Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 2.djvu/362

 his voice, in spite of Zwingli's plea for war, prevailed. The rank and file of neither army wished for war; and so, by the help of other Cantons, peace was negotiated by ambassadors, first at Aarau and then at Steinhausen in Zug; the decision lay by custom with the armies themselves. Zwingli wished to force the abolition of pensions upon his opponents, but even at Zurich some were against this, and Bern, through Nicholas Manuel, refused to enforce it. Finally (June 24, 1529) peace was made at Kappel. Neither party was to attack the other for its faith. In the Common Lands, the religious offenders should not be punished; the majority were to decide for or against the Mass and on other questions; only men of honour and moderation should be sent there as bailiffs. The Austrian alliance was renounced, and its very documents were cut into shreds and burnt; the Five Cantons were to pay a war indemnity according to the decision of arbitrators, and, if it remained unpaid, Zurich and Bern might close their markets to the Five Cantons. Finally the abolition of pensions and mercenary service was recommended to the Five Cantons. The removal of the Austrian alliance seemed to secure the advantage to Zurich, which still kept Hesse and its chance of France. One clause was afterwards differently construed to mean, that as faith cannot be planted by force no coercion should be used against the Five Cantons or their people in matters touching their faith. The Zwinglians thought that free preaching extended to the Five Cantons as well as to the Common Lands; and on the other hand the Five Cantons naturally held themselves free to act as they pleased in their own territory. Thus the peace which placed Zurich at the height of her power contained in itself the seeds of future war. As a politician, if not as a theologian, Zwingli was justified in his preference for force. As early as August he thought another campaign inevitable.

In this same year the question of the Eucharist became of crucial importance for the Protestants. In his writings of 1522 Zwingli had entered into no criticism of the accepted view. The interpretation, in our Lord's saying, "This is my body," of the word "is" as "signifies" was possibly suggested to him by Cornelius van Hoen, after 1521, in a circular letter carried about to theologians by Henne Rode. The expression of his opinion was hastened, if not caused, by Carlstadt's extreme utterances, containing (as Zwingli thought) a kernel of truth hidden by errors, and it first took shape in a letter to Matthäus Alber of Reutlingen (November 16, 1524): the Eucharist was regarded as purely symbolical, but as a pledge of Christian profession; and he emphasised, as his controversy with the Anabaptists shows, the corporate aspect in the Eucharist.

Zwingli's teaching, often presented as a mere negation of Luther's, was no less a negation of the doctrine of the Church. In spite of varying views as to the exact nature of the Presence, its reality had always been admitted: Wiclif's denial of Transubstantiation and Luther's