As stated, Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was received with
increasing favor also in Lutheran territories, notably in Southern
Germany and Electoral Saxony, where the number of theologians and laymen
who secretly adopted and began to spread it was rapidly increasing. They
were called Crypto-Calvinists (secret or masked Calvinists) because,
while they subscribed to the _Augsburg Confession_, claimed to be loyal
Lutherans, and occupied most important positions in the Lutheran Church,
they in reality were propagandists of Calvinism, zealously endeavoring
to suppress Luther's books and doctrines, and to substitute for them the
views of Calvin. Indeed, Calvin claimed both privately and publicly that
Melanchthon himself was his ally. And, entirely apart from what the
latter may privately have confided to him, there can be little doubt
that Calvin's assertions were not altogether without foundation. In
fact, theologically as well as ethically, Melanchthon must be regarded
as the spiritual father also of the Crypto-Calvinists.
True, originally Melanchthon fully shared Luther's views on the Lord's
Supper. At Marburg, 1529, he was still violently opposed to the
Zwinglians and their "profane" teaching in an _Opinion_ on Carlstadt's
doctrine, of October 9, 1625, he affirms that Christ, both as God and
man, _i.e._, with His body and blood is present in the Supper. (_C. R._
1, 760.) In September of the following year he wrote to Philip Eberbach:
"Know that Luther's teaching [concerning the Lord's Supper] is very old
in the Church. _Hoc scito, Lutheri sententiam perveterem in ecclesia
esse_." (823.) This he repeats in a letter of November 11, also to
Eberbach. In an _Opinion_ of May 15 1529: "I am satisfied that I shall
not agree with the Strassburgers all my life, and I know that Zwingli
and his compeers write falsely concerning the Sacrament." (1067.) June
20 1529, to Jerome Baumgaertner: "I would rather die than see our people
become contaminated by the society of the Zwinglian cause. _Nam mori
malim, quam societate Cinglianae causae nostros contaminare_. My dear
Jerome, it is a great cause, but few consider it. I shall be lashed to
death on account of this matter." (_C. R._ 1, 1077; 2, 18.) November 2,
1529, to John Fesel: "I admonish you most earnestly to avoid the
Zwinglian dogmas. Your Judimagister [Eberbach], I fear, loves these
profane disputations too much. I know that the teaching of Zwingli can
be upheld neither with the Scriptures nor with the authority of the
ancients. Concerning the Lord's Supper, therefore, teach as Luther
does." (1, 1109.) In February, 1530, he wrote: "The testimonies of
ancient writers concerning the Lord's Supper which I have compiled are
now being printed." (2, 18.) In this publication Melanchthon endeavored
to show by quotations from Cyril, Chrysostom Vulgarius, Hilary, Cyprian,
Irenaeus, and Augustine that Zwingli's interpretation of the words of
institution does not agree with that of the ancient Church. (23, 732.)
According to his own statement, Melanchthon embodied Luther's doctrine
in the _Augsburg Confession_ and rejected that of the Zwinglians. (2,
142. 212.)
At Augsburg, Melanchthon was much provoked also when he heard that Bucer
claimed to be in doctrinal agreement with the Lutherans. In his _Opinion
Concerning the Doctrine of the Sacramentarians_, written in August,
1530, we read: "1. The Zwinglians believe that the body of the Lord can
be present in but one place. 2. Likewise that the body of Christ cannot
be anywhere except locally only. They vehemently contend that it is
contrary to the nature of a body to be anywhere in a manner not local;
also, that it is inconsistent with the nature of a body to be in
different places at the same time. 3. For this reason they conclude that
the body of Christ is circumscribed in heaven in a certain place, so
that it can in no way be elsewhere at the same time and that in truth
and reality it is far away from the bread, and not in the bread and with
the bread. 4. Bucer is therefore manifestly wrong in contending that
they [the Zwinglians] are in agreement with us. For we say that it is
not necessary for the body of Christ to be in but one place. We say that
it can be in different places, whether this occurs locally or in some
other secret way by which different places are as one point present at
the same time to the person of Christ. We, therefore, affirm a true and
real presence of the body of Christ with the bread. 5. If Bucer wishes
to accept the opinion of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, he will never dare
to say that the body of Christ is really with the bread without
geometric distance. 9. Here they [the Zwinglians] wish the word
'presence' to be understood only concerning efficacy and the Holy
Spirit. 10. We, however, require not only the presence of power, but of
the body. This Bucer purposely disguises. 11. They simply hold that the
body of Christ is in heaven, and that in reality it is neither with the
bread nor in the bread. 12. Nevertheless they say that the body of
Christ is truly present, but by contemplation of faith, _i.e._, by
imagination. 13. Such is simply their opinion. They deceive men by
saying that the body is truly present, yet adding afterwards, 'by
contemplation of faith,' _i.e._, by imagination. 14. We teach that
Christ's body is truly and really present with the bread or in the
bread. 15. Although we say that the body of Christ is really present,
Luther does not say that it is present locally, namely, in some mass, by
circumscription; but in the manner by which Christ's person or the
entire Christ is present to all creatures.... We deny
transubstantiation, and that the body is locally in the bread," etc. (2,
222. 311. 315.)
Such were the views of Melanchthon in and before 1530. And publicly and
formally he continued to adhere to Luther's teaching. In an _Opinion_
written 1534, prior to his convention with Bucer at Cassel, he said: "If
Christ were a mere creature and not God, He would not be with us
essentially, even if He had the government; but since He is God, He
gives His body as a testimony that He is essentially with us always.
This sense of the Sacrament is both simple and comforting.... Therefore
I conclude that Christ's body and blood are truly with the bread and
wine, that is to say, Christ essentially, not figuratively. But here we
must cast aside the thoughts proffered by reason, _viz._, how Christ
ascends and descends, hides Himself in the bread, and is nowhere else."
(2. 801.) In 1536 Melanchthon signed the Wittenberg Concord, which
plainly taught that the body and blood of Christ are received also by
unworthy guests. (CONC. TRIGL. 977, 12ff.) In 1537 he subscribed to the
_Smalcald Articles_, in which Luther brought out his doctrine of the
real presence in most unequivocal terms, declaring that "bread and wine
in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and
received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians." (CONC.
TRIGL. 493, 1.) In his letter to Flacius of September 5, 1556,
Melanchthon solemnly declared: "I have never changed the doctrine of the
Confession." (_C. R._ 8, 841.) September 6, 1557, he wrote: "We all
embrace and retain the Confession together with the _Apology_ and the
confession of Luther written previous to the Synod at Mantua." (9, 260.)
Again, in November of the same year: "Regarding the Lord's Supper, we
retain the _Augsburg Confession_ and _Apology_." (9, 371.) In an
_Opinion_ of March 4, 1558, Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper
the Son of God is truly and substantially present in such a manner that
when we use it, ["]He gives us with the bread and wine His body," etc.,
and that Zwingli was wrong when he declared "that it is a mere outward
sign, and that Christ is not essentially present in it, and that it is a
mere sign by which Christians know each other." (9, 472f.) Several
months before his death, in his preface to the _Corpus Philippicum_,
Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper "Christ is truly and
substantially present and truly administered to those who take the body
and blood of Christ," and that in it "He gives His body and blood to him
who eats and drinks." (Richard. 389.)