).
Liturgical reform could only be successful if it had popular support, and for
this it was essential that Zwingli make his understanding of the Lord’s Supper
14
. Title page of Zurich’s liturgy for the Lord’s Supper; photo courtesy
of the Zentralbibliothek Zürich
more broadly known, especially to those who could read German.121 The semi-
annual Frankfurt fair would prove to be decisive in the timing of publication of
pamphlets by Luther’s opponents. The earliest responses to Karlstadt’s pamphlets
had been published with the intention of countering the spread of false teaching
as quickly as possible, but Karlstadt’s defenders and allies were well aware that
works finished by mid-March and late August could be sold at the spring and fall
book fairs in Frankfurt.122 In March 1525, Zwingli’s Letter to Alber was translated
by the schoolmaster Georg Binder and printed by another Zurich printer, Johann
Hager, because Christoph Froschauer’s presses were fully occupied with printing
the Latin Commentary on True and False Religion.123 Binder was familiar with the
propagandistic use of the press, for he had assisted Ludwig Hätzer in preparing
the acts of the second Zurich disputation for publication.124 Zwingli did not
15
finish the Commentary until March 25, and there was not enough time to trans-
late the entire treatise into German for the spring fair. The section on the Lord’s
Supper was available, however, as Ulrich Zwingli’s Understanding of Christ’s
Supper, Remembrance or Thanksgiving, Now Described in His Latin Commentary
and Hurriedly Translated into German by Three Faithful Brothers, for the Good,
God Willing, of the German Nation.125 To highlight the idea of remembrance, the
title page showed Christ with his disciples at the Last Supper—the same woodcut
that would be used a few weeks later on the title page of the new liturgy for the
Lord’s Supper.126
In their preface, the translators repeated the names they gave the sacrament—
“the Table or Supper of Christ, which we rightly call remembrance or thanks-
giving”—and justified their work as a response to “ornery heads whom we
thought would stand by the gospel, but when the truth comes forth, and not
through them, they begin to rage, attack and insult.” Their translation was in-
tended to counter such attacks, and they told their readers not to be bothered by
“the quarreling of the learned,” which after all did not concern salvation.127 Both
translations were close renditions of Zwingli’s Latin, and they contained only a
few marginal glosses or other paratextual elements to highlight the contents or
aid their reading aloud. This was yet another reflection of the haste with which
they were translated and printed.
The pattern of producing works in both Latin and German translation would
continue over the next year. The preface of Zwingli’s Subsidium was dated August
17, again just in time for the fall book fair; its title page used the same woodcut
of the Last Supper that had appeared on both the Zurich liturgy and Zwingli’s
Understanding of Christ’s Supper. Hager finished printing a German transla-
tion of the Subsidium, again by Binder, at the end of November, and Froschauer
reprinted this pamphlet in 1526—this time with an image of Moses and three Jews
standing around a table holding the Passover lamb on a platter.128 The printing of
Oecolampadius’s Latin Genuine Exposition was barely finished in time for the
1525 fall fair, but Ludwig Hätzer had a translation of the treatise done in time for
the spring fair in 1526. At the same fair purchasers could buy Leo Jud’s German
translations of Zwingli’s Response to Bugenhagen and of the entire Commentary on
True and False Religion, which incorporated the earlier translation of the section
on the Eucharist.
The Wittenbergers were not unaware of the vernacular works published in
the fall of 1525, and they responded in kind. Bugenhagen probably oversaw the
publication and the translation of his Letter Against the New Error.129 Unlike
the translations of Zwingli’s works, which were aimed at educated readers, the
German translation of Bugenhagen’s pamphlet was designed to be understand-
able even to those with elementary reading skills. It presented its arguments as
16
a simple explanation of God’s Word. To reinforce this point, the printer set the
most important phrases from the institution accounts in a much larger typeface
than the surrounding text. The eyes of readers were instantly drawn to the fre-
quent appearance of “this is my body” and “this is my blood;” in contrast, al-
though the phrase “the flesh is no use” occurs frequently, it was highlighted only
once. The marginal glosses also drew the reader’s attention to other relevant
Scripture passages or to the point being discussed in the text: “hoc and hic,” “is
for signifies,” or “flesh/spirit.”130
Bugenhagen’s pamphlet would be widely diffused thanks to the initiative of
printers outside of Wittenberg. Both Latin and German versions were published
in Augsburg, Speyer, and Nuremberg. The translation published in Augsburg
was done by Stephen Agricola, one of the city’s pastors, but the German versions
published in the other two cities were reprints of the Wittenberg translation that
reproduced the paratext of the original.131
These vernacular pamphlets would provoke a German Response to the Highly
Learned Johann Bugenhagen About the Letter Concerning the Sacrament.132 The
title page identified the author as Conrad Ryss zu Ofen, but contemporaries
recognized this as a pseudonym. If Karlstadt did not write the pamphlet himself,
its author was someone strongly influenced by his ideas. Like Karlstadt, the author
argued that the referent of “this” was Christ’s body, not bread; he pointed out that
the apostles did not teach that the bread was Christ’s body, and he stressed that
the bread was eaten in remembrance of Christ. He also rejected Bugenhagen’s
exegesis of passages concerning the Lord’s Supper.133 Less polemical was Kaspar
Turnauer’s explanation of the institution account in 1 Corinthians 11. Turnauer
understood Christ’s words to mean he gave his disciples bread as a reminder that
they should remember his body given for them; there was no indication in the
text that Christ gave his body while seated at the table. Furthermore, Christ
had said his body was to be given into the hands of sinners, not into the hands
and mouths of his disciples. In another sense, Christians were Christ’s body, and
Turnauer applied Paul’s warning about discerning Christ’s body to those who
scorned or overlooked the poor members of Christ.134
Assessing the Debate
The pamphlets of Ryss and Turnauer were published shortly before the end of
1525.135 A wave of publications in January would turn the public debate in a new
direction. Before looking at these new developments, however, it is worth sum-
ming up the shape of the debate through the end of 1525. If at the beginning of
1525 the pamphlets of Karlstadt and Luther laid the foundation for two opposing
positions on the Lord’s Supper, the publications of the Swiss reformers over the
17
course of the year made the differences between the positions more clear. The
issue of how to interpret “this is my body” raised by Karlstadt’s idiosyncratic exe-
gesis had broadened to whether the phrase should be interpreted literally or fig-
uratively, and if the latter, which word was to be understood as a trope.136 The
discussion had expanded from its original focus on “this is my body” to include
the words concerning the cup, and the Swiss reformers had introduced the church
fathers as support for their understanding of the sacrament. Other Scripture texts
were now brought into the debate as well, whether they pertained directly to
the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:16–17, 1 Cor. 11:27–29), were suggested as figurative
statements analogous to “this is my body” (Exod. 12:11, 1 Cor. 10:4, Matt. 11:14,
John 19:26), or upheld other arguments such as the absence of Christ’s body on
earth (Matt. 24:23, John 16:7, 28).
The printed contributions suggest that through 1525 most of the Wittenberg
party perceived Karlstadt as a greater threat than Zwingli, and indeed, that they
regarded Zwingli as one of Karlstadt’s supporters. Luther certainly did not differ-
entiate between the two. In his own letter accompanying Bugenhagen’s letter to
Johannes Hess, Luther warned against the “wandering prophets” who, inspired by
Karlstadt and Zwingli, taught “the worst things about the Eucharist.”137 A month
later he told Johannes Briesmann to beware “the position of Karlstadt or Zwingli
concerning the sacrament.”138 Outside of Wittenberg the focus on Karlstadt was
even stronger. Bugenhagen’s Letter Against the New Error attacked both Zwingli
and Karlstadt, but the German translation printed in Speyer highlighted only
the latter in its title, “against the new error of Dr. Andreas von Karlstadt and his
followers.”139 In a pamphlet published in early 1526, Urbanus Rhegius referred
to those who rejected Christ’s bodily presence as “Karlstadtians.”140 Zwingli was
regarded as one of those “Karlstadtians,” although in his pamphlets the Zurich
reformer insisted strenuously on his independence from Luther’s former col-
league. Oecolampadius and the Strasbourgers also objected to charges of being
Karlstadt’s followers.141
Although Karlstadt was seen as the instigator of the conflict, Oecolampadius
was the most important contributor to it. While Karlstadt’s pamphlets focused
almost entirely on arguments against Christ’s substantial presence and Zwingli
divorced the spiritual eating of faith from the sacrament, Oecolampadius ac-
knowledged the spiritual value of sacramental eating. His discussion of tropes
initiated a discussion about the types of figures and tropes found in scripture
that would assume a prominent place in the coming debate. The parallels
between Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition and Zwingli’s Subsidium in
the discussion of tropes suggest that the two reformers may have exchanged
ideas, whether by meeting in person or through letters that are now lost. It is
conceivable that Zwingli read a manuscript copy of the Genuine Exposition
18
before writing his Subsidium, for Oecolampadius had finished his treatise in
June, while the Subsidium was written in August. An even more important
common source and link between the two, however, was Erasmus. So, for in-
stance, Erasmus’s paraphrase on Luke shaped how each reformer discussed the
parallel between the Passover meal and the Lord’s Supper and Christ’s words
concerning the cup.
Despite the importance of these Latin works, it is striking that through
1525 the public discussion of the Lord’s Supper was carried out chiefly in the
vernacular. Karlstadt began the debate with his German pamphlets, and so
the pamphlets written against him were all in German as well. The pamphlets
of Hoen and the Swiss reformers were written in Latin, but they were quickly
translated into German. The only Latin contributions to the debate that were
not translated were Billican’s Renovation, which was primarily a defense of
Nördlingen’s evangelical church and discussed Karlstadt’s views only as an
aside, and Wyclif ’s Trialogus, which described the author’s position in scho-
lastic terms that had become obsolete and so were dismissed as irrelevant to
the contemporary discussion.
The lively underground discussion of the Lord’s Supper in Latin through the
last part of 1525 would become public at the beginning of 1526, when several of
these privately written works were printed, often by a third party not involved
in the original discussion. The number of contributions to the public debate
published between early 1526 and the spring book fair of 1527 gives the impres-
sion of a chaotic free-for-all. There was, however, both a reasoned exchange be-
tween contributors and a pattern to the production of pamphlets. The chapters
of part II present a series of studies that highlight the development of this second
phase of the printed debate. They begin by looking at what happened when
Martin Bucer tried to harmonize the differing priorities of the Wittenbergers
and Erasmus.
19
PART II
Exchanges, 1526–1529
120
12
Martin Bucer and Bugenhagen’s

Psalms Commentary
Sometime in the first half of 1526, the Augsburg printer Philipp Ulhart
produced a short pamphlet titled The 111th Psalm of David, with the Exposition
and Explanation of the Most Learned Johannes Bugenhagen Pomeranus, Pastor in
Wittenberg, in Which a True Christian Instruction on Christ’s Supper Is Given.1
The pamphlet was excerpted from The Psalter Well Translated, Martin Bucer’s
German version of Bugenhagen’s 1524 Latin commentary on the Psalms, and
it would contribute to the embitterment of both sides in the Eucharistic con-
troversy. Complaining that the Psalter taught a false view of the Lord’s Supper,
Bugenhagen published a response in which he dissociated himself from that
work and denounced its translator.2 Martin Luther, too, would condemn Bucer
for disseminating a “blasphemous” view of the Lord’s Supper under Bugenhagen’s
name, in both a letter to the printer Johannes Herwagen and in the closing sec-
tion of his treatise That These Words of Christ, This Is My Body, Still Stand Firm
Against the Fanatic Spirits.3 Bucer published Luther’s letter to Herwagen with a
response justifying his translation of Bugenhagen’s Psalter, as well as a self-defense
in both Latin and German, while Ulrich Zwingli would defend his Strasbourg
friend in his Amicable Exegesis.4 Ulhart’s small pamphlet thus unleashed one of
the more significant exchanges between the Wittenbergers and their opponents.
Modern scholars have disagreed over how to evaluate Bucer’s “translation”
of Psalm 111. Walther Köhler characterized it as a dishonest attempt by the
Strasbourger to spread his own view of the sacrament.5 Wilhelm Neuser, who ed-
ited the pamphlet for the critical edition of Bucer’s German writings, highlighted
Bucer’s self-defense: Bugenhagen had given him complete liberty to change the
text of the commentary, and at the time Bucer made his changes to the explana-
tion of Psalm 111, he had not yet seen Bugenhagen’s public rejection of Karlstadt
and Zwingli’s position.6 While Ernst Koch described the controversy over Bucer’s
12
122 Exch anges, 1526–1529
translation in an objective way, Thomas Kaufmann characterized the translation

as a “deliberate forgery” and judged Bucer’s publication of the Augsburg pam-
phlet as a provocative act intended to further a Zwinglian understanding of the
Lord’s Supper.7
All these accounts look only at Bucer’s exegesis of Psalm 111 as a contribution to
the Eucharistic controversy, rather than as an excerpt from Bucer’s translation of
Bugenhagen’s commentary. A comparison of the two larger works quickly reveals,
however, that Psalm 111 was not the only psalm where Bucer’s explanation differed
from that of Bugenhagen. In fact, much of the German version was Bucer’s own
work—inspired by Bugenhagen’s exegesis but revealing a different purpose and
a different approach to the Psalms. Neuser downplayed the differences between
Bugenhagen’s Latin commentary and Bucer’s German version, stating that it was
difficult to disentangle Bucer’s ideas from those of Bugenhagen and using this
as justification for not editing the entire commentary.8 Despite Neuser’s claim,
it is indeed possible to detect Bucer’s own contribution to the commentary. The
Strasbourger’s friends certainly recognized that the Psalter Well Translated was as
much the work of Bucer as it was of Bugenhagen. In his autobiography, Konrad
Pellikan said not that Bucer “translated” Bugenhagen’s Psalter but, rather, that he
“imitated” it, while Wolfgang Capito expressed to Zwingli some concern about
how the work would be received by the Wittenbergers.9
The scholarly concentration on the role of Bucer’s translation of Psalm 111
in the Eucharistic controversy has thus obscured the larger significance of
Bucer’s Psalter. As an exegetical work intended for the laity, it is an important
testimony to the religious priorities and spirituality of the early South German
urban reformation, reflecting a synthesis of the differing emphases of Erasmus
and Wittenberg. The two commentaries also draw our attention to the broader
problems associated with the translation of works from Latin into German.
Last but not least, a comparison of Bugenhagen’s and Bucer’s treatment of the
Lord’s Supper in their respective works sheds light on the way the outbreak of the
Eucharistic controversy influenced the reception of earlier evangelical discussions
of the Lord’s Supper.
Bugenhagen on the Psalms
Bugenhagen’s Psalms commentary was based on lectures given in Wittenberg
between the fall of 1521 and the spring of 1523.10 Over the next year, Bugenhagen
reworked his lectures, sending the Psalms commentary in batches to the
printer in Basel, Adam Petri.11 Petri had played a major role in the dissemi-
nation of Luther’s works from the very beginning of the Reformation, pub-
lishing over forty works by the Wittenberg reformer between 1518 and 1522.
123
Martin Bucer and Bugenhagen’s Psalms Commentary 123
If his reprints of Luther’s pamphlets helped shore up the shaky finances of his
printing business, they certainly also reflected his commitment to the evangel-
ical cause. Petri’s fifteen-year-old son Heinrich matriculated at the University
of Wittenberg in the winter of 1523–24, which only strengthened the printer’s
connections to that city.12
Petri published Bugenhagen’s Interpretation of the Book of Psalms, Public
Lectures in Wittenberg in March 1524, in time for the spring book fair in Frankfurt.
The volume was prefaced with a letter from Luther to the reader endorsing
Bugenhagen’s work as a continuation of his own lectures on the Psalms, which had
come to a premature end with his departure for the Diet of Worms.13 In his own
letter to the reader, Melanchthon, too, commended the work for the light that
it shed on the Psalms.14 These prefatory letters were followed by Bugenhagen’s
dedication of the commentary to Elector Frederick the Wise. There he explained
how he had been asked to lecture publicly on the Psalms, emphasizing that he
had the support of learned men, and that he had submitted the commentary
to Melanchthon, at that time the rector of the theology faculty, for official ap-
proval. Bugenhagen described David as a model for all Christians in the midst
of troubles and as a royal prophet pointing to Christ, and then he turned to the
commentary itself. His explanation of the Psalms had been given at Frederick’s
university and approved by its faculty, and it was now being published under the
elector’s protection so that all could read and judge it.15 The overall effect of these
letters was to give the contents of the volume the official stamp of approval of the
Wittenberg theology faculty and to place it under the patronage of its dedicatee,
Elector Frederick the Wise.16
The commentary itself reflected its academic origins. Each psalm was prefaced
with a brief introduction and summary of its contents. The individual psalms
were not printed as a complete unit but, instead, were broken into sections of a
few verses each, set off in a large Roman typeface, followed by Bugenhagen’s ex-
planation in a smaller italic typeface. In his preface, Bugenhagen justified his use
of Jerome’s translation of the Septuagint Psalter as the basis for his commentary
by referring to those who were more comfortable with its familiar wording, but
he stated that in expounding the meaning of the Psalms, he relied on a translation
of the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.17 Textual and philological questions
did indeed constitute a substantial part of Bugenhagen’s exegesis of each Psalm,
and as part of his commentary he often gave his own translation of a Hebrew
word or phrase. He also addressed doctrinal issues, with justification by faith, the
inability of human works to merit salvation, and God’s promise of grace as promi-
nent themes throughout the work.18 Marginal glosses—usually no more than two
or three words—made it easier for readers to identify the central thought of each
section of the commentary.
124
124 Exch anges, 1526–1529
The Psalms commentary was an immediate success. Petri had a second

corrected and improved printing ready in August for the fall fair, as did printers
in Mainz, Strasbourg, and Nuremberg.19 The pirated imprints cut into the Basel
printer’s market, which may have prompted Petri to think about producing
a German translation. The Augsburg printer Silvan Otmar had commissioned
Ludwig Hätzer to translate Bugenhagen’s newly published commentary on the
Pauline epistles, and in the summer of 1524 Hätzer hoped to be able to translate
the Psalms commentary as well.20 The project fell through, but it lent urgency to
Petri’s plan to publish a German translation himself.
It is likely that Petri worked through his fellow Basler Konrad Pellikan to
commission Bucer to translate Bugenhagen’s Psalms commentary. In his preface
to the Christian reader, Bucer reported that he was persuaded to do the transla-
tion by “some good friends,” and he later referred to Pellikan as “the author of my
sin,” possibly in reference to the fact that Pellikan had recruited him for the job.21
The plan to commission a translation was carried out with Bugenhagen’s knowl
edge and explicit consent. Not only did he provide Bucer with his own copy of
the commentary, complete with hand-written emendations to the text, but, as
Bucer would describe in the preface to his work, the Wittenberger told him to
translate the text freely and had given him permission “to change, add, subtract,
reorder, explain more clearly or in another way, so that it is no less your than my
Psalter.” All was to be done to make the commentary “useful to our Germans, so
that even the unlearned and children can understand something from the Psalter,
which before now even the most learned doctors have lacked.”22
Bugenhagen had never met Bucer, but the Strasbourg reformer was held in
high regard in Wittenberg.23 By the fall of 1524, Bucer was gaining something
of a reputation as a translator. His later leading role in Strasbourg has obscured
the fact that through the mid-1520s his position in that city was financially inse-
cure. He had arrived in Strasbourg in May 1523 and became active in the evan-
gelical movement there, but he held no official position—and thus no regular
salary—until he was appointed pastor of the parish of St. Aurelien, in the city
suburbs, in August 1524. As a married ex-Dominican with a young family to sup-
port, he earned additional income by translating Luther’s German works into
Latin for an international audience.24 His Latin translation of Luther’s sermon-
commentaries on 1 and 2 Peter and Jude, commissioned by the Strasbourg printer
Johannes Herwagen, was published in the summer of 1524.25 Bucer then began
to translate Luther’s church postil into Latin. The first volume, the Advent
postil, was published in February 1525, and the second volume, containing the
first part of the Christmas postil, was published a month later. The third volume,
which contained the remaining sermons of the Christmas postil, would not be
published until March of 1526, while the fourth and final volume appeared in July
125
of that year.26 The long delay between the second and third volumes was due at
least in part to market timing: Herwagen knew he would sell more books if the
volume appeared just before the spring book fair in Frankfurt.
The Psalter Well Translated

It was during this gap in the publication of Luther’s postils that Bucer began
translating Bugenhagen’s commentary. His preface to the Christian reader, dated
October 3, 1525, was written after the translation was completed and sent to the
printer.27 The folio volume, roughly 450 pages long, would have taken several
weeks to print, but at the end of December, Capito told Zwingli that the com-
mentary had been published in Basel, and the last page of the book bears the date
of January 1526. Petri would print a second version, in octavo for devotional use,
before the end of the year.28
Petri used the title page to advertise the volume’s contents, highlighting its
various components (illustration 6.1). First and foremost, it was a Psalter Well
Translated into German from the Holy Languages. It also contained “an explana-
tion of the Psalter that was very clear and useful, from the Latin into German by
Johannes Bugenhagen, and improved in many places by himself ”—a misleading
claim that was meant to boost sales by highlighting the name of the Wittenberg
reformer. The title page noted that the volume also included “many prefaces at
the beginning that should be noted well” and a section describing “the genres of
the Psalms, with summaries most comforting for Christian use.” Although the
Psalm prefaces mentioned on the title page were found in Bugenhagen’s Latin
commentary, the discussion of the four genres of psalms (psalms of instruction;
of complaint, prayer and consolation; of praise and thanksgiving; and of proc-
lamation of the gospel and Christ’s kingdom) was written by Bucer, who also
listed the psalms under each genre and provided a one-or two-sentence sum-
mary of each psalm. Finally, the book contained an “index of subject and content
discussed in the explanation,” which was compiled by Pellikan.29 The supplemen-
tary summaries, explanation, and index had an important function: they made
the Psalter much easier for readers to use. They could quickly identify those
psalms appropriate for various kinds of devotional practices or those concerning
a particular topic. This was in marked contrast to Bugenhagen’s commentary,
which had no indices or overview of its contents.
The title page of the Psalter unintentionally betrays the potentially prob-
lematic nature of authorship in the sixteenth century. The printer relied on
the reputation of the Wittenberg reformer to sell the book and so highlighted
Bugenhagen’s authorship, and the name of the translator was passed over in si-
lence. If the Psalter had been a literal translation of Bugenhagen’s commentary,
126
126 Exch anges, 1526–1529
. Title page of Bugenhagen/ Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht

(Basel: Petri, 1526); copy held by the Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel
this would not have been a problem, but as translator Bucer had his own goals for
the work, and this would result in significant differences between the German
version and Bugenhagen’s Latin text.
In the preface to the Christian reader that opened the volume, Bucer
explained those goals by highlighting the importance of being able to read the
Bible. He praised the study of the three sacred languages and spoke of the duty
of those who knew such languages to explain the Bible to those literate only
in the vernacular. He then described how readers could use the volume with
profit, emphasizing its devotional purpose. True understanding of God’s word
came from the Spirit, and so Christians were to begin with a prayer for illumi-
nation. They were then to read the entire psalm, considering its words with all
diligence. For that reason, Bucer stated, he had placed the entire psalm at the
127
beginning of each section. If readers had problems understanding the psalm,

then they should read the explanation, but they were always to return to the
text of the psalm. Christians were to become familiar with all of scripture, but
especially with the book of Psalms, which contained salutary teaching, admo-
nition, and consolation.30
Bucer’s prefatory letter was followed by his translations of the commendations
of Luther and Melanchthon and Bugenhagen’s dedication to the elector. In
his one significant emendation to Bugenhagen’s preface to the elector, Bucer
eliminated the Wittenberger’s endorsement of Jerome’s psalter and stated instead
that the meaning of each psalm was explained “according to the text translated by
Dr. Martin Luther . . . for in our day there is nothing better.”31
Bucer’s translation of the prefatory material would meet modern standards
of a free but faithful translation, conveying the sense of the author without being
overly literal. When Bucer moved to the exegesis of the psalms, however, he was
faced with a conflict between the academic purposes of Bugenhagen’s Latin work
and his own devotional and pastoral goals for the translation. One of the most ob-
vious problems was Bugenhagen’s extensive discussion of how words and phrases
were translated. Bucer routinely eliminated this discussion from the explanation
of each psalm. He also took more liberties in rearranging and simplifying, so
that his translation conveyed the sense and the concepts rather than the letter of
Bugenhagen’s work.
A comparison of Psalm 1 illustrates Bucer’s approach as he began work on his
translation. In the summary of the psalm, Bugenhagen stated that the first verse
described impiety by way of negation, while verses. 2–4 described the blessed
man through assertion. The remaining verses separated the blessed from the im-
pious, for piety and impiety could only be described in contrast to each other.
He concluded with a rhetorical flourish: “here is piety, there impiety; here faith,
there lack of faith; here he trusts God alone; there, neglecting God, he trusts
himself.”32
Bugenhagen could assume that his student audience was familiar with dem-
onstration by negation and assertion, and would appreciate his placing the two
sets of qualities in opposition, but Bucer could make no such assumptions. His
summary therefore conveyed the central idea of Bugenhagen’s summary, but it
was not an exact translation. Bucer divided the psalm into three parts and made
clear the contrast between the pious and the godless. Instead of introducing
modes of demonstration, however, he said the Psalmist first described “a wholly
godless existence, in which such are separated from the blessed for whom things
go well,” and then described “the fortunate existence that he attributes to the
blessed.” Rather than strictly following Bugenhagen’s rhetorical conclusion,
Bucer simplified: “Blessedness and the good life is nothing other than the piety
128
128 Exch anges, 1526–1529
and faith that trusts God alone. But infelicity and the evil life is nothing other
than godlessness and lack of faith that scorns God and trusts itself.”33
Bucer continued this approach when translating Bugenhagen’s commen-
tary on the psalm, conveying the sense and translating concepts rather than
words. His discussion of verse 1 followed the original fairly closely, as did the
marginal glosses, which simply translated those of the Latin original. There were
small differences in the discussion, however. Bugenhagen began by condemning
philosophers who placed blessedness in human power. Bucer expanded this
by describing and condemning “the dreams and errors of blind reason.” In
discussing the mortification of the flesh, Bugenhagen alluded to other parts of
the Bible, with the assumption his audience would recognize the passages. Bucer
eliminated some of these allusions and explained those he retained more fully,
and he entirely omitted Bugenhagen’s references to the Hebrew text.34 Despite
these modifications, the commentary was still recognizably Bugenhagen’s. The
substance remained, but the style was simplified and streamlined.
Bucer made few changes to Bugenhagen’s explanation of the first few psalms.
He sometimes modified Bugenhagen’s discussion by translating a single Latin
word with two synonyms, or adding a phrase to sharpen its meaning, or by
replacing Bugenhagen’s many cross-references to other verses with a general “and
in many other places.” He also subtly added a polemical note, as when he changed
Bugenhagen’s reference to “Herod, Pilate, and then the emperors and other kings
throughout the world” into “Herod, Pilate, and then all emperors and those in
power who persecuted the gospel.”35 As he proceeded through the psalter, how-
ever, Bucer gradually became more confident about modifying Bugenhagen’s text
to promote the work’s devotional purpose. He continued to follow the general
ideas in Bugenhagen’s comments, but he began to insert his own explanations
and to increase the polemical tone, and he brought out the practical and pastoral
application of the passages discussed.
These changes are evident in Psalm 22 (Ps. 21, in the Vulgate’s numbering that
Bugenhagen retained). Bugenhagen went through the psalm, giving a brief ex-
planation of key phrases, but only occasionally finding practical applications. He
reminded his readers, for instance, that verses 9–11, spoken in times of trial, were
words of faith that the God who created us will not abandon us.36 In his dis-
cussion of verse 25, he added an excursus so that readers would not think that
the word vow signified “the incautious and foolish vows made today.” When the
Psalmist spoke of vows, he meant a sacrifice of praise, and the word could best be
translated as “devotion.” Vows in the Old Testament were only temporary and not
commanded by God. A Christian’s only permanent vow was made at baptism.37
Bucer also discussed God’s providence even amid trials, but he created a more
personal tone by describing this as an individual’s prayer to God: “It is hard for
129
me that you leave me so helpless, who has never abandoned those who trust in
and call on you. . . . And so, my God, do not be far from me with your comfort
and help.”38 Bucer’s excursus on vows repeated the same ideas as Bugenhagen, but
his version was more polemical in criticizing the vows Christians made “to this
or that saint—that is, to wooden or stone idols,” and he added references to the
Pentateuch describing how vows could be absolved. Underlying his discussion
was an Erasmian distinction between external and internal that was not as pro-
nounced in Bugenhagen’s commentary. Christians had to be free of all external
laws—although Bucer made an exception for those states to which God called
us: marriage and serfdom (it should be noted that Bucer was translating the com-
mentary at the time of the Peasants’ War). Bucer, a former Dominican, was also
more harsh in his condemnation of monastic vows. They forced one to wear dis-
tinctive habits and to regard as brethren and obey only those who wore the same
habits, rather than serving and obeying parents and others.39
By the time he reached Psalm 51, Bucer had no qualms about replacing
Bugenhagen’s explanation of the psalm with his own. His motives for these
deviations reflected the purpose of the commentary as a devotional work, as can
be seen from a comparison of how each author treated the opening verses of the
psalm. Bugenhagen omitted an explanation of the psalm’s superscription, assuming
that his hearers were already familiar with the prophet Nathan’s rebuke of David
for his sin with Bathsheba. His summary of the psalm emphasized the depths of
human sin: unless God revealed our sinfulness, we would be like the Pharisee who
gave thanks that he was not a sinner (Luke 18:11). But those who confessed and
grieved over their sins received grace, for even publicans and harlots might enter
the kingdom of heaven. David here taught how sinners could be brought to God,
who did not despise a contrite and humble heart. In his discussion of verses 1–4,
Bugenhagen defined repentance as recognition of one’s sins before God, revealed
through God’s law and from which one could not free oneself. Those who, like
David, did not immediately acknowledge their sins were hypocrites. Referring
to St. Paul’s citation of Psalm 51:4 in his epistle to the Romans (Rom. 3:4),
Bugenhagen condemned those who justified their sin by saying that it revealed
God’s mercy. He understood David’s confession, “against you alone have I sinned,”
to mean that the sin had been hidden from others, and he used verse 5 as an oppor-
tunity to emphasize the sinful nature inherited from Adam.40
Bucer’s diversion from Bugenhagen’s text began with his summary of the
psalm. Like Bugenhagen, Bucer stated that the psalm was a prayer against sin,
which was deeply rooted in our nature, preventing the evil from bearing good
fruit and teaching the blessed to better recognize God’s grace. But he also
stressed the link between repentance and emendation of life: the working of
the Spirit consoled sinners and propelled them to good works and the praise of
130
130 Exch anges, 1526–1529
God. Bucer took a different approach to the psalm itself by embedding it more
firmly in its historical context.41 He referred his readers to Nathan’s confronta-
tion of David in 2 Samuel 12, and his discussion of repentance was closely tied
to David’s experience and by extension to that of the reader. David’s year-long
refusal to acknowledge his sin was surprising in “such a holy prophet,” but it
taught us that there was nothing good in our flesh. Bucer also emphasized how
wretched and ashamed David was when he at last acknowledged his sin. To
underline the suffering that those aware of their sins should feel, he compared
it to that of condemned criminals, “who fall into such great sorrow that they
scarcely know what is going on.”42 Bucer explained “against you I have sinned”
(v. 4) as David’s realization that his sin was not against Uriah alone but even
more against God, and he illustrated this by citing the priest Eli’s rebuke of
his sons for their misdeeds before God’s altar (1 Sam. 2:22–25). Bucer also
referred to Paul’s citation of verse 4, but instead of simply condemning those
who used it as an excuse to sin, he explained the verse to mean that what glo-
rified God was not the sins committed but, rather, their acknowledgment and
confession.43
As we can see, Bucer took up the same themes as Bugenhagen—repentance,
hypocrisy, sins committed against God—but he discussed them in a different
way, one that made the application to readers more obvious. To support his
interpretation he cited a number of Scripture verses not used by Bugenhagen,
and he drew different lessons from individual verses than those made by the
Wittenberger. Both emphasized the depth of human sin, but Bucer’s discussion
emphasized the personal feelings of wretchedness and awareness of divine dis-
pleasure as manifested not only in the case of David but also by the despair his
readers witnessed in those about to be executed.
Discussion of the Lord’s Supper

It is therefore not surprising that Bucer would modify Bugenhagen’s treatment of
the Lord’s Supper, quite apart from any doctrinal disagreements they might have.
Bugenhagen’s commentary had little to say about the Lord’s Supper, and when the
Pomeranian did discuss the sacrament, his statements reflected the discussion of
the early 1520s. He endorsed Luther’s definition of a sacrament as God’s promise
of forgiveness joined to an external sign, he shared Luther’s understanding of the
Lord’s Supper as Christ’s testament, and he rejected the sacrifice of the mass. To
this he added an Erasmian emphasis on the importance of spiritual communion.
By the time Bucer was working on his version of the psalter in 1525, however,
Karlstadt’s pamphlets had made the Lord’s Supper a topic of heated debate, and
the Strasbourger’s discussions of the sacrament would reflect both the intensified
13
discussion of the purpose of the Lord’s Supper and a stronger criticism of the sac-
rifice of the mass and the veneration of the consecrated host.
Bucer’s greater concern with the Lord’s Supper can be seen in his explana-
tion of Psalm 78:24–25 (Vulgate Ps. 77), which was understood in relation to
Christ’s discourse on his body as the bread from heaven ( John 6:31–33) in the
patristic and medieval exegetical tradition.44 Bugenhagen divided this lengthy
psalm into six sections, the second devoted to verses 17–33. Within this sec-
tion he first explained the meaning of words and phrases, the most important
being “the bread of angels” (v. 25). This, according to Bugenhagen, could also be
translated as “bread of kings, or of the clouds, or of the robust.” It was to be un-
derstood not only as the manna eaten by the Israelites but also what the manna
signified—the word of God. Bugenhagen then discussed the passage’s doctrinal
implications: the human heart was blind and refused to recognize God’s prov-
idence. Those who wanted to test God were hypocrites, for they failed to trust
in that providence. Finally, he repeated his understanding of manna as the word
of God, which was the word of the cross. St. Paul had called it a spiritual food
and drink (1 Cor. 10:3–4). Some, however, preferred the fleshly food of human
traditions, just as the Israelites had preferred the meat of Egypt. Significantly,
Bugenhagen made no mention of the Lord’s Supper in explaining this psalm.45
While Bugenhagen’s explanation was useful to students studying academic
theology, it was fairly abstract and so removed from the immediate concerns of
the common man or woman. Bucer therefore took a different approach to the
psalm. He, too, divided it into sections, but these were much shorter, grouping
a few verses together and highlighting their central idea. He made two points
regarding verses 23–27. First, God was angry at the Israelites because of their un-
belief. From this, Christians learned that they should look to God in true faith,
no matter how bad their circumstances seemed. Second, despite his anger, God
still gave the Israelites what they desired, the miraculous manna. Rather than
speculating on the best translation of “the bread of angels,” Bucer described the
appearance and taste of manna, based on Exodus 16. Like Bugenhagen, he re-
ferred to 1 Corinthians 10:3–5 to explain the psalm, but he also introduced John
6. Distinguishing between those who ate manna and died and those for whom
it was a spiritual food to strengthen faith, Bucer drew an explicit parallel with
the bread and cup of Christ. To unbelievers, these were like the manna of the un-
believing Jews, but “those who remembered Christ’s death believed they ate the
true bread of heaven: not that they chewed with their teeth but rather believed
in Jesus Christ.” Finally, he returned to the idea of God’s providence. God gave to
each what they needed, even if some did not have as much as others.46
As with the earlier psalms, Bucer discussed themes found in Bugenhagen’s
commentary—divine providence and the spiritual eating that strengthened
132
132 Exch anges, 1526–1529
believers—but with a different emphasis and a more obvious application to

readers. While Bugenhagen interpreted the passage and St. Paul’s reference to
manna as the contrast between the gospel and human traditions, Bucer followed
the traditional interpretation that applied it to the Eucharist. In emphasizing
spiritual communion as the true purpose of the Lord’s Supper, he drew on a sig-
nificant strain in late medieval preaching and Erasmian piety that stressed the
inner devotion of the communicant over the outward reception of the sacrament.
This brings us to Bucer’s exegesis of Psalm 111, which would evoke the wrath
of the Wittenbergers. The discussion of the Lord’s Supper in that psalm must
be considered in light of the criticisms of the mass made by both authors in
their explanations of the preceding psalm.47 Following the exegetical tradi-
tion, Bugenhagen interpreted Psalm 110 (Vulgate 109) Christologically, but in
his discussion of verse 4 (“Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of
Melchizedek,” Douay-Rheims), he rejected its traditional use to uphold the sac-
rifice of the mass. Christ is not offered to the Father in the mass, Bugenhagen
asserted, but instead he
is eaten by us who desire him in the sacrament of bread and wine, ac-
cording to Christ’s institution in remembrance of his death—that is, of
his offering or sacrifice made only once on the cross. This eating is a re-
membrance of Christ, and a visible testament that he left to us for eating
and drinking through faith, for the forgiveness of sins and confirmation
of faith as often as we wish it, as through the visible sign received in our
bellies we are reminded that he is still and always with us, whose visible
form has gone away into heaven, just as Matt. 28 [:20] says, “Behold, I am
with you to the end of the age.”48
Bugenhagen described Melchizedek (Gen. 14:17–20), who was both king

and priest, as a type of Christ. Christ offered heavenly manna, “the bread of his
holy gospel,” and to eat this bread was “to eat the incarnate Christ who is eaten
with the spirit, not the teeth, John 6.” God gave the external sacraments as seals
(sigilla) to confirm the weakness of our faith. To those who eat the bread and
drink the wine of God’s word, Christ proffers the bread and wine in the sacra-
ment of his body and blood, which he called an eternal testament, remembrance
of himself, and forgiveness of sins. These were set forth for eating and drinking,
not for sacrificing.49
In his explanation of Psalm 110:4, Bucer also discussed the priesthood
of Christ. Like Bugenhagen, he used Genesis 14 to explain the reference to
Melchizedek, but he also repeatedly cited the epistle to the Hebrews to sharpen
Bugenhagen’s attack on the sacrifice of the mass. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was
13
unique, and to claim that Christ was sacrificed again in the mass was to crucify
him daily. Alluding to Hebrews 9:11–12, he asked, if Christ “appeared once for
all with his own sacrifice, what kind of sacrifice do the mass priests appear with?
Without doubt, the sacrifice of the devil!” Christ’s one sacrifice took away the sin
of the world, but the mass priests showered sin over the world, making an idol
from the bread and cup of the Lord and adoring it. They gave to the mass all the
benefits that rightfully belonged to Christ, such as cleansing from sin, aid in need,
and defense against all evil.50
Bucer said nothing specifically about the evangelical Lord’s Supper in his
explanation of Psalm 110, but both he and Bugenhagen would address the im-
portance of spiritual communion in their discussions of the following psalm.
Bugenhagen divided Psalm 111 (Vulgate 110) into two parts. He used the first
three verses to emphasize that believers knew they were saved by God’s work and
not their own, and so they wanted to praise and magnify God’s works publicly.51
Following the exegetical tradition, he associated verses 4–5 (“He hath made a
remembrance of his wonderful works . . . He hath given food to them that fear
him,” Douay-Rheims) with the Eucharist.52 God’s sacrament, sign, and pledge of
our salvation was his incarnation, which was food for the God fearing, and John
6 taught that those who did not fear God could not eat this sacrament. To eat the
sacrament was to believe that Christ was made flesh and blood and that he gave
that flesh and blood for our salvation. The external sacrament of bread and wine,
or of Christ’s body and blood, was a sign of Christ, and those who ate it without
faith did so to their judgment.53
Bugenhagen’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper in these two psalms reflected
the same Erasmian distinction between the external and internal and a concern
with inner piety that Bucer highlighted in his explanation of Psalm 78. Both
reformers cited Christ’s discourse in John 6, with its distinction between carnal
and spiritual eating, to stress the importance of faith. This was uncontroversial
when Bugenhagen wrote his commentary in the early 1520s, but by the summer
of 1525 it had become much more problematic. Ian Hazlett has noted that in the
opening months of the Eucharistic controversy, Bugenhagen’s discussion could
be interpreted as an implicit rejection of Christ’s corporeal presence.54 In his
discussions of the Lord’s Supper published in the spring of 1525, Zwingli argued
on the basis of John 6 that the bread and wine were not Christ’s body and blood,
and he divorced the spiritual eating of faith from the physical reception of the
sacrament. Bugenhagen’s terminology accorded with Luther’s use of “testament”
and his joining of sign and promise, but by 1525 terms such as “sign” and “re-
membrance” were associated with Luther’s opponents rather than with Luther.
Bugenhagen said nothing about Christ’s corporeal presence to balance his em-
phasis on spiritual communion, and his reference to Christ’s visible form being in
134
134 Exch anges, 1526–1529
heaven could be read as implying that Christ’s body was not present in the Lord’s
Supper. Through the summer of 1525, only Zwingli and Oecolampadius had
dared to follow Karlstadt by rejecting Christ’s corporeal presence in print, but
other authors had signaled their support for this position by publishing works
emphasizing the necessity of spiritual communion and omitting explicit discus-
sion of Christ’s corporeal presence—just as Bugenhagen had done.55
These considerations form the backdrop to Bucer’s explanation of Psalm 111.
As with the earlier psalms, Bucer addressed the same themes as Bugenhagen, but
he emphasized their practical application and heightened the polemical tone.
He began with the same emphasis on spiritual communion that was found in
Bugenhagen’s commentary. Like the Wittenberger, Bucer stated that faithful
Christians publicly thanked and praised God for his wonderful works. He re-
peated this idea in his discussion of verses 4–5, telling his readers that God pro-
vided bodily sustenance for those who feared him. He then moved from bodily
food to the spiritual food that was God’s word, through which Christians knew
God was gracious to them. In faith they ate Christ’s flesh and blood, the true bread
of heaven. So that believers could confess this faith and give thanks for their re-
demption, Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper. Christians were to remember that
Christ gave his body and blood while they partook of the bread and cup. These
external actions affirmed their faith, so that they would more firmly believe and
thus be fed internally with Christ’s body and blood. Fleshly eating was of no use
if Christians did not also receive internally and eat spiritually Christ’s body and
blood given on the cross.56
Bucer’s discussion sounded very much like what Bugenhagen had said in his
explanations of Psalms 110–111, presenting spiritual communion as the essence of
the Lord’s Supper. Bucer’s differences with the Wittenberger became more ap-
parent, however, when he turned to the veneration of the host. Bucer criticized
the preaching of the carnal presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements
and condemned host adoration as superstition and an offense to the simple folk.
Paul always spoke of bread, but Christians addressed it as “almighty God and cre-
ator” and called upon the host to help them and to forgive their sins. Without
mentioning Luther’s name, Bucer criticized the Wittenberger’s view that because
Christ had not forbidden adoration, it should be left free to each individual.57
Christians were to pray to Christ, who was seated at the right hand of the Father,
and to eat the bread in remembrance of and thanksgiving for his death. Citing
John 6:63, Bucer closed by warning his readers not to put bodily before spiritual
things.58
Bucer’s reference to John 6 in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper demonstrates
his independence from both Luther and Zwingli. In On the Babylonian Captivity
of the Church, Luther asserted that John 6 referred not to the sacrament but to
135
the spiritual eating that was faith.59 Zwingli went even further, citing John 6:63 to
argue that because eating Christ’s flesh was useless, there was no reason for it to
be in the Lord’s Supper. Bucer, however, retained the traditional understanding
of John 6, which associated it with the Eucharist, and he interpreted the rela-
tion between external and internal eating in a manner strongly reminiscent of
Erasmus’s discussion in his Enchiridion, as well as his paraphrase of the Gospel
according to John.60 In his attack on Zwingli published in the late summer of
1525, Bugenhagen would endorse Luther’s very different understanding of the re-
lationship between flesh and spirit, but Bucer could not have known this as he
was working on his Psalter.
Although modern interpreters have stressed the differences between
Bugenhagen’s and Bucer’s discussion of Psalm 111, what is striking is their under-
lying agreement on the importance of spiritual communion. Bucer was deeply
influenced by Erasmus’s view that without inward, spiritual communion, the ex-
ternal reception of the sacrament was useless and even harmful, a conviction he
shared with Bugenhagen and with Luther himself.61 This was the positive and
practical content Bucer tried to bring out in his discussions of the sacrament. His
polemic, too, was aimed only at Catholics. Unlike the pamphlets of Karlstadt,
Hoen, and Zwingli published in the first half of 1525, Bucer did not explicitly
argue against Christ’s corporeal presence. Astute readers could see that he did
not believe Christ was bodily present in the elements, and they might recog-
nize similarities with the ideas found in other sacramentarian works,62 but the
Strasbourger’s polemic was directed elsewhere, against the sacrifice of the mass
and the most egregious excesses associated with adoration of the host.
Printers and Translations

Given the similarity of Bugenhagen’s and Bucer’s discussions of spiritual com-
munion, what was it that prompted Bugenhagen’s attack? There were two re-
lated factors, both of them highlighting the role of printers in addition to that
of authors and translators. The first was the publication in Augsburg of Bucer’s
German explanation of Psalm 111 as an independent pamphlet; the second was
the presentation of the vernacular commentary as a whole. In both cases, the
printers invoked Bugenhagen’s name and Wittenberg’s authority to promote the
sale of their publications.
There is no indication that Bucer had anything to do with the publication of
the Augsburg pamphlet, nor is there any reason to suppose such a connection.63
Its publication was instead a product of the hefty debate within that city over the
Lord’s Supper. Already at the end of 1524 the city’s preachers had divided over
the understanding of the sacrament. Urbanus Rhegius, who supported Luther’s
136
136 Exch anges, 1526–1529
position, was mocked as “the merchants’ pastor,” while the sacramentarian

preacher Michael Keller found an enthusiastic following among the middling
and lower classes.64 The pamphlet’s printer, Philipp Ulhart, was probably the
most important publisher of sacramentarian works outside of Zurich.65 The sec-
tion taken from Bucer’s Psalter fit well into Ulhart’s program of publishing ver-
nacular pamphlets as fuel for this local debate.
Bucer’s explanation of Psalm 111 was only a very small section of a much larger
work, and so the Strasbourger’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper could easily be
overlooked. In fact, for several months after the publication of the Psalter Well
Translated Bugenhagen either did not notice Bucer’s discussion or dismissed the
differences as insignificant. The pamphlet was a different matter, however. It not
only made Bucer’s view accessible to a much larger audience but on its title page
it attributed that view to “Johannes Bugenhagen, pastor in Wittenberg”; Bucer’s
name does not appear in the pamphlet. The pamphlet thus fostered the false im-
pression that the view it contained represented what was taught in Wittenberg.
The same was true of the Psalter Well Translated. Although Bucer’s introduc-
tory letter to his readers made clear that he was responsible for the work, the
remaining prefatory material identified the commentary with the Wittenbergers.
Strictly speaking, that material—the letters from Luther and Melanchthon,
and the dedication to Elector Frederick the Wise—applied to the text of
Bugenhagen’s original commentary. The printer Adam Petri not only retained
these letters but also highlighted the Wittenberg connection in his printing of
the German Psalter. The translations of these letters gave the impression that the
Wittenberg theologians also endorsed the contents of the vernacular commen-
tary. By the time the printing of that commentary was almost done, Bucer had
read Bugenhagen’s pamphlet against Zwingli, and he planned to include a state-
ment at the end of the book that would make clear his disagreement with the
Wittenbergers. He was persuaded by Petri not to do so, however.66 It was not in
the printer’s best interest to draw attention to any disagreement with Wittenberg.
The consequences of this decision became clear when a visitor from Augsburg
told Bugenhagen that some people in his home town thought that the explana-
tion of Psalm 111 found in the Psalter Well Translated represented the teaching of
the University of Wittenberg.67 As Bugenhagen explained, he was moved to de-
nounce the translated Psalter precisely because people were misled to think that
it had the approval of Wittenberg’s university.68 Bugenhagen’s reaction to Bucer
thus demonstrates the unanticipated consequences of the printer’s strategy for
selling copies of the Psalter Well Translated.
The failure to alert readers to differences between the Latin and German texts
would have negative consequences for Bucer, since it provided Bugenhagen with
the most effective argument he could use to attack Bucer’s translation. Both men
137
acknowledged that Bucer’s modifications to Bugenhagen’s work were done in

good faith. The Strasbourger had Bugenhagen’s full permission to modify the
text in any way he wished, and the only way Bugenhagen could criticize Bucer’s
changes was to say that he had been foolish to grant such broad permission to the
translator.69 The translation affair put Bucer in an unfavorable light, however. It
would be the first in a series of incidents that the Wittenberg reformers would use
to discredit him and his views concerning the Lord’s Supper.
By assuming that Bugenhagen’s criticism of Bucer applied only to the latter’s
“translation” of Psalm 111, scholars have missed the broader significance of this
disagreement. The incident is not simply a matter of Bucer’s duplicitous be-
havior; instead, it reveals both the early modern understanding of translation
and the ambiguities in the early evangelical understanding of the Lord’s Supper
that would be clarified over the course of 1525. Bugenhagen’s embarrassment
highlights the fact that in the sixteenth century there was not yet a clear no-
tion of intellectual property belonging to an author, with the consequent ex-
pectation that translators would stay close to the text. Translations involved the
transfer of general meaning, not necessarily of specific ideas. Only in the case of
authoritative texts such as the Bible were translators expected to be faithful to
both the spirit and the letter.70 Peter Burke has described the variety of changes
commonly made to the text by early modern translators, including amplifica-
tion, contraction, bowdlerization, and—as in the case of Bucer’s “translation”
of Bugenhagen’s commentary—the expression of ideas that the original author
might have repudiated.71 Pellikan’s description of Bucer’s work as an “imita-
tion” of Bugenhagen reflects contemporary attitudes toward such translations.
In modern terms, the Psalter could be called a version or an adaptation of
Bugenhagen’s commentary, but not a translation.
Greater freedom in translation was particularly necessary when a text written
in Latin for a learned audience was translated into the vernacular for an audi-
ence whose education was more practical and less academically oriented. In
these cases, textual translation also required some degree of cultural translation.
Bugenhagen’s commentary has been described as a devotional work, but its spir-
itual insights were directed to an audience of young male university students in
training for the ministry. Bucer’s changes to Bugenhagen’s text better reflected
the concerns of his intended audience, the literate inhabitants, both male and fe-
male, of the South German and Swiss cities. The Psalter’s more overtly polemical
tone, for instance, reflected the heated debates that were occurring in those cities.
Bucer’s version of the commentary provided readers with arguments against
Catholic positions on a range of issues.
Lay readers would also benefit more directly from an explanation of the
psalms that promoted practical piety and more clearly applied the biblical text
138
138 Exch anges, 1526–1529
to their daily experiences. In this process of translation, the focus of the com-
mentary shifted from Christian doctrine to Christian ethics. Bugenhagen’s
emphasis on justification by faith, human inability to please God, and the
riches of God’s grace, all important topics debated in Wittenberg in the early
1520s, were relativized as Bucer added discussions of how Christians were
to respond to the trials and tribulations of daily life. Bucer’s commentary
also introduced an Erasmian identification of flesh/spirit with external/in-
ternal, which differed fundamentally from Luther’s understanding and which
had implications for the Strasbourger’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper.
Bugenhagen’s discussion of the mass in his Psalms commentary shows the ex-
tent of Erasmus’s influence even in Wittenberg, while Bucer’s Psalter Well-
Translated provides an example of how Wittenberg publications were not
only read through an Erasmian lens but also transmitted to others with their
Erasmian elements emphasized.72
What has been said about Bucer’s Psalter in general applies to his
discussions of the Lord’s Supper in particular. Bucer’s discussion of the Lord’s
Supper was shaped but not determined by Bugenhagen’s commentary, and
his goal was to teach his lay readers the importance of inner devotion when
receiving the Lord’s Supper rather than focusing either on externals or on
the issue of Christ’s corporeal presence. In that sense, it demonstrates how
reformers outside of Wittenberg synthesized the two approaches to the sacra-
ment coming from Luther and Erasmus. After the beginning of the Eucharistic
controversy, however, that synthesis was no longer sustainable, and debate
would center on the issue of Christ’s corporeal presence. Significantly, it was
Bucer who would eventually try to shift the debate away from the presence
of Christ’s body, and his method for doing so was to strengthen the link be-
tween the internal, spiritual reception of Christ’s body and blood and the
external eating of the bread and wine.
Those efforts for concord lay in the future, however. Far more important
for the immediate course of the controversy would be the exchanges between
Johannes Oecolampadius and his opponents that began with the publication of
attacks on the Genuine Exposition at the beginning of 1526. Here, too, translation
would be a factor in widening the gap between both sides.
139
Oecolampadius Against
the Wittenbergers
If I ever hung from any man, I would do so now, since
Oecolampadius could claim this by his right as my teacher,
whom I will never be able to thank sufficiently (even if now
I disagree with him, though for a just cause), and whom I ad-
mire and esteem.1
Soon after the publication of Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition,

Johannes Brenz expressed to Martin Bucer his continued respect for the Basel
reformer despite their disagreement concerning Christ’s bodily presence in the
bread and wine. Brenz also reported that he and several other pastors had just
met to discuss how best to respond to Oecolampadius. The resulting work, the
Syngramma on the Words of Christ’s Supper, would be published in Augsburg at
the beginning of 1526, without Brenz’s knowledge or permission.2
If Luther and his supporters had regarded Karlstadt as their greatest op-
ponent through most of 1525, by the beginning of 1526 they were training
their sights on Oecolampadius. The debate over the Lord’s Supper entered a
new phase at the beginning of 1526 with the publication of the Syngramma
and other private responses to Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition. These
prompted the Basler to answer in print, leading to the expansion and fur-
ther elaboration of the positions of each side. Oecolampadius’s response to
Theobald Billican brought out the exegetical differences between the two
parties, which echoed those between Erasmus and Wittenberg. The exchange
between Oecolampadius and Brenz was even more important for bringing to
light differences in the underlying presuppositions of each side concerning the
relation between external and internal word and between sign and signified.
Luther’s endorsement of Brenz’s Syngramma on the Words of the Lord’s Supper
only increased the treatise’s importance as a major defense of the Wittenberg
position.3 Oecolampadius originally wrote in Latin, but his works were
translated into German, which provoked the translation of the Syngramma
140
140 Exch anges, 1526–1530
from Latin into German, and by the fall of 1526 the debate had switched en-
tirely to German.
The theological depth and complexity of these pamphlets far surpassed
most of what had been published the previous year. In them, the two lines of
argumentation between later Lutheran and Reformed confessions would first be
expressed. Through this debate Oecolampadius worked out the broad contours
of a coherent understanding of the Lord’s Supper that would become known as
“Zwinglian.”
The Impact of Oecolampadius’s

Genuine Exposition
As we have seen, the earliest publications by the Wittenberg party were vernac-
ular pamphlets written to counter the spread of Karlstadt’s ideas among the laity.
Only Bugenhagen’s Against the New Errors was originally written in Latin, and
it was quickly translated into German. Most of these vernacular pamphlets re-
quired no more than a few sheets of paper for their printing, which made them
quick and cheap to produce and short enough to be read aloud, so that even the
illiterate could become familiar with their arguments. This brevity had a draw-
back, however, in that it did not allow for serious discussion of sacramental the-
ology. Luther’s Against the Heavenly Prophets was the only publication lengthy
enough to address theological questions in any depth, but it, too, was intended
first and foremost for literate lay readers, as is demonstrated by Luther’s collo-
quial language and polemical style.
The Wittenbergers’ target audience shifted in early 1526, when the most im-
portant refutations of Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition began to appear in
print (figure 7.1). The publication of these Latin works was significant, for it
allowed a sustained public discussion of the exegetical and theological issues. In
January, Urbanus Rhegius published Theobald Billican’s letter on the conflicting
interpretations of “this is my body,” along with his own approving response, in a
Latin treatise On the Words of the Lord’s Supper and the Variety of Opinions.4
Soon after the pamphlet was published Billican complained to Oecolampadius
that Rhegius had abridged his letter and in so doing had “mutilated” it. Whatever
those emendations were, the printed version was a vindication of Luther’s po-
sition.5 Billican admitted that he was attracted to Karlstadt’s arguments, but
his study of Christ’s words instituting the sacrament had in the end caused him
to reject the views of Luther’s opponents. Decisive for him was that Karlstadt,
Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Conrad Ryss (whom he described as Karlstadt’s
supporter) all offered differing interpretations of “this is my body.”6 Billican dealt
14
Exposition, L
Exposition, G Brenz, Syngramma L
Billican/Rhegius, Words L
Clicthove, Sacrament L (Paris ed.) Apologetica, L Pirckheimer, Response L

Brenz, Syngramma G1
Brenz/Luther, Syngramma G2
Fair Answer, G
Apologetica G
Response to Pirkheimer L
Brenz/Luther, Syngramma G3
Luther, Fanatics G
Pirckheimer, Second Response

L
Fisher, Eucharist L Luther, Herwagen letter
Clicthove, Sacrament L(Cologne ed.)
Posterior Response L Luther, Words G
Second Answer G Pirckheimer, Epistle L

. Oecolampadius’s Contributions to the Controversy, 1525–June 1527. L = published in Latin; G = published
in German
142
142 Exch anges, 1526–1530
fairly quickly with the interpretations of both Karlstadt and Zwingli. Karlstadt’s
ingenious approach to explaining “this is my body” could not be applied to
Christ’s words, “this cup is the new testament in my blood” (Luke 22:20/1 Cor.
11:25), nor did his argument based on the differing genders of “this” and body”
have any merit. Billican dismissed Zwingli’s suggestion that “is” meant “signifies,”
noting that grammarians placed a trope not in the substantive verb but in the
predicate that followed it. Underlying Billican’s argument was an understanding
of predication found in all contemporary textbooks on logic, where the verb is
expressed the fundamental reality linking subject and predicate. Accordingly, he
also criticized Zwingli’s effort, in the Subsidium, to defend the figurative meaning
of “is,” especially since that verb did not occur in Exodus 12:11, the Hebrew par-
allel that Zwingli had cited.7
If there was a trope, it had to be found in “body,” which was Oecolampadius’s
suggestion. Oecolampadius’s figurative interpretation clearly challenged Billican.
He spent most of the rest of his letter trying to refute it, although he stated that
his target was Tertullian, not Oecolampadius, whom Billican referred to as his
“most esteemed teacher.”8 He suggested that Tertullian did not mean that the
bread was only a figure of Christ’s body; rather, the church father had been
refuting the position, held by Marcion, that Christ did not have a real body. A fig-
urative understanding of Christ’s words could not be supported by the institution
accounts in Luke or 1 Corinthians, where the added phrase, “given/broken for
you,” had to apply to Christ’s real body. If “body” were understood as “figure of
my body,” then—according to the rules of grammar—everything else said about
it must apply to the figure, which led to the impious conclusion that Christ gave
only a figurative body. Billican concluded that just as “take,” “eat,” and “bread” all
retained their literal meaning, so too “my body” had to be the body that was given
on the cross. There was nothing in the institution accounts that allowed Christ’s
words to be taken figuratively, and arguments such as John 6:63 or the location of
Christ’s body in heaven could not overturn this literal meaning.9
In the letter to Billican that closed the pamphlet, Rhegius endorsed his
friend’s position and added a few arguments of his own. Billican had repeated the
Wittenberg position that “broken for you” in 1 Corinthians 11:25 referred to the
physical breaking and distribution of Christ’s body in the bread of the sacrament;
Rhegius also endorsed the Wittenberg exegesis of other relevant verses on the sac-
rament.10 He cited Cyril, Cyprian, and Athanasius as fathers who taught Christ’s
substantial presence, but his crown witness was the eleventh-century Bulgarian
bishop Theophylactus, whose commentary on the Gospels Oecolampadius had
translated into Latin.
Rhegius also alluded to the divisions in Augsburg over the Lord’s Supper.
The controversy was creating sects and enmity as it spread among the common
143
Oecolampadius Against the Wittenbergers 143
people, to the point where the “Karlstadtians” used such blasphemous phrases
as “edible god” and “bready god,” and they hated the pro-Wittenberg preachers,
scarcely considering them to be Christians.11 Under these circumstances, it is not
surprising that those Augsburg pastors who supported Luther’s position would
also support the publication in their city of other works that upheld Christ’s
bodily presence, such as the response of the Swabian preachers to Oecolampadius,
published at the beginning of 1526 as the Syngramma on the Words of the Lord’s
Supper.
The Syngramma was shaped by Luther’s earlier writings, but it was not iden-
tical with Luther’s position, and it was far more detailed than anything Luther
had written on the relationship between Christ’s body and the elements of the
Lord’s Supper.12 Central to the treatise was Brenz’s view of the power and efficacy
of God’s word. He understood the sacrament through Augustine’s statement,
“the word approaches the element and it becomes a sacrament.”13 Significantly,
Brenz understood the word “sacrament” not as “sign” but as Christ’s body given
to strengthen consciences. The Lord’s Supper was not simply a gathering of
believers that had bread as a symbol; it also had God’s word, which gave what it
contained. If Christ’s word could heal the sick, raise the dead, and forgive sins,
why could it not bring Christ’s body into the sacrament? Brenz did not object
to calling the bread a sign or symbol, but he insisted that it was at the same time
Christ’s body on account of the words, “this is my body.”14 Theologically trained
readers would have recognized that this discussion reflected the detailed scho-
lastic debate concerning the power of the words of institution, but Brenz did not
refer to scholastic arguments to support his point.15
Brenz asserted that because the word had such power, it was wrong to reduce
“this is my body” to a trope. The fact that Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius
did not agree on how to understand “this is my body” only made clear the error
of their views.16 Even if Oecolampadius could prove that the church fathers
supported his view, their authority was only human, and they were subordinate
to God’s word. But in fact the fathers also taught that the symbol was joined with
what it signified, Christ’s body, and to prove this Brenz introduced citations taken
from Augustine, Chrysostom, Tertullian, and Theophylactus. Like Rhegius, he,
too, pointed to the fact that Oecolampadius now rejected the position of the
Bulgarian bishop whose work he had translated.17 Brenz acknowledged that the
superstitions and abuses associated with the veneration of the consecrated host
were to be condemned, but that did not mean that Christ’s body was not pre-
sent.18 Christ remained in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father, but he
shared himself and his gifts through his word. This did not require Christ’s body
to be in two places at the same time, for Aristotelian logic was not relevant to
questions of faith.19
14
144 Exch anges, 1526–1530
Exegesis of scripture played a central role in Brenz’s argumentation. He

rejected the use of 1 Corinthians 10:4, Exodus 12:11, Matthew 11:14, and other
verses cited by Oecolampadius and Zwingli as illustrations of figurative language
in scripture. None of these verses were to be understood figuratively, and even
if they were, that still did not constitute proof that “this is my body” had to be
understood figuratively. Moreover, there were no other places in scripture where
“body” meant “figure of my body.”20 Brenz endorsed the Wittenbergers’ exegesis
of 1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:24, and John 6:63, as well as their un-
derstanding of unworthy eating as not recognizing the presence of Christ’s body
(1 Cor. 11:27–29). He also rejected the use of Matthew 24:23 (“Then if anyone
says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’—do not believe it.”)
and John 16:7 (“It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away,
the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.”) to sup-
port the claim that Christ’s body was no longer on earth.21 Finally, he argued that
the sacraments of the Old Testament were inferior to those of the New, which
conveyed Christ not only in spirit but also bodily.22
Because of the number of issues it addressed, the Syngramma would be ex-
tremely important as a defense of the Wittenberg position against Oecolampadius.
It was only one of several works written directly against the Genuine Exposition,
however. The Nuremberg humanist Willibald Pirckheimer also wrote a Response
to Johannes Oecolampadius on the True Flesh of Christ and His True Blood that
was published in time for the spring book fair in Frankfurt.23 This sparked an ex-
change that continued into 1527 and that will be discussed in the next chapter.24
Oecolampadius’s treatise drew the attention of theologians outside of German-
speaking lands as well. It was condemned by the theology faculty in Paris before
the end of 1525, and the Flemish theologian Josse Clicthove published a refutation
of it in Paris in March 1526.25 The final attack on the Genuine Exposition would
come from the English bishop of Rochester, John Fisher, whose treatise On the
Truth of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist was printed in Cologne in
February 1527.26 This work was a section-by-section printing of Oecolampadius’s
treatise with Fisher’s refutation of each section. Clicthove’s book was reprinted in
Cologne at about the same time, so that both Catholic treatises were available at
the spring book fair of that year.
There was little time for Oecolampadius to write responses to all of his
opponents before the spring book fair in 1526. He chose to combine three works
in one publication under the general title of Apologetica: two sermons on the
Lord’s Supper that he had preached at Christmas time; a response to the pam-
phlet of Billican and Rhegius; and the Antisyngramma, which combined the text
of the Syngramma with an updated version of the section-by-section response
he had sent to the Swabians in November.27 Taken as a whole, the Apologetica
145
presented a coherent set of arguments against Christ’s bodily presence in the

Lord’s Supper, building on ideas first expressed in the Genuine Exposition and
refuting objections raised by Oecolampadius’s opponents.
Reflecting their varying origins, each work had a different message, al-
though all presented an Erasmian understanding of the superiority of the
spiritual to the physical.28 The two sermons reveal popular objections to the
sacramentarian position that circulated alongside more scholarly attacks. In
the first sermon, Oecolampadius responded to accusations that he and his
supporters robbed Christians of Christ by denying his presence in the sacra-
ment, which they reduced to mere bread and wine. Christ’s words to Thomas,
“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” ( John 20:29), could
not be used to teach an invisible presence of Christ’s body. The papists them-
selves admitted that Christ’s words, “this is my body,” were not clear and so
must be understood as the church had determined. Faith came from the Holy
Spirit, who drew Christians away from carnal things, but human weakness was
such that belief in Christ’s body in the bread drew people away from higher
realities. It was therefore more useful to have the remembrance of Christ’s pas-
sion than the physical presence of his body. To those who were offended that
the reformers referred to the sacrament as “bread and wine, Supper and Table,”
Oecolampadius retorted that it was indeed bread, as was proven by the mice
and worms that ate it. But it was not “common and lay bread” when used in the
public celebration, for it was commanded by Christ and a sacrament and sign
of the most holy body.29 In the second sermon, the Basler responded to those
who claimed that in rejecting Christ’s bodily presence the sacramentarians
showed less reverence and true worship than the Jews. Oecolampadius turned
the accusation against his opponents: those who made up countless regulations
concerning how priests were to celebrate mass and how men and women were
to receive communion were guilty of Jewish legalism.30
The second part of the Apologetica was a lengthy defense of Oecolampadius’s
understanding of “this is my body” in response to Billican’s objections.31 The
Basler began by holding up God’s glory as the key hermeneutical principle de-
termining the interpretation of scripture. It was not honorable that Christ’s
body be impanated, and the Spirit led to a higher understanding, testifying to
Christ’s glory in heaven, at the right hand of the Father. There was no useful-
ness in the carnal eating of his flesh, nor had the church fathers taught this as
an article of faith.32 Turning from hermeneutics to exegesis, Oecolampadius im-
plicitly endorsed Erasmus’s advice in the Plan or Method that where scripture
seemed to contradict itself, the exegete must consider the context of the verse.33
Oecolampadius acknowledged that the words “this is my body” seemed clear on
the surface, but they contradicted other passages of scripture. When considered
146
146 Exch anges, 1526–1530
within their broader context and in light of Christ’s glory, it became apparent
that the words must be understood figuratively.34
Billican had argued that the institution accounts in the New Testament,
and not Christ’s discourse in John 6, must determine what one believed about
the bread and wine.35 In response, Oecolampadius provided a detailed discus-
sion of all four accounts. He devoted the most attention to Matthew 26. As
he had done in the Genuine Exposition, the Basler highlighted the Passover
meal that was the context for Christ’s last supper with his disciples. Again
he brought out the parallels with the lamb eaten at the meal, which was a
memorial of the original lamb slaughtered in Egypt and of God’s benefits
shown to the Israelites. In taking, blessing, and breaking the bread, Christ
showed his disciples his own coming death, and they all understood this as
an external sign of that death. They did not believe that the bread was sub-
stantially Christ’s body, any more than they believed that the lamb they ate
was the same lamb eaten in Egypt. Oecolampadius compared the lamb to
the ring bearing his image that a king gave his son as a sign that he would re-
ceive the kingdom, or to an apple seen in a mirror: no one would think that
the giver was in the ring or the fruit was in the reflection. Like the Passover
lamb, the bread reminded of Christ’s past death and admonished believers
to persevere in God’s mercy.36 Regarding the blood, Oecolampadius pointed
out that the Jews were not commanded to drink the lamb’s blood, which was
given to them as a sign of God’s deliverance. The cup was instead a memorial
to Christ’s own blood shed on the cross, which sealed the covenant of forgive-
ness with God.37
In comparison to the discussion of Matthew, Oecolampadius’s treatment of
the remaining institution accounts was relatively brief. Like Karlstadt, although
without the polemical thrust, Oecolampadius pointed out that in Mark’s ac-
count, Christ spoke the words concerning the cup only after the disciples had
drunk from it, and he too rejected Erasmus’s suggestion that this could be
explained by the figure of speech known as prothysteron.38 Luke’s addition of the
phrase, “which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me,” reiterated the
message of the other evangelists, that Christ commanded his followers to eat
bread in remembrance of his body given for them. The words did not give priests
power to make the bread into his body or command them to offer a sacrifice.39
Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians closely followed that of Luke. “Do in remem-
brance of me” was elucidated by the command to “proclaim the Lord’s death,”
which was done with public celebrations that joined all Christians together. Paul
spoke of bread and cup, not body and blood, when he described unworthy eating.
Oecolampadius now used his analogy of breaking a royal scepter as dishonoring
the ruler to explain unworthy reception of the sacrament: those who scorned the
147
signs and persevered in hypocrisy made themselves guilty of Christ’s body and
blood.40
Although Billican had rejected the relevance of John 6 for determining the
understanding of “this is my body,” Oecolampadius also discussed this chapter.
Where Zwingli repeatedly paraphrased the passage in order to explain spiritual
eating, Oecolampadius took a more analytical approach, but he reached the same
conclusion. The chapter taught that Christ, the true bread of the soul, came down
from heaven. His flesh was given for the life of the world, and those who believed
this truly ate; it was of no use to put Christ’s flesh in the mouth or stomach.
Oecolampadius repeated Zwingli’s argument that Christ had promised salvation
to those who ate his flesh ( John 6:54), and so if that flesh were in the bread of the
Lord’s Supper, eating that bread would be a second way to obtain salvation, apart
from faith. Only those who were drawn by the Father ate this bread, and the hyp-
ocrite Judas was not among them.41
Although Oecolampadius’s chief concern was to defend the scriptural basis
of his understanding of “this is my body,” he addressed other issues at well. Thus
he criticized Rhegius’s citation of several church fathers and defended his own
reading of Tertullian.42 The longest excursus, however, concerned Augustine’s dis-
cussion of sign and signified. The African father had taught that signified things
had some likeness with and were honored by their signs, not that signs contained
what they signified. Oecolampadius also cited with approval Augustine’s view
that those who understood figurative statements literally were in servitude to
their own carnal understanding. Christians should be free from this servitude,
and were to move from the sign to the thing signified.43
Oecolampadius not only asserted that the presence of Christ’s body brought
no use, but he also specifically rejected the claim that it could console consciences.
Such comfort came from the remembrance of Christ’s death and his other
benefits, and Christ had even said that he had to go away so that the heavenly
comforter could come ( John 16:7).44 Those who claimed that external signs and
seals strengthened consciences were deceived, unless they had first received the
most sure seal of the Holy Spirit’s consolation. The sacraments did not console
in and of themselves but only as signs and instruments, insofar as they preached
Christ.45 Oecolampadius was more open to the argument that the new testament
was completed on the cross but its benefits were distributed through the Lord’s
Supper.46 The Basler argued that faith and the internal hearing of the word came
from God and were sealed in hearts by the Holy Spirit, but he allowed that the
Spirit could make use of the “sacramental instruments” to render Christians more
certain.47 His discussion reveals the gap between the Erasmian emphasis on faith
as a general trust in Christ and the Wittenbergers’ more specific emphasis on
faith as the assurance of forgiveness obtained through Christ’s death.
148
148 Exch anges, 1526–1530
The Antisyngramma showed a similar mix of strong criticism with a will-

ingness to find some common ground with opponents. To the charge that the
sacramentarians were divided, Oecolampadius claimed that those who defended
Christ’s corporeal presence did not agree among themselves, either.48 Against
the Syngramma’s argument that word and sign combined to make a sacrament,
Oecolampadius again emphasized the complete separation of sign and thing sig-
nified.49 This led him to consider the relationship between external word and
sacrament and the internal teaching of the Spirit. The Basler acknowledged that
both word and sacrament were tools or vehicles through which God worked,
especially to arouse faith, but external words did not have the power to bring
Christ’s body into the bread. The external word was only the image of the internal
word, the teaching of the Holy Spirit.50
As he had done in the Genuine Exposition, Oecolampadius expressed his op-
position to remanence, which he identified with impanation. If two substances
were present in the same place, the result would be one “hypostasis,” or nature. This
meant that the alleged miracle of impanation would create three natures: bread,
flesh, and God. Repeating a theme from his response to Billican, Oecolampadius
claimed that impanation destroyed God’s glory.51 He also reiterated his position
that there was no use or need for Christ’s body to be present in the bread, since
Christians had Christ’s flesh and blood by faith.52 The Basler thus combined
Aristotelian metaphysics with his Erasmian hermeneutics to reject the possibility
that Christ’s body could be substantially in the bread.
The Transition to the Vernacular

Oecolampadius’s responses to his pro- Wittenberg opponents were lengthy
treatises in Latin, addressed to a scholarly audience able to appreciate the tech-
nical theological, philological, logical, and rhetorical arguments employed. What
was an aid to theological debate, however, could be a hindrance to the spread of
those ideas outside of learned circles. The translation of these works into German
brought the controversy to a much larger audience literate in the vernacular. The
abstract theological arguments used by Oecolampadius and his opponents placed
significant demands on readers, however, which differentiated these publications
from the vernacular pamphlets published in 1525. Significantly, the translators
gave their translations a more polemical tone than the Latin originals.
Ludwig Hätzer was responsible for translating Oecolampadius’s Genuine
Exposition, which shifted the debate with Brenz into the vernacular. Hätzer had
the most checkered background of all those involved in translating sacramentarian
works. An early supporter of Zwingli, by the fall of 1524 he was associating with
the proto-Anabaptists, and he was banished from the city in January 1525 with
149
other Anabaptists who were not Zurich citizens. He moved to Augsburg and
found work as a corrector with one of the printers in the city; he also became
involved with a radical circle already strongly influenced by Karlstadt. Expelled
from Augsburg in the fall, he moved to Basel, where he presented himself to
Oecolampadius as having abandoned his Anabaptist views, and he offered to
translate the Genuine Exposition. Oecolampadius sent him back to Zurich with a
commendation, and Hätzer’s translation, On the Sacrament of Thanksgiving, was
in print at the beginning of 1526.53
Hätzer’s motive in translating the work is intimated by the phrase at the
bottom of the title page: “O God, redeem the imprisoned”—in other words, those
still held captive by the belief that Christ’s body was actually in the bread of the
sacrament. The oversized initial woodcut that began the preface, which showed
Christ driving the moneychangers out of the temple, reinforced the message of
ardent opposition to false teaching. Hätzer addressed the lengthy preface “to all
lovers of God’s truth.” In it, he compared belief in Christ’s bodily presence to the
captivity of the Jews in Egypt, and he condemned the tyranny of the Antichrist,
who required people to believe that Christ’s true body and blood were found in
the elements. Hätzer gave a polemical twist to the Hussite argument that Christ’s
body remained in heaven by asserting that belief in Christ’s corporeal presence
was opposed by the teaching of the Apostles’ Creed that Christ had ascended
into heaven, was seated at the right hand of the Father, and would return to judge
the living and the dead. He also provided a convenient list of the church fathers
cited by Oecolampadius, identifying “how many years after Christ’s birth” they
had lived.
The translation of Oecolampadius’s text was adorned with another oversized
initial woodcut, this time showing the judgment of Solomon—silent encour-
agement to readers to judge for themselves. The treatise itself was now divided
into chapters, each with a title that highlighted the flaws in the opposing posi-
tion, such as “that it is coarse to seek flesh in the bread; likewise, that no mir-
acle happens in the sacrament, and that Scripture and the fathers did not believe
this.”54 These chapter divisions made it easier to select and read aloud shorter
sections of a very long text. Where Oecolampadius’s treatise closed with an af-
terword addressed to the Swabian pastors urging agreement, Hätzer gave a one-
page summary repeating the treatise’s main points: there was no miracle in the
sacrament; “this is my body” must be understood figuratively; and although
the treatise departed from the view of the “common folk,” it was supported by
the church fathers.55 Last but not least, Hätzer provided the work with his own
marginal glosses, which were even more pointed in their criticism of opponents
than those in the Latin original.56 His translation was somewhat more free than
were the translations of Zwingli’s pamphlets, and it had a more polemical edge
150
150 Exch anges, 1526–1530
than the original. Significantly, Hätzer’s German was not influenced by Swiss
dialect, a point that the printer, Christoph Froschauer, excused in a postscript
on the last page by saying that he had printed the book “in the common language
of foreigners . . . so that others can understand it who are not used to our speech
in Zurich.”57
Hätzer would also translate two of the three works contained in
Oecolampadius’s Apologetica: the two sermons and the response to Billican.
This translation was also given a new title, On the Supper, Proving from the
Gospel Writings Who They Are Who Wrongly Understand and Explain the Words
Concerning the Lord’s Supper, and it was printed in Basel in August 1526, just
in time for the fall book fair.58 The response to Billican would be reprinted in
Augsburg with the same title but without the sermons, which were printed as
separate pamphlets both in that city and in Strasbourg.59
Hätzer again provided his translation with a preface to the reader, in which he
boasted that his earlier translation had “truly helped spread the irrefutable truth,
to the use of all the simple and the great disadvantage of the worldly wise and false
scholars.” That book had shown that the church fathers believed that Christ’s
body was not in the bread but at the right hand of his heavenly Father. This new
book proved that the evangelists also did not support the “coarse, fleshly belief ”
in Christ’s bodily presence, and it opposed the devil, who wanted to create a new
article of faith.60 As with the Genuine Exposition, Hätzer’s translation and margi-
nalia heightened the polemical tone of the treatise by claiming, for instance, that
“if Christ is in the bread, it is a true insult, for he is of no utility in it.”61
The translation of Oecolampadius’s treatises was countered by Luther’s
supporters, who produced three different German translations of the Syngramma.
The first of these, entitled Clear and Christian Response of Certain Most Learned
Ministers to the Treatise of Dr. Johann Oecolampadius, was published in Augsburg
in time for the spring book fair in 1526.62 In contrast to Hätzer’s version of the
Genuine Exposition, the translator and printer of the Clear and Christian Response
made few changes to the text to accommodate it to a vernacular audience. There
were no paragraph breaks or marginalia, let alone chapter divisions, to make the
structure of the work more clear. The printer’s only attempt to provide visual as-
sistance to his readers was to set Christ’s words concerning the bread and the cup,
as well as individual occurrence of “is” and “body,” in capital letters. This drew
the eye, but in fact it made the text a bit harder to read. The translation itself was
faithful to the Latin, but it was somewhat convoluted; it also occasionally had a
polemical edge.
A second translation of the Syngramma was printed a few months later in
Hagenau as Well-Founded and Sure Conclusion of Certain Preachers in Swabia
Concerning the Words of the Supper of Christ Jesus.63 This translation, done by
15
the Eisenach pastor and school rector Johannes Agricola, was clearer and more
straightforward than the Augsburg translation. It was also easier to read, for the
printer introduced paragraph breaks so that the text fell into more readable short
sections. As important as the translation itself, however, was the preface pro-
vided by Luther. In it the Wittenberg reformer underscored a point that Brenz
made in the Syngramma, that their opponents disagreed among themselves con-
cerning the proper understanding of “this is my body.” To the interpretations
of Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius, Luther added that of the Silesians,
which he had heard from Kaspar Schwenckfeld when the latter had visited
Wittenberg at the end of 1525, and he suggested that others were coming up with
their own suggestions. Luther was particularly incensed at the insults used by the
sacramentarians, such as referring to the consecrated host as a “baked god” and
calling their opponents “cannibals” and “guzzlers of God’s blood.” Although both
Zwingli and Oecolampadius had used Greek terms for “flesh-eater” or “cannibal”
in their Latin publications, the other more incendiary terms were found in the
German translation of the Genuine Exposition and in Conrad Ryss’s Response to
Bugenhagen, which again highlights the role of vernacular works in enflaming the
controversy.64
Luther boiled down the arguments of his opponents to two points: it was
unnecessary for Christ’s body and blood to be in the bread and wine, and it was
unreasonable to believe this. Both points were found in Oecolampadius’s treatises
and reflected Erasmus’s influence on the Basler, the former in his hermeneutical
presuppositions and the latter in his exegetical approach to scripture. Luther
condemned both arguments, and he accused the sacramentarians of reading their
own interpretation into scripture and twisting the text to fit their own views. He
warned his readers against the works of his opponents and urged them to read
carefully the translation of the Syngramma.65
Although the printing of the Well-Founded Conclusion was finished by early
June, its printer delayed the release of the work until the Strasbourg fair in July—
an indication of how important fairs were for the sale and dissemination of these
works.66 Wolfgang Capito learned of this translation before the book’s release,
and he wrote to Oecolampadius with suggestions about how the Basler should
respond.67 A month later Bucer sent a copy of the translation to Oecolampadius.
He, too, suggested that both Oecolampadius and Zwingli respond to Luther in
German. He gave detailed suggestions for Zwingli’s response and suggested that
Oecolampadius not only answer Luther’s charges but also publish a German
translation of the Antisyngramma, adapted for lay readers.68
Oecolampadius followed Bucer’s suggestions by publishing his first vernac-
ular contribution to the debate, the Fair Answer to Dr. Martin Luther’s Instruction
Concerning the Sacrament, just in time for Frankfurt’s fall fair.69 The first part of
152
152 Exch anges, 1526–1530
the pamphlet was an open letter to Luther in which the Basler defended both
the truth of his position and its accordance with the teaching of the early church.
Luther’s opponents were not divided; in fact, they had one argument: that Christ
had ascended into heaven and was seated at the right hand of the Father. This
was firmer ground than “this is my body,” which had led the papists to formulate
the doctrine of transubstantiation. Oecolampadius turned many of Luther’s own
arguments against him: Luther himself had freely insulted his opponents, and he
misunderstood the key passages from 1 Corinthians 10–11 concerning the Lord’s
Supper.70 Contrary to Luther’s claim, Oecolampadius asserted that he did not
teach that there was no difference between common bread and the bread of the
Lord’s Supper. In response to Luther’s charge that his opponents thought Christ’s
bodily presence was both unreasonable and unnecessary, Oecolampadius chal-
lenged the Wittenberger to explain what use or purpose there was to Christ’s
bodily presence. It was wrong to postulate miracles that opposed reason without
clear grounds in scripture and the creeds.71
The second and lengthier part of the Fair Answer was a response to the
Syngramma, now presented as a treatise in German. In the opening section of the
treatise, Oecolampadius reiterated his foundational argument: the bread could
not be Christ’s substantial body, because that body was located in heaven. The
rules of scriptural exegesis forbade the acceptance of any position that did not ac-
cord with this truth, such as the assertion that Christ’s body was substantially in
the bread. It was the nature of a body to be both perceptible to the senses and in
only one place at one time, and to deny these characteristics to Christ’s ascended
body was to deny that it was a natural human body. Beyond that fact, belief that
Christ’s body was in the bread led to a number of logical absurdities, such as the
multiplication of miracles.72 In more popular language, Oecolampadius repeated
his argument that a sign could not contain what it signified: the dove and the
tongues of fire were called the “Holy Spirit” in the New Testament, but they
were only signs and not the Holy Spirit itself. He defended the figurative un-
derstanding of “this is my body” by discussing the familiar examples of figurative
statements elsewhere in scripture.73 Spiritual eating brought all the benefits of
Christ, and so there was no need for physical eating.74
In the second section, Oecolampadius summarized and then refuted Brenz’s
argument that the word had the power to bring Christ’s body into the bread.
Brenz could not prove from scripture that Christ had given words this power,
for there was no word of command, such as “bread, become my body,” to effect
such a change. Instead, the bread and wine received words that made them signs
of Christ’s body and blood. God did indeed use the external word of preaching,
but this was done so that one turned inward in order to hear Christ, the in-
ternal teacher. The external word was a prod that admonished and reminded by
153
signifying, but it did not perform miracles. In this section, Oecolampadius also
repeated his understanding of the disputed verses from 1 Corinthians 10–11. The
“communion of the body” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 referred to fellowship among
Christians, while the unworthy eating described in 1 Corinthians 11:27–29 was a
form of lèse majesté, whereby an insult to something of the ruler was an insult to
the ruler himself.75
In the third section, Oecolampadius took up a number of other nonscriptural
arguments used against him. He had not begun the quarrel, nor did he condone
Karlstadt’s harsh language, but he would not abandon the truth for Karlstadt’s
sake. Against Brenz’s demand that the controversy should be decided by scrip-
ture alone, he defended his use of the church fathers and of logical argumenta-
tion.76 The final section was more conciliatory. In it, Oecolampadius gave some
suggestions as to how the two parties could find some agreement concerning the
sacrament. The first and most important step was to call an end to polemics and
to the Wittenberg party’s efforts to establish “a new article of faith”—that is, be-
lief in Christ’s substantial presence. Referring to his analogies of a house key and a
scepter, Oecolampadius acknowledged that one could say that “the bread, insofar
as it has the word, is the true body of Christ.”77 He also saw grounds for agreement
in a parallel between sacramental and spiritual eating: the bread that was eaten
entered the body, while the promise of the word, when it was believed, entered
and fed the soul. He placed limits on this, however, by repeating his basic position
that external words could only signify; the promise of forgiveness was not sub-
stantially appended to external words and signs.78 Oecolampadius’s suggestions
for concord at the end of his Fair Answer were hardly a ringing endorsement of
any objective efficacy for the sacrament, especially in comparison to Luther’s po-
sition, and they were ignored by Oecolampadius’s opponents.
The Fair Answer was printed only a few weeks before yet another translation of
the Syngramma, which bore as its subtitle, The Unanimous Refutation of a Forced
and Interpolated Work Offering a Doubtful Interpretation of the Words of Christ’s
Supper. The translator remained anonymous, but the pamphlet was published in
Wittenberg, and it contained a new and even more polemical preface by Luther
condemning “the new deceivers, the perverters of the sacrament.”79 The book’s
publication in the second half of September, after the end of the Frankfurt fair,
suggests that it was intended primarily for regional distribution. For this the
Leipzig fair, which was held immediately after the Frankfurt fair, provided a suf-
ficient market.
The Unanimous Refutation differed significantly from the earlier two
translations in both format and content, and it was clearly intended for those with
less developed reading abilities. Where the earlier translations were published in
quarto, the usual size for pamphlets, the Wittenberg translation was printed in
154
154 Exch anges, 1526–1530
octavo, a size more frequently used for devotional and instructional works, such
as catechisms. The printer made frequent use of capital letters and a significantly
larger typeface to set off the occurrences of key words such as “is,” “signifies,”
and “body,” as well as other citations from scripture.80 Some of the discussion of
the church fathers and references to classical history or the Old Testament were
omitted or abbreviated. The German text was simple and made more concrete
through the use of common expressions or pictorial expressions that conveyed
the sense rather than the precise words. For instance, Brenz’s statement that “your
sect is made much weaker and more contemptible by your emended testimonies”
was rendered as “Who can be sufficiently surprised at such twisters of Scripture?
No cobbler twists the leather so much.”81
Above all, this translation was far more polemical than the two previous ones,
and it departed significantly in some places from the Latin original, especially in
the second half of the treatise.82 Roughly halfway through his work, the trans-
lator must have obtained a copy of Oecolampadius’s Antisyngramma, for from
this point on there are paragraph breaks corresponding to the sections into which
the Basel reformer had divided that work.83 The last third of this “translation”
can in fact be seen not simply as a translation of the Syngramma but also as a re-
sponse to Oecolampadius’s Antisyngramma. Much of this portion of the treatise
concerned the relationship between the Old and New Testaments and was of
only indirect significance to the discussion of the Lord’s body, and so the original
argument was greatly simplified and abridged.84 More important was the polem-
ical attack on Oecolampadius’s understanding of various proof texts, especially
John 6:63 and Matthew 24:23, “an argument used for a hundred years or more”
by the schismatic Bohemian “Grubenheimers.”85 Brenz’s final plea for peace was
replaced with a warning to Oecolampadius that he should not resist the gospel
or “rely more on your uncertain and dark thoughts than on the clear words of
Scripture and Christ.”86
The Development of the Debate

Oecolampadius’s published exchanges with Billican, Brenz, and Luther brought
to the fore the presuppositions that underlay each side’s understanding of
the Lord’s Supper. The Basler’s arguments were shaped by three streams of
thought coming from Erasmus, Augustine, and Aristotle. First and foremost,
Oecolampadius shared Erasmus’s subordination of the physical and external to
what was spiritual and internal, and he rejected the former when it led away from
rather than toward the latter. Oecolampadius also endorsed Erasmus’s exegetical
method that saw allegory and the use of tropes or figures as a perfectly acceptable
way to move from the surface to the deeper meaning of scripture. Like Erasmus,
15
he believed that looking for a metaphorical or figurative understanding of the

text was the proper way to deal with Scripture verses that were difficult to un-
derstand literally.87 Oecolampadius therefore could see no reason to stress the
presence of Christ’s substantial body, especially since so many logical difficulties
followed from a strictly literal understanding of “this is my body.”
Oecolampadius’s Erasmian subordination of the material to the spiritual was
reinforced by his reading of Augustine; so, too, was his interpretation of scrip-
ture. The Basler referred frequently to Augustine’s writings throughout his own
pamphlets, explicitly citing Augustine as the source, for instance, of his figurative
understanding of 1 Corinthians 10:4 and the dove at Christ’s baptism.88 Perhaps
most important, his discussion of the relation between bread and Christ’s body
was shaped by an Augustinian distinction between sign and signified. This was
in sharp contrast to Brenz’s understanding of how word and element combined
to become a sacrament—which also derived from Augustine. Oecolampadius ac-
cused Brenz of attributing an almost magical power to the word in its ability to
bring Christ’s body into the bread, and he argued that Christ had never given his
words such power. On a more general level, he asserted that the writings of the
church fathers demonstrated that the early church had not taught Christ’s sub-
stantial presence. This did not play as prominent a role in his debate with Billican
and Brenz as it did in his exchange with Pirckheimer, as we shall see in the next
chapter.
Complementing Oecolampadius’s Augustinian and Erasmian Neoplatonism
was his adherence to an Aristotelian framework that did not allow two substances
to be in one place. Thinking in Aristotelian categories, Oecolampadius rejected
any form of remanence, because two substances could not coexist and retain their
separate natures. He therefore held that it was absolutely impossible from a meta-
physical perspective for Christ’s body to be bread or to be enclosed in bread, and
to claim that it was present required belief in a miracle that had no basis in scrip-
ture. His use of the terms “impanation” and “consubstantiation” was polemical,
but it also reflected his perception that Luther and his supporters understood the
Lord’s Supper using the Aristotelian concept of substance, a perception fostered
by Luther’s use of the analogy of fire and iron joined in a glowing iron.
Equally important was Oecolampadius’s Aristotelian understanding of the
natural world, which defined and set limits to the characteristics of a human
body. Although the analogy of fiery iron had Christological implications, this
was not what was of primary importance for Oecolampadius. Instead, he insisted
that Christ’s truly human body was in heaven, and a truly human body could only
be in one place at a time. The Basler supported this argument by referring to the
creeds of the early church. In a positive sense, he followed Hätzer by arguing that
the creeds taught that Christ’s body was located at the right hand of God and so
156
156 Exch anges, 1526–1530
could not be in the bread. In a negative sense, the creeds’ silence concerning the
Lord’s Supper allowed him to accuse his opponents of wrongfully making be-
lief in Christ’s substantial presence into an article of faith; this was an argument
Hoen had earlier used against transubstantiation.89
Despite the stark difference concerning the presence of Christ’s body,
there was some degree of overlap between the two sides, which indicates that
the debate over the Eucharist had now become two distinct but related issues.
The primary question was still whether Christ was bodily present in the bread,
which could only be answered affirmatively or negatively. But both Brenz and
Oecolampadius addressed the nature of spiritual communion and how it was re-
lated to sacramental communion. On this issue there was some agreement be-
tween the two reformers. Oecolampadius expressly agreed with the Swabians
that the word could arouse faith, even going so far as to call the external word “an
instrument and vehicle of the Spirit.”90 Brenz had approved of Oecolampadius’s
analogy of keys giving power over a house or a scepter conveying royal authority
to the recipient;91 in the Antisyngramma, the Basler added the analogy of let-
ters from a distant king giving his kingdom.92 But the point of these analogies
for Oecolampadius was that although the signs, whether key, scepter, or letters,
might convey something, they did not contain the physical substance of what they
signified. As long as the issue of contention was whether Christ’s physical body
was brought into the bread, these areas of potential agreement would be ignored.
Discussions of Oecolampadius’s contribution to the Eucharistic contro-
versy have generally described him as one of Zwingli’s followers. This assump-
tion ignores the fact that it was Oecolampadius who introduced into the
public debate a number of ideas that the Zurich reformer adopted and that
would later be called “Zwinglian.” There were also some important differences
between the two reformers in the arguments they used against Christ’s pres-
ence. Like Zwingli, Oecolampadius cited John 6:63 against Christ’s substan-
tial presence, but it did not hold the same foundational position for him as
it did for Zwingli, who had made that verse the centerpiece of his arguments
in his publications in the spring of 1525. Oecolampadius did use a few of the
arguments Zwingli had introduced in his 1525 pamphlets, but they were not as
important for his argumentation as his own criticism of impanation or his em-
phasis on God’s glory and on the upward movement from material to spiritual.
Oecolampadius’s acknowledgment of the sacraments as instruments or tools
points to a more fundamental difference, for the Zurich reformer consistently
emphasized the complete separation between the material and the spiritual.
Zwingli’s 1525 treatises had divorced the spiritual eating of faith from the cel-
ebration of the sacrament, which he described as a public attestation of one’s
faith. Oecolampadius endorsed this understanding as well, but the exchange
157
with Brenz caused him to address the relationship between spiritual and sac-
ramental eating at much greater length. Whereas Zwingli highlighted the op-
position between material and spiritual under the influence of Renaissance
Platonism, Oecolampadius was more influenced by Erasmus and the Christian
Neoplatonic tradition in seeing material things as aids to a higher spiritual
understanding.93
Zwingli was also indebted to Oecolampadius for the Basler’s use of the
church fathers to oppose Christ’s corporeal presence. The fathers played a role
in Oecolampadius’s exchanges with Billican and Brenz, but they were far more
important for the other major debate that Oecolampadius was involved in,
over the course of 1526 and early 1527, with the Nuremberg humanist Willibald
Pirckheimer, as we shall see in the next chapter.
158
Undermining Oecolampadius
The Debate with Pirckheimer
One who was scarcely satisfied by my prior writings will not be

satisfied with my later ones either. For what would be the end
of writing, especially when the matter has no judge and he is so
full of his own view and dares to boast of his own victory—just
like Pericles, who Thucidides said was so shameless that even if
defeated and thrown on the ground of the gym he would still
dare to proclaim himself the victor.1
So wrote the Nuremberg humanist Willibald Pirckheimer as he characterized

Johannes Oecolampadius in his Epistle to Eleutherius, the last contribution to a
lengthy published exchange of pamphlets on the Lord’s Supper over the course
of 1526–27. Pirckheimer’s Response to Johannes Oecolampadius on the True
Flesh of Christ and His True Blood, published in the spring of 1526,2 provoked
Oecolampadius to write a Response to Willibald Pirckheimer on the Matter of the
Eucharist, available at the fall book fair.3 Pirckheimer answered with a Second
Response Concerning the True Flesh of Christ and His True Blood, published in
early 1527, and Oecolampadius answered with his own Posterior Response in time
for the spring book fair that year.4 Pirckheimer’s Epistle to Eleutherius, which was
sold at the fall fair, was the Nuremberger’s rejoinder to that work and the final
contribution to the debate.5
The published debate between Oecolampadius and Pirckheimer has re-
ceived little scholarly attention, and most treatments have focused on only one
side of the exchange. In his biography of the Basel reformer, Ernst Staehelin
merely mentions Pirckheimer’s works as background for his summaries of
Oecolampadius’s treatises, while Paul Drews’s influential study of Pirckheimer
says virtually nothing about the content of Oecolampadius’s treatises.6 As we shall
see, however, the treatises of each author can only be properly understood when
read in conjunction with those of the other. Beginning with Drews, scholars have
examined Pirckheimer’s treatises primarily in order to determine whether the
159
Undermining Oecolampadius 159
Nuremberger remained a follower of Luther or returned to the Catholic Church

toward the end of his life. This approach has introduced a further distortion into
their interpretation, and all but the most recent studies are marred by confes-
sional bias, whether Lutheran or Catholic.7 Walther Köhler gave the fullest treat-
ment of both sides, but he paid short shrift to the later contributions of each
author and said virtually nothing about the prominent place given to the church
fathers by both protagonists.8
There are, however, a number of reasons to look more closely at the ex-
change between Oecolampadius and Pirckheimer. Although Oecolampadius
dismissed Pirckheimer’s Response as “a foolish book,” demand for copies from
both pro-Wittenberg and Catholic readers meant that the first edition sold out
within a few months of its publication, and it was reprinted in early 1527.9 In
fact, Pirckheimer’s treatises were highly regarded by Luther and his followers,
and Luther incorporated arguments from both works in his own Eucharistic
treatises of 1527 and 1528.10 Pirckheimer’s Catholic humanist friends also praised
his efforts, and Johannes Cochlaeus forwarded both of his treatises to John Fisher
in England, although he expressed his disappointment that Pirckheimer did not
explicitly endorse either transubstantiation or the authority of the church.11
Because Pirckheimer and Oecolampadius were members of the same South
German humanist network, their treatises also tell us something about the hu-
manist response to the early debate over the Lord’s Supper. Pirckheimer was one
of the very few laymen to oppose a purely symbolic understanding of the Lord’s
Supper in print, and the arguments he used to defend the presence of Christ’s true
body and blood in the sacrament differed in a striking way from those advanced
by the pastors who attacked Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition.
Last but not least, as the quotation at the head of this chapter suggests, the
exchange was definitively shaped by the format of polemical response used by
the protagonists, and the issues they addressed went beyond strictly theological
questions to those of ethos, both in the Aristotelian sense of establishing the moral
authority and credibility of the speaker and in Quintilian’s definition of ethos
as the gentler emotions that made an audience well disposed to the speaker.12
Earlier studies, focusing only on the theological arguments, have either ignored
the polemical tone of the pamphlets or dismissed it as distasteful. In so doing,
they have missed a vital aspect of the published debate. The gradual shift in em-
phasis away from Eucharistic theology and toward personal reputation over the
course of this exchange makes clear the importance of rhetoric and ethos as major
components of the early debate over the Lord’s Supper. Pirckheimer set out to
undermine Oecolampadius’s authority as a pious and learned scholar by accusing
him of teaching blasphemy and distorting the teachings of the church fathers,
and at that task he was largely successful.
160
160 Exch anges, 1526–1531
Background and Beginning of the Debate

Both Oecolampadius and Pirckheimer were highly regarded members of the
reform-minded humanist network that linked the cities of southern Germany
during the second decade of the sixteenth century. A scion of one of Nuremberg’s
leading families, Pirckheimer was exposed to humanism while a law student
in Padua.13 In addition to his political career as a member of Nuremberg’s city
council, he became one of the first German humanists to master Greek. His
Latin translations of Greek works, both pagan and Christian, gained him a rep-
utation as one of the most learned men in Germany, and his name was often
mentioned together with those of Erasmus and Reuchlin. Although ambiva-
lent about Reuchlin’s controversy with Pfefferkorn, Pirckheimer played an im-
portant behind-the-scenes role in the humanist attack on Reuchlin’s scholastic
opponents, aiding a Nuremberg printing of the Letters of Obscure Men and pub-
lishing translations of Lucian’s satires with dedication letters that drew pointed
parallels to the Reuchlin controversy. This, as well as his involvement in a contro-
versy with Johannes Eck over usury, predisposed him to support Luther in the
early years of the Reformation. The anonymous dialogue Eccius dedolatus (1520),
a wickedly satirical attack on Luther’s most prominent opponent, was attributed
to Pirckheimer by contemporaries, as well as by most modern scholars.14 After Eck
added his name to the bull threatening to excommunicate Luther, Pirckheimer
became more cautious, expressing his support for the Reformation only in his
letters to friends. By 1525, however, he had become increasingly critical of the
negative consequences of evangelical teaching for moral conduct.
In contrast to the layman Pirckheimer, Oecolampadius was a scholasti-
cally trained priest who came in contact with humanism during his studies at
the universities of Heidelberg and Tübingen. His association with Erasmus and
his translations of the Greek church fathers helped establish his reputation for
learned piety and created a link with Pirckheimer. He first came in contact with
Pirckheimer in early 1517, and Pirckheimer included the younger man among the
humanist-theologians whom he praised in the preface to his defense of Reuchlin
published in August of that year.15 Oecolampadius reciprocated by dedicating a
Latin verse drama to Pirckheimer and sending him copies of a Latin sermon and his
Greek grammar published in 1518.16 Pirckheimer recommended Oecolampadius
to the Augsburg canons Bernhard and Conrad Adelmann and so was indirectly
responsible for Oecolampadius’s calling to Augsburg as cathedral preacher.
Although no letters between Pirckheimer and Oecolampadius have survived
from this period, Adelman frequently mentioned Oecolampadius in letters to his
Nuremberg friend.17 Oecolampadius resigned the Augsburg preachership in the
spring of 1520 in order to enter a nearby monastery, only to flee nineteen months
16
later to avoid arrest on charges of heresy. He returned to Basel at the end of 1522
to resume his scholarly work on the church fathers and quickly became one of
the leaders of the evangelical movement in that city. From this point on the two
men corresponded directly, and Oecolampadius recommended the young Hans
Denck to the Nuremberger as schoolmaster.18
The outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy at the end of 1524 brought a
change to this friendship. To the consternation of his friends, rumors spread that
Oecolampadius had rejected Christ’s corporeal presence in the elements of the
Lord’s Supper. Pirckheimer wrote to Oecolampadius, asking him to clarify his un-
derstanding of the sacrament. In his answering letter, Oecolampadius distanced
himself from Karlstadt and Denck and gave what seemed to be a pro-Wittenberg
understanding of the Lord’s Supper, but whose ambiguities would soon become
apparent:
It seems best to me to think simply and in a catholic way. I confess that

bread indeed remains bread, but not common [bread] if it has been
consecrated. I know what is the power of the word of this mystery. I have
never denied that Christ’s body is present in the mystery, and I am certain
that the old teachers shared our belief, even if in many places they treated
it as an enigma.19
Oecolampadius’s use of the Greek term mysterium rather than the Latin
sacramentum foreshadowed the approach he would take in his Genuine Exposition.
If Karlstadt’s pamphlets were the opening shots and Zwingli’s works the early
skirmishes in the Eucharistic war, Oecolampadius’s book was a full frontal assault
on belief in Christ’s corporeal presence in the elements.
Oecolampadius was aware of the importance of his reputation for supporting
the credibility of his argument against Christ’s corporeal presence. In the Genuine
Exposition he not only relied on his renown as a scholar of patristic literature but
also presented himself to his readers as a person who combined the use of reason
with faithfulness to scripture and who above all desired peace. This irenic stance
was all the more important because of the polemical tone of both Karlstadt’s
published attacks on Christ’s bodily presence and Luther’s response to Karlstadt,
Against the Heavenly Prophets. In a letter to the Swabian pastors printed at the end
of his book, Oecolampadius decried the effect of disagreement among pastors on
the flock of Christ, emphasized his love for the truth, and prayed that God would
open the eyes of those from whom that truth was hidden. He stressed the need to
root out superstition and, in an allusion to both Karlstadt and Luther, he stated
that if others had been more moderate in their language, there would not have
been such turmoil and he would not now be so strongly attacked by others.20 He
162
162 Exch anges, 1526–1531
maintained the same moderate tone throughout the treatise itself. In the exor-
dium he expressed his hope that the work would strengthen his friends and win
over his opponents, and he stated that he was open to instruction where he acted
wrongly.21
The Genuine Exposition itself was loosely divided into five sections. With re-
gard to rhetorical structure, the first part corresponded to the exordium, in which
Oecolampadius stated his reason for writing the treatise. It also included the
narratio, the statement of facts the audience needed to know in order to judge the
case.22 Here Oecolampadius discussed the nature of the sacraments as mysteries,
and he used Augustine’s discussion of the nine types of miracles found in scripture
to claim that there was no miracle associated with the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper. Although the elements were set apart from common bread and wine,
they did not contain or become the body and blood of Christ. Oecolampadius
introduced a host of arguments to demonstrate that neither the apostles nor the
church fathers believed that a miracle occurred in the sacrament. In a digres-
sion he condemned the abuses and superstitions that grew out of believing that
Christ’s body was present in the consecrated host.23
This position, of course, raised the question of how to understand Christ’s
words instituting the Lord’s Supper, “this is my body.” The second section,
which formed the first part of the argumentatio, contained Oecolampadius’s
propositio: Christ’s statement must be understood as “this is the figure of my body.”
His proposal differed from Zwingli’s argument that “is” should be understood
as “signifies,” but Oecolampadius asserted that there was no real disagreement
between the two, since in either case Christ’s words were understood figura-
tively rather than literally. Oecolampadius cited other Scripture passages where
one thing was understood as figuring another, and he argued that Chrysostom,
Basil, Cyprian, and especially Tertullian had understood Christ’s words in this
way.24 To those who objected that Christ’s words must be understood literally,
Oecolampadius pointed out that Christ’s human body was now in heaven and
could not be in many places at the same time. He also returned to the allegedly
miraculous nature of the sacrament. God was indeed omnipotent and could make
Christ’s body and blood invisibly present in the elements, but this did not mean
that he actually did so. If the nature of miracles was to testify to God’s wisdom
and glory, why would God perform a miracle that was not visible to onlookers?25
Although Oecolampadius repeatedly referred to the writings of the church
fathers, especially Augustine, in the first two sections, his discussion of patristic
texts formed the centerpiece of the third and longest section of the book. He
began by distinguishing between the spiritual eating of Christ’s flesh described in
John 6 and the sacramental eating of the signs of Christ’s flesh and blood. Where
the church fathers attributed any power to Christ’s flesh, they were referring to
163
spiritual rather than sacramental manducation. Oecolampadius also warned his

readers that the fathers were often cited in a way that obscured or opposed what
they really meant; moreover, not all of the works attributed to them were gen-
uine.26 He then discussed statements about the Eucharist taken from the writings
of Cyril, Chrysostom, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, and Hegesippus, whose
works were cited by Eusebius. Several times Oecolampadius pointed out that a
passage in the fathers that seemed to support a literal reading of Christ’s words
turned out, upon closer examination, to support a figurative understanding in-
stead.27 Last but not least, he used the church fathers to support his understanding
of the Lord’s Supper as an occasion for thanksgiving, for remembrance of Christ’s
death, and for public testimony of individual faith and Christian unity.28
In the fourth section of the book, Oecolampadius took up Christ’s words,
“this cup is the new testament in my blood.” Relying especially on Luke’s account,
which placed Christ’s Last Supper within the context of the Jewish Passover,
Oecolampadius argued that the bread and wine replaced the paschal lamb as a
figure of Christ’s death on the cross. Whereas the lamb taught the Israelites to
look forward to that sacrifice, the bread and wine caused Christians to look back
in remembrance of it. Here Oecolampadius made explicit an assumption that
underlay his earlier discussion: there was an absolute separation between a sign
and that which it signified. The sacrament or sign was one thing, the reality that
it signified was another. Bread and wine pointed to Christ’s body and blood, but
they could not be identified with Christ’s real and substantial body and blood.29
Finally, and as a brief conclusion, or peroratio, Oecolampadius returned to
the nature of Christ’s body. Christ’s true, human body was in heaven, at the right
hand of the Father. The belief that Christ was bodily present in the consecrated
host had led to many of the abuses of popular piety, not least of which was an em-
phasis on hearing mass rather than emending one’s life.30
Throughout the treatise Oecolampadius avoided denouncing anyone by
name. The two individuals he criticized most heavily were Peter Lombard, who
condemned as heretics all who understood “this is my body” figuratively, and
the early church heretic Marcion, who taught that Christ did not have a truly
human body.31 This does not mean that Oecolampadius used no harsh words.
In a jab at both Catholics and the Wittenbergers, he asserted that it was more
barbarian than the Scythians and Tartars “to seek the flesh of their host [Christ]
wrapped up in bread or in this enigma.” Like the Capernaites, who did not un-
derstand Christ’s teaching about the spiritual eating of his flesh ( John 6:52), they
were carnivores—literally, (human) flesh-eaters or cannibals.32 Indeed, those who
argued that Christ’s body was eaten in a fleshly way had “wondrous carnivorous
souls,” and he implied that such Capernaites were insane.33 This language caused
considerable offense.
164
164 Exch anges, 1526–1531
Oecolampadius’s extensive knowledge of the church fathers made the Genuine

Exposition a formidable work. Erasmus described the book in letters to various
friends as having “such conviction, such eloquence, and so imposing a structure
of argument that, unless God prevents it, even the elect could be led astray.”34 In a
report written for the Basel city council, he said it was “learned, well written, and
thorough. I would also judge it pious, if anything could be so described which is
at variance with the general opinion of the church, from which I consider it per-
ilous to dissent.”35
While Erasmus saw Oecolampadius’s book as opposed to the consensus of
the church, pro-Wittenberg reformers were more concerned with what they saw
as the Basler’s dangerous misinterpretation of scripture. As we have seen, the
differing understandings of “this is my body” proposed by Karlstadt, Zwingli,
and Oecolampadius prompted Theobald Billican to re-examine his own under-
standing of Christ’s words, looking only at their syntax and context and without
reference to the church fathers.36 Johannes Brenz was more willing to address
Oecolampadius’s use of the fathers, and he challenged the Basler’s understanding
of Chrysostom, Augustine, and Tertullian. Ultimately, however, he asserted that
the authority of the church fathers could not be set over that of scripture itself.37
It was precisely this emphasis on scripture rather than the fathers that distin-
guished these reformers’ responses to Oecolampadius from that of Pirckheimer.
The use and interpretation of patristic writings would play a major role in the
published debate between the two men. Before discussing the theological and pa-
tristic argumentation, however, it is necessary to describe the rhetorical strategies
used by each protagonist over the course of their printed debate.
The Rhetoric of the Debate

Like Oecolampadius, Pirckheimer was keenly aware of the need to establish his
authority with readers of his Response to Oecolampadius. In his exordium he delib-
erately emphasized his reputation as a humanist scholar and senior statesman in
order to oppose what he saw as a dangerously erroneous understanding of the sac-
rament. He presented himself to his readers as a wise older man of affairs deeply
concerned for his learned but erring friend. In the captatio benevolentiae, a brief
introduction intended to win the favor of his readers, he mentioned his friend-
ship with Oecolampadius and his desire to discuss their disagreement with mod-
eration and civility. He described how he had written to Oecolampadius when he
had first heard rumors that the latter did not “think soundly” about the Eucharist,
and he cited the Basler’s assertion that he had never denied that “Christ’s body
was present in the mystery.” Imagine, then, Pirckheimer continued, his surprise
when he read Oecolampadius’s true views in the Genuine Exposition.38
165
Pirckheimer also portrayed himself as an unwilling participant in the con-

troversy over the Lord’s Supper. He felt compelled to publish his Response when
he saw that no one else seemed willing to do so, because the truth needed to
be defended, for the sake of God’s honor and the good of one’s neighbors.39
Admitting his own weakness, he undertook the task of correcting error with mod-
esty and mildness. He believed that Oecolampadius had erred out of ignorance,
as happened to many great men. Pirckheimer acknowledged Oecolampadius’s
erudition, but he pointed out that he was both older than Oecolampadius and
more experienced in public and private affairs, and he hoped that with God’s help
the Basler would return to what was right.40
Once he had established this picture of his superiority to Oecolampadius
in the reader’s mind, Pirckheimer turned to the latter’s errors. The body of
his treatise was a point-by-point refutation of each statement in the Genuine
Exposition that he found objectionable, erroneous, or downright blasphemous.
By following the outline of Oecolampadius’s book, Pirckheimer may have yielded
some of the advantages that follow from a tightly structured argument around a
central thesis, but this was offset by the benefits of a format that allowed readers
to go through the two books and compare their arguments side by side.
To the extent that it had a discernable structure, Pirckheimer’s Response fell
into four main parts: a first section discussing mysteries and miracles, a second
devoted to a discussion of tropes and their use in the Bible, a third that defended
the sacramental reception of Christ’s true body and blood, and finally a dis-
cussion of the relevant Scripture passages. In a strategically significant move,
Pirckheimer refused to discuss those patristic authorities Oecolampadius had
introduced in the central part of his treatise, dismissing them as “superfluous and
of no moment, divided among themselves like smoke and not opposed to the di-
vine word.”41 While Pirckheimer may have skipped over this section in order to
keep an already lengthy book from becoming even longer, this also relieved him
of having to deal more closely with passages that Oecolampadius saw as central
supports for his position. The result was to focus attention on a smaller group of
patristic citations that Pirckheimer used to defend Christ’s corporeal presence in
the Lord’s Supper. Since Pirckheimer frequently referred to the church fathers
throughout the Response, his refusal to engage Oecolampadius’s discussion of
these passages was not obvious.
Despite his promise of moderation in the exordium, Pirckheimer did not
refrain from attacking Oecolampadius, and his criticisms grew harsher as he
proceeded through his book. Pirckheimer linked the “new opinion” con-
cerning the Eucharist to the bloodshed of the Peasants’ War, and he several times
identified Oecolampadius’s view with that of the “Pighards,” a negative term for
the Hussites, who were associated in the popular mind not only with heresy but
16
166 Exch anges, 1526–1531
also with revolt.42 He also chastised Oecolampadius for not rejecting Karlstadt,
whose errors had been refuted by Luther.43 Pirckheimer accused Oecolampadius
of distorting the statements of the church fathers to support his cause and of
relying on sophistical (i.e., scholastic) argumentation and faulty logic to make his
point,44 and he underscored the Basler’s duplicitous nature with several references
to “his usual way” of twisting words or changing the topic.45 Oecolampadius’s fig-
urative understanding of “this is my body” was false, impious, and impure, and
those who understood “my body” as “figure of my body”—as Oecolampadius
did—were themselves guilty of Marcionism.46
This polemic never overshadowed the theological arguments, however, and it
should be viewed in a larger context. Although the tone of Pirckheimer’s work was
more strident than that of other Latin pamphlets defending Christ’s corporeal pres-
ence, it was less virulent than those written in German.47 Moreover, Pirckheimer’s
harsh language reflected his conviction that belief in Christ’s corporeal presence
was an essential element of the Christian faith. Because Oecolampadius rejected
that belief and misinterpreted both scripture and the church fathers to uphold
his own wrong position, his arguments had to be rejected with the strongest lan-
guage. Pirckheimer’s attacks were sharpest at those points where he responded
to Oecolampadius’s own polemical statements. The Nuremberger was particu-
larly incensed that Oecolampadius called his opponents Capernaites, cannibals,
and heretics, compared them with the papists, and claimed that they worshiped
what they ate and drank. He interpreted Oecolampadius’s pleas to avoid con-
tention as simply another way of saying that the controversy would disappear if
everyone agreed with him.48 Pirckheimer closed his pamphlet by asserting that if
Oecolampadius was offended by it, he should consider the many insults that he
had aimed at all his adversaries.49
Pirckheimer’s treatise was deeply damaging to Oecolampadius’s reputation.
It undermined his credibility as an expositor of the church fathers, it associated
him with both heresy and sedition, and it depicted him as one who relied on
trickery and insult rather than on sound reasoning, and it did so in Latin and thus
before the same international intellectual community for whom Oecolampadius
had written the Genuine Exposition. After he received a copy of the Response
in April, Oecolampadius’s first reaction was to write directly to Pirckheimer,
complaining about the harsh tone of his book. Rejecting Pirckheimer’s prayers
that he be restored to the true understanding of the Eucharist, he asserted the
truth of his own position, which had only been confirmed by his reading of the
Nuremberger’s treatise.50
Pirckheimer’s answer to Oecolampadius’s letter was equally unrepentant.
He accused the Basler of attacking all Christians who disagreed with him and
of relying only on human reason to support his view, ignoring both scripture
167
and the church fathers. He also disclosed a further reason for writing against
Oecolampadius: his own opponents suspected him of favoring the Basler’s book,
which was banned in Nuremberg and contained views that had led to Hans
Denck’s expulsion from the city.51 Furthermore, its view of the Lord’s Supper was
associated with Karlstadt and Müntzer, and so with sedition. Pirckheimer felt it
was necessary to reject such an association publicly rather than to encourage any
guilt by association through remaining silent.52 Pirckheimer’s argument has an
ex post facto feel, since in his Response to Oecolampadius he mentioned neither
Denck nor Müntzer and his references to Karlstadt concerned the latter’s under-
standing of “this is my body” rather than his involvement in the Peasants’ War.53
The association of Oecolampadius with Karlstadt and Müntzer would play a
major role, however, in Pirckheimer’s Second Response.
The epistolary exchange between Oecolampadius and Pirckheimer only
hardened the resolution of each man to defend his views publicly. It also hinted
at the strategies each would take in his future publications: Oecolampadius by
condemning the use of polemic in the debate, and Pirckheimer by increasing the
polemical level of his attack. Oecolampadius had told Pirckheimer that he had
not yet decided to answer the latter’s treatise in print, but he began writing a re-
sponse only a few days after sending his letter. His work was interrupted by the
disputation of Baden, which lasted from mid-May through the first week of June,
but he finished the manuscript and sent it off to Zurich for printing only a few
days before Pirckheimer wrote his own letter to Oecolampadius. The printing
was complete on August 11, and the book was first made available to the public at
the fall Frankfurt fair.54
In addition to addressing Pirckheimer’s criticisms of the theological content
of the Genuine Exposition, Oecolampadius recognized the need to repair his rep-
utation in the face of Pirckheimer’s charges against him. He did so by focusing
on the polemical nature of Pirckheimer’s treatise, making it seem even more
deliberately insulting than it actually was. Oecolampadius could not attack the
Nuremberg patrician’s social superiority or his humanist reputation, and so in
the lengthy exordium of his Response to Pirckheimer he presented himself as the
injured innocent party. Like Pirckheimer, he began with a captatio benevolentiae
in which he referred to their old friendship and stressed the need for moder-
ation. His tone quickly changed, however, when he accused Pirckheimer of
defaming his character and attempting to subvert the truth. Oecolampadius
acknowledged that the “vigorous rhetoric” of Pirckheimer’s treatise certainly
supported his renown as a humanist, but it wrecked their long friendship and
did violence to Pirckheimer’s senatorial dignity. Oecolampadius claimed that he
did not know whether it was better to defend his innocence or, trusting to Christ
the judge, to bear Pirckheimer’s attack in patience. It was against his nature to
168
168 Exch anges, 1526–1531
argue with friends, and he hesitated to attack someone of Pirckheimer’s standing.

Nevertheless, and as the Nuremberger himself had asserted, it was more impor-
tant to consider the truth than someone’s reputation. Oecolampadius told his
readers that although Pirckheimer wanted to destroy both his good name and his
true teaching, he could respond to each and every false charge.55
Oecolampadius then turned to a more specific defense against Pirckheimer’s
attack on his character. His strategy was to emphasize the polemical character of
the Nuremberger’s book, so that he could highlight his own blameless irenicism.
After referring to the “600 insults” in the first half of Pirckheimer’s Responsio,
he cited at length what was possibly the most vitriolic passage of the book, in
which Pirckheimer reacted against charges that Oecolampadius’s opponents were
heretics, Capernaites, papists, and deserters of the truth who falsely accused those
who defended a figurative understanding of Christ’s words.56 Oecolampadius
pointed out that he had named no one but had only condemned error in
general—unlike Pirckheimer, who had attacked him by name in public. He had
never called those who disagreed with him Capernaites, papists, heretics, or any
of the other insults that Pirckheimer had listed, but merely condemned the errors
held by those groups. Pirckheimer himself had twisted Oecolampadius’s words to
apply them to himself and his supporters—although, as Oecolampadius said, “if
you think rightly and well about the Supper, ‘Capernaite’ does not apply to you,
but if you think wrongly, you have no reason to turn your back on their society.”57
Oecolampadius then rejected Pirckheimer’s depiction of his teaching as se-
ditious. During the peasant uprisings he had kept from the Lord’s Table those
who would not pay the tithe or who disturbed the peace. He had somewhat more
difficulty refuting the association with Karlstadt and the “Pighards,” since in fact
he had drawn some of his ideas in the Genuine Exposition from both sources,
so instead he asked a series of rhetorical questions that relativized the accusa-
tion: “Why do you indulge in such bile? . . . Is there anything arousing odium
with which you do not associate me? Karlstadt and the Pighards are perhaps not
so evil that they should offend you. Why do you compare me to the Jews and
Saracens?”58
Only after devoting several more pages to other examples of what he called
Pirckheimer’s insults and accusations of trickery did Oecolampadius finally turn to
the issue of the Lord’s Supper. At first he answered each of the points Pirckheimer
had made in his attack on the Genuine Exposition, but he modified his strategy
when he reached Pirckheimer’s criticism of his use of the fathers.59 Although
he gave the impression that he was still proceeding through Pirckheimer’s trea-
tise point by point, Oecolampadius’s discussion of the church fathers was more
carefully shaped. He first criticized Pirckheimer’s selection and use of patristic
authorities before defending his own interpretation of Augustine.60 He took
169
the same approach with regard to the rational arguments raised against Christ’s
bodily presence, first refuting Pirckheimer’s general charge that they undermined
God’s omnipotence, as well as his specific citations of early church practice, then
defending the arguments he had made in the Genuine Exposition.61 In the last
section of the treatise Oecolampadius focused more specifically on the Lord’s
Supper, justifying the figurative interpretation of “this is my body,” defending the
argument that Christ’s body must be in one place, arguing for the spiritual rather
than carnal manducation of Christ’s body, discussing the relationship between a
figure and what is figured, and explaining the utility of the Lord’s Supper.62
Throughout his response Oecolampadius pointed out Pirckheimer’s “lust
for contention” and duplicity. It was disingenuous for Pirckheimer to say he
believed that Oecolampadius erred in ignorance and then to accuse him of
deceit and trickery. Moreover, the Nuremberger had interpreted everything
Oecolampadius said in the worst possible way and resorted to insults rather
than argument.63 There was, the Basler concluded, no cause for Pirckheimer to
have used such “inhuman severity in his book, as if I were the most impious
of the impious.” There was nothing evil or invented in his teaching on the
Lord’s Supper, and those who read Pirckheimer’s book would easily see that
Pirckheimer’s charges were false.64
Behind its apparently irenical facade, Oecolampadius’s Response was ac-
tually a carefully crafted polemical work. Its strategy of drawing attention to
Pirckheimer’s rhetoric had two goals. On the one hand, it was intended to arouse
sympathy for Oecolampadius as the target of unjust attack; on the other, it made
it seem that Pirckheimer was relying on rhetorical tricks and false accusations
rather than on sound theological arguments to oppose Oecolampadius’s under-
standing of the Lord’s Supper.
Pirckheimer would respond to both of these points. His angry reaction to
Oecolampadius’s Response is apparent in the full title of his Second Response
Concerning the True Flesh of Christ and His True Blood against the Insults of
Johannes Who Calls Himself Oecolampadius. In the introduction, Pirckheimer
described Oecolampadius’s book as “against all honesty and Christian love,
most shameful and full of insults.” It could fairly be said, however, that this
characterization applies more fittingly to Pirckheimer’s Second Response than to
Oecolampadius’s treatise. Although Pirckheimer asserted that he would write
“with no more private affect than the business requires,” the tone of this treatise
was much harsher than that of his earlier book.65 Indeed, the Second Response
can be seen as a challenge to Oecolampadius’s characterization of Pirckheimer’s
Response. If the Basler thought that treatise was polemical, he was greatly mis-
taken, and the Nuremberger would now prove his mastery at writing genuine
polemic.
170
170 Exch anges, 1526–1531
The personal attack on Oecolampadius was as crucial an element of the Second

Response as was its discussion of the Lord’s Supper, for the Basler’s character was
bound up with his understanding of the sacrament. In an exaggerated response
to Oecolampadius’s complaint about being attacked by name, Pirckheimer
avoided mention of that name, referring instead to “ille” or “iste homo” (“that
man”) when a noun was necessary. He repeated and sharpened several of his
earlier accusations: Oecolampadius twisted and misused scripture, he “insolently
disdained” Pirckheimer’s “learning and senatorial dignity,” his book was full of
self-praise and boasting, he relied on sophistry and faulty logic, he cited the
church fathers selectively and twisted their words, and he read into Pirckheimer’s
statements positions that the Nuremberger did not hold.66 He also emphasized
the association, first expressed in his letter of the previous June, of Oecolampadius
with Karlstadt and Müntzer—the two names were now always cited together—
and the Peasants’ War.67
Pirckheimer also attacked Oecolampadius’s life and conduct. The damage
Oecolampadius had caused to Basel was attested to by the expulsion, at the time
of the Peasants’ War, of his associates and the fact that Basel’s city council had pro-
hibited the printing and sale of his books.68 Oecolampadius had shown his faith-
lessness by taking monastic vows and then later fleeing the monastery.69 In his zeal
to blacken Oecolampadius’s character, Pirckheimer either misinterpreted or will-
fully twisted the Basler’s citation of Pirckheimer’s own words. Oecolampadius
had complained about Pirckheimer’s immoderate language, for the latter had
gone so far as to suggest that Oecolampadius might have thought Christ was
tipsy when he instituted the Lord’s Supper:
Nor do you [sc. Pirckheimer] proceed in a more restrained way when I say
that Christ could have said with more words, “the bread is made my body,”
or “in this bread is my body.” You mock and say, “Surely, if you had been
present at the [Last] Supper, perhaps you could have instructed Christ
what form of words he should have used, especially if you had seen him
stammering after the Supper because of drunkenness.”70
Pirckheimer took this passage to mean that Oecolampadius was accusing

him of drunkenness and commented, “I’m surprised that he does not con-
clude: ‘Willibald writes while in his cups; therefore Christ’s body is not contained
in the Eucharist.’ ” Pirckheimer then used this passage to demonstrate his own
moral superiority: he had abstained from wine for many years, even when on
civic legations to places where the water was unhealthy, and Oecolampadius had
admired his abstemiousness to the point of sycophancy when visiting his house
in Nuremberg.71
17
The overall effect of Pirckheimer’s attack is obvious from these examples.

