[Wittenberg, about January 16, 1531] One of the problems facing the evangelicals was the dissension on the Lord's Supper. Consequently they responded to the Imperial Summons for the Diet of Augsburg2 as three independent parties, each one highly suspicious of the others. There were the Lutherans who rallied around the Augsburg Confession; there was Zwingli and the Zürich city council which, on July 8, 1530, handed in to the Imperial government a confession of faith;3 and between these two parties stood some of the upper German cities led by Strassburg, which, on July 9, 1530, handed in to the Imperial government the Tetrapolitana.4 As early as the end of September, 1530, Martin Bucer5 took the initiative and conferred with Luther at the Coburg in an attempt to bring about the unification of German Protestantism. Encouraged by the results of this conference, Bucer went on a fact-finding mission6 through the upper German cities, and ended this trip with a visit to Zwingli in Zürich, and to Oecolampadius in Basel. Upon his return to Strassburg on October 17,7 Bucer drafted a documents8 which was to demonstrate that Luther and Zwingli were really in agreement on the Lord's Supper, and that the whole controversy was more a matter of terminology than of substantial disagreement. This document was approved by the evangelical clergy of Strassburg on November 9,9 and was sent to Oecolampadius, and by him to Zwingli. The latter categorically rejected it.10
Bucer now revised his document11 in the hope that it would be, if not accepted by Zwingli, then at least tolerated by him, and forwarded this new version to Luther and to Landgrave Philip,12 apparently on January 1, 1531.13 On January 10 Landgrave Philip, following Bucer's request,14 sent this document to Elector John, and urged him to enjoin Luther from engaging in polemics against the Zwinglians. The Elector delayed the return of the Landgrave's messenger and forwarded the document to Luther, requesting Luther's opinion on it by return mail. On January 17 the Elector forwarded to the Landgrave a copy of a Zettel (note), sent to him by Luther, which contained Luther's opinion on Bucer's document.15 It is generally assumed that letter No. 237 is this note. While Luther rejoices that he and Bucer have found agreement, he insists that before the matter can be finally settled and unity proclaimed, the following points have to be clarified: (a) Do the Zwinglians really teach about Christ's real presence in the Lord's
Supper as Bucer says they do? (b) What is Bucer's position, and what is the Zwinglians' position on the manducatio oralis impiorum? In view of his discussions with Bucer at the Coburg concerning this last issue Luther expresses hope that it can be settled to his satisfaction, and without too much difficulty.
On Elector John, see LW 48, 269, n. 8.
Text in German: WA, Br 6, 20–21.
First, Martin Bucer indicates that the other party16 agrees with us regarding the sacrament: that is, they believe, as we do, that the true body and blood of our Lord are present in the sacrament and with the Words [of Institution] are distributed as food of souls, or as strengthening for the Christian faith. We are pleased to receive this news, and we rejoice in our hearts hearing it.
Second, however, Bucer alone confesses this and presents his own opinion, as if the others, too, teach likewise.17 Yet, we are of course well aware—and books and actions plainly document it—that Zwingli and Oecolampadius have intensely fought against this teaching18 and have maintained as the central point that Christ is able to be corporeally present [only] in heaven, at only one place, and not in the sacrament.
At this point, therefore, it is necessary first of all to be certain whether the others, too, teach as Bucer in good hope thinks they do, and whether they also publicly teach this among the people and act accordingly.
Otherwise the unification might be put on a poor foundation, and matters might afterwards become worse.
As I, Doctor Luther, have diligently stressed to Bucer at the Coburg,19 one must start such unification from a solid, clear foundation, or forget about it.
Third, in addition to this corporeal presence of Christ for souls, which Bucer affirms here, I have discussed with him also that type of corporeal presence by which both believers and unbelievers orally receive Christ's true body and blood under bread and wine. In this connection he made statements20 over which I heartily rejoiced. In this document, however, nothing is said about this issue. Yet we think that if they go so far as to say that Christ's body is corporeally distributed and present to the soul, it should not