8 106. LUTHER AND ZWINGLI. 625
of Christ’s ascension, which implies a removal of his corporal presence. There is, in this reasoning, a strange combination of literal and figurative interpretation. But he very forcibly argues from the personal union of the divine and human natures in Christ, for the possibility of a real presence ; only he errs in confounding real with corporal. He forgets that the spiritual is even more real than the corporal, and that the corporal is worth nothing without the spiritual.
_ Nitzsch and Késtlin are right when they say that both Zwingli and Luther “assume qualities of the glorified body of Christ, of which we can know nothing; the one by asserting a spacial inclusion of that body in heaven, the other by asserting dogmatically its divine omnipresence on earth.”! We may add, that the Reformers proceeded on an assumption of the locality of heaven, which is made impossible by the Copernican system. For aught we know, heaven may be very near, and round about as well as above us.
Zwingli answered Luther without delay, in an elaborate treatise, likewise in German (but in the Swiss dialect), and under a similar title (“ That the words, ‘ This is my body, have still the old and only sense,” etc.).2 It is addressed to the Elector John of Saxony, and dated June 20,1527. Zwingli follows Luther step by step, answers every argument, defends the figurative interpretation of the words of institution by many parallel passages (Gen. 41:26; Exod. 12:11; Gal. 4: 24; Matt. 11:14; 1 Cor. 10:4, etc.), and discusses also the relation of the two natures in Christ.
He disowns the imputed literal understanding of God’s almighty hand, and says, “ We have known long since that God’s power is everywhere, that he is the Being of beings, and that his omnipresence upholds all things. We know that where Christ is, there is God, and where God is, there is
1 Kostlin, M. Luther, II. 96 and 642; and Luthers Theologie, II. 172 sqq. 2 Werke, vol. II. Part II. 16-93. Afterwards translated into Latin by Gualter, Opera Lat. II. 374-416.
626 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 1580.
Christ. But we distinguish between the two natures, and between the person of Christ and the body of Christ.” He charges Luther with confounding the two. The attributes of the infinite nature of God are not communicable to the finite nature of man, except by an exchange which is called in rhetoric alleosis. ‘The ubiquity of Christ’s body is a contradiction. Christ is everywhere, but his body cannot be everywhere without ceasing to be a body, in any proper sense of the term. ᾿
This book of Zwingli is much sharper than his former writings on the subject. He abstains indeed from abusive language, and says that God’s Word must decide the controversy, and not opprobrious terms, as fanatic, devil, murderer, heretic, hypocrite, which Luther deals out so freely.1. But he and his friends applied also very unjust terms against the Lutherans, such as Capernaites, flesh-eaters, blood-drinkers, and called their communion bread a baked God.? Moreover, Zwingli assumes an offensive and provoking tone of superiority, which cut to the quick of Luther’s sensibilities. Take the opening sentence: “To Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli wishes grace and peace from God through Jesus Christ the living Son of God, who, for our salvation, suffered death, and then left this world in his body and ascended to heaven, where he sits until he shall return on the last day, according to his own word, so that you may know that he dwells in our hearts by faith (Eph. 3:17), and not by bodily
1 “Hs wirt hie Gottes Wort Oberhand gwiinnen, nit ‘ Schwarmer, Tifel, Schalk, Ketzer, Morder, Ufriihrer, Glychsner [Gleissner] oder Hichler, trotz, potz, plotz, blitz, donder [Donner], po, pu, pa, plump,’ und derglychen Schelt-, Schmiitz-, und Schanzelwort.’? Werke, 11. Part II. 29.
2 Fleischfresser, Blutsdufer, Anthropophagos, Capernaiten, brédern Gott, gebratener Gott. Luther indignantly protests against these opprobrious epithets in his Short Confession, “‘als waren wir solche tolle, unsinnige, rasende Leute, die Christum im Sacrament localiter hielten, und stickweise zerfrissen, wie der Wolf ein Schaaf, und Blut sdffen, wie eine Kuh das Wasser.”? But in the same breath he pays the opponents back with
interest, and calls them “ Brotfresser, Weinsdufer, Seelenfresser, Seelenmorder, eingeteufelt, durchteufelt, iiberteufelt.”? Erl. ed. XXXII. 402-404,