Oecolampadius’s vile character and his depraved teaching could not be separated,
and both should be rejected. Just in case the reader missed it, however, Pirckheimer
closed his book with a warning: “I do not want you to believe rhetorically col-
ored words, or to be seduced by the form of goodness, or to be exposed to false
prophets, but to be followers of Christ’s commands.”72
The harsh polemic of the Second Response obscures Pirckheimer’s second
goal in writing the treatise: to refute Oecolampadius’s assertion that the church
fathers supported his view. There was little that was new in his objections to
Oecolampadius’s rational arguments and his interpretation of key Scripture
passages, but the Second Response made a substantial contribution to the debate
over the interpretation of patristic texts concerning the Eucharist. Oecolampadius
had lost valuable ground in this battle when, in his Response to Pirckheimer, he did
not challenge the Nuremberger on those patristic citations that the latter had
ignored but considered only those church fathers Pirckheimer had discussed.
This had the effect of narrowing the discussion to those patristic statements most
favorable to the Wittenberg party. Pirckheimer now pressed his advantage, not
only continuing his argument with Oecolampadius over the interpretation of
several key patristic texts but also adding a whole new series of citations to the
debate.73 Many of these new passages were familiar to contemporaries, for they
were taken from the Decretum, the foundational text of canon law. Their very
familiarity was additional support for Pirckheimer’s claim that Oecolampadius
misrepresented the views of the fathers by ignoring those statements so clearly at
variance with his own position.
The manuscript of Pirckheimer’s Second Response was in the hands of the
printers by mid-December, and the book was available for sale in January.74
Oecolampadius received a copy by the beginning of February, which left him very
little time to pen an answer that would be available in time for the spring book
fair. He devoted the month of February to writing, and the treatise was printed
by mid-March.75
Like Pirckheimer, Oecolampadius began his self-defense with the title of his
Posterior Response on the Eucharist of Johann Husschin, Who Received His Name
from His Comrades in Early Youth. Although he justified both his teaching and
his conduct, Oecolampadius recognized the absolute necessity of distinguishing
between his personal reputation and his understanding of the Lord’s Supper,
which led to his abandoning the practice of point-by-point refutation used in the
earlier works. Instead, the Posterior Response more clearly distinguished between
a discussion of Eucharistic theology and a response to Pirckheimer’s personal
attacks. The treatise was divided into three parts. In the first part, Oecolampadius
discussed the proper understanding of signs as they applied to the sacraments.
172
172 Exch anges, 1526–1531
In the second, he responded to Pirckheimer’s most important criticisms of his

understanding of the Lord’s Supper, and especially his use of the church fathers.
Finally, he defended himself against Pirckheimer’s attacks on his character and
his ministry in Basel.
In the exordium, Oecolampadius repeated his self-portrayal as an injured
Christian friend who did not wish to retaliate in kind. He stated that both his
writings and his life had been undeservedly accused. Despite the moderation of
Oecolampadius’s first response, Pirckheimer had attacked him even more sav-
agely than before. Oecolampadius asserted that readers should be allowed to read
and judge both works—an implicit criticism of Nuremberg, where the printing
and sale of his and Zwingli’s books were prohibited.76
Oecolampadius adopted the same tone of aggrieved innocence in the section
devoted to his self-defense. He repeated much of what he had said earlier but
added significant details, such as the extent of his contacts with Müntzer and
Karlstadt, the circumstances of his entrance into and flight from the monastery,
and a description of the liturgical reforms introduced in Basel, in order to refute
Pirckheimer’s charges.77 The central section was also a repetition of the arguments
Oecolampadius had made earlier. He upheld the rational grounds he had used
against Christ’s bodily presence, and he defended his figurative understanding of
“this is my body,” as well as his use and correct understanding of both the relevant
Scripture texts and the many excerpts taken from the fathers’ writings.78
The opening section, in contrast, introduced a topic that was discussed
in the Genuine Exposition but had not yet been at issue in the exchange with
Pirckheimer. Alluding to Peter Lombard’s distinctions between reality (res),
sign (sacramentum), and their joining in the consecrated elements (res et
sacramentum), Oecolampadius set forth his presuppositions concerning the
sacraments. A sign or figure, even if it was a real thing in itself, must always be
separated from the thing it signifies or figures. Sacraments by their very nature
had to be understood as signs, so the external water of baptism was only a figure
of the new birth that was internal baptism, and the consecrated bread was only
a figure of Christ’s body. Christ nowhere gave his words such power that they
could convert a sign into what it signified, nor did he authorize others to do so
when he commanded them to “do this.”79 Oecolampadius then returned to one
of his earliest arguments: there was no utility in Christ’s corporeal presence in
the elements. It was simply wrong to assert that one’s conscience was consoled by
the carnal manducation of Christ’s body; only faith in Christ’s atoning death had
such power.80
Oecolampadius’s Posterior Response was a significant presentation of his
Eucharistic theology, but its importance would be eclipsed by the publication of
Luther’s treatise That These Words Still Stand Firm, which was also available at the
173
spring book fair in 1527. Luther’s entrance into the debate relieved Pirckheimer
of any need to respond further to the theological issues. He would have the last
word in the polemical battle, however, with his Epistle to Eleutherius on the Insults
Expressed by that Monk Who Calls Himself in Graeco-Latin Caecolampadius
[“dark lamp”], but in German Ausshin [“going beyond”]. Pirckheimer sent this
brief pamphlet to the printer in mid-July, and its printing was finished in time
for the fall fair.81
The Epistle to Eleutherius was little more than a tirade against Oecolampadius,
with only passing reference to the Lord’s Supper. According to Pirckheimer,
Oecolampadius’s blasphemies and insults made it clear that he was in league
with the devil. He could not be brought to see the light, so there was no point in
arguing further, especially since he had not been able to prove his assertion that
Christ’s body and blood were not present in the elements. Pirckheimer there-
fore focused instead on the third section of Oecolampadius’s Posterior Response
in order to blacken the Basler’s character. He again identified Oecolampadius
with Müntzer and Karlstadt, deplored the harm he had caused to the city of
Basel, emphasized his differences with both Erasmus and Luther, and mocked
his decision to leave the monastery. In response to Oecolampadius’s assertion
that Pirckheimer sympathized with the papists, the Nuremberger stated that he
would rather accept the views of the papists than to endorse “the intolerable and
detestable errors of false prophets, hypocrites and impostors.”82 What had begun
as a serious theological disagreement was finally reduced to a tedious repetition
of insults.
The Issues: Theology, Rhetoric, and Ethos

This description of the exchange between Pirckheimer and Oecolampadius
demonstrates not only the importance of theological argumentation but also the
skillful use of rhetoric and the ability of each author to reinforce his own moral
authority and undermine that of his opponent. Over the course of the exchange,
the issue of character gradually eclipsed the debate over the Lord’s Supper, al-
though theological argumentation held an important place in each treatise up
until the end.
By its very nature, the theological debate between Pirckheimer and
Oecolampadius was wide-ranging, and Pirckheimer’s strategy of following the
structure of Oecolampadius’s treatises meant that major and minor arguments
tended to receive an equal amount of attention. Each author developed and ex-
panded his own position in response to the arguments of the other. A closer ex-
amination, though, shows that the theological debate centered on two themes.
The first concerned the miraculous nature of the sacrament and the relationship
174
174 Exch anges, 1526–1531
of reason and faith more broadly. Luther had discussed the relationship be-
tween reason and faith in the second part of his treatise Against the Heavenly
Prophets, but he did not address the particular arguments based on reason that
Oecolampadius raised in the Genuine Exposition.83 Pirckheimer cited Luther and
shared his view concerning the subordination of reason to faith, but the responses
he gave to Oecolampadius’s arguments were his own; indeed, Luther would re-
peat some of Pirckheimer’s arguments in That These Words Still Stand Firm.84
The very first point that Pirckheimer attacked in his Response to Oecolampadius
was the latter’s assertion that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper involved
nothing that was beyond the ability of human reason to understand. According
to the Basler, bread and wine were signs that signified Christ’s body and blood;
they were not miraculously changed to become or contain that body and blood.
Pirckheimer was horrified by this view, and a large proportion of each of his
two treatises was devoted to a defense of the miracle that he believed was at the
heart of the Lord’s Supper. Oecolampadius had asserted that neither the apostles
nor the early church acted as if there were a miraculous transformation of the
bread; Pirckheimer responded that this did not mean that no miracle occurred.85
Oecolampadius argued that the invisible presence of Christ’s body and blood
countered the purpose of miracles, which were meant as visible testimonies of
God’s glory; Pirckheimer answered that faith itself concerned hidden things.86
Where Oecolampadius pointed to the many abuses that grew out of popular be-
lief in Christ’s bodily presence, Pirckheimer responded that the existence of abuses
did not negate the belief from which those abuses had grown.87 Pirckheimer was
not the only one forced on the defensive, however. To Pirckheimer’s accusation
that Oecolampadius denied God’s omnipotence by rejecting Christ’s corporeal
presence, Oecolampadius shot back that although God could do anything, that
did not mean he chose to do it.88 Each accused the other of begging the question
and assuming as proven that which he needed to prove.89
Underlying this dispute about the miraculous nature of the sacrament was
the fundamental divergence in how each author understood Christ’s statement,
“this is my body.” For Pirckheimer, as for Luther, the statement was clear, mani-
fest, and could only be understood literally. To claim that the words were figur-
ative was not simply wrong but also impious, heretical, and blasphemous. It was
also rhetorically inept, since it could not be justified according to Quintilian’s
teaching on tropes.90 For Oecolampadius, however, the literal understanding of
these words led to rational absurdities, and so Christians were compelled to un-
derstand them figuratively. Although he defended his claim that “this is my body”
contained a figure of speech, he was more concerned with the patristic use of fig-
ures to interpret the Old Testament than with Quintilian’s discussion of tropes.
Where Pirckheimer argued that in divine things reason was limited and must
175
subordinate itself to faith, as it also did with the doctrines of the incarnation and
virgin birth, Oecolampadius held that on this particular doctrine a figurative un-
derstanding of Christ’s words eliminated the need to subordinate reason to faith.
Moreover, even if faith concerned what is unseen, one was not required to believe
something that seemed to oppose the truth.91
Pirckheimer’s treatises reveal the Nuremberger’s deep emotional attach-
ment to belief in Christ’s corporeal presence in the bread and wine, which
underlay his insistence on the miraculous nature of the sacrament and the
literal understanding of “this is my body.” That profound conviction led
both Oecolampadius and later scholars to accuse Pirckheimer of holding a
Catholic understanding of the sacrament, but this is to misunderstand the
Nuremberger’s position. When given a choice between the two, Pirckheimer—
like Luther—preferred the Catholic position to Oecolampadius’s view, but he
did not endorse transubstantiation. He clearly rejected the doctrine in his first
treatise, and although he wrote more circumspectly in the Second Response,
perhaps out of respect for his Catholic friends, he did not go beyond Luther’s
own endorsement of Christ’s bodily presence.92 Pirckheimer’s position also
put him at odds with his friend Erasmus, who held a far more favorable view
of Oecolampadius’s book, but who explicitly cited the consensus of the church
concerning the sacrament.93
Manfred Scharoun has emphasized Pirckheimer’s “rootedness in the tradition
of late medieval piety,”94 and indeed, the Nuremberger’s insistence on Christ’s
corporeal presence in the elements demonstrates the success of late medieval
preaching about that presence. Although most of the lay contributors to the
Eucharistic controversy rejected belief in the presence of Christ’s body and blood
in the elements, Pirckheimer’s treatises remind us that there were laymen and
women who continued to accept Christ’s bodily presence even if they abandoned
the Catholic insistence on transubstantiation.
Pirckheimer’s second line of attack concerned the authority and use of the
church fathers. Not only did he have clear scripture on his side; he also claimed
that almost all of the church fathers taught the presence of Christ’s true body
and blood in the sacrament.95 Pirckheimer accused Oecolampadius of twisting
the statements of the church fathers in order to support his own delusions. He
addressed those passages cited in the Genuine Exposition to show what he called
his opponent’s deceptions and traps to mislead the simple: Oecolampadius used
the church fathers selectively, rejecting those passages that opposed his own
view, and when he did cite the fathers he omitted crucial parts of a passage or
quoted passages that were irrelevant to the topic.96 Pirckheimer also cited several
authors and works that Oecolampadius had not used, including Athanasius, the
statements of Augustine in the Sententiae of Prosper, Ambrose’s De sacramentis,
176
176 Exch anges, 1526–1531
and the eleventh-century Bulgarian bishop Theophylactus, whose commentary

on the gospels Oecolampadius had translated from Greek into Latin.97
This prompted a more general debate about the relative value of the earlier and
the later church fathers and the authenticity of certain works. Oecolampadius
rejected the attribution of De sacramentis to Ambrose; he also criticized the faulty
citations from the fathers found in both the Decretum and in Peter Lombard’s
Sentences. As we have seen, he defended his own interpretation of the church fa-
thers and turned Pirckheimer’s charges back at him, accusing the Nuremberger of
misunderstanding the fathers he quoted and citing passages that did not pertain
to the issue or attributing quotations to the wrong person.98
At the end of his Second Response, Pirckheimer summed up his belief that
it was not only unsafe but also impious to depart from the view of the church
fathers and the universal church, both Greek and Latin. This argument had
been used against Luther and his followers from the very beginning of the
Reformation, and Oecolampadius relied on the classic evangelical argument that
one could not depend either on the number of people who held a position or the
length of time it had been held. The crowd was capable of erring, and the prophet
Elijah had believed he was alone in worshiping the true God. The treasures of
wisdom belonged to the church, but sometimes only a few spiritual people had
access to them.99 Pirckheimer countered that the arguments of the church fathers
were further strengthened by sound and convincing reasons. He pointed out that
Oecolampadius’s error had been refuted since the time of Berengar, and there
was no one in the past century who taught Oecolampadius’s position. Finally, he
asserted his independence: he adhered not to any party but to the truth.100
Although the theological arguments were expanded over the course of the de-
bate, particularly with regard to the use of the church fathers, after a certain point
both authors had made their own positions clear. If they were to win their readers
over, they needed to use other means of persuasion. Their treatises were rhetor-
ically shaped to influence their readers’ impressions of the arguments and the
moral character of each author. In their successive publications each disputant
asserted his disinterested love of the truth and pointed to the rhetorical tricks and
unethical actions of his opponent. As experts in classical rhetoric, they well un-
derstood the importance of the speaker’s ethos or moral character for persuading
an audience, and so each did all he could to build up his own reputation and dis-
credit that of his opponent.
This was easier for Pirckheimer than it was for Oecolampadius, because the
Basler advocated a position that the church had long condemned as heresy. That
association with heresy, strengthened by Pirckheimer’s frequent references to the
“Pighards” or Hussites, did serious damage to Oecolampadius’s reputation for
learned piety. Despite the status conferred by his doctorate, Oecolampadius was
17
Pirckheimer’s social inferior. Moreover, Pirckheimer’s charge of sedition made

it harder for the Basler to cast aspersions on Pirckheimer’s character without
seeming to show disrespect for established authority. Oecolampadius had little
choice but to accept the role of the wronged inferior, which he justified by
claiming to act with the Christian forbearance, mildness, and patience that was
appropriate to a minister of God’s word. Oecolampadius’s self-defense was placed
under a further handicap by the censorship policies that kept his works from
reaching the same audience that read Pirckheimer’s treatises. This meant that
there could be no counter to the Nuremberger’s depiction of Oecolampadius’s
character. As Oecolampadius realized, it would be far better for him if people
could read either both authors or neither one.101
The debate between Pirckheimer and Oecolampadius demonstrates how
important nontheological factors were in the development of the Eucharistic
controversy. As Pirckheimer acknowledged in his final contribution to the de-
bate, there could be no victor, for there was no judge that both would accept.
The best each could hope for was to sway public opinion. Both men under-
stood that the skilled use of classical rhetoric was as necessary for that task as
were scriptural citations, patristic authority, and logical argumentation. For
these two humanist scholars, theology, rhetoric, and ethos were inextricably
linked.
Although the Wittenberg party concentrated its attacks on Oecolampadius,
the Basler was not the sole defender of the sacramentarian position. The reformers
of Zurich and Strasbourg were also actively involved in the public debate. Their
efforts are the focus of the next chapter.
178
The Contributions of Zurich

and Strasbourg
They boast that we are publishing nothing and that they have
not been refuted. I acknowledge that if writing many books
is tantamount to defending doctrine, then those men have
surely triumphed over even the whole of Scripture. If, however,
defending doctrine means contending with solid arguments
and making conciences sure, then the truth is that they have
not yet begun to write a single page.1
In September 1526, Luther wrote to the Strasbourg printer Johannes

Herwagen to condemn the unauthorized interpretation of the Lord’s Supper
that Martin Bucer had inserted into the fourth volume of his Latin translation
of Luther’s postil. Luther’s observation about the number of sacramentarian
publications was straightforward and certainly justified, but his claim that “we
are publishing nothing” requires interpretation, for the Wittenberg party cer-
tainly had not been silent, and in 1526 Luther’s supporters contributed almost as
many new titles to the debate as the sacramentarians did. Instead, Luther’s use of
the “royal we” reflects his awareness of the decisive authority attributed to him
personally, even by his opponents.
Oecolampadius’s exchanges with Luther’s supporters in the Holy Roman
Empire made Basel the center of learned resistance to the Wittenberg under-
standing of the Lord’s Supper, but the reformers of Zurich and Strasbourg were
also fully involved in the debate over the sacrament. Like Oecolampadius, both
Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Bucer built on an Erasmian foundation, but their
views diverged as they interacted with quite different opponents. Over the
course of 1526, Zwingli was occupied chiefly with defending his understanding of
the Lord’s Supper against Catholic opponents within the Swiss Confederation.
The position he developed in his polemical exchanges with them applied to
the Wittenberg party as well, however, and so harmed the prospects for inner-
evangelical concord. From Strasbourg, Bucer tried to avoid the public quarrel,
179
The Contributions of Zurich and Strasbourg 179
preferring to propagate his views via letter writing and translations. Unlike the
Swiss reformers, who sought victory by proving their opponents wrong, Bucer
continued to advocate the Strasbourg policy of downplaying the importance of
Christ’s bodily presence and calling for mutual toleration. He was increasingly
drawn into the public arena, however, as his ideas and actions were attacked by
Brenz, Bugenhagen, and Luther himself.
Behind the debates over the Lord’s Supper lay the deeper question of theo-
logical authority. Forced to take a public stand by a sacramentarian pamphlet
claiming he supported their position, Erasmus would react swiftly and strongly
to proclaim that he had never taught that the bread and wine were only signs of
Christ’s body and blood. In his letter to Herwagen, Luther denounced Bucer and
Leo Jud for what he saw as underhanded attempts to present their understanding
of the sacrament as approved by Wittenberg. In his first major attack on Luther,
Zwingli would respond by denouncing what he considered the Wittenberger’s
false teachings, criticizing Luther’s assumed authority to exegete scripture, and
calling on his readers to judge scripture for themselves, which would prove that
Zwingli’s own exegesis was the correct one. By the spring of 1527, the breach be-
tween the two parties was wider than ever.
Zurich: Zwingli and His Catholic Opponents

As figure 9.1 shows, Zwingli and his supporters were involved in a number of
exchanges over the course of 1526 and early 1527, virtually all of them carried out
in the vernacular. Zwingli wrote two Latin tracts in the spring of 1526, but his re-
maining publications were German works provoked by or aimed at his Catholic
opponents and intended especially for a Swiss audience.
The most significant of Zwingli’s 1526 publications was also one of the
earliest, his Clear Instruction on Christ’s Supper, Described in German (as Never
Before) and for the Sake of the Simple, so that They Are Not Defrauded by Anyone’s
Sophistry.2 As the full title emphasized, the pamphlet was the first work written
by the Zurich reformer in the vernacular and so aimed directly at a Swiss au-
dience.3 In contrast to Luther’s use of a supraregional German intended to be
understood by a broad audience, Zwingli wrote in a Swiss dialect that would be
immediately understandable to his readers and hearers in Zurich, although less
so to those outside of Switzerland.4 The pamphlet’s simple structure and uncom-
plicated language made it particularly effective in conveying Zwingli’s under-
standing of the Lord’s Supper as remembrance of and thanksgiving for Christ’s
death. That message began already with the engravings that framed the title page
of the first edition (illustration 9.1): the Old Testament Passover meal (Exod.
12:8–11) at the top was matched by Christ’s institution of the Lord’s Supper on
180
Oecolampadius Exposition, Luther, Prophets G Alber, L&G
L Bugenhagen, Error Commentary, L&G
Subsidium, L&G
Billican, Words L Bugenhagen, G Erasmus Expostulation
Copy, G L
Pellican, Letter L Instruction G
Billican L Murner, Response L
[Jud], Opinion G Am Grüt, Indication G
Faber Answer G Fabri, Letter L&G
Eckstein, Council G First Answer G [Eck, Baden theses]
Eck, False Teaching G
True Course G Luther, Reutlingen L Second Answer G Erasmus, Detection,
Prejudgment L Strauss, Error G L&G
Murner, Response G
Jud, Discovery G Brief Response L
Schnewyl, Condemnation G Eßlingen 1 L
Fabri, Proof G
Luther, Fanatics G
Luther, Adoration L
Strauss’ Pamphlet G
Luther, Fanatics L Eßlingen 2 L (?
Luther, Stand Firm G Amica Exegesis L
Rejoinder G
Landsperger, Supplication
Baden Disputation G Christian Answer G

. Zurich/Swiss Contributions to the Controversy, 1526–June 1527
18
. Title page of Ulrich Zwingli, Ein klare vnderrichtung

(Zurich: Hager, 1526); photo courtesy of the Zentralbibliothek Zürich
the bottom (Luke 22:14–20); on the left, the Jews gathered manna (1 Cor. 10:3–4;
cf. Exod. 16:14–17), while on the right, Christ preached to the multitude as his
disciples distributed the miraculously multiplied loaves of bread ( John 6:21, 25–
65). All these Scripture passages were discussed in the treatise, and the title page
illustrations reinforced the argument that the Lord’s Supper should be under-
stood as the Christian successor to the Jewish Passover, a meal of remembrance
and thanksgiving.5
Zwingli divided the treatise into four sections. He opened the first section by
defining a sacrament as “the sign of a holy thing,” so that “the sacrament of the
holy body” was the bread that signified the body of Christ, which was seated at
the right hand of the Father.6 He then described the errors of those who under-
stood “this is my body” literally. Against his Catholic opponents, he repeated his
earlier argument that if Christ’s flesh were substantially present, it would have to
182
182 Exch anges, 1526–1532
be perceptible. Against the Wittenbergers, he rejected remanence, arguing that

“this is my body” did not allow the coexistence of body and bread, and so if one
took “this is my body” literally, the bread’s substance must change to flesh. These
two errors contradicted each other and so proved that “is” could not be under-
stood literally. Zwingli also criticized those who claimed that God’s word was
so powerful that it could transform the substance of bread into Christ’s body;
although his argument was aimed at Catholics, it applied to the Syngramma
as well. To counter this position, Zwingli repeated the now familiar argument
that the priest’s words did not have this power, and if they did, the body brought
to the bread would be that of the priest. He also argued that the truth could
be found in the papists’ own law, in the gloss on Berengar’s confession, and in
Augustine’s statement, “believe and you have eaten,” which immediately followed
that confession in the Decretum. These demonstrated that even Gratian and the
canonists realized that Christ’s flesh and blood were not substantially present, but
they feared to say so because of the papacy. Augustine himself had taught trust in
Christ, and not the physical eating of Christ’s body and blood.7
In the second section of the treatise, Zwingli turned to scripture and
the Apostles’ Creed to support his position. A lengthy paraphrase of John 6
supported the assertion that eating Christ’s body and blood was simply to have
faith in him. In the process Zwingli again rejected the Wittenberg understanding
of John 6:63 as referring to flesh as carnal understanding rather than as Christ’s
flesh, and he used 1 Corinthians 10:3–4 to reinforce the equation of eating with
trusting Christ.8 In the foreword to his translation of Oecolampadius’s Genuine
Exposition, Hätzer had already claimed that the Apostles’ Creed opposed be-
lief in Christ’s bodily presence, but Zwingli gave that argument more polemical
prominence: the Creed’s three articles concerning Christ’s ascension, session at
the Father’s right hand, and return in judgment proved that Christ’s body was
located in heaven and not in the bread.9 For the first time, Zwingli addressed
at length the distinction between Christ’s divine nature, which was everywhere,
and his human body, which even in its resurrected and glorified form could not
be in two places simultaneously. Zwingli used this argument against those who
argued that Christ’s body was eaten invisibly and in an imperceptible way in the
sacrament, a position associated with those most strongly influenced by Erasmus,
whether Catholics or Wittenbergers.10
The third section presented Zwingli’s understanding of “this is my body” as
containing a trope or word used in a nonliteral sense. The Bible was full of such
figures of speech, and Exodus 12:11 (“It is the passover of the Lord.”) provided
the best parallel to Christ’s words, as was clear from a comparison of the institu-
tion accounts in Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11. Last but not least, Zwingli cited
Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine to prove that the church fathers also understood
183
“this is my body” figuratively, and he referred his readers to the translation of

Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition for more examples. On this basis he argued
that bread and wine only signified Christ’s body and blood, and that they aided
remembrance of Christ’s passion, just as a wedding ring reminded a woman of
her late husband.11 Zwingli closed the treatise by downplaying his difference with
Oecolampadius regarding the understanding of “this is my body,” refuting the
Wittenberg exegesis of 1 Corinthians 10:16, and again citing Augustine to prove
that his understanding of the sacrament was the correct one.12
The Clear Instruction demonstrated a significant development in Zwingli’s ar-
gumentation beyond the treatises of the previous year. In emphasizing that Christ’s
substantial body had to be perceptible and explaining John 6 as teaching the spir-
itual eating that was faith, Zwingli repeated themes from his earlier pamphlets,
but he now enriched his discussion with arguments first made by others. Hoen’s
influence is particularly apparent in Zwingli’s rejection of the power of the priest’s
words, his use of Matthew 16:18 as a scriptural example of a figurative statement,
the claim that it dishonored Christ to shut up his body in a tabernacle, and the
analogy of the ring given to one’s spouse as a token of remembrance—although
by referring to the husband as deceased, Zwingli emphasized the husband’s ab-
sence in a way Hoen did not.13 In response to charges of sacramentarian disunity,
Zwingli asserted his fundamental agreement with Oecolampadius and claimed
that scripture allowed one to understand “is” as “signifies.” The most important
advance in his thought was his polemical use of the Apostles’ Creed. Zwingli was
categorical in stating that belief in Christ’s substantial presence contradicted the
articles of faith—an assertion that made any compromise with the Wittenberg
party impossible.14 Just as striking was his use of the Decretum to argue against
transubstantiation, which he identified as the teaching of the papacy. It reflects
the fact that Zwingli was under attack not only from Wittenberg but also from
Catholics.
After finishing his Short Instruction, Zwingli wrote a Latin Response to Billican
and Rhegius.15 It repeated many of the arguments of the Instruction, but it was
more suited to a learned audience than a simple translation of the Short Instruction
would have been. Since Billican had raised the question of how to understand
“this is my body,” Zwingli devoted much of the treatise to this issue: the phrase
had to be interpreted figuratively, but it was not important whether the trope
was placed in “is” or in “body” or what kind of trope it was, although Zwingli
suggested catachresis, the use of a word in an incorrect way in order to heighten
its impact.16 He also repeated his claim that belief in Christ’s substantial presence
was opposed by the articles of the Creed.
Both treatises would be available for the spring book fair in Frankfurt. More
important than the timing of the fair for Zwingli’s publishing activities over
184
184 Exch anges, 1526–1532
the next few months, however, were the political developments in Switzerland.
Johannes Eck’s repeated calls for a public disputation with the Zurich reformer,
which went back to the summer of 1524, had become more urgent after the out-
break of the Eucharistic controversy. In October 1525, Eck renewed his call for a
disputation, this time with both Zwingli and Oecolampadius, and he specifically
mentioned their rejection of Christ’s bodily presence. This prompted Zwingli to
write a letter to the Zurich council defending his understanding of the Lord’s
Supper. This letter was printed in January, along with Zurich’s invitation to Eck
to come to the city to debate with Zwingli.17
The negotiations finally bore fruit in the spring of 1526, and a disputa-
tion was set for May in Baden. By early April, Zwingli’s Catholic opponents
had written several pamphlets in preparation for the disputation.18 The
Franciscan Thomas Murner penned a Latin attack on Zwingli’s Subsidium
that he published together with Erasmus’s letter to Pellikan written the pre-
vious October.19 The Zurich under-secretary Joachim am Grüdt produced a
German treatise that combined his translation of Cardinal Cajetan’s response
to Zwingli’s Commentary on True and False Religion with statements con-
cerning the sacrament drawn from the Decretum and from John of Damascus’s
On the Orthodox Faith.20 Johannes Fabri’s Open Letter to Ulrich Zwingli
Concerning the Future Disputation was printed in both languages. Fabri said
little about the Eucharist, although he pointed out that even the “arch-her-
etic Martin Luther” opposed Zwingli’s teaching. He also expressed his com-
passion for the poor, simple people of Zurich who were misled into thinking
they were receiving Christ’s body and blood when they were given mere bread
and wine.21 Zwingli responded to this challenge with an Answer to the Unsent
Open Letter of Dr. Fabri that was twice as long as Fabri’s letter and included
sections defending his view of the Lord’s Supper and rejecting the mass.22
Eck’s seven theses for the disputation were printed only a few days before the
disputation, in a pamphlet that listed over ninety falsehoods, contradictions,
and blasphemous statements that Eck claimed to find in Zwingli’s writings. The
first disputation thesis asserted that “the true body of Christ, and his blood, is
truly present in the sacrament.” By avoiding mention of transubstantiation and
focusing instead on the “true presence” of Christ’s body and blood, Eck cleverly
highlighted the disagreement of the Swiss reformers with the Wittenbergers, as
well as with the Catholics. The second thesis defended the sacrifice of the mass,
and the remaining theses concerned the intercession of Mary and the saints,
images, purgatory, baptism, and original sin. Eck’s description of Zwingli’s false
teaching in the rest of the pamphlet was wide-ranging, but the reformer’s rejec-
tion of Christ’s bodily presence and of the mass more generally held a prominent
place.23 On the evening before the official opening of the disputation on May
185
19, Murner posted his own theses defending the adoration of the consecrated
elements and communion in one kind.24
The Zurich council saw no point in allowing Zwingli to attend a disputation
that was so strongly slanted in favor of the Catholic party, nor did it trust the
safe conduct offered to Zwingli, and so it did not give him permission to attend
the disputation. Oecolampadius thus bore the chief burden of the debate with
Eck, with occasional interventions from other evangelical preachers. The dispu-
tation itself was not only a religious but also a political event. It was arranged and
sponsored by the Tagsatzung, the body to which all of the Swiss Confederation’s
members sent representatives for deliberation of common concerns, and it was
attended by over two hundred representatives and observers, both clerical and
lay, from the four bishops with jurisdiction within the Swiss Confederation and
from each of the Confederation’s full and affiliated members.25 Walther Köhler
called it “the Swiss Diet of Worms,” where the new doctrines would be heard and
judged, and later scholars have followed his interpretation, although with some
qualification.26 Significantly, the doctrines that were most important at Baden
concerned the sacrament of the altar. The first nine days were devoted to the
question of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, followed by debate over the sacri-
fice of the mass. The remaining five theses were discussed during the final week.27
Zwingli did not see the disputation theses before they were posted publicly in
Baden after the disputation’s official opening. He wrote his First Short Answer to
Eck’s Theses on May 21, immediately after receiving a copy; his pamphlet would
be printed four more times in Augsburg, Strasbourg, and Ulm.28 The First Short
Answer discussed all seven theses but devoted the most space to the first thesis
on the true presence of Christ’s body. Zwingli’s Second Answer to Some Untrue
Answers, written two weeks later, gave his reaction to the reports of the debate on
the first three theses.29 Addressing a lay audience within the Swiss Confederation,
Zwingli used a popular and polemical style in these pamphlets. Because he was
writing against Catholics, Zwingli had no incentive to express his ideas in a con-
ciliatory way. He used simple syllogisms and scriptural proof texts to make his
point. Against Fabri he argued that if the bread was “my body given for you,”
then bread was also given on the cross.30 He connected the two theses on Christ’s
substantial presence and the sacrifice of the mass in order to refute them both,
since one did not sacrifice mere bread and wine. The discussion of the first thesis
in the First Short Answer to Eck’s Theses focused almost entirely on the location
of Christ’s body and was a more polemical restatement of arguments Zwingli
had made in his Clear Instruction. Citing scripture, the Creed, and canon law,
he asserted that Christ’s body was in heaven and so could not be present in the
bread and wine. Those who held that Christ’s body was at the same time visibly
in heaven and invisibly in the sacrament were Marcionites because they denied
186
186 Exch anges, 1526–1532
the truly human nature of that body.31 In his second response to Eck, Zwingli
cited Erasmus’s paraphrase of Acts 2:42 concerning the apostles’ breaking of
bread in order to claim that the early church did not teach either the presence of
Christ’s flesh and blood or a sacrifice but, instead, held a remembrance of Christ’s
death.32 Although he mentioned John 6, the chapter did not play a central role
in these pamphlets. The Zurich reformer was more concerned with arguing that
Christians did not eat Christ’s physical body than with discussing the spiritual
eating of faith.
It was forbidden to take notes or publish reports of the disputation, and the
official protocol would not be printed until the summer of 1527, and so the dis-
putation itself had little immediate impact on the published debate over the
Lord’s Supper. Two unauthorized accounts were published while the debate was
still being held, however, which give some indication of how the reformed party
perceived the disputation. The vernacular True Course of the Disputation in Upper
Baden of Dr. Hans Fabri, Johannes Eck and Their Powerful Supporters Against
Johannes Oecolampadius and the Ministers of the Word combined a preface prob-
ably written by Wolfgang Capito with the theses of Eck and Murner, Zwingli’s
First Short Answer, and an account of the first few days of debate.33 A Latin letter
by the former Dominican Johannes Fischer (Piscatorius) published pseudony-
mously in early June described With What Prejudgment the Disputation Is Held
in Baden in Switzerland. It also contained a Latin translation of Eck’s theses,
with Zwingli’s First Short Answer divided to respond to each thesis.34 Both works
would therefore contribute further to the dissemination of Zwingli’s polemical
anti-Catholic arguments.
As their titles implied, both the True Course and the Latin letter highlighted
the insults the Catholic side aimed at their opponents and the partiality
demonstrated by the four judges of the disputation. The German pamphlet also
contrasted Eck’s arrogance with Oecolampadius’s moderate demeanor. It noted
that two days were spent discussing the church fathers, but the only argument
pertaining to Christ’s bodily presence that it described concerned the location of
Christ’s body. Oecolampadius rejected Eck’s assertion that Christ’s body could
be at the same time in heaven and on every altar as a sophistic argument based
on “the heathen Aristotle,” and he argued instead the need to examine the rel-
evant Scripture passages in context.35 The summary indicates that the location
of Christ’s body in heaven was for many laypeople the most effective argument
against Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament.
While Zwingli’s attention was focused on Baden, a more significant ex-
change took place between Zwingli’s supporters and Erasmus that extended
through the summer of 1526. At the beginning of the year, Erasmus’s letter to
Pellikan from the fall of 1525 was published without Erasmus’s knowledge as
187
A Pious and Christian Expostulation.36 Pellikan responded by reprinting the

Expostulation in early February along with two letters of his own addressed
to Erasmus.37 In the first of these, Pellikan rejected Erasmus’s charge that he
believed that the Eucharist was only bread and wine and that he had spread
rumors that Erasmus believed the same thing. In fact, Pellikan asserted, he
believed “that it is the body of the Lord and his most holy blood which we
receive in the mass.” Moreover, all that one needed to know about the sacra-
ment could be found in Erasmus’s Paraphrases. Pellikan also drew attention to
the fact that in his letter Erasmus had stopped short of claiming that Christ’s
blood was present “in some physical, carnal, real, and substantial sense, with its
own corporeal substance, though invisible to our eyes.” Like Oecolampadius
(and ultimately Wyclif ), Pellikan used the analogy of a ring or seal backed by
the authority of the king who gave it to explain how Christ could be present,
although absent in body; this differed from Zwingli’s analogy of a wedding
ring that merely aided remembrance of a deceased husband. Pellikan asserted
that others might be so weak in faith that they needed an “impanated body”
or “transubstantiated blood,” but he could not be compelled to accept a belief
that the fathers had not held through the first thousand years of the church’s
existence.38
The conflict escalated when, a month before the opening of the Baden dis-
putation, a vernacular pamphlet was published in Zurich on The Opinion of the
Most Learned Erasmus of Rotterdam and Doctor Luther on the Supper of Our Lord
Jesus Christ.39 The author, who used the pseudonym Ludwig Leopoldi, intended
the work to demonstrate evangelical unity in the face of Catholic attacks, and he
addressed concerns that the “two most famous men in all the world,” Erasmus and
Luther, disagreed with each other concerning the sacrament. In fact, Leopoldi
claimed, the two “originators of right teaching” agreed that Christ’s body and
blood were not bodily and substantially in the Lord’s Supper. Many false works
were circulating under Luther’s name, including some on the Eucharist, while
Erasmus had often called the bread and wine symbols, or signifying signs.
Leopoldi translated a long passage from Rule Five of the Enchiridion, although
he replaced Erasmus’s mention of “sacrifice” with “Supper” and inserted his own
observation that since Erasmus called the Lord’s Supper a “sacrament, that is, a
secret sign and signification of a holy thing,” the giving of Christ’s body, he could
not think that Christ’s body was in the bread and wine. He also cited Erasmus’s
judgment of Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition as “skillfully written and thor-
ough, and I would also call it godly, if anything can be called godly that does not
agree with the church.”40 As an excursus, Leopoldi defended the understanding
of John 6:63 as referring to Christ’s flesh and criticized the view that Christ
had ascended to heaven only visibly but not bodily. He then referred readers to
18
188 Exch anges, 1526–1532
Erasmus’s annotations on Mark 14 and to his paraphrases of 1 Corinthians 10–11,

of the institution accounts in Matthew 26 and Luke 22, and of Acts 2.41
Leopoldi had more difficulty harmonizing Luther with Erasmus and the Swiss
position, but he did so by focusing on Luther’s earliest attacks on the mass. Since
the presence of Christ’s body was the foundation of the mass, Leopoldi reasoned,
Luther’s rejection of the mass and the ordained priesthood meant that he did not
believe Christ’s body was present or that by saying “this is my body” priests had the
power to bring that body into the bread. Alluding to the Syngramma, Leopoldi
claimed that those who attributed such power to words were like conjurors who
attributed magical power to their words. He also criticized those who claimed
that Christ could be everywhere in both his divine and his human natures.42
Luther himself had acknowledged that Christians were to celebrate the Lord’s
Supper in remembrance of Christ and the promise of forgiveness, although there
was no scripture to support his assertion that the sacrament strengthened faith.
In his defense of the articles condemned by the papacy, Luther had argued that
faith, not the sacraments, saved one, and so it was not credible that Luther now
claimed that one must believe that Christ’s body was in the bread.43
Leopoldi closed the pamphlet by asserting that he had cited faithfully
from the works of the two men. Erasmus’s and Luther’s statements concerning
Christ’s body had to be understood according to scripture, so that those who
ate the signifying bread in true faith also ate the true flesh of Christ in faith.
Leopoldi asked the two men to state this as their viewpoint in their own words,
which would end all conflict between them, and with Zwingli, Oecolampadius,
Karlstadt, and the Strasbourg reformers. To this list Leopoldi added Melanchthon
and Bugenhagen, for each had stated that Christ’s body and blood could be eaten
only spiritually and in faith, proving that all the Wittenbergers shared this view.
If, however, Luther and Erasmus did teach the substantial and bodily presence of
Christ’s flesh and blood, Leopoldi asserted that he would oppose their teaching
as against scripture, faith, and Christian reason.44
In its emphasis on the understanding of “sacrament” as sign and on the loca-
tion of Christ’s body in heaven, the pamphlet upheld a more radical separation of
Christ’s body and the sacrament than that expressed in Pellikan’s more concilia-
tory letter, but Erasmus was convinced that Pellikan was the pamphlet’s author.
Within a month of its publication he responded with an angry refutation, the
Uncovering of Deceptions of a Certain Pamphlet Written in German.45 Erasmus
repudiated the linking of his name with Luther,46 and he did all he could to dis-
tance himself from the sacramentarians, although he identified the rejection of
Christ’s bodily presence with Karlstadt and Wyclif, rather than with the Swiss
reformers. He followed three related lines of argumentation. First, he attacked
the pamphlet’s author and undermined his credibility. Leopoldi was a hypocrite,
189
for he had accused Erasmus of lacking the courage to state clearly his under-
standing of the Eucharist, yet he feared to affix his real name to the pamphlet. He
asserted that Erasmus had somewhere called the bread and wine symbols of the
Eucharist, but he could not cite any specific passages to support this claim. When
he did quote from the Enchiridion, his translation was twisted and corrupted,
and Erasmus reproduced a longer section of that work and then asked his readers
to judge whether there was anything in it showing he held “that in the Eucharist
the true body and blood of Christ are not present.”47 Throughout his response,
Erasmus repeatedly called the pamphlet and its author stupid, shameless, tricky,
deceitful, and inept at reasoning.
Second, Erasmus stressed that he had never taught that the Eucharist consisted
only of bread and wine. As evidence of his own faith, he referred his readers to
a poem in which he had called the sacrament of the Eucharist a mystic meal in
which Christ truly presented himself under the images of bread and wine. This
proved that he did not agree with what Karlstadt taught.48 Erasmus also claimed
that he had never said that the bread and wine were signs of Christ’s body and
blood. Instead, when he used the word “symbol,” it had either a different referent,
such as the meal itself, or a different signification, such as the concord among
Christians.49
Most important, Erasmus undercut any claims the sacramentarians might
make to his exegetical and personal authority. He defended not only his
annotations on the passages that Leopoldi had mentioned but also his paraphrases
of John and of the institution accounts in Matthew and Mark. His discussion
was carefully crafted to divert attention away from other, more controversial
implications of his exegesis. Thus in defending his annotation on Mark 14 he
pointed out that “there is not even a syllable which signifies that the actual body
of the Lord is not in the Eucharist,” although the annotation as a whole could
be seen as questioning the consecratory power of Christ’s blessing of the cup.50
Erasmus also stressed his acceptance of those doctrines embraced by the con-
sensus of the church, which included not only scripture and the creeds but also
the decrees of properly assembled councils. With deceptive modesty, he stated
that he could not be appealed to as a judge in matters concerning the church, for
he held no public authority. In a jab at the evangelicals he pointed out that his
lack of expertise in such matters was attested to by no less a witness than Luther,
who had declared that Erasmus “knew nothing of theology.”51
Erasmus’s Latin pamphlet was intended for his learned critics, but it was
immediately translated into German so it would reach the same audience as
Leopoldi’s Opinion.52 This prompted Leo Jud to acknowledge his authorship of
the Opinion in his vernacular Response and Apology to Dr. Erasmus of Rotterdam’s
Uncovering of the Deceitful Malice of a German Pamphlet.53 Jud asserted that he
190
190 Exch anges, 1526–1532
was compelled to respond for the sake of the common people, who could not
easily judge the competing claims of the two earlier pamphlets. He defended his
use of a pseudonym by describing his earlier pamphlet as merely a translation of
statements by Luther and Erasmus, and he pointed out that it was not customary
for translators to give their names. In fact, Erasmus and Luther did agree in their
criticism of abuses and superstitions, but the former wrote more moderately in
Latin, while the latter wrote more strongly after those in power, both the pope
and “godless princes,” had ignored Erasmus’s gentle calls for reform.54
Jud then addressed several of Erasmus’s specific assertions, beginning with
his terminology. He criticized Erasmus for referring to “the sacrament of thanks-
giving”—his translation of Erasmus’s “sacrament of the Eucharist”—because the
word “sacrament” meant “sign,” and scripture never called thanksgiving a sac-
rament or sign. In his poem, Erasmus had referred to the “mystical bread,” but
“mystical” meant not “spiritual” but “signifying” (bedütlich). Since signs were dis-
tinct from what they signified, when Erasmus referred to the mystic bread and
wine or called them symbols, he could not mean they were Christ’s body and
blood. He dismissed as irrelevant Erasmus’s statement that what was symbolized
was the union of Christians among themselves, not Christ’s body and blood.55 In
response to Erasmus’s discussion of the church’s authority, Jud distinguished be-
tween the church of Christ, whose apostles and ancient teachers had not taught
Christ’s bodily presence, and the church of the pope, which held that the bread
and wine became Christ’s body and blood when the priest spoke the words of
consecration over them.56
Jud’s Response may have been welcomed by his partisans, but it had neither
the compelling argumentation nor the persuasive rhetoric necessary to counter
Erasmus’s pamphlet. Erasmus’s repudiation of his former disciples was clear and
convincing, although his understanding of the Eucharist was less so. His pam-
phlet presented a negative argument, that Erasmus had never taught that the
elements were mere bread and wine, rather than a positive assertion of what he
did believe. As Pellikan had pointed out, Erasmus did not explicitly endorse tran-
substantiation, although he cleverly gave the impression that he accepted it. So,
for instance, he referred to Thomas Aquinas’s teaching that the substance was
concealed under the visible species, then stated that Thomas taught the same as
Erasmus—that sacramental communion had no benefit if spiritual communion
was lacking.57 In the context of the Baden disputation, however, the pamphlet
contributed to the further characterization of the Swiss reformers as heretics, es-
pecially since the Wittenbergers too would be incensed by “Leopoldi’s” efforts to
link them with both Erasmus and the sacramentarians.
The Baden disputation would continue to shape discussions of the sacrament
through the rest of the year. Balthasar Sattler, a Catholic priest in Esslingen, used
19
Eck’s second thesis to defend the sacrificial nature of the mass after returning
home from the disputation.58 Zwingli responded on July 20 with a letter to the
city rejecting the sacrifice and the meritorious nature of the mass and arguing that
Christ’s flesh and blood were not corporeally present. A copy of the letter was
printed in Augsburg soon after, with Zwingli’s Swiss German modified to make it
more easily understandable in Germany.59 These changes raised questions about
the authenticity of the letter, and so in October Zwingli wrote a second letter, in
his own hand, taking credit for the first letter and this time emphasizing his own
understanding of the Lord’s Supper in opposition to defenders of Christ’s bodily
presence—not only Catholics but also the Wittenbergers who attacked the Swiss
as Schwärmer.60 He also repeated his arguments that to say one ate Christ bodily
was to offer two different ways of salvation, and that to claim one ate bodily
something that was spiritual was as nonsensical as saying that something could
be two things as once, such as a wooden-iron poker.61 This letter was published in
Ulm, but not until 1527, possibly in time for the spring book fair.
Zwingli’s First Short Answer to Eck’s Theses would also have a broader impact
by prompting Jakob Strauss, a preacher in Baden-Baden, to publish a harsh attack
Against the Impious Error of Master Ulrich Zwingli, Who Denies the True Presence
of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament.62 Throughout the
pamphlet Strauss gave a polemical twist to Zwingli’s name as one who forced
(zwingt) scripture to fit his own false beliefs. Strauss deplored the false teachers
who had fallen away from the truth and who now proclaimed there was nothing
more in the sacrament than bread and wine. A letter from one of these teachers
had originally kept him from publishing anything, but his discovery of Zwingli’s
pamphlet finally persuaded him to enter the fray.63
Strauss focused on precisely the issue that Zwingli had avoided in his first
response to Eck—the spiritual manducation of Christ’s flesh. Strauss acknowl-
edged that such eating could be entirely independent of the sacrament, but he
claimed that it was a perversion of scripture to use John 6:63 to prove that Christ’s
substantial body was not present in the bread.64 Strauss criticized Zwingli’s expo-
sition of each of the scripture proof texts in the First Short Answer. Underlying
this false exegesis, he asserted, was the belief that one should not believe anything
more than human reason could understand.65 The true, eternal Word of God was
not only proclaimed through human words but also united with them. In the
same way, bread and wine were united with Christ’s true, substantial body and
blood in the sacrament.66
Strauss’s pamphlet would provoke an immediate responses from Johannes
Schnewyl, one of Zwingli’s supporters in Augsburg: A former priest who had
been an early supporter of Luther but whose views had grown more radical
through the mid-1520s, Schnewyl published his pamphlet Against the Impious
192
192 Exch anges, 1526–1532
Condemnation, in the Manner and Characteristic of All Hypocrites . . . of Jakob

Strauss in August.67 The pamphlet was an ad hominem attack on Strauss that
affirmed the spiritual eating that was faith but dissociated this entirely from the
Lord’s Supper.
Zwingli published his own Answer to Dr. Strauss’s Pamphlet Written Against
Him Concerning the Lord’s Supper at the beginning of 1527.68 Following Strauss’s
example, the Zurich reformer used sarcasm and ridicule to undermine his
opponent’s credibility, but the pamphlet contained serious argumentation as
well. The use of figurative language in the Old Testament, especially metonymy,
or the substitution of an attribute for the thing meant, gave insight into sim-
ilar figurative language in the New Testament.69 The Wittenbergers were incon-
sistent in saying that “this is my body” had to be understood literally, when they
themselves understood the words as “in bread is my body”—in other words, as a
synecdoche. It was a sophistic argument to say that Christ was present bodily but
was not eaten bodily. If Christ’s body was present, it had to be there perceptibly
or it was not a true body.70 Zwingli rejected Strauss’s conjunction of spiritual and
sacramental communion by stressing that spirit could not eat anything bodily.
Sacramental eating was eating the signs of Christ’s body and blood, while spir-
itual eating was trusting Christ, and it made no sense to say that the physical
body was eaten spiritually. Rather than discussing any possible connection be-
tween spiritual and sacramental communion, Zwingli rejected any claim that the
latter strengthened faith.71
The Zurich reformer also defended his interpretation of the Scripture
verses used to prove that Christ’s body was now in heaven, and he introduced
the Christological concept of the communicatio idiomatum, or the exchange of
Christ’s divine and human natures within the one person of the godhead, to ex-
plain how some verses applied to Christ’s human nature and others to his divine
nature.72 He mocked Strauss’s discussion of the link between external word and
God’s word, and used it as an opportunity to refute the Syngramma’s emphasis
on the power of the word. The apostles called the external word not the mere
sounds that were pronounced but, rather, that which God taught internally and
was then spoken aloud. It was a papist error to say that the mere pronunciation
of words such as “your sins are forgiven” or “this is my body” had any power.
Developing a distinction Karlstadt had made between words that affirm and
those that promise, Zwingli differentiated between words of narration, which
stated, commanded, or prohibited something, and words of promise. Christ’s
statement, “this is my body,” was not a word of promise that made his body pre-
sent. Instead, it was a command instituting the sacrament so that Christians could
give thanks for Christ’s death and make public their profession of faith in Christ
and love of neighbor.73
193
Zwingli published one further work in 1526, his Latin Brief Response to a Letter
Dealing with the Eucharist. The treatise was the final contribution to an oral and
epistolary exchange with Jakob Edlibach, a canon at Zurich’s Grossmünster, that
began in December 1525.74 Edlibach had sent Zwingli a lengthy letter rejecting
the reformer’s understanding of “this is my body” and arguing for Christ’s bodily
presence in the Eucharist. Nine months later, Zwingli published his lengthy re-
buttal of Edlibach’s letter, although he suppressed Edlibach’s name.75 In view of
the long interval between the earlier exchange and the printing of the letter, it is
likely that Zwingli wrote his response in the spring of 1526 and decided to publish
it in August so that he would not have to write a completely new work in time for
the fall book fair.76
This overview of publications emanating from Zurich highlights the two re-
lated factors that determined their contents: through the fall of 1526, Zwingli and
his colleagues were fully taken up with refuting their Catholic opponents, and
their publications were concerned almost exclusively with developments in the
Swiss Confederation. Zwingli was forced on the defensive by the publications of
Eck, Fabri, and Murner and by the prospect of defending his view of the Lord’s
Supper at Baden. One consequence of this combination of circumstances was to
focus the debate on the issue of Christ’s corporeal presence, rather than allowing a
more constructive discussion of how Christ might be received by communicants.
As long as Zwingli concentrated on rejecting Christ’s bodily presence, though,
there was no possibility of any rapprochement with the Wittenberg party.
Zwingli’s Catholic opponents would highlight his insistence on the absence of
Christ’s body and point out that even the heretic Luther considered Zwingli to be
a heretic.77 This strategy only increased the distance between Luther and Zwingli.
Moreover, under pressure from his Catholic opponents, Zwingli had no time to
become involved in the debate with the Wittenberg party over the sacrament and
so largely left this task to Oecolampadius.
In his effort to refute his Catholic opponents, Zwingli drew arguments
against Christ’s bodily presence from the pamphlets of Hoen, Karlstadt, and
Oecolampadius and incorporated them into his own works. Some of these
arguments appeared already in the Clear Instruction and the Response to Billican,
both published before the date for the Baden disputation had been set. The
most important of these was the claim, based on the Apostles’ Creed, that be-
cause Christ’s body had ascended into heaven, it could not be present in the
consecrated elements.78 Over the next several months Zwingli developed further
the Christological implications of this argument by explicitly distinguishing be-
tween Christ’s divine and human natures. He also included the arguments that
the apostles and the early church did not adore the bread of the Lord’s Supper and
that Christ did not perform any miracles that could not be perceived with the
194
194 Exch anges, 1526–1532
senses.79 Like Hoen and Karlstadt, he rejected the claim that repeating Christ’s
words could change the substance of bread into Christ’s body: if the words had
such power, when the priest said “this is my body,” it would turn into his own
body, not that of Christ.80 Like Oecolampadius, he distinguished between the
external and internal word, but he went further than the Basler by rejecting any
connection between the two. In fact, by denying any internal spiritual benefit to
sacramental communion, Zwingli was closer to Karlstadt than to Oecolampadius.
Zwingli’s pamphlets show the consolidation of arguments against Christ’s bodily
presence taken from a variety of sources, and they demonstrate the Zurich
reformer’s considerable debt to the writings of his fellow sacramentarians.
Strasbourg: Bucer and the Dangers of Translation

Oecolampadius and Zwingli were the most active contributors to the Eucharistic
controversy from the sacramentarian side, but during the first half of 1526, the
Strasbourg reformer Martin Bucer became involved in the public controversy as
well (figure 9.2). As with the earlier works by the Strasbourg reformers, Bucer’s
contributions to the conflict in 1526 had a strong Erasmian flavor, even if the Dutch
humanist was by now vigorously denying any links with the sacramentarians.81
They also show how deeply Bucer was influenced by Oecolampadius, Hoen, and
Karlstadt. On a more concrete level, the Strasbourger’s translations of Luther’s
postil, into which he inserted his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper, only
increased the Wittenbergers’ hostility toward their opponents. In an ironic twist,
the individual who was most concerned with ending the public controversy only
worsened it by his actions.
Bucer failed in his efforts to win Johannes Brenz for the sacramentarian
side in the fall of 1525, and Brenz’s letter to Bucer was published in early 1526.82
This Letter on the Lord’s Words, “This Is My Body” introduced many of the
ideas developed more fully in the Syngramma, written very shortly afterwards.
It prompted Bucer to write an Apology defending the Strasbourg position
on the Lord’s Supper; this work was published in March, in time for the
Frankfurt spring fair.83 Like Capito’s earliest pamphlet and the Strasbourgers’
letter to Luther, Bucer employed a deliberately conciliatory tone in the
Apology, stressing the centrality of faith in Christ and presenting the ques-
tion of Christ’s bodily presence as of only secondary importance. This did not
mean he had no opinion on the matter, however, for he had come to the con-
clusion that scripture did not support such a presence.84 Christ’s words had
to be taken figuratively, although Bucer did not state whether he preferred
Zwingli’s or Oecolampadius’s phrasing.85 He described the sacraments (rather
than the elements of bread and wine) as symbols, a term Erasmus had also used
195
Bucer, Psalter G Brenz, Letter L
Councils* G
Bucer, Apology L Errors* G
Bader, Epistle, L&G
Bucer, CXI Psalm* G
Luther, Reutlingen Letter G Sam, Booklet, G
Flamm, Against Those, G
Bucer, Luther’s Postil L Bugenhagen, Oration L&G [Marschalk] Admonition* G
Langenmantel, Papists* G
Hubmaier, Instruction G
Althamer, Sacrament G Langenmantel, Comrades* G
Luther, Fanatics, G Langenmantel, Summary* G
[Marschalk] Report
Schnewyl, Blind Leader G
Schradin, Error G Langenmantel, Luther G
Gast/Luther/Althamer L
Luther, Fanatics/Herwagen, L
Bucer, Preface, L Brenz, John Commentary L Sam, Answer G
Bucer, Answer Bugenhagen G
Bucer, Gospels commentary
. Other Contributions to the Controversy, 1526–March 1527. L = published in Latin; G = published in German;
* = publication date is approximate
196
196 Exch anges, 1526–1532
in relation to the Eucharist.86 Like Hoen, Karlstadt, and Oecolampadius, he

condemned the abuses associated with belief in Christ’s corporeal presence in
the bread, and he repeated some of the arguments found in their works: Christ’s
body was located in heaven and so could not be in the bread, and Christ had
never given anyone the power to bring his body into the bread.87 Bucer also
endorsed the Erasmian and Swiss interpretations of key Scripture verses.88
More striking, however, was his explicit linking of spiritual and sacramental
communion, which rested on the traditional interpretation of John 6 and was
closer to that of Erasmus than to Zwingli.89 Unlike the Zurich reformer, who
dissociated spiritual manducation from the physical reception of the sacra-
ment, Bucer stated that Christ’s discourse looked forward to the institution of
the Lord’s Supper. Through the signs of bread and wine, Christ presented his
flesh and blood to believers for spiritual manducation.90
At the same time that he was debating the Lord’s Supper with Brenz, Bucer
continued his translation work. We have already seen the Wittenbergers’ re-
sponse to his version of Bugenhagen’s Psalms commentary, but their anger
would only be increased by the fourth and final volume of Bucer’s translation of
Luther’s church postil, published in July. In a prefatory letter addressed to “the
Italian brethren,” Bucer summarized the teaching of the evangelical gospel.91
The letter betrayed the influence of both Erasmus and Oecolampadius while
demonstrating the Strasbourgers’ determination to downplay the importance
of the sacraments and so to minimize any damage due to disagreement over
the Lord’s Supper. Bucer pointed out that there had always been disagreements
in the church, but that all agreed on the essentials of the faith. It was there-
fore sufficient if all faith was placed in Christ and Christians were exhorted to
mutual love. Bucer nevertheless aligned himself with the Swiss reformers. He
defined the sacraments as signs, comparing baptism to both circumcision and
inscription in Christ’s army and the Eucharist to the Old Testament sacrifices
by which God’s people testified to their perseverance. There was no effective
difference between the sacraments of the Old and New Testament, and nei-
ther had the power to justify.92
Concerning the Lord’s Supper, Bucer asserted that it was not worth arguing
whether Christ’s body was really (realiter) transposed into the bread or the
bread was transubstantiated into that body. His own position was clear from
his statement that Christ’s miracles were always visible and that Christ had
not commanded making the bread into his body in the same way that he had
commanded teaching and baptizing. At the same time, Bucer upheld the close
connection between spiritual and sacramental eating: through bread and wine
Christ truly but spiritually (vere et tamen spiritaliter) gave his body and blood to
his followers without any real (realem) change to the elements. Bucer criticized
197
Luther’s polemics and praised both Zwingli and Oecolampadius, who promoted
the glory of God in their writings. Christians were to seek all things from Christ,
seated at the right hand of the Father, and not to cling to the sacraments or other
earthly things.93
In his sermon for Septuagesima Sunday, Luther had expressly rejected 1
Corinthians 10:4 (“the rock was Christ”) as support for the figurative under-
standing of “this is my body” and had argued that Christ’s body was substantially
present.94 In a lengthy excursus on this passage, Bucer justified the addition of his
own interpretation by claiming it was more faithful to the proper understanding
of God’s word. Citing the authority of Augustine, he interpreted 1 Corinthians
10:4 as “the rock signifies Christ.” He also rejected Luther’s citation of miracu-
lous signs of the Old Testament as evidence that a sacrament consisted of sign
and promise. Instead, he again drew the parallel between baptism and both cir-
cumcision and a soldier’s oath, and he asserted that in the Eucharist Christians
professed and exercised their faith. Finally, Bucer commended to his readers the
discussion of the Eucharist in Oecolampadius’s Apologetica.95
Luther was enraged to discover that Bucer had inserted his own view of the
Lord’s Supper into the translation of the postil. To make matters worse, at about
the same time he became aware of Jud’s pseudonymous pamphlet claiming that
Luther and Erasmus held the same understanding of the Lord’s Supper as the
sacramentarians. He therefore wrote an angry letter to Johannes Herwagen,
who had printed Bucer’s postil translation, denouncing the foreign views
contained in that volume. The sacramentarians were not content with spreading
their poison in their own books, he charged, but also inserted it into the works
of others, and he referred to “Leopoldi’s” statement that Erasmus, Luther,
Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and all Wittenberg agreed with them. Luther called
the sacramentarian position a “monstrous blasphemy” and compared the many
arguments they raised against “the most clear words of Scripture, ‘this is my
body,’ ” to childish games.96 Luther told Herwagen to include the letter in any
future printing of the Latin translation of his postil, but Bucer also published it,
along with his response, in his Preface to the Fourth Volume of Lutheran Postils, in
March 1527. This pamphlet also contained the offending preface mentioned in
the title, an introductory letter by Bucer explaining how he had come to translate
the postils, a reprint of his excursus on 1 Corinthians 9:24–10:5, and his response
to Bugenhagen’s Oratio.97
The exchange between Bucer and the Wittenbergers was one of the topics
Zwingli would address in his publications from the spring of 1527. To un-
derstand Zwingli’s response, however, it is necessary to consider the further
defense of the Wittenberg position in pamphlets published over the course
of 1526.
198
198 Exch anges, 1526–1532
The Wittenberg Party Responds

Jakob Strauss’s attack on Zwingli was only one of several vernacular pamphlets
by lesser-known or anonymous authors who defended Luther’s position. The
Nuremberg preacher Andreas Althamer discussed The Most Worthy Sacrament of
the Body and Blood of Our Lord, Against the Erring Spirits Who Nullify the Lord’s
Supper for Us,98 while an anonymous Augsburg imprint addressed The Lord’s
Supper, the Papists’ Mass, and Some New Errors.99 Andreas Flamm, the pastor of
Stöckelsberg in the Upper Palatinate, wrote Against Those Who Say Christ’s Flesh
and Blood Is Not in the Sacrament.100 In his pamphlet, Flamm commended the
works of Bugenhagen, Billican, and Brenz, as well as Luther’s Against the Heavenly
Prophets, and his pamphlet was largely a polemical simplification of their ideas.
These three pamphlets reveal the range of responses to the growing debate over
the Lord’s Supper among those on its margins and illustrate how they passed on
what they had read to others.
Like Strauss, Althamer began his pamphlet by deploring the falling away of
those who taught wrongly about the sacrament, comparing them to Judas and
those condemned by Paul in his epistles. Flamm, too, deplored the storm that
had arisen over the sacrament, and both authors saw the devil at work behind the
controversy.101 Flamm and the anonymous author highlighted the disagreement
among the “fanatics” concerning “this is my body” and mocked their contrasting
interpretations, while Althamer argued that there was no reason to abandon the
literal meaning of Christ’s words.102 In a significant amendment to the scriptural
text, both the anonymous author and Flamm quoted Christ as saying “this bread
is my body.”103 It clearly bothered these authors that the sacramentarians reduced
the sacrament to mere bread and wine; according to Flamm, they had removed
Christ’s body and blood from the sacrament so they could eat and drink their fill
of bread and wine.104
In what followed, Flamm and Althamer advocated a staunchly pro-
Wittenberg position. As Strauss had done, the two pastors discussed John 6
at length in order to refute Zwingli’s interpretation of John 6:63. Christ there
spoke of the spiritual eating that was faith, but the flesh to which he referred was
the fleshly nature, not his own flesh.105 Both pastors condemned the separation
of Christ’s human and divine natures, rejected the relevance of Matthew 24:23
to the Lord’s Supper, and interpreted 1 Corinthians 10:16 as the distribution of
Christ’s body and blood, not as the fellowship among communicants, although
these issues were more important for Althamer than for Flamm.106 They also
emphasized the power of the word in bringing Christ’s body into the sacrament,
a point particularly important for Flamm, who also rejected the separation of
sign and thing signified.107 Last but not least, they polemicized against reliance
19
on reason in matters of faith. Althamer criticized his opponents for subjecting

scripture to “human wisdom,” while Flamm referred repeatedly to “Frau Venus,
the unchaste whore, that is, our reason.”108
The anonymous author, in contrast, took a very different approach to the
question of Christ’s bodily presence, in part because his interpretation of the rel-
evant scripture was closer to Erasmus than to the Wittenbergers. He summed up
his opponents’ arguments under two headings. First, they said the Lord’s Supper
was a remembrance and so the body and blood were not present in it. He quickly
dismissed this position, since remembrance did not necessarily exclude Christ’s
bodily presence, and in fact remembrance was strengthened when something
was present.109 The second argument was that the Lord’s Supper was a sign of
love and so Christ’s bodily presence was not necessary. Against this claim, the
author argued that Christ had established a new fellowship among his followers
through his true body and blood, which distinguished the church from the
patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament.110 He then presented “the correct
understanding of the Supper,” a section that can be seen as a response to radical
sectarians in Augsburg. The Lord’s Supper created a communion or fellowship
among believers, not a separation. The Greek church called it both the Eucharist,
which reflected the fact that it was a thanksgiving, and a synaxin, or assembly of
believers. The author pointed out that the evangelists used “blessed” and “gave
thanks” as synonyms, so that no one should think that priests spoke a secret
blessing over the bread, “as the papists have devised.” The Lord’s Supper was both
a distribution of Christ’s merits and the unity of those among whom Christ’s
body and blood were shared.111 On these grounds, the author defended giving the
sacrament to the sick as a special consolation to them, for they were assured exter-
nally through the bread and wine of their incorporation into Christ Jesus and in-
ternally through God’s sure word.112 He concluded by arguing that 1 Corinthians
10:16 could not be used either to assert or to deny Christ’s substantial presence,
for the verse concerned not Christ’s body but the communion of Christ’s body,
or of those who belonged to Christ’s body.113 This strikingly independent exegesis
of what was becoming a key proof text, as well as the author’s rather weak defense
of Christ’s substantial presence, demonstrates that there were individuals strongly
influenced by Erasmus and attracted to sacramentarian arguments but unwilling
to abandon the literal interpretation of “this is my body.”
These pro-Wittenberg pamphlets were all the more important because of
Luther’s relative silence regarding the Lord’s Supper. His supporters compensated
by reprinting Luther’s earlier works on the sacrament, such as a Latin translation
of his 1523 treatise On the Adoration of the Sacrament.114 They also published let-
ters not originally intended for the general public—not only Luther’s 1525 re-
sponse to the Strasbourgers but also his letter to the Reutlingen church from early
20
200 Exch anges, 1526–1532
1526 warning them against the sacramentarians.115 The most important of these
publications, however, was a reworking of three sermons Luther had preached
during Holy Week that was published in October as Sermon on the Sacrament of
Christ’s Body and Blood, Against the Fanatic Spirits.116
The tract opened with an explanation of what Christians needed to know
about the sacrament. Luther acknowledged that his earlier discussions had
taught about the spiritual use of the sacrament, but it was also necessary to be-
lieve that Christ’s body and blood were present in the bread and wine. Luther
drew together several ideas also expressed in his letters and his first preface
to the Syngramma—for instance, that his opponents could not agree among
themselves but were divided into “six or seven sects” and that they accused
those who believed in Christ’s bodily presence of worshiping a baked god.
Luther reduced his opponents’ arguments against Christ’s bodily presence to
two points: it was not fitting that Christ’s body and blood be in the bread
and wine, and it was not necessary for them to be there. In response, Luther
argued that Christ could only be grasped in word and sacrament. Those who
described the priest’s words as a magical “hocus pocus” did not understand
that through his word Christ bound his body and blood to be received cor-
poreally in the bread and wine. Luther suggested several analogies to explain
how Christ’s body could be present in the sacrament celebrated at so many
different times and places. Ultimately, however, he subordinated reason to
faith. It was the Christian’s duty to believe what Christ said, not to question
whether it was either necessary or useful.117 Luther also accused those who
rejected Christ’s corporeal presence of removing the sacrament’s kernel and
leaving only the shell. They reduced the Lord’s Supper to a meal eaten in com-
memoration of Christ, rather than acknowledging it as the opportunity for
each believer to appropriate Christ’s forgiveness for him-or herself. A mere
sign could not strengthen faith and reassure consciences. It was therefore vital
for Christians to know not only that Christ gave his body and blood on the
cross for their forgiveness but also that his body and blood were distributed in
the sacrament as a token and confirmation of that forgiveness.118
As instruction concerning how to prepare to receive communion, Luther’s
Sermon Against the Fanatic Spirit repeated themes found in Holy Week sermons
preached before 1525, but belief in Christ’s bodily presence was now placed front
and center. The pamphlet would be printed five more times over the next year
and included in an edition of Luther’s Personal Prayer Book from 1527, where
it replaced the 1524 Sermon on Confession and the Sacrament. It would also be
translated into Latin and published along with Luther’s letter to Herwagen
and Bugenhagen’s Oration against Bucer’s version of the Psalms commentary in
March 1527.119
201
Luther’s defense of Christ’s bodily presence in the Sermon Against the Fanatics
also prompted Zwingli to address Luther directly in two works, one in Latin and
the other in German, and both published in time for the spring book fair in 1527.120
In the Amicable Exegesis, i.e. Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin
Luther, Zwingli responded not only to the Sermon but also to the second part
of Against the Heavenly Prophets and On the Adoration of the Sacrament, as well
as Luther’s letter to Herwagen.121 Most of these were first published in German,
but Zwingli chose to write the Amicable Exegesis in Latin, which allowed him to
use the rhetorical flourishes and classical allusions that were typical of humanist
works. Throughout his treatise Zwingli criticized Luther’s violent and offensive
language, and his use of Latin aided the impression he wanted to give of his own
moderation and reasonableness.
Zwingli prefaced his Amicable Exegesis with a letter to Luther in which he jus-
tified writing the work by citing the liberty that each Christian had to speak: no
one should be shown such deference that the truth was made to yield to his au-
thority. Claiming that his arguments would demolish Luther’s position, Zwingli
asked the Wittenberger to set aside his anger and read the book calmly and
carefully.122 In a short letter to the reader the Zurich reformer stated his con-
fidence that the truth would prevail and Luther would be forced to withdraw
from the contest.123 In response to Luther’s letter to Herwagen, Zwingli defended
both Bucer and Jud, while Luther’s commendation of the Syngramma provoked
Zwingli’s criticism of that work.124 The Zurich reformer also rejected Luther’s ex-
egesis of 1 Corinthians 10:16 in The Adoration of the Sacrament, as well as his argu-
ment that adoration of the host was an adiaphoron.125 In the process of addressing
what he called “the absurdities of Scripture” that resulted from belief in Christ’s
corporeal presence, Zwingli also addressed Luther’s understanding of baptism
and absolution. He accused the Wittenbergers of making the physical elements
of water in baptism and bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper into vehicles of
the Holy Spirit that conveyed forgiveness. He also criticized Luther for teaching
that consciences needed to be reassured by words of absolution, when in fact the
power of the keys was nothing other than faith.126
Zwingli’s most significant new contribution to the debate, however, was a dis-
cussion of the relationship between Christ’s divine and human natures based on the
trope of alloiosis, or the exchange of characteristics between two things. Zwingli
linked alloiosis with the patristic understanding of the communicatio idiomatum,
the relationship between Christ’s two natures, and he used several verses from the
Gospel according to John to show how each referred either to Christ’s humanity
or his divinity. His classification of Christ’s statements was a specific applica-
tion of Erasmus’s general observation that distinguishing between Christ’s two
natures was one way to deal with apparent contradictions in scripture.127 Zwingli
20
202 Exch anges, 1526–1532
also supported his understanding of “this is my body” through a lengthy discus-

sion of the institution accounts in Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11.128 His discussion
reflected his closer engagement with 1 Corinthians in lectures he gave from late
1526 through spring of 1527.129
In two epilogues addressed to Luther and the reader, Zwingli pointed to
contradictions between Luther’s earliest works on the sacrament and his present
position. He then listed other positions that Luther taught “without authority
from Scripture”: the claims that Christ’s body eaten physically strengthened faith,
forgave sins, and was conveyed physically by spoken words, and that the physical
reception of the Christ’s body allowed individuals to appropriate the gospel per-
sonally along with Christ’s body and blood. Luther also erred in his defense of
images, which was idolatry and forbidden by the Ten Commandments, and in
asserting that the external words, “I absolve you,” made one sure of forgiveness.130
Zwingli’s strategy of responding to each of Luther’s pamphlets individually in
his Amicable Exegesis reflected the pattern of the public debate up to that point,
but it also gave the treatise a sprawling structure that weakened the impact of
its arguments. In comparison, his Friendly Rejoinder and Rejection of Luther’s
Sermon Against the Fanatics was a much shorter and more effective presentation
of the reformer’s chief arguments aimed at the German-reading laity.131 As with
the Amicable Exegesis, Zwingli began this work by asserting that he was obliged
to speak the truth and by challenging Luther’s authority to interpret the word of
God. Most of the pamphlet refuted Luther’s claim that “this is my body” had to
be understood literally, but it also distinguished between Christ’s divinity, which
was everywhere, and his human body, which had left the world and so could
not be eaten in the sacrament. This pamphlet, too, closed with a list of Luther’s
errors.132
Zwingli’s two pamphlets repeated many of the exegetical arguments that
had become standard, as well as the assertion that “this is my body” had to
be regarded figuratively. His brief discussion of both baptism and absolution
made clear the different understanding of the sacraments more generally that
divided the sacramentarians from the Wittenberg party. The most significant
development for the future of the debate over the Lord’s Supper was Zwingli’s
use of Christological arguments to oppose Christ’s corporeal presence.
Oecolampadius, too, had asserted that Christ’s body was seated at the right
hand of the Father and therefore could not be in the bread, but he argued on
what might be called “scientific” or natural philosophical rather than theolog-
ical grounds: it was the nature of a human body to exist in only one place, and
so Christ’s body could not be simultaneously in heaven and in the consecrated
bread. Oecolampadius referred in passing to Christ’s two natures, but he did
not discuss Christology in any detail.133 Zwingli modified this argument by
203
highlighting the relationship between Christ’s divine and human natures and
supporting his position with an analysis of proof texts from the Gospel ac-
cording to John. From this point on, Christology would become an important
part of the Eucharistic controversy.
Just as significant as the theological arguments was Zwingli’s explicit attack
on Luther’s perceived authority. The Swiss publications of 1525 had provoked
a strong counteroffensive from both the Wittenberg party in the Holy Roman
Empire and from Catholic opponents in the Swiss Confederation over the
course of 1526. The polemical language of the vernacular sacramentarian works
had only angered and embittered the Wittenbergers, and they felt betrayed
by their former supporters when Bucer’s translations and Jud’s pseudony-
mous pamphlet seemed to claim the endorsement of the Wittenbergers for a
sacramentarian understanding of the Lord’s Supper. In 1525, Luther’s author-
itative position had not been an issue for the Swiss, because they hoped that
their publications would win readers to their side. By the end of 1526 it was
clear that this had not happened, and that the deference shown to Luther’s
authority was one reason why. Under these circumstances, and for much the
same reason, Zwingli would respond to Luther the way Karlstadt had at the
beginning of the controversy, by emphasizing the right of individuals to read
scripture and judge between competing interpretations. The Zurich reformer
himself claimed the right to judge Luther’s exegesis of scripture concerning
the sacraments, and he tried to persuade his readers to accept his interpreta-
tion over that of Luther. But calling on readers to read scripture for themselves
could have unpredictable consequences. The next chapter will look at the de-
bate that developed when readers of pamphlets by the major reformers claimed
this right to judge doctrine and began publishing their own contributions to
the debate.
204
10
Print, Polemics, and Popular

Response in Southern Germany
Toward the end of 1526 a pamphlet was published in Augsburg entitled A

Clear and Thorough Report in Good German for the Common Person: Whether
the Body of Jesus Christ Is to Be Honored in Heaven at the Right Hand of
God and Sought in Spirit, or Looked for on Earth in Bread Substantially,
Preached in Ulm by the Preacher in the Minster with Good Understanding.1
The Reutlingen schoolmaster Johannes Schradin was so upset by this pam-
phlet that in early January 1527 he published his Answer to the New and
Gross Error Concerning the Lord’s Supper Preached by the Preacher in the Ulm
Minster with Good Understanding.2 Schradin’s pamphlet was a blistering at-
tack on Conrad Sam, the preacher in the Ulm Minster. Sam quickly replied
to Schradin’s attack with his own Response Compelled by the Hostile Pamphlet
of Hans Schradin, Which He Published as Slander.3 In his Response, Sam
protested that he did not write the Clear Report, and he portrayed himself
as the victim of a smear campaign that attacked not only his preaching but
also his person.
Sam’s protestations of innocence were ignored by his contemporaries, and
his reputation as a “Zwinglian” was further confirmed at the end of 1527, when
Johannes Eck published a pamphlet Against the Blasphemer and Heretic Conrad
Sam . . . Offering a Disputation on Account of the Venerable Sacrament of the
Altar.4 Modern scholars have also ignored Sam’s disclaimer, at best interpreting
it to mean only that Sam did not authorize the printing of the sermon.5 Walther
Köhler identified an unnamed pamphlet that Sam sent to Zwingli in June 1526
as the Clear Report,6 and VD16 identifies Sam as the pamphlet’s author, as do the
editors of its modern edition.7 Based on the Clear Report, Sam’s biographers have
characterized him as an ardent defender of a “Zwinglian” understanding of the
sacrament.8
205
Print, Polemics, and Popular Response 205
Sam’s repudiation of the Clear Report was entirely justified, however. In fact,
the Clear Report was a reprint of an anonymous work, A Faithful Admonition
to All Christians that They Should Guard Themselves Against False Teaching and
Set Their Faith and Trust Solely in God and His Divine Word and Diligently Test
All Teaching and Not Depend on Any Person, for Cursed Is the One Who Sets His
Trust in a Man (Jer. 17). Thus Christ Says You Should Hear His Voice and No One
Else’s (Jn. 10): May God Grant This to Us All. Amen.9 The Faithful Admonition has
been attributed—again, probably wrongly—to the Augsburg patrician Eitelhans
Langenmantel, an important figure in the sacramentarian/Anabaptist circles of
his native city.
Anonymous and falsely attributed pamphlets were nothing new, and in-
deed, such works had been a feature of evangelical propaganda from the be-
ginning of the Reformation.10 What makes this particular exchange stand out
is the way it has wrongly shaped perceptions of the early debate over the Lord’s
Supper. Rather than highlighting the disagreements between “Zwinglians” and
“Lutherans,” the pamphlets involved in this exchange reveal a range of responses
to the Eucharistic controversy not only within the sacramentarian party but also
across the entire spectrum of theological positions, from Catholic to radical. An
examination of this pamphlet exchange takes us from Sam’s first published con-
tribution to the Eucharistic controversy in mid-1526 to the aftermath of the Bern
Disputation in early 1528. It illustrates the way the ideas of the major contributors
to the debate were received and further developed within the circle of radical
sacramentarians in Augsburg. It also allows us to draw larger conclusions about
the relationship between private and public discussion, printing and polemic,
and the effect of gossip and rumor on the credibility and reputation of an evan-
gelical preacher.
Clerical Response: Conrad Sam
The consternation caused by the public controversy over the Lord’s Supper is evi-
dent in the correspondence and publications of many reformers. As we have seen,
a few responded immediately and decisively by publishing denunciations of the
“new errors” of Karlstadt and Zwingli, while others were more open to the new
ideas, and there is evidence of a lively private discussion of the issues. Conrad Sam
was one of those who engaged in this private debate. According to Schradin, Sam
had only recently confessed to his Reutlingen counterparts that he still “hung
between heaven and earth” and did not know whether to endorse Zwingli’s view
of the sacrament.11 Sam’s own careful reading of the most important and widely
diffused pamphlets on the Lord’s Supper is evident in the pamphlet he published
in the late spring or early summer of 1526, A Consoling Pamphlet for the Timid and
206
206 Exch anges, 1526–1533
Simple Who Are Offended on Account of the Division that Has Arisen Concerning
Christ’s Supper.12 In it Sam directly addressed an issue that concerned other
pastors as well: the confusion and uncertainty felt by evangelical lay men and
women who did not understand the issues and who felt incapable of choosing
between the two sides. While most authors intervened in the debate in order to
persuade others to accept their own views, it is striking that Sam tried to give a
fair presentation of both sides.13
Sam opened his pamphlet by addressing the Catholic claim that the
evangelicals’ quarrel concerning the sacrament proved that all their teachings
were wrong. He pointed out that the Catholics had their own disagreements: the
church fathers had written against each other, scholastic theologians did nothing
but argue, and the Roman Church itself was divided into many sects and reli-
gious orders. Even Christ’s disciples had been divided, and St. Paul, when talking
about the Lord’s Supper, had warned that there must be divisions (1 Cor. 11:19).
Disagreement was therefore not in and of itself evidence of error.14
Sam then turned to the disagreement between the two evangelical parties,
summarizing the arguments of each. The first party, which held that Christ’s true,
natural body was substantially under or in the bread, posited four arguments
drawn from scripture: the literal understanding of Christ’s words instituting the
sacrament recorded in the synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians 11, St. Paul’s discus-
sion of the bread as the communion of Christ’s body (1 Cor. 10:16–17), his state-
ment that those who ate unworthily were guilty of the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:27),
and his exhortation to examine oneself before eating (1 Cor. 11:28–29). Sam’s de-
scription of the Wittenberg position was in essence a summary of Bugenhagen’s
Letter Against the New Error, which discussed each of these passages.15 It is
striking that Sam’s presentation of the Wittenberg view rested entirely on the
interpretation of the institution accounts in the Gospels and St. Paul, and he did
not advance any of the other arguments Luther had used in Against the Heavenly
Prophets, such as the proper ordering of external and internal things or the subor-
dination of reason to faith.16
Sam was more eclectic in summarizing the arguments of the opposing party,
which rejected Christ’s corporeal presence in the sacrament. He cited the fig-
urative understanding of Christ’s words as “this signifies my body,” which was
advanced by Zwingli and Hoen. He repeated Karlstadt’s argument that the
Wittenbergers ignored Christ’s simple words, “this is my body” and interpreted
them instead as, “Christ’s body is in and under the bread.”17 Sam cited the asser-
tion, common to Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and Zwingli, that John 6:63 (“The
flesh is of no use”) precluded Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament, and then
expanded on this point by repeating Zwingli’s claim that if one understood John
6:54 (“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.”) as applying
207
to Christ’s physical body, there would be two ways of salvation: by faith, and by
eating Christ’s body.18 Sam also cited an argument made first by both Karlstadt
and Oecolampadius that according to scripture and the Apostles’ Creed, Christ’s
body was seated at the right hand of the Father and would return only at the Last
Judgment, although he did not sharpen this assertion, as both Hätzer and Zwingli
had, by drawing the conclusion that the Apostles’ Creed therefore opposed
Christ’s bodily presence.19 Last but not least, Sam cited two more arguments first
proposed by Hoen and then taken up by Karlstadt and Oecolampadius. Christ
warned his disciples against those who claimed, “Christ is here or Christ is there,”
and he told them that he would not remain long in the world but would return
like lightning (Matt. 24:23–27).20 Moreover, all Christ’s works were public, and
he did nothing secretly. Only in the sacrament was it claimed that he came in a
hidden way, although there was no word in the prophets that said Christ would
come in this way.21
Sam’s presentation of the two sides is striking in its objectivity, especially in
contrast to other pamphlets expressly written to explain the controversy to lay
readers. At no point did he explicitly state which party he felt had the strongest
arguments, nor did he cite the counterarguments used by each side against the
other, such as the Wittenberg understanding of John 6:63 or the sacramentarian
interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10:16–17. Only on the central issue, the proper
interpretation of “this is my body,” did he present two opposing viewpoints, and
he did not state which explanation he found more persuasive.
Up to this point it might seem that Sam only increased his readers’ confusion
rather than allaying it, but he did this in order to introduce his next concern, the
issue of authority. Who had the right to judge between the two parties? Against
those who argued that the decision belonged to a general council, Sam asserted
that the local church (Gemein) had the right to determine what accorded with
scripture. If a congregation could not decide on the matter, it could seek the judg-
ment of another church that was “richer in spirit.” He reminded his readers that
one must consider not only the literal words of scripture but also the meaning
that lay behind the words—an argument made explicitly by Oecolampadius and
implied by Zwingli’s discussion of the words of institution.22 Finally, for those
who still felt unable to decide between the parties, Sam returned to the spiritual
eating taught by John 6. Echoing Augustine, he asserted that to eat was to be-
lieve, and one could be saved without the Lord’s Supper.23 Here he betrayed his
own loyalties by arguing that Christ commanded the Lord’s Supper be held in
remembrance of him, not for the forgiveness of sins. This was a much more mod-
erate statement of the position advocated most strenuously by Karlstadt but that
clearly resonated with Zwingli’s interpretation of the Lord’s Supper as a remem-
brance (Wiedergedächtnis) of Christ’s passion and death.24
208
208 Exch anges, 1526–1533
This summary demonstrates that Sam was neither a radical nor, strictly
speaking, a Zwinglian. The Zurich reformer was not the source of most of the
arguments Sam cited against Christ’s bodily presence, nor did he publicly es-
pouse Zwingli’s theology in its entirety—thus, for instance, he did not describe
the sacrament as a public testimony of one’s faith, as the Zurich reformer did. The
arguments advanced by Hoen, Oecolampadius, and Karlstadt were as important
as those of Zwingli, although Sam presented them in a much more moderate and
dispassionate way than Karlstadt had.25 Sam’s stress on the shared concern for
spiritual eating was similar to that of the Strasbourg reformers in their pamphlets
and correspondence from the fall of 1525.26 His listing of arguments against
Christ’s bodily presence demonstrates how ideas from various sources were be-
ginning to coalesce into a coherent anti-Wittenberg position.
Sam’s pamphlet obviously appealed to readers. In contrast to most pamphlets
on the Lord’s Supper (with the notable exception of those by Luther), it was
printed three more times, not only in Ulm but also in Augsburg and Worms.
The chief attraction of the pamphlet may have been its tone, which was both
pastoral and strategically irenic. By laying out the arguments of both sides and
then stressing the right of the congregation to judge between them, Sam could
oppose the Wittenberg view without himself rejecting Christ’s bodily presence
in print. Sam was obviously attracted by the sacramentarian arguments he cited,
and he sent the pamphlet to Zwingli for his approval. On the whole, however,
the pamphlet is closer to Schradin’s characterization of Sam as one who had not
yet decided between the two sides than it is to the more common image of the
Ulm reformer as a staunchly partisan sacramentarian. In fact, his measured ap-
proach to the Eucharistic controversy set Sam apart from the more radical po-
sition advocated by the Faithful Admonition. That pamphlet gives us a glimpse
into the development of radical dissent in Augsburg, revealing the confluence of
anticlericalism with Karlstadt’s Eucharistic pamphlets.
Radical Responses: The Augsburg Sacramentarians

The author of the Faithful Admonition claimed that he “had read many books
and letters about Christ’s Supper and about the priests’ mass, which they also
call Christ’s Supper, without foundation in the truth.”27 Assuming that he was
a resident of Augsburg, where the pamphlet was printed, the author was well
placed to follow the debate about the Lord’s Supper. From the outbreak of the
controversy, the city’s preachers had published pamphlets that made public
their disagreements concerning the sacrament. The cathedral preacher Urbanus
Rhegius was the first to publish against Karlstadt, while his counterpart at the
Franciscan church, Michael Keller, defended a sacramentarian view of the
209
purpose of the sacrament in his preaching, although in Some Sermons on Christ’s

Supper from the summer of 1525 he did not go so far as to deny the presence
of Christ’s body and blood.28 The city made only desultory efforts to regulate
printing, and because the city’s pastors, who might otherwise have served as in-
formal censors, were divided on the issue, the printers were free to print or reprint
virtually every pamphlet addressing the Lord’s Supper that appeared in the year
after the outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy. As has been noted in previous
chapters, Philipp Ulhart in particular would gain a reputation for publishing
sacramentarian and Anabaptist tracts.
One result was the radicalization of the evangelical movement in the city
and the gradual spread of sacramentarian ideas. The pamphlets written by
Augsburgers published even before the outbreak of the Eucharistic contro-
versy reveal early disenchantment with the Reformation because it had not
brought genuine moral reform, and the evangelical preachers were singled
out for failing to imitate Christ’s humility and poverty.29 The earliest adult
baptisms took place in the spring of 1526, but as Geoffrey Dipple has observed,
the radicals were “less a strictly organized Anabaptist church than a loosely
organized sacramentarian community in which the teachings of Karlstadt and
Müntzer flourished.”30 Ludwig Hätzer and Hans Denck played a key role in
the emergence of this group; both men spent some time in the city in 1525.31
The group also included prominent Augsburgers such as the merchant Jörg
Regel and the patrician Eitelhans Langenmantel.32
Over the course of 1526 and early 1527, Langenmantel would publish three
pamphlets on the Lord’s Supper that combined ideas taken from Karlstadt’s
Eucharistic pamphlets with anticlerical sentiments that reflected the situation in
Augsburg.33 The earliest of these pamphlets, A Short Summary Concerning the Old
and New Papists, followed Karlstadt in condemning the views of both Catholics
and Wittenbergers, the “old and new papists,” on the sacrament.34 Langenmantel
attributed their disagreement over the Lord’s Supper to greed, since both parties
expected to be paid when they baptized babies or administered the sacrament to
the sick. His polemic was directed particularly at the pro-Wittenberg pastors’ cru-
sade against the sacramentarians. He condemned these “new papists” for refusing
to give communion to the sick unless the latter first acknowledged that Christ’s
body and blood were substantially in the elements, although they remained bread
and wine. Those same pastors charged a fee for their services, even though Christ
told his disciples, “Freely you have received; freely give” (Matt. 10:9/Luke 10:4).
In fact, on this point the old papists were preferable to the new papists, because
they gave their “Lord God” (Herrgott) for less money than the new papists did.35
Langenmantel acknowledged that “the new papists” spoke the truth in
condemning the elevation and reservation of the consecrated host and its use in
210
210 Exch anges, 1526–1533
processions, but this did not mean he accepted their view of the Lord’s Supper,
since “the devil also sometimes speaks the truth, although not from himself.”36
Instead, his understanding of the words of institution followed Karlstadt: Christ
never said “this bread is my body,” but he told his disciples to take and eat, and then
said, “this is my body, given for you.” Like Karlstadt, he stated that the purpose of
the Lord’s Supper was remembrance of Christ’s passion and death.37 Although he
did not explicitly reject the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in church buildings,
he cited Acts 2:42–47 to argue that the first Christians broke bread and ate in
thanksgiving in their own homes, without consecrating the elements or repeating
the words of institution.38
Langenmantel’s interpretation of Acts distinguished him from the Zurich
Anabaptists, who also celebrated the Lord’s Supper in houses rather than in church,
but who treated the elements as part of a ritual action that included reading the
institution accounts.39 It also reflected the current debate in Augsburg, where the
place where the Lord’s Supper was celebrated had become a contested topic. In
his published sermons from 1525, Keller had argued that the celebration of the
Lord’s Supper was not bound to any particular place but was instead to be held
in the gathering of Christians, who were called the church. His statement that
“we Christians ourselves are the church and the hall in which one should hold
the Supper” demonstrates that Keller was thinking metaphorically.40 Some of his
hearers must have understood him literally, however, for when he published an
expanded version of the sermons a year later, he clarified his position, saying that
St. Paul described the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in any place or house where
the congregation could gather, “as among us in preaching houses or churches
in which people come together to hear God’s Word.”41 Keller was closer to the
sacramentarians than to the Wittenbergers, but he now considered it necessary
to try to moderate the conduct and language of his more radical supporters, as
seen by his criticism of those who spoke unfittingly in front of the weak about
the Lord’s bread, “calling it a baker’s bread, a baked Lord God, a bread basket, and
similar insulting words.”42
The Faithful Admonition shows the same anticlericalism and hostility toward
the Wittenbergers as Langenmantel’s pamphlets, which suggests that it originated
in the same circle. Its author explained that he wrote his pamphlet in response
to an open letter whose authors, the pastors of an unnamed city, claimed that
Christ’s flesh and blood were truly in the sacrament of the altar, even if they could
not explain how that happened because God’s word was silent on the matter.43
The anonymous author had nothing but scorn for this position.
Like Langenmantel, the author of the Faithful Admonition made liberal
use of Karlstadt’s arguments. Throughout the pamphlet he demanded that his
opponents produce scripture to prove that Christ’s flesh and blood were in the
21
bread and wine. It was not sufficient to cite the words instituting the Lord’s
Supper, since “this is my body given for you” was a statement separate from the
command to take and eat. Christ instead wanted his followers to eat bread, drink
from the cup, and remember him. When he blessed the bread before feeding
the five thousand and during the supper at Emmaus, the bread had remained
bread; a thousand blessings said over it could not change the nature of bread.44
Similarly, the Wittenberg party had no scripture to support their claim that the
sacraments gave one certainty in spiritual matters, strengthened faith, and as-
sured the troubled conscience. Such assurance could come only through God’s
word and through the Holy Spirit, not through receiving the Lord’s Supper or
remembering one’s baptism.45 The author asserted in several places that Christ
had ascended into heaven and was seated at the right hand of the Father, and so
his body should not be sought in the bread. Christ’s promises to be with his dis-
ciples (Matt. 18:20 and 28:20) referred to his spiritual, not his bodily, presence.
Eating and drinking Christ’s flesh and blood could only be done spiritually, for
his body was in heaven and would remain there until he came again to judge all
people.46
The pamphlet’s arguments were sharpened by polemical invective against
those who taught that Christ’s body was contained in the bread and wine. In
claiming that Christ’s words gave them the power to bring Christ’s body into the
bread, the old and new papists were no different from snake charmers; Christ
never taught that one could bring his body magically into the bread. The author
contrasted the breaking of bread described in the New Testament with the mass,
whether in German or in Latin, which the priests and monks had turned into a
spectacle, like a Carnival play. Those who argued about how Christ’s body was
in the bread were just like the Dominicans and Franciscans who argued over the
immaculate conception of Mary, with each side calling the other heretical, when
in fact both sides were heretics and hypocrites, since scripture said nothing about
their invented ideas.47
The Faithful Admonition resembled Langenmantel’s Short Summary in its
confidence in the ability of simple Christians to understand and obey scripture.
Christians had no need of priests, for they had Christ as an eternal priest and sole
mediator in heaven. God’s will was revealed in his word, which was clear, and that
word said that Christians should take the bread, break it, and eat it in remem-
brance. Throughout the pamphlet the author cited scripture copiously, whether
to give examples of the breaking of bread in the apostolic church, to argue that
Christ’s body was now in heaven, or to prove that the Holy Spirit was promised
to all Christians equally.48
The two Augsburg pamphlets reveal the existence of a radical
sacramentarianism in that city that owed far more to Karlstadt than to Zwingli.
21
212 Exch anges, 1526–1533
Neither pamphlet attempted to interpret “this is my body” figuratively but, in-

stead, followed Karlstadt’s literal explanation: “this” referred to Christ’s body
rather than the bread, and the command to “do this in remembrance” referred
back to the command to take and eat. Prominent in both was resentment of the
arrogance of the clergy, whether Catholic or evangelical, who insisted that they
had the authority to administer the sacrament and the power to bring Christ’s
body into the bread. Both pamphlets interpreted the Lord’s Supper as an occa-
sion when Christians remembered Christ’s death as they ate bread and drank
wine, and they saw no need for elaborate ceremonies or for an ordained clergy to
control access to the sacrament.49
The similarities between Langenmantel’s Short Summary and the Faithful
Admonition led Karl Schottenloher and, following him, Walther Köhler, to at-
tribute the latter pamphlet to Langenmantel.50 Their identification is questionable,
however, since Langenmantel did not take responsibility for this pamphlet at the
same time as he acknowledged writing the Short Summary and a brief confession
of faith concerning the Lord’s Supper.51 The author of the Faithful Admonition was
more likely the paymaster for the imperial troops in Augsburg, Haug Marschalk or
Zoller. Marschalk was an early supporter of the evangelical cause, and he published
several pamphlets that were frequently reprinted between 1522 and 1525.52 By 1526,
though, he was disenchanted with Luther, and at the end of the year he and the
printer Heinrich Steiner were thrown in jail for printing “a pamphlet on the holy
sacrament” without having obtained the city council’s permission. The timing
suggests that this pamphlet was the version of the Faithful Admonition published
as A Clear Report and that Marschalk was at the very least responsible for its re-
publication, if he was not himself its author.53 Since the Faithful Admonition had
been printed in Augsburg by Philipp Ulhart and was most likely still available for
sale there, the reprint needed a new title if it was to attract buyers.
The small but significant differences between the Faithful Admonition and
the Clear Report suggest that Marschalk was unhappy with the quality of Ulhart’s
work, and so he turned to Steiner to produce a better imprint. The Clear Report
contains several corrections and improvements to the text of the Admonition,
and in a few places the polemical tone is sharpened. Both motives can be seen in
the opening lines, where a garbled reference to the open letter that prompted the
author to write the Admonition was changed into a more specific attack on both
Catholics and Lutherans, “whether in Rome or in Jerusalem, in Nuremberg or
Wittenberg.”54
The most important difference, though, was the new title, which drew the
reader’s attention to a specific question of Christology: whether Christ’s body
was located at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Although the pamphlet
did discuss this issue, it was not by any means the central argument that the title
213
implies. The new title may have been chosen to reflect discussion about this par-
ticular argument against Christ’s bodily presence that had gained new promi-
nence in Augsburg at the end of 1526, in the hope that it would increase sales
of the pamphlet. With its reference to Ulm, it may also have been intended as a
decoy to draw the readers’ attention away from its Augsburg origins.
In this, the title succeeded, for the pamphlet was universally attributed to
Conrad Sam, the preacher in Ulm. In his Response to Schradin, Sam stated that
he had received a letter from the Nördlingen pastor Theobald Billican asking him
about the pamphlet, and he reported that many had complained directly to the
Ulm city council about it.55 Johannes Schradin was so disturbed by what he saw
as the blasphemy contained in the Clear Report that he felt he had to attack it in
print. Schradin made no bones about identifying its author: his own pamphlet
was addressed to the “well-learned Master Conrad Sam, Ecclesiasten in Ulm,”
and throughout the work he used the familiar second-person singular to refer to
“you, dear Conrad.” His pamphlet gives us yet another view of the impact of the
Eucharistic controversy at the local level.
The Pro-Wittenberg Response: Johannes Schradin

Schradin was hardly a representative of the “common man.” Born around the turn
of the century, he studied in both Basel and Tübingen, probably in preparation
for a career in the church. The Reformation put an end to such plans, and some-
time in 1523 or 1524 he returned to his hometown of Reutlingen and married.
Although a layman, he remained closely allied with the evangelical movement.
Through the remainder of the decade he served as the city’s Latin schoolmaster
before becoming a pastor himself.56
Schradin’s position in Reutlingen made him more than just a passive spectator
of the debate over the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli’s first public rejection of Christ’s cor-
poreal presence in the elements was a letter addressed to Reutlingen’s preacher,
Matthaeus Alber. At the end of 1525, the city sent a delegation to Luther, asking him
to write against Zwingli. Luther refused to do so, but he did write a letter to “all dear
Christians in Reutlingen,” warning them against the “sects, mobs, heresies, and false
spirits” who attacked the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Their errors
were evident in the fact that they could not agree on their grounds for rejecting
Christ’s bodily presence.57 Schradin would echo Luther’s charges of disagreement
in his own Response to the New and Gross Error Concerning the Lord’s Supper.58
Schradin’s pamphlet followed a format that was common in the debate over
the Lord’s Supper. After an introductory letter to the reader in which he justi-
fied writing the pamphlet, the schoolmaster went through the Clear Report page
by page, citing thirty-nine statements that he found particularly offensive. His
214
214 Exch anges, 1526–1533
responses to these statements ranged from short, mocking comments to lengthy

and substantial arguments. Because he introduced each citation and response
with “Preacher in Ulm” and “Schradin,” respectively, the pamphlet has the feel of
a dialogue or disputation. This format had several advantages. First, it gave those
who had not read the original pamphlet a quick summary of its contents. The di-
alogue format also made the pamphlet more entertaining to listen to when read
aloud, and so extended its audience to include the illiterate. Most important, it
allowed Schradin to shape his own argument in a rhetorically effective way. He
could pick and choose individual statements without regard for their context,
elevating remarks made in passing to the status of major issues and ignoring en-
tirely those statements with which he had no quarrel. The result was to emphasize
the disagreements and to present his opponent in the worst light possible.
Schradin’s criticism of the Clear Report began with its title. Throughout the
pamphlet he referred sarcastically to the “good understanding” its author claimed
in the title: “can you call it preaching a report with good understanding when one
can knowingly write falsehood? Bah! It is a disgrace that you aren’t ashamed!”59
The overall effect of such rhetoric was to undermine the Ulm preacher’s credi-
bility. Indeed, the relative authority and credibility of the leading reformers was
a major issue for Schradin. He was incensed by the term “new papists” and what
he saw as “Sam’s” equation of Luther and the pope, since whatever understanding
“Sam” had of the gospel had come from God through Luther. It was gross ingrati-
tude toward God to show so little respect for the prophet He had sent.60
Schradin’s references to the Swiss reformers were more nuanced. He was
certainly aware of Oecolampadius’s position on the Lord’s Supper, for the same
unknown person who gave him a copy of the Clear Report also had a copy of a pam-
phlet by Oecolampadius.61 But Schradin seemed unwilling to criticize the Basel
reformer, whom he described as “an especially learned man.”62 He mentioned
Oecolampadius only three times, always together with Zwingli and only when
pointing out that “Sam” deviated from their teaching.63 Schradin did not show
the same respect for Zwingli that he did for Oecolampadius. He asserted several
times that “you and Zwingli” taught erroneously that Christ’s human body was
in heaven and so could not be in the elements of the Lord’s Supper; this doctrine
was clearly associated with the Zurich reformer.64 Schradin was even more critical
of “your master Karlstadt,” whose interpretation of the words instituting the sac-
rament he recognized in the Clear Report. 65
Schradin’s most trenchant criticism of the Clear Report was that its author
reduced the Lord’s Supper to a meal held in remembrance of Christ’s passion and
death, no different from any other supper or the farewell drink given by a host. This,
Schradin stated, was one of the reasons he felt compelled to write his pamphlet.66
“Sam” rejected and demeaned the mass, and it was rumored that he did not even
215
want to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. But this position reduced the sacrament to a
drinking party where participants filled their bellies with bread and wine.67 Heathens,
Jews, and gluttons held such meals, not true Christians. The Lord’s Supper had to be
something more than the eating and drinking done daily.68 This was clear from scrip-
ture, for St. Luke described Christ’s institution of the sacrament after supper, and St.
Paul chastised the Corinthians for not distinguishing between a meal and the Lord’s
Supper.69 Even the Swiss reformers recognized this. They might “hold and consider
[the Lord’s Supper] as only bread, but they still confess that it is a very different kind
of meal than what we daily partake of and eat to preserve our nature.”70
In Schradin’s view, the reduction of the Lord’s Supper to a common meal was
symptomatic of a larger problem: the author of the Clear Report ignored the views
of others and promoted ideas that he had come up with “out of his own head,
without any basis in Scripture.”71 He claimed that as a Christian he listened only to
Christ’s voice, but he refused to accept Christ’s simple and clear words, “this is my
body.”72 Moreover, his exegesis of scripture was laughable. He claimed that Christ
said, “ ‘the cup is in my blood’ . . . as if it swam in blood like a bowl in a cask.”73 To
justify his own understanding of the breaking of bread, he combed through scrip-
ture looking for other references to breaking bread and then identified them with
the Lord’s Supper, thereby committing the same errors as the papists, who thought
every occurrence of “fire” referred to purgatory.74 He tried to prove his arguments
with teachings such as Christ’s eternal priesthood and his physical birth to the
Virgin Mary, which had no relevance for the sacrament.75 Schradin asserted that it
would be far better if the authorities prevented individuals from publishing what-
ever views they read into scripture. They could thus ensure that such new teachings
were examined by scholars and evaluated according to God’s word.76
According to Schradin, the author of the Clear Report committed a further
offense by attacking all who disagreed with him, calling them “devils, apostates,
new papists, twisted scholars, enemies of God, and crazy, mad people.”77 His claim
that the Wittenberg party would gladly reintroduce the mass was a shameless lie
that wronged the many evangelical preachers who had suffered persecution for
rejecting the “marketing” of papist masses, who had abolished such blasphemy,
and who daily preached against it. Even worse, it undermined the credibility of
the gospel they preached: “what should a simple, pious Christian think when you
say they want to help the papists restore the mass, but that they have proclaimed
and presented the gospel not rightly but falsely?”78
Schradin’s own view of the sacrament was influenced by biblical humanism as
well as by the Wittenberg reformers. He used his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew
and cited Erasmus’s translation of the Greek text to explain the words instituting
the sacrament.79 Echoing the writings of Luther, Karlstadt, and Melanchthon
from the early 1520s, he stated that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper were
216
216 Exch anges, 1526–1533
external signs given to exercise and strengthen faith, similar to Abraham’s circum-
cision and Gideon’s fleece.80 He also drew on Luther’s polemics against Karlstadt,
pointing out that although “sacrament” was not used for the Lord’s Supper in the
Bible, Christians were free to use the term.81 When Christ said, “the flesh is of
no use” ( John 6:63), he was referring to “flesh” as carnal understanding, not to
his own body.82 He differed from Luther, however, by avoiding the question of
whether Judas received Christ’s body.83
A careful reading of Schradin’s pamphlet shows that it was directed not only
against the Swiss understanding of the sacrament but even more against the rad-
ical separatists who celebrated the Lord’s Supper as a common meal outside of
public worship and who challenged the teaching and authority of the evangelical
pastors. Schradin clearly disagreed with Oecolampadius and Zwingli—especially
the latter—but he also distinguished their teaching, which granted special status
to the handling of the bread and wine, from that of the Clear Report, which in his
view robbed the Lord’s Supper of any sacrality.
The surprise and personal dismay with which Schradin described Sam’s earlier
uncertainty about Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper suggests that both men had
once been more concerned with finding common ground and ending the public
disagreement over the sacrament than with sharpening the contrasts between the
two sides. Schradin’s attack on Sam was provoked by his belief that the latter had
abandoned this neutrality to defend a radical view. Schradin’s pamphlet in turn
pushed Sam to defend his reputation in print.
The Reputation of a Preacher: Conrad Sam Again

As he complained in his Response to Schradin, Sam learned of Schradin’s pam-
phlet only after its publication, when the author sent him a copy.84 One of his
first moves was to seek the advice of the Swiss reformers about how to respond.
Both Oecolampadius and Zwingli offered general moral support, and the latter
gave some specific advice as well. Zwingli was concerned about the possible po-
litical ramifications of the affair, for he described how Balthasar Hubmaier’s
disagreement with the Zurich church had left the city of Waldshut defenseless
against the Catholic government of Outer Austria. He advised Sam to publish
a defense directed to the Reutlingen city council, in which he explained the is-
sues being debated and asked them to take no “rash and unconsidered” actions.
He also suggested that Sam include with his apology a copy of Zwingli’s recently
published response to Jakob Strauss.85
Zwingli assumed that Sam was prepared to offer an unambiguous statement
of agreement with his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Such was not
the case, however, and Sam took a completely different approach in his Response
217
to Schradin. Rather than directing the pamphlet to the Reutlingen council, he

addressed it “to all lovers of the evangelical truth,” and instead of concentrating
on the theological dispute, he focused on the personal attacks contained in
Schradin’s pamphlet, which Sam construed as insults to God’s word.
Sam’s brief pamphlet made four points. First, the Clear Report was falsely
published under his name, and he had never held the view that Schradin attributed
to him that the Lord’s Supper was only a common meal, let alone a drinking party.
He called upon his hearers to attest that he always spoke honorably of “the Lord’s
bread and cup,” as St. Paul referred to it, and he taught the benefits that came
with its proper celebration.86 He then condemned Schradin’s conduct in pub-
lishing such a scurrilous attack. The proper response for a Christian concerned
about his brother’s teaching would have been to seek Sam out privately and to
give him a chance to respond, rather than publishing his attack and then sending
the printed copy to him.87 Sam defended himself in particular from the charge
that he was ungrateful to Luther, whom Sam acknowledged as “a valuable servant
of God through whom God granted to many, myself included, the knowledge
of the truth.” Nevertheless, Sam wanted to be “neither Lutheran nor Zwinglian,
but Christian”: Christ alone was the schoolmaster of every Christian.88 Finally,
Sam complained that he was the victim of a whole host of “disgraceful lies” about
his person and teaching. It was said he preached that Christ was not the prom-
ised Messiah, that he rejected all good works, that he said adultery was less sinful
than hearing mass, and that he lived a “disgraceful, knavish life.” He reminded his
readers that even if they heard such rumors from a creditable source, they should
remember that those individuals were only human, and according to the psalmist,
all men were liars.89
Completely absent from the pamphlet was any discussion of the Lord’s Supper
itself. There is no mention of the debate over the presence of Christ’s body in the
elements. Although Sam stated that he taught his hearers the benefits of the Lord’s
Supper, he did not say what those benefits were. Far from being the assertive de-
fender of the “Zwinglian” position that the Zurich reformer hoped for and that later
historians have claimed to see, Sam did all he could to avoid positive identification
in print with Zwingli. His efforts proved in vain, however, for his failure to espouse
explicitly a pro-Wittenberg view of the sacrament damned him in the eyes of his
contemporaries. The Clear Report had established his public reputation, for good
or ill, and Sam—and the city he served—was henceforth identified as “Zwinglian.”
The Catholic Reaction: Johannes Eck

The exchange between Conrad Sam and Johannes Schradin would have fur-
ther consequences for the city of Ulm, pushing it into open alliance with
218
218 Exch anges, 1526–1533
the Swiss and the Strasbourgers. In August 1527, Johannes Eck wrote to the
Ulm city council asking them to suppress the heretical teaching of their
preacher concerning the Lord’s Supper and offering to hold a disputation
with Sam himself.90 Sam wrote to Strasbourg to ask for the pastors’ sup-
port at the proposed disputation; Bucer in turn asked Zwingli for his aid.91
The Ulm council took its time in responding to Eck, which led the latter to
publish a brief pamphlet Against the Blasphemer and Heretic Conrad Sam . . .
Offering a Disputation Concerning the Venerable Sacrament of the Altar in
early December.92
Eck’s attack on Sam was shaped by Schradin’s pamphlet. He mocked the
Ulm preacher as one “who was inexperienced in Holy Scripture, because he
jumped to it from the Decretum, as one says, with unwashed hands”; Schradin
had also drawn attention to the fact that Sam’s education was in canon law, not
theology.93 According to Eck, Sam was not even learned enough that he could
come up with his own heresy but instead had simply “sucked up his poison
from the arch-heretics Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius,” although even
Zwingli and his followers would not be pleased with his making every meal into
the Lord’s Supper. Again, this was a point that Schradin had made throughout
his pamphlet.94 Eck did not go beyond these general assertions to describe Sam’s
teaching on the sacrament but, instead, condemned the “abomination of his
baker’s bread and turnip slices,” which robbed Christians of “the highest treasure
of the body and blood of Jesus Christ and destroyed all Christian devotion.”95 It
is therefore questionable whether Eck had read either Sam’s Consoling Pamphlet
or the Clear Report that was attributed to him and instead based his attack solely
on Schradin’s pamphlet.
Nevertheless, thanks to the title of Eck’s pamphlet, Sam’s name was further as-
sociated with heresy concerning the sacrament, and it may have done more than
any of the other publications to associate Sam with Zwingli. Not only was the
letter printed twice on its own, but it was reprinted three more times with let-
ters Eck wrote to Zwingli and to the Swiss Confederation concerning the Bern
Disputation.96 In light of such publicity, it is not surprising that Sam proved un-
able to clear his name.
In the end, the Ulm council suggested that Sam take the opportunity to de-
fend himself publicly against Eck at the upcoming disputation of Bern, to which
both men had been invited. Although Eck refused to attend, Sam was present at
Bern, which allowed him to strengthen his personal ties with the reformers of
Zurich, Basel, and Strasbourg. From this point on, Ulm’s church was recognized
as sacramentarian, and when the city’s burghers voted to abolish the mass in 1531,
Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Ambrosius Blarer were invited to the city to write the
ordinance that would establish the new church.
219
Ramifications
It would be attributing far too much to a single publication to say that a mis-
leading title used by a printer to sell copies of a pamphlet pushed Ulm into the
sacramentarian camp. Sam’s Consoling Pamphlet reveals the reformer’s sympathies
for Luther’s opponents by the middle of 1526, if not earlier. Nevertheless, the furor
caused by the publication of the Clear Report made it impossible for Sam to main-
tain the cautious neutrality concerning the sacrament that he had demonstrated
in his Consoling Booklet, and it linked him publicly not only with Zwingli and
Oecolampadius but also with Karlstadt. His response was to form closer ties with
the Swiss as the most moderate of Luther’s opponents. Sam’s public identification
as a sacramentarian was thus the result of the controversy caused by the publica-
tion of the Clear Report, not the background to it.97
None of the pamphlets involved in this exchange was theologically signifi-
cant, if by significant is meant contributing to the elaboration of positions that
would become normative for the magisterial Protestant confessions. Instead,
these pamphlets highlight the broader problems of mass communication in the
early sixteenth century, and they demonstrate two related features of the early de-
bate over the sacrament that are often overlooked: the diversity of views among
those who rejected Luther’s position, and the problem of authority raised by that
diversity.
Luther’s towering presence and the key role of the Wittenbergers in spreading
evangelical ideas meant that writers defending Christ’s bodily presence could
unite around a relatively homogenous set of arguments—although as we shall
see in Chapter 12, this did not mean that pro-Wittenberg authors were aware
of Luther’s own theological development. The alternative position, however,
was still taking shape in 1526. Zwingli was only one of several authors who op-
posed Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper, and the variety of arguments
contained in Sam’s Consoling Pamphlet and in the Admonition/Report illustrates
how pamphlet writers drew from several of them. This diversity of argumenta-
tion was to some extent countered by the common adoption of certain ideas. For
this reason, it would be misleading to distinguish too sharply between the views
of Zwingli and Karlstadt, for instance. On the one hand, Sam’s use of Karlstadt
demonstrates that the latter’s views also appealed to the more moderate wing, and
both Zwingli and Oecolampadius drew arguments from Karlstadt’s pamphlets.
On the other hand, the Admonition/Report took arguments from the Swiss
reformers, especially the insistence that Christ’s body remained in heaven. Still, it
is striking that at least some sixteenth-century readers distinguished gradations in
the content and tone of anti-Wittenberg argumentation—gradations that, in this
case, presaged the separation of Augsburg’s radicals from the established church.
20
220 Exch anges, 1526–1533
Just as the Zurich radicals moved beyond Zwingli’s position on baptism to sepa-
rate from the church, so the Augsburg radicals drew the logical consequences of
Karlstadt’s arguments and combined them with local anticlericalism to promote
an understanding of the Lord’s Supper that saw no need for the pastors, ceremo-
nies, and even the buildings of the institutional church.98
The issue of authority was addressed in all the pamphlets discussed here.
Throughout his pamphlet, Eck appealed to the tradition of the church from
the time of the apostles, to a variety of church fathers, especially Augustine and
Jerome, and to both canon and imperial law. He asserted that Sam’s teaching on
the Lord’s Supper had been condemned, and as a notorious heretic and blas-
phemer he was to be neither protected nor defended.99
Both Sam in his Consoling Pamphlet and Schradin in his Response to the New
Error replaced the authority of the Roman Church with that of the local commu-
nity, whether understood as the congregation or as the government that exercised
the right to judge—and to censor—new teachings. Both authors presented an overly
optimistic view of a community unified in its judgment, when in fact their pamphlets
testify to the division and disagreement over theological questions not only between
but also within communities. Ultimately, each author turned to an outside source
for direction. Sam defined this vaguely as a church “more gifted in spirit,” and his
letters to Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Bucer reveal which churches he felt met
this standard. Schradin was more direct in seeing Luther, through whom God had
worked so powerfully, as the one more gifted in spirit to whom others should defer.
The Augsburg radicals took a much different approach, rejecting not only
the authority of both Rome and Wittenberg but also that of their own city’s
preachers, the “new papists” who used their positions to try to impose beliefs
that could not be supported by scripture. The radicals also implied that true
teaching had to be accompanied, and even authenticated, by one’s life. For
this reason the rumors about Sam’s conduct were so damaging to his reputa-
tion. Sam and Schradin thought about authority in a hierarchical way, where
those with expertise in theology, textual analysis, and the sacred languages had
special claim to understanding scripture. The radicals saw no need for such ex-
pertise, however, and they claimed the right to interpret scripture themselves.
This difference is epitomized in the titles of their pamphlets. While Sam wrote
to instruct “the simple,” implying that his readers lacked the ability to decide
between the competing sides on their own, the Clear Report addressed the
“common person,” a term with implications of communal decision-making
and political action.100
The vernacular pamphlets examined here reveal not only how ideas spread
through the various layers of literate German society but also how they could be
transformed in the process. The pamphlets themselves bear testimony to the fact
21
that they were only part of the broader communication process. Printed works
were not read in isolation but, rather, served as the catalyst for private conver-
sation, as is clear from Schradin’s mention of his discussions with Sam and with
the individual who brought the Clear Report to Reutlingen. In a largely illiterate
society, such discussions were essential to the spread of ideas contained in printed
works.101 The dialogue form used by Schradin could also be seen as part of this
discussion, blurring the boundaries between print and oral transmission of ideas.
Sam’s description of the rumors that circulated about his teaching and character
are evidence of how easily the spoken word could be misunderstood and how diffi-
cult it was to combat such rumors. It is worth noting, however, that Sam took no
measures to counter these rumors in print until after the publication of a pamphlet
attacking him by name. The shift from oral communication to print was not a step
undertaken lightly or without what the author considered weighty reasons. Schradin
found it necessary, in his letter to the Christian reader with which he opened his
pamphlet, to explain why he felt compelled to respond to the Clear Report.102
The printed pamphlet conveyed an author’s ideas over greater distance and with
more accuracy than the spoken word, and as Sam’s Consoling Pamphlet and the
Admonition/Report both demonstrate, their availability made it possible for readers
to summarize and synthesize ideas they found in the works of others. Hans-Joachim
Köhler has emphasized the importance of pamphlets in transmitting ideas to local
“opinion leaders,” who then passed the ideas on to a broader audience.103 Although
Köhler was primarily thinking about oral transmission at the local level, this two-
step flow of communication applies to the published works of such opinion leaders
as well. But printing did not ensure accuracy. As we have also seen in the case of
Oecolampadius and Pirckheimer, the response format allowed authors to introduce
distortions to the communication process by misrepresenting the contents of the
pamphlet they were attacking. To the extent that these responses were reprinted or
incited others to become involved in the published exchange, they could drown out
or replace the message of the original pamphlet. Assuming that print runs were of ap-
proximately the same size, Sam’s Response to Schradin could not counter the damage
caused to his reputation by the Clear Report, Schradin’s Answer, and the six imprints
of Eck’s pamphlet.
By the time Eck’s attack on Sam was published, however, the controversy over
the Lord’s Supper had entered a new phase. Luther’s publication of That These
Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics in the
spring of 1527 signaled the maturation of the public debate and initiated the most
consequential of the many exchanges concerning the sacrament.
2
11
The Debate Matures, 1527–1529
The number of publications concerning the Lord’s Supper available to

the public reached a high point at the 1527 spring book fair. Buyers could find
copies of Zwingli’s response to Jakob Strauss and his two treatises against Luther,
Bucer’s defense of his translations of Luther, Pirckheimer’s Second Response and
Oecolampadius’s rejoinder to it, and refutations of the Basler’s Genuine Exposition
by the Catholics Josse Clicthove and John Fisher. They could also purchase
imprints that combined shorter works by a variety of pro-Wittenberg authors,
including Luther himself, and a host of pamphlets by lesser-known authors. The
single most influential work for sale, however, was Luther’s That These Words of
Christ, “This Is My Body,” Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatic Spirits, which he
wrote specifically against his sacramentarian opponents. This treatise prompted
another long exchange with the Swiss and Strasbourg reformers that extended
into 1528 and that was in many ways the culmination of the previous two years of
public discussion.
Zwingli’s Amicable Exegesis and Luther’s treatise from 1527 are among the
best-known contributions to the early Eucharistic controversy, for they pitted
the two reformers directly against each other. Because they were published at
the same time, however, the two works were not part of the same conversation.
Zwingli’s work was the final contribution to the earlier discussion, while Luther’s
treatise initiated a new exchange. The Zurich reformer’s other contributions to
this new exchange are generally dismissed as repetitions of the arguments in his
Amicable Exegesis, while the contributions of Oecolampadius have largely been
ignored.1 This neglect obscures the publicistic significance of this major exchange
between the chief protagonists of each party. The treatises published as part of
this debate—they were all long enough that the term “pamphlet” is inadequate—
demonstrate most of the characteristics we have seen in the previous chapters: a
disagreement over both biblical hermeneutics and the exegesis of scripture,
23
The Debate Matures, 1527–1529 223
the explicit authority of Luther and the less obvious but equally important au-
thority of Erasmus, a debate over the interpretation and the relevance of patristic
statements, and the skillful use of rhetoric to persuade readers.
The exchanges between Luther and his opponents were not the only devel-
opment in the controversy, however. Other writers continued to defend their
positions in shorter pamphlets that were often intended for local audiences.
Increasingly, discussion of the Lord’s Supper was moving into other types of
publications that allowed for either a more detailed theological discussion or a
more pastoral application. By the end of the decade, the public discussion of the
Lord’s Supper was assuming a new form.
Luther Reboots the Debate

In August 1526, Luther told Michael Stifel that he was considering whether to
write against the sacramentarians,2 and the pamphlets of Oecolampadius, Bucer,
and Jud available at the fall book fair helped him make up his mind. After the
publication of Oecolampadius’s Fair Answer and a few days before writing his
preface to the second Wittenberg translation of the Syngramma, Luther told
Nicolaus Hausmann that he would write against Oecolampadius if he had time.3
He did not begin work on his treatise until January 1527, but That These Words
Still Stand Firm was finished in time for the spring book fair.4 In the treatise,
Luther did not explicitly address any specific pamphlets by his opponents, but
both the argumentation and emphasis of That These Words Still Stand Firm indi-
cate that his chief concern was to refute the treatises of Oecolampadius. Many of
the specific points Luther attacked were drawn from the Basler’s Fair Answer, and
the structure of his treatise highlighted arguments that Oecolampadius had made
in his exchanges with Brenz, Billican, and Pirckheimer.5
That These Words Still Stand Firm followed the standard structure of a clas-
sical oration in that Luther first gave a positive statement of his own position, then
refuted the arguments of his opponents. In striking contrast to Zwingli’s claim to
discuss the sacrament dispassionately in his Amicable Exegesis, Luther used strong
language and biting sarcasm to argue that the devil was the motivating force be-
hind his sacramentarian opponents. He opened his treatise with the assertion
that Satan used the disagreement over the Lord’s Supper to counter the spread
of the newly recovered gospel. Because this disagreement concerned the correct
understanding of Christ’s words, Luther rejected his opponents’ pleas for toler-
ation: there was no middle ground between truth and blasphemy. He defended
the literal understanding of “this is my body” and again criticized his opponents’
figurative interpretation as uncertain.6
24
224 Exch anges, 1526–1534
Luther then addressed what he described as his opponents’ strongest

arguments: that Christ’s session at the Father’s right hand and John 6:63 each
proved that Christ’s physical body could not be in the bread and wine. Against
the first argument, Luther asserted that the Father’s right hand was simply a met-
aphor for God’s power. Just as God was everywhere, so also was Christ, not just in
his divinity but also in his human nature, but he had bound himself through his
word to be found especially in the Lord’s Supper.7 Luther also defended his un-
derstanding of John 6:63 as referring not to Christ’s flesh but, rather, to the fleshly
nature. The spiritual eating that was faith did not preclude the eating of Christ’s
body in the sacrament.8
In the third section of the treatise Luther turned to the patristic discussions of
the sacrament. Unlike Oecolampadius, who had cited a number of patristic works
to support his position, the Wittenberger focused on five authors—Augustine,
Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hilary, and Cyprian—to demonstrate that the church had
always taught the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements.9 This was
followed by a defense of the usefulness of Christ’s bodily presence.10 The treatise
closed with an attack on what Luther saw as Bucer’s duplicity in inserting his own
view of the sacrament into his translations of Bugenhagen’s Psalms commentary
and Luther’s church postil, and with a warning to the magistrates of Strasbourg
and Basel against those “sacramentarian sects” in their midst.11
That These Words Still Stand Firm brought to the fore several issues that
contributed to the bitterness of the Eucharistic controversy. Luther saw his
opponents as heretics, pure and simple. As he had argued in the past, his opponents
could not agree concerning the proper understanding of “this is my body,” which
proved the uncertainty of their position.12 He now discussed at some length the
assumption that underlay this complaint. He saw the disagreement not simply
as a question of how to understand a particular Bible verse but, instead, a more
fundamental issue of the Christian’s obligation to believe what was inherently un-
reasonable if it was clearly stated in God’s word. Luther considered his opponents
guilty of eisegesis, or reading their own views into scripture, rather than exegesis,
which required accommodating one’s views to what scripture said. Instead of
accepting the literal statement of scripture as true and subordinating reason to
faith, they began with the assumption that Christ’s body was not present and then
had to explain Christ’s words in some other way. They were united in arguing for
a figurative interpretation but disagreed about how precisely the words were to
be understood. But this approach placed human reason above faith, and so ulti-
mately undermined Christian truth. Scripture contained many literal statements
that were simply to be believed. The incarnation did not accord with reason ei-
ther, but that did not mean it was to be questioned. Luther saw no qualitative dif-
ference between believing the bread was Christ’s body and believing that Christ
25
was both God and man: both were difficult for most people to believe, but not
for the saints, “to whom it is . . . life and salvation to believe all the words and
works of God.”13 Christ said the bread was his body, and that statement was to
be believed unquestioningly, just as Christians believed in Christ’s virgin birth
unquestioningly, based on a literal understanding of the angel Gabriel’s words to
Mary. For a similar reason, Luther rejected Oecolampadius’s argument that there
was no use or need for Christ’s body to be present. Christians were simply to ac-
cept God’s word and not ask about usefulness or necessity.14
Luther’s identification of his opponents with heresy was one reason for the
harshness of his language and for his frequent references to the devil, especially in
the first part of the treatise. Just as important was Luther’s anger at what he saw
as the blasphemous insults his opponents applied to the sacramental bread and
wine. They accused Luther and his followers of having a baked god, a bready god,
or an edible and potable god, and labeled them idolaters, blasphemers, cannibals,
and Capernaites. Luther’s bitterness concerning these terms is revealed by his
sarcastic references to them throughout the treatise.15 He returned the insults,
condemning his opponents as “idolaters, corrupters of God’s word, blasphemers,
and liars” and associating those who said externals were of no use with the
“Müntzerite spirit” and sedition.16
Luther’s allusion to Müntzer’s rejection of externals reflects another impor-
tant element of the debate: the differing presuppositions on each side about the
meaning of flesh and spirit, and the relationship of external and internal things
more generally. Luther criticized his opponents for separating the physical and
the spiritual eating of Christ’s body and for their faulty logic in arguing that “flesh
is of no avail, therefore it is not there.”17 More fundamentally, however, he re-
peated his understanding that physical bodies and other external things in this
world could be spiritual if they were touched by God’s word and faith. He used
the word “spiritual” in a different way when he talked about Christ’s body in the
sacrament, however. Here he described a parallel between body and spirit. Christ
had called his flesh a spiritual food, and it had the power to transform those
who ate it into spiritual and holy people. This was done in the Lord’s Supper,
when Christians ate that flesh bodily with their mouths and spiritually with their
hearts. Luther also acknowledged that this also happened through God’s word,
when Christians ate spiritually with their hearts alone, but he highlighted the
transformative power of eating Christ’s flesh bodily.18
Luther’s rhetorical strategy of summarizing and simplifying the sacramentarian
position gave his treatise an internal consistency that was particularly striking when
compared to Zwingli’s Amicable Exegesis. Luther’s authority was such that his trea-
tise initiated a new process of consolidation for both parties to the conflict. Rather
than addressing individual authors or responding to specific pamphlets, Luther
26
226 Exch anges, 1526–1534
identified what he saw as the most important arguments expressed in a number of

sacramentarian works. Where most of the earlier contributions to the public debate
were the work of individuals defending their own positions and trying to persuade
others to adopt them, Luther presented his opponents as a party with a set group
of arguments they used to support their position. It is significant that it was Luther,
and not one of his opponents, who collected these arguments into a coherent
whole. Whether he was representing his opponents fairly or simply setting up a
straw man to attack, by defining the issues at stake in this way Luther gained control
of the debate more generally, in much the same way Pirckheimer had gained control
of his exchange with Oecolampadius. Perhaps most important, Luther made “this is
my body” rather than John 6:63 the fundamental text for understanding the Lord’s
Supper. This was in itself a decisive advantage over his opponents, for they were
forced to respond to Luther’s arguments rather than setting the agenda themselves.
This is borne out by the structure of the responses that the Swiss reformers wrote
to Luther’s treatise.
Responses to Luther
Although That These Words Still Stand Firm was not reprinted as frequently as
Luther’s earlier works had been, its seven imprints still surpassed those of more
recent contributions to the public debate.19 The first pamphlet to respond to it
was the Brotherly Supplication and Admonition of the former Augsburg Carmelite
Johannes Landsperger.20 The pamphlet was not aimed directly at That These
Words Still Stand Firm; instead, Landsperger used that work’s publication to jus-
tify the printing of his earlier, unpublished criticism of Luther’s Sermon Against
the Fanatics, which he had sent to Wittenberg’s city council and the university’s
theology faculty the previous fall.21 In addition to Landsperger’s prefatory letter
to his readers and a copy of his letter to Wittenberg, the Supplication had three
parts. The first was a list of sixteen points taken from Luther’s Sermon Against
the Fanatics along with Landsperger’s objections to them. He challenged Luther’s
claim that scripture taught that those eating the sacrament received forgiveness,
as well as the Wittenberger’s underlying assumption that God’s word was bound
to the sacrament in such a way as to give forgiveness. Landsperger also criticized
Luther for claiming that his opponents were being motivated by the devil.22 The
second part of the work cited another sixteen points drawn from Luther’s sermon
on John 6, first published in 1523, which Landsperger used to argue that Luther’s
Sermon Against the Fanatics contradicted his earlier writings. In particular, he
pointed out that Luther had earlier described the spiritual eating of Christ’s flesh
as faith and said that bodily eating of the flesh was of no use.23 The final sec-
tion was a pamphlet written the previous summer in response to the work of
27
an unnamed pro-Wittenberg preacher, which Landsperger now felt justified in

publishing.24
In early June, Oecolampadius published a more direct refutation of Luther’s
treatise, his Second Fair Answer, that Dr. Martin Luther’s Misunderstanding of the
Eternally Enduring Word, “This Is My Body,” Cannot Endure.25 The treatise closely
followed the structure of That These Words Still Stand Firm. Oecolampadius
opened with a discussion of “this is my body.” He granted that these words might
seem clear at first glance, but closer examination showed the many difficulties of a
literal understanding. They therefore had to be understood as containing a trope,
or figure, and Oecolampadius brought up the now-standard verses that contained
similar tropes.26 In discussing the location of Christ’s body at the right hand of
the Father, he endorsed Zwingli’s use of alloiosis and the exchange of properties
between Christ’s divine and human natures, but he said little beyond this about
Christology. More important was his stress on the limitations of a truly human
body and his argument that it did not serve either God’s glory or human useful-
ness for Christ’s body to be in the bread.27 Oecolampadius defended the inter-
pretation of John 6:63 to mean that the bodily eating of Christ’s flesh was useless,
and he argued that Christ never commanded the bodily eating of his body in
the Lord’s Supper. Instead, he told his followers that he would no longer be with
them bodily. Christ had commanded only that his followers were to proclaim
that his body was given for them. Oecolampadius criticized Luther for adding
to this a new command, that they were also to believe in impanation (inbrötung)
or that the bread was substantially Christ’s body.28 The longest section of the
treatise was a defense of Oecolampadius’s interpretation of those church fathers
Luther had discussed in That These Words Still Stand Firm.29 In a final section,
the Basler argued again that the fleshly eating of Christ’s body was of no use,
rejected the claim that the external word could bring Christ’s body into the sacra-
ment, and repudiated Luther’s association of his opponents with dishonesty, se-
dition, and rebellion.30 The Basel reformer tried to maintain a calm and reasoned
tone throughout the treatise, although his anger at Luther’s harsh condemnation
broke through at times. He complained about Luther’s offensive tone and his
many references to the devil—which the marginal gloss highlighted by adding,
“someone counted 77 devils.”31
In contrast to the Basler’s fairly moderate tone, Zwingli’s bitterness was pal-
pable in his Christian Answer, That These Words, “This Is My Body,” etc., Will
Eternally Have the One Old Meaning, and in His Last Book Martin Luther
Has Not at All Taught and Proven His and the Pope’s Understanding, published
a few weeks later.32 In the prefatory letter to Elector John of Saxony, Zwingli
complained that Luther used the authority of his name to twist scripture. Zwingli
also raised the specter of a new tyranny like that of the papacy, since his side
28
228 Exch anges, 1526–1534
was attacked as heretical, rebellious, sectarian, and the like in the hope that they
would be prohibited without a hearing.33
Like Oecolampadius, Zwingli explicitly addressed what he saw as Luther’s
preoccupation with Satan and his condemnation of the Swiss position as heresy
and blasphemy. In deliberate contrast to Luther’s mention of Satan in the first
sentence of his treatise, Zwingli opened his response by wishing Luther “grace
and peace through Christ Jesus, . . . who has left the world bodily and ascended
into heaven, where he is seated until he will return on the Last Day, according to
his own word.” The Zurich reformer pointedly remarked that this was a far more
Christian way to begin than with a discussion of the devil.34 In a long response
to the introduction of That These Words Still Stand Firm, Zwingli condemned
Luther’s violent language, insults, and lies, and he asserted that Erasmus, Johannes
Reuchlin, Lorenzo Valla, and Konrad Pellikan were more important than Luther
in recovering the gospel. He also charged Luther with error in his views on ab-
solution, purgatory, the intercession of the saints, and the use of images. Zwingli
rejected the charge of disunity among Luther’s opponents and pointed to the
example of Christ, who taught the same message using different words.35 Zwingli
claimed that Luther’s language made the disagreement seem far more serious
than it actually was. Turning Luther’s argument around, Zwingli argued that it
was blasphemy to make the sacraments, as signs of holy things, into holy things
themselves, and to make something created equal to the Creator.36
In his discussion of “this is my body,” Zwingli elaborated on several of the
arguments he had made in his vernacular pamphlet against Strauss. He accused
Luther of acting dishonestly in omitting the phrase “given for you” from his dis-
cussion of Christ’s words. This phrase proved that “this is my body” referred to
Christ’s perceptible body that suffered on the cross, and it therefore could not
be understood literally.37 Zwingli supported this assertion by citing other verses
in scripture that were misunderstood if explanatory phrases were omitted. He
defended his equation of “is” with “signifies” and, like Oecolampadius, he cited
parallel verses that were also understood figuratively, devoting the most atten-
tion to the Passover described in Exodus 12:11–27.38 In his response to Strauss,
Zwingli had distinguished between words of narration and those of promise; he
now modified this to words of simple narration and those of command. While
“take, eat” belonged to the latter, “this is my body” was an example of the former,
and the phrase did not give anyone the power to make Christ’s body.39 Zwingli
accused Luther of misrepresenting his opponents’ understanding of the Father’s
right hand by saying it was limited to one place. God’s power was everywhere,
and where God was, Christ was as well, according to his divinity—but in his
humanity Christ was limited. This led Zwingli to develop his understanding of
alloiosis as a way of explaining the exchange between Christ’s divine and human
29
natures and then to attack Luther’s claim that Christ’s body was everywhere, just
as his divinity was.40
By this time Zwingli’s treatise was almost as long as That These Words Still
Stand Firm, and so the Zurich reformer devoted relatively little space to the final
three sections of Luther’s work. He accused Luther of three errors concerning his
understanding of John 6:63. The Wittenberg reformer contradicted himself, for
he had taught in his earlier works that the carnal eating of Christ’s flesh was of
no use; he falsified scripture by omitting the definite article “the” from Christ’s
words, “the flesh was of no use,” in order to support his own understanding of
“flesh” as carnal understanding; and he was wrong to assert that whenever flesh
and spirit were opposed in scripture, it meant the carnal and spiritual nature, and
so the verse could not apply to Christ’s flesh.41 Zwingli also accused Luther of
acting dishonorably in his use of the church fathers, but the Zurich reformer de-
voted only a few paragraphs to the topic, preferring to leave this line of attack
to Oecolampadius.42 He closed his treatise by condemning six assertions that he
found in Luther’s book: that Christ’s flesh was wholly spiritual, that his body was
everywhere just as his divinity was everywhere, that Christ showed himself in the
sacrament so that Christians knew where to find him, and that the bodily eating
of Christ’s body took away sin, preserved the body until the resurrection, and
increased faith.43
Luther did not receive a copy of Zwingli’s Christian Answer until November,
and it is unclear when he read Oecolampadius’s treatise, but he responded to both
works in his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, published in March 1528.44 The
first section of that treatise was a refutation of his opponents’ arguments. If That
These Words Still Stand Firm had been directed chiefly against Oecolampadius,
the Confession was aimed squarely against Zwingli. Roughly half of Part I was
Luther’s response to Zwingli’s Christian Answer. Like Zwingli, Luther concen-
trated on two issues: the proper understanding of “this is my body,” and the
Christology that underlay assumptions concerning the nature and location of
Christ’s body.45 In order to explain how Christ’s body could be entirely present
in many different places, he introduced the scholastic understanding of “defini-
tive presence,” in which the whole body could fill a space in a nondimensional
way.46 He also addressed Oecolampadius’s Second Fair Answer, focusing on
Oecolampadius’s discussion of figurative language. He argued that one must
look not at how tropes were used generally in common speech but, rather, at
the specific use of tropes in scripture. Scriptural tropes followed the pattern of
giving a new substantial meaning to an old word, so that Christ was truly a lamb
and not merely the figure of a lamb, according to this new meaning.47 Luther
also criticized the Basler’s separation of sign and signified and his insistence that
Christ’s body was located in heaven and therefore could not be in the bread.48
230
230 Exch anges, 1526–1534
Luther then turned to two new opponents of Christ’s corporeal presence. The
first were “his neighbors,” the Silesians, whose views he had read in a treatise by
Kaspar Schwenckfeld that was circulating in manuscript.49 Luther highlighted
the differences between the Silesians and the Swiss reformers in the under-
standing of “this is my body” and criticized the spiritualist understanding of the
word of God that underlay Schwenckfeld’s treatise. Against their argument that
faith must have a spiritual object, he argued that faith was always offered a mate-
rial object under which it perceived something else, and he rejected out of hand
their claim that God’s eternal word could not bind itself to bread or any created
thing.50
The second group consisted of John Wyclif and his opponents, who argued
about how “body” could be predicated of “bread.” Luther’s reference to both sides
suggests that he knew Wyclif ’s arguments only indirectly, through refutations of
his works. The Wittenberger asserted that both parties erred in their assump-
tion that two substances could not become one substance, which had led Wyclif
to conclude that only the substance of bread was present, while his opponents
concluded that only the substance of Christ’s body was present. Luther argued,
however, that following scripture and against reason and logic, it was indeed
possible for two substances to be one thing. He described four types of union
between two substances: the natural union of the persons of the Trinity, the per-
sonal union of Christ’s divine and human natures, the efficacious union of angels
with wind and flame, and the formal union of the Holy Spirit with the dove at
Christ’s baptism and the fiery tongues at Pentecost. These examples all showed
that union was possible between two different subjects, and he called the union
between Christ’s body and the bread a sacramental union, “because Christ’s body
and the bread are given to us as a sacrament.”51 He once again explained this unity
through the rhetorical term of synecdoche, which allowed one word to refer to
two different substances.52
In the second section of the Confession Luther discussed each of the institu-
tion accounts and 1 Corinthians 10:16–17. This section can be seen as Luther’s
response to the exegesis of these passages in Oecolampadius’s 1526 Apologetica,
as well as to Zwingli’s discussion of the parallel accounts in Luke 22 and 1
Corinthians 11 in his Amicable Exegesis. The Wittenberger devoted the most
attention to Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 10–11, focusing especially on Christ’s
words concerning the cup and on the meaning of “communion” in 1 Corinthians
10:16.53 The final section of the treatise was Luther’s confession of faith, loosely
modeled on the Apostles’ Creed. The reformer intended this as an authorita-
tive statement of what he believed, so that no one could claim after his death
that he had thought differently about the chief points of faith. In response
to the Silesians’ complete separation of spiritual and material things, Luther
231
asserted here both the oral manducation of Christ’s true body and blood in the
sacrament and their reception even by the impious.54
The Strasbourg reformers were the first to receive copies of Luther’s Confession,
and they urged both Oecolampadius and Zwingli to respond, although they
counseled moderation.55 In the end, the Swiss reformers resolved to publish a
joint response, Two Answers of Zwingli and Oecolampadius to Dr. Martin Luther’s
Book Called Confession.56 The treatise was printed in a rush in order to be available
for the fall book fair. Zwingli dedicated the Two Answers to both Elector John of
Saxony and Landgraf Philipp of Hesse as a way of countering the prohibitions
against sacramentarian books in their territories. Zwingli claimed that Luther
contradicted himself and slandered his opponents, and so it was only fair that
the Swiss be allowed to defend themselves. He asked the princes to have the book
read by nonpartisan and God-fearing scholars, and he expressed the desire of his
side for peace and unity.57
The Two Answers followed the general structure of Luther’s Confession. In the
first section, Zwingli discussed Christ’s statement in three phrases. “This is my
body” was not clear and so must be understood as “this signifies my body.” “Given
for you” proved that Christ referred to his mortal body, which was perceptible
and so could not be contained in the bread. Finally, “do in remembrance of me”
did not give priests the power to bring Christ’s body into the bread. The Zurich
reformer also defended his understanding of both the institution account in Luke
22/1 Corinthians 11 and of 1 Corinthians 11:26–29 concerning unworthy recep-
tion of the sacrament, and he reasserted his position that the Lord’s Supper did
not give either faith or forgiveness.58
Zwingli also devoted a lengthy section of his response to Christology. He
defended his use of alloiosis to explain the relationship between Christ’s divine
and human natures and argued against Luther’s discussion of definitive presence
as a way to explain how Christ’s body could be everywhere.59 He then took up
his exegesis of John 6:63 and the connection between bread and body, pointing
to what he saw as inconsistencies in Luther’s discussion. He was willing to ac-
cept Luther’s term “sacramental union,” but only if it was defined as “bearing the
image of a holy thing.”60
Mirroring the structure of Luther’s Confession, the second section of the Two
Answers was Oecolampadius’s response to Luther. This was prefaced by a letter
to Zwingli in which the Basler stressed that there were no differences between
them, despite Luther’s claims. Oecolampadius then took up Luther’s discussion
of tropes in scripture and set forth four rules that determined how and when
one should look for figurative language. In this context, he also responded to
Luther’s discussion of the definitive presence of Christ’s body. Only by under-
standing “this is my body” figuratively was it possible for the words to be clear and
23
232 Exch anges, 1526–1534
to accord with scripture and the Apostles’ Creed, while allowing the sacrament to
remain a sacrament—that is, a sign.61 Oecolampadius also responded to Luther’s
criticisms of his other arguments, especially those concerning the parallel be-
tween the Passover lamb and the bread of the Lord’s Supper, and Luther’s disa-
greement with him concerning the interpretation of the institution accounts in
Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 and the discussion of communion in 1 Corinthians
10:16–17. In a brief conclusion, Oecolampadius allowed that if Luther wanted
to speak “in a Christian way” about sacramental union and desired peace, they
would quickly agree on the truth.62
In the next section of the Two Answers, Zwingli addressed Luther’s exegesis
of the institution accounts. He began by arguing that faith came only from
the Holy Spirit, and that salvation was not based on believing that Christ was
eaten bodily. He then gave a longer explanation of the accounts in Luke 22
and 1 Corinthians 11, focusing on Christ’s words concerning the cup, and he
repeated his understanding of “communion” as “fellowship” in 1 Corinthians
10:16. Zwingli closed the treatise with a response to Luther’s confession of
faith, which he claimed contained misleading statements or downright error.
He again charged Luther with inconstancy, this time by upholding both oral
manducation and reception by the impious, since in the past he had said that
only believers received Christ’s body. In his own conclusion to the work,
Zwingli returned to biblical examples of great men falling into error, as when
Paul rebuked Peter.63
The Issues at Stake

