§ 106. LUTHER AND ZWINGLI. 627
eating through the mouth, as thou wouldest teach without God’s Word.” Towards the end he says, with reference to Luther’s attack upon Bucer: “Christ teaches us to return good for evil. Antichrist reverses the maxim, and you have followed him by abusing the pious and learned Bucer for translating and spreading your books. . . . Dear Luther, I humbly beseech you not to be so furious in this matter as heretofore. If you are Christ’s, so are we. It behooves us to contend only with the Word of God, and to observe Christian self-control. We must not fight against God, nor cloak our errors by his Word. God grant unto you the knowledge of truth, and of thyself, that you may remain Luther, and not become λούτριον The truth will prevail. Amen.”
(icolampadius wrote likewise a book in self-defense.?
Luther now came out, in March, 1528, with his Great “Con- Fession on the Lord’s Supper,” which he intended to be his last word in this controversy. It is his most elaborate treatise on the eucharist, full of force and depth, but also full of wrath. He begins again with the Devil, and rejoices that he had provoked his fury by the defense of the holy sacrament. He compares the writings of his opponents to venomous adders. I shall waste, he says, no more paper on their mad lies and nonsense, lest the Devil might be made still more furious. May the merciful God convert them, and deliver them from the bonds of Satan! Icandonomore. A heretic we must reject, after the first and second admonition (Tit.
1 Water that has been used in washing.
2 Secunda, justa et aequa responsio ad Mart. Lutherum. The book is mentioned by Hospinian, but must be very rare, since neither Léscher nor Walch nor Planck has seen it.
8 It was afterwards called the ‘‘ Great ’’ Confession, to distinguish it from the ‘* Small’? Confession which he published sixteen years later (1544). Erl. ed. XXX. 151-373 ; Walch, XX. 1118 sqq. Ina letter dated March 28, 1528 (De Wette, III. 296), he informs Link that he sent copies of his Confession through John Hofmann to Niirnberg, and speaks with his usual contempt
of the Sacramentarians. ‘‘ Zwingel,’’ he says, ‘‘ est tam rudis, ut asino queat comparari.”’
628 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 15380.
3:10). Nevertheless, he proceeds to an elaborate assault on the Devil and his fanatical crew.
The “ Confession” is divided into three parts. The first is a refutation of the arguments of Zwingli and Gécolampadius ; the second, an explanation of the passages which treat of the Lord’s Supper; the third, a statement of all the articles of his faith, against old and new heresies.
He devotes much space to a defense of the ubiquity of Christ’s body, which he derives from the unity of the two natures. He calls to aid the scholastic distinction between three modes of presence, — local, definitive, and repletive.} He calls Zwingli’s alleosis “a mask of the Devil.” He concludes with these words: “ This is my faith, the faith of all true Christians, as taught in the Holy Scriptures. I beg all pious hearts to bear me witness, and to pray for me _ that I may stand firm in this faith to the end. For — which God forbid ! —should I in the temptation and agony of death speak differently, it must be’ counted for nothing but an inspiration of the Devil.2, Thus help me my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, blessed forever. Amen.”
The “Confession” called out two lengthy answers of Zwingli and Cicolampadius, at the request of the Strassburg divines; but they add nothing new.
1 “ Hs sind dreierlei Weise an einem Ort zu sein, localiter oder circumscriptive, definitive, repletive.’’ He explains this at length (XXX. 207 sqq., Ἐπ]. ed.). Local or circumscriptive presence is the presence of wine in the barrel, where the body fills the space; definite presence is incomprehensible, as the presence of an angel or devil in a house or a man, or the passing of Christ through the tomb or through the closed door; repletive presence is the supernatural omnipresence of God which fills all space, and is confined by no space. When Christ walked on earth, he was locally present; after the resurrection, he appeared to the disciples definitively and incomprehensibly; after his ascension to the right hand of God, he is everywhere by virtue of the inseparable union of his humanity with his divinity.
2 Zwingli made the biting remark that Luther ends this book with the Devil, with whom he had begun his former book.
8 Zwingli’s answer in German is printed in Werke, II. Part II. 94-223;
in Latin, Opera, II. 416-521. The answer of Ccolampadius, in Walch, XX. 1725 sqq.