¹ Wainwright, G., Doxology: The Praise of Cod in Worship, Doctrine and Life. A Systematic Theology (London, 1980), esp. pp. 218–83.Google Scholar

² Ein Sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sakrament des heiligen wahren Leichnams Christi, in D. Martin Lathers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. J.C.F. Knaake et al., 65 vols (Weimar, 1883.) [Weimarer Ausgabe -hereafter WA], 2, pp. 742-58. Eng. tr. in Luther’s Works, ed. J. Pelikan and H.T. Lehmann, 56 vols (Philadelphia and St Louis, 1955-86) [hereafter LW], 35, pp. 49-73.

³ WA, 2, pp. 742-3 = LW, 35, p. 50.

⁴ Apart from the 1520 treatises, Luther’s most important discussions were in: Assertio omnium articulorum per bullam Leonis X novissimam damnatorum, article 16, WA, 7, pp. 122-4; Grund und Ursach alter Artikel D. M. Lulhers, so durch römische Bulk unrechtlich verdammt sind, article 16, WA, 12, pp. 389-400 = LW, 32, pp. 55-62; Formula missae et communionis (1523), WA, 12, pp. 217-18 = LW, 53, pp. 34-6. A valuable account may be found in Hans-Bernhard Meyer, Luther und die Messe (Paderborn, 1965), pp. 334-8.

⁵ See esp. the sermon for the Thursday after Invocavit, 13 March 1522, WA, 10.III, pp. 45-7 = LW, 51, pp. 90-1, and Von beider Gesult des Sakraments zu nehmen (1522), WA, 10.III, pp. 11-41 = LW, 36, pp. 237-67.

⁶ See esp. Cochlaeus, Johann, Sieben köpffe Martini Luthers vom hochwirdigen Sacrament des Altars (Leipzig, 1529)Google Scholar, a translation of chapters 19–24 of the same author’s more famous Septiceps Lutherus.

⁷ Sermon von dem Neuen Testament, WA, 6, p. 355 = LW, 35, p. 81.

⁸ Verklärung D. Martin Luthers etlicher Artikel in seinem Sermon von dem heiligen Sakrament (1520), WA, 6, p. 80.

⁹ Ibid., 6, p. 80. For a similar expression in a related tract of the following month, see Ad schedulam itihibitionis sub nomine Episcopi Misnensis editam super sermone de Sacramento Eucharistiae responsio, WA, 6, pp. 144-53, at p. 145, lines 10-11.

¹⁰ Augustine, Tractatus in evangelium hannis 25.12 (PL, 35, col. 1602). See Luther, , Sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sakrament, WA, 2, p. 742 Google Scholar, lines 27-9 = LW, 35, p. 50; De festo Corporis Christi sermo (1519/20), WA, 4, p. 701, lines 33-4; Sermon von den Neuen Testament, WA, 6, p. 372, lines 20-1 = LW, 35, p. 104; De captivitate Babyhnica, WA, 6, p. 502, line 14 and p. 518, line 19 = LW, 36, pp. 19 and 44; Festpostitle (1527), WA, 17.II, p. 434, lines 18-19; Daβ diese Wort Christi, ‘Daβ ist mein leib’, noch fest stehen (1527), WA, 23, p. 243, lines 5-6 = LW, 37, p. 124.

¹¹ Verklämng, WA, 6, p. 79, line 34; De captwitate Babylonka, WA, 6, p. 507, lines 18-20 = LW, 36, pp. 27-8.

¹² This judgement was, however, qualified immediately by the injunction to endure tyranny until such time as a general council should cede the chalice. See De captivitate Babylonica, WA, 6, p. 507, lines 27-33 = LW, 36, p. 28.

¹³ Tröstung an die Christen zu Halle über Herm Georgen [Winkler], ihres Predigers Tod (1527), WA, 23, pp. 402-31 = LW, p. 43, lines 145-65. For the other murders (and one suicide) connected with use of the chalice from this time, see esp. Luther’s letter to Gabriel Zwilling of 7 March 1528, D. Martin Lathers Werke, Kritische Gesamtamgabe: Briefweehsel, 18 vols (Weimar, 1930-85) [hereafter WABr], 4, p. 404, no. 1236.

