On the 2d of October, the following day, they began the principal battle on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Landgrave and his chief counsellors attended this discussion. They disputed two days on this point of difference. Zwingli and Oecolampadius steadily maintained: 1. That Christ taught a spiritual eating of his body in John vi., and therefore we should only understand a spiritual eating in the Sacrament. 2. That a body cannot be present in many places at one and the same time. Christ possesses a true body, and is in heaven; therefore, he could not be in the Sacrament at the same time. Here they made a number of awkward assertions; _e. g._, God does not present such unintelligible matters to us, outward participation is useless. 3. Oecolampadius introduced quotations from Augustine, that Sacraments are mere signs, signifying something, even as the serpent in the wilderness signifies something. He thought it sufficient to be satisfied with a spiritual participation. Luther replied as the principal speaker. Concerning John vi., he declared that, although Christ is there speaking of spiritual eating, yet this is not opposed to bodily eating. He, too, taught a spiritual eating, but in the words of the institution an outward eating is ordained. The opposite party then referred to the words: "The flesh profiteth nothing." It was replied to them, that, as Christ above speaks of his flesh as giving life, the words quoted by them could not refer to his own flesh, but to our own carnal being and thoughts. But if we wish to explain it of Christ's flesh, we cannot draw any other conclusion from it than this, that the flesh of Christ, when received without faith, profiteth nothing. To the _second_ objection they replied, that our reason should not judge God's power and glory, whether one body is able to be present in many places or not. Melanchthon relates that their opponents steadfastly adhered to this objection. They said that even wicked priests could perform this great miracle. It was replied to them, that we ought not to regard the worthiness of the priests, but the commandment of God. Upon this they dropped their objection. To the _third_ objection, in which Oecolampadius declared "the Sacraments are signs, and therefore we ought to grant that they signify something; therefore we ought to acknowledge in the Lord's Supper that the body of the Lord is only _signified_, and not present," the other side replied, that we ought not to explain them in a manner different from that in which Christ had explained them. That the Sacraments are signs, should be understood thus, that they signify promises connected with them. Thus, the Lord's Supper signifies that the death of Christ has obtained satisfaction for our sins, and gives us the assurance of the forgiveness of sin. From this it does not follow as a matter of necessity that Christ's body is not present. Zwingli and Oecolampadius quoted many