The exchange between Luther and his Swiss opponents developed in a way fa-
miliar to readers of the previous printed debates. Like a conversation, the topics
discussed changed over time as each contributor responded to certain arguments
of his opponent and ignored others. The disputants relied not only on exegesis
but also on both logical argumentation and rhetorical strategies to make their
points and persuade their readers. The exchange highlights the problem of au-
thority in all its many aspects, beginning with that posed by the interpretation
of scripture.
Each of the contributions to the debate devoted a significant amount of space
to the exegesis of key scripture texts. Not surprisingly, neither side had changed
its understanding of the controverted verses staked out already in 1525, but in-
stead had elaborated on those positions. In particular the discussion of “this is my
body” expanded to consider the meaning of that statement within the context
of each institution account, as well as the relative significance of each account.
This latter point was particularly relevant for discussion of the words concerning
23
the cup, since they occurred in two different forms: “this is my blood of the new
covenant” (Matt. 26:28/Mark 14:24) and “this cup is the new covenant in my
blood” (Luke 22:20/1 Cor. 11:25). Although the interpretation of John 6:63 was
still debated, it took up relatively little space.
The debate over how to understand “this is my body” also led to considera-
tion of how tropes were used in scripture and what kind of trope might be found
in that phrase. Here Zwingli was on weak ground, for classical rhetoric placed
tropes in predicates rather than in the verb “to be,” and from the beginning of the
controversy Zwingli had been hard-pressed to defend his understanding of “is”
as “signifies.” He had proposed the trope of catachresis, the misuse of a word to
make a point, but in also suggesting metonymy, the substitution of an attribute
or something associated with a thing for the thing itself, he implicitly shifted the
trope away from “is” to “body.”64
Oecolampadius’s discussion of tropes was far more persuasive. It drew on
Erasmus’s advice in his Plan or Method about how to handle difficult passages
of scripture, on Augustine’s discussions of sign and signified, and on Tertullian’s
use of the phrase “figure of my body.” In his Confession, Luther responded to
Oecolampadius’s argument, but his discussion of tropes was secondary to the dis-
cussion, for he did not think it was necessary to look for a trope in “this is my
body.” The words were clear and so did not need to be understood figuratively,
and it did not matter that they did not make sense to reason. The Swiss reformers
did not agree that in this particular case it was necessary to believe something
contrary to reason. Instead, they approached Christ’s statement like any other
difficult textual question. Oecolampadius pointed out that the Bible used both
literal and figurative language, and words about sacraments or signs had to be un-
derstood as figuring something.65
Just as significant was the expansion of the discussion from a narrow focus
on the Lord’s Supper to consider the broader issue of Christology. The location
of Christ’s body in heaven was an important sacramentarian argument from
the beginning of the controversy, but Zwingli’s treatises made the relationship
between Christ’s divine and human natures a prominent part of the exchange
with Luther. Discussion of the topic required familiarity not only with patristic
Christological argumentation but also with Aristotelian natural philosophy and
the technicalities of classical rhetoric, all of which implied a mastery of Latin. By
this time, however, the evangelical debate over the Lord’s Supper was being carried
out entirely in the vernacular, and so authors had to explain technical concepts
in German. The difficulty this presented is demonstrated by the fact that in his
Christian Answer Zwingli switched to Latin when he criticized Luther’s discus-
sion of identical predication.66 The increasing use of technical vocabulary that
required specialized knowledge was one of the factors that caused the debate over
234
234 Exch anges, 1526–1534
the Lord’s Supper to shift away from short, popular pamphlets to lengthier, more
learned treatises and commentaries.
The Swiss emphasis on the location of Christ’s body and the accusations that
Luther taught impanation did cause the Wittenberg reformer to think more
deeply about how to explain the nature of that body and the relationship between
body and bread. From Luther’s point of view, the Swiss erred in thinking that
Christ’s body took up space in the same way other material substances took up
space, and that it was therefore locally contained in the bread. Luther’s discussions
of definitive presence and of sacramental union were intended to counter this
view. In his Genuine Exposition, Oecolampadius had used the example of the
dove at Christ’s baptism and the fiery tongues over the apostles’ heads at bap-
tism as places where the signs were called what they signified, the Holy Spirit,
although they were not actually the Holy Spirit.67 Luther did not regard either
the dove or the fiery tongues as signs but, instead, used them as examples where
different substances were united in some way. Luther did not mention either im-
panation or consubstantiation, the position Oecolampadius and others accused
him of holding. Instead he moved away from Aristotelian categories entirely by
shifting from dialectic to rhetoric and by suggesting the use of synecdoche. 68
This was a different solution to the problem of remanence than that suggested by
Wyclif, and it was closer to the position of the Bohemian Brethren, who had also
said that Christ was in the bread sacramentally but not substantially.
The adjective “sacramental” was problematic, however, for it was not clear
what precisely the word meant. While Zwingli and Oecolampadius endorsed
the term, they understood it differently from Luther. Zwingli took “sacra-
mental union” to mean that two things were united only as “bearing the image
of a holy thing,” but that the sign and what it signified remained distinct.69
Oecolampadius, too, could accept the term, as long as “sacrament” was under-
stood as “a sign of a holy thing,” so that alongside the visible substance there
was also something invisible. But the visible substance that received this sig-
nification did not receive another substance so that two separate substances
were present. Oecolampadius acknowledged, however, that this was not the
way Luther understood “sacramental.”70
Just as important as what was discussed in this exchange was what was not
discussed. Luther’s authority was such that he could determine the content of the
exchange, to the disadvantage of the Swiss reformers. Luther was concerned solely
with defending Christ’s bodily presence, and he did not consider it necessary to
discuss the nature and use of the sacraments more generally. He therefore largely
ignored Oecolampadius’s earlier discussions of the relationship between external
and internal word and said relatively little about the nature of the sacraments as
signs and the correspondence between sign and signified.
235
Likewise, the church fathers disappeared almost completely over the course
of the exchange. This was an area where Oecolampadius’s expertise far surpassed
that of both his supporters and his opponents. Luther countered this disadvan-
tage in That These Words Still Stand Firm by limiting the discussion to only those
fathers whose views, he claimed, supported his own. His strategy of focusing on
Zwingli’s work in his Confession also allowed him to avoid further discussion of
patristic authority. Because Zwingli did not discuss the fathers in the Christian
Answer, Luther could leave them aside as well. In any case, Luther considered
the fathers relevant only to the extent that they clarified the meaning of scrip-
ture rather than serving as independent authorities, and so the interpretation of
their statements about the Eucharist was of only secondary importance. Patristic
authority was far more important for the Swiss reformers, however. One of their
central arguments was that the early church had not taught Christ’s bodily pres-
ence, and therefore the denial of that presence could not be heresy. The disap-
pearance of the church fathers from the public discussion weakened their ability
to make this argument, even if, like Luther, they also considered the fathers to be
subordinate to scripture.
A major factor shaping the exchange was the issue of personal authority.
Luther clearly distinguished between Zwingli and Oecolampadius; likewise, the
Swiss reformers responded in different ways to the Wittenberger’s assumption of
theological authority. In his correspondence from this time Luther referred dis-
paragingly to what he saw as Zwingli’s ignorance of both rhetoric and dialectic,
and his contempt for the Zurich reformer was evident in the Confession.71 At
the very beginning of that treatise Luther noted Zwingli’s angry outbursts in his
Christian Answer and labeled the Zuricher’s views on images, purgatory, the ven-
eration of the saints, absolution, and original sin as “crazy new teachings.”72 He
drew attention to Zwingli’s “bad German,”73 and he often used a mocking or con-
descending tone when refuting Zwingli’s arguments. It was Zwingli’s Christology,
however, that drew Luther’s sharpest criticism and prompted his statement that
the Zurich reformer “has entirely lost Christ.”74 In Luther’s opinion, Zwingli’s use
of alloiosis emptied Christ’s passion of its power by restricting it to his human
nature, and it amounted to the heresy of Nestorianism.75
Zwingli paid Luther back in kind in his response to the Confession.76 His
sharpest words came in his response to the opening section of Luther’s That These
Words Still Stand Firm, although criticism continued throughout his treatise.
The Zurich reformer was willing to acknowledge that God had called Luther, like
David, to stand against “the Goliath in Rome,” but he immediately relativized this
by praising the contributions of others to the recovery of scripture and accusing
Luther of falling into error.77 On the one hand, Luther was no better than the
papists, for he too introduced false interpretations of scripture.78 On the other
236
236 Exch anges, 1526–1534
hand, Luther had no right to accuse his opponents of heresy, since their teachings
had not been, and could not be, proven wrong.79 If Luther associated Zwingli
with Nestorianism, the Zurich reformer returned the insult by associating the
Wittenberger’s position with Arianism.80 Against Luther’s assumption of the au-
thority to determine the correct understanding of scripture, Zwingli asserted that
the Wittenberger distorted scripture against its natural meaning, and so it was
the right of “the least who sits in the congregation” to oppose him.81 Zwingli
proved no less uncompromising than Luther in championing his own view and
in hereticizing his opponents. The chief difference is that Zwingli did not cite
the devil as responsible for his opponent’s attack, and he strongly condemned
Luther for demonizing his opponents.82 The overall effect of his writings was to
highlight the sharp differences between Wittenberg and Zurich, however much
later scholars might highlight the few elements of those works that expressed a
desire for unity.83
Luther used a different tone in his response to Oecolampadius. Although he
rejected the Basler’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper, he expressed his hope
that Oecolampadius did not agree with Zwingli on all points of doctrine, but
only with regard to the sacraments.84 In fact, despite his attestation of agree-
ment with Zwingli, Oecolampadius differed from the Zurich reformer in im-
portant ways. In contrast to Zwingli, Oecolampadius devoted only a few pages
of his treatise to refuting Luther’s accusations of heresy. He was no more willing
to admit that his side erred than Zwingli was, but rather than casting Luther
as no better than the papists, he emphasized the importance of preserving
Christian peace and love. As mentioned previously, he was more reticent about
using Christological arguments in conjunction with the discussion of the lo-
cation of Christ’s body. Without backing away from his understanding of the
sacrament, he was also more willing to find common ground with Luther, es-
pecially by building on ideas developed during his earlier exchanges with the
Wittenberg party.
Important as this exchange was for the further elucidation of arguments on
both sides, it did not immediately have a broad public impact. Luther’s That These
Words Still Stand Firm was a lengthy work; the first imprint was about 150 pages
in quarto format.85 The responses of both Zwingli and Oecolampadius were of
comparable length.86 Luther’s Confession was significantly longer: almost 250
pages in quarto, while the Two Answers was almost 400 pages in octavo.87 None
of these works could be reprinted quickly, and paper cost alone meant that they
could not be sold cheaply. There was little market demand for such long treatises,
and Luther’s Confession would only be reprinted twice in 1528.88 More profitable,
and more important for reaching a lay audience, was Luther’s confession of faith
in the third section of the book. It would be printed separately eight times over
237
the next year, including twice in Low German, and included in a version of the
Marburg articles published in Wittenberg in 1529.89
Bucer’s Effort to Find Agreement

Martin Bucer acknowledged that the length of Luther’s Confession was problem-
atic when he told Oecolampadius that none of the Strasbourg printers wanted to
reprint it, and he encouraged the Swiss reformers to keep their response to Luther
brief, so that it would be bought and read.90 Although the Strasbourg reformer
was critical of Luther’s book, he noted Luther’s phrase “sacramental union,” which
allowed a distinction between bodily and local presence, and he was the one who
first drew Zwingli’s attention to the term.91 Capito, too, reminded Zwingli that
his response to Luther had to be written with a moderate tone and in a way that
allowed the laity to understand his arguments.92
The advice from Strasbourg fell on deaf ears, but Bucer wrote his own re-
sponse to Luther that met the criteria he and Capito had outlined. His Dialogue,
That Is, a Friendly Conversation on the Agreement of Dr. Luther and his Opponents
on Christ’s Supper, published in June and so before the Two Answers, was a
much more effective response to Luther than the treatise of the Swiss reformers.
Only about one-third as long as the Two Answers, the Agreement’s appeal is
demonstrated by the fact that it was reprinted already in August so there were
copies available for the fall book fair.93 The Agreement was written as a conversa-
tion between two men: Sebolt, a visitor from Nuremberg who defended Luther’s
position; and Arbogast, a Strasbourger who presented the opposing view.94 Bucer
divided the dialogue into twenty-four chapters, each with its own title describing
the question discussed, so that readers could see the structure of the argument
and find the section of greatest interest to them; as a dialogue it was especially
suited to be read aloud.
The pamphlet consisted of two parts. In the first part, Bucer focused on the
chief areas of agreement and disagreement. He summed up the positions of
the two parties not as opponents arguing for or against a single question but as
proponents of two different propositions: Luther taught the objective corporeal
presence of Christ’s body through the power of the words spoken over the bread
and wine. His opponents did not believe that the words brought Christ’s body,
but instead taught the spiritual communion of Christ’s body and blood that
occurred when the bread and wine were eaten by believers.95
Bucer’s distinction certainly reflects the chief concerns of each side, but
on one level it misrepresented the debate in two ways. First, Luther had re-
peatedly stated that there was no disagreement concerning spiritual com-
munion, for he, too, taught that it was necessary if sacramental communion
238
238 Exch anges, 1526–1534
was to have any benefit. To present this understanding of spiritual com-

munion as the counterpart to Luther’s position, therefore, gave the appear-
ance of disagreement where none existed. Luther pressed his opponents to
respond instead to his own concern, the objective presence of Christ’s body,
and he viewed their preoccupation with spiritual communion as an attempt to
distract readers from the real issue.96 Second, Luther’s opponents did not all
agree on the linking of spiritual and sacramental communion. This certainly
described the Strasbourg position, and Oecolampadius endorsed it as well in
his 1526 treatises. But Zwingli’s contributions to the controversy had sharply
distinguished between the spiritual communion that was faith and partici-
pation in the Lord’s Supper, which was seen as a public profession of faith.
The Zurich reformer’s earlier publicly stated position therefore did not accord
with Bucer’s characterization.
On a deeper level, however, Bucer’s characterization brought out what would
become the focus of discussion in future efforts for Eucharistic concord: Did
the elements contain Christ’s true body and blood in some way, did they convey
that body and blood, or did they merely represent them? Looked at from this
perspective, there was a significant difference between the Strasbourgers and
Oecolampadius, who could grant some power to signs to convey spiritual things,
and Zwingli, who did not grant such power to the signs.
Bucer’s description of the agreement between Luther and his opponents
rested on two points, both of which also misrepresented Luther’s thought. The
first point concerned the figurative interpretation of “this is my body.” Luther had
said that the relationship between bread and body could be called a synecdoche.
Bucer used this to argue against the claim that “this is my body” was a clear and
simple statement that did not allow for a trope. By minimalizing the difference be-
tween Luther’s synecdoche, in which a part was used for the whole, and Zwingli’s
metonymy, in which one word was used for another, Bucer also obscured the fact
that the former term allowed for the presence of Christ’s body, while the latter
did not.97 The second point concerned Luther’s concept of “sacramental union”
to describe the relationship between bread and body. Bucer welcomed this term,
but he disagreed with Luther on its meaning. As the Swiss reformers would do in
their Two Answers, he defined sacramental union as the relationship between sign
and signified.98 He also interpreted Luther’s statement that sacramental union
was “something different” (ein ander einickeit) from formal union to mean it was
“a lesser union” (ein geringere [eynigkeyt]).99
Bucer brought up several familiar arguments as well. He discussed the un-
derstanding of “this is my body,” of 1 Corinthians 10:16, and of John 6:63 in his
dialogue, and he briefly addressed the purpose of baptism and of the sacraments
more generally.100 God could do all things, but that did not mean he chose
239
to act against the order he had established by bringing Christ’s body into the
bread.101 He claimed that what the Wittenbergers now wrote about the sacra-
ment differed from what they had written before the outbreak of the contro-
versy, and even Luther had applied John 6:63 to the eating of Christ’s flesh in
the sermon for Septuagesima Sunday in his postil.102 He devoted the most space,
however, to discussing the nature and location of Christ’s body, again an indica-
tion that lay readers found this argument particularly persuasive. Bucer followed
Oecolampadius in arguing that a human body could not be in two places at one
time and he rejected Luther’s argument that Christ’s humanity was everywhere
his divinity was. Christ was indeed present with his own as God, but his body
remained in heaven. Bucer summed up this argument in the epilogue that marked
the end of the first half of the pamphlet.103
The second half of the Agreement was more wide-ranging. In it Bucer
discussed the censorship of sacramentarian works and the value of oral discussion
in resolving differences, argued that the godless did not eat Christ’s body, praised
both Oecolampadius and Zwingli as pious and learned teachers, and defended
the Silesians and Karlstadt from Luther’s attacks. He contested Luther’s inter-
pretation of Matt. 24:23 by citing Erasmus’s explanation of the parallel passage
in Luke 17:23ff., and he gave several examples of exegetical differences between
Luther and his followers to support his plea for toleration.104 The book closed
by summarizing “the foundation on which Arbogast’s faith rests.” This was a re-
statement of the nature of Christ’s human body, which could not be bodily and
substantially in the bread.105
Bucer’s dialogue has sometimes been presented as the Strasbourger’s first step
on the road to Eucharistic concord, but it was a very small step.106 Despite the
work’s optimistic title, Bucer showed no willingness to move away from his own
position in order to further an agreement with Luther. His claims for agreement
with Luther were based on either misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the
Wittenberger’s Confession. Bucer’s juxtaposition of the issues of bodily presence
and spiritual communion did point in a direction that could move the debate
in a more productive direction, however. It shifted the question from whether
Christ’s substantial body was in the elements to a discussion of whether Christ’s
true body was in some way conveyed to those who received sacramental com-
munion. This shift did not necessarily make the conversation between the parties
any easier. As Zwingli had pointed out, Luther now insisted that even unbelievers
received Christ’s body and blood orally, while Bucer rejected both oral mandu-
cation and the manducation of the godless. But there was more possibility for
finding agreement if the question changed from whether Christ’s body was cor-
poreally present to how Christ’s body might be present and received in some way
other than corporeally.
240
240 Exch anges, 1526–1534
Just as important for the long run, in reading Luther’s Confession Bucer came to
an important realization that would eventually bear fruit: Luther did not believe
that the bread and body were united in substance or nature—in other words, he
did not teach impanation.107 This prepared the way for the Wittenberg Concord’s
later rejection of the “local inclusion” of Christ’s body in the bread.108 Bucer also
distanced himself from the polemical accusation that Luther and his followers
claimed that the sacrament gave forgiveness of sins. Citing the Instructions for the
Visitation in Electoral Saxony, he acknowledged that the Wittenbergers taught
that the signs of the sacrament admonished and aroused the heart to faith.109
The willingness to avoid misrepresenting one’s opponents’ position might seem
like a small step, but it was a crucial one if there were to be any serious attempts
to formulate an understanding of the Lord’s Supper that could be accepted by
both sides.
The Changing Debate
The treatises of Luther and his Swiss and Strasbourg opponents were without
question the most consequential contributions to the public debate toward the
end of the 1520s, but they were by no means the only ones. There were a number
of other publications as well, which not only were the fruit of debate over the pre-
vious years but also set the discussion of the Lord’s Supper on a new path, moving
away from individual exchanges to more general presentations of what would be-
come confessional positions.
A few authors published responses to earlier works. Jakob Strauss’s 1527 trea-
tise, That the True Body of Christ and His Holy Blood Are Present in the Sacrament,
for instance, was a rejoinder to Oecolampadius’s Fair Answer.110 In early 1528,
Johannes Landsperger would respond directly to Luther’s That These Words Still
Stand Firm with a pamphlet whose title summed up its contents: it was dedicated
solely to explaining Where and What God’s Right [Hand] Is, According to Faith
and on the Basis of Holy Scripture.111 In the second half of 1528, the Schleswig
preacher Marquard Schuldorp exchanged a series of pamphlets on the Lord’s
Supper with Melchior Hoffman.112 Eberhard Weidensee, by that time the court
preacher for Duke Christian of Holstein-Hadersleben, joined this exchange in
1529 with a response to Hoffman as well.113 A variant on this pattern was Andreas
Osiander’s Two Letters, which published a private letter Zwingli sent to the
Nuremberg reformer in May 1527, along with Osiander’s biting response.114
Johannes Bugenhagen also continued to engage in disputes with opponents
of the Wittenberg position. In June 1529 he published an open letter against a
sacramentarian pamphlet by Heinrich Never, a former Franciscan in Wismar.115
Bugenhagen also participated in a disputation with Melchior Hoffman sponsored
241
by Duke Christian of Holstein-Hadersleben in Flensburg in April 1529. Andreas

Karlstadt hoped to attend the disputation but was not allowed to participate, and
after the disputation both Hoffman and Karlstadt were expelled from the terri-
tory. They moved to East Frisia and there wrote a report of the disputation in the
form of a dialogue; Hoffman would have it printed in Strasbourg in June.116 This
prompted Bugenhagen to publish the official protocol of the Flensburg disputa-
tion acts, along with his lengthy closing statement on the Lord’s Supper.117
More significant was the continuation of the feud between Bugenhagen and
Bucer. In May of 1528, Bugenhagen published a Public Confession Concerning
the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. As he stated in a prefatory letter to
Johannes Brenz, Bugenhagen felt compelled to give a full account of his faith
because of rumors that a work printed in Nikolsburg was circulating under his
name that was full of “sacramentarian blasphemies.” In a second letter to Georg
Spalatin and Johannes Agricola, he took aim at Bucer’s published defense of the
German version of the Psalms commentary. Both of these publications were fur-
ther evidence not only of sacramentarian dishonesty but also of Satan’s trickery.
As a public testimony of his faith, he had decided to republish his earlier Letter
Against the New Error and his Oration denouncing Bucer’s German psalter.118
The Public Confession also included two new treatises. In the first of these,
Bugenhagen presented the Wittenberg understanding of “this is my body” as the
proper mean between the errors of both sacramentarians and papists. In obedi-
ence to Christ’s command, believers gathered to remember Christ by eating the
bread that was his body and drinking from the cup, which contained his blood.
How this could be was beyond human reason, but the Wittenbergers did not
use Christ’s words as a magic incantation to change the bread and wine into
body and blood, and so they could not be accused of teaching an impanated
God. Bugenhagen’s defensiveness on this point was a response to sacramentarian
attacks on Brenz’s emphasis on the power of the word in bringing Christ’s body
to the bread. Bugenhagen also pointed out that the Wittenbergers did not ignore
Christ’s command by withholding the cup from the laity and then justifying this
act with a fictitious claim of concomitance. Against sacramentarian arguments
that miracles were perceptible to the senses and that Christ had not given any su-
pernatural power to his disciples, Bugenhagen asserted that what an omnipotent
God had instituted would remain until the end of the world. Christ was the one
who gave his body and blood in the sacrament, and so both the authority and the
character of the minister were irrelevant. Christians were to receive the sacrament
knowing that the bread and wine were Christ’s body and blood and trusting in
the forgiveness Christ had obtained to them, but the unworthy also received that
body and blood to their judgment. Bugenhagen justified his argument with a
lengthy discussion of 1 Corinthians 10:14–21, and he discussed Matthew 24:23
24
242 Exch anges, 1526–1534
at length to show that it could not be used to argue against Christ’s bodily pres-
ence. The sacramentarians’ varying and contradictory interpretations of “this is
my body” demonstrated the error of their position.119
The second treatise concerned the understanding of John 6 and was aimed
squarely at the Silesians, although Bugenhagen did not refer to them by name.
He rejected their use of John 6:53 to interpret “this is my body,” and he criticized
their distinction between the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ’s body and
blood and the rite of breaking bread and drinking from the cup.120 Bugenhagen
followed his criticism of his opponents with a lengthy exposition of John 6,
arguing that it did not directly concern the Lord’s Supper, although its discussion
of spiritual communion could be understood to accord with it, as long as it was
not used to deny the presence of Christ’s body and blood.121
Bugenhagen’s discussion of John 6 was part of a larger exegetical debate that
was being conducted through commentaries on scripture. Bucer had addressed
the Lord’s Supper when discussing Matthew 26 in his commentary on the syn-
optic Gospels published in the spring of 1527, while Brenz brought up the sacra-
ment in relation to John 6 in his commentary on the Gospel according to John,
published at the same time.122 In his own commentary on John, published in
the spring of 1528, Bucer responded to Brenz’s discussion of that passage, and
Bugenhagen’s treatment of John 6 in his Public Confession could be seen as the
Wittenberg contribution to this exegetical debate.123 Bucer would in turn use
the dedication of his Zephaniah commentary from the fall of 1528 to respond to
Bugenhagen’s Public Confession.124
The failure of contemporaries to resolve the many disagreements concerning
the Lord’s Supper pushed some to consider past authorities. At the beginning of
1528, Hiob Gast, a pastor in Schwäbisch Hall, published the treatise of the ninth-
century monk Paschasius Radbertus On the Body and Blood of the Lord.125 Gast
regarded the treatise as a support for his own pro-Wittenberg position rather than
an authority to which he should defer, but the publication was a useful weapon
against the sacramentarian claim that their understanding of the sacrament
was not a heretical innovation. The role of the church fathers as authorities was
also discussed in two letters published by their recipients toward the end of the
year. In November, Urbanus Rhegius wrote to his Augsburg colleague Johannes
Frosch summarizing his reading of the church fathers on the development of the
mass and the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper; Frosch
would have the letter published before the end of the year.126 At almost the same
time, Theobald Billican wrote a similar letter to his colleague Johannes Hubel.127
Where Rhegius subordinated the church fathers to scripture in his letter, Billican
was far less confident of the ability of individuals to interpret scripture correctly,
and he was skeptical about claims to illumination from the Holy Spirit. For this
243
reason, citing Melanchthon, he advised the reading of the church fathers.128 This
led him to compare the views of Luther, Oecolampadius, and Zwingli with the
church fathers regarding the sacrifice of the mass and to ask how one should un-
derstand the bread as a figure, sign, or type. Billican could not provide any defin-
itive answers to these questions from his reading of the church fathers, but only
highlighted the difference of opinion among his contemporaries.
Another approach to the use of the past can be seen in Heinrich Bullinger’s
treatise On the Origin of Error in the Matter of the Eucharist and the Mass. Bullinger
had written this as well as other short works on the Lord’s Supper between 1524
and 1526, but he did not publish On the Origin of Error until early 1528, with
Oecolampadius’s encouragement.129 Bullinger’s reading of the church fathers
and his strong historical interest shaped a work that was aimed chiefly against
Catholics but that also rejected the Wittenberg understanding of the Lord’s
Supper. The treatise began with a section describing “how the fathers thought the
Eucharist was a sacrifice.” Like Zwingli, he defined the Eucharist, or “sacrament of
bread and wine,” as the praise and thanksgiving by which Christians were joined
together in one body.130 Bullinger described the celebration of the Eucharist in the
early church, in the process endorsing Tertullian’s “this is the figure of my body,”
and then traced how the error of the mass had begun at the time of the Germanic
invasions, with the consequent decline in languages and learning. After a lengthy
description of the many abuses and superstitions that had crept into the mass lit-
urgy, Bullinger turned to the development of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Berengar was portrayed as the hero who taught that Christ’s body was contained
figuratively and not “really and substantially” in the sacrament. Bullinger con-
tinued his account of opposition to transubstantiation through Wyclif and the
Bohemians Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, both of whom, Bullinger asserted,
taught the same as Wyclif.131 Bullinger’s account of these medieval debates over
the Eucharist was influenced by the documents printed along with Piccolomini’s
Commentary on the Council of Basel, for he included an excerpt from the biog-
raphy of Pope Gregory VII and referred to the anti-Wyclif treatise of the English
Franciscan William Woodford.132
Other authors wrote more general defenses of their position against all the
arguments of the other side. The Nuremberg preacher Johannes Schwanhauser
addressed his pamphlet On Christ’s Supper to his friend Paul Lautensack to allay
the latter’s doubts that Christ’s body and blood were truly present in the sacra-
ment; it, too, dealt primarily with the definition of heaven and the location of
Christ’s body.133 More significant was the anonymous pamphlet On the Correct,
True Understanding of the Words of the Supper, “This Is My Body.”134 The author
was probably Andreas Althamer, who by that time was a preacher in Ansbach,
and the pamphlet may well have been intended especially for distribution
24
244 Exch anges, 1526–1534
within the territory of Brandenburg-Ansbach.135 The pamphlet closely followed

Luther’s That These Words Still Stand Firm in both its structure and its content.
Like Luther’s treatise, On the Correct, True Understanding began by attributing
the controversy to Satan, who was trying to hinder the progress of the gospel, and
it defended the literal understanding of “this is my body” against the figurative
understanding of the sacramentarians and earlier heretics. It then refuted the two
chief arguments of Luther’s opponents, that Christ’s body was at the Father’s right
hand and that John 6:63 meant the eating of Christ’s body was of no use. The final
section referred readers to the church fathers cited by Luther, Bugenhagen, and
Brenz and added a few more citations from Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, and
Jerome.
Less overtly polemical and only about one-third the length of Luther’s trea-
tise, On the Correct, True Understanding was a very effective summation of the
Wittenberg position for a local audience. It was so effective, in fact, that it provoked
the publication of another anonymous pamphlet, an Infallible Case that the Body
of Christ Is in the Supper and the Hearts of Believers Not in the Created Bread
but Through God’s Word. The pamphlet consisted of 321 numbered arguments
against Christ’s bodily presence, although there was a good deal of overlap and
repetition.136 The pamphlet has been attributed to Kaspar Schwenckfeld or one
of his followers because it repeats many of the Silesian’s arguments, such as the
assertion that Christ was eaten only spiritually and through faith, and the bread
and wine were the image of Christ’s body and blood.137 Other sacramentarian
works were cited as well, however, and the author’s knowledge of them is so de-
tailed that he was probably relying on a common place book assembled from his
reading of the many published contributions to the controversy. For instance, he
gave two versions of a syllogism used by Zwingli: if Christ’s body was given for
us or died for us, and the bread was Christ’s body, then the bread was given or
suffered for us.138 Likewise, he repeated an idea from Oecolampadius that just
as the lamb killed in Egypt was not brought into every Passover lamb, so neither
was Christ’s body brought into the bread and wine.139 The author repeated most
of the standard sacramentarian arguments, such as the assertions that Christ’s
miracles were all visible and that Christ had not commanded his disciples to re-
peat his words in order to turn the bread into his body,140 and he used a number
of familiar proof texts, as well as the Apostles’ Creed, to oppose Christ’s bodily
presence.141 The pamphlet’s eclecticism makes it extremely difficult to identify
the author, but the tone is closer to that of a lay pamphleteer than to a university-
trained theologian.
A more pastoral defense of the sacramentarian position can be seen in the
publications of Jacob Otter, the pastor of Neckarsteinach near Heidelberg. Otter
not only devoted a lengthy section of his 1528 Christian Living and Dying to the
245
Lord’s Supper but also addressed it, along with baptism and the sacraments more
generally, in the preface to his collection of sermons on Genesis also printed
that year.142 Otter intended both works specifically for his pastoral charges. He
described the sacraments as signs, tokens, and testimonies received from God
and as external practices observed by believers. Because they were only external
signs to which salvation was not bound, they should not be a cause for division
and quarreling among Christians.143 In the Lord’s Supper, communicants truly
ate and drank Christ’s body and blood through faith. Where faith was present,
they not only gave external testimony of their faith but also had their consciences
strengthened and consoled on account of the word, but those without faith re-
ceived nothing. Christians who wished to receive the sacrament were therefore to
examine themselves to make sure they had this faith or spiritual communion with
Christ.144 Because the Lord’s Supper was God’s pledge reminding communicants
of the benefits God bestowed through his Son, they were to seek it when they
felt oppressed by sin or wanted to proclaim their faith before the church. Otter
asserted that Christ’s true natural body was present spiritually by faith, in Christ’s
words and not in the bread. He defended his rejection of Christ’s bodily presence
with John 6:63, the articles of the Apostles’ Creed concerning Christ’s ascension
and session at the Father’s right hand, and the figurative language of scripture,
as when Christ was called a vine or a rock.145 He downplayed the disagreement
about the presence of Christ’s body, however, calling it only a quarrel over words.
Both sides confessed that Christ was present through the power of his word and
received in faith. It was the word, and not the bread, that was able to console
consciences.146
Otter had close connections with Strasbourg, and his discussion of the Lord’s
Supper bore obvious similarities to the views of the Strasbourgers in its linkage of
spiritual communion with the Lord’s Supper and its efforts to finesse differences
with the Wittenbergers. His avoidance of sharp polemic and emphasis on the
spiritual benefits of communion also reflect the pastoral goals of his two works.
His publications illustrate another important development in the discussions of
the Lord’s Supper toward the end of the 1520s. The earliest contributions to the
public debate over the Lord’s Supper had been pamphlets addressing only the
question of Christ’s corporeal presence. By the end of the decade, however, it was
one topic within longer works that considered a broader range of questions re-
lated to the Lord’s Supper, as well as baptism, the sacraments in general, or both.
Part of this change was due to the publication of catechisms, liturgies, and
church orders that discussed both sacraments, but increasingly those who
wrote about the Lord’s Supper also addressed sacramental theology more
generally. Over the course of arguing about Christ’s bodily presence, each
side had developed a number of subsidiary arguments that were gradually
246
246 Exch anges, 1526–1534
consolidating into confessional positions. It is perhaps a sign of this develop-

ment that three of the most frequently printed works in 1529 that discussed the
Eucharist bore the title Enchiridion: the doctrinal handbooks of the Catholics
Johannes Eck and Nikolaus Ferber were both printed five times,147 while
Luther’s Enchiridion: A Small Catechism, was printed eight times.148 These
were surpassed only by Luther’s Large Catechism, printed eleven times.149 It
could be argued, however, that the real turning point came two years earlier.
Beginning with the many works available at the 1527 spring book fair, discus-
sion of the Lord’s Supper was moving from debate between proponents of
each side to become instead a presentation of one’s own position intended to
give supporters useful arguments against the other side. As Luther stated in
That These Words Still Stand Firm, he had little hope that he would convert
the “authors of false doctrine” and “arch-fanatics”; his work was intended in-
stead to strengthen “the simple and weak.”150 By the end of the decade, other
contributors to the discussion of the Lord’s Supper chiefly addressed their own
supporters and those under their spiritual care. Part III describes the gradual
developments over the second half of the 1520s that helped create a new sit-
uation at the end of the decade, starting with the appearance of catechisms
intended to instruct the illiterate.
247
PART III
Gradual Developments
248
249
12
The Lord’s Supper

in Catechetical Literature
In a society where the vast majority of the population could not read, one of
the most important forms of religious instruction was the catechism. Containing
the bare essentials of the evangelical faith, these short, cheap pamphlets began to
appear in the mid-1520s, at the same time that the evangelical movement divided
over the understanding of the Lord’s Supper. As we saw in chapter 2, catechetical
works made up a large proportion of the Wittenberg party’s discussions of the
Lord’s Supper, and so they deserve closer examination.
In the later Middle Ages, catechetical literature focused on the Apostles’
Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and increasingly the Ten Commandments, and it said
little or nothing about the sacraments. Instruction about communion came in
another form, in short tracts intended to help lay people prepare for the yearly
communion required by church law. Late medieval advice on how to receive
communion worthily focused on the inner and outer purity achieved through
sacramental confession, ascetic practices, and a devotional mindset. Proper prep-
aration also included belief in the presence of Christ’s body in the consecrated
host and an understanding of the link between sacramental communion or the
physical reception of the consecrated host, and spiritual communion or the inner
reception of Christ through faith.1
In his earliest sermons on the Lord’s Supper, all of them preached during
Holy Week and intended to teach hearers how to receive communion prop-
erly, Luther broke with this tradition to emphasize that the only preparation
needed was faith that Christ had died for that individual. The sacrament itself
was a sign or pledge that God’s forgiveness applied to that person individu-
ally. Evangelical authors would repeat this view in their own pamphlets on the
Lord’s Supper published in the early 1520s. In 1525, the older genre of advice
on preparing for communion began to be combined with the new catechisms
250
250 Gr adual Developmen ts
being published in Wittenberg and elsewhere. A significant catalyst for this

development was the introduction of the pre-communion examination in
Wittenberg, through which the pastor could ascertain whether potential
communicants understood what they were receiving in communion and why.
By the end of the decade instruction on the Lord’s Supper had become a reg-
ular section within the evangelical catechism.
An examination of how confession and communion were discussed
in catechetical literature published through the later 1520s shows how the
reformers taught their new understanding of the sacrament and highlights
the role of the Eucharistic controversy in the development of evangelical re-
ligious instruction. Luther was the dominant influence, but there was a gap
between Luther’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper as articulated in response
to the challenge of the sacramentarians and what was taught in the earliest
evangelical catechisms. Only with the publication of Luther’s treatises of
1527–28 and his catechisms in 1529 would authors outside of Wittenberg gain
access to Luther’s mature understanding of the Lord’s Supper. At the same
time sacramentarian authors began to produce catechisms reflecting their
own views regarding communion, confession of sin, and confession of faith.
Their discussion of the sacraments reflected an understanding of confession
and communion that differed in fundamental ways from the Wittenberg
understanding.
Private Confession
and Pre-Communion Examination
Luther’s 1523 Maundy Thursday sermon was the foundation for evangelical private
confession and catechization. In that sermon, Luther asserted that individuals
were not only to believe that Christ’s flesh and blood were contained in the sac-
rament but also had to understand the purpose of the Lord’s Supper. Just as in
baptism, where a child’s sponsors were asked what they believed, so before com-
munion Christians should be asked why they wanted to receive the sacrament.
Luther also provided the proper response to this question:
These are Christ’s words, that he gave his body and blood for me, so that
my sins should be washed away, and as signs of this he has placed before
me his blood and flesh as a seal so that I should be assured that my sins are
forgiven me, and that I should die in this [assurance that] his dying, his
death, his blood and flesh are mine and stand for me.2
Those who did not have such faith should abstain from the sacrament.
251
The Lord’s Supper in Catechetical Literature 251
At some point after the printing of the Wittenberg Sermon on Maundy

Thursday Luther moved from the general idea that communicants should be
examined to the assertion that they would be examined. This shift was in part a
response to the emergence of radical dissent in Saxony. Luther expressed his con-
cern about such dissent in his 1523 Easter Monday sermon, where he included the
Schwärmer among those who attacked the gospel and God’s word and so were
not rightly prepared for receiving communion. He especially condemned the
“prophets” who wandered about claiming to speak with God “as with a cobbler’s
apprentice.” God was opposed to such “proud spirits”; it was far better to ap-
proach the sacrament in humility and fear.3 Implicit in Luther’s criticism was the
fear that the “proud spirits” who claimed to talk with and about God would give
people a false understanding of the attitude necessary for worthy communion.
These “new prophets” were not yet the center of Luther’s attention, but they
may have prompted the changes Luther made to his Holy Week sermons printed
in Hagenau later that year. The new title of this pamphlet, Order and Instruction
About What One Should Do (with Those Who Want to Receive the Venerable
Sacrament), suggested a change to Wittenberg communion practice.4 In the fore-
word, Luther described what this change would be:
I will let it go one more time this year, that each goes [to communion]
according to his own devotion, but next time we must so order it that no
one is allowed to the sacrament unless he has first been questioned and
it is known how his heart stands and if he knows what it is and why he
receives it.5
Moving beyond the single question and answer with its simple statement
of faith that he had suggested in the Maundy Thursday sermon, Luther now
proposed three questions with their answers. The first defined the sacrament as
the words of institution joined with Christ’s body and blood in the bread and
wine; the second emphasized the importance of believing Christ’s words liter-
ally; and the third specified that those words pertained to communicants, who
were to believe that Christ’s body was given and his blood shed for them and that
reception of the elements would strengthen their faith.6 Luther compared this ex-
amination to the questions asked of godparents at baptism. His parallel between
the two sacraments may have been inspired by his German translation of the bap-
tismal ceremony, produced between Easter and Pentecost.7
Luther would take these ideas one step further in his Order for Mass and
Communion, published at the end of 1523. He now explicitly stated that the priest
should not admit people to communion “unless they can give a reason for their
faith and can answer questions about what the Lord’s Supper is, what its benefits
25
are, and what they expect to derive from it.” This meant communicants had to
be able to repeat the words of institution from memory and to explain that they
desired to communicate because of their troubled consciences and their wish to
receive “the word and sign of grace and salvation.” The pre-communion exami-
nation described here has often been seen as a replacement for sacramental con-
fession, but its theological purpose was quite different: it was intended not to
establish ritual purity but instead to ensure sufficient doctrinal knowledge and
the proper motivation for communion, understood as a desire for assurance of
forgiveness. Luther did not see the examination as a replacement for confession
but, rather, as a supplement to it, for he stated that the examination need only
be done once a year, and it might be sufficient if “a man of understanding” was
examined “only once in his lifetime or not at all.”8 His underlying assumption
was that the laity would desire to confess and receive communion more often
than once a year, but in practice the custom of receiving communion only at
Eastertime would lead to a merging of the confession of sin with the examination
of faith.
There is some debate about when the pre-communion examination was
actually introduced in Wittenberg. In October 1523, Luther told Nikolaus
Hausmann that such an examination had been proposed, and it is possible it
was in place by the end of 1523, when the Formula for Mass and Communion
was published. The earliest example of the questions used for this examina-
tion date from 1525, however, when they were added to a Wittenberg reprint
of the Order and Instruction, along with a paraphrase of the Lord’s Supper’s
institution, and to two Wittenberg imprints of the Comforting Disputation in
Question and Answer Form, an anonymous catechetical work first printed in
Nuremberg in 1524.9
These pamphlets now gave five questions to be asked prospective
communicants, with the proper responses:
1. Why do you receive the sacrament? Answer: Because I am a fellow heir and
have fellowship with Christ, with all dear saints and with all pious Christians,
to suffer and to die with him.
2. What do you believe or confess is in the sacrament? Answer: Under the bread
and wine is the body and blood of Christ, but it is not enough that I know
this; I must also believe that my lord Christ has given them to me as a sure seal,
sign and testament.
3. What are the words of this testament, which the Lord Christ used? Answer: So
the Lord said to his disciples, when he gave them the bread, “Take and eat, this
is my body, which is given for you.” And when he gave them the cup, he said,
“Take, all of you drink from it. This is my blood of the new testament, which
253
is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance
of me.”10
4. Why do you receive the signs—isn’t faith sufficient for you? Answer: I receive
the signs so that with them my faith is strengthened. Not that I doubt the
faith, but because God has given me the signs along with the word, from his
mild grace and mercy, and I do not want to despise the use of the same.
5. How will you use the sacrament? Answer: I will eat and drink and believe
Christ’s words that he spoke to his disciples when he gave them this sacra-
ment. We must receive this comforting promise with a believing heart.11
Faithful to Luther’s teaching, the questions emphasized the purpose of the

Lord’s Supper, taught the word of promise that instituted the sacrament, and
emphasized the recipient’s faith and need for reassurance. Although the questions
have been attributed to Luther, they were more likely written by Johannes
Bugenhagen, who was appointed as Wittenberg’s parish pastor in the fall of
1523 and who would therefore have been responsible for hearing confessions and
examining communicants.12 Ultimately, however, the question of authorship is
not important, since the questions themselves attested to Wittenberg practice
and therefore were associated with Luther’s authority.
The five questions were quickly reprinted and imitated elsewhere. They were
included in two 1525 Erfurt imprints of Luther’s original 1523 Maundy Thursday
sermon, as well as in an Erfurt pamphlet entitled Instructions for How Each
Christian Should Be Prepared When He Wants to Receive the Venerable Sacrament.13
They would also be printed along with the admonition to communicants from
Luther’s German Mass in Wittenberg, Leipzig, and Marburg.14 The five questions
were also included in a small pamphlet that contained the admonition before
communion taken from Andreas Osiander’s 1524 defense of Nuremberg’s re-
ligious innovations.15 In 1528, they would also be included in two Nuremberg
imprints of a short catechetical booklet that contained a brief confession of sin
and the words of institution from Luther’s German Mass.16 The following year
they would be printed with Bugenhagen’s Instruction on Private Confession.17
Other pastors would produce their own questions for communicants. The
Erfurt pastor Justus Menius had his Instruction for Those Who Want to Receive the
Venerable Sacrament of the Altar printed in the fall of 1525.18 Even more so than
their Wittenberg model, Menius’s questions reflect the emphases of early evangel-
ical advice on how to prepare for communion. Prospective communicants were
asked what they desired (the true body and blood of Christ) and why (as remem-
brance and assurance of his promise); they were to know what that promise was
(that Christ gave his body and blood for the forgiveness of sin), to acknowledge
why they were driven to communion (by their troubled conscience and awareness
254
of their guilt before God), and to state the basis of their confidence (not their
own merit but in knowing that God loved them). Finally, they were asked how
they intended to receive the sacrament (trusting God’s promise in firm faith and
receiving it as an external sign according to his command).19
The catechetical nature of these questions is obvious, but they were still un-
derstood within the context of communion preparation rather than as part of
catechesis more generally. With the publication of the first Wittenberg catechism
in 1525, this would change, and the genre of communion preparation would be
absorbed into the early evangelical catechisms.
The Development of the Evangelical Catechism

If early Reformation pamphlets were devoted primarily to single issues, by 1523
they were beginning to deal with several themes, and a few pamphlets presented
themselves as handbooks of evangelical doctrine for the laity. Three of these
handbooks stand out because of their evident popularity into the second half
of the 1520s.20 Benedict Gretzinger’s Unvanquishable Bulwark Pamphlet of Chief
Articles . . . of Holy Scripture, first published in 1523, was a collection of scrip-
ture verses organized under twenty headings on controverted topics such as
free will, faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the invocation of the saints.
It was expanded by Stephan Roth in 1525 and printed at least twenty-eight times
through 1528.21 Equally successful were two works by Urbanus Rhegius, The
Twelve Articles of Our Christian Faith—an explanation of the Apostles’ Creed—
and his Short Explanation of Some Current Points Useful and Necessary for Every
Christian to Know, both published by Sigismund Grimm in 1523. The Twelve
Articles was printed six times through 1526, while the Short Explanation appeared
in three more “expanded and corrected” imprints.22 More important, the two
were combined into one pamphlet by a rival Augsburg printer in 1523, and in
this version the pamphlet became a bestseller, with four reprints in 1524, another
fourteen in 1525, including a Low German translation, and four more in 1526.23
An anonymous pamphlet first printed in Nuremberg in 1524 appealed to the
popularity of these works in its title: A Comforting Disputation in Question and
Answer Form . . . Very Useful [in Addition] to the Articles of Doctor Urbanus Rhegius
and Gretzinger. The advertising ploy must have succeeded, for the Comforting
Disputation went through fifteen more printings over the next two years.24 Only
Luther’s early publications rivaled the popularity of these three works.25
Gretzinger’s collection of Bible verses said nothing about the Lord’s Supper,
but both of the other pamphlets addressed the topic. Rhegius followed Luther
closely in his Short Explanation, although he emphasized spiritual as much as
sacramental communion. He began the section on the mass by defining it as
25
Christ’s testament, and he emphasized the importance of “the words of the mass,”
the institution accounts found in scripture. Those who did not communicate
but who only heard mass were to take these words to heart, to believe the word
and its signs, and they would receive the true seal of Christ’s body and blood
and be strengthened against all temptations.26 The author of the Comforting
Disputation was also strongly influenced by Wittenberg theology in his insist-
ence on faith alone as the only prerequisite for worthy communion, his discus-
sion of the sacrament as a word of promise sealed with the signs of Christ’s flesh
and blood, and his assertion that awareness of sin should impel Christians to re-
ceive the sacrament.27 Johannes Borner’s 1526 Beginning of a Genuine Christian
Life also harkened back to the earlier guides for communicants by focusing on
“true repentance, confession, and preparation for the venerable sacrament.” It
faithfully summarized Luther’s teaching that faith in God’s promise was the
proper preparation for communion.28
These works were intended for adults and were too lengthy to be easily
memorized. In striking contrast to them, the first Wittenberg catechism was a
simple book to be used to instruct children in the essentials of their faith. The
Zwickau pastor Nicholas Hausmann had requested such a booklet, and Luther
entrusted the task of writing it to Justus Jonas and Johannes Agricola. The result
was the Booklet for Laity and Children, printed in the fall of 1525.29 Its only mention
of the sacraments came in the first section, the so-called Lay Bible, which gave the
texts of the Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, along
with Mark 16:16 as the scriptural basis for baptism and Luther’s harmonized ac-
count of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.30 A second printing from early 1526
expanded on the latter with a clear refutation of the sacramentarians. It asserted
that these were Christ’s words, “which neither men nor the devil can bend, on
which we stand, and let them gloss them as they will, we have God’s clear word
that says the bread is Christ’s body given for us and the cup of his blood shed for
us, and that commands us to do this in his remembrance.”31
Although its description of the Lord’s Supper was extremely brief, the Booklet
for Laity and Children proved remarkably influential, both because of its fre-
quent reprinting and because of its relation to Wittenberg’s new vernacular com-
munion liturgy, introduced at the end of 1525. Between 1525 and 1529, there were
ten imprints of the Booklet in High German and another nine in Low German;
there were also four imprints of the Latin translation.32 Beginning with the 1526
imprints, the wording of the institution account in the German catechism was
identical with that given in the 1524 Sermon on Confession and the Sacrament,
which was very close to the wording used in Luther’s German Mass.33 The wording
of the institution account from the German Mass was also given in the pamphlet
What Is Read to the Common People After the Sermon, printed in Wittenberg in
256
1526, which also contained the Apostles’ Creed, Ten Commandments, and Lord’s
Prayer, along with Luther’s paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer and the admonition
to communicants spoken by the pastor after the sermon, also from the German
Mass.34 This pamphlet, which can be seen as an early catechism, was reprinted
outside the city four times; three of these contained the five questions on the
Lord’s Supper used in Wittenberg as well. There was also a translation into Low
German.35 As Wittenberg’s liturgical practices were publicized through the
printing press and imitated in other churches, the regular repetition of the insti-
tution account and the admonition to communicants would serve as another way
of impressing on the laity, and especially the illiterate, a very basic understanding
of the purpose and content of the Lord’s Supper as it was taught in Wittenberg
in 1525.36
Luther’s Sermons on the Lord’s Supper

This date is significant, for with the outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy at
the end of 1524, Luther’s preaching on the Lord’s Supper changed in an impor-
tant way.37 In earlier years, Luther had assumed that his hearers had no difficulty
believing that the consecrated bread and wine were Christ’s body and blood;
the challenge was instead to teach communicants that they had to apply Christ’s
promise of forgiveness to themselves personally.38 Now, however, he paid as much
attention to the phrase, “this is my body,” as he did to the subsequent words,
“given for the forgiveness of sins.” In his Holy Week sermons of 1525 he repeated
his understanding of the sacrament as word joined with sign, and he emphasized
that the word had to be grasped with the heart. But for the first time he also
reminded his hearers that they must believe that the Lord’s body and blood were
truly present and distributed in the Lord’s Supper, and that both were given to
each communicant for forgiveness of his or her sins.39
Luther was even more explicit in defending Christ’s bodily presence in his
Holy Week sermons of 1526. As was his custom, he preached on confession and
on the purpose of the sacrament, restating what he had earlier taught: that one
received communion as assurance of forgiveness and not as a good work. But
now he specifically condemned those who taught that communion was only
a sign by which one recognized other Christians and a way of remembering
Christ’s death. He also began his sermon series with a sermon defending belief
in Christ’s bodily presence in the elements. These three sermons were joined into
one text and published in the fall of 1526 as Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body
and Blood of Christ, Against the Fanatics. Although Luther had condemned the
sacramentarians in published letters and prefaces to the works of others, this was
his first extended discussion of the Lord’s Supper to be printed after the outbreak
257
of the Eucharistic controversy. Both the title and the opening section defending
Christ’s bodily presence drew attention to the debate over the bread and wine and
overshadowed the discussion of proper preparation for communion.40
The Sermon on the Sacrament Against the Fanatics would be published seven
times, including once in Latin translation, but in comparison to Luther’s earlier
sermons, it would have only a limited impact on the discussions of communion
in evangelical catechetical literature. The same could be said about his treatises
on the Lord’s Supper published over the next two years, That These Words Still
Stand Firm and Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper. Luther’s growing alarm at
the spread of sacramentarian teaching was also reflected in his Maundy Thursday
sermons from the later 1520s. His sermon from 1527 is lost, but in his 1528 Maundy
Thursday sermon he again preached on the proper understanding of confession,
insisted that one must believe that Christ’s true body and blood were in the bread
and wine as Christ’s words stated, and condemned the Schwärmer, who rejected
Christ’s presence.41
An additional impetus to the development of Luther’s thinking was his in-
volvement in the Saxon visitations that began in 1526, which confronted him
with the religious ignorance of both clergy and peasants in the territory’s rural
parishes. These two concerns came together in the three series of catechetical
sermons he preached over the course of 1528, while Johannes Bugenhagen was
absent from Wittenberg. Since these sermons were never printed, they had no
immediate impact outside of Wittenberg, but they were crucial precursors to
Luther’s catechisms.42
Luther began writing his Large Catechism in 1528, but was unable to finish it
until the spring of 1529. Portions of what became the Small Catechism had been
printed as broadsheets already in January, and before the end of April the entire
Small Catechism was printed in pamphlet form, at roughly the same time as the
Large Catechism.43 Luther did not discuss confession in his catechetical sermons,
but he began his series of Holy Week sermons on the Lord’s Supper in 1529 with
a sermon on confession, and that sermon was the basis for the section on confes-
sion added to the second edition of the Large Catechism, printed later that year.
A brief instruction on how to confess was also added to the second edition of the
Small Catechism.44
In both sermons and catechisms, Luther restated what had become the core
of his understanding of confession and communion. The Lord’s Supper was
instituted by Christ to confirm the faith of believers and assure them of their
forgiveness. The elements were not merely bread and wine; when joined with
Christ’s word of promise they were also Christ’s body and blood. No one could be
compelled either to confess his or her sins or to receive communion, but believers
should feel drawn to both as medicine for sin, desiring them for the assurance
258
and strengthening they gave. Luther went so far as to assert that those who did
not go to confession should not be given the sacrament, for they were not true
Christians.45
There are some obvious continuities with Luther’s earliest sermons on the
Lord’s Supper, particularly regarding the importance of the sacrament for
assuring individuals that they were forgiven and the insistence that one should
receive communion only out of desire and not from compulsion. Confession and
communion continued to be closely linked. Rather than seeing confession as a
prerequisite for worthy communion, however, Luther saw it as a parallel to com-
munion, for in each of them Christians received forgiveness, whether through
the pastor’s words of absolution or through reception of Christ’s body and blood.
The motivating factor for both confession and communion was a sense of one’s
sinfulness and the perceived need to be reassured of forgiveness.
There are some striking differences with Luther’s earlier teaching, however.
Most obviously, Luther now explicitly made belief in Christ’s bodily presence an
integral part of worthy communion. With regard to the meaning of the Lord’s
Supper, he no longer described it as Christ’s testament; instead, he spoke of the
joining of God’s word with the elements to become Christ’s body and blood.46
Luther’s new terminology reflected an understanding of Augustine’s statement,
“the word approaches the element and it becomes a sacrament, as if itself a kind
of visible word.” In the early years of the Reformation, when opposing the view
that the sacraments worked independently of the faith of the recipient, Luther
had emphasized the continuation of Augustine’s thought: “not because it is
spoken, but because it is believed.”47 Now he understood the opening phrase in
the way Brenz had used it in the Syngramma to emphasize the power of God’s
word.48 Promise and sign were a prominent part of Luther’s early definition of the
sacraments, but the elements had changed significantly from an external witness
of the promise to that which, as Christ’s body and blood, conveyed that promise.
By the end of the decade Luther also faced the problem that many apparently had
no desire either to confess their sins or to receive communion, and he had to de-
vote more time to persuading his hearers to do both.49
Because Luther’s communion sermons from the second half of the 1520s were
not published, the development of his thought would not necessarily be obvious
to those outside Wittenberg. His supporters could certainly read his two lengthy
treatises on the Lord’s Supper, but they were more expensive and more difficult
to read than his earlier sermons on the sacrament, and neither approached the
broad distribution of those earlier pamphlets. The significance of this change can
be seen in the discussion of communion in evangelical pamphlets written out-
side of Wittenberg, which were much more consistent in their message over the
course of the 1520s.
259
Communion in Catechisms Outside Wittenberg

Soon after the publication of the Booklet for Laity and Children, pastors and
schoolmasters outside Wittenberg began producing their own catechisms for
school use. Following the example of the Booklet, many—although not all—of
these catechisms included a treatment of the sacraments. These pamphlets also
deliberately combined the genre of catechism with that of communion prepara-
tion. The section of Petrus Schultz’s 1527 Booklet in Question and Answer Form
devoted to the Lord’s Supper had the superscript, “Formula of Question and
Answers for Those Who Want to Receive the Sacrament.”50 In his Catechism of
1528, Andreas Althamer stated that he included his discussion of the sacrament
not so much for children, who were not allowed to receive communion until
they were old enough to examine themselves according to St. Paul’s admonition,
but “for the sake of simple priests and the laity.”51 Johannes Agricola described
his discussion of the Lord’s Supper in his 130 Common Questions (1528) as “an
instruction how children should be led to confession and to the sacrament of the
body and blood of Christ.”52 Wenceslaus Linck remained closer to the late medi-
eval model, publishing his 1528 Instruction for Children Who Want to Go to God’s
Table as a separate booklet rather than as part of a catechism.53
In their teaching about the Lord’s Supper, these catechisms continued to be
highly dependent on Luther’s early communion sermons, and there was little in-
dication of the controversy currently raging over the sacrament. In his 1526 Short
Handbook for Young Christians, Johannes Toltz defined a sacrament as “a holy
sign, a sure pledge and seal instituted by Christ that reminds us of God’s promise
and strengthens our hearts in true, strong confidence in divine grace,” a definition
echoed in Johannes Agricola’s 1527 Elements of Piety and Kaspar Gräter’s 1529
Catechesis.54 Although by this time Luther no longer referred to the mass as a tes-
tament, other catechism authors continued to use the term. Althamer described
the goods bequeathed in this testament as the promise of sins forgiven and of
eternal life.55 According to Schultz, those preparing to receive the sacrament were
to be aware of their sinfulness and feel driven to communion, where they would
be comforted with the promise of forgiveness. Because in this testament they re-
ceived a great treasure, they were to honor Christ, the testator.56 Linck told his
readers to grasp Christ’s words with which he instituted his body and blood as
a testament, and he assured them that Christ had given these signs so that they
could be sure they were forgiven.57 Johannes Brenz took a somewhat different ap-
proach in defining the Lord’s Supper as “a spiritual meal in which spiritual food
and drink are distributed,” but he repeated the fundamental principle from the
Syngramma that “Jesus Christ blessed and ordained the bread of the Supper as his
true body and the wine as his true blood through his divine, almighty word.”58
260
Ferdinand Cohrs quite rightly points to the influence of earlier catechisms

on the later ones, but since the earlier works were also strongly influenced by
Luther, the result was to reinforce and spread further the Wittenberg reformer’s
earliest understanding of the Lord’s Supper.59 Luther’s long delay in entering the
Eucharistic controversy meant that those who did want to address the question
of Christ’s presence had to draw from other sources. Agricola may well have been
influenced by Brenz’s Syngramma when he described the power that the word
added to the elements in making a sacrament.60 With the exception of Brenz’s
catechism, there was little emphasis on what communicants were to believe con-
cerning the bread and wine, perhaps because the catechism authors did not want
to allude to the controversy from fear that it might raise more questions in their
readers’ minds than it answered.
While some of these catechisms were printed only once for local use, others
went through multiple reprints, especially those associated with Wittenberg.
Johannes Toltz, a schoolmaster in Plauen, sent his Short Handbook to Wittenberg
for approval, where it was printed in early 1526 with a brief preface by Bugenhagen.
It was printed ten more times, as well as translated into Low German.61 Johannes
Agricola, who served as Wittenberg’s schoolmaster before moving to Eisleben in
1525, produced two different catechisms. His Latin Elements of Piety was printed
in Hagenau and Wittenberg in 1527, and its expanded German version was
printed seven more times.62 His 130 Common Questions, first published in 1528,
was printed eleven times, including expanded versions with additional questions
and a Low German translation. Half of these publications were produced in
Nuremberg.63 That same year, Andreas Althamer published a catechism for
Brandenburg-Ansbach.64 These catechisms were a boon to printers because they
were quick and easy to produce—almost all were printed in octavo format using
one sheet of paper—and they found a ready market.
Sacramentarian Catechisms
Throughout the second half of the 1520s, the market for catechetical material
was dominated by these “Wittenberg” pamphlets. In comparison, there were few
sacramentarian catechisms. The earliest catechism to openly reject Christ’s bodily
presence was Balthasar Hubmaier’s Christian Catechism, printed in Nikolsburg in
Moravia at the turn of 1526–27. Hubmaier intended the work as instruction for
the Anabaptist community established through adult baptism, and he described
the Lord’s Supper as a public sign and testimonial of love in which those who had
been baptized as believers publicly bound themselves to give their body and blood
for others within the church.65 Its obviously sectarian teaching made Hubmaier’s
catechism acceptable only within Anabaptist circles, and it was not reprinted.
261
Opposition to sacramentarian teaching at all levels of government deterred

more moderate sacramentarian authors from expressing their views in print and
made it more difficult for them to find an obliging printer. Wolfgang Capito told
Zwingli in early 1527 that many in Baden agreed with them on the Lord’s Supper,
but he also reported that the sale of his catechism was forbidden there.66 Printers
regularly ignored imperial edicts against the publication and sale of Luther’s
works where the political authorities favored the evangelical movement. They
were more reluctant, however, to print pamphlets advocating positions that most
governments considered heretical or blasphemous. Censorship did not prevent
the publication of sacramentarian works, but it certainly limited the market for
them, and therefore the profitability of printing them, and printers were under-
standably reluctant to take on such jobs. In effect, this meant that sacramentarian
catechisms would only be written by individuals who did not fear government ac-
tion against them, and they would be printed only in places where printers knew
they could find buyers—chiefly the cities of Augsburg, Strasbourg, and Zurich.
A pamphlet published in both Latin and German by the Landau pastor
Johannes Bader illustrates the general hostility toward those believed to dis-
honor the sacrament. In 1526, Bader published An Epistolary Defense Concerning
the Goose that Was Said to Have Eaten the Sacrament.67 Addressed to Pfalzgraf
Ludwig II of Pfalz-Zweibrücken, the pamphlet was intended to refute a rumor
that had reached as far as the court of Emperor Charles V in Spain and was being
used to discredit the evangelicals. According to the rumor, Bader had offered the
consecrated host to a peasant woman who was holding a goose under her arm, but
the goose had snatched and swallowed it. Bader had then consoled the woman
by saying that “he could make for her another Lord God”—that is, consecrate
another host.68 To counter this rumor, Bader emphasized the zeal with which
he had warned his parishioners about receiving communion unworthily the pre-
vious Easter, so that each “had examined himself regarding his faith and Christian
conduct, and where these were found lacking in faith and love had abstained”
from the sacrament rather than fall under God’s severe judgment.69
To further elucidate his understanding of the sacrament, Bader included in
the pamphlet the sermon on the use of the Lord’s Supper that he had preached at
Easter. At no point did Bader explicitly reject belief in Christ’s bodily presence,
but his language was ambiguous. He asserted that it was far more important to
focus on the use of the sacrament than to argue about its contents, but he told his
parishioners that when pressed, they should simply say that they believed Christ
was present in the Lord’s Supper in the way that he had promised he would be,
citing Matthew 18:20 and 28:20. Both passages were used by the sacramentarians
to defend Christ’s spiritual presence with believers more generally, as opposed to
his bodily presence in the consecrated elements.
26
Christ’s presence, Bader explained, made clear the true use of the sacrament.
Christ had instituted the Lord’s Supper as a visible sign that Christians should
eat and drink, remembering that he had given his body and blood for them.
Communicants proclaimed Christ’s death by their Christian conduct in words
and deeds. The fact that Christ had celebrated the Lord’s Supper only with his
disciples meant that only those who were openly Christ’s followers and lived a
blameless life should receive the Lord’s Supper. This led Bader to urge parents to
make sure their children were properly instructed in the Christian faith before
receiving the sacrament for the first time.70 With this goal in mind, he published
his own catechism in 1526, A Dialogue on the Beginning of the Christian Life for
the Young People of Landau at Easter Time. As the subtitle proclaimed, the cate-
chism contained “everything wholly necessary to know for every person before he
professes to be a Christian and prepares to go to the Lord’s Supper.” In addition to
sections on the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Ten Commandments,
the catechism had a section on baptism—but it said nothing whatsoever about
the Lord’s Supper.71
Bader was clearly reluctant to enter the public debate over Christ’s bodily
presence. Even without any discussion of the elements, however, his pamphlets
displayed marked sacramentarian influence. He was familiar with the contempo-
rary debate and he incorporated the ideas of others into his pamphlets, such as the
assertion that Christ had ascended bodily to his Father—and so by implication
that body was not in the bread and wine. His description of the Lord’s Supper as
remembrance of Christ’s death and a public testimony to Christian faith and con-
duct echoed the pamphlets of Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius. In sharp
contrast to Luther, he said nothing about the comfort and reassurance of sins
forgiven that one received through communion, and he associated communion
not with the confession of sins but with the confession of faith. Bader’s catechism
was the exact inverse of the questions asked of communicants in Lutheran areas.
The Lutheran pre-communion exam was to ensure that communicants under-
stood the sacrament rightly, but the omission of the Lord’s Supper from Bader’s
catechism gives the impression that instruction on its purpose and content was
not among the things “wholly necessary to know” before receiving the sacrament.
Bader’s shift from confession of sin to confession of faith was characteristic of
the Swiss and southern German reformers as a whole, and it reflected an Erasmian
emphasis on the need to instruct baptized children in their faith. Already in his
1523 Exposition of the 67 Theses, Zwingli rejected the practice of private confes-
sion, since confession to God alone was sufficient. Priestly absolution could not
give assurance of forgiveness, which came only through faith. One sought out a
priest for counsel and instruction, not for assurance of forgiveness. Zwingli also
suggested a reform of confirmation so that those baptized as infants could profess
263
their faith publicly after receiving instruction in it.72 Because the Lord’s Supper
was also a public attestation of one’s faith, it was important that those who re-
ceived communion understood the Christian faith. Awareness of one’s sinfulness
was a part of this understanding, but there was no need for any external reas-
surance of forgiveness, whether through the absolution spoken by a minister or
through reception of the Lord’s Supper. Instead of requiring a pre-communion
examination to make sure communicants understood and desired the assurance
of forgiveness given in the Lord’s Supper, the Swiss and South German reformers
emphasized the importance of religious instruction more generally, and espe-
cially for children.
This connection between catechetical instruction and communion was re-
flected in the sacramentarian catechisms published in the later 1520s. At the
urging of the city’s pastors, the St. Gallen city council mandated that on the
Sundays when the Lord’s Supper was celebrated, all children through the age
of fifteen were to gather for instruction in and examination of their faith. For
this purpose, the pastors produced a version of the catechism of the Bohemian
Brethren, the only popular catechetical work from the early 1520s whose discus-
sion of the Lord’s Supper did not draw from Luther.
The Brethren’s catechism was first published in German in 1521 and reprinted
several more times before the end of 1525. Portions of this catechism drew on
older Hussite material, but the Czech version was written by Brother Lukas of
Prague, the Brethren’s most important apologist at the beginning of the sixteenth
century.73 This catechism would in turn be modified both in the original German
translation and in subsequent Low German versions. The treatment of the Lord’s
Supper in the Brethren’s catechism differed significantly from that of early evan-
gelical pamphlets because it addressed the question of whether one should adore
the consecrated host rather than how one should receive communion. The Czech
original was categorical in its rejection of such adoration, on the grounds that
Christ’s natural body was in heaven, seated at the right hand of God’s majesty, and
so was not in the consecrated bread; as scriptural basis for this position it cited
Matthew 24:23.
It was potentially dangerous to make such a clear statement of the Hussite
position outside of Bohemia, however, and so the text was modified in some of
the early German translations. Those responsible for printing the German cate-
chism chose two different solutions. The earliest imprint, A Christian Instruction
of Small Children in the Faith and its reprints, omitted the question about ado-
ration entirely, although one printer replaced the passage with a brief response
strongly affirming such adoration.74 A second version of the pamphlet, first
published in Augsburg as A Lovely Question and Answer for Instructing Young
Children, modified the original wording to endorse the adoration of Christ “as
264
he is in his substantial, natural essence, naturally and personally in heaven, at the

right [hand] in the glory of his Father”—a more ambiguous statement of the
Hussite teaching that because Christ’s natural body was in heaven, it could not
be in the consecrated elements.75 Although the wording differed, both the Czech
original and the German translation of the catechism agreed that when prop-
erly consecrated by the priest, the bread and wine were the body and blood of
Christ, although it qualified this with the phrase “in a sacramental way.” They also
stressed that Christ commanded both the eating of his body and the drinking of
his blood—a justification for communion in both kinds.76 Last but not least, in
1525 the text of the Brethren’s catechism was modified to reflect current discussion
of the mass. A Low German version of the catechism published in Wittenberg
that year replaced the question about adoration of the host with a rejection of the
mass as sacrifice and a call for lay communion in both kinds.77
The Bohemian catechism appealed to the Swiss because of its argument that
Christ’s body was at God’s right hand and so could not be found in the sacra-
ment. Unlike the earlier German imprints of the Brethren’s catechism, the St.
Gallen catechism followed the original Czech text quite closely in rejecting ado-
ration of the host because Christ’s body was located in heaven. The pastors made
key changes to the discussion of the sacrament itself, however. They eliminated
all mention of consecration and avoided identifying the elements with Christ’s
body and blood. Instead, the bread and wine signified that Christ gave his body
and blood and that those who trusted in Christ’s death had the true fellowship
of his body and blood. Christ commanded Christians to eat in remembrance,
and with that remembrance to be renewed in communion with him, to have a
tranquil conscience, and to be strengthened in hope for the labors of life. The
catechism emphasized Christ’s resurrection and the presence of his Spirit, but it
stated that in his humanity Christ could not be sought on earth.78 This catechism
was printed in Zurich in 1527 and reprinted the following year in Augsburg by
Philipp Ulhart.
In Basel, the Reformation Ordinance issued in the spring of 1529 also required
quarterly catechization for all children between the ages of seven and fourteen;
those desiring to receive communion for the first time were to be examined
publicly by their pastor.79 It was probably with this provision in mind that
Johannes Oecolampadius wrote his Question and Answer for the Interrogation of
Children. The catechism touched only briefly on the Lord’s Supper, defining it
as “a common thanksgiving and high praise of the death and shed blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ with testimony of Christian love and unity,” and saying nothing
about the elements of bread and wine.80
Far more assertive in its rejection of Christ’s bodily presence was the cate-
chism issued in the name of the Strasbourg pastors in 1527. The preface stated
265
that the pastors used this catechism “several times during the year” when they
examined and instructed the city’s children.81 A revised version published
two years later identified Wolfgang Capito as the catechism’s author. This ver-
sion contained additions that reflected the increasing spiritualism and chil-
iasm of Capito’s thought, and the catechism’s publication under Capito’s name
probably reflected disagreement among the city’s pastors about its contents.82
The Strasbourg catechism was without question the most important of the
sacramentarian catechisms. It was the only one to be reprinted before the end of
the decade: in addition to the original Latin, there were four German imprints.83
The Ulm preacher Conrad Sam would also paraphrase its treatment of the Lord’s
Supper in his own catechism published in 1528.84
Rather than devoting a separate section of his catechism to the sacrament,
Capito discussed it at two different points in his explanation of the Apostles’
Creed. The rejection of Christ’s bodily presence was part of the discussion of
Christ’s ascension, session at the right hand of the Father, and return for the
Last Judgment, while the rite of the Lord’s Supper, like baptism, was discussed
in the section on “the holy Christian church.”85 Capito’s discussion was intended
to teach children how to respond to the Wittenberg position, and it repeated
many of the arguments against Christ’s bodily presence circulating in popular
pamphlets. The children learned that Christ was with Christians according to
his divinity but not according to his humanity, which was seated at the Father’s
right hand. The “papist priests” were wrong to claim that the bread was converted
into Christ’s body when they spoke the words, “this is my body,” since Christ had
never given them this power. Against the argument that Christ’s words were clear
and should be taken literally, Capito explained that “this is my body” must be
understood according to the analogy of faith and in conformity with the rest of
scripture. Like Hubmaier, Capito taught that the bread and wine remained bread
and wine, but he differed from Hubmaier in emphasizing the spiritual eating and
drinking of Christ’s body and blood. While he regarded the celebration of the
Lord’s Supper as a testimony of faith in Christ and fellowship among Christians,
he emphasized the mutual remembrance and proclamation of Christ’s death
rather than the obligation made to fellow believers.86
Capito understood the self-examination urged by St. Paul as “examining one’s
heart and mind, and feeling within himself that he believes without doubt that
the Lord offered up his body and blood for him, that he is a member with all
believers, all of whom he is inclined to serve, without setting himself above or
scorning anyone.” Unworthy reception was defined as not respecting the equality
that should exist among communicants. In sharp contrast to Luther’s teaching,
there was no mention of an awareness of sinfulness troubling the conscience or
the longing for reassurance of Christ’s forgiveness. The sacrament itself could not
26
strengthen one’s faith; it was “the remembrance of Christ’s benefits, bestowed on

me through his death, that revive, strengthen, and confirm faith and love.”87
The differences between the Wittenberg party and the sacramentarians con-
cerning the understanding of the purpose and content of the Lord’s Supper could
lead to a polarization of positions, but there were also attempts to downplay the
differences and stress commonalities, especially in response to the development
of radical sectarianism. This was the case in Augsburg, where the pastors were
able to overcome their differences enough to craft an exhortation for communion
during Holy Week of 1527 that was acceptable to both the Wittenberg party and
those who favored the Swiss position. This agreement was made easier by the
fact that although Urbanus Rhegius had adopted Luther’s understanding of the
Lord’s Supper as Christ’s testament in his earlier pamphlets, he had also stressed
the importance of spiritual communion and had never placed as much emphasis
as Luther did on the physical reception of Christ’s body. The exhortation did not
describe the chief purpose of communion as assurance of one’s forgiveness, as
Luther did, but it did acknowledge that remembering Christ’s love and his work
of redemption would strengthen one’s faith. Rather than emphasizing the Swiss
understanding of communion as a public testimony of faith and unity among
believers, it highlighted the spiritual communion of those who believed Christ
had died for them.88
This tentative agreement concerning the Lord’s Supper underlay two
pamphlets published in 1528 that were intended to help Augsburg’s inhabitants
prepare to receive the sacrament. Michael Keller, whose earlier publications
were influenced by the Swiss, published A Christian, Thorough . . . Instruction
on How to Receive the Lord’s Supper Worthily in May.89 Rhegius published his
own Examination for the Lord’s Supper, for the Simple sometime that same year.90
Both pamphlets presented an understanding of the Lord’s Supper that was closer
to the sacramentarians than to Luther, for they stressed its importance as a re-
membrance of Christ’s death rather than as tangible assurance of forgiveness.
Nevertheless there was at least an acknowledgment of Luther’s concern in that
both works began by reminding readers that they were sinners who would have
no hope of salvation if not for God’s mercy, and Rhegius explicitly stated that
those who felt unworthy to receive communion were the ones who needed its
medicine the most.91
Comparisons
This survey of early evangelical catechetical literature demonstrates that the
Eucharistic controversy did indeed make its way into pamphlets intended to
instruct the simple laity, but in somewhat unexpected ways. Until 1527, Luther
267
let others wage the polemical battle over the sacrament and left the task of
catechization to his colleagues. His delayed entry into the public debate meant
that those who looked to Wittenberg continued to teach a view of the Lord’s
Supper that Luther was coming to see as insufficient.
For the most part, writers on both sides of the conflict restrained from po-
lemic and focused instead on the practical task of preparing their readers to receive
communion properly, however that was understood. The differences between
the two parties emerged not in a discussion of the presence of Christ’s body and
blood, which was avoided by the sacramentarians, but in the explanation of the
sacrament’s purpose. The sacramentarian view was succinctly summed up at the
end of the decade by Otto Brunfels in his Latin catechism for boys: “Concerning
the signs, which others handle with large commentaries, so that they may per-
suade others of their opinions, it is sufficient that a boy know that . . . the Lord’s
Supper is nothing other than a remembrance of the passion of our Lord Jesus
Christ and thanksgiving, which use Paul indicates in 1 Cor. 11.”92 Luther and his
supporters would agree with Brunfel’s definition of the Lord’s Supper as remem-
brance and thanksgiving, but would consider it woefully inadequate because it
ignored what they saw as the heart of the sacrament, the promise of forgiveness
of sin conveyed by Christ’s body and blood.
The understanding of communion was closely linked to the evangelical re-
definition of confession. The sacramentarian catechisms reflected a very dif-
ferent understanding of the relationship between confession of sin, confession
of faith, and worthy reception of communion than that found in the catechet-
ical literature associated with Wittenberg. Auricular confession in the medi-
eval church had always included an opportunity for religious instruction, but
within the medieval sacramental system its chief purpose was to absolve from
sin and make one pure enough to receive Christ’s body worthily. Luther con-
tinued to value the reassurance of forgiveness given verbally in absolution and
through reception of the elements in communion. Recognition of one’s own
sinfulness was a central component of worthy communion, and so Luther saw
private confession as a natural—although not mandatory—prerequisite for
communion. It also provided an opportunity for the religious instruction that
was necessary to ensure that communicants understood both the content and
the purpose of the sacrament. Unworthy reception, defined as not recognizing
Christ’s body and blood in and under the elements, brought judgment upon
the communicant. The Swiss and South German reformers rejected both the
ritual purity established by Catholic confession and the assurance given by
Wittenberg absolution and communion, and they made communion into a
public confession of faith and fellowship. Unworthy reception was equated
with hypocrisy, publicly attesting to an attitude toward God and fellow
268
Christians that one did not truly have. In comparison to Luther’s position,
it had little to do with an awareness of one’s own sinfulness and inadequacy
before God.
In trying to define a common ground between the two parties, the
Augsburg pamphlets demonstrate the emergence of a new option as an alter-
native to the positions articulated by Luther and the earliest sacramentarian
works. It concentrated not on whether Christ’s body was corporeally present
in the elements but, rather, on how communicants received Christ in the sac-
rament. This development paralleled the broader discussion over the Lord’s
Supper that emerged at the end of the 1520s described in the previous chapter,
and it was related to developments within the broad sacramentarian party
described in the next chapter.
269
13
Sacramentarian Diversity
Almost from the beginning of the Eucharistic controversy, Luther and his
supporters charged their opponents with disagreeing over how to understand
Christ’s words, “this is my body.” That disagreement demonstrated the uncer-
tainty, and therefore the error, of their exegesis. This was, of course, the same ar-
gument that those loyal to Rome used against all who claimed to be evangelicals
or followers of the gospel. Catholic criticism of evangelical diversity made it
all the more important for evangelicals to stress their fundamental agreement
on essential doctrines while at the same time distancing themselves from those
whose teachings they rejected. In response to the Wittenbergers, sacramentarian
authors insisted that at base they all agreed that Christ’s body could not be in
the bread, and the differences in how they understood “this is my body” were
unimportant.
Nevertheless, the diverse origins of the sacramentarian party meant that there
was much more variation among them than there was among those who looked
to Wittenberg as the dominant authority. Over the second half of the 1520s,
the sacramentarians would separate into three different groups on the basis of
their understanding of baptism. The first to form were the Swiss Brethren, who
rejected the validity of infant baptism and advocated believer’s baptism. The
spread of their form of Anabaptism raised the problem of authority within the
sacramentarian movement, for now the magisterial sacramentarians had to dis-
tinguish themselves from those who were universally decried as heretics. It also
put them in the uncomfortable position of defending their own dissent from
Wittenberg while denying the right of others to dissent from their position.
The Anabaptists’ insistence on believer’s baptism clearly set them apart from
the other sacramentarians. It would prove harder to draw a line separating the
magisterial reformers from those now called spiritualists.1 That term is broad, and
its modern use is influenced by the efforts of both Ernst Troeltsch and George
Huntston Williams to distinguish dissenters from magisterial Protestantism. It
270
therefore reflects a typology that assumes an already existing distinction rather

than showing how spiritualism developed within the nascent evangelical move-
ment. “Spiritualism” has had two different but related aspects. The first concerns
the relation between the internal revelation of the Spirit and the revelation
contained in written scripture, and it emerged in Saxony in tandem with Luther’s
growing emphasis on the connections between Spirit, word, and sacraments. The
second concerns the relation between the internal working of the Spirit and ex-
ternal ceremonies, and it appeared in Switzerland in the orbit of those influenced
by Erasmus’s Neoplatonic understanding of flesh/spirit and external/internal.
Those who downgraded external ceremonies did not necessarily decouple the
working of the Spirit from scripture, although they saw the relationship differ-
ently from the way Luther and his followers did. These individuals saw no value
in infant baptism and preferred to postpone baptism until after children could
be instructed, but their devaluation of externals meant that they did not require
believer’s baptism. Thomas Müntzer and Andreas Karlstadt have traditionally
been regarded as the most prominent examples of the first type of spiritualism,
but Karlstadt belongs more properly to the second type, which is the focus of this
chapter.
Although the magisterial sacramentarians all defended infant baptism,
they did so with varying degrees of theological conviction. In Strasbourg espe-
cially, the sacramentarian position blurred into a spiritualist understanding that
downplayed the importance of external ceremonies. Despite their differences
regarding infant baptism, all three sacramentarian groups shared an asymmet-
rical dualism that separated external ceremonies from the internal working of the
Spirit, which distinguished them from the Wittenbergers and made it easier for
their opponents to lump them all together. The development of what might be
called proto-Reformed sacramental theology cannot be understood apart from
discussions of the magisterial reformers with those who disagreed with them
about infant baptism, both Anabaptists and spiritualists.
Anabaptist Separatism
As we have seen, the emergence of the Anabaptist movement in Zurich was one
of the factors that led Zwingli to go public with his new understanding of the
Lord’s Supper in the spring of 1525. The debate over infant baptism led to further
consideration of the sacraments more generally and so indirectly influenced the
discussion of the Lord’s Supper. The introduction of believer’s baptism also led to
a clear separation of Anabaptists from the magisterial churches of Zurich, Basel,
and Strasbourg.
271
Sacramentarian Diversity 271
The division of the Zurich reformation into “Zwinglian” and “Anabaptist” wings
posed on a much smaller scale the problem of authority that sacramentarianism
posed to the evangelical movement as a whole. As was the case with the Lord’s
Supper, differences in both hermeneutical principles and scriptural exegesis un-
derlay the disagreement concerning infant baptism. Against Anabaptist bibli-
cism that emphasized lay reading of the vernacular Bible and prioritized the New
Testament over the Old, Zwingli and his fellow pastors stressed those principles
they had learned from Erasmus: mastery of the sacred languages and a close phil-
ological analysis of the biblical text. They also highlighted the proper calling of
the church as giving them the authority to explain scripture and to judge the
teaching of others.2 Putting these principles into practice, in 1525 the Zurich
pastors introduced the Prophezei, daily meetings where the Bible was translated
chapter by chapter from the original Hebrew and Greek and explained to the
audience by those with a recognized position in the city’s church. Zwingli in-
creasingly turned to the Old Testament to provide answers to questions on which
the New Testament was silent or could not sufficiently support his position, most
especially regarding the practice of infant baptism.3
The earliest Anabaptists relied primarily on oral communication to spread
their teachings, whether through underground preaching, personal contacts,
or private gatherings for the reading aloud and discussion of the Bible.4 There
were very few Anabaptist publications, owing to a combination of factors: their
leaders’ generally lower level of education and their limited access to the press, the
unwillingness of printers to produce their works, and the higher rate of illiteracy
among those most attracted to Anabaptist teachings.5 The striking exception
would be the pamphlets of Balthasar Hubmaier, published between Hubmaier’s
arrival in Moravia in 1526 and his arrest the following year.
Two of these pamphlets were written in late 1525–early 1526 as responses to
anti-Anabaptist publications of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, and they illustrate
how the techniques and arguments used in the Eucharistic controversy were ap-
plied in the debate over infant baptism as well. The Discussion with Zwingli’s
Baptism Book was Hubmaier’s answer to the Zurich reformer’s On Baptism,
Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism from May 1525, while On Infant Baptism was his
reaction to Oecolampadius’s publication of A Discussion of Some Basel Preachers
Held with Some Confessors of Rebaptism, printed in September of that year.6
In both of his pamphlets, Hubmaier followed the pattern we have seen in the
Eucharistic controversy of excerpting a statement from the book of his opponent
in order to rebut it. As noted in earlier chapters, this method of dialogue was
particularly suited for reading aloud for the instruction and entertainment of the
illiterate.
27
Just as with the debate over the Lord’s Supper, the exegesis of scripture
played a central role in the controversy concerning infant baptism. A few key
Bible verses were interpreted differently by each side, especially Christ’s com-
mand to make disciples, baptizing and teaching them (Matt. 28:19–20), and
his statement that those who believed and were baptized would be saved (Mark
16:16).7 The disagreement here concerned not whether the statements were to
be understood literally or figuratively but, rather, whether the word order was
to be taken literally, so that faith had to precede baptism. Each side also had
its own set of proof texts to support its position: Zwingli and Oecolampadius
cited the accounts of baptisms of whole households in Acts 10 and 16, for in-
stance, while Hubmaier cited the baptism of those who had already received
the baptism of John in Acts 18.
Just as important as the disagreements about the exegesis of scripture were
the attacks on the consistency and character of one’s opponent that were in-
tended to undermine his credibility. The first section of Hubmaier’s Discussion
with Zwingli’s Baptism Book directly attacked the Zurich reformer’s religious au-
thority. Hubmaier pointed out that Zwingli had demanded clear scripture verses
supporting traditional practices from his Catholic opponent Johannes Fabri at
the first Zurich Disputation, but he could not cite clear scripture to support
the practice of infant baptism. The Zurich reformer had once held that bap-
tism should be postponed until after children could be taught the faith, but he
now taught differently. Both examples proved his inconsistency and therefore
his error.8 Hubmaier also charged Zwingli with deliberately making false claims
about the Anabaptists’ teachings in order to discredit them.9 In Hubmaier’s
opinion, the reformer’s argument that one should listen to the judgment of the
church was little more than an appeal to listen to Zwingli rather than to scrip-
ture.10 Last but not least, Hubmaier condemned Zurich’s harsh treatment of
Anabaptists. The city’s pastors had attacked the Anabaptists from the pulpit and
demanded that the city council punish them more harshly. This was despite the
fact that the council had already thrown pious Christians, whose only fault was
to be rebaptized, into prison, where they were given only bread and water and left
to die in their own filth.11
Hubmaier was more gentle with but no less opposed to Oecolampadius. He
pointed to the Basler’s inconsistency in claiming the authority of the church fa-
thers and the long practice of the church rather than clear scripture as the justi-
fication for infant baptism. Hubmaier claimed that Oecolampadius’s discussion
of baptism in his commentary on Romans supported believer’s baptism, for the
Basler had written that those who believed were compelled to confess that faith
through baptism.12 Hubmaier also tarred Oecolampadius by association in ac-
cusing him of accepting Zwingli’s error concerning original sin.13
273
Both Zwingli and Oecolampadius published responses to these attacks to

coincide with Frankfurt’s book fair in the fall of 1527. The Basel reformer in-
cluded an answer to Hubmaier’s pamphlet along with a report of the disputation
held with the Anabaptist Carlin Brennwald in his Instruction on Rebaptism; it
took the form of responses to statements drawn from Hubmaier’s pamphlet.14
Zwingli’s Against the Tricks of the Anabaptists addressed Anabaptist arguments
more broadly.15 Neither reformer was willing to tolerate those who dissented
from their view on a matter they considered central to the faith. Oecolampadius
accused Hubmaier of misleading the common people, spreading poison under
the name of the gospel, and using manifest lies and sophistic tricks to spread his
harmful sect.16 Zwingli, too, accused the Anabaptists of deceiving the simple by
their lies and hypocritical claims to live a holy life. He defended Zurich’s severity
against them by emphasizing their secrecy, their sectarianism, and their disobedi-
ence to the government, and he cited the most offensive and sensational examples
of Anabaptist teaching and conduct to discredit the movement as a whole.17 Both
reformers turned the Anabaptists’ arguments back against them: they mis-cited
their opponents’ words and distorted their positions in order to support their
own meaning. The burden of proof lay not on the supporters of infant baptism,
as Hubmaier claimed, but on those who rejected the practice.18
The pamphlets of the Swiss reformers were more than simply theological tracts.
They were also intended to make clear the distinction between the “radicals” who
rejected the long-established practice of infant baptism and the magisterially
backed reformers who endorsed infant baptism but rejected Christ’s corporeal
presence in the bread and wine. To many within the Holy Roman Empire, that
distinction did not seem at all obvious. At the 1526 Diet of Speyer, a committee
of princely counselors drafted a detailed set of recommendations concerning re-
ligious reform that included the death penalty for those who “taught, preached
or disputed” against the sacrament of the altar, as did the “evil, devilish, heretical
spirits” who rejected the presence of Christ’s true body and blood.19 In August
1527, Ferdinand von Habsburg issued a mandate for his hereditary lands against
all “seductive, heretical sects and teachings.” The mandate condemned Luther
and his followers, but it took special aim at the blasphemy of those advocating
rebaptism or rejecting Christ’s bodily presence, specifically naming Karlstadt,
Zwingli, and Oecolampadius as advocates of the latter error, and it brought the
full weight of the law, including execution and confiscation of property, down
upon them.20
Under these circumstances, it was all the more necessary for the Swiss
reformers to distinguish themselves from those whom they—just as much as
their Wittenberg and Catholic opponents— regarded as heretics. Zwingli’s
Against the Tricks of the Anabaptists was written in Latin and therefore intended
274
not for the common people most attracted to Anabaptist teachings but, in-
stead, for the learned elite as a testimony of Zwingli’s orthodoxy concerning
baptism. Oecolampadius’s German pamphlet subtly stressed the orthodoxy and
official recognition of his own teaching, since the debate with Brennwald was
held before Basel’s city council. Deliberate misrepresentation, character assas-
sination, and ad hominem attacks were as useful against the Anabaptists as the
Wittenbergers found them to be against the sacramentarians. Such techniques
were particularly important for Oecolampadius, who distinguished sharply be-
tween external water baptism, which was only a sign, and the inner baptism of
the Spirit. Although Oecolampadius compared baptism to circumcision as God’s
covenant sign with his people, this argument did not play as central a role in his
justification of infant baptism as it did for Zwingli. Ultimately, the Basel reformer
could give no stronger theological argument for infant baptism than that God
had left it free to Christians to determine when to administer the external rite of
water baptism, and it was a denial of Christian love to refuse to baptize infants.21
The responses of the two magisterial reformers also highlight the impor-
tance of the diffusion of printed works. Mutual charges of deliberate distortion
of one’s words could not be judged without comparing the original pamphlets
side by side, but tracts published in Zurich and Basel, and distributed through
the Frankfurt fair, were much easier to obtain than those printed in distant
Moravia.22 We have already seen how Pirckheimer leveled charges of heresy and
sedition against Oecolampadius. The Swiss reformers now stressed their support
for the established order and accused their Anabaptist opponents of heresy and
sedition. Their accusations were likely to be taken far more seriously by the edu-
cated elite, especially those who read Latin, than by those with little or no formal
education.
Hubmaier had far more success in spreading his teachings in Moravia, where
his presence led to the radicalization of parishes that were already influenced by
sacramentarian ideas.23 Hussite attacks on transubstantiation had shaped the
arguments of Karlstadt and Oecolampadius against Christ’s bodily presence;
now Swiss arguments would influence developments in Czech-speaking lands.
Johann Zeising, a former monk in Breslau who joined the Bohemian Brethren
in the early 1520s, caused dissension within that group after translating one or
more of Zwingli’s 1525 Eucharistic pamphlets into Czech. Zeising broke with the
Brethren in early 1526 over the issue of the Lord’s Supper, and he would be burned
at the stake as an Anabaptist in 1528.24
The Lord’s Supper was a topic of debate at a disputation in Austerlitz attended
by both Utraquist and evangelical clergy in March 1526, which was described in
a pamphlet published soon after by the Nikolsburg priest Oswald Glaidt.25 The
seven articles endorsed at that disputation were eclectic in their discussion of
275
the Lord’s Supper. Article Two echoed Luther in referring to the sacrament as
Christ’s “last will or testament,” but it also reflected Taborite influence in rejecting
the adoration of the host because Christians were not to worship Christ’s hu-
manity. Article Three distinguished between the internal spiritual communion
(Gemeinschaft) that was both necessary and sufficient for salvation and external
remembrance (widergedechtnuß), which was not to be scorned. The sharp dis-
tinction between internal and external may be traced, either directly or indirectly,
to Zwingli, but it also suggests the influence of Schwenckfeldian ideas that were
spreading in neighboring Silesia.26 The explanation of the article referred to the
sacraments as “signs of grace” (Gnaden zeychen) and argued that they did not
help if one had not first received baptism and the Lord’s Supper internally. On
this basis the fourth article rejected the Hussite practice of giving communion
to infants, for only those should receive the sacrament who had been reborn
through God’s word and knew how to proclaim the Lord’s death and discern the
Lord’s body.27
The articles did not explicitly reject infant baptism, but they implied that
baptism should be given only to those who already had faith. It therefore is
not surprising that Hubmaier won many to his form of Anabaptism when he
arrived in Nikolsburg in the summer of 1526. Over the next year, Simprecht
Sorg-Froschauer would print sixteen pamphlets by Hubmaier, several of which
concerned the Lord’s Supper.28 The first of these was the Simple Instruction
Concerning the Words, This Is My Body, in Christ’s Supper, probably written in
the fall of 1526. Hubmaier opened the pamphlet by listing all the disagreements
among scholastic theologians concerning the Eucharist. He then criticized the
way Karlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius understood “this is my body,” al-
though he praised them for agreeing that the bread and wine remained bread and
wine. Hubmaier explained at length his own view that the bread and wine were
Christ’s body and blood “in remembrance.” His discussion of the four institution
accounts repeated many of the exegetical points made by Erasmus and repeated
by Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and Zwingli—for instance, that to bless or give
thanks was not to consecrate, and that St. Mark reported that the disciples drank
the wine before Christ said “this is my blood.”29 Hubmaier also cited the standard
proof texts to argue that Christ’s body had ascended into heaven where he would
remain in his humanity until he returned to judge the world, but this did not play
as important a role in his argumentation as it did in the works of the Swiss and
Strasbourg reformers.30
Hubmaier followed this exegetical discussion of the Lord’s Supper with
a catechism printed in early 1527 and liturgies for baptism, the Lord’s Supper,
and excommunication—the three ceremonies that preserved the integrity of
the Anabaptist community. In the catechism he explained the position already
276
formulated in 1525 that the Lord’s Supper was a public sign and testimony of
love by which Christians obligated themselves to other members of the congre-
gation and demonstrated that they were willing to give their lives for them.31
The liturgies demonstrated how closely connected Hubmaier’s understanding
of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the ban were. In baptism believers made a
formal vow (Tauffglübd), while in the Lord’s Supper they professed their obli-
gation of love (Liebespflicht) to serve each other to the point of death; that obli-
gation included admonishing those who did not live according to the vows they
had made.32 Hubmaier’s understanding of baptism and the Lord’s Supper can be
seen as pushing to its extreme limits the Erasmian understanding of baptism as
enrolling in Christ’s army and the Lord’s Supper as reaffirming the bond of love
among believers.
At the same time that Hubmaier was building an Anabaptist community
in Moravia, there was also discussion about the purpose and significance of the
Lord’s Supper among Anabaptists in the Swiss Confederation, for the sacrament
was addressed in the Schleitheim Confession of early 1527. Although the confes-
sion did not go so far as Hubmaier in emphasizing participation in the sacrament
as entailing obligation to fellow believers, it too presented the Lord’s Supper as an
integral part of establishing group identity and separating from the sinful world.
The breaking of bread in memory of Christ’s broken body could only take place
among those who were first united through believer’s baptism, for there could be
no fellowship between those in the world and those who had been called out of
it by God.33 The confession linked these two outward ceremonies with fraternal
admonition and the use of the ban, which kept the fellowship pure. This distin-
guished the Swiss Brethren from other radical sacramentarians, such as those in
Augsburg who celebrated the Lord’s Supper in private groups but did not require
believer’s baptism.
The Porous Boundary with Spiritualism

It was this separatism, whether or not it was accompanied by believer’s baptism,
that provoked the opposition of the magisterial reformers in Switzerland and
South Germany. It was more difficult, however, to draw a line between the mag-
isterial reformers and those sacramentarians who condemned infant baptism but
were not ardent advocates of believer’s baptism. Hans Denck and Ludwig Hätzer
belonged to the latter category.34 Both men moved to Strasbourg in late 1526, and
Hätzer lived with Capito, who at that time was also sheltering Martin Cellarius.
Capito was open to their form of spiritualism, but Denck ran afoul of Bucer and
was expelled from Strasbourg after the two met in a public disputation.35 Hätzer
left soon afterwards, and in the spring of 1527 he and Denck were both in Worms.
27
Their influence can be seen in the seven theses proposed for debate in June by the
Worms preacher Jakob Kautz. The first three theses taught a sharp separation be-
tween the external and internal word, argued that no external sign or sacrament
could assure or console conscience, and condemned infant baptism as against
God’s teaching. The fourth thesis rejected the presence of Christ’s substantial
body and blood and claimed that the Lord’s Supper was not celebrated rightly
in the city.36
The theses were attacked from the Catholic side by Johannes Cochlaeus in a
pamphlet on Some Articles by Jakob Kautz the Oecolampadian that also contained
a brief refutation of Kautz’s theses by his fellow evangelical pastors in Worms; it
was published in both Latin and German.37 From Strasbourg, Bucer intervened
with his Faithful Warning Against Jakob Kautz, published in the name of the
Strasbourg pastors. Bucer defended the practice of infant baptism, but he agreed
with Kautz’s distinction between the external and internal word and with his
claim that nothing external could assure or console the inner person. Bucer used
Kautz’s rejection of Christ’s substantial presence as an opportunity to argue
against the Wittenberg position, and his only genuine objection to Kautz’s article
concerned the separatism implied by his criticism of the way the Lord’s Supper
was celebrated in Worms.38
Whether or not Kautz had any direct connection with Oecolampadius, as
the Latin title of Cochlaeus’s response charged, Hätzer and Denck certainly did.
Denck spent the fall of 1527 in Basel, seeking Oecolampadius’s intervention with
the city council to allow him to stay in the city despite the edict that outlawed the
sheltering of Anabaptists. He died of the plague in November, leaving behind a
confession of faith that would be published a year or so later as his Recantation. In
an article concerning “the bread and cup, Supper, or remembrance of the Lord’s
body and blood,” Denck associated Christ’s words about eating his flesh and
blood in John 6 with the Lord’s Supper, drawing a parallel between the bodily
refreshment of bread and wine with the spiritual refreshment of Christ’s body
and blood.39
The parallel between spiritual and sacramental communion would be
emphasized even more strongly by the Silesian reformer Kaspar Schwenckfeld,
whom the Strasbourg and Swiss reformers saw as one of their own. Schwenckfeld
and Valentin Crautwald had both written several works on the Lord’s Supper
beginning in 1525, but these circulated only in manuscript, often in the form of
letters.40 They included two short tracts in Latin by Crautwald, “That the Word
of Christ, John 6, Is the Rule Controlling His Words in the Supper” and a “Brief
Admonition of Those who Assert that the Word of God Is in the Bread of the
Eucharist and in the Water of Baptism,”41 and Schwenckfeld’s vernacular “Twelve
Questions or Arguments Against Impanation” from 1525 and his “Ground and
278
Cause of the Error and Controversy Concerning the Lord’s Supper,” a lengthy
criticism of Luther’s Sermon against the Fanatics from early 1527.42 At the end of
that year Schwenckfeld penned a “Refutation of the Opinion that the Corporeal
Presence Is in the Elements,” a response to Luther’s That These Words Still Stand
Firm.43
The Silesians also established contact with both Karlstadt and the reformers in
Switzerland and Strasbourg, who saw them as allies in the fight against Luther.44
In the spring of 1526, the Silesian Matthias Winckler visited Strasbourg, Basel,
and Zurich, and Zwingli recommended Theodor Bibliander for a post at the
newly founded university in Liegnitz. The Strasbourgers sent books and letters as
well, and they recommended one of their own pastors, Bonifacius Wolfhart, for
the new university.45 Oecolampadius published Schwenckfeld’s short Latin tract
On the Course of the Word of God, with his own prefatory endorsement, in time
for the spring book fair in 1527. The pamphlet could be seen as a response to the
emphasis on the power of the word in Brenz’s Syngramma. It did not discuss the
Lord’s Supper, but it did make clear the complete separation between internal
and external word, and the priority of the former, that underlay the Silesian’s un-
derstanding of the sacrament.46 In the wake of Luther’s attack on Schwenckfeld
in his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, Zwingli arranged for the publica-
tion of the Silesian’s Refutation.47 In his short foreword to the reader, Zwingli
stressed the Silesian’s agreement with him against Luther, despite his differing
understanding of “this is my body.”48
The unauthorized publication of the Refutation contributed to Schwenckfeld’s
voluntary exile from Silesia in the spring of 1529. He settled in Strasbourg, where
he oversaw the publication of Crautwald’s two 1526 tracts as Collation and
Consensus of the Words of the Lord’s Supper, and he published a revised version
of his own “Twelve Questions” from 1525 as Christian Consideration, Whether
Judas and Unbelieving False Christians Receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ
in the Sacrament of the Supper.49 Wolfgang Capito expressed his support for
Schwenckfeld in a foreword to Schwenckfeld’s Apology and Explanation that
the Silesians Do Not Deny the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.50
The Strasbourger also stressed Schwenckfeld’s agreement with Zwingli and
Oecolampadius that Christ was not in the bread bodily, even if he explained “this
is my body” differently. For Capito, the two most important issues concerning
the Lord’s Supper were the location of Christ’s body at the Father’s right hand and
the spiritual eating of Christ by the believing soul.51
These pamphlets now made public an understanding that had been circu-
lating underground for the previous three years. Although Crautwald was an
important contributor to this position, Schwenckfeld’s vernacular pamphlets
and his personal contacts would be more important for its dissemination. The
279
Silesian understanding of the sacrament blended the late medieval understanding

of spiritual communion and an Erasmian affective piety within a strongly dual-
istic framework that saw the relationship between external and internal as a par-
allel between image and truth, without any real connection between the two. In
their emphasis on the spiritual eating of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, the Silesians
had more in common with the Strasbourgers than with Zwingli, who did not dis-
cuss the link between spiritual and sacramental communion in his early works.
Their sharp separation between external and internal brought them closer to the
Zurich reformer, however, for they held that the signs of bread and wine could
not convey any spiritual benefit. Schwenckfeld’s works also suggest familiarity
with Oecolampadius’s treatises. So, for instance, he was outspoken in his rejec-
tion of impanation, and he claimed that it opposed God’s glory to place Christ’s
heavenly substance in an earthly, created thing.52 Just as important, Schwenckfeld
agreed with the reformers of Zurich, Basel, and Strasbourg that Christ’s body was
in heaven and could not possibly be in the bread of the sacrament.
With regard to Christ’s bodily presence, Schwenckfeld made little attempt to
conciliate his opponents. He argued that it was wholly against scripture and the
Christian faith to claim that Christ’s body was substantially or bodily in bread or
that it was eaten by the mouth and by the godless. Underlying this certainty was
a strict separation between physical and spiritual. External things could not act
as a link between material and spiritual reality, and God imparted faith directly
into the human heart without using external means. Like Zwingli, Schwenckfeld
drew a sharp distinction between the Creator and created things, and he argued
that both Luther and the papists erred in mixing what should remain separate.53
There was also a difference between Christ, the eternal living word, and the per-
ishable external word spoken by the minister or contained in the letters of scrip-
ture. Alluding to the sursum corda of the mass liturgy, Schwenckfeld argued that
Christians were admonished to “lift up their hearts” to heaven, not to see Christ
bound to the bread.54 He also incorporated arguments against Christ’s bodily
presence taken from the Hussites, Hoen, and Karlstadt. He repeated the fa-
miliar arguments that Christ never gave his followers the power to bring his body
into the bread, and the early church did not believe in Christ’s bodily presence;
Matthew 24:23 warned against those claiming Christ was found on earth.55 Like
Karlstadt, Schwenckfeld frequently referred to faith as the knowledge of Christ,
and he argued that the prophets had never taught Christ’s coming in bread.56
Schwenckfeld insisted that Christians received Christ’s true body and blood
spiritually through faith, but he distinguished between the internal “mystery of
the sacrament” and the external rite of breaking bread. The latter was only a repre-
sentation and image of the believer’s spiritual communion with Christ, and it was
an error to mix the spiritual and the material by claiming that Christ’s body was
280
in the bread or that the bread became that body.57 Schwenckfeld described the
sacrament’s purpose in a way that corresponded to these two aspects. Inwardly
it fed the believer with Christ’s body and blood for the forgiveness of sins; out-
wardly it caused Christians to remember Christ’s death and to praise and thank
God.58 His emphasis on spiritual communion raised the question of what the
impious received in the Lord’s Supper. The answer was clear: absolutely nothing.
Judas ate the visible sacrament with the other disciples, but he did not receive
Christ’s body and blood, for these could only be received through faith.59 Both
Luther and Zwingli used John 6:54 (“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life.”) to argue that John 6 could not pertain to the Lord’s Supper,
since many communicants lacked faith and so did not have eternal life. They
therefore understood the spiritual manducation described in John 6 as faith more
generally. Schwenckfeld retained the traditional association of John 6 with the
sacrament, however, and he used John 6:54 to argue that Christ’s body could not
be contained in or conveyed with the bread of the sacrament, for this would mean
that unbelievers also received salvation through sacramental eating.60
Although they were latecomers to the printed debates, the Silesians became
major contributors to the development of what might now be called the proto-
Reformed position, especially since the Swiss reformers remained silent after
publishing the Two Answers. Oecolampadius’s energy was increasingly taken up
by conflicts with his Catholic opponents in Basel, although he presented his posi-
tion on the Lord’s Supper in an open letter written to Basel’s rural clergy that was
published in both Latin and German.61 Zwingli wrote nothing more on the Lord’s
Supper until the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. The eight treatises by Schwenckfeld
and Crautwald published in 1528–29 combined with the publications of the
Strasbourg reformers to give a new prominence to an understanding of the Lord’s
Supper that emphasized both spiritual and sacramental communion, even as the
two groups disagreed about how spiritual and sacramental communion were
related.
The warm welcome accorded to Schwenckfeld in Strasbourg reveals the
lack of any clear boundaries between the magisterial sacramentarians and
those attracted to a more spiritualist position toward the end of the 1520s.
Schwenckfeld’s presence also coincided with the first signs of disagreement
among the sacramentarian reformers, for Wolfgang Capito was moving fur-
ther toward a position that downplayed the value of external rites and the
institutional church. Growing theological tensions between Capito and his
younger colleague Martin Bucer are apparent in Bucer’s correspondence with
Zwingli from 1528. These have traditionally been interpreted as Capito’s ab-
erration from a “Zwinglian” norm and attributed to the influence of Martin
Cellarius.62 Capito’s own Erasmian roots suggest, however, that his attraction
281
to a more radical spiritualism was a variant of Erasmian dualism and herme-

neutics developed in conversation with others who shared a similar orienta-
tion. Although Oecolampadius did not go as far as Capito, he too could give
no necessary rationale for infant baptism.
In contrast to these two older reformers, Bucer was not attracted to
this more extreme spiritualism. Although he was strongly influenced by
Erasmus, he had not been a member of Erasmus’s inner circle as Capito and
Oecolampadius were. His training was in Thomist rather than Scotist realism,
and his translations of Luther’s sermons and commentaries gave him a deeper
exposure to Wittenberg theology at an earlier phase in his own intellectual
development.63 Bucer would also wholeheartedly embrace Zwingli’s argument
that infant baptism replaced circumcision as the outward sign of belonging to
the church as God’s people. This differing mix of intellectual influences would
allow Bucer to emphasize the spiritual value associated with the external re-
ception of the sacraments in his concord negotiations with the Wittenbergers
in the 1530s.
These developments lay in the future, however. Schwenckfeld’s move to
Strasbourg in 1529 strengthened that city’s reputation for sacramentarian
teaching; so, too, did the arrival of Melchior Hoffman.64 Hoffman did not ex-
plicitly endorse believer’s baptism until the spring of 1530, and when he arrived in
Strasbourg in the summer of 1529, he was best known as Karlstadt’s associate and
Bugenhagen’s opponent at the Flensburg disputation. Soon after his arrival, how-
ever, he joined the circle of dissidents who regarded Lienhard and Ursula Jost as
prophets given visions from God. Hoffman’s presence in the city did nothing to
improve Strasbourg’s reputation in the eyes of the Wittenbergers in the months
leading up to the Marburg Colloquy.65 But before considering the situation in
the spring and summer of 1529, it is necessary to discuss another gradual develop-
ment, the first steps toward the institutionalization of the evangelical churches in
Germany and Switzerland.
28
14
Reconstituting Authority
The second half of the 1520s witnessed the first attempts to stabilize the
new evangelical churches, which included regularizing the administration
of the Lord’s Supper. In the wake of the 1526 Diet of Speyer, cities and ter-
ritories began to publish liturgies and church ordinances that defined how
the sacrament was to be understood and celebrated within their churches.
There were only a small number of these official publications in the 1520s,
but they paved the way for the church ordinances and liturgical agendas
that would be printed in the 1530s and beyond. Political developments at
the end of the decade challenged this process, as the evangelical estates were
pressured to restore traditional practices and return to obedience to Rome.
This confronted them with the need to define evangelical orthodoxy and
to consider whether political alliance was possible with those considered as
heretics. The Marburg Colloquy, held in the fall of 1529, was an important
step in this process.
What had started out as an inner-evangelical disagreement was now hard-
ening into two magisterially supported confessions and a variety of dissenting
groups who could not agree with the official understanding of the sacraments.
This was the context in which the Wittenbergers, who were regarded as having
the authority to determine evangelical doctrine, produced the Schwabach
Articles, the first quasi-official confessional statement defining evangelical or-
thodoxy. It was also the background for the meeting between Luther and his
Swiss and South German opponents at the Marburg Colloquy. Where liturgies
and church ordinances concerned standards of belief and worship within
the secular territories that promulgated them, the Schwabach and Marburg
Articles introduced a new form of authority with supraterritorial status: the
evangelical confession of faith.
283
Reconstituting Authority 283
Changes to Worship
The reform of worship, the establishment of new standards of belief, and the in-
stitutionalization of new church structures began in a hesitant way and proceeded
only at a slow and tentative pace throughout the second half of the 1520s. The
distribution of communion in both kinds to large numbers of communicants had
raised both liturgical and practical questions already before the outbreak of the
Eucharistic controversy. Andreas Karlstadt upset sensibilities during the first evan-
gelical communion service at Christmas 1521 by placing the consecrated host in
people’s hands rather than directly on their tongues, in violation of canon law, and
by allowing them to hold the chalice when they drank the wine.1 In his 1523 Order
for Mass and Communion, Luther retained the Latin language but simplified the
communion service by eliminating many of the traditional gestures, such as making
multiple signs of the cross, mixing water with the wine, and breaking the host into
the chalice. In accordance with the principle of Christian freedom, he left it to the
minister to decide whether to bless the bread and the wine at the same time and
then to distribute both to communicants, or to bless and distribute the bread first
and then do the same with the wine.2 The earliest vernacular mass liturgies to be
printed were those of the Nördlingen reformer Kaspar Kantz (1522) and Thomas
Müntzer (1523).3 In both Nuremberg and Strasbourg, different versions of the
mass printed in 1524 and 1525 demonstrate how quickly the liturgy was evolving.4
The questions of liturgical practice would become more urgent after the out-
break of the Eucharistic controversy, as each side developed a communion rite to
reflect its theological presuppositions. The liturgies and agendas published in the
later 1520s document the introduction of two different rites for administering
the Lord’s Supper.5 Liturgies influenced by Wittenberg retained the structure of
the mass but reformed its contents to eliminate the invocation of the saints and
references to a sacrifice and to include the participation of the laity through con-
gregational singing.6 By far the most influential model for liturgical reform was
Luther’s German Mass: it was printed ten times in 1526 and would influence litur-
gical agendas throughout central and northern Germany.7
Luther’s German Mass assumed that the Lord’s Supper would be celebrated
every Sunday with those who desired to receive it. In the communion portion of
the service, the prayers of the canon were replaced by an account of the Lord’s
Supper’s institution synthesized from the gospels and 1 Corinthians, and extra-
biblical embellishments to the canon’s institution account were removed—for
instance, Christ’s taking the bread “in his holy and venerable hands and raising his
eyes to heaven to you, his almighty Father.” Reacting against Karlstadt’s rejection
of the elevation of the host, Luther argued that the gesture should be retained.
284
The German Mass said nothing about what to do with consecrated hosts left over
after communion, but this issue would be addressed in later Lutheran church
ordinances.8 Depictions of Lutheran communion services—most of them from
after 1530—show that communicants received the sacrament while kneeling at
the altar, with men and women sometimes separated on different sides. These
images often portrayed Christ’s Last Supper with his disciples in the background
or foreground to remind viewers of the sacrament’s institution (illustration 14.1).9
In contrast to the Wittenberg model, proto-Reformed liturgies abolished the
mass completely. The communion rite was based instead on the liturgy used in
. Woodcut from Urbanus Rhegius, Vom hochwirdigen Sacrament

des altars (Leipzig: Thanner, 1525); copy held by the Herzog-August-Bibliothek,
Wolfenbüttel
285
the late medieval church for preaching services combined with that used for the
communion of the laity outside of the mass at Eastertime. Communion was to
be celebrated only monthly (Basel and Strasbourg) or quarterly (Zurich). Ideally,
it was to be received by the entire congregation as a visible profession of faith
and membership in the congregation, although distinctions might still be made
by age and social status.10 The Action and Use of the Lord’s Supper introduced in
Zurich at Eastertime in 1525, for instance, specified that young people were to
communicate on Maundy Thursday, those of middle age on Good Friday, and the
oldest on Easter Sunday.11 Rather than kneeling before the altar, communicants
gathered below the stairs going up to the choir, at the head of the nave, with men
on the right and women on the left, and those who did not communicate moved
back into the side aisles. There was no separate recitation of Christ’s words that
could be understood as consecrating the elements. Instead, the unleavened bread
and wine were contained in simple wooden vessels that rested on a table set at
the head of the nave, while the minister prayed and read the institution account
from 1 Corinthians 11 and Christ’s discourse on spiritual manducation from
John 6. The ministers then brought the bread to the communicants, who were
encouraged to break off a piece of it to eat; likewise, the cup was carried around
by the ministers so each could drink from it. The congregation participated in the
service not by singing hymns but through the antiphonal recitation of the Gloria,
the Apostles’ Creed, and a psalm text.
The Basel agenda first published in 1526 differed from that of Zurich through
its stronger emphasis on the remembrance of Christ’s suffering and death. This
included reading Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and one or more of the passion narratives.
The liturgy also contained a much sharper warning against unworthy recep-
tion and encouraged the voluntary self-exclusion of those who had transgressed
against the Ten Commandments or who “despised the word of God and the holy
sacraments.” Communicants were reminded to examine themselves to ensure they
received the sacrament without hypocrisy. Like Luther’s German Mass, the Basel
liturgy included an account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper synthesized
from the four New Testament descriptions, but as in Zurich, this was intended to
instruct the hearers rather than to consecrate the elements. The agenda did not
specify how the bread and wine were to be distributed.12 Both the Zurich and
Basel models would influence liturgical developments in Switzerland and South
Germany. Ambrosius Blarer, for instance, would borrow elements from both for
the communion service he wrote for Memmingen in 1529.13
Doctrinal instruction about the Lord’s Supper and provisions concerning
its celebration were also included in the church ordinances that began to be
published in the second half of the 1520s. The recess of the 1526 Diet of Speyer
allowed the introduction of reforms to the extent they could be justified before
286
God and the emperor, and in the following years a handful of territories adopted
ordinances to establish uniform teaching and worship. The tentative nature of
these early ordinances is reflected in the fact that most of them remained in man-
uscript or were printed only in small numbers for local distribution. Luther him-
self advised against the publication of the ordinance drafted in 1526 for Hesse,
and it was never introduced.14 Among the very few ordinances that were printed
were church orders for Prussia (1526) and Lüneburg (1527). These abolished
private masses and established communion in both kinds, and the Prussian or-
dinance required a pre-communion examination such as had been introduced
in Wittenberg.15 More conservative were the provisional regulations for the
churches of Brandenburg-Ansbach adopted in 1526, which allowed some German
in the mass liturgy but specified that the words of consecration were to be spoken
in Latin. Influenced by the wording of the initial recommendations for resolving
the religious situation at the Diet of Speyer, the Brandenburg-Ansbach guidelines
expressly prohibited attacks on the sacrament and required that proper venera-
tion be shown to the consecrated host.16
The few ordinances that were reprinted, especially outside their own terri-
tory, would serve as models for other churches. The Instructions to the Visitors of
the Saxon churches were extremely important for spreading the Wittenberg ref-
ormation.17 An unauthorized Latin version of Melanchthon’s draft instructions
was printed in Wittenberg in the summer of 1527. The draft instructions would
be corrected and reprinted before the end of the year in Wittenberg, Basel, and
Speyer.18 The final version, in German, was printed in March 1528, with a preface
by Luther; it went through nine more imprints, including one in Low German,
before the end of the year.19 The Instructions themselves outlined three points
concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, pastors were to teach that Christ’s true body
and blood were in the bread and wine, in accordance with Christ’s words in the
institution accounts. This position was essentially what Luther had said was suffi-
cient for people to understand in the Babylonian Captivity; there was no discus-
sion of how “true” was to be understood or how Christ’s body and blood were
present. Pastors were also to point out that the writings of the church fathers
supported this belief and to emphasize that Christ’s body was there by Christ’s
ordaining and not by the priest’s merit—a rejection of Donatism intended to
counter sacramentarian anticlericalism. Second, pastors were to teach that both
bread and wine were to be received in communion, although the Instructions
allowed distribution in one kind for those whose consciences were still weak.
Last but not least, pastors were to teach the purpose of and proper preparation
for communion. Christ commanded that the Lord’s Supper be held “in remem-
brance of me.” This remembrance entailed not simply the hearing of a historical
account but more importantly the acknowledgment of God’s wrath at sin and of
287
Christ’s atoning death; those who had a genuine remembrance of Christ’s death
sought consolation in the sacrament. The instructions made a pre-communion
examination mandatory to ensure that communicants were repentant and desired
the comfort of forgiveness distributed in the Lord’s Supper.20
Not surprisingly, the service for the Lord’s Supper described in Bugenhagen’s
1528 church ordinance for Braunschweig was strongly influenced by the
Wittenberg model.21 The Braunschweig ordinance would in turn influence a
whole host of church ordinances issued in central and northern Germany over
the following two decades. In 1529, for instance, guidelines for preaching issued by
Duke Ernst of Lüneburg specified that teaching on both baptism and the Lord’s
Supper should conform to the contents of Bugenhagen’s Braunschweig order.22
Bugenhagen gave a brief description of the Eucharistic liturgy, but he prefaced it
with a lengthy doctrinal section on the Lord’s Supper. Like his Public Confession
published the same year, his instruction combined pastoral concerns with refuta-
tion of both sacramentarian error and “papist” abuses. Christians were to receive
the sacrament frequently, but frequent communion should not lead to a devalua-
tion of the sacrament. The Lord’s Supper was used properly when communicants
remembered Christ’s command to take and eat, believed his words, “this is my
body; this is my blood,” and trusted in that body and blood through which they
personally were freed from sin. Bugenhagen warned against those who regarded
the bread and wine as mere signs or who questioned the power of a sinful priest to
make the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament. He explained the Wittenberg
understanding of unworthy reception (1 Cor. 11:27–29) and of the communion of
bread and cup (1 Cor. 10:16–18), and he dismissed as unbelievers those who said
it was against scripture and the Apostles’ Creed to claim that Christ’s body was
in the Lord’s Supper. He also condemned those who sought money to say masses,
called the sacrament a sacrifice, withheld the cup from the laity, or spoke Christ’s
words silently when celebrating the mass.23 Expressed in simple and clear lan-
guage and with relative restraint in its use of polemics, Bugenhagen’s discussion
was far more suited for grounding lay people and pastors alike in the Wittenberg
understanding of the Lord’s Supper than many of the pamphlets devoted exclu-
sively to the controversy.
At the opposite end of the German-speaking lands, developments within the
Swiss Confederation would be shaped by the aftermath of the Baden Disputation.24
The official acts of the disputation were finally published by Thomas Murner in
the summer of 1527, after much protest by the reformed Confederates.25 These
were countered the following year by publications associated with the disputa-
tion of Bern, held in January 1528.26 They included not only the official acts of
the disputation, at which the reformed pastors had upheld theses rejecting both
the sacrifice of the mass and the substantial presence of Christ’s body in the
28
elements,27 but also the sermons delivered by several preachers who had attended
the disputation. Five of the nine sermons at least touched on the mass, and in
his first sermon, on the Apostles’ Creed, Zwingli used the article on Christ’s as-
cension to argue against Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament.28 Johannes
Landsperger contributed a popular attack on the mass in the wake of the Bern
Disputation,29 while Niklaus Manuel’s two satirical plays, The Mass’s Illness and
The Mass’s Testament, written at the time of the disputation, went through several
imprints, both separately and together.30 Almost immediately after the disputa-
tion, Bern’s council issued a reformation ordinance that abolished the mass and
consolidated the city’s control over the church in its territories. Like the acts of
the disputation itself it prominently displayed the city’s coat of arms on its title
page, thereby giving official endorsement to its contents. 31 A year later, the city
published a new liturgy for celebration of the Lord’s Supper modeled after Basel’s
communion service.32
The victory of the reformatory party in Bern only increased pressure on Basel’s
council to abolish the mass, and tensions in that city increased through the end
of 1528. An iconoclastic tumult in February 1529 led to the removal of staunchly
Catholic members from the council and the publication of a Reformation or-
dinance at the beginning of April.33 Its provisions were primarily practical and
disciplinary, but it also included paragraphs on baptism and the Lord’s Supper
intended to counter Anabaptist, pro-Wittenberg, and Catholic opponents.
Rejecting the sacrifice of the mass, the ordinance described the Lord’s Supper
as a means of remembering Christ’s passion and testifying to Christian love and
unity.34 In Strasbourg, too, the reformers had pushed for years for the complete
abolition of the mass, which was still said in four of the city’s churches, and two
weeks after the iconoclasm in Basel the large council of guildsmen in Strasbourg
voted to suspend the mass immediately.35 Meanwhile, an anonymous German
account of the developments in Basel was published to counter rumors of the
disorder and violence in Basel and to encourage a similar decision in Strasbourg.36
The timing of the events in Basel and Strasbourg could not have been worse
for promoting the sacramentarian cause, for they occurred on the eve of a new
Diet in Speyer. The Catholic party in Speyer would use them to discredit the
evangelical movement as a whole, and the recess issued at the close of the Diet
in April rescinded the recess of the 1526 Speyer Diet and reinstated the Edict of
Worms. The evangelical estates protested this measure, and Landgraf Philipp of
Hesse now began to work more vigorously for a defensive evangelical political
alliance. If there was going to be an alliance to defend the evangelical faith, how-
ever, it was necessary to know what precisely that faith was and who professed it.
More than any other factor, the political pressure of the situation after the 1529
Diet of Speyer confronted the reformers with the need to prove their orthodoxy,
289
both by demonstrating their conformity with scripture and the creeds of the
early church and by condemning those seen as rejecting those norms. This was
the background to the Marburg Colloquy, held at the beginning of October 1529.
The Marburg Colloquy

