_C. R._ 1, 1077; 2, 18.) November 2,
1529, to John Fesel: "I admonish you most earnestly to avoid the
Zwinglian dogmas. Your Judimagister [Eberbach], I fear, loves these
profane disputations too much. I know that the teaching of Zwingli can
be upheld neither with the Scriptures nor with the authority of the
ancients. Concerning the Lord's Supper, therefore, teach as Luther
does." (1, 1109.) In February, 1530, he wrote: "The testimonies of
ancient writers concerning the Lord's Supper which I have compiled are
now being printed." (2, 18.) In this publication Melanchthon endeavored
to show by quotations from Cyril, Chrysostom Vulgarius, Hilary, Cyprian,
Irenaeus, and Augustine that Zwingli's interpretation of the words of
institution does not agree with that of the ancient Church. (23, 732.)
According to his own statement, Melanchthon embodied Luther's doctrine
in the _Augsburg Confession_ and rejected that of the Zwinglians. (2,
142. 212.)

At Augsburg, Melanchthon was much provoked also when he heard that Bucer
claimed to be in doctrinal agreement with the Lutherans. In his _Opinion
Concerning the Doctrine of the Sacramentarians_, written in August,
1530, we read: "1. The Zwinglians believe that the body of the Lord can
be present in but one place. 2. Likewise that the body of Christ cannot
be anywhere except locally only. They vehemently contend that it is
contrary to the nature of a body to be anywhere in a manner not local;
also, that it is inconsistent with the nature of a body to be in
different places at the same time. 3. For this reason they conclude that
the body of Christ is circumscribed in heaven in a certain place, so
that it can in no way be elsewhere at the same time and that in truth
and reality it is far away from the bread, and not in the bread and with
the bread. 4. Bucer is therefore manifestly wrong in contending that
they [the Zwinglians] are in agreement with us. For we say that it is
not necessary for the body of Christ to be in but one place. We say that
it can be in different places, whether this occurs locally or in some
other secret way by which different places are as one point present at
the same time to the person of Christ. We, therefore, affirm a true and
real presence of the body of Christ with the bread. 5. If Bucer wishes
to accept the opinion of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, he will never dare
to say that the body of Christ is really with the bread without
geometric distance. 9. Here they