In a passage frequently cited against him, where he shows himself vexed with the ancient term employed by the Church to express the Son’s being of the same substance with the Father (“_homoousios_”), it was not his intention to rail against the doctrine therein expressed, but merely to take exception to the word. He explicitly distinguishes between the word and the thing (“_vocabulum et res_”). He says that, so long as one holds fast to the doctrine (“_modo rem teneam_”) scripturally defined by the Nicene Council, it was no heresy to dislike the word or to refuse to employ it.[813] Hence the passage affords no ground for saying, that “Luther was rash enough to tamper with the doctrine of the Person of Christ.” On the other hand, the new doctrine of the omnipresence of the Body of Christ evolved by him during the controversy on the Sacrament, can scarcely be considered creditable.[814] His views on the “_communicatio idiomatum_”[815] in Christ, and particularly on the Redemption,[816] also contain contradictions not to be explained away. Contrariwise we must dismiss the charge based on his repugnance for the word “Threefoldhood,” by which Germans designate the Trinity, as if this involved antagonism on his part to the mystery itself. He was referring merely to the term when he said: “It is not particularly good German and does not sound well, but since it cannot be improved upon, we must speak as best we can.”[817] An undeniable confession of faith in the Trinity is contained in this very passage, and in countless others too.--When abbreviating the Litany he indeed omitted the invocation “_Sancta Trinitas unus Deus_,” but this was not from any hostility to the doctrine but from a wish not to have “too many words.” He left in their old places the separate invocations of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and deemed this quite sufficient.