[225] Deum esse supra mathematicam.--(Zw. Opp. iv. p. 175.)

[Sidenote: THE DISCUSSION--FIGURES.]

"It cannot be denied," said colampadius, "that there are figures of speech in the Word of G.o.d; as _John is Elias, the rock was Christ, I am the vine_. The expression _This is my body_, is a figure of the same kind." Luther granted that there were figures in the Bible, but he denied that this last expression was figurative.

All the various parties, however, of which the Christian Church is composed see a figure in these words. In fact, the Romanists declare that _This is my body_ signifies not only "my body," but also "my blood," "my soul," and even "my Divinity," and "Christ wholly.[226]"

These words, therefore, according to Rome, are a synecdoche, a figure by which a part is taken for the whole. And, as regards the Lutherans, the figure is still more evident.[227] Whether it be synecdoche, metaphor, or metonymy, there is still a figure. In order to prove it, colampadius employed this syllogism:--

[226] If any one denies that the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, with his soul and his divinity, and consequently the whole Jesus Christ (totum Christum), is contained in the sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.--(Council of Trent, Sess. 13.)

[227] Tota Christi persona.--(Form. concord. viii.)

"What Christ rejected in the sixth chapter of St. John, he could not admit in the words of the Eucharist.

"Now Christ, who said to the people of Capernaum, _The flesh profiteth nothing_, rejected by those very words the oral manducation of his body.

"Therefore he did not establish it at the inst.i.tution of his Supper."

LUTHER.--"I deny the minor (the second of these propositions); Christ has not rejected all oral manducation, but only a material manducation, like that of the flesh of oxen or of swine."[228]

[228] Qualis est carnis bovillae aut suillae.--(Scult. p. 217.)

COLAMPADIUS.--"There is danger in attributing too much to mere matter."

[Sidenote: SCRIPTURE EXPLAINED BY SCRIPTURE.]

LUTHER.--"Every thing that G.o.d commands becomes spirit and life. If it is by the Lord's order that we lift up a straw, in that very action we perform a spiritual work. We must pay attention to him who speaks, and not to what he says. G.o.d speaks: Men, worms, listen!--G.o.d commands: let the world obey! and let us all together fall down and humbly kiss the Word."[229]

[229] Quum praecipit quid, pareat mundus; et omnes osculemur verb.u.m.--(Zw. Opp. iv. p. 176.)

COLAMPADIUS.--"But since we have the spiritual eating, what need of the bodily one?"

LUTHER.--"I do not ask what need we have of it; but I see it written, _Eat, this is my body_. We must therefore believe and do. We must do--we must do![230]--If G.o.d should order me to eat dung, I would do it, with the a.s.surance that it would be salutary."[231]

[230] _Man mus es thun_ saepe inculcabat.--(Ibid.)

[231] Si juberet fimum comedere, facerem.--(Ibid.)

At this point Zwingle interfered in the discussion. "We must explain Scripture by Scripture," said he. "We cannot admit two kinds of corporeal manducation, as if Jesus had spoken of eating, and the Capernaites of tearing in pieces, for the same word is employed in both cases. Jesus says that to eat his flesh corporeally profiteth nothing (John vi. 63); whence it would result that he had given us in the Supper a thing that would be useless to us.--Besides there are certain words that seem to me rather childish,--the dung, for instance. The oracles of the demons were obscure, not so are those of Jesus Christ."

LUTHER.--"When Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, he speaks not of his own flesh, but of ours."

ZWINGLE.--"The soul is fed with the Spirit and not with the flesh."

LUTHER.--"It is with the mouth that we eat the body; the soul does not eat it."[232]

[232] Anima non edit ipsum (corpus) corporaliter.--(Zw. Epp. ii. p.

370.)

ZWINGLE.--"Christ's body is therefore a corporeal nourishment, and not a spiritual."

LUTHER.--"You are captious."

ZWINGLE.--"Not so; but you utter contradictory things."

LUTHER.--"If G.o.d should present me wild apples, I should eat them spiritually. In the Eucharist, the mouth receives the body of Christ, and the soul believes in his words."

[Sidenote: THE SPIRITUAL EATING.]

Zwingle then quoted a great number of pa.s.sages from the Holy Scripture, in which the sign is described by the very thing signified; and thence concluded that, considering our Lord's declaration in St.

John, _The flesh profiteth nothing_, we must explain the words of the Eucharist in a similar manner.

Many hearers were struck by these arguments. Among the Marburg professors sat the Frenchman Lambert; his tall and spare frame was violently agitated. He had been at first of Luther's opinion,[233] and was then hesitating between the two Reformers. As he went to the conference, he said: "I desire to be a sheet of blank paper, on which the finger of G.o.d may write his truth." Ere long he exclaimed, after hearing Zwingle and colampadius: "Yes! the Spirit, that is what vivifies!"[234] When this conversion was known, the Wittembergers, shrugging their shoulders, said, "Gallic fickleness!" "What!" replied Lambert, "was St. Paul fickle because he was converted from Pharisaism? And have we ourselves been fickle in abandoning the lost sects of Popery?"

[233] See his Commentary on St. Luke (xxii. 19, 20.)

[234] He added, that the body of Christ was in the Eucharist neither mathematically or commensurably, nor really (neque mathematice seu commensurative, neque re ipsa).--(Epist. Lamb. de Marb. col.)

Luther was, however, by no means shaken. "_This is my body_," repeated he, pointing with his finger to the words written before him. "_This is my body._ The devil himself shall not drive me from that. To seek to understand it, is to fall away from the faith."[235]

[235] Si interrogo, excido a fide.--(Zw. Epp. ii. p. 177.)

"But, doctor," said Zwingle, "St. John explains how Christ's body is eaten, and you will be obliged at last to leave off singing always the same song."

[Sidenote: AGITATION IN THE CONFERENCE.]

"You make use of unmannerly expressions," replied Luther[236]. The Wittembergers themselves called Zwingle's argument "his old song."[237] Zwingle continued without being disconcerted: "I ask you, doctor, whether Christ in the sixth chapter of St. John did not wish to reply to the question that had been put to him?"

[236] Invidiose loqueris.--(Bull. ii. p. 228.)

[237] Veterem suam cantilenam.--(Zw. Opp. iv. p. 221.)

LUTHER.--"Mr. Zwingle, you wish to stop my mouth by the arrogancy of your language. That pa.s.sage has nothing to do here."

ZWINGLE, hastily.--"Pardon me, doctor, that pa.s.sage breaks your neck."

LUTHER.--"Do not boast so much! You are in Hesse, and not in Switzerland. In this country we do not break people's necks."

Then turning towards his friends, Luther complained bitterly of Zwingle; as if the latter had really wished to break his neck. "He makes use of soldier-like and blood-stained words," said he.[238]

Luther forgot that he had employed a similar expression in speaking of Carlstadt.[239]

[238] Verb.u.m istud, tanquam castrense et cruentum.--(Hospin. p. 131.)

[239] Vol. III. Book ix.

ZWINGLE resumed: "In Switzerland also there is strict justice, and we break no man's neck without trial. That expression signifies merely that your cause is lost and hopeless."