e," and under the rising pan, in which the serpent is lying:
"_Die Vernunft_, Reason." The marginal inscription runs. "_Iosua 1:
Confide. Non Derelinquam Te_. Joshua 1: Trust. I will not forsake thee."
(Ch. Junker, _Ehrengedaechtnis Dr. M. Luthers_, 353. 383.)

Self-evidently, Elector August immediately took measures also to
reestablish in his territories Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
The beginning was made by introducing a confession prepared by reliable
superintendents and discussed, adopted, and subscribed at the Diet of
Torgau, September, 1574, and published simultaneously in German and
Latin. Its German title ran: "_Brief Confession (Kurz Bekenntnis) and
Articles Concerning the Holy Supper of the Body and Blood of Christ_,
from which may clearly be seen what heretofore has been publicly taught,
believed, and confessed concerning it in both universities of Leipzig
and Wittenberg, and elsewhere in all churches and schools of the Elector
of Saxony, also what has been rebuked and is still rebuked as
Sacramentarian error and enthusiasm." The Torgau Confession, therefore,
does not reject the _Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum_ of 1560 nor even the
_Consensus Dresdensis_ of 1571, and pretends that Melanchthon was in
doctrinal agreement with Luther, and that only a few Crypto-Calvinists
had of late been discovered in the Electorate. This pretense was the
chief reason why the Confession did not escape criticism. In 1575 Wigand
published: "Whether the New Wittenbergers had hitherto always taught
harmoniously and agreeably with the Old, and whether Luther's and
Philip's writings were throughout in entire harmony and agreement."

As for its doctrine, however, the Torgau Confession plainly upholds the
Lutheran teaching. Article VII contends that in the distribution of the
Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ "are truly received also by
the unworthy." Article VIII maintains the "oral eating and drinking,
_oris manducatio_." Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Peter Martyr and the
Heidelberg theologians are rejected, and their names expressly
mentioned. On the other hand, the "ubiquity [local extension] of the
flesh of Christ" is disavowed and a discussion of the mode and
possibility of the presence of the body and blood of Christ is declined
as something inscrutable. The Latin passage reads: "_Ac ne carnis quidem
ubiquitatem, aut quidquam, quod vel veritatem corporis Christi tollat,
vel ulli fidei articulo repugnet, propter praesen