¹⁴ Ein Bericht an einem guten Freund von beider Gestalt des Sakraments aufs Bischofs zu Meiβien Mandat, WA, 26, pp. 560-618.

¹⁵ WA, 26, p. 605, line 27, to p. 606, line 29.

¹⁶ In March 1528 (at the time he was writing the Bericht), Luther published Vom Abendmahl Christi. Bekenntnis (WA, 26, pp. 240-509 = LW, 37, pp. 151-372) against the sacramentarians. Not surprisingly, the semi-scholastic doctrine of ubiquity propounded there was to be treated by Zwingli and Oecolampadius with precisely the same contempt Luther showed the doctrine of concomitance in the Bericht!

¹⁷ The tradition on which our controversialists drew included Thomas Netter, Doctrinatis antiquitatum ecclesiae Jesu Christi liber quintus, ac tomus secundus de sacramentis editus in Witcleffistas et eorum asseclas (Paris, 1521; written c. 1425); John of Ragusa’s ‘Oratio de communione sub utraque specie’ (1433), in Mansi, 29, pp. 699-868;Juan de Torquemada’s Commentaria super toto Decreto, 6 vols (Lyons, 1519-20); and lectio 84 of Biel’s Expositio (see Cabrielis Biel Cationis missae expositio, ed. H. A. Oberman and W.J. Courtcnay, 4 vols, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europaische Geschichte, Mainz, 31–4 [Wiesbaden, 1963–7], 4, pp. 85-95). For a fuller account of earlier anti-Hussite writings, see Kaminsky, H., A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley, Cal., 1967), esp. pp. 108–40 Google Scholar. For the use of Netter by John of Ragusa and by the sixteenth-century controversialists, see Margaret Harvey, ‘The diffusion of the Doctrinale of Thomas Netter in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries’, in Lesley Smith and Benedicta Ward, eds, Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages. Essays Presented to Margaret Gibson (London and Rio Grande, 1992), pp. 281-94. I am indebted to Dr Swanson for drawing my attention to this important work.

¹⁸ The Franciscan provincial, Caspar Schatzgeyer, was the only Catholic writer to undergo a hardening of attitudes over time similar to Luther’s. His first work, the Scrutinium of 1522, was an attempt to find convergence between Luther and the Catholic position on the basis of Scripture alone. His treatment of both kinds here is quite different from that of his colleagues. It is a positive, at times rhapsodic, meditation on the benefits of communion, by which Christ dwells in us and we in Christ, which in many ways comes close to Luther’s own position. Schatzgeyer concludes that communion in both kinds is not illicit, because Christ himself commanded it. But to reinstate it without the express agreement of a general council would be to scandalize the weak and to act impiously towards our mother the Church. The lay chalice is pleasing to God, but unity is more pleasing (Conatus VIII, ‘De communione sub utraque specie’, in Kaspar Schatzgeyer, O.F.M., Scrutinium divinae Scripturae pro conciliatione dissidentium dogmatum 1522, ed. Ulrich Schmidt, Corpus Catholicorum [hereafter CCath], 5 [Münster, 1922], pp. 106-15). Mutatis mutandis, these words could have come from Luther’s exactly contemporary Invocavit sermons. But when Schatzgeyer came to deal with the question again in 1525, he declared outright that a lay person who communicates in both kinds sins (Vom hochwirdigsten sacrament des zartten Fronleichnams Christi, in Kaspar Schatzgeyer, O.F.M., Schriften zur Verteidigung der Messe, ed. Erwin Iserloh and Peter Fabisch, CCath, 37 [Müinster, 1984], p. 485), a judgement repeated in his Ein gietliche und freuntliche Anntwort of 1526 (CCath, 37, p. 608). It is interesting that Schatzgeyer’s most recent editors notice a similar hardening of his attitude towards the licitness of vernacular liturgies (CCath, 37, p. 137).