The Marburg Colloquy brought to a head the question of religious authority
within the evangelical movement and reinforced the perception of Luther and
his colleagues as the ultimate arbiters of the evangelical faith. The efforts of each
side to defeat and discredit the other through public debate over the previous four
years had only sharpened the differences between the two sides and expanded
the number of contested issues. The failure of this strategy became evident at
Marburg, for neither party could persuade the other to abandon its under-
standing of the Lord’s Supper. Beginning in Marburg, evangelicals now faced the
question of whether some disagreement on the sacrament should be tolerated.
That required determining where to draw the line between orthodoxy and heresy.
Was the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements an essential article
of faith, and if so, could that presence be described in a way that was accept-
able to all evangelicals? Since there were latent differences between Strasbourg,
Basel, and Zurich, the latter question also carried within it the seeds of division
among the magisterial sacramentarians. The Strasbourgers had advocated a policy
of toleration from early in the controversy, and Oecolampadius had tried to find
some agreement with the Wittenbergers, but Zwingli’s tactic of lumping his pro-
Wittenberg and Catholic opponents together would make it difficult for him to
agree with the Wittenbergers now. His opposition to Wittenberg was matched
by the Wittenbergers’ perception of Zwingli as an archheretic.37
Most accounts of the Marburg Colloquy focus on Zwingli’s meeting with
Luther, but the real leader of the sacramentarian party was Oecolampadius. The
first serious plans for a colloquy from the spring of 1528 involved a meeting be-
tween the Wittenberg theologians and the Basel reformer,38 and in May of that
year Oecolampadius made tentative overtures in a letter to Melanchthon. Citing
their old friendship, he complained about Luther’s attacks in his Confession
Concerning Christ’s Supper, but he also pointed out that there were some things in
the work that did not differ from Oecolampadius’s own position.39 Melanchthon
did not respond to Oecolampadius’s letter, and a year later the Basler tried again.
This time he expressed his hope for a meeting to end the disagreement concerning
the sacrament and asked Melanchthon, who was attending the Diet of Speyer,
to prevent the Diet’s condemnation of the sacramentarians.40 Melanchthon
answered in a printed letter that repudiated Oecolampadius’s understanding of
the Lord’s Supper in no uncertain terms. Not only was it based on a false exegesis
290
of scripture but it also opposed the teachings of the church fathers, while the
arguments concerning the location of Christ’s body owed more to reason than
to faith.41
Although Melanchthon frequently used the term “Zwinglian” in his corre-
spondence from the late spring and summer of 1529, he could also differentiate
between his opponents. He told Duke John Frederick that he was prepared to
meet with Oecolampadius, and he felt that others were open to discussion, but
he saw no point in negotiating with Zwingli and he could never agree with the
Strasbourgers.42 In his letters he warned against the Strasbourg alliance and made
clear his opposition to Zwingli’s “pernicious dogma” and his intention to write
against the Zurich reformer.43 Zwingli’s presence at a colloquy would therefore
make agreement more difficult, and there was no mention of his attending a
meeting with the Wittenbergers until the spring of 1529.44 In his official invitations
to Luther and Melanchthon at the beginning of July, the Landgraf wrote only
of a meeting with “Oecolampadius and his supporters,” and Zwingli was not
mentioned.45 Since not even the full Zurich council was informed of Zwingli’s in-
vitation to Marburg, it is doubtful that the Wittenbergers knew that the Zurich
reformer would attend the colloquy, although they may have suspected that he
would be there.46
Unlike earlier disputations, which were largely set pieces pitting evangelicals
against Catholics that had hundreds of observers, the colloquy held in Marburg
from October 1 through 4 was not open to a large audience.47 Private discussions
offered the best chance of reaching accord, and so on the opening day, a Friday,
Luther met with Oecolampadius—another indication that the Basel reformer was
seen as the chief negotiator for his delegation.48 No record exists of this meeting,
but Zwingli made notes of his own private discussion with Melanchthon held
the same afternoon. Their conversation was productive in that it cleared up some
mutual misconceptions, but Melanchthon refused to accept Zwingli’s arguments
that Christ’s body had ascended and could not be in more than one place, and he
insisted that Christ gave his body to be eaten “in a hidden way.”49 Their disagree-
ment foreshadowed the results of the public colloquy, held over the next two days
before a restricted audience. Only the Landgraf, some nobles and officials from
his court, professors from the university, the invited reformers, and the statesmen
who accompanied them were allowed to attend; others were turned away.50 For
the sake of the audience, the debate was held in German, and for the most part
the exchanges were civil, although tempers flared at one point and the Landgraf
had to intervene.51
Luther opened the public debate by describing reports of the heresies taught
in Zurich, Basel, and Strasbourg. Oecolampadius responded that he had never
taught such errors, while Zwingli said that misunderstandings concerning
291
his teaching had been cleared up during his meeting with Melanchthon.52 He
suggested that the disputants focus on the Lord’s Supper, and the other topics
could be discussed at the end of the colloquy.53 This would indeed be the proce-
dure followed. In four sessions over two days, Luther upheld the Wittenberg posi-
tion, while Oecolampadius and Zwingli shared the defense of the sacramentarian
position. Melanchthon, Andreas Osiander, and Johannes Brenz also contributed
to the discussion, but the authors of the eye-witness reports focused on Luther
and did not consider the others important enough to describe more than one or
two interventions from each.54
The debate itself was a rehash of familiar arguments.55 The central question
was one of exegesis, resting on the different hermeneutical assumptions of Luther
and Erasmus. Luther famously began by writing “this is my body” on the table
in chalk, and over the course of the debate he returned repeatedly to the literal
understanding of those words. Oecolampadius defended his figurative interpre-
tation by citing other examples of figurative language in scripture, while Zwingli
argued that focusing on one verse to the exclusion of all others led to heresy.
Against Luther, Oecolampadius’s first argument was the need to move from
carnal to spiritual manducation. Luther agreed about the importance of spiritual
eating, but he asserted that this did not therefore exclude the bodily eating of
Christ’s flesh and blood. When the Swiss questioned the usefulness and neces-
sity of eating Christ’s physical body, Luther responded that Christians should not
question Christ’s command but simply submit reason to faith.56 The disputants
also addressed the power of the word in relation to the sacrament. Zwingli
brought up Melanchthon’s agreement with him that words could only signify. In
response Luther emphasized the power of God’s word, which could effect what
was signified. The Swiss cited the church fathers, especially Augustine, to support
their position, but Luther challenged their interpretation, asserted that apart
from Augustine the fathers all supported the Wittenbergers, and subordinated
patristic statements to scripture. Luther accepted the Augustinian definition of a
sacrament as a sign of a sacred thing, but he asserted that what was signified in the
Lord’s Supper was God’s promise of forgiveness, not Christ’s body and blood.57
A substantial amount of discussion on Saturday afternoon and Sunday
morning was devoted to arguing whether Christ’s body could be in more than
one place at a time. In addition to citing the usual scriptural and patristic proof
texts about Christ’s ascension into heaven, the Swiss insisted that, like any other
human body, Christ’s body must be in one place. Luther rejected this argument,
asserting that logical arguments about location were irrelevant and that God
had not revealed how Christ’s body was in the bread, so it was not important to
know. At the end of two days of debate, both Luther and Oecolampadius stated
that they had not changed their minds concerning the sacrament, and the public
29
disputation came to an end.58 As the Wittenbergers had predicted before the col-
loquy, each party held to its publicly stated position, and no one had yielded to
his opponents. 59
The failure of one side to vanquish the other forced the focus of the col-
loquy to shift to the question of toleration, which implicitly acknowledged the
unequal authority of the two parties to the dispute. The inferior status of the
sacramentarian delegation was reflected in their behavior: Hedio was inordi-
nately pleased that Melanchthon expressed his pleasure at meeting him using the
formal “you,” while Zwingli was brought to tears at the end of the colloquy when
he stated his desire for friendship with Luther.60 Luther’s personal authority was
evident from beginning to end. He opened the colloquy and bore the brunt of
the debate with the Swiss, and when the public debate was over he was asked
by the Strasbourg politician Jacob Sturm to judge the teachings of that city’s
church. Bucer was allowed to respond to Luther’s accusations of anti-Trinitarian
heresy and other errors, but Luther ultimately refused to pass judgment on his
teachings. In his eyes, the Strasbourgers’ rejection of his understanding of the
Lord’s Supper entailed a rejection of his authority to judge their teaching as a
whole. They were inspired by a different spirit that was diametrically opposed to
what the Wittenbergers taught.61
The Landgraf was understandably reluctant to see the colloquy fail com-
pletely, and so he pressured both parties to reach some kind of agreement. On
Monday, a series of private discussions were held with the goal of composing a
mutually acceptable statement concerning the Lord’s Supper. A union formula
in Oecolampadius’s hand suggests that in fact the two sides had moved closer
together over the course of the public disputation. Both parties agreed that
“through these words (vermög diser wort), ‘this is my body, this is my blood,’ the
body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly, i.e. substantively and essen-
tially, but not quantitatively nor qualitatively nor locally present and given in
the Supper.” Each side then confessed that it had misunderstood the other: the
Wittenbergers by thinking that the Swiss wholly rejected the presence of this
body and blood, and the Swiss by thinking that the Wittenbergers taught that
Christ’s body and blood were present “quantitatively, qualitatively, or locally, ac-
cording to fleshly thoughts.” As a result of the colloquy each party better under-
stood the other, and they clarified that what they had earlier written was directed
against those who either wholly denied the presence of Christ’s body and blood
or who placed them in the bread and wine “in a more massive and imposing
manner and imagination.”62
The formula was a noteworthy effort to explain how Christ’s body and
blood could be present and received by communicants using Aristotelian ter-
minology (i.e., substantially and essentially) but avoiding the concepts of
293
transubstantiation or remanence. In rejecting any local presence, the formula

absolved the Wittenbergers of Oecolampadius’s accusations of impanation
and consubstantiation. It adopted Luther’s insistence on the “true presence”
of Christ’s body and blood, but accommodated the concerns of the Swiss and
Strasbourgers by avoiding mention of either oral manducation or the eating of
the godless—two points that had become important for Luther in response to
the position of the Silesians. As Bucer would later explain, the phrase vermög
diser wort was ambiguous and could mean either “by the power of the word”
(ex virtute verborum) or “according to the word” (iuxta verba). This allowed a
broader understanding of the power of the word than that advocated by Brenz in
the Syngramma and endorsed by the Wittenbergers, but it excluded the extreme
spiritualism of Schwenckfeld and others who attributed no power whatsoever to
the external word. Last but certainly not least, the confession of mutual misun-
derstanding meant that neither side could be accused of changing its teaching
and so implicitly acknowledging that its original position was wrong. This state-
ment of mutual misunderstanding was in essence the way Bucer would later ex-
plain the origins of the controversy and justify his concord efforts. The formula
could be reconciled with the writings of Oecolampadius and the Strasbourgers,
but not with those of Zwingli, and it could be seen as a first attempt to divide
the sacramentarian party. It was ultimately rejected by the Swiss, who felt that its
wording would be hard to explain to the common people.63
In a last effort to salvage something from the colloquy, the Landgraf asked
Luther to draw up a list of articles on which both parties agreed. For this, Luther
revised the Schwabach Articles, a summary of the evangelical faith drafted a few
months earlier by the Wittenberg theologians for a meeting of evangelical es-
tates to discuss a political alliance.64 The Schwabach Articles had three related
goals: to emphasize evangelical orthodoxy in accepting the early church creeds,
to justify evangelical rejection of Catholic teachings on the basis of scripture, and
to clarify the “correct” understanding of those issues on which there was evan-
gelical disagreement. Article Nine stated that baptism consisted of both water
and God’s word. Against the “blasphemers of baptism,” it was not mere water or
the act of pouring water, but “a holy, living, and powerful thing, . . . a bath of re-
birth and renewal of the Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Likewise, against those who saw the
Eucharist or sacrament of the altar as simply bread and wine, Article Ten asserted
that “Christ’s true body and blood were truly present in bread and wine,” in ac-
cordance with Christ’s words, which conveyed and strengthened faith.65
Luther abridged the contents of the Schwabach Articles in light of the
discussions of the past three days, rearranged the order, and removed the polemic
against those who saw the sacraments as mere water or bread and wine.66 The
resulting fifteen Marburg Articles were signed by all the theologians invited to the
294
colloquy, with Luther heading the list of Wittenberg signers and Oecolampadius
leading the Swiss and Strasbourg delegations.67 The articles were printed imme-
diately in the city of Marburg, and reprinted in Wittenberg and Zurich using
the signed copies taken home by participants. Andreas Osiander oversaw the
printing of the articles in Nuremberg, along with a brief preface. All told, there
were seventeen imprints before the end of the year, making the Marburg Articles
the most frequently produced work concerning the Lord’s Supper in 1529.68
The Marburg Articles reflected the two most important results of the col-
loquy. The positive outcome was contained in the first fourteen articles. These
marked out a broad area of evangelical agreement on the Trinity, Christology,
sin, and salvation by faith alone. The articles on the external word and baptism
demonstrate that the differing assumptions of the two parties concerning the re-
lationship between word, Spirit, and the sacraments could be harmonized when
necessary. Article Eight, on the external word, specified that “normally speaking”
the Holy Spirit did not give faith without “the preceding sermon or oral word or
gospel of Christ,” but that it always worked through and with this word to create
faith as it willed. Article Nine, on baptism, specified that baptism was instituted
by God. Because it was God’s command and contained God’s promise “who-
ever believes [sc. and is baptized will be saved;” Mark 16:16], it was more than
a mere sign but was also God’s work requiring faith, through which Christians
were reborn.69 Article Fifteen, on the Lord’s Supper, was carefully balanced to
obscure the remaining differences and to stress agreement: both sides endorsed
communion in both kinds and held that “the sacrament of the altar was a sacra-
ment of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the spiritual eating of that
same body and blood was chiefly necessary for each Christian; likewise, that the
use of the sacrament, like the word, was given and instituted by God the almighty
to move weak consciences to faith through the Holy Spirit.”70 The Wittenbergers
accepted small modifications to Luther’s original wording of three of the articles
in order to grant more freedom to the working of the Spirit.71 Thus, the article
on the external word preserved the Wittenberg emphasis on the external means
of the word, but the qualification “normally speaking” made possible a looser
connection between word and Spirit to reflect the position of the Swiss and
Strasbourgers. The acceptance of these articles showed that despite disagreements
in emphasis and interpretation, both sides could endorse a common evangelical
position.
The negative result of the colloquy was buried in the midst of Article Fifteen,
in the admission that the two sides still disagreed over whether “the true body and
blood of Christ were bodily in the bread and wine.” The statement that each side
would “show Christian love to the other insofar as their consciences would allow,”
could not hide the fact that the evangelicals could not agree regarding Christ’s
295
bodily presence. Oecolampadius had complained that the Wittenbergers made

Christ’s bodily presence an article of the faith; in effect, Article Fifteen confirmed
that view. In a letter to his wife written at the end of the colloquy, Luther repeated
the virtual sentence of excommunication he had imposed in his response to the
Strasbourgers in November 1525: “we do not want them as brothers and members
[of Christ], although we wish them peace and good things.”72
Significantly, and in contrast to the union formula rejected by the Swiss, the
Marburg Articles did not contain a statement that acknowledged a mutual mis-
understanding, and it soon became apparent that the Wittenbergers regarded
their opponents’ acceptance of the articles as a surrender of previously held
positions.73 Their statements conceal the fact that there were actually two dis-
tinct issues discussed in Marburg: the ability of the sacraments to convey grace,
and the presence of Christ’s true body and blood in the bread and wine. The am-
biguous phrasing of the articles concerning the sacraments obscured important
differences among the representatives of Basel, Strasbourg, and Zurich, and it
reflects the fact that Oecolampadius, and not Zwingli, was the senior member of
the sacramentarian delegation.
From the beginning of the controversy, both Oecolampadius and Bucer had
admitted that the sacraments could convey grace, and so they could accept the
formulation of the Marburg Articles. This distinguished them from Zwingli,
however. The Zurich reformer’s explanation of the articles to his congregation
after returning home reveals his discomfort with the agreement reached at
Marburg. He singled out the statement that faith was a gift of God, created by the
Holy Spirit, as the core of the agreement, and then concluded that forgiveness of
sins was not given through the sacraments. Although Zwingli could acknowledge
that the preached word was used as an instrument, he stressed the independent
agency of the Spirit. With regard to Article Fifteen, he emphasized his own un-
derstanding of “sacrament” as a sign of Christ’s true body and not that body itself.
Again he asserted that the Holy Spirit alone illuminated the heart and justified
by faith. The Lord’s Supper was to be used as Christ instituted it: to remember
and to proclaim his death and to give praise and thanksgiving to God for that
death. 74 In his personal statement of faith sent to Emperor Charles V at the Diet
of Augsburg in the summer of 1530, Zwingli would again reject the claim that the
sacraments conveyed or dispensed grace and emphasize instead that grace was a
gift of the Spirit alone. His confession can be seen as a repudiation of the agree-
ment he may have felt pressured to accept at Marburg.75
Even if Oecolampadius and the Strasbourgers could agree with the
Wittenbergers and against Zwingli that the sacraments could convey grace,
though, the sacramentarians remained united on the question of whether
the bread and wine could in any way contain Christ’s body and blood. As a
296
consequence, the Marburg Colloquy failed to achieve the goal for which it had
been called. It was not, however, a complete failure. It is commonly accepted
that the colloquy brought an end to public polemics over the Lord’s Supper,
although this needs to be qualified.76 In fact, the number of publications con-
cerning the sacrament had peaked at the time of the 1527 spring book fair, while
the treatises of Luther and the Swiss reformers published in 1527–28 were the
last major contributions to the public debate, even though lesser-known figures,
particularly Kaspar Schwenckfeld, continued to publish works on the sacrament.
As earlier chapters have shown, however, the discussion of the Lord’s Supper was
already shifting away from public exchanges into other genres written not to per-
suade one’s opponents but, rather, to confirm one’s supporters and to teach chil-
dren and the common people what they should believe. There would, in fact,
be at least 141 publications that addressed the Lord’s Supper produced in 1530, a
slight increase over the 129 works printed in 1529. The largest share of these would
be catechisms and confessions.77
More important, the Marburg Colloquy brought a major change to the de-
bate over the Lord’s Supper. It initiated a process of private negotiation out of the
public limelight that had as its goal the formulation of a statement on the sacra-
ment that could be accepted by all sides. This was a fundamentally different type
of discussion from that of the first five years of the Eucharistic controversy. Just as
important, the Marburg Articles set a precedent as the first published statement
of evangelical beliefs signed by theologians as official representatives of their
churches. The articles failed to establish a common understanding of the Lord’s
Supper, and so they had little doctrinal impact. Nevertheless, they initiated a pro-
cess that would be repeated over the next few decades, as each side produced its
own confessions of faith. The Augsburg Confession would become normative for
the evangelical cities and territories within the Holy Roman Empire, while the
proto-Reformed produced a number of official confessional statements, whether
broad summaries of their faith, such as the Basel Confession of 1534, or focused
primarily on the Lord’s Supper, such as the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549.
The Marburg Colloquy can therefore be seen as marking the emergence of a
new locus of evangelical authority. Although Luther was clearly the dominant
figure at Marburg, the articles that resulted were signed by all the colloquy’s
official participants. Reflecting a consensus among their signers, confessions
of faith provided an alternative to the personal authority of Luther or any
other individual. They brought clarification to doctrine, but they also set
boundaries by defining what was considered orthodoxy, and they provided
the standard for the creation of confessional identities and the reshaping of
society according to confessional norms.78 The early confessions did not end
the evangelical crisis of authority, nor did they replace the personal authority
297
of leading reformers, but they were the first step in that direction. From this
point on, confessions would gradually assume an authoritative role in the def-
inition of orthodoxy for the magisterial Protestant churches. The Marburg
Colloquy can thus be seen as ending the first phase of the Reformation debate
over the sacraments and introducing a new stage of the controversy, one that
lies beyond the parameters of this study.
298
Conclusion
This study has argued that the early Reformation debate over the sacraments
brought about a crisis of authority within the evangelical movement. The conflict
had its roots in differences between Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam re-
garding both the relationship of material and spiritual things and the proper ap-
proach to interpreting the Bible; it also reflected their disagreements concerning
the exegesis of specific scripture passages. The differences between Erasmus and
the Wittenbergers developed through the early 1520s, but they did not become
public until the printing of Karlstadt’s pamphlets on the Lord’s Supper in the fall
of 1524. Those pamphlets prompted the reformers of Zurich, Basel, Strasbourg,
and Silesia to enter into a public debate concerning the sacrament. All of them
shared Erasmus’s ontological presuppositions and hermeneutical approach to
scripture, and they endorsed his specific exegetical decisions.
The printed debate began over the specific question of whether Christ’s
body and blood were corporeally present in the bread and wine, but it quickly
broadened to include the meaning and proper use of the Lord’s Supper, the re-
lationship between Christ’s divine and human natures, and the definition and
purpose of the sacraments more generally. Separatist Anabaptists and some
sacramentarians who downplayed the value of externals deepened the crisis by
calling into question the practice of infant baptism. The medium of print played
a crucial role in fanning the controversy, not only by enabling public exchanges
between individual contributors but also by allowing the production of works
on the sacraments aimed at every level of society, from the learned Latin elite to
the illiterate peasants. The Marburg Colloquy brought together the leaders of
the two factions within the evangelical movement, but it could not resolve their
differences. Instead, it laid the foundation for further developments by changing
the focus of the debate and by initiating a process that ultimately recognized
confessions rather than personal authority as the arbiter in conflicts over the in-
terpretation of scripture. By way of conclusion, this chapter will look at each of
29
Conclusion 299
the three aspects highlighted here: print, sacramental theology, and the problem
of authority.
The Role of Print

It is a truism to say that printing contributed to the success of the Reformation
in Germany, but this study has revealed the weaknesses as well as the strengths of
print in the dissemination of evangelical ideas. The theological quarrel over the
Lord’s Supper was made possible by the availability of the printed word to spread
one’s own views and attack those of opponents, but reliance on the printing
press meant that the public debate was not controlled exclusively by reformers.
Controversy generates sales, and the profits to be made from the debate over the
Lord’s Supper influenced the decisions printers made about which works they
printed and what paratext they included. Translators and editors were necessary
to make publications available beyond their original audience, but their work
could introduce changes to the original texts, and the polemical level of the de-
bate increased as it spread to less literate levels of society. Print was not a medium
that could be controlled by any of the participants in the debate but, instead, was
itself a factor that shaped the debate.
Luther’s massive influence on the controversy is evident from the dominance
of his works in the print market. The absolute number of Luther imprints may
have declined in the second half of the 1520s, but his printed works on the Lord’s
Supper retained the same overall share of the market that they had held in the
first half of the decade, and they were the only works on the sacrament reprinted
in large quantities. Significantly, those pamphlets most frequently reprinted
were Luther’s short sermons from before the outbreak of the controversy, not
the much longer and more fully developed treatises written in the later 1520s.
The early works advocated an understanding of the sacrament as sign or symbol,
and this may have had some influence on both the popular understanding of the
Lord’s Supper and the concord efforts of the early 1530s.
Print was essential for spreading ideas and arguments over a long distance,
and the frequent reprinting of Luther’s works in many different places enabled
their broad distribution throughout German-speaking lands. Luther was the ex-
ception, however. The limited size of print runs and the small number of reprints
of works by other contributors meant that their tracts, especially those written
in German, probably did not circulate to any great extent beyond a regional
level. Vernacular contributions to the debate that were printed in Augsburg or
Strasbourg could be spread through southern Germany, especially along trade
routes to other cities with a high proportion of literate inhabitants, but it is likely
that only a relatively small number of the sacramentarian pamphlets printed in
30
the south spread into central and northern Germany. As a result, sacramentarian
ideas do not seem to have had much impact on the north until the end of the
decade. Even then, the most important factor for the spread of sacramentarian
ideas in northern Germany was not the printed works of the Swiss or South
German reformers but, instead, the presence of Melchior Hoffman and Andreas
Karlstadt in Schleswig-Holstein and East Frisia. The Silesians also had more in-
fluence in these areas than is generally recognized.
Language was also an issue in the diffusion of sacramentarian works. Luther’s
German was becoming standard in the Holy Roman Empire, but Zwingli’s ver-
nacular works were written in a Swiss German that was unfamiliar to those out-
side of Switzerland, which lessened their impact. Zwingli’s Latin works, as well
as their translations into more standard German, may have been more important
for spreading the Zurich reformer’s ideas outside Switzerland than were his own
vernacular writings. Basel would be important for bridging the gap between the
Swiss dialect and other versions of the vernacular. The city’s printers had long had
ties to markets in the Empire, and many of its printers were themselves German.
They were therefore sensitive to the impact of language on readership. When the
Basel printer Adam Petri published Luther’s translation of the New Testament
in March of 1523, he included a glossary for those expressions not familiar to a
local audience.1 Oecolampadius was from Swabia, while Ludwig Hätzer worked
for printers in Augsburg and could accommodate his language to the South
German standard. The difference between the language of Hätzer’s translation of
Oecolampadius’s Genuine Exposition and that spoken in Zurich was significant
enough that the printer Christoph Froschauer felt he needed to apologize to his
readers for printing the work in the “common language of foreigners” so that it
could be understood by those not accustomed to the Swiss dialect.2 As a con-
sequence, Oecolampadius’s vernacular treatises were probably more effective at
reaching a wide audience throughout the Empire than were those of Zwingli. The
Wittenbergers’ virtual monopoly on Low German publications, and especially
the contributions of Johannes Bugenhagen, helped ensure that their views, and
not those of the sacramentarians, would dominate in northern Germany.
Regional differences in urbanization and literacy rates were another signifi-
cant factor in determining the dissemination and acceptance of sacramentarian
teachings. The many students and refugee priests who came to Wittenberg to
study and then became pastors in central and northern Germany may have
been far more important than printed works for disseminating the Wittenberg
understanding of the sacraments to their parishioners. The genres used by the
Wittenberg party, especially sermons and catechisms, reflect their aware-
ness of the need to instruct the bulk of the population that was illiterate. Pro-
Wittenberg authors such as Andreas Althamer and Andreas Flamm wrote
301
Conclusion 301
vernacular pamphlets that relied on repetition, simplified language, and greater

use of imagery to convey Luther’s understanding of the sacrament to the less lit-
erate. In contrast, sacramentarian authors, located in the more urbanized areas of
southern Germany and Switzerland, wrote primarily for more highly educated
lay men in the towns. This was the group from which most of them came and
with whom they had daily contact. Significantly, those sacramentarian works that
had the most popular tone were also the most anticlerical, and their authors fell at
the radical end of the sacramentarian spectrum.
Where sacramentarian ideas were slow to spread, whether owing to lan-
guage or lower rates of literacy, print could be used to hinder the acceptance of
sacramentarian teaching. Pro-Wittenberg pastors were in a position to inculcate
the Wittenberg position and provide arguments to counter their opponents be-
fore their illiterate parishioners were exposed to sacramentarian ideas. Perhaps
the single most effective use of print was the production of catechisms, pre-
communion examination questions, and portions of the liturgy that taught the
Wittenberg understanding of the sacraments. These ephemeral publications
penetrated to the lower strata of society in a way that the more sophisticated
pamphlets could not. Print publicized new ideas more broadly, but it could also
be used effectively to defend older positions—a fact that also hindered the spread
of evangelical ideas outside Germany.3
The consequences of censorship, in preventing both the printing of works and
the sale of those printed elsewhere, also need to be taken seriously. It is true that
censorship policies could be only sporadically enforced and were often ineffec-
tive, but the frequency of complaints from the reformers of Zurich, Basel, and
Strasbourg suggests that they did have a real impact. Aside from the official cen-
sorship of the authorities, there was the market-determined self-censorship of the
printers themselves, who would not produce works that they feared would not
sell. The contrast between the outpouring of publications on the Lord’s Supper
and the almost complete silence concerning baptism testifies to the power of the
alliance between printers and magisterial sacramentarians, since that alliance was
not possible for Anabaptists. The differentiated application of censorship also
reflects the boundaries of acceptable theological discourse. Karlstadt’s pamphlets
broke the taboo against rejecting Christ’s bodily presence, and those cities where
printers, pastors, and magistrates were won to the sacramentarian cause became
centers of distribution for the new ideas. There was no corresponding outpouring
of pamphlets concerning baptism or other doctrines deemed fundamental to the
faith, such as the Trinity. This suggests that attacks on belief in Christ’s bodily
presence were more acceptable than those on infant baptism or Christ’s divinity,
and that those in power, and perhaps the populace more broadly, did not regard
that presence to be as central a doctrine to the Christian faith as the medieval
302
church had taught. Arguments from silence need to be used with caution, but
the willingness of printers to produce works against Christ’s bodily presence after
1524 may reflect an underlying skepticism about transubstantiation that had been
kept in check by the fear of persecution up to that time.
Even as late as 1527 some authors were reluctant to reject explicitly in print
Christ’s bodily presence. Such caution was certainly justified in the very early years
of the debate, as Karlstadt’s experience illustrates, and individuals like Johannes
Bader who lived outside of the protection offered by the large imperial cities may
have felt some threat from Catholic authorities in neighboring territories. These
authors indicated their difference with Luther not by discussing Christ’s bodily
presence but by describing the purpose of the Lord’s Supper as an opportunity for
remembrance, proclamation, thanksgiving, and public profession of membership
in Christ’s mystical body, the church. There was nothing inherently controversial
about this position, but it did not recognize the chief purpose that Luther gave
to the sacrament, the personal reassurance of forgiveness. Ultimately, the under-
standing of the sacrament’s purpose served as another marker of disagreement
between the two parties.
Last but certainly not least, print was not a uniformly reliable means of
disseminating ideas. The Augsburg printing of Psalm 111 purportedly by
Bugenhagen and Jud’s pseudonymous pamphlet citing the agreement between
Erasmus and Luther show how authors and printers used the authority of
Wittenberg to support their own sacramentarian positions. Again, this was
a practice that dated from the early years of the Reformation, when printers
in the cities of South Germany put “Wittenberg” on the title pages of the
pamphlets they reprinted. Strikingly, Bugenhagen was the individual to whom
these non-Wittenberg works were most often attributed. The only recourse
that Luther’s colleague had was to reject the false attributions in his own
published works, as he did with both Bucer’s version of the Psalms commen-
tary and the lost Nikolsburg pamphlet on the Lord’s Supper that he rejected
in his Public Confession. In his publication of the Flensburg disputation acts,
Bugenhagen also repudiated a pamphlet on baptism that was attributed to
him on its title page.4
Similarly, print did not guarantee the accuracy of transmission as one
author’s ideas were translated or popularized for another audience. There was
in fact something like an early modern version of the game of telephone, where
the initial message is distorted through the process of transmission. Moreover,
as the criticisms of Karlstadt’s exegesis of “this is my body” and Eck’s attack on
Conrad Sam both demonstrate, contributors to the debate could draw their un-
derstanding of an opponent’s position not from his own works but from attacks
on him by others. This opened the door to misrepresentation even beyond that
30
Conclusion 303
introduced by selective quotation from an opponent’s writings and the ad ho-

minem attacks that were a regular part of such exchanges. The cases of Karlstadt
and Sam also illustrate how misconceptions promoted by opponents in the 1520s
have persisted up to the present.
The Sacraments and the Division of

the Evangelical Movement
Just as medieval discussions of the Eucharist pushed the development of sacra-
mental theology more broadly, so the evangelical debate over the Lord’s Supper
contributed to the formulation of different views of the sacraments in general.
Before the outbreak of the controversy, Luther had defined a sacrament as a sign
that confirmed God’s promise and was received in faith, but after 1525 he avoided
the word “sign” and spoke instead of God’s word joined with the elements of
water and of bread and wine. The understanding of sacraments as signs had a long
and venerable tradition going back to Augustine, but it became controversial as
a result of the evangelical debate. If a sacrament was “a sign of a holy thing,” did
that sign only signify, or could it also contain what it signified? Could it effect or
convey anything, or did it merely represent something? Last but not least, what
was the sign, and what precisely did it signify? Too often, later discussions of the
Eucharistic controversy have been distorted by the failure to pay careful attention
to how precisely the language of sign and signified was used in any given text.
To simplify somewhat, the Wittenbergers followed the development of
medieval scholastic theology in understanding the sacrament to be a sign that
conveyed spiritual benefit. The rite as a whole signified something; in contrast
(and in agreement with medieval teaching), the elements of bread and wine did
not merely signify Christ’s body and blood, they were Christ’s body and blood. In
scholastic thought, as for Erasmus, the sacrament as a whole signified the com-
munion of Christians with each other as members of Christ’s mystical body and
with Christ himself as their head, and in the early 1520s Luther could describe
those who received the sacrament as “one bread” with Christ and with fellow
Christians.5 After the outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy, however, the
whole notion of sign became problematic for the Wittenbergers, and accordingly
it became less prominent in their thought. They now spoke more readily of God’s
word added to the elements, whether water or bread and wine, than they did
about signs.
The sacramentarians, in contrast, shunned the medieval discussion of signs
and drew directly on Augustine, especially his On Christian Doctrine. The term
“sacramentarian,” intended by the Wittenbergers as an insult, highlighted their
understanding of “sacrament” as something that only signified but did not convey
304
or contain anything more. In opposition particularly to Brenz’s insistence that

Christ’s body was brought to the bread through the word, Oecolampadius devel-
oped an understanding of sign and signified that emphasized their distinction.
This led him to address the connection between external and internal, matter and
spirit. He acknowledged that the Holy Spirit could use externals to convey grace,
but that connection was not automatic, and he contested Brenz’s claim that the
word could bring anything substantial into the bread.
The chief contributors to the sacramentarian position were all strongly
influenced by Erasmus, but their discussions of the Lord’s Supper differed some-
what in approach and emphasis. Zwingli’s equation of “is” with “signifies” fo-
cused on the bread as a sign, but it did not have the same theological meaning
as Oecolampadius’s understanding of the bread as a figure of Christ’s body,
which drew from the rich tradition of patristic and medieval discussions of fig-
ures and types. One of the significant differences between the Swiss reformers,
corresponding to their formal theological education, was that while Zwingli
approached scripture primarily as a philologist and rhetorician concerned with
the proper linguistic understanding of the text, Oecolampadius also approached
it as an academic theologian with a deeper awareness of the long exegetical tradi-
tion with its emphasis on figures, even as he rejected some of it. Zwingli’s polem-
ical works against the Wittenbergers published from 1527 onward reflect what he
learned from his reading of both Oecolampadius’s and Karlstadt’s works and how
he integrated their ideas into his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper.
While Oecolampadius elaborated on his understanding of the sacraments in
debate with the Wittenbergers over the Lord’s Supper and tried to find some
accommodation with them, Zwingli developed his position through 1526 in con-
flict primarily with Catholics and Anabaptists. Because Eck’s first thesis in the
Baden disputation emphasized the “true presence” of Christ’s body and blood,
rather than transubstantiation more specifically, Zwingli’s refutation of that thesis
was an attack on the Wittenberg position as well. In contrast to Oecolampadius’s
willingness to acknowledge a link between the working of the Spirit and the ma-
terial elements of bread and wine, Zwingli moved away from any acknowledg-
ment of a link between spiritual and material, internal and external. In his debate
with the Anabaptists, Zwingli developed his understanding of the sacraments as
obligating signs (Pflichtzeichen), external ceremonies that publicly attested to
one’s membership in the community of believers. What gave these external cere-
monies their significance was their ability to define the visible church, which in-
cluded infants as well as adults, hypocrites as well as genuine Christians. Zwingli
differed from the Anabaptists in believing that external ceremonies had no neces-
sary connection to faith: infants could be baptized, for God gave faith when and
to whom he chose, and hypocrites could receive the Lord’s Supper, although in
305
Conclusion 305
doing so they made themselves liable to judgment. He did not explicitly discuss
predestination in connection with the sacraments in his early works, but this
doctrine underlay his understanding of the priority of the Spirit’s working, and
he often cited John 6:44 (“No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father
who sent me.”) in his discussion of each sacrament.6 One can therefore see in the
disagreement over the sacraments in the 1520s the roots of one of the doctrines
that would later distinguish Lutherans and Reformed. Both emphasized the pri-
ority of divine grace, but while the former understood the sacraments as pro-
viding personal assurance of salvation, the Reformed developed the doctrine of
predestination.
Like Zwingli, Kaspar Schwenckfeld rejected any necessary connection be-
tween the spiritual and material, but unlike either Zwingli or the Anabaptists,
he did not consider it necessary to identify a visible community of believers. The
Silesians envisioned the relationship between the external and internal as that
of image or representation and reality; rather than a connection, they saw a par-
allel between external ceremonies and the internal working of the Spirit. Because
there was no necessary connection between external and internal, the sacraments
could offer no certainty of God’s forgiveness or personal assurance to those trou-
bled by their sins, which completely emptied them of the value ascribed to them
by the Wittenbergers.
Whereas Zwingli and the Silesians firmly rejected the Wittenberg under-
standing of the Lord’s Supper, the Strasbourg reformers took another tack.
Influenced by Erasmus, they downplayed the disagreement over Christ’s bodily
presence and presented it as a secondary doctrine that allowed for differences
of opinion. This does not mean they were uncommitted in the controversy,
however. Bucer’s earliest discussions of the sacrament show how strongly he
was influenced by the views of Hoen, Karlstadt, and especially Oecolampadius.
Capito was more reticent, and his contributions to the debate were for the most
part published either anonymously or in the name of Strasbourg’s preachers.
Attractive as it might be to modern sensibilities, the Strasbourgers’ plea for tol-
eration would fall on deaf ears. The Wittenbergers believed that scripture taught
the presence of Christ’s body and blood, and calling this a nonessential point of
doctrine was therefore to distort and undermine scripture itself. Moreover, be-
cause they believed that the sacraments played a vital role in assuring repentant
sinners of their forgiveness, they could not consider them to be of only sec-
ondary importance. Bucer’s concord efforts in the 1530s were therefore intended
to find a broad agreement concerning the sacraments. In contrast, Zwingli’s suc-
cessor Heinrich Bullinger would become the most outspoken advocate for the
toleration of disagreement concerning the Lord’s Supper—although not con-
cerning infant baptism.
306
The early development of what would become the two magisterially supported
confessions followed different models. The pro-Wittenberg position can be
seen as a set of concentric circles forming around Luther’s understanding of the
Lord’s Supper. Luther’s early discussions of the sacrament up through Against
the Heavenly Prophets from early 1525 were at the center. Around this core, other
authors developed arguments for Christ’s bodily presence and explanations of
the Lord’s Supper that furthered the development of a general Wittenberg po-
sition. The most important of these was Johannes Brenz, whose Syngramma was
actively promoted by the Wittenbergers. Luther’s treatises from 1527–28 and his
1529 catechisms defined the outer boundary and set limits to the whole.7
Luther’s authority within the evangelical movement gave the broader
Wittenberg understanding of the Lord’s Supper an internal coherence and con-
sistency that the sacramentarians could not match. What became the proto-
Reformed position developed gradually and had no single center. Instead, the
reformers of Basel, Strasbourg, Zurich, and Silesia each contributed to its for-
mation. There was a good deal of overlap, especially in their common rejection
of Christ’s bodily presence, but each “school” had its own particular concerns
and emphases, which allowed for a broader range of positions but also possible
tensions between them.
The proto-Reformed position took shape in opposition to Luther and
his followers, and this determined the questions that were discussed and the
answers that were given. The earliest expression of the sacramentarian posi-
tion owed much to Erasmian exegesis and Hussite arguments against transub-
stantiation, adapted to attack Luther’s perceived teaching of impanation. The
pamphlets of Hoen and Karlstadt were particularly important for introducing
older arguments against Christ’s bodily presence to the literate public. Only
over the course of the ensuing debate did sacramentarian writers develop a
common theology that not only opposed Christ’s corporeal presence in the
Lord’s Supper but also gave a more positive understanding of the purpose of
the Lord’s Supper and of the sacraments more generally. The variation among
the sacramentarians can most easily be understood as developing along two
axes, and in both cases Zwingli’s early works formed one pole of the axis. In
other words, his understanding of the Lord’s Supper cannot be thought of as
either normative or at the center of the sacramentarian position. It was in-
stead at its edge, and it had significant similarities with those Anabaptists who
saw no link between external acts and the internal actions of the Spirit. The
positions advocated in Basel and Strasbourg were closer to the center, which
meant that Zwingli and his Zurich successors either had to adopt this more
centrist position or face marginalization. Here lay the source of the later
tensions between Geneva and Zurich in sacramental theology.
307
Conclusion 307
The first axis concerned the range between the individual and the corpo-
rate significance of the Lord’s Supper. Like his former colleagues in Wittenberg,
Karlstadt stressed the importance of the sacrament for individual believers. He
rejected Luther’s view of the sacrament as assurance of forgiveness and comfort
to troubled consciences, however, and emphasized instead the internal heartfelt
remembrance of Christ’s death.8 He showed very little concern for the sacra-
ment as a communal experience. At the opposite end of this spectrum, Zwingli
said virtually nothing about the sacrament’s role in an individual’s spiritual life
in his publications from 1525. He described it instead as an external communal
rite: by participating in it, believers testified to their membership in the church
and their fellowship with each other, and the congregation proclaimed and gave
thanks for Christ’s death.9 This position was reflected in the preference for the
term Eucharist, translated as “thanksgiving,” in works emanating from Zurich.10
As the debate developed, others would combine these two emphases, so that par-
ticipation in the sacrament could have both individual and corporate elements,
described in terms of remembrance, thanksgiving, testimony, and proclamation
of Christ’s death.
The second axis concerned the relationship between sacramental and spir-
itual communion. At the end of 1524, Luther, Karlstadt, and Zwingli all agreed
that Christ’s discussion of eating his flesh in John 6 had no relation to the Lord’s
Supper.11 Christ had said that those who ate of his flesh and drank of his blood
had eternal life ( John 6:54). Since many unrepentant sinners received com-
munion, this promise could not refer to the sacramental bread and wine. In his
first two published contributions to the debate, Zwingli separated sacramental
and spiritual communion completely. The spiritual eating that Christ spoke of
in John 6 concerned faith, pure and simple. The association of John 6 with the
Eucharist was a long-established part of the exegetical tradition, however, and
it was central to Erasmus’s understanding of the sacrament, so others were not
so quick to reject it. Oecolampadius argued that John 6 did not concern sacra-
mental eating directly, but he could acknowledge a looser connection between
the two. In his response to Billican, for instance, he cited Chrysostom to the ef-
fect that seeing the sacramental bread should cause one to think of the bread of
life, which was signified by that bread.12 The Strasbourg reformers were much
more explicit about the link between sacramental and spiritual communion. In
his 1526 Apology, Bucer argued that when communicants accepted the bread and
ate by mouth, at the same time they could know that Christ gave his flesh to eat
by faith.13 The Silesian exegesis of “this is my body” made explicit reference to
John 6, and Schwenckfeld emphasized the parallel between the spiritual eating
of Christ’s true body through faith by believers and the physical reception of “the
bread of the Lord” in the sacramental rite.14 This development was important, for
308
it allowed, although it did not require, an understanding of the Lord’s Supper as

imparting some spiritual benefit to believers. The question then became whether
sacramental communion conveyed that benefit, as the Strasbourgers were willing
to grant, or merely represented it, as the Silesians insisted.
If spiritual communion was an integral part of the sacrament, there was a
vertical aspect linking communicants to God, and not just a horizontal aspect
linking them to each other. This was not the same as Luther’s early understanding
of a sacrament as God’s promise of forgiveness joined with a sign, but it did open
a path to dialogue once attention shifted from whether Christ’s substantial body
was present in the elements to what, if anything, Christians received in the sac-
rament and how they received it. The shift in focus did not occur until close to
the end of the decade, however, and by that time it would be complicated by the
disagreement over Christology.
Judging from the frequency of its use, one of the sacramentarian party’s most
persuasive arguments was that Christ’s body was located in heaven, at the right
hand of the Father, and therefore it could not be present in the bread and wine.
Wolfgang Capito emphasized the location of Christ’s body in his catechism, and
Zwingli would explicitly link it to his discussion of Christ’s divine and human
natures in his Amicable Exegesis. This argument clearly appealed to those out-
side the educated elite. Radical sacramentarian authors in Augsburg used it in
their pamphlets, and Urbanus Rhegius attested to its reception in garbled form.
Rhegius described a conversation with a man who could not read but who chal-
lenged his claim that Christ’s body and blood were present in the Lord’s Supper
by citing “Our father, who art in heaven,” and then asking, ““if he is in heaven,
how can he be at the same time on earth? For if I am here with you, how could
I who speak with you be at the same time outside of the city?”15 Luther considered
the location of Christ’s body in heaven to be one of his opponents’ strongest
arguments, and he would devote a large part of his treatises from 1527 and 1528
to countering it. By the end of the decade, Christology would be as important an
issue dividing the two parties as the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the
Eucharist.
One striking aspect of the early debate over the presence of Christ’s body in the
bread and wine is the stark polarity of the two sides. Most contributors described
only two positions: either the elements were Christ’s substantial body and blood
in Aristotelian terms, or they were mere bread and wine. Rhegius’s illiterate in-
terlocutor expressed his amazement that the “littlest doctors” did not under-
stand what was obvious to artisans—that “bread is bread.”16 The sacramentarians
accused the Wittenbergers of teaching the impanation of Christ’s body and
worshiping a “bready god,” while the Wittenbergers responded by charging that
their opponents reduced the sacrament to a common meal. What distinguished
309
Conclusion 309
moderate from radical sacramentarians in these early years was not what the
elements were; it was how they were handled, whether set apart or consecrated
and distributed in a public worship service, or consumed among a close circle
within private homes. To the Wittenberg party, however, this was a distinction
without a difference: in both cases, the elements were desacralized. If it was not
Christ’s substantial body, it was only bread.
This polarity was not foreordained. In fact, Luther and Erasmus both held
positions somewhere between these two extremes. In the Babylonian Captivity,
Luther had criticized the use of Aristotle in theology and said it was necessary to
believe only that Christ’s body was truly present, not to adopt a particular under-
standing of that presence. In 1522, he could accept the position of the Bohemian
Brethren, although he criticized it for its unscriptural language.17 Throughout
his conflict with Konrad Pellikan and Leo Jud, Erasmus also defended the true
presence of Christ’s body without endorsing transubstantiation. The two men
may have held different understandings of what precisely was meant by the “true
presence” of Christ’s body and blood, but there was room for finding mutually
acceptable terminology. In the early years of the controversy, however, there was
little interest in compromise or agreement. Instead, participants on each side
upheld the truth of their own position and condemned that of their opponents.
Only at the end of the decade, and then only in response to growing political
pressure, was there a more constructive discussion of how Christ’s body could be
present in the elements in some way other than substantially or corporeally. And
even then, the Swiss reformers pointed to the difficulty of explaining Christ’s true
presence in a way that the common people could understand.
This study of the early evangelical debate concerning the sacraments has implic-
itly demonstrated the way historical paradigms shape the way we look at the past. The
older confessional narrative was established by Heinrich Bullinger and his successors
in Zurich to defend Zwingli’s orthodoxy and to distance the founder of Zurich’s
church from more radical dissenters. Their accounts placed Zwingli at the center
of the debate and marginalized the other major contributors to the sacramentarian
position. As part of his concord efforts through the 1530s Martin Bucer propagated a
different understanding of the early conflict, stressing each party’s misunderstanding
of the other’s position, and Jean Calvin echoed that interpretation in his 1541 Short
Treatise on the Lord’s Supper. The alliance between the Genevan and Zurich churches
created by the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549 and Strasbourg’s movement toward
Lutheranism over the second half of the sixteenth century caused Bucer’s alternative
to Bullinger’s interpretation of events to be forgotten, however, and the Zurich-cen-
tered narrative became the established one.18 Only by moving away from that nar-
rative and broadening the perspective to include both evangelical sacraments and
all the contributions to the debate can we appreciate the diversity among those who
310
disagreed with the Wittenbergers’ understanding of the sacraments and their un-
derlying unity in the influence of Erasmus. Disagreement over the Lord’s Supper,
and over the sacraments more generally, may not have been inevitable, but it was an
integral part of the early Reformation.
Authority and the Early Reformation

Looking at the early Reformation through the lens of authority offers a new un-
derstanding of the movement’s origins and its diversity. The emphasis on Luther’s
doctrine of justification by faith alone as the underpinning of the Reformation
has unnecessarily narrowed our view of the theological developments. Luther
may have regarded justification by faith alone as the doctrine by which the church
stands or falls, but he came to his understanding of that doctrine through his
study of the Bible, and according to church law he became a heretic when he
refused to submit to the authority of Rome. The consequences of his commit-
ment to the sole authority of scripture were seen most clearly and immediately in
his rejection of the medieval sacramental system.19
If the theological core of the Reformation is defined not as the positive adop-
tion of a particular doctrine but, rather, as a broader rejection of the teaching au-
thority of the Roman church, the contributions of both Erasmian humanism and
Wittenberg theology to the movement become more clear. The earliest reformers
rejected the Roman church’s monopoly on the interpretation of scripture, but
despite their rhetoric, they did not genuinely advocate a radically democratic ap-
proach to the Bible. As in the late medieval church, scripture was to be explained
by experts prepared for its study. That preparation was no longer obtained through
years of studying philosophy and scholastic theology, however; it came instead
through training in the sacred languages and in the tools of textual analysis.
In the very early years of the Reformation two different approaches to the
Bible and church reform took shape, centered in Basel and Wittenberg respec-
tively. The Bible humanism of Erasmus was not simply a preparatory phase
succeeded by a Reformation based on Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith;
instead, it continued to offer an alternative way of interpreting the Bible even after
the Wittenberg reformers began publishing their own commentaries. Erasmus
and his many followers advocated a reform of popular piety and the practical
Christian life based on the humanist identification of learning with moral char-
acter. Erasmus’s approach to the Christian faith was pedagogical, and he advocated
the study of the Bible as a guide to how to live a Christian life, an approach that
appealed especially to the educated residents of the cities of South Germany and
Switzerland. While Erasmus granted that externals could serve as an aid to in-
ternal piety, they might also prove a hindrance to it, and he emphasized that
31
Conclusion 311
one could not rely on them. In contrast, Luther and his Wittenberg colleagues
advocated a reform of theology developed within the context of monastic and
mystical piety. Luther’s approach was pastoral, and his primary concern was how
to die a Christian death, in the sense of knowing one was justified by faith and
therefore could stand before the judgment seat of a righteous God. That God
could be known only as he revealed himself through the externals of word and
sacraments, which were therefore trustworthy means of assuring consciences
of forgiveness. Scripture was to be interpreted within a hermeneutic of law and
gospel, and a fruitful Christian life resulted from an understanding of justifica-
tion by faith, which meant acknowledging one’s sinfulness and trusting in God’s
mercy shown through Christ’s death. Christians were assured concretely and per-
sonally of this forgiveness when they received the sacraments.
These two views were not necessarily in opposition, and through the first half
of the 1520s they coexisted and overlapped because they both stressed the cen-
trality of scripture. Although the Wittenbergers were aware of the fundamental
differences with Erasmus in ontology, as well as in their hermeneutical approach
to scripture, outside of Wittenberg these differences were often overlooked. The
broad evangelical movement of the early 1520s looked to Luther and Erasmus as
the two exegetical authorities offering guidance in the study and application of
scripture. Erasmus’s own stance toward Luther remained unclear until 1524, when
he published his Diatribe on Free Will. Significantly, that treatise was as much
an endorsement of the consensus of the church as the authoritative interpreter
of scripture as it was a rejection of Luther’s understanding of free will in salva-
tion. In contrast to their mentor, Erasmus’s more radical followers in Switzerland
and South Germany broke with Rome to follow Luther, but they grafted the
doctrines they learned from Wittenberg onto an Erasmian hermeneutical base.20
The early reformation as it developed in the cities of the south was therefore nei-
ther “Lutheran” nor “Zwinglian” but, rather, an Erasmian movement radicalized
by Luther’s personal example in challenging Rome’s authority and his emphasis
on Christian freedom and the priesthood of all believers.
Only with the outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy did the differences
between the two “schools” become obvious, and evangelicals were faced with
the question of whose exegetical authority they would follow. Karlstadt was
the first to challenge Luther’s exegetical authority, and he upheld the right of
the laity to judge between competing claims to the authoritative explanation of
scripture. His efforts to establish his superiority to Luther failed miserably, and
in his Declaration of How Karlstadt Regards His Teaching About the Venerable
Sacrament he was forced to state that his understanding of scripture was uncer-
tain. The reformers of Basel, Zurich, and Strasbourg followed Erasmus, and at
least through the first part of 1525 they assumed they had Erasmus’s support. They
312
misjudged Erasmus’s position however, for the Dutch humanist did all he could to
distance himself from his former associates. The anger at Erasmus’s perceived be-
trayal is almost palpable in Oecolampadius’s condemnation of those who clung to
the consensus of the church even when they believed differently, while Erasmus’s
lingering bitterness is apparent throughout his 1530 denunciation of those “who
falsely boast of being evangelicals.”21 Erasmus’s repudiation of the Swiss position
left those who opposed Christ’s corporeal presence without anyone who had the
personal and exegetical authority to rival Luther. Johannes Oecolampadius was
the most respected of Erasmus’s followers, but he did not have either the political
backing of Basel’s city council or the intellectual and social weight to stand up to
prominent opponents such as Willibald Pirckheimer, let alone Luther.
The disagreement over the Lord’s Supper led to the division of the evangelical
movement between Wittenbergers and sacramentarians, but the sacramentarians
themselves quickly divided over the issue of infant baptism. The magisterial
sacramentarians and the Anabaptists held a similar understanding of the sacraments
as outward attestations of faith, but they disagreed over whether faith was a neces-
sary prerequisite for baptism. Anabaptist insistence on believer’s baptism meant that
they, and not the “Zwinglians,” were the first to break with the broader evangelical
movement to form their own separate church, although the Anabaptist movement
would itself divide into a variety of factions. Significantly, Anabaptists also defended
their right to interpret scripture directly rather than obediently accepting the herme-
neutical framework and specific exegetical decisions of the educated elite.
In contrast to the differences between the magisterial sacramentarians (or
proto-Reformed) and the Anabaptists, the differences of the former with many
of those now labeled as spiritualists were not at all clear through the 1520s.
The spiritualists shared with the early magisterial sacramentarians the same
presuppositions concerning the subordination of external to internal and so could
coexist with them in a way that was not possible for the pro-Wittenberg party.
Luther and his followers sharply rejected the spiritualism of Andreas Karlstadt
and Martin Cellarius—but both would end their lives as theology professors at
the University of Basel. Hans Denck was reconciled with Oecolampadius after
renouncing believer’s baptism, and although Bucer followed Zwingli in drawing
a parallel between circumcision and infant baptism, neither Oecolampadius nor
Capito made much use of this argument. Kaspar Schwenckfeld would not en-
counter major opposition from the magisterial sacramentarians until the early
1530s, when the Strasbourg reformers’ attempts at rapprochement with the
Wittenbergers made his complete separation of external and internal unaccept-
able to them. In contrast, Zwingli’s final discussions of the Lord’s Supper all
emphasized the separation between external and internal more strongly than his
earlier works, and like Schwenckfeld he argued that as externals the sacraments
31
Conclusion 313
could not convey or confer grace.22 The Zurich reformers would break with the
Silesian nobleman not over the Lord’s Supper but, rather, over Christology.
The issue of authority would gain prominence in the exchange between
Luther and the Swiss reformers in 1527 and would be paramount at the Marburg
Colloquy in 1529. Luther’s authority as a reformer was recognized by all, even
those who disagreed with him concerning the sacraments. As a minority party
without an authoritative figure to rival Luther, the sacramentarians’ best strategy
was to persuade the Wittenbergers that sacramental theology was a minor issue
that should not destroy Christian fellowship. The Strasbourgers had advocated
this solution from the beginning of the controversy, but Zwingli’s tactic of linking
Wittenberg and Catholic teaching concerning Christ’s true presence made this so-
lution extremely difficult for him to accept. So, too, did the harshness of his rhet-
oric: if scripture and the creeds taught that Christ’s body was in heaven and not
in the bread, how then could one argue for any kind of presence of Christ’s body,
especially given the appeal of this argument among the common people? For his
part, Luther could not believe that those who had condemned the Wittenbergers
as idolaters and cannibals now wanted to be regarded as brethren.23
Despite these difficulties, the Marburg Colloquy brought an important change
to the discussions of the Lord’s Supper. The four days of discussion, both private and
public, made it clear that neither side would convince the other to abandon its posi-
tion, and compromise was impossible as long as the question required a yes or no an-
swer: either Christ’s body was corporeally present, or it was not. The shift away from
asking whether Christ’s body was present in the elements to describing how Christ’s
body could be received by communicants was a prerequisite for any further discus-
sion between the two sides. Rather than the two alternatives debated throughout the
later 1520s, the debate after Marburg concerned development of a third alternative
that lay between the two poles of bodily presence or absence.
Looking Forward
This shift in focus was only one of the developments that would distinguish the
debate over the sacraments throughout the next two decades from that of the
later 1520s. Just as important was the manner in which discussions concerning
the sacraments were carried out. Rather than printed debate, participants
made use of private conversations, small meetings of experts, and the circula-
tion of letters and draft position statements. As was the case with the Marburg
Colloquy, these methods were far more fitted to finding agreement and avoiding
misunderstandings than the public debate had been.
Another important development was the involvement of new actors who
dominated the discussion after the deaths of Zwingli and Oecolampadius in the
314
fall of 1531. Martin Bucer, who had played only a secondary role in the early de-
bate, became the most active proponent of concord through the 1530s and 1540s.
Zwingli was succeeded by the young Heinrich Bullinger, whose theology of the
sacraments was shaped but not determined by his predecessor. Oecolampadius
had no theological heirs in Basel, which meant that there was no longer a po-
sition that mediated between Zurich and Strasbourg, while Schwenckfeld
was marginalized by his disagreements with both Bucer and Bullinger. The
sacramentarian position thus became consolidated around the “schools” of
Strasbourg and Zurich. Jean Calvin’s stay in Strasbourg at the end of the 1530s
would place him in the Strasbourg camp, at least in the eyes of the Zurichers,
through most of the 1540s. On the Wittenberg side, Luther remained outside
the discussions and left negotiations to Melanchthon, who had as much as pos-
sible avoided entanglement in the public debate through the 1520s. Although
Melanchthon was a full member of the “Wittenberg school,” his differences
with Luther would have significant consequences for the later controversies that
shaped the formation of confessional Lutheranism.
The published debate over the Lord’s Supper from the 1520s would have
long-lasting consequences in another way. The techniques of persuasion and
polemic pioneered by its participants would be refined and further developed
in subsequent printed controversies, both among Protestants and between
Protestants and Catholics in the second half of the sixteenth century. The dif-
ficulty of finding consensus around the authoritative interpretation of scrip-
ture only increased after Luther’s death in 1546, and a number of doctrinal
controversies broke out in the following years—not least, renewed conflict
over the Lord’s Supper. The controversial works published in the second half
of the sixteenth century were much lengthier than those produced during the
1520s, but the motives, the methods, and in the case of the Eucharistic contro-
versy, some of the arguments were recognizably the same.
The early Reformation debate over the sacraments was therefore more than
just a disagreement about abstruse theological technicalities. It revealed two
contrasting understandings of the relationship between the material and spir-
itual worlds that would determine how each side understood the sacraments.
It also raised perennial questions about how to defend values and beliefs held
to be fundamental and how to respond to those who disagreed with those
beliefs. It made clear the difficulty of defining orthodoxy without a commonly
accepted religious authority, and it highlighted the importance of state sup-
port for establishing what was considered religious truth in a city or territory.
Where coercion is rejected and persuasion is inadequate, disagreement within
and between communities is virtually unavoidable. In that sense, the problem
of authority is still with us.
315
Notes
C h a p t er 1
1. Cf. Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire,”
Representations 26 (1989): 7–24.
2. James M. Stayer, “Saxon Radicalism and Swiss Anabaptism: The Return of the
Repressed,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 67 (1993): 5–30.
3. Amy Nelson Burnett, “Picards, Karlstadtians, and Oecolampadians: (Re-) Naming
the Early Eucharistic Controversy,” in Names and Naming in Early Modern Germany
ed. Joel Harrington and Marjorie Elizabeth Plummer (New York: Berghahn, 2019).
On Bullinger as historian, see Christian Moser, Die Dignität des Ereignisses: Studien
zu Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung, Studies in the History of
Christian Traditions 163 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1: 238–68.
4. There is a brief overview of the historiography in Werner O. Packull, Hutterite
Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments During the Reformation (Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 1–11.
5. The ecumenical intent is most apparent in studies of the attempts to reach
Eucharistic concord that began after the Marburg Colloquy: Ernst Bizer, Studien zur
Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits im 16. Jahrhundert (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1962; orig. publ. 1940); Martin Friedrich, Von Marburg
bis Leuenberg: der lutherisch- reformierte Gegensatz und seine Überwindung
(Waltrop: Spenner, 1999); and Gordon Jensen, The Wittenberg Concord: Creating
Space for Dialogue, Lutheran Quarterly Books (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 2018).
6. Characteristic of the older approach is Hermann Sasse, This Is My Body: Luther’s
Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg, 1959), which looks only at Luther and Zwingli; the newer approach
316
316 Notes
is represented by Lee Palmer Wandel, The Eucharist in the Reformation: Incarnation

and Liturgy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); and Lee Palmer
Wandel, ed., A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, Brill’s Companions
to the Christian Tradition 46 (Leiden: Brill, 2013).
7. Electoral Saxony was the most important exception, but as Luther’s homeland and
one of the wealthiest, most powerful, and therefore independent German territo-
ries, it can hardly be considered typical.
8. Because of its quasi-sacramental character for Luther and his followers, absolution
was also included in the discussion, but for the sake of keeping this study manage-
able I address that debate only tangentially.
9. Still valuable is Heinrich Heppe, Ursprung und Geschichte der Bezeichnungen
“reformirte” und “lutherische” Kirche (Gotha: Perthes, 1859); Uwe Plath, “Zur
Entstehungsgeschichte des Wortes ‘Calvinist,’” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte
66 (1975): 213–23. Miriam Chrisman notes that among lay pamphleteers of
the early Reformation, those from the “professional” class were the only ones
who used the term “Lutheran” for themselves, while writers from the artisan
class preferred “Christian” or “evangelical”; Miriam U. Chrisman, Conflicting
Visions of Reform. German Lay Propaganda Pamphlets, 1519–1530 (Atlantic
Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995), 186–87. Irene Dingel distinguishes be-
tween a broad “reformation identity” that was gradually succeeded by “confes-
sional identities” from the middle of the sixteenth century, “Reformation and
Confessional Identity as a Two-Phase Model? The Process of Differentiation in
the Development of Lutheranism,” in From Wittenberg to the World: Essays on the
Reformation and its Legacy in Honor of Robert Kolb, ed. Charles P. Arand et al.,
Refo500 Academic Studies 50 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018),
249–62. David Mayes has argued that before the Peace of Westphalia, the terms
“Lutheran,” “Reformed,” and “Catholic” were used chiefly as adjectives modifying
“Christian” rather than nouns describing particular groups; “Triplets: The Holy
Roman Empire’s Birthing of Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed in 1648,” in
Names and Naming in Early Modern Germany, ed. Joel Harrington and Marjorie
Elizabeth Plummer (New York: Berghahn, 2019).
10. Burnett, “Picards.”
11. Walther Köhler, Zwingli und Luther: Ihre Streit über das Abendmahl nach
seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen, Quellen und Forschungen zur
Reformationsgeschichte 6–7 (Gütersloh: Güterlsoher Verlagshaus, 2017; here-
after Z&L). The first volume, which covers developments through 1528, was
originally published in 1924; the second, for the years from 1528–38, was fin-
ished in 1943 and published posthumously in 1953. Köhler’s lengthy summaries
of contributions to the debate make his work particularly useful, and so I have
referred to them in my notes, even where I disagree with Köhler’s analysis or eval-
uation of them.
12. Z&L 1:viii.
317
Notes 317
13. The only study to look at the broader debate is Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie,
but as its title suggests, the book’s focus is the Strasbourg reformers.
Dorothea Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den
Abendmahlstheologien der Reformation, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 148
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), is an excellent systematic study of the major fig-
ures in the debate, but it gives little indication of how the theology of each reformer
developed in debate with the others.
14. This is not meant as a criticism of studies that describe the development of the
thought of individuals. As is clear from the notes, my examination of the discourse
concerning the sacraments is indebted to more detailed studies of the individuals
involved.
15. Andrew Pettegree, The Book in the Renaissance (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2010), 91–106.
16. Production ranged between a low of 255 imprints in 1504 and a high of 437 in
1509 and first reached over 500 imprints in 1510. The number of publications is
based on the Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 16.
Jahrhunderts (VD16), available online at www.vd16.de. VD16’s reliability for statis-
tical purposes is discussed in chapter 2, this volume.
17. Hans- Joachim Köhler, “Die Flugschriften. Versuch der Präzisierung eines
geläufigen Begriffs,” in Festgabe für Ernst- Walter Zeeden, ed. Horst Rabe
et al., Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte Supplementband 2
(Münster: Aschendorff, 1976), 36–61; definition at p. 50. Johannes Schwitalla,
“Deutsche Flugschriften im ersten Viertel des 16. Jahrhunderts,” Freiburger
Universitätsblätter 76 (1982): 37–58.
18. Hans-Joachim Köhler, “The Flugschriften and their Importance in Religious
Debate: A Quantitative Approach,” in Astrologi hallucinati: Stars and the End of
the World in Luther’s Time, ed. Paola Zambelli (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986),
153–75.
19. Berndt Hamm, “Die Reformation als Medienereignis,” Jahrbuch für Biblische
Theologie 11 (1996): 137–66; Silvia Serena Tschopp, “Flugschriften als Leitmedien
reformatorischer Öffentlichkeit,” in Reformation. Historisch-kulturwissenschaftliches
Handbuch, ed. Helga Schnabel-Schüle (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2017), 311–30.
20. VD16 lists 5,007 works published between 1520 and 1523. Of these, at least 330
addressed the mass in some form or another; the actual percentage for each year
ranges between 5 and 9 percent. The statistics cited here concern all printed
works, not just pamphlets, and so differ somewhat from the analysis of the mass in
pamphlets published between 1518 and 1524 in Burnett, Karlstadt,  36–40.
21. VD16 lists 4,789 imprints published during these years; 905 imprints concern the
debate over the Lord’s Supper in some way.
22. Hans-Joachim Köhler, ed., Bibliographie der Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts,
3 vols. (Tübingen: Bibliotheca Academica, 1991–96). The bibliography, which
covers pamphlets printed between 1501 and 1530, contains roughly 4,800
318
318 Notes
entries—not quite half the total, based on Köhler’s own estimate of publications;
Köhler, “Flugschriften and their Importance.” My discussion therefore rests on a
statistical sample rather than a complete list of all pamphlets. On the limitations of
this bibliography, see chapter 2, this volume.
23. Most of the liturgies and catechisms published during these years also discussed
the Lord’s Supper, but they are not reflected in figure 1.2 because Köhler excluded
them from the definition of a pamphlet. If they had been added, the percentage of
publications on the Lord’s Supper would be even higher.
24. Single-leaf broadsheets and hymnbooks were also an important way of spreading
ideas especially to a popular audience, but because there is no comprehensive bib-
liography of these imprints, I have not included them in this study. Some works
initially printed as broadsheets were also printed as pamphlets, however; the best
example is Luther’s Small Catechism.
25. Jan- Friedrich Missfelder, “Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit,” in Reformation.
Historisch-kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch, ed. Helga Schnabel- Schüle
(Stuttgart: Metzler, 2017), 298–310.
26. R. W. Scribner, “How Many Could Read?,” in Stadtbürgertum und Adel in
der Reformation. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der Reformation in England und
Deutschland, ed. Wolfgang J. Mommsen et al., Veröffentlichungen des deutschen
historischen Instituts London 5 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1979), 44–45. Hans-Jörg
Künast, “Getruckt zu Augsburg”: Buchdruck und Buchhandel in Augsburg zwischen
1468 und 1555 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1997), 11–13, also estimates about
a 30 percent literacy rate for the South German cities. This figure is lower than
contemporary estimates. The St. Gallen pastor Christoph Schappeler suggested
that half of the inhabitants of German cities could read and write, but his friend
Joachim Vadian revised that estimate downward to one third; Bernhard Stettler,
“Zusammenarbeit in St. Gallen: Christoph Schappeler und Joachim von Watt
(Vadian) über das Gebet,” Zwingliana 43 (2016): 2–102, at 85.
27. Michael T. Clanchy, “Literate and Illiterate: Hearing and Seeing: England,
1066–1307,” in Literacy and Historical Development: A Reader, ed. Harvey J. Graff
(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2007), 38–81, at 67–73; Joyce
Coleman, Public Reading and the Reading Public in Late Medieval England and
France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
28. Robert W. Scribner, “Oral Culture and the Diffusion of Reformation Ideas,”
in idem, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany
(London: Hambleton Press, 1987), 49–69.
29. Zoran Velagic, “Reading Aloud: Between Oral and Literate Communication,” in
Friars, Nobles and Burghers—Sermons, Images and Prints: Studies of Culture and
Society in Early–Modern Europe, in Memoriam István György Tóth, ed. Jaroslav
Miller and László Kontler (New York: CEU Press, 2010), 379–88.
30. Although she deals with England a century later, Margaret Spufford describes
the variety of ways individuals learned to read; Margaret Spufford, “First Steps
319
Notes 319
in Literacy: The Reading and Writing Experiences of the Humblest Seventeenth-

Century Spiritual Autobiographers,” Social History 4 (1979): 407–35.
31. Robert W. Scribner, “Heterodoxy, Literacy and Print in the Early German
Reformation,” in Literacy and Heresy 1000–1530, ed. Peter Biller and Anne Hudson
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 255–78. On the variety of schools
in Germany and Switzerland, see Rudolf Endres, “Das Schulwesen in Franken im
ausgehenden Mittelalter,” in Studien zum städtischen Bildungswesen des späten
Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, ed. Bernd Moeller et al., Abhandlungen der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch- historische Klasse,
Dritte Folge 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 173–214; Martin
Kintzinger, “‘Ich was auch ain Schueler’: die Schulen im spätmittelalterlichen
Augsburg,” in Literarisches Leben im Augsburg während des 15. Jahrhunderts, ed.
Johannes Janota and Werner Williams-Krapp, Studia Augustana 7 (Tübingen: Max
Niemeyer, 1995), 58–81; Sabine Holtz, “Schule und Reichsstadt. Bildungsangebote
in der Freien Reichsstadt Esslingen am Ende des späten Mittelalters,” in Schule und
Schüler im Mittelalter. Beiträge zur europäischen Bildungsgeschichte des 9. bis 15.
Jahrhunderts, ed. Martin Kintzinger et al., Beihefte zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte
42 (Cologne: Böhlau, 1996), 441–68; Urs Martin Zahnd, “Chordienst und Schule
in eidgenössischen Städten des Spätmittelalters: Eine Untersuchung auf Grund der
Verhältnisse in Bern, Freiburg, Luzern und Solothurn,” in Schule und Schüler im
Mittelalter. Beiträge zur europäischen Bildungsgeschichte des 9. bis 15. Jahrhunderts,
ed. Martin Kintzinger et al., Beihefte zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 42
(Cologne: Böhlau, 1996), 259–97.
32. An example that highlights the skill of letter writing is in Helmut Graser and B.
Ann Tlusty, “Layers of Literacy in a Sixteenth-Century Case of Fraud,” in Ideas
and Cultural Margins in Early Modern Germany: Essays in Honor of H.C. Erik
Midelfort, ed. Marjorie Elizabeth Plummer and Robin Barnes (Burlington: Ashgate,
2009),  31–47.
33. Rudolf Endres, “Die Bedeutung des lateinischen und des deutschen Schulwesens
für die Entwicklung der fränkischen Reichstädte des Spätmittelalters und der
frühen Neuzeit,” in Schulgeschichte im Zusammenhang der Kulturentwicklung,
ed. Lenz Kriss-Rettenbeck and Max Liedtke, Schriftenreihe zum Bayerischen
Schulmuseum Ichenhausen 1 (Bad Heilbronn: Klinkhardt, 1983), 144–65.
34. November 2, 1535, CWC 3:370, no. 581.
35. Uta Dehnert, Freiheit, Ordnung und Gemeinwohl. Reformatorische Einflüsse im
Meisterlied von Hans Sachs, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 102
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 66–78.
36. Mark U. Edwards, Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1994), 6–8, 167–68.
37. Othmar Hageneder, “Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13.
Jahrhunderts,” in The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages: Proceedings of the
International Conference Louvain May 13–16, 1973, ed. W. Lourdaux and D.
320
320 Notes
Verhelst, Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, series 1, studia 4 (Louvain: University Press,

1973), 42–103.
38. On the development of procedures for academic condemnation, see Amy Nelson
Burnett, “Academic Heresy, the Reuchlin Affair, and the Control of Theological
Discourse in the Early Sixteenth Century,” in Church and School in Early Modern
Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a
Theological Tradition, ed. Jordan J. Ballor et al., Studies in the History of Christian
Traditions 170 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 35–48.
39. On this meeting, see Jared Wicks, “Roman Reactions to Luther: The First Year,
1518,” Catholic Historical Review 69 (1983): 521–62.
40. On Luther’s gradual movement toward the sole authority of scripture, see Volker
Leppin, “Papst, Konzil und Kirchenväter. Die Autoritätenfrage in der Leipziger
Disputation,” in Die Leipziger Disputation 1519: 1. Leipziger Arbeitsgespräch zur
Reformation, ed. Markus Hein and Armin Kohnle, Herbergen der Christenheit.
Sonderband 18 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011), 117– 24; Volker
Leppin, “Die Genese des reformatorischen Schriftprinzips. Beobachtungen zu
Luthers Auseinandersetzung mit Johannes Eck bis zur Leipziger Disputation,” in
Reformatorische Theologie und Autoritäten: Studien zur Genese des Schriftprinzips
beim jungen Luther, ed. Volker Leppin, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation
85 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 97–139.
41. WA 6:407–13, LW 44:127–36.
42. “Ich weyß wol /vnnd sag das vnuerholen /das der Bapst vnnd alle Christen /
sie sint geistlich odder weltlich /helige schrifften mugen außlegen /ercleren /
erleuchten /ßo sie dartzu geschickt seint/vnd vermuglich,” Andreas Karlstadt,
Von Bepstlicher heylickeit (Wittenberg: Lotter, 1520), fol. H1r. Karlstadt’s justi-
fication for the laity’s right to read scripture differed from that of Luther, which
would contribute to the later differences between the two; Thomas Kaufmann,
Der Anfang der Reformation: Studien zur Kontextualität der Theologie, Publizistik
und Inszenierung Luthers und der reformatorischen Bewegung, Spätmittelalter,
Humanismus, Reformation 67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 513–28. This only
makes Karlstadt’s early qualification concerning the right to exegete scripture even
more striking, however.
43. The one group of authorities not cited by evangelical authors were the scholastic
theologians of the high and late Middle Ages. Scholastic Eucharistic theology cer-
tainly helped shape the Reformation debate, and the treatises of early medieval
authors would be printed, most of them for the first time, at the end of the 1520s in
order to support their editors’ own understanding of the sacrament. But they were
not authoritative sources in the opening years of the controversy.
44. Andrew Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005).
45. Irene Dingel, “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to

the Formula of Concord (1548–1580),” in Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture,
321
Notes 321
1550–1675, ed. Robert Kolb, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 11

(Leiden: Brill, 2008), 15–64; Irene Dingel, “Pruning the Vines, Plowing Up the
Vineyard: The Sixteenth-Century Culture of Controversy between Disputation
and Polemic,” in The Reformation as Christianization. Essays on Scott Hendrix’s
Christianization Thesis, ed. Anna Marie Johnson and John A. Maxfield,
Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 66 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2012), 397–408.
46. In the Syngramma super uerbis Coenae Dominicae, published at the beginning of
1526, Johannes Brenz referred to the “sacramentarian spirit” that tried to “rip away
the external Christ and the external word from us,” BWSA 1/1:254. Luther prob-
ably took the term from that work. His first reference to “sacramentarian sects”
and “sacramentarian heretics” occurred in his 1526 letter to the printer Johannes
Herwagen that condemned Bucer’s translation of his Kirchenpostille, WA 19:471,
473; LW 59:169, 172.
47. On the varying terminology for groups within the radical reformation, see James
M. Stayer, “Introduction,” in A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–
1700, ed. John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, Brill’s Companions to the Christian
Tradition 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), xiii–xxiv; see also chapter 12, this volume.
48. On this point I disagree fundamentally with the approach to the Eucharistic con-
troversy taken by Lee Palmer Wandel in her publications and expressed most con-
cisely in Lee Palmer Wandel, “Fragmentation and Presence: Reformation Debates
and Cultural Theory,” in Cultures of Communication: Theologies of Media in Early
Modern Europe and Beyond, ed. Helmut Puff et al. (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2017), 55–76. All participants in the debate recognized that as God, and so in
his divine nature, Christ was present everywhere, and they often cited his promise
to be present in their midst “where two or three are gathered” (Matt. 18:20) and
with his followers “until the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). What they argued about
was how Christ’s human body, and by extension his human nature, could be pre-
sent in the consecrated elements and so simultaneously on many altars in many
different places.
49. A sophisticated analysis of the changing terminology in Henri de Lubac, Corpus
Mysticum: The Eucharist and the Church in the Middle Ages: Historical Survey
(Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006).
50. Albert B. Collver III, “‘Real Presence’: An Overview and History of the Term,”
Concordia Journal 28 (2002): 142–59.
51. Josef A. Jungmann, S.J., The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development,
2 vols. (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1985), 1:169–75.
52. The equation was based on a false etymology drawn from Hebrew; Max
Engammare, “‘Mizbéah’ dans les polémiques sur ‘missa’: Une référence étrange à
l’hébreu dans la défense de la messe comme sacrifice dans les premières années des
Réformes,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 50 (1988): 661–69; Burnett,
Karlstadt, 59.
32
322 Notes
53. The theology of the sacrifice of the mass was not systematized before the Council
of Trent, and through the early Reformation there was a range of positions
describing its relation to Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary; Erwin Iserloh, Der Kampf
um die Messe in den ersten Jahren der Auseinandersetzung mit Luther, Katholisches
Leben und Kämpfen im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung 10 (Münster: Aschendorff,
1952),  56–60.
C h a p t er 2
1. For a description of VD16 and its limitations, see Jürgen Beyer, “How Complete
Are the German National Bibliographies for the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries (VD16 and VD17)?,” in The Book Triumphant: Print in Transition
in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Malcolm Walsby and Graeme
Kemp, Library of the Written Word 15: The Handpress World 9 (Leiden: Brill,
2011), 57–77. The Universal Short Title Catalog is an important supplement
because it includes imprints from German-speaking lands preserved in libraries
outside of Germany and Switzerland; http://ustc.ac.uk/index.php; Andrew
Pettegree, “Druck und Reformation neu überdacht —ein Blick von außen,”
in Buchdruck und Buchkultur im Wittenberg der Reformationszeit, ed. Stefan
Oehmig, Schriften der Stiftung Luthergedenkstätten in Sachsen-Anhalt 21
(Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015), 329–47.
2. Hans-Joachim Köhler, ed., Bibliographie der Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts,
3 vols. (Tübingen: Bibliotheca Academica, 1991–96). The bibliography’s greatest
limitation is that the final volume, covering author names T–Z , was never
printed, although this can to some extent by compensated for by using the index
for the microfiche series that was produced along with the bibliography, Hans-
Joachim Köhler et al., eds., Flugschriften des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts (Zug: Inter
Documentation Co., 1978–87). My impression from working with this bibliog-
raphy in comparison with VD16 is that it is a fairly complete listing of titles, and
most of the publications omitted are reprints of works listed in the bibliography.
3. Thirty-seven titles were published in both Latin and German.
4. Cf. the German and Latin versions of Luther’s 1520 Freedom of a Christian, WA
7:12–73. There was also a German translation of the Latin version, so that work
circulated in three different forms.
5. I have included in my database several works that are not listed in VD16 because
they survive only in libraries outside German-speaking Europe or that are no longer
extant but are reliably attested to in older sources.
6. The database contains a total of 467 reprints. This is higher than the number of
titles for the entire period 1525–29 because some works were printed in two or
more years.
7. The Basel controversy is discussed later. One Wittenberg imprint of the Marburg
Articles (VD16: ZV 15498) included Luther’s confession of faith from Vom
32
Notes 323
Abendtmal Christi Bekentnis, thereby clarifying the “correct” understanding of the

Articles. For the purposes of this discussion, I have classified the Basel pamphlet
on the mass as a Catholic imprint because the Catholic position is given first, and
I have included the Marburg Articles among Luther’s works because he drafted
them and they reflected his authority.
8. According to Mark U. Edwards, Luther was responsible for almost 20 percent of
the pamphlets printed between 1500 and 1530, Printing, Propaganda, and Martin
Luther (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 17, 168–69. In interpreting
the decline in the number of Luther imprints after 1525, Edwards does not take into
account the overall decline in the number of publications.
9. Between 1525 and 1529 there were 133 new titles by sacramentarians, 122 by the pro-
Wittenberg party, and 80 by Catholic authors.
10. In the following section, where an imprint has two or more authors or contributors,
I have included it in my tally for both authors; thus the Saxon visitation articles
are counted for both Melanchthon, who wrote them, and Luther, who provided a
preface to them.
11. Luther, Ein Sermon von dem hochwurdigen Sacrament des heyligen waren leichnamß
Christi und von den Bruderschaften (1519), WA 2:742–58, LW 35:49–73; Das ewig
und new Testament von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament beyder gestalt (1522), WA 10/
3:68–71; Ordnung und Bericht (1523), WA 12:472–93, cf. 11:77–80; Ain Sermon
auff das Euangeli Johannis am vj., WA 12:578–84; Von Anbeten des Sacraments des
heyligen leychnams Christi, WA 11:417–56, LW 36:271–305.
12. Luther, Betbüchlein: WA 10/2:366–69; cf. Sermon von der Beycht vnd dem
Sacrament, WA 15:481–505. The 1524 sermon was replaced with Luther’s 1526
Sermon von dem Sacrament des leibs vnd bluts Christi wider die Schwarmgeister
(WA 19:474–523, LW 36:331–61) in a 1527 edition of the Betbüchlein.
13. WA 17/ 35, 246; John Frymire, The Primacy of the Postils: Catholics,
2:126–
Protestants, and the Dissemination of Ideas in Early Modern Germany, Studies in
Medieval and Reformation Traditions 147 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 35–37, 539–40.
14. There were three imprints of this postil in 1528 (VD16: L 3998–4000). It included
Luther’s Sermo de digna praeparatione ad sacramentum eucharistiae (1518), WA
1:325–34; Ein Sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sakrament (1519), WA 2:738–58; the
Verklärung etlicher Artikel (1520), WA 6:76–83; the Invocavit sermons preached
in 1522, WA 10/3:1–6; his Holy Week sermons from 1521 (WA 7:692–97) and 1523
(WA 12:472–93); and the 1524 Sermon von der Beycht vnd dem Sacrament; Kurt
Aland, Hilfsbuch zum Lutherstudium, 3rd ed. (Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1970),
194–96; Frymire, Primacy, 544–45.
15. The 1523 sermon was printed three times as a pamphlet in 1525 and was included
in sixteen imprints of Luther’s postil; for more on this sermon, see chapter 12,
this volume. The 1524 sermon was printed thirty times between 1525 and 1529,
twenty-three times as a component of either the Betbüchlein or one of the
postils.
324
324 Notes
16. Luther, Deutsche Messe (WA 19:44–113, LW 53:51–90); the excerpt was printed in
Was dem gemeynen volck nach der Predig fürzulesen.
17. There were six High German, three Low German, and two Latin imprints of
the Large Catechism (WA 30/1:123–238) and three High German, two Low
German, and three Latin imprints of the Small Catechism (WA 30/1: 239–63) in
1529 alone.
18. Luther, Sermon von der höchsten Gottslästerung, die die Papisten täglich brauchen,
published in seven imprints in 1525, WA 15:758–74; Von dem Greuel der Stillmesse,
published in ten imprints in 1525, WA 18:8–36, LW 36: 311–28; Trostung an die
Christen zu Halle, which appeared in seven imprints in 1527, WA 23:402–31.
19. Luther, Ein Brief an die Christen zu Straßburg wider den Schwärmergeist, WA
15: 380–97, LW 40: 61–71.
20. Luther, Wider die himmlischen Propheten, WA 18:62–125, LW 40:79–143; Das
ander Teil wider die himmlischen Propheten vom Sakrament, WA 18:134–214, LW
40:144–223.
21. Luther, Daß diese Wort Christi “Das ist mein Leib” noch fest stehen wider die
Schwärmgeister, WA 23:64–320, LW 37:13–159.
22. Luther, Vom Abendmahl Christi Bekenntnis, WA 26:262–509, LW 37:151–372.
23. Andreas Karlstadt, Erklerung wie Carlstadt sein ler . . . geachtet haben will, WA
18:453–54, LW 59:136–37. Prefaces to the Syngramma, WA 19:457–61, 529–30; LW
59: 156–62 (VD16: B 7892–B 7893); on the Syngramma translations, see chapter 7,
this volume.
24. Luther, Unterricht der Visitatoren, WA 26:175–240, LW 40:263–320.
25. Sermon von dem Sakrament des Leibs und Bluts Christi wider die Schwärmgeister,
WA 19:474–523, LW 36:331–61: five imprints in German and one in Latin trans-
lation. As noted earlier, the sermon was also included in a 1527 imprint of the
Betbüchlein. Luther’s Allen lieben Christen zu Reutlingen, WA 19:114–25 (L 3733),
written in early January 1526, was published in the summer of that year. The 1525
letter to the Strasbourgers (WA Br 3: 599–607) was printed twice in German trans-
lation in Nuremberg as Ein Christenliche warnung, auß dem geyst vnd wort Gottes,
sich vor den offentlichen jrrungen, so ytzo vor augen sei/des Sacraments des leibs vnd
bluots Christi halben zuuerhüten; the Latin original was included in Epistola hiob
gast ad ioannem Stiglerium, super controuersia rei Sacramentariae (Nuremberg,
1527), and reprinted in Wittenberg in 1529.
26. Johannes Bugenhagen, Contra Novvm Errorem, de sacramento . . . Epistola (1525);
German translation in W2 20: 500–506.
27. Philipp Melanchthon, Gemeine anweissung ynn die heylige schrifft; one of these
imprints was in Low German. There was also one imprint of the Latin original. The
Vnterricht der Visitatorn was also published in Low German and in the draft Latin
version.
28. Bugenhagen, Uon der Messe Propositiones: two 1525 imprints and included in five
1525 imprints of Johannes Bugenhagen, Etlich Christliche bedencken von der Mess.
325
Notes 325
I suspect that Bugenhagen’s Bedencken was also a translation from an earlier Latin
work, but I have not been able to identify it.
29. Osiander, Grund und Ursach aus der Heiligen Schrift, wie und warum die Pröpst zu
Nürnberg die Mißbräuch bei der heiligen Meß geändert haben, OGA 1:174–254.
30. Zwingli, Ad Mattaeum Alberum . . . de Caena Dominica, Epistola, Z 3:335–54,
HZW 2:127/31–45; Subsidium sive Coronis de Eucharistia, Z 4:440–504, HZW
2:194–231; and De Vera et falsa religione Commentarius, Z 3:628–911; Zwingli,
Commentary, esp. pp. 197–253. There were two imprints of the Latin Commentarius,
three of the German translation of the section on the Lord’s Supper, and two of the
German translation of the entire commentary.
31. Zwingli, Ein klare vnderrichtung, Z 4:773–862; Z&B 185–238.
32. Zwingli, Die erst kurtze antwurt, Z 5:177– 96; also included in [ Johannes
Piscatorius,] Warhaftige handlung der disputation in obern Baden (1526) and
[Thomas Hofen,] Qvibvs Praeivdiciis in Baden Heluetiorum sit disputatum (1526).
33. Zwingli, Epistolae Duae, Z 5:275–85.
34. Johannes Oecolampadius, Ad Billibaldum Pyrkaimerum de re Eucharistiae
responsio (Zurich: Froschauer, 1526), a5v.
35. Karlstadt’s Erklerung wie Carlstat sein ler . . . geachtet haben will was published
five times and included in a printing of his Entschuldigung des falschen namens der
auffruor.
36. Hoffman and Karlstadt, Dialogus vnd gründtliche berichtung; partial reprint in
FSBT 1:256–70.
37. On the contents of the various imprints, Johanes Eck, Enchiridion locorum
communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae, (1525–1543), ed. Pierre
Fraenkel, Corpus Catholicorum 34 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1979), 27*–35*.
38. Johannes Eck, De sacrificio Missae libri tres (1526), ed. Erwin Iserloh, Corpus
Catholicorum 36 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1982).
39. John Fisher, Assertionvm Martini Lvtheri confutatio (Cologne: Hittorp,
1525); John Fisher, Defensio Regie assertionis contra babylonicam captiuitatem
(Cologne: Quentel, 1525).
40. John Fisher, De Veritate Corporis et Sangvinis Christi in Evcharistia
(Cologne: Quentel, 1527).
41. John Fisher, Funff Vorredde . . . vff V. bücher wider Jo. Ecolampadium/von warem
leyb vnd blut Christi (Cologne: Soter, 1528); partial reprint in FSGR 1:550–65.
42. Johannes Oecolampadius, De genvina Verborum domini, Hoc est corpus meum,
iuxta uetutissimos authores expositione, liber (Strasbourg: Knoblauch, 1525).
43. So, for example, Johannes Cochlaeus, An die Herrenn/Schultheis vnnd Radt
zu Bern/widder yhre vermainte Reformation (Dresden: Stöckel, 1528), FSGR
2:717–43; the three open letters printed in Johannes Eck, Ein Sentbrieue an
ein frum Eidgnoszschafft/betreffendt die ketzerische disputation . . . zuo Bern
(Ingolstadt: Apian, 1528); Johannes Eck, Verlegung der disputation zu Bern/
mit grund götlicher geschrifft (Augsburg: Weißenhorn, 1528); and two works by
326
326 Notes
Thomas Murner, Die gots heylige meß von gott allein erstifft . . . wider die fünffte
schlußred zuo Bern disputiert (Lucerne: Murner, 1528), and Hie würt angezeigt
das onchristlich . . . fürnemen einer loblicher herrchafft von Bern (Lucerne:
Murner, 1528), both in Wolfgang Pfeiffer-Belli, ed., Thomas Murner im Schweizer
Glaubenskampf, Corpus Catholicorum 22 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1939), 39–86;
the second work also in FSGR 2:818–60.
44. Johannes Buchstab, Ein kurtze vnderrichtung vß dem alten vnd nüwen testament/
Das die meß ein opffer ist (Strasbourg: Grüninger, 1527); Von becleidung der Priester
(Strasbourg: Grüninger, 1527); Uon den Hochwirdigen Sacrament des leibs vnd bluots
Christi (Strasbourg: Grüninger, 1527) (directed chiefly against Oecolampadius);
Eygentliche vnd Gründtliche kuntschafft auß Götlicher Biblischer geschrifft/das
M. Vlrich zwinglein/eyn falscher Prophet/vnd verfürer des Christenlichen volcks ist
(Hagenau: Seitz, 1528) and reprinted the following year.
45. Provoked by the discussion of the mass in Andreas Osiander’s 1524 Grund vnd
vrsach, Schatzgeyer published his Tractatus de Missa, his Von dem hayligisten Opffer
der Meß (a German version of part of the Tractatus) and Vom Hochwirdigisten
Sacrament des zartten fronleichnams Christi, in Kaspar Schatzgeyer, Schriften zur
Verteidigung der Messe, Corpus Catholicorum 37 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1984),
149–399 and 456–522. Osiander responded with Wider Caspar Schatzgeyers
vnchristlichs schreyben, OGA 1:480–500. This provoked Schatzgeyer’s Abwaschung
des vnflats so Andreas Osiander . . . in sein antlitz gespihen hat, in Schatzgeyer,
Schriften, 531–90; cf. FSGR 1:108–12. An anonymous Nuremberger responded
with Anzaygung etlicher Jrriger mengel so Caspar Schatzgeyer Barfusser in seinem
büchleyn wider Andream Osiander gesetz hat (Nuremberg: Andreae, 1526), which
prompted Schatzgeyer to write Ein gietliche vnd freundtliche anntwort vnd
vnttericht (Munich: Schobser, 1526). Schatzgeyer’s Fürhalltung xxx. artigkl/so
jn gegenwürtiger verwerrung auf die pan gepracht (Munich: Schobser, 1525), was
a rejoinder to Johann von Schwarzenberg, Beschwerung der alten Teüfelischen
Schlangen mit dem Götlichen wort (Nuremberg: Hergot, 1525).
46. The lengthy exchange began with Mensing’s attack on evangelical preaching
in Magdeburg in Von dem Testament Christi vnsers Herren vnd Seligmachers
(Leipzig: Schmidt, 1526), partial reprint in FSGR 1:225–34, and Von dem opffer
Christi yn der Messe (Leipzig: Schmidt, 1526). The Magdeburg preachers Eberhard
Weidensee and Johannes Fritzhans responded with Antwort auff die zwei elenden
buchlein D. Johan: Mensing Pauler munch (Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1526). This
provoked Mensing’s Replica Auff das wutige vnd vnchristliche schandbuchlyn . . . die
heylige Messe belangende (Leipzig: Thanner, 1526), partial reprint in FSGR 1:360–70.
Fritzhans then published Was die Mess sey. Vnd ob sie eyn testament/oder eyn opffer
genant werd (Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1527). Mensing’s retort was his Vorlegunge: Des
vnchristlichen buchlyns mit dem tittel/Was die Messe sey (Leipzig: Thanner, 1527).
Fritzhans then published a pamphlet Widder den vbergeystlichen Thomisten
zu Dessau (Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1527), to which Mensing responded with
327
Notes 327
Leuterunge/des vnsaubern vnwarhafftigen/vnchristlichenn spottbuchleyns/des

titel/widder den vbergeystlichenn Thomisten zu Dhessau (Leipzig: Schumann,
1527). This exchange was the context for Mensing’s Latin treatises on the mass, De
Sacerdotio Ecclesiae Christi Catholicae Oratio (Leipzig: Thanner, 1527), and Examen
Scriptvrarvm . . . Oratio Secunda (Leipzig: Thanner, 1527). For more details on
this exchange, see Nikolaus Paulus, Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen
Luther (1518–1536), Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes 4 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1903), 19–24.
47. Luther, Trostunge an die Christen zu Halle, WA 23:402–31; Johannes Cochlaeus,
Auff Martin Luthers Schandbüchlin An die Christen von halle (Cologne: Soter,
1528), FSGR 1:503–29; Duke George of Saxony, Wider Luthers tröstung an die
Christen zu Hall (Leipzig: Schumann, 1528), FSGR 1:530–49. Luther’s pamphlet
was provoked by the assassination of Halle’s evangelical preacher.
48. The memo of the evangelical preachers was printed first as Ein Christliche vnd
ernstlich antwurt der Prediger des Euangelij zuo Basel (Zurich: Froschauer,
1527); soon after, the responses of both parties were printed together in Ob die
Mess ein Opfer sey (Basel: Wolff, 1527); the two documents in ABR 2:504–45,
639–78. Claiming that this pamphlet had mutilated his response, the cathe-
dral preacher Augustinus Marius printed his own version of the Catholic memo
as Eyngelegte schrifft . . . vom opffer der heilige, selige mess (Basel: Faber, 1528).
Oecolampadius promptly penned a refutation, Wjderlegung der falschen gründt/
so Augustinus Marius Thuombpredicant zuo Basel/zuo verwenen das die Meß ein
Opffer sey (Basel: Wolff, 1528). Marius responded with his Wyderauffhebbung der
warhafftigenn grund . . . zuo beweisen das die Meß eyn opfer sey (Basel: Faber, 1528).
Meanwhile, the Dominican preacher Ambrosius Pelargus (Storch) published his
own defense of the mass in both Latin and German, Apologia sacrificii Evcharistiae
(Basel: Faber, 1528); and Grund: vrsach vnd antwort/das Christus warhafftig in der
Heiligen Meß vffgeopfferet werd (Basel: Faber, 1528); the German version submitted
to the Basel council in ABR 2:685–701. Oecolampadius answered with his Repvlsio
Apologiae sacrificii Evcharistae (Basel: Wolff, 1528). This work was also published in
German as Ableynung der Schützred der Opffermeß (Basel: Bebel, 1528). Pelargus
would have the last word with his Hyperaspismvs sive Propugnatio Apologiae
(Basel: Faber, 1529). On this conflict, Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 352–58, 367–76.
49. Both Richard A. Crofts, “Printing, Reform and the Catholic Reformation in
Germany (1521–1545),” Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985): 369–381, and Mark U.
Edwards, “Catholic Controversial Literature, 1518–1555: Some Statistics,” Archiv
für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (1988): 189–204, note the peak in Catholic contro-
versialist works between 1525 and 1530 and the high proportion of publications
(ca. 55 percent) in Latin, compared to evangelical works; cf. Mark U. Edwards,
“Statistics in Sixteenth-Century Printing,” in The Process of Change in Early
Modern Europe: Essays in Honor of Miriam Usher Chrisman, ed. Phillip N. Bebb
and Sherrin Marshall (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1989), 149–63.
328
328 Notes
50. Johannes Eck, De sacrificio missae libri tres, ed. Erwin Iserloh et al., Corpus
51. Nikolaus Ferber, Locorum Communivm adversus huius temporis haereses
Enchiridion (1529), ed. Patricius Schlager, Corpus Catholicorum 12
(Münster: Aschendorff, 1927).
52. Others were Johannes Fabri, Wie sich Johannis Huszs/der Pickarder/vnd Joannis von
wessalia/Leren vnd buecher mit Martino Luther vergleichen (Leipzig: Schumann,
1528); Konrad Wimpina (Koch), Sectarvm Errorvm, Hallvtinationum, &
Schismatum, ab origine ferme Christianae ecclesiae, ad haec usque nostra tempora,
concisioris Anacephalaeoseos, Vna cum aliquantis Pigardicarum, Vuiglefticarum, &
Lutheranarum haeresum: confutationibus (Frankfurt/Oder: Hanau, 1528); and
Peter Sylvius (Penick), Von den vier Euangelion . . . Das ist von den irrigen Artickeln/
der vier vnchristlichen ketzereyen, Nemlich der Pickarden/der Muscouitern/des
Wigkleffs/vnd des Huss . . . (Leipzig: Schmidt, 1528). In the same category belongs
the volume edited by Johannes Sichard, Philasterii Episcopi Brixiensis Haeresion
catalogus. Cui adiectus est erudissimus libellus Lanfranci Episcopi Canthuariensis de
Sacramento Eucharistiae (Basel: Petri, 1528).
53. Kaspar Güttel’s Von dem Hochwirdigen Sacrament des fleischs vnd bluts Jhesu
Christi (Zwickau: Kantz, 1528), was a sermon against abuses associated with the
Catholic celebration of Corpus Christi; Justus Menius’s Etlicher Gottlosen vnd
widderchristlischen lere von der Papistischen Messen (Wittenberg: Lufft, 1527), was
provoked by a sermon by a Franciscan in Erfurt.
54. Luther, Ein Bericht an einen Guten Freund, WA 26:560–618.
55. Urbanus Rhegius, Nova doctrina, per Vrbanum Regium (Augsburg: Ruff, 1526).
56. Urbanus Rhegius, Responsio Vrbani Rhegii ad Dvos libros primum et tertium de
Missa Ioannis Eccij (Augsburg: Steiner, 1529); cf. Rhegius to Ambrosius Blarer, June
14, 1526, Schiess 1:133–35; December 12, 1528, Schiess 1:174–76; and February 21,
1529, Schiess 1:183–84.
57. Urbanus Rhegius, Materia Cogitandi de Toto Missae Negocio (Augsburg:
Steiner, 1528).
58. Clemens Ziegler, Ein fast schon büchlin . . . von den leib vnd bluot Christi (Strasbourg,
1525); see Burnett, Karlstadt, 103–105.
59. Joachim am Grüdt, Christenlich anzeygung Joachims von Grüdt, das im Sacrament
des altars warlich sey fleisch vnd blut Christi (Freiburg im Breisgau: Wörlin, 1526);
see c hapter 9, this volume.
60. VD16 lists 455 Wittenberg imprints and 151 Zurich imprints between 1525 and 1529.
61. Christoph Reske, ed., Die Buchdrucker des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts im deutschen
Sprachgebiet: auf der Grundlage des gleichnamigen Werkes von Josef Benzing, Beiträge
zum Buch-und Bibliothekswesen 51 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007), 992–
98. On Luther’s importance for the development of printing in Wittenberg, see
Andrew Pettegree, Brand Luther: 1517, Printing, and the Making of the Reformation
(New York: Penguin, 2015), 143–63; Uwe Schirmer, “Buchdruck und Buchhandel
329
Notes 329
im Wittenberg des 16. Jahrhunderts. Die Unternehmer Christian Döring, Hans

Lufft und Samuel Selfisch,” in Buchdruck und Buchkultur im Wittenberg der
Reformationszeit, ed. Stefan Oehmig, Schriften der Stiftung Luthergedenkstätten
in Sachsen-Anhalt 21 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015), 169–89.
62. Rhau and Klug each produced 24 imprints; Schirlenz 20 imprints, Lufft 19 imprints,
and Lotter 17 imprints.
63. Reske, Buchdrucker, 1039–41. Hans Hager printed eight works on the Lord’s
Supper; Froschauer printed the remaining 49.
64. There were 25 imprints of works by Zwingli, three by Jud, three liturgical works
produced by the city’s preachers, and the city’s official response to Eck’s proposal
for a disputation that included a work by Zwingli.
65. On these five printers, Reske, Buchdrucker,  32–37.
66. Cornelis Hoen, Christlicher bericht, VD16: H 4057; Oecolampadius, Zwen
Schön Sermon, VD16: O 307, and Vom Nachtmal. Beweisung, VD16: O 289;
Zwingli, Erst kurtze Antwurt, VD16: Z 869 and ZV 20824, and Die annder
Antwurt, VD16: Z 875; [Leo Jud], Maynung, VD16: J 1001, and Bugenhagen
[Bucer], Der CXI psalm, VD16: B 9324. On Ulhart’s printing of sacramentarian
works, see Karl Schottenloher, Philipp Ulhart: Ein Augsburger Winkeldrucker
und Helfershelfer der “Schwarmer” und “Wiedertäufer” (1523–1529), Historische
Forschungen 4 (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1967), 27–58; Hans-Jörg Künast, “Getruckt
zu Augsburg”: Buchdruck und Buchhandel in Augsburg zwischen 1468 und 1555
(Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1997), 83–84.
67. Basel agenda: Form vnd gstalt wie das Herren Nachtmal . . . gehalten werden, VD16:
A 682–A 863; Bern, Gemein Reformation, VD16: B 1883–B 1885; Basel: Ordnung so
ain Ersame Statt Basel . . . furohin zehalten erkannt, VD16: B 632.
68. Luther, Allen lieben Christen, VD16: L 3733; Luther, Ain Sermon von der
höchsten gottßlesterung, WA 15:758–75, VD16: L 6542–L 6245; Bugenhagen, Ain
Sendbrieff . . . über ain frag vom Sacrament, VD16: B 9256; Agricola, Ain Christliche
Kinderzucht, VD16: A 974, A 979; Brenz, Fragstuck des Christenlichen glaubens,
VD16: B 7625.
69. Michael Keller, Ettlich Sermones, VD16: K 655–K ; four pamphlets by Eitelhans
Langenmantel: Disz ist ain anzayg: ainem meinem/etwann vertrawten gesellen,
VD16: L 351–52; Langenmantel, Ein kurtzer begryff Von den Allten vnnd Newen
Papisten, VD16: L 354–L 355; Langenmantel, Ein trewe Ermanung an all Christen,
VD16: L 356–L 357; Langenmantel, Ain Kurtzer anzayg/wie Do. Martin Luther ain
zeyt hör hatt etliche schriften lassen ußgeen/vom Sacrament /die doch stracks wider
ainander, VD16: L 363; and two pamphlets of Johannes Schnewyl, Der Blinden
fürer bin ich genennt, VD16: M 1082, and Schnewyl, Wer gern wölt wissen wie ich
hieß . . . heyß ich der Eyfferer, VD16: M 1108.
70. Reske, Buchdrucker,  34–35.
71. Luther: Deutsche Messe, VD16: M 4912, Auslegung der Euangelienn, VD16: L 4005;
Vom Abendtmal Christi Bekendnis, VD16: L 6984–L 6985.
30
330 Notes
72. Osiander, Grund vnd vrsach, VD16: O 1017–O 1018; Rhegius: Erklärung etlicher
leüffiger puncten, VD16: R 1830, Materia Cogitandi de toto missae negotio, VD16:
R 1855; Prob zu des Herrn nachtmal, VD16: R 1870; Responsio ad dvos libros de
Missa, VD16: R 1876.
73. Schnewyl, Verdammung, VD16: M 1109; Zwingli, Epistel, VD16: Z 808–Z 8 09; Ain
schöner vnd wolgeteütschter grüntlicher bericht, VD16: S 1544.
74. Von des herren Nachtmal/ausz den Concilien vnd Leerern, VD16: V 2650, and
Vonn des Herren Nachtmal/der papisten Messen vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen,
VD16: V 2651.
75. Karlstadt, Entschuldigung . . . des falschen names der auffruor, VD16: B 6158.
76. See the list of Luther imprints by Ramminger in Josef Benzing, ed.,

Lutherbibliographie. Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften Martin Luthers bis zu
dessen Tod, 2 vols. (Baden–Baden: Heitz, 1966), 1:462.
77. These included three imprints of the first German translation of Brenz’s
Syngramma; Jakob Strauss, Wider den vnmilten Jrthum Maister Vlrichs zwinglins
so er verneünet die warhafftig gegenwirtigkait dess allerhailligsten leybs vnd bluets
Christi im Sacrament (Augsburg: Ramminger, 1526); and a reprint of Andreas
Althamer, Von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament des leibs vnd bluot vnnsers herrn Jesu
Christi /Wider die jrrigen geyster/so vnns das nachtmal des Herrn zünichtigen
(Nuremberg: Peypus, 1526).
78. Ain Christliche vnderweyssung der Jugent, VD16: C 2353.
79. Bugenhagen, Ein Sendbrieff . . . über ain frag vom Sacrament, VD16: B 9255;
Luther: Wider die himelischen Propheten, VD16: L 7455; Das ander tail wider die
hymlischen propheten, VD16: L 7452, L 7454; Ain Sermon auff das Euangeli Johannis
am vj., VD16: L 6123.
80. Kaspar Turnauer, Die wort Pauli vom Nachtmal des Herren, VD16: T 2363.
81. Kunast, “Getruckt zu Augsburg,” 200–206; on censorship in the Holy Roman
Empire more generally, Allyson F. Creasman, Censorship and Civic Order in
Reformation Germany, 1517–1648, “Printed Poison and Evil Talk,” St. Andrews
Studies in Reformation History (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 23–62.
82. E.g., Oecolampadius to Zwingli, June 20, 1526, Z 8:629–30, no. 497; Capito to
Zwingli, February 28, 1527, Z 9:60–62, no. 595; Oecolampadius, Ad Billibaldum
Pyrkaimerum responsio, h3r; Oecolampadius, Billiche Antwortt, W2 20:594;
Zwingli, Amica Exegesis, Z 5:623; Zwingli, Das diese Worte . . .ewiglich den alten
Sinn haben werden, Z 5:866.
83. Hans- Peter Hasse, “Bücherzensur an der Universität Wittenberg im 16.
Jahrhundert,” in 700 Jahre Wittenberg. Stadt, Universität, Reformation, ed. Stefan
Oehmig (Weimar: Herman Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1995), 187–212.
84. Edwards, Printing, 14.
85. Burnett, Karlstadt, 146. Pierre Toussain told Farel of the ban on Zwingli’s books,
September 21, 1525, Herminjard 1:386–89, no. 161, while Oecolampadius told
Melanchthon that the sale of his own and Zwingli’s books were prohibited in
31
Notes 331
Nuremberg on November 15, 1525; OBA 1:418–20, no. 304; Creasman, Censorship,

75–78,  87–95.
86. Bucer to Zwingli, July 9, 1526, BCorr 2:137–40, no. 133.
87. ABR 1:174–76, 178, nos. 307–308, 311; ABR 2:156ff., no. 224. Oecolampadius
told Zwingli about the censors’ report, October 22, 1525, Z 8:395–96, no. 396;
C. Roth, “Die Bücherzensur im alten Basel,” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 31
(1914): 49–67.
88. On February 9, 1526, Oecolampadius told Zwingli that the council refused to allow
Cratander to print the Apologetica, Z 8:521–22, no. 449.
89. Strauss, Wider den vnmilten Irrthum Maister Ulrichs Zwinglins, a4v.
90. November 14, 1526, Z 8:774–75, no. 551.
91. Lazarus Spengler, Lazarus Spengler Schriften, eds. Berndt Hamm and Wolfgang
Huber, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, 61, 70, 84
(Gütersloh: Gütërsloher Verlagshaus, 1995–2010), 2:57–60, no. 43.
92. July 2, 1526, Z 8:634–42, no. 500.
93. Although written in dialogue form, these were not intended to imitate actual con-
versation but instead were closer to the question and answer format that would be
associated with the catechisms written in the later 1520s.
94. Johannes Bugenhagen, Der Erbarn Stadt Brunswig Christlike ordeninge
(Wittenberg: Klug, 1528); An den Erbarn Radt tho Bremen ein Sendebreff
(Magdeburg: Barth, 1528); Eynne rede vam Sacrament . . . tho Flensborch nha
Melchior Hoffmans dysputation geredet (Hamburg: Richolff, 1529). This latter work
was a response to an account of the Flensburg disputation published by Hoffman
and Karlstadt. The Celle letters were published as Handelyng twyschen den Baruoten
tho Zcelle (Magdeburg: Barth, 1527). Of the 61 imprints in Low German, 55 were by
Wittenbergers. The four sacramentarian imprints and two Catholic imprints were
all translations from High German.
95. Johannes Cochlaeus, Septiceps Lutherus, vbique sibi, suis scriptis, contrarius
(Leipzig: Schumann, 1529); Sieben Köpffe Martini Luthers Vom Hochwirdigen
Sacrament des Altars (Leipzig: Schumann, 1529); FSGR 2:989–1021.
96. Johannes Cochlaeus, XXV. Vrsachen/vnter Eyner gstalt das Sacrament den leyen
zu reichen (Leipzig: Schumann, 1529); with the Septiceps Lutherus as Fascicvlvs
Calvmniarvm, Sannarvm et Illvsionvm Martini Lvtheri (Leipzig: Schumann, 1529).
C h a p t er 3
1. Philipp Melanchthon to Joachim Camerarius, July 24, 1529, MBW T3:550, no. 807.
2. October 12, 1529, MBW T3:611–12, no. 830.
3. See, for instance, Z&L 1:49–56; Gottfried G. Krodel, “Die Abendmahlslehre des
Erasmus von Rotterdam und seine Stellung am Anfang des Abendmahlsstreites der
Reformatoren,” unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Erlangen, 1955, 205–
20; Stefan Niklaus Bosshard, Zwingli—Erasmus—Cajetan. Die Eucharistie als
32
332 Notes
Zeichen der Einheit, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte

Mainz 89 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978), 8–63. For Erasmus’s influence on Zwingli
more generally, see Gottfried W. Locher, “Zwingli and Erasmus,” in Zwingli’s
Thought: New Perspectives, ed. Gottfried W. Locher, Studies in the History of
Christian Thought 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 233–55.
4. The significant exception to this general neglect is Christine Christ-von Wedel,
“Erasmus und die Zürcher Reformatoren. Huldrich Zwingli, Leo Jud, Konrad
Pellikan, Heinrich Bullinger und Theodor Bibliander,” in Erasmus in Zürich.
Eine verschwiegene Autorität, ed. Christine Christ-von Wedel and Urs B. Leu
(Zurich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2007), 77–165, who looks at all the Zurich
reformers.
5. Amy Nelson Burnett, “Hermeneutics and Exegesis in the Early Eucharistic
Controversy,” in Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Readers
in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean (Leiden: Brill,
2012), 85–105; Amy Nelson Burnett, “‘Things I Never Said or Thought’? Erasmus’
Exegetical Contribution to the Early Eucharistic Controversy,” in Collaboration,
Conflict and Continuity in the Reformation. Essays in Honor of James M. Estes on
his Eightieth Birthday, ed. Konrad Eisenbichler (Toronto: Centre for Reformation
and Renaissance Studies, 2014), 275–95.
6. Heinrich Denzinger and Peter Hünermann, eds., Kompendium der
Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen (Freiburg im
Breisgau: Herder, 2009), 439, no. 802.
7. For an overview of both developments, see Ian Christopher Levy et al., eds., A
Companion to the Eucharist in the Middle Ages, Brill’s Companions to the
Christian Tradition 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), especially the chapters by Gary
Macy, “Theology of the Eucharist in the High Middle Ages,” 399–445; Ian
Christopher Levy, “The Eucharist and Canon Law in the High Middle Ages,”
447–68; and Stephen E. Lahey, “Late Medieval Eucharistic Theology,” 499–539.
8. Ian Christopher Levy, John Wyclif ’s Theology of the Eucharist in its Medieval
Context, Marquette Studies in Theology 83 (Milwaukee: Marquette University
Press, 2014), 178–81.
9. Gary Macy, “The Theological Fate of Berengar’s Oath of 1059: Interpreting a
Blunder Become Tradition,” in Treasures from the Storeroom: Medieval Religion and
the Eucharist (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 20–35.
10. The following discussion is based on James F. McCue, “The Doctrine of
Transubstantiation from Berengar through Trent: The Point at Issue,” Harvard
Theological Review 61 (1968): 385–430.
11. This position is generally called “consubstantiation” by modern scholars and by
McCue himself, but he notes that this term was not used at the time, and when
it was condemned in the fifteenth century, the term used was “remanence,” not
“consubstantiation.”
3
Notes 333
12. Quoted in McCue, “Doctrine of Transubstantiation,” 405–406; for a more de-

tailed summary, see Levy, John Wyclif ’s Theology, 196–213, and David Burr, “Scotus
and Transubstantiation,” Medieval Studies 34 (1972): 336–60, esp. 348–53, both of
whom discuss Scotus’s understanding of the authority of the Church.
13. The treatise is edited and translated in John H. Martin, “The Eucharistic Treatise
of John Quidort of Paris,” Viator 7 (1975): 195–240, citation at 225. See also Levy,
John Wyclif ’s Theology, 213–16, and Gianluca Briguglia, “Theology, Sacramental
Debates, and Political Thought in John of Paris: The Case of the Eucharist,” in John
of Paris: Beyond Royal and Papal Power, ed. Chris Jones (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015),
401–21.
14. Martin, “Eucharistic Treatise,” 203–204. Jörgen Vijgen notes that John did not call
his position “impanation,” but he referred to Maundy Thursday as “a feast of impa-
nation,” The Status of Eucharistic Accidents “sine subjecto”: An historical Survey up to
Thomas Aquinas and Selected Reactions, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte
des Dominikanerordens, N.F. 20 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013), 327n271.
15. Quoted in McCue, “Doctrine of Transubstantiation,” 407–10; for a lengthy discus-
sion of Ockham’s position, see Levy, John Wyclif ’s Theology, 216–29.
16. There are a number of conflicting interpretations of Wyclif ’s Eucharistic theology;
these are briefly characterized in Levy, John Wyclif ’s Theology, 236–37.
17. John Wyclif, De Eucharistia Tractatus Major, ed. Johann Loserth (New York:
Johnson Reprint, 1966; orig.: London, 1892), 35–36, 83–86, 115–16, 121. These var-
ious terms illustrate the problem with using the phrase “real presence,” because
Wyclif—and eventually his Hussite followers—taught a “real and true” but not a
“substantial” presence.
18. Gotthard Lechler, ed., Joannis Wiclif, Trialogus cum Supplemento Trialogi
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1869), 247– 81; Stephen E. Lahey, ed. and trans.,
Wyclif: Trialogus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 197–224, cita-
tion at 215.
19. On the condemnations, see Levy, John Wyclif ’s Theology, 250–56; Andrew E.
Larsen, The School of Heretics: Academic Condemnation at the University of
Oxford, 1277–1409, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance
40 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 148–75, which lists the conclusions condemned by the
Blackfriars Council on 172–73.

20. David R. Holeton, “Sacramental and Liturgical Reform in Late Medieval
Bohemia,” Studia Liturgica 28 (1987): 87–96; Howard Kaminsky, A History of the
Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 7–35.
21. Matthew Spinka, Jan Hus’ Concept of the Church (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1966), 74–76; Alexander Kolesnyk, “Hussens Eucharistiebegriff,” in Jan Hus.
Zwischen Zeiten, Völkern, Konfessionen. Vorträge des internationalen Symposions in
Bayreuth vom 22. bis 26. September 1993, ed. Ferdinand Seibt, Veröffentlichungen des
Collegium Carolinum 85 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1997), 193–202.
34
334 Notes
22. William R. Cook, “John Wyclif and Hussite Theology 1415–1436,” Church History
42 (1973): 335–49; William R. Cook, “The Eucharist in Hussite Theology,” Archiv
für Reformationsgeschichte 66 (1975): 23–35; Marcela K. Perett, “A Neglected
Eucharistic Controversy: The Afterlife of John Wyclif ’s Eucharistic Thought in
Bohemia in the Early Fifteenth Century,” Church History 84 (2015): 64–89.
23. For a more detailed discussion of the following, see Amy Nelson Burnett, “The
Hussite Background to the Sixteenth-Century Eucharistic Controversy,” Bohemian
Reformation and Religious Practice 11 (2018): http://www.brrp.org/publications.
htm.
24. [ Joannis de Zacz,] Tractatulus [de eucharistia], in Jan Sedlák, ed., Táborské

traktáty eucharistické (Brno: Nákl. Papezské Knihtisk. Benedktinu Rajhradských,
1918),  4–7.
25. Burnett, Karlstadt, 80–83. On the early history of the Bohemian Brethren, see
Craig D. Atwood, The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius
(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), 152–214.
26. Joseph Müller, Die deutschen Katechismen der böhmischen Brüder: kritische
Textausgabe, Monumenta Germaniae paedagogica 6 (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1970;
orig.: Berlin, 1887), 49–51, 78–90. This catechism is discussed in more detail in
chapter 12, this volume.
27. James H. Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), 25–26. On unsuccessful papal
efforts in the fourteenth century to preserve Paris’s authoritative monopoly on the
teaching of theology, see Arno Borst, “Crisis and Reform in the Universities of
the Late Middle Ages,” in Medieval Worlds: Barbarians, Heretics, and Artists in the
Middle Ages (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 167–81.
28. On the distinction between realism and nominalism, see the now classic work
by Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late
Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 30–47;
a detailed overview of the distinction between the via antiqua and via moderna,
with emphasis on the difficulty of placing Scotism in these two schools, in Daniel
Bolliger, Infiniti Contemplatio: Grundzüge der Scotus– und Scotismusrezeption
im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis: Mit ausführlicher Edition bisher unpublizierter
Annotationes Zwinglis, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 107
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 3–59.
29. Stefan Swiezawski, “Le problème de la ‘via antiqua’ et de la ‘via moderna’ au XVe siècle
et ses fondements idéologiques,” in Antiqui und Moderni. Traditionsbewusstsein und
Fortschrittsbewusstsein im späten Mittelalter, ed. A. Zimmermann (New York: De
Gruyter, 1974), 484–93; Heiko A. Oberman, Masters of the Reformation: The
Emergence of a New Intellectual Climate in Europe (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1981), 23–44; Maarten Hoenen, “Philosophie und Theologie im
15. Jahrhundert. Die Universität Freiburg und der Wegestreit,” in 550 Jahre Albert-
Ludwigs-Universität. Vol. 2: Von der hohen Schule zur Universität der Neuzeit, ed.
35
Notes 335
Dieter Mertens and Heribert Smolinsky (Freiburg/Br.: Alber, 2007), 67–91; Harm

Goris, “Thomism in Fifteenth-Century Germany,” in Aquinas as Authority: A
Collection of Studies presented at the Second Conference of the Thomas Instituut te
Utrecht, December 14–16, 2000, ed. Paulus J. van Geest et al. (Leuven: Peeters,
2002),  1–24.
30. On Erasmus’s time in Paris, see James K. Farge, “Erasmus, the University of
Paris, and the Profession of Theology,” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook
19 (1999): 18–46. Farge does not address the question whether Erasmus studied
Scotist philosophy (as opposed to theology), which was the case for most of the
students who attended the university, especially since a degree in arts was a prereq-
uisite for the study of theology.
31. On Zwingli, see the detailed study of Bolliger, Infiniti Contemplatio. Staehelin,
Lebenswerk, 15–20, 27–32, relies on what was then current scholarship to de-
scribe the two viae in Heidelberg; he does not discuss the role of Scotism in
Oecolampadius’s education either there or in Basel. There were close connections
between Paris and Basel in the early sixteenth century. Others who studied at
Heidelberg, Freiburg, and/or Basel include Leo Jud, Conrad Sam, Balthasar
Hubmaier, Urbanus Rhegius, Theobald Billican, Caspar Hedio, Martin Frecht,
and Johannes Brecht.
32. July 30, 1519, CWC 1:49–50, no. 30.
33. Brian P. Copenhaver and Charles B. Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy, History of
Western Philosophy 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 127–95.
34. The significance of asymmetrical oppositions is discussed by Stuart Clark, Thinking
with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (Oxford: Clarendon,
1997),  31–42.
35. Lewis W. Spitz, The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 12–16.
36. Irena Backus, “Randbemerkungen Zwinglis in den Werken von Giovanni Pico
della Mirandola,” Zwingliana 18 (1990/1991): 291–309.
37. KGK 1:365–73.
38. James K. Farge, Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty
of Theology of Paris, 1500–1543, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 32
(Leiden: Brill, 1985), 160–62.
39. Cornelis Augustijn has discussed this particularly Erasmian “Bible humanism” in
“Erasmus und die Reformation in der Schweiz,” Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte
und Altertumskunde 86 (1986): 27–42, as well as in Erasmus. Der Humanist als
Theologe und Kirchenreformer, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought
59 (Leiden: Brill, 1996); see especially “Die Stellung der Humanisten zur
Glaubensspaltung 1518–1530,” 141–53, and “Humanisten auf dem Scheideweg
zwischen Luther und Erasmus: Martin Luther und Erasmus von Rotterdam
in den Konflikten ihrer Zeit,” 154–67. On the translation of Erasmus’ writings
into German, see Heinz Holeczek, Erasmus Deutsch. Bd. 1: Die volkssprachliche
36
336 Notes
Rezeption des Erasmus von Rotterdam in der reformatorischen Öffentlichkeit 1519–

1536 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1983), 16–27.
40. See valuable background and analyses in Christine Christ-von Wedel, Erasmus
of Rotterdam. Advocate of a New Christianity (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2013), 45–53; Cornelis Augustijn, Erasmus: His Life, Works and Influence
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 43–55.
41. ASD V/8:93–126, citation at 98; CWE 66:24–38, citation at 26. Erasmus also drew
attention to the understanding of sacramentum as a military oath in his commen-
tary on Jerome’s letters to the monks Heliodorus and Nepotian; both Zwingli and
Ambrosius Blarer read this commentary carefully and so were familiar with the et-
ymology; Urs B. Leu, “Zwingli liest Erasmus,” in Erasmus in Zürich, ed. Christine
Christ-von Wedel and Urs Leu (Zurich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2007), 167–75.
On Erasmus’s view of the baptismal vow with its obligation to moral conduct, see
John B. Payne, Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments (Richmond, VA: John
Knox Press, 1970), 167–71.
42. ASD V/8:180–90; CWE 66:65–70.
43. ASD V/8:190–96; CWE 66:70–71.
44. Krodel, “Abendmahlslehre des Erasmus,” 74–75, asserted that Erasmus understood
baptism as the means by which an individual was reborn and implanted in the
church, but Erasmus’s view of the sacraments as mystical and ethical shifted the em-
phasis from an objective event to a subjective experience. Krodel’s discussion is sys-
tematic rather than developmental, although he does distinguish between works
written before and after Erasmus’s public controversies with Luther and the Swiss
reformers in 1525. The discussion of the sacraments in general in Payne, Erasmus,
97–103, draws largely on Erasmus’s later writings.
45. VD16: E 2744–50; it was also published in Zaragoza and Louvain.
46. Ulrich Bubenheimer discovered Karlstadt’s copy of Erasmus’s Lucubrationes

(Strasbourg: Schurer, 1516), with Karlstadt’s marginalia on the opening pages of
the Enchiridion, in the library of the Gleim-Haus in Halberstadt, call no. C9243.
I thank Dr. Bubenheimer for telling me of this discovery. On Zwingli, see note 139,
this chapter.
47. VD16: E 2751–75. In addition to Basel, the work was published in Cologne,
Strasbourg, Leipzig, Mainz, and Vienna.
48. The two translations have slightly different titles; VD16: E 2787–88. A Low
German translation would be printed in Cologne in 1525, VD16: E 2789. Holeczek
identifies Jud, along with Georg Spalatin, as the most important translator of
Erasmus into German in the early Reformation. He draws attention especially
to Jud’s translations of Erasmus’s paraphrases of the New Testament, Holeczek,
Erasmus Deutsch, 111–16.
49. On the general development of Luther’s sacramental theology during this pe-
riod, see Wolfgang Schwab, Entwicklung und Gestalt der Sakramententheologie
37
Notes 337
bei Martin Luther, Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 23, Theologie 79

(Frankfurt/M : Lang,  1977).
50. Luther, Sermon von dem Sakrament der Buße, WA 2:713–23, LW 35:3–22; VD16:
L 6419–27, 6429–35; Sermon von dem heiligen hochwirdigen Sakrament der Taufe,
WA 2:727–37, LW 35:23–43; VD16: L 6358–74; Sermon von dem hochwürdigen
Sakrament des Leichnams Christi, WA 2:738–58, LW 35:79–111; VD16: L
6386–400.
51. Luther, Sermon von dem neuen Testament, WA 6:349–78, LW 35:75–111; VD16: L
6401–615.
52. WA 6:501–508, LW 36:19–28.
53. WA 6:512–22, LW 36:35–50.
54. In fact, Melanchthon was the first to suggest, in the disputation held for his
baccalaureate in theology, that the rejection of transubstantiation was not he-
retical, a suggestion Luther described as “bold”; Wilhelm H. Neuser, Die
Abendmahlslehre Melanchthons in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (1519–1530),
Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 26 (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 20.
55. WA 6:508–12, LW 36:28–35.
56. WA 6:526–38, LW 36:57–74.
57. WA 6:571–72, LW 36:123–24.
58. De Captivitate Babylonica, VD16: L 4185–89; Von der Babylonischen gefencknuß,
VD16: L 4192–96.
59. Burnett, Karlstadt,  44–48.
60. On these controversies and their reflection in subsequent editions, see Erika
Rummel, Erasmus and his Catholic Critics, vol. 1: 1515–1522 (Nieuwkoop: De
Graaf, 1989); Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From
Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 123–80.
61. Between 1518 and 1522, Erasmus was living in Louvain, and he published his
paraphrases on the individual epistles either there or in Antwerp, but Froben
quickly reprinted each of them, and Froben was the first to print the paraphrases
together in one volume in the spring of 1521. See the introduction in CWE
42:xx–xxix.
62. Erasmus, Enchiridion, ASD V/8:110–22, CWE 66:32–35.
63. Erasmus, “Ratio,” 356/7–376/7; John B. Payne, “Toward the Hermeneutic of
Erasmus,” in Scrinium Erasmianum, ed. J. Coppens (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 13–49;
Thomas F. Torrance, “The Hermeneutics of Erasmus,” in Probing the Reformed
Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., ed. Elsie Anne
McKee and Brian G. Armstrong (Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox,
1989),  48–76.
64. Both Luther and Melanchthon frequently mentioned progress on the work in
their letters to Spalatin beginning in the summer of 1522; cf. March 30, 1522, MBW
38
338 Notes
T1:467, no. 224; Melanchthon told Spalatin the printing of the New Testament
had begun on May 5, 1522, MBW T1:469–70, no. 228.
65. Timothy J. Wengert, Philipp Melanchthon’s Annotationes in Johannem in Relation
to its Predecessors and Contemporaries, Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 220
(Geneva: Droz, 1987), 31–42.
66. On the development of Luther’s hermeneutics, see Robert Kolb, Martin

Luther: Confessor of the Faith, Christian Theology in Context (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), 42–55.
67. Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology,  30–47.
68. Volker Leppin, Die Fremde Reformation: Luthers mystische Wurzeln (Munich:
Beck, 2016).
69. On Luther’s understanding of word and sacrament, see Kolb, Confessor, 131–51; see
also David C. Steinmetz, “Scripture and the Lord’s Supper in Luther’s Theology,”
in Luther in Context, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 72–84.
70. Luther to Spalatin, October 19, 1516, WA Br 1:70–71, no. 27; on Luther’s her-
meneutical differences with Erasmus, see Thomas Kaufmann, Der Anfang der
Reformation: Studien zur Kontextualität der Theologie, Publizistik und Inszenierung
Luthers und der reformatorischen Bewegung, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus,
Reformation 67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 78–97.
71. Helmar Junghans, “Die Beziehungen des jungen Luther zu den Humanisten: Martin
Luther aus Eisleben, ein Bibelhumanist neben Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam,”
in Humanismus und Reformation: Martin Luther und Erasmus von Rotterdam in
den Konflikten ihrer Zeit, ed. Otto H. Pesch (Munich: Schnell & Steiner, 1985),
33–50; Cornelis Augustijn, “Erasmus im Galaterbriefkommentar Luthers von 1519,”
in Augustijn, Erasmus. Der Humanist als Theologe,  53–70.
72. Christ-von Wedel, “Erasmus und Luther as Ausleger der Bibel,” in Auslegung und
Hermeneutik der Bibel in der Reformationszeit, ed. Christine Christ-von Wedel and
Sven Grosse, Historia Hermeneutica Series Studia 14 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017),
367–80, citation at 372.
73. Robert Kolb, Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God: The Wittenberg School
and Its Scripture-Centered Proclamation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2016), 98–131.
74. WA DB 7:12, LW 35:370–71; Kolb, Enduring Word, 113–14.
75. Timothy J. Wengert, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness. Philip
Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam, Oxford Studies in
Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 56–64.
76. The differences can also be seen in a comparison of how the Wittenbergers
used Erasmus’s annotations on the New Testament text, but these will not be
discussed here.
77. The Loci Communes was printed in September 1521.
78. WA 10/2:310; cf. Wengert, Annotationes, 33.
39
Notes 339
79. See a more systematic presentation of Erasmus’s understanding of the sacrament

in Dorothea Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 23–39; see also Payne, Erasmus, 126–54.
80. CWE 43:128–31, citation at 129; cf. also his paraphrase of 1 Cor. 6:8–9, a passage
that does not mention baptism: “for it is not enough to have been washed in water,
not enough to have been grafted onto Christ, unless one’s whole life measures up to
the teaching of Christ,” CWE 43:79–80.
81. CWE 43:134–35.
82. Henri de Lubac, Corpus Mysticum: The Eucharist and the Church in the Middle
Ages: Historical Survey (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press,
2006),  37–54.
83. CWE 43:145–48.
84. Erasmus, Tomvs Primvs Paraphraseon D. Erasmi Roterodami, in nouum
Testamentum, uidelicet in quatuor Euangelia & Acta apostolorum (Basel: Froben,
1524), 162–63; CWE 45:348–51.
85. CWE 46:81–89.
86. CWE 46:85.
87. CWE 46:89.
88. MelStA 4:206–207. The scriptural promises were Mark 16:16 (lotio), John 20:23
(absolutio), and Matt. 26:28–29 (vesci Eucharistia). Melanchthon’s terminology for
what Luther referred to as “the sacrament of the altar,” or simply “the sacrament” is
noteworthy.
89. MelStA 4:52–54, citation at 54.
90. Melanchthon was here repeating Luther’s position in his sermons from 1518 and
1519 on preparing to receive communion; see Amy Nelson Burnett, “‘Instructed
with the Greatest Diligence Concerning the Sacrament’: Communion
Preparation in the Early Years of the Reformation,” in From Wittenberg
to the World: Essays on the Reformation and its Legacy, ed. Charles P. Arand
et al., Refo500 Academic Studies 50 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2018),  47–66.
91. MelStA 4:57–60.
92. MelStA 2/1:140–44.
93. MelStA 2/1:144–48,  156.
94. Philipp Melanchthon, Annotationes in Iohannem, castigatiores quam quae antea
invulgatae sunt (Hagenau: Setzer, 1524), fol. 47v–52r.
95. Melanchthon, Iohannem, 52r: “In hoc capite potissimum obseruabis, quid
sit manducare carnem Christi, scilicet credere in Christum crucifixum, simul
mortificare, & confidere quod in morte uiuificet.”
96. Erasmus, Paraphrases Des. Erasmi Roterodamin in epistolas Pauli apostoli ad Rhomanos
Corinthios & Galatas (Basel: Froben, 1520), 247, 291; CWE 43:79–80, 128.
340
340 Notes
97. Wengert, Annotationes, 255–63; cf. the table of Melanchthon’s lectures and exeget-
ical publications in MelStA 4:10–12.
98. MelStA 2/1:3–163; VD16: M 3583–98, M 3601–604.
99. CWE 42:xx–xxix.
100. On the complicated printing history, see Wengert, Annotationes,  43–48.
101. Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 17–26. Kaufmann analyzes Pellikan’s report in
the context of Scotus’s discussion of Christ’s substantial presence and concludes
that the most one can draw from Pellikan’s (much later) account of this conversa-
tion is that Christ is present in the sacrament in some way other than a spacially
circumscribed form.
102. Melanchthon to Fabian Gyrceus, dated at the end of 1524 by the editors of his cor-
respondence, MBW T2:220, no. 363: “Sunt enim partim leves disputationes partim
obscurissimae et ex mediis scholis dialecticorum illius temporis depromptae.”
103. Capito to Zwingli, December 31, 1524, Z 8:279–83, no. 356; English summary in
CWC 2:94, no. 234. Capito’s statement that he did not have Wyclif ’s work “in his
home” suggests that he owned a copy of Trialogus, and he may have been the one
who provided Otto Brunfels with the manuscript that was the basis for the book
published in March 1525.
104. Burnett, Karlstadt, 83.
105. Horst Wenzel, “Luthers Briefe im Medienwechsel von der Manuskriptkultur zum
Buchdruck,” in Die deutsche Reformation zwischen Spätmittelalter und Früher
Neuzeit, ed. Thomas A. Brady, Jr. (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2001), 203–29.
106. On the significance of this heterogeneous audience, see Hans-Joachim Köhler,
“Die Flugschriften. Versuch der Präzisierung eines geläufigen Begriffs,” in Festgabe
für Ernst-Walter Zeeden, ed. Horst Rabe et al., Reformationsgeschichtliche
Studien und Texte Supplementband 2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1976), 36–61.
107. Ronald J. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of his Thought,
1517–1525, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 11 (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1974),  70–71.
108. Luther’s letter in WA 10/2:53–60, where he referred to his unnamed opponent
as a “wasser blase"; WA 10/2:45; cf. Duke George to Luther, December 30, 1522,
WA Br 2:642, no. 564; Luther’s response to Duke George, Janaury 3, 1523, WA Br
3:4–7, no. 567.
109. With regard to Müntzer, see Luther to Spalatin, May 5, 1522, WA Br 2:515, no. 483;
with regard to Karlstadt, see Luther to Nikolaus Hausmann, May 14, 1524, WA Br
3:255–56, no. 721.
110. Spruyt, Hoen,  43–84.
111. See B. J. Spruyt’s detailed analysis of Hoen’s letter, Spruyt, Hoen, 99–165. At the
end of his analysis, Spruyt suggests that the letter is in fact an older, heretical text
with interpolations by Hoen. Both the Latin original and the German translation
of Hoen’s Epistola are edited in Spruyt, Hoen, 226–51; an English translation of
most of Hoen’s Christian Letter is in Heiko A. Oberman, ed., Forerunners of the
341
Notes 341
Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought Illustrated by Key Documents

