In 1561, a controversy over the Lord's Supper broke out in Danzig, a city in the territory of Royal Prussia under the Polish crown, that in the modern world is Gdansk in Poland. That a controversy over the Lord's Supper would break out at almost any point in the sixteenth century is hardly newsworthy. Historians and historical theologians have traced arguments about what happened in the sacrament, what happened to the elements, who had the right to celebrate the sacrament, and whether the ritual was actually a sacrament. Lutherans fought with Reformed, Reformed fought with Radicals, evangelicals fought with Catholics, and actually there were internecine struggles within every confession. What is noteworthy about this particular intra-Lutheran study is the way that the author, Bjørn Ole Hovda, uses this case or set of cases to illuminate the manner in which the arguments about the sacrament of the Lord's Supper touched on politics, economics, culture, and religion in early modern Prussia.
In 1561, the minister Erhard Sperber accused his fellow pastor, Veit Neuber, of offensive handling of the elements that remained after the conclusion of the Lord's Supper. Sperber accused Neuber of rejecting the “real presence” after the sacrament's conclusion. Neuber, not to be outdone in polemic, accused Sperber of a new kind of “papism,” because Neuber believed that Sperber's belief that the consecrated host still held the body of Christ in, with, and under the bread after the service's conclusion meant that he believed in transubstantiation. That belief would also lead to improper adoration of the host, such as the Catholics did in their Corpus Christi celebrations. Eventually, other clergy took sides, there were polemical pieces, and a variety of attacks were made.
The city council did not look kindly upon the religious furor that was being fomented. After an investigation, the council deported Sperber, and Neuber eventually left as well. To try to settle the issue once for all—almost never a possibility in the early modern eucharistic conflicts—the council promulgated an official confession on the meaning of the Lord's Supper in 1562—die Notel. Subscription to this confession was required of the pastors of the city, and the majority of the local clergy who were in sympathy with Neuber's position approved of it. The University of Wittenberg also accepted die Notel, but other Lutheran theologians, such as Johannes Wigand, Matthias Flacius Illyricus, and Benedict Morgenstern, rejected it. The various exchanges lasted through 1567. The greatest point at issue between the warring parties was the actual sacrament itself. What constituted the sacrament, when did it begin, and when was it complete?
The book proceeds clearly, starting with a short overview of the controversy, and then a setting forth of the cultural and intellectual perspectives. Then Hovda gives a deep consideration of the controversy in Danzig, pointing out the significance of liturgical practice for a deep appreciation of the theological and religious history of the times. A significant amount of space is given to the tensions and controversies that arose after the death of Luther. In Hovda's eyes, the loss of Luther allowed a splintering of Lutheranism that persisted through this period. The book then proceeds to consider the way that the Lord's Supper functioned religiously. He begins this on the city level—the sacrament served as a source of community within the Lutheran city, as a confessional marker and as a venue for the city council to exert its religious authority. But sacramental policy also affected trade and foreign relations.
Hovda seeks to make a series of arguments. The first is that it is crucial to grasp the wider ecclesiastical, civil, and political issues in our understanding of the struggle over the Lord's Supper and the Philippist-Gnesio-Lutheran fight for the direction of the Lutheran confession. This is his strongest claim. Hovda is arguing for a “thick description” of the historical issues, and in fact contending that it is impossible to grasp the theological issues without that broader context. This is well taken: too frequently, either the historical context or the dialectical nuts and bolts of the theological argumentation are given short shrift, to the detriment of our understanding.
This first argument leads into the second—Hovda accepts the confessionalization thesis without much argument or nuance. He is particularly dependent upon Müller, Schilling, and Kaufmann; he does not give much space or consideration to their critics. This is a serious problem—scholars, such as Joel Harrington, have argued that confessional identities belonged to the deep structures of German identity, and Marc Forster has found that localism and particularism were more significant than the internationalizing confessional desires of the Tridentine powers.
Finally, the volume seeks to argue that the eucharistic practice played a central role, perhaps the central role—in working out the character of Lutheranism in the period after Luther's death. Hovda argues that Luther and Melanchthon did not agree when Luther was alive, and consequently this became more important after Luther's death. The eucharistic issue of crypto-Calvinism was complicated by the effort of the Empire to re-Catholicize with the Augsburg Interim. That made the issue one of discerning Lutheran practice between papist and sacramentarian rituals. Danzig's council seems to have made alliance in the 1560s with the Philippist clergy, while the burghers sought to maintain their traditional ties to Lutheranism.
The book is not without flaws. The least significant is that the volume needed one more reading from a native speaker of English—too many malapropisms mar the text. Another problem occurs when the author suggests (86–87) that a reference to the teaching of St. Peter about truth would be a reference to showing obedience to the authorities. Far more likely is that it was a reference to the admonition in I Peter 3.15ff about being always ready to defend the hope that believers have. As well, there are some holes in the research—especially glaring is the lack of consideration of Henning P. Jürgens's significant article on Benedict Morgenstern's role in the struggle, which came out in 2013.
This is a solid first book, one that shows a serious scholar who is making good connections between theological realities and historical contexts. It furthers our understanding of the entire complex of issues that was at play when pastors and city council members took up the issue of the Eucharist, and what that meant for their churches, their towns, and their culture.
