modifications. If doctrine was to be the basis of unity, the adjustment of the limits of difference required nice discussion. Luther's violence of language, and Zwingli's mingling of politics and theology, had complicated that discussion; henceforth, old positions eagerly guarded and attacked, associations and repugnances valued above their real importance, were further obstacles to union. But it was hard to give any strong religious reasons why unity as distinct from charity should be sought. Political reasons there were in plenty, but their admission made the discussions theologically lifeless.
Calvin may have learnt much of organisation from Zurich; but in theological importance he overshadows not only Zwingli but all other Swiss reformers. As to the Eucharist, while Zwinglian in his exegesis he was more spiritual in his conceptions, emphasising the grace conferred, while not connecting it with the elements; a change which has also been detected in Bullinger and later Zwinglians. But they agreed in rejecting Luther's doctrine. Like Bucer Calvin worked for unity, and unlike Zwingli did not spread his political energies over too large a field. He was thus able to concentrate and deepen influences set in motion by Zwingli. But even Calvin's labours for unity had a political end: if to observers from the outside German and French Protestants could appear united, the French King, ally of the one, could not well persecute the other. Calvin and Bullinger drew up (1549) the Consensus Tigurinus-strongly anti-Lutheran in tone (perversa et impia superstitio est ipsum Christum sub dementis includere). Up to this time there had been a division among the Swiss leaders: Bullinger had given up all hope of unity with the Lutherans: at Bern, with its Lutheran inclinations, that hope was still alive. But with the Consensus Protestant Switzerland was united. Basel, with traditions of synods of its own, Bern, with a distrust of all synods as leading to strife, did not welcome it greatly, but yet adopted it (1551); so did Schaffhausen, St Gallen, Biel, and Mühlhausen. Thus in the end dogmatic and political unity-which had so often helped or thwarted each other-claimed a common territory in Reformed Switzerland. And the reaction following upon Zwingli's strict control brought a growth of toleration. In Germany, meanwhile, the teaching of Zwingli became nominally less important than that of Calvin, and the division between Reformed and Lutheran-so fatal to German Protestantism- belongs in its later stages more to the history of Calvinism than of Zwinglianism. But Zwingli in his treatment of the Eucharist had raised a fundamental issue; and his views on this head, like his treatment of public worship, have had a wider influence than their recognition in Confessions and Liturgies would indicate. Thus Zwinglianism became the name of a school of thought rather than of a religious body.
Zwingli's plans would have given the Confederation unity and cohesion at the expense of his opponents. But the Reformation postponed