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 268–76.
112. Lechler, Joannis Wiclif, 251–2, 257; Lahey, Wyclif: Trialogus, 200–201, 205;
Jakoubek of Stříbro, “Tractatus de Remanencia,” edited in Paul de Vooght,
Jacobellus de Stříbro: Premier Théologien du Hussitisme, Bibliothèque de la Revue
d’histoire ecclésiastique 54 (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain,
1972), 319; Joannis de Zacz, Tractatulus, in Sedlák, Táborské traktáty, 4–5; [Peter
Payne, Tractatus I de corpore Christi], in Sedlák, Táborské traktáty, 25; [Peter
Payne, Tractatus II de corpore Christi], in Sedlák, Táborské traktáty, 30; Spruyt,
Hoen, 227.
113. This radical argument was rejected by Jacobellus de Stříbro, in De Vooght,
Jacobellus, 392–93, and defended in the 1508 “Excusatio fratrum Valdensium,” in
Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Commentariorum De Concilio Basileae celebrato libri
duo (Basel, 1523), 156; cf. Spruyt, Hoen, 230–31.
114. See 1507 “Confessio fratrum,” in Piccolomini, Commentariorum . . . libri duo, 135,
136; 1508 “Excusatio,” in Piccolomini, Commentariorum . . . libri duo, 141, 151, 152,
154; cf. Spruyt, Hoen, 231.
115. 1 Cor. 10:4, Matt. 11:14, Gen. 41:27, found in Lechler, Wiclif, Trialogus, 256, 266–7,
and Lahey, Wyclif: Trialogus, 204, 213; in Zacz, Tractatulus, in Sedlák, Táborské
traktáty, 6–7, and the 1508 “Excusatio,” in Piccolomini, Commentariorum . . . libri
duo, 154; to these examples Hoen added John 19:26, Matt. 16:18, and Christ’s meta-
phorical statements, “I am the door, I am the way,” and so on; Spruyt, Hoen, 228, 232.
116. [Payne, Tractatus II,] in Sedlák, Táborské traktáty, 37; 1507 “Confessio,” in
Piccolomini, Commentariorum . . . libri duo, 136; 1508 “Excusatio,” in Piccolomini,
Commentariorum . . . libri duo, 151; cf. Spruyt, Hoen, 227, 232.
117. Spruyt, Hoen, 228, 232–33.
118. Spruyt, Hoen, 232, 226.
119. On Rode as the disseminator of Hoen’s letter, see Spruyt, Hoen, 197–202. Spruyt
suggests that Rode may have been in Wittenberg as early as April 1521, before
Luther left for Worms. More likely is Bubenheimer’s suggestion of a visit in the fall
of 1521, while Luther was still in the Wartburg; Ulrich Bubenheimer, “Scandalum
et ius divinum: Theologische und rechtstheologische Probleme der ersten
reformatorischen Innovationen in Wittenberg 1521/1522,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-
Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 90, kanonistische Abteilung 59 (1973): 263– 342,
esp. 281–83. It is possible that a copy of Hoen’s letter was made at that time, which
was either sent to Luther at the Wartburg or which Luther read after his return.
120. Cornelis Augustijn, “Wessel Gansfort’s Rise to Celebrity,” in Wessel Gansfort
(1419–1489) and Northern Humanism, ed. Fokke Akkerman et al. (Leiden: Brill,
1993),  3–22.
121. Luther’s attitude toward the Bohemian Brethren was nuanced, changing from in-
itial rejection to a more positive view as he became familiar with their teachings;
Amedeo Molnár, “Luthers Beziehungen zu den Böhmischen Brüdern,” in Leben
342
342 Notes
und Werk Martin Luthers von 1526 bis 1546. Festgabe zu seinem 500. Geburtstag, ed.
Helmar Junghans (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 1:627–39.
122. “Picard” was a derogatory term for the Bohemian Brethren; “Waldensian
Brethren” was another name common for them in Germany.
123. May 16, 1522, WA Br 2:529–32, no. 491. The letter survives only in German trans-
lation, but behind Luther’s wahrhaftig und eigentlich one can hear the Wycliffite
vere et realiter, while in den Geistern may have referred to the souls of the elect.
Luther’s conclusion repeated his position in De captivitate Babylonica that
Christians did not need to know how Christ’s body and blood were present.
124. To Spalatin, July 4, 1522, WA Br 2:473–74, no. 515.
125. WA 11:435–37; cf. Hoen’s statement, “Petra erat Christus, id est, repraesentabat
Christum”; Spruyt, Hoen, 228. Hoen’s statement reflects a significant shift away
from Wyclif ’s understanding of the verse as expressing a habitudinal but true re-
lationship between subject and predicate to an understanding that was rhetor-
ical and metaphorical. Although the Brethren used 1 Cor. 10:4 to argue against
Christ’s bodily presence, they did not assert that “is” should be understood as
“signifies” or “represents.”
126. WA 11:437–41.
127. Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 269.
128. Excerpt from Oecolampadius’s Responsio to Willibald Pirckheimer, OBA 1:547.
129. Pellikan was a lecturer in theology at the Franciscan convent in Basel from
1502. Capito was appointed cathedral preacher and thology professor in Basel
in 1515, the year Oecolampadius moved to the city to help with the printing
of Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New Testament; Staehelin, Lebenswerk,
60–61.
130. A detailed discussion of Capito’s early theology is in Kaufmann, Abend
mahlstheologie, 26–75; on the influence of Erasmus, see Martin Heimbucher,
Prophetische Auslegung: das reformatorische Profil des Wolfgang Fabricius Capito
ausgehend von seinen Kommentaren zu Habakuk und Hosea (Frankfurt am
Main: Lang, 2008), 115–43.
131. Johannes Oecolampadius, Sermo de Sacramento Evcharistiae (Augsburg: Grimm
& Wirsung, 1521). Oecolampadius produced a longer German version of the
sermon, Ain Predig vnd ermanung von wirdiger ereenbietung dem Sacrament
des fronleichnam christi (Augsburg, 1521); contents are summarized in Staehelin,
Lebenswerk, 142–45. Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis, 101–15, emphasizes
Oecolampadius’s reception of Luther within an Erasmian framework.
132. Piccolomini, Commentariorum libri duo; on the contents of the volume, see
Burnett, “Hussite Background.”
133. Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 267–70. Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis, 111n95,
interprets the Basler’s letter of October 23, 1524, to Veit Bild as presupposing
Christ’s “real presence,” cf. OBA 1:237, no. 225, but the letter is ambiguous and
fits with Oecolampadius’s other efforts from this period not to deny Christ’s
34
Notes 343
substantial presence in print. By late October of 1524 he had already read and
approved the printing of at least one of Karlstadt’s Eucharistic pamphlets.
134. Zwingli, Amica Exegesis, Z 5:738–39, HZW 2:357.
135. Z&L 1:48–49,  61–63.
136. In the fall of 1525, Zwingli said that the two visitors had not shared Hoen’s letter
with Zwingli and Jud until after they had heard the Zurichers’ own position;
Responsio ad Bugenhagii; Z 4:560.
137. Burnett, Karlstadt, 96.
138. Köhler describes several parallels between Erasmus and Zwingli, Z&L 1:49–56.
In contrast to his detailed discussion of Erasmus’s influence on Zwingli, Köhler’s
discussion of Erasmus’s mysticism, 57, relies on a definition of mysticism that is
much too vague, especially when compared to the influence of German mysticism
on the early Wittenberg school.
139. Walther Köhler, Huldrych Zwinglis Bibliothek, Neujahrsblatt auf das Jahr 1921
(Zurich: Beer, 1921), *14–16, nos. 103, 106, 110–112, 114.
140. Zwingli’s early understanding of the sacrament has been discussed at length.
Köhler’s discussion, Z&L 1:16–48, is still valuable because of its detail. The best
introduction in English is W. Peter Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 218–27. The most recent study in German tends
to read Zwingli’s later views into his earlier writings, Johannes Voigtländer,
Ein Fest der Befreiung: Huldrych Zwinglis Abendmahlslehre (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 27–59.
141. Z 2:120–27, 148–49; HZW 1:98–103, 118–19.
142. “Der maß wir sy bruchend,” Z 2:120.30; “fronlychnam unnd bluot Christi,” passim.
Fronleichnam was the customary term for the consecrated host; Schweizerisches
Idiotikon. Wörterbuch der schweizerdeutschen Sprache (Frauenfeld: Huber, 1881–),
s.v. “frôn,”1:1301, “lichnam,” 3:1015–16; Jacob Grimm et al., Deutsches Wörterbuch
(Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854–1960), 4:230–33, 238–39.
143. Z 2:112–19, 127–30; HZW 1:92–98, 103–105; Burnett, Karlstadt,  48–49.
144. Z 2:130–31, 135–37. His translations were his own rather than those of Luther’s
New Testament.
145. Z 2:131, HZW 1:105–106.
146. Z 2:137–39, 141–44; HZW 1:110–12. On the significance of remembrance for
Zwingli, see Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis,  70–85.
147. Z 2:658–59; Zwingli used fronlychnam twice and lychnam once for the consecrated
host. The Introduction was written in the aftermath of the second Zurich disputa-
tion on images and the mass, held from October 26 to 28, as a summary of evan-
gelical teachings for Zurich’s subjects.
148. Z 2:808–10. In the memo presented by Zwingli and his colleagues, fronlychnam
occurs six times and lychnam once.
149. In a pamphlet published in late June 1524, Zwingli referred to his sermons on
John, Z 3:141. Zwingli’s marginal glosses in his copy of Augustine’s homilies
34
344 Notes
on the Gospel according to John were written at various times, Z 12:135. These
homilies also shaped Zwingli’s understanding of John 6 in his first published
rejections of Christ’s bodily presence.
150. Zwingli referred twice to the “sacrament des fronlychnams,” Z 3:123, 127, and four
times to the “sacrament des lychnams,” 124, 125 (twice), 126, as well as to the “brot
und tranck des lychnams Christi,” 126, and the “trank dis sacraments,” 128. Cf.
his Christliche Antwort an Bischof Hugo, Z 3:190, 196 (“sacrament deß wyns und
brots”), 195, 199, 201 (“sacrament des lychnams und bluotes Christi”); in contrast,
he used “sacrament des altars” when speaking of the mass or citing his opponents’
arguments, e.g., Z 3:208–209.
151. Melanchthon referred to “the participation in the Lord’s table” in his Loci; others
preferred synaxis, a term used by Erasmus. For the “Lord’s Supper,” see Martin
Bucer, De Caena Dominica, BOL 1:17–58, and Andreas Karlstadt, Wider die alte
und newe Papistische Messen (Basel: Wolff, 1524), A2r, EPK 111.
152. The ambiguity of the expression is clear from Conrad Grebel’s scornful remark to
Vadian that Zwingli “called the Lord’s bread and wine the holy body (fronlichnam)
and blood of Christ in a public sermon today,” January 14, 1525, QGTS 1:33–34,
no. 23.
153. Zwingli defended Kolb’s preaching and mentioned his own ongoing sermons on
John in a pamphlet dated June 25, 1524, Z 3:139, 141.
154. Kolb to Luther, August 27, 1524, WA Br 3:329–32, no. 769; Luther in turn passed
this news on to Nicholas Hausmann in Zwickau, November 17, 1524, WA Br
3: 373–74 no. 793.
C h a p t er 4
1. Andreas Karlstadt, Von dem widerchristlichen mißbrauch des herrn brodt vnd kelch
(Basel: Bebel, 1524), EPK 205–206.
2. WA 6:538, LW 36:73.
3. The development of Luther’s thought concerning infant faith is summarized
in Karl Brinkel, Die Lehre Luthers von der fides infantium bei der Kindertaufe,
Theologische Arbeiten 7 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958), 24–48.
4. See the introduction to Karlstadt’s first published work from 1507, De
intentionibus, in KGK 1:3–10.
5. The importance of Karlstadt’s legal training is a prominent theme in Ulrich
Bubenheimer, Consonantia Theologiae et Iurisprudentiae. Andreas Bodenstein
von Karlstadt als Theologe und Jurist zwischen Scholastik und Reformation,
Jus Ecclesiasticum, Beiträge zum evangelischen Kirchenrecht und zum
Staatskirchenrecht 24 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1977); on the influence of Augustine,
see Ernst Kähler, Karlstadt und Augustin: Der Kommentar des Andreas Bodenstein
von Karlstadt zu Augustins Schrift De Spiritu et Litera, Hallische Monographien
19 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1952); of Tauler, Hans- Peter Hasse, Karlstadt und
345
Notes 345
Tauler. Untersuchungen zur Kreuzestheologie, Quellen und Forschungen zur

Reformationsgeschichte 58 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1993); on Karlstadt’s
lectures on Pico, Ulrich Bubenheimer, “Zur vorreformatorischen Rezeption des
italienischen Humanismus in Erfurt und Wittenberg bei Martin Luther und
Andreas Karlstadt,” in Anwälte der Freiheit! Humanisten und Reformatoren im
Dialog. Begleitband zur Ausstellung im Reuchlinhaus Pforzheim, 20. September bis
8. November 2015, ed. Matthias Dall’Asta (Heidelberg: Neckar Universitätsverlag
Winter, 2015), 105–13.
6. Alejandro Zorzin, Karlstadt als Flugschriftenautor, Göttinger theologische
Arbeiten 48 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 24, 35–37.
7. The so-called Wittenberg movement has been the subject of much research; from the
perspective of the reform of the mass, along with references to the older literature, see
Burnett, Karlstadt, 10–35, to which should be added Natalie Krentz, Ritualwandel
und Deutungshoheit. Die frühe Reformation in der Residenzstadt Wittenberg (1500–
1533), Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 74 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2014), 143–242, which highlights not only the actions of Luther and the elector but
also how the later interpretation of developments in Wittenberg was shaped.
8. The historiography concerning the so-called Zwickau prophets has been pro-
foundly influenced by prejudicial sources from the sixteenth century. The most
recent studies discuss the historiography and give a much more sober account
of their significance: Siegfried Hoyer, “Die Zwickauer Storchianer: Vorläufer
der Täufer?,” Jahrbuch für Regionalgeschichte 13 (1986): 60–78; Olaf Kuhr,
“The Zwickau Prophets, the Wittenberg Disturbances, and Polemical
Historiography,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 70 (1996): 203–14; and especially
Thomas Kaufmann, Thomas Müntzer, “Zwickauer Propheten” und sächsische
Radikale. Eine quellen-und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu einer komplexen
Konstellation (Mühlhausen: Thomas- Müntzer- Gesellschaft, 2010). Still valu-
able because of its knowledge of the primary sources, although its claims must
be used with caution, is Paul Wappler, Thomas Müntzer in Zwickau und die
“Zwickauer Propheten,” Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 182
(Gütersloh: Mohn, 1966; orig. Zwickau: Realgymnasium, 1908).
9. Thomas Kaufmann has suggested that Nikolaus Storch may have been influenced
by ideas coming from the Bohemian Brethren; Kaufman, Müntzer, 21–26, 113–22;
cf. the older view in Wappler, Thomas Müntzer,  16–18.
10. Hoyer, “Storchianer,” 70–71; Kaufmann, Müntzer, 46–47; Susan C. Karant-
Nunn, Zwickau in Transition, 1500–1547: The Reformation as an Agent of Change
(Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1987), 112–21.
11. Most secondary sources give the name of the third individual as Thomas Drechsler,
but Kaufmann has argued against this identification. He also grants that it is likely
that Stübner had been in Zwickau and left the city with Storch and the other
weaver, but he points out that Stübner’s whereabouts before December 27 cannot
be determined from the sources; Kaufman, Müntzer,  51–53.
346
346 Notes
12. At the beginning of January 1522, Melanchthon reported having disputed with
Stübner “half a year ago,” MBW T1:432–33, no. 204. Stübner’s earlier contact
with Melanchthon explains why he and his companions approached him with
their claims to divine inspiration and prophecy. Stübner most likely met Müntzer
while both were in Wittenberg in 1518, and Müntzer wrote to him in early June
about a planned journey. This has led to the conjecture that Stübner accompanied
Müntzer to Prague in the summer of 1521; Müntzer to Stübner, June 8, 1521, TMA
2:82–85. For a detailed summary of what is (and is not) known about Stübner, see
Kaufmann, Müntzer, 35–36n 106; 75–82.
13. Felix Ulscenius to Wolfgang Capito, January 1, 1522, CWC 1:187, no. 127; WB, 135–
36, no. 62; Ulscenius told Capito that Stübner’s companions had left town in a
second letter of the same date, CWC 1:188, no. 128; WB, 136–37, no. 63.
14. December 27, 1521, MBW T1:415–17, no. 192, with accompanying letter to Spalatin
the same day, MBW T1:417–18, no. 193; WB, 129–31, nos. 59–60.
15. Melanchthon’s remark to Spalatin that “Doctor Martin well knows what underlies
this question” concerning infant baptism suggests that the two men had discussed
the issue; MBW T1:432–33, no. 204; WB, 137–45, no. 64.
16. Melanchthon told the elector’s counselors that it was Stübner, not Storch, who was
concerned about infant baptism; MBW T1:432–33, no. 204.
17. Contained in Spalatin’s discussion of his meeting with Melanchthon and Amsdorf
on January 1, MBW T1:427–29, no. 202.
18. MBW T1:432–33, no. 204. Kaufman, Müntzer, 61–68, analyzes this meeting from a
theological perspective; Krenz, Ritualwandel, 200–10, from a political perspective.
19. WA Br 2:424–7, no. 50; LW 48:364–72; Kaufman, Müntzer,  69–71.
20. In his prefatory letter to Friedrich Myconius, published in his 1530 Sentenciae
Veterum aliquot scriptorum, de Coena Domini, MBW T4/1:46–50. Melanchthon’s
harsh polemic against Karlstadt in this work is particularly striking in view of his
own close ties with Stübner and Cellarius in early 1522.
21. Camerarius was in Wittenberg at the time and so drew on his own memories,
although his account was intended to exonerate Melanchthon his associa-
tion with such “questionable” individuals; Joachim Camerarius, Vita Philippi
Melanchthonis (The Hague: Vlacq, 1655), 48. Cellarius left Wittenberg after
his meeting with Luther in April described later and, like Karlstadt a year later,
abandoned his academic life to take up a trade in his hometown of Stuttgart;
Irena Backus, Martin Borrhaus (Cellarius), Bibliotheca dissidentium.
Répertoire des non-conformistes religieux des seizième et dix-septième siècles
2 (Baden-Baden: Koerner, 1981), 11–12; Lucia Felici, Tra riforma ed eresia.
La Giovinezza di Martin Borrhaus (1499– 1528) (Florence: L.S. Olschki,
1995),  39–67.
22. Luther to Spalatin, May 5, 1522, WA Br 2:515, no. 483.
23. Russell S. Woodbridge, “Gerhard Westerburg: A Genuine Anabaptist?,” Mennonite
Quarterly Review 83 (2009): 131–55.
347
Notes 347
24. On preaching, Luther to Wenzeslaus Link, March 19, 1522, WA Br 2:478–80,

no. 462; on Karlstadt’s book, Luther to Spalatin, April 21, 1522, WA Br 2:509,
no. 479.
25. April 12, 1522, WA Br 2:492–93, no. 472. In response to a letter from Melanchthon
in January about the visitors, Luther had pointed out that those called by God were
divinely attested to by miraculous signs, January 13, 1522, WA Br 2:424–27, no. 450.
Camerarius also described Cellarius’s extreme response to Luther’s skepticism in his
account of the meeting included in his biography of Melanchthon. He probably
heard the story from Melanchthon, who was present at the meeting; Camerarius,
Vita Melanchthonis,  50–51.
26. See also Luther to Johannes Lang, April 13, 1522, WA Br 2:494–95, no. 473.
27. WA TR 2:306–307, no. 2060, cf. Luther’s account of the meeting to Spalatin,
September 4, 1522, WA Br 2:596–98, no. 535. Luther’s emphasis on the water joined
with the word may reflect his understanding of the sacrament in 1532 rather than
his position during his discussion with Storch in 1522.
28. Susanne bei der Weiden, Luthers Predigten des Jahres 1522. Untersuchungen zu ihrer
Überlieferung, Archiv zur Weimarer Ausgabe der Werke Martin Luthers, Texte und
Untersuchungen 7 (Cologne: Böhlau, 1999), 45–49.
29. Luther was in Zwickau from April 29 to May 3; a reported 14,000 people came to
hear him; WA 10/3:XCLV; Karant-Nunn, Zwickau, 128.
30. WA 10/3:112.
31. 5 May 1522, WA Br 2:515, no. 483
32. May 29, 1522, WA Br 2:545–47, no. 500.
33. Melanchthon to Johannnes Hess, March 25, 1522, MBW T1:460–61, no. 222.
Volkmar Joestel, “Neue Erkenntnisse zu Jenaer Karlstadtschriften 1524,” in Andreas
Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, ed.
Sigrid Looss and Markus Matthias (Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien
Verlag, 1998), 121–42.
34. Karlstadt opened his pamphlet Vorstand des worts Pauli. Jch begeret ein

vorbannter seyn von Christo ( Jena: Buchfürer, 1524) by saying he was asked how
to explain this verse at a gathering of “good brothers” for dinner, A2r. Assuming
that the pamphlet was written shortly before it was published, Joestel, “Neue
Erkenntnisse,” 133–36, places this discussion in the context of the situation in
Jena, but in the pamphlet Karlstadt was not so concerned with the issue of ex-
communication as he was with opposing the view that regard for “the weak”
was more important than pleasing God. The pamphlet thus clearly refers back
to the situation in Wittenberg after Luther’s return and can be seen as an earlier
expression of the position Karlstadt expressed more forcefully in his pamphlet
published in 1524, Ob man gemach faren vnd des ergernüssen der schwachen
verschonen soll.
35. Their discussion is described in Andreas Karlstadt, Ap Got ein vrsach sey des
Teuffelischen fahls ( Jena: Buchfürer, 1524). Joestel suggests that it was prompted
348
348 Notes
by the doctoral disputation of Johann Briesmann, held in March; Volkmar Joestel,

“Neue Erkenntnisse,” 125–32.
36. Camerarius related an incident in which Stübner dreamed of purgatory, which
displeased Melanchthon, since this had been refuted in disputations; Vita
Melanchthonis, 49. In a letter to Melanchthon from the end of March, Müntzer
also brought up the topic of purgatory, MBW T1:464–66, no. 223.
37. Andreas Karlstadt, Ein Sermon vom stand der Christglaubigen seelen (Augsburg:
Grimm und Wirsung, 1523), c3r, which is the earliest expression of a position
discussed in more detail in Dyalogus. Von frembden glauben. Von Glauben der
Kirchen. Von Tauff der kinder (Worms: Schöffer, 1527), c7v–d1v.
38. WA Br 2:550, no. 502. The dating of late May is conjectural and associated with
Luther’s discussions with Stübner and Cellarius. The recipient is tentatively
identified as Christoph Hofmann, a student who left Wittenberg to become a
pastor in Kitzingen in August 1522. If that identification is correct, the letter might
be dated after Hofmann’s departure from Wittenberg, and perhaps as late as the
end of 1522.
39. WA 10/2:243.
40. Cf. also his comments about Schwermer in his sermons and lectures from the spring
of 1523: WA 11:42, 59, 82, 113; WA 14:605; chapter 12, this volume.
41. Johannes Cochlaeus, De Gratia Sacramentorvm Liber Vnus (Strasbourg:
Grüninger, 1522).
42. Adversus armatum virum Cokleum, WA 11:295–306.
43. WA 11:302.
44. Das Taufbüchlein verdeutscht, WA 12:42–49; Luther’s conclusion, 46–48.
45. This was the same period when Luther was responding to the views of the Bohemian
Brethren concerning the sacraments, especially in his Von Anbeten des Sacraments
des heyligen leychnams Christi, cf. chapter 3, this volume.
46. Hermann Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Brandstetter,
1905), 2:1–3 describes Karlstadt as marginalized, even though he cites several
examples of those who did not avoid Karlstadt; for more recent assertions
of Karlstadt’s isolation, see Jens- Martin Kruse, Universitätstheologie und
Kirchenreform: die Anfänge der Reformation in Wittenberg, 1516– 1522,
Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für europäische Geschichte Mainz 187
(Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2002), 382–87; see also Jens-Martin Kruse,
“Karlstadt als Wittenberger Theologe. Überlegungen zu einer pluralen
Darstellungsweise der frühen Reformation,” Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 57
(2000): 7–30. By 1524, Karlstadt was clearly bitter about the way he had been
treated by his Wittenberg colleagues, but one must use caution in reading this
back into the period immediately following Luther’s return; cf. Luther’s remark
concerning Karlstadt cited in note 38, this chapter.
47. In a letter written at the end of 1522, he made arrangements to meet with Thomas
Müntzer to discuss topics he could not put on paper; TMA 2:150–54, no. 54.
349
Notes 349
48. January 4, 1523, MBW T2:29–30, no. 257. Is it possible that Camerarius had
told Melanchthon of the publication of Karlstadt’s Ein Sermon vom stand der
Christglaubigen seelen, which was first published in Nuremberg, thereby escaping
the censorship of the Wittenberg faculty?
49. Ronald J. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of his Thought,
1517–1525, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 11 (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1974), 176–81. Both pamphlets, Von Mannigfaltigkeit des einfältigen, einigen Willen
Gottes, and Was gesagt ist: sich gelassen, were printed in Cologne, and Westerburg
probably arranged for their publication. Westerburg also published a tract in both
German and Latin on purgatory that was heavily dependent on Karlstadt’s pam-
phlet; Stefan Oehmig, “Karlstadts Auffassung von Fegefeuer. Entstehung und
Wirkung,” in Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der
frühen Reformation. Beiträge eines Arbeitsgesprächs vom 24.–25. November 1995 in
Wittenberg, ed. Sigrid Looß and Markus Matthias (Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien
Verlag, 1998), 73–120.
50. According to Sider, the legal process began in August 1522, but this may have
had more to do with settling financial problems than with facilitating Karlstadt’s
move. By May 1523, however, Karlstadt certainly intended to move to Orlamünde
as pastor, and the town council supported the move; Sider, Karlstadt, 181–89.
51. The early development of Karlstadt’s understanding of baptism is described by
Calvin Pater, Karlstadt as Father of the Baptist Movements: The Emergence of Lay
Protestantism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), 92–114, but his ac-
count must be used with caution; for instance, Pater does not distinguish between
a sacramental and a sacrament and so wrongly applies Karlstadt’s discussion of holy
water in his 1520 pamphlet Von geweychtem Wasser vnd salcz to the water of bap-
tism, pp. 100–101.
52. Andreas Karlstadt, Uon manigfeltigkeit des eynfeltigen eynigen willen gottes
(Cologne: Aich, 1523), fol. G1v–G2v; E. J. Furcha, ed., The Essential Carlstadt: Fifteen
Tracts by Andreas Bodenstein (Carlstadt) from Karlstadt (Scottdale, PA: Herald,
1995), 216–18.
53. Thomas Kaufmann, Der Anfang der Reformation: Studien zur Kontextualität der
Theologie, Publizistik und Inszenierung Luthers und der reformatorischen Bewegung,
Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012),
84–85,  94–95.
54. Andreas Karlstadt, Berichtung dyesser red. Das reich gotis/leydet gewaldt
(Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1521).
55. Andreas Karlstadt, Von dem Priesterthum vnd opffer Christi ( Jena: Buchfürer,
1524), EPK 89–109; Burnett, Karlstadt,  57–58.
56. Alejandro Zorzin, “Karlstadts ‘Dialogus vom Tauff der Kinder’ in einem anonymen
Wormser Druck aus dem Jahr 1527. Ein Beitrag zur Karlstadtbibliographie,”
Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (1988): 27– 58; Alejandro Zorzin, “Zur
Wirkungsgeschichte einer Schrift aus Karlstadts Orlamünder Tätigkeit. Der 1527
350
350 Notes
in Worms gedruckte ‘Dialog vom fremden Glauben, Glauben der Kirche, Taufe
der Kinder.’ Fortsetzung einer Diskussion,” in Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt
(1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, ed. Sigrid Looss and Markus
Matthias (Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 1998), 143–58. The
pamphlet’s references to Luther are not as embittered as Karlstadt’s Eucharistic
pamphlets, which suggests that the Dyalogus was written before them, possibly
early in 1524.
57. Andreas Karlstadt, Dyalogus. Von frembden glauben, A8v: “Der name Christi ist eyn
brünstig erkantnuß Christi/der das hat/der müß selig warden;” b2r: “Widerumb
wil Gott auch keynen annemen der jnen nit erkent vnd liebt.”
58. Karlstadt, Dyalogus. Von fremden glauben, B6r.
59. Karlstadt, Dyalogus. Von fremden glauben, c7v–c8r; cf. Karlstadt’s discussion of the
same verse in Ein Sermon vom stand der Christglauben seelen (Augsburg: Grimm,
1523), c3r.
60. “Dein glaub hat dich selig gemacht,” Karlstadt, Dyalogus. Von fremden glauben,
a3v–b2r. The passages discussed were the healing of the woman with the flow of
blood (Matt. 9:22/Mark 5:34), of the Canaanite woman’s daughter (Matt. 15:28),
and of Jairus’s daughter (Luke 8:50), which were all interpreted as referring only to
physical healing.
61. Karlstadt, Dyalogus. Von fremden glauben, b6r–v, c2v.
62. Karlstadt, Dyalogus. Von fremden glauben, c2v–c3r; cf. ASD 6/5:204; like Erasmus,
Prosper also compared the verse to 1 Cor. 1:27.
63. Karlstadt, Dyalogus. Von fremden glauben, b3r–b5r. Erasmus noted that the Greek
word was better translated as puellus, “young boy,” rather than parvulum, or “in-
fant,” and he stated that Christ was emphasizing the humility, rather than the age,
of the child, ASD 6/5:259.
64. Karlstadt, Dyalogus. Von fremden glauben, c1v.
65. Karlstadt, Dyalogus. Von fremden glauben, b5r.
66. Protestation oder Erbietung, in Thomas Müntzer, Schriften und Briefe. Kritische
Gesamtausgabe, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 33, ed.
Paul Kirn and Günther Franz (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1968), 227–29. The
Protestation was largely a polemical attack on preachers who taught justifica-
tion by faith alone. On Müntzer’s theology of baptism, see Ernst Koch, “Das
Sakramentsverständnis Thomas Müntzers,” in Der Theologe Thomas Müntzer.
Untersuchungen zu seiner Entwicklung und Lehre, ed. Siegfried Bräuer and Helmar
Junghans (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 129–55; explained as the
basis of later developments, see Gottfried Seebass, “Das Zeichen der Erwählten.
Zum Verständnis der Taufe bei Hans Hut,” in Umstrittenes Täufertum, 1525–1975,
ed. Hans-Jürgen Goertz (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 138–64.
67. Simon Haferitz, Ein Sermon vom Fest der heiligen drey Konig (Eilenburg: Widemar,
1524); Adolf Laube et al., ed., Flugschriften der frühen Reformationsbewegung
(1518–1524) (Vaduz: Topos, 1983), 1:316–51. The sermon is analyzed in Martin
351
Notes 351
Brecht, “Die Predigt des Simon Haferitz zum Fest der heiligen drei Könige 1524
in Allstedt,” Luther Jahrbuch 58 (1991): 100–12; and Vincent Evener, “Mysticism,
Christianization, and Dissent: The Appropriation of Johannes Tauler in Simon
Haferitz’s Sermon on the Feast of the Three Holy Kings (1524),” Archiv für
Reformationsgeschichte 106 (2015): 67–91, which corrects Brecht on Haferitz’s use
of Tauler.
68. John B. Payne, Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments (Richmond, VA: John
Knox Press, 1970), 172–73.
69. QGT 9:180; cf. Zwingli’s own confession, in Von der Taufe, that he had once
thought it was better to wait to baptize children until they had reached “a good
age,” Z 4:228–29.
70. Auslegen und Gründe der Schlußreden, Z 2:122–24; HZW 1:100–101; Zwingli
stated that such religious instruction had been introduced in Zurich. He differed
from Erasmus in connecting the public profession of faith with the ceremony of
confirmation rather than with baptism.
71. On September 3, Conrad Grebel told Vadian he planned to “write back” to
Karlstadt, but would also write to Müntzer, QGTS 1:11–13, no. 13; Andrea Strübind,
Eifriger als Zwingli. Die frühe Täuferbewegung in der Schweiz (Berlin: Duncker &
Humblot, 2003), 204–12.
72. In August 1527, Cellarius admitted to Oecolampadius that he had been in Zurich
“when the sect of Catabaptists was increasing,” OBA 2:91–92, no. 508; Cellarius’s
support for Karlstadt was mentioned by Anémond de Coct to Guillaume Farel in a
letter written from Basel on December 17, 1524, Herminjard 1:308–11, no. 130.
73. Grebel to Vadian, October 14, 1524, QGTS 1:21–23, no. 15. Wider die alte vnd newe
Papistische Messen, EPK 110–15, concerned the celebration of the Lord’s Supper
rather than the presence of Christ’s body. It was a response to Luther’s 1523 Formula
missae et communionis, and it was probably the first to be written, in early 1524. The
other pamphlets were Ob man mit heyliger schrifft erweysen müge/das Christus mit
leyb/bluot vnd sele im Sacrament sey, EPK 116–42; Auslegung dieser wort Christi.
Das ist mein leyb/welcher für euch gegeben würt . . . Wider die einfeltige vnd zwyfeltige
papisten, EPK 144–62; Dialogus . . . von dem grewlichen abgöttischen mißbrauch,
EPK 163–204; and Von dem widerchristlichen mißbrauch des herrn brodt vnd kelch,
EPK 205–18. The first two were probably written before Karlstadt’s meeting with
Luther in August, and the last two after that meeting, although Karlstadt added a
postscript to Auslegung after his own arrival in Basel. A more detailed discussion of
each of these pamphlets is in Burnett, Karlstadt, 54–76; on their printing, Burnett,
Karlstadt, 143–47.
74. Auslegung, a3r–v, Dialogus, b4r–v; EPK 146–47, 174–75.
75. Gottfried G. Krodel, Die Abendmahlslehre des Erasmus von Rotterdam und
seine Stellung am Anfang des Abendmahlsstreites der Reformatoren, unpub-
lished PhD dissertation, Universität-Erlangen, 1955, 200–205; Carter Lindberg,
“The Conception of the Eucharist According to Erasmus and Karlstadt,” in Les
352
352 Notes
Dissidents du XVIe siècle entre l’Humanisme et la Catholicisme, ed. Marc Lienhard,

Bibliotheca Dissidentium Scripta et Studia 1 (Baden-Baden: Valentin Koerner,
1983), 79–94; Amy Nelson Burnett, “‘Things I Never Said or Thought’? Erasmus’
Exegetical Contribution to the Early Eucharistic Controversy,” in Collaboration,
Conflict and Continuity in the Reformation. Essays in Honor of James M. Estes on
his Eightieth Birthday, ed. Konrad Eisenbichler (Toronto: Center for Reformation
and Renaissance Studies, 2014), 275–95; Burnett, Karlstadt, 57–64,  71–75.
76. Although it is speculation, there is at least some suggestion that Karlstadt
may have had access to Hussite manuscripts through his friendship with the
Jena pastor, Martin Reinhart, who published a German translation of the four
Hussite articles in 1524; Siegfried Hoyer, “Martin Reinhart und der erste Druck
hussitischer Artikel in Deutschland,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 18
(1970): 1597–615.
77. Auslegung, EPK 148, 160; cf. Spruyt, Hoen, 228.
78. Dialogus, EPK 196–97; cf Spruyt, Hoen, 230–31.
79. Miracles public: Erweysen, EPK 122; cf. Spruyt, Hoen, 232–33; proof texts: Matt.
24:23, John 16:7, Acts 1:9– 11: Erklerung, EPK 182; Dialogus, EPK 197–98.
Karlstadt’s understanding of remembrance is discussed in Dorothea Wendebourg,
Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den Abendmahlstheologien der
Reformation, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 148 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2009),  61–69.
80. Karlstadt, Ob man erweysen möge, F5r–v, EPK 142–43.
81. Karlstadt, Mißbrauch, fol. a2r–a3v; EPK 206–208.
82. See especially his lengthy discussion of remembrance in Mißbrauch, EPK 208–
15; Vincent Evener, “Divine Pedagogy and Self- accusation: Reassessing the
Theology of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 87
(2013): 335–67.
83. On Karlstadt’s hermeneutics, see Hans- Jürgen Goertz, “Variationen des
Schriftverständnisses unter den Radikalen. Zur Vieldeutigkeit des Sola-
Scriptura-Prinzips,” in Radikalität der Reformation: Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 188–215, esp. 189–93.
84. Luther, Acta Ienensis, WA 15:336–37; “vnuerhörte vnd vnüberwundten;” Auslegung,
d6r, EPK 162; cf. his appeal to Duke John to allow him to engage in a disputa-
tion with Luther, printed in his 1525 Ursachen derhalben Andres Carolstatt auß
den Landen zu Sachsen vertryben, in Karlstadts Schriften aus den Jahren 1523–
25, Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des 16 und 17. Jahrhunderts 325, ed.
Erich Hertzsch (Halle: Niemeyer, 1956–57), 2:52–53. Whether conscious or not,
Karlstadt’s complaint echoed Luther’s protest to Cajetan at Augsburg that he
could not be compelled to recant “unheard and unconvicted” (non auditus neque
convictus), Acta Augustana, WA 2:8, LW 31:263.
85. Andreas Karlstadt, Wider die alte und newe Papistische Messen (Basel: Wolff, 1524),
EPK 110–15.
35
Notes 353
86. Karlstadt, Auszlegung dieser wort Christi. Das ist meyn leyb/welcher für euch gegeben
wird. Das ist mein blüth/welches für euch vergossen würt. Luce am 22. Wider die
einfeltige vnnd zweyfeltige papisten/welche soliche wort/zuo einem abbruch des
kreützes Christi brauchen; EPK 145.
87. Karlstadt, Dialogus, a1v, EPK 165.
88. Karlstadt, Anzeyg etlicher Hauptartickeln Christlicher leere; Hertzsch, Schriften,
2:61–104; Furcha, Carlstadt, 339–77.
89. Karlstadt, Anzeyg; Hertzsch, Schriften, 2:61–69; Furcha, Carlstadt, 342–48.
90. EPK  12–18.
91. In his Entschuldigung des falschen namens der auffruor; Hertzsch, Schriften, 2:113–
18; Furcha, Carlstadt, 382–86.
92. Elector Frederick the Wise died in May of 1525. His brother John, the new elector,
had governed Thuringia in 1524 and was not favorably inclined to Karlstadt.
Karlstadt stayed in hiding with Luther and his wife in the Black Cloister for several
weeks while waiting to hear the elector’s decision. In one of his Tischreden, Luther
described Karlstadt’s fear of being seen by the elector during this time, WA TR
2:308–309, no. 2054.
93. Karlstadt, Erklerung wie Carlstat sein ler . . . geachtet haben will, WA 18:463–64;
EPK 266–68.
94. Wolfgang Capito, Was man halten/vnnd antwurten soll. Von der spaltung zwischen
Martin Luther und Andres Carolstadt (Strasbourg, 1524), W2 20:340–51. On
this work, see Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 207–17; Martin Heimbucher,
Prophetische Auslegung: das reformatorische Profil des Wolfgang Fabricius Capito
ausgehend von seinen Kommentaren zu Habakuk und Hosea (Frankfurt/M : Lang,
2008),  72–80.
95. Theobald Billican, Renovatio Ecclesiae Nordlingiacensis, et Ratio Omnibus redditur,
de quorundam institutione, per Diaconos ibidem (Augsburg: Ruff, 1525); Sehling,
Kirchenordnungen, 12/2:298–300. Billican’s Renovatio does not mention any of
Karlstadt’s pamphlets, and it is possible that he based his arguments on his discus-
sion with Karlstadt rather than on the latter’s printed works. Billican’s reference to
the “false prophets” suggests that he had also read Luther’s Against the Heavenly
Prophets before he wrote the Renovatio.
96. Urbanus Rhegius, Wider den newen irrsal Doctor Andres von Carlstadt des
Sacraments halb warning (Augsburg: Ruff, 1524); Burnett, Karlstadt, 122–23;
Hellmut Zschoch, Reformatorische Existenz und konfessionelle Identität. Urbanus
Rhegius als evangelischer Theologe in den Jahren 1520 bis 1530, Beiträge zur historische
Theologie 88 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995), 169–80.
97. Luther, Eyn brieff an die Christen Zu Straspurg widder den schwermer geyst, WA
15:380–97, LW 40:65–81.
98. Luther, Widder die hymelischen Propheten/Von den bildern vnd Sacrament, WA
18:62–125, 136–214; LW 40:79–223.
99. February 6, 1525, OBA 1:375, no. 244.
354
354 Notes
100. Luther had received copies of five of Karlstadt’s pamphlets from the Strasbourg
reformers. As its genre and title suggest, the Dialogus was intended for a broad
popular audience, and it was the most polemical of the five; see the more detailed
discussion of Luther’s pamphlet in Burnett, Karlstadt,  68–71.
101. WA 18:136–39, LW 40:146–49.
102. WA 18:144–61, LW 40:154–71.
103. WA 18:164–80, LW 40:175–90.
104. WA 18:198–200, LW 40:208–10.
105. WA 18:192–95, LW 40:202–205.
106. WA 18:182–88, LW 40:192–98.
107. WA 18:188–91, LW 40:198–201.
108. WA 18:200–204, LW 40:210–14.
109. WA 6:508–12, LW 36:28–35.
110. WA 18:186–87, LW 40:196.
111. As he stated in the Dialogus, the question was “whether Christ was in the sacra-
ment according to his humanity,” for there was no question that as divine Christ
was in all created things; Karlstadt, Dialogus, a4r–v ; EPK 169.
112. Expressed most fully throughout Mißbrauch, EPK 205–18.
113. In Erklerung des x. Capitels Cor. i. (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525), Karlstadt listed
fifteen topics he hoped to address in future pamphlets; EPK 219–21. He was
able to publish only one more pamphlet, Von dem Newen vnd Alten Testament
(Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525), before he was forced to leave Rothenburg.
114. Valentin Ickelshamer, Clag etlicher brieder; an alle christen von der grossen
vngerechtigkeit vnd Tyranney/so Endressen Bodensteyn von Carolstat yetzo vom
Luther zu wittenberg geschicht, FSBT 1:74–85. On Ickelshamer, see Roy L.
Vice, “Valentin Ickelshamer’s Odyssey from Rebellion to Quietism,” Mennonite
115. Ickelshamer’s own views of the sacrament could be inferred, however, from his
statement that he and his brothers were amazed at the “great abuses of the Lord’s
bread and wine” that had been maintained up to the present; FSBT 1:82.
116. Michael Keller, Ettlich Sermones von dem Nachtmal Christi (Augsburg: Ulhart,
1525). There was a second imprint in 1525 (possibly a variant of the original im-
print) and an expanded version in 1526; Burnett, Karlstadt, 123–24.
117. Martin Bucer, Grund vnd vrsach ausz gotlicher schrifft der neüwerung/an dem
nachtmal des herren, BDS 1:242–54. The treatise was printed twice at the turn of
1524–25; see Burnett, Karlstadt,  107–8.
118. Wolfgang Capito told Zwingli about the printing of Karlstadt’s pamphlet along
with the preface and “suitable marginalia,” Z 8:405; this imprint is VD16: B 6162.
The independent pamphlet was the anonymous Frohlockung eines christlichen
Bruders (Speyer: Eckhart, 1526), FSBT 1:102–15; see also Thomas Kaufmann,
“Zwei unerkannte Schriften Bucers und Capitos zur Abendmahlsfrage aus dem
35
Notes 355
Herbst 1525,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 81 (1990): 158–88. The similarity

of the pamphlet’s arguments to those in Bucer’s letter to Johann Landschad von
Steinach, October 22, 1525, BDS 3:432–41, at least raises the question whether
Bucer, not Capito, was the author of the Frohlockung.
119. Nicolaus von Amsdorff, Vermanung an die von Magdeburg wider den rotten secten
geyst Doctor Ciclops (Wittenberg: Weiß, 1525). Hätzer sent a copy of this pam-
phlet to Zwingli on September 14, 1525, Z 8:363–64, which suggests that the pam-
phlet was published in July or August and distributed via the Frankfurt fair; cf.
Z&L 1:202.
120. Wolfgang Cyclops, Von dem aller hochwirdigsten Nachtmahl Jesu Christi
(Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1525), fol. B3v–B4r: “Ich bitthe/vmb Christus vnnd
seynes aller hyelsamsten leydens wyllen/Welches yn seynem hochwirdigen
Abendmahl/alls yn einem warhafftigem vnd vnbetrieglichem Sygil vnd
warzeychen des lebendmachenden gelaubens vnd der geschefftigen lybe von vns
pyß zu seiner herlichen zukunfft/mit gebürlicher dancksagung wyl bedacht/
geübet vnd vorkündiget haben.” Ernst Koch suggested that Cyclops was
influenced by Hoen, rather than by Zwingli, “Zwinglianer zwischen Ostsee und
Harz in den Anfangsjahren der Reformation (1525–1532),” Zwingliana 16 (1983–
85): 517–45. This is unlikely in view of the timing, unless Cyclops had seen a man-
uscript copy of Hoen’s letter, which was first published at about the same time
as Amsdorf ’s pamphlet accusing Cyclops of teaching that “is” meant “signifies.”
Cyclops’s emphasis on faith and the remembrance of Christ’s passion sounds
more like Karlstadt than the early Zwingli, however.
121. Nicolaus von Amsdorff, Auff Ciclops antwort replica
(Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1525).
122. Wolfgang Cyclops, Doctor Wolff Cyclops antwortt auf Nickel Amßdorffs Replica
(Leipzig: Blum, 1526); quotation cited in Koch, “Zwinglianer,” 527–28.
123. Luther, Von dem grewel der Stillmesse, WA 18:22–36.
124. Luther, Ain Sermon von der höchsten Gottßlesterung/die/die Papisten täglich
brauchen/so sye leesen den Antichristliche Canon in jren Messen, WA 15:758–74.
125. Luther, Ein Sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sacrament . . . und von den
Brüderschaften, WA 2:738–58, LW 35:45–73; Das ewig vnd new Testament von
dem hochwirdigen Sacrament, WA 10/3:68–71, LW 36:231–67.
126. Luther, Von Anbeten des Sacraments, WA 11:431–56, LW 36:275–305; Ordnung
und Bericht, WA 12: 472–93. The 1523 sermon is discussed at more length in
chapter 12, this volume.
127. Luther, Ayn Sermon von der Beycht vnnd dem Sacrament, WA 15:481–505; the
imprint of the Bettbüchlein containing the sermon is VD16: L 4097; see WA 10/
2:358V. There were seven imprints of Luther’s postil in 1525 alone, with various
titles.
128. Luther, Ain Sermon auff das Euangeli Johannis am vj., WA 12:578–84.
356
356 Notes
129. Johannes Bugenhagen, Von der Euangelischen Messz, was die Meß sey/wie vnd
durch wenn/vnnd warumb sy auffgesetzt sey (Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1524); one
of the 1525 imprints was in Low German.
C h a p t er 5
1. Ulrich Zwingli, Ad Matthaeum Alberum de coena dominica epistola, Z 3:335–36,
HZW 2:131.
2. Z 3:336–41, HZW 2:132–36; summaries of the letter in Z&L 1:74–78, W.
Peter Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986),
228–31, and Johannes Voigtländer, Ein Fest der Befreiung: Huldrych Zwinglis
Abendmahlslehre (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 61–65.
3. Z 3:340, HZW 2:135; cf. Z 3:342–43, HZW 2:137.
4. Z 3:343–46, HZW 2:137–39.
5. Z 3:345, HZW 2:139.
6. Z 3:347–50, HZW 2:140–42.
7. Z 3:336, HZW 2:131.
8. “Hic, me Hercle, omnes fidei nervi sunt intendendi adeundusque est coelestis
gratiae thronus, ut, quidquid sit hic abstrusum, reseretur,” Z 3:342.19, HZW
2:137 translates the “me Hercle” as “truly.” Adages used at Z 3:336.39–337.1, and
3:341.5.
9. Z 3:346–47, HZW 2:139–40; Z 3:351–52, HZW 2:143.
10. Z 3:349–50, HZW 2:142.
11. Z 3:339, 341–42, 342, 348; HZW 2:134, 136, 137, 140.
12. Z 3:350, HZW 2:142.
13. Z 3:354, HZW 2:144.
14. Zwingli to the Strasbourg pastors, December 16, 1524, BCorr 1:298–315, no. 84.
Martin Brecht concluded that there was not enough evidence to determine
whether Alber actually received the letter, “Hat Zwingli seinen Brief an Matthäus
Alber über das Abendmahl gesandt?,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 58
(1967): 100–102.
15. Zwingli, Responsio ad Bugenhagii, Z 4:558. In his introduction to the Alber letter,
Walther Köhler suggested that this number was an allusion to the “more than 500
brethren” who had seen Christ after the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6) rather than an
actual count, Z 3:331.
16. Heinrich Lucius to Vadian, January 20, 1525, VBS 3:107, no. 422.
17. This, at any rate, is how Zwingli justified the publication of his views; Z 3:817;
Zwingli, Commentary, 248–49. Zwingli was already viewed as a hypocrite by
some of his radical followers; cf. Grebel’s disgusted comment in a letter to Vadian
that Zwingli called “the Lord’s bread and wine the body and blood of Christ in a
public sermon,” January 14, 1525, QGTS 1: 33–34, no. 23.
18. Z 3:773–74; Zwingli, Commentary, 198–99.
357
Notes 357
19. Z 3:816–17; Zwingli, Commentary, 249. The section is summarized in Z&L 1:80–
97; Stephens, Theology, 231–33; Voigtländer, Fest,  71–85.
20. Luther, Von Anbeten des Sakraments, WA 11:434–36, LW 36:279–81. Köhler was
wrong to assert that Zwingli had read Luther’s treatise in 1524, Z&L 1:70–71.
Zwingli’s criticism of the Wittenberg position in that letter concerned images, not
the Lord’s Supper; Bucer to Zwingli, April 19, 1524, BCorr 1:226–37, no. 63. After
reading the letter to Alber, Myconius told Zwingli that “a certain great man” had
refuted the argument that “is” meant “signifies,” Zwingli to the Strasbourg pastors,
December 16, 1524, BCorr 1:313. This surely refers to Luther, not to Karlstadt, as
Köhler suggested, Z&L 1:78, for Karlstadt did not discuss the phrase “this signifies
my body.”
21. Z 3:776–89, 809; Zwingli, Commentary, 200–16, 239–40.
24. Z 3:809–16; Zwingli, Commentary, 239–47. In addition to Tertullian, Augustine,
and Origen, he now added citations from Hilary and Jerome.
25. Z 3: 808, 817; Zwingli, Commentary, 239, 249–50. Zwingli also reproduced a sec-
tion from his Antibolon aganst Hieronymus Emser that rejected the sacrifice of
the mass.
26. Z 2:120–22, HZW 1:98–100.
27. Z 3:757–62, cf. 807–808; Zwingli, Commentary, 179–84, cf. 238.
28. Summaries in Z&L 1:105–17; Stephens, Theology, 233–35; Voigtländer, Fest, 85–90.
The dedication letter is dated August 17, 1525.
29. Z 4:467–76, 484–89; HZW 2:198–204, 210–14.
30. Z 4:472–84, HZW 2:204–10.
31. Z 4:489–502, HZW 2:214–26.
32. For more details on the following, see Burnett, Karlstadt, 129–34. These ideas
spread not only through books but also through the travel of individuals. To give
only one example, in December 1524, Martin Cellarius was named as one of those
in Basel who supported Karlstadt (see notes 98–99, this chapter); on June 11, 1525,
Paul Speratus wrote Luther from Königsberg that Cellarius, who “seems to share
the same spirit as Müntzer and Karlstadt,” had arrived there, WA Br 3:527, no. 887.
33. June 23, 1525, CS 2:120–22.
34. Luther to Hess, July 19, 1525, WA Br 3:544–45, no. 903. Bugenhagen, Contra
Novvm Errorem de Sacramento Corporis et Sangvinis Domini Nostri Jesv Christi
Epistola (Wittenberg: Lotter, 1525); German translation in W2 20:500–506; cf.
Z&L 1:196–97. Volker Gummelt assumes that the dream referred to in the letter
is the one Zwingli described in the Subsidium, and so claims that the letter was
published in late August; Volker Gummelt, “Die Auseinandersetzung über das
Abendmahl zwischen Johannes Bugenhagen und Huldrych Zwingli im Jahre 1525,”
in Die Zürcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen. Wissenschaftlicher
Tagung zum hundertjährigen Bestehen des Zwinglivereins (29. Oktober bis
358
358 Notes
2. November 1997 in Zürich), ed. Alfred Schindler and Hans Stickelberger, Zürcher
Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 18 (Bern: Peter Lang, 2001), 189–201. The
linkage of “dream or parable” makes clear, however, that Bugenhagen was referring
to pharaoh’s dream, which Zwingli used to justify his equation of “is” with
“signifies.” I agree with Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 282n65, that the letter was
probably printed soon after it was written, and certainly before the fall book fair in
Frankfurt.
35. Z 4:546–76; German translation in W2 20: 506–20; Z&L 1:283–87. From
Augsburg Ludwig Hätzer described the contents of the pamphlet and reported
that Stephen Agricola intended to translate it into German, September 14, 1525, Z
8:360–64, no. 383.
36. Z 4:558–61.
37. Z 4:561–62, 568–69.
38. Johannes Oecolampadius, De Genvina Verborum domini, Hoc est corpus meum,
iuxta uetutissimos authores expositione liber (Strasbourg: Knoblauch, 1525),
VD16: O 331.
39. Cf. the overview of Zwingli’s publications with that of Oecolampadius, Alejandro
Zorzin, Karlstadt als Flugschriftenautor, Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 48
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 50–52.
40. WPBW 3:146–72, esp. 162.
41. Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 15–68; Amy Nelson Burnett, “Oekolampads Anteil am
frühen Abendmahlsstreit,” in Basel als Zentrum des geistigen Austausches in der
frühen Reformationszeit, ed. Sven Grosse and Berndt Hamm, Spätmittelalter,
Humanismus, Reformation 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 215–31.
42. Zorzin, Karlstadt als Flugschriftenautor, 24, 38–39.
43. Oecolampadius to Zwingli, November 21, 1524, Z 8:251–53, no. 352.
44. Oecolampadius to Lambert, January 13, 1525, OBA 1:340–41, no. 237; Adelmann to
Veit Bild, November 30, 1524, OBA 1:331–32, no. 230.
45. Luther to Spalatin, January 13, 1525, WA Br 3:422, no. 817; cf. Melanchthon’s letter
to Oecolampadius defending Christ’s bodily presence, January 12, 1525, MBW
T2:236–39, no. 370.
46. Cf. his explanation of his position to Lambert, January 13, 1525, OBA 1:340–41,
no. 237; his suggestions for a communion service to Balthasar Hubmaier, January
18, 1525, OBA 1:344–45, no. 239; to Nicolaus Prugner, April 19, 1525, OBA 1:362–63,
no. 252; his more cautious (and ambiguous) statement to Willibald Pirkheimer,
April 22, 1525, WPBW 5:395–99, no. 936; to an unnamed correspondent (undated),
OBA 1:373 no. 262.
47. There is clearly missing correspondence between Oecolampadius’s sending the
manuscript to Strasbourg on July 1, asking only that Farel read the manuscript,
OBA 1:376, no. 265, and his letter of July 25, authorizing Farel and Capito to
oversee the printing and make any changes they considered necessary, OBA
1:378, no. 267. The book was barely finished in time for Frankfurt’s fall book
359
Notes 359
fair; OBA 1:377–79; cf. Martin Bucer to Jacob Otter, September 17, 1525, BCorr
3:409–20.
48. On the rhetorical structure of De genvina expositione, see c hapter 9, this volume;
the treatise is summarized in Z&L 1:117–26 and Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 277–83.
49. It is therefore misleading to measure Oecolampadius’s work against the still rather
undeveloped and superficial arguments of Zwingli’s early works as Köhler does,
even though Köhler acknowledged Oecolampadius’s theological independence; cf.
Burnett, “Oekolampads Anteil.”
50. Köhler also recognized Erasmus’s influence; Z&L 1:124–25.
51. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, A4v–A5v, citation at A5r.
52. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, B2v–B5r.
53. Cf. Erasmus, “Ratio,” 356–58, 368–72.
54. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione,  B6r–v.
55. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, B8r.
56. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, B8r–C1v, C5v–C6r,  K1r–v.
57. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, C3r–v ; “Consubstantiation,” B8r, G3r;
“impanated body,” C6v (where Oecolampadius points out this is a new term), G8v;
“impanation,” H8r. Hoen had also referred scornfully to the belief that Christ’s
body was “impanated,” Spruyt, Hoen, 228.
58. LB 7:450–51; CWE 48:188–99.
59. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, H8v–I3r. Zwingli’s chiefly philological
concern is illustrated by his discussion of the absence of the verb is in the Hebrew;
cf. Subsidium, Z 4:484–87, HZW 2:210–13. The same philological (rather than ty-
pological) concern is apparent in Zwingli’s discussion of the words concerning the
wine, Z 4:468–71, HZW 2:198–201.
60. The most important was Augustine, but others who were cited frequently or
discussed at length were Ambrose, Basil the Great, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Cyril,
Eusebius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary, Irenaeus, Jerome, Origen and Tertullian;
Amy Nelson Burnett, “‘According to the Oldest Authorities’: The Use of the
Church Fathers in the Early Eucharistic Controversy,” in The Reformation as
Christianization. Essays on Scott Hendrix’s Christianization Thesis, ed. Anna Marie
Johnson and John A. Maxfield, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 66
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 373–95.
61. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, B4r, D6v, K6v–K8r. Oecolampadius
discussed Matt. 24:23 and simply listed a number of other chapters to support his
assertion that Christ was at the right hand of the Father, including Mark 16; Matt.
26; Luke 24; John 13, 16, and 17; Acts 1 and 7; and Heb. 8–10.
62. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, B3r–v; cf. Karlstadt, Erweysen, EPK
122–23.
63. Not only 1 Cor. 10:4 but also Matt. 11:14 and John 19:26 (“Woman, behold your
son.”); De genvina expositione, B8v–C1r; cf. Spruyt, Hoen, 228. This is in striking
contrast to Zwingli, who did not use these verses but instead relied on the
360
360 Notes
weaker examples of pharaoh’s dream (Gen. 41:26–27) and the parable of the
sower (Luke 8:11); Burnett, Karlstadt, 96.
64. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, E6v–E7r.
65. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, B3v–B4v, D7r–D8r.
66. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, F5v–F6v, citation at F6r.
67. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione,  I5r–v.
68. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, G1v–G2r;  H7r–v.
69. Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 303–10.
70. September 17, 1525, BDS 3:410–20.
71. Brenz to Bucer, October 3, 1525, BCorr 2:39–45, no. 104. The letter would
be published in early 1526 as Epistola Ioannis Brentii de verbis Domini
(Hagenau: Setzer, 1526).
72. Oecolampadius to Zwingli, December 6, 1525, Z 8:451–52, no. 418.
73. Brenz sent a copy to Adam Weiß in Crailsheim on November 27, 1525, Theodor
Pressel, Anecdota Brentiana. Ungedruckte Briefe und Bedenken von Johannes Brenz
(Tübingen: Heckenhauer, 1868), 6–8, no. 4. In the letter Brenz mentioned that
Theobald [Billican] had also seen the Syngramma; this is apparent from Billican’s
letter to Rhegius, written before the publication of the Syngramma. That exchange,
as well as the other works written in the fall of 1525 and published early the next
year, will be discussed more fully in chapter 8, this volume.
74. Described in Z&L 1:127–37 and Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 287–96. Oecolampadius
sent a copy of his response to Zwingli on November 26, 1525, Z 8:436–37, no. 412.
Oecolampadius’s Antisyngramma would be published the following March as part
of the Apologetica.
75. Z&L 1:217–21; Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 351–60.
76. Brenz to the lords of Gemmingen, BWSA 1/2: 371–75; Brenz to Bucer and
Capito, November 22, BCorr 2:59–70, no. 112; Bucer and Capito to the lords of
Gemmingen, December 1, BCorr 2:79–86, no. 114.
77. Zwingli had defended his view of the Lord’s Supper in a letter to the Basel pastors
and admonished them to unity already on April 5, 1525, Z 8:315–20, no. 367.
78. Pierre Toussain to Farel, September 18, 1525, Herminjard 1:383–86, no. 160. On
Pellikan and Lüthard, Toussain to Farel, September 4, 1525, Herminjard 1:375–77,
no. 157.
79. The work, printed as an undated broadsheet, is described in Barbara Mahlmann-
Bauer, “Henrici Glareani Concio de Coena Domini: Glarean as a Theologian,” in
Heinrich Glarean’s Books: The Intellectual World of a Sixteenth-Century Musical
Humanist, ed. Iain Fenlon and Inga Mai Groote (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2013), 110–38. Analysis of the type suggests that it was not printed
until the 1540s, but that does not preclude its having been written much earlier
and circulated in manuscript. The differences between Karlstadt’s, Zwingli’s, and
Oecolampadius’s understanding of “this is my body” were pointed out already
in the Syngramma and so were familiar to the humanist circle in Basel who were
361
Notes 361
discussing Oecolampadius’s work. There is no mention of Schwenckfeld’s view,

which suggests that Glarean’s Concio was written before Luther’s mention of
Schwenckfeld in his first preface to the German translation of the Syngramma in
the spring of 1526.
80. Allen 6: 206–12, citation at 210; CWE 11:344–50, no. 1537, citation at 346. The de-
bate that resulted from publication of this letter in 1526 is described in c hapter 9,
this volume.
81. October 28, 1525, Z 8:407– 13. For more details on this controversy, with
corrections to the dating given in the introductions to the editions of the works
concerned, see Amy Nelson Burnett, “‘Things I Never Said or Thought?’ Erasmus’
Exegetical Contribution to the Erarly Eucharistic Controversy,” In Collaboration,
Conflict and Continuity in the Reformation: Essays in Honor of James M. Estes on
His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Konrad Eisenbichler (Toronto: Centre for Reformation
and Renaissance Studies, 2014), 275–95.
82. October 3, 1525, OBA 1:394–95, no. 283; November 9, 1525, OBA 1:415–17, no. 300.
83. Billican’s letter to Rhegius is undated, but it must have been written toward the end
of 1525, for Rhegius had it printed in early 1526. Billican to Oecolampadius, January
16, 1526, OBA 1:451–53, no. 326; Gerhard Simon, Humanismus und Konfession.
Theobald Billican, Leben und Werk, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 49 (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1980), 99–102.
84. December 9, 1525, Z 8:455–57.
85. Z&L 1:204–205. Sigwyn had thanked Zwingli for sending him a copy of the
Commentarius four months earlier; Z 8:346–48, no. 377.
86. Wider das Götzenbrot, HBTS 2:49–65.
87. De institutione eucharistiae, HBTS 2:88–107.
88. Grynaeus referred to the earlier letter in his letter of January 7, 1526, OBA 1:449–
50, no. 323; Z&L 1:220–21.
89. BWSA 1/1:234–35.
90. See the Strasbourgers’ letter to Luther and Bucer’s instructions for Caselius, BCorr
2: 46–48, nos. 105–106; BDS 3:421–41; Capito’s letter to Bugenhagen, in Otto
Vogt et al., eds., Dr. Johann Bugenhagens Briefwechsel (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966;
orig. Stettin, 1888), 32–50, cf. CWC 2:156, no. 248; and Farel’s letter to Bugenhagen,
Herminjard 1:393–98, no. 163; all are dated October 8, 1525.
91. Bugenhagen to Nikolaus Gerbel, November 4, 1525, Vogt et al., Bugenhagens
Briefwechsel, 52–60, no. 17; and to Capito, November 5, 1525, CWC 2:165, no. 253;
Luther to Caselius and to the Strasbourg pastors, November 5, 1525, BCorr 2:55–59,
nos. 110–11.
92. Zwingli had used the Greek anthropophage in his Commentarius, Z 4:794,
Commentary 233; Oecolampadius, too, referred to “flesh-eaters,” De genvina
expositione, K6v, and rejected impanation, note 57, this chapter; cf. Farel’s
“edible god” in his letter to Bugenhagen delivered by Caselius, note 103, this
chapter.
362
362 Notes
93. WA 19:118–25.
94. Hans-Werner Müsing, “Karlstadt und die Strasbourger Täufergemeinde,” in Origins
and Characteristics of Anabaptism, ed. Marc Lienhard, International Archives of
the History of Ideas 87 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977), 169–95.
95. Andreas Karlstadt, Vrsachen der halben Andres Carolstatt auß den landen Zuo
Sachsen vertryben (Strasbourg: Prüß, 1524); Burnett, Karlstadt, 145. Prüss also
reprinted three of Karlstadt’s Eucharistic pamphlets in 1525. On Brunfels’s back-
ground, see Jean-Claude Margolin, “Otto Brunfels dans le milieu évangelique
rhénan,” in Strasbourg au coeur religieux du XVIe siècle. Hommage à Lucien Febvre,
ed. Georges Livet and Francis Rapp, Société Savante d’Alsace, Collections “Grandes
publications” 12 (Strasboug: Istra, 1977), 111–41.
96. John Wyclif, Io VViclefi viri vndiquaque pijs dialogorum libri quattuor quorum
(Worms: Schöffer, 1525). Brunfels took credit for the Wyclif edition in a letter to
Luther, April 30, 1525, WA Br 3:476–78.
97. The older view that Zwingli was responsible for the pamphlet’s publication has
been discredited. The Latin original was printed in both Worms and Strasbourg;
it is unclear which was the earliest. Based on a comparison of the two pamphlets,
Spruyt favors the priority of the Worms imprint, but he also suggests that the two
printings were based on different copies of Hoen’s autograph. Kaufmann argues
that Bucer was responsible for the pamphlet’s publication (Abendmahlstheologie,
292–300), but Spruyt suggests Brunfels; Spruyt, Hoen, 158–81. A German trans-
lation of the pamphlet was published in Strasbourg at about the same time, for
Bucer was able to send copies of both versions to Jacob Otter in mid-September;
BDS 3:418.
98. December 12, 1524, Herminjard 1:308–11, no. 130. On Coct, see Jonathan A.
Reid, King’s Sister—Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549) and her
Evangelical Network, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 1:254–60. Luther mentioned
Coct as a particularly vehement defender of Karlstadt, to Spalatin, January 13, 1525,
WA Br 3:421–22, no. 817. Coct had visited Wittenberg and been commended to
Spalatin by Luther in May 1523, WA Br 3:71, no. 615.
99. Elfriede Jacobs, Die Sakramentslehre Wilhelm Farels, Zürcher Beiträge zur
Reformationsgeschichte 10 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978), 81–82, points
out that Farel was not fluent in German, and she downplays Karlstadt’s influ-
ence on Farel, but she also fundamentally mistakes the reactions of Zwingli,
Oecolampadius, and the Strasbourgers to Karlstadt; in fact, they were all
influenced to varying degrees by Karlstadt’s ideas, as discussed earlier. Although
Erasmus claimed not to know German, he too seemed to know what Karlstadt
argued in his pamphlets, which suggests the existence of Latin translations
of those pamphlets. Irena Backus, Martin Borrhaus (Cellarius), Bibliotheca
dissidentium. Répertoire des non-conformistes religieux des seizième et dix-
septieme siècles 2 (Baden-Baden: Koerner, 1981), 11–12, notes that Cellarius was
in contact with both Felix Manz and Balthasar Hubmaier at this time.
36
Notes 363
100. Oecolampadius to Farel, August 3, 1524, OBA 1:299, no. 208, and August 19, 1524,
OBA 1:307–308, no. 212; cf. Erasmus’s account of his falling out with Farel, to
Antoine Brugnard, October 27, 1524, CWE 10: 408–13, no. 1510.
101. Oecolampadius to Zwingli, November 21, 1524, Z 8:242, no. 352. Farel’s sharp crit-
icism of the mass is discussed in Jacobs, Sakramentslehre, 165–66.
102. In addition to Oecolampadius’s letter to Lambert from January 13, 1525, OBA
1:340–41, no. 237, see Pierre Toussain to Farel, July 14, 1525, Herminjard 1:366–
68, no. 155. Gérard Roussel, who would arrive in the city with Jacques Lefèvre
d’Étaples in the fall of 1525, also disagreed with Farel on the Eucharist; Roussel
to Farel, September 25, 1525, Herminjard 1:389–92, no. 162. On the stay of the
Meaux exiles in Strasbourg, see Reid, King’s Sister, 1: 341–45.
103. Herminjard 1:394, no. 163. This was a reference to the practice of reserving the
consecrated host, and the argument against transubstantiation that maggots and
mice ate the reserved hosts.
104. Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 284–90, analyzes the marginal glosses. He
assumes that the Strasbourgers encouraged Oecolampadius to publish De
genvina expositione, but the views reflected in the book’s pointed glosses were
common to many opponents of Christ’s substantial presence and not unique to
the Strasbourgers. As a refugee with no official position or steady income, Farel
had both the time and the incentive to work as corrector for the manuscript’s pub-
lisher, Johann Knobloch.
105. The glosses found on fol. B4r, for example, cite Matt. 19, highlight a discussion of
“where Christ is to be sought” and “why it says ‘lift up your hearts,’ ” and give the
names of Eusebius, Jerome, and Cyprian.
106. Oecolampadius, “Augustini uerba ridicule interpretata” and “corpus impanatum,”
De genvina expositione, C6v; the Augustine citation is explained in Lombard,
Sent. IV, Dis. X, MPL 192:860. For further examples, see Kaufmann,
Abendmahlstheologie, 286–90.
107. On the background, see C. Arnold Snyder, “Swiss Anabaptism: The Beginnings,
1523–1525,” in A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700, ed. John
D. Roth and James M. Stayer, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 6
(Leiden: Brill, 2007), 45–81.
108. Karlstadt, Dialogus, a3r–v; EPK 167.
109. A more detailed comparison of Karlstadt and Zwingli is in Burnett, Karlstadt,
57–58, 92–98; Burnett, “Things I Never Said.”
110. QGTS 1:15–16; translation in Michael G. Baylor, ed., The Radical Reformation,
Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), 39–40. On the connections between Zwingli, Karlstadt,
and the proto-Anabaptists, see Andrea Strübind, Eifriger als Zwingli. Die frühe
Täuferbewegung in der Schweiz (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2003), 203–11,
223–32; and Calvin Pater, Karlstadt as Father of the Baptist Movements: The
Emergence of Lay Protestantism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984),
364
364 Notes
117–69, which must be read in light of Heinold Fast, “The Dependence of the
First Anabaptists on Luther, Erasmus and Zwingli,” Mennonite Quarterly Review
30 (1956): 104–19, especially the comparison between Grebel and Zwingli on the
Lord’s Supper, 116–19.
111. Peter Lombard distinguished between the signs (bread and wine), the sign joined
with the reality in the consecrated elements (Christ’s body and blood), and that
which the signs signified (fellowship with the the mystic body of Christ, the
elect); Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 8, cap. 4, MPL 192:857–8.
112. Etlich Beschlußreden, QGT 9:102. Zwingli had not used either Matt. 16:18 or 1
Cor. 10:4 in his publications in the spring of 1525 to justify his understanding
of “is” as “signifies,” but both Karlstadt and Hoen did. Hubmaier may have
seen Hoen’s letter in manuscript, but it is more likely he read one of Karlstadt’s
published pamphlets. Christof Windhorst, “Das Gedächtnis des Leidens Christi
und Pflichtzeichen brüderlicher Liebe. Zum Verstãndnis des Abendmahls bei
Balthasar Hubmaier,” in Umstrittenes Täufertum, 1525–1975, ed. Hans-Jürgen
Goertz (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 111–37, suggests the influ-
ence not only of Zwingli and Karlstadt but also Luther and Bucer on Hubmaier’s
thought; he does not mention the influence of either Oecolampadius or Erasmus,
but both are also evident.
113. Ain Summ ains gantzen Christenlichen lebens, QGT 9:110–15.
114. C. Arnold Snyder, “The Birth and Evolution of Swiss Anabaptism (1520–1530),”
Mennonite Quarterly Review 80 (2006): 501–645, esp. 532–34.
115. First publicly expressed in Wer Ursach gebe zu Aufruhr, Z 3:409–10; Von der Taufe,
Z 4:292–95, 326–29; see also his letter to the Strasbourg reformers, December 16,
1524, BCorr 1:298–315, no. 84.
116. Von der Taufe, Z 4:216–18; Z&B 130–31.
117. Von der Taufe, Z 4:222–29, 237–47, 300–301; Z&B, 134–39, 145–53. Zwingli
described original sin as a failing that did not include guilt, while genuine sin
involved conscious volition, and he concluded that the children of believers were
not damned as long as they were too young to know the law; Z 4:307–12.
118. These are described by Anabaptists arrested in early February 1525; Emil Egli,
ed., Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519–
1533 (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf/Scientia, 1973), 282–86, no. 636. Snyder sees these
early Anabaptist celebrations of the Lord’s Supper as an initiatory rite; not all of
those who participated had been baptized as believers; “Birth and Evolution,”
543–44.
119. Zwingli described the discussions before the Council in Subsidium, Z 4:476–82,
HZW 2:204–209.
120. Aktion oder Brauch des Nachtmahls, Z 4:13–24 English translation in Bard
Thompson, ed., Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961),
149–56. The service is described in chapter 14, this volume, while the woodcut
365
Notes 365
is discussed in Lee Palmer Wandel, “Envisioning God: Image and Liturgy in

Reformation Zurich,” Sixteenth Century Journal 24 (1993): 21–40.
121. Zwingli discussed the spread of Karlstadt’s views among the common people
as a motive for publishing his own understanding of the Supper; Subsidium, Z
4:462–65, HZW 2: 195–96. On early Anabaptist celebration of the Lord’s Supper
in Zollikon outside of Zurich, see Fritz Blanke, Brothers in Christ: The History of
the Oldest Anabaptist Congregation, Zollikon, near Zurich, Switzerland (Scottdale,
PA: Herald Press, 1961), 23–24; on efforts for liturgical reform in Zurich, see Amy
Nelson Burnett, “The Social History of Communion and the Reformation of the
Eucharist,” Past and Present 211 (2011): 77–119.
122. The spring fair began in mid-Lent, and so its date varied each year, while the fall
fair began on August 15; both allowed for roughly a month of doing business, Nils
Brübach, Die Reichsmessen von Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig und Braunschweig
(14. –18. Jahrhundert), Beiträge zur Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte 55
(Stuttgart: Steiner, 1994), 129–32.
123. Ulrich Zwingli, Epistel oder sandtbrieff Huldrych zuinglis/von des Herren
nachtmal/vertütscht durch Georgen Binder (Zurich: Froschauer, 1525).
124. On Binder, see HBBW 1:226n16.
125. Ulrich Zwingli, Von dem Nachtmal Christi/widergedechtnus/oder dancksagung
Huldrychen Zuinglins meynung . . . durch dry getrüw bruoder ylendes in tütsch
gebracht. Ob Gott wil zuo guotem ouch tütscher Nation (Zurich: Froschauer,
1525); the date of publication given on the title page is March 25. In the intro-
duction, the translators stated that Zwingli had finished the Commentarius in
mid-March, and they divided the work of translation so that it could be finished
more quickly.
126. See note 120, this chapter. The image would also be used as the title page of
Zwingli’s Subsidium, printed a few months later, and as the title illustration of the
1525 and 1526 editions of Michael Keller, Ettlich Sermones, printed in Augsburg.
127. Zwingli, Von dem Nachtmal Christi, A1v–A2r.
128. Z 4:456–57. Naachhuot von dem Nachtmal oder Dancksagung Christi, Hager
identified the translator in the title and gave the date (“am letsten tag Nouemb.
MDxxv jar”) at the end. The Froschauer imprint is VD16: Z 895.
129. The Latin letter has a postscript in which Bugenhagen dissociated himself from
a pamphlet circulating under his name that purported to be a German transla-
tion of the mass as it was celebrated in German; Von der Euangelischen Messz,
published in both Nuremberg and Erfurt in 1524, VD16: B 9456 and ZV 2693.
Contra novvm errorem . . . Epistola was printed by Melchior Lotter, B 9385; its
translation, Eyn Sendbrieff widder den newen yrrthumb, was printed twice by
Joseph Klug, B 9383 and B 9384. This may reflect the custom in Wittenberg of
sharing the lucrative printing of pamphlets among the city’s printers.
130. Bugenhagen, Sendbrieff, VD16: B 9384.
36
366 Notes
131. The Augsburg pamphlets were printed by Simprecht Ruff (Latin: VD16: B 9389;
German: B 9380); the Speyer pamphlets by Johann Eckhart (Latin: VD16: B 9390;
German B 9382). In Nuremberg, Johann Petreius published the Latin (VD16:
B 9387) and Jobst Gutknecht the German pamphlet (VD16: B 9381), which bears
the word “Wittenberg” on its title page; on this practice as a way to increase
sales, see Andrew Pettegree, Brand Luther: 1517, Printing, and the Making of the
Reformation (New York: Penguin, 2015), 162–63.
132. Conrad Ryss zu Ofen, Antwort dem Hochgeleerten Doctor Johann Bugenhage . . . das
Sacrament betreffend (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525).
133. The author is almost certainly not Michael Keller, as VD16 assumes. The
Wittenbergers regarded the pamphlet as “gut Carlstadtisch,” and Melanchthon
suspected Martin Reinhart was its author; Justas Jonas to Johann von Dolzig,
January 4, 1526, Gustav Kawerau, ed., Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas
(Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 1:97–98. Thomas Kaufmann, “Zwei unerkannte
Schriften Bucers und Capitos zur Abendmahlsfrage aus dem Herbst 1525,” Archiv
für Reformationsgeschichte 81 (1990): 158–88, argues that Bucer was the author
of the treatise, but the Strasbourg reformer never endorsed Karlstadt’s exegesis
of “this is my body,” preferring instead the figurative understanding of the Swiss
reformers. On this pamphlet and attempts to identify Ryss, see Burnett, Karlstadt,
125–27.
134. Kaspar Turnauer, Die wort Pauli vom Nachtmal des Herren.j. Cor. xi. Außgelegt
(Augsburg: Otmar, 1525); Burnett, Karlstadt, 125.
135. In a letter to Vadian from January 17, 1526, Zwingli mentioned the publica-
tion of two German works defending his position against Bugenhagen; one
was certainly Ryss’s pamphlet, and the other probably Turnauer’s, since there
is no other vernacular work that would fit this description; Z 8:505–507,
no. 442.
136. H. Rückert, “Das Eindringen der Tropuslehre in die schweizerische Auffassung
vom Abendmahl,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 37 (1940): 199–221, focuses
on Zwingli’s discussion of tropes and only at the end of the article points to the
influence of Oecolampadius, who was the first to raise the issue.
137. July 19, 1525, WA Br 3:544–45, no. 903.
138. August 15, 1525, WA Br 3:554–56, no. 911.
139. Johannes Bugenhagen, Eyn warhafftiger vnd grüntlicher bericht, vß heyliger
geschrifft, von dem Leyb vnd Blut Christi wider den neüwen yrthum Doctor Andreas
von Carlstadt vnd seiner anhenger (Speyer: Eckhart, 1525).
140. Urbanus Rhegius and Theobald Billican, De verbis coenae dominicae et opinionem
de varietate (Augsburg, 1526), fol. C4v, C6r; German translation in W2
17:1566, 1568.
141. Zwingli, Epistola, Z 3:225–26, HZW 2:131; Billicani . . . Responsio, Z 4:933;
Oecolampadius, Apologetica, H2v; Bucer to Johann Landschad von Steinach,
BDS 3:432.
367
Notes 367
C h a p t er 6
1. Johannes Bugenhagen [Martin Bucer], Der CXI psalm Dauidis/mit der exposi-
tion vnd verklerung des Hochgelerten Johannis Bugenhagij Pomerani . . . Darinn ain
rechter Christlicher bericht des Nachtmals Christi vnssers herren/ . . . gegeben wirdt,
VD16: B 9324.
2. Bugenhagen’s pamphlet was published in Latin and in German translation: Oratio
Ioannis Bvgenhagii Pomerani, quod ipsius non sit opinio illa de Eucharistia, quae
in Psalterio, sub nomine eius Germanice translato legitur (Wittenberg: Klug, 1526);
Vnterrichtung Johan Bugenhagen Pomers/das die meynung von dem Sacrament/
so yn dem Psalter/vnter seinem nahmen gedeudschet/wird gelesen/nicht sein ist
(Wittenberg: Klug, 1526). The Latin pamphlet is edited in BCorr 2: 267–73;
English translation of the German in Johannes Bugenhagen, Selected Writings, ed-
ited by Kurt K. Hendel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 1:79–91.
3. Luther’s letter to Herwagen, dated September 13, in BCorr 3:24–27. It was first
published in a collection of short works that also included Bugenhagen’s Oratio,
entitled Sermo Elegantissimus super Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis Christi
(Hagenau: Setzer, 1527); Daß diese Wort Christi, Das ist mein Leib, noch fest stehen
wider die Schwärmgeister, WA 23:279–81, LW 37:147–49.
4. Martin Bucer, Praefatio M. Buceri in quartum Tomum Postillae Lutheranae
(Strasbourg, 1527); the individual parts of the pamphlet are edited in BCorr 2:140–
64 and BCorr 3:23–58; Bucer, Antwurt uff des Pommers underrichtung, BDS 2:165–
75; Zwingli, Amica Exegesis, Z 5:571–78, HZW 2:244–48.
5. Z&L 1:354–83.
6. BDS 6:177–86, esp. 180; cf. BCorr 3:51. Neuser also summarizes the discussion of
Bucer’s translation in older works. Bugenhagen’s rejection of Zwingli’s position
was made clear in his Contra Novvm Errorem de Sacramento corporis et Sangvinis
Domini Nostri Iesv Christi Epistola, published in the late summer of 1525.
7. Ernst Koch, “Johannes Bugenhagens Anteil am Abendmahlsstreit zwischen
1525 und 1532,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 111 (1986): 705– 30; Kaufmann,
Abendmahlstheologie, 310–18 (citation at 310); 360–86.
8. BDS 2:185.
9. Bernhard Riggenbach, ed., Das Chronikon des Konrad Pellikan (Basel: Bahnmaier,
1877), 78: “sed et sequenti anno germanice in psalterium scripsit imitatus
Pomeranum Martinus Bucerus.” Capito to Zwingli, December 27, 1525, Z 8:477.
Scholars have applied Capito’s comment to Bucer’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper,
but Capito was surely referring to the volume as a whole, not to one specific psalm.
10. Volker Gummelt, “Bugenhagens Tätigkeit an der Wittenberger Universitat,”
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 105 (1994): 191–201.
11. Johannes Bugenhagen, Ioannis Pomerani Bvgenhagii, in Librvm Psalmorvm
Interpretatio, Wittembergae Pvblice Lecta (Basel: Petri, 1524). On the printing
of the commentary, see Frank Hieronymus, 1488 Petri—Schwabe 1988. Eine
368
368 Notes
traditionsreiche Basler Offizin im Spiegel ihrer frühen Drucke, 2 vols. (Basel: Schwabe,

1997), 1:355–59, no. 134, which reproduces the title page and examples of the text.
12. Hieronymus, 1488 Petri—Schwabe 1988, 1:E5–E6. Heinrich would take over the
Petri press after his father’s death in 1527.
13. WA 15:8.
14. MBW T2:100–11, no. 299.
15. Bugenhagen, Psalmorum Interpretatio, fol. 2r–5r.
16. Bugenhagen acknowledged this association in his Oratio, pointing out that the
inclusion of this material in Bucer’s Psalter might lead some to think that the
Wittenbergers accepted the understanding of the Lord’s Supper it contained,
BCorr 2:270–71; Bugenhagen, Writings, 1:85–86.
17. Bugenhagen, Psalmorvm Interpretatio, fol. 4v–5r; reprinted in Hans Hermann
Holfelder, Tentatio et consolatio. Studien zu Bugenhagens “Interpretatio in librum
Psalmorum,” Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 45 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1974), 201.
18. Holfelder, Tentatio et consolatio, 27–30, 84–85, 196–98. Holfelder emphasizes
Bugenhagen’s independence from Luther with regard to his presentation of jus-
tification, but the fact that the doctrine has such a prominent place in the com-
mentary reflects its overall importance in Wittenberg, especially in comparison to
Bucer’s discussion, where it does not receive as much attention.
19. The title page of the second Basel edition (VD16: B 3138) claimed that it had been
“revised and emended in many places by the author, with great diligence and
labor.” One of the emendations was to move a lengthy section of the commentary
on Vulgate Ps. 109:2–4 that had accidentally been omitted from its proper place
(p. 613) and so was inserted a few pages later (pp. 631–38) in the first edition. All
imprints bear the month of their printing.
20. J. F. G. Goeters, Ludwig Hätzer (ca. 1500–1529), Spiritualist und Antitrinitarier: Eine
Randfigur der frühen Täuferbewegung, Quellen und Forschungen zur
Reformationsgeschichte 25 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1957), 42–45.
21. Pellikan also oversaw the printing of the commentary in Basel; Bucer to Zwingli,
July 9, 1526, BCorr 2:137–40, no. 133, cf. BDS 2:181–82; Z&L 1:355. Bucer had all his
earlier works printed in Strasbourg, and if he had undertaken the translation on his
own initiative it is unlikely that he would have sought out a foreign printer when
there were printers capable of producing the work in Strasbourg.
22. BDS 2:191; Bucer, Praefatio, BCorr 3:53.
23. Bugenhagen stated that “Bucer himself should be my witness how high and pre-
cious I regarded him,” BCorr 2:268–69; Bugenhagen, Writings, 1:82.
24. Martin Greschat, Martin Bucer: A Reformer and his Times (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 54–61. Capito told Zwingli that Bucer
had undertaken the translation of Bugenhagen’s commentary for financial reasons
and had spent much time on the work, December 27, 1525, Z 8:477, no. 428.
25. BCorr 1:260–62.
26. On these, see WA 10/I/2:LXXI–L XXII.
369
Notes 369
27. Kaufmann used the date of Bucer’s preface to argue that the Strasbourger must al-
ready have known of Bugenhagen’s vehement rejection of Zwingli’s understanding
of the Lord’s Supper when he wrote his own explanation of Ps. 111, Kaufmann,
Abendmahlstheologie, 311, but it would have been very difficult for the printer to have
published such a lengthy work at the end of December if Bucer had not already fin-
ished his translation by October. In his published response to Bugenhagen, Bucer
expressly stated that what he wrote about Ps. 111 was printed before he received
a copy of Bugenhagen’s Novum Errorem, which made public the Wittenberger’s
rejection of Zwingli’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper, BCorr 3:51. The Novum
Errorem was published in late August, and Ian Hazlett therefore suggests that
Bucer’s translation of Ps. 111 was done by August; Ian Hazlett, “The Development
of Martin Bucer’s Thinking on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in its Historical
and Theological Context, 1523–1534,” PhD dissertation, Westphälische-Wilhelms-
Universität-Münster, 1977, p. 151.
28. Johannes Bugenhagen/Martin Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht ausz der heyligen
sprach (Basel: Petri, 1526); Gottfried Seebaß et al., eds., Martin Bucer (1491–1551)
Bibliographie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005), nos. 17–18. The octavo
imprint was apparently published in two volumes, which explains why no. 18 lists
variant 2 as being incomplete; see Hieronymus, 1488 Petri—Schwabe 1988, 1:360–
83, nos. 134a–b.
29. Genres and psalm summaries in BDS 2:194–218; on Pellikan as compiler of the
index, Riggenbach, Chronikon, 78.
30. BDS 2:191–93.
31. Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. b2v: “Denn synn aber der psalmen/hab ich/ob
villeycht yemant auch dem nachfraget/gesetzet vnd verkleret/nach dem text/
den D. Martin Luther verdolmetschet hat/die wir auch/vnser außlegung haben
fürgesetzet/Dann yetz der zeyt/keyn bessere ist.” In his own foreword to the
reader, Bucer stated that through Luther’s translation “we have the German Psalter
much clearer and understandable than any other language,” BDS 2:191.
32. Bugenhagen, Psalmorum interpretatio, 1.
33. Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. 1r.
34. Bugenhagen, Psalmorum interpretatio, 2–3; Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. 1r–v.
35. Comment on Ps. 2:2, Bugenhagen, Psalmorum interpretatio, 11; Bucer, Psalter wol
verteutscht, fol. 4r.
36. Bugenhagen, Psalmorum interpretatio, 122.
37. Bugenhagen, Psalmorum interpretatio, 126–28.
38. Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. 35v.
39. Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. 36v–37r.
41. R. Gerald Hobbs, “How Firm a Foundation: Martin Bucer’s Historical Exegesis of
the Psalms,” Church History 53 (1984): 477–91, points out the importance of the
historical setting in Bucer’s 1529 Psalms commentary as well.
370
370 Notes
42. Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. 76r: “Als in eym schatten/mag diß leyden
erkandt warden an denen die in grossen übel thaten begriffen warden/darumb
sy wissen das sy sterben müssen/wo die der natur gelassen warden/komen sy in
solche traurigkeit/das sy kaum vmb ir leben wissen/vil erschrocklicher mu(o)ß es
zu(o) gahn/so der mensch von Gott inn sünden ergriffen werdt/do er wissen sol/
das es den ewigen todt giltet.”
43. Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. 76r–v.
44. “And he rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them the bread of
heaven. Man ate of the bread of the angels; he sent them provisions in abundance,”
Douay-Rheims; cf. Textus biblie . . . Tertia pars . . . in se continens glosam ordinariam
cum expositione lyre (Basel, 1506), fol. 199r.
46. Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. 115r–v. Part of this explanation is reproduced in
BDS 2:222n31.
47. Bugenhagen himself would make this point in his Oratio, BCorr 2:269; Bugenhagen,
Writings, 1:83.
48. Bugenhagen, Psalmorum interpretatio, 637; see note 19, this chapter, about the page
numbering.
50. Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. 162r–v.
52. Textus biblie . . . Tertia pars, 253r. Andreas Karlstadt would also discuss this passage
in relation to the Lord’s Supper in his Auszlegung dieser wort Christi (Basel, 1524),
fol. c3r–c4v; EPK 154–56.
54. Hazlett, “Development,” 147–48.
55. Burnett, Karlstadt, 121–25.
56. Bucer, Psalter wol verteutscht, fol. 163r–v; the discussion of v. 5 is reprinted in BDS
2:218–20.
57. Cf. Von Anbeten des Sakraments, WA 11:443–48, LW 36:290–95.
58. BDS 2:220–22.
59. WA 6:502, LW 36:19.
60. Erasmus, Enchiridion: ASD V/8: 190–6, CWE 66:70–71; paraphrase of John: LB
VII, col. 548E–551D, CWE 46:82. On Erasmian elements in Bucer’s discussions
of the Lord’s Supper up to through 1526, see Friedhelm Krüger, Bucer und
Erasmus: Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss des Erasmus auf die Theologie Martin
Bucers, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für europäische Geschichte Mainz 57
(Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1970), 183–209.
61. On Luther’s view concerning the necessity of faith for the salutary reception of
Christ’s body and blood, but which also highlights Luther’s understanding of flesh/
spirit in contrast to Erasmus, see Das ander Teil wider die himmlischen Propheten,
WA 18:193–95, LW 40:203–205.
371
Notes 371
62. For instance, Cornelis Hoen’s rejection of host adoration as idolatry, Spruyt, Hoen,
227; Andreas Karlstadt’s claim that the sacrifice of the mass implied the daily cru-
cifixion of Christ, Von dem Priesterthum und opffer Christi ( Jena, 1524), fol. D2r–
D4r, E2v–F1r; EPK 102–104, 106.
63. Contra Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 365–66, who assumed that Bucer was re-
sponsible for the pamphlet, although he acknowledged that the Strasbourgers did
not publish anything outside of their own city before 1526.
64. Joel Van Amberg, A Real Presence: Religious and Social Dynamics of the Eucharistic
Conflicts in Early Modern Augsburg, 1520–1530, Studies in the History of Christian
Traditions 158 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 82–147.
65. Karl Schottenloher, Philipp Ulhart: ein Augsburger Winkeldrucker und
Helfershelfer der “Schwarmer” und “Wiedertäufer” (1523– 1529), Historische
Forschungen 4 (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1967), 27–58; Hans-Jörg Künast, “Getruckt
zu Augsburg”: Buchdruck und Buchhandel in Augsburg zwischen 1468 und 1555
(Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1997), 83–84.
66. BCorr 3:51.
67. BCorr 2:270; Bugenhagen, Writings, 1:85.
70. Michael Beyer, “Übersetzungen als Medium des Transfers,” in Kommunikation und
Transfer im Christentum der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Irene Dingel and Wolf-Friedrich
Schäufele, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz 74
(Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2007), 49–67.
71. Peter Burke, “Cultures of Translation in Early Modern Europe,” in Cultural
Translation in Early Modern Europe, ed. Peter Burke and R. Po- chia Hsia
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 7–38, esp. 30–35.
72. Mark U. Edwards, Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1994), 98–108.
C h a p t er 7
1. Johannes Brenz to Martin Bucer, October 3, 1525, BCorr 2:40, no. 104.
2. BWSA 1/1:229–33. Blarer reported on the Syngramma’s publication to Zwingli al-
ready on January 5, 1526; Z 8:491–93, no. 436.
3. Both the Syngramma and the pamphlet of Billican and Rhegius discussed here were
reprinted in Wittenberg by mid-February; Luther to Johannes Agricola, February
18, 1526, WA Br 4:33, no. 982.
4. Urbanus Rhegius and Theobald Billican, De verbis coenae dominicae et opinionem
de varietate (Augsburg: Ruff, 1526); German translation in W2 17:1547–70.
Rhegius’s letter is dated December 18, 1525; Oecolampadius told Zwingli he had
received a copy of the book on January 12, 1526, Z 8:496–98, no. 438. The pam-
phlet is described in Z&L 1:251–52, Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 296–97, and Hellmut
372
372 Notes
Zschoch, Reformatorische Existenz und konfessionelle Identität. Urbanus Rhegius als

evangelischer Theologe in den Jahren 1520 bis 1530, Beiträge zur historische Theologie
88 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995), 184–91.
5. Billican to Oecolampadius, January 16, 1526, OBA 1:451–53, no. 326. The letter is
discussed in Gerhard Simon, Humanismus und Konfession. Theobald Billican, Leben
und Werk, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 49 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980), 103–107.
6. Billican and Rhegius, De verbis coenae dominicae, A1v, A3r, W2 17:1548, 1550; Ryss
as Karlstadt’s supporter, B8v, W2 17:1561.
7. Billican and Rhegius, De verbis coenae dominicae, A3r–B1r, W2 17:1550–57.
8. Billican and Rhegius, De verbis coenae dominicae, B1r, W2 17:1557. Earlier in the
letter he had referred to Oecolampadius as “clarrissimus praeceptor meus,” A4r;
he also pointed out that Oecolampadius wrote “more modestly than some people
falsely claim,” B1r.
9. Billican and Rhegius, De verbis coenae dominicae, B1r–C3r, W2 17:1557–64.
10. Specifically, 1 Cor. 10:16, 1 Cor. 10:4, and Exod. 12:11.
11. Billican and Rhegius, De verbis coenae dominicae, C4r–C5r, W2 17:1564.
12. The Syngramma is discussed in Martin Honecker, “Die Abendmahlslehre des
Syngramma,” Blätter für württembergische Kirchengeschichte 65 (1965): 39–
68; and Martin Brecht, Die frühe Theologie des Johannes Brenz, Beiträge zur
historischen Theologie 36 (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1966), 73–87; as well
as in Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 287–90, and Z&L 1:127–33. On Brenz’s exchange
with Oecolampadius more broadly, Friedrich Wilhelm Kantzenbach, “Johannes
Brenz und der Kampf um das Abendmahl,” Theologische Literaturzeitung
89 (1964): 561– 80; and Martin H. Jung, “Abendmahlsstreit: Brenz und
Oekolampad,” Blätter für württembergische Kirchengeschichte 100 (2000): 143–61.
13. Augustine, In Ioannis Evang. Tract. 80.3 on John 15:3; Philip Schaff, ed., A Select
Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1956), 7:344; cf. Syngramma, BWSA 1/1:239.
14. BWSA 1/1:238–32, 244–45.
15. Irène Rosier-Catach, La parole efficace. Signe, rituel, sacré (Paris: Seuil, 2004),
375–80.
16. BWSA 1/1:236–37.
17. BWSA 1/1:243–46.
18. BWSA 1:238–39.
19. BWSA 1:261–62, 275.
20. BWSA 1/1:246–53.
21. BWSA 1/1:263, 270–71, 274–75; Bugenhagen had discussed the passages from 1
Cor. 10–11 and John 6:63 in Contra novam errorem; Luther discussed Matt. 24:23
in Part II of Wider den himmlischen Propheten, WA 18:210–11, LW 40:219.
22. BWSA 1/1:264–69.
23. Willibald Pirckheimer, De Vera Christi carne & vero eius sanguine, ad Ioan.
Oecolampadium responsio (Nuremberg: Petreius, 1526); WPBW 6:80–85, 435–502.
37
Notes 373
24. The other contributions to this debate shown in fig. 7.1 are Johannes

Oecolampadius, Ad Billibaldum Pyrkaimerum de re Eucharistiae responsio
(Zurich: Froschauer, 1526); Willibald Pirckheimer, De uera Christi carne & uero
eius sanguine, aduersus conuicia Ioannis, qui sibi Oecolampadij nomen indidit,
responsio secunda (Nuremberg: Petreius, 1527); Johannes Oecolampadius, Ad
Billibaldvm Pyrkaimervm, de Eucharistia, Ioannis Husschin, cui ab aeqalibus a prima
adolescentia Oecolampadio nomen obuenit, Responsio posterior (Basel: Cratander,
1527); and Willibald Pirckheimer, De convitiis Monachi illius, qui graecolatine
Caecolampadius, germanice uero Ausshin nuncupatur, ad Eleutherium suum epistola
(Nuremberg: Petreius, 1527).
25. OBA 1:392–93; Josse Clicthove, De Sacramento Evcharistiae, contra Oecolampadium
opusculum duos libros complectens (Paris: de Colines, 1526); Clicthove’s dedication,
OBA 1:472–74; Z&L 1:530–1. Oecolampadius seems not to have seen this first
edition, since he did not mention any plans to respond to it until after the book
had been reprinted in Cologne early the following year; Oecolampadius to Capito,
March 18, 1527, OBA 2:44.
26. John Fisher, De veritate Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia, printed five
times in folio, quarto, and octavo formats; summarized in Z&L 1:518–30. In early
1528, Johannes Cochlaeus would publish a translation of the prefaces contained in
Fisher’s treatise as Funff Vorredde des Hochwirdigen vatters vnd Herren H. Johan/
Bischoffs von Roffa in Engelland/vff V. bücher wider Jo. Ecolampadium /von warem
leyb vnd blut Christi im heyligsten Sacrament des Altars (Cologne, 1528).
27. Johannes Oecolampadius, Apologetica De dignitate Evcharistiae Sermones duo.
Ad Theobaldvm Billicanvm quinam in uerbis Caenae alienum sensum inferant. Ad
Ecclesiastas Svevos Antisyngramma (Zurich: Froschauer, 1526). The updating of
the Antisyngramma is apparent in the references Oecolampadius makes within
it to his response to Billican and the sermons printed with it. On plans to pub-
lish these three pieces together, see Oecolampadius to Zwingli, January 25, 1526,
Z 8:508–509, no. 443. The response to Billican is dated Febrary 1 at the end, and
the manuscript was presumably in the hands of the printer, Christoph Froschauer,
soon after. Froschauer appended a lengthy list of errata at the end and excused the
high number of mistakes as due to the pressure of having to finish the work before
the Frankfurt fair. The contents are summarized in Z&L 1:133–36, 296–300; and
Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 285–87, 292–300.
28. Dorothea Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 115– 38, describes Oecolampadius’s under-
standing of the Lord’s Supper after the outbreak of the Eucharistic controversy, but
it is systematic and so misses the importance of these debates for the development
of Oecolampadius’s position.
29. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, A2r–B2r.
30. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, B2v–B7v.
374
374 Notes
31. In addition to the summaries cited in note 27, this chapter, the response to Billican
is discussed in Simon, Humanismus und Konfession, 108–10.
32. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, C3v–C5r; German translation in, W2 20:643–46.
33. Erasmus, “Ratio,” 232–34, on how to deal with apparently contradictory passages
of scripture.
34. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, C5v–C6v; W2 20:647–49.
35. Billican, De Verbis Coenae Domini,  A2r–v.
36. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, C8–D5v; W2 20:651–63.
37. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, E1v–E4r; W2 20:670–75.
38. Mark 14:22–25: Oecolampadius, Apologetica, E6v–E7v; W2 20:680–82; Gottfried
G. Krodel, “Figura Prothysteron and the Exegetical Basis of the Lord’s Supper,”
Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1960): 152–58.
39. Luke 22:14–20: Oecolampadius, Apologetica, E7v–F5r; W2 20:682–91.
40. 1 Cor. 11:23–30: Oecolampadius, Apologetica, F5r–F8v; W2 20:691–98.
41. John 6: Oecolampadius, Apologetica, F8v–G5v; W2 20:698–706.
42. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, G2r–G3r, G6r; W2 20:700–702, 707–708.
43. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, D6r–D8v; W2 20:664–69.
44. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, E1r; W2 20:670. In the Enchiridion Erasmus used
John 16:7 to argue that Christ’s physical presence was of no profit for salvation,
ASD V/8:198, CWE 66:71; this was a different emphasis from the Bohemian
Brethren and Karlstadt, who emphasized Christ’s statement that he had to go
away. Oecolampadius combined both views in his own use of the verse.
45. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, E3v; W2 20:674.
46. Luther’s argument in Against the Heavenly Prophets, WA 18:203–204, LW

40:213–14.
47. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, F4v; W2 20:690–91.
48. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, H4v–H5v.
49. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, K3r–v, L7r.
50. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, I3r–I6r.
51. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, H7r–v, I8r–v, Q3r.
52. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, N8v, P6r–v, R7r, S3v–S4r.
53. The Latin title was reduced to a subtitle of the work: Vom Sacrament der
Dancksagung. Von dem waren nateurlichen verstand der worten Christi: Das
ist mein Leib/nach der gar alten Lerern erklärung (Zurich: Froschauer, 1526).
On Hätzer, see J. F. G. Goeters, Ludwig Hätzer (ca. 1500–1529), Spiritualist
und Antitrinitarier: Eine Randfigur der frühen Täuferbewegung, Quellen und
Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 25 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1957),
45–86; Joel Van Amberg, A Real Presence: Religious and Social Dynamics of the
Eucharistic Conflicts in Early Modern Augsburg, 1520–1530, Studies in the History
of Christian Traditions 158 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 159–72.
375
Notes 375
54. Oecolampadius, Dancksagung, c3r, heading for Chap. 3: “Das es ain grobhayt sey
flaisch im brot suochen. Item dz im sacrament kain mirackel gschicht/vnd das es
die geschrifft vnd die lerer nit darfür halten.”
55. Oecolampadius, Dancksagung, s5v. Oecolampadius’s afterword was tranformed
into a foreword following Hätzer’s own preface in the translation, b1r–b4r.
56. Thus where the Latin text simply referred to the “common master of error,” both
the Latin and German identified that master in the margin as “Petrus Lombardus”;
Expositione, A3v, Dancksagung, b6r, but Hätzer also added comments such as “they
are all sophists and priests on their watch” (“Es seind alle Sophisten vnnd pfaffen an
der Gwardi”) and “The Master of High Minds makes many heretics” (“Der Maister
von den hohen Synnen macht vil Kätzer”), Dancksagung, b6v.
57. Oecolampadius, Dancksagung, s7v: “Und also hab ich vilen zuo dienst diß buoch in
vsslendischer gemeiner spraach/wie es von LVD. Hätzer gschriben ist/getruckt/
damit es ouch an dere verston mögind/die vnsrer spraach zuo Zürich nit gewont
habend.”
58. Johannes Oecolampadius, Vom Nachtmal. Beweisung auß euangelischen schrifften/
wer die seyen/so des Herren Nachtmals wort vnrecht verstanden vnd außlegen
(Basel: Wolff, 1526). Hätzer’s preface in the Basel imprint bears the date August 5,
1526. On the printing of the work in Basel, which lifted its ban against works on the
Lord’s Supper after the Baden disputation, see Goeters, Ludwig Hätzer, 81–83. The
response to Billican and the sermons, but not Hätzer’s preface, are reprinted in W2
20:635–734.
59. The sermon imprints had differing titles: Zwen Schön Sermon: inhaltende/
das man von wegen des Herren Nachtmals Brüderliche Liebe nitt soll
zertrennen (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526); Das von wegen des herren nachtmals
brüderliche lieb nit soll zertrennt werden/vnd von worem jnhalt der zeychen
(Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1526).
60. Oecolampadius, Vom Nachtmal. Beweisung, A1v–A2v.
61. “So Christus im brot/ist im ein ware schmach/dann er nutzt nichs darinn,”
Oecolampadius, Vom Nachtmal. Beweisung, B4r.
62. Johannes Brenz, Clare vnd Christliche antwortung . . . auff doctor Johann
Oecolampadi biechlin . . . über die wort deß nachtmals des herren verteütscht
(Augsburg: Ramminger, 1526). This translation was popular enough to be reprinted
twice. The translator gave his initials as S. K. on the title page; he has been identified
with Sebastian Coccius; BWSA 1/1:226, 232.
63. Johannes Brenz, Gegrundter und gewisser beschlus, etlicher Prediger zu Schwaben
uber die wort des Abentmals Christi Jesu (Hagenau: Setzer, 1526).
64. Farel had also referred to the “impanated God” in his letter to Bugenhagen of
October 8, 1525; Herminjard 1:393–98, no. 163.
65. Luther’s preface, WA 19:457–61, LW 59:156–61.
376
376 Notes
66. Capito to Zwingli, June 11, 1526, Z 8:624, no. 494, CWC 2:223, no. 290; Theodor
Kolde, “Zur Chronologie Lutherscher Schriften im Abendmahlstreit,” Zeitschrift
für Kirchengeschichte 11 (1890): 472–76; Kaufmann, Abendmahlslehre, 438–39.
67. The letter to Oecolampadius is lost, but Capito’s letter to Zwingli implies that the
Strasbourger had written to Oecolampadius, June 11, 1526, Z 8:621–25, no. 494;
CWC 2:213–30, esp. 223–24, no. 290.
68. July 8, 1526, BCorr 2:123–27, no. 131; Z&L 1:462–63; Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 309.
69. Johannes Oecolampadius, Billiche antwortt/Johan Ecolampadij auff D. Martin
Luthers bericht des sacraments halb/sampt einem kurtzen begryff auff etlicher Prediger
in Schwaben gschrifft die wort des Herren nachtmals antreffendt (Basel: Wolff, 1526);
W2 20:582–635; the letter to Luther also in FSBT 1:137–55. Summaries in Staehelin,
Lebenswerk, 309–12, and Z&L 1:295–98.
70. Oecolampadius referred specifically to 1 Cor. 10:16, 1 Cor. 11:24 (“this is my body”),
1 Cor. 11:27, and 1 Cor. 11:28–29—again, the passages discussed in Bugenhagen’s
Contra novam Errorem; Billiche Antwortt, W2 20:587.
71. Oecolampadius, Billiche Antwortt, W2 20:584–99.
73. Oecolampadius, Billiche Antwortt, W2 20:609–13. The proof texts included 1 Cor.
10:4, Exod. 12:11, Matt. 11:14, and John 19:26. For the first time Oecolampadius also
discussed Gen. 17:10 (“this is my covenant, which you shall keep.”). Bucer had first
cited this example of figurative language as a way to understand Christ’s words con-
cerning the cup in his Grund und Ursach published at the end of 1524, BDS 1:251,
and Zwingli repeated it in his Subsidium, Z 4:499, HZW 2:223.
77. Oecolampadius, Billiche Antwortt, W2 20:629.
78. Oecolampadius, Billiche Antwortt, W2 20:629–35. Walther Köhler also pointed to
Oecolampadius’s differences with Zwingli and his suggestions for concord in the
Billiche Antwort, Z&L 1:297–98.
79. Johannes Brenz, Genotigter vnd fremdt eingetragener schrifft auch mislichens dewtens
der wort des abentmals Christi. Syngramma (Wittenberg: Klug, 1526); Luther’s in-
troduction in WA 19:529–30, LW 59:161–62.
80. This highlighting was similar to that of the German translation of Bugenhagen’s
Contra novam errorem; both works were printed by Josef Klug.
81. Brenz, Genotigter Schrifft, C3v: “Hilff wer kan sich gnug solcher schrifftzerer
verwundern/kein schuster zert das leder so ser”; cf. BWSA 1/1:253.9–10: “Nos
solidiora querimus. Et ut verum fateamur, emendicatis testimoniis multo infirmior
ac contemptior redditur secta vestra.”
82. Omission of classical and Old Testament references, Brenz, Genotigter Schrifft, C8v,
D1v–D2r, cf. BWSA 1/1:257–58; much of the discussion from 260–61 is summed
37
Notes 377
up in one sentence in the Genotigter Schrifft. See also the specific comparisons be-
tween the two works in WA 19:524–28.
83. There are no paragraph breaks through the first half of the printed text. These
begin to be used on fol. C2r, and from fol. D5r they correspond with the numbered
sections of the Antisyngramma, beginning with no. 67. There are correspondences
in the intervening pages, but they are less obvious because of the translation’s de-
parture from the Latin text.
84. Brenz, Genotigter Schrifft, D5v–E3r, corresponding to BWSA 1/1:264–71, and
Oecolampadius, Antisyngramma, Q4r–R8r (no. 68–78).
85. Brenz, Genotigter Schrifft, E3r–E84; citation at E6r. The Grubenheimers were a
sect of Hussites.
86. Brenz, Genotigter Schrifft, E9v.
87. Erasmus, “Ratio,” 368–74, 380–90.
88. Oecolampadius, Billiche Antwortt, W2 20:585, 613–44.
89. Spruyt, Hoen, 231. In the Babylonian Captivity, Luther had protested against
making transubstantiation an article of faith, but he distinguished this from belief
in Christ’s true presence, which he did not question.
90. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, I3r–v; cf. I5r–v.
91. BWSA 1/1:264; cf. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, C1r.
92. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, I6v, P6v.
93. On the difference between these two types of Neoplatonism, which he calls no-
etic and sacramental spiritualism, see R. Emmet McLaughlin, “Reformation
Spiritualism: Typology, Sources and Significance,” in Radikalität und Dissent im
16. Jahrhundert/R adicalism and Dissent in the Sixteenth Century, ed. James M.
Stayer and Hans-Jürgen Goertz, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung Beiheft 27
(Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2002), 123–40. On Zwingli’s reception of Pico della
Mirandola, see Irena Backus, “Randbemerkungen Zwinglis in den Werken von
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,” Zwingliana 18 (1990/1991): 291–309.
C h a p t er 8
1. WBPW 6:357.
2. Willibald Pirckheimer, De vera Christi carne & uero eius sanguine, ad Ioan.
Oecolampadium responsio (Nuremberg: Petreius, 1526); WPBW 6:80–85, 435–502.
3. Johannes Oecolampadius, Ad Billibaldum Pyrkaimerum de re Eucharistiae
responsio (Zurich: Froschauer, 1526).
4. Willibald Pirckheimer, De uera Christi carne & uero eius sanguine, aduersus conuicia
Ioannis, qui sibi Oecolampadij nomen indidit, responsio secunda (Nuremberg: Petreius,
1527); WPBW 6:247–52, 7:511–88; Johannes Oecolampadius, Ad Billibaldvm
Pyrkaimervm, de Eucharistia, Ioannis Husschin, cui ab aeqalibus a prima adolescentia
Oecolampadio nomen obuenit, Responsio posterior (Basel: Cratander, 1527).
378
378 Notes
5. Willibald Pirckheimer, De convitiis Monachi illius, qui graecolatine Caecolampadius,

germanice uero Ausshin nuncupatur, ad Eleutherium suum epistola (Nuremberg:
Petreius, 1527); WPBW 6:353–74.
6. Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 301–307; Paul Drews, Willibald Pirkheimers Stellung zur
Reformation: Ein Beitrag zur Beurteilung der Verhältnisses zwischen Humanismus
und Reformation (Leipzig: Grunow, 1887), 89–110.
7. For a helpful overview of and corrective to earlier discussions of Pirckheimer’s
treatises, see Manfred Scharoun, “‘Nec Lutheranus neque Eckianus sed Christianus
sum’: Erwägungen zu Willibald Pirckheimers Stellung in der reformatorischen
Bewegung,” in Humanismus und Theologie in der frühen Neuzeit: Akten des
interdisziplinären Symposions vom 15. bis 17. Mai 1992 im Melanchthonhaus in Bretten,
ed. H. Kerner, Pirckheimer-Jahrbuch 8 (Nuremberg: Hans Carl, 1993), 107–47.
Scharoun does not discuss Michael Kunzler, “‘Bilibaldi Birckheimeri Responsio’.
Ein Beispiel humanistischer Eucharistieauffassung im XVI. Jahrhundert,” Trierer
Theologische Zeitschrift 90 (1981): 289–304, who sees Erasmus’s influence in
Pirckheimer’s Responsio.
8. Z&L 1:234– 41. Köhler’s sympathies were clearly with Oecolampadius: he
contrasted the polemical tone of Pirckheimer’s treatises with the moderation of the
Basler, saw Catholicizing tendencies in the Nurembergers’ formulations, and was
dismissive of the arguments in Pirckheimer’s Responsio Secunda. In this assessment
he was strongly influenced by Drews.
9. Oecolampadius to Zwingli, April 19, 1526, Z 8:571–72; Veit Bild mentioned
to Pirckheimer on August 25, 1526, that the book was no longer available and
expressed his hope that it would not only be reprinted but also translated into
German, WPBW 6:194–97.
10. Luther to Georg Spalatin, March 27, 1526, WA Br 4:41–44; letter to Pirckheimer
from Theobald Billican, March 13, 1526, WPBW 6:122–25, of Pirckheimer to
Veit Bild, August 25, 1526, WPBW 6:194–97 and March 15, 1527, WPBW 6:275–
77, and to Georg Spalatin, April 1, 1527, WPBW 6:306–307. For Luther’s use of
Pirckheimer’s works, see the introduction and annotations to Luther’s Das diese
Wort Christi, WA 23:38–46, 284–320.
11. Ulrich Zasius to Pirckheimer, September 27, 1526, WPBW 6:211–44; Johannes
Cochlaeus to Pirckheimer, September 15, 1526, WPBW 6:203–207, and May 12,
1527, WPBW 6:427–31.
12. Aristotle stated that the orator must present his own character in a positive light
and put the hearers in the right frame of mind; Rhetorica, Bk. II, Chap. 1, in The
Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941),
1379–80. Quintilian contrasted ethos, which he also described as “propriety of
manners,” with pathos, which he described as the stronger emotions such as anger,
fear, and pity; Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, VI.2; The Orator’s Education, Books
6–8, ed. and trans. Donald A. Russell (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2001),  44–65.
379
Notes 379
13. There is no modern biography of Pirckheimer, but there is a wealth of bio-

graphical information in Niklas Holzberg, Willibald Pirckheimer: Griechischer
Humanismus in Deutschland, Humanistische Bibliothek, Reihe I, Abhandlungen,
41 (Munich: Fink, 1981), 168–95, 263–85, from which much of the following is
drawn; cf. also the biographical sketches in English: Lewis W. Spitz, The Religious
Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1963), 155–96, and Eckhard Bernstein, “Willibald Pirckheimer (5 December 1470–
22 December 1530),” in German Writers of the Renaissance and Reformation 1280–
1580, ed. J. N. Hardin and M. Reinhart (Detroit: Gale Research, 1978), 218–25.
14. On the question of Pirckheimer’s authorship, see Holzberg, Pirckheimer, 190–95.
15. WPBW 3:146–72, esp. 162.
16. OBA 1:39–41; Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 72n2, 92n5.
17. On Pirckheimer’s correspondence with Adelmann, see Holzberg, Pirckheimer, 170.
18. Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 247–48.
19. April 22, 1525, WPBW 5:395– 99, no. 936. Pirckheimer’s letter is lost, but
Oecolampadius’s reply makes clear that he was responding to the Nuremberger’s
questions. Pirckheimer would quote Oecolampadius’s words in his Responsio,
WPBW 6:81–82.
20. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, L3r–L5v; OBA 1:370–72.
21. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione,  A2r–v.
22. On the basic structure of a classical oration, see Heinrich Lausberg, Handbook of
Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 121–32,
135–61, 204–208, and especially the table comparing the rhetorical handbooks of
several authors on the basic structure of an oration, 122–23.
23. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, A4r–B5r.
24. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, B5r–C8v.
25. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, C8v–E2v.
26. Oecolampadius rejected Ambrose’s authorship of De sacramentis, and he criticized
the Decretum for misquoting patristic texts; De genvina expositione, E7v, H6v.
Later in the book he rejected the authenticity of various statements attributed to
Cyprian and Augustine that were cited by Peter Lombard in the Sentences, as well
as citations from Eusebius and Prosper’s collections of statements from Augustine
that were incorporated into the Decretum, K1v–K2v.
27. E.g., for Irenaeus, see Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, G3r, G5r; Hilary,
H2r, H4r.
28. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, F6r–H8v.
29. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, H8v–K1v.
30. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, K4r–L2v.
31. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, A2v–A3r; C5v.
32. At a time before the name of the Caribbean tribe became associated with the eating
of human flesh, carnivore had overtones of cannibalism; cf. Luther’s later associa-
tion of the word with Atreus, who slew the sons of his brother Thyestes and served
380
380 Notes
them to Thyestes at a banquet, WA 23:265; LW 37:138. Oecolampadius also used

the Greek term sarkophagia, “a diet of flesh,” K6r.
33. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, A5v–A6r, K5r–K6v, “mirabiles sunt illae
animae uestrae carniuorae.”
34. Erasmus to Noel Béda, October 2, 1525, Allen 6:180–83, CWE 11:294–98,
no. 1620; similar statements to Michel Boudet in a letter written the same day,
Allen 6:179–80, CWE 11:291–92, no. 1618, and to Pierre Barbiere the following
day, Allen 6:183–84, CWE 11:299–301, no. 1621.
35. November 30, 1525, Allen 6:206, CWE 11:343–44, no. 1636.
36. Billican, De verbis coenae dominicae, fol. A2r–v.
37. BWSA 1/1:243–46.
38. WPBW 6:81–82.
39. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:82. The defense of the truth and the urging of
others were standard rationales used by authors on both sides to justify their con-
tribution to the printed debate. Pirckheimer’s book was published only a few weeks
after that of Billican and Rhegius and at about the same time as the Syngramma. In
his Responsio Secunda, Pirckheimer blamed the delay in the book’s printing on his
own illness, WPBW 7:576.
40. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:82–84.
41. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:491. With this dismissal, Pirckheimer jumped
over Oecolampadius’s arguments in De genvina expositione, fol. E5r–G3r; he
resumed his criticism of Oecolampadius with the latter’s discussion of Irenaeus,
De genvina expositione, fol. G3v.
42. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:437, 445, 456, 477, 479–80, 485, 488, 494.
43. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:456, 473, 478, 485–86, 489–91.
44. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:441, 443, 447, 452, 488.
45. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:466: “Sed haec est consuetudo tua, ut, cum
aliquid tibi sit probandum, ad aliud divertas”; 480: “sed tu cum tuis Pighardis
solitis fictionibus ludis”; 491: “verba Christi . . . iterum solito more multo exornas,
torques et invertis fuco.”
46. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:474, 482–85.
47. The exception is Johannes Bugenhagen’s Contra novum errorem de sacramento
. . . Epistola, which is more polemical than Pirckheimer’s work; Nicolas von
Amsdorf, Andreas Althamer, Andreas Flamm, and Jacob Strauss all published ex-
tremely polemical German pamphlets in 1525 and 1526.
48. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:440–41, 459, 461, 464, 476.
49. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:85.
50. April 13, 1526, WPBW 6:131–33.
51. Denck was banished from Nuremberg in January 1525 on account of his ques-
tionable views on the sacraments; Jan J. Kiwiet, “The Life of Hans Denck (ca.
1500–1527),” Mennonite Quarterly Review 31 (1957): 227–59.
381
Notes 381
52. June 22, 1526, WPBW 6:161–69. Pirckheimer referred to “those ill-disposed to me
for no other reason than that I proclaim that they live with too little purity and
turn the liberty of spirit into opportunity for carnal pleasures,” 165–66. He may
have been referring to the pastors Andreas Osiander, Dominicus Schleupner and
the city secretary Lazarus Spengler. Scharoun dates Pirckheimer’s hostility to these
men from 1528, but it may well have had earlier roots, “ ‘Nec Lutheranus neque
Eckianus,’ ” 136–37.
53. Drews’s discussion of Pirckheimer’s letter is helpful in highlighting the reasons his
opponents might conclude that he favored Oecolampadius’s position, but it obscures
the chronology by citing the letter from June 1526 before summarizing the contents
of the Responsio, written six months earlier; Drews, Pirckheimer’s Stellung, 89–101.
54. Oecolampadius sent the manuscript to Zurich for printing on June 20; Staehelin,
Lebenswerk, 301–302.
55. Oecolampadius, Responsio, a2r–a3v.
56. Oecolampadius, Responsio, a3v–a4v; cf. WPBW 6:464–65.
57. Oecolampadius, Responsio, a6r–a8r; citation at a8r.
58. Oecolampadius, Responsio, b2v, c2v; citation at b1r: “Quomodo non indulges
bili? . . . Quid est uspiam inuidiosum, cui me non aßocies? Carolstadius &
Pighardi fortaße non tam mali sunt, quorum ualde poeniteat. Quid mihi Iudaeos
& Sarracenos confers?” In fact, Oecolampadius admitted that, although he could
not condone Karlstadt’s “intemperate words,” Karlstadt’s ideas “were not far off the
mark,” a5v.
59. Refutation of Pirckheimer’s insults in general, Oecolampadius, Responsio, a3v–b4v;
on Pirckheimer’s discussion of mysteries and signs, b4v–d1v, responding to WPBW
6:437–40.
60. Oecolampadius, Responsio, d1v– d6r, responding to WPBW 6:446– 50, and
d6r–e3r, responding to WPBW 6:441–45, which addresses three passages from
Augustine cited in De genvinae expositione, A6r–A8r.
61. Oecolampadius, Responsio, e3r–e7v, responding to WPBW 6:451–60, although
not in the same order as Pirckheimer’s argument.
62. Oecolampadius, Responsio, e7v–g8v, responding to WPBW 6:462–98.
63. Oecolampadius, Responsio, a3v, a7r, a8r–v, b2v, e2r (citation), e8r, g7v–g8r.
64. Oecolampadius, Responsio, h5v–h6r.
65. Pirckheimer, Responsio secunda, WPBW 6:249–50.
66. Pirckheimer, Responsio secunda, WPBW 6:249–51, WPBW 7:511 (citation), 513–16,
519–20, 535–38, 553–54.
67. Pirckheimer, Responsio secunda, WPBW 7:511, 520, 522, 526–28, 547–48, 552.
68. Pirckheimer had referred to the expulsions in his June letter; Ernst Staehelin
suggests that Pirckheimer was referring to the pastor Bonifacius Wolfhart and pos-
sibly the Liestal pastor Stephan Stör; OBA 1:556n6.
69. Pirckheimer, Responsio secunda, WPBW 7:511–12, 534–35.
382
382 Notes
70. Oecolampadius, Responsio, f5v, citing Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:476–77.

