“The most important difference between him and Luther, and that which most embittered the latter against him, related to the Lord’s supper. He opposed not only transubstantiation, but consubstantiation, the real presence, and the elevation and adoration of the host. Luther rejected the first, asserted the second and third, and allowed the other two. In regard to the real presence, he says: ‘In the sacrament is the real body of Christ and the real blood of Christ, so that even the unworthy and ungodly partake of it; and “partake of it corporally” too, and not spiritually as Carlstadt will have it.’”[996] That Luther was the one chiefly in error in this controversy will be acknowledged by nearly every one at the present day. D’Aubigné cannot refrain from censuring him:— “When once the question of the supper was raised, Luther threw away the proper element of the Reformation, and took his stand for _himself_ and _his church_ in an _exclusive Lutheranism_.”[997] The controversy is thus characterized by Dr. Sears:— “A furious controversy ensued. Both parties exceeded the bounds of Christian propriety and moderation. Carlstadt was now in the vicinity of the Anabaptist tumults, excited by Muntzer. He sympathized with them in some things, but disapproved of their disorders. Luther made the most of this.”[998] It is evident that in this contest Luther did not gain any decisive advantage, even in the estimation of his friends. The Elector of Saxony interfered and banished Carlstadt! D’Aubigné thus states the case:— “He issued orders to deprive Carlstadt of his appointments, and banished him, not only from Orlamund, but from the States of the electorate.”[999] “Luther had nothing to do with this sternness on the part of the prince: it was foreign to his disposition,—and this he afterward proved.”[1000] Carlstadt, for maintaining the doctrine now held by almost all Protestants, concerning the supper, and for denying Luther’s doctrine that Christ is personally present in the bread, was rendered a homeless wanderer for years. His banishment was in 1524. What followed is thus described:— “From this date until 1534 he wandered through Germany, pursued by the persecuting opinions of both Lutherans and Papists, and at times reduced to great straits by indigence and unpopularity. But, although he always found sympathy and hospitality among the Anabaptists, yet he is evidently clear of the charge of complicity with Muntzer’s rebellion. Yet he was forbidden to write, his life was sometimes in danger, and he exhibits the melancholy spectacle of a man great and right in many respects, but whose rashness, ambition, and insincere zeal, together with many fanatical opinions, had put him under the well-founded but immoderate censure of both friends and foes.”[1001]