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.^849 He calls Zwingli’s alloeosis "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.^850 Thus help me
my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, blessed forever. Amen."
The "Confession" called out two lengthy answers of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, at the
request of the Strassburg divines; but they add nothing new.^851
This bitter controversy fell in the most trying time of Luther, when he suffered greatly from
physical infirmity and mental depression, and when a pestilence raged at Wittenberg (1527), which
caused the temporary removal of the University to Jena. He remained on the post of danger, escaped
the jaws of death, and measurably recovered his strength, but not his former cheerfulness, good
humor, and buoyancy of spirit.
§ 107. The Marburg Conference, a.d. 1529. (With Facsimile of Signatures.)
I. Contemporary Reports. (1) Lutheran. Luther’s references to the Conference at Marburg, in Erl.
ed. XXXII. 398, 403, 408; XXXVI. 320 sqq. (his report from the pulpit); LIV. 286; 83, 107
sq., 153; LV. 88. Letters of Luther to his wife, Philip of Hesse, Gerbel, Agricola, Amsdorf,
Link, and Probst, from October, 1529, and later, in De Wette, III. 508 sqq; IV. 26 sq. Reports
of Melanchthon, Jonas, Brenz, and Osiander, in "Corpus Reform.," I. 1098, 1102 (Mel. in
German); 1095 (Jonas), XXVI. 115; Seckendorf, II. 136; Walch, XVII. 2352–2379; Scultetus,
Annal. evang., p. 215 sqq.; Riederer, Nachrichten, etc., II. 109 sqq.
(2) Reformed (Swiss and Strassburg) reports of Collin, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, are collected in
Zwingli’s Opera, ed. Schuler and Schulthess, vol. IV. 173–204, and Hospinian’s Hist. Sacram.,
II. 74 sqq., 123 sqq. Bullinger: Reformationsgesch., II. 223 sqq. The reports of Bucer and Hedio
are used by Baum in his Capito und Butzer (Elberf. 1860), p. 453 sqq., and Erichson (see below).
The MS. of Capito’s Itinerary was burned in 1870 with the library of the Protestant Seminary
at Strassburg, but had previously been copied by Professor Baum.
II. The Marburg Articles in Walch, XVII. 2357 sqq.; Erl. ed. LXV. 88 sqq.; "Corp. Reform.," XXVI.
121–128; H. Heppe: Die 15 Marburger Artikel vom 3 Oct., 1529, nach dent wieder
aufgefundenen Autographon der Reformatoren als Facsimile veröffentlicht, Kassel, 1847, 2d
ed. 1854 (from the archives at Kassel); another ed. from a MS. in Zuerich by J. M. Usteri in
(^849) "Es sind dreierlei Weise an einem Ort zu sein, localiter oder circumscriptive, definitive, repletive." He explains this at length (XXX.
207 sqq., Erl. 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.
(^850) Zwingli made the biting remark that Luther ends this book with the Devil, with whom he had begun his former book.
(^851) Zwingli’s answer in German is printed in Werke, II. Part II. 94-223; in Latin, Opera, II. 416-521. The answer of Oecolampadius, in
Walch, XX. 1725 sqq.