Pirckheimer was responding to de genvina expositione, C3r.
71. Pirckheimer, Responsio secunda, WPBW 7:560–61.
72. Pirckheimer, Responsio secunda, WPBW 6:251.
73. Pirckheimer had enlisted the aid of the Nuremberg preacher Thomas Venatorius in
assembling further patristic citations that could be used against Oecolampadius;
Venatorius to Pirckheimer, October 1526, WPBW 7:500–501. Venatorius was
the one pastor who remained on good terms with Pirckheimer; Scharoun, “ ‘Nec
Lutheranus neque Eckianus,’ ” 142.
74. Pirckheimer to Michael Hummelberg, December 15, 1526, WPBW 6:252–53. The
treatise is dated January 1527 at the end.
75. Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 304–305.
76. Oecolampadius, Responsio posterior,  3–7.
77. Oecolampadius, Responsio posterior, 108–11; portions of this are reprinted in OBA
2:20–32, no. 465.
78. The texts which had become key were John 6, especially 6:63, 1 Cor. 10:16, 1 Cor.
11:27, and Matt. 24:23; Oecolampadius, Responsio posterior,  74–77.
79. Oecolampadius, Responsio posterior, 9–16; cf. Cf. Lombard, Sententia IV, dist. 8
cap. 4, MPL 192:857.
80. Oecolampadius, Responsio posterior,  20–24.
81. Pirckheimer, De Convitiis Monachi, WPBW 6:353–66; the edition also contains
two earlier drafts of Pirckheimer’s pamphlet. On the dating, see 374n2.
82. Pirckheimer, De Convitiis Monachi, WPBW 6:362.
83. Luther called reason “Frau Hulda” and rejected five of “her” arguments, which he
derived from Andreas Karlstadt’s Dialogus, WA 18:182–204, LW 40:192–215. In
fact, some of the arguments that Oecolampadius used were first raised by both
Karlstadt and Cornelis Hoen.
84. Amy Nelson Burnett, “Rhetoric and Refutation in Luther’s That These Words Still
Stand Firm,” Lutheran Quarterly 29 (2015): 284–303.
85. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:453–54, 456–58; Oecolampadius, Responsio,
e5r; Pirckheimer, Responsio Secunda, WPBW 7:552–53, 554; cf. Luther, Das diese
Wort Christi, WA 23:159–61, LW 37:73–74.
86. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:452– 35; Oecolampadius, Responsio, e5r–v ;
Pirckheimer, Responsio Secunda, WPBW 7:550–51, 553; Luther, Das diese Wort
Christi, WA 23:163–65, LW 37:76–77.
87. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:456, 488–89; Oecolampadius, Responsio, e7r–v ;
Pirckheimer, Responsio Secunda, WPBW 7:520.
88. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:476; Oecolampadius, Responsio, f4v;
Pirckheimer, Responsio Secunda, WPBW 7:551; Oecolampadius, Responsio
posterior,  61–62.
89. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:455; Oecolampadius, Responsio, c6v–c7r;
Pirckheimer, Responsio Secunda, WPBW 7:555.
38
Notes 383
90. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:438, 469–75; Pirckheimer, Responsio Secunda,

WPBW 7:536; 550–51, 554–55.
91. Oecolampadius, Responsio, c6v–c8r; Oecolampadius, Responsio Posterior, 9–13,
32–34, 65–66. On the patristic use of figura, see Erich Auerbach, “Figura,” in
Scenes from the Drama of European Literature: Six Essays (Gloucester, MA: Peter
Smith, 1973), 11–76.
92. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:445, 461, 474; Responsio Secunda, WPBW 7: 559,
569; cf. Luther, Vom Abendmahl Christi Bekenntnis, WA 26:462, LW 37:317; contra
Drews, Pirckheimer’s Stellung, 104–105; cf. Scharoun, “ ‘Nec Lutheranus,’ ” 131–36.
93. Erasmus later told Pirckheimer that he had never stated that Oecolampadius’s po-
sition was substantially better, and that he would not dissent from the opinion of
the church, October 19, 1527, WPBW 6:406–10, no. 1135; CWE 13:402, no. 1893.
Michael Kunzler asserts that Pirckheimer’s Responsio is “wholly Erasmian,”
“ ‘Bilibaldi Birckheimeri Responsio,’ ” 303–304, but the ideas Pirckheimer held
in common with Erasmus were drawn from the medieval understanding of spir-
itual communion, and not based on a specifically “humanist” conception of the
Eucharist.
94. Sharoun, “ ‘Nec Lutheranus,’ ” 145.
95. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:446, 450; Pirckheimer, Responsio Secunda,
WPBW 7:547.
96. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:460, 479 (Chrysostom), 487 (Augustine),
492–93 (Irenaeus and Cyril); Pirckheimer, Responsio Secunda, WPBW 7:518–19,
525, 532 (Augustine), 539–40 (several fathers), 544–45 (Cyprian).
97. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:446–50.
98. Oecolampadius, Responsio, d1v– d4r, d6r, e1r– e3r, e6r, f7r–v, g1r, g2r– g5r;
Oecolampadius, Responsio Posterior, 32, 35–38, 42, 52–53, 67.
99. Oecolampadius, Responsio, b5v–b7r, c6v–c7v.
100. Pirckheimer, Responsio, WPBW 6:84; Pirckheimer, Responsio Secunda, WPBW
7:251, 519–21.
101. Oecolampadius, Responsio Posterior, 7.
C h a p t er 9
1. September 13, 1526, WA 19:473, LW 59:171.
2. Zwingli, Ein klare vnderrichtung vom nachtmal Christi, Z 4:789–879; English
translation in Z&B 185–238, where it is rather misleadingly titled, “On the Lord’s
Supper.” For summaries of the work, see Z&L 1:301–10; W. Peter Stephens, The
Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 236–39; and Johannes
Voigtländer, Ein Fest der Befreiung: Huldrych Zwinglis Abendmahlslehre
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 94–99.
3. There were two Zurich imprints (the first by Hager, and the second by Froschauer)
and two Strasbourg imprints. The Strasbourg imprints modified the spelling,
384
384 Notes
which may have helped German readers, but they did not change the wording; on
these modifications, Z 4:782–88.
4. Walter Schenker, Die Sprache Huldrych Zwinglis im Kontrast zur Sprache
Luthers, Studia Linguistica Germanica 14 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977); 14–21;
Josef H. Schmidt, “Zwinglideutsch and Lutherdeutsch,” in Huldrych Zwingli,
1484–1531: A Legacy of Radical Reform. Papers from the 1984 International
Zwingli Symposium, McGill University, ed. E. J. Furcha, ARC Supplement #2
(Montreal: McGill University, 1985), 34–43. Both Schencker and Schmidt
compare Luther’s and Zwingli’s Bible translation, but their observations about
Luther’s choice of broadly understood language versus Zwingli’s concern for
deeper local understanding applies to their pamphlets written in the vernacular
as well.
5. The woodcut is described in Lee Palmer Wandel, “Envisioning God: Image and
Liturgy in Reformation Zurich,” Sixteenth Century Journal 24 (1993): 21–40, but
Wandel does not note the fundamental connection between the images on the title
page with the text of the pamphlet.
6. Zwingli, Das sacrament des fronlychnams, Z 4:793–94, Z&B 188.
7. Z 4:793–810, Z&B 188–99.
8. Z 4:810–27, Z&B 199–212.
9. Hätzer’s translation of Oecolampadius’s De genvina expositione was printed by
Froschauer in Zurich and appeared at the beginning of 1526; Staehelin, Lebenswerk,
283; Zwingli’s Klare vnderrichtung is dated February 23.
10. Z 4:827–41, Z&B 212–22. The Zurich under-secretary Joachim am Grüdt is an ex-
ample of the former, while the early Bugenhagen is an example of the latter.
11. Z 4:841–58, Z&B 222–35.
12. Z 4:858–62, Z&B 235–38.
13. Z 4:794–96, 802, 856; cf. Spruyt, Hoen, 227–28, 232. 1 Cor. 10:1–4 was tradition-
ally understood as alluding to the sacraments, and so Zwingli’s discussion of this
passage is not surprising, but it should be noted that Hoen, too, discussed the pas-
sage; Spruyt, Hoen, 229.
14. Z 4:791, Z&B 186.
15. Zwingli, Ad Theobaldi Billicani et Vrbani Rhegii Epistolas Responsio, Z 4:880–941,
dated March 1 at the end; the date at the end of the Klare vnderrichtung is February
23. The Responsio is summarized in Z&L 1:315–20, and Stephens, Theology, 239–40.
16. Z 4:914; cf. Klare vnderrichtung, Z 4:854, Z&B 232, where he suggested both cat-
achresis and metonymy as the specific form of trope found in “this is my body.”
17. Zwingli, Ejn abgeschrifft oder Copy beder früntlicher geschrifft, Z 4:755–63. On
the correspondence that preceded the disputation, see Martin Jung, “Historische
Einleitung. Grund, Verlauf und Folgen der Disputation,” in Die Badener
Disputation von 1526. Kommentierte Edition des Protokolls, ed. Alfred Schindler
and Wolfram Schneider-Lastin (Zurich: TVZ, 2015), 27–199, esp. 106–108.
385
Notes 385
18. Irena Backus, “The Disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528: Neutralizing the
Early Church,” Studies in Reformed theology and History 1 (1993): 1–130, esp. 1–17;
Jung, “Historische Einleitung,” 108–111.
19. Thomas Murner, Responsio libello cuidam insigniter & egregie stulto Vlrici Zvuyngel
apostate; published with Erasmus’s Expostulatio; for the full title of the pamphlet,
see note 36, this chapter. Murner’s tracts are described in J. M. Miskuly, Thomas
Murner and the Eucharist: The Defense of Catholic Eucharistic Theology in the Anti-
Reformation Writings of Thomas Murner, “vnder Hürt, Hieter vnd Vorfechter der
christlichen Schefflin,” 1520–1529 (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, St.
Bonaventure University, 1990), 57–69.
20. Joachim am Grüdt, Christenlich anzeygung das im Sacrament des altars zwarlich
sey fleisch vnd blut Christi (Freiburg/Br: Wörlin, 1526), named several of Zwingli’s
publications, but was especially aimed at the Klare vnderrichtung; cf. Z&L 1:310–
14; on am Grüdt’s sources, see Alfred Schindler, “Der Aufbau der altgläubigen Front
gegen Zwingli,” in Die Zürcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen.
Wissenschaftliche Tagung zum hundertjährigen Bestehen des Zwinglivereins
(29. Oktober bis 2. November 1997 in Zürich), ed. Alfred Schindler and Hans
Stickelberger, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 18 (Bern: Peter Lang,
2001), 17–42, esp. 39–41.
21. Johannes Fabri, Ein sandtbrieue . . . an Vlrich Zwinglin . . . von wegen der künfftigen
disputation, FSGR 1:235–46, esp. 238–39, 241. Köhler, Z&L 1:168–69, 311–14,
saw am Grüdt’s influence on Fabri’s Epistola . . . ad Vlricum Zuinglium . . . de fu-
ture disputatione Baden (Tübingen: Morhart, 1526), but the similarities are more
likely due to their use of Cajetan as a common source. The German translation
was also printed in Tübingen. Fabri would substantiate his accusations by citing
from a number of Zwingli’s publications in a lengthy document submitted to the
representatives of the Catholic Orte at Baden; it was printed in September as
Christenliche beweisung über sechs Artickel/des vnchristenlichen Vlrich Zwinglins
(Tübingen: Morhart, 1526), partial reprint in FSGR 1:265–83, summarized in Z&L
1:346–52.
22. Zwingli, Über den vngesandten sendbrieff Johannsen Fabers, Z 5:43–94; on the
Lord’s Supper, 50–54; on the mass, 81–85.
23. Johannes Eck, Die falsch onwarhaftig, Verfürisch Leer Vlrich zwingli von Zvrch,
dvrch Doctor Iohan Ecken außzogen (Ingolstadt: Apian, 1526). Eck also highlighted
Zwingli’s disdain for the councils and teachers of the church and how the reformer’s
translations falsified the Hebrew Bible.
24. Both Eck’s and Murner’s theses are given in Schindler and Schneider-Lastin, Badener
Disputation, 267. Murner would include his theses in Ein worhafftiges verantwurten
der hochgelorten doctores vnd herren (Lucerne: Murner, 1526), which was his re-
sponse to Zwingli’s Die andere Antwort über etliche unwahrhafte Antworten;
reprinted in FSGR 1:284–309 and Wolfgang Pfeiffer-Belli, ed., Thomas Murner
386
386 Notes
im Schweizer Glaubenskampf, Corpus Catholicorum 22 (Münster: Aschendorff,

1939),  7–38.
25. A list of the participants is in Jung, “Historische Einleitung,” 114–26.
26. Z&L 1:327–28; Jung, “Historische Einleitung,” 54.
27. Jung, “Historische Einleitung,” 101–64.
28. Zwingli, Die erste kurze Antwort über Ecks Schlußreden, Z 5:177–95, esp. 181–88.
29. Zwingli, Die andere Antwort über etliche unwahrhafte Antworten, Z 5:213–35.
30. Zwingli put this in the form of a syllogism: Christ’s body is what was given; the
bread is Christ’s body; thus bread was given; Über den ungesandten Sendbrief, Z
5:51. The argument was first made by Karlstadt, in both Ob man . . . erweysen müge,
fol. F2v, and Auszlegung dieser wort Christi, fol. A4v–b1r, EPK 139, 148.
31. Zwingli, Erst kurtze antwurt, Z 5:181–87; cf. Die andere Antwort, Z 5:221–26.
Zwingli cited those verses that were becoming standard: Matt. 24:23, Matt. 26:11,
John 16:28, Acts 1:11, and Acts 7:55.
32. Z 5:230; cf. Erasmus’s Paraphrase of Acts, CWE 50:24–25.
33. [Thomas Hofen], Warhaftige handlung der disputation in obern Baden
(Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1526). The pamphlet is (probably wrongly) attributed to the
Bern assistant city secretary Thomas Hofen in VD16; on Capito’s involvement, see
Jung, “Historische Einleitung,” 34–36; partial edition in Schindler and Schneider-
Lastin, Badener Disputation, 523–30.
34. [ Johannes Piscatorius], Qvibvs praeivdiciis in Baden Heluetiorum, sit disputatum,
Epistola Antonij Haliei (Strasbourg: Prüß, 1526); Jung, “Historische Einleitung,”
36–37, suggests that “Halieus” was a pseudonym for Johannes Piscatorius
(Fischer).
35. Schindler and Schneider-Lastin, Badener Disputation, 528.
36. Erasmus, Expostulatio admodum pia et Christiana, Allen 6:208– 212; CWE
11: 346–50, no. 163. The work was printed in both Cologne and Hagenau; Thomas
Murner included Erasmus’s letter with his Responsio to Zwingli published in late
March or early April, E. Roterodami de sacro sancta synaxi & vnionis sacramento
corporis & sanguinis Christi ad amicum expostulatio . . . (Lucerne: Murner, [1526]).
Zwingli had responded to Erasmus’s letter to Pellikan on October 28, 1525, when it
was being circulated privately, but Zwingli’s letter was never printed; Z 8:407–13.
Erasmus’s conflict with Jud is described in Heinz Holeczek, Erasmus Deutsch. Bd.
1: Die volkssprachliche Rezeption des Erasmus von Rotterdam in der reformatorischen
Öffentlichkeit 1519–1536 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1983),
191–208.
37. Erasmus, Epistola D. Erasmi Roter. cvm amico quodam expostulans. Amici item
epistolae dvae, Erasmianae expostulationi respondentes (s.l., [1526]). On the dating of
these letters, see Cornelis Augustijn, “Einleitung zu Detectio Praestigiarvm,” ASD
IX/1: 213–31, esp. 218n41, which corrects the dating in Allen 6:206–208 and CWE
11:350–64.
387
Notes 387
38. Allen 6:212–14, CWE 11:350–54, no. 1638. In the second, longer letter (Allen
6:214–20, CWE 11:354–64, no. 1639), Pellikan addressed more directly Erasmus’s
appeal to the authority of the church; cf. the summary in Christine Christ-von
Wedel, “Erasmus und die Zürcher Reformatoren: Huldrich Zwingli, Leo Jud,
Konrad Pellikan, Heinrich Bullinger und Theodor Bibliander,” in Erasmus in
Zürich. Eine verschwiegene Autorität, ed. Christine Christ-von Wedel and Urs B.
Leu (Zurich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2007), 77–165, esp. 119–21, which follows
Allen’s dating.
39. Ludwig Leopoldi [Leo Jud], Des Hochgelerten Erasmi von Roterdam vnd Doctor
Luthers maynung vom Nachtmal vnsers Herren Jesu Christi neuwlich außgangen
auff den XVIII. Tag Aprellens (Zurich: Froschauer, 1526); Christ-von Wedel,
“Erasmus und die Zürcher Reformatoren,” 125–27; Augustijn, “Einleitung,” ASD
IX/1:222–24.
40. Leopoldi, Maynung, A2v–A4v; citations at A3r, A4v; cf. ASD 9/1:241n174.
41. Leopoldi, Maynung, A5r–A6r.
42. Leopoldi, Maynung, A6r–B2v. As support for his argument he cited Luther’s De
abroganda missa, published in 1522, WA 8:398–476.
43. Leopoldi, Maynung, B3r–B5r, citing the first article of Luther’s Assertio omnium
articulorum (1520), WA 7:101–103; cf. B4r: Luther argued that Christians were
obligated to believe only what God commanded, but God never commanded an-
yone to believe that the bread and wine were Christ’s body and blood.
44. Leopoldi, Maynung, B5v– B7v. Jud specifically mentioned Melanchthon’s
annotations on John and Bugenhagen’s Psalms commentary.
45. Erasmus, Detectio Praestigiarum libelli cuiusdam libelli germanice scripti, ASD 9/
1: 233–62, CWE 78:163–205. The pamphlet was dated April 18, 1526; the Detectio
was published by the end of May. On Erasmus’s suspicions concerning the author
and its dating, see Augustijn, “Einleitung,” ASD IX/1:224–26; cf. Erasmus’s de-
nunciation of the pamphlet in a letter to the representatives of the Swiss cantons
meeting for the Tagsatzung and disputation in Baden, May 15, 1526; Allen 6:337–
42, CWE 12:197–204, no. 1708.
46. ASD IX/1:233–34, CWE 78:163–64.
47. ASD IX/1:234–40, CWE 78:164–73.
48. ASD IX/1:236–37, CWE 78:167–68.
49. ASD IX/1:251, 254–56; CWE 78:188, 192–94. John B. Payne, Erasmus: His Theology
of the Sacraments (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1970), 137–38, points out the
ambiguity in Erasmus’s use of the word.
50. ASD IX/1:246–56, CWE 78:182–94; on Mark 14, ASD IX/1:246–48, CWE
78:182–83.
51. ASD IX/1:256–58, CWE 78:197–99.
52. Desiderius Erasmus, Entdeckung . . . der dückischen arglistenn eines Büchlin inn
teutsch vnder sine erdichtent titel . . . Erasmi/vnd Luthers meinung/vom nachtmal
38
388 Notes
vnsers herren (Basel, 1526). On the dating and possible translator, see Augustijn,
“Einleitung,” ASD IX/1:228.
53. Leo Jud, VF entdeckung Doctor Erasmi von Roterdam/der dückischen arglisten/
eynes tütschen büchlins antwurt/vnd entschuldigung (Zurich: Froschauer, 1526).
54. Jud, VF entdeckung, a2r–a6v.
55. Jud, VF entdeckung, a 84–b2r.
56. Jud, VF entdeckung, c1r–c3r.
57. ASD IX/1:242, CWE 78:176; cf. Amy Nelson Burnett, “‘Things I Never Said or
Thought’? Erasmus’ Exegetical Contribution to the Early Eucharistic Controversy,”
in Collaboration, Conflict and Continuity in the Reformation. Essays in Honor of
James M. Estes on his Eightieth Birthday, ed. Konrad Eisenbichler (Toronto: Centre
for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2014), 275–95.
58. For more detail on the following, Z&L 1:352–54.
59. Zwingli, Ain Christenliche fast nutzliche vnd tröstliche Epistel Ulrich Zwinglins ann
dye . . . zuo Eßlingen, Z 5:275–85. Given the distances between Zurich, Ulm, and
Augsburg, it is unlikely that the letter was printed before the beginning of August,
but if the letter was printed during that month, it would have been available at the
Frankfurt fair. In the second pamphlet, Zwingli stated that he had seen the printed
letter, which means the letter was certainly in print by early October.
60. Zwingli, Der ander sendbrieff Huldrich Zwinglis an die Christen Zuo Eßlingen, Z
5:419–26. The letter was dated October 16, 1526.
61. Z 5:421–22.
62. Jakob Strauss, Wider den vnmilten Jrthum Maister Vlrichs zwinglins so er verneünet
die warhafftig gegenwirtigkait dess allerhailligsten leybs vnd bluets Christi im
Sacrament (Augsburg: Ramminger, 1526); Z&L 1:400–407. Strauss’s earlier cor-
respondence with Oecolampadius is discussed in chapter 5, this volume.
63. Strauss, Wider den vnmilten Jrthum, A1v–A4v. Z&L 1:401–402, suggests that
Strauss was unfamiliar with Zwingli’s other writings, but Strauss’s mention of
those “who have deceived so many thousand souls with teaching that they them-
selves did not believe or hold to be correct,” A2v, probably refers to the opening
paragraph of the section on the Eucharist in Zwingli’s Commentarius, and pos-
sibly also to Oecolampadius’s description, in his response to Billican, of how the
Basler had begun to question Christ’s substantial presence, Apologetica, C2v–C3v.
Oecolampadius acknowledged that Strauss’s pamphlet also attacked him; to
Zwingli, September 24, 1526, Z 8:722–23, no. 530.
64. Strauss, Wider den vnmilten Jrthum, B1r–B3r.
65. Strauss, Wider den vnmilten Jrthum, B3v–D3r.
66. Strauss, Wider den vnmilten Jrthum, C3r–C4r.
67. Johannes Schnewyl, Wider die vnmilte verdammung. Nach art vnd aygenschafft/
aller gleychßner . . . Jacob Straussen (Augsburg: Steiner, 1526). VD16 assumes that
Schnewyl is a pseudonym for the Augsburg radical Hans Marschalk, but Thomas
Kaufmann identified him with a former Strasbourg citizen also called Schnebel
389
Notes 389
and suggests that he worked as a corrector in one of the Augsburg print shops;
Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 277–78 and n. 40. The pamphlet is summarized
in Z&L 1:414–15.
68. Zwingli, Antwurt Huldrichen Zwinglins über Doctor Straussen büchlin wider
jnn geschriben das nachtmal Christi betreffende; three imprints in Zurich, Basel
and Augsburg, Z 5:464–547; the work is summarized in Z&L 1:407–14, and
Voigtländer, Fest, 105–108.
69. Z 5:474–82.
70. Z 5:491–94.
71. Z 5:499–500.
72. Z 5:508– 16. Oecolampadius introduced the term into the debate in his
Antisyngramma, although he did not develop its Christological implications;
Apologetica, Q3r.
73. Z 5:519–29; Karlstadt had first used this argument against Luther’s understanding
of the words of institution as God’s promise joined with the signs of Christ’s body
and blood; Ob man erweysen möge, F5r–v, EPK 142–43. In his Billiche Antwortt,
Oecolampadius made roughly the same argument, but his distinction was be-
tween “simple historical words” and those of command (rather than promise), W2
20:617–18.
74. Discussed in c hapter 4, this volume; see also Z&L 1:396–400.
75. Responsio Brevis ad Epistolam satis longam amici cuiusdam haud ulgaris, in qua de
Eucharistia quaestio tractator, Z 5:342–58; Edlibach’s letter, with Zwingli’s marginal
comments, 324–41.
76. Zwingli’s letter to Edlibach of December 8, 1525, described their recent meeting,
Z 8:435–37, no. 419a; Edlibach’s letter in response is undated, but it mentioned
receiving Zwingli’s letter a few days earlier. In the Responsio, Zwingli said he was
sending copies of his recently published Klare vnderrichtung and his response to
Billican and Rhegius, which makes it likely that the letter was written in March.
The date at the end of the published Responsio, August 14, could have been added
when the letter was prepared for printing.
77. See, for instance, the book Johannes Fabri presented at the close of the Baden
Disputation in manuscript form, which would be printed at the beginning of
September: Christenliche beweisung über sechs Artikel des vnchristenlichen Vlrich
Zwinglins (Tübingen: Morhart, 1526); summary in Z&L 1:346–52.
78. Zwingli, Klare vnderrichtung, Z 4:827–41, Z&B 212–23; Response to Billican, Z
4:904, 907.
79. Zwingli, Klare vnderrichtung, Z 4:804, 847–48; Z&B 195, 227–28; Response to
Billican, 898–99, 908.
80. Zwingli, Klare vnderrichtung, Z 5:796, Z&B 189; cf. Spruyt, Hoen, 231, Heiko A.
Oberman, ed., Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought
Illustrated by Key Documents (Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1981), 273; EPK 120–23,
190–91, 196–97.
390
390 Notes
81. On the Erasmian elements of Bucer’s early discussions of the Lord’s Supper, see
Friedhelm Krüger, Bucer und Erasmus: Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss des
Erasmus auf die Theologie Martin Bucers, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für
europäische Geschichte Mainz 57 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1970), 183–209.
82. Johannes Brenz, Epistola Ioannes Brentii de uerbis Domini, Hoc est Corpus meum,
opinionem quorundam de Eucharistia refellens (Hagenau: Setzer, 1526); BCorr
2:39–45. Bucer’s lost letter to Brenz was one of several that the Strasbourger sent
in the fall of 1525 praising Oecolampadius’s De genvina expositione; Kaufmann,
Abendmahlstheologie, 303–10, 351–60.
83. Martin Bucer, Apologia Martini Bvceri qva fidei suae atque doctrina, circa Christi
Caenam . . . rationem simpliciter reddit (Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1526); abridged
English translation in David F. Wright, ed., Common Places of Martin Bucer,
Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics (Appleford, UK: Sutton Courtenay
Press, 1972), 315–53.
84. Bucer, Apologia, 24v; Wright, Common Places, 336.
85. Bucer, Apologia, 13r–15r; cf. his discussion of tropes in scripture, 31r–33v; Wright,
Common Places, 321–23, 341–44.
86. Bucer, Apologia, fol. 12r–v; Wright, Common Places, 319–20; cf. Erasmus’s para-
phrase of 1 Cor. 11:25, LB 7:897B, CWE 43:147–48.
87. Bucer, Apologia, 23v, 32r; Wright, Common Places: abuses, 335, 342; location of
Christ’s body, 325–26, 335. Christ’s words: Bucer, Apologia 20r, 22v; Wright,
Common Places, 330–31, 334. In the fall of 1524, the Strasbourgers had cited
these arguments in the letters sent to other pastors and provoked by Karlstadt’s
pamphlets; Burnett, Karlstadt, 106–107.
88. Bucer, Apologia, 19r–21v; Wright, Common Places, 329–32 ( John 6:63). Bucer,
Apologia, 22r–v; Wright, Common Places, 333–35 (1 Cor. 10:16). Bucer, Apologia,
31r–32r; Wright, Common Places, 341–42 (1 Cor. 10:4). Bucer, Apologia, 33r;
Wright, Common Places, 343 (Exod. 12:11).
89. On Bucer’s interpretation of John 6, see Ian Hazlett, “Zur Auslegung von
Johannes 6 bei Bucer während der Abendmahlskontroverse,” in Bucer und
seine Zeit: Forschungsbeiträge und Bibliographie, ed. M. de Kroon and F.
Krüger (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976), 74–87; Gottfried Hammann, “Zwischen
Luther und Zwingli: Martin Bucers theologische Eigenständigkeit im Lichte
seiner Auslegung von Johannes 6 im Abendmahlsstreit,” in Johannes-Studien.
Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Johannes- Evangelium. Freundesgabe der
Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Neuchâtel für Jean Zumstein, ed. Martin
Rose (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991), 109–35; Irena Backus, “Polemic,
Exegetical Tradition and Ontology. Bucer’s Interpretation of John 6:52, 53 and
64 Before and After the Wittenberg Concord,” in The Bible in the Sixteenth
Century, ed. David C. Steinmetz (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990),
167–80.
90. Bucer, Apologia, 13r–15v, 17v–19r; Wright, Common Places, 321–24, 327–29.
391
Notes 391
91. Martin Luther, Qvartvs Tomvs Enarrationum in Epistolas et Euangelia, ut uulgo

uocant, lectiones illas, quae in Missa festis diebus ex historijs Euangelicis et scriptis
Apostolicis solent recitari (Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1526).
92. BCorr 2:152–54.
93. BCorr 2:158–61.
94. WA 17/2:134.
95. BCorr 2:140–46. In Von der Taufe, Zwingli had also rejected Luther’s use of mirac-
ulous signs that confirmed faith as examples of sacraments in the Old Testament;
Z 4:226–27, Z&B 138.
96. Luther’s letter, dated September 3, in BCorr 3:24–27.
97. Martin Bucer, Praefatio M. Buceri in Quartum Tomum Postillae Lutheranae
(Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1527). There is no critical edition of the Praefatio, but its
individual sections are found in BCorr 2:140–64 and BCorr 3:23–58. The prefa-
tory letter and Bucer’s exegesis of 1 Cor. 10:4 are discussed in Ian Hazlett, “The
Development of Martin Bucer’s Thinking on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in
its Historical and Theological Context, 1523–1534,” PhD dissertation, Universität
Münster, 1977, 153–60; and Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 378, 440–41.
98. Andreas Althamer, Von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament des leibs vnd bluot vnnsers
herrn Jesu Christi /Wider die jrrigen geyster/so vnns das nachtmal des Herrn
zünichtigen (Nuremberg: Peypus, 1526).
99. Vonn des Herren Nachtmal/der papisten Messen vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen
(Augsburg: Steiner, 1526), was chiefly concerned with condemning the mass but
also considered the inner-Protestant debate. This pamphlet continued the line of
thought introduced in another anonymous work, Von des herren Nachtmal/ausz
den Concilien vnd Leerern (Augsburg: Steiner, 1526), which cited the canons of
several early church councils to defend the evangelical practice of communion.
The two pamphlets are undated, but their lack of concern with the Eucharistic
controversy suggests they were printed in early 1526, possibly in time for the
spring book fair.
100. Andreas Flamm, Wider die/so da sagen/Christus fleisch vnd blut sey nit im
Sacrament (Nuremberg: Hergot, 1526). The pamphlet was published in the first
half of 1526, for it is mentioned in a marginal gloss to Oecolampadius’s Vom
Nachtmal Beweysung, which was published in August 1526. It is summarized in
Z&L 1:243–44.
101. Flamm, Wider, A2v: “Ich kan wol mercken/das sich der Teüfel auch in diß spil
vnd wetter geschlagen vnd gemischet hat.” Althamer, Sacrament, A1v: “Der
Teuffel wollt vns gern das wort widerümb zücken/vnd auß der hand reyssen/
darumb strauhet er so vil vnkraut vnter vns.”
102. Flamm, Wider, A3r; Nachtmal . . . vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen, B8r–v ;
Althamer, Sacrament, A3r–v. The anonymous author’s statement that “der ander
zwang sich in dem wörtlein (ist) sagt es lauttet als vil/als (bedeüt)” might re-
flect familiarity with Strauss’s pamphlet, which frequently punned on “Zwingli”
392
392 Notes
and “zwingen,” but this is only a surmise. The disagreements between Karlstadt,
Zwingli, and Oecolampadius were raised in the Syngramma; the fact that these
pamphlets do not discuss Schwenckfeld’s view, which Luther mentioned in the
first Wittenberg translation of the Syngramma, suggests neither author was fa-
miliar with that imprint.
103. Nachtmal . . . vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen, B8v–C1r: “Das brot ist mein leib
der geben ist für euch.” There is a progression in Flamm: at first he puts “brot” in
parentheses, Wider, A4v; in later statements he omits the parentheses, D2r, E1r,
F1r; by the end of the pamphlet he says, “Christus . . . offenbarlich geredt hat /Das
brodt ist wesenlich meyn leyb,” F3v, G1r.
104. Althamer, Sacrament, A3r; Wider, A3r–v, “lauter brot vnd weyn;” cf. Strauss’s ref-
erence to “dry bread and sour wine,” Irrthumb, C1v.
105. Flamm, Wider, A3v–C3r; Althamer, Sacrament, a4r–b3r; cf. Strauss, Irrthumb,
B1r–B4r.
106. Althamer, Sacrament, B3r–C1r, C2r–C3r; Flamm, Wider, C4r, D2v; cf. Strauss,
Irrthumb, C1v–C2r on Matt. 24:23.
107. Althamer, Sacrament, A3v, B1v, C3v; Flamm, Wider, D2r–D3r, D4r, G2v–G3r.
108. Alhamer, Sacrament, A2r; Flamm, Wider, E3, cf. F1r, G2v. Flamm’s use of “Frau
Venus” was influenced by Luther’s condemnation of reason as “Frau Hulda” in
Against the Heavenly Prophets, a work Flamm praised in his pamplet.
109. Nachtmal . . . vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen, C1v–C3r. This was a direct refu-
tation of Hoen’s argument that remembrance of something implied its absence;
Spruyt, Hoen, 228.
110. Nachtmal . . . vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen, C3r–c4v.
111. Nachtmal . . . vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen, C4v–D3v; citation at C7v.
112. Nachtmal . . . vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen, Dr4. On sectarian criticism of
deathbed communion in Augsburg, see chapter 10, this volume.
113. Nachtmal . . . vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen, D4v–D5r.
114. Martin Luther, Libellvs Doc. Martini Luther de sacramento Eucharistiae, ad
Valdenses Fratres, e germanico translatus (Wittenberg: Lufft, 1526). The transla-
tion was by Luther’s colleague Justus Jonas.
115. Luther’s response to the Strasbourgers was published in German translation as
Ein Christenliche warnung . . . sich vor den offentlichen jrrungen . . . zuuerhüten
(Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1526); the Latin original was published in Epistola
Hiob Gast ad Ioannem Stiglerium . . . Responsio D. Martini Lvtheri ad ministros
uerbi dei apud Argentinam (Nuremberg: Peypus, 1527). The Latin pamphlet also
contained a letter of Althamer to Conrad Sam concerning the Lord’s Supper.
The Reutlingen letter was published as Allen lieben Christen zuo Reütlingen, WA
19:118–25.
116. Luther, Sermon von dem Sacrament des leibs vnd bluts Christi wider die
Schwarmgeister, WA 19:474–523, LW 36:331–61. The Sermon was produced
without Luther’s participation but probably with his consent.
39
Notes 393
117. WA 19:482–99, LW 36:335–46.

118. WA 19:501–507, LW 36:346–50.
119. Ein seer guot nützliches Betbuochleyn (Nuremberg: Formschneider, 1527),
VD16: L 4098; Latin translation: Sermo elegantissimus super Sacramento Corporis
& Sanguinis Christi (Hagenau: Setzer, 1527).
120. Ulrich Gäbler, “Huldrych Zwinglis Lektüre von Martin Luthers ‘Sermon von dem
Sakrament des Leibes und Blutes Christi, wider die Schwärmgeister’,” Zwingliana
14 (1977): 370–79.
121. Zwingli, Amica Exegesis, Z 5:562–758, HZW 2:238–385.
122. Z 5:563–67, HZW 2:238–41; Fritz Blanke, “Zu Zwinglis Vorrede an Luther in der
Schrift Amica Exegesis 1527,” Zwingliana 5 (1930): 185–92; cf. also the summaries
of the treatise in Z&L 1:464–86, and Voigtländer, Fest, 108–14. W. Peter Stephens
considers Zwingli’s four writings against Luther from 1527–1528 from a systematic
perspective rather than as part of a debate, Theology, 241–50.
123. Z 5:568–70, HZW 2:242–43.
124. Z 5:570–631, HZW 2:243–86.
125. Z 5:631–58, HZW 2:287–306.
126. Z 5:710–20, HZW 2:342–45.
127. Z 5:679–701, HZW 2:319–35; cf. Erasmus, “Ratio,” 232–36. It would be well
worth examining the Amica Exegesis for its practical application of the exegetical
methods Erasmus set forth in his Ratio sev Methodus.
128. Z 5:729–48, HZW 2:350–64.
129. On the dating of Zwingli’s lectures on 1 Cor., see Walter E. Meyer, “Die
Entstehung von Huldrych Zwinglis neutestamentlichen Kommentaren und
Predigtnachschriften,” Zwingliana 14 (1976): 285–331, esp. 307–10.
130. Z 5:749–54, HZW 2:364–69.
131. Zwingli, Freundlich Verglimpfung, Z 5:771–94.
132. Z 5:771–94; summaries in Z&L 1:486–90, and Voigtländer, Fest, 114–17.
133. See especially his Billiche antwortt, W2 20:602– 604. In the same work,
Oecolampadius also emphasized that Christ’s corporeal presence was opposed by
the articles of the Apostles’ Creed, 591, 594, 597, 600–601.
C h a p t er 10
1. Ain schöner vnd wolgeteütschter gründlicher bericht/für den gemeinen menschen/
ob der leyb Jesu Christi/im himel zu[o] der gerechten Gottes zu[o] eren/vnd
im gaist zu[o] süchen/oder auff erden im brot wesenlich zu[o] verhoffen sey, etc.
Gepredigt zu[o] Vlm durch den Predicanten im Münster mit gu[o]tem verstand, etc.
(Augsburg: Steiner, 1526), FSBT 1:116–30.
2. Johannes Schradin, Auf den newen vnnd groben Irrthumb vom Nachtmal des
Herren/durch den Predicanten zu[o] Vlm im münster mit gütem verstandt
geprediget. Antwort Joannis Schradin (Reutlingen: von Erfurt, 1527). On 25 Jan.
394
394 Notes
1527 the Ulm Council discussed a complaint they had received from a Bamberg
resident about the Bericht and mentioned Schradin’s Antwort; Ulm StA
Ratsprotocol 1527–29, n.p., “Monntag Conversionis Pauli.”
3. Conrad Sam, Ein erzwungne antwurt Conradi Saum/Predigers zu[o] Vlm/vff
das vnfrüntlich bu[o]chlin Hansen Schradins von Rütlingen, so er zu[o] schmach
sein/im truck hat lassen außgon (Ulm: [Gruner], 1527). The pamphlet is dated
March 1, 1527. This is the title of the imprint I consulted in the Württembergisches
Landesbibliothek Stuttgart. VD16 uses “antwort” for its entry, S1543.
4. Johannes Eck, Wider den Gotzlesterer vnnd Ketzer Cunraten Som/genant Rotenacker/
Predicanten in der Pfarr der erberen Reichstatt Vlm/anbiettung ainer disputation/von
wegen des hochwürdigen Sacrament des altars (Ingolstadt: Apian, 1527), in Johannes
Eck, Vier deutsche Schriften gegen Martin Luther, den Bürgermeister und Rat von
Konstanz, Ambrosius Blarer und Konrad Sam, ed. Karl Meisen and Friedrich Zoepfl,
Corpus Catholicorum 14 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1929), 55–61.
5. Karl Theodor Keim, Die Reformation der Reichsstadt Ulm. Ein Beitrag zur
schwäbischen und deutschen Reformationsgeschichte (Stuttgart: Belser, 1851), 123–
24, whose view was followed by Walther Köhler, Z&L 1:423–24.
6. Zwingli to Sam, July 2, 1526; Z 8:632n2, Z&L 1:423–26.
7. FSBT 1:116–30. The pamphlet is also attributed to Sam by Bernd Breitenbruch,
Predigt, Traktat und Flugschrift im Dienste der Ulmer Reformation
(Weissenhorn: Anton H. Konrad Verlag, 1981), 49–50.
8. Franz Votteler, Johannes Schradin, der Genosse Matthäus Albers, Programm des
Gymnasiums in Reutlingen 1892/3 (Reutlingen: Rupp, 1893), 21–71, esp. 27; J. V.
Pollet, O.P., ed., Martin Bucer. Études sur la correspondance, 2 vols. (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1958–62), 2:180–86; Konrad Hoffmann, “Konrad Sam
(1483–1555), der Prediger des Rats zu Ulm,” in Die Einführung der Reformation in
Ulm: Geschichte eines Bürgerentscheids, ed. Hans E. Specker and Gebhard Weig
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981), 233–68; Hans Eugen Specker, “Sam, Konrad,” Neue
Deutsche Biographie 22 (2005), 403–404; online version, http://www.deutsche-
biographie.de/pnd116777400.html.
9. Ein trewe Ermanung an all Christen/das sy sich vor falscher leer hütten/vnd jren
glauben vnd vertrawen allain in Got/vnd sein götliche wort setzen/vnd also alle leer
fleissig probieren/vnd vns an kein person hencken/denn verflu[o]cht ist der mensch/
der sein vertrawen in ain menschen setzt/Hiere. 17. Darumb spricht Christus/man
soll sein stimm vnd keins andern hören/Johan. 10. Das verleych vns Got allen. Amen
(Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526). Köhler summarized the Ermanung without realizing
that it was identical to the Bericht; Z&L 1:269–70.
10. Thomas Kaufmann, “Anonyme Flugschriften der frühen Reformation,” in Die
frühe Reformation in Deutschland als Umbruch: wissenschaftliches Symposion des
Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1996, ed. Bernd Moeller, Schriften des Vereins für
Reformationsgeschichte 199 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag-Haus, 1998), 191–267.
395
Notes 395
11. Schradin, Antwort, a3v: “Es kan ich nit gnugsam verwundern/lieber Conrade: wz
dich doch zü disem deim freuenlichen schreiben bewegt vnd getriben hab/dieweil
du doch in Kurtz verruckter zeit vns her gen Reütlingen enboten /du hangest in
der opinion Zuinglii von Sacrament oder des Herren Abentmal zwischen hymel
vnd erden/also das du in deinem gewissen irr seyest: vnd selb nit wissen wo hyn du
dich lencken sollest.”
12. Conrad Sam, Ein Trostbüchlin für die kleinmütigen vnd einfeltigen/die sich ergern/
der spaltung halb/auß dem Nachtmal Christi erwachsen/mit angehenckten grund
beyder partheyen/vund endtlichem bericht/wie sich ein yeder Christ in diser spaltung
halten soll (Ulm: Gruner, 1526); FSBT 1:156–66. According to a handwritten note
on a copy extant in the nineteenth century, the pamphlet originated as a sermon
preached by Sam in April 1526; Emil Weller, Repertorium Typographicum. Die
deutsche Literatur im ersten Viertel des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Nördlingen: Beck,
1864), 441, no. 4003. The Trostbüchlin, rather than the Bericht, was probably the
book that Zwingli referred to in his letter to Sam from July 2, 1526; Z 8:632, no. 499.
That letter is the earliest evidence of correspondence between the two men.
13. Johannes Bader also cited the confusion and offense that the Eucharistic contro-
versy caused among the simple people as one of the reasons for publishing his
sermon on the use of the Lord’s Supper, Ad Illustrem Principem . . . de Ansere, qui
sacramentum edisse dicitur (Strasbourg: Knobloch, 1526), fol. A8v. More partisan
in their efforts to persuade readers to accept their own position were the pro-
Wittenberg author Andreas Flamm, Wider die/so da sagen/Christus fleisch vnd
blut sey nit im Sacrament (Nuremberg: Hergot, 1526), fol. A2r, and the Strasbourg
reformer Martin Bucer, Apologia (Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1526), fol. 2r–v.
14. Sam, Trostbüchlin, FSBT 1:156–57.
15. Sam, Trostbüchlin, FSBT 1:158–59.
16. For a summary of these arguments, Burnett, Karlstadt,  70–71.
17. Sam, Trostbüchlin, FSBT 1:159; cf. Karlstadt, Auszlegung dieser wort Christi, a2r–v,
EPK 145–46.
18. Sam, Trostbüchlin, FSBT 1:160. Zwingli made both points in his letter to Matthaeus
Alber, Z 3:340, HZW 2:134–35. Karlstadt also cited John 6:63, Ob man . . . erweysen
möge, F3r–v, EPK 140, but he did not draw the conclusion from John 6:54 con-
cerning two ways of salvation.
19. Sam, Trostbüchlin, FSBT 1:161; Johannes Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione,
K7r–K8r.
20. Sam, Trostbüchlin, FSBT 1: 159–60; Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, A8v,
K5v–K7r; Karlstadt, Dialogus, f3v–f4r, EPK 197–98. Karlstadt probably derived
this use of Matt. 24:23 from Hoen, but he expanded the interpretation to in-
clude Christ’s speaking of his return like lightning; Spruyt, Hoen, 227; Heiko A.
Oberman, ed., Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought
Illustrated by Key Documents (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 269–70.
396
396 Notes
21. Sam, Trostbüchlin, FSBT, 1:161; Karlstadt, Ob man . . .erweysen möge, E4r–F14,
EPK 137; cf. Spruyt, Hoen, 232–33; Oberman, Forerunners, 275–76.
22. Sam, Trostbüchlin, FSBT 1:162–63; Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, B5r–v ;
Zwingli, Commentarius, Z 3:790.
23. Sam, Trostbüchlin, FSBT 1:163–64. Karlstadt, too, reminded his readers that re-
ceiving the Lord’s Supper was not necessary for salvation; Erweysen, D3v–D4r,
EPK 131–32.
24. This was the central point of Karlstadt’s pamphlet Von dem widerchristlichen
mißbrauch des herrn brodt und kelch (Basel, 1524), EPK 205–18, but Zwingli’s em-
phasis on the sacrament as remembrance predated the outbreak of the Eucharistic
controversy; see his Auslegung der 67 Schlußreden, Z 2:137; Gottfried W. Locher,
“The Characteristic Features of Zwingli’s Theology in Comparison with Luther
and Calvin,” in idem, Zwingli’s Thought: New Perspectives, Studies in the History of
Christian Thought 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 142–232, esp. 220–23.
25. One of the earliest references to Karlstadt’s pamphlets occurs in a letter of Martin
Frecht to the Ulm physician Wolfgang Rychard in November 1524; Burnett,
Karlstadt, 145, 203–204n18. Frecht’s mention of the pamphlets may well have
provoked curiosity about their contents among the leaders of Ulm’s evangelical party.
26. Frolockung eins christlichen bruders, attributed to Wolfgang Capito, FSBT 1:102–
15; cf. Martin Bucer’s advice to Gregor Caselius for his mission to Wittenberg in
October 1525, BDS 3:421–30, as well as Bucer’s letters to Jacob Otter, September
17, 1525, BDS 3:409–20, and the Strasbourg pastors to the lords of Gemmingen,
BCorr 2:79–85. In their correspondence the Strasbourgers did not conceal their
rejection of Christ’s bodily presence in the elements. There is no extant corre-
spondence between Sam and the Strasbourgers before the end of 1529, although
Sam was in contact with the Strasbourgers in 1527; the similarities are more in-
dicative of a common Erasmian spirituality than of any direct influence.
27. Ermanung, A1v; identical with Bericht, FSBT 1:116.7–9.
28. Michael Keller, Ettlich Sermones von dem Nachtmal Christi (Augsburg: Ulhart,
1525). The sermons were preached at Eastertime, and the pamphlet was probably
printed within the next few months. For a summary of the pamphlets of both
preachers, see Burnett, Karlstadt, 122–24.
29. Pamphlets by Haug Marschalk (or Zoller), the weaver Ulrich Richsner, and
the artist Heinrich Vogtherr from 1524 are summarized in Friedwart Uhland,
“Täufertum und Obrigkeit in Augsburg im 16. Jahrhundert,” PhD dissertation,
University of Tübingen, 1972, 65–69. On the sectarian movement in Augsburg
and the socioeconomic grievances that motivated it, see Joel Van Amberg, A
Real Presence: Religious and Social Dynamics of the Eucharistic Conflicts in Early
Modern Augsburg, 1520–1530, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 158
(Leiden: Brill, 2012), 149–201.
30. Geoffrey L. Dipple, “The Spiritualist Anabaptists,” in A Companion to Anabaptism
and Spiritualism, 1521– 1700, ed. John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, Brill’s
397
Notes 397
Companions to the Christian Tradition 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 257–98, citation at

266. Uhland places the final organization of the Augsburg Anabaptists into a sepa-
rate church in the spring of 1527, “Täufertum,” 82.
31. J. F. G. Goeters, Ludwig Hätzer (ca. 1500–1529), Spiritualist und Antitrinitarier: Eine
Randfigur der frühen Täuferbewegung, Quellen und Forschungen zur
Reformationsgeschichte 25 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1957), 42– 46, 54– 67;
Clarence Bauman, ed., The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck: Interpretation and
Translation of Key Texts, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 47
(Leiden: Brill, 1991), 10–13; Uhland, “Täufertum,” 70–73.
32. Goeters, Hätzer, 45–46. Friedrich Roth, “Zur Geschichte der Wiedertäufer in
Oberschwaben II. Zur Lebensgeschichte Eitelhans Langenmantels von Augsburg,”
Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Schwaben und Neuburg 27 (1900): 1–45,
contains the interrogations of Langenmantel from 1528 that are the basis for all
subsequent accounts of his life.
33. Eitelhans Langenmantel: Ein kurtzer begryff Von den Allten vnnd Newen
Papisten/Auch von der rechten vnd waren Christen (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526),
FSBT 1:131–36; Dies ist ain anzayg . . . des Sacrament vnd anders betreffend
(Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526); Ain Kurtzer anzayg/wie Do. Martin Luther ain zeyt
hör hatt etliche schriften lassen außgeen/vom Sacrament/die doch stracks wider
ainander (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1527), FSBT 1:194–204, which was a response to
Luther’s Sermon von dem Sacrament . . . wider die Schwarmgeister. In addition
to these three extant pamphlets, there are manuscript copies of two additional
pamphlets whose printed versions have not survived, as well as a third pamphlet
attributed to Langenmantel; abridged versions of the latter three are printed
in Lydia Müller and Robert Friedmann, eds., Glaubenszeugnisse oberdeutscher
Taufgesinnter, 2 vols., Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 20,
24 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1938–67), 1: 124–36.
34. Cf. Andreas Karlstadt, Wider die alte vnd newe Papistische Messen (Basel: Wolff,
1524), EPK 110–15; and especially Auszlegung dieser wort Christi . . . Wider die
einfeltige vnnd zweyfeltige papisten (Basel: Bebel, 1524), EPK 144–62.
35. Langenmantel, begryff, FSBT 1:133. Herrgott was a term for the consecrated host.
36. Langenmantel, begryff, FSBT 1:132.
37. Langenmantel, begryff, FSBT 1:134. Karlstadt argued that the command to take and
eat was separate from Christ’s statement that his body would be given; Auszlegung,
fol. a3r–A4r; EPK 146–47; Ob man mit heyliger schrifft erweysen müge/das
Christus . . . im Sacrament sey (Basel: Wolff, 1524), fol. F1r–v ; EPK 137–38.
38. Langenmantel, begryff, FSBT 1:134.
39. See the description from the interrogations that took place in February 1525; Emil
Egli, ed., Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren
1519–1533 (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf/Scientia, 1973), 282–86.
40. Keller, Sermones, A3v–A4r.
41. Keller, Ettlich Sermones (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526), h2v.
398
398 Notes
42. 1526 Sermones, h4r; the passage on A3v–A4r was also modified to make the meta-
phorical intent clearer.
43. Ermanung, A1v: “wir zu[o]‌N. so vil vnser der gemain im wort Gottes dienen/
glauben fest/bekennend vnd leerend; wissen auch mit hailiger Götlicher schrifft
zueerhalten/hoffen auch/wenn es anderst nit kündt vnd möcht sein/mit dem
todt zu[o] erhalten vnd bestetigen/das des flaisch vnd blu[o]t Christi/warlich
im hailigen Sacrament des Altars sey/ob das brot ins flaisch verwandlet/oder das
flaisch ins brot verborgen/das erforsch er nit/die augen sehen/das dz gotswort
kain meldung darvon thu[o]t”; identical wording in the Bericht, with the exception
that “die augen sehen” is replaced by “angesehen”; FSBT 1:116–17. The pamphlet
that the author cites cannot be identified and may no longer be extant.
44. Bericht, FSBT 1:117–19, 126; cf. Karlstadt’s interpretation of the words of institution
in Auszlegung, EPK 146–47; his discussion of remembrance in widerchristlichen
mißbrauch, EPK 208–12; and citations of instances where Christ blessed bread that
was not transformed into his body, Erweysen, EPK 119, 135. In his two pamphlets
published in Augsburg in the spring of 1525, Karlstadt repeatedly rejected Luther’s
interpretation of Christ’s words instituting the sacrament and challenged him to
produce clear scripture showing that the body and blood were in or under the
elements; Erklerung des x. Capitels Cor. i. (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525), and Von dem
Newen vnd Alten Testament (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525), EPK 219–57.
45. Bericht, FSBT 1:117–19, 127–28; cf. Karlstadt, widerchristlichen mißbrauch, c1v–c3v,
EPK 215–17.
46. Bericht, FSBT 1:117, 122, 125, 127.
47. Bericht, FSBT 1:121–22.
48. Bericht, FSBT 1:119, 127–28.
49. The rejection of clerical status comes out even more clearly in Langenmantel’s
second pamphlet, Dies ist ain anzayg, where he stated that Christians needed pious,
learned, and morally upright men to preach and teach, and it was unnecessary that
they be ordained but only baptized and chosen by the magistrate, fol. A3v.
50. Karl Schottenloher, Philipp Ulhart: Ein Augsburger Winkeldrucker und Helfershelfer
der “Schwarmer” und “Wiedertäufer” (1523–1529), Historische Forschungen 4
(Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1967), 56–57; Z&L 1:269.
51. In the opening lines of Ain Kurtzer anzayg, FSBT 1:194, Langenmantel identified
himself as the author of both Ein kurtzer begryff, which had been published anon-
ymously, and Diß ist ain anzayg, published only with the initials E. H. L.
52. On Marschalk, see Schottenloher, Ulhart, 44–46; Paul Russell, Lay Theology
in the Reformation: Popular Pamphleteers in Southwest Germany, 1521–1525
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 127–43; and Van Amberg, Real
Presence, 150–54. Marschalk’s earlier pamphlets are also discussed in Miriam U.
Chrisman, Conflicting Visions of Reform. German Lay Propaganda Pamphlets,
1519–1530 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995), 114–15, 123–24,
132–33.
39
Notes 399
53. Van Amberg mentions the publication of the pamphlet but assumes it is no longer
extant; Real Presence, 153. Karl Schottenloher, Philipp Ulhart, 46–47, argued that
Marschalk published three pamphlets under the pseudonym of Johann Schnewyl,
and he identified the pamphlet for which Marschalk was jailed with Schnewyl’s
Wider die vnmilte verdammung (Augsburg: Steiner, 1526); cf. Hans-Jörg Künast,
“Getruckt zu Augspurg”: Buchdruck und Buchhandel in Augsburg zwischen 1468 und
1555 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1997), 204n31. Russell rejects this identifi-
cation, pointing out that Schnewyl’s theological sophistication is much greater than
that of Marschalk’s earlier pamphlets; Lay Theology, 248n39. Kaufmann identified
Schnewyl with a Strasbourger named Schnebel; Abendmahlstheologie, 277–78
and 278n40. Schnewyl’s pamphlet was published in August, and it is unlikely that
Marschalk and Steiner would have been jailed five months after the pamphlet’s ap-
pearance. The only other sacramentarian pamphlets Steiner published in 1526 were
Oecolampadius’s Billiche antwort and Zwingli’s Eine Epistel an die Gläubigen zu
Eßlingen, both published in July.
54. Ermanung, A1v: “Nun hab ich vnder disem ain brief geleesen/da sagt der ain der/
der ander ain andrer hab jn gemacht/er sey nu von wem er wöl gemacht oder
außgangen/das laß ich sein/vnd wenn jn gleych ain Engel gemacht het/so ist doch
anderst den Gott durch Christum vnd sein Apostel gemacht hat.” Bericht: “Nun
hab ich vnder dißen ein brief geleßen, da sagt der ein der N. hab in gemacht, etc.
Nun der N. oder P. hab in gemacht, es sey zu[o]‌Rom oder zu[o] Jerusalem, zu[o]
Nu[o]remberg oder zu[o] Wittenberg außgangen, dz laß ich sein und stehen. In
hab der Luther oder der Bapst, oder einer von dißen stetten, oder gleich ein Engel
gelert, so ists doch anderst, dann Gott durch Christum vnd seine Appostel gelert
hat,” FSBT 1:116. The explicit reference to Nuremberg led Köhler to suggest that
the pamphlet to which the Admonition responded was written by a Nuremberger,
Z&L 1:424.
55. Sam, Erzwungne antwort, fol. A2v, A3v; cf. note 2, this chapter.
56. Votteler, “Johannes Schradin,” 21–24.
57. Luther’s letter was dated January 2, 1526; it was published in Augsburg in June; WA
19:115–25, citation at 121. Votteler suggests, on the basis of an old anecdote, that
Schradin was one of those who made the trip to Wittenberg at the end of 1525,
“Johannes Schradin,” 26.
58. The pamphlet is held by the Württembergisches Landesbibliothek Stuttgart,
whose copy I examined. Because of the pamphlet’s rarity, I have included lengthy
quotations from it in the notes; a detailed summary is in Z&L 1:426–30.
59. Schradin, Irrthumb, fol. c2v: “heist dz ain bericht mit guotem verstand predigen/
wann ainer wissentlich die vnwarhait darff schreiben/pffuy der schand: das du
dich nit schemst.”
60. Schradin, Irrthumb, fol. a4r–v.
61. This may have been the German translation of Oecolampadius’s De genvina
expositione, entitled Vom Sacrament der Dancksagung and published in early 1526, but
40
400 Notes
it is more likely to have been one of the German translations of portions of the
Apologetica, which were printed in Augsburg; on these, see c hapter 7, this volume,
notes  58–59.
62. Schradin, Irrthumb, a2r: “Zum Ersten hat Es sich begeben, das ain frömbder
der mir vnbekant was/mich fraget wo er vnnsern Predicanten Mattheum Alber
fünde, zaigt mir darbey zwey büchlin, ains von Joanne Oecolampadio ainen
besunders gelerten man außgangen, das ander was diser bericht oder Sermon/
mit welchem er in sunderhait vermaint etwas auzsgericht sein.” It is striking that
Schradin omitted Oecolampadius’s name in the one sentence where he mentioned
both Karlstadt and Zwingli—even though he was pointing out “Sam’s” devi-
ation from their position; Irrthumb, fol. a3v: “aber ietz felstu herauß/weder
mit Carlstadts noch Zuinglis sunder mit ainer besunder vnnd auß aygem kopff
erdichten mainung.”
63. Schradin, Irrthumb, a2r, b2r, e2v. At no point in the Bericht did the author mention
any reformer by name, although when he asserted that he followed only Christ and
not any teacher, he made a pun on Luther’s name: “Du darffts mir nicht fürwerffen
weder den noch disen leerer, weder lauter noch tru[o]‌b,” FSBT 1:119.
64. Schradin, Irrthumb, d4v–e1v.
65. Schradin, Irrthumb, b4v: “Ich merck wol du wöltest hie auch gern ain puncten
machen: vnd ain grossen buochstaben wie dein maister Carlstadt vnd ain newen
sententz hie anheben: da keren wir vns nit an: dann woher wiltu es probieren: das
man also lessen: vnd den text also zerreissen mu[o]‌ß: wie du dann hernach im
verklerent thu[o]st?” Karlstadt discussed the punctuation of “Take and eat. This is
my body given for you,” in his Dialogus, c2r, EPK 177–78. Luther responded to this
passage at length in Das Ander Teil wider den himmlischen Propheten, WA 18:148–
60, LW 40:156–72.
66. Schradin, Irrthumb, a2r–v: “Die ander vrsach die mich mer bewegt: ist die. Weyl
diser Predicant in dem bu[o]‌chlin ym fürnimpt: dz heilig Abentmal Christi/zu[o]
ainer yeden zech vnd speyß zu[o] machen/wyder alle schrifft/vnd fürderlich wider
den hailigen Paulum, welcher dz Abentmal weit vnd hoch erhebt vber andere
speiß/essen oder trincken. Deßgleichen auch wider sein Maister Zwinglium vnd
Oecolampadium vnd die andern welcher kainer so vnuerstanden ist, das es auf ain
yedes brot essen vnnd weintrincken setzen wölle/sunder sy halten es dannocht
für ain besunndere speyß/ob sy gleich wol sagen/es seyge nun schlecht wein
vnnd brot.”
67. Schradin, Irrthumb, d1v: “Prediger zu[o]‌Vlm: Ey was bedarffs vil/wir wöllen
dere Nachtmal kains: aber Teütsche oder Welsche Meß halten etc. Schradin: Was
wilt aber du lieber Conrade: weder teütsch noch Hebreisch meß halten/sonder
ain zech anrichten/wein trincken: brot essen/vnd also ain gaistlichen schlam
vnd bauch fülle haben. Es klagen für war die bru[o]der auch ab dir du wöllest dz
nachtmal davon Lucas .14. redt: nit gern halten. Das du aber das nachtmal Christi
so man nach der leer Pauli in der gemain auff teütsch helt: ain Fastnacht spil oder
401
Notes 401
meß nennest/dz wundert mich nit/du kanst nit baß, du mu[o]st gespottet vnd
gelestert haben.”
68. Schradin, Irrthumb, b4v: “Noch vil minder glauben sy [sc. Die rechte Christen]
das Christus sein gedechtnüs vns nun hab wöllen in brot essen vnd weintrincken
beuelhen. Dann das selbig künden die haiden vnd Juden/fürderlich die schlemmer.
Sonder es mu[o]‌ß etwas weiters sein dann vnser täglich essen vnd trincken das vns
des tods Christi durch den wir erlöst seyen erinnere.”
69. Schradin, Irrthumb, b2r–v.
70. Schradin, Irrthumb, e2v: “Darzu ist ietzt kainer der dieses Nachtmal nit für ain
besondere vnd hailige speiß achte. Wiewol Zuinglius vnnd Oecolampadius: es
nur für brot achten vnd halten. So bekennen sy doch das es weyt ain andere speyß
seye: dann die so wir täglich zu[o]‌enthaltung vnnser natur niessen vnnd essen.”
71. Schradin, Irrthumb, b2r: “Hie felst zu[o]‌grob herauß mit deiner newen leer/die
du weder auß Zuinglio noch Oecolampadio zugen/sonder wider jr baider leer auß
deinem kopff erdicht vnd erfunden hast/on grundt der hailigen schrifft.”
72. Schradin, Irrthumb, b1r.
73. Schradin, Irrthumb, b2v: “Diser vngereimpten vnd groben red kan ich mich nit
gnu[o]‌gsam verwundern: so du sagst: der kelch sey im blüt vnd last dich mercken: als
ob du meinest der kelch schwümme im blu[o]t: wie ain schüssel in aim kübel.” The
author of the Bericht may have derived his ideas about “the cup in my blood” from
Karlstadt’s Von dem Newen und Alten Testament, C2v–C3r, EPK 249.
74. Schradin, Irrthumb, fol. c1v.
75. Schradin, Irrthumb, b2v.
76. Schradin, Irrthumb, a2v: “vnd were hie auch meines bedunckens gu[o]‌t: dz an allen
orten die oberkait darob hielt das nit ain yeder gleich sein Opinion vnd mainung
die er nit auß sonder in die schrifft bringt/durch den truck oder ander weiß ließ
außgon/in sonderhait aber/wa solliche leer gantz new vnd vnerhört were (als
dann diese ist) so lang biß sollichs für die gelerten vnd schrifftuerstendigen bracht/
vnd von den noch der schrifft vnd wort gotes gericht würde/vnd man sehe dz es sin
wort were/darnach möcht man mit handlen wie recht vnd Christlich were.”
77. Schradin, Irrthumb, a2v: “auch so ist er So freuel vnd vngeschickt in disem schreiben/
verachtet: lestert: vnd schmecht/auch wider sein gewissen wie du hören wirst, alle
die so seiner leer nit glauben wöllen: Also das es müssen teüffel: abtretter: newe
Bäpstler/die gelerten die verkerten/find Gotes vnd vnsinnige tolle leüt haissen/
die den papisten gern wider in die meß helffen wölten: vnd weyt vber ander mit
dem sack getroffen seyen”; cf. c1r, c2r–v, d2r.
78. Schradin, Irrthumb, b3r–v: “Dann lieber sag mir: warumb leiden sy anderst
verfolgung dann das sy den Papisten die krämerey yrer messen also nidergelegt
haben vnd abtreiben. Ja vnd das deren der merertail das Gottzlesterig meßhalten an
den orten da sy sind gar vnd gantz außgerottet: und vertriben haben/vnd teglich
noch darwider predigen vnd schreyen. Noch dannocht darffstu sagen sy wölten den
Papisten gern wider in die meß helffen/was thu[o]‌stu hie anders dann dz du das
402
402 Notes
hailig Euangelion lesterst/schmechsts/vnd verdacht machest. Dann was soll ain

einfeltiger frommer Christ hie gedencken/so du sprichst sy wölten den papisten
gern wider in die meß helffen/dann dz sy das Euangelium nit recht: sonder
felschlich verkünden vnd darthüen.”
79. Schradin, Irrthumb, b2v–b3r, d3r.
80. Schradin, Irrthumb, c4r– d1r; cf. Luther, Sermon von dem neuen Testament,
WA 6:358–59; Andreas Karlstadt, Von anbettung vnd ererbietung der tzeychen
(Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1521), fol. B2r, EPK 45; Melanchthon, Loci Communes,
CR 21:208–11.
81. Schradin, Irrthumb, c3r; cf. Luther, Das Ander Teil wider den himlischen Propheten,
WA 18:139–40, LW 40:149–50.
82. Schradin, Irrthumb, d2v; cf. Luther, Das Ander Teil wider den himmlischen
Propheten, WA 18:192–93, LW 40:202–203; this argument was also made by
Bugenhagen in Contra novum errorem, A2r–v.
83. Schradin, Irrthumb, d2r: “Prediger zu[o]‌Vlm: Warumb ist er nit in: vnd bey Juda
bliben? Etc. Schradin: Ey da hat er den leib des herren nit vnderschaiden/vnd hat
kain glauben gehabt: vnd es nur für ain schlafftrunck vnd fast nachtspil gehalten
wie du.”
84. Sam, Erzwungne antwurt, A4r.
85. Oecolampadius to Sam, February 10, 1527, OBA 2:17–18, no. 463; Zwingli to Sam,
February 12, 1527, Z 9:49–51, no. 589. The letters from Sam to the two men are lost.
86. Sam, Erzwungne antwurt, fol. A2v: “ich habs weder geschriben noch geleert/ich
bin auch der maynung nie gewesen/wie mir genanter Schradin zu[o]‌legt/Das
zwüschen dem nachtmal deß Herren/vnd ainem andern gemainem mal/kain
vnderschid sey/oder das ichs ainer andere weinzech vergleychte. . . . Es wüssen doch
all meine zu[o]hu[o]rer/dz ich vom Nachtmal Christi allweg eerlich geredthon/
vnd mit Paulo deß Herren brot/vnd des Herren kelch genent. Ich hab auch gesagt/
was nutz darauß erwüchs/wann man das Nachtmal recht hielt/vnd wie mans in
der gemain haltenn söllt/darbey ain yeder wol merckt/das ichs für kain weinzech
gehalten hab/oder für ain ander ruoben maal.”
87. Sam, Erzwungne antwurt, A3r–A4r.
88. Sam, Erzwungne antwurt, A4r–v: “Er legt mir auch zu[o]‌/ich sey doctor Martin
Luthern vndanckbar, etc. daran er mir vnrechtt thuott/dann ich erkenn jnn/als
ain theuren diener Gottes/durch wölchen/Got vilen/auch mir/die erkantnuß der
warhayt verlühen hat. Dieweyl aber das ansehen der person bey kainem Christen
sein soll/will ich weder Lutherisch oder Zwynglisch seyn/Sonnder Christlich/wie
Paulus die Corynthier geleert hatt/Christus allain/soll mein/vnnd aines yeden
Christen leermayster sein.”
89. Sam, Erzwungne antwurt, fol. A4v–B1v.
90. The details are described in Keim, Reformation, 130–44.
91. September 26, 1527, Z 9:225–26, no. 657.
403
Notes 403
92. Johannes Eck, Wider den Gotzlesterer vnnd Ketzer Cunraten Som, in Eck,
Schriften; the pamphlet is dated St. Barbara’s day (December 4) on the
last page.
93. Eck, Schriften, 56–57; cf. Schradin, Jrrthumb, fol. b1r: “Sihe ist das nit ain gelerter
Canonist/der auß dem geistlichen recht zu der schrifft her gerrollet kompt.”
94. Eck, Schriften, 57; cf. notes 61–65, this chapter.
95. Eck, Schriften, 58. According to Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Wander, Deutsches
Sprichwörter-Lexikon: ein Hausschatz für das deutsche Volk (Leipzig: Brockhaus,
1867), 3:1751, “turnip slice” (Rübenschnitz) was a term for a worthless object; cf.
Sam’s reference to a meal of turnips (ruoben maal) in n. 86. During the Baden
Disputation, Eck also accused his opponents of making the sacrament into a
“rübschnitz”; Alfred Schindler and Wolfram Schneider-Lastin, eds., Die Badener
Disputation von 1526. Kommentierte Edition des Protokolls (Zurich: TVZ, 2015),
274. These insults are probably the ultimate source of the report by a seventeenth-
century Catholic chronicler that a radish or turnip was cut up like a host by
onlookers of the Corpus Christi procession in 1524; von Amberg, Real Presence,
63. The date—before the onset of the Eucharistic controversy—renders the entire
report suspect.
96. Johannes Eck, Ein Sentbrieue an ein frum Eidgnoszschafft/betreffendt die
ketzerische disputation Frantz Kolben des ausgeloffen münchs/vnnd B. Hallers des
verlognen predicanten zu Bern. Ein annderer brieue an Vlrich Zwingli. Der drit
brieue an Cunrat Rotenacker zu Vlm (Ingolstadt: Apian, 1528).
97. Sam was also publicly identified as a Zwinglian in the letter Andreas Althamer
addressed to him and published with the Epistola Hiob Gast . . . super controuersia
rei Sacramentariae (Nuremberg: Peypus, 1527). Althamer’s letter, dated January
31, 1527, was a response to an unpublished letter from Sam in which the latter ap-
parently questioned the usefulness of Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament,
a point Oecolampadius had made in several of his publications. Since the corre-
spondence was in Latin, it was intended for a different audience, and so I have not
discussed it as part of this published exchange.
98. Van Amberg draws attention to the social and economic implications of the
sacramentarian understanding of the Eucharist; Real Presence, 251–56.
99. Eck, Wider den Gotzlesterer, 3r.
100. Lyndal Roper, “‘The Common Man,’ ‘the Common Good,’ ‘Common
Women’: Reflections on Gender and Meaning in the German Reformation
Commune,” Social History 12 (1987): 1–21, where Roper also stresses the gendered
meaning of der Gemeine Mann.
101. Robert W. Scribner, “Oral Culture and the Diffusion of Reformation Ideas,
in idem, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany
(London: Hambleton Press, 1987), 49–69.
102. Schradin, Irrthumb, fol. A2r–a3r.
40
404 Notes
103. Hans-Joachim Köhler, “Erste Schritte zu einem Meinungsprofil der frühen

Reformationszeit,” in Martin Luther: Probleme seiner Zeit, ed. V. Press and D.
Stievermann (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1986), 244–81.
C h a p t er 11
1. Oecolampadius’s pamphlets are discussed in Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 313–23, and
the joint response of Zwingli and Oecolampadius in Z&L 1:645–88; cf. the dis-
cussion of Zwingli’s four treatises from 1527–28 in W. Peter Stephens, The Theology
of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 241–48.
2. August 11, 1526, WA Br 4:108–109, no. 1032.
3. Luther to Hausmann, September 13, 1526, WA Br 4:117, no. 1037.
4. Luther, Das diese wort Christi, WA 23:64–320, LW 37:13–150; summary and anal-
ysis in Z&L 1:493–512.
5. Amy Nelson Burnett, “Rhetoric and Refutation in Luther’s That These Words of
Christ Stand Firm Against the Fanatics,” Lutheran Quarterly 29 (2015): 284–303.
6. WA 23:65–115, LW37:13–45.
7. WA 23:115–67, LW 37:45–78.
8. WA 23:167–209, LW 37:78–104.
9. WA 23:209–45, LW 37:104–25.
10. WA 23:245–73, LW 37:125–44.
11. WA 23:273–83, LW 37:144–50.
12. WA 23:95, 107, LW 37:33, 41.
13. WA 23:121–27, 161–63; LW 37:49–53,  74–75.
14. WA 23:247–49, LW 37:127.
15. WA 23:77, LW 37:22.
16. WA 23:85–87, 257, 263, 265, 281–83; LW 37:27, 133, 137, 138, 149–50.
17. WA 23:179, 183; LW 37:85–86, 88.
18. WA 23:183–93, 201–205; LW 37:89–95, 98–101. Luther’s discussion reflects what
is sometimes called the “metabolic” understanding of the Eucharist developed by
the Greek church fathers and transmitted to the West largely through Ambrose
and the pseudo-Ambrosian work De sacramentis; Joseph Rupert Geiselmann, Die
Eucharistielehre der Vorscholastik, Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur-und
Dogmengeschichte 15/1–3 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1926), 3–12.
19. There were printings in Augsburg, Erfurt, Nuremberg, Strasbourg, and Zwickau,
in addition to the two Wittenberg imprints.
20. Johannes Landsperger, Eyn brüderliche Supplication vnd ermanung/an Rector
vnd alle glider der hohenschül Wittemberg gestellt/ettlicher Artickel halb/
so Doctor Martinus Luther inn zweyen predigen also widerwertig gesetzt hat
(Worms: Schöffer, 1527); summarized in Z&L 1:389–96.
21. Landsperger, Supplication, A2r–A6r, B7r.
22. Landsperger, Supplication, A6v–B4r.
405
Notes 405
23. Landsperger, Supplication, B4r–B7r.

24. Landsperger, Supplication, C4v–F5v. Landsperger claimed to have finished this
tract before Bartholomew (August 24), 1526, C5r. The treatise he wrote against
cannot be identified and may well be lost.
25. Johannes Oecolampadius, Das der miszuerstand D. Martin Luthers/vff die
wenig-bstendige wort/Das ist mein leib/nit beston mag. Die ander billiche antwort
(Basel: Cratander, 1527); summaries in Z&L 1:531–45 and Staehelin, Lebenswerk,
313–18.
26. 1 Cor. 10:4, Exod. 12:11, and Gen. 17:10; Oecolampadius, Die ander billiche antwort,
b2v–c4r.
27. Oecolampadius, Die ander billiche antwort, d4v–e2v, g4r–h1v.
28. Oecolampadius, Die ander billiche antwort, f4r–g2r, i2r–i3r.
29. Oecolampadius, Die ander billiche antwort, i3r–o4v.
30. Oecolampadius, Die ander billiche antwort, p1r–s4r.
31. Oecolampadius, Die andere billich antwort, b2r.
32. Ulrich Zwingli, Das dise wort Iesu Christi: “Das ist min lychnam, der für üch
hinggeben wirt,” ewigklich den alten eynigen sinn haben werdend, und M. Luter mit
sinem letsten buoch sinen und des bapsts sinn gar nit gelert noch bwärt hat. Huldrych
Zuinglis christenlich antwort, Z 5:805–977. Although the book is often referred
to by its opening clause, I use the short title Christenlich antwurt to distinguish
it more clearly from Luther’s treatise. The preface of Oecolampadius’s Die andere
billiche antwort is dated June 8, 1527, that of Zwingli’s Christenlich antwurt is June
20, 1527.
33. Z 5:806– 808. The treatise is summarized in Z&L 1:546– 58, and Johannes
Voigtländer, Ein Fest der Befreiung: Huldrych Zwinglis Abendmahlslehre
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 117–23.
34. Z 5:809; cf. WA 23:65, LW 37:13.
35. Z 5:810, 815–27.
36. Z 5:832.
37. Z 5:850–53; cf. Z 5:472–73.
38. Z 5:863–79; cf. Z 5:479–81.
39. Z 5:888–92; cf. Z 5:522–30. Oecolampadius was the first to make the distinction
between words of command and narration; Oecolampadius, Billiche Antwort,
W2 20:616–18, while Karlstadt had contrasted words of affirmation with those of
promise; cf. c hapter 9, this volume, note 73.
40. Z 5:914–59.
41. Z 5:959–69.
42. Z 5:969–74.
43. Z 5:976–77.
44. Luther, Vom Abendmahl Christi Bekenntnis, WA 26:261–509, LW 37:161–372;
discussed in Z&L 1:619–43.
45. WA 26:268–349, LW 37:170–235.
406
406 Notes
46. WA 26:327–29, LW 37:215–16. On the scholastic background and Luther’s use

of this term, see Hartmut Hilgenfeld, Mittelalterlich-traditionelle Elemente in
Luthers Abendmahlsschriften, Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen
Theologie 29 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971), 183–232.
47. WA 26:379–86, LW 37:252–58.
48. WA 26:386–433, LW 37:258–88.
49. Zwingli would publish a revised version of Schwenckfeld’s pamphlet, along with
his endorsement, in August 1528 as Ein anwysunge das die opinion der leyplichen
gegenwertigheyt vnsers Herrens Jesu Christi jm Brote oder vnder der gestalt deß Brots/
greicht ist, CS 3:1–23.
50. WA 26:433–37, LW 37:288–94.
51. WA 26:442, LW 37:300.
52. WA 26:437–45, LW 37:294–303. Luther had suggested the concept of synecdoche
already in Part II of Wider den himelischen Propheten, WA 18:187, LW 40:197.
53. WA 26:445–99, LW 37:303–60.
54. WA 26:506, LW 37:367. The two issues had not been so important in the debate
with the Swiss and South Germans, but when Schwenckfeld visited Wittenberg in
1525, one of his major arguments was that Judas could not have eaten Christ’s body;
Burnett, Karlstadt, 129–34.
55. Capito to Zwingli, April 15, 1528, Z 9:424–25, no. 712, and April 22, 1528;
Oecolampadius to Zwingli, April 16, 1528, Z 9:403–405, no. 714 (summarizing a
lost letter from Bucer). On the genesis and contents of the Zwo Antworten, see
Z&L 1:644–88; Voigtländer, Fest, 123–31; Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 319–23.
56. Ulrich Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius, Über Martin Luthers Buch,
Bekenntnis genannt, zwo Antworten (Zurich: Froschauer, 1528). Zwingli’s portion
in Z 6/2:22–248; Oecolampadius’s portion in W2 20:1538–720.
57. Z 6/2:22–29.
58. Z 6/2:29–100.
59. Z 6/2:100–81.
60. Z 6/2:181–205; sacramental union discussed at 200–201.
61. W2 20:1380–85, 1394–419.
62. W2 20:1385–94, 1419–38.
63. Z 6/2:206–48.
64. See especially his Responsio ad Theobaldi Billicani, Z 4:911–23; Amica Exegesis, Z
5: 729–42; HZW 2:350–59; H. Rückert, “Das Eindringen der Tropuslehre in die
schweizerische Auffassung vom Abendmahl,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 37
(1940): 199–221.
65. Oecolampadius, Die andere billiche antwort, b4v–c1v.
66. Z 6/2:198–99.
67. Oecolampadius, De genvina expositione, B8v.
68. WA 26:442–5, LW 37:299–302.
69. Z 6/1:200–201.
407
Notes 407
7 0. W2 20:1398–99.
71. E.g., to Spalatin, November 28, 1527, WA Br 4:285–86, no. 1173; to Wenzeslaus
Linck, March 28, 1528, WA Br 4:435–36, no. 1247; WA 26:341–43, 405; LW
37: 230–32,  271.
72. WA 26:261, LW 37:161.
73. WA 26:269–70, 282; LW 37:170, 180, and passim.
74. WA 26:317, LW 37:206; cf. his assertion that Zwingli “teaches no part of the
Christian faith rightly,” WA 26:342, LW 37:230–31.
75. WA 26:319–24, LW 37:209–13.
76. Z 5:809–50; cf. Z&L 1:648–50.
77. Z 5:816–19; cf. 824–25.
78. Z 5:814, 832–33.
79. Z 5:837–38.
80. Z 6/1:180.
81. Z 5:806.
82. Z 5:830–31.
83. Especially Z&L 1:681–82.
84. WA 26:379, cf. 317, where he distinguished between other sacramentarians who
“settle on one error,” in contrast to Zwingli’s many errors; LW 37:252, cf. 205–206.
85. The work was reprinted in both quarto and octavo formats; the various print runs
required from eleven to eighteen sheets of paper.
86. Zwingli’s Christliche Antwort was almost 200 pages long in octavo and so required
twelve sheets of paper; the octavo imprints of Luther’s treatise were also between
170 and 200 pages in length. Oecolampadius’s Die andere billiche antwort was 150
pages in quarto, requiring eighteen sheets of paper.
87. The Wittenberg imprint of the Bekenntnis thus required thirty sheets of paper; the
Zwo antworten needed twenty-five sheets.
88. Both reprints were produced in Augsburg.
89. Cf. Josef Benzing, ed., Lutherbibliographie. Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften
Martin Luthers bis zu dessen Tod (Baden-Baden: Heitz, 1966), 293, nos. 2507–
13. It was included in Dieser hernach geschrieben Artikeln/habe sich die hir vnter
beschrieben/zu Marpurg verglichen (Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1529).
90. May 6, 1528, BCorr 3: 144–45, no. 193.
91. The Strasbourg reformers to Vadian, April 14, 1528, BCorr 3:118–22, no. 185; Bucer
to Zwingli, April 15, 128, BCorr 3:122–25, no. 186; Bucer to Farel, April 15, 1528,
BCorr 3:125–26, no. 187; Bucer to Michael Keller, April 30, 1528, BCorr 3:135–41,
no. 191.
92. April 15, 1528, Z 9:424–25, no. 712; and April 22, 1528, Z 9:442–43, no. 717; CWC
2:29–30, no. 355–356.
93. Martin Bucer, Vergleichung D. Luthers und seins Gegentheyls vom Abentmal
Christi. Dialogus. Das ist eyn freundlich gesprech (Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1528), BDS
2:305–83; a Low German translation was published in 1529. The work is discussed
408
408 Notes
in Z&L 1:770–91; Ian Hazlett, “The Development of Martin Bucer’s Thinking

on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in its Historical and Theological Context,
1523–1534,” PhD dissertation, Universität Münster, 1977, 249–57; and Kaufmann,
Abendmahlstheologie, 420–37. The pamphlet was 120 pages in octavo, and so used
about eight sheets of paper. The reprint added a last sentence to the dialogue
referring readers to the Zwo antworten, BDS 2:383. As is evident from his discus-
sion of the dialogue’s date, Köhler was unaware that there were two Strasbourg
imprints.
94. Saint Sebald was Nuremberg’s patron saint, while Saint Arbogast was a seventh-
century bishop of Strasbourg.
95. BDS 2:309.
96. WA 23:89, 179, LW 37:29, 85–86.
97. BDS 2:310–301.
98. BDS 2:313.
99. BDS 2:316; cf. WA 26:442, LW 37:300.
100. BDS 2:324–41.
101. BDS 2:326–27.
102. BDS 2:325, 336–37; cf. WA 17/2:132.
103. BDS 2:318–24, 328–30, 339–44.
104. BDS 2:345–80.
105. BDS 2:380–83.
106. Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 428–37. Hazlett, “Development,” argues that
Bucer’s dialogue made no significant concessions to Luther, but instead tried to
persuade readers to accept Bucer’s own position, 250–51, cf. 256–57.
107. BDS 2:312.
108. BDS 6/1:122–23.
109. BDS 2:314; WA 26:217.19–20. The visitation instructions stated that the signs “ad-
monish the heart to believe that God forgives the sins of a repentant person.” It
is striking that Bucer omitted the last clause concerning forgiveness and focused
instead on faith more generally.
110. Jakob Strauss, Das der war leyb Christi vnd seyn heiliges bluot im Sacrament
gegenwertig sey richtige erklerung auff das new büchleyn D. Johannes Haußscheyn
disem zuowider außgangen (Augsburg: Steiner, 1527), summarized in Z&L
1:415–22.
111. Johannes Landsperger, Wo vnd was die Rechte gottes sey nach ardt des glaubens/
vnnd grund der heiligen schrift (Zurich: Froschauer, 1528). VD16 places the pub-
lication in 1527 because the preface is dated December 6, 1527, but the full title
refers to “the articles on the Supper discussed in the disputation in Bern” (which
Landsperger attended in January 1528) and suggests that the printing occurred
after that event; summarized in Z&L 1:606–608.
112. Klaus Deppermann, Melchior Hoffman. Soziale Unruhen und apokalyptische
Visionen im Zeitalter der Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
409
Notes 409
1979), 105, gives titles for two works by Schuldorp, only one of which is ex-
tant, and three by Hoffman, all of which are lost. Kerstin Lundström, Polemik
in den Schriften Melchior Hoffmans: Inszenierungen rhetorischer Streitkultur in
der Reformationszeit (Stockholm: Stockholm University Press, 2015), 127–28,
suggests that Hoffman wrote only two pamphlets and surmises that the entire
exchange was in Low German.
113. Eberhard Weidensee, Eyn vnderricht . . . Melchior Hoffmans sendebreff . . . belangende
(Hamburg: Rocholff, 1529); Depperman, Hoffman, 107–109.
114. Andreas Osiander and Ulrich Zwingli, Epistola Dvae . . . (Nuremberg:
Petreius, 1527); OGA 2:511–17, 537–78; Z&L 1:575–78. The pamphlet was printed
in September.
115. Johannes Bugenhagen, Contra libellum Henrici Neueri de Sacramento
(Hamburg: Richolff, 1529). Never’s Low German pamphlet is no longer extant
but it is described on the basis of excerpts in an eighteenth-century publication by
Ernst Koch, “Zwinglianer zwischen Ostsee und Harz in den Anfangsjahren der
Reformation (1525–1532),” Zwingliana 16 (1983–85): 517–45.
116. Melchor Hoffman and Andreas Karlstadt, Dialogus vnd gründtliche berichtung
gehaltner disputation . . . vom hochwirdigen Sacrament oder Nachtmal des Herren
(Strasbourg: Beck, 1529); partial reprint in FSBT 1:256–70. The disputation was
held in April 1529 and is described in Z&L 1:791–94 and Deppermann, Hoffman,
109–19; cf. 137–39 on the composition and printing of the Dialogus. Both Köhler
and Deppermann identify an unnamed pamphlet by Luther that Hoffman sent
to Duke Christian to support his own position as Vom Mißbrauch der Messe,
but it was more likely a 1523 reprint of Luther’s 1522 Maundy Thursday sermon,
Das Hauptstück des ewigen und neuen Testaments, WA 10/3:68–71, which opens
by contrasting the word heard through the ears with the signs received with
the mouth.
117. Johannes Bugenhagen, Acta der Disputation zu Flensburg/die sache des
Hochwirdigen Sacraments betreffend (Wittenberg: Klug, 1529); partial edition
in FSBT 1:277–99, summarized in Z&L 1:794–98. There was a Low German
version as well: Eynne rede vam sacramente tho Flensborch/nha Melchior
Hoffmans dysputation geredet (Hamburg: Richolff, 1529). The closing address is
translated in Johannes Bugenhagen, Selected Writings, ed. Kurt K. Hendel, 2 vols.
(Minneapolis: Fortress: 2015), 1:521–88.
118. Johannes Bugenhagen, Publica, de Sacramento corporis et sanguinis Christi, ex
Christi institutione, confeßio (Wittenberg: Lufft, 1528) and reprinted in Augsburg.
Bugenhagen’s letter to Brenz, A1v–A2v, of the Augsburg imprint; to Spalatin and
Agricola, A5r–B4v. Köhler’s summary recognizes the anti-Buceran but not the
anti-Schwenckfeldian thrust of the work; Z&L 1:738–46.
119. Bugenhagen, Publica confeßio, B5r–I7r of the Augsburg imprint.
120. Bugenhagen did not name his opponents because they had not yet published
their views, although he said they had corresponded with and sent their treatises
410
410 Notes
to him, Bugenhagen, Publica Confeßio, K1v. His summary of their understanding

of “this is my body” in Publica Confeßio, K3v–L2r, is that advocated by Valentin
Crautwald; see Burnett, Karlstadt, 131–32.
121. Bugenhagen, Publica Confeßio, L7r–O5v.
122. Martin Bucer, Enarrationvm in Evangelia Mathaei, Marci, & Lucae, libri duo
(Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1527); Johannes Brenz, D. Iohannis Evangelion Exegesis
(Hagenau: Setzer, 1527); Brenz’s commentary was reprinted in 1528 and 1529.
123. Martin Bucer, Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1528),
BOL 2:230–86.
124. Martin Bucer, Tzephaniah, qvem Sophoniam, uulgo vocant, prophetarum
epitomographus (Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1528), dedicatory epistle in BCorr
3:188–200.
125. Hiob Gast, Ex Vetvsstiss. Orthodoxorvm Patrvm . . . de genuino Eucharistiae negocii
intellectu & usu, libellus (Hagenau: Setzer, 1528); Z&L 1:567–68.
126. Urbanus Rhegius, Materia Cogitandi de toto Missae Negocio (Augsburg: Steiner,
1528); Z&L 1:712–17.
127. Theobald Billican, Epistola Theobaldi Billicani ad Ioannem Hubelium, qua illi de
Eucharistia cogitandi materiam conscripsit (Augsburg: Weissenhorn, 1528); Z&L
1:707–12.
128. Billican, Epistola, A2r–A4v.
129. Heinrich Bullinger, De Origine Erroris, in negocio Evcharistiae, ac missa
(Basel: Wolff, 1528); Z&L 1:723–25; summarized in Z&L 1:723–25. The ded-
ication is dated December 27, 1527. The other treatises remained unpublished
until they were included in the critical edition of Bullinger’s theological works,
HBTS 2.
130. Bullinger, De Origine Erroris, a2v–a7r.
131. Bullinger, De Origine Erroris, c84–e1r.
132. Cardinal Benno’s life of Hildebrand in Bullinger, De Origine Erroris: d3v–d5r,
with quotation at d4v–D5r from Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Commentariorum
Aeneae Sylvii Piccolominei Senensis de Concilio Basileae celebrato libri duo
(Basel: Cratander, 1523), 90; cf. Bullinger’s reference in De Origine Erroris, d2r,
to “Wideford,” the spelling used in the Piccolomini volume; see c hapter 3, this
volume, note 132.
133. Johannes Schwanhauser, Vom abentmal Christi (Nuremberg: Peypus, 1528),
VD16: S 4611.
134. [Andreas Althamer], Von dem rechten warhafftigen verstanndt der wort des
abentmals. Das ist mein leyb etc. (Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1529).
135. The treatise and its author are discussed in Z&L 2:66–70. The copy in the Herzog-
August-Bibliothek, call no. A: 150 Theol (4), is bound together with several other
official and quasi-official publications intended for the church of Brandenburg-
Ansbach that would have been of use to a pastor.
41
Notes 411
136. Warhafftig vrsach/das der leib Christi nitt inn der creatur des Brots . . .
(Worms: Schöffer, 1529), CS 3:514–57. It is listed in VD16 as both O 408, where
it is wrongly attributed to Oecolampadius, and W 579. There are 322 numbered
arguments, but no. 125 is missing.
137. CS 3:517, no. 20.
138. CS 3:530, nos. 131–32; cf. Zwingli, Die erst kurze Antwort, Z 5:184; Antwort über
Strausens Büchlein, Z 5:494.
139. CS 3:523, no. 66; cf. Oecolampadius, Vom nachtmal Beweysung, W2 20:654.
140. CS 3:519, 521, 522, nos. 33, 42, and 55.
141. These included John 16:7, Matt. 24:23, Matt. 26:11, Acts 1:9, and Acts 7:55; CS
3:524–25, nos. 71–77, 80.
142. Jakob Otter, Christlich leben vnd sterben. Wie sich des herren nachtmals
zuobrauchen (Strasbourg: Beck, 1528); Otter dedicated the treatise to the lord of
Neckarsteinach and his family; Z&L 1:703–706. Das erst Buch Mosi gepredigt
durch Jacob Otthernn (Hagenau: Seitz, 1528). The foreword was addressed to
Otter’s parishioners in Neckarsteinach as an account of his teaching against
critics; Z&L 1:706–707.
143. Otter, Christlich leben vnd sterben, h2v; Das erst Buch Mosi, B3r, C1r.
144. Otter, Christlich leben vnd sterben, h2v, h4r–i2r; Das erst Buch Mosi,  A4r–v.
145. Otter, Christlich leben vnd sterben, k2r–k3r.
146. Otter, Christlich leben vnd sterben, k4r.
147. Johannes Eck, Enchiridion locorum commvnium aduersus Lutherum et alios
hostes ecclesiae (1525– 1543), ed. Pierre Fraenckel, Corpus Catholicorum 34
(Münster: Aschendorff, 1979); Nikolaus Ferber, Locorvm Communium adversus
huius temporis haereses Enchiridion (1529), ed. Patricius Schlager, Corpus
148. Martin Luther, Enchiridion. Der kleine Catechismus (Wittenberg: Schirlentz,
1529), WA 30/1:239–63; this includes two Low German and three Latin imprints.
Only the first Wittenberg imprint and one of the Low German imprints used
Enchiridion in the title, and it was dropped from later printings.
149. Martin Luther, Deudsch Catechismus (Wittenberg: Rhau, 1529), WA 30/1:123–
238; this includes three Low German and two Latin imprints.
150. WA 23:73–75, LW 37:19–20.
C h a p t er 12
1. Amy Nelson Burnett, “‘Instructed with the Greatest Diligence Concerning the
Holy Sacrament’: Communion Preparation in the Early Years of the Reformation,”
in From Wittenberg to the World: Essays on the Reformation and its Legacy, ed.
Charles Arand et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 47–66.
2. Luther, Sermon am grünen Donnerstage, WA 12:479.7–480.1.
412
412 Notes
3. Luther, Sermon auf den andern Osterfeiertag, WA 12:497, 499. This was one of the
earliest occurrences of the term Schwärmer in print.
4. Martin Luther, Ordenung vnd Bericht wie es furterhin “mit ihenen so das Hochwirdig
Sacrament empfahen wollen” gehalten sol werden (Hagenau: Setzer, 1523). Since the
title points to the important change in communion practice described in the fore-
word, it is immaterial whether it stemmed from Luther himself or was given by the
printer to increase sales of the pamphlet.
5. Luther, Ordenung vnd Bericht, WA 12:477.20–478.3. Theodor Brieger assumed that
the text of the Hagenau imprint was the version preached, Die angebliche Marburger
Kirchenordnung von 1527 und Luther’s erster katechetischer Unterricht vom
Abendmahl: eine kritische Untersuchung (Gotha: Perthes, 1881), 39–41. Ferdinand
Cohrs’s discussion was materially dependent on Brieger, including the assumption
that the foreword accurately reproduced the preached sermon, Ferdinand Cohrs,
Die evangelischen Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion, 5 vols., Monumenta
Germaniae Paedagogica 20–23, 39 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1978; orig. Berlin, 1900–
1907), 4:146–47, and later studies have repeated the claim that Luther made this
announcement already in April. This seems unlikely, however, and if he did an-
nounce that an examination before communion was required, it is striking that
the announcement was not considered important enough to include in the text
of the sermon published soon after it was preached. In October, Luther wrote to
Nicolaus Hausmann in Zwickau that he had decided that no one would be admitted
to communion without first being examined concerning his or her faith, WA Br
3:182–83, no. 678. This suggests that the manuscript of the Ordening und Bericht was
finished by late summer or fall. The foreword contains other elements that reflect
changes from the sermon as preached, such as Luther’s reference to the questioning
which was to precede communion, “as discussed above,” WA 12:484.10. Brieger,
Kirchenordnung, 44–45, suspected that there was a lost Wittenberg printing of
the Ordenung und Bericht, but it is doubtful that Luther would have authorized a
Wittenberg printing that would have competed with sales of the Maundy Thursday
sermon.
6. Luther, Ordenung vnd Bericht, WA 12:479.14–480.10.
7. Albrecht Peters, Kommentar zu Luthers Katechismen, 5 vols., ed. Gottfried Seebass
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990–94), 5:158.
8. Luther, Formula missae et communionis, WA 12:215, LW 53:32–33.
9. Luther, Ordenung vnd Bericht, 1525 Wittenberg imprint, VD16: L 5575. On
the Trostliche Disputation, see Timothy J. Wengert, “Wittenberg’s Earliest
Catechism,” Lutheran Quarterly 7 (1993): 247–60, and note 24, this chapter.
The title of the Wittenberg imprints of this anonymous pamphlet was modi-
fied slightly to Eyn trostlich gesprechbüchleyn. A third Wittenberg imprint with
the modified title does not contain the five questions. The additional mate-
rial is reprinted in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 4:154, 159–62, as well as in WA
11:79–80.
413
Notes 413
10. The wording of the institution account used here differs from both Luther’s fore-
word to the 1523 Ordening und Bericht and his 1524 Sermon von der Beycht vnd dem
Sacrament, which in turn is very close to that of the German Mass from the end of
1525. It therefore probably represents an earlier stage in the crystallization process
and is further evidence that the questions were in use before 1524; see note 30, this
chapter.
11. Luther, Ordenung vnd Bericht, WA 11:79–80.
12. Brieger acknowledged that Bugenhagen might have been the author but he still
attributed them to Luther, Kirchenordnung, 35–51. He was followed by Cohrs,
Katechismusversuche, 4:148, and by the editors of WA, who reprinted the questions
in WA 11:79–80. Otto Albrecht was more cautious in attributing their content, but
not their wording, to Luther; Otto Albrecht, Luthers Katechismen, Schriften des
Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 33 (Leipzig: Verein für Reformationsgeschichte,
1915), 16. They certainly agree with Luther’s basic understanding of the sacrament,
but they also bring in elements that were not as prominent in Luther’s preaching
during these years. It is likely that Wittenberg’s printers filled in what would have
otherwise been blank pages in their imprints by printing the questions Bugenhagen
asked communicants.
13. The Erfurt imprints both bore the same title of the expanded Hagenau imprint,
Ordenung und Bericht; The Unterricht/wie sich eyn yglicher Christen mensch
halten soll/so ehr empfahen wil das hoch wirdig Sacrament (Erfurt: Stürmer, 1526)
reproduced a brief excerpt from the expanded 1523 Maundy Thursday sermon (WA
12:476.2–9, 484.3–5, 9–16) along with the words instituting the sacrament and the
Aaronic blessing.
14. Martin Luther, Was dem gemeynem volck nach der predig fur zu lesen
(Wittenberg: Rhau, 1526; VD16: ZV 10016) and (Leipzig: Schumann, 1526; VD16:
ZV 29211); the Marburg imprint also contained the Christliche ordenung wie es zu
Marpurg . . . mit Teuffen/Sacrament reichen . . . gehalten wird (Marburg: Loersfeld,
1527). On this work, see notes 34–35, this chapter.
15. Andreas Osiander, Etlich schluszred in welchen das leiden Christi gegen seinem
Abentmal gehalten wirdt [Nuremberg: Gutknecht, c. 1527]; cf. OGA 1:192.
16. [ Johannes Bugenhagen and Martin Luther], Ein Christenliche bekennung der sünd,
VD16: C 2315, ZV 28322.
17. Johannes Bugenhagen, Von der heymlichen Beicht/vnterricht. Jo. Pomer. Die fünff
Frage/vom Sacrament des Altars (Wittenberg: Rhau, 1529).
18. The instruction was printed together with a description of the faith in which
babies were baptized: Justus Menius, Jn was glauben vnd meynung die kyndlein
zur heyligen Tauff zu fordern seyen. Jtem wie Des heyligen leichnambs vnnd blutts
vnnsers Herrn Christi fruchtbarlich zu niessen kurtzer vnd eynfaltiger vnterricht
(Erfurt: Sachse, 1525). The preface is dated October 4, 1525. This pamphlet would
be reprinted twice, and the Vnterricht would be printed separately in 1526.
19. Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 4:163–66.
41
414 Notes
20. All three of these works are mentioned in Wengert, “Catechism,” which focuses
only on the Wittenberg imprints.
21. Benedikt Gretzinger, Ain vnüberwintlich Beschirmbüchlin von haubt Artickeln vnd
fürnemlichen Puncten der göttlichen geschrift (Augsburg: Steiner, 1523); three of
the imprints were in Low German. The pamphlet is described in Otto Clemen,
“Bemerkungen zu Benedict Gretzingers Beschirmbüchlein,” in Beiträge zur
Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 3 (Berlin: Schwetschke, 1903), 24–34.
22. Urbanus Rhegius, Die zwölff artickel vnsers Christlichen glaubens mit anzaigung der
hailigen geschrift (Augsburg: Grimm, 1523); Urbanus Rhegius, Ain kurtze erklärung
etlicher leüffiger puncten (Augsburg: Grimm, 1523); on the modifications to the
1525 edition, see Hellmut Zschoch, Reformatorische Existenz und konfessionelle
Identität. Urbanus Rhegius als evangelischer Theologe in den Jahren 1520 bis 1530,
Beiträge zur historische Theologie 88 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995), 191–94.
23. Urbanus Rhegius, Erklärung der zwölff artickel Christlichs gelaubens/vnnd leüffigster
puncten alles Christlichen lebens . . . (Augsburg: Ruff, 1523). As a comparison of the
foliation reveals, the imprints were not identical; imprints of the combined pam-
phlet ranged from 76 to 115 leaves, all in octavo.
24. Ein trostliche disputation/auff frag vnd antwuort gestellet/Von zwayen Handtwercks
mennern/den Glauben/vnd die lieb/auch andere Christenliche leer betreffend/auch
form wie einer den andern Christenlich vnderweysen sol/gantz nützlich zuo den
artickeln Do. Vrbani Regij vnd Gretzingers (Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1524).
25. In comparison to these two works, Georg Raute’s 1525 pamphlet (also discussed by
Wengert, “Catechism”) was printed only four times: Georg Raute, Die Siebenzehen
heupt Artickel der gantzen schrifft/die do eynem Christlichen menschen Seher tröstlich
zu wissen sind (Wittenberg: Klug, 1525).
26. Urbanus Rhegius, Kurtze erkleyrung (Leipzig: Thanner, 1525; VD16: R 1835),
C1r–C4r. Rhegius also emphasized spiritual communion in three tracts first
published before 1525: a pamphlet on how to prepare for communion printed
in 1522 and sermons preached for Corpus Christi in 1521 and 1523. The 1523
sermon, Vom hochwirdigen Sacrament des altars/vnderricht/was man auß
hayliger geschrift wissen mag, was reprinted four times in Leipzig in 1525. His
polemic against the sacrifice of the mass, on the basis of Christ’s one-time sac-
rifice discussed in Heb. 9, owed more to Zwingli than to Luther; cf. Burnett,
Karlstadt,  46–49.
27. Tröstlich Gesprechbuchlein (Wittenberg: Lufft, 1525; VD16: T 2035), C2v–C4v. In
its phrasing and emphases, the discussion of communion is closer to Karlstadt’s
Von den Empfahern . . . des heyligenn Sacraments (Wittenberg: Lotter,
1521), EPK 21–38, and his Predig . . . Von empfahung des heiligen Sacraments
(Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1521), EPK 78–88, than it is to Luther. In describing
the fruit of the sacrament as becoming one bread with fellow Christians, how-
ever, the pamphlet sounds very much like Luther’s 1523 Maundy Thursday
sermon.
415
Notes 415
28. Johannes Borner, Anfangk eines rechten Christlichen lebens. Von der waren pus. Von
der Beycht. Von der bereitung zum hochwirdigen Sacrament. Wie man ein sterbenden
menschen trösten sol. Summa vnser selickeyt (Leipzig: Blum, 1526), B7v–C2r.
29. Eyn buchlin fur die leyen vnd kinder (Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1525). This first, High
German imprint of the catechism is described in Wengert, “Catechism,” as a cor-
rection to Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 1:169–99; for text concerning the Lord’s
Supper, see Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 1:205–206.
30. The German wording for the institution account evolved over time. The earliest
version, placed at the head of Luther’s 1522 Maundy Thursday sermon (printed in
1523) reflected the prayer of consecration from the canon of the mass as much as it
did any of the individual accounts in the New Testament; WA 10/3:68. For a com-
parison of later versions of the institution account, see Cohrs, Katechismusversuche
4:308–12.
31. Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 1:206. Luther expressed the same idea at the end of his
letter to the Christians in Reutlingen, dated January 4, 1526, WA 19:122.
32. Three of the German imprints combined the Laienbiblia with a German trans-
lation of Melanchthon’s Enchiridion, a primer for schoolchildren; cf. Cohrs,
Katechismusversuche 1:22–23.
33. Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 1:174.
34. Martin Luther, Was dem gemeynem volcke nach der predig fur zu lesen
(Wittenberg: Rhau, 1526).
35. Was dem gemeynem volcke . . .: VD16: ZV 29211 (Leipzig 1526), L 7381 (Augsburg,
1626), ZV 9996 (Breslau, 1626), and A 721 (Marburg, 1527), cf. WA 19:52–53;
Low German imprint: Wat dem gemenen volck na der predikye vor tho lesen
(Rostock: Dietz, 1526). The imprints from Leipzig, Augsburg, and Marburg con-
tain the Wittenberg Fünff Fragen. The section from the German Mass is WA 19:96,
LW 53:79–80. Here the pastor told his listeners to take to heart Christ’s words by
which he imparted his body and blood for the remission of sins, to remember and
give thanks for his love, and to “externally receive the bread and wine, i.e. his body
and his blood, as the pledge and guarantee of this.”
36. There were ten imprints of Luthers’s Deudsche Messe vnd ordnung Gottis dienst
in 1526.
37. Susi Hausammann, “Realpräsenz in Luthers Abendmahlslehre,” in Studien
zur Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation. Festschrift E. Bizer, ed. Luise
Abramowski and J. F. G. Goeters (Neukirchen-V luyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1969), 157–73; Ralph W. Quere, “Changes and Constants: Structure in Luther’s
Understanding of the Real Presence in the 1520s,” Sixteenth Century Journal 16
(1985): 45–78. In contrast, Thomas J. Davis is more concerned with continuities,
although he sees an increasing emphasis on the word in Luther’s later sermons,
“‘The Truth of the Divine Words’: Luther’s Sermons on the Eucharist, 1521–
28 and the Structure of Eucharistic Meaning,” Sixteenth Century Journal 30
(1999): 323–42.
416
416 Notes
38. Cf. Luther’s 1523 Maundy Thursday sermon, where he described belief in the pres-
ence of Christ’s body and blood as something even devils believed, WA 12:476–77.
39. WA 17/1:170–77, sermons for Palm Sunday and for Maundy Thursday; neither
sermon was published.
40. WA 19:482–523, LW 36:33–61.
41. WA 28:95–99. The sermon was never printed, but its contents paralleled that of his
treatises on the Lord’s Supper. A similar connection between treatise and sermons
is seen in Luther’s 1528 Von der Widdertauffe, WA 26:144–74, and his four sermons
on baptism preached in February of that year, WA 27:32–38, 41–45, 49–53, and
55–60, as well as in his 1528 catechetical sermons.
42. Martin Brecht, Martin Luther. Vol. 2: Shaping and Defining the Reformation,
1521–1532, trans. by James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 259– 80;
Johannes Meyer, Historischer Kommentar zu Luthers Kleinem Katechismus
(Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1929), 51–7.
43. Meyer, Historischer Kommentar, 57–70; the debate over which was printed earlier
is of little concern here.
44. Meyer, Historischer Kommentar, 61; WA 30/1:342–45.
45. 1529 Palm Sunday sermon: WA 29:136–46; catechism sermons: WA 30/1:23–27,
52–56, 116–22; the last of these in LW 51:188–93; Large Catechism: WA 30/1:222–
38; Small Catechism: WA 30/1:314–19; cf. Irene Dingel, ed., Die Bekenntnisschriften
der Evangelische- Lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2014); English translations in Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds.,
The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 345–480. For a lengthier discussion, see Ulrich
Kühn, “Luthers Zeugnis vom Abendmahl in Unterweisung, Vermahnung und
Beratung,” in Leben und Werk Martin Luthers von 1526 bis 1546. Festgabe zu seinem
500. Geburtstag, ed. Helmar Junghans (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1983), 1:139–52; 2:771–74.
46. On the difficulties associated with the concept of testament, see Hartmut Hilgenfeld,
Mittelalterlich-traditionelle Elemente in Luthers Abendmahlsschriften, Studien zur
Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 29 (Zurich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1971), 96–97. The admonition to communicants in the German Mass also
referred to the sacrament as Christ’s testament, WA 19:96, so even if Luther’s termi-
nology had changed, the older term was still propagated through the liturgy.
47. Augustine, Homily 80 on John 15:1–3, in Philip Schaff, ed., A Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1956), 7:344.
48. Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen, “Die Rezeption von Augustins ‘Tractatus in Joannem 80,3’
im Werk Martin Luthers,” in Auctoritas Patrum. Zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im
15. und 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Leif Grane et al., Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für
europäische Geschichte Mainz 37 (Mainz: von Zabern, 1993), 271–81; zur Mühlen
focuses only on Luther and does not mention Brenz.
417
Notes 417
49. See also his Vermanung zum Sacrament of 1530, WA 30/2:589–626, LW 38:97–
137; Dorothea Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 155–91.
50. Peter Schultz, Ein büchleyn auff frag vnd antwort (Leipzig: Schmidt, 1527), in
Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 2:209–28, at 226.
51. Andreas Althamer, Catechismus. Das ist vnterricht zum Christlichen Glauben
(Nuremberg: Peypus, 1528), in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 3:16–39, at 32.
52. Johannes Agricola, Hundert vnd Dreissig gemeyner Fragestücke/für die iungen
Kinder (Wittenberg: Rhau, 1528), in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 2:273–311, at 280.
53. Wenceslaus Linck, Vnterrichtung der kinder/so zu Gottes tische wöllen geen
(Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1529), in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 3:44–48.
54. Johannes Toltz, Eyn kurtz handbuchlyn/fur iunge Christen/so viel yhn zu wissen
von nöten (Wittenberg: Rhau, 1526), in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 1:233–60,
at 248; Johannes Agricola, Elementa Pietatis (Wittenberg: Klug, 1525), in Cohrs,
Katechismusversuche 2:16–83, at 72–73; Kaspar Gräter, Catechesis oder vnderricht
der Kinder wie er zuo Haylprun gelert vnd gehalten wirdt (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1529),
in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 2:322–66, at 350.
55. Althamer, Katechismus, Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 3:32.
56. Schultz, Büchlein, Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 2:226–27.
57. Linck, Vnderrichtung, Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 3:44–55; see also Toltz, Kurtz
Handbuchlyn, Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 1:248.
58. Johannes Brenz, Fragstuck des Christenlichen glaubens (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1528), in
Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 3:146–85, at 153–56.
59. Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 4:326– 45; his discussion focuses more on the
explanations of the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s
Prayer, but it also includes the presentation of the Lord’s Supper.
60. Agricola, Elementa Pietatis, Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 2:72–73.
61. Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 1:243; Toltz, Kurtz Handbuchlyn, Cohrs,
Katechismusversuche, 1:247–60. Several of the imprints produced elsewhere put
“Wittenberg” on the title page. Four imprints were printed together with Johannes
Toltz’s Der heiligen schrifft art/weyß vnd gebrauch.
62. Agricola, Elementa Pietatis; Johannes Agricola, Eine Christliche Kinder zucht
(Wittenberg: Rhau, 1527), both in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 2:16–83.
63. Johannes Agricola, Hundert vnd Dreissig gemeyner Fragstücke (Wittenberg: Rhau,
1528), in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 2:273–311.
64. Andreas Althamer’s Catechismus was printed three times in Nuremberg and once
in Marburg; Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 3:3–4,  16–39.
65. Balthasar Hubmaier, Ein Christennliche Leertafel (Nikolsburg: Froschauer, 1527),
in QGT 9: 305–26, at 317–18; H. Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder, eds.,
Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press,
1989), 354–55.
418
418 Notes
66. Capito to Zwingli, February 28, 1527, Z 9:60–62, no. 595.

67. Johannes Bader, Ad illvstrem principem d. lvdovicvm . . . De Ansere, qui
Sacramentum ediße dicitur . . . Epistola Apologetica (Strasbourg: Knobloch,
1526); Johannes Bader, An den Durchleüchtigen . . . Ludwigen Pfaltzgrauen
bey Rheyn . . . Von der Gans/die das Sacrament gessen hat/Verantworttung
(Speyer: Schmidt, 1526). The pamphlets were intended for two different
audiences, one international and the other local. The text of the German pam-
phlet is too rhetorically florid to sound natural, which suggests that the Latin
letter was the original, although the German translation may have been the
first to be published. The claim on the title page of the Latin pamphlet that the
sermon included in the pamphlet was translated into Latin for the first time
reflects the fact that the sermon was preached in German; it does not mean
that the apology was originally written in German. Bader had served as tutor to
Pfalzgraf Ludwig before becoming pastor in Landau and so could hope for the
prince’s intercession on his behalf.
68. Bader attributed the source of this rumor to enemies who had made a pun on the
family name of Gans (“goose”) among his Landau parishioners to assert that he
had offered the consecrated host to a goose; Bader, Epistola Apologetica, 6v–7r, 9v;
Bader, Verantworttung, A8v–B1r,  B4r–v.
69. Bader, Epistola Apologetica, 5v–6r; Bader, Verantworttung, A7r–v.
70. Bader, Epistola Apologetica, 11r–15v; Bader, Verantworttung, C3r–D2v.
71. Johannes Bader, Eynn gesprech büchlein vom anfangk des Christlichen lebens/mit
dem jungen volck zuo Landaw auff die Oster zeyt . . . Eym jeglichen menschen ehe er
sich für eynn Christen außgibt vnnd zuom nachtmal des herren zuo gon sich vermisst/
gantz not zuo wissen (Speyer: Schmidt, 1526); Cohrs, Katechismusversuche,
1:263–80.
72. Z 2: 122–24 (on confirmation), 393–405 (on confession to a priest); HZW 1:100–
101, 317–22; Erich Roth, Die Privatbeichte und die Schlüsselgewalt in der Theologie
der Reformatoren (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1952), 103–104, 110–12.
73. Joseph Müller, Die deutschen Katechismen der böhmischen Brüder: kritische
Textausgabe, Monumenta Germaniae paedagogica 6 (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1970;
original: Berlin, 1887), 49–51, 78–90. For a characterization of the catechism, see
Thomas R. Fudge, “Luther and the ‘Hussite’ Catechism of 1522,” in Confessional
Identity in East-Central Europe, ed. Maria Craciun et al. (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2002),  31–48.
74. Eyn Christliche vnderweyßung der kleynen kynder ym glauben, with descriptions of
the various imprints in Müller, Katechismen, 3–5, and Cohrs, Katechismusversuche
1:9–16; discussion of the question affirming adoration at p. 15. VD16 includes Ein
cristliche vntterweysung Der klaynen kinter im Gelauben durch einn weyß einer frag
(s.l., 1521), VD16: C 2357, but does not list any extant copies. The two imprints
that omitted the questions on the Eucharist were printed in Regensburg (VD16: C
419
Notes 419
2362) and Strasbourg (C 2364); the affirmative answer in the 1522 Erfurt imprint
(C 2361).
75. Ain schöne frag vnd Antwurt Den Jungen kündern Zuo vnderweysen, printed three
times in Augsburg (1522: VD16: C 2358–C 2359; 1523: C 2363), as well as in Bamberg
or Coburg (1522, VD16: C 2360) and Erfurt (1524, C 2365). Imprints C 2358–2360
all include on the title page the misleading assertion, “taken from Dr. Martin
Luther’s teaching.” The Bamberg/Coburg imprint retains the original Hussite text
rejecting adoration (variant C; see note 76, this chapter).
76. Müller, Katechismen, 21–24. The original Czech (variant C) is somewhat more am-
biguous than the German text of Ain schöne frag. Müller’s variant D is VD16: C 2362.
77. Eyne schone nye vorklarynge/des kynder böckelyns (Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1525);
Müller, Katechismen, 183–86. Both Müller, 158–61, and Cohrs, Katechismusversuche
1:145, see Luther’s ideas reflected in the catechism. This is certainly true with re-
gard to its understanding of the sacrament as an external sign by which the con-
science is strengthened through faith in Christ’s promise. There may also be some
reflection of Luther’s Von dem Greuel der Stillmesse, published in 1525, as well as
Bugenhagen’s discussion of Christ as Melchizedek in Von der evangelischen Mess
(Erfurt: Loersfeld, 1524). The discussions of the sacrifice of the mass and the in-
terpretation of Melchizedek, however, have more in common with the arguments
used by Swiss and South German reformers against their Catholic opponents, as
in the acts of the second Zurich disputation published toward the end of 1523,
Z 2:731–57, and the Grund und ursach published by the Nuremberg pastors in
October 1524, OGA 1:213–25; cf. Burnett, Karlstadt,  48–51.
78. Ain Christliche vnderwisung der Jugend jm Glouben, in Müller, Katechismen, 193,
201–204.
7 9. ABR 3:389–90.
80. Johannes Oecolampadius, Frag vnd Antwort in verhörung der Kinder der Kilchen
zu Basel, in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 4:16; Oecolampadius, Ordnung so ein
Ersame Statt Basel . . . fürohyn zehalten erkannt, ABR 3:389–90. On the basis of its
anti–Anabaptist tone, Cohrs suggested that there was a (now lost) imprint of the
catechism from 1525 or 1526. Concern about the spread of Anabaptism was just as
prominent in Basel in 1529, however, and similarities with the church ordinance
of 1529 suggest that the catechism was written at the later date. It is also entirely
possible that the catechism was not printed but was used by Basel’s pastors only in
manuscript form, since Basel’s territory had fewer than thirty parishes and so may
not have offered a large enough market to justify printing the catechism separately.
The first extant version of the catechism is included in the 1537 liturgical agenda,
a publication intended chiefly for Basel’s pastors. On Oecolampadius’s catechism
more generally, see Amy Nelson Burnett, Teaching the Reformation: Ministers
and Their Message in Basel, 1529–1629, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 52–53.
420
420 Notes
81. Wolfgang Capito, De Pveris Institvendis Ecclesiae Argentinensis Isagoge

(Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1527), in Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 2:100–201. A con-
temporary chronicle reported that weekly catechism instruction began in three of
the parish churches in June 1526 and spread from there to the remaining churches,
August Ernst and Johann Adam, Katechetische Geschichte des Elsasses bis zur
Revolution (Strasbourg: Bull, 1897), 115–16.
82. Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 2:88–91, but Cohrs’s judgment of the breach between
Capito and Bucer must be revised in light of the discussion of Strasbourg spiritu-
alism in the next chapter.
83. One German imprint was produced in Basel; the rest were all published in
Strasbourg.
84. Conrad Sam, Christenliche vnderweysung der Jungen (Augsburg: Ulhart, 1528), in
Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 3:92–128, at 105–6.
85. The placement of this discussion within the Apostles’ Creed may have been strategic
as well as theological, since there was no separate section entitled “On the Lord’s
Supper” to draw the attention of a censor. But theologically sensitive readers quickly
caught on to the importance of the explanation of Christ’s ascension and session
for the author’s position on the Lord’s Supper, and when a discussion of these two
phrases was accidently omitted from the first printing of Kaspar Gräter’s 1529 cat-
echism, he became suspect to other Lutherans. Gräter made up for this omission
in the 1530 edition of the catechism with a clear endorsement of Luther’s under-
standing of the ubiquity of Christ’s body; Cohrs, Katechismusversuche 2:317, 338–40.
86. Capito, Isagoge, Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 2:135–46, 167–72.
87. Capito, Isagoge, Cohrs, Katechismusversuche, 2:143–44, 168–69.
88. A manuscript copy of this agreement was sent to Zwingli in the spring of 1527, Z
9:136–37. Its editors were not aware that it was also printed as Ain bericht denen
so des herren Nachtmal tailhafftig zu werden gesinnet sein (Augsburg: Otmar,
1527), with a few variants in the wording; on Rhegius’s involvement, see Hellmut
Zschoch, Reformatorische Existenz und konfessionelle Identität. Urbanus Rhegius als
evangelischer Theologe in den Jahren 1520 bis 1530, Beiträge zur historische Theologie
88 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995), 210–17.
89. Michael Keller, Ain Christenlicher/grüntlicher/auß Göttlicher hayliger schrifft/
bericht/dess Heren Nachtmal wirdig zuo Empfahen; den schwachen vnd guothertzigen
aufs kürtzest zuosamenbracht (Augsburg: Otmar, 1528), VD16: K 652. There is a
second version of the same work, published by the same printer and bearing the
same date on the title page (May 25, 1528) that also includes Mit grund vnnd vrsach
warumb man zuom Sacrament offt geen soll; VD16: ZV 23818. It is likely that Keller
added the second tract while the first was still being printed. Both works were in-
cluded in a 1545 reprint [VD16: K653]; the preface to the later imprint states that
the text had been modified “to make it milder and more understandable,” A1v. On
Keller’s earlier Ettlich Sermones von dem nachtmal Christi, see Burnett, Karlstadt,
123–24.
421
Notes 421
90. Urbanus Rhegius, Prob zu des Herrn nachtmal für die eynfelttigen (Augsburg: Steiner,
1528); cf. Zschoch, Reformatorische Existenz, 309–13.
91. Keller, Bericht, A2r–A3v; Rhegius, Prob, A2r–A3v, B2r–B3r.
92. Otto Brunfels, Catechesis Pverorvm (Cologne: Gymnich, 1529), in Cohrs,
Katechismusversuche 3:221–346, at 338.
C h a p t er 13
1. Geoffrey L. Dipple, “The Spiritualist Anabaptists,” in A Companion to Anabaptism
and Spiritualism, 1521– 1700, ed. John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, Brill’s
Companions to the Christian Tradition 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 257–98, esp. 257–60.
2. This orientation is clear in Von der Taufe from Zwingli’s general exegesis of scripture,
as well as his specific rejection of Anabaptist sectarianism, Z 4:254–55, Z&B 157–58.
3. C. Arnold Snyder, “Word and Power in Reformation Zurich,” Archiv für
Reformationsgeschichte 81 (1990): 263– 84; Werner O. Packull, Hutterite
Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments During the Reformation (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1995), 15–32.
4. See the example of St. Gallen, C. Arnold Snyder, “Communication and the
People: The Case of the Reformation in St. Gall,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 67
(1993): 152–73; more generally, C. Arnold Snyder, “Orality, Literacy, and the Study
of Anabaptism,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 75 (1991): 371–92. On the importance
of lay reading circles for the proto-Anabaptists, see Andrea Strübind, “The Swiss
Anabaptists,” in Companion to the Swiss Reformation, ed. Amy Nelson Burnett and
Emidio Campi, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 72 (Leiden: Brill,
2016), 389–443, esp. 393–95. Anabaptist hermeneutical principles are well worth
further study, but that is beyond the scope of this chapter.
5. In the foreword to Ein Gespräch auf Zwinglis Taufbüchlein, Hubmaier complained
that his efforts to have the book published had been hindered by Satan; QGT 9:168.
The book was written in November 1525, while Hubmaier was still in Waldshut, but
not printed until the end of 1526 in Nikolsburg.
6. Hubmaier, Gespräch, QGT 9:167–214, cf. Z 4:206–337, English translation in H.
Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder, eds., Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian
of Anabaptism (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989), 166–233; Hubmaier, Von der
Kindertaufe, QGT 9:258–69, translation in Pipkin and Yoder, Balthasar Hubmaier,
275–95; Johannes Oecolampadius, Ain Gespräch etlicher Predicanten . . . mit etlichen
bekennern des Wydertauffs (Basel: Curio, 1525). Hubmaier was able to publish his
first response to Zwingli, Von dem Christenlichen Tauff der glaübigen, in July 1525;
QGT 9:118–63, translation in Pipkin and Yoder, Balthasar Hubmaier, 95–149.
7. Hubmaier, Gespräch, QGT 9:188–91, responding to Von dem Tauf, Z 4:315–16.
8. Hubmaier, Gespräch, QGT 9:181, 186–87.
9. Hubmaier, Gespräch, QGT 9:178, concerning the community of goods; 183, the
claim that Anabaptists denied salvation to those who were not baptized as believers.
42
422 Notes
10. Hubmaier, Gespräch, QGT 9:175–77; cf. the charge that Zwingli was a “new papist,”
180, and that he had misled many who looked to him as an authority rather than to
scripture itself, 213.
11. Hubmaier pointed out that these prisoners included not only men but also widows,
pregnant women, and girls; Gespräch, QGT 9:169–70, 177–78. Hubmaier himself
had been imprisoned and tortured in Zurich in the winter of 1525–26.
12. Hubmaier, Von der Kindertauf, QGT 9:260–62, 269; Hubmaier also cited this
passage from Oecolampadius’s Romans commentary in his Der Lehrer Urteil,
QGT 9:250.
13. Hubmaier, Von der Kindertauf, QGT 9:263–64.
14. Johannes Oecolampadius, Vnderrichtung von dem Widertauff (Basel: Cratander,
1527); the preface is dated August 18, 1527; Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 383–90.
15. Zwingli, In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus, Z 6/1:21–196; the preface is dated
July 31, 1527; English translation in ZSW, 123–258.
16. OBA 2:85–6, no. 504.
17. Zwingli, Elenchus, Z 6/1: 30–47; ZSW, 131–38. His accusations included rejection
of the Old Testament and of Christ’s full satisfaction for sin (Z 6/1:56–63, ZSW
146–53), holding wives in common, and a case of fratricide in St. Gallen (Z 6/
1:80–95, ZSW 167–72).
18. Zwingli, Elenchus, 6/1:48–50, 67, ZSW 139– 40, 156; Oecolampadius,
Vnderrichtung, G2v–G3r, L1r, M3r–M4v.
19. The memorandum was submitted July 23, 1526; see Rosemarie Aulinger, ed., Deutsche
Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V., Vol. 5/6: Der Reichstag zu Augsburg 1525, Der
Reichstag zu Speyer 1526, Der Fürstentag zu Esslingen 1526 (Munich: Oldenbourg,
2011), 640–78, 642n164.
20. Ferdinand von Habsburg, Mandat des durchleuchtigisten Fürsten vnd Herren Hern
Ferdinand, dated August 20, 1527, and printed seven times in German and twice in
Latin in Dresden, Leipzig, Landshut, Rostock, and Vienna; FSGR 1:484–93.
21. Oecolampadius, Vnderrichtung, G4v, H1v–H2r, K4r–L1r; Staehelin, Lebenswerk,
390–91.
22. It is striking that the only extant copies of Hubmaier’s Von dem Khindertauff are
in the Czech Republic, Austria, and Denmark, and the work is not listed in VD16;
QGT 9:258.
23. Martin Rothkegel, “Anabaptism in Moravia and Silesia,” in A Companion to
Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700, ed. John D. Roth and James M. Stayer,
Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 163–216.
24. Martin Rothkegel, Mährische Sakramentierer des zweiten Viertels des 16.
Jahrhunderts: Matej Poustevnik, Benes Optat, Johann Zeising (Jan Cizek),
Jan Dubcansky ze Zdenina und die Habrovaner (Lulcer) Brüder, Bibliotheca
dissidentium 24 (Baden-Baden: Koerner, 2005), 101–21; Jarold K. Zeman, The
Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia 1526–1628. A Study of Origins and
Contacts, Studies in European History 20 (The Hague: Mouton, 1969), 72–82,
423
Notes 423
which suggests the translation into Czech of both Zwingli’s letter to Alber and his
Subsidium.
25. Oswald Glaidt, Handlung yetz den xiiij. Tag Marcij diß.xxvj. Jars
(Nikolsburg: Froschauer, 1526), reprinted in both Worms and Zurich. On Glaidt,
see Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 103–106.
26. Zeman, Anabaptists, 108–12.
27. Glaidt, Handlung, a3v–a6r; on infant communion, see David R. Holeton, “The
Communion of Infants and Hussitism,” Communio Viatorum 27 (1984): 207–25.
28. Rothkegel, “Anabaptism,” 169; Simprecht Sorg-Froschauer had also published
Glaidt’s description of the Austerlitz disputation. He was the son of Hans
Froschauer, an Augsburg printer, and a cousin of the Zurich printer Christoph
Froschauer; Christoph Reske, ed., Die Buchdrucker des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts
im deutschen Sprachgebiet: auf der Grundlage des gleichnamigen Werkes von Josef
Benzing, Beiträge zum Buch-und Bibliothekswesen 51 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2007), 36–37, 651, 1041. Hubmaier’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper is analyzed
in Brian C. Brewer, A Pledge of Love: The Anabaptist Sacramental Theology of
Balthasar Hubmaier, Studies in Christian Liturgy and Thought (Milton Keynes,
Bucks: Paternoster, 2012), 50–83.
29. Hubmaier, Ein ainfeltige vnnderricht (Nikolsburg: Froschauer, 1526), QGT 9:284–
304, esp. 290–301, English translation in Pipkin and Yoder, Balthasar Hubmaier,
314–38.
30. QGT 9:301–303. The proof texts included Matt. 24:23 (and its parallel Luke 17:23),
Matt. 26:11, John 16:7, and Acts 1:9–11.
31. Hubmaier, Ein Christennliche Leertafel (Nikolsburg: Froschauer, 1527), QGT
9:306– 26, esp. 317–18; English translation in Pipkin and Yoder, Balthasar
Hubmaier, 340–65.
32. Hubmaier, Form des Nachtmahls (Nikolsburg: Froschaure, 1527), QGT 9:355–65,
esp. the discussion of baptism and Lord’s Supper, 361–64; English translation in
Pipkin and Yoder, Hubmaier, 393–408.
33. [Michael Sattler], Brüderliche vereynigung etzlicher kinder Gottes/siben Artickel
betreffend (Worms: Schöffer, 1527), FSBT 1:728–48; English translation in Michael
G. Baylor, ed., The Radical Reformation, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political
Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 172–80, esp. 174–75.
Zwingli responded to the confession, which in May of 1527 was still circulating
only in manuscript, in his Elenchus, Z 6/1:108–55, ZSW 177–219.
34. It is unclear whether (and if so, when) Denck was baptized as a believer. The
older view that he was baptized by Hubmaier in Augsburg has been discredited;
Werner O. Packull, “Denck’s Alleged Baptism by Hubmaier: Its Significance for
the Origins of South German-Austrian Anabaptism,” Mennonite Quarterly Review
47 (1973): 327–38. Hätzer was a member of the Zurich group that opposed in-
fant baptism and so was expelled from the city in January 1525, but he was not
baptized. He was back in Zurich in November 1525 and attended the disputation
42
424 Notes
with the Anabaptists, at which time he allegedly revoked his earlier opposition
to infant baptism; J. F. G. Goeters, Ludwig Hätzer (ca. 1500–1529), Spiritualist
und Antitrinitarier: Eine Randfigur der frühen Täuferbewegung, Quellen und
Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 25 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1957), 51–
54, 70–73,  89–96.
35. Hans-Werner Müsing, “The Anabaptist Movement in Strasbourg from Early 1526
to July 1527,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 51 (1977): 91–126.
36. The theses were published only in broadsheet form, but they were also included in
the publications of Cochlaeus and Bucer described in the next two notes.
37. Jakob Kautz, Johannes Cochlaeus, and Johann Freiherr, Articvli Aliqvot, a Iacobo
Kautio Oecolampadiano, ad populum nuper Vuormaciae aediti (Cologne: Quentel,
1527). The German pamphlet was printed in Mainz, where Cochlaeus was living,
and so was probably the first published.
38. Martin Bucer, Getrewe Warnung gegen Jacob Kautz (Strasbourg: Knobloch, 1527),
BDS 2:234–58, esp. 238–41, 243–47; Kaufman, Abendmahlstheologie, 390–95.
Martin Heimbucher discusses the Warnung as an example of Strasbourg spiritu-
alism in Prophetische Auslegung: das reformatorische Profil des Wolfgang Fabricius
Capito ausgehend von seinen Kommentaren zu Habakuk und Hosea, (Frankfurt/
M: Lang, 2008), 200–203.
39. Hans Denck, H. Dencken wideruff (Worms: Schöffer, 1528), FSBT 1:798–803,
esp. 802–803; English translation in Clarence Bauman, ed., The Spiritual Legacy of
Hans Denck: Interpretation and Translation of Key Texts, Studies in Medieval and
Reformation Thought 47 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 246–59.
40. Horst Weigelt, Spiritualistische Tradition im Protestantismus: Die Geschichte des
Schwenckfeldertums in Schlesien (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973), 47–77; R. Emmet
McLaughlin, Caspar Schwenckfeld, Reluctant Radical: His Life to 1540, Yale
Historical Publications Miscellany 134 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1986), 91–114.
41. See note 49, this chapter.
42. Kaspar Schwenckfeld, “Twelve Questions,” CS 2:129–40; “Vom Grund vnd vrsache
des irrthumbs vnd Spans imm Artickel vom Sacrament des herrn Nachtmals,” CS
2:445–580. This work would not be published until 1570.
43. Z&L 1:570–73; see note 47, this chapter.
44. Weigelt, Spiritualistische Tradition, 77– 106; R. Emmet McLaughlin,
“Schwenckfeld and the South German Eucharistic Controversy, 1526–1529,” in
Schwenckfeld and Early Schwenkfeldianism: Papers Presented at the Colloquium on
Schwenckfeld and the Schwenkfelders, Pennsburg, PA, September 17–22, 1984, ed.
Peter C. Erb (Pennsburg, PA: Schwenkfelder Library, 1986), 181–210; Douglas H.
Shantz, Crautwald and Erasmus: A Study in Humanism and Radical Reform in
Sixteenth Century Silesia, Bibliotheca Dissidentium Scripta et studia 4 (Baden-
Baden: Koerner, 1992), 78–83. Elector John of Saxony wrote to Luther from the
Diet of Speyer that there were rumors that Karlstadt was trying to make contact
425
Notes 425
with other members of his “sect;” November 26, 1526, WA Br 4:136–38. Whether
or not those contacts included the Silesians, at the end of 1527 Karlstadt apparently
traveled to Silesia; Melanchthon to Joachim Camerarius, January 23, 1528, MBW
T3:263–64, no. 650. There is one extant letter of Karlstadt to the Silesians, May 17,
1528, WA Br 4:571–73.
45. Douglas H. Shantz, “The Crautwald-Bucer Correspondence, 1528: A Family
Feud Within the Zwingli Circle,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 68 (1994): 79–94.
Bibliander taught in Silesia between 1527 and 1529; on Wolfhart, Bucer to Zwingli,
July 8, 1527, BCorr 3:69–70, no. 161.
46. Schwenckfeld, De Cursu Verbi Dei, CS 2:581–89.
47. Schwenckfeld, Ein anwysunge das die opinion der leyplichen gegenwertigheyt
vnsers Herrens Jesu Christi jm Brote oder vnder der gestalt deß Brots gericht ist
(Zurich: Froschauer, 1528), CS 3:4–23.
48. Z 6/2:258–59.
49. Valentin Crautwald, Collatio et Consensvs Verborvm Caenae Dominicae
(Strasbourg: Schöffer & Schwintzer, 1529), CS 2:391–408. The editors suggest that
there was a 1526 Breslau imprint, CS 2:385–86, but if this was the case, there are no
extant copies, and the pamphlet is not listed in VD16. Kaspar Schwenckfeld, Ein
christlich bedencken. Ob Judas vnd die vngleubigen falschen Christen/den leib vnd
das bluot Jhesu Christi jm Sacrament deß Nachtmals etwan empfangen . . . mögen
(Strasbourg: Beck, 1529), CS 3:498–507, which also describes a Liegnitz imprint
from 1529 not in VD16 whose only known copy is in the U.S.
50. Kaspar Schwenckfeld, Apologia vnd erclerung der Schlesier dz sy den Leib und
Bluot Christi jm Nachtmahl des herren vnd jm geheimniß des h. Sacraments nicht
verleücknen (Strasbourg: Beck, 1529), CS 3:394–431; partial edition in FSBT
1:244–55. The Apologia combined Schwenckfeld’s Entschuldigung, or defense
against accusations that he denied Christ’s presence in the sacrament written to
Duke Friedrich II of Liegnitz, with a letter to an unnamed friend, Vom Artickel
unseres christlichen Glaubens, arguing that Christ’s body was located in heaven. The
Entschuldigung was also printed in Liegnitz in 1529.
51. CS 3:394–97; translation in CWC 2:388–92.
52. Schwenckfeld, Anweisung, CS 3:20.
53. Schwenckfeld, Anweisung, CS 3:10, 13.
54. Schwenckfeld, Anweisung, CS 3:8–9, 13–17; Apologia CS 3:422; cf. Oecolampadius’s
discussion of the sursum corda in De genvina expositione,  K8r–v.
55. Schwenckfeld, Anweisung, CS 3:20–21, Apologia, CS 3:415.
56. “Erkantnuß Jesu Christi,” Schwenckfeld, Anweisung, CS 3:22, Apologia, CS 3:405–
406, 409, 428; prophets: Anweisung, CS 3:6.
57. Schwenckfeld, Apologia, CS 3:409–10, 413–14.
58. Schwenckfeld, Apologia, CS 3:419, 423.
59. Schwenckfeld, Christlich bedenken, CS 3:499.
60. Schwenckfeld, Christlich bedenken, CS 3:499–500.
426
426 Notes
61. Oecolampadius, Ad Fratres . . . epistola paraenetica; Latin in OBA 2:238–48,

German in FSBT 1:231–43; Staehelin, Lebenswerk, 403–405.
62. Survey of the historiography in Heimbucher, Prophetische Auslegung, 9–25; cf. his
analysis of Capito’s discussion of the internal and external word in his 1528 Hosea
commentary, 203–206. Heimbucher concludes that although there are spiritualist
tendencies, Capito was not a spiritualist in the sense of one who prioritizes the in-
ternal over the external word. But if “spiritualist” is defined as one who downplays
external rites, as the term is used in this chapter, Capito certainly falls on this side
of the broader sacramentarian party.
63. Capito, born in 1478, received his doctorate in theology at Freiburg, a bastion of
Scotism, in 1515 and worked closely with Erasmus while he was cathedral preacher
in Basel from 1515 to 1520. Bucer was born in 1493, entered the Dominican order as
a teenager, and was working toward his doctorate in theology at Heidelberg when
he attended Luther’s disputation in that city in 1518.
64. Klaus Deppermann, Melchior Hoffman. Soziale Unruhen und apokalyptische
Visionen im Zeitalter der Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1979), 169– 74. Although Schwenckfeld would clash with Zwingli over
Christology when the latter stayed in the city on the way to Marburg, his
differences with Bucer would not become evident until 1530; McLaughlin,
Schwenckfeld, 123–46.
65. Deppermann, Hoffman, 178–86, 191–93.
C h a p t er 14
1. For a description of the service and the reaction to it, WB 131–34, no. 61, and 153–
54, no. 68.
2. Luther, Formula Missae et Communionis, WA 12:211–14, LW 53:27–30.
3. Julius Smend, ed., Die evangelischen deutschen Messen bis zu Luthers deutscher
Messe (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1967; orig. Göttingen, 1896), 72–122.
4. Two different forms of the evangelical mass as said in Nuremberg’s Spital church
were printed in 1525: Von der evangelischen meß, and Form vnd ordnung eyner
Christlichen Meß (Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 11:51–57). The Strasbourg liturgies
from 1524–25 are in Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 20/1:136–62; they include Teutsch
Kirchenampt; Ordnung des herren Nachtmal, and Straszburger kirchenampt. On
the evolution of the Strasbourg liturgy, see René Bornert, La Réforme protestante
du culte à Strasbourg au XVI. siècle, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought
28 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981).
5. On the background to these two forms, see Amy Nelson Burnett, “The Social
History of Communion and the Reformation of the Eucharist,” Past and Present
211 (2011): 77– 119; Frieder Schulz, “Einführung,” in Coena Domini I. Die
Abendmahlsliturgie der Reformationskirchen im 16./17. Jahrhundert, ed. Irmgard
Pahl, Spicilegium Friburgense 29 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1983), 1–6.
427
Notes 427
6. For an overview that focuses on Luther, see Thomas H. Schattauer, “From Sacrifice
to Supper: Eucharistic Practice in the Lutheran Reformation,” in A Companion to
the Eucharist in the Reformation, ed. Lee Palmer Wandel, Brill’s Companions to the
Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 205–30.
7. Martin Luther, Deutsche messe vnd ordnung Gottis dienste (Wittenberg: Lotter,
1526), WA 19:70–113, LW 53:331–61; see the list of church orders it would in-
fluence in Pahl, Coena Domini I., 29n16, and figure on p. 5. The admonition to
communicants from the German Mass was also printed as a short pamphlet, Was
dem gemeynem volcke nach der predig fur zu lesen (1526); on the catechetical nature
of this pamphlet, see chapter 12, note 35.
8. Jürgen Diestelmann, Actio Sacramentalis. Die Verwaltung des Heiligen Abendmahls
nach den Prinzipien Luthers in der Zeit bis zur Konkordienformel (Gross
Oesingen: H. Harms, 1996), 13–19.
9. Two different images with the Lord’s Supper being administered at the bottom
and the Last Supper at the top were included with imprints of Luther’s small cate-
chism beginning in 1531. They are reproduced in Gertrud Schiller, Ikonographie der
christlichen Kunst, 5 vols. (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976), 4/1:153, nos. 391–92. On
this motif, see Susanne Wegmann, Der sichtbare Glaube: das Bild in den lutherischen
Kirchen des 16. Jahrhunderts, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 93
(Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2016),  57–63.
10. On liturgical developments in Zurich and Basel, see Markus Jenny, Die Einheit des
Abendmahlsgottesdienstes bei den elsässischen und schweizerischen Reformatoren,
Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 23 (Zurich: Zwingli
Verlag, 1968), 31–88.
11. Z 4:13– 24; provisions regarding when different groups were to communi-
cate at 15–16. [Zurich], Action oder Bruch des Nachtmals/Gedechtnus/oder
Dancksagung Christi (Zurich: Froschauer, 1525). The communion liturgy was
also reprinted in [Zurich], Ordnung der Christenlichenn Kilchenn zuo Zürich
(Zurich: Froschauer, 1525).
12. [Basel], Form vnd gstalt wie der kinder tauff/Des herren Nachtmal/vnd
der heymsuochung/jetz zuo Basel von etlichen Predicanten gehalten werden
(Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526); a Low German translation was printed in Bremen. Both
liturgies in Pahl, Coena Domini I, 203–15.
13. Ambrosius Blarer, Ordnung vnnd Brauch deß herren Nachtmals/in der Christenlichen
Gemain zuo Memmingen (Augsburg: Otmar, 1529); Sehling, Kirchenordungen,
12:235–46; see also Wilfried Bührer, “Der Abendmahlgottesdienst der Stadt
Konstanz im Reformationszeitalter,” Zwingliana 15 (1979): 93–123.
14. Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 8:12–13; provisions concerning the Lord’s Supper,
including a recommendation to use Luther’s German Mass, 44–46. Other un-
published church ordinances were written for Schwäbisch Hall, in Sehling,
Kirchenordnungen (1527: 17/1:42–65), Goslar (1528: 7/2/2:236–42), Hamburg
(1529: 5:488–540), and East Frisia (1529: 7/1:360–72). An order for the city of
428
428 Notes
Nuremberg and the neighboring territory of Brandenburg-Ansbach, along with

lists of questions or doctrinal articles to instruct pastors, was written in 1528
(11:126–39).
15. [Prussia], Artikel der Ceremonien und andrer Kirchenordnung (s.1., 1526); Sehling,
Kirchenordnungen, 4:30–38. The ordinance was adopted at the end of 1525 and
printed in March 1526; cf. the introduction, p. 6. [Lüneburg], Artikel, darinne
etlike mysbruke . . . entdecket unde darjegen gude ordenynge angegeven warden
(Magdeburg: Barth, 1527), Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 6/1/1:492–521, section on
the mass 513–15. Neither ordinance is included in VD16, which suggests a very small
print run.
16. [Brandenburg-Ansbach], Abscheid . . . biß auf ein zukünfftig Concilium . . .
(Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1526), Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 11:88–97, esp. 90–
91, which cites the Speyer recess and uses the phrasing of the commission’s
recommendations concerning the “böse, teuflische ketzerische geister” who
rejected the presence of Christ’s body and blood; these were to be punished “an
leib, leben oder gut;” cf. chapter 13, this volume, note 19.
17. On the background, see Wilhelm H. Neuser, Die Abendmahlslehre Melanchthons
in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (1519–1530), Beiträge zur Geschichte und
Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 26 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1968), 265–91.
18. Philipp Melanchthon, Articvli de Qvibvs Egervnt per Visitatores in regione Saxoniae
(Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1527). The Speyer imprint also contained memoranda
concerning the Anabaptists by both Melanchthon and Brenz.
19. Philipp Melanchthon, Vnderricht der Visitatorn an die Pfarhern ym Kurfurstenthum
zu Sachssen (Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1528), WA 26:195–240; VD16: M 2594–2602,
M 2611.
20. Melanchthon, Vnderricht, WA 26:213–17, LW 40:288–93.
21. Johannes Bugenhagen, Der erbarn stadt Brunswig christlike ordeninge te denste dem
hilgen evangelio (Wittenberg: Klug, 1528); reprinted in Pahl, Coena Domini I, 50–
56 and Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 6/1:441–44; English translation in Johannes
Bugenhagen, Selected Writings, ed. Kurt K. Hendel, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2015), 2:1368–72.
22. Ernst, Duke of Lüneburg, Wie und was wir . . . unsers furstenthumbs pharhern und
predigern zu predigen befholen (s.1., 1529); Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 6/1/1:522–
27, esp. 526–27.
23. Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 6/1:348–455, section on the Lord’s Supper, 403–44;
English translation in Bugenhagen, Selected Writings, 2:1296–372.
24. Irena Backus, “The Disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528: Neutralizing the
Early Church,” Studies in Reformed theology and History 1 (1993): 99–109; Martin
H. Jung, “Historische Einleitung. Gründe, Verlauf und Folgen der Disputation,”
in Die Badener Disputation von 1526. Kommentierte Edition des Protokolls, ed.
429
Notes 429
Alfred Schindler and Wolfram Schneider-Lastin (Zurich: TVZ, 2015), 27–199,

esp. 171–81.
25. Thomas Murner, Die disputacion vor den xij orten einer loblichen eidtgnoschaft . . . zuo
Baden . . . gehalten (Lucerne: Murner, 1527); Alfred Schindler and Wolfram
Schneider-Lastin, eds., Die Badener Disputation von 1526. Kommentierte Edition
des Protokolls (Zurich: TVZ, 2015), 253–521. The Latin translation was published
as Cavssa Helvetica Orthodoxae Fidei. Dispvtatio Helvetiorvm in Baden Svperiori
(Lucerne: Murner, 1528).
26. Z&L 1:579–618.
27. Handlung oder Acta gehaltner Disputation zuo Bernn in Uechtland, printed once
in Strasbourg (Prüß, 1528) and three times in Zurich (Froschauer, 1528). These
two theses countered the first two theses debated at Baden. The title page and the
theses, with modern German version, are reproduced in Gottfried W. Locher, “Die
Berner Disputation 1528,” in 450 Jahre Berner Reformation, ed. Historischer Verein
des Kantons Bern (Bern: Stämpfli, 1980), 138–55. The acts in W2 17:1616–933;
Zwingli’s interventions in Z 6/1:243–568.
28. Die predigen so vonn dem frömbden Predicanten/di allenthalb haär/zuo Bernn vf
dem Gespräch oder disputation gewesen/beschehen sind (Zurich: Froschauer, 1528);
Kaufmann, Abendmahlstheologie, 395–401. Zwingli’s first sermon, Z 6/1:450–92;
on the Lord’s Supper, 469–88. In his sermon, Bucer criticized those who claimed
that the Supper could console consciences; BDS 4: 290–91. The sermons by
Ambrosius Blarer, the Lindau preacher Thomas Gaßner, and Zwingli’s colleague
Konrad Schmid also addressed the sacrament at least briefly.
29. Johannes Landsperger, Ein gruntlicher bericht vnd warhafftiger beschluß das die
erdichte Mässz todt vnd vergraben syge (Zurich: Froschauer, 1528).
30. Niklaus Manuel, Werke und Briefe, ed. Paul Zinsli and Thomas Hengartner
(Bern: Stämpfli, 1999), 430–71; ten imprints, most with the title Ein klegliche
Botschafft dem Bapst zuo komen, are listed, 440–48.
31. [Bern], Gemein Reformation/vnd verbesserung des biszhergebrachtenn verwändten
gotzdiensten, published nine times in Augsburg, Basel, Strasbourg, Ulm, and
Zurich and a tenth time in Erfurt in 1529; modern edition in Martin Sallmann, ed.,
Dokumente der Berner Reformation: Disputationsthesen, Reformationsmandat und
Synodus (Zurich: TVZ, 2013), 43–54.
32. [Bern], Ordnung vnnd satzung deß Eegrichts . . . Och form vnnd gestalt . . . deß Touffs
vnnd Herren Nachtmal, wie es ze Bernn gebrucht wirdt (Zurich: Froschauer, 1529);
partial reprint in Pahl, Coena Domini I, 227–36; cf. Jenny, Einheit,  89–93.
33. [Basel], Ordnung so ain Ersame Statt Basel . . . fürohin zehalten erkannt, printed in
both Basel and Augsburg, ABR 3:383–410, no. 473.
34. ABR 3:391–95.
35. See the introduction to the many memoranda concerning the elimination of
the mass, BDS 2:423–31; Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Protestant Politics, Jacob Sturm
430
430 Notes
(1489–1553) and the German Reformation, Studies in German History (Atlantic

Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995), 59–65.
36. Was sich zu Basel . . . zugetragen hat (Strasbourg: Beck, 1529), FSBT 2:1620–29. The
editor claims that the pamphlet was a reworked translation of Oecolampadius’s
letter to Capito, February 13, 1529, OBA 2:280–82, no. 636, but although the two
reports both justify the events, they differ in the details included. One of those
responsible for spreading reports of violence was Erasmus, whose letters from the
spring of 1529 frequently mentioned the turmoil in Basel.
37. Accounts of the colloquy that describe Luther’s opponents as “Zwinglian” over-
look the importance of these differences within the sacramentarian delegation, and
even the label “Swiss/upper German” is inadequate, for it does not recognize the
differences between Oecolampadius and Zwingli.
38. Capito to Zwingli, April 15, 1528, Z 9:424–25, no. 712; Elector John of Saxony to
Melanchthon, May 19, 1528, MBW T3:513–15, no. 784. Köhler describes at length
the position of the major figures on the eve of the colloquy, Z&L 2:12–23, but his
focus on Zwingli causes him to miss some of the nuances concerning the others.
39. May 21, 1528, MBW T3:323–26.
40. March 31, 1529, MBW T3:466–70, no. 766.
41. Melanchthon, Epistola de Coena Domini, April 24, 1529, MBW T3:492–95,
no. 775. Oecolampadius responded to Melanchthon in late July or early August,
MBW T3:557–65, no. 812. By this time Oecolampadius had agreed to attend
the meeting at Marburg. Melanchthon’s letter is discussed as part of an expla-
nation of the reformer’s early understanding of the Lord’s Supper in Johannes
Hund, Das Wort ward Fleisch: eine systematisch-theologische Untersuchung zur
Debatte um die Wittenberger Christologie und Abendmahlslehre in den Jahren
1567 und 1574, Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie 114
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 66–71.
42. Melanchthon mentioned that Caspar Hedio and Ambrosius Blarer might be
moved to abandon their error. Since Hedio was a preacher in Strasbourg, by
“Strasbourgers” Melanchthon presumably meant Bucer and possibly Capito;
Gutachten for Duke John Frederick, May 9, 1529, MBW T3:497–500, no. 777.
43. So, for instance, to William Reiffenstein, late May 1529, MBW T3:503–507,
no. 780.
44. The Landgraf first wrote to Zwingli about a colloquy on April 22, 1529, Z 10:108–
109, no. 835a.
45. July 1, 1529, MBW T3:546–47, no. 805; cf. his invitation to Osiander and Brenz on
the same day, OGA 3:403–407, no. 115.
46. Zwingli’s invitation to Marburg was shown only to members of Zurich’s privy
council and not to the council as a whole; Zwingli to the Landgraf, July 14, 1529,
Z 10:207–11, no. 876; cf. Zwingli to the Landgraf, August 10, 1529, Z 10:254–56,
no. 894. When he left home, he told his wife only that he was going to Basel;
Zwingli to the Zurich Bürgermeister, September 5, 1529, Z 10:298–99, no. 916.
431
Notes 431
The secrecy was due in part to fears for Zwingli’s safety while he was traveling to
Marburg; cf. the plans to provide an armed troop to accompany the Swiss and
Strasbourgers on the trip, Landgraf Philipp to Zwingli, July 27, 1529, Z 10:218–22,
no. 880.
47. There was no official protocol for the colloquy, and so modern accounts rest on
descriptions written afterwards by those present. Most of these are discussed in
Walther Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion,
Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 48/1 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1929),
2–6, which contains a synthesis in modern German of those accounts, 7–38,
and a text-critical section with the text of the sources intermixed to give a fuller
sense of the course of the colloquy. The most important sources are edited in
Gerhard May, ed., Das Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529, Texte zur Kirchen-und
Theologiegeschichte 13 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Varlagshaus G. Mohn, 1970). In
what follows, I cite Köhler’s reconstruction and the text-critical synthesis, which
will allow readers to locate the passage in the relevant source in May’s edition.
48. Köhler cites Bullinger’s Reformationsgeschichte to suggest that this pairing was
due to the fact that Luther and Zwingli were more strident, while Oecolampadius
and Melanchthon were more gentle, Z&L 2:76. Köhler assumes this account is a
reliable source, but Bullinger’s historical work was distinctly partisan, intended
to uphold Zwingli’s orthodoxy and his importance, and his presentation is not
impartial.
49. May, Religionsgespräch, 31–32, “dabat interim corpus ad manducandum abscondito
modo”; cf. Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 40–48, Z&L 2:76–83.
50. According to the eye-witness accounts, the size of the audience varied from two
dozen to no more than fifty or sixty people, Köhler, Rekonstruktion,  49–51.
51. Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 18–20,  76–79.
52. According to Melanchthon, in his private meeting with Oecolampadius Luther
also brought up several points where the Basler did not teach rightly or used lan-
guage that only increased misunderstanding, Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 48, MBW
T3:623. It is possible that Luther was thinking of the terms “impanation” and “con-
substantiation,” which Oecolampadius had introduced.
53. Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 7–8,  53–55.
54. According to Köhler’s reconstruction, the morning session on Saturday, October 2,
began between Oecolampadius and Luther, with Zwingli replacing Oecolampadius
at mid-morning. The afternoon session began between Luther and Zwingli, with
Oecolampadius replacing Zwingli for a period before Zwingli returned. Köhler
gives only two interventions by Melanchthon and Osiander, but both must have
been more involved in the debate than simply offering one statement. At one point
in Hedio’s account Luther asked Melanchthon to take over, but Hedio did not rec
ord any of Melanchthon’s discussion; May, Religionsgespräch, 26. The session on
Sunday morning was primarily between Luther and Zwingli, and that on Sunday
afternoon between Luther and Oecolampadius.
432
432 Notes
55. Cf. Köhler’s lengthy summary in Z&L 2:84–112.

56. These topics were discussed especially on Saturday; Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 7–29,
49–87, but recurred on Sunday as well.
57. The church fathers, especially Augustine, were discussed both Saturday afternoon
and throughout the day on Sunday; Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 20–37, 79–127. Only
Melanchthon describes the discussion of what was signified by the sacrament in
his accounts of the colloquy for the elector, MBW T3:830, and for Duke Henry of
Saxony, MBW T3:625–26, both written October 17–18. The authors of the other
accounts either did not remember or did not realize its significance and so omitted
it; cf. Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 121–22.
58. Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 36–37, 123–27.
59. Melanchthon to Landgraf Philipp of Hesse, June 22, 1529, MBW T3:537–38,
no. 802, and Luther to the Landgraf, June 23, 1529, WA Br 5:101–105, no. 1438.
60. In his account of the colloquy, Hedio noted that Melanchthon used the formal
“you” when saying he was happy to meet him (valde delector videre vos), while Luther
used the informal “you” when he shook a finger at Bucer and said, “you are a rogue”
(tu es nequam), although he softened this with a smile; May, Religionsgespräch, 15;
Osiander (with a certain pleasure) reported Zwingli’s tears; Köhler, Rekonstruktion,
37, 126.
61. Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 37–38, 127–31; cf. Hedio’s account of Bucer’s conver-
sation with Luther on October 1, in which Luther more clearly stated, “You
are of the devil, and if you have the true faith and Scripture, you will give me
over to Satan (an allusion to 1 Cor. 5:5), since I repudiate your opinion”; May,
Religionsgespräch, 17.
62. May, Religionsgespräch, 66; Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 131–32.
63. On the ambiguous phrasing, Bucer to Blarer, August 5, 1534. A month later
Johannes Zwick attributed rejection of the formula to Zwingli alone, again because
his church could not allow this phrasing; Köhler, Rekonstruktion, 134. Köhler’s
discussion of the formula, Z&L 2:113–15 is distorted by the fact that he speaks
of “Zwinglians” without distinguishing between the positions of Zwingli and
Oecolampadius.
64. On the background to the Schwabach Articles, Z&L 2:40–49, and the introduc-
tion to them in WA 30/3:81–85. The articles would be published in 1530 as Die
Bekentnus Martini Luthers, WA 30/3:178–82.
65. Side by side presentation of the Schwabach and Marburg Articles in Wolf-Friedrich
Schäufele, ed., Die Marburger Artikel als Zeugnis der Einheit (Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 31–41; cf. WA 30/3:86–91.
66. An analysis of both the Schwabach and Marburg Articles in Susi Hausammann,
“Die Marburger Artikel—eine echte Konkordie?,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte
77 (1966): 288–321. Her analysis of the Marburg Articles is more persuasive than
that of Köhler, Z&L 2:119–28.
43
Notes 433
67. May, Religionsgespräch, 70, does not make clear that the signatures of Osiander,
Agricola, and Brenz are set off from those of the Swiss and Strasbourgers; see
the reproduction in Schäufele, Marburger Artikel, 23. The distinction is clearer
in the Zurich copy, which begins with the signatures of the Swiss and Strasbourg
reformers, with Oecolampadius at the head; Z&L 2:128.
68. Published under some variation of the title, Was zuo Marpurgk in Hessen/vom
Abendtmal/vnd anndern strittigen Artickeln/gehandelt vnnd vergleicht sey worden;
WA 30/3:160–71. One of the two Wittenberg imprints also included Luther’s con-
fession of faith from his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper.
69. Hausammann, “Marburger Artikel,” 300–301, discusses the ambiguity of Luther’s
term gefordert and argues persuasively that it should be understood as “required”
rather than “encouraged.”
70. May, Religionsgespräch, 69.
71. The additions were made to Articles Eight and Fifteen, and possibly to Article
Eleven on confession; Z 6/2:510–11.
72. May, Religionsgespräch, 72; October 4, 1529, WA Br 5:154, LW 49:235; cf. Luther to
Caselius, November 5, 1525, BCorr 2:56–58, and his statement, in Das Diese Wort
Christi, that he would “maintain outward, temporal peace” in civil affairs with his
opponents but would not acknowledge Christian unity with them; WA 23:85–87,
LW 37:28.
73. On the participants’ evaluation of the colloquy, Z&L 2:139–48; Hausammann,
“Die Marburger Artikel,” 291–92.
74. Zwingli’s interpretation of the Marburg Articles, Z 6/2:549–51; cf. Hausammann,
“Die Marburger Artikel.”
75. Zwingli, Fidei ratio (1530), Z 6/2:803–804, HZW 2:46–47.
76. See, for instance, Wolf-
Friedrich Schäufele, “Bündnis und Bekenntnis: Die
Marburger Artikel in ihrem dreifachen historischen Kontext,” in Die Marburger
Artikel, 43–67, which is a very helpful overview of the colloquy, especially its polit-
ical significance.
77. There were thirty-one imprints of catechetical works, including nine of Luther’s
catechisms, and thirty-five imprints of confessional statements: twenty-six imprints
of the Schwabach Articles and six imprints of the Augsburg Confession.
78. Irene Dingel, “Bekenntnis und Geschichte. Funktion und Entwicklung des

reformatorischen Bekenntnisses im 16. Jahrhundert,” in Dona Melanchthoniana.
Festgabe für Heinz Scheible zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Johanna Loehr (Stuttgart-Bad
Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2001), 61–81; Irene Dingel, “Reformation and
Confessional Identity as a Two-Phase Model? The Process of Differentiation in
the Development of Lutheranism,” in From Wittenberg to the World: Essays on
Luther and Lutheranism in Honor of Robert Kolb, ed. Charles P. Arand et al.,
Refo500 Academic Studies 50 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018),
249–62.
43
434 Notes
C o n c lus i o n
1. Frank Hieronymus, 1488 Petri—Schwabe 1988. Eine traditionsreiche Basler Offizin
im Spiegel ihrer frühen Drucke, 2 vols. (Basel: Schwabe, 1997), 1:281.
2. Johannes Oecolampadius, Vom Sacrament der Dancksagung (Zurich: Froschauer,
1526), s7v.
3. Cf. the discussion of France in Andrew Pettegree, “The Reformation and the Book.
A Reconsideration,” Historical Journal 47 (2004): 785–808.
4. Bugenhagen, Acta der Disputation zu Flensburg, N2r–N3r; Johannes Bugenhagen,
Selected Writings, ed. Kurt K. Hendel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 1:586–87. The
baptism pamphlet was Eyn Sermon von der eygenschafft vnd weyse des Sacraments der
Tauff (Hagenau: Seltz, 1529); the title page identified its author as “Johan Pommer,”
a form of Bugenhagen’s name used in many vernacular pamphlets. The Augsburg
printer Philipp Ulhart took a somewhat different but equally deceptive approach
when he published the 1525 pamphlet Von dem Gaistlichen Priesterthumb Christi, by
Philipp Melhofer, with the author’s name shortened to “Phil. Mel.” on the title page,
in the hope buyers would assume the pamphlet was by Philipp Melanchthon.
5. Cf. his 1523 Sermon am grünen Donnerstage, reprinted in 1525 as Ordenung vnd
Bericht, WA 12:476–93, at 485–86.
6. He associated John 6:44 with baptism by the Spirit in Von der Tauf, Z 4:225, Z&B
137, and Antwort über Balthasar HubmaiersTaufbüchlein, Z 4:595; cf. his para-
phrase of John 6 in his Commentarius, Z 3:778, Zwingli, Commentary, 202; and
Amica Exegesis, Z 5:583, 591; HZW 2:251, 257–58.
7. Significantly, debates over the Lord’s Supper among Luther’s heirs in the second half
of the sixtenth century would approach this set of concentric circles in the opposite
direction. Those most influenced by Melanchthon would argue that the earlier works
defined the outer periphery of what was acceptable, while the Gnesio-Lutherans
argued that the inner core of later works defined the true Lutheran position.
8. Both of these views are seen most clearly in his Widerchristlichen mißbrauch, EPK
205–208.
9. Zwingli, Epistola, Z 3:349, HZW 2:141–42.
10. Cf. the title of the German translation of the section in Zwingli’s Commentarius
called “De Eucharistia” in Latin: Von dem Nachtmal Christi widergedechtnus oder
Dancksagung.
11. Helmut Gollwitzer, “Zur Auslegung von Joh. 6 bei Luther und Zwingli,” in In
Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer, ed. Werner Schmauch (Stuttgart: Evangelisches
Verlagswerk, 1951), 143–68.
12. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, F8v–G2v, W2 20:698–701. Oecolampadius made this
concession as part of a broader argument against interpreting John 6 as referring to
the Eucharist.
13. Bucer, Apologia, 13v–14v, 17v–18r, 21r–v; David F. Wright, Common Places of
Martin Bucer (Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972), 323, 327–28, 332–33.
435
Notes 435
14. See, for example, Schwenckfeld, Apologia, CS 3:411–14.

15. Urbanus Rhegius, Materia Cogitandi de Toto Missae Negocio (Augsburg: Steiner,
1528), A8r.
16. Rhegius, Materia Cogitandi, A8v: “ . . . admirans qui fieret ut doctores crassuli hoc
non caperent, quod iam ne cerdones quidem latet. Nempe panem esse panem.”
17. WA 6:508–12, LW 36:30–35; Luther to Georg Spalatin, July 4, 1522, WA Br 2:473–
74, no. 515.
18. Amy Nelson Burnett, “Exegesis and Eucharist: Unexplored Connections
Between Calvin and Oecolampadius,” in Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae: Papers of the
Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis and
Arnold Huijgen, Reformed Historical Theology 39 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2016), 245–60; Amy Nelson Burnett, “Picards, Karlstadtians, and
Oecolampadians: (Re-) Naming the Early Eucharistic Controversy,” in Names and
Naming in Early Modern Germany, ed. Joel Harrington and Marjorie Elizabeth
Plummer (New York: Berghahn, 2019).
19. It is worth noting that at the Regensburg Colloquy in 1542 participants could
reach an agreement on justification but not on transubstantiation. Even after the
decisions of the Council of Trent and almost five hundred years of theological de-
velopment, the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches could issue a joint state-
ment on justification, but they still disagree concerning the sacraments.
20. It is revealing that in his account of the Marburg Colloquy for the elector of Saxony
and his son, Melanchthon reported that the Swiss were not sufficiently instructed
in Luther’s doctrine, although they used his terminology, October 16, 1529, MBW
T3:613–19, no. 831.
21. Oecolampadius, Apologetica, P5v; Erasmus, Epistola contra quosdam, qui se falso
iactant Euangelicos, ASD 9/1:283–309, CWE 78:217–53.
22. See, for example, his Fidei ratio (1530), Z 6/2:803–806, HZW 2:46–49, and his
Expositio Fidei (1531), Z 6/5:58–60, HZW 2:240–41.
23. Luther to Wenzeslaus Linck, October 28, 1529, WA Br 5:169–70, no. 1487;
Melanchthon expressed a similar sentiment in his report on the Marburg Colloquy
to the elector, October 16, 1529, MBW T3:613–19, no. 831.
436
437
Bibliography
S i x t een t h-C en t u ry I m p r i n ts
Rather than giving the precise bibliographical information, I have provided the VD16
numbers where that information can be found. If there are two or more imprints, I have
tried to identify the first imprint of each work and have given the VD16 numbers for
all imprints included in my database. Indented entries give variant titles, translations,
excerpts from, or compilations that contain the preceding entry. VD16 numbers
separated by a slash (e.g. G 517/A 2026/L 5804) indicate that the imprint contains two
or more works concerning the Lord’s Supper.
Anonymous Imprints
Anzaygung etlicher Jrriger mengel so Caspar Schatzgeyer Barfusser in seinem büchleyn
wider Andream Osiander gesetz hat. Nuremberg: Andreae, 1526. VD16: A 3021.
Eyn buchlin fur die leyen vnd kinder. Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1525. VD16: ZV 2189,
ZV 2192, ZV 2196–ZV 2197.
Eyn Buchlyn fur die kinder gebessert vnd gemehret. Der Leyen Biblia. Wittenberg:
Rhau–Grunenberg, 1526. VD16: B 9115–B 9120.
Eyn Bökeschen vor de leyen vnd kinder. Wittenberg: Rhau-Grunenberg, 1526.
VD16: B 6329–B 6335; ZV 2191, ZV 17353.
Quo Pacto Statim a primis annis/pueri debeant in Christianismo institui/Libellus
perutilis. Wittenberg: Rhau-Grunenberg, 1525. VD16: ZV 2193, ZV 2198–ZV
2199, ZV 25834.
Confvtatio Determinationis Doctorum Parrhisiensium, Contra M. L. Nuremberg: Peypus,
1525. VD16: P 766.
Ein cristliche vntterweysung Der klaynen kinter im Gelauben durch einn weyß einer frag.
s.l., 1521. VD16: C 2357, C 2361–C 2362, C 2364.
Ain schöne frag vnd Antwurt Den Jungen kündern Zuo vnderweysen. Augsburg:
Ramminger, 1522. VD16: C 2358–C 2360, C 2363, C 2365.
438
438 Bibliography
Eyne schone nye vorklarynge/des kynder böckelyns. Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1525.

VD16: S 3398–S 3399; ZV 2195, ZV 22865.
Ain Christliche vnderwisung der Jugend jm Glouben, gegründt in der hayligen
geschrifft, fragens wysz. Zurich: Froschauer, 1527. VD16: C 2353–C 2355.
Handlung oder Acta gehaltner Disputation zuo Bernn in Uechtland. Zurich: Froschauer,
1528. VD16: H 502–H 505.
Ain Nützliches Gesprech vnd vnderveisung/zu notturfft der bekümerttẽ menschen.
Augsburg: Steiner, 1525. VD16: N 2067.
Das die papistischen opffermessen abzuthun. Strasbourg: Schwan, 1525. VD16: D 189.
Die predigen so vonn dem frömbden Predicanten/di allenthalb haär/zuo Bernn vf
dem Gespräch oder disputation gewesen/beschehen sind. Zurich: Froschauer, 1528.
VD16: P 4757.
Textus biblie . . . Tertia pars . . . in se continens glosam ordinariam cum expositione lyre.
Basel, 1506. VD16: B 2583.
Ein trewe Ermanung an all Christen/das sy sich vor falscher leer hütten/vnd jren glauben
vnd vertrawen allain in Got/vnd sein götliche wort setzen/vnd also alle leer fleissig
probieren/vnd vns an kein person hencken/denn verflu[o]cht ist der mensch/der
sein vertrawen in ain menschen setzt/Hiere. 17. Darumb spricht Christus/man soll
sein stimm vnd keins andern hören/Johan. 10. Das verleych vns Got allen. Amen.
Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526. VD16: L 356–L 357.
Ain schöner vnd wolgeteütschter gründlicher bericht/für den gemeinen menschen/
ob der leyb Jesu Christi/im himel zu[o] der gerechten Gottes zu[o] eren/vnd
im gaist zu[o] süchen/oder auff erden im brot wesenlich zu[o] verhoffen sey, etc.
Gepredigt zu[o] Vlm durch den Predicanten im Münster mit gu[o]tem verstand,
etc. Augsburg: Steiner, 1526. VD16: S 1544.
Ein trostliche disputation/auff frag vnd antwuort gestellet/Von zwayen Handtwercks
mennern/den Glauben/vnd die lieb/auch andere Christenliche leer betreffend/auch
form wie einer den andern Christenlich vnderweysen sol/gantz nützlich zuo den
artickeln Do. Vrbani Regij vnd Gretzingers. Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1524. VD16: T
2024–T 2033; ZV 15047, ZV 15047, ZV 25356, ZV 25916.
Eyn trostlich gesprechbüchleyn. Wittenberg, 1525. VD16: T2034–36.
Eyn trostlich disputantz zweyer handtwercksmenner, uff frag vnd antwort gestelt.
Worms: Schöffer, 1526. VD16: T 2037.
Eyne tröstlyke disputatio/vp frage vnde antwort gestellet. Wittenberg: Klug, 1525.
VD16: T 2038–T 2040.
Von dem rechten warhafftigen verstanndt der wort des abentmals. Das ist mein leyb etc.
Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1529. VD16: V 2521.
Von des herren Nachtmal/ausz den Concilien vnd Leerern. Augsburg: Steiner, 1526.
VD16: V 2650.
Vonn des Herren Nachtmal/der papisten Messen vnnd etlichenn Newen yrrthumen.
Augsburg: Steiner, 1526. VD16: V 2651.
439
Bibliography 439
Warhafftig vrsach/das der leib Christi nitt inn der creatur des Brots . . . Worms: Schöffer,
1529. VD16: W 579.
Was sich zu Basel vff den achten tag des Hornungs/der Mesß vnd götzen halb zuotragen
hat. Jtem das die Mesß der Bepstler zuo Straßburg abgethon ist. Strasbourg: Beck,
1529. VD16: W 1283.
Attributed Works
Agricola, Johannes. Elementa Pietatis congesta a Iohanne Agricola. Wittenberg: Klug,
1525. VD16: A 972–A 973.
Agricola, Johannes. Eine Christliche Kinder zucht ynn Gottes wort vnd lere. Aus der
Schule zu Eisleben. Wittenberg: Rhau, 1527. VD16: A 974–A 980.
Agricola, Johannes. Hundert vnd Dreissig gemeyner Fragestücke/für die iungen kinder.
Wittenberg: Rhau, 1528. VD16: A 992–993, A 996–A 997; ZV 225.
Agricola, Johannes. Hundert vnde dörtich gemene Frage/vor de Jungen kinder.
Wittenberg: Weiß, 1528. VD16: A 989.
Agricola, Johannes. Hundert vnd LVI. gemeiner Fragestücke/fur die iungen kinder.
Erfurt: Sachse, 1528. VD16: A 990–A 991, A 994–A 995, A 998.
Althamer, Andreas. Catechismus. Das ist vnterricht zum Christlichen Glauben.
Nuremberg: Peypus, 1528. VD16: R 3816–R 3819.
Althamer, Andreas. Von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament des leibs vnd bluot vnnsers herrn
Jesu Christi/Wider die jrrigen geyster/so vnns das nachtmal des Herrn zünichtigen.
Nuremberg: Peypus, 1526. VD16: A 2037–A 2038; ZV 431.
Amsdorff, Nicolaus von. Auff Ciclops antwort replica Nicola. Amsdorff. Wittenberg:
Schirlentz, 1526. VD16: A 2326.
Amsdorff, Nicolaus von. Vermanung an die von Magdeburg widder den rotten secten
geyst Doctor Ciclops. Wittenberg: Weiß, 1525. VD16: A 2401–A 2402.
Atrocianus, Johannes. Qverela missae . . . opusculum elegans . . . Basel: Faber, 1529.
VD16: A 4024.
[Augsburg]. Das früe gebett an statt der Bäpstischen erdichten Meß zůhalten. Augsburg:
Otmar, 1529. VD16: F 3177.
[Augsburg Pastors]. Ain bericht denen so des Herren Nachtmal tailhafftig zu werden
gesinnet sein. [Augsburg: Otmar], 1527. VD16: B 1832.
Bader, Johannes. Ad illvstrem principem d. Lvdovicvm . . . De Ansere, qui Sacramentum
ediße dicitur . . . Epistola Apologetica. Strasbourg: Knobloch, 1526. VD16: B 106/B  114.
Bader, Johannes. An . . . Ludwigen Pfaltzgrauen bey Rheyn . . . Von der Gans/die das
Sacrament gessen hat/Verantworttung. Speyer: Schmidt, 1526. VD16: B 105.
Bader, Johannes. Eynn gesprech büchlein vom anfangk des Christlichen lebens/mit dem
jungen volck zuo Landaw auff die Oster zeyt . . . Eym jeglichen menschen ehe er sich für
eynn Christen außgibt vnnd zuom nachtmal des herren zuo gon sich vermisst/gantz
not zuo wissen. Speyer: Schmidt, 1526. VD16: B 110.
40
440 Bibliography
[Basel]. Ordnung so ein Ersame Statt Basel den ersten tag Apprilis in jrer Statt vnd
Landtschafft fürohyn zehalten erkannt. Basel: Wolff, 1529. VD16: B 632, B 634;
ZV 26133.
[Basel]. Befelch eins Ersamen Rats zuo Basel/ . . . allein die Biblische gschrifft/ . . . zuo
predigen . . . Supplication ettlicher Zünfften . . . Basel: Wolff, 1529. VD16: B 623/
S 10220.
[Basel]. Supplication ettlicher Zünfften . . . abzuostellen das zwyspeltig predigen/vnnd
die Meß. Basel: Wolff, 1529. VD16: S 10221; ZV 28993.
[Basel]. Form vnd gstalt wie der kinder tauff/Des herren Nachtmal/vnd der heymsuochung/
jetz zuo Basel von etlichen Predicanten gehalten werden. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526.
VD16: A 681–A 682, A 693.
[Basel]. Form vnd gestalt wo der kinder Doepe/Des heren Nachtmal edder de
Euangelische Mysse/vnd der Krancken heymsoekinge/ytzundes tho Basel van
ethlicken Predicanten geholden werden. Bremen: AGW, 1527. VD16: A 683.
[Basel Preachers]. Ob die Mess ein opffer sey: beyder partheyen Predicanten zuo Basel
antwurt. Basel: Wolff, 1527. VD16: O 34.
[Basel Preachers]. Ein Christliche vnd ernstlich antwurt . . . warumb sy die Mess einen
grüwel gescholten. Zurich: Froschauer, 1527. VD16: C 2340.
[Bern]. Gemein Reformation/vnd verbesserung der biszhergebrachtenn verwänten
gotzdiensten. Zurich: Froschauer, 1528. VD16: B 1882–B 1889; ZV 22954, ZV 26668.
[Bern]. Handlung oder Acta gehaltner Disputation zuo Bernn in Uechtland
(Strasbourg: Prüß, 1528). VD16: H 502–H 505.
[Bern]. Ordnung vnnd satzung deß Eegrichts . . . Och form vnnd gestalt . . . deß Touffs
vnnd Herren Nachtmal, wie es ze Bernn gebrucht wirdt. Zurich: Froschauer, 1529.
VD16: B 1893.
Bessarion, Cardinal. De Sacramento Evcharistiae, & quibus uerbis Christi corpus
perficiatur. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1527. VD16: ZV 1382.
Billican, Theobald. Epistola ad Ioannem Hubelium, qua illi de Eucharistia cogitandi
materiam conscripsit. Augsburg: Weissenhorn, 1528. VD16: G 1558.
Billican, Theobald. Renovatio Ecclesiae Nordlingiacensis, et Ratio Omnibus redditur.
Augsburg: Ruff, 1525. VD16: G 1569; ZV 6556.
Billican, Theobald, and Urbanus Rhegius. De Verbis Coenae Dominicae et opinionum
uarietate Theobaldi Billicani ad Vrbanum Regium Epistola. Responsio Vrbani Regij
ad eundem. Augsburg: Ruff, 1526. VD16: G 1570–G 1571.
Blarer, Ambrosius. Ordnung vnnd Brauch deß herren Nachtmals/in der Christenlichen
Gemain zuo Memmingen. Augsburg: Otmar, 1529. VD16: M 4894.
Borner, Johannes. Anfangk eines rechten Christlichen lebens. Von der waren pus. Von der
Beycht. Von der bereitung zum hochwirdigen Sacrament. Wie man ein sterbenden
menschen trösten sol. Summa vnser selickeyt. Leipzig: Blum, 1526. VD16: B 6724.
[Brandenburg-Ansbach]. Abscheid vnd maynung/wes sich der Durchleüchtig/
Hochgeborn Fürst vnd Herr/herr Casimir/Marggraue . . . auff nähst gehaltem
41
Bibliography 441
Landßtag zů Onoltzpach/biß auff eyn zůkünfftig Concilium zůhalten vereynigt

haben. Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1526. VD16: B 6932–B 6933.
Breitkopf, Gregor. Das die widertauff yrrig sey/vnd keyne krafft habe/auch eyne schwere
sunde widder Gott sey . . . Ein Sermon durch yhm in cena Domini gehabt. Von dem
hochwirdigisten Sacrament. Leipzig: Schuman, 1528. VD16: B 7406.
Brenz, Johannes. Epistola Ioannis Brentii de verbis Domini, Hoc est Corpus meum,
opinionem quorundam de Eucharistia refellens. Hagenau: Setzer, 1526. VD16: B 7597.
Brenz, Johannes. Fragstuck des Christenlichen glaubens für die Jugendt zuo Schwebischen
Hall. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1528. VD16: B 7625.
Brenz, Johannes. In D. Iohannis Evangelion Exegesis. Hagenau: Setzer, 1527. VD16: B
7706–B 7708.
Brenz, Johannes. Libellvs Insignis de Missah. Hagenau: Farckell, 1526. VD16: B 7782.
Brenz, Johannes. Syngramma Clarissimorum . . . uirorum super uerbis Coenae Dominicae.
Augsburg: Ruff, 1526. VD16: B 7884–B 7885.
Brenz, Johannes. Clare vnd Christliche antwortung . . . auff doctor Johann
Oecolampadi biechlin . . . über die wort deß nachtmals des herren verteütscht.
Augsburg: Ramminger, 1526. VD16: B 7889–B 7891.
Brenz, Johannes. Gegrundter und gewisser beschlus, etlicher Prediger zu Schwaben
uber die wort des Abentmals Christi Jesu. Hagenau: Setzer, 1526. VD16: B 7892.
Brenz, Johannes. Genotigter vnd fremdt eingetragener schrifft auch mislichens dewtens
der wort des abentmals Christi. Syngramma. Wittenberg: Klug, 1526. VD16: B 7893.
Brunfels, Otto. Catechesis Pverorvm, in fide, in literis, & in moribus. Strasbourg: Egenolff,
1529. VD16: B 8478–B 8479; ZV 2568.
Bucer, Martin. Apologia Martini Bvceri qva fidei suae atque doctrina, circa Christi
Caenam . . . rationem simpliciter reddit. Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1526. VD16: B 8848.
Bucer, Martin. Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis. Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1528.
VD16: B 8870.
Bucer, Martin. Enarrationvm in Evangelia Mathaei, Marci, & Lucae, libri duo.
Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1527. VD16: B 8871.
Bucer, Martin. Getrewe Warnung . . . vber die Artickel/so Jacob Kautz Prediger zů
Wormbs/kürtzlich hat lassen außgohn. Strasbourg: Knobloch, 1527. VD16: B 8887.
Bucer, Martin. Grund vnd vrsach ausz gotlicher schrifft der neüwerung/an dem nachtmal
des herren. Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1524. VD16: B 8889–B 8890.
Bucer, Martin. Praefatio M. Buceri in quartum Tomum Postillae Lutheranae.
Bucer, Martin. Das Martin Butzer/Sich in verteütschung des Psalters Johann Pommers
getrewlich/vnd Christlich gehalten. Vnd weder vom Sacrament/noch andern/
etwas wider die warheyt/oder auch den Pommern/drin gesetzet hat. Antwurt uff
des Pommers underrichtung. Strasbourg: Knobloch, 1527. VD16: B 8863.
Bucer, Martin. Tzephaniah, qvem Sophoniam, uulgo vocant, prophetarum epitomographus.
42
442 Bibliography
Bucer, Martin. Vergleichung D. Luthers und seins Gegentheyls vom Abentmal Christi.
Dialogus. Das ist eyn freundlich gesprech. Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1528. VD16: B
8932–B  8933.
Bucer, Martin. Vorlykynge D. Lutters/vnde synes yeghendeels vam Auentmäl Christi.
Dialogvs Dat ys/eyn früntlick gespreke. Rostock: Dietz, 1529. VD16: B 8935.
Buchstab, Johannes. Eygentliche vnd Gründtliche kuntschafft auß Götlicher Biblischer
geschrifft/daß M. Vlrich zwinglein/eyn falscher Prophet/vñ verfürer des Christenlichen
volcks ist. Hagenau: Seitz, 1528. VD16: B 9050–B 9051.
Buchstab, Johannes. Ein kurtze vnderrichtung vß dem alten vnd nüwen testament/Das
die meß ein opffer ist. Strasbourg: Grüninger, 1527. VD16: B 9052–B 9053.
Buchstab, Johannes. Von becleidung der Priester liechter weiwasser/geweichten saltz
vnd eschen/meßfrümen so man nempt opffren gesang/vnd bildnissen . . . gebrucht
werdẽ. Ein kurtze vndrichtũg vß götlicher geschrifft. Strasbourg: Grüninger, 1527.
VD16: B 9055.
Buchstab, Johannes. Uon den Hochwirdigen Sacrament des leibs vnd bluots Christi vnsers
herren. Strasbourg: Grüninger, 1527. VD16: B 9059.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Acta der Disputation zu Flensburg/die sache des Hochwirdigen
Sacraments betreffend. Wittenberg: Klug, 1529. VD16: A 146.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Eynne rede vam sacramente tho Flensborch/nha Melchior
Hoffmans dysputation geredet. Hamburg: Richolff, 1529. VD16: B 9358.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Bekentnis Joannis Bugenhagen Pomern von seinem glauben vnd
lere/geschrieben an eynen Widderteuffer. Wittenberg: Weiss, 1529. VD16: B 9265.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Contra libellum Henrici Neueri de Sacramento. Hamburg:
Richolff, 1529. VD16: B 9298.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Contra Novvm Errorem, de sacramento Corporis et Sangvinis
Domini Nostri Iesv Christi Epistola. Wittenberg: Lotter, 1525. VD16: B 9385–B  9390.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Eyn Sendbrieff widder den newen yrrthumb bey dem
Sacrament des leybs vnd blutts vnsers Herrn Jhesu Christi. Wittenberg: Klug,
1525. VD16: B 9381, B 9383–B9394.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Eyn warhafftiger vnd grüntlicher bericht, vß heyliger geschriffte,
von dem Leyb vnd Blut vnsers Herren Jhesu Christi wider den neüwen yrthum Doctor
Andreas von Carlstadt vnd seiner anhenger. Speyer: Eckhart, 1525. VD16: B 9382.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Wider den newen irsal vom Sacrament des leybs vñ bluots
vnsers herren Jesu Christi. Augsburg: Ruff, 1525. VD16: B 9380.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. An den Erbarn Radt tho Bremen ein Sendebreff. Magdeburg:
Barth, 1528. VD16: B 9231.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Der Erbarn stadt Brunswig Christlike ordeninge te denste dem
hilgen euangelio. Wittenberg: Klug, 1528. VD16: B 7237.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. In Librvm Psalmorvm Interpretatio, Wittembergae Pvblice
Lecta. Basel: Petri, 1524. VD16: B 3137–B 3138.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Publica, de Sacramento corporis et sanguinis Christi, ex Christi
institutione, confeßio. Wittenberg: Lufft, 1528. VD16: B 9360–9361.
43
Bibliography 443
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Ain Sendbrieff über ain frag vom Sacrament. Jtem eyn vnnderricht
von der Beycht vnd Christlicher Absolution. Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1525. VD16: B
9253–B  9263.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Eyn sendebreff . . . vp eyne frage vam Sacramente. Jtem eyne
vnderrichtynge van der bycht vnde Christliken Absolutien. Wittenberg: Schirlentz,
1525. VD16: B 9264.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Ein vnderricht deren/so yn kranckheyten vnd tods nöten ligen/
Vnd von dem heyligen Sacrament. Wittenberg: Barth, 1527. VD16: B 9399–B 9403.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Vnterrichtung Johan Bugenhagen Pomers/das die meynung von
dem Sacrament/so yn dem Psalter/vnter seinem nahmen gedeudschet/wird gelesen/
nicht sein ist. Wittenberg: Klug, 1526. VD16: B 9345.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Oratio Ioannis Bvgenhagii Pomerani, quod ipsius non sit
opinio illa de Eucharistia, quae in Psalterio, sub nomine eius Germanice translato
legitur. Wittenberg: Klug, 1526. VD16: B 9341, B 9343.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Von der Euangelischen Messz, was die Meß sey/wie vnd durch
wenn/vnnd warumb sy auffgesetzt sey. Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1524. VD16: B 9456,
ZV 2693.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Von der heymlichen Beicht/vnterricht. Jo. Pomer. Die fünff
Frage/vom Sacrament des Altars. Wittenberg: Rhau, 1529. VD16: B 9463/F 3294.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Eine Christlike Bicht/kort beuatet mit etliken Fragen/vnde
antwert vam Sacramente. Eine vnderrichttinge vor de iennen/de in dodes nöden
liggen/mit korter vthlegginge des Vader vnsers. Lübeck: Arndes, 1529. VD16: B 9464.
Bugenhagen, Johannes, and Martin Bucer. Psalter wol verteutscht ausz der heyligen
sprach. Basel: Petri, 1526. VD16: B 3292–B 3293.
Bugenhagen, Johannes, and Martin Bucer. Der CXI psalm Dauidis/mit der exposi-
tion vnd verklerung des Hochgelerten Johannis Bugenhagij Pomerani . . . Darinn
ain rechter Christlicher bericht des Nachtmals Christi vnssers herren . . . gegeben
wirdt. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526. VD16: B 9324.
Bugenhagen, Johannes, and Kaspar Kantz. Von der Euangelischen Messz was die Messz
sey/wie vnd durch wenn/vnnd warumb sy auffgesetzt sey. Auch wie man Messz soll
hören vnd das hochwirdig Sacrament empfahen/vnd warumb man es empfecht . . . Wie
man das Sacrament empfahen soll. Nuremberg: Höltzel, 1524. VD16: B 9456–B
9463; ZV 2692–ZV 2693.
[Bugenhagen, Johannes, and Martin Luther]. Ein Christenliche bekennung der sünd.
Nuremberg, 1528. VD16: C 2315; ZV 28322.
Bugenhagen, Johannes, Martin Luther, and Melchior Hoffman. Eyne Christliche
vormanung von eusserlichem Gottis dienste vnde eyntracht/an die yn lieffland/durch
D Martinum Luther vnd andere. Wittenberg: Lotter, 1525. VD16: L 4209–L  4210.
Bugenhagen, Johannes, and Philipp Melanchthon. Etlich Christliche bedencken von der
Mess. Uon der Messe Propositiones. Wittenberg: Weiss, 1525. VD16: B 9320/M  4024.
Bullinger, Heinrich. De Origine Erroris, in negocio Evcharistiae, ac missa. Basel: Wolff,
1528. VD16: B 9653.
4
444 Bibliography
Capito, Wolfgang. Was man halten/vnnd antwurten soll. Von der spaltung zwischen
Martin Luther und Andres Carolstadt. Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1524. VD16: C 847–C
849; ZV 2928.
Capito, Wolfgang. De Pveris Institvendis Ecclesiae Argentinensis Isagoge. Strasbourg:
Herwagen, 1527. VD16: C 833.
Capito, Wolfgang. Kinderbericht vnd fragstück von glauben. Strasbourg: Köpfel,
1527. VD16: C 834–C 837.
[Capito, Wolfgang]. Frohlockung eines christlichen Bruders. Speyer: Eckhart, 1526.
VD16: F 3099.
Capito, Wolfgang, and Martin Bucer. Kurtze Sum aller Lere vnd Predig/so zů Straßburg
gelert vn gepredigt würt/mit erbieten der Prediger doselbst/an einen Hohen
gewalthaber Key. Mai. kurtzlich beschehen. Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1528. VD16: C 827.
[Celle Pastors]. Handelyng twyschen den Baruoten tho Zcelle ynn Sassen/vnde den
vorordenten Predigern dar suluest de Mysse belangen. Magdeburg: Barth, 1527.
VD16: H 487.
Clicthove, Josse. De Sacramento Evcharistiae, contra Oecolampadium opusculum duos
libros complectens. Cologne: Quentel, 1527. VD16: C 4208.
Clicthove, Josse. Propugnaculum Ecclesie, aduersus Lutheranos. Cologne: Quentel, 1526.
VD16: C 4206–C 4207.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. Articuli. CCCCC. Martini Lutheri. Ex sermonibus eius Sex &
Triginta, Quibus singulatim responsum est a Iohãne Cochleo . . . partim scripturis,
partim contrarijs Lutheri ipsius dictis. Cologne: Quentel, 1525. VD16: L
6657–L 6658.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. De Gratia Sacramentorvm Liber Vnus. Strasbourg: Grüninger,
1522. VD16: C 4321.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. An die Herrenn/Schultheis vnnd Radt zu Bern/widder yhre
vermainte Reformation. Dresden: Stöckel, 1528. VD16: C 4243.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. Auff Martin Luthers Schandbüchlin An die Christen von halle
geschriben Antwort. Cologne: Soter, 1528. VD16: C 4262.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. Septiceps Lutherus, vbique sibi, suis scriptis, contrarius, in
Visitationem Saxonicam. Leipzig: Schumann, 1529. VD16: C 4386.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. Sieben kopffe Martin Luthers/von sieben sachen des Christlichen
glaubens. Leipzig: Stöckel, 1529. VD16: C 4389.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. Sieben Köpffe Martini Luthers Vom Hochwirdigen Sacrament
des Altars. Leipzig: Schumann, 1529. VD16: C 4391.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. Fascicvlvs Calvmniarvm, Sannarvm et Illvsionvm Martini
Lvtheri . . . XXV. Rationes Cochlaei, de vna specie Sacramenti. Septiceps Lutherus de
vtraque specie Sacramenti. Leipzig: Schumann, 1529. VD16: C 4387; ZV 4829.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. XXV. Vrsachen/vnter Eyner gstalt das Sacrament den leyen zu
reichen. Leipzig: Schumann, 1529. VD16: C 4316.
Cochlaeus, Johannes. XXV Orsaken Vnder ener gestalt dat Sacrament den Leyen
tho reiken. Rostock: Bruder vom gemeinsamen Leben, 1529. VD16: C 4317.
45
Bibliography 445
Comander, Johannes. Vber dise nachkomenden Schluszreden wellend wir der pfarrer
zů S. Matin zů Chur/sampt anderen die das Euangelium veriehendt/ainem yeden
antwurt vnd bericht geben. Augsburg: Ramminger, 1526. VD16: ZV 3783–ZV 3784.
[Constance Pastors]. Appellation etlicher Pryester zuo costantz von der vermaindten
Citation desz Bischofflichen Vicaris . . . Darinn ouch vrsach yrer handlung warumb
sy . . . die päbstische messß geurlobt habind. Constance: Spitzenberg, 1527. VD16:
A 3158–A 3159.
[Constance Pastors]. Antwurt der Prediger des Euangeliums Christi zuo Costentz
vff Melchior Vattlin Wychbischoffs daselbst/vngegründts büchlin/so er von dem
Sacrament des herren Nachtmal/wie es im anfang der Kirchen gebrucht/syge worden
kurtzlich hat vßgon lassen. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. VD16: A 3005.
Crautwald, Valentin. Collatio et Consensvs Verborvm Caenae Dominicae, de corpore
et sangvine Christi, cum sexto capite Iohannis Euangelistae. Item: Consideratio de
verbo Dei, an sit in pane Eucharistiae, & aqua Baptismatis. Strasbourg: Schöffer &
Schwintzer, 1529. VD16: C 5725/C 5726.
Cyclops, Wolfgang. Von dem aller hochwirdigsten Nachtmahl Jesu Christi. Magdeburg:
Oettinger, 1525. VD16: C 6508.
Cyclops, Wolfgang. Doctor Wolff Cyclops antwortt auf Nickel Amßdorffs Replica.
Leipzig: Blum, 1526. VD16: C 6501.
Daere, Jürgen. Hovetartikulen dee hilligen Sacraments. s.l., 1526. VD16: D 36.
Denck, Hans. H. Dencken wideruff. Vff die zehen artikel. Worms: Schöffer, 1528.
VD16: D 573.
Dick, Leopold. De Mysterio Venerabilis Sacramenti Eucharistiae, et dominica coena
Gsyllesis siue compilatio. Augsburg: Ruff, 1525. VD16: D 1397.
Diepold, Johannes. Eyn nutzliche Sermon zuo allen Christen menschen/Von der rechten
Ewangeliche meß/vnd von der bereytung zuo dem Tisch gottes von dem trost der
sterbenden menschen/vnd dancksagung für das blüt Jhesu Christi. Nuremberg:
Guldenmund, 1527. VD16: N 2062.
Dietenberger, Johannes. Wider das vnchristlich buoch Mart. Luth. von dem mißbrauch
der Mess. Tübingen: Morhart, 1526. VD16: D 1506.
Dober, Andreas. Form vnd Ordnung des ampts der Meß Teütsch. Auch dabey das
handtbüchleyn Christlicher gesenge. Nuremberg: Hergot, 1526. VD16: M 4898.
Dober, Andreas. Messe/Form vnd ordnung eyner Christlichen Meß/so zu Nürmberg in
Newen Spital im brauch ist. Nuremberg: Hergot, 1525. VD16: M 4897.
Dober, Andreas. Die Euangelisch Mess Teutsch. Auch dabey das handbüchlein geystlicher
gesenge, als Psalme, lieder vnd lobgesenge . . . in der christlichen versamlung in newen
Spital zu Nürnberg gesungen werden. Nuremberg: Hergot, 1527. VD16: ZV 10895.
Dober, Andreas. Von der Euangelischen Mesz/wie sie zu Nürmberg/im Newen Spytal
gehalten wirdt. Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1525. VD16: M 4896.
[East Frisian Pastors]. Summa vnde Bekennighe Christlicker Leer der Predicanten in
Oostfriesland. Emden: Koerdt van Wyinsum, 1528. Not in VD16; see E. Busch and
H. Faulenbach, Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 1/1:224–37.
46
446 Bibliography
Eck, Johannes. Ad Invictissimvm Poloniae Regem Sigismundum, de sacrificio Missae

Contra Lutheranos, libri tres. Augsburg: Ruff, 1526. VD16: E 254–E 256; ZV 24284.
Eck, Johannes. Enchiridion locorvm commvnivm aduersus Lutheranos. Cologne:
Quentel, 1525. VD16: E 329–E 346.
Eck, Johannes. Die falsch onwarhaftig, Verfürisch Leer Vlrich zwingli von Zvrch, dvrch
Doctor Iohan Ecken außzogen. Ingolstadt: Apian, 1526. VD16: Z 766.
Eck, Johannes. Ein Sentbrieue an ein frum Eidgnoszschafft/betreffendt die ketzerische
disputation Frantz Kolben des ausgeloffen münchs/vnnd B. Hallers des verlognen
predicanten zu Bern. Ein annderer brieue an Vlrich Zwingli. Der drit brieue an
Cunrat Rotenacker zu Vlm. Ingolstadt: Apian, 1528. VD16: E 420–E 422; ZV 4864.
Eck, Johannes. Verlegung der disputation zu Bern/mit grund götlicher geschirifft.
Augsburg: Weißenhorn, 1528. VD16: E 438.
Eck, Johannes. Wider den Gotzlesterer vnnd Ketzer Cunraten Som/genant Rotenacker/
Predicanten in der Pfarr der erberen Reichstatt Vlm/anbiettung ainer disputation/
von wegen des hochwürdigen Sacrament des altars. Ingolstadt: Apian, 1527. VD16:
E 440–E 441.
Eckstein, Utz. Concilium. Hie in dem büoch wirt disputiert Das puren lang zyt hat
verfürt . . . Ouch was d Mäss innhalt. Deßglychen von dem Sacrament . . . Darumb hie
Pur gegen Doctor sitzt. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. VD16: E 502–E 503.
Emser, Hieronymus. Apologeticon in Vldrici Zuinglij Antibolon. Dresden: Emserpresse,
1525. VD16: E 1086.
Emser, Hieronymus. Auff Luthers grewel wider die heiligen Stillmeß. Antwort. Jtem
wie/wo/vnd mit wolchen wortten Luther yhn seyn büchern tzur auffrur ermandt
geschriben vnd getriben hat. Dresden: Emserpresse, 1525. VD16: E 1088.
Emser, Hieronymus. Wyder der tzweier Proebst zu Nurmberg Falaschen grund vnd
vrsachen. Dresden: Emserpresse, 1525. VD16: E 1140.
Erasmus, Desiderius. Expostulatio admodum pia et Christiana. Cologne: Quentel, 1526.
VD16: E 2976–E 2977.
Erasmus, Desiderius. E. Roterodami de sacro sancta synaxi & vnionis sacramento
corporis & sanguinis Christi ad amicum expostulatio . . . Murneri responsio alter
contumelioso cuidem libello cuidam insigniter & egregie stulto Vlrici Zvuyngel
apostate . . . Murneri responsio altera contumelioso cuidam libello confilato
Sebastiani Hoffmeyster. Lucerne: Murner, 1526. VD16: E 2978/M 7072.
Erasmus, Desiderius. Epistola D. Erasmi Roter. cvm amico quodam expostulans. Amici
item epistolae dvae, Erasmianae expostulationi respondentes. s.l., [1526]. VD16: E 2975.
Erasmus, Desiderius. Sendtbrieff/an einen seiner guten freunde/von dem Sacrament
des leybs vnnd bluts Christi. Hagenau: Farckall, 1526. VD16: ZV 22968.
Erasmus, Desiderius. Detectio Praestigiarum libelli cuiusdam libelli germanice scripti.
Basel: Froben, 1526. VD16: E 2615–E 2616.
Erasmus, Desiderius. Entdeckung . . . der dückischen arglistenn eines Büchlin inn
teutsch vnder sine erdichtent titel . . . Erasmi/vnd Luthers meinung/vom nachtmal
vnsers herren. Basel: Froben, 1526. VD16: E 2617.
47
Bibliography 447
Erasmus, Desiderius. Lucubrationes. Strasbourg: Schürer, 1516. VD16: E 2747–E 2748.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Tomvs Primvs Paraphraseon D. Erasmi Roterodami, in nouum
Testamentum, uidelicet in quatuor Euangelia & Acta apostolorum. Basel: Froben,
1524. VD16: E 3353.
Erasmus, Desiderius. Paraphrases Des. Erasmi Roterodami in epistolas Pauli apostoli ad
Rhomanos Corinthios & Galatas. Basel: Froben, 1520. VD16: E 3060.
Ernst, Duke of Lüneburg. Wie und was wir . . . unsers furstenthumbs pharhern und
predigern zu predigen befholen. S.l., 1529. Not in VD16; see Sehling, Kirchenordnungen
6/1/1:522–7.
Fabri, Johannes. Christenliche ablainung des erschröckenlichen yrsal/so Caspar
Schwenckfelder in der Schlesy wider die warhait des hochwirdigenn Sacraments leibs
vnd bluets Christi aufzerichten. Vienna: Singriener, 1529. VD16: F 192–F 194.
Fabri, Johannes. Christenliche beweisung über sechs Artickel/des vnchristenlichen Vlrich
Zwinglins. Tübingen: Morhart, 1526. VD16: F 195; ZV 5700.
Fabri, Johannes. Christenliche vnderrichtung vber ettliche Puncten der Visitation/ßo
jm Churfürstenthumb Sachssen gehalten/vnd durch Luther beschriben/Welche
antzunehmen vnd zuuerwerffen seyend. Cologne: Quentel, 1529. VD16: F 196–F  197.
Fabri Johannes. Epistola apologētikē De Invocatione et intercessione beatissimae,
perpetuae ac immaculatae virginis matris dei Mariae. Vienna: Singriener, 1528.
VD16: F 202.
Fabri, Johannes. Epistola . . . ad Vlricum Zuinglium . . . de future disputatione Baden.
Tübingen: Morhart, 1526. VD16: F 229.
Fabri, Johannes. Ein sandtbrieue . . . an Vlrich Zwinglin . . . von wegen der künfftigen
disputation. Tübingen: Morhart, 1526. VD16: F 227.
Fabri, Johannes. Etliche Sermonn von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament, warens leib vnd plut
Christi geprediget zu prag in Behem auff sandt Wentzelßberg. Vienna: Singriener,
1528. VD16: F 208.
Fabri, Johannes. Sermones Habiti Pragae apud Bohemos, de sacrosancto Eucharistiae
Sacramento. Freiburg/Br.: Faber, 1529. VD16: F 209.
Fabri, Johannes. Wie sich Johannis Huszs/der Pickarder/vnd Joannis von wessalia/
Leren vnd buecher mit Martino Luther vergleichen. Leipzig: Schumann, 1528.
VD16: F 246.
Fattlin, Melchior. Wie in anfang der heiligen kirchen die Christgläubigen das hochwirdig
sacrament des altars empfangen haben. Tübingen: Morhart, 1526. VD16: ZV 5772.
Ferber, Nicolas. Locorvm Commvnivm, adversus huius temporis haereses, enchiridion.
Cologne: Cervicornus, 1528. VD16: F 742–F 744; ZV 23412–ZV 23413, ZV 25949.
Ferdinand von Habsburg. Abschrifft . . . offen mandatz das jr Kü. May . . . wider die
Lutherisch/Carolostadisch/Zwinglisch/vnd Oecolampadisch/auch jren anhänger/
ketzerisch vnnd verfierisch leren hat lassen außgeen. Vienna: Singriener, 1527.
VD16: O 492, O 495.
Ferdinand von Habsburg. Mandat des durchleuchtigisten Fürsten vnd Herren Hern
Ferdinand . . . Dresden: Stöckel, 1527. VD16: O 491, O 493–O 494, O 496; ZV11953.
48
448 Bibliography
Ferdinand von Habsburg. Edictum aduersus anabaptistas, Lutheranos, Zuinglianos,

Oecolampadianos, & huiusce fecis, ac sentinae iusto dei, orthodoxae Ecclesiae,&
proprio iudicio, Damnatos, & ex omni parte Seditionum Authore haereticos.
Vienna: Singriener, 1527. VD16: O497; ZV 21055.
Fisher, John. Assertionvm Martini Lvtheri confutatio. Cologne: Hittorp, 1525. VD16:
F 1218–F 1219.
Fisher, John. Defensio Regie assertionis contra babylonicam captiuitatem . . . in qua
respondet pro . . . Rege Henrico viii . . . ad maledicentissimum Martini Lutheri
libellum. Cologne: Quentel, 1525. VD16: F 1226–F 1227.
Fisher, John. De Veritate Corporis et Sangvinis Christi in Evcharistia. Cologne: Quentel,
1527. VD16: O 332–O 336.
Fisher, John. Funff Vorredde des Hochwirdigen vatters vnd Herren H. Johan/Bischoffs
von Roffa in Engelland/vff V. bücher wider Jo. Ecolampadium/von warem leyb vnd
blut Christi im heyligsten Sacrament des Altars. Cologne: Soter, 1528. VD16: F 1230.
Flamm, Andreas. Wider die/so da sagen/Christus fleisch vnd blut sey nit im Sacrament.
Nuremberg: Hergot, 1526. VD16: F 1603.
Frey, Mathäus. Ein Schöne vnderweysung vnd leer/zu betrachten das Nachtmal vnsers
lieben herren Jhesu Christi. Augsburg: Ramminger, 1525. VD16: K 660.
Friedrich II, Duke of Liegnitz. Underricht vnd entschuldigunge . . . Auff das vngegrunte
ahngeben als solt seyn F.G. tzur Lignitz widder das heylige Sacrament des Leichnams
vnd bluts unsers herren Jhesu Christi predigen vnnd handeln lossen. Breslau: Dyon,
1527. VD16: L 1721.
Fritzhans, Johannes. Was die Mess sey. Vnd ob sie eyn testament/oder eyn opffer genant
werd. Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1527. VD16: F 3040.
Fritzhans, Johannes. Widder den vbergeystlichen Thomisten/zu Dessaw/Johann Mensing.
Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1527. VD16: F 3043.
Gast, Hiob., ed. Ex Vetvsstiss. Orthodoxorvm Patrvm. Cypriani, Hilarii, Ambrosii,
Avgvstini, Hieronymi. Isichii & Pascasii, de genuino Eucharistiae negocii intellectu &
usu, libellus. Hagenau: Setzer, 1528. VD16: G 518.
Gast, Hiob, Martin Luther, and Andreas Alhamer. Epistola ad Ioannem Stiglerium,
super controuersia rei Sacramentariae. Item. Responsio D. Martini Lvtheri ad
ministros uerbi dei apud Argentinam . . . Item Andreae Althameri Brenzij Epistola ad
Chonradum Som. Nuremberg: Peypus, 1527. VD16: G 517/A 2026/L 5804.
George, Duke of Saxony. Wider Luthers tröstung an die Christn zu Hall. Leipzig:
Schumann, 1528. VD16: G 1341–G 1344.
Glaidt, Oswald. Enntschuldigung Osbaldi Glaidt von Chamb . . . Etlicher Artickel
verklerung. So im von mißgünnern fälschlich verkhert. vnnd also nachgeredt wurden.
Nikolsburg: Froschauer, 1527. VD16: G 2149.
Glaidt, Oswald. Handlung yetz den xiiij. Tag Marcij diß.xxvj. Jars. Nikolsburg: Froschauer,
1526. VD16: G 2150–G 2152.
Gräter, Kaspar. Catechesis oder vnderricht der Kinder wie er zuo Haylprun gelert vnd
gehalten wirdt. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1529. VD16: G 3243.
49
Bibliography 449
Gretzinger, Benedikt. Ain vnüberwintlich Beschirmbüchlin von haubt Artickeln vnd

fürnemlichen Puncten der göttlichen geschrift. Augsburg: Steiner, 1523. VD16:
G 3248–G 3252, G 3254–G 3258, G 3260–G 3261, G 3264–G 3265, G 3267; ZV
7026–ZV 7027, ZV 7029–ZV 7030, ZV 21240, ZV 21298.
Gretzinger, Benedikt. Hawbt artickel vnd furnemlich puncten der Göttlichen
geschrifft. Wittenberg: Rhau-Grunenberg, 1524. VD16: G 3253, G 3259, G 3263,
ZV 27992.
Gretzinger, Benedikt. Houet artikel vnde de Vörnemelykesten stücke/vnses
Christendomes. Wittenberg: Barth, 1525. VD16: G 3266, G 3268; ZV 7028.
Gretzinger, Benedikt. Christlich frag vnd antwort/den glauben vnd liebe
betreffent . . . Vnüberwintlich Schirmbüchlein/von haupt articklen gotlichr
geschrifft. Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1526. VD16: Z 31810.
Grüdt, Joachim am. Christenlich anzeygung Joachims von Grüdt, das im Sacrament des
altars warlich sey fleisch vnd blut Christi. Freiburg/Br: Wörlin, 1526. VD16: G 3504.
Güttel, Kaspar. Eyn nutzliche vnd gegründte lere vnd vnderricht/wie Christlich vnd
seligk zu sterben. Erfurt: Sachse, 1529. VD16: G 3983.
Güttel, Kaspar. Von dem Hochwirdigen Sacrament des fleischs vnd bluts Jhesu Christi.
Zwickau: Kantz, 1528. VD16: G 4002.
Haferitz, Simon. Ein Sermon vom Fest der heiligen drey Konig. Eilenburg: Widemar,
1524. VD16: H 153.
Hoen, Cornelis. Epistola Christiana admodvm . . . tractans coenam dominicam.
Strasbourg: Knobloch, 1525. VD16: H 4054–H 4055; ZV 8053.
Hoen, Cornelis. Von dem Brot vnd weyn des Herrn Christlicher bericht. Strasbourg:
Köpfel, 1525. VD16: H 4056–H 4057.
[Hofen, Thomas]. Warhaftige handlung der disputation in obern Baden. Strasbourg:
Köpfel, 1526. VD16: H 4106/Z 871.
Hoffman, Melchior, and Andreas Karlstadt. Dialogus vnd gründtliche berichtung
gehaltner disputation . . . vom hochwirdigen Sacrament oder Nachtmal des Herren.
Strasbourg: Beck, 1529. VD16: H 4217–H 4218.
Huberinus, Caspar. Sibenzig schlusred odder puncten von der Rechten hand Gottes vnd
der gewalt Christi. Wittenberg: Klug, 1529. VD16: H 5418.
Hubmaier, Balthasar. Ein Christennliche Leertafel, die ein yedlicher mensch, ee vnd er im
Wasser getaufft wirdt, vor wissen solle. Nikolsburg: Froschauer, 1527. Not in VD16;
see QGT 9:305–28.
Hubmaier, Balthasar. Ein ainfeltige vnnderricht auff die wort. Das ist der leib mein in
dem Nachtmal Christi. Nikolsburg: Froschauer, 1526. VD16: H 5642.
Hubmaier, Balthasar. Ettlich Beschluszreden . . . allen christen von vndricht der meß.
Ulm: Hoffischer, 1525. VD16: H 5645.
Hubmaier, Balthasar. Ein Form des nachtmals Christi. Nikolsburg: Froschauer, 1527.
VD16: M 4895.
Hubmaier, Balthasar. Von dem Christenlichen Tauff der glaübigen. Strasbourg: Schürer,
1525. VD16: H 5651.
450
450 Bibliography
Hubmaier, Balthasar. Ain Sum ains gantzen Christenlichen lebens . . . Sonderlich ain
bericht den kinder Touff/Vnd das Nachttmal belangent. Augsburg: Ramminger,
1525. VD16: H 5648.
Ickelshamer, Valentin. Clag etlicher brieder; an alle christen von der grossen vngerechtigkeit
vnd Tyranney/so Endressen Bodenstein von Carolstat yetzo vom Luther zu witten-
berg geschicht. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525. VD16: I 30–I 32.
Jud, Leo. Ain Christenlich widerfechtung Leonis Jud/wider Mathis Kretzen zuo
Augspurg/falsche/Endchristische Meß. Vnd priesterthuom auch das brot vnd weyn
des Fronleychnams vnd bluots Christi/kain opffer sey. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525.
VD16: J 1000.
Jud, Leo. VF entdeckung Doctor Erasmi von Roterdam/der dückischen arglisten/eynes
tütschen büchlins antwurt/vnd entschuldigung. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. VD16: J 997.
See also Leopoldi, Ludwig.
Kantz, Kaspar. Von der Euangelischen Messz mit schönen Christlichen gebeten
vor vnd nach der entpfahung des Sacraments. Augsburg : Ramminger, 1525.
VD16: K 85.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Anzeyg etlicher Hauptartickeln Christlicher leere. Jn wölchen Doct.
Luther den Andresen Carolstat durch falsche zusag vnd nachred verdechtig macht.
Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525. VD16: B 6099.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Ap Got ein vrsach sey des Teuffelischen fahls. Jena: Buchfürer, 1524.
VD16: B 6176.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Auslegung dieser wort Christi. Das ist mein leyb/welcher für euch
gegeben würt . . . Wider die einfeltige vnd zwyfeltige papisten. Basel: Bebel, 1524.
VD16: B 6111–B 6112.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Berichtung dyesser red. Das reich gotis/leydet gewaldt.
Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1521. VD16: B 6116–B 6117.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Dialogus/oder ein gesprechbüchlin. von dem grewlichen vnd
abgöttischen mißbrauch/des hochwirdigsten sacraments Jesu Christi. Basel: Bebel,
1524. VD16: B 6140–B 6143.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Erklerung des x. Capitels Cor. i. Das brot das wir brechen: Jst es nitt
ein gemeinschaft des Leybs Christi. Antwurt Andresen Carolstats: auf Luthers schrift
Vnd wie Carolstat widerriefft. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525. VD16: B 6157.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Erklerung wie Carlstadt sein lere von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament
vnd andere achtet vnd geachtet haben wil. Wittenberg: Rhau-Grunenberg, 1525.
VD16: B 6159–B 6163.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Entschuldigung des falschen namens der auffruor so jm ist mit
vnrechten auffgelegt. Erklerung wie Carlstat sein ler von dem hochwirdigen
Sacrament vnd andere achtet vnd geachtet haben will. Augsburg: Ruff, 1525.
VD16: B 6158.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Ob man mit heyliger schrifft erweysen müge/das Christus mit
leyb/bluot vnd sele im Sacrament sey. Basel: Wolff, 1524. VD16: B 6178–B 6179.
451
Bibliography 451
Karlstadt, Andreas. Predig zuo Wittenberg Von empfahung des heiligen Sacraments.
Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1522. VD16: B 6182–B 6185.
Karlstadt, Andreas. MCXXIIII. Ayn Sermon/ob dye Orennbeicht oder der Glaub
allain . . . zuo wirdiger empfahung des hailigenn Sacraments geschickt mach.
Augsburg: Ramminger, 1524. VD16: B 6195.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Ein Sermon vom stand der Christglaubigen seelen von Abrahams
schosz vnd fegfeuer/der abgeschidnen seelen. Augsburg: Grimm und Wirsung, 1523.
VD16: B 6196–B 6200.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Vrsachen der halben Andres Carolstatt auß den landen Zuo Sachsen
vertryben. Strasbourg: Prüß, 1524. VD16: B 6209.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Von anbettung vnd ererbietung der tzeychen des newen Testaments.
Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1521. VD16: B 6216–B 6218.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Von Bepstlicher heylickeit. Wittenberg: Lotter, 1520. VD16: B 6253.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Von dem Newen vnd Alten Testament. Antwurt auff disen spruch
Der Kelch das New Testament in meynem blut . . . wie Carolstat widerriefft.
Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525. VD16: B 6224–B 6225.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Von dem Priesterthum vnd opffer Christi. Jena: Buchfürer, 1524.
VD16: B 6226–B 6227.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Von dem widerchristlichen mißbrauch des herrn brodt vnd kelch.
Basel: Bebel, 1524. VD16: B 6232–B 6234.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Von den Empfahern: zeychen: vnd zusag des heyligenn Sacraments
fleysch vnd bluts. Wittenberg: Lotter, 1521. VD16: B 6235–B 6239.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Uon manigfeltigkeit des eynfeltigen eynigen willen gottes.
Cologne: Aich, 1523. VD16: B 6251–B 6252.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Vorstand des worts Pauli. Jch begeret ein vorbannter seyn von Christo.
Jena: Buchfürer, 1524. VD16: B 6211–B 6212.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Wider die alte und newe Papistische Messen. Basel: Wolff, 1524.
VD16: B 6261–B 6263, B 6186.
Karlstadt, Andreas. Ain nutzliche vnd auß hayliger schrifft gegrünte
vnderweisung, wider der alten vnd neuwen Papistischen Messzen müsszbrauch.
Augsburg: Ramminger, 1525. VD16: B 6175.
[Karlstadt, Andreas]. Dyalogus. Von frembden glauben. Von Glauben der Kirchen. Von
Tauff der kinder. Worms: Schöffer, 1527. VD16: D 1342.
Kautz, Jakob, Johannes Cochlaeus, and Johann Freiherr. Syben Artickel zů Wormbs von
Jacob Kautzen. . . Antwort D. Johannis Coclei. Mainz, 1527. VD16: K 558/C 4252.
Kautz, Jakob, Johannes Cochlaeus, and Johann Freiherr. Articvli Aliqvot, a Iacobo
Kautio Oecolampadiano, ad populum nuper Vuormaciae aediti. Cologne, 1527.
VD16: K 559/C 4253.
Keller, Michael. Ain Christenlicher/grüntlicher/auß Göttlicher hayliger schrifft/bericht/
dess Heren Nachtmal wirdig zuo Empfahen; den schwachen vnd guothertzigen aufs
kürtzest zuosamenbracht. Augsburg: Otmar, 1528. VD16: K 562.
452
452 Bibliography
Keller, Michael. Ain grüntlicher/auß hailiger schrifft/bericht/deß Herren Nachtmal

wirdig zu Empfahen. Augsburg: Otmar, 1528. VD16: ZV 23818.
Keller, Michael. Ettlich Sermones von dem Nachtmal Christi. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525.
VD16: K 655–K 657.
Kretz, Mathias. Von der Mess/vnnd wer der recht Priester sey/der Meß habe auch zuom
tail ob sie ain opffer sey. Freiburg/Br.: Wörlin, 1525. VD16: K 2368.
Landsperger, Johannes. Eyn brüderliche Supplication vnd ermanung/an Rector vnd alle
glider der hohenschül Wittemberg gestellt/ettlicher Artickel halb/so Doctor Martinus
Luther inn zweyen predigen also widerwertig gesetzt hat. Worms: Schöffer, 1527.
VD16: L 229.
Landsperger, Johannes. Ein gruntlicher bericht vnd warhafftiger beschluß das die erdichte
Mässz todt vnd vergraben syge. Zurich: Froschauer, 1528. VD16: L 231.
Landsperger, Johannes. Wo vnd was die Rechte gottes sey nach ardt des glaubens/vnnd
grund der heiligen schrift. Zurich: Froschauer, 1528. VD16: L 238.
Lanfranc of Canterbury. Philasterii Episcopi Brixiensis Haereseon catalogus. Cui
adiectus est erudissimus libellus Lanfranci Episcopi Canthuariensis de Sacramento
Eucharistiae. Basel: Petri, 1528. VD16: L 244.
Langenmantel, Eitelhans. Dies ist ain anzayg: ainem meynem/etwann vertrawten
gesellen/über seyne hartte widerpart/des Sacrament und anders betreffend.
Langenmantel, Eitelhans. Ain Kurtzer anzayg/wie Do. Martin Luther ain zeyt hör
hatt etliche schriften lassen ußgeen/vom Sacrament/die doch stracks wider ainander.
Augsburg: Ulhart, 1527. VD16: L 363.
Langenmantel, Eitelhans. Ein kurtzer begryff Von den Allten vnnd Newen Papisten.
Leopoldi, Ludwig [=Jud, Leo]. Des Hochgelerten Erasmi von Roterdam vnd Doctor
Luthers maynung vom Nachtmal vnsers Herren Jesu Christi neuwlich außgangen auff
den XVIII. Tag Aprellens. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. VD16: J 1001–J 1003.
Linck, Wenzeslas. Vnterrichtung der kinder/so zu Gottes tische wöllen geen. Nuremberg:
Gutknecht, 1528. VD16: L 1836.
Linck, Wenzeslas. Wia man Christenlich die krancken trösten müge/durchs vater vnser/
Zehen gebot/vnnd Artickel des glaubenns/sampt nützunge der Sacramennt/darauff
das gantz Christliche wesen stehet. Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1529. VD16: L 1856.
[Lüneburg]. Artikel, darinne etlike mysbruke . . . entdecket unde darjegen gude ordenynge
angegeven werden. Magdeburg: Barth, 1527. VD16: A 3839–A 3840.
Luther, Martin. Allen lieben Christen zu Reutlingen. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526.
VD16: L 3733.
Luther, Martin. Ein Bericht an einen Guten Freund von Beider gestalt des Sacraments
auffs Bischoffs zu Meissen mandat. Wittenberg: Klug, 1528. VD16: L 4078–L 4079.
Luther, Martin. Eyn brieff an die Christen Zu Straspurg widder den schwermer geyst.
Wittenberg: Cranach & Döring, 1524. VD16: L 4150–L 4157.
453
Bibliography 453
Luther, Martin. Ein Christenliche warnung/auß dem geyst vnd wort Gottes/sich vor
den offentlichen jrrungen/so ytzo vor augen sein/des Sacraments des leibs vnd bluots
Christi halben zuuerhüten. Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1526. VD16: L 5806–L 5807.
Luther, Martin. Mandatvm Anno Dni M.D.XXV. traditum Gregorio Chaselio,
quemadmodum respondere deberet Sacramentarijs, qui ipsum Vuittembergam
miserant. Wittenberg: Rhau, 1529. VD16: L 5805.
Luther, Martin. Daß diese Wort Christi “Das ist mein Leib” noch fest stehen widder die
Schwermgeister. Wittenberg: Lotter, 1527. VD16: L 4268–L 4274.
Luther, Martin. Deudsch Catechismus. Wittenberg: Rhau, 1529. VD16: L 4336–L 4341.
Luther, Martin. De duodsche Catechismus. Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1529. VD16:
L 4391–L 4393.
Luther, Martin and Johannes Brenz. Catechismus, letu dignißimus, latinus fatus
per Vincentium Obsopoeum. Huic adiecti sunt alij quoque gemini Cathechismi,
Iohannis Brentii Ecclesiastae Hallensis, eodem interprete. Hagenau: Setzer, 1529.
VD16: L 4408/B 7651.
Luther, Martin. Catechismvs, Latina donatus ciuitate, per Ioannem Lonicerum.
Marburg: Rhode, 1529. VD16: L 4409.
Luther, Martin. Deudsche Messe vnd ordnung Gottis diensts. Wittenberg: Lotter, 1526.
VD16: L 4910–L 4919; ZV 10896.
Luther, Martin. Was dem gemeynem volcke nach der predig fur zu lesen. Wittenberg:
Rhau, 1526. VD16: L 7381, ZV 9996, ZV 10016, ZV 29211.
Luther, Martin. Christliche ordenung wie es zu marpurg yn Hessen/mit Teuffen/
Sacrament reichen/vnd mit Beten nach der predigt gehalten wird. Was dem gemeynen
volck nach der predig für zu lesen. Marburg: Loersfeld, 1527. VD16: L 7382.
Luther, Martin. Wat dem gemenen volck na der predikye vor tho lesen. Rostock:
Dietz, 1526. VD16: L 7383.
Luther, Martin. Enchiridion. De klene Catechismus vor de gemeynen karckheren vnde
Predikere. Hamburg: Richolff, 1529. VD16: L 5203–L 5204.
Luther, Martin. Enchiridion. Der kleine Catechismus für die gemeine Pfarher
vnd Prediger, Gemehret vnd gebessert. Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1529. VD16:
L 5034–L 5036.
Luther, Martin. Parvvs Catechismvs pro Pveris in Schola. Wittenberg: Rhau, 1529.
VD16: L 5276–L 5277.
Luther, Martin. Enchiridion piarum precationum, cum Calendario et paßionali, ut
uocant etc. Wittenberg: Luft, 1529. VD16: L 4275.
Luther, Martin. Das ewig vnd new Testament von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament beyder
gestalt [= Das Hauptstuck des ewigen vnnd newen testaments von dem hochwirdigen
Sacrament beider gestalt, 1522]. Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1525. VD16: L 4829.
Luther, Martin. Eyn ratschlag wie in der Christlichen gemeyne ain rechter anfang vnd
beharrliche endtschafft eyner bestendigen ordnung solle furgenomen vnnd auffgericht
werden. Nuremberg: Peypus, 1526. VD16: L 5776–L 5777.
45
454 Bibliography
Luther, Martin. Eyn sermon am gruenen Donnerstag. Wittenberg: Luft, 1523. VD16: L

6058–L  6060.
Luther, Martin. Ordenung vnd Bericht wie es furterhin “mit ihenen so das Hochwirdig
Sacrament empfahen wollen” gehalten sol werden. Hagenau: Setzer, 1523. VD16:
L 5572–L 5575.
Luther, Martin. Unterricht/wie sich eyn yglicher Christen mensch halten soll/so ehr
empfahen wil das hoch wirdig Sacrament. Erfurt: Stürmer, 1526. VD16: U 200.
Luther, Martin. Ain Sermon auff das Euangeli Johannis am vj., Mein flaisch ist die
recht speyß/vnd mein bluot ist das recht tranck etc. Gepredigt auff vnsers Herren
Fronleichnamstag. Augsburg: Otmar, 1525. VD16: L 6123. [first published 1523]
Luther, Martin. XXVII. Predig D. Martin Luthers newlich vszgangen Anno. XXVI.
Durchsichtiget/vnd ni ordnung gestellt der bessten form. Strasbourg: Schott, 1526.
VD16: L 6689.
Luther, Martin. Ein Sermon von dem hochwurdigen Sacrament des heyligen waren
leichnamß Christi und von den Bruderschaften. Zwickau: Schönsperger, 1525.
VD16: L 6398. [First published 1519].
Luther, Martin. Sermon von dem Sacrament des leibs vnd bluts Christi wider die
Schwarmgeister. Wittenberg: Lufft, 1526. VD16: L 6642–L 6646.
Luther, Martin. Ein seer gut vnd nützliches Bettbuochleyn. Nuremberg: Form
schneider, 1527. VD16: L 4098.
Luther, Martin, and Johannes Bugenhagen. Sermo Elegantissimus super Sacramento
Corporis & Sanguinis Christi . . . Oratio Johan. Bugenhagii Pomerani, quid ipsius
non sit opinio illa de Eucharistia, quae in Psalterio . . . legitur. Hagenau: Setzer,
1527. VD16: L 6649/B 9344.
Luther, Martin. Sermon von der Beycht vnd dem Sacrament. Wittenberg: Lotter, 1525.
VD16: L 6468–L 6471. [First published 1524].
Luther, Martin. Eyn Bettbüchlin. Wittenberg: Lufft, 1525. VD16: L 4097, L 4099.
Luther, Martin. Ain Sermon von der höchsten Gottslästerung, die die Papisten täglich
brauchen, so sye leesen den Antichristliche Canon in jren Messen. Augsburg: Ulhart,
1525. VD16: L 6542–L 6548.
Luther, Martin. Trostung an die Christen zu Halle vber Er Georgen yhres predigers tod.
Wittenberg: Lufft, 1527. VD16: L 6788–L 6789, L 6791.
Luther, Martin. Vom Abendmahl Christi Bekenntnis. Wittenberg: Lotter, 1528. VD16:
L 6984–L 6986.
Luther, Martin. Bekentnis der Artickel des Glaubens, wider die feyndt des Euangelij.
Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1528. VD16: L 6990–L 6991.
Luther, Martin. Bekentnis des glaubens Doct Mart. Luthers. Wittenberg: Rhau,
1529. VD16: L 6992–L 6994; ZV 10023.
Luther, Martin. Bekentenisse des Gelauens. Magdeburg: Lotter, 1529. VD16:
L 7011–L 7012.
Luther, Martin. Uon anbeten des Sacraments des heyligen leychnams Christi. Wittenberg:
Lotter, 1525. VD16: L 7079. [First published 1523].
45
Bibliography 455
Luther, Martin. Libellvs Doc. Martini Luther de sacramento Eucharistiae, ad

Valdenses Fratres, e germanico translatus. Wittenberg: Lufft, 1526. VD16: L 7081.
Luther, Martin. Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse/so man den Canon nennet. Wittenberg:
Weiß, 1525. VD16: L 7108–L 7115.
Luther, Martin. Van dem gruwel der Stillmyssen/de me den Canon nömet.
Wittenberg: Lufft, 1525. VD16: L 7118–L 7120.
Luther, Martin. Widder die hymelischen Propheten/Von den bildern vnd Sacrament.
Wittenberg: Cranach & Döring, 1525. VD16: L 7453, L 7455–L 7456, L 7458–L
7459, L 7463, L 7465, L 7467–L 7468, L 7471, L 7473.
Luther, Martin. Das ander Teil wider die himmlischen Propheten vom Sakrament.
Wittenberg: Cranach & Döring, 1525. VD16: L 7452, L 7454, L 7457, L 7460–L
7462, L 7464, L 7466, L 7469, L 7472.
Luther’s Postils
Luther, Martin. Auslegung der Episteln vnd Euangelien vom Aduent an bis auff Ostern.
Wittenberg: Rhau-Grunenberg, 1525. VD16: L 3949–L 3956.
Luther, Martin. Auszlegung der Episteln vnd Euangelien von der hailigen Drey Künige
fest biß auff Ostern. Wittenberg: Cranach & Döring, 1525. VD16: L 3968–L 3975.
Luther, Martin. Außlegung der Euangelien vom Aduent biß auff Osteren sampt vil
andern predigen. Augsburg: Steiner, 1528. VD16: L 3998–L 4000.
Luther, Martin. Auslegung der Euangelienn/von Ostern biß auffs Advent. Wittenberg:
Rhau, 1526. VD16: L 4005–L4013.
Luther, Martin. Vthlegginge der Euangelien van Paschen an wente vp den Advent.
Wittenberg: Luft, 1527. VD16: L 4023–L 4024.
Luther, Martin. Postill oder Auszlegung der Episteln vnd Euangelien/durchs gantz jar.
geteylt in zwey teyl. Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1527. VD16: L 5591–L 5592.
Luther, Martin. Das ander teyl der Postillen . . . Von dem ersten Sontag nach Epiphanie
an biß auff den ersten Sontag im Advent. Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1527. VD16:
L 5593–L 5594.
Luther, Martin. Vthlegginge der Euangelien vnde Epistelen myt dem Register.
Wittenberg: Barth, 1526. VD16: L 5652.
Luther, Martin. Enarrationes Qvas Postillas Vocant in Lectiones illas . . . per universum
annum. Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1528. VD16: L 5663.
Luther, Martin. Qvartvs Tomvs Enarrationum in Epistolas et Euangelia, ut uulgo
uocant, lectiones illas, quae in Missa festis diebus ex historijs Euangelicis et scriptis
Apostolicis solent recitari. Strasbourg: Herwagen, 1526. VD16: L 5660.
**
Manuel, Niklaus. Ein klegliche Botschafft dem Bapst zuo komen/antreffend des gantzen
Bapsthuombs weydung/nit des viechs/sonder des zartten vöcklins vnd was syn
heydischeyt darzuo geantwurt vnd than hat. Basel: Wolff, 1528. VD16: M 730–M  735.
456
456 Bibliography
Manuel, Niklaus. Dialogvs Neuzeitung/vor nye gehort. Eyn kleglich Botschafft/

Dem Babst fürgekõmen/Antreffent/den heubtstein im fundament des gantzen
Babstumbs. s.l. 1529. VD16: ZV 10358.
Manuel, Niklaus. Dialogvs Nyge tidinge vor nye gehort. Eyn Klegelike pödeschopp Dem
Paweste vörgekamen/andrepende/den höuetsteen ym fundament des gantzen
Pawestumbs. Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1529. VD16: D 1326.
[Marburg Articles]. Wes sich D. Martin Luther mit Huldrichen Zwinglin der Strittigen
Articul halb/vereint vnd verglichen/auff der Conuocatz zu Marpurg/den
dritten tag Octob. Mdxxix. Marburg: Rhode, 1529. VD16: W 2111–W 2113, W 2115,
W 2117–W 2119.
[Marburg Articles]. Was zuo Marpurgk in Hessen/vom Abendtmal/vnd anndern
strittigen Artickeln/gehandelt vnnd vergleicht sey worden. Nuremberg: Petreius,
1529. VD16: W 2114.
[Marburg Articles]. Dieser hernach geschrieben Artikeln/habe sich die hir vnter
beschrieben/zu Marpurg verglichen. Wittenberg: Klug, 1529. VD16: W 2116;
ZV 15498.
[Marburg Articles]. Wes sick Doctor Martini Lutter myth Huldrichen Swynlius Der
Stridenden Artikelen haluen/vereiniget vnd vergliket/vp der Conuocatz tho
Marborch. Magdeburg: Barth, 1529. VD16: W 2120–W 2121.
Marius, Augustinus. Eyngelegte schrifft auff anmuotung eynes Christenlichen Rats . . .
Basel das opfer der Meß belangent. Basel: Faber, 1528. VD16: M 1013.
Marius, Augustinus. Wyderauffhebbung der warhafftigenn grund . . . zuo beweisen
das die Meß eyn opfer sey. Basel: Faber, 1528. VD16: M 1017.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Annotationes in Iohannem, castigatiores quam quae antea
invulgatae sunt. Hagenau: Setzer, 1524. VD16: M 2481.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Articvli de Qvibvs Egervnt per Visitatores in regione Saxoniae.
Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1527. VD16: M 2589–M 2592.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Adversvs Anabaptistas Philippi Melanchthonis Iudicium.
ITEM An Magistratus iure possit occidere Anabaptistas. Iohannis Brentij Sententia.
ITEM Articuli, inspectionis Ecclesiarum Saxoniae, emendati. Hagenau: Setzer,
1528. VD16: M 2592.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Vnderricht der Visitatorn an die Pfarhern ym Kurfurstenthum
zu Sachssen. Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1528. VD16: M 2594–M2602, M 2611.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Epistola, ad Iohannem Oecolampadium, de Coena Domini.
Hagenau: Setzer, 1529. VD16: M 3188.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Loci Commvnes sev Hypotyposes theologicae. Strasbourg:
Knobloch, 1525. VD16: M 3599. [First published 1521].
Melanchthon, Philipp. Gemeine anweissung ynn die heylige schrifft. Wittenberg:
Lufft, 1525. VD16: M 3605–M 3609.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Anwysynge yn de hillige Götlicke schrifft. Wittenberg:
Reinhart, 1525. VD16: M 3610–M 3611.
457
Bibliography 457
Melanchthon, Philipp. Uon der Messe Propositiones. Nuremberg: Peypus, 1525. VD16:

M 4020, M 4022.
Melhofer, Philipp. Offenbarung der allerheimlichisten haimlichait/der yetzigen
Baalspriester/durch wölche die welt lange zeyt geblendt vnd das leyden Christi Jämerlich
geschmecht worden ist/genandt Canon oder die Styllmess. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525.
VD16: M 448–M 450.
Menius, Justus. Etlicher Gottlosen vnd widderchristlischen lere von der Papistischen
Messen. Wittenberg: Lufft, 1527. VD16: M 4568.
Menius, Justus. Jn was glauben vnd meynung die kyndlein zur heyligen Tauff zu
fordern seyen. Jtem wie Des heyligen leichnambs vnnd blutts vnnsers Herrn Christi
fruchtbarlich zu niessen kurtzer vnd eynfaltiger vnterricht. Erfurt: Sachse, 1525.
VD16: M 4599–M 4600; ZV 19422.
Menius, Justus. Vnterricht/Fur die so das Hochwirdig Sacrament Des Altars entpfahen
wöllen. Erfurt: Maler, 1526. VD16: M 4582.
Mensing, Johannes. De Sacerdotio Ecclesiae Christi Catholicae Oratio. Leipzig: Thanner,
1527. VD16: M 4654.
Mensing, Johannes. Examen Scriptvrarvm atque Argumentorum: quae aduersus
Sacerdotium Ecclesiae: libello de Abroganda Missa, per M. Lutherum sunt adducta.
Oratio Secunda. Leipzig: Thanner, 1527. VD16: M 4648.
Mensing, Johannes. Grundtliche vnterrichte: Was eyn frommer Christen/von der
heyligen Kirchen/von der Vetern lere/vnd heyligen schrifft/halten sol/Aus Göttlichen
schrifften getzogen vnd beweret. Leipzig: Thanner, 1527. VD16: M 4649.
Mensing, Johannes. Leuterunge/des vnsaubern vnwarhafftigen/vnchristlichenn
spottbuchleyns/des titel/widder den vbergeystlichenn Thomisten zu Dhessau.
Leipzig: Schumann, 1527. VD16: M 4651.
Mensing, Johannes. Replica Auff das wutige vnd vnchristliche schandbuchlyn . . . die
heylige Messe belangende. Leipzig: Thanner, 1526. VD16: M 4653.
Mensing, Johannes. Von dem opffer Christi yn der Messe: Allen Christglawbigen/
Deutzscher Nation not tzu wissen. Denen tzu Magdeburck yn sonderheyt/tzu gut
geschrieben, Leipzig: Schmidt, 1526. VD16: M 4659–M 4660.
Mensing, Johannes. Von dem Testament Christi vnsers Herren vnd Seligmachers.
Leipzig: Schmidt, 1526. VD16: M 4661–M 4662.
Mensing, Johannes. Von der Concomitantien: vnnd ob Hiesus Christus vnßer herre ym
Sacrament seyns waren heyligen leibs vnd bluts volkommen sey: Widder Merten
Luthers gotzlesterliche schmehungen/yn einen bericht widder des Bischoffs von
Meissen Mandat geschriben. Frankfurt/O.: Hanau, 1529. VD16: M 4663.
Mensing, Johannes. Vorlegunge: Des vnchristlichen buchlyns mit dem tittel/Was die
Messe sey/aussgangen vnter dem namen Hans Fritzhanses/vormeinten burgers zu
Magdeburg. Leipzig: Thanner, 1527. VD16: M 4664.
Murner, Thomas. Die disputacion vor den xij orten einer loblichen eidtgnoschaft . . . zuo
Baden . . . gehalten. Lucerne: Murner, 1527. VD16: M 7033.
458
458 Bibliography
Murner, Thomas. Cavssa Helvetica Orthodoxae Fidei. Dispvtatio Helvetiorvm in

Baden Svperiori. Lucerne: Murner, 1528. VD16: M 7034.
Murner, Thomas. Die gots heylige meß von gott allein erstifft . . . wider die fünffte
schlußred zuo Bern disputiert. Lucerne: Murner, 1528. VD16: M 7037.
Murner, Thomas. Hie würt angezeigt das onchristlich . . . fürnemen einer loblicher
herrchafft von Bern. Lucerne: Murner, 1528. VD16: B 1899.
Murner, Thomas. Ein vuorhafftigs verantvurten der hochgelorten doctores vnd herren/
die zů Baden vff der disputation gewesen sint vor den. xij. orten einer loblichen
eidtgnoschafft wider das schentlich/erstuncken/vnd erlogen anklagen Vlrich
Zwinglyns. Lucerne: Murner, 1526. VD16: M 7092–M 7093.
Nausea, Friedrich. Pro Sacrosancta Missa adversvm Haereticos et Schismaticos
Miscellaneae. Mainz: Schöffer, 1527. VD16: N 265.
Never, Heinrich. Vorklaringe und entlick beschet der Wordt des Heren Diskes, nach
gründinge und verforschinge der schrifft. Rostock: Dietz, 1529. Not in VD16; see
Ernst Koch, “ ‘Zwinglianer’ zwischen Ostsee und Harz.”
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Ad Billibaldum Pyrkaimerum de re Eucharistiae responsio.
Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. VD16: O 281.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Ad Billibaldvm Pyrkaimervm, de Eucharistia, Ioannis
Husschin, cui ab aeqalibus a prima adolescentia Oecolampadio nomen obuenit,
Responsio posterior. Basel: Cratander, 1527. VD16: O 282.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Ad Fratres qui euangelium Christi in agro Basiliensi
annunciant, epistola paraenetica. Basel: Curio, 1528. VD16: O 286.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Ain Sendbrieue Johannis Oecolampadij/an ettliche
Brüder/so das Euangelium Christi in Basler landschafft predigen/Ermanende/
das sy der rainigkait/lebens/leere/vnnd der gebreũche allenthalbñ nachuolgen
sollen. Augsburg: Otmar, 1528. VD16: O 287.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Apologetica De Dignitate Evcharistiae Sermones duo. Ad
Theobaldvm Billicanvm quinam in uerbis Caenae alienum sensum inferant. Ad
Ecclesiastas Svevos Antisyngramma. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. VD16: O 305/O 283/
O 288.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Vom Nachtmal. Beweisung auß euangelischen schrifften/
wer die seyen/so des Herren Nachtmals wort vnrecht verstanden vnd außlegen.
Basel: Wolff, 1526. VD16: O 289–O 290.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Zwen Schön Sermon: inhaltende/das man von wegen
des Herren Nachtmals Brüderliche Liebe nitt soll zertrennen. Augsburg, 1526.
VD16: O 307.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Das von wegen des herren nachtmals brüderliche lieb not
soll zertrennt werden/vnd von worem jnhalt der zeychen. Strasbourg: Köpfel,
1526. VD16: O 309.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Billiche antwortt/auff D. Martin Luthers bericht des
sacraments halb/sampt einem kurtzen begryff auff etlicher Prediger in Schwaben
459
Bibliography 459
gschrifft die wort des Herren nachtmals antreffendt. Basel: Wolff, 1526. VD16: O
295–O  296.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Das der miszuerstand D. Martin Luthers/vff die wenig-
bstendige wort/Das ist mein leib/nit beston mag. Die ander billiche antwort.
Basel: Cratander, 1527. VD16: O 303.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. DE Genvina Verborum domini, Hoc est corpus meum, iuxta
uetutissimos authores expositione, liber. Strasbourg: Knobloch, 1525. VD16: O 331.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Vom Sacrament der Dancksagung. Von dem waren
nateurlichen verstand der worten Christi: Das ist mein Leib/nach der gar alten
Lerern erklärung. Zurich: Froschauer 1526. VD16: O 337.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Ain Gespräch etlicher Predicanten . . . mit etlichen bekennern
des Wydertauffs. Basel: Curio, 1525. VD16: O 338–O 340.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Repvlsio Apologiae sacrificii Evcharistae. Basel: Wolff, 1528.
VD16: O 393.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Ableynung der Schützred der Opffermeß. Basel: Bebel,
1528. VD16: O 394.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Sermo de Sacramento Evcharistiae. Augsburg: Grimm &
Wirsung, 1521. VD16: O 396.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Ain Predig vnd ermanung von wirdiger ereenbietung
dem Sacrament des fronleichnam christi. Augsburg: Grimm & Wirsung, 1521.
VD16: O 397–O 398.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Vnderrichtung von dem Widertauff. Basel: Cratander, 1527.
VD16: B 7459/O 294.
Oecolampadius, Johannes. Wjderlegung der falschen gründt/so Augustinus Marius
Thuombpredicant zuo Basel/zuo verwenen das die Meß ein Opffer sey. Basel: Wolff,
1528. VD16: O 410.
Osiander, Andreas. Grund und Ursach aus der Heiligen Schrift, wie und warum
die Pröpst zu Nürnberg die Mißbräuch bei der heiligen Meß geändert haben.
Nuremberg: Hergot, 1524. 1525 imprints: VD16: O 1017–O 1023.
Osiander, Andreas. Grunt vnde orsake/vth der hylligen schrifft/Wo vnde worumme/
de mysbrüke by der hylgen mysse . . . nagelaten syn. Wittenberg: Barth, 1525.
VD16: O 1024.
Osiander, Andreas. Ein vermanung der Seelsorger an das volck czu Noremberg/ehe
dan man yhnen das Sacrament reycht vnd ein kurtz ordnung der Meß daselbs.
Königsberg: Weinreich, 1526. VD16: O 1025.
Osiander, Andreas. Grundt vnd vrsach warumb die czu Noremberg/die Seelmesz
Vigilien vnd der verstorbenen Jartage/halben abgethan. Königsberg: Weinreich,
1526. VD16: O 1026.
Osiander, Andreas. Etlich schluszred in welchen das leiden Christi gegen seinem
Abentmal gehalten wirdt [Nuremberg: Gutknecht, c. 1527]. Not in VD16; see
OGA 1:219.
460
460 Bibliography
Osiander, Andreas. Wider Caspar Schatzgeyers vnchristlichs schreyben damit er/daß

die Messz eyn opffer sey/zu beweysen vermaint. Nuremberg: Hölzel, 1525. VD16: O
1129–O  1131.
Osiander, Andreas, and Ulrich Zwingli. Epistola Dvae. Vna Hvlderici Zvinglii ad
Andream Osiandrvm qua cum eo expostulat, qod nouum illud de Eucharistia
dogma . . . impugnarit. Altera Andreae Osiandri ad Evndem . . . Zuinglium
Apologetica. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1527. VD16: O 1013/ Z 836.
Otter, Jakob. Christlich leben vnd sterben. Wie sich des herren nachtmals zuobrauchen.
Strasbourg: Beck, 1528. VD16: O 1467.
Otter, Jakob. Das erst Buch Mosi gepredigt durch Jacob Otthernn. Hagenau: Seitz, 1528.
VD16: O 1469.
Pelargus (Storch), Ambrosius. Apologia sacrificii Evcharistiae. Basel: Faber, 1528.
VD16: S 9288–S 9289.
Pelargus (Storch), Ambrosius. Grund: vrsach vnd antwort/das Christus warhafftig in
der Heiligen Meß vffgeopfferet werd. Basel: Faber, 1528. VD16: S 9290.
Pelargus (Storch), Ambrosius. Hyperaspismvs sive Propugnatio Apologiae. Basel: Faber,
1529. VD16: S 9293.
Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius. Commentariorum De Concilio Basileae celebrato libri duo.
Basel: Cratander, 1523. VD16: P 3111.
Pirckheimer, Willibald. De vera Christi carne & vero eius sanguine, ad Ioan.
Oecolampadium responsio. Nuremberg: Petreius, 1526. VD16: P 2915–P 2916.
Pirckheimer, Willibald. De uera Christi carne & uero eius sanguine, aduersus conuicia
Ioannis, qui sibi Oecolampadij nomen indidit, responsio secunda. Nuremberg: Petreius,
1527. VD16: P 2917.
Pirckheimer, Willibald. De convitiis Monachi illius, qui graecolatine Caecolampadius,
germanice uero Ausshin nuncupatur, ad Eleutherium suum epistola.
Nuremberg: Petreius, 1527. VD16: P 2903.
[Piscatorius, Johannes]. Qvibvs Praeivdiciis in Baden Heluetiorum sit disputatum.
Strasbourg: Prüß, 1526. VD16: H 4105/E 425/Z 874.
Pomer, Johan. Eyn Sermon von der eygenschafft vnd weyse des Sacraments der Tauff.
Hagenau: Seltz, 1529. VD16: B 9391.
[Presta, Johannes]. Ein anzaigen auß lautrer gegründter geschrifft/des Göttlichen/
Gaystlichen/vnnd Weltlichen gewalts/Auch der erwöllung diener/oder Richter/in
den selbigen. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1527. VD16: A 3018.
[Prussia]. Artikel der Ceremonien und andrer Kirchenordnung. s.l., 1526. Not in VD16;
see Sehling, Kirchenordnungen, 4:30–38.
Raute, Georg. Die Siebenzehen heupt Artickel der gantzen schrifft/die do eynem
Christlichen menschen Seher tröstlich zu wissen sind. Wittenberg: Klug, 1525.
VD16: R 426–R 429.
Reiff, Leonhard. Artickel vnd beschlusred M. Leonhard Beyr predigers zu Guben
widder die vnchristlichen/losen vnd vngegrundten Artickel D. Conradi Wimpina.
461
Bibliography 461
Ob das abendmal Christi/odder Messe/wie sie es nennen/ein opffer sey . . .

Wittenberg: Schirlentz, 1526. VD16: ZV 1217–1218.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Ain kurtze erklärung etlicher leüffiger puncten. Augsburg: Grimm,
1523. VD16: R 1821, R 1823, R 1825, R 1827.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Erklärung der zwölff artickel Christlichs gelaubens/vnnd leüffigster
puncten alles Christlichen lebens . . . Augsburg: Ruff, 1523. VD16: R 1822/R 2025,
R 1824/R 2026, R 1826/R 2028, R 1828/R 2029–R 1829/R 2030, R 1830/
R 2032–R 1831/R 2033, R 1832/R 2035–R 1841/R 2044, R1843/R 2046.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Eyne vorklarynge der twelff Artikel . . . mit den höuestücken
vnd vornemesten puncten . . . . Erfurt: Loersfeld, 1525. VD16: R 1842/R 2045,
R 1844/R 2047–R 1847/R 2050.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Materia Cogitandi de Toto Missae Negocio. Augsburg: Steiner, 1528.
VD16: R 1855.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Nova doctrina, per Vrbanum Regium. Augsburg: Ruff, 1526. VD16:
R 1856–R 1858.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Neve lere des achtbarn vnd gelerten mans Vrbani Regij predigers
zu Augspurg. Wittenberg: Klug, 1526. VD16: R 1860.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Die new Leer sambt jrer Verlegung. Strasbourg: Knobloch, 1526.
VD16: R 1861.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Prob zu des Herrn nachtmal für die eynfelttigen. Augsburg: Steiner,
1528. VD16: R 1870.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Responsio Vrbani Rhegii ad Dvos libros primum et tertium de Missa
Ioannis Eccij. Augsburg: Steiner, 1529. VD16: R 1876.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Ain Summa Christlicher leer/wie sy Vrbanus Regius/zů Hall im
Jntal/vor ettlich Jaren gepredigt hat. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1527. VD16: R 1977.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Wider den newen irrsal Doctor Andres von Carlstadt des Sacraments
halb warning. Augsburg: Ruff, 1524. VD16: R 2014–R 2017.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Vom hochwirdigen Sacrament des altars/vnderricht/was man auß
hayliger geschrifft wissen mag . . . geprediget corporis Christi bis auf den achtenden
MDXXV. Leipzig: Thanner, 1525. VD16: ZV 13191–ZV 13192, ZV 13198–ZV 13200.
Rhegius, Urbanus. Die zwölff artickel vnsers Christlichen glaubens mit anzaigung der
hailigen geschrift. Augsburg: Grimm, 1523. VD16: R 2024, R 2027, R 2031, R 2034,
ZV 13196–ZV 13197.
Ryss zu Ofen, Conrad. Antwort dem Hochgeleerten Doctor Johann Bugenhage . . . das
Sacrament betreffend. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1525. VD16: K 648–K 651.
Sam, Conrad. Christenliche vnderweysung der Jungen. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1528.
VD16: S 1538.
Sam, Conrad. Ein Trostbüchlin für die kleinmütigen vnd einfeltigen/die sich ergern/der
spaltung halb/auß dem Nachtmal Christi erwachsen/mit angehenckten grund bey
der partheyen/vund endtlichem bericht/wie sich ein yeder Christ in diser spaltung
halten soll. Ulm: Gruner, 1526. VD16: S 1546–S 1549.
462
462 Bibliography
Sam, Conrad. Ein erzwungne antwurt Conradi Saum/Predigers zu[o] Vlm/vff das
vnfrüntlich bu[o]chlin Hansen Schradins von Rütlingen, so er zu[o] schmach sein/im
truck hat lassen außgon. Ulm: Gruner, 1527. VD16: S 1543.
[Sattler, Michael]. Brüderliche vereynigung etzlicher kinder Gottes/siben Artickel
betreffend. Worms: Schöffer, 1527. VD16: S 1882.
Schatzgeyer, Kaspar. Abwaschung des vnflats so Andreas Osiander . . . in sein antlitz
gespihen hat, die erst von vnsers lieven herrn Testament. Die ander von dem opffer der
mess. Landshut: Weißenburge, 1525. VD16: S 2320.
Schatzgeyer, Kaspar. Fürhalltung xxx. artigkl/so jn gegenwürtiger verwerrung auf die
pan gepracht. Munich: Schobser, 1525. VD16: S 2329.
Schatzgeyer, Kaspar. Ein gietliche vnd freundtliche anntwort vnd vnttericht.
Munich: Schobser, 1526. VD16: ZV 13797.
Schatzgeyer, Kaspar. Replica Contra periculosa scripta post Scrutiniũ diuinae scripturae
iam pridẽ emissum emanata de Votis monasticis. Cõstitutõibus ecclesiasticis. Sacrificio
sacrosanctae Eucharistiae . . . Tübingen: Morhart, 1527. VD16: S 2331.
Schatzgeyer, Kaspar. Scrvtinivm Divinae Scriptvrae, pro conciliatione dissidentium
dogmatum . . . de sacrificio noui testamenti . . . de communione sub utra; specie.
Tübingen: Morhart, 1527. VD16: S 2339.
Schatzgeyer, Kaspar. Tractatus de Missa Tribvs distinctus sectionibus. Tübingen: Morhart,
1527. VD16: S 2340–S 2341.
Schatzgeyer, Kaspar. Von dem hayligisten Opffer der Meß sampt jren dreyen
fürnemlichsten/vnd wesenlichsten taylenn/Das ist/vonn der Consecrierung/
Opfferung/vñ Empfahũg des hochwirdigstenn Fronleychnams Christi/Ob der
gemein Christen mensch/vnder ainer oder bayder gstaltt jn empfahenn soll.
Augsburg: Steiner, 1525. VD16: S 2342.
Schatzgeyer, Kaspar. Vom Hochwirdigisten Sacrament des zartten fronleichnams Christi,
Vnd widerlegung ettlicher Argument/so in ainem newlich außgegangen jrrigen vnd
verfüerischen büchlin widers opffer der Mess gemacht sind. Munich: Schobser, 1525.
VD16: S 2348.
Schnewyl, Johannes. Der Blinden fürer bin ich genennt/Dem der sich selbs blind erkennt.
Wer Blind ist wils nitt verston/Der mag meyn wol müssig gon. Außgang der ding die wytz
nympt war/Vrsach des Buochs am end erfar. Augsburg: Ulhart, 1526. VD16: M 1082.
Schnewyl, Johannes. Wer gern wölt wissen wie ich hieß/Zuo leesen mich hett nit verdrieß.
Dem Gottes Eer an glegen wer/Darumb heyß ich der Eyfferer. Augsburg: Ulhart,
1527. VD16: M 1108.
Schnewyl, Johannes. Wider die vnmilte verdammung. Nach art vnd aygenschafft/aller
gleychßner . . . Jacob Straussen. Augsburg: Steiner, 1526. VD16: M 1109.
Schopper, Johannes. Eyn Ratschlag/Den etliche Christenliche Pfarherrn/Prediger/vnnd
andere/Götlicher schrifft verstendige/Einem Fürsten/welcher yetzigen stritigen leer
halb/auff den abschied/jüngst gehaltens Reichßtags z] Nürnberg/Christlicher warhait
vnderricht begert/gemacht haben. Nuremberg: Gutknecht, 1525. VD16: S 3920–S 3921.
463
Bibliography 463
Schradin, Johannes. Auf den newen vnnd groben Irrthumb vom Nachtmal des Herren/
durch den Predicanten zu[o] Vlm im münster mit gütem verstandt geprediget.
Antwort Joannis Schradin. Reutlingen: von Erfurt, 1527. VD16: S 4049.
Schultz, Peter. Ein büchleyn auff frag vnd antwort/die tzehen gepot/den glauben vnd das
Vater vnser betreffendt. Leipzig: Schmidt, 1527. VD16: S 4469.
Schwanhauser, Johannes. Vom abentmal Christi. Nuremberg: Peypus, 1528. VD16: S 4611.
Schwarzenberg, Johann von. Beschwerung der alten Teüfelischen Schlangen mit dem
Götlichen wort. Nuremberg: Hergot, 1525. VD16: S 4709–S 4711, S 4713–S 4714.
Schwarzenberg, Johann von. Besweringe der olden Düuelschen Slangen mit dem
Gödtliken worde. Magdeburg: Lotter, 1525. VD16: S 4715.
Schwenckfeld, Kaspar. Ein anwysunge das die opinion der leyplichen gegenwertigheyt
vnsers Herrens Jesu Christi jm Brote oder vnder der gestalt deß Brots/greicht ist.
Zurich: Froschauer, 1528. VD16: S 4840.
Schwenckfeld, Kaspar. Eyne Anwysinge dat de opinion der lyflyken Jegenwordicheyt
vnses Heren Jesu Christi im Brode edder vnder der gestalt des Brodes gerichtet ys.
Bremen: AGW, 1527. VD16: ZV 14257.
Schwenckfeld, Kaspar. Apologia vnd erclerung der Schlesier dz sy den Leib und Bluot
Christi jm Nachtmahl des herren vnd jm geheimniß des h. Sacraments nicht
verleücknen. Strasbourg: Beck, 1529. VD16: S 4912.
Schwenckfeld, Kaspar. Ein christlich bedencken. Ob Judas vnd die vngleubigen falschen
Christen/den leib vnd das bluot Jhesu Christi jm Sacrament deß Nachtmals etwan
empfangen/oder auch noch heüt empfahen vnd niessen mögen. Strasbourg: Beck,
1529. VD16: S 4900–S 4901.
Schwenckfeld, Kaspar. Entschuldigung das er den Leyb vnnd Bluot Christi ym Nachtmall
des Herren/vnd im geheymnus des H. Sacraments nicht verleüchet. Auff das angeben
vnd Büchlen damit er yn disem Artickel bey der Kö. Ma. zuo Vngern Behem etc. ist
beschuldiget worden. Liegnitz: Froschauer, 1529. VD16: S 4911.
[Strasbourg]. Ordnung des herren Nachtmal so man die messz nennet/sampt der Tauff
vnn Jnsegung der Ee/Wie yetzt die diener des wort gottes zuo Strasszburg/Erneüwert/
vnnd nach göttlicher geschrifft gebessert haben. Strasbourg: Schwan, 1525. VD16: M
4908–M  4909.
[Strasbourg]. Straszburger kirchenampt, nemlich von Jnsegung d’Eeleüt, vom Tauf vnd
von des herren nachtmal, mit etlichen Psalmen, die am end des büchlins, ordenlich
verzeychnet sein. Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1525. VD16: M 4907.
[Strasbourg]. Ordenung vnd ynnhalt Teütscher Mess vnn Vesper/So yetzund im
gebrauch haben Euangelisten vnd Christlichen Pfarrherren zuo Straßburg.
Mit etlichen Neüwen geschrifftlichen Jntroit/ Gebet. Strasbourg: Köpfel, 1525.
VD16: M 4906.
Strauss, Jakob. Wider den vnmilten Jrthum Maister Vlrichs zwinglins so er verneünet die
warhafftig gegenwirtigkait dess allerhailligsten leybs vnd bluets Christi im Sacrament.
Augsburg: Ramminger, 1526. VD16: S 9515.
46
464 Bibliography
Strauss, Jakob. Das der war leyb Christi vnd seyn heiliges bluot im Sacrament gegenwertig
sey richtige erklerung auff das new büchleyn D. Johannes Haußscheyn disem zuowider
außgangen. Augsburg: Steiner, 1527. VD16: S 9477.
Sylvius (Penick), Peter. Von den vier Euangelion . . . Das ist von den irrigen Artickeln/
der vier vnchristlichen ketzereyen, Nemlich der Pickarden/der Muscouitern/des
Wigkleffs/vnd des Huss . . . Leipzig: Schmidt, 1528. VD16: P 1308.
Toltz, Johannes. Eyn kurtz handbuchlyn/fur iunge Christen/so viel yhn zu wissen von
nöten. Wittenberg: Rhau, 1526. VD16: T 1501–T 1503, T 1505–T 1506, T 1509,
ZV 10238, ZV 11245.
Toltz, Johannes. Der heyligen schrifft Artt/Weyse/vnd gebrauch. Tropi Bibliaci.
Eyn kurtz handbuchlyn fur iunge Christen so viel yhn zuwissen von nöten.
Leipzig: Blum, 1526. VD16: T 1504, T 1507–T 1508, T 1510.
Toltz, Johannes. Von dem Osterlamlen vnd Testament Jhesu Christi/Aus dem zwölfften
Capitel des andern buchs Mosi. Erfurt: Loersfeld, 1526. VD16: T 1513–T 1515,
ZV 18257.
Turnauer, Kaspar. Die wort Pauli vom Nachtmal des Herren. Augsburg: Otmar, 1525.
VD16: T 2363.
Weidensee, Eberhard. Eyn vnderricht . . . Melchior Hoffmans sendebreff . . . belangende.
Hamburg: Rocholff, 1529. VD16: W 1461.
Weidensee, Eberhard, and Johannes Fritzhans. Antwort auff die zwei elenden buchlein
D. Johan: Mensing Pauler munch. Magdeburg: Oettinger, 1526. VD16: W 1452.
Wimpina (Koch), Konrad. Sectarvm Errorvm, Hallvtinationum, & Schismatum,
ab origine ferme Christianae ecclesiae, ad haec usque nostra tempora, concisioris
Anacephalaeoseos, Vna cum aliquantis Pigardicarum, Vuiglefticarum, & Lutheranarum
haeresum: confutationibus. Frankfurt/Oder: Hanau, 1528. VD16: K 1533.
Wyclif, John. Io. VViclefi Viri Vndiqvaque pjs dialogorum libri quattuor. Worms:
Schöffer, 1525. VD16: W 4866.
Ziegler, Clemens. Ein fast schon büchlin . . . von den leib vnd bluot Christi. Strasbourg:
Schwan, 1525. VD16: Z 413–Z 414.
[Zurich]. EJn abgeschrifft oder Copy beder früntlicher geschrifft vnd gleitbrieffs die ein
Ersamer grosser Radt ze Zürich Joannsen Eggen Doctorn am. vj. tag Nouembers des.
M.D.xxiiij. jars/mit eim gschwornen stattbotten zů geschickt. Zurich: Hager, 1526.
VD16: Z 573–Z 574.
[Zurich]. Action oder Bruch des Nachtmals/Gedechtnus/oder Dancksagung Christi.
Zurich: Froschauer, 1525. VD16: M 4921–M 4922.
[Zurich]. Ordnung der Christenlichenn Kilchenn zuo Zürich. Zurich: Froschauer,
1525. VD16: Z 605.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Ad Ioannis Bvgenhagii Pomerani Epistolam Responsio. Zurich:
Froschauer, 1525. VD16: Z 780.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Eyn Antwurt Huldrychs Zuinglins vff die Epistel Joannis Pugenhag vss
Pomeren/das Nachtmal Christi betreffende. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. VD16: Z 781.
465
Bibliography 465
Zwingli, Ulrich. Ad Mattaeum Alberum . . . de Caena Dominica, Epistola. Zurich:

Zwingli, Ulrich. Epistel oder sandtbrieff Huldrych zuinglis/von des Herren
nachtmal. Zurich: Hager, 1525. VD16: Z 783.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Ad Theobaldi Billicani et Vrbani Rhegii Epistolas Responsio. Zurich:
Zwingli, Ulrich. Amica Exegesis, id est, Expositio Evcharistiae negocii. Zurich: Froschauer,
1527. VD16: Z 780.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Der ander sendbrieff Huldrich Zwinglis an die Christen Zuo Eßlingen.
Ulm: Gruner, 1527. VD16: Z 810.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Die andere Antwort über etliche unwahrhafte Antworten die Eck auf der
Disputation zuo Baden geben hat. Zurich: Hager, 1526. VD16: Z 875–Z 877.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Antwort wider Hieronimii Emser den schutzherren des Canons oder
Stillmess. Zurich: Froschauer, 1525. VD16: Z 788–Z 789.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Antwurt Huldrichen Zwinglins über Doctor Straussen büchlin wider
jnn geschriben das nachtmal Christi betreffende. Zurich: Froschauer, 1527. VD16:
Z 796–Z 798.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Ain Christenliche fast nutzliche vnd tröstliche Epistel Ulrich Zwinglins
ann dye . . . zuo Eßlingen. Augsburg: Steiner, 1526. VD16: Z 808–Z 809.
Zwingli, Ulrich. De Vera et falsa religione Commentarius. Zurich: Froschauer, 1525.
VD16: Z 912–Z 913.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Uon warem vnd valschem Glouben/Commentarius/dz ist/
vnderrichtung. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. VD16: Z 914–Z 915.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Von dem Nachtmal Christi/widergedechtnus/oder dancksagung
Huldrychen Zuinglins meynung . . . durch dry getrüw bruoder ylendes in tütsch
gebracht. Ob Gott wil zuo guotem ouch tütscher Nation. Zurich: Froschauer, 1525.
VD16: Z 916–Z 918.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Das dise wort Iesu Christi: “Das ist min lychnam, der für üch hinggeben
wirt,” ewigklich den alten eynigen sinn haben werden, und M. Luter mit sinem letsten
buoch sinen und des bapsts sinn gar nit gelert noch bwärt hat. Huldrych Zuinglis
christenlich antwort. Zurich: Froschauer, 1527. VD16: Z 811.
Zwingli, Ulrich. DJe erst kurtze Antwort über Eggen siben Schlußreden. Zurich: Hager,
1526. VD16: Z 869–Z 870, Z 872–Z 873; ZV 20824.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Freundlich Verglimpfung vnd ableynung über die predig des treffenlichen
Martini Luthers wider die Schwermer. Zurich: Froschauer, 1527. VD16: Z 851.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Ein klare vnderrichtung vom nachtmal Christi durch Huldrichen
Zuinglin/Teütsch “als vormals nie” vmb der Einfältigen willen/damit sy mit nyemants
spitzfündigkeit hinder gangen mögen werden/beschriben. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526.
VD16: Z 865–Z 868.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Responsio Brevis ad Epistolam satis longam amici cuiusdam haud
uulgarus, in qua de Eucharistia quaestio tractatur. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526.
VD16: Z 892.
46
466 Bibliography
Zwingli, Ulrich. Subsidium sive Coronis de Eucharistia. Zurich: Froschauer, 1525.

VD16: Z 893.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Naachhuot von dem Nachtmal oder Dancksagung Christi. Zurich:
Hager, 1525. VD16: Z 894–Z 895.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Vber den vngesandten sendbrieff Johannsen Fabers Doctors:
an Huldrichen Zuinglin geschriben: vnd hinderwertz außgespreyt: vnd nit
vberschickt: Antwurt Huldrichen Zwinglis. Zurich: Froschauer, 1526. VD16:
Z 902–Z 903.
Zwingli, Ulrich, and Johannes Oecolampadius. Über Martin Luters Buch,
Bekenntnis genannt, zwo Antworten. Zurich: Froschauer, 1528. VD16:
O 404/Z 908.
M o d er n Ed i t i o n s , T r a n s l at i o n s , a n d R e f e r e n c e   Wo r k s
Aland, Kurt. Hilfsbuch zum Lutherstudium. 3rd ed. Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1970.
Aulinger, Rosemarie, ed. Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V. Vol. 5/6:
Der Reichstag zu Augsburg 1525, Der Reichstag zu Speyer 1526, Der Fürstentag zu
Esslingen 1526. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2011.
Bauman, Clarence, ed. The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck: Interpretation and
Translation of Key Texts. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 47.
Leiden: Brill, 1991.
Baylor, Michael G., ed. The Radical Reformation. Cambridge Texts in the History of
Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Benzing, Josef, ed. Lutherbibliographie. Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften Martin
Luthers bis zu dessen Tod. Baden-Baden: Heitz, 1966.
Brenz, Johannes. Werke. Eine Studienausgabe. Edited by Martin Brecht et al.
Tübingen: Mohr, 1970–86.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed and trans. Zwingli and Bullinger: Selected Translations with
Introductions and Notes. Library of Christian Classics 24. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1953.
Bucer, Martin. Correspondance de Martin Bucer. Edited by Jean Rott et al. Martini
Bucer, Martin. Deutsche Schriften. Edited by Robert Stupperich et al. Opera Omnia
Series 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn, 1960–2016.
Bucer, Martin. Martini Buceri Opera Latina. Edited by François Wendel et al. Martini
Bugenhagen, Johannes. Selected Writings. Edited by Kurt K. Hendel. 2 vols.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.
Bullinger, Heinrich. Briefwechsel. Edited by Ulrich Gäbler et al. Werke, Zweite
Abteilung. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1973–.
Bullinger, Heinrich. Theologische Schriften. Werke, Dritte Abteilung. Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1983–.
467
Bibliography 467
Burnett, Amy Nelson, ed. and trans. The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein
von Karlstadt. Early Modern Studies 6. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University
Press, 2011.
Busch, Eberhard, and Heiner Faulenbach, eds. Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften. Vol. 1/
1: 1523–1534. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002.
Camerarius, Joachim. Vita Philippi Melanchthonis. The Hague: Vlacq, 1655.
Cohrs, Ferdinand, ed. Die evangelischen Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion.
5 vols. Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica 20–23, 39. Hildesheim: Olms, 1978.
[Reprint of Berlin, 1900–1907 ed.]
Denzinger, Heinrich, and Peter Hünermann, eds. Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse
und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. 42nd ed. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2009.
Dingel, Irene, ed. Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelische- Lutherischen Kirche.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014.
Dürr, Emil, and Paul Roth, eds. Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Basler Reformation
in den Jahren 1519 bis Anfang 1534. 6 vols. Basel: Historische und antiquarische
Gesellschaft, 1921–50.
Eck, Johannes. De sacrificio missae libri tres. Edited by Erwin Iserloh et al. Corpus
Catholicorum 36. Münster: Aschendorff, 1982.
Eck, Johannes. Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes
ecclesiae (1525–1543). Edited by Pierre Fraenkel. Corpus Catholicorum 34.
Münster: Aschendorff, 1979.
Eck, Johannes. Vier deutsche Schriften gegen Martin Luther, den Bürgermeister und
Rat von Konstanz, Ambrosius Blarer und Konrad Sam. Edited by Karl Meisen and
Friedrich Zoepfl. Corpus Catholicorum 14. Münster: Aschendorff, 1929.
Egli, Emil, ed. Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren
1519–1533. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf/Scientia, 1973. [Orig. Zurich, 1879]
Erasmus, Desiderius. Collected Works of Erasmus. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press,  1974–.
Erasmus, Desiderius. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia emendatiora et auctiora.
Edited by Jean LeClerc. 10 vols. Hildesheim: Olms, 1961–1978. [Orig.: Leiden,
1703–1706].
Erasmus, Desiderius. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera omnia. Amsterdam:
North-Holland,  1969–.
Erasmus, Desiderius. Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterdami. Edited by P. S. Allen
et al. 12 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906–58.
Erasmus, Desiderius. “Ratio— Theologische Methodenlehre.” In Erasmus von
Rotterdam, Ausgewählte Schriften, edited by Gerhard B. Winkler, 3:117– 495.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967.
Ferber, Nikolaus. Locorum communium adversus huius temporis haereses Enchiridion
(1529). Edited by Patricius Schleger. Corpus Catholicorum 12. Münster:
Aschendorff, 1927.
Friedberg, Emil, ed. Corpus Iuris Canonici. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879–81.
468
468 Bibliography
Furcha, E. J., ed. and trans. The Essential Carlstadt: Fifteen Tracts by Andreas Bodenstein
(Carlstadt) from Karlstadt. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1995.
Furcha, Edward J., and H. Wayne Pipkin, eds. Huldrych Zwingli: Writings. 2 vols.
Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1984.
Grimm, Jacob, et al. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854–60.
Herminjard, A.-L., ed. Correspondance des Réformateurs dans les pays de langue Française.
9 vols. Geneva: H. Georg, 1866–97. [Reprint, Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1966]
Hertzsch, Erich, ed. Karlstadts Schriften aus den Jahren 1523–25. 2 vols. Neudrucke
deutscher Literaturwerke des 16 und 17. Jahrhunderts 325. Halle: Niemeyer,
1956–57.
Hubmaier, Balthasar. Schriften. Edited by Gunnar Westin and Torsten Bergsten.
Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer 9. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1962.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ed. Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli (1484–1531), the
Reformer of German Switzerland. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania,  1901.
Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von. Kritische Gesamtausgabe der Schriften und
Briefe Andreas Bodensteins von Karlstadt. Edited by Thomas Kaufmann et al.
Güterlsoh: Gütersloher Varlagshaus, 2017–.
Kawerau, Gustav, ed. Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas. 2 vols. in 1 ed.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1964.
Köhler, Hans-Joachim, ed. Bibliographie der Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts. 3 vols.
Tübingen: Bibliotheca Academica, 1991–96.
Köhler, Hans-Joachim, et al., eds. Flugschriften des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts. Zug: Inter
Documentation, 1978–87.
Köhler, Walther. Das Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion.
Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 48/1. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1929.
Kolb, Robert, and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000.
Lahey, Stephen E., ed. and trans. Wyclif: Trialogus. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2013.
Laube, Adolf, ed. Flugschriften gegen die Reformation (1525–30). 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 2000.
Laube, Adolf, et al, eds. Flugschriften der frühen Reformationsbewegung (1518–1524).
2 vols. Vaduz: Topos, 1983.
Laube, Adolf, et al., eds. Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg zum Täuferreich (1526–1535).
2 vols. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992.
Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study.
Lechler, Gotthard, ed. Joannis Wiclif, Trialogus cum Supplemento Trialogi.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1869.
Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955–.
Luther, Martin. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 123 vols. Weimar: Böhlaus Nachfolger,
1883–2009.
469
Bibliography 469
Manuel, Niklaus. Werke und Briefe. Edited by Paul Zinsli and Thomas Hengartner.
Bern: Stämpfli, 1999.
Martin, John H. “The Eucharistic Treatise of John Quidort of Paris.” Viator 7
(1975): 195–240.
May, Gerhard, ed. Das Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529. Texte zur Kirchen-und
Theologiegeschichte 13. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Varlagshaus G Mohn, 1970.
McKeon, Richard, ed. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House, 1941.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl. Edited by Robert Stupperich.
7 vols. in 9. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1951–83.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae Supersunt Omnia. Corpus
Reformatorum 1–28. Halle: Schwetschke, 1834–60.
Migne, J.-P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina. 221 vols. Paris: Garnieri
Fratres, 1844–64.
Müller, Joseph. Die deutschen Katechismen der böhmischen Brüder: kritische
Textausgabe. Monumenta Germaniae paedagogica 6. Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1970.
[Orig.: Berlin, 1887].
Müller, Lydia, and Robert Friedmann, eds. Glaubenszeugnisse oberdeutscher
Taufgesinnter. 2 vols. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 20,
24. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1938–67.
Müller, Nicolaus. Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521 und 1522. Die Vorgänge in und um
Wittenberg während Luthers Wartburgaufenthalt. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1911.
Müntzer, Thomas. Schriften und Briefe. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Edited by Paul Kirn
and Günther Franz. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 33.
Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1968.
Müntzer, Thomas. Thomas-Müntzer-Ausgabe. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Quellen und
Forschungen zur sächsischen Geschichte. Leipzig: Verlag der Sächsischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 2004–.
Muralt, Leonhard von, and Walter Schmid, eds. Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in
der Schweiz. Vol. 1: Zürich. Zurich: Hirzel, 1952.
Nicolaus of Lyra. Postilla super totam Bibliam. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1971.
Oberman, Heiko A., ed. Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval
Thought Illustrated by Key Documents. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1981.
Osiander, Andreas. Gesamtausgabe. 10 vols. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn,
1975–97.
Pahl, Irmgard, ed. Coena Domini I. Die Abendmahlsliturgie der Reformationskirchen im
16./17. Jahrhundert. Spicilegium Friburgense 29. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1983.
Peter Lombard. Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae. 2 vols. Grottaferrata
(Rome): Collegium S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1981.
Pfeiffer-Belli, Wolfgang, ed. Thomas Murner im Schweizer Glaubenskampf. Corpus
Catholicorum 22. Münster: Aschendorff, 1939.
Pipkin, H. Wayne, and John Howard Yoder, eds. Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of
Anabaptism. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989.
470
470 Bibliography
Pollet, J. V., O.P., ed. Martin Bucer. Études sur la correspondance. 2 vols. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1958–62.
Pressel, Theodor. Anecdota Brentiana. Ungedruckte Briefe und Bedenken von Johannes
Brenz. Tübingen: Heckenhauer, 1868.
Quintilian. The Orator’s Education, Books 6–8. Edited and translated by Donald
A. Russell. Loeb Classical Library 126. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2001.
Reicke, Emil, et al., eds. Willibald Pirckheimers Briefwechsel. 7 vols. Munich: Beck,
1940–2009.
Reske, Christoph, ed. Die Buchdrucker des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts im deutschen
Sprachgebiet: auf der Grundlage des gleichnamigen Werkes von Josef Benzing. Beiträge
zum Buch-und Bibliothekswesen 51. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007.
Riggenbach, Bernhard, ed. Das Chronikon des Konrad Pellikan. Basel: Bahnmaier, 1877.
Rummel, Erika, and Milton Kooistra, eds. The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005–.
Sallmann, Martin, ed. Dokumente der Berner Reformation: Disputationsthesen,
Reformationsmandat und Synodus. Zurich: TVZ, 2013.
Schaff, Philip, ed. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First series.
14 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956.
Schatzgeyer, Kaspar. Schriften zur Verteidigung der Messe. Edited by Erwin Iserloh and
Peter Fabisch. Corpus Catholicorum 37. Münster: Aschendorff, 1984.
Scheible, Heinz, et al., eds. Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte
Gesamtausgabe. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog,  1977–.
Schiess, Traugott, ed. Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer 1509–
1548. 3 vols. Freiburg im Breisgau: Fehsenfeld, 1908–12.
Schindler, Alfred, and Wolfram Schneider-Lastin, eds. Die Badener Disputation von
1526. Kommentierte Edition des Protokolls. Zurich: TVZ, 2015.
Schweizerisches Idiotikon. Edited by Friedrich Staub et al. 17 vols. Frauenfeld: Huber,
1881–;https://idiotikon.ch.
Schwenckfeld, Kaspar. Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel,
1907–61.
Sedlák, Jan, ed. Táborské traktáty eucharistické. Brno: Nákl. Papezské Knihtisk.
Benedktinu Rajhradských, 1918.
Seebaß, Gottfried, et al., eds. Martin Bucer (1491–1551) Bibliographie. Gütersloh:
Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005.
Sehling, Ernst, et al., eds. Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts.
24 vols. Leipzig/Tübingen: Reisland/Mohr, 1902–2016.
Smend, Julius, ed. Die evangelischen deutschen Messen bis zu Luthers deutscher Messe.
Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1967. [Orig.: Göttingen, 1896].
Spengler, Lazarus. Lazarus Spengler Schriften. Edited by Berndt Hamm and Wolfgang
Huber. 3 vols. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 61, 70, 84.
Gütersloh: Gütërsloher Verlagshaus, 1995–2010.
471
Bibliography 471
Staehelin, Ernst. “Bibliographische Beiträge zum Lebenswerk Oekolampads.” Basler

Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 27 (1928): 191–234.
Staehelin, Ernst, ed. Briefe und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads, zum vierhundertjährigen
Jubiläum der Basler Reformation. 2 vols. Quellen und Forschungen zur
Reformationsgeschichte 10, 19. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927–34.
Staehelin, Ernst. “Oekolampad-Bibliographie (Verzeichnis der im 16. Jahrhundert
erschienenen Oekolampaddrucke).” Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und
Altertumskunde 17 (1918): 1–119.
Thompson, Bard, ed. Liturgies of the Western Church. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1961.
Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts
(VD16). www.vd16.de.
Vogt, Karl August Traugott. Johannes Bugenhagen Pomeranus. Elberfeld: R.I.
Friderichs, 1867.
Vogt, Otto, Eike Wolgast, and H. Volz, eds. Dr. Johann Bugenhagens Briefwechsel.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1966. [Orig.: Stettin, 1888].
Wackernagel, Philipp. Das Deutsche Kirchenlied von der ältesten Zeit bis zu Anfang des
xvii. Jahrhunderts. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1864–77.
Walch, Johann Georg, ed. Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften. 23 vols. St. Louis,
MO: Concordia, 1881–1910.
Wander, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm. Deutsches Sprichwörter-Lexikon: ein Hausschatz
für das deutsche Volk. 5 vols. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1867. [Reprint, Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964]
Weller, Emil. Repertorium typographicum: die deutsche Literatur im ersten Viertel des
sechzehnten Jahrhunderts: im Anschluss an Hains Repertorium und Panzers deutsche
Annalen. Nördlingen: Beck, 1864. [Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1961]
Wright, David F., ed. Common Places of Martin Bucer. Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay
Press, 1972.
Wyclif, John. De Eucharistia Tractatus Major. Edited by Johann Loserth. London: The
Wyclif Society, 1892. [Reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint, 1966].
Zwingli, Ulrich. Commentary on True and False Religion. Translated by Samuel
Macauley Jackson and Clarence Nevin Heller. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1981.
Zwingli, Ulrich. Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke. Leipzig/Zurich: Heinsius/T VZ,
1905–91.
S ec o n da ry S o u r c e s
Albrecht, Otto. Luthers Katechismen. Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte
33. Leipzig: Verein für Reformationsgeschichte, 1915.
Atwood, Craig D. The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius. University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009.
Auerbach, Erich. “Figura.” In Scenes from the Drama of European Literature: Six Essays,
translated by R. Manheim, 11–76. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973.
472
472 Bibliography
Augustijn, Cornelis. “Einleitung zu Detectio Praestigiarvm.” In Desiderii Erasmi

Roterodami Opera Omnia, vol. 9/ 1, edited by Cornelis Augustijn, 213– 231.
Amsterdam: North-Holland,  1982.
Augustijn, Cornelis. Erasmus. Der Humanist als Theologe und Kirchenreformer. Studies
in Medieval and Reformation Thought 59. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Augustijn, Cornelis. Erasmus: His Life, Works and Influence. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1991.
Augustijn, Cornelis. “Erasmus und die Reformation in der Schweiz.” Basler Zeitschrift
für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 86, no. 2 (1986): 27–42.
Augustijn, Cornelis. “Wessel Gansfort’s Rise to Celebrity.” In Wessel Gansfort (1419–
1489) and Northern Humanism, edited by Fokke Akkerman, G. C. Huisman, and
A. J. Vanderjagt, 3–22. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
Backus, Irena. “The Disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528: Neutralizing the Early
Church.” Studies in Reformed theology and History 1 (1993): 1–130.
Backus, Irena. Martin Borrhaus (Cellarius). Bibliotheca dissidentium. Répertoire des
non-conformistes religieux des seizième et dix-septieme siècles 2. Baden-Baden:
Koerner, 1981.
Backus, Irena. “Polemic, Exegetical Tradition and Ontology. Bucer’s Interpretation of
John 6:52, 53 and 64 Before and After the Wittenberg Concord.” In The Bible in
the Sixteenth Century, edited by David C. Steinmetz, 167–80. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1990.
Backus, Irena. “Randbemerkungen Zwinglis in den Werken von Giovanni Pico della
Mirandola.” Zwingliana 18, nos. 4–5 (1990/1991): 291–309.
Barge, Hermann. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. 2 vols. Leipzig: Brandstetter, 1905.
Bernstein, Eckhard. “Willibald Pirckheimer (5 December 1470–22 December 1530).”
In German Writers of the Renaissance and Reformation 1280–1580, edited by James
N. Hardin and Max Reinhart, 218–25. Detroit: Gale Research, 1978.
Beyer, Jürgen. “How Complete are the German National Bibliographies for the Sixteenth
and Seventeenth Centuries (VD16 and VD17)?.” In The Book Triumphant: Print in
Transition in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Malcolm Walsby
and Graeme Kemp, 57–77. Library of the Written Word 15: The Handpress World.
Beyer, Michael. “Übersetzungen als Medium des Transfers.” In Kommunikation und
Transfer im Christentum der Frühen Neuzeit, edited by Irene Dingel and Wolf-
Friedrich Schäufele, 49– 67. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische
Geschichte Mainz 74. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2007.
Bizer, Ernst. Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits im 16. Jahrhundert. 2nd ed.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962. [Orig. Gütersloh, 1940].
Blanke, Fritz. Brothers in Christ. The History of the Oldest Anabaptist Congregation,
Zollikon, near Zurich, Switzerland. Translated by Joseph Nordenhaug. Scottdale,
PA: Herald Press, 1961.
473
Bibliography 473
Blanke, Fritz. “Zu Zwinglis Vorrede an Luther in der Schrift Amica Exegesis 1527.”
Zwingliana 5 (1930): 185–92.
Bolliger, Daniel. Infiniti Contemplatio: Grundzüge der Scotus-und Scotismusrezeption
im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis: Mit ausführlicher Edition bisher unpublizierter
Annotationes Zwinglis. Studies in the History of Christian Thought 107.
Bornert, René. La Réforme protestante du culte à Strasbourg au XVI. siècle. Studies in
Medieval and Reformation Thought 28. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981.
Borst, Arno. “Crisis and Reform in the Universities of the Late Middle Ages.” In
Medieval Worlds: Barbarians, Heretics, and Artists in the Middle Ages, 167–81.
Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991.
Bosshard, Stefan Niklaus. Zwingli—Erasmus—Cajetan. Die Eucharistie als Zeichen
der Einheit. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz 89.
Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978.
Brady, Thomas A., Jr. Protestant Politics, Jacob Sturm (1489–1553) and the German
Reformation. Studies in German History. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities
Press, 1995.
Brecht, Martin. Die frühe Theologie des Johannes Brenz. Beiträge zur historischen
Theologie 36. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1966.
Brecht, Martin. “Die Predigt des Simon Haferitz zum Fest der heiligen drei Könige
1524 in Allstedt.” Luther Jahrbuch 58 (1991): 100–12.
Brecht, Martin. “Hat Zwingli seinen Brief an Matthäus Alber über das Abendmahl
gesandt?” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 58 (1967): 100–102.
Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. Vol. 2: Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521–1532.
Translated by James L. Schaaf. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990.
Breitenbruch, Bernd. Predigt, Traktat und Flugschrift im Dienste der Ulmer Reformation.
Weissenhorn: Anton H. Konrad Verlag, 1981.
Brewer, Brian C. A Pledge of Love: the Anabaptist Sacramental Theology of Balthasar
Hubmaier. Studies in Christian Liturgy and Thought. Milton Keynes, Bucks in
England: Paternoster, 2012.
Brieger, Theodor. Die angebliche Marburger Kirchenordnung von 1527 und Luther’s
erster katechetischer Unterricht vom Abendmahl: eine kritische Untersuchung.
Gotha: Perthes, 1881.
Briguglia, Gianluca. “Theology, Sacramental Debates, and Political Thought in John of
Paris: the Case of the Eucharist.” In John of Paris: Beyond Royal and Papal Power,
edited by Chris Jones, 401–21. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015.
Brinkel, Karl. Die Lehre Luthers von der fides infantium bei der Kindertaufe. Theologische
Arbeiten 7. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958.
Brübach, Nils. Die Reichsmessen von Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig und Braunschweig
(14. –18. Jahrhundert). Beiträge zur Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte 55.
Stuttgart: Steiner, 1994.
47
474 Bibliography
Bubenheimer, Ulrich. Consonantia Theologiae et Iurisprudentiae. Andreas Bodenstein

von Karlstadt als Theologe und Jurist zwischen Scholastik und Reformation.
Jus Ecclesiasticum. Beiträge zum evangelischen Kirchenrecht und zum
Staatskirchenrecht 24. Tübingen: Mohr, 1977.
Bubenheimer, Ulrich. “Scandalum et ius divinum: Theologische und rechtstheologische
Probleme der ersten reformatorischen Innovationen in Wittenberg 1521/1522.”
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 90, kanonistische Abteilung 59
(1973): 263–342.
Bubenheimer, Ulrich. “Zur vorreformatorischen Rezeption des italienischen
Humanismus in Erfurt und Wittenberg bei Martin Luther und Andreas Karlstadt.”
In Anwälte der Freiheit! Humanisten und Reformatoren im Dialog. Begleitband zur
Ausstellung im Reuchlinhaus Pforzheim, 20. September bis 8. November 2015, edited
by Matthias Dall’Asta, 105–13. Heidelberg: Neckar Universitätsverlag Winter, 2015.
Bührer, Wilfried. “Der Abendmahlgottesdienst der Stadt Konstanz im
Reformationszeitalter.” Zwingliana 15 (1979): 93–123.
Burke, Peter. “Cultures of Translation in Early Modern Europe.” In Cultural Translation
in Early Modern Europe, edited by Peter Burke and R. Po-chia Hsia, 7–38.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “Academic Heresy, the Reuchlin Affair, and the Control of
Theological Discourse in the Early Sixteenth Century.” In Church and School in Early
Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a
Theological Tradition, edited by Jordan J. Ballor, et al., 35–48. Studies in the History
of Christian Traditions 170. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “‘According to the Oldest Authorities’: The Use of the Church
Fathers in the Early Eucharistic Controversy.” In The Reformation as Christianization.
Essays on Scott Hendrix’s Christianization Thesis, edited by Anna Marie Johnson
and John A. Maxfield, 373–95. Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 66.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “Basel and the Wittenberg Concord.” Archiv für
Reformationsgeschichte 96 (2005): 33–56.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “Exegesis and Eucharist: Unexplored Connections Between
Calvin and Oecolampadius.” In Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae: Papers of the Eleventh
International Congress on Calvin Research, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis and
Arnold Huijgen, 245–60. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2016.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “Hermeneutics and Exegesis in the Early Eucharistic
Controversy.” In Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Readers
in the Sixteenth Century, edited by Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean, 85–105.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “The Hussite Background to the Sixteenth-Century Eucharistic
Controversy.” In Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 11 (2018): http://
www.brrp.org/publications.htm.
475
Bibliography 475
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “‘Instructed with the Greatest Diligence Concerning the Holy
Sacrament’: Communion Preparation in the Early Years of the Reformation.” In
From Wittenberg to the World: Essays on the Reformation and its Legacy, edited by
Charles Arand et al., 47–66. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy:
A Study in the Circulation of Ideas. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “Oekolampads Anteil am frühen Abendmahlsstreit.” In
Basel als Zentrum des geistigen Austauschs in der frühen Reformation, edited
by Christine Christ- von Wedel, Sven Grosse, and Berndt Hamm, 215– 31.
Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “Picards, Karlstadtians, and Oecolampadians: (Re-) Naming the
Early Eucharistic Controversy.” In Names and Naming in Early Modern Germany,
edited by Joel Harrington and Marjorie Elizabeth Plummer. New York: Berghahn,
2019.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “The Reformation in Basel.” In Companion to the Swiss
Reformation, edited by Amy Nelson Burnett and Emidio Campi, 170–215. Brill’s
Companions to the Christian Tradition 72. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “Rhetoric and Refutation in Luther’s That These Words Still
Stand Firm.” Lutheran Quarterly 29 (2015): 284–303.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “The Social History of Communion and the Reformation of the
Eucharist.” Past and Present 211 (2011): 77–119.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. Teaching the Reformation: Ministers and Their Message in Basel,
1529–1629. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2006.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. “‘Things I Never Said or Thought’? Erasmus’ Exegetical
Contribution to the Early Eucharistic Controversy.” In Collaboration, Conflict and
Continuity in the Reformation: Essays in Honor of James M. Estes on His Eightieth
Birthday, edited by Konrad Eisenbichler, 275–95. Toronto: Centre for Reformation
and Renaissance Studies, 2014.
Burr, David. “Scotus and Transubstantiation.” Medieval Studies 34 (1972): 336–60.
Chrisman, Miriam U. Conflicting Visions of Reform. German Lay Propaganda Pamphlets,
1519–1530. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995.
Christ-von Wedel, Christine. “Erasmus und Luther als Ausleger der Bibel.” In Auslegung
und Hermeneutik der Bibel in der Reformationszeit, edited by Christine Christ-
von Wedel and Sven Grosse, 367–80. Historia Hermeneutica Series Studia 14.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017.
Christ-von Wedel, Christine. “Erasmus und die Zürcher Reformatoren. Huldrich
Zwingli, Leo Jud, Konrad Pellikan, Heinrich Bullinger und Theodor
Bibliander.” In Erasmus in Zürich. Eine verschwiegene Autorität, edited by
Christine Christ-von Wedel and Urs Leu, 77–165. Zurich: Neue Zürcher
Zeitung, 2007.
476
476 Bibliography
Christ-von Wedel, Christine. Erasmus of Rotterdam: Advocate of a New Christianity.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013.
Clanchy, Michael T. “Literate and Illiterate: Hearing and Seeing: England, 1066–1307.”
In Literacy and Historical Development: A Reader, edited by Harvey J. Graff, 38–81.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2007.
Clark, Stuart. Thinking with Demons. The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.
Clemen, Otto. “Bemerkungen zu Benedict Gretzingers Beschirmbüchlein.” In Beiträge
zur Reformationsgeschichte, 3:24–34. Berlin: Schwetschke, 1903.
Coleman, Joyce. Public Reading and the Reading Public in Late Medieval England and
France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Collver III, Albert B. “‘Real Presence’: An Overview and History of the Term.”
Concordia Journal 28 (2002): 142–59.
Cook, William R. “The Eucharist in Hussite Theology.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte
66 (1975): 23–35.
Cook, William R. “John Wyclif and Hussite Theology 1415–1436.” Church History 42
(1973): 335–49.
Copenhaver, Brian P., and Charles B. Schmitt. Renaissance Philosophy. History of
Western Philosophy 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Creasman, Allyson F. Censorship and Civic Order in Reformation Germany, 1517–
1648. “Printed Poison and Evil Talk.” St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History.
Burlington: Ashgate, 2012.
Crofts, Richard A. “Printing, Reform and the Catholic Reformation in Germany (1521–
1545).” Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985): 369–81.
Davis, Thomas J. “‘The Truth of the Divine Words’: Luther’s Sermons on the Eucharist,
1521–28 and the Structure of Eucharistic Meaning.” Sixteenth Century Journal 30
(1999): 323–42.
Dehnert, Uta. Freiheit, Ordnung und Gemeinwohl. Reformatorische Einflüsse im
Meisterlied von Hans Sachs. Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 102.
Deppermann, Klaus. Melchior Hoffman. Soziale Unruhen und apokalyptische Visionen
im Zeitalter der Reformation. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.
Diestelmann, Jürgen. Actio Sacramentalis. Die Verwaltung des Heiligen Abendmahls nach
den Prinzipien Luthers in der Zeit bis zur Konkordienformel. Gross Oesingen: H.
Harms, 1996.
Dingel, Irene. “Bekenntnis und Geschichte. Funktion und Entwicklung des
reformatorischen Bekenntnisses im 16. Jahrhundert.” In Dona Melanchthoniana.
Festgabe für Heinz Scheible zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Johanna Loehr, 61–81.
Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog,  2001.
Dingel, Irene. “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the
Formula of Concord (1548–1580).” In Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 1550–1675,
47
Bibliography 477
edited by Robert Kolb, 15–64. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 11.
Dingel, Irene. “Pruning the Vines, Plowing Up the Vineyard: The Sixteenth-Century
Culture of Controversy between Disputation and Polemic.” In The Reformation as
Christianization. Essays on Scott Hendrix’s Christianization Thesis, edited by Anna
Marie Johnson and John A. Maxfield, 397–408. Spätmittelalter, Humanismus,
Reformation 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Dingel, Irene. “Reformation and Confessional Identity As a Two-Phase Model?
The Process of Differentiation in the Development of Lutheranism.” In From
Wittenberg to the World: Essays on the Reformation and its Legacy in Honor of Robert
Kolb, edited by Charles P. Arand et al., 249–62. Refo500 Academic Studies 50.
Dipple, Geoffrey L. “The Spiritualist Anabaptists.” In A Companion to Anabaptism and
Spiritualism, 1521–1700, edited by John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, 257–97. Brill’s
Drews, Paul. Willibald Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation: Ein Beitrag zur Beurteilung
der Verhältnisses zwischen Humanismus und Reformation. Leipzig: Grunow, 1887.
Edwards, Mark U. “Catholic Controversial Literature, 1518–1555: Some Statistics.”
Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (1988): 189–204.
Edwards, Mark U. Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1994.
Edwards, Mark U. “Statistics in Sixteenth-Century Printing.” In The Process of Change in
Early Modern Europe: Essays in Honor of Miriam Usher Chrisman, edited by Phillip
N. Bebb and Sherrin Marshall, 149–63. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1989.
Endres, Rudolf. “Die Bedeutung des lateinischen und des deutschen Schulwesens für
die Entwicklung der fränkischen Reichstädte des Spätmittelalters und der frühen
Neuzeit.” In Schulgeschichte im Zusammenhang der Kulturentwicklung, edited by
Lenz Kriss-Rettenbeck and Max Liedtke, 144–65. Schriftenreihe zum Bayerischen
Schulmuseum Ichenhausen 1. Bad Heilbronn: Klinkhardt, 1983.
Endres, Rudolf. “Das Schulwesen in Franken im ausgehenden Mittelalter.” In Studien
zum städtischen Bildungswesen des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, ed-
ited by Bernd Moeller, Hans Patze, and Karl Stackmann, 173–214. Abhandlungen
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse,
Dritte Folge 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.
Engammare, Max. “‘Mizbéah’ dans les polémiques sur ‘Missa’: Une référence étrange à
l’hébreu dans la défense de la messe comme sacrifice dans les premières années des
réformes.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 50 (1988): 661–69.
Ernst, August, and Johann Adam. Katechetische Geschichte des Elsasses bis zur Revolution.
Strasbourg: Bull, 1897.
Evener, Vincent. “Divine Pedagogy and Self-accusation: Reassessing the Theology of
Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 87 (2013): 335–67.
478
478 Bibliography
Evener, Vincent. “Mysticism, Christianization, and Dissent: The Appropriation of

Johannes Tauler in Simon Haferitz’s Sermon on the Feast of the Three Holy Kings
(1524).” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 106 (2015): 67–91.
Farge, James K. “Erasmus, the University of Paris, and the Profession of Theology.”
Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 19 (1999): 18–46.
Farge, James K. Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty of
Theology of Paris, 1500–1543. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 32.
Fast, Heinold. “The Dependence of the First Anabaptists on Luther, Erasmus and
Zwingli.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 30 (1956): 104–19.
Felici, Lucia. Tra riforma ed eresia. La Giovinezza di Martin Borrhaus (1499–1528).
Florence: L.S. Olschki, 1995.
Friedrich, Martin. Von Marburg bis Leuenberg: Der lutherisch-reformierte Gegensatz
und seine Überwindung. Waltrop: Spenner, 1999.
Frymire, John. The Primacy of the Postils: Catholics, Protestants, and the Dissemination of
Ideas in Early Modern Germany. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions
147. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Fudge, Thomas R. “Luther and the ‘Hussite’ Catechism of 1522.” In Confessional Identity
in East-central Europe, edited by Maria Craciun, Ovidiu Ghitta, and Graeme
Murdoch, 31–48. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.
Gäbler, Ulrich. “Huldrych Zwinglis Lektüre von Martin Luthers ‘Sermon von dem
Sakrament des Leibes und Blutes Christi, wider die Schwärmgeister.’” Zwingliana
14 (1977): 370–79.
Geiselmann, Joseph Rupert. Die Eucharistielehre der Vorscholastik. Forschungen zur
christlichen Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte 15/1–3. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1926.
Goertz, Hans-Jürgen. “Variationen des Schriftverständnisses unter den Radikalen. Zur
Vieldeutigkeit des Sola-Scriptura-Prinzips.” In idem, Radikalität der Reformation:
Aufsätze und Abhandlungen, 188–215. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
Goeters, J. F. G. Ludwig Hätzer (ca. 1500–1529), Spiritualist und Antitrinitarier:
Eine Randfigur der frühen Täuferbewegung. Quellen und Forschungen zur
Reformationsgeschichte 25. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1957.
Gollwitzer, Helmut. “Zur Auslegung von Joh. 6 bei Luther und Zwingli.” In In Memoriam
Ernst Lohmeyer, edited by Werner Schmauch, 143–68. Stuttgart: Evangelisches
Verlagswerk, 1951.
Goris, Harm. “Thomism in Fifteenth-Century Germany.” In Aquinas as Authority: A
Collection of Studies presented at the Second Conference of the Thomas Instituut
te Utrecht, December 14–16, 2000, edited by Paulus J. van Geest et al., 1–24.
Leuven: Peeters, 2002.
Graser, Helmut, and B. Ann Tlusty. “Layers of Literacy in a Sixteenth-Century Case of
Fraud.” In Ideas and Cultural Margins in Early Modern Germany: Essays in Honor
of H.C. Erik Midelfort, edited by Marjorie Elizabeth Plummer and Robin Barnes,
31–47. Burlington: Ashgate, 2009.
479
Bibliography 479
Greschat, Martin. Martin Bucer: A Reformer and his Times. Translated by Stephen
E. Buckwalter. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
Gummelt, Volker. “Die Auseinandersetzung über das Abendmahl zwischen
Johannes Bugenhagen und Huldrych Zwingli im Jahre 1525.” In Die Zürcher
Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen. Wissenschaftlicher Tagung zum
hundertjährigen Bestehen des Zwinglivereins (29. Oktober bis 2. November 1997 in
Zürich), edited by Alfred Schindler and Hans Stickelberger, 189–201. Zürcher
Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 18. Bern: Peter Lang, 2001.
Gummelt, Volker. “Bugenhagens Tätigkeit an der Wittenberger Universitat.” Zeitschrift
für Kirchengeschichte 105 (1994): 191–201.
Hageneder, Othmar. “Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts.”
In The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages. Proceedings of the International
Conference Louvain May 13–16, 1973, edited by W. Lourdaux and D. Verhelst, 42–
103. Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, Series 1, Studia 4. Louvain: University Press, 1973.
Hamm, Berndt. “Die Reformation als Medienereignis.” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie
11 (1996): 137–66.
Hammann, Gottfried. “Zwischen Luther und Zwingli: Martin Bucers theologische
Eigenständigkeit im Lichte seiner Auslegung von Johannes 6 im Abendmahlsstreit.”
In Johannes- Studien. Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Johannes- Evangelium.
Freundesgabe der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Neuchâtel für Jean
Zumstein, edited by Martin Rose, 109–35. Publications de la Faculté de Théologie
de l’Université de Neuchâtel, Suisse 6. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991.
Hasse, Hans-Peter. “Bücherzensur an der Universität Wittenberg im 16. Jahrhundert.”
In 700 Jahre Wittenberg. Stadt, Universität, Reformation, edited by Stefan Oehmig,
187–212. Weimar: Herman Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1995.
Hasse, Hans-Peter. Karlstadt und Tauler. Untersuchungen zur Kreuzestheologie.
Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 58. Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlag, 1993.
Hausammann, Susi. “Die Marburger Artikel—eine echte Konkordie?” Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte 77 (1966): 288–321.
Hausammann, Susi. “Realpräsenz in Luthers Abendmahlslehre.” In Studien zur
Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation. Festschrift E. Bizer, edited by Luise
Abramowski and J. F. G. Goeters, 157– 73. Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1969.
Hazlett, Ian. “The Development of Martin Bucer’s Thinking on the Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper in its Historical and Theological Context, 1523–1534.” PhD disserta-
tion, Universität Münster, 1977.
Hazlett, Ian. “Zur Auslegung von Johannes 6 bei Bucer während der
Abendmahlskontroverse.” In Bucer und seine Zeit: Forschungebeiträge und
Bibliographie, edited by Marijn de Kroon and Friedhelm Krüger, 74– 87.
Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz 80.
Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976.
480
480 Bibliography
Heimbucher, Martin. Prophetische Auslegung: das reformatorische Profil des Wolfgang

Fabricius Capito ausgehend von seinen Kommentaren zu Habakuk und Hosea.
Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2008.
Heppe, Heinrich. Ursprung und Geschichte der Bezeichnungen ‘reformirte” und
“lutherische” Kirche. Gotha: Perthes, 1859.
Hieronymus, Frank. 1488 Petri—Schwabe 1988. Eine traditionsreiche Basler Offizin im
Spiegel ihrer frühen Drucke. 2 vols. Basel: Schwabe, 1997.
Hilgenfeld, Hartmut. Mittelalterlich- traditionelle Elemente in Luthers Abend
mahlsschriften. Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 29.
Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971.
Hill, Kat. Baptism, Brotherhood, and Belief in Reformation Germany: Anabaptism and
Lutheranism, 1525–1585. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. “How Firm a Foundation: Martin Bucer’s Historical Exegesis of the
Psalms.” Church History 53 (1984): 477–91.
Hoenen, Maarten. “Philosophie und Theologie im 15. Jahrhundert. Die Universität
Freiburg und der Wegestreit.” In 550 Jahre Albert-Ludwigs-Universität. Vol. 2: Von
der hohen Schule zur Universität der Neuzeit, edited by Dieter Mertens and Heribert
Smolinsky, 67–91. Freiburg im Breisgau: Alber, 2007.
Hoffmann, Konrad. “Konrad Sam (1483–1555), der Prediger des Rats zu Ulm.” In Die
Einführung der Reformation in Ulm: Geschichte eines Bürgerentscheids, edited by
Hans E. Specker and Gebhard Weig, 233–68. Forschungen zur Geschichte der Stadt
Ulm, Reihe Dokumentation 2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981.
Holeczek, Heinz. Erasmus Deutsch. Bd. 1: Die volkssprachliche Rezeption des Erasmus
von Rotterdam in der reformatorischen Öffentlichkeit 1519– 1536. Stuttgart-Bad
Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog,  1983.
Holeton, David R. “The Communion of Infants and Hussitism.” Communio Viatorum
27 (1984): 207–25.
Holeton, David R. “Sacramental and Liturgical Reform in Late Medieval Bohemia.”
Studia Liturgica 28 (1987): 87–96.
Holfelder, Hans Hermann. Tentatio et Consolatio. Studien zu Bugenhagens “Interpretatio
in librum Psalmorum.” Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974.
Holtz, Sabine. “Schule und Reichsstadt. Bildungsangebote in der Freien Reichsstadt
Esslingen am Ende des späten Mittelalters.” In Schule und Schüler im Mittelalter.
Beiträge zur europäischen Bildungsgeschichte des 9. bis 15. Jahrhunderts, edited by
Martin Kintzinger, Sönke Lorenz, and Michael Walter, 441–68. Beihefte zum
Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 42. Cologne: Böhlau, 1996.
Holzberg, Niklas. Willibald Pirckheimer: Griechischer Humanismus in Deutschland.
Humanistische Bibliothek, Reihe I, Abhandlungen, 41. Munich: Fink, 1981.
Honecker, Martin. “Die Abendmahlslehre des Syngramma.” Blätter für württembergische
Kirchengeschichte 65 (1965): 39–68.
Hoyer, Siegfried. “Martin Reinhart und der erste Druck hussitischer Artikel in
Deutschland.” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 18 (1970): 1597–615.
481
Bibliography 481
Hoyer, Siegfried. “Die Zwickauer Storchianer: Vorläufer der Täufer?” Jahrbuch für
Regionalgeschichte 13 (1986): 60–78.
Hund, Johannes. Das Wort ward Fleisch: eine systematisch-theologische Untersuchung
zur Debatte um die Wittenberger Christologie und Abendmahlslehre in den Jahren
1567 und 1574. Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie 114.
Iserloh, Erwin. Der Kampf um die Messe in den ersten Jahren der Auseinandersetzung
mit Luther. Katholisches Leben und Kämpfen im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung
10. Münster: Aschendorff, 1952.
Jacobs, Elfriede. Die Sakramentslehre Wilhelm Farels. Zürcher Beiträge zur
Reformationsgeschichte 10. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978.
Jenny, Markus. Die Einheit des Abendmahlsgottesdienstes bei den elsässischen und
schweizerischen Reformatoren. Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen
Theologie 23. Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1968.
Jensen, Gordon A. The Wittenberg Concord: Creating Space for Dialogue. Lutheran
Quarterly Books. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018.
Joestel, Volkmar. “Neue Erkenntnisse zu Jenaer Karlstadtschriften 1524.” In Andreas
Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, ed-
ited by Sigrid Looss and Markus Matthias, 121–42. Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Drei
Kastanien Verlag, 1998.
Jung, Martin H. “Abendmahlsstreit: Brenz und Oekolampad.” Blätter für
württembergische Kirchengeschichte 100 (2000): 143–61.
Jung, Martin H. “Historische Einleitung. Gründe, Verlauf und Folgen der Disputation.”
In Die Badener Disputation von 1526. Kommentierte Edition des Protokolls, edited by
Alfred Schindler and Wolfram Schneider-Lastin, 27–199. Zurich: TVZ, 2015.
Junghans, Helmar. “Die Beziehungen des jungen Luther zu den Humanisten: Martin
Luther aus Eisleben, ein Bibelhumanist neben Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam.”
In Humanismus und Reformation: Martin Luther und Erasmus von Rotterdam
in den Konflikten ihrer Zeit, edited by Otto H. Pesch, 33–50. Munich: Schnell &
Steiner, 1985.
Jungmann, Josef A., S.J. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development.
Translated by F. A. Brunner. 2 vols. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1985.
[Reprint of 1951–55 edition]
Kähler, Ernst. Karlstadt und Augustin: Der Kommentar des Andreas Bodenstein von
Karlstadt zu Augustins Schrift De Spiritu et Litera. Hallische Monographien 19.
Halle: Niemeyer, 1952.
Kaminsky, Howard. A History of the Hussite Revolution. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967.
Kantzenbach, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Johannes Brenz und der Kampf um das Abendmahl.”
Theologische Literaturzeitung 89 (1964): 561–80.
Karant-Nunn, Susan C. Zwickau in Transition, 1500–1547: The Reformation as an Agent
of Change. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1987.
482
482 Bibliography
Kaufmann, Thomas. Die Abendmahlstheologie der Strassburger Reformatoren bis 1528.

Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 81. Tübingen: Mohr, 1992.
Kaufmann, Thomas. Der Anfang der Reformation: Studien zur Kontextualität der
Theologie, Publizistik und Inszenierung Luthers und der reformatorischen Bewegung.
Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Kaufmann, Thomas. “Anonyme Flugschriften der frühen Reformation.” In Die frühe
Reformation in Deutschland als Umbruch: wissenschaftliches Symposion des Vereins
für Reformationsgeschichte 1996, edited by Bernd Moeller, 191–267. Schriften des
Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 199. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag-Haus, 1998.
Kaufmann, Thomas. Thomas Müntzer, “Zwickauer Propheten” und sächsische Radikale.
Eine quellen-und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu einer komplexen Konstellation.
Mühlhausen: Thomas-Müntzer-Gesellschaft,  2010.
Kaufmann, Thomas. “Zwei unerkannte Schriften Bucers und Capitos zur
Abendmahlsfrage aus dem Herbst 1525.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 81
(1990): 158–88.
Keim, Karl Theodor. Die Reformation der Reichsstadt Ulm. Ein Beitrag zur schwäbischen
und deutschen Reformationsgeschichte. Stuttgart: Belser, 1851.
Kintzinger, Martin. “‘Ich was auch ain Schueler’: die Schulen im spätmittelalterlichen
Augsburg.” In Literarisches Leben im Augsburg während des 15. Jahrhunderts, ed-
ited by Johannes Janota and Werner Williams-Krapp, 58–81. Studia Augustana
7. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1995.
Kiwiet, Jan J. “The Life of Hans Denck (ca. 1500–1527).” Mennonite Quarterly Review
31 (1957): 227–59.
Koch, Ernst. “Johannes Bugenhagens Anteil am Abendmahlsstreit zwischen 1525 und
1532.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 111 (1986): 705–30.
Koch, Ernst. “Das Sakramentsverständnis Thomas Müntzers.” In Der Theologe Thomas
Müntzer. Untersuchungen zu seiner Entwicklung und Lehre, edited by Siegfried
Bräuer and Helmar Junghans, 129–55. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.
Koch, Ernst. “Zwinglianer zwischen Ostsee und Harz in den Anfangsjahren der
Reformation (1525–1532).” Zwingliana 16 (1983–85): 517–45.
Köhler, Hans- Joachim. “Erste Schritte zu einem Meinungsprofil der frühen
Reformationszeit.” In Martin Luther: Probleme seiner Zeit, edited by Volker Press
and Dieter Stievermann, 244–81. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1986.
Köhler, Hans-Joachim. “The Flugschriften and their Importance in Religious Debate: A
Quantitative Approach.” In Astrologi hallucinati: Stars and the End of the World in
Luther’s Time, edited by Paola Zambelli, 153–75. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
Köhler, Hans-Joachim. “Die Flugschriften. Versuch der Präzisierung eines geläufigen
Begriffs.” In Festgabe für Ernst-Walter Zeeden, edited by Horst Rabe, Hansgeorg
Molitor, and Hans-Christoph Rublack. Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und
Texte Supplementband, 36–61. Münster: Aschendorff, 1976.
Köhler, Walther. Huldrych Zwinglis Bibliothek. Neujahrsblatt auf das Jahr 1921.
Zurich: Beer, 1921.
483
Bibliography 483
Köhler, Walther. Zwingli und Luther: Ihre Streit über das Abendmahl nach seinen
politischen und religiösen Beziehungen. 2 vols. Quellen und Forschungen zur
Reformationsgeschichte 6– 7. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924– 53. [Reprint,
Gütersloh: Güterlsoher Verlagshaus, 2017]
Kolb, Robert. Martin Luther: Confessor of the Faith. Christian Theology in Context.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Kolb, Robert. Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God: The Wittenberg School
and Its Scripture-Centered Proclamation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.
Kolde, Theodor. “Zur Chronologie Lutherscher Schriften im Abendmahlstreit.”
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 11 (1890): 472–76.
Kolesnyk, Alexander. “Hussens Eucharistiebegriff.” In Jan Hus. Zwischen Zeiten,
Völkern, Konfessionen. Vorträge des internationalen Symposions in Bayreuth vom 22.
bis 26. September 1993, edited by Ferdinand Seibt, 193–202. Veröffentlichungen des
Collegium Carolinum 85. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1997.
Krentz, Natalie. Ritualwandel und Deutungshoheit. Die frühe Reformation in der
Residenzstadt Wittenberg (1500–1533). Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation
74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Krodel, Gottfried G. “Die Abendmahlslehre des Erasmus von Rotterdam und seine
Stellung am Anfang des Abendmahlsstreites der Reformatoren.” PhD thesis,
University of Erlangen, 1955.
Krodel, Gottfried G. “Figura Prothysteron and the Exegetical Basis of the Lord’s
Supper.” Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1960): 152–58.
Krüger, Friedhelm. Bucer und Erasmus: Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss des Erasmus
auf die Theologie Martin Bucers. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische
Geschichte Mainz 57. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1970.
Kruse, Jens-Martin. “Karlstadt als Wittenberger Theologe. Überlegungen zu
einer pluralen Darstellungsweise der frühen Reformation.” Mennonitische
Geschichtsblätter 57 (2000): 7–30.
Kruse, Jens-Martin. Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform: die Anfänge der
Reformation in Wittenberg, 1516– 1522. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für
Europäische Geschichte Mainz 187. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2002.
Kühn, Ulrich. “Luthers Zeugnis vom Abendmahl in Unterweisung, Vermahnung
und Beratung.” In Leben und Werk Martin Luthers von 1526 bis 1546. Festgabe
zu seinem 500. Geburtstag, edited by Helmar Junghans, 1:139– 52, 2:771–
74.
Kuhr, Olaf. “The Zwickau Prophets, the Wittenberg Disturbances, and Polemical
Historiography.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 70 (1996): 203–14.
Künast, Hans-Jörg. “Getruckt zu Augsburg”: Buchdruck und Buchhandel in Augsburg
zwischen 1468 und 1555. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1997.
Kunzler, Michael. “‘Bilibaldi Birckheimeri Responsio’. Ein Beispiel humanistischer
Eucharistieauffassung im XVI. Jahrhundert.” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 90
(1981): 289–304.
48
484 Bibliography
Lahey, Stephen E. “Late Medieval Eucharistic Theology.” In A Companion to the

Eucharist in the Middle Ages, edited by Ian Christopher Levy, Gary Macy, and
Kristen Van Ausdall, 499–539. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 26.
Larsen, Andrew E. The School of Heretics: Academic Condemnation at the University of
Oxford, 1277–1409. Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 40.
Leppin, Volker. Die Fremde Reformation: Luthers mystische Wurzeln. Munich:
Beck, 2016.
Leppin, Volker. “Die Genese des reformatorischen Schriftprinzips. Beobachtungen zu
Luthers Auseinandersetzung mit Johannes Eck bis zur Leipziger Disputation.” In
Reformatorische Theologie und Autoritäten: Studien zur Genese des Schriftprinzips
beim jungen Luther, edited by Volker Leppin, 97–139. Spätmittelalter, Humanismus,
Reformation 85. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
Leppin, Volker. “Papst, Konzil und Kirchenväter. Die Autoritätenfrage in der Leipziger
Disputation.” In Die Leipziger Disputation 1519: 1. Leipziger Arbeitsgespräch zur
Reformation, edited by Markus Hein and Armin Kohnle, 117–24. Herbergen der
Christenheit. Sonderband. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011.
Leu, Urs B. “Zwingli liest Erasmus.” In Erasmus in Zürich. Eine verschwiegene Autorität,
edited by Christine Christ-von Wedel and Urs B. Leu, 167–75. Zurich: Neue
Zürcher Zeitung, 2007.
Levy, Ian C. “The Eucharist and Canon Law in the High Middle Ages.” In A Companion
to the Eucharist in the Middle Ages, edited by Ian Christopher Levy, Gary Macy, and
Levy, Ian C. John Wyclif ’s Theology of the Eucharist in its Medieval Context. Marquette
Studies in Theology 83. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2014.
Levy, Ian Christopher, Gary Macy, and Kristen Van Ausdall, eds. A Companion to the
Eucharist in the Middle Ages, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 26.
Lindberg, Carter. “The Conception of the Eucharist According to Erasmus and
Karlstadt.” In Les Dissidents du XVIe siècle entre l’Humanisme et la Catholicisme, ed-
ited by Marc Lienhard, 79–94. Bibliotheca Dissidentium scripta et studia 1. Baden-
Baden: Valentin Koerner, 1983.
Locher, Gottfried W. “Die Berner Disputation 1528.” In 450 Jahre Berner
Reformation, edited by Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 138–55. Bern:
Stämpfli, 1980.
Locher, Gottfried W. “The Characteristic Features of Zwingli’s Theology in Comparison
with Luther and Calvin.” In idem, Zwingli’s Thought: New Perspectives, 142–232.
Studies in the History of Christian Thought 25. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
485
Bibliography 485
Locher, Gottfried W. “Zwingli and Erasmus.” In idem, Zwingli’s Thought: New

Perspectives, 233– 55. Studies in the History of Christian Thought 25.
Lubac, Henri de. Corpus Mysticum: the Eucharist and the Church in the Middle
Ages: Historical Survey. Translated by Gemma Simmons. Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press, 2006.
Lundström, Kerstin. Polemik in den Schriften Melchior Hoffmans: Inszenierungen
rhetorischer Streitkultur in der Reformationszeit. Stockholm: Stockholm University
Press, 2015.
Macy, Gary. “The Theological Fate of Berengar’s Oath of 1059: Interpreting a Blunder
Become Tradition.” In Treasures from the Storeroom: Medieval Religion and the
Eucharist, 20–35. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999.
Macy, Gary. “Theology of the Eucharist in the High Middle Ages.” In A Companion to
the Eucharist in the Middle Ages, edited by Ian Christopher Levy, Gary Macy, and
Mahlmann-Bauer, Barbara. “Henrici Glareani Concio de coena domini: Glarean as
a theologian.” In Heinrich Glarean’s Books: The Intellectual World of a Sixteenth-
Century Musical Humanist, edited by Iain Fenlon and Inga Mai Groote, 110–38.
Margolin, Jean- Claude. “Otto Brunfels dans le milieu évangelique rhénan.” In
Strasbourg au coeur religieux du XVIe siècle. Hommage à Lucien Febvre, edited by
Georges Livet and Francis Rapp, 111–41. Société Savante d’Alsace, Collections
“Grandes publications” 12. Strasboug: Istra, 1977.
Mayes, David. “Triplets: The Holy Roman Empire’s Birthing of Catholics, Lutherans,
and Reformed in 1648.” In Names and Naming in Early Modern Germany, ed-
ited by Joel Harrington and Marjorie Elizabeth Plummer. New York: Berghahn,
2019.
McCue, James F. “The Doctrine of Transubstantiation from Berengar through
Trent: The Point at Issue.” Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 385–430.
McLaughlin, R. Emmet. Caspar Schwenckfeld, Reluctant Radical: His Life to 1540.
Yale Historical Publications Miscellany 134. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1986.
McLaughlin, R. Emmet. “Reformation Spiritualism: Typology, Sources and
Significance.” In Radikalität und Dissent im 16. Jahrhundert/R adicalism and Dissent
in the Sixteenth Century, edited by James M. Stayer and Hans-Jürgen Goertz, 123–40.
Zeitschrift für historische Forschung Beiheft 27. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2002.
McLaughlin, R. Emmet. “Schwenckfeld and the South German Eucharistic Controversy,
1526–1529.” In Schwenckfeld and early Schwenkfeldianism: Papers Presented at the
Colloquium on Schwenckfeld and the Schwenkfelders, Pennsburg, PA, September
486
486 Bibliography
17–22, 1984, edited by Peter C. Erb, 181–210. Pennsburg, PA: Schwenkfelder

Library, 1986.
McLaughlin, R. Emmet. “Spiritualism: Schwenckfeld and Franck and their Early
Modern Resonances.” In A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700,
edited by John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, 119–61. Brill’s Companions to the
Christian Tradition 6. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Meyer, Johannes. Historischer Kommentar zu Luthers Kleinem Katechismus. Güterlsoh:
Bertelsmann, 1929.
Meyer, Walter E. “Die Entstehung von Huldrych Zwinglis neutestamentlichen
Kommentaren und Predigtnachschriften.” Zwingliana 14 (1976): 285–331.
Miskuly, J. M., O.F.M. Thomas Murner and the Eucharist: the Defense of Catholic
Eucharistic Theology in the anti-Reformation Writings of Thomas Murner, “vnder
Hürt, Hieter vnd Vorfechter der christlichen Schefflin,” 1520–1529. St. Bonaventure,
NY: Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 1990.
Missfelder, Jan-Friedrich. “Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit.” In Reformation.
Historisch-kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch, edited by Helga Schnabel-Schüle,
298–310. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2017.
Molnár, Amedeo. “Luthers Beziehungen zu den Böhmischen Brüdern.” In Leben und
Werk Martin Luthers von 1526 bis 1546. Festgabe zu seinem 500. Geburtstag, edited by
Helmar Junghans, 1:627–39. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.
Moser, Christian. Die Dignität des Ereignisse: Studien zu Heinrich Bullingers Reforma
tionsgeschichtsschreibung. 2 vols. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 163.
Mühlen, Karl-Heinz zur. “Die Rezeption von Augustins ‘Tractatus in Joannem 80,3’
im Werk Martin Luthers.” In Auctoritas Patrum. Zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter
im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, edited by Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus
Wreidt, 271–81. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz
37. Mainz: von Zabern, 1993.
Müsing, Hans-Werner. “The Anabaptist Movement in Strasbourg from early 1526 to
July 1527.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 51 (1977): 91–126.
Müsing, Hans-Werner. “Karlstadt und die Strasbourger Täufergemeinde.” In Origins
and Characteristics of Anabaptism, edited by Marc Lienhard, 169–95. International
Archives of the History of Ideas 87. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977.
Neuser, Wilhelm H. Die Abendmahlslehre Melanchthons in ihrer geschichtlichen
Entwicklung (1519–1530). Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten
Kirche 26. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968.
Nora, Pierre. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire.” Representations
26 (1989): 7–24.
Oberman, Heiko A. The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval
Nominalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.
Oberman, Heiko A. Masters of the Reformation: The Emergence of a New Intellectual
Climate in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
487
Bibliography 487
Oehmig, Stefan. “Karlstadts Auffassung von Fegefeuer. Entstehung und Wirkung.” In

Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation.
Beiträge eines Arbeitsgesprächs vom 24.–25. November 1995 in Wittenberg, edited
by Sigrid Looß and Markus Matthias, 73–120. Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Drei
Kastanien Verlag, 1998.
Overfield, James H. Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Packull, Werner O. “Denck’s Alleged Baptism by Hubmaier: Its Significance for the
Origins of South German-Austrian Anabaptism.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 47
(1973): 327–38.
Packull, Werner O. Hutterite Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments During the
Reformation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.
Pater, Calvin. Karlstadt as Father of the Baptist Movements: The Emergence of Lay
Protestantism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984.
Paulus, Nikolaus. Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther (1518–1536).
Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des deutschen Volkes
4. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1903.
Payne, John B. Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments. Richmond, VA.: John Knox
Press, 1970.
Payne, John B. “Introduction to The Uncovering of Deceptions.” In Collected Works of
Erasmus, 78:148–62. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974–.
Payne, John B. “Toward the Hermeneutics of Erasmus.” In Scrinium Erasmianum.
Mélanges historiques publiés sous le patronage de l’université de Louvain à l’occasion
du cinquième contenaire de la naissance d’Érasme, edited by J. Coppens, 2:13–49.
2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1969.
Perett, Marcela K. “A Neglected Eucharistic Controversy: The Afterlife of John Wyclif ’s
Eucharistic Thought in Bohemia in the Early Fifteenth Century.” Church History 84
(2015): 64–89.
Peters, Albrecht. Kommentar Zu Luthers Katechismen. Edited by Gottfried Seebass.
5 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990–1994.
Pettegree, Andrew. The Book in the Renaissance. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2010.
Pettegree, Andrew. Brand Luther: 1517, Printing, and the Making of the Reformation.
New York: Penguin, 2015.
Pettegree, Andrew. “Druck und Reformation neu überdacht—ein Blick von außen.”
In Buchdruck und Buchkultur im Wittenberg der Reformationszeit, edited by Stefan
Oehmig, 329–47. Schriften der Stiftung Luthergedenkstätten in Sachsen-Anhalt 21.
Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015.
Pettegree, Andrew. “The Reformation and the Book. A Reconsideration.” Historical
Journal 47 (2004): 785–808.
Pettegree, Andrew. Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
48
488 Bibliography
Plath, Uwe. “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Wortes ‘Calvinist’.” Archiv für

Quere, Ralph W. “Changes and Constants: Structure in Luther’s Understanding of
the Real Presence in the 1520s.” Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985): 45–78.
Reid, Jonathan A. King’s Sister—Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549)
and her Evangelical Network. 2 vols. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions
139. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Roper, Lyndal. “‘The Common Man,’ ‘The Common Good,’ ‘Common Women’:
Reflections on Gender and Meaning in the German Reformation Commune.”
Social History 12 (1987): 1–21.
Rosier-Catach, Irène. La parole efficace. Signe, rituel, sacré. Paris: Seuil, 2004.
Roth, C. “Die Bücherzensur im alten Basel.” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 31
(1914): 49–67.
Roth, Erich. Die Privatbeichte und die Schlüsselgewalt in der Theologie der Reformatoren.
Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1952.
Roth, Friedrich. “Zur Geschichte der Wiedertäufer in Oberschwaben II. Zur
Lebensgeschichte Eitelhans Langenmantels von Augsburg.” Zeitschrift des
Historischen Vereins für Schwaben und Neuburg 27 (1900): 1–45.
Rothkegel, Martin. “Anabaptism in Moravia and Silesia.” In A Companion to Anabaptism
and Spiritualism, 1521–1700, edited by John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, 163–216.
Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 6. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Rothkegel, Martin. Mährische Sakramentierer des zweiten Viertels des 16. Jahrhunderts:
Matej Poustevnik, Benes Optat, Johann Zeising (Jan Cizek), Jan Dubcansky ze
Zdenina und die Habrovaner (Lulcer) Brüder. Bibliotheca dissidentium 24.
Baden-Baden: Koerner,  2005.
Rückert, H. “Das Eindringen der Tropuslehre in die schweizerische Auffassung vom
Abendmahl.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 37 (1940): 199–221.
Rummel, Erika. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to
Theologian. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986.
Rummel, Erika. Erasmus and his Catholic Critics. 2 vols. Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1989.
Russell, Paul. Lay Theology in the Reformation: Popular Pamphleteers in Southwest
Germany, 1521–1525. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Sasse, Hermann. This Is My Body. Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the
Sacrament of the Altar. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1959.
Scharoun, Manfred. “‘Nec Lutheranus neque Eckianus sed Christianus sum’: Erwägungen
zu Willibald Pirckheimers Stellung in der reformatorischen Bewegung.” In
Humanismus und Theologie in der frühen Neuzeit: Akten des interdisziplinären
Symposions vom 15. bis 17. Mai 1992 im Melanchthonhaus in Bretten, edited by Hanns
Kerner, 107–47. Pirckheimer-Jahrbuch 8. Nuremberg: Hans Carl, 1993.
Schattauer, Thomas H. “From Sacrifice to Supper: Eucharistic Practice in the Lutheran
Reformation.” In A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, edited by
489
Bibliography 489
Lee Palmer Wandel, 205–30. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 46.
Schäufele, Wolf- Friedrich. “Bündnis und Bekenntnis: Die Marburger Artikel in
ihrem dreifachen historischen Kontext.” In Die Marburger Artikel als Zeugnis
der Einheit, edited by Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele, 43–67. Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 2012.
Schäufele, Wolf-Friedrich, ed. Die Marburger Artikel als Zeugnis der Einheit. Leipzig:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012.
Schenker, Walter. Die Sprache Huldrych Zwinglis im Kontrast zur Sprache Luthers.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977.
Schiller, Gertrud. Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976.
Schindler, Alfred. “Der Aufbau der altgläubigen Front gegen Zwingli.” In Die Zürcher
Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen. Wissenschaftliche Tagung zum
hundertjährigen Bestehen des Zwinglivereins (29. Oktober bis 2. November 1997
in Zürich), edited by Alfred Schindler and Hans Stickelberger, 17–42. Zürcher
Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 18. Bern: Peter Lang, 2001.
Schirmer, Uwe. “Buchdruck und Buchhandel im Wittenberg des 16. Jahrhunderst. Die
Unternehmer Christian Döring, Hans Lufft und Samuel Selfisch.” In Buchdruck
und Buchkultur im Wittenberg der Reformationszeit, edited by Stefan Oehmig,
169– 89. Schriften der Stiftung Luthergedenkstätten in Sachsen- Anhalt 21.
Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015.
Schmidt, Josef H. “Zwinglideutsch and Lutherdeutsch.” In Huldrych Zwingli,
1484–1531: A Legacy of Radical Reform. Papers from the 1984 International Zwingli
Symposium, McGill University, edited by E. J. Furcha, 34–43. ARC Supplement
2. Montreal: McGill University, 1985.
Schottenloher, Karl. Philipp Ulhart: ein Augsburger Winkeldrucker und Helfershelfer
der “Schwarmer” und “Wiedertäufer” (1523–1529). Historische Forschungen 4.
Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1967. [Orig: Munich/Freising, 1921].
Schulz, Frieder. “Einführung.” In Coena Domini I. Die Abendmahlsliturgie der
Reformationskirchen im 16./ 17. Jahrhundert, edited by Irmgard Pahl, 1– 6.
Spicilegium Friburgense 29. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1983.
Schwab, Wolfgang. Entwicklung und Gestalt der Sakramententheologie bei Martin
Luther. Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 23, Theologie 79. Frankfurt am
Main: Lang, 1977.
Schwinges, Rainer Christoph. “The Medieval German University: Transformation and
Innovation.” Paedagogica Historica 34 (1998): 375–88.
Schwitalla, Johannes. “Deutsche Flugschriften im ersten Viertel des 16. Jahrhunderts.”
Freiburger Universitätsblätter 76 (1982): 37–58.
Scribner, Robert W. “Heterodoxy, Literacy and Print in the Early German Reformation.”
In Literacy and Heresy 1000–1530, edited by Peter Biller and Anne Hudson, 255–78.
490
490 Bibliography
Scribner, Robert W. “How Many Could Read?” In Stadtbürgertum und Adel in

der Reformation. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der Reformation in England und
Deutschland, edited by Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Peter Alter, and R. W. Scribner,
44– 45. Veröffentlichungen des deutschen historischen Institutes London
5. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta,  1979.
Scribner, Robert W. “Oral Culture and the Diffusion of Reformation Ideas.” In
idem, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany, 49–69.
London: Hambleton Press, 1987.
Seebass, Gottfried. “Das Zeichen der Erwählten. Zum Verständnis der Taufe bei Hans
Hut.” In Umstrittenes Täufertum, 1525–1975, edited by Hans-Jürgen Goertz, 138–64.
Shantz, Douglas H. Crautwald and Erasmus: A Study in Humanism and Radical
Reform in Sixteenth Century Silesia. Bibliotheca Dissidentium Scripta et studia
4. Baden-Baden: Koerner,  1992.
Shantz, Douglas H. “The Crautwald-Bucer Correspondence, 1528: A Family Feud
Within the Zwingli Circle.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 68 (1994): 79–94.
Sider, Ronald J. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of his Thought,
1517–1525. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 11. Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Simon, Gerhard. Humanismus und Konfession. Theobald Billican, Leben und Werk.
Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 49. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980.
Snyder, C. Arnold. “The Birth and Evolution of Swiss Anabaptism (1520–1530).”
Mennonite Quarterly Review 80 (2006): 501–645.
Snyder, C. Arnold. “Communication and the People: The Case of the Reformation in
St. Gall.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 67 (1993): 152–73.
Snyder, C. Arnold. “Orality, Literacy, and the Study of Anabaptism.” Mennonite
Snyder, C. Arnold. “Swiss Anabaptism: the Beginnings, 1523–1525.” In A Companion
to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700, edited by John D. Roth and James M.
Stayer, 45–81. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 6. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Snyder, C. Arnold. “Word and Power in Reformation Zurich.” Archiv für
Specker, Hans Eugen. “Sam, Konrad.” In Neue Deutsche Biographie 22 (2005),
403–404.
Spinka, Matthew. Jan Hus’ Concept of the Church. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1966.
Spitz, Lewis W. The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.
Spruyt, Bart Jan. Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius) and His Epistle on the Eucharist
(1525). Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 119. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Spufford, Margaret. “First Steps in Literacy: The Reading and Writing Experiences of
the Humblest Seventeenth-Century Spiritual Autobiographers.” Social History 4
(1979): 407–35.
491
Bibliography 491
Staehelin, Ernst. “Die Väterübersetzungen Oekolampads.” Schweizerische Theologische

Zeitschrift 33 (1916): 57–91.
Staehelin, Ernst. Das theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads. Quellen und
Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 21. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1939.
Stayer, James M. “Introduction.” In A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–
1700, edited by John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, xiii–xxiv. Brill’s Companions to
the Christian Tradition 6. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Stayer, James M. “Saxon Radicalism and Swiss Anabaptism: The Return of the
Repressed.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 67 (1993): 5–30.
Steinmetz, David C. “Scripture and the Lord’s Supper in Luther’s Theology.” In Luther
in Context, 72–84. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
Stephens, W. Peter. The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986.
Stettler, Bernhard. “Zusammenarbeit in St. Gallen: Christoph Schappeler und Joachim
von Watt (Vadian) über das Gebet.” Zwingliana 43 (2016): 2–102.
Strübind, Andrea. Eifriger als Zwingli. Die frühe Täuferbewegung in der Schweiz.
Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2003.
Strübind, Andrea. “The Swiss Anabaptists.” In Companion to the Swiss Reformation, ed-
ited by Amy Nelson Burnett and Emidio Campi, 389–443. Brill’s Companions to
the Christian Tradition 72. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Swiezawski, Stefan. “Le problème de la ‘via antiqua’ et de la ‘via moderna’ au XVe siècle
et ses fondements idéologiques.” In Antiqui und Moderni. Traditionsbewusstsein
und Fortschrittsbewusstsein im späten Mittelalter, edited by A. Zimmermann,
484–93. New York: De Gruyter, 1974.
Torrance, Thomas F. “The Hermeneutics of Erasmus.” In Probing the Reformed
Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., edited by Elsie
Anne McKee and Brian G. Armstrong, 48–76. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox, 1989.
Tschopp, Silvia Serena. “Flugschriften als Leitmedien reformatorischer Öffentlichkeit.”
In Reformation. Historisch-kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch, edited by Helga
Schnabel-Schüle, 311–30. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2017.
Uhland, Friedwart. “Täufertum und Obrigkeit in Augsburg im 16. Jahrhundert.” PhD
dissertation, Universität Tübingen, 1972.
Van Amberg, Joel. A Real Presence: Religious and Social Dynamics of the Eucharistic
Conflicts in Early Modern Augsburg, 1520–1530. Studies in the History of Christian
Traditions 158. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Velagic, Zoran. “Reading Aloud: Between Oral and Literate Communication.” In
Friars, Nobles and Burghers—Sermons, Images and Prints: Studies of Culture and
Society in Early-Modern Europe, in Memoriam István György Tóth, edited by
Jaroslav Miller and László Kontler, 379–88. New York: CEU Press, 2010.
Verger, Jacques. “Patterns.” In A History of the University in Europe. Volume
1: Universities in the Middle Ages, edited by Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, 35–74.
492
492 Bibliography
Vice, Roy L. “Valentin Ickelshamer Odyssey from Rebellion to Quietism.” Mennonite

Vijgen, Jörgen. The Status of Eucharistic Accidents “sine subjecto”: an historical Survey up
to Thomas Aquinas and Selected Reactions. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte
des Dominikanerordens, N.F. 20. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013.
Voigtländer, Johannes. Ein Fest der Befreiung: Huldrych Zwinglis Abendmahlslehre.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013.
Vooght, Paul de. Jacobellus de Stříbro: Premier Théologien du Hussitisme. Bibliothèque
de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 54. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de
Louvain, 1972.
Votteler, Franz. Johannes Schradin, der Genosse Matthäus Albers. Programm des
Gymnasiums in Reutlingen 1892/93. Reutlingen: Rupp, 1893.
Wandel, Lee Palmer, ed. A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation. Brill’s
Wandel, Lee Palmer. “Envisioning God: Image and Liturgy in Reformation Zurich.”
Sixteenth Century Journal 24 (1993): 21–40.
Wandel, Lee Palmer. The Eucharist in the Reformation: Incarnation and Liturgy.
Wandel, Lee Palmer. “Fragmentation and Presence: Reformation Debates and Cultural
Theory.” In Cultures of Communication: Theologies of Media in Early Modern Europe
and Beyond, edited by Helmut Puff et al., 55–76. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2017.
Wappler, Paul. Thomas Müntzer in Zwickau und die “Zwickauer Propheten.” Schriften
des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 182. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1966.
Wegmann, Susanne. Der sichtbare Glaube: das Bild in den lutherischen Kirchen des 16.
Jahrhunderts. Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 93. Tübingen: Mohr/
Siebeck, 2016.
Weiden, Susanne bei der. Luthers Predigten des Jahres 1522. Untersuchungen zu ihrer
Überlieferung. Archiv zur Weimarer Ausgabe der Werke Martin Luthers. Texte und
Untersuchungen 7. Cologne: Böhlau, 1999.
Weigelt, Horst. Spiritualistische Tradition im Protestantismus: Die Geschichte des
Schwenckfeldertums in Schlesien. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973.
Wendebourg, Dorothea. Essen zum Gedächtnis: Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den
Abendmahlstheologien der Reformation. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 148.
Wengert, Timothy J. Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness. Philip Melanchthon’s
Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam. Oxford Studies in Historical
Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Wengert, Timothy J. Philipp Melanchthon’s Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to
its Predecessors and Contemporaries. Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 220.
Geneva: Droz, 1987.
493
Bibliography 493
Wengert, Timothy J. “Wittenberg’s Earliest Catechism.” Lutheran Quarterly 7

(1993): 247–60.
Wenzel, Horst. “Luthers Briefe im Medienwechsel von der Manuskriptkultur zum
Buchdruck.” In Die deutsche Reformation zwischen Spätmittelalter und Früher
Neuzeit, edited by Thomas A. Brady, Jr., 203–29. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2001.
Wicks, Jared. “Roman Reactions to Luther: The First Year, 1518.” Catholic Historical
Review 69 (1983): 521–62.
Windhorst, Christof. “Das Gedächtnis des Leidens Christi und Pflichtzeichen
brüderlicher Liebe. Zum Verstãndnis des Abendmahls bei Balthasar Hubmaier.”
In Umstrittenes Täufertum, 1525–1975, edited by Hans-Jürgen Goertz, 111–37.
Woodbridge, Russell S. “Gerhard Westerburg: A Genuine Anabaptist?” Mennonite
Zahnd, Urs Martin. “Chordienst und Schule in eidgenössischen Städten des
Spätmittelalters: Eine Untersuchung auf Grund der Verhältnisse in Bern,
Freiburg, Luzern und Solothurn.” In Schule und Schüler im Mittelalter. Beiträge
zur europäischen Bildungsgeschichte des 9. bis 15. Jahrhunderts, edited by Martin
Kintzinger, Sönke Lorenz, and Michael Walter, 259–97. Beihefte zum Archiv für
Kulturgeschichte 42. Cologne: Böhlau, 1996.
Zeman, Jarold K. The Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia 1526–1628. A Study
of Origins and Contacts. Studies in European History 20. The Hague: Mouton, 1969.
Zorzin, Alejandro. Karlstadt als Flugschriftenautor. Göttinger theologische Arbeiten
48. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
Zorzin, Alejandro. “Karlstadts ‘Dialogus vom Tauff der Kinder’ in einem anonymen
Wormser Druck aus dem Jahr 1527. Ein Beitrag zur Karlstadtbibliographie.” Archiv
für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (1988): 27–58.
Zorzin, Alejandro. “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte einer Schrift aus Karlstadts Orlamünder
Tätigkeit. Der 1527 in Worms gedruckte ‘Dialog vom fremden Glauben, Glauben
der Kirche, Taufe der Kinder.’ Fortsetzung einer Diskussion.” In Andreas Bodenstein
von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, edited by Sigrid
Looss and Markus Matthias, 143–58. Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien
Verlag, 1998.
Zschoch, Hellmut. Reformatorische Existenz und konfessionelle Identität. Urbanus
Rhegius als evangelischer Theologe in den Jahren 1520 bis 1530. Beiträge zur historische
Theologie 88. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995.
49
495
Index
Page numbers in italics indicate illustrations.
absolution. See confession/penance/ Ambrose of Milan, , ,

absolution , n , n , n ; De
Action or Use of the Lord s Supper, ,  sacramentis, , n ,  n
Adelmann, Bernhard,  Amerbach, Bonifacius, 
Adelmann, Conrad, ,  Amsdorf, Nicolaus von, , , ,
Adelphi, Johannes,  n , n ; Admonition to the
adoration/veneration of Eucharist, , , Magdeburgers, ; Answer to Amsdorf s
, , , ,  n Reply (Cyclops), ; Reply to Cyclops s
Agricola, Johannes, , , , , Answer, 
, n , n ; Booklet for Anabaptists and proto-Anabaptists:
the Laity and Children (with Jonas), Augsburg sacramentarians and, ,
, , ; Elements of Piety, , , n ; catechetical literature,
; Common Questions, ,  , n ; clandestine preaching
Agricola, Stephen,  as main means of spreading views,
Alber, Matthaeus, , ,  n ; Eucharistic controversy and, ,
Albertus Magnus,  n ; execution of Langenmantel
Albrecht, Otto,  n as, ; H tzer associating with,
alien faith ( des aliena), , , , ; Karlstadt and, , , ; in
,  ,  Moravia, , , ; myth
alloiosis, , , , ,  of origin, ; print production by,
Althamer, Andreas, , , ; sacraments, understanding of,
, , , n , ; on scripture, ; separation
n ; Catechism, ; On the from other sacramentarians, ,
Correct, True Understanding, ; Swiss Brethren, , ,
; e Most Worthy ; Swiss/South German early
Sacrament,  debates on Eucharistic controversy
496
Index
Anabaptists and proto- and, , n ; Oecolampadius

Anabaptists (cont.) and, , , , , , , ,
and, ; as term, ; Zwingli and, , , n ; Pirckheimer citing, ,
, ,  n ; on sacraments, ; in Sams
anticlericalism, , , , , , , presentation of Wittenberger and
, ,  n sacramentarian positions, ; Swiss/
Apostles Creed, , , , , , South German early Eucharistic
, , , , , , debate and, , , , n ,
, , , , , n , n ; Zwingli citing, 
n ,  n Augustinianism, ,  , 
Arianism, Zwingli associating Luther Austerlitz disputation ( ), 
with,  authority, , , ; Anabaptist
Aristotle and Aristotelianism: Baden separatism and, , ; Baden
disputation and, ; on ethos, and Bern disputations, e ects of,
n ; late medieval scholasticism ; church ordinances, ,
and, , ; Marburg Colloquy , , n ; Clear Report
and, ; Oecolampadius and, dispute and, , ; Diet of Speyer
, , , , ; sacraments, ( ) and, ; of Erasmus, ,
Wittenberger versus sacramentarian ; liturgical reforms and publication
understandings of, , ; substance, of liturgies, ; local community,
concept of, , , , ; at ese vestment in, , ; of Luther, , ,
Words debate and, ,  , , , , , , , ,
Athanasius of Alexandria,  ; Marburg Articles, , , ,
audience and genre, , f, , , n,
n ; Marburg Colloquy, , ,
Augsburg: censorship, lack of, , , , , , n , n ; of
, ; common exhortation for Oecolampadius, , , , ,
communion in, , ; development , , ; problem of, ,
of sacramentarianism in, , ; Schwabach Articles, , ,
; Eucharistic controversy in, , n ; of scripture, , ; in at
; as printing location, , ese Words debate, ; toleration,
f, ; proto-Anabaptism espousals of, , , 
in, , , n ; Swiss brethren
compared to radical sacramentarians Baden disputation ( ), , ,
in,  , , , n ,
Augsburg Confession,  n n ,  n
Augustine of Hippo: Brenz citing, Bader, Johannes, , , n ,
, ; On Christian Doctrine, nn ; A Dialogue on the
; Karlstadt and, , , ; in Beginning of the Christian Life,
late medieval Eucharistic theology, , n ; An Epistolary Defense
, , , , n ; Luther Concerning the Goose, ,
and, , ; Marburg Colloquy nn
497
Index
baptism/baptism controversy: alien Berengar of Tours/Berengarian

faith ( des aliena), , , , , controversy, , , , , 
, ; Anabaptist separation from Bern disputation ( ), , , ,
other sacramentarians, ; , 
believer s baptism, , , , , Bern reformation ordinance, 
n ; Bohemian Brethren and, Bernard of Clairvaux, 
; circumcision and, , , , Bible. See scripture
; division of sacramentarians and, Bibliander, eodor, 
; early dissent among Wittenbergers Bild, Veit,  n
on, ; emergence of, Billican, eobald: Brenz s Syngramma
; Erasmus on, , , , , and, n ; education of,
n ; Karlstadt on, , , , n ; Karlstadt and, , , ,
, , ; Luther on, , n ; Oecolampadius and, , ,
, , n ; magisterial , , , , , , , ,
Protestantism and, ; in Marburg n , n ; printers and printing
Articles, ; Melanchthon on, , locations, ; Renovation of the
, n ; printed debates in second N rdlingen Church, , ; Response
half of s, focus on, ; relationship to Billican and Rhegius (Zwingli),
to Eucharistic controversy, , , ; Sam and, ; at ese Words
; spiritualists on, ; terms, debate and, ; Zwingli and,
de ning, ; Zwingli on, , , , 
n ,  n Binder, Georg, , 
Baptists, origins myths of,  Blackfriars Council ( ), 
Barge, Hermann,  n Blarer, Ambrosius, , , , n ,
Basel: Anabaptist separatism in, n , n ,  n
, ; censorship in, , Blaurock, Georg,  , 
n ; connections between printers bodily presence of Christ in
in Zwolle, Basel, and Wittenberg, bread and wine. See Eucharistic
; liturgical reforms, ; as printing controversy; presence of Christ in
location, , f, ; Reformation Eucharist; transubstantiation
Ordinance ( ), , ; Bohemian Brethren (Unitas
sacramentarians, Zurich-Basel- Fratrum; Picards), , , , , ,
Strasbourg axis for, , ; sacraments, , , , , , ,
understanding of, ; spiritualists in, nn , n , n ,
. See also Switzerland and South n ; Apologia Sacrae Scripturae,
Germany, early Eucharistic debate in ; Oratorio excusatoria, 
Basel, Council of, ,  Borner, Johannes, Beginning of a Genuine
Basel Confession ( ),  Christian Life, 
Basel disputation ( ),  Brandenburg-Ansbach, Markgraf Georg
Basil the Great, , , ,  n von, 
believer s baptism, , , , , , Brecht, Johannes,  n
n Brecht, Martin,  n
498
Index
Brennwald, Carlin, Instruction on and, , , n ; Karlstadt and,

Rebaptism, ,  , , , n ; Oecolampadius
Brenz, Johannes: Bucer and, , and, , , , , , n ,
, , ; Bugenhagen and, n ; Zwingli and, , ,
; catechetical literature, , , 
; Grynaeus and, ; importance Bucer, Martin, works: Apology, ,
of, in second phase of Eucharistic n ; Basis and Reasons om
controversy, ; Letter on the Divine Scripture, ; Dialogue . . .on
Lord s Words, ; at Marburg the Agreement of Dr. Luther and his
Colloquy, ; modern studies of, Opponents, , n ; Faithful
; Oecolampadius and, , , Warning Against Jakob Kautz,
, , , , , ; Luther, translations of, ,
, ; print production, f, , , , , , ,
; printers and printing locations, , , , , n ; as possible
; sacraments, understanding of, . author of Response to Bugenhagen,
See also Syngramma n ; Preface to the Fourth
Bri onnet, Guillaume,  Volume of Lutheran Postils, ; print
Brieger, eodor, n ,  n production of, f, . See also Psalms
Briesmann, Johann,  n commentary by Bugenhagen and
Brunfels, Otto, , , , Bucer s translation
n ,  n Buchstab, Johannes, 
Bubenheimer, Ulrich, n , n Bugenhagen, Johannes: catechetical
Bucer, Martin, ; alternative literature, , , n ,
account of early Eucharistic n ; church ordinance for
controversy, ; background Braunschweig, ; Clear Report
and career as translator, ; dispute and, , n ; on
Clear Report dispute and, , Eucharistic controversy, ;
, n ; contributions to Ho man, Flensburg disputation with,
Eucharistic controversy, ; future , n ; importance of, in second
prominence of, ; Hussite and phase of Eucharistic controversy,
Waldensian arguments in uencing, ; languages used for publications
; Marburg Colloquy and, , of, , , n ; Leopoldi s
, , n ; modern studies Opinion and, , ; New Testament
of, ; sacraments, understanding of, commentaries of, ; Pommer as
; spiritualists and, , , , alternative form of name, n ; at
, n ; at ese Words debate ese Words debate and, ,
and, , , , ; omism, n
training in, ; Ulm church and,  Bugenhagen, Johannes, relations with
Bucer, Martin, relations with others: Brenz and, ; Bucer and,
others: Brenz and, , , , ; as colleague of Luther, ; on
; Bugenhagen and, ; Erasmus Karlstadt, , ; Zwingli
in uencing, , , ; Hoen and, , , , ,  n
49
Index
Bugenhagen, Johannes, n ; on Latin schools in Basel,

works: Instruction on Private ; Luther in uencing, ; modern
Confession, ; Letter Against the studies of, ; Oecolampadius and, ,
New Error, , , , , , ; print production of, f, ; on
, , , n , n , sale of prohibited books, ; Scotism
n ; Oratio, , , , n, rejected by, ; spiritualism and,
n , n ; print production of, , , , , n ; at
f, ; printers and printing locations, ese Words debate and, ; What
, ; Public Confession, , , One Should ink . . . About the
, n , n . See also Disagreement, 
Psalms commentary by Bugenhagen Caselius, Gregor, , ,  n
and Bucer s translation Castelburger, Andreas, 
Bugenhagen, Johannes, works catechetical literature, ,
about: Response to Bugenhagen ; Anabaptist, , n ; Augsburg,
(attrib. Conrad Ryss), , , common exhortation for communion
n ; Response to Bugenhagen in, , ; of Bohemian Brethren,
(Zwingli), ,  , n ; in church ordinances,
Bullinger, Heinrich, , , , , , ; close linkage of confession and
, , n ; On the Origin of communion in Luther s catechetical
Error,  materials, ; development
Buridan, John,  of evangelical catechism,
Butz, Peter,  ; Eucharistic controversy in, ,
, , ; importance
Cajetan, Cardinal, , , , to evangelical sacramental theology,
n ,  n ; Luther s catechisms, ,
Calvin, Jean, , , ; Short Treatise on , , , , n ; Luther s
the Lord s Supper,  sermons on the Lords Supper, ,
Camerarius, Joachim, , , n , n ; on private confession and
n , n ,  n pre-communion examination, ;
Capernaites, , , ,  sacramentarian catechisms, ; in
Capito, Wolfgang: Baden disputation Wittenberg, , ; outside
and, ; Bucer compared, ; on Wittenberg, 
Bucer s translation of Bugenhagens Cathars, 
commentary on Psalms, , Catholics: evangelical diversity criticized
, n , n ; catechetical by, ; genre and audience for works
literature, , , ; contributions by, , ; heresy, concept of, ;
to Eucharistic controversy, Langenmantel on, ; language of
; early discussions on Christ s publication, , n ; Luther s anti-
bodily presence, , , n , Catholic treatises, f, , ; Luther s
n ; Erasmus in uencing, , break with, ; Oecolampadiuss
, , n ; Farel and, anti-Catholic treatises, ; Pirckheimer
; Karlstadt s pamphlets and, , , associated with, , ; print
50
Index
Catholics (cont.) class issues: Augsburg, Eucharistic

production of, , f f, , controversy in, ; Bucer s translation
n , n ; printing locations of Bugenhagens commentary on
for Catholic books, ; Rhegiuss Psalms, audience for, , ,
anti-Catholic treatises, ; Sam on, ; genre and audience for
; theology of sacri ce of the mass, works, signi cance of, ,
n ; Zwingli versus, , , , ; language of publication
, . See also late medieval and, , ; literacy, ,
Eucharistic theology ; Pirckheimer s debate
Cellarius, Martin, , , , , with Oecolampadius, ethos and
, , nn , n , n , character attacks in, , ,
n , n ,  n ; rejection of infant baptism
Celtis, Conrad,  strongest amongst lower classes, ; set
censorship, , , , , , , o larger typeface, reasons for use of,
, n ; Swiss/South German Eucharistic
Charles V (king of Spain/Holy Roman debates and, , n
Emperor), ,  Clear Report dispute, , ;
Chrisman, Miriam,  n anonymous pamphlet falsely
Christian (duke of Holstein- attributed to Conrad Sam, ,
Hadersleben), , , n , , ; anticlericalism
A Christian Instruction of Small Children and, , , , , ,
in the Faith,  n ; Augsburg sacramentarians,
Christological analogies for Christ s development of, ; authority in,
presence, , , , , , , , ; Catholic reaction by Eck,
, , , , , , , ; Faithful Admonition pamphlet
,  and, , , , ; objective
Christ s presence in Eucharist. See view of controversy, Sams attempt
presence of Christ in Eucharist to present, , ; personal
Christ-von Wedel, Christine,  reputation, Sams defense of, ;
Chrysostom, , , , , , , rami cations of, ; range of
, n ,  n response, rather than Zwinglian/
church fathers: Marburg Colloquy and, Lutheran binary, ; theological
, n ; in Pirckheimer s debate signi cance, lack of, ; Wittenberger
with Oecolampadius, , , , response and attack on Sam by
, , , n , n , Schradin, 
n ; in at ese Words debate, Clicthove, Josse, , ,  n
, , , , . See also Cochlaeus, Johannes, , , , , ,
speci c church fathers, e.g. Augustine , , n , nn ; Against
church ordinances, , , the Armed Man Cochlaeus (Luther),
,  n ; On the Grace of the Sacraments,
Clancy, Michael,  ; Seven-Headed Luther, ; Some
501
Index
Articles by Jakob Kautz, ; creeds of early church, , , ,

Reasons for Giving the Laity Only One , , , , , , ,
Kind,  , , , , , ,
Coct, AnØmond de, , n ,  n , , , , , , n ,
Cohrs, Ferdinand, , n ,  n n ,  n
Coleman, Joyce,  Cronberg, Hartmut von, 
Cologne, as printing location, f,  Cyclops, Wolfgang, , n ; Answer
A Comforting Disputation in Question to Amsdorf s Reply, ; On the Most
and Answer Form, , , ,  Venerable Supper, 
communicatio idiomatum (relationship Cyprian of Carthage, , , n ,
between Christ s two natures), , , n ,  n
,  Cyril, , n ,  n
confessional positions, development
of,  Davis, omas J.,  n
confession/penance/ dead, prayers for and fate of souls of, 
absolution: catechetical literature Decretum, , , , ,
on private confession and pre- ,  n
communion examination, ; Denck, Hans, , , , , ,
close linkage of confession and n , n ; Recantation, 
communion by Luther, , , Deppermann, Klaus, n
n ; evangelical consideration of, , d taples, Jacques LefŁvre, n
, n ; sacramentarian rejection Deutsche Forschungsgemeinscha , 
of private confession, , Dick, Leopold, 
,  Dingel, Irene, ,  n
con rmation, ,  n Dipple, Geo rey, 
Consensus Tigurinus ( ), ,  diversity, evangelical, Catholic criticism
Constance, Council of ( ),  ,  of, 
consubstantiation. See remanence diversity, sacramentarian. See
conversion, ,  sacramentarian diversity
corporeal presence of Christ in Dominicans, , , , 
bread and wine. See Eucharistic Drechsler, omas,  n
controversy; presence of Christ in Dresden, as printing location, 
Eucharist; transubstantiation Drews, Paul, ,  n
Corpus Christi, n , n ,  n
Cratander, Andreas,  Eccius dedolatus (attrib.
Crautwald, Valentin, , , , Pirckheimer), 
, , ; Brief Admonition, Eck, Johannes: Baden disputation and,
; Collation and Consensus, , , , n ; Against
; at the Word of Christ, John , the Blasphemer and Heretic Conrad
Is the Rule Controlling His Words in Sam, , , ; Cellarius and,
the Supper,  ; critical annotations to Luther s
502
Index
Eck, Johannes (cont.) position generally in uenced by,

theses and Karlstadt s printed attack , , , , ; scriptural
on, ; Enchiridion, , , ; First hermeneutics and exegesis,
Short Answer to Eck s eses (Zwingli), fundamental debate with Luther/
, , ; Leipzig Disputation Wittenbergers over, , , , ,
with Luther, ; Pirckheimer ; spiritualists and, ; Swiss/
and, ; print production, , southern German early debate on
; printers and printing locations, , Eucharistic controversy and, , ,
n ; Response to Eck s Books . . . on , , , 
the Mass (Rhegius), ; Sacri ce of Erasmus of Rotterdam, relations with
the Mass, ; Sam attacked by, , others: Bucer in uenced by, , ,
,  ; Capito in uenced by, ,
Eckhart, Johann, n , , n ; Hubmaier and,
Edlibach, Jakob, , ,  n , ; Karlstadt in uenced by,
Edwards, Mark U., ,  n , , , , n ; Luther
Egranus, Johannes,  and, , , ; Melanchthon
eisegesis,  and, , , ; Oecolampadius
elevation of host, , ,  in uenced by, , , , ,
Emser, Hieronymus,  n , , , , , , ,
Erasmus of Rotterdam: authority ; Pirckheimer and, , ,
of, , ; on baptism, , n ; Zwingli in uenced by, , ,
, , , n ; Basel, on , , , , , n , n ,
turmoil in, n ; censorship by, n
; dissociation from reformers, Erasmus of Rotterdam, works: Adages,
, , , , , , ; Diatribe on Free Will,
n ; education in Paris, , ; Enchiridion of a Christian
n ; humanism of, and problem Soldier, , , , , ,
of authority, ; in uence on key , , n ; Greek New
players in Eucharistic controversy, Testament, , , , ,
; Leopoldi s Opinion and, ; Jerome s letters, commentary
, , n ; nature of on, n ; Lucubrationes,
sacraments, fundamental debate n ; Paraphrases, ; A Pious
with Luther over, , , , , and Christian Expostulation,
; on Oecolampadiuss Genuine ; Plan or Method of
Exposition, , , n ; Pellikans Studying eology, , , ,
publication of Expostulation, , , n ; Uncovering of
controversy stemming from, , Deceptions, 
, n , n ; print production Erasmus of Rotterdam, works about: e
and audience for works of, , Opinion of . . . Erasmus of Rotterdam
n ; Psalms commentary by and Doctor Luther (Leopoldi),
Bugenhagen and Bucer s translation, , , n ; Response and
, , , , ; sacramentarian Apology to Dr. Erasmus of Rotterdam s
503
Index
Uncovering of the Deceitful Malice of, ; publication of Karlstadt s

( Jud),  pamphlets ( ) arousing, , ,
Erfurt, as printing location, , , , , , , ,
f,  n ; relationship to baptism
ethos, , ,  n debate, , , ; vernacular,
Eucharist: in both kinds, , , , transition of debate to, ,
, , , , ; elevation of . See also late medieval
host, , , ; frequency of Eucharistic theology; presence of
celebration/reception of, ; Passover Christ in Eucharist; Switzerland and
compared to, , , , , , South Germany, early Eucharistic
, , , , , ; placement debate in; transubstantiation; speci c
of host in hands versus on tongue, participants by name; speci c related
; pre-communion examination exchanges
and private confession, catechetical Eusebius of Caesarea, ,
literature on, ; reception in n ,  n
both kinds, , , , , , , externals, depreciation of value
, ; reception in one kind only, of. See Anabaptists and
, , , , , ; reservation of proto-Anabaptists; spiritualists
host, , , n ; terms
for, , , n , nn Fabri, Johannes, , , , ,
; veneration/adoration of host, , n , n ; Answer to the Unsent
, , , , ,  n Open Letter of Dr. Fabri (Zwingli),
Eucharistic controversy: Anabaptists/ ; Open Letter to Ulrich Zwingli, 
proto-Anabaptists and, , Faithful Admonition, , , , 
n ; articulation of arguments false attribution, problem of, ,
regarding, , ; in catechetical , , , ,  n
literature, , , , Farel, Guillaume, , , , n ,
; Catholic theology of n , nn , n ,
sacri ce of the mass, at Trent, n ,  n
n ; communicatio idiomatum Farge, James K., ,  n
(relationship between Christ s Ferber, Nikolaus, , ; Enchiridion
two natures) in, , , , ; of Common Places, 
consequences of, ; end of public Ficino, Marsilio, 
polemics over, ; Erasmus gurative understanding of Christ s
blamed by Melanchthon for, words, , , , , , , , ,
; historical centering on Luther and , ,  n
Zwingli, , , , , , Fischer, Johannes (Piscatorius), With
; Lutheran and Reformed What Prejudgment the Disputation Is
churches, formation of, ; nature of Held in Baden, ,  n
sacraments, underlying disagreement Fisher, John, , , , , ,
over, , ; o ensive terms used n ; Five Books on the Truth of the
in, , , , , n ; phases Body and Blood, , 
504
Index
Flamm, Andreas, , , Genuine Exposition

n , n , n ; Against (Oecolampadius): Brenz s
ose Who Say Christ s Flesh and Blood Syngramma as response to, ,
Is Not in the Sacrament,  , ; Clear Report dispute
Flensburg disputation ( ), , , and, n ; Erasmus on, ,
, , n , n , n ; impact of, , , ,
Formula for Mass and Communion,  , ; in Pirckheimer debate,
Fourth Lateran Council ( ),  ,  , , , , , , ,
Franciscans, , ,  , n ; print production of,
Frankfurt book fair: beginnings of , , , ; Swiss/South German
Eucharistic debate and, , , , , early Eucharistic debate and, ,
, n , n ; confessional , , , n ; at ese
positions, development of, ; end Words dispute and, ; translation
of public polemics over Eucharistic into vernacular, 
debate and, ; individual exchanges Georg (duke of Saxony), ,  , 
( ) and, , , , , Gerbel, Nicolaus, 
, , , , , , , , German language. See vernacular
n ; sacramentarian diversity and, German mysticism, , , , , ,
, ,  n
Frecht, Martin, , n ,  n Glaidt, Oswald, 
Frederick the Wise (elector of Saxony), Glarean, Heinrich, Oration on the Lord s
, , , ,  n Supper, , n
free will, , , , ,  Gnesio-Lutherans,  n
French evangelicals,  grace: ability of sacraments to convey,
Friedrich II (duke of Liegnitz),  n ; Luther s theology of, f,
Fritzhans, Johannes, ,  n ,  , 
Froben, Johannes, , , ,  n Gr ter, Kaspar,
Frosch, Johannes,  Catechesis, ,  n
Froschauer, Christoph, , , , , Grebel, Conrad, , , ,
n , n ,  n n ,  n
Froschauer, Hans,  n Gregory VII (pope), , 
Gregory of Nazianzus, ,  n
Gansfort, Wessel, Farrago,  Gretzinger, Benedict, Un anquishable
Ga ner, omas,  n Bulwark, 
Gast, Hiob,  Grimm, Sigismund, 
gender issues: common man, gendered Grubenheimers, ,  n
meaning of, n ; Eucharistic Gr dt, Joachim am, , ,
controversy, womens interest n , nn ; Christian
in, ; Frau Hulda as reason, Demonstration, 
Luther on, , n , Grynaeus, Simon, 
n ; literacy,  Gummelt, Volker,  n
genre and audience, , f, , Gutknecht, Jobst, n
G ttel, Kaspar, ,  n
50
Index
Habsburg, Ferdinand von,  Hess, Johannes, 

Haferitz, Simon, Sermon for the Feast of Hilary of Poitiers, , n ,  n
the ree Kings,  Hoen, Cornelis: Bucer and, ,
Hager, Johann, , , , n , , n ; Christian Letter
n ,  n on the Lord s Supper, , ,
H tzer, Ludwig: Amsdorf pamphlet ; Clear Report dispute and, ,
sent to Zwingli by, n ; Augsburg , , n ; Cyclops possibly
sacramentarians and, ; on in uenced by, n ; Hussite
creeds of early church, , ; and Waldensian arguments
Oecolampadius, translation of, in uencing, , ; Karlstadt
, , n , n ; proto- compared, ; medieval
Anabaptist associations of, heresies disseminated via letter of,
; Psalms, Bugenhagens , n , n , n ,
Latin commentary on, ; On n ; on nature of sacraments
the Sacrament of anksgiving generally, ; Oecolampadius
(translation of Oecolampadiuss and, n ; Schwenckfeld
Genuine Exposition), ; Sam on and, ; Swiss/South German
sacramentarian position, ; as Eucharistic debates and, ,
spiritualist, ; On the Supper , n , n , n ; on
(translation of Oecolampadiuss veneration/adoration of host,
Apologetica), ; Swiss/South n ; Zwingli and, , , ,
German early Eucharistic debate and, n , n ,  n
, ,  n Hofer, omas,  n
Hausmann, Nicholas, , , , Ho man, Melchior, , , , ,
n ,  n n , n , n
Hazlett, Ian, ,  n Hofmann, Christoph,  n
Hedio, Caspar, , n , n , Holfelder, Hans Hermann,  n
n ,  n holy water, ,  n
Hegesippus,  Hubel, Johannes, 
Heimbucher, Martin,  n Hubmaier, Balthasar, , , , ,
Henry IV (Holy Roman Emperor),  , , , , n , n ,
Henry (duke of Saxony),  n nn , n ; Christian
heresy: dissemination of medieval Catechism, ; Discussion with
heresies, , ; in Habsburg Zwingli s Baptism Book, ,
lands, ; late medieval/Catholic ; On Infant Baptism, ,
concept of, ; reformer charges n ; Instruction on the Mass,
of, ; Schw rmer (zealots or ; Simple Instruction, ;A
fanatics) as Wittenberger term for Summary of the Whole Christian
sacramentarians, , , , , , Life, 
n ; in at ese Words debate, humanists and humanism, , , ,
,  , , , , , , , , ,
Herwagen, Johannes, , , , , , , , , , 
, , , ,  n Hus, Jan, , , 
506
Index
Hussites, , , , , , , , , John uidort of Paris, ,  n

, , , , , Jonas, Justus, ; Booklet for the Laity and
, , n , n . See Children (with Agricola), , , 
also Bohemian Brethren; Jud, Leo, , , , , , , , ,
Grubenheimers; Pighards ; Taborites , n , n , n ; Response
Hutten, Ulrich von,  and Apology, 
justi cation by faith, , , , , ,
Ickelshamer, Valentin, , , , , n , n ,  n
n ; Complaint . . . Concerning the
Injustice and Tyranny,  Kantz, Kaspar, 
images in churches, , , , , , Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein
,  n von, , ; Anabaptists
impanation, , , , , , , , and, , , , ; Augsburg
, , , , n , n , sacramentarians, development of,
n ,  n , , , nn ; baptismal
indulgence controversy,  controversy and, , , , ,
Infallible Case (attrib. , ; catechetical literature and,
Schwenckfeld),  n ; censorship of, ; Clear
infant baptism, rejection/defense of. See Report dispute and, , , ,
baptism controversy , , , , nn ,
inquisition, ,  ,  n , n ; early dissent
Instructions for How Each Christian among Wittenbergers and, ,
Should Be Prepared,  n ; Eck s critical annotations
Investiture Controversy,  to Luther s theses, printed attack
Irenaeus of Lyons, , n , n , on, ; education and training,
n ,  n ; Eucharist, rejection of Christ s
bodily presence in, ; rst
Jacobs, Elfriede,  n publication of pamphlets ( )
Jakoubek ( Jacobellus) of St bro, , on Eucharistic controversy, , ,
n , , , , , ,
Jerome (church father), , , , , n ; Flensburg disputation,
n , n ,  n account of, n ; Hussite and
Jerome of Prague,  Waldensian arguments in uencing,
Joestel, Volkmar, n , , ; infant baptism, pamphlet
John (elector of Saxony), , n , rejecting, ; on laity s right to read
n , n scriptures, n ; Leopoldi s
John Chrysostom. See Chrysostom Opinion and, ; liturgical reforms by,
John of Damascus, On the Orthodox ; marginalization of, ,
Faith,  , n ; medieval
John Duns Scotus, , , , n heresies, dissemination of, ,
John Frederick (duke of Saxony),  n ; mysticism and, , , , ,
507
Index
; on nature of sacraments, , , of I Cor. , ; Instruction on this

; Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni, Statement, e Kingdom of God
lecturing on, ; print production of, Su ers Violence , ; On the Manifold,
f, , , ; Psalms commentary Singular Will of God, ; On the New
by Bugenhagen, Bucer s translation and Old Testament, ; Against the
of, , ; quasi-retraction of, Old and New Papistic Masses, ,
, , , n ; radical authors ; On the Priesthood and Sacri ce of
using ideas of, ; responses to Christ, ; Several Main Points of
pamphlets of, , f, ; on Christian Teaching, 
scriptural interpretation, , , Karlstadt, Andreas
, ; spiritualists and, , , , Bodenstein von, works
, n ; Swiss/South German about: Complaint . . . Concerning the
reformers and, , , , , , Injustice and Tyranny (Ickelshamer),
n ; at ese Words debate and, ; e Rejoicing of a Christian
,  n Brother, ; Warning Against the
Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von, New Error of Dr. Andreas Karlstadt
relations with others: Bader and, (Rhegius), ; What One Should
; Billican and, , , , ink . . . About the Disagreement
n ; Brunfels and, ; Bucer and, Between Martin Luther and Andreas
, , , n ; Bugenhagen on, Karlstadt (Capito), 
, ; Erasmus in uencing, K senbrod, Augustin, 
, , , , n ; Ho man Kaufmann, omas, , , n ,
and, ; Hubmaier in uenced by, n , n , n , n ,
n ; Langenmantel and, , , n , n , n , n ,
, , n ; Luther and, , , n , n , n , n
, , , , , , , Kautz, Jakob, 
n , n ; Oecolampadius and, Keller, Michael, , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , n , n ; A Christian,
, , n ; Zwingli and, , , orough . . . Instruction, ,
, , , , , , , n , n ; Several/Some Sermons on the
n ,  n Lord s Supper, , , n
Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von, Klug, Josef, , n , n ,  n
works: On the Anti-Christian Abuse, Koch, Ernst, , n
; Declaration of How Karlstadt K hler, Hans-Joachim, bibliography of,
Regards His Teaching, , , , , , , , nn ,  n
, ; Dialogue on Alien K hler, Walther, , , , , , ,
Faith, , , n , n , , , n , n , n ,
n ; Dialogue on the Horrible n , n , n , n ,
and Idolatrous Misuse of the Most n , n , n , n ,
Worthy Sacrament, , ; Exegesis nn ; Zwingli and Luther, ,
of Christ s Words, ; Explanation ,  n
508
Index
koinonia, meaning of, , ,  Lautensack, Paul, 

Kolb, Franz, , n Leipzig: book fair in, ; censorship in,
Krentz, Natalie,  n ; as printing location, , f, 
Krodel, Gottfried G.,  n Leopoldi, Ludwig (attrib.) e Opinion
of the Most Learned Erasmus of
laity: authors from, , , Rotterdam and Doctor Luther, ,
n ; Cyclops defending right , n ,  n
of laity to give public defenses of letters and manuscript treatises,
faith, ; scripture, right to read, dissemination of, , 
,  n Linck, Wenceslaus, Instruction for
Lambert, Fran ois, , ,  Children, 
Landschad, Johann Ritter, n Lipany, battle of ( ), 
Landsperger, Johannes, , , literacy rates in early sixteenth century,
, n ; Brotherly Supplication , ,  n
and Admonition, ; Where and liturgical reforms, , , , , ,
What God s Right (Hand) Is,  , , 
Langenmantel, Eitelhans, , , liturgies, publication of, ,
, n , n , n ;A ,  n
Short Summary Concerning the Old Lord s Supper. See Eucharist; Eucharistic
and New Papists, , ,  controversy
language(s) of publication, , , , e Lord s Supper, the Papists Mass, and
, , , ,  Some New Errors, , ,  n
late medieval Eucharistic theology, , Lotter, Melchior, , , n , n
; catechetical literature s lack A Lovely Question and Answer for
of, ; dissemination of medieval Instructing Young Children, 
heresies, , ; diversity Lucian, 
of belief and practice in, , Lucius, Heinrich, 
, n ; heresy, concept Ludwig II (Pfalzgraf of Pfalz-
of, ; nature of sacraments, Zweibr cken), ,  n
fundamental debate between Luther Lu , Hans, ,  n
and Erasmus over, , , , , Lukas of Prague, , 
; Pirckheimer and, ; sacraments L thart, Johannes, 
generally, Wittenberger position Luther, Martin: anti-Catholic treatises,
on, ; scholasticism on, , ; f, , ; authority of, , , ,
scriptural hermeneutics and exegesis, , , , , , , ,
fundamental debate between Luther/ ; on baptism, , , ,
Wittenbergers and Erasmus over, n ; Brenz s Syngramma endorsed
, , , , . See also by, , , ; Bucer s translations
transubstantiation of, , , , , , ,
Latin: literacy in, ; as liturgical , , , , n ; catechetical
language, ; publication in, , literature and, , , ,
,  , , n , n ;
509
Index
Catholic treatises against, ; on involvement in, ; Schw rmer, use

church ordinances, ; Clear of, , , , , n ; scriptural
Report dispute and, , , , hermeneutics and exegesis,
; confession and communion fundamental debate with Erasmus
closely linked by, , , over, , , , , ;
n ; development of position scripture, authority of and right of
and terminology of, ; at Diet laity to read, , n ; sermons
of Worms, , ; early dissent on the Lord s Supper, ;
among Wittenbergers and, , spiritualists and, ; Swiss/South
n ; end of public polemics over German debate and, , , ,
Eucharistic debate and, ; on Frau , , ; on transubstantiation,
Hulda as reason, , n , , , n ; withdrawal from
n ; genre and audience for second phase of Eucharistic
works by, , ; grace, theology controversy, , ;
of, f, , , ; Habsburg lands, Wittenberger position on sacraments
condemnation in, ; historical generally and, 
centering of sacramental controversy Luther, Martin, relations with
on Zwingli and, , , , , others: Erasmus and, , ,
, ; on justi cation ; Glarean in uenced by, ;
by faith, ; as letter writer, Karlstadt and, , , , ,
; liturgical reforms by, ; Marburg , , , , , n ,
Colloquy and, , n , n ; Oecolampadius and,
n , n , n ; medieval , , , , , , ,
heresies, dissemination of, , n ; Zwingli and, , , ,
n , n , n ; moving , , , , , 
from disagreement to heresy, ; Luther, Martin, works: e Abomination
nature of sacraments, fundamental of the Secret Mass, ; On the
debate with Erasmus over, , , , Adoration of the Sacrament, , ,
, ; nominalism, education , , , , ; Against the
in, ; Pirckheimer/Oecolampadius Armed Man Cochlaeus, ; On the
debate and, , , , Babylonian Captivity of the Church,
; prefaces and forewords to works , , , , , , , ,
of others, , , ; print , n , n ; To the Christian
production of, , , f f, , Nobility of the German Nation,
, , , n ; printers and ; Confession Concerning Christ s
printing locations, ; Psalms, Supper, , , , ,
Bugenhagens commentary and , , , ; On the
Bucer s translation of, , , Evangelical Mass, ; Freedom of
, ; sacramentarian used a Christian, n ; German Mass,
by, n ; sacramentarian versus , , , , , n ,
Wittenberger concept of sacraments n ; German Response to Henry
and, ; Saxon visitations, VIII, ; Against the Heavenly
510
Index
Luther, Martin, works (cont.) of Dr. Luther and his Opponents

Prophets, , , , , , (Bucer), , n ; Fair
, , , , , , , Answer to Dr. Martin Luther s
, , , n ; e Holy Instruction (Oecolampadius),
Sacrament of Baptism, ; Holy Week , , ; Friendly Rejoinder
sermons ( / / ), , , and Rejection of Luther s Sermon
, , , , nn ; Against the Fanatics (Zwingli),
Instruction to a Good Friend, ; e Opinion of the Most Learned
; Large Catechism, , , , , Erasmus of Rotterdam and Doctor
n ; Letter Against the Fanatic Luther (Leopoldi), , ,
Spirits, ; Letter to the Christians in n ; e Rejoicing of a Christian
Strasbourg, ; Letter to the Christians Brother, ; Second Fair Answer
of Halle, , , , n ; Little (Oecolampadius), ; Seven-Headed
Prayer Book, ; Maundy ursday Luther (Cochlaeus), ; Two Answers
sermon, , , , , , of Zwingli and Oecolampadius to
n , n , n , n ; New Dr. Martin Luther s Book, ,
Testament, translation of, , , , , , , n ; What
n ; theses, , ; Open One Should ink . . . About the
Letter to the Christians in Reutlingen, Disagreement Between Martin Luther
, , , n ; Order and Andreas Karlstadt (Capito),
and Instruction About What One ; Zwingli and Luther: eir
Should Do, ; Order for Mass and Con ict over the Supper According to
Communion, , ; Personal its Political and Religious Connections
Prayer Book, , ; Romans, (K hler), , ,  n
foreword to, ; e Sacrament of Lutherans and Lutheranism, , , ,
Penance, ; Sermon on Confession , , , , n . See also
and the Sacrament, , , , , Wittenbergers
; Sermon on John , , , ,
; Sermon on the New Testament, Magdeburg: Admonition to the
; Sermon on the Venerable Sacrament Magdeburgers (Amsdorf ), ; as
and on Brotherhoods, , ; printing location, f,  , 
Sermon . . . Against the Fanatic Spirits, magisterial Protestantism, ,
, , , , , , , , 
n ; Small Catechism, , , , Manuel, Niklaus, e Mass s Illness and
, n , n ; Treatise on the e Mass s Testament, 
New Testament, that is, on the Holy manuscript treatises and letters,
Mass, . See also at ese Words dissemination of, , 
Still Stand Firm debate Marburg Articles, , , , ,
Luther, Martin, works n ,  n
about: Complaint . . . Concerning the Marburg Colloquy ( ), , , ,
Injustice and Tyranny (Ickelshamer), , , , n ,  n
; Dialogue . . . on the Agreement Marcion and Marcionites, , 
51
Index
Marius, Augustinus, ,  n Moravia: Anabaptists in, , ,

Marschalk, Haug (Haug Zoller), , ; Bohemian Brethren in,  , 
n , n ,  n M ntzer, omas, , , , , ,
Marsilius of Inghen,  , , , , , , , ,
Mayes, David,  n , n , n , n , n ,
McCue, James F.,  n n ; Protest on O ering, ,  n
Melanchthon, Philipp: on baptism, , Murner, omas, , , , ,
, n ; Billican citing, ; as , 
colleague of Luther, ; early dissent Mutian, Conrad, 
within Wittenberg and, , Myconius, Friedrich,  n
, , , n , nn , mysteries versus sacraments, , ,
n , n ; Erasmus and, , , , 
, ; future prominence of, mysticism, , , , , , , ,
; Instruction for the Visitors of , n
Electoral Saxony, , , ,
, n ; Leopoldi s Opinion Neoplatonism, , , , , ,
and, , ; Loci Communes, , ,  n
, , , ; Marburg Colloquy Nestorianism, Luther associating Zwingli
and, , , , n , n , with, 
n , n , n , n , Neuser, Wilhelm, , 
n ; New Testament translations Never, Heinrich, , n
and annotations, ; Oecolampadius theses (Luther),  , 
and, , , n ; print nominalism (via moderna), , , 
production, f, , ; Propositions Nuremberg: catechetical literature,
on the Mass, ; Psalms, Bugenhagens ; censorship in, ; as printing
commentary and Bucer s translation location, , f, 
of, , , , ; rejection
of sacri ce of the mass by, , Oecolampadius, Johannes, , ;
n ; Schradin and, ; scripture Anabaptist separatism and, ,
and sacraments, approach to, , ; Aristotelianism and, , ,
, n , n ; Wyclif s , , ; Augustine and, ,
Trialogus, access to, ; Zwingli and, , , , , , , ,
,  n ; authority and reputation
Melhofer, Philipp,  n of, , , , , , ,
Menius, Justus, ; Instruction for ose ; Baden disputation and, ,
Who Want to Receive the Venerable , ; catechetical literature,
Sacrament, ,  n , n ; Catholic treatises and
Mennonites, origin myths of,  responses, , , n ; censorship
Mensing, Johannes, , , n of, , n , n ; Clear Report
metabolic understanding of dispute and, , , , , ,
Eucharist,  n , , n ; contributions to
Mochau, Anna von,  Eucharistic controversy, ,
512
Index
Oecolampadius, Johannes (cont.) , , , , , , , ,

; on creeds of early church, , n ; Luther and, , , , ,
; early discussions on Christ s , n ; Melanchthon and, ,
bodily presence, , n , , n ; M ntzer and, ,
n ; education and training, , , ; Rhegius and, , ,
, , n ; Habsburg lands, , ; Zwingli and, , ,
condemnation in, ; as humanist, , , , , , , , ,
; Hussite and Waldensian , n , n , nn
arguments in uencing, , , , Oecolampadius, Johannes,
; importance of, in second phase of works: Antisyngramma, , , ,
Eucharistic controversy, ; Leopoldi s , , n , n ; Apologetica,
Opinion and, ; Marburg Colloquy , , , , n ;A
and, , n , n , Discussion of Some Basel Preachers,
n ; overlap between opponents , ; Fair Answer to Dr. Martin
and, ; print production of, f, Luther s Instruction, , ,
; printers and printing locations, ; Posterior Response, , ,
; radical authors using ideas of, ; Question and Answer for the
; sacraments, understanding of, , Interrogation of Children, ,
; spiritualists and, , , , , n ; Response to Pirckheimer,
; Switzerland and South Germany, , , ; Second Fair Answer,
early Eucharistic debate in, , ; Sermon on the Sacrament of the
, , n ; at ese Words Eucharist, , n ; Two Answers
debate and, , , , , of Zwingli and Oecolampadius to
, n ; Ulm church and, Dr. Martin Luther s Book, , ,
; vernacular, transition of Eucharistic , , , n . See also Genuine
debate to, , ; vernacular Exposition
translations of Latin works of, . e Opinion of the Most Learned
See also Pirckheimer s debate with Erasmus of Rotterdam and Doctor
Oecolampadius (attrib. Leopoldi), , ,
Oecolampadius, Johannes, relations with n ,  n
others: Bader and, ; Billican and, Origen, , , n ,  n
, , , , , , , original sin, , , , , ,
, , , n , n ; Brenz n
and, , , , , , Osiander, Andreas, f, , ,
, , , , ; Bucer , , , , , , n ,
and, , , , , , n ; Reasons and Causes om Holy
n , n ; Capito and, , Scripture, ; Two Letters, , 
; Erasmus in uencing, , , , Otmar, Silvan, , 
, , , , , , , Otter, Jacob, , ,
, ; Hoen and, n ; Ho man n ; Christian Living and
and, ; Karlstadt and, , , , Dying, 
513
Index
pamphlets (Flugschri en) and pamphlet Pirckheimer, Willibald, works: Eccius

production,  dedolatus (attrib.), ; Epistle
Paschasius Radbertus, On the Body and to Eleutherius, , ; Epistola
Blood of the Lord,  Apologetica, ; Response to
Passover, Eucharist compared to, , , Oecolampadius, , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,  , , n , n ; Second
Pater, Calvin,  n Response, , , , , , 
Payne, Peter,  Pirckheimer s debate with
Peasants War ( ), , , , , , Oecolampadius, , ; authority
,  of Oecolampadius and, , ,
Pelargus (Storch), Ambrosius, ,  n ; church fathers in, , , ,
Pellikan, Konrad, , , , , , , , , n , n ,
, , , , , , , n ; Epistle to Eleutherius
n , n , n ,  n (Pirckheimer), , ; ethos and
penance. See confession/penance/ character attacks in, , ,
absolution , n ; Genuine Exposition
Penick (Sylvius), Peter,  n (Oecolampadius), , , ,
Peter Lombard, , , , , , , , n ; initial
n ; Sentences, , , , friendship, , , ; Luther
n ,  n and, , , , ; Posterior
Petreius, Johann, n Response (Oecolampadius), ,
Petri, Adam, , , ,  , ; print production
Petri, Heinrich,  of, ; Response to Oecolampadius
Pettegree, Andrew,  (Pirckheimer), , , , ,
Philip of Hesse (Landgraf ), , , , , , n , n ; Response
,  to Pirckheimer (Oecolampadius),
Picards. See Bohemian Brethren , , ; as rhetorical
Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius (later Pius debate, , ; Second Response
II), Commentary on the Council of (Pirckheimer), , , ,
Basel, ,  , , ; signi cance of, ,
Pico della Mirandola, Gianfrancesco and ; Swiss/South German early
Giovanni,  Eucharistic debate and, ; as
Pighards, , ,  theological debate, 
Pirckheimer, Willibald: Catholicism, Piscatorius ( Johannes Fischer), With
association with, , ; Erasmus What Prejudgment the Disputation Is
and, , , n ; as humanist, Held in Baden, ,  n
; as lay author, , , ; Luther Pius II. See Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius
and, ; Renaissance Platonism Plato and Platonism, , , , ,
in uencing, ; on Zurich-Basel- , 
Strasbourg axis for sacramentarian Prather, Hugh, Notes to Myself, xiii
cause,  prayers for the dead, 
514
Index
predestination, , , , ,  locations, , f, f; private

presence of Christ in Eucharist: bodily conversation, printed works as
presence (See Eucharistic controversy; catalysts for, ; quantitative
transubstantiation); Christological analysis and overview, ,
analogies for, , , , , , f f; relationship between,
, , , , , , , , f, f; reprints, ,
, , ; communicatio idiomatum ; sacramentarian diversity and, ,
(relationship between Christ s two , ; sacramentarians, ,
natures), , , , ; gurative f f, , f, , ,
understanding of, , , , , , n ; set o larger typeface, use of,
, , , , , n ; terms , ; strengths and weaknesses
for,  of, ; Swiss/South German
print production and Protestant early Eucharistic debate and, ,
reform, , , ; treatises and responses, ;
; Anabaptist pamphlets, Wittenbergers, , f f, ,
; broadsheets and hymnbooks, , n . See also catechetical
n ; capital letters, use of, literature; Frankfurt book
; censorship, , , , , fair; translations
, , , private masses, rejection of, , , ,
n ; church orders, , , 
, , n ; dissemination of Prosper of Aquitaine, ,
print materials, ; distortion n ; Sententiae, 
of message through process of proto-Anabaptists. See Anabaptists and
transmission, ; end of public proto-Anabaptists
polemics over Eucharistic debate proto-Reformed. See Reformed/
and, ; false attribution, problem proto-Reformed  church
of, , , , , , pro-Wittenberg party. See Wittenbergers
n ; genre and audience, , Psalms commentary by Bugenhagen and
f, , ; individual Bucer s translation, , ;
authors, , f f, f, modern Bugenhagens Latin
f; language(s) of publication, commentary on the Psalms, ,
, , , , , , ; Bugenhagens objections to
, ; lay involvement in, Bucer s view of Eucharist, , ,
, , n ; literacy rates, , n ; defended by Bucer,
, , n ; liturgies, ; Erasmian in uence on, , ,
publication of, , , , , ; evaluations of, ,
n ; new view of early Eucharistic ; liberty given to Bucer to translate
controversy provided by, freely and change text, , ,
; number of publications, print , ; Lord s Supper, discussion
runs, and distribution of copies, of, , , ; Luther on, , ,
, n ; paragraph breaks, use , ; printers role in controversy
of, n ; printers and printing over, ; Psalm , ; Psalm ,
51
Index
; Psalm , , ; Psalms controversy in, , ; catechetical

- , ; e Psalter Well literature, , , n ; church
Translated (Bucer s German version fathers consulted by, ; education
of Bugenhagens commentary), , of, n ; Karlstadts pamphlets,
, ; separate publication of responses to, , ; modern studies
commentary on Psalm , , of, ; Oecolampadius and, , ,
; at ese Words debate and, , ; print production, f,
, ; Wittenberger theology, , ; printers and printing
development of, ; Zwingli and, , locations, ; Response to Billican and
,  Rhegius (Zwingli), ; sacraments,
purgatory, , , , n ,  n understanding of, ; Zwinglis
response to, 
uintilian, , ,  n Rhegius, Urbanus, works: Examination
for the Lord s Supper, ; Material for
Ramminger, Melchior,  Considering the Entire Business of the
Raute, Georg,  n Mass, ; New Teachings, ; Response
realism (via antiqua), , , , to Billican and Rhegius (Zwingli),
,  ; Response to Eck s Books . . . on
Reformed/proto-Reformed the Mass, ; Short Explanation of
church: Eucharistic controversy and Some Current Points, ; e
formation of, ; historical centering Twelve Articles of Our Christian Faith,
of Eucharistic controversy on Luther ; Warning Against the New Error
and Zwingli, , , ; liturgical of Dr. Andreas Karlstadt, ; On the
services, ; magisterial Words of the Lord s Supper and the
reformers, diversion from other Variety of Opinions, 
sacramentarian groups, , Richsner, Ulrich,  n
, , ; reformed, as Rode, Hinne, , , , n
term, n ; sacramental theology, Roth, Stephan, , 
development of, , , ,  Roussel, GØrard, n
Regel, J rg,  Ru , Simprecht, , n
Regensburg Colloquy ( ),  n Russell, Paul,  n
Reinhart, Martin, n , n Ryss, Conrad, , , , ,
Rejoicing of a Christian Brother,  n ; Response to Bugenhagen, ,
remanence (consubstantiation), , , , n
, , , ,  n
reservation of host, , , n Sachs, Hans, 
Response to Bugenhagen (Ryss), , , sacramental debates of early sixteenth
n century, , ; consequences
Reuchlin, Johannes, , , , ,  of, ; evangelical views on the
Rhau, Georg, ,  n sacraments generally, evolution of,
Rhegius, Urbanus: anti-Catholic ; grace, ability of sacraments to
treatises, , ; Augsburg, Eucharistic convey, ; historical centering
516
Index
sacramental debates of early sixteenth addressing, ; marginal position of,

century (cont.) ; overlap between opponents
of Eucharistic controversy on Luther and, ; print production of, ,
and Zwingli, , , , , f f, , f, , ,
, ; literacy rates and, n ; printers and printing locations,
, , n ; nature of ; sacraments generally, concept
sacraments, underlying disagreement of, ; Schw rmer (enthusiasts
over, , , , ; origin myths or fanatics) as Wittenberger term for,
associated with, ; printed debates , , , , , n ; as term,
in second half of s, focus on, , , , n ; Zurich-Basel-Strasbourg
; second half of s, tendency of axis for, , . See also Switzerland
historians to ignore, ; separation and South Germany, early Eucharistic
of/relationship between Eucharistic debate in; speci c sacramentarians
and baptismal controversies, , , Saganus, Georg, 
; terms, de ning, . See also saints, veneration of/intercession by, ,
authority; catechetical literature; late , , , 
medieval Eucharistic theology; print Sam, Conrad: Against the Blasphemer
production and Protestant and Heretic Conrad Sam (Eck),
reform; speci c sacraments, and speci c , , ; catechetical literature,
participants by name ; Consoling Pamphlet, , ,
sacramentarian diversity, , , , , , n ; Eck attacking,
; Anabaptist separatism, , , ; education of,
; criticism of, ; magisterial n ; objective view of Eucharistic
reformers, , , , controversy, e orts to present, ,
; personal attacks and harsh ; pamphlet falsely attributed to,
language involved in process of, , , , ; personal
, ; sacraments, concept of, reputation, damage to/defense of,
; spiritualists, , , , , ; printers and printing
, ; Swiss Brethren, ,  locations, ; rami cation of Clear
sacramentarians: anticlericalism of, Report dispute for, ; Response
, , , , , , , , Compelled by the Hostile Pamphlet of
n ; Augsburg sacramentarians, Hans Schradin, , , ,
development of, , ; Zwinglian, regarded as,
; catechetical literature, ; ,  n
censorship of works, , ; Clear Sasse, Hermann,  n
Report dispute and, , Sattler, Balthasar, 
; Erasmus, in uence of, Schappeler, Christoph,  n
; genre and audience for works by, Scharoun, Manfred, 
; Habsburg lands, condemnation Schatzgeyer, Kaspar, , , ,  n
in, ; language of publication, Schenker, Walter,  n
; lay authors as, ; liturgical Schirlenz, Nickel, ,  n
reforms, ; Luther s treatises Schleitheim Confession ( ), 
517
Index
Schleupner, Dominicus,  n n ; contributions to Eucharistic

Schmalkaldic League,  controversy, ; end of public
Schmid, Konrad,  n polemics over Eucharistic debate
Schmidt, Josef H.,  n and, ; eventual marginalization
Schnewyl, Johann, , , of, ; Glarean not mentioning
n ,  n work of, n ; letters and
scholasticism: Erasmus and, , manuscript treatises, dissemination
; evangelical authors not citing of, ; print production of, f,
theologians of, n ; in late ; printers and printing locations,
medieval Eucharistic theology, , ; sacraments, understanding of, ,
; nominalism (via moderna), ; as spiritualist, , ,
, , ; realism (via antiqua), ; at ese Words debate and, ,
, , , , ; Scotism, , , n , n ; Zwingli
, , , n , nn , and, , n ,  n
n ; omism, , ,  Schwenckfeld, Kaspar, works: Apology
Schottenloher, Karl, ,  n and Explanation, ; Christian
Schradin, Johannes: on authority, Consideration, ; On the Course of
; Eck s attack on Sam in uenced the Word of God, ; Ground and
by, ; as lay author, ; oral Cause of the Error and Controversy
communication and print production, Concerning the Lord s Supper,
relationship between, ; reformers ; Infallible Case (attrib.),
mentioned/not mentioned by, ; Refutation, ; Twelve
nn ; Response/Answer to uestions or Arguments Against
the New and Gross Error Concerning Impanation, , 
the Lord s Supper, , , , Scotism, , , , n ,
; Sam attacked by, , , , nn ,  n
; Sams response to, , , scripture: Anabaptist separatism
, ; in Wittenberg (end of and, ; Anabaptists/proto-
), n ; Wittenberger position Anabaptists on, ; authority of,
of,  , ; Brenz s argumentation
Schuldorp, Marquard, , n and, ; eisegesis versus exegesis,
Schultz, Petrus, Booklet in Question and ; fundamental debate between
Answer Form,  Luther/Wittenbergers and Erasmus
Schwabach Articles, , ,  n over hermeneutics and exegesis,
Schwanhauser, Johannes, On Christ s , , , , ; Grebel s
Supper,  literalist view of, ; Karlstadt
Schw rmer (enthusiasts or fanatics), , on interpretation of, , ,
, , , ,  n , ; lay right to read, ,
Schwarzenberg, Johann von, ,  n n ; Prophezei, ; in at ese
Schwenckfeld, Kaspar: Austerlitz Words debate, 
disputation and, ; Bohemian Septuagint Psalter, 
Brethren in uencing, ; Bucer and, Sichard, Johannes,  n
518
Index
Sider, Ronald J.,  n , ; suspension of mass in,

Sigwyn, Ludwig,  ; Switzerland and South Germany,
Silesians, , , , , , , , early Eucharistic debate in, , ,
, , , , , , , , , ; toleration espoused
n . See also Crautwald, Valentin; in, , 
Schwenckfeld, Kaspar Strauss, Jakob: Answer to Dr. Strauss s
social class. See class issues Pamphlet (Zwingli), ; censorship
Sorg-Froschauer, Simprecht, ,  n and, ; Against the Impious Error
South Germany. See Clear Report of Master Ulrich Zwingli, ;
dispute; Switzerland and South on Oecolampadiuss Genuine
Germany, early Eucharistic debate in Exposition, ; polemicism of,
Spalatin, Georg, , , n , n ; Schnewyl s response to,
n ,  n ; at the True Body of Christ and
Spengler, Lazarus, ,  n His Holy Blood Are Present in the
Speratus, Paul, , ,  n Sacrament, ; at ese Words
Speyer Diets: , , , , debate and, , , ; Zwingli
; ,  and, , , , , ,
spiritualists, , , ,  ,  n
Spruyt, B. J., n , n ,  n St bner, Marcus ( omae), ,
Spu ord, Margaret, n nn , n , n ,
St. Gallen catechism,  n ,  n
Staehelin, Ernst, , , n Sturm, Jacob, 
Staupitz, Johann von,  substance: Aristotelian concept of, ,
Steiner, Heinrich, ,  n , , , , ; Luther on, ,
Steiner, Melchior,  ; Oecolampadius on, ; omist
Stifel, Michael,  concept of substance and accidents, 
St r, Stephan,  n Suider, Anna, 
Storch, Nikolaus, , n , n , Swiss Brethren, , , 
n ,  n Switzerland and South Germany, early
Strasbourg: Anabaptist separatism Eucharistic debate in, , ;
in, ; catechetical literature, assessment of, ; Karlstadt
; Karlstadt, support for, and, , , , , ,
; Leopoldi s Opinion and n ; liturgical reforms, , ;
reformers of, , ; liturgical Oecolampadiuss arguments,
reforms, ; Lutheranism, move , , n ; print
toward, ; Otter s connections to, production, exploitation of, ,
; as printing location, , f, ; public discord, concern over,
, ; sacramentarian position in, ; radical dissent, development of,
, , , ; sacraments, ; responses to, ,
understanding of, , , , , ; Zwingli s arguments,
; Sams contacts with, , , , , , , ,
n ; spiritualists and, , n ,  n
519
Index
Sylvius (Penick), Peter,  n and Oecolampadiuss positions in,

Syngramma (Brenz): Augustine cited ; heresy, Luther s charges
in, , ; Bucer, Brenz s letter of, ; key theological issues
to, ; catechetical literature in, ; Landsperger on,
and, , ; Clear and Christian , ; Luther s Confession
Response (translation of Syngramma), Concerning Christ s Supper, ,
; Leopoldi on, ; Luther and, , , , , , , ,
, , ; Marburg Colloquy and, ; Oecolampadius and, , ,
; Oecolampadiuss Antisyngramma , , ; Pirckheimer s
responding to, , , , , debate with Oecolampadius and,
, n ; Oecolampadiuss Fair , ; print production of
Answer responding to, ; at ese Words, , , , ,
Oecolampadiuss Genuine Exposition, ; public impact of, ; Satan,
as response to, , , Luther accused of preoccupation
; print production of, , , with, , , ; Schwenckfeld and,
, n ; sacraments generally, , , , n , n ; Two
Wittenberger understanding of, Answers of Zwingli and Oecolampadius
; spiritualist response to, ; in to Dr. Martin Luther s Book, ,
Swiss/South German early Eucharistic , , , , n ; Zwingli
debate, , , n ; translations and, , , , , ,
of, , ; Unanimous , 
Refutation (translation of eophylactus, , , 
Syngramma), ; Well-Founded omae, Marcus. See St bner
and Sure Conclusion (translation of omas Aquinas, , ,  , 
Syngramma), ; Zwingli and, omism, , , 
,  toleration, , , 
Toltz, Johannes, Short Handbook for
Taborites, , , ,  Young Christians, , 
Tertullian, , , , , , , Toussain, Pierre,  n
, , , n ,  n translations, , , ; Bucer s
at ese Words Still Stand Firm translations of Luther, , ,
(Luther) debate, , ; Amicable , , , , , , ,
Exegesis (Zwingli) and, , , , n ; vernacular, transition of
, ; Bucer and, , , , Eucharistic debate to, , ,
; Bugenhagens Psalms . See also Psalms commentary by
commentary, Bucer s translation of, Bugenhagen and Bucer s translation
, ; catechetical literature and, transubstantiation: Bullinger s historical
; church fathers in, , , , account of, ; Catholic defense
, ; confessional positions, of, , ; as conversion, ,
development of, ; contents ; doctrine of, , ; late
and structure, ; exchanges medieval challenges to, , , ,
stemming from Luther s, Zwingli s, ; Luther on, , , n ;
520
Index
transubstantiation (cont.) Volz, Paul, 

at Regensburg Colloquy, n ; as Votteler, Franz,  n
remanence (consubstantiation), ,
, , , , , n . See also Waldensians, , , n
impanation; substance Wandel, Lee Palmer, n ,
Trent, Council of, n ,  n n ,  n
Troeltsch, Ernst,  Weidensee, Eberhard, , ,  n
tropes or gures of speech, , , , , Wendebourg, Dorothea, n ,  n
, , , , , , , , Westerburg, Gerhard, , , ,  n
, , , , , , , Westphalia, Peace of,  n
, n What Is Read to the Common People A er
True Course of the Disputation in Upper the Sermon, 
Baden,  William of Ockham, , 
Turnauer, Kaspar, , , , n Williams, George Huntston, 
Wimpina, Konrad,  n
Uhland, Friedwart,  n Winckler, Matthias, 
Ulhart, Philip, , , , , Windhorst, Christof, n
,  n Wissenburg, Wolfgang, 
Ulm church, recognized as Wittenberg: catechetical literature
sacramentarian,  from, , ; censorship in,
Ulscenius, Felix,  n ; connections between printers
Unitas Fratrum. See Bohemian Brethren in Zwolle, Basel, and Wittenberg,
Universal Short Title Catalog,  n ; as printing location, , f,
Utraquists, ,  ; sharing lucrative pamphlet
printing in, n
Vadian, Joachim, , n , n , Wittenbergers: catechetical literature,
n , n , n ; Clear Report dispute and,
Valla, Lorenzo,  , , , ; dominance
Van Amberg, Joel,  n over sacramentarians, ; early
VD , , , , n ,  n dissent among, ; genre
Venatorius, omas,  n and audience for works by, ,
veneration/adoration of Eucharist, , , ; as individual authors,
, , , ,  n , f f; Langenmantel on,
vernacular: dialect issues, , , ; as ; language of publication,
liturgical language, ; transition ; liturgical reforms, ; New
of Eucharistic debate to, , Testament translations, annotations,
,  and commentaries, ; overlap
Vienna, as printing location,  between opponents and, ; print
Vijgen, J rgen,  n production of, , f f, ,
Virgin Mary, , , ,  , n ; printers and printing
Vogtherr, Heinrich,  n locations, ; sacramentarian
Voigtl nder, Johannes, n diversity criticized by, ; sacraments
521
Index
generally, concept of, , , ; Anabaptist separatism and,

; on scriptural exegesis and , , , ; Augsburg
hermeneutics, compared to Erasmus, sacramentarians, development of,
, n ; Swiss/South German , n ; Augustine in uencing,
debate, responses to, , ; as , , n n ; Baden
term, ; Zwingli s exchanges with disputation and, , ,
( ), . See also speci c ; on baptism, , , , n ,
Wittenbergers n ; catechetical literature, ,
Wol art, Bonifacius, ,  n ; against Catholics, , , , ,
women. See gender issues ; censorship of, ,
Woodford, William,  n , n ; Clear Report
Worms, Luther at Diet of,  ,  dispute and, , , , ,
worship reforms. See liturgical reforms , , , , n ; Habsburg
Wyclif, John, , , , , , , , , lands, condemnation in, ; historical
, , , , , n , n , centering of sacramental controversy
n , n ; De Eucharistica, on Luther and, , , , ,
; Trialogus, , , , , , n , ; Hussite arguments
in uencing, ; Leopoldi s Opinion
Zeising, Johann,  and, ; Marburg Colloquy
Ziegler, Clement,  and, , , n ,
Zoller, Haug. See Marschalk, Haug n , n , n ; on nature
Zorzin, Alejandro,  of sacraments, ; on original sin,
Zurich: abolition of mass and institution , , , n ; Pellikans
of reformed Lord s Supper in, , , publication of Erasmuss
, , ; Anabaptist separatism Expostulation, controversy
in, , , ; rst Zurich stemming from, , n ,
Disputation, , , , ; liturgical n ; print production of, ,
reforms, ; as printing location, f, , , , n ; Psalms
, f, , , ; Prophezei in, commentary by Bugenhagen and
; sacramentarians, Zurich-Basel- Bucer s translation, , , ; radical
Strasbourg axis for, , ; sacraments, authors using ideas of, ; Renaissance
understanding of, ; second Platonism in uencing, ; roots
Zurich Disputation, , n , of sacramental theology of, ;
n ; Zwingli and his supporters sacraments, understanding of, ,
in, , . See also Switzerland , , ; spiritualists and, ,
and South Germany, early Eucharistic , , ; Switzerland and
debate in southern Germany, early Eucharistic
Zwick, Johannes,  n debate in, , , , , ,
Zwickau, baptismal controversy emerging n , n ; at ese Words
in, ,  n debate and, , , , ,
Zwingli, Ulrich, , ; on , , ; vernacular
alloiosis, , , , , translations of Latin works of, ;
52
Index
Zwingli, Ulrich (cont.) , , n ; Clear Instruction

Wittenbergers, exchanges with ( ), on Christ s Supper, , ,
; Commentary on True and False
Zwingli, Ulrich, relations with Religion, , , , , ,
others: Bader and, ; Billican and, , n ; Explanation of the
, ; Bucer and, , , , eses, , , , , , ; First
, ; Bugenhagen and, , Short Answer to Eck s eses, ,
, , , n ; Erasmus , ; Friendly Rejoinder and
in uencing, , , , , , , Rejection of Luther s Sermon Against
, n , n , n ; Gr dt the Fanatics, ; Letter to Alber, ,
and, ; Hoen and, , , , , , , n ; Response
, n , n ; Hubmaier to Billican and Rhegius, ; Response
in uenced by, , n ; Karlstadt to . . . Bugenhagen, , ; Second
and, , , , , , , , , Answer to Some Untrue Answers,
, n , n , n ; Kolb ; Short Christian Introduction,
defended, n ; Luther and, ; Short Instruction, ; Subsidium,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, ; Melanchthon and, , n ; Against the Tricks of the
; Oecolampadius and, , , Anabaptists, ; Ulrich Zwingli s
, , , , , , , , Understanding of Christ s Supper,
, n , n , nn ; Zwingli and Luther: eir Con ict
; Schwenckfeld and, , n , over the Supper According to its Political
n ; Strauss and, , , , and Religious Connections (K hler), ,
, , ,  n ,  n
Zwingli, Ulrich, works: Amicable Zwingli, Ulrich, works
Exegesis, , , , , , , about: Discussion with Zwingli s
, n ; Answer to Dr. Strauss s Baptism Book (Hubmaier), ,
Pamphlet, ; Answer to the Unsent ; Against the Impious Error of
Open Letter of Dr. Fabri, ; On Master Ulrich Zwingli (Strauss),
Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant ; Open Letter to Ulrich
Baptism, , ; Brief Response to Zwingli Concerning the Future
a Letter Dealing with the Eucharist, Disputation (Fabri), 
; Christian Answer, at ese Zwolle, Basel, and Wittenberg,
Words, is Is My Body, etc., , connections between printers in, 
523
Index of Scripture
Gen. : Matt. :
Gen. : n ,  n Matt. : n
Gen. : Matt. : , n , n
Gen. : , n Matt. :
Matt. : , ,  n
Exod. : Matt. n
Exod. : , , , , , , Matt. : , 
n , n , n ,  n Matt. : , , , , , ,
Exod. : , , , , , , n ,
Exod. : ,  n , n , n , n ,
n , n , n ,  n
Ps. Matt. : n , n
Ps. (Vulgate ) ,  Matt. : , , , ,
Ps. (Vulgate ) , , n ,  n
Ps. (Vulgate ) Matt. : , , ,
Ps. (Vulgate ) ,  n
Ps. (Vulgate ) , , , ,
, , ,  Mark : n
Mark :
Sam. : Mark : , , , , ,
n ,  n
Sam.  Mark n
Mark : , , ,  n
Isaiah 
Luke :
Matt. : n Luke : n
Matt. : Luke :
Matt. : , , , , , Luke : ,  n
n ,  n Luke :
524
Index of Scripture
Luke : , , , , , Acts : n , n , n
, , , , n Acts 
Luke : , , , , ,  Acts 
Luke n Acts 
John , , , , , , , , Rom. :
, , , , , , , Rom.  :
, , , , , , ,
, , n , n , n , Cor. : n
n ,  n Cor. : n
John : , Cor : n
John : Cor. : : , 
John : , ,  n Cor. , , ,  n
John : Cor. : , , , , ,  n
John : Cor. : , , , , , , ,
John : , , , ,  n , , n , n , n ,
John : n , n , n , n ,
John : , , , , , , , n , n ,  n
, , , , , , ,, , Cor. :
, , , , , , , , Cor. : , , , , , , ,
, , , , , n , n , , , , , , , , ,
n ,  n , , , , , n , n ,
John n n ,  n
John : Cor. 
John n Cor. : , , , , ,
John : , , , , , n , , , , , , , 
n , n ,  n Cor. :
John : ,  n Cor. : ,  n
John n Cor. : , , ,  n
John : , n , n , n , Cor. : , , , ,  n
n ,  n Cor. : , n ,  n
John : n Cor. : , , , , , ,
John : , , ,  n
Cor. : n
Acts n
Acts : , n , n , Heb. n
n ,  n Heb. :
Acts 
Acts : , ,  Pet.  :

Debating The Sacraments: Print and Authority in The Early Reformation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debating The Sacraments: Print and Authority in The Early Reformation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2019

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

1. Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 1

PART I. Overview, Background, and Beginnings

2. Contours of the Printed Debate 25

3. Heresy and Hermeneutics: The Background to the Controversy 50

4. Karlstadt’s Challenge to Luther 77

5. The Early Debate in Switzerland 98

PART II. Exchanges, 1526–​1529

6. Martin Bucer and Bugenhagen’s Psalms Commentary 121

7. Oecolampadius Against the Wittenbergers 139

8. Undermining Oecolampadius: The Debate with Pirckheimer 158

9. The Contributions of Zurich and Strasbourg 178

10. Print, Polemics, and Popular Response in Southern Germany 204

11. The Debate Matures, 1527–​1529 222

PART III. Gradual Developments

12. The Lord’s Supper in Catechetical Literature 249

13. Sacramentarian Diversity 269

14. Reconstituting Authority 282

1.1. Number of Publications in German-​Speaking Lands 8

5.1 Title page of Action oder Bruch des Nachtmals

American Philosophical Society in 2009–​10. As a Fulbright Senior Scholar in

Abbreviations and Common

xviii Abbreviations and Common Shortened References

FSBT Laube, Adolph, et al., eds. Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg

Abbreviations and Common Shortened References xix

TMA Müntzer, Thomas. Thomas-​Müntzer-​Ausgabe. Kritische

xx Abbreviations and Common Shortened References

Print and the Reformation Crisis

In October of 1524, two Basel printers published several pamphlets by

2 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts

own confessional tradition, or as a “place of memory” that shaped confessional

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 3

4 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts

Zwingli and Luther?

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 5

6 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 7

divide Protestantism in the wake of the Reformation, it is necessary to examine

Print and Literacy

8 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts

. Number of Publications in German-​Speaking Lands

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 9

10 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts

All Imprints Pamphlets

. Percentage of Publications on the Lord’s Supper/​Mass

Lord’s Supper. Printers produced their works in anticipation of and in response

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 11

12 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 13

The Problem of Authority

14 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts

error by the heretic’s pertinacity, or refusal to abandon error when instructed

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 15

16 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 17

18 Debat ing t he Sacr a men ts

as “Zwinglian” in the later 1520s coalesced from arguments introduced into

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 19

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2019

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

PART II. Exchanges, 1526–1529

11. The Debate Matures, 1527–1529 222

1.1. Number of Publications in German-Speaking Lands 8

American Philosophical Society in 2009–10. As a Fulbright Senior Scholar in

Abbreviations and Common Shortened References xix

TMA Müntzer, Thomas. Thomas-Müntzer-Ausgabe. Kritische

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 3

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 5

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 7

. Number of Publications in German-Speaking Lands

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 9

. Percentage of Publications on the Lord’s Supper/Mass

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 11

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 13

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 15

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 17

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 19

Print and the Reformation Crisis of Authority 21

Contours of the Printed Debate

Contours of the Printed Debate 27

. Imprints Concerning the Lord’s Supper

. Number of Imprints by Party

Contours of the Printed Debate 29

. Number of New Titles by Party

. Pro-Wittenberg Publications Concerning the Lord’s Supper

Contours of the Printed Debate 31

Contours of the Printed Debate 33

Contours of the Printed Debate 35

As vicar-general for the bishop of Constance, Johannes Fabri had opposed

Contours of the Printed Debate 37

Contours of the Printed Debate 39

. Printing Locations, 1525–1529

. Proportion of Imprints on the Lord’s Supper by City, 1525–1529

Contours of the Printed Debate 41

Contours of the Printed Debate 43

. Genre of Imprints by Party

Contours of the Printed Debate 45

Roughly three-quarters of all Catholic works were either treatises (54 percent)

Contours of the Printed Debate 47

Contours of the Printed Debate 49

Heresy and Hermeneutics 51

Heresy and Hermeneutics 53

Church.15 By the mid-fourteenth century, then, transubstantiation had come to

Heresy and Hermeneutics 55

Heresy and Hermeneutics 57

Heresy and Hermeneutics 59

Heresy and Hermeneutics 61

Heresy and Hermeneutics 63