¹⁹ The most recent biography of Cochlaeus is Remigius Bäumer’s Johannes Cochlaeus (1479-1552). Leben und Werk im Dienst der kathotischen Reform, Katholisches Leben und Kirchenreform, 40 (Müinster, 1980), soon to be joined by a forthcoming study by Monique Samuel-Scheyder. For now the definitive life is still Martin Spahn, Johannes Cochl’dus: ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit der Kirchenspaltung (Berlin, 1898; repr. Nieuwkoop, 1964). Appended to Spahn’s work is the standard bibliography of Cochlaeus’s works published between 1522 and 1550, hereafter cited as ‘SV’.

²⁰ The works are: Auff Martin Luthers Schandbüchlin an die Christen von Halle geschriben, Antwort. Ein kurtzer Ausszug von beydergestalt des hochwirdigen Sacraments ([Cologne], 1528), SV, 51; Sieben köpffe Martini Luthers vom hochwirdigen Sacrament des Altars (Leipzig, 1529), SV, 57a; XXVUrsachen, untereyner Gstalt [sic] des Sakrament den leyen zu reichen (Leipzig, 1529), SV, 58a; Vorteidung Bischofflichs Mandats zu Meissen, wider Martin Luthers Scheltworde ‘Bericht an einen guten Freund,’ etc. (Leipzig, 1529), SV, 59; Fasciculus calumniarum, sannarum et illusionum Martini Lutheri, in episcopos & ctericos, ex uno eius libello Teuthonico, contra episcopi Misnensis mandatum ædito collectarum (Leipzig, 1529), SV, 68; Emstliche disputation vom heyligen sakrament des altars. Von der mess. Von beyder gstalt [sic] (Dresden, 1530), SV, 71; Auff Luthers Trostbrieff an ettliche zu Leyptztgk, Antwort und grundttiche unterricht, was mit denselbigen gehandelt. Und von beider Gstalt [sic] des Sacraments - Mit einer Vorrede von grossem Schaden des Teutschen lands, aus Luthers Schrifften (Dresden, 1533), SV, 87.

²¹ See Cochlaeus, Johann, Glos und Comment uff CLllll Artiketn gezogen uss einem Sermon Doc. Mar. Luters von der heiligen mess und nüem Testament (Strasbourg, 1523)Google Scholar, sig. 2Lii^r; idem, Auff Luthers Schandbüchlin Antwort, sigs Div^v-Ei^r; idem, Epistola ad quendam amicum, in Fasciculus, fols 96^v, 98^v-99^r, 105^v-106^r; idem, ‘Responsio’ (1530), in Historia comitiorum anno MDXXX Augustae celebratorum, ed. G. Coelestinus, 4 vols (Frankfurt a. d. Oder, 1597), 1, fol. 20^v. See also the Confutatio confessionis Augustanae [hereafter Confutatio CA], in Die Confutatio der Confessio Augustana vom 3. August 1530, ed. H. Immenkötter, CCath, 33 (Münster, 1979), pp. 137-8;Johann Eck, Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae, ed. P. Fraenkel, CCath, 34 (Münster, 1979), pp. 137-8; idem, Homiliarum adversus Lutherum et caeteros haereticos de septem ecclesiae sacramentis tomus quartus [hereafter Homiliae) (Paris, 1575), fols 98^r-98^v; John Fisher, Assertionis Lutheranae Confutatio (1523), in Opera omnia (Würzburg, 1597; repr. Farnborough, 1967), cols 132-5, 145; idem, Assertionum Regis Angliae defide Catholica adversus Lutheri Babylonicam captivitatem defensio (1525), in Opera omnia, col. 477.

²² Auff Luthers Trostbrieff Antwort, sig. bii^r

²³ Ibid. See also Cochlaeus, Vorteidung, sig. Eiii^v; Augustinus von Alveld, Tractatus de communione sub utraque specie quantum ad laicos: An ex sacris litteris elici possit, Christum hanc, vel praecepisse; vel praecipere debuisse, et quod in re hoc sentendium pie sane, catholice sit, iuxta veritatem evangelicam ([Leipzig], 1520), sig. Ciii^r; Eck, Homiliae, fols 95^r-95, 98^v-99^r. A persistent notion was that the arch-heretics Pelagius and Nestorius had especially championed the chalice. In fact, the opposite was the case: reception in one kind was considered a sign of heresy by Pope Leo I (Sermo 42.4, PL, 54, cols 278-80), and Pope Gelasius commanded that communion should be in both kinds or not at all (D.2 de cons, c.12, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, 1, ed. A. Friedberg [Leipzig, 1879], col. 1318). The Gelasius text is glossed by Gratian as referring only to priests, and the Catholic controversialists understood it accordingly.

²⁴ Cochlaeus, Epistola, fol. 105^v. See also Alveld, Tractatus, sig. Eiii^v; Eck, Catholica et quasi extemporalis responsio, in J. Ficker, Die [Confutation des Augsburgischen Bekenntnisses. Ihre erste Gestalt und ihre Geschichte. (Leipzig, 1891), pp. 78-9; idem, Homiliae, fols 100^r-100^v; Fisher, Confutatio, cols 476-7, 480.

²⁵ The doctrine taught that, in the same way as in a natural, living body, flesh and blood are not separated, so Christ’s flesh under the form of bread is never without its concomitant blood, nor without the grace which divine blood conveys. (See J. J. Megivern, Concomitance and Communion. A Study in Eucharistic Doctrine and Practice, Studia Friburgensia, ns 33 [Fribourg, 1963].) This doctrine, which had been confirmed by the Council of Constance, no doubt contributed to the growth in popularity of stories of bleeding hosts in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Eck employs such a story, taken from Alexander of Hales, explicitly to support the concomitance doctrine in his sermons and in the popular Enchiridion (Homiliae, fol. 98^v, Enchiridion, p. 138). For the doctrine’s official reception at the thirteenth session of the Council of Constance, 15 June 1415, see DEC, 1, p. 419.

²⁶ Cochlaeus, Epistola, fol. 99^r; idem, Vorteidung, sig. Eiii^v. See also Confutatio CA, pp. 141-2; Contarini, Confutatio articulorum seu quaestionum Lutheranorum (c. 1531), in Gasparo Contarini, Gegenreformatorische Schriften (1530c.-1542), ed. F. Hiinermann, CCath, 7 (Munster, 1923), p. 20; Eck, Enchiridion, pp. 138-9; idem, Homiliae, fols. 93^r-94^v; Fisher, Confutatio, cols 478, 481; Johann Mensing, Von den Concomitantien, unnd ob Hiesus Christus unβr Herre ym Sacrament seyns waren heyligen leibs und bluts volkommen sey: widder M. Luthers Schmehungen yn einen bericht widder des Bischqffs von Meissen Mandat geschriben (Frankfurt a. d. Oder, 1529), esp. fols xx^v—xlviii^r; Schatzgeyer, Scrutinium, pp. 107, 110; idem, Examen novarum doctrinarum pro elucidatione veritatis evangelicae et catholicae omnibus studiosis divinorum voluminum scrutatoribus pro salubri exercitio evulgatam (1523), CCath, 37, pp. 108-9; idem, Tractatus de missa (1525), CCath, 37, p. 361. Henry VIII also appealed to the doctrine indirectly: see Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martinum Lutherum (1521), ed. P. Fraenkel, CCath, 43 (Münster, 1992), pp. 133-4.

A subsidiary argument was that, although Christ explicitly spoke of his blood in connection with the remission of sins, the administration of the chalice is not thereby made more necessary: the remission of sins was achieved by the Passion, which is represented by the mass, not by (lay) communion. See Fisher, Adversus Babylonicam captivitatem, cols. 145, 148; Schatzgeyer, Scrutinium, p. 108; idem Vom hochwirdigsten sacrament des zartten Fronleichnams Christi (1525), CCath, 37, p. 484.

²⁷ ‘In passione autem ct morte eius separatus erat a corpore sanguinis, ideo separatim utranque speciem consecrat ac sumit sacerdos, et in persona omnium offert’ (Cochlaeus, Epistola, fol. 99^r). See also Alveld, Tractatus, sig. Eiv^v, Eck, Homiliae, fol. 105^r; idem. Enchiridion, p. 139; Fisher, Conjutatio, cols 478, 482; Schatzgeyer, Anntwort, p. 608.

²⁸ ‘Unde adhuc hodie sacerdotibus quoque extra sacrificium una tantum species porrigitur, aeque ac laicis, ut nemo iure conqueri possit, laicis per iniuriam aliquam subtraxisse clericos alteram speciem’ (Cochlaeus, Epistola, fol. 95^v). See also Conjutatio CA, p. 137; Fisher, Conjutatio, cols 475, 482. Cf. Eck, Homiliae, fol. 101’.

²⁹ Cochlaeus, XXV rationes quo Ecclesia possit in Laicis venerabile Sacramentum sub una tantum specie dare, in Fasciculus, fol. 82^r; idem, Epistola, fol. 94^r. See also Alveld, Tractatus, sig. Ci^r; Conjutatio CA, p. 141; Eck, Enchiridion, p. 137; idem, Homiliae, fols 99^v-100^r; Fisher, Conjutatio, col. 477; idem, Adversus Babylonicam captivitatem, col. 144; Schatzgeyer, Scmtinium, p. 107; idem, Examen, p. 108; idem, Tractatus, pp. 355, 359; idem, Vom hochwirdigsten sacrament, p. 465.

³⁰ Cochlaeus, Epistola, fol. 95^r; idem, Vorteidung, sig. Bi^v. See also Alveld, Tractatus, sig. Ci^r; Thomas de Vio (Cajetan), De communione sub utraque specie (Rome, 1531), p. 44; Eck, Enchiridion, p. 137; idem, Catholica responsio, p. 79; idem, Homiliae, fol. 104^r; Fisher, Conjutatio, col. 481. Schatzgeyer follows an independent line, taking ‘Hoc facite’ to refer to the sacrament as a whole, not to any one part of it, such as the administration of the chalice (see Tractatus, p. 357, and Anntwort, p. 606).

³¹ Cochlaeus, Epistola, fol. 97^v. See also Eck, Enchiridion, p. 134; Fisher, Conjutatio, col. 482.

³² Cochlaeus, Epistola, fols 95^v, 98^r; idem, XXV rationes, fol. 77^v. See also Alveld, Tractatus, sig. Div^r; Eck, Enchiridion, p. 134; idem, Homiliae, fol. 96^v; Fisher, Conjutatio, col. 472.

³³ Cochlaeus, XXV rationes, fols 77^v-78^v. See also Alveld, Tractatus, sig. Divr; Conjutatio CA, p. 133; Eck, Enchiridion, p. 134; idem, Homiliae, fols 96^v–97^v; Contarini, Conjutatio, p. 20; Fisher, Conjutatio, col. 474; Schatzgeyer, Vom hochwirdigsten sacrament, p. 485. The wording of the Fisher and Schatzgeyer passages is close enough to suggest dependence.

³⁴ Fisher, Confutatio, col. 482.

³⁵ Cochlaeus, Epistola, fol. 99^v. See also Confutatio CA, pp. 139–40; Eck, Enchiridion, p. 137; idem, Homiliae, fols 95^v-96^r; Fisher, Confutatio, col. 477; idem, Adversus Babylonicam captivitatem, col. 146; Schatzgeyer, Examen, p. 108; idem, Tractatus, pp. 353-5. Contarini went so far as to concede that Christ had instituted the lay chalice, or at least had not excluded it, at the Last Supper (Confutatio, p. 18).

³⁶ Cochlaeus, XXV rationes, fols 78^r-78^v and passim; idem, Responsio, fol. 20^r See also Confutatio CA, p. 139; Eck, Catholica responsio, p. 80; idem, Homiliae, fol. 103^r; Fisher, Confutatio, cols 475-6; idem, Adversus Babylonicam captivitatem, cols 139-43, 147, 150; Henry VIII, Assertio, p. 136; Schatzgeyer, Tractatus, p. 361; idem, Vom hochwirdigsten sacrament, pp. 483, 485; idem, Anntwort, pp. 606-7.

³⁷ Cochlaeus, XXV rationes, fol. 79^r. See also Eck, Homiliae, fol. 107^r; Fisher, Confutatio, cols 471-2, 479-80, 483; idem, Adversus Babylonicam captivitatem, cols 150-3; Schatzgeyer, Scrutinium, pp. 107-8.

³⁸ For assertions that the lay chalice was in itself neither good nor bad, see Cochlaeus, Auff Luthers Trostbrieff Antwort, sig. bi^r; Schatzgeyer, Scrutinium, p. 115; Eck, Homiliae, fol. 110^r (i.e. 100^r

³⁹ For the history of the withdrawal of the lay chalice, see Dieter Girgensohn, Peter von Pulkau und die Wiedereinführung des Laienkelchs. Leben und Wirken tines Wiener Theologen in der Zeit des grossen Schismas, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck Instituts für Geschichte, 12 (Göttingen, 1964), esp. pp. 82–120, and G. Constant, Concession à l’Allemagne de la communion sous les deux espéces. Etude sur les débuts de la réforme catholique en Allemagne, 1548-1621, 2 vols, Bibliothéque des écoles françaises d’Athénes et de Rome, 128 (1923), 1, ch. 1. Useful material can also be found in E. Dublanchy, ‘Communion sous les deux espéces’, Dictionnaire de thélogie catholique, ed. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot and E. Amann, 15 vols (1903-50), 3/1 (1923), pp. 552-72.

⁴⁰ Cochlaeus made precisely this point in 1529 when he wrote his XXV Ursachen, unlet eyner Gstalt [sic] des Sakrament den leyen zu reichen. The title in German is rather misleading, but the title of the Latin translation makes Cochlaeus’ intention explicit: XXV rationes quo Ecclesia possit laicis venerabile Sacramentum sub una tantum specie dare. Significantly, more than half the rationes here listed (nos 3-6, 9, 10, and 17-23) do not even mention the lay chalice, because the emphasis is laid so heavily on the authority of the Church.

⁴¹ Eck, Homiliae, fols 103^r-103^v, 107^r.

⁴² Henry, Assertio, p. 133; Sichem, Sacramentorum brevis elucidatio simulque nonnulla perversa Martini Luther dogmata exdudens, quibus et sacramenta temerare ausus est, turn ecclesiasticatm ierarchiam prorsum abolere (Antwerp, 1523), sig. Hii^v.

⁴³ For the Catholic polemicists’ preoccupation with authority, see Bagchi, David V. N., Luther’s Earliest Opponents. Catholic Controversialists, 1518-1525 (Minneapolis, 1991)Google Scholar. For a much more wide-ranging treatment of the topic, see Evans, G. R., Problems of Authority in the Reformation Debates (Cambridge, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁴ See Spahn, Cochläus, pp. 271-5.

⁴⁵ Constant, Concession à l’Allmagne, 1, pp. 166, 234, 306.

⁴⁶ Ibid., pp. 687-768.

⁴⁷ It could be argued, however, that, as the Jesuits were acting at Trent under the orders of Philip of Spain and in Bavaria under those of Duke Albert, even they were subject to auctoritas — though of a secular rather than an ecclesiastical kind. I am indebted to Dr A. D. Wright